Lamont Sanford

Jameis Winston 2019 Outlook

Recommended Posts

Along the lines of us who have commented on Arians/Leftwich going way too conservative, I watched the game and knew Tampa's coaching was terrible in the second half. So I went and checked the game log, to check if the facts matched perception. Yes, yes they did.

--1st half: 23 Pass Attempts, 12 Rush Attempts, 2 Sacks
--2nd half: 14 Pass Attempts, 19 Rush Attempts, 2 Sacks

Not only that, but Evans was only targeted 4 times in the 2nd half, after torching the Giants for 7 catches, 146 yards & 3 TD's in the 1st half. And one of those 2nd half targets was the 44-yard bomb that put the Bucs in position to win the game.

And not only that, but PFF highlighted Arians' coaching decision to kick a FG late in the game, as the worst coaching blunder of Week 3:

"TAMPA BAY OPT FOR FIELD GOAL ATTEMPT 4TH-AND-2 ON NEW YORK’S FIVE-YARD LINE LEADING 28-25 WITH SIX MINUTES LEFT TO PLAY
After seeing an 18-point halftime lead cut to three points, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers found themselves 13 yards away from the Giants’ end zone, preparing for a 1st-and-10 in the middle of the fourth quarter. A touchdown wouldn’t immediately end the game, but it would put the game-winning chance at roughly 95%. Bruce Arians and Byron Leftwich, however, decided to go the conservative way, calling three runs in a row. Those gained a combined eight yards, putting them in the following situation: 4th-and-2 at the opponent’s five-yard line with six minutes left to play in the fourth quarter while leading 28-25. Almost any fourth down with two or fewer yards to go should be a relatively easy decision, but the key on this one is leading by three points. There is the saying that leading by three late in the game is better than leading by six because your opponent will play for overtime in the first scenario, but for the win in the second scenario. This game was a prime anecdote: The Bucs opted to kick a field goal to go up 31-25 and after both teams shared punts, the Giants faced a do-or-die drive in which they ultimately maneuvered themselves in a 4th-and-5 situation near the goal line. Down by three, it’s safe to say they would have tried to tie the game with a short field goal, playing for overtime. Down by six, however, they went for it and Daniel Jones was never touched on his way to the end zone on a quarterback draw, giving the Giants a one-point lead.
Mathematically this translates as follows: Attempting a field goal in this situation gives the Bucs an 81.2% chance of winning the game, while a turnover on downs would have reduced their chances only by 5.6%: They still would have won the game 75.6% of the time. If they convert on fourth down, they win the game 93.2% of the time, increasing their chances by 12.0% compared to kicking the field goal. Their chances to convert a potential fourth-down attempt were 54.9% by our model. That incorporates not only the game situation but also the respective unit strengths. This leaves us yet again with a situation we have pointed out before: The potential gain is significantly greater than the potential loss, and the chance of conversion is greater than a coin flip. Not going for it means the Bucs were gifting their opponent a 4.1% better chance to complete the second-half comeback. What makes the decision even more puzzling and a testament of inconsistent (and thus arbitrary) decision making: Bruce Arians said he thought his kicker Matt Gay was better at long field goals than at short field goals, which is why 
he called his offense to commit an intentional delay of game penalty before the attempt at a game-winning field goal at the end of regulation. The idea that your kicker is worse at easier field goals isn’t very convincing to begin with, but if we take it for face value for the matter of our decision evaluation, it should have shifted the decision even more towards keeping the offense on the field on fourth down."

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Corleone said:

Mathematically this translates as follows: Attempting a field goal in this situation gives the Bucs an 81.2% chance of winning the game, while a turnover on downs would have reduced their chances only by 5.6%: They still would have won the game 75.6% of the time. If they convert on fourth down, they win the game 93.2% of the time, increasing their chances by 12.0% compared to kicking the field goal. Their chances to convert a potential fourth-down attempt were 54.9% by our model. That incorporates not only the game situation but also the respective unit strengths. This leaves us yet again with a situation we have pointed out before: The potential gain is significantly greater than the potential loss, and the chance of conversion is greater than a coin flip. Not going for it means the Bucs were gifting their opponent a 4.1% better chance to complete the second-half comeback. What makes the decision even more puzzling and a testament of inconsistent (and thus arbitrary) decision making: Bruce Arians said he thought his kicker Matt Gay was better at long field goals than at short field goals, which is why he called his offense to commit an intentional delay of game penalty before the attempt at a game-winning field goal at the end of regulation. The idea that your kicker is worse at easier field goals isn’t very convincing to begin with, but if we take it for face value for the matter of our decision evaluation, it should have shifted the decision even more towards keeping the offense on the field on fourth down."

 

This is really insightful stuff. Honestly, if I were a head coach, i'd hire a software/data analytics team to have real time feedback of percentages to me so I could make a better decision in situations like this and ones where going for 2 or kicking the PAT was the right call. I feel like that is just as, if not more, important as the team that reviews replays to determine whether to challenge a call or not.

Another bad decision was Harbaugh's go for 2 down 11 in the 3rd quarter. Really didn't understand that call. Pretty sure all statistical models were screaming kick the PAT to get within a field goal and a td.

Edited by WaiverLooter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Corleone said:

"TAMPA BAY OPT FOR FIELD GOAL ATTEMPT 4TH-AND-2 ON NEW YORK’S FIVE-YARD LINE LEADING 28-25 WITH SIX MINUTES LEFT TO PLAY
After seeing an 18-point halftime lead cut to three points, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers found themselves 13 yards away from the Giants’ end zone, preparing for a 1st-and-10 in the middle of the fourth quarter. A touchdown wouldn’t immediately end the game, but it would put the game-winning chance at roughly 95%. Bruce Arians and Byron Leftwich, however, decided to go the conservative way, calling three runs in a row. Those gained a combined eight yards, putting them in the following situation: 4th-and-2 at the opponent’s five-yard line with six minutes left to play in the fourth quarter while leading 28-25. Almost any fourth down with two or fewer yards to go should be a relatively easy decision, but the key on this one is leading by three points. There is the saying that leading by three late in the game is better than leading by six because your opponent will play for overtime in the first scenario, but for the win in the second scenario. This game was a prime anecdote: The Bucs opted to kick a field goal to go up 31-25 and after both teams shared punts, the Giants faced a do-or-die drive in which they ultimately maneuvered themselves in a 4th-and-5 situation near the goal line. Down by three, it’s safe to say they would have tried to tie the game with a short field goal, playing for overtime. Down by six, however, they went for it and Daniel Jones was never touched on his way to the end zone on a quarterback draw, giving the Giants a one-point lead.
Mathematically this translates as follows: Attempting a field goal in this situation gives the Bucs an 81.2% chance of winning the game, while a turnover on downs would have reduced their chances only by 5.6%: They still would have won the game 75.6% of the time. If they convert on fourth down, they win the game 93.2% of the time, increasing their chances by 12.0% compared to kicking the field goal. Their chances to convert a potential fourth-down attempt were 54.9% by our model. That incorporates not only the game situation but also the respective unit strengths. This leaves us yet again with a situation we have pointed out before: The potential gain is significantly greater than the potential loss, and the chance of conversion is greater than a coin flip. Not going for it means the Bucs were gifting their opponent a 4.1% better chance to complete the second-half comeback. What makes the decision even more puzzling and a testament of inconsistent (and thus arbitrary) decision making: Bruce Arians said he thought his kicker Matt Gay was better at long field goals than at short field goals, which is why 
he called his offense to commit an intentional delay of game penalty before the attempt at a game-winning field goal at the end of regulation. The idea that your kicker is worse at easier field goals isn’t very convincing to begin with, but if we take it for face value for the matter of our decision evaluation, it should have shifted the decision even more towards keeping the offense on the field on fourth down."

BA is the 3rd oldest coach in the NFL and is about as old school as they come so I doubt he even knows what analytics are. You could sit him down and explain this and he would tell you that’s not how it used to be done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ddam2013 said:

BA is the 3rd oldest coach in the NFL and is about as old school as they come so I doubt he even knows what analytics are. You could sit him down and explain this and he would tell you that’s not how it used to be done.

In defense of Arians, he has the most diverse coaching staff in the NFL (https://sports.yahoo.com/heres-how-bucs-bruce-arians-assembled-historic-coaching-staff-they-just-happened-to-be-black-023727708.html), so he certainly can move away from old school thought, at least in certain things. But in terms of coaching decisions so far, no doubt he's been a bust. 

Edited by Corleone
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

This is really insightful stuff. Honestly, if I were a head coach, i'd hire a software/data analytics team to have real time feedback of percentages to me so I could make a better decision in situations like this and ones where going for 2 or kicking the PAT was the right call. I feel like that is just as, if not more, important as the team that reviews replays to determine whether to challenge a call or not.

Another bad decision was Harbaugh's go for 2 down 11 in the 3rd quarter. Really didn't understand that call. Pretty sure all statistical models were screaming kick the PAT to get within a field goal and a td.

I completely agree as far as what coaches and NFL teams should have in place. With the amount of money NFL teams rake in, it's crazy that every team doesn't have this set up. 

Interestingly as far as Harbaugh goes, he was also mentioned in the same PFF article...but not for a bad decision, as they gave him the best coaching decision of the week for the play you mentioned. 

