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.
02 Feb 2009
Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Your best and worst DYAR numbers from Super Bowl XLIII. Did we mention that Kurt Warner outplayed Ben Roethlisberger?
61 comments, Last at 16 Feb 2009, 3:44am by JT
Most Recent FO Features
» 2011 Defeats
Who had the most Defeats in 2012? Well, nearly setting the all-time sack record puts you in a pretty good position to claim that crown.
Comments
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
color me confused... are you saying that Holmes' numbers go down because a pass thrown at him was batted at the line resulting in an interception? Please clarify, I may have missed something.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I think the "on the other hand" was poor phrasing. I think the point was that *not only* did he follow up the first-down end-zone incompletion with the game-winning TD catch, his only other two incompletions were a batted pass (that he had no control over) and a 30-yard throw (that's statistically more likely to be incomplete), so it was overall very good. "On the other hand" implies that the second sentence is at odds with the first, where I think it was meant to amplify the first -- "In addition" or something similar would have been better.
And here I thought ESPN had all these crack editors reading the Outsiders' stuff.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Warner was only sacked twice, not that anyone cares. Okay, prop bettors might care, I suppose.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Part of being clutch is the ability to do just that - be intelligent and take what the defense allows - when the game is on the line. It doesn't sound like anything spectacular when you put it that way, but considering Roethlisberger did it behind that offensive line (which was mentioned)...very few other QBs in the league would be able to do the same thing in the same situation. And he did it all season long.
Also, none of Ben's completions went for less than 11 yards on the final drive. Except for the TD toss, which was obviously a phenomenal pass.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
There was a funny comment on one of these threads a while ago attempting to quantify "clutch." It had lots of funny acronyms and used all those cliched things announcers say. Let me see if I can find it....
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Wow - "all he did was take what the defense gave him"
All he did was drive his team 88 yards down a score in two minutes to win a Super Bowl.
If we flipped the two quarterbacks jersey's some on this site would be readying Mr. Warner for sainthood.
Yes Kurt Warner had better numbers, he did a great job, but he threw more passes too.
377/47 = 8 ypa
377/31 = 12.16 ypc
Big Ben - 256/30 = 8.5 ypa
256/21 = 12.19 ypc
VERY similar stats. Both QB's led come from behind drives, one just ran out of time to try it again.
Yes I know the FO numbers are adjusted for the defense, but dismissing what Big Ben did is sad and not needed.
Steeler fan trapped in Houston!
Six Time SB Champs! ;-)
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I completely agree, I am very surprised Roethlisberger isn't getting more praise. I thought he was going to get the MVP. And I am someone who is very embittered by the whole affair and seething from all the breaks the Steelers catch from the refs.... Roethlisberger was decent in the first half, but was remarkable in ways DYAR can't measure in Q4 and I think the analysis here is woefully dismissive. He was the best player on the field by what he did in Q4 (He overcame the penalties Warner and Hasselbeck couldn't!).
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I'm embittered by all the yahoos who think the Steelers get an unfair share of breaks from the refs.
If the refs are pro-Steeler, why did they overturn the Big Ben TD on review (they could have -- not should have -- cried "inconclusive")? Why did they call 6 penalties on Pittsburgh **in the fourth quarter** (they could have -- not should have -- kept the flags in their pockets)? Why did they overturn a game-clinching 19 yard gain for a first down, awarding a safety to the Cardinals (refs can always swallow the whistle on holding calls since they're so subjective and inconsistently called)? According to Brian Billick (famous Steeler apologist), the officials could have called holding on Mike Gandy, quote, "on every play" last night. This is not me, this is Billick. Forgive the appeal to authority, but do you think he has a love affair with Pittsburgh?
I'm not claiming the calls were wrong. But if there really were a conspiracy for Pittsburgh, why in the world was the safety called? Since holding is subjective, if they were truly biased they could have easily swallowed the flag on the play and few would have complained. The only truly iffy call the entire game was the roughing the passer call.
Of the teams with the eight toughest schedules in the league, Pittsburgh was the only one with a winning record, and they went 15-4. Their schedule was the hardest of any NFL team in the past 30 years. Their losses were to Philadelphia, Tennessee, Indianapolis and the Giants. Arizona was 9-7 in the worst division in football and had a number of horrible losses. Pittsburgh held the ball for about 13:30 in the first quarter. They led by 10 at the half. The only good plays Arizona had in the first half, were a punt return and a tipped interception. Two plays. Arizona had one drive that ended with a punt in the third quarter. The Steelers had a long drive that stalled inside the 5... and they led by 13 at the start of the 4th.
Arizona was a 9-7 team that had their rears handed to them by a 12-4 team for three quarters before putting together a furious rally that fell short, and you want to blame the refs?
Go ahead, if it makes you feel better.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Actually Arizona outplay PIT by as much in the second quarter as Pittsburgh outplayed them in the first, but keep telling yourself you won all three quarters if it makes you feel better. The game was a draw and the team that was lucky enough to have the biggest play (the Harrison INT) won. Not saying PIT wasn't deserving, someone has to win each game, but claiming that PIT "handled" ARI is just plain nonsense.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
First quarter the Steelers dominated. TOP 11:28 to 3:32, first downs 7:1, and drives that ended up scoring 10 points (even though the TD came at the beginning of the second quarter.
Second the Cardinals won, though I wouldn't say they outplayed them as much as Pittsburgh outplayed ARI in the first quarter. TOP was only 9:6 in favor of ARI, and you have to count the red-zone turnover and subsequent TD runback in the Steelers' favor.
Third quarter the Steelers won about as convincingly as the Cardinals won the second - TOP 9:6, three points to none.
So for the first three quarters, I'd equate the second and third, not the first and the second. And the fourth went from draw, to Cardinals domination (from the first play of the drive that got them to 14 until the Steelers 1-20 at the PIT 12), to Steelers domination, to not enough time for the Cardinals to come back.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I like it...instead of bothering with advanced stats -- or even primitive ones, like score -- we can just add up the time of possession to see who played better.
Simple, yet ingenius.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Sure, if you choose to ignore two-thirds of what I said.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I meant 11:30-3:30, not 13:30-1:30, sorry.
By the end of the third quarter, Pittsburgh had accomplished the following:
1. Outgained Arizona 237-175
2. Had time of possession advantage of 26:23-18:37
3. By far the biggest play of the game to that point (Harrison's TAINT)
4. A 20-7 lead
I'm not sure what game you were watching if you don't think Pittsburgh "handled" the Cardinals through three quarters.
I'm a Pittsburgh fan, but I will easily admit when Pittsburgh was outplayed in a win or was handed a win unfairly. This simply is not one of those games. The Cardinals finally cracked the Steelers' defense in the fourth quarter and mounted a furious rally, turning a ho-hum game into a great one. Pittsburgh simply made the last play, and Arizona ran out of time.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Through three quarters, but they didn't "handle them" the second quarter, nor the fourth, so your basic statement is false. They were not "handled" for 3 of 4 quarters. Anyone can win an argument if you keep changing around your claim.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Love -- great example of how to ignore most of an argument by beating to death the use of one word in it. Awesome job. Really.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
LOL to be completely honest, it's the Steeler fans embittered about the Seahawk and Cardinal fans embittered about the officiating that makes me most embittered, than what happened on the field.
The refs aren't Pro-Steeler. But the Steelers did get an unfair break in both Superbowls XL and XLIII. And at the end of this game, the final 11 minutes or so, they faced an unfair share of penalties for the first time, and unlike Hasselbeck, Roethlisberger overcame them to orchestrate a remarkable drive to win the game. That was legit.
