Niners Nation sits down with Football Outsiders
by David Fucillo on Aug 14, 2009 9:06 AM PDT
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintAs has been relentlessly drilled into your heads, I'm a fan of Football Outsiders. Maybe they don't have all the answers, but I like the direction they're heading. While I don't believe any one source is the be-all, end-all of football truths, the more sources we open our eyes to, the more informed we can be. In the case of Football Outsiders, it's all about their annual prospectus/almanac. In the past they published the Pro Football Prospectus. This year, they're calling it the Football Outsiders Almanac 2009 and it can be bought here as a pdf to keep on your computer (or print out).
Bill Barnwell, managing editor of Football Outsiders, was kind enough to take a few minutes to answer some of the questions that continue to bounce around. Bill wrote the 49ers chapter of the Almanac. Big thanks to Florida Danny for helping get this together. I think his non-49ers questions are especially helpful.
1) How would you go about building a team position by position? in other words, which positions have levels of performance that are most related to winning/team DVOA?
Bill: It might be easier to start with what wouldn't come first. Considering things like established replacement level, relative rate of return per dollar spent or point of draft value, and what we've observed the effects of injury to be on team performance, it's pretty safe to say that we would put running back and tight end at the end of the list. It's just too consistently easy to find guys who can do above-average work at those positions for cheap.
From there, I don't really believe that you can say that you start with X position or Y archetype. What's more important is to just try and find players that are undervalued or underappreciated and fit the scheme that you intend to play. We've found that offensive injuries have a much stronger relationship with a decline in offensive performance than defensive injuries do with defensive performance, so I'd be more inclined to build up my offensive depth than my defensive depth.
We found in that research that +/- tends to be extremely consistent across different players on a team regardless of both the player type and perceived player quality, which indicated to us that the stronger part of the relationship was the play of the quarterback (and to a lesser extent, the scheme that they play in) as opposed to individual receivers.
As for the power rankings? Well, DVOA's been exhibited to be a better predictor of wins from season-to-season than any other figure, including wins themselves. It's not foolproof by any means, but using DVOA as part of a nutritious, balanced analysis that includes taking anecdotal information about a team, their injury rate, and other factors into consideration is a particularly intelligent way to look smart.
Oh, and our win projections have beat Vegas' the last two years.
5) in general, how big of a comparitive role would you assign statistics and game film evaluation/scouting in the prediction of NFL performance?
139 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Fooch
you didn’t address the RT/LT Joe Staley issue with FO’s analysis on Joe as a LT. did that sentence make any sense?
by Andrew Davidson on Aug 14, 2009 9:24 AM PDT reply actions
Yes
And it would be interesting to hear. Of course I’m not sure what Bill originally said on Joe in the first place either. ;-)
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 14, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
WOW
FO truly makes football tedious and mundane. Whatever happened to any given sunday mentality, maybe they need to drink more beer and chill out
Or maybe taking an interest in looking at football intelligently is something some people enjoy.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions
only during the offseason...
9ers first game tonight!!!!
time to turn back into the ridiculously optimistic super fan!!
YES! Super Fan(atic)
- a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”—Winston Churchill
- marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; “rabid isolationist”
-Princeton dictionary online
How did they get rid of the "every given sunday" mentality?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 14, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions
by saying a team will do such and such because of these players, when the mentality of any given sunday is that it doesn’t matter because on any sunday any team can we and its not because of the players directly as FO likes to analyze things, of course this is just my opinion and feeling not to be taken as how you or anyone else needs to think
Well of course it matters
You think the Niners are as likely to win the Super Bowl as the Pats and the Steelers? Of course not. FO isn’t saying they won’t make the playoffs or anything, they’re just showing that it’s pretty unlikely. If you’d rather believe the Niners are the best team in the league you are free to think that way, but it’s simply not the case.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 14, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions
maybe so...
though I would question anyone about truly being a 49er fan then, if one doesn’t think they aren’t the best team in the league like I do. oh well I guess, i’m a Niner fanatic for life and they can do no wrong, I must be a blind ignorant fool and I can accept that in terms specifically related to the NFL
and yes the Niners are as likely to win the SB as the Pats or Steelers or any other team, and it should be pretty simple to see that statistics can be skewed to prove just about any point.
my question to you (or anyone else) what happens to the wonderful FO if they are wrong this year, meaning would you put the same stock into them as you do now?
i hate this argument
though I would question anyone about truly being a 49er fan then, if one doesn’t think they aren’t the best team in the league like I do.
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
why is that?
are you not behind the team or do you armchair qb in your spare time? if you are so for rational thought when it comes to being a ‘fan’ then you can not really consider yourself a fan but more of someone who sometimes likes the team and/or a rational observer, not a fan.
if you dont like or support the team, there is nothing stopping you from working hard, investing right and buying or starting your own NFL team to hate on
no hate against you or anyone else here, just stating my opinion its all in good sport
That’s simply not true. It’s also stupid. Being blind to reality is not a prerequisite of being a fan.
I think we all sincerely hope that the team will win every single game, passionately want them to win every single, and will all be equally pained by every single loss, but actually believing that they will win every single game is more delusion than fandom, as I see it.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
i've "liked and supported" the 49ers for the past 21 years
Do I want the team to win every game this year? Hell yes I do.
Do I honestly believe that there is a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening? No.
That doesn’t mean I’m not going to be sitting on my couch with my Bamm Bamm jersey on cheering like hell for the team every Sunday.
How many 49ers jersey’s do you own? Me, I own 7. Any 49er fan that doesn’t own as many jersey’s as me isn’t really a fan.
See how dumb that sounds?
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
"though I would question anyone about truly being a 49er fan then, if one doesn’t think they aren’t the best team in the league like I do."
So you’re saying it’s impossible to be a ‘true fan’ without thinking like an irrational loon?
and yes the Niners are as likely to win the SB as the Pats or Steelers or any other team, and it should be pretty simple to see that statistics can be skewed to prove just about any point.
