General Sports Talk

Quote: tuttigym

.
I started weight training at the age of 42. Without ANY chemical help, my chest went from 48" to 54" and my arms went from16" to 20+" in the space of 10 months.

the 2 pics give an example of a 20 inch arms and a 54 inch chest - although he stated his arm size was greater than 20 inches

anyway - it gives you an idea of his appearance at that time


.



.


.


.

_____________


a look back at the incredible circumstances that caused the U.S. Olympic hoops team to lose to the Soviets in 1972

a really, really bogus win was credited to the Soviets - the U.S. team boycotted the medals ceremony refusing their Silver medals


summary from the linked news article:


Facing an older and more experienced Soviet team in the final, the Americans trailed until Doug Collins made two free throws to put the Americans ahead, 50-49, with 3 seconds left. Those 3 seconds would be re-examined for years to come.

After Collins’s second free throw, the Soviets inbounded the ball, but one of the officials stopped play because of commotion at the scorer’s table: Had the Soviet coach tried to call a timeout? Was he even allowed to call one?

In sum, the Soviets got a do-over, with 3 seconds put back on the clock. They even managed to make an illegal substitution. But when their subsequent full-court pass was deflected and the buzzer sounded, the Americans began to celebrate, believing they had won.

And then things really got crazy. William Jones, the head of international basketball, emerged from the stands to rule that the Soviet team should get a third chance to inbound the ball. Why? Because the scoreboard operator had neglected to reset the clock. The Americans, who were coached by Henry Iba, were furious and threatened to leave the court. Amid the chaos, a pickpocket filched Iba’s wallet. (Yes, someone really stole his wallet.)

Burleson, 70, said the U.S. team was left with no choice.

“They told us that if we didn’t go back out on the court, we’d forfeit the game,” he said.

As the Soviets readied themselves for yet another attempt at a last-ditch miracle, the referee along the baseline seemed to motion for McMillen to back off Ivan Edeshko, who was set to inbound the ball. That gave Edeshko more room to make a court-length pass to Aleksander Belov, a center who brushed off two smaller defenders for the game-winning layup.

After an appeal failed, the U.S. team unanimously agreed to boycott the medal ceremony. For 50 years, the team’s silver medals have remained in a vault in Lausanne, Switzerland.

McMillen and others on the team have spent decades wondering whether the game was fixed.

“But we could never find anything definitive,” McMillen said. “I think it was incompetence combined with complicity, meaning there was a comedy of errors, but I think there was also some complicity with Jones and some of the East Bloc nations to arrange an outcome.”

As Ratleff put it, “Once it got close at the end, I don’t think there was any chance they were going to let the Americans win.”




one last thing that does not appear in the article

if you look closely at the vid you will see that Ivan Edeshko stepped on the backcourt line during his fullcourt pass to Belov to win the game

that is a violation and should have cause the refs to give the ball back to the U.S. - unbelievable








https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/sports/olympics/usa-soviet-union-olympics-basketball.html


.

____________


the the Alabama vs. Texas game today the total is currently set at 64.5

in the 9 times they have previously met the total has never come close to 64.5 - it's been way under

in Alabama's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times

in Texas's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times


I'll take the under



.

Quote: lilredrooster

____________


the the Alabama vs. Texas game today the total is currently set at 64.5

in the 9 times they have previously met the total has never come close to 64.5 - it's been way under

in Alabama's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times

in Texas's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times


I'll take the under



.
link to original post

What happens in the Bama-Texas game today is not constrained by what has happened in the past. The college game this year is different than what it has been and Bama has an overpowering wide-open offense. And Bama's defense is not as strong as it was during the last few years. Texas is an opponent that is not good enough to slow down Bama much but is good enough to score and keep Alabama motivated to keep on scoring.

I think the line is about right. I'll take the over.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: lilredrooster

____________


the the Alabama vs. Texas game today the total is currently set at 64.5

in the 9 times they have previously met the total has never come close to 64.5 - it's been way under

in Alabama's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times

in Texas's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times


I'll take the under



.
link to original post

What happens in the Bama-Texas game today is not constrained by what has happened in the past. The college game this year is different than what it has been and Bama has an overpowering wide-open offense. And Bama's defense is not as strong as it was during the last few years. Texas is an opponent that is not good enough to slow down Bama much but is good enough to score and keep Alabama motivated to keep on scoring.

