That Team from Washington Week

dcmissle

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
BernieRicoBoomer said:
They may have DeSean Jackson back for the game, but may be without their top 3 corners...Culliver, Hall and Breeland. I'll be at the game so let's make it a good one.
Click to expand...
Per drive home -- Culliver probably going, Hall and Breland looking very doubtful.

Beat reporter: Yes, they think they can win, but the level of respect for the patriots is unlike anything you see for other teams. Other teams = yeah, those guys are good, but ... Patriots = they are really, really good and we have to be perfect ... Cause they are.

Or as Gruden said today to his defensive line: "take one play off and you'll be lining up for an extra point."

This sounds a bit overdone. Maybe the mindset is counter-productive leaving you no margin for error in your own mind.

But it is nice -- as a Pats fan -- not to be playing douchebags from your own conference.
 
DJnVa

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,235
Having the Redskins as the local team finally pays off.
 
singaporesoxfan

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
There's a whole host of issues with QBR besides the total discounting of YAC, as discussed above:
  1. First and foremost, it's a proprietary stat and not transparent, so you can't even really test it or tweak it, you have to accept its results at face value. And that's hard to accept when you have egregious rankings.
  2. The use of clutch weighting seems to mean that 1) it undercounts a QB's contribution to making a game a blowout; and 2) it starts weaving in the quality of the QB's team defense. For example: if the Patriots win 52-7, any late-game Brady TDs apparently count for much less than if the Patriots win 52-49.
  3. Even though it separates out receivers' credit for YAC, it attributes yards for penalties to the QB - I think this includes DPIs. I suppose you can say throwing DPIs is a skill (see: Flacco, Joe) but DPIs are often also the work of the receiver (see: Flacco, Joe with Smith, Torrey).
QBR does contain one core idea that is good, which is to add in the ways a QB contributes besides passing, in terms of running and avoiding sacks. But the results don't seem to show any improvement over good old-fashioned passer rating.
 
DJnVa

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,235
I've read that passer rating has a very high correlation to winning. I wonder what QBR's is.
 
ALiveH

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Not throwing INTs has a high correlation to winning.  Any rating system that assigns a big negative value to INTs should have a high correlation to winning.
 
dcmissle

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Stitch01 said:
Pats lose this game virtually never, only question is if its a murder or they just sleepwalk to a ten point win
Click to expand...
I think that is right. Earlier this season, when the Seahawks played the Bears and Pats the Jags, somebody surveyed 14-point spreads in the NFL since 1985. The win rate for the underdogs in those games is 8.9%. More recently, the last 10 years, it is closer to 4%.

So how do you play this game if you are Washington? Nobody expects you to win, not even the insane owner. There is zero evidence that the Pats' offense can be slowed, much less contained, in this game.

We sometimes see in BBTL stats based arguments that NFL teams play far too conservatively. That, for example, teams should go for it on 4th down far more often. This game would be a good one-off test of that. If the loss is already in the books, realistically and maybe psychologically, why not treat every possession that reaches your own 40 as four-down territory? Why not onside kick and fake punt at some point in the game? What is the practical difference in losing by 10, 20 or 30?

Edit -- ELO has our win rate in this game at 93%.
 
Last edited:
BaseballJones

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,812
I tell my kids all the time that if you have the talent advantage, you want the game played straight-up, so your superior talent can win the day. But if you are at a talent disadvantage, you need to change the style of the game, take it off a straight-up matchup. Do very different things. Scheme to win. Take more risks. Etc.

Obviously the greater the talent disparity, the more you want to do things differently. So if I was Washington, I'd definitely plan on some exotic blitzes, some onside kicks, fake punts and field goals, etc. Because they are not going to win in a straight-up matchup of talent. Barring some total craziness.
 
Super Nomario

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,024
Mansfield MA
BaseballJones said:
I tell my kids all the time that if you have the talent advantage, you want the game played straight-up, so your superior talent can win the day. But if you are at a talent disadvantage, you need to change the style of the game, take it off a straight-up matchup. Do very different things. Scheme to win. Take more risks. Etc.

Obviously the greater the talent disparity, the more you want to do things differently. So if I was Washington, I'd definitely plan on some exotic blitzes, some onside kicks, fake punts and field goals, etc. Because they are not going to win in a straight-up matchup of talent. Barring some total craziness.
Click to expand...
One advantage that teams have facing the Patriots is that the Patriots are a game plan team. They are going to tailor their game plans to what you have done on tape, so you have a chance to fool them - at least early - if you're willing to try to do something you don't normally do. The Patriots haven't lost a ton of games in the last decade, but several of them - the Wildcat game, the Wild Horses game vs McDaniels, the playoff loss to the Jets where the normally man-heavy Jets played zone, and the loss to Pittsburgh a few years ago where the normally zone-heavy Steelers played man - were characterized by the opponent doing something Belichick and company wouldn't have seen on tape. The Cowboys a few weeks ago used an unusual 3-2 dime and got an early edge on defense. This is probably easier said than done, but it's what I would try to do.
 
singaporesoxfan

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,890
Washington, DC
BaseballJones said:
I tell my kids all the time that if you have the talent advantage, you want the game played straight-up, so your superior talent can win the day. But if you are at a talent disadvantage, you need to change the style of the game, take it off a straight-up matchup. Do very different things. Scheme to win. Take more risks. Etc.

Obviously the greater the talent disparity, the more you want to do things differently. So if I was Washington, I'd definitely plan on some exotic blitzes, some onside kicks, fake punts and field goals, etc. Because they are not going to win in a straight-up matchup of talent. Barring some total craziness.
Click to expand...
Obviously the execution was terrible, particularly the fake punt, but the Colts had the right idea with the onside kicks and trick plays.
 
EricFeczko

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,852
I don't know, Washington definitely scares me more than the Colts. First of all, with all the injuries, this is a trap game against a seemingly weak team. Washington is the jets with a poor man's ryan fitzpatrick, a weaker supporting cast, a bad defense, and a mediocre coach. Second, Washington beat the rams this year, who beat the cardinals, which someone said was a good team. That means Washington might beat a good team. Since the Patriots are at least a good team, that means asking Washington might beat them. Third, Washington is taking us seriously, which removes Brady/belichick's motivation to win. Since their primary drive to win obviously stems from other teams/Roger Goodell making fun of them.
The explanation above may be somewhat inaccurate. In any case, Washington is still scarier than the Colts.
 
Last edited:
soxfan121

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
If it comes out later that the Washington pass catchers bet the under on "total Washington catches", I wouldn't be surprised. Criminally bad hands/execution and some shitty effort led to a glorified scrimmage.

GJGE, Snyders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom