shaka

All-PRO
  • Content count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

582 Good

About shaka

  • Rank
    NEWB
  • Birthday September 30

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

1,269 profile views
  1. New Half

    We're going to come out looking like a different team.    We will dominate the second half and win by ten. Keep pounding. 
  2. What position did you play?

    I was decent at two sports in high school, baseball and football.  I was a tall skinny kid so naturally I started as a WR/DE.  As time passed, I added some muscle and ended up playing a number of positions before landing at middle linebacker and fullback.  I tore my MCL twice my senior year and ended up missing 7.5 out of 10 games.     I got a scholarship to play baseball, which I didn't enjoy as much as football.  Found out my senior year of college I had been getting recruiting letters for football and my mom threw them out because I had gotten hurt.  A lot of small schools but I remember the biggest one.  Pittsburgh Panthers.     Still pisses me off to think about to this day.  
  3. Scott Simonson saved his sister's life

    fug this guy.   No seriously, great story from the town right next to mine.  Would love to see this guy be the next big thing or play a big role in the super bowl.    
  4. What Broncos Fans Are Saying

    Actually the Denver defense looks better yardage wise from playing teams ranked lower on average than the teams the Panthers played.  Scoring wise we faced on average similar opponents, and that shows with only an 8 point differential there.   Source:    
  5. Good points.   No discounting was done.  The actual impact of Denver's defense on opponents offensive ranking is not something I have a desire to calculate.  But let's napkin math an example for a division opponent.   Let's use 350 yards per game as an average.  This would put our imaginary team at 17th in offensive yards per game.  The Broncos let up on average 283 yards per game.   Scenario 1) They play the Broncos twice and put up their averages.   14 other games x 350 yards + 283yards + 283yards = 5466 total yards Scenario 2)  They put up their offensive average each game 16 games x 350 yards = 5600 yards That's the difference between coming in 21st and 17th in yards.  For non-divisional opponents the effect would be dampened.     There's certainly some merit but that's a slippery slope to go down.  You start adding in other variables and we'll begin over analyzing and looking like Seahawk fans quoting advanced metrics.     They're a great defense, but this "elite" stuff is nonsense.      
  6. I get where you're going with this but from a yardage standpoint it actually helps their cause.  Look at the regular season game vs the Steelers.  Pitt had two scoring drives that result from turnovers.  Combined yards?  58. Every other scoring drive was at least 50 yards.     They're a great defense and I haven't watched them enough to say they're one of the best in the last 15 years.  They could be, I don't know.     But if people want to take pot shots at us saying we had a joke schedule or faced bad defenses, I'm going to call them out on playing cupcake offenses.  You lead the league in rushing defense after playing the Browns, Colts, Ravens, Chargers twice, Raiders twice, Lions and NE?  Good, you should that's 9 games against bottom of the barrel running teams.  
  7. This is in response to this article attempting to discredit our offense based on opposing defenses: http://www.milehighreport.com/2016/1/27/10846346/a-critical-look-at-the-panthers-offense I'm using the same idea that the author does showing that Denver benefited from playing worse offensive teams than the Panthers. Here are the statistical ranks of the offenses Denver played with averages at the bottom: Here are the statistical ranks of the offenses Carolina played with averages at the bottom: On average, the Broncos played easier offenses.  And lastly the defensive ranks and totals of the Broncos and Panthers: Denver:   Pass 1st - 3193 yards Rush 3rd - 1337 yards Total 1st - 4530 yards Scoring 4th - 296 points Carolina:  Pass 11th - 3752 yards Rush 4th - 1415 yards Total 6th - 5167 yards Scoring 6th - 308 points   Takeaways:   Denver played on average, weaker passing and running opponents then Carolina Difference between this "Elite" Denver defense and ours is...559 passing yards, 78 rushing yards and 8 points The Denver defense is great, our offense is good great.  Our defense is great, their offense is not very good.   fug Seattle, New Orleans, Atlanta and OBJ Edit: fixed good to great for our offense
  8. Wining the superbowl?
  9. I've never seen the Karate Kid (blasphemous I know) but...
  10. I was lurking on that Seahawks abomination of a message board when someone had said something along the lines of, "well you Panther fans just don't like DVOA because it's complicated.  Just read about it, it's not that bad."  So I did.     DVOA - Defense-adjusted Value Over Average.  Part of the explanation from the DVOA site: "Going back to our example of the three-yard rush, if Player A gains three yards under a set of circumstances in which the average NFL running back gains only one yard, then Player A has a certain amount of value above others at his position. Likewise, if Player B gains three yards on a play on which, under similar circumstances, an average NFL back gains four yards, that Player B has negative value relative to others at his position. Once we make all our adjustments, we can evaluate the difference between this player’s rate of success and the expected success rate of an average running back in the same situation (or between the opposing defense and the average defense in the same situation, etc.). Add up every play by a certain team or player, divide by the total of the various baselines* for success in all those situations, and you get VOA, or Value Over Average."   There, I bolded the important part for you.  Now let's take a hypothetical look at why anything Value Over Average should be taken with a grain of salt.  Warning: numbers, math and a bunch of hypothetical bullshit starts now.  Yes, there's a ton of cherry picking and a lot of oversimplification.  I don't care about you trying to punch holes in my argument, this is my take on DVOA and why it's not worth my time.  I will not respond.  I give zero fugs.  There are zero fugs given.   There were 6845 third downs in the NFL during the regular season this year.  Of those 2667 were converted.  For the sake of easier math, let's round those up.   7000 3rd down plays.   3000 conversions.     This is where I start making things up to illustrate an extreme.  Let's break it down further, assuming a uniform distribution on third down distances and only looking at the converted plays.   1000 Third and short (less than 3) 1000 Third and medium (4-7) 1000 Third and long (8+)   Now lets break down third and short into the following: 500 Third and one 500 Third and two   And now third and one plays by conversion play.   50 Penalty 300 Run 150 Pass   Now let's look at third and one routes ran Go/Seam - 30 Curl - 60 Out - 60   Further, lets look at just the seam routes 10 went for touchdowns, 20 did not   Now let's look at the 20 that didn't go for touchdowns because arguably plays that go for touchdowns should be worth more.  (15 numbers generated randomly between 7 and 40, 5 numbers generated randomly between 30 and 75) 9,12,13,13,15,19,23,23,25,26,29,34,36,37,39,42,55,61,65,72 Average of:  32.4 yards    Now with this knowledge, let me present a scenario.  It's the first quarter.  The Panthers win the toss and elect to defer.  The Saints have a 9 play 75 yard 7 minute drive before the defense forces a turnover at the Carolina 5 yard line.  The Panthers ran the ball twice, and are in a third and one on our own 14 yard line.  Greg Olsen is bracketed on the play, runs a seam route and makes a one handed catch for 9 yards.  Let's look at the VOA: 9 yards compared to the 32.4 yard average on third and one seam routes.  Look at this piece of poo Greg Olsen, he isn't even remotely close to average.     But wait, now throw in the fact that the Saints are a historically bad defense.  The Saints on average give up 11 yards on third down because they're assholes.  Jesus Christ Greg, you can't even get 11 yards on third down.  Relative to other third downs against the Saints, that's a below average play.   Facts:  9 yard catch on third and one.   Positives:  converted on third down Negatives:  Well below average in similar circumstances.  Below average against the defense   Obviously the real DVOA is a lot more refined.  But you can begin to see the cracks in the metric.  I don't give a flying poo about how we performed relative to the NFL average when the NFL average still contains the Browns.  I feel like we're still missing something...   Oh that's right, the actual football game.  First of all, one handed catch while being doubled.  That's a hell of a catch and is in no way, shape, or form average.  Secondly, the value of picking up the first down in this situation is gigantic.  I don't care if this possession results in points.  Give me a first down or two, let my defense catch their breath and try to get the Saints offense out of rhythm.  You know moleface and vicodin boy are kicking themselves for not getting points, and want that ball back bad.  The best defense is keeping their offense off the field.  The Saints historically bad defense works against us in this situation, but where's the weight or emphasis on the third down conversion that keeps the #1 passing attack on the sideline.  It's an interesting take on traditional stats that is decent but just feels..incomplete.     TLDR:  DVOA is a good metric, and is better than your traditional stats.  However, there's a lot more to football than performing against the average.  Where's the metric that accounts for going back to a wide receiver on a crucial third down when two plays earlier he dropped a long touchdown?  Or the metric showing the impact of a physical running game on pass defenses over time?  What about pass velocity by route and the correlation to drops?  And penalties committed but not called by refs?  Successful play types by defense called?  How much of a sample size will you really get from third and short go routes against double a gap blitzes?  It sure as hell won't be credible.     The game of football is complex, and there will never be a metric to account for every little thing that happens during a play.     Summary of the TLDR:  I used to ignore DVOA.  I still ignore DVOA.  fug the Seahawks.  
  11. Hawks Fans are mad RW isn't MVP