I think the line is about right. I'll take the over.
link to original post

very good points - my pick is far from a lock - I did not cap the teams for this year which is an obvious flaw -

but that's difficult to do in that they only have played one game - Bama crushed unranked Utah State - the total scored was 55

Texas crushed unranked LA-Monroe - the total scored was 62

who knows - anyway - we got a pretty good conversation out of it


.

Quote: lilredrooster

____________


the the Alabama vs. Texas game today the total is currently set at 64.5

in the 9 times they have previously met the total has never come close to 64.5 - it's been way under

in Alabama's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times

in Texas's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times


I'll take the under



.
link to original post

Good call. The next time you recommend a sports bet, you have my attention.

20-19 Alabama. They got it wrong.

tuttigym

___________


Appalachia State is a fun team - yesterday they upset Texas A & M who was ranked in the top 10- they were 17 point dogs - they embarrassed them on the Aggies own home turf

in 2007 the Mountaineers upset Michigan

in 2018 they took Penn State into overtime

love it - teams like them are what makes sports so great




the linked top 25 ranking projection has Texas A & M slipping to #18 after the loss and App State still unranked


https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/College-football-rankings-Projecting-the-AP-Top-25-rankings-after-Week-2-193059130/#193059130_20


.

Quote: tuttigym

20-19 Alabama. They got it wrong.

tuttigym
link to original post

I had the under! (But parlayed with Bama -19…)
I also had ND -19…..
But SUPER lucky on Tennessee…. MGM does a ‘Lions boost’ once a day. Most times it is slightly + EV…. TENNESEE AND OVER 60.5. The made it 61 only because of OT. They had the ball first, scored TD and XP. If the were second they don’t do the XP.

I think fading my ‘best bets’ over the last few years could have made you rich.

Ravens -6.5. Jets O line in total disarray. BOTH projected tackle starters out for this game. Jackson playing for a contract.
Ravens 27. Jets 10.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think fading my ‘best bets’ over the last few years could have made you rich.

Ravens -6.5. Jets O line in total disarray. BOTH projected tackle starters out for this game. Jackson playing for a contract.
Ravens 27. Jets 10.
link to original post

Personally, I like Lamar Jackson but I wouldn't give him a long term contract. They have him under contract this year and can use the Franchise Tag for the next two years. It will be cheaper than giving him a new contract and if he gets hurt they are only responsible for the rest of the current season and won't owe him any future money.

Assuming he suffers no major injury that would impact his play or his health, an exclusive tag for 2023 is estimated to be $45.5 million...which is what the Ravens just refused to pay him now. A 2nd year exclusive tag would net him at least north of $54 million.,,which is what the Ravens refused to pay him this time. I'm rooting for Lamar on this one. Of note as well, is that starting QBs never get cheaper as time goers on.

Gene

Quote: GenoDRPh

Assuming he suffers no major injury that would impact his play or his health,

I don't think that is a safe assumption. My assumption is that it is likely he will receive an injury in the next three years that could diminish his future performance. That is why I would not give a long term contract to him at this point. If he is still great and healthy in three years offer him the contract then.

That's one way to look at it. But that way wouldn't save any money, unless he's hurt. Next March the choices are market rate contract, franchise tag or he walks in FA. The following year the choices are a more expensive market rate contract, a more expensive franchise tag or he walks in FA. The year after that the choices are an even more expensive market rate contract, a franchise tag that would pay him about $78 million a year or let him walk in FA. By not coming to terms now, the Ravens are either going to have to pay more later, or find another starting QB.

Gene

Quote: DRich

Quote: SOOPOO

I think fading my ‘best bets’ over the last few years could have made you rich.

Ravens -6.5. Jets O line in total disarray. BOTH projected tackle starters out for this game. Jackson playing for a contract.
Ravens 27. Jets 10.
link to original post

Personally, I like Lamar Jackson but I wouldn't give him a long term contract. They have him under contract this year and can use the Franchise Tag for the next two years. It will be cheaper than giving him a new contract and if he gets hurt they are only responsible for the rest of the current season and won't owe him any future money.
link to original post

Lamar Jackson DOES NOT PLAY one game under the franchise tag. He would sit out. So the Ravens would have the choice of being a franchise in total disarray, or pay him the ludicrous sums franchise QBs are making. Look at recent signings to above average QBs like Wilson, Murray, Watson, Prescott.
They are clearly below Allen, Mahomes, Rodgers. In my opinion behind Brady and Burrow and Herbert as well.

