NFL 2015 Season Week 14 Picks

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/machine/_/factor/powerranking/results/400791683~1~400791571~1~400791513~1

Here's the fairly reasonable scenario that has the Packers and Vikings playing in Lambeau Field for round one of the playoffs. It consists of the Vikings going 2-2 over their last 4 games (losing to the Cardinals and the Packers), and the Packers going 3-1 (losing to the Cardinals). The Packers still technically have a chance to gain the number 2 seed, but that would essentially require them to win out and for the Cardinals to lose one more game (go Vikings?). It's hard to gauge the Packers ability to win 3 our of their final 4 though, and I have little confidence at this point of them going on the road to a place like Arizona and winning, which is what they likely would have to do if they go into the Playoffs and made it out of round 1. They really haven't been playing well since about week 6. Even this week's game against the Cowboys doesn't feel like a slam dunk, Romo or no Romo.

So I was browsing http://www.nflpenalties.com and I came up with a couple of interesting observations. Paying attention to the Packers specifically, I looked at the Automatic First Downs and the Passing Plays views, and I zeroed in on the beneficiary view for both of these. One thing that sticks out is that the Packers beneficiary number for both Automatic First Downs and Passing Plays is up significantly this year compared to last year (AFD: 2014 (25 for the season); 2015 (27 through 12 games)--PP: 2014 (19); 2015 (26)). I wonder if there is a reason for that spike upwards. It's possible that officiating trends might be leading that way, but it looks like defensive pass interference and holding are down this year compared to last year.

I think a more reasonable explanation is related to the way teams are defending the Packers this year. In past years, the signature way to play defense against the Packers was with a 2 deep zone. The receiving corps they had last year and in years past could shred man coverage, so teams used it sparingly. What this resulted in was lots of wide open receivers. This year, teams are tending more and more to playing almost exclusive man coverage, and tight man coverage at that. That means a lot of contact by design. So while teams are able to play the Packers man to man and not get burned by big plays because the receivers can't create the separation needed to take a shot like in years past, those defenders are taking the risk that their play will result in unintended contact that leans towards defensive penalties. This would explain why penalties drawn on pass plays are up, and since passing penalties are pretty much all automatic first downs, this would make sense that those numbers are up as well.

Not exactly a one year aberration though. It's possible there's an explanation, but at the same time the lists do trend in the direction of those who people generally accuse of "getting all the calls" are at the top and the teams you'd think are at the bottom are at the bottom.

http://www.nflpenalties.com/passing-penalties-all-time.php?view=play_for

http://www.nflpenalties.com/automatic-first-downs-all-time.php?view=play_for

As for Jon's game comment, I don't know if I like the proposal to allow penalties to be reviewable. The main issue with that is on any big play you could throw the flag and say "there was holding" and at 3000 frames a second they'd find it. Also, no matter what reviews are mired in having to default to what the live call on the field was. What I would like to see happen is have someone, or someones, up in the booth that are actively officiating the game. No challenges, no running over to the replay booth, just as much as possible getting the play right in the first place. Someone who can say "no, that wasn't a facemask, pick the flag up". Someone who can signal their own flag when they see a blatant hold. Someone who can say "hold up a second and let us look at this up here". People who can call the illegal bat after the fact, put time back on the clock, etc.

I don't think it would be perfect. There's still subjectivity involved, what is a catch or not is still hard to pin down (although I think people are really disingenuous with the "They don't even know what a catch is!!"as the implication is that there exists any kind of "simple" definition to cover all the things that are or aren't a catch, and one which people would want.)

Feels like it would be a hell of a lot better though.

It's also interesting that the teams at the top of the all time lists are also teams that have had the most prolific passing games over the time period involved as well. I imagine having an explosive passing game is large contributor to accumulating higher amounts of penalties on passing plays and automatic first down plays. The only team that is surprisingly on the low end of the passing penalties all time list are the Saints. Are these teams good and have good passing games because they draw a lot of penalties? Or do they draw a lot of penalties because of the way teams are required to play defense against them.

Even still, if my analysis is accurate about the man coverage is in the ballpark, it would make sense. In 2011, the Packers were high on the beneficiary list for passing penalties. As that year progressed (and in subsequent years), defenses slowly transitioned to more 2 deep zone defense against the Packers. And in 2012 through 2014 their penalties numbers trended down. In 2013 and 2014 they were right in the middle of the pack both years. Then, in 2015, we see a significant strategy shift by defenses and the passing penalty numbers go up again.

I'm sure there are 1000 explanations for why these numbers are what they are. I think mine might hold some water.

I generally agree with Jeremy here. I'm hesitant to start having reviews for penalties, although I could see some cases where it might work. Some people suggest that pass interference should be reviewable because of how much of an impact it has since it is a spot foul. But I could see this being a problem of what constitutes pass interference in real time vs super slow motion. In some ways, making this penalty a 15 yarder instead of a spot foul could make it better in that regard.

I also don't think having an official up in the booth is that crazy of an idea either. If offensive holding isn't called because an on field official didn't see it (and not because of carelessness necessarily), why couldn't an official upstairs be able to make that call. If officials on the field are going to meet after a play to discuss what everyone thinks they did or didn't see anyway, why not add one more official who might have a better view overall and ask him if he saw what the others saw or didn't see? And really, I don't think it would slow the game down at all. If coaches can have a headset and get a playcall in from the booth, why can't an official?

I do think reviews for penalties might be an upgrade, I just think the better way would overall would be just to look to replace the whole concept of reviewing.

Just all around stop officiating this game like it's 1954. Measure to the millimeter using a stick and chains they think they have fairly perpendicular to the yard lines on the spot of a ball that is the culmination of 15 rough guesses on where to put it.

One of the things that frustrates me about all sports is that there are so many times where everyone at home knows something happened but the officials don't. (It usually happens that we know right away, or soon after via replay, the announcers realize it later, but do generally realize it, and the officials never know, and are prevented from knowing by some rule or lack of process in place to get things right.

It's because in a lot of ways the refs are in the worst positions to see what is going on. Which is why we need active, not review/check with me if you have issues/etc refs on high.