Showing posts with label football. Show all posts
Showing posts with label football. Show all posts

Football coaching slowly emerging from Paleolithic era

>> Sunday, February 07, 2010

Sean Payton made two great unconventional calls in this game: going for it on fourth and a long yard at the goal line late in the second quarter, and of course the onside kick to open the second half.

The first call didn't "work" but what happened illustrates why it's the right decision in that situation. After the play failed the Colts played conservatively since they had the ball at their own two and they were trying to just run out the clock. The subsequent punt gave New Orleans great field position. One first down later they were in FG position, so they ended up losing no points by not kicking the FG initially. Indeed if they had kicked the FG initially, Indy would have gotten the ball back with two minutes to go and probably pretty good field position. The game could easily have been 17-6 at the half.

The onside kick was brilliant -- surprise onside kicks are so rare that the recovery rate for them is far higher (55%) than for conventional situation onside kicks. Coming out of the locker room a fresh Peyton Manning was primed to slice the New Orleans defense apart on Indy's first possession, as indeed he did. But instead of giving the Colts a 17-6 lead midway through the third quarter, the TD ended up merely giving Indy the lead back they had by then lost. The kick fundamentally altered the shape of the game.

Update: Nate Silver does the math. (The value of the surprise onside kick leads to an interesting game theory dilemma -- surprise onside kicks are clearly an under-used strategy but they're underused because they're underused -- if they become too common their value will drop quite a bit because the recovery rate will fall as teams anticipate them).

Read more...

Party on Bourbon Street Tonight?

Yes, I believe so.

Read more...

Apparently, There's Some Kind Of Professional Football Game Being Played Tonight

It almost certainly won't be the most entertaining sports event of the day, but maybe we'll get lucky again (this recent trend of Super Bowls that are actually good games has been weird, but pleasing.) I am in the very rare position of picking the Colts to win but rooting for the Saints. Meanwhile, LGM has acquired exclusive footage of this year's highest budget, most highly anticipated Super Bowl ad:

Read more...

Championship Sunday Open Thread

>> Sunday, January 24, 2010

I'll somewhat reluctantly take the Colts -7.5 (pretty sure Colts will win, worry about the spread against the Jets defense, but also see some Sanchez picks if Jets are behind in the 4th quarter) and pretty confidently take the Saints -3.5 (can't see the secondary pf the injury-riddled Vikes standing up to Brees, especially on the road.)

Read more...

Whining Loser of the Day

>> Sunday, January 17, 2010

Keith Brooking. Aww, a professional team playing another professional team in a playoff game continued to play football in the fourth quarter, boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo.

And now the punchline:

“They get to see us (next season) so you better believe I will have that one circled on the calendar,” Brooking said.


Oooh, I'm sure that sent a massive wave of terror through the Vikings dressing room.

Aside from the utter lack of merit in Brooking's pathetic whining, I should also note that anyone who shares a locker room with Flozell Adams should be permanently enjoined from calling any member of another organization classless.

Read more...

Wildcard Picks/Open Thread

>> Saturday, January 09, 2010

Jets +2.5 at Bengals. I'm generally inclined to think "Never, ever, EVER back a crappy QB on the road" is a good rule. I'm inclined to make an exception, however, when 1)in a given state of health and offensive context the much more accomplished veteran he's facing isn't terribly good either, 2)the home playoff team is a ringer, and 3)his team has an outstanding pass defense. Granted, even in an off year Palmer is a lot better, but this looks like a close game and I think you have to take any points on offer. Plus, Revis will take 85 out of the game, leaving Palmer looking at Andre "8.5 yds/rec" Caldwell and a washed-up Laveranues Coles in key situations. Good luck with that.

Eagles at Cowboys -3.5. I don't want it to happen, either. And, yeah, picking Wade Phillips in the playoffs is rarely a good idea, although Andy Reid (while a good Tuesday-Saturday coach) is even more tactically inept. Still, football's most odious franchise features the better team here, and with their offensive line problems I just can't see the Eagles hitting enough big plays to win.

Ravens at Patriots (-3.5.) I'm torn -- the Ravens are better than their record, and without Welker the Pats probably not as good. Still, it's Brady (who somewhat quietly had as good a year as anyone, and better than the more noted St. Favre) and Belichick against Flacco and Harbaugh at Foxboro...I think they'll get a first round win.

Packers +1 at Arizona On paper, the biggest mismatch, and since Rogers is at this point probably better than Warner I won't disagree, especially with Boldin's health questionable.