It’s all negotiations. He wants 60 a year. They want to pay him 40 a year. He’ll get 50 for 6 years with 200 or so guaranteed.
How many MVPs will he need to be considered in the top 10!?!

Quote: SOOPOO

I think fading my ‘best bets’ over the last few years could have made you rich.

Ravens -6.5. Jets O line in total disarray. BOTH projected tackle starters out for this game. Jackson playing for a contract.
Ravens 27. Jets 10.
link to original post

If my arms were more limber I’d be patting myself on the back!
24-9!

Quote: SOOPOO

It’s all negotiations. He wants 60 a year. They want to pay him 40 a year. He’ll get 50 for 6 years with 200 or so guaranteed.
How many MVPs will he need to be considered in the top 10!?!

Rumor is the last offer was for $49 million a year for six years and he turned it down.

Quote: SOOPOO

Lamar Jackson DOES NOT PLAY one game under the franchise tag.

I don't know about that. If the Ravens held tight would he sit out and lose $60 million a year? Most likely he will be traded if they can't come to an agreement.

Quote: GenoDRPh

That's one way to look at it. But that way wouldn't save any money, unless he's hurt. Next March the choices are market rate contract, franchise tag or he walks in FA. The following year the choices are a more expensive market rate contract, a more expensive franchise tag or he walks in FA. The year after that the choices are an even more expensive market rate contract, a franchise tag that would pay him about $78 million a year or let him walk in FA. By not coming to terms now, the Ravens are either going to have to pay more later, or find another starting QB.

Gene
link to original post

The first thing that I would want to do is give Jackson all the credit in the world for playing this year; it's almost become quasi-expected for a stud player like him to sit out the final year of his contract if there's no new contract, or extension, and he's not getting the money he wants guaranteed for the next x years.

Obviously, the north of 23M he's getting this season isn't exactly beans, but the Ravens are arguably the side getting the value out of this, as they have for Jackson's entire career, to date.

That said, if you look at the last three seasons, the Ravens have been bounced in the Divisional round of the Playoffs twice (14-2, 11-5, in that order) and then last season came in dead last in the AFC North with an 8-9 record.

With the Steelers defense lighting up opposing QB's like crazy and a competent game manager as your guy under center, the Bengals (who the Steelers just beat) emerging as Super Bowl contenders last season and the Browns being...relevant...but likely to be better when Watson starts taking snaps :swallows a little vomit:, the Ravens, as an organization, are going to be competing in a very tough Division six games per season.

With that, my take on the current situation is that the Ravens are going to want to see what this season holds...and so far they have beaten the Jets, which doesn't prove anything. I think a Ravens team that goes 12-5, or better, and makes the playoffs is going to want to do some business...I think an 8-9 or 9-8 Ravens team is a tossup to do business...and I think a Ravens team that does worse than that is going to say, "Hey, Jackson isn't necessarily going to be the difference between us winning the big one or not," and then start over at the position.

When we look at the raw numbers for Jackson for what have been seasons he has gone in as the starter, and we're going to use yards/attempt as he only played 12 games last year and TD:INT ratio, here is what you get:

2019: 6:1, 7.8---113.3 RATE
2020: 2.89:1, 7.3---99.3 RATE
2021: 1.23:1, 7.5---87.0 RATE

Now, you would look at this and see a slight decline on the face of it as defenses have somewhat figured him out and figured out the Ravens' offense. Another part of this difference is, on net, the AFC North arguably getting better on the whole.

It's important to note that they have been anywhere from 1st-3rd best rushing offense in the league (depending on metric used) for all three of the last three seasons, so it's not like they're not able to mix it up (like the Steelers can't mostly owing to a poor offensive line) and Jackson has to do it all himself; simply not the case.

So, the only thing that you could ever do is look at other pieces and maybe make a determination that the other pieces around him aren't as good. Even if that were true, though, paying him double (or more) every year certainly isn't freeing up cash to work on your other pieces.

