The Current #1 seed in both conferences are the two "worst" defenses in the NFL

[skinnydog]

I heard Belichick on the radio a couple of weeks ago talking about offensive stats and I was surprised when he said the QB paser rating is a pretty good stat because it takes into account so many factors like yards and touchdowns and ints ans sacks. Makes sense and if so, then defensive passer rating is a good stat as well, which is what they preach at coldhardfootballfacts.

Go take a look at defensive passer rating and then come back and tell me the Packers are the second worst defense.

 

[strngplyr]

I heard Belichick on the radio a couple of weeks ago talking about offensive stats and I was surprised when he said the QB paser rating is a pretty good stat because it takes into account so many factors like yards and touchdowns and ints ans sacks. Makes sense and if so, then defensive passer rating is a good stat as well, which is what they preach at coldhardfootballfacts.

Go take a look at defensive passer rating and then come back and tell me the Packers are the second worst defense.

Are you talking about Passer rating or ESPN's QBR? Passer rating is based on Yads, completion %, YPA, TD's, and INT's, sacks play no role. It is purely passing statistics.

 

[skinnydog]

Are you talking about Passer rating or ESPN's QBR? Passer rating is based on Yads, completion %, YPA, TD's, and INT's, sacks play no role. It is purely passing statistics.

I'm talking about the traditional passer rating and if I may certainly misspoke about sacks, but the I believe the Packers are well ahead of the Pats in terms of defensive passer rating. I'd take the Packers D ahead of the Pats any day of the week and especially on Sundays.

 

[strngplyr]

Honestly, a stat like 'defensive passer rating' means even less that Quarterback Rating. If Team A has a Defensive Passer Rating far better than Team B, but Team B allows less points per game, then explain to me how that is a valid statistic. It obviously doesn't mean a whole lot if it doesn't translate into better success on the scoreboard at the end of a game.

 

[skinnydog]

Honestly, a stat like 'defensive passer rating' means even less that Quarterback Rating. If Team A has a Defensive Passer Rating far better than Team B, but Team B allows less points per game, then explain to me how that is a valid statistic. It obviously doesn't mean a whole lot if it doesn't translate into better success on the scoreboard at the end of a game.

Why don't you take a look at the coldhardfootballfact web site and see the statistics they put together for the correlation between Superbowl winners and defensive passer rating.

 

[strngplyr]

Why don't you take a look at the coldhardfootballfact web site and see the statistics they put together for the correlation between Superbowl winners and defensive passer rating.

I haven't looked at it, I will say that straight out. But, anyone creative enough can mix and match just about any statistics they want to make a point. That doesn't mean it is a good measuring stick.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is which team has more points on the score board at the end of the day.

 

[TheComeback]

I heard Belichick on the radio a couple of weeks ago talking about offensive stats and I was surprised when he said the QB paser rating is a pretty good stat because it takes into account so many factors like yards and touchdowns and ints ans sacks. Makes sense and if so, then defensive passer rating is a good stat as well, which is what they preach at coldhardfootballfacts.

Go take a look at defensive passer rating and then come back and tell me the Packers are the second worst defense.

The Packers regularly allow teams to score 25+ points on their defense. They aren't good at anything except getting turnovers, no matter what stat you use to describe them. The same applies for the Patriots, who are 4th in turnovers.

And actually, 86 is a better defensive QB rating than I would've thought for the Pats. I was thinking 90+ at least.

 

[skinnydog]

I haven't looked at it, I will say that straight out. But, anyone creative enough can mix and match just about any statistics they want to make a point. That doesn't mean it is a good measuring stick.

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is which team has more points on the score board at the end of the day.

Well think again if you are at all interested in a stat that predicts success. BTW, last year Green Bay and Pittsburg were 1 and 2 respectively in defensive passer rating and met in the Superbowl. Coincidence?

