Sums Up The Defense

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:


    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


     


    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    This is it in a nut shell...Belichick would never of traded for a thug like Talib unless he HAD to. Those defenses we had needed a guy that could play because guys like Chung, Arrington and any one of the many undrafted free agents they rolled out there at corner, couldn't.


     


     




    BB acquired Talib because it was a value move, we got a Pro Bowl talent at rental prices.  It doesn't excuse the offense for stinking up the joint.  


     


     


    Again the defense was average, nobody is denying that, there are just a few here who are trying to tell us that less than half of the regular season scoring average, two touchdowns and two turnovers is great offensive output.  It's BS.  Bad is bad.


     


    NOBODY here is saying the defense was great, just that the defense wasn't solely to blame like this thread suggests.  The whole team had holes.


     


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


     


     


     


    SB 36


     


    O scored 1.66 points per possession


     


    D gave up 1.416 points per possession


     


    SB 42


     


    O scored 2.125 points per possession


     


    D gave up 2.375 points per possession.


     


    The O increased their points per possession by 1/2 point  + (.47)


     


    The D gave up nearly 1 point MORE per possession (.96)


     


    Because possessions matter.........................................


     


    This is not MLB


     


     


     


    Any Questions?


    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure what the point of your stats is, regarding SB 42, beyond pointing out the obvious.  The D gave up more points than the O scored.  No one is arguing that.  The better question would be...which unit did a better job at performing to its seasonal average?  The defense.  The offense fell flat.  Now, would it have been nice if the D could have put together an above average game?  I'm all for it.  However, I think it would have been even nicer if the offense could have come within even two touchdowns of their season average that year.  22 points would have gotten it done.


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    the point is that the O scored at a higher rate per possession and the D gave up points at a much higher rate per possession.     The point is if they had played a full 12 possessions,  the O would have scored close to their average and the  D would have given up far higher than their average.   I thought that was obvious   


    [/QUOTE]


    Well, they didn't have 12 possessions.  Sometimes you have no control over what you are given to work with.  You still have to get it done.  Also, how does one make the leap that the offense would have gotten it done, or that the defense would have given up more points if there had been more possessions?  You are assuming that the trends would have continued just the same.  Well, that would not be true because in order for there to be more possessions you would have to alter the possessions that already occurred.  Either the offense or the defense or both would have to get off of the field more quickly for more possessions to occur.  That might mean that either unit is more efficient, or it could mean just the opposite.  The point is, changing the number of possessions can change everything, but guarantee nothing.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, they didn't have 12 possessions.  Sometimes you have no control over what you are given to work with.  You still have to get it done.  Also, how does one make the leap that the offense would have gotten it done, or that the defense would have given up more points if there had been more possessions?  You are assuming that the trends would have continued just the same.  Well, that would not be true because in order for there to be more possessions you would have to alter the possessions that already occurred.  Either the offense or the defense or both would have to get off of the field more quickly for more possessions to occur.  That might mean that either unit is more efficient, or it could mean just the opposite.  The point is, changing the number of possessions guarantees nothing.

    [/QUOTE]

    This theory by Pezz supported by others is complete and utter horsesht.  

    In this scenerio the offense is a victim of their defense and how many possessions they allow them.  Total BS.  A "strong" offense dictates to an opposing defense, they aren't at the mercy of how many possessions their own defense gives them.  The idea is complete garbage.

    In the last Super Bowl both teams had 9 possessions, the Patriot's offense scored 4 minutes into the third quarter, they had four more possessions, another entire quarter and 2/3rds of the third to get some points.  Punt, interception, punt, three straight incompletions to end the game.  Game over.

    Does anyone here remember, anyone at all, remember three straight Super Bowls that ended with comebacks, we were trailing and the offense led us the length of the field to get us the win.  Those were strong offenses, those were clutch offenses, they dictated to the enemy how it was going to be, they weren't victims. 

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    This is it in a nut shell...Belichick would never of traded for a thug like Talib unless he HAD to. Those defenses we had needed a guy that could play because guys like Chung, Arrington and any one of the many undrafted free agents they rolled out there at corner, couldn't.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    BB acquired Talib because it was a value move, we got a Pro Bowl talent at rental prices.  It doesn't excuse the offense for stinking up the joint.  

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Again the defense was average, nobody is denying that, there are just a few here who are trying to tell us that less than half of the regular season scoring average, two touchdowns and two turnovers is great offensive output.  It's BS.  Bad is bad.

     

     

     

    NOBODY here is saying the defense was great, just that the defense wasn't solely to blame like this thread suggests.  The whole team had holes.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    SB 36

     

     

     

    O scored 1.66 points per possession

     

     

     

    D gave up 1.416 points per possession

     

     

     

    SB 42

     

     

     

    O scored 2.125 points per possession

     

     

     

    D gave up 2.375 points per possession.

     

     

     

    The O increased their points per possession by 1/2 point  + (.47)

     

     

     

    The D gave up nearly 1 point MORE per possession (.96)

     

     

     

    Because possessions matter.........................................

     

     

     

    This is not MLB

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Any Questions?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure what the point of your stats is, regarding SB 42, beyond pointing out the obvious.  The D gave up more points than the O scored.  No one is arguing that.  The better question would be...which unit did a better job at performing to its seasonal average?  The defense.  The offense fell flat.  Now, would it have been nice if the D could have put together an above average game?  I'm all for it.  However, I think it would have been even nicer if the offense could have come within even two touchdowns of their season average that year.  22 points would have gotten it done.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    the point is that the O scored at a higher rate per possession and the D gave up points at a much higher rate per possession.     The point is if they had played a full 12 possessions,  the O would have scored close to their average and the  D would have given up far higher than their average.   I thought that was obvious   

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Well, they didn't have 12 possessions.  Sometimes you have no control over what you are given to work with.  You still have to get it done.  Also, how does one make the leap that the offense would have gotten it done, or that the defense would have given up more points if there had been more possessions?  You are assuming that the trends would have continued just the same.  Well, that would not be true because in order for there to be more possessions you would have to alter the possessions that already occurred.  Either the offense or the defense or both would have to get off of the field more quickly for more possessions to occur.  That might mean that either unit is more efficient, or it could mean just the opposite.  The point is, changing the number of possessions can change everything, but guarantee nothing.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    thats not the point. The point is they had less possessions because the d sucked. You can't just look at a game and say they gave up 19 points so they did well.  That's not true because not all games are equal.  To make it equal yor have to divide points by possessions which gives you an average of points given up per possessions.    If they had given up  equal points with equal possessions,  their yield would have been on par with 2001.  But since the possessions were not equal (not even close) they gave up a lot more points per possessions, which means they sucked. The offense had a higher point per possession than in 2001,  which means they didn't suck   

    If the O had only scored 17 points in 12 possessions, then I would be right there with you, saying they underperformed @ a poultry 1.4 points per possession 

    that  clearly wasn't the case   

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    thats not the point. The point is they had less possessions because the d sucked. You can't just look at a game and say they gave up 19 points so they did well.  That's not true because not all games are equal.  To make it equal yor have to divide points by possessions which gives you an average of points given up per possessions.    If they had given up  equal points with equal possessions,  their yield would have been on par with 2001.  But since the possessions were not equal (not even close) they gave up a lot more points per possessions, which means they sucked. The offense had a higher point per possession than in 2001,  which means they didn't suck   

    If the O had only scored 17 points in 12 possessions, then I would be right there with you, saying they underperformed @ a poultry 1.4 points per possession 

    that  clearly wasn't the case   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it seems to me, if you are going to insist upon using the points/possession stat then you need to compare how each unit's performance in a given Super Bowl compares to their regular season performance leading up to that Super Bowl.  At least that way, you get a true sense of whether a particular unit was actually under performing.  You can't compare one Super Bowl to another because, as you said, "not all games are equal."

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    thats not the point. The point is they had less possessions because the d sucked. You can't just look at a game and say they gave up 19 points so they did well.  That's not true because not all games are equal.  To make it equal yor have to divide points by possessions which gives you an average of points given up per possessions.    If they had given up  equal points with equal possessions,  their yield would have been on par with 2001.  But since the possessions were not equal (not even close) they gave up a lot more points per possessions, which means they sucked. The offense had a higher point per possession than in 2001,  which means they didn't suck   

    If the O had only scored 17 points in 12 possessions, then I would be right there with you, saying they underperformed @ a poultry 1.4 points per possession 

    that  clearly wasn't the case   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it seems to me, if you are going to insist upon using the points/possession stat then you need to compare how each unit's performance in a given Super Bowl compares to their regular season performance leading up to that Super Bowl.  At least that way, you get a true sense of whether a particular unit was actually under performing.  You can't compare one Super Bowl to another because, as you said, "not all games are equal."

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    ok during the  RS the pats gave up on average. 1.8. Points per possession. The 2011 game was  2.375.  You happy?

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    thats not the point. The point is they had less possessions because the d sucked. You can't just look at a game and say they gave up 19 points so they did well.  That's not true because not all games are equal.  To make it equal yor have to divide points by possessions which gives you an average of points given up per possessions.    If they had given up  equal points with equal possessions,  their yield would have been on par with 2001.  But since the possessions were not equal (not even close) they gave up a lot more points per possessions, which means they sucked. The offense had a higher point per possession than in 2001,  which means they didn't suck   

    If the O had only scored 17 points in 12 possessions, then I would be right there with you, saying they underperformed @ a poultry 1.4 points per possession 

    that  clearly wasn't the case   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it seems to me, if you are going to insist upon using the points/possession stat then you need to compare how each unit's performance in a given Super Bowl compares to their regular season performance leading up to that Super Bowl.  At least that way, you get a true sense of whether a particular unit was actually under performing.  You can't compare one Super Bowl to another because, as you said, "not all games are equal."

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    ok during the  RS the pats gave up on average. 1.8. Points per possession. The 2011 game was  2.375.  You happy?

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok...how did the offense do?  Thanks for doing all the work on this, by the way.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, they didn't have 12 possessions.  Sometimes you have no control over what you are given to work with.  You still have to get it done.  Also, how does one make the leap that the offense would have gotten it done, or that the defense would have given up more points if there had been more possessions?  You are assuming that the trends would have continued just the same.  Well, that would not be true because in order for there to be more possessions you would have to alter the possessions that already occurred.  Either the offense or the defense or both would have to get off of the field more quickly for more possessions to occur.  That might mean that either unit is more efficient, or it could mean just the opposite.  The point is, changing the number of possessions guarantees nothing.

    [/QUOTE]

    This theory by Pezz supported by others is complete and utter horsesht.  

    In this scenerio the offense is a victim of their defense and how many possessions they allow them.  Total BS.  A "strong" offense dictates to an opposing defense, they aren't at the mercy of how many possessions their own defense gives them.  The idea is complete garbage.

    In the last Super Bowl both teams had 9 possessions, the Patriot's offense scored 4 minutes into the third quarter, they had four more possessions, another entire quarter and 2/3rds of the third to get some points.  Punt, interception, punt, three straight incompletions to end the game.  Game over.

    Does anyone here remember, anyone at all, remember three straight Super Bowls that ended with comebacks, we were trailing and the offense led us the length of the field to get us the win.  Those were strong offenses, those were clutch offenses, they dictated to the enemy how it was going to be, they weren't victims. 

    [/QUOTE]

    So how would you rate a Defense who was owned by the other teams offense?  If the other team offense dictates the pace and the Defense can not in any meaningful way get the offense the ball that is.... ok?

    Not once did they do anything to help out a struggling O.  No short fields or turn overs.... a Defense main job is to get the ball back to the offense.  In this they did nothing to compliment the O and even made the game harder for the O by horrible field position and TOP. 

    I'm not saying any part of the team did well, but just looking at points given up is BS.  In college when we lost a game 17 to 14, I never once thought man we did our job on D only letting up three scores.  I personally blamed myself for dropping a sure pick that may have changed the game.  The D has just not been the type to win a game in a long time.  Sorry for the crappy layout I am have trouble typing on my phone.

    For the othesr that say the offense has some to blame in the TOP.  I agree but there is a finite amount of time in a game and when the D is letting the other team run off most of the clock that does limit the options of how your O has to play in order to give them the best chance to score.

    I played Defense for 10 years through pee-wee league all the way though college, then another 4 in an army league and never once has the goal of the D been just stop the other team from scoring.  Every down the goal is to get the ball back to the O.  When I watch this team personally I don't think the team has not been good at doing that.

    I guess we all look at football differently but when I look at a game where the offense struggles the D did nothing to help them out and couldn't stop a score when the game was on the line as having failed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, they didn't have 12 possessions.  Sometimes you have no control over what you are given to work with.  You still have to get it done.  Also, how does one make the leap that the offense would have gotten it done, or that the defense would have given up more points if there had been more possessions?  You are assuming that the trends would have continued just the same.  Well, that would not be true because in order for there to be more possessions you would have to alter the possessions that already occurred.  Either the offense or the defense or both would have to get off of the field more quickly for more possessions to occur.  That might mean that either unit is more efficient, or it could mean just the opposite.  The point is, changing the number of possessions guarantees nothing.

    [/QUOTE]

    This theory by Pezz supported by others is complete and utter horsesht.  

    In this scenerio the offense is a victim of their defense and how many possessions they allow them.  Total BS.  A "strong" offense dictates to an opposing defense, they aren't at the mercy of how many possessions their own defense gives them.  The idea is complete garbage.

    In the last Super Bowl both teams had 9 possessions, the Patriot's offense scored 4 minutes into the third quarter, they had four more possessions, another entire quarter and 2/3rds of the third to get some points.  Punt, interception, punt, three straight incompletions to end the game.  Game over.

    Does anyone here remember, anyone at all, remember three straight Super Bowls that ended with comebacks, we were trailing and the offense led us the length of the field to get us the win.  Those were strong offenses, those were clutch offenses, they dictated to the enemy how it was going to be, they weren't victims. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Horse ch@t????  Believe me, I know what that is and this is not!  Although, I've seen some horsech@t that resembles little foot balls.

    Do you think it coincidence that in the SB against the Bills, BB did everything in his power to take the ball out of the QB's hands including daring him to run?  Do you?

    Coughlin had an assist in that SB on O and BB's D, limited his throws. 10 possession game.

      Perfect Plan.

    Coughlin had the same plan against BB.  Keep TB on the bench.  He did that by playing cat and mouse with the D.   Batted them around for 40 minutes and then went in for the kill.

    I guess you missed the game announcers over the past years, screaming that "the D needs to get off the field"  Pee break?

    Why do you think they say that?

    Wouldn't have any thing to do with that if the D is on the field, then the O can't be. would it?

    Let me repeat.  The O can't be on the field when the D is.  Do you understand that?

    Do you understand that an offense (any offense) can not possible score as many points in 20 minutes as they can in 30?  Or in 7 or 8 possessions, instead of 12?

      Do you understand that the number of plays you can run in 20 minutes cannot equal the number of plays you run in 30?  It's mathematically impossible.  The only way to run less plays to get the same yardage, is to run plays that get more yardage.  There goes most of your precious run plays.  They don't produce enough yardage.  Pretty sure BB understands that as evidenced by his coaching style.

    Do you understand that when the other O has 20 minutes more than you do on Offense that they can pretty much do whatever the F they want?   And you can't?  Who's responsibility is that?

    Do you realize Peyton scored on an unheard of 88% of his possessions against the Pats and was 10 points under his yearly average, all the while scoring at a higher point per possession than that average?   Do you understand why there were only 7 possessions in that game, to begin with?

    Until you understand any or all of that, you should probably refrain from disputing it.

    Games are ultimately decided by points but there are 1000 things that influence those points.  Lack of time and lack of scoring opportunities are pretty high on that list.  It means you throw the playbook out the window.  It means you are operating with a disadvantage and under duress.

    It probably means your chance of winning aren't very good.

    It's not called horsech@t,  it's called Foot Ball.

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     



    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Another great post on this thread. I just hope portfolio realizes when prolate says champ or wozzy thinks BB is an idiot and can't coach, that prolate is the only one who's ever actually said that. We all know BB is a brilliant coach and the best in history or close to it,, but to deny the impact turning over an entire coaching staff can have on any man is foolish imo.

    This team has been GREAT for the majority of 13 years. We split hairs on why we didn't win 3 more titles in that time. We were 1 play short in 3 different games in 06, 07 and 2011 from hoisting SIX LOMBARDI'S in 13 seasons....but we have no talent and our players suck? Sure.

    [/QUOTE]

    Losing coaches can make a difference.  I just don't see evidence that the loss of Weis hurt the offense.  It scores more per game, both in the regular season and the playoffs, since he left.  The end of season losses since 2004 are much more easily explained by talent and execution issues than coaching failures.  As an example, if you want to blame an assistant coach for the 2007 loss, maybe look at Scarnecchia because it was the O line that struggled in that game. McDaniels wanted to run the ball--that's been stated by multiple players on the offense, who also explained they wanted to run because they were concerned about the Giants' blitzes. Those same players have said the problem that prevented them from running was the blocking.  They couldn't execute. Even the Giants players have said their coaches recognized a weakness in the blocking skills (they can only block in a phone booth was the quote I believe).  I really don't blame the loss on Scarnecchia.  I blame the fact that the O line didn't have guys who could match the quickness of the players along the Giants' front.  They weren't bad players, just not matched well against the Giants' strengths.  We lost that one not because the coaches who produced the highest scoring offense the NFL had ever seen to that date were unable to take the pressure in the Super Bowl, but because the Pats had slow-footed offensive linemen and the Giants had super quick DLs.

     

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:


    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Well, they didn't have 12 possessions.  Sometimes you have no control over what you are given to work with.  You still have to get it done.  Also, how does one make the leap that the offense would have gotten it done, or that the defense would have given up more points if there had been more possessions?  You are assuming that the trends would have continued just the same.  Well, that would not be true because in order for there to be more possessions you would have to alter the possessions that already occurred.  Either the offense or the defense or both would have to get off of the field more quickly for more possessions to occur.  That might mean that either unit is more efficient, or it could mean just the opposite.  The point is, changing the number of possessions guarantees nothing.




    This theory by Pezz supported by others is complete and utter horsesht.  


    In this scenerio the offense is a victim of their defense and how many possessions they allow them.  Total BS.  A "strong" offense dictates to an opposing defense, they aren't at the mercy of how many possessions their own defense gives them.  The idea is complete garbage.


    In the last Super Bowl both teams had 9 possessions, the Patriot's offense scored 4 minutes into the third quarter, they had four more possessions, another entire quarter and 2/3rds of the third to get some points.  Punt, interception, punt, three straight incompletions to end the game.  Game over.


    Does anyone here remember, anyone at all, remember three straight Super Bowls that ended with comebacks, we were trailing and the offense led us the length of the field to get us the win.  Those were strong offenses, those were clutch offenses, they dictated to the enemy how it was going to be, they weren't victims. 


    [/QUOTE]

    I remember two where the offense got us into field goal range on the final drive to win.  Fourteen passes (11 from shotgun) and no runs on those two drives.  The last score in the third Super Bowl was by Philly. 

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to csylvia79's comment:


    So how would you rate a Defense who was owned by the other teams offense?  If the other team offense dictates the pace and the Defense can not in any meaningful way get the offense the ball that is.... ok?


    Not once did they do anything to help out a struggling O.  No short fields or turn overs.... a Defense main job is to get the ball back to the offense.  In this they did nothing to compliment the O and even made the game harder for the O by horrible field position and TOP. 


    I'm not saying any part of the team did well, but just looking at points given up is BS.  In college when we lost a game 17 to 14, I never once thought man we did our job on D only letting up three scores.  I personally blamed myself for dropping a sure pick that may have changed the game.  The D has just not been the type to win a game in a long time.  Sorry for the crappy layout I am have trouble typing on my phone.


    For the othesr that say the offense has some to blame in the TOP.  I agree but there is a finite amount of time in a game and when the D is letting the other team run off most of the clock that does limit the options of how your O has to play in order to give them the best chance to score.


    I played Defense for 10 years through pee-wee league all the way though college, then another 4 in an army league and never once has the goal of the D been just stop the other team from scoring.  Every down the goal is to get the ball back to the O.  When I watch this team personally I don't think the team has not been good at doing that.


    I guess we all look at football differently but when I look at a game where the offense struggles the D did nothing to help them out and couldn't stop a score when the game was on the line as having failed.




    The Patriot defense forced the Giants offense to punt once more than the Patriots offense had to.  


    The Patriot's offense turned it over with very little help from the Giant's defense, unless of course you think that safety couldn't have been averted or the interception on first down was really worth the risk.


    The defense held the Giants to field goals again and again at the end of the game in the hopes our offense could score, the most they could muster were some punts.  The defense finally wore down on the Giants final offensive drive.


    The defense gave up fewer points in the last two Super Bowls than two we won.  These defenses were average and they played average.  The offense was bad.  Period.


     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mthurl's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    This is it in a nut shell...Belichick would never of traded for a thug like Talib unless he HAD to. Those defenses we had needed a guy that could play because guys like Chung, Arrington and any one of the many undrafted free agents they rolled out there at corner, couldn't.

    [/QUOTE]

    BB acquired Talib because it was a value move, we got a Pro Bowl talent at rental prices.  It doesn't excuse the offense for stinking up the joint.  

    Again the defense was average, nobody is denying that, there are just a few here who are trying to tell us that less than half of the regular season scoring average, two touchdowns and two turnovers is great offensive output.  It's BS.  Bad is bad.

    NOBODY here is saying the defense was great, just that the defense wasn't solely to blame like this thread suggests.  The whole team had holes.

    [/QUOTE]
    the pass defense was NOT average...it was 2nd to LAST prior to acquiring Talib.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    thats not the point. The point is they had less possessions because the d sucked. You can't just look at a game and say they gave up 19 points so they did well.  That's not true because not all games are equal.  To make it equal yor have to divide points by possessions which gives you an average of points given up per possessions.    If they had given up  equal points with equal possessions,  their yield would have been on par with 2001.  But since the possessions were not equal (not even close) they gave up a lot more points per possessions, which means they sucked. The offense had a higher point per possession than in 2001,  which means they didn't suck   

    If the O had only scored 17 points in 12 possessions, then I would be right there with you, saying they underperformed @ a poultry 1.4 points per possession 

    that  clearly wasn't the case   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it seems to me, if you are going to insist upon using the points/possession stat then you need to compare how each unit's performance in a given Super Bowl compares to their regular season performance leading up to that Super Bowl.  At least that way, you get a true sense of whether a particular unit was actually under performing.  You can't compare one Super Bowl to another because, as you said, "not all games are equal."

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    ok during the  RS the pats gave up on average. 1.8. Points per possession. The 2011 game was  2.375.  You happy?

    [/QUOTE]

    You still haven't gotten back to me about the Offense's performance.  I'm pretty sure you are going to find that the Offense actually did far worse in relation to their regular season average than the Defense did.  That may be why I haven't heard back from you about this.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    The Patriot defense forced the Giants offense to punt once more than the Patriots offense had to.  

     

     

    The Patriot's offense turned it over with very little help from the Giant's defense, unless of course you think that safety couldn't have been averted or the interception on first down was really worth the risk.

     

    The defense held the Giants to field goals again and again at the end of the game in the hopes our offense could score, the most they could muster were some punts.  The defense finally wore down on the Giants final offensive drive.

     

    The defense gave up fewer points in the last two Super Bowls than two we won.  These defenses were average and they played average.  The offense was bad.  Period.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to understand.  It makes perfect sense to me.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Something that is sometimes ignored are matchups during playoff games. Come playoff time, in general, the competition is better - and there is the likelihood that the Patriots will play a team that matches well against them. So, if an opponent neutralizes the Patriot offense by getting to Brady with just enough hurries, pressures, hits, and or sacks AND can cover halfway decent- one can expect a lower scoring game. During those types of games - the defense is going to have to play THAT MUCH BETTER just to stay in the game.