It should also be pretty simple to see that the Pats and Steelers are clearly more talented teams.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 14, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes I am...
saying that. Because the definition, which is the accepted term for a word by a society, clearly states that a fan, short for fanatic, is just that. A irrational loon! So unless you are on campaign to get the definition changed and universally accepted as different from that and until that happens, I would say you are lying to yourself on what a fan is.
Talent is subjective, or a perceived notion of predicting possible outcomes, just because one is talented or more so, deemed talented, does not guarantee a specific or desire result. That being just because the Patriots have a more talented team by speculation and/or past results does not prove that now continue to hold the same level of dominance via the same talent.
Personally, I've always felt that 'fan' was applied to people who followed their team extremely closesly to a fault.
However . . .
Talent is subjective, or a perceived notion of predicting possible outcomes, just because one is talented or more so, deemed talented, does not guarantee a specific or desire result. That being just because the Patriots have a more talented team by speculation and/or past results does not prove that now continue to hold the same level of dominance via the same talent.
Talent is still predicative of future success. It stands to reason that the 2007 MVP, single-season TD record holder, and 2-time SB MVP is going to be an excellent QB and better than a likely-bust and career-backup. I could make the same comparison with almost every Pats/Steelers player and their 49er counterpart.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 14, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions
A fan is
n. An ardent devotee; an enthusiast.
You know… by definition. Clearly stated. I must be missing the “irrational loon” part somewhere in there? And stating that something is “universally” accepted is a completely moot notion unto itself.
Yes you did miss it
I posted the Princeton dictionary definition which clearly used irrational a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm
look I am not asking anyone to change their minds, I am just stating my feelings on it… and it seems as though some just will not accept it. anyone has the right to follow FO and believe they will be right and that they are just and accurate in their analysis of football, so be it. I don’t
Probably not worth coninuing the debate
But how exactly is FO “unjust”? You really think they have a bias against the Niners? Or you just don’t agree with their (fairly realistic) prediction and would prefer we all think irrationally and predict that the Niners go to the Superbowl?
As for the notion that a fan has to irrationally support his team in order to be a “real fan”, I don’t think you’ll find more support there.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Especially since Bill Barnwell is a 49ers fan.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions
Just what I would expect
Of course the Patriots are the greatest and will the SB every year duh!!!
WHOIS footballoutsiders.com
Aaron Schatz
83 Simpson Dr.
Framingham, Massachusetts 01701
United States
I may be CRAZY, but
can it factor in Singletaty or the players fanactical believe in him. The human spirit is not something that be accounted for. How much can this factor be, 20% ? 50 ? Numbers are just numbers. Let see how much Singleteay can bring to this team. That’s what I what to see.
Mike Singletary is not Albus Dumbledore.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 14, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
He should be, though. :/
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Never said he was
I was stating the human factor and not praising anyone as the second coming. Itead, this could be use as indicator of the coaches and OCs. It’s they that often makes the calls and if you’re not operating within the type of players you have, it rarely works. How say you?
by LASVEGASNINER on Aug 14, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I completely agree LVNiner
Football, much more so than any other sport, is a game of emotion.
That has to be factored into the equation.
For example, the Jets seem to respond much better to the emotional Rex Ryan, as opposed to the detached Eric Mangini.
You can be detached as a HC. If so, however, you better be good.
They haven’t even played a real game yet!
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Who hasn't played a 'real game?'
The Jets?
Many players have already come out and said that they much prefer Ryan over Mangini.
Is that what you are referring to?
Bottom line, a HC must ‘connect’ with his players, on some level.
Magini (like Belichick in his first stint in Cleveland), never did.
That’s pretty well documented.
Bottom line what?
So you’re saying that the Jets are better under Ryan because they said they like him more???
It’s pretty well documented that Belichek is more successful in New England than he was in Cleveland because he started connecting with his players???
I’m not even sure how to respond at this point.
Let’s see how Ryan’s Jets actually play before we say anything – anything at all – about his coaching.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I didn't say that HTS
I said that, if you paid any attention to the players on the team, that they really didn’t (like, connect) with Mangini.
Even though the HC on a team is THE boss, the bottom line is this: There are 53 players on the team.
The owner/GM can’t get rid of them all.
In a roundabout way, the HC is far more dependent on the players than vice versa.
If you ever hear talk about a coach ‘losing the team’ that’s what they mean.
Guys like Scott Linehan, Cam cameron and Mike Nolan either lost their teams (or never had them to begin with).
There’s a reason why coaches from the Belichick tree (Crennel, Weis, Mangini and possibly McDaniels) have been dismal failures as HC’s.
They have all of Bill Belichick’s ‘arrogance’ without his great coaching ability.
Actually, it’s quite well documented that Mike Nolan never lost the support or belief if his players. And certainly not until very, very late in the process. You’re making that up. He was just a bad coach.
Personally, I think you’re idealizing, and I think that you often blind yourself to critical considerations because you like to think in idealistic terms. I understand that you likewise think I’m a cynic who is missing out on all the best parts of the game. I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me. And I think that’s about all there is to it.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Joe Montana
was on Mike & Mike the other day. Talking about the lack of respect the players had and how that lack of respect was an important factor in the lackluster play by the team in recent years.
You can say he lost it. You can say he never had it.
But during SB week, Montana endorsed the hiring of MS and talked about how he changed the attitude of team after he took over.
Montana reiterated that belief the other day.
Hey
I can find one example of one person saying something too.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 10:09 PM PDT up reply actions
One person
Come on man. We’re talking about maybe the greatest 49er of them all.
So you disagree with Joe about the state of the 49ers.
OK.
Just because he was a great player doesn’t mean that he’s an unquestioned authority on whatever subject suits your needs. That doesn’t make sense.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Look
I’ve had this debate with a few others.
A). You’re right. Just because he’s a great player, it doesn’t make him ‘perfect.’ That said, he probably (LOL) knows just a little more about NFL than bloggers.
B). Nothing he’s said is ‘shocking’ to say the least. Any cursory look at the recent 49ers shows an undiscipnined, unmotivated, rudderless ship under Mike Nolan.
And it show Mike Singletary coming in an almost immediately cahnging the teams attitude.
You don’t have to be a HOF’er like Joe Montana to see that.
