Box Score vs. All-22

[KD in CA]

I for one would love a weekly 'Official All-22' thread reserved for the handful of posters who know WTF they are talking about when they look at the film and can explain it to the masses of dopes (like me) who don't have the time, inclination or ability to do it for myself. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

I think both sides are arrogantly ignorant or over confident (especially some analytics guys). There is room for both and it should be viewed that way it is more productive overall. I sometimes feel each of the sides have the insatiable need to promote their thing. But, when I hear an analytics guy speak in absolutes, he is way too overconfident. Likewise, when I hear an All-22 guy speak condescendingly to others (PFF is the worst), they are just into self-promotion. Most people realize the best stuff is somewhere in between. I mean if the numbers and film don't match up, why not ask....WHY??

[Mango]

1 hour ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

I know ScottLaw and GG have argued vehemently that Edmunds isn't built for MLB because he isn't racking up tackles and that is what the MLB is supposed to do, or some dribble like that. It has been super obnoxious. 

 

Meh, I think you are wrong, but that argument is being had in enough other threads.  No need to do it here. 

 

 

Edmunds is ranked 6th for all MLB's in regards to total tackles and 26th for all defensive players. Unsure where that is coming from or if that was the intended point...

 

This might be a good example of my previous post regarding disconnect on overall points between the two parties. 

2 hours ago, Mango said:

 

1. I would separate Fantasy football, and stats. There are some that rely on probability in forecasting success, which is science, then their are the others who judge success on gaudy numbers. I think there is a difference between these two in terms of how they view the game. 

 

2. Edmunds has gotten, and deserves plenty of flack from the All-22 crowd.  In fact, I think people would be higher on him if not for the access to all-22 for your average fan. JA deserves both criticism for the way he has played and praise for improving his game. Both analytics and all-22 should reveal both. 

 

I actually don't see a huge gap between you analytics guys and your all-22 guys. Maybe because a lot of them dabble in both because problem solving/understanding is enjoyable to them. 

 

I think the big disconnect is between the people who operate via "feeling" vs. the more analytics base. They just communicate differently. I think when the analytics guys say "this is below average play, QB's/MLB's/DT's etc. who have x production generally result in y", fans who operate with their guts hear, " Player ABC is bad, and won't be good" and elicits that response. Inversely, when fans who operate based on their gut say "we won, lets keep on progressing", analytics based fans hear "good enough"...then everybody spends all week yelling at each other on the internet, and that is why message boards are fun. 

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Mango

[billykay]

1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:

Edmunds looked pretty good earlier in the year, but since the pats game has missed multiple assignments in the run game and regressed under misdirection run plays.

Edmunds is still only about 6 years out of grammar school. Having said that, he looks lost on running plays and is having a hard time shedding blocks and/or getting pushed out of the play.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, mjt328 said:

Over the last several years, I've noticed a growing divide between football fans.

1.  Those who rely on box scores, stats and fantasy football to determine how a player is performing.

2.  Those who look to All-22 reviews and film studies to judge player performance.

 

You can see this dynamic playing out on this very message board.  Post game, we all see the armchair GMs totally ripping into guys like Josh Allen, Ed Oliver, Star Lotulelei and Tremaine Edmunds for their "lack of production" and supposedly poor play.  But then the game film reports start coming out around Tuesday morning, and we learn these same players are actually doing a pretty good job.

 

As someone who is over 40 years old, I certainly understand the "old school" way of following the sport.  But at the same time, I feel like the traditional stat-hounds are going by the wayside.  Even sites like Pro Football Focus and their flawed scores are quickly becoming outdated.  There are too many resources available to regular fans for anyone to just say - "Player A sucks" - without providing some real tangible evidence.

 

I'm not looking to advertise for any particular websites, but I thought some of us could share our favorite sources for All-22 reviews.  Personally, I very much enjoy Cover 1.  They post quick little nuggets on Twitter, along with more extensive breakdowns on YouTube.  I also think Joe Buscaglia does a great job, although I admittedly haven't followed his articles as much since he went to the Athletic.

 

 

 

Stats matter and film matters. Usually the issue is most folks don’t understand what they mean.

 

one can have a great game on film and in the box score A horrid on in both, or a bajillion scenarios in between.

 

But it’s really all subjective and situarional, because the stats measured are still too archaic to correlate to the result, which is a win or a loss.

 

Interesting topic

 

[mjt328]

17 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Stats matter and film matters. Usually the issue is most folks don’t understand what they mean.

 

one can have a great game on film and in the box score A horrid on in both, or a bajillion scenarios in between.

 

But it’s really all subjective and situarional, because the stats measured are still too archaic to correlate to the result, which is a win or a loss.

 

Interesting topic

 

I think you hit the nail on the head here.  Stats certainly have their value, because they can often quantify what the film is showing.

But they can also be misleading, especially when they are cherry-picked.

