Baltimore's New Defense.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    "Scoring Ds"?  NE's D has led the AFC 3 straight years in turnovers created. That means Brady gets far more drives than most QBs in this league.

    Your lover has to be better in the postseason, especially AFC title games. His last 2 at home yielded a total of FIVE Ints.

     




    Sorry but your previous post stated that regular season stats mean nothing so what is your point in the above? How many turnovers has the NE defense forced in the playoffs in those 3 years? Brady isn't the only one that needs to play better in the postseason.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    "Scoring Ds"?  NE's D has led the AFC 3 straight years in turnovers created. That means Brady gets far more drives than most QBs in this league.

    Your lover has to be better in the postseason, especially AFC title games. His last 2 at home yielded a total of FIVE Ints.

     

     




    Sorry but your previous post stated that regular season stats mean nothing so what is your point in the above? How many turnovers has the NE defense forced in the playoffs in those 3 years? Brady isn't the only one that needs to play better in the postseason.

     

     



    Umm, BB decided to rebuild this D starting in 2009 when he jettisoned Vrabel and Seymour.

     

    So, to be fair, scrap 2009 (for both sides, Welker got hurt, not good, etc).

    In 2010, BB's D started 4 rookies.  Maybe if they weren't on the field so much after turnovers, it may have been different?

    Last year, they picked Flacco and it should have iced the game. 

    Say what you want, but Brady has 6 TDs and 7 INTs, career in AFC title games.  You cannot dispute what exists.    Also, are yu disputing it's a QB/offensive era?

    17 offensive candidates were just interviewed for jobs. For defensive types?  6.

    Do the math. Lovie Smith may need to be out of football for a year because no one wants a defensive minded coach.

    Be happy we have the best GM and head coach in the league.  Bashing BB for transitioning the way he did in 2009, into 2010, to build this thing on D is dumb.  To act like it affected how Brady throws a ball, runs an offense, or executes with a loaded offense when he's on the field, is also dumb.

    Every NFL fan outside of NE is DROOLING over what Brady has year in and year out on offense. 

    We lose Gronk and it may not matter. That's how loaded this offense is.  The only guy we're waiting on to be better in an AFC title game is #12.

    Deal with it. Even if I give him passes in the 2006 AFC title game due to some personnel weaknesses, that offense and he still folded in that second half. Their only TD came off of an Ellis Hobb's 80 yard kick off return.

    2004 was his last AFC title game where he was Brady. That is EIGHT years ago!

    Jesus. He can erase all of that on Sunday night. 




    Nice try at spinning, but it's nothing but a spin.

    Ne's D has sucked since 2005. 2007's was only relevant because the O was so dominating, they rarely took the field and when they did, the other team always had the disadvantage of playing from behind. The Pats are notorious for playing with a lead which aids them defensively.  The problem surfaces, when they don't have a huge lead. 

    Then, the true colors come out.  Compound that problem with the fact that, no matter what the O scores, they can give up more points to the opposition.

    It does not matter if your O scores 17 or 34, if your D allows one more point than that.

    We all have seen that happen in 95% of the losses.

    TB, is a great QB, no doubt, he can beat both good and bad defenses, but the equalizer is always how good his own D plays.  He makes it easier on them by having a lead, but when that is not in the cards, (it never will be 100% of the time), they fail,  Not only do they fail, they make it harder on him to suceed.  ( 8 possession games are a perfect example of this), which is a double whammy.

    In the SB, not only did they give up more points but they gave up more time.

    Way more time! 

    DOUBLE whammy, deluxe!

    Oh, and no one is drooling over NE's offensive weapons.  Sure they have a lot of talent (mainly 3 guys) but you have to also look at the unit collectively.   There are more mediocre or even poor, play makers than there are talented ones.

    On a scale, I would say the Ravens, have more and so did the Jints. 

    Didn't see any one drooling over Ocho or Underwood or any of the vast majority of recievers that the Pats employed throught their 12 years of dominance.  Branch was probably the loan exception.  

    How'd that turn out?  He couldn't do squat, without TB.

    Do you think (and i'm not trying to take away from Gronks talent) that Gronk would have been the TD leader if he had Sanchez throwing to him?  How about Welker and his stats?

    Would they be the same?  Doubtful!

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    There seems to be this notion among some posters that the D played well enough to win and the O did not.  I do not think either unit did.

    As for your claim about BB talking about points he is by definition talking about points per drive.

    In any event I think we can all agree that both sides of the ball are playing better football this year than last year and that we all want the Pats to bring home another Lombardi.  So on that note.  Go PATS.



    No I'm pretty sure Belichick meant exactly what he said.  He doesn't care what the number of drives are, how long they lasted or what their average is for the season was, the very notion that he would care or even pay attention to these arbitrary, meaningless stats is ludicrous.  I agree he wants his offense to perform in the clutch and that's why he brought McDaniels/tightends/fullbacks/runningbacks back into the fold.  The NFL is a results based business, stats are for losers.

    And yes there is a notion that the defense played well enough to win, certainly it's a team game and you win and lose as a team but if the offense could have sustained ONE drive in the 4th quarter the game would be over. Don't tell me it was the defense's fault when they held the Giants to more punts than the we held them to, including one after a safety and after having forced them to punt when Brady threw that disaster of an INT to start the 4th. The offense hung the defense out to dry.

    Have our expectations dropped so low? This offense used to march down the field with a minute left and ice Super Bowl games, now they can't score at all in 4 possessions in the 4th quarter and you blame the defense.  Just dumb.

    The one thing we can agree on is that this offense and defense are playing better, but if we had the same defense we have now and last years offense we would still lose either the AFC title game or the Super Bowl, that we can run the clock out now because of a power run game and score more points thanks to play action makes this year's offense substantially better than anything we've seen since 2007.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    "Scoring Ds"?  NE's D has led the AFC 3 straight years in turnovers created. That means Brady gets far more drives than most QBs in this league.

    Your lover has to be better in the postseason, especially AFC title games. His last 2 at home yielded a total of FIVE Ints.

     

     




    Sorry but your previous post stated that regular season stats mean nothing so what is your point in the above? How many turnovers has the NE defense forced in the playoffs in those 3 years? Brady isn't the only one that needs to play better in the postseason.

     




    Yup, Only is Rusty's world do QB, hits, Dropped Passes, poor defensive play....ect, ect, ect, NOT matter.

    It's all on the QB who better not throw a pick or more than 40 passes.

    There ya go folks.

    FootBall for Dummies, volume I.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:



    No I'm pretty sure Belichick meant exactly what he said.  He doesn't care what the number of drives are, how long they lasted or what their average is for the season was, the very notion that he would care or even pay attention to these arbitrary, meaningless stats is ludicrous.  



    Do you think it is possible to score a lot of points without scoring a lot of points per drive?  The top 5 scoring teams in the NFL this year were NE, DEN, NO, WASH and GB.  They ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th in points per drive this year.  You can't say points matter and say points per drive do not.  They are highly correlated.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Yeah NE's defense has not sucked since 2005.  Do not lump everyone with Pezz.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

     


    Do you think it is possible to score a lot of points without scoring a lot of points per drive?  The top 5 scoring teams in the NFL this year were NE, DEN, NO, WASH and GB.  They ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 8th in points per drive this year.  You can't say points matter and say points per drive do not.  They are highly correlated.

