THE
ARCHIVES (2010-Part 3)
|
NFC & AFC Championship Game
Thoughts
The Packers and Steelers victories in the NFC & AFC Championship Games,
respectively, were triumphs of defensive play design. The offenses combined to
score 31 points (Green Bay and Chicago offenses: 14 points apiece; Pittsburgh
and New York offenses: 17 points apiece.) However, in both games, a defensive
touchdown that resulted from a purposeful defensive design provided the score
that ultimately proved to be the margin of victory.
In the NFC title, Green Bay QB Aaron Rogers started hot and led the better
designed Packers to a 14-0 lead over Chicago. But, for some mysterious reason,
Green Bay had trouble finishing the Bears. After Brian Urlacher intercepted
Rogers and third-string QB Caleb Hainie led Chicago to a touchdown, Green Bay
held a tenuous 14-7 lead in the forth quarter when Hainie got the ball back. At
that point, defensive coordinator Dom Capers went to a classic zone blitz
design and fooled Hainie, who threw the ball right to massive nose tackle B.J.
Raji who strolled into the end zone for what proved to be the winning points in
the 21-14 win.
Similarly, in the AFC title, Pittsburgh started hot as RB Rashard Mendenhall
gashed the New York defense and the Steelers jumped to a 17-0 lead. With a
little over a minute to play in the first half, defensive coordinator Dick
LeBeau went to a designed fire zone blitz and cornerback Ike Taylor jarred the
ball free from Jets QB Mark Sanchez. Nickle-back William Gay scooped up the
loose ball and weaved his way to the touchdown that provided the difference in
a 24-19 victory.
Raji's and Gay's touchdowns were the ultimate in validation of the contrarian
thinking of LeBeau and Capers, who pioneered zone blitz designs while on the
same defensive staff in Pittsburgh. From the stylistic perspective, these
touchdowns were perfectly backward: The designs transformed a pass rusher into
a cover-man in Chicago and transformed a cover-man into a pass rusher in
Pittsburgh. Neither LeBeau nor Capers has ever let arbitary labels or
traditional job description get in the way of productive defense.
Moreover, as QC often points out, turnovers such as interceptions and fumbles
are random, but a defensive play designer can design pressure such as Capers
and LeBeau designed for Hainie and Sanchez. When such pressure creates a
turnover, the result is the same as when an offensive designer, such as Bill
Walsh, creates a systematic design edge for the offense: Increasing
returns.
Increasing returns result from turnovers because turnovers are indivisible
events. A team can rush for half a yard, but a team cannot receive half a
turnover. Long ago, Nobel Prize winning economist Kenneth Arrow found that such
indivisible goods produced increasing returns because a person in possession of
such a good does not have to increase his or her costs for his or her return on
the possession of the good to increase. In football, a team that scores on a
turnover does not have to increase its costs (use more downs) to obtain
increased points because the scoring team, here Green Bay and Pittsburgh, does
not need any of its own downs to score.
Unlike an offensive touchdown, a defensive touchdown is costless. In the 2010
championship games, the cost of yielding a costless touchdown was a trip to
Super Bowl 45.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Is the zone blitz the most important innovation in NFL history? (Use Twitter or
the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach.
Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
NFC & AFC Championship Previews
NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
The conventional wisdom is that both championship games should be close. Green
Bay and Chicago split a pair of games during the regular season and New York
edged Pittsburgh when the Jets kept the Steelers out of the end zone on the
last play of the game. But QC would not be surprised if one, or even both,
turned into blowouts. It's just a guess, but during the regular season Green
Bay and Pittsburgh were significantly better designed than Chicago and New
York, respectively. QC also is guessing the Bears and Jets might be due for
some bad luck.
Chicago (+3.5) vs. Green Bay
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Chicago 9th; Green Bay 2nd
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Chicago 10th; Green Bay 2nd
TURNOVER MARGIN: Chicago T11th (+4); Green Bay 4th (+10)
In the teams' earlier meeting at Soldier Field, the Bears won the turnover
battle and got a punt return for a touchdown from Devin Hester. The Packers
also repeatedly shot themselves in the foot with a team-record 18 penalties.
