dogfightgiggle

Greg Zuerlein 2018 Outlook

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zak0221 said:

How about you just take the points and kick the FG?  I understand you are in Nola and the Saints score a lot but that fake was not a good call at all regardless how close it ended up being.  If Greg nails that FG he is probably in groove for the next attempt which maybe means it wouldn't have missed and the scoring in this game is completely different.  

 

Letting the Saints get a stop there with 0 pts was a huge turn over,  just terrible time to fake. 

 

But.... he got a first down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dsrich said:

 

But.... he got a first down. 

 

The call stood.  He didnt for all arguments sake.

 

The fake was a bad call.  Even if he got the 1st it was bad call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zak0221 said:

 

The call stood.  He didnt for all arguments sake.

 

The fake was a bad call.  Even if he got the 1st it was bad call. 

 

It was a bad call because you probably didn’t get those fantasy points from the fg, right?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zak0221 said:

How about you just take the points and kick the FG?  I understand you are in Nola and the Saints score a lot but that fake was not a good call at all regardless how close it ended up being.  If Greg nails that FG he is probably in groove for the next attempt which maybe means it wouldn't have missed and the scoring in this game is completely different.  

 

Letting the Saints get a stop there with 0 pts was a huge turn over,  just terrible time to fake. 

On that missed field goal a bad (high) snap messed up his timing and definitely affected that kick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dsrich said:

 

It was a bad call because you probably didn’t get those fantasy points from the fg, right?

 

Well with the power of hindsight, they lost the game because of it so... yea?  Even if he did "get it" - it's risky because even when you get lucky enough to fake them out it might be close and you might not get it like what happened. 

Edited by mmm sod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mmm sod said:

 

Well with the power of hindsight, they lost the game because of it so... yea? 


Although I agree it was a bad decision, that's not how it works - it's not bad because it didn't work, it is bad because it has low reward vs high risk. Also, obviously the game is influenced by the actual score, so you cannot go back and say oh if they'd kicked they'd have won.

What you can say however, is that the play was (if I understand correctly) 4th and 6 at the NO 16 yd line, with 13 minutes in the 2nd quarter.

Then the expected value of the kick is high (Greg's career success rate at around 33 yards is 90+%) whereas the expected value of the fake is ridiculously low - even if you make it, you still need to reach the end-zone.

So it should have been an easy kick, especially in a tight game. Bummer if the extra points would have won you the game, but on the other hand, he won't pull this stunt again, and now he's reminded to trust the power of the Leg.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mmm sod said:

 

Well with the power of hindsight, they lost the game because of it so... yea?  Even if he did "get it" - it's risky because even when you get lucky enough to fake them out it might be close and you might not get it like what happened. 

 

Except he did get the first down. You can't plan for a horrible call by the ref. The bottom line is that it worked and should have been a first down, which at that time most likely leads to the Rams going up 21-14 with the way they were moving the ball and possibly changing the whole game.

 

How anyone can say that was a bad play-call is beyond me, and they need to take off their fantasy goggles. The only bad call there was the one the refs made. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boudewijn said:


Although I agree it was a bad decision, that's not how it works - it's not bad because it didn't work, it is bad because it has low reward vs high risk. Also, obviously the game is influenced by the actual score, so you cannot go back and say oh if they'd kicked they'd have won.

What you can say however, is that the play was (if I understand correctly) 4th and 6 at the NO 16 yd line, with 13 minutes in the 2nd quarter.

Then the expected value of the kick is high (Greg's career success rate at around 33 yards is 90+%) whereas the expected value of the fake is ridiculously low - even if you make it, you still need to reach the end-zone.

So it should have been an easy kick, especially in a tight game. Bummer if the extra points would have won you the game, but on the other hand, he won't pull this stunt again, and now he's reminded to trust the power of the Leg.

 

 

Going up 21-14 and taking all of the momentum back is a low reward in a game like this? Fantasy is really ruining football fans minds. 

 

And Mcvay will 100% run plays like this in the future, just like we always have. He's an aggressive coach and Fassel has always incorporated trick plays in his ST ever since he started with the Rams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dude got you a 11 points. If you’re complaining about him not scoring more your team has bigger issues than it’s kicker.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

Going up 21-14 and taking all of the momentum back is a low reward in a game like this?

But it wasn't going to be 21-14, all they were shooting for was first down at the 13, where the expected points is around 4,5-5.

 

So you have a 90% play to get 3, or a high-risk play (say 40%) to get 5. That's an easy call to me - sure, you can do the high-risk one once in a while for fun or to keep the opponents honest, but you have to conceed it's not a good call.

