Sums Up The Defense

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    The 2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 Patriots offense is on this list of offensive failures compiled by Cold Hard Football Facts...

     

    It turns out historically elite offenses are no different than your junior prom date: a sexy little vixen dolled up for the big dance and busting out all over – but with no intent of fulfilling your teenage fantasies.

     

    But I guess True and I were just imagining the whole thing.

     

    http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/big-tease-2012-new-england-patriots-and-nfls-history-offensive-failures/21442/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com




    Read the conclusion of your article. It will help:

     

    Cleary, it's better to have a great offense than to have a bad offense. Scoring a lot of points is never a bad thing in and of itself. But the history of the league is pretty clear: building a prolific offense at the expense of your defene, and still hoping to score a ring, is much like your chances of scoring big after the prom. It's a delusional fantasy, men. Those offenses are just a Big Tease.

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

     

    Or in beebee's case FAILING to build a good defense, with bust after bust after bust, (can't say he didn't try to build a better D) and using the O to try and compensate,  DOESN'T WORK.

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    I was wondering if some middle ground could be achieved here.  I admit that BB has had his ups and downs when it comes to the draft.  There have been some misses but some hits as well.  But to build a defense is harder than building an offense.  Top DE, DT and CB are always at the top of the draft.  That great defense that won us SBs were of that stuff.  BB has won and paid the penalty for doing so by consistently drafting at the tail end of the draft.  Teams like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and others have found this out.  The five tool player is gone and the Pats are always looking for that diamond in the rough or taking chances on guys like Dowling and Easley.

    The draft catches up with teams.  It may take a couple of years.  Just from 2010 or 2011, where are those teams that made the playoffs?  Did those teams draft badly?

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to garytx's comment:

    I was wondering if some middle ground could be achieved here.  I admit that BB has had his ups and downs when it comes to the draft.  There have been some misses but some hits as well.  But to build a defense is harder than building an offense.  Top DE, DT and CB are always at the top of the draft.  That great defense that won us SBs were of that stuff.  BB has won and paid the penalty for doing so by consistently drafting at the tail end of the draft.  Teams like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and others have found this out.  The five tool player is gone and the Pats are always looking for that diamond in the rough or taking chances on guys like Dowling and Easley.

    The draft catches up with teams.  It may take a couple of years.  Just from 2010 or 2011, where are those teams that made the playoffs?  Did those teams draft badly?



    plenty of middle ground to be had.  I would say that most folks in this forum would agree that the "blame" can be attributed to all 3 phases of the game and coaching.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    How can it be coaching if the Pats are drafting so lousy?  Special teams have usually been pretty good.  There is a lot of pressure on the offense because of past years defense.  Just wondering where folks here stand out side of the hyper reactions I see.  I don't see why everybody bites into Rusty.  It's what he wants and the board has turned into what he wants.  There isn't any more intelligent conversation going on.  Over reaction is in abundance.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to garytx's comment:

    I was wondering if some middle ground could be achieved here.  I admit that BB has had his ups and downs when it comes to the draft.  There have been some misses but some hits as well.  But to build a defense is harder than building an offense.  Top DE, DT and CB are always at the top of the draft.  That great defense that won us SBs were of that stuff.  BB has won and paid the penalty for doing so by consistently drafting at the tail end of the draft.  Teams like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and others have found this out.  The five tool player is gone and the Pats are always looking for that diamond in the rough or taking chances on guys like Dowling and Easley.

    The draft catches up with teams.  It may take a couple of years.  Just from 2010 or 2011, where are those teams that made the playoffs?  Did those teams draft badly?




    The highlighted text is exactly the issue. BB has done a heck of a job staying competitive despite the repeated poor draft position, but he can't completely escape the fact that the draft system (and salary cap) make it very difficult for the most talented teams to stay that way. 