With Brian Urlacher patrolling the middle of the field, the Bears defense
presents a tremendous challenge to Green Bay QB Aaron Rogers. But things seem
to be going the Packers' way now. Rogers is tremendously hot and normally
trustworthy opponents are blowing themselves up lately with special teams
gaffes (Eagles) and turnovers (Falcons). On the other side of the ball, Chicago
QB Jay Cutler has played brilliantly for most of the second half of the season.
He will have to do it again if the Bears are to reach the Super Bowl and he may
do so. But Mike Martz attacks are boom or bust outfits. It just seems Chicago
might be due for a bust. If it happens, Cutler could get frustrated and start
throwing the ball to Green Bay's defensive backs, particularly Tramon Williams.
It's a hunch, but QC is guessing something close to this is what you will see
in the rubber game and the better designed Packers will advance with a
convincing win.
QC's Guess: Green Bay Packers
AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
Pittsburgh (-3.5) vs. New York Jets
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Pittsburgh 3rd; NY Jets 14th
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Pittsburgh 3rd; NY Jets 14th
TURNOVER MARGIN: Pittsburgh 2nd (+17); NY Jets T5th (+9)
It may not be obvious on the surface, but New York has been quite lucky the
past 2 weeks. In the wild-card round, the Colts were much better designed than
the Jets and won the turnover battle, but New York prevailed on the last play
of the game when iffy kicker Nick Folk delivered. Against New England, New York
played almost perfectly while the normally flawless Patriots suffered killer
special teams breakdowns. In the first meeting, the Steelers Ben Roethlisberger
moved the ball on the Jets, but the below average Pittsburgh line could not
protect their quarterback. The Jets also got an opening kickoff return for a
touchdown from Brad Smith and a late safety from Jason Taylor. QC does not
expect the Steelers to let those latter things happen a second time. If
Pittsburgh plays turnover-free football as it did in the first meeting and
protects Roethlisberger a little better (quite a challenge against Shawn Ellis
and the Jets pass rush), the much better designed Steelers should prevail by at
least 4 points. If Pittsburgh defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau cooks up some
new defenses that cause New York QB Mark Sanchez half as much trouble as they
caused Baltimore QB Joe Flacco and Sanchez contributes a couple of
interceptions to Pittsburgh's cause, that margin could increase to 14 points or
more.
QC's Guess: Pittsburgh Steelers
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Will the Packers blowout the Bears? (Use Twitter or the headset to send
TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know
if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divisional Round Thoughts
It turns out, New England was not a great team afterall. With a +28 turnover
differential and a boaload of positive special teams plays coming into the
playoffs, QC suspected that perhaps the Patriots had not so much built their
14-2 record as allowed their opponents to build it for them. The question was:
How good are the Patriots when they are not being subsidized with turnovers?
The answer in their 28-21 loss to the Jets was not very good. The score was
closer than the game actually was. Ironically, special teams miscues
contributed largely to New England's loss. Late in the second quarter, personal
protecter Patrick Chung called for a fake punt and was stopped short of the
first down marker. QB Mark Sanchez made the Patriots pay when he hit Braylon
Edwards with a touchdown pass. Then, after New England cut the deficit to 21-14
in the fourth quarter, Antonio Cromartie returned an on-side kick to the
Patriots 20-yard line to set up Shonn Greene's clinching TD. Without their
usual turnover and special teams subsidies, Sanchez (8.96 QCYPA; 3 TD passes)
exposed the New England secondary as pretenders and Rex Ryan sent Bill
Belichick packing in the cold New England night.
**********
Pittsburgh's Dick LeBeau is to Baltimore's Joe Flacco as Belichick once was to
Indianapolis' Peyton Manning: The coach who has his number. There was a time
when you could count on Belichick to completely frustrate Manning in the
playoffs. But Manning learned and QC believes that Belichick probably now
spends more time worrying about Manning than vice-versa. Flacco would love to
get to that place. He clearly was not there in Baltimore's 31-24 loss to the
Steelers. In a game in which at times it appeared that the teams were competing
to see who was fielding the most atrocius offensive line in football,
Pittsburgh miscues staked the Ravens to a 21-7 halftime lead. But Flacco could
not generate a lick of offense (3.367 QCYPA) and committed 2 second half
turnovers (fumble & interception) as Pittsburgh roared from behind to win.
Flacco looked completely befuddled. If Flacco is going to take the next step to
the elite level, he is going to have to solve LeBeau's defensive riddles.
**********
So, how do you think Chicago likes offensive coordinator Mike Martz now? Lest
you forget,
about a year ago it seemed the Bears wanted to hire anyone but
Martz as OC. But after pining for Jeremy Bates and interviewing Rob
Chudzinski, Ken Zampese and Kevin Rogers, Lovie Smith brought in Martz to work
with Jay Cutler. As
the usually wrong and frequently idiotic ProFootball Talk put
it, "The coach that no one wanted finally has gotten the job
that no one wanted." The tandem had a few rough spots during the regular
season, but torched Seattle in a never-in-doubt 35-24 win over the Seahawks.
Executing Martz's offensive designs to perfection, Cutler was infinitely
productive (9.69 QCYPA), threw 2 TD passes, and did not commit a turnover. And
he did it without any help from Seattle who did not commit a turnover. Can't
play much better than that. Can't coach much better than that either.
**********
It is extremely painful to watch a magician exposed. All year the magical 13-3
Falcons used slight-of-hand to mask their design deficiencies. Atlanta played
mistake free and opportunistic beta football that avoided turnovers and
efficiently cashed in opponents' turnovers. In a 48-21 loss to Green Bay, the
magic blew up in their face. But not right away. Greg Jennings' fumble set up a
Michael Turner TD and Eric Weems returned a kickoff for a score to give the
Falcons an early 14-7 lead. However, after the irrepressible Aaron Rogers
rallied the Packers to take a 21-14 lead, Atlanta QB Matt Ryan frantically
tried to keep pace and threw a killer interception on the last play of the
first half that Green Bay's Tramon Williams returned for a back-breaking
touchdown. After Rogers ran for another score on the first series of the second
half, the game essentially was over. The Packers finished with infinite
productivity. The Falcons finished with -3 turnovers. The problem with magic is
that, when it doesn't work, sometimes it is the magician that goes up in puff
of smoke.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Was New England a great team in 2010? (Use Twitter or the headset to send
TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know
if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divisional Round Playoff Preview
NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
Atlanta (-2.5) vs. Green Bay
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Atlanta 17th; Green Bay 2nd
PLAYER PRODUCITIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Atlanta 17th; Green Bay 2nd
TURNOVER MARGIN: Atlanta 2nd (+14); Green Bay 4th (+10)
Statistically, the Packers clearly look like the better team. But that was the
case in the regular season when the Falcons prevailed, 20-17. The game was a
microcosm of both teams' seasons. Atlanta played mistake free football and
cashed in on every opportunity. The Packers lost a touchdown when QB Aaron
Rogers fumbled at the 1-yard line and committed a critical penalty that set up
the Falcons game winning field goal in the closing seconds. To win, Atlanta
will have to be perfect again and hope Green Bay makes some mistakes. It
certainly could happen again. But QC does not think it will.
QC's Guess: Green Bay Packers
Chicago (-10) vs. Seattle
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Chicago 9th; Seattle 29th
PLAYER PRODUCITIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Chicago 10th; Seattle 26th
TURNOVER MARGIN: Chicago T11th (+4); Seattle T27th (-9)
On paper, this looks like a blowout. But it looked the same way when Seattle
came to Chicago during the regular season and the Seahawks left with a 23-20
victory in which they did not commit a turnover and weathered a Devin Hester
punt return for a touchdown. Seattle is still alive in the playoffs because
they have controlled their turnovers the last 2 weeks in home wins over St.
Louis and New Orleans. Further, the Bears are likely to have trouble (again)
with Seattle's pass rush. Unless the Seahawks commit multiple turnoves (a
distinct possibility), this game should be close no matter what Chicago QB Jay
Cutler does. But it will probably take multiple Cutler interceptions for
Seattle to actually win. If QB Matt Hasselbeck and his teammates turn the ball
over and Cutler does not, Chicago will roll. But QC does not expect that to
happen.
QC's Guess: Chicago Bears win; Seattle Seahawks
cover
AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
Pittsburgh (-3) vs. Baltimore
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Pittsburgh 3rd; Baltimore 6th
PLAYER PRODUCITIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Pittsburgh 3rd; Baltimore 6th
TURNOVER MARGIN: Pittsburgh 2nd (+17); Baltimore 9th (+7)
Simply, there is no difference between these teams. Over the course of the
entire season, their statistics are virtually the same. In head-to-head
competition, they have committed the same number of turnovers and each team won
a game by 3 points. However, in both meetings, Ravens QB Joe Flacco was solid
while Pittsburgh's QBs (Ben Roethlisberger missed the first meeting due to
suspension) struggled in the passing game. If not for a tremendous Troy
Polamalu sack, Baltimore probably would have swept the Steelers and this game
would be in Baltimore. Neither team will be able to run so the game probably
will be decided by the QBs. Roethlisberger's recent record against the Ravens
is spotless, but QC thinks it's Flacco's turn.
QC's Guess: Baltimore Ravens
New England (-8.5) vs. New York Jets
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: New England 4th; NY Jets 14th
PLAYER PRODUCITIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: New England 3rd; NY Jets 14th
TURNOVER MARGIN: New England 1st (+28); NY Jets T5th (+9)
When one team has beaten the other 45-3, as the Patriots beat the Jets in their
last meeting, you have to look hard and use your imagination to see a way that
the rematch will go the other way. You might think this looks a bit like New
York's meeting with San Diego last year. In that game, the Chargers flew into
the meeting on an 11-game winning streak and the choice of many as the team
likely to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. The Jets used a smash-mouth
running game and received 2 turnovers and 3 missed field goals from San Diego
to prevail, 17-14. It will take something similar for New York to do it again.
New England is much better designed than the Jets and nobody ever in history
has committed fewer turnovers than the Patriots did in their last 8 games. Bill
Belichick's teams also rarely suffer a breakdown in the kicking game. Can Rex
Ryan catch lightning in a bottle in the divisional round for a second year in a
row? Well, anything is possible. But QC thinks it is more likely that Tom Brady
and the Patriots succeed where the Bolts failed last year.
QC's Guess: New England Patriots
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Will Green Bay and Chicago meet in the NFC Championship? (Use Twitter or the
headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach.
Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wild-Card Round Thoughts
Too often, the media and fans only look the result of a game. Too bad. One can
learn a lot about not only football, but people if one just looks a little
deeper. Take Indianapolis' 17-16 loss to New York. On the surface, the loss
appears to be just another painful playoff defeat for Peyton Manning, whose
career playoff record fell to 9-10 when Jets kicker Nick Folk split the
uprights on the last play of the game. But Manning was flawless in defeat. He
continuously called running plays when New York filled the field with defensive
backs. He did not commit a turnover. He let the game to come to him. For a
player like Manning, this was not an easy act of self-control. Rather, it was a
triumph over himself. When the Colts were 6-6 and Manning was throwing 4
interceptions per game, QC wrote that Manning had to adapt. He had to embrace
beta football, run the ball even when the run was not working, and avoid
turnovers at all cost. Manning did it. That he came up a little short against
New York did not in any way diminish his achievment of self-actualization.
Indeed, QC believes that Manning's performance against the Jets was one of the
finest of his career. Perhaps that also is the reason his face looked like it
was one of his most painful defeats.
**********
What can you say about Kansas City's 30-7 loss to Baltimore? Back to the
drawing board. The Chiefs got into the playoffs by avoiding turnovers. But
against the Ravens, Kansas City generously gave the ball away 5 times. Kansas
City's generosity turned what would have been a close game into a blowout as
Baltimore coach John Harbaugh contently took field goals until the Chiefs
defense collapsed under the avalanche of turnovers. In particular, QB Matt
Cassell will have a lot to think about over the off-season. Cassell played
well, sometimes spectacularly well, during most of the second half of the
season. But against Baltimore, he looked like an over-matched back-up QB again.
Who is the real Matt Cassell? QC is not sure anyone really knows.
**********
If Green Bay continues to get the same lucky breaks it got in its 21-16 win
over Philadelphia, QC expects the Packers to win the Super Bowl and claim the
Lombardi Trophy. While Green Bay was the second best designed team and third
most productive team in the NFL during the regular season (No. 1 in both
categories in the NFC), the Packers were unlucky, going 1-4 in "black swan
games" in which the better designed team lost. Againt the Eagles, QB Aaron
Rogers played well, but Philadelphia was better and Mike Vick led a late rally
that seemed destined to eliminate the Pack until Tramon Williams saved the day
with a late interception. More importantly, Eagles' kicker David Akers missed a
pair of field goals, opportunities Philadelphia could not afford to waste.
**********
The most stunning aspect of Seattle's 41-36 upset of New Orleans was that it
was not built upon Saints' turnovers. New Orleans had problems with giveaways
all year, but only committed 1 turnover against the Seahawks. On offense,
Seattle QB Matt Hasselbeck played well, but only a little better than he did in
a regular season loss to the Saints. On the other hand, the Seahawks defense
played much better than in the first meeting when QB Drew Brees and his
teammates were infinitely productive. Brees and the New Orleans put up a ton of
yards, but they were much less efficient as it took 60 pass attempts to
generate all those yards.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Did Peyton Manning play well in the Colts' loss to the NY Jets? (Use Twitter or
the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach.
Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Season Week 17 Thoughts
Before the season started, QC
made 3 guaranteed predictions. First, QC predicted that better
designed teams would have more productive players in more than 95% of all
games. In 256 games, the team with the better design had more productive
players 255 times (99.6%). Check. Second, QC predicted that better designed NFL
team would win 75-80% of all games. After better designed teams went 14-2 in
Week 17, such teams finished the year winning just over 76% of all games
(196-60). Check. Third, QC predicted that better designed teams that lose would
either lose the turnover battle or suffer a fatal special teams breakdown in
more than 75% of those losses. In 60 losses, the better designed teams gave
away more turnovers or broke down in the kicking game 43 times (71.7%).
*********
San Diego (9-7) missed the playoffs despite the best play design in the NFL and
by far the best player productivity. Likewise, the New York Giants (10-6)
missed the playoffs despite being in the top 5 in the NFL in both play design
and player productivity. In their losses, the Chargers and the Giants were -28
in turnovers and suffered some of the most stunning special teams breakdowns
witnessed in recent years (San Diego vs. Seattle & Oakland; New York vs.
Philadelphia). In contrast, the Patriots (13-3) were +28 in turnovers for the
year. However, Chargers and Giants fans should be optimistic for 2011. In the
prior 2 years, 5 teams finished in the top 10 in the NFL and did not make the
playoffs. The following year, 4 of those teams made the playoffs and 1 (the
2009 Saints) won the Super Bowl.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
2010Archives3;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Will San Diego and the New York Giants make the playoffs in 2011? (Use Twitter
or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to
QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The
Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Season Week 16 Thoughts
In crushing Buffalo, 34-4, New England (13-2) extended its NFL record of
consecutive games without a turnover to 7. Further, the Bills generously
subsidized the Patriots with 7 turnovers. Going almost half a season without a
single lost fumble or interception is an amazing player achievement. The
Patriots not only have committed the fewest turnovers in the NFL (9), but they
have received more turnovers than any other team (36). The Giants (9-6) have
received almost as many turnovers as New England and are better designed on
both offense and defense, but New York also leads the NFL in giveaways (41)
and, after dispensing 6 turnovers in a 45-17 loss to Green Bay, is likely to
miss the playoffs. Coaches like Bill Belichick love teams that do not turn the
ball over because such players make the coach's job much easier.
*********
The Giants are not the only well-designe team that may miss the playoffs. San
Diego (8-7) has led the NFL in play design by a wide margin almost all year.
But after losing to lowly Cincinnati, 34-20, the Chargers will not make the
tournament. Through 16 weeks, the Chargers and Giants have a combined record of
17-13 (.567 winning percentage) and a combined turnover ratio of -13. The
Patriots and Falcons, who are not nearly as well-designed, have a combined 25-5
record (.833 winning percentage) and a combined turnover ratio of +40.
**********
In Cincinnati's rout of San Diego, struggling Bengals QB Carson Palmer enjoyed
the second most efficient passing day (14.714 QCYPA) of any NFL signal-caller
this year despite the fact his starting wide receivers, Chad Ochocinco and
Terrell Owens, missed the game with injuries. Only Dallas back-up QB Jon Kitna
(16.091 QCYPA in Week 10 vs. NY Giants) has enjoyed a more effient day than
Palmer. The fact that second-team players played key roles in the two most
efficient offensive days of the season is further evidence that play design
(and following play design) is more important to success in the NFL than
stand-alone phyiscal talent.
**********
A few weeks ago, Peyton Manning was an interception machine and Indianapolis
was 6-6 and looked like it might not make the playoffs. But the Colts have
turned things around and won their last 3 games. The reason for Indy's
turnaround is that Manning adapted to a beta-football style. Against his
nature, Manning began calling a lot more running plays for Donald Brown and
recently signed Dominic Rhoads. If Manning can stick to the turnover-fre beta
style, the Colts will have a chance to make some noise in the tournament.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Was Bengals' QB Carson Palmer's performance against San Diego the best passing
performance of 2010? (Use Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or
FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post
your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Season Week 15 Thoughts
As QC's 8th
Commandmentstates, there is virtually no play design in special
teams. This is particularly true with respect to punting. When a team possesses
a down, its purpose is to use that down to make a first down. The purpose of
its counter-party, the defense, is to take those downs. Thus, a coach's
decision to punt is counterintuitive and after a coach decides to punt
he usually becomes a spectator as all teams cover punts pursuant to nearly
identical designs.
There is a narrow exception to these general assumptions: The coach of a
punting team can instruct his punter to kick the ball out of bounds in order to
prevent a dangerous return man from having an opportunity.
With the game between the New York Giants and Philadelphia Eagles tied at
31-31, New York coach Tom Coughlin specifically instructed punter Matt Dodge to
do just that to keep the ball away from Philadelphia's electric return-man,
DeSean Jackson. But Dodge did not follow the instructions. Rather, after
receiving a slightly high snap, Dodge punted the ball down the center of the
field, Jackson fumbled the ball around a bit, the Giants coverage team parted
like the Red Sea, and Jackson picked up the ball and returned it for a game
winning TD.
Immediately, after the score, Coughlin loudly reminded Dodge what his
instruction had been. In the days that followed, some members of the media
(Gregg Easterbrook) criticized Coughlin for publicly yelling at Dodge while
others (Peter King) steadfastly defended Coughlin. Minnesota Vikings punter
Chris Kluwe even took on King in a spirited Twitter exchange in which Kluwe
questioned King's knowledge of the art of directional punting.
QC does not see any possible basis for criticizing Coughlin. Indeed, in the
moment, Coughlin demonstrated that he is an exemplary coach because he never
became a spectator; he never merely watched the events unfold. Coughlin gave
Dodge clear instructions at the time Dodge could make use of them. Coughlin's
instructions put Dodge in the best position possible to be successful. Dodge
simply failed to follow the instructions.
What some forget is that one of football's basic characteristics is urgency.
Unlike baseball, there are no "walks" in football. Players are taught
to run everywhere on the field. This was a situation where coaching was urgent;
if Coughlin had allowed time to pass, the impact of the coaching would have
been diminished. Because the instructions were so simple, Coughlin could not
further amplify the nuances of his design after Jackson scored. All Coughlin
could do was amplify the original instruction, i.e., turn up the volume.
Granted, this is may not be the most effective approach to coaching in most
other contexts, but in the context Coughlin found himself--almost powerless but
not quite--it was the best choice.
In questioning King's knowledge of directional punting, the Vikings' Kluwe (who
watched Chicago's Devin Hester return one of his punts for an NFL record 14th
return TD the night after Jackson torched Dodge), implied that Dodge's mistake
was a physical mistake, which traditionally is exempt from a coach's criticism,
as opposed to a mental mistake, which traditionally is not exempt from
amplified instruction. King responded that directional punting "is not
rocket science."
It is an interesting question: Because there is so little play design in
kicking and punting, can a kicker who misses a field goal or a punter who fails
to directionally punt ever be said to have made a "mental" mistake?
It seems to QC that only under the rarest of circumstances could such a
suggestion be made.
