McCoach and analytics

[Domdab99]

I haven't heard anything about whether McDermott is an analytics guy or not. I really don't want to see good schemes ruined by poor in-game decision making. He's an Andy Reid disciple, and while Reid is damn good at Xs and Os, he is a poor decision-maker when it comes to 4th downs, punting, FGs, etc.

 

Dennison seem to be a very good fit for Tyrod and our running game...but if we've got a 4th and 2 from the opponent's 41 and punt, or if we're down by 5 late, score a TD and kick the XP, I'm going to lose my ****.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Domdab99

[GunnerBill]

I haven't heard anything about whether or not McDermott is an analytics guy or not. I really don't want to see good schemes ruined by poor in-game decision making. He's an Andy Reid disciple, and while Reid is damn good at Xs and Os, he is a poor decision-maker when it comes to 4th downs, punting, FGs, etc.

 

Dennison seem to be a very good fit for Tyrod and our running game...but if we've got a 4th and 2 from the opponent's 41 and punt, or if we're down by 5 late, score a TD and kick the XP, I'm going to lose my ****.

I don't know any coach who doesn't go for two in the latter scenario. They all start playing the percentages that late in the game. As to the 4th and 2 from the 41... I am a believer that there is no definitive right and wrong. You have to make a decision based on the game situation and what you know about your team. Marrone got hammered a lot on here for punting on 4th down but normally he made the right call. He had an insipid offense and a defense that was very very good. Teams rarely went 80 yards and scored on them. In those situations sometimee you have to accept that as much as you want to be aggressive you team isn't built to win that way.

[Buddo]

I don't know any coach who doesn't go for two in the latter scenario. They all start playing the percentages that late in the game. As to the 4th and 2 from the 41... I am a believer that there is no definitive right and wrong. You have to make a decision based on the game situation and what you know about your team. Marrone got hammered a lot on here for punting on 4th down but normally he made the right call. He had an insipid offense and a defense that was very very good. Teams rarely went 80 yards and scored on them. In those situations sometimee you have to accept that as much as you want to be aggressive you team isn't built to win that way.

 

'Game situation' is very important, but also it's about, imho, which team has 'momentum', and how much that will change, depending on the success, or not, of 'going for it'.

 

Having said that, iirc, McDermott said in one of his pressers, that he intends to be aggressive in those types of situations, although I believe he was referring more to the traditional '4th and 1' scenario, but even so, that should make him more likely to 'go for it' on a 4th and 2 from around the 40.

 

Personally, I'm hoping he does pay as much attention to the first point I made, as possible, as getting those decisions right more often than not, is something that definitely helps you win games.

[Best Player Available]

I haven't heard anything about whether McDermott is an analytics guy or not. I really don't want to see good schemes ruined by poor in-game decision making. He's an Andy Reid disciple, and while Reid is damn good at Xs and Os, he is a poor decision-maker when it comes to 4th downs, punting, FGs, etc.

 

Dennison seem to be a very good fit for Tyrod and our running game...but if we've got a 4th and 2 from the opponent's 41 and punt, or if we're down by 5 late, score a TD and kick the XP, I'm going to lose my ****.

 

So punting from the 34 isn't a good thing? Many think it's a patented Bills play...... I just want him to go for the jugular no matter how big the lead is. here's too,hoping he coaches and his gameday decisions are more agressive than the HC's going back too Jauron.

[jeffismagic]

I think the way the question was asked to McDermott, any NFL coach would say, "Yes, I like to be aggressive." The word aggressive is the opposite of passive and NFL coaches aren't going to say they are passive as it doesn't sound manly. Remember Gregg Williams and making them defend every inch of the field?!

 

We won't know for sure until the real games start.

[thebandit27]

As jeff says, we won't know for sure until we see it play out on the field, but here's what he had to say about these exact issues:

 

http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/28/sean-mcdermott-buffalo-bills-analytics-fourth-down/

[mannc]

 

'Game situation' is very important, but also it's about, imho, which team has 'momentum', and how much that will change, depending on the success, or not, of 'going for it'.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the "momentum" argument, as a reason to ignore statistical evidence, has been pretty thoroughly disproven. It is utter nonsense. Edited May 18, 2017 by mannc

[4_kidd_4]

I'd like to see more surprise quick-kicks on 3rd downs. Keep 'em on their toes.

[mannc]

I think the way the question was asked to McDermott, any NFL coach would say, "Yes, I like to be aggressive." The word aggressive is the opposite of passive and NFL coaches aren't going to say they are passive as it doesn't sound manly. Remember Gregg Williams and making them defend every inch of the field?!

 

We won't know for sure until the real games start.

I think this is true, but I see some evidence that, with McDermott, it is more than empty rhetoric. As MAJ Bobby pointed out, the Bills' top three draft picks this year were all extremely highly rated by PFF and other analytics-focused sources.

[Domdab99]

Just want us to have a math guy in the booth with a computer program tha calculates EV for punting, FG, go for it type choices. And then telling the coach something like "going for it here is better than punting."

 

I know, it's not likely, but some team is going to be the first who does that, so why not us? 😎

Edited May 18, 2017 by Domdab99

[Domdab99]

And I'd like to politely request to please gtfo with any talk of "momentum."

 

"Trusting your defense" is another tired cliche. So a team is down by four with three minutes left in the game and it's 4th and 5 from midfield. Send out the kicking team and punt, right? "Gotta trust your defense to make the stop!"

