Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Check out Baldy breaking down the 4th and 8
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
Zero
Here ...
nephillymike
Shame Wentz didn't see the field well.

About the Kempski analysis he refers to, it is flawed IMO. He mentions giving up 32 yards of field position as if that is all your giving up.

You need to do plus/minus analysis on expected net points given the amount of time left and all the scenarios.

With relative little time left (2:36 ), the difference between NYG starting at the 13 or the 43 is a big difference in expected points.

The methodology that needs to go into it is the expected points on each expected outcome.

For example, the Eagles realistically could have had several outcomes, just to name the most reasonable:

A 1st down at about the 33
Instant points on a TD
Stopped in the 43-37 yard range
A sack with giving up on yards stopped around midfield.
Instant points on a defensive TD.
Punt outcomes.

My guess is that the expected points on outcomes by going for it there are less than the expected points for the NYG outcomes if they don't make it.
This is especially true given on 2.36,remaining. The longer field with limited time is a fig factor.






mcnabbulous
Going for it on 4th down when he borderline shouldn’t means Doug is likely to go for it when he definitely should. Which is much better than most coaches. I’m all for it.
The Franchise
Being honest about the angles, throwing to Agholor there could've been an easy pick-6. The obvious choice is to Blount, who would've had a tough time picking it up, but could've. It would've had to be fast, and he hesitated - as someone with his experience would, as he was focusing solely on picking up the first down. The big travesty here is Pederson putting him in that position. Punt the fucking ball.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 25 2017, 10:40 PM) *
Going for it on 4th down when he borderline shouldn’t means Doug is likely to go for it when he definitely should. Which is much better than most coaches. I’m all for it.

I know the chart says it is borderline. My point is the chart doesn't account for the improvement of NY getting points in those situations and it isn't close to borderline from the 43, given the potential outcomes. My strong guess is that it focuses on improving OUR chances of getting points, without netting it against the improvement of them getting points from us failing.

Right off the bat, you know we only have a 33% chance of us continuing the drive and us having the opportunity to score points. With a 67% chance of failure, it is twice as likely that they will have the opportunity to better their chances of getting points.

If you use just the one case of expected points of a drive by us starting at the NYG 35 (after we get the 1st) and times that by .33 and compare that to the change in their expected points starting a drive from their 35, assuming we come up short, and them starting at their 10 after an expected punt by Jones, and multiply that likelihood by .67, you will have made a decision that increases their expected points scored more than ours. When you add the fact that there is only slightly over 2 min left, that 25 yard difference in starting point for them is huge.

It's flawed.

I agree the NFL is too conservative, but this chart doesn't seem to properly account for it.

Maybe the chart wasn't laminated and sweat fell on it and blurred the decision!
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 26 2017, 05:35 AM) *
I agree the NFL is too conservative, but this chart doesn't seem to properly account for it.

Given the way NYG's offense was performing, I'd say there is less risk? And subsequently, had we put more points on the board in the situation, we would have been in an even more formidable position in the second half?

You give me a 33% chance to potentially put the game out of reach in the first half and it seems pretty damn compelling.
Reality Fan
The bottom line those opposed to it ignore or dismiss as a "sure pick 6" which is especially silly is that there were 2 options directly in front of him and he missed both by apparently being locked onto one receiver. I was listening to Ross Tucker today and he scared me even more because he is very worried about Wentz.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 26 2017, 02:40 PM) *
The bottom line those opposed to it ignore or dismiss as a "sure pick 6" which is especially silly is that there were 2 options directly in front of him and he missed both by apparently being locked onto one receiver. I was listening to Ross Tucker today and he scared me even more because he is very worried about Wentz.


The angle is pretty clear to me, throwing to Agholor was dangerous, and could've been an easy pick-6, my exact words from before. I'm not sure where you read 'sure pick 6,' maybe on another board. Blount was open and Wentz hesitated, then it was too late.

Tell Ross Tucker to be more worried about Pederson doing anything other than punting in that situation, not about our 2nd year QB missing a throw.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 26 2017, 03:53 PM) *
The angle is pretty clear to me, throwing to Agholor was dangerous, and could've been an easy pick-6, my exact words from before. I'm not sure where you read 'sure pick 6,' maybe on another board. Blount was open and Wentz hesitated, then it was too late.

Tell Ross Tucker to be more worried about Pederson doing anything other than punting in that situation, not about our 2nd year QB missing a throw.


