BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 You score every time you get the ball. /thread. damn straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) This ^. From the half yard line, that almost shouldn't be factored in. Yes, sometimes teams don't score TDs first and goal from the one, but when talking about how many points should have been scored off 6 turnovers it's essential to talk about where you got the ball. We started drives off turnovers at the Jet 33, 50, 1, 31, 10, and 14. Maybe the better question is how many points should an offense score if you get six possessions from these spots on the field. And that's not counting the momentum shift at all. It's more than 20 I would say. It should be at least 24. i ended up pulling the link above which charts expected score based on having a first down on any given yard line. i didnt pull out the calculator and add it up as i got sidetracked but a quick run through put it mid 20s. which means average would be 1 more of those FGs being TDs, roughly. i think what made it additionally look bad was how little movement we got on several of the FGs. if they strung together 4-5 plays for 20-25 yards before kicking it have not felt quite as gloomy as the negative yardage FGs... even though the scoreboard would have read the same. Edited October 31, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This ^. From the half yard line, that almost shouldn't be factored in. Yes, sometimes teams don't score TDs first and goal from the one, but when talking about how many points should have been scored off 6 turnovers it's essential to talk about where you got the ball. We started drives off turnovers at the Jet 33, 50, 1, 31, 10, and 14. Maybe the better question is how many points should an offense score if you get six possessions from these spots on the field. And that's not counting the momentum shift at all. It's more than 20 I would say. It should be at least 24. +1 at least 30. 21 + 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 i ended up pulling the link above which charts expected score based on having a first down on any given yard line. i didnt pull out the calculator and add it up as i got sidetracked but a quick run through put it mid 20s. which means average would be 1 more of those FGs being TDs, roughly. i think what made it additionally look bad was how little movement we got on several of the FGs. if they strung together 4-5 plays for 20-25 yards before kicking it have not felt quite as gloomy as the negative yardage FGs... even though the scoreboard would have read the same. Yeah. I was looking at it somewhat similar without looking at that link. Every coach and player would say that if you get the ball first down at the 10 or 14, you need to get a TD. But let's just say that is not going to happen all the time. So let's say that in the three drives that start at the 1,10 and 14, that's two TDs and a FG. That's 17 points. With Carpenter, getting the ball at the 31 or 33 is already FG range. We should be getting far more than 3 points off three drives that start at the 31, 33, and midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) i just totaled it up to 24.1 being the expected outcome, again for 2010-2014. looking at scoring, during that decade it hovered between 20-22ppg, with 22 in 2010 being the max, this year and last its over 23.... so ill go ahead and say we were about 5 points behind "average" with our outcome. 5 points wasnt a big deal sunday, but it could be huge in a lot of games. it doesnt sound like a lot, but its a pretty substantial gap. we were actually a little ahead of average on the 3 close ones (though, the outcome of a little over 15 essentially amounts to like you were saying - 2 tds and a FG being pretty standard) Edited October 31, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This ^. From the half yard line, that almost shouldn't be factored in. Yes, sometimes teams don't score TDs first and goal from the one, but when talking about how many points should have been scored off 6 turnovers it's essential to talk about where you got the ball. We started drives off turnovers at the Jet 33, 50, 1, 31, 10, and 14. Maybe the better question is how many points should an offense score if you get six possessions from these spots on the field. And that's not counting the momentum shift at all. It's more than 20 I would say. It should be at least 24. I just typed out a long response which was essentially what you said. Given that the average points per turnover is 4 (regardless of field position), I'd imagine the average points given where the Bills got the ball would be higher. Also factor in the 2-3 times the offense got the ball on the Jets side of the 50 because the D forced punts and I'd say the offense was pretty bad for most of the day. They had one nice drive and two big plays. Other than that I can't recall that they did much of note other than not turn the ball over (which shouldn't be overlooked.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsBackersChicago Posted October 31, 2014 Author Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Heres a link - surprisingly, based on 2000-2010 stats the total is pretty darn close to 24 it looks like. id tack on an extra point or 2 bad on how far offense have come since 2000, but not quite as far below average as i wouldve guessed. http://www.nflstatsblog.com/2011/08/fun-fact-chances-of-scoring-based-on.html Good stuff. The link I gave at the beginning comes to the same conclusion (expect 24 points). The data from both articles is based on your chances of scoring from a given distance from the end zone. The article I linked just uses the data to conclude the points that should be scored off turnovers while no saint's article uses the same data to conclude the points to be scored in general (regardless of whether u got their from turnover/punt/etc). It's essentially the same analysis. What is interesting to me is that my article uses data from several seasons prior to 2003 while no saints article uses data from 2000-2010. Given how much the league has changed to a pass heavy high scoring one, I am surprised that the calculated expected points (24) is the same. Thanks to everyone who did the legwork to post the actual drive starting positions and did the calculation of how many points were expected based on those starting positions. impressive that