i am happy to know i am not the only one who fails to find value in Barnwell's analysis. I also understand why his year in Vegas was a total disaster
Not That Tricky: Bill Barnwell's NFLisming
- Thread starter Clears Cleaver
- Start date
i am happy to know i am not the only one who fails to find value in Barnwell's analysis. I also understand why his year in Vegas was a total disaster
. If you always act like you are the smartest guy in the room you better be pretty ducking smart. Barnwell isn't.
. If you always act like you are the smartest guy in the room you better be pretty ducking smart. Barnwell isn't.
Vegaswatch just kills Barnwell all the time. http://www.vegaswatch.org/search/label/Not%20That%20Tricky
Those are hysterical. I wish I had seen them before.
Barnwell should probably have his own thread at this point.
Barnwell should probably have his own thread at this point.
From Barnwell's preseason "Place Your Bets" column:
Broncos NOT make the playoffs +675 $20 $135
Buccaneers Make the playoffs +230 $30 $69
Buccaneers OVER 7.5 wins -135 $200 $148.15
Buccaneers Win the NFC South +800 $25 $200
Buccaneers Win the Super Bowl +6000 $20 $1,200
Chiefs Make the playoffs +220 $30 $66
Chiefs OVER 7.5 wins -165 $250 $151.52
Colts UNDER 8.5 wins -120 $100 $83.33
Eagles Win the NFC East +600 $20 $120
Falcons NOT make the playoffs +135 $50 $67.50
Jaguars OVER 4.5 wins -160 $100 $62.50
Jaguars Win the AFC South +3000 $10 $300
Lions Make the playoffs +190 $40 $76
Lions OVER 8.0 wins -135 $250 $185.19
Raiders NOT make the playoffs -950 $800 $84.21
Raiders UNDER 5.5 wins -185 $300 $162.16
Rams UNDER 7.5 wins +115 $80 $92
Steelers OVER 9.5 wins +130 $80 $104
Steelers Win the Super Bowl +2200 $20 $440
Vikings UNDER 7.5 wins -190 $200 $105.26
Andrew Luck Win passing title +1500 $20 $300
Danny Amendola Win receiving title +1500 $20 $300
Trent Richardson Win rushing title +1200 $20 $240
Ugh...sorry about the formatting. I'll fix later.
Broncos NOT make the playoffs +675 $20 $135
Buccaneers Make the playoffs +230 $30 $69
Buccaneers OVER 7.5 wins -135 $200 $148.15
Buccaneers Win the NFC South +800 $25 $200
Buccaneers Win the Super Bowl +6000 $20 $1,200
Chiefs Make the playoffs +220 $30 $66
Chiefs OVER 7.5 wins -165 $250 $151.52
Colts UNDER 8.5 wins -120 $100 $83.33
Eagles Win the NFC East +600 $20 $120
Falcons NOT make the playoffs +135 $50 $67.50
Jaguars OVER 4.5 wins -160 $100 $62.50
Jaguars Win the AFC South +3000 $10 $300
Lions Make the playoffs +190 $40 $76
Lions OVER 8.0 wins -135 $250 $185.19
Raiders NOT make the playoffs -950 $800 $84.21
Raiders UNDER 5.5 wins -185 $300 $162.16
Rams UNDER 7.5 wins +115 $80 $92
Steelers OVER 9.5 wins +130 $80 $104
Steelers Win the Super Bowl +2200 $20 $440
Vikings UNDER 7.5 wins -190 $200 $105.26
Andrew Luck Win passing title +1500 $20 $300
Danny Amendola Win receiving title +1500 $20 $300
Trent Richardson Win rushing title +1200 $20 $240
Ugh...sorry about the formatting. I'll fix later.
I am glad as well that others dislike Barnwell's analysis.
Thank you for showing your rooting biases should be the name of his column.
Thank you for showing your rooting biases should be the name of his column.
Or, "it's not the refs fault my column failed", with the subtitle "I had plenty of opportunities leading up to the final paragraph that I failed to take advantage of".
Edit: his columns are almost as predictable as Easterbrook at this point. Nuff said.
Edit: his columns are almost as predictable as Easterbrook at this point. Nuff said.
