BarleyNY
-
Posts
11,597 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BarleyNY
-
-
They won by having the best qb ever.
They also win by using tendencies. Years ago, they played Minnesota who had the number 1 run defense. So they passed like 20 straight times to start the game. This type of scouting has been around forever. It's just that most coaches are kitty cats who are afraid to go past conventional coaching.
Again, you use all information available to you. But it's not nearly as important in football as it is in other sports. Qb play has killed this team the last 17 years more than analytics.
The Pats do have Brady, but they've also done a whole lot else right and it's been right in line with what analytics is showing to be advantageous. You couldn't be more wrong about the use of information in football versus other sports - it is absolutely as important in football. I'll just leave it there.
-
Analytics work best in baseball because there are fewer variables. Football has 22 players and is a game played on emotion.
You should use all the information you have but most of the analytic people haven't really ever played football. I don't want a coach who blindly follows a chart. If it's early in the game and you like the o line is playing, you should go for and not have to rely on some numbers.
FYI, teams have been using "analytics " when scouting teams and finding tendencies forever.
You think the Patriots have won by being more emotional? How can you type that with any sincerity? Analytics is not about blindly following charts, it's all about finding value and advantage by removing emotion from decision making and focusing on expected outcomes. You know, like Belichick has done.
-
It was pretty obvious that McD was in charge of this past draft precisely because it was far more analytics driven than previous ones.
-
After Monday's deadline a long term deal cannot be negotiated with Cousins until after the season. There is no way to work one out before then - and we'd need Washingtons blessing to even start talks. Since that's not happening trading for him now would get us him for the 2017 season and give us the opportunity to tag him again at $27.6M for 2018. The highest average contract value in the NFL right now is Carr at $25M so odds are extremely high that the bidding war would go on as scheduled.Who here would flip our (not KC's) 1st rounder next year for Cousins? I think Cousins is in the driver seat in regards to facilitating a trade if he really has no intention of re-signing with Washington. We're likely going to package our picks to move up and draft a big unknown. Cousins, while not elite, is a known commodity.
Why give up anything for a guy will be a FA? To avoid the inevitable bidding war.
-
I agree and understand what you are saying. I am looking at it more in a hypothetical and hindsight being 20/20. Take the SB win and then start the rebuild. It doesn't look as if Baltimore will be an elite contending team again till Flaccos current deal either expires or he is restructured.
I get what you're saying too, but 20/20 hindsight isn't a realistic way to look at situations like this. You can't uncouple the SB win and the contract Flacco got. Ozzie challenged him and the message was clear: If you want a blockbuster deal, earn it this season. Flacco stepped up as big as anyone could have and he earned his huge deal. Ozzie had no choice but to give it to him at that point. Can you imagine the backlash if he would have let Flacco walk right after that SB win? What if Flacco had gone somewhere else (Denver, Houston, etc.) and won there while Baltimore foundered and had to start over looking for their next QB? Ozzie would've been run out of town. At the time Flacco got his deal there was a slew of teams that would've jumped at giving him the deal he got because he was playing that well. At the time no one saw this kind of drop off coming.
Ozzie made the logical choice at the time. Knowing what he does now about Flacco's fall off, sure I'd bet he wishes he would have let him walk. But who knows how that situation would've played out? And how is that helpful? Making a bad decision and getting lucky with it isn't much of a repeatable strategy.
Washington has till 4pm Monday 17th to sign Kirk long term .
That would also be the deadline for him to sign a long term deal with any team that would trade for him (hypothetically). So that option is off the table at that point too.
-
Anyone know if the franchise tag prohibits a trade? If they know he is gone after this year, why not trade him this year? Diminished value knowing he may be a one year rental, but still they probably could get some value.
It's discouraged, but not against NFL rules. Specifically teams can't franchise a player with the intention of trading him. Washington has certainly passed that test at this point. So he could be traded now. Trading him now wouldn't be the worst strategy, but they'd need to allow his agent to work out a long term deal with his new team. If that team is SF (as has widely been reported/speculated) then what would they give up to get him a year early?
-
I wonder if Baltimore would do that deal again. Newsome is an amazing GM, I am in no position to second guess him. I look at what Baltimore has been since that game.
It wasn't just about the deal, it was about how the situation played out. Ozzie told Flacco that if he wanted that blockbuster deal, then he had one season to earn it. Flacco responded by absolutely carrying the Ravens through the playoffs and to a SB win. So he got his huge payoff for it. I'm sure Ozzie would take the SB win even with the subsequent issues. Let's face it, there's no way they move on from Flacco after that season he had. But I'm sure Ozzie loves that he pushed Flacco at the right time.
-
Kyle Shanahan just set his countdown clock for Kirk to join him in SFO.
Cousins to SF will be the least surprising FA signing next offseason. I'll laugh my ass off if Washington manages to free up enough cap room to tag him again though.
