Reiss: Analyzing Burgess' final four games

[Nathan]

You can't judge the quality of a decision strictly by its results. Football is about calculated risks, both in play calling and in personel moves. You're taking a risk every single time you blitz. 4th and 2 was a good call even if it didn't work out. Likewise the Saints surprise onsides kick in the SB would still be a great call even if it hadn't worked. The Burgess trade was right on the line between overpaying and an acceptable calculated risk. It didn't really pan out last year, nobody is arguing that.

 

[Deus Irae]

You can't judge a decision strictly on results.

Of course you can. Sometimes it's a bit more valid to do so than at other times, but that's a matter of context rather than being an absolute.

Football is about calculated risks, both in play calling and in personel moves.

Ok........

4th and 2 was a good call even if it didn't work out.

4th and 2 was a terrible call, and that's despite my opinion that it was a bad spot away from working. To go back to your initial claim, the call was not bad just based upon the results. It was horrible based upon all the surrounding circumstances.

Likewise the Saints surprise onsides kick in the SB would still be a great call even if it hadn't worked.

Yes, it was a gutsy call, and one can argue that it was great but, again, that's because of all the surrounding circumstances.

The Burgess trade was right on the line between overpaying and an acceptable calculated risk.

It was a terrible trade from the start. There was no "line" that it was on. the Patriots paid a 3rd and 5th for a player who might well have been cut, who wasn't a 3-4 linebacker or defensive end, and who was basically limited to being less than a mediocrity as a designated pass rusher due to his late arrival. Hopefully he'll improve this season and at least be a nice free agent signing, but that's an issue that's separate from the trade last year.

It didn't really pan out last year, nobody is arguing that.

Actually, some people did argue that. But that's a very small minority, like the "Aiken was fine" minority.

 

[Nathan]

Ok........

Every 1st round pick a team makes is a calculated risk. You're giving tons of money to a player that hasn't played a down in the NFL. You have to weigh your needs and balance the risk / reward.

4th and 2 was a terrible call, and that's despite my opinion that it was a bad spot away from working.

Well we're just on opposite sides of the fence on that one. I loved the call to go for it at the time. The actual play they ran was a bit too obvious (quick out to Faulk, go figure).

Yes, it was a gutsy call, and one can argue that it was great but, again, that's because of all the surrounding circumstances.

I'm not saying you have to discount the surrounding circumstances at all. The surprise kick was a great call considering the circumstances. I think 4th and 2 was also (you disagree, that's fine).

 

[fair catch fryar]

Good LORD.

Maybe I'll just go back to reading this Site, and not engaging in debate. Time is too precious to waste on Debris.

I do NOT suffer Fools gladly ~ especially Fools who try to "win" arguments by telling me what I would think or say ~ and there seems to be a surfeit of them, hereabouts!!

But there IS a solid crew of excellent Writers, around these parts, and I will continue to read you, with gratitude, and perhaps toss out the odd "Attaboy".

Peace.

Oh please don't leave us, oh great one. This site is only a shell without your bounty of football knowledge to enlighten us and insulting our pitiful opinions. You have got to be on BB's quick list before he even thinks of making another trade.

 

[eom]

Good LORD.

Maybe I'll just go back to reading this Site, and not engaging in debate. Time is too precious to waste on Debris.

I do NOT suffer Fools gladly ~ especially Fools who try to "win" arguments by telling me what I would think or say ~ and there seems to be a surfeit of them, hereabouts!!

But there IS a solid crew of excellent Writers, around these parts, and I will continue to read you, with gratitude, and perhaps toss out the odd "Attaboy".

Peace.

or you could try going outside.

 

[supafly]

You can't judge the quality of a decision strictly by its results. Football is about calculated risks, both in play calling and in personel moves. You're taking a risk every single time you blitz. 4th and 2 was a good call even if it didn't work out. Likewise the Saints surprise onsides kick in the SB would still be a great call even if it hadn't worked. The Burgess trade was right on the line between overpaying and an acceptable calculated risk. It didn't really pan out last year, nobody is arguing that.

The thing that puzzled me the whole time with the 4th and 2 situation was not only what Deus is saying, which is that it was a bad call altogether, but the fact that they didn't feel comfortable making them go 70+ yards.

If they didn't feel comfortable making them go 70+ yards, which I would GUESS is probably approx. a 30% chance of scoring a TD (3 TD's ot of 10 drives average--give or take), then why wouldn't they just have 'allowed' them to score inside the 25-30 yd line, which would have at least allowed them the possibility of getting into FG range with some time left?

I realize that it's kind of a crazy theory, but considering how the defense was playing in the 4th quarter (which was taken into account when choosing to make the 4th and 2 call in the first place), to me it was pretty much a given that they would run the clock down and score--therefore leaving us pretty much no time to try and get in FG range, etc.

I still wonder to this day if Belichick ever considered this somewhat off-the-wall theory, and I also wonder if any other posters thought about letting them score IF we didn't pick up the 4th and 2. To me, if you are BB and you are 'playing the odds,' I think it makes the most sense to do the following:

1. To simply punt, as Deus stated. It's obviously less than 35% chance or so of them scoring a TD.

2. To go for it, and if you don't pick it up, you 'allow' them to score the TD, thus at least giving yourself about 1:30--1:45 to get in FG range.

3. Lastly, do what they did--which was actually try to keep them from scoring from 25 or so yards out, keeping in mind that you have no timeouts, and that they're going to run the clock down. The game is lost if you don't stop them, and based on how they shredded the defense in the 4th quarter, it was kind of obvious to most of us that they pretty much lost when they failed on the 4th and 2.

Finally, FWIW--I believe Faulk would've picked it up had he not bobbled the ball. I think the bobble made it a lot closer, and also created enough reasonale doubt as to whether or not he picked it up. The replay was damn close, one way or another, but if he doesn't bobble it IMO, he gets it.

(sorry to rehash, and to go OT, but I was simply responding to people who had already taken it there )

 

[Nathan]

I agree without the bobble he gets it. It's funny that you bring up allowing them to score because I thought that too. I can't remember exactly when but at a certain point it was clear that Indy was just burning clock with a run up the middle that got them to the 2 or 3 and at that point it crossed my mind that they should have just let him get in. Because, as you said, a TD seemed inevitable. Our D last year just did not have a goal line stand in them.

Considering how the media assaulted them for going for it on 4th down, I understand that they didn't let them score.

 

[JMarr]

Good LORD.....

I do NOT suffer Fools gladly ~

Do you wear breaches and write with a quill pen too?

 

[Reckedtrek]

Do you wear breaches and write with a quill pen too?

Maybe he should have called himself "Off The Clozaril"?

 

[BritPat]

Come again??

We could've drafted OLB Thad Gibson in the 3rd Round, and RB Deji Karim in the 5th.

Hell, considering that they were drafted in the 4th and 6th, we could've traded back for 2 4ths and a 6th, and drafted:

OLB Thad Gibson
RT Bruce Campbell
RB Deji Karim

...and THEN gone ahead and signed Burgess.

NOT Coach Bill's best moment.

Not yours either, shocker of a post.

 

[eom]

I already posted all this up in another thread, but I spent some time on it, so I'm going to transplant it over here to the analysis of burgess' final four games.
is it burgess' or burgess's, by the way?

ok, burgess supposedly played 26 of 53 snaps vs jax, primarily left end in dime and 3-3 nickel.

ty played 5 snaps.

edit: and it looks like they credit burgess with a sack, so maybe they really don't know wtf they're doing.

more edits: oho! my apologies, pff, as it might have actually been burgess with tbc getting credit.

I think I am going to do every week for the hell of it.....
week - opp + score - (pass plays per pff) burgess snaps, sacks, hits, pressures

1 - v buf 25-24 (33) 41, 1, 0, 1
2 - @ nyj 9-17 (24) 14, 0, 0, 0
3 - v atl 26-10 (29) 19, 0, 0, 0
4 - v bal 27-21 (50) 36, 0, 0, 4
5 - @ den 17-20 (52) 38, 0, 0, 1
6 - v ten 59-0 (lol) (16) 42, 0, 0, 1
7 - @ tb 35-7 (35) 52, 1, 0, 2
8 - bye
9 - v mia 27-17 (40) 28, 0, 2, 1
10 - @ ind 34-35 (49) 66, 0, 1, 5
11 - v nyj 31-14 (23) 17, 0, 0, 0
12 - @ no 17-38 (24) 26, 0, 0, 0
13 - @ mia 21-22 (54) 37, 0, 0, 1
14 - v car 20-10 (34) 16, 1, 0, 2
15 - @ buf 17-10 (35) 31, 1, 0, 4
16 - v jax 35-7 (30) 26, 1, 1, 0
17 - @ hou 27-34 (43) 62, 1, 2, 0
wc - v bal 14-33 (11) 8, 0, 0, 1 --- baltimore clearly trying to keep burgess off the field.....


edit:
first 8 games - about 34 snap average, 2 sacks, 2 hits, 10 pr
last 8 games - 35 snap average, 4 sacks, 4 hits, 12 pr
didn't count wildcard

now, as a follow up I will take the last 8 reg season games, multiply by 2 to get 16, and compare his stats to other players around the league.
also, the 24 guys ahead of him on this list average 862 snaps, so I included an 862 snap 'projected burgess'.
it's certainly true that all these guys play different positions and in different circumstances and schemes --- comparing him to a 1 gap lb, pure 4-3 de, etc may be pointless, and projecting out his snaps, which are probably purely passing downs, is just as unfair, but I'll leave it to the reader to digest.


16 games = 562 snaps, 8 sacks, 8 hits, 24 pressures

pressures:
player - pressures (snaps)

ware (dal) - 56 (976)
smith (sf) - 44 (977)
freeney (ind) - 41 (583)
abraham (atl) - 39 (703)
mathis (ind) - 37 (608)
BURGESS (NE) - 37 (862) - projected
hali (kc) - 36 (1105)
allen (min) - 35 (945)
edwards (min) - 35 (874)
harrison (pit) - 34 (1032)
peppers (car) - 33 (806)
dumervil (den) - 31 (880)
cole (phi) - 31 (959)
woodley (pit) - 31 (1030)
carter (was) - 30 (979)
smith (hou) - 30 (874)
williams (hou) - 29 (952)
campbell (arz) - 29 (824)
jenkins (gb) - 27 (801)
haralson (sf) - 27 (986)
kiwanuka (nyg) - 26 (730)
hayes (ten) - 26 (682)
vanden bosch (ten) - 26 (781)
ogunleye (chi) - 25 (735)
matthews (gb) - 25 (860)
BURGESS (NE) - 24 (562)- actual

edit: I forgot a couple guys
brown (ten) - 33 (723)
babineaux (atl) - 25 (870)

more edits:
I'll add sacks.......
there were 19 guys with more than 8 sacks, averaging 884 snaps --- half of which are 4-3 ends.
projected burgess, although this is somewhat unfair as noted above, has 12.5 sacks.
this puts him behind 6 guys:
dumervil - 17 (880)
allen - 15 (945)
freeney - 14 (583)
cole - 14 (959)
woodley - 14 (1030)
carter - 13 (979)

as another bonus follow up, I will compare bogus second half burgess to some of the league's best --- per 1000 snaps.
sacks, hits, pressures

freeney - 24, 20.6, 70.3
mathis - 16.5, 18.1, 60.9
ware - 12.3, 17.4, 57.4
allen - 15.9, 14.8, 37
dumervil - 19.3, 8, 35.2
cole - 14.6, 20.9, 32.3
smith (sf) - 6.1, 16.4, 45

2nd half bogus burgess - 14.2, 14.2, 42.7

 

[supafly]

Nice analysis eom.

Much with the DB thread, your legwork is appreciated.

FWIW--It's Burgess'