Breakdown: Denver Defense

[skri65]

The Patriots this year are a statistical anomaly. Comparatively they do suck statistically, and what team goes from the worst Defense in the league the first half of the season, to the best Defense in the second half of the season. The Patriots would have crashed a computer trying to predict a probability of another SuperBowl.

Take statistics with a grain of salt as I said, they don't take injuries, weather conditions, etc into consideration, but they allow you to at least intelligently analize a situation.

Fair analysis mcdonut16.

 

[shakadave]

Judging a team, or especially a unit by statistics in the NFL is a sure way to end up with incorrect conclusions.

There are way too many variables. First, you have only 16 games for a sample. Look at baseball after 150 or basketball after 70, and you still see teams play differently than their stats.

Add to that in the NFL, everyone is not playing the same teams. While competition can average out, and everyone looks at strength of schedule, when you are looking at a unit, the quality of team means less than the style of team they faced.

On top of that a teams own offense affects its defense, and vice versa. Do you think it is a coincidence that many of the 'ahead of their time' QBs who threw the ball all over the field had bad defenses? Or that the best defenses of all time where teams with good running offenses? Example. Trade the Pittsburgh defense of the 70s with the Miami defense of the 80s. There is no way in the world the Miami defense would have been as bad playing with the Pitt running game instead of Marinos boom or bust offense. Likewise, Marino never would have put up the numbers he did, if he had Pitts defense, but that defense would not have been considered as good, given the offensive style of the 80s Fins, because they would have been forced into many more diffiuclt situations due to turnovers, short fields, or short breaks on 3 passes and out. (No matter how well you throw it, if you throw it a ton you have lots of short drives)

On top of all of that are the game conditions, the score of the game, that you face.
Look at the Denver defensive rankings. Do you really believe they wouldnt be significantly worse if they had the Jets offense? Would their offensive numbers have been as good if they had the San Francisco defense?

Change some of those variables and the exact same players, playing the same way could be near the bottom in run D and near the top in pass D.

Also, NFL statistic are not comprehensive. How are you 2nd ranked against the run when the typical run play you defended was done very averagely? How are you 29th against the pass, when the average pass play you defended was above average?

Most importantly there are no statistic numbers in the NFL that take into account the wide difference between identical numbers. Example:
25 rushes for 140 yards.
Team A allows 10 runs of 4 10 runs of 5 and and 5 runs of 10.
Team B allows 20 runs of 1, 4 runs of 10, and one run of 80.
Who was better? They surely werent the same.

30 attempts, 20 completes, 190 yards.
Team A allows 4 completions of 2 yards, 12 of 10 yards and and 4 of 18.
Team B allows 15 completiuons of 2 yards, 4 of 20, and 1 of 80.
Who was better? They werent identical.
We havent even factored in whether the 2 yards completions were on 3rd and 1 or 3rd and 12. We havent factored in whether the completions were on 3rd down conversions and the incompletes were on 3rd down conversions.
We havent factored in whether Team A Allowed those 16 10+ completions to result in 5 TD drives, and the other 14 passes that gained 8 yards were after the game was over, or if team B was ahead 31-0 then allowed the 80 yarder for a TD followed by 4 straight 20s for another and a 31-14 win.

In a league where 50% of the plays favor the offense, and 50% favor the defense adding them all together, ignoring score, situaiton, and whether an 11 yard gain was a TD or came on 3rd and 15 waters down their meaning.

For example, does the Patriot run D stats when Seymour and Bruschi were out mean absolutely anything if they are playing? Well, what if the bad stats without them came from teams who's strength was running to the side of the ball they don't play? And the next team up has the same strenght? Wouldnt that mean the other 9 players mean more than those 2 in THAT game?

The end result is statistic do not win games. Wins create statistics. Very rarely does any team put up good stats in every area. Does the cumulative total of the stats they put up over a season when they won mean anything more than HOW they won, rather than what would cause them to lose? i.e. win cause of great pass D, have a lead and get run on in the prevent does not equal bad run D.

