Defense - SD vs NE

[abyzmul]

The difference is that the Chargers are completely healthy on D for the first time since week 5. In games where we have been at or near full strength on Defense (week 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15), the Chargers D has given up 10 points a game. Even if you exclude the first two opponents--the awful Oak and TN--the Chargers only allowed 14 PPG in four games against two playoff teams three winning teams, and the Steelers.

For the season, those four teams averaged 21.2 ppg. The Bolts held those opponents 7.2 PPG below their average.

I know injuries are a part of the game. But the thing is we're healthy now. It's reasonable to expect the Chargers D to play like they did when they were healthy, not when they were banged up.

In our last four games, the Chargers have allowed an average of 16.5 PPG to teams that averaged 20.2 PPG. We held them 3.7 PPG below their average. In their last four games, the Chargers played three winning teams and two playoff teams.

In its last four games the Pats allowed an average of 18 PPG to four teams that average 19 PPG for the season. In their last four games the Pats played 0 playoff teams and 0 winning teams. :bricks:

So what about the offenses?

In their last four games the Chargers scored 28.8 PPG against defense that averaged giving up 21.1 PPG (+7.7).

In that same time, NE scored 26 PPG against teams that averaged giving up 20.5 PPG (+5.5).

And just to reiterate, the winning % of the Chargers last four opponents was .500, a group that included two playoff teams and three teams with winning records. The Pats last four opponents had a winning % of .437, and none of them made the playoffs or had a winning record.

So the Chargers scored more points and allowed fewer against better teams, and the Pats are "peaking" while the Bolts are "fading"? :singing:

the pat fans here don't understand that the chargers are healthy. i don't know why it's so difficult for them to understand that, but apparently it is. i've already pointed out that it's a good thing for them that BB sees the situation for what it is. i guess it would be better if BB were that blind! hahaha.. too bad he's too good of a coach to be as blind as some of these posters.

 

[maxhagen]

Can you imagine what is going to happen to Rivers against us? We are no Seahawks defense...

Sad I wont be able to see you here again after Sunday... Trolly boy...

 

[boltssbbound]

The difference is that the Chargers are completely healthy on D for the first time since week 5. In games where we have been at or near full strength on Defense (week 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15), the Chargers D has given up 10 points a game. Even if you exclude the first two opponents--the awful Oak and TN--the Chargers only allowed 14 PPG in four games against two playoff teams three winning teams, and the Steelers.

For the season, those four teams averaged 21.2 ppg. The Bolts held those opponents 7.2 PPG below their average.

I know injuries are a part of the game. But the thing is we're healthy now. It's reasonable to expect the Chargers D to play like they did when they were healthy, not when they were banged up.

In our last four games, the Chargers have allowed an average of 16.5 PPG to teams that averaged 20.2 PPG. We held them 3.7 PPG below their average. In their last four games, the Chargers played three winning teams and two playoff teams.

In its last four games the Pats allowed an average of 18 PPG to four teams that average 19 PPG for the season. In their last four games the Pats played 0 playoff teams and 0 winning teams. :bricks:

So what about the offenses?

In their last four games the Chargers scored 28.8 PPG against defense that averaged giving up 21.1 PPG (+7.7).

In that same time, NE scored 26 PPG against teams that averaged giving up 20.5 PPG (+5.5).

And just to reiterate, the winning % of the Chargers last four opponents was .500, a group that included two playoff teams and three teams with winning records. The Pats last four opponents had a winning % of .437, and none of them made the playoffs or had a winning record.

So the Chargers scored more points and allowed fewer against better teams, and the Pats are "peaking" while the Bolts are "fading"? :singing:

Ignore the discussion of VY's passer rating and respond to my facts why don't ya, Patsies? What's that, you can't?

