THE
ARCHIVES (Part 3)
|
Brett Favre
This is why QC, the father of a 7-year-old boy, is just fine with a world in
which a young boy wants to grow up to be Brett Favre.
As Favre drove his team toward a tying score in Minnesota's meeting with New
Orleans in the NFC Championship Game, the Fox television camera zoomed in on
Favre. And he was smiling and laughing. Subsequently, Favre threw an
interception on what turned out to be the Vikings' last offensive play of the
season. But in the press room after the game, Favre said that the season could
not have gone better.
In his wonderful book,
"A Few Seconds of Panic," author Stefan
Fatsis detailed his analysis of a field goal he missed in a Denver Broncos'
training camp practice.
"Sports psychology tells us that, in demanding situations, we need to shut
everything out. But I should have let it in--breathed deeply, to be sure, but
embraced my slow-motion moment and inhaled my surroundings: the crowd, the
grass, the uniform, the taunting players, the video guys in the tower, the
coaches, the scouts, the equipment staff, the fans, the media, the preteen ball
boys who are beginning to feel like kids of my own. Instead of embracing my few
seconds of panic, I simply panicked. My body reverted to its pretraining
default, slapping anxiously at the ball soccer-style. And, like Jeff Goldblum
at the party in Annie Hall, I forgot my mantra."
In a world in which a coach who had just won the BCS national championship
hoisted the trophy with "an expression on his face [that] could best be
described as
a kind of semi-grimace," Favre never forgot his
mantra.
This is why QC, the father of a 7-year-old boy, is just fine with a world in
which a young boy wants to grow up to be Brett Favre.
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
When Brett Favre retires and takes his joy for the game with him, will the NFL
will be poorer for it? (Use Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or
FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post
your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
NFC & AFC Championship Game
Thoughts
As the Minnesota Vikings attempted to get into position to try a game-winning
field goal at the end of regulation time in what would become a 31-28 overtime
loss to the New Orleans Saints in the NFC Championship Game, QC could not help
but think he was watching a different game than the other
52,899,999 viewers were watching.
To QC's knowledge, everyone else was watching an NFC Championship Game that, in
the words of the NFL Network's Steve Mariucci, the Vikings "were
dominating statistically." Sports Illustrated's Peter King called it Minnesota's "bitterest
loss in a generation" because the Vikings made 31 first downs (to 15 for
the Saints) and out-gained New Orleans by 218 yards. But QC saw it differently.
Indeed, at the end of regulation, QC could not find any coaching statistic to
support that Minnesota should have won the game, much less was dominating.
As the end of regulation approached, New Orleans was both the better designed
team and the more productive team and held a plus-3 edge in turnovers. Under
these circumstances, an NFL team in the Saints' position wins about 95% of all
games. QB Drew Brees' QCYPA was 7.615, while Vikings' QB Brett Favre's QCYPA
was only 6.957. In other words, New Orleans was playing more efficiently than
Minnesota. Furthermore, the Vikings were wasting what efficiency and
productivity they were generating with turnovers. In any competition, a
business or organization that operates more efficiency and productively
and simultaneusly generates less waste than its competitor would be
expected to prevail in the competition. In the NFC Championship Game, that
superior competitor was New Orleans, not Minnesota.
In overtime, Brees and the Saints virtually crawled on their hands and knees to
move into position for the winning field goal as demonstrated by their 4.20
QCYPA. When Brees last pass attempt fell incomplete, New Orleans' overall
player productivity fell below the Vikings' player productivity by just a tiny
fraction (6/100ths). But the Saints were still the better designed team when
kicker Garrett Hartley came on and kicked the Saints into the Super Bowl and
the Vikings out of the playoffs. Coaching and play design, of course, are very
hard to see on television. So you should not feel bad if you were one of
the 52,899,999 people who missed it.
**********
The essence of science is replication. The Indianapolis Colts' 30-17 victory
over the New York Jets in the AFC Championship Game offered a clear
illustration of this point.
New York fans were giddy in the first half as QB Mark Sanchez combined with WR
Braylon Edwards for a 80-yard TD pass to help the Jets to an early 17-6 lead.
Like Jake Delhomme's record-setting TD pass to Muhsin Muhammad in Super Bowl
29, the TD pass was a disproportinately large percentage of the Jets' final
QCYPA (10.387), play design, and player productivity figures, which slightly
exceeded Indy QB Peyton Mannings' and the Colts' figures (10.000 QCYPA). But,
as the Delhomme Exception
to QC's 10th Commandment holds, New York's apparent superiority was
fool's gold.
If you disregard the longest completions by both Manning and Sanchez, Mannings'
QCYPA becomes 9.06 and Sanchez's QCYPA becomes 6.10, which is substantially the
same figures as when the teams met back in Week 16 and much more reflective of
the Colts 30-17 win. In games where a team such as the Colts exceed 9.00 QCYPA
and the opponent such as the Jets are below 6.692 QCYPA, the superior team wins
about 96% of the time. In other words, while the Jets designed and produced one
play better than any play the Colts' designed and produced, Indy replicated
productive plays much more efficiently than New York did.
In addition, Colts' head coach Jim Caldwell coached a patient game and wisely
took short field goal attempts and an easy 3-points early in the game rather
than "boldly" (i.e., stupidly, foolishly) going for first downs on
fourth down when Indy trailed. Because Caldwell took the points that were
available to him in the first quarter rather than chasing touchdowns, the Colts
enjoyed a comfortable lead in the fourth quarter. Statistic geeks are often
quick to say that the numbers suggest that Caldwell should have gone for it on
fourth down in these situations. Where is the statistician's analysis of
Caldwell's fourth down decisions in this game? Their silence loudly proclaims
that an NFL coach's investment in patience, such as Caldwell's investment, is
undervalued.
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Did Minnesota dominate New Orleans statistically? (Use Twitter or the headset
to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let
QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFC/NFC Championship Game Previews
So, far randomness has
been the story of the 2009 playoffs. As QC's 9th Commandment states, turnovers are random and so
far the team that has won the turnover battle is 8-0 in the playoffs (100%
winning percentage). This is a dramatic improvement over the regular season
where teams that won the turnover battle actually only won about 73% of the
time. (Teams that won the turnover battle were 121-45, .729 winning percentage.
In 45 other games, the turnover battle was a draw.) QC speculates, but has not
confirmed, that turnovers take on additional signficance in the NFL playoffs
because the playoffs are populated only by good teams. Thus, it is very
difficult for a team to overcome both a good opponent and itself and win in the
playoffs. Will the turnover trend continue in the conference championships? How
the heck would QC know! Turnovers are random! Still, QC will venture a guess on
how the championship games will turn out.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
New Orleans vs. Minnesota
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: New Orleans 3rd; Minnesota 10th
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: New Orleans 2nd; Minnesota 8th
TURNOVER MARGIN: New Orleans 4th (+9); Minnesota T7th (+6)
On ESPN's NFL Matchup Show before New Orleans met Arizona in the Divisional
Round, analyst Ron Jaworski said that the Saints head coach Sean Payton has so
many play designs that an opponent cannot really prepare for New Orleans'
offense, it can only prepare for the "concept" of New Orleans'
offense. QC agrees that offensively the Saints are operating at a level of
abstraction that has not been seen in the NFL since at least the St. Louis
Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf."
