Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 (/thread-16651.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 (/thread-16651.html)
Pages:
1
2
Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - BostonCard - 10-25-2018
Got started early with Houston vs. Miami, where Justin Reid had a hell of a game.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1055672167386337280?s=21[/tweet]
BC
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - 82 Card - 10-28-2018
Colts seem to have found an OL. Either that or the Raiders D is really bad. Luck is sprinkling sharp medium and long distance throws to tight ends between successful running plays. Looks like the old days on the Farm. Colts win 42-28.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Austroturf - 10-28-2018
Blake Martinez is having a great game for the Packers (11 total tackles, more than twice the second player on defense). Jared Goff probably has bad memories of what Blake did during multiple Big Games. Now one is a Ram, and the other is a Packer, dueling it out again. Not much action from Ty Montgomery this game (two rushes for 6 yards).
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Austroturf - 10-28-2018
Trailing by 2 points with two minutes left, the Packers receive the kick-off from the Rams. Ty Montgomery fields it and fumbles; Rams recover, and the game is essentially over. With one TO left, Green Bay can do little to stop the clock; and the Rams are deep in Packer territory.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - BostonCard - 10-28-2018
Quenton Meeks started today. We could have used him yesterday (and Justin Reid too).
[tweet]https://twitter.com/NFLFilmStudy/status/1056555465667166208[/tweet]
BC
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - stupac2 - 10-29-2018
(10-28-2018, 04:40 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Trailing by 2 points with two minutes left, the Packers receive the kick-off from the Rams. Ty Montgomery fields it and fumbles; Rams recover, and the game is essentially over. With one TO left, Green Bay can do little to stop the clock; and the Rams are deep in Packer territory.
The Packers lost because of this deeply stupid play. You have to be aware of the situation there, the Rams already gave the packers a fantastic gift by not snapping the FG kick with 1 second on the playclock, had they done that the kick likely would've eaten the 2-minute warning. Instead there was 2:05 left, allowing GB to use the whole field with no time penalty for one play. Then, to compound the bad decisions, the Rams kicked it into the end zone! They gave Green Bay two brobdingnagian gifts! And Ty completely squandered them.
To make matters worse, this was all so blatantly obvious that everyone on the team had to know it, and the coaches would've been criminal if they didn't tell Ty to sit on the ball. Oh, but they did:
https://twitter.com/Peter_Bukowski/status/1056907061915725824
I really can't believe this. What happened to him?
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - needle - 10-29-2018
(10-29-2018, 08:24 AM)stupac2 Wrote:(10-28-2018, 04:40 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Trailing by 2 points with two minutes left, the Packers receive the kick-off from the Rams. Ty Montgomery fields it and fumbles; Rams recover, and the game is essentially over. With one TO left, Green Bay can do little to stop the clock; and the Rams are deep in Packer territory.
The Packers lost because of this deeply stupid play. You have to be aware of the situation there, the Rams already gave the packers a fantastic gift by not snapping the FG kick with 1 second on the playclock, had they done that the kick likely would've eaten the 2-minute warning. Instead there was 2:05 left, allowing GB to use the whole field with no time penalty for one play. Then, to compound the bad decisions, the Rams kicked it into the end zone! They gave Green Bay two of immense proportions gifts! And Ty completely squandered them.
To make matters worse, this was all so blatantly obvious that everyone on the team had to know it, and the coaches would've been criminal if they didn't tell Ty to sit on the ball. Oh, but they did:
https://twitter.com/Peter_Bukowski/status/1056907061915725824
I really can't believe this. What happened to him?
Does anyone else remember Jeremy Stewart practically tackling Ty to keep him from returning a kick he fielded deep within the end zone? I think it was during the Fiesta Bowl.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Phogge - 10-29-2018
The Raider defense is THAT bad. Little pass rush and the Colts thrashed them on the ground. I cover all their games and aside from the LB Whiteside and Bruce Irvin I can"t remember any names this morning. Luck in control and the TE Doyle is a stud. However they have a poor defense themselves and need to upgrade it a la Andrew's alma mater.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - BostonCard - 10-29-2018
McCaffrey had a running and receiving touchdown, though not eye-popping yards. 46 yards on 14 carries and
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Hank 91 - 10-29-2018
(10-29-2018, 09:02 AM)needle Wrote:(10-29-2018, 08:24 AM)stupac2 Wrote:(10-28-2018, 04:40 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Trailing by 2 points with two minutes left, the Packers receive the kick-off from the Rams. Ty Montgomery fields it and fumbles; Rams recover, and the game is essentially over. With one TO left, Green Bay can do little to stop the clock; and the Rams are deep in Packer territory.
The Packers lost because of this deeply stupid play. You have to be aware of the situation there, the Rams already gave the packers a fantastic gift by not snapping the FG kick with 1 second on the playclock, had they done that the kick likely would've eaten the 2-minute warning. Instead there was 2:05 left, allowing GB to use the whole field with no time penalty for one play. Then, to compound the bad decisions, the Rams kicked it into the end zone! They gave Green Bay two of immense proportions gifts! And Ty completely squandered them.
To make matters worse, this was all so blatantly obvious that everyone on the team had to know it, and the coaches would've been criminal if they didn't tell Ty to sit on the ball. Oh, but they did:
https://twitter.com/Peter_Bukowski/status/1056907061915725824
I really can't believe this. What happened to him?
Does anyone else remember Jeremy Stewart practically tackling Ty to keep him from returning a kick he fielded deep within the end zone? I think it was during the Fiesta Bowl.
I remember that play well. I don't remember which game it was, but I remember it was a critical moment, and Stewart barely got him before he crossed the goal line. I didn't watch the Green Bay game, but I saw the aftermath. Both Rodgers and Coach McCarthy addressed the play directly. Rodgers (paraphrasing): "That one play wasn't the reason we lost, but it certainly contributed." McCarthy (paraphrasing): "We talked about it before the kick. Don't run the ball out. I'm sure Ty was trying to make a play, but we can't have that there." For some reason there was no soundbite from Montgomery. It would be one thing if the offense was weak and needed a jump start, but with Rodgers under center, the mistake is all the more egregious.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - BostonCard - 10-29-2018
So generally, the math would say that Montgomery made the right play there. In general, if you are behind (especially late in the game), your risk tolerance as a team should increase. So, you would accept the risk of starting behind the 20 yard line (or of fumbling) in order for the smallish chance of the return going for a touchdown or starting with very good field position.
Of course, as a player, if your coach tells you not to do something and you do it, well, you made the wrong play, regardless of whether return it for a touchdown or fumble the ball (though I wonder if Montgomery had made a big play there how much we would hear about the dirty laundry).
BC
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - stupac2 - 10-29-2018
(10-29-2018, 11:39 AM)BostonCard Wrote: So generally, the math would say that Montgomery made the right play there. In general, if you are behind (especially late in the game), your risk tolerance as a team should increase. So, you would accept the risk of starting behind the 20 yard line (or of fumbling) in order for the smallish chance of the return going for a touchdown or starting with very good field position.
Of course, as a player, if your coach tells you not to do something and you do it, well, you made the wrong play, regardless of whether return it for a touchdown or fumble the ball (though I wonder if Montgomery had made a big play there how much we would hear about the dirty laundry).
BC
I don't think that's necessarily true. In general underdogs do want to try to increase the variance of the game, but you have to weigh that based on what you're good at. Montgomery in his career has 35 returns for 794 yards (average of 22.7) and 0 TDs, with a long of 46. Meanwhile, you have Rodgers at QB, both of the Rams' starting CBs are banged up (one is out, the other playing through it), and the previous drive only failed to get points because Montgomery completely blew a blitz pickup (Rodgers had Adams streaking wide open but was sacked before he could throw it), and the two drives before that were both TDs (and fast, 5 plays to go 75 yards each time!).
So, yeah, in general you can make the argument that Montgomery made a smart play, but in this specific case pretty much every possible way you can think to look at it says he made a really dumb one.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - BostonCard - 10-29-2018
This isn’t a question of underdogs wanting to increase variance; it’s a question of the team that is behind wanting to increase variance. There are a lot of reasons to have expected Green Bay to be able to score even if Montgomery had taken a knee, but on balance, an abstract return would have increased the teams ability to score; the downside of a below average return was small compared to the upside of a big return. The fact that the offense was able to move the ball generally tempered that benefit, but sacks, drops, fumbles and interceptions happen on plays from scrimmage too.
Per espn’s analysis (and with all the caveats that entails), when the Rams kicked the go ahead field goal with 2 min left, the Rams had about a two in three chance of winning, so Rogers driving 50 yards in two minutes to set up a game winning field goal was by no means a sure thing, despite all the things you mentioned.
Montgomery was wrong to bring the ball out because you can’t have players disregarding coaching instructions. But to be honest, McCarthy was wrong to tell Montgomery to take a knee.
BC
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - stupac2 - 10-29-2018
(10-29-2018, 01:26 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are a lot of reasons to have expected Green Bay to be able to score even if Montgomery had taken a knee, but on balance, an abstract return would have increased the teams ability to score; the downside of a below average return was small compared to the upside of a big return.
If you only look at yardage, maybe*, but you can't ignore time. As I already explained having the first play of the drive be before the 2-minute warning was really big because it expanded the Packers' options, and effectively game them another time out, which is very valuable (a full set of TOs is worth nearly as much as turnover, apparently). Losing that stoppage means the Rams can focus more attention on guarding the boundary because they know most plays will be going there. I think that's more valuable than whatever "variance" gains you're citing.
*I still think you're wrong about this, but less wrong than ignoring time. I booted up PFR's win probability calculator to check out some scenarios (and factoring that he was a few yards deep in the end zone when he caught the punt):
1) 1st and 10 from the Rams 25, 2:05 to go: 0.3868 WP.
