2018 NFL Thread - The Dynasty

[KevShmev]

The amazing thing is NE did everything they wanted to do - shut down Hill and Kelce, protected Brady, ran the ball, got pressure on Mahomes all day, etc. - and still needed OT to win.

That kind of misses the point of "Belichick Football", though; the only word in that entire sentence that has any meaning to Belichick is "win".   Doesn't matter how, when, or who.   Just "win".

I am pretty sure every coach wants to win; that is not exclusive to Belichick.

And despite the win, I guarantee you that he was pissed that it was so close given that they did everything they wanted to do and prevented KC from doing most of the things they wanted to do.  Go look at the total yards and time of possession.  He knows they can't dick around like that against the Rams in two weeks and win.

And just think, despite all of that domination, if Dee Ford doesn't line up in the neutral zone, the Patriots lose because Brady throws what is essentially a game-ending INT, his 3rd of the game. 

[El Barto]

do we have laser gate?  https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nfl-investigating-laser-pointed-patriots-tom-brady-arrowhead-stands-151156296.html

How can there be a gate where the Patriots are victims? 

Pretty sure this happened a lot in one of the Mexico City games. I'm not sure it's ever been a problem for QBs. It screws with pilots because they're in a somewhat dark environment, focused onto a narrow field of vision, and behind glass that reflects the laser about. I'm not sure a QB would notice such a thing even if it glanced over his eyes.

And rock stars.  It's deadly for rock stars.

https://youtu.be/Vdaq2L2MWy4
https://youtu.be/1w-OiSag0iM

He's the Starchild. Why didn't he just return fire?

[El Barto]

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

[King Postwhore]

The amazing thing is NE did everything they wanted to do - shut down Hill and Kelce, protected Brady, ran the ball, got pressure on Mahomes all day, etc. - and still needed OT to win.

That kind of misses the point of "Belichick Football", though; the only word in that entire sentence that has any meaning to Belichick is "win".   Doesn't matter how, when, or who.   Just "win".

I am pretty sure every coach wants to win; that is not exclusive to Belichick.

And despite the win, I guarantee you that he was pissed that it was so close given that they did everything they wanted to do and prevented KC from doing most of the things they wanted to do.  Go look at the total yards and time of possession.  He knows they can't dick around like that against the Rams in two weeks and win.

And just think, despite all of that domination, if Dee Ford doesn't line up in the neutral zone, the Patriots lose because Brady throws what is essentially a game-ending INT, his 3rd of the game.

Do you know how many times I said coulda shoulda in Pat's Superbowls?

All of them.  You make it sound like the teams the Pats are playing against lester teams.  KC was the better team this year.

[bosk1]

Do you know how many times I said coulda shoulda in Pat's Superbowls?

All of them.  You make it sound like the teams the Pats are playing against lester teams.  KC was the better team this year.

I haven't seen a Lester team in the SB since SB XV.

[bosk1]

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

And what I am saying is that merely looking at W/L statistics do not tell us whether or not there is an advantage.  That statistic is meaningless.  It only tells us what happened after the fact.  It does not tell us why, and it does not tell us whether there is any correlation to winning the toss.  There are too many other variables.  But virtually all of them tell us that winning the toss is usually an advantage. 

[cramx3]

Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

Thinking about that statistic, makes me wonder if as we got closer to 2012 the percentages were trending towards the coin toss winner?  I say that, without any data as I wonder, because the game has become so offensive that kicking a field goal would become easier to do.  And now changing it to a TD, maybe we will see over time, that it starts trending towards being more favorable to the coin toss winner as the game continues to get more offensive. 

I think college does OT better, as in, I think it's more exciting.  But the NFL way keeps it more of a continuation of the real game and not making it into a mini game which is good too. 

Also, about the coin toss, in college even with both teams getting equal shots, the winner of the coin toss is always going to chose to defend first, so it's not that different than the NFL coin toss always chosing to get the ball.  There's advantages based on the style of OT.

[bosk1]

the game has become so offensive

Well, yes.  But that's a different conversation.

[King Postwhore]

Do you know how many times I said coulda shoulda in Pat's Superbowls?

All of them.  You make it sound like the teams the Pats are playing against lester teams.  KC was the better team this year.

I haven't seen a Lester team in the SB since SB XV.

Wicked Lester?

[TAC]

[Cool Chris]

Best Tweet of the night was:

@RyanBrownWJOX

"If @tonyromo ever tells you tomorrow is your last day on Earth, you best get your affairs in order."

 

Dude really does know his shit. Not only does he know what's coming next, he remembers everything that happened. I'm just as impressed with his ability to point out patterns as they develop. Gruden was the same way.

I just wish he'd learn that not every second of the game requires analysis. Sometimes the sound of the game is more entertaining than his nonstop exposition.

