2007 Browns benefited by playing 10 games vs teams who finished with losing records. They won 8 out of those 10 and were 2-4 otherwise.
2020 Divisional Weekend Game Thread: Nevermore
- Thread starter ThePrideofShiner
- Start date
You talk about this as if it's so easy to capture the location of the ball and a body part at a very specific moment. What if you're a fraction of a second off and the runner was moving the ball forward at that instant? What if the official determines that an elbow was down a half of a second earlier than it was? If you're talking about a single object, like a tennis ball or baseball, and using tech to determine whether that ball was in a defined zone, it's pretty straightforward. Trying to sync up the location of an object in relation to an imaginary line plus every body part of the runner minus hands and feet is not nearly as straightforward.
I’m not an expert on the subject, but the point of the chip is to track its location on the field. The timecode would correspond to the precise frame for instant replay to determine the moment the knee touched (or whatever). Then the data matching with that timecode showing where it was at that moment on the field.
I don’t know. Seems somewhat achievable. The tracking positional data isn’t that insane, and having the tracking match timecode would likely just be software related.
How are you matching the chip data to the video time code exactly? Bottom line, this is much harder than people think and handwaving any uncertainty into “just software related” isn’t an answer.
The ball would be timecode jammed so that it is in sync with the broadcast. This is technology film has used for decades.
I don’t for one second think that it’s impossible.
One point I'm not sure I've seen brought up - how do you account for the ball being however long it is, a foot, and all you need is the tip of the ball to cross the goal line or line to gain? It can't be based on the center of the ball.
Seems simpler to just put officials on the first down marker so you don't have guys running from out of position trying to judge spots all game in addition to everything else they are looking for.
And they got rid of the full time officials. Too much money I guess. NFL is on a tight budget.
They got rid of them because there was no point to having them besides trying to placate media. During the season both full-time and "part-time" officials are working the same amount, well over 40 hours per week. So the purpose of hiring full-time officials would be to compel them to do something in the offseason...but what? The only real thing that would help officials at this level improve (working more plays) is unavailable. Most of them spent the time going to various officiating camps across the country and educating younger college officials. That's great, and where I had the opportunity to meet many NFL officials, but I'm not sure that makes you better at working NFL games. You could tell them to watch game film, but with commercials and dead ball time removed you would go through the entire season's worth of plays in 2 weeks.
The major problem that football has is that it is hard to get snaps. If you officiate basketball or baseball you can work every night during the season, and find some games to work during the offseason. A college basketball official makes 2-3k per game and can work 100 games in a season, so most of them choose to do it full-time on their own. A college football official also makes 2-3k per game, but can max out at 12 games a season if they are absolutely top-notch. That requires it to be part-time work. This is important to the NFL as well, because if officials are going to resign from their day jobs for a full-time NFL gig, they need assurance that it won't be the last job they ever work. Officials at the highest level of any sport get fired all the time. If you fire an NBA official, he can go back to working college and make 300k. His family will be fine. If you fire an NFL official who was full-time, now he has a 30k part-time job and needs to find a "real" job with a hole in his resume that might be 10 years long.
Last edited:
Patriots
Replay sucks, it should only be available in full speed, not slow motion and the ref has 30 seconds to look at it. If they can't decide that, the ruling on the field stands.
What if he's holding the ball vertically? We should put 10 sensors around the equator of the ball as well.
Replay sucks, it should only be available in full speed, not slow motion and the ref has 30 seconds to look at it. If they can't decide that, the ruling on the field stands.
Crennel's winning percentage in Cleveland was .375%, Belichicks was .450%.
Belichick was 1-1 in the playoffs with the Browns, Crennel despite his wildly successful 10-6 campaign did not make the playoffs as the Browns head coach.
Crennel in his second head coaching job with the Chiefs was 4-15, including a stellar 2-14 season, he finished last in the AFC West twice.
Belichick in his second head coaching job with the Patriots is currently 237-83, including 17 AFC East titles, 6-3 in the Super Bowl and 13 appearances in the AFCCG.
He's won more playoff games (31) then Crennel won as a head coach.
Bill O'Brien is 52-44 as the head coach of the Houston Texans, he's won the AFC South four times and is 2-4 in the playoffs.
O'Brien is the most successful coach from the Belichick tree and it's not even close.
The point was that the complete and casual dismissal of Crennel is unfair and that getting the Browns of that era to a 10-6 record even just one year was pretty good.
Fair point; truth be told, any coach who can lead the Browns to a plus 500 record should have a statue built in his honor.
It wasn't casual. It was fair. Ben McAdoo went 11-5 with the Giants in 2016. That team wasn't good, either, but it had an unbelievably easy schedule. Like the Browns in 2007. McAdoo is as bad as Crennel.
Let's not pretend Crennel had success. His record in Cleveland was .375.