The real bottom line is how a team plays together, but moreso, it is how they play on the 10-15 critical plays in a game that decide the outcome.
You can have all the offensive stats you want, but if you cant convert 3rd down when you need to win, too bad. You can have great defensive stats when you lead 30-0, but if you are playing a top team in a tough game, and take the field in a decisvie drive, they mean very little.

The primary thing that has separated the Patriots from the league over the last 5 years is that they are far and away better than anyone on those 10-15 critical plays that decide a game. You can be worse on the other 80 if you win those. We will find out Saturday, then in the AFCC, then in the SB if they still possess that quality. Stats will not give you that answer.

Yesssss. Great stuff Andy! I see it this way too, but it's nice to see it laid out so well.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Denver D:

Interesting read, thanks for the hard work and sharing your thinking.

 

[mcdonut16]

Sounds like Belichick doesn't pay any attention to statistics either !

Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. “They do everything well. They run the ball, they stop the run, they score early. They’re real good in the kicking game. (In) time of possession, they lead the league; field position, they’re second in the league. They’re strong across the board. We’re going to have to play our best game Saturday.â€

If you guys don't think that NFL coaches, especially guys like Bill Belichick and his own statistical expert Earnie Adams, don't use statistics to help them identify tendencies, strengths, weaknesses and come up with game plans you are crazy.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I am not trying to totally judge the Broncos or any teams by statistics alone. Statistics are one of the things we can use to form an opinion. I tried to create theories based on statistics and supported by statistics rather than spitting out some ridiculous thread like "Yeah the Broncos suck and Willie Mac is your Big Daddy".

It also could be argued that most national writers and pundits spit out opinions and theories with absolutely no basis whatsoever. Statistics are facts and they do tell a story. It's not the complete story but they can at least attempt to make an intelligent argument and hold up a theory.

Statistics can in fact predict chances for success. They don't ultimately predict success everytime, but they at least put success within a standard deviation.

I present in case FOX's Aikman Rankings, and Cold Hard Football Facts Quality Standings, and TeamRankings.com http://teamrankings.com/nfl2003/7powerratings.php3, http://teamrankings.com/nfl2004/7powerratings.php3, as statistical attempts that accurately predicted the Patriots Superbowl wins the last few years.

I am attempting to make an intelligent analysis. Take it for what it's worth and get off your high horse.

I was with you until the smart ***** comment at the end.

Why is it that its OK for you to make an analysis of statistics, but if make an analysis of statistics (i.e. they are not as valuable as it seems because there are too many varibles) that I am 'om my high horse'. What does that mean anyway?

 

[mcdonut16]

Judging a team, or especially a unit by statistics in the NFL is a sure way to end up with incorrect conclusions.

You are flat out telling me that my theories are bogus, despite the fact that they are backed up by facts and statistics. This is a condescending tone despite the fact that you offer no analysis your self other than attempting to debunk statistics, the same statistics that coaches use in part for formulating game plans and identifying tendencies.

Your tone was that of "how can anyone think that statistics could provide any valuable insight". You are wrong. Again I am not saying statistics are the absolute truth, but if you are trying to analyze a game, what are you basing your opinion on ?

The Pete Prisco's and Clark Judge's of the world through out opinions without any basis at all and regulary form an incorrect conclusion because there opinions were based on their own prejudices, etc.

 

[Ring 6]

Sounds like Belichick doesn't pay any attention to statistics either !

Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. “They do everything well. They run the ball, they stop the run, they score early. They’re real good in the kicking game. (In) time of possession, they lead the league; field position, they’re second in the league. They’re strong across the board. We’re going to have to play our best game Saturday.â€

If you guys don't think that NFL coaches, especially guys like Bill Belichick and his own statistical expert Earnie Adams, don't use statistics to help them identify tendencies, strengths, weaknesses and come up with game plans you are crazy.

Im sure Bill Belichick uses lettuce in his diet, but that doesnt mean lettuce keeps him alive.

Look, there is no doubt that statistics have value. But to take rankings of teams over a 16 game schedule, and use that to determine how they match up is obtuse.
You tell me, does Bill Belichick formualte his opinion and gameplans based more on reading statistics or watching film?

I use statistics to support arguments all the time. I see value in them to support an opinion.
I just think that to take the average of 400 running plays, ignore who ran it, what the score was, what the down and distance was, etc, and predict the play of that unit in a game yet to be played is scratching the surface, and lacks reliability.

