Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I hope they are this Sunday!
NFL 2017
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
I hope they are this Sunday!
Accidentally erased the analysis sections by overwriting my earlier picks. I meant to copy that and paste it here, but I was watching Denver play and forgot. Ah, well. 
Abbreviated first 8 plus:
Way to go Cam and Co. :thumb: 6-2
9. Jac @ Jets
The Line: Jac by 3.5
Prediction: I took the Jags. These are two hard teams to figure week to week. :mmph: 6-3
10. Pit @ Bal
The line:Steelers by 2.5
Prediction: Steelers 7-3 :thumb: Thought it would be a better game.
11. Gia @ TB
The line: TB by 3.5
Prediction: Gia :thumb: 8-3
12. Philly @ SD (yeah, I'm still calling them that)
The line: .5 SD
Prediction: Philly :thumb: 9-3
13. SF @ Arz
The line: Arz 7.5
Prediction: SF because I don't have much confidence in the Cardinals as an offense. I'm calling this a win because it's over time and there's no way for Arz to cover now :thumb: 10-3
14. Oak @ Den
Line: 2.5 Den
Prediction: at home? Sure. Denver. :thumb: 11-3
So no matter what happens tonight I'm having a great week, which is nice after the last two 8 win weeks.
15. Ind @ Sea
The line: Sea 13.5
Prediction: Indy because I'm not sold on Seattle's offensive line play. They should win though.
16. Was @ KC
The line: KC by 6.5
Prediction: a good test to see if KC can remain the one fairly consistent team. I'll take the Chiefs.
Abbreviated first 8 plus:
:thumb: 1-0
:thumb: 2-0
:mmph: Disappointing. 2-1
:thumb: 3-1
Ah, well. It was worth the risk. 3-2
:thumb: 4-2
Looks like they've finally found a qb in Houston. :thumb: 5-2
Way to go Cam and Co. :thumb: 6-2
9. Jac @ Jets
The Line: Jac by 3.5
Prediction: I took the Jags. These are two hard teams to figure week to week. :mmph: 6-3
10. Pit @ Bal
The line:Steelers by 2.5
Prediction: Steelers 7-3 :thumb: Thought it would be a better game.
11. Gia @ TB
The line: TB by 3.5
Prediction: Gia :thumb: 8-3
12. Philly @ SD (yeah, I'm still calling them that)
The line: .5 SD
Prediction: Philly :thumb: 9-3
13. SF @ Arz
The line: Arz 7.5
Prediction: SF because I don't have much confidence in the Cardinals as an offense. I'm calling this a win because it's over time and there's no way for Arz to cover now :thumb: 10-3
14. Oak @ Den
Line: 2.5 Den
Prediction: at home? Sure. Denver. :thumb: 11-3
So no matter what happens tonight I'm having a great week, which is nice after the last two 8 win weeks.
15. Ind @ Sea
The line: Sea 13.5
Prediction: Indy because I'm not sold on Seattle's offensive line play. They should win though.
16. Was @ KC
The line: KC by 6.5
Prediction: a good test to see if KC can remain the one fairly consistent team. I'll take the Chiefs.
Well, I had the Seattle game right until the end of the 3rd quarter. A score, a turnover and score and a punt leading to a score and the 18 - 18 ties turned rout. At least so far.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Earlier I said that if the Boys cannot put a lot of pressure on Jared Goff then the game will be a toss up. They were unable to pressure him and the Rams won by five.
The Boys lost because they were out-coached coming out of the half and were unable to move the ball their first three possessions of the second half. The Boys' defense was on the field practically the whole second half and wore down and were unable to stop the Rams' offense.
I continue to worry about the coaches as I did after the Denver game.
You had more faith in the Rams than I did. They're much better than I would have thought possible at this point. I'm not sure what to make of Dallas. The defense was horrible in Denver. The offense pulled an Atlanta in the second half of this game...:idunno: Hard to figure, though I think you make a good point next.
In fairness, the Boys D only gave up 3 more points in the second half than the first. The offense failed them. Well, failed more. Allowing that many points isn't the sign of a good defense. They're 25th in pts allowed at this point. 20th against the pass and middle of the road against the run. Offensively they're a middling team in terms of performance on average. The main thing they have going for them is room to improve and uneven play by most teams of late...Keep your eye on Philly.
What a world. The Rams have a good team.
Part of what I like about this year. Now we get to see if KC can remain the one consistent note early on. Should be interesting.
So, the KC game was the challenge I said it would be, but the Chiefs didn't disappoint and that takes me to a (about time) 12-4 record against the line for week 4. Huzzah!
Getting close to top 10 time...okay, a couple games early and outside of KC it's a mess.
Huzzah!Getting close to top 10 time...okay, a couple games early and outside of KC it's a mess.
They dominated Baltimore, at Baltimore.
What happened to your Cowboys? Your Boys are giving up a lot of points.....that's not good.
Still a really talented team. And everyone who isn't in a Chiefs uniform is stumbling a bit early.
'Keep thinking about the passer rating. ESPN's rating is a black box; only the folks at ESPN know what it means. I don't think we need to get rid of the passer rating. I just think we need another metric, that can also be compared with attempts, that measures accuracy more than the blunt way that it's measured in the passer rating.
For example, interceptions are actually double counted, a little bit, in the passer rating, which is good, because I think throwing picks is the sign of a poor performance by the passer. It's double counted because an interception goes down as an interception, plus an incompletion, so it dings both completion percentage and interceptions.
But what the passer rating needs, is something like baseball's balls-and-strikes. Baseball has an umpire devoted to judging the accuracy of each pitch, and the NFL doesn't have this. It is well within the NFL's ability to assign a booth ref to make this judgment on each pass attempt. Sometimes well thrown balls are tipped by receivers into the hands of a defender, and instead of the passer getting credit for throwing a good ball, he is double penalized with an incompletion, and an interception.
I would recommend that anything close, goes to the passer, so if the ball is thrown and it's judged that the receiver could catch that ball, then it's a "strike," and if the receiver could not catch the ball, then it's a "ball."
Balls-and-strikes aren't everything, and one of the issues we'd have to deal with is that sometimes, coverage is going to make the "strike zone" so small as to be nonexistent, and when the passer throws the ball away, it would be marked down as a "ball," but it was the right choice, so this hypothetical metric wouldn't be the be all end all of a passer's performance, and that's why I'm not suggesting to trash the current passer rating.
But in a game where the passer makes 40 attempts, that's 40 "strikes" or "balls." The measure would be "strikes" per attempt, to normalize it with the other metrics in the passer rating; completions per attempt, TDs per attempt, yards per attempt, and interceptions per attempt. It would provide that missing vector that I've been prattling on about, and would help to fill in some of the blanks that we currently have to live with, with just the passer rating.
Another problem with passer rating alone is that TDs might be overweighted in an offense with a strong running game that can pound home the score on the ground in the red zone, even if the passer got the offense into the red zone reliably. The passer is penalized for not converting enough TDs through the air, even though he may command a dominating offense that scores plenty.
There are plenty of times when the passer, in the red zone, on say first or second and goal, throws away the ball because the coverage is too thick in the end zone, or in the middle of the field on first or second down, to avoid a sack, and that's frequently the right football play, rather than risk a horrible drive-ending interception. The balls-and-strikes metric would still show a "ball" on such occasions, which again is why this metric couldn't be used to fairly judge the passer's performance all by itself, but would complement the passer rating, providing that "texture" I mentioned in an earlier post.
And what I'm ultimately driving at, is to somehow sort the passers who are truly exceptional from those who benefit from excellent receivers. Ten seasons ago, the NE Patriots were on the verge of completing the finest NFL season in history, only to lose to the Giants in the SB, and I think that a "balls-and-strikes" metric would vindicate Brady in that game, and show that what happened, was that his receivers collectively pooped their pants, and dropped "strikes" far more frequently than they did all throughout that season. The passer can only be reasonably expected to throw "strikes." It is not fair to penalize the passer if receivers drop "strikes;" it assigns a magical quality to the passer to require, in order for him to get a good rating, that receivers catch catchable balls.
Great receivers can sometimes drop "strikes," just as well as they can sometimes catch "balls." Outstanding catches made by receivers on poorly thrown balls should go to the receiver's credit, and not to the passer, which is what the passer rating all by its lonesome does, whenever the receiver makes a terrific catch, and this again assigns a magical quality to the passer, in the stats. The passer can have his rating, but the "balls-and-strikes" metric would shine more light on what actually occurred.
Another matter is when defenses break down (which this year's Pats D has been doing regularly), leaving receivers uncovered. In such cases, the "strike zone" becomes larger, since there's no nearby defender who could catch or disrupt the pass. When the receiver is well-covered, the "strike zone" is small, and when the passer can throw "strikes" when the "strike zone" is small, then they are better than those who can only throw "strikes" when it is large (like when the receiver is uncovered, or poorly covered).
All of these issues are mentioned by game commentators, but there's nothing in the statistics to show game-by-game, season-by-season performance by the passer, so we have to take it on faith that it all averages or washes out in the passer rating, but I think the evidence against the passer rating being a good estimate of passer performance is solid, and the NFL does need to address their metrics somehow, and I think that a new "balls-and-strikes" metric would go a long way to doing that.
Anyway, :idunno:.
For example, interceptions are actually double counted, a little bit, in the passer rating, which is good, because I think throwing picks is the sign of a poor performance by the passer. It's double counted because an interception goes down as an interception, plus an incompletion, so it dings both completion percentage and interceptions.
But what the passer rating needs, is something like baseball's balls-and-strikes. Baseball has an umpire devoted to judging the accuracy of each pitch, and the NFL doesn't have this. It is well within the NFL's ability to assign a booth ref to make this judgment on each pass attempt. Sometimes well thrown balls are tipped by receivers into the hands of a defender, and instead of the passer getting credit for throwing a good ball, he is double penalized with an incompletion, and an interception.
I would recommend that anything close, goes to the passer, so if the ball is thrown and it's judged that the receiver could catch that ball, then it's a "strike," and if the receiver could not catch the ball, then it's a "ball."
Balls-and-strikes aren't everything, and one of the issues we'd have to deal with is that sometimes, coverage is going to make the "strike zone" so small as to be nonexistent, and when the passer throws the ball away, it would be marked down as a "ball," but it was the right choice, so this hypothetical metric wouldn't be the be all end all of a passer's performance, and that's why I'm not suggesting to trash the current passer rating.
But in a game where the passer makes 40 attempts, that's 40 "strikes" or "balls." The measure would be "strikes" per attempt, to normalize it with the other metrics in the passer rating; completions per attempt, TDs per attempt, yards per attempt, and interceptions per attempt. It would provide that missing vector that I've been prattling on about, and would help to fill in some of the blanks that we currently have to live with, with just the passer rating.
Another problem with passer rating alone is that TDs might be overweighted in an offense with a strong running game that can pound home the score on the ground in the red zone, even if the passer got the offense into the red zone reliably. The passer is penalized for not converting enough TDs through the air, even though he may command a dominating offense that scores plenty.
There are plenty of times when the passer, in the red zone, on say first or second and goal, throws away the ball because the coverage is too thick in the end zone, or in the middle of the field on first or second down, to avoid a sack, and that's frequently the right football play, rather than risk a horrible drive-ending interception. The balls-and-strikes metric would still show a "ball" on such occasions, which again is why this metric couldn't be used to fairly judge the passer's performance all by itself, but would complement the passer rating, providing that "texture" I mentioned in an earlier post.
And what I'm ultimately driving at, is to somehow sort the passers who are truly exceptional from those who benefit from excellent receivers. Ten seasons ago, the NE Patriots were on the verge of completing the finest NFL season in history, only to lose to the Giants in the SB, and I think that a "balls-and-strikes" metric would vindicate Brady in that game, and show that what happened, was that his receivers collectively pooped their pants, and dropped "strikes" far more frequently than they did all throughout that season. The passer can only be reasonably expected to throw "strikes." It is not fair to penalize the passer if receivers drop "strikes;" it assigns a magical quality to the passer to require, in order for him to get a good rating, that receivers catch catchable balls.
Great receivers can sometimes drop "strikes," just as well as they can sometimes catch "balls." Outstanding catches made by receivers on poorly thrown balls should go to the receiver's credit, and not to the passer, which is what the passer rating all by its lonesome does, whenever the receiver makes a terrific catch, and this again assigns a magical quality to the passer, in the stats. The passer can have his rating, but the "balls-and-strikes" metric would shine more light on what actually occurred.
Another matter is when defenses break down (which this year's Pats D has been doing regularly), leaving receivers uncovered. In such cases, the "strike zone" becomes larger, since there's no nearby defender who could catch or disrupt the pass. When the receiver is well-covered, the "strike zone" is small, and when the passer can throw "strikes" when the "strike zone" is small, then they are better than those who can only throw "strikes" when it is large (like when the receiver is uncovered, or poorly covered).
All of these issues are mentioned by game commentators, but there's nothing in the statistics to show game-by-game, season-by-season performance by the passer, so we have to take it on faith that it all averages or washes out in the passer rating, but I think the evidence against the passer rating being a good estimate of passer performance is solid, and the NFL does need to address their metrics somehow, and I think that a new "balls-and-strikes" metric would go a long way to doing that.
Anyway, :idunno:.
A game tonight? :shocked:
Brady needs a statement road win and to do it by more than a fg. There's no real reason to believe Tampa won't keep this close, but I'm going to go with NE to settle the fanbase and their own nerves with a convincing win and cover. :shocked:
Gronk is out? Well then, no. :nono:
Brady needs a statement road win and to do it by more than a fg. There's no real reason to believe Tampa won't keep this close, but I'm going to go with NE to settle the fanbase and their own nerves with a convincing win and cover. :shocked:
Gronk is out? Well then, no. :nono:
Last edited:
On pre-game show they said Patriots went 11-0 without Gronk before
Sure. But there's winning and there's the spread. If Gronk is in they cover. Without him I wasn't confident they would. Half points can kill you. This one did.
They're lucky TB had a horrible kicking day, leaving 9 pts on the field, or it would have been worse. And that's before we get to how much pressure was being put on Tom.
And that starts my week off with a 1 - 0.
Tough games today...the opening Four to look forward to:
Car @ Det: another fg home fav. I like the way Carolina's offense looked last week, but their defense has been off for a couple and you can't have that against this Lions team...can't believe I said something ominous about a Detroit team. I'll take the Lions.
Bal @ Oak: Oak is a 3.5 fav. They need to get back on track and the Ravens have been reeling. Oakland.
Sea @ Rams: LA 2.5 fav. Two dark horse teams meet to decide if Seattle has really found its defensive stride/is the Rams offense a mirage. I'm taking the Rams. Better coached and balanced.
KC @ Hou: perfect KC is a scant 1.5 asn Watson has breathed life into the Texans faithful and fear into the rest of the league. Every Bama fan knows what Watson can do as a difference maker, but I think KC is the most polished and scary team in the league right now. I'll stay with them.
Car @ Det: another fg home fav. I like the way Carolina's offense looked last week, but their defense has been off for a couple and you can't have that against this Lions team...can't believe I said something ominous about a Detroit team. I'll take the Lions.
Bal @ Oak: Oak is a 3.5 fav. They need to get back on track and the Ravens have been reeling. Oakland.
Sea @ Rams: LA 2.5 fav. Two dark horse teams meet to decide if Seattle has really found its defensive stride/is the Rams offense a mirage. I'm taking the Rams. Better coached and balanced.
KC @ Hou: perfect KC is a scant 1.5 asn Watson has breathed life into the Texans faithful and fear into the rest of the league. Every Bama fan knows what Watson can do as a difference maker, but I think KC is the most polished and scary team in the league right now. I'll stay with them.
drbrumley
Well-known member
My rankings thru week 4.
1. Kansas City 4-0
2. Buffalo 3-1
3. LA Rams 3-1
4. Detroit 3-1
5. Washington 2-2
5. Pittsburgh 3-1
7. Seattle 2-2
8. Jacksonville 2-2
9. Cincinnati 1-3
10. Minnesota 2-2
11. Green Bay 3-1
12. NY Jets 2-2
13. New Orleans 2-2
14. Baltimore 2-2
15. New England 2-2
15. Houston 2-2
17. Denver 3-1
18. Atlanta 3-1
19. Arizona 2-2
20. Philadelphia 3-1
21. Dallas 2-2
22. Tampa Bay 2-1
23. NY Giants 0-4
24. Indianapolis 1-3
25. LA Chargers 0-4
26. Oakland 2=2
27. Carolina 3-1
28. Chicago 1-3
29. San Francisco 0-4
30. Tennessee 2-2
31. Miami 1-2
32. Cleveland 0-4
1. Kansas City 4-0
2. Buffalo 3-1
3. LA Rams 3-1
4. Detroit 3-1
5. Washington 2-2
5. Pittsburgh 3-1
7. Seattle 2-2
8. Jacksonville 2-2
9. Cincinnati 1-3
10. Minnesota 2-2
11. Green Bay 3-1
12. NY Jets 2-2
13. New Orleans 2-2
14. Baltimore 2-2
15. New England 2-2
15. Houston 2-2
17. Denver 3-1
18. Atlanta 3-1
19. Arizona 2-2
20. Philadelphia 3-1
21. Dallas 2-2
22. Tampa Bay 2-1
23. NY Giants 0-4
24. Indianapolis 1-3
25. LA Chargers 0-4
26. Oakland 2=2
27. Carolina 3-1
28. Chicago 1-3
29. San Francisco 0-4
30. Tennessee 2-2
31. Miami 1-2
32. Cleveland 0-4