So it's been a while...

Well it's been a while since I last posted, not that it particularly matters cause no one reads this anyway. But some interesting things have happened since then, such as the Rose Bowl and a few rounds of the playoffs. Here are some random thoughts.

The Rose Bowl was a fantastic game. Everyone knows about Vince Young, and how wonderfully he played, but here are some other things I found interesting:
-Matt Leinart had an absolutely amazing game. He just didn't miss receivers, and showed a ton of poise. I was down on him after the UCLA game, but now I think he does deserve to be a top two draft pick.
-LenDale White looked fantastic too, and deserves to go in the first round. If the Ravens don't resign Jamal hopefully we can get this guy. He may end up being a better NFL RB than you-know-who.
-Speaking of you-know-who, he looked pretty ordinary against a fast Texas Defense, and I don't think that translates well for his future. You have this guy who has sprinter speed, but has only had one game in his collegiate career of over 20 carries. He sounds like the perfect change of pace back (like they have with Parker in Pittsburgh... or at USC now), but I don't think he can be a 35 touch a game guy in the NFL. But he was amazing to watch, and I hope he proves me wrong and does become the next Marshall Faulk.
-Same NFL speed comment goes for Vince Young. He will not be running for 150+ every game in the NFL because the defenses are so fast. However, I feel like he will still be a good pro. If I were a coach, I wouldn't try to change anything about him, he is very accurate, and his running gives defenses fits. Hopefully he can become what everyone hoped Michael Vick would be.

In a comment unrelated to the Rose Bowl, Marcus Vick is an idiot.

I have some comments on the idea that a QB must be a pocket passer to succeed. I think this is total bullshit, and I simply don't understand how this makes any sense at all. I think what is happening when these sportswriters who have been covering football for thirty years say this, is that they are saying this mostly because a quarterback who scrambles first has never been particularly successful in the past. Now this may seem to support them, but I think that this is simply because scrambling quarterbacks are a recent trend, and one of them will come up one day and be just fantastic. Anyways, you could make the argument that Randall Cunningham was pretty successful (but no Super Bowls), and Steve Young did scramble quite a bit, but I cannot think of a pure scrambling qb who has done all that much in the NFL. As I said before, hopefully Vince Young changes this perception. I don't see him pulling a Steve McNair or Donovan McNabb and only using his legs for the first few years he is in the league, and then becoming a pocket passer, I think he has to be scrambling, or bust.

I don't understand why people rag on Peyton Manning so much for choking. I think he played just fine against the Steelers, but they played fantastic on both sides of the ball to win. His stats were fine, or even incredible considering he was getting no more than two seconds to throw the ball every down. The blocking could just not handle the blitzes, and the Steelers had the perfect offensive gameplan. If you want to talk about a QB who choked it up, talk about Tom Brady... if you watched that game he was just dreadful. He missed wide open receivers all the time, with plenty of time in the pocket.

D-CAF *bang bang* D-CAF *bang bang*

I will end by talking about one of the greatest games I have ever seen, and certainly the most touching (and probably the longest). The Orange Bowl between Florida State and Penn State was just wonderful on every level. You see these two coaches who everyone thought could not be successful anymore, for various reasons ranging from not being able to recruit because they don't understand today's youth, to not being able to compete because they don't understand today's offenses and defenses. I think it is wonderful that Paterno and Bowden made the Orange Bowl, and that game signified everything that is right about Amateur Athletics. Both teams ran out as a team, as opposed to getting the starters announced individually, and Florida State actually walked out all holding hands, with Bowden in the middle. After a few field goals were missed and as they walked off the field the camera crews were trying to get a shot of the Florida State kicker crying, but anywhere he was the offensive linemen made a circle around him to shield him from the cameras. The star Penn State linebacker who got severely injured in the fourth quarter got driven back out to the sidelines and watched the game from the back of a cart, because he cared so much about his team. The coaches got together and both said how proud they were of their teams after the games, and they both felt like winners. These are two men who I believe honestly think that teamwork and character building of equal, if not greater, importance than winning and losing. I think either coach would, if given the choice between a perfect season but a group of guys that goes on to having many issues in life, or a mediocre season where everyone tries their best and goes on in life to be successful in all they do, they would chose the latter. Really, you don't think of football as touching, but this game really was.