I absolutely believe you can use statistics to analyze teams, and predict how they will play against each other with some accuracy. But the depth those stats would have to be analyzed at is so voluminous it would take as long as the team preparing for playing the game.

Just an example:
Pat run O vs Denver run D.
You would need to look at each type of run play, the direction, who ran it, the down and distance, (you would want to factor in injuries and substitutions, but couldnt with just stats although you could separate games where certain players played or didnt) and the competition for both sides. If the Patriots run for 4.5 yards between LG and LT, and 3.2 elsewhere, but the Broncos allow 2.4 between LG and LT, but 4.4 elsewhere, what do you do with that info?
In the end, the problem is yuo cant just say Broncos= good run defenders with stats, because they have some good ones, some not so good, and as a unit get a cumulative grade. But if our best blockers are matched up against their weakest defenders, the cumulative result may not matter (and the opposite is true as well). Overall, they are better than average, but agaisnt us, they could be great or weak, and the available stats dont speak to that.

When you break down into situations, for example, how does Tom Brady do on 3rd and 4-7 in a game that is close, between the 40s? There are not a great number of plays to make the result statistically significant, especially if you now have to break it down further for whether he faced man, zone, or a blitz. Why would his results vs zone in those situations matter if we are facing team that will always blitz in them? In other words, to get a statistically significant sample, you have to lump numbers with many variables in them.

Sure, its easy to say 3rd ranked run defense means they are good against the run, and that is true. But to analyze and forecast how they will matchup vs a given opponent, its just not enough information, in my opinion.

 

[Ring 6]

You are flat out telling me that my theories are bogus, despite the fact that they are backed up by facts and statistics. This is a condescending tone despite the fact that you offer no analysis your self other than attempting to debunk statistics, the same statistics that coaches use in part for formulating game plans and identifying tendencies.

Your tone was that of "how can anyone think that statistics could provide any valuable insight". You are wrong. Again I am not saying statistics are the absolute truth, but if you are trying to analyze a game, what are you basing your opinion on ?

The Pete Prisco's and Clark Judge's of the world through out opinions without any basis at all and regulary form an incorrect conclusion because there opinions were based on their own prejudices, etc.

I dont know why you are so offended.
If your theory is that you can simply sit down and look at statistics at the level of depth you did, and disregard other variables, as well as disregarding matchups, analysis of players, etc, then I think you are dead wrong.
I have no problem backing theories up with statistics. I do have a problem creating a theory from statistics.
I dont known that this is what you are doing, though. I'm just giving my opinion of a statistic only approach, given that available statistic are tainted by variables.

I have not said statistic have no value. I certainly never said what you "quoted" me saying.

Let me be more clear. Statistics in the NFL can give an overall impression. But there are simply too many variables to make them a reasonable predictor of results in an indivdual game. And to break them down to eliminate the variables would make them a statistically insignificant sample.

I was aware you invented statistics so becoming personally offended when anyone doesnt believe they are the only thing of value. At least this is the attitude you are communicating.

 

[mcdonut16]

Andy, you are a moderator of this board. By default you lord over all of us members.

I will be working on a statistical analysis of the Denver Offense later today. Feel free to stop by and say hello. I don't want to waste more of my or anyone elses time with a pissing match.

 

[BelichickFan]

I will be working on a statistical analysis of the Denver Offense later today.

Although Andy has some legit points, at least one person here (me) appreciates your efforts.

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

That's also solid proof as to how there's more to life than a team's record. I've had many an argument (with a Broncos fan, coincidentally), that just because one team has a better record than another doesn't make them a better team, or even more successful so long as each makes the playoffs.

I liked Bill Simmons Page 2 column on predicting results in playoff betting. Its typically funny but there is a lot of useful information in it. He said that to really get a guage on how a team is going to do in the playoffs, you should look at how the team did in its last 5 or 6 games. Agreeing with that is especially helpful this year(if your a Pats fan), but it theorizes that teams that have playoff success play thier best football in december. You can't restart it, he basically says like they do in basketball, for the playoffs. So with that in mind, the Pats are looking good. But so is Denver, but Denver won a couple of games they should have lost (Dallas missed 34 yard FG in 4Q and a 2 point win over Baltimore at home when Boller was playing horribly). This also brings up Indy's vulnerability against Pitt. It would not shock me to see Pitt win that game. But I think the Colts will find a way to win. Anyway, if you get a chance to read it. Its enlightening.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Great analysis, but allow me to retort.

Our offense scores, so they abandon the running game as you say. But to stop a team from scoring, you gotta stop the run early. I'm about 90% sure we haven't given up a TD on the opening drive all season!!
We do that exceptionally well. We will put 8 men within 2 yards of the LOS at times. And it works, so when we need to stop the run, we shut it down completely, having Champ out there makes a huge difference. Vs the Pats, I don't think this will be neccessary, unless you go 2 TE's and run to Grahams side with effectiveness. We also rotate the hell out of our DLineman, to keep them fresh.

You also noted we don't get alot of sacks. But I am pretty sure we lead the league in QB pressures. They throw it away alot, its all good. 3 and out is a 3 and out.

Remember, we shut DOWN your offense for 3 quarters early this season, what excuses do you pats fans have for that???

This time Champ will be there all night long!!!

Look, you idiot. For the last time, do not use the term "patsie", "patsy" or other disrespectful terms about our team,players & coaches when you post on thsi board. You can smack all you want,I don't give a damn.

If I posted on a Bronco's site, which I won't, and I used the terms donkeys, mules, jackasses,ect- it would be disrespectful and I would expect to be called on it because I was trolling on their fan site.

Now, seeing this is a Patriots site and Patriot fans want to use those terms to describe your team, that's OK, because this is a Patriots fan site.

Get it? Probably not.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

!

Im sure Bill Belichick uses lettuce in his diet, but that doesnt mean lettuce keeps him alive.

Look, there is no doubt that statistics have value. But to take rankings of teams over a 16 game schedule, and use that to determine how they match up is obtuse.
You tell me, does Bill Belichick formualte his opinion and gameplans based more on reading statistics or watching film?

I use statistics to support arguments all the time. I see value in them to support an opinion.
I just think that to take the average of 400 running plays, ignore who ran it, what the score was, what the down and distance was, etc, and predict the play of that unit in a game yet to be played is scratching the surface, and lacks reliability.

I absolutely believe you can use statistics to analyze teams, and predict how they will play against each other with some accuracy. But the depth those stats would have to be analyzed at is so voluminous it would take as long as the team preparing for playing the game.

Just an example:
Pat run O vs Denver run D.
You would need to look at each type of run play, the direction, who ran it, the down and distance, (you would want to factor in injuries and substitutions, but couldnt with just stats although you could separate games where certain players played or didnt) and the competition for both sides. If the Patriots run for 4.5 yards between LG and LT, and 3.2 elsewhere, but the Broncos allow 2.4 between LG and LT, but 4.4 elsewhere, what do you do with that info?
In the end, the problem is yuo cant just say Broncos= good run defenders with stats, because they have some good ones, some not so good, and as a unit get a cumulative grade. But if our best blockers are matched up against their weakest defenders, the cumulative result may not matter (and the opposite is true as well). Overall, they are better than average, but agaisnt us, they could be great or weak, and the available stats dont speak to that.

When you break down into situations, for example, how does Tom Brady do on 3rd and 4-7 in a game that is close, between the 40s? There are not a great number of plays to make the result statistically significant, especially if you now have to break it down further for whether he faced man, zone, or a blitz. Why would his results vs zone in those situations matter if we are facing team that will always blitz in them? In other words, to get a statistically significant sample, you have to lump numbers with many variables in them.

Sure, its easy to say 3rd ranked run defense means they are good against the run, and that is true. But to analyze and forecast how they will matchup vs a given opponent, its just not enough information, in my opinion.

Statistics are very useful for trend analysis, even with relatively small samples. The key here is detecting the trend, or tendencies, if you will. If you're not proficient in this type of analysis, then, yeah, it just boils down to "lies, damn lies and statistics".

In the theoretical example you provided, divining trends from (relatively) small samples of a much larger population will give you valuable insight to tendencies that can be exploited.

For example, in your 3rd and long scenario, knowing your opponent blitzes all the time (as you said) in that situation is a key variable that will be used to game plan for situations like that.

Teams (or, the really good ones, anyway) do in-depth statistical analysis like this all the time. You don't really think they leave this stuff to dumb luck, do you? (Although I will say I do believe that "luck" is the residue of design.)

If you know your opponent better than he knows you (or, even better - than he knows himself!), then you can not only game plan to exploit his tendencies, you can extend the game plan to your own team to cover up weaknesses, be they real or percieved.

Now, having said all that, while the statistics are useful and valuable (if used in the right manner), the game is played by humans, and these humans still have to play the game.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Nothing is 100%. People playing the game, even the very,very best, are wont to make mistakes, invariably at the worst possible time (thank you, Murphey!). It's not so much successes that dictate a game's outcome so much as it's failures. And like so much in life, timing is everything.

You had some valid points there, Andy, but I also appreciate McDonuts' efforts in this area. We don't see nearly enough of this stuff, and it's a refreshing change of pace from the usual plethora of opinions that run the gamut the likes of Mgteich to Bronco Freak (Lord, please spare us!).

Just my 2 cents...

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Get it? Probably not.

Once again do you hit the nail squarely on the head!

 

[Ring 6]

Statistics are very useful for trend analysis, even with relatively small samples. The key here is detecting the trend, or tendencies, if you will. If you're not proficient in this type of analysis, then, yeah, it just boils down to "lies, damn lies and statistics".

In the theoretical example you provided, divining trends from (relatively) small samples of a much larger population will give you valuable insight to tendencies that can be exploited.

For example, in your 3rd and long scenario, knowing your opponent blitzes all the time (as you said) in that situation is a key variable that will be used to game plan for situations like that.


<<<<But that is exactly my point. Of course knowing that is very valuable, but you get that from FILM study. I understand there are many things that come under the heading of 'statistics'. The guy who studies the film and charts the plays created a statistic. But the key here is film study, not statistics.
Moreover, those are not the kind of stats being discussed here, or the manner of use either. The discussion here is whether cumulative offensive or defensive statistics in the common categories, over a season vs varying competition in varying situations determine much, if not broken down in minute detail?

Let me put it another way.
Lets say the Broncos allow an AVERAGE of 90 rushing yards a game, and rank 2nd in the NFL. Their AVERAGE indicates 2nd best run defense.
It lack sany consideration to variables. Are they 2nd because they played most of their games against pass happy teams? I think any defense in the NFL would be ranked very differently if they played Pitt, Atlanta, Seattle 16 times than if they played Arizona, Detriot, SF 16 times. Its still the same D.
Are they 2nd because game situations dictated the other team pass more?
Are they 2nd, but in being 2nd, they simply eliminated the fluky long runs, but allowed 3 on 3rd and 2, 2 on 3rd and 1, etc?
And that is my point here, there are too many variables. A poor run defense will be ranked very high if its offense controls the ball, takes leads and plays from ahead, if its secondary is weak and vulnerable, and/or if it plays vs teams that are pass oriented or weak running teams.
Stats would tell you they are a good run D and its an advantage, but is it, in this scenario?
If that same run D played a lot of running teams, played from behind, had a strong secondary, they'd be near the bottom in run D.
Those are just examples of the variables.

STATISTIC ARE VERY GOOD AT PREDICTING BASED ON AVERAGES, BUT FEW GAMES ARE AVERAGE. Matchups are not factored in either.

Finally, consider these statistical anomolies.

A 60% passer is considered accurate. A 52% passer erratic.
The difference? If you pass 30 times per game, the first completes 2 more passes ALL DAY. Brady threw a perfect pass last week that hit the ref. Thats half of being considered erratic. There are tipped balls, drops, bad calls by refs, throwaways, etc. Can you really say that 2 guys who are equal on 28 passes, but different on 2 are the difference from All-Pro to cut?

2 RBs. Both run 20 times for 78 yards.
On the 21st, one RB breaks a in the backfield and runs for 17 yards.
The other doenst break the tackle and loses 4.