 

[Fencer]

Ideally, defenses would be measured per drive, not per game. That detail aside, the four key metrics from which you could derive a pretty good rating are:

* Points allowed
* Points scored
* Fraction of the time they give the ball to the offense in unusually good field position.
* Fraction of the time they have to cope with the opposing offense being handed the ball in unusually good field position.

I didn't phrase the latter two with perfect accuracy, but that's the general idea.

 

[skinnydog]

Ideally, defenses would be measured per drive, not per game. That detail aside, the four key metrics from which you could derive a pretty good rating are:

* Points allowed
* Points scored
* Fraction of the time they give the ball to the offense in unusually good field position.
* Fraction of the time they have to cope with the opposing offense being handed the ball in unusually good field position.

I didn't phrase the latter two with perfect accuracy, but that's the general idea.

OK, you take those stats and I'll take defensive passer rating. Packers are in the top 10, though just barely. Pats are in the 20s.

 

[TheComeback]

Well think again if you are at all interested in a stat that predicts success. BTW, last year Green Bay and Pittsburg were 1 and 2 respectively in defensive passer rating and met in the Superbowl. Coincidence?

They were also 1 and 2 in PPG. Your stat isn't the end all be all. It only evaluate pass defense.

 

[BradyManny]

Why would you take a 2 sided statistic and attribute it to only one side? Because you are trying to force a conclusion

PPG allowed by a defense is no one-sided statistic either. It's obviously tied to many factors attributed to the offense. The number of possessions in a game has a huge effect on all of these statistics. Both the offense and defense impact that statistic.

In our case, if our defense yielding long drives are resulting in games with less possessions, than we must consider the points its depriving our offense the opportunity of scoring into their points per game allowed when considering the total performance of the defense.

Again, as I said in a thread long ago - a nice statistical analysis was done showing that a huge reason we lost SB42 can be attributed to lack of possessions for the offense. In fact, one or more two possessions for our offense in that game, and our win percentage climbs.

Possessions is the missing factor in all of these stats.

As is the fact that every minute the Patriots defense is on the field, the Patriots offense is deprived one point. Or roughly that for every possessions the Patriots offense is deprived of in a game, 3 points or so is lost.

Of course, this doesn't even bring in other factors like the defense causing turnovers leading to offensive points or the defense scoring on turnovers.

So I'll simply ask, whose defense would you rather have, ours or Green Bays? If you rely solely on PPG, you would say the Patriots. But is this the best choice?

PPG is a nice and relevant stat. But it is not the end all and be all either.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Also, consider that despite having very comparable offenses in terms of production, the Packers are 8th in the league in TOP, whereas the Patriots come in at 27th. This can be attributed largely to the Patriots style of defense. They are in the field more. I'd love to see the correlation to offensive possessions, but can't find that stat online.

Actually looking at the stats it appears that the offense is the larger culprit in the TOP difference between the Pats and GB.

Pats O: 25.6secs/play D: 28.2secs/play
GB O: 30.4secs/play D: 26.9secs/play
(These numbers were calculated by me using the number of plays for each team on Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History and calculating total TOP from the NFL's website)

The offense doesn't take off nearly as much time per snap as the Packers. Whereas the D actually falls much closer to the Packers' in that respect. If the Pats operated at the same pace on offense as GB then they'd like have a TOP per game right around 30mins.

GB has just 749 offensive plays to the Pats' 802. This points to GB's offense simply operating on another level than the Pats currently, but some of the Pats' numbers/totals being inflated by them actively lengthening games to allow more touches/opportunities.

All that said, I'd still give GB's defense the nod over the Pats', but that would be based almost purely on the fact that they're slightly better at creating TOs while being comparable in most other categories. Watching their games and looking at the stats leads me to believe that the biggest difference between the teams however lies on the other side of the ball.

 

[JMarr]

People are so hung up on the defensive yardage stats, but the funny thing is that the two worst teams in the NFL in terms of yards allowed are the #1 seed in each of their conference. The Pats are only giving up 14.3 more yards a game than the Packers. In fact, 4 of the 6 worst teams in terms of yards allowed are either strong first round bye contenders (Packers, Pats, and Saints) or legitimate division contenders (Giants).

