Redskins Defense vs. Pats Offense (against sub-par defenses)

[BeLogical]

See what we mean, Math is fun.
------------------

Found this info on another forum. Take away those pats stats if you please

So, lets look at exactly what makes these teams so bad! The answer is easy, DEFENSE! As it stands right now, through seven weeks of the season, the Dolphins, Jets, Bengals, Bills, and Browns are FIVE OF THE SIX WORST DEFENSES IN THE NFL!!!! Currently, the defensive rankings go like this:

Rank Team YPG

27. Dolphins 365.1
28. Jets 377.7
29. Bengals 384.7
30. Lions 385.8
31. Bills 402.5
32. Browns 413.0

A-ha! But you say obviously those teams will all be ranked in the last six in defense, they had to play the Patriots! But that is not the case at all. I looked up the individual game stats from every game the Pats had played this year and removed the offensive numbers they had put up against these five very bad teams and then recalculated the Yds/Game they conceded to the other five or six teams they played (five if they have had a bye so far). What I found out was amazing, controlling for the Patriots made viryually no differnce (in fact the Browns stats actually GOT WORSE as they have been giving up 413 yds/game but only conceded 412 to the Pats). After this calibration the worst NFL defenses look like this:

Rank Team YPG

25. Dolphins 352.2
26. Bears 357.4
27. Vikings 359.0
28. Jets 368.8
29. Bengals 380.8
30. Lions 385.8
31. Bills 386.0
32. Browns 413.2

As you can see, only the Dolphins stats improved significantly. After removing the yards that the Pats put on these teams from the equation the Pats have only played FOUR OF THE FIVE WORST DEFENSES in the NFL!!!! (or five of the eight worst).

 

[BeLogical]

Time for fun with numbers.

Tell us again why we should be worried about facing the Washington defense....

See post # 21

 

[Major **********]

# 2 - The teams we played aren't a "Top 10" offense because they faced our D

The teams we have played aren't a "Top 10" deffense because they faced our O

 

[NE39]

I do think it will be interesting to see the Pats passing game match up against the Redskins secondary, which is probably the most talented they will face.

That said, I don't think the Redskins match up well against the Pats. If you want to derail the Pats offense, you have to pressure the QB. The Redskins struggle pressuring the QB unless they blitz, and blitzing Brady is the kiss of death because he adjusts and gets rid of the ball so quickly.

Brady should have plenty of time to throw the ball, and with the depth of receiving options they have he will find someone open.

As for the other side of the ball, the Redskins have to run the ball to protect Campbell to have any hope.. The Pats eat young QBs up, especially the first time they face them.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Just come back next week

 

[letekro]

See post # 21

You're so logical, it's really amazing.

Care to explain why there is absolutely no correlation between our points scored and the rankings of the defenses we've faced? While you're at it, explain why there seems to be a slight negative correlation.

 

[cstjohn17]

In today's NFL, good offense beats good defense

Really? How long has this been true?

I thought it took a balance between the units.

 

[Oswlek]

See post # 21

But you completely ignore that, if NE is exclued from their season, SD, Buff and Dal are all top 5 scoring defense.

And the worst one grades out at 26 ppg, which, while bad, would land then at about #26.

NE has *created* this situation in their wake. Those defenses weren't the 85 Bears, but they aren't nearly as bad as you make it seem.

 

[bradmahn]

And the Cowboys game?

Or the Chargers game?

The 'Boys would be top five if it wasn't for the whooping the Pats handed them, and the Chargers would be ranked 11. Against everyone else they allow averages of 18.3 and 16.1, respectively. How many points did that Pats score against them?

 

[BeLogical]

The teams we have played aren't a "Top 10" deffense because they faced our O

that was original.

 

[BeLogical]

You're so logical, it's really amazing.

Care to explain why there is absolutely no correlation between our points scored and the rankings of the defenses we've faced? While you're at it, explain why there seems to be a slight negative correlation.

explain your negative correlation.

 

[BeLogical]

Just come back next week

I'll be here Sunday afternoon

 

[NE39]

The bottom line to all this is Brady. When you face a QB like Brady or Manning, it changes the dynamic of a defense. Anything your defense did against any other team doesn't count.

 

[letekro]

Really? How long has this been true?

I thought it took a balance between the units.

The rule changes have made defending precision passing offenses virtually impossible. Basically, against the Colts and Patriots you have to hope for a holding penalty or a sack. Otherwise, you're not going to stop them from getting 10 yards very often. I know we stopped them in 2004 in the snow, but that was anomalous.

 

[bradmahn]

I'll be here Sunday afternoon

Good. Schadenfreude will just make a victory that much sweeter.

 

[PatsSteve1]

From a Redskin fan's perspective (mine), it looks like this might present a bigger challenge this week for the Pats. Am I delusional and think we have a chance with our decimated offensive line, not sure. If we had our starting offensive line, I think we could win. Do we deserve to be a 16 point dog, probably not IMHO.

Do these rankings mean anything to you? Post your thoughts. HTTR

Rankings don't mean much to me and I include the Patriots D ranking. But your offense may make it a game the Patriots D dominates rather than the Skins D against the Patriots O.

 

[letekro]

explain your negative correlation.

Browns, ranked last in defense - we scored our lowest point total of the season - 34, Bengals, ranked very low - also scored 34.

Cowboys, ranked 7th in defense - we scored 48; Chargers ranked 16th - we scored 38.

This is what's called a negative correlation - we are scoring more points against higher ranked defenses. Do you understand now?

 

[BeLogical]

Good. Schadenfreude will just make a victory that much sweeter.

Sure, my roots are German, but I'd prefer English.

 

[BeLogical]

Browns, ranked last in defense - we scored our lowest point total of the season - 34, Bengals, ranked very low - also scored 34.

Cowboys, ranked 7th in defense - we scored 48; Chargers ranked 16th - we scored 38.

This is what's called a negative correlation - we are scoring more points against higher ranked defenses. Do you understand now?

looks like a lot of correlation in those games you mentioned.

margin of victory:
21 on cowboys
21 on browns
21 on bengals
24 on chargers

I think the points are where they are because they feel pretty safe with a 3 TD lead.

if you still think your negative correlation holds up, doing an analysis on the run/pass ratio after the pats are up 2/3 TD's. i bet they run it more, therefore nullifying your "negative correlation"

 

[bradmahn]

looks like a lot of correlation in those games you mentioned.

margin of victory:
21 on cowboys
21 on browns
21 on bengals
24 on chargers

I think the points are where they are because they feel pretty safe with a 3 TD lead.

if you still think your negative correlation holds up, doing an analysis on the run/pass ratio after the pats are up 2/3 TD's. i bet they run it more, therefore nullifying your "negative correlation"

How does that prove your point? Wouldn't that mean the Pats could score plenty more points? I certainly know that's the case against the Chargers, when the Pats went on multiple 8+ minute drives (one being ten minutes)? If they wanted to they could have put up 45 easily.