the mid 20's number (or 24.1 per no saint) still holds. It's nice when real life fits the model. Edited October 31, 2014 by BillsBackersChicago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 We let Jets hang around because we couldn't score on the first three. Personal fowl was a killer. We didn't have the killer ability and we needed that. That is what was fowl. Pins and needles until the fourth. Yup 20 over was nice but they didn't have to put us thru that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 This ^. From the half yard line, that almost shouldn't be factored in. Yes, sometimes teams don't score TDs first and goal from the one, but when talking about how many points should have been scored off 6 turnovers it's essential to talk about where you got the ball. We started drives off turnovers at the Jet 33, 50, 1, 31, 10, and 14. Maybe the better question is how many points should an offense score if you get six possessions from these spots on the field. And that's not counting the momentum shift at all. It's more than 20 I would say. It should be at least 24. Agreed. I think the stats lie a bit here. The incremental amount of yards that we needed to score was super low. The analytics department should have told Hackett that they effectively needed to only complete one decent (i.e., 15 yds) pass after each drive to score 3 TD's and 3 FG's. 1) 48-yd line (we gained only 4 yards)-- punt 2) 50-yd line (gain 5 yards)--punt 3) 1-yd line (gain 1 yard)--TD 4) 31-yd line (lose 4 yards)--FG 5) 10-yd line (lose 1 yard)--FG 6) 14-yd line (gain 14 yards)--TD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) Good stuff. The link I gave at the beginning comes to the same conclusion (expect 24 points). The data from both articles is based on your chances of scoring from a given distance from the end zone. The article I linked just uses the data to conclude the points that should be scored off turnovers while no saint's article uses the same data to conclude the points to be scored in general (regardless of whether u got their from turnover/punt/etc). It's essentially the same analysis. What is interesting to me is that my article uses data from several seasons prior to 2003 while no saints article uses data from 2000-2010. Given how much the league has changed to a pass heavy high scoring one, I am surprised that the calculated expected points (24) is the same. Thanks to everyone who did the legwork to post the actual drive starting positions and did the calculation of how many points were expected based on those starting positions. impressive that the mid 20's number (or 24.1 per no saint) still holds. It's nice when real life fits the model. ah, i didnt go through all of the links you had. it is very similar. the one i linked was even a little broader with it being any time you had a first down. so not even just change of possession. ill say, up until the last couple years, scoring has been pretty well in the 21 +/- 1 range, per game overall. from 1979-2009 only 3 years were below 20 and none above 22. in 2010 it hit 22 and since has continued to climb (22, 22.2, 22.8, 23.4 and this years at 23.3). so having a few earlier years compared to mine likely made little difference. essentially, the takeaway for us in the thread is that to be average (or likely just a shade below average) in those drives, we needed 1 more of those fgs to be a td - and thats just average, not great. instead they were all no gain drives. its not even like 1 was close. Edited October 31, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protocal69 Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) The BILLS considering that they got the ball inside the 50 on each of the turnovers in the 1st half should have scored at least 3 points per turnover. On our 1st 2 turnovers that we got inside the 50 we got 0 points. That is unacceptable. We should have at least been up at the min 13 points at the half. Agreed. I think the stats lie a bit here. The incremental amount of yards that we needed to score was super low. The analytics department should have told Hackett that they effectively needed to only complete one decent (i.e., 15 yds) pass after each drive to score 3 TD's and 3 FG's. 1) 48-yd line (we gained only 4 yards)-- punt 2) 50-yd line (gain 5 yards)--punt 3) 1-yd line (gain 1 yard)--TD 4) 31-yd line (lose 4 yards)--FG 5) 10-yd line (lose 1 yard)--FG 6) 14-yd line (gain 14 yards)--TD +1 Edited October 31, 2014 by Protocal69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Notice how it was almost 3.5 points per turnover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 This ^. From the half yard line, that almost shouldn't be factored in. Yes, sometimes teams don't score TDs first and goal from the one, but when talking about how many points should have been scored off 6 turnovers it's essential to talk about where you got the ball. We started drives off turnovers at the Jet 33, 50, 1, 31, 10, and 14. Maybe the better question is how many points should an offense score if you get six possessions from these spots on the field. And that's not counting the momentum shift at all. It's more than 20 I would say. It should be at least 24. The first TO drive started at the 48 after the Bradham penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) The first TO drive started at the 48 after the Bradham penalty. and you would expect at least 1 first down to keep the momentum. That puts the ball on the 38 which is the targeted FG range. Edited November 1, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 The first TO drive started at the 48 after the Bradham penalty. I clicked this thread because I am fascinated by how the discussion about "should points" has degenerated into medieval-style scholasticism. We are now arguing over a 4-point gap between what the Bills should have scored and what they did, which is rather different from the "we should be up 48-0!!111!!!!11!!!!!" comments that came from so many on this page during the game. We are now reduced to counting the number of theoretical angel TDs that can dance on the head of a pin, and yet the intensity is undiminished. The specificity of the modeling is even more amusing because I am sure that even if the Bills had gotten the "one 15-yard play" on the first two post-INT drives and kicked field goals, many of those same ranters would STILL be complaining that the