 

Sure, I'll give you that the making the cake is good psychologically, but the reverse is also true - being level instead of a field goal up blows, and it has the higher probability.

 

Please note I don't mention fantasy at all (I didn't need the FG, CSB). I'm talking actual game management - in an early phase odlf the game you should just take the percentage play, period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Boudewijn said:

But it wasn't going to be 21-14, all they were shooting for was first down at the 13, where the expected points is around 4,5-5.

 

So you have a 90% play to get 3, or a high-risk play (say 40%) to get 5. That's an easy call to me - sure, you can do the high-risk one once in a while for fun or to keep the opponents honest, but you have to conceed it's not a good call.

 

Sure, I'll give you that the making the cake is good psychologically, but the reverse is also true - being level instead of a field goal up blows, and it has the higher probability.

 

Please note I don't mention fantasy at all (I didn't need the FG, CSB). I'm talking actual game management - in an early phase odlf the game you should just take the percentage play, period. 

 

With the way the offenses were moving, 21-14 was a likely scenario. 

 

40% to get 5? I'm not even sure how that math worked out, but a touchdown is 7. Even if you take out the extra point that comes with the TD, it's 6, although I'm not sure how you can just pretend that doesn't come with it. If this game was going to be a defensive battle, sure play it safe and take the FG, but in a game that was always going to be a shootout, being aggressive in certain situations is the correct thing to do. He chose to do that on the fake FG and it worked, whether the refs made the correct call on the field or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

40% to get 5? I'm not even sure how that math worked out, but a touchdown is 7. Even if you take out the extra point that comes with the TD, it's 6, although I'm not sure how you can just pretend that doesn't come with it.

 

If you get a first down at the 1 yard line, you're close to getting 7. If you have a first down on your own 10, you're far away. If you take that thinking further, you can assign a value (expected value) to each position on the field.

 

According to that, the opponent's 16yd has a certain value - it's high, but not 7, because you're not there yet.

 

Take a look here, it's interesting:

https://www.cmusportsanalytics.com/nfl-expected-points-nflscrapr-part-1-introduction-expected-points/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boudewijn said:

 

If you get a first down at the 1 yard line, you're close to getting 7. If you have a first down on your own 10, you're far away. If you take that thinking further, you can assign a value (expected value) to each position on the field.

 

According to that, the opponent's 16yd has a certain value - it's high, but not 7, because you're not there yet.

 

Take a look here, it's interesting:

https://www.cmusportsanalytics.com/nfl-expected-points-nflscrapr-part-1-introduction-expected-points/

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that math. There was no scenario where the Rams were leaving that drive with 5 points.

 

You're already assigning a value of risk with the 40% so I'm not sure how you can apply that to create some adjusted point total on top of that. It should be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that math. There was no scenario where the Rams were leaving that drive with 5 points.

 

You're already assigning a value of risk with the 40% so I'm not sure how you can apply that to create some adjusted point total on top of that. It should be one or the other.

No, it's not.

 

There is an expected value once you reach the first down (independent of how you get there). There is also an expected result on the play (the chance you'll get it). Those are different, right?

 

And mathematically, the total expected value of the play, is the chance of success times the expected result.

 

Anyway, it's a bit moot. They did, and I doubt they'll do it again.

Edited by Boudewijn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boudewijn said:

But it wasn't going to be 21-14, all they were shooting for was first down at the 13, where the expected points is around 4,5-5.

 

So you have a 90% play to get 3, or a high-risk play (say 40%) to get 5. That's an easy call to me - sure, you can do the high-risk one once in a while for fun or to keep the opponents honest, but you have to conceed it's not a good call.

 

Sure, I'll give you that the making the cake is good psychologically, but the reverse is also true - being level instead of a field goal up blows, and it has the higher probability.

 

Please note I don't mention fantasy at all (I didn't need the FG, CSB). I'm talking actual game management - in an early phase odlf the game you should just take the percentage play, period. 

 

This is exactly my angle and why I did not like the play.  Had nothing to do with the Legs overall game, I thought it was a dumb risk on a low percentage play when they should have been taking all the pts they can get vs the Saints esp early in this game.  If they wanted to go for it, just keep the offense on the field. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a terrible call because Sean McVay thinks he's the hottest thing since sliced bread. He got his sh*t pushed in by a NO squad that actually HAS a defense, unlike the Rams' Swiss Cheese embarrassment of a joke they trot out there. 

