Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to wozzy's comment:



    The reality is our defense forced them to punt 4 times, including after the disastrous interception to start the 4th quarter, that was one more punt than the Pats had.  




    Those 4 drives which resulted in punts ate 19:42 off the clock.  That is practically 5 minutes a drive even when they didn't score.  Compare this to say SB 25 which Rusty has likened this game to in terms of the play of our defense.  The Giants D in that game forced 6 Buffalo punts and on those drives the total amount of clock eaten was 9:35.  That is a HUGE difference.  The defense was just as responsible as the O for the ToP discrepancy imo.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to bredbru's comment:



    "On offense, I'm not sure it was playcalling as much as execution."
    it was awful. 

    one memerable case in point, we needed 2 tds (or 2 scores i forgeta) i believe and spent almost all the clock on short plays and long drive. (and still needed to make a stop and score afterwards in way too little time left). assumed wrongly we would score a td and failed at the last minute and had to settle for a  fg



    Bred, we were ahead the entire second half until the Giants scored with 1:04 left in the game.  I assume the drive you're talking about is the Pats' second to last drive that started with 9:24 left in the game and ended at 3:53 after the Benny run for -1 yard, the Welker incompletion, and then the Branch incompletion.   A long drive there wasn't a problem, I don't think, since we had the lead.  The problem was the defense giving up a TD in no time on the next drive which started at 3:46.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to bredbru's comment:



    "On offense, I'm not sure it was playcalling as much as execution."
    it was awful. 

    one memerable case in point, we needed 2 tds (or 2 scores i forgeta) i believe and spent almost all the clock on short plays and long drive. (and still needed to make a stop and score afterwards in way too little time left). assumed wrongly we would score a td and failed at the last minute and had to settle for a  fg



    Bred, we were ahead the entire second half until the Giants scored with 1:04 left in the game.  I assume the drive you're talking about is the Pats' second to last drive that started with 9:24 left in the game and ended at 3:53 after the Benny run for -1 yard, the Welker incompletion, and then the Branch incompletion.   A long drive there wasn't a problem, I don't think, since we had the lead.  The problem was the defense giving up a TD in no time on the next drive which started at 3:46.

    Actually, that Giants scoring drive took only 2 minutes and 49 seconds going 88 yards in only 9 plays.  All the previous Giant possessions lasted around 5 minutes on average.  If the Pats D only slowed down that last Giant possession to the previous times, the clock would have run out!


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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

    Actually, that Giants scoring drive took only 2 minutes and 49 seconds going 88 yards in only 9 plays.  All the previous Giant possessions lasted around 5 minutes on average.  If the Pats D only slowed down that last Giant possession to the previous times, the clock would have run out!




    Actually they would have kicked a game winning field goal as time expired.  The drive was so quick because Bradshaw foolishly went into the endzone.

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    The Giants controlled the clock in large part because our defense couldn't stop them.  You'll never acknowledge this, which is fine, but that doesn't make it any less true. 



    The reality is our defense forced them to punt 4 times, including after the disastrous interception to start the 4th quarter, that was one more punt than the Pats had.  

    The difference is that our offense turned the ball over twice and was not able to do anything offensively.  

    I don't expect the impossible from a defense that was considered the weaker of the two units, the defense was on the field all day, players only dont get tired on Madden after you turn the "fatigue" option off.

    The onus was on the offense to control the clock in the 4th, they failed miserably. 




  • They forced 4 punts, all in Pats territory, giving the O the worst starting positions ever.

    They allowed the jints to score on 50% of their drives and 75 freaken % in the second half.

    The O did control TOP in the 4th quarter with their 6 minute drive but failed to score on it.   The TOP up to that point was 2 to 1 in favor of the jints.  It was something like 32 to 16 minutes up until that point.  That's 2 quarters for the D and 1 for the O in TOP up until that point.  So the jints O got to stay on the field for 32 minutes and the Pats 16.  The Pats scoring effeciency was much higher as they were leading with 2 TD's & a field goal in half the time.

    The gints lowest TOP was on the final scoring drive because and only because BB gifted them a TD in order to get the ball back.

    How pathetic is that?

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    21-17 was the score, 19 points is what the defense allowed when you take away the safety.  

    You can say the defense was as responsible as the offense for the TOP battle all you like, but the reality is the Patriot defense made them punt one time more than the Giant defense did to us, the difference in the game was the turnovers.  You blame the defense for the poor field position but it's the offense's job to get the ball across the middle of the field.

