NFL (2024 Season)

[tmoore952]

Continuing the Lamar Jackson conversation --

He is currently going down the road of John Elway and Donovan McNabb (the latter coached by Andy Reid) who couldn't win the big one.
Elway eventually did of course, but not until he was 37 yo. And Reid also did, in another town ("sigh" from me).

[Big John]

https://www.chiefs.com/news/remembering-joe-montana-and-the-kansas-city-chiefs-1993-season-14616866
The last time the 49ers fans paid attention to the Chiefs was when Joe Montana was sent there before he retired from the NFL.

I see LIV as a really good golf score of -18.
Uh ,,,, Super Bowl LIV (54)???

Aside - am I the only one who sees "LIV" and (now) thinks of golf?

[jgb191]

Why couldn't the Ravens have played like that last weekend instead of waiting until Yesterday to have a off-day.

So, you would have rather seen them lose in the Divisional round instead?

As a Texans fan, I wanted to see my team win their first Divisional game against whomever that may be, even if it was to be against the Ravens.  As mentioned earlier on here a few times, the Texans still remain the only team in NFL history that has never been to a Conference Championship game.  Even Lions had won a number of divisional games.

[JayhawkCO]

I only gave the 4th down conversion rate as a simplistic stat to explain my point. If you look at any of the "fourth down bots" out there, they consider score, time remaining, down and distance timeouts remaining, etc. in calculating whether to go for it or not. All three of their 4th downs increased their winning by two percentage points or greater according to the one I looked at.

Another reason I am suspect that the decision bots are taking enough context into account: the 4th down right before halftime. One big advantage of going for it in goal to go scenarios is that if you fail, the opponent is pinned deep in their own territory. That's irrelevant with just seven seconds left in the half, as I'm sure Campbell knew or had someone on staff that knew. If that was factored in properly, the bot wouldn't have recommended "go for it" as strongly.

I think you're actually proving my point. You are correct that that's why the bots are more eager in the opponent's end -- because there's less chance of it "coming back to bite you". In this case, since it was the end of the half and if you miss, your opponent is almost certainly just taking a knee and going to halftime, there's basically zero risk of the opponent getting a positive benefit of field position. With this situation, you CAN literally boil it down to "how likely are you to score a touchdown" vs. "how likely are you to make the field goal".

If the TD is a 50/50 proposition, then you get an expected value of ~3.5 points if you go for it, vs. ~3 points if you kick the field goal -- a clear rationale to go for it.

In any other business, seemingly other than sports, if you could gain a 2% edge on your competition, you'd be fired as a CEO if you didn't take advantage of it.

It's never exactly a 2% edge though - it's either more than 2% if you convert, or less than 2% - sometimes a negative percentage - if you fail. That's why you have to consider all of the four numbers on the far right of each fourth down bot decision graph - and some of those "Win % if fail" numbers are probably too high for the real life scenarios.

I don't think you're considering all four numbers to be fair. Those are the numbers that are creating the numbers on the left. If failing drops you 2% of your chance to win but success gains you 4% to win, and the chance is somewhere remotely near 50%, that means you're gaining 2% of expected value.  Expected value (not to sound like I'm mansplaining, but in case you're not familiar with the term) is the probability of success times reward of success minute the probability of failure times the penalty of failure. If you're 99% to win something, but the gains are minimal and the cost is astronomical if you fail, yeah, it might make sense not to do something. But there are no decisions in football that are that drastic.

If I paid you $51 every time you guessed the toss of a coin against me, and you owed me $49 when you got it wrong, you'd want to play forever, since you have an EV of +$2. That's the same thing the Lions were giving up if they didn't go for it. Yeah, over the short term, you might lose money if you don't have an unlimited bankroll, but if you play forever you WILL win. Yeah, small sample size got to the Lions, too. But if they make the same decisions forever, they WILL win.

[Henry]

I'm sure everyone wanted a Ravens-Lions Super Bowl, but the NFL doesn't work that way. So what we get is a rematch of a title contest from four years ago. and once again, it guarantees that Joe Montana's team will win. As it stands, Mahomes will most likely get another championship ring and become the new Tom Brady. Well, maybe not, but he's still young, and has lots of years left in him. OTOH, a 49ers win will place them in a three-way tie with the Patriots and Steelers for most Super Bowl wins of all-time. So we'll see what happens two Sundays from now.