My apologies...it is silly to think it could have even been and "easy pick 6". First, it would have been thrown to the middle of the field, never an "easy pick 6", second, Algholar is wide open. Third, the defender on the lower side of the coverage is moving forward not laterally so he is no threat to make the pick and the top coverage is already moving to Blount and 4th, it is not a tough throw and fifth, Brian Baldinger, who does this for a living, thinks you are completely wrong.

Your problem is that you can never see the forest for the trees. Whether or not they should have gone for it is irrelevant....in that situation the QB made 2 terrible decisions/actions. One was missing what should have been his read and a great chance at a first down and second, he compounded what you think was a terrible decision by making one of his own and taking a sack.

Thanks for playing.
Birdman420
I think if you re-watch the replay of the entire games' offense, you will see that Carson misses at least 5 chances at huge gains with WR's being miles open. On a few plays carson even seemed to look directly at that wide open receiver and still not throw to him. There was a fade to the endzone that he threw to jeffery, when you look around the goaline pylon you see a wide open NA.

After watching the game again, I'm two things, super excited that Wentz now has a top caliber receiving core, and a little bummed that Wentz is not automatic yet, his vision is his biggest problem and it's IMO the #1 thing a QB needs to take a team deep into the playoffs. Defenses are only going to tighten up as the year goes long and wentz needs to tighten himself up if we have any chance on a playoff birth.
The Franchise
QUOTE
First, it would have been thrown to the middle of the field, never an "easy pick 6"


It would've been thrown to the right hash mark, at the CB, with absolutely nobody in front of him.

QUOTE
second, Algholar is wide open.


He had slowed down and the CB was directly under him when Wentz saw him. Then he checked down to Blount. Try imagining this in 3D.

QUOTE
Third, the defender on the lower side of the coverage is moving forward not laterally so he is no threat to make the pick


Well done.

QUOTE
and the top coverage is already moving to Blount


After Wentz checked down. You are aware DB's are trained to follow the QB's eyes and where he's looking, correct? Maybe tell 'Baldy' that.

QUOTE
and 4th, it is not a tough throw


Based on your experience playing 'rookie mode' in Madden, sure.

QUOTE
and fifth, Brian Baldinger, who does this for a living, thinks you are completely wrong.


Brian Baldinger is a former o-lineman and a meathead. His job is to find things to talk about. Pederson coaches for a living, yet we won despite him. Ryan Leaf used to QB for a living. Chip Kelly was a GM for a living. Get it?

QUOTE
Your problem is that you can never see the forest for the trees.


My problem is we should be focused on an unbelievably stupid decision by Pederson, not by a hesitation from Wentz in a play that he never should've had to make.

Thanks for playing.
D Rock
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 26 2017, 05:07 AM) *
Being honest about the angles, throwing to Agholor there could've been an easy pick-6. The obvious choice is to Blount, who would've had a tough time picking it up, but could've. It would've had to be fast, and he hesitated - as someone with his experience would, as he was focusing solely on picking up the first down. The big travesty here is Pederson putting him in that position. Punt the fucking ball.

I would have gone to the outside receiver on the right, who got an outside release and already had the CB on his back as Carson was at the top of his drop. The safety on that side doesn’t “widen-out” and is playing overtop of Agholor. That’s 6 if you stick the throw.

The Franchise
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 27 2017, 11:48 AM) *
I would have gone to the outside receiver on the right, who got an outside release and already had the CB on his back as Carson was at the top of his drop. The safety on that side doesn€™t €œwiden-out€ and is playing overtop of Agholor. That€™s 6 if you stick the throw.


That's assuming a good deep ball by Wentz, but yes I agree.
Reality Fan

QUOTE
It would've been thrown to the right hash mark, at the CB, with absolutely nobody in front of him.

Ummm...except there are 2 LBs on the play, not DBs


QUOTE
He had slowed down and the CB was directly under him when Wentz saw him. Then he checked down to Blount. Try imagining this in 3D.

Again...LBs and there is plenty of room for even a bad QB to make that throw.

QUOTE
After Wentz checked down. You are aware DB's are trained to follow the QB's eyes and where he's looking, correct? Maybe tell 'Baldy' that.

Again...LBs and now you fall back to them reading his eyes? Seriously? For that short a throw there is no time to even react to reading hus eyes if he makes either throw as both options are already open.


QUOTE
Based on your experience playing 'rookie mode' in Madden, sure.

No....I was never a Madden fan...I am just not an idiot. It is a firm pocket and clear throwing lane to either option where the QB can step into the throw...it does not take a genius to see it.