    So, the Patriots are going to win their share of regular season games because they're a good team.  But, what kind of improvements does this team need to make in order to beat those teams that match up well against us? IMO, it's the defense.


    The defense will have to be top 5 in points against, top 5 in red zone defense, top 5 in takeaway/giveaway ratio, top 10-15 in pass defense, and top 15-20 in rush defense.  

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    thats not the point. The point is they had less possessions because the d sucked. You can't just look at a game and say they gave up 19 points so they did well.  That's not true because not all games are equal.  To make it equal yor have to divide points by possessions which gives you an average of points given up per possessions.    If they had given up  equal points with equal possessions,  their yield would have been on par with 2001.  But since the possessions were not equal (not even close) they gave up a lot more points per possessions, which means they sucked. The offense had a higher point per possession than in 2001,  which means they didn't suck   

    If the O had only scored 17 points in 12 possessions, then I would be right there with you, saying they underperformed @ a poultry 1.4 points per possession 

    that  clearly wasn't the case   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it seems to me, if you are going to insist upon using the points/possession stat then you need to compare how each unit's performance in a given Super Bowl compares to their regular season performance leading up to that Super Bowl.  At least that way, you get a true sense of whether a particular unit was actually under performing.  You can't compare one Super Bowl to another because, as you said, "not all games are equal."

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't think it makes too much sense to be overly focused on any one stat.  I think you need to look at the game more holistically.  That said, when trying to judge whether the points scored by the offense or the points given up by the defense is a big or small number, you really do need to take into consideration number of possessions.  In an 8 possession game, the maximum points the offense can score or the defense can give up is 8*7=56 (I'm ignoring two-point conversions).  In a typical 11 possession game, the maximum is 11*7=77.  In a 13 possession game (like the 2003 and 2004 Super Bowls), the maximum is 13*7=91.  If you assume that, on average, teams score about 30% of the maximum points available, the "expected" score is roughly 17 points in an 8 possession game, roughly 23 points in an 11 possession game, and roughly 27 points in a 13 possession game. So while we'd normally think a defense played pretty well if it gave up only 19 points, that's really only the case if the game was a typical 10 or 11 possession game.  In an 8 possession game, you'd really expect it to give up more like 16 or 17 points. 

    Some posters on this site call this "horsesh*t" or "junk science" but oddly they're the exact same posters who love to talk about "ball control" offenses.  Really, what Pezz describes is the mathematical reason why ball control can work.  By mounting long drives, you limit the number of drives there will be in the game overall and that means the other team will have fewer chances to score.  All ball control is doing is reducing the number of drives in a game so the opposing offense has fewer chances to score.  You also reduce your own chances to score, but typically when teams go to ball control it's because they think the other team has the better offense and so they think it's best to limit the number of drives they allow them to have. If it also reduces their own drives, so be it.  

     

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    The Patriot defense forced the Giants offense to punt once more than the Patriots offense had to.  

     

     

    The Patriot's offense turned it over with very little help from the Giant's defense, unless of course you think that safety couldn't have been averted or the interception on first down was really worth the risk.

     

    The defense held the Giants to field goals again and again at the end of the game in the hopes our offense could score, the most they could muster were some punts.  The defense finally wore down on the Giants final offensive drive.

     

    The defense gave up fewer points in the last two Super Bowls than two we won.  These defenses were average and they played average.  The offense was bad.  Period.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure why this is so hard for some people to understand.  It makes perfect sense to me.

    [/QUOTE]


    Some of us aren't as impressed with the defense starting the second half by giving up one 4:37 minute drive ending in a field goal and one 5:01 minute drive ending in a field goal.  Wozzy presents this as if it was some kind of heroic feat.  Really what it did was allow the Giants to bleed clock and get back in the game.  Then the defense gave up a 4:53 minute drive, which ended in a punt that backed our offense up to its own 8 yard line (terrible field position) and, then, to cap it off allowed the Giants to score a TD in under three minutes at the end of the game to take the lead with barely any time left. Four terrible defensive series in the second half.  The offense also screwed up, but let's not give the defense any awards for that mediocre showing. 

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    the pass defense was NOT average...it was 2nd to LAST prior to acquiring Talib.

    [/QUOTE]

    When they start tallying the score with passing yards let me know, this comment ^ will make lots of sense.

    15th in the league in points per game allowed is middle of the pack, it's average.  When the defense gives up it's regular season average in points, that is an average performance.  When the offense scores 1/3 of their regular season points per game total, that sucks.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Some of us aren't as impressed with the defense starting the second half by giving up one 4:37 minute drive ending in a field goal and one 5:01 minute drive ending in a field goal.  Wozzy presents this as if it was some kind of heroic feat.  Really what it did was allow the Giants to bleed clock and get back in the game.  Then the defense gave up a 4:53 minute drive, which ended in a punt that backed our offense up to its own 8 yard line (terrible field position) and, then, to cap it off allowed the Giants to score a TD in under three minutes at the end of the game to take the lead with barely any time left. Four terrible defensive series in the second half.  The offense also screwed up, but let's not give the defense any awards for that mediocre showing. 

