2019 Pre-Game Thread: Week 4 at Bills

Michelle34B

lurker
Aug 2, 2006
255

Very quick look to first read RB Singletary, to a quick throw to Beasley. Let's say you expect Beasley to make the catch, the play wasn't able to develop, and 3 defenders are there. 5 yard gain, 2nd and 5. Not bad, but if the play develops, it is Beasley on Mosley 1:1. Advantage Beasley.


This play was so bad because the Bengals barely showed up on offense. 9 drives, 26 plays for 100 yards. 6 punts, 2 fumbles, and an interception. They scored 17 points on their next three drives after Josh Allen locked into his first read, ran into pressure, and threw an arm-pass while stiff-arming a Bengal. Tremendous effort, but it was 3rd and 7 at midfield. Punt and let that defense keep dominating.


Josh Allen is improving, but I expect the Patriots to contain him to limit broken plays, and see if he can beat them downfield consistently. His arm reminds me so much of a young Drew Bledsoe, where that incredible talent wins out over having more touch on your throws, anticipation, timing and rhythm in the offense. I'd love to hear Belichick compare the two just based on their talented arms, and being very young quarterbacks learning the position.
 

loshjott

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
7,992
Silver Spring, MD
Brady has 15 wins in Buffalo since 2001, most of any QB since then. Drew Bledsoe is second with 14. Tyrod Taylor and Ryan Fitzpatrick are tied for 3rd with 13.
Brady's 30 wins against the Bills is the record for one QB against an opponent. His 28 wins against the Jets is second, and, somewhat surprisingly, his 23 wins vs. Miami ranks fourth. Behind Favre and the Lions (26).
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
32,134
Brady's 30 wins against the Bills is the record for one QB against an opponent. His 28 wins against the Jets is second, and, somewhat surprisingly, his 23 wins vs. Miami ranks fourth. Behind Favre and the Lions (26).
Brady wins vs. Jets/Bills: 58

League wins vs. Brady: 60
 

BlackJack

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2007
1,450
Brady wins vs. Jets/Bills: 58

League wins vs. Brady: 60
I count 61 regular season losses for Brady.

Patriots record starting in 2001 is 223-68

Take out the losses in 2008 and the first two games of 2001 and you're at 61. Am I missing another loss in a game Brady didn't start?

Insane stat in any case.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,672
Hingham, MA
I count 61 regular season losses for Brady.

Patriots record starting in 2001 is 223-68

Take out the losses in 2008 and the first two games of 2001 and you're at 61. Am I missing another loss in a game Brady didn't start?

Insane stat in any case.
Week 4 Bills 2016. Suspended.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
32,134
I count 61 regular season losses for Brady.

Patriots record starting in 2001 is 223-68

Take out the losses in 2008 and the first two games of 2001 and you're at 61. Am I missing another loss in a game Brady didn't start?

Insane stat in any case.
I’m going off Pro Football Reference:

 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,672
Hingham, MA
Pats have won 17 straight against 1st or 2nd year QBs, tied for the longest streak in NFL history. Let's see them break the record. And then continue vs. Haskins, Jones, and Darnold.

Edit: then Baker. Then Jackson. Wow, lots of 1st and 2nd year QBs the Pats are facing.
 

Nator

Member
SoSH Member
https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/news/nfl/bet-dildo-thrown-on-field-patriots-bills-odds/?fbclid=IwAR2GGNwKt9-eT03rDMV_u7MbVU8NlAN_rp4GhVdkFLPQVXE6MrSFzU3nupQ

For each Patriots visit in the last three seasons, a dildo has been tossed on the field – and in some cases, multiple dildos in a single game.

BetOnline’s most recent odds is calling for a four-peat.

