Real Fantasy AFC East Discussion and Breakdown Polls Closed. Congrats to the Bills.

Who wins the AFC East


  • Total voters
    28

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
Brockers had a pretty good year. You can blitz Kendricks or Ayers, but that's taking a guy out of coverage for you.
 I'd still have Trevathan and Kuechly who are damn good in coverage.
 
 
Super Nomario said:
As for Jones and Werner ... they were high draft picks, and maybe they'll be good next year or in a couple years, but they've proven almost nothing in the NFL. They had trouble cracking the lineups of two pretty bad defenses. You went very rookie-heavy in the draft, and that paid off with some of the players contributing right away (Lacy, Ryan, Allen), but we're not rating on potential here. It seems like in your mind guys like Austin, Armstead, Jones, Werner, Rogers, etc. are already solid contributors instead of the talented-but-flawed players they were as rookies.
 
Watt is the best defensive player in football. The rest of your pass rush is not that impressive, IMO, and I think the Bills would be able to stop it for the most part.
 
I see your point. It's not that I'm trying to sell my rooks as world beaters but Austin was under utilized in real life, Armstead was thrown into the fire and after one bad game was a very solid LT especially in the post season, Werner would have been on a rotation with Jones because unlike the Colts I would have given up on the LB transition and turned him into a pass rush specialist. Just because they didn't have great years in their schemes doesn't mean I wouldn't have made changes to fit their talents in to my scheme.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,571
Philadelphia
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
I see your point. It's not that I'm trying to sell my rooks as world beaters but Austin was under utilized in real life, Armstead was thrown into the fire and after one bad game was a very solid LT especially in the post season, Werner would have been on a rotation with Jones because unlike the Colts I would have given up on the LB transition and turned him into a pass rush specialist. Just because they didn't have great years in their schemes doesn't mean I wouldn't have made changes to fit their talents in to my scheme.
The problem is that all we really have to go on is what has happened in real life. I can hypothetically argue that Sam Bradford getting injured was a blessing in disguise for my team as if Mallett had gotten a real chance at a starting QB job by now he would have become a Top 10-15 guy in the league. But at the end of the day he's just a guy who was drafted in the 3rd round and has sat on the bench his whole career.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
I see your point. It's not that I'm trying to sell my rooks as world beaters but Austin was under utilized in real life, Armstead was thrown into the fire and after one bad game was a very solid LT especially in the post season, Werner would have been on a rotation with Jones because unlike the Colts I would have given up on the LB transition and turned him into a pass rush specialist. Just because they didn't have great years in their schemes doesn't mean I wouldn't have made changes to fit their talents in to my scheme.
You can't just assume they'd be successes in your scheme, either. These guys sat behind some pretty terrible players for much of the year. It's not like Werner was trying to crack Seattle's DE rotation, or Armstead was on the bench behind Joe Thomas. For all their talents, the coaches who saw them every day in practice preferred to play other players. That's not really a knock on these guys - most rookies struggle in their transitions to the NFL. Tom Brady was 4th-string as a rookie. Peyton Manning threw 28 INTs. Megatron had just 756 yards. There's a reason most of us didn't draft as many rookies as you did.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
In real life there were other options for their teams, which makes this exercise a little different. When given the opportunity did they excel and/or get better? Because in here they would have had to start right away because there were no safer options.
 

Titoschew

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2006
3,283
Chip Woolley's Trailer
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
Kendricks, Ayers, Jones and/or Werner would all get their chances. Hell, if you leave Brockers one on one he's going to make some plays too. 
 
Rudolph, and in particular, Spaeth are good blocking TE's.  In this season, where Julio Jones was absent following a handful of games, I would imagine I would have had Rudolph out wide in some situations (before he went down) with Spaeth in blocking or have them both blocking on the line in others.  That slows your rush down.  Just because you have guys that can make an impact doesn't mean my offense can't be effective.
 
I have the kind of line that I could go jumbo with those TE's and run, further neutralizing your rush.  Mathews, Starks and Bolden aren't world-beaters on their own but they can be effective in spurts behind a solid line.  Or, if for example, I open it up a little and send Brown over the middle, Keuchly can't stay with him, Cooper and/or Jones depending on who is healthy run outside the numbers, draw DRC, who is on Rudolph or Cooper/Jones running intermediate or Mathews coming out of the backfield?
 
I think I have more paths to slow your rush down, in turn, neutralizing your defense than you do to take advantage of my offense line to slow down my offense.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Titoschew said:
 
Rudolph, and in particular, Spaeth are good blocking TE's.  In this season, where Julio Jones was absent following a handful of games, I would imagine I would have had Rudolph out wide in some situations (before he went down) with Spaeth in blocking or have them both blocking on the line in others.  That slows your rush down.  Just because you have guys that can make an impact doesn't mean my offense can't be effective.
 
I have the kind of line that I could go jumbo with those TE's and run, further neutralizing your rush.  Mathews, Starks and Bolden aren't world-beaters on their own but they can be effective in spurts behind a solid line.  Or, if for example, I open it up a little and send Brown over the middle, Keuchly can't stay with him, Cooper and/or Jones depending on who is healthy run outside the numbers, draw DRC, who is on Rudolph or Cooper/Jones running intermediate or Mathews coming out of the backfield?
 
I think I have more paths to slow your rush down, in turn, neutralizing your defense than you do to take advantage of my offense line to slow down my offense.
 
Ryan (with help over the top) would have taken the opposite of whoever DRC had and Kuechly, Kendricks and Trevathan over the middle is deadly to any receiver or TE you have. With the guys you have there's no way you neutralize my defense. You might be able to contain the rush on some plays but there's no way you score on me everytime and your kicking game isn't very good.
 
Believe me I'm not saying my D completely shuts out your offense, you have some really good players there, but it can absolutely slow it down and make stops. Do you honestly think that in a close game your porous secondary can keep my offense out of the endzone?
 

Titoschew

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2006
3,283
Chip Woolley's Trailer
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
Ryan (with help over the top) would have taken the opposite of whoever DRC had and Kuechly, Kendricks and Trevathan over the middle is deadly to any receiver or TE you have. With the guys you have there's no way you neutralize my defense. You might be able to contain the rush on some plays but there's no way you score on me everytime and your kicking game isn't very good.
 
Believe me I'm not saying my D completely shuts out your offense, you have some really good players there, but it can absolutely slow it down and make stops. Do you honestly think that in a close game your porous secondary can keep my offense out of the endzone?
 
I'd have about as much confidence in my secondary as you should your offensive line.  My DB's aren't very good, but if they can play zone coverage and we can get pressure with the front seven, it won't matter (against you).  My front seven isn't top anything but against your offensive line, I have trouble seeing Foles having time to do anything.  In real life, Foles had a real nice year from his OL as witnessed by Philly locking up 80% of it through like 2017 with their recent signings.  No way he gets anything close to that from your OL.
 
As Nomario said, you have Watt, which is huge, but beyond that (for the rush), you compromise coverage.  Sure, Kuechly can hang with a slower/lesser WR or a heavy footed TE, but there is no way he's containing a burner like Brown in space if they end up one on one.  
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Titoschew said:
 
I'd have about as much confidence in my secondary as you should your offensive line.  My DB's aren't very good, but if they can play zone coverage and we can get pressure with the front seven, it won't matter (against you).  My front seven isn't top anything but against your offensive line, I have trouble seeing Foles having time to do anything.  In real life, Foles had a real nice year from his OL as witnessed by Philly locking up 80% of it through like 2017 with their recent signings.  No way he gets anything close to that from your OL.
 
As Nomario said, you have Watt, which is huge, but beyond that (for the rush), you compromise coverage.  Sure, Kuechly can hang with a slower/lesser WR or a heavy footed TE, but there is no way he's containing a burner like Brown in space if they end up one on one.  
 My o-line isn't awful. It's painfully average. At least that's what hovering around 0 is supposed to mean from PFF, yeah?. I think it's funny that everyone thinks Foles can't get the ball out quickly or make plays out of the pocket. Those are two things that he does exceptionally well. Lacy would at least keep your defense honest and that would open things up, especially with playmakers like James, Smith, Jones and Green and whatever Austin and Rogers can provide on top of that. And even if you did stop me I'm either guaranteed 3 from anything under 55 yards or Allen would pin you back.
 
I highly doubt there would ever be a situation in which Kuechly would end up one on one with Brown. He's your primary receiver. I have enough in my secondary to cover Brown and Cooper and neither your TE's or your RB's are athletic enough to out perform my LB's. Against the run I at least have enough to fill the gaps which would lead to your backs moving laterally and my LB's swarming to them. 
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,596
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
Not being snarky, but I'd love some insight on this, KFP.
 
Shit, I actually picked the Bills, but meant to pick the Pats.
 
If the division ends up tied, please reflect that one of the picks for the Bills should be for the Patriots.
 
Long story short: I think both offenses are fairly even, although I give the Bills the slight edge. They have a more complete line and more top end talent at WR, but having Eddie Lacy instead of Ryan Matthews does a lot for the Patriots offense.
 
I just think the gap on defense is larger then it appears. The Pats had average to great players on their defensive line, a great linebacker corp, and a pretty solid secondary. It's definitely a top 15, and maybe a top 10 defense. The Bills, on the other hand, are pretty marginal across the board on defense. Probably a 20th ranked defense. The Patriots also have a great kicking game, which could help them win those close games.
 
Overall, I think the gap on defense between the Patriots and Bills does enough to make up for the small lead the Bills have on offense.
 
