Stats smile on well-rounded Pats - New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
NEWS
|
FORUM
|
PHOTOS
|
VIDEOS
|
FULL STATS DATABASE
|
PODCAST
|
RUMOR MILL
Get Social With PatsFans.com
Early Roster Projection
Ryan's Journey Started Early
POST DRAFT PODCAST

Go Back   New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard > PatsFans.com Forums > PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum
Forgot Password? Join PatsFans.com!
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read Chat Room

WELCOME TO OUR FORUM HERE AT PATSFANS.COM!
ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW

Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-27-2006, 02:50 PM   #1
In the Starting Line-up
 
PonyExpress's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ManchVegas!!
Posts: 4,646
Default Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Footballoutsiders.com offers interesting statistical data. The 2006 Pats rank 7th on offense, 7th on defense, and 3rd on special teams in the NFL. In the last 9 years only 4 other teams have ranked in single digits in all 3 categories in the regular season:

2005 Pittsburgh Steelers: Won SB
1999 St Louis Rams: Won SB
1999 Jacksonville Jaguars: Lost AFC Championship Game
1998 Atlanta Falcons: Lost SB

3 of the 4 teams went to the SB, the other exited in the championship game in one of the flukiest anomalies in NFL history (The Jaguars went 15-3 that season, losing all 3 games to Tennessee). If the Pats can maintain these rankings through Week 16, History may smile on them. With all the hits this organization has taken in the media this year, they deserve credit for putting together one of the most well-rounded teams in recent NFL history.
PonyExpress is offline   Reply With Quote
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!

Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account
including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.

NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98

Updated 07/08/11

Help Us Reach Our Goal!

Old 12-27-2006, 02:58 PM   #2
Banned
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,669
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

My biggest fear is that our strong defense generated numbers while we had Junior Seau in there, and that we're not as stout right now with him on the IR.
maverick4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 03:13 PM   #3
In the Starting Line-up
 

Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,196
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

I think defensively we have been as stout without Seau as we have with.
stinkypete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 03:22 PM   #4
B.O. = Fugazi
 
BelichickFan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 30,551
Send a message via AIM to BelichickFan
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Quote:
Originally Posted by maverick4 View Post
My biggest fear is that our strong defense generated numbers while we had Junior Seau in there, and that we're not as stout right now with him on the IR.
There's been nothing I've seen to suggest that's the case.

Furthermore we've now played 4 1/2 games without him. 2+ of those were without Wilfork and 3 1/2 were without Rodney. The latter is back, the former will be back. Now . . .

FO has a weighted scale also which emphasizes the last 8 games. Half of that extra weighting is without Seau.

Our overall defense is ranked 7th, 8.9% better than average. Our weighted defense (emphasizing the last 8) is also ranked 7th and an even better 12.5% better than average.

Additionally both Baltimore and SD drop when comparing the weighted to the total. So while we're getting better defensively they're getting worse.

FWIW, if you add the offense, defense, ST rankings, the lower the better for a total, you get :

New England 17
San Diego 17
Baltimore 19
NYJ 48
Denver 51
Indy 53

Just for fun, what was our final in years past ?

2005 : 44
2004 : 26 (16th on ST)
2003 : 33
2002 : 28
2001 : 22

This may be the most well rounded we've ever been.

BTW, our weighted total for this year is :

Offense 8, Defense, 7 ST 4 for a Weighted Total of 19. Slightly higher than for the year but still very, very good. SD's weighted is 20 and Baltimore's is also 20. Should be a fun playoffs
BelichickFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 03:44 PM   #5
Second Team and Threatening Starter's Job
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,467
My Mood: Inspired
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Patriots are #2 behind only the Ravens in points scored against.
MrTibbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 03:52 PM   #6
Virtual Internet Person
 
PromisedLand's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,360
My Mood: Amazed
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelichickFan View Post
There's been nothing I've seen to suggest that's the case.

Furthermore we've now played 4 1/2 games without him. 2+ of those were without Wilfork and 3 1/2 were without Rodney. The latter is back, the former will be back. Now . . .

FO has a weighted scale also which emphasizes the last 8 games. Half of that extra weighting is without Seau.

Our overall defense is ranked 7th, 8.9% better than average. Our weighted defense (emphasizing the last 8) is also ranked 7th and an even better 12.5% better than average.

Additionally both Baltimore and SD drop when comparing the weighted to the total. So while we're getting better defensively they're getting worse.

FWIW, if you add the offense, defense, ST rankings, the lower the better for a total, you get :

New England 17
San Diego 17
Baltimore 19
NYJ 48
Denver 51
Indy 53

Just for fun, what was our final in years past ?

2005 : 44
2004 : 26 (16th on ST)
2003 : 33
2002 : 28
2001 : 22

This may be the most well rounded we've ever been.

BTW, our weighted total for this year is :

Offense 8, Defense, 7 ST 4 for a Weighted Total of 19. Slightly higher than for the year but still very, very good. SD's weighted is 20 and Baltimore's is also 20. Should be a fun playoffs
Once again BF has come up with some great stats. Thanks, BF!
__________________
It's so simple, even a Jets fan could do it.ä
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PromisedLand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 06:30 PM   #7
PatsFans.com Supporter
 
Box_O_Rocks's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,550
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkypete View Post
I think defensively we have been as stout without Seau as we have with.
Bump for a "repete"!
__________________
"Avert thine eyes! You're not hot enough to be looking at me."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Box_O_Rocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 07:40 PM   #8
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 979
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkypete View Post
I think defensively we have been as stout without Seau as we have with.

Banta-Cain from the outside LB spot gives you 75% of what Vrabel gave you, and Vrabel from the inside LB gives you 125+% of Junior gave us. Bottom line is I think it is a slight overall advantage to have the present group on the field as the positives of a younger, athletic group should favor the previously older, yet wiser interior ILB group of Seau/Bruschi.
groundgame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 09:55 PM   #9
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 550
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Quote:
Originally Posted by BelichickFan View Post
There's been nothing I've seen to suggest that's the case.

Furthermore we've now played 4 1/2 games without him. 2+ of those were without Wilfork and 3 1/2 were without Rodney. The latter is back, the former will be back. Now . . .

FO has a weighted scale also which emphasizes the last 8 games. Half of that extra weighting is without Seau.

Our overall defense is ranked 7th, 8.9% better than average. Our weighted defense (emphasizing the last 8) is also ranked 7th and an even better 12.5% better than average.

Additionally both Baltimore and SD drop when comparing the weighted to the total. So while we're getting better defensively they're getting worse.

FWIW, if you add the offense, defense, ST rankings, the lower the better for a total, you get :

New England 17
San Diego 17
Baltimore 19
NYJ 48
Denver 51
Indy 53

Just for fun, what was our final in years past ?

2005 : 44
2004 : 26 (16th on ST)
2003 : 33
2002 : 28
2001 : 22

This may be the most well rounded we've ever been.

BTW, our weighted total for this year is :

Offense 8, Defense, 7 ST 4 for a Weighted Total of 19. Slightly higher than for the year but still very, very good. SD's weighted is 20 and Baltimore's is also 20. Should be a fun playoffs
There's a problem w/ the way you're wielding FO's DVOA stats.

Firstly, by working with their ranking # and not the actual DVOA percentage, you're creating a system where the difference between each team and the one ranked beneath is the same, while in reality, this is far from the case.

When you look at the actual % ratings, you'll see that Indianapolis' top score is 9.5 percentage points better than the #2 team. This is a lot -- it's the same as what separates the 7th ranked Pats and 16th ranked bears. Thus, when you start adding up rankings instead of percentages, you seriously devalue standout units like the Colts' offense.

Meanwhile, the same phenomenon happens on defense. According to the FO metric, the difference between the Ravens' #1 ranked D and the Pats' #7 ranked D is as big as difference between the Pats' 7th ranked D and Cleveland's 25th ranked defense. In other words, the Ravens' #1 ranked defense is really, really good to a degree that doesn't come across when you think of it as #1 to the Pats' #7.

Fortunately for us all, the folks who created these stats have done the work of combining the offense, defense and special teams scores, proportionately, and have worked out an overall team efficiency rating. The Pats rank #3, behind San Diego, and the Ravens.

They might not be quite as "well balanced," but the superlative quality of their offense and defense, respectively, deserves added weight.
Pat_Nasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2006, 10:35 PM   #10
B.O. = Fugazi
 
BelichickFan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 30,551
Send a message via AIM to BelichickFan
Default Re: Stats smile on well-rounded Pats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat_Nasty View Post
There's a problem w/ the way you're wielding FO's DVOA stats.
I know, I wasn't trying to claim that I was producing a balanced efficiency rating just an overall feel for the balance. In much the same way, I doubt a lot of people would feel that the ST rank should get an equal share with offense and defense.
BelichickFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sponsored Links



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563