I'm sorry to take your own statistical criteria and use it against you like that.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

does football outsiders account for the chargers being at full strength? those stats are inflated with games like cinn where merriman and phillips were both out (phillips got hurt). the chargers that NE is playing on sunday isn't the same team as those stats you're boasting. this charger team is dominating compared to that team. there's a reason why the chargers had the #1 defense towards the start of the season (pre-injuries).

What??? They had the #1 defense in the pre-season? Well gosh-dang, that changes everything!

 

[Brownfan80]

{Singing}

Ignore, Ignoooorrre, IGGGGnnnor, IGNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEE!!!!

Great idea. If I can do it to one of our own, then I should surely be able to do it to the SD version of Keegs (only more football related).

 

[abyzmul]

QB rating is a good way to look at a combination of overall play.

Week 1 QB Rating : 53.1
Week 2 QB Rating : 70.0 (against SD)
Week 3 didn't play
Week 4 QB Rating : 47.3
Week 5 QB Rating : 34.4

*** What part of that don't you understand ? His only decent game until Week 6 was agaisnt SD.

Then Week 12 - Week 16 his lowest QB rating was 70.1 (with two over 100) until he dumped a 39.9 against the Patriots.

OK, then.

vince young's QB rating is an inaccurate depiction of his play. if you watched the game you would understand that his QB rating was inflated due to his TD pass to the left corner of the endzone against the chargers' second string defense.

vince young was 7/19 for 106 yards and an 18 yd TD to drew bennett.

a prime example would be philip rivers' performance against seattle in the first half of the game a few weeks ago. he was 1/10 with a TD pass to vincent jackson and had a higher QB rating than hasselbeck who was doing substantially better. philip's QB rating was in the 70's simply because he had a touchdown.

I wasn't trying to say he did well against SD, just that he was a sucky QB back in the first part of the season.

did i miss something?

 

[Oswlek]

The difference is that the Chargers are completely healthy on D for the first time since week 5. In games where we have been at or near full strength on Defense (week 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15), the Chargers D has given up 10 points a game. Even if you exclude the first two opponents--the awful Oak and TN--the Chargers only allowed 14 PPG in four games against two playoff teams three winning teams, and the Steelers.

For the season, those four teams averaged 21.2 ppg. The Bolts held those opponents 7.2 PPG below their average.

I know injuries are a part of the game. But the thing is we're healthy now. It's reasonable to expect the Chargers D to play like they did when they were healthy, not when they were banged up.

In our last four games, the Chargers have allowed an average of 16.5 PPG to teams that averaged 20.2 PPG. We held them 3.7 PPG below their average. In their last four games, the Chargers played three winning teams and two playoff teams.

In its last four games the Pats allowed an average of 18 PPG to four teams that average 19 PPG for the season. In their last four games the Pats played 0 playoff teams and 0 winning teams. :bricks:

So what about the offenses?

In their last four games the Chargers scored 28.8 PPG against defense that averaged giving up 21.1 PPG (+7.7).

In that same time, NE scored 26 PPG against teams that averaged giving up 20.5 PPG (+5.5).

And just to reiterate, the winning % of the Chargers last four opponents was .500, a group that included two playoff teams and three teams with winning records. The Pats last four opponents had a winning % of .437, and none of them made the playoffs or had a winning record.

So the Chargers scored more points and allowed fewer against better teams, and the Pats are "peaking" while the Bolts are "fading"? :singing:

This is a solid post. I have not problem with dissention, just when people shriek the same wrong crap and proclaim themselves to be a football guru. I have a few counterpoints:

1) Nobody is claiming that SD's offense isn't otherworldly. They are the reason that I think SD is rightly favored in this game. But it is 100% accurate to say that NE's defense has outplayed SD's this year by a good margin.

2) The records of the last 4 opponents is not a great tool. Seattle is an NFC team that would be 7-9 at best on the AFC, Denver was fading at the time (although I will admit that I am glad NE didn't have to face them, but you guys don't seem to have the same issues as NE does) and KC has proven to be a complete fraud. By comparison, NE TN had won 6 in a row coming into the NE game and Jax's only recent loss was to those Titans. Either of those teams would have been playoff teams had they beaten NE. The Jets were a playoff team, obviously. Houston was the equivalent of Arizona.

