Jump to content

The peril of ignoring analytics


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Yet he trusted his defense vs the best offense in the league.....instead of trusting his #1 red zone offense vs the dead last red zone D.  
 

it was a major errrrrrrrrrrrr on his part.

Dude, seriously.  Would you trust the O to get the job done?  This was not the game I was watching.

 

As I said last week, I'm surprised that KC didn't drop 50 or so on us.

Edited by Groin
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think Coach McD is great and I hope he is our HC for years to come. But he badly stubbed his toe in the biggest game of his HC career because he ignored analytics and reverted to his (natural) conse

We have eyes and have discussed this for a week now, but thanks for making another thread about it!

I don't think he went conservative bc he reverted to his "nature." I think he went conservative and took the points bc he thought the offense wouldn't convert the TD.

19 minutes ago, WIDE LEFT said:

I think Coach McD is great and I hope he is our HC for years to come. But he badly stubbed his toe in the biggest game of his HC career because he ignored analytics and reverted to his (natural) conservative form. I am not talking about the field goal decisions, although they were terrible and unsupported by analytics as well. What I am referring to here is the overall strategy he employed in this game.

 

Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy. Far more troubling is McD playing softest zone, force them to take lots of plays and lots of time to score. Of course, this strategy also keeps your offense on the sideline for a long time. It’s a strategy designed to shorten the game. It’s a strategy that prevents your O from producing a lot of points. 

 

Herein is the monumental failure. Mahomes has lost only 9 games in his career. The average score of the 9 teams that beat him was 36 points. The only way any team has beat him was to outscore him. McD employed the complete opposite of the only strategy that has ever been consistently successful v KC. Look, we would have probably lost anyway, but we did not go down swinging, because our head coach went with his gut, instead of the hard evidence that analytics provides. 

 

 

The way you beat KC is to outscore them- regardless if it is 13-10 or 38-35. You beat them by being efficient with your opportunities and make them inefficient with theirs. If KC take 9 minutes on a drive and don't score it is a win for Buffalo. That game was not won or lost by analytics but by the team that made more plays. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buffalo Timmy said:

The way you beat KC is to outscore them- regardless if it is 13-10 or 38-35. You beat them by being efficient with your opportunities and make them inefficient with theirs. If KC take 9 minutes on a drive and don't score it is a win for Buffalo. That game was not won or lost by analytics but by the team that made more plays. 

BINGO!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, WIDE LEFT said:

I think Coach McD is great and I hope he is our HC for years to come. But he badly stubbed his toe in the biggest game of his HC career because he ignored analytics and reverted to his (natural) conservative form. I am not talking about the field goal decisions, although they were terrible and unsupported by analytics as well. What I am referring to here is the overall strategy he employed in this game.

 

Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy. Far more troubling is McD playing softest zone, force them to take lots of plays and lots of time to score. Of course, this strategy also keeps your offense on the sideline for a long time. It’s a strategy designed to shorten the game. It’s a strategy that prevents your O from producing a lot of points. 

 

Herein is the monumental failure. Mahomes has lost only 9 games in his career. The average score of the 9 teams that beat him was 36 points. The only way any team has beat him was to outscore him. McD employed the complete opposite of the only strategy that has ever been consistently successful v KC. Look, we would have probably lost anyway, but we did not go down swinging, because our head coach went with his gut, instead of the hard evidence that analytics provides. 

 

 


 

im an actual data scientist  person in my career.

 

NFL analytics has some serious flaws just like in other sports they have limitations you need to understand without knowing the full truth such as what was the defense or offense play call.

 

they decide. On FGs instead of going for it on what was effectively was 4th and 5 or longer.  When you are near the end zone it skews defense p,ayimg and offensive play design like you can’t stretch a defense out for an underneath cross.

 

on the flip side there is Defense plays and needing to stop KC

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our coaches ****ed up, big time, in the biggest moment. 

 

We get it. 

 

A thread putting a fancy analytical spin on what is just commen sense is not really necessary at this point. 

  • Eyeroll 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

But history has proven you can’t make a great O like KC “inefficient”. When the only teams that have ever beaten Mahomes have averaged 36 points, it might be obvious to even somebody like u that u don’t beat this team in 13-10 games. Not happening- never has - pretty obvious to all but the oblivious

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WIDE LEFT said:

But history has proven you can’t make a great O like KC “inefficient”. When the only teams that have ever beaten Mahomes have averaged 36 points, it might be obvious to even somebody like u that u don’t beat this team in 13-10 games. Not happening- never has - pretty obvious to all but the oblivious

I wrote here in the run up to the game that we can all count on KC getting their 30+ points in the game and that we will need ours too if we want to win.


And that therefore all the pressure and focus (as always!) was on Josh Allen and the passing game.

 

All of that proved to be true.  The fact of the matter is our great passing attack, which got us into the playoffs this year, was not that great in any of our 3 playoff games.


It never really got on song with Allen in a groove, spreading the ball around, hitting lots of different receivers, etc.