     



    Each game is a new game, what you've done in the past has no bearing on the next game.  In football you take it one play at a time, one first down at a time.  Does any of this sound familiar, the Patriots preach it each and every week.  Stats are for people like you and me to sit around and argue.  

     

    Belichick expects his offense to score points, either by TD or field goal, on every possession.  He surely has the same exacting standards for the defense and special teams.  Averages don't mean squat in the context of one game.  The Patriots had 9 possessions, they scored 17 points, turned it over twice and gave back 2 points on a safety.  

    If they scored two TD's and a single field goal I don't know how you guys arrive at "well they scored on 63% of their drives," no they didn't, they scored on three drives and the other six they left their team and their defense in poor field position, turned the ball over twice and relinquished 2 points; in short they stunk.  Averages are BS, the Patriot's team now is substantially better than the Pat's team in September.

    They had the ball last with a minute to play and threw three straight incompletions, but the game was lost in the hour leading up to that failure to execute and mainly in the three previous possessions in the 4th.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    I never realised how many statisticans we have on this website.

    First we have passer ratings , then wait, QBR is better.? Oh wait doesn't Troy Aikmen have his own methodology for QB ratiings? Statisticians are always changing their methodology and arguing about who's way is best or what matters most. Especially when it doesn't go the way they want or predict.

    Oh well we need to tweak the computer algorithms more because Notre Dame ended up #1 AFTER getting crushed. I know I mentioned it alot but to me personally it really is hilarious and shows just how useless the stats things is most times.

    No lets draw a line in the sand here and not include that set of numbers. We only want to use this set of numbers. No wait lets put our finger in the air and check the wind and make the criteria this instead of that from now on, etc etc.

    They will finagle it until they get what they want and then rest on that until the game changes and those predictions or consistency starts to not fair so well anymore and then yet again change how they calculate them all over again.

    Sorry for the font change, worked on it in notepad and changed when pasted it in.

    very simplistic view of some stats


    2011 unit rankings

    Total Defense
    NE Pats  31st (6577)
    Giants   27th (6022)
    Difference of 4 spots and 555 yards


    Total Offense
    NE Pats 2nd (6848)
    Giants 8th (6161)
    Difference of 6 spots and 687 yards


    Pats offense gained 419 more yards than the Giants allowed in the regular season
    Giants offense gained  139 more yards than the Pats allowed in the regular season 



    So even though the "stats" ,which I still believe are mostly just BS without tons of sport specific context to them, show the Pats offense disparity over the giants D should have allowed them to fair better over the giants than the Giants offense over the Pats D.... You could argue it from the other angle as well. Let's call it a wash for the sake of the following...  

    People have been throwing around Points Per Drive. I was curious so I went and calculated it myself and used apples to apples(as much as possible) not the entire season. I used the Pats and Giants offensive and Defensive end of season unit rankings for both yards & points scored or allowed per game as the bench mark respectively. So I used 4 opponents offensive of defensive unit for each calculation that happened to play the Patriots that season who were VERY similarly ranked or more often better. I did not care, compare, or include how the offense did in PPD vs a defense that was far worse than the Giants for example. The same for the Pats D. I did not include how they performed against offense's far worse than the Giants ranked.  

    I also used "ALL" the numbers. I did not draw a line in the sand and lop off possessions at the end of a half or game that were a bunch of kneel downs for either side. Sorry I do not belive in that. I do not think it is any more hurtful to the PPD number for the offense to kneel than it is for the PPD numbers of a defense when it gives up garbage points with a 4 possession lead at the end of the game when it doesn't matter and there is no intensity left in the game. So every possesion is included.  

    Here is how it came out.  

    ------------------------------------------------------

    ((TOTAL defense rankings))


    giants defense 27th ranked
    O vs Giants reg sea
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs colts 25th ranked in reg season
    11 possessions - 2.81 ppd

    O vs Buffalo 26th ranked defense
    game 1
    11 possessions - 3.90 ppd (* -6 from 49 for pick 6 *)

    game 2
    14 possessions - 2.41 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.66(using total D) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .78 ppd


    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ((Points Per Game Allowed defense rankings))


    O vs giants 25th using pts/g
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs chargers 22nd ranked
    11 possessions - 3.18 ppd

    O vs jets 20th ranked
    game 1
    12 possessions - 3.08 ppd

    game 2
    11 possessions - 2.72 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.62(using pts/g) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .74 ppd

    -------------------------------------------------------


      ((combined similar defense rankings))

    O Scored 2.64 ppd(combined similar D's) in regular seasons vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .76 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked defensive units as the Giants had  

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Patriots defensive production versus offenses of similar statistical caliber as the Giants  

    ((TOTAL offense rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 6th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 4th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 8th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Oakland 9th ranked

    9 possessions - 2.11 ppd  

     

    avg ppd of 1.97 (using total offense rank) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .14 ppd  

    -------------------------------------------------------

    ((Points Per Game Scored rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 5th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 8th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 9th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Baltimore 12th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd (** AFCCG - all other games regular season ***)  

     

    avg ppd of 1.89 (using pts/g scored) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .22 ppd   

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ((combined similar offense rankings))  

    D Gave up 1.93 ppd(combined similar offenses) in regular season vs SB  of 2.11 = defense underperformed by .18 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked offensive units as the Giants had  

     

    It seems to me that both units underachieved compared to the regular season.  ...but as I have maintained strictly with the eyeball test, these numbers also appear to show the offense underachieved more than the defense did.  

     

    Now anyone can go off on me and argue its all flawed the way I did it for this or that reason. I won't really push back because I frankly do not believe in all this stat BS. It's possible the way I did it is flawed(even possible i just made a couple calculation mistakes but tried to be careful), although seems good enough for me. I would simply say I have a similar view, if you don't like the methodology, in regards to the the stats you seem to enjoy. I don't think any of the methodologies account for enough football context to the stats.  

    Just my opinion. ...but I did enjoy seeing "these" stats tell me what my eyes witnessed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

     

    Yeah NE's defense has not sucked since 2005.  Do not lump everyone with Pezz.

     




    Well, Captain Zedeno came out with that little nugget, with Pezzy jumping on board.

     

    See, it's dramatic word choices like that, which really show how desperate the Washers are to deflect from the truth about what Brady and the offense need to do.

    Can you imagine if Brady throws 40+ times on Sunday night and we lose again?

    Please don't make me come in here. Please.




    Please, Rusty. You said regular season stats don't matter and less than 5 minutes later you're throwing out regular season stats to support your argument so I simply called you out like you constantly do to myself as well as others. Get a grip man.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Where did I say NE's defense sucks? Its so pointless arguing with you, good day.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    2011 unit rankings

    Total Defense
    NE Pats  31st (6577)
    Giants   27th (6022)
    Difference of 4 spots and 555 yards


    Total Offense
    NE Pats 2nd (6848)
    Giants 8th (6161)
    Difference of 6 spots and 687 yards


    Coughlin realized this too. He tried to control the ball to limit the greater differences in the offenses impact. He succeeded. It's as simple as that.

    Of course, Gronk being hobbled was the X factor that probably made the difference along with the Giants' ball control success. Barely.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    I thought it was you? Was it Pezzy?  The board is messed up with the quote function, so maybe it was Pezzy.  If so, my mistake.

    I was actually surprised to see you use that word.

     

     




    Making new friends agian today junior?

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    I never realised how many statisticans we have on this website.

    First we have passer ratings , then wait, QBR is better.? Oh wait doesn't Troy Aikmen have his own methodology for QB ratiings? Statisticians are always changing their methodology and arguing about who's way is best or what matters most. Especially when it doesn't go the way they want or predict.

    Oh well we need to tweak the computer algorithms more because Notre Dame ended up #1 AFTER getting crushed. I know I mentioned it alot but to me personally it really is hilarious and shows just how useless the stats things is most times.

    No lets draw a line in the sand here and not include that set of numbers. We only want to use this set of numbers. No wait lets put our finger in the air and check the wind and make the criteria this instead of that from now on, etc etc.

    They will finagle it until they get what they want and then rest on that until the game changes and those predictions or consistency starts to not fair so well anymore and then yet again change how they calculate them all over again.

    Sorry for the font change, worked on it in notepad and changed when pasted it in.

    very simplistic view of some stats


    2011 unit rankings

    Total Defense
    NE Pats  31st (6577)
    Giants   27th (6022)
    Difference of 4 spots and 555 yards


    Total Offense
    NE Pats 2nd (6848)
    Giants 8th (6161)
    Difference of 6 spots and 687 yards


    Pats offense gained 419 more yards than the Giants allowed in the regular season
    Giants offense gained  139 more yards than the Pats allowed in the regular season 



    So even though the "stats" ,which I still believe are mostly just BS without tons of sport specific context to them, show the Pats offense disparity over the giants D should have allowed them to fair better over the giants than the Giants offense over the Pats D.... You could argue it from the other angle as well. Let's call it a wash for the sake of the following...  

    People have been throwing around Points Per Drive. I was curious so I went and calculated it myself and used apples to apples(as much as possible) not the entire season. I used the Pats and Giants offensive and Defensive end of season unit rankings for both yards & points scored or allowed per game as the bench mark respectively. So I used 4 opponents offensive of defensive unit for each calculation that happened to play the Patriots that season who were VERY similarly ranked or more often better. I did not care, compare, or include how the offense did in PPD vs a defense that was far worse than the Giants for example. The same for the Pats D. I did not include how they performed against offense's far worse than the Giants ranked.  

    I also used "ALL" the numbers. I did not draw a line in the sand and lop off possessions at the end of a half or game that were a bunch of kneel downs for either side. Sorry I do not belive in that. I do not think it is any more hurtful to the PPD number for the offense to kneel than it is for the PPD numbers of a defense when it gives up garbage points with a 4 possession lead at the end of the game when it doesn't matter and there is no intensity left in the game. So every possesion is included.  

    Here is how it came out.  

    ------------------------------------------------------

    ((TOTAL defense rankings))


    giants defense 27th ranked
    O vs Giants reg sea
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs colts 25th ranked in reg season
    11 possessions - 2.81 ppd

    O vs Buffalo 26th ranked defense
    game 1
    11 possessions - 3.90 ppd (* -6 from 49 for pick 6 *)

    game 2
    14 possessions - 2.41 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.66(using total D) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .78 ppd


    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ((Points Per Game Allowed defense rankings))


    O vs giants 25th using pts/g
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs chargers 22nd ranked
    11 possessions - 3.18 ppd

    O vs jets 20th ranked
    game 1
    12 possessions - 3.08 ppd

    game 2
    11 possessions - 2.72 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.62(using pts/g) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .74 ppd

    -------------------------------------------------------


      ((combined similar defense rankings))

    O Scored 2.64 ppd(combined similar D's) in regular seasons vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .76 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked defensive units as the Giants had  

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Patriots defensive production versus offenses of similar statistical caliber as the Giants  

    ((TOTAL offense rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 6th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 4th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 8th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Oakland 9th ranked

    9 possessions - 2.11 ppd  

     

    avg ppd of 1.97 (using total offense rank) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .14 ppd  

    -------------------------------------------------------

    ((Points Per Game Scored rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 5th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 8th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 9th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Baltimore 12th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd (** AFCCG - all other games regular season ***)  

     

    avg ppd of 1.89 (using pts/g scored) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .22 ppd   

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ((combined similar offense rankings))  

    D Gave up 1.93 ppd(combined similar offenses) in regular season vs SB  of 2.11 = defense underperformed by .18 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked offensive units as the Giants had  

     

    It seems to me that both units underachieved compared to the regular season.  ...but as I have maintained strictly with the eyeball test, these numbers also appear to show the offense underachieved more than the defense did.  

     

    Now anyone can go off on me and argue its all flawed the way I did it for this or that reason. I won't really push back because I frankly do not believe in all this stat BS. It's possible the way I did it is flawed(even possible i just made a couple calculation mistakes but tried to be careful), although seems good enough for me. I would simply say I have a similar view, if you don't like the methodology, in regards to the the stats you seem to enjoy. I don't think any of the methodologies account for enough football context to the stats.  

    Just my opinion. ...but I did enjoy seeing "these" stats tell me what my eyes witnessed.

     



    Yes, you did do that wrong. NE's actuall PPD (which discounts end of half drives that are statistically irrelevant, was 2.79 on the season by their offense. That was ranked 3rd.

     

    NE's PPD by the defense was 1.91, which was 21st. 

    In the Superbowl their PPD was 2.13 and 2.38 respectively. 

    The ranking for these scores against the rest of the NFL would have been 7th best by the offense. Such a score by a defense would have been ranked 30th. 

    So basically , in a MEANINGFUL CONTEXT that shows what such a performance would have been ranked against what you can expect an offense and defense to do over a large series average (not a cherry picked group) demonstrates that while both units underperformed their average, against those expectations one was simply terrible while another was actually very efficient.

    A ppd of 2.13 is very efficient by NFL standards. A ppd of 2.38 for a defense is a butt whooping. 

    Put back into a more digestible context (which is something that clearly needs to be done for people who have trouble thinking abstractly) these scores over an *average* NFL game (which is what league averages represent) amount to a final score of:

    NE    26

    NYG  29

    Both are a very good performance by the offense, the Giants' actually elite. 

    And yes is IS meaningful as a statistic because it gives meaning to a game that was low scoring by one team's execution and game plan. Basically the Giants implemented this strategy based on the very math we are talking about. NE's *averages* were much higher than theirs, so they would like to shorten the game to their advantage.

    If they played each other to an infinite number of drives, NE would over the course of time, prove victorious. But in the real world, the team with the worse offense and better defense has options to attempt to do that. The Giants have basically done it to NE twice in a row. 

    It's quite intelligent because it really leans on the crux of the defenses' problem in 2010-2011: as bad as their stats looked, they were actually much worse during the regular season as well. Most teams, when faced against NE would panic, and start passing frenetically to keep up with the threat potential of NE's offense. This actually would *feed* NE's strategy in two ways: it keeps the game alive, allowing NE's offense more chances overall to score, and it makes the other team one dimensional, increasing the chance that they will turn it over.

    This is exactly why two things happened. 1.) NE scored less than it did on average. 2.) NE's defense didn't get any of the turnovers they usually get via interception. 

    The Giants just played it conservative and *took* the copious yards and clock time NE's defense was going to give them. 