QUOTE
Brian Baldinger is a former o-lineman and a meathead. His job is to find things to talk about. Pederson coaches for a living, yet we won despite him. Ryan Leaf used to QB for a living. Chip Kelly was a GM for a living. Get it?

And you or I are what? more qualified than Baldy? He gets paid to to do it but you are the genius? I love the Pederson comment from clowns like you. First the chirping about Kelly gutting the roster...then how bad Howie drafted...and then Pederson sucks and lost in all the idiotic comment is the irony that this terrible coach takes a shitty roster with no WRs and is 9-10. He must do somethings right. I realize people like you will never admit they are wrong...no big deal. If you did that would be half of your posts.


QUOTE
My problem is we should be focused on an unbelievably stupid decision by Pederson, not by a hesitation from Wentz in a play that he never should've had to make.

Except that he followed what you call a stupid decision with the perfect play call and had 2 wide open options.
By the way, Baldinger was echoed by Ross Tucker who also makes a living analyzing the NFL. They were not alone but I am sure you are much brighter than both of them. I forget...how many years did you play in the league? And what top notch college did you play at?.....I am sure it prepared you much better than either of them.

QUOTE
Thanks for playing.

You are very welcome. Signing autographs at the mall later of are you busy writing your HOF acceptance speech?
The Franchise
It's just amazing when haters have to grasp at whatever straw they can find. Just because people get paid money to do things doesn't mean they're infallible - especially ex-NFL offensive linemen, who's main job is to be large. Are you telling me that you never fuck up making a Sausage McMuffin? Chip Kelly got paid millions in exchange for destroying our roster. Random meatheads with an IQ of 80 who used to block linemen don't impress me.

It was a stupid decision, end of story. And no, I could care less if 'Baldy' or Ross Tucker say otherwise. Within the play, Agholor was well covered, and when Wentz turned to Blount, the defenders reacted. As DRock mentioned, going deep to the right was the best option there. This is just video buddy, we can all see this.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 27 2017, 03:34 PM) *
It's just amazing when haters have to grasp at whatever straw they can find. Just because people get paid money to do things doesn't mean they're infallible - especially ex-NFL offensive linemen, who's main job is to be large. Are you telling me that you never fuck up making a Sausage McMuffin? Chip Kelly got paid millions in exchange for destroying our roster. Random meatheads with an IQ of 80 who used to block linemen don't impress me.

It was a stupid decision, end of story. And no, I could care less if 'Baldy' or Ross Tucker say otherwise. Within the play, Agholor was well covered, and when Wentz turned to Blount, the defenders reacted. As DRock mentioned, going deep to the right was the best option there. This is just video buddy, we can all see this.


I have to apologize...it seems you think that, like you, others here work for McDonalds...not that there is anything wrong with that.lol Guys like Baldy and Tucker get paid well to do what they do because they have a talent for it. Tucker is Princeton Grad so, unlike you, he is actually a pretty smart guy. You demonstrate your ignorance by failing to comprehend the actual point of this exercise. It was not whether the decision to go for it was wise or unwise....that is debatable and I understand the points by those who don't like it. The point was that the play call was a good one and there were 2 open options that the QB missed. Both Baldy and Tucker did not support the decision to go for it but they both saw the play and what the QB missed. More importantly they saw that both open options were directly in front of Wentz. Whether or not Pederson should have gone for it is irrelevant and a separate debate.
Eyrie
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 27 2017, 09:03 PM) *
Whether or not Pederson should have gone for it is irrelevant and a separate debate.

It's hardly a debate.

Other than Pederson, who has said it was a sensible idea?
The Franchise
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 27 2017, 06:15 PM) *
It's hardly a debate.

Other than Pederson, who has said it was a sensible idea?


How dare you - Pederson does this for a living! Who are WE to question somebody who gets paid?!?! All hail Ross Tucker and Baldy!

Apparently Pederson has an analytics guy upstairs who he consults during the games, which presumably is why he went for it there. That's unbelievable, and should scare any Eagles fan. I'm already souring on the guy and we're 2-1.

mcnabbulous
Jesus Christ. It cost us zero points. He had confidence in his QB and his defense. Ya’ll are a bunch of whiny bitches sometimes.
Joegrane
It was a very strange decision. The Eagles' O was not dominating the Giants' D so there was < 50% chance of success. It took a miracle from heaven to avoid giving up points.

I'm struggling to think of a reason for the decision. This is a wild reason.

The Eagles D was gassed due to the injuries.

They had to play bend-but-not-break due to their slow CBs and decimated DB corp, so the Giants were likely to move the ball down the field successfully using short passes to the WRs. That would have caused the D to be even more gassed when they had to make the Red Zone stand.