RB A = 21-95 4.5 per carry, very good
RB B = 21-74 3.5 per carry. 3.5 per carry usually costs you your job

Whats the difference? One broken tackle. Lets now say that RB As team did not score from that 17 yard run. How can you justify when these teams meet again saying what the stats say, that team A has a huge advantage in the running game?

I know these things average out. But when you factor all of the other variables, it becomes a very cloudy picturte.

Teams (or, the really good ones, anyway) do in-depth statistical analysis like this all the time. You don't really think they leave this stuff to dumb luck, do you? (Although I will say I do believe that "luck" is the residue of design.)

If you know your opponent better than he knows you (or, even better - than he knows himself!), then you can not only game plan to exploit his tendencies, you can extend the game plan to your own team to cover up weaknesses, be they real or percieved.

Now, having said all that, while the statistics are useful and valuable (if used in the right manner), the game is played by humans, and these humans still have to play the game.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. Nothing is 100%. People playing the game, even the very,very best, are wont to make mistakes, invariably at the worst possible time (thank you, Murphey!). It's not so much successes that dictate a game's outcome so much as it's failures. And like so much in life, timing is everything.

You had some valid points there, Andy, but I also appreciate McDonuts' efforts in this area. We don't see nearly enough of this stuff, and it's a refreshing change of pace from the usual plethora of opinions that run the gamut the likes of Mgteich to Bronco Freak (Lord, please spare us!).

Just my 2 cents...

I dont know why I am being made out as the "Anti-McDonut"??????? We just disagree. I appreciate him gathering all that info too.
Arent I allowed to have a different opinion without it meaning more than I have a different opinion?

 

[devour]

I also appreciate McDonut's effort. I think it's insightful, and at the very least, makes for good discussion. Andy, I think the feeling here is that you basically said his work was useless. It's probably better to disagree with, say his choice of statistics to theorize a prediction, rather than say you cannot make predictions based on statistics.

 

[rockhopper]

True, Denver doesn't get many sacks. But don't let that fool you about the kind of pressure they bring because it is definately a factor. Where do you think all the ints come from? They made the majority of those picks against quality QBs. So, do they pressure the QB? Just ask Drew Breeze about that. I may be wrong here but I believe this game will surprise more than just a few people as to what kind of team Denver is. Maybe even me. Everyone knows what the Patriots bring and have utmost respect for them. But Denver is still a big question mark. What ever the outcome, Denver will come prepared and will put pressure on Brady. Will that be enough? Only if the pressure results in mistakes. I know you hear a bunch of ranting from other Bronco fans who claim Denver will stick it to the Patriots, but I say only Saturday will tell. Until then, I will just predict a score of 24-20 going either way.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I dont know why I am being made out as the "Anti-McDonut"??????? We just disagree. I appreciate him gathering all that info too.
Arent I allowed to have a different opinion without it meaning more than I have a different opinion?

No offense intended, Andy. I didn't mean to upset you.

You are of course right in that the game of football, or at least it's preparation, is so much more than statistical analyses. It's just that McDonut offered up something that is rarely posted on this board, and apparently a lot of people liked it. I know I did.

I think perhaps the intent (original intent) of his post was to spur discussion in a few areas where the sun needed to be shone. We can all agree or disagree on his theorizing, his presentation, the manner in which he uses his statistics, and so on. But you've got to admit, he piqued your interest enough to get you to respond. And the resultant exchange was enlightening and good for the board and it's members.

Compare and contrast that with posts from some of the gate-crashers from you-know-where.

I rest my case.

Again, my apologies if I upset you.

 

[teamplay]

I dont know why I am being made out as the "Anti-McDonut"??????? We just disagree. I appreciate him gathering all that info too.
Arent I allowed to have a different opinion without it meaning more than I have a different opinion?

Andy, messageboard relationships are funny things. You are an incredibly intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable, and passionate contributor, but -- with all due respect -- you hurt someone's feelings (without intending to) and failed to say you're sorry. When a well-meaning person feels offended or disrespected by your critique, a simple "I am so sorry; please forgive me; I value our connection so much" clears the air and let's people go back to the exchange of ideas. Obviously, you know this and practice it in your life; you just missed it here.

teamplay