 

[maxhagen]

The only time in the year you played against a defense as tough as ours was the Ravens and we know how that one went...

 

[BelichickFan]

did i miss something?

That was kind of a bonus comment. And I called it "decent". My point from earlier had been that Young sucked back then and you dismissed it.

 

[abyzmul]

The only time in the year you played against a defense as tough as ours was the Ravens and we know how that one went...

well, charger fans do. i don't think you understand. the ravens game was the end of martyball. the handcuffs were removed off of philip rivers, and the chargers still should've won that game (1 missed FG and another botched hold = 6 points.. chargers lost by 3 w/ 34 seconds remaining).

before you post about something that you have no clue on you should try to research first. the charger team that lost by 3 to baltimore is NOT the same time that's playing on sunday.

even the ravens themselves were quoted as saying that it was a good thing marty put the brakes on rivers because they couldn't stop him. google.com <-- it's your friend

 

[mgcolby]

The difference is that the Chargers are completely healthy on D for the first time since week 5. In games where we have been at or near full strength on Defense (week 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15), the Chargers D has given up 10 points a game. Even if you exclude the first two opponents--the awful Oak and TN--the Chargers only allowed 14 PPG in four games against two playoff teams three winning teams, and the Steelers.

For the season, those four teams averaged 21.2 ppg. The Bolts held those opponents 7.2 PPG below their average.

I know injuries are a part of the game. But the thing is we're healthy now. It's reasonable to expect the Chargers D to play like they did when they were healthy, not when they were banged up.

In our last four games, the Chargers have allowed an average of 16.5 PPG to teams that averaged 20.2 PPG. We held them 3.7 PPG below their average. In their last four games, the Chargers played three winning teams and two playoff teams.

In its last four games the Pats allowed an average of 18 PPG to four teams that average 19 PPG for the season. In their last four games the Pats played 0 playoff teams and 0 winning teams. :bricks:

So what about the offenses?

In their last four games the Chargers scored 28.8 PPG against defense that averaged giving up 21.1 PPG (+7.7).

In that same time, NE scored 26 PPG against teams that averaged giving up 20.5 PPG (+5.5).

And just to reiterate, the winning % of the Chargers last four opponents was .500, a group that included two playoff teams and three teams with winning records. The Pats last four opponents had a winning % of .437, and none of them made the playoffs or had a winning record.

So the Chargers scored more points and allowed fewer against better teams, and the Pats are "peaking" while the Bolts are "fading"? :singing:

Holly **** a good counter argument by an intelligent Bolt fan. Thank you.

Again you can't simply say that our defense had injuries for games x and y, every team has injuries and I used the entire season stats for both teams regardless of injury.

Now, you are skewing the 0 playoff team vs 2 playoff team thing. First of all both the Jags and Titans were both legitimate playoff contenders. The Jags actually controlled there own destiny over the final two weeks and the Pats went into there house and beat them. Then they went into Ten - with a win got in - handled them in their home stadium. So we actually knocked those two teams out of the playoffs. You also played two of the weakest playoff teams. One team that only got in because we beat Ten and Jax. Then you played a horrible Seattle team. Not exactly a home run of an argument.

Other than Castillo and Merriman can you please tell me who else missed significant time (two or more games)? I can't find a starting lineup from week 1 or any week for that matter, out of curiosity I would like to check the stats out.

 

[abyzmul]

If you look at his game log, my friend, you'll notice that it wasn't until Week 12 that Young started playing well consistently - until the Patriots' game, of course.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/player...e?statsId=7752

and he totally sucked until Week 6.

Swing and a miss! strike 2. you're trying to spin the data to fit your needs again. why can't you just admit when you're wrong?

