Dan Brown article on FO Prospectus
Pretty rough
over 2 years ago
drummer
35 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Here are a few problems with these guys.
Someone recently at, I believe Niner Insider, wrote a long post about their MANY failed predictions
Talking about a few ‘hits’ with regards to predictions is like the guy who tells you all about the winning horse races he picked (without mentioning the FAR bigger list of failures).
And then there’s this:
Notably, even Shaun Hill takes a hit. The quarterback won over fans – and the locker room — with his gutsy play down the stretch, but the book writes:
Much has been made of Hill’s 7-3 record as the 49ers starter, but it is misguided enthusiasm. Two of his wins came against last year’s 2-14 Rams. . .
In the past two seasons Hill has a BETTER average of beating (regular season) teams with a winning record than does Kurt Warner.
That’s right. Hill ranks better than Warner with regards to beating teams with a winning record. Does that mean that Hill is better than Kurt Warner? Of course not. It just means that talking about things like "Well, so and so didn’t beat many winning teams’ is pretty useless.
In 2007 & 2008, Hill beat 2 out of 10 teams with a winning record for a 20% average.
By contrast, Warner, in the 2007/2008 regular season, beat 3 winning teams out of 27 starts for an 11% average.
Hill: 20%
Warner: 11%.
It’s a stupid criteria.
There are almost no easy games in the NFL (especially division games).
Last season the Vikings went to the playoffs and the Lions had the worst team in history. The Vikings beat Detroit twice last season by a TOTAL of SIX points (two points at home and four in Detroit).
It’s a weak argument.
Tell me how many ..
Games Warner played against winning teams career wise, and get back to me.
That’s the sample size they have on Hill. A small one, but that’s what they have. Warner? Tell me again how many games he has won against winning teams.
They’re not Cherry picking one year like you are. They’re looking at career starts.
Well, we're waiting....
You miss my point.
I’m not cherry picking anything (and it’s two years, not the one year like you claim I did).
I’m just using the two years that Hill had some starts (against Warner’s starts).
I’m simply saying that if one looks at the past two seasons, Hill had a higher percentage of victories against winning teams than does Warner.
As I stated, it certainly doesn’t mean that Hill is better than Warner cause that’s absurd. It simply means that that criteria really doesn’t tell us much.
I wasn’t trying to compare the two careers. I was just trying to show that in the same two years (2007 & 2008) against MANY OF THE SAME teams, Hill stacks up favorably to HOF bound Kurt Warner in that department.
Sorry, I missed that...
But that isn’t their point. All they have on Hill is his meager starts, and that’s what they compile it with. There is a difference when you look at Hill’s passing yards and Warner’s. In that department, they don’t stack up at all. That’s part of what they look at.
Hill – last 2 games in 2007 : 320 yards total
Warner – Last 2 games in 2007: 669 total.
Now, there are a lot of other factors involved, and after that small sample, there is no need to compare their passing numbers in 2008, but that’s part of the criteria FO takes into account.
Well, we're waiting....
But look at it this way
Cards: HOF type QB & two of the best WR’s in the game.
49ers: Get off to a terrible 2-5 start and fire their coach.
One (Cards) go 9-7. The other 7-9. But for a botched play at the goalline in AZ, both teams could have been 8-8.
To me, that speaks much louder in favor of MS & the 49ers than it does AZ.
The ultimate stat is Wins & Losses
And it brings to mind one of Singletary’s ‘Keys to Victory’ and that’s the word Finish , along with “We are Not a Charity. We Cannot Give Them the Game” (in reference to Turnovers & Stupid Penalties.
Most games are somewhat ‘back & forth’ between the two teams. And most games, IMO, are won in the fourth quarter.
And the teams that win usually win by making a few more big plays than their opponents, and by avoiding critical mistakes.
The trouble with stats, to a large degree, is that they don’t show WHEN a critical pass was made (or conversly, when a STUPID penalty was made).
Or they show a dropped pass as an incompletion. Whether it’s a dropped pass right in front of the MLB (that might gain 10 yards if caught) or whether it’s a dropped pass by a wide open WR, that surely would’ve gone for a TD.
