Kirwan:Patriots pulling off rare feat of winning while rebuilding

[xmarkd400x]

It seemed he was saying that the Patriots were last in total possessions, yet very high in metrics such as points scored (good) and passing yards given up (bad).

If so -- is total possessions of one those low-variance stats, like average player age, with not a lot of difference between the top teams and lowest?

I'd imagine it might mean a couple of things:
-Patriots opponents are sustaining drives, reducing the total number of possessions in a game; and by extension the Pats possessions
-The Pats have a few return TDs, reducing their number of possessions

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't think this article shortchanges the defense at all. I think it calls it out for being what it is -- a defense with a lot of young guys in transition that's trying to find it's way. Nobody has been more impressed over the difference and improvement with the defense since the Jets game than I have. That are getting to the ball faster, sticking to their assignments more, hitting harder, and seem to have a better general knowledge of the scheme. However, the defense is still nowhere near where we all want it to be. There's is still a lot to improve on.

What Kirwan is basically saying is that the Patriots clock-chewing offense is giving the defense time to do just that.

 

[ivanvamp]

Indianapolis has also done a great job of rebuilding (or reloading) while continuing to win. Look at their receiving corps, transitioning from Marvin Harrison and Brandon Stokely to this young group like Garcon and Collie, and from Edgerrin James to Addai and Donald Brown (and Mike Hart). They've had a few guys as mainstays (like Peyton, Saturday, Wayne, and Freeney), but they've also had a ton of turnover over the past decade. And yet all they do is win.

I guess that's what having a great front office and an off-the-charts great QB will do for you (something the Pats and Colts have in common): it will allow you to win even while changing lots of parts.

 

[Mountain_Commando]

Thought I'd take a look at how teams have done since the start of the salary cap in 1994; real free agency started in 1993 so I'll use '94 as a starting point. W-L-T are in reference to number of winning seasons, number of losing seasons, and number of .500 seasons; not including 2010.

W - L - T -- Team
------------------
13--2--1 -- Pats
12--2--2 -- Packers
12--3--1 -- Steelers
12--3--1 -- Colts
11--4--1 -- Dolphins
10--3--3 -- Vikings
10--5--1 -- Eagles
10--5--1 -- Cowboys
9---6--1 -- Jets
8---7--1 -- Ravens/old Browns
8---7--1 -- Buccaneers
8---7--1 -- Chiefs
7---5--4 -- Chargers
7---6--3 -- Giants
7---6--3 -- Seahawks
7---7--1 -- Jaguars
7---8--1 -- 49ers
6---5--5 -- Titans/Oilers
6---9--1 -- Falcons
6--10--0 -- Bears
5---8--3 -- Redskins
5---9--2 -- Bills
4---8--3 -- Panthers
4---9--3 -- Saints
4---9--3 -- Raiders
4--10--2 -- Rams
4--11--1 -- Lions
3--11--2 -- Cardinals
2---9--0 -- Browns
2--10--4 -- Bengals
1---5--2 -- Texans

Thanks for those stats. A lot of people acknowledge that Pats are the most successful team of the cap/FA era in terms of super bowls, but at least I for one didn't know that we are also the top team in terms of winning seasons. Good to know

 

[Sicilian]

I know this wasn't the focus of the article, but I hate using Red Zone Scoring Percentage as a stat, at least the way most places view it. He says we're 25/28 in the Red Zone because he counts field goals as red zone success. I don't.

The stat really should be percentage of possible points in the red zone. So 28 trips could result in a total of 196 points (assuming no 2 point conversions). The Patriots have scored 139/196, so their RZ% should be 70.9%. I want to see how that number compares to other teams in the league.

If every time you make it to the red zone you're kicking a FG, your "RZ scoring %" would be 100%, but you're not a successful red zone offense.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

I know this wasn't the focus of the article, but I hate using Red Zone Scoring Percentage as a stat, at least the way most places view it. He says we're 25/28 in the Red Zone because he counts field goals as red zone success. I don't.

The stat really should be percentage of possible points in the red zone. So 28 trips could result in a total of 196 points (assuming no 2 point conversions). The Patriots have scored 139/196, so their RZ% should be 70.9%. I want to see how that number compares to other teams in the league.

If every time you make it to the red zone you're kicking a FG, your "RZ scoring %" would be 100%, but you're not a successful red zone offense.

Valid point, and can be used for the defense too. If the Defense allows 100% of RZ to score, but only by field goal, that to me is pretty successful

 

[SanAngeloState]

Hopefully BB has learned that in order to rebuild, you actually need to let young players play. No more of this trading for washed up losers like Duane starks and Burgess. Concentrating on developing your own talent is smarter and cheaper too.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

add Ty Warren, Kevin Faulk, Leigh Bodden, two 1st round picks, two 2nd round picks, two 3rd round picks...to what we already have here.....scary!!!

We win the SB in our "rebuilding year" then load up next year for 3 more SB wins in a row!

 

[apple strudel]

Hopefully BB has learned that in order to rebuild, you actually need to let young players play. No more of this trading for washed up losers like Duane starks and Burgess. Concentrating on developing your own talent is smarter and cheaper too.

But we don't just rebuild - we field the best team the organization can put together in any given year. That includes going young sometimes because your vets are retiring and you can't fill in those spots easily through free agency, but it also includes bringing in vets to compete with the young guys and, if the vet outperforms the young guy you have to give him his playing time. That's for the good of the team overall.

 

[ivanvamp]

I know this wasn't the focus of the article, but I hate using Red Zone Scoring Percentage as a stat, at least the way most places view it. He says we're 25/28 in the Red Zone because he counts field goals as red zone success. I don't.

The stat really should be percentage of possible points in the red zone. So 28 trips could result in a total of 196 points (assuming no 2 point conversions). The Patriots have scored 139/196, so their RZ% should be 70.9%. I want to see how that number compares to other teams in the league.

If every time you make it to the red zone you're kicking a FG, your "RZ scoring %" would be 100%, but you're not a successful red zone offense.

Good point, but red zone stats of any kind are inherently flawed as well. Let's look at two different scenarios:

1. You get a turnover at your opponent's 2 yard line. Ok, you have three shots to get 2 yards (four if you go for it on 4th down). You absolutely, positively, *should* get a TD there. But let's say you get stuffed (maybe even lose a few yards) and end up with a FG. You've lost 4 yards, given the opponent a HUGE shot in the arm, suffered an emotional letdown, but scored 3 points.

2. You start at your own 5 yard line and drive down to the opponent's 26. On 3rd down you complete a swing pass down to the 20 yard line, bringing up 4th and 4. You kick the FG. You've marched 75 yards, maybe eaten up 7 minutes off the clock, rested your defense, sucked momentum from your opponent's offense, and scored 3 points.

In both of these situations you are "credited" with 3 points in a red zone opportunity, but obviously these are night-and-day scenarios. You're pretty thrilled with scenario 2 but obviously extremely disappointed in scenario 1. Scenario 2 would be a success, but scenario 1 is a failure (unless that happened in the last minute of a game and you kicked the game-winning FG from it).

So red zone percentages and stats don't even take into account that not all red zone opportunities are equal.

 

[emoney_33]

The 2010 Patriots are far from the most talented team to take the field at Gillette, but are probably the most promising teams with their roster of young players. The common denominator for the Patriots winning has been Tom Brady and Bill Belichick; it can't be denied that this combo gives the Patriots a chance to win on any given Sunday.

The common denominator is Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft.

 

[Sicilian]

Good point, but red zone stats of any kind are inherently flawed as well. Let's look at two different scenarios:

1. You get a turnover at your opponent's 2 yard line. Ok, you have three shots to get 2 yards (four if you go for it on 4th down). You absolutely, positively, *should* get a TD there. But let's say you get stuffed (maybe even lose a few yards) and end up with a FG. You've lost 4 yards, given the opponent a HUGE shot in the arm, suffered an emotional letdown, but scored 3 points.

2. You start at your own 5 yard line and drive down to the opponent's 26. On 3rd down you complete a swing pass down to the 20 yard line, bringing up 4th and 4. You kick the FG. You've marched 75 yards, maybe eaten up 7 minutes off the clock, rested your defense, sucked momentum from your opponent's offense, and scored 3 points.

In both of these situations you are "credited" with 3 points in a red zone opportunity, but obviously these are night-and-day scenarios. You're pretty thrilled with scenario 2 but obviously extremely disappointed in scenario 1. Scenario 2 would be a success, but scenario 1 is a failure (unless that happened in the last minute of a game and you kicked the game-winning FG from it).

So red zone percentages and stats don't even take into account that not all red zone opportunities are equal.

Excellent points. I guess the lesson is that stats can be indicators of something, but are almost never the whole story.

For example, Patriots allowed 4.5 yards per carry to the Vikings. Looks pretty mediocre, but take away the garbage 33 yard QB scramble by Jackson on their last drive (where they had no timeouts), and they allowed 3.4 ypc, including only 3.7 to Peterson (who had averaged 4.9 coming in). Most stats have outliers that skew the total data.