ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
He should be and would have been joined by the Chargers coach if Cleveland didn't miss that field goal. Going for it on 4th down in field goal range for the opponent when that opponent has Jacoby Brissett for their quarterback is the dumbest coaching decision I have seen this year.
He should be and would have been joined by the Chargers coach if Cleveland didn't miss that field goal. Going for it on 4th down in field goal range for the opponent when that opponent has Jacoby Brissett for their quarterback is the dumbest coaching decision I have seen this year.
Yeah I've defended some of his prior aggressiveness but in that situation it is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. You're up 2 and their entire offense is "Nick Chub runs really good" combined with a below average game manager quarterback and 1:30 left in the game.
They weren't even on the other side of the fifty. I was thinking theu were going to let the clock run and then take the delay penalty to try and coffin corner. Then they called a time out. 'Befuddled' is only the beginning.
To make things worse, LA's win chance lowers by about 5% if the punt. So obviously the coach made the correct choice.
He should be and would have been joined by the Chargers coach if Cleveland didn't miss that field goal. Going for it on 4th down in field goal range for the opponent when that opponent has Jacoby Brissett for their quarterback is the dumbest coaching decision I have seen this year.
At least Staley is warming the HC seat for Sean Payton to swoop right in and the Chargers start winning.
That's if Ol Dean Spanos can find a spine and give Sean total control.
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Is this really an advanced metrics failure? There has to be another metric besides win chance that takes into account all 3 of Brissett's interceptions have been in the 4th quarter and that Chub would be of little to no factor on a drive that starts deep in Cleveland territory with zero timeouts left. I was listening to Simmons a bit this morning and he was determined to frame this as an analytics vs common sense argument, but I think it was just a flat out wrong call. Staley either had too much respect for the Browns offense or not enough confidence in his defense.
Is this really an advanced metrics failure? There has to be another metric besides win chance that takes into account all 3 of Brissett's interceptions have been in the 4th quarter and that Chub would be of little to no factor on a drive that starts deep in Cleveland territory with zero timeouts left. I was listening to Simmons a bit this morning and he was determined to frame this as an analytics vs common sense argument, but I think it was just a flat out wrong call. Staley either had too much respect for the Browns offense or not enough confidence in his defense.
I din't really know. Staley was all in on the choice and I'd seen something (a tweet maybe) showing the slight drop in WP as a kind of acknowledgement of the choice. Never mind that the difference between one in five and one in four isn't exactly comforting.
Even with a touchback, forty to fifty yards with only a RB, a shit-ass QB, and no time outs, I'd like my chances. Rather than a mere ten yards and a kicker who had the distance.
Is this really an advanced metrics failure? There has to be another metric besides win chance that takes into account all 3 of Brissett's interceptions have been in the 4th quarter and that Chub would be of little to no factor on a drive that starts deep in Cleveland territory with zero timeouts left. I was listening to Simmons a bit this morning and he was determined to frame this as an analytics vs common sense argument, but I think it was just a flat out wrong call. Staley either had too much respect for the Browns offense or not enough confidence in his defense.
It’s based on the extremely high/near certain win chance of succeeding plus like 50% conversion percentages, but pundits etc will roast the shit out of you for 50% conversion percentages
The algos also assume you call the correct play, execute it, etc, and like Staley isn’t Nathaniel Hackett or Joe Judge or Cleveland Browns bad but there are definitely teams and coaches and team/coach combos where you just know they’re going to do something dumb and/or bad and their conversion success is like 3%, not the 50% average or like 80% Pat Mahomes would have, etc
And Monday Night Football in Missouri starts with the racism, because of course it does.
If the KC crowd are going to insist on doing that, then the NFL needs to a) not show crowd shots, and b) cut all volume. I'd hope for c) add a disclaimer as to why, but I don't see that on the table.
And Monday Night Football in Missouri starts with the racism, because of course it does.
If the KC crowd are going to insist on doing that, then the NFL needs to a) not show crowd shots, and b) cut all volume. I'd hope for c) add a disclaimer as to why, but I don't see that on the table.
NFL and MLB don't care even though both fan bases are mega racists for doing it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
They could force them to change the team nickname and the fans would still do it for spite. Humans, it appears, were a mistake.
They could keep the name and colors and exploit western European imagery. Plenty of badass Gallic and Celtic chiefs to draw from. Fans would stop doing the war chant if you give them something good to replace it with.