Is there anybody anymore that's really must-read or must-watch when it comes to NFL coverage outside of the games themselves?
Dr Z is gone. Peter King is the subject of 1000+ posts of ridicule in this forum. TMQ is self-parody. Simmons is recycling old shtick. Tanier, my favorite guy the last couple years, has fallen way off IMO, too clever by half and beating the same tired stories to death. Posnanski has never really been great on football. Whitlock is predictable. And the many TV shows covering the league are practically interchangeable.
Some teams have better beat guys than others but I don't find that there's a must-read guy out there anywhere. It's kind of striking how little value is added by the avalanche of opinion and analysis that's out there on the NFL.
Dr Z is gone. Peter King is the subject of 1000+ posts of ridicule in this forum. TMQ is self-parody. Simmons is recycling old shtick. Tanier, my favorite guy the last couple years, has fallen way off IMO, too clever by half and beating the same tired stories to death. Posnanski has never really been great on football. Whitlock is predictable. And the many TV shows covering the league are practically interchangeable.
Some teams have better beat guys than others but I don't find that there's a must-read guy out there anywhere. It's kind of striking how little value is added by the avalanche of opinion and analysis that's out there on the NFL.
I read most of Barnwell's stuff and I think he has some good ideas, his overall smugness drives me crazy. He also gets obsessed with some of his ideas, particularly his no momentum idea. He brings it up in almost ever single column he writes, and is always adressing it on Twitter to all the people that disagree with him. Barnwell is a decent writer, and he does point out some good things, but he just comes across as such a condescending asshole that it is hard to like him. It always feels like he is defending his position to other people. The worst thing about columnists is when they can never admit that they are wrong, and Barnwell doesn't just do that, but he also contiously goes out of his way to prove that he is right about stuff that 90% of readers don't give a shit about.
BOLDED THE WINS
Broncos NOT make the playoffs +675 $20 $135
Buccaneers Make the playoffs +230 $30 $69
Buccaneers OVER 7.5 wins -135 $200 $148.15
Buccaneers Win the NFC South +800 $25 $200
Buccaneers Win the Super Bowl +6000 $20 $1,200
Chiefs Make the playoffs +220 $30 $66
Chiefs OVER 7.5 wins -165 $250 $151.52
Colts UNDER 8.5 wins -120 $100 $83.33
Eagles Win the NFC East +600 $20 $120
Falcons NOT make the playoffs +135 $50 $67.50
Jaguars OVER 4.5 wins -160 $100 $62.50-------TITANS AND COLTS LEFT, NOT COUNTING YET
Jaguars Win the AFC South +3000 $10 $300
Lions Make the playoffs +190 $40 $76-------ABOUT 50/50 PER DVOA
Lions OVER 8.0 wins -135 $250 $185.19
Raiders NOT make the playoffs -950 $800 $84.21
Raiders UNDER 5.5 wins -185 $300 $162.16
Rams UNDER 7.5 wins +115 $80 $92
Steelers OVER 9.5 wins +130 $80 $104
Steelers Win the Super Bowl +2200 $20 $440
Vikings UNDER 7.5 wins -190 $200 $105.26
Andrew Luck Win passing title +1500 $20 $300
Danny Amendola Win receiving title +1500 $20 $300
Trent Richardson Win rushing title +1200 $20 $240
So, his biggest hit will be the Eagles if they win the East. It's funny to see all the $20 bets then the $800 bet on the Raiders at -950
Broncos NOT make the playoffs +675 $20 $135
Buccaneers Make the playoffs +230 $30 $69
Buccaneers OVER 7.5 wins -135 $200 $148.15
Buccaneers Win the NFC South +800 $25 $200
Buccaneers Win the Super Bowl +6000 $20 $1,200
Chiefs Make the playoffs +220 $30 $66
Chiefs OVER 7.5 wins -165 $250 $151.52
Colts UNDER 8.5 wins -120 $100 $83.33
Eagles Win the NFC East +600 $20 $120
Falcons NOT make the playoffs +135 $50 $67.50
Jaguars OVER 4.5 wins -160 $100 $62.50-------TITANS AND COLTS LEFT, NOT COUNTING YET
Jaguars Win the AFC South +3000 $10 $300
Lions Make the playoffs +190 $40 $76-------ABOUT 50/50 PER DVOA
Lions OVER 8.0 wins -135 $250 $185.19
Raiders NOT make the playoffs -950 $800 $84.21
Raiders UNDER 5.5 wins -185 $300 $162.16
Rams UNDER 7.5 wins +115 $80 $92
Steelers OVER 9.5 wins +130 $80 $104
Steelers Win the Super Bowl +2200 $20 $440
Vikings UNDER 7.5 wins -190 $200 $105.26
Andrew Luck Win passing title +1500 $20 $300
Danny Amendola Win receiving title +1500 $20 $300
Trent Richardson Win rushing title +1200 $20 $240
So, his biggest hit will be the Eagles if they win the East. It's funny to see all the $20 bets then the $800 bet on the Raiders at -950
It is funny. Barnwell actually had a decent column today. He blasted both Tomlin and MacCathy for their end of game decisions. He also surprisingly praised the Patriots and Coach Hoodie this week. I guess it's the case of the blind squirrel finding a nut or a defective clock being right twice a day.DrewDawg said:
I don't really agree. I think the quality of sports journalism is at a shockingly low level now and having a guy who doesn't overreact to every week nor falls into huge basic factual errors constantly is better than so many options.
The floor is so low right now I actually find him quite solid.
Yeah he repeats his talking points etc but his stories have a reason for them and criticism or praise based on some relatively consistent framework. It's become so easy to ballwash X team and player and bash another and to ignore facts in favor of the story.
The total lack of any competence on the Eagles from non local reporters has been eye openingly terrible. From the assumptions of what the Kelly offense is (ignoring the actual games) to gems like Phil simms calling the Eagles offense one of the 5 worst units (offense and defense) in the nfl. Despite again the facts.
Or people like Aikman claiming the Cowboys are better with orten instead of Romo because they will be forced to call a more balanced game. Or you know you could say that before injury forced that and perhaps avoid blaming Romo for that decision process.
Anyway. Point being he's not bad and that's depressingly hard to find
The floor is so low right now I actually find him quite solid.
Yeah he repeats his talking points etc but his stories have a reason for them and criticism or praise based on some relatively consistent framework. It's become so easy to ballwash X team and player and bash another and to ignore facts in favor of the story.
The total lack of any competence on the Eagles from non local reporters has been eye openingly terrible. From the assumptions of what the Kelly offense is (ignoring the actual games) to gems like Phil simms calling the Eagles offense one of the 5 worst units (offense and defense) in the nfl. Despite again the facts.
Or people like Aikman claiming the Cowboys are better with orten instead of Romo because they will be forced to call a more balanced game. Or you know you could say that before injury forced that and perhaps avoid blaming Romo for that decision process.
Anyway. Point being he's not bad and that's depressingly hard to find
I think the local beat writers have gotten so good that for news about "your team" that the national guys are almost totally superfluous. Someone like Barnwell can only see stuff at the level of "well, the Pats lost Wilfork" whereas guys like Kyed and Volin can drill down into the replacements, what they're doing, what schemes they're employing, etc. The All-22 film has changed things; up until a couple years ago, (a guy like) Peter King asking coaches and GMs questions was one of the best sources of information we had. Now, we don't need him to ask that; we can see for ourselves if they're playing zone or man or blitzing or zone blocking or if someone screwed up the protection, etc. The bar has been raised.Dehere said:
I think the best national guys are those who take a limited scope. Bedard doesn't write a big national column over at MMQB - he zeroes in on one or two key things each week. Ben Muth at Football Outsiders is consistently enlightening breaking down OL play. But the big sprawling all-encompassing weekly column may be a relic of the past. The best stuff is deeper and more analytical and you can't cover 32 teams that way.
It is a relic of the past. The days of guys like Will McD having all the sources and us waiting for his Sunday Notes to learn about the league are over. In this age of Twitter, numerous beat writers, and ESPN/NFL Network 24 hour coverage we get news so fast these days. Anything a reporter gets say on Wednesday is now old news on Sunday. Personally, I enjoy reading guys like Reiss, Kyed, Volin, etc more so than national guys. They are constantly around the team and can provide better insight than guys who are there once and a while.
