Defense - SD vs NE

[patsox23]

search function is your friend.

No. LAZINESS is my friend. I'm just wondering whom they played.

 

[bolts_fan]

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

Doesn't really matter since you can only play the teams on your schedule and the fact that when we had all our starters on defense (3 games total), our opponents amassed a total of 16 points. That's an undisputed fact. (But in case you're wondering, it's OAK, TEN, KC)

Some will claim that the Raiders suck (which they do) and that when we play TEN it was when Young wasn't playing, that they haven't found their stride, etc. All that may be true, but perhaps you should pause to think that perhaps some, not all, of those teams earned the "suck" label precisely because they played us... and not the other way around. Maybe that we didn't outscore them 87-16 because they suck but that we beat the crap out of them on both offense and defense because we're actually that good on both sides of the ball.

 

[patsox23]

boltssd (or whatever) and sadthepatriots set up a stark contrast here:

Sadthepatriots uses stats, but they don't make sense and they don't, ultimately, support his argument.

bolts uses stats that make more sense and he offers them up in a way that is - for the most part - about achieving understanding and making an argument, as opposed to being an F-ing troll and being argumentative.

This website is a great one BECAUSE most of us here encourage disparate viewpoints. As long as they are backed up and put forth with some semblance of respect, it's all good. Sadthepats, however, has proven himself continually to be a troll.

P.S. Pats by 10. You'll see.

 

[bolts_fan]

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.

LOL. It depends on what defensive stats you're looking at. Points Allowed? Number of 3rd down conversions? Turn-over ratio? Red zone defense? What, exactly, are you looking at defensively to make that claim because I can use statistics too to show that the Chargers are unequivocally better on defense:

2006 Team Efficiency Through Week 17:

#7 - SD: faced 985 total defensive plays / average yard per play of 4.90 (rush average of 4.18 yards / pass average of 5.36 yards)
#10 - NE: faced 950 total defensive plays / average yard per play of 4.96 (rush average of 3.88 yards / pass average of 5.70 yards)

Based on those stats by the way, BALT was ranked #1 and CHI #2...

See? I can use stats too to show that the Chargers ranked higher than NE on defense... we already know about offense.

How do you like them apples?

From another message of mine with the source for my stats:

Let me tell you what sticks out to me as a Chargers fan:

SD: Total Take-Aways 28 (16 Ints/12 Fumbles) and Total Give-Away 15 (9 Ints/6 Fumbles) for a +13 net
NE: Total Take-Aways 35 (22 Ints/13 Fumbles) and Total Give-Away 27 (12 Ints/15 Fumbles) for a +8 net

That's huge... clearly your D gets more Ints but your offense also gives the ball away much more readily and there in lies a difference that will affect the end result.

In terms of defense, depending on what you're looking at, we can rank anywhere... if you look at say, total team defensive efficiency, the Raiders rank higher than both SD and NE... that's right. So depending on what you're looking at in terms of defense, you can skew the picture anyway you want. (Source: http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL+Statistics/Inside+the+Red+Zone/2006/17redzn.htm)

But you know what else is huge? We're #1 in red zone offense efficiency:

SD: #1 - Red zone pos. 62, 42 TD's, 17 FG's, 95.2% scoring (67.7% TD)
NE: #5 - Red zone pos. 60, 36 TD's, 17 FG's, 88.3% scoring (60.0% TD)

I like our offense vs. your defense and I like our defense vs. your offense. There's no doubt you have a strong defense, but for all that you've stated here, the Chargers defense isn't that bad either.

In truth, we really balance each other out quite a lot so really for me that turn-over differential is the difference maker.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Let's make this real simple.

Pats front 3 DL are better than San Diego's hands down. We have 3 1st rounders on the line and their names are Seymour, Warren, and Wilfork.

San Diego's linebackers when you include steroid enhanced Merriman are a more talented group overall than the Pats veteran backers.

Wonder how they'd stack up if performance enhancement wasn't an issue but we'll never know. We'll just have to go into Sunday "clean" and try to win the matchup despite that.

I'll take our Patriots defense over San Diego's though. At least we won't have to put an asterisk next to our accomplishments.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

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:

Before I continue my assault on your "statistical analysis", I need you to help me out here.

Exactly what 4 teams are you talking about, and what is the time frame of your reference?

Thanks in advance...

 

[abyzmul]

boltssd (or whatever) and sadthepatriots set up a stark contrast here:

Sadthepatriots uses stats, but they don't make sense and they don't, ultimately, support his argument.

bolts uses stats that make more sense and he offers them up in a way that is - for the most part - about achieving understanding and making an argument, as opposed to being an F-ing troll and being argumentative.

This website is a great one BECAUSE most of us here encourage disparate viewpoints. As long as they are backed up and put forth with some semblance of respect, it's all good. Sadthepats, however, has proven himself continually to be a troll.