He's not used to being in a stadium this late in the season. He might simply be over-excited...

A couple pages late, but this had me 

Was listening to Hugh Millen the other day, and he is a big fan of Romo in the booth. But also said that other top tier guys like Aikman could prognosticate plays like Romo does, it just isn't their style to do so.

[El Barto]

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

And what I am saying is that merely looking at W/L statistics do not tell us whether or not there is an advantage.  That statistic is meaningless.  It only tells us what happened after the fact.  It does not tell us why, and it does not tell us whether there is any correlation to winning the toss.  There are too many other variables.  But virtually all of them tell us that winning the toss is usually an advantage.

Ah, OK. I get it. It's a definite advantage that might help half the teams win half the time.

[El Barto]

Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

Thinking about that statistic, makes me wonder if as we got closer to 2012 the percentages were trending towards the coin toss winner?  I say that, without any data as I wonder, because the game has become so offensive that kicking a field goal would become easier to do.  And now changing it to a TD, maybe we will see over time, that it starts trending towards being more favorable to the coin toss winner as the game continues to get more offensive. 

I think college does OT better, as in, I think it's more exciting.  But the NFL way keeps it more of a continuation of the real game and not making it into a mini game which is good too. 

Also, about the coin toss, in college even with both teams getting equal shots, the winner of the coin toss is always going to chose to defend first, so it's not that different than the NFL coin toss always chosing to get the ball.  There's advantages based on the style of OT.

They changed the rule in 2012 for the same reason we're seeing now. People got tired of seeing the team that won the toss score on their first possession. It's all about optics and making the viewers happy.

Count me in the camp that doesn't want anything to to with mini-games. Let's keep it about football.

And yeah, if they institute a new Patriots Overtime rule, where the other team is guaranteed a possession, you'll see everybody chose to kickoff. There's a definite benefit to knowing what you've got to score rather than scoring and hoping it's enough.

[TAC]

Count me in the camp that doesn't want anything to to with mini-games.

This.

[pg1067]

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

According to this article -- https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/sports/football/06overtime.html -- between 1994-2010 (the rule changed at the end of the 2010 regular season), the winning percentage for the coin toss winner was 59.8% -- 34.4% of the time on the first possession.

Do you know how many times I said coulda shoulda in Pat's Superbowls?

All of them.  You make it sound like the teams the Pats are playing against lester teams.  KC was the better team this year.

I haven't seen a Lester team in the SB since SB XV.

LOL (although Hayes also played in SB 18)!

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

And what I am saying is that merely looking at W/L statistics do not tell us whether or not there is an advantage.  That statistic is meaningless.  It only tells us what happened after the fact.  It does not tell us why, and it does not tell us whether there is any correlation to winning the toss.  There are too many other variables.  But virtually all of them tell us that winning the toss is usually an advantage. 

I don't really agree with the bolded part.  The whole point of a "correlation" is that, if A happens, then B also happens X% of the time.  However, I think 25 years of the team winning the toss winning the game nearly 60% of the time is a significant advantage.  I also think it's a significant advantage that the team winning the toss won without the other team possessing the ball almost 35% of the time (as compared to the 0% win percentage for the other team under the same circumstances).  To me, this is more of a "feel" argument than anything else:  it simply doesn't feel right that a random event (coin toss) gives one team the possibility of ending the game without the other team ever having possessed the ball (note that I did not say "opportunity to possess" because the team starting on defense does have an opportunity to possess by stopping the offense on downs or with a turnover).

I'm inclined to say that, in the playoffs, the teams should play a full quarter, and then, if the game is still tied, the college rule goes into effect.

[El Barto]

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

According to this article -- https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/sports/football/06overtime.html -- between 1994-2010 (the rule changed at the end of the 2010 regular season), the winning percentage for the coin toss winner was 59.8% -- 34.4% of the time on the first possession.

My numbers were from 74-2003. I'm guessing yours began with 1994 because the spot of the kickoff was moved back to the 30, thus improving the receiving team's field position; consistency and whatnot. In any case, we're both using pre-2011 numbers. The number of "walk-off" scores has very likely decreased since then. In any case, I agree that this is a "feel" problem.

[King Postwhore]

 

[Stadler]

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

And what I am saying is that merely looking at W/L statistics do not tell us whether or not there is an advantage.  That statistic is meaningless.  It only tells us what happened after the fact.  It does not tell us why, and it does not tell us whether there is any correlation to winning the toss.  There are too many other variables.  But virtually all of them tell us that winning the toss is usually an advantage.