With that, I reiterate, I think the Ravens are going to play a little wait and see and any new contract (or late season extension) is going to largely be predicated on whether or not Jackson is seen as the difference between winning it all, or not, anytime in the next couple seasons. If they don't see it this way, then why extend him?

Quote: DRich

Quote: SOOPOO

Lamar Jackson DOES NOT PLAY one game under the franchise tag.

I don't know about that. If the Ravens held tight would he sit out and lose $60 million a year? Most likely he will be traded if they can't come to an agreement.
link to original post

Unlikely but possible on the trade. But you realize the team accepting him in a trade has ZERO leverage in the contract negotiations, and would probably be forced to pay him more than Mahomes!

I will bet you any (reasonable!) amount of money, giving you 2-1 odds, that he never plays a game under the franchise tag. Last time we made one of these bets you ended up owing me …. a double decaf espresso….

Quote: SOOPOO

Unlikely but possible on the trade. But you realize the team accepting him in a trade has ZERO leverage in the contract negotiations, and would probably be forced to pay him more than Mahomes!

link to original post

(Quote clipped, relevance, offer for bet removed, does not involve me)

The only way that I could see this happening is if you had a Super Bowl hopeful team with a star quarterback that goes down AND the backup they currently have is not anywhere near starter caliber.

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: lilredrooster

____________


the the Alabama vs. Texas game today the total is currently set at 64.5

in the 9 times they have previously met the total has never come close to 64.5 - it's been way under

in Alabama's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times

in Texas's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times


I'll take the under



.
link to original post

Good call. The next time you recommend a sports bet, you have my attention.
link to original post

Yes. I responded to Jim Rockford's post by disagreeing with him and saying I would take the over on the Alabama game. I could not have been more wrong! Congrats to JimR for being correct and maybe someone can explain to us what in heck happened to Alabama in that game. ??

Quote: gordonm888

Yes. I responded to Jim Rockford's post by disagreeing with him and saying I would take the over on the Alabama game. I could not have been more wrong! Congrats to JimR for being correct and maybe someone can explain to us what in heck happened to Alabama in that game. ??
link to original post

The two losses sustained by Alabama last year, Texas A&M and Georgia in the national championship game showed that Young, the Alabama QB does not execute well under real defensive pressure. A & M and UGA's front 7 created havoc against Young, and that is what Texas did very well. They kept him off balance and confused. Most college teams do not have the kind of defensive speed or depth to match up.

tuttigym

Quote: SOOPOO

I will bet you any (reasonable!) amount of money, giving you 2-1 odds, that he never plays a game under the franchise tag. Last time we made one of these bets you ended up owing me …. a double decaf espresso….

I have no idea if he will or not, but I will gladly bet you a coffee.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: JimRockford

Quote: lilredrooster

____________


the the Alabama vs. Texas game today the total is currently set at 64.5

in the 9 times they have previously met the total has never come close to 64.5 - it's been way under

in Alabama's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times

in Texas's last 10 games they have gone under that total 7 times


I'll take the under



.
link to original post

Good call. The next time you recommend a sports bet, you have my attention.
link to original post

Yes. I responded to Jim Rockford's post by disagreeing with him and saying I would take the over on the Alabama game. I could not have been more wrong! Congrats to JimR for being correct and maybe someone can explain to us what in heck happened to Alabama in that game. ??
link to original post

Hey, it was Red Rooster’s pick. I merely commended him on it.

Whoops. Yes, congrats to lilredrooster for a good pick, sorry about my confusion.

___________


Hey guys - I was looking at the results of the 2019 WOV NFL picks which is linked

and I'm not trying to make fun of the guy or anything like that - but I was pretty amazed

Onenickelmiracle who doesn't post here any more won only 16.47% of his picks

and there were 2 others - MWalz9 and Romes who won less than 20%

I don't think I've ever seen anything like that before

it has to be as hard to lose 84% of your picks as it is to win 84% of your picks - and I don't think anybody has ever won even remotely near that high a % in any NFL picks contest anywhere with close to 100 picks being made - not that I'm aware of - would also include any capper just making picks by himself


so, if a really bad handicapper instead of trying to win - tried to lose - he would win - right_________?



pretty interesting - to me anyway





.https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/sports/33441-2019-wov-picks-game-discussion-thread/81/



.