"RAVENS GOING FOR TWO DOWN 11 WITH 12:27 LEFT IN THE GAME
The Baltimore Ravens, down by 17 points on the road to the 2-0 Kansas City Chiefs, scored a touchdown on a one-yard run by Mark Ingram after an extremely unlikely conversion of a fourth down by Lamar Jackson and Seth Roberts
Down 11 points, John Harbaugh opted to go for two points and was unsuccessful. Unlike their attempt after a first-quarter touchdown, this try was not elicited by a pre-snap penalty by the Chiefs. They went for it because of the math. Qualitatively, going for two points on the first in a sequence of potential scores means that you know what you need to win or tie a game on subsequent scores and can plan accordingly. For example, had the Ravens converted the two-point conversion, they know a priori that scoring a field goal and a touchdown with a conventional PAT with the game outright, instead of leaving similar decisions to the end of the game. Mathematically:
After missing the two-point conversion attempt: KC: 94.3% to win, BAL 5.7%
If they made the two-point conversion attempt: KC 89.1% to win, BAL 10.9%
If they would have kicked the PAT: KC 92.8% to win, BAL 7.2%
Hence, the benefit of making the two-point conversion over kicking the PAT was 3.7% win probability points, while the loss via missing the two-point conversion over kicking the PAT was just 1.5%. Assuming the Ravens are a modest 50% on two-point conversions, this is easily the preferable decision. In fact, it would only cease being the preferable decision if the Ravens were under 41% making two-point conversions, a futility that would not be expected with a quarterback like Jackson and the Ravens’ offense we would give a 57% chance of converting."


I have to agree with you though, as I'd have gone with the extra point here, regardless of what the percentages said (and this is why teams should have a team to give the percentages, as the coach has all info at hand and can then make the call on what to do one way or the other):

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Are we believers in Jameis Winston? About to drop Cam and have him as my lone starter

I had both. Dropped Cam for Daniel Jones.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are we feeling about him versus the Rams defense this week?  Yahoo is showing LAR as ranking 3rd against QB's this year but, that may be skewed as:

Week 1: Cam Newton has been horrible this year

Week 2: Teddy Bridgewater replaced Brees and was shaky (at best)

Week 3: Baker Mayfield hasn't played well this year

 

I'm thinking about benching him in favor of Kyle Allen, Jacoby Brissett, or Case Keenum (I know he was bad on MNF but, overall he's been serviceable and he's playing NYG)

 

Share this post


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

How are we feeling about him versus the Rams defense this week?  Yahoo is showing LAR as ranking 3rd against QB's this year but, that may be skewed as:

Week 1: Cam Newton has been horrible this year

Week 2: Teddy Bridgewater replaced Brees and was shaky (at best)

Week 3: Baker Mayfield hasn't played well this year

 

I'm thinking about benching him in favor of Kyle Allen, Jacoby Brissett, or Case Keenum (I know he was bad on MNF but, overall he's been serviceable and he's playing NYG)

 

 

Same issue with me and Josh Allen. On the road against Aaron Donald and that line and his frantic play has me really concerned to trust him. Josh Allen plays Patriots too which would probably go better since it's at home, but Daniel Jones on waivers too. Ah decisions

 

All in all- I'd go with Winston out of desperation but the Rams are a really terrible matchup for WinstoN. Bucs barely have the running game to exploit the rams bad run d. Peters and talib on boundaries to take advantage of Evans. Ugh

Share this post


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

 

Same issue with me and Josh Allen. On the road against Aaron Donald and that line and his frantic play has me really concerned to trust him. Josh Allen plays Patriots too which would probably go better since it's at home, but Daniel Jones on waivers too. Ah decisions

 

This is the exact spot I am in.  If I can get Jones at a budget friendly price to at least  be a streamer this week, I think I am ok with dropping Jameis but it is tough.  I also bought the lotto ticket on Darwin Thompson last week and have a possibly injured Vance Mcdonald in my TE2 spot (paid up for Mark Andrews after week 1 when he was dropped prior to the game).  With no other waiver targets really being that interesting, I may roster 3 QBs for a week (can't believe I'm even thinking about that) and wait to get a little more info.  Its just so hard to drop Jameis now (he was a 14th rd pick for me but I still see so much potential) but it is also absolutely terrifying to think of starting him on the road against the Rams. Most likely scenario I guess is I get outbid on Jones and Allen plays over Winston for me this week.   

Share this post


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

How are we feeling about him versus the Rams defense this week?  Yahoo is showing LAR as ranking 3rd against QB's this year but, that may be skewed as:

Week 1: Cam Newton has been horrible this year

Week 2: Teddy Bridgewater replaced Brees and was shaky (at best)

Week 3: Baker Mayfield hasn't played well this year

 

I'm thinking about benching him in favor of Kyle Allen, Jacoby Brissett, or Case Keenum (I know he was bad on MNF but, overall he's been serviceable and he's playing NYG)

 

He's gonna get his a** kicked. At least 2 INTs. Plenty of stupid throws and bad throws. The guy is pure grabage.

