NFL 2017

[Terrell]

I feel like this has been a rare playoff season in which (nearly) every game was a good one to watch. Even one or two which started out to be blowouts became interesting as things got later. The lone exception was the NE game, which was rather boring. I also realize that perhaps Pittsburgh (correctly) realized their defense wasn't doing shit, but I still think trying the on-sides kick was a bad idea and definitely sealed their loss.

I'm not so sure that the onside kick was such a bad idea, in hindsight it didn't work out. It's execution was terrible since the ball didn't travel the 10 yards before a Steeler touched it. Pittsburgh couldn't count on a 3 and out, in advance as the Jaguars' offense had found a bit of life late in the game. If they had a way to know in advance they'd get the ball back and they had to consider the possibility that they wouldn't. I think that either onside or kicking away in that situation was reasonable since the Jaguars' offense had shown some life in the 4th quarter.

The Steelers decided they didn't want to risk failing to get a 3 and out. There was a little more than 2 minutes remaining and the Steelers had 2 time outs (3 guaranteed clock stoppages). Jaguars run 3 plays where the Steelers must use time outs, a first down from that point ends the game.

 

[Opoponax]

I feel like this has been a rare playoff season in which (nearly) every game was a good one to watch. Even one or two which started out to be blowouts became interesting as things got later. The lone exception was the NE game, which was rather boring. I also realize that perhaps Pittsburgh (correctly) realized their defense wasn't doing shit, but I still think trying the on-sides kick was a bad idea and definitely sealed their loss.

I'm not so sure that the onside kick was such a bad idea, in hindsight it didn't work out. It's execution was terrible since the ball didn't travel the 10 yards before a Steeler touched it. Pittsburgh couldn't count on a 3 and out, in advance as the Jaguars' offense had found a bit of life late in the game. If they had a way to know in advance they'd get the ball back and they had to consider the possibility that they wouldn't. I think that either onside or kicking away in that situation was reasonable since the Jaguars' offense had shown some life in the 4th quarter.

The Steelers decided they didn't want to risk failing to get a 3 and out. There was a little more than 2 minutes remaining and the Steelers had 2 time outs (3 guaranteed clock stoppages). Jaguars run 3 plays where the Steelers must use time outs, a first down from that point ends the game.

In that situation, an onside kick was, statistically speaking, a bad idea.

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html

The effect of surprise on the success of an onside kick is pretty big ... The less a team is expecting an onside kick, the more successful it is. When teams are expecting it ... the success rate is about 20%. But when teams aren’t expecting it, the success rate averages 60%.

I was surprised at the 60% figure. Hell, I was even surprised that it works 20% of time in any situation.

At any rate, in that situation, Jacksonville was prepared for an onside kick, which statistically gave Pittsburgh a 20% chance of recovery. While recovery would've given the Steelers great field position and the ball, the much more likely result was what actually happened.

They should've kicked it out of the end zone and hoped their defense could force a 3 and out.

Jacksonville had a 37.4% 3rd down conversion rate for 2017, although in that game it was 52.9%. But even then, a 3 and out was significantly more likely than an onside kick recovery.

 

[Shake]

Yes, the bit about when teams are expecting the onside kick is important. All the announcers were saying that Jacksonville would have expected it. I'd have kicked long and hoped to have the defense finally step up.

 

[Terrell]

In that situation, an onside kick was, statistically speaking, a bad idea.

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html

The effect of surprise on the success of an onside kick is pretty big ... The less a team is expecting an onside kick, the more successful it is. When teams are expecting it ... the success rate is about 20%. But when teams aren’t expecting it, the success rate averages 60%.

I was surprised at the 60% figure. Hell, I was even surprised that it works 20% of time in any situation.

At any rate, in that situation, Jacksonville was prepared for an onside kick, which statistically gave Pittsburgh a 20% chance of recovery. While recovery would've given the Steelers great field position and the ball, the much more likely result was what actually happened.

