NFL Playoffs 2024: How The Hell Are The Lions In The Final Four??? Inconceivable!

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, grozeng said:

Well, they did lose to the Rams with Sam Darnold at QB.

LOL, Darnold was probably the only person in that stadium that cared about the game's outcome.  If the Niners had won he would have earned 300 grand.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'd say Reid is a better coach, Mahomes is definitely a better QB, and KC has the better defense.

Well, Shanahan v Reid is arguable - imagine Shanahan with Mahomes - but the rest is clear, and why I think the Chiefs should be favored.  I don't know what's going on with the Niners defense but they need to figure it out right quick.  Conversely, the Chiefs defense has been very impressive throughout the playoffs.

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In addition the 49ers have had real issues defending #1 receivers at times

Yeah this is exactly wrong.  Mooney Ward has been a shutdown corner all year - he was only targeted once in the Lions game for seven yards.

33 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Purdy is better than Fields, though it's probably closer than you think. Fields definitely hasn't had either the offensive talent or the offensive coaching Purdy has, but Fields also does a lot more stupid shit regularly. 

In theory, could Fields be better than Purdy?  Sure.  He certainly has more physical capabilities.  But that's not reality, and becoming accustomed to Shanahan's offense is hard enough already - let alone re-learning things after three years of terrible development by the Bears.

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Rhom said:

We've had some halfway competent QBs... none of them could run it like Purdy has.  (Granted, I may be using a loose definition of "halfway competent.")

I mean hell, I heard one of the gasbags on ESPN (might have been Chris Canty) suggesting that the Niners should trade for Justin Fields... what??????

The Handsome One put up solid numbers with less talent on the Niners. He's not good away from them.

It would also be insane to trade for Fields. Purdy is a better fit and cheap as hell.

50 minutes ago, DMC said:

I guess.  Mahomes not playing well is definitely not something I would bet on.

The sample size is pretty large this season. I trust his clutch abilities, but that team drops a lot of balls and Kelce isn't the same player.

Quote

Which is, of course, demonstrably false.  We have clear evidence of what the 49ers look like with a "halfway competent" QB in the form of Garoppolo.  Look at the 2019 and 2021 playoffs.  Of the six games, he only threw more than 25 passes in two of them.  They lost those two games - and won the four when he didn't.  Most infamously in the 2019 Packers conference championship in which he only threw eight times.

The most glaring example within those games is the 2021 NFC Championship against the Rams when the Niners had the ball at the end of the game with the opportunity to tie or win.  Garoppolo couldn't do shit, and everyone knew it was over before the possession even started.  That's the fundamental difference with Purdy -- you can trust him a hell of a lot more than a "halfway competent" QB in those situations.

Shanahan is an extremely conservative playcaller that prefers to get a lead, defer on the kickoff to have the in-between-halves advantage, and simply deploy his QB as the "game manager."  Thing is, Purdy is most successful when Shanahan lets him off that leash.  That was the second half of the Lions game.  Hopefully Shanahan recognizes this error in philosophy and lets Brock cook on Sunday for the full sixty minutes.

I think there was a perception that he was a middling QB on a stacked team and for a few weeks those who believed that could point and say they were right. This playoff run is erasing that. Idk where to rank, especially if you dropped him on a shitty team, but he's a franchise QB at least for the next few years.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

I think there was a perception that he was a middling QB on a stacked team and for a few weeks those who believed that could point and say they were right. This playoff run is erasing that.

Email Cam Newton.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, Shanahan v Reid is arguable - imagine Shanahan with Mahomes - but the rest is clear, and why I think the Chiefs should be favored.  I don't know what's going on with the Niners defense but they need to figure it out right quick.  Conversely, the Chiefs defense has been very impressive throughout the playoffs.

I would normally say that Reid isn't a great coach but he's actually won it all a couple times now and is at the very least better than Shanahan, at least so far. 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah this is exactly wrong.  Mooney Ward has been a shutdown corner all year - he was only targeted once in the Lions game for seven yards.

That might be true, but he isn't defending #1 receivers every single time. Was he out during the three game stretch of losses? I don't think that's the case. Similarly was he out against the Ravens, when Flowers went off? 

It's something formerly known as FO went over too:

https://www.ftnfantasy.com/articles/FTN/115420/super-bowl-lviii-learning-from-the-worst-of-the-chiefs-and-49ers

 

[Tywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Email Cam Newton.

Cam's view will always probably be skewed. He had to do so much with so little and broke his body in the process. For the most part though he is a much better commentator than I expected based from his goofy press conferences.

One other thing to note about Mahomes, he's playing a lot more like Brady. Tom was efficiently boring while Pat always tried to hit a homerun. Now he's taking a lot of the easy stuff with a few well placed bombs. It's not as sexy, but it is smarter. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That might be true, but he isn't defending #1 receivers every single time. Was he out during the three game stretch of losses? I don't think that's the case. Similarly was he out against the Ravens, when Flowers went off? 

