Jump to content

RedRamage

What's wrong with the Offense?

Recommended Posts


For a third????? In a heartbeat.

I don't think he'd cost more than that,but I could be wrong. I don't see him costing a 1st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting. Especially this part ..

Yah, the article had some positives and some negatives, but that quote and the part about Stafford's winning % in comebacks from 9 or more down entering the 2nd(behind only Brady and Manning all time) were pretty interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very interesting. Especially this part ..

Does anyone know how this WPA stat is calculated? Also, is there a way to see the unnamed QBs?

By my count, Stafford is 16th in WPA since 2004 by thus metric. Manning, Brees, Rodgers, and Brady are at the top of the list, but if we're going back to 2004, I'd assume the following QBs are the ones listed above than Stafford (no particular order):

Wilson

Rivers

Big Ben

Romo

Favre

Warner

Palmer

Eli

Maybe also Cutler? McNabb? Ryan? Newton? Vick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12-17 might be fair, but I might put him a little higher. Here's some production stats that I feel are pretty important

- Has lead the 4th,13th and 17th ranked scoring offenses the last 3 years, average of just over 11.

- Has lead the 3rd,5th and 6th ranked offense in terms of yardage

- Has had the 23rd ranked run game on average behind him. (29,23,17)

- Has never in his career had a WR rank in the top 50 on PFF other than Calvin Johnson. Tate most likely will change that this year though.

- His starting TE has ranked around 50th over the last years. Guys like Fauria and Scheffler have ranked decent though.

- Given those numbers, though I don't care to do the work to figure it out, I'd be that his weapons rank somewhere in the 20s.

Looking at all of that, I think you'd have to say that Stafford produces an offense that is generally significantly better than what his supporting cast would suggest it should be. Calvin is obviously a huge factor as well, but he catches about 1500 of the 4500+ yards we ask Stafford to throw for in a given year.

Edit - One more factor to throw out there. Historically, high end WRs and TEs, particularly high end WRs and TEs who are tall, are who catch TDs, no matter the QB.

Significantly better? Maybe in 2011, three years ago but other than that I would classify that statement as false. I don't think it would be fair to argue that his seasons as the 13th and 17th scoring offense is significantly better production than what he was given. I understand it isn't Stafford's fault but I highly doubt you will find a QB given more options in the first three rounds and through free agency than Stafford. Now this says more of the ineptitude of Mayhew than of Stafford, but I think Stafford has a part to play in this. I don't think it is a myth that the great QB make the players around them better, I also think that great organizations (who often feature great QB) are better able to find hidden talent in the late rounds. We have the worst of both worlds in that our organization has struggled to find weapons in the early rounds let alone the late rounds and Stafford has been fundamentally unable to boost the performance of those around him. He isn't able to buy his OL more time, he doesn't throw an accurate ball, and Stafford's skill set is most compatible with guys like Calvin who can adjust (especially in mid-air) to corral Stafford's passes.

Yes, he doesn't have two WR in the top 50, but mathematically there are going to be at least 12 other teams who won't have two in the top 50. There is also the issue that better QB who are more accurate and able to bring out the best in their WR will have more guys in the top 50 than sub-par QBs. I find it highly unlikely that a poor QB will have 2 or 3 guys in the top 50. I also think that having the best WR in the league should help overcome the fact that there isn't a second WR in the top 50. If I personally was building a team I would have no reservation having the #1 and a #60 over two guys in the 20-30 range.

I have little arguments against the TE and RB issues, those are both Mayhew blunders...Stafford has little to do with the fact that Mayhew signed an aging Bush to a 4 year deal and resigned Pettigrew which, IMO, is still mind blowing.

As for your edit, I don't think I consider that to be true. Let's use a more extreme example, the Denver Broncos. In 2011 when their QB was the stellar grouping of Tebow and Orton. Demaryius Thomas caught 4 TD passes, Eric Decker led the team with 8. Both are 6'3" and drafted in the top 3 rounds. Now, substitute Manning for Tebow/Orton and Decker averaged 12 TD (a 50% increase), and Thomas has caught an average of 12 (a 300% increase). So, are we to assume that Decker (who is on pace to catch 8 TD this year with the Jets) and Thomas just got better right after Manning joined (and then Decker got worse since joining the Jets) or does having a superior QB make a hell of a lot of difference? I'm going with the second option. Similarly, take Brandon Marshall for example. With Miami the most TD he caught was 6, with Cutler (who isn't elite but better than Matt Moore/Henne) has averaged 11.5 TD, nearly double. So again, did Marshall just get way better or do QB matter? I don't think I buy your argument at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Significantly better? Maybe in 2011, three years ago but other than that I would classify that statement as false. I don't think it would be fair to argue that his seasons as the 13th and 17th scoring offense is significantly better production than what he was given. I understand it isn't Stafford's fault but I highly doubt you will find a QB given more options in the first three rounds and through free agency than Stafford. Now this says more of the ineptitude of Mayhew than of Stafford, but I think Stafford has a part to play in this. I don't think it is a myth that the great QB make the players around them better, I also think that great organizations (who often feature great QB) are better able to find hidden talent in the late rounds. We have the worst of both worlds in that our organization has struggled to find weapons in the early rounds let alone the late rounds and Stafford has been fundamentally unable to boost the performance of those around him. He isn't able to buy his OL more time, he doesn't throw an accurate ball, and Stafford's skill set is most compatible with guys like Calvin who can adjust (especially in mid-air) to corral Stafford's passes.

Yes, he doesn't have two WR in the top 50, but mathematically there are going to be at least 12 other teams who won't have two in the top 50. There is also the issue that better QB who are more accurate and able to bring out the best in their WR will have more guys in the top 50 than sub-par QBs. I find it highly unlikely that a poor QB will have 2 or 3 guys in the top 50. I also think that having the best WR in the league should help overcome the fact that there isn't a second WR in the top 50. If I personally was building a team I would have no reservation having the #1 and a #60 over two guys in the 20-30 range.

I have little arguments against the TE and RB issues, those are both Mayhew blunders...Stafford has little to do with the fact that Mayhew signed an aging Bush to a 4 year deal and resigned Pettigrew which, IMO, is still mind blowing.

As for your edit, I don't think I consider that to be true. Let's use a more extreme example, the Denver Broncos. In 2011 when their QB was the stellar grouping of Tebow and Orton. Demaryius Thomas caught 4 TD passes, Eric Decker led the team with 8. Both are 6'3" and drafted in the top 3 rounds. Now, substitute Manning for Tebow/Orton and Decker averaged 12 TD (a 50% increase), and Thomas has caught an average of 12 (a 300% increase). So, are we to assume that Decker (who is on pace to catch 8 TD this year with the Jets) and Thomas just got better right after Manning joined (and then Decker got worse since joining the Jets) or does having a superior QB make a hell of a lot of difference? I'm going with the second option. Similarly, take Brandon Marshall for example. With Miami the most TD he caught was 6, with Cutler (who isn't elite but better than Matt Moore/Henne) has averaged 11.5 TD, nearly double. So again, did Marshall just get way better or do QB matter? I don't think I buy your argument at all.

I can't really sort out what your'e saying here. You're trying pretty hard for the spin job and don't seem to have refuted anything I said. By what measure is the offense not performing significantly better than the supporting cast suggests it should? I think I provided enough evidence to suggest its true, and now 538 agrees with me(I think its fair to say they are a good reference to use when it comes to statistics). Is it now Stafford's fault that Broyles tore his knees and Young was bi-polar? Or was it his fault that Nate Burleson couldn't stay healthy? Jahvid Best's concussions too? Where's Kris Durham right now? If any WR from Detroit goes on to have more success elsewhere than he did with Stafford, you let me know immediately. I bet you'll be waiting a while.

As to your point on my edit, you seem to be making the same point that I'm making, yet acting as if you're disagreeing. You named a bunch of elite, tall WRs and showed that they catch TDs when they have a solid QB, even Jay Cutler level(Jesus I hope we can agree that Stafford is better than Cutler).

Here's one article that touches on height and weight correlation to red zone efficiency, with a pretty telling quote to lead it off

"As multiple rotoViz writers have proven multiple times, there’s a ridiculously strong correlation between wide receiver size and red zone production."

From Gronkowski to Fauria: How to Find the Touchdown Scoring Monsters - RotoViz

One more edit - I slightly misspoke. Stafford hasn't had a WR in the top 70 other than Calvin. No run game, 1 WR, bad TEs. Why doesn't he produce more?