So Pederson and Schwartz decided to roll the dice on 4th and 8. If they failed, the D would not have to be on the field so long and would be fresher by the time that the Giants got into the Red Zone.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 27 2017, 06:38 PM) *
... It cost us zero points. He had confidence in his QB and his defense. ....
The Franchise
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 27 2017, 06:59 PM) *
I'm struggling to think of a reason for the decision.


As he said during his presser, he consulted his analytics guy, and determined the probability of success was 32%. As discussed in another thread, that number is based off of unbelievably sophomoric and intellectually dishonest data models. Even if it was 32% (which it wasn't), that should've been a no-brainer to punt. He gave them 7 points, and luckily they didn't want those points.

It is absolutely horrifying to me that he is following such data to make in-game decisions that nobody who knows anything about football would ever agree with.
Pila
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 28 2017, 12:38 AM) *
Jesus Christ. It cost us zero points. He had confidence in his QB and his defense. Ya’ll are a bunch of whiny bitches sometimes.

I think it was a sophomoric decision, and a clear mistake, considering that the only reason it didn't cost points was incredible luck and the Jintz own follies.

Having said that, I'm well aware that almost all coaches, including the really good ones occasionally make calls like this. This is hardly the casting stone that sets the volcano on fire.
Phits
-or-
He saw an opportunity in the Gnats D and took a shot. He made the right play call, the QB failed to execute.


QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 27 2017, 07:59 PM) *
It was a very strange decision. The Eagles' O was not dominating the Giants' D so there was < 50% chance of success. It took a miracle from heaven to avoid giving up points.

I'm struggling to think of a reason for the decision. This is a wild reason.

The Eagles D was gassed due to the injuries.

They had to play bend-but-not-break due to their slow CBs and decimated DB corp, so the Giants were likely to move the ball down the field successfully using short passes to the WRs. That would have caused the D to be even more gassed when they had to make the Red Zone stand.

So Pederson and Schwartz decided to roll the dice on 4th and 8. If they failed, the D would not have to be on the field so long and would be fresher by the time that the Giants got into the Red Zone.

nephillymike
The most astounding thing about the analytics chart is that it says that you should ALWAYS go for it at 4 th and 1.

Yes that includes 4th and one from YOUR OwN 9 yard line.

That should speak volumes of the holes in this chart.

When I have some time, I will take a look into why the model is off.

Imagine if Dougie Fresh went for it 4th and 1 from our 9?

That's what the chart says!
The Franchise
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 27 2017, 09:50 PM) *
The most astounding thing about the analytics chart is that it says that you should ALWAYS go for it at 4 th and 1.

Yes that includes 4th and one from YOUR OwN 9 yard line.

That should speak volumes of the holes in this chart.

When I have some time, I will take a look into why the model is off.

Imagine if Dougie Fresh went for it 4th and 1 from our 9?

That's what the chart says!


And this is why analytics should not be used in actual game situations. Statistically, you may have a great chance of picking it up. But good luck facing your defensive players when they have to defend 9 yards or else give up a TD.
Zero
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 27 2017, 08:14 PM) *
-or-
He saw an opportunity in the Gnats D and took a shot. He made the right play call, the QB failed to execute.
As was just pointed out though, there's not just the odds to consider, but the consequences of failure as well as success. In this case, the Giants scored. Wagering the house on a percentage bet may lose the house despite favorable odds.
Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 27 2017, 10:50 PM) *
The most astounding thing about the analytics chart is that it says that you should ALWAYS go for it at 4 th and 1.

Yes that includes 4th and one from YOUR OwN 9 yard line.

That should speak volumes of the holes in this chart.

When I have some time, I will take a look into why the model is off.

Imagine if Dougie Fresh went for it 4th and 1 from our 9?

That's what the chart says!

Not true. They have a chart and it shows the probabilities for various scenarios. Then they rate those scenarios (by color) to determine whether it's a definite go for it or a not-so-definite go for it.

Honestly, I'm not a Pedey fan but I love that he's looking at the numbers. I never have understood why they don't do more of this. Baseball has been about the numbers FOREVER. Bring a lefty to face a left-handed batter, etc. Does it ALWAYS work? No. But, based on countless situations, they make the decisions because the numbers say certain things.

Football has always been more about a feel than the numbers. How does one define this? You may have a different feeling about a situation than I do. Who's right?