Oh yeah, the game was damn good also. If I had my way these teams would play every year in a bowl.

More Ravens fun

How seven days can change your mind...

So it seems that Kyle Boller is figuring out how to play quarterback in the NFL, finally. He has gotten away from pressure, made good decisions, and been accurate for the most part. Most importantly he has been fairly cool-headed the last few games. We have not really seen him randomly lobbing balls into the middle of the field, or into triple coverage. His one interception the last few games was to an open receiver, but he just overthrew him because there was pressure in the middle, so he had to get it high. That is fine, all quarterbacks do that. Really I have been tremendously impressed with his play the last two games.

Now, I am not saying that he is the solution for the future, but it looks like he very well may be turning things around. I am now in the camp that we should bring in a capable veteran, like a Brad Johnson figure, who can compete with Kyle in training camp and can also be a good backup. Anthony Wright and his contract have got to go.

Now, with that said, there are issues. The offensive line is just laughable. Most teams create holes for their running backs, the Ravens just sort of create a wall to run into. I now believe that the running backs are not the issue at all, but the offensive line is at the root of the rushing problems. This must be fixed for next year. I have also sort of flipped on Jamal Lewis. If he wants a top 3 contract for running backs, screw him, but if he wants like a top 10, I say we should pay him. His combination of power/speed/vision is unmatched in the NFL. I think as soon as we get a line, he will break out. He has also been denying a lot of the stuff that he was reportedly saying earlier in the year. He claims he was misquoted and quotes were used out of context all the time. Now I don't know who to believe between him and journalists, but I am for giving him a second chance if he honestly wants to be in the purple next year. Anyways, if he actually sucks, we can always cut him and not pay a few years of his contract, because that is how the NFL works.

The defense has also looked rather mediocre, or even bad recently. I feel like the Ravens should not have an average defense, and something needs to be done, especially against the run. We need better defensive linemen. A good safety to go with Mr. Reed wouldn't hurt either.

Anyway, I hope everyone had/has a nice holiday.

Ravens 2006

Here are my thoughts on the Ravens in 2006.

Draft:

Bad: Ravens get top three pick in draft, give up either:
A) All picks in this draft
B) 1st, 3rd round picks in 2006, 1st in 2007, 1st in 2008

Good: Ravens get #1 pick in draft, give up:
1st and 3rd round pick in 2005, some veteran (maybe Ray Lewis with all the problems he has caused in the locker room recently). I don't want Leinart. He has not impressed me at all, and I have watched quite a few USC games. Bush on the other hand has been amazing. But I don't think either side would do the above deal, so I'm sure I'm out of luck.

Also Good: Ravens keep their picks and draft mostly OL and Defense, with maybe some QB or RB in there too.

Positions:

QB: Kyle Boller has got to be the most frustrating person to root for. He obviously has the physical tools. His strike to Mark Clayton last week that must have gone at least 50 yards in the air, which he threw off his back foot was beautiful. The stories about his arm strength are pretty well known. But his two picks were awful, especially the one where he just randomly chucked it into the endzone. His decision making is almost comical at times. And I actually laughed at his fumble. This guy is just not cool or in control.

I would like to see him be a backup for a year or two, and then come back and try again. He is pretty cheap, so I would like to see the Ravens get a Veteran next year and then maybe come back with Boller in 2007 if he has improved. Steve McNair will probably be on the market, and same with Kerry Collins. These are both reasonable options. If the Vikings are desparate to move Culpepper I would certainly look into that, but I wouldn't really give much up for him.

RB: I was the #1 Jamal Lewis supporter all year, but his comments have really made me do a 180 on him. He has said that he is not running hard on purpose, he said that the Ravens have betrayed him, he is like a scourge in the locker room. I would not resign him. I think that the worst mistake that the Ravens could make is to Franchise him, because he is just not worth that kind of money to the Ravens. I think he still has some great years left, but just not with the Ravens.

I would sign Chester Taylor to a multi-year deal. Obviously getting Bush would be nice, but it won't happen. We would also need a bruiser. If Lendale White is available in the Second Round, I would like to grab him. He looks very impressive, and people seem to think he should be a decent pro. No word on where he would go exactly until he gets to the combine, but people seem to think he will be a late 1st round draft pick.