It’s not really a debate, though. It’s you saying one thing, me rebutting, and then you completely changing the subject, me being flabbergasted, and then you breaking in with a nonsequitor, and then me being flabbergasted, and so on like that. It’s barely even a functional conversation at this point.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
How am I changing the subject dude?
How.
You want to basically equate Joe Monatana’s comments with anyone else’s.
That’s your right.
It’s also kinda ignorant, to me.
You say this:
Just because he was a great player doesn’t mean that he’s an unquestioned authority on whatever subject suits your needs. That doesn’t make sense.
In theory, you are correct.
Practically speaking, however, you just evade the subject.
Tell me! Do you agree with Montana’s comments or disagree with them.
It’s actually pretty simple. Here, I’ll go first:
GeoMak: I agree with Montana’s comments. He is basically saying what I myself have thought. Having maybe the greatest 49ers of them all saying pretty much what I have said certainly helps confirm my opinion. IMO, I agree!
Now, YOUR turn! Be a man and answer the question. Do you agree (or disagree) with Montana?
Simple question. All it needs is a SIMPLE answer from HTS!
Ready?
No ‘long winded, off the subject comments’ needed here.
Simple question. Agree or disagree.
Answer with a two word answer (I Agree) or (I disagree). Period. If you want to expound on your answer AFTER you give the simple ‘two word’ answer, then fine.
Just answer the question first.
Actually, I’m not going to play that game. I think the 49ers’ success after Singletary took over had to do with a LOT of things, many of which he had a direct effect on, but very few of which had to do with him somehow connecting with the players on an emotional level.
1) He started playing the right personnel. Better players —> better playing! Wow.
2) He used his authority to reign in the often wild and unnecessarily risky playcalling of Mike Martz. Taking fewer risks in low risk situations —→ Not screwing up as much! Wow.
3) He gave the defense a direction by getting rid of the hybrid style that had left so many without a defined role for much of the season. Players knowing what they’re supposed to do on every play —→ better play.
4) He benefited from a soft schedule, which didn’t hurt.
I could go on.
Listen, the problem with these conversations is that become A vs. B. Somehow it comes to seem like just because I don’t take the idea that players connecting with their coach as gospel, that means I don’t believe in it at all. That’s not true. I simply think that you’re severely overstating the importance. I do believe it exists and that it has a somewhat tangible effect, but I also think that there are a hell of a lot of other very tangible things that were more directly involved.
By asking me to say “I agree” or “I disagree” you’re asking me to remove all context from my response, and that’s a child’s game that I absolutely refuse to play. Sorry.
I do think that there is truth in what Joe Montana said. Let me repeat that for you: I DO. I do not, however, think that him saying it makes it true and I do NOT think that I should pretend like a team’s success can somehow be simplified into two brief sentences about repsect.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions
but very few of which had to do with him somehow connecting with the players on an emotional level.
Incredible.
Really. The FIRST thing a new coach has to do (when he takes over a pathetic team) is to FIGURATIVELY (not literraly) grab his players by the neck, as if to say:
“Hey. There’s a new sheriff in town and the NEW sheriff isn’t going to put up with the STUPID penaties, and TURNOVERS and lackluster/undisciplined play that the OLD sheriff put up with.”
Get it?
Which explains the MOTIVATION fot the VD ‘dressdown’ (STUPID PENALTIES) and the JTO benching (CONSTANT TURNOVERS)!
I am truly sorry that you aren’t able to understand this simple concept. After all, the great Joe Montana (and the lowly GeoMak) easily grasp it!
Vernon Davis kept making stupid penalties after the dress-down. Fat lot of good that did.
And a monkey would have benched JTO.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
To elaborate, here’s a summary of our current back and forth:
You: Football is a game of emotion. As an example, look at the Jets, who have responded better to Ryan than to Mangini.
Me: We won’t really know how they’ve responded until they play a game.
You: But they’ve said they like him more. As further proof, I present you with Bill Belichek.
Me: Wait… what?
You: You’re misinterpreting what I said. I said that for a team to succeed, they have to connect with their coach. (note: not what you said. Also, changing the subject)
Me: Ooookay, I can see that we just have a fundamental difference in philosophy here and aren’t going to agree.
You: Joe Montana said players have to respect their coach, or they won’t play well. (note: non sequitor)
Me: That’s fairly cherry picked.
You: No, Joe is an authority.
Me: No he’s not.
You: Well, he knows more than you. (note: now we’re getting into smear tactics… which you pull off again in the comment you wrote while I was typing this by telling me to “be a man” and calling me “longwinded”)
And the conversation ends almost unrecognizably from where it began.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Again, your just don't get it.
We won’t really know how they’ve responded until they play a game.
We won’t know HOW MUCH BETTER THEY WILL PLAY, until the regualr season starts. That’s correct. They could completely suck this season.
But we can know how much better they have responded, by now.
After all the time they have been together (OTA’s, Meetings, Camp) many, many players say that they have RESPONDED better to Ryan than Mangini.
You want to call them liars, go ahead. (BTW: I know that you don’t follow football that much, but Mangini WASN’’T held in high regard in NY. Unforunately, for the HC, if your players aren’t solidly behind you, youi stand a good chance of being fired).
You are so ignorant (and I’m being nice here) that you simply DON’T understand that the FOUNDATION for a teams success and/or failure is LAID in the offseason, not on opening day.
Incredible!
BTW; In your long-winded post, you AGAIN failed to answer a SIMPLE QUESTION: Do you agree with Joe or not? Too funny.
Take a stand, man!
1) I did answer that question, in response to the actual question. This response was to another one of your comments altogether.
2) If this whole conversation has been about nothing more than saying “they players like Ryan better because they said they like Ryan better and that might not mean anything lol” then why are we even having it?
3) I’m not saying that the foundation for a team’s success is laid on opening day. I’m saying that’s the only true place where the evidence for it can be seen.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I did answer that question?
I did answer that question, in response to the actual question. This response was to another one of your comments altogether
Help me out here. I must’ve missed it in your convoluted answers.
Let’s try agian.
Yes or No answer, HTS!!!!!!
Do you agree with Montana or not????
Yes (or no).