 

You are always going to end up going against SOMEBODY with a stellar QB who is going to throw the ball all over the place and have to match that type of production!  If you can't you'll lose.

 

Look at the QBS left standing this year!  Same names we have seen for a long time, and in Mahomes, a name we will see for a long time to come.

 

For these reasons, I have said over and over that we should put the bulk of our off-season resources into the passing attack.  Make it more deadly.  More speed.  A better running/catching TE.  A good catching HB to come out of the backfield.  Better OLmen if we can find them, especially on the cheap.


Etc.

 

 

4 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

This is a sad attempt by message board mercenaries to give Tyrod Taylor his job back

Pretty sure no one wants to give tuh-ROD his job back.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, WIDE LEFT said:

I think Coach McD is great and I hope he is our HC for years to come. But he badly stubbed his toe in the biggest game of his HC career because he ignored analytics and reverted to his (natural) conservative form. I am not talking about the field goal decisions, although they were terrible and unsupported by analytics as well. What I am referring to here is the overall strategy he employed in this game.

 

Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy. Far more troubling is McD playing softest zone, force them to take lots of plays and lots of time to score. Of course, this strategy also keeps your offense on the sideline for a long time. It’s a strategy designed to shorten the game. It’s a strategy that prevents your O from producing a lot of points. 

 

Herein is the monumental failure. Mahomes has lost only 9 games in his career. The average score of the 9 teams that beat him was 36 points. The only way any team has beat him was to outscore him. McD employed the complete opposite of the only strategy that has ever been consistently successful v KC. Look, we would have probably lost anyway, but we did not go down swinging, because our head coach went with his gut, instead of the hard evidence that analytics provides. 

 

 

Yeah I mean I don’t think it’s a trend, if that’s what you’re trying to suggest. 
 

Major analytics guys that people trust like Ben Baldwin have been commenting all year on how Buffalo is the best team when it comes to in-game decision making in terms of win probability. I was upset with McDermott during the game, but I understand his reasoning. 
 

The guy admitted he was wrong and is reviewing it and will undoubtedly learn from it. It was really only a year ago when people were complaining that he didn’t use analytics enough. 
 

The man, like this team has grown tremendously year in and year out. Losing to KC sucked, but they’re clearly better. I’m not happy we lost, but I think it’s positive they’re going to have to go in and readjust for the future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Groin said:

Dude, seriously.  Would you trust the O to get the job done?  This was not the game I was watching.

 

As I said last week, I'm surprised that KC didn't drop 50 or so on us.

Yes....I would’ve tried to win.  Did YOU watch our defense?? 
 

we had no chance to win by kicking fgs.  Kicking fgs is like throwing in the towel.  Outscore them or lose..... 

 

so you’re saying that we should’ve kicked fgs because our offense was sputtering

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, WIDE LEFT said:

I think Coach McD is great and I hope he is our HC for years to come. But he badly stubbed his toe in the biggest game of his HC career because he ignored analytics and reverted to his (natural) conservative form. I am not talking about the field goal decisions, although they were terrible and unsupported by analytics as well. What I am referring to here is the overall strategy he employed in this game.

 

Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy. Far more troubling is McD playing softest zone, force them to take lots of plays and lots of time to score. Of course, this strategy also keeps your offense on the sideline for a long time. It’s a strategy designed to shorten the game. It’s a strategy that prevents your O from producing a lot of points. 

 

Herein is the monumental failure. Mahomes has lost only 9 games in his career. The average score of the 9 teams that beat him was 36 points. The only way any team has beat him was to outscore him. McD employed the complete opposite of the only strategy that has ever been consistently successful v KC. Look, we would have probably lost anyway, but we did not go down swinging, because our head coach went with his gut, instead of the hard evidence that analytics provides. 

 

 

Fans don’t like to be reminded of their coach with a lame ass game plan in the biggest game of the year....  otherwise 100% agree. Game was over when he kicked a FG from the 6 on 4th and 3 down 21-9. He caved.

41 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

Its a feel to a point.  Analytics to a degree got Indy beat.  Questioning Mcdermotts decision on those 4th downs I surely did.  Now a week later I think Buffalo gets stoppped.  Idk if Daboll was f'ed from missing out on being a Head coach or what.  He had 0 feel for what KC did all game.  I dont think he has 2 special plays left in the Ether B/C we didnt go for those 2 plays.  Mcdermott was trying to keep fingertips on the game imo.  Hoping the offense would get hot.  It didnt happen.  

Maybe they do get stopped....doesn’t change the fact that it was the wrong decision to kick FGs to not get blown out.(Even though it turned into one anyway)

Edited by ScottLaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Yet he trusted his defense vs the best offense in the league.....instead of trusting his #1 red zone offense vs the dead last red zone D.  
 

it was a major errrrrrrrrrrrr on his part.

 

I was pissed when we didn't go for it before the half. Putting 7 on the board there changes the whole completion of the game. But so does getting stuffed on 4th down. 