    If we really wanted to win the battle for the clock we could have considered handing the ball to Law Firm who was averaging 4.4 yards per carry or (gasp) using Stevan Ridley, then maybe we would have converted some first downs.  That's what the run game brings, easier conversions...

    BB and McDaniels made an obvious attempt to make this offense tougher this year, that's not coincidence.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

     

    Actually, that Giants scoring drive took only 2 minutes and 49 seconds going 88 yards in only 9 plays.  All the previous Giant possessions lasted around 5 minutes on average.  If the Pats D only slowed down that last Giant possession to the previous times, the clock would have run out!




    Actually they would have kicked a game winning field goal as time expired.  The drive was so quick because Bradshaw foolishly went into the endzone.

    Score was 17 - 14 and a FG would have tied it.  Either way, the D on that drive gave up too many yards too quickly compared to the other Giant possessions!


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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Score was 17 - 14 and a FG would have tied it. 



    No.  It was 17-15.  If it had been 17-14 it would have made no sense to let Bradshaw score a TD intentionally.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to agcsbill's comment:

    Score was 17 - 14 and a FG would have tied it. 



    No.  It was 17-15.  If it had been 17-14 it would have made no sense to let Bradshaw score a TD intentionally.



    My bad, I actually forgot to take into consideration the 1st quarter safety!! Duh!!

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to palookaski's comment:

    Thanks for your good work and interesting indeed.

    Wondering  about the impact (2011 as opposed to 12) ie; O'B vs McD has any bearing? Gronk and Hern missing much time? Lot to think about dealing with details such as those.

    Thanks again ...;-))

     



    Good questions.  It's possible the absence of Hern and Gronk are one reason the average yards per passing play is down.  Those guys are good YAC guys.  

    As far as changes to playcalling and gameplanning, there clearly has been more emphasis on the run this year.  I'm not sure that's purely a Bill O'Brien-Josh MacDaniels thing, though.  I think the drafting of Ridley and Vereen showed the coaches (O'Brien and Belichick) felt the run needed to be improved after 2010 (a season in which O'Brien did try to emphasize the run).  I think in 2011, the coaches felt they weren't there yet with two rookies, and so devised an offense that took advantage of the strengths in the short passing game.  In the offseason last year, there was a stated desire to become more effective in the run.  Josh probably had something to do with that, but I think O'Brien and Belichick would have done the same as well.  

    Regardless, the offense in 2012 is highly productive--but pretty much equally productive as in 2011.  Even the offensive statistics suggest that the biggest change in the team has been in defense.  The slight increase in scoring is in large part due to a doubling of defensive TDs.  It also probably has to do with the increase in drives and TOP, which probably has to do with both the offense and defense being slightly more efficient. The offense has slightly extended its drives while the defense has decreased the yards given up per game by about 38. 

     



    good number crunching ... Except you left out first downs....

    2011 .  369 first downs total(non penalty).

      .  .  .  89 of 194  3rd down conversion. 45.9%

     

    2012.    407 first downs (non penalty).

     . . .  . 110 of 226 3rd down conversions  48.7%.

     

    These numbers are telling since the use of a running game makes 3 rd does easier to convert.  Clearly this years offense is much better, even without gronk and Hernandez for long stretches.  not even close.

    Also , stop making excuses for O'Brien...  He was terrible.  Backs weren't ready ?  Ridley was excellent, and the other guys bjge woodhead etc. were quite capable.



    You need to justify this. 

    Your statement has no backing whatsoever. A use of running game makes getting third downs easier? Simply saying that doesn't make it true. 

    One doesn't logically follow the other. Sorry. I could just as easily say three step drops make getting third downs easier. 

    Clearly, the offense, given its efficiencies are almost *spot on* performs the same as O'Briens. 

    It's very, very easy to see ... more help from the defense (vastly improved in *real* numbers at gettting off the field on thrid down) + faster playcalling/play running = more posessions. 

    The first alone, going from 30th to 17th in DSR on defense *should* yeild you an extra handful or so possessions over the course of a season. That's the extra points, yards, plays, etc. The efficiencies of this offense and last years are basically identical.

    The increase in 3rd down percentage probably has to do with the fact that Ridley carries at 4.1 YPC on first down, and BJGE (last season) was at 3.4 YPC on first down. But even then it's a nominal increase. 