Simple question (simple answer) Yes or No?
just some advice GeoMak
all the little snipes and comments in your posts directed towards HTS really do nothing for your argument. Reading through the comments HTS hasn’t once resorted to name calling or bashing and IMO he comes off as much more intelligent then you.
You are so ignorant (and I’m being nice here)
no actually you are being childish, and you wonder why no one here respects your opinion. I mean is that really necessary? People would be more likely to listen to your opinion and respect it without all of the needless cheap shots
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
doesn't it always...
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
It was
and actually LVNIner . . . BEFORE myself, brought up the emotional element of the game, which somewhat changed the nature of the conversation.
Perhaps you guys should direct your venom at him.
Alaso, istead of attacking me with ‘name calling’ and convoluted posts, try EXPLAING to me, why you disagree with me.
I can respect that. I can’t respect the other ‘nonsense.’
Lou
The guy REFUSES to answer a simple question.
That’s all. He attacks me and goes on and on and on, yet won’t answer a simple question.
I brought up Joe montana’s recent comment on the state of the 49ers and Mike Singletary and HTS goes round and round and round as he criticizes me and yet, wont answer a SIMPLRE QUESTION:
Do you agree with Joe or not?
That’s pathetic.
I answered your question and explained myself to boot.
http://www.ninersnation.com/2009/8/14/988709/niners-nation-sits-down-with#19722631
Like I said, I refuse to remove all context from my response just because you want a yes or no answer. That’s not how useful discussion works.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Humor me HTS
Answer it again, right here, on this thread, and VERY Simply.
Do you agree (or disagrre) with Montana’s comments.
BTW: Here’s a link to the interview:
I do think that there is truth in what Joe Montana said. Let me repeat that for you: I DO. I do not, however, think that him saying it makes it true and I do NOT think that I should pretend like a team’s success can somehow be simplified into two brief sentences about repsect.
I think there is truth in what he says. I also thing it’s a lot more complicated than that. I’m not willing to essentialize my argument any further.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Listening to the interview, it’s interesting to note that Montana is actually very careful to say that the way Singletary connects with his players might not have anything to do with their success. Interesting.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmmm… he also says that we need to wait until they play in the first week before we know anything.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I’d say that I’m starting to agree with him more and more!
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m glad that you finally admit that my Dave Righetti is the superior one.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
The first Chester Arthur fanboy ever.
It was time for a change. I didn’t fail to think of Speedy Oil Change and Tune-Up. My oil change, tune-up and smog experts.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
There is NO
way to predict ‘Future Success.’
The best one can hope for is that someone (like MS) brings the leadership necessary to ‘change the LOSING culture’ of a team.
I never PREDICTED future success and neithe has Joe.
Neither one of us has ever claimed to be psychic.
NOBODY (neither me or Joe) predicted the teams record in 2009 or future SB victories.
Nobody saying anything 'makes it true.'
Let me repeat that for you: I DO. I do not, however, think that him saying it makes it true
You may have misunderstood. I never said that Joe was GOD and his word was final.
I did say that, as a former GREAT, HOF player, that his opinion probably carries a little more weight than yours or mine..
What part of that is so confusing to you.
You insult me all the time
(which is fine cause I have no respect for you)
But what you NEVER do is any something intelligent by way of disagreement with me.
You’re funny.
This thread is about FO..
Somehow, like you normally do, you’ve tried to make this about you.
Calling you thin skinned isn’t an insult, because you are illustrating it with aplomb.
Well, we're waiting....
Success
in the NFL, can ONLY be measured, by a team’s record AFTER the fact.
It’s really very simple. There are no ‘moral victories’ in the NFL.
Singletary;s ‘success or failure’ will eventually be determined by how many games the 49ers win during his tenure and how many playoff games/SB’s they win.
Neither JOE MONTANA or myself are talking about the team’s success.
Not at all.
We are talking about the laying the ‘proper foundation’ so that the team has a higher probability of being successful.
I can’t say this any more clearly.
If the team does not have (according to guys like Montana and myself) the proper RESPECT for the game of football and for their HC, the odds of them being successful are greatly diminished.
Stop putting words in my mouth. If you don’t believe in the importance of RESPECT (like Montana CLEARLY stated) then fine . . . that’s your opinion.
Just don’t ‘flip the script.’
Montana's original quote
during SB week.
"I think the one thing that Mike brings is a different attitude than they’d had there in a long time," Montana told "Waddle & Silvy" on WMVP-AM 1000. "I certainly like the change."
If you think he’s wrong, or if you believe him but think that a change of attitude isn’t necessary for FUTURE success . . . than I can’t help you.
You’re on your own there.
It's pretty clear to me that
We’re on completely different pages and we have been since the beginning, and I really don’t think it’s worthwhile to keep trying to find a common point of reference that doesn’t seem to exist.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Hmm...
Neither JOE MONTANA or myself are talking about the team’s success.
Not at all.
We are talking about the laying the ‘proper foundation’ so that the team has a higher probability of being successful.
For the people who are reading this: GeoMak just put himself in the company of Joe Montana.
Well, we're waiting....
Absolutely
When it comes to identifying the main problem with the 49ers under Nolan and how that problem was corrected under Mike Singletary, I, along with Joe Montana, along with most knowledgable NFL fans readily concur.
I could be like HTS and dismiss Montana’s comments, but that’s laughable.
So I will have to agree.
Sorry drummer.
BTW: Any thoughts (hopefully intelligent) from you, or is just non-stop bashing?
Feel free in interject.
Add something to the ‘debate.’
I didn’t dismiss Montana’s comments. I dismissed your use of them as evidence for anything.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Say What?
My use of them as evidence of anything.
Dude, this isn’t CSI. Tey are only ‘evidence’ of Montana’s belief (shared by others) that Montana likes the fact that Mike Singletary has changed to attitude of that losing team.
That the team hasn’t grossly underachieved in recent years due to (in Montana’s words) a lack of respect.
Evidence? Too funny.
Did what?
Cahnge the losing culture?
Apparently not too well.
Only a person who has trouble seeing would even remotely compare Mike Nolan’s leadership skills with those of Mike Singletary’s.