They could force them to change the team nickname and the fans would still do it for spite. Humans, it appears, were a mistake.
They could keep the name and colors and exploit western European imagery. Plenty of badass Gallic and Celtic chiefs to draw from. Fans would stop doing the war chant if you give them something good to replace it with.
Heck, it's been mentioned before that they could keep the names and colors, and just change the symbol to a fireman.
They want to wallow in their racism.
EDIT - They could even have a "fire siren" chant if they wanted to.
Cool, so you strip the ball from the QB, gain possession and become the ballcarrier, fall on the QB (who no longer has the ball), and it's roughing the passer? WTF?
So we're just done with going after the QB now?
I have no issue with protecting the QB, but we're getting into "can't play the game anymore" territory.
I have issues with Chris Jones the person, but that was as clean and perfect a strip sack that even Aaron Donald would applaud it.
He even tried to brace his fall as much as he could.
But to me, it still comes down to the foul occuring AFTER possession had already been stripped. You want to call it unnecessary roughness, or something? I'd still hate it (because what's that defender supposed to do?), but it at least doesn't revert a change of possession that happened prior to the foul.
I don't think throwing the flag there was wrong. At-speed it's probably pretty hard to tell whether or not the defender braced. I guess it should have been picked up but I'm not mad the flag was thrown, like with Brady.
But also tbh I watched the Thursday night game and, uhh, this game is shit when defense dominates so I'm at least begrudgingly okay with maybe a little too much protection of QBs.
Yea I didn’t watch the game but I was reading the comments and wondering if the NFL chose to make another shitty roughing call just so they can say “see we don’t favor Brady”
+3
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
I don't think throwing the flag there was wrong. At-speed it's probably pretty hard to tell whether or not the defender braced. I guess it should have been picked up but I'm not mad the flag was thrown, like with Brady.
But also tbh I watched the Thursday night game and, uhh, this game is shit when defense dominates so I'm at least begrudgingly okay with maybe a little too much protection of QBs.
If the ball wasn't clearly out till the players hit the ground I could see erroring on the side of caution, but the ball was clearly loose and Jones is securing it before the flag is thrown and before their momentum finishes carrying them to the ground.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
"I think at a minimum, they need to make roughing the passer reviewable." - Aikman.
Oh, fuck you, NFL.
Making me agree with Aikman?
Fuckers.
Clearly Troy doesn’t remember what happened the last time they made a judgement call penalty reviewable.
You mean when the refs got every review wrong just to get the point across they are not to be questioned?
Not all of them! There was a PI call the Vikings challenged (for or against can't remember), that got overturned. And the Vikings won the game, which knocked the Saints out of the playoffs.
Yes the Saints somehow managed to get screwed on a Vikings PI call when they weren't even playing
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Weren't there a bunch of questionable calls at the start of preseason this year and the speculation was the refs were doing it on purpose to try and flex on everyone?
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
"I think at a minimum, they need to make roughing the passer reviewable." - Aikman.
Oh, fuck you, NFL.
Making me agree with Aikman?
Fuckers.
It didn't always need to be but the refs simply can't tell when a quarterback is properly tackled or not anymore. Once they added the shit about putting your weight on him its become too damn hard to officiate in real time.
"I think at a minimum, they need to make roughing the passer reviewable." - Aikman.
Oh, fuck you, NFL.
Making me agree with Aikman?
Fuckers.
It didn't always need to be but the refs simply can't tell when a quarterback is properly tackled or not anymore. Once they added the shit about putting your weight on him its become too damn hard to officiate in real time.
I think this is accurate but to me it just means they need to rescind that addition because yeah, tackle someone but don't you dare fall on them is borderline nonsensical.
Roughing the passer needs to be a thing (and the penalty should be extremely severe, like I'm ok with 25 yard penalty and ejection) but it needs to be directed at actual intents to injure. Like "Oops I suplexed the QB" or "Oops I accidentally stepped on every joint of the QB's legs a few times while trying to get up, my bad"
But "I fell down while pulling someone to the ground" shouldn't be included unless it also includes an addition of "so I kneed them in the sternum while elbowing them in the head because how dare they make me fall down while tackling them."
Watching live I thought that roughing the passer call was bullshit. It was a wonderful defensive play. But everything in this game is now about the passing game and quarterbacks because that's what everyone is watching for.
Of course they are going to protect and support the guys selling us insurance and pizza.
