Great win, but we have some serious problems on defense.

Ah to be worried about starting out being to good...

Now there's a problem I'd love to be freaking out about. But then I don't think we need to be worried about that problem....

Truthfully I'm concerned more about the DB's themselves along with the coaching staffs scheme for them.
Basic DB 101 is be at least in the same area code and not 4-5 yds off the WR....which seems to be the plan last Sunday and much of the beginning of the previous season. Not getting off on so many 3rd dns is a good sign....

 

Those rushing stats are a little misleading. Gordon was held to 1.44 ypa. Brandon Oliver had 3 rushes for 31 yards with a 10.3 ypa. Ajayi had 4.4. Cutler, Landry, and Drake all finished with negative yards on 4 total attempts. These are the reasons the rushing stats look similar. In reality the Dolphins shoved the ball down their throats and the Dolphins defense stuffed their run.

 

Thanks for that! Still, if we're making an offense one-dimensional, then we have to capitalize on the other dimension! After rewatching the highlights, it looks like a lot of missed assignments. Hull missed a couple Ingram routes out of the backfield, but his plays were nothing egregious. More egregious: Kiko Alonso! Allowed a conversion on 3rd and 12, and didn't run down the field with Keenan Allen on one of those slot routes down the seam. Ingram would later run it in for the TD. Also: Nate Allen. Allowed another long throw on 2nd down and 8 (Hunter Henry, again), and then wasn't quick enough to recognize Gate sitting down in the zone on the TD throw.

So, if it wasn't one guy, then it was another. If we're going to be blitzing a lot, then guys need to get there, or guys need to cover longer. Whichever. The one time a blitzer did get there in time, Reshad Jones pushing Rivers back for an eventual Hayes sack, pushed them back so far that they missed the field goal. I think this team covers better, zone-wise, as we get further into the season. But they definitely had some hiccups against San Diego.

I don't really care if they allow the dinky dunky stuff, it's the intermediate passes in the zones to tight ends and slot receivers that worry me. It seems like they're a little slow on the recognition and the actual picking up of the opposing team's receivers. And that's okay, it'll probably get quicker as they play more games, like I said before.

 

Proximity and who made the tackle from what I've seen.

But hey, they have really cool twitter graphics demonstrating their claims while the game is still being played. lol...

 

And poor Charles Harris. He got no love from PFF despite pressuring Rivers into a errant pass towards Allen that forced the Chargers to kick a FG in the 2nd qtr on 3rd and 4 from the 23. That was after he had lined up inside and stunted around outside past the LT. That was a solid play by Harris.

 

I updated the rushing totals for the LAC. Still holds true though. lol

 

He had a couple of nice pressures and QB hits. He was definitely a factor, but I hope he starts playing the way I think he can sooner rather than later. This defense is going to need him.

 

Agreed... I'm honestly not expecting him to have a ton of stats this season. 5-7 sacks would be nice. Next season is where I really expect him to be a factor.

If he can keep bringing pressure though and forcing QBs into bad plays, that's solid football.

 

Another good play by Harris - cool video from Ian Wharton showing that it was Harris who also pressured Rivers into throwing the (dropped) INT to Allen in the EZ.

 

How do you decide when the "kicker is to blame"?

Here are the league-wide kicking stats for 2015-2016:
0-19 yards: 19/19 = 100%
20-29 yards: 472/486 = 97.12%
30-39 yards: 535/576 = 92.88%
40-49 yards: 469/605 = 77.52%
50+ yards: 189/310 = 60.97%
Overall: 1684/1996 = 84.37%
Extra points: 2261/2408 = 93.9%

Younhoe Koo missed from 43 and 44 yards. That means the probability an average kicker would have made both FG is only 60% (multiply 0.775 by 0.775 = 0.6). In other words, 40% of the time a league average kicker would not have given the Chargers 23 points so those 6 points shouldn't be automatically counted.

I do think there's a utility to talking about "expected" points allowed, in which case the calculation would require adding 60% of 6 points = 3.6 expected points, but even then one should make a clear distinction between actual and expected points allowed. Either way, to compare to readily available stats we need to use 17 points allowed.

The one thing I wish they'd do with readily available stats is remove pick 6's from points allowed by the defense. THAT really doesn't make sense yet almost everyone leaves pick 6's in.

 

The defense did not make him miss those kicks. Those were makable kicks.

 

Only 3.6 out of the 6 points were "makable" based on league-wide stats. And the defense has an effect. Kickers would have far better stats if they were allowed to try these kicks without the opposing defense. Regardless, actual points allowed = 17 and that's what you use for comparison purposes.

 

That is not how that works.

That would be like saying a QB is not at fault for making a bad throw on a potential TD because the average completion % is under 70%.

 

That's right. That's not how it works. How it works is you DON'T add "what if" points. 17 points allowed is how it works.

 

You could still place some blame on the opposing defense though. I mean, I bet Cutler makes that throw to Landry in the back of the end zone 99% of the time if there was no defense on the field. How much blame, however, is the question. No player, including the kicker, is playing in a vacuum.

 

Yes, yes you do.

Again, the defense didn't stop the kicker from making those VERY makable FGs. The defenses job is stop the other team from scoring TDs and getting into FG range.

If something had 77+% chance of happening in other areas of statistics, you would and have considered that automatic.

 

Which is why I specified with "a bad throw".

 

It was a bad throw to Landry.