He said changed the attitude, not the “losing culture.” Now you’re putting words in his mouth.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
NO
He changed the ‘winning attitude’ under Nolan.
Dude, you’re embarassing yourself (even beyond your usual nonsense)).
If someone (Montana) is complimenting another person (like Mike Singletary) for ‘changing the teams attitude’ . . . SIMPLE LOGIC tells us that the ‘old attitude’ must’ve been something along the lines of a ‘losing attitude.’
Hysterical.
That’s not simple logic. That’s a huge case of jumping to conclusions.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions
When you bring something up as a way of supporting your own argument, you are using it as evidence.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually
Joe Montana’s comments ‘stand on their own.’
They aren’t used as ‘evidence (LOL)’ that supports my argument.
His comments merely express his opinion (which I happen to share).
You clearly have trouble understanding the concept of ‘opinions.’
Opinions’ aren’t ‘verifiable facts’ (as you seem to think they should be).
Saying that you weren’t using his comments to support your own point of view is a kind of bizarre thing to say.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
You said (repeat YOU said)
That Nolan never ‘lost the team.’
Actually, it’s quite well documented that Mike Nolan never lost the support or belief if his players
.
I gave you Montana’s quote to show YOU that, at the very least Joe Montana would disagree with that opinion.
(I don’t need Joe Montana to arffirm my opinion. I KNOW that I’m correct)!
Now you will ‘parse’ this to DEATH (what does ‘lost the support mean’ etc).
The FACT is that the team wasn’t remotely playing hard enough under Nolan, most likely because he didn’t demand accountability from his players and his staff.
If you can’t see or understand that, then that’s YOUR problem.
Joe Montana didn’t go on Mike & Mike and express his disappointment with how well HIS 49ers have played in recent years for nothing.
And, my little freiend, in the NFL, it all starts with the HC.
That’s only half of what I said. You’re being misrepresentative, crass, insulting, and reductive and, as a wise man once said to me, it’s really not worth me talking to you anymore.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Here's the rest of what you said
Personally, I think you’re idealizing, and I think that you often blind yourself to critical considerations because you like to think in idealistic terms. I understand that you likewise think I’m a cynic who is missing out on all the best parts of the game. I won’t convince you and you won’t convince me. And I think that’s about all there is to it.
I don’t blame you for ‘tucking tail and running.’
You’ve been completely dominated and defeated by the GeoMak.
(actually, any debate between us is a complete mismatch).
BTW: You are entitled to your opinion. But you shouldn’t try to make a living out of disagreeing with the great Joe Montana. Joe Cool knows far more than you . . .about the NFL in general and the 49ers in particular.
I'm with HTS on this..
You’re really reaching with trying to insert a quip from an interview (I’ve heard Montana say good things about Nolan, and he’s also said he thought Garcia could be a HOF QB), so I’m taking Montana’s quip as it is. Nolan had a big impact on the team when he first got in. They wound up having to actually play the games.
Why you put something irrelevant as a soundbite into a thread where you admittedly stated you were ignorant of (which is FO), and put yourself in Montana’s company (did you check with Joe on this?) is typical useless GeoMak. The cool thing is that FO has this as a link on their site. One thing needs to be pointed out: GeoMak is a Bears fan. He is not a 49er fan.
I’m doing that for the sake of the 49er fans here, just in case regular visitors of FO clicks on the NN link. You can embarrass yourself all you want dude. Your not embarrassing us.
Well, we're waiting....
Dude
Wake up..
Were talking about Montana’s opinions about Mike Singeltary, not Mike Nolan or Jeff Garcia or his first grade teacher.
If you think that Montana has USUALLY been wrong in his opinions, then that’s fair game.
But stick to the script. Montana, in two separate public interviews, offered an opinion about Mike Singletary.
Has nothing to do with his ‘past opinions’ now does it?
FO? I don’t drink the KoolAid.
You can cruch numbers, AFTER-THE-FACT, all you want. Unless someone is a coach (and knows EXACTLY what was trying to be accomplished and who was supposed to be where) it’s severely limited.
Unless those guys are ex-coaches and are watching coaches tape, their conclusions are somewhat limited.
But you go ahead and study your brains out on it.
Well, you've boiled yourself down..
Instead of trying to understand FO, you’ve turned this thread into another one of your Singletary love fests. You’re not here for anything else.
You need some help. Like, now.
Well, we're waiting....
Actually
like I said, LVNiner ‘turned’ this thread around (look it up).
You’re a smart guy drummer.
What don’t you write your own fanpost about FO. I’d be real curious to read that.
No, he just made a post..
and you have ran bats**t crazy with it. Don’t blame him for your nonsense. You’re not a victim here.
Well, we're waiting....
No actually
I made a comment afterwards and YOU (and several of your pals) crawled out of the woodwork to relentlessly attack me.
That’s what happened.
I agreed with LVNiner and talked about how some Jet players have said that the team has responded much better to Ryan than Mangini.
LVNiner was talking about the fact that FO probably dioesn’t take into account the qualitites of the HC).
And then it began.
HTS said “They haven’t played a real game yet.”
Duh!
So I guess, the players aren’t free to offer an opinion based on OTA’s meetings and TC.
Observers aren’t free to offer an opinion UNTIL the start of the regular season.
See drummer, a certain faction here goes out of their way to attack me (and usually do it with nonsensical commentary).
They haven’t played a real game yet?
OK. I guess that means that they should withhold all opinions about their new HC until they do.
Pathetic.
The problem is that you’re swingling wildly between saying two things.
Thing One: For a team to be successful in the long-term, they have to respond well to their coach!
Thing One: The Jets players said they like him. All that means is that they like him, and doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with anything else.
When somebody says that you’re drawing unsupportable conclusions, you say the second thing because it’s indisputable: the players said they like him because they said they like him. Then, when somebody questions the usefulness of even making that tautological point, you say the first thing. Then, when somebody questions that, you spin back to the first.
It’s really a ridiculous circle.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Whoops… that’s thing one and things two, not thing one and thing one.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Didn't say that
They have to RESPECT the game and their HC (like Joe Montana himself said).