His All-Pro team: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10199548/bill-barnwell-pick-nfl-all-pro-team
He has Mankins on the first team and Talib, McCourty, and Gostkowski on the second team.
He has Mankins on the first team and Talib, McCourty, and Gostkowski on the second team.
Maybe the guy with identical FG numbers to Tucker (38/41), with only 1 less 50+ FG, and with vastly superior kickoff numbers.
You'd have to completely discount the impact of kickoff numbers to a kicker's value while inflating the contextual value of Tucker's 61 yard game winner, and even then it would basically be a tossup between the two.
Barnwell may have hit a new low with his playoff previews today
On Saints-Eagles:
Really? The team that plays better on offense will win?
Even better is his take on Colts-Chiefs:
The team winning the turnover battle wins something like 80% of the time in the NFL (totally pulling that out of thin air but not sure where to look it up). I believe it is the #1 stat in terms of correlation to winning (aside from, y'know, points). Nice insight Bill.
On Saints-Eagles:
Really? The team that plays better on offense will win?
Even better is his take on Colts-Chiefs:
The team winning the turnover battle wins something like 80% of the time in the NFL (totally pulling that out of thin air but not sure where to look it up). I believe it is the #1 stat in terms of correlation to winning (aside from, y'know, points). Nice insight Bill.
tims4wins said:
The thing about Barnwell is that he's so hellbent on debunking conventional wisdom at every turn that it leaves him with nothing to say at the end. I agree with Kliq above that there's some value in his columns— in the granular details, like his focus on Chung this Saturday, for example— but the overall predisposition towards 'every pervasive NFL truth that the general public believes in must by definition be wrong' is maddeningly boring and predictable. He almost tortured the facts into an argument that the Saints are just as good on the road as at home in today's column before finally relenting in the end.
In his own way, he's just as didactic and tiresome as a conventional-wisdom guy like Joe Morgan, but just in the opposite direction— he's Bizarro Joe Morgan. The problem is that, if you devote yourself to debunking every single narrative in football— from momentum doesn't exist, to Peyton Manning is fine in cold weather, to the Saints are great on the road— you're left with nothing to offer readers as a vision of the football universe beyond molecules randomly bouncing off each other.
He also writes 10,000 words about the 2 games, yet doesn't make a prediction. Meaning come Monday, he can throw in a bunch of "as I wrote last week" comments.
m0ckduck said:
I half-read his column on the treadmill, but what I took away was that the argument that the Saints are bad in the cold doesn't hold water; the Saints are worse on the road, but then again so is every NFL team.
That's useful, no?
ifmanis5 said:
Right. And remember his Colts-Chiefs preview last week? I will remind you:
Turnovers: KC 1, Indy 4
So not only did Indy lose the turnover battle, they were minus 3 and still won!
Although I guess Barnwell was technically correct in that it was "exceedingly difficult" for Indy to win!
He has become a hack this year. Went from must-read to near-Easterbrook territory. He writes the same shit on different days.
mpx42 said:
The best part of him getting his ass handed to him on the Super Bowl safety bet was that his research was inexplicably way off, and it was actually a very obviously bad math bet.
But there weren't eight safeties in the league that year, there were 21, plus one already in the playoffs. And there aren't "about seven or eight each year." In fact, the last time there had been single-digit safeties was 1969, when there were only 16 teams in the league. He put the bulk of his money (and advised his readers to do likewise) on a bet that mathematically was worse than betting a number on a roulette wheel.
Barnwell does get some credit from me on one (dickish) thing he's doing: he's started using "Simmonsesque" to describe stupid arguments about football. (LIke "just judging this on which QB you trust most is Simmonsesque, but maybe that is the best way to look at this particular game)/
He's such a hack. He starts his Super Bowl article talking about how the NFL is a war of attrition, and Broncos had too many injuries to compete. (Also a mention of a failed Josh McDaniels draft pick as well). Then goes on and on about how they were just out classed by a "healthy" Seahawks team.
