Week 15 Quick Reads

Wow.

I understand how you arrive at two "stuffs" (arguably the best results possible, considering the score and time remaining) would each? cancel an earlier TD in a one-point game. I understand that a two yard gain to get a first down might be below average. But this isn't a sign that Brady played badly on those plays. It's a sign that DVOA has problems judging short yardage situations, and deep problems when clock management becomes important.

Just what was the baseline success value on a first-and-goal from the one, up eleven with less than five minutes left to play? Where those plays treated as similar in value to, let's guess, a six yard sack on second-and-ten?

re: seneca wallace - its ok Vince. We all understand the horrors of being a Seahawks fan during the late Holmgren era.

Regarding Vick and Brady, you might take a look at the total baselines for each team in the games. Is it possible that Brady and Vick were judged differently, not because of the success points over average they each earned, but because those success points were divided by different denominators?

As you point out, first-and-goal from the one sets a very high bar, and that high bar devalues ALL plays in the game, not just one.

"Stop trying to be funny, Vince. Know who you are.
Aww. Anyone agree/disagree with this? I liked it."

I think your writing has really improved this year and you are at least a bit funny.

His two-yard gain on second-and-1 was worth essentially zero DYAR. (It was actually a negative YAR play before we add in adjustments for playing the Broncos, whose run defense has been OK.)

Hmmm, I find this surprising. So, leaving out opponent adjustments, a 2 yard gain on 2nd-and-1 has a negative YAR? How high is the baseline for a 2nd-and-1 play? A negative YAR means that you expect a REPLACEMENT level quarterback to gain more than 2 yards on a sneak on 2nd and 1? Or just that you expect a replacement QB to gain more than 2 yards in some way, shape, or form? Given that most QBs either sneak the ball (generally gaining only a yard, if that) or attempt a pass, which probably falls incomplete a fair portion of the time, I'm surprised that the baseline for an average QB, let alone a REPLACEMENT QB, is more than 2 yards. Do we really expect Curtis Painter to consistently gain more than 2 yards on 2nd and 1?

I would buy that a replacement RB might have a higher expectation on 2nd and 1. I would also buy that a QB *might* have a higher expectation if you take both pass and rush attempts into account. But not that a QB rushing attempt would have that high of an expectation. Does YAR (and DYAR) take the ballcarrier's position into account when setting baseline, or just the scenario? Does it take the playcall into account? Are you claiming that Tom Brady didn't gain more yards then you would expect a replacement player of unspecified position to gain using any kind of play, or that Brady didn't gain more yards than you would expect a replacement QB to gain on a rush? Or something in the middle.

It seems counterintuitive to compare a rush by a QB to the expectations of a pass by a QB...it means that QB's that play for coaches that like to call safe, get-the-first-down-with-a-sneak-instead-of-trying-the-homerun-pass type of call will always end up with a worse DYAR. It also seems counterintuitive to compare a QB sneak to a designed run by a RB...obviously, your expectation for the RB will be higher.

I never said you never said....

It's okay that DVOA has flaws. It is, and should be, a work in progress. Although I harp on its flaws because I want to see DVOA improved, I appreciate what DVOA does: The focus on play-by-play results, the comparison to average, the non-linear value of yards gained, the value assigned to turnovers, the emphasis on repeatable skills... the list goes on.

I could be wrong about short yardage. Or there might be a problem in the huge step in value between 0 and 1 yard on first-and-goal from the one, and a problem with the huge baseline of such a play diluting the value of all other plays.

Couldn't you add an adjustment for a play when someone blows a chance to ice the game?

Agreed. It was a great call: fourth-and-one is an aggressive down, and with Detroit's success against short-yardage plays, something other than a run was a great idea. (I say that as a fan of strategy, not as a Detroit fan. My reaction to the play live was "oh, ****", which means it was a good call.)

You're still arguing a performance-based evaluation, and not a method one.

Moore was wide open as much because Detroit performed poorly on the play, but Oakland had no way going into the play to know that. You're couching your argument as the playcall being good because Moore performed well. Vince isn't arguing that the playcall was bad because Palmer performed poorly, but because in the end-game situation, the difference between 0 pts and 3 pts was worth more than the difference between 3 points and 7 points, and despite volume-averaging of probability, scores still have discreet values.

Stafford had a putrid game @CHI (Cutler version) and poor ones against GB and @Atl.
He was decent home against CHI (Cutler version). The 2nd Chicago and GB games were played with a broken finger.

He played well against SF, Dallas, NO, and lit up a decent Denver defense. He's been more betrayed by a complete absence of a rushing attack in his losses. Probably because the Lions are down to their #4 RB and a street FA.

That 1991 team went 4-4 against teams with 10 or more wins and 9-1 against teams with 9 or fewer wins. There's no shame in the 1991 49ers or 1991 Redskins having your number.

I agree, this was an informative read and demonstrated some of the obvious shortcomings we've seen through the season (such as 3rd down performance).

It's hard to say how much of an impact the broken index finger has had on Stafford's play in the middle of the season. No one will ever admit that it affected his play.

The other factor is that he's only 23 years old, and he has played considerably fewer games than any of the other QBs listed above. I think it's fair to say that he hasn't peaked yet. Even small improvements in the running game and O-line performance would help a lot.

It's just very gratifying right now to have a QB who could even be considered in the top ten and could very well turn out to be the best QB in the history of the Lions team.

I think they're saying that a 'clutch' performance would have looked more like 10-12 passing without a big DPI call to help things along.

I don't care because the Lions won anyway.

Yep. I liked Orton well enough here in Denver, but, sweet cripes, whenever they would get the ball inside the red zone, he was always dreadful. I don't know what the problem is.
At least with Tebow, he'll eventually just tuck the ball away and run toward the end zone. He may not get in, but there's usually at least some sort of progress.