Well Done: Cooks' Season One in NE

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
That's pretty much the same type of blow, in the act of trying to make a play, that Charles Woodson committed on the Tuck Rule play
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Yeah they call those if you hit the QB today. WR hits are basically called if they look icky, not by any sort of rule.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,581
Portland, ME
It was interesting to read Corey Moore's (#43) quotes after the game saying that he should have/could have pushed Cooks out of bounds. Did he mean taking a DPI? Because it looks like he was just a bit late getting there, and anything sooner would result in a penalty. I guess he could have timed it just perfectly, and hit Cooks out of bounds before he got his feet set. Easier said while looking at the replay.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
ESPN's football beat writers answered questions today, including this one

Forget about their contracts. Which 24-or-under receiver would you most want on your team and why: Brandin Cooks, Stefon Diggs, Michael Thomas or Sammy Watkins?
Graziano: Thomas, though Diggs is closing fast. Thomas has that dominator size at the wide receiver position and has shown an ability to be used in a variety of roles early in his career. Cooks feels more one-trick-ponyish, and, of course, Watkins might be the most talented of the bunch but hasn't shown an ability to stay healthy. Diggs could be breaking out into something special right now, but I'll still give the slight edge to Thomas.

Joyner: Cooks. Last year, 551 of his 1,180 yards (if penalties are included) and four of his eight touchdowns occurred at the stretch vertical level (aerials thrown 20 or more yards downfield). That was good enough for Bill Belichick to make Cooks the stretch vertical threat of his offense, and that's more than enough to win my vote.

Schatz: Thomas. Last year, playing in the same offense with the same quarterback, he had a higher DVOA rating than Cooks on both deep passes (16-plus yards through the air) and shorter passes. He's also taller and more physical. As much as I love Cooks and also Diggs, I would take Thomas. Watkins just has too many health issues to take over the other three.

Sando: I'll take Thomas for his combination of size, production and availability to this point in his career.

Yates: Watkins, but there's no wrong answer here. Watkins is a technician as a route runner and has exceptional speed. He had modest production in three years with Buffalo, in part due to a ground-heavy offense that he played in, but also because of a history of injuries. But from a traits perspective, there's so much to love about his game, as he can dominate in any one-on-one matchup.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20816025/2017-nfl-insiders-predict-week-4-upsets-fantasy-flops-new-york-giants-playoff-hopes-more
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
It was interesting to read Corey Moore's (#43) quotes after the game saying that he should have/could have pushed Cooks out of bounds. Did he mean taking a DPI? Because it looks like he was just a bit late getting there, and anything sooner would result in a penalty. I guess he could have timed it just perfectly, and hit Cooks out of bounds before he got his feet set. Easier said while looking at the replay.
Definitely easier to say after the fact watching film, and its pretty much counter to the training they give DBs - which is to hack at the ball in the end zone - but if he'd basically just run through Cooks instead of leaping and hitting him in the head, there's probably no way Cooks gets both feet inbounds cleanly and holds onto the ball. Cooks had contact with the ball before Moore got there, so there's no way it would have been DPI (I don't think not-leaping would have gotten Moore there much earlier).

Edit: there's also a chance that had he hit Cooks in the lower body, it would have basically sent him cartwheeling (which clearly looks bad) and he would have got called for something.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Definitely easier to say after the fact watching film, and its pretty much counter to the training they give DBs - which is to hack at the ball in the end zone - but if he'd basically just run through Cooks instead of leaping and hitting him in the head, there's probably no way Cooks gets both feet inbounds cleanly and holds onto the ball. Cooks had contact with the ball before Moore got there, so there's no way it would have been DPI (I don't think not-leaping would have gotten Moore there much earlier).

Edit: there's also a chance that had he hit Cooks in the lower body, it would have basically sent him cartwheeling (which clearly looks bad) and he would have got called for something.
If I were a secondary coach (and there are a myriad of reasons I'm not lol) I'd be thinking about teaching my guys to catch / bear hug the receiver on these plays (and jump balls) and just carry them out of bounds.

Hell, someone like Browner was strong enough to catch them at midfield and carry them out of bounds.

