To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from joepatsfan111111. Show joepatsfan111111's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    team wins and team loses.

    Offense has been below average in big games as of late, but still gets the clutch score (SB42/46)

    Defense seems to have good firsts halfs and third quarters then lay their own egg in the 4th.

     

    it goes both ways

    once both sides play an above average game for once we win

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What are these numbers?

    [/QUOTE]

    An excuse for being on the wrong side of an argument for years.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually, the Points per Drive argument supports the notion that the O underperformed in the last two SB games. Here are the PPD numbers:

    2001: 1.182

    2003: 2.000

    2004: 2.000

    2007: 1.556

    2011: 2.125 (But, they also committed a safety. I am not sure how to take that into account. Should I decrement their offensive output by 2 points? If so, then net offensive output would be 1.875 per drive.

    What often does not get discussed on these debates is the regular season context. I looked at the reg season PPDs a while back and saw that PPDs in 2001, 2003 and 2004 were <2.000 (might even be lower than 1.182, I am not sure.). On the other hand, the reg season PPDs for 2007 and 2011 were both in the neighborhood of 2.225.

    So, in 2001, 2003 and 2004, the O outperformed their respective reg season norm. In 2007 and 2011, they underperformed vs their reg season norm.

     

     

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    "Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter. "

    If  you want "simple math" ,  what Wozzy said here is about as simple as it gets.

    The offenses job is to score points, not turn the ball over, not punt , not take a safety.

    Bottom line:  The offense has under-performed.   Why else is everyone screaming for more weapons for Tom Brady?  Although he had those weapons in 2007 and we know what the final result was.

    I believe that number of possesions theory is just BS also.

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to joepatsfan111111's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    team wins and team loses.

    Offense has been below average in big games as of late, but still gets the clutch score (SB42/46)

    Defense seems to have good firsts halfs and third quarters then lay their own egg in the 4th.

     

    it goes both ways

    once both sides play an above average game for once we win

    [/QUOTE]


    I certainly wouldn't say the offense was flawless in either SB loss.

    The play of the OL in 42 was disgraceful.

    Welker's drop in 46 was inexcusable.

     

    But those things don't change the fact that it was the D who failed at the last in both games.

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Those who say possessions in football don't matter regarding the final score are basically saying the same thing as the number of shots you take in basketball have no effect how much you score. Absolute nonsense.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Seattle, I agree that the O did not perform great in either of those games.  In 2007, in particular, the O performed particularly badly, mostly because it was vastly overmatched in the trenches.  In 2011, I'd say the O was mediocre, largely because the O has mostly been mediocre when you take Gronk out.  We don't have enough other weapons.  Still, on a points per drive basis, they weren't horrendous. 

    The issue, though, is whether the defense played well. I think it played okay in 2007, but in 2011, despite the 19 point total, it was bad.  Basically, the Giants had just 8 offensive drives (their ninth was a kneel down to end the first half, so I don't count that one).  They scored on half of them--two TDs and two FGs.  The Pats gave up 2.375 points per drive (and it would have been 2.5 if the Giants had gone for a one-point conversion and made it rather than missing a two-point conversion).  Just as bad, the length of the drives was astounding: 4:37 on average, 4:53 if you exclude the late two-minute-drill drive when the Giants had to score fast (which, of course, they did). On average in the NFL in 2011, drives were 2:37, so the Giants' average drives were a full 2 minutes longer than expected--not quite double the average length, but close.  Then you have Manning's 75% completion rate (30 completions on 40 passes).  These are horrendous defensive statistics. People who ignore that and just look at 19 points really miss what was actually happening in the game.  Nineteen points is a bit below average for a game - - - but it's way above average for 8 possessions --- and if you look at everything that happened in that game there's no way to claim the defense played well. 

    The Giants strategy was to keep the ball out of the Patriots' hands, and our defense did absolutely nothing to stop them from executing their strategy.  A "keep away" strategy, if it succeeds, will result in a low number of possessions and low final score.  But that low score wasn't really the result of our defense playing well. It was primarily the result of the Giants' offensive strategy working and our defense being helpless to stop it. 

     

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter. "

    If  you want "simple math" ,  what Wozzy said here is about as simple as it gets.

    The offenses job is to score points, not turn the ball over, not punt , not take a safety.