 

I wasn't talking about a specific throw though.

 

First of all it's 60% for 2 FG's. Second of all thresholds in statistics are generally not set for deciding how "automatic" (i.e. deterministic) something is. You just state the probability of occurrence. So if it's 99% you just state that.

Where a threshold is set is to decide whether an event is unlikely enough that you can claim it rejects some hypothesis. We're not dealing with that type of question here. We're just stating the actual points allowed in a game and saying there should be no "what if" points added.

 

The 60% is really not how that works...at all. There's nothing in the numbers you provided that indicates you multiply those two percentages together to simulate the probability in one game. Nothing. Each kick from that distance based on the percentages you listed has a 77.52% of making it. Like your definition of clutch, you pulled that out your butt by manipulating the numbers.

And yes, you have seen the probability of something happening being in the 70s percentage wise and said that is most likely the result (it was something about Thill we were arguing about) and even chastised me for saying that doesn't prove anything.

 

I didn't manipulate anything. I'm treating the probability a kicker makes one kick as statistically independent of them making another kick. In the most technical sense that's not 100% true but it's an extremely accurate approximation based on studies done across many sports with things like free throws etc.. which have basically shown that there's a common misperception of "hot streaks" or "cold streaks" in many sports. In fact there's a ton of literature showing that.

Treating the events as statistically independent (a VERY accurate approximation) you get the 60% probability.

Sure 60% shows that making two FG's is the most likely result. So? There could be a 1% chance of X occurring and if that probability is higher than for all other possible outcomes, then that 1% is "the most likely result".

That's all beside the point. The point is you don't add "what if" points unless you explicitly talk about "expected" values in which case you should only add 3.6 points not 6.

 

If it was independent, then each one has a chance to make it at 77+%. You absolutely are manipulating the numbers and you know it. What you are doing is making each kick dependent on each other.

Again, you don't get to make up the stuff about 60%, then tell me this^.

 

If two events are independent, then the probability they both occur is their product. Read up on basic probability theory before falsely accusing other people of "manipulating numbers".

 

Yeah no.

If what you are saying applied here, then why does it stop at one game? Why not in the same quarter or two games or the month of November?

Hell, then they why weren't all the kicks used to determine the percentages you listed products...all of them were independent of each other.

You are, as you have in the past (not always), are bastardizing statistical concepts to fit whatever it is you want to portray and betting no one here can call you on it.

Let's also not forget he attempted 3 FGs in that range, so following your incorrect logic that would .775 x .775 x .775 = 46.5%

 

That's my point - there was no film study when they were releasing this stuff during and right after games.

Even Armando questioned how they knew what was zone vs man with these grades out so quickly. Usually the Coaches Film isn't even ready until Monday or Tuesdays following games.

Keenan Allen is an excellent WR. He burned Howard a couple of times that I can recall for short pickups, but not to the tune of 13 times. I think they knocked Howard anytime a ball was completed to the left side of the field.

 

Dude, I don't bastardize any concepts in statistics. You just wish I were doing that sometimes because you don't like some of my conclusions. And whether anyone here has the ability to call me out on something or not we may never know because I'm not bastardizing anything!!

In any case, to the question of why does it stop at one game.. the studies on free throws etc.. looked across much of league history to see if the rate at which 1, 2, 3, or any number of consecutive free throws occurs fits what you'd expect if it were random or if players really went through "hot streaks" or "cold streaks". So it doesn't stop at one game, which is precisely why I can make the assumption the two kicks are statistically independent: we have evidence it's true in general.

 

Again....3 FGs were attempted. That means each one had a 46% chance of being made following your absolute bastardization of these concepts.

There is also nothing that is relevantly similar between free throws and FGs to warrant this.

 

How did you read this?

 

What?? No you're the one bastardizing statistics. Each FG had a 77.5% chance of being made (all were in that 40-49 range). However ALL THREE being made had a 46% chance. Is that too hard to understand?

 

Cbrad is saying that the odds of FGs in the same game are all products of their percentages he listed earlier.

He said the two that were missed by Koo didn't have a 77% chance of making each one, but a 60% chance because (according to him you multiply the percentages together and get 60%. I said that is not how it works. I then pointed out that 3 FGs were attempted in the yardage range, not 2. So, if we were to follow is "logic" then all 3 must be multiplied together to get the chance these FGs would made which would be 46%.

 

Right, but you didn't get that from anywhere relevant. You literally made it up based on free throws.

Either provide the proper data for FGs or stop passing off data from another sport that has nothing in common with FGs and football.

 

That is not what I read. He had a 77% of making each one, a 60% chance of making both, then if your math is right he would have a 46% chance of making all three.

That is what I read he was saying.

 

They've done the studies across almost all major sports. The concept of "hot streaks" and "cold streaks" is just in general a misperception is the major finding.

 

If they've done the studies across all major sports, then why in the hairy hell are you using free throws instead of field goals?

 

Because that's where the most extensive studies have been done and it's how it all started.

 

Right, but it is not valid.

 

That's your opinion.

if I am understanding correctly you are trying to justify saying that Miami let up 23 points due to two missed field goals, and I would say if that is your stance, cbrad's is much more logically sound.

 

Oh ok, there's study on FGs, you just chose not use them as the most relevant data, because free throws had more data even though theres virtually nothing analogous between free throws and field goals. And somehow that isn't you bastardizing anything.

Well damn.