NFL 2018

[gunnar hendershow]

A 1st rounder for Amari Cooper is absurd. The Raiders have set the trade market obscenely high, I don't think Peterson can get traded now since teams probably won't part with 1st for a 28 year old DB.

Not that it particularly matters, Peterson is basically no cap hit next year if he gets cut which is definitely something a rebuilding team will do.

[Your Mom]

I'd give all the picks for Peterson

[The Buscher]

3rd and 2. Throw it 10 yards behind the line of scrimmage.  Fuck this goddamn team.

[Plubby]

This is a real good game of football. 😕 

[The Buscher]

Giants score a TD to go down by 8.  And they inexplicably go for 2 despite there being no benefit for doing so.

Pat Shurmur is atrocious.  I feel dumb for thinking that hiring a Browns reject would be a good idea.

[Lowerdeck]

21 minutes ago, Busch Luck Fale said:

Giants score a TD to go down by 8.  And they inexplicably go for 2 despite there being no benefit for doing so.

Pat Shurmur is atrocious.  I feel dumb for thinking that hiring a Browns reject would be a good idea.

 

Not sure what was worse, going for two or the two QB sneaks in the final minute.

 

It's like they're trying to get a top three pick again.

[Lint]

7 hours ago, Maxx said:

Oh jesus fucking christ we traded a first round pick for his lazy ass.

This fucking team.  Couldn't give up a third or second for Earl Thomas, but a first for Cooper?  Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.

How does it make you feel to remember the Patriots gave up a 5th for Josh Gordon?

[DMN in the House]

7 hours ago, Lineker said:

They're still dumb for the Mack thing!

 Nah. They're selling everyone. Conley, Karl Joseph, maybe even Carr. Taking it to the ground and building it again. No point in keeping Mack around for that, better to have the picks and money.

They're going to be young and exciting when they move to Vegas.

[The Buscher]

I cannot believe how many writers I'm seeing trying to justify going for two.  "Well, if you get it, you're only down 6 points and then you can win with a TD and extra point".  And people pointing to the stats saying that an average offense should be able to convert the 2 point conversion more often than not.

But tht logic doesn't hold up when you realize that the Giants are far from an average offense, in the wrong way.  There is no benefit to putting yourself in a spot where you're now down 8 and know you have to stick it in the end zone two more times just to tie the game.

You take the points and go down 7.  If you score another TD and want to pull a Vrabel and go for the win instead of the tie, I'm totally fine with it.  But there was no upside whatsoever to going for 2 when they did.

[TCO]

9 hours ago, Meacon said:

Three actually. 

No what I meant is that if they paid and kept Mack they'd still have two first round picks next year. They obviously have 3 now!

It'd probably be foolish to pick 3 high first rounders in the same draft. Would be near impossible to extend them all in the same year if they hit on all 3.

Can see them trading back with at least one of them.

[Meacon Keaton]

8 hours ago, Busch Luck Fale said:

I cannot believe how many writers I'm seeing trying to justify going for two.  "Well, if you get it, you're only down 6 points and then you can win with a TD and extra point".  And people pointing to the stats saying that an average offense should be able to convert the 2 point conversion more often than not.

But tht logic doesn't hold up when you realize that the Giants are far from an average offense, in the wrong way.  There is no benefit to putting yourself in a spot where you're now down 8 and know you have to stick it in the end zone two more times just to tie the game.

You take the points and go down 7.  If you score another TD and want to pull a Vrabel and go for the win instead of the tie, I'm totally fine with it.  But there was no upside whatsoever to going for 2 when they did.

Analytics backs up what Schumer did. I know you don’t want to hear it the day after a loss, but it’s true. You go for two on the first touchdown, if you get it, a touchdown and extra point wins. If you miss it, you still have to score a touchdown, either way and if you do, getting three yards for the two points is still very possible and likely.

Is this the best team to follow analytical advice? Probably not right now. But he went against the old-school mentality and went for the newer analytical route and I can’t say I blame him. If you’re 1-5, go for the win. Not a possible overtime loss.

[The Buscher]

I'm not saying you can't go for the win, I'm saying that wasn't the right time to take your shot.  I would've fully supported going for two after they got that second TD.  This offense sucks and the likelihood of winning the coin toss and driving down the field to score another TD was unlikely.

But by going for it when they did and failing, all it did was ensure that winning in regulation was an impossibility which in turn takes wind out of the sails of their own team that had just scored.  They just went from needing 7 to tie, 8 to win to knowing they need 8 just to get to OT.  To me, that's just deflating and adds more pressure for the next drive.  Stat guys don't want to hear that, because there is no stat to quantify pressure, just as there are still to this day a lot of numbers-driven baseball fans who will tell you that clutch hitting in baseball is a myth.

I appreciate analytics, and I would much rather see an analytically-inclined coach than an old-school one.  But I can't get behind a 100% strict adherence to numbers when this is still a game being played by humans.

[livid]

I think going for two would be a lot easier to swallow if Barkley was doing anything on the ground but because he was getting stuffed left and right, it made the offense too one dimensional and it backfired. It was the right call though. More teams need to embrace analytics. 

 

[Meacon Keaton]

But you have to take into account that you’re assuming the defense stops the opponent all three times you score. Defense may be able to only stop them twice, which is why you plan and play to win with your first score. In today’s NFL, you’re asking a lot to think your defense is gonna hold them to no points on three straight drives as time is running out.

 You saying they should go for two after the second touchdown cuts the chance of success on a two point conversion in half. You’re much more likely 1-out-2 than 1-out-of-1. At least by going for it on the first score, you’re not guaranteeing a loss like you are with the second score.

[Maxx]

11 hours ago, Lint said:

How does it make you feel to remember the Patriots gave up a 5th for Josh Gordon?

I don't really link the two.  We definitely should have given up a 4th for Gordon at the time, but he's literally being in the same room with marijuana smoke away from not being allowed to play in the NFL anymore.  Cooper doesn't have that baggage. 

Anyways, Pat Shurmur does suck.  He's just incredible bland, doesn't have the personality to be a head coach. 

[DMN in the House]

2 hours ago, Meacon said:

Analytics backs up what Schumer did. I know you don’t want to hear it the day after a loss, but it’s true. You go for two on the first touchdown, if you get it, a touchdown and extra point wins. If you miss it, you still have to score a touchdown, either way and if you do, getting three yards for the two points is still very possible and likely.

Is this the best team to follow analytical advice? Probably not right now. But he went against the old-school mentality and went for the newer analytical route and I can’t say I blame him. If you’re 1-5, go for the win. Not a possible overtime loss.

 

1 hour ago, Meacon said:

But you have to take into account that you’re assuming the defense stops the opponent all three times you score. Defense may be able to only stop them twice, which is why you plan and play to win with your first score. In today’s NFL, you’re asking a lot to think your defense is gonna hold them to no points on three straight drives as time is running out.

 You saying they should go for two after the second touchdown cuts the chance of success on a two point conversion in half. You’re much more likely 1-out-2 than 1-out-of-1. At least by going for it on the first score, you’re not guaranteeing a loss like you are with the second score.

I agree and disagree.

 

Agree you play for the win, but analytics be damned, you're putting the cart before the horse going for two on the first TD. You risk killing the momentum you just built scoring the TD by failing the conversion as well. Get back in the game and then worry it.

[Meacon Keaton]

Agree to disagree, my friend. 

[Lineker]

Eli Apple traded to the Saints.

[TCO]

Ugh he actually hasn't been bad this year.

Another wasted 1st Round pick.

[The Buscher]

Good riddance to Apple.  That 2016 draft was infuriating.  Their top two targets at the #10 spot were Leonard Floyd and Jack Conklin, but since the front office was really bad about keeping their draft plans under wraps, that made it easy for the Titans and Bears to know they needed to jump ahead of them.