Stats, the full aspect of backs and draft homework

by Chandus on Feb 3, 2011 9:47 PM CST

Stats. Entertaining, but only numbers.

Many things brought me to write this post and my reasoning is simple, stats are flawed because they can tell you something that really isn't there. And I'll give you 3 examples:

Stephen Bowen graded as a Top 5 3-4 DE.

That's according to Pro Football Focus.

Is that really true? Did he make that many plays? He didn't pass my eye test. His simple stats of tackles and sacks aren't a testament of such a lofty position, either. So what did he do in the eyes of PFF for them to grade him so highly?

I dunno, what I can tell you is that I would take both starting DE's from Baltimore ahead of Bowen (Ngata and Redding) and at least one DE from pretty much every other 3-4 teams... And I've got the stats of Advanced NFL Stats to back my case:

3-4 DE	ANS +WPA
Darnell Dockett, Ari.	1.58
Haloti Ngata, Balt.	1.5
Shaun Ellis, NYJ	1.24
Kendall Langford, Mia.	1.14
Cory Redding, Balt.	1.1
Glenn Dorsey, KC	1.02
Kenyon Coleman, Cle.	.91
Justin Bannan, Den.	.86
Brett Keisel, Pitt.	.85
Calais Campbell, Ari.	.84
Cullen Jenkins, GB	.78
Randy Starks, Mia.	.70
Ryan Pickett, GB	.64
Ziggy Hood, Pitt.	.58
Mike DeVito, NYJ	.49
Jason Hatcher, Dal.	.48
Tony McDaniel, Mia.	.47
C.J. Wilson, GB	.44
Kevin Vickerson, Den.	.43
Jacques Cesaire, SD	.41
Stephen Bowen, Dal.	.40
Igor Olshansky, Dal.	.27
Marcus Spears, Dal.	.17

+WPA is the crown of Advanced NFL Stats and they explain it this way:

It measures each play in terms of how much it increased or decreased a team’s chances of winning the game.

Every situation in a game gives each opponent a particular chance of winning, and a WP model estimates those chances. The model created here at Advanced NFL Stats uses score, time, down, distance, and field position to estimate how likely each team will go on to win the game.

We have 2 sites, they saw the same games, they should have the same stats and they arrived at such a different conclusion? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Cowboys have a good OLine.

No, don't give me that stern look, no need for a straight jacket, that's not my opinion. Pretty much every Cowboys fan knows that they have to do something, that it's becoming urgent and if things work out well for the Cowboys 80% of the starters for the 2013 season should be replaced.

That's what stats tell you.

Again, I can't exactly quote Pro Football Focus, but I know that they were ranked in the top 15 in their OLine rankings, but I can quote Advanced NFL Stats and it goes like this:

Type of stat	-WPA	Ranking
OLine -WPA	.24	11th
Run -WPA	.08	14th
Pass -WPA	.17	14th

And still, we want to replace pretty much the whole team... Oh, Cowboys Nation... How spoiled art thou... Again, no stern look.

In this case stats are deceiving because the Cowboys and Garrett called for a lot of 3 and 4 step drops that decreased the chances for DLineman to teeth on the QBs. And the running game was another example of lots of famine some feast. The run blocking continues to remind me of the Detroit Lions with Barry Sanders, with one major problem, the Cowboys don't have Sanders.

You should want better, even if the better isn't reflected with an 11th position in some stat site ranking. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cornerback YPA is the best way to measure the performance of a CB.

I agree, it's right there with targets and completion percentage. When I draw the line is when people try to compare CB "X" with CB "Y" because "X" has the better YPA.

Why? Because not one CB faces the same competition.

There's the left side CB, who's matched up with who usually is the number 1 WR.

There's the right side CB, matched up with number 2s.

There's the Nickel CB, matched up with number 3s, number 1s and number 2s.

And there's the difference in schedules, so Newman didn't get to play exactly the same competition as Asante Samuel. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the problem with stats, Football as a sport is too complex for simple stats to do it justice.

There's nothing sexy in taking the Full side of a Back.

But, how much is serviceable worth?

This Draft has talent at the position, you would have to go back to 2003 to find a Draft with such talent, with B.J. Askew, Jeremy Johnson, Justin Griffith and Ovie Muhelli getting selected in the 3rd and 4th Rounds.

Yeah, investing a 3rd or 4th Round pick in a Fullback is a possibility.