Another day I'll share more dumb ideas about secondary technique :)

Edit: Picture it, just like they used to send Moss in to defend the hail mary. Super Bowl: 1st and goal from the 5ish, 5 seconds left in the game, BB thinks they are going throw a fade/jump ball. Sends in a Vince Wilfork type to just catch the receiver on the way down and walk out if bounds with him to end the game. It would be glorious :)
 
Last edited:

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
If I were a secondary coach (and there are a myriad of reasons I'm not lol) I'd be thinking about teaching my guys to catch / bear hug the receiver on these plays (and jump balls) and just carry them out of bounds.

Hell, someone like Browner was strong enough to catch them at midfield and carry them out of bounds.

Another day I'll share more dumb ideas about secondary technique :)

Edit: Picture it, just like they used to send Moss in to defend the hail mary. Super Bowl: 1st and goal from the 5ish, 5 seconds left in the game, BB thinks they are going throw a fade/jump ball. Sends in a Vince Wilfork type to just catch the receiver on the way down and walk out if bounds with him to end the game. It would be glorious :)
Pretty sure you'd get flagged for both pass interference and unsportsmanlike conduct, which results in 30 yards and a "do it again and you're ejected" warning from the refs.

Though you would have made a terrific secondary coach in the 60s and 70s, so long as you could also teach the clothesline tackle and the "accidental trip".

Finally, a game cannot end on a defensive penalty so your edit, while fun to think about, would also not fly. That said, I've always wondered why the Hail Mary defense doesn't include the usual punt team gunners lined up opposite the WRs on the outside. That still leaves the defense with a numerical advantage downfield, and the offense with two less potential targets.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
It wouldnt be pass interference if the receiver catches the ball first (I dont think it would be unsportsmanlike conduct either, but maybe there is a provision somewhere in the rule book for something really absurd). Its just tough to execute because the defender has to catch the receiver in the air right as they catch the ball, do it a second early (or perceived a second early on a non reviewable play) and its a big penalty.

It has happened occasionally on boundary plays since the force out rule change. Not carrying someone from the hashmark out of bounds or anything, but a defender catching a receiver on the inbounds side of the sideline and flinging him down out of bounds.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Pretty sure you'd get flagged for both pass interference and unsportsmanlike conduct, which results in 30 yards and a "do it again and you're ejected" warning from the refs.

Though you would have made a terrific secondary coach in the 60s and 70s, so long as you could also teach the clothesline tackle and the "accidental trip".

Finally, a game cannot end on a defensive penalty so your edit, while fun to think about, would also not fly. That said, I've always wondered why the Hail Mary defense doesn't include the usual punt team gunners lined up opposite the WRs on the outside. That still leaves the defense with a numerical advantage downfield, and the offense with two less potential targets.
Why DPI if he catches the receiver on his way down from catching the ball? Where in the rules dies it say you have to let the receiver come down with the ball?

Not being obtuse, just assuming you know more and can explain it.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,807
Melbourne, Australia
Just watched NFL Turning Point video, with a beaming Brandin Cooks the hero after having caught his first GW TD from TB12. He looks like he could definitely get used to that.

Works hard, makes the big catch, looks like they're on the same page now. More of that please.:banana:

 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Just watched NFL Turning Point video, with a beaming Brandin Cooks the hero after having caught his first GW TD from TB12. He looks like he could definitely get used to that.

Works hard, makes the big catch, looks like they're on the same page now. More of that please.:banana:

At about 1:40 of that clip I think you hear the Texans' radio announcer saying, in frustration, "How do they do it?"
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Just watched NFL Turning Point video, with a beaming Brandin Cooks the hero after having caught his first GW TD from TB12. He looks like he could definitely get used to that.

Works hard, makes the big catch, looks like they're on the same page now. More of that please.:banana:

There should have been 15 extra yards added to the Amendola catch because there's a clear facemask as well.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Why DPI if he catches the receiver on his way down from catching the ball? Where in the rules dies it say you have to let the receiver come down with the ball?

Not being obtuse, just assuming you know more and can explain it.
No penalty for pushing the receiver out of bounds after catching. It's just a difficult play to execute due to the timing and the athleticism of today's receivers.

Carrying the receiver from the hashmark to the sideline, one of the scenarios outlined upthread, would almost certainly result in the play being deemed a catch, and probably also a 15 yard penalty on the defender. It's not something we're ever likely to see, but it's sometimes fun to think up these hypotheticals.

EDIT: From Rule 8, Section 1 of the NFL Rule Book:

Item 6. Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass. It is not necessary for the player to maintain control of the ball when he lands out of bounds
 
Last edited:

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
That's pretty much the same type of blow, in the act of trying to make a play, that Charles Woodson committed on the Tuck Rule play
From the opposite angle, which is in that Turning Point video, it doesn't look as bad.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
No penalty for pushing the receiver out of bounds after catching. It's just a difficult play to execute due to the timing and the athleticism of today's receivers.

Carrying the receiver from the hashmark to the sideline, one of the scenarios outlined upthread, would almost certainly result in the play being deemed a catch, and probably also a 15 yard penalty on the defender. It's not something we're ever likely to see, but it's sometimes fun to think up these hypotheticals.

EDIT: From Rule 8, Section 1 of the NFL Rule Book:
Yeah, makes sense there would be something to prevent someone from carrying a receiver a long way, just didnt know what specific rule it might be found under. You can just catch and immediately tackle a receiver on the sideline before they come down in bounds, just very tough to execute.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Am I crazy for thinking there should've been a PI call on the almost interception to Cooks? He basically goes through Cooks to make a play on the ball but nobody has talked about it and the announcers didn't mention it, so it's left me doubting myself.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Am I crazy for thinking there should've been a PI call on the almost interception to Cooks? He basically goes through Cooks to make a play on the ball but nobody has talked about it and the announcers didn't mention it, so it's left me doubting myself.
I think because the DB was making a play on the ball it isn't PI. Both players have a right to the ball
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
No penalty for pushing the receiver out of bounds after catching. It's just a difficult play to execute due to the timing and the athleticism of today's receivers.

Carrying the receiver from the hashmark to the sideline, one of the scenarios outlined upthread, would almost certainly result in the play being deemed a catch, and probably also a 15 yard penalty on the defender. It's not something we're ever likely to see, but it's sometimes fun to think up these hypotheticals.

EDIT: From Rule 8, Section 1 of the NFL Rule Book:
How does that square with the removal, a few years ago, of the "forced out" part of the catch rule? I thought that now, to be ruled a catch, the receiver has to touch inbounds with possession (and then maintain it after hitting the ground) regardless of whether a defender is hitting them to push them out. If I'm not mistaken, in one of the Pats-Ravens playoff games, maybe an AFCCG, there was a major play that turned on a receiver getting forced out, or nearly so, by the defender. My understanding of the rule today was that the defender can force an incompletion by hitting a receiver post-catch but pre-feet-touching, if it forces them to land out of bounds.

So the question here is a reductio-ad-absurdam to that - hitting a receiver post-catch, but carrying them some distance out of bounds. Obviously a hit that redirects their path to the ground is different than physically supporting their weight and taking steps, but according to what you just quoted, even the former would be ruled a catch. So which is it?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,386
I think because the DB was making a play on the ball it isn't PI. Both players have a right to the ball
This is exactly it. It's very similar to Butler's SB-winning INT. In both cases, the defender actually made contact with the receiver prior to touching the ball, but because the defender had a straight line clear path to the ball, while the receiver also had a straight line clear path to the ball, and both those lines collided together, while going for the ball, it's not PI.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
How does that square with the removal, a few years ago, of the "forced out" part of the catch rule? I thought that now, to be ruled a catch, the receiver has to touch inbounds with possession (and then maintain it after hitting the ground) regardless of whether a defender is hitting them to push them out. If I'm not mistaken, in one of the Pats-Ravens playoff games, maybe an AFCCG, there was a major play that turned on a receiver getting forced out, or nearly so, by the defender. My understanding of the rule today was that the defender can force an incompletion by hitting a receiver post-catch but pre-feet-touching, if it forces them to land out of bounds.

So the question here is a reductio-ad-absurdam to that - hitting a receiver post-catch, but carrying them some distance out of bounds. Obviously a hit that redirects their path to the ground is different than physically supporting their weight and taking steps, but according to what you just quoted, even the former would be ruled a catch. So which is it?
Generally, it's the receiver's responsibility to get both feet inbounds. The rule change was put in place as it was basically impossible to determine if the receiver's own momentum caused him to fail to keep both feet inbounds (in which case it would be incomplete), or if it was due to the actions of the defender (completion under the old rule, incomplete under the new).

