Predict Patrots 2010 record

[Ring 6]

So you think it is more impressive to hold Mark Sanchez and the Jets to 7 points than Peyton Manning and the Colts to 10?

Its not about style points. Its about understanding what the stats really mean. Most of the time they don't have great predictive value as football is mainly about matchups but there is some. They have even less value from year to year.

Where did I say, or even approach that?
The correct question would be:
So you would rather have bad underlying stats and allow fewer points than to have good underlying stats and allow a lot of points. Yes, I would.

 

[Ring 6]

So you think it is more impressive to hold Mark Sanchez and the Jets to 7 points than Peyton Manning and the Colts to 10?

Its not about style points. Its about understanding what the stats really mean. Most of the time they don't have great predictive value as football is mainly about matchups but there is some. They have even less value from year to year.

Or, I would rather allow 7 to Sanchez than 8 and I would rather allow 10 to Manning than 11.
I have no idea how you turned what I said into your statement.

 

[patriot lifer]

4 easier games in: Buffalo, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit

12 harder games in: Cinci, Jets, Jets, Dolphins, Dolphins, Baltimore, Pitts, San Diego, Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago*, Indy

I figure we win all 4 of the easier games, and then it's a matter of throwing a percentage at the remaining "harder" games. Do we win 50%? That means 6 games. 6+4 = 10 wins total. It's too hard to make any more detailed predictions about which teams will be tough and which will fall short and which we match up well against. 10-6 ain't bad with this schedule.

 

[Ring 6]

4 easier games in: Buffalo, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit

12 harder games in: Cinci, Jets, Jets, Dolphins, Dolphins, Baltimore, Pitts, San Diego, Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago*, Indy

I figure we win all 4 of the easier games, and then it's a matter of throwing a percentage at the remaining "harder" games. Do we win 50%? That means 6 games. 6+4 = 10 wins total. It's too hard to make any more detailed predictions about which teams will be tough and which will fall short and which we match up well against. 10-6 ain't bad with this schedule.

I wouldnt put Cinci or Chicago on the hard list. I expect both to be around 6-10.

 

[SoCal Bong]

In Vegas you can get either:

A) Pats over 9.5 wins for -120 (risk $120 to win $100)
B) Pats over 10 wins for +135 (risk $100 to win $135); 10 wins is a push and you just get your money back

I got a bunch of A and just a little B as I think 10 is very likely but 11 or 12 is also quite possible.

Which do you think is the better value?

 

[Ring 6]

To address the level of competition argument, profootballreference takes competition into consideration. The short version is that they compare what you allow against the teams you play to what they do against everyone else, and give you a plus or minus rating.
In other words, if my team allows 20 ppg to teams that score 21 against everyone else, I am +1. If your team allows 22 ppg to teams that score 24 against everyone else, you are +2, meaning you allowed more points but should have because you played a total of higher scoring teams.
Thats the short version, they explain it in great detail on the site.
As the link shows, the rankings were:
1) Jets 7.5
2) Dallas 6.7
3) Ravens 4.7
4) Patriots 4.5
Panthers 4.5
6) Bengals 3.2
7) Niners 3.0
8) Bills 2.5
9) Falcons 2.3
10) Colts 1.5

Again, what this means is we allowed 4.5 fewer points per game to all of our opponents than they scored against everyone else they played, which was tied for 4th.
In other words, the level of competition we faced was almost exactly the league average and the impact of level of competition on our points allowed is statistically insignificant.

Not surprisingly we were #2 offensively, with 4 other teams within 1 point, because we were among the highest scoring and did play a tougher than average schedule.

2009 NFL Standings, Team & Offensive Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[BSR]

Or, I would rather allow 7 to Sanchez than 8 and I would rather allow 10 to Manning than 11.
I have no idea how you turned what I said into your statement.

Because that is what you are saying here:

I think we have a better chance to win if our defense allows the 5th fewest points but is rated lower is some type of statistical formula weighting the facotrs that lead to allowing points, than if we do great at getting the stats that go into that formula but allow a lot of points.

If you allowed 7 to Sanchez you might be rated fifth but the statistical formula would give you a worse ranking. While the same formula would rank the game against Manning as better even though you let up more points. Now that might not be what you meant but it is what you said.