They should've kicked it out of the end zone and hoped their defense could force a 3 and out.

Jacksonville had a 37.4% 3rd down conversion rate for 2017, although in that game it was 52.9%. But even then, a 3 and out was significantly more likely than an onside kick recovery.

Statistical analysis doesn't really work here. It's like using the "well x percentage of passes from the 1 or 2 yard line are completed for TDs vs interceptions" so it wasn't stupid to have Russell Wilson throw the ball into coverage in the Super Bowl against the Patriots. It doesn't account for having Marshawn Lynch (one of the best RBs in the game at the time) in the backfield, himself as a running threat, and a timeout in his pocket. It doesn't take into account types of passes that can be thrown as well as the likely coverages you're throwing into. It doesn't take into account strengths & weaknesses of the teams in question, or how things are going in the specific game that's being played. You also cannot account for hot, or luck with statistics. This argument just doesn't work for those reasons. They cannot account for the here & now.

The actual performance of the Jaguars offense in the 4th quarter has to be taken into account, and Bortles was able to move the chains fairly consistently. The onside gives you an additional shot at the ball, just don't execute it so poorly that you not only don't have a chance to recover it, but have a penalty against your team in the process of trying. Either way the Jaguars could end the game with a 1st down, provided they took 3 plays to do it, and each play ended with the clock running. Otherwise they would need more than 1.

 

[Opoponax]

In that situation, an onside kick was, statistically speaking, a bad idea.

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html

The effect of surprise on the success of an onside kick is pretty big ... The less a team is expecting an onside kick, the more successful it is. When teams are expecting it ... the success rate is about 20%. But when teams aren’t expecting it, the success rate averages 60%.

I was surprised at the 60% figure. Hell, I was even surprised that it works 20% of time in any situation.

At any rate, in that situation, Jacksonville was prepared for an onside kick, which statistically gave Pittsburgh a 20% chance of recovery. While recovery would've given the Steelers great field position and the ball, the much more likely result was what actually happened.

They should've kicked it out of the end zone and hoped their defense could force a 3 and out.

Jacksonville had a 37.4% 3rd down conversion rate for 2017, although in that game it was 52.9%. But even then, a 3 and out was significantly more likely than an onside kick recovery.

Statistical analysis doesn't really work here. It's like using the "well x percentage of passes from the 1 or 2 yard line are completed for TDs vs interceptions" so it wasn't stupid to have Russell Wilson throw the ball into coverage in the Super Bowl against the Patriots. It doesn't account for having Marshawn Lynch (one of the best RBs in the game at the time) in the backfield, himself as a running threat, and a timeout in his pocket. It doesn't take into account types of passes that can be thrown as well as the likely coverages you're throwing into. It doesn't take into account strengths & weaknesses of the teams in question, or how things are going in the specific game that's being played. You also cannot account for hot, or luck with statistics. This argument just doesn't work for those reasons. They cannot account for the here & now.

The actual performance of the Jaguars offense in the 4th quarter has to be taken into account, and Bortles was able to move the chains fairly consistently. The onside gives you an additional shot at the ball, just don't execute it so poorly that you not only don't have a chance to recover it, but have a penalty against your team in the process of trying. Either way the Jaguars could end the game with a 1st down, provided they took 3 plays to do it, and each play ended with the clock running. Otherwise they would need more than 1.

Statistical analysis doesn't work for any one given situation, but taken as a whole, the likelihood of success was still much lower than a three and out. But even if you don't take it into account, the situational aspect still made it the poorer decision.

Pittsburgh absolutely had to have a 3 and out. Their offense was moving the ball and scoring. If you kick it deep and get the three and out, you get the ball back in decent field position with enough time left to score.

With an onside kick, you're limited to that one chance and literally subject to the bounce of a football, which is utterly unpredictable (as was shown).
If you go on defense, you can stack the line, run blitz, drop your MLB, play your corners tight, keep safeties at the sticks or have them come up in run support, etc. IOW, there's a lot more options, including the possibility of a fumble and a not unrealistic possibility that Bortles would make a bad decision and throw a pick, or the ball gets tipped at the line and intercepted, etc.

The possibilities are much, much more than Tomlin's all or nothing decision.

 

[Terrell]

Statistical analysis doesn't really work here. It's like using the "well x percentage of passes from the 1 or 2 yard line are completed for TDs vs interceptions" so it wasn't stupid to have Russell Wilson throw the ball into coverage in the Super Bowl against the Patriots. It doesn't account for having Marshawn Lynch (one of the best RBs in the game at the time) in the backfield, himself as a running threat, and a timeout in his pocket. It doesn't take into account types of passes that can be thrown as well as the likely coverages you're throwing into. It doesn't take into account strengths & weaknesses of the teams in question, or how things are going in the specific game that's being played. You also cannot account for hot, or luck with statistics. This argument just doesn't work for those reasons. They cannot account for the here & now.

The actual performance of the Jaguars offense in the 4th quarter has to be taken into account, and Bortles was able to move the chains fairly consistently. The onside gives you an additional shot at the ball, just don't execute it so poorly that you not only don't have a chance to recover it, but have a penalty against your team in the process of trying. Either way the Jaguars could end the game with a 1st down, provided they took 3 plays to do it, and each play ended with the clock running. Otherwise they would need more than 1.

Statistical analysis doesn't work for any one given situation, but taken as a whole, the likelihood of success was still much lower than a three and out. But even if you don't take it into account, the situational aspect still made it the poorer decision.

Pittsburgh absolutely had to have a 3 and out. Their offense was moving the ball and scoring. If you kick it deep and get the three and out, you get the ball back in decent field position with enough time left to score.

With an onside kick, you're limited to that one chance and literally subject to the bounce of a football, which is utterly unpredictable (as was shown).
If you go on defense, you can stack the line, run blitz, drop your MLB, play your corners tight, keep safeties at the sticks or have them come up in run support, etc. IOW, there's a lot more options, including the possibility of a fumble and a not unrealistic possibility that Bortles would make a bad decision and throw a pick, or the ball gets tipped at the line and intercepted, etc.

The possibilities are much, much more than Tomlin's all or nothing decision.

You get 2 shots at the ball with an onside kick; 1 shot if you kick away. The kick, and the 3 & out or just 1 shot at a 3 & out.

If you don't get the illegal touching penalty, but the Jaguars still recover they're likely between the 45 & 50 yard line. If they don't get another yard from there a field goal attempt would be at least 62 yards and they likely bring out the punt team. If they gain 8 or more yards by 4th down, they may decide to go for it to end the game. If they get a 1st down, they're in field goal range but are also probably in victory formation. You get 2 shots at getting the ball, though your field position would be worse if you fail the onside. Once for the onside, once chance for the 3 & out. Roethlisberger has already demonstrated that he can move the offense and that he can successfully throw it deep.

If you kick it deep, and through the end zone they have it at the 25. Bortles hadn't been playing badly enough that you could rely on stacking the box. Jags last TD was on a play-action pass to the fullback, on a play that likely looked to the Steelers' defense as an ISO BoB run. Bohanon was wide open. If I was the Jaguars in that situation, I'd try a play-action pass, some type of RPO, or a quick screen if the defense isn't pressing on the receivers on first down. It has the risk of a turnover, as does any offensive play, and the risk of stopping the clock but if it gets you the first down or into 2nd down with a gain of 4 yards or more you're in pretty good shape. Bortles had also demonstrated that he can scramble if necessary, so you can't depend on him actually throwing the ball if there's a chance for him to run. If the Jaguars get the first down the game they're either in victory formation, or giving you a dose of Leonard Fournette (if not T.J. Yeldon). Also don't forget him throwing it to the TE (likely Marcedes Lewis) on a play-action pass.

