Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

03 Jan 2012

B.S. Report Playoff Podcast: Round I

Hey folks, I'm back on the Bill Simmons podcast weekly during the NFL playoffs, giving my thoughts on this weekend's games as well as the Super Bowl favorites. Old pal Bill Barnwell is on this podcast as well.

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 03 Jan 2012

12 comments, Last at 04 Jan 2012, 7:26pm by dmstorm22

Comments

1
by lester bangs (not verified) :: Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:12pm

The Aaron spot was rock-solid, as usual. Bill needed some talking down on the Broncos; they're not the worst team since the 1976 Buccaneers.

Barnwell said "you know" about 529 times. If this were a drinking game, entire fraternities would turn up dead.

11
by Malene, Copenhagen (not verified) :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:53pm

I was actually surprised that it seemed like Simmons parsed the issue of Atlantas variance relatively quickly. Quicker than Barnwell, it sounded like.

12
by dmstorm22 :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 7:26pm

He really did. I think he did it faster than even I did. I was stunned at first when Schatz said it, because like Bill and anyone with eyes, I can see that the Falcons just killed the bad teams they faced and lost to the good ones. It took me a while to figure out that in a DVOA world, that is being really consistent.

2
by dmstorm22 :: Tue, 01/03/2012 - 9:18pm

Glad they split you and BB into one and put Lombardi and the Vegas guy in the other. In one pod I can listen to smart people talk football. In the other, I can skip listening to a guy who talks in platitudes and theories that change weekly, and the Vegas guy.

Think you did a good job, as did Barnwell, who is a little too convinced about Denver's chances. Surprised that everyone pretty much felt Houston was going to beat the Bengals.

3
by lester bangs (not verified) :: Tue, 01/03/2012 - 10:04pm

Lombardi is so flimsy, it's almost funny. I can't believe he was once a front-office man. His metaphors are inane.

Sal and Bill were talking about Lombardi giving them bad playoff info while watching the Week 17 games unfold. Man with connections.

4
by Alexander :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:52am

Lombardi is the worst. I agree that I have no idea how he ever had an nfl job...wait... Al Davis, so did Eric Mangini...and Herm Edwards... AHHHHH!!!

7
by Joshua Northey (not verified) :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 1:09pm

I am also unsure how Lombardi could work in an NFL front office. From hearing him speaking and reading a couple of his articles I am 95% sure I could do a better job than him.

He doesn't seem to understand what being a GM is actually about.

8
by Eli (not verified) :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 2:18pm

I've also been blown away that Lombardi was employed in the NFL and that he was interviewed for the 49ers job when he seems to bring very little insight and relies so much on recency and hindsight bias. According to "War Room," however, he played a big role in developing Belichick's scouting system in Cleveland -- though I guess the fact that Belichick didn't bring him to New England is telling.

5
by Eddie Baje (not verified) :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 11:09am

Maybe I didn't listen hard enough, but not one mention of the Lions through the whole thing, including the assumption that the Saints move on to the Divisional round and a complete dismissal of Louis Delmas in the discussion on defensive players returning for the playoffs. I expect better.

10
by LionInAZ (not verified) :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:51pm

They did get mentioned a couple of times, mostly to be dismissed as Saints fodder.
But we can infer some things from the discussion:
-- the Lions are not one of the playoff teams with a bad defense
-- they're not one of the teams with QB issues
-- they have lousy special teams, just like the Ravens.

But taken as a whole the entire segment was inflicted with the usual East Coast bias -- all they really wanted to talk about was the Patriots, Steelers, and Giants. Any discussion of the rest of the playoff teams was just filler while they thought up new questions about the Pats and Steelers to address.

6
by Eddo :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 12:03pm

I did chuckle at Simmons desperately trying to convince himself the current Patriots' offense is better than the 2007 version.

9
by Malene, Copenhagen (not verified) :: Wed, 01/04/2012 - 6:51pm

I think you're short-selling Simmons here. I think he was trying to convince himself of the slightly less silly idea that the weighted strength of the current Patriots' offense after week 17 was higher than the weighted strength of 2007 Pats O after week 17.

2007 Pats did have a 51.8-to-40.6 discrepancy between total DVOA and weighted DVOA.

Weighted total offensive DVOA in 2007 after week 17 was 39.5%.
I don't have weighted total offensive DVOA in 2011 after week 17, but the total for the year is 36.8%.

Is that difference really worth a chuckle?

2007 Pats played about half a season of the best offensive ball the world has ever seen, but the second half of the season they were essentially "only" slightly better than this years Packers (39.2%).

(That's TOTAL offensive DVOA. Their passing DVOA of course was pretty ridiculous).