If Minnesota is to have any chance at slowing down New Orleans QB Drew Brees
and his talented corps of receivers, it is going to have to get great pass
pressure from DEs Jared Allen and Ray Edwards. Those two played out of their
minds against Dallas in the divisional round. But the Saints are better pass
protectors than the Cowboys, so QC expects the Vikings rush to cause some
trouble for Brees, but not like last week and not consistently. As a result,
New Orleans will move the ball and put up points.
When the Vikings have the ball, QB Brett Favre should be able to make some
things happen in the air. Like last week, WR Sidney Rice looks like a matchup
problem. If the Saints can get gut pressure from DTs Sedrick Ellis and Anthony
Hargrove, they will make things a lot more difficult for Favre.
It is anybody's guess what will happen in this game on special teams and with
turnovers. When the teams met last year, New Orleans' Reggie Bush returned two
punts for TDs and Minnesota defensive back Antoine Winfield returned a blocked
field goal for a score as the Vikings prevailed, 30-27. The Saints turned the
ball over 4 times in that game, but QC does not expect Brees to let that happen
again.
Another important difference between then and now is that New Orleans TE Jeremy
Shockey missed that game, but he should be ready to go this week despite
sustaining an injury against the Cardinals. With both Brees and Shockey in the
lineup in 2009, the Saints are 14-0 and have never scored less than 26 points
except against the New York Jets' best in the NFL pass defense. Minnesota's
weakness is pass coverage and, while the Vikings otherwise overwhelmed the
Cowboys, Dallas TE Jason Witten had a big day. The likes of Chicago's Jay
Cutler and Carolina's Matt Moore have carved up Minnesota's secondary. That
does not bode well for the Norsemen.
QC's Guess: New Orleans Saints
AMERICAN FOOTBALL
CONFERENCE
Indianapolis vs. New York Jets
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Indianapolis 2nd; New York Jets 9th
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Indianapolis 7th; New York Jets
12th
TURNOVER MARGIN: Indianapolis 9th (+2); New York Jets T14th (-1)
Before the New York Jets stunned San Diego, 17-14, in the Divisional Round,
Sports Illustrated's Peter King wrote a piece purportedly detailing how
underdogs win in the playoffs. For New York to win,
King wrote, the Jets had to run the ball 35 to 40
times. The Jets ran the ball 39 times and won, so King was right, right? Well,
not exactly.
There is only one word that accurately describes how New York won:
Luck. But this is not a criticism of New
York's brilliant defensive play designer, head coach Rex Ryan, or his players.
In fact, it is a compliment.
In his book, The Score Takes Care of Itself, the great Bill Walsh wrote,
"Competition inevitably produces randomness that can leave you grasping at
straws. The final score of a football game is decided, on average, according to
the following percentages: 20 percent is due to luck, such as a referees bad
call, a tricky bounce of the ball, an injury, or some other
happenstance."
Such other happenstances as, say, the Colts yanking Peyton Manning in the
regular season meeting with New York? Or, say, the NFL's most accurate kicker,
Nate Kaeding, missing a pair of field goals inside 40 yards after he had made
his previous 69 field goals from that distance? Just askin'. Lost in the
euphoria of New York's shocking win over the Chargers is the fact that if
Manning had finished the first meeting with the Jets, Indianapolis probably
would have won and New York would be just another "random" 8-8 team
sitting at home watching the playoffs. A couple of missed field goals does not
change that fact.
Some of New York's players do not seem to realize this. "I think it was
about 50/50,"
Jets' DE Shaun Ellis said of the first meeting with
the Colts. "We were holding our own,"
said LB Bart Scott. Uh, no.
The first meeting was more like at least 80/20 in favor of the Colts. As QC
documented in his Week 16
thoughts, Indy was dominating New York and had about a 96% chance of
winning the game when Manning failed to rise from the bench to answer the bell
midway through the third quarter. The Jets were in the game only because of a
few random events within that 20% of football that Walsh identified as
"luck": Brad Smith's 106-yard kickoff return for a TD and a pair of
Colts' botched PATs. If the Colts eliminate those special teams breakdowns and
play turnover-free ball as they did when Manning was in the game in the first
meeting, it will be very, very hard for New York to win. During the regular
season, more productive teams, such as Indy in the first meeting, won 80% of
all games. Without turnovers, more productive teams won 94% of the time.
However, no coach in the NFL is better at creating randomness than Rex Ryan is
with his defense. Ryan is smart enough to know that New York's rookie QB Mark
Sanchez is not ready to control a game so he certainly wants a game that is
dominated by uncertainty, rather than certainty. If Ryan can come up with a
game plan that causes Manning enough uncertainty that the outcome becomes
random, New York has a 50/50 chance to win, which is a far greater chance than
it would have under any other circumstances. If you flip a coin often enough,
50% of the time you will get tails and lose. But during all those flips, it is
quite possible that it could come up heads two times in a row and you win both
times. Last week in San Diego, the Jets coin came up heads.
It could happen again. It is possible, perhaps even more likely than most
people think, that Ryan could design a game plan that will fool Manning.
"If you talk to Peyton, he will tell you he's been fooled before,"
Pittsburgh defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau told the Wall
Street Journal.
Statisics bear this out. Since 1999, the Colts are 128-48 (.727 winning%) with
Manning under center during the regular season, but only 8-8 (.500 winning%) in
the playoffs. In other words, in the playoffs, Indy's success is random.
Furthermore, during the regular season, Manning's career QCYPA is among the
all-time greats at 8.023. (In 2009, Manning's QCYPA was 8.329.) In the
playoffs, Manning's QCYPA is a respectable 7.439. But if you disregard monster
games in 3 blow-out wins over Kansas City (2003) and Denver (2003, 2004),
Manning's playoff QCYPA is a below average 6.319. That figure is less than the
Jets' regular season QCYPA (6.361).
If Ryan comes up with a game plan that prevents Manning from controlling the
game or fools him into giving away turnovers, it will not be the first time
that a defensive mastermind has engineered randomness to pull a super upset. In
Super Bowl 36, New England's Bill Belichick crafted a game plan that fooled the
St. Louis Rams' Kurt Warner into throwing a pair of interceptions, including
one that DB Ty Law returned for a TD. Belichick's defensive genius provided the
Patriots with a random 50/50 shot at victory. When kicker Adam Vinatieri nailed
a field goal on the last play of the game, Belichick's game plan and randomness
paid off huge.
But, if Ryan's game plan, unlike Belichick's game plan against the Rams, fails
to create enough uncertainty for Manning,
nobody but Ryan will be shocked. After all, nobody
really has control of a random event. Therefore, eventually randomness will
turn against the Jets, it's just a question of when. Oakland A's general
manager Billy Bean once put it this way in discussing an average hitter that
was on an unusual hot streak, "[He's] a great guy," Beane said in
Moneyball, "but sooner or later Tattoo's going to show up and take
him off the island."
QC's Guess: De Plane, De Plane, and De Indianapolis
Colts
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Will New York Jets' head coach Rex Ryan come up with a defensive game plan that
fools Colts' QB Peyton Manning? (Use Twitter or the headset to send TRUE
or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may
post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divisional Round Playoff Thoughts
Bill Walsh, who was 3-0 in the Super Bowl, said, "I came to the San
Francisco 49ers with an overriding priority and specific goal--to implement
what I call the Standard of Performance." Once the playoffs arrive, an NFL
team's individual Standard of Performance ("SOP") is known. A team's
offensive and defensive SOP is the average of its performances during the
regular season compared to a 10-yard gain, the ultimate objective Standard of
Performance in the NFL (See
6th Commandment). For turnovers, the SOP is zero (0) or, at least,
no more than the opposition. For special teams, the SOP is no major breakdowns
that cost the team points (e.g., a missed field goal) or, in the alternative,
allow the opposition to score points (e.g., the opposition returning a punt for
a TD). Here is how the divisional round winners measured up against their
individual SOPs.
**********
In New Orleans' 45-14 dismantling of Arizona, the Saints met their SOPs for
offense, turnovers, and special teams and came close to meeting their defensive
SOP. Going into the game, New Orleans' SOPs ranked much higher than the
Cardinals in play design (3rd vs. 13th), player productivity (2nd vs. 14th) and
turnover margin (4th vs. T23rd). The game went exactly according to form. QB
Drew Brees and the Saints offense, with TE Jeremy Shockey back in the lineup,
was much more productive than Arizona and its QB Kurt Warner and took exquisite
care of the ball (0 turnovers). Defensively, New Orleans limited Warner and his
back-up, Matt Leinart, to 7.167 QCYPA, which is not great and was a little more
than the Saints regular season average. The Saints can play a little better on
that side of the ball. But, Arizona gave the Saints 2 turnovers, which more
than off-set the Cardinals' productivity. Reggie Bush's punt return for a TD
was the final ingredient in the recipe for a rout.
**********
In Minnesota's surprising 34-3 blow-out of Dallas, the Vikings exceeded their
SOPs for offensive and defensive productivity and met the turnover-free SOP and
event-free special teams SOP. After Saturday's games (New Orleans and
Indianapolis wins), QC was feeling pretty smug and thinking that all 4 of the
better coached teams during the regular season might advance to the conference
championship games. QC thought the most likely game that might go against the
better designed and more productive team would be this one, where the Cowboys'
edges over Minnesota were pretty small. But QC never thought the
"Son of
Bum's" 'Boys would get so completely devastated by the Vikes
pass rush. (Dallas offensive coordinator Jason Garrett probably did not see
that coming either.) During the regular season, Minnesota led the NFL in pass
pressure (.594 QCAPY), so QC (like everyone else) knew Jared
Allen and company could get after the quarterback. But the Vikings pass
pressure against Dallas was 1.200 QCAPY, more than twice its league-best
average! By preventing Cowboys' QB Tony Romo from attempting pass
attempts, the Vikings obliterated Dallas' slender play design and player
productivity advantages. Moreover, Minnesota's pressure created 3 turnovers,
which does not automatically occur with pressure (although its is far from
totally unexpected). On the other side of the ball, Vikings QB Brett Favre was
money ($), leading Minnesota to infinite player productivity. Overall,
Minnesota simply could not have played any better. And the Cowboys, who also
missed 2 field goals, could not have played any worse.
**********
In Indianapolis' 20-3 win over Baltimore, the Colts exceeded their defensive
SOP, protected the football (plus-3 turnovers), and did not yield any big
special teams plays (a penalty on the Ravens on a long kickoff return bailed
them out early in the game). In particular, linebacker Gary Brackett was
sensational. However, QB Peyton Manning and the Indy offense was well below its
offensive SOP. As QC repeatedly emphasizes, turnovers are random. Baltimore
came into the game third in the NFL in turnover margin at plus-10, but ended
the game at minus-3. The Ravens' atypical generosity allowed the Colts to get
away with a sub-par offensive performance and "earn" a relatively
easy win.
**********
At 8:01 PM on Sunday night, immediately after New York shocked San Diego,
17-14, in a game in which Chargers kicker Nate Kaeding missed field goals from
36 and 40 yards after making his previous 69 field goals in a row from 40 yards
or less, NPR
commentator Stefan Fatsis tweeted as follows: "Let's please
praise the Jets and not blame the kicker. Please. Please?" (As a veteran
sports writer and the author of the incredibly entertaining
"A Few Seconds of Panic," which documents
his experience as a training camp kicker for the Denver Broncos, Fatsis
certainly has the bon fides to so tweet.)
At 8:04 PM, NFL Network correspondent Jason LaCanfora tweeted:
"Norv [Turner, San Diego's head coach,] will take a lot of heat in SD, and
its a crushing loss. But besides from opting for onside kick, hard to put on
him. Kicker blew it."
Sorry Stefan, love your book, agree that being an NFL kicker is tough, ... but
LaCanfora is right.
San Diego's defense exceeded its SOP, holding New York to 1.79 player
productivity (ðHY). The Chargers' player productivity, 4.10, was
less than half of their best in the NFL 9.56 regular season player
productivity. However, in all the NFL games played during the 2009 season,
teams whose player producivity was between 4.00 and 6.00 and whose opponent's
player productivity was below The JaMarcus Cable (<2.00) were 20-2 (.909
winning %). Even lowly Oakland (5-11) with JaMarcus Russell at quarterback was
able to defeat playoff-bound Philadelphia (11-5), 13-9, under these
circumstances in Week 6 while giving the Eagles 2
turnovers.
It is true that the Jets' terrific defense played capably the entire game
against QB Philip Rivers and the Chargers offense and spectacularly for most of
the second half. However, at the end of the game, San Diego's play design and
player productivity still significantly exceeded New York's play design and
player productivity. It also is true that San Diego turned the ball over twice,
including Rivers' second interception that set the Jets up for their first
touchdown at the Chargers' 16-yard line. But none of this would have mattered
if Kaeding had made those two kicks. San Diego came into the game as the best
designed, most productive team in the NFL. The Chargers had buckets of excess
play design and excess player productivity at the margin that would have
enabled San Diego to eke out a win even with the reduced productivity and a
couple turnovers, which were a possibility given New York plays the best
defense in the NFL. But what San Diego could not overcome and what Norv Turner
could not design a solution for was what nobody expected: Kaeding missing a
pair of field goals from inside 40 yards.
If it seems terribly brutal to place all the blame squarely on Kaeding, it is.
But it is not unfair. And it is the only way to honestly assess the outcome. By
making 69 straight field goals from 40 yards or less, Kaeding himself set his
personal SOP at 100%. In addition, because coaches do not design field goal
plays--every team performs pursuant to a virtually identical design--no NFL
player has more control over the outcome of his performance than an NFL kicker.
(See 8th
Commandment). Consequently, no individual is more personally
responsible for the outcome of an NFL play than a kicker is for the outcome
of a field goal from a reasonable distance. Nate Kaeding knows this.
He bravely took full responsibilty. But he lost the
game for San Diego.
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Was San Diego kicker Nate Kaeding personally responsible for the Chargers'
shocking loss to the New York Jets? (Use Twitter or the headset to send
TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know
if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divisional Round Playoff Preview
The NFL Divisional round presents some interesting match-ups. On one side are
the 4 best-coached teams in the NFL according to
QC's play design statistics (HA) (i.e.,
Chargers, Colts, Saints, and Cowboys). On the other side are teams that rank
between 9th and 14th in play design (Jets, Vikings, Ravens, and Cardinals).
Thus, on paper, QC's guesses look obvious.
But turnovers (and to a lesser extent other random events) are the great
equalizer in the NFL. Never was that more evident than in the Cardinals win
over the Packers in the Wild-Card round. The Cardinals came into the game at
minus-7 in turnover margin, the worst mark of any team in the tournament. The
Packers came into the game at plus-24, the best mark in the NFL during the
regular season. That is a difference of 31 total turnovers or just shy of 2 per
game in favor of the Packers. So, of course, Arizona finished the game at
plus-2, including a miraculous
sack-fumble-kick-the-ball-to-a-linebacker-who-returns-for-game-winning-touchdown.
QC will say it again: turnovers simply are not predictable in any given game.
Nevertheless, QC again will venture guesses for this round's games. Again,
please do not call QC's guesses predictions. These are guesses.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
New Orleans vs. Arizona
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: New Orleans 3rd; Arizona 13th
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: New Orleans 2nd; Arizona 14th
TURNOVER MARGIN: New Orleans 4th (+9); Arizona 23rd (-7)
The Saints enjoy substantial advantages in both play design and player
productivity and protect the football much better than the Cardinals. But the
Packers had similar edges last week and it did not help them against Kurt
Warner's pinpoint passes. QC expects New Orleans to be closer to its unbeatable
self than the team that showed up the last 3 weeks of the season. The return of
tight end Jeremy Shockey, who essentially missed all 3 losses, will be a huge
boost to the offense. In addition, the Saints protect QB Drew Brees much better
than Green Bay protected Aaron Rogers. While Arizona's Warner can be
spectacular, he also is capable of bursting into flame by throwing a
devastating interception as he did in his last two Super Bowl appearances. In
their last 4 NFC playoff games dating to last year, the Cardinals have been at
least plus-2 in turnovers in every game. Arizona will need that amazing run to
continue. But, as turnovers are random, the streak has to end some time. QC
guesses it will be in the Big Easy.
QC's Guess: New Orleans Saints
Minnesota vs. Dallas
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Minnesota 10th; Dallas 4th
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Minnesota 8th; Dallas 3rd
TURNOVER MARGIN: Minnesota 7th (+6); Dallas 9th (+2)
While Minnesota is 8-0 at home, QC has not forgotten that it took a miracle
touchdown pass from Brett Favre to Greg Lewis to avoid a loss to San Francisco
in Week 3 to attain that record. The 49ers are a bit of a poor man's Cowboys.
Like San Francisco, Dallas will pressure Favre, who has struggled against
pressure in Vikings' losses to Pittsburgh, Arizona, and Carolina. When Dallas
has the ball, QB Tony Romo has been very efficient and only given the ball away
on two occasions, at home against the New York Giants and on the road against
Green Bay. Minnesota likes to play Cover-2, but the Vikings really do not have
the middle linebacker necessary to make it work and they have been torched by
Aaron Rogers, Kurt Warner, Jay Cutler, and even Matt Moore. QC expects Dallas
TE Jason Witten to have a big game and Favre will have to keep up unless Romo
becomes generous.
QC's Guess: Dallas Cowboys
AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
Indianapolis vs. Baltimore
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Indianapolis 2nd; Baltimore 14th
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: Indianapolis 7th; Baltimore 13th
TURNOVER MARGIN: Indianapolis 9th (+2); Baltimore 3rd (+10)
Do not be fooled by Indy's narrow, 17-15, win over Baltimore during the regular
season. The Colts and Peyton Manning had their way with the Ravens, but wasted
a lot of productivity with 3 turnovers. QC expects that the Colts will take
better care of the ball this time around. Baltimore simply cannot match Indy's
play design and efficiency, particularly with QB Joe Flacco at less than 100
percent. Those who think this matchup looks like 2005 when Pittsburgh, a 6th
seed from the North Division, came into Indianapolis and stunned the top-seeded
Colts should look again. Unbeknowst to the world (including QC at the time),
the Steelers enjoyed a slight play design advantage (.0656) over the Colts
(.0598) in 2005. So, in hindsight, that result was not an upset. That would not
be the case this time around. If the Ravens win this game, it will be a
stunning upset.
QC's Guess: Indianapolis Colts
San Diego vs. New York Jets
PLAY DESIGN DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: San Diego 1st; NY Jets
9th
PLAYER PRODUCTIVITY DIFFERENTIAL RANKINGS: San Diego 1st; NY Jets 12th
TURNOVER MARGIN: San Diego 5th (+7); NY Jets 14th (-1)
This game looks like a mismatch to QC. San Diego has the best play design and
player productivity in the NFL, arguably the best kicker (Nate Kaeding) and
punter (Mike Scifres) combination in the NFL, and is plus-7 in turnover margin.
New York looks like 2008 Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh on defense, but not
anywhere else. While the Jets defense generally has been outstanding, Miami's
Chad Henne shredded it in Week 5 and Indy's Peyton Manning was not having much
difficulty in Week 16 until Colts' management decided it did not want to try to
win the game anymore. The Chargers will want to win this game. San Diego QB
Philip Rivers is arguably the NFL's best at the position. If Rivers provides
New York a couple turnovers and the Jets' up-and-down rookie QB Mark Sanchez
has a second straight up week, New York will keep it close. But if Sanchez has
a learning week against San Diego defensive coordinator Ron Rivera's troops,
the Chargers will roll.
QC's Guess: San Diego Chargers
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Will New Orleans return to its unbeaten form and defeat Arizona? (Use Twitter
or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to
QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The
Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
Wild-Card Weekend Thoughts
QC guessed correctly 50% of the time in the NFL's Wild-Card round. Of course,
the probability of a pure guess is 50% so QC views this performance as guessing
perfectly. QC nailed randomness. Maybe that is because, as QC's
9th Commandment
holds, turnovers are random and turnovers played a huge role in all 4 Wild-Card
games. In all the games, the eventual winning team capitalized on its
opponents' first half turnovers to take control of the game. Here is a summary
of QC's thoughts on each of the Wild-Card games.
**********
It would be nice to say that Dallas coach Wade Phillips vastly out-coached
Philadelphia's Andy Reid to get his first ever playoff victory when the Cowboys
beat the Eagles, 34-14. But, statistically, that would be wrong. Philadelphia's
play design actually exceeded Dallas' play design by a slight amount. However,
the Eagles more than off-set that advantage by giving the Cowboys 4 turnovers.