Jaguars play-calling is probably different if they're on the 25, but don't be surprised if it's aggressive, since it gives them a decent shot at keeping Roethlisberger off the field.

The difference here is do you get 1 shot at getting the ball or 2 shots. Either option has a less than 50% chance of working on it's own. Tomlin made the right call so he could have more than one shot at getting the ball. His kicking team let him down with the penalty.

If anything question the 2 plays called on 4th & inches that didn't work, when you have a QB the size of Roethlisberger, and don't call the QB sneak. Neither Drew Brees nor Tom Brady, are afraid to run this play in short yardage situations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Patriots can't do anything the easy way! I've heard bitching about penalty discrepancy, but if you watched the game, you'd understand why Jacksonville had more defensive penalties. Patriots don't drop three critical passes, they win by double digits, so piss off already. Yeah... the NFL who suspended Tom Brady for four games is in bed with the Patriots. Fuck off!

Eagles handle the Vikings, which isn't exactly as shocking as some want to suggest.

Eagles v Patriots in a rematch. The previous game was pretty intense, and the Patriots never make anything easy on themselves. 8 Super Bowl appearances making for the best dynasty run of all time, by quite a bit. Either team will have to earn it. Belichick understands it is a four quarter game and he adjusts so well as the game marches on and his moles (literally crawling under the opposition side with microphones) get intel to beat teams to their own plays.

The Eagles can win, and it'd be alright, despite Philly fans being notoriously wankish. But I'm not exactly going to cheer for them.

 

[Opoponax]

The Eagles can win, and it'd be alright, despite Philly fans being notoriously wankish. But I'm not exactly going to cheer for them.

Philly fans? Obnoxious? Nah....

http://www.nj.com/eagles/index.ssf/2018/01/photos_riot_police_on_horses_storm_parking_lots_be.html

 

[ronburgundy]

Patriots can't do anything the easy way! I've heard bitching about penalty discrepancy, but if you watched the game, you'd understand why Jacksonville had more defensive penalties.

The Pats committed two blatant PIs against Lewis in the 4th quarter that would have given the Jags a first down in Pats territory on two separate drives. One was a complete tackle of the receiver before as the ball was being thrown, and both were more clear than the bogus PI called against the Jags at the end of first half where there was mutual hand-checking and the ball was completely uncatchable. Pats had fewer penalties called against them than any playoff team in the last 6 years. Then there is the bogus whistle that blew the ball dead after the fumble, where Jags would have likely scored a TD.

Yeah... the NFL who suspended Tom Brady for four games is in bed with the Patriots. Fuck off!

I don't think its conspiratorial intent, just typical gross incompetence from NFL refs that, as it often does, changed the outcome of the game.

However, your excuse about Brady's suspension is a standard trope by Pats defenders. First, the refs could have a personal bias in favor of GOATs like Brady and Belichick that is independent of the NFL as an organization. Second, even if the NFL were behind it, the Brady suspension is not at all inconsistent with that. The Pats in the Superbowl boosts ratings and 2 weeks of media buzz. It would be perfectly rational for the Goodell and the NFL to want the Pats in the Superbowl, and yet to also want to punish even Brady for cheating and being so uncooperative with their investigation. Hell, if anything, punishing Brady for 4 regular season games (in a shitastic division that the Pats were ensured to win anyway) would be a great way to provide cover for any bias. Again, despite multiple games this year being handed to the Pats by refs, I think its just incompetence or maybe personal ref bias rather than a coordinated effot, but Pats fans need to stop bringing up the irrelevant fact that they were punished for cheating (again) as though that is a good argument for why their latest win was based on merit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Patriots can't do anything the easy way! I've heard bitching about penalty discrepancy, but if you watched the game, you'd understand why Jacksonville had more defensive penalties.