WR + TE: No issues here (first time in many many years where we can say that - two thumbs up to Mason and Clayton).

OL: Ack. Big issues. We need a Right Tackle, a Center (Mike Flynn is washed up), and a few good versitile guys. I am not thrilled with Vincent (the Right Guard), but we are locked up with him in a long term deal, so may as well stick with him. JO and EM only have about one more year of being above average I think, so we are going to need a total overhaul soon. Must sign/draft people.

Def: The Ravens need a stud Defensive Tackle, or two. I like Kelly Gregg, but honestly, he is a 280 pound defensive tackle. And Kemoeatu I think is even worse (despite being quite a bit larger). I feel like if we can get a stud tackle like Siragusa or Adams from the Super Bowl year that would help so much. You cannot run the ball against teams with guys like that.

Honestly, if I was the Ravens, I would play a 4-4. Chris McAlister is one of the most physical corners in football, and yet the Ravens play these coverages where he is 10 yards off the receiver all the time. I would jam the receivers and blitz way more. Adalius Thomas and Bart Scott both play in the secondary sometimes, and Ray Lewis is a great cover linebacker, when he is healthy, so I don't think this should be a problem. I would love to have our front four being Suggs, Gregg, Stud DT, Stud DE and our linebackers being Thomas, Lewis, Polley, Scott. Keep Weaver as a backup, and bring Boulware in to blitz, and I would be happy. If we can get two new Tackles that is all the better. I like the idea of having McAlister, Rolle, and Reed as the secondary.

For all the talk of the 46 at the beginning of the year and the exciting blitzes, we have not seen it at all. The defense has been a huge dissapointment. Hopefully we can get everyone healthy and actually do things like blitz next year.

The Ravens should have some cap room, so hopefully we can make some good things happen in the offseason.

Why Stat Based Contract Incentives are Dumb

Case 1: You are a running back on a team which is out of playoff contention. You get a $1.5 million dollar bonus if you reach 1500 yards on the year, which doubles your salary. You have 1488 yards with thirty seconds left in the game. You are down by two, with one time out left. The call is a power sweep on 3rd and 2. You get to the outside and have the first down, and have two decisions. You can step out of bounds, save your team's time out, and help your team win the game. Or you can say screw it, this game is meaningless, I very well could not get another carry the rest of the season, and cut it upfield and go for the money. What do you do?

Case 2: You are the coach of a playoff team whose last game, which is a Monday night game, is meaningless. You figure to play your starters for most of the first quarter and then sit them. Your superstar running back gets a $2 million dollar bonus if he leads the league in rushing. After the first two series your running back is 53 yards out of the league lead. Do you bench him with the rest of the starters? He needs 29 yards at halftime. 13 more yards at the end of the third. You are playing the Raiders, your most hated rival, and a team with nothing to lose, who is more than willing to do something dirty to end your running backs season. When do you take him out?

Case 3: You are a baseball manager in the final game of the season. This game could determine home field advantage depending on who you face in the playoffs. Your starter gets a $2 million bonus if he has 20 wins. He has 19. It is 10-3 at the start of the bottom of the fifth. Your starter gets two outs, but gives up five runs, and there are runners at the corners. He obviously can't get the win if you pull him, but he clearly doesn't have his stuff tonight.

The fact that you have to think about anything other than doing the best thing for your team is stupid. The fact that people can say that the Giants are purposely not giving Tiki Barber carries because they don't want to pay his bonus is stupid. If I was an executive I would not have stat based incentives, and if I was a player I would not take them. I would be fine with incentives based on All-Star, MVP, etc. because they are not concrete things. Basing them directly on stats makes people deal with personal issues that you shouldn't have to deal with when you are playing sports. All anyone should worry about is helping the team.

On a related note stats like Completion Percentage and QB Rating are dumb because it rewards QB's that take sacks instead of throwing it away. There have been QB's who would eat the ball instead of throwing it away, because it reflects more poorly on them to throw it away. This is also dumb, and there should be some new stat created, similar to QB Rating, where something like yards per completion and number of completions are more important than incompletions. There will be problems with any formula created, but penalizing incompletions so heavily, when they are rarely that bad, seems silly.