Flacco'em
I'm sure Washington would be happy to way overpay Cousins if he carried them to a SB win like Flacco did with Baltimore.
-
Agreed. Specifically those are my big concerns too. Taylor has struggled with timing and accuracy on anticipation throws over the middle and quick timing routes. I really like that he's being pushed in this regard because QBs must be able to make those kinds of throws to be successful in this league. He will either step up or the Bills will move on after this season.I also have questions about Tyrod's "fit" in this offense. I think a lot of people have presumed he is a great fit because of the way Dennison moves the pocket and rolls his QB out... but there is a lot in this offense that is about timing and footwork that flows back through Kubiak to Shanahan adopting much of Bill Walsh's 49ers offense when he was Seifert's OC and they are areas where it is fair to question whether Tyrod has demonstrated the necessary level of capability on tape. If he can master those facets he will be well on his way to being a very successful Quarterback.
You do.
-
NFL ad revenue goes limp, seeks a rise.
If only there was something you could take for that.
Highly lucrative drugs having their ads pulled? Methinks some patents must be expiring.
-
I'll admit I only skimmed the article quickly (on my phone) but I'm not sure it really defined why most of that was tyrods strengths. It seemed to mostly focus on why they are effective plays in the scheme.
Examples -- yes, playaction is great for putting pressure on a defense. Especially in a strong running offense. Question though- Tyrod struggles to see the field as is, so I question if turning his back to the line and having to turn back and make a quick read from a blind start is "playing to his strength." I'll say I've long thought his pre snap reads were a coaching concern so if he's turning back from the play action truly blind because of that (doesn't know where to anticipate the coverage to be from pre snap reads) it could be a disaster
Similarly, I think TT was very weak at getting the ball out in time an offense that seemed to have simple reads. Why is a quick decision focus playing to his strengths? If anything, I feel like we will either need a very simplified version of the scheme or if really throwing him in, it plays to some of his currently perceived weaknesses.
We will see if he steps up, or flames out hugely. Quick reads and throwing in the middle might see some of those ball security numbers that have truly been his strength go the wrong direction. It feels like the ideal would be keeping last year's basics with just a few added wrinkles and talent at WR
I was going to post almost the exact same thing and I agree with your subsequent points too. Tyrod will either step up in his problem areas and we will have our QB or he'll be out - and a WCO will absolutely showcase those areas. Pushing him to improve is absolutely the right move because this needs to be the season to find out if he can do it or not. Not to anoint Peterman or anything, but he's definitely a fit for the WCO. It's probably the only kind of NFL offense he has a chance to be successful in. It shows you the kind of QB the Bills will likely focus on acquiring if Tyrod isn't successful.
-
I think it probably was Rex that wanted Ragland, but ultimately Whaley had final say. Many GMs have failed because they listened to coaches instead of going with the players they preferred. Phil Savage talked about that exact situation as the one bit of advice he'd give to every new GM. That's what led to him choosing Wimbley over Ngata. He now knows the mistake was ultimately his own fault. The same goes for Whaley.Is it not clear as a bell that Rex is the one who desired Ragland and Whaley may or may not have agreed?
Rex's track record tells us what to expect. Anything out of Ragland is a bonus.
As for Ragland, I do expect some production from him in base and big sets. Again, just because a player is taken earlier than he should have been doesn't mean he doesn't hold some value.
-
Jesus, she didn't make enough money being a cop???
Come on Dareus. Just a few more weeks buddy.
Outstanding work by you both! I needed that.
-
Thank you I do rememeber you posting that earlier
Here is the thing.....the Jets took a LB who was a incredible "athlete" in the 1st round recently....that kid has the size....speed....all of it
I cant even remember his name....and while I dont remember anyone calling him a bust nobody is saying he is very good either
I love Ragland's size....his physical make up.....the way he plays the game. Instincts trump speed if the difference is speed is not super significant.......
But....we didnt get a chance to see it last year. Here is to a productive year from Reggie
The higher you draft a player, the more of both you'd want that player to be. It'd just as big of a mistake to highly draft a workout warrior that isn't a good football as it is to take a guy who is a great college player but doesn't have the physical ability to succeed in the NFL. Ragland's physical traits are a bit below the NFL average, but that doesn't mean they are terrible or that he won't make it in the league. It's important to distinguish between criticizing a GM for drafting a player too early or paying a player too much versus criticizing a player or calling one out as a bust. Players are drafted and paid based on educated guesses and virtually every one will either overperform or underperform their draft position or contract. GMs should be judged on how well they execute on those guesses, players on well they play. I don't think Whaley made a good guess with Ragland, but we have yet to see how good of a player he will be. Here's hoping he exceeds expectations.
-
No it means just what it says.....what do you mean he is a 2nd round talent.
