One thought on the game, in a particular order

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, OCinBuffalo said:

No I do not want 5 starting caliber CBs. That's not what I am saying, because of course the cost is prohibitive. 

 

Put it this way, if you are talking about #1/#2 CBs as defined by people like Gilmore(high pick, big $ FA type, shut down corner), and having 5 of those? Not what I am saying at all. In fact, what I am saying is the opposite. Do NOT put too many resources in 1(or even 2) guy, and then have 3-4 scrubs on the field with them in nickel/dime. That defeats the entire purpose, because, as I have already stated, they target the scrubs.

 

No. What I am saying is I want "good enough" corners. In fact, I would not mind if 3rd round became "corner round". We get starter-level, but not "gonna leave and get huge $ in FA"-level, because that is counterproductive(See: Clements, Gilmore) to the entire plan. Spread the risk, spread the cash, make sure we have 5 decent guys. Approach it as a swarm, etc. This way we have a rolling group of 9 DBs(7 on roster, 2 on PS) and we think in terms of the group, not in terms of individual players.

What you're asking for is pretty much what they had to start the season.  Then Davis went nuts and Gaines got hurt.  Your model does not take injuries or roster restrictions into account.

 

Where is your evidence they put all their eggs into one CB?  White is a star and on a rookie contract.  Johnson looks like a really good slot and Wallace shows promise.  How is what they are doing different that what you want?

[K-9]

27 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

I don't insist on impact plays not having impact.

 

I do insist that ST have a diminished, nearly down to 0, impact on all games in a season, or just on one team's schedule. The sheer scale of total # plays / # of ST plays should tell you what is in fact obvious: there simply aren't enough ST plays to have a high propensity for impact. Again, probability, not existence. Impact ST plays exist. However, due to the rule changes and skill of the kickers and punters, their propensity for impact is approaching 0. Put another way: Does Devon Hester make an NFL squad today? No. 

 

I don't need luck. I've been doing this before it was called Business Intelligence, never mind before it was called Analytics. 

You are a dog with a bone here.

 

Did the RARE special teams gaffes we committed today have a negative impact on OUR particular ability or lack thereof, to win the game?

 

Yes or no.

 

If yes, great. You, like Tim Graham and the rest of us, have a firm grasp of the obvious.

 

If not, I reallly don’t care. But your position that rarity equates to irrelevancy with regards to whether a special team play can have  a negative impact defies common sense. 

 

The rest of your analysis is not interesting to me as it relates to the issue. 

 

On another note, you come across as bitter about not getting proper credit for your efforts in creating analytics. Get over it. 

[CSBill]

4 hours ago, OCinBuffalo said:

I have a rep for managing the threads I start. Again, ask anybody. Don't take it any other way than proper thread management.

 

Is thread management like a game management QB? 

[OCinBuffalo]

43 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is true the rule changes particularly on kickoffs diminishes really big plays.  But  I would be interested in your stats background.  I have taken grad level stats and can tell you that the stats thrown around in football are commonly off base.  Advanced multivariate analysis would be needed to properly analyze things given the multitude of factors that influence any single play

You are correct: there was this clown named Charlie Joyner about 10 years ago that had perhaps the worst modeling I've ever seen in anything, and he was applying it to football. The question for me always goes back to relevance, which means scale. How many things are we counting? If it's football plays in a season, ST statistical relevance is now....approaching 0(there, make everybody feel better). Also, I've found mode is much better than mean for most things. Sounds stupid, but actually....

 

Background: I helped design many, many databases, then workflow schemas, and then the predictive modeling that uses them. I helped create spyware, and all that modeling for that. I do a lot with what most would call microtransactions now. I sorta created a new "language" and system for what I would call microservices. Well, I think I did. I don't know what it does, which was how I designed it. Users are 100% in charge of what it does. So, whatever you did, you fix! No calling me  Full abstraction, all virtual, all encrypted, all the time. We then help out users with analytics if they want, and that's where I keep my hands in technically.

Edited December 10, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

45 minutes ago, K-9 said:

You are a dog with a bone here.

 

Did the RARE special teams gaffes we committed today have a negative impact on OUR particular ability or lack thereof, to win the game?

 

Yes or no.

 

If yes, great. You, like Tim Graham and the rest of us, have a firm grasp of the obvious.

 

If not, I reallly don’t care. But your position that rarity equates to irrelevancy with regards to whether a special team play can have  a negative impact defies common sense. 

 

The rest of your analysis is not interesting to me as it relates to the issue. 

 

On another note, you come across as bitter about not getting proper credit for your efforts in creating analytics. Get over it. 

No, I am just OCinBuffalo. Nobody created analytics. That's a marketing term anyway. The human race created it. We all have had a hand in it, like it or not. Every time somebody throws together numbers/data, and tries to see if there's a relationship, they're creating analytics. There's not much for me, or anyone else, to be bitter about. 

 

How about this: think of it in Moneyball terms(and yeah the movie is...a movie). Should you cut a better cover CB, in favor of a better ST CB, even if neither is a "starter", and both will probably spend 80% of their snaps this season on ST? No. Not ever, ever, ever in Moneyball terms. That's what I am saying.

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

What you're asking for is pretty much what they had to start the season.  Then Davis went nuts and Gaines got hurt.  Your model does not take injuries or roster restrictions into account.

 

Where is your evidence they put all their eggs into one CB?  White is a star and on a rookie contract.  Johnson looks like a really good slot and Wallace shows promise.  How is what they are doing different that what you want?