     I'll admit I haven't watched any Seahawk games with a watchful eye except our showdown..but isn't that #1 scoring defense number a little 'inflated' so to speak.  The Jimmy Claussen lead Bears, Lions, 49ers twice, the Jimmy Claussen lead Ravens, the Matt Cassel lead Cowboys, the Johnny Manziel lead Browns.  Beating up on bad qbs in will decrease your points against average.   Against good quarterbacks, Rodgers, Dalton, Newton, Palmer, Roethlisberger, your team is 2-4.   We played Brees, Wilson, Luck, Rodgers, Ryan, Eli Manning, Romo and were 8-1 in those games.  
  12. Shoot, I wouldn't say it's a "good thing" and I hate losing more than I love winning.  But it seems like, at least recently, losing late in the season is a good wake up call.  
  13. I wanted to see if everyone was right when they say it's a good time for a loss.  So I took a quick look at the regular seasons of the Super Bowl winners from 2004:   Year Super Bowl Winner Final Games 2004 Patriots Lost in week 15 2005 Steelers Lost weeks 11,12,13 Won 14-17 2006 Colts Lost 4 of final 7 2007 Giants Lost 4 of final 8 2008 Steelers Won 6 of final 7 2009 Saints Lost final 3 2010 Packers Lost 3 of final 6 2011 Giants Lost 5 of final 8 2012 Ravens Lost 4 of final 5 2013 Seahawks Lost 2 of final 4 2014 Patriots Lost week 17   So...history would say yes, it was a great time for a loss.  Losing late in the season is surprisingly common for teams that won the Super Bowl.     I believe our best football still hasn't been played yet and a Super Bowl win is in our future.