Yay for our 32nd ranked defense!

This can only mean one thing: THAT WE ARE GOING TO THE SB!
:rocker: :bricks:

 

[robbomango]

here's is a look at he super bowl champs and how they ranked over the last 45 years. I posted it in another thread a couple weeks ago but it's always good to have a look at for reference when we're on the topic.

At the bottom is a totaled up weighted average of the rankings. Hope it's readable

 

[BradyManny]

Actually looking at the stats it appears that the offense is the larger culprit in the TOP difference between the Pats and GB.

Pats O: 25.6secs/play D: 28.2secs/play
GB O: 30.4secs/play D: 26.9secs/play
(These numbers were calculated by me using the number of plays for each team on Pro-Football-Reference.com - Pro Football Statistics and History and calculating total TOP from the NFL's website)

The offense doesn't take off nearly as much time per snap as the Packers. Whereas the D actually falls much closer to the Packers' in that respect. If the Pats operated at the same pace on offense as GB then they'd like have a TOP per game right around 30mins.

GB has just 749 offensive plays to the Pats' 802. This points to GB's offense simply operating on another level than the Pats currently, but some of the Pats' numbers/totals being inflated by them actively lengthening games to allow more touches/opportunities.

All that said, I'd still give GB's defense the nod over the Pats', but that would be based almost purely on the fact that they're slightly better at creating TOs while being comparable in most other categories. Watching their games and looking at the stats leads me to believe that the biggest difference between the teams however lies on the other side of the ball.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...m-stats-per-possession-interesting-stuff.html

The Pats offense may not be operating at as high a level as Green Bay, but it's pretty closely. You're essentially trying to look at this on a per possession basis, so follow that link above and see the results.

The Patriots are not lengthening games. You may cite the Pats offense as running plays faster, but consider they are out of the hurry up often this year, and will run more plays per possession. Time per play has very little correlation to anything, IMO.

When we look per possession - we see that only two teams have less offensive possessions than the Pats. And the ultra efficient, quick-strike Green Bay Packers are one of them. But certainly the Patriots defense is a factor in this fact.

We also see that only two teams score more per possession than the Patriots - the Packers & Saints.

Lastly, we see that the gap for Points Per Possession after the 3rd place Patriots is rather wide.

The conclusion is that clearly, the Patriots offense is in this top 3, and this top 3 is very separate from the rest of the league.

Defensively, on a per possession basis, the Patriots yield an average amount of points (16th in the league) and are worst in yardage. Their propensity for interceptions balances these things out to make them more effective.

 

[Rob0729]

Yay for our 32nd ranked defense!

This can only mean one thing: THAT WE ARE GOING TO THE SB!
:rocker: :bricks:

Not my point. My point is that it is obviously an overrated stat.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...m-stats-per-possession-interesting-stuff.html

The Pats offense may not be operating at as high a level as Green Bay, but it's pretty closely. You're essentially trying to look at this on a per possession basis, so follow that link above and see the results.

The Patriots are not lengthening games. You may cite the Pats offense as running plays faster, but consider they are out of the hurry up often this year, and will run more plays per possession. Time per play has very little correlation to anything, IMO.

When we look per possession - we see that only two teams have less offensive possessions than the Pats. And the ultra efficient, quick-strike Green Bay Packers are one of them. But certainly the Patriots defense is a factor in this fact.

We also see that only two teams score more per possession than the Patriots - the Packers & Saints.

Lastly, we see that the gap for Points Per Possession after the 3rd place Patriots is rather wide.

The conclusion is that clearly, the Patriots offense is in this top 3, and this top 3 is very separate from the rest of the league.

Defensively, on a per possession basis, the Patriots yield an average amount of points (16th in the league) and are worst in yardage. Their propensity for interceptions balances these things out to make them more effective.