Watching live I thought that roughing the passer call was bullshit. It was a wonderful defensive play. But everything in this game is now about the passing game and quarterbacks because that's what everyone is watching for.
Of course they are going to protect and support the guys selling us insurance and pizza.
The issue becomes if it starts swinging games.
The two egregious ones this weekend don't appear to have.
The Bucs one denied the Falcons an extra opportunity, but I'm not confident that it would have mattered. Could have, but not likely.
And last night, the team screwed by the call still won.
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
"I think at a minimum, they need to make roughing the passer reviewable." - Aikman.
Oh, fuck you, NFL.
Making me agree with Aikman?
Fuckers.
It didn't always need to be but the refs simply can't tell when a quarterback is properly tackled or not anymore. Once they added the shit about putting your weight on him its become too damn hard to officiate in real time.
I think this is accurate but to me it just means they need to rescind that addition because yeah, tackle someone but don't you dare fall on them is borderline nonsensical.
Roughing the passer needs to be a thing (and the penalty should be extremely severe, like I'm ok with 25 yard penalty and ejection) but it needs to be directed at actual intents to injure. Like "Oops I suplexed the QB" or "Oops I accidentally stepped on every joint of the QB's legs a few times while trying to get up, my bad"
But "I fell down while pulling someone to the ground" shouldn't be included unless it also includes an addition of "so I kneed them in the sternum while elbowing them in the head because how dare they make me fall down while tackling them."
I understand the principle behind your post but the thing is, these rules have nothing to do with preventing intent to injure. Quarterbacks are paid a lot of money and when you lose a good one it can ruin a team's season. The Brady rules were about protecting investments in franchise players, not preventing or punishing dirty play.
"I think at a minimum, they need to make roughing the passer reviewable." - Aikman.
Oh, fuck you, NFL.
Making me agree with Aikman?
Fuckers.
It didn't always need to be but the refs simply can't tell when a quarterback is properly tackled or not anymore. Once they added the shit about putting your weight on him its become too damn hard to officiate in real time.
I think this is accurate but to me it just means they need to rescind that addition because yeah, tackle someone but don't you dare fall on them is borderline nonsensical.
Roughing the passer needs to be a thing (and the penalty should be extremely severe, like I'm ok with 25 yard penalty and ejection) but it needs to be directed at actual intents to injure. Like "Oops I suplexed the QB" or "Oops I accidentally stepped on every joint of the QB's legs a few times while trying to get up, my bad"
But "I fell down while pulling someone to the ground" shouldn't be included unless it also includes an addition of "so I kneed them in the sternum while elbowing them in the head because how dare they make me fall down while tackling them."
I understand the principle behind your post but the thing is, these rules have nothing to do with preventing intent to injure. Quarterbacks are paid a lot of money and when you lose a good one it can ruin a team's season. The Brady rules were about protecting investments in franchise players, not preventing or punishing dirty play.
Brady kicked a defender after a sack. It was never going to get called.
1. Is there a form of football that can be played where QBs are “sacked” once a defender reaches a certain depth past the LOS or snatches a flag/snitch or something?
2. Would the potential strategies/play changes be exciting enough to overcome missing out on the joy of Josh Allen holding a dude at bay with his left arm while no-leg frozen-roping a 40-air-yard sideline pass, or Pat hitting the control stick spin-into-shovel-flick super move?
Posts
Yeah I've defended some of his prior aggressiveness but in that situation it is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. You're up 2 and their entire offense is "Nick Chub runs really good" combined with a below average game manager quarterback and 1:30 left in the game.
To make things worse, LA's win chance lowers by about 5% if the punt. So obviously the coach made the correct choice.
At least Staley is warming the HC seat for Sean Payton to swoop right in and the Chargers start winning.
That's if Ol Dean Spanos can find a spine and give Sean total control.
I din't really know. Staley was all in on the choice and I'd seen something (a tweet maybe) showing the slight drop in WP as a kind of acknowledgement of the choice. Never mind that the difference between one in five and one in four isn't exactly comforting.
Even with a touchback, forty to fifty yards with only a RB, a shit-ass QB, and no time outs, I'd like my chances. Rather than a mere ten yards and a kicker who had the distance.