Pushing and carrying are very different acts. And the rule cited above, which is in effect, specifically refers to carrying the receiver out of bounds.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
2,371
I had difficulty making it past the 0:57 mark ...

Just watched NFL Turning Point video, with a beaming Brandin Cooks the hero after having caught his first GW TD from TB12. He looks like he could definitely get used to that.

Works hard, makes the big catch, looks like they're on the same page now. More of that please.:banana:

 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,603
Why DPI if he catches the receiver on his way down from catching the ball? Where in the rules dies it say you have to let the receiver come down with the ball?

Not being obtuse, just assuming you know more and can explain it.
As stated above, carrying a player out of bounds wouldn't be any kind of foul, but it would be an awarded catch. 3-7-3:

"Note 3: If a player would have caught, intercepted, or recovered a ball inbounds, but is carried out of bounds, player possession will be granted."

This is specifically covered by rule, so it would not be an unsportsmanlike act.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,807
Melbourne, Australia
There should have been 15 extra yards added to the Amendola catch because there's a clear facemask as well.
Yeah, I wondered why Amendola didn't say somethnig to the official he handed the ball to, then I thought he must be thinking - no, they've just made a big gain, no time to waste on the clock, need to get on with it and finish the job. But the defender pretty much took his helmet off.
 

Old Fart Tree

the maven of meat
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2001
14,030
Boulder, CO
What an absolute gutpunch two play sequence there for the Houston D. You've got 3rd and like 18, and your win probability has to be... pretty high? (I haven't seen a chart yet). Then you give up the first down to Dola and the next play Cooks scores. Christ.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
What an absolute gutpunch two play sequence there for the Houston D. You've got 3rd and like 18, and your win probability has to be... pretty high? (I haven't seen a chart yet). Then you give up the first down to Dola and the next play Cooks scores. Christ.
ImageUploadedBySons of Sam Horn1506642308.198222.jpg
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
I assume that all these Win Probability Charts are based on the 1000s of games in the NFL where a team was down by 5 with 2:38 to play and only 20% won.

Patriots are doing their best to break the WPC every week.

They basically are not like any of the other 1000s of teams to have ever played because Brady is basically unlike every other QB ever to play.

Someone needs to do a Patriot Win Probability Chart. "In games the Pats are down by 5 with 2:38 to play the Patriot Winning % is 68%."
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
I assume that all these Win Probability Charts are based on the 1000s of games in the NFL where a team was down by 5 with 2:38 to play and only 20% won.

Patriots are doing their best to break the WPC every week.

They basically are not like any of the other 1000s of teams to have ever played because Brady is basically unlike every other QB ever to play.

Someone needs to do a Patriot Win Probability Chart. "In games the Pats are down by 5 with 2:38 to play the Patriot Winning % is 68%."
Tom Curran wrote an article about this after the Super Bowl. The Pats have had some ridiculous comebacks given the probabilities.

edit: linky

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/new-england-patriots-super-bowl-comeback-atlanta-falcons-was-more-probable-not
 

Koufax

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,936
I certainly felt that the Pats had at least a 50% chance of winning when they got to fist and 10 on the Houston 25. In Tom we trust, and all that.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Win probability in the NFL is nonsense - its a problem that is much more complicated than win probabilities in baseball, and they're working with 1/10th the yearly data, in a sport where the rules change much faster.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Win probability in the NFL is nonsense - its a problem that is much more complicated than win probabilities in baseball, and they're working with 1/10th the yearly data, in a sport where the rules change much faster.
It's not nonsense, it's a theoretical analysis. Further, because a touchdown is worth so many points, a single one can have dramatic effects, which is significantly different than just a solo home run.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
It's not nonsense, it's a theoretical analysis. Further, because a touchdown is worth so many points, a single one can have dramatic effects, which is significantly different than just a solo home run.
Its theoretical analysis that's typically built on prior success rates, which in the NFL we're talking about tiny tiny sample sizes, in which most of the samples are of unlike quality.

That 20% chance to win on the 25 with 23 seconds left probably has error bars that extend all the way from 0% up to >50%.