Read more...

Intentions be damned, Avatar is racist (as is praying for and/or to "JaMarcus Manning").

>> Sunday, December 20, 2009

Annalee Newitz writes that "[w]hether Avatar is racist is a matter of debate," but it isn't: the film is racist. Its fundamental narrative logic is racist: it transposes the cultural politics of Westerns (in which the Native Americans are animists who belong to a more primitive race) onto an interplanetary conflict and then assuages the white guilt that accompanies acts of racial and cultural genocide by having a white man save the noble savages (who are also racists). Unlike King Kong—which wrestled with the racial logic of the originalAvatar reproduces the racist logic of its source material. This is not to say the film is not also a condemnation of American imperialism or disastrous environmental policies, because it's that too. I'll address the racial politics more in a moment, but let me address the portrayal of the military (much bemoaned here) first:

It all adds up to crossing a line that I’ve never experienced in a major American film: drawing the audience to cheer the brutal deaths of Americans who are clearly symbolizing the military.

Blackwater/Xe Services LLC is not the military. Mercenaries are not symbols of the military. They are a perversion of the military. James Cameron has an unabashed love for the military (Aliens, The Abyss, etc.) but that love does not extend to those who make war for profit. It's obvious that the only authentic military man in the film is the protagonist, Jake Sully, who lost his legs in a legitimate conflict. He turns from the soulless mercenary-logic like a good proxy for the audience, and this is where the racial politics become problematic.

The titular "avatars" are genetically designed Na'vi bodies that can be remotely piloted by people like Sully with the intent of studying the natives. (Think anthropological immersion at its most literal.) The Na'vi are not merely distrustful of "the space people," they're inherently xenophobic, incapable of trusting any sentient being that doesn't look like them. If that mistrust is justified for some other reason (like a hairy first contact), the film never mentions it, meaning (in a classic case of projection) the humans assume that the Na'vi will be xenophobic before they even meet them.

But the racial essentialism of the film creates a whopper of an unintended thematic irony.* The planet and everything on it do not simply coexist in a harmonious balance of the New Age variety: they are hard-wired into a single neural network that makes the entire planet into a single entity and "the space people" less like a colonizing mercenary force than a disease. The humans are to be resisted not because they are economic imperialists (though they are) and not because they glory in militaristic combat (though they do) but because they are different. They do not belong to the planet and therefore there is no possibility for peaceful coexistence. The only way humans can be accepted is for them to forsake their humanity and become Na'vi. (Think literal assimilation.)

This is not a vision of a racially harmonious social politic: it is an inversion of the logic of passing that seems acceptable only because it imagines the experience of becoming a person of color as necessarily ennobling. The film argues that once a white person truly and deeply understands the non-white experience, he becomes an unstoppable combination of non-white primitivism and white rationalism which is exactly what happens. In order for the audience to support the transformation of Jake Sully into Braveheart Smurf, it must accept the essentialist assumptions that make such a combination possible ... and those assumptions are racist. In football terms, this is a variation of the black quarterback "problem."

For decades, coaches and scouts wished they could find a black body with a white brain in it. ("If only someone could find a way to stuff Peyton Manning's brain into JaMarcus Russell's body!") The essentialist logic at play there is obvious: black people are more athletic than white, and white people are smarter than black. No matter how descriptive these people thought they were being, in truth they were creating the conditions they claimed to describe: black quarterbacks were increasingly valued for raw athleticism, white athletes for their pocket presence and tactical acumen. That's an expectations game based on racist expectations ... and it works according to the same logic behind the narrative of Avatar.

*I'm analogizing race and species here because Cameron's space fable encourages me to do so with all the subtlety of a fry pan upside my head.

Read more...

Brett Favre and the hype machine

>> Sunday, November 29, 2009

Speaking of the culture of celebrity and media saturation, an ironic aspect of the ridiculous levels of worshipful coverage that Brett Favre has gotten over the years is that it has made it eas(ier) to overlook that he's in the midst of one of the most amazing seasons in NFL history. His 24 TD passes, three interceptions, 69% completion percentage, and 270 yards per game passing add up to by far the highest quarterback rating of his career, and one of the highest in history. He's doing this at the age of 40, and today he tied Jim Marshall's record for consecutive NFL starts by a non-kicker (282).

Another aspect of this story I like is that last August all the football insider types were certain that Favre's flirtation with the Vikings would be, if consummated with a contract, harmful to team chemistry and other similarly mysterious alembics, and that indeed the whole soap opera of his second un-retirement was going to harm his "legacy."

Read more...

Sportswriters Descend to the Level of Political Pundits

>> Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Somerby notes the unfortunate parallels:

Undying love of conventional wisdom: Many sports pundits have seemed genuinely angry about the fact that Belichick did something unconventional. (Trent Dilfer, come on down! And take your meds!) In political journalism, the pundit class is often happiest when They All Get To Say The Same Thing. In this case, many sports pundits came unhinged because one of the NFL’s coaches didn’t do The Thoroughly Typical Thing. This reaction seemed quite familiar.

The instant recourse to mind-reading: Many sports pundits instantly turned to mind-reading, thus “explaining” the motive behind Belichick’s unconventional move. (Kill the pig! For one especially foolish example, just click here.) Of course, this is also a common, numb-nutted approach among our political pundits.

The inability to conduct an analysis: Finally, we were struck by how weakly many sports pundits were able to reason about Belichick’s decision. They complained that he didn’t do the conventional thing—and then, they began explaining his motives. But had he done the smart thing—made the right decision? Many pundits showed no sign of knowing how to approach such a question. To them, Belichick’s decision was unusual. Automatically, this made it wrong.

In addition, there seem to be two other major arguments:

  • Credentialism is everything, meaning that those stat geeks and their math who probably got cut from their high school football teams should be ridiculed. Hence, sports pundits and mediocre ex-players can be justified in calling a coach with 5 Super Bowl rings an idiot based on no actual evidence.*
  • The coach's most important job a coach has is not to maximize his team's chances of winning but to "show confidence in his defense." The best way to demonstrate this confidence is to assume that the Colts have a 105% chance of scoring if they get the ball on the Pats' 30.
As I've said in comments, I should make clear that -- as with many such tactical decisions -- the percentages are within a range that makes it impossible to know what the best call was there. I think the best evidence carefully considered supports Belichick, but it's close enough that it's possible that in this individual case punting was a slightly better option, and I wouldn't be inclined to criticize him either way. But to say that the decision couldn't have been right is silly.

*To be clear, I don't agree with the credentialism -- Belichick is a great coach, but obviously it's possible for him to do dumb things, and I think his play-calling and clock management leading up to his defensible 4th-and-2 call was shaky. But if your football experience matters more than the evidence, then given that Belichick has vastly superior credentials to the Michael Wilbons and Trent Dilfers of the world we can end the debate immediately.

Read more...

On the Other Hand...

>> Sunday, November 15, 2009

My throwaway intuition notwithstanding, there seems to be good evidence that Belichick was right. [via Neyer.]

...see also Beaudrot. I also think Belichick was right not to concede a touchdown -- whatever your respect for Manning, you can't treat it like a chip-shot field goal.

Update (Paul): I loved Belichick's decision to go for it, which statistically made all kinds of sense, and as Scott points out actually becomes more attractive when you consider the precise details of this situation and not merely the statistics regarding these situations in general (as of course any decent coach always does).

Where he can definitely be faulted is for the playing calling sequence -- if you're going to go for it on fourth down then cross them up with a quick hitting running play on third. Even if you don't make it you force them to use their final time out, which is good in itself and also gives you time to plan the fourth down play. But going for it was a great call, which is confirmed by the universal opprobium pouring forth from the International Guild of Typical Middle-Aged Sportswriters and Washed Up Jocks.

Anyway it's heartening to see Del Rio, Ryan, and Belichick making smart strategic decisions in the face of the incredulity of the Al Michaels' of the world.

Read more...

This is teh awesome

From the Jacksonville-Jets game:


"It included a Jets defense trying to allow a touchdown to give Jacksonville the lead and the Jaguars refusing to score it. And it had nothing to do with either team trying to lose.

Jaguars running Maurice Jones-Drew, one of the stars of the game, intentionally dropped to his knee before the end zone after a 9-yard gain to set up the winning field goal.

Mindful of what some fans care about most, Jones-Drew said, “Tell my fantasy owners I’m sorry.”

He did it to run down the clock because the Jets had no timeouts and the Jaguars did not want the Jets to get the ball back after what was to be a 21-yard field goal by Josh Scobee.

Jones-Drew already had one touchdown and 123 rushing yards. Another score by him would have meant valuable points to fans who drafted him for their fantasy leagues.

“I’d rather take a win any day,” Jones-Drew said.

