Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 612617">I find that very interesting.  One of the other purveyors of data I cited earlier (I'm too lazy to go back too see which one) mentioned they have a category they referred to as "uncovered" which they do not charge to anybody.  That's a conservative approach in limiting assumptions, and subjectivity, regarding responsibility.In any event, if somebody must be charged it should be Shields from the looks of it, but that charge does not reflect on his coverage ability per se.  It's more about football smarts in the context of team play, as opposed to one-one-one skill on the island.  So, if we're prone to think of QB-rating-against as a measure of how well a guy covers receivers and defends passes, that's not entirely the case, at least with PFF.  In this case Shields was not even attempting to cover anybody.There's another possibility, though. While I don't think this is the case, perhaps in this set and situation, the corner on the side Wilson is facing at the time of the Lynch fake is supposed to come up in run support for the  QB run option.  Under that scenario, if Wilson was facing right on the fake with the wide LB on the opposite side, perhaps Williams would be responsible for run support.  It's possible Dix blew the play by not immediately coming over to take Lockette on the Lynch fake rather than reacting to Wilson's roll in the context of Shields being assigned to defend run immediately on the Lynch fake.Isn't it odd that Shields would simply abandon his man nearly at the snap when this could have just as easily have been a play action throw?  That's an incredibly risky move if he was not expecting the safety to take his man.It strikes me that when presenting advanced analytics, it's most constructive to err on the side of caution in limiting subjective interpretation as much as possible.  In this case, not knowing the defensive assignments and especially given that Shields was not attempting to cover anybody, it seems reasonable that it should be declared a "team error".Further, having a "team error" category specifically for those cases where responsibility is not very clear would go some way in measuring team cohesion and scheme coherence.Under such a scoring scheme, and to take one scenario, a team where the CBs have good individual ratings while the "team error" category is high would indicate the players are good one-on-one while not being so hot functioning as team. The issue is perhaps clearer in the occasional circumstance where a corner releases the wideout, clearly expecting top side support, and the play ends up being a big gainer because the support never materialized.  Who's to blame?  Unless the coaches tell you how they graded that play, one resorts to speculation or interpreting body language when the yapping ensues in the end zone.  When the yapping happens with regularity with one safety in one season, and then stops the next when he's gone, our suspicions are confirmed about who was to blame a good deal of the time.   But that's long after the grades have been posted.  At the time it was happening, the frequency with which DBs were still being moved around at the snap was also disturbing, but only provided circumstantial evidence.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

shockerx

Total: 72 (members: 1, guests: 71)

Latest posts

First Round Pick #23 - Matthew Golden WR - Texas
- Latest: DoURant
- 28 minutes ago
Draft Talk
NFC North Predictions
- Latest: Calebs Revenge
- Today at 5:37 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
S
Away Stadium You Would Like to Visit
- Latest: shockerx
- Today at 4:27 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Da Bears new head coach!!!!!
- Latest: Calebs Revenge
- Today at 2:11 PM
NFL Discussions
S
State of our former QB, Aaron Rodgers
- Latest: saturdaysarebetter
- Today at 1:14 PM
Aaron Rodgers Discusson