Look at the Cowboys, look at Jason Garret's fundamentals, the Offense that he runs has heavy packages in close to 50% of the snaps, probably more.

Look at how much times Jason Witten had to lineup in the backfield because he was the better blocker back there. I know that John Phillips should be back from injury and that he was developing quite nicely as a blocker, but can you really expect that he's going to be a Daryl Johnston?

Think about what Jason Garrett could do with a Daryl Johnston type. I want one. Even if it's worth a *gulp* 4th Round pick.

What's a Daryl Johnston type?

1. Someone that can block.

2. Someone that can catch the ball.

3. Someone that can run with the ball in his hands.

Draft homework.

Beware of Justin Houston DE/OLB, if he has the numbers that I think he can produce at 250+ pounds, his stock is going to go up. As a 3-4 team, I would take him before Von Miller. His College was Georgia and they run a Pro style 3-4 under Todd Grantham.
If you like trades in your mocks you should take note of this, I've seen a lot of this from many sources and the other day Rafael mentioned that someone (a source) told him that "the draft is solid through 4 rounds" and that "there will be some dart throwing in the last rounds". So, teams won't want more 5th, 6th and 7th draft picks than the ones that they already have. Close to reality mocks should have their trade meat inside the top 4 Rounds.
Want the best Draft Board? Don't go to just one site, not one writer or staff is right in all of his/their opinions. For that I've seen extremely good Composite Boards, in which they take the Rankings from PFW, Sporting News, Bunting, etc., and the combination makes for a board that will look a lot like the one from Gosselin a week before the Draft. It's a lot of work, though.

Something to add?

Another stat that lies?
No love For a FB?
More Draft homework?

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.

Tweet Comment 67 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Stats. Entertaining, but only numbers.stats are flawed because they can tell you something that really isn’t there. And I’ll give you 3 examples:
Stephen Bowen graded as a Top 5 3-4 DE. Is that really true?

If you feel the need to bash stats, PFF’s subjective non-stats based evaluation isn’t a good example. PFF grades are not based on statistics. They are based on subjective human grades (i.e. the opposite of statistics).

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Feb 3, 2011 10:04 PM CST reply actions

Yeah

But you like Advanced NFL Stats and their numbers talk highly about the Cowboys OLine.

That’s my point, Football is too complex for a simple stat to explain everything.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 3, 2011 10:17 PM CST up reply actions

Being #11 in WPA is not the same as saying Dallas has the 11th best OL.

Stats are tools, and each tool has its own purpose. WPA is what I call a narrative stat. Its purpose is not to be predictive of future play or to measure the true ability of a player or team. It simply measures the impact of each play toward winning and losing.

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Feb 3, 2011 10:29 PM CST up reply actions

Yup, I know that, it’s a performance measurable.

I have another example, in front of Bowen I would also take both Patriots DEs and they had a worse WPA than Bowen. Why?

Because every stat has flaws.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 3, 2011 11:08 PM CST up reply actions

It goes to description vs. prediction.

For example.

In baseball,
ERA and WPA are stats which better DESCRIBE what happened throughout the season.

However, FIP and wOBA/OPS, etc. are better stats to PREDICT how well the player will do in another game/series/season.

WPA in Football I assume falls into the description category rather than the prediction category of stats.

In fact, I would venture to guess that currently most stats in Football are more geared toward description rather than prediction.

If you can FIND the prediction stats in football, you can have a very good comparative advantage over other teams which have only the description stats.

But I think for the most part, you already know this….

by Requiem on Feb 3, 2011 11:29 PM CST up reply actions

We have 2 sites, they saw the same games, they should have the same stats and they arrived to such a different conclusion?

PFF says how WELL a player played, WPA is explained above and is in no way an accurate measure of how well a player played, example: Under great pressure a QB throws a horrible pass over the middle that goes too high and straight in to the hands of the FS playing centre field who runs 5 yards and gets tackled. This play (being a turnover) would result in a good WPA and an average to slightly above average grade from PFF for the FS. This is just one example of why WPA is an inaccurate measure of how a player played. Another reason is that it soesn’t take in to account bad plays by a defensive player eg a missed tackle.

So, to answer your question, they arrived at different conclusions because they are measuring different things.

by Ben24626 on Feb 4, 2011 1:21 AM CST up reply actions

Not bashing stats...

have said many times they are, when properly used, a good indicator of things to examine more closely when talking football. Are they as conclusive as baseball/basketball stats? No. Do they tell the whole complex story, reveal truth of the matter and are to be taken as the gospel-like definitive right answer? Hell no, not in this lifetime. Different games, different dynamic. Football is much more complex in the interactions and dependencies between players/units and the subsequent affect it has on individual player/unit performance metrics.