Edited by Nastradamus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't really sort out what your'e saying here. You're trying pretty hard for the spin job and don't seem to have refuted anything I said. By what measure is the offense not performing significantly better than the supporting cast suggests it should? I think I provided enough evidence to suggest its true, and now 538 agrees with me(I think its fair to say they are a good reference to use when it comes to statistics). Is it now Stafford's fault that Broyles tore his knees and Young was bi-polar? Or was it his fault that Nate Burleson couldn't stay healthy? Jahvid Best's concussions too? Where's Kris Durham right now? If any WR from Detroit goes on to have more success elsewhere than he did with Stafford, you let me know immediately. I bet you'll be waiting a while.

As to your point on my edit, you seem to be making the same point that I'm making, yet acting as if you're disagreeing. You named a bunch of elite, tall WRs and showed that they catch TDs when they have a solid QB, even Jay Cutler level(Jesus I hope we can agree that Stafford is better than Cutler).

Here's one article that touches on height and weight correlation to red zone efficiency, with a pretty telling quote to lead it off

"As multiple rotoViz writers have proven multiple times, there’s a ridiculously strong correlation between wide receiver size and red zone production."

From Gronkowski to Fauria: How to Find the Touchdown Scoring Monsters - RotoViz

One more edit - I slightly misspoke. Stafford hasn't had a WR in the top 70 other than Calvin. No run game, 1 WR, bad TEs. Why doesn't he produce more?

I don't think I am spinning anything.

Yes, Stafford "significantly" out-produced his surrounding cast in 2011 when he led the 4th highest scoring offense in the league.

No, Stafford did not "significantly" out-produced his surrounding cast in 2012 and 2013 when he was average in scoring and largely had an average supporting cast. If you wanted to say that he marginally out-produced his surrounding cast I may agree with you (this would, IMO be arguing that he was average while his surrounding cast was below-average). I said in my post that I don't blame Stafford for the lack of secondary options outside of Johnson, that lies solely on the shoulders of Mayhew and has been a point I have been making for some time (Mayhew isn't that great). I never said that Lions WR have gone elsewhere to have more success, that is a straw-man. Conversely, Megatron put up astronomical numbers with Garcia and Kitna at the helm also, so aside from targeting Johnson significantly more I don't see how Stafford has made anyone better nor has he made anyone worse which supports my point that outside of 2011 Stafford has been very average and mirrored his surrounding cast.

As for your initial edit, no, we are not in agreement you said in your original post, "no matter the QB." In my response I showed that while tall, elite WR will obviously catch more TD passes, the quarterback is extremely important. I did this by looking up the top WR in terms of TD catches and singling out the ones who have gone from poor QB to average/elite QB and the difference is blatant. So your point that "no matter the QB" is demonstrably false. If your argument is that tall WR/TE have a greater chance of catching TD passes in the red zone than short WR/TE, I would agree but that isn't what you said at all. Your original post had zero mention of "red zone" and had the obviously false tidbit about no matter the QB.

In reference to this edit, I never argued that he had a good supporting cast. He hasn't had a run game (due to Mayhew), he has bad TEs (due to Mayhew) and Stafford's production has largely mirrored the lack of talent outside of Johnson. He has been average, many of the players around him have been average and I don't view him as the type of QB who's play can boost production of those around him. Stafford is not elusive (doesn't help the OL out at all), doesn't throw an accurate ball (doesn't help many of the non-freakishly athletic WR around him), and has trouble going beyond his first read/target which results in forcing the ball to a single receiver far more often than he should. Now, I'm not saying Stafford is awful, needs to be benched, etc. but instead Stafford is just an average QB on a franchise that has featured very few even average quarterbacks. I fully believe that if Stafford were replacing Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc. there would be significant disappointment in his production but since Stafford is replacing a long line of awful quarterbacks he is looked on with more admiration from this fan base.

Edit:

I just saw the post about the WPA and surrounding cast. I looked up how to calculate WPA and came up with nothing. Can you explain what WPA is (not just the glossary description but how it is actually calculated) because according to WPA Stafford is having a better year than Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, etc. and I just don't see how that can be the case. I don't know if I trust any stat that suggests a QB with 9 TD and 6 INT and a 63% completion is better than a QB with 19 TD, 7 INT, and 65%...that just doesn't pass the sniff test, IMO.

Edit #2:

So was messing around on advancedfootballanalytics and found that Stafford has a higher WPA (Wins probability added) than Luck at 1.47 vs. 1.21, but then in EPA (Expected Points Added) Luck has +86.1 and Stafford is at +35.2. I would love for someone to explain how Luck would add +50.9 points to his teams than Stafford, but -.26 wins. Very odd. Luck is worth 50 more points, but gives up a quarter of a win...I think I'll stick to TD, INT, Comp%, TD/INT, TD%, and INT% and leave the more advanced stuff for others.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Mayhew get no credit for building the best defense in the league? He drafted Suh, Fairley, Ansah, Levy (who was a 3rd round pick who is playing at an All-Pro level), Whitehead (who looks pretty good and has a couple interceptions to boot--also a 5th rd pick), and Darius Slay. George Johnson was picked up off the scarp heap. On offense, Warford was a 3rd rd pick, Waddle was an undrafted FA. Fuller is a 6th rd pick who is now our 2nd receiver. Theo Riddick is a 6th rd pick, and that guy can play. And then Mayhew signs Golden Tate, who is probably the best FA signing of any team at any position half way through the season.

I don't know how many more ways Mayhew can be attacked. We sit at 5-2, best defense in football, heading into a winnable game, and the takeaway is how bad stafford and Mayhew are. I can't follow your logic Echo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edit:

I just saw the post about the WPA and surrounding cast. I looked up how to calculate WPA and came up with nothing. Can you explain what WPA is (not just the glossary description but how it is actually calculated) because according to WPA Stafford is having a better year than Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady, etc. and I just don't see how that can be the case. I don't know if I trust any stat that suggests a QB with 9 TD and 6 INT and a 63% completion is better than a QB with 19 TD, 7 INT, and 65%...that just doesn't pass the sniff test, IMO.

You mean you can't trust any stat that says Stafford is any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does Mayhew get no credit for building the best defense in the league? He drafted Suh, Fairley, Ansah, Levy (who was a 3rd round pick who is playing at an All-Pro level), Whitehead (who looks pretty good and has a couple interceptions to boot--also a 5th rd pick), and Darius Slay. George Johnson was picked up off the scarp heap. On offense, Warford was a 3rd rd pick, Waddle was an undrafted FA. Fuller is a 6th rd pick who is now our 2nd receiver. Theo Riddick is a 6th rd pick, and that guy can play. And then Mayhew signs Golden Tate, who is probably the best FA signing of any team at any position half way through the season.

I don't know how many more ways Mayhew can be attacked. We sit at 5-2, best defense in football, heading into a winnable game, and the takeaway is how bad stafford and Mayhew are. I can't follow your logic Echo.

Who didn't give him credit? You are straw-manning me here in the worst way. The defense has been a huge surprise this year and has blown away even the most optomistic of expectations, no one is arguing that. The title of this thread is even "What's wrong with the Offense" with no reference to the defense.

Golden Tate has been phenomenal. The fact that Fuller is our 2nd receiver or even third should be seen as more of an indictment that an positive. Theo Riddick has produced next to nothing on the actual field outside of one or two big plays, with other franchises this level of production is seen as the norm, not something to be celebrated.

I'm sorry you can't keep up with my logic, I am willing to slow down if you need some extra attention. I never said how bad Stafford is, I said he is average (which he is), I said that Mayhew isn't that good and I stand by that assertion. We have still won NOTHING of note. I refuse to give a GM praise because he had a few decent half seasons after six years with a team. If you decide that a few decent stretches with only a single winning season (thus far) and no playoff wins is good enough for you than awesome. It isn't for me, I apologize if this hurts your feelings.

Edit:

We had the perfect recipe to create a successful team. There were zero expectations, a non-meddling owner, a plethora of high draft picks, Mayhew had the opportunity that many good GMs would love to have. He had what Dave Dombrowski had (three times), and Mike Rizzo had. They started from the ground up, drafted solid talent, made key free agent signings and showed clear progress nearly year in and year out until they had a team that is competing for a championship nearly every year. That is what I expected, this year has been nice since we are winning ugly games we used to lose, but this is still a very flawed team that I don't consider a true Super Bowl contender. To make matters worse, IMO, this may be their best shot in the coming years due to the likely loss of Suh and/or Fairly.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean you can't trust any stat that says Stafford is any good.