Remember the Fog Bowl, when the Bears beat the Eagles? The Eagles had TWO TD’s called back on offensive penalties (I believe that they were holding calls).
Two! And if memory serves me correct, they were on back-to-back plays.
That’s a killer.
Football, to me, is largely a game of big plays: Who makes ‘em (and who doesn’t).
You don't know much about FO do you?..
Don’t worry, Fooch or Danny will explain it to you.
Well, we're waiting....
stats
Hopefully Danny will have some interesting twists on the info FO provides us in the Almanac. Should give us plenty to discuss in the next couple weeks.
by David Fucillo on Jul 13, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Predictions
If the chart I pulled up from FO is the correct one (it’s the 2008 DVOA Projections - and this could be a different one from what they really used) they had these gems in 2008:
Atlanta: 4.9 wins (Atlanta won 11).
Tennessee: 7 wins (Tennesse almost doubled that with a 13-3 record).
Detroit: 5.2 wins (0-16).
Pittsburgh: 8.1 wins (12-4).
Giants: 8.3 wins (12-4).
Seattle: 9.9 wins (4-12).
Jacksonville: 9.3 wins (5-11)
If I am reading their chart correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong) they have four out of the eight division winners who didn’t even make the playoffs (NE, GB, SEA, TB).
Three out of their four Wild Card teams also didn’t make the playoffs (Jacksonville, Dallas and Denver).
If I am understanding this correctly, out of the possible 12 playoff teams, they listed 7possible playoff teams that didn’t even qualify for the postseason. Almost 2/3’s of the teams they singled out missed the playoffs.
Of the five teams that they correctly predicted to make the playoffs, Philadelphia and Indy were no surprise and San Diego barely made it at 8-8. Only Minnesota & Baltimore could be deemed to be ‘surprise winners.’
Also, I guess, they had the Steelers with only an 8% chance to win 11+ games (they won 12) and the Titans with only a 4% chance to win 11+ games (they won 13).
Predictions . . . make enough of ‘em, sooner or later you’re bound to hit on a few.
Their predictions were justified.
Atlanta’s entire team was unproven, and it was very unlikely Matt Ryan would be this successful so early.
Tennessee would not be 13-3 had Kerry Collins not overtaken the starting job.
Detroit lost a bunch of close games, could have had a few more wins.
Pittsburgh was facing what on paper looked like a brutal schedule
Giants defense and offensive line took a large step forward
Seattle would have won more games had they not lost every single offensive starter due to injury.
Jacksonville also suffered from many injuries on both sides of the ball.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 14, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
The 49ers were just a few plays..
From being a 5 win team too. They barely escaped the Rams and BUF. Barely. That’s what FO takes into account. And please, just try to leave your Singletary nonsense out of this one. The 49ers haven’t dominated any team in years, and Singeltary’s wins are no different from Nolan’s in 2006.
Well, we're waiting....
Exactly
They could’ve won five. They could’ve won nine.
The game of football largely follows the ‘Rule of Fours.’
MOST teams will WIN at least four games (for example, in 2008, only KC, the Rams and the Lions didn’t win four games).
And most teams will LOSE at least four (only Tennesse didn’t, losing only three).
In 2008. 87.5% of the teams followed the ‘Rule of Fours.’
That means that essentially, MOST teams will be at least 4-4. That leaves eight other games.
How they fare in those eight other games will be the difference between possibly making the playoffs or sitting at home.
And a big factor in the NFL is the ‘storyline’ and momentum. Last season, in Dallas the 49ers twice had the ball in the red zone in the first quarter. They only managed two FG’s. Two TD’s instead of two FG’s would have altered the tone of that game considerably.
Likewise, a few years back the Bears played Dallas on a Sunday Night game in Chicago. Early on, a wide open Bernard Berrian dropped an easy pass that he could have walked into the endzone with. He literaly should have caught it with his eyes closed.
Huge play. Huge missed opportunity. Plays like that alter the course of a game.
'Two TD’s instead of two FG’s would have altered the tone of that game considerably.'