     [/QUOTE]

    Some of us aren't impressed with an offense that gives back a safety to start the game and an interception to start the most crucial quarter of a championship game... except you apparently.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Some of us aren't as impressed with the defense starting the second half by giving up one 4:37 minute drive ending in a field goal and one 5:01 minute drive ending in a field goal.  Wozzy presents this as if it was some kind of heroic feat.  Really what it did was allow the Giants to bleed clock and get back in the game.  Then the defense gave up a 4:53 minute drive, which ended in a punt that backed our offense up to its own 8 yard line (terrible field position) and, then, to cap it off allowed the Giants to score a TD in under three minutes at the end of the game to take the lead with barely any time left. Four terrible defensive series in the second half.  The offense also screwed up, but let's not give the defense any awards for that mediocre showing. 

     [/QUOTE]

    Some of us aren't impressed with an offense that gives back a safety to start the game and an interception to start the most crucial quarter of a championship game... except you apparently.

    [/QUOTE]


    See the highlighted part of my original post.  Not impressed with the offense either. 

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    thats not the point. The point is they had less possessions because the d sucked. You can't just look at a game and say they gave up 19 points so they did well.  That's not true because not all games are equal.  To make it equal yor have to divide points by possessions which gives you an average of points given up per possessions.    If they had given up  equal points with equal possessions,  their yield would have been on par with 2001.  But since the possessions were not equal (not even close) they gave up a lot more points per possessions, which means they sucked. The offense had a higher point per possession than in 2001,  which means they didn't suck   

    If the O had only scored 17 points in 12 possessions, then I would be right there with you, saying they underperformed @ a poultry 1.4 points per possession 

    that  clearly wasn't the case   

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it seems to me, if you are going to insist upon using the points/possession stat then you need to compare how each unit's performance in a given Super Bowl compares to their regular season performance leading up to that Super Bowl.  At least that way, you get a true sense of whether a particular unit was actually under performing.  You can't compare one Super Bowl to another because, as you said, "not all games are equal."

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    ok during the  RS the pats gave up on average. 1.8. Points per possession. The 2011 game was  2.375.  You happy?

    [/QUOTE]

    You still haven't gotten back to me about the Offense's performance.  I'm pretty sure you are going to find that the Offense actually did far worse in relation to their regular season average than the Defense did.  That may be why I haven't heard back from you about this.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Sorry, I was interrupted for awhile.

    The answer is 2.6.

    So you would be wrong, while the O did lose points pp over their RS Average and I would expect they would because limited plays due to time constraints, tend to lead to limited points. (which was 32 points per game, not 34 as 2 points per game were non-offensive scores and I had to look that up)  The D did worse.

    -.475/ +.575

    Convert the D's extra .575 per possession to points and that amounts to 4.5 points.  Ballgame! :}

    PS Wozzy.  FG's count!  You and Rusty seem to have a real problem with that.  Wasn't the difference in the score, FG's?  Didn't the Pats win their games by FG's?  Oh, my!

    And the Pats D gave up less points because they had less stops to make.  PERIOD!

    Really, Really, Really, dumb argument.

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:


    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    the pass defense was NOT average...it was 2nd to LAST prior to acquiring Talib.




    When they start tallying the score with passing yards let me know, this comment ^ will make lots of sense.


    15th in the league in points per game allowed is middle of the pack, it's average.  When the defense gives up it's regular season average in points, that is an average performance.  When the offense scores 1/3 of their regular season points per game total, that sucks.


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    Why don't you try being honest for once or is it just the Math that screws you up.


    17 is not one third of 32.  It's actually more than half (53%) and if the D didn't crap away 1/3rd their time and 1/3rd their possessions, they just might have scored those extra points.


    PS, yards given up do not only relate to points, they equal a whole lot of time.


    Time, the O could have used.


    Here's a stat for you, oh woozy one,....


    Over the last 30 years, the Patriots are 173-67 when they have the ball more than their opponent and just 80-142 when they don't.


    But it's horsey poooop, RIGHT?


     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to csylvia79's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Well, they didn't have 12 possessions.  Sometimes you have no control over what you are given to work with.  You still have to get it done.  Also, how does one make the leap that the offense would have gotten it done, or that the defense would have given up more points if there had been more possessions?  You are assuming that the trends would have continued just the same.  Well, that would not be true because in order for there to be more possessions you would have to alter the possessions that already occurred.  Either the offense or the defense or both would have to get off of the field more quickly for more possessions to occur.  That might mean that either unit is more efficient, or it could mean just the opposite.  The point is, changing the number of possessions guarantees nothing.

    [/QUOTE]

    This theory by Pezz supported by others is complete and utter horsesht.  

    In this scenerio the offense is a victim of their defense and how many possessions they allow them.  Total BS.  A "strong" offense dictates to an opposing defense, they aren't at the mercy of how many possessions their own defense gives them.  The idea is complete garbage.

