slyng1

Come on man - the timeless classics: Reed, Thomas, Kelly, Smith...

There is a thread on this topic which already had 77 replies (or more by the time i click add-reply): http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?showtopic=96724

Hey all. I dug around and found that interview that 60mins did with Bill Bellichick. I don't think CBS has the entire piece available on the web, but they have a big chunk of it. Jon Fox also gives his comments regarding all the new statistical analysis and database technology these coaches use. You can find it here: Text/Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/...ain;contentBody Video Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=644...ated;photovideo Like I said, I think the full interview is not on here because I remember them specifically talking about the 4th & short (just out of FG range) vs. Punting -- where you are statistically better to go for it b/c the odds of a touchback are so high you don't gain much field position by punting. Anyway, this interview was from 2004 (you can tell based on the technology they are using). Imagine the advances since then... Pretty interesting stuff...

I applaud you for trying to fight the good fight and presenting the analytical framework for why you should go for it there (given the circumstances) but I'm guessing that it'll fall on deaf ears. It's long been ingrained that you always "take the points" no matter what - regardless of the circumstances. And it's a lot easier to call you a nerd/smarty-pants than address the logic of your arguments. I'm with you though, I say go for it. There is an expected probability of making the 1st down (>50%, maybe as high as 75%). You can then adjust that up or down based on your own team's experience: Buffalo was 2 for 2 on 4th down conversions in their first 2 games (adjust up), but had just lost a starting lineman(adjust down). Weigh that versus the likely outcome if you don't make it. In this case, since we were on the 2yrd line, there is a chance they get sacked in the endzone (given leftwich's lack of mobility & throwing motion this isn't that far fetched of an outcome), there's a chance they throw an interception, there's a chance you make them go 4-and-out, and there's a chance they drive it 98yards for a touchdown. Another common mistake is assuming that by doing the above analysis the Analytical/Go-For-It crowd are trying to criticize Jauron's decision. I don't think that's necessarily the case. Perhaps Jauron thinks that the odds of us making the 1st are only 30%, the odds of us getting a safety are 5% and the chances of them driving the field are 64%, then his expected value of going for it is 0.3(7)+.05(2)+.01(7).64(-7) = 2.1 + 0.1 +.07 - 4.48 = -2.21. Obviously, you never make decisions that give you a negative expected value, so if those were the right percentages, you kick the FG. Obviously, I think those percentages are totally WRONG, but that's a different argument than just saying "take the points". IMHO, We probably have a 60-70% chance of making it and if we don't make it Tampa has maybe a 10% chance of driving 98yards in under 2mins with no (or 1?) timeouts. It's an imperfect science, but that's not a reason to completely disregard the science/math behind the decision. And to answer someone else's question, I remember watching an interview that Bellichick did with 60 minutes a few years ago where he talked about just these types of analyses (expected value vs. punting vs. FG, etc).

They also have some classic throwbacks - tempted to get a Thurman Thomas jersey... They also have Kelly, Reed, Smith, all in different styles.

He's not the entire issue for sure, but he's certainly part of the issue. Anyway here's the link if anyone cares: http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/...-danger?cnn=yes

There's some rumor at the bottom of CNN that if the dolphins lose they might consider Henne. Not sure how much truth there is to that. Nasty drop by Ginn there...

This call baffled me and I'm glad you brought it up. With your team up by 10, it's a 2 score game with or without the field goal. If you kick a field goal, you're up 13 and it's still 2 scores. Sure, in the UNLIKELY event your opponent misses the extra point on his 2nd TD, you have a tie whereas you might not have had you gone for it. If you go for it and either a) get a first down and run more clock, or b) get a TD and make it a 3-score game . ANd if you don't get the 1st, you have a decent shot of getting a safety. It made zero sense to kick the field goal in my opinion.

The man makes a good point. The bookies, who are a tough crowd to beat, say the game will be somewhere between a touchdown and a field goal difference. Those predicting a blowout are probably hopefully wrong. I mean lets face it - They (the Saints) allowed Detroit to score 27 points in their home opener. A rookie QB went into New Orleans and put up 27 points against this team...Detroit for god sakes...the same team that went 0-16 last year! And then this week a back-up QB put up 22 points against them and gave the saints 3 interceptions. I didn't watch that game, but with three INTs and a fumble early in the 3rd quarter, the Eagles made a ton of mistakes and I'm guessing made the saints look alot better than they really are. It won't be an easy game by any means, but at least we're at home and if we can play without too many mistakes we definitely have a shot...