offense didn't score touchdowns. It's an imperfect, fallen world, full of disappointment, terror, and ultimately death. The other team is also allowed to play defense. You don't always score when you wish you would. But hey, they won on Sunday. Hallelujah! and you would expect at least 1 first down to keep the momentum. That puts the ball on the 38 which is the targeted FG range. Why exactly would I, or you, or anyone else expect anything? It was early in the game, the Jets D was considered stout. Maybe they strapped it on and came to play. It happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 According to Hackett he loves the criticism. What a joke. He was actually taking credit for scoring all of those points, and ignoring the obvious fact that the offense has drastically underacheived this year. It was like he doesn't think Bills fans understand football, that we would think a high point total must mean the offense is doing great. What a weenie. He reminds me of Kiffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) I clicked this thread because I am fascinated by how the discussion about "should points" has degenerated into medieval-style scholasticism. We are now arguing over a 4-point gap between what the Bills should have scored and what they did, which is rather different from the "we should be up 48-0!!111!!!!11!!!!!" comments that came from so many on this page during the game. We are now reduced to counting the number of theoretical angel TDs that can dance on the head of a pin, and yet the intensity is undiminished. The specificity of the modeling is even more amusing because I am sure that even if the Bills had gotten the "one 15-yard play" on the first two post-INT drives and kicked field goals, many of those same ranters would STILL be complaining that the offense didn't score touchdowns. It's an imperfect, fallen world, full of disappointment, terror, and ultimately death. The other team is also allowed to play defense. You don't always score when you wish you would. But hey, they won on Sunday. Hallelujah! Why exactly would I, or you, or anyone else expect anything? It was early in the game, the Jets D was considered stout. Maybe they strapped it on and came to play. It happens. Because I never want to see the Bills go 3 and out!!! I expect a better effort. Its the Bills homer in me! Edited November 1, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) RJ - there's certainly some element of some days you'll be a little up, some a little down, and 4-5 points doesn't sound too crazy....but that's a pretty large gap in the nfl, and we haven't seen many situations where this offense has had the strong upward push that balances it out. If our goal is to not be 5-11 were probably good enough to beat that rather consistently as is, but if our goal is to be 10-6 and maybe win a playoff game we can't continue to be below average with our offensive officiency. Heck, I'll settle for middle of the pack, hence were talking another 4-5 last week instead of say another 10 to get up there with the good offenses. We are 2nd in average starting field positioning and something like 24th in average points per drive. We are 31st in yards per drive and 32 in plays per drive. These concerns are grounded in an 8 game sample at this point and showed even in our one high scoring game. In September I was much more wait and see, but it's november now and there arent a lot more chances to wait on. It's time to either figure out some tweaks or accept that we are going to be an offense that underproduces. According to Hackett he loves the criticism. What a joke. He was actually taking credit for scoring all of those points, and ignoring the obvious fact that the offense has drastically underacheived this year. It was like he doesn't think Bills fans understand football, that we would think a high point total must mean the offense is doing great. What a weenie. He reminds me of Kiffin. Yea - the way he framed it..... I get being a cheerleader for yourself and your guys but it certainly came off just as you described. Edited November 1, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 RJ - there's certainly some element of some days you'll be a little up, some a little down, and 4-5 points doesn't sound too crazy....but that's a pretty large gap in the nfl, and we haven't seen many situations where this offense has had the strong upward push that balances it out. If our goal is to not be 5-11 were probably good enough to beat that rather consistently as is, but if our goal is to be 10-6 and maybe win a playoff game we can't continue to be below average with our offensive officiency. Heck, I'll settle for middle of the pack, hence were talking another 4-5 last week instead of say another 10 to get up there with the good offenses. We are 2nd in average starting field positioning and something like 24th in average points per drive. We are 31st in yards per drive and 32 in plays per drive. These concerns are grounded in an 8 game sample at this point and showed even in our one high scoring game. In September I was much more wait and see, but it's november now and there arent a lot more chances to wait on. It's time to either figure out some tweaks or accept that we are going to be an offense that underproduces. I can completely understand that reasoned analysis. I would also like to see better efficiency and consistency--the middle of the DET and MIN games was terrible. If anything, third Qs seem to be this team's problem on offense more than any generalized scoring issue. But I also think that as a season progresses, each game is its own ecosystem of opportunities and coincidences, and I also think that even the best teams do go three and out and even turn the ball over. In the end, everyone here wants to see the Bills win, so I hope we all end up happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountainwampus Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 I suppose the points scored were adequate, but clearly the D did most of the heavy lifting to get the points. The last 2 times we faced the Jets, the offense couldn't move the ball or march down the field. Instead, the offense relied on big pass plays. In both games, it was feast or famine, either connect on a long bomb or it was a 3 & out. To win consistently, you need to sustain a drive once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts