2015 Ravens: Achilles 4, Suggs 0, Karma 7

[Super Nomario]

 
The first part is no doubt true---however, I'd be pretty surprised if the second part is.   Have you seen a study or analysis suggesting this?   I wonder a bit if we're taking the fact that no one is perfect and over-extrapolating that to 'everyone is pretty much the same'

Thanks to Stitch for posting one - I don't recall if I'd read that one exactly or not, but I've seen similar. To some extent it's hard to study, because GMs that start their careers with three bad drafts in a row don't usually get a fourth or fifth draft to see if they regress to the mean. I wouldn't say there is zero difference in skill, but the signal-to-noise ratio in evaluating drafting skill based on past results is very small. We're also dealing with tiny sample sizes, especially if we start paring down the sample further ("Belichick sucks at drafting WR! Ted Thompson is awesome at drafting WR!"). Belichick has been around for 15 years and has only drafted 143 players, and 89 of those are 4th-rounders or later where the chance of a "hit" is 25% or less.
 
Another factor in evaluating drafts is the importance of quarterback combined with the high failure rate at the position. It is a significant competitive advantage to not have to throw draft picks at a quarterback, with the end result that the teams that already have good quarterbacks look smart in part because they're able to draft higher-percentage positions instead of wasting picks on Kyle Boller or J.P. Losman or Brandon Weeden.
 

Interesting that both Baltimore and New England are not listed for either service.

And of course Ozzie got his front office start in Cleveland under Belichick. BLESTO and National also help determine who gets invited to the senior all-star bowls, so there's kind of a feedback loop here where a guy like Duron Harmon or Tavon Wilson or Sebastian Vollmer ends up off-the-radar. I'm also pretty much convinced that the Kipers of the world get their hands on leaked National / BLESTO reports and that drives a lot of the media consensus on where guys are "ranked," which is why the Patriots picks seem to come out of left field at times.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Ray is coming to sign books at the Prudential Center Barnes and Noble next month if anyone wants to discuss  football or obstruction of justice
 
I think there are a few incompetent teams at any given time and that once you get over the competency hurdle, there isnt much difference.  
 
I think there's also advantages for stable organizations because they know what kind of systems they want to run so dont waste picks putting round pegs into square holes.
 
Beyond that, yup, pretty much a crapshoot.  (well thats not totally true, but generally close enough)
 
This is an academic study on the issue.  Anecdotally it seems true to me as well. 
 
 
http://chartsnthings.tumblr.com/post/49236510636/charting-skill-and-chance-in-the-nfl-draft
 

 
Yes, I've seen some of this stuff before, and my comment is that I think people are over-extrapolating from it.   To be clear, I think in general the draft has a huge amount of randomness, it is difficult to measure success, and most people overestimate teams skill.  But that does not mean it is a crapshoot, either.  I don't read these to suggest that, though people may have other cites or have read these deeply in a way I missed something.
 
The charts n stuff link does not really speak to individual teams---it supports the thesis that in aggregate teams are not very good in picking the right players (which I imagine is true).  But the point I was making above is that there is likely variation amongst teams, and this article does not speak to that point.
 
The Massey paper that is cited for the proposition that teams do not have persistent skill in picking players does not actually say that (or unless I missed it, anything all that similar).   I think it speaks to the benefits of trading down (and cites particular teams as being better at it than others, making the point I was suggesting) and the psychological biases that impact decision making around draft trades and selections (people do not recognize how front-loaded the talent in a draft is; people do not recognize the level of randomness and thus overvalue 'high picks' relative to 'multiple picks' etc.)   Keep in mind, though, that they are tracking picks relative to nearby picks, and year to year, not teams actions in each year.
 
Again, my point is not that the draft is a science---it is not.  It is that people have taken research suggesting that the draft is much less precise than people tend to think and gone beyond that to say all teams are the same.  That might be true---but I haven't seen the research that suggests it is the case.

 

[Stitch01]

The academic study does in fact speak to individual teams and finds no persistent skill over time at picking players.
 
I agree with the original posted statement personally, that some teams may have an edge in drafting but that its so tiny that it approximates a crap shoot.  YMMV
 
Here are some other thoughts on the subject
 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/
 
http://www.sportsplusnumbers.com/2013/04/luck-vs-skill-nfl-draft-performance.html
 
The talk by the author referenced.
 
 
 
 
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=708flipping-coins-in-the-war-room-skill-and-chance-in-the-nfl-draft
 
EDIT: By approximate a crap shoot, I mean I think there are people with a small edge but we arent going to be able to do a very good job at determining skill vs. luck and good performance is much more likely to be skill than luck.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The academic study does in fact speak to individual teams and finds no persistent skill over time at picking players.
 
I agree with the original posted statement personally, that some teams may have an edge in drafting but that its so tiny that it approximates a crap shoot.  YMMV

 
What is the specific section/data you are referring to?

 

[Stitch01]

Sorry, I meant to say its in the talk, not the research paper.  
 
Ive seen this before, but just checked, it starts at like the five minute mark

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The academic study does in fact speak to individual teams and finds no persistent skill over time at picking players.
 
I agree with the original posted statement personally, that some teams may have an edge in drafting but that its so tiny that it approximates a crap shoot.  YMMV
 
Here are some other thoughts on the subject
 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-team-can-beat-the-draft/
 
http://www.sportsplusnumbers.com/2013/04/luck-vs-skill-nfl-draft-performance.html
 
The talk by the author referenced.
 
 
 
 
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/?p=708flipping-coins-in-the-war-room-skill-and-chance-in-the-nfl-draft
 
EDIT: By approximate a crap shoot, I mean I think there are people with a small edge but we arent going to be able to do a very good job at determining skill vs. luck and good performance is much more likely to be skill than luck.

 
Again, dig below the conclusion and look at the data.  It simply does not support your conclusion (at least, it's far less certain).
 
The Paine article specifically notes "While some veteran general managers were able to sustain positive returns above average over six or more years, even theirs were not unqualified success stories"     Note that the article is saying no one is perfect--which I completely agree with.  It is NOT saying there is no difference (the thesis put forward in the thread).
 
From the Sports Plus article:  "Second, there are some terrible teams in the NFL. The underperformance is significant at the 90% level from seasons 6 through 13 - far more teams are bad at drafting longer than we would expect by chance alone. For those interested, these teams are the Falcons (season 10 in 1990), Colts (1984), Cowboys (1987), Raiders (2007) and Chargers"
 
Massey's speech is certainly more relevant and interesting.  It's tricky without seeing his data or charts (just an artifact of how the thing was filmed).  However, his approach was done at the team level, not the GM/executive level, over 15 years (sounded like mid-late 90s through mid-20-teens).  Thus, it is not actually evaluating individual skill at selecting players it is evaluating teams (where, of course, the individual making the selections varies a great deal).  The Patriots data is heavily Belichick---but as I heard him describe the years it included a bunch of pre-Belichick years.  And that split of 'who' is far more spread with most every other team. It's also unclear to me how he managed the reality that a very high % of players drafted will never have a start---he's a sharp guy, so he likely did it in a reasonable way, but the approach he described didn't really address that.  So he may have written this up somewhere in a way that speaks directly to the 'crapshoot' thesis, which would be interesting. 
 
I think people are taking the lack of perfection to mean 'all is equal' and that feels like a more aggressive thesis than we should have based on the data.   Most people overrate the impact of skill, and I agree with pushing back on that presumption.  But pushing it too far is just as bad.

 

[Stitch01]

In fact, Polian and Smith merely might have been examples of what’s called the “Wyatt Earp Effect.” It’s named for 19th-century gunslinger, whose fame came from the seeming improbability of an individual surviving countless consecutive gunfights. Any feat seems improbable in hindsight from the perspective of the people involved, but given the volume of gunfights in the Old West, the odds were actually pretty high that someone would make it through a large number of battles unscathed, simply by chance alone.
Likewise, even over a half-decade or more, some GMs would appear to beat average by chance alone. But as we saw with Polian and Smith, eventually that luck runs out.
 

The article follows up with the above quotation.  I believe this is mostly true for drafting (the same idea is present in terms of identifying financial managers that can beat the market, although that analysis has the added element of fees).  Basically the same idea as if we had 1000 people flip coins some people would seem to have a skill at flipping heads just by random chance.  
 
So I do think the data supports my conslusions, although my conclusions arent that all is equal.  My hypothesis that there are a few incompetent teams at any given time, but once you reach a basic level of competency the edge any team has over any competent team is very small and that we're going to have a super hard time distinguishing skill from luck given sample size limitations.  So generally, for most teams and for us looking at it from the outside, it approximates a crapshoot enough to call it a crapshoot.  
 