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to garytx's comment:


    How can it be coaching if the Pats are drafting so lousy?  Special teams have usually been pretty good.  There is a lot of pressure on the offense because of past years defense.  Just wondering where folks here stand out side of the hyper reactions I see.  I don't see why everybody bites into Rusty.  It's what he wants and the board has turned into what he wants.  There isn't any more intelligent conversation going on.  Over reaction is in abundance.





    Right now there's not enough real Patriots news to talk about so people are just fabricating controversies to give us something to talk about until there are more substantive things to discuss.  I wouldn't take it too seriously. 

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    it's been a crazy run by the Pats.  They get to the playoffs every year.  Most teams historically can't say that and nobody has done it in the salary cap era except the Pats.  

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to garytx's comment:

    it's been a crazy run by the Pats.  They get to the playoffs every year.  Most teams historically can't say that and nobody has done it in the salary cap era except the Pats.  



    absolutely. Gotta enjoy the winning while it lasts

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    What the hell is your point? Are you trying to sell us that this new post 2004 league is not geared towards greater offensive output? Really?

     

     

    Are you an idiot?  My point very simply was that in recent years the Pats offense scores roughly 20 more TDs per season than it did in the Weis years, while their defense gives up about 15 more TDs per season.  Wozzy responded that that was just because offensive output increased leaguewide. I never disagreed that offensive output has increased, but simply stated that the increase was on the order of about 3 or 4 TDs per season per team, so the big swings in the Pats numbers are not explained simply by general changes in scoring across the league.  They reflect real changes in the productivity of those units over time.  The offense has gotten much more productive and the defense much less. 

     

    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.  

     

    Still no response to this from either TrueChamp or Wozzy?  It's been five days or so . . . 

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    What the hell is your point? Are you trying to sell us that this new post 2004 league is not geared towards greater offensive output? Really?

     

     

    Are you an idiot?  My point very simply was that in recent years the Pats offense scores roughly 20 more TDs per season than it did in the Weis years, while their defense gives up about 15 more TDs per season.  Wozzy responded that that was just because offensive output increased leaguewide. I never disagreed that offensive output has increased, but simply stated that the increase was on the order of about 3 or 4 TDs per season per team, so the big swings in the Pats numbers are not explained simply by general changes in scoring across the league.  They reflect real changes in the productivity of those units over time.  The offense has gotten much more productive and the defense much less. 

     

    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.  

     

    Still no response to this from either TrueChamp or Wozzy?  It's been five days or so . . . 

     



    You may very well be right.  Looking at your numbers, however, suggests that offensive gains were significantly greater than the defensive losses.  Assuming that is accurate, why does it seem that the defense has managed to play up to its seasonal average in more recent playoff games and Super Bowls, while the offense has played significantly below their seasonal averages?  That is the more pressing concern, to me.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    What the hell is your point? Are you trying to sell us that this new post 2004 league is not geared towards greater offensive output? Really?

     

     

    Are you an idiot?  My point very simply was that in recent years the Pats offense scores roughly 20 more TDs per season than it did in the Weis years, while their defense gives up about 15 more TDs per season.  Wozzy responded that that was just because offensive output increased leaguewide. I never disagreed that offensive output has increased, but simply stated that the increase was on the order of about 3 or 4 TDs per season per team, so the big swings in the Pats numbers are not explained simply by general changes in scoring across the league.  They reflect real changes in the productivity of those units over time.  The offense has gotten much more productive and the defense much less. 

     

    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.  

     

    Still no response to this from either TrueChamp or Wozzy?  It's been five days or so . . . 

     



    You may very well be right.  Looking at your numbers, however, suggests that offensive gains were significantly greater than the defensive losses.  Assuming that is accurate, why does it seem that the defense has managed to play up to its seasonal average in more recent playoff games and Super Bowls, while the offense has played significantly below their seasonal averages?  That is the more pressing concern, to me.