Statistical formulas don't rate teams on "style" points or some arbitrary measurement. Most try to eliminate variance to be able to make the numbers comparable between teams. By totally dismissing the statistical formula weighting you are basically saying that the 7 against Sanchez is more impressive than the 10 against Manning. I'm not saying that you should throw out the total points either, I am saying that you should consider both.

 

[BSR]

Again, what this means is we allowed 4.5 fewer points per game to all of our opponents than they scored against everyone else they played, which was tied for 4th.
In other words, the level of competition we faced was almost exactly the league average and the impact of level of competition on our points allowed is statistically insignificant.

Not surprisingly we were #2 offensively, with 4 other teams within 1 point, because we were among the highest scoring and did play a tougher than average schedule.

2009 NFL Standings, Team & Offensive Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Hmmm...interesting stuff.

 

[Ring 6]

Because that is what you are saying here:


If you allowed 7 to Sanchez you might be rated fifth but the statistical formula would give you a worse ranking. While the same formula would rank the game against Manning as better even though you let up more points. Now that might not be what you meant but it is what you said.

Statistical formulas don't rate teams on "style" points or some arbitrary measurement. Most try to eliminate variance to be able to make the numbers comparable between teams. By totally dismissing the statistical formula weighting you are basically saying that the 7 against Sanchez is more impressive than the 10 against Manning. I'm not saying that you should throw out the total points either, I am saying that you should consider both.

OK, now I see what you are saying. I am not applying it to one game, I am applying it to a season. In fact, I have addressed strength of schedule.
I agree that points allowed in one game is a horrible barometer.

What I am saying is out of all the available statistics to rank a defense on, the most important is points allowed. It makes no sense to me that a team that allows fewer points over the course of a season, adjusted for competition is worse than teams who allowed more, because of underlying stats. The point of achieving underlying stats is to have them impact the scoreboard.
The statistical formula I am dismissing is one that says I allowed less points than you, competition adjusted, but you are better because you had more sacks or allowed less rushing yards, or whatever.

 

[Ring 6]

Hmmm...interesting stuff.

That is the 'statistical analysis' that is relevant. The irrelevant ones are the ones that somehow value other things more than the scoreboard.

 

[TBradyOwnsYou]

In Vegas you can get either:

A) Pats over 9.5 wins for -120 (risk $120 to win $100)
B) Pats over 10 wins for +135 (risk $100 to win $135); 10 wins is a push and you just get your money back

I got a bunch of A and just a little B as I think 10 is very likely but 11 or 12 is also quite possible.

Which do you think is the better value?

I'd go B.

I think we'll go 11-5 with a max swing of +/-2.
I think we crush Manning this year.
I think 10-6 will be good enough to win the AFCE.
I think the best defense last year was the Saints, why? Because they won the Super Bowl and that's the only stat that matters.
I think our defense will allow more points this year, but our offense will choke far less in the red zone/2nd half and we will be able to overcome that suckage.

 

[Kontradiction]

But you have not made any point. At least none relevant to my argument.
We allowed the 5th fewest points against a schedule that was basically exactly average.
No description of what you think a 5th best scoring defense should look like changes that.
You have described the 5th best scoring defense. Fine. How does that go anywhere near saying they were undeserving of that ranking.?
Describing what the 5th ranked defense did doesnt make the 6th ranked better, because they did worse.

I don't even really have to defend myself on this since you make my point for me using the bolded part. The arithmetic average of the offensive schedule we faced last season is 16.815 (rounds up to 17, of course) and that mean is only higher because of the AFC South offenses we faced (Tennessee was actually highly ranked). So you can say that the offensive competition that we faced last season was actually slightly BELOW average. Your admission and my math basically make my point for me (one which you have apparently failed to see): we were a decent defense, but we were not the 5th best.

OK, bolster your argument by making up something and attributing it to me? Nice.

I'm not making it up. You were in a thread earlier in the offseason vigorously defending Sam Aiken as a third option. Of course it was before the draft, but you were doing it nonetheless. And yes, I will apologize for saying that about you in such a snide manner. But I won't apologize for saying it. I'm sure somebody can recall the instance without me having to take the time to search through 6,000 posts to find it.

Kontra, I went through the entire schedule and showed you our average opponent scored the average # of points of all NFL teams. How is that weak competition? That just makes no sense.

