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

Who wins the AFC East


  • Total voters
    28

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
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.
PFF scored him as 0 sacks a lot, but his 18 hurries were a lot, and it wasn't in a ton of snaps (for instance, Mack also allowed 18 hurries, but he pass blocked on 751 snaps vs Zuttah's 520, so Zuttah's rate was a lot worse). He ended up 27th among C in PFF's pass blocking efficiency (https://www.profootballfocus.com/data/signature.php?tab=signature&season=2013&stype=r&pos=cep&teamid=-1&filter=50), so the surface numbers do square with the PFF ratings.
 
I'm sure people did complain about Solder but people complain about everybody in game and goat threads. Generally speaking, he's considered one of the better young tackles (Ben Muth thought a lot of him in his breakdowns last year, and B/R ranked him the #7 LT this year) but not one of the elite guys, and his PFF rating is consistent with that. Also, while Solder gave up a lot of sacks per PFF (10), his number of hurries (23) was among the lowest for LTs.
 
SMU_Sox said:
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.
It's actually Eck's Pats, and I have no skin in the game here (I'm in your division, remember?).
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
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?
 
I get into more arguments because I don't get any credit. 
 
Saying your vote wasn't personal is complete and utter crap.
 
 
Assuming players will get better just because they play IS utter nonsense. It is not how development works. The reason the expression "one step forward, two steps back" exists is because it's often true in development. Having been a youth coach, you often see players learn a skill, use that skill, then fail with that skill before mastering the skill. 
 
Myself and others urged you to contact PFF and ask your questions. Did you? Nope. You just continue to shit on PFF and offer PRO  BOWL selections as your evidence. I'd laugh if that weren't so sad and intellectually lazy. 
 
This whole "discussion" is a nice example of how development isn't a straight line, guaranteed process. If it were, you'd have better arguments or dug out some new knowledge. Instead you've been reduced to name-calling, conspiracy theories and repeating yourself. 
 
Stop insisting that because your guys played, they were better. It's a shit point. If you aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,509
NH
soxfan121 said:
 
Assuming players will get better just because they play IS utter nonsense. It is not how development works. The reason the expression "one step forward, two steps back" exists is because it's often true in development. Having been a youth coach, you often see players learn a skill, use that skill, then fail with that skill before mastering the skill. 
 
Myself and others urged you to contact PFF and ask your questions. Did you? Nope. You just continue to shit on PFF and offer PRO  BOWL selections as your evidence. I'd laugh if that weren't so sad and intellectually lazy. 
 
This whole "discussion" is a nice example of how development isn't a straight line, guaranteed process. If it were, you'd have better arguments or dug out some new knowledge. Instead you've been reduced to name-calling, conspiracy theories and repeating yourself. 
 
Stop insisting that because your guys played, they were better. It's a shit point. If you aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
 
Wow. Just, wow. 121, you need to get your shit together. Writing this diatribe over a simple comment like " the players would be more than useless" is either truly not understanding the sentence as it was written or being so focused on your own agenda that you spew forth whatever angry nonsense that was.
 
Let's break it down. Did said players show improvement as the year went along? Would it be safe to say that they would be useful to the point of not being completely worthless out there? This whole idea of "better" being some unreachable goal is nonsense. Better is a relative term. Would they be better than dogshit? It's likely. No, it's not a foregone conclusion and it's not an absolute, but given what we know it's safe to assume they'd be serviceable or at the very least marginal talent. How is that outlandish?
 
Bringing to the argument the issues you ran into with children who are still learning the game as a youth coach is meaningless in this situation. It's really just not comparable.
 
I mentioned the Pro Bowl once. You act like I've brought it up over and over to prove my point. Just stop man.
 
I don't feel that it's necessary to contact the source of what I see to be a flawed system. From reading the info on their site and doing other research on the issues with PFF and the pros and cons of their system I can reasonably and rationally come to my own conclusion without getting into it with the systems creators. I feel like phragle at least is so entrenched in their thought process that if I had any questions I wanted answered I could ask him. It's not sad or intellectually lazy. It's understanding that there are flaws and not needing the "rundown" from the horses mouth.
 
 
 
This whole "discussion" is a nice example of how development isn't a straight line, guaranteed process. If it were, you'd have better arguments or dug out some new knowledge. Instead you've been reduced to name-calling, conspiracy theories and repeating yourself. 
 
Stop insisting that because your guys played, they were better. It's a shit point. If you aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle.
 