Moreover, Philadelphia's play design edge was based on one single big play, QB
Michael Vick's 76-yard TD pass to Jeremy Maclin. Other than that play, Dallas
QB Tony Romo and his offensive teammates were more productive than Eagles' QB
Donovan McNabb and his teammates. As QC's 10th Commandment states, sometimes the statistics
lie. This was one of those times.
**********
What can QC say about the Cardinals 51-45 win over the Packers that has not
already been said? Arizona QB Kurt Warner was nearly perfect and demonstrated
that Green Bay defensive coordinator Dom Capers' re-designing of the Packers
defense is still a work in progress. While Green Bay smothered many of the
lesser teams in the NFL and even turned in a good performance against Dallas,
top-flight quarterbacks Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger and Warner had no
trouble shredding Capers' designs. If the Packers want to be next year's pick
as the Super Bowl favorite from the NFC, Green Bay still needs to improve the
pass defense.
**********
Sports Illustrated's
Peter King succinctly summed up Baltimore's 33-14
win over New England as follows: "Four turnovers yielded 20 Baltimore
points. End of story." By bum rushing the Patriots with Ray Rice's 83-yard
TD run and a Terrell Suggs' sack and recovered fumble that led to LeRon
McClain's 1-yard TD run, the Ravens essentially rendered passing unnecessary.
This was one of those rare games where the winning team's yards per rushing
attempt (4.50) was actually greater than either teams yards per pass attempt.
And it was a good thing passing was unnecessary. With QB Joe Flacco limping
around, Baltimore's 3.40 QCYPA and 1.44 player productivity was below
The JaMarcus Cable
and even below New England's anemic 1.55 player productivity. A team has about
a 20% chance of winning when its productivity is below The JaMarcus Cable.
However, a team like the Patriots has a 0% chance of winning when its
productivity is below The JaMarcus Cable and it is minus-2 in turnover
margin.
**********
After defeating Cincinnati 24-14, New York coach Rex Ryan may have a few more
people buying into his theory that the Jets should be the favorites to win the
Super Bowl. QC is not there yet. New York QB Mark Sanchez played as well as he
is capable of playing, the Jets were plus-2 in turnovers, and the
injury-ravaged Bengals player productivity was below The JaMarcus Cable (1.38).
Despite all these advantages, if Cincinnati kicker Shayne Graham had not missed
two field goals inside 40 yards, this game would have been a fight to the
finish because, led by running back Cedric Benson (169 yards, TD), the Bengals
averaged an outstanding 7.77 yards per attempt on the ground. QC thinks New
York's win clearly demonstrates the Jets cannot afford any waste.
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Were turnovers the critical difference in the outcome of all 4 Wild-Card
playoff games? (Use Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE
and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your
tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wild-Card Weekend Previews
Notwithstanding that New York coach Rex Ryan is a very bright man who has
designed the best defense in the NFL,
the Jets are not the favorite to win the Super Bowl as he
suggested. However, while it is unlikely, it is not unthinkable that
New York could make it to Miami, the site of the Jets greatest triumph over the
Colts in Super Bowl III. To do so, the Jets first will have to defeat
Cincinnati. QC does not predict NFL games, but it is fun and harmless to
venture a guess once the playoff tournament begins. Just please do not call a
QC guess a "prediction" and do not call the playoffs the
"post-season." (QC is looking at you Joe Buck.) This is no season.
The playoffs are a tournament and the stakes are simple, as the late North
Carolina State coach Jim Valvano said, "Win and advance." This is
winner-take-all, no limit Texas hold 'em.
This is the best time of the NFL year.
Here is QC's preview of Wild Card Weekend and QC's guesses, not
predictions.
AMERICAN FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
New York Jets at Cincinnati Bengals
Forget New York's Week 17 win over the Bengals. Cincinnati coach Marvin Lewis
and his staff will have a real game plan this time and probably have spent all
week thinking about Brad Smith's nifty triple-option. (That was cool.) New York
enjoys a decided edge in play design in this game, but since most of that edge
comes from Ryan's defensive designs, the Jets' player productivity edge is much
less. Thus, as Marty Schottenheimer said on NFL Radio, this game likely will
come down to turnovers. If Mark Sanchez is patient and plays within himself,
New York should prevail. However, at times this year, Sanchez has been a
turnover machine. Just a miscue or two might be all the Bengals need to eke out
a surprising, low-scoring victory.
QC's Guess: New York Jets
Baltimore Ravens at New England
Patriots
Baltimore is in the playoffs not because of play design or player productivity,
but because the Ravens are plus-10 in turnovers. New England enjoys advantages
in seasonal play design differential and player productivity differential over
Baltimore. The Patriots defeated the Ravens in Week 4, 27-21. In that game, New
England posted a solid 7.625 QCYPA even though the Ravens got good pressure on
QB Tom Brady. The Patriots pass protection has been excellent overall, so do
not be surprised if Brady has more time than he did in Week 4 to pick apart a
suspect Baltimore secondary. Finally, Bill Belichick almost never loses a
rematch.
QC's Guess: New England Patriots
NATIONAL FOOTBALL CONFERENCE
Philadelphia Eagles at Dallas Cowboys
Dallas has already defeated Philly twice this year, but the two teams play
design differential (Dallas .0480 and Philly .0426) is so slim that a third
victory is no sure thing. The coaching matchup of Andy Reid's offensive wit
against Wade Phillips' defensive wit is one of the best in the NFL. So far,
Phillips has gotten the upper-hand with good designs in the red zone and
eliminating big plays from Philiadelphia's dynamic DeSean Jackson. The Eagles
could definitely use some action from Jackson and it would help if Tony Romo
would be a little more generous with the turnovers. Dallas's player
productivity edge (4.38 to 2.63) suggests that the Cowboys are just a little
better team, but the margin is not so great that Dallas could overcome a big
special teams play by Jackson or a negative turnover margin if Romo tosses a
couple of interceptions.
QC's Guess: Dallas Cowboys
Green Bay Packers at Arizona
Cardinals
Green Bay smashed Arizona, 33-7, in Week 17, but Cardinals' coach Ken
Whisenhunt undoubtedly hid all the good stuff. Of all the games Wild Card
Weekend, this one has the best chance to be a blow-out. The Packers enjoy
significant advantages in play design and player productivity and a massive
advantage in turnover margin where Green Bay is plus-24 and Arizona is minus-7,
the worst number of any team in the playoffs. In 2008, the Cardinals entered
the playoffs even in turnovers and then enjoyed games of plus-2, plus-5, and
plus-2 in their wins in the NFC playoffs. Still, it is not a sure thing. While
Green Bay's defense has played well at times, veteran QBs who will hold the
ball, throw it downfield, and avoid interceptions and fumbles have done
very well against the Packers. Think Brett Favre in both his games against
Green Bay and Pittsburgh's Ben Roethlisberger. The Cardinals Kurt Warner
definitely fits the mold. In addition, Arizona has the pass rush to take
advantage of the Packer's poor pass protection and might receive a turnover or
two from the Packers. If that happens, Green Bay has shown it can be vulnerable
to the likes of Tampa Bay.