And I went through the entire schedule and showed you why we were nothing but an average defense. Afterward, I did the math on the opposing offensive schedule and showed you why THEY were average competition. Now I suppose that I'll have to show you other defenses who faced better competition that we did last season (on average), how the fared, and what makes them better.

You are applying your opinion of the teams on the schedule without considering the facts.

I've shown nothing but facts in this. I gave our entire schedule last season. I detailed each game. I detailed how our defense allowed more 100 yard rushing games than it didn't. I detailed how our defense allowed the likes of Kyle Orton and Chad Henne to have career days. After that, I came up with the mean of our offensive competition to show mathematic reason why they were a weak schedule and how our ranking was a product of that weak schedule. That's what I'm basing my opinion on. I'm basing it on what I saw on the field (that they were not a #5 defense) and what I saw in the stats (that they were not a #5 defense).

But the teams that allowed more points either couldnt stop the bad teams as well or got lit up worse by good teams.
27 teams allowed more points, 4 allowed less. The ones that allowed more couldn't have beaten up on good teams and bad.
Maybe in your opinion the team that allowed the 5th fewest points wasnt very good, but how many of the teams that were less successful in stopping thier opponent from scoring were better?

You seem to think that I believe that the Patriots were the worst defense in the league. I don't. I only believe that the "scoring defense" ranking is inflated. The rest of the defensive statistics (many of which have the Pats ranked lower than 10th) would agree with me. But, for argument's sake, let's just take a look at some of the guys below us in this ranking.

1. Vikings (10th): I don't think that there is anybody here who would HONESTLY tell you that they'd rather have the Pats defense on the field than the Vikings defense last year. When matched up against the #1 offense in the league last year (the Saints), the Vikings defense dominated them. They won the game in every statistical category and would have help the Vikings win the game had Peterson not caught a case of Fumbleitis. On top of that, the Vikings are ranked ahead of us in every single other defensive statistic.

2. Redskins (18th) - The Redskins defense were the primary reason they were not 1-15 last year but were ranked 18th in scoring defense. Yet in every other defensive measurement besides interceptions, the Redskins defense were ranked ahead of us. Sometimes far ahead of us. They were ahead of us in sacks, rushing, passing, total yards, and game stats. Every single statistic would suggest that they were the better defense last season. This also shows why going on scoring defense alone is a flawed methodology.

Pittsburgh and Cincinnati (who actually became a formidable defense last season) were also ranked ahead of us in every other statistical category besides scoring defense. Last year, I would have had either of them going into a big game than our's.

Also, if you want to look deeper than points allowed, you can't just make things up, such as the competition was weak. The team should face good teams, bad teams and average teams as they did.
You would also have to compare the factors that you think make the ranking invalid to other teams.

You're more than welcome to come up with your own calculations if you'd like. But I've showed you the math, I've showed you our schedule and how we fared, and I've showed you why going on points allowed alone is a flawed way of thinking. If you want to come up with a way of showing me why points allowed is the best and/or only way to measure a defense, you're more than welcome to do so.

I have not said that the Patriots were or were not the 5th best defense in the NFL. I have said based upon the most important factor about a defense they finished 5th best

Andy, you do realize that this is pretty much a direct contradiction, don't you? Face facts, you've been trying to peddle this defense as the fifth best defense in the NFL, you've been showed why (numerous times) they weren't and now you're back-peddling, all the while throwing up red herrings all over the place and directly contradicting yourself.

yet fans of the Patriots are so spoiled by past success, they want to rip the defense and say it sucked, without justificaiton.

I don't think the defense sucked at all. I just think the 5th place ranking in scoring defense is a little inflated and skewed. Most other statistics have this defense where I think they should be: the middle of the road.

You are welcome to give justification as to how you would adjust that 5th ranking based on all the factors you think apply, but you have to consider if and how those factors affected the other teams which you are assuming they didnt apply to.

I have. Numerous times. You just choose to keep ignoring them.

Here is an example.
The Colts allowed more points than the Patriots did.
However, while the Patriots allowed a lot with reserves on the field vs Houston the Colts mailed in 2 games and allowed 59 points to the Bills and Jets. Those games must be considered. By the same token, the Colts competition was pretty weak at first glance (the actual numbers may prove or disprove). On the other hand, the Patriots outscored the Colts, yet had a worse record. Again the Colts competition may have an impact on that, but they appear to have allowed points that were less devastating. If I am ranking defenses I would rank the Colts higher than the Patriots in 2009. Conversely if we took the same analysis of SF we would probably see how the Pats more difficult schedule overcomes the couple of points allowed difference.

