Performance per Drive

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

    Re: Performance per Drive

    I think people misunderstand what a "bend but don't break" defense is supposed to do.  It's not supposed to give the offense free reign between the 20s or give up big plays except in the red zone.  The concept is rather to keep everything in front of you, allow short gains, but basically force the offense to execute 15 or 20 plays successfully if it's going to march down the field.  The Pats have always given up yardage on short passes . . . that's because their defensive philosophy emphasizes stopping the run at the line of scrimmage and stopping long passes and big plays.  The defense is a bit softer in the underneath passing zones.  But the defense is definitely not designed to give up 20 and 30 yard pass plays, to let the offense run wild between the 20s and to only start stopping plays once the offense is in the red zone, or to give up 400 yards passing a game.




     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    Good post Mighty, it offers a chance to see trends (or lack thereof) and follow up opinions from everyone's observations.
    Personally I don't put much into them, it's all about the Jets this week. The problem is pressure. There isn't one person here that would disagree. We need to force them into difficult passes and disrupt their timing or the big games against this D will continue.
    Now....AH was good in Miami, he looks like he's back this week. We also have another wild card in Ellis. This will be his first game back so I'm hoping he has a little Seymour type energy against his former buddies without the penalties.

    It wouldn't kill them to let Chung fire in a few times a game either since the front is having trouble doing it.

    GO PATS

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

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]I think people misunderstand what a "bend but don't break" defense is supposed to do.  It's not supposed to give the offense free reign between the 20s or give up big plays except in the red zone.  The concept is rather to keep everything in front of you, allow short gains, but basically force the offense to execute 15 or 20 plays successfully if it's going to march down the field.  The Pats have always given up yardage on short passes . . . that's because their defensive philosophy emphasizes stopping the run at the line of scrimmage and stopping long passes and big plays.  The defense is a bit softer in the underneath passing zones.  But the defense is definitely not designed to give up 20 and 30 yard pass plays, to let the offense run wild between the 20s and to only start stopping plays once the offense is in the red zone, or to give up 400 yards passing a game.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

    Excellent post. People talk about yardage being irrelevant for defenses. It isn't the most important stat, because it only tells part of the picture. But it's an important stat because it fills in the details. 

    The more yards you allow, the more redzone chances you allow, and the less time you give your offense to score. A redzone "D" that is 60% efficient that allows a team eight trips into the zone will give up more points than a redzone "D" that is only 50% efficient, but only allows half again as many trips. 

    Likewise, a team with a very poor DSR (a stat that measures yardage/1st downs AND scores) on Mighty's chart will give it's offense less chances to score per contest, even if it allows the same amount of "RAW" scoring per drive as another defense.

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

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]I'm not judging anything based on 4 games.  I know the D will get better and win a championship.  I just think per drive statistics are the most useful and was trying to start a discussion about them.
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    Of course not. That was a great post, bringing up a really cool stat collection. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    To add another statistic to the conversation, Chris Forsberg writes yesterday that "the Patriots lead the NFL with opponents' average starting position at the 20.98 yard line. By comparison, the Chiefs are last in the NFL, allowing an average starting position at the 35.43 yard line (Kansas City, of course, is 1-3 and has been outscored by 77 points overall this season). But here's the bottom line: When teams are being forced to cover 80 yards per drive, the Patriots can give up 500-yards of offense and limit the damage overall on the scoreboard."
    http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4705416/field-positioned-for-success
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    One thing to bear in mind is that over the last decade or so, and over the last half-decade in particular, is that teams that didn't play great defense during the regular season have shown the ability to get healthy, get better and get it done (enough) in the post-season.

    In the last five years alone you've had the 7th-worst defense against the run in NFL history (the 2006 Colts) suddenly get tough against the run and good enough against the pass in the post-season to help the team win a Super Bowl (big assist from the AFC title game zebras, but I digress).

    The 2007 Giants were absolutely scorched defensively by three of the four teams they ended up shutting down in the post-season (Dallas twice, Green Bay and the Patriots--in four games against those three teams during the regular season the Giants' defense allowed 30+ points each time).

    The 2008 Cardinals were 9-7 and their defense was lousy. In the post-season their defense was "good enough" to allow Warner and the offense to win three playoff games, and nearly pull off a Super Bowl upset against Pittsburgh; take away Warner's horrible pick-six at the end of the first half and Arizona does, in fact, win that Super Bowl.