No, absolute strawman argument. I can't trust a stat that suggests Stafford is worth more additional wins than Andrew Luck, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, etc. I further mistrust a stat that suggests a QB can be worth more wins while worth 50 less points. That assertion is completely and utterly nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHen I said no matter the QB, I meant its going to be the bigger, more talented WRs that catch TDs, not that they will catch the same amount with every QB. Example being Decker, who didn't catch the same amount of TDs with Peyton and Tebow, but was still a strong TD producer with a poor throwing QB at the helm. The question is whether Peyton Manning would have thrown a bunch of extra TDs to guys like Durham,Ross and Pettigrew(200 catches over a 3 year period with Stafford, lets see if he ever matches that) Stafford is expected to throw TDs to poor players and often smaller WRs. I was looking forward to seeing our RZ offense with Ebron,Fauria and Calvin though.

Also I know it has become "in" to use the word strawman on the internet, but in no way was my point fitting of the description. You said Stafford should have elevated his receivers, I made the point that if nobody else in the NFL is capable of doing so, why should Stafford have that expectation. Its pretty simple.

I would imagine that Luck has more expected points added has to do with points scored when it didn't change the likely outcome of the game. I'm having a tough time figuring that one out too though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does Mayhew get no credit for building the best defense in the league? He drafted Suh, Fairley, Ansah, Levy (who was a 3rd round pick who is playing at an All-Pro level), Whitehead (who looks pretty good and has a couple interceptions to boot--also a 5th rd pick), and Darius Slay. George Johnson was picked up off the scarp heap. On offense, Warford was a 3rd rd pick, Waddle was an undrafted FA. Fuller is a 6th rd pick who is now our 2nd receiver. Theo Riddick is a 6th rd pick, and that guy can play. And then Mayhew signs Golden Tate, who is probably the best FA signing of any team at any position half way through the season.

I don't know how many more ways Mayhew can be attacked. We sit at 5-2, best defense in football, heading into a winnable game, and the takeaway is how bad stafford and Mayhew are. I can't follow your logic Echo.

He was also the architect of a team that went 1-6 down the stretch last year to lose out on a division title for which it had no credible competition.

It is true, this defense has some real talent, which it should given high first round picks at DT and DE. And many of his lower round picks and FA signings have performed very well.

I'm not so sure Fuller or Riddick are worth bragging about yet, but maybe they will be. Tate is a stud. Kudos to Mayhew for pulling the trigger on him.

At the end of last season, I wanted Mayhew gone, as I did not have confidence that he can build a Super Bowl caliber team. I'm stunned by the performance of the defense, but as we know from experience, the only thing a 5-2 record guarantees the Lions is that they will finish no worse than 5-11.

Mayhew seems to be painted into a corner when it comes to the anchors of this surprising defense, Suh and Fairley. Maybe he has a plan worked out, but we could end up with a 625-pound hole in the middle of that defense at the end of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, absolute strawman argument. I can't trust a stat that suggests Stafford is worth more additional wins than Andrew Luck, Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, etc. I further mistrust a stat that suggests a QB can be worth more wins while worth 50 less points. That assertion is completely and utterly nonsensical.

It's not a strawman. Your very next sentence says that you can't trust it because you simply don't believe it.

With about 5 minutes left in the game the probability of the lions beating the saints was probably around 1 percent. WPA is derived from like situations. Stafford is better at getting more out of deficient odds then other quarterbacks. Brees had a negative WPA this past game because the plays that he had a direct result on hurt their chances of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was also the architect of a team that went 1-6 down the stretch last year to lose out on a division title for which it had no credible competition.

That was schwartz, no other way to frame it. And Mayhew promptly fired him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of last season, I wanted Mayhew gone, as I did not have confidence that he can build a Super Bowl caliber team. I'm stunned by the performance of the defense, but as we know from experience, the only thing a 5-2 record guarantees the Lions is that they will finish no worse than 5-11.

.