    It could be rephrased, like 3rd down conversion increase is related to better play calling overall but also the use of a running game (90% of which happens on 1st and 2nd down) providing shorter 3rd downs to convert.  this is logical to me and it is shown in the numbers.



    But it's not logical. You would have to show how X (simply running more) results in better performance on first down. 

    That can't be shown. 

    If it's logical to you, you need to revisit the logic. There is a huge hole in the logic. 

    You start with an assumption. Then say that assumption proves a fact. 

    Again, I could just as easily say: taking three step drops on second down account for the increase in 3rd down percentage. 

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:



    The reality is our defense forced them to punt 4 times, including after the disastrous interception to start the 4th quarter, that was one more punt than the Pats had.  




    Those 4 drives which resulted in punts ate 19:42 off the clock.  That is practically 5 minutes a drive even when they didn't score.  Compare this to say SB 25 which Rusty has likened this game to in terms of the play of our defense.  The Giants D in that game forced 6 Buffalo punts and on those drives the total amount of clock eaten was 9:35.  That is a HUGE difference.  The defense was just as responsible as the O for the ToP discrepancy imo.



    Defense always is. It's a split stat. Furthermore, the Giants ran ten more plays than New England (due to their startling efficiency against the defense, and completed four more passes.) Given that each of those plays (ten runs and four more completions) accounts for a :45 second runoff (give or take) the seven minute swing that would have equalized TOP is there. 

    But, given that you subtract TOP ticks for incompletions, the fact is that the Patriots defense was only on the field a matter of minutes more than the Giant's defense. 

    The *myth* that clock TOP = real world TOP really has to stop. It's no excuse for one of the worst defensive performances in SB history. 

    The Pats were no more *tired* than the Giants should have been. The Giants just manhandled the Pats' defense. 

    If there were an average number of possessions in that game, with the same scoring efficiencies, the Giants would have scored about 29 points. The Pats would have scored about 26. The Pats score is above league average against a defense like the Giants to boot. The Giants score would have been top three, but not against a defense as mediocre as New Englands. 

    The bottom line is that because of the way the Giants shortened the clock, the game played out quickly with about 2/3 the average amount of possessions. 

    The solution in that situation is the *lengthen* the game to give your offense more time to score. Not shorten the game further. Top, in this situation, becomes increasingly irrelevant. 

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to palookaski's comment:

    Thanks for your good work and interesting indeed.

    Wondering  about the impact (2011 as opposed to 12) ie; O'B vs McD has any bearing? Gronk and Hern missing much time? Lot to think about dealing with details such as those.

    Thanks again ...;-))

     



    Good questions.  It's possible the absence of Hern and Gronk are one reason the average yards per passing play is down.  Those guys are good YAC guys.  

    As far as changes to playcalling and gameplanning, there clearly has been more emphasis on the run this year.  I'm not sure that's purely a Bill O'Brien-Josh MacDaniels thing, though.  I think the drafting of Ridley and Vereen showed the coaches (O'Brien and Belichick) felt the run needed to be improved after 2010 (a season in which O'Brien did try to emphasize the run).  I think in 2011, the coaches felt they weren't there yet with two rookies, and so devised an offense that took advantage of the strengths in the short passing game.  In the offseason last year, there was a stated desire to become more effective in the run.  Josh probably had something to do with that, but I think O'Brien and Belichick would have done the same as well.  

    Regardless, the offense in 2012 is highly productive--but pretty much equally productive as in 2011.  Even the offensive statistics suggest that the biggest change in the team has been in defense.  The slight increase in scoring is in large part due to a doubling of defensive TDs.  It also probably has to do with the increase in drives and TOP, which probably has to do with both the offense and defense being slightly more efficient. The offense has slightly extended its drives while the defense has decreased the yards given up per game by about 38. 

     



    good number crunching ... Except you left out first downs....

    2011 .  369 first downs total(non penalty).

      .  .  .  89 of 194  3rd down conversion. 45.9%

     

    2012.    407 first downs (non penalty).

     . . .  . 110 of 226 3rd down conversions  48.7%.

     

    These numbers are telling since the use of a running game makes 3 rd does easier to convert.  Clearly this years offense is much better, even without gronk and Hernandez for long stretches.  not even close.

    Also , stop making excuses for O'Brien...  He was terrible.  Backs weren't ready ?  Ridley was excellent, and the other guys bjge woodhead etc. were quite capable.



    You need to justify this. 