No and no.  The first question is important because you're right - Wilks' scheme did not necessarily include Ward always on the #1 receiver earlier in the year.  They changed that around..mid November I think, when Ward went to Shanahan directly and was like "let me cover the top guy." 

With the second question, really not sure what your definition of "went off" is.  Nine catches for 72 yards on 13 targets really isn't that great.  At all.  That's a yards per target of 5.5 yards.

[dbunting]

4 hours ago, Rhom said:

I like the Brees comparison and hadn't seen it before.

I honestly just don't understand all the hate that Purdy seems to be getting lately.  The Cam Newton feud in particular seems bizarre to me.  

Overall, it seems like Mr. Irrelevant starting a Super Bowl in year two should be the feel good story of the last 5 years... but it really seems oddly divisive instead.

IMO, it's because he is a pocket QB whose arm talent doesn't stand out. All he does is lead his team to wins, as if that's a bad thing. 

[Maithanet]

The Chiefs have been the more impressive team in the playoffs, and it isn't even particularly close.  Winning on the road at Buffalo and Baltimore is a very impressive run, and in both games the Chiefs had control by the fourth quarter.  Kelce had a bad year in the regular season, but has been awesome in the playoffs, and that has revitalized the KC offense.  In contrast,  SF played at home against Detroit and Green Bay and needed a second half comeback both times.  The SF defense in particular looked shaky.

The Chiefs have a better quarterback, a better defense, and probably a better O line.  Yes, SF is much better at the offensive skill positions, but is that where you want to pin your hopes?  Doesn't feel good. 

The AFC has been the better conference all year, and SF's 2-3 record against the AFC is a testament to that.  

Comparing this Niners team to the Eagles SB team last year, I don't feel like they compare favorably.  That Eagles defense led the league in sacks and looked dominant in their playoff run.  The Chiefs put up 31 offensive points against them (plus a defensive td), and that was with Mahomes only at 90% with an ankle injury. 

I'm not saying this is some big mismatch (it is not).  The Niners have a ton of talent everywhere and if their defense plays to that level, KC will have a lot of problems.  But I feel like there are a lot more question marks on SF's side.  I share DMC's confusion about why SF is favored, to me this should be something like KC-2.

Edited February 7 by Maithanet

[Kalbear]

One possible reason that SF is favored is that in theory they have a great match in their running game against the kc defense. KC has countered this in the playoffs by either playing dumb people or selling out to stop the run, but it's not clear if that will work against the 49ers. 

Then again it really shouldn't have worked against the ravens and it absolutely did.

[Kalbear]

18 hours ago, DMC said:

With the second question, really not sure what your definition of "went off" is.  Nine catches for 72 yards on 13 targets really isn't that great.  At all.  That's a yards per target of 5.5 yards.

That's still a success per target, and it's definitely not a shutdown corner behavior; it's well above standard success measures for a WR. 

Put it another way - if you're relying on your shutdown corner to stop their #1 receiver and their #1 receiver got consistently that level of performance you'd stop paying that person shutdown corner money. 

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That's still a success per target

It's really, really not.  Indeed, 5.5 yards per target is incredibly inefficient.  That, obviously, means that each pass attempt to that receiver only yields 5.5 yards on average.

Just look at the leaderboard for QBs' Yards Per Attempt this year.  A 5.5 YPA would rank in the basement - the likes of Brian Hoyer, Case Keenum, and Bryce Young (sorry Panthers!).  The only QBs with a lower YPA this year are those you pray you don't have to play.

Alternatively, of course, you could also just look at Receivers' Yards Per Target this year.  Pro Football Reference had 139 "receivers" qualify.  5.5 yards per target would rank 121st.  Not absolutely terrible for, say, a running back that isn't too much a part of your passing game, but absolutely terrible for any receiver.

If that's what your #1 receiver is producing in a game, the opposing defense will take that every single time.  And, yes, it would be considered a great performance for the player that was covering that receiver throughout the game.

Anyway, this discussion is decidedly irrelevant.  First, I honestly don't know if Ward was covering Flowers throughout the Christmas game.  More importantly, the Chiefs don't really have a #1 receiver who's not dating Taylor Swift, and who knows if Ward will be on that receiver the entire game.  I guess Rashee Rice has emerged throughout the Chiefs playoffs, but that still doesn't necessarily mean the Niners will put Ward on him throughout the game.

The point is Mooney Ward has had an outstanding season.  He's performed as a top 5 cornerback in the league and has been shutdown 9 times out of 10 when the Niners have really needed him.  That's why he made second team All-Pro.

