Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web

Need Help with KUBIAK or Premium?

blog advertising is good for you


21 Jan 2010

Football's Invisible Men

Josh Levin of Slate.com asked us to write about the difficulties in evaluating defensive backs from network telecasts, as opposed to the "All-22" film seen by coaches and various analysts. Greg Cosell of ESPN's NFL Matchup and NFL Films gives his take, as well.

Posted by: Doug Farrar on 21 Jan 2010

45 comments, Last at 26 Jan 2010, 1:59pm by Nathan

Comments

1
by Pavao (not verified) :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 7:20pm

Has the NFL ever given an explanation why they don't sell All-22 film? I bet there is a nice niche market out there for it.

2
by Micranot (not verified) :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 7:27pm

For that matter, why aren't the NFL shortcuts or whatever they are called (part of NFL ticket, all games replayed with no commercials and eliminate stoppages in play so all games can be watched play by play within 30 minutes) not available on DVD? I would kill to get those for the past few seasons.

13
by C (not verified) :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 10:27pm

If you'd really kill to see the whole field, then go to your nearest local NFL stadium and buy a ticket. Duh.

15
by jp6v (not verified) :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 12:13am

I live in Australia. Thanks for your helpful advice.

18
by Podge (not verified) :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 6:00am

So San Diego then?

34
by Bobman :: Sun, 01/24/2010 - 2:42am

Like the airplane has been around about 107 years already! I'm sure they have them in Australia.
Talk about lazy....

39
by Megamanic :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:19am

Funnily enough, yes - but I'm in Perth & that's about 8 time zones from San Diego...

Still, I got to watch up to the end of the 1st half of MIN/NO before I went to work this morning & watched a bit more over my morning coffees in the break room. Better than when I was living in England when the Superbowl kicked off around midnight.

Go Brees & the Saints!!!

20
by David :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 7:14am

I live in Reading, and not the one in Pennsylvania. Once a year for the last three years I do buy a ticket to see an NFL game, and all I read on this site is opprobrium that the NFL dare to play a game outside the hallowed ground of North America...

23
by Hurt Bones :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 9:43am

Your seats must come with a replay feature. Alas mine don't.

35
by Bobman :: Sun, 01/24/2010 - 2:44am

Yeah; seats are great for cheering, and depending on location, analyzing/appreciating things in realtime, but for thoughtful, careful analysis, review, comparison, contemplation, etc, sitting at a live game is not all that it's cracked up to be.

Or as my father used to say when we'd try to drag him to Yankee Stadium, I got my couch and my bathroom right here, why do I need to go there?

9
by Jimmy Oz (not verified) :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 8:58pm

i think the NFL want to keep teams' scouting depts in house, and preserve some of the mystery of quarterbacking.

As soon as the all-22 film gets out, everyone and their dog will have scouting blogs screaming at how dumb so and so was to not read the cover scheme.

12
by HostileGospel :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 9:30pm

Meh. Not buying that. I'd say it's more likely that they haven't decided the best way to implement the sale of said film to fans, or possibly don't actually realize that they could make a lot of money. Neither one of those strikes me as terribly reasonable, but the idea that the NFL would deliberately turn its back on a buck that could be made simply by selling something they already generate for free, well- that seems even less reasonable, frankly. Unless there is some other force at play (it somehow being a threat to some other source of NFL revenue, say), I expect that coaches' film will be readily available to us within the next twenty years. And we will be paying for it.

--
Overall, I'd be kind of embarrassed to critique something when I didn't know what the hell I was talking about, but then, oh yeah, my NAME is on what I write, isn't it?

-Les Bowen

14
by Jimmy Oz (not verified) :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 10:49pm

"Unless there is some other force at play (it somehow being a threat to some other source of NFL revenue, say)"

It might be about the tv rights - both the current and future rights. It might not be allowed under the current NFL contract.

As for future contracts, i can't see a successful company releasing information which *may* negatively affect the way its consumers perceive the company. If the all-22 film is released and viewers are turned off football, the NFL will need to make enough in all-22 sales to cover the decrease in tv rights.