    Bottom line:  The offense has under-performed.   Why else is everyone screaming for more weapons for Tom Brady?  Although he had those weapons in 2007 and we know what the final result was.

    I believe that number of possesions theory is just BS also.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There's a difference between simple and simplistic. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    I am trying to understand why there is even a debate.

    1) The "3 people" are NOT saying that the D has been good in any of the past 4-5 seasons. I don't know what Rusty says (I don't read everything he writes); but most of these 3 people actually have indicated in each of those years that the D needed improvements. If you follow the draft boards, you would see that the Wozzys and Lows of the world were always wanting for the Pats to pick up stud DLs.

    2) However, they are saying that a big part of the reason why the Pats lost the SB is that the O underperformed.

    Those two are not mutually exclusive. Very good Os can have bad games. The Pats had very good Os in 2007 and 2011, but they did not play well in the  SBs.

    If you believe the O played well in SB 42 and 36, then I will tell you the data does not support that.

    The only piece of data that actually sums up ultimate offensive and defensive output -- i.e., the final score - shows that. ToP, or whatever other data being brought up are simply metrics for various parts of the game that influence the final score, but these variables cannot be viewed in isolation of the others. Taking those variables as being more important than others is like confusing trees for the forest. Only the final score shows offensive output (and defensive output too).

    The O output, as indicated but the final scores in 2007 and 2011, were...

    • Lower than their respective reg season norms
    • Lower than most SB winning teams achieved.

    The second bullet is really telling. Since 1984, only one team (out of 30) has ever won the SB with its O scoring 17 points or lower. Yes, that was the 2007 NYG. What is that saying? If you're O scores 17 points, you have a 3% chance of winning. Coversely, if your D keeps your opponent to 17 or less, you have a 97% chance of winning. 

    Some argue that in SB 42, the Pats had the lead on NYG's last drive. Well, the only reason they even had the lead then was that the D had played lights out for 56 of the 60 minutes. Had the O played well for that long, they would not have even been in that position where a lucky helmet catch would have made a difference. If the O had played well for half that time, they still would have won the game.

    SB 46 was a little different, but still similar. If not for that safety, the O actually played better. But the safety did make a difference, because they O scored only 17 points. 

    How did the D do in SB 46? They gave up 19 points. Intrestingly, over the last 30 SBs, only 20 teams have managed to keep their opponent to 19 points or lower. 19 of those 20 teams won the SB. That D held the NYG enough. 

    Look at it this way. The D gave the Pats a 95% chance of winning. However, the offensive ouput gave the other side a 97% chance of winning. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

     

    Seems our boy BB and the new kid in town Lombardi completely disagree with your totally wrong analysis of the team.

     Finally after 10 frutile years of Free Agency and Value Draft picking the boys are throwing some REAL money at the Real problem.....The Defense.

    Thank you Executive of the year Lombardi!!

     



         The Pats have done okay in free agency thus far. But, have they really improved that much to dethrone Denver, and then have a chance against whoever comes out of the NFC?

     

         My answer is...no. The Pats still need a good rotational pass rusher to spell Nink and Chandler Jones once in a while, and badly need a huge, pocket collapsing DT...especially if Vince Wilfolk cannot be brought to terms, and ends up being released.

         On offense, they need to upgrade at OC and at RG...far more than they need to give Tom Brady more "weapons".

     

    [/QUOTE]

    There is a draft in April you know. Im not concerned with keeping pace w/Denver. Weve seen much more action than in the past and Im happy. O line, TE, DT will All be adressed in the draft so Im not expecting THAT much more in free agency. Let Denver blow their wad. As long as we draft well we will be fine.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattC05's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Maybe now the defense will get off the field so the offense will have more than 8 possessions to work with.

    [/QUOTE]

    Possessions arguement is a crock of sht, in the last Super Bowl both teams had an equal amount of possessions

    [/QUOTE]

    Not really wozz. If you're going to complain about the total points scored, you have to consider the number of possessions.

    The Giants used the old-time football strategy of keeping a high powered offense off the field with ball control, and it worked perfectly.

    It's just as simple as that.

    [/QUOTE]

    This ... but don't bother with Wozzy ... he's not that dumb ... just that stubborn. 

    Anyone who espouses ball control ... but doesn't understand that total score is determined by chances to score, and chances to score are determined by the defense is dense ... intentionally or otherwise. 

    The issue of "total possessions" explains why BOTH teams have low scores.