Odds Dildo Thrown Onto Bills’ Field/Sideline
[TH]Result[/TH] [TH]Odds at BetOnline[/TH]
Yes -140
No +100

*Odds from 9/25/19

It’s quickly become as much of the fabric of the Bills gameday experience as tailgate parties and WWE-like table mashing adventures in the parking lots. Does it continue with New England’s visit in Week 4?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,156
Mansfield MA
That’s a lie. Going for it on fourth down more was analytically driven.

Edit: Unless he means they are not in-game decisions because they are made beforehand and inserted into the game plan.
These days, the Patriots don't really go for it on fourth down more often than most teams. And it's certainly possible a team could arrive at the decision to go for it on fourth more often for non-analytical reasons.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
These days, the Patriots don't really go for it on fourth down more often than most teams. And it's certainly possible a team could arrive at the decision to go for it on fourth more often for non-analytical reasons.
But I thought we knew he read the economics paper on the subject?

Agree that they don’t do it as much. But I have to wonder how that decision was made.

I take his meaning though.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,672
Hingham, MA
Newhouse back at practice today.

Also, of course analytics play into whether they go for 2, or for 4th downs. There has been video / audio of Ernie Adams calling down to BB saying "if we score here we're gonna want to go for 2".

What I think BB was trying to answer is whether past statistics have any bearing on the decision - e.g., it's 4th and 3 from the 38, historically that has a 54% chance of converting. He doesn't care about the historical percentage. But I think he does care about how punting vs. kicking the FG vs. going for it affects their chances of winning. And all of those decisions are game / situation dependent (score, weather, time remaining, etc.). But it's still analytical.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,156
Mansfield MA
But I thought we knew he read the economics paper on the subject?
What, you've never read an economics paper and thought it was bullshit? :)

Agree that they don’t do it as much. But I have to wonder how that decision was made.

I take his meaning though.
A great thing about being a Patriots fan is that you can be sure that the decision-making had thought and logic behind it, even if you (or analytics) don't ultimately agree with it. I generally believe Belichick when he says they don't do a lot of analytics; I do think he arrives at some analytics conclusions via different avenues.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
What, you've never read an economics paper and thought it was bullshit? :)


A great thing about being a Patriots fan is that you can be sure that the decision-making had thought and logic behind it, even if you (or analytics) don't ultimately agree with it. I generally believe Belichick when he says they don't do a lot of analytics; I do think he arrives at some analytics conclusions via different avenues.
Yeah, like, he’s never accepted the statistical analysis of fumbles/turnovers. That’s a pretty good example.

It is nice to be able to assume that even if we don’t understand or agree or whatever, he has a good football reason for doing what he does, and we can trust that.

(I think @Shelterdog was the first person I saw out it this way. But yeah, as you say-it’s really nice.)
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
6,576
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
I’d rather he sit this one out. We can’t have a banged up Jules all season. Losing this Sunday isn’t the end of the world.
I really, really don't want to have to go back to KC, I think that's pretty much the only thing standing between them and another ring, injuries aside. It doesn't look like the Chiefs are losing more than about 3 games, so pretty much every week is do or die, especially against the cupcake part of the schedule.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
32,134
I really, really don't want to have to go back to KC, I think that's pretty much the only thing standing between them and another ring, injuries aside. It doesn't look like the Chiefs are losing more than about 3 games, so pretty much every week is do or die, especially against the cupcake part of the schedule.
We get KC in Foxboro so we pretty much control our destiny vis-a-vis KC.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
36,813
Losing Edelman because he rushed back would do a hell of a lot more damage to our ring chances than losing one game in week four.
Do we know exactly what his injury is and if it's something that can be exacerbated or if it's simply pain management?
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,080
around the way
Do we know exactly what his injury is and if it's something that can be exacerbated or if it's simply pain management?
Not that I'm aware of, but he got extra PT. So it's something.

In my opinion, he's the third most important player on the team. He shouldn't be rushing back for a week 4 game against Buffalo.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,051
These days, the Patriots don't really go for it on fourth down more often than most teams. And it's certainly possible a team could arrive at the decision to go for it on fourth more often for non-analytical reasons.
I think it's nearly inconceivable they don't have a deep analytics effort going on, actually. It is statistically unlikely (see what I did there?) that they'd arrive at so many analytically proper decisions (more draft picks, going more on fourth when they don't have a dominant team, favoring pass over run, limiting blitzing, etc.) without having looked at some of the numbers suggesting they do so. Plus, we know they have hired people who fit the profile https://www.masslive.com/patriots/2018/01/sean_harrington_patriots_engin_1.html and as others have noted, Adams is known to have read and shared with Belichick economics research on football topics (which constitutes analytics). Kraft is well-known as an analytics guy. BB himself, of course, has the economics background which is the mental model that fuels a lot of analytics.

I think what's likely is that BB sees no reason to let anyone know what he is or isn't doing. And so he doesn't.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,156
Mansfield MA
I think it's nearly inconceivable they don't have a deep analytics effort going on, actually. It is statistically unlikely (see what I did there?) that they'd arrive at so many analytically proper decisions (more draft picks, going more on fourth when they don't have a dominant team, favoring pass over run, limiting blitzing, etc.) without having looked at some of the numbers suggesting they do so. Plus, we know they have hired people who fit the profile https://www.masslive.com/patriots/2018/01/sean_harrington_patriots_engin_1.html and as others have noted, Adams is known to have read and shared with Belichick economics research on football topics (which constitutes analytics). Kraft is well-known as an analytics guy. BB himself, of course, has the economics background which is the mental model that fuels a lot of analytics.

I think what's likely is that BB sees no reason to let anyone know what he is or isn't doing. And so he doesn't.
When you consider how many dimensions there are of both being a coach and a GM, of course some of Belichick's approaches are going to align with the predominant analytics viewpoint on a particular subject. Belichick did or does the things you mention, but he also does things that analytics doesn't agree with - altering his approach on 4th downs to be more conservative of late, his emphasis on special teams, his emphasis on running the ball and stopping the run on both sides of the ball, his rejection of conventional notions of positional value, etc. I'm sure if you went through every front office and every coaching staff, you would similarly find some elements in alignment with analytics and some not.

And doesn't the fact that they don't go for it on 4th as much as they used to suggest that their fourth-down aggression never had anything to do with analytics? If it was analytics-based, Belichick presumably wouldn't have changed his approach.

This is a hard question to answer because there are plenty of issues where analytics has nothing to say or conflicting things to say. Was Gronk an analytics pick? Was N'Keal Harry? Sony Michel? Tom Brady? I don't even know how to begin to answer that. We do know they have some thresholds of Combine metrics (3-cone for DBs, they cared about Butler's 40 team, Keion Crossen's 40 time put him on their radar) but they also go against those at times.

I'm sure they don't literally have no analytics staff. I do think, for the most part, the reasons they are successful aren't rooted in analytics and don't necessarily have anything to do with analytics. The analytics types, of course, would like to paint Belichick as Billy Bean for football, but I don't think that's accurate at all.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,051
I don't think that's all true, though. His approach on 4th downs seems to be related to the team he has , which is not inconsistent with analytics; his focus on special teams is very consistent with analytics (why do you say otherwise?) http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2007/08/importance-of-special-teams.html , I do not think you can articulate how 'rejection of conventional notions of positional value' is anti-analytical (if anything, it is pro-analytics because he dumps the traditional bias about what a position is worth). I initially sayd 'ditto the focus on stopping the run' though I think that one is trickier because he has been around so long and the value of stopping the run has changed pretty significantly---but the basic point that saying "focus on stopping the run' is anti-analytical needs more context to mean anything. When?