I went back and read his AFC championship write up, and here's what he said about the Patriots:
"New England can’t help the injuries to its front seven, but it can blame only itself for being stuck with bad players in the secondary after Talib. The Patriots are the ones who drafted the likes of Ras-I Dowling and Darius Butler in the second round, failed to develop them, and moved on. They’re the ones that are stuck with rookie Logan Ryan and 2012 seventh-rounder Dennard as their corners behind Talib as well as Arrington — given a four-year, $16 million deal for reasons unknown."
In other words, Denver just had one injury too many. The Patriots only have themselves to blame for poor drafting.
edit - He's not really wrong about the Pats secondary either, it's just funny how differently he views the Denver situation.
I went back and read his AFC championship write up, and here's what he said about the Patriots:
"New England can’t help the injuries to its front seven, but it can blame only itself for being stuck with bad players in the secondary after Talib. The Patriots are the ones who drafted the likes of Ras-I Dowling and Darius Butler in the second round, failed to develop them, and moved on. They’re the ones that are stuck with rookie Logan Ryan and 2012 seventh-rounder Dennard as their corners behind Talib as well as Arrington — given a four-year, $16 million deal for reasons unknown."
In other words, Denver just had one injury too many. The Patriots only have themselves to blame for poor drafting.
edit - He's not really wrong about the Pats secondary either, it's just funny how differently he views the Denver situation.
And at least according to Advanced Football Stats, Logan Ryan is actually a really good cornerback. And IIRC Dennard fell because of trouble with the law, not because he's a bad player. He couldn't cover Decker in that game but that's because he's a foot shorter than Decker. Seattle had to put Sherman on Decker last night.
Hackery indeed.
Hackery indeed.
Today's article is full of garbage. For example, his opening sentence.
Uh, let's completely discredit everything Seattle did in one sentence. U mad bro?
Really? Most of Seattle's defense falls into these categories as well. The only players who have a pedigree are Earl Thomas (1st round), Bobby Wagner (2nd round), Cliff Avril (FA that cost bigger money) and Bruce Irvin (1st round) and Irvin was pretty much invisible in the game. Maybe you could make an argument for Bennett too, but he only got 1 year, $5 million, so it wasn't like he was in huge demand in FA.
Um, Denver still had two timeouts, so it's not like they could take a knee here and assume Denver wouldn't try to force a punt.
I just don't understand how a writer could lose his mojo like that. He was good last year; it's like Zombie Dan Shaugnessey bit him before the season started.
Uh, let's completely discredit everything Seattle did in one sentence. U mad bro?
Really? Most of Seattle's defense falls into these categories as well. The only players who have a pedigree are Earl Thomas (1st round), Bobby Wagner (2nd round), Cliff Avril (FA that cost bigger money) and Bruce Irvin (1st round) and Irvin was pretty much invisible in the game. Maybe you could make an argument for Bennett too, but he only got 1 year, $5 million, so it wasn't like he was in huge demand in FA.
Um, Denver still had two timeouts, so it's not like they could take a knee here and assume Denver wouldn't try to force a punt.
I just don't understand how a writer could lose his mojo like that. He was good last year; it's like Zombie Dan Shaugnessey bit him before the season started.
Reverend said:
Wilson makes like $800K per year, allowing Seattle to spend its "savings" on the QB position (of like $16M compared to Manning Brady Flacco etc.) on other positions. Denver, NE, other teams with QBs that make more $ have to spend their resources differently. Barnwell is implying that Seattle has more depth of talent than Denver due to the Wilson contract. He's not entirely wrong. It allows them to drop $14M on a guy like Harvin. But it's not why Seattle is better than Denver IMO.
Kind of interesting that Barnwell wrote a Super Bowl recap article the day after the game, and hasn't written a single thing in the 2 weeks since. Nothing has happened worthy of writing about? A one week vacation I understand, but two weeks seems like a bit much. Maybe Simmons canned him.
tims4wins said:
Nah. He's just on vacation (Mexico apparently) He's still on twitter, and is still listed as a Grantland contributor.