No conspiracy, please don't make dramatic mischaracterizations of my position, strawman burner. But you can dismiss it as much as you want, your prerogative.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Can you please list and describe the "number of unfair breaks" that the Steelers got? I'll wait.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Dismissing? Who's dismissing? Please quote.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Is this thread not too old and stale yet? Anyone still reading, waiting for an answer?
"If you watch the film of Roethlisberger's final drive in this game or Tom Brady's two famous drives against the Rams and Panthers, it's amazing how much of "being clutch" is simply being intelligent and taking what the defense allows, which is almost invariably checkdowns and dump-offs. In these situations, Roethlisberger doesn't take his game to a new level; he simplifies what he does and waits for the defense to make a mistake. When Francisco slipped on the grass, Roethlisberger had his mistake and the Steelers were in business."
Dismissive is my interpretation. Bill clarified, and he's the authority on his intentions with the comments, not me. That's great, I'm glad he said that. I still contend this is attributing the success to defensive mistakes and checkdowns. I think that's quite oversimplifying, considering the penalties he overcame, the downs & distances he faced, the pass rush he eluded, and the improvisations he made. Dump off routes don't last that long, when he scrambles.
It's a good system and coaching that allows their offense to consistently perform well in those circumstances, and we've seen it for a while. The receivers and the QBs know what to expect from each other in those circumstances. Mike Holmgren offenses didn't, so much. After a few seconds, the strength and advantage the WCO offense has over the defense is negated. One reason why WCO isn't as successful in the 2 minute offense, inherently. On the other hand, the Steelers offense is very adaptable there, and it's not all system and coaching, I submit that it wouldn't be nearly as effective without Roethlisberger's talents in that regard, soemthing only two handfuls of other QBs can match.
There I go, being dismissive, eh? Sorry to Bill and anyone else, I may have used too strong of words and I didn't mean to make a big thing of it, simply to make a case that Roethlisberger was the MVP. Bill has shown since taking over Quick Reads a penchant for downplaying the significance or impressiveness of the week's latest wonders and heroics. Understandably, on account of how the likes of ESPN hypes each new achievement as the GOAT and best EVAR, but the downplaying isn't always warranted.
Not trying to make a big thing of it, but Roethlisberger's performance didn't yield an MVP, while Peyton Manning's did, and there's no need here to stress calm and try to describe how it's not as great as people think. The way Bill describes it, you'd think Garcia remains the best QB in the league, and his strict adherence to "take what the defense gives" profoundly holds the Tampa Bay offense back.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I don't think it's dismissive so much as explanatory. A lot of people confuse clutch with flashy, that fora QB to be clutch he has to thread that 40 yard bomb into triple coverage while shaking two defenders (like the Tyree play last year). But the reality is that clutch really is not freaking out, staying smart, and keeping the ball moving without wasting clock. The QBs that are good at 2 minute drills (ie "clutch") always say the most important part is to focus on first downs not touchdowns. A lot of things are simple yet still challenging to most people.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I'm curious about the DYAR for tight ends, especially Miller.
And Geo B, I don't think Bill was dismissing what Ben did. I think it's an interesting point that the clutch drives don't necessarily consist of spectacular plays by the QB but of recognizing what plays you can make and not forcing plays you can't make. It might suggest that, if clutchness exists (and Ben sure seems clutchy after the number of come-from-behind drives he's led), it means not panicking and trying to force a huge play when it's not there. What made O'Donnell so anti-clutch in XXX wasn't that he didn't make spectacular plays, it's that he panicked and made a terrible play.
Anyway, six time champs!
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I didn't see anyone dismissing what Ben did??? Why all the rancor, umbrage really is an art-form among pro sports and its fans these days isn't it?
It is no surprise Warners game graded out way better, he did the same as Ben with more attempts against a MUCH harder defense (on paper at the very least) and these are defense-adjusted counting stats.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
The safety was hardly a game changer. Coach Tomlin has said that had that pass been incomplete, he would have taken a safety rather thn punt on fourth down.