That was kind of a bonus comment. And I called it "decent". My point from earlier had been that Young sucked back then and you dismissed it.

i ask again, "why can't you admit when you're wrong"?

 

[abyzmul]

Holly **** a good counter argument by an intelligent Bolt fan. Thank you.

Again you can't simply say that our defense had injuries for games x and y, every team has injuries and I used the entire season stats for both teams regardless of injury.

Now, you are skewing the 0 playoff team vs 2 playoff team thing. First of all both the Jags and Titans were both legitimate playoff contenders. The Jags actually controlled there own destiny over the final two weeks and the Pats went into there house and beat them. Then they went into Ten - with a win got in - handled them in their home stadium. So we actually knocked those two teams out of the playoffs. You also played two of the weakest playoff teams. One team that only got in because we beat Ten and Jax. Then you played a horrible Seattle team. Not exactly a home run of an argument.

Other than Castillo and Merriman can you please tell me who else missed significant time (two or more games)? I can't find a starting lineup from week 1 or any week for that matter, out of curiosity I would like to check the stats out.

igor starting rde missed 5 games weeks 1-4 and weeks 7-8
jamal williams nt missed 1 game week 6
luis castillo lde missed 6 games 10-13 16-17
merriman olb missed 4 games week 9-12
randall godfrey mlb missed 3 games weeks 14,16-17
sean phillips olb missed 3 games weeks 7-9
steve foley olb missed everygame this year shot
kiel ss missed 2 games week 4 and week 17
mcree fs missed 3 games weeks 2, 12-13

go get em kid.

 

[maxhagen]

You can assume that your defense should be better than before now that its healthy but you can't say that your defense is better than ours based on the assumtion. Our defense statistically is better than yours. Period.

 

[mgcolby]

go get em kid.

Is that what you guys are referring to? If that is it then you should seriously just quit that argument.

27 games missed by starters for SD (can't include Foley as he has not played this year at all)

31 games missed by starters for NE

 

[JoeSixPat]

Nice breakdown - good to know.

None of us of course are making too big a deal out of this - but if averages hold true and SD allows the Patriots to score its average points - as they do with nearly all the teams they face...

... and the Patriots can hold SD to even above their average points allowed, we're looking at a good day.

Of course averages are just that. It's just funny that some SD fans want to base their bravado on some statistics but not others.

The truth is that SD does have an excellent front 7. Whether they are the best in the league is debateable - and its really a pointless debate anyways. Their front 7 is excellent as is ours.

I remain very confident as the team goes into SD. All the pressure is on them and our boys can smell another Super Bowl - don't discount what that motivational factor means to Tedy Bruschi and other like minded players.

 

[patsox23]

as stated in other threads, the chargers are almost completely healthy (only a backup DLineman is still hurt). when the chargers are at full strength they have allowed 16 points TOTAL in 3 games.

That's EXTREMELY impressive. Whom did they play in those games?

 

[abyzmul]

That's EXTREMELY impressive. Whom did they play in those games?

search function is your friend.

 

[Flying Fungi]

Factual data???? you are a joke... the only data you give are ifs and buts...
1. WE ARE BETTER BECAUSE EVEN THOU YOUR STATS ARE BETTER THAN OURS NOW OUR TEAM IS HEALTHY...

2. VINCE YOUNG PLAYED BAD AGAINST US WHEN THEY PUT HIM TO PLAY ON HIS FIRST PROFESSIONAL GAME DOWN ON A CLOSE 17-0 GAME...

3. WE ARE BETTER BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE SACKS THAN YOU, EVEN THOU WE ALLOW MORE POINTS PER GAME THAN YOU GUYS...

Did I miss something?

TROLLL

yeah--you did

17-0 is a close game against a rookie

but 21-0 is a blowout of biblical proportions to the non-competitive Dolphins

 

[maxhagen]

yeah--you did

17-0 is a close game against a rookie

but 21-0 is a blowout of biblical proportions to the non-competitive Dolphins

Oops.... my bad... I did missed that one...