RSS Feed
PDF NOW DISCOUNTED 50%. FIND OUT WHAT YOU MISSED BEFORE THE SEASON.
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy print version.
STILL AVAILABLE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy print version.
09 Dec 2009
TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
OK, so maybe TMQ didn't reference Death Cab for Cutie in his piece. But he does discuss the idea that Indianapolis, Minnesota, and New Orleans are benefiting from playing their home games indoors.
40 comments, Last at 11 Dec 2009, 6:29pm by Theo
Most Recent FO Features
» Super Bowl XLVI Quick Reads
Eli Manning and Tom Brady were nearly equal in value in the Super Bowl. One of them had to lose. What effect will that have on their legacies? Plus, the best players of Super Bowl XLVI and the game's DVOA ratings.
Most Recent Extra Points
Comments
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
that might be the only song on The Photo Album that sucks.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Death Cab for Cutie has songs that don't suck?
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
No.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
There's seriously a person/band called Death Cab for Cutie?
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
TMQ writes about an informal study a reader did about the 45 players with reported concussions this season:
"I then went to Google Images and checked to see what type of helmet was being worn by each player, traditional or newer technology. Only 20 percent of the players, nine in total, were wearing newer-generation helmets from Riddell or Schutt. Eighty percent, the other 36, were wearing traditional 'shell' helmets."
I think this actually shows the opposite of what TMQ intends to prove. If less than 20% of players wear new helmets, then the rate of concussions with the new helmet will actually be HIGHER than with the old helmets.
Given that his point is how few players wear the helmet, it seems that the probability of a player wearing a new helmet might well be around .10 or lower (I dont actually have any idea of the true figure but this seems reasonable).
Lets say 100 players are sampled and of these, 10 wear new helmets, 90 wear old helmets and 20 have concussions (the concussion rate wont affect the share of concussion sufferers it just makes calculations easier). From the example from TMQ we know that 20% of concussion sufferers wear new helmets.
For 20% of the 20 concussion sufferers to come from new helmet wearers, 4 out of 10 new helmet wearers will have gotten concussions while 16 out of 90 old helmet wearers will get concussions. this means:
4 / 10 = .4 probability of concussion with a new helmet
16 / 90 = .17 probability of concussion with old helmet
I dont mean to suggest that new helmets are worse, just that this seems like exceptionally weak reasoning from someone who seems pretty smart at times.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
As intelligent as Easterbrook can be, drawing logical conclusions from data is not one of his obvious skills. I think he allocated those attribute points away from "Deductive Reasoning" and towards "Smarminess" and "Cliches that even the author doesn't completely believe".
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Yup. You're right. You'd have to know the % of players wearing the newer helmets.
But maybe the people wearing those helmets wear them for a reason, pick one below:
- previous concussions
- player is in more risk because of his position
- player takes more risk (the safety paradox)
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Exactly. You have to look at all the categories. I'm guessing punters are less likely to wear the new helmets, but also much less likely to have concussions. OTOH, a RB who has already had two concussions is more likely to wear a new helmet, but he's also at higher risk because of his previous concussions.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Also, without even reading this article, I would like to refer you to a posting on Coldhardfootballfacts that refutes the idea that being a dome team confers any particular advantage in the playoffs. (The "Myth of the Dome" section)
http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_3015_Why_the_Packers_can_wi...
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
As much as I'm all for ripping on GE, he does say, "The best records in the NFL so far this season belong to Indianapolis, New Orleans and Minnesota -- all dome teams. That's largely coincidence, not any inherent dome advantage -- dome teams are 2-2 in the Super Bowl, and haven't done all that well in early playoff rounds. But since the Colts, Saints and Vikings like it indoors, what's their weather forecast? For all three, excellent."
It's largely a piece about their remaining schedules being in the same type of environment that they are used to, and not a dome teams have an advantage piece.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I throw up in my mouth a little every time someone suggests I read Cold Hard Football "Facts".