QC's Guess: Green Bay Packers
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Can the New York Jets win the Super Bowl as coach Rex Ryan suggested? (Use
Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to
QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your tweet/message on The
Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urban Meyer
"Lately in a wreck of a Californian ship, one of the passengers
fastened a belt about him with two hundred pounds of gold in it, with which he
was found afterwards at the bottom. Now, as he was sinking--had he the gold? or
the gold him?" John Ruskin, Unto His Last.
Unbeknowst to most people, this quote begins Moneyball--Michael Lewis'
classic tale of a man, Billy Beane, desperately trying to control the
unpredictable sports environment in which he competes.
The quote can be applied to the University of Florida's Urban Meyer and,
probably, many many, other coaches.
Meyer stepped down as the Gators' head coach on
December 27 because of personal health reasons--primarily chest pains for the
past 3 years that caused him to collapse after a loss to Alabama in the SEC
Championship Game. Despite losing consciousness and being taken to the hospital
after his wife called 911, Meyer changed his mind the day
after he announced he was leaving and said that he was taking an indefinite
leave of absence after the Sugar Bowl and expected to coach Florida in 2010.
Thereafter, only this much was clear:
Like the gold, Urban Meyer does not control coaching. Rather, coaching controls
Urban Meyer.
In being controlled by coaching, Meyer is hardly unique. Alabama legend Bear
Bryant used to tell his players that approached him for advice about going into
coaching, "Only do it if you can't live without it." In The Score
Takes Care of Itself, legendary San Francisco 49ers' coach Bill Walsh
wrote:
"I was consumed by the process of developing the abilities of others.
You do it because you really care for it; you do it
because you have to."
While coaching undeniably offers infinite rewards, the mental and emotional
demands also are infinite. Change is the most powerful force in the world. In
the coaching environment, change or the threat of change (just as scary) is a
constant companion. Ambitious coaches on their way up constantly up-root
themselves and their loved ones to move to the next job. Even if a coach is at
peace and content in a job, the threat that change will be imposed by others
upon him and his family may be just a short losing streak way. The infinite
design demands of coaching--constantly looking ahead and figuring out what is
going to happen before it happens--also is mentally draining.
To the best of QC's knowledge, no major studies of the impacts of the forces of
coaching on mental and emotional health have ever been undertaken. The media
completely disgregards these forces, even when the consquences of the forces
are right under their noses. In the wake of Meyer's rocky weekend,
Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio coldly wrote,
"Give me a break. These guys are living the dream. They get paid millions
of dollars, they bask in the limelight, and they never have to lift anything
heavier than a suitcase. If the price is devoting every waking moment from July
through December to preparing their teams for games and most waking moments in
the other six months of the year laying the foundation for the coming season,
then so be it. ... No matter how hard they work, it's not work. It's organized
play."
Give QC a break. Mr. Florio clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Here
is what Bill Walsh wrote about coaching's infinite demands.
"It's just as important to understand that 'extra effort,' in whatever
form it takes (mental, physical, emotional), cannot be sustained without
eventual damage and diminishing returns," Walsh said in The Score Takes
Care Of Itself. "There has to be a very acute awareness on your part
as to the level of exertion and the toll it's taking on those you lead."
And, such as in Meyer's case, there has to be an acute self-awareness on the
part of the coach on the personal cost that he is incurring.
Walsh's description of how he approached coaching, including designing plays,
sounds nothing like "play":
"Whatever it was, beyond the score I had a passion for figuring out how we
could have performed at a higher and higher level of excellence. Good or bad,
win or lose, 'What caused what, and how can it be improved?' was my recurrent
question, an obsession. At 2 A.M. I'd be
staring up at the ceiling or tossing around in bed. Eventually, I'd get up,
pace around, sit down in the next room to write some notes. Then back to
pacing, slowly analyzing before writing down additional observations or ideas.
Finally, as the sun was getting ready to come up, I'd go back to bed and try to
get a few minutes sleep. It was like this after every single game I coached in
San Francisco for ten years, close to it on many other nights.
By the end of the season, I was a mess physically and
emotionally."
Here is how Walsh described how he knew he was doing a good job:
"If you're up at at 3 A.M. every night talking into a tape recorder and
writing notes on scraps of paper, have a knot in your stomach and a rash on
your skin, are losing sleep and losing touch with your wife and kids,
have no appetite or sense of humor, and feel that everything might turn out
wrong, then your're probably doing the job."
Does that sound anything like living a dream, Mr. Florio? Perhaps, if your idea
of a dream life is Good Will Hunting.
Those who were around Walsh have confirmed the incredible price he paid for the
growth of his players and the growth of his football knowledge, particularly
after San Francisco won its second Super Bowl in 1984.
"Once that happened, from that moment on, we had sort of set our own
high-water mark. Good luck meeting that one every year," said former 49ers
guard Randy Cross in The Score Takes Care Of Itself. "Nevertheless,
the pressure on Bill got ratcheted up by the owner, Eddie DeBartolo. A Super
Bowl was the norm, anything less was not accpetable, and the pressure became
crushing.
"Under the pressure he had on him during the last few years, there was no
way he could keep going. At the end he would have needed a six-month vacation
by himself on a desert island--making him sleep all the time, making him relax,
making him chill out--if he wanted to continue under that load and that
pressure."
Craig Walsh, the coach's son, said his father was "a man of great logic,
he truly believed that in the end, your ultimate assignment as a leader is
getting those on your team totally ready for the battle. After that, you have
to let winning take care of itself. His ability to do that contributed to his
success; his inability to do that, increasing as the years went by, forced him
to leave the game as an NFL head coach."
"I've come to understand that in some ways, my father's life was almost
Shakespearan, because what got him to the top
professionally was his downfall personally; in spite of his
incomparable achievements, he had trouble ever feeling
fulfilled on a continuing basis," Craig Walsh wrote.
"While he learned from each loss and every win, my dad increasingly took
something away from a defeat that he couldn't shake. Driven by a desire to gain
the stamp of approval from his peers (but not necessarily the public), he was
consumed by work and winning, increasingly haunted by losing. When you achieve what he achieved, the inability or
unwillingness to grant yourself happiness and satisfaction is perhaps
tragic."
"During my last season as head coach," Walsh himself said,
"I began suffering from emotional and mental
exhaustion brought on by the demands and pressures of my job that
had been building up in my mind for several years. The inner toll this took is
indescribable. It became almost tortuous and manifested itself during the last
months in my becoming increasingly sentimental about things and, at times,
maudlin. All of it was, of course, related to exhaustion. I would frequently be
on the edge of breaking down in tears and started to protect myself to keep it
from happening. Consequently, and without telling anyone, I decided I had to
retire at the end of the season."
Walsh figured out too late that he had paid a high price for his success, but
he never quite figured out why he felt like he had to pay that
price.
"I also know that the degree of drive an individual has to solve the
puzzle perfectly, no matter how complex or difficult, is directly related to
attaining higher and higher levels of success," Walsh wrote in The
Score Takes Care Of Itself. "It's that desire that wakes you up in the
middle of the night reaching for a pen and paper next to your bed--an insatiable hunger to capture inspiration and
answers that all highly driven people share.