This feels like a case where you're focused on a theory rahter than the evidence, frankly
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,156
Mansfield MA
I don't think that's all true, though. His approach on 4th downs seems to be related to the team he has , which is not inconsistent with analytics; his focus on special teams is very consistent with analytics (why do you say otherwise?) http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2007/08/importance-of-special-teams.html , I do not think you can articulate how 'rejection of conventional notions of positional value' is anti-analytical (if anything, it is pro-analytics because he dumps the traditional bias about what a position is worth). I initially sayd 'ditto the focus on stopping the run' though I think that one is trickier because he has been around so long and the value of stopping the run has changed pretty significantly---but the basic point that saying "focus on stopping the run' is anti-analytical needs more context to mean anything. When?
This is where it's kind of difficult to disentangle this stuff. Football analytics is much less monolithic than baseball analytics, so you can define almost anything to be "analytical" or "anti-analytical." If we compare Belichick to patron saint of analytics Sashi Brown, Sashi put way less value on depth, placed way more importance on positional value, cared much less about special teams, cared much more about player age, cared much more about star talent, but did trade back, keep contract flexibility, churned the roster, constantly worked to understand emerging trends, kept investing in QBs, etc. Look at Sashi's "Browns Guardrails" doc and you will find there's plenty of stuff that Belichick would agree with and plenty he wouldn't:



I also think it's hard because Belichick has been so adaptable through the years. Sometimes they draft freak athletes like Jamie Collins; sometimes they draft awful athletes like Brandon Spikes. Sometimes they take big-time college producers like Harry; sometimes they take pretty raw guys like Sebastian Vollmer. You can find evidence for or against the idea that certain decisions were analytics-based or not. As a whole, I have a hard time seeing that analytics is a major factor in their decision-making. And we know Belichick BSes in press conferences, but even in the events he pulls back the curtains a little (NFL Films, the Halberstam book, the Holley books), I definitely don't get the impression that analytics is top-of-mind for him when he's making decisions.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
31,226
Hartford, CT
He strikes me as employing an experience-based, intuitive sense of strategy.

He seems to have a grasp for when a decision presents a good percentage option that will result in more expected points when played out over a big sample (ex, going for fourth and 2 from the opponent 42), but he may lack tolerance for a medium to high variance call if the context counsels against it. For example, if the other team has a dogshit offense and you’re up 10 points, why risk turning it over near midfield when you’ve got Jake Bailey and Matt Slater? By contrast, if you have fourth and 2 and Peyton Manning is eviscerating you, maybe you go for that.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
3,080
around the way
He strikes me as employing an experience-based, intuitive sense of strategy.

He seems to have a grasp for when a decision presents a good percentage option that will result in more expected points when played out over a big sample (ex, going for fourth and 2 from the opponent 42), but he may lack tolerance for a medium to high variance call if the context counsels against it. For example, if the other team has a dogshit offense and you’re up 10 points, why risk turning it over near midfield when you’ve got Jake Bailey and Matt Slater? By contrast, if you have fourth and 2 and Peyton Manning is eviscerating you, maybe you go for that.
This makes sense.

I think that people read into what Belichick does and infer what they want to see. Part of this is because he can't be fucking bothered to give them an explanation.

Bill does unconventional things. Bill can do this because it's his personality to have zero fucks for public opinion, even back in Cleveland and before, and because he has the unconditional support of ownership. And when he goes for it on 4th and 7 instead of kicking it to Manning, or runs WRs as DBs or brings back the fullback, people want to think that there's science behind it. Maybe there is some. Adams probably runs numbers on some shit, who knows. But when Bill says that X seemed like the right thing to do at the time, I'm inclined to believe him.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,672
Hingham, MA
He strikes me as employing an experience-based, intuitive sense of strategy.

He seems to have a grasp for when a decision presents a good percentage option that will result in more expected points when played out over a big sample (ex, going for fourth and 2 from the opponent 42), but he may lack tolerance for a medium to high variance call if the context counsels against it. For example, if the other team has a dogshit offense and you’re up 10 points, why risk turning it over near midfield when you’ve got Jake Bailey and Matt Slater? By contrast, if you have fourth and 2 and Peyton Manning is eviscerating you, maybe you go for that.
Which makes me angry all over again that Chris Harper didn't stay the FUCK away from that punt up 21-7 in the 4th quarter in a snowstorm.
 

mostman

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2003
8,038
I count 61 regular season losses for Brady.

Patriots record starting in 2001 is 223-68

Take out the losses in 2008 and the first two games of 2001 and you're at 61. Am I missing another loss in a game Brady didn't start?

Insane stat in any case.
Its also insane how easy it is to account for the games he didn’t play over the long span of his career.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,051
This is where it's kind of difficult to disentangle this stuff. Football analytics is much less monolithic than baseball analytics, so you can define almost anything to be "analytical" or "anti-analytical." If we compare Belichick to patron saint of analytics Sashi Brown, Sashi put way less value on depth, placed way more importance on positional value, cared much less about special teams, cared much more about player age, cared much more about star talent, but did trade back, keep contract flexibility, churned the roster, constantly worked to understand emerging trends, kept investing in QBs, etc. Look at Sashi's "Browns Guardrails" doc and you will find there's plenty of stuff that Belichick would agree with and plenty he wouldn't:



I also think it's hard because Belichick has been so adaptable through the years. Sometimes they draft freak athletes like Jamie Collins; sometimes they draft awful athletes like Brandon Spikes. Sometimes they take big-time college producers like Harry; sometimes they take pretty raw guys like Sebastian Vollmer. You can find evidence for or against the idea that certain decisions were analytics-based or not. As a whole, I have a hard time seeing that analytics is a major factor in their decision-making. And we know Belichick BSes in press conferences, but even in the events he pulls back the curtains a little (NFL Films, the Halberstam book, the Holley books), I definitely don't get the impression that analytics is top-of-mind for him when he's making decisions.
Sorry, but putting forward Sashi Brown as the apex of analytics is ridiculous. That’s like the Shank critique of guys in their basement or something. That BB doesn’t always agree with Sashi Brown literally does nothing to disprove all the examples I put forward (which you have not really resounded too). Cmon.

What exactly do you think Ernie Adams’ role is if not effectively an analytics guy? Have you watched or read anything about what he does? What do you make of their two point conversion chart if not analytics? I can keep citing examples...if those don’t suggests analytics as an approach what would?

How do you think the Halberstam book isn’t supportive of analytics? I read it and conclude the opposite. Just because BB doesn’t say he has a stats guy does not in the least suggest he isn’t using analytics in an empirical sense. I hear you it’s hard to define, but as serious fans who have watched him closely I’m amazed people don’t find it to be obvious that they are using analytics in a material way (whether or not they call it “stats” or acknowledge it) His behavior—and many examples cited—show the opposite.
 
Last edited:

RetractableRoof

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,321
Quincy, MA
I think BB is as analytical as anyone in football. I just think he has no interest in the stats that everyone else is generally enthralled with. I also think over so many years of studying his opponents he has internalized their tendencies and how they react under pressure, etc. When he goes with his "gut" it's based on his consumption of these "statistics" - whether he has a sheet telling him to go with 3 corners on the goal line or not.
 

loshjott

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
7,992
Silver Spring, MD
Brady has 15 wins in Buffalo since 2001, most of any QB since then. Drew Bledsoe is second with 14. Tyrod Taylor and Ryan Fitzpatrick are tied for 3rd with 13.
Bledsoe has 18 wins in Buffalo, 4 with the Pats. Brady second with 15, for now.

Edit, I’m an idiot for missing “since 2001”
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,156
Mansfield MA
Sorry, but putting forward Sashi Brown as the apex of analytics is ridiculous. That’s like the Shank critique of guys in their basement or something. That BB doesn’t always agree with Sashi Brown literally does nothing to disprove all the examples I put forward (which you have not really resounded too). Cmon.
Sashi is relevant because he's basically the only example of an organization being run by analytics people rather than run by football people with analytics as a supporting piece. Maybe you could argue the Eagles, obviously a far great success story, but I don't think the Patriots and Eagles are run very similarly either.