 

Look, the last time the Chiefs lost in the AFC Championship they gave up 4 redzone rushing TD's to the Pats. We need to be able to run the ball for TD's in the redzone in order to beat the Chiefs.

 

We lost the game bc we weren't good enough. Not bc of any one mistake.

 

39 minutes ago, NewEra said:

 

 

Edited by Motorin'
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Yes....I would’ve tried to win.  Did YOU watch our defense?? 
 

we had no chance to win by kicking fgs.  Kicking fgs is like throwing in the towel.  Outscore them or lose..... 

 

so you’re saying that we should’ve kicked fgs because our offense was sputtering

Yes, but the O and the D needed to be simpatico to make this work.  And they weren't.  The O needed to maximize its possessions in the first half, and they didn't, and that's really end of story.  KC has an exceptional team, and I can't think of what the D could've done, short of neutralizing Kelce, to keep this game close.

 

I've been watching the Bills since the 1970s, and I knew that the Bills were dead at halftime.  And I say this also as one who watched the comeback game, and who knew that the Bills were gonna win that one.  This squad was dead at halftime, because they couldn't execute on O.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Groin said:

Yes, but the O and the D needed to be simpatico to make this work.  And they weren't.  The O needed to maximize its possessions in the first half, and they didn't, and that's really end of story.  KC has an exceptional team, and I can't think of what the D could've done, short of neutralizing Kelce, to keep this game close.

 

I've been watching the Bills since the 1970s, and I knew that the Bills were dead at halftime.  And I say this also as one who watched the comeback game, and who knew that the Bills were gonna win that one.  This squad was dead at halftime, because they couldn't execute on O.

They were dead at halftime.....because he kicked a FG instead of going for the TD.😅

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ScottLaw said:

They were dead at halftime.....because he kicked a FG instead of going for the TD.😅

Be honest for a change.  Did you think that the O was going to score a TD at halftime?  KC literally curb stomped our team going into the break.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Groin said:

Yes, but the O and the D needed to be simpatico to make this work.  And they weren't.  The O needed to maximize its possessions in the first half, and they didn't, and that's really end of story.  KC has an exceptional team, and I can't think of what the D could've done, short of neutralizing Kelce, to keep this game close.

 

I've been watching the Bills since the 1970s, and I knew that the Bills were dead at halftime.  And I say this also as one who watched the comeback game, and who knew that the Bills were gonna win that one.  This squad was dead at halftime, because they couldn't execute on O.

And you do that by going for and scoring TDs.  Yet we didn’t even attempt to.

 

I’ve been watching the bills since 1980.  
 

did the bills execute on O vs Houston in the first half?  I’m sure you thought we were going to win that game too.

 

in other words. McD had already given up because he saw how bad out offense was and we had no chance to get turnovers or improve on our play.  

 

I see what I’m dealing with here.  Have a good evening.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Groin said:

Be honest for a change.  Did you think that the O was going to score a TD at halftime?  KC literally curb stomped our team going into the break.

Doesn’t matter what I think. A FG does nothing. You have to go for it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

I was pissed when we didn't go for it before the half. Putting 7 on the board there changes the whole completion of the game. But so does getting stuffed on 4th down. 

 

Look, the last time the Chiefs lost in the AFC Championship they gave up 4 redzone rushing TD's to the Pats. We need to be able to run the ball for TD's in the redzone in order to beat the Chiefs.

 

We lost the game bc we weren't good enough. Not bc of any one mistake.

 

 

No.....we just needed to score TDs.  It didn’t matter how we scored them. We just needed TDs.....and no FGs

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewEra said:

And you do that by going for and scoring TDs.  Yet we didn’t even attempt to.

 

I’ve been watching the bills since 1980.  
 

did the bills execute on O vs Houston in the first half?  I’m sure you thought we were going to win that game too.

 

in other words. McD had already given up because he saw how bad out offense was and we had no chance to get turnovers or improve on our play.  

 

I see what I’m dealing with here.  Have a good evening.  

Well, since I've been watching the Bills since the 1970s, I knew that the Bills were going to stand a chance against Houston.  The team was too good in that phase of its championship life.

 

Any way you slice it, this team was going to lose, so was it the actual outcome, or would the Bills lose 52-9?  Take your pick, because this woeful offense would've most certainly kept KC on the field had they gone for it.  You most certainly can't deny it.

3 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Doesn’t matter what I think. A FG does nothing. You have to go for it. 

Again, go for it with what?  A team who can't run?  A team where you might not be able to convert XPs?  A team where the QB, who's been great all year, becomes scattershot?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Groin said:

Well, since I've been watching the Bills since the 1970s, I knew that the Bills were going to stand a chance against Houston.  The team was too good in that phase of its championship life.

 

Any way you slice it, this team was going to lose, so was it the actual outcome, or would the Bills lose 52-9?  Take your pick, because this woeful offense would've most certainly kept KC on the field had they gone for it.  You most certainly can't deny it.

Again, go for it with what?  A team who can't run?  A team where you might not be able to convert XPs?  A team where the QB, who's been great all year, becomes scattershot?

K.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...