Quote: lilredrooster

___________


Hey guys - I was looking at the results of the 2019 WOV NFL picks which is linked

and I'm not trying to make fun of the guy or anything like that - but I was pretty amazed

Onenickelmiracle who doesn't post here any more won only 16.47% of his picks

and there were 2 others - MWalz9 and Romes who won less than 20%

I don't think I've ever seen anything like that before

it has to be as hard to lose 84% of your picks as it is to win 84% of your picks - and I don't think anybody has ever won even remotely near that high a % in any NFL picks contest anywhere with close to 100 picks being made - not that I'm aware of - would also include any capper just making picks by himself


so, if a really bad handicapper instead of trying to win - tried to lose - he would win - right_________?



pretty interesting - to me anyway





.https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/sports/33441-2019-wov-picks-game-discussion-thread/81/



.
link to original post

There is an asterisk next to their names indicating that they didn’t send in pics several times. They garnered plenty of 0-5 week records from that.

A lot of controversy in how Denver tried the field goal with 20 seconds left in the game. All of the talking heads are berating them but I think mathematically it may have been the correct move.

Quote: DRich

A lot of controversy in how Denver tried the field goal with 20 seconds left in the game. All of the talking heads are berating them but I think mathematically it may have been the correct move.
link to original post

Yeah, I wondered about that... what are the chances of Russ & the boys converting a 4th and 5 vs. making a 64-yd field goal? Was it a straight up analytics play, or more of a coach's gut feeling?

Quote: Joeman

Quote: DRich

A lot of controversy in how Denver tried the field goal with 20 seconds left in the game. All of the talking heads are berating them but I think mathematically it may have been the correct move.
link to original post

Yeah, I wondered about that... what are the chances of Russ & the boys converting a 4th and 5 vs. making a 64-yd field goal? Was it a straight up analytics play, or more of a coach's gut feeling?
link to original post

Actually you need to compound the chances of making the 4th and 5 play with the chances of making another field goal that could still be 50 yards+. My assumption is that the coach thought the chance of making that field goal was greater than the 4th down and another field goal.

Quote: Joeman

Quote: DRich

A lot of controversy in how Denver tried the field goal with 20 seconds left in the game. All of the talking heads are berating them but I think mathematically it may have been the correct move.
link to original post

Yeah, I wondered about that... what are the chances of Russ & the boys converting a 4th and 5 vs. making a 64-yd field goal? Was it a straight up analytics play, or more of a coach's gut feeling?
link to original post

It's more complicated than that.

The first thing that you would have to do is convert the Fourth Down, so you need to know the probability of that.

However, you now get into the probability of the next play(s) after that depending on whether or not it is an immediate FG attempt. I understand that Seattle had time outs, please correct if mistaken, so now you could be talking even multiple non Field Goal Attempt plays.

At a minimum, you would have to determine the following:

1.) Probability to Make FG Now.
2.) Probability to Fail Fourth Down Conversion.
3.) Probability to Convert 4th Down, Eventually Score Touchdown.
4.) Probability to Convert 4th Down, Eventually Turn Ball Over By Any Mechanism.
5.) Average Distance for Field Goal Attempt, Assuming 4th is Converted, Probability of Making From Said Distance.

Of course, #5 would be better replaced with the probability of every possible distance of Field Goal attempt (and, arguably, hashmark probability) assuming that Fourth Down is converted. Naturally, that's going to be a mess to try to figure out, though.

Quote: unJon

There is an asterisk next to their names indicating that they didn’t send in pics several times. They garnered plenty of 0-5 week records from that.
link to original post

(Quote clipped, brevity)

I don't remember, but that might or might not have been around the time of one of the Great WoV AP Exoduses due to people openly discussing gambling in a way that they didn't like.

There have been a few of those. I don't remember or care to look into when.

Quote: Mission146

It's more complicated than that.

I agree, but...

Quote:

The first thing that you would have to do is convert the Fourth Down, so you need to know the probability of that.

However, you now get into the probability of the next play(s) after that depending on whether or not it is an immediate FG attempt. I understand that Seattle had time outs, please correct if mistaken, so now you could be talking even multiple non Field Goal Attempt plays.