    Why doesn't NE use this strategy? Well, for one obivous fact, the Giants defense was much, much better than NEs was. During the regular season they were hampered by injuries (much like the Baltimore defense NE is about to face) the most of which being significant loss of time by Justin Tuck (both of whom had 3.5 sacks in the playoffs) which had an immense impact on how their defense would be run. Those players ARE NYs defense, without them it is really very ordinary. 

    But in games (like SB46) where both Tuck and Osi were on the field, the Giants only let up and elite 16.75 ppg. That PPG converted into PPD puts them on par with Baltimore at ~1.29 PPD, good for a 3rd best ranking in the NFL. 

    Under no circumstances do I view a defense that has JPP, Tuck, Osi, Linval Joseph, Chris Canty, Amukamara, Rolle, Phillips, etcetera, anything less than elite when they are at full strength. Their front five are the best in football, bar none. Bar none. Four probowl players on a four man line is just insane. 

    Why does that matter? Because that is the defense NE faced (without Gronkowski, and with Mankins working on a torn ACL). And they still managed to play as efficiently as they did.

    As far as your contention that one unit underperformed its standards more than the other: its irrelevant to (as you've said) making stats meaningful as a corrective practice. 

    Saying: OK, our defense sucks all the time ... so give em a pass ... isn't going to talk about the real issue. The defense sucked all the time in 2011 and 2010. It was no surprise they sucked in the Superbowl.

    But it is also no way to run a team. If your entire game rides on one unit performing at an elite level (it makes no difference if it is average for them or not) or greater to win a game, and even when they are very good (the SB) its not good enough, then you have a fundamental flaw. 

    NE's offense is much better than it was earlier in the decade. They score more and turn the ball over less in the playoffs against elite defenses and in the regular season against the field. Their defense is much worse, though. They give up more points, create fewer turnovers, etc. 

    As I've said before, there is a strucural imbalance about that 2010-11 team, but it was offense to defense. Teams this imbalanced (80s Bears, for instance, or 2000s Ravens, 2010's Packers and Saints, and yes, 2010s Patriots) who have lots of talent, but clustered on one side of the ball don't win consistently in the post-season. They may come home with a trophy, but teams that actually string them together have talent on both sides of the ball, so when one unit underperforms another can pick it up.

     

    If you assert (which is the upshot of what I'm getting from you) that NE's defense stunk in the regular season, and just stunk a little bit more in that game, then you are basically saying what I am saying: NE didn't deserve to win a Superbowl because as a *team* they weren't as good as the competition.  

    If NE's defense had played to it's average they would have still lost 18-17. If NE's offense had been elite (their usual), then they would have won 22-21. It doesn't take away from the fact that NE's defense against the NFL average, was terrible, and the offense against the NFL was very, very good (especially against a defense that talented, I mean they held GB to 20 points over 11 drives, which is just an elite performance against an offense that was even better than NEs). 

    And yeha, I don't really care what "eyes" see, at least other people's eyes. I watch the game at a micro level, I don't wait for the score at the end and decide. 

    What I saw was what the stats also show. The offense was pretty efficient, making a good score given their chances, and more or less executing. The defense was essentially helpless. After they allowed the Giants to score a TD and essentially consume all of the first quarter (11+ minutes) I knew that NE was going to be under a tremendous amount of pressure to score and score fast in that game. 

    NE's best (haha) defensive drive was a 7 and out that ate up 4:31 of clock time -- they literally didn't have a single "plus" drive. No short drives that are a quick turnover, no 3 and outs, and no turnovers they could bring back for points or incredibly short field position. 

    NE's offense, yes, had four bad drives, the INT (which was essentially a 5 and punt) that landed the Giants on their own 8, and yeah, the safety on the very first play which was a bad drive to be sure and a three and out. But they also had four positive drives, three resulting in scores (one being 96 yards before the half, draining all the time) and one 5:41 drive leaving the Giants at their own 12 with 3 and half minutes to go in the 4th ... a rock solid clock killing drive. 

    It's my contention that a few more drives, given the laws of averages (haha) would have netted at least one positive drive by the defense (can you really go 12 drives without one three and out??? Maybe they could have, lol). And it would have likely resulted in another 7-10 points by the offense. In short the defense was so very bad they likely would have done something "good" to mitigate such a terrible performance across the board, and the offense, even at that average, would have been "enough". But of course, guaranteeing that would have required the defense to put in a couple positive drives before hand. 

    What you've basically done is stripped the stats from a meaningful frame of reference, and just said unit a underperformed its standards, and unit b underperformed but a little less, without noting that within a context of what you *SHOULD* expect from an average NFL team ... unit a actually performed efficiently, and unit b was a total train wreck. In short, you made the statistics non-metrical. Which does render them meaningless, because they are floating in air.  

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to CaptainZdeno33's comment:

    Where did I say NE's defense sucks? Its so pointless arguing with you, good day.



    NE's defense hasn't sucked this season.

    At least not since Talib arrived. They've had two minus games really. Last week against the Texans, which if NE's offense hadn't been so good, could have wound up in a loss, and the debacle against SF (in which Talib left). The Texans game was not terrible, it was middle of the pack, and against an offense as good as Texas, I can accept that. Yeah, they gave up 28 points, but 3 were on a really short field. And 25 points over 13 drives is "average," but slightly ahead of the curve against a team that scores more than that "on average."

    The SF debacle, well, Talib AND Dennard left that game. As did numerous players for the offense. Everyone made turnovers, and it was just a sloppy game by everyone who stepped on the field. A lot of anomalous things happened in that game, the least of which the crazy amount of fumbles by both teams, and the bouncing INT off of Hern's chest on a simple screen play. 

    At any given rate, I don't hold it against this defense when Talib is in there. He has been a difference maker. He allows NE to mix in cover one. That has an *enormous* tactical impact on a football game. All of the BEST defenses in the NFL play a lot of cover one (outside of elite Tampa-2 teams, who do not, but do not by design). NE, in its heyday, played a lot of it, opting to inch Harrison forward, or devote the extra man to a rushing assignment. 

    Having that extra man down near the WR/TE action or the QB basically eliminates the "slow bleed" issues that BB was dealing with, as he tried to protect against the slew of big plays that Arrington and DMC would have given up at CB if they both didn't have help over the top. 

    Otherwise, there have been a handful of articles about this topic ... since Talib's arrival NE is playing some solid defensive football. We aren't talking about games giving up 500 yards of offense, and eking it by in blowouts. We are talking about quality performances. 

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    I never realised how many statisticans we have on this website.

    First we have passer ratings , then wait, QBR is better.? Oh wait doesn't Troy Aikmen have his own methodology for QB ratiings? Statisticians are always changing their methodology and arguing about who's way is best or what matters most. Especially when it doesn't go the way they want or predict.

    Oh well we need to tweak the computer algorithms more because Notre Dame ended up #1 AFTER getting crushed. I know I mentioned it alot but to me personally it really is hilarious and shows just how useless the stats things is most times.

    No lets draw a line in the sand here and not include that set of numbers. We only want to use this set of numbers. No wait lets put our finger in the air and check the wind and make the criteria this instead of that from now on, etc etc.

    They will finagle it until they get what they want and then rest on that until the game changes and those predictions or consistency starts to not fair so well anymore and then yet again change how they calculate them all over again.