This is where your tangent falls apart. My arguments have been sound. I haven't called anyone names. Conspiracy theories? I repeat until my point has been grasped. Then I stop.
 
Again with "better." It's a relative term man. You need a breather.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,509
NH
phragle said:
 
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. 
 
Why not go against convention and try something unorthodox? Of course convention works it wouldn't be considered the norm if it didn't.  ;)
 
I took the no gaping holes comment as a slight to your evaluation. The Bills run game is soft and the secondary is literally a gaping hole. I have no doubt you're taking this seriously, I think you may have overlooked a couple things.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,509
NH
SMU_Sox said:
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.
 
Hey, I don't take it personally SMU. I think you made a great pick.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,509
NH
Super Nomario said:
PFF scored him as 0 sacks a lot, but his 18 hurries were a lot, and it wasn't in a ton of snaps (for instance, Mack also allowed 18 hurries, but he pass blocked on 751 snaps vs Zuttah's 520, so Zuttah's rate was a lot worse). He ended up 27th among C in PFF's pass blocking efficiency (https://www.profootballfocus.com/data/signature.php?tab=signature&season=2013&stype=r&pos=cep&teamid=-1&filter=50), so the surface numbers do square with the PFF ratings.
 
I'm sure people did complain about Solder but people complain about everybody in game and goat threads. Generally speaking, he's considered one of the better young tackles (Ben Muth thought a lot of him in his breakdowns last year, and B/R ranked him the #7 LT this year) but not one of the elite guys, and his PFF rating is consistent with that. Also, while Solder gave up a lot of sacks per PFF (10), his number of hurries (23) was among the lowest for LTs.
 
Thanks for breaking down those numbers SN. As much as I take the ratings with a grain of salt, that makes sense.
 
I know Solder is highly regarded, hell, I am a Pats fan, I still think he had a very inconsistent year. Some games he looked good, other games he looked completely lost out there. His number of hurries puts him in the middle of the pack as far as LT's go, and the sacks are close to the bottom.
 
What I've been trying to get across is that the Bills o-line is much better at run blocking than pass blocking and my defense would be able to take advantage of that. They wouldn't be able to double Watt all day without opening up holes for some of my other guys.
 

RhaegarTharen

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2005
2,769
Wilmington, MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
 
Thanks for breaking down those numbers SN. As much as I take the ratings with a grain of salt, that makes sense.
 
I know Solder is highly regarded, hell, I am a Pats fan, I still think he had a very inconsistent year. Some games he looked good, other games he looked completely lost out there. His number of hurries puts him in the middle of the pack as far as LT's go, and the sacks are close to the bottom.
/snip
 
The PFF scores largely agree with you, fwiw.  They have him rated quite poorly twice (one -1.7, one -5.4), five games with scores between +1 and -1; and the rest had scores of at least +1.6.  Just because his YE PFF score is +25 doesnt mean that they didn't think he had any bad games, or was consistently good/great all year. 
 
I realize that not everybody has full PFF access, but I still think a lot of the "issues" with their stats can be easily explained, or at least vastly mitigated by a quick check of the player's PFF page.  Mychal Kendricks, for example.  I've already mentioned that his YE score of -10 reflects a terrible -17.6 over the first 4 games.  The fact that he scored 7.6 (which would put him around Top 10 at the position) over the last 12 games seems to fit your representation of Kendricks as a "machine".   Now if you want to take issue with the fact that he wasn't nearly that bad over the first 4 games (I have no idea) or that his final score is too heavily influenced by his early season struggles then I think most people here would listen. 
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,059
Mansfield MA
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
I know Solder is highly regarded, hell, I am a Pats fan, I still think he had a very inconsistent year. Some games he looked good, other games he looked completely lost out there. His number of hurries puts him in the middle of the pack as far as LT's go, and the sacks are close to the bottom.
He wasn't 100% consistent every game, but very few are. That's why he was just a good LT and not an upper-echelon one. And the raw number of sacks / hurries have to be tempered by the number of pass attempts - on a rate basis, he didn't give up a lot.
 
You do acknowledge either Solder or Mack would have been the best OL on your team by a country mile, right?
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
What I've been trying to get across is that the Bills o-line is much better at run blocking than pass blocking and my defense would be able to take advantage of that. They wouldn't be able to double Watt all day without opening up holes for some of my other guys.
I'm aware that's what you're trying to get across, but I don't think it's true. Per PFF, Herremans was much better run blocking than pass blocking, but Pears and Urbik were both much better pass blocking. Mack was better run blocking. Solder was close but a little better pass blocking. I don't see a big discrepancy here, or a big weakness in pass blocking. And I don't see your pass rush as strong enough to take advantage of it.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
9,072
Philly
Nomario I'm sorry. Eck, my bad. Sorry guys. I flaked on who owned which team. I stand by my analysis though.
 