Seldom, if ever, have I seen anyone, here or elsewhere, football-related or not, quote statistics other than to support their own perceptions, views and opinions. I’ll lend more immediate credence to a stat someone quotes that argues against what they’re purporting, than one quoted in favor of a person’s position. That in-favor stat needs to be examined and examined closely, because people are flawed, all of us, and how we arrive at the conclusion that a stat or anything else validates our foolish thoughts needs to be taken with a mega-tonnage of salt.

In football, though, these interactions appear to be much greater. At least, when we look at the numbers we see a great deal of inconsistency. A quarterback’s past performance is a relatively poor predictor (at least, relative to what we see in basketball) of a quarterback’s future performance. Part of this inconsistency is due to injuries (very common in football) and the small number of games football players actually play. But one suspects, part of this is also due to the fact a quarterback’s numbers depend upon the quality of his receivers, offensive line, and running backs. So if you are looking at the numbers of two quarterbacks, you have to consider who the quarterback is playing with (and let’s not forget, who the quaterback gets to play).

And all that means the conclusions we can reach with the numbers from football are going to be somewhat weak. That being said, since we have some numbers, let’s leap to some weak conclusions.

Quoted from Wages of Wins article here. The bolding of “weak” is my doing.
One related to draft and using stats.
Consistent Inconsistency in Football
Football Outsiders and QB Score

Consequently, the player statistics tracked in the NFL do not serve the purpose statistics serve in basketball and baseball. It is not clear that a rigorous analysis of the player statistics in the NFL would ever allow us to separate the player from the team.

In the end, it does not appear that the stats can answer all these questions.

So what is the value of player statistics in the NFL? Well, they give us something to talk about. But as measures of the productivity of individual players, it is not clear that these numbers are up to such a task. And that is something to remember next time someone quotes a quarterback’s numbers and tells you how great – or not so great – so and so really is.

Quoted from and highly recommended article The Value of Player Statistics in the NFL

And don’t tell me any of you have never chosen to overlook a stat or a fact because it didn’t support what you think. And remember, stats and facts are 2 different things, sometimes the same, but not always.

Because if you do, if you say you never chosen to ignore what doesn’t support your views going in, I call BS. We’ve all done it.

Point After (rule change): You score, you kick. Debate welcomed.

by tanstaafl on Feb 4, 2011 11:57 AM CST up reply actions

Oh, for FiTT and any others interested in the draft and/or stats...

There are some interesting articles and studies at this site: Draftmetrics.com
The guy’s done a pile of work gathering info and presenting it decently. Whether you end up agreeing, disagreeing or just taking it into consideration, it might be worth a look.

Point After (rule change): You score, you kick. Debate welcomed.

by tanstaafl on Feb 4, 2011 12:15 PM CST up reply actions

Nice link lunch.

We are inundated at work right now, fort worth is working about a hundred accidents.

by G_SWAG on Feb 4, 2011 7:13 PM CST up reply actions

Careful with the ice and snow...

you southern folks aren’t as used to it as us deep-freeze types. Get yourself and other folks in area for the big show all home safe and sound.

Point After (rule change): You score, you kick. Debate welcomed.

by tanstaafl on Feb 4, 2011 7:28 PM CST up reply actions

Justin Houston

dude is a beast and a real sleeper this draft
I would love to get him if we could get him in the 2nd round
and he played for Grantham our DL coach so Im sure Dallas will incquire about Houston and get a strong vote of confidence from Grantham

by Archie Barberio on Feb 3, 2011 10:11 PM CST reply actions

Ha

That was my purpose, Houston is a lock for a top 20 pick in the Draft, the guy won’t fall past the Patriots and I believe that he’s THE player for which they could trade up (if they do).

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 3, 2011 10:19 PM CST up reply actions

I have to say that I am very much against taking a FB in the fourth.

That is a pure luxury pick when we have needs at O-line, secondary, D-line and even LB. And, as you fully point out, John Phillips was being groomed to be that guy. So, how can you justify using a 4th round pick on a FB who is just going to push a talented young player to the bench?

