Coach Tuesday

Yes. And not to nit, but he should’ve had a third TD if he had read the coverage right. A- for him.

Edmunds and Oliver dominated today. Star was fantastic too. Bass.

Edmunds and Oliver had their best games as pros. Both of them were dominant today. Star had a great game too.

The Texans won a game this year?

Update on Milano?

And it’s better than Barber/Mowins.

Well, Fox should be ashamed of CBS.

This is, start to finish, the worst quality of production I’ve ever seen in an NFL game. Fox should be ashamed of itself.

Graded by whom? Everyone in the Kitchen Sink offense was out of sync. If you watched Teller when he was here you saw a highly athletic player who moved around extremely well but needed development with his pass sets. He repeatedly pancaked defenders during the preseason. Whereas Ford has always played heavy-footed and soft.

Sorry not buying this. It cannot possibly be this difficult to find a professional guard who fits their “scheme.” Teller is clearly good enough to play in any scheme; Ford is so bad he’d bomb out of any scheme. The more likely scenario is that Beane has an issue with evaluating interior linemen. Could also be an issue with the coaching staff and scouts not being on the same page but what should be the easiest position in the NFL to fill has been a constant weakness for this group.

Poyer was injured by Edmunds tackling HIM instead of the ballcarrier fyi.

No excuse for the Bengals’ D to play this poorly.

Puppy Bowl

Cody Ford's NFL career is on life support. He is FAILING.

Bills have the easiest remaining schedule in the league per Football Outsiders.

No matter what happens, Peter King will write an article.

Didn’t the Texans trade for Tunsil after his fifth year option was picked up?

Same poster.

Not even in the top five for the OP.

I know that - but my point is he’s still comparing two consecutive seasons in each “set,” looking for correlation. If you read the study linked to above, the author basically concludes that forcing interceptions and fumbles is close to random, too, which makes little sense. Also, is he counting fumbles out of bounds as “recoveries” by the offense? If so that will skew the results. To do the study right I think you’d want to exclude those, perhaps by only measuring recoveries of fumbles by the quarterback (since they tend to occur toward the middle of the field/in bounds more often than not).

I’ve read that article before, but I went back and read it more closely tonight after you linked to it. I’m no statistician but it strikes me as problematic. If I understand correctly what he’s done, he’s measured teams over two-year periods to look for correlation between what he calls “drive rate” (which appears to be some kind of accumulation of points, yards and turnovers per drive) and measured each to test whether forced turnovers correlate to drive rate. He concludes that the variance/unpredictability of defensive turnovers between years 1 and 2 demonstrates that turnovers are “random,” because “if a particular measure closely represents actual ability, then that stat will hold relatively consistent from one year to the next.” The data set may be flawed - 2 years is both too short, in that there may not be enough turnovers to measure correlation, and too long, in that - as he notes - teams change out players every year. But also, I just don’t understand how he gets to his conclusion that a high variance from year 1 to year 2 means it’s random. There could be a multitude of factors explaining the discrepancy; there could be some additional factor he’s not accounting for, etc. He never fully explains it other than to say, “by far the least predictable of these drive rate stats is the defensive turnover per drive rate. This suggests that defenses have relatively little persistent ability to force turnovers.” Does it? Couldn’t it mean that defenses that fail to produce turnovers might excel at other things resulting in “successful” drive rates (however he’s measuring it), such as keeping the play in front of them and making tackles (Jauron Ball)? Maybe forcing and recovering fumbles is really hard, and a great defense that fails to force a fumble on second down is able to get a drive-ending sack on third down instead. We need more information and analysis than what he’s put forth in this article. And finally, he concludes by remarking, “Whether there are some individual players with a special ability to force turnovers significantly above average rates would be an interesting subject for further study.” Note that if this is a possibility, the converse is also possible: perhaps there are some individual players with a below-average ability to cause turnovers. Which brings us full-circle…

Lost in all of this Edmunds discussion is the fact that Milano through three games is playing at All Pro level.

The above ^^ is what YOU SAID. Now you're moving the goalpost. Why don't you just admit you didn't watch the clip being discussed? Because if you had you would never have called it an example of "a MLB blanketing his coverage like he was a Tre White clone." HE LITERALLY TAKES TWO STEPS TO HIS LEFT TO DISRUPT A PASSING LANE. Please. There are reasonable bases to defend Edmunds' play, and then there's hyperbole and outright mythology.

Allen dismantled their entire defensive strategy. It must be disheartening to be a WFT coach today.

What? You realize teams practice fumble recoveries right? Whether a ball bounces towards or away from the offense is a random event that, over the course of a season (or several), should even out. But when it bounces toward the defense, WHO recovers it on that defense is not completely random, no. Some players have a knack for being around the ball, which starts with processing where the ball is on the field - something Milano excels at and Edmunds does not.