Go Pats.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
In real life there were other options for their teams, which makes this exercise a little different. When given the opportunity did they excel and/or get better? Because in here they would have had to start right away because there were no safer options.
Yes, they would have started right away on your team, which they didn't in real life. The fact that Terron Armstead sat behind Charles Brown's floundering for 14 weeks is evidence that he wasn't ready early in the season (which makes sense, because his rep was that he was raw coming into the league). The fact that Austin played only 400-something snaps in a pretty mediocre receiving corps suggests he wasn't lighting things up in practice. Just because you would have played them more doesn't mean they were good; the fact that they played little suggests they probably weren't.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
Yes, they would have started right away on your team, which they didn't in real life. The fact that Terron Armstead sat behind Charles Brown's floundering for 14 weeks is evidence that he wasn't ready early in the season (which makes sense, because his rep was that he was raw coming into the league). The fact that Austin played only 400-something snaps in a pretty mediocre receiving corps suggests he wasn't lighting things up in practice. Just because you would have played them more doesn't mean they were good; the fact that they played little suggests they probably weren't.
 
Practice??!?!?  ;)
 
Again, the fact that they didn't play is because there were safer options. It's not like these guys were awful when given the opportunity. I think it would be difficult to make a case that these guys would have plateaued and not improved as the year went a long when given the chance.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Again, the fact that they didn't play is because there were safer options. It's not like these guys were awful when given the opportunity. I think it would be difficult to make a case that these guys would have plateaued and not improved as the year went a long when given the chance.
I wrote up a response ... but it's obvious you are impervious to logic. Good luck in your future endeavors.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Again, the fact that they didn't play is because there were safer options. It's not like these guys were awful when given the opportunity. I think it would be difficult to make a case that these guys would have plateaued and not improved as the year went a long when given the chance.
 
SMOKESCREEN
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
SN, how do you feel about Bernard Pierce? Is he being held back?
He didn't have a good year. I think a lot of the problem with Pierce's season was the Ravens' offensive line - they finished dead last in almost all of FO's run-blocking ratings and Ray Rice only had 3.1 YPC, but he didn't really show a lot himself.. The Ravens used Pierce as a 3rd-down back more, which I don't really think affected his value but was curious considering his struggles in the passing game and in blitz pickup. I'm not totally down on him, but it's safe to say 2013 was a step backwards. You have to figure he's going to get some more opportunity in 2014 with everything going on with Rice, and it'll be interesting to see how he does. I think the jury's still out on whether he's a future lead back or if he's more of a #2.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Do you think he deserved more of a chance or do you think the Ravens played the "safer" option in Rice?
I think 32 teams out of 32 would have played Ray Rice over Bernard Pierce. Ray Rice is a three-time Pro Bowler and has been one of the best RB in football over his career. Pierce is a promising second year player. Even at that, they gave Pierce 152 carries to Rice's 214; that's pretty close. I don't think the Ravens would have been better-served playing him more, though I imagine he would have gotten more opportunities if he was backing up who wasn't as good.
 
You would have had a better chance of drawing me back into this argument if you brought up my other RB. :)
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
I think 32 teams out of 32 would have played Ray Rice over Bernard Pierce. Ray Rice is a three-time Pro Bowler and has been one of the best RB in football over his career. Pierce is a promising second year player. Even at that, they gave Pierce 152 carries to Rice's 214; that's pretty close. I don't think the Ravens would have been better-served playing him more, though I imagine he would have gotten more opportunities if he was backing up who wasn't as good.
 
You would have had a better chance of drawing me back into this argument if you brought up my other RB. :)
 
You are absolutely right, and it's because of past performance. It's difficult to play the "hot hand" and most teams won't do it. If Ray Rice weren't available what would the Ravens do? Obviously they would play Pierce. Do you honestly think Pierce would have not improved if given the opportunity?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
You are absolutely right, and it's because of past performance. It's difficult to play the "hot hand" and most teams won't do it. If Ray Rice weren't available what would the Ravens do? Obviously they would play Pierce. Do you honestly think Pierce would have not improved if given the opportunity?
Well, neither one of them was the hot hand, so it's tough to fault the Ravens for not giving Pierce more carries. If Rice weren't available, Pierce certainly would have gotten more touches (and more yards / TDs / etc.), but I don't think he would have necessarily been better, and I don't think he would have been terribly effective running behind that O-Line.
 
I think practice is more important to player improvement than playing in games. That's how guys like Jamie Collins can go from not getting any burn early in the year to being every-down contributors late in the year.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
You can't be serious.
I fear we are at another impasse here, but against my better judgement I will respond seriously:
Even under the new CBA, there's still a lot more practice time than there is game time. Practice time is more targeted and can drill down more into technique and schemes. If Josh Boyce is trying to learn to run his in-cut at exactly 12 yards, that's going to much easier to drill in practice reps. Coaches are there to give immediate feedback if a RB isn't running with the right pad level or ball security, if a DB is mis-timing his jam, if an OL's footwork is bad in his pass set, etc. It's more difficult to provide this kind of feedback during games.
 