    So basically this is now a league where a defense just has to get "hot" for a month in January and let the team's offense do most of the heavy lifting.

    I believe that if the Pats can get to the playoffs (they should) and get guys like Chung, Dowling, Haynesworth, Mayo and Wright completely healthy by then, they've got a shot to be one of those "good enough" defenses. The talent is there to get better this year, I think, but right now the injuries are just killing them and making survival the #1 goal of the defense every week.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from nyjoseph. Show nyjoseph's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    Great stats.  I expect that with colder, more miserable weather, the numbers will come down somewhat, but these are sobering statistics.  Even though the yards per drive are relatively flat, the Pats D has increased yards/drive allowed by a minimum of 50% over their SB years.  The current yards/drive is roughly DOUBLE the number from the 2003 team.  And what really stands out is that on average they are allowing the opponent well past the 50 yard line on every drive.
    More than anything, I expect the performance of the D to be a result of how many first line starters suit up the rest of the way.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]Great stats.  I expect that with colder, more miserable weather, the numbers will come down somewhat, but these are sobering statistics.  Even though the yards per drive are relatively flat, the Pats D has increased yards/drive allowed by a minimum of 50% over their SB years.  The current yards/drive is roughly DOUBLE the number from the 2003 team.  And what really stands out is that on average they are allowing the opponent well past the 50 yard line on every drive. More than anything, I expect the performance of the D to be a result of how many first line starters suit up the rest of the way.
    Posted by nyjoseph[/QUOTE]

    That is kind of the point. The offense gets that yardage back, and it's essentially taken for granted. 

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

    Re: Performance per Drive

    The game to play is the next one. The games that matter are played this season. What happened before is meaningless to the team on the field today.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]The game to play is the next one. The games that matter are played this season. What happened before is meaningless to the team on the field today.
    Posted by OlderbutWiser[/QUOTE]

    A fairly obvious point . . .  but numbers will always have their allure to people who are more interested in defending a point of view than in actually analyzing anything.

    When every team in every sport plays the exact same schedule under the exact same conditions with the exact same external influence (officiating), I will believe that statistics have merit.

    Until then . . .


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

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]One thing to bear in mind is that over the last decade or so, and over the last half-decade in particular, is that teams that didn't play great defense during the regular season have shown the ability to get healthy, get better and get it done (enough) in the post-season. In the last five years alone you've had the 7th-worst defense against the run in NFL history (the 2006 Colts) suddenly get tough against the run and good enough against the pass in the post-season to help the team win a Super Bowl (big assist from the AFC title game zebras, but I digress). The 2007 Giants were absolutely scorched defensively by three of the four teams they ended up shutting down in the post-season (Dallas twice, Green Bay and the Patriots--in four games against those three teams during the regular season the Giants' defense allowed 30+ points each time). The 2008 Cardinals were 9-7 and their defense was lousy. In the post-season their defense was "good enough" to allow Warner and the offense to win three playoff games, and nearly pull off a Super Bowl upset against Pittsburgh; take away Warner's horrible pick-six at the end of the first half and Arizona does, in fact, win that Super Bowl. So basically this is now a league where a defense just has to get "hot" for a month in January and let the team's offense do most of the heavy lifting. I believe that if the Pats can get to the playoffs (they should) and get guys like Chung, Dowling, Haynesworth, Mayo and Wright completely healthy by then, they've got a shot to be one of those "good enough" defenses. The talent is there to get better this year, I think, but right now the injuries are just killing them and making survival the #1 goal of the defense every week.
    Posted by hardright[/QUOTE]

    Great post Hardright. Basically what we are seeing is over the past 5 or 6 years, offense is really what gets it done in the post season, while a defense really just has to be good enough. Bill Belichick obviously agrees with you to a certain extent as he has focused on building a team around Brady. Only really drafting  fresh bodies to the secondary as opposed to building around the defensive line as he had done in the past.