The safety was significant because it nullified the completion, so stopped the drive, but I am not sure that "game changer" is warranted.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
It's exactly the fact that it nullified the completion and stopped the drive that made it significant. It was a swing from 1-10 PIT at their 20 with three minutes left to 1-10 ARI at their 36 with three minutes left. The two points weren't the game changer; the fact that the Steelers had to give up the ball was the game changer. And that happening because of a holding call in the end zone is, well, let's just say it's some evidence that McAulay and Ellison weren't in the tank for the Steelers.
By the way - why is it that an offensive foul in a team's own end zone results in an automatic score, but a defensive foul in a team's own end zone doesn't? Especially with regard to offensive holding, which we've well established is a judgment call that could be made on probably 75% of passing plays?
Sure, a TD is seven points and a safety is only two - but if you take into account the change in possession from the safety and the expected point values of the likely field position, a safety is more like a four-point swing. (Ball on A's 1-yard line has an expected point value of about -1 for A. A safety is -2 points for A and the expected value of B having the ball on its own 35 yard line - a reasonable safety kick result - is 3 points for B, for a total of -5 for A, or a four-point swing to B.)
So the NFL rules basically give the Referee and the Umpire the discretion to provide a four-point swing on any passing play where the pocket is in the end zone, but they don't give the defensive backfield officials the discretion to provide a like swing on pass plays into the end zone (where DPI is as much a judgment call as Offensive Holding). Discrimination against Back Judges?
Instead, make it spot at the one (or half the distance, if the LOS was inside the two) and loss of down. You could say, "The hold prevented a defensive player from sacking the QB, which would have resulted in a safety, so making the penalty enforcement a safety is only redressing the outcome that the infraction prevented," but I could say the exact same thing about DPI in the end zone -- if a receiver is in position to make a TD catch and gets mugged by a DB, the interference prevented the receiver from making a TD catch, so awarding a TD would only be redressing the outcome that the infraction prevented. I don't get the reason for the inconsistency (especially in a league that is generally slanted in favor of offenses).
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Exactly. Steve Young said that the safety was a non-factor on NFL Primetime, and I think it was the most brain-dead, boneheaded thing I've heard him say (I do like Steve Young). The safety turned the game on a dime -- not because of the two points, but because the Steelers could have run out much of the clock and forced the Cardinals to take all its remaining timeouts had they not gained another yard. If they gained another first down, the game was over. The safety gave Arizona possession with three minutes left in decent field position down by four.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
To be fair, that wasn't just an average holding penalty...that was WWE wrestling.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
It was legitimately holding, I'm just saying the holding was an extremely important play. To say it made no difference is dumbfounding to me.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Putting the ball at the 1 after DPI has got to be around a 4-point swing. The chances of the offense scoring from 1st and goal at the 1 are very high. It's essentially a free 3 points and very likely 7 (unless the Steelers are involved).
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
This site is a joke.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
And yet, you posted here.
My point about Ben Roethlisberger wasn't that he wasn't great on the final drive -- he was -- but exactly what someone else in the comment thread said, which is that he was intelligent enough to take what the defense gave him on that drive as opposed to forcing a pass or two downfield. That's not dismissing it as invalid; if anything, the opposite's true. I'd be much more dismissive of, say, Eli's drive against the Patriots last year where he had the game-ending pick go through Asante Samuel's hands and required a miracle catch by Tyree in triple coverage.
My bad on Warner's three sacks. One was challenged and reversed to an incomplete pass.
Holmes gets "credited" for the interception like it's an incomplete pass to him.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
The phrase "checkdowns and dumpoffs" is
(A) loaded with negative connatations when it comes to QBs
(B) inexplicable when used to describe the Steelers game-winning drive, which consisted entirely of downfield passes to the #1 receiver.
Kind of begging to get steeler fans up in a huff.
And the "Warner totally outplayed Ben" statement follows the assumptions:
(1) The 10 players around Ben on offense are basically equivalent to the 10 around Warner on his offense, making no adjustment necessary
(2) The 11 players they faced were completely different, and an adjustment should be made.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Really? Really really?