Bottom line, was it the right decision? I don't know, personally, I probably woudn't have gone for it but I'm not a coach. At the end of the day, it cost the Eagles absolutely nothing and possibly gave the defense a little momentum with their goal line stance.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 27 2017, 07:34 PM) *
How dare you - Pederson does this for a living! Who are WE to question somebody who gets paid?!?! All hail Ross Tucker and Baldy!

Apparently Pederson has an analytics guy upstairs who he consults during the games, which presumably is why he went for it there. That's unbelievable, and should scare any Eagles fan. I'm already souring on the guy and we're 2-1.


You show an amazing ignorance about analytics. Of course he allows their input, it is what they are paid to do. Are you that obtuse that you think they can predict the situations they will be in BEFORE the game? Unreal.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Sep 27 2017, 06:15 PM) *
It's hardly a debate.

Other than Pederson, who has said it was a sensible idea?


Several folks have due to several factors which are conveniently ignored. The Giants offense had done nothing up to that point. The previous Eagles' drive was 18 plays and that one was on its 10th play so momentum was clearly in their favor. I do not disagree that the ideal call was to punt but I can understand his mindset.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (Joegrane @ Sep 27 2017, 07:59 PM) *
It was a very strange decision. The Eagles' O was not dominating the Giants' D so there was < 50% chance of success. It took a miracle from heaven to avoid giving up points.



Ummm...yes..it was. Between that drive and the previous one they ran 28 plays.
D Rock
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 28 2017, 02:21 PM) *
Several folks have due to several factors which are conveniently ignored. The Giants offense had done nothing up to that point. The previous Eagles' drive was 18 plays and that one was on its 10th play so momentum was clearly in their favor. I do not disagree that the ideal call was to punt but I can understand his mindset.

Nope. Sorry, dip shit. But, there is NO WAY to skew this into Pedey making the right call.
While it’s hilarious watching you decry others’ “amazing ignorance of analytics” you typically miss reality and the realm of fact by failing to recognize analytics limitation in the game of football. Analytics as a concept lose value in any field based on the singular (and simple) aspect of sample size. This isn’t baseball, or the NBA. The fact that NFL teams play a mere 16 games a year significantly diminishes the usefullness of any analytic slant on decision making. That you’re too fucking stupid to realize this is both hilarious and predictable.

mcnabbulous
This conversation is exactly why the college product is exponentially more entertaining than the pro version right now.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 28 2017, 08:19 AM) *
You show an amazing ignorance about analytics. Of course he allows their input, it is what they are paid to do. Are you that obtuse that you think they can predict the situations they will be in BEFORE the game? Unreal.


His numbers geek determined that the success rate was 32% - from what we've seen posted, that is based off an almost comically intellectually dishonest set of data models, with data that mostly comes from college football. It is based largely on a simple set of equations that have absolutely nothing to do with your own team, your opposing team, and the different dynamics and matchups related to such. Props to DRock for schooling you again.

I know you're probably too stupid to realize this, but when your job for almost 3 decades is football, then yes, you should know the basic situations you'll be in, inside and out. For quick decision making, that's why coaches also have charts based on different situations. But none of this matters - your gut instinct in that situation should be to punt, end of story. If you're calling up an 'analytics guy' and taking his advice based on the data we've seen, you shouldn't be a coach in the NFL, or any level above Pop Warner.

Analytics is for baseball. It's arguable that it can be attributed to basketball. Football?! NO.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (D Rock @ Sep 28 2017, 10:45 AM) *
Nope. Sorry, dip shit. But, there is NO WAY to skew this into Pedey making the right call.
While it’s hilarious watching you decry others’ “amazing ignorance of analytics” you typically miss reality and the realm of fact by failing to recognize analytics limitation in the game of football. Analytics as a concept lose value in any field based on the singular (and simple) aspect of sample size. This isn’t baseball, or the NBA. The fact that NFL teams play a mere 16 games a year significantly diminishes the usefullness of any analytic slant on decision making. That you’re too fucking stupid to realize this is both hilarious and predictable.


Hahahaha...always a joy to read your input...always a brilliant display. It is particularly pleasing when you agree with a goofball but that should hardly be surprising. Please try to actually read what I typed if you are capable of rudimentary comprehension, Maybe, in your zeal to be the condescending dimwit that you can't help but be, you missed the part where I said that the ideal call would be to punt. Beyond that, your need to be the "smartest guy in the conversation" missed the point I was making in this thread was that, while the decision to go for it was debatable, the play call was a good one and there were 2 options that were wide open and missed by the QB. But, hey, it is almost lunch time out there...call the wife and tell her how you "showed them".