    The Patriots' defense played like trash in all of their playoff losses surrendering scores on al ost every single possession and forcing zero turnovers. 

    The offense didn't perform lights out, but were generally pretty efficient in scoring overall. 

     

    Bill gets it ... again some people hear just won't admit it. 

    But I supposed BB just chucked $20+ million (and a boatload of draft picks) at the defense because ... hey ... he wanted to fix his offense. 

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter. "

    If  you want "simple math" ,  what Wozzy said here is about as simple as it gets.

    The offenses job is to score points, not turn the ball over, not punt , not take a safety.

    Bottom line:  The offense has under-performed.   Why else is everyone screaming for more weapons for Tom Brady?  Although he had those weapons in 2007 and we know what the final result was.

    I believe that number of possesions theory is just BS also.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The defense's job is to prevent the other team from scoring - end of story. They went on to the field with a lead on those final possesions and coughed it up.

     

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

     

    I am trying to understand why there is even a debate.

    1) The "3 people" are NOT saying that the D has been good in any of the past 4-5 seasons. I don't know what Rusty says (I don't read everything he writes); but most of these 3 people actually have indicated in each of those years that the D needed improvements. If you follow the draft boards, you would see that the Wozzys and Lows of the world were always wanting for the Pats to pick up stud DLs.

    2) However, they are saying that a big part of the reason why the Pats lost the SB is that the O underperformed.

    Those two are not mutually exclusive. Very good Os can have bad games. The Pats had very good Os in 2007 and 2011, but they did not play well in the  SBs.

    If you believe the O played well in SB 42 and 36, then I will tell you the data does not support that.

    The only piece of data that actually sums up ultimate offensive and defensive output -- i.e., the final score - shows that. ToP, or whatever other data being brought up are simply metrics for various parts of the game that influence the final score, but these variables cannot be viewed in isolation of the others. Taking those variables as being more important than others is like confusing trees for the forest. Only the final score shows offensive output (and defensive output too).

    The O output, as indicated but the final scores in 2007 and 2011, were...

    • Lower than their respective reg season norms
    • Lower than most SB winning teams achieved.

    The second bullet is really telling. Since 1984, only one team (out of 30) has ever won the SB with its O scoring 17 points or lower. Yes, that was the 2007 NYG. What is that saying? If you're O scores 17 points, you have a 3% chance of winning. Coversely, if your D keeps your opponent to 17 or less, you have a 97% chance of winning. 

    Some argue that in SB 42, the Pats had the lead on NYG's last drive. Well, the only reason they even had the lead then was that the D had played lights out for 56 of the 60 minutes. Had the O played well for that long, they would not have even been in that position where a lucky helmet catch would have made a difference. If the O had played well for half that time, they still would have won the game.

    SB 46 was a little different, but still similar. If not for that safety, the O actually played better. But the safety did make a difference, because they O scored only 17 points. 

    How did the D do in SB 46? They gave up 19 points. Intrestingly, over the last 30 SBs, only 20 teams have managed to keep their opponent to 19 points or lower. 19 of those 20 teams won the SB. That D held the NYG enough. 

    Look at it this way. The D gave the Pats a 95% chance of winning. However, the offensive ouput gave the other side a 97% chance of winning. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Point of clarification: The Pats' O scored just 13 points in 2001 and won.  They got to 20 thanks to Ty Law's pick six. 

     

    Also, these percentages you are calculating don't strike me as more convincing than what actually happened in the game.   Tell me, for instance, how many times a team won the super bowl when its defense gave up scores on 50% or more of the other team's drives in a low possession game?

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Someone tell Brady to sustain longer drives so the defense can take a freaking breath.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seattle, I agree that the O did not perform great in either of those games.  In 2007, in particular, the O performed particularly badly, mostly because it was vastly overmatched in the trenches.  In 2011, I'd say the O was mediocre, largely because the O has mostly been mediocre when you take Gronk out.  We don't have enough other weapons.  Still, on a points per drive basis, they weren't horrendous. 