(I also like the Eagles)
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Me too. CHFF is the poster child for "correlation does not imply causation" and the danger of using small sample sizes.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
As recently as 1997, no dome team had either hosted a conference championship game or been to the Super Bowl. Back then, pundits loved to muse about whether there might be some intangible factor about dome teams that made them "soft" or incapable of winning in the playoffs (cue Billy Beane).
Thankfully, Atlanta played at Minnesota for the NFC Championship the next year, debunking both halves of this "curse," and now 12 years later the curse appears to have flipped. Ah, logic!
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
So do the Packers (who practice indoors and play outdoors) have an inherant advantage or disadvantage?
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I think every team practices indoors.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I've never heard anyone claim that there's actually an advantage to being a dome team in the playoffs. I've heard that it's a DISadvantage to be a dome team playing outdoors in the playoffs many times.
Now, that said, if Cold Hard Football "Facts" is now claiming to prove that it's not an advantage to be a dome team in the playoffs, I'm inclined to believe the opposite.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I think playing at home is an advantage. If you are in a dome at home, you have an advantage, if you are outside at home, you have an advantage. Now I do think playing outside against a dome is an additional advantage, but it's just a hunch.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Yes, I would agree with that. I would classify that as the conventional wisdom on the matter, more or less. Being at home is always an advantage, regardless of whether your home is a dome or a frozen tundra or a parking lot. It would also seem likely that an outdoor team hosting an indoor team is at an added advantage, moreso than an indoor team hosting an outdoor team.
But the article is claiming that a lot of unnamed pundits constantly say that the mere act of being a dome team provides an added advantage when you're at home. I've never heard anyone say that, ever.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Just read the CHFF article out of morbid curiosity, and it was about as stupid as I figured it would be. Anyone complaining about the methodologies on this site should be forced to sit and read 100 articles from there.
Here's a tip -- anything the Mora-era Saints (or Colts, for that matter) did is not a relevant data point for predicting what will happen this year. Going back to when the Vikings had Tarkenton is even more idiotic.
talk about hypocrisy
Every week he rails about how timid teams don't go for the touchdown, and "fortune favors the bold" and teams that go for it on 4th down.
Yet now he takes New England to task for, among other things, being twice in the red zone and not getting any points, when one of those trips they didn't get points because they went for it on 4th and 1.
Re: talk about hypocrisy
What he's refering to is the quality of play not quality of stategy. So whether or not they go for it on fourth down is irrelevant, thowing a pick and not converting is.
Re: talk about hypocrisy
Also, GE has a pretty obvious anti-Belichick bias, and is prone to find new reasons to criticism him at any opportunity.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
...Good to see even the smarter analysts out there enjoy inexplicably hating Romo. Dude was near PERFECT on sunday, and he gets criticized for missing Roy Williams on one go route.
Additionally, that Vegas party that's been referenced innumerably in the past few days was a charity function Romo and Austin attended as a favor to the organization hosting it. Don't know why that info's been kept so under wraps.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
"he gave up two touchdowns against the Saints while wearing a wristwatch. Check here, visible just below his right glove. He wore a wristwatch in Week 12 against Philadelphia, too."
Landry has been wearing a wristwatch during practices and games since college, he says. "Every time I hit the field, it's my time to shine,"
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
TMQ contends that fourth-and-short plays must contain some misdirection, because the defense is cranked to go straight ahead.
I have to agree with Easterbrook on this point. Eeeew, I feel icky now.
I positively hate the "jumbo" package for short yardage on fourth down. Putting two extra guys close to the end of the line gives you a reasonable chance of taking two defenders out of the play. Putting two wideouts split from the end of the line takes two cornerbacks out of the play - with 100% certainty - and probably takes a safety out of the play, too.
In the meantime, the jumbo package allows the opponent to defend to a depth of about three yards. And it gives them the chance to put in personnel with just that in mind.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
A few years ago (when cars were still made of wood) Culpepper faked a QB sneak and tossed it deep to, I think, Randy Moss. <-- that's a guess, but I'll take it.
That was a thing of beauty.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Hear, hear. I don't know why teams don't try the QB sneak of a spread, or fake the dive and run wide.
Hail Hydra!
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Totally agree.
