Thurman#1

Yeah, he or Night Train Lane would have been my guesses. I forgot Krause. The great point from the article is that a lot of the reason is how much shorter and more precise the passing game has become. In the Rams locker room following their Week 1 win against Carolina, Talib and fellow cornerback Marcus Peters, who has the most interceptions in the league since 2015 (now at 23 after a pick-six in Week 4), got into a spirited debate about whether the latter could ever catch Krause’s record. “It’s impossible!,” Talib shouted. “No, no, no,” Peters replied. “You trippin, bro. I got 22 right now.” “Yeah, you in Year 5,” Talib says. “Listen…” “I’m on pace to do 60!,” Peters interjects. “Then you’re 21 off 81!,” Talib exclaims. Krause, meanwhile, sits comfortably with his unattainable record.

Among other things, that nearly all NFL teams buy PFF data. The reason they do so is that they value it.

NO, based on this, we're trading straight up ... based only on how people have played the last few weeks. And nobody would make trades based only on that. PFF doesn't throw in very very obvious stuff like the fact that Allen has a major excuse for problems that Mariota doesn't have in that Allen has played - what? 17 games? Plus salary, when someone will get a 2nd contract ... there are thousands of other factors. Nobody would base trades on only this. PFF is only talking about effectiveness so far this season.

Sure, maybe two or three percent of plays will be right on the line, as far as accurate. Hard to call. The vast majority, though, could be agreed on by most reasonable people. And nearly every NFL team buys PFF's data. They wouldn't do that if PFF wasn't damn good at what they do.

PFF is good. Not perfect, of course, but they're very good, and they don't tailor the stats to what they want to find. Now, do the watchers find their perceptions are interfered with somewhat by their preconceptions. Yup. Same as every single human being in the history of history, but PFF still does a good job.

Shouldn't be. Win/loss is a team stat, not a QB stat. IMO that's a bit low for Josh. But not horrifically low. He's been consistently inconsistent.

Too early to say, but it's been good for both sides. My sympathies are usually with the injured person. They know better than doctors if they're still suffering symptoms. Glenn was a good teammate here. Concussions are serious business, and Cincy should back down a bit. A second opinion is a very very reasonable thing.

Really interesting article, I thought. https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/10/02/nfl-interception-rate-decline And it made me wonder who has the record for most INTs in a year in the last ten years and it's what I thought: ... a five-way tie with nine INTs between 2012 Tim Jennings and four guys in 2009, Asante Samuel, Darren Sharper, Charles Woodson, and the legendary Jairus Byrd. One of the most interesting bits is that the career INT leader is a record that may never be broken, it's the DiMaggio's 56 hits record of football. EDIT: Yeah, it's Krause, with 81. Nice call for those who knew. I didn't till I read this excellent article. Excerpt: "Of all the great NFL records, sneakily the most unattainable is the interceptions crown. Rod Woodson played 17 years and still came up 11 picks short of topping Krause. Charles Woodson, who has 65 career interceptions, would have had to duplicate his two best seasons and tack those on to his 18-year career to beat out Krause. Aqib Talib, the 12-year corner for the Rams, is the NFL’s active leader in interceptions—with 35 career picks, he’s tied for 128th on the all-time list." Another excerpt: “The schemes and stuff are more detailed. It’s elevated,” Talib says. “Back when he had 81 picks, guys were probably running fades and slants. There was probably one receiver in his three-point stance. The receivers are bigger and faster and the quarterbacks, the game is getting way more detailed. We have to be that much sharper.” The three-point stance is an exaggeration, but it’s inarguable that the passing-game concepts are far more precise today than ever before. The average yards per completion have decreased in the modern era, though not as steadily as the interception rate. Offenses have replaced handoffs with screen passes. The first-down run has turned into a quick hitch on first-and-10. There are quick throws to the flat and RPOs where “you’re throwing only high percentage short passes so not even if it’s not a successful play it’s probably not an interception,” Brown says.

Equally, though ... why? Your expectation is actually a guess. And a very optimistic one. Nothing wrong with that, except confusing guesses with something that should happen. It could happen. The odds are well against it. Yeah, a much more reasonable guess.

He's always pretty classy. I don't see this particularly as classy. Normal and positive, really. And for that matter, Zay was classy too, this year and generally, outside of his breakdown.

Duke was less "open" there than he was nicely boxing out the DB, IMO. That guy was right up against his back, and there was little separation. It was a nice route, but I didn't see a lot of space there. Again, hope I'm wrong about this, which certainly could be. Hang on, which side of this vicious little OSU contretemps do you come down on? Because there is only one correct side. ;- ) Was there really a case about that? I always thought the ESPN announcers came up with that massive stress on the article. Did OSUers themselves start it?