Um...
http://grantland.com/features/the-betting-season/
...what the heck is the point of this article? In theory I suppose it's laudable to hold oneself accountable for one's predictions after the fact, but the headline "Another Disastrous Gambling Season" surely confirms everyone's worst thoughts about him, and the extent of his navel-gazing is frighteningly unnecessary.
http://grantland.com/features/the-betting-season/
...what the heck is the point of this article? In theory I suppose it's laudable to hold oneself accountable for one's predictions after the fact, but the headline "Another Disastrous Gambling Season" surely confirms everyone's worst thoughts about him, and the extent of his navel-gazing is frighteningly unnecessary.
I enjoyed the trade he came up with in his draft column:
So to recap, Atlanta would be giving up the #6 overall pick, the #37 overall pick, their 2015 AND 2016 first round picks, AND a second round pick next year to move up five spots. Sounds like a brilliant trade for them.
And their 5th round pick this year as well, so six overall picks in exchange for the top spot this year. And if I did the math right on the ol' draft value chart, they're giving up at least 3600 in value (assuming those future picks are the last in their rounds) in exchange for the 3000 for the first round pick. So yeah, the Falcons, who had glaring depth problems last year, would probably love to make that trade.
What's even more bizarre is he wrote this in a column released two days earlier (emphasis mine):
So he questions whether a 2014 1st, a 2015 1st, a 2014 3rd and a 2016 2nd is too high a price.
Two days later, his proposed trade is a 2014 1st, a 2015 1st, a 2016 1st, a 2014 2nd, a 2015 2nd and a 2014 5th.
So he questions whether a 2014 1st, a 2015 1st, a 2014 3rd and a 2016 2nd is too high a price.
Two days later, his proposed trade is a 2014 1st, a 2015 1st, a 2016 1st, a 2014 2nd, a 2015 2nd and a 2014 5th.
Yeah he had a few trades in that article of teams giving up a bushel of picks including multiple additional firsts to move up a few spots. Makes zero sense. Maybe when it's a year with a consensus #1 franchise QB but not this year.gtg807y said:
I got to the second paragraph of his latest column before this head scratcher - http://grantland.com/features/nfl-draft-2014-best-picks-every-team/
How does this make any logical sense - only 1 in almost 20 drafts has a HOF in it? Yet we induct 5+ candidates every single year?
Can't even fathom how he came up with that 6% number unless he's taking a sample of recent drafts to judge how many HOF there are, which is beyond stupid for obvious reasons. No player who has started his career after 1997 (Walter Jones started in '97) has been elected to the HOF.
I assume (but am unwilling to verify his poor writing) that he means 6% of a team's drafts in a particular year will yield a HOFer. I.e., roughly two teams this year will draft a HOFer.
My best guess is that he's inferring that each year there are 32 drafts to consider, one for each team. That comes out to about 2 HOF drafted per year (1.92, but there has to be some allowance for a mult-HOF draft).
Now, that still doesn't make a ton of sense, but if he were very lazy and just took the number of HOF who were drafted and divided it by the number of drafts so far (which is dumb for the reason you mentioned), maybe that's it?
Now, that still doesn't make a ton of sense, but if he were very lazy and just took the number of HOF who were drafted and divided it by the number of drafts so far (which is dumb for the reason you mentioned), maybe that's it?
I had to bump this thread after barely making it through about 1/4 of the first Grantland NFL podcast of the season.
Barnwell is horrible. His "defense" of his NFL Trade Value column, which was terrible, is everything you would expect from him. Just the worst mix of smartest man in the room attitude crossed with arrogance/smarminess crossed with a willingness to move the goal posts and keep changing his various theses to defend his terrible. It's amazing that Grantland has such high quality basketball (Lowe) and baseball (Keri) writers, yet they continue to trot this clown out as their supposed NFL expert.
Barnwell is horrible. His "defense" of his NFL Trade Value column, which was terrible, is everything you would expect from him. Just the worst mix of smartest man in the room attitude crossed with arrogance/smarminess crossed with a willingness to move the goal posts and keep changing his various theses to defend his terrible. It's amazing that Grantland has such high quality basketball (Lowe) and baseball (Keri) writers, yet they continue to trot this clown out as their supposed NFL expert.