That being said, the suggestion 5.5 yards per target is "well above standard success" is simply a flagrant misunderstanding of basic statistics/metrics.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

That being said, the suggestion 5.5 yards per target is "well above standard success" is simply a flagrant misunderstanding of basic statistics/metrics.

It's really not. It is, in fact, the very specific definition of success as determined by DVOA folks, and several others. It depends on down and distance, but in general going above what you need on successful downs is going to be considered a successful play - and 5.5 yards per target means that every time you're ahead of the sticks in that way. Add to that that one of the receptions is a score and you're looking at significantly higher value. And add to that a defensive adjustment against an apparently good defense and you've got a pretty good game. 

Was it as good as Chase? Nah. No argument. Was it one of Flowers' better games of the year? Yep. That's another reason I said 'go off' - because he had not performed at that level consistently previously. We'd expect that sort of thing from Chase and Burrows, but Jackson and Flowers? Where he got 4 receptions and 6 targets over his average, and 40 yards over his average? 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It's really not. It is, in fact, the very specific definition of success as determined by DVOA folks, and several others. It depends on down and distance, but in general going above what you need on successful downs is going to be considered a successful play - and 5.5 yards per target means that every time you're ahead of the sticks in that way.

Again, it's really not.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of DVOA's methodology.  DVOA is a comparison to the league-average baseline on every situation.  13 targets is a large enough sample - and 5.5 yards per those targets glaringly enough below average - that that is always going to yield a negative DVOA regardless of situation.  You plainly do not know what you're talking about.

[Kalbear]

12 hours ago, DMC said:

Again, it's really not.  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of DVOA's methodology.  DVOA is a comparison to the league-average baseline on every situation.  13 targets is a large enough sample - and 5.5 yards per those targets glaringly enough below average - that that is always going to yield a negative DVOA regardless of situation.  You plainly do not know what you're talking about.

For that game they gave him something like a 50 DYAR. That is excellent in case you were curious. 

And yeah, I do know what I'm talking about. DVOA is not like a/nya where it cares about how well you do above the baseline for a given type of player- it cares about success metrics. It gives bonus points for first downs, scoring and a bit extra for explosive plays but the vast majority of it is about "did this play result in a better outcome than ANY play". It does not care about baseline results for WRs vs WRs directly. 

This by the way is something I view as a major flaw in their system - it both undervalues explosive plays because in their words they are not as predictive, and it doesn't have any drive based stats at all - it is entirely a per play metric. This results in weird stat behavior like a team which has 3 long 18-play drives that score and 5 3-and-outs having a massive dvoa value because they only had a few failed plays compared to the ton of barely successful ones. 

They have other systems for measuring things like specific wr strength or strength of Oline vs RB, but those don't factor directly into dvoa. 

ETA: more on their overall methodology - which I've been referencing for over 20 years - here:
https://www.ftnfantasy.com/articles/FTN/103241/dvoa-explainer. This in particular is relevant to the above:
 

Quote

Every single play run in the NFL gets a “success value” based on this system, and then that number gets compared to the average success values of plays in similar situations for all players, adjusted for a number of variables. These include down and distance, field location, time remaining in game, and the team’s lead or deficit in the game score. Teams are always compared to the overall offensive average, as the team made its own choice whether to pass or rush. When it comes to individual players, however, rushing plays are compared to other rushing plays, passing plays to other passing plays, tight ends to tight ends, wideouts to wideouts, and so on.

Note that you're right in that for individual players Flowers is compared to other WRs, so in DYAR that's still valuable compared to other WRs - but for DVOA scoring it's all one big lump of suck. 

One last thing - a possession receiver getting high marks in DVOA is not particularly surprising given that DVOA was started by Schatz as a partial way to show why the Patriot system was so damn good compared to other flashier systems at the time. It heavily favored long methodical drives and per-play success as a result of that focus, because that's what Brady and the Pats did too and it correlated best with success. This also results in some teams historically being highly loved by DVOA - any Andy Reid or Andy Reid-like team that does great on possession WR play tends to be very highly rated. 

Going back to Flowers, one of the reasons he stood out to me is that by DVOA he's almost the very definition of a replacement WR - he had a 1.1 DVOA for the season and 110 total DYAR. For some reason in that game he did much better than he usually does as well as scoring a lot of success compared to what he normally does. 

Edited February 8 by Kalbear

[dbunting]

I miss the says when all we knew was that if a receiver had 100 yards for the game he did really good. All of these metrics are a bit ridiculous to me, probably my age showing. I didn't and still don't need catch radius/separation*0.307 = DVR to tell me a receiver was good, my eyes tell me.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, dbunting said:

I miss the says when all we knew was that if a receiver had 100 yards for the game he did really good. All of these metrics are a bit ridiculous to me, probably my age showing. I didn't and still don't need catch radius/separation*0.307 = DVR to tell me a receiver was good, my eyes tell me.