The Colts

Today we found a new reason that the Colts were right to play their starters. They got absolutely manhandled today by the Chargers. Their offensive line looked horrible, after playing absolutely fantastic the rest of the year. The Chargers exposed problems that the Colts probably didn't know they had. Now they can try to fix these problems in the next week. If they had not played the starters, they very well could have played the Chargers after the bye, and gotten exposed then.

If I am Tony Dungy, I absolutely have to fix these problems before the playoffs. I play my starters at least for the first half next week, and until the end if the game is in doubt. If all goes well next week, and the Colts win comfortably, then I take the last game against Arizona and play the starters for one or two series, and then bench them. If next week goes like this week, you have got to play the starters for at least the first half, and longer if need be against Arizona. You have to go into the playoffs on a good note. I could not even imagine benching the starters after getting beat up like that.

By the way, the undefeated Dolphins team is absolutely classless. I will root for any team, no matter how much I dislike them, if they are undefeated late in the season. Don Shula has class, but no one else in the organization does. Having very public parties everytime the last undefeated team fails is ridiculous. A few years ago when Bob Greise was asked about the 13-0 Broncos, which his SON PLAYED ON, and he said that he hoped they lost. Rooting against your children to preserve some ridiculous record which doesn't have half the weight that going 15-1 or 14-2 in this age of free agency and salary caps is ludicrous. I hope someone goes undefeated next year.

More fun with those same draft picks

Alright, here are my thoughts on how each of these guys turned out. I will give them one of four scores - Superstar, Good, Starter, Bust. Obviously, you want superstars when you draft someone in the top five, but getting good solid players is not bad. I will say that to be a superstar, you have to be in the top 2 or 3 at your position for more than one year, and too be good you have to be in the top 5 to 8 for a few years. Starter is a long time starter in the NFL that was a decent player and Bust is self explanitory. I will also say unknown for people that we just don't know yet.


2005:
1 - Alex Smith - QB - Unknown
2- Ronnie Brown - RB - Unknown
4- Cedric Benson - RB - Unknown
5- Carnell Williams - RB - Unknown

2004:
1- Eli Manning - QB - Unknown, but has looked pretty good this year
4- Phillip Rivers - QB - Unknown

2003:
1- Carson Palmer - QB - Unknown, but looks like he will be between good/superstar for a few years, but that is not certain.

2002:
1- David Carr - QB - Unknown, bordering on starter/bust.
3- Joey Harrington - QB - Looking like a bust, but too early to officially give him that title, so we will say unknown

2001:
1- Michael Vick - QB - Good
5- LaDanian Tomlinson - RB - Superstar

2000:
5- Jamal Lewis - RB - Good

1999:
1- Tim Couch - QB - Bust
2- Donovan McNabb - QB - Good/Superstar... we'll say superstar.
3- Akili Smith - QB - Bust
4- Edgerrin James - RB - Good/Superstar... we will say good to even out the Don-O-Van.
5- Ricky Williams - RB - Superstarish for a while before he went totally nuts. We'll just call him 'good' and leave it at that.

1998:
1- Peyton Manning - QB - SuperDuperStar
2- Ryan Leaf - QB - SuperDuperBust
5- Curtis Enis - RB -Bust bust bust

1997:
None

1996:
None (Though Lawrence Phillips - RB went #6) - Bust

1995:
1- Kijana Carter - RB - Bust
3- Steve McNair - QB - Hard not to call him a Superstar in the late 90's
5- Kerry Collins - QB - Starter

1994:
2- Marshall Faulk - RB - Superstar
3- Heath Shuler - QB - Bust

1993:
1- Drew Bledsoe - QB - Between good and starter, we will say good because of his longevity
2- Rick Mirer - QB - Bust
3- Garrison Hearst - RB - Between good and starter, we will say starter.

1992:
None (Though David Klingler - QB went #6) - Bust

1991:
None

1990:
1- Jeff George - QB - Infamous Bust
2- Blair Thomas - RB - Bust
(Andre Ware - QB went #7) - Bust

9 Unknown (Looks like Carr and Harrington are pretty bad, and Manning and Palmer will be pretty good)
5 Star
5 Good
2 Starters
9 Busts, and 3 more busts from #6 and 7

So really you have just as good of a shot at getting a total bust as a good player from your high draft pick. This is why it isn't worth trading the kitchen sink to get someone. With that being said, I honestly believe Reggie Bush is going to be awesome, but people thought that Ryan Leaf was going to be also. So just stand pat, and draft at your position.