"Where that drive comes from is often a mystery. Here's what Arthur Ashe,
one of the greatest tennis players in history, had to say about it: 'Who knows
what force gnaws at us, telling us our accomplishments, no matter how
sensational, are not enough; that we need to do more?' (Arthur Ashe, Days of
Grace.) I sought perfection, and 99 percent isn't perfection. Why 'almost
perfect' wasn't enough for me is something I cannot explain."
QC suspects that Walsh's infinite need to be perfect and his drive toward that
goal was deeply linked to his relationship with his father. Walsh's father
worked on an automobile assembly line and then, when he came home at night,
continued to work on cars. Walsh attributes his father's long hours working on
cars as motivated by a desire to provide for the family. But it is just as
likely that Walsh's father spent infinite hours working on cars to satisfy his
own personal obsession with cars just as Walsh spent infinite hours working on
plays to satisfy his own personal obsession. The apple rarely falls far from
the tree.
"The guy who set the standard for me was my father," Walsh wrote.
"When I was a teenager, I had to work with him on many of those evenings
and weekends, long hours into the night helping him out. I hated it, but he taught me the connection between
hard work and survival, between survival and success.
"He paid a tremendous price for his
willingness to work," Walsh continued. "It may have shortened his
life--a life that offered little in the way of fun or material reward--and kept
him from connecting in any meaningful way with his son. I never really got to
know my father; he didn't have time."
In The Genius, David Harris quoted Walsh as follows: "'While some
kids were outside playing,'" he
remembered, "'I was out in the garage working with the men. My dad had things for me to
do, sanding cars, getting them ready to paint. I
didn't have a choice, but I was never mad about it. It was for the
family and those were the days everybody did things for their dads. He'd give
me a dollar every now and then when he thought I did a particularly good job.
What struck me is the level of detail he demanded from
me. His expectations were hard and stark. It wasn't like, 'Maybe you
better try to." It was, 'Get that goddamn thing over here and line it up
right. Take it off and do it again.' He'd blow his stack if he thought you
screwed up, even if you hadn't. It was tough love if you want to call it that.
It had a real hard side to it.'"
Walsh's dark relationship with his father contrasts sharply with another master
NFL coach's relationship with his father: New England's Bill Belichick. Like
Walsh, Belichick was the son of an obsessive worker, Steve Belichick, who was
an assistant coach and scout at Navy. But there were critical differences
between Steve Belichick and many other football coaches.
First, Steve Belichick learned early in his career that no family security
existed in being a head coach. So, unlike most young coaches, once he arrived
in Annapolis he voluntarily got off the "coaching hampster wheel" and
never sought a head coaching position or even another assistant job somewhere
else. Prior to coming to the Academy, after being part of coaching staffs that
were fired at Vanderbilt and North Carolina, Steve Belichick became
"shrewder about it all, figuring out how to take care of himself and
protect himself, aware that what might seem like the best job was not
necessarily the best job, at least for him," David Halberstam wrote in
The Education Of A Coach.
He summed up his "tempered view" of life as follows: "One of the
greatest things you can learn about yourself is your own limitations--how much
you can eat at any given meal, how much you can drink, and how much you can get
out of life. It's very important to know them and not go beyond them."
While Walsh hated working with his father (who never observed any limitations
with respect to his obsession with cars), according to Halberstam, "Bill
[Belichick] liked to hang out with his
father at practice. Steve enjoyed that, too--some coaches, he knew,
did not like having their sons at practice, but he was more than comfortable
with it."
While Bill Walsh saw little intrinsic value to his father in his father's work,
Bill Belichick's view of the intrinsic value to his father of his father's work
was the polar opposite.
"What Bill Belichick remembered about his father in those years, perhaps
the most important thing of all, something that lasted
with him, was that he seemed to come home from work happy each
night, a sign that he loved his work, and always, seemed eager to go
to work," Halberstam wrote. "Bill Belichick liked the feeling of
comraderie that they had, of seeing these men working so well together, bonded
by a sense of common purpose. There was, he decided,
an exceptional richness to his father's life."
What strikes QC as perhaps the most significant difference between Belichick's
father and Walsh's father is that Belichick's father came home from work.
Walsh's father never came home from work. Rather, Walsh's father brought
his work home. In other words, Belchick's father controlled his work, but work
controlled Walsh's father. Belchick's father was work's master. Walsh's father
was subject--a slave--to work.
It does not require much speculation to conclude that, as a result of the
difference in control, Belichick's father taught Bill Belichick how to work
happily, while Walsh's father taught Bill Walsh how to work unhappily. Quite simply, Belchick learned to love work; Walsh learned to
hate it. It requires only a short extension of speculation to
conclude that both Walsh's and Belichick's coaching drive comes from a mutual
passion for work, but that Walsh's passion led him in a negative,
self-destructive direction until he retired and gave up coaching, while
Belichick's passion led him in a positive, self-affirming direction.
"It was unpleasant to know that doing a good job in the NFL wasn't much
different from doing a a bad job," Walsh wrote. "Both will get you
fired; the latter just gets you fired sooner. You know you're there as a coach
temporarily, only while you're very successful, only when you do a fantastic
job. Then you learn that even a fantastic job is inadequate. The norm becomes
impossible, and when you don't achieve the impossible, your head's on the
chopping block.
"Good and bad are about the same in the
NFL, perhaps in corporate America too. You're gone if good is the
best you can do. Good just buys you time; great buys you a little more time.
And then you're gone."
Walsh burned out on coaching after 10 years in the NFL even though he was never
fired. In constrast, Belichick overcame a traumatic experience and firing in
Cleveland and is in his 19th year of NFL coaching. At least publicly, he does
not appear to exhibit any symptoms of burn-out. This contrast is evidence that
supports QC's conclusions.
Recently, in a
Sports Illustrated profile of Urban Meyer, S.L. Price
wrote: "Normal isn't supposed to do this. Normal doesn't
produce greatness or the manic need to reach it--at least that is what we have
come to believe. The artist, the champion, has to have some crack in the
porcelain, some hole to fill, some 'Rosebud!' moment to explain superhuman
drive. Maybe Mama died or Dad left; maybe it was poverty or shame. Freud and
Dickens and Dick Ebersol so often linked childhood
trauma to accomplishment that today the rise of a figure like Urban
Meyer almost comes off as odd."
If S.L. Price truly believes that Urban Meyer's childhood was
"normal," then Price has a pretty odd definition of normal.
As Price explains it, Urban Meyer's relationship with his father, Bud, appears
to be closer to Walsh's relationship with his father than to Belichick's
relationship with his father. According Price, "almost unachievable"
described Meyer's father's expecations of him. According to Price, Urban
identified those infinite expectations as follows: "The kids were to get
straight A's, skip grades, be impeccable. Any success was greeted with the
barest of praise, any failure, any transgression, with the command to run
hundreds of laps around the house or play fierce games of pepper."
Further, again according to Price, "sports was
Urban's job, and Bud controlled the purse strings: a dollar for home
runs, 50 cents for an RBI. Early on he demanded 25 cents for every strikeout,
but by Urban's senior year at St. John High such a refund seemed piddling. So
after Urban took one curveball for a called strike three, Bud made him run
home. 'About eight miles,' Urban says."