Sorry, but that game wasn’t even close. Dallas blew SF out.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 13, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
You really don't understand
Let me help you out here. I’ll give you another example.
SB 41. Bears vs. Colts. Hester opens up the game with a TD. 7-0 Bears. Later in the 1st quarter, Grossman hits Muhammad for a TD. 14-0 Bears, right?
Not exactly. Sandwiched between those two plays was one of the biggest boneheaded plays I’ve EVER seen.
One a passsing play, Bear DB Danieal Manning was covering his receiver (Reggie Wayne) for about 10/15 yards when he inexplicably left Wayne to help out on another receiver. (Danieal Manning was confused by his OWN teams coverage. Amazing.)
Peyton hit the WIDE open, UNCOVERED Wayne for an easy TD (they missed the PAT).
Instead of 14-0 Bears in the first quarter it was 14-6. Why is this significant?
If the Bears indeed were up 14-0 (like they should have been), NO team in SB history has ever come back from a two TD deficit. Doesn’t mean that Indy couldn’t have done it and been the first team to do it, it just means that it has never been done.
If the 49ers had been up 14-0 (instead of 6-0) it might have had an effect on the strategy of the game. Teams often play differently when they are down by 14 points, as opposed to being down by 6.
Plus the momentum factor. Teams feel pretty good up by 14. They feel slightly deflated when they have to setttle for two FG’s when they were that close to the goalline two times early in the game.
That’s all I was saying.
BTW: The Cowboys won by 13. I don’t know how they do it up in Seattle, but in most parts, a 13 point win is not considered a ‘blow out.’
If the Niners had scored two TD’s in that situation, it would have been a 5 point win.
Not being able to punch it the Red Zone..
Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team. That’s could be attributed to the Martz trend of late, but if you come away with a FG in several opportunities, chances are you lose that game.
I don’t know why you try to spin things that make basic sense into some sort of argument.
Well, we're waiting....
When you say this:
Not being able to punch it in the Red Zone . . . Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team
it’s actually just an an indicator that . . . . . YOU’RE NOT A GOOD TEAM . . . in the RED ZONE!!!!
See how that works? A team can be a ‘good team’ but have a certain weakness, like say, plays in the red zone.
You make almost no sense when you speak.
And when you're not a good team in the Red Zone...
It means you can’t out score better offenses.
Yes, you’re that stupid. Seriously.
Well, we're waiting....
Basically
I’m pretty sure all the playoff teams were pretty good in the red zone. Too lazy to double check but it seems pretty damn logical to me. If you’re constantly trading 3 points for 7 you probably won’t win many games.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 14, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions
You wrote (in your COMPLETE ignorance)
Not being able to punch it in the Red Zone . . . Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team.
Really?
The 2000 Ravens won the SB. They went five games without scoring a TD.
I’m pretty sure their red zone effeciency wasn’t very good.
Yet, to you, they must not have been a good team.
Look I realize that you are ignorant so let me help you out here.
Having an excellent red zone effeciency will almost certainly lead to more scoring. Just like having an excellent 3rd down conversion rate.
That said, i’m sure that MANY, MANY teams were better than your ‘not very good’ and struggled with some areas on both offense and defense.
Making a blanket statement like this (Not being able to punch it in the Red Zone . . . Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team) just reveals your astounding NFL ignorance,
You didn't read this part...
That’s could be attributed to the Martz trend of late, but if you come away with a FG in several opportunities, chances are you lose that game.
The 49ers weren’t a good team last season, and they aren’t the 2000 BAL Ravens. BAL was ranked 14th on offense and 1st on defense. The 49ers were ranked 22nd on offense last season and 23rd on offense.
Which is the better team?
You’re beyond stupid. You’re just….pathetic.
Well, we're waiting....
Obviously genius
but if you come away with a FG in several opportunities, chances are you lose that game.+
No S==T!
That’s hardly rocket science.
Ranked 14th on offense. That means NOTHING.
Rankings are based on yardage.
Winning is based on points.
They went five games without scoring a TD. Brian Billick said that one of his main jobs was to keep the defense from killing the guys on offense cause they were so horrible.