At a minimum, you would have to determine the following:

1.) Probability to Make FG Now.
2.) Probability to Fail Fourth Down Conversion.
3.) Probability to Convert 4th Down, Eventually Score Touchdown.
4.) Probability to Convert 4th Down, Eventually Turn Ball Over By Any Mechanism.
5.) Average Distance for Field Goal Attempt, Assuming 4th is Converted, Probability of Making From Said Distance.

Of course, #5 would be better replaced with the probability of every possible distance of Field Goal attempt (and, arguably, hashmark probability) assuming that Fourth Down is converted. Naturally, that's going to be a mess to try to figure out, though.
link to original post

If you determine that you are more likely to make the 64-yd field goal than you are converting the 4th down, the probabilities of #3 - #5 don't really matter since they will only reduce the overall chance of winning the game if you go for the conversion.

I guess you would also have to factor in the probability of the other team scoring with 0:15 on the clock. Whereas if you were to convert the 4th, you would have the opportunity to run the clock down to where the kick was the final play of the game.

BTW, our local sports talk guys are also all over Hackett this morning for not taking the timeout earlier, but if his plan all along was to try for the FG if a certain yardage was gained on 3rd down, then he managed the clock perfectly. I think it was just another one of those "if it works, you're a genius; if it doesn't, you're an idiot" scenarios.

Hackett's team was not prepared. Ridiculous number of delay of game penalties, as well as forced snaps with less than a second to go when the player in motion looks like he hasn't gotten to the position he was supposed to. As far as the FG versus go for it, we don't have access to what the likelihood of success of the kick was, given wind, weather, etc... My guess is if he takes 100 he makes 35 -45. If they go for 4th and 5 probably similar. I can't remember who Denver's RB is, but near the end zone he gave them nothing.

Quote: SOOPOO

Hackett's team was not prepared. Ridiculous number of delay of game penalties, as well as forced snaps with less than a second to go when the player in motion looks like he hasn't gotten to the position he was supposed to. As far as the FG versus go for it, we don't have access to what the likelihood of success of the kick was, given wind, weather, etc... My guess is if he takes 100 he makes 35 -45. If they go for 4th and 5 probably similar. I can't remember who Denver's RB is, but near the end zone he gave them nothing.
link to original post

I don’t think there’s anyway he makes 35% of FGs from that distance. Maybe 10%.

Quote: DRich

A lot of controversy in how Denver tried the field goal with 20 seconds left in the game. All of the talking heads are berating them but I think mathematically it may have been the correct move.
link to original post

I seriously doubt that to be true

a 64 yard field goal would have been the 2nd longest in NFL history

why would a Coach go up against all of that history - ridiculous imo

I don't need to do a lot of analytics - I'll just do some

according to this linked techno geek there have been only 23 successful field goals 60 yards plus out of about 144 attempted

and no doubt the vast majority of the successful ones were closer to 60 yards than 64 yards

that's a success rate of only 16%_____________terrible decision


.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-60-yard-field-goals-have-been-kicked-in-NFL-history-Who-was-the-first-to-do-it-Who-is-the-most-recent

.
https://sportsnaut.com/longest-field-goal-in-nfl-history/


This list has every recorded 60+ field goal from all levels of gridiron (high school, colleges, semi-pro, CFL, NFL). Impressive :


http://www.luckyshow.org/football/field%20goals%20of%2060%20yards%20or%20more.htm


and then there is this - which doesn't address the length of the 4th down try - but still


from the article:

.
"Through the first nine weeks of the 2021 season, there have been 268 fourth-down situations in which the model suggested going for it was the optimal decision by two-plus percentage points in expected win probability value for the offense. Collectively, teams have kept the offense on the field in 147 of those situations. That equals a 55 percent optimal decision rate, which is a six-year high in the Next Gen Stats era (since 2016)."


https://www.nfl.com/news/next-gen-stats-decision-guide-fourth-down-superlatives-at-midpoint-of-2021-nfl-s


.