 

Rams will be perennial jokes as long as that is their defense. NO used to be like them - high-powered offense with zero D. Then they wised up and got some playmakers on the other side of the ball. Now they'll be in the Super Bowl representing the NFC. 

 

That being said, Greg the Leg is still money. If you want to be angry, be angry he missed that 50-yarder. That would have taken his day from a very good to great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gimme the ball said:

It was a terrible call because Sean McVay thinks he's the hottest thing since sliced bread. He got his sh*t pushed in by a NO squad that actually HAS a defense, unlike the Rams' Swiss Cheese embarrassment of a joke they trot out there. 

 

Rams will be perennial jokes as long as that is their defense. NO used to be like them - high-powered offense with zero D. Then they wised up and got some playmakers on the other side of the ball. Now they'll be in the Super Bowl representing the NFC. 

 

That being said, Greg the Leg is still money. If you want to be angry, be angry he missed that 50-yarder. That would have taken his day from a very good to great. 

 

That defense still allowed 35 points, so don't act like they're that much better than the Rams. That same defense has allowed 26.5 points per game this season so far. That Swiss Cheese defense has allowed 22.2 points per game and held the almighty Saints offense to a measly 3 points after halftime until that blown coverage by Peters. 

 

You say NO went out and got some playmakers, yet conveniently leave out that the Rams are missing their #1 CB. The same CB who would've been pressing Thomas all game. Instead Peters was forced to do it which quite frankly he sucks at. He's a CB that needs to play off and gamble on jumping a route, not facing off against a guy like Thomas at the line of scrimmage, but I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that based off your post.  

 

It's one thing to disagree with the call, but I have to question anyone's football IQ that says it was a terrible call. This was always going to be a shootout. If it were a defensive battle, settle for 3, but at that point in the game 3 points doesn't mean much. Not to mention (ready for it?), they got the first down.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, afl5013 said:

 

It's one thing to disagree with the call, but I have to question anyone's football IQ that says it was a terrible call. This was always going to be a shootout. If it were a defensive battle, settle for 3, but at that point in the game 3 points doesn't mean much. Not to mention (ready for it?), they got the first down.

 

Keep offense on field then rather than retarded high risk low % of success fake FG rush with the holder.  Do those EVER work?  ( don't keep spouting off about 'he got the first down' if they made correct call because that call is now in the history books as being short ) 

Edited by Zak0221

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

 

That defense still allowed 35 points, so don't act like they're that much better than the Rams. That same defense has allowed 26.5 points per game this season so far. That Swiss Cheese defense has allowed 22.2 points per game and held the almighty Saints offense to a measly 3 points after halftime until that blown coverage by Peters. 

 

You say NO went out and got some playmakers, yet conveniently leave out that the Rams are missing their #1 CB. The same CB who would've been pressing Thomas all game. Instead Peters was forced to do it which quite frankly he sucks at. He's a CB that needs to play off and gamble on jumping a route, not facing off against a guy like Thomas at the line of scrimmage, but I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that based off your post.  

 

It's one thing to disagree with the call, but I have to question anyone's football IQ that says it was a terrible call. This was always going to be a shootout. If it were a defensive battle, settle for 3, but at that point in the game 3 points doesn't mean much. Not to mention (ready for it?), they got the first down.

If you actually watched the game, NO moved the ball AT WILL. The Rams could not run and could only sporadically pass. It was easy for NO to score. LA had to work for every point they got, including that ridiculous Malcolm Brown two-tap job. 

 

Sean McVay is the epitome of LA. Young, flashy, thinks he's the sh*t, hot-dogging it, and deciding to drop his n*ts on NO in their own building, instead of deciding to TAKE THE LEAD in a game that was tied. He didn't call the play because he was worried about it being a shootout; he called it because he literally thinks he's the sh*t. 

 

NO steadily built their defense over a number of years and they will be in the Super Bowl, if not win it all. They are a fearsome juggernaut. They should have been in the SB last year, if not for one blown coverage with the Diggs catch. And I'm a Patriots fan. LA is a flashy, great offensive team whose defense gets EXPOSED time and time again. They will beat the teams with inferior offenses and completely stall out against well-balanced teams like NO and others, as was EXACTLY PROVEN.

 

That being said, Greg the Leg is still the man. 

