Rew

Gah. I swear I checked all posts from today :/. Merge please

I'm surprised by nobody posted this yet. According to this report and survey of "22 NFL Execs" Josh is getting a couple bids for MVP, Mcdermott has a slim lead in coach of the year, and Beane has a solid hold on GM of the year. Josh and Sean are about what is expected. I was actually the most surprised about the support for Beane. I think he is viewed favorably here, but not many truly put him as "best in the league". Either way, it's great to see our organization represented in the conversation for multiple awards here. https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-execs-vote-on-awards-who-s-mvp-coach-of-the-year

This is still a possibility, but it's a bit more complicated. We'd be tied on conference record and it would come down to strength of victory. KC is currently ahead in SOV, a few games that other teams are playing would have to swing the right way for us to get ahead. That's why we preferred a KC loss to NO instead of ATL.

White

Josh has thrown to 12 different receivers. He also caught one, being the 13th.

I'd prefer it if we were the 2 seed and miami was 7 and we beat them with our starters in week 18.

I watched the whole video. I've never seen this segment before, but it's a neat premise. Some power rankings are basically a restatement of records, some are a list of superbowl odds, and apparently cowherd's list is a ranking of who he thinks would beat who today (based on recent play and current injuries). I did not expect rationality, but I was pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't put the bills as #1 in a power ranking, but based on his premise and data, I have a hard time disagreeing with him on the placement of the bills and chiefs. 5-10 is arguable, I would think the colts and potentially redskins belong there by his metric. Whatever else cowherd says, this was some decent content.

3 way tie doesn't work with a loss to saints. We needed them to lose twice in afc. Edit: I forgot their other loss was to raiders. Saints/chargers does work.

His ego got the better of him. He thought he could turn the corner and throw to kelce to pick it up.

Today is looking like the MVP odds will need an adjustment

I think the colts should win, but which raiders team are you going against is the question. The team that beat the chiefs and saints or the one that got blown out by the falcons and struggled vs the Jets? Jacobs is back and apparently healthy. I don't dislike the pick, but it has the feeling like it will swing strongly for you or against you. Some of the other ones will probably be a bit closer.

It's not quite that farfetched. We would be more likely to get 1st seed in a 3 way tie. I forget the key games, but it still seems more likely than the chiefs losing 3.

That's a tough slate. I like Hou over bears for a few reasons, but chicago is on a big skid and likely to have a bounce back game at some point. Atl over chargers should be a good pick, but either of those teams could lose any game at any point. SF over wsh could be good, but hard to judge SF effort after we eliminated them. You mixed up cle and gb, but I wouldn't touch either game.

Overall, what game are some people watching? We drove down to goalline nd they stopped us. They drove down to goalline and we stopped them. Moss fumbled on the 5. Looks about even other than the turnover. Good football so far.

Great work pulling this together. I'm not sure that AV is the perfect metric here, but I can't think of anything better (which is sort of the problem). A missing piece to this, and much more challenging to track, would be the inclusion of trades and some way of valuing based on draft location. If I understand your ranking correctly, any team that trades away picks will show up lower in the ranking and any team that habitually amasses draft picks should do better. One suggestion would be to average a teams AV per round and then rank based on round performance. This would also be controversial though, because it would rank 2 average players the same as drafting an all pro and bust. In that case, what is best? Someone who is risk averse would prefer the 2 decent players to just 1 blue chip player. I think the blue chip hit rate is likely going to be more correlated with team success.

We have one of the best performing right tackles in the league. Are you seeing something else in his performance or are you worried about contract?

This stat is a bit useless. It's close to saying "Mcdermott is undefeated when winning by more than 7 with less than 37 seconds left in the 4th" or "undefeated when the total score sums up to an odd number after 19 minutes of gameplay". You can look at any team and find a strong, winning record with a 2 score halftime lead. I thought today wasn't "that" bad. We played an ok game, while showing that we have better talent and coaching to lead and win so definitively with that many mistakes.

Defense is looking pretty good today.

Did you miss the first drive when the charges went 3 and out?

Crap. Fitz could win this

I can't find the link anymore, but the stated reason that kroft was on the list was that contact tracing identified him giving a 7 minute ride home to Norman. It's not like he's in the same position group to be in contact any other way.

Shoulder brace is off

To me clear and obvious would be of all officials call it and 9/10 neutral players and neutral fans agree, it's a clear and obvious call. If it's 50/50 on player/fans or even worse on officials then it is not clear and obvious. There is some line in between where you get most/all officials calling it the same and most neutral fans seeing it the same way. That's a good balance. Safety issues will likely be different as officials are asked to change the way the game is played, but for routine calls "clear and obvious" should be the same for most people.

The NFL and officiating group did not set out to make less holding penalties or higher scoring games. The change was well intended and inline with what most of us would hope for. They wanted to only call "clear and obvious" and get rid of judgement calls by officials (https://www.nfl.com/news/referees-focusing-on-clear-and-obvious-calls-as-penalties-drop). This was a focus made due to growing frustration with the perception of officiating bias or game deciding "ticky-tacky" calls(https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28022721/the-nfl-officiating-crisis-why-sound-alarm%3fplatform=amp). I'm not sure how they decided the line of "clear and obvious", but offensive holding and defensive pass interference are the 2 most "judgement call" type plays. It makes sense that these two penalties would have been the most impacted. Also, I agree that this could have been communicated to teams. Usually they bring up points of focus to teams with new things that will be focused on calling. This is sort of the opposite though, it's more a point of focus on calling more consistently across officials. It's hard to bring that up as a point of focus without saying "we screwed up" or "you can now get away with things".

It was an option route. Allen threw a great ball to the right guy but diggs and allen read the option differently. Sucks, but that wasn't an example of bad football. These are the routes that allen/Beas thrive on.