Sports NFL Official Thread (ongoing)
- Thread starter NotBanjaxo
- Start date
Jabril Peppers put on the commissioners exemption list
Chris Blake Griffith is accusing Houston Texans WR Stefon Diggs of drugging him and trying to engage in sexual activities with him, claiming it played a part in him getting jumped by Stefon’s brother.
Griffith previously filed a lawsuit against Stefon Diggs’ brother, Darez, after he tried to rob and attack him in an elevator.
Via PopFlop.
Griffith previously filed a lawsuit against Stefon Diggs’ brother, Darez, after he tried to rob and attack him in an elevator.
Via PopFlop.
I believe him about as much as I believe LeBron when LeBron says HE has nothing to do with firing the coach
Didn’t have that one on my bingo card
3rd game in 11 days for Seattle. But yeah the league is all about safety.
View: https://youtube.com/shorts/JUC3AHxsKmc?si=c4DvVDwqLb0oy1kX
This happened to a team last week. I'm forgetting who it was though. Try to convert the 2pt
I completely disagree with that
You fail on both and you just made it a 3 score deficit with the other team not scoring a point
IMO...
There's a problem with analytics in sports, in that it only considers the raw statistics with vast sample sizes, that bear out over the course of an entire season.
They do not factor in the individual variables of a skill-based game composed of athletes with various levels of energy, mental acuity, or injury status. They can't because that shit would have to be calculated on the fly, before every play. We'd need some serious AI for that (wonder how far away we are from the first AI GM/HC...but I digress).
So the NFL may be 50/50 on 2-point conversions, but the right side of your O-Line may be struggling that day against the D due to your starters being out. Suddenly that 50/50 chance that bears out of over the course of a season isn't so 50/50. Conversely, your offense might have kept their Defense on the field all game, and they are tired, and suddenly you might have a greater chance than just 50/50. And those are just current game examples, not including season long factors like who has the best offense or defense to begin with.
The old "situational modifiers" are not considered from a pure analytical standpoint, and it's always been that way, which is why right vs lefty, lefty vs right shit doesn't always work in MLB during the playoffs either.
Playing the odds is normally wise, but a good coach/manager has to consider the current flow of the game, otherwise their analytics will blow up in their faces at the worst time because they rolled a 1 on their d20 when they only needed a 5 to score a hit.
So some geek saying "go for 2 down 14" because it bears out that there is a 12.5% advantage is right in a general sense as for best practice over the course of the season. But saying to do it "always" on any given gameday, that might actually be the worst thing to do.
Yep
Shitload of other variables, hundreds at least
A successful extra point does not lose momentum after a TD
Failing on a 2 point conversion does lose momentum after a TD
That is only one variable that I am sure isn't factored into the statistics
You are already down 2 scores to start with. It's about putting yourself in the best chance to win.
Above was just about the logic on why to do it this way. If you look back at past games the teams that elect to go for it win more often then those who elect to not go for it.
I get that, fully understood.
A decision like that would have to do with how much time is left...
and if you feel you have the better team and strategy at that point of the game, then you can get two scores and then win on a third score
Three parts to the game and this strategy assumes you can only only win with D stops and only have chance for two scores before game is over, a lot of other variables in that strategy
I'm just saying it isn't nearly as cut and dry as that guy tries to make it in that 55 second clip
Also how accurate is analytics with the rules constantly changing, the data set is smaller with every rule change.
IS analytics factoring in weather? Windspeed? Turf conditions?
I just don't think anybody advocating for using the percentages alone is accurately assessing the gametime decision.
Last edited:
Let me put it this way.
Yes.
"IS analytics factoring in weather? Windspeed? Turf conditions?"
Yes.
I would like to see that part of the equation, not convinced that is is factored in on the basic game situational percentages that are often referred to.
Maybe some models do and some don't, or maybe all do(I doubt it)?
Tons of variables and feel of the game is pretty important, some coaches have it and some don't and that isn't easily quantifiable.
The stats have a place no doubt, just not the end all be all like in that short clip. IMO.
Didn't realize this was still going on
Gruden shouldn't be making weird videos I think.
www.nbcsports.com
"The former Raiders coach has secured an order from the Nevada Supreme Court setting his case against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell for a rehearing before the entire panel. This opens the door to a decision by the seven justices to overturn the decision made by three of them that Gruden’s case should go to arbitration.
It’s possibly a good sign for Gruden’s cause. If the court wanted to uphold the ruling for the NFL and Goodell, all it had to do was do nothing. That said, and as explained in the one-page ruling, the applicable rules allow any two members of the court to order a rehearing. With seven justices, the two who wanted it (if it was only two) would need two more in order to overturn the ruling for the NFL.
The ruling comes three years to the day since Gruden’s last game as coach of the Raiders. He resigned under pressure the next day.
While the league office won’t appreciate this opinion, the three judges got it wrong. Gruden’s case ended up in arbitration based on a flawed reading of the NFL’s Constitution & Bylaws. Looking at it more broadly, any arbitration resolved by the Commissioner or his hand-picked designee is tainted by a clear conflict of interest."
Gruden shouldn't be making weird videos I think.
Jon Gruden secures key win in case against NFL, Roger Goodell
Nevada Supreme Court decides to grant rehearing of decision to compel arbitration.
www.nbcsports.com
"The former Raiders coach has secured an order from the Nevada Supreme Court setting his case against the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell for a rehearing before the entire panel. This opens the door to a decision by the seven justices to overturn the decision made by three of them that Gruden’s case should go to arbitration.
It’s possibly a good sign for Gruden’s cause. If the court wanted to uphold the ruling for the NFL and Goodell, all it had to do was do nothing. That said, and as explained in the one-page ruling, the applicable rules allow any two members of the court to order a rehearing. With seven justices, the two who wanted it (if it was only two) would need two more in order to overturn the ruling for the NFL.
The ruling comes three years to the day since Gruden’s last game as coach of the Raiders. He resigned under pressure the next day.
While the league office won’t appreciate this opinion, the three judges got it wrong. Gruden’s case ended up in arbitration based on a flawed reading of the NFL’s Constitution & Bylaws. Looking at it more broadly, any arbitration resolved by the Commissioner or his hand-picked designee is tainted by a clear conflict of interest."
To give a "blunt force" answer I'll put it like this. When a model uses historical data to come to an probability of something happening ask your self this: Has it ever rained, snowed, bad Turf, etc etc or is this the very first game ever to have such weather conditions? I would say confidently that unless you have an extreme weather game where records of cold or heat are present then weather/turf is being factored because those same conditions today were present in past games you are using as data. Extreme weather games however are rare. Thats why we give those games names like Snow Bowl as they are rememberable as such.
At the end of the day I'll put it like this. If we look at the historical data of every game played and teams that were down 14pts elect to go for it on the 1st score win more than teams who elect to do like you said and just kick the extra point; why is it smarter to do what the teams that lost more than those who won did?
^ Again, with that question, weather/etc are factored in.
I get it in that context and agree. Appreciate the explanation.
I do think analytics are great and useful, just think a coach has to only take them as part of the equation.
Personally I think playing for two 7s being down 14 can be a wise decision depending on all the other variables. If your defense is total shit then I guess you gamble on getting a stop and roll the dice. I also don't like the momentum switch that occurs when you fail on a 2.