Quote: unJon

Quote: SOOPOO

Hackett's team was not prepared. Ridiculous number of delay of game penalties, as well as forced snaps with less than a second to go when the player in motion looks like he hasn't gotten to the position he was supposed to. As far as the FG versus go for it, we don't have access to what the likelihood of success of the kick was, given wind, weather, etc... My guess is if he takes 100 he makes 35 -45. If they go for 4th and 5 probably similar. I can't remember who Denver's RB is, but near the end zone he gave them nothing.
link to original post

I don’t think there’s anyway he makes 35% of FGs from that distance. Maybe 10%.
link to original post

I think FG kickers have extended their distance substantially over the past few years. Someone hit one this weekend I think from 59 that would have been good from 70. The reason there are few really long FG's is the penalty for a missed one (ball spotted where the kick originated from) is huge. Not all kickers have enough leg strength to make a 65 yarder. Those that do will easily exceed a 10% success rate.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think FG kickers have extended their distance substantially over the past few years. Someone hit one this weekend I think from 59 that would have been good from 70.

that's anecdotal and not meaningful

just as it would not be meaningful if I pointed out that a guy tried one from 59 and was short by 10 yards


.

Quote: Mission146

It's more complicated than that.

The first thing that you would have to do is convert the Fourth Down, so you need to know the probability of that.

However, you now get into the probability of the next play(s) after that depending on whether or not it is an immediate FG attempt. I understand that Seattle had time outs, please correct if mistaken, so now you could be talking even multiple non Field Goal Attempt plays.

At a minimum, you would have to determine the following:

1.) Probability to Make FG Now.
2.) Probability to Fail Fourth Down Conversion.
3.) Probability to Convert 4th Down, Eventually Score Touchdown.
4.) Probability to Convert 4th Down, Eventually Turn Ball Over By Any Mechanism.
5.) Average Distance for Field Goal Attempt, Assuming 4th is Converted, Probability of Making From Said Distance.

Of course, #5 would be better replaced with the probability of every possible distance of Field Goal attempt (and, arguably, hashmark probability) assuming that Fourth Down is converted. Naturally, that's going to be a mess to try to figure out, though.
link to original post

So, let's put the Wizard on the sidelines and in approximately one minute calculate all the above probabilities, make a decision, devise a plan, communicate that plan, and execute. Pretty simple, huh?

tuttigym

I would think a better way to judge the make probability is to see what the kicker does in his warm-ups just before each half. Seeing what that particular kicker does on that particular day, kicking in that particular direction has to be more accurate than general historical data.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: unJon

Quote: SOOPOO

Hackett's team was not prepared. Ridiculous number of delay of game penalties, as well as forced snaps with less than a second to go when the player in motion looks like he hasn't gotten to the position he was supposed to. As far as the FG versus go for it, we don't have access to what the likelihood of success of the kick was, given wind, weather, etc... My guess is if he takes 100 he makes 35 -45. If they go for 4th and 5 probably similar. I can't remember who Denver's RB is, but near the end zone he gave them nothing.
link to original post

I don’t think there’s anyway he makes 35% of FGs from that distance. Maybe 10%.
link to original post

I think FG kickers have extended their distance substantially over the past few years. Someone hit one this weekend I think from 59 that would have been good from 70. The reason there are few really long FG's is the penalty for a missed one (ball spotted where the kick originated from) is huge. Not all kickers have enough leg strength to make a 65 yarder. Those that do will easily exceed a 10% success rate.
link to original post

He is 1 out of 5 career on 60+ attempts. The 1 was a 61 yarder. I’d fade him all day at 35% from 64 yards. Not that we could ever set that up.

For what it’s worth, Next Gen Stats handicapped it at 14.2%. Looks like they didn’t include kicker specific factors, but I don’t think you are either (?).

https://twitter.com/nextgenstats/status/1569566440235347968?s=46&t=iodG5V6Fd9G0U9T3JwfB_w

Quote: Joeman

I would think a better way to judge the make probability is to see what the kicker does in his warm-ups just before each half. Seeing what that particular kicker does on that particular day, kicking in that particular direction has to be more accurate than general historical data.
link to original post

you have a point but I'm not sure you're correct

if I'm an NCAAB coach and I watched as part of the warmups - (which is not usually done in warmups but just for example purposes) and I saw my 72% free throw shooter hit 10 in a row from the line - and I saw my 88% free throw shooter only hit 7 out of 10 from the line

so it's a technical foul late in the game - to win the game - the Coach gets to choose his free throw shooter

no way I'm going to choose the 72% free throw shooter - I'll choose the 88% shooter every single time


.

