Were NFL defenses catching up to the tricky 2007 Pats?

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

What was so tricky about the Pats 2007 offense. They used 4 wide, guard it!

 

[Satchboogie3]

which ones are wrong?

correct them, plz, and I'll go back and change them.

You're joking, right?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the final "5" games, but if you take the last 7 games (as you should, you split first 5, first 9, thus you have the last 7 left) the PPG is only 30.4, clearly not 36. If you go by the final 5, it's even worse (The 56-10 blowout in week 11 is no longer there), at only 28 PPG.

You must have cherry picked, throwing out the Jets game and another game. We scored fewer points at the end (last 1/2, 1/3rd, what ever you want to look at), that's the facts. You can't just twist that to your argument.

Now, that being said, I do agree that there really isn't anything to teams "figuring" out how to stop the offense, I think it had more to do with the weather, quality of defenses we faced, and variance.

But, you're stats are still flawed.

Edit: Just in case you were wondering, the defenses we played gave up 21.9 PPG for the final 7 and 22.4 PPG for the final 5. So, 30.4 PPG against 21.9 PPG means we scored only +39% above average, and 28 PPG against 22.4 PPG is +25% above average.

 

[Deus Irae]

You're joking, right?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the final "5" games, but if you take the last 7 games (as you should, you split first 5, first 9, thus you have the last 7 left) the PPG is only 30.4, clearly not 36. If you go by the final 5, it's even worse (The 56-10 blowout in week 11 is no longer there), at only 28 PPG.

You must have cherry picked, throwing out the Jets game and another game. We scored fewer points at the end (last 1/2, 1/3rd, what ever you want to look at), that's the facts. You can't just twist that to your argument.

Now, that being said, I do agree that there really isn't anything to teams "figuring" out how to stop the offense, I think it had more to do with the weather, quality of defenses we faced, and variance.

But, you're stats are still flawed.

From his thread starting post:

....bye week followed by back half of the season.......
garbage in = garbage out
the baltimore game was described by mankins(??), or whoever it was, as the windiest game he had ever played in, and that jets game was played on the slip n slide at waterworld.
subtracting out the 2 extreme weather games (jets and baltimore) you get a 'final five' game average that looks like this:....

Given that his point has been that it was the weather impacting the scoring as opposed to the other teams having stumbled upon some mystical 'blueprint', and given that he made a point to note that he was leaving out those games, what exactly is your issue?

 

[Shockt327]

I think you're missing the point there, dude.

you are the one who started this off by saying philly gave the nfl all this film on the pats, no doubt influenced by BSPN's omg blueprint!!!1

That's a ridiculous summary of my argument. My whole argument was that teams learn from other teams, by seeing what works and what doesn't. I talked about the Ravens, the Eagles, and to a lesser extent; the Chargers. I talked about their emphasis on eliminating the screen. I talked about Steve DeOssi's comments on the Giants finding a flaw in the Patriots protection schemes. Also, I said that the Eagles were the first team to really try and be aggressive with the Patriots; and not referring to just their pass rush, but also how they covered the recievers. Certainly not that they provided a 'blueprint' on how to beat them. You are the one who keeps harping on about a 'blueprint.' I'm talking about a process of elimination where teams learn what to do and what not to do, and Spagnuolo creating a gameplan from there.

The article I posted on Peter Giunta (their DB coach) backs up and expands upon alot of what I said.

but just a few posts up you refer to aggressive blitzing and sending more than 4 as 'suicide'.

No. I said the Eagles were aggressive and did a good job of mixing it up. It's not like they just pined their ears back and rushed five extensively, which is how you are interpreting it for some unknown reason. I seem to remember them throwing a little bit of everything at the Patriots. They got physical with the receivers, they crowded the box, sometimes they blitzed, some times they dropped a D-lineman into coverage while sending a LB (zone blitz).

are you telling me the giants' superbowl defense was similar to what philly used?

Again, why do you keep harping on about the Eagles? The Eagles were about one of 6 things that I mentioned - and the only thing I really said what that they seemed like the first team in 2007 to really have the balls to mix it up against the Patriots offense; instead of playing on their heels like so many other teams did.

what I am telling you is that philly didn't invent some special d to play the pats based on weeks of film study.

