Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Prospect

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 1-- No I;m the type of guy that recognizes sometimes experience and some form of logic can be better than listening to a computer data sheet that's possibly best suited for Fantasy Football. . 2-- Explain the individual analysis then? I'm arguing the blind following of a computer data sheet. Why take the risk? 3-- BB's been wrong. But you have too, right? So who am I going to believe? You? Or Him? IMO your argument doesn't make much sense because it just follows one path without considering the opponent and late game imo-- so I'm going with him over you. Quality of an opponent is key so I'm going with one of the greatest coaches ever who seems to have imo logic and winning on his side. I get it-- we're not going to agree. I just think you are blindly following stats as if this is a fantasy computer game. It's not just Bill B - heck even Harbaugh says he still goes with his gut 50% of the time over analytics (though he said he'd like to go with Analytics more.-- But he hasn't.) There is something there that is telling these great coaches that at times analytics is full of crap-- isn't there? OFC it's damn useful. But you treat it like it's the Gospel.
  2. 1-- There's a reason why we call it a chippie, right? Sure there is risk but there is less with a chippie, isn't there? There is no way a 4th and 3 deep in other team's end vs a quality defensive opponent is near as risky as kicking a chippie fg. Okay you aren't changing your mind. Neither am I. 2-- Okay and I'll counter. Say McCarthy decides to kick a fg and ties it up. Why is it a lock to think Goff being aggressive is going to get the Rams a score? So by Goff being "aggressive" vs your defense, why is that so bad in a tie game? You shut them down after the 4th-down-play and you still wind up getting your late fg. In thsi 2nd scenario- the question is - T"hat's not better than tying the game and then on your next possession getting another fg?" In this 2nd scenario you probably win in regulation. With not kicking the fg and not making the 4th down - at best you would probably do is tie with risk of losing in OT. 3--Teams that are supposed to be very good like Dallas is;- - it's always better to be tied than be behind late in games. 4-- While the call didn't lose the game for Dallas it certainly was a bad call that contributed to their loss.
  3. A-- Analytics in any form is only as good as your data and how you use that data. What if the data doesn't tell the full story? Anyhow, does every team without fail follow "the chart?" If they didn't (which they didn't) why assume the data is telling the full story vs experience? For example-- Bill Belichick has said he uses analytics less--than-one percent of the time to make his decisions. To a degree he is exaggerating but he didn't go for one 2 point conversion in 2019. SO tho greatest coach in NFL History has exceptions when to use Analytics, as well as other coaches yet we're supposed to disregard that? 1-- It's not in your favor. That's the point. Kicking the fg and tying the game was the best play vs this quality opponent. For example, how far back does this data support? You need to know the context of the stats instead of blindly following it. 2-- This time you make the excuse "it took a rookie. . . ." The next week when the QB overthrows the receiver that will be another excuse,. The next week the excuse is "the receiver dropped the ball - or fumbled it." The next week it's "the lineman missed a block." There will always be an excuse when your "4th and 3 doesn't work." 3-- Sure a TD would have been huge. But you needed AT LEAST a 1st down which is hard to get vs a quality defensive opponent. Chances of you getting that 1st down or TD were not good. It was a bad call which inevitably turned out bad for the Cowboys. And as we know - this wasn't 4th and 1. Bottomline is - that you will always make an excuse why the 4th and 3 didn't work just as you are doing now instead of taking some responsibility that you just can't blindly follow a chart..This isn't fantasy football. While you quote some stats from some computer guys that can always hide behind the excuses you are providing - - I'll provide link and a portion of a quote from the link from arguably the greatest coach in NFL History Bill B-- : https://www.boston.com/sports/new-england-patriots/2019/09/27/bill-belichick-analytics-patriots-bills Here is a portion of one of his quotes "“I’m not saying it’s a gut thing. It’s an individual analysis based on the things that are pertinent to that game and that situation,” Belichick said."
  4. 1-- Three yards is NEVER "easy" to get down close in another team's territory vs a QUALITY OPPONENT. 2-- That's the problem with number 2. I don't believe for a second that vs a quality defense that analytics is showing what you're suggesting late in games unless that's "Tom Brady" at the other end or a lousy defense or a significant matchup? IMO there is probably supporting evidence showing that a mediocre QB vs a good defense is probably not going to lead them to victory on the next series. And by taking a bad gamble and going down by 3 vs an equally matched opponent with 4 minutes left and giving them the ball, I'm sure the odds are worse for Dallas. And yes they might be very aggressive. And if they are too aggressive and go 3 and out or 4 and out etc-- they give the ball back to Dallas in potentially great field position for Dallas to win the win the game as they might have more than enough clock to score again. Now you are playing to without having to rely on just one play. 3-- Once Rams kick the fg, you still might have ample time to score yourself.
