Play Calling

[Critty]

We were not throwing deep before Aboushi went down.

It is a Lombardi thing more than it is anything else.

Mike Williams has only 1 TD in the games Aboushi has not started. And 6TDs in the games Aboushi did start.
I expect this information means nothing to you at all.

I don't know if this ever happens in football but maybe its possible that the execution has shifted a bit with the backups playing and Mike production dipped with it.

After second thought, Nevermind there's no way that injury and playing backups could possibly affect any execution and any of the game plan and calls. Or have anything to do with Mike Williams effectiveness. It all Lombardi terrible calls. Right!??
‹:whistlin:

[Guest]

Dude. What are you taking about?
Survivorship bias is baked into the deep pass stats.
It's math and analysis.
So, now to be right, your calling math weak. Wow!

Did you learn anything from the beyond the pylon article?
Did you even read it?
Why dismiss math?

Archibald's article never gave the specific self-serving play distributions and results that you referenced in your earlier post. You just made that shit up as if it were some sort of meaningful analysis.

Further, Archibald's article did not teach me anything as far as it went, but I might have been able to help him offer a better analysis had I been around when the article was written.

His article fails to discuss the positive benefits the deep passing game and threat of that game have on the short passing game and the running game. His article is isolated in its discussion of a single point and does not even successfully challenge the concept that it was initially written to address--that the deep passing game is more efficient than the short passing game.

His article simply stands for the proposition that some may not be assessing the effectiveness of the deep passing game correctly and he then proceeds to fail to assess it correctly himself.

[chargeroo]

It's time for you two to agree to disagree and move on to something else.

[Critty]

It is the hallmark of Critty argumentation to make up concepts that you have not and are not suggesting as part of a weak attempt to save a failed argument. His attempt to redefine what I am discussing by altering route distances to which I referred is one example. His response to you is another.

Here, in this thread, the video is as plain as day in not supporting his position, so he has made up this "Herbert was really looking off Guyton's defender" nonsense because it is pretty clear in the video that Herbert is not somehow looking out of his earhole in Guyton's direction as Herbert's head and shoulders were facing nearly 90 degrees away from where Guyton was without ever looking anywhere near Guyton's direction.

That is where all of this "looking off the defender" nonsense comes from in this thread and it is pathetic.

Everyone knows that QBs should not stare down the intended receivers. Nobody has disputed that. And Critty's inability to tell the difference between looking at a primary read and looking off a defender does not change that no matter how many times he weakly raises this non-issue that nobody is suggesting.

The tape speaks for itself.
No matter what you claim, its a verifiable fact that each was a deep pass concept and some contained Go routes.

You brought up Herbert eyes, you called Allen a short route.
Both are verifiably false arguments.

Of course you go with the it is weak to raise a non-issue. You raised the issue of primary target and Herbert eyes. And I re-raised you look offs to show you the massive error in your argument. Pretty simple. If you Initial raise was solid. I dont fire back because there no problem with the take. When the take has a massive hole or two. I'm going call you out for it

Get mad if you want. Attack me if it makes you feel better or smarter. But at the end of the day. The tape speak for itself. And so do your posts when compared to the tape.

[Critty]

The purported drop issue with Guyton is hugely overstated. Even after a couple of drops and a low sample size magnifying those drops, the difference between Guyton and Mike Williams is less than 3 drops out of 100 passes. Receivers can have a short stretch with drops followed by stretches without drops. I suspect that over time and with a larger sample size for Guyton, even that small difference would diminish.

Pro Football Focus's grades assign weight to drops based on how easy the catch appears to be -- and Williams's drop grade is a miserable 39.0, ranked 97th among 103 qualifying receivers. Allen isn't much better; his 62.1 drop grade is ranked 70th. No. 3 wideout Jaylen Guyton is just ahead of Williams, ranked 95th with a 43.8. Add in tight end Jared Cook's 58.7 and four of Herbert's top five targets are letting a lot of on-target passes hit the turf.

[Attack]

It's time for you two to agree to disagree and move on to something else.

Agree with you 100%. I was about to post the same thing. It was a snooze show. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Critty]

Archibald's article never gave the specific self-serving play distributions and results that you referenced in your earlier post. You just made that shit up as if it were some sort of meaningful analysis.

Further, Archibald's article did not teach me anything as far as it went, but I might have been able to help him offer a better analysis had I been around when the article was written.

His article fails to discuss the positive benefits the deep passing game and threat of that game have on the short passing game and the running game. His article is isolated in its discussion of a single point and does not even successfully challenge the concept that it was initially written to address--that the deep passing game is more efficient than the short passing game.

His article simply stands for the proposition that some may not be assessing the effectiveness of the deep passing game correctly and he then proceeds to fail to assess it correctly himself.

Why am I not surprised it didn't teach you anything and that you are claiming if you helped him with the article the analysis would be better. Those are some arrogant statements.

The article concluded that there is Survivorship bias in the deep pass stats and analysis which is a fact.
And therefore the raw stats do not directly support the argument about the deep pass. The true measure would be to count all intended calls into the analysis to get a better picture of it's overall effectiveness.
And then I showed my example of Survivorship bias to show what it might look like if the analysis went much deeper into the intent of each call to show the true success rate of deep pass play concepts and calls.

At this point I can see you're so contentious about anything I post regardless of how factual or compelling the information is, that you will disregard it, dismiss it and then make arrogant claims and insults.

I'm not buying your BS.
And you don't have to agree with anything I post.

I'm going to keep it very simple with you from now on.
And just say this to you: Your take has obvious holes in it. You may want to patch those up.

[Guest]

Why am I not surprised it didn't teach you anything and that you are claiming if you helped him with the article the analysis would be better. Those are some arrogant statements.

The article concluded that there is Survivorship bias in the deep pass stats and analysis which is a fact.
And therefore the raw stats do not directly support the argument about the deep pass. The true measure would be to count all intended calls into the analysis to get a better picture of it's overall effectiveness.
And then I showed my example of Survivorship bias to show what it might look like if the analysis went much deeper into the intent of each call to show the true success rate of deep pass play concepts and calls.

At this point I can see you're so contentious about anything I post regardless of how factual or compelling the information is, that you will disregard it, dismiss it and then make arrogant claims and insults.

I'm not buying your BS.
And you don't have to agree with anything I post.

I'm going to keep it very simple with you from now on.
And just say this to you: Your take has obvious holes in it. You may want to patch those up.

Critty, the article you cited is barely above the level of 2+2 equals 4. It isn't arrogance on my part, but rather a meaningless presentation by Archibald that has caused me to criticize the article. Does Archibald really think that in evaluating deep passing opportunities, anyone is not looking at the results of designed deep passes where the pass did not come off for one reason or another? Nobody is missing that reality. Archibald is not offering anything new and extraordinary here.

And I was right, wasn't I? You did make up the extreme you cited, which was not a realistic example at all. In fact, it would never occur in a game called by Lombardi, who does not dial up many deep passes.

Perhaps you did not examine the OP's videos carefully at first and failed to realize that Herbert is not coming close to looking at Guyton on any of the plays called. Typical is the play where Guyton is running to the right and Herbert is looking the whole time to the left at other receivers

I think you have now seen that, and in order to try to save face, since it is crystal clear that the play is not a designed long pass to Guyton with Guyton as the primary read, you are now attempting to sell the play as a designed long pass to Guyton with Herbert engaging in some sort of multiple second long extended look off to the left. I think you know that that is not what is happening, but rather than admit that you were mistaken, you are offering this belated look off nonsense. In all honesty, IMO, that is not a good look (off)--pun fully intended.

As I have stated repeatedly, if we were trying to throw deep, we would actually be throwing deep. Our stats on time holding the ball before the pass would be comparatively high versus other teams (they is not). Our air yards per pass would be high. But with just 4 deep passes attempted against CIN, we rose a couple of slots after just that one game in air yards per pass. And that pretty much drives home the point that had we really been attempting these kinds of passes at all, we would rank much higher in air yards per attempt than being near last (now up from 28th to 26th).

If you are suggesting that the reality is that we have dialed up multitudes of plays with the deep pass as the primary read this season that have somehow not been attempted, then your separation from reality is beyond help at this point.

[Guest]

Pro Football Focus's grades assign weight to drops based on how easy the catch appears to be -- and Williams's drop grade is a miserable 39.0, ranked 97th among 103 qualifying receivers. Allen isn't much better; his 62.1 drop grade is ranked 70th. No. 3 wideout Jaylen Guyton is just ahead of Williams, ranked 95th with a 43.8. Add in tight end Jared Cook's 58.7 and four of Herbert's top five targets are letting a lot of on-target passes hit the turf.

And yet people on this forum generally only call out Guyton as the one with the dropsies, making their takes overstated as to Guyton as I have stated.

I think the take you have offered here is more accurate, though an analysis of Ekeler and his multiple drops has not been included.

[Guest]

Agree with you 100%. I was about to post the same thing. It was a snooze show. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I am not in disagreement. The issues have been covered.

[Critty]

Critty, the article you cited is barely above the level of 2+2 equals 4. It isn't arrogance on my part, but rather a meaningless presentation by Archibald that has caused me to criticize the article. Does Archibald really think that in evaluating deep passing opportunities, anyone is not looking at the results of designed deep passes where the pass did not come off for one reason or another? Nobody is missing that reality. Archibald is not offering anything new and extraordinary here.

And I was right, wasn't I? You did make up the extreme you cited, which was not a realistic example at all. In fact, it would never occur in a game called by Lombardi, who does not dial up many deep passes.

Perhaps you did not examine the OP's videos carefully at first and failed to realize that Herbert is not coming close to looking at Guyton on any of the plays called. Typical is the play where Guyton is running to the right and Herbert is looking the whole time to the left at other receivers

I think you have now seen that, and in order to try to save face, since it is crystal clear that the play is not a designed long pass to Guyton with Guyton as the primary read, you are now attempting to sell the play as a designed long pass to Guyton with Herbert engaging in some sort of multiple second long extended look off to the left. I think you know that that is not what is happening, but rather than admit that you were mistaken, you are offering this belated look off nonsense. In all honesty, IMO, that is not a good look (off)--pun fully intended.

As I have stated repeatedly, if we were trying to throw deep, we would actually be throwing deep. Our stats on time holding the ball before the pass would be comparatively high versus other teams (they is not). Our air yards per pass would be high. But with just 4 deep passes attempted against CIN, we rose a couple of slots after just that one game in air yards per pass. And that pretty much drives home the point that had we really been attempting these kinds of passes at all, we would rank much higher in air yards per attempt than being near last (now up from 28th to 26th).

If you are suggesting that the reality is that we have dialed up multitudes of plays with the deep pass as the primary read this season that have somehow not been attempted, then your separation from reality is beyond help at this point.

Your arguments have obvious holes.
You may want to patch those up.

[Guest]

Your arguments have obvious holes.
You may want to patch those up.

Moving on from this as others now desire.