-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The Everything NFL Thread - 2012 Season (Up til 2013 Draft)
- Thread starter DM
- Start date
- Status
Shanahan should never have a job in the NFL again after this. And James Andrews is a joke. He had all these "concerns" and kept clearing RGIII to play. Both of them kept caving to the macho-man fantasies of a rookie.
Someone needed to be the damn adult in the room, and part of being a head coach, as opposed to a clever offensive mind, is doing that. Shanahan, for all his offensive genius, has consistently failed in the managerial aspect of being a head coach.
He could probably be a good offensive coordinator somewhere, just like Norv, but he doesn't even deserve that.
This is regardless of whether this is actually true or not. Right now it's hearsay from people at Ashburn but who the fuck knows right now. But the fact is Shanny consistently makes errors even the drunk fans in the stands can tell are errors. I had a 10 year old kid in my house who barely watches football telling me that RGIII needed to get out of the game.
Did everyone else miss this unbelievable display of retardation? When has anyone EVER in any circumstance tried to say that the Vikings are a good team? I realize you're a Lions fan but holy shit dude get your head out of your ass. Everyone and their grandma knows that the only truly good player on the entire 52 man roster for the Vikings is Peterson. As for the Colts, yeah I guess if people honestly thought they would go far in the playoffs then yes they were overrated but as far as I know most people expected that game to turn out the way it did. They won a bunch of close games to bad teams (like the Vikings) in the regular season and once their coach came back they were playing far less inspired.
Stop being an intentional pessimist. There are several good players on that roster (Jared Allen, Antoine Winfield, Harrison Smith to name a few), so it's equally ignorant to say they are as bad as you are indicating. Your "reverse homerism" gets annoying at times tad, try to be more objective when you look at your team.
The Vikings have a good offensive line which helps make AP more effective. Their defense still brings pressure well, which makes them pretty solid on that front. They have Percy Harvin, arguably the best all-around player in the NFL, who can make even Christian Ponder look like a half decent QB. All in all they are a couple pieces short of a legit playoff contender, so you should be looking forward to the future.
There's a distinction that needs to be made somewhere: Most of those guys may not fit the role of "running" quarterbacks, but they can be considered "mobile" quarterbacks. Young and Elway are in the top 10 for rushing yardage by a QB. Rodgers and Roethlisberger make a career of extending plays by avoiding pressure in the pocket.
There's a pretty simple explanation that would explain the correlation (not confirming it, but indicating it my be true). An average passing play has the ball in the hands of the quarterback for what, four seconds? There was apparently an article from ESPN insider that went into this in detail, and only four quarterbacks in the 2011 season had "pocket times" of more than 4 seconds (Ponder, Newton, Vick, and our lord and savior Tim Tebow). On a play where a QB scrambles from the pocket, they might hold the ball for 8, 9, 10+ seconds - more time for those three hundred pound linemen to come find you.
I went back and looked at the QB injuries from this season that I could find/remember, and here's some of the footage from them:
Jake Locker injured while being blindsided from the pocket
Ben Roethlisberger crushed while scrambling in the pocket
Alex Smith concussed while scrambling
Jay Cutler concussed by a late hit while throwing after a scramble
Mike Vick injured in the preseason while attempting to throw after a scramble
RGIII injured on a scramble vs Atlanta and vs Baltimore
Matt Cassell injured within the pocket
Mike Vick injured on a scramble, then forced out of the game on a late hit from within the pocket
Blaine Gabbert injured on a blitz from within the pocket (couldn't find any video :x)
Also missing: Christian Ponder's elbow injury, Nick Foles' hand injury, probably others I've forgotten
Astounding how few QB injuries there are in a season, considering how many hits these guys take. Even though this is a small sample size, you can clearly see how many of these injuries were caused by a scrambling quarterback.
I do not think it is a stretch to say mobile quarterbacks are more injury prone than their pocket-statue counterparts. Injuries on scrambles seem to happen far more often than injuries in the pocket do, or at least as often (and remember, quarterbacks tend to get hit a lot more inside of the pocket than they do on scrambles, so more often = higher % of occurence/hit), and mobile quarterbacks tend to scramble more often than a guy like Peyton Manning.
There are plenty of exceptions to this trend. Eli Manning's pretty mobile in the pocket, and he never misses games. Matt Stafford has missed a bunch of time despite being one of the most stone-footed quarterbacks in the league. Cam Newton has yet to miss a game, but this is likely because he is a three hundred pound behemoth that eats linebackers for breakfast. At best I think it could be described as a trend.
Finally joining the good side eh? The most important stat/biggest amount of evidence is the injuries while scrambling and injuries while in the pocket. Like you said, a qb in the pocket gets blasted on most passing plays yet are rarely injured(compared to the sheer amount of times these 32 guys get blasted). On the other hand, QBs don't rush that often yet they get injured in those few times they do. Clearly indicating that its statistically safer to get blinsided in the pocket.
We also have to take into account the skill of the QB. A QB like Gabbert or Cassel will get injured more often than the better qbs who can avoid the hits. Romo and Rothesberger are exceptions. Though the reason why they are so good is also the reason why they get injured.
But really it's common sense. A running QB turns to a RB a couple plays a game. And we all know how injury prone that position is.
We also have to take into account the skill of the QB. A QB like Gabbert or Cassel will get injured more often than the better qbs who can avoid the hits. Romo and Rothesberger are exceptions. Though the reason why they are so good is also the reason why they get injured.
But really it's common sense. A running QB turns to a RB a couple plays a game. And we all know how injury prone that position is.
Good is a bit of a stretch in regard to the oline, but it could be worse. The defense has incredible consistency issues, looking fabulous 2 weeks ago against the Texans and the first half of last weeks Packers game and then being downright awful in the 2nd half of the Packers game (this week they even fluctuated from drive to drive). Percy Harvin has the worst injury problems of any player in existence and has never (and I would be surprised if he ever did) played an entire season, so while he might help the Vikings win a few games during the first half of the season he would never make it long enough to play in the playoffs.
When you are moving forward and laid out, especially if the tackle is literally from straight the other direction (---><---) then the impact is probably something like literally double. When you are standing in place there is no opposing force. Moving backward and sacked is probably even better (<--- <---). I am really out of touch with physics but I am pretty sure this is all correct.
I made the comparison not because they're all "rushing QB" but because they're QBs that get hit a lot and suffer from injuries, yet only RGIII seems to be criticized for it. It's also to show that many different types of QBs suffer from injuries, whether they're scramblers or pocket passers. Yet only the scramblers are criticized for it. As you noted, nobody blames Stafford's injuries on him being a statue in the pocket. Troy Aikman missed a bunch of games, yet he was purely a pocket quarterback. I was making the point that quarterbacks missing games is the reality of the NFL, it happens. Why are people singling mobile QBs out?
Again, you're assuming the choice is between "scramble" or "pass the ball", the choice is between "scramble" or "get sacked/hit". Does it matter if you get hit after 4 seconds or after 10 seconds? If anything, mobility, and plays that take advantage of said mobility, allow more opportunities to throw the ball out of bounds, get to the sidelines, etc.
This is a very, very weak causation. All your links show is that quarterbacks sometimes get injured when they're hit. What is the difference between getting nailed moving in the pocket versus getting hit moving outside the pocket? And even if so, if you're getting rushed or the pocket collapses and nobody's open, do you expect the quarterback to simply stand there and take the sack?
Furthermore, playcalling and scheme design plays a role, as well as supporting cast. Roethilsberger, Vick, Cutler run offenses that incorporate a lot of 5 and 7 step drops, while Peyton, Eli and Brees play in quick strike offenses that incorporate a lot of 3 step drops, and it helps that they play behind great pass blocking OLs.
Redskins passing plays tend to develop relatively slowly, and while our OL is solid, we have a major weakness at the RT position. If you look at the Atlanta play, Polumbus get beat badly and nobody is open (because our WRs suck outside Garcon) so RGIII either takes the sack or has to try to make the play. The Ravens play was Polumbus getting beat again, nobody picking up the blitz, though RGIII should have slid instead of trying to pick up an extra yard. But again, if he doesn't scramble, he gets nailed by the blitzer.
All in all, this really strikes me as some extreme confirmation bias combined with a small sample size. You fervently believe that injury is an inherent element of a running style and ONLY a running style, when you ignore that injury occurs with various quarterbacking styles, and that many of the injuries occured due to protection breakdowns more than scrambling.
I don't think that many people single the mobile QBs out. Any QB can get hit and injured on the run, which was my point. I think it's a fair assessment to say that a QB on the run has a higher chance of being injured than a QB standing in the pocket, and thus any QB that runs more has a higher chance of being injured. Anyone who "blames" the QB is mistaken; it's just an unintended consequence of being that kind of player.
For a QB like Brady or Matt Ryan, it's essentially "get rid of the ball" or "take the sack." They don't scramble very often, and unless there's a pretty clear opening they're not really thinking about running for it generally. The mentality of a guy like Aaron Rodgers is "get rid of the ball" or "gtfo out of the pocket once 3.5 seconds is up" and they really don't often consider just taking the sack to be an option. Best case scenario is they run and get the completion/incompletion without getting hit, where in the same situation they might have stood in the pocket and gotten hit anyway.
CK basically described momentum, and there is a pretty clear difference. Thanks to the protection of the rules, QBs in the pocket have protection from getting hit in the head/legs, and tend not to land awkwardly. While this is all just observational/I don't have facts backing it up etc, this could be one explanation for it. Legs usually don't bend very awkwardly in the pocket, though, while stuff like the Brady hit and this are gruesome to watch but relative rarities.
I didn't really consider it at all. Definitely worth noting that Peyton, Eli, and Brees are all something like bottom 5 in sacks/attempt this season and seemingly most every season. I'm not sure where I could get the data for hits taken, but I'd have to guess it's much of the same.
Fervently? What? I said it would not be a stretch to say mobile quarterbacks get injured more. I admitted the sample size was tiny and that scrambling injuries only "seem" to happen more. It's not even running style that I'm looking at, it's scrambling period. In my opinion, the Vick hit was the most conclusive clip of them all; clearly a guy extending the play and creating a situation where he'd get even harder than if he hadn't run at all. The Alex Smith injury, too, is pretty relevant, because a guy not known for his legs extends a play downfield and even attempts to go down safely, but because of his body position gets nailed in the head. This is the only thing I'm trying to show, that harder and more awkward hits happen more often on the move than in the pocket.
RGIII didn't look that bad to me until the 2nd half. He was running around decently well and surely wasn't a "high school QB". All this showed to me is that without his insane running ability he isn't that great of a passer. (and his WR aren't that great without play-action bait).
RGIII went 6 of 10 for 70ish yards and 2 TDs on his first two drives, and 4 of 10 with a pick when he reinjured himself. Dont have the exact numbers but with RGIII with a reasonably healthy knee, the Redskins were running the #1 defense off the field. Then he gets hurt worse and suddenly the Seahawks find their groove.
He was nowhere near as accurate with an iniured plant foot as he would be healthy, and then he injured that leg worse. Very few if any QBs play well with an injury to the leg they throw off of.
He was nowhere near as accurate with an iniured plant foot as he would be healthy, and then he injured that leg worse. Very few if any QBs play well with an injury to the leg they throw off of.
This is obvious. His legs let him complete passes stupidly easy. We are yet to see if he can be a pocket QB. And like i said before, we won't find out until the brutality of the game destroys his body and he can't run anymore. Then we will find out how good of a passer he is. My guess he is average.
Will RGIII be like McNabb was at the end of his career who was a shell of his former shell since he couldn't run anymore from the beatings he took over the years? Redskin Nation better hope that won't be the case for RGIII.
As for scrambling QBs, I don't like them since I think of them as a glorified RB that can throw here and there. It works well in college since you can easily outmaneuver most of the defense due to them not being great talent wise. But in the NFL, every member of the defense has great talent everywhere and can't easily outmaneuver them. So they get pounded constantly and forced to use their arm but they can't resist running because that's what they are good at. In the end, it's good to have some mobility but it cannot be your number one asset as a QB.
As for scrambling QBs, I don't like them since I think of them as a glorified RB that can throw here and there. It works well in college since you can easily outmaneuver most of the defense due to them not being great talent wise. But in the NFL, every member of the defense has great talent everywhere and can't easily outmaneuver them. So they get pounded constantly and forced to use their arm but they can't resist running because that's what they are good at. In the end, it's good to have some mobility but it cannot be your number one asset as a QB.
If anyone is watching Bama-ND this is the best example of how overrated LBs can be. Yes i am talking about Teo. Imo LBs are like QBs of defenses, they are made look better/worse by ther respective lines. I have trouble evaluating LBs because of this(unless they are craptastic or Willis). Yes this does have something to do with the NFL, unlike every other fanbase i never wanted my team to take Teo. And thats saying something because the Giants have maybe 1 NFL caliber LB.
Redskin Nation, time for you guys to start panicking now. RGIII has partial torn LCL and may have completely torn his ACL as well but they don't know the extent of the ACL injury.
Last I heard it was a partial/grade 2 tear, and they're trying to find out whether the previous ACL tear had something to do with the results.
Worst case scenario, he misses part of 2013 and comes back 100% in 2014.
Best case scenario, he makes it back in time for training camp (that's if there's no ACL tear at all, just an aggravation of the LCL).
And the thing is, even if we accept that running QBs have a greater risk of injury, it is not significantly greater, and the impact of this can be mitigated. And a dual threat QB (someone who can run and pass at an elite level) provides such greater impact than a QB that can only run or only pass that missing a few games over a course of a career is acceptable. Furthermore, there is nothing that says that an efficient passing QB with elite athleticism that loses some speed and athleticism cannot continue to be an efficient passer given a solid supporting cast. Look at Randall Cunningham and John Elway in his later years. Keep in mind that Griffin was a far more efficient passer in college than either Vick or McNabb were with a rather mediocre supporting cast (compare his supporting cast to other top prospects like Luck, who played behind an elite OL, Tannehill who had some of the best supporting casts in the country to work with, Barkley who plays at USC, nuff said, Landry Jones who plays at Oklahoma, see Barkley, etc).
If you supposed that RGIII's runs were passes and counted every fumble as an interception (highly unfavorable to RGIII btw), then Griffin would account for 4015 yards, 27 TDs and 17 turnovers as a rookie on 513 "attempts". This is with significant holes at WR (outside Garcon the WR is replacement level, the TE is a backup) and OL (except for Trent Williams and Will Montgomery, the OL doesn't pass block particularly well). Even if you do not project any further development for RGIII (which is unreasonable given his work ethic and character), this is highly effective production by any standard, especially if you don't discount his effect on the production of Alfred Morris (not saying he isn't a great back in his own right but he is not as effective without RGIII's running threat to force a defender to account for him).
Worst case scenario, he misses part of 2013 and comes back 100% in 2014.
Best case scenario, he makes it back in time for training camp (that's if there's no ACL tear at all, just an aggravation of the LCL).
McNabb sucked because Shanny doesn't incorporate screens and checkdowns into his offense, which is what Reid did to compensate for McNabb's dreadful intermediate accuracy. McNabb is infamous for his worm burner passes into the dirt. Also McNabb had a rather shitty work ethic and didn't want to adapt to his new job requirements.