If you want to say its 10% skill/90% luck or whatever or that some teams have a very small edge so its not a crapshoot, I wouldnt argue much.  
 
What I think is wrong is the thinking that some teams have a persistent and identifiable material edge at their ability to identify NFL talent in the draft better than their peers.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

 
Again, dig below the conclusion and look at the data.  It simply does not support your conclusion.
 
The Paine article specifically notes "While some veteran general managers were able to sustain positive returns above average over six or more years, even theirs were not unqualified success stories"     Note that the article is saying no one is perfect--which I completely agree with.  It is NOT saying there is no difference (the thesis put forward in the thread).
From the Sports Plus article:  "Second, there are some terrible teams in the NFL. The underperformance is significant at the 90% level from seasons 6 through 13 - far more teams are bad at drafting longer than we would expect by chance alone. For those interested, these teams are the Falcons (season 10 in 1990), Colts (1984), Cowboys (1987), Raiders (2007) and Chargers"
 
I think people are taking the lack of perfection to mean 'all is equal' and that simply is not what the data suggests.   Most people overrate the impact of skill, and I agree with pushing back on that presumption.  But pushing it too far is just as bad.

 
I'm with PKB on this one.  I don't know whether there are GMs out there that have greater skill at picking players (it seems plausible to me but who knows) but this kind of data analysis does not decisively speak to that question.  This is a really common misunderstanding of statistical inference.  Just because there is no apparent statistical association between X (GM identity) on Y (draft success) across a large data set does not mean that a small number of Xs could not have a persistent and substantially positive effect on Y.
 
This is like asking, "Is it possible that ethnic divisions might be increasing the likelihood of civil war in Iraq" and then looking at a large cross-national dataset on the level of ethnic divisions and civil war onset across the whole world, finding no statistical relationship, and answering the question in the negative.

 

[BaseballJones]

It's not just picking the players.  It's coaching them and putting them in the right position to succeed.  If you believe that coaching matters (and most people do), then Belichick and Joe Philbin could take the same player, and Belichick has a better chance of turning that player into a quality player.  So it makes it look like Belichick drafted better, when in reality it might be attributable to coaching more than anything else.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The article follows up with the above quotation.  I believe this is mostly true for drafting (the same idea is present in terms of identifying financial managers that can beat the market, although that analysis has the added element of fees).  Basically the same idea as if we had 1000 people flip coins some people would seem to have a skill at flipping heads just by random chance.  
 
So I do think the data supports my conslusions, although my conclusions arent that all is equal.  My hypothesis that there are a few incompetent teams at any given time, but once you reach a basic level of competency the edge any team has over any competent team is very small and that we're going to have a super hard time distinguishing skill from luck given sample size limitations.  So generally, for most teams and for us looking at it from the outside, it approximates a crapshoot enough to call it a crapshoot.  
 
If you want to say its 10% skill/90% luck or whatever or that some teams have a very small edge so its not a crapshoot, I wouldnt argue much.  
 
What I think is wrong is the thinking that some teams have a persistent and identifiable material edge at their ability to identify NFL talent in the draft better than their peers.

 
Well, the first point would be that I'd very much disagree that 10% skill/90% luck constitutes a crapshoot---having a 10% edge in something is huge and material.  There is irony in fans of a team whose basic philosophy is 'win every extra % advantage you can' arguing about whether 10% matters, I acknowledge.
 
There is no question that some teams will have runs of luck that may look like skill, as that follow-up quote suggests; that's a basic statistical truism.  That is different than saying there is no material difference in skill.
 
As MMS notes (and as a bunch of us talked about in detail around things like BABIP) there's also limitations to correlation analysis and an unfortunate tendency sometimes to take the absence of proof by that method as proof of absence.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Sorry if this was posted below but the Ravens have studied this issue and found that success is tied to number of picks not any particular skill.  I believe this article has the quote:  http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/01/2014-nfl-draft-baltimore-ravens-compensatory-picks

 

[Stitch01]

I wouldn't and didn't say the data proves decisively there is no skill in drafting.  I said the data supports the idea that there is very little skill in drafting, and I stand by that. That's why I said if you want to argue its 10% skill I wouldn't argue much, I have an opinion based on the data and literature Ive read but its certainly not definitive.
 
10% skill <> 10% edge.   Being 10% better at drafting would be material.  Being marginally better at something that's 10% skill, meh, its going to be swamped by luck and I doubt we can distinguish.
 