The Pats committed two blatant PIs against Lewis in the 4th quarter that would have given the Jags a first down in Pats territory on two separate drives. One was a complete tackle of the receiver before as the ball was being thrown, and both were more clear than the bogus PI called against the Jags at the end of first half where there was mutual hand-checking and the ball was completely uncatchable. Pats had fewer penalties called against them than any playoff team in the last 6 years. Then there is the bogus whistle that blew the ball dead after the fumble, where Jags would have likely scored a TD.

Yeah... the NFL who suspended Tom Brady for four games is in bed with the Patriots. Fuck off!

I don't think its conspiratorial intent, just typical gross incompetence from NFL refs that, as it often does, changed the outcome of the game.

However, your excuse about Brady's suspension is a standard trope by Pats defenders. First, the refs could have a personal bias in favor of GOATs like Brady and Belichick that is independent of the NFL as an organization. Second, even if the NFL were behind it, the Brady suspension is not at all inconsistent with that. The Pats in the Superbowl boosts ratings and 2 weeks of media buzz. It would be perfectly rational for the Goodell and the NFL to want the Pats in the Superbowl, and yet to also want to punish even Brady for cheating and being so uncooperative with their investigation. Hell, if anything, punishing Brady for 4 regular season games (in a shitastic division that the Pats were ensured to win anyway) would be a great way to provide cover for any bias. Again, despite multiple games this year being handed to the Pats by refs, I think its just incompetence or maybe personal ref bias rather than a coordinated effot, but Pats fans need to stop bringing up the irrelevant fact that they were punished for cheating (again) as though that is a good argument for why their latest win was based on merit.

Wanna talk about if calls were bad fine. I'm tired of the 'NFL in it for the Patriots' bullshit.

Maybe if Jacksonville had any offense in the fourth quarter or stopped New England on 3rd and 18 they could have won the game.

I have little sympathy over a few calls when our TE is taken out of the game because of a head shot.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Pats committed two blatant PIs against Lewis in the 4th quarter that would have given the Jags a first down in Pats territory on two separate drives. One was a complete tackle of the receiver before as the ball was being thrown, and both were more clear than the bogus PI called against the Jags at the end of first half where there was mutual hand-checking and the ball was completely uncatchable. Pats had fewer penalties called against them than any playoff team in the last 6 years. Then there is the bogus whistle that blew the ball dead after the fumble, where Jags would have likely scored a TD.



I don't think its conspiratorial intent, just typical gross incompetence from NFL refs that, as it often does, changed the outcome of the game.

However, your excuse about Brady's suspension is a standard trope by Pats defenders. First, the refs could have a personal bias in favor of GOATs like Brady and Belichick that is independent of the NFL as an organization. Second, even if the NFL were behind it, the Brady suspension is not at all inconsistent with that. The Pats in the Superbowl boosts ratings and 2 weeks of media buzz. It would be perfectly rational for the Goodell and the NFL to want the Pats in the Superbowl, and yet to also want to punish even Brady for cheating and being so uncooperative with their investigation. Hell, if anything, punishing Brady for 4 regular season games (in a shitastic division that the Pats were ensured to win anyway) would be a great way to provide cover for any bias. Again, despite multiple games this year being handed to the Pats by refs, I think its just incompetence or maybe personal ref bias rather than a coordinated effot, but Pats fans need to stop bringing up the irrelevant fact that they were punished for cheating (again) as though that is a good argument for why their latest win was based on merit.

Wanna talk about if calls were bad fine. I'm tired of the 'NFL in it for the Patriots' bullshit.

Maybe if Jacksonville had any offense in the fourth quarter or stopped New England on 3rd and 18 they could have won the game.

Their lack of offense in the 4th was heavily due to the fact that they had 2 drives stopped due to blatant PI that wasn't called.
When the defense is allowed to tackle you while the ball is just leaving the QB's hand, it is hard to keep a drive going.

I have little sympathy over a few calls when our TE is taken out of the game because of a head shot.