Last year has nothing to do with this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHen I said no matter the QB, I meant its going to be the bigger, more talented WRs that catch TDs, not that they will catch the same amount with every QB. Example being Decker, who didn't catch the same amount of TDs with Peyton and Tebow, but was still a strong TD producer with a poor throwing QB at the helm. The question is whether Peyton Manning would have thrown a bunch of extra TDs to guys like Durham,Ross and Pettigrew(200 catches over a 3 year period with Stafford, lets see if he ever matches that) Stafford is expected to throw TDs to poor players and often smaller WRs. I was looking forward to seeing our RZ offense with Ebron,Fauria and Calvin though.

Also I know it has become "in" to use the word strawman on the internet, but in no way was my point fitting of the description. You said Stafford should have elevated his receivers, I made the point that if nobody else in the NFL is capable of doing so, why should Stafford have that expectation. Its pretty simple.

I would imagine that Luck has more expected points added has to do with points scored when it didn't change the likely outcome of the game. I'm having a tough time figuring that one out too though.

Then that was simply a misunderstanding on my part and possibly wasn't the best way to get your point across either. So to clarify, I do like big TE and WR as red zone targets, I was a huge fan of Fauria because of this. However, I think that a more talented QB will be able to get more out of those big, talented WR/TE. I think it is very much false that other QBs aren't capable of elevating their receivers. The fact that Manning was able to get so much more out of Decker/Thomas should be testament to that. Great QB are able to make receivers look better, the statistics point to this time and time again. Denver may be the best example of this as considering that the coaches and many of the players have stayed the same outside of Manning and the offense is better across the board. Once some of those players left (Decker) they aren't producing nearly as much as with Manning. Should be clear as day that the ability of the QB is a factor when factoring most WR's production.

We can agree the WPA vs. EPA is confusing, at least we have that. :)

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a strawman. Your very next sentence says that you can't trust it because you simply don't believe it.

With about 5 minutes left in the game the probability of the lions beating the saints was probably around 1 percent. WPA is derived from like situations. Stafford is better at getting more out of deficient odds then other quarterbacks. Brees had a negative WPA this past game because the plays that he had a direct result on hurt their chances of winning.

I don't trust it because it says that Luck is worth 50 MORE points, but simultaneously worth .25 less wins. That makes no sense. The comeback win also had very little to do with Stafford and more to do with Tate making a stellar play on a short catch and the defense putting the offense in a position to win the game with little time left. There were very little heroics on the part of Stafford that would suggest he is a better overall QB (worth more wins) than Luck who has been just amazing to watch.

Put your fandom aside, can you HONESTLY tell me that Stafford has been a better QB and put his team in a better position to win than Andrew Luck? Come on now.

Edit:

To further explain who you were making a strawman argument, I don't distrust the stat because it makes Stafford look "good" but because it states that Stafford is worth more wins than Luck. I never said I distrusted the stat because it makes Stafford look good, you did.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does Mayhew get no credit for building the best defense in the league? He drafted Suh, Fairley, Ansah, Levy (who was a 3rd round pick who is playing at an All-Pro level), Whitehead (who looks pretty good and has a couple interceptions to boot--also a 5th rd pick), and Darius Slay. George Johnson was picked up off the scarp heap. On offense, Warford was a 3rd rd pick, Waddle was an undrafted FA. Fuller is a 6th rd pick who is now our 2nd receiver. Theo Riddick is a 6th rd pick, and that guy can play. And then Mayhew signs Golden Tate, who is probably the best FA signing of any team at any position half way through the season.

I don't know how many more ways Mayhew can be attacked. We sit at 5-2, best defense in football, heading into a winnable game, and the takeaway is how bad stafford and Mayhew are. I can't follow your logic Echo.

I am more willing to credit Brian Xanders on the Ansah, Slay and Johnson picks-signings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was schwartz, no other way to frame it. And Mayhew promptly fired him.

Yes there is another way to frame it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you are just wrong.

You know, you haven't provided any logic on your reasoning. Suggesting last year has anything to do with this year is akin to saying the reason the earth exists is because the flying spaghetti monster.

Think about your life one year ago from now, does it effect your everyday decision making. You're a battered fan who only knows how to expect losing. You're blinded at this point.

Why are the Royals in the World Series when they didn't make the playoffs last year?