I've already showed you why you shouldn't throw out the Houston game. Our starters were in there for the vast majority of the game and it was clearly a contest in which we weren't trying to throw. On top of that, I've already acknowledged that you're going to keep trying to throw it out so, with that in mind, if we're throwing games out, then we should throw out the Tennessee game in which that team did not show up at all, both offensively and defensively. By the way, if scoring defense was the best, and only way to go (such as you're saying) than the Indianapolis Colts were the 8th best defense in the league last year. Are you seriously saying that the Colts had a Top 10 defense?

Again, the point was never to rate the defenses in the NFL.

Sure it is. When you try to make the claim that you did, you open yourself up to rating other defenses in the NFL that are comparable and you also open yourself up to rating the defense by every single other defensive measurement. But, alas, I'll never be able to show you why holding on for dear life to the 5th ranked defense title is a flawed methodology.

The point was to state that while 27 teams allowed more points than the Patriots, fans typically say our defense sucked, because they are spoiled.

Again, I never made a claim that the Patriots were the worst defense in the league. Just that they were the middle of the road. You're the one trying to convince yourself as well as everyone else on here that they were the fifth best defense in the league last year.

There are no adjustments that can be made that would amount to the defense that allowed the 5th fewest points (not the only yardstick, but the most important one) to be less than above average.

Sure there are. There are a ton of adjustments which show why that ranking is skewed. I've showed you every single one in the book. It's your choice whether to accept it or ignore it.

 

[PatriotsInGA]

Does how good our defense is really matter as long as the Pats win games, win the division, win in the playoffs, and ultimately win the Super Bowl?

 

[Kontradiction]

This is lame and you really owe an apology for that.
Please, please show me where I said that. Go search.
What you will find is that I said 3rd WR was not a huge problem for this team, because we had a 1 and 2 who caught over 200 balls, so the need for a #3 was minimal. Never, ever did I argue Sam Aiken was a good 3rd option, and you know that. Its disgraceful that you would stoop to that level to try to make he futile argument you are making sound better. You should have just taken the time to read the posts and realize you arent eve understanding what I said in this thread to begin with. (Either that or you are incapable of understanding that stats compiled against a set of teams that averaged the league average is competition neutral)

What futile argument? I've show, pretty successfully, why this wasn't the fifth best defense in the NFL. The need for a third WR was HUGE after last season. Everybody else saw it but you. Sound familiar? Tell me what happened in the draft, Andy. The team took your "the need is minimal" stance and proceeded to drive it into the ground by drafting Taylor Price and Aaron Hernandez (two guys that they are hoping could come in and provide options outside of Moss and Welker). Obviously, the team disagreed with your stance.

While i see your point and it's a well researched post. My problem is your analysis to suit your own opinion. Everytime the defense did well you say " well that doesn't count they should have done well" and every time the defense does poorly you say "the defense should have stood up but it didn't". i mean we had a good game defensively against the falcons but you chalk it up to them not playing well not us stopping them from playing well.

The defense SHOULD have beaten up on the lesser offenses. And did you see that game against the Falcons? They beat themselves more than we beat them. The only point which I kept driving home even in what was supposed to be the "good" games was the fact that we kept allowing 100 yard performances on the ground. We allowed a lot more 100 yard rushing performances last year than we didn't. That's not indicative of the fifth best defense in the NFL.

i just think this is a very pessimistic way to view the defense. I think in reality we weren't a top 5 defense but anyone who says we were are kidding themselves. But i don't think it's as bad as your making it out to be either.

Of course they're kidding themselves. Anybody with a set of eyes could see that this wasn't the fifth best defense in the league. They were the middle of the road, as was evidenced by every other defensive measurement.

The Patriots were 12th in 3rd down percentage. Two teams above them (Raiders and Dolphins) averaged 5.9 and 6.6 points per game more. Six other teams were within 3.3 PPG and three had a better PPG.

The Patriots were 22nd in Sacks/Attempt, but I can't see how that's the mark of a good defense, considering that the Dolphins, Raiders, and Browns are 3 of the top 7 teams and all allowed at least 5.6 PPG more.

As for red zone defense, NFL.com doesn't have that stat anywhere that I could find quickly, but I do remember seeing somewhere (probably Reiss) that the Patriots allowed a TD every time the opponent had first and goal within the five. Remember when that was one of the defense's strong points?

You're right. The mark of the bend but don't break defense is that they stop opponents in the red zone. This wasn't the case last season as we really weren't that good in that area of the field.

 

[Kontradiction]

Does how good our defense is really matter as long as the Pats win games, win the division, win in the playoffs, and ultimately win the Super Bowl?

Good defenses typically win the Super Bowl. We won games and won the division, but we got smoked in the playoffs because our 5th ranked scoring defense couldn't stop a team with one arm tied behind it's back, got chewed up on the ground, and suffered their worst blow out loss at home in the playoffs. Neither side of the ball was good enough to win the Super Bowl last year. Hopefully, with the new pieces in place, we will be this year.

 

[Kontradiction]

I also think that the thing that escapes your attention, Andy, is that if Belichick truly thought this was the fifth ranked defense in the NFL last season, then we wouldn't have seen Pees get issued his walking papers, we wouldn't have seen Belichick HIMSELF take over primary duties with the defense, and we wouldn't have seen the vast majority of our high round picks spent on the defensive side of the ball. Belichick clearly agrees that this wasn't a top defense last year and has done something about it. Belichick can see it, I can see it, the vast majority of people that watch this team can see it. Why can't you?

 

[Deus Irae]

Even with their aweful rating system, our top two defenses in the past 10 years were "coincidently" Super Bowl winners.

I'm with Andy though, style points don't count for much. A "bend but don't break" defense isn't structured to win stat wars. It is structured to allow as dew points as possible and win football games.

Your post has me curious. What's your issue with the Football Outsiders defensive rating system?

 

[Ring 6]

I don't even really have to defend myself on this since you make my point for me using the bolded part. The arithmetic average of the offensive schedule we faced last season is 16.815 (rounds up to 17, of course) and that mean is only higher because of the AFC South offenses we faced (Tennessee was actually highly ranked). So you can say that the offensive competition that we faced last season was actually slightly BELOW average. Your admission and my math basically make my point for me (one which you have apparently failed to see): we were a decent defense, but we were not the 5th best. {/quote]

2009 NFL Standings, Team & Offensive Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Competition adjusted, we were ranked BETTER. End of that story.
Your 2 flaws are A) You are counting the points they scored against us which brings down the average unfairly because we were ranked 5th.
B) You dont seem to understand that rankings compiled against exactly average competition (16.5 would be exactly average, and you are joking or lying if you think our schedule wasn't as close to average in socring points as could be) exactly justifies the ranking and it doesnt need to be competition adjusted.

I'm not making it up. You were in a thread earlier in the offseason vigorously defending Sam Aiken as a third option.

Yes you are. I argued that 3rd WR was not one of our major problems BECAUSE we had a 1 and a 2 that caught 200 passes, so a #3 was muchless consequential. I never called Aiken a good 3rd option. You should go find the thread rather than than continuing to bismearch me becuase your memory blows.

And I went through the entire schedule and showed you why we were nothing but an average defense. Afterward, I did the math on the opposing offensive schedule and showed you why THEY were average competition.

No you went through and said when we played well it was because the other team didnt show up.
Yes they were average competition. Do you understand what that means? It justifies the ranking. Our ranking was neither helped or huert by the level of competition.

Now I suppose that I'll have to show you other defenses who faced better competition that we did last season (on average), how the fared, and what makes them better.

If you are talking about a ranking then of course you have to look at the other teams, duh.

I've shown nothing but facts in this.

Actually all you have given is your opinion. I get it, you think it so that makes it so.

I detailed each game. I detailed how our defense allowed more 100 yard rushing games than it didn't. I detailed how our defense allowed the likes of Kyle Orton and Chad Henne to have career days.

You are pulling out anecdotal examples as if we are the only team a player you dont like ever succeeded against. Thats ridiculous.




Are you seriously saying you would rather that we give up more points but have prettier stats?

1. Vikings (10th): I don't think that there is anybody here who would HONESTLY tell you that they'd rather have the Pats defense on the field than the Vikings defense last year. When matched up against the #1 offense in the league last year (the Saints), the Vikings defense dominated them. They won the game in every statistical category and would have help the Vikings win the game had Peterson not caught a case of Fumbleitis. On top of that, the Vikings are ranked ahead of us in every single other defensive statistic.

Do you make this stuff up?
We were better in allmost every pass defense stats, so by a lot, including ints 18-11, 40+ plays allowed 5-9 comp % 58.6-63.7, QB Rating 81.7-92.5

But this is at the heart of the argument.
They allowed 37 more points than we did, and played weaker competition see that their points allowed were only 0.6 better than opponent average and we were 4.5 better.
You seem to think that getting good stats at the expense of allowing more points is a good thing. I couldnt disagree more.

2. Redskins (18th) - The Redskins defense were the primary reason they were not 1-15 last year but were ranked 18th in scoring defense. Yet in every other defensive measurement besides interceptions, the Redskins defense were ranked ahead of us. Sometimes far ahead of us. They were ahead of us in sacks, rushing, passing, total yards, and game stats. Every single statistic would suggest that they were the better defense last season. This also shows why going on scoring defense alone is a flawed methodology.

Wow. Just wow.

Pittsburgh and Cincinnati (who actually became a formidable defense last season) were also ranked ahead of us in every other statistical category besides scoring defense. Last year, I would have had either of them going into a big game than our's.

How did that big game work out for Cincy against a crappy O?
Pitt lost 5 straight to cost it a playoff spot including loss to the Chiefs, Browns and Raiders, sure I want them in a big game.

You're more than welcome to come up with your own calculations if you'd like. But I've showed you the math, I've showed you our schedule and how we fared, and I've showed you why going on points allowed alone is a flawed way of thinking. If you want to come up with a way of showing me why points allowed is the best and/or only way to measure a defense, you're more than welcome to do so.[/qote]
Umm, I already did. You wrote stories about why teams didnt show up against us, I posted comeptition adjusted defensive rankings based on points allowed.

Andy, you do realize that this is pretty much a direct contradiction, don't you? Face facts, you've been trying to peddle this defense as the fifth best defense in the NFL, you've been showed why (numerous times) they weren't and now you're back-peddling, all the while throwing up red herrings all over the place and directly contradicting yourself.

What were they ranked in the most important statistic? That is what I have said all along.
I have not contradicted myself at all.
When you incoorectly describe my argument then show my real argument of course it looks like a contradiction, but that was manufactured by you.

I don't think the defense sucked at all. I just think the 5th place ranking in scoring defense is a little inflated and skewed. Most other statistics have this defense where I think they should be: the middle of the road.

The purpose of the game is points.
Are you seriously telling me you would rather have a defense that allows more points but looks better in the other rankings?

If I told you that the Patriot defense could be #1 in any statistic this season, are you serioulsy saying you would chose somethng other than points?

I have. Numerous times. You just choose to keep ignoring them.

No, you are thoroughly missing the point.
If you say X doesnt deserve to be ranked 5th and go on to describe X you have done nothing to indicate why anyone else is any better.

I've already showed you why you shouldn't throw out the Houston game. Our starters were in there for the vast majority of the game and it was clearly a contest in which we weren't trying to throw.

Thats just wrong. Starters did not play the whole game. But I AM including it.

On top of that, I've already acknowledged that you're going to keep trying to throw it out so, with that in mind, if we're throwing games out, then we should throw out the Tennessee game in which that team did not show up at all, both offensively and defensively.

Then throw out New Orleans because I say we didnt show up.
You cant have it both ways. You cant cun he bad games and just say the other team didnt show up when we play well. Dont the Patriots get credt for destroying them? Or are you so negative that you have to pretend when we are good there is an excuse?

By the way, if scoring defense was the best, and only way to go (such as you're saying) than the Indianapolis Colts were the 8th best defense in the league last year. Are you seriously saying that the Colts had a Top 10 defense?

Colts were easily a top 10 D last year. Probably top 5 when you account for the points they allowed when they gave up.
Do you think they could be 14-0 with a terrible D? What leaguie are you watching?

Sure it is. When you try to make the claim that you did, you open yourself up to rating other defenses in the NFL that are comparable and you also open yourself up to rating the defense by every single other defensive measurement. But, alas, I'll never be able to show you why holding on for dear life to the 5th ranked defense title is a flawed methodology.

Can you misrepresent what I am saying any more dramatically?
How am I holding on to anything.
I am stating a fact. We allowed the 5th fewest points. You play the game to win, so points allowed is most important.
I dont need methodology.

