Week 5 Overreactions: The "Has the NFL figured out Patrick Mahomes?" Edition

[Apparition]

4 minutes ago, jofos said:

Not disagreeing with the Bucs run defense being great but when the pass defense is that bad why run?

To try to keep the ball out of Brady's hands. 

[diamondbull424]

41 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

When the discussion is about a team's run D and you mention how an opposing runner got 4.7ypc, you're absolutely making a comment on that team's run D. You thought it was a point worth making, and it wasn't. Pollard's 4.7ypc on 3 rushes in the game means absolutely nothing. It was an irrelevant point.

It is entirely relevant because the discussion paved from “not an overreaction: the Bucs might have the best run defense in NFL history.”

So the context then becomes historic measurements, feats, challenges, etc.

The context of Pollard rushing for 4.7 YPC was supporting my point that a) they have yet to face any legitimate rushing challenges and b) the sample size is too small with regard to their run defense in terms of carries against.

They bottled up Zeke, but the backup runner who since 2019 has shown to be more explosive than Zeke, had some success. Due to a small sample size we don’t know if Pollard might’ve had more success to eat into their historical efficiency.

Due to a small sample size of legit rushing squads we don’t know if some better equipped rushing attack like the Browns or Titans, might be able to put up a good game that eats into their historic efficiency.

What we do know is the 2000 Ravens defense faced three top 10 rushing attacks and then also ate in the post season, we know they finished 1st in run DVOA that season.

The relevancy of the point is clear, what’s not clear is how you missed it.

[jofos]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

It is entirely relevant because the discussion paved from “not an overreaction: the Bucs might have the best run defense in NFL history.”

So the context then becomes historic measurements, feats, challenges, etc.

The context of Pollard rushing for 4.7 YPC was supporting my point that a) they have yet to face any legitimate rushing challenges and b) the sample size is too small with regard to their run defense in terms of carries against.

They bottled up Zeke, but the backup runner who since 2019 has shown to be more explosive than Zeke, had some success. Due to a small sample size we don’t know if Pollard might’ve had more success to eat into their historical efficiency.

Due to a small sample size of legit rushing squads we don’t know if some better equipped rushing attack like the Browns or Titans, might be able to put up a good game that eats into their historic efficiency.

What we do know is the 2000 Ravens defense faced three top 10 rushing attacks and then also ate in the post season, we know they finished 1st in run DVOA that season.

The relevancy of the point is clear, what’s not clear is how you missed it.

Pollard had three carries for 14 yards, one of his carries went for 11 yards the other two for a total of 3 yards. That's why 4.7 ypc on 3 carries are meaningless.

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

DERRICK HENRY IS RB1 BECAUSE HE WON'T GET INJURED:

 

[diamondbull424]

57 minutes ago, jofos said:

Pollard had three carries for 14 yards, one of his carries went for 11 yards the other two for a total of 3 yards. That's why 4.7 ypc on 3 carries are meaningless.

The meaning is again attached to the point that teams aren’t consistently challenging the Bucs defense with enough volume to potentially lead to a more normative efficiency.

They faced the Cowboys and Rams who are quality attacks. The Rams provided enough of a sample size with a quality Sony Michel, with Henderson missing for the matchup. The Bucs displayed elite run stopping prowess, but historic? Probably not.

The Cowboys however had 2x less carries in the Bucs game than their other games on the season. Their backs had less than 15 carries, with Pollard especially being MIA with his carrie totals.

The other games we’ve seen low grade rushing units and/or a lack of sample size.

So since we don’t have enough data points, potential outliers like Pollard’s rush average success against their defense can’t properly be defined. Would more attempts produce less efficiency for Pollard or less efficiency for their run defense. When considering a historic pace and likelihood/worthiness of comparison, these inputs all need to properly be considered.

Yet the sad state of the Bucs passing defense makes it very difficult to judge the historic quality of their run defense so very early without more data points and feats. Hence why I said it’s an overreaction to compare it to historic defenses- at this point.

Edited October 11, 2021 by diamondbull424

[DannyB]

9 hours ago, EvilenFroggen said:

I remember when Rodgers and the Packers were going to go on this run and possibly rival the Patriots dynasty

Hey look, something that never happened. At least not outside of the stray person who purposely makes outlandish statements for attention. Like, maybe ace made a thread about it on here or something.

More than one SB? Yeah, sure. But rival the Pats dynasty? Stop.

[childofpudding]

2 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

They bottled up Zeke, but the backup runner who since 2019 has shown to be more explosive than Zeke, had some success. Due to a small sample size we don’t know if Pollard might’ve had more success to eat into their historical efficiency.

Due to a small sample size of legit rushing squads we don’t know if some better equipped rushing attack like the Browns or Titans, might be able to put up a good game that eats into their historic efficiency.

What we do know is the 2000 Ravens defense faced three top 10 rushing attacks and then also ate in the post season, we know they finished 1st in run DVOA that season.

