Seeing someone else use imagination does not create imagination of the same kind in Bowles' brain. There is nothing there in the imagination category, sadly.
He probably watched yesterday and I say there is a very good chance that he watches all the future Super bowls as well , the only problem is he will be watching them all from his living room and not from the sidelines ! This guy has zero chance to be coaching in the big game he is not a good coach .Hopefully just 1 more year of this guy. PS I cut Mike Mac zero slack ,I think his first 2 drafts sucked and the jury is still out on last year---as far as I'm concerned these guys can both start looking for employment elsewhere but I stray.
I hope he learned something about guts and glory at least. I doubt his balls increased in size though.
Do you think Bowles watched the game yesterday? Of course, the "Puppy Bowl"...he never misses a game...
Yeah but we are talking about the worst coach in football. Only the Jets can do a massive search and hire consultants and come up with Bowles. Plus the Eagles defense showed up when it counted. No one will remember the 500 passing yards. They will look at that strip of Brady when it counted.
So your saying the future of football is the Cleveland Browns? They have one of the gurus of Moneyball in their front office in John Depodesta. That will be interesting to see.
No, I said nothing of the sort. The fact that baseball analytics work for baseball doesn't in any way say that hiring a baseball analytics expert for a football job is smart. What I said is that football coaches do lots of stupid things, things that a glance at the data show are stupid, and avoiding doing those stupid things can easily tilt a close game from a loss to a win. The Eagles now are like the A's in 2002, doing obvious things that help them win games. Going forward teams are going to hire coaches who embrace those ideas, exactly as has happened in major league baseball, because if you don't you're giving yourself a big disadvantage. In 2002 all the A's had to do is put players in the lineup who walked a lot, because all of the other teams were too stupid to realize that OBP was way more important than batting average. Now everyone knows that OPS is the single most important batting statistic, so realizing it gives no advantage. The same thing is going to happen in the NFL - teams will hire coaches who pretty much always go for it on 4th-and-3 from midfield, because the numbers make it obvious that it's the right thing to do. Once that happens, defenses will try to adjust, and maybe offensive strategy will then need to change again. The point is that hiring coaching dinosaurs who "go with their gut" and play the punt/field position game are simply not going to get hired, because they don't win enough. This pattern is firmly entrenched in baseball now, is becoming standard in basketball (why do you think people are constantly talking about player efficiency rating now?), and the Eagles' success is only going to hasten it in football as well.
The problem with analytics in football is that basically they say that everybody has been playing the game bass-ackwards for 95 years now. All the analytics show that possession of the football is more important than field position between the 10 yard lines. This means teams should be going for it on 4th down except when inside their own 10 yard line. This means that teams should be refining their onsides kick techniques and always choosing to make an onsides kick, since if they recover the football 10-15% of the time they have a net gain in win expectancy, even though they give up the ball in much worse field position the other 85-90% of the time.
That's right, but the key is that people would then react with better onside kick coverage schemes, and defenses that make it more difficult to put together long drives, flipping the balance back the other way. For example, if the other team knows to go for it on 4th down too, going for it on 4th down deep in your own territory becomes much less advantageous, since their expected scoring average will go up if you do. The problem is that by so emphasizing offense over defense in rule changes for the past 15 years the league has thrown things out of whack, and you have this ridiculous situation where what might have once made sense doesn't make sense now. The fact is that it might not be possible to have a game that is both reasonably balanced and reasonably safe for the players. That's why CTE really is the single most existential threat to the league. The game as it was "meant" to be played is simply too dangerous, and the solutions have thrown the game seriously out of balance.
Actually, I believe analytics would tell you NOT to attempt too many onside kicks. While you are right, they value possession more than field position, the key here is that you are pretty much guaranteeing the other team points when you don't convert the onside kick (they would get it at your 45) and the numbers still tell you it is quite unlikely that you would convert it. although they would point out your chances of converting are higher when the other team doesn't expect it, the idea of doing it more negates that advantage. So they would say only very rarely should you try it Analytics as it pertains to special teams is weird and actually fairly boring. The nerds mostly view special teams as a net negative, meaning the mistakes that can be made are more likely than positive and have a high impact. So they would say to just take a fair catch every time for example to avoid a costly fumble on the return (possession is more important). They would love Jeremy Kerley
The advantage to analytics in baseball is that you play 162 games. In the NFL we play 16. The margin for error and chance taking ( going against the grain ), isn't so bad in baseball because offensive possessions are equal for each team. It's not that way in football. Everything is micro-managed because nothing has to be equal. I hate to be the "Doubting Thomas", but I don't think analytics can apply to football like they can in baseball. Down and distance according to field position will always dictate approach and planning. Mistakes in football spell doom and loss to a much higher degree than baseball. Great idea, but applying it with any degree of success would be minimal.
but we just watched the Eagles apply it with success all the way to the Super Bowl and then beating a dynasty with a backup QB
Exactly, and the data clearly show that on 4th-and-3 from midfield you should go for it. Yet virtually no one does. These are decisions that cost lots of points, and can absolutely make a massive difference in whether you win or lose. If anything, analytics can be more important in football than in baseball, because of the short season. Mistakes in football do spell doom and loss to a very high degree, but that includes mistakes of omission just as much as mistakes of commission. The big idea that baseball analytics revealed is that nothing is more important than outs, getting on base, and hitting home runs. The big idea that football analytics has revealed is that nothing is more important than possession. Do everything you can to keep an inning going, and do everything you can to keep a possession going.
Let's say everyone in the NFL suddenly bought into this idea. Imagine the Browns/Jets go for it on every 4th and 3-5yards to go near midfield. It may work against the 32nd rated defense in the league, but you won't be playing the 32nd rated defense every Sunday. That's where micro-managing, planning, scouting come into play. Down, distance, score and time dictate risks and non risks when in relation to field position. Statistics/analytics aren't as important in football than the man on man situations that prevail from play to play, and game to game. The "Gut" instincts aren't just blind guesses. Let's pretend the head coach walks up to the o-line before they take the field after having the ball punted to them. He tells them we need to move the chains one time..... All they need to do is run out the clock. One first down is all they need. On 4th and 3 at the 50, the other team can win with a field goal, they have a time out remaining and their kicker can nail 55 yarders all day. You going for it? Even though when you spoke to the o-line they said "yes we can get it", even though they are exhausted and you have a gut feeling they won't get it? Analytics say you can do it. You still gonna look at analytics, or are you gonna do it the old fashioned way and punt? I can't deny that analytics and tendencies are like brothers. But in football, you can't build a team like BillyBean. Shorter seasons will expose analytics due to the narrow concept it is. Constant adaptation is key in football, rather than charts weathering the storm and the law of averages winning out over time. How exactly did analytics play this larger role in winning a Super Bowl for the Eagles? Or the Pats last year?