Again, if we are talking about the last 15 years: my evidence is overwhelming. Nate Clements et al.

 

You may be right, but, Nate Clements was a star on a rookie contract once too. 

 

How? Simple: you're talking about 3 guys. As I said in the OP, we can now get, grudgingly, people to finally admit there are 3 "starting" CBs on a team. Actually, there are 4. So, for a start, for some progress towards reality and away from belligerence, I'd be happy if we can just get there. Can we all get to admitting there are 4?

 

EDIT: The real problem is, and while is has the appearance of semantics, this is not the case, the word "starting". Teams use packages. All packages are not equal. We use 3 LBs + 2 CBs a hell of a lot less than 2 LBs + 3CBs(nickel). Hell, we use 2LBs +2CB +1S more than 3 LB. And about 20%(swag) of the game we have 1 LB+4CB in there. That's 20% exposure if that 4th CB is a scrub.

38 minutes ago, CSBill said:

 

Is thread management like a game management QB? 

Hey, is the ball moving down the field in this thread, with the usual fits and starts?

 

Or better: has anybody turned this into YAAT(Yet Another Allen Thread)? Nope. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by OCinBuffalo

[oldmanfan]

34 minutes ago, OCinBuffalo said:

No, I am just OCinBuffalo. Nobody created analytics. That's a marketing term anyway. The human race created it. We all have had a hand in it, like it or not. Every time somebody throws together numbers/data, and tries to see if there's a relationship, they're creating analytics. There's not much for me, or anyone else, to be bitter about. 

 

How about this: think of it in Moneyball terms(and yeah the movie is...a movie). Should you cut a better cover CB, in favor of a better ST CB, even if neither is a "starter", and both will probably spend 80% of their snaps this season on ST? No. Not ever, ever, ever in Moneyball terms. That's what I am saying.

Again, if we are talking about the last 15 years: my evidence is overwhelming. Nate Clements et al.

 

You may be right, but, Nate Clements was a star on a rookie contract once too. 

 

How? Simple: you're talking about 3 guys. As I said in the OP, we can now get, grudgingly, people to finally admit there are 3 "starting" CBs on a team. Actually, there are 4. So, for a start, for some progress towards reality and away from belligerence, I'd be happy if we can just get there. Can we all get to admitting there are 4?

 

EDIT: The real problem is, and while is has the appearance of semantics, this is not the case, the word "starting". Teams use packages. All packages are not equal. We use 3 LBs + 2 CBs a hell of a lot less than 2 LBs + 3CBs(nickel). Hell, we use 2LBs +2CB +1S more than 3 LB. And about 20%(swag) of the game we have 1 LB+4CB in there. That's 20% exposure if that 4th CB is a scrub.

Hey, is the ball moving down the field in this thread, with the usual fits and starts?

 

Or better: has anybody turned this into YAAT(Yet Another Allen Thread)? Nope. 

Your idea does not take into account injuries which are a prime reason you have lower tier guys or scrubs called onto the field.

[Bing Bong]

7 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

This is not gonna be liked. Too negative. You better make another post about all the positives you see. Otherwise you will be a troll. 

You've picked up the mob mentality well my friend

 

How is this game pissing so many people off? Did we not learn to check out of 2018 Bills football after witnessing some of the worst performances in the first half of the season imaginable?

Edited December 10, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[formerlyofCtown]

7 hours ago, OCinBuffalo said:

Well, here we are again, at this time and place of the season, with practice squad heroes, street FAs, and backups of backups....

 

...STARTING...as our defensive backs == CBs, safeties, whatever. This allowed the Jets back into a game where they were physically beaten in the trenches, both sides, just like last game. So please, tell me again about how things are won upfront...when we win upfront, and still lose the game. 

 

It's literally been 8+ years of the same exact thing. Again, we began the game with only one true starting NFL CB on the field, when we need 4. And, #1 guy decides to *%&* the bed. Which only reinforces the point: you can't expect a single CB to be the answer to all things passing in a season.

 

I have defined this problem, albeit obsessively,(but can you blame me after a decade+ of being right, and no action/change?) since 2005. We still have people, be they posters here, or decision-makers in the FO, or idiot media, that can't seem to process this simple concept: "it's a passing league", and teams do not have 2 starting CBs, they have 4. 4! Even if one grudgingly agrees that a slot CB is a starter(= 3rd LB only on field 30-40% of snaps => is he a starter?), it seems near impossible for that person to understand that you need a 4th corner to cover today's TEs/4 WR sets/RB out of the backfield today. Again: 4 Starters.

 

It makes no difference if you have 2 stud CBs. Today's QBs are simply going to find whoever is being covered by your #3-4 guys and throw it to them. And if anybody gets hurt?  How many times must we repeat the lesson? This is rapidly approaching Orwellian denial of reason. Why is there such a blind spot on this?

 

Answer: because at draft time, when we take a CB in the 4th round, or any round? Clowns abound screaming about how we could have taken a C/T/G. For literally 13 years the same nonsense: draft O line is the dullard's answer to everything, and yet: nothing.

 

You think I'm being overly hard on this point? Wait until the draft pick threads. When we take an any-round CB: same old crap from the same old posters.

The five of you that feel this way should join a therapy group or something.

2 hours ago, CSBill said:

 

Is thread management like a game management QB? 

Wow guy must go to high level business meetings. He needs a representative to manage his threads.