This is very much with respect, but I'm pretty decent at math and you'll have to explain that one to me.  Coin flips over time are going to approach 50-50. That's why we use it as a sort of "random number generator" (of sorts).   Winning is the only outcome that matters.  If coin flips favor either team 50-50, and after the coin flip each team has a 50% chance of winning (same as at the start of a game) how is there an advantage?

[bosk1]

Because each team does NOT have a 50/50 shot at winning at that stage in the game.  There are lots of other factors that correlate besides merely the coin toss.  Maybe one team has momentum and the other team has fallen flat.  Maybe the team that got out to an early lead suffered a couple of key injuries as the game wore on.  Maybe one team gave it all they had just to get to the end of regulation and is running on fumes.  Maybe the team that just came from behind to tie it up has no business being in overtime, but got a couple of lucky plays and/or calls and dumbfoundedly arrived at a tie at the end and doesn't have what it takes to sniff another first down whether they get the ball or not.  Again, too many variables.  It isn't necessarily 50/50 going into overtime. 

[Stadler]

Because each team does NOT have a 50/50 shot at winning at that stage in the game.  There are lots of other factors that correlate besides merely the coin toss.  Maybe one team has momentum and the other team has fallen flat.  Maybe the team that got out to an early lead suffered a couple of key injuries as the game wore on.  Maybe one team gave it all they had just to get to the end of regulation and is running on fumes.  Maybe the team that just came from behind to tie it up has no business being in overtime, but got a couple of lucky plays and/or calls and dumbfoundedly arrived at a tie at the end and doesn't have what it takes to sniff another first down whether they get the ball or not.  Again, too many variables.  It isn't necessarily 50/50 going into overtime.

Well, thank you for explaining that; I understand what you mean. But, statistically speaking (that is, in the field of statistics) those variables aren't causal or even correlated.   The coin flip has no bearing on whether the players are gassed or not (or vice versa).  Why that's relevant is that at the point of the coin flip, one, both or none of the teams could be gassed (or injured, or mentally defeated...) but the outcome of the coin flip isn't impacted by that.  In fact, the coin flip is as likely to benefit that gassed party as it is to impair them.   So while I understand what you're saying - that the "win-loss" data is impacted by other variables besides the coin flip - it's a fair statistical (i.e. the field of statistics) assumption to say that those variables impact the outcome neutrally.

Short answer:  none of those things make the COIN FLIP ALONE any more or less likely to result in either a win or a loss as a matter of cause and effect. 

[rab7]

For clarity, the rule change was applied to the 2010 Playoffs, and then applied to the Regular Season in 2012.

The rule happened because, like it is now, people were upset that Brett Favre didn't touch the ball during the Saints-Vikings Conference Championship OT. Brees simply drove like 30 yards and kicked a FG to win. They forced it to be a TD because it was harder, and now that TD's are apparently easier to come by, people seem to be upset again.

[pg1067]

I don't think you need statistics to show that the coin flip is a random means of conferring an obvious advantage to whoever wins the coin flip.  The outcome in a small sample size does not necessarily reflect that.  I think this is one of those cases where you can just step back and use some "common sense" to know that it confers an artificial advantage.

But that said--so what?

Except that it's really not an "obvious" advantage. Even before the rule change in 2012 the winning percentage for the coin-toss winner was 52%. That doesn't take into account winning on the first possession, either.

And what I am saying is that merely looking at W/L statistics do not tell us whether or not there is an advantage.  That statistic is meaningless.  It only tells us what happened after the fact.  It does not tell us why, and it does not tell us whether there is any correlation to winning the toss.  There are too many other variables.  But virtually all of them tell us that winning the toss is usually an advantage.

This is very much with respect, but I'm pretty decent at math and you'll have to explain that one to me.  Coin flips over time are going to approach 50-50. That's why we use it as a sort of "random number generator" (of sorts).   Winning is the only outcome that matters.  If coin flips favor either team 50-50, and after the coin flip each team has a 50% chance of winning (same as at the start of a game) how is there an advantage?

Eh?  After the coin flip, each team does not have a 50% chance of winning.  I'm sure there have been one or two times when the team winning the OT coin flip has elected to start on defense, but the overwhelming majority of OT coin flip winners elect to receive.  WHY?  Because the team in possession of the ball has a far greater likelihood of scoring than the team not in possession.  Is it the only thing that matters?  Of course not.  Is it necessarily the most important thing?  Maybe not, but it is a completely random event that confers at least some advantage to the winner, if not a significant advantage, and the whole point of changing the rule is to eliminate or minimize the importance of a random event.