Share this post


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

How are we feeling about him versus the Rams defense this week?  Yahoo is showing LAR as ranking 3rd against QB's this year but, that may be skewed as:

Week 1: Cam Newton has been horrible this year

Week 2: Teddy Bridgewater replaced Brees and was shaky (at best)

Week 3: Baker Mayfield hasn't played well this year

 

I'm thinking about benching him in favor of Kyle Allen, Jacoby Brissett, or Case Keenum (I know he was bad on MNF but, overall he's been serviceable and he's playing NYG)

 

Not a good week to play him. All the guys you mentioned figure to be better starts. I’m going for Keenum because the Giants pass D is atrocious. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, y2jbones said:

Not a good week to play him. All the guys you mentioned figure to be better starts. I’m going for Keenum because the Giants pass D is atrocious. 

 

Can't believe anyone would play keenum after he pulled a Jameis 2.0 yesterday with 6 turnovers-ish.

Rostering 3 QBs just seems like stupid opportunity cost. Tampa's implied total is 21 so if they're going to score, it'll be through the air. I think I'm playing him this week due to not blowing faab on Daniel Jones and also wanting to roster Josh allen. Just seems too marginal a difference

Share this post


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

 

Can't believe anyone would play keenum after he pulled a Jameis 2.0 yesterday with 6 turnovers-ish.

Rostering 3 QBs just seems like stupid opportunity cost. Tampa's implied total is 21 so if they're going to score, it'll be through the air. I think I'm playing him this week due to not blowing faab on Daniel Jones and also wanting to roster Josh allen. Just seems too marginal a difference

Agreed, I would never waste a roster spot on a third QB. If Winston is your starter, like me, the 2nd QB slot can be used for matchup plays on weeks Winston isn’t expected to fair well. 

Share this post


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

 

Can't believe anyone would play keenum after he pulled a Jameis 2.0 yesterday with 6 turnovers-ish.

Rostering 3 QBs just seems like stupid opportunity cost. Tampa's implied total is 21 so if they're going to score, it'll be through the air. I think I'm playing him this week due to not blowing faab on Daniel Jones and also wanting to roster Josh allen. Just seems too marginal a difference

True, Keenum made some stupid plays (that over the top at the 15 yard line) but, he was playing against the best D in the NFL.  Not many QB's fare well against them.l

Share this post


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

 

This is the exact spot I am in.  If I can get Jones at a budget friendly price to at least  be a streamer this week, I think I am ok with dropping Jameis but it is tough.  I also bought the lotto ticket on Darwin Thompson last week and have a possibly injured Vance Mcdonald in my TE2 spot (paid up for Mark Andrews after week 1 when he was dropped prior to the game).  With no other waiver targets really being that interesting, I may roster 3 QBs for a week (can't believe I'm even thinking about that) and wait to get a little more info.  Its just so hard to drop Jameis now (he was a 14th rd pick for me but I still see so much potential) but it is also absolutely terrifying to think of starting him on the road against the Rams. Most likely scenario I guess is I get outbid on Jones and Allen plays over Winston for me this week.   

I'm rostering Goff, Winston, and Allen at the moment just waiting for one to break out and start playing consistently. 

Normally I wouldn't roster 3 QBs, or even 2, but the way they're dropping like flies this year, I'm making an exception. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, OrangeAggie said:

I'm rostering Goff, Winston, and Allen at the moment just waiting for one to break out and start playing consistently. 

Normally I wouldn't roster 3 QBs, or even 2, but the way they're dropping like flies this year, I'm making an exception. 

 

Depends on bench spots. Shallow benches no way, but I get the sentiment.

Winston good for 16 this weekend - streamable but not the ceiling you expect. Or he could shock and surprise us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what a bruce arians offense can do... hang 55 on the Rams at home. But it all falls on Winston , if he stops making those bone headed mistakes, this squad is just nasty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turning the corner? Gonna be good for a mistake or two but the good is way outweigh the cons last 3 weeks. [...]

Edited by tonycpsu
Removed Cool Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jameis and BA looked tickled damn pink towards the end of this "brutal" matchup. 

 

This is what we dreamed about this summer when we thought about what this offense could be.

 

If I didn't have him paired with other good options, as I suspect many Winston owners might, I'd still feel pretty good setting and forgetting and riding this wave until further notice.

Share this post


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

Turning the corner? Gonna be good for a mistake or two but the good is way outweigh the cons last 3 weeks. Benched him too ffff

Nah, he'll put up 7 points this week. I refuse to believe he can be a reliable fantasy option until I see it. People are gonna be forced to play roulette with him though because of his upside and because of Brees/Baker/Ben/Cam/Goff

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.