Phragle

wild card bitches
SoSH Member
Jan 1, 2009
13,154
Carmine's closet
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
Why not go against convention and try something unorthodox? Of course convention works it wouldn't be considered the norm if it didn't.  ;)
 
I took the no gaping holes comment as a slight to your evaluation. The Bills run game is soft and the secondary is literally a gaping hole. I have no doubt you're taking this seriously, I think you may have overlooked a couple things.
 
So if I draft 11 linebackers and call it the flamethrower defense am I going to get mocked?
 
I diagree. His running backs aren't great but his line is, an so is Spaeth. When Jones goes down Rudolph will excel in an H-back type role.
 
Their secondary is weak but not something I'd consider a gaping hole, relative to this exercise.
 
Eck'sSneakyCheese said:
I know Solder is highly regarded, hell, I am a Pats fan, I still think he had a very inconsistent year. Some games he looked good, other games he looked completely lost out there. His number of hurries puts him in the middle of the pack as far as LT's go, and the sacks are close to the bottom.
Probably because he was often concussed.
 
SMU_Sox said:
Nomario I'm sorry. Eck, my bad. Sorry guys. I flaked on who owned which team. I stand by my analysis though.
Go home John. You're drunk.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,509
NH
Thanks for breaking those numbers down further, sleepy. I don't have a PFF membership so I don't have access to individual game ratings. I think that might be where the disconnect is as far as the ratings go. I mean maybe it's not best practice to add up the cumulative score to show what kind of year a player had. It doesn't show improvement or decline as far as the year goes on. It's one base score or aggregate that's supposed to show the course of a year. I don't think they read that way.
 
 
Super Nomario said:
He wasn't 100% consistent every game, but very few are. That's why he was just a good LT and not an upper-echelon one. And the raw number of sacks / hurries have to be tempered by the number of pass attempts - on a rate basis, he didn't give up a lot.
 
You do acknowledge either Solder or Mack would have been the best OL on your team by a country mile, right?
 
On a rate basis 10 sacks is a lot. 
 
I completely acknowledge that Mack or Solder would have absolutely been the best o lineman on my team, but what does that have to do with anything?
 
 
Super Nomario said:
I'm aware that's what you're trying to get across, but I don't think it's true. Per PFF, Herremans was much better run blocking than pass blocking, but Pears and Urbik were both much better pass blocking. Mack was better run blocking. Solder was close but a little better pass blocking. I don't see a big discrepancy here, or a big weakness in pass blocking. And I don't see your pass rush as strong enough to take advantage of it.
 
You say they were better at this and better at that but that doesn't show scale. Herremans was awful pass blocking. So, of course he was a much better run blocker. Mack was decent pass blocking, but he was a much better run blocker. Solder graded out well pass blocking but gave up a ton of sacks. Pears, Urbik and Mack all graded about the same in pass blocking. I don't give that o line a chance doubling Watt nevermind having to deal with a monster in Brockers who deserves to be double teamed himself. We can agree to disagree here but it's unlikely either of us are going to budge.
 
 
SMU_Sox said:
Nomario I'm sorry. Eck, my bad. Sorry guys. I flaked on who owned which team. I stand by my analysis though.
 Don't have to apologize to me. Your analysis was spot-on.
 
 
phragle said:
 
So if I draft 11 linebackers and call it the flamethrower defense am I going to get mocked?
 
I don't know. Probably? That's pretty far from what I did.
 

I disagree. His running backs aren't great but his line is, an so is Spaeth. When Jones goes down Rudolph will excel in an H-back type role.
 
Will he? Based on what exactly?
 

Their secondary is weak but not something I'd consider a gaping hole, relative to this exercise.[/QUOTE] 
What do you consider a gaping hole then? He had Jimmy Smith and drek.
 

Eck'sSneakyCheese

Member
SoSH Member
May 11, 2011
10,509
NH
I think it's time to end this. I begrudgingly concede the division to the Bills of Buffalo and congratulate Tito on his first AFC East Title. 
 
The Final Standings for the RFP AFC EAST 2013 Season
 
1. Buffalo Bills
2. New England Patriots
3. Miami Dolphins
4. New York Jets