    Your statement has no backing whatsoever. A use of running game makes getting third downs easier? Simply saying that doesn't make it true. 

    One doesn't logically follow the other. Sorry. I could just as easily say three step drops make getting third downs easier. 

    Clearly, the offense, given its efficiencies are almost *spot on* performs the same as O'Briens. 

    It's very, very easy to see ... more help from the defense (vastly improved in *real* numbers at gettting off the field on thrid down) + faster playcalling/play running = more posessions. 

    The first alone, going from 30th to 17th in DSR on defense *should* yeild you an extra handful or so possessions over the course of a season. That's the extra points, yards, plays, etc. The efficiencies of this offense and last years are basically identical.

    The increase in 3rd down percentage probably has to do with the fact that Ridley carries at 4.1 YPC on first down, and BJGE (last season) was at 3.4 YPC on first down. But even then it's a nominal increase. 



    It could be rephrased, like 3rd down conversion increase is related to better play calling overall but also the use of a running game (90% of which happens on 1st and 2nd down) providing shorter 3rd downs to convert.  this is logical to me and it is shown in the numbers.



    But it's not logical. You would have to show how X (simply running more) results in better performance on first down. 

    That can't be shown. 

    If it's logical to you, you need to revisit the logic. There is a huge hole in the logic. 

    You start with an assumption. Then say that assumption proves a fact. 

    Again, I could just as easily say: taking three step drops on second down account for the increase in 3rd down percentage. 




    Russel Baxter on EEI just now, made an interesting point that I don't believe has ever been discussed here.

    Check it out!  Due to it now being a passing league, it is now easier to run than ever before due to defenses keying in on the pass.

    There has been a huge increase in the amount of rushing yards league wide this season with a record breaking number of rushers eclipsing 1000, 1400, 1600+ yards.

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    You can say the defense was as responsible as the offense for the TOP battle all you like, but the reality is the Patriot defense made them punt one time more than the Giant defense did to us, the difference in the game was the turnovers.  

     




    The fact that the Giants scored on 50% of their drives, and New England scored on 37% of their drives (with 50% redzone TD efficiency for one and 66% redzone efficiency for the other) only highlights how well both offenses performed. 

    I'm not sure how (well, I am sure, because you *want* to be right) you think this stat about the Giants punting shows anything when placed in a meaningful context. 

    Both offenses had about a 50% 3rd down conversion rate. Both had top ten qualifiying Points per Possesion, both had top five DSR (drives scoring + drives with a first down). 

    This was not a defensive contest. It was an offensive contest. Neither defense really played well, though the Giants' defense played much better than New Englands, who allowed a 1.000 DSR. 

    1.000. There isn't even a stat category for that. The *worst* DSR over a season allowed is .758, by the worst defense. In 2011, though, that wasn't far off because NE was 30th with .731. 

    New England's defense takes the lion's share, and has for the last few seasons, of the TOP issue. Bottom line ... they haven't been able to get off the field efficiently, and couldn't (even once) in that Superbowl. 

     

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to palookaski's comment:

    Thanks for your good work and interesting indeed.

    Wondering  about the impact (2011 as opposed to 12) ie; O'B vs McD has any bearing? Gronk and Hern missing much time? Lot to think about dealing with details such as those.

    Thanks again ...;-))

     



    Good questions.  It's possible the absence of Hern and Gronk are one reason the average yards per passing play is down.  Those guys are good YAC guys.  

    As far as changes to playcalling and gameplanning, there clearly has been more emphasis on the run this year.  I'm not sure that's purely a Bill O'Brien-Josh MacDaniels thing, though.  I think the drafting of Ridley and Vereen showed the coaches (O'Brien and Belichick) felt the run needed to be improved after 2010 (a season in which O'Brien did try to emphasize the run).  I think in 2011, the coaches felt they weren't there yet with two rookies, and so devised an offense that took advantage of the strengths in the short passing game.  In the offseason last year, there was a stated desire to become more effective in the run.  Josh probably had something to do with that, but I think O'Brien and Belichick would have done the same as well.  

    Regardless, the offense in 2012 is highly productive--but pretty much equally productive as in 2011.  Even the offensive statistics suggest that the biggest change in the team has been in defense.  The slight increase in scoring is in large part due to a doubling of defensive TDs.  It also probably has to do with the increase in drives and TOP, which probably has to do with both the offense and defense being slightly more efficient. The offense has slightly extended its drives while the defense has decreased the yards given up per game by about 38. 