There are plenty of players with 1st round talent that end up getting drafted in the 2nd round for one reason or another.......was it just the way the draft fell? Was it because Reggie had the heart issue in his medical?
I hit on the biggest factors regarding Ragland and his availability in the second round. Plenty more detail there, but here's the jist:
He has good qualities and certainly produced at the college level, but he did not test all that well physically and he came from the Alabama program. His SPARQ scores were only in the 33rd percentile of all NFL players at his position (starters and backups included) and Bama is known for maximizing their players' potentials so he's probably pretty topped out developmentally. A player who is productive in college, but is below average physically isn't a 1st round pick. I'd even question spending a 2nd round pick on a player with below average measurables unless I thought there was a good reason they were inaccurate.
I hope Ragland is a quality player for the Bills, but I wasn't excited about the pick when it happened. He looked like a "2 down LB" to me pre 2016 draft. These days 2 down LBs aren't on the field two out of three plays, they're only on the field about 30% of the time. It's tough to justify spending the 10th pick of the 2nd round on a player that is on the field so little. But that's a sunk cost. He's on the team and I hope we get quality play out of him even if it's only in base, jumbo and goal line defensive packages. I think he'll be fine in that regard, but I'd like more out of a player picked where he was. He should be judged on how he plays, not against where he was drafted though. That's not in a player's control.
-
The "experts" are out in full force.
Forgive us for talking football here on this football message board.
-
Shaq sucked last year.
Yes he was coming off an injury and a rookie, but call a spade a spade. He didn't look good.
Correct. Too many people here had high expectations for him when he got back to practice after game 8 and then on the field in game 10. I argued about it on a number of occasions. Lawson literally had zero NFL practices under his belt when he started practicing halfway through the season. And there's no way he could have been in proper shape. It's good he got some game experience to get his feet wet. That was important. We should have a very good idea of what we have in him by the end of this season/start of 2018. We just have to wait and see.
-
Too much significance is given to dead money. There are good and bad reasons for having it on the books. Out of context it really doesn't tell anyone anything of importance.
-
Yeah, it's always a great plan to count on someone being an exception to a rule.That's why Brady was drafted in the 6th and Wilson in the 3rd, and Favre and Brees in the 2nd, Montana in the 3rd.
In all honesty, Ragland holds some real promise. He's a good fit in the new scheme that requires LBs to play a lot of underneath zone. He's got a lot to learn about leverage in McD's scheme, but that role is a huge plus. He's a player that plays the run very well and did a great job of working through traffic and getting sideline to sideline in college. Plus he was an effective pass rusher which could make him a great player to move around and provide the defense with some real flexibility.
My concerns with him are all physical. Bama is known for getting everything possible out of their players at the expense of a lot of physical wear and tear. Lots of players come out of there beat up and having already topped out physically. Ragland is in the 33rd percentile of off the LOS LBs (SPARQ). That means he tested as good as or better than only 1 of 3 NFL players - starter or reserve - at that position group. Bama got him into as good of shape as imaginable so I don't think there's really any room for growth there. Then there's the physical nature of his play. That doesn't scream longevity or even 16 games a season to me.
The optimist in me sees a sledgehammer who could be a flexible, complete and very effective 3 down MLB in McD's scheme. The realist in me see some very real reasons why that won't happen to the extent we'd all like. I hope things click and all goes well. It'll be interesting to see.
SPARQ link:
-
He wasn't as talented as first round talents?
That's probably why he was drafted in the second round.
-
One must always remember, "it's hard to win in the NFL!"
Exactly. Every year has a difficult schedule for every team. There is a difference in the relative difficulty of teams' schedules, but those are fluid and not always easily quantifiable with statistics. Short and long term injuries and suspensions to key players on your own team as well as your opponents is huge. Catching the Pats once without Brady and instead facing an injured 3rd string QB sure made a difference in that one game last season. Bye weeks, off night games, order of games, weather, etc. all impact the real difficulty levels of games. So does the interplay of all of the above. You can take a stab at how difficult a schedule will be, but four weeks into a season it'll look very different. And four weeks later it'll look different again.
-
When he's healthy he's elite. How about letting him play a few game this year before we cut him? I bet if you were the Falcons GM you would have sent Julio Jones packing.
What is your bar for either franchising SW or giving him an elite level WR deal? What has to happen in 2017 for you to support either of those? And is it the same threshold or are there different ones?
-
Safety. We only have one starting quality safety on the roster. A team needs at least two. Tight end is shallow, but we only need to line up one starter. A franchise QB is obviously the most difficult to find and the most important, but we don't have a huge hole there with Taylor. He's not a FQB, but he's at least capable of being a starter in this league.
-
That it's a right doesn't mean it's the right choice or comes without response
Exactly. Consequences for one's actions and what not.
Cousins reportedly won't be re-signing in Washington
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yup. That's a killer. Washington let this play out to a point where they really can't trade him.