    Sorry for the font change, worked on it in notepad and changed when pasted it in.

    very simplistic view of some stats


    2011 unit rankings

    Total Defense
    NE Pats  31st (6577)
    Giants   27th (6022)
    Difference of 4 spots and 555 yards


    Total Offense
    NE Pats 2nd (6848)
    Giants 8th (6161)
    Difference of 6 spots and 687 yards


    Pats offense gained 419 more yards than the Giants allowed in the regular season
    Giants offense gained  139 more yards than the Pats allowed in the regular season 



    So even though the "stats" ,which I still believe are mostly just BS without tons of sport specific context to them, show the Pats offense disparity over the giants D should have allowed them to fair better over the giants than the Giants offense over the Pats D.... You could argue it from the other angle as well. Let's call it a wash for the sake of the following...  

    People have been throwing around Points Per Drive. I was curious so I went and calculated it myself and used apples to apples(as much as possible) not the entire season. I used the Pats and Giants offensive and Defensive end of season unit rankings for both yards & points scored or allowed per game as the bench mark respectively. So I used 4 opponents offensive of defensive unit for each calculation that happened to play the Patriots that season who were VERY similarly ranked or more often better. I did not care, compare, or include how the offense did in PPD vs a defense that was far worse than the Giants for example. The same for the Pats D. I did not include how they performed against offense's far worse than the Giants ranked.  

    I also used "ALL" the numbers. I did not draw a line in the sand and lop off possessions at the end of a half or game that were a bunch of kneel downs for either side. Sorry I do not belive in that. I do not think it is any more hurtful to the PPD number for the offense to kneel than it is for the PPD numbers of a defense when it gives up garbage points with a 4 possession lead at the end of the game when it doesn't matter and there is no intensity left in the game. So every possesion is included.  

    Here is how it came out.  

    ------------------------------------------------------

    ((TOTAL defense rankings))


    giants defense 27th ranked
    O vs Giants reg sea
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs colts 25th ranked in reg season
    11 possessions - 2.81 ppd

    O vs Buffalo 26th ranked defense
    game 1
    11 possessions - 3.90 ppd (* -6 from 49 for pick 6 *)

    game 2
    14 possessions - 2.41 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.66(using total D) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .78 ppd


    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ((Points Per Game Allowed defense rankings))


    O vs giants 25th using pts/g
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs chargers 22nd ranked
    11 possessions - 3.18 ppd

    O vs jets 20th ranked
    game 1
    12 possessions - 3.08 ppd

    game 2
    11 possessions - 2.72 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.62(using pts/g) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .74 ppd

    -------------------------------------------------------


      ((combined similar defense rankings))

    O Scored 2.64 ppd(combined similar D's) in regular seasons vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .76 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked defensive units as the Giants had  

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Patriots defensive production versus offenses of similar statistical caliber as the Giants  

    ((TOTAL offense rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 6th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 4th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 8th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Oakland 9th ranked

    9 possessions - 2.11 ppd  

     

    avg ppd of 1.97 (using total offense rank) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .14 ppd  

    -------------------------------------------------------

    ((Points Per Game Scored rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 5th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 8th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 9th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Baltimore 12th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd (** AFCCG - all other games regular season ***)  

     

    avg ppd of 1.89 (using pts/g scored) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .22 ppd   

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ((combined similar offense rankings))  

    D Gave up 1.93 ppd(combined similar offenses) in regular season vs SB  of 2.11 = defense underperformed by .18 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked offensive units as the Giants had  

     

    It seems to me that both units underachieved compared to the regular season.  ...but as I have maintained strictly with the eyeball test, these numbers also appear to show the offense underachieved more than the defense did.  

     

    Now anyone can go off on me and argue its all flawed the way I did it for this or that reason. I won't really push back because I frankly do not believe in all this stat BS. It's possible the way I did it is flawed(even possible i just made a couple calculation mistakes but tried to be careful), although seems good enough for me. I would simply say I have a similar view, if you don't like the methodology, in regards to the the stats you seem to enjoy. I don't think any of the methodologies account for enough football context to the stats.  

    Just my opinion. ...but I did enjoy seeing "these" stats tell me what my eyes witnessed.

     



    Yes, you did do that wrong. NE's actuall PPD (which discounts end of half drives that are statistically irrelevant, was 2.79 on the season by their offense. That was ranked 3rd.

     

    NE's PPD by the defense was 1.91, which was 21st. 

    In the Superbowl their PPD was 2.13 and 2.38 respectively. 

    The ranking for these scores against the rest of the NFL would have been 7th best by the offense. Such a score by a defense would have been ranked 30th. 

    So basically , in a MEANINGFUL CONTEXT that shows what such a performance would have been ranked against what you can expect an offense and defense to do over a large series average (not a cherry picked group) demonstrates that while both units underperformed their average, against those expectations one was simply terrible while another was actually very efficient.

    A ppd of 2.13 is very efficient by NFL standards. A ppd of 2.38 for a defense is a butt whooping. 

    Put back into a more digestible context (which is something that clearly needs to be done for people who have trouble thinking abstractly) these scores over an *average* NFL game (which is what league averages represent) amount to a final score of:

    NE    26

    NYG  29

    Both are a very good performance by the offense, the Giants' actually elite. 

    And yes is IS meaningful as a statistic because it gives meaning to a game that was low scoring by one team's execution and game plan. Basically the Giants implemented this strategy based on the very math we are talking about. NE's *averages* were much higher than theirs, so they would like to shorten the game to their advantage.

    If they played each other to an infinite number of drives, NE would over the course of time, prove victorious. But in the real world, the team with the worse offense and better defense has options to attempt to do that. The Giants have basically done it to NE twice in a row. 

    It's quite intelligent because it really leans on the crux of the defenses' problem in 2010-2011: as bad as their stats looked, they were actually much worse during the regular season as well. Most teams, when faced against NE would panic, and start passing frenetically to keep up with the threat potential of NE's offense. This actually would *feed* NE's strategy in two ways: it keeps the game alive, allowing NE's offense more chances overall to score, and it makes the other team one dimensional, increasing the chance that they will turn it over.

    This is exactly why two things happened. 1.) NE scored less than it did on average. 2.) NE's defense didn't get any of the turnovers they usually get via interception. 

    The Giants just played it conservative and *took* the copious yards and clock time NE's defense was going to give them. 

    Why doesn't NE use this strategy? Well, for one obivous fact, the Giants defense was much, much better than NEs was. During the regular season they were hampered by injuries (much like the Baltimore defense NE is about to face) the most of which being significant loss of time by Justin Tuck (both of whom had 3.5 sacks in the playoffs) which had an immense impact on how their defense would be run. Those players ARE NYs defense, without them it is really very ordinary. 

    But in games (like SB46) where both Tuck and Osi were on the field, the Giants only let up and elite 16.75 ppg. That PPG converted into PPD puts them on par with Baltimore at ~1.29 PPD, good for a 3rd best ranking in the NFL. 

    Under no circumstances do I view a defense that has JPP, Tuck, Osi, Linval Joseph, Chris Canty, Amukamara, Rolle, Phillips, etcetera, anything less than elite when they are at full strength. Their front five are the best in football, bar none. Bar none. Four probowl players on a four man line is just insane. 

    Why does that matter? Because that is the defense NE faced (without Gronkowski, and with Mankins working on a torn ACL). And they still managed to play as efficiently as they did.

    As far as your contention that one unit underperformed its standards more than the other: its irrelevant to (as you've said) making stats meaningful as a corrective practice. 