     



    good number crunching ... Except you left out first downs....

    2011 .  369 first downs total(non penalty).

      .  .  .  89 of 194  3rd down conversion. 45.9%

     

    2012.    407 first downs (non penalty).

     . . .  . 110 of 226 3rd down conversions  48.7%.

     

    These numbers are telling since the use of a running game makes 3 rd does easier to convert.  Clearly this years offense is much better, even without gronk and Hernandez for long stretches.  not even close.

    Also , stop making excuses for O'Brien...  He was terrible.  Backs weren't ready ?  Ridley was excellent, and the other guys bjge woodhead etc. were quite capable.



    You need to justify this. 

    Your statement has no backing whatsoever. A use of running game makes getting third downs easier? Simply saying that doesn't make it true. 

    One doesn't logically follow the other. Sorry. I could just as easily say three step drops make getting third downs easier. 

    Clearly, the offense, given its efficiencies are almost *spot on* performs the same as O'Briens. 

    It's very, very easy to see ... more help from the defense (vastly improved in *real* numbers at gettting off the field on thrid down) + faster playcalling/play running = more posessions. 

    The first alone, going from 30th to 17th in DSR on defense *should* yeild you an extra handful or so possessions over the course of a season. That's the extra points, yards, plays, etc. The efficiencies of this offense and last years are basically identical.

    The increase in 3rd down percentage probably has to do with the fact that Ridley carries at 4.1 YPC on first down, and BJGE (last season) was at 3.4 YPC on first down. But even then it's a nominal increase. 



    It could be rephrased, like 3rd down conversion increase is related to better play calling overall but also the use of a running game (90% of which happens on 1st and 2nd down) providing shorter 3rd downs to convert.  this is logical to me and it is shown in the numbers.



    But it's not logical. You would have to show how X (simply running more) results in better performance on first down. 

    That can't be shown. 

    If it's logical to you, you need to revisit the logic. There is a huge hole in the logic. 

    You start with an assumption. Then say that assumption proves a fact. 

    Again, I could just as easily say: taking three step drops on second down account for the increase in 3rd down percentage. 




    Russel Baxter on EEI just now, made an interesting point that I don't believe has ever been discussed here.

    Check it out!  Due to it now being a passing league, it is now easier to run than ever before due to defenses keying in on the pass.

    There has been a huge increase in the amount of rushing yards league wide this season with a record breaking number of rushers eclipsing 1000, 1400, 1600+ yards.



    He is incorrect. It's easier to do both. Offensive numbers are increasing, the efficiencies are increasing across the board. It probably has less to do with "keying" and more to do with the increase in the use of 3 wide which calls for Nickel, which gives the offense the advantage running the football in any situtation where the defense isn't waiting for it. 

    Granted, they are actually much smaller increases than people make them out to be, but they are increasing ... across the board. 

    It's an offensive era. Which, ironcially,only increases the importance of playing sound defense. 

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    Z,

    I understand what you are saying as it is easier on the Offenses as far as passing effeciency goes, but  this year, there were 6 RB's with over 1400 yards and you have to go back to pre-polian p00 p00  to find those kind of numbers.  In those 6 years there was only one year where there were 4 over 1400 and the other 5 years had only one or two over 1400.

    IMO D's have always been slow in adapting to what O's are doing, not that it takes long to figure it out but having the right personnel to defend  it takes time.  5 years in some cases :-), But just as they do, Offenses change it up.

    To me, it makes sense that O's are now more able to take advantage of defenses, by rushing, as they are now geared in on stopping the pass.  Pass setting up the run.

    We've seen TB take advantage of that a number of times this year as no one's D cared at all about stopping the run in the past and have been slow in adjusting to it.

    That would make it easier to do both as you said.

    I did want to ask you what your thoughts on points per game not increasing significantly, are.  With pass effeciency and rushing effeciency better, why has scoring effeciency not increases significantly?  It was stagnant for the past decade (42 pts a game) with a marginal increase last year and I believe it to be less this year (even though I haven't run the numbers).

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    Those who argue that the defense was tired in the second half need to remember that the Pats ended the first half with a 3:55 minute drive and started the second half with a 3:40 minute drive. In between those two drives was the ridiculously long Super Bowl halftime.  In real world time, the defense probably had close to an hour of rest between the time they left the field in the second quarter and got back on the field in the third quarter. 

