Alone atop the AFC at 11-3

[Ivan]

You really need to follow the entire discussion I've been having with Andy. What you think I'm saying is not what I'm actually saying.

You need to realize what you are dealing with, he's the same poster who claimed it was complete nonsense to say an argument can be made that this is a good defense but then can't make even a semblance of an argument that it is, resorting instead to blather that has nothing to do with anything.

 

[goheels22002]

The 90 year history of football shows that turnovers and turnover differential is the single most important factor in determining the outcome of a game.

Sorry, that just fact. It's indisputable.

Winning passing yards only has a .31 correlation to winning.

Winning rushing yards has a .58 and it's not causation.

Bill Belichick often says that the the two top statistics he focuses on are points and turnovers. That's good enough for me.

A 2007 geek study gives the team winning takeaway battle an 80% chance of winning: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2007/01/turnovers.html

Since 2001, in all NFL games in which there was a turnover difference, 85% were won by the team with the fewer turnovers.

Another way to look at is, you have a better than 5-to-1 chance of winning the game if you win the turnover battle.

 

[Fencer]

Great example.
The equivalent of your argument is:
If the Steelers start giving up 400 yards a game they will allow a lot of points.

The difference is there seems to be a perception that yards is set in stone and turnovers and red zone defense are some how smoke and mirrors.
I would suggest those differences are consistent with the very nature of the 2 teams philosophies, so the good is a function of the bad and vice versa, in both cases.

You overstate the matter.

When it comes to allocating scarce resources, such as salary, roster slots, or practice time, there certainly is a tradeoff between doing some things better and some things worse.

There also are differences among teams in tradeoffs like "Would I rather give up four drives that march into the red zone or three long TD plays?" But I don't think that necessarily speaks to the Pitt vs. NE comparison.

But given the actual personnel and practice time, every team would love to maximize its effectiveness BOTH at preventing offensive success in the middle of the field AND at preventing offensive success in the red zone.

 

[Ring 6]

You overstate the matter.

When it comes to allocating scarce resources, such as salary, roster slots, or practice time, there certainly is a tradeoff between doing some things better and some things worse.

There also are differences among teams in tradeoffs like "Would I rather give up four drives that march into the red zone or three long TD plays?" But I don't think that necessarily speaks to the Pitt vs. NE comparison.

But given the actual personnel and practice time, every team would love to maximize its effectiveness BOTH at preventing offensive success in the middle of the field AND at preventing offensive success in the red zone.

Of course. But we aren't discussing a defense that is good at everything.
We are discussing the difference between one that is good between the 20s vs one that is good in the red zone and at getting takeaways.
More aptly, we are discussing the differing philiosophies that create that and how each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Ring 6]

You need to realize what you are dealing with, he's the same poster who claimed it was complete nonsense to say an argument can be made that this is a good defense but then can't make even a semblance of an argument that it is, resorting instead to blather that has nothing to do with anything.

Sorry but even posting it twice it makes no sense.
When did I say it was nonsense to say an argument can be made that this is a good defense?
What argument am I supposed to be making or supporting?
My 'argument' in this thread is that it is silly to look at a defense that gives up a lot of yardage but is good in the red zone gets takeaways, and expect the good to stop and the bad to continue in exactly the same manner. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Of course. But we aren't discussing a defense that is good at everything.
We are discussing the difference between one that is good between the 20s vs one that is good in the red zone and at getting takeaways.
More aptly, we are discussing the differing philiosophies that create that and how each have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Explain? The former won two SBs recently with a game manager, the latter lost the SB with the greatest offense of all time. It definitely can work but its not reliable like I believe the guy above is trying to say. You have the Saints and Colts recently and everyone else had a respectable defense that didn't need constant turnovers.

 

[ivanvamp]

Explain? The former won two SBs recently with a game manager, the latter lost the SB with the greatest offense of all time. It definitely can work but its not reliable like I believe the guy above is trying to say. You have the Saints and Colts recently and everyone else had a respectable defense that didn't need constant turnovers.

Andy and I agree that there are different, successful, approaches to keeping the other team off the scoreboard. I believe (contrary to what one poster thought I was saying) that turnovers are the single biggest statistical key to winning, so if you have a defense that allows a lot of yards but gets a lot of turnovers, that defense can be a big net positive for your team.

However, turnovers are fickle, even for teams that tend to generate a lot of them. Last year, many of us were having this same basic conversation, because the Pats allowed a lot of yards (#25 in the NFL) but generated a lot of takeaways (#2 in the NFL). They needed those takeaways to be a good defense. But in the playoff game, they got ZERO takeaways. That's not to say they didn't cause a fumble, as their aggressive defense normally did, because they did. Tomlinson had a fumble in that game. But - and here's why counting on turnovers is so iffy - the Jets recovered it. Good ball-hawking skill to cause a turnover (teams can be good at that), but the luck of the bounce didn't go the Pats' way. Thus: zero takeaways. Pats lose 28-21.