While we want the information, there's gonna be casual fans who view it as making the game too tactical/analytical for them to follow. A lot of casual fans watch to see Brett Favre just having fun out there.

17
by JohnxMorgan (not verified) :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 4:27am

Serious analysis has been nothing but a boon for baseball. Fans don't like something less when they understand it better. Quite the opposite.

22
by Mr Shush :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 9:15am

I don't really see how the availability of all-22 film would turn "average" fans off the game. No-one would force them to buy it, or read analysis based on it, or anything else. I don't suppose the talking heads would become any less inane as a result - it would just be an extra resource on the internet for hardcore fans.

I also really don't know why they don't just make the broadcasts of past games available for download, say from the end of the season in which they occurred onwards, at maybe $2 a pop or whatever the market will bear. I'm sure broadcasters would be amenable to any change in the contract that was necessary provided they got a share of the additional revenue.

41
by Megamanic :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:31am

PonTel used to be able to sell the games on DVD to people living outside the states like servicemen (or me). The the NFL decided to stop that & do it all themselves online.

The DVD medium would have been ideal with the all-22 being a different camera angle you could choose. The market for this stuff might be bigger than the NFL thinks with College & high-school coaches looking at what the pros are doing offensively and defensively. Also, absolute die-hards could buy archival copies of all their team's games so they can look back at the evolution of the offense over time. I would love to be able to do some side-by-side comparisons between Air Coryell & what the Chargers have been doing over the last few years. I've got a feeling it'll be rather similar but I'd really like to be able to see for myself.

24
by justme_cd :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 10:31am

The force I see in play is that the NFL has a penchant for exclusivity. i.e. The NFL also limited its own product by handing a video game monopoly to the Madden franchise, another frustrating situation.

Problems with the T.V. network contracts restricting access to the film are believable, but it just feels to me they prefer having complete control over who has it.

40
by CandlestickPark :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 5:28am

The NFL is a little weird about exclusivity, probably to the point of fault.

MLB is raking in the dough from its website while the NFL's website is really just a PR portal because the NFL sold their online rights to DirecTV.

3
by Nathan :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 7:39pm

They should just zoom OUT upon the snap of the ball instead of IN. Maybe IN on running plays and OUT on passing plays...

4
by Brendan Scolari :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 7:46pm

That would be pretty hard I think, what with play actions and draws and all of that. You'd be asking cameramen to make split second decisions and I doubt they'd get anywhere near 100% accuracy. Now if they just shifted to the college football camera angle (zoomed out farther all the time) that'd be okay with me.

5
by Nathan :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 7:56pm

Ok, then just show the whole game from cable cam.

25
by MJK :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 12:45pm

Good point. At the very least, though, I could dispense with the "color shots" before the snap... i.e. the ultra-close-up's of Brett Favre's eyes seconds before the snap when what I really want to see if if the outside CB's are shading the WR's to the inside or the outside, and if the safeties are threatening blitz or not.

Also, just once, it would be nice if one of the TV broadcasts would experiment with a split screen view instead of focusing exclusively on the pocket and the pass rush, so one could see the secondary play develop. Or occasionally cover the downfield instead of the QB on obvious passing plays...

28
by DFJinPgh (not verified) :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 2:10pm

At the very least, though, I could dispense with the "color shots" before the snap

This. So, so very This.

I first noticed this in the Angels Giants World Series, when they'd spend 3 minutes zooming in on Troy Percival's face while he kept puffing his cheeks to blow out air, then spend 3 seconds on the pitch/play, and go back to zooming in on the pitcher.

I so hate TV "production".

32
by Yadda3x :: Sat, 01/23/2010 - 6:50am

I doubt that the NFL will change it's main broadcast anytime soon. It's a league driven by stars and stories catering to the 99.9% of the viewers who love the game but aren't football nerds (no offense intended.)