I wouldn't call him a dick, but it's a far cry from the 31-6 he predicted in this morning's MMQB (page5, near the bottom):

If you're a consensus top 10 pick, I just can't imagine why you would go back to school. Look at Sam Bradford: He would have gone top 10 (perhaps even before Stafford/Sanchez) and he went back and got a nasty shoulder injury last night (granted, it might only be 2-4wks, so it's not *that* bad) but why not cash in and do the troy aikman route and finish up your last year whenever you've got the free time. Not to mention a whole lotta money in the bank...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude Philosopher and sociologist Theodor Adorno defined schadenfreude as “largely unanticipated delight in the suffering of another..." -- Although to be fair, I'm pretty sure everyone on this board could have anticipated the delight many would feel if Peters sucked big time. But the season hasn't even started. I think it'll be more appropriate to laugh when & if the Eagles lose as a result of Donovan McNabb not being able to stay upright. And I would argue that his performance is very pertinent to us as Bills fans. If he sucks, we'll feel better about our front office's evaluation of talent. If he has a few more all-pro seasons we'll be upset that Russ & Ralph decided not to pay the man an appropriate salary for a top-flight left tackle. So just like when we had an article per day about McGahee when he left, get ready for plenty of Peter's updates throughout the year. It's only natural, we want to find out who got the better end of that trade. So far, it's way too early to tell...

As a Joe Schmoe, I am qualified to answer this. It's pretty much exactly what the slotting would have predicted. And if the slotting proves as predictive about the Guaranteed $ as it did about the total contract value, that should be about $15mm give or take a million.

If it makes you feel better about yourself to call someone "Einstein" then good for you. I was merely sharing my observations that the salaries & guaranteed money are extremely predictable given last year's curve and given this year's curve and that the OP's original projections aren't too far off the mark. Your post: "How do we know the agent doesn't want more..." - WOW, What Insight - did it take you long to figure that one out, Captain Obvious?

Uhhh...That's the point of my post -- it's easy to see what he *should* get, given other player's numbers. Clearly him & his agent want more than that. Not sure why you have to come w/ the "Einstein" barb...

At the risk of coming off as a complete dork, I put the following together (in a spreadsheet, but there's no good way of posting that here). The first is a table of picks 1-15 in 2008 and 1-15 in 2009. The second is a graph, showing Guaranteed money & Avg per-year salary. The 2008 data gave me a pretty good fit, but I didn't bother to post the chart. Table (hopefully the pics come out): Graph for 2009 (including "line of best fit"): Using the 2 linear regression equations gets you: y = -2.0805x + 39.585, so x=11 (since maybin was picked 11th) you get $16.699mm in guaranteed money. For his salary: y = -0.6905x + $13.389 = $5.7935 So, since 5yr contracts seem to be the norm, his pay package should be: $28.96mm with $16.7mm guaranteed. However if you look at last year, the avg salary tends to drop off quite a bit out of the top 7 or 8, which i dont' think is captured in that equation. So if you ding his salary a bit, but keep the guarantee, I get very close to the original poster's $25/5yrs w/ $15mm guaranteed. I mean it passes the smell test...counting down from the 15th pick, your total salary totals is $18...$19...$20...$23...??? I'm no genius but 25, 26, or 27 are all acceptable answers here... Ah yes...If only it were that simple. EDIT: Ok, doesn't look like I can embed a picture in this post. Table of Salaries: Chart of Salaries & Guarantees

Buffalo's QB+WR+RB = zero points K = 10 points Corner = 6 points MORT's Son = -7pts

Chris Mortenson's son is playing... And they just panned to Chris... I think i just threw up a little in my mouth... [praying for an interception]

I really like how that last play was designed...

Actually i take that back, I think that was bowen right there (although the announcers were busy pontificating about something and didn't call his name out...)

Quick question: Is Alvin Bowen back in action (recovered from his injury)? Is he slated to play at all in pre-season games? Haven't heard his name called.... I did miss the first 20mins of the game or so, but he wouldn't have played then anyway....

nice run by xavier...forgot about that guy!

I was reading the following post on the Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/219198-...ay-out-of-a-job Would be interested in hearing people's view on this. The article/post makes some interesting points but overall tries to re-write history a bit much for my taste. I.e. the "nail in the coffin" against pittsburgh in 2004 is not really accurate. I believe the kick would have put us up by 4pts near the end of the 3rd qtr. Not exactly a nail in anyone's coffin with a full qtr to play and only a 4pt lead... We ended up losing that game by 5... The 2006 example vs. Indy is a decent example (I suppose). That kick would have given the Bills the lead (they were down 17-16 with 6mins left vs. the future super bowl champs) and it was only a 40ish yard attempt. Probably should have hit that one. With respect to the Browns game, our offense could have found a way to get the guy closer in the closing minutes of that game (run-run-run i believe were the final 3 play calls for virtually no gain) and that kick was close to 50yrds in the wind, so it was no gimmee. But that one did hurt... He also neglects to mention the 2007 game vs. Redskins. You remember the game that Joe Gibbs called 2 Time outs in a row to try to ice Lindell? Rian made both of those kicks, the first from 51yards out and the second from 36 after the unsportsmanlike penalty. That kick was to win the game. (as a footnote, he made 5 FG in that game, scoring all but 2 of our points). Or what about last year's game winning field goal against the lowly raiders in game 2 as time was running out? So yeah, you can point to a couple examples where maybe he should have made a kick and he didn't but overall, i'd say the jury is still out on whether Lindell is a "clutch" kicker or not. Thoughts?

I think it would be interesting to go back and compare these so-called expert's pre-season power rankings and compare them to actual results from the season they were ranking. My guess is that there'd be a pretty healthy divergence between the two.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4216401