The NFL Draft and skill positions.

The following is the list of the Running Backs and QB's selected in the first 5 picks of the NFL Draft for the last 15 years.

2005:
1 - Alex Smith - QB
2- Ronnie Brown - RB
4- Cedric Benson - RB
5- Carnell Williams - RB

2004:
1- Eli Manning - QB
4- Phillip Rivers - QB

2003:
1- Carson Palmer - QB

2002:
1- David Carr - QB
3- Joey Harrington - QB

2001:
1- Michael Vick - QB
5- LaDanian Tomlinson - RB

2000:
5- Jamal Lewis - RB

1999:
1- Tim Couch - QB
2- Donovan McNabb - QB
3- Akili Smith - QB
4- Edgerrin James - RB
5- Ricky Williams - RB

1998:
1- Peyton Manning - QB
2- Ryan Leaf - QB
5- Curtis Enis - RB

1997:
None

1996:
None (Though Lawrence Phillips - RB went #6)

1995:
1- Kijana Carter - RB
3- Steve McNair - QB
5- Kerry Collins - QB

1994:
2- Marshall Faulk - RB
3- Heath Shuler - QB

1993:
1- Drew Bledsoe - QB
2- Rick Mirer - QB
3- Garrison Hearst - RB

1992:
None (Though David Klingler - QB went #6)

1991:
None

1990:
1- Jeff George - QB
2- Blair Thomas - RB
(Andre Ware - QB went #7)

Now, what do all these players have in common, other than being drafted high? Well... absolutely nothing. The thing with the NFL Draft is that these teams can do all this work in scouting and interviewing and working in the combine, but honestly, you have no idea how these 20 year old kids are going to do in the NFL. A lot of talent does not mean success, in any part of life, but in football especially.

With the more recent draft picks, it is hard to tell how some players are going to do because they just haven't gotten the time yet, so the older drafts are particularly telling. People come out of college with all the promise in the world, but sometimes they fail miserably in the NFL, even though they were the #1 draft pick. Sometimes they become Peyton Manning. You just have no idea what is going to happen.

For anyone who does not know, my hometown team is the Baltimore Ravens. There is a lot of mumbling about trying to trade up in the next draft and get Matt Leinart (or Reggie Bush). I will be the first one to admit that the QB situation is not optimal, to say the least, but I think giving away the kitchen sink isn't worth it to take a gamble on another West Coast QB. If you are a 1-15 team and already have the draft pick, and don't have to give anything up for it, by all means, I would certainly go for it. But giving up like all your picks in this draft and next years number one to take someone out of college is a big mistake.

Football games are won in the trenches, and that is where the Ravens need the most help. If I were the Ravens in the next draft I would just load up on O-Line and D-Line, and maybe pick up a QB if one comes along. However, I wouldn't give up many many picks just for a specific guy. If the Ravens are desperate for a QB, I would sign a veteran, much like the Cowboys did this year with Bledsoe. You know what you are getting, and won't have to give anything up for them. The past has shown that by giving up tons for an early draft pick, you are taking a gamble, one that you net you a bad player more often than a superstar.

Should the Colts rest their starters if they have home field locked up?

So there has been a lot of talk recently about whether or not Tony Dungy should rest his starters if the Colts are 14-0, and have home field advantage throughout the playoffs. On one hand you have the people saying that you have to go for it, there are way fewer opportunities to go 16-0 than to win the Super Bowl, and no one ever gets hurt on the Colts anyway. Then there are people who think you should absolutely not risk it, you bench all important starters, and cruise through the last few games, and get everyone healthy and rested for the playoffs.

Lets look at each argument:

I cannot argue the fact that being the only team to have a 16-0 regular season would bring a team far more accolades down the line than winning a super bowl. Everyone talks about the Dolphins team that was perfect, and no one cares at all about the 2002 Bucs. Albeit, the Dolphins also won a Super Bowl, but the perfect season is the more important part of the equation. If the Colts want to be seen on TV drinking champagne every year waiting for the last undefeated team to lose, then they can go right ahead. If they are undefeated in the regular season, they will be talked about for a long long time.