It’s based on the extremely high/near certain win chance of succeeding plus like 50% conversion percentages, but pundits etc will roast the shit out of you for 50% conversion percentages
The algos also assume you call the correct play, execute it, etc, and like Staley isn’t Nathaniel Hackett or Joe Judge or Cleveland Browns bad but there are definitely teams and coaches and team/coach combos where you just know they’re going to do something dumb and/or bad and their conversion success is like 3%, not the 50% average or like 80% Pat Mahomes would have, etc
Percentages made up for illustrative purposes
If the KC crowd are going to insist on doing that, then the NFL needs to a) not show crowd shots, and b) cut all volume. I'd hope for c) add a disclaimer as to why, but I don't see that on the table.
NFL and MLB don't care even though both fan bases are mega racists for doing it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Outside of the Chiefs fucking themselves (see Week 3), you gotta take chances against KC or you're going home sad.
They could keep the name and colors and exploit western European imagery. Plenty of badass Gallic and Celtic chiefs to draw from. Fans would stop doing the war chant if you give them something good to replace it with.
Heck, it's been mentioned before that they could keep the names and colors, and just change the symbol to a fireman.
They want to wallow in their racism.
EDIT - They could even have a "fire siren" chant if they wanted to.
So we're just done with going after the QB now?
I have no issue with protecting the QB, but we're getting into "can't play the game anymore" territory.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
But it was a game-swinging call and appeared to be complete fucking bullshit. Fuck this nonsense.
He even tried to brace his fall as much as he could.
But to me, it still comes down to the foul occuring AFTER possession had already been stripped. You want to call it unnecessary roughness, or something? I'd still hate it (because what's that defender supposed to do?), but it at least doesn't revert a change of possession that happened prior to the foul.
But also tbh I watched the Thursday night game and, uhh, this game is shit when defense dominates so I'm at least begrudgingly okay with maybe a little too much protection of QBs.
Same as the Brady call yesterday. Completely undercut the ability of the Falcons to get back into that game.
As someone said on Twitter...
"Brady getting that RtP was the worst call all week." - NFL fanbase/commentariat
"Hold my beer." - MNF.
If the ball wasn't clearly out till the players hit the ground I could see erroring on the side of caution, but the ball was clearly loose and Jones is securing it before the flag is thrown and before their momentum finishes carrying them to the ground.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Oh, fuck you, NFL.
Making me agree with Aikman?
Fuckers.
I'll be in my bunk.
Clearly Troy doesn’t remember what happened the last time they made a judgement call penalty reviewable.
You mean when the refs got every review wrong just to get the point across they are not to be questioned?
Not all of them! There was a PI call the Vikings challenged (for or against can't remember), that got overturned. And the Vikings won the game, which knocked the Saints out of the playoffs.
Yes the Saints somehow managed to get screwed on a Vikings PI call when they weren't even playing
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
It didn't always need to be but the refs simply can't tell when a quarterback is properly tackled or not anymore. Once they added the shit about putting your weight on him its become too damn hard to officiate in real time.
yup
Ah, the "Sean Payton Bowl" I see.
I always wonder if they left any evidence of that and why no one went looking for it
I think this is accurate but to me it just means they need to rescind that addition because yeah, tackle someone but don't you dare fall on them is borderline nonsensical.
Roughing the passer needs to be a thing (and the penalty should be extremely severe, like I'm ok with 25 yard penalty and ejection) but it needs to be directed at actual intents to injure. Like "Oops I suplexed the QB" or "Oops I accidentally stepped on every joint of the QB's legs a few times while trying to get up, my bad"
But "I fell down while pulling someone to the ground" shouldn't be included unless it also includes an addition of "so I kneed them in the sternum while elbowing them in the head because how dare they make me fall down while tackling them."
Of course they are going to protect and support the guys selling us insurance and pizza.
Someone pitch this to Jon Bois
The issue becomes if it starts swinging games.
The two egregious ones this weekend don't appear to have.
The Bucs one denied the Falcons an extra opportunity, but I'm not confident that it would have mattered. Could have, but not likely.
And last night, the team screwed by the call still won.
I understand the principle behind your post but the thing is, these rules have nothing to do with preventing intent to injure. Quarterbacks are paid a lot of money and when you lose a good one it can ruin a team's season. The Brady rules were about protecting investments in franchise players, not preventing or punishing dirty play.
Brady kicked a defender after a sack. It was never going to get called.
2. Would the potential strategies/play changes be exciting enough to overcome missing out on the joy of Josh Allen holding a dude at bay with his left arm while no-leg frozen-roping a 40-air-yard sideline pass, or Pat hitting the control stick spin-into-shovel-flick super move?