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     

    I did want to ask you what your thoughts on points per game not increasing significantly, are.  With pass effeciency and rushing effeciency better, why has scoring effeciency not increases significantly?  It was stagnant for the past decade (42 pts a game) with a marginal increase last year and I believe it to be less this year (even though I haven't run the numbers).



    Pezz - - do you have a source for the average points per game by year?  People talk all the time about this becoming a more "offensive" league, but if scoring really hasn't increased then maybe that's just another myth?  I haven't seen the data, however.  

    It is possible, of course, that the average points per game has stayed the same, but the top offensive teams are scoring more while the weaker offensive teams are scoring less.  Averages sometimes obscure details like this, which may be signficant. 

     

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    Z,

    I understand what you are saying as it is easier on the Offenses as far as passing effeciency goes, but  this year, there were 6 RB's with over 1400 yards and you have to go back to pre-polian p00 p00  to find those kind of numbers.  In those 6 years there was only one year where there were 4 over 1400 and the other 5 years had only one or two over 1400.

    IMO D's have always been slow in adapting to what O's are doing, not that it takes long to figure it out but having the right personnel to defend  it takes time.  5 years in some cases :-), But just as they do, Offenses change it up.

    To me, it makes sense that O's are now more able to take advantage of defenses, by rushing, as they are now geared in on stopping the pass.  Pass setting up the run.

    We've seen TB take advantage of that a number of times this year as no one's D cared at all about stopping the run in the past and have been slow in adjusting to it.

    That would make it easier to do both as you said.

    I did want to ask you what your thoughts on points per game not increasing significantly, are.  With pass effeciency and rushing effeciency better, why has scoring effeciency not increases significantly?  It was stagnant for the past decade (42 pts a game) with a marginal increase last year and I believe it to be less this year (even though I haven't run the numbers).



    The NFL has been largely inverted for decades. The more seasons that have passed, the more teams pass to set up the run as often as they do it the other way. It was just something unheard of in the 1960s.

    Scoring hasn't gone up because parity has increased. Scoring has increased a little the last few seasons, but only a little. Also, we are just now probably going to start seeing the real upshot, which should just be an increase of a point or so. The rule changes weren't monumental and generally it takes about a decade for rule changes to be fully incorprated by game planners. Not everyone knows how to utilize them efficiently at first. 

    It took about a decade after the adoption of the forward pass from anywhere behind the line of scrimmage, which was a  monumental rule change for scoring, to show up in an increase of scoring. That also increased scoring for both rushing and passing, because it allowed teams to move the ball more efficiently.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

    ]

    It could be rephrased, like 3rd down conversion increase is related to better play calling overall but also the use of a running game (90% of which happens on 1st and 2nd down) providing shorter 3rd downs to convert.  this is logical to me and it is shown in the numbers.



    If you're waiting for this crew to admit that a running game has contributed to a more efficient offense you'll die of old age before that happens.  Ironically O'Brien's best offense (2010) came about because he rode Law Firm, achieving his highest total number of carries as a Patriot, this was Brady's most efficient season under Obie but the running game will get no props for that because Obie sat Law Firm for the 1st half of the shellacking the Jets handed us at home in the first and only playoff game.

    For those saying a run game doesn't make third downs easier, consider a third and short is considerably easier to achieve than a third and long, especially when you bring the dual threat to run or pass.  Running makes third downs more manageable because a balanced offense is a more dangerous offense.  This isn't even an argument.

    Yes, there's nothing different about this years offense except that it is better in every way...



    Agree...  It seems quite obvious  most of the time.  Especially the use of the running game.  Obie apologists point to overall totals and see only a minimal difference.   this ignores HOW the running game is used during games.  mcd has a better sense of this while obie was scattered and they lost games because of it. 

    Perfect example last year @ buffalo, obie threw it all over the place EVEN THO THE RUNNING GAME WAS WORKING.... multiple picks lose game.  . THIS year mcd recognized  running game , both Ridley and Bolden go over 100yards.

    That said there are still stretches where running game is ignored, especially the shotgun with no back in the backfield.   disagree with this formation in general since back can be more useful in backfield rather than trotting out split wide.

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to coolade2's comment:

     

    Agree...  It seems quite obvious  most of the time.  Especially the use of the running game.  Obie apologists point to overall totals and see only a minimal difference.   this ignores HOW the running game is used during games.  mcd has a better sense of this while obie was scattered and they lost games because of it. 