[webny99]

Another reason I am suspect that the decision bots are taking enough context into account: the 4th down right before halftime. One big advantage of going for it in goal to go scenarios is that if you fail, the opponent is pinned deep in their own territory. That's irrelevant with just seven seconds left in the half, as I'm sure Campbell knew or had someone on staff that knew. If that was factored in properly, the bot wouldn't have recommended "go for it" as strongly.

I think you're actually proving my point. You are correct that that's why the bots are more eager in the opponent's end -- because there's less chance of it "coming back to bite you". In this case, since it was the end of the half and if you miss, your opponent is almost certainly just taking a knee and going to halftime, there's basically zero risk of the opponent getting a positive benefit of field position. With this situation, you CAN literally boil it down to "how likely are you to score a touchdown" vs. "how likely are you to make the field goal".

If the TD is a 50/50 proposition, then you get an expected value of ~3.5 points if you go for it, vs. ~3 points if you kick the field goal -- a clear rationale to go for it.

The field position here is always a negative for the opponent because you have them pinned deep, but in this case, field position doesn't matter because there's no time left. Hence the incentive to go for isn't as strong as it would be earlier in the half when they would have to drive 90+ yards to score instead of 75 with a field goal. Also if my research is correct, odds of a TD on 4th and 3 are a bit less than 50/50, so it's basically a coin flip, so you might as well take the sure thing and ensure a three score lead heading into the half since a TD wouldn't get you more than that anyways, and I am sure Campbell and staff factored that in.

To throw another wrench in the works, here's a relevant article from good old FiveThirtyEight on two-point conversions that I point out because it has some really interesting tables on the relative value of specific points based on how much you're leading or trailing. Not all three points are created equal - in the case above, the three points between a 14 pt lead and a 17 pt lead are more valuable than the four points between a 17 pt lead and a 21 pt lead because the 17th point - which you'd have with either a TD or FG - changes how many possessions you're leading by, which is hugely important: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

If I paid you $51 every time you guessed the toss of a coin against me, and you owed me $49 when you got it wrong, you'd want to play forever, since you have an EV of +$2. That's the same thing the Lions were giving up if they didn't go for it. Yeah, over the short term, you might lose money if you don't have an unlimited bankroll, but if you play forever you WILL win. Yeah, small sample size got to the Lions, too. But if they make the same decisions forever, they WILL win.

I understand that perfectly, but real life game scenarios aren't on continuous replay where the odds will eventually roll around. There's only so many fourth downs in a game, and each fourth down decision has to be made within its own specific context. If you have a big lead in the title game, a risk averse strategy gets you to the Super Bowl. It's OK to intentionally do the safer thing with the lower EV there and recognize that it's a part of an overall strategy to win the game.

And then there's also a conversation to be had about the quality of opponent and the fact that the historical conversion rate factors in the regular season so it's is almost certainly too high when compared to the playoff-caliber defense being faced, and the fact that defenses adjust and respond to offenses going for it more so that conversion rate will drop over time, etc.

[webny99]

*We need a way to measure this. Most impressive this century are probably Bengals, Lions, Bills? I can't think of any other single regime changes that took a team that was either moribund or mired in decades of mediocrity to a conference championship or beyond.

Yeah this is literally my point though, the Lions turnaround was not due that single regime change at all, and for that matter neither were the Bills or Bengals or any other team ever. In all those cases, the team became good because first and by far foremost, they found a way to put good players on the field.

Yeah, in the Bills and Lions case, putting good players on the field was literally due to the regime change. It's not so clear cut with the Bengals since Tobin has been there for decades, but their turnaround was made easy by having the #1 overall pick in a draft with a great QB and a top 5 pick in a draft with a great #1 receiver.

You're incorrectly using "mediocrity", because "decades of mediocrity" should mean one Super Bowl on average and a handful of trips to the conference championship game in that timeframe. What the Lions have been going through is decades of being god awful, and it's really just them, the Browns, and maybe the Jets in that category.

What? Multiple conference championship appearances? A Super Bowl? 37.5% of the league has never won a Super Bowl, much less won one while being mediocre. Mediocre teams rarely make the playoffs or win playoff games, much less sniff the Super Bowl - especially in the 12 team playoff era (which is relevant since we're talking decades). The Giants are literally the only one of 32 NFL franchises that fit the description of being largely mediocre for decades but also winning one or more Super Bowls.

