The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - Jets

[mullichicken25]

i think people are forgetting that Andy routinely overthrew AJ last season as much or more than he underthrew him.

 

I don't think its a coincidence that we're seeing significantly more of the underthrow this season. AJ has demonstrated time and time again that if the ball is within a catchable radius he will leap over the DB and come down with it.

 

I'll take the underthrow with the increased completion % all day long, even if it means a smaller % of homerun TD's. Especially when you consider how money dalton has been in the red zone over his career.

[Bgal]

Just this year I read the joke, "Dalton could overthrow a government." And all those throws were incomplete and ended drives. Of course we all want absolute perfection but damn... Improvement typically happens one step at a time. He hit Sanu and AJ in stride during this last game to go along with some underthrows. It's just timing and will probably never be perfect for a whole game.

[membengal]

For the record, I don't think any quarterback has EVER been perfect for a whole game. It's an impossible standard that he is being held to by a few who appear to be borderline clinically insane on this topic. 

[|Dr Tarzan|]

Good:  Dalton's finally looking like the guy he most compared to: Drew Brees.  Esp the two types of throws he has struggled with since the start...the long ball and the back shoulder throws. PRIMO!  ANDY FUE EN FUEGO!!

 

FINALLY... the DC does what most successful DC's do when facing a Rookie QB...blitz the hell out of him!  In the past it was just a game plan like usual.  Results speak for themselves.

 

OL across the board, kept AD clean and free to step into a pass.

 

Adam Jones, wears his heart on his sleeve...giving shit to Ryan, the solid coverage and pick six were just bonuses!

 

Rey finally looking like the guy we expected when drafted... and his buddy Burfict who just keeps looking better every game.

 

A blow out allowing 1) rest for some starters on a short week  2) some PT for the backups.  Looked like a preseason game the last 8 minutes, there were so many starters on the bench.

 

No injuries after the game was decided.  I hate losing players at all, but it just stings so much worse when it's in garbage time.

 

Tate...I've been a proponent of replacing for the past 2 years...I'm just going to shut my stupid ass mouth about it now.   Sometimes I LIKE having someone shut my trap for me.

 

Won by 40...and still left some points on the field with dropped bombs and stuffed at goal line.

 

 

 

 

Bad:  More injuries.   I wonder when it's going to start catching up with us.

 

AD finally finds his long ball and the WR's blow 3 of them.   I NEVER  want to AJ posturing his Ocho Cinco frustrated body language ever again.

 

 

Ugly:  Rex Ryan, but I will give him props for his candor in the post game presser...but he's still an ugly bastard.

[Orange 'n Black]

I figured Barnwell would write about the 4th-and-goal the Jets stopped the Bengals on and why it was the right call regardless:

 

Besides the aforementioned end to the Monday Night Football game, the other big stop of the week came with the Jets denying the Bengals a touchdown on fourth-and-goal from the 1-yard line down 14-0 in the first half. The Bengals were so thrown by the momentum swing that they proceeded to win by 40 points.

Are teams going for it more in short yardage near the goal line? On fourth down inside the 2-yard line in situations when the two combatants are separated by 14 points or fewer, teams have gone for it with 19 of their 34 opportunities this year, 55.8 percent of the time. From 2010 to 2012, teams went for it in those same situations just 39.1 percent of the time. So while it's obviously a small sample, it's certainly true that teams have been more aggressive near the goal line this year.

Oh, and one more thing. I don't want to name names, but let's just look at the numbers and see how teams have done at converting for scores in that scenario. Remember that, even without considering the field position you "gain" when you fail to convert on fourth down, the breakeven rate for going for it inside the 2-yard line is 43 percent. In 2013, teams have only converted for a new set of downs or a touchdown on 38.9 percent of those attempts, which is a pretty disappointing figure. It's also in an awfully small sample. From 1999 to 2012, the full expanses of the Pro-Football-Reference.com play index, those aggressive teams have produced a touchdown on 53.3 percent of their attempts, adding in a conversion for a first down on another 1.8 percent of tries. It's the right move in theory, but it has also been the right move in practice.

[Oldcat]

I figured Barnwell would write about the 4th-and-goal the Jets stopped the Bengals on and why it was the right call regardless:

 

 

I just thought it was funny that when a 4th down play was run back for a TD, it was all "one week doesn't mean anything".  Now that we have a week where it doesn't blow up in someone's face, one week is proof positive that you should do it all the time.

 

These guys are supposed to be the logical ones.  You have to take into account ALL the factors when making judgments on strategy.  Another thing they never take into account is that the "40 percent" or whatever success rate is already biased because now teams with bad offenses or those facing good defenses already don't go for it.  If they did, the fail rate would rise.