Just because Bill is postulating that the possible "clutch" skill is a combination of awareness, risk assessment, and precision instead of some sort of magic "just make plays" voodoo, that's an excuse to whip up some outrage?
Really?
Ben played well. When the whole game was on the line, he did what was necessary to keep his team in it without panicking and reaching for more. He put them in the position to win, and when it was time to make a perfect throw he did that too (arguably twice).
Can I stop praising the Steelers now? It's giving me a bad taste in my mouth.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
You don't need to praise the Steelers, but you also don't need to tear down everything they accomplish. And by "you" I mean the lunatic fringe that thinks the Steelers only win because of the refs.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
And yes. Really. Really really. Can you tell me what Warner "took" that the defense didn't give him? A wide open middle of the field on the 2nd TD? If Roethlisberger had thrown that pass, it would have been due to the halftime show. But Warner throws it, and he's a genius.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I have the same problem with this use of DYAR as I have with using DVOA to compare teams in a single game. DYAR gives Warner credit because he was throwing against a great defense, and penalizes Roethlisberger for throwing against a bad defense. But this overstates the case. On this day, the defenses played exactly as well as they did on this day.
You might take DVOA or DYAR as evidence that Warner will be better than Roethlisberger next year, but in the Superbowl, their effectiveness is measured by YAR or VOA.
Warner still had the better day, but by nearly as much as DYAR says. He certainly outperformed expectations. But having low expectations (the D in DYAR) is worth exactly zero as far as winning is concerned.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I completely agree with you. I've always thought of DVOA and DYAR as better predictors of things to come and also better summations of the cumulative events of the past. But if you're trying to use a number to say who had the better day in a single game, dropping the defense adjustment makes alot more intuitive sense.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
The problem has to do with statistics, yes? Even non-defense adjusted advanced stats are relative, and you can see obvious performance differences, so I don't think it makes sense to drop the defense adjustment; it's just that single-game numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I wonder if a more accurate picture (but probably less precise) might be painted if you could find some way to use previous offense and defense records to try to estimate variance and factor that into the calculation.
Thanks Bill
For the followup. Appreciate you taking the time to post.
Guess I've been reading too many "the refs gave the Steelers the game" rants and put spin on your comments that you didn't intend.
I thought Kurt Warner did a fantastic job bringing his team back, and the play call on the Fitzgerald 64 yard TD was inspired (and well diagrammed by ESPN after the game).
It feels like Big Ben did not get enough credit and I may be reading into it.
Steeler fan trapped in Houston!
Six Time SB Champs! ;-)
Re: Thanks Bill
What is all this talk about Warner doing a great job? What did he do, exactly? Let's look at this seriously. He threw up a jump ball that 99% of QBs in the league can throw, and Larry Fitzgerald came down with the TD catch that 99% of all WRs in the league would have dropped.
Then, when the Cardinals got the ball back and had the chance to drive down field, he failed to do so. Steelers get the ball back and, if not for Hartwig's holding penalty in the endzone, there is a serious possibility that the Cards don't get the ball back, have the lead expanded upon them to the point that the game is out of reach, or end up with too little time on the clock once they get the ball back.
But the safety did happen. When they get the ball back, Warner throws a short, inside ball to Larry Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald gets by a few defenders and then accelerates to a top-speed that is unreal to blow by the safeties before they can close in on him.
And while Warner's FO-formulated stats take into account that he is playing against the Steelers'defense, it doesn't seem to take into account that Warner is playing with much better WRs than Roethlisberger. If one were to combine these teams and start the best players from both, the WR corps would look something like this:
1. Fitz
2. Boldin
3. Holmes
4. Steve Breaston
5. Injured Hines Ward
Where is the great job by Warner? What, exactly, has he done in his career that wasn't the result of an amazing supporting cast and pass-heavy offenses?