Price wrote that Urban's father would "sit in the stands, taping his
thoughts on Urban's at bats and carries into a portable tape recorder."
His father's obsession with Urban's success in sports sounds remarkably similar
to Walsh's obsession with coaching.
"If you ever quit something?" Urban Meyer rhetorically asked in
Price's profile. "The sun's not coming up the next day."
At 17-years-old, a homesick Urban Meyer called his father and said he was
through pursuing a major league baseball career. "You're never welcome in
this house again," Meyer's father said, according to Price. "There's
no such thing as a quitter in the Meyer household."
What Meyer's father did not understand is that Urban Meyer was not a quitter,
he just knew he had reached his limit in baseball and wanted to come home.
On January 1, 2010, Urban Meyer's Florida Gators destroyed the Cincinnati
Bearcats in the Sugar Bowl, 54-21. At
the Sugar Bowl post-game press conference, a
reporter asked, "Urban you go home tomorrow, you wake up, Shelley just
said you've never not coached. Do you have any inkling of what the days, weeks,
months are going to be like?"
"No, I don't," Meyer replied. "I know I'm anxious to get
home."
Earlier in the day another Florida college football coach, Florida State's
Bobby Bowden, completed a more than 30-year coaching career in which he
controlled his coaching, not vice-versa, with a 33-21 victory over West
Virginia in the Gator Bowl. At the end of
the Gator Bowl post-game press conference, Bowden's
wife of 60 years, Ann, walked onto the stage, planted a kiss on him, and said,
"Time to go home, baby." Bowden then concluded, "I guess that's
it, huh?"
Yup. That is it. That's all there is.
Urban Meyer does not need to quit coaching forever to find the peace that
Bowden displayed in the Gator Bowl press conference. But Meyer does need to find a way to quit coaching for the day
and go home from work. And he needs to do it every day that he is in
Gainesville. As a coach, he should know that practice and repetition is the
only path to getting better at something, and that includes getting better at
quitting for the day, going home from work, and leaving your work at work.
To find his way home from work, Meyer first will have to admit that his
work--coaching--controls him, not the other way around. If Meyer can do so, QC
likes his chances to avoid Walsh's fate and become a coach "fulfilled
on a continuing basis" like Bowden and Belichick. If Meyer
cannot do so, it probably is in his best interest to quit coaching and spare
himself and his loved ones the agony as he has achieved in coaching all that he
could ever hope to achieve.
In every other aspect of football, Urban Meyer has been an innovator who has
always been able to find a way. QC hopes he can find a way this time.
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2).
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Is coaching controlling Florida's Urban Meyer rather than Meyer controlling his
coaching? (Use Twitter or the headset to send TRUE or FALSE and
your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC know if we may post your
tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 NFL Season: Week 17 Thoughts
Now that the 2009 NFL regular season is complete, QC can analyze some of the
statistical results. Here are a few season statistics and QC's thoughts on the
statistics.
**********
Better coached teams, which means teams who had a better H
A than their opponents, finished the season 206-50 (.805
winning%). In other words, better coached NFL teams won 80% of their games in
2009. (More productive teams finished the season 202-54, a .789 winning%).
In 37 out of the 50 games (74%) that better coached teams lost, the better
coached team committed more turnovers than its opponent. As QC's
9th Commandment
states, turnovers are random and are player playmaking failures, not play
design failures. Thus, in 2009, approximately 95% of all NFL games (243 out of
256 games, .949) were decided by coaching or randomly by turnovers.
In his book, The Score Takes Care of Itself, former San Francisco 49ers
coach Bill Walsh wrote:
"Competition inevitably produces randomness that can leave you grasping at
straws. I attempted to reduce the randomness of my responses. Hearing someone
described as being able to 'fly by the seat of his pants' always suggests to me
a leader who hasn't prepared properly and whose pants may soon fall
down."...
"The final score of a football game is decided, on average, according to
the following percentages: 20 percent is due to luck, such as a referee's bad
call, a tricky bounce of the ball, an injury, or some other happenstance. I
accepted the fact that I couldn't control 20 percent of each game. However, the
rest of it--80 percent--could be under my control with comprehensive planning
and preparation. What about the quantity and quality of talent on my team?
Doesn't that override everything? Of course you need talent, but talent is not
the only factor. And at the upper most levels of competition, talent becomes
much more evenly distributed. Thus, for working purposes my 80/20 ratio is
quite good."
QC's coaching statistics appear to confirm that NFL coaches like Walsh can
control about 80% of the outcome in the NFL as 80% of the time the final
outcome of the game correlated with the coaching staff that contributed the
better play design to its team's effort. Quite simply, Walsh's 80/20 ratio is
correct.
**********
Teams whose QCYPA was greater than 9.00 and who held their opponent's QCYPA
below 6.672 finished the season 52-2 (.963 winning percentage). The only teams
that lost under these circumcstances were Pittsburgh in Week 3 and New England
in Week 13. The Steelers fell to Cincinnati because QB Ben Roethlisberger threw
a pick-6 to Bengals' defensive back Jonathan Joseph and the Patriots succumbed
to Miami because coach Bill Belichick passed up an easy field goal attempt and
the Dolphins stuffed New England's fourth down run. In both cases, these key
plays fit within Walsh's concept of "randomness that can leave you
grasping at straws."
**********
Teams whose offensive player productivity in a game finished below the
JaMarcus Cable of
2.00 player productivity (HY) finished the season 22-76 (.224
winning%).
(ARCHIVES;
ARCHIVES2)
|
YOU MAKE THE
CALL: TRUE or FALSE
Can NFL coaches control 80% of outcomes in NFL games with comprehensive
planning and preparation as Bill Walsh wrote? (Use Twitter or the headset to
send TRUE or FALSE and your reasons to QuantCoach. Please let QC
know if we may post your tweet/message on The Chalkboard.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 NFL Season: Week 16 Thoughts
In Week 16, in Indianapolis' 29-15 loss to the New York Jets, fans of NFL
competition discovered a new species of black swan: The team that deliberately
does not try its best to win the game.
In Week 16, fifteen other NFL teams tried to win. Fifteen other teams designed
better plays that their players executed more productively than their
opponents. These fifteen other teams won their games. A perfect 15-0.
One team, the Colts, designed better plays that its star player, QB Peyton
Manning, and his teammates executed well enough to hold a 15-10 lead over the
Jets. Turnover-free and sack-free Indianapolis was posting an impressive 9.14
QCYPA against New York's best-in-the-NFL defense. On the other side of the
ball, the Jets and their rookie QB, Mark Sanchez, were struggling. New York
finished the game with an abysmal 4.79 QCYPA.
For the season, NFL teams that have exceeded 9.00 QCYPA while holding their
opponents to less than 6.672 QCYPA are 50-2. That's a .962 winning percentage.
In other words, with a little over 5 minutes to play in the third quarter, the
Colts had at least a 96% chance of defeating New York and moving to
15-0.
|