As far as ‘responding’ to the HC (as in my example between Ryan and Mangini that had to do with ANOTHER factor (I’m sorry that I am overtaxing you brain by bringing in TWO different things)! . . . that has to do with the HC inspiring and motivating his team to play well.
Many, many coaches (Mangini, Nolan, Cameron, Linehan among many, many others) were good X & O coaches and yet, just didn’t have it in them to command the RESPECT that was needed or to get his team to RESPOND well enough to his teaching/coaching methods.
The Jets players said they like
Actually none of them said they LIKED HIM. They said that they like his COACHING Methods much better than Mangini’s.
Rex Ryan inspires fierce loyalty in his players (If you followed the NFL you would know that). Eric mangini? Not so much (LOL)!
You are an assistant coach on Niners Nation.
You should STRIVE to be more intelligent and more accurate in your responses.
Really.
I understand that my NFL knowledge dwarfs yours, but you can at least try to be intelligent and accurate.
You crawling out of the woodwork to attack me is kind of annoying. Your nonsense is kind of sad.
"Superior Knowledge Illustrated".
By GeoMak:
When it comes to identifying the main problem with the 49ers under Nolan and how that problem was corrected under Mike Singletary, I, along with Joe Montana, along with most knowledgable NFL fans readily concur.
You may have misunderstood. I never said that Joe was GOD and his word was final.
But you shouldn’t try to make a living out of disagreeing with the great Joe Montana. Joe Cool knows far more than you . . .about the NFL in general and the 49ers in particular.
Were talking about Montana’s opinions about Mike Singeltary, not Mike Nolan or Jeff Garcia or his first grade teacher.
Observers aren’t free to offer an opinion UNTIL the start of the regular season
Joe Montana’s comments ‘stand on their own.’
Neither JOE MONTANA or myself are talking about the team’s success.
They have to RESPECT the game and their HC (like Joe Montana himself said).
(I don’t need Joe Montana to arffirm my opinion. I KNOW that I’m correct)!
Neither JOE MONTANA or myself are talking about the team’s success.
We are talking about the laying the ‘proper foundation’ so that the team has a higher probability of being successful.
If the team does not have (according to guys like Montana and myself) the proper RESPECT for the game of football and for their HC, the odds of them being successful are greatly diminished.
These guys (FO) aren’t coaches. I’m pretty sure they don’t watch coaches tape with real live coaches.
I did say that, as a former GREAT, HOF player, that his opinion probably carries a little more weight than yours or mine..
I understand that my NFL knowledge dwarfs yours, but you can at least try to be intelligent and accurate.
You’ve been completely dominated and defeated by the GeoMak
See drummer, a certain faction here goes out of their way to attack me (and usually do it with nonsensical commentary).
but I have forgotten more about NFL: than you’ll ever know.
Bill Walsh coaching the 2008 Detroit Lions probably wouldn’t fare as well as a much lesser coach coaching the 2008 Patriots or Steelers.
I plead ignorance about FO. I know a little about it, but really not enough to make a value judgement.
FO? I don’t drink the KoolAid.
You can cruch numbers, AFTER-THE-FACT, all you want. Unless someone is a coach (and knows EXACTLY what was trying to be accomplished and who was supposed to be where) it’s severely limited.
LOL, this…
Joe Montana didn’t go on Mike & Mike and express his disappointment with how well HIS 49ers have played in recent years for nothing.
Feel free in interject.
Add something to the ‘debate.’
ROTFL…
BTW; In your long-winded post, you AGAIN failed to answer a SIMPLE QUESTION: Do you agree with Joe or not? Too funny.
To reset…
I never said that Joe was GOD and his word was final.
bq. Do you agree with Joe or not?
If someone (Montana) is complimenting another person (like Mike Singletary) for ‘changing the teams attitude’ . . . SIMPLE LOGIC tells us that the ‘old attitude’ must’ve been something along the lines of a ‘losing attitude.’
bq. I never said that Joe was GOD and his word was final.
GeoMak: I agree with Montana’s comments. He is basically saying what I myself have thought. Having maybe the greatest 49ers of them all saying pretty much what I have said certainly helps confirm my opinion. IMO, I agree!
You want to basically equate Joe Monatana’s comments with anyone else’s.
I’ve had this debate with a few others.
I am truly sorry that you aren’t able to understand this simple concept. After all, the great Joe Montana (and the lowly GeoMak) easily grasp it!
bq. I understand that my NFL knowledge dwarfs yours
I plead ignorance
Well, we're waiting....
re:
For example, the Jets seem to respond much better to the emotional Rex Ryan, as opposed to the detached Eric Mangini.
To echo howtheyscored’s sentiments, how can you say this before the Jets have played a regular season game?? Who knows how they will respond!
Many players have already come out and said that they much prefer Ryan over Mangini
Just as the players say they prefer Singletary over Nolan, Mangini over Crennel, and for every other new head coach ever. What are they supposed to say, “No, we hate the coach”? Statements like this mean nothing.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 1:25 AM PDT up reply actions
You're missing the point..
Those statements mean everything to who presented them. It’s up to you how you weigh them.
Well, we're waiting....
Their meaningless statements
Players always say good things about a new coach. It doesn’t mean anything.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 2:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Players always say good things about a new HC.
Pure ignorance.
Philadelphia. 1986. Blustery Buddy Ryan blew into town and immediately set out to toughen up his team.
There was nobody complimenting Ryan. Most of the players hated him (although it’s not very good for job security to come out and say that).
It all changed the next year, during the players strike. While many other HC’s (like Mike Ditka) openly criticized their striking players (and praised their Scab Ball replacements) Ryan did just the opposite.
He openly criticized his Scab Ball players, endearing himself to he regular players.
Ditka’s regular players never forgave him for his attitude towards them during the strike. Ryan’s players completely embraced him for the way he had their backs during the strike.
Saying that players always say good things about their new HC is pure ignorance.
Beyond that, find me some quotes of players saying ‘good things’ when Dick Vermeil first took over the Rams and Tom Coughlin first took over the Giants.
Good luck.
Saying that players always say good things about their new HC is pure ignorance.