Re: Thanks Bill
Sure...because with those same skill players, look how well Arizona did before Warner. Perennial favorites to contend in the NFC Championship every year. Or look how well the Rams were doing before Warner stepped in. All those rings they had!
Re: Thanks Bill
You know, 377 yards, 21 points, and only two sacks and one interception - albeit a critical one - against the top-rated defense in the league is pretty damn good, and I won't quibble with FO's stats supporting that conclusion.
But the statement that "FO-formulated stats... (don't) seem to take into account that Warner is playing with much better WRs than Roethlisberger" shows a misunderstanding of FO stats. The FO writers have frequently said that a statement of "Warner had a DVOA/DYAR of X" should really be read as "Warner, playing with the Arizona receivers and the Arizona offensive line in the Arizona scheme, had a DVOA of X."
I understand how the FO stats work.
Allow me to clarify and address your points.
1. "You know, 377 yards, 21 points, and only two sacks and one interception - albeit a critical one - against the top-rated defense in the league is pretty damn good"
Once again, two of those TDs were the result of Fitzgerald being the best WR in a long, long time. The passes on those plays could have been thrown by almost anybody. The catch on the fade, and the run after the slant, were both phenomenal plays by Fitzgerald. To give Warner credit for those plays is ridiculous.
You also left a few things out. First, Warner had two turnovers, not one and he fumbled the ball a second time as well. Roethlisberger had one turnover but it could hardly be called his fault; the ball was tipped at the line and popped straight into the air. Warner, on the other hand, bit hard on a zone blitz while in scoring position. Are you going to tell me that Warner didn't work on recognizing and dissecting the zone blitz for two weeks prior to the game? If you aren't willing to tell me that, there is no excuse. He should have waited, even if it meant taking the sack. Instead, he threw a pick-six.
The other point is that despite Warner "outplaying" Roethlisberger, they had the same y/a and y/c.
2. When I say that FO's stats don't take into account the skill level of the receiving corps, I mean exactly what I say. The idea of these stats is a good one, but they are incomplete in their scope. Did they adjust for Ward's injury? Do they account for incredibly athletic plays? Would there be any statistical difference between Fitz's 64-yard TD slant route and a 64-yard bomb right over the hands of the defenders? Knowing that there are deficiencies in the ability of these stats to account for the many, many aspects of the game makes leaning on them as a crutch for one's arguments very silly.
3. Watching the game, one could clearly see that Roethlisberger was playing a better game than Warner. Ben was careful with the ball (unlike Warner) and operated with an offensive line that is far, far worse. Ben bought time to let his hobbled and less talented receivers get open. How many QBs in the league could have played for the Steelers in that game and been successful in that offense? How many could have filled in for Warner?
4. As for those who like to point out how Warner has been on successful teams, it always tickles me that when a team does well it is the result of the QB. When the team does poorly and that same QB is still on the roster, it is the fault of other pieces of the puzzle. Only in the good times is the success of a franchise solely dependent on QB play.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I'm a bit disappointed by this piece. My perception is that the Steeler's achievements are subliminally underestimated. E.g., Bill writes twice that the biggest play of the last scoring drive was aided by a Cardinals safety slipping (on a divot that was "very possibly a leftover from the halftime show" - yet another lucky break for the Steelers!). While that is certainly true, I believe that there would have been enough space somewhere to cite what Mike Tanier wrote in Audibles:
"The play that set up Holmes' touchdown -- the long run up the sidelines -- was set up by a great pump-fake to Mewelde Moore in the flat. It moved DRC out of the lane so Big Ben could throw to Holmes in space."
I will continue to read Quick Reads and learn from it, but I cannot say that I am looking forward to reading what Bill has to say about the Steelers.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
"I will continue to read Quick Reads and learn from it, but I cannot say that I am looking forward to reading what Bill has to say about the Steelers."