2) 1st and 10 from the Rams 40, 1:55 to go: 0.4388 WP.
3) 1st and 10 from the Rams 20, 1:55 to go: 0.3625 WP.
I'm not sure if this model includes the value of the timeout, and if it doesn't, well there you go, even his best return isn't going to get this done. So let's assume it does. The question becomes "What is the chance of getting that long return, and does it outweigh the odds of something bad happening by roughly 8X?" (8X because you're trying to increase your odds of winning by 0.05, vs going from 0.37 to roughly 0.) As far as I can tell Montgomery hadn't had a return longer than 30 yards since 2016, he didn't have any returns at all last year. Being more generous, of his 32 returns before yesterday it looks like ~3 went for distance, so let's say his chance of hitting a good return is somewhere between 5-10%. His fumble rate before yesterday was right around 1%, though that has a small sample size issue.
But you see the issue right away, the odds of him fumbling times the WP lost is right in the range of the odds of him busting a good one vs the WP gained. I can understand making that trade if you're QBed by, say, Blake Bortles, but with Aaron Rodgers? It's suspect, to say the least.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - BostonCard - 10-29-2018
Good analysis; it has made me rethink my priors that despite the result, returning was clearly the better move. To do this properly, you’d have to look at the integral of probability of return times the change in win probability. That’s obviously not going to be straightforward. As a shorthand, you can look at it two ways, which I think looks like your apporach. First look at low probability extreme events: fumble versus a return that gets the ball to field goal range or TD. Fumble takes your probability from roughly 1/3 to close to 0, while a TD or field goal range return takes it from 1 in 3 to close ish to 100 (minus the probability the Rams go the other way). So roughly your TD/FG range return probability has to be somewhat less than half the probability of a fumble.
The other place to look at is the more likely outcomes, a return that winds up somewhere between the 10 and 40 yard line. Going by your probabilities, a 20 yard return costs you about 2ish percent in win probability, while a 40 yard return buys you a 5ish increase in win probability or a bit under 2% per 5 yards. I will admit that surprised me, since I expected the distribution to have a skewed distribution favoring returns past the 25 (maybe the time was the difference, and I will admit to have not factored that in), the logic is that assuming the Packers had to make it to the Rams 30, the difference between needing to make a 30 yard drive (starting on the 40) versus a 45 yard drive (starting on the 25) should be larger than the difference between a 45 and a 60 yard drive (starting on the 10). That being said you’d have to calculate the probability of those outcomes. I think the average return from the end zone gets you to the 20, and most returns are between 15 and 25 yards.
BC
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Spiny_Norman - 10-29-2018
Before drawing conclusions about the Ty Montgomery incident, be sure to read his side of the story.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/10/29/packers-ty-montgomery-decries-false-accusations-my-character/1815217002/
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Hank 91 - 10-30-2018
(10-29-2018, 10:13 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Before drawing conclusions about the Ty Montgomery incident, be sure to read his side of the story.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2018/10/29/packers-ty-montgomery-decries-false-accusations-my-character/1815217002/
Thanks for posting this. It's funny. Because I've followed Montgomery for so long -- I still remember how excited I was watching his high school highlights as I wrote a blurb about his commitment, probably back in 2010 -- my first thought was for how this was going to affect him. We live in a world where criticism from fans can be very public. Once upon a time an athlete would make an error on the field and hear boos from the stands, now those boos are sent to his or her inbox. If you follow him on Twitter, you know that Montgomery has clearly made an effort to engage with the Green Bay community. It's unfortunate that he's feeling such heat for this, and even more unfortunate that it's being fueled by an anonymous teammate.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Austroturf - 10-30-2018
Ty has been traded to the Ravens. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25128338/green-bay-packers-trade-ty-montgomery-baltimore-ravens
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - Hank 91 - 10-30-2018
(10-30-2018, 12:59 PM)Austroturf Wrote: Ty has been traded to the Ravens. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25128338/green-bay-packers-trade-ty-montgomery-baltimore-ravens
Just saw this. Absolutely crazy.
RE: Stanford in the NFL, week of Oct. 28 - slide - 10-30-2018
Montgomery's avg KOR this year is 21 ypr. on average then, if he fielded 2 yards deep, it leaves you at the 19 yard line (-6 versus a knee/touch back). Montgomery's longest KOR this year is 27 yards -- so to the 26 yard line (+1) if the team expected a return. given these bounds, %-wise a poor decision especially when team expected him to take a knee.
I recall this one too: https://youtu.be/qBWYvCo8Rvw
on the anonymity, I don't like it either. however, Aaron Rodgers was vocal about the decision and not favorable to Montgomery.
lastly, given its the NFL, I am surprised Green Bay was able to pick up a 2020 7th round draft pick for Montgomery (a 3rd string RB). the Pack only received a 2019 4th round pick for Clinton-Dix, a 2016 Pro Bowler, and a current starter.