Also, it is also true that everyone on Colts seems to be pretty much invunerable. Other than the Edge, who else can you remember who is important ever being injured for more than a week on the Colts. And I certainly don't ever remember Peyton Manning ever EVER missing even a single snap of a football game due to injury. And come to think of it, I don't even remember him ever being hit hard. I don't know if it is pocket presence, a good offensive line, or a combination of the two (I would guess 66% and 33%, respectively), but it is remarkable how he doesn't get hit.

However, what if someone gets injured? And by someone I mean Peyton. That would kill the Colts season. It would be over. No one could make that offense tick like Peyton. I honestly believe that having Peyton Manning on your team is like a free meal ticket to mediocrity at least. I feel like if he was the QB for the Texans, they would not end the season any worse than 7-9, and maybe better. He is the best QB in the league, and if he wins a Super Bowl, and does what he is doing for a few more years, he will be the best QB ever. If he goes down, everything in Indy goes down the tubes, especially Tony Dungy's job.

Andy Reid, a head coach I respect tremendously, ALWAYS benches EVERYONE when the games stopped mattering, and his teams never came out rusty. Making the NFC Championship four straight years is good evidence that a strategy works. The last thing you want at the end of the regular season is a Pyrrhic victory (SAT word!) where you lose a couple players. I also think that the Colts offense would not come out in June rusty, if they didn't touch a football until then, so that shouldn't really be a concern.

So with all this said, what would I do?

Play the starters every game, until the outcome is no longer in question. Tell them to give 110% and go all out. I feel like the psycological pressure of playing a 16-0 team in the playoffs, a team that knows that they are the best team in the league, more than outweighs the chance of a key injury. I would treat each game like I treated the last, and not act any differently at all, until the end of the game, if it is garbage time. If what you are doing is good enough to go 14-0, keep doing it until you lose. I think your players will thank you for the chance to go 16-0, the fans will love it, and morale and confidence will be at an all time high (unless Peyton gets hurt, then you are uber-SOL). So, Tony Dungy, if your team continues winning, don't change a thing.

One last thing with numbers

Ok, so I promised to get to my thoughts on going for the win at the end of a game as compared to kicking the tieing field goal as in KC - Oakland and TB - Washington. In both of these cases the ball was at the one-yard-line. Now, our stats from the last post do not apply, because your stats on converting a fourth and one at some yard-line which is not the one are higher than converting at the one, because the defense has to respect real passes when you are at the thirty (no, hokey passes to the eligible-receiver tackle or to the fullback running toward the sideline are not real passes). So we can say that we may have a sixty percent chance of making it on fourth and goal at the one (again, no definitive stats, but I would imagine this is in the neighborhood). Now if two teams are evenly matched, then they would pretty much have to each have a fifty percent shot at winning the overtime before it has started, right? So looking at it I don't really see how going for it could be a bad move. I mean, the players and the crowd want you to go for it, so you have nothing to lose there, and the media sure as hell wants you to go for it so they can blabber on about it forever. I commend Mr. Vermeil and Mr. Gruden for their decisions (and remember that a Mr. Leinart (yes him and not Mr. Carroll) was the first to do that this year, and when there was much more on the line (one loss does not ruin your NFL season, it does in college)), and I believe that I would have made the exact same decision in their shoes.