I'm talking teams like the Bengals pre-Burrow, the Bills this century until Beane/McDermott, the Commanders, Dolphins, Vikings of the past few decades, the Chargers franchise for basically its entire existence, the Broncos since Peyton Manning left.. I could go on but you get the idea.

[webny99]

https://www.chiefs.com/news/remembering-joe-montana-and-the-kansas-city-chiefs-1993-season-14616866
The last time the 49ers fans paid attention to the Chiefs was when Joe Montana was sent there before he retired from the NFL.

Uh ,,,, Super Bowl LIV (54)???

Aside - am I the only one who sees "LIV" and (now) thinks of golf?

Probably not, but I was also thinking that the 49ers were definitely paying attention to the Chiefs during the SB four years ago, and probably also after Alex Smith was traded there.

Continuing the Lamar Jackson conversation --

He is currently going down the road of John Elway and Donovan McNabb (the latter coached by Andy Reid) who couldn't win the big one.
Elway eventually did of course, but not until he was 37 yo. And Reid also did, in another town ("sigh" from me).

There are a lot of great young QB's in the AFC. None of them have won a SB since Mahomes was drafted. Burrow is the only one to even appear in the SB and the only one to beat Mahomes in the playoffs. The Chiefs are well on their way to becoming a dynasty and not to sound pouty, but it is no fun for anyone stuck in their conference. The Bills have known it for a while now but I think more people are seeing it with the Chiefs finding a way to yet another SB. That Bengals run in the 2021 postseason may go down in infamy as a lost opportunity as the only time anyone other than Brady has beat Mahomes in the playoffs.

[JayhawkCO]

Another reason I am suspect that the decision bots are taking enough context into account: the 4th down right before halftime. One big advantage of going for it in goal to go scenarios is that if you fail, the opponent is pinned deep in their own territory. That's irrelevant with just seven seconds left in the half, as I'm sure Campbell knew or had someone on staff that knew. If that was factored in properly, the bot wouldn't have recommended "go for it" as strongly.

I think you're actually proving my point. You are correct that that's why the bots are more eager in the opponent's end -- because there's less chance of it "coming back to bite you". In this case, since it was the end of the half and if you miss, your opponent is almost certainly just taking a knee and going to halftime, there's basically zero risk of the opponent getting a positive benefit of field position. With this situation, you CAN literally boil it down to "how likely are you to score a touchdown" vs. "how likely are you to make the field goal".

If the TD is a 50/50 proposition, then you get an expected value of ~3.5 points if you go for it, vs. ~3 points if you kick the field goal -- a clear rationale to go for it.

The field position here is always a negative for the opponent because you have them pinned deep, but in this case, field position doesn't matter because there's no time left. Hence the incentive to go for isn't as strong as it would be earlier in the half when they would have to drive 90+ yards to score instead of 75 with a field goal. Also if my research is correct, odds of a TD on 4th and 3 are a bit less than 50/50, so it's basically a coin flip, so you might as well take the sure thing and ensure a three score lead heading into the half since a TD wouldn't get you more than that anyways, and I am sure Campbell and staff factored that in.

To throw another wrench in the works, here's a relevant article from good old FiveThirtyEight on two-point conversions that I point out because it has some really interesting tables on the relative value of specific points based on how much you're leading or trailing. Not all three points are created equal - in the case above, the three points between a 14 pt lead and a 17 pt lead are more valuable than the four points between a 17 pt lead and a 21 pt lead because the 17th point - which you'd have with either a TD or FG - changes how many possessions you're leading by, which is hugely important: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

Shockingly, I disagree with your premise. If you go for it on 4th and 3 on the 10 yard line with 5:00 left, let's say there's a 20% chance (making that up) that if you miss, they can drive and score. If you do the same thing with 0:07 left, there's essentially a 0% chance of scoring. So you go from allowing an expected point value of say, 1 point (20% chance times 5 points (the average of a FG and a TD+XP)) vs. an expected value of 0 points, if you do the same thing with only 0:07 left. It makes it MORE imperative you go for it because there's less risk.

And I fully understand that some three points are better than others. Making it a three possession game is, indeed, important. But so is making it a 21 point game vs. a 17 point game, since, while they both require three possessions to tie or go ahead, the latter makes it have to be three TDs vs. allowing for a FG to matter.