    The numbers are definitely right.  I think the specific issues vary by year and game.  In recent years (2011 and onward), the offense is much less effective whenever Gronk is out.  There just aren't enough other quality weapons to make up for his absence.  In 2007, the main issue was the O line's inability to match the Giants' defensive front.  2009 and 2010 really were the offense stifled by very good defenses (yes, the Jets were a good defensive team that year).  I don't think the defense played well in most loses either--certainly not at the end of the game in 2007 or at any point in 2009.  In 2010 there were major gaffs (most notably the long completion on a blown coverage by Merriweather). People think the defense played well in 2011 because of a low point total, but they couldn't stop drives and gave up a big play and quick score late in the game that allowed the Giants to take the lead for good.  In 2012, as soon as Talib got hurt, the defense reverted to the 2011 version, with poor secondary play.  And last year, everyone on defense was hurt.

    I'd say there has been an improvement in defensive personnel since 2011.  If everyone can stay healthy, the defense should be very good this year, especially with the additions in the secondary.  I think the offense will continue to be decent, though there are still some significant question marks among the receivers and TEs.    




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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to cyncalpatfan's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    What the hell is your point? Are you trying to sell us that this new post 2004 league is not geared towards greater offensive output? Really?

     

     

    Are you an idiot?  My point very simply was that in recent years the Pats offense scores roughly 20 more TDs per season than it did in the Weis years, while their defense gives up about 15 more TDs per season.  Wozzy responded that that was just because offensive output increased leaguewide. I never disagreed that offensive output has increased, but simply stated that the increase was on the order of about 3 or 4 TDs per season per team, so the big swings in the Pats numbers are not explained simply by general changes in scoring across the league.  They reflect real changes in the productivity of those units over time.  The offense has gotten much more productive and the defense much less. 

     

    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.  

     

    Still no response to this from either TrueChamp or Wozzy?  It's been five days or so . . . 

     



    You may very well be right.  Looking at your numbers, however, suggests that offensive gains were significantly greater than the defensive losses.  Assuming that is accurate, why does it seem that the defense has managed to play up to its seasonal average in more recent playoff games and Super Bowls, while the offense has played significantly below their seasonal averages?  That is the more pressing concern, to me.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Actually the offensive gains weren't larger than the D, loss.  In fact the % of increase/ decrease is identical. It's because the D had a lower point per game to begin with.

    OK, say the O averaged 28 points per game and the D averaged 17 points a game.

    Then the O averaged 34 points per game and the D averaged 21 points a game.

    They both increased their points per game by approx., 20%

    Only that 20% increased points per game for the O by 6 points and only increased it for the D by 4 points.

    That accounts for for the difference in the TD's scored and td's given up.  (about 2 points a game or approx 5 TD's per season)   These numbers are not exact but you get the idea.

    However, that comes out to a 20% increase in efficiency for the O and a 20% DECREASE in efficiency for the D, and you don't want your D giving up 20% more points..

    It's also means that if the defense is on the field too long and decreasing possessions, The O will lose points per possessions (lost) at a higher rate than the D will, because they score at a higher rate than the D allows.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.  

    Still no response to this from either TrueChamp or Wozzy?  It's been five days or so . . . 



    Sorry, I was under the impression this thread was dead or the proponents too stubborn to admit that an offense that scores less than half its regular season average in Super Bowls isn't "good."

    Again you can't explain how the 49ers won with the same exact collection of talent under Harbaugh, when they couldn't seem to win a game with Singletary?

    Latent, hidden talent that Alex Smith was hiding makes perfect sense...

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to garytx's comment:

    I was wondering if some middle ground could be achieved here.  I admit that BB has had his ups and downs when it comes to the draft.  There have been some misses but some hits as well.  But to build a defense is harder than building an offense.  Top DE, DT and CB are always at the top of the draft.  That great defense that won us SBs were of that stuff.  BB has won and paid the penalty for doing so by consistently drafting at the tail end of the draft.  Teams like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and others have found this out.  The five tool player is gone and the Pats are always looking for that diamond in the rough or taking chances on guys like Dowling and Easley.

    The draft catches up with teams.  It may take a couple of years.  Just from 2010 or 2011, where are those teams that made the playoffs?  Did those teams draft badly?



    Don't know if I agree with what you said, because personally I think that finding a quarterback that can lead your team to victory is the harder thing to find than all of the pieces you need on defense. How many teams don't have that quarterback - despite drafting them over and over gain - and can't win games or score points because of it?

    And we all have read how hard it is to select the right wide receiver (they are so hard to forecast how they will transcend to the pro game) and we see it all the time. I think it may be easier to draft a running back than say...a pass rusher. Sure. I'd say it is easier to select the correct left tackle, over say the correct defensive tackle, because those defensive tackles have the question of motor and desire that sometimes fails in the NFL. The left or right tackles don't seem to flame out as often for effort alone.

    Then you have to coordinate this whole thing, it has to be precise, there doesn't seem to be the margin of error that may be allowed with certain aspects of a defense. With a defense if things aren't perfect...yeah you could get crushed in the coverage end of things (we've seen that here for years). But how many things on a defense can be covered up by physical play? Not everything, but it can help. I suppose the same can be said for an offense's running game, but if you don't have that skilled runner or the line to get it moving it's not going to work.

    This is all just my opinion, of course.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to garytx's comment:

    How can it be coaching if the Pats are drafting so lousy?  Special teams have usually been pretty good.  There is a lot of pressure on the offense because of past years defense.  Just wondering where folks here stand out side of the hyper reactions I see.  I don't see why everybody bites into Rusty.  It's what he wants and the board has turned into what he wants.  There isn't any more intelligent conversation going on.  Over reaction is in abundance.



    coaching hasn't been flawless.  I think there have been times where fans question play calls - and then - people get into a debate about whether certain calls are made due to limitations in personnel. How do you feel McDaniel does with his play calling during problematic games.  How do you feel about the DC playcalling? How is the gameplanning?  

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    Sorry, I was under the impression this thread was dead or the proponents too stubborn to admit that an offense that scores less than half its regular season average in Super Bowls isn't "good."

    Again you can't explain how the 49ers won with the same exact collection of talent under Harbaugh, when they couldn't seem to win a game with Singletary?

    Latent, hidden talent that Alex Smith was hiding makes perfect sense...



    During those games, what were the reasons why the Patriots couldn't get points on the board.  Was it all the QBs fault like one person says? Was it because the OL couldn't keep opponents from getting to Brady? Was it because the WR and TE had a bad game? Was it because the RBs couldn't get the run game going? Was it because the Coaches abandoned the run?

    On the other side of the field - was it because a key defensive player went out and the pass defense resorted to almost the bottom for pass defense? Was it because the defense simply could not make the one stop where it was needed the most? Could the defense get off the field?

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ghostofjri37. Show ghostofjri37's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    In response to garytx's comment:

    How can it be coaching if the Pats are drafting so lousy?  Special teams have usually been pretty good.  There is a lot of pressure on the offense because of past years defense.  Just wondering where folks here stand out side of the hyper reactions I see.  I don't see why everybody bites into Rusty.  It's what he wants and the board has turned into what he wants.  There isn't any more intelligent conversation going on.  Over reaction is in abundance.



    coaching hasn't been flawless.  I think there have been times where fans question play calls - and then - people get into a debate about whether certain calls are made due to limitations in personnel. How do you feel McDaniel does with his play calling during problematic games.  How do you feel about the DC play calling? How is the gameplanning?  



    IMHO for me it is more of game planning/scheme in big games that I feel could be questioned. For me the 2 that jump out at me was SB 42 where they didn't make the needed adjustments along the O-line to combat the Giants stunting on the pass rush and last years playoff game I felt they tried to stay with the run longer than they should have. I think they got caught up in the success the run game had at the end of the year and the previous playoff game.

    As you mentioned being critical of individual play calls is difficult without knowing all the variables at that moment.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    I guess if it's a coaching problem you can blame Dante.  The O line has laid down in both super bowl losses. They never blocked effectively for Brady.  

     

     

    Now you got the easy part done telling me about it.

    Does that handshaped bruise on your back hurt?

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Actually the offensive gains weren't larger than the D, loss.  In fact the % of increase/ decrease is identical. It's because the D had a lower point per game to begin with.

    OK, say the O averaged 28 points per game and the D averaged 17 points a game.

    Then the O averaged 34 points per game and the D averaged 21 points a game.

    They both increased their points per game by approx., 20%

    Only that 20% increased points per game for the O by 6 points and only increased it for the D by 4 points.

    That accounts for for the difference in the TD's scored and td's given up.  (about 2 points a game or approx 5 TD's per season)   These numbers are not exact but you get the idea.

    However, that comes out to a 20% increase in efficiency for the O and a 20% DECREASE in efficiency for the D, and you don't want your D giving up 20% more points..

    It's also means that if the defense is on the field too long and decreasing possessions, The O will lose points per possessions (lost) at a higher rate than the D will, because they score at a higher rate than the D allows.



    Taking into account the improvements of the O and the decreased efficiency of the D the overall team performance was an additional 2+ points per game.  I'm not worried about percentages of gains versus losses.  It's the final result that is most important.  And, the final result is an overall gain of 2+ points, nearly a field goal per game.

 
  • 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.  

    Still no response to this from either TrueChamp or Wozzy?  It's been five days or so . . . 



    Sorry, I was under the impression this thread was dead or the proponents too stubborn to admit that an offense that scores less than half its regular season average in Super Bowls isn't "good."

    Again you can't explain how the 49ers won with the same exact collection of talent under Harbaugh, when they couldn't seem to win a game with Singletary?

    Latent, hidden talent that Alex Smith was hiding makes perfect sense...




    Still avoiding the basic point, I see.  

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Still avoiding the basic point, I see.  



    I guess I don't understand your question, are you still insinuating that this isn't an era where the NFL is obviously putting offense first or that nearly 300 more penalty flags (mainly pass interference) a year have made this era of offensive explosiveness possible?

    If that is your stance I won't argue with somebody too stubborn to admit that water is wet.  You're the only person here in denial.  Turn on ESPN or the NFL Network sometime... It's laughable how far posters will carry some BS when backed into a corner.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    During those games, what were the reasons why the Patriots couldn't get points on the board.  Was it all the QBs fault like one person says? Was it because the OL couldn't keep opponents from getting to Brady? Was it because the WR and TE had a bad game? Was it because the RBs couldn't get the run game going? Was it because the Coaches abandoned the run?

    On the other side of the field - was it because a key defensive player went out and the pass defense resorted to almost the bottom for pass defense? Was it because the defense simply could not make the one stop where it was needed the most? Could the defense get off the field?

     



    My only point on yet another thread blaming the defense for all our Super Bowl woes is that neither the offense, defense or special teams were good enough to win.

    The offense was a paper tiger, finesse, feast or famine and needed improving as well.  Or else maybe somebody can explain to me why BB has actively improved the interior of the O Line, the running back corps, the WR's and reintroduced the fullback position to the team as well improving as the defense?

     
  • 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 prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Still avoiding the basic point, I see.  



    I guess I don't understand your question, are you still insinuating that this isn't an era where the NFL is obviously putting offense first or that nearly 300 more penalty flags (mainly pass interference) a year have made this era of offensive explosiveness possible?

    If that is your stance I won't argue with somebody too stubborn to admit that water is wet.  You're the only person here in denial.  Turn on ESPN or the NFL Network sometime... It's laughable how far posters will carry some BS when backed into a corner.




    I highlighted the point in yellow above.  I'll repeat the question here in red type:

    Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.

    Note that I'm not saying anything about penalties or about single games like the Super Bowl.  I'm talking about overall quality of the offenses and defenses in the early 2000s and in the early 2010s.  The point is simply that the offenses have been much more productive recently and the defenses much less productive.  This is obvious from the stats.  


     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share