I have little sympathy for a man out of the game who should have never been allowed to play in the first place, due to his who full blown criminal assault (the most illegal hit of the last decade) for which he got an absurd 1 game suspension.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Their lack of offense in the 4th was heavily due to the fact that they had 2 drives stopped due to blatant PI that wasn't called.
When the defense is allowed to tackle you while the ball is just leaving the QB's hand, it is hard to keep a drive going.

I have little sympathy over a few calls when our TE is taken out of the game because of a head shot.

I have little sympathy for a man out of the game who should have never been allowed to play in the first place, due to his who full blown criminal assault (the most illegal hit of the last decade) for which he got an absurd 1 game suspension.

I'll have to concede to you the blown calls and its effect on the outcome as I'm certain you reviewed each and every play.

As far as the Gronk hit and suspension, I agree. One game was ridiculous... but it was apparently in line with other ridiculously short suspensions over awful hits. I'd been fine with a season/playoff suspension.

 

[ronburgundy]

Their lack of offense in the 4th was heavily due to the fact that they had 2 drives stopped due to blatant PI that wasn't called.
When the defense is allowed to tackle you while the ball is just leaving the QB's hand, it is hard to keep a drive going.

I have little sympathy over a few calls when our TE is taken out of the game because of a head shot.

I have little sympathy for a man out of the game who should have never been allowed to play in the first place, due to his who full blown criminal assault (the most illegal hit of the last decade) for which he got an absurd 1 game suspension.

I'll have to concede to you the blown calls and its effect on the outcome as I'm certain you reviewed each and every play.

As far as the Gronk hit and suspension, I agree. One game was ridiculous... but it was apparently in line with other ridiculously short suspensions over awful hits. I'd been fine with a season/playoff suspension.

It wasn't "in line" with other hits, because there is no precedent for that level of literal criminal assault on the filed. I'm serious that he could and should have gone to jail for it. Pretty much every analyst and non-Pats fan agrees that Gronk's hit was on a whole different level of wrong than any other hit in memory, given that is was so completely outside of the context of an actual ongoing play, the guy was face down on the ground, and Gronk had full control of his own body and clearly aimed for the back of the guy's neck and head with his steel brace.

It was easily twice a bad as the next worst hit this year, so take Burfict's 3 game suspension for a far lesser hit during an actual play and double it. IOW, a 6 game suspension would have been in line with other punishments for far lesser hits. And no, Burfict's history doesn't matter because nothing in his history was nearly as bad.

 

[Opoponax]

Nevermind; already covered above.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There was few in the media shocked at the one game suspension. That is how the NFL deals with infractions like that. It is absurd and dangerous. Gronkowski could have permanently injured the player in a premeditated act of aggression.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

NEW YORK, NY — The stock markets dipped around 2.5%, over 600 pts, on Friday as news of Gronkowski being released from the concussion protocol become public.

The news ignited fears that the certain Hall of Famer will combine with an already dangerous offensive attack that will make a Patriots Super Bowl victory assured.

Market analysts fear that a Patriots victory will lead to a massive wave of depression and comatose like behavior which will result in a devastating blow to productivity nationwide.

The CDC released a warning indicating that such behavior could result in a significant drop in morale for no less than a week and could last in some regions of the nation for a month. “Such a drop in productivity will likely have a significant affect economic output” noted the CDC press release.

Economists are mixed, around 50/50, over whether a Patriots Super Bowl victory will drive America into a recession. “Only time will tell if those cheaters will ruin our economy,” noted former Fed Chairman Janet Yellen.

All eyes will be on stock market futures if the Patriots have a lead in the big game.

 

[blastula]

Yes, if NE loses, that would be a big pick me up for the nation. In these uncertain and troubled times, it will be a sign everything is going to be okay. If NE wins, darkness will continue to shroud the land. Groundhog Day Super Bowl.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

So, is the city of Philadelphia on fire yet?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

505 yds passing and still lose. That game looked more like a college bowl game. Congrats to the Eagles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TSwizzle]

As a neutral, I enjoyed the game. Some great plays in there, very entertaining. Half time show was decent but will not memorable.