Are you dense? I've gone out of my way several times to make this point to you. I might as well be talking to a brick wall. I'm talking about a process of elimination, and all you hear is "blueprint" and "magic defense" and "special gameplan."

they play the d they like to play --- that's it.
baltimore's overload schemes?
that's what they do -- that's not weeks of film on the pats.

You are going to have a hard time back up this argument up when the a member of the Giants coaching staff directly contradicts it. In his own words he said that they paid particular attention to what the Ravens did. He also talked about the Browns. He also talked about the Eagles.

Also, you are out of your mind if you think teams just line up and just do the same thing each week. Teams look at what works and what doesn't work and try to devise a gameplan that has the same overall goals (rush 4, limit the screen, one safety deep, physical with the receivers) yet in a manner that suits them. You see what works, what dosen't work, and you go from there. Certainly not "OMG BLUEPRINT!!!!"

And no, that doesn't mean the Giants just ran overloads. But I believe it does mean that Giants used an attack that they are comfortable with - the zone blitz - and used it in a way that was similar to how the Ravens used their overloads. The basic idea behind both being that you are rushing more to one side than the linemen can handle, thus some linemen are mismatched, and some are blocking air. As I remember, both teams used it effectively though not too often.

Guinta also talks about how the Ravens were physical with the Pats DBs (something the Giants also did) and how they weren't very good at staying home so Brady couldn't get out of the pocket and pick up first down with his feet.

are you telling me the giants beat the pats in the superbowl because of all this overload blitzing?

No, because I never once said that. I talked about the Giants using a zone blitz certain times through the game. Which is different than an overload. Which is different than a regular blitz. Yet, for some reason it's all the same for you.

Not that it really matters because the main point is that the Giants looked at all those games and saw what methods did and didn't work against NE. They didn't just go out there and do whatever they always do and rely on pure physical talent.

what I am telling you is that the giants beat the pats at the LoS w/simple straight up man rushing from guys like justin tuck, who doesn't play in philly and baltimore.

I never once denied that. Nor is it news to me - at all. Yet, there is more to the game than just Tuck. The Giants also learned not to blitz Brady as often as they did in wk 17. They also leaned to take Moss out of the game by being physical with him; like they learned from the Browns, Ravens, Eagles. They also made sure to run a zone scheme which covers the flats against the screen, or if Brady takes off - which they learned after the Ravens game. As DeOssi pointed out, I believe they also found a flaw in how the Patriots make their line adjustments - which could have very well have made those 4 man rushes harder to prevent than either of us realize. I could've swore, Belichick has also addressed this issue so there's probably substance to it.

Either way, they didn't just go out there and do what they do every week. It sounded like they tried that in wk 17. It failed horribly.

where was all this film from philly and baltimore in week 14 when they smoked the steelers?

Ask **** Lebeau. I seem to recall quite a few people in Pittsburgh being annoyed at how conservative the Steelers were during that game.

how about a year later when they were ringing up 32 ppg w/cassel and the law firm?

The 2008 Patriots didn't score 32 PPG. They scored 25.6 PPG. You must be cherry picking your stats again.

one bad game at the end of the season is not a trend.

I'd agree. Sadly, the Patriots had about 5 or so games where they underperformed or were forced into being one dimensional. Most of them came over the 2nd half of the year. Even when they played really well down the stretch, it wasn't nearly as explosive as it was over the first 10 games or so...

 

[aurakilla]

well if our offence got figured out so well?


why havnt we been shut out yet?



lol, why cant we just be happy with the offensive production that we got to watch?

 

[Shockt327]

well if our offence got figured out so well?


why havnt we been shut out yet?



lol, why cant we just be happy with the offensive production that we got to watch?

Maybe because no one has ever said that in the first place. Stop building strawmen.

 

[Deus Irae]

Maybe because no one has ever said that in the first place. Stop building strawmen.

Pot.... kettle:

I'd agree. Sadly, the Patriots had about 5 or so games where they underperformed or were forced into being one dimensional. Most of them came over the 2nd half of the year. Even when they played really well down the stretch, it wasn't nearly as explosive as it was over the first 10 games or so...

 

[maverick4]

You're joking, right?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the final "5" games, but if you take the last 7 games (as you should, you split first 5, first 9, thus you have the last 7 left) the PPG is only 30.4, clearly not 36. If you go by the final 5, it's even worse (The 56-10 blowout in week 11 is no longer there), at only 28 PPG.

You must have cherry picked, throwing out the Jets game and another game. We scored fewer points at the end (last 1/2, 1/3rd, what ever you want to look at), that's the facts. You can't just twist that to your argument.

Now, that being said, I do agree that there really isn't anything to teams "figuring" out how to stop the offense, I think it had more to do with the weather, quality of defenses we faced, and variance.

But, you're stats are still flawed.

Edit: Just in case you were wondering, the defenses we played gave up 21.9 PPG for the final 7 and 22.4 PPG for the final 5. So, 30.4 PPG against 21.9 PPG means we scored only +39% above average, and 28 PPG against 22.4 PPG is +25% above average.

Another devastating response. They're playing earmuffs over the fact they're cherry picking the stats.

 

[Shockt327]

Pot.... kettle:

No. If you can't see the difference between being "shut out" and "underperforming" or "blueprint" and "gameplanning," then that's your fault. Not mine. Stop making it sound like there isn't any space between being the single greatest offense of all time and being shut out. That's ridiculous.

I've never once said their offense got "figured out," or that every game in 2009 will be like the Giants game (or even the Ravens game). Just that they aren't going to go out there and see the same kind of weak coverages that they saw over the first half of 2007. Teams know not to do that now.

 

[Deus Irae]

No. If you can't see the difference between being "shut out" and "underperforming" or "blueprint" and "gameplanning," then that's your fault. Not mine. Stop making it sound like there isn't any space between being the single greatest offense of all time and being shut out. That's ridiculous.

I've never once said their offense got "figured out," or that every game in 2009 will be like the Giants game (or even the Ravens game). Just that they aren't going to go out there and see the same kind of weak coverages that they saw over the first half of 2007. Teams know not to do that now.

I see the difference quite well. You're simply wrong in your argument, because you are doing precisely what you are accusing your 'opponent' of doing, by making your argument selective and incomplete. It's really that basic.

 

[Shockt327]

Another devastating response. They're playing earmuffs over the fact they're cherry picking the stats.

They also can't seem to figure out the fact that there is a hell of alot of space in between being "the best offense in NFL history," and being "figured out."

It's amazing how people are seeing this as black and white, when it simply isn't that way at all. The Colts still have one of the best offenses in the NFL post-2004. Yet, it's not like Manning throws 49 TDs each year, or has even come close to doing it since...

 

[Shockt327]

I see the difference quite well. You're simply wrong in your argument, because you are doing precisely what you are accusing your 'opponent' of doing, by making your argument selective and incomplete. It's really that basic.

My original statistical graph - which was in a different thread - looked at the entire season, and documented a clear downward tend. His argument deleted 2 games for shaky reasons and tried to claim that nothing changed by comparing the PPG over the two halves (and for some reason treating the 3 playoff games separately). Then I went back and showed him the err of his ways; by showing what happens when one cherry picks stats. And when I did show him the difference, I eliminated the outliers in a proper way; all the while noting the fact that 19 games is too small of a sample size to do this. Big difference.

 

[Deus Irae]

My original statistical graph - which I don't believe you've seen - looked at the entire season, and documented a clear downward tend. His argument deleted 2 games for shaky reasons and tried to claim that nothing changed by comparing the PPG over the two halves (and for some reason treating the 3 playoff games separately). Then I went back and showed him the err of his ways; by showing what happens when one cherry picks stats. And when I did show him the difference, I eliminated the outliers in a proper way; all the while noting the fact that 19 games is too small of a sample size to do this. Big difference.

Your original point ignored significant factors that led to your 'trend'. How is that really any different than him weeding out the 2 bad weather games? You haven't shown him the error (not err) of his ways, you've piled your errors on top of his.

No difference.

 

[unoriginal]

I would characterize 2007 primarily as a long process of opposing defenses learning to bring pressure up the middle instead of using edge rushers, which is what a normal contain rush would be.