A few more Football Scoring Thoughts

Last time we talked a little about how sometimes getting one point all the time can be more valuable than getting two points most of the time. This time I want to talk about something that really bothers me in the NFL and college. I feel like coaches kick a field goal way too often, especially when they have a good offense. If it is 4th and 1 or 4th and 2 on the 25 or 30, and the game is up and down, with both offenses looking pretty good, then why settle for a FG that you will only make around 70% of the time (note: so far this year NFL kickers have made 69.3% of field-goals from 40-50 yards - number computed by taking data from http://www.nfl.com/stats/playersort/NFL/K-FIELDGOALS/2005/regular?&_3:col_1=19 and importing to an excel spreadsheet to get the sums quickly and accurately). I would choose my short yardage play of choice, whether that be a quick slant to a receiver, or banging it up the middle. If you don't make it, then the other team has to go a pretty long way to get a score, but if you do make it, then you leave the ball in the offense's hands to go and try to do something else good. If it ends up being 4th and 10 four downs later, then just kick the fg, 1-5 yards closer, and no harm done. The stats say that if you go for it on 4th and 1, you have a 70-75% chance of making it (see http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=131&cat=1 - I split out the 4th and 1 statistics from the chart and computed everything myself, and got 73.2% - the sample seems fairly large (183 attempts) so I figure 70%-75% is a fair range. On 4th and 2 it is impossible to calculate the exact data from that website, but I imagine it would be around 55%-60%, which still isn't a bad deal depending on the situation). So really, you have a better shot of making the 1st down than kicking the field goal... and not only that, but if you miss the field goal you lose seven or eight yards of field position too! And yet how many NFL coaches would go for it in this situation in the first quarter?

Now remember, we learned last time we always have to take all the factors of the game into account, but, with all things being equal I am surprised that we don't have people going for it more often. And remember also, getting a 1st down does not somehow guarantee us seven points, so it is a little more complicated than it seems. Lets just say that worst case we get seven or eight yards average in the next three downs (and I would imagine that the average is even higher than that - but if you can find me hard statistics that would be wonderful), and then we decide we want to kick. Assuming this moves us into the 30-39 yard field goal range, that improves our chances of making the field goal to 86.1%. Multiply that by the .732 probability you got the first on the last possession, and you get .630, which is only around 6% lower than the odds of making the 40-49 yarder.

I understand that the above was a very loose simulation, and a lot of things can go wrong in the next four downs as well (sacks and penalties moving you back behind where you were before, interceptions, fumbles, injuries, etc.) but we are assuming there is some inherent goodness to having your offense on the field despite all the bad things that could happen. And I am also assuming that the odds of you stringing together a few more first downs and getting into the endzone without having any more 4th down adventures is pretty reasonable, especially compared to the odds of the bad things happening.

That is all I want to say on that, because I could keep going deeper with various statistics, and field position ideas, and even looking at what bad things can happen on the kickoff if you make a field goal compared to losing it on downs. The thing about football is that you have to draw the line somewhere, because if you try to break every scenerio down into statistics, it gets really confusing, and you quickly realize it is impossible. You have to have some general ideas, and follow your gut. I say the above stats are mostly moot if you are a team like the Ravens or Bears (bad offense, great defense - three points goes a long way here, and you probably won't get seven anyway if you convert), and especially interesting if you are a team like the Colts or Seahawks (other way around - seven is what you really need, and you have a good shot at getting it if you get the 1st).

I promise this is my last super nerdy statistics post for a while, because honestly, the stats don't mean much, and I know it's boring for everyone else. I just want people to think about going for it as a much better idea than it already is (you can even think about going for it vs. punting it when you have it on your own 30 if you please - it will not be talked about by me however (and you can already hear the sighs of relief (and I think that nesting parenthesis is looked down upon moreso in writing than in Mathematics or Comp Sci, but that is what I am, so this is what you get))).

Thanks for bearing with all that (or ignoring it at reading the other posts anyway).

Kyle

Football Scoring and the Idea of Marginal Utility

While watching "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" one night with some friends, a few friends seemed to agree that if you were reasonably certain that you knew the answer, and you only lost half your money if you got it wrong, you were an idiot if you didn't guess. I mean, if you have $64,000 and if you get this question right you get $125,000, while if you get it wrong you get $32,000. Basic math says that if you have a 50/50 shot of getting it correct, if you guess you will have an average of $78,500 ($125,000 * .5 + 32,000 * .5), while if you don't you get $64,000. And the more sure you are that you know the answer, the higher the average amount of money you would get if you guessed becomes.

So, obviously, it seemed obvious to these very intelligent kids that you should take a stab and guess. However, they were assuming that your desire for money is linear. In other words you want $100 twice as much as you want $50, and $100 million twice as much as $50 million. However, this may or may not be the case, depending on the person. Personally I really don't want $100 million dollars more than $50 million dollars at all, and I'm sure that the utility of having $100 million dollars as opposed to $50 million dollars is minimal to the majority of people. The point is that just because you are willing to spend $X of money/effort to get one of something, you are not willing to spend $2X of money/effort to get the second one, and you sure wouldn't risk the first one to get three, four, or ten of more of these 'things'.

Now, how the hell does this relate to football? I mean, having more points is always beneficial right? Well, yes; however, there is always a cost involved, and things are never what they initially seem. Assume that extra points are made with 100% frequency (which they are not, but they are close, and the math does not significantly change if I lower this to 99%, it only gets more complicated), and also assume that the probability of winning the sudden death overtime is 50/50. Now, if Team A has a 60% chance to make all two point conversions, and Team B makes 50% of all of their two point conversions, then why wouldn't you always go for two? Unless there is a good reason get the sure point (to win the game for example) this will make it so that you will win more games than your opponent if you are otherwise evenly matched right?

Well, not quite. This relates to an essay I wrote in college, and is very similar to the deeply flawed college overtime system. Going second in the college overtime system gives you a tremendous strategic advantage. You know how many points you need to win/tie, and you can play your game based on that. If you need a TD to tie, you use all four downs, if you need a FG to win, you can just sit around and do nothing and then you have a 40 yard FG at the end of it. Now this would relate to the above example in the following way:

So lets say that in a tied game team A scores a TD with 3:00 left on the clock. In this case it would be a tremendous mistake to go for two, for the following mathematical reason. If B does not march down the field and score a TD, then the point is totally moot. However, if they do and they do not leave enough time on the clock for A to come back and win then A's decision is a bad one.

If A makes the two point conversion, then if B scores a TD they will go for two. If A misses then B will kick the extra point and win.

So if A makes the two point conversion and B scores a TD to tie, then there is a 30% chance A wins outright in regulation, a 30% chance it goes to the even money overtime, and a 40% chance that B wins outright in regulation.

Now, I will freely admit that this is one mostly irrelevant example, but it shows that it is not *always* a good idea to just follow the numbers. You have to take everything into context. While I believe that if you simulated these numbers with A blindly going for two and B playing "intelligently" then A would probably win the majority of the games, but I feel that is simply due to the very large difference between A and B's proficiency in making the two point conversion. If it was closer to a 1% difference I feel then you may see B winning more games than A, despite the apparent advantage that A has by merely going for two every time.

This was an introduction to this topic, and I will expand more on this tomorrow by adding the idea of going for 7 vs. going for 3.

Introduction to this blog

Football. The most watched sport in America, and probably the most closely scrutinized sport in America. In no other sport do you only have only 16 games to prove your worth as a team (and even fewer at the high school and college levels). In no other sport do you have so many people who all have a roll in contributing to your team's success. In no other sport do the coaches have as much influence on determining the outcome of a game as in football.

I am beginning this blog because I feel that there are many aspects of the game which are not covered by the major news outlets, and many angles that are not looked at. As I said in the first paragraph, offensive playcalling, defensive scheming, and game planning are all humongously important in football, and I do not think there is a sport in which the things done off the field have as large of an impact on what is done on the field. Now, this is only true to a point, because if you have defensive tackles who cannot clog the lanes, corners who cannot cover, or an o-line that cannot block, then what is done off the field is largely useless. However, I am of the opinion that in the NFL, all teams have the same skill level, to a point. Obviously the Texans have more problems than the Colts in terms of personnel; but, I feel that the gap is not sooo large that it cannot be overcome, or at least played down enough to make a game out of a meeting between the two. And any team can always improve their roster in the offseason.

Now, I am not likely to help out a team by being on their active roster for a game, but I figure I can at least make interesting comments about the coaching, and more specifically the playcalling and scheming that goes on during a game. Now, I will freely admit I am more or less the worst writer in the universe, but just know that my writing is meant to sound like it is spoken. Hopefully you can limp through it without exploding, and I promise I will try to make it as managable as possible (and yes, I imagine that my semicolon use in the previous paragraph has high school english teachers everywhere cringing... get used to it).

In this blog, I will also try to make some broad comments on various issues that swirl around this game, which always seems to be full of controversy. Hopefully this is an enjoyable read for everyone, and hopefully some of my posts make some people think, and I expect some responces to do the same for me. See you tomorrow with a look at the "risky calls" the last two weeks at the end of the Chiefs and Redskins games.

Kyle