If I paid you $51 every time you guessed the toss of a coin against me, and you owed me $49 when you got it wrong, you'd want to play forever, since you have an EV of +$2. That's the same thing the Lions were giving up if they didn't go for it. Yeah, over the short term, you might lose money if you don't have an unlimited bankroll, but if you play forever you WILL win. Yeah, small sample size got to the Lions, too. But if they make the same decisions forever, they WILL win.

I understand that perfectly, but real life game scenarios aren't on continuous replay where the odds will eventually roll around. There's only so many fourth downs in a game, and each fourth down decision has to be made within its own specific context. If you have a big lead in the title game, a risk averse strategy gets you to the Super Bowl. It's OK to intentionally do the safer thing with the lower EV there and recognize that it's a part of an overall strategy to win the game.

And then there's also a conversation to be had about the quality of opponent and the fact that the historical conversion rate factors in the regular season so it's is almost certainly too high when compared to the playoff-caliber defense being faced, and the fact that defenses adjust and respond to offenses going for it more so that conversion rate will drop over time, etc.

Smaller sample sizes don't change the optimal play. To return to my poker example, just because you get AA less often than you get KQo doesn't mean that you should play it differently if someone pushes all-in in front of you heads up.

Being risk averse, if you're taking a sub-optimal approach, is not going to get you to the Super Bowl. You're looking at just this one game. I don't have one off the top of my head, but I bet I can find more examples of coaches being risk averse and losing than I can find examples of coaches being optimally aggressive and losing.

For the last portion of your statement, the fact that SF has a playoff caliber defense doesn't negate the fact that Detroit has a playoff caliber offense; you can't make that argument and just casually ignore one side of the equation.



Anyway, my original point stands. Detroit running the ball on 3rd down was a criminal coaching call, and even if you're going to run it, they would have been better served to then immediately get up to the line and run a 4th down play. Using a time out in any circumstance was akin to handing the win to SF given the success rate of onside kicks with the new rule. Oh, and momentum doesn't exist.

[webny99]

Shockingly, I disagree with your premise. If you go for it on 4th and 3 on the 10 yard line with 5:00 left, let's say there's a 20% chance (making that up) that if you miss, they can drive and score. If you do the same thing with 0:07 left, there's essentially a 0% chance of scoring. So you go from allowing an expected point value of say, 1 point (20% chance times 5 points (the average of a FG and a TD+XP)) vs. an expected value of 0 points, if you do the same thing with only 0:07 left. It makes it MORE imperative you go for it because there's less risk.

OK, but the expected value lost from a turnover on downs is already very minimal near the end zone. That's why it typically makes more sense to go for it closer to the end zone you are. But in this case, part of the advantage of going for it is nullified by them not getting the ball back. There's not less risk because you're already in a nearly optimal situation risk wise - which would be to pin them at the 1 yard line - but that doesn't matter with no time left.

Being risk averse, if you're taking a sub-optimal approach, is not going to get you to the Super Bowl. You're looking at just this one game. I don't have one off the top of my head, but I bet I can find more examples of coaches being risk averse and losing than I can find examples of coaches being optimally aggressive and losing.

That first statement is true when the clock is at 15:00 in the first quarter, but it's not true when you have a 14-point lead deep into the third quarter. You're not looking at a single play anymore - you're looking at a 90% win probability and basically tickets punched to the Super Bowl unless you blow the game. The way not to blow the game is to look beyond the odds of conversion on that one particular play and recognize that a three-score lead is extremely valuable - much more valuable than a two-score lead, and almost certainly more valuable than the expected value added by going for what is basically a toss-up against a good defense, especially when a failure gives the ball to the best offense in the league with the chance to instantly make it a one-score game.

Oh, and momentum doesn't exist.

We can agree to disagree on that. The way I see it, the perception of momentum undeniably exists, and the perception that it exists determines a reality in which it exists. So it's not necessarily quantifiable but I believe it's hard/impossible to argue that it does not exist as a concept.

[JayhawkCO]

Shockingly, I disagree with your premise. If you go for it on 4th and 3 on the 10 yard line with 5:00 left, let's say there's a 20% chance (making that up) that if you miss, they can drive and score. If you do the same thing with 0:07 left, there's essentially a 0% chance of scoring. So you go from allowing an expected point value of say, 1 point (20% chance times 5 points (the average of a FG and a TD+XP)) vs. an expected value of 0 points, if you do the same thing with only 0:07 left. It makes it MORE imperative you go for it because there's less risk.

OK, but the expected value lost from a turnover on downs is already very minimal near the end zone. That's why it typically makes more sense to go for it closer to the end zone you are. But in this case, part of the advantage of going for it is nullified by them not getting the ball back. There's not less risk because you're already in a nearly optimal situation risk wise - which would be to pin them at the 1 yard line - but that doesn't matter with no time left.

This is from 2013, but I doubt the numbers are tooooo different. Looks like starting on your own one yard line still results in points about 15% of the time. So I would argue that is a substantial difference from having no time on the clock and having a ~0% chance.

Being risk averse, if you're taking a sub-optimal approach, is not going to get you to the Super Bowl. You're looking at just this one game. I don't have one off the top of my head, but I bet I can find more examples of coaches being risk averse and losing than I can find examples of coaches being optimally aggressive and losing.

That first statement is true when the clock is at 15:00 in the first quarter, but it's not true when you have a 14-point lead deep into the third quarter. You're not looking at a single play anymore - you're looking at a 90% win probability and basically tickets punched to the Super Bowl unless you blow the game. The way not to blow the game is to look beyond the odds of conversion on that one particular play and recognize that a three-score lead is extremely valuable - much more valuable than a two-score lead, and almost certainly more valuable than the expected value added by going for what is basically a toss-up against a good defense, especially when a failure gives the ball to the best offense in the league with the chance to instantly make it a one-score game.

I would argue that you can also blow it by all of a sudden turning into a chicken and making suboptimal decisions. We don't need to beat this dead horse, but I'd much rather do everything I can to play to win rather than play not to lose. Obviously you have to have risk in mind when you make your decisions, but that risk is calculable.

Oh, and momentum doesn't exist.

We can agree to disagree on that. The way I see it, the perception of momentum undeniably exists, and the perception that it exists determines a reality in which it exists. So it's not necessarily quantifiable but I believe it's hard/impossible to argue that it does not exist as a concept.

Just to clarify. If you flip a coin and call it correctly six times in a row, do you think you have momentum?

[hotdogPi]

Momentum, if it exists, is psychological, so the comparison to a coin flip doesn't quite work. The team might be excited for winning a whole bunch or upset for losing a bunch in a row.

----

Playing once and playing a whole bunch of times (referring to expected value, not iterated game theory) are mathematically equivalent. You should do the same in both situations.

[JayhawkCO]

Momentum, if it exists, is psychological, so the comparison to a coin flip doesn't quite work. The team might be excited for winning a whole bunch or upset for losing a bunch in a row.

----

Playing once and playing a whole bunch of times are mathematically equivalent. You should do the same in both situations.

I have no doubt teams are excited or upset. I just don't think that affects performance statistically significantly.

And to your second point, yes. You follow the math either way, no matter if it's in the 1st quarter of Week 1 or the 4th quarter of the NFC Championship game.

[bing101]

Let's bring this 49ers song back to life this Super Bowl!

[webny99]

And to your second point, yes. You follow the math either way, no matter if it's in the 1st quarter of Week 1 or the 4th quarter of the NFC Championship game.

My final point on this will be to echo a take from Kyle Brandt on 10 Takes... making it all about the math is reductive to the entire concept of coaching. You're not doing your job as coach if you're only looking at numbers to inform your decision and don't have a good sense for the game script and what makes logical sense in the moment. Not saying that about Campbell at all - after all, he took the FG to end the half, and is getting plenty of criticism for that too! Just that there's a whole bunch of factors that go into those decisions and it's both unrealistic and unfair to the coach to reduce it to math only and always.

[JayhawkCO]

And my last point as well. There are a whole bunch of factors that go into every chess move too. That doesn't mean that it's incalculable to come up with the best strategy given a particular game state.

Ok. Onto bitching about Taylor Swift and other things...

[bing101]

https://www.nbcsportsbayarea.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/standing-ovation-chase-center-warriors/1697534/

49ers stars appear at the Golden State Warriors game on the sidelines.

[triplemultiplex]

The Chiefs are well on their way to becoming a dynasty and not to sound pouty, but it is no fun for anyone stuck in their conference. The Bills have known it for a while now but I think more people are seeing it with the Chiefs finding a way to yet another SB.

Josh Allen is Payton Manning to Patrick Mahomes' Tom Brady.

[webny99]

The Chiefs are well on their way to becoming a dynasty and not to sound pouty, but it is no fun for anyone stuck in their conference. The Bills have known it for a while now but I think more people are seeing it with the Chiefs finding a way to yet another SB.

Josh Allen is Payton Manning to Patrick Mahomes' Tom Brady.

All of western NY would sign up for that in a heartbeat, the real fear is that he is Philip Rivers.

And I hate to say it but there is a tiny bit of solace in the fact that, while the Bills have not beaten the Chiefs, at least Allen played well against them both this year and in 2021. The same could not be said of the presumptive league MVP Lamar Jackson, who is viewed as the same "tier" of QB as Allen but has ultimately had even less postseason success with just a 2-4 record (while not playing at an MVP level in any of the four losses), while Allen is 5-5 (while playing great in two of the losses).

[Max Rockatansky]

Josh Allen has been by far more successful than Phillip Rivers.  At the very least the Bills have been far more consistently good than the Chargers ever were.

[NWI_Irish96]

Josh Allen has been by far more successful than Phillip Rivers.  At the very least the Bills have been far more consistently good than the Chargers ever were.

The biggest difference between the Chiefs and Bills is definitely not Mahomes vs Allen. Mahomes has the perfect coach and perfect scheme for him.

[webny99]

Josh Allen has been by far more successful than Phillip Rivers.  At the very least the Bills have been far more consistently good than the Chargers ever were.

The biggest difference between the Chiefs and Bills is definitely not Mahomes vs Allen. Mahomes has the perfect coach and perfect scheme for him.

I would have said both QB's are pretty much scheme-proof. To me the biggest difference, at least in the playoffs, is that the Chiefs defense makes big plays and the Bills defense does not.

[thspfc]

Josh Allen has been by far more successful than Phillip Rivers.  At the very least the Bills have been far more consistently good than the Chargers ever were.

The biggest difference between the Chiefs and Bills is definitely not Mahomes vs Allen. Mahomes has the perfect coach and perfect scheme for him.

I would have said both QB's are pretty much scheme-proof. To me the biggest difference, at least in the playoffs, is that the Chiefs defense makes big plays and the Bills defense does not.

And the Chiefs offense is never coming away with 0 points on the drive where the Bills missed the FG. Either they're scoring a TD or Butker is making the kick.

[webny99]

Josh Allen has been by far more successful than Phillip Rivers.  At the very least the Bills have been far more consistently good than the Chargers ever were.

The biggest difference between the Chiefs and Bills is definitely not Mahomes vs Allen. Mahomes has the perfect coach and perfect scheme for him.

I would have said both QB's are pretty much scheme-proof. To me the biggest difference, at least in the playoffs, is that the Chiefs defense makes big plays and the Bills defense does not.

And the Chiefs offense is never coming away with 0 points on the drive where the Bills missed the FG. Either they're scoring a TD or Butker is making the kick.

Well, that's kind of what I mean. Allen had a sure touchdown to Shakir on that drive, but Chris Jones made a great play to create the pressure that forced the throw to be just a bit off.

[jgb191]

On this day January 31st:

2021:  Deshaun Watson publicly declared he would no longer play for the Texans again further deflating a fanbase that had been morally devastated early in 2020 losing at Arrowhead in another divisional loss after racing out to a 24-point lead (lost by twenty points final margin), and inexplicably handing over our best player at the time DeAndre Hopkins for almost nothing only about a month later.  Despite signing what was the second richest contract in NFL history in September, Deshaun demanded to leave Houston in January (only four months into his new four-year deal) culminating in coaching change from Bill O'Brien to David Culley (Romeo Crennel was briefly the interim coach in between).

::Exactly two years later::

2023:  Texans hired DeMeco Ryans re-galvanizing our fanbase to excitement levels not seen in over a decade when the Texans first made the playoffs, and probably even excitement levels when the Texans NFL debut in 2002.  It was a mutual agreement as both DeMeco wanted to return to Houston and the Texans wanted him back in the organization.  He has recieved a tremendous outpouring of support almost immediately upon his return; us Texans fans loved him when he was our linebacker.  Even I was greatly overjoyed when I heard of the hiring:

YES!!  We got him....again!   

https://www.nfl.com/news/texans-hire-49ers-dc-demeco-ryans-as-their-next-head-coach

Welcome back home to Houston DeMeco Ryans!  Hopefully this will re-energize the team.  As a linebacker playing for my Texans, he was the leader, the team captain, the heart/soul of the roster. 

Happy one-year anniversary....plus many, many more to come.