    Saying: OK, our defense sucks all the time ... so give em a pass ... isn't going to talk about the real issue. The defense sucked all the time in 2011 and 2010. It was no surprise they sucked in the Superbowl.

    But it is also no way to run a team. If your entire game rides on one unit performing at an elite level (it makes no difference if it is average for them or not) or greater to win a game, and even when they are very good (the SB) its not good enough, then you have a fundamental flaw. 

    NE's offense is much better than it was earlier in the decade. They score more and turn the ball over less in the playoffs against elite defenses and in the regular season against the field. Their defense is much worse, though. They give up more points, create fewer turnovers, etc. 

    As I've said before, there is a strucural imbalance about that 2010-11 team, but it was offense to defense. Teams this imbalanced (80s Bears, for instance, or 2000s Ravens, 2010's Packers and Saints, and yes, 2010s Patriots) who have lots of talent, but clustered on one side of the ball don't win consistently in the post-season. They may come home with a trophy, but teams that actually string them together have talent on both sides of the ball, so when one unit underperforms another can pick it up.

     

    If you assert (which is the upshot of what I'm getting from you) that NE's defense stunk in the regular season, and just stunk a little bit more in that game, then you are basically saying what I am saying: NE didn't deserve to win a Superbowl because as a *team* they weren't as good as the competition.  

    If NE's defense had played to it's average they would have still lost 18-17. If NE's offense had been elite (their usual), then they would have won 22-21. It doesn't take away from the fact that NE's defense against the NFL average, was terrible, and the offense against the NFL was very, very good (especially against a defense that talented, I mean they held GB to 20 points over 11 drives, which is just an elite performance against an offense that was even better than NEs). 

    And yeha, I don't really care what "eyes" see, at least other people's eyes. I watch the game at a micro level, I don't wait for the score at the end and decide. 

    What I saw was what the stats also show. The offense was pretty efficient, making a good score given their chances, and more or less executing. The defense was essentially helpless. After they allowed the Giants to score a TD and essentially consume all of the first quarter (11+ minutes) I knew that NE was going to be under a tremendous amount of pressure to score and score fast in that game. 

    NE's best (haha) defensive drive was a 7 and out that ate up 4:31 of clock time -- they literally didn't have a single "plus" drive. No short drives that are a quick turnover, no 3 and outs, and no turnovers they could bring back for points or incredibly short field position. 

    NE's offense, yes, had four bad drives, the INT (which was essentially a 5 and punt) that landed the Giants on their own 8, and yeah, the safety on the very first play which was a bad drive to be sure and a three and out. But they also had four positive drives, three resulting in scores (one being 96 yards before the half, draining all the time) and one 5:41 drive leaving the Giants at their own 12 with 3 and half minutes to go in the 4th ... a rock solid clock killing drive. 

    It's my contention that a few more drives, given the laws of averages (haha) would have netted at least one positive drive by the defense (can you really go 12 drives without one three and out??? Maybe they could have, lol). And it would have likely resulted in another 7-10 points by the offense. In short the defense was so very bad they likely would have done something "good" to mitigate such a terrible performance across the board, and the offense, even at that average, would have been "enough". But of course, guaranteeing that would have required the defense to put in a couple positive drives before hand. 

    What you've basically done is stripped the stats from a meaningful frame of reference, and just said unit a underperformed its standards, and unit b underperformed but a little less, without noting that within a context of what you *SHOULD* expect from an average NFL team ... unit a actually performed efficiently, and unit b was a total train wreck. In short, you made the statistics non-metrical. Which does render them meaningless, because they are floating in air.  




    here we go.......

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from qball369. Show qball369's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Z - without any of the stats - I totally agree with your assessment of last years SB - the Giants strategy, executed very well, was to control the ball and clock, whether they scored or not, and keep the superior Pats offensive off the field - the executed this strategy to perfection, ended up with the last meaningful possession, and of course succeed in putting the winning points on the board..........

    A simple eye test by ANYONE who watched ALL the games the Pats played in 2011 woud have predicted this result

    The 2011 Pats had a great offense and a poor D

    As did the 2012 Pats - UNTIL they traded for Talib - the best move BB has made since trading for Wes Welker

    The Pats D has clearly been a different unit with Talib on the field

    The Pats O is a better unit this year as well - with the rapid play offense - This is the difference between the Pats offense and Denver's - the Pats will be able to sustain the up tempo offense against the Ravens due to the superior familiarity with each other and superior communication - Denver could not do that

    The Pats are designed to exploit the Ravens overall age on D and specifically the rigors of the game they just played

    Z - I have read a lot of the posts you have made on this game - let's hear it - do you think the Pats will win or not?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    I never realised how many statisticans we have on this website.

    First we have passer ratings , then wait, QBR is better.? Oh wait doesn't Troy Aikmen have his own methodology for QB ratiings? Statisticians are always changing their methodology and arguing about who's way is best or what matters most. Especially when it doesn't go the way they want or predict.

    Oh well we need to tweak the computer algorithms more because Notre Dame ended up #1 AFTER getting crushed. I know I mentioned it alot but to me personally it really is hilarious and shows just how useless the stats things is most times.

    No lets draw a line in the sand here and not include that set of numbers. We only want to use this set of numbers. No wait lets put our finger in the air and check the wind and make the criteria this instead of that from now on, etc etc.

    They will finagle it until they get what they want and then rest on that until the game changes and those predictions or consistency starts to not fair so well anymore and then yet again change how they calculate them all over again.

    Sorry for the font change, worked on it in notepad and changed when pasted it in.

    very simplistic view of some stats


    2011 unit rankings

    Total Defense
    NE Pats  31st (6577)
    Giants   27th (6022)
    Difference of 4 spots and 555 yards


    Total Offense
    NE Pats 2nd (6848)
    Giants 8th (6161)
    Difference of 6 spots and 687 yards


    Pats offense gained 419 more yards than the Giants allowed in the regular season
    Giants offense gained  139 more yards than the Pats allowed in the regular season 



    So even though the "stats" ,which I still believe are mostly just BS without tons of sport specific context to them, show the Pats offense disparity over the giants D should have allowed them to fair better over the giants than the Giants offense over the Pats D.... You could argue it from the other angle as well. Let's call it a wash for the sake of the following...  

    People have been throwing around Points Per Drive. I was curious so I went and calculated it myself and used apples to apples(as much as possible) not the entire season. I used the Pats and Giants offensive and Defensive end of season unit rankings for both yards & points scored or allowed per game as the bench mark respectively. So I used 4 opponents offensive of defensive unit for each calculation that happened to play the Patriots that season who were VERY similarly ranked or more often better. I did not care, compare, or include how the offense did in PPD vs a defense that was far worse than the Giants for example. The same for the Pats D. I did not include how they performed against offense's far worse than the Giants ranked.  

    I also used "ALL" the numbers. I did not draw a line in the sand and lop off possessions at the end of a half or game that were a bunch of kneel downs for either side. Sorry I do not belive in that. I do not think it is any more hurtful to the PPD number for the offense to kneel than it is for the PPD numbers of a defense when it gives up garbage points with a 4 possession lead at the end of the game when it doesn't matter and there is no intensity left in the game. So every possesion is included.  

    Here is how it came out.  