The relevancy of the point is clear, what’s not clear is how you missed it.

No, he didn't have any success. He had rushes of 0, 3 and 11 yards. His 11-yard rush was on the last play of the game with 2 seconds left, when DAL was on their own 25 and TB had everyone in deep prevent to stop a fluke TD. It wasn't even close to resembling success. You made a dumb point, it happens to all of us, time to move on.

[EvilenFroggen]

3 minutes ago, DannyB said:

Hey look, something that never happened. At least not outside of the stray person who purposely makes outlandish statements for attention. Like, maybe ace made a thread about it on here or something.

More than one SB? Yeah, sure. But rival the Pats dynasty? Stop.

In 2011 when the Packers won it, Brady and Belichick had three, their last one six years before.  Any top team who won more than one Super Bowl close together was 2/3 of the way there.  The narrative was most certainly that this was the new standard and that Rodgers couldn't be stopped.  

[diamondbull424]

2 minutes ago, childofpudding said:

No, he didn't have any success. He had rushes of 0, 3 and 11 yards. His 11-yard rush was on the last play of the game with 2 seconds left, when DAL was on their own 25 and TB had everyone in deep prevent to stop a fluke TD. It wasn't even close to resembling success. You made a dumb point, it happens to all of us, time to move on.

I will at least agree to the “time to move on” point. As I’m not going to have my point twisted into something I didn’t state.

Yet I also couldn’t care very much about this subject considering their aren’t yet enough data points to legitimately compare it to the historical run defenses. 

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, SBLIII said:

3 hours ago, NeptunePenguins said:

QB play is at an all-time low this season. Only one QB so far is even having an elite season. All the other QBs have looked vulnerable. 

not sure if serious

I'm honestly not even sure what QB he's talking about. What exactly is separating Wilson, Prescott, Stafford and Murray right now? Those are the top 4 but I don't see a head and shoulders stand out among them?

[BayRaider]

Mahomes was just a 3x All Pro, MVP, 2x Super Bowl Appearance flash in the pan, he’s finished!

[DannyB]

A quick version of a take I could expand on, and I'm sure others have said similar things...

First of all, disclaimer: Mahomes is still the best quarterback in the league. He'd still be my choice of any player to start a franchise with. I think he WILL probably work through this streak of play. Okay KC fans? Got it? You hear me? I THINK he'll be fine...

Start a season or so ago, I think Mahomes has fallen into some pretty bad quarterbacking technique and mechanics. He has such a breathtakingly godly arm that he hasn't needed to drill in great mechanics as far as footwork and other elements of the position. It looks like he trusts that thing almost too much at times, and even though he's right more often than not, it can backfire at times.

I also don't necessarily see exemplary pocket presence/maneuvering either. What I mean by that, is that while he isn't like Lamar or Kyler, he's got some wheels, and I think he's quick to vacate the pocket to buy more time or pick up some yards. For the most part there's nothing wrong with that, especially in the short term. It makes him even more dangerous most of the time. But in the long term he's going to have to learn to stay in the pocket, maneuver within the pocket, climb when needed, and go through his reads there.

Again, this is all mostly fine for now. He's certainly been successful. But I think it also makes him not the best QB he could possibly be, and I think if he wants to continue to be elite well into his 30s, maybe even 40, he'd be smart to work on these things now. I think it also is indicative of either a lack of proper QB coaching, a QB coach that isn't able or willing to challenge him enough, or, a player that isn't willing to take the coaching.

Hopefully this changes.

I'll also say, and this is something that kinda crystalized for me last year...I think the technique/mechanics for young QBs in this league absolutely sucks overall. It's all just ridiculously athletic dudes with big arms mostly ad-libbing out there. Nobody seems to really be working on the discipline of it. It's exciting, and it'll win some games, but I'm not sure if it's a recipe to establish the kind of dynastic run of greatness that we've seen in previous decades. Sorry this is kinda a side thought that's been percolating for awhile, might expand elsewhere later

[DannyB]

1 hour ago, EvilenFroggen said:

In 2011 when the Packers won it, Brady and Belichick had three, their last one six years before.  Any top team who won more than one Super Bowl close together was 2/3 of the way there.  The narrative was most certainly that this was the new standard and that Rodgers couldn't be stopped.  

Nobody was making Patriots comparisons. They'd been to another SB after an undefeated regular season, and Brady won his 2nd MVP award in '10. I think the questions about whether the Patriots reign was over started creeping in in '12 and '13 when Brady's play started to sag around the margins, and when they were in the middle of a multi-season dip in defensive play.

[NeptunePenguins]

2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I'm honestly not even sure what QB he's talking about. What exactly is separating Wilson, Prescott, Stafford and Murray right now? Those are the top 4 but I don't see a head and shoulders stand out among them?

Out of those four only Wilson was ever considered an elite QB. The other 3 are new and such. Plus all of them have had bad games this season. If you want me to be frank I am not sure if we currently have an elite QB rn. 

[Forge]