P.S. Pats by 10. You'll see.

i'm sorry that my analysis is too complicated for you. i tried to sum it up in a post a bit back:

so if you can understand that you have players returning from injury... why would you try to use contaminated data as the sole basis for your argument?

it simply doesn't make logical sense. if you're going to be evaluating the two teams with statistical data shouldn't you use statistical data from the two teams that will be playing on sunday? if merriman and ladanian weren't playing on sunday would it be fair to use the chargers' statistics as a basis for how the game will unfold? i didn't think so...

please explain how any statistics i provide don't support my argument. you won't find a single bit of proof to your claim. once again, if the argument is too complex for you it does NOT mean that the facts aren't supporting the thesis. i'd welcome any quotes you may provide to support your contrarian belief.

 

[mgcolby]

Doesn't really matter since you can only play the teams on your schedule and the fact that when we had all our starters on defense (3 games total), our opponents amassed a total of 16 points. That's an undisputed fact. (But in case you're wondering, it's OAK, TEN, KC)

Some will claim that the Raiders suck (which they do) and that when we play TEN it was when Young wasn't playing, that they haven't found their stride, etc. All that may be true, but perhaps you should pause to think that perhaps some, not all, of those teams earned the "suck" label precisely because they played us... and not the other way around. Maybe that we didn't outscore them 87-16 because they suck but that we beat the crap out of them on both offense and defense because we're actually that good on both sides of the ball.

Ten scored the following prior to their breakout game (Washington)

Jets - 16
Bolts - 7
Dolphins -10
Boys - 14
Colts - 13

They weren't exactly an offensive powerhouse.

Oakland avg 10 ppg for the entire season. I think that qualifies as sucking.

The Baltimore game was the most impressive of the 3 as you guys held them to 16 points after they scored:

27 against the Bucs
28 against the Raiders (the raiders turned the ball over twice inside their own 30 in the first quarter)
and 15 against the Browns.

But it still doesn't warrant anyone to look on in awe of it. Baltimore's offense was clearly struggling when you played them - Billick fired his best friend and OC Jim Fassel two weeks later.

 

[patsox23]

Doesn't really matter since you can only play the teams on your schedule and the fact that when we had all our starters on defense (3 games total), our opponents amassed a total of 16 points. That's an undisputed fact. (But in case you're wondering, it's OAK, TEN, KC)

Some will claim that the Raiders suck (which they do) and that when we play TEN it was when Young wasn't playing, that they haven't found their stride, etc. All that may be true, but perhaps you should pause to think that perhaps some, not all, of those teams earned the "suck" label precisely because they played us... and not the other way around. Maybe that we didn't outscore them 87-16 because they suck but that we beat the crap out of them on both offense and defense because we're actually that good on both sides of the ball.

First of all, you're so stupid that you actually think that which teams you played is the end-all, be-all. Holding any three NFL teams to a mere 16 points is impressive. However, if you had to pick three teams, the Raiders, the pre-VY Titans and the Chiefs are about as weak as you're going to find.

That said, I will tell you again - it's an impressive stat, no matter what.

Meanwhile, the Chargers lose this weekend. By double-digits.

 

[patsox23]

LOL. It depends on what defensive stats you're looking at. Points Allowed? Number of 3rd down conversions? Turn-over ratio? Red zone defense?

The only stat that matters ultimately is points allowed. The only stat that will matter this weekend is the higher score.

 

[abyzmul]

Let's make this real simple.

Pats front 3 DL are better than San Diego's hands down. We have 3 1st rounders on the line and their names are Seymour, Warren, and Wilfork.

with your homer glasses on, yes. in reality, no.

San Diego's linebackers when you include steroid enhanced Merriman are a more talented group overall than the Pats veteran backers.

Wonder how they'd stack up if performance enhancement wasn't an issue but we'll never know. We'll just have to go into Sunday "clean" and try to win the matchup despite that.

lets be more mature than the whole "performance enhancement" crybaby issue. merriman tested positive in the pre-season (august) and has been clean throughout the entire season. do some research there first before posting.

I'll take our Patriots defense over San Diego's though. At least we won't have to put an asterisk next to our accomplishments.

 

[bolts_fan]

Let's make this real simple.

Pats front 3 DL are better than San Diego's hands down. We have 3 1st rounders on the line and their names are Seymour, Warren, and Wilfork.

San Diego's linebackers when you include steroid enhanced Merriman are a more talented group overall than the Pats veteran backers.

Wonder how they'd stack up if performance enhancement wasn't an issue but we'll never know. We'll just have to go into Sunday "clean" and try to win the matchup despite that.

I'll take our Patriots defense over San Diego's though. At least we won't have to put an asterisk next to our accomplishments.

Funny... really. Let me concede a point that you all love to harp on and take out the "roided up" Merriman from the rest of our linebackers... they're still a damn good unit without him. Shaun Philips, Randall Godfrey, Donnie Edwards, and the rest are pretty damn good by themselves.

As for your front 3, yes they are very good. Any fool can see that. But our front three aren't bad either. It's not full of 1st rounders as you have proudly pointed out, but our 3 aren't bad. They're named Jamal Williams, Luis Castillo, and Igor Ohlshansky. Maybe you've heard of them.

But even aside from that, no has really answer my point about turn-over ratio

SD: Total Take-Aways 28 (16 Ints/12 Fumbles) and Total Give-Away 15 (9 Ints/6 Fumbles) for a +13 net
NE: Total Take-Aways 35 (22 Ints/13 Fumbles) and Total Give-Away 27 (12 Ints/15 Fumbles) for a +8 net

or overall defense efficiency:

#7 - SD: faced 985 total defensive plays / average yard per play of 4.90 (rush average of 4.18 yards / pass average of 5.36 yards)
#10 - NE: faced 950 total defensive plays / average yard per play of 4.96 (rush average of 3.88 yards / pass average of 5.70 yards)

Anything you want to say about those particular numbers? We didn't get to 14-2 from just our offense alone you know. As I'm sure you're well aware that the Patriots didn't get to where they are from just their offense either.

 

[patsox23]

once again, if the argument is too complex for you it does NOT mean that the facts aren't supporting the thesis. i'd welcome any quotes you may provide to support your contrarian belief.

Your stats are getting blown out of the water all over this board. Bolts' stats? Not so much.

Meanwhile, I don't disagree that it's relevant that Merriman, et al, are back. The fact that Rodney, Geno Wilson, etc... are NOT PLAYING this weekend makes the injury argument not a great one for PAts fans. Who cares if they've been injured, they're not going to be in there, anyway, whereas the Chargers' cheating/injured players (some of them, anyway) WILL be back. That's a perfectly fair point, and one we made against Stiller fans a couple years back, leading up the the re-match.

 

[boltssbbound]

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.

Phillips missed significant time. Only our three of our four best front seven players. Igor also missed a few games after knee surgery. McCree missed a couple games. Kiel missed a couple games. Ditto Godfrey. Our only defensive starters that played the whole season were Jammer, Florence, Jamal and Donnie.

Seattle's not a horrible team, especially not at home. Now Miami, there's a horrible team. What was that score again?

It's pathetic that the Pats' fans want to discount the Bolts victories as not being impressive, while completely dismissing their own loss to a 6-10 team just four weeks ago.

I gave you stats from the last four games, games our best defensive player actually played in.

Well, did the Titans not get into the playoffs because you beat them, or because we beat them? Bottom line, the Chiefs and the Seahawks made the playoffs. Jacksonville and TN did not. 9-7 is better than 8-8. Seattle, Denver and KC all finished 9-7, despite losing to us, with Denver losing to us twice.

 

[abyzmul]

The only stat that matters ultimately is points allowed. The only stat that will matter this weekend is the higher score.

the only stat that matters is Wins and Losses, not points allowed.

 

[bolts_fan]

the only stat that matters is Wins and Losses, not points allowed.

TRUE THAT. Anyone that says anything else is stupid. Even your own "genius" coach would admit that. I'd gladly Brady & Co. 50 points this weekend as long as we walk away with the win.

 

[abyzmul]

Your stats are getting blown out of the water all over this board. Bolts' stats? Not so much.

i'll highlight for you:

once again, if the argument is too complex for you it does NOT mean that the facts aren't supporting the thesis. i'd welcome any quotes you may provide to support your contrarian belief.

 

[patsox23]

Funny... really. Let me concede a point that you all love to harp on and take out the "roided up" Merriman from the rest of our linebackers... they're still a damn good unit without him. Shaun Philips, Randall Godfrey, Donnie Edwards, and the rest are pretty damn good by themselves.

As for your front 3, yes they are very good. Any fool can see that. But our front three aren't bad either. It's not full of 1st rounders as you have proudly pointed out, but our 3 aren't bad. They're named Jamal Williams, Luis Castillo, and Igor Ohlshansky. Maybe you've heard of them.

I don't think many serious Patriots fans are dismissing your LBs for a second. Including Randall Godfrey is a bit silly, but the others are STUDS. We'd love to have your LBs, and not just Merriman.

I also don't think any of us are sincerely knocking your front 3. They're very, very good. We're just pointing out that the Patriots have THE best front 3 in the NFL. It's possible you're #2, certainly top 5. But arguing against Wilfork, Seymour and Warren is patently ridiculous. They are better. Doesn't mean SD sucks. Far from it.

As for your turnover ratio argument, that's all well and good, but it so doesn't matter. Points allowed. That's it. That is ALL that matters. The rest is just fantasy football B.S.

 

[abyzmul]

TRUE THAT. Anyone that says anything else is stupid. Even your own "genius" coach would admit that. I'd gladly Brady & Co. 50 points this weekend as long as we walk away with the win.

haha, seriously.. i almost added patsox23 to my signature over that one.

 

[patsox23]

TRUE THAT. Anyone that says anything else is stupid. Even your own "genius" coach would admit that. I'd gladly Brady & Co. 50 points this weekend as long as we walk away with the win.

Good Christ. I mean, of COURSE. The Patriots are the King of that right now. It's just typical *****-stirring to make that hair-splitting argument. We're talking about DEFENSIVE stats. Don't allow yourself to get distracted - and sullied - by trolling nonsense.