Edited by gimme the ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zak0221 said:

 

Keep offense on field then rather than retarded high risk low % of success fake FG rush with the holder.  Do those EVER work?  ( don't keep spouting off about 'he got the first down' if they made correct call because that call is now in the history books as being short ) 

 

How is this so hard? It. Did. Work. 

hekker.gif

 

You can't just dismiss the fact that it worked because the referees got it wrong when you're assessing if it was a bad call or not. That's a lazy argument and impossible to debate because it fails to take into account what actually happened. It's the same thing as a box score watcher looking at stats after the game instead of actually watching to see what happened.  Yes, it was a lower risk than the FG would have been, but it wasn't as low of a risk as you guys are making it out to be. It was not destined to fail from the start, and in a game like this where the offenses were going to be going back and forth, you NEED to be aggressive. Again, you may disagree with the call, which is fine, but it was not a terrible call. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

 

How is this so hard? It. Did. Work. 

hekker.gif

 

You can't just dismiss the fact that it worked because the referees got it wrong when you're assessing if it was a bad call or not. That's a lazy argument and impossible to debate because it fails to take into account what actually happened. It's the same thing as a box score watcher looking at stats after the game instead of actually watching to see what happened.  Yes, it was a lower risk than the FG would have been, but it wasn't as low of a risk as you guys are making it out to be. It was not destined to fail from the start, and in a game like this where the offenses were going to be going back and forth, you NEED to be aggressive. Again, you may disagree with the call, which is fine, but it was not a terrible call. 

Don't even get me started on the actual play itself. If you want to see a weak, effeminate, soft-as-sh*t player whose wife is probably being serviced on the side, take a look at the dainty, timid way Hekker reaches out instead of grittily, hungrily, ANGRILY balling out to seal that first down.

 

This Rams team is just permeated with softness.

Edited by gimme the ball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gimme the ball said:

If you actually watched the game, NO moved the ball AT WILL. The Rams could not run and could only sporadically pass. It was easy for NO to score. LA had to work for every point they got, including that ridiculous Malcolm Brown two-tap job. 

 

Sean McVay is the epitome of LA. Young, flashy, thinks he's the sh*t, hot-dogging it, and deciding to drop his n*ts on NO in their own building, instead of deciding to TAKE THE LEAD in a game that was tied. He didn't call the play because he was worried about it being a shootout; he called it because he literally thinks he's the sh*t. 

 

NO steadily built their defense over a number of years and they will be in the Super Bowl, if not win it all. They are a fearsome juggernaut. They should have been in the SB last year. LA is a flashy, great offensive team whose defense gets EXPOSED time and time again. They will beat the teams with inferior offenses and completely stall out against well-balanced teams like NO and others, as was EXACTLY PROVEN.

 

That being said, Greg the Leg is still the man. 

 

I did watch the game. NO was moving the ball at will in the first half (before they got shut down). That's why you need to be aggressive and going for the touchdown instead of the field goal wasn't a bad move. You can't have it both ways. You say the defense sucks? Then you should admit being aggressive on offense was a good plan. Right now you're just coming off as a homer (or Rams hater) which trashes every aspect of the team even when it contradicts itself.

 

But completely dismiss my last post and keep talking about dropping nuts and a man's personality you have never met. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, gimme the ball said:

Don't even get me started on the actual play itself. If you want to see a weak, effeminate, soft-as-sh*t player whose wife is probably being serviced on the side, take a look at the dainty, timid way Hekker reaches out instead of grittily, hungrily, ANGRILY balling out to seal that first down.

 

This Rams team is just permeated with softness.

 

Wow.

 

Hekker would snap you like a twig.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, afl5013 said:

You can't just dismiss the fact that it worked because the referees got it wrong when you're assessing if it was a bad call or not. That's a lazy argument and impossible to debate because it fails to take into account what actually happened. It's the same thing as a box score watcher looking at stats after the game instead of actually watching to see what happened.  Yes, it was a lower risk than the FG would have been, but it wasn't as low of a risk as you guys are making it out to be. It was not destined to fail from the start, and in a game like this where the offenses were going to be going back and forth, you NEED to be aggressive. Again, you may disagree with the call, which is fine, but it was not a terrible call. 

 

So for one it didnt work, and even though we are crying about the call being wrong it is what it is and they came up short thusly it did not work. 

 

If you are in love with the call for going for it and ignoring my angle of argument, what is your take on just simply letting the offense try to get the 6 yards keeping them on the field rather than asking the freaking holder to run for 6 yards.  Are fake FGs done in this manner where the holder takes off sprinting ever successful? Its gotta be a low percentage compared to just going for it with your offense even if the D knows its coming. 

Edited by Zak0221

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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.