Releasing the multiple camera angles on DVD is expensive and involved for a fairly small market. But, I believe I've heard that it's being planned for NFL Rewind on the web. I could be completely wrong about that though and/or it might be vaporware. If we could get that and let me keep my Rewind subscription through the beginning of the season I'd be a happy camper.

edit: my fuzzy recollection is about multiple camera angles not an all-22 cam

36
by Bobman :: Sun, 01/24/2010 - 2:49am

Argh, "color close-ups." I'm in a panic every time that they'll miss the snap--pan out you fuckers! I yell it in my head because my wife and kids would have me locked up otherwise. But rest assured, I am saying it. The play clock ticks down, they camera seems focused on some meaningless crap, and I have no idea of the motion, the D's reaction to it, nuthin'....

Didn;t the XFL have helmet cams? I think the time has come. Super wide-angle lenses.

6
by Marko :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 8:00pm

Even with the All-22 film, you might not know who is at fault on a given play because you might not know what defense was called and what everyone's assignment was. If not everyone's on the same page on the play call, it might be difficult to determine which player or players were out of position just based on looking at the film.

7
by fyo :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 8:27pm

Yes, there will always be a measure of uncertainty, but I think it's safe to say that it'll be a lot less if WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE F*N PLAYERS!

8
by Jay Paradise (not verified) :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 8:35pm

Okay so in the article you state that Revis has been targeted 65 times during the regular season.

I don't understand what is going on here because four sources are so dramatically different.

FO: 65 targets

Profootballfocus.com: 111 targets

Stats Inc.: 108 targets: http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/9203/versus-revis-all-wrs-in-e...

KC Joyner: 97 targets: http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/insider/news/story?id=48218...

I can understand how there can be some discrepancies but this is way to much. Someone here is way off. I understand charting by profootballfocus and FO is done by volunteers, but this calls into question a lot of accuracy. Any thoughts?

10
by Crushinator :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 9:04pm

If I had to take a guess, I'd say that it depends on how some people attribute zone coverage. If its on Revis' side but behind him and he's the nearest defender, is it on Revis, or hole in zone?

11
by Doug Farrar :: Thu, 01/21/2010 - 9:15pm

My mistake entirely. I had a brain cramp and mistook "Pass Plays" for pass targets, when the former is more of a generic PBP stat not based on charting. "Pass Plays" came from a sheet Aaron sent me based solely on PBP, and it does not include any plays where a cornerback is targeted but there's no passes defensed, interceptions, or tackles.

16
by The Ninjalectual :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 1:54am

I used to work with a guy who spent a few years on KC's practice squad. The TV coverage is why he doesn't watch football on TV.

"Just look at that pumpkin."
-John Madden, looking at the moon.

19
by ammek :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 6:17am

Your blossoming buddyship with Greg Cosell is a real plus for this website.

Why not base your defensive back stats on the number of snaps each player is on the field? You already use 'targeted %' in the Almanac. Why not have 'adjusted targeted %': individual targets / team total when the player was on the field.

21
by bubqr :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 9:13am

As far as I know, they don't chart substitutions. Any statistics adjusted by snaps would be useful though (you can do your own ones by using pro football focus snaps played though).

26
by MJK :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 12:50pm

I've long thought that an excellent way of measuring DB play would be to credit a DB for ANY incomplete or unsuccessful completed pass that he is on the field for (because, if the QB threw incomplete or a short, unsuccessful completion, it's presumably in part because every DB was adequately covering the guy he was supposed to...if someone was obviously open, the QB would have thrown the ball there), penalizing a DB for any successful completed pass to his guy (assuming you could tell who his guy is), and neither crediting nor penalizing a DB who is on the field when there is a completed successful pass to someone else's guy (since there's no way of knowing if the DB in question had good coverage or not...just that his wasn't the worst on that particular play).

Unfortunately, as another poster pointed out, I don't think "snaps played" is an officially kept stat. Some local beat writers, like Mike Reiss for the Patriots, track that themselves and publish it, but it's not kept for every team, and even if it was, the different people counting might not have the same degree of accuracy.