Furthermore, your pointing out of the talent taken in 2003 doesn’t exactly make your case. Griffith is a FB/RB who is on his fourth team. Askew was a very athletic FB (I personally watched him rumble 40 yards for a TD versus Wisconsin) and is currently a free agent. Jeremi Johnson is a free agent. And, the one good player on that list, Mughelli is on his second team and didn’t break out until Atlanta’s offensive line became much improved.

Formerly Cowboyfan729
If I had a nickel for every time the Eagles won the Super Bowl, I would have zero nickels

by Creasy729 on Feb 3, 2011 11:50 PM CST reply actions

Stephen Bowen is really amazing then, if you calculate the number of snaps he took in 2010 and then compare that to all the snaps the other players on the list presumably took he really is top five pound for pound.

If he took half the snaps as Keisel then he’s just a hair inferior to him.

Who says that we need to draft a defensive end eh, Chandus? You’ve convinced me that Bowen is going to change the make up of our line with your very persuasive statistics.

by G_SWAG on Feb 4, 2011 12:48 AM CST reply actions

+1

Thinking the same thing. He wasn’t a full time starter and was still a rotational guy when Spears went to IR…yet with limited reps he made a difference. I don’t know what people were looking at, but Bowen passed my eye-test getting push and applying pressure AND then OCC showed the PFF stats.

However, I do agree with Chandus that in a vacuum a single stat or calculation of differential, etc. does not tell you the whole picture.The are a lot of overlapping factors int he game of football and it is tough to quantify a player’s, or O-Line’s, or offenses’ ability by only using stats. Lots of intangibles in the game of football, not to mention things like age, contract price, depth, coaching motivation, things that don’t appear on a stat sheet.

"Football is an incredible game. Sometimes it's so incredible, it's unbelievable."
"Leadership is a matter of having people look at you and gain confidence, seeing how you react. If you're in control, they're in control." - Tom Landry

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 8:54 AM CST up reply actions

That’s probably because you didn’t understood the WPA metric… Advanced NFL stats don’t take into consideration the amount of the snaps in which they play, they only take into consideration the plays that they make when they have a chance to make them.

Bowen scored .40 because he wasn’t a playmaker when he had his opportunities.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 4, 2011 4:08 PM CST up reply actions

From Brian Burke of Advanced NFL stats

WPA is what I call a narrative stat. Its purpose is not to be predictive of future play or to measure the true ability of a player or team. It simply measures the impact of each play toward winning and losing.

Since Bowen wasn’t in the game as often he had less chances to make impact plays. Also, because he was primarily in on passing downs and our secondary played awful, their performance effected Bowen’s chances of turning his QB pressure or hit into a sack.

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 4:37 PM CST up reply actions

Also from Andanced NFL stats

Bowens success rate for his plays (less of a modifier for # of plays than WPA) was 82.1.
That ranks him 17th and I see only 3 other 3-4 DEs higher on the list than him. Go back and watch the games but concentrate on Bowen. He played pretty damn well when he got his chances.

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 4:43 PM CST up reply actions

BTW

I’ve seen every game, twice.

And if you do it, by the end of the year you would see how Hatcher is taking more and more snaps away from Bowen. And Hatcher wasn’t playing that well, either.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 4, 2011 4:56 PM CST up reply actions

Very end of the season. You know why I think that happened? Evaluating Hatcher. They know they like Bowen but they need to find out more about Hatcher – both are FA – and the cherry on top is keeping Bowen’s contract lower. Anyway, I guess we disagree, but I thought Bowen played well, is getting better every year, and will be a solid starting DE for us next year.

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 9:34 PM CST up reply actions

It simply measures the impact of each play toward winning and losing.

What part of that is SO hard to understand?

Bowen’s impact was .40.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 4, 2011 4:54 PM CST up reply actions

I like you Chandus, but thats not actually how it works.

If I recall correctly WPA assumes that each team has a fifty percent chance of winning, and each play that swings the percentage of winning gets attributed to the players that made it. If it’s third and ten and Bowen rushes the passer well enough to force an errant throw or get rid of the ball before he’s finished his reads then they analyze just how much impact that play had on the game and attribute those percentages to Bowen’s play. So if after the stop the Cowboys have a 50.01 percent chance of winning he gets a .01, and then after the duration of the season they are all red or

by G_SWAG on Feb 4, 2011 7:54 PM CST up reply actions

GG Evo.