It has to suck living with such a huge inferiority complex.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 28 2017, 01:18 PM) *
His numbers geek determined that the success rate was 32% - from what we've seen posted, that is based off an almost comically intellectually dishonest set of data models, with data that mostly comes from college football. It is based largely on a simple set of equations that have absolutely nothing to do with your own team, your opposing team, and the different dynamics and matchups related to such. Props to DRock for schooling you again.

I know you're probably too stupid to realize this, but when your job for almost 3 decades is football, then yes, you should know the basic situations you'll be in, inside and out. For quick decision making, that's why coaches also have charts based on different situations. But none of this matters - your gut instinct in that situation should be to punt, end of story. If you're calling up an 'analytics guy' and taking his advice based on the data we've seen, you shouldn't be a coach in the NFL, or any level above Pop Warner.

Analytics is for baseball. It's arguable that it can be attributed to basketball. Football?! NO.


If I am on the other side of you and Mr. Inferiority than I am in a good place.

To say that simply gut decisions rule coaching in any sport indicates you think that all the advancements in the evolution of coaching means nothing. It is one of the silliest things you have said and that is saying something. From QA coaches to review specialists there are a host of people who have input tot he coach as the games goes on. But hey, your right and virtually every team in the NFL and their coaches are wrong.

Now try to pay attention here because you amd Mr. Inferiority seem to miss the entire point....I do not disagree that the ideal call was to punt. Do you understand that? I have said it 3 different ways yet you both appear incapable of understanding basic english and need to rant on about some straw argument. I do understand his thinking and I understand that every team in the league has embraced analytics to varying degrees though most actually use it more than the Eagles who were late to the game with it. I realize that you are too daft to actually read about its use in the league because your brain is tired after the comics.

My point was that, after the decision was made (right or wrong) the correct play call was made and it should have been a first down. You grossly misread the video, calling LBs DBs and displayed your typical lack of football knowledge in doing so and that is to be expected but the bottom line is that the QB missed the chance to move the sticks. You don't like Pederson so he could cure cancer and you would bitch that he is an idiot because it hurts too much.
Aquila
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 28 2017, 07:57 PM) *
if you are capable of rudimentary comprehension,
Maybe, in your zeal to be the condescending dimwit that you can't help but be
Beyond that, your need to be the "smartest guy in the conversation"
It has to suck living with such a huge inferiority complex.



QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 28 2017, 08:08 PM) *
Mr. Inferiority

It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone without choosing to resort to petty insults, so knock it off.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Rick @ Sep 28 2017, 05:30 AM) *
Not true. They have a chart and it shows the probabilities for various scenarios. Then they rate those scenarios (by color) to determine whether it's a definite go for it or a not-so-definite go for it.

Honestly, I'm not a Pedey fan but I love that he's looking at the numbers. I never have understood why they don't do more of this. Baseball has been about the numbers FOREVER. Bring a lefty to face a left-handed batter, etc. Does it ALWAYS work? No. But, based on countless situations, they make the decisions because the numbers say certain things.

Football has always been more about a feel than the numbers. How does one define this? You may have a different feeling about a situation than I do. Who's right?

Bottom line, was it the right decision? I don't know, personally, I probably woudn't have gone for it but I'm not a coach. At the end of the day, it cost the Eagles absolutely nothing and possibly gave the defense a little momentum with their goal line stance.

Rick,

Look at the analytics chart from the article. Read it and you will see how the Eagles decision at the NYG 43 was just on the fringe to go for it, under 4th and 8.

Then go up top and you will see that this analytics chart has you going for it on EVERY 4th and 1 regardless of field position.

That's what I'm referring to.

Do you see that?

The Franchise
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 28 2017, 03:08 PM) *
To say that simply gut decisions rule coaching in any sport indicates you think that all the advancements in the evolution of coaching means nothing. It is one of the silliest things you have said and that is saying something. From QA coaches to review specialists there are a host of people who have input tot he coach as the games goes on. But hey, your right and virtually every team in the NFL and their coaches are wrong.


As I've pointed out several times, the data used to come up with the number 32% in that situation is absurd. It can be trashed by any casual fan in a matter of seconds. Not only does it seem to come from mostly college football, it uses an absurd formula where you either have 'goal to go' or you don't. It also isn't tailored to an individual team and its players, against a specific team and its players, with different potential packages on the field. The Browns have a 32% chance of converting against the Chiefs defense? The Patriots have an equal chance against the Saints defense? Apparently so. If I could open the actual data table I'm sure I could spend an entire weekend destroying it. The fact that an NFL head coach is using such data to justify making blatantly stupid decisions is horrifying to me.

It should have cost us the lead, all the momentum, and a lot of morale going into the half, against a team we were dominating - and would've been the difference in the game. Thankfully the Giants wanted the win even less. Against good teams stupid decisions like this are going to bite us, and hard.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 28 2017, 07:46 PM) *
It should have cost us the lead, all the momentum, and a lot of morale going into the half, against a team we were dominating - and would've been the difference in the game. Thankfully the Giants wanted the win even less. Against good teams stupid decisions like this are going to bite us, and hard.

Why would giving the ball up at midfield against a team with 2.5 games of offensive futility automatically “cost us the lead”.

Pila
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 29 2017, 02:44 AM) *
Why would giving the ball up at midfield against a team with 2.5 games of offensive futility automatically “cost us the lead”.

Nothing is automatic, even against a good team.

And there's also no guarantee that even after a punt that pins the opposition inside the 10 that they won't drive down and score anyway.

But isn't the point to improve ones chances?
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 28 2017, 08:44 PM) *
Why would giving the ball up at midfield against a team with 2.5 games of offensive futility automatically “cost us the lead”.


Well, because it should've? Two almost certain TD's in a row, before we stop them on 4th?

Punting isn't fun, but it exists for a reason. I honestly can't believe people are defending Pederson here. This kind of shit is going to bite us hard if he keeps doing it.

Reality Fan
QUOTE (Aquila @ Sep 28 2017, 05:50 PM) *
It's perfectly possible to disagree with someone without choosing to resort to petty insults, so knock it off.


So let me get this straight...he calls me a dipshit and I respond without using any vulgarity and you decide I am the one to call out about petty insults? Seriously?

What a joke.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 28 2017, 08:46 PM) *
As I've pointed out several times, the data used to come up with the number 32% in that situation is absurd. It can be trashed by any casual fan in a matter of seconds. Not only does it seem to come from mostly college football, it uses an absurd formula where you either have 'goal to go' or you don't. It also isn't tailored to an individual team and its players, against a specific team and its players, with different potential packages on the field. The Browns have a 32% chance of converting against the Chiefs defense? The Patriots have an equal chance against the Saints defense? Apparently so. If I could open the actual data table I'm sure I could spend an entire weekend destroying it. The fact that an NFL head coach is using such data to justify making blatantly stupid decisions is horrifying to me.

It should have cost us the lead, all the momentum, and a lot of morale going into the half, against a team we were dominating - and would've been the difference in the game. Thankfully the Giants wanted the win even less. Against good teams stupid decisions like this are going to bite us, and hard.


Again...I don't disagree with you on the analytics, their validity and usage or whether it is wise for the Eagles to use them.
For them to have value you would need a sample set with the current players vs. the oppositions current players with injury, etc all factored in and that is not possible. We completely agree on that. But you have a coach who works for a GM and owner who think they are cutting edge na dwere late to the game with it and feel the need to use it heavily. There is no possible way for an NFL team to compile a reasonable data set that could allow them to accurately predict success or failure. My point was, and is that once the call was made he made a great play call and it should have resulted in a first down or a dropped pass. Nothing more, nothing less.
I also think that, considering managements insistence on the analytics, that it is understandable that he made the decision situationally. I would not have done it, you would not have done it but at least there was some rationale for the call no matter how crazy that rationale was. We have seen the guy in New England make similar moves.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Sep 28 2017, 11:38 PM) *
I would not have done it, you would not have done it but at least there was some rationale for the call no matter how crazy that rationale was. We have seen the guy in New England make similar moves.


We're obviously not going to solve this today, but I'll tell you this. In that situation if it was 4th and 1 or 2, I would've supported him going for it.

If there's any silver lining to Pederson's cavalier attitude, it's that we can expect him to always go for it on 4th when the fans feel it's necessary.
Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 28 2017, 08:16 PM) *
Rick,

Look at the analytics chart from the article. Read it and you will see how the Eagles decision at the NYG 43 was just on the fringe to go for it, under 4th and 8.

Then go up top and you will see that this analytics chart has you going for it on EVERY 4th and 1 regardless of field position.

That's what I'm referring to.

Do you see that?

And I've seen other charts, which say (sort of) the same thing. Also, Pedey also explained (in another article), it's not a go/no go chart they work off of. They get the probability of a play being successful and make a decision from there.