27
by MJK :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 12:53pm

Given the number Revis is targeted, and what Cosell said about the importance of the interplay between the safety and CB, is it possible that some of Revis's awesomeness could be helped by the good play of the Jets safeties? Rhodes, at least, I know is pretty good, too (kind of like how Ty Law in his prime was greatly helped by playing next to Lawer Milloy...Law was an exceptional player, but "the Lawery and the Law" enhanced his skills even more).

29
by azibuck (not verified) :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 4:20pm

The NFL should offer different views on different channels, like NASCAR does online. ESPN showed a whole game a few years ago on two channels. The main game was on ESPN (or ESPN2 or whatever), and on ESPNU it showed the entire game from the skycam, which was awesome. They'd show replays from other angles, but the play by play was from behind the QB. It went over so well I don't know that they've ever done it again.

While I'm on the soapbox, hockey would do well to show their sport from down-ice so to speak, instead of from the side.

30
by Nathan :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 4:37pm

The "Madden" (cable) cam is so awesome on replay and on SNF online in showing running plays develop and how incredibly accurate the QBs are... it's really frustrating the way they use it now in the main broadcast, they'll show it presnap and then immediately cut back to the stupid side angle as soon as you're about to see something interesting from the cable cam. Of course, by this point the WRs and CBs are completely off screen.

31
by Mr Shush :: Fri, 01/22/2010 - 10:38pm

I'm pretty sure part of the reason I've never got into hockey is that I find it incredibly frustrating that you frequently can't see the puck because the boards or whatever around the rink obscure it whenever it's too close to the camera's side. Just seems ludicrous.

37
by Bobman :: Sun, 01/24/2010 - 2:58am

It's been years since I watched a lot of hockey, but as I recall, every season it'd take me a couple games to get my eye-pursuit in shape. I found it easier at live games where things seemed to go slower (the ice is a little bigger close-up), but on TV as well I'd get better at tracking (maybe part was anticipating as well) the puck's path. And you can often tell where it is and what's happening behind the boards by the actions of the men. Yeah, sometimes it squirts out weirdly and a guy will take a fast shot at the goal you can't possibly anticipate, but that happens live, too. Unless you're on the ice you miss it, and even then, if you're 40 feet away and there's a scrum....

And when they started with the blue streak to highlight the puck, I really started having problems. That's about when I stopped watching anyway.

44
by Chocolate City (not verified) :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 12:41pm

The bluestreak and the highlighted puck showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that following the puck is NOT the way to follow hockey. It distracted from the actual information present on the ice and made it harder to follow, rather than easier. Luckily, that crap's gone.

The cable cam is great for viewing the blocking, as well. Line coaches always evaluate using an end zone angle, never the standard side angle. The cable cam is even better for that.

45
by Nathan :: Tue, 01/26/2010 - 1:59pm

I used to watch a lot of hockey right around the time the Fox trail came out... I actually thought it was a decent idea, it just should have been way more subtle, not colored (just a brightness shift) with less/no tail. People who watch a lot of hockey have a good idea of where the puck is going, you don't really have to concentrate on it to know where it is... but it's hard to follow on TV if you don't really understand the game that well.

The cable cam is AMAZING for running plays. Hell it's amazing for all plays. It's also what the new generation expects as far as the most immersive way to cover football (Madden) It's time to lose the sideline cam.

33
by Anonymous* (not verified) :: Sat, 01/23/2010 - 4:38pm

I was thinking about Farrar's lament about how they can't get useful information. Contrast that with the reporters who are actually at the game who don't seem to get anything useful at all.

Obvious solution is that FO needs to get big enough to have people in the press boxes at games.

38
by Bobman :: Sun, 01/24/2010 - 2:59am

As a great sports philosphper once said, first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women.

Not entirely sure how that applies, but somehow it seemed relevant.

42
by Theo :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 9:46am

I didn't know he liked sports so much.

43
by Theo :: Mon, 01/25/2010 - 9:49am

It's a QBs league. The average Joe likes the deep passes to the receiver running a go.
The exitement of where the ball is going, is the most exiting thing in football, for average Joe, hence why the cameraman zooms IN while every football fan who likes the strategy of the game wants the cameraman to zoom OUT.
The safeties are the anti-QB.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.