    In the last Super Bowl both teams had 9 possessions, the Patriot's offense scored 4 minutes into the third quarter, they had four more possessions, another entire quarter and 2/3rds of the third to get some points.  Punt, interception, punt, three straight incompletions to end the game.  Game over.

    Does anyone here remember, anyone at all, remember three straight Super Bowls that ended with comebacks, we were trailing and the offense led us the length of the field to get us the win.  Those were strong offenses, those were clutch offenses, they dictated to the enemy how it was going to be, they weren't victims. 

    [/QUOTE]

    So how would you rate a Defense who was owned by the other teams offense?  If the other team offense dictates the pace and the Defense can not in any meaningful way get the offense the ball that is.... ok?

    Not once did they do anything to help out a struggling O.  No short fields or turn overs.... a Defense main job is to get the ball back to the offense.  In this they did nothing to compliment the O and even made the game harder for the O by horrible field position and TOP. 

    I'm not saying any part of the team did well, but just looking at points given up is BS.  In college when we lost a game 17 to 14, I never once thought man we did our job on D only letting up three scores.  I personally blamed myself for dropping a sure pick that may have changed the game.  The D has just not been the type to win a game in a long time.  Sorry for the crappy layout I am have trouble typing on my phone.

    For the othesr that say the offense has some to blame in the TOP.  I agree but there is a finite amount of time in a game and when the D is letting the other team run off most of the clock that does limit the options of how your O has to play in order to give them the best chance to score.

    I played Defense for 10 years through pee-wee league all the way though college, then another 4 in an army league and never once has the goal of the D been just stop the other team from scoring.  Every down the goal is to get the ball back to the O.  When I watch this team personally I don't think the team has not been good at doing that.

    I guess we all look at football differently but when I look at a game where the offense struggles the D did nothing to help them out and couldn't stop a score when the game was on the line as having failed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly.  The idea that it's okay for the defense to linger on the field and give up 5 minute drives and 40 or 50 yards as long as it results "only" in a FG is preposterous. 




    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    the pass defense was NOT average...it was 2nd to LAST prior to acquiring Talib.

    [/QUOTE]

    When they start tallying the score with passing yards let me know, this comment ^ will make lots of sense.

    15th in the league in points per game allowed is middle of the pack, it's average.  When the defense gives up it's regular season average in points, that is an average performance.  When the offense scores 1/3 of their regular season points per game total, that sucks.

    [/QUOTE]

    So are you saying there's no correlation between an increase in points against and a worsening of passing defense?

    The patriots have dipped down in quite a few categories; like rushing yards against.  They've held their own in terms of points against and takeaway/giveaway ratio.

    Not sure where my other post went (or I forgot to hit the add button), but we often ignore matchups. In the playoffs, the competition is stonger and their is a higher chance of meeting a team that matches well against us. Those teams that can get to Brady using 3 DL AND can cover halfway decent have rendered the offense useless.....and the defense has to be THAT MUCH BETTER to keep the Patriots in those close games.

    IMO, the Patriots have to be top 5 in points against, top 5 in red zone defense, top 5 in takeaway/giveaway ratio, top 10-15 in pass defense, and top 15-20 in rush defense.  The Patriots have added Revis and Browner.  Good start.  Need depth at SS.  Most importantly - this is the year the Patriots should do whatever they can to improve the pass rush (and on the other side of the ball, the OL has to keep opponents away from Brady; especially come playoff time).

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:


    Sorry, I was interrupted for awhile.


    The answer is 2.6.


    So you would be wrong, while the O did lose points pp over their RS Average and I would expect they would because limited plays due to time constraints, tend to lead to limited points. (which was 32 points per game, not 34 as 2 points per game were non-offensive scores and I had to look that up)  The D did worse.


    -.475/ +.575


    Convert the D's extra .575 per possession to points and that amounts to 4.5 points.  Ballgame! :}


    PS Wozzy.  FG's count!  You and Rusty seem to have a real problem with that.  Wasn't the difference in the score, FG's?  Didn't the Pats win their games by FG's?  Oh, my!


    And the Pats D gave up less points because they had less stops to make.  PERIOD!


    Really, Really, Really, dumb argument.


     


     


     





    There were only 4 defensive stands in the second half.  Two ended in FGs, one in a TD, and one in a punt that backed the offense up to the 8 yard line.  How does anyone possibly argue that the outcomes of those four drives were good?


    Add in the fact that three of the four drives ate up at least 4.5 minutes each (total of 29 plays and 127 yards over those three drives) and the only drive that was an average length (2:49 minutes) was the 9-play 88 yard TD drive that had to be faster because it started with the Giants behind and with only 3:46 left in the game.  When you look at what the D actually did, there's no way to say their second-half performance was anything but dismal.  The offense also struggled mightily in the second half, but the defense doesn't get any awards either. 


     

     

Share