NE/CIN observations

[crypto]

Since the 2000 season seven teams ranked third or better in points allowed have won the Super Bowl, meaning a top-three defense wins the Super Bowl about once every 1.86 years. Five Super Bowl winners have ranked third or better in net points / point differential. These teams win the Super Bowl at a frequency of once every 2.6 years.

The '09 Saints are the only team since 2000 to (a) place in the top three in points scored, (b) place in the top three in net points, and (c) win a Super Bowl. Since 2000 this category of teams has won a Super Bowl once.

And the reason the Saints are the only team ranked first in points scored and first in net points isn't that it's so rare to see one team achieve both in one season. The '01 Rams, '03 Chiefs, '06 Chargers, '07 Patriots, '10 Patriots, and '12 Patriots have three things in common: a first-place rank in points scored, a first-place rank in net points, and a first-place rank in not winning anything that anyone cares about.

During the same period, teams that have led the league in points but not net points have enjoyed a steady frequency of zero Super Bowl victories per whatever unit of time tickles your fancy.

The bottom line is a high rank in net points doesn't mean **** unless the figure goes hand in hand with a good defense. If in December the Patriots are still scoring 19 points per game I might reconsider but for now I'll take the roster that gives up 14 over the roster that gives up 27.8, thanks very much.

 

[SVN]

Couple of insane stats

Christopher Price ‏@cpriceNFL 2m
Pats did not run any no-huddle vs. Cincy. 2nd straight game with no huddle & 4th game since start of '12 season they didn't use it at all.

Christopher Price ‏@cpriceNFL 4m
Pats have run no huddle on 5 percent of their plays this year.

 

[JoeSixPat]

If we are going to criticize the OL for all the pressure, I think we also ought to note that they were very successful running. We averaged 4.6 yards per rush compared with the Bengals 4.2. But they rushed 39 times to our 18, while they passed 27 times to our 38. This gross imbalance in these run/pass is typical if one team is way behind for most of the game, but here it belies a closely contested game in which the Patriots simply abandoned the run. Many on this board have been critical of the coaches for this tendency, and it is pretty stark here. Even without Ridley, they had success running and difficulty protecting, yet time and again they asked Brady to drop back and throw with poor protection, in bad conditions, to unreliable receivers. I think the result goes as much to the coaches strategy as it does to the OL.

That's an excellent observation.

Though what's odd is that in previous games they HAD been using the run to set up the pass and it had been somewhat effective.

I'm not quite sure why they abandoned it against the Bengals - perhaps they went in assuming it was going to downpour all day and decided to put it in the air more when the weather was not so bad?

I'm confused as to the strategy as well.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Couple of insane stats

Christopher Price ‏@cpriceNFL 2m
Pats did not run any no-huddle vs. Cincy. 2nd straight game with no huddle & 4th game since start of '12 season they didn't use it at all.

Christopher Price ‏@cpriceNFL 4m
Pats have run no huddle on 5 percent of their plays this year.

That's a VERY telling stat.

Now you do have to look at it on a game by game situation but compared to last year - that's pretty amazing.

And one assumes its partly that the WRs and Brady are having a tough time getting on the same page and thus, they're not ready to play in a hurry up mode. Thus some of those errant throws by Brady may or may not be accurate throws where the receiver simply isn't where he's supposed to be.

 

[supafly]

That's an excellent observation.

Though what's odd is that in previous games they HAD been using the run to set up the pass and it had been somewhat effective.

I'm not quite sure why they abandoned it against the Bengals - perhaps they went in assuming it was going to downpour all day and decided to put it in the air more when the weather was not so bad?

I'm confused as to the strategy as well.

It may be possible that they simply felt they could take advantage of the injured CIN secondary, along with playing to what they perceived as the Bengals bigger weakness; especially since they are so stout vs the run too.

The return of Amendola along with the progression that was shown in the MNF game vs Atlanta may have added to this thinking.

The inability to adapt may have been the real downfall.

 

[Mack Herron]

It may be possible that they simply felt they could take advantage of the injured CIN secondary, along with playing to what they perceived as the Bengals bigger weakness; especially since they are so stout vs the run too.

The return of Amendola along with the progression that was shown in the MNF game vs Atlanta may have added to this thinking.

The inability to adapt may have been the real downfall.

They did adjust but the adjustment was insane. After seeing their strategy fail in the first half, they ran even less in the second half.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

I know. My point was that it wasn't me hanging a hat here.



The Raiders reply from Oswlek was a changed post from the one I'd initially responded to. He changed his reply from questioning the relevance to specifically pointing to the Raiders. In doing so, he chose to ignore a more high scoring offense in the Eagles, yet I note you've not pointed that out. My point was about the Broncos demonstrating an ability to hold down opponents, which they have demonstrated three times. It was not about the Broncos having some recent trend to overcome with regards to defensive struggles in the playoffs.



I never said it wasn't, but that's a different argument. The ability to be smoked and the ability to hold teams down aren't mutually exclusive, after all. The 1985 Chicago Bears are generally claimed to have been among the best defensive teams of all time, yet the Dolphins hung 38 on them.

I was using it to mean "depend on", which I think is clear based on the usage given the other meaning would make no sense. If your stance in this little debate doesn't depend on anything you're quite literally arguing for argument's sake. I guess I can't fault you though since you never actually said you weren't.

The Eagles game is the only game where the Broncos' allowed fewer points than a team is averaging for the season, so it's the only example of the Broncos holding a team down. Right now it looks like the exception and not the norm. It should also be noted that the Eagles scored 13 points in the first half before their defense really hopped the rails, so it's a bad example of them being able to hold a team down without the pressure of their offense. If you'd added your footnote about the Eagle prior to my response I would've mentioned them, but up until now they were simply thrown in with 2 other poor teams.

Os' first post was clearly referencing the POs; I'm not sure why you'd respond pointing to 3 games that you seemingly admit have no real bearing to that. That post also referenced the 48 point game, which is apparently a different argument. You started this all off by moving the goal posts by using a portion of his post out of context and since he's been trying to bring them back.

The point is that Denver's defense is currently a concern to their SB aspirations. They've performed poorly in the POs lately, they lost their second best pass rusher, they're performing below average thus far this season, and they just got mauled. The point was not that "the Broncos can't hold anyone under 24 points" no matter how hard you try to pretend it was.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

That's an excellent observation.

Though what's odd is that in previous games they HAD been using the run to set up the pass and it had been somewhat effective.

I'm not quite sure why they abandoned it against the Bengals - perhaps they went in assuming it was going to downpour all day and decided to put it in the air more when the weather was not so bad?

I'm confused as to the strategy as well.

BB's take on it:

The Blitz with Jeff Howe & Karen Guregian | Boston Herald

 

[JoeSixPat]

BB's take on it:

The Blitz with Jeff Howe & Karen Guregian | Boston Herald

Well, that clears everything up.

 

[captain stone]

I expected nothing more from the king of talking little & saying less.

 

[Mack Herron]

Given the source, I find it a surprisingly candid admission:

“Overall, there might have been some opportunities for us to call a few more runs,” Belichick said.

and this from McDaniels:

our intention is never to really get out of whack in terms of run/pass ratio on any of those things, and certainly that’s something that I will always try to maintain a good balance on. If I ever get out of balance, I definitely want to try to bring it back to as close to 50/50 or somewhere near there as I can.”

IMO, it is what it is. Not what we were looking for. We'd like to have a few of those calls back. Just need to do a better job executing and a better job coaching.