 

For the record, I agreed with Marvin going for it - I think he has a good feel for the risk of a gadget play in a game situation.  But I am very tired of the various internet "cult of the 4th down" true believers and their constant whining  about it.  It could never be that the fellows who have millions of their own and their bosses money on the line might know more than some idiot on the internet.  That's out of the question.

[coup000]

 

I just thought it was funny that when a 4th down play was run back for a TD, it was all "one week doesn't mean anything".  Now that we have a week where it doesn't blow up in someone's face, one week is proof positive that you should do it all the time.

 

These guys are supposed to be the logical ones.  You have to take into account ALL the factors when making judgments on strategy.  Another thing they never take into account is that the "40 percent" or whatever success rate is already biased because now teams with bad offenses or those facing good defenses already don't go for it.  If they did, the fail rate would rise.

 

For the record, I agreed with Marvin going for it - I think he has a good feel for the risk of a gadget play in a game situation.  But I am very tired of the various internet "cult of the 4th down" true believers and their constant whining  about it.  It could never be that the fellows who have millions of their own and their bosses money on the line might know more than some idiot on the internet.  That's out of the question.

When using "logic" you don't plan for the outlier. A 4th and 1 play getting returned for a TD is exactly a case of "one play doesn't mean anything". You play the probabilities.

[Oldcat]

When using "logic" you don't plan for the outlier. A 4th and 1 play getting returned for a TD is exactly a case of "one play doesn't mean anything". You play the probabilities.

 

It is risk versus reward.  The cost of the turnover is high - in that case the game itself.  So a low frequency can still have significant cost.  You can't just wave your hand if you are dedicated to stats...you have to measure the rate and find out how often it happens.

 

The week after that, we stopped a 4th down at the one and marched it back for a TD.  Now, this year, we have been very good at that, but that is also part of the 'cost' part you need to take into account rather than just airly saying "irrelevant" like these fellows did.  And on the other side, the pro FG side can remember the chip shot holding penalty, followed by a miss that we had.

 

Back in the 70s, it was routine to run out the last plays with the RB.  One play where the Eagles fumbled and the Giants ran it back for a TD made all 32 teams essentially never do that again.  Even though it was an outlier, it just became not worth it for anyone.

[bubba]

I like going for it. When it only inches shy the best play is qb sneak telling Peko if he stalls. Push him

[Orange 'n Black]

 

I just thought it was funny that when a 4th down play was run back for a TD, it was all "one week doesn't mean anything".  Now that we have a week where it doesn't blow up in someone's face, one week is proof positive that you should do it all the time.

 

These guys are supposed to be the logical ones.  You have to take into account ALL the factors when making judgments on strategy.  Another thing they never take into account is that the "40 percent" or whatever success rate is already biased because now teams with bad offenses or those facing good defenses already don't go for it.  If they did, the fail rate would rise.

 

For the record, I agreed with Marvin going for it - I think he has a good feel for the risk of a gadget play in a game situation.  But I am very tired of the various internet "cult of the 4th down" true believers and their constant whining  about it.  It could never be that the fellows who have millions of their own and their bosses money on the line might know more than some idiot on the internet.  That's out of the question.

 

I don't really get what you're saying here except speculation. The analysis is all about percentages and probabilities. Your response is all about feelings. It is absolutely true that NFL coaches are conservative about going for it on 4th down and the numbers (i.e. reality) show that it's often to the detriment of their teams. Just because coaches make millions doesn't mean they're always right - how many coaches get fired every year?

 

Also, the Jags bad offense against the 49ers good defense went for it on 4th down 5 times Sunday. 

[Oldcat]

 

I don't really get what you're saying here except speculation. The analysis is all about percentages and probabilities. Your response is all about feelings. It is absolutely true that NFL coaches are conservative about going for it on 4th down and the numbers (i.e. reality) show that it's often to the detriment of their teams. Just because coaches make millions doesn't mean they're always right - how many coaches get fired every year?

 

Also, the Jags bad offense against the 49ers good defense went for it on 4th down 5 times Sunday. 

 

The numbers can't show it is to the detriment of the teams, since they can't re-run the game.  As I mentioned, there is a self selection bias in the numbers they use to boost their argument.  Since "most coaches" "most times" don't go for it, then presumably the times they do go for it are the *best* situations for making it.  Therefore doing it more would reduce the success rate.  Does this change their model?  I don't know and apparently neither do they.

 

And then if the 'stat guy', just wave away the stats that might counter the argument, well, that doesn't add to my confidence in the methods.  Uncommon events can still be relevant to proper assessment of risk versus reward, if the negative consequences are high enough.

 

Having read many of these articles over the years, I find that they are just as prone to fall into group-think and resistance to counter-evidence as NFL coaches, if not more so.  It's just a different set of biases.  Given that the coaches are putting their money on the line, I'll lean towards their side until I get some more complete work from the other fellows.

[Orange 'n Black]

Since "most coaches" "most times" don't go for it, then presumably the times they do go for it are the *best* situations for making it.  Therefore doing it more would reduce the success rate. 

 

I believe the greater argument of the "stat guys" is that there are many instances of the "best situation for making it" where the coach does not opt to go for it. If in every situation where the percentages say to go for it, the coach did so, then the rate over time would trend toward the historical rate (given for this particular situation as 55.1 percent total conversion since 1999). 

 

 

 

Uncommon events can still be relevant to proper assessment of risk versus reward, if the negative consequences are high enough.

 

This is true, but the magnitude of the uncommonality of that event factors into the assessment as well. A turnover for a TD on 4th and 1 is a bizarrely minuscule outcome. You can weight this outcome heavier if you have a fumble-prone back, or a bad O-line, or an inaccurate QB, but we're talking in generalities here. And even in that case, if this negative outcome is so heavily weighted, why would you run any plays in the first place? 

 

 

 

Having read many of these articles over the years, I find that they are just as prone to fall into group-think and resistance to counter-evidence as NFL coaches, if not more so.

 

I agree that there are many stat guys who hold too dearly to their stats; I like this author in particular because he is honest about his methods and points out their faults. 

[Jamie_B]

I like going for it. When it only inches shy the best play is qb sneak telling Peko if he stalls. Push him

 

 

Can you push a guy on O now? IIRC that Pats game their guy pushed his guy into our line and got a penalty, as it's against some new rule. Does this work the same on O? I would guess not, but its a weird rule.

[Bengals1181]

 

 

Can you push a guy on O now? IIRC that Pats game their guy pushed his guy into our line and got a penalty, as it's against some new rule. Does this work the same on O? I would guess not, but its a weird rule.

 

 

no, that rule is specifically geared towards preventing teams from bum rushing long snappers who have their head down.  

[Jamie_B]

 

 

no, that rule is specifically geared towards preventing teams from bum rushing long snappers who have their head down.  

 

 

got ya, all i remember was thinking ... huh? that's a rule?

[Jason]

 

 

Can you push a guy on O now? IIRC that Pats game their guy pushed his guy into our line and got a penalty, as it's against some new rule. Does this work the same on O? I would guess not, but its a weird rule.

 

Ask Reggie Bush and Matt Leinert.

 

 

:lol:

[coup000]

 

It is risk versus reward.  The cost of the turnover is high - in that case the game itself.  So a low frequency can still have significant cost.  You can't just wave your hand if you are dedicated to stats...you have to measure the rate and find out how often it happens.

 

The week after that, we stopped a 4th down at the one and marched it back for a TD.  Now, this year, we have been very good at that, but that is also part of the 'cost' part you need to take into account rather than just airly saying "irrelevant" like these fellows did.  And on the other side, the pro FG side can remember the chip shot holding penalty, followed by a miss that we had.

 

Back in the 70s, it was routine to run out the last plays with the RB.  One play where the Eagles fumbled and the Giants ran it back for a TD made all 32 teams essentially never do that again.  Even though it was an outlier, it just became not worth it for anyone.

I don't disagree that all outcomes must be considered, but like O n B said, you can't give much, if any, weight to something that happens as rarely as a 4th and 1 fumble returned for a TD. Your victory formation example doesn't really fit either. The possible reward of handing it off to your running back is non existent, so doing it only introduces risk.

[scharm]

 

 

Can you push a guy on O now? IIRC that Pats game their guy pushed his guy into our line and got a penalty, as it's against some new rule. Does this work the same on O? I would guess not, but its a weird rule.

 

You can't but the rule is ignored.     Techinically they don't push the player they push the pile yada, yada, yada

 

Golic was bitching about this the other day and an official or Polian basically stated its on the books but not called.

[scharm]

 

 

no, that rule is specifically geared towards preventing teams from bum rushing long snappers who have their head down.  

 

I don't think you can push offensive players.   Mike and Mike had Polian on that headed the competition committee and basically admitted the rule is ignored.

 

Using the phrase well they push the pile vs. the player or some kinda crap. 

[Oldcat]

 

I don't think you can push offensive players.   Mike and Mike had Polian on that headed the competition committee and basically admitted the rule is ignored.

 

Using the phrase well they push the pile vs. the player or some kinda crap. 

 

It was called on Refrigerator Perry in the 1986 Superbowl..he lifted McMahon by the belt and threw him across the end zone line.

[bubba]

 

I don't think you can push offensive players.   Mike and Mike had Polian on that headed the competition committee and basically admitted the rule is ignored.

 

Using the phrase well they push the pile vs. the player or some kinda crap. 

We've done it many times this season alone. Like you said earlier it's pushing the pile if they aren't going to blow the whislte