    ------------------------------------------------------

    ((TOTAL defense rankings))


    giants defense 27th ranked
    O vs Giants reg sea
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs colts 25th ranked in reg season
    11 possessions - 2.81 ppd

    O vs Buffalo 26th ranked defense
    game 1
    11 possessions - 3.90 ppd (* -6 from 49 for pick 6 *)

    game 2
    14 possessions - 2.41 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.66(using total D) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .78 ppd


    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ((Points Per Game Allowed defense rankings))


    O vs giants 25th using pts/g
    13 possessions - 1.53 ppd

    O vs chargers 22nd ranked
    11 possessions - 3.18 ppd

    O vs jets 20th ranked
    game 1
    12 possessions - 3.08 ppd

    game 2
    11 possessions - 2.72 ppd

    avg ppd of 2.62(using pts/g) vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .74 ppd

    -------------------------------------------------------


      ((combined similar defense rankings))

    O Scored 2.64 ppd(combined similar D's) in regular seasons vs SB of 1.88 = offense underperformed by .76 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked defensive units as the Giants had  

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Patriots defensive production versus offenses of similar statistical caliber as the Giants  

    ((TOTAL offense rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 6th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 4th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 8th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Oakland 9th ranked

    9 possessions - 2.11 ppd  

     

    avg ppd of 1.97 (using total offense rank) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .14 ppd  

    -------------------------------------------------------

    ((Points Per Game Scored rankings))  

    D vs San Diego 5th ranked

    10 possessions - 2.1 ppd  

     

    D vs Philadelphia 8th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd  

     

    D vs Giants 9th ranked

    13 possessions - 1.85 ppd  

     

    D vs Baltimore 12th ranked

    11 possessions - 1.81 ppd (** AFCCG - all other games regular season ***)  

     

    avg ppd of 1.89 (using pts/g scored) vs SB of 2.11 ppd = defense underperformed by .22 ppd   

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ((combined similar offense rankings))  

    D Gave up 1.93 ppd(combined similar offenses) in regular season vs SB  of 2.11 = defense underperformed by .18 ppd compared to how they performed in regular season against similarly ranked offensive units as the Giants had  

     

    It seems to me that both units underachieved compared to the regular season.  ...but as I have maintained strictly with the eyeball test, these numbers also appear to show the offense underachieved more than the defense did.  

     

    Now anyone can go off on me and argue its all flawed the way I did it for this or that reason. I won't really push back because I frankly do not believe in all this stat BS. It's possible the way I did it is flawed(even possible i just made a couple calculation mistakes but tried to be careful), although seems good enough for me. I would simply say I have a similar view, if you don't like the methodology, in regards to the the stats you seem to enjoy. I don't think any of the methodologies account for enough football context to the stats.  

    Just my opinion. ...but I did enjoy seeing "these" stats tell me what my eyes witnessed.

     



    Yes, you did do that wrong. NE's actuall PPD (which discounts end of half drives that are statistically irrelevant, was 2.79 on the season by their offense. That was ranked 3rd.

     

    NE's PPD by the defense was 1.91, which was 21st. 

    In the Superbowl their PPD was 2.13 and 2.38 respectively. 

    The ranking for these scores against the rest of the NFL would have been 7th best by the offense. Such a score by a defense would have been ranked 30th. 

    So basically , in a MEANINGFUL CONTEXT that shows what such a performance would have been ranked against what you can expect an offense and defense to do over a large series average (not a cherry picked group) demonstrates that while both units underperformed their average, against those expectations one was simply terrible while another was actually very efficient.

    A ppd of 2.13 is very efficient by NFL standards. A ppd of 2.38 for a defense is a butt whooping. 

    Put back into a more digestible context (which is something that clearly needs to be done for people who have trouble thinking abstractly) these scores over an *average* NFL game (which is what league averages represent) amount to a final score of:

    NE    26

    NYG  29

    Both are a very good performance by the offense, the Giants' actually elite. 

    And yes is IS meaningful as a statistic because it gives meaning to a game that was low scoring by one team's execution and game plan. Basically the Giants implemented this strategy based on the very math we are talking about. NE's *averages* were much higher than theirs, so they would like to shorten the game to their advantage.

    If they played each other to an infinite number of drives, NE would over the course of time, prove victorious. But in the real world, the team with the worse offense and better defense has options to attempt to do that. The Giants have basically done it to NE twice in a row. 

    It's quite intelligent because it really leans on the crux of the defenses' problem in 2010-2011: as bad as their stats looked, they were actually much worse during the regular season as well. Most teams, when faced against NE would panic, and start passing frenetically to keep up with the threat potential of NE's offense. This actually would *feed* NE's strategy in two ways: it keeps the game alive, allowing NE's offense more chances overall to score, and it makes the other team one dimensional, increasing the chance that they will turn it over.

    This is exactly why two things happened. 1.) NE scored less than it did on average. 2.) NE's defense didn't get any of the turnovers they usually get via interception. 

    The Giants just played it conservative and *took* the copious yards and clock time NE's defense was going to give them. 

    Why doesn't NE use this strategy? Well, for one obivous fact, the Giants defense was much, much better than NEs was. During the regular season they were hampered by injuries (much like the Baltimore defense NE is about to face) the most of which being significant loss of time by Justin Tuck (both of whom had 3.5 sacks in the playoffs) which had an immense impact on how their defense would be run. Those players ARE NYs defense, without them it is really very ordinary. 

    But in games (like SB46) where both Tuck and Osi were on the field, the Giants only let up and elite 16.75 ppg. That PPG converted into PPD puts them on par with Baltimore at ~1.29 PPD, good for a 3rd best ranking in the NFL. 

    Under no circumstances do I view a defense that has JPP, Tuck, Osi, Linval Joseph, Chris Canty, Amukamara, Rolle, Phillips, etcetera, anything less than elite when they are at full strength. Their front five are the best in football, bar none. Bar none. Four probowl players on a four man line is just insane. 

    Why does that matter? Because that is the defense NE faced (without Gronkowski, and with Mankins working on a torn ACL). And they still managed to play as efficiently as they did.

    As far as your contention that one unit underperformed its standards more than the other: its irrelevant to (as you've said) making stats meaningful as a corrective practice. 

    Saying: OK, our defense sucks all the time ... so give em a pass ... isn't going to talk about the real issue. The defense sucked all the time in 2011 and 2010. It was no surprise they sucked in the Superbowl.

    But it is also no way to run a team. If your entire game rides on one unit performing at an elite level (it makes no difference if it is average for them or not) or greater to win a game, and even when they are very good (the SB) its not good enough, then you have a fundamental flaw. 

    NE's offense is much better than it was earlier in the decade. They score more and turn the ball over less in the playoffs against elite defenses and in the regular season against the field. Their defense is much worse, though. They give up more points, create fewer turnovers, etc. 

    As I've said before, there is a strucural imbalance about that 2010-11 team, but it was offense to defense. Teams this imbalanced (80s Bears, for instance, or 2000s Ravens, 2010's Packers and Saints, and yes, 2010s Patriots) who have lots of talent, but clustered on one side of the ball don't win consistently in the post-season. They may come home with a trophy, but teams that actually string them together have talent on both sides of the ball, so when one unit underperforms another can pick it up.

     

    If you assert (which is the upshot of what I'm getting from you) that NE's defense stunk in the regular season, and just stunk a little bit more in that game, then you are basically saying what I am saying: NE didn't deserve to win a Superbowl because as a *team* they weren't as good as the competition.  

