Pete Shrager is excited about our prospects this year..

[Eesti]

Tampa won't have Doug Martin he's been suspended. That helps. Those two tight ends though are gonna be a problem. Tampas lb group is better than miamis. Maxwell seems to play better vs bigger WRs so maybe the matchup won't be too bad of one on the outside. Give him the Texas a & m kid put Howard on desean Jackson McCain has to limit the slot humphries. And if and when Jamieus has a brain fart capitalize on it. He doesn't look like he's kicked the forcing it habit yet. Should be some plays to be made got to make them.

Tough week 1 opponent. They like Miami are gonna play a ton of 11 and 12 and they have major mismatch opportunities at tight end vs most teams in 12.

And that kicker situation is good for a couple game changing missed kicks or game losing ones even.

You are not talking about Aguayo are you? They cut him and he was picked up by Chicago.

 

[hoops]

You are not talking about Aguayo are you? They cut him and he was picked up by Chicago.

No I think they replaced him with folk and he's been missing kicks too. That stuff usually transfers to the regular season and bites you

 

[Sons Of Shula]

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2014/10/how-random-are-turnovers/

**** luck. You don't leave game changing plays to chance. Takeaways are coached.

It doesn’t take long to identify a Bill Belichick-run practice due to the wide range of unusual drills he incorporates.

In several recent sessions, the linebackers worked on keeping fumbles inbounds after shuffling through step-over dummies. Last week, players purposely allowed oncoming passes to go through their hands in order to block the nearby defensive back’s vision to intercept the ball

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/p...on-game-far/9Qu70iCmg3EUPbmAbHwf3O/story.html

 

[<O>]

**** luck. You don't leave game changing plays to chance. Takeaways are coached.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/p...on-game-far/9Qu70iCmg3EUPbmAbHwf3O/story.html

So, then tell me how many takeaways the Patriots will have this year, plus or minus three.

If such coaching indeed has the effect you're portraying it to, it shouldn't be difficult for you to make that prediction, and when we check back at the end of the year, it should be correct.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

So, then tell me how many takeaways the Patriots will have this year, plus or minus three.

If such coaching indeed has the effect you're portraying it to, it shouldn't be difficult for you to make that prediction, and when we check back at the end of the year, it should be correct.

Sure.

As soon as you tell me:

how many wins they will have;
how many TDs Brady will throw;
how many tackles Hightower will have;
how many interceptions McCourty will have;
how many receptions Gronkowski will have;
how many TD's Hogan will have;
how many FG's Gostkowski will have;
how many points thier defense will allow;
how many points their offense will score . . .

Pony up them analytics.

:finger

 

[<O>]

Sure.

As soon as you tell me:

how many wins they will have;
how many TDs Brady will throw;
how many tackles Hightower will have;
how many interceptions McCourty will have;
how many receptions Gronkowski will have;
how many TD's Hogan will have;
how many FG's Gostkowski will have;
how many points thier defense will allow;
how many points their offense will score . . .

Pony up them analytics.

:finger

What you're tacitly saying above is that there is a great deal of variability in takeaways that is caused by things other than the coaching of takeaways, per se.

I'll agree with that.

 

[Digital]

I would recommend you read the following information about how changes in turnover margin from one part of a season to another is completely expected within teams throughout the league:

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/the-st...look-at-how-turnovers-impacted-the-nfl-season

As for Belichick for example, when he was with the Browns from 1991 to 1995, his teams' overall turnover margin during those seasons was -5.

Belichick indeed stands out from the crowd with New England, however, as his +171 turnover margin during his tenure there dwarfs the league average during that period. But even then, New England's turnover margin during those seasons has varied all the way from -6 to +28. In seven of those seasons their turnover margin was at least +10, and in 10 of those seasons it was less than +10.

Why all that variation, if the explanation is simply that Belichick is so good at coaching with regard to turnovers? Why don't the Patriots simply enjoy a turnover margin between let's say +15 and +20, every year? If coaching were the only cause of their success in that area, one would expect that sort of very stable and predictable performance, rather than loads of variation from year to year.

I'll tell you why: because per the link above, the only component of turnover margin that varies even somewhat systematically is interceptions thrown, and the Patriots have led the league in that area during Belichick's tenure. Now is that a function of Belichick, or Brady?

Even if we were to attribute Belichick's overall turnover margin in New England completely to coaching, we certainly can't attribute the Dolphins' change in turnovers during 2016 to a similar stable coaching trait of Adam Gase's, when we have nowhere near the sample size for Gase, and turnovers vary greatly from one part of a season to another throughout the league, even within teams, per the link above.

See if you can find someone here who's willing to bet for example that the 2017 Dolphins will have a turnover margin of at least +10, or even +5. Anyone would be a fool to make such a bet. They'd be similarly foolish to bet that the turnover margin will be worse than -5, or worse than -10. We simply don't know what's going to happen with any precision.

And why is that? Because turnovers vary largely randomly and not systematically, which makes it very difficult to predict with any precision what any one team is going to do in that area in any one year.

You don't need to tell me, I already know. The answer is because he builds his offense and defense around turnovers. His defense is a bend but don't break variety that works hard while not breaking to create turnovers. He funnels runs inside to create more forced-fumble opportunities and other things like this. He focuses on low turnovers from the QB position. It's not accident that his New England teams have consistently won the turnover margin ... flying in the face of your randomness hypothesis. If you don't believe me, just look at Marty Schottenheimer, he's another guy who predicated his systems on turnover margin creation.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you think it's all random ... more power to ya. I'm definitely a believer that some coaches go to greater lengths than others to win the turnover margins, and while there is some randomness in there, most of it is a coaching choice. By focusing a lot on winning the turnover margin you tend to score less points on offense and allow more yardage on defense. You also tend to give up big plays when the secondary tries too hard to ballhawk. So, it's a bit of a double-edged sword.

 

[Sons Of Shula]

You don't need to tell me, I already know. The answer is because he builds his offense and defense around turnovers. His defense is a bend but don't break variety that works hard while not breaking to create turnovers. He funnels runs inside to create more forced-fumble opportunities and other things like this. He focuses on low turnovers from the QB position. It's not accident that his New England teams have consistently won the turnover margin ... flying in the face of your randomness hypothesis. If you don't believe me, just look at Marty Schottenheimer, he's another guy who predicated his systems on turnover margin creation.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you think it's all random ... more power to ya. I'm definitely a believer that some coaches go to greater lengths than others to win the turnover margins, and while there is some randomness in there, most of it is a coaching choice. By focusing a lot on winning the turnover margin you tend to score less points on offense and allow more yardage on defense. You also tend to give up big plays when the secondary tries too hard to ballhawk. So, it's a bit of a double-edged sword.

In typical Belichick fashion it depends on the opponent and the matchups. Patriots use both the Spill and Force philosophies of run defense and sometimes they use both in the same formation/playcall.

If they are facing a RB who has a tendency to bounce his runs outside to use his speed to get to and up the sideline, they will use the Force scheme to maintain control of the edge with pass rushers and outside backers/overhangs.

If they are facing a RB who has a tendency as a one cut runner b/w the tackles, they will use the Spill scheme to make the RB change direction and work his path toward the sideline and away from his best blockers.

And to mix both in a formation the Under side will spill the run away from the B gap, and the Over side will attempt to squeeze the run back to the A Gap.

BB is the ultimate strategist and applies a scheme to fit the proper opponent. It's rarely the same week in and week out.

 

[Digital]

How often do takeaways occur? What is the likelihood that a team will replicate something close to its takeaway total from one year to the next, even if it has the same coaching staff?

If the answer to either of those questions is a relatively small number, then takeaways are relatively meaningless as a measure of the strength of a team.

When you're doing statistics it's important to always remember sample size and consistency of data.

For consistency purposes, teams play different schedules each year, so even if the defense managed to maintain the same players and they all stayed healthy, it would be against a lot of different offenses, each with the benefit of all the tape of games before them. The division rotations mean that most of the opponents are new. There are the 4 divisional matchups which generally are the same (unless they get new coaches/players to change things up), and maybe a couple other games will be the same, but at best that's about 6 of the 16 games. So, year to year isn't going to provide stable metrics, because the opponents are not stable.

Sample size is even harder to normalize. Given that a great CB tends to get thrown away from, thus lessening his chances to get takeaways, and front seven pressure increases the opportunities for INT's, it's going to be hard to get consistently reliable numbers of plays for each DB. If you're playing against Arizona, you're going to have to pick your poison. They have good DB's. Ditto for places like Denver and Seattle. But most offenses can choose to avoid the good CB by targeting the other CB, passing to matchups vs. LB's, or scheming guys open. So the difference between a CB getting 3 INT's one season and 6 the next is partially about their performance and partially about how many real opportunities they had. As for Forced Fumbles, those need to be practiced and usually it is more of a result of good coached defensive players + opportunity presenting itself + poorly coached offensive player letting it happen. Peanut Tillman was an exception, because he snuck up on ballcarriers and punched the ball away before they covered it. Most defenders try to claw it away, but Tillman attacked the ball before the tackle, and sometimes that created an edge for him. Still, the opportunites are few and far between ... creating another problem of a small sample size. Helmet on the ball, dumb ballcarrier that refuses to go down when his momentum is stopped, Peanut poke trick, and just plain sloppy ball carrying ... those opportunities don't present themselves that often. But typically, well coached defenses convert more of those opportunities, it's just that they're rare.

 

[royalshank]

OMG I just watched the clip. I need a cleansing.

WTF is Good Morning Football?! LMAO.

Is that how far NFLN has sunk these days? What an abomination.

Did you stay with it to the part where the dude in the middle made a giant pun out of Pete's predictions? "If you don't like it you can Nknomkong Sue me" etc? Tragic.

 

[<O>]

When you're doing statistics it's important to always remember sample size and consistency of data.

For consistency purposes, teams play different schedules each year, so even if the defense managed to maintain the same players and they all stayed healthy, it would be against a lot of different offenses, each with the benefit of all the tape of games before them. The division rotations mean that most of the opponents are new. There are the 4 divisional matchups which generally are the same (unless they get new coaches/players to change things up), and maybe a couple other games will be the same, but at best that's about 6 of the 16 games. So, year to year isn't going to provide stable metrics, because the opponents are not stable.

Sample size is even harder to normalize. Given that a great CB tends to get thrown away from, thus lessening his chances to get takeaways, and front seven pressure increases the opportunities for INT's, it's going to be hard to get consistently reliable numbers of plays for each DB. If you're playing against Arizona, you're going to have to pick your poison. They have good DB's. Ditto for places like Denver and Seattle. But most offenses can choose to avoid the good CB by targeting the other CB, passing to matchups vs. LB's, or scheming guys open. So the difference between a CB getting 3 INT's one season and 6 the next is partially about their performance and partially about how many real opportunities they had. As for Forced Fumbles, those need to be practiced and usually it is more of a result of good coached defensive players + opportunity presenting itself + poorly coached offensive player letting it happen. Peanut Tillman was an exception, because he snuck up on ballcarriers and punched the ball away before they covered it. Most defenders try to claw it away, but Tillman attacked the ball before the tackle, and sometimes that created an edge for him. Still, the opportunites are few and far between ... creating another problem of a small sample size. Helmet on the ball, dumb ballcarrier that refuses to go down when his momentum is stopped, Peanut poke trick, and just plain sloppy ball carrying ... those opportunities don't present themselves that often. But typically, well coached defenses convert more of those opportunities, it's just that they're rare.

Again, what's being said here tacitly is that there are many sources of variation in turnovers that have nothing to do with the coaching of turnovers, per se.

That I'll agree with.

When there are a million things that can cause variation in something, you're dealing with a random variable. If on the other hand the coaching of turnovers were the sole cause of the variation in turnovers, the variable would be far less random.

 

[Pandarilla]

It's good to have someone in your corner.

This guy has been leading the charge ever since Cutler got signed. I love it, hasn't disappointed me yet.

Adam Schein, also has taken a shine to Cutler, Gase and the Dolphins.

 

[royalshank]

Sure.

LOL - see my wishful comments in-line.

As soon as you tell me:

how many wins they will have; 4
how many TDs Brady will throw; 19 along with 25 INTs
how many tackles Hightower will have; 136 total - that's my prediction and I'm sticking too It.
how many interceptions McCourty will have; 3
how many receptions Gronkowski will have; 64
how many TD's Hogan will have; 8 - surprisingly, teams will continue to let him sneak by and uncovered.
how many FG's Gostkowski will have; 19
how many points thier defense will allow; 298
how many points their offense will score . . . 92

Pony up them analytics.

:finger

 

[royalshank]

It's good to have someone in your corner.

This guy has been leading the charge ever since Cutler got signed. I love it, hasn't disappointed me yet.

Adam Schein, also has taken a shine to Cutler, Gase and the Dolphins.

LOL - you just extended the giant pun from the segment. What a silly piece it was - this Schrager guy - God love him.

 

[kcbrown]

Our Achilles heel will once again be our defense. Even with Suh, Alonso, and jones.... this defense has too many holes with a rookie DC. Philly showed that once again we won't be able to stop anyone

Suh - Stud
Godchaux - Tough player
Wake - Stud
Branch - Tough player

Kiko - Tough player
Timmons - Stud
? - Dud

Howard - Stud
Jones - Stud
Allen - Dud
Maxwell - Tough at times, but DUD at times as well...

Overall though, I think our defense is going to be stronger than people think...Hayes is also a stud and he isn't even listed above.