Yes, that's what I meant, and I couldn't agree more about your suggestion of a nickname. D'haquille "The Duke" Williams would be great, and I withdraw my original objection and support your nickname here wholeheartedly. You'd have to say "D'haquille," and nobody seems to do that ... seems like Duke is a contraction of the first syllable, but the way you wrote it here works. And as you say, nobody called him "The Elvis" Presley or "The George" Steele.

10%? No reason to think so. Five of the 32 1st rounders drafted in 2018 have already made a Pro Bowl. Seven from 2017. Seven from 2016, ten from 2015, seventeen from 2014, twelve from 2013, thirteen from 2012, and I could go on. More like a 30 - 40% chance each of those two years. Not to mention that they also get a 4th rounder. Great trade for Jax for a very unhappy player. Yeah, but in fairness, he said that before the 2018 season.

They got two 1sts and a 4th for him? Wow! Good deal for the Jags.

"The" Duke? Yuk. Unless he starts to refer to himself this way, this is like calling a guy, "The Bob," or "The Ted," or "The Alexander." I like the guy, though. Everytime I hear about him it's impressive. I'm just afraid he won't be much more than a tough guy who can make contested catches but can't find open space. Hope I'm wrong about that.

The Bills themselves are their biggest challenge. If they're good enough to challenge the best in the conference, they'll make the playoffs. If they're not good enough, it won't matter if they make the playoffs.

This. Tannehill's worse, and a lot of the problem with Mariota is really a problem with the OL and the surrounding talent.

I don't think he's blackballed. It's less complicated and less nefarious than that. He's just a living walking distraction, and coaches don't want that. I support his political stance totally but I don't want him on the Bills both because he's a distraction and because he's not good enough to help the team out enough to overcome the problems brought by the distractions. Agreed he's absolutely a top 64 guy, but if I were a coach I'd pick a different top 64 guy as my backup, because like McDermott and most (not all but by far most of them) NFL coaches, I think distractions degrade team performance.

No, Stafford has never won a Super Bowl. But neither has Tom Brady. Brady has been on a Super Bowl-winning team. But he didn't win a Super Bowl. That was the entire roster of the New England Patriots and the coaching staff besides. Wins are a team stat. All a QB can do is play QB at a very high level. He can't control how well the defense plays or how often the kicker misses FGs in crucial situations. Or much of anything else. Having said all that, I'm not sure if I'd accept a Stafford-like career. I haven't really watched enough of him consistently to know him well enough. My feeling is that if I really did the research I'd probably say yes. But I can't be bothered to put in the work. Too hypothetical. From what I have seen he's been a top ten guy most years, and if that's so, then yeah, I'd be happy. Not sure if my perception is true, though.

Me too, but that isn't Matt Stafford, it's the Lions. Wins is a team stat.

No, if fans look ahead it could affect how many nutsy, wacky, incorrect predictions they make.

Because nobody corrects all the incompetent coaches and players. If fans could correct bad playcalls, poor game management and player mistakes, the games would go on for weeks. The refs do a damn good job, for human beings at ground level.

Yeah, I've often thought that. The problem is that it could lead to too many challenges. Challenges can help correct mistakes, but they also lengthen games and can often themselves prove to be mistakes.

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder if you could edit these first few paragraphs so we can better understand what you're doing. Are these the stats for each guy's first six games of their rookie year? The whole rookie year? The first 16 games they played? The first five years? What?

Pretty accurate? Hardly. Some are pretty close, but most are personal, short-term and subjective. Look at his take on Bridgewater. "WINNING GAMES AS BACK UP BUT BREES WILL BE BACK." Yeah, but you could just as correctly say, "Showing some signs he could be a franchise guy down the road. Too early to say, but it's definitely possible. Could he replace Brees in a couple of years or will he refuse to re-sign and look elsewhere?" Or Mariota: "BENCHED TODAY FOR TANNAHANZ." Yes, but short-term and misleading. You could just as reasonably say something like, "He is going to have to show himself as a consistent starter soon, or he may not be perceived as one. What he does the rest of the year will be crucial." Or Goff: "FOLDING LIKE A LAWN CHAIR WEEK BY WEEK." That's supposed to sum up Goff? Pathetic. More like "Has shown he can be excellent for long periods of time. The offense is having problems early this year, though they're still scoring points, but Goff needs to get it together." These are mostly very pessimistic, apparently to make Allen look better in contrast. And Allen won't look better or worse in contrast. You need to look at him himself. That's what will matter. Putting down other QBs, or praising them for that matter, won't affect how Allen is viewed. How he plays is the only thing that will matter. So far he's improving. But needs to improve a lot more. Which is very very reasonable for a QB as young as he is. Time will tell. And time will tell is not pessimism, though it may feel that way for those looking for ways to inflate perceptions.