Quote: unJon

[
For what it’s worth, Next Gen Stats handicapped it at 14.2%. Looks like they didn’t include kicker specific factors, but I don’t think you are either (?).

I think you have to use kicker specific data as the coach would do. He watches this guy kick field goals every day. I would guess the coach would expect him to make that 40% of the time or he wouldn't have attempted it.

By the way, the kick was long enough and just a slight bit left.

One thing I thought of at the time, but haven't heard mentioned is that the decision not to go for the 4th and 5 seemed, to me at least, to be a slap in the face to Russel Wilson. What kind of message does that send to him and the rest of the offense? "Yeah, Russ, you're our guy... but I don't trust you that much!"

Even if I thought the FG gave me a slightly better chance at coming away with the dub, I'd still hand him the ball and "let Russ cook."

I assumed at the time that the Denver coach felt that his offensive players were gassed or beat up or mentally defocussed. The Broncs looked terrible on the previous play and I seem to recall that they looked ineffective on the two previous plays before that. I wonder if the Coach felt in his gut that his Broncs squad was just not going to make the yardage necessary for the first down. He may not know a ton of probabilities to multiply together but presumably he does know his players. And Denver has thin air, so he went for the small but finite chance of a 64 yds field goal.

With hindsight, I agree it is hard to defend his decision.

Quote: Joeman

I would think a better way to judge the make probability is to see what the kicker does in his warm-ups just before each half. Seeing what that particular kicker does on that particular day, kicking in that particular direction has to be more accurate than general historical data.
link to original post

Bingo!

___________


the Broncos kicker - McManus - is ranked 26th in the NFL in terms of % considering all of them for 2021

in that year he was 4 of 8 from 50 to 59 yards

Justin Tucker was 5 for 5 from that distance - Chris Boswell was 8 for 9 and Daniel Carlson was 6 for 7


.
https://www.nfl.com/stats/player-stats/category/field-goals/2021/reg/all/kickingfgpct/desc




.

Stats guys say Wilson converts 1st down around half the time. Had they decided to go for it immediately there was nearly a minute left on the clock. Time for a few plays even after they would have gotten the first down. Some reasonable chance they can move the ball into an 80+ % chance of success FG.

It’s funny how, sort of like with bets we make, we overemphasize the results instead of the process. You all don’t think had the FG been successful that Hackett wouldn’t be having praise heaped upon him?

Coach SOOPOO would have let Wilson try for the 1st down. But I don’t think it was AS BAD a decision as virtually all the analysts are making it out to be!

Quote: SOOPOO

Stats guys say Wilson converts 1st down around half the time. Had they decided to go for it immediately there was nearly a minute left on the clock. Time for a few plays even after they would have gotten the first down. Some reasonable chance they can move the ball into an 80+ % chance of success FG.

It’s funny how, sort of like with bets we make, we overemphasize the results instead of the process. You all don’t think had the FG been successful that Hackett wouldn’t be having praise heaped upon him?

Coach SOOPOO would have let Wilson try for the 1st down. But I don’t think it was AS BAD a decision as virtually all the analysts are making it out to be!
link to original post

I'm unconvinced that he would have been praised had the FG try been successful. I'm sure that the decision wouldn't be called into question quite as vociferously, but the fact that trying from that kind of distance as opposed to attempting to convert something would remain questionable.

In watching the replay, it seems that there was something of a lack of direction on that particular play. What I mean is that if Hackett knew the plan was always to hope for McManus not to hack it, it sure doesn't seem as though the offense knew that was the plan.

The reason that I suggest that is because, assuming that you knew you're going to kick from x if 4th Down and down 0-2 with X:xx, or less, on the clock, you'd still want to at least try to draw the defense offsides before finally taking that timeout that preceded the kick. Even if you weren't going to try an offensive play on First Down (though I have no idea why you wouldn't with timeouts in the bag) the five yards would still make the kick much more reasonable.

With that, I would conclude that even if this was not the best probability to win play, (which we arguably do not strictly know) the Broncos offense certainly did not take any action that could have made it more probable.