There are things you can only learn from playing in games - with the new CBA restrictions on full-contact practices, it's hard to learn a lot of physicality-related stuff in practice, plus a lot of coaches don't want their players to beat the crap out of each other during the week anyway - but technique and scheme is best learned on the practice field, and I would say that's the vast majority of what young players especially have to improve on.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,596
Super Nomario said:
I fear we are at another impasse here, but against my better judgement I will respond seriously:
Even under the new CBA, there's still a lot more practice time than there is game time. Practice time is more targeted and can drill down more into technique and schemes. If Josh Boyce is trying to learn to run his in-cut at exactly 12 yards, that's going to much easier to drill in practice reps. Coaches are there to give immediate feedback if a RB isn't running with the right pad level or ball security, if a DB is mis-timing his jam, if an OL's footwork is bad in his pass set, etc. It's more difficult to provide this kind of feedback during games.
 
There are things you can only learn from playing in games - with the new CBA restrictions on full-contact practices, it's hard to learn a lot of physicality-related stuff in practice, plus a lot of coaches don't want their players to beat the crap out of each other during the week anyway - but technique and scheme is best learned on the practice field, and I would say that's the vast majority of what young players especially have to improve on.
 
So, what happens when Boyce perfects his 12 yard in-cut in practice, and then he faces press coverage in a game?
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,596
mascho said:
 
He knows the proper sight adjustment from practice and probably runs a fade.
 
Agreed.
 
He's just all like, "Every route is an option route in my book! Wheeeee!"
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
 
So, what happens when Boyce perfects his 12 yard in-cut in practice, and then he faces press coverage in a game?
I would assume they practice techniques for beating press coverage during the week.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,596
Super Nomario said:
I would assume they practice techniques for beating press coverage during the week.
 
Isn't press coverage considered "contact"? I'd assume that isn't allowed on non-contact days.
 
if I'm wrong, then my point holds no water and I'll go flog myself. 
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
 
Isn't press coverage considered "contact"? I'd assume that isn't allowed on non-contact days.
 
if I'm wrong, then my point holds no water and I'll go flog myself. 
It looks like you're right: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8030310/nfl-new-cba-causing-fits-coaches
 
I suspect a WR still gets more reps fighting press coverage in contact practices than in games, and more immediate feedback on technique issues, but it's less true than it was prior to the new CBA.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Wouldn't it be better for the player to get the in game experience AND the instruction at practice? It's not like the coaches are unable to give direction during the game either, and I don't see how it would be more difficult to do so. The coaches are constantly huddled with players during the game going over gameplans and technique. You bring up how Armstead was raw coming out of the draft, but what do you honestly think helped him more? The game experience he got at the end of the year or the weeks of practice. The answer is both right? Collins showed improvement the more he played in games too, right?
 
Nomario, I completely get your point. I honestly do. In the real game of football where there are other options it's ok to bring players along slowly. You still seem to be overlooking the fact that this is much different than real-life. The players in this exercise are getting a trial by fire. We have to look at whether they improved as the year went along, if they regressed or if they were stagnant.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Wouldn't it be better for the player to get the in game experience AND the instruction at practice?
Certainly (assuming the player doesn't get hurt in-game).
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
It's not like the coaches are unable to give direction during the game either, and I don't see how it would be more difficult to do so. The coaches are constantly huddled with players during the game going over gameplans and technique.
The coaches on the sideline don't always have a great vantage point for individual technique, and the coaches in the box (who have a better view) aren't on the sideline to work with the players.
The coaches can't go over technique between plays in game, where in practice they can stop drills, take a player off to the side, or make him do a drill repeatedly until he gets it right.
Playing in games does produce game film, which can help with practice later on.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
You bring up how Armstead was raw coming out of the draft, but what do you honestly think helped him more? The game experience he got at the end of the year or the weeks of practice. The answer is both right? Collins showed improvement the more he played in games too, right?
In both cases, I expect the weeks of practice helped them much, much more than the handful of games they played in at the end of the season. I don't think either would have been nearly as effective if they'd been thrown to the wolves week 1 versus getting most of the season to refine technique before being given extensive roles.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Nomario, I completely get your point. I honestly do. In the real game of football where there are other options it's ok to bring players along slowly. You still seem to be overlooking the fact that this is much different than real-life. The players in this exercise are getting a trial by fire. We have to look at whether they improved as the year went along, if they regressed or if they were stagnant.
This isn't a contest for "most improved," it's a contest for best team. You drafted a bunch of raw rookies, but you don't want to be penalized for the reality that many of them weren't ready to play extensive roles this year.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
This isn't a contest for "most improved," it's a contest for best team. You drafted a bunch of raw rookies, but you don't want to be penalized for the reality that many of them weren't ready to play extensive roles this year.
 