I personally don't think drafting is even 10% skill, so Im fine with calling it a crapshoot, but YMMV. 
 
Im not saying I have a definitive answer here.  I have an opinion based on the available data and literature Ive seen and read. Research showing more evidence there is skill to drafting would certainly change my mind.

 

[Super Nomario]

Again, dig below the conclusion and look at the data.  It simply does not support your conclusion (at least, it's far less certain).
 
The Paine article specifically notes "While some veteran general managers were able to sustain positive returns above average over six or more years, even theirs were not unqualified success stories"     Note that the article is saying no one is perfect--which I completely agree with.  It is NOT saying there is no difference (the thesis put forward in the thread).

It's taking a stronger stance than "no one is perfect." They found no correlation between Y and Y+1 for teams and basically none between Y and Y+1 for execs. After selecting down to just a pool of execs who had been in place for 6 years, they found a "weak" correlation between "Y to Y+2" and "Y+3 to Y+5" performance, but even among execs who appeared to have a repeatable skill by this measure, it didn't have much predictive value based on their subsequent drafting success (or lack thereof). They are saying whatever difference exists is virtually undetectable in the data.
 

From the Sports Plus article:  "Second, there are some terrible teams in the NFL. The underperformance is significant at the 90% level from seasons 6 through 13 - far more teams are bad at drafting longer than we would expect by chance alone. For those interested, these teams are the Falcons (season 10 in 1990), Colts (1984), Cowboys (1987), Raiders (2007) and Chargers"[/size]

Obviously there's work and skill involved in the draft prep process - if you or I were suddenly inserted as GMs and had to build scouting departments from scratch, we would almost certainly underperform the norm. But as time goes by, competition means the number of dumb teams is getting smaller. I think it's telling that the most recent team on this list is a squad where the owner was the GM and thus wasn't going to fire himself. Obviously dumb picks are made from time-to-time - like Brandon Weeden - but those picks are fewer and farther between. Ten years ago we saw three RBs in the top five, a WR taken 7th overall who had 43 catches his last year in college, a WR taken 10th overall who had just taken a year off, and a player taken 21st overall who was a college QB that Jacksonville was planning to convert to WR. In 2005 some teams had an edge just by doing less dumb shit, but there's not as much dumb shit nowadays so the edge over the worst teams is smaller, and there appears to be little variation among the top-drafting teams.
 

Well, the first point would be that I'd very much disagree that 10% skill/90% luck constitutes a crapshoot---having a 10% edge in something is huge and material.  There is irony in fans of a team whose basic philosophy is 'win every extra % advantage you can' arguing about whether 10% matters, I acknowledge.

Sure, but the sample sizes are tiny here. A 10% edge on something that you only do seven times a year and (for most of the draft) has a small chance of success anyway is going to be barely perceptible.
 

There is no question that some teams will have runs of luck that may look like skill, as that follow-up quote suggests; that's a basic statistical truism.  That is different than saying there is no material difference in skill.
 
As MMS notes (and as a bunch of us talked about in detail around things like BABIP) there's also limitations to correlation analysis and an unfortunate tendency sometimes to take the absence of proof by that method as proof of absence.

I don't think we're too far apart on this. It's like the clutch hitting conundrum - maybe some have a difference in skill, but at the level we're talking about we've already selected out the vast mass of difference in skill and any remaining difference is going to be small, and the sample sizes are such that we might not ever have enough data to make conclusions.

 

[Saints Rest]

It's not just picking the players.  It's coaching them and putting them in the right position to succeed.  If you believe that coaching matters (and most people do), then Belichick and Joe Philbin could take the same player, and Belichick has a better chance of turning that player into a quality player.  So it makes it look like Belichick drafted better, when in reality it might be attributable to coaching more than anything else.

I was about to say the same thing.  Thanks for saving me the typing time.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't think we're too far apart on this. It's like the clutch hitting conundrum - maybe some have a difference in skill, but at the level we're talking about we've already selected out the vast mass of difference in skill and any remaining difference is going to be small, and the sample sizes are such that we might not ever have enough data to make conclusions.

 
I would say that there may be a difference in skill, and we may or may not be able to measure it given the sample sizes here (a real question, but one that is equally likely to hide real skill as hide the absence of skill).   Whether we've designed the right test is different from whether the underlying skill exists.
 
I don't see how one can attempt to estimate the impact of a skill if they feel we can't yet measure it.  The approach you describe above is what got all sorts of people egg on their face about (for example) catcher pitch-framing skills in the mid-2000s....people said it didn't exist, and then we got better and different data and learned it not only exists, but is impactful.  My point is only that we need to be cognizant of the difference between what we can demonstrate based on a few studies and what might be demonstratable.
 
The related question (which I think is legit, and is different than where this started) is how much confidence we should have about a particular NFL executive based on drafting record, since we currently seem to have limited ability to assess it.    That's somewhat different from saying it likely doesn't matter, though.
 

I wouldn't and didn't say the data proves decisively there is no skill in drafting.  I said the data supports the idea that there is very little skill in drafting, and I stand by that. That's why I said if you want to argue its 10% skill I wouldn't argue much, I have an opinion based on the data and literature Ive read but its certainly not definitive.
 
10% skill <> 10% edge.   Being 10% better at drafting would be material.  Being marginally better at something that's 10% skill, meh, its going to be swamped by luck and I doubt we can distinguish.
 
I personally don't think drafting is even 10% skill, so Im fine with calling it a crapshoot, but YMMV. 
 
Im not saying I have a definitive answer here.  I have an opinion based on the available data and literature Ive seen and read. Research showing more evidence there is skill to drafting would certainly change my mind.

 
The data cited in this thread simply does not say what you suggest---I don't know if you are thinking about other studies I have not seen and haven't been cited here, or you're missing what the authors of these are stating as limitations, or what.  But as a couple of us have noted, your conclusion is going beyond the data here.
 
SuperNomario's point that we are looking at a very small subset of GMs who have been filtered also is relevant to this---if there truly were so little skill in drafting than it would be the case that anyone could do it almost equally.  Is that really your view?  I suspect not.  If not, then the hypotheses must be that the NFL very effectively selects a group that is very closely bunched in possessing the skill (in spite of radically different backgrounds for owners and selection processes).  While this is conceivable, I think chewing on whether that hypotheses makes sense is worthwhile in evaluating this one.   Or, perhaps, that the NFL selects some distribution of people with the skill and we just have trouble separating out the 'drafting' ability versus the 'coaching and developing' ability, on top of the natural variance in how 21 year olds will develop at most anything.
 
I do not know how much skill is involved, or what the difference in skill amongst GMs might be...and just think we should be clear that the data doesn't suggest any of us do.
 
If you are asking my best guess---I'd guess that there are most likely some differences, and it would surprise me if there are not outliers within that group since that is the case in most performance-related things.  But I'm just speculating; it could be teams just aren't any different at it.  I do think a significant complicating variable here (beyond sample size, as noted above, and selection bias considerations) is that players are drafted for a scheme/roster situation and thus there is nothing close to equal opportunity for picks even if they are right next to each other in the draft.

 

[Stitch01]

OK, I disagree, I think we can come to opinions based in part on the data, but will give you the last word.
 

SuperNomario's point that we are looking at a very small subset of GMs who have been filtered also is relevant to this---if there truly were so little skill in drafting than it would be the case that anyone could do it almost equally.  Is that really your view?  I suspect not.
 

You suspect right, I explicitly said this wasnt the case.  I think there is a level of competency you have to have in order to run the draft process i.e., you or I couldnt do it and having senile Al Davis running the show is probably bad and will lead to bad results.

 

[amarshal2]

I appreciate the effort both sides have put into this.  It's been interesting and informative.
 
It was also pretty clear to me that Stitch wasn't calling it a random draw but rather saying that it's difficult to differentiate among the experts.
 
Ultimately this probably comes down to how many experts you think there are.  Stitch seems to think most of the 32 GMs qualify.  It sounds like PKB thinks perhaps it's a subset.  Personally, I think the data is inconclusive and it comes down to a person's individual judgement.  I'm really not sure I know what the answer is.  If I were a team I would defer to the Balt/NE approach of collecting a high volume of picks because I do think it's clear that teams overestimate their ability to make the right choice.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

OK, I disagree, I think we can come to opinions based in part on the data, but will give you the last word.
 
You suspect right, I explicitly said this wasnt the case.  I think there is a level of competency you have to have in order to run the draft process i.e., you or I couldnt do it and having senile Al Davis running the show is probably bad and will lead to bad results.

 
I raised the question that way because it is a somewhat odd description of a skill to suggest that it exists and can be used to distinguish between Al Davis and 'good GMs' (meaning, it is a real skill, and it is impactful relative to the general population) but that it is so closely bunched among GMs that it doesn't really matter amongst them.  It's not impossible, but it's pretty unlikely given the importance of getting the right 'groceries' for a team.
 
To put it in another context, it's a little like saying that sprinters can beat Joe Sixpack on the track, but all sprinters are pretty much as fast as each other.  I think that's true if the lens we use to evaluate them is, say, real-time viewing through binoculars from a long distance....and not at all true in terms of the actual competition on the track, measured with sophisticated equipment, and viewed up close.
 
What you see as a lack of a skill differentiation I see as much more likely a measurement challenge.

 

[soxhop411]

http://thebiglead.com/2015/10/22/ray-lewis-book-sportscenter/

 

[pappymojo]

I appreciate the effort both sides have put into this.  It's been interesting and informative.
 
It was also pretty clear to me that Stitch wasn't calling it a random draw but rather saying that it's difficult to differentiate among the experts.
 
Ultimately this probably comes down to how many experts you think there are.  Stitch seems to think most of the 32 GMs qualify.  It sounds like PKB thinks perhaps it's a subset.  Personally, I think the data is inconclusive and it comes down to a person's individual judgement.  I'm really not sure I know what the answer is.  If I were a team I would defer to the Balt/NE approach of collecting a high volume of picks because I do think it's clear that teams overestimate their ability to make the right choice.

Teams should do everything they can to collect extra draft picks regardless of their ability to evaluate talent.

 

[amarshal2]

Teams should do everything they can to collect extra draft picks regardless of their ability to evaluate talent.

 
Sorry -- i was speaking more specifically to the value of trading down a few spots to pick up a late round pick.

 

[Ed Hillel]

http://thebiglead.com/2015/10/22/ray-lewis-book-sportscenter/

 
These interviews are really disturbing, and I'm not just saying that as a figure of speech. He's basically going on the air to promote his book and talk about his "softer side, which nobody saw" like "hanging out with cancer patients," while making completely inane statements and playing the race card when it comes to the murder he was possibly involved in. But it goes beyond that: ESPN continues to give him this platform and glorify him. I don't want to play the Deflategate victim card here, but when you compare ESPN/NFL's treatment of Ray Lewis and contrast it with that 8-month fiasco, it's just...I can't even come up with the words to describe it. 

 

[Devizier]

Considering that just about every news outlet in the country spent the last ten years pretending that Bill Cosby wasn't a rapist (the National Enquirer took it a step further by smearing his victims), the Ray Lewis stuff doesn't surprise me in the least. After all, you'll never hear the victim's side.

 

[tims4wins]

Ahem, thread title needs upgrading

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Ahem, thread title needs upgrading

 
With pleasure!

 

[Stitch01]

Harbaugh in full crybaby mode post game

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Does anyone have the video of the illegal formation from last night?
 
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/bs-sp-ravens-cardinals-notebook-1027-20151026-story.html
 

 

Flacco threw to Urschel in the left flat and the second-year lineman powered forward for a gain of six yards to put the ball on the Cardinals' 7-yard line. However, a flag was thrown on Urschel for illegal formation. Both Flacco and coach John Harbaugh protested the call vehemently, pointing out to Torbert that Urschel declared himself eligible.

 

[Average Reds]

The fact that the refs were blindlingly incompetent in calling that penalty against the Ravens kept me warm last night.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Harbaugh in full crybaby mode post game

 
"Mah phones went out!"
 
Strange how this is completely ignored by the media when it doesn't occur at Gillette.

 

[BigJimEd]

Does anyone have the video of the illegal formation from last night?
 

From the game thread here is a vine:
https://vine.co/v/eYh9WVhVwqB

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Best season ever. Great to see the rat birds struggle after blowing the whistle on the Pats and covering up Ray Rice. The tears of infinite sorrow taste so delicious from Baltimore!

 

[Ferm Sheller]

Best season ever. Great to see the rat birds struggle after blowing the whistle on the Pats and covering up Ray Rice. The tears of infinite sorrow taste so delicious from Baltimore!

 
 
For reasons that make no sense at this point, I still fear them somehow going on a run and then backing into the playoffs, and then me spending 3.5 hours on a Sunday in mid-January with a clenched asshole worried about whether they're going to be able to get Tucker in range for the winning FG in the final minute at Gillette.

 

[BaseballJones]

2014 Teams the Pats played in the Playoffs:
- Baltimore:  10-6
- Indianapolis:  11-5
- Seattle:  12-4
  TOT:  33-15 (.688)
 
2015 Teams the Pats played in the 2014 Playoffs (well, technically those games were played in 2015, but you get the idea):
- Baltimore:  1-6
- Indianapolis:  3-4
- Seattle:  3-4
  TOT:  7-14 (.333)

 

[RG33]

It is really amazing how Harbaugh just cannot accept accountability when things go bad. He is a great coach and all, but such a sore loser and just refuses to accept responsibility.

Coach your damn team to be able to adapt when the headsets go out.

Coach your damn team to be able to listen to the referees and adapt to cover/not cover eligible/ineligible receivers.

Coach your damn team to play until they hear a whistle and not until when they think a guy is down.

 

[tims4wins]

2014 Teams the Pats played in the Playoffs:
- Baltimore:  10-6
- Indianapolis:  11-5
- Seattle:  12-4
  TOT:  33-15 (.688)
 
2015 Teams the Pats played in the 2014 Playoffs (well, technically those games were played in 2015, but you get the idea):
- Baltimore:  1-6
- Indianapolis:  3-4
- Seattle:  3-4
  TOT:  7-14 (.333)

 
If you remove the Hasselbeck wins it falls to 5-14 (.263)

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

For reasons that make no sense at this point, I still fear them somehow going on a run and then backing into the playoffs, and then me spending 3.5 hours on a Sunday in mid-January with a clenched asshole worried about whether they're going to be able to get Tucker in range for the winning FG in the final minute at Gillette.

 
The team I am mildly paranoid about is PIT (when Ben gets back), not these guys.
 
• Last place in the AFC North, which is the wrong division to be last place in with CIN and PIT both looking like playoff hopefuls.
• 1-2 in the division
• 1-4 against AFC opponents
• -27 point differential - which ties them with Indy, and puts them in the same neighborhood as the Chiefs and Titans (who are actually slightly better)
 
Their November slate is optimistic:
Chargers 
Jags
Rams
@Browns
 
Their December slate, not so much:
@Dolphins
Seahawks
Chiefs
Steelers
@Bengals
 
It's hard to see them gaining any ground even if they go on a miracle run in November. And this without Forsett for at least 4-6 weeks.

 

[tims4wins]

Forsett isn't out, Dorsett on Indy is
 
Edit: but for the Ravens to realistically make the playoffs they need to finish 8-1. 8-8 won't do it in the AFC with Pittsburgh and the Jets. 8-1 ain't happening.
 
As I said when they started 0-3 or whatever, 5-11 is optimistic for them.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

Ratbirds losing in the dead of night
Take these broken plays and learn to lose
All your life
We have been waiting for this moment to arise

Ratbirds crying in the dead of night
Take these sunken costs and learn to lose
All your life
We have been waiting for this moment to arise

Ratbirds die, Ratbirds die
Into the pitch of the dark black night
Ratbirds die, Ratbirds die
Into the pitch of the dark black night

Ratbirds whining in the dead of night
Take these broken plays and learn to lose
All your life
We have been waiting for this moment to arise
We have been waiting for this moment to arise
We have been waiting for this moment to arise

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Coach your damn team to play until they hear a whistle and not until when they think a guy is down.

 
For this one, I'm with Harbaugh.  Odds are if someone comes in and hits Johnson at that moment, they get a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.
 
A freak play with a freak result; Ravens just aren't good enough to overcome these kind of plays this year.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

Double post.

 

[Leather]

 
The team I am mildly paranoid about is PIT (when Ben gets back), not these guys.
 
• Last place in the AFC North, which is the wrong division to be last place in with CIN and PIT both looking like playoff hopefuls.
• 1-2 in the division
• 1-4 against AFC opponents
• -27 point differential - which ties them with Indy, and puts them in the same neighborhood as the Chiefs and Titans (who are actually slightly better)
 
Their November slate is optimistic:
Chargers 
Jags
Rams
@Browns
 
Their December slate, not so much:
@Dolphins
Seahawks
Chiefs
Steelers
@Bengals
 
It's hard to see them gaining any ground even if they go on a miracle run in November. And this without Forsett for at least 4-6 weeks.