    The issue, though, is whether the defense played well. I think it played okay in 2007, but in 2011, despite the 19 point total, it was bad.  Basically, the Giants had just 8 offensive drives (their ninth was a kneel down to end the first half, so I don't count that one).  They scored on half of them--two TDs and two FGs.  The Pats gave up 2.375 points per drive (and it would have been 2.5 if the Giants had gone for a one-point conversion and made it rather than missing a two-point conversion).  Just as bad, the length of the drives was astounding: 4:37 on average, 4:53 if you exclude the late two-minute-drill drive when the Giants had to score fast (which, of course, they did). On average in the NFL in 2011, drives were 2:37, so the Giants' average drives were a full 2 minutes longer than expected--not quite double the average length, but close.  Then you have Manning's 75% completion rate (30 completions on 40 passes).  These are horrendous defensive statistics. People who ignore that and just look at 19 points really miss what was actually happening in the game.  Nineteen points is a bit below average for a game - - - but it's way above average for 8 possessions --- and if you look at everything that happened in that game there's no way to claim the defense played well. 

    The Giants strategy was to keep the ball out of the Patriots' hands, and our defense did absolutely nothing to stop them from executing their strategy.  A "keep away" strategy, if it succeeds, will result in a low number of possessions and low final score.  But that low score wasn't really the result of our defense playing well. It was primarily the result of the Giants' offensive strategy working and our defense being helpless to stop it. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think I agree... giving up 2.375 points per drive, I think is bad.

    The word "think" is there because I don't know if what the win/loss probabilities are for different levels of PPD. Analyzing that is a big task I am not willing to spend time on. It feels right, I can say that. 

    On ToP: 

    1) ToP is overrated if it does not correlate to points scored. Giving up ToP is not really that abd for a D if they do not give up points. Conversely, controlling ToP is not great for the O either if they do not score. A team that runs more will tend to have better ToP than a team that passes more. 

    2) ToP is a two way street. The D has a role, but so does the O. IMO, the O has a bigger role, because the O has the ball when the play starts. The D should be reacting to them. The D could guess what the O is doing, and the key is keeping the D guessing and making the D pay dearly for a wrong guess. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

     The O output, as indicated but the final scores in 2007 and 2011, were...

    • Lower than their respective reg season norms
    • Lower than most SB winning teams achieved.

    The second bullet is really telling. Since 1984, only one team (out of 30) has ever won the SB with its O scoring 17 points or lower. Yes, that was the 2007 NYG. What is that saying? If you're O scores 17 points, you have a 3% chance of winning. Coversely, if your D keeps your opponent to 17 or less, you have a 97% chance of winning. 

     

     



    Point of clarification: The Pats' O scored just 13 points in 2001 and won.  They got to 20 thanks to Ty Law's pick six

     

    Also, these percentages you are calculating don't strike me as more convincing than what actually happened in the game.   Tell me, for instance, how many times a team won the super bowl when its defense gave up scores on 50% or more of the other team's drives in a low possession game?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My bad.

    So that makes 2 teams in 30 winning the SB. Aren't you splitting hair at this point? Bottomline is if you score 17 or less, your chances of winning a SB is very slim.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

     The O output, as indicated but the final scores in 2007 and 2011, were...

    • Lower than their respective reg season norms
    • Lower than most SB winning teams achieved.

    The second bullet is really telling. Since 1984, only one team (out of 30) has ever won the SB with its O scoring 17 points or lower. Yes, that was the 2007 NYG. What is that saying? If you're O scores 17 points, you have a 3% chance of winning. Coversely, if your D keeps your opponent to 17 or less, you have a 97% chance of winning. 

     

     



    Point of clarification: The Pats' O scored just 13 points in 2001 and won.  They got to 20 thanks to Ty Law's pick six

     

    Also, these percentages you are calculating don't strike me as more convincing than what actually happened in the game.   Tell me, for instance, how many times a team won the super bowl when its defense gave up scores on 50% or more of the other team's drives in a low possession game?

     



    My bad.

    So that makes 2 teams in 30 winning the SB. Aren't you splitting hair at this point? Bottomline is if you score 17 or less, your chances of winning a SB is very slim.

    [/QUOTE]

    But I think it's far more instructive to look at what actually happened in the game.  When I see multiple drives of four or more minutes, a 75% completion rate, scoring on 50% of drives, I have a hard time saying the defense played well.  The fact is, a low possession game will almost always result in lower than average scoring for both teams.  So the fact that they gave up fewer points than average doesn't impress me.  If they had done that in a typical 11 possession game it would be significant.  But in 8 possessions?  Two TDs and two FGs in 8 chances is actually fairly a lot to give up. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

     The O output, as indicated but the final scores in 2007 and 2011, were...

    • Lower than their respective reg season norms
    • Lower than most SB winning teams achieved.

    The second bullet is really telling. Since 1984, only one team (out of 30) has ever won the SB with its O scoring 17 points or lower. Yes, that was the 2007 NYG. What is that saying? If you're O scores 17 points, you have a 3% chance of winning. Coversely, if your D keeps your opponent to 17 or less, you have a 97% chance of winning. 

     

     



    Point of clarification: The Pats' O scored just 13 points in 2001 and won.  They got to 20 thanks to Ty Law's pick six

     

    Also, these percentages you are calculating don't strike me as more convincing than what actually happened in the game.   Tell me, for instance, how many times a team won the super bowl when its defense gave up scores on 50% or more of the other team's drives in a low possession game?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    My bad.

     

    So that makes 2 teams in 30 winning the SB. Aren't you splitting hair at this point? Bottomline is if you score 17 or less, your chances of winning a SB is very slim.

    [/QUOTE]

    But I think it's far more instructive to look at what actually happened in the game.  When I see multiple drives of four or more minutes, a 75% completion rate, scoring on 50% of drives, I have a hard time saying the defense played well.  The fact is, a low possession game will almost always result in lower than average scoring for both teams.  So the fact that they gave up fewer points than average doesn't impress me.  If they had done that in a typical 11 possession game it would be significant.  But in 8 possessions?  Two TDs and two FGs in 8 chances is actually fairly a lot to give up. 

    [/QUOTE]

     

    That's the point. What happened in the game is not less instructive if you want to understand the big picture. Everyone will tend to focus on details according to their bias. 

    Ultimately, in every game, each side's performance will fluctuate. That's a given.

    The question is whether the aggregate of their fluctuating performances yielded what amounts to better/ worse performance to their norm. Or you can look at it and ask if the aggregate performance was good enough for one play to matter. 

    To say that the O played well because they did their job for 7 of the 60 mins is as illogical as saying the D played bad despite playing well for 54 of the 60 mins. When your D plays well for 54 mins, screwing up for 6 mins should not matter. And yes, when in the game the D screws up should not matter either.

    I don't know why we are still debating this. We are talking here about 2007. 

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seattle, I agree that the O did not perform great in either of those games.  In 2007, in particular, the O performed particularly badly, mostly because it was vastly overmatched in the trenches.  In 2011, I'd say the O was mediocre, largely because the O has mostly been mediocre when you take Gronk out.  We don't have enough other weapons.  Still, on a points per drive basis, they weren't horrendous. 

    The issue, though, is whether the defense played well. I think it played okay in 2007, but in 2011, despite the 19 point total, it was bad.  Basically, the Giants had just 8 offensive drives (their ninth was a kneel down to end the first half, so I don't count that one).  They scored on half of them--two TDs and two FGs.  The Pats gave up 2.375 points per drive (and it would have been 2.5 if the Giants had gone for a one-point conversion and made it rather than missing a two-point conversion).  Just as bad, the length of the drives was astounding: 4:37 on average, 4:53 if you exclude the late two-minute-drill drive when the Giants had to score fast (which, of course, they did). On average in the NFL in 2011, drives were 2:37, so the Giants' average drives were a full 2 minutes longer than expected--not quite double the average length, but close.  Then you have Manning's 75% completion rate (30 completions on 40 passes).  These are horrendous defensive statistics. People who ignore that and just look at 19 points really miss what was actually happening in the game.  Nineteen points is a bit below average for a game - - - but it's way above average for 8 possessions --- and if you look at everything that happened in that game there's no way to claim the defense played well. 

    The Giants strategy was to keep the ball out of the Patriots' hands, and our defense did absolutely nothing to stop them from executing their strategy.  A "keep away" strategy, if it succeeds, will result in a low number of possessions and low final score.  But that low score wasn't really the result of our defense playing well. It was primarily the result of the Giants' offensive strategy working and our defense being helpless to stop it. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think I agree... giving up 2.375 points per drive, I think is bad.

    The word "think" is there because I don't know if what the win/loss probabilities are for different levels of PPD. Analyzing that is a big task I am not willing to spend time on. It feels right, I can say that. 

    On ToP: 

    1) ToP is overrated if it does not correlate to points scored. Giving up ToP is not really that abd for a D if they do not give up points. Conversely, controlling ToP is not great for the O either if they do not score. A team that runs more will tend to have better ToP than a team that passes more. 

    2) ToP is a two way street. The D has a role, but so does the O. IMO, the O has a bigger role, because the O has the ball when the play starts. The D should be reacting to them. The D could guess what the O is doing, and the key is keeping the D guessing and making the D pay dearly for a wrong guess. 

    [/QUOTE]

    ToP itself is not that significant, but average ToP per drive does have a mathematical relationship to the number of drives in the game. It's a sixty minute game, so if average ToP per drive is longer, then the number of drives will be fewer.  And the number of drives places a limit on scoring chances, and the fewer scoring chances there are, the lower the point total is likely to be.

    I think a defense should strive to give up short drives all the time, short in yards particularly, but also in time. The goal is to get the other team off the field as quickly as possible and allow them to advance the ball as little as possible.  While preventing scores is most important, giving up yards correlates well with giving up points.  Defensive ToP per drive does not correlate as well with either points scored by your offense or points given up by your defense, but giving the ball back to your offense quickly does give them more time to work with. Most of the best defenses do have low defensive ToP per drive.  The exceptions (Seattle last year being a notable one ) tend to be good with turnovers or really good in pass defense and therefore get run at a lot. 

    On offense, ToP per drive actually strikes me as less important, because scoring quickly is often beneficial, especially early in the game and when you're behind, while scoring slowly is beneficial if you have a good lead late in the game or, in some cases, if you are facing a team with a highly explosive offense and want to limit their scoring opportunities. So whether long ToP in a drive is strategically good or bad on offense depends on situation.  

    Anyway, no single stat is perfect, but you can't look at point totals and just conclude that either the offense or the defense played well or badly based on final scores alone.  There are times when a defense plays badly but the opposing offense plays worse, for instance.  And there are circumstances, like number of possessions, that do influence scoring totals.  

     

     

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems our boy BB and the new kid in town Lombardi completely disagree with your totally wrong analysis of the team.

     Finally after 10 frutile years of Free Agency and Value Draft picking the boys are throwing some REAL money at the Real problem.....The Defense.

    Thank you Executive of the year Lombardi!!

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a lot of chest thumping...but let's look at some facts:

    Gone: Talib, Spikes

    Added: Revis, Browner

    Revis is an upgrade of Talib. Browner is a very good CB, and I'm pretty sure every fan of the Pats wanted Talib +1 more. They did better than that, yes.

    But it's not like they overhauled the D. It's 90% the same parts. The DLine is unchanged. The LBs have only been depleted. The secondary got improved.

    In your rush to slam BB as a GM and pat yourself on the back...you forgot to make the case for yourself.

    For the record...the offense simply bring back Edelman and signing Lafell also got better. Marginally, but they improved the offense...so, should I start a thread about how the O was the problem?

    It's a team game. The ofense failed to put up points when it needed to. The D failed to make big stops when it needed to. BOTH needed improvement. BOTH have been improved. 

    I'd like to thank those of us that preached patience, and understand how hard it is to win every year, and are thankful for the 5 BS appearance, 3 wins, impressive playoff record, overall, for 13 years rather than expecting the Pats should get a ring every 2-3 years TOPS.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This ... but don't bother with Wozzy ... he's not that dumb ... just that stubborn. 

    Anyone who espouses ball control ... but doesn't understand that total score is determined by chances to score, and chances to score are determined by the defense is dense ... intentionally or otherwise. 

    The issue of "total possessions" explains why BOTH teams have low scores.

    The Patriots' defense played like trash in all of their playoff losses surrendering scores on al ost every single possession and forcing zero turnovers. 

    The offense didn't perform lights out, but were generally pretty efficient in scoring overall. 

     

    Bill gets it ... again some people hear just won't admit it. 

    But I supposed BB just chucked $20+ million (and a boatload of draft picks) at the defense because ... hey ... he wanted to fix his offense. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I am trying to understand why you would say those two statements, particularly inr eference to SB42.

    YELLOW:

    After giving up a FG on the first possession, NYG possessions went INT, Punt, Punt, Punt. Note that the first of those four was actually a TO.

    PINK:

    After scoring a TD, the Pats went Punt, Punt, Fumble, Downs, Punt, Punt. They scored 1.556 points per drive - low by any benchmark; very low by the standard they set in the reg season. That's an efficient O? 

    On both statements you are just plain wrong, more so on the pink than the yellow.

    I don't know if you are lying, or you did not even bother to look at the data, or you just are too biased to accept what the data is saying.

    It does not matter. You are just wrong.

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dwhite1220. Show dwhite1220's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems our boy BB and the new kid in town Lombardi completely disagree with your totally wrong analysis of the team.

     Finally after 10 frutile years of Free Agency and Value Draft picking the boys are throwing some REAL money at the Real problem.....The Defense.

    Thank you Executive of the year Lombardi!!

    [/QUOTE] Agree 100%


    How can the problem be the D?  We only gave up 26 points to the Greatest Offense of all time.  We ONLY scored 16.  THAT'S 16 points!!  And if you look at the other playoff losses the last 5-6 years, you will see that we could not score points. 

    2012 vs. Ravens: 13 pts.

    2011 SB vs. Giants: 17pts.

    Our issues have stemmed mainly from the (lack of ) O-line protection and not being able to score points. 

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This ... but don't bother with Wozzy ... he's not that dumb ... just that stubborn. 

    Anyone who espouses ball control ... but doesn't understand that total score is determined by chances to score, and chances to score are determined by the defense is dense ... intentionally or otherwise. 

    The issue of "total possessions" explains why BOTH teams have low scores.

    The Patriots' defense played like trash in all of their playoff losses surrendering scores on al ost every single possession and forcing zero turnovers. 

    The offense didn't perform lights out, but were generally pretty efficient in scoring overall. 

     

    Bill gets it ... again some people hear just won't admit it. 

    But I supposed BB just chucked $20+ million (and a boatload of draft picks) at the defense because ... hey ... he wanted to fix his offense. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I am trying to understand why you would say those two statements, particularly inr eference to SB42.

    YELLOW:

    After giving up a FG on the first possession, NYG possessions went INT, Punt, Punt, Punt. Note that the first of those four was actually a TO.

    PINK:

    After scoring a TD, the Pats went Punt, Punt, Fumble, Downs, Punt, Punt. They scored 1.556 points per drive - low by any benchmark; very low by the standard they set in the reg season. That's an efficient O? 

    On both statements you are just plain wrong, more so on the pink than the yellow.

    I don't know if you are lying, or you did not even bother to look at the data, or you just are too biased to accept what the data is saying.

    It does not matter. You are just wrong.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I'm not saying the defense was '85 Bears or anything but those who just want to crap all over the D in the Super Bowl losses don't look at the stats and facts at all in their argument.  Glad you pointed this out.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to dwhite1220's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to theshinez's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seems our boy BB and the new kid in town Lombardi completely disagree with your totally wrong analysis of the team.

     Finally after 10 frutile years of Free Agency and Value Draft picking the boys are throwing some REAL money at the Real problem.....The Defense.

    Thank you Executive of the year Lombardi!!

    [/QUOTE] Agree 100%


    How can the problem be the D?  We only gave up 26 points to the Greatest Offense of all time.  We ONLY scored 16.  THAT'S 16 points!!  And if you look at the other playoff losses the last 5-6 years, you will see that we could not score points. 

    2012 vs. Ravens: 13 pts.

    2011 SB vs. Giants: 17pts.

    Our issues have stemmed mainly from the (lack of ) O-line protection and not being able to score points. 

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]


    For real.  If you're gonna score 16 points in a playoff game, are you really expecting the defense to hold the best offense in history to less than that at their home field?  The offense has been p00 p00 in the playoff losses.  Not saying the defense has been stellar but it hasn't been garbage the way some people say it has been.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bottomline is if you score 17 or less, your chances of winning a SB is very slim.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's true. And if your D can't get off the field causing your O to be limited to 8 possessions, you're probably not going to score more than 17 points, and you will probably lose. Especially if your D folds on the last drive to lose it.

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Bottomline is if you score 17 or less, your chances of winning a SB is very slim.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's true. And if your D can't get off the field causing your O to be limited to 8 possessions, you're probably not going to score more than 17 points, and you will probably lose. Especially if your D folds on the last drive to lose it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not the defense's fault when Brady goes three and out, overthrows a receiver, or turns the ball over with an INT or safety and it's not Brady's fault when the defense allows the other team to score on the last drive.  Team game.

     

Share