Obviously, genius, if the Ravens were 14th on offense (yardage) and yet went five games without a TD then . . . they couldn’t punch the ball in for a TD from the redzone.
That means that they marched the ball up & down the field and yet had trouble scoring TD’s
You’re very definition of a ‘not very good team.’
And yet that ‘not very good team’ won the Super Bowl.
You (as usual) make no sense.
BTW: Go to the other post (Mike learned a valuable lesson from Seifert) where I SCHOOL you on what it means to be an ‘Assistant HC.’
Hurry. I want to show you (once again) just how ignorant you are.
A team that has the #1 ranked defense...
Can win with a 14th ranked offense. Do you know what I mean by the number 14? It means 14th in scoring. You don’t become 14th in scoring by just FG’s.
How many times did I call you stupid? How about one more time?
Well, we're waiting....
All i know is that you said that
Not being able to punch it in the Red Zone . . . Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team.
Obviously the Ravens are an exception to that rule.
Just as obviously, i’m sure if you contact your pals at FO they can finfd MANY cases where GOOD TEAMS were good in spite of possibly struggling in the Red Zone.
You shoot your mouth off all the time. Unfortunately, you seldom know what you’re talking about.
14th in scoring...
14th…in…scoring…
You….are…an…idiot…..
I…..have….to….type…it….like….this…..because…Geo…is….that….stupid
Well, we're waiting....
So WHAT!
They were exactly 3 points (that’a FG son) ABOVE the league average in 2000.
So what?
They went FIVE games without a TD (They kicked 14 FG’s against ZERO TD’s) during that stretch.
Obviously, even a mental midget such as yourself can figure out that they must not have been very good regarding Red Zone effeciency in 2000 and yet they won the SB.
You clearly (and also MISTAKENLY) said that:
Not being able to punch it in the Red Zone . . . Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team.
Doesn’t matter if they ranked 14th in scoring or that they were a WHOLE 3 points above the league average.
They couldn’t possibly have a highly ranked Red Zone effeciency if they went FIVE games without a TD, now could they?
And that was you (mistaken) point to begin with.
Class (again) dismissed.
BTW: Do you NOW understand that the term ‘Assistant HC’ is just a meaningless title used to make a lateral move?
Again.....
14th in scoring
- in defense
And you are comparing the 2008 49ers to that.
Not wise. Not.
Well, we're waiting....
Not comparing them at all.
YOU are doing that. Not me, son.
I am just refuting your original premise (like I almost always do).
You said:
Not being able to punch it in the Red Zone . . . Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team.
Obviously, the 2000 Ravens are just ONE example of the fallacy of that statement..
(Don’t you get tired of twisting things are and making things up, son)?
Never once did I REMOTELY compare the 2008 49ers to the 2000 Ravens.
Only losers have to make S==T up.
BTW: This statement (from an article by John Clayton) would be closer to the truth:
Red-zone efficiency often is the difference between a great offense and an average one.
That (the difference between a great offense and an average one) is ALMOST COMPLETELY different from YOUR statement (Not being able to punch it in the Red Zone . . . Is an indicator that you’re not a very good team).
Oops. Wrong again!
Again..
Your comparing the 2008 49ers to the 200 Ravens. The Ravens scored touchdowns, and had a better offense than the 49ers, and the defense had a lot to do with that.
You brought up the Ravens, so don’t get mad when that is used against you. That’s your problem, not mine.
Well, we're waiting....
That Ravens team had arguably the best defense of all time.
You’re some shade of stupid.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jul 14, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I was going to make a FanPost about this.
But I’ll save the discussion for tomorrow now that I know Fooch plans on addressing this.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Thanks
Working on the post as we speak. I’m not reading Dan Brown’s post yet so it doesn’t affect my first impression.
by David Fucillo on Jul 13, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll stop now...
And wait for your article Fooch. Sorry I posted the link, but I thought it might be of interest.
Well, we're waiting....
no need to apologize
I’ve included a link to his article in mine too.
by David Fucillo on Jul 13, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