I shouldn’t have said always, but 99% of the time. And what difference does it make what the players say if it doesn’t make them play better on the field?
And saying it’s ignorance is a joke, I wasn’t even alive in 1986, sorry if I don’t know Buddy Ryan’s complete coaching history.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
What difference does it make what the players say . .
if it doesn’t make them play better on the field?
Umm, I guess you’re right Brendan.
I also guess that if the players are more motivated by their new coaches and held to a higher standard by those coaches, than maybe (hopefully) that will translate to better performance out on the field.
That’s the plan, I guess.
Yep
But if it doesn’t translate to the field it’s completely meaningless. Hence why reading anything into the players comments on Rex Ryan before any games have been played is silly. What were the players saying about Nolan when he was the new head coach?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Well
Tell me this. What were the players saying about Nolan?
I keep hearing about all these great things that players said about Nolan, and yet, nobody can tell me what they were.
And again, you are correct in that all that matters is the record in the REGULAR season. But to completely dismiss the players attitudes cause it’s only the offseason and preseason is kind of short-sighted.
BTW: If you weren’t alive in 1986, were you alive when Dick Vermeil took over the Rams (1997) or when Tom Coughlin took over the Giants (2004)?
(The Ram players loved Dick Vermeil so much that, in his second season as HC, they almost took the unprecedented move and voted to go on strike before a regular season game against the Bears. Vermeil had to do a lot of work with his team to get them to play that game).
Just wondering,
Yes I was most definitely alive for those haha.
I didn’t follow football in 1997 though. For Coughlin, I know they didn’t like him, although in the end he has been really successful anyway. Which pretty much disproves your point. The only coach in the last decade who didn’t have the “respect” of his players ended up winning the Superbowl. Why was that? Because having your players “respect” before you’ve coached a game means hardly anything.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Again, I can come up with one example of virtually anything. Your frequent anecdotal evidence is exactly like most other anecdotal evidence: pretty useless.
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Say What?
That’s laughable. A team has to play a regualr season game first?
So, let me see if I get this straight. A new HC comes in and replaces the old HC.
They have off season OTAs. Meetings. Training Camp, etc.
And players aren’t allowed to NOTICE and COMMENT on the many differences between the two HC’s until the regualr season actually starts?
That’s ridiculous. Really. It’s Laughable.
So I guess the players that made those comments just don’t know what they’re talking about cause the regualr season hasn’t started yet.
You’re funny!
They can notice and comment about whatever they want, but you’ve been STRONGLY implying that it also makes them a better team, and there is absolutely no freaking way to see that until they play a regular season game. It’s borderline ridiculous that you’re even arguing this point.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Never said that HTS
They could go 0-16 this year. I never implied that they will be a better team.
NEVER. That’s you just pulling ‘stuff’ out of your backside.’ I said that they respond better to a guy like Ryan (who is known as an emotional, players coach) than a guy like Magnini (who is known as a secretive, controlling, unemotional coach). That’s all.
Let me help you out here (cause I know you need it).
In order to have LONG TERM success in the NFL, the HC must engage his players. They have to respect the man and be willing to buy into his program.
They might lose right away (Chuck Noll – 1-13, Bill Walsh – 2-14, Jimmy Johnson – 1-15, Bill Parcells 3-12-1) in their first seasons, but these men (with many others) comanded and demanded their players respect.
Many, many other coaches (see guys like Mike Nolan, Scott Linehan, Cam Cameron) were accomplished X & O coordinators but never commanded that type of respect (which probably explains why they are back to being coordinators).
Look, even in this comment you’re directly equating the player / coach relationship with success. It’s not that hard to see. You are absolutely implying exactly what I said you are. You’re just not necessarily saying that we’ll see it this year.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Long Term success
Yes. Long Term. Get it?
What part of that is so complicated for year.
Short term? No way. Many times a new coach comes into a losing situation and has to completely break down his team (cause they’ve had a country club atmoshere). Often the players HATE that coach in the SHORT TERM (and love that coach in the LONG TERM – when they finally start winning).
Ryan and Mangini? The players really didn’t like or respond to Mangini. You could be cold and aloof like Belichick, but you better be as good as Belichick.
Mangini clearly had the ‘cold an aloof’ part down, just not the competence of Belichick (which helps explain why he was fired).
The players CLEARLY have responded top Ryan (If you choose to believe them ) as Ryan has a league-wide reputation as being a demanding coach who also is considered a players coach.
I’m sorry that you don’t follow the NFL anywhere near a closely as myself.
BTW: Feel free to use ‘The Google’ for more in-depth anaylsis of what has been going on with the Jest since the coaching change.
Sorry, but you're a fool.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Aug 15, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry Frog
but I have forgotten more about NFL: than you’ll ever know.
BTW: You (like a few people here) are quick to call me names (like you just did) but are COMPLETELY unable to give an intelligent, reasoned response as to why you disagree with me.
I see it all the time.
So if a coach commands respect
He WILL have long term success? Is that what your saying?
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Not at all Frog
I know that I was an English major, but it still kind of shocks me that some people have so much trouble following a line of thought.
Here, let me help you out here. There are NO guarantees in the NFL. There are far too many variables.
Bill Walsh coaching the 2008 Detroit Lions probably wouldn’t fare as well as a much lesser coach coaching the 2008 Patriots or Steelers.
That said, RESPECT for the game (and your coaches) as Joe Montana recently commented on, will PROBABLY go further in a team being succesful going forward than a team without that kind of respect.
Simple.
You want to disagree and say that you prefer less respect in your team, have at it.
No one disagrees with that
And I don’t go by Frog either.
The problem is your line of thought wasn’t very clear to most of us. It seems to change a lot.
by Brendan Scolari on Aug 15, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Ummm… I was an English major too. What does that have to do with anything?
Non-sequitor again much?
Context, people. More context is good. Less context is bad. If you're willing to be reductive, then you're willing to be wrong.
by howtheyscored on Aug 15, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
One big problem with this type of statistical analysis.
Baseball is a ‘static’ game. It’s basically pitcher versus hitter.
Football is a fluid, dynamic game.
It’s eleven guys, in motion, working together to achieve a specific goal
These guys (FO) aren’t coaches. I’m pretty sure they don’t watch coaches tape with real live coaches.
Case in point.
The 1995 Pittsburgh Steelers lost the SB that season to the Dallas Cowboys.
Neil O’Donnell made two horrendous passes that fell right into the waiting arms of DB Larry Brown.
Brown was the SB MVP. O’Donnell was the goat.
The problem is this. One of those INT’s was clearly O’Donnells fault.
The other?
Clearly the fault of WR Andre Hastings who broke the wrong way on the pass.
And yet, for the most part, O’Donnell has shouldered all of the blame; Hastings none.
It might be a little difficult to assign success or failure to an individual player when:
A). All players have to work together in tandem.
and
B). You (the person crunching the numbers) really doesn’t know where everyone is supposed to be on each play.
Just sayin’.
I'm not the biggest fan of FO statistical DVOA ratings either
The problem isn’t with statistical model or even the conclusions they draw from it. The problem is many people overrate it’s accuracy . It’s a good statistical model but it’s only one perspective in the big picture which even the editor in this piece alludes to. It might be the most accurate indicator, but it’s far from being accurate. DVOA should be presented along with other statistical indicators as a concept of proof. To often I read the irrational argument of throwing out all other statistical computations and only accepting the DVOA statistic.
Yeah, but part of the beauty of statistics is that over a large enough sample, this stuff really, honestly, not even joking evens out. That’s why you don’t get DVOA for a single play. That’s why they wait until something like week 8 to even make the stat available. It’s not a problem with the stat. It’s accounted for by the nature of the system.
I have my problems with FO’s core stats, and I think a lot of people should (and certainly not to the point of ignoring its value), but I have a hard time believing that this should be one of them.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions
All I know is this
They projected the Rams to be maybe the biggest surprise team in 2009, with something like 7-9 wins.
OK. We’ll see.
And this. They had Brandon Marshall as one of the top WR’s (and Devin Hester as one of the bottom WR’s) last season.
Two problems:
A). Devin Hester has never played WR, at any level, until the past couple of seasons in Chicago while he was learning on-the-job.
B). Hester had few other excellent recivers around him, and more importantly, played in a ball contol offense with Kyle Orton as his QB.
Marshall played in an offense with one of the best young QB’s in the game as his QB.
How can you compare the two. Unless you ‘replayed’ the 2008 season and had Hester In Denver and Marshall in Chicago, I don’t see how you can.
And that’s my essential point. In baseball, the hitter bats against the pitcher. Nothing else really matters (yes, you can say that the hitter will get less good pitches if he has a crappy batter behind him).
But still, it’s essentially ‘mano on mano.’
Football is completely different. How well would Jerry Rice have fared in his career if he had guys like Jeff Kemp and Matt Cavanaugh throwing to him, instead of Joe Montana & Steve Young?
I’m guessing not quite as well.
We’re not talking about the same thing.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
not to speak for Howie
but the stat doesn’t make any claims about who is a better player overall, merely who provided more value over a given time period. Over a long period of time, if player A had a much better DVOA than player B, you can pretty reliably say that player A is better. However, over the course of a single season, the sample in football is far too small to reach any conclusions like that. Once you get up to a total of 3-4 full seasons, you can start to make judgments like that, but pulling rankings for 2 players over a single season would be kind of like saying “Well Alex Smith had a higher QB rating than Brett Favre in 2007, so he’s obviously better.”
Marshall had a better season than Hester last year, and it’d be absolutely silly to argue otherwise.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Help me out here
but the stat doesn’t make any claims about who is a better player overall, merely who provided more value over a given time period.
Isn’t that the same thing. I mean, Hester will have less value, in a ball control offense with Orton as his QB, than Marshall will have, with a great offensive mind (Mike Shanahan) and an excellent QB (Cutler).
I’m just not understanding this.
DVOA is a rate stat, not a counting stat (think yards per play vs. total yards), so the fact that Hester plays in a ball control offense won’t affect his DVOA. He will probably have lower DYAR (FO’s counting stat) in a ball control offense vs. an offense that likes to air it out, even given a similar DVOA.
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
You’re talking about DVOA/DVAR as a stat-set used to evaluate what a player or unit is capable of (and also, consequently, as a predictive stat-set – to evaluate what can happen).
I’m talking about DVOA/DVAR as a stat-set used to evaluate tangible results that a player or unit was already involved in creating (to evaluate what already did happen).
Furthermore, when you are talking about them in the same sense that I am, there’s is again a key difference in approach:
You’re looking at them in terms of individual plays.
I’m looking at them in terms of a statistically significant (read: LARGE) number of plays.
We’re not talking about the same thing. Not really in any way at all.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Aug 14, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Good job Fooch..
Especially the “Building a Team” question. A DET fan asked this question asked this question to Barnwell on Lion’s SBNation blog:
2. In your Lions preview, you mentioned how Jim Schwartz is really into statistics and the type of things you find in Football Outsiders, so much so that he consulted with you guys before and once contributed to the book. What was that project all about?
BB: Well, Jim didn’t directly contribute to the book. We’ve worked with several NFL teams on projects, including Jim while he was in Tennessee. As you might suspect, we can’t talk too openly about what we’ve worked on and for whom.
I’m curious on how much his interest in FO affects DET.
Well, we're waiting....
Oh and BTW..
Here is a link from FO on their other articles on SBNation:
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/extra-points/2009/foa-09-media-sbnation-takeover
Well, we're waiting....
Yeah..
The CIN blog really fleshes out a few things about FO and their analysis. I highly recommend reading all of the FO articles on SBNation.
Well, we're waiting....
Hey Fooch
Reading around the other blogs it appears FO gave bloggers differing levels of attention in their answers.Any explanation for this?
Just off the top of my head it seemed they provided more comprehensive answers to the blogs dedicated to teams with better success last year.
televised?
double post, sorry, but does anyone know where a bay area resident (south bay) can catch the game?
"You are probably not that good a rapper." Obama, D-Ill. (He played hoop, that's sport related right?)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Niners Nation
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.