What exactly do you think Ernie Adams’ role is if not effectively an analytics guy? Have you watched or read anything about what he does?
I have. I actually think Ernie Adams is a great example for this whole discussion, because I don't think he's effectively an analytics guy. The logic seems to be that because he looks like a nerd, and he's mysterious, and his title (Director of Football Research) suggests stats maybe, and he made money on Wall Street, and the Patriots are smart, so he must be the analytics guy.

But I don't think ultimately that there is much evidence this is true. To the extent there is information on the famously-secretive Adams, it revolves predominantly around film. He watches a ton of film and he has an eidetic memory, he breaks things down by situation to understand tendencies. He talked in Do Your Job about how he runs the scout team - a role that not only involves film analysis but also coaching the scout team to execute the plays in the way the other team does. Ernie has worked in traditional roles on both the coaching staff (as an offensive assistant) and personnel (he was director of player personnel). I think more than anything, he's a football guy from a non-traditional football background.

I'm sure that Adams is up on stats and analytics, because it is said that he reads every book that comes out about football and I believe it. That doesn't appear to be a major part of his job or value to the Patriots. He has a breadth of knowledge that likely includes analytics but also the rulebook (one consistent element to reports on Adams is that he helps Belichick on gameday with challenges), film, the playbook, football history, etc.

What do you make of their two point conversion chart if not analytics?
Probably every team in the league has a two-point conversion chart. Dick Vermeil developed one as a college coach in the '70's. The Patriots are not especially innovative when it comes to when to go for two in a way that suggests that are influenced by analytics trends. I don't think they do anything dumb either, but I can't think of an instance where Belichick did what John Harbaugh did the other day, for instance.

How do you think the Halberstam book isn’t supportive of analytics? I read it and conclude the opposite.
My takeaway from The Education of a Coach is that Belichick is the product of his parents: Steve the scout, and Jeannette the teacher. The empire is built on studying film and tendencies and on coaching the players (and coaches) to adapt to what they need to do to win the next week's game based on the film and tendency work. The empire is based on film and teaching. The first thing they do with entry-level hires is have them do "pads," that is, painstakingly diagram plays from all-22 film. You could describe this approach as "analytical," but it is not really "analytics" in the sense that it is conventionally used. It is old-school football scouting taken to the nth degree.

I think @Mystic Merlin 's "experience-based, intuitive sense" description is a good one. I think Belichick stumbles on decision-making that aligns with analytics, sometimes in retrospect. Like, Massey-Thaler published "The Loser's Curse" in 2005, showing that trading back was almost always preferable to trading up. But Belichick has been trading back well before that. Probably analytics has been more influenced by Belichick than Belichick has been influenced by analytics.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,855
I'm wondering if Belichick is taking a shot across the bow of Pro-Football-Focus and Football Outsiders to some extent. I can see him as a coach telling his team "I don't care what the analytics say about how bad opposing player A is playing; he's still a great football player who can turn a game around if you miss your assignments" and "I don't care what the analytics say about your performance; do your job here, listen to the coaches, and you'll be fine".

There was a point in the past (before they changed their business model) where the game-specific PFF grades were arbitrary and useless (recall Brady's grade during the Seattle Super Bowl, where the comeback was discounted, "just because"). And both systems suffer from sample size problems to some extent.

But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the analytic measures are at least looked at and utilized in more subtle ways than Bill let on during his interview.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
22,051
I'm wondering if Belichick is taking a shot across the bow of Pro-Football-Focus and Football Outsiders to some extent. I can see him as a coach telling his team "I don't care what the analytics say about how bad opposing player A is playing; he's still a great football player who can turn a game around if you miss your assignments" and "I don't care what the analytics say about your performance; do your job here, listen to the coaches, and you'll be fine".