I hate this mentality; just because a writer at FO says something critical or less-than-flattering about your team, it does not mean he will continue to do so in the future. We saw this with Giant fans last year, and, shocker, FO heaped nothing but praise on that team for all of the 2008 season.
There are many reasons bill may have overlooked or underrated some of the Steelers' accomplishments. Maybe he legitimately missed seeing the pump fake. Maybe he felt, like I did, that the Cardinals outplayed the Steelers on the whole and wanted to convey that information subtly. But to think he has it in for your team is just paranoia.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
You do know that at least one FO writer has freely admitted that they hate the Steelers and their quarterback to an irrational level.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
If you are referring to Doug Farrar, he's a Seahawks fan. But he's just one writer out of many.
(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Yeah, but not Barnwell, right?
And I'm not really referring to the Steelers specifically. Too many posters, it seems, take every criticism as evidence that the writer hates their team.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Maybe you'll pardon me for my dislike of FO if the best that can be said of it is that only some writers profess irrational hatred for my team. Goodbye.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
The best that can be said of it is that it has the best football analysis on the internet. The worst that can be said of it is that some of the writers, being fans rather than journalists, have rooting interest and bias.
No one's forcing you to read it.
(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Although one would expect that when writing for the Worldwide Leader, they would strive to put their rooting interests and biases aside.
I tend to give them some slack, because I know they're not "trained journalists", and I don't generally see anything too egregious on the ESPN stuff.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
It's gracious of you to cut the Outsiders slack, considering that ESPN itself is a mockery of objective journalism and always will be until they stop broadcasting and profiting off the sports they cover. Why doesn't ESPN talk about steroids in football? Hmm, maybe because they don't want to lose ratings on MNF and/or piss off the NFL? Why don't they talk about the chronic injuries and concussions caused by playing in the NFL? Maybe because those occur on the very plays that make people tune in to SportsCenter? (Hell, why do they even mention the Arena League, maybe it's because they have a contract to broadcast games?)
When it comes to objective journalism, ESPN has nothing on the Outsiders.
(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
That's not what I meant, or wrote.
The people who 'hate' a team know that they have to be extra careful in choosing their words, and here at FO they do as far as I can tell. I did not and do not insinuate that Bill 'has it in' for the Steelers and is willfully writing about them in a derogatory style (although I think I remember him stating his dislike in some previous audibles).
I just believe that I sense some subliminal downplaying of their efforts, not only in these Quick Reads and not only by the example I gave.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
How did Pittsburgh win the game when down so far in DVOA on both sides? Well, DVOA doesn't factor in "The Terrible Towel" :P
On a more serious note, do these statistics also weigh in field position? 14 of Pittsburgh's 56 offensive snaps took place in goal to go situations. That's right, 25% of their snaps were goal to go. While their goal to go success rate was abysmal in regards to scoring touchdowns (2 out of 14), it should be noted that none of those other snaps resulted in turnovers and still allowed them to get the three points. In a goal line situation, a series of downs where you lose three yards, but still gain three points is a successful series, and should be weighed as such... A turnover in a goal to go situation should also be weighed more negatively than normal as well. And a turnover in goal to go that goes the other way for six even moreso...
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
"In a goal line situation, a series of downs where you lose three yards, but still gain three points is a successful series, and should be weighed as such."
I suppose it would be successful if your definition of true success is scoring any points. However, in a goal-to-go situation, you should expect to score a touchdown, so three points is kind of a disappointment.
Furthermore, DVOA will take into account that field position more or less evens out over the course of a season. In one game, constantly getting good field position will allow you to score points even if your offense plays poorly. Over the whole season, though, a poor offense will not consistently score points.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Everything you said in your post is correct (except the part about a turnover going for six because that's a fluky event), if DVOA was designed to measure performance in a single game. However, DVOA is not intended to do that. It's designed to measure performance over a season in order to predict how well a team will play in the future.