That was the missing piece Cleveland and Philly didn't have. Baltimore had it only because Ngata was a 1-man defensive line. In the 2nd Giants game it looked like they made a concerted effort to beat their blockers, especially the tackles, to the inside, and the guard gaps were where they ran most of their blitzes, and where their blitzes were most effective.

 

[Deus Irae]

I would characterize 2007 primarily as a long process of opposing defenses learning to bring pressure up the middle instead of using edge rushers, which is what a normal contain rush would be.

That was the missing piece Cleveland and Philly didn't have. Baltimore had it only because Ngata was a 1-man defensive line. In the 2nd Giants game it looked like they made a concerted effort to beat their blockers, especially the tackles, to the inside, and the guard gaps were where they ran most of their blitzes, and where their blitzes were most effective.

This may have played a significant factor, or it may have been relatively easy to overcome under normal circumstances. We'll never really know because Neal's injury coupled with Brady's gimpy ankle pretty much destroyed any chance of getting a clean experiment.

 

[bagwell368]

In the first 6 games of 2007:

775 yards team rushing or 155 ypg in first 5 games

33:09
35:46
34:19
37:24
32:27
38:15

In the last 12 regular season games of 2007 (Morris appeared in the first part of the 6th game, but hadn't hit his stride so I include it here):

1413 yards team rush or 108.7 ypg​

24:55
37:49
29:44
34:54
32:11
27:06
25:17
33:37
28:16
36:18

So, the schedule got tougher, teams geared up with the best effort they could manage. It doesn't take a genius to know you become vulnerable when your team is on the field too much. And when your D is vulnerable to begin with, that makes it even tougher. My eyeball estimate says they were down in TOP about 4.5 - 5.0 minutes per game - or over 15% per game...... not good.

Morris showed signs of being on a pace 900-1150 yards that season, which would have IMO won them the SB.​

 

[Shockt327]

Your original point ignored significant factors that led to your 'trend'.

Alleged "factors."

I'm still having a hard time believing that TFB, a QB who is one of the greatest bad weather QBs of all time -- a guy who threw 50+ passes and completed 60% of them, in the Snow Bowl -- became a 47.7% passer because of the wind. And a 51% passer cause of the Jets. Also, the Jets game wasn't even that bad. Once the game got started, the field was clear and is had turned to rain.

Also, if you want to run an analysis on what bad weather does to Brady - you don't just delete the two games. Maybe you try to figure out how bad weather affects Brady by comparing how bad his drop due to the weather. Maybe then you can do a "weather adjusted" analysis. But you don't just delete games.

If you want to treat them as outliers that a different story, one I've already covered....

How is that really any different than him weeding out the 2 bad weather games? You haven't shown him the error (not err) of his ways, you've piled your errors on top of his.

No difference.

Cause one method would be derided by statisticians, the other is considered a more fair way of analyzing data (given a larger sample size).

Outlier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Exclusion

Deletion of outlier data is a controversial practice frowned on by many scientists and science instructors; while mathematical criteria provide an objective and quantitative method for data rejection, they do not make the practice more scientifically or methodologically sound, especially in small sets or where a normal distribution cannot be assumed. Rejection of outliers is more acceptable in areas of practice where the underlying model of the process being measured and the usual distribution of measurement error are confidently known.

 

[Shockt327]

I would characterize 2007 primarily as a long process of opposing defenses learning to bring pressure up the middle instead of using edge rushers, which is what a normal contain rush would be.

That was the missing piece Cleveland and Philly didn't have. Baltimore had it only because Ngata was a 1-man defensive line. In the 2nd Giants game it looked like they made a concerted effort to beat their blockers, especially the tackles, to the inside, and the guard gaps were where they ran most of their blitzes, and where their blitzes were most effective.

Great points. What did you think of the San Diego game, BTW? I seem to remember them making an effort to occasionally blitz the ILBs as opposed to just sending Merriman off the edge - which didn't work. Seems like that had a bit more success with it, though I'm going off memory here.

 

[bagwell368]

weather? the pats offensive time of possession turned to spongecake a long time before Brady saw any bad weather.

Mix bad