And the thing is, even if we accept that running QBs have a greater risk of injury, it is not significantly greater, and the impact of this can be mitigated. And a dual threat QB (someone who can run and pass at an elite level) provides such greater impact than a QB that can only run or only pass that missing a few games over a course of a career is acceptable. Furthermore, there is nothing that says that an efficient passing QB with elite athleticism that loses some speed and athleticism cannot continue to be an efficient passer given a solid supporting cast. Look at Randall Cunningham and John Elway in his later years. Keep in mind that Griffin was a far more efficient passer in college than either Vick or McNabb were with a rather mediocre supporting cast (compare his supporting cast to other top prospects like Luck, who played behind an elite OL, Tannehill who had some of the best supporting casts in the country to work with, Barkley who plays at USC, nuff said, Landry Jones who plays at Oklahoma, see Barkley, etc).
If you supposed that RGIII's runs were passes and counted every fumble as an interception (highly unfavorable to RGIII btw), then Griffin would account for 4015 yards, 27 TDs and 17 turnovers as a rookie on 513 "attempts". This is with significant holes at WR (outside Garcon the WR is replacement level, the TE is a backup) and OL (except for Trent Williams and Will Montgomery, the OL doesn't pass block particularly well). Even if you do not project any further development for RGIII (which is unreasonable given his work ethic and character), this is highly effective production by any standard, especially if you don't discount his effect on the production of Alfred Morris (not saying he isn't a great back in his own right but he is not as effective without RGIII's running threat to force a defender to account for him).
If this is true, then why did McNabb only ever once have a QB rating over 100? (the year he had TO)? Why did Vick only ever have a rating over 100 or a completion percentage over 60% once in his career (and that was nowhere near his most effective year as a runner)? Vick in his prime was probably faster than RGIII. Why could guys like Kordell Stewart never become effective passers? If the ability to run made efficient pass completion "stupidly easy", then every running QB should be putting up numbers like RGIII is doing, or at least respectable numbers.
I think the obvious answer to this situation is simply based on the law of numbers. Injuries are flukes in that they happen randomly and unpredictably, but mathematically speaking your chances of injury increase the more times you are hit. Whether you are scrambling or standing in the pocket, every time you are contacted by a defender (or even your own team) you have a chance of getting injured. Since by nature scrambling QBs take more hits than pocket QBs (unless you're Jay Cutler lol), scrambling QBs mathematically have a higher chance to get injured.
Also tad, you say Percy Harvin is the most injured player, but I believe Jahvid Best would take that award by a mile.
Also tad, you say Percy Harvin is the most injured player, but I believe Jahvid Best would take that award by a mile.
Fair enough, though there's variance.
For example, let's say a quarterback runs 100 times but slides/runs out of bounds on 75 of those runs. That means he's taken 25 more hits over the course of a season, or 1 and a half extra hits per game. However, his OL gives up 20 sacks and 50 QB hits a year on dropbacks.
Now let's take a QB that doesn't run at all, but his OL gives up 35 sacks and 80 QB hits a year (essentially a below-average pass blocking OL). QB B is hit slightly more.
Now, obviously both QBs are at more risk than a non-running QB behind an elite OL. But given how productive a running QB with top-notch passing ability can make an offense, it is probably worth the risk to have the running QB continue to run - as long as the coaching staff doesn't make stupid decisions such as having said QB play on a dangerously injured knee.
For example, let's say a quarterback runs 100 times but slides/runs out of bounds on 75 of those runs. That means he's taken 25 more hits over the course of a season, or 1 and a half extra hits per game. However, his OL gives up 20 sacks and 50 QB hits a year on dropbacks.
Now let's take a QB that doesn't run at all, but his OL gives up 35 sacks and 80 QB hits a year (essentially a below-average pass blocking OL). QB B is hit slightly more.