But when he was told not to score, Jones-Drew said he was surprised at first. “I’m like, a knee? What do you mean?” he said. “I took a deep breath and took a knee.”

What made it even stranger was the play before that. On first-and-10 from the Jets’ 14 with two minutes left, Jets Coach Rex Ryan told his defenders to let Jacksonville score. Ryan figured it would give the Jaguars a 6-point lead but leave his team time to take the ensuing kickoff and drive the field for a game-winning touchdown.

Because not all of his defenders got the message, Jones-Drew was tackled at the 10 by Marques Douglas and Sione Pouha after a 4-yard run.

“We couldn’t even get that right,” Ryan said.

That forced Ryan to use his last timeout. Jones-Drew dropped to a knee at the 1-yard line on the next play, and after that quarterback David Garrard knelt on the next two downs to waste more time and set up the winning kick."

Meanwhile in related news professional moron Andy Reid kicks a field goal on fourth and one from the San Diego one while down 14-0, and then another one on fourth and one from the San Diego seven while down 21-6.

UPDATE [by SL]: On the other hand, Belichick's disdain for the conventional wisdom on punting has served him well, but (with all respect for Manning and granting that they got screwed on the call) that seemed to be pushing it to an indefensible extreme.

Read more...

Politics as punting on fourth and one

>> Monday, November 09, 2009

One explanation for why people who advocate transparently idiotic policies that result in national disasters (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our current health care system, our drug laws, our prisons, our current financial crisis) generally don't lose their pundit credentials is that what gets you fired isn't being wrong: it's being perceived to be wrong while bucking the conventional wisdom. Indeed being wrong while repeating the conventional wisdom is generally more profitable than being right while resisting it.

That's why football coaches punt on fourth and one. It's idiotic and loses lots of games, but what gets them fired is doing something unconventional that doesn't work 100% of the time. And since nothing works 100% of the time they generally prefer to "manage by the book" as the baseball expression goes.

In American politics today, managing by the book means always being "strong on defense," which in turn means spending insane sums of money on wars and the weapons to fight them, and "tough on crime," which means throwing millions of people in prison at immense cost, often for behavior which in a more rational society wouldn't even be illegal, let alone grounds for incarceration. It also means doing nothing that would upset the economic status quo; hence bankers must receive immense bonuses 15 minutes after their firms were saved from extinction by the timely transfer of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. (This is known as "letting the market reward success.").

The conventional wisdom is the conventional wisdom because the establishment deems it to be simply the truth, and therefore not subject to question by serious people, such as themselves. This is why failed football coaches and baseball managers keep getting re-hired; this is why Bill Kristol now writes a column for the Washington Post, and Iraq war advocates aren't immediately laughed out of the room when they give their opinions on what "we" should do next in Afghanistan.

Of course eventually things get too ridiculous, and the Red Sox hire Bill James. I don't think Obama is Bill James. At best he might be Brian Cashman. Lets hope he doesn't end up working with a hard salary cap. (What brings this whole post together, which to less discerning eyes might appear to consist of a disjointed ramble of mixed metaphors, is that Christina Romer is David Romer's wife.)

Read more...

Sometimes it's hard to be a Redskin

>> Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Joe Posnanski points out the rather amazing statistical quirk that Washington's NFL franchise won't play a team that will have won a game until the seventh week of the season (their opponents will have been a combined 0-14 up until then).

He also has some interesting thoughts on how strange it is that what's by far the most offensive nickname for any major sports team in the USA belongs to the nation's capital's favorite franchise. (Of course when Washington's NBA franchise changed their name from the unfortunate moniker "Bullets" they actually managed to come up with something worse. This would be difficult to achieve with "Redskins.")

Also, Todd Collins, now in his second year of a three year nine million dollar extension, during which he has yet to take a snap in a game, is still teh awesome.

Read more...

Why is dog fighting more morally repugnant than football?

>> Monday, October 12, 2009

Malcom Gladwell asks a very good question.

I'm a huge college football fan and like my NFL fix too. This article is to put it mildly extremely disturbing.

I don't know whether it's a function of watching games in HDTV on a bigger screen or just getting older and less reckless, but even before reading this article I had been struck by the incredible violence of high level football, especially the NFL. The players are so huge and so fast and so strong that every play ends up featuring the equivalent of a bunch of moderate car crashes. I remember saying to somebody I was watching a game with the other day that I don't understand how five guys aren't getting seriously hurt on every play. Apparently they are.

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger template Simple n' Sweet by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP