A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1

GTripp0012 · 12-05-2006, 06:37 PM

I'm beginning a BA series that will continue throughout the offseason to use statistics to show exactly what the Front Office has (or hasn't) done that has caused the team's performance on the field to decline.

This edition, we have an in depth statistical look at why Randle El and Lloyd lack the big numbers that we as fans wanted them to put up.

http://www.thewarpath.net/wordpress/...and-randle-el/

Enjoy!

hooskins · 12-05-2006, 07:05 PM

Nice read. It is very refreshing to see an arguement based on stats, rather than alot of this crap that has been going around this board.

BeastsoftheNFCeast · 12-05-2006, 07:05 PM

I have been saying that all year! I completely agree with you. The only thing I didn't like about this article/blog or whatever it is, is that you never brought up any opposing arguements, but very well done, and I don't know how you got them but I really liked the stats you used.

GTripp0012 · 12-05-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeastsoftheNFCeast

I have been saying that all year! I completely agree with you. The only thing I didn't like about this article/blog or whatever it is, is that you never brought up any opposing arguements, but very well done, and I don't know how you got them but I really liked the stats you used.

The dropback/thrown to stats from 05 I found in the Skins section of the Pro Football Prospectus 2006.

The 06 numbers were all from NFL.com.

I can only be one side of the issue. One of the things the BA is for is to have conflicting viewpoints. Hopefully we'll see some of that this offseason.

onlydarksets · 12-05-2006, 09:08 PM

Good job with the stats. I think he means it would have enhanced your argument to discuss (or at least to mention) other explanations for the low numbers to ARE and Lloyd (e.g., QB favoritism, playing time, etc.). That said, there's only so much that can be done in a blog article about stats before you start putting people to sleep.

hooskins · 12-05-2006, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Good job with the stats. I think he means it would have enhanced your argument to discuss (or at least to mention) other explanations for the low numbers to ARE and Lloyd (e.g., QB favoritism, playing time, etc.). That said, there's only so much that can be done in a blog article about stats before you start putting people to sleep.

Well depends what kind of person you are. Personally I get sick of arguments without any basis, and I love reading stuff that is validated with stats.

onlydarksets · 12-05-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hooskins

Well depends what kind of person you are. Personally I get sick of arguments without any basis, and I love reading stuff that is validated with stats.

OK...but you're missing the point. There are other possible explanations, and it only strengthens an argument if you address them (assuming you aren't just knocking down strawmen arguments). Plus, playing time is a stat, isn't it?

onlydarksets · 12-05-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

OK...but you're missing the point. There are other possible explanations, and it only strengthens an argument if you address them (assuming you aren't just knocking down strawmen arguments). Plus, playing time is a stat, isn't it?

My bad - I misread your last post. I "get it" now.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha · 12-05-2006, 11:25 PM

Good stuff GTripp! Thanks.

BDBohnzie · 12-06-2006, 10:58 AM

Great article GTripp.

I think once Saunders really implements his system here, that the 2 and 3 receivers (Lloyd, ARE, Patten) will see slightly higher production at the expense of the RBs. I also think that the RBs having higher production has more to do with Brunell's constant dumpoffs, considering he would constant checkdown when he couldn't find Moss or Cooley.

GhettoDogAllStars · 12-06-2006, 11:03 AM

Well done, G. The best yet.

As a fan, I usually don't pay attention to what money the players get. It wouldn't bother me if the backup punt returner was the highest paid player, and the star QB was the lowest -- as long as they perform. However, I understand that money is an issue, and you can get into trouble if you don't account for it. I guess it's because I just don't understand all the financial stuff.

Misterbillysells · 12-06-2006, 11:08 AM

I hear what your saying but stats dont always tell the whole story. The thing about saunders offence is that if your moving the ball down the field and having a lot of production then all of our weapons will be getting the ball more. I see under production of the new acquistions as more of a result of inability to move the ball limiting to the total number of plays. Great article and great analysis but stats never tell the whole story.

freddyg12 · 12-06-2006, 11:17 AM

good analysis. I always thought signing both guys was extravagent & not a good use of cap $ down the road. Plus I'm not convinced that either guy gets open enough to command the qb's attention. When Moss was out it seemed the guy to step up most was Thrash, other than Cooley. I think Thrash is as good a #2 possession reciever as either ARE or Loyd, he just lacks the speed.

backrow · 12-06-2006, 11:33 AM

In sumation:

Cost vs. benefit

or

Investment vs. reward.

At any rate, the results have been underwhelming, and quite predictable. Statistically speaking, of course.

Great job!

djnemo65 · 12-07-2006, 09:14 AM

First of all, great article Gtripp. Well put together and researched. I guess where I disagree with you is where you assert that our offense was succesful last year based on it's number 11 ranking. Your analysis assumes that this is sufficient production. I disagree. You always try to get better. The fact that you can identify the majority of our passes going to two players indicates the degree to which our offense was flawed and one-dimensional last year. I don't think that is something you strive to repeat. Moreover, what that ranking doesn't indicate is the degree to which our offense was woefully inconsistent last year, save for a 4-5 game stretch at the end of the season. We would follow up 52 points in SF with 0 in NY. 35 againts TB with I think 13 against the Raiders.

The problem is not that we tinkered with the system by adding new players. In my opinion the problem is that we overhauled our entire offensive philosophy, moving it away from the strengths of the team (one may disagree, but here is not the place to debate that). In fact, our offensive production this year has been similar to last year's, at least based on statistics. It's the defense that has held us back.

12-05-2006, 06:37 PM	#1
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 36 Posts: 15,994	A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 I'm beginning a BA series that will continue throughout the offseason to use statistics to show exactly what the Front Office has (or hasn't) done that has caused the team's performance on the field to decline. This edition, we have an in depth statistical look at why Randle El and Lloyd lack the big numbers that we as fans wanted them to put up. http://www.thewarpath.net/wordpress/...and-randle-el/ Enjoy! __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

12-05-2006, 07:05 PM	#3
BeastsoftheNFCeast Special Teams Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 331	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 I have been saying that all year! I completely agree with you. The only thing I didn't like about this article/blog or whatever it is, is that you never brought up any opposing arguements, but very well done, and I don't know how you got them but I really liked the stats you used.

12-05-2006, 09:08 PM	#5
onlydarksets Playmaker Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: all up in your business Posts: 2,693	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 Good job with the stats. I think he means it would have enhanced your argument to discuss (or at least to mention) other explanations for the low numbers to ARE and Lloyd (e.g., QB favoritism, playing time, etc.). That said, there's only so much that can be done in a blog article about stats before you start putting people to sleep.

12-05-2006, 11:25 PM	#9
Sheriff Gonna Getcha Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2004 Age: 45 Posts: 8,317	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 Good stuff GTripp! Thanks.

12-06-2006, 10:58 AM	#10
BDBohnzie Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Frederick, MD Age: 45 Posts: 4,628	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 Great article GTripp. I think once Saunders really implements his system here, that the 2 and 3 receivers (Lloyd, ARE, Patten) will see slightly higher production at the expense of the RBs. I also think that the RBs having higher production has more to do with Brunell's constant dumpoffs, considering he would constant checkdown when he couldn't find Moss or Cooley. __________________ Bad Things man, I mean bad things... “WE TOOK HIM IN THE SIXTH ROUND SO WE'RE NOT SMART EITHER.” - Shanny on what the Skins saw in Alfred Morris

12-05-2006, 07:05 PM	#2
hooskins Most Interesting Man in the World Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Chantilly, VA Age: 37 Posts: 8,606	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 Nice read. It is very refreshing to see an arguement based on stats, rather than alot of this crap that has been going around this board. __________________ Vacancy

12-06-2006, 11:03 AM	#11
GhettoDogAllStars Playmaker Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Denver Age: 42 Posts: 2,762	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 Well done, G. The best yet. As a fan, I usually don't pay attention to what money the players get. It wouldn't bother me if the backup punt returner was the highest paid player, and the star QB was the lowest -- as long as they perform. However, I understand that money is an issue, and you can get into trouble if you don't account for it. I guess it's because I just don't understand all the financial stuff. __________________ To succeed in the world it is not enough to be stupid, you must also be well-mannered.

12-06-2006, 11:08 AM	#12
Misterbillysells Camp Scrub Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 80	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 I hear what your saying but stats dont always tell the whole story. The thing about saunders offence is that if your moving the ball down the field and having a lot of production then all of our weapons will be getting the ball more. I see under production of the new acquistions as more of a result of inability to move the ball limiting to the total number of plays. Great article and great analysis but stats never tell the whole story.

12-06-2006, 11:17 AM	#13
freddyg12 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,540	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 good analysis. I always thought signing both guys was extravagent & not a good use of cap $ down the road. Plus I'm not convinced that either guy gets open enough to command the qb's attention. When Moss was out it seemed the guy to step up most was Thrash, other than Cooley. I think Thrash is as good a #2 possession reciever as either ARE or Loyd, he just lacks the speed.

12-06-2006, 11:33 AM	#14
backrow The Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 36.28 x 76.22 Age: 73 Posts: 1,812	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 In sumation: Cost vs. benefit or Investment vs. reward. At any rate, the results have been underwhelming, and quite predictable. Statistically speaking, of course. Great job! __________________ '37, '42, '83, '88, '92. Championship!

12-07-2006, 09:14 AM	#15
djnemo65 Playmaker Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,836	Re: A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1 First of all, great article Gtripp. Well put together and researched. I guess where I disagree with you is where you assert that our offense was succesful last year based on it's number 11 ranking. Your analysis assumes that this is sufficient production. I disagree. You always try to get better. The fact that you can identify the majority of our passes going to two players indicates the degree to which our offense was flawed and one-dimensional last year. I don't think that is something you strive to repeat. Moreover, what that ranking doesn't indicate is the degree to which our offense was woefully inconsistent last year, save for a 4-5 game stretch at the end of the season. We would follow up 52 points in SF with 0 in NY. 35 againts TB with I think 13 against the Raiders. The problem is not that we tinkered with the system by adding new players. In my opinion the problem is that we overhauled our entire offensive philosophy, moving it away from the strengths of the team (one may disagree, but here is not the place to debate that). In fact, our offensive production this year has been similar to last year's, at least based on statistics. It's the defense that has held us back.

A new Burgundy Army Article: Learning from Mistakes; Ed. 1

Locker Room Main Forum