And that's why you deserve Dak Prescott

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

DVOA is not like a/nya where it cares about how well you do above the baseline for a given type of player- it cares about success metrics. It gives bonus points for first downs, scoring and a bit extra for explosive plays but the vast majority of it is about "did this play result in a better outcome than ANY play". It does not care about baseline results for WRs vs WRs directly. 

Right, but you're misunderstanding what DVOA measures as success.  As your own quote later states, this is compared to the baseline average success rates for plays in similar situations.  Which means, of course, in the case of 13 targets, the average success rates when a QB gets a pass off.  And again, that performance is plainly below average.  In other words, you are still fundamentally misunderstanding the metric.

Hell, even if you took something like Pro Football References success rates, Flowers in that Christmas game still had four targets that went for incompletions - along with one that went for negative two yards and another that went for 9 yards on 1st and 25.  That means in (at least, I didn't check the whole play-by-play) six of Flowers' 13 targets, the Ravens did not complete a "successful" play. 

7/13 is a 53.8% success rate based on PFR's metric.  That, too is nothing to write home about -- particularly for a "#1" receiver.  Perhaps it was good for Flowers compared to the rest of the season, I don't know nor care, but that's just changing the goalposts.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Right, but you're misunderstanding what DVOA measures as success.  As your own quote later states, this is compared to the baseline average success rates for plays in similar situations.  Which means, of course, in the case of 13 targets, the average success rates when a QB gets a pass off.  And again, that performance is plainly below average.  In other words, you are still fundamentally misunderstanding the metric.

No, it's not when a QB gets a pass off; it's measuring what a success is given down and distance. For instance, throwing for 9 yards is considered a success on first and 10; it's not considered a success on 3rd and 24. But, say, running for 6 yards and throwing for 6 yards are equally successful. In particular they explicitly do not differentiate between run and pass as far as 'what you SHOULD do' on a given play and only measure what actually happened and how successful it was - that was stated in the link I provided earlier.

This is really easy to see if you go and look at receiver stats in their database - in particular sort by DVOA for https://www.ftnfantasy.com/nfl/tools/player-dvoa/wr/receiving and look up Mike Strachan. He had 1 catch out of 3 targets for 45 yards. That should be a pretty big deal and having a 15 YPA sounds decent, but DVOA hates that sort of thing - his total value is 8 YAR for that, because those failures matter more. David Moore is probably closer overall here - 5 catches on 7 targets for 94 yards and a TD, got him 30 DYAR - which is pretty successful if that were a game. Higher YPA though, but fewer overall successes. 

Just now, DMC said:

Hell, even if you took something like Pro Football References success rates, Flowers in that Christmas game still had four targets that went for incompletions - along with one that went for negative two yards and another that went for 9 yards on 1st and 25.  That means in (at least, I didn't check the whole play-by-play) six of Flowers' 13 targets, the Ravens did not complete a "successful" play. 

Sure! But the other 7 were all successful plays:

• 7 yards on 3rd and 5
• 13 yards on 1st and 10
• 6 yards on 1st and 10
• 10 yards on 2nd and 4
• 10 yards on 2nd and 7
• 9 yards and a TD on 1st and goal
• 10 yards on 2nd and 9

Of those all but one gained a first down (bonus success in DYAR standards) and one gained a TD. That sort of dink and dunk possession stuff is catnip to DVOA metrics. 

Just now, DMC said:

7/13 is a 53.8% success rate based on PFR's metric.  That, too is nothing to write home about -- particularly for a "#1" receiver.  Perhaps it was good for Flowers compared to the rest of the season, I don't know nor care, but that's just changing the goalposts.

And that's the real thing, and why I said 'went off'. This was Flowers' best game of the season in terms of yards, catches and targets. You normally do not have your best game of the season against a team who is particularly good against that type of player position. It does absolutely matter and is not moving the goalposts to indicate that in the 49er losses the #1 receiver on the other team did better than they normally do - that's the whole point. My point originally was to point out that the 49ers do appear to sometimes have some trouble with #1 receivers. I don't know if it's scheme, players or other behaviors and it doesn't really matter to me - only the trend does. And that might be a problem with Rice actually performing fairly well and KC's reliance on Kelce and Rice as the only competent members of their receiving corps. 

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

I miss the says when all we knew was that if a receiver had 100 yards for the game he did really good. All of these metrics are a bit ridiculous to me, probably my age showing. I didn't and still don't need catch radius/separation*0.307 = DVR to tell me a receiver was good, my eyes tell me.

I say you and me shove these nerds into some lockers and skip 3rd period to smoke behind the gym shed. 

 

[Tywin et al.]

Don't forget the shaving cream.