Rams will hold number one pick if skins lose and texans win

[PHamm]

Whatever pick they receive, Bradford is done in St. Louis. It would be best if they parted ways.

lol you don't know jeff fisher, do you. he puts his personal preferences before whats best for the team.

 

[Trip]

no it doesnt, it doesnt take shyt into account.
cotdamn youre so stubborn- dvoa make no distinction between formations, reads or coverages. stop it.
is there a DVOA against man coverage from shotgun formation ?

Every QB in the league see's the same coverages at some point during the season. I'm sure the best overall QB's in DVOA currently play well against most coverages.You wont see that much of a deviation there.

so what ? Im pointing out real life plays that dont go in according to the little bullshyt formulas like qbr and dvoa. in this case, the coaches film tells you far more and gives a far more accurate representation than bullshyt ass dvoa
it doesnt matter what league average is, there is ZERO relevance of league average to this particular play. zeee-ro.

This all 22 is making people think they're smarter than they are. I'm not against film at all, I love watching it. DVOA isn't a bullshyt stat- it's actually quite simple and logical.

lol at this shyt. so if it results in a TD it cannot be anything but positive ? stupidest shyt I ever heard. Im guessing if you win the lottery with shytty odds, it still was a positive playe ?

Yes a touchdown is a positive play. Crappy throws into coverage generally end in a negative result for an offense. QB's who make bad throws occasionally get lucky. QB's who consistently make poor throws will have a lower DVOA.

for someone whos so obsessed with math formulas, you're absolutely clueless with logic and basic analysis

the nerve of you trying to say our passing offense is good in any sense, when I watch every snap of every game and watch every rewind of every fukking play...is hilarious.
you try to come with little formulas that dont reflect real life plays and try to tell me you know enough to tell me something about this offense is absolutely hilarious...when I know you aint watched a quarter of our games, let alone analyzed single play in all-22

Your passing offense isnt bad is what Im saying. For the opponents you've played- in a division that's difficult against the pass- it's actually been surprisingly good. How does DVOA not reflect real life? it takes into account the difficulty of the opponent...which is probably why you think your passing offense isnt as good as it actually is.

whats funny is that we still had alex as our qb, you wouldnt be saying shyt right now about our offense. or if we had kaep without his rocket arm. you would be in this very thread trying to say we wont win shyt.

seriously, I hope to god yall draft a qb with a rocket arm and dead brain, so you can fap so much your shyt will fall off and jets would still suck.

Your passing offense would be worse with Alex Smith. Your division is absurdly difficult against the pass...and I dont think even you'd argue Smith is the better passer of the two.

its so hilarious and so bad I cant even fathom this bullshyt. your ass finna sit on the couch look at DVOA which measures against league average (an average that means jacks shyt since a qb from afc west has not played defenses in nfc west, and vice versa) and doesnt take any specific formation, read, or coverage into account.

thats actually exactly what it does.[/quote]

 

[yseJ]

Again, you're trying to use anecdotal evidence to make macro level point. A throw into triple coverage is a low percentage throw. The throw Kaepernick made was not.

More often than not a throw into triple coverage will result in a negative play for the offense. What's so difficult to understand?

a throw into triple coverage that results in a touchdown on third and long is a positive play according to DVOA
because most throws on 3rd and long do not result in a touchdown

whats so difficult to understand ? the formula is extremely faulty, it takes nothing in consideration besides down and statistical performance of a team on that down in that territory in similar situation. it TELLS NOTHING OF COVERAGE, READS OR SCHEMES.
NOTHING

what youre saying is coaches should look at dvoa instead of a film
the film might show a wide open guy in the middle of the field who was missed, but dvoa will say based on situation (2nd down and 5) it was better than average to dump it for 3 yards, hence positive seriously are you fukking retarded?
whats funny if we had a noodle arm qb, you would be in here making the same exact claim

like Ive said, I have film to backup my claims, you have a shytty formula


lol at anecdotal evidence. I have analyzed every single snap of 49ers game, you want me to put up single one on here ? fukk you and your dvoa breh, you aint gonna sit here and tell someone who analyzes film for fun that our pass offense is very good. fukk outta here

 

[Trip]

every team and every QB see the same coverages at some point during the season.

Coaches/teams look at everything.

 

[Trip]

a throw into triple coverage that results in a touchdown on third and long is a positive play according to DVOA
because most throws on 3rd and long do not result in a touchdown

I'd like to hear how the result of this play being anything other than positive.

 

[yseJ]

Every QB in the league see's the same coverages at some point during the season. I'm sure the best overall QB's in DVOA currently play well against most coverages.You wont see that much of a deviation there.

stop with the bullshyt. coverage+formation means a shytton
you finna say that a 3rd and 5 with 0 WR, 2TE set in man is the same as 3rd and 5 with 3 WR set in zone ? yet DVOA makes ZERO distinction of it. ZEEE-RO

This all 22 is making people think they're smarter than they are. I'm not against film at all, I love watching it. DVOA isn't a bullshyt stat- it's actually quite simple and logical.

garbage, if I see one thing on film and dvoa tells me the opposite thing, its not good. simple as that.

Yes a touchdown is a positive play. Crappy throws into coverage generally end in a negative result for an offense. QB's who make bad throws occasionally get lucky. QB's who consistently make poor throws will have a lower DVOA.

but dvoa doesnt make a distinction into what coverage you threw the ball, in fact it doesnt make any distinction of where the defenders are. its just a compilation of stats in similar situation if it does, Ill stand corrected.

Your passing offense isnt bad is what Im saying. For the opponents you've played- in a division that's difficult against the pass- it's actually been surprisingly good. How does DVOA not reflect real life? it takes into account the difficulty of the opponent...which is probably why you think your passing offense isnt as good as it actually is.

we scored 3 points on the colts with atrocious passing offense, then we couldnt get a TD against panthers at home. now panthers D is good, but not scoring a TD was really shytty

Your passing offense would be worse with Alex Smith. Your division is absurdly difficult against the pass...and I dont think even you'd argue Smith is the better passer of the two.

I wont argue it because my point doesnt hinge on who the qb is or how strong of an arm he has. yours does. its surprising you dont defend geno because he has a strong arm. you still think stafford is awesome tho so

 

[yseJ]

I'd like to hear how the result of this play being anything other than positive.

a throw into triple coverage results in a touchdown- positive result for team
negative grade for the qb who idiotically decided to chuck it deep. seriously do I have to spell it out ?

not seeing open TD, waiting till the play breaks down and then extending the play just to get a TD that was easy in first place= neutral grade for qb at best.

pff is the closest to real rating Id assign watching film, but its not perfect either. there kaep is very much in bottom half, but kinda climbing out since crabs is back. far better representation of the passing game than dvoa bullshyt

 

[Trip]

You are making things up. I never once said Stafford was awesome.

If you can point out a quarterback that excels against a certain coverage and struggles against another I'd like to see it. Over the course of an NFL season- each offense is seeing the same coverages, the same down and distances etc. There's no reason to chart stats against a certain coverage because that wouldnt tell you anything- the sample would be way too small.

Unless you think every team plays the Niners offense the same way?

 

[Trip]

a throw into triple coverage results in a touchdown- positive result for team
negative grade for the qb who idiotically decided to chuck it deep. seriously do I have to spell it out ?

not seeing open TD, waiting till the play breaks down and then extending the play just to get a TD that was easy in first place= neutral grade for qb at best.

pff is the closest to real rating Id assign watching film, but its not perfect either. there kaep is very much in bottom half, but kinda climbing out since crabs is back. far better representation of the passing game than dvoa bullshyt

Actually chucking it deep on a third and long generally isnt a negative play. The chances of it being a positve play are slim to begin with- by throwing it deep you're giving yourself a shot to extend a drive with a catch or PI.The worst possible outcome would be an interception- but an interception in that situation isnt weighted as negatively as one in the redzone on an early down. The interception there is often as good as a punt as well.

 

[yseJ]

You are making things up. I never once said Stafford was awesome.

If you can point out a quarterback that excels against a certain coverage and struggles against another I'd like to see it. Over the course of an NFL season- each offense is seeing the same coverages, the same down and distances etc. There's no reason to chart stats against a certain down and distance because they wouldnt tell you anything- the sample would be way too small.

Unless you think every team plays the Niners offense the same way?

what are you even talking about ?
seriously, how dense are you ?

dvoa is a compilation of stats.
seems like you yourself dont understand what it does

lets say you have 6 instances of 3rd and 5 on opponents 25 yard line
2 of them are run plays
1 one of hem is a run play from the i and one of them is a run from 3WR set

already you have TWO vastly different situations here that are being treated as SAME for both of them

the rest of 3 isntances are passes.
one instance is a pass to TE off playaction from 0WR2TE jumbo package against base
one instance is a pass from 3WR bunch formation against nickel man
one is a high low play against zone, which only works against zone

all of these are so different, lumping them into one thing like dvoa does makes ZERO sense.

you saying all qbs see all possible coverages is retarded in itself, as watching all-22 you can see when coverage affects the play being called, and counter it perfectly. tell me, how many possible coverages does a qb see over a game ?

oh and stafford ?

If you think Stafford stinks youre retarded

 

[yseJ]

Actually chucking it deep on a third and long generally isnt a negative play. The chances of it being a positve play are slim to begin with- by throwing it deep you're giving yourself a shot to extend a drive with a catch or PI.The worst possible outcome would be an interception- but an interception in that situation isnt weighted as negatively as one in the redzone on an early down. The interception there is often as good as a punt as well.

it depends on a situation, maybe I didnt think the example through- lets say there was an open man right on the marker. still, you cannot judge a decision/read by the outcome, its stupid.

because I didnt go to work today and decided to smoke weed on a park bench and stumbled upon 200k in a briefcase, doesnt make my decision not to go to work any more smart.

 

[MikelArteta]

watch rams ake blake bortles .

all the rams need is a big wr like a mike evans, and a te like jace amaro or eric ebron

 

[PTBG]

Kyle Shanahan knew what he was doing throwing that ATL game, he knows he is bouncing to STL in the offseason.

 

[Trip]

lets say you have 6 instances of 3rd and 5 on opponents 25 yard line
2 of them are run plays
1 one of hem is a run play from the i and one of them is a run from 3WR set

already you have TWO vastly different situations here that are being treated as SAME for both of them

the rest of 3 isntances are passes.
one instance is a pass to TE off playaction from 0WR2TE jumbo package against base
one instance is a pass from 3WR bunch formation against nickel man
one is a high low play against zone, which only works against zone

all of these are so different, lumping them into one thing like dvoa does makes ZERO sense.

How does it not make sense? it's an aggregate stat- over the course of the season these situations you just mentioned occur. Of course they're all different, that's the point of the stat. The best players(higher DVOA's) more often than not succeed in all of those situations/formations listed.

you saying all qbs see all possible coverages is retarded in itself, as watching all-22 you can see when coverage affects the play being called, and counter it perfectly. tell me, how many possible coverages does a qb see over a game ?

QB's dont see a variety of coverages/pressures throughout the season? Really? I'm not referring to an individual game.

oh and stafford ?

What about him? He doesnt stink. I never said he was awesome.

 

[Trip]

thought this was fairly interesting:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2011/formation-analysis-number-wrs-part-i

Just as it’s generally true that passing is more efficient than running, it also seems to be generally true that using pass-oriented formations (i.e., three or more wide receivers) is more efficient than using run-oriented formations (i.e., two wide receivers or fewer). In 2010, offensive plays run out of three-receiver sets were the most successful (13.4% DVOA), followed by plays with four or more wide receivers (9.4%), two wide receivers (7.2%), and finally one or fewer wide receivers (-1.0%). Although the top two formations were flip-flopped, the general trend was the same in 2009.

Because two- and three-receiver formations are so prevalent, team-specific DVOAs on these types of plays are closely related to overall offense DVOA. Therefore, most of the statistical intrigue is in plays where the offense lines up in a formation that either screams run (i.e., one or fewer wide receivers) or screams pass (i.e., four or five wide receivers).

On plays last season using four or more wide receivers, leaguewide offensive efficiency decreased by eight percentage points from 2009 despite essentially no change in the frequency with which teams employed this formation. Almost all of the decline can be blamed on the Chargers, Vikings, Giants, and Cardinals. For instance, Minnesota’s DVOA in four-or-five-receiver sets fell 142.5% in 2010 even though they used the formation just as much last season as they did in 2009. The same can be said for the other three teams, all of whom seemed to have coaches trying to fit square pegs into round holes after personnel moves, injuries, or (tentative) retirements.