 

No!

 

If you trust your defense to make the stop so much, have them make a stop after you fail to get the first down instead of punting! And that decision has the extra added bonus of some times you will make the first down. AND have more time on the clock to go down and score. Revolutionary thinking, I know. 🙄

 

So many times, coaches just want to "extend the game", even if that decision makes it less likely that they can win the game. Drives me crazy.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Domdab99

[PolishDave]

Just want us to have a math guy in the booth with a computer program tha calculates EV for punting, FG, go for it type choices. And then telling the coach something like "going for it here is better than punting."

 

I know, it's not likely, but some team is going to be the first who does that, so why not us?

 

And I'd like to politely request to please gtfo with any talk of "momentum."

 

"Trusting your defense" is another tired cliche. So a team is down by four with three minutes left in the game and it's 4th and 5 from midfield. Send out the kicking team and punt, right? "Gotta trust your defense to make the stop!"

 

No!

 

If you trust your defense to make the stop so much, have them make a stop after you fail to get the first down instead of punting! And that decision has the extra added bonus of some times you will make the first down. AND have more time on the clock to go down and score. Revolutionary thinking, I know.

 

So many times, coaches just want to "extend the game", even if that decision makes it less likely that they can win the game. Drives me crazy.

 

I liked your posts until you crapped on "momentum". It is real. Anyone who doesn't think so probably never played competitive sports. The word "momentum" can be substituted for "mental mindset" or "confidence" and yes it absolutely matters.

 

Momentum is the reason why an offense can step on the gas and score a touchdown quickly after the other team makes a mistake. (at least the good teams who exploit it - a.k.a - the Patriots) It really does exist. If a coach doesn't believe in it and doesn't exploit it, then he is leaving plays on the field that likely could have been made. It is one of the finer things about sports that can help separate winners from wannabe's.

[mannc]

 

 

I liked your posts until you crapped on "momentum". It is real. Anyone who doesn't think so probably never played competitive sports. The word "momentum" can be substituted for "mental mindset" or "confidence" and yes it absolutely matters.

 

Momentum is the reason why an offense can step on the gas and score a touchdown quickly after the other team makes a mistake. (at least the good teams who exploit it - a.k.a - the Patriots) It really does exist. If a coach doesn't believe in it and doesn't exploit it, then he is leaving plays on the field that likely could have been made. It is one of the finer things about sports that can help separate winners from wannabe's.

You could not be more wrong. http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2013/11/momentum-1.html?m=1

[jr1]

Poyer's not exactly a favorite of the analytics crew

[PolishDave]

You could not be more wrong. http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2013/11/momentum-1.html?m=1

 

If you call that evidence, I suggest you are very gullible.

 

That guy's analysis is completely flawed as it does not account for the fact that many teams do not try to exploit the other team's mistakes - for example - not every coach tries to throw for a touchdown immediately following an interception. And even the coaches who do it some times, don't necessarily do it every time. And some coaches almost never do it (ex: most - if not all? - of the Bills coaches over the last 15 years). You can't measure it accurately if you don't account for that. And that guy didn't account for that at all. He even admitted that he neglected to account for some momentum changing situations. In other words his math is complete and total bunk. It is entirely useless.

[mannc]

 

If you call that evidence, I suggest you are very gullible.

 

That guy's analysis is completely flawed as it does not account for the fact that many teams do not try to exploit the other team's mistakes - for example - not every coach tries to throw for a touchdown immediately following an interception. And even the coaches who do it some times, don't necessarily do it every time. And some coaches almost never do it (ex: most - if not all? - of the Bills coaches over the last 15 years). You can't measure it accurately if you don't account for that. And that guy didn't account for that at all. He even admitted that he neglected to account for some momentum changing situations. In other words his math is complete and total bunk. It is entirely useless.

I'm sorry, but that is a bizarre argument.

 

Did you even read the article? It is evidence and it's hardly useless. The fact that not all factors are accounted for doesn't make it "bunk". (The author links to other studies that come to the same conclusion.)

 

What is "bunk" is your totally unproven notion that "trying to throw for a touchdown immediately after an interception" somehow maximizes or improves a team's outcome.

 

How about this: Can you explain how this concept of "momentum" should affect a coach's decision whether to kick or go for a touchdown on 4th and goal from the 2? Or whether to punt on 4th and 4 from the opponent's 45 yard line? If not, then I submit that momentum is entirely meaningless, even if it is a real thing.

Edited May 19, 2017 by mannc

[Domdab99]

I'm only stating this to answer the claim I must not have played sports, not to brag: I played competitive tennis for half my life, including starting for a team that won a collegiate national championship and all-American honors. Coached for years, too. I also was an all-state receiver on my HS football team. So I have experience in both team and individual competition.

 

There is no such thing as momentum in sports as something that can be measured or captured.

 

There is will and pressure and talent. That's it. Yes, there are swings of luck and when things are going well...and I understand why some people want to call that momentum. It's a short-cut. I get it.

 

But it's not real. If there was such a thing as true momentum in sports, why or how would a player or team ever relinquish it? It's ridiculous. DUCY?

 

Now, let's get back to our coaches making optimum game management calls...

Poyer's not exactly a favorite of the analytics crew

Lol this true...I guess our coaches see something in him, though...