A team that scores 1 TD per 7 goal-to-go snaps over a season has red zone issues. If a team does the same thing over the course of a single game, it just means they didn't do so well that game, but didn't do horribly either if they didn't turn the ball over. As far as DVOA is concerned, those 2 things are identical, but we know they aren't. So like I said, DVOA is not an ideal measure of single-game performance.
EDIT: Well, Eddo beat me to it.
(Formerly "The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly")
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I'm a fan of outsiders, a Steelers fan, and I rarely post. I'll admit that Superbowl XL had some questionable items in it and I expected all the comments. But I was a little shocked at the things that were said about this Superbowl.
Penalty differential? Well Colon didn't have a single false start, AZ finally got caught once for jumping the snap like they did all day against Atlanta, and Harrison finally gets the worst of the holds against him called for the first time since week 3.
Outplayed? From what the VOA analysis and people here are is telling me, Arizona outplayed the Steelers from beginning to end like the 2007 Pats would outplay the 2008 Lions. That’s not really what happened and if you read it that way then you are no better than the analysts on ESPN 5. DVOA and DYAR have some quirks that are overvaluing/undervaluing certain points of the game. That’s not wrong, it’s just hard to quantify. I’m sure that if Pittsburgh had played the same aggressive brand of defense that they had played the whole game for just one more series, Warner's stats would start to be dismissed as coming during garbage time.
But now I am going to just stop being a whining cliché and be at peace because:
If the defense had not softened up..
- Ben would not get the credit he deserved as the defense would have been the story of the game.
- Kurt would not get the credit he deserved for his career hall of fame credentials and he’s a little kooky, but a likable guy.
- The debate about changing the playoff system would start all over again
- We wouldn’t have these great shots of a guy just busted for weed in front of Cinderella’s castle at Disneyworld.
And the Steelers won the Superbowl ..
- With no contribution from the 2008 draft class.
- With a schedule that I thought was going to leave them no better than 8-8 and out of the playoffs.
- With an aging Dline that I thought would break down late in the season.
- With an Oline that the Chiefs wouldn’t take if I threw in some magic beans.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Man, the only good thing about "Angry, vindicated Steelers fan" coming out of the woodwork, is it shuts up and shuts out "Angry, vindicated Giants fan". Where did those all go, anyway?
Angry, Embittered Eagles Fan
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Aren't you also a Phillies fan? Shouldn't you be happy, not angry and embittered? ;)
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
Perfect DMC!
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
I really have absolutely no opinion about the Pittsburgh Steelers, although it's less funny than last year, when I got hate mail telling me that I hated the Giants.
I also think that Warner outplayed Roethlisberger, although not quite at the level that the difference between their DVOA and DYAR might imply.
Re: Super Bowl XLIII Quick Reads
All I can tell you is what my lyin eyes saw from the stands in Tampa once the game got into the 4th quarter:
1. The Steelers dominated the Cards up to that point
2. The Steelers O went conservative
3. The Steelers D went into a prevent
4. The Steelers fans were sitting back waiting for the Lombardi to be awarded.
Once Fitzgerald scored the second TD the Steelers started to play football again.
1. They drove the ball right down the field just as they had at the beginning of the game
2. After scoring the D was all over Warner again like a cheap suit.
3. Warner did what Warner always does in that situation - coughed the ball up. The dude is a brilliant passer but once you get to him he has small hands and he loses the ball.
All of you numbers don't mean shat. Football is not baseball so your stats while interesting surely do not depict what happens in a real NFL game.
And your goofy statements about the playoff system are again looking at the NFL like MLB. I wouldn't wish that on any sport. MLB is a freaking joke. A bunch of sociopaths with a wad of chew and a bottle of D Bol. I'm fine with the playoff system. Too bad your favorite team didn't make it to the playoffs. They would have gotten their ass whuped anyway. It's all about peaking at the right time. Not who has the best record. Why even have a playoff with that mentality. We should just award the Lombardi to the team with the best record multiplied by schedule difficulty. In the event of a tie, flip a coin.
Post new comment