They are all added up to come up with a final number. Therefore it is inherently more difficult for a player with limited snaps to get a number as high as a player with more play time.

by G_SWAG on Feb 4, 2011 7:56 PM CST up reply actions

I do think it’s harder to build up +WPA in limited snaps. So I think KB is interpreting it correctly.

I’d suggest focusing on the EPA numbers though. I think that’s much more of what you want in terms of evaluating player ability. WPA is so context dependent that you get a lot of noise.

Both measures suggest Bowen looks promising as a full time player.

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Feb 4, 2011 4:53 PM CST up reply actions

I don't

Look at Kenyon Coleman, in the games that I saw from Cleveland, he played in close to 50% of the snaps, probably less. Which is pretty much what I expect from Bowen.

2nd. In Bowen’s case, the stats lie even more. I’m comparing him with 3-4 DEs, but a lot of his snaps came in 4-man fronts as a pass rushing DT. How much were Nickel and Dime packages used in the season? Like 50% of the snaps?

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 4, 2011 5:02 PM CST up reply actions

well I’m certainly not going to argue that a career backup with 5.5 sacks in 5 years is the truth.

I do think it’s harder to accumulate +WPA in fewer plays, but I don’t know for sure. And i definitely don’t know how to convert it to full time equivalent so I could make an apples to apples comparison …

so I’m gonna go with ‘i don’t know’ and sit this out.

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Feb 4, 2011 5:11 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know how PFF numbers became the gold standard of Blogging the Boys but it HAS TO STOP!

PFF’s numbers are wrong.

I think stats are great and can help illuminate many aspects of football.

But PFF is not a reputable in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it’s not a statistic AT ALL. It’s merely an opinion expressed in numbers.

PFF is not a real statistic, and it’s not reality. We have to stop treating it as such.

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 4, 2011 12:51 AM CST reply actions

I like them but definitely agree that they’re not by any means a golden standard.

by G_SWAG on Feb 4, 2011 1:04 AM CST up reply actions

I think it's an interesting way to spark discussion

But it’s being used on BTB like some gold standard of scouting.

It’s like we all watched Leonard Davis suck every single game all year long. But then an article got posted on BTB mentioning that PFF gave Davis a +4.0 and now people talk about him like he isn’t one of the worst guards in the NFL.

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 4, 2011 1:07 AM CST up reply actions

I would argue that is the most reliable source of measuring how well a player played available to the general public, but it does have to be taken in context eg. the Cowboys gameplanned around the o-line defficiencies.

by Ben24626 on Feb 4, 2011 1:24 AM CST up reply actions

+1

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 8:56 AM CST up reply actions

PFF is the most reliable source?

So you’re telling me you think Stephen Bowen is the 5th best DE in the NFL? He should be in the pro bowl?

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 4, 2011 2:19 PM CST up reply actions

Rob Ryan seems to think so...

On Talking Cowboys they said that when Rob Ryan came to Valley Ranch and asked who that Bowen guy is…“He is unbelievable.”

PFF is ONE OF the most reliable sources…available to the general public for some very good information that is sometimes impossible to find elsewhere. I thought Bowen looked good while watching the games, and then saw PFF grade, and then heard about Rob Ryan’s reaction. I don’t just rely on stats or a single source. Like you said there is far more about football than stats. I often use them, but they are my secondary resource and I don’t consider my self a stat guy. There is some very good info on PFF which is reliable. They don’t have an agenda, don’t hold grudges or seek media attention like some analysts, and don’t need media fodder pieces to get TV viewers like ESPN. It is about using all the information and your own deductions and even inutition or gut feeling. And yes, all those tell me we should resign Bowen because he could end up being a Pro Bowler next year.

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 2:42 PM CST up reply actions

Dude, your level of kool aid drinking is out of this world

Julius Peppers
Jared Allen
Dwight Freeny
Mario Williams
Justin Tuck
Trent Cole
Robert Mathis
Will Smith

Bowen is a nice player, but he’s not at the same level as those guys to say the least

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 4, 2011 3:32 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

How many of those guys play in a 3-4?

Oh, none. But Mario Williams will get his shot. Remember, we were talking about 3-4 DE’s.
Ngata is the best 3-4 DE (and NT actually), then guys like Shaun Ellis, Dockett, Seymore (getting old) Aaron Smith (getting old). Not tons of guys that are great.