Sure there are. There are a ton of adjustments which show why that ranking is skewed. I've showed you every single one in the book. It's your choice whether to accept it or ignore it.

Nah, you just keep rambling on about non-sense.
You didn't like the record, so therefore it cant be accurate that when 32 defenses took the field with the job of stoppng the other team from scoring we did better at that than 27 of them. It must be that there were smoke and mirrors. OK. I'll keep rooting for our defense to keep the other team from scoring and you keep your eye on that stat sheet.

 

[Ring 6]

What futile argument? I've show, pretty successfully, why this wasn't the fifth best defense in the NFL. The need for a third WR was HUGE after last season. Everybody else saw it but you. Sound familiar? Tell me what happened in the draft, Andy. The team took your "the need is minimal" stance and proceeded to drive it into the ground by drafting Taylor Price and Aaron Hernandez (two guys that they are hoping could come in and provide options outside of Moss and Welker). Obviously, the team disagreed with your stance.

I thought you said I was arguing that Aiken was good?
How does drafting a TE and a 3rd round WR when we have zero healthy WRs under contract beyond this year and indcation that 3rd WR was a big issue? My argument was that corner was a big need. Didn we take one of those a little earlier?
I'll take my apology now for you saying I argued that Aiken was a good #3. because you knew all along that was wrong.

The defense SHOULD have beaten up on the lesser offenses. And did you see that game against the Falcons? They beat themselves more than we beat them. The only point which I kept driving home even in what was supposed to be the "good" games was the fact that we kept allowing 100 yard performances on the ground. We allowed a lot more 100 yard rushing performances last year than we didn't. That's not indicative of the fifth best defense in the NFL.

Actually is it. I don't know how much better to explain this to you.
Add up all the statistics, weight them however you want. List the ones that you like to see good or bad, the ones that you feel are more important.
THEN PLAY A FOOTBALL GAME. And the team that allows the fewest points wins. Your analysis of what the stats mean is irelevant. 24 out of 32 teams allowed more than 100 yards rushing per game. Some of them were better than some of the 8 that didnt because the werent letting the other team SCORE AS MANY POINTS.

Of course they're kidding themselves. Anybody with a set of eyes could see that this wasn't the fifth best defense in the league. They were the middle of the road, as was evidenced by every other defensive measurement.

If we are 20th ranked in points allowed this year, giving up 7 more a game than we did last year, but never give up 100 rushing yards, and all those other stats improve are you telling me that is better defense?

You're right. The mark of the bend but don't break defense is that they stop opponents in the red zone. This wasn't the case last season as we really weren't that good in that area of the field.

And we were the best at not allowing them to get to the red zone.
You seem to be implying that letting teams into the red zone before stopping them is better than never letting them there tio begin with.
Your opinions get more and more curious as you dig further to malign the team/

 

[Ring 6]

I also think that the thing that escapes your attention, Andy, is that if Belichick truly thought this was the fifth ranked defense in the NFL last season, then we wouldn't have seen Pees get issued his walking papers, we wouldn't have seen Belichick HIMSELF take over primary duties with the defense, and we wouldn't have seen the vast majority of our high round picks spent on the defensive side of the ball. Belichick clearly agrees that this wasn't a top defense last year and has done something about it. Belichick can see it, I can see it, the vast majority of people that watch this team can see it. Why can't you?

I dont care who thought what. I am saying that this defense allowed the 5th fewest points, and that they deserve that ranking because they went out on the field and did it. How difficult is that to understand?
I am not saying they couldn't have been better or they dont need to be better this year.
But there were 27 teams that went out on the field and did worse.
My entire original point was that even though, with everything they had to deal with, strengths, weaknesses, flaws, issues challenges, the defense went out and performed better at preventing the other team from scoring than 27 of the other 31 teams. And without even considering that 27 other teams did worse, most Pats fans just want to rail about how the defense sucked.
My point was that we were so spoiled by success, that most fans have a ridiculous expectation that the Patriots are supposed to be perfect.
Note that nowhere did I say this is the X best defense in the NFL.
All I have said is that they allowed the 5th fewest points and deserve the ranking because it is what they actually did, and there are not competition factors indicating it was only based on weak opponnents.
Of course you come along and cant stand the fact that this sounds positive and turn it into this.
ITs crazy.