    Perfect example last year @ buffalo, obie threw it all over the place EVEN THO THE RUNNING GAME WAS WORKING.... multiple picks lose game.  . THIS year mcd recognized  running game , both Ridley and Bolden go over 100yards.

    That said there are still stretches where running game is ignored, especially the shotgun with no back in the backfield.   disagree with this formation in general since back can be more useful in backfield rather than trotting out split wide.



    Here's some good Belichick quotes about converting third downs and turnovers:

    "I think ultimately, sure, it comes down to execution. Some of that of course is the situations that you are in. Nobody in the league is converting 50 percent of 10-pluses. You put yourself in enough long yardage situations, you won™t convert them. Conversely, third-and-one, third-and-two, you're up in the 70 percent range league-wide. The distance you're in, the situation you're in, has something to do with it."

    "It's hard enough gaining 10 yards on three downs. If you start trying to gain 12 or 13 or 17 on two, then eventually it's probably going to catch up with you."

    Last season, Ridley was put in mothballs after fumbling twice (one lost) late in the year. Asked how he would handle Ridley's playing time going forward this season, Belichick said, "There's nothing more important than possession of the ball. We can't afford to lose it, it's as simple as that."

    "We work on ball security with every player that handles the ball. Every week. Every day," said Belichick. "That includes everybody that touches the ball. Center. Quarterback. Running backs, receivers, punters, kickers, snappers, returners, defenders when they get it if they happen to get it on a turnover. We talk and work on ball security every day with everybody. Everybody who handles it, it's important. It's the highest priority with everybody."

     

    Everyone is amazed the Giant's won the time of possession, not surprising since they ran the ball ten more times than the Pats did with their primary backs (not their scatback) and even though the Patriots were more effective running the ball!

    Also I love how they point out that the Pat's defense couldn't get the Giant's off the field yet the Giants punted more than the Pats did, does that make sense?  I think they're remembering a different game?  

    Turnovers by our offense and their inability to not only not score, but simply convert first downs and get in good field position ruined us.  Yes, the defense could have played better, could have recovered the fumbles they caused but the offense (best in the NFL?) didn't do its job protecting the ball and controlling the clock.  

    I'm not absolving the defense but you can't tout your offense as the best in the land, spend all of your cap money on offense, insist that through perfect execution you can win by passing alone and not have it come back to bite you in the rear.  Yes you can win without running but it is substantially harder to execute.

    We had no chance to win if the offense didn't play well, they didn't play well.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In the Buffalo game, the "throwing it everywhere" had the Pats up 21-0 in the first half.  The reason they couldn't just run the ball in the second half is because the defense collapsed.  Brady's interceptions didn't help the cause, but all the throwing in the second half was forced because the defense wasn't stopping anything and Buffalo was scoring easily.

    Also, Green-Ellis had 18 yards on 10 carries (1.8 ypc) and Woodhead had 21 yards on 6 carries (3.5 ypc).  This is not evidence of a running game that is working well.   They began to work Ridley into the game in the second half and he ran better (42 yards on 6 carries, with one 16 yard run), but by that time they were struggling to keep up with Buffalo and were forced to pass.

    Also, there are plenty of reasons to go to empty backfield against certain defensive looks . . . that's why the formation is employed by just about every team in the NFL.  There's a reason why teams don't line up in the pro set every down like they did in the 1970s.  The NFL has gotten much more sophisticated since then and offensive coordinators have to use a wide range of formations, plays, and personnel packages to keep defenses honest.

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

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In the Buffalo game, the "throwing it everywhere" had the Pats up 21-0 in the first half.  The reason they couldn't just run the ball in the second half is because the defense collapsed.  Brady's interceptions didn't help the cause, but all the throwing in the second half was forced because the defense wasn't stopping anything and Buffalo was scoring easily.

    Also, Green-Ellis had 18 yards on 10 carries (1.8 ypc) and Woodhead had 21 yards on 6 carries (3.5 ypc).  This is not evidence of a running game that is working well.   They began to work Ridley into the game in the second half and he ran better (42 yards on 6 carries, with one 16 yard run), but by that time they were struggling to keep up with Buffalo and were forced to pass.

    Also, there are plenty of reasons to go to empty backfield against certain defensive looks . . . that's why the formation is employed by just about every team in the NFL.  There's a reason why teams don't line up in the pro set every down like they did in the 1970s.  The NFL has gotten much more sophisticated since then and offensive coordinators have to use a wide range of formations, plays, and personnel packages to keep defenses honest.



    That's why the following game the theme out of everybodies mouth was "balance" and they fed Law Firm and Ridely the rock 26 times...

    Passing 45 times and throwing 4 INT's is usually a bad thing.

    Are we really trying to go back and revise history now?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Also I love how they point out that the Pat's defense couldn't get the Giant's off the field yet the Giants punted more than the Pats did, does that make sense?  I think they're remembering a different game?  

    The Giants punted at the end of 4, 5, and 6 minute drives . . . getting the offense off the field doesn't mean getting them to punt after they control the ball for long stretches of time on multi-play drives--it means getting them off the field after 1 or 2 minutes and three or four plays.   Besides, while the Giants punted on four drives, they scored on their other four.  A 50% scoring rate is excellent.  No defense that gives up points on half the opposing team's drives is playing well.

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to coolade2's comment:

     

    Agree...  It seems quite obvious  most of the time.  Especially the use of the running game.  Obie apologists point to overall totals and see only a minimal difference.   this ignores HOW the running game is used during games.  mcd has a better sense of this while obie was scattered and they lost games because of it. 

    Perfect example last year @ buffalo, obie threw it all over the place EVEN THO THE RUNNING GAME WAS WORKING.... multiple picks lose game.  . THIS year mcd recognized  running game , both Ridley and Bolden go over 100yards.

    That said there are still stretches where running game is ignored, especially the shotgun with no back in the backfield.   disagree with this formation in general since back can be more useful in backfield rather than trotting out split wide.



    Here's some good Belichick quotes about converting third downs and turnovers:

    "I think ultimately, sure, it comes down to execution. Some of that of course is the situations that you are in. Nobody in the league is converting 50 percent of 10-pluses. You put yourself in enough long yardage situations, you won™t convert them. Conversely, third-and-one, third-and-two, you're up in the 70 percent range league-wide. The distance you're in, the situation you're in, has something to do with it."

    "It's hard enough gaining 10 yards on three downs. If you start trying to gain 12 or 13 or 17 on two, then eventually it's probably going to catch up with you."

    Last season, Ridley was put in mothballs after fumbling twice (one lost) late in the year. Asked how he would handle Ridley's playing time going forward this season, Belichick said, "There's nothing more important than possession of the ball. We can't afford to lose it, it's as simple as that."

    "We work on ball security with every player that handles the ball. Every week. Every day," said Belichick. "That includes everybody that touches the ball. Center. Quarterback. Running backs, receivers, punters, kickers, snappers, returners, defenders when they get it if they happen to get it on a turnover. We talk and work on ball security every day with everybody. Everybody who handles it, it's important. It's the highest priority with everybody."

     

    Everyone is amazed the Giant's won the time of possession, not surprising since they ran the ball ten more times than the Pats did with their primary backs (not their scatback) and even though the Patriots were more effective running the ball!

    Also I love how they point out that the Pat's defense couldn't get the Giant's off the field yet the Giants punted more than the Pats did, does that make sense?  I think they're remembering a different game?  

    Turnovers by our offense and their inability to not only not score, but simply convert first downs and get in good field position ruined us.  Yes, the defense could have played better, could have recovered the fumbles they caused but the offense (best in the NFL?) didn't do its job protecting the ball and controlling the clock.  

    I'm not absolving the defense but you can't tout your offense as the best in the land, spend all of your cap money on offense, insist that through perfect execution you can win by passing alone and not have it come back to bite you in the rear.  Yes you can win without running but it is substantially harder to execute.

    We had no chance to win if the offense didn't play well, they didn't play well.

     




    Understand the ball security preaching but guarantee a.Peterson doesn't sit out a playoff game for a fumble.  They are part of the game and sometimes not backs fault...

    benching Ridley helped giants.  Simple as that.  Part of obi's stupidity was not knowing this and objecting.  Benching players for reasons of principle send terrible message to team. 

     It was the beginning of the end when Welker was (temporarily) benched against jets in playoffs.  The game is too important to arrogantly drop players that would have helped you win.  Beyond silly you're helping the other team while your team gets the 'oh sh!t hope I don't mess up' feeling.  Or... "what...?"  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Interesting Offensive Stats: 2012 vs 2011

    Do you think O'Brien made the decisions to sit Ridley and Welker or Belichick? I can't believe it was soley O'Brien without Belichick's approval. 

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share