It is better to have a turnover-causing defense, even if they give up more yards, because turnovers have a higher correlation with winning. But causing turnovers is notoriously unreliable, and if you're counting on that, there's a greater possibility that you won't get it, and then you're in big trouble.

That's my argument. Andy apparently disagrees with me on that. Which is fine. I'm satisfied that I'm right.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy and I agree that there are different, successful, approaches to keeping the other team off the scoreboard. I believe (contrary to what one poster thought I was saying) that turnovers are the single biggest statistical key to winning, so if you have a defense that allows a lot of yards but gets a lot of turnovers, that defense can be a big net positive for your team.

However, turnovers are fickle, even for teams that tend to generate a lot of them. Last year, many of us were having this same basic conversation, because the Pats allowed a lot of yards (#25 in the NFL) but generated a lot of takeaways (#2 in the NFL). They needed those takeaways to be a good defense. But in the playoff game, they got ZERO takeaways. That's not to say they didn't cause a fumble, as their aggressive defense normally did, because they did. Tomlinson had a fumble in that game. But - and here's why counting on turnovers is so iffy - the Jets recovered it. Good ball-hawking skill to cause a turnover (teams can be good at that), but the luck of the bounce didn't go the Pats' way. Thus: zero takeaways. Pats lose 28-21.

It is better to have a turnover-causing defense, even if they give up more yards, because turnovers have a higher correlation with winning. But causing turnovers is notoriously unreliable, and if you're counting on that, there's a greater possibility that you won't get it, and then you're in big trouble.

That's my argument. Andy apparently disagrees with me on that. Which is fine. I'm satisfied that I'm right.

Where I disagree is in 3 areas.
1) You also included red zone defense in your statement.
2) You assume that cumulative statistics such as yards allowed are applicable to all situations. If the Patriot defense had fewer takeaways in a game, they would likely play a different scheme later in the game, because of the score, and that belittles the yardage stats that you want to consider a given.
3) A 'low yard' defense is equally likely to allow more yards in a playoff game as a 'high takeaway' defense is to get fewer takeaways.

I understand the intuitive concept, but there are way, way too many variables that you do not address. Again, the basic point is cumulative statistics without regard to situation are bad. Cumulative statistics where you dismiss one and expect the others to be unaffected are all but useless.

 

[Ring 6]

Explain? The former won two SBs recently with a game manager, the latter lost the SB with the greatest offense of all time. It definitely can work but its not reliable like I believe the guy above is trying to say. You have the Saints and Colts recently and everyone else had a respectable defense that didn't need constant turnovers.

I think you will find that takeaways and turnover differential are as determinent of success as any stat.
Thats not really the discussion here.
Somehow you took me explaining what the discussion was about as stating one is better than the other. I don't know where you got that.

The basic discussion was you cannot simple look at cumulative statistics, remove one, expect all of the others to be unaffected, and draw a conclusion.

 

[ivanvamp]

3) A 'low yard' defense is equally likely to allow more yards in a playoff game as a 'high takeaway' defense is to get fewer takeaways.

I looked at every game in last year's playoffs. Counting each game each team played as one game (i.e., NE plays the Jets...that counts as one game for each team, and thus two total games played), here's what transpired:

# of times a team allowed fewer yards than their season average: 10 (45.5%)

# of times a team allowed more yards than their season average: 12 (54.5%)

# of times a team caused fewer turnovers than their season average: 14 (63.6%)

# of times a team caused more turnovers than their season average: 8 (36.4%)

Relatively small sample (though it was 22 games), but from this data pool, teams were more likely (63.6% vs. 54.5%) to cause fewer turnovers than they were to give up more yards.

Now, let's look further at your more specific premise, that "low yard" defenses are just as likely to give up more yards than "high turnover" defenses are to give up fewer turnovers.

Let's call a "low yard" and "high turnover" defense as anything ranked in the top 8 (top 25%) in the league. Here are the "low yard" teams: Pit (#2), NYJ (#3), NO (#4), and GB (#5). Here are the "high turnover" teams: NE (#2), Chi (#3), Pit (#3), Phi (#5), GB (#6), and Chi (#7). Now, let's run the same numbers as above, just looking at these teams. There were 11 "low yard" games, and 12 "high turnover" games.

# of times a low-yard team allowed fewer yards than their season average: 4 (36.4%)

# of times a low-yard team allowed more yards than their season average: 7 (63.6%)

# of times a high-turnover team caused fewer turnovers than their season average: 8 (66.7%)

# of times a high-turnover team caused more turnovers than their season average: 4 (33.3%)

Again, smaller sample, but same result: high turnover teams were more likely to have fewer turnovers in a playoff game (63.6%) than low yard teams were to allow more yards in a playoff game (66.7%).

Small amount of data, I know. Maybe at some point I'll do this over a 4-5 year period to account for more data, but the numbers, just from last year anyway, support my claim.