NFL

Was listening to Schraeger on Bill Simmons and Bill asks him why offenses look so bad, his reply is bad QB play and bad Oline play.... to me it is the complete opposite

​

What has the most common NFL pass play been since the start of the 2022 season? QB drops back, finds no one open down field, dumps it off to a back or a tight end who leaked out way in front of the sticks and they cross their fingers he can break a few tackles and get the first down

In the past few weeks alone think of how many times you have seen teams get to the red zone, qb's have all day, and then they take a sack or throw the ball out of the end of the end zone because nobody got open

​

So my question is.... what have they learned over the past couple of years? It really seemed to start in 2021 when teams started playing KC passively with 2 deep safeties on every drop back, then Lou pulled out the drop 8 in the 2nd half of the AFC Championship game and it seems to have spread all across the league

But... it isn't like this is the first time anyone has thought 'don't give up big plays' and 'keep receivers in front of you' so why has it become so effective?

As a casual observer without all 22 there is only so much I can see... but one thing I feel like I am seeing is maybe they are just way way better at passing off receivers from one area of a zone to another... sort of a Temple style zone with man to man principles (shout out to Bill Raftery)

So instead of in a cover 2 the corner jamming the receiver and then there being a huge chunk of space between where the corner covered him to where the safety would pick him up now it feels like maybe the corner is sticking with him like its man and there is a smooth transition to the safety picking him up, very little window between the change

​

Anyone else noticing anything else? By the way this wasn't meant to be a shot at Simmons or Schraeger... I consume a lot of NFL media content and its not like anyone else has brought this up

So, here's the math on going for 2 when down by 14

Obviously, if you think that math can't capture the realities of the game, that coaches should trust their players and go with their guts, then fine. This post isn't going to change your mind, you can skip it. But for anyone who's interested in looking at the probabilities, here they are

Let's assume a 100% chance of converting the extra point and a 50% chance of converting the 2pt (the real numbers are more like 95% and 48%, but we're simplifying just to illustrate the point)

Let's also assume that you're going to score two TDs while stopping the other team from scoring. Because obviously if you can't do that, you lose the game regardless

So we break it down:

Option A Kick the XP both TDs:

• 100% chance of going to overtime

Option B Kick the XP first, then go for 2 on the second TD:

• 50% chance of winning in regulation, 50% chance of losing

Option C Go for 2 on the first TD:

• Scenario 1 (50% chance), you convert. Then on the next drive, you score the TD and kick the XP: 100% chance of winning
• Scenario 2 (50% chance), you fail to convert. Then on the next drive, you score the TD and go for 2: 50% chance of succeeding (overtime); 50% chance of losing
• So, Option C has a total outcome of 50% chance of winning, 25% chance of overtime, 25% chance of losing

To put it together:

• Option A, 100% overtime
• Option B, 50% win, 50% lose
• Option C, 50% win, 25% lose, 25% overtime

Obviously, Option C is better than Option B. And between Option A and Option B . . . well, that's the coach's decision. If you think you have the better roster, Option A looks fine. But I can see plenty of situations, such as the Buccaneers playing the Bills, where Option C looks pretty good to me

Even if you drop the probability of converting the 2pt to 40%, and keep the XP at 100%, Option C still comes out at 40% win, 36% lose, 24% overtime. There's absolutely still an argument for going for that over Option A, 100% overtime--hell, even if you assume a 50% chance of winning in overtime (and if I were the Bucs playing the Bills, I wouldn't assume that) it still comes out to 52% chance of winning, 48% chance of losing

So yeah, if you think that math can't capture what happens on the field, then sure, perfectly reasonable point of view. I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. In fact I'm not arguing myself that coaches should blindly follow the percentages--hell, the baked-in assumption here was that you were going to score TDs on consecutive drives and force a 3-and-out in between. If you think your team can do that, maybe you're feeling pretty good about overtime

Just pointing out that, based on the probability alone, going for 2 when down by 14 makes sense a lot of the time