Now, obviously both QBs are at more risk than a non-running QB behind an elite OL. But given how productive a running QB with top-notch passing ability can make an offense, it is probably worth the risk to have the running QB continue to run - as long as the coaching staff doesn't make stupid decisions such as having said QB play on a dangerously injured knee.
except mathematically they are higher when you are being hit in the worse direction, because literally the force is bigger...standing still being dropped is different than being hit on the run, we already covered this (although being tackled from the front running straight back is still the safest hit)
Some stats on the Seahawks-Falcons game:
If I read any other good ones I'll post them too. For those of you who gamble, I think the Falcons are currently 2 1/2 point favorites.
- From 2007-2011, road teams from the West (PST+MWT timezones) are a combined 49-84 (0.368) during 1:00 EST games (10:00 AM PST). The game is Sunday at 1:00 EST.
- In the EST timezone alone, road teams are a combined 19-52 (0.268) during 1:00 EST games.
- The Seahawks are 3-5 on the road this season. The Falcons are 7-1 at home this season.
- Russell Wilson has 17 passing touchdowns and 2 interceptions at home this season. On the road, he has 9 passing touchdowns and 8 interceptions. Yardage and completion % are about the same. In outside stadiums, he has 22 TDs to 5 Ints; inside, he has 4 TDs to 5 Ints.
- Marshawn Lynch averages 4.1 yards/carry on grass and has 1 TD. He averages 5.5 yards/carry on turf and has 11 TDs. (The Georgia Dome is, obviously, turf)
- Matt Ryan's home record is 33-5 (the Falcons lost two games without him in 2009 at home). Of the five losses, two are against the Saints; he is a combined 31-3 against all other teams at home.
- Only one west coast team has won back to back playoff games on the east coast, the 1989 LA Rams.
- In the regular season, Atlanta went 2-0 against playoff opponents. Seattle went 4-1 (plus the playoff victory).
- Seattle's sack leader Clemons and Atlanta's sack leader Abraham both have about a third of their teams' sacks. Both are injured, with Clemons definitely being out (Abraham is questionable).
- In two matchups with the Panthers, Atlanta allowed Cam Newton to rush for 202 yards. In one game against Vick, Atlanta allowed 42 rushing yards. In one half against RGIII, Atlanta allowed 7 rushing yards.
- Football Outsiders has ranked Seattle as the best team in the league, and given them an "expected win" value of 13 wins (3rd best). Atlanta is ranked #10 with 9.1 wins (10th best). More can be read here if you're interested.
If I read any other good ones I'll post them too. For those of you who gamble, I think the Falcons are currently 2 1/2 point favorites.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
I just want to point out that the Raiders cover a strong majority of those west to east early game losses. They're like 2-40 in such games (Numbers off the top of my head, could be slightly different but still in that range of absurdity).
EDIT: I just remembered a good stat, Killah... The Falcons are 0-3 in the playoffs under Mike Smith.
EDIT: I just remembered a good stat, Killah... The Falcons are 0-3 in the playoffs under Mike Smith.
Are you scared?? Trying to comfort yourself so you can sleep at night? Don't worry, Browner played like crap against the Skins and Clemons tore his ACL. Those are two huge hits against the Hawks defense. So the Falcons should win considering they also have a rookie QB.
YOU DON'T KNOW HOW I FEEL INSIDE
I'm secretly pretty confident but that chance of losing and having to hear about Smitty/Ryan's 0-4 playoff record for another fifty two weeks is enough to drive one stark raving mad.
Also I have a confession: I've never been to a professional football game. This Sunday will be my first. Exciting stuff.
Here's the page I was reading about those stats. Oakland was, surprisingly, 10-16 in road games at 10:00 AM PST (not necessarily on the East Coast though). Seattle was actually worst at 7-15, but that's hardly relevant because this year's Seattle team is way different than last year's or many years before. I do think the travel is in issue, just an issue that can be coached around if Seattle's staff knows what they're doing (as evidenced by the beatdown of the Bills in Toronto).
- Status