Analytics have had a presence in the game of football for quite some time now. While some see the positives in analytics aiding some decisions made by NFL teams, former Denver Broncos offensive lineman and current Fox NFL color analyst Mark Schlereth sees it as total nonsense.<\/p>\n
During an appearance on Dan Dakich\u2019s podcast, Don\u2019t @ Me with Dan Dakich, Schlereth aired his grievances with analytics, sharing several examples of why analytics analysts don\u2019t understand the NFL\u2019s inner workings and how teams operate, making them incredibly flawed.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe analytics people become gospel,\u201d said Schlereth<\/a>. \u201cYou can take those numbers and make them say whatever you want. And the average fan thinks that becomes gospel. They don\u2019t understand how the game works. So, this is a way that you can basically go, \u2018Okay, let me put my thumbprint on this.\u2019 You know, the air-yards per target, or whatever bullsh*t they are feeding you as an analytics, number-crunching nerd.<\/p>\n One example in particular shared by Schlereth was the argument that teams should go for two-point conversions every time they score a touchdown. The only problem with this, according to Schlereth, is that teams simply don\u2019t script enough two-point conversion plays for that to be viable.<\/p>\n \u201cI got into an argument with a guy who was extolling the virtues of going for two points every time. Get up and line up and run a two-point play. You have heard these nerds talk about this. And so, I asked the guy, \u2018How many two-point plays do you think we go into any given game plan with?\u2019 We go in with two any given week. One we like, and one we kind of like. We\u2019ll practice one of them. It\u2019ll be one rep of that particular play against a scout team defense. And we\u2019ll do it on Friday when we don\u2019t have pads on.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat do you think the confidence level in a freaking coach is in the NFL that we\u2019re gonna go for two points every time? When we only have one play we like. The rest of the stuff, we have to run out of base formations or nickel formations, in a condensed football field where you don\u2019t have an over-the-top play to separate defenders. You guys are freaking morons. You have no idea how the game works, you have no idea what we talk about. You have no idea how we practice. You have no idea the number of plays we have in. Or how we have run those plays, or what we are trying to exploit.\u201d<\/p>\n Another example thrown out by Schlereth is the concept of using data to determine which side teams should call run plays most of the time. Schlereth noted that when a team has a player like Aaron Donald on the defensive side, the advantage of having a stronger run defense becomes a disadvantage.<\/p>\n \u201cOne of them I get is, \u2018Hey man, you average almost a yard per carry more to the left than you do to the right. So you should run it 65 percent of the time to the left and only 35 percent of the time to the right.\u2019 Yeah, well, Aaron Donald lines up on the left,\u201d said Schlereth. \u201cSo up your *ss, we\u2019re not running over there because that guy is gonna destroy us. The analytics don\u2019t mean anything in football. It\u2019s just a bunch of fluff to make us feel important. Like, we as \u201canalytics analysts\u201d really know what we are talking about.\u201d<\/p>\n Ultimately, there are very few who will argue with Schlereth that analytics are all that matters. But to completely write them off seems foolish.<\/p>\n