    Our defense needs to get better and Prolate is right we are certainly not executing a BDB defense right now. But in the end if we are going to win a SB it is not going to be our defense getting it done. Its going to take offensive execution more then ever before.This is how it works in the NFL now a days, if not the Steelers would have beat the Packers last year as they were one of the best D's in the league.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dogbones. Show dogbones's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    changing the rules affects the numbers. limitations on hitting the quarterback increases the quatersbacks effeectivness.....more pass completions and more touchdowns. it also refects on the defensive numbers. the helmet rule and the taping in the red zone also effects the numbers but this will take a few more years to understand these effects 

    not taking anything away from cam newton but if he was a rookie prior to 2008 his numbers would be different.

     mat cassel's 2008 numbers are pretty good, being the first time out of the gate. it's a shame that he didn't make it into the play offs.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]I'm not judging anything based on 4 games.  I know the D will get better and win a championship.  I just think per drive statistics are the most useful and was trying to start a discussion about them.
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    And I'm just saying in regards to these stats, 4 games is too small a sample size, not every one of our Super bowl defenses was lights out a coming out of training camp and stats never tell the whole story anyway. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you.

    As far as I can remember 2003 was our best defense, but we got crushed 31-0 by the Bills in the opener, by the 5th game in we'd given up 27 points to the Titans and needed a 15 yard run by Mike Cloud and a 65 yard interception return for a TD by Ty Law to win it 38-30.
     
    Before season's end we'd give up another 26 points to the Broncos, 34 points to Payaton Manning before finally giving up 29 points in the Super Bowl to the Panthers. Not exactly as dominating as we remember..?  

    What we did well enough was be ranked 2nd in the the league in takeaway/giveaway differential, in other words we ran the ball instead of throwing it away and we ranked #1 in points allowed defensively.  Right now we need a lot of work but there's still hope our defense could do the same. 


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from e4smith. Show e4smith's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]As for the idea that there has been some horrible demise of the defense over the past decade, consider the following chart showing the yards and points per drive each year of the NFL's #1 defense and the NFL's median defense (#17):   #1 Yards #1 Points Median Yards Median Points 2001 22.53 0.96 27.76 1.62 2002 20.30 0.91 28.97 1.74 2003 19.81 1.13 27.58 1.69 2004 22.53 1.16 28.90 1.78 2005 22.73 1.02 27.38 1.68 2006 22.50 1.05 28.67 1.74 2007 24.24 1.39 28.12 1.72 2008 20.60 1.11 29.74 1.84 2009 21.42 1.04 29.60 1.71 2010 24.03 1.24 29.94 1.77 2011 20.33 0.84 31.62 1.98 I submit that this shows that there has not been a meaningful increase in points or yards allowed per drive this decade.  Although the median defense's performance has slipped a bit through the first 4 games this season, I don't think that proves a trend.
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    Just curious. You wouldn't call a 22% increase in median points per drive meaningful?

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

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Performance per Drive : And I'm just saying in regards to these stats, 4 games is too small a sample size, not every one of our Super bowl defenses was lights out a coming out of training camp and stats never tell the whole story anyway. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you. As far as I can remember 2003 was our best defense, but we got crushed 31-0 by the Bills in the opener, by the 5th game in we'd given up 27 points to the Titans and needed a 15 yard run by Mike Cloud and a 65 yard interception return for a TD by Ty Law to win it 38-30.   Before season's end we'd give up another 26 points to the Broncos, 34 points to Payaton Manning before finally giving up 29 points in the Super Bowl to the Panthers. Not exactly as dominating as we remember..?   What we did well enough was be ranked 2nd in the the league in takeaway/giveaway differential, in other words we ran the ball instead of throwing it away and we ranked #1 in points allowed defensively.  Right now we need a lot of work but there's still hope our defense could do the same. 
    Posted by wozzy[/QUOTE]

    Very good points.  The 2003 per drive statistics are pretty amazing when you take those games into account.  Also shows that we've always had trouble in Manning's dome.  Our next best defense of the decade, 2006, also couldn't contain him there.  
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Performance per Drive : Just curious. You wouldn't call a 22% increase in median points per drive meaningful?
    Posted by e4smith[/QUOTE]

    Well as Wozzy said it's only 4 games into the season so I'm not going to declare the death of the NFL defense just yet.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from e4smith. Show e4smith's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    Fair enough.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: Performance per Drive

    In Response to Re: Performance per Drive:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Performance per Drive : A fairly obvious point . . .  but numbers will always have their allure to people who are more interested in defending a point of view than in actually analyzing anything. When every team in every sport plays the exact same schedule under the exact same conditions with the exact same external influence (officiating), I will believe that statistics have merit. Until then . . .
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    Oh yes, numbers are so useless.  Words, on the other hand ...
     

Share