 

 

[ILBillsfan]

if you do a search on film room josh Allen vs (insert team name here) they have been doing a nice break down on most of Allen's throws for that game.  Point out the goods and the bad.  Pretty good unbiased opinion on him they are looking at his foot work how he is moving the linebackers/safeties etc and they will also point out where he may have been wrong.  Take the dump to Singeltary in the Eagles game, they specifically called that out as a nice learning moment from Allen when he had seen the same thing in the Dolphins game and failed to get the ball out like he did in the Eagles game with that blitz vs that set.

[JESSEFEFFER]

4 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

The difference between the box score and the film is the box score doesn’t rely on individual interpretation, which makes it more accessible. Two fans can watch an All-22 play and believe two different LB missed their assignments.

 

The other difference is that the box score numbers have no context and I would say that the context always matters.

[Bing Bong]

Anybody playing fantasy football with defensive players is a dumb***. Remember that going forward

[GoBills808]

5 hours ago, mjt328 said:

Over the last several years, I've noticed a growing divide between football fans.

1.  Those who rely on box scores, stats and fantasy football to determine how a player is performing.

2.  Those who look to All-22 reviews and film studies to judge player performance.

 

You can see this dynamic playing out on this very message board.  Post game, we all see the armchair GMs totally ripping into guys like Josh Allen, Ed Oliver, Star Lotulelei and Tremaine Edmunds for their "lack of production" and supposedly poor play.  But then the game film reports start coming out around Tuesday morning, and we learn these same players are actually doing a pretty good job.

 

As someone who is over 40 years old, I certainly understand the "old school" way of following the sport.  But at the same time, I feel like the traditional stat-hounds are going by the wayside.  Even sites like Pro Football Focus and their flawed scores are quickly becoming outdated.  There are too many resources available to regular fans for anyone to just say - "Player A sucks" - without providing some real tangible evidence.

 

I'm not looking to advertise for any particular websites, but I thought some of us could share our favorite sources for All-22 reviews.  Personally, I very much enjoy Cover 1.  They post quick little nuggets on Twitter, along with more extensive breakdowns on YouTube.  I also think Joe Buscaglia does a great job, although I admittedly haven't followed his articles as much since he went to the Athletic.

 

 

This is a much more statistical-based analysis, but one of my favorite football websites is http://www.footballperspective.com/, he has a really unique way of looking at the game.

[Don Otreply]

6 hours ago, mjt328 said:

Over the last several years, I've noticed a growing divide between football fans.

1.  Those who rely on box scores, stats and fantasy football to determine how a player is performing.

2.  Those who look to All-22 reviews and film studies to judge player performance.

 

You can see this dynamic playing out on this very message board.  Post game, we all see the armchair GMs totally ripping into guys like Josh Allen, Ed Oliver, Star Lotulelei and Tremaine Edmunds for their "lack of production" and supposedly poor play.  But then the game film reports start coming out around Tuesday morning, and we learn these same players are actually doing a pretty good job.

 

As someone who is over 40 years old, I certainly understand the "old school" way of following the sport.  But at the same time, I feel like the traditional stat-hounds are going by the wayside.  Even sites like Pro Football Focus and their flawed scores are quickly becoming outdated.  There are too many resources available to regular fans for anyone to just say - "Player A sucks" - without providing some real tangible evidence.

 

I'm not looking to advertise for any particular websites, but I thought some of us could share our favorite sources for All-22 reviews.  Personally, I very much enjoy Cover 1.  They post quick little nuggets on Twitter, along with more extensive breakdowns on YouTube.  I also think Joe Buscaglia does a great job, although I admittedly haven't followed his articles as much since he went to the Athletic.

 

 

This^^^  And Cover 1 does a nice job imo. The game day threads ( 1st & 2nd half’s) are mostly unreadable with the drama divas flipping out and complaining endlessly over a handful of plays, and when it’s a given the Bills are gonna win they all mysteriously disappear, which is the best part of the game day threads imo. ?

 

Go Bills!!!

 

 

 

[billspro]

5 hours ago, warrior9 said:

I think the problem with evaluating from an All-22 perspective is..... We don't and will never know play calls and supposed assignments. We can guess, sure.

 

 

Take QB and LB for example.

But we will never know Josh's first read to where he delivers the ball. "Look Josh missed this wide open reciever!" But we will never know if the play was "Ok, let's go read one, read two, nothing there, we're moving out of the pocket now" 

 

By the same account. "Tremaine missed the A gap here and they ran right at him." We will never know if Star/Oliver/Phillips actually had a stunt and were A gap responsible on that play. 

 

True but cover 1 does a really good job figuring that out. 

[Utah John]

I have specifically watched Edmunds on the replays of running plays by the opponents.  He seems to be moving into a gap whether it's the right gap or not, and often just gets swallowed up while the RB slides through the space where Edmunds was at the start of the play.  Is he doing what he's told to do, or does he lack the ability to read the blocking and use his instincts to attack the right spot?  I can't answer that question.  However I suspect he's a natural Sam, not a Mike.  With his size, speed, and strength, he'd be great at covering TEs downfield.  His athletic skills are amazing, but his football IQ doesn't seem as great.

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, mjt328 said:

Over the last several years, I've noticed a growing divide between football fans.

1.  Those who rely on box scores, stats and fantasy football to determine how a player is performing.

2.  Those who look to All-22 reviews and film studies to judge player performance.

 

 

 

I'd argue that between both of those groups you have maybe 10% of all fans. And maybe 0.1% of fans actually go look through all the All-22.

 

It's far more like:

 

1.  Those who rely on box scores, stats and fantasy football to determine how a player is performing.

2.  Those who look to All-22 reviews and film studies to judge player performance.

3.  Those who don't watch or look at anything much after the game ends but social media and then scream about "the eye test," and "don't you watch the games?"

4.  Those who look at the NFL highlights later on.

5.  Those who look at a play or two on the All-22 if there's a lot of talk about it.

6.  Those who formed their opinions weeks or even years ago and do whatever will best reinforce their prejudices.

7.  The sensible folks who put the game away from about 4:30 p.m Sunday to about 12:30 p.m. the next Sunday.

8.  Trolls

9.  The ones who look at a lot of both the stats and the film.

 

... and frankly I could go on. My guess is that over 90% of fans don't fit either of your two categories.

 

 

 

Oh, and PFF does an excellent job. They're not perfect at all, but they're fine. They're limited in that they don't get the calls, the playbooks and game plans, but neither do we or anyone else. Everyone is limited in those ways, and yet the film is less limited than many insiders claim it is. Having said that, certain areas of play are more opaque than others to film breakdown leading to understanding. But again, most NFL teams pay PFF for their analysis. They wouldn't do that if PFF wasn't good at what they do.

 

Stats can never tell the whole story but they are absolutely a reflection of what happened on the field. And film leaves a lot of room for evaluation analysis, categorization and conclusions. And that means lots of room for mistakes.

 

Both have their strengths. Both have their weaknesses. One major problem with film study is that the vast majority of people who say they do it are looking at maybe three plays and therefore radically generalizing.

 

But the best way to understand is to use both. But lately there's so much available I find myself wondering whether better understanding is worth the large investment of time I have to put in.

 

It's only football. I could be working on my novel.

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, mjt328 said:

 

I think you hit the nail on the head here.  Stats certainly have their value, because they can often quantify what the film is showing.

But they can also be misleading, especially when they are cherry-picked.

 

 

 

 

Film can be misleading too. Your opinion after watching film relies on perception ... and perception relies greatly on prejudices and beliefs. And unless you're talking about people who actually go back and watch the entire game on All-22, there's cherry-picking there too. Hell, a film-watcher cherry-picks what parts of the plays he watches unless he actually goes back and watches each play 10 or 12 times.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Thurman#1

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Stats matter  - but only some of them.  300 yard passing games are meaningless. Turnover ratio is everything.  

 

I watch the games, and form my own opinions.  I don't watch All-22.  But when I watch the games I don't just follow the ball I look at presnap movements, line play, and route packages.  

 

A good example from Wahsington game.  Tre was beaten on a double move and was step and a half behind the WR.  Ball was thrown terribly.  A better throw and that may have been a TD.  The stats will say an incompletion - no harm no foul, but the film will say he got beat.  

[mjt328]

10 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Oh, and PFF does an excellent job. They're not perfect at all, but they're fine. They're limited in that they don't get the calls, the playbooks and game plans, but neither do we or anyone else. Everyone is limited in those ways, and yet the film is less limited than many insiders claim it is. Having said that, certain areas of play are more opaque than others to film breakdown leading to understanding. But again, most NFL teams pay PFF for their analysis. They wouldn't do that if PFF wasn't good at what they do.

 

Stats can never tell the whole story but they are absolutely a reflection of what happened on the field. And film leaves a lot of room for evaluation analysis, categorization and conclusions. And that means lots of room for mistakes.

 

Both have their strengths. Both have their weaknesses. One major problem with film study is that the vast majority of people who say they do it are looking at maybe three plays and therefore radically generalizing.

 

But the best way to understand is to use both. But lately there's so much available I find myself wondering whether better understanding is worth the large investment of time I have to put in.

 

It's only football. I could be working on my novel.

 

 

My only problem with PFF are their grades.

I think it's great how they watch every player/every snap.  And by watching the same teams/coaches/schemes over and over, you can usually get a pretty good idea what player assignments are on each play.  I'm just not a fan of the arbitrary numbers they assign based on what they see.

 

For example, how do you truly grade a Cornerback?

Most CBs only face a handful of passes each game.  So do you grade them on every single route?  The way a CB defends a play during the route and when the ball is actually in the air can be very different.  Some CBs may seem to have great coverage, but can't seem to make a play when the pass is actually thrown.  That's not good.  Some CBs may appear to be beat, but are actually baiting the Quarterback into a throw and have great closing ability.  What do you do if there is perfect coverage and the receiver still makes the catch?  What do you do if the CB leaves his man wide open and the pass is bad or dropped?  What happens if he purposely allows a 6 yard catch on 3rd-10?

 

Agree that both sides have strengths and weaknesses.

I was hoping that by starting this discussion, we could maybe pool together some resources and get more intelligent discussion going on.  Personally, I get tired of the "Player A Sucks", "Coach B Should be Fired" posts that occur after every loss (or lately after wins too).