All you've said is I'm wrong, you have provided nothing analytically, which is too be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit:

To further explain who you were making a strawman argument, I don't distrust the stat because it makes Stafford look "good" but because it states that Stafford is worth more wins than Luck. I never said I distrusted the stat because it makes Stafford look good, you did.

It's because you refuse to understand the stat. It isn't a direct comparison.

I am more willing to credit Brian Xanders on the Ansah, Slay and Johnson picks-signings.

Well yeah, this is the popular cop out. No one wants to give Mayhew credit for hiring Xanders either. The Lions could win the next 3 superbowls and some of the fans on this board would still want to fire Mayhew and get rid of Stafford.

People are hating to hate, it's obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's because you refuse to understand the stat. It isn't a direct comparison.

Well yeah, this is the popular cop out. No one wants to give Mayhew credit for hiring Xanders either. The Lions could win the next 3 superbowls and some of the fans on this board would still want to fire Mayhew and get rid of Stafford.

People are hating to hate, it's obvious.

So then explain it to me. The description of the stat says: "The difference between a team’s Win Probability (WP) at the start of a play and the WP at the end of the play. WPA is the measure of a play’s impact on the outcome of a game. An individual player’s WPA is the sum of the WPA of the plays in which that player was directly involved. Being directly involved is defined as an offensive player who ran, threw, or kicked the ball, was targeted by a pass, or flagged for a penalty. Defensive players are credited for WPA when they tackle or sack the ball carrier, are credited with an assisted tackle or sack, cause a fumble, defend a pass, or are flagged for a penalty."

This makes it sound like a stat that adds up all the individual plays that effect win probability, with a +WPA meaning they are involved in more positive plays than negative plays and a -WPA meaning they are involved in more negative plays than positives. This would seem to suggest that the players with higher WPA are worth more wins than those with lesser WPA (they are involved in more positive plays than negative). Now, my confusion stems from Stafford having a higher WPA than Luck while having a lower EPA. How can Stafford be involved in more positive plays than Luck but be worth significantly less additional points?

So if WPA isn't a direct comparison, and it isn't useful as a "WAR" type stat than what is the purpose? What does Stafford having a +1.47 WPA tell us? He has a better chance of coming back in games that look to be losses? This doesn't really make sense because Manning leads the league in WPA and the Broncos have been winning handedly so the stat doesn't really seem to quantify come from behind ability. Stafford very obviously isn't worth more "wins" than Andrew Luck or Tom Brady, the more traditional stats and the eye test make that blatantly apparent.

So in summary; WPA doesn't effectively calculate additional wins over replacement in the same sense that "WAR" does in baseball, it doesn't effectively calculate or quantify coming from behind since Manning has had to do that very little, it doesn't calculate additional points added verse replacement like EPA does (which seems more like a WAR stat)...so what does WPA quantify and why should I care about it?

And no one is hating to hate, stop that. That is ignorant to even say. People are "hating" because we have won NOTHING yet. Mayhew has been here six years and won NOTHING. Not a single playoff game. His record against winning teams is something awful like 2-28. Get off your high horse. I can't speak for everyone but I have personally said over and over that I will give Mayhew credit when he does something. Win a playoff game, beat some teams over .500 on a regular basis. Some fans have higher expectations than zero playoff wins and an abysmal record against decent teams, you should expect more.

Edited by EchO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, you haven't provided any logic on your reasoning. Suggesting last year has anything to do with this year is akin to saying the reason the earth exists is because the flying spaghetti monster.

Think about your life one year ago from now, does it effect your everyday decision making. You're a battered fan who only knows how to expect losing. You're blinded at this point.

Why are the Royals in the World Series when they didn't make the playoffs last year?

All you've said is I'm wrong, you have provided nothing analytically, which is too be expected.

I find it a waste of time to argue points that require only common sense to perceive. And at any rate, you are the one who has the burden of proof.

You are the one making the assertion (it doesn't deserve to be called an argument) that there is no connection between last year's record and this year's. You are aware, aren't you, that at the start of the season, 38 of the Lions' 53 man roster had been on the team last year. That is 72%, and includes the most important player, the QB.

So why don't you make an argument, rather than a baseless assertion, for how it is possible that the team has been wholly remade such that it is wholly disconnected from last year's team with just 28% roster turnover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...