My Observations Pre Season Game 1

[s3antana5757]

Just watched the game on my DVR(basically the first half). Here are some of my thoughts.

Julian Edelman looked terrible both in the return game and offensively. I think he's done and he'll be replaced by Price.

Both QB's looked really good. Hoyer especially made some nice throws.

Ridley is a bruiser and a guy who refuses to go down. I said that he never goes down on 1st contact and always falls forward. I have no reason to change my opinion of this now.

Solder looked good for the most part. He tended to get a little off-balance and too high, but his strength and solid knee bend helped him keep the block. He's also very athletic.

The pass defense was piss poor. Gabbert had huge windows to throw through and a better QB would pick that apart.

The pressure was good. I thought it was about 50/50 good play and scheme.

 

[The Scrizz]

No I did not. You just made it up that I said that.



I am discussing ALL of the plays.


You have 'proven anything wrong'. All you have proven is that you prefer to ignore the alarming issues with run defense in that game by sweeping them under the carpet and creating a discussion where you can focus on the parts you want to.
If you feel good about a run defense that makes some good plays and don't care that they had an ALARMING frequency of abject failure by the front 7, by all means go ahead.
I'm not quite sure why you feel it is important that I eliminate that part of run defense from my opinion, but you have yet to convince me those issues arent something I should be concerned with.
I can tell you that if we get to the regular season and we are allowing runs of over 10 yards more than 1 time out of every 6 plays, the most common discussion on this board will be how we just can't stop the run.

1 in 6 for 1 game. Nice sample size. Now the issues are alarming. Based on 1 preseason game that we won by 35 and had 5 straight 3 and outs thanks in large part to the run defense. you are such a tool. :bye2:

 

[The Scrizz]

The pass defense was piss poor. Gabbert had huge windows to throw through and a better QB would pick that apart.

Now you're just baiting Andy aren't you. C'mon be honest. Next you're going to try and say that Butler played poorly too.

 

[Ring 6]

1 in 6 for 1 game. Nice sample size. Now the issues are alarming. Based on 1 preseason game that we won by 35 and had 5 straight 3 and outs thanks in large part to the run defense. you are such a tool. :bye2:

The sample size is the only game the team has played.
If you are saying the game tells us nothing then why are we discussing it?

So now after pages of discussing the significance of this game, you decide to call me names because the sample size is too small? Nice.

 

[Ring 6]

Another example of whether 17% of running plays and 2.2 ypc on the 83% is good, bad or ugly.
I took the worst run D in the NFL last year, the Bills, and searched for these stats. Since it is a cumbersome process, I did the first 4 games.
The numbers seem pretty indicative of the Bills D for the season.

In those 4 the Bills allowed 696 yards rushing on 150 carries.
They allowed 16 runs of 10 or more, for 11%.
Taking away the 17% worst plays, they are left with 125-356 which is 2.8 per carry.
Thats the worst run D in the NFL.
17% would have been 25 runs of 10 plus instead of 16.
Their porous run D that allowed 4.8 ypc allowed 2.8 in its best 83% of the plays.

This doesn't have much to do with the Patriots defense, but it illustrates that the argument that 17% of runs going for over 10 yards is irrelevant and that 2.2 ypc on the other 83% of the plays is dominating is an uninformed assessment.

Lets hope its a one game issue, but as I said our run D better be better than this in the regular season.

 

[Ring 6]

Now you're just baiting Andy aren't you. C'mon be honest. Next you're going to try and say that Butler played poorly too.

He is entitled to his opinion.
Is it hard being so obsessed with me that you have to make posts like this?

 

[BradyFTW!]

He is entitled to his opinion.
Is it hard being so obsessed with me that you have to make posts like this?

If that's obsession, then I should probably take out a restraining order on you

 

[Metaphors]

This doesn't have much to do with the Patriots defense, but it illustrates that the argument that 17% of runs going for over 10 yards is irrelevant and that 2.2 ypc on the other 83% of the plays is dominating is an uninformed assessment.

Lets hope its a one game issue, but as I said our run D better be better than this in the regular season.

Statistics are a wonderful thing as long as you don't allow them to remove all context. You are absolutely correct that the Jags had a handful of solid runs where they hit the 2nd level far too easily. But you have to consider the situation:
- The DL in this game is not representative of what the Pats will throw out there in a month.
- The Jags are a running team with a big OL and solid RBs, even without MJD
- The Pats are experimenting on defense to see what things work well. By definition this involves trying things that don't work out so well.
- You can't stop everything. Even the vaunted Jets defense had no answer for the Texans slipping backs and TEs out into routes. The real battle is hiding weak spots and hoping the offense doesn't execute well enough to recognize and exploit them. Doesn't work all the time.

Nobody can tell yet if the Pats will have issues against the run this year. I didn't see anything on Thursday to move me one way or the other. I'm inclined to think the Pats should be as good as they were last year with the potential to be much better (particularly with generating negative running plays). No need to raise the DEFCON level just yet.

 

[Ring 6]

If that's obsession, then I should probably take out a restraining order on you

Dude, you are the one always responding to my posts not the other way around.

 

[Ring 6]

Statistics are a wonderful thing as long as you don't allow them to remove all context. You are absolutely correct that the Jags had a handful of solid runs where they hit the 2nd level far too easily. But you have to consider the situation:
- The DL in this game is not representative of what the Pats will throw out there in a month.
- The Jags are a running team with a big OL and solid RBs, even without MJD
- The Pats are experimenting on defense to see what things work well. By definition this involves trying things that don't work out so well.
- You can't stop everything. Even the vaunted Jets defense had no answer for the Texans slipping backs and TEs out into routes. The real battle is hiding weak spots and hoping the offense doesn't execute well enough to recognize and exploit them. Doesn't work all the time.

Nobody can tell yet if the Pats will have issues against the run this year. I didn't see anything on Thursday to move me one way or the other. I'm inclined to think the Pats should be as good as they were last year with the potential to be much better (particularly with generating negative running plays). No need to raise the DEFCON level just yet.

I'm not projecting anything forward.
I said that the run D was not good and we will be in trouble if it plays that way.
Then people decided to argue that a very high rate of long runs is irrelevant and if you exclude the long runs the 2.2 ypc was 'dominating'.
These stats were simply to show that people saying 4 runs over 10 yards out of 23 is no problem and 2.2 on the best 19 of 23 is 'dominating' are just simply out of touch with the reality of run defense in the NFL.

I even pointed out in the initial post that these are backups so everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but the arguments being made are just ridiculous. I agree with you, one game tells us little, but that doesn't mean there isn't reason to have concern if it doesnt improve.

 

[Metaphors]

I even pointed out in the initial post that these are backups so everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but the arguments being made are just ridiculous. I agree with you, one game tells us little, but that doesn't mean there isn't reason to have concern if it doesnt improve.

Understood. The one positive I did notice was the handful of running plays stopped for no gain or negative yards. Not enough of that last year. Three straight 4 yard runs gets you 12 yards and a first down. Runs of 10, -2 and 4 yards gets you the same 12 yards but now you are staring at a 3rd and 8. Big difference in getting off the field and allowing your QB more opportunities to score.

 

[Ring 6]

Understood. The one positive I did notice was the handful of running plays stopped for no gain or negative yards. Not enough of that last year. Three straight 4 yard runs gets you 12 yards and a first down. Runs of 10, -2 and 4 yards gets you the same 12 yards but now you are staring at a 3rd and 8. Big difference in getting off the field and allowing your QB more opportunities to score.

Well, as I pointed out, no team, gives up 4 yards each and every play.
80% of running plays are going to average around 2 to 2.5 yards vs almost every team. Its the other 20% that make the difference.
Your narrow example isn't really a good one.
I'm all for good stops, but if in order to get them we will get gashed often, I'll take the 2 yard stop over the 2 yard loss in order to prevent the big play risk.

 

[The Scrizz]

The sample size is the only game the team has played.
If you are saying the game tells us nothing then why are we discussing it?

So now after pages of discussing the significance of this game, you decide to call me names because the sample size is too small? Nice.

We were discussing it because you can take things out of a single game, like as BB suggested, do the guys improve when you correct them. The fact that they improved after one series and a correction on the sidelines says great things about their ability to adjust and adapt. You chose to ignore anything like that, instead harping on 4 plays that you didn't like. I was ready to drop it but when BB talked about it specifically in his EEI interview I thought it was worthy of mention. But instead you play semantics "Bill never said he was happy with the overall run D". No but he specifically mentioned how important it was how quickly they adjusted and didn't make the same mistakes, which is what you are looking for from backups in pre-season game number 1 after no off-season. But again, those are 'excuses' to you.

And are you really going to get upset at 'tool'? Please, it's like saying you're being a goof. You called me silly earlier, should my panties have become bunched at that?

You try to make huge pronouncements based on next to zero evidence and then get upset when people call you out on it.

You've been insisting since day 1 of camp that BB would never even consider moving away from a 3-4 2-gap even as evidence to the contrary piles up and you finally halfheartedly admit that they played a little under. BB talked in his Monday presser how they weren't lining up straight up on the OL, but shading them instead. In short you were wrong about that to.

I wouldn't even care but you make many of your posts with this air of 'I'm Right' finality that can be obnoxious.

And believe it or not, I like you Andy. I've been around in various forms since the dark days when that scumbag who started Jets Insider was here making trolling an art form and defended you against him on more than one occasion.

But seriously dude, you need to lighten up.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

I find it amusing that after falsely accusing me of cherry picking data, you cherry pick the three worst games from the last two years and think it somehow will support your argument that the run defense against Jacksonville was poor. There are 31 other games in there, where are those? I wouldn't expect you to include all 34 games, but I would expect you to include games with stats similar to the ones we're discussing: a few 10+ yard plays, and a low (2 - 2.2) ypc on the majority of the other plays. Despite this, I will humor you and look at the three games you have cherrypicked.

Lets add some perspective here.
The run defense allowed runs over 10+ yards on 4 of 23 plays (17%) and 2.2 ypc on the rest of the plays.Some call that 'dominant' I call it not good.

That is factually incorrect. They allowed 39 yards on the other 19 carries. That is 2.05ypc, not 2.2. In the context of the discussion, it's not that big of a deal, but lets at least get the facts straight.

1) Last year vs Cleveland
44 rushes 5 went for 10+ (11%)
and the other 39 averaged 3.4.
If you exclude the top 17% of run (8 of them) the remaining plays averaged 3.0

If you exclude the top plays, the 3.0ypc is 46% higher than the 2.05 we saw in the Jacksonville game. I'll take you word for it that it's 3.0ypc, I'm not going to bother doublechecking since it's not a reasonable comparison to make anyways.

2) Last years playoff loss.
3 runs out of 29 for 10 or more (10%)Subtract the worst 17% and the other 83% allowed 2.2 per carry.
So, just as in this game we allowed 2.2 per carry on the 'best' 83%.
We allowed 3 long runs in 29 plays vs 4 in 23.

You can think what you want about the run game. But it wasn't the problem in this game. Mark Sanchez has a 127.3 QB rating. They lost the turnover battle. Brady had a QB rating of 89 and was sacked 5 times. If you're trying to make the point that you can have a decent run defense and still lose a game, I completely agree.

3) The Baltimore playoff loss. Where commentary was that we were pushed around, abused, and run over.
62 rushes 3 went for 10 yds or more (5%)If we take away the 17% longest runs the remaining 83% of the running plays? We allowed 2.1 ypc.

They gave up an 83 yard run for a TD on the first play of the game, then turned the ball over 4 times. At their own 17, their own 25, their own 34, and at their own 22. Brady finished the day with a QB rating of 49. They did not lose this game because they gave up 2.1ypc on 40 run plays.

No question about it, the run defense was bad in this game. If you give up an 87 yard TD run, I don't care what you do in the rest of the game. Besides that one play, if you can't sustain drives and you keep giving the other team the ball on your own side of the field, you can be beat even if your run defense only gives up 2.1 ypc the rest of the time. I will agree on that. If we expect the team to play like that, lets just stop talking about run defense now, because it wouldn't matter.

So in that game on the 83% best plays we were better than the game in question. We allowed over 10 yards more than 3 times less frequently.

...and gave them the ball on our own side of the field 4 times. ...and gave up a 83 yard TD run. ...and Brady had a QB rating of 49.

So, tell me again why I shouldn't be concerned about allowed 10 or more yards on a whopping 17% of our plays because we 'held them' to 2.2 on the rest, which is about what we have done on 'the rest of the plays' when the run D sucked?

Because in a normal week, Brady does not have a QB rating of 49 or 89, doesn't get sacked 5 times, we don't turn the ball over 4 times on our own side of the field, and Mark Friggin Sanchez doesn't finish games against us with a 127 QB rating. That's why it shouldn't concern you if we give up a few 10 yard running plays in a normal game.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

The sample size is the only game the team has played.
If you are saying the game tells us nothing then why are we discussing it?

So now after pages of discussing the significance of this game, you decide to call me names because the sample size is too small? Nice.

I have a solution. Lets increase the sample size and include the three worst games from the last two years!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Another example of whether 17% of running plays and 2.2 ypc on the 83% is good, bad or ugly.
I took the worst run D in the NFL last year, the Bills, and searched for these stats. Since it is a cumbersome process, I did the first 4 games.
The numbers seem pretty indicative of the Bills D for the season.

In those 4 the Bills allowed 696 yards rushing on 150 carries.
They allowed 16 runs of 10 or more, for 11%.
Taking away the 17% worst plays, they are left with 125-356 which is 2.8 per carry.
Thats the worst run D in the NFL.
17% would have been 25 runs of 10 plus instead of 16.
Their porous run D that allowed 4.8 ypc allowed 2.8 in its best 83% of the plays.

This doesn't have much to do with the Patriots defense, but it illustrates that the argument that 17% of runs going for over 10 yards is irrelevant and that 2.2 ypc on the other 83% of the plays is dominating is an uninformed assessment.

Lets hope its a one game issue, but as I said our run D better be better than this in the regular season.

I appreciate you going through the game logs and pulling these numbers out. I think it adds lot to the discussion.

The Bills 356yards/125carries is 39% higher than the 39yards/19carries in the game we're discussing here. I'm not sure why you think it's a relevant comparison.

To put that in perspective, the Bills league worst 4.8 YPC average for the year is also a little under 39% higher than the Jets 3.5 YPC, which earned them the #2 spot.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

If you still don't understand, let me try to turn it around and give you another way to look at it.

Lawrence Maroney averaged 4.2 yards per carry in his time in New England. He was crucified because he could not consistently pick up positive yards. He had a lot of longer runs mixed in with a lot of dancing around in the backfield, and negative or zero yard runs.

BJGE has also averaged 4.2 yards per carry. He is consistently praised because he always gains positive yardage. He doesn't make huge plays, but he hardly ever has negative or zero yard runs.

You want BJGE on your team as your running back because he picks up yards on every play and helps you sustain drives. You do not want Maroney on your team because he is inconsistent, frequently has runs for no gain, and performs in a way that is detrimental to keeping drives going.

I'm all for good stops, but if in order to get them we will get gashed often, I'll take the 2 yard stop over the 2 yard loss in order to prevent the big play risk.

What you're basically saying is that you'd rather have your defense face BJGE than Maroney.

 

[lamafist]

AndyJohnson was wrong to say that nnmnmmnn was cherrypicking his stats. There was no conscious attempt to arbitrarily select runs that would support his argument.

Nevertheless, the criteria he used to narrow his focus does skew toward a higher percentage of successful defensive plays. This is a simple fact. The best offenses tend to score touchdowns on ~30% of their possessions, but tend to convert a set of downs ~75% of the time. That means that if you single out the final set of downs for every drive, they're going to fail to convert 70% of the time, compared to the 25% of the time they do in the rest of games.

Look at it this way: a team that drives the ball 70 yards to their opponents 10 before stalling and kicking a field goal on every possession can have the exact same "final set of downs of each drive" profile as a team that goes 3-and-out on every drive. Looking at only the last four plays of each drive would make the teams seem equally ineffective, whereas the team that drives the ball 70 yards each time clearly has played a better game.

So right away, you should be expecting above-average performance because of the pre-selection for drive-ending sets of downs, you're also looking as a greater proportion of plays in the red-zone than in a representative sample. The expected yards per carry drops steadily as you get further into the endzone and the defensive backs end up lining up much closer to the LOS.

The mistake nnmnmmnn makes is conflating leverage value for predictive value. The plays he singled out for focus had the biggest effect on the outcome of that one game, but are no more predictive of future success than those in the rest of the game.

 

[lamafist]

If you still don't understand, let me try to turn it around and give you another way to look at it.

Lawrence Maroney averaged 4.2 yards per carry in his time in New England. He was crucified because he could not consistently pick up positive yards. He had a lot of longer runs mixed in with a lot of dancing around in the backfield, and negative or zero yard runs.

BJGE has also averaged 4.2 yards per carry. He is consistently praised because he always gains positive yardage. He doesn't make huge plays, but he hardly ever has negative or zero yard runs.

You want BJGE on your team as your running back because he picks up yards on every play and helps you sustain drives. You do not want Maroney on your team because he is inconsistent, frequently has runs for no gain, and performs in a way that is detrimental to keeping drives going.


What you're basically saying is that you'd rather have your defense face BJGE than Maroney.

Maroney was crucified because he was a 1st round pick who failed to live up to expectations. The fervor of fans' animosity towards him doesn't actually validate the conventional wisdom they've assembled as to what his problems were. Laurence Maroney was never really a boom/bust back.

In his first two seasons, he was simply a decent back with a normal distribution in his yards per carry. He was already, however, showing a tendency to get nicked up even while splitting carries, and during his last three seasons, he hasn't been a boom/bust back, because there hasn't been much boom. After multiple surgeries on his shoulders, he's just not an effective rusher.

Now, even if we just separated your argument from the names of particular players, there's still the problem that you're presenting a false dichotomy. There's a third option in addition to giving up a solid 3.5-4 yards steadily vs. allowing gains of 10+ yards sporadically: allowing neither. That's what good run defense is, and the Pats have done it in many past seasons.

Now, I'm not that concerned about the performance last Thursday, because with with Mayo, Spikes, Wilfork, Haynesworth, G. Warren, Wright, Ellis, Brace and Pryor all not suiting up, I think it's safe to say that our front 7 will look very different in the regular season.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Nevertheless, the criteria he used to narrow his focus does skew toward a higher percentage of successful defensive plays.

It skews towards a higher percentage of successful defensive plays, and touchdowns. That's obvious. In fact, it's exactly the point. They were successful defensive plays, and stopping running plays was a big part of the success.

The mistake nnmnmmnn makes is conflating leverage value for predictive value. The plays he singled out for focus had the biggest effect on the outcome of that one game, but are no more predictive of future success than those in the rest of the game.

I did not single anything out. I was simply responding to a false statement that they were only getting off the field because of the pass defense. All I did is list the plays that show how they got off the field.

It's obvious that it's not a representative sample of all plays. Nobody is saying that it is, and I'm not sure why you keep responding to me trying to convince me of it. I agree with you.