  5. No it'simply a bad call. How many times do WR's not go far enough during the regular season? It happens often. How many times have you seen it happen in your life watching football? So all of a sudden there is no risk on a 4th down a WR won't go far enough? The reason you give is part of many reasons why the 4th down play had a higher degree of failure vs kicking the chippie FG. We can all offer other excuses next time-- such as "he dropped the ball." "The QB made the wrong read." "The QB made an awful pass." "They missed the one key block." "They fumbled after getting the 1st down." These are all excuses -- and they are overall reasons why late in the game on a 4th a 3 you don';t take that risk. Too many things can go wrong. Unless the Dallas D stinks? It doesn't.
  6. And following this blindly without context is why teams lose. Taking 3 points off the board late in the game when you are down by three - vs a pretty good defensive team without much time left is a bad decision. These should be "guides" and not steadfast "rules." This absolutely was one cause why Cowboys lost the game.
  7. I am not a Cowboy fan at all. But watching the game and the circumstance I thought no way they should've gone for it either. I think analytics is behind some other sports. ANyone cna make an excuse why the play doesn't work such as "If only the receiver went a few yards further." Or "if only the offensive line blocked better." Or "If only they called for a rollout." Or if only "Dak read the play right," etc. You can dream up any excuse but that game showed little indication that Dallas could overwhelm and make the play or the defense was so lousy you can't trust. You don't take that risk.
  8. I just think the offense is going to struggle way too much beucase of a poor OL. And the defense just has too many changes without enough practice. If they go 6-10 or worse; fire Gettleman?
  9. Looking at a 5-11 or 6-10 season. Offensive line is new at the tackle spots. Their choice in rd 1,Thomas, was my 3rd choice. I think their center is bad and their LG is overrated. For receivers SS is one hit from calling it quits. Engram is is one windy day away from watching instead of playing games like he normally does, and Slayton is a huge question. Defensively there are questions across the board other than they should be able to stop the run. And if we do have to endure another terrible season - the good news would be that DG will be gone. I prefer he stays meaning that GMEN win, but I think he is very incompetent.
  10. Ohh crap I didn't see it! Damn!!! Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. Just wondering. I loved loved loved the McKinney pick. I feel he and Peppers is an ok tandem at safety. Frankly, I think McKinney is stud. I feel Bradberry is a good CB. I feel that Baker can be a good #2 corner. Between Beal, Ballentine, Love, and new pick Darnay Holmes-- this might not be too bad of secondary, right? ,
  12. I've made a slight change of my prediction going into this season. We are a 4-7 win team. Won't get to 8. So expect imo 5-6 wins. If the odds were to go to 6.5 I would take the under.
  13. Okay we're at complete opposite ends here. I hope you are right. I'm rooting for your optimism. The OL is still not good. Therefore you're only going to see a running game vs rotten teams on occasion. IMO you are vastly overrating the OL. I heard it all last year and the year before. We get rid of Flowers and Omameh etc then "ofc" I have been told we'll be better. But getting bad replacement players overall doesn't help. Solder is a bad OT now. Hernandez is overrated. They have no legit center, Thomas is a rookie so he'll have his struggles, and Zeitler is not a run blocker. And Peart won't help anything this year. All I've read is that he's a project. Other than Thomas, tell me which OL has a strength of run blocking? Solder, Zeitler, Hernandez and the center are not "plus" run blockers. And you have ask what are the most important positions on the OL? They are Tackles and Center. Solder and the center stink. I can't imagine Barkley being successful against good teams with what he has to work with. As for the LB's -- tell me who is the good player other than Martinez? The others don';t have to suck for the Giants to have a bad defense. They just have to be overall below average. -- You say they can break out. I say they can bust. So far they have been closer to bust than breakout imo. So why should I think they will break out? What have we seen to suggest they are going to break out? And as far as the WR's and TE-- yes I agree they are "good enough"--for a 6-10 team. Engram can't stay on the field. SS is one hit away from quitting. Tate is a fine 3rd wr that was already a bit too old. Wasn';t there some stat out there about WR's having separation and the Giants were among the worst in the league? If several defensive players break out and our OL is good and our RB is super and our WRs are good why then did you agree with me that we could be as bad as having 4 wins?
  14. The draft didn't do enough. Not that it had much of a shot to anyways but imo this is around a 6-10 team (4 to 8 wins depending on other moves and opponents quality at game time etc) unless like what happened two years ago - we face opponents that have injuries at key positions. The OL still going to be a problem unless Fleming completely surprises. Thomas will need a year. And they won't be able to run the football inside. DG has made a major blunder in believing because he drafted an extremely talented RB that he thought he'd get a pretty good running game vs most of the league. Jones is probably too young to lift a not-very-good OL too. The WR's and TE aren't very good overall so offensively they won't be very good. The Offense still isn't good enough to carry a poor defense. This is mainly a DG blunder, He didn't realize from the start that he needed to preserve picks. As far as the defense- the DL in a 3-4 is fine. But the LB's are a huge question other than Martinez (will probably be okay), and you can only pencil in one good secondary player. The others are all questions. Peppers is an average player. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Xavier turns out to be better than Peppers as the season progresses. Baker still unknown. The rest is nothing more that gut-feel as to who might perform well enough.
  15. Not a bad pick. have Bradberry as the one dependable. Would like to think Baker takes a big leap. The rest are big questions.
  • Create New...