 
I'm with you.  The Ravens are bad.   The Steelers will be problematic.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

Forsett isn't out, Dorsett on Indy is
 
Edit: but for the Ravens to realistically make the playoffs they need to finish 8-1. 8-8 won't do it in the AFC with Pittsburgh and the Jets. 8-1 ain't happening.
 
As I said when they started 0-3 or whatever, 5-11 is optimistic for them.

 
Agreed. They aren't running the table with that staff and personnel.

 

[Stitch01]

 
For this one, I'm with Harbaugh.  Odds are if someone comes in and hits Johnson at that moment, they get a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.
 
A freak play with a freak result; Ravens just aren't good enough to overcome these kind of plays this year.

He's right about both that and the illegal formation

Counterpoint: Fuck that guy

 

[RG33]

For this one, I'm with Harbaugh.  Odds are if someone comes in and hits Johnson at that moment, they get a flag for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Well, maybe, but maybe the guy holding onto him could like not let go and actually tackle him though?

 

[PedroKsBambino]

It is really amazing how Harbaugh just cannot accept accountability when things go bad. He is a great coach and all, but such a sore loser and just refuses to accept responsibility.

Coach your damn team to be able to adapt when the headsets go out.

Coach your damn team to be able to listen to the referees and adapt to cover/not cover eligible/ineligible receivers.

Coach your damn team to play until they hear a whistle and not until when they think a guy is down.

 
Agreed.  On the ineligible guy reporting, it's subtle but his job is not actually just to make the motion---his job is to make sure he is declared eligible. He did not do that.
 
Keep in mind the patriots spoke to the referees specifically about what they were going to do so that they'd be prepared when the guys reported.  The Ravens (by any accounts I've seen) did not.  It is all about preparation and execution.
 
On Johnson, it's silly to say the choice is 'hit him hard for a penalty or give up 62 yard TD'   The other option is to have someone run up and grab him and hold him, or tap him on the back.  That's the well-coached move there.

 

[Gunfighter 09]

I am enjoying this suffering in Raven land, and it is delicious that it happens on an eligible / ineligible play against Baltimore, but that ref should be face some sanction for missing the lineman reporting ten feet in front of his face. Further, that should be reviewable. It was a huge, potential four point swing against the Ravens. 
 
It is crazy how the Broncos and Ravens are operating entirely on the two opposite poles of luck and close outcomes this year. 

 

[tims4wins]

I am enjoying this suffering in Raven land, and it is delicious that it happens on an eligible / ineligible play against Baltimore, but that ref should be face some sanction for missing the lineman reporting ten feet in front of his face. Further, that should be reviewable. It was a huge, potential four point swing against the Ravens. 
 
It is crazy how the Broncos and Ravens are operating entirely on the two opposite poles of luck and close outcomes this year. 

 
Make everything reviewable? Can't do it, BB suggested it

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I am enjoying this suffering in Raven land, and it is delicious that it happens on an eligible / ineligible play against Baltimore, but that ref should be face some sanction for missing the lineman reporting ten feet in front of his face. Further, that should be reviewable. It was a huge, potential four point swing against the Ravens. 
 
It is crazy how the Broncos and Ravens are operating entirely on the two opposite poles of luck this year. 

 
There's nothing to review---if the player didn't clarify he was eligible (and it's on the player to do so, not the referee, though I agree the ref SHOULD have seen what the player did), and no announcement occurs, he is not eligible and the defense is not on notice.  Isn't that the result of Harbaugh's bitching last year?

 

[Toe Nash]

The Ravens went on perhaps the luckiest Super Bowl run of all time, from 4th and 19 to Rahim Moore to the non-called holding. They are owed a lot more bad luck before things even out.

 

[BaseballJones]

 
Agreed.  On the ineligible guy reporting, it's subtle but his job is not actually just to make the motion---his job is to make sure he is declared eligible. He did not do that.
 

 
My teenager, when asked to clean the toilet, will often do a not-so-stellar job.  I point out that there's still grime on the toilet, and he says, "Well, I wiped it down."  I'll say, "The mission wasn't to 'wipe it down'.  It was to make sure it's clean.  Just running your paper towel over the toilet does not necessarily make it clean."  
 
Just declaring yourself eligible to your own satisfaction is not sufficient.  Gotta make sure the ref sees it.  
 
To make the parallel.. the Ravens player is like my teenager.  And the Ravens are like the dirty toilet.