St. Louis Rams vs. Oakland Raiders Official Game Day thread

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
If you get a penalty it increases the the distance required to get a first down. The longer the distance you have to travel to make a first down the harder it is to do that. The harder it is to get a first down the more often you have to punt. Every possession in which you have to punt is a possession that you didn't score points. The less you score the harder it is to win. If you don't see the correlation (and the math) there I really don't know what else I can say except that I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.
firstdownlikelihood_qbcorr.png
Well sure. That right there is common sense. The longer the distance, the longer the odds. But say a team gets flagged for a false start on first and ten. Then they pick up 11 yards on the subsequent first and fifteen. Now it's second and four. Your graph there says the probability of converting a first down is now around 80%. So the odds went from 60% to 80% in one play. Not to mention that the graph already has teams in a hole because a first and ten conversion is only around 70% (seems fair enough). Really the only time you're kinda screwed is if you pick up a flag that puts you in 3rd and long (over 10 yards) situations, because your play options are limited. Without knowing how often that has happened to the Rams, we have to assume that all other down and distance penalties are fairly easy to overcome; and as such, we're no more handicapped than any other team.

Where I will admit that the Rams are handicapped more, is when their QBs are on a much lower tier than other teams. Then your reliance on execution is much more critical. For obvious reasons. Either they can't maneuver the pocket well enough, or their arm strength isn't good enough to capitalize on deep shots, or they just don't have the poise to let plays develop. I think it's safe to say that we've been limited in that regard for a couple of years now.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
-X- with the new fuzzy math:
But say a team gets flagged for a false start on first and ten. Then they pick up 11 yards on the subsequent first and fifteen. Now it's second and four. Your graph there says the probability of converting a first down is now around 80%. So the odds went from 60% to 80% in one play. Not to mention that the graph already has teams in a hole because a first and ten conversion is only around 70% (seems fair enough).
I'm pretty sure you can't do that -X-. :LOL: If you start from your 20 yard line and you have a 33% chance to score (pulled that figure out of my ass). You travel down the field you eventually get to the 1 yard line for first and goal. Now the chance of scoring is about 95% (came from the same place). So did you have a 33% chance of scoring on that possession or a 95% chance? It's still a 33% chance. Same thing when you look at the graph and see the different chances of scoring on 1st down vs 3rd down. Basically, you must always start at the beginning when computing your chance to score on a possession. Obviously if you're starting your possession on their 5 yard line due to a turnover your chances of scoring at least a FG is huge and the chances of scoring a TD are still very large. But get a delay of game penalty on 3rd and an inch and when it sets you back to the 5 yard line for a 3rd and goal your chances of scoring that TD go way down.

Your scenario and Mr. Motes different scenarios are all things that can happen to increase your chances of scoring on that possession despite the penalty but it doesn't change the fact that getting a penalty lessens your chances of scoring which lessens your chances of winning. All those things just reduce the number of times that a particular penalty keeps you from scoring on a possession. The reduced chance of scoring is still there even if you manage to overcome every penalty. In addition, that's just talking about when you get a penalty when you're on offense. You still have to figure in the increased chances of scoring that your defensive penalties give the other team. There can be no doubt that penalties decrease your chances of winning because the math is there. The only question is to what degree. That, I contend, is a function how how good your team is. A subject you starting talking about in your last paragraph. Bad teams don't overcome those penalties as often as good teams. That's why the Seahawks win so often despite their proclivity for getting penalties. They're a great team.

I'm pretty sure I didn't explain that very well but I haven't even made it to my second pot of coffee yet so...
 
Last edited:

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
Something I should mention about that graph I used. Look at those figures for the chances of scoring on 1st and 5, 1st and 15, 3rd and 15 and so on. Guess what? Those odds are already figuring in the effects of the penalties.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
Where I will admit that the Rams are handicapped more, is when their QBs are on a much lower tier than other teams. Then your reliance on execution is much more critical. For obvious reasons. Either they can't maneuver the pocket well enough, or their arm strength isn't good enough to capitalize on deep shots, or they just don't have the poise to let plays develop. I think it's safe to say that we've been limited in that regard for a couple of years now.
I think you're helping me make my point???... which is:
For some teams, penalties aren't killers. If I'm reading you right, you're saying the Rams haven't had a QB that is talented enough to overcome long downs and distance (which happens when you commit penalties).

And, IMO, you're right.

But the QB hasn't been the only "challenge" for our Rams in overcoming penalties.

Some would say our OC made those challenges even harder... our Oline (as in when you get in long downs and distance and the opponent brings the house and you can't handle it and get sacked and have even greater downs and distance).... or WRs that have difficulty getting open so a pass can overcome the long down and distance.

In other words, basically the entire roster hasn't been good enough to overcome long downs and distance (or, on defense, stop opponents when they have short downs and distance).

Maybe there is no correlation (that's not the point, really)... but to say penalties don't matter is crazy.

To some very talented teams? Yeah, maybe they don't... but to this Rams team? Yes, they most certainly do.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Maybe there is no correlation (that's not the point, really)... but to say penalties don't matter is crazy.
Nobody said they don't matter (that I know of). It's just that when you have teams winning Super bowls who lead the league in penalties, and teams with horrible records who are the best at avoiding them, it kind of solidifies the idea that there's no correlation between penalties and success (or lack thereof).

You just need good players and a good plan. Everything else will take care of itself.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
Nobody said they don't matter (that I know of). It's just that when you have teams winning Super bowls who lead the league in penalties, and teams with horrible records who are the best at avoiding them, it kind of solidifies the idea that there's no correlation between penalties and success (or lack thereof).

You just need good players and a good plan. Everything else will take care of itself.

Penalties for Fisher are like timeouts and challenges for Martz. Fans might care but they don't.

Well again, teams that commit a lot of penalties have won the last 3 SB's.

IMO, they're simply not the negative fans make them out to be. Penalties aren't always bad and there are other factors that are far more important. Combine those two things, and i come away thinking penalties are pretty close to meaningless...

That looks to me like it's being said penalties don't matter (meaningless, whatever).
Fisher doesn't care? Boy, I'd love to talk to him about that... all I have read for the past three years is how he is making them a point of emphasis (and clearly, it's not working... at least yet).

And that's the crux of this discussion... I think we've reduced this to perhaps debating "correlation" and "impact".

OK, so there may be no "correlation"... but there is a definite negative "impact" on the Rams when they commit penalties.... for the reasons you and I have outlined (mainly the roster.. but I'd add coaching)

You disagree?
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
That looks to me like it's being said penalties don't matter (meaningless, whatever).
Fisher doesn't care? Boy, I'd love to talk to him about that... all I have read for the past three years is how he is making them a point of emphasis (and clearly, it's not working... at least yet).

And that's the crux of this discussion... I think we've reduced this to perhaps debating "correlation" and "impact".

OK, so there may be no "correlation"... but there is a definite negative "impact" on the Rams when they commit penalties.... for the reasons you and I have outlined (mainly the roster.. but I'd add coaching)

You disagree?
Nope. I don't disagree.
 

MrMotes

Starter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
954
If you get a penalty it increases the the distance required to get a first down. The longer the distance you have to travel to make a first down the harder it is to do that.

I understand what you're saying.

But if penalties were a net negative, why don't they correlate to wins and losses? What's your explanation for that?

And you're not accounting for when teams get away with a penalty. For every time an Oline is flagged for holding, they get away with a lot of holding. The net effect may well be more yards, more first downs and more points, not less.

Eliminating those penalties could result is overall worse blocking and worse results...
 
Last edited:

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
But if penalties were a net negative, why don't they correlate to wins and losses? What's your explanation for that?
Clearly, you aren't reading what members are posting. If there is no correlation, one reason might be (probably is) the quality of the roster to overcome those penalties. Most agree that the Rams quality of roster is such that they cannot overcome penalties consistently. Therefore, penalties ought to be avoid to the extent it makes sense (which has also been addressed here).

And you're not accounting for when teams get away with a penalty. For every time an Oline is flagged for holding, they get away with a lot of holding. The net effect may well be more yards, more first downs and more points, not less.
Do you have statistics (or proof) of how many times "they get away with it" in relation to how many time they get caught. This is pure supposition.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Do you have statistics (or proof) of how many times "they get away with it" in relation to how many time they get caught. This is pure supposition.
He has a point though. It's not as simple as "more penalties = hurts team" when you start to add in variables like that. Here's an extreme example (not to be taken literally).

What if all the penalties the Rams committed in one game were: delay of game on a PAT, defensive holding in the end zone when the other team was on our 1-yard line in 1st and goal, personal foul on the punt coverage team after a punt was taken out to the 3-yard line, and a false start after they were already in a 3rd and 30 situation? And what if, during that same game, we benefited from a bogus PI call on the other team that gave us goal-to-go, and 2 defensive offsides calls that extended our drives resulting in a TD and FG?

Both teams committed penalties, yeah?

Who comes out better?
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
He has a point though. It's not as simple as "more penalties = hurts team" when you start to add in variables like that. Here's an extreme example (not to be taken literally).

What if all the penalties the Rams committed in one game were: delay of game on a PAT, defensive holding in the end zone when the other team was on our 1-yard line in 1st and goal, personal foul on the punt coverage team after a punt was taken out to the 3-yard line, and a false start after they were already in a 3rd and 30 situation? And what if, during that same game, we benefited from a bogus PI call on the other team that gave us goal-to-go, and 2 defensive offsides calls that extended our drives resulting in a TD and FG?

Both teams committed penalties, yeah?

Who comes out better?
Not sure I follow... what I thought he was talking about was "penalties committed but not caught by the officials" - I'll call it the "got-away-with-it" theory.

The theory was that committing penalties comes with that behavior and - when all is said and done - it is better to have the penalties because you "got away" with all the non-calls (a net positive).

Just seems like pretzel logic to me. This has now wandered so far away from what we know inherently as a truth, that it sounds like an episode fom The Twilight Zone. :eek:
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Not sure I follow... what I thought he was talking about was "penalties committed but not caught by the officials" - I'll call it the "got-away-with-it" theory.

The theory was that committing penalties comes with that behavior and - when all is said and done - it is better to have the penalties because you "got away" with all the non-calls (a net positive).

Just seems like pretzel logic to me. This has now wandered so far away from what we know inherently as a truth, that it sounds like an episode fom The Twilight Zone. :eek:
I just expanded on the variables. You know what I was saying and the point I was making. Penalties are bad. No question. But in the context I gave you, tell me how harmful they were to the Rams in contrast to how harmful they were towards our imaginary opponent.
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
MrMotes adding to the mayhem:
And you're not accounting for when teams get away with a penalty. For every time an Oline is flagged for holding, they get away with a lot of holding. The net effect may well be more yards, more first downs and more points, not less.
If you can successfully under inflate the football your chances of fumbling the ball are going to go down and your turnover ratio will improve and that will improve your chances of winning but we have to assume, when having these type of discussions, that "all things being equal" is in full effect.

First preseason game of the year for the Seahawks in 2014. They lost that game to the Broncos 16-21. They had 13 penalties for 131 yards while the Broncos (another team who gets lots of penalties) had 12 penalties for 95 yards. Do you really think that those extra 36 yards had no effect on the outcome? That had they had zero penalties the extra 131 yards would not have resulted in a different score? Read the pink paragraph especially. I chose the preseason because that's a game where A) they lost and B) they didn't have their best players on the field the whole time (not that it mattered in this game) to recover from those penalties. Anyway there's the example/proof/correlation you wanted.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=400554711
"DENVER -- The 46-minute lightning delay was one thing. The flurry of flags were quite another.

"It just made the game longer," Demaryius Thomas said after Denver's 21-16 preseason win over Seattle on Thursday night. "I guess they're doing what they got to do."

The Super Bowl teams slogged through a preseason opener delayed as much by those 25 flags as by the lightning that struck within an eight-mile perimeter of Sports Authority Field in the first quarter.

With such fits and starts, neither the Broncos nor the Seahawks looked much like the teams the oddsmakers have pegged for a Super Bowl rematch in the Arizona desert six months from now.

"When you have 25 penalties, it's going to be kind of messy," Seahawks coach Pete Carroll said. "That kind of shrouded the game I think from both sides."

In between the weather delay, both starting offenses put together long touchdown drives that ate up more than 9 minutes and were kept alive by a wave of yellow flags.

"It does get frustrating, but you've got to know it's the preseason and they're practicing too," Denver defensive tackle Malik Jackson said of the officials. "The regular season is when it really counts and I think we would be more upset. But right now we understand they've got to work, too."

The flags disrupted the flow of the game from start to finish.

"It was just out of rhythm, a real sloppy, choppy game," Seahawks safetyEarl Thomas said.

"Yeah, I think it is disruptive, but we kind of had a feeling that type of game was coming," Broncos coach John Fox said in reference to the league's renewed emphasis on illegal contact and defensive holding. "We'll look at the plays on tape and any questions we have, as normal, we will send to the league. That is an area we've got to look at and make sure we're adjusting."

Ronnie Hillman's 1-yard TD run capped Denver's 14-play, 61-yard drive in which Peyton Manning completed 9 of 11 passes for 63 yards and the officials threw six flags, including one for offsetting penalties.

"An 18-play drive in the preseason, I've never had anything like that," said Manning, who included the infractions. "I know the coaches are going to be pleased. That's a lot of plays to learn from on the film.

"The only thing I can say is it's good we overcame some things," Manning said. "The flags were out tonight, that was clear. The fact we were able to overcome some penalties and still get a touchdown drive, that's something. I always talk about getting in situations to occur in the preseason that are something you want to be able to overcome in the regular season. You have a penalty, hey it's bad but let's try to find a way to overcome it."

Denver drew a dozen flags, Seattle a baker's dozen.

The step-offs totaled 226 yards.

There was even a flag thrown on the ensuing touchback following Hillman's score when Seahawks cornerback Jeremy Lane was whistled for taunting. Lane also was whistled for a 31-yard pass interference on first-and-35 play in the second half during a moan-inducing sequence in which penalties were called on five consecutive snaps.

After retreating to their locker rooms with 1:30 left in the first quarter, both teams sent their starters back onto the field when play resumed.

The penalties continued, too.

Seattle's 14-play, 90-yard drive that ate up 9:18 was kept alive by four defensive infractions, including a debatable pass interference call on linebacker Danny Trevathan that preceded Christine Michael's 1-yard run against a mix of starters and backups that tied it at 7.

Steven Hauschka's three field goals included a 22-yarder that gave Seattle a 16-14 lead with 11:22 remaining before Brock Osweiler's 34-yard strike to Jordan Norwood decided it.

"That's been my go-to guy all camp," said Osweiler.

Manning finished 10 of 13 for 78 yards with no sacks. Russell Wilson was 4 of 6 for 37 yards for Seattle and was sacked by DeMarcus Ware and T.J. Ford, two thumpers Denver GM John Elway signed in the wake of Seattle's 43-8 thrashing of the Broncos in the Super Bowl.

"When we see them in the regular season (Sept. 21), it's going to be a battle and we're looking forward to it and they're looking forward to it, too," Wilson said."
 
Last edited:

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
I just expanded on the variables. You know what I was saying and the point I was making. Penalties are bad. No question. But in the context I gave you, tell me how harmful they were to the Rams in contrast to how harmful they were towards our imaginary opponent.
I guess the Rams came out ahead? Still not getting the point... the variables seem to make this whole discussion invalid.

There will always be variables... but, if you can't prove them, what good are they?

Again, the variable that was thrown out was about "got-away-with-it" benefits.

My head is starting to hurt.
 

MrMotes

Starter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
954
If you can successfully under inflate the football your chances of fumbling the ball are going to go down and your turnover ratio will improve and that will improve your chances of winning but we have to assume, when having these type of discussions, that "all things being equal" is in full effect.

Except Aaron Rodgers prefers an over inflated ball.

But let me stop you right here.

In the real world, The NFL, there's simply no correlation between penalties and winning. And, as of late, the most penalized teams have been winning the SB.

If your theory can't explain the data, maybe there's something wrong with it?
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
MrMotes picking and choosing his facts:
Except Aaron Rodgers prefers an over inflated ball.


And, as of late, the most penalized teams have been winning the SB.

That's why I was talking about fumbles eh? :LOL:

SB Seahawks vs Cheatriots.
Penalties:
Cheatriots (winners) : penalties 5 for 36 yards. Total penalties during 2014 season = 138
Shehags (losers) - penalties 7 for 70 yards Total penalties during 2014 season = 151

Doesn't that mean the Shehags should have won since they lead the league in penalties and had the most penalties in the game? ;)

Guess who had the third most penalties in 2013? The Rams. :LOL:
See, I can pick and choose which stats I want to use too.

Anyway, good conversation (meaning it involved lots of math). (y)