There was a point in the past (before they changed their business model) where the game-specific PFF grades were arbitrary and useless (recall Brady's grade during the Seattle Super Bowl, where the comeback was discounted, "just because"). And both systems suffer from sample size problems to some extent.

But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the analytic measures are at least looked at and utilized in more subtle ways than Bill let on during his interview.
Yes, I think this is part of what he is doing—he certainly is. It is. It is not that he’s Sashi Brown (a ludicrous straw man to set up) it is that he has some Theo Epstein in him. I realize some here aren’t as big on baseball or weren’t close to the early 2000s discussions on sabermetrics, but the Sashi Brown thing is a bad repeat of simplistic arguments sportswriters made then.

There are plenty of examples of pats acting on analytic ideas. However, the simplest way to get to the conclusion they are tracking this stuff is to ask if the coverse is credible: do we think a team so competitive and. committted to winning that they monitor when a roof closes and chart sideline signals somehow looked at the work of hundreds of people trying to understand the sport better (using what are essentially the same approaches economists use, which we know both the coach and the owner believe in) and said “nah, who cares?”

Anyone who thinks that is likely has not paid much attention to this team the last two decades! How heavily they weight analytics I think is a tougher question but to suggest they aren’t engaged there is, to me, very difficult to believe or reconcile with what we’ve seen.
 
Last edited:

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
FWIW, Belichick said “less than zero.”

I still find that dubious, even while accepting that he’s not some analytics dominated thinker. The latter is a bit of a straw man.

So I think it’s more interesting to wonder what he means by “no”-for example, is he distinguishing between in-game decision making and game plan prep.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
12,156
Mansfield MA
There are plenty of examples of pats acting on analytic ideas. However, the simplest way to get to the conclusion they are tracking this stuff is to ask if the coverse is credible: do we think a team so competitive and. committted to winning that they monitor when a roof closes and chart sideline signals somehow looked at the work of hundreds of people trying to understand the sport better (using what are essentially the same approaches economists use, which we know both the coach and the owner believe in) and said “nah, who cares?”

Anyone who thinks that is likely has not paid much attention to this team the last two decades! How heavily they weight analytics I think is a tougher question but to suggest they aren’t engaged there is, to me, very difficult to believe or reconcile with what we’ve seen.
I do 100% agree that they have people that study this stuff. At the very least, it would be useful to know so that when they face teams that are analytically-inclined, it helps predict what they would do in those situations.

I think our dispute is how heavily they weigh it. They say they don't, others say they do, my read is "not very much."

I think it's also important to note that unlike baseball, where thorough public record-keeping dates back more than 100 years, most of the interesting data and information for football has been kept internal until very recently. All-22 has only been exposed since 2012, for instance. Belichick has 40+ years in the sport with access to all the information that insiders have. When new analytics studies come out, much of the time he probably has better information that contradicts or complicates some of it; probably some of the time he agrees with the studies but has figured out their conclusions years if not decades back.

It always bears saying when we talk about football analytics that NFL sample sizes are for the most part tiny and so most of it is either a) not analytically rigorous in a way that would hold up to academic scrutiny or b) has to capture so much to generate large sample sizes that it excludes basically all context and thus isn't actionable to someone like Belichick in any meaningful way.

FWIW, Belichick said “less than zero.”
I mean, "less than zero" is a mathematical impossibility and therefore absurd on its face.
 

nolasoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 11, 2004
3,279
Displaced
Romo is horrible. In love with his own voice. Just rambles on.
I know some like him for some reason but he's near the bottom for me.
Really? I think Romo is a fantastic analyst. He’s offered some really insightful play calling commentary on the few games that I have heard him.
 

vadertime

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,250
Rhode Island
Its not like there's better options out there. A quick look shows the 2 best free agent K to be Mike Nugent and Jankowski (who'd you have to talk out of retirement). Are you going to dump Gost for either of them?