But yes, very optomistic to think that he could be a ProBowler because of the 4-3 DEs getting all the sacks and glory, you’re right. But please go back and watch some games from last year again, i think you will see that when he was playin he did a good job, better than any other DLinemen on our roster not named Ratliff. I assume Bowen will keep getting better with starting reps and Rob Ryan as a teacher.

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 3:49 PM CST up reply actions

Who said he was? Man you assume a lot.

by Ben24626 on Feb 4, 2011 11:08 PM CST up reply actions

And by the way

My +1 had much more to do with:

it does have to be taken in context eg. the Cowboys gameplanned around the o-line defficiencies.

by Kegbearer on Feb 4, 2011 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

So to you saying something is the most reliable source means I think it’s 100% dead right? I don’t know if he should be in the pro bowl but what I’m saying is I do think PFF is accurate compared to what else is available eg. of all the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders I think (insert name here, I don’t know any) is the best at football, but does that mean I think she should be our starting C? No.

by Ben24626 on Feb 4, 2011 11:07 PM CST up reply actions

So, I want to see something

From all the 3-4 DEs that I listed, who would the ones that you would take over Bowen? Is he really a top 5 DE?

I don’t think so.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 5, 2011 10:57 AM CST up reply actions

Did I say he’s a top 5 DE? No, I said I think PFF is the most accurate source available to the general public to figure out how well players actually played. Some of you out there seem to think that means I think it’s gospel, I never said that, that’s just your assumption. As for the 3-4 DE’s you listed I would take over Bowen, the list is too long si I can’t name them all, but I wil say this, I think Bowen is a good pass-rushing 3-4 DE, but I don’t know how well he’d hold up against the run if he didn’t only play passing situations.

by Ben24626 on Feb 5, 2011 7:26 PM CST up reply actions

That’s the problem.

When Marcus Spears went down injured, he replaced him as the starter and was the DE when the 3-4 was on the field, later he started being replaced in a per series basis and by the end of the season the one taking most of the 3-4 snaps was Hatcher.

Why? Because Bowen wasn’t a decent DE. At least, IMO.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 5, 2011 11:24 PM CST up reply actions

When Marcus Spears went down injured, he replaced him as the starter and was the DE when the 3-4 was on the field, later he started being replaced in a per series basis and by the end of the season the one taking most of the 3-4 snaps was Hatcher.

Are sure that happened?

by Ben24626 on Feb 6, 2011 9:17 PM CST up reply actions

Are sure that happened?

Apparently, more than you are…

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 7, 2011 3:41 AM CST up reply actions

Well obviously I’m not sure if I ask are you sure, not sure if you’re trying to be funny about a typo either, if you are, well done mr funny. I’m still not sure though, do you have proof? People on these forums will say anything to prove their case.

by Ben24626 on Feb 7, 2011 4:43 PM CST up reply actions

The opinions around here changed dramatically when the PFF numbers came out

Which is what I’m reacting to. And they’re used CONSTANTLY to refute truths. Leonard Davis is the guy I’ll keep pointing to.

All season long in every game thread we’d talk about all his missed blocks, getting pushed back into the QB’s face etc. These are things we all saw every single week, failures that killed drives and took points off the board.

But, now, one website throws out a 4.3 number, attaches that to his name, and you’ve got a segment of the BTB population taking that as gospel.

Nevermind that we’ve watched every play this guy has made for years and years, broken it down on tape study, have frame-by-frame analysis on blogs like Cowboys Nation. Nope, that doesn’t matter. Some dopey website gives him a positive number and now people act like he’s not one of the biggest needs to replace in the draft.

That’s my big problem with PFF.

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 5, 2011 11:45 AM CST up reply actions

You can lay out a perfect argument

With examples, stats, frame-by-frame breakdowns, point out where running backs got stonewalled because he missed his block at the goal-line and took points off the board, show how Jason Garrett had to change the play-calling this season because he was frightened of the right side of his line, etc.

Then someone will just respond, “yeah, but PFF graded him positive so he’s got to be good!”

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 5, 2011 11:47 AM CST up reply actions

Bigg is the poster child...

of our inconsistency at several key positions. That hot and cold play may put up nice stats or highlight plays one drive and kill the next two. But hey, it all averages out nicely in the end…right?;)

Rabid and luvin' it

by lonewolfz28 on Feb 5, 2011 1:34 PM CST up reply actions

In the case of Bigg I never said he was good but I don’t know if he was as bad as people make him out to be (which is completely useless).

by Ben24626 on Feb 5, 2011 7:31 PM CST up reply actions

Yup

Agreed.