    If NE's defense had played to it's average they would have still lost 18-17. If NE's offense had been elite (their usual), then they would have won 22-21. It doesn't take away from the fact that NE's defense against the NFL average, was terrible, and the offense against the NFL was very, very good (especially against a defense that talented, I mean they held GB to 20 points over 11 drives, which is just an elite performance against an offense that was even better than NEs). 

    And yeha, I don't really care what "eyes" see, at least other people's eyes. I watch the game at a micro level, I don't wait for the score at the end and decide. 

    What I saw was what the stats also show. The offense was pretty efficient, making a good score given their chances, and more or less executing. The defense was essentially helpless. After they allowed the Giants to score a TD and essentially consume all of the first quarter (11+ minutes) I knew that NE was going to be under a tremendous amount of pressure to score and score fast in that game. 

    NE's best (haha) defensive drive was a 7 and out that ate up 4:31 of clock time -- they literally didn't have a single "plus" drive. No short drives that are a quick turnover, no 3 and outs, and no turnovers they could bring back for points or incredibly short field position. 

    NE's offense, yes, had four bad drives, the INT (which was essentially a 5 and punt) that landed the Giants on their own 8, and yeah, the safety on the very first play which was a bad drive to be sure and a three and out. But they also had four positive drives, three resulting in scores (one being 96 yards before the half, draining all the time) and one 5:41 drive leaving the Giants at their own 12 with 3 and half minutes to go in the 4th ... a rock solid clock killing drive. 

    It's my contention that a few more drives, given the laws of averages (haha) would have netted at least one positive drive by the defense (can you really go 12 drives without one three and out??? Maybe they could have, lol). And it would have likely resulted in another 7-10 points by the offense. In short the defense was so very bad they likely would have done something "good" to mitigate such a terrible performance across the board, and the offense, even at that average, would have been "enough". But of course, guaranteeing that would have required the defense to put in a couple positive drives before hand. 

    What you've basically done is stripped the stats from a meaningful frame of reference, and just said unit a underperformed its standards, and unit b underperformed but a little less, without noting that within a context of what you *SHOULD* expect from an average NFL team ... unit a actually performed efficiently, and unit b was a total train wreck. In short, you made the statistics non-metrical. Which does render them meaningless, because they are floating in air.  



    You can say you do not like my methodology. I can accept that for certain but to say I did it wrong by implying I *should* have done it a certain way is sort of kind of funny. I was not trying to duplicate someone else methodology.

    I know it was long winded so maybe you skipped over my reasons for doing it the way I did and would totally understand that. I did explain what and why I did them however.

    I personally like my way and it makes sense to me. Include all the stats and no lopping off( I explained why in my previous post). The PPDs are accurate and consistent for the methodology I used and not incorrect. It's totally cool if you do not like the result. I don't like most stats either(especially when the likes of football outsiders, etc are arbitrarily deciding which plays, players or possessions to include or not). Even with these stats saying and proving what I witnessed I still think they are BS themselves. You yourself went on to suggest the Giants D really was not a 25th ranked D for obvious injury reasons etc.  I will certainly not disagree but that just makes my point. The stats(rankings) are BS! Most of the time. It's also why I thought Denver was a mirage this year. They barely played anyone of note during that long win streak.

    However when I did do the stats I compared apples to apples (as close as possible since NE did not play every team right next to the Giants unit rankings so I had to use the closest ones, slightly above or below, that they played and they really were all very close.) They were certainly not cherry picked. They are picked on be equling to the opponent I am trying to gauge them against. Why on earth would I care what they did againts a unit that was way worse OR better.

    In fairness I have not read all of your post yet but most. Two things stood out. 1) I agree with you that I do not think NE was a good enough team, especially with a hobbled Gronk to win the SB on paper. but 2) Why on earth, when trying to gauge my own defense performance in a game, would I ever compare my own defense to the league avg defense stats of any kind? I would never ever do that. I would compare them against themselves as to how they fare against offenses we played who had similar strength as each other and the oppenent in the game I was wondering about.

    That later point seems outlandish to me to do as you suggest. If I do not have a good defense and want to see what games we did well in, on paper, and ignore watching the game again why would I compare them to some other team or league avg?? They are not some other team, they will never be some other teams defense.  I would gauge their progress or regression late in the season or end of season against themselves not some other team or league avg. That makes absolutely no sense to me from an evaluation of how my defense played in a particular game.

    It does make sense in evaluating how much farther away you are in talent level to catch up to the better defenses in the league when it comes to offseason personell moves. ...but certainly not in gauging which of my units over or under performed to their "own" standards set in the regular season, for a particular post season game.

    My stats most certainly did not strip any more team football context than anybody elses stats. I think all stats do that. I'm  comparing the performance of the Pats units and how they fared against the oppositional units that were VERY similar to the Giants units. It's simple and specific and like most stats do not account for the many many football context variables that are always left out of stats.

    I mean if you are suggesting, and I do not know if you are or not, that if the Pats Defense did not match the league avg for ppd then they played terrible then I would argue they will never show up on paper to be playing to what they "are suppose to". What is suppose to? They were rated 31st but you expected them to suddenly play like they were 15/16th rated? ...and they do not get a pass in ANY sort of way. They were what they were, is what you accurately siummized I have been saying, and according to the stats in my methodology played pretty darn close in PPD when facing offenses just like the SB Giants, in the regular season.

    I did this entertaining exercise with honest intent and had absolutely no idea what the numbers would show. WOuld they show them both under perform or over? Which unit would fare better. I was very well prepared to see the D fare much worse than the offense since I read it so many times from others here. However the stats came out the way they did. I never changed any unit to tweak the results in any sort of way or anything. The chips fell as they did sort of speak. I did have to go back initially and make two corrections however. The first was that I calculated the defense performace in the SB using 21 points given up but then remembered the D only gave up 19. The 2nd was fixing the PPD for the offense in one of the buffalo games as the Pats D had a pick 6. Both fixes helped both units  regular season avgs be closer to their respective SB PPD numbers.

    I think we are in full agreement on one thing and that is that the recent Pats team was constructed in a way that followed the colts and that has been followed by the same lack of "ultimate" success.

    So in closing, how much more meaningful a frame of reference can it be to compare themselves to themselves. The league avg is not playing the Giants in the SB. The Patriots are. Its like you are saying the Patriots offense was one of the better ones all year and they still showed to be that caliber in the SB and the Pats D was one of the worst and continued to play that way. Umm yeah exactly but that is so NOT the point of discussion I have been having. The point of the discussion I have been having all along is how the units fared in the SB compared to themselves when facing VERY similarly ranked/matched/etc units from the regular season. Now if you want to say but the Giants D really wasn't 25th ranked I won't argue with you. I already said I agree. However now you are starting to add in football context and that opens up Pandoras box and again not what so many have been trying to assert.

     

    Just my opinion but I'm sticking to it. :)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    IQ,

    You eveluate them against the league average because quite simply that's how they are and have to be judged .

    If they are ranked 3rd or 31st, they are ranked against the performance of the other teams, not there own.

    So if a team scores a (just throwing out a number)  2.23 ppd and  elite is considered a 2.20, they  would have performed as an elite team even though their own average was  slightly higher.

    Same for the D.  They might have performed slightly better (not better but slightly less of a drop)  than their own average but that still lands them in the worst of the worst range.

     

Share