The Pats' offense is clearly in the top 3 and TB is clearly one of the top 3 QBs this season (I'd say the offense is 3rd and TB is 2nd if I had to pick exactly). I'm not trying to argue how exceptional the offense is, nor that they need to change how or what they do. My only point was that the TOP seems to be a result of how the offense operates more than anything else in comparison to GB.

So despite having fewer offensive possessions you think that GB has a better TOP than the Pats because of their defense? I'm not sure how that would work, but it sure doesn't make sense in my mind.

You were placing the majority of the TOP issues the Pats have on the defense in comparison to GB and that simply doesn't appear to be the case. None of this changes the fact that the Pats' defense is middle of the road and the offense is elite, it just means that your theory about the TOP difference being attributed to the Pats' defense appears to be incorrect.

On a side note despite the fact that I wasn't referring to scoring or anything besides TOP... Looking quickly at the chart in the link in the link you posted the gap between the Pats and 4th place in pts/dr is 0.52 vs the 0.45 between the Pats and GB, which wouldn't lead me to think that the gap between the two is pretty close while the gap between the Pats and 4th is pretty wide.

 

[patsinthesnow]

here's is a look at he super bowl champs and how they ranked over the last 45 years. I posted it in another thread a couple weeks ago but it's always good to have a look at for reference when we're on the topic.

At the bottom is a totaled up weighted average of the rankings. Hope it's readable

Interesting, so the two worst Superbowl winning defenses of all time were the 2006 Colts and the 2009 Saints. The question being if the 2011 patriots can be the 3rd.

In 06, while defense and vinatieri helped beat two average offensive teams (Ravens and Chiefs), their offense ultimately sent them to the Superbowl. (We all know what happened.......)

In the Superbowl, they got to face the worst starting superbowl QB of all time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2009, the Saints offense carried them with a 45-14 win over the Cards, a 31-28 shootout over the Vikings, and a 31-17 win over the Colts. (With the help of a pick six)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Patriots to be the 3rd, one of two things will have to happen IMO:

1) Brady plays three great games. (The Superbowl game will have to be flawless)

2) The Patriots luck out like the Colts did with matchups against bad offenses. I could see this happening if the Pats play the Ravens, Texans, Jets.

Note: If the Packers win the SB they would be the 3rd too.

 

[robbomango]

Interesting, so the two worst Superbowl winning defenses of all time were the 2006 Colts and the 2009 Saints. The question being if the 2011 patriots can be the 3rd.

In 06, while defense and vinatieri helped beat two average offensive teams (Ravens and Chiefs), their offense ultimately sent them to the Superbowl. (We all know what happened.......)

In the Superbowl, they got to face the worst starting superbowl QB of all time.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2009, the Saints offense carried them with a 45-14 win over the Cards, a 31-28 shootout over the Vikings, and a 31-17 win over the Colts. (With the help of a pick six)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the Patriots to be the 3rd, one of two things will have to happen IMO:

1) Brady plays three great games. (The Superbowl game will have to be flawless)

2) The Patriots luck out like the Colts did with matchups against bad offenses. I could see this happening if the Pats play the Ravens, Texans, Jets.

Note: If the Packers win the SB they would be the 3rd too.

The mantra "defense wins championships" has been brainwashed into all of our heads, lol. The chart clearly refutes that claim showing the most balanced teams win more times than not and occasionally lopsided teams win having more dominate O's or D's.

YDs allowed is a deceptive stat, passing yards can accumulated quickly during a game especially with prevent defenses. We're 10th on rushing YDs allowed, this is interesting because rushing yards can usually kill more clock than passing YDs with 3-6 yrd gains on long sustained drives.

If teams like the pats and GB allowed more rushing yards they'd likely be a victim of the ground and pound come playoff time. I'm assuming covering that aspect of the D forces a shootout that both teams are built for, having the advantage.

BB's emphasis on redzone D makes all this work perfectly.