I fully expect that they would have struggled to begin the year and my team likely would have started slow. I don't think they should be penalized for the entire year though. Is that really expecting too much?
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
The coaches on the sideline don't always have a great vantage point for individual technique, and the coaches in the box (who have a better view) aren't on the sideline to work with the players.
The coaches can't go over technique between plays in game, where in practice they can stop drills, take a player off to the side, or make him do a drill repeatedly until he gets it right.
Playing in games does produce game film, which can help with practice later on.
 Which is why the coaches communicate with each other during the game. They send pictures of better vantage points to work on what they're doing.
 
 
Super Nomario said:
In both cases, I expect the weeks of practice helped them much, much more than the handful of games they played in at the end of the season. I don't think either would have been nearly as effective if they'd been thrown to the wolves week 1 versus getting most of the season to refine technique before being given extensive roles.
This is where we disagree. I think more playing time coupled with practice is best for refining technique. The more real game experience they have the more effective their practices will be.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
I fully expect that they would have struggled to begin the year and my team likely would have started slow. I don't think they should be penalized for the entire year though. Is that really expecting too much?
 
Really? Because nothing you've written prior to now indicates that you think this.
 
But OK...how slow? And might that slow start have contributed to a close divisional race that results in a second place finish?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
I fully expect that they would have struggled to begin the year and my team likely would have started slow. I don't think they should be penalized for the entire year though. Is that really expecting too much?
I think you have to address this on a case-by-case basis. Armstead clearly improved to the point where he was able to hold his own by the end of the year. The Saints didn't play him until week 16, but maybe he would have been fine week 12? Week 13? You'd have to think the Saints' coaching staff is pretty stupid to make the case that Armstead would have been a solid LT week 5 or something. Jones and Werner didn't really do anything all year, or earn increased playing time as the season wore on; I don't think you can assume they would have been effective players for you at any point.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Which is why the coaches communicate with each other during the game. They send pictures of better vantage points to work on what they're doing.
They have other stuff going on, like a game they're trying to win. I doubt much time at all is spend on technique refinement in-game unless it's something really obvious.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
This is where we disagree. I think more playing time coupled with practice is best for refining technique. The more real game experience they have the more effective their practices will be.
Sure, both is best. There are plenty of guys who improve significantly just through practice time, though.
 
EDIT: and to be clear about this: if you want to say the increased playing time would make some of these guys a hair better, fine. But I don't think it's a reasonable argument to suggest guys like Jones and Werner who didn't show a lot all year would have been useful contributors just by virtue of playing more.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
soxfan121 said:
 
Really? Because nothing you've written prior to now indicates that you think this.
 
How, so? I've posted at length about how I would beat up on my division. In fact most of this thread has been directed at the Bills. The whole discussion has been how our teams finished, not how they started. Don't think you're going to try to tell me I'm moving goal posts, because that's crap. If I started 2-5 and won 8 of the last 9 I think I'd take the division, especially if it came down to and end of the year matchup with the Jonesless Bills.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
I think you have to address this on a case-by-case basis. Armstead clearly improved to the point where he was able to hold his own by the end of the year. The Saints didn't play him until week 16, but maybe he would have been fine week 12? Week 13? You'd have to think the Saints' coaching staff is pretty stupid to make the case that Armstead would have been a solid LT week 5 or something. Jones and Werner didn't really do anything all year, or earn increased playing time as the season wore on; I don't think you can assume they would have been effective players for you at any point.
 
You're still missing the fact that I had no one else to play these positions. Their real world teams did. Saying that any of these guys would be ineffective in this exercise due to their real life playing time is pure assumption. Jones had 3.5 sacks in very limited playing time behind BJ Raji. Raji may not have had a great year but do you really see a rookie starting over him? Werner improved as the year went on as well. He was playing behind Erik Walden who the Colts gave a 4 year contract to in the offseason with 8 mil guaranteed. Real world circumstances that would not have played out on my team.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
You're still missing the fact that I had no one else to play these positions. Their real world teams did. Saying that any of these guys would be ineffective in this exercise due to their real life playing time is pure assumption. Jones had 3.5 sacks in very limited playing time behind BJ Raji. Raji may not have had a great year but do you really see a rookie starting over him? Werner improved as the year went on as well. He was playing behind Erik Walden who the Colts gave a 4 year contract to in the offseason with 8 mil guaranteed. Real world circumstances that would not have played out on my team.
This is why I wanted to stop this discussion in the first place. You are so obtuse that this conversation is causing me physical pain.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
This is why I wanted to stop this discussion in the first place. You are so obtuse that this conversation is causing me physical pain.
 
Instead of being man enough to say you know what Eck , you have a point but I still somewhat disagree, you have to resort to calling me obtuse. I'm having a simple discussion with you. To get all butt-hurt and quit because "I'm obtuse" is a lame cop-out. Honestly SN, your breakdowns of games are fantastic and I've visited your site quite a few times, but I think you're being narrow minded here. Even in the write up for your team you say that how players performed in your system would have been different than their real life production. I don't see where the impasse is other than you trying to prove a bullshit point based on playing time. You said practice was best then agreed with me that practice and real game action is better. What's your definition of a "useful" player? I think it's more useful to have someone playing than to have no one in their position. You keep bringing up these words like useful and effective but what are we really talking about? Are you trying to suggest that these guys would have played like tackling dummies getting blown up on every play?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Jackie Bradley Jr. was fantastic in spring training games. He performed well against major leaguers. He hit the crap out of the ball. He was a top prospect, with a great pedigree. He got better as he played more games. And then April happened. 
 
More playing time does not necessarily guarantee improvement. Development is not a straight-line. A high draft pick is not necessarily going to improve on his college form.
 
Pro coaches only stay employed when they win. They play their best players. Players who don't start until week 15 while a replacement-level schmoe does start are not showing, in practice, that they are better than replacement level. Assuming they'd just be fine if they had to play makes no sense. Because development is not a straight-line and does not just happen because of playing time. 
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Who are these randoms voting? We should only count league votes.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
Instead of being man enough to say you know what Eck , you have a point but I still somewhat disagree, you have to resort to calling me obtuse. I'm having a simple discussion with you. To get all butt-hurt and quit because "I'm obtuse" is a lame cop-out. Honestly SN, your breakdowns of games are fantastic and I've visited your site quite a few times, but I think you're being narrow minded here. Even in the write up for your team you say that how players performed in your system would have been different than their real life production. I don't see where the impasse is other than you trying to prove a bullshit point based on playing time. You said practice was best then agreed with me that practice and real game action is better. What's your definition of a "useful" player? I think it's more useful to have someone playing than to have no one in their position. You keep bringing up these words like useful and effective but what are we really talking about? Are you trying to suggest that these guys would have played like tackling dummies getting blown up on every play?
 
Have you noticed you tend to get in a lot more arguments than anyone else? There was the Watt thing, the smoke screen, the 3-4 defense, the smoke screen again, then RG3 and Foles, and now this. There are probably more that I don't remember. Might be something to think about.
 
Having said that, my vote isn't personal. I think the Bills have a more complete and established roster so I voted for them.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Instead of being man enough to say you know what Eck , you have a point but I still somewhat disagree, you have to resort to calling me obtuse. I'm having a simple discussion with you. To get all butt-hurt and quit because "I'm obtuse" is a lame cop-out.
This is fair, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have written that.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
You said practice was best then agreed with me that practice and real game action is better.
Me: I think practice is more important to player improvement than playing in games.
You: You can't be serious.
Me: [reasoning behind why practice is more important]
You: Wouldn't it be better for the player to get the in game experience AND the instruction at practice?
Me: Certainly.
You: You said practice was best then agreed with me that practice and real game action is better.
 
This is the kind of arguing technique I can't stand; it seems calculated to "win" the argument rather than achieve some sort of understanding or increase general knowledge. How many Internet points do you want for this?
BUT WAIT - WHAT IF THEY GET IN-GAME EXPERIENCE *AND* PRACTICE *AND* WEIGHT TRAINING? ISN'T THAT EVEN BETTER?!?!?!
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
What's your definition of a "useful" player? I think it's more useful to have someone playing than to have no one in their position. You keep bringing up these words like useful and effective but what are we really talking about? Are you trying to suggest that these guys would have played like tackling dummies getting blown up on every play?
OK - to circle back to the original point, I wrote:
As for Jones and Werner ... they were high draft picks, and maybe they'll be good next year or in a couple years, but they've proven almost nothing in the NFL. They had trouble cracking the lineups of two pretty bad defenses. You went very rookie-heavy in the draft, and that paid off with some of the players contributing right away (Lacy, Ryan, Allen), but we're not rating on potential here. It seems like in your mind guys like Austin, Armstead, Jones, Werner, Rogers, etc. are already solid contributors instead of the talented-but-flawed players they were as rookies.
 
Watt is the best defensive player in football. The rest of your pass rush is not that impressive, IMO, and I think the Bills would be able to stop it for the most part.
 
That last bit was in response to you asking, "Anyone want to discuss how that Bills o-line stops my pass rush?" I stand by everything I wrote there. The whole downward spiral from that point is just me and you wasting electrons. Won't someone think of the poor electrons? I don't think Jones and Werner would have been tackling dummies, but I don't see any evidence that they would have been good enough to take consistent advantage of the one-on-one matchups Watt would provide for them, especially against a pretty good OL like the Bills'.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
I love a good debate...
 
 
soxfan121 said:
Jackie Bradley Jr. was fantastic in spring training games. He performed well against major leaguers. He hit the crap out of the ball. He was a top prospect, with a great pedigree. He got better as he played more games. And then April happened. 
 
More playing time does not necessarily guarantee improvement. Development is not a straight-line. A high draft pick is not necessarily going to improve on his college form.
 
Pro coaches only stay employed when they win. They play their best players. Players who don't start until week 15 while a replacement-level schmoe does start are not showing, in practice, that they are better than replacement level. Assuming they'd just be fine if they had to play makes no sense. Because development is not a straight-line and does not just happen because of playing time. 
 
Assuming players, who showed promise in their first year, would be more than useless if given the opportunity is far from nonsense. Did the Sox have someone else to play the OF? What if JBJ was literally the only guy they had to play his position? Then what?
 
 
phragle said:
Who are these randoms voting? We should only count league votes.
 
 
Have you noticed you tend to get in a lot more arguments than anyone else? There was the Watt thing, the smoke screen, the 3-4 defense, the smoke screen again, then RG3 and Foles, and now this. There are probably more that I don't remember. Might be something to think about.
 
Having said that, my vote isn't personal. I think the Bills have a more complete and established roster so I voted for them.
 
I get into more arguments because I don't get any credit. It's usually the same guys who give me shit. I picked Watt early and ended up with the most valuable player in football. I went on to get more shit for picking Brockers as a NT in a 3-4 who can move around in different looks:

The All-22: Michael Brockers becomes Jeff Fisher's latest War ...
and again I wasn't fucking wrong. The smokescreen was a label for the misdirection based hybrid defense much like the Eagles and Ravens used to run with everyone moving around, DE's standing, LB's with their hand in the dirt, crazy stuff to keep the QB guessing, and all anyone could say was HAHA Smokescreen. You still haven't proven shit about Foles either, another draft pick that I absolutely fucking nailed. In fact one of the first arguments I had with you phragle was whether or not Zach Brown would be a great cover LB in the NFL. How'd that work out? It's sad that I actually know my shit but still get fucking hounded because it goes against convention or against the boys club. Saying your vote wasn't personal is complete and utter crap.
 
 
Super Nomario said:
This is fair, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't have written that.
 
Me: I think practice is more important to player improvement than playing in games.
You: You can't be serious.
Me: [reasoning behind why practice is more important]
You: Wouldn't it be better for the player to get the in game experience AND the instruction at practice?
Me: Certainly.
You: You said practice was best then agreed with me that practice and real game action is better.
 
This is the kind of arguing technique I can't stand; it seems calculated to "win" the argument rather than achieve some sort of understanding or increase general knowledge. How many Internet points do you want for this?
BUT WAIT - WHAT IF THEY GET IN-GAME EXPERIENCE *AND* PRACTICE *AND* WEIGHT TRAINING? ISN'T THAT EVEN BETTER?!?!?!
 
C'mon man. There was no tactic involved here. Again I get insulted instead of, you made a good point. I was trying to prove that playing time and practice, from the start of the season, would make adjustments better and more effective leading to better play sooner for whoever the player is. You agreed. I could care less about fucking "internet points." 
 
 
Super Nomario said:
OK - to circle back to the original point, I wrote:
That last bit was in response to you asking, "Anyone want to discuss how that Bills o-line stops my pass rush?" I stand by everything I wrote there. The whole downward spiral from that point is just me and you wasting electrons. Won't someone think of the poor electrons? I don't think Jones and Werner would have been tackling dummies, but I don't see any evidence that they would have been good enough to take consistent advantage of the one-on-one matchups Watt would provide for them, especially against a pretty good OL like the Bills'.
 
Did you look at the pass blocking stats for that "pretty good Bills o-line?" I tried to bring up the fact that they were better run blockers which wouldn't have helped against my pass rush. Nobody seemed to give a shit.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Did you look at the pass blocking stats for that "pretty good Bills o-line?" I tried to bring up the fact that they were better run blockers which wouldn't have helped against my pass rush. Nobody seemed to give a shit.
I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about
Solder - +12.2 pass block (12th among LTs)
Moffitt - (basically didn't play)
Mack - +5.9 (5th among C)
Urban - +4.8 (19th among G)
Pears - +5.6 (12th among RTs)
Herremans - -19.2 (79th among G)
 
So Herremans was terrible, but everyone else graded out as above-average against the pass per PFF.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
I'm not 100% sure what you're talking about
Solder - +12.2 pass block (12th among LTs)
Moffitt - (basically didn't play)
Mack - +5.9 (5th among C)
Urban - +4.8 (19th among G)
Pears - +5.6 (12th among RTs)
Herremans - -19.2 (79th among G)
 
So Herremans was terrible, but everyone else graded out as above-average against the pass per PFF.
 Did you look at the stats... not the PFF nonsense. Hurries, sacks, hits. We all watched Solder all year. You want to tell me he was solid against the pass rush? And who played where? Urbik and Herremans at Guard made him really soft up the middle. I thought we were looking beyond the PFF crap?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
C'mon man. There was no tactic involved here. Again I get insulted instead of, you made a good point. I was trying to prove that playing time and practice, from the start of the season, would make adjustments better and more effective leading to better play sooner for whoever the player is. You agreed. I could care less about fucking "internet points." 
Again, I wrote, "I think practice is more important to player improvement than playing in games." After I clarified my point, you essentially asked, "what about both?" Do you really expect me to say "good point, ESC, both are better than just one!"?
 
There's a real discussion to be had there about the relative merits of practice and games in terms of player improvement, what's best learned in what setting and not the other, whether poor performance in games can be worse for learning than not playing at all (if Armstead plays week 1 and is god-awful, does it crush his confidence? Does it keep the coaching staff from totally overhauling his mechanics?), and how much it helps. We were there for like five seconds.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 Did you look at the stats... not the PFF nonsense. Hurries, sacks, hits. We all watched Solder all year. You want to tell me he was solid against the pass rush? And who played where? Urbik and Herremans at Guard made him really soft up the middle. I thought we were looking beyond the PFF crap?
I'm not in love with PFF either, but there aren't really a lot of other options for OL play (your sack and hurry stats are also coming from PFF, right?). I thought Solder was pretty good - you didn't? You are right that the Gs would have been the weak points. 
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,504
NH
Super Nomario said:
Again, I wrote, "I think practice is more important to player improvement than playing in games." After I clarified my point, you essentially asked, "what about both?" Do you really expect me to say "good point, ESC, both are better than just one!"?
Umm, yeah actually. I do.

There's a real discussion to be had there about the relative merits of practice and games in terms of player improvement, what's best learned in what setting and not the other, whether poor performance in games can be worse for learning than not playing at all (if Armstead plays week 1 and is god-awful, does it crush his confidence? Does it keep the coaching staff from totally overhauling his mechanics?), and how much it helps. We were there for like five seconds.
I completely agree. I think this topic would make for a pretty interesting thread. There are a ton of factors involved in player development and we really only based the discussion on fundamentals. It would be interesting to see if there were any absolutes that would come from that since a players attitude and ability to progress are all relative. In terms of Armstead, he was owned by Greg Hardy in his first start, and went on to play very well after that.
 

I'm not in love with PFF either, but there aren't really a lot of other options for OL play (your sack and hurry stats are also coming from PFF, right?). I thought Solder was pretty good - you didn't? You are right that the Gs would have been the weak points.
The stats are coming from PFF and I can't for the life of me figure out how they relate to the ratings. My center gives up 0 sacks and gets a negative pass blocking grade? WTF? I think it's difficult to take the sum of the ratings and make that accurately describe how that line would have played as a whole. As far as Solder goes, he got dominated in some games this year. I remember his name coming up a lot in game threads and in the GOAT threads.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
I get into more arguments because I don't get any credit. It's usually the same guys who give me shit. I picked Watt early and ended up with the most valuable player in football. I went on to get more shit for picking Brockers as a NT in a 3-4 who can move around in different looks:
The All-22: Michael Brockers becomes Jeff Fisher's latest War ...
and again I wasn't fucking wrong. The smokescreen was a label for the misdirection based hybrid defense much like the Eagles and Ravens used to run with everyone moving around, DE's standing, LB's with their hand in the dirt, crazy stuff to keep the QB guessing, and all anyone could say was HAHA Smokescreen. You still haven't proven shit about Foles either, another draft pick that I absolutely fucking nailed. In fact one of the first arguments I had with you phragle was whether or not Zach Brown would be a great cover LB in the NFL. How'd that work out? It's sad that I actually know my shit but still get fucking hounded because it goes against convention or against the boys club. Saying your vote wasn't personal is complete and utter crap.
 
Boys club? Who's in this boys club?
 
Why go against convention in an exercise like this? People know that convention works, and you can't prove anything to them.
 
It's definitely not personal. I like you, but I just don't like your roster in relation to Tito's. I said before this started that we had to take this seriously, and I am. 
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,072
Philly
I'm looking at Pats Bills here and this is my take on it.

The Bills are going to score frequently on the Pats. The Pats would score on the Bills but it won't be as easy. I'm thinking games over 50 points. I give the Pats the edge. Eck, it's nothing personal either, I just think No Mario ' sPats come oout on top 35-31 or something like that. The Bills are a really good squad and it would be very close. I also see the Bills as a definite potential wild card team if they don't win the division.
 
My only concern is the Pats O-Line but I don't think the Bills can exploit that enough.