My point isn't about this particular play. Taken individually, ANY play could work (or not work), just like in any other sport. Taken as a whole, the numbers don't lie. This BS about it not working for football is just that, BS. The numbers don't lie. There is an ample sample size with the number of years they've been playing football and the number of plays which have been run. Are there more for baseball? Of course, but that doesn't invalidate the numbers. The numbers may change over time but they are still what they are.
Rick
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 28 2017, 08:46 PM) *
As I've pointed out several times, the data used to come up with the number 32% in that situation is absurd. It can be trashed by any casual fan in a matter of seconds. Not only does it seem to come from mostly college football, it uses an absurd formula where you either have 'goal to go' or you don't. It also isn't tailored to an individual team and its players, against a specific team and its players, with different potential packages on the field. The Browns have a 32% chance of converting against the Chiefs defense? The Patriots have an equal chance against the Saints defense? Apparently so. If I could open the actual data table I'm sure I could spend an entire weekend destroying it. The fact that an NFL head coach is using such data to justify making blatantly stupid decisions is horrifying to me.

It should have cost us the lead, all the momentum, and a lot of morale going into the half, against a team we were dominating - and would've been the difference in the game. Thankfully the Giants wanted the win even less. Against good teams stupid decisions like this are going to bite us, and hard.

And you have seen all of the data and how the numbers have been computed? You know all of this how?

What team you're playing--in the big picture--is irrelevant. Just like in baseball, they bring a left handed batter in to face a right handed pitcher because the numbers say the batter--in the big picture--has a better probability of being successful than a left handed batter in that situation. This is regardless of the pitcher being faced. Now, they may also dig down and look at an individual batter's stats against an individual pitcher but that's much easier to do in a sport where it's an individual against another individual.

Again, I'm not making the argument they should (or shouldn't) have gone for it in this situation. There was only a 32% probability they'd make it. And, this whole argument about this particular play is one of the dumbest things you guys have debated here. It cost the Eagles exactly NOTHING in this game.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Rick @ Sep 29 2017, 04:25 AM) *
And I've seen other charts, which say (sort of) the same thing. Also, Pedey also explained (in another article), it's not a go/no go chart they work off of. They get the probability of a play being successful and make a decision from there.

My point isn't about this particular play. Taken individually, ANY play could work (or not work), just like in any other sport. Taken as a whole, the numbers don't lie. This BS about it not working for football is just that, BS. The numbers don't lie. There is an ample sample size with the number of years they've been playing football and the number of plays which have been run. Are there more for baseball? Of course, but that doesn't invalidate the numbers. The numbers may change over time but they are still what they are.

I agree analytics should be used. There's nobody on this board more into this kind of stuff than Mikeynumbers. I am happy they do look at this stuff. However, my point is that I think the chart that is posted in this article is statistically wrong. I will try to work thru an example later on, but think about having to statistically defend a chart saying to go for it 4th and 1 from your own 9. I realize that teams adjust their actions based on game factors and maybe some gut feel, but if the statistical assumptions are wrong, then the basis for those decisions are wrong. As soon as I have time, I will try to work thru it and post it.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Rick @ Sep 29 2017, 05:30 AM) *
And you have seen all of the data and how the numbers have been computed? You know all of this how?


Have you read a single post on this thread? That's the whole fucking problem - we don't know. All I know is the data used to make that decision was ridiculous based on what is available. Which makes the rest of your post equally ridiculous.
The Franchise
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Sep 29 2017, 06:14 AM) *
I agree analytics should be used. There's nobody on this board more into this kind of stuff than Mikeynumbers. I am happy they do look at this stuff. However, my point is that I think the chart that is posted in this article is statistically wrong.


I've been involved with data analysis my whole adult life, and I'm good at it. I feel you get the points I'm making. If meaningful data can be used to improve your team's chances of winning, good. But as we both agree, and few others seem to get here, the data used to justify a blatantly stupid decision was absurd. It's important to keep pounding this home, because it's going to lose us big games against good teams. It's especially worrisome that it appears the data used comes from Kevin Rudy, who's studies are about as useless and irrelevant as they come. Remember 'running efficiency?'

Baseball was made for this stuff, because every play starts out the exact same way, and it always boils down to individual vs. individual. No sport could be more suited for decisions based off of simple averages. Football is completely different.
Phits
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Sep 28 2017, 11:24 PM) *
Well, because it should've? Two almost certain TD's in a row, before we stop them on 4th?

Punting isn't fun, but it exists for a reason. I honestly can't believe people are defending Pederson here. This kind of shit is going to bite us hard if he keeps doing it.

The decision to go for it isn't the issue, the failure to execute a well-called play is the problem. If we continue to be unable to execute well-called plays that will bite us in the ass.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.