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 5, 2011 11:49 AM CST up reply actions

Exactly!

Rabid and luvin' it

by lonewolfz28 on Feb 5, 2011 1:19 PM CST up reply actions

Again, I personally never said PFF is gospel, and I think his grade is marred by scheme. Personally I think Bigg is extremely limited in what he can do well. Against slower to average speed DT’s I think he can be an extremely effective run-blocker and capable pass-blocker, but against faster DT’s like Jason Jones he gets shredded and in short in yardage he is poor. Just my opinion.

by Ben24626 on Feb 5, 2011 7:30 PM CST up reply actions

Agreed. Colombo's position is most urgent, but Bigg's has to get some

attention next year, if not this draft.

by Fernie67 on Feb 5, 2011 10:22 PM CST up reply actions

great post, and yeah stats by itself are not enough

by ratware on Feb 4, 2011 11:10 AM CST reply actions

Pro Football Focues is not stats

It’s an opinion expressed using numbers.

It’s not different than if I was to rank the most beautiful women in the world. I’d give 5 points to the best looking breasts, 2 points to the best looking legs. And in the end I’d give Cameron Diaz 18 points while Jennifer Aniston gets 11 points.

Is that a statistic? No!

The Ohio State Buckeyes are your Sugar Bowl champions... and for the 7th year in a row Michigan still sucks.

by Blue Eyed Devil on Feb 4, 2011 2:14 PM CST reply actions

yes, I’m finding it rather comedic that people are arguing for the superiority of ‘watching the games’ because of PFF grades from ‘watching the games’

by Fan in Thick and Thin on Feb 4, 2011 4:12 PM CST up reply actions

All this...

Makes me think “Screw stats, screw opinion, sit back and enjoy the game”.
At the end, you’ll get the only stat, no, not stat, not opinion, just fact, that matters.

Point After (rule change): You score, you kick. Debate welcomed.

by tanstaafl on Feb 4, 2011 6:57 PM CST reply actions

No to screw opinion

If we do that, we would have nothing to read and discuss… Just saying…

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 4, 2011 6:59 PM CST up reply actions

Following comment's a reply to you, Chandus

Jeez, I did it again, the comment/reply mistake.

Point After (rule change): You score, you kick. Debate welcomed.

by tanstaafl on Feb 4, 2011 7:25 PM CST up reply actions

Hahahaha

I’m just playing with you, even if in some discussion my comments are read like I’m being serious, aggressive or so, I’m being my usual playful self.

I’ve had heated discussions with a lot of folks from the days of theboysblog with Rafael (2002-2003?) and that doesn’t mean that I would share drinks with those guys minutes later… They would need to travel here, though, our beer is better…

Arnold, almost 5 years of good memories, you'll be missed.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!

by Chandus on Feb 4, 2011 10:20 PM CST up reply actions

Likewise...

And the first one’s on me, should we cross paths. We all talk serious, jesting and pure BS from time to time, just like football fans should.

You’d need to travel here, though, our beer is even better…

Point After (rule change): You score, you kick. Debate welcomed.

by tanstaafl on Feb 4, 2011 11:08 PM CST up reply actions

Well, ok...

And since football BS’ing talk needs both opinion and stats, have at’er, fellas.
I’m just gonna sit back, watch the game and maybe chirp in if the pot needs stirring.

btw, Chandus, what I said wasn’t to be taken 100% seriously. I enjoy reading all the debate back-and-forth’s and I wasn’t meaning to speak ill of either side or anyone.

Point After (rule change): You score, you kick. Debate welcomed.

by tanstaafl on Feb 4, 2011 7:24 PM CST reply actions

Well said

In the end, I think people (and I for sure) use stats as supporting evidence to their opinions. I saw Bowen play well (in my opinion) and then PFF and other calculations/stats showed the same. If they are referenced, it’s not that they’re the gold standard or anything and the end all be all of a debate, but that is some reputable evidence to support my opinion/argument. I imagine most people understand that football is a very complex game where everything is interconnected and action/reaction exists in every play, for every player, every unit of a team (off, def, st). Stats are hard to use to judge every aspect of a football team/game, and that is why PFF, FO, and Advanced Football Statistics were created…and they also know their calculations can’t show everything and always work to improve them. In the end, they are just tools and should be used appropriately and are useless without someone to use/interpret them.

Like tanstaafl eloquently said: