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.