[El Barto]

The best argument to y'alls point is that shit happens. I'm very much of the opinion that D matters in OT, and that KC couldn't prevent NE from converting 3 different third downs is entirely on them. Make a play, get the ball back, score, don't whine. However, I'm almost certain that Green Bay didn't expect Larry Fitzgerald to run seventy-five yards for a game winner in OT. That's why you always take the ball. When somebody wins quickly in OT I understand why people don't like it. You give up a long drive and that's your own damn fault. KC fans should be pissed at their D and not the rules. (Assuming they actually are--it might just be everybody else that's complaining.)

[King Postwhore]

What did all you crybabies do in the old days when a field goal would win it?

At least if you stop a TD,  you have a chance.

[cramx3]

What did all you crybabies do in the old days when a field goal would win it?

At least if you stop a TD,  you have a chance.

Exactly.  I really wonder if KC had won with a TD on the first drive in OT, if people would be talking about the OT rules.  The rules are fine.  If you give up a TD, you deserve to lose.  In NFL OT, you still get 2/3 of the sides of the ball on the field, special teams and offense/defense at minimum.  There's plenty of opportunity to win if you play defense first, heck just look at the earlier game where NO had the ball first and lost in OT because the defense showed up.

[bosk1]

So, apparently, some people can't understand why the Chik-Fil-A in section 123 will not be open for business during the SB despite that every single CFA around the country is closed every Sunday of the year.   

[cramx3]

So, apparently, some people can't understand why the Chik-Fil-A in section 123 will not be open for business during the SB despite that every single CFA around the country is closed every Sunday of the year. 

  I remember hearing about this when they were building that stadium and how it was kind of ridiculous for the stadium to allow a CFA being they wouldn't even be open for the NFL games, kind of forgot about that until now.  While I can't fault them for holding their traditions, it does seem a bit odd to, I assume, pay rent for something that you aren't going to use on the biggest event.

[El Barto]

So, apparently, some people can't understand why the Chik-Fil-A in section 123 will not be open for business during the SB despite that every single CFA around the country is closed every Sunday of the year. 

  I remember hearing about this when they were building that stadium and how it was kind of ridiculous for the stadium to allow a CFA being they wouldn't even be open for the NFL games, kind of forgot about that until now.  While I can't fault them for holding their traditions, it does seem a bit odd to, I assume, pay rent for something that you aren't going to use on the biggest event.

I never knew there was one in the stadium. Yeah, that's peculiar.

Also, I wonder if they're required to have the "fan friendly pricing," like the other concessions in there. If not they'd actually be undercut by the typical Aramark offerings (which are likely better anyway).

[bosk1]

Well, they aren't very expensive anyway, so I doubt it's an issue.  But as I've said in the past, I just don't really get the obsession with them.  They aren't bad.  But if I have to eat fast food, they usually aren't going to be my first choice given other options.

[Samsara]

Well, they aren't very expensive anyway, so I doubt it's an issue.  But as I've said in the past, I just don't really get the obsession with them.  They aren't bad.  But if I have to eat fast food, they usually aren't going to be my first choice given other options.

Unless, however, you are with me. In that case, you will eat CFA in all its glory. 

[Destiny Of Chaos]

The stadium is used for more than Sunday NFL games. Heck Chic Fila sponsors the Peach Bowl which is played there.

[bosk1]

Well, they aren't very expensive anyway, so I doubt it's an issue.  But as I've said in the past, I just don't really get the obsession with them.  They aren't bad.  But if I have to eat fast food, they usually aren't going to be my first choice given other options.

Unless, however, you are with me. In that case, you will eat CFA in all its glory. 

I did go through a phase where I was into their chicken biscuits and coffee for breakfast.  But aside from that, I think I could count on two hands the times I have been to CFA for lunch/dinner without you, and most of those were at the insistence of my kids. 

[Cool Chris]

It was crazy when a CFA opened by my house. It was sharing a lot with a popular home improvement store, and they had cops out directing traffic in the parking lot, and even at the cross street for a couple days. There were lines at the drive-thru 20 cars long. It's a f*cking chicken sandwich!

[cramx3]

The stadium is used for more than Sunday NFL games. Heck Chic Fila sponsors the Peach Bowl which is played there.

Yea, that's their reasoning for being there, they still do business to make it worth it I guess.

It was crazy when a CFA opened by my house. It was sharing a lot with a popular home improvement store, and they had cops out directing traffic in the parking lot, and even at the cross street for a couple days. There were lines at the drive-thru 20 cars long. It's a f*cking chicken sandwich!

The CFA near my parents in Jacksonville has people outside taking our order for the drive through before you even get to the traditional order screen for when its super busy.  THey do that for the In n Outs I've been to in LA.  It's kind of crazy how people really do love this stuff.  I think it's really solid fast food, but I am not waiting in some crazy line for it as that defeats the "fast" part.

[lordxizor]

Some interesting (and mostly serious) potential options for overtime fixes.

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/23/18194165/overtime-rule-changes