Win probability makes sense in baseball, where the value of specific game situations is easily calculated, players skills are easily described numerically, and we have sample sizes that are huge. In football, where we can statistically describe almost nothing, only have 256 games a year, and can really only accurately use a sample of about 5 years before we encounter a significantly different scoring environment, Win Probability is more assumptions and guesses than it is actual data.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
Its theoretical analysis that's typically built on prior success rates, which in the NFL we're talking about tiny tiny sample sizes, in which most of the samples are of unlike quality.

That 20% chance to win on the 25 with 23 seconds left probably has error bars that extend all the way from 0% up to >50%.

Win probability makes sense in baseball, where the value of specific game situations is easily calculated, players skills are easily described numerically, and we have sample sizes that are huge. In football, where we can statistically describe almost nothing, only have 256 games a year, and can really only accurately use a sample of about 5 years before we encounter a significantly different scoring environment, Win Probability is more assumptions and guesses than it is actual data.
You're right. It's still a fun exercise and analysis to look at. It's not like they are trying to cure cancer and accuracy is vital.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
I'm with johnmd20 on this one. While H.S. makes good points, they don't add up to it being "nonsense". Flawed but still useful and interesting is, I think, a better way to describe it.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
7,522
Maine
Wouldant you have 512 games a year? You would a team up 10 with 3:45 left to play and a team down by 10 with 3:45. One of course wins one loses. Wouldn't both figure into the win probability calculation?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
So Cooks finishes the year with 65 catches for 1,082 yards and 7 touchdowns, just a smidge below his career average. It's hard to say how I feel about his first season in New England; you would think coming to New England at 24 would lead to career highs, but he was coming from a team that was more vertically inclined than New England. I guess if you were expecting a monster, top-tier season of 90+ catches, 1,400+ yards and 12+ touchdowns you would be disappointed. He's not really a volume guy so he has the tendency to go unnoticed for large chunks of the game, which I think makes him seem like an unproductive player. I will say that he has a great knack for drawing DPI calls way downfield, today alone he drew two holding penalties and a DPI that went for 39 yards and set up his TD catch a few plays later.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I think it’s a stretch the be at all disappointed with his first year here. It’s a complicated system for WRs, he got keyed on with Edelman out and he was top what, 6 or 7 in YPC. You obviously need to factor in money for resigning him, but I don’t see how he wasn’t an unmitigated success, especially considering the team’s success/failures drafting WRs. Edelman and Hogan back and he’s a stud.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
I honestly think he would have had a better season if Edelman was healthy. Would have freed him up a ton at times.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
Cooks’ role changed after the Edelman injury. Instead of being a deep threat only, he had to be counted on for more targets in areas of the field he’s not great at. Then when Mitchell and eventually Hogan were out his role really changed. I think he had a good season. Next year when Edelman can work the middle of the field and Mitchell works outside the numbers is when we’ll see how much of a weapon he can be.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,505
I agree with the above points, but I'll concede I'm a bit disappointed, esp given how glowing the T.C. reports were. Edelman going down obviously hurt, however my biggest downward surprise is how out of sync he and Brady seem, lately in particular, on deep balls, no matter whose fault it is.

Still, overall a solid if mostly unspectacular season one in N.E., with plenty of highlights and sound reason to feel positive moving forward. I believe they'll get to more consistent with time.

Edit if and of are both words
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The thing that disappointed me about Cooks is that he seemed to rarely make plays when the pass was closely contested. Maybe it’s due to his size, (but that never stops Edelman or Amendola) and he seems to spend too much time looking for a flag rather than fighting for the ball.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
Agree with all of the above. He almost cost them yesterday with his performance on the 2nd series. That could have changed the game. Overall, probably a B type of grade from me.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Every time I see this thread the title makes me think he is done for the season.
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,708
He also shows a tendency to crumple to the ground after a catch rather than attempting to fight for a few more yards. He seems to be a very specific weapon for a very specific role, as noted, and when used that way, my evaluation could change.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
I would agree with others that he had a solid first year, “B” type of grade overall, and considering how things played out at WR this year, it has been a success.

I have been disappointed at his low compete level on balls though, he definitely comes across as the soft WR who fake-competes and just looks for flags. Maybe it is the norm for a guy his size, and we have just been spoiled with 11 and 80 being dirtdogs.