Created this tool which is free to use and has no advertisement on it. It is meant to compare any two NFL teams and I will update it for the remainder of the 2023/2024 season soenjoy!

https://preview.redd.it/je6ork8npuwb1.png?width=1369&format=png&auto=webp&s=04ebf60cec17d51d19f0d8bf257b374cda44294b

​

https://public.tableau.com/views/NFLTeamComparisonDashboard/NFLTeamComparisonDashboard?:language=en-US&publish=yes&:display_count=n&:origin=viz_share_link

The Steelers haven't won a playoff game since 2016. The Patriots won the Super Bowl in 2018. It's been four years post Brady, and the results haven't been pretty, but I don't see how the Steelers are faring any better.

The Steelers are not contenders this year. Kenny Pickett is not the answer. Mac Jones isn't the answer in New England, but he has certainly played better than Pickett overall.

The Steelers have barely played .500 football the last three seasons and have a negative point differential in each of those years. There is no indication they are on a winning trajectory.

Why is no one suggesting that Tomlin needs to do better to keep his job? The Steelers have been mediocre at best for years.

A: Yes! But it's not new. It's actually about 23 years old.

I think it's long past time for the NFL to delineate between centuries. Because 20th century football and 21st century football are NOT the same games. Folks who grew up in the 60s/70s/80s could tell you that already but the numbers back it up. Just look at the single season leaders. In almost every important QB stat, the vast majority of the top 100 season happened after 1999:

- Passing yards: 87 out of 100. No season before 2000 in the top ten.

- Pass attempts: 87 out of 100. One season before 2000 in the top ten.

-Completions: 95 out of 100. No season before 2000 in the top FORTY.

- Passing rating: 80 out of 100. No season before 2000 in the top ten.

-Completion %: 92 out 100. One season before 2000 in the top ten.

-Interception %: 88 out 100. One season before 2000 in the top ten.

-Adjusted Y/A: 72 out 100. Four seasons in the top ten before 2000.

Lots of reason for this, obviously. But it's pretty clear we need to start noting the difference when talking about "the greats". Back in the day, we didn't say Montana and Marino were the best QBs ever. We said they were the best of the SUPER BOWL Era. Because you couldn't compare what they did under different rules and with more games to Johnny Unitas' accomplishments 30 years earlier.

Tom Brady is the best QB of the 21st century. Which is pretty damn amazing. But that's where it stops.

Everyone hates officials. Wrong calls get made. No Calls happen all the time. And inconsistent officiating in a game can give the appearance of bias. What if instead of making every play reviewable for currently non-reviewable plays, teams could appeal to new york and get awarded penalty negations.

Essentially creating a system where if one team is getting away with penalties the other team starts getting awarded the ability to force a penalty to be declined.

Each team could have dedicated personnel reviewing plays during a game and submitting them to new york during a game. If new york agrees you get a penalty negating flag that a coach can throw to automatically overturn a penalty.

You might have to cap the number at say 2 penalty negations to avoid incentivizing plays that could lead to injury. Like if one team had like 6 penalty negations in their back pocket you would just rough the passer a ton on a drive and still have some left over. Just 2 would incentivizing saving them for important situations.

This could do a few things:

• reduce the appearance of biased officiating. If the officials on the field are missing calls against one team well the other team gets rewarded for it.

• reduce dubious penalties that cost teams in big spots. Nothing feels worse than feeling like a bad call, no call, or iffy call (like when a penalty isn’t getting called all game then suddenly gets called in the last few minutes of a close game) costs a team a win.

• disincentivize flopping.

• incentivize excessive celebration and taunting in blow outs, which are fun.

I think this would be in addition to the existing review system.

I also think maybe you limit the number of plays a team can appeal a lot of penalties occur in a gray area and don’t get called on most plays. So teams should only get a handful of plays to appeal. So that only really bad officiating mistakes earn a negation. An example might be the no call on an obvious face mask penalty.