The Jackson punt return was one of those occasions. Tom Coughlin stayed in the
moment, never abandoned his obligation to his player to instruct, did not
overreact by cutting Dodge, and never became a spectator. For those reasons, it
was one of Coughlin's finest hours as a coach.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
In punting to DeSean Jackson, did the New York Giants Matt Dodge make a mental
mistake? (Use Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and
your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your
tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Season Week 14 Thoughts
Bill Belichick is one pleasant chef these days. He has found a caché of
inexpensive ingredients for Tom Brady to mix: Woodhead, Branch, Gronkowski,
Hernandez, Green-Ellis. Brady has done so flawlessly, as evidence by the fact
that in their 36-7 win over Chicago, the Patriots set an NFL record with their
5th consecutive game without a turnover. Quite simply, if New England continues
to maintain infinite productivity AND commit NO turnovers, the Patriots cannot
lose. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will happen. Statistically
speaking, it is likely that New England will fumble the ball again or throw
another interception. But nothing pleases a coach more than when his players
keep such imperfections out of the soup. What is New England doing better than
any other team in the NFL right now: Listening to its coach and following his
designs and directions on the field.
**********
Sometimes, a team loses because of one play. On Sunday, two teams fighting for
the playoffs felt this type of stinging defeat. In Green Bay's surprising 7-3
loss to Detroit, QB Aaron Rogers put a first quarter pass right on the hands of
WR Greg Jennings for what would have been a sure TD. Jennings not only bobbled
the ball, but did so in such a way that he handed it to the badly beaten
trailing DB. After Rogers left the game with a concussion, the slightly more
productive Packers could not overcome the error in a hard-fought defensive
game. Similarly, in another defensive battle, the slightly more productive Jets
fell to the Dolphins, 10-6. New York nearly had a TD when QB Mark Sanchez put
the ball right on WR Santonio Holmes hands in the end zone, just as he did to
beat Houston a few weeks ago. But Holmes' dropped the ball and New York could
not overcome it.
*********
The Rams 31-13 loss in the Super Dome to the Saints actually was much closer
than the score indicates. In terms of player productivity (ðHY),
New Orleans was only .04 better than St. Louis. The 18 point differential
resulted from 1 play: Malcolm Jenkins 97-yard interception return for a
touchdown of a Sam Bradford pass. Give the Rams a TD there and take away the
pick-6 and the score would have been a more accurate 24-20. It is very possible
that these teams could see each other again in a first-round playoff game that
would be played in St. Louis, not New Orleans, despite the fact that St. Louis
is likely to have a record of 7-9 or at best 8-8 and New Orleans is likely to
be at least 11-5. If so, QC likes the Rams to win at home. And if that happens,
look for Sports Illustrated's Peter King, who has gone on the record
with his opposition to division winners automatically getting home playoff
games, to howl.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
If the Rams play the Saints in a playoff rematch in St. Louis, the Rams will
win? (Use Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your
reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on
The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 Season Week 13 Thoughts
The tale of Bill Belichick's disciples is one of multiple equlibria. On one
hand, Belichick's coaching protegés have not faired well. Denver fired
wunderkind Josh McDaniels this week after the Broncos lost 17 of their last 22
games played using his designs. McDaniels is hardly the first ex-Belichick
assistant to get a pink slip soon after getting a job as head coach. Eric
Mangini (New York Jets), Charlie Weiss (Notre Dame), and Romeo Crennel
(Cleveland) also were fired from their first head coaching jobs before seeing a
second contract.
On the other hand, Belichick's personnel protegés, Thomas Dimitroff
(Atlanta) and Scott Pioli (Kansas City), have enjoyed success outside of New
England. This result is counter-intuitive. While plays can be copied, players
cannot be copied. One would think that Belichick's knowledge of football
designs should be more easily transferrable to his assistant coaches than his
knowledge of players to his personnel assistants. But reality has been the
opposite. Like New England, both Atlanta and Kansas City rank near the middle
of the NFL in play design (HA), but they are among the NFL's stingiest
teams in handing out turnovers. Thus, it appears that NFL success can be built
upon copying the Patriots recipe of starting with mistake-free player
ingredients, even at the expense of pursuing a continuous design advantage.
**********
In Tampa, Atlanta (10-2) committed a turnover for the first time a month and
actually lost the turnover battle to the Buccaneers (2-1). But the Falcons
prevailed because they were slightly better designed than Tampa Bay and Eric
Weems returned a kickoff 101 yards for a TD.
Atlanta's success (the Falcons swept the season series) against the Bucs
demonstrates how tiny differences in the NFL can have significant consquences.
In the teams' 2 games, player productivity was virtually identical (Tampa Bay:
3.05; Atlanta 3.04). Atlanta's QCYPA (6.528) was only .036 better than Tampa
Bay's QCYPA (6.492). In other words, the Falcons were on an average a little
over 1 inch better than the Bucs. The Falcons received one more turnover than
they gave and safety Thomas DeCoud led a critical 4th quarter goal line stand
in the first meeting. In reality, if just 1 play in each game had gone
differently, say DeCoud did not stop Tampa Bay on 4th down in the first game
and Weems stepped out of bounds on his kick return in the second game (the
return was upheld on instant replay review), the Falcons may well have finished
0-2 against the Bucs and be the team scrambling for a playoff berth down the
stretch.
**********
In Kansas City, Pioli, Weis, and Crennel won the rematch of the Belichick Bowl
over McDaniels and Denver, 10-6, as Chiefs QB Matt Cassell played another
steady, interception free game. Moreover, the Kansas City defense, which was
shredded just a few weeks ago by McDaniels designs and QB Kyle Orton, held
Denver's player productivity (1.31) well below the JaMarcus Cable.
*********
Pursuant to QC's 9th Commandment, penalties (like turnovers) are player
failures, not coaching failures. Cincinnati's 34-30 loss to New Orleans
provided a vivid illustration. The Saints winning touchdown was set up when
Bengals DT Pat Sims was drawn off-side on fourth down with just seconds to
play. "We work on that every week," Cincinnati coach Marvin Lewis
told Sports Illustrated's
Peter King. "We worked on it on Wednesday. We
told them the Saints did this and to watch for it." All a coach can do is
design and instruct. Clearly, Lewis and his staff did their job on the play in
which Sims jumped off-side. Nevertheless, coaches almost always get improperly
blamed for such mistakes because they are mental. In designing plays and
providing instruction, a coach's work is all mental. But it is a fallacy that
all mental mistakes are the coach's fault. This subtle distinction is almost
always overlooked by short-sighted analysts.
**********
Peyton Manning is killing Indianapolis. For the third week in a row, the Colts
lost because Manning threw devastating interceptions. Dallas DB Orlando
Scandrick and LB Sean Lee returned two of those errant throws for TDs as the
Cowboys prevailed in overtime, 38-35. Almost 10 years ago, former Colts coach
Jim Mora became immortal for his "Playoffs?!!" rant. But what many
forget is that it was Manning's 4-interception day that prompted that rant. In
that part of Mora's rant that is less well-known,
Mora
said, "I don't care who you play, whether it's a high school
team, a junior college team, a college team, much less an NFL team, when you
turn the ball over 5 times, 4 interceptions, 1 for a touchdown, 3 others in
field position to set up touchdowns, you ain't going to beat anybody." But
don't look for Jim Caldwell to ever reprise Mora. At the end of the year,
Indianapolis fired Mora and brought in mellow, defense-oriented Tony Dungy.
Injuries, especially the injury to TE Dallas Clark, have hurt the Colts this
year. But Manning has not been able to adapt and play a beta style that
minimizes risk and protects the ball. If he does not change soon, Indianapolis
might miss the playoffs for the first time since 2001 even though the AFC South
has become one of the weakest divisions in the league. In his MMQB
column, Sport's Illustrated's
Peter King suggested Manning "has to make sure
that Blair White and Jacob Tamme know to be dangerous." But a receiver
cannot become dangerous by knowledge alone. Self-awareness alone cannot
transform the benign into the threatening. A liabilty does not become an asset
simply because the liability knows it would be better for all it were an asset.
Rather, as
the Sports Pickle humorously, but accurately,
observed, coach Manning has to recognize that it is QB Manning, not
the receivers, that needs to adapt and stop calling (and executing) plays as if
Clark was still in the lineup.
(2010 Archives1;
2010 Archives2;
Archives
Home)
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Personnel knowledge is more transferrable than play design knowledge? (Use
Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to
QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The
Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