If you look at the two 4th and short plays in the NE-Miami game, one glaring difference stands out. New England's (which failed) had no WR split wide. Miami's (which succeeded) had at least one, and possibly 2, split wide.
I really don't see the point of going "jumbo" unless your TE's are also pass catching threats...and even then I think I'd rather see them split wide. Not only does it take two players out of the play with 100% certainty, but it also causes the LB's to hesitate slightly, or at least try to stay on their feet in case they have to rush the passer or play contain. If you don't, then everyone just shoots the gaps and if your blocking isn't better than their shooting, it fails.
Raise your hand if you think a spread out five wide QB sneak might have worked better.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
There are a few advantages to going jumbo:
- you can run tosses and sweeps to the outside as well as dives
- you can run play action passes to one of 2 or 3 TEs
So I think Jumbo packages have their place, but teams should probably use more variety, both in formations and in play calling, to keep defenses from just stuffing the A gaps.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I'm not convinced that the tosses and sweeps would be low-risk plays. With the defense crowding the line they might have a better than normal chance of breaking a big gain, but on fourth down the tradeoff isn't worth it. They are too likely to be stopped for no gain.
As for the play action pass, yes, that's one good option. Mike Vrabel's long series of TD receptions (9) comes to mind. It's a good choice at the goal line, since you can't threaten the deep secondary, and there's no way to get a big gain. But anywhere else on the field, you lose more than you gain with the formation.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
The riskiness of toss plays is bases on the fact that they're more likely to lose multiple yards than a straight-ahead running play. However, on fourth down, no gain is just as bad as a loss of yards, so the big negative of toss plays is nullified.
Now, the real question is are toss plays more likely to gain 1+ yards than straight-ahead plays? That is something I'd like to see.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Agreed.
I think more coaches should be required to play Madden video games, where the most-successful goal-line run was a HB sprint/dive/smash out of a 4-WR singleback set.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Toss from goalline worked really well too. The defense would always take their first step inside, and get lost in the shuffle. Then you just had to outrun/truck/juke one guy.
Personally I think the QB draw needs to make a comeback.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I can't say I've ever played Madden. But I can count to eleven.
Eleven! Eleven! Eleven defenders close enough to tackle the ball carrier! Ah! Ah! Ah! Ah! (rumble of thunder)
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Goal line weak toss. Works every time.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I'm convinced many coaches do it this way for two reasons: 1) It's the least likely way to go for it on fourth and short and be criticized in the media and 2) it supposedly shows off your team's toughness and aggressiveness ("if we can't get two inches, we didn't deserve it anyway")
After seeing the Bears get stuffed in short yardage for years now and still insist on doing it this way, I've put a fair amount of thought into it.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
I have to disagree with both the toss play and the idea that linebackers will hesitate with a wideout or two in that situation. The linebackers are only going to hesitiate if they have a read assignment, which they almost never do on the goalline like that. Instead they have a gap that they are suppose to attack at the snap of the ball no matter what else is going on. That is also why a toss play often loses significant yardage in a goalline defense, the linebackers penetrate and force the ballcarrier deeper and wider, making it very dificult to turn the corner, or even get anywhere near the corner. A toss play can easily lose 5 yards.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Nitpick, Jim Sorgi isn't going to see any playing time since he is on IR.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
Counter-nit: he wasn't when the story was published.
Colts fans have gotten so used to referring to Sorgi time when a game (or the season) is iced that I wonder if we'll keep using that phrase even when a different backup is playing.
Re: TMQ: We Laugh Indoors
There's a Belichick Conspiracy in Here Somewhere: Could it be that Bill Belichick will discredit the theory -- long advocated by TMQ and many sports statisticians -- that teams usually should go for it on fourth-and-short?
I love the comment here:
TMQ contends that fourth-and-short plays must contain some misdirection
I can just see it now...
"Go for it on 4th down!"
(coach goes for it and it fails)
"No, not that way, a different way!"
(coach goes for it and fails)
"Not that way, this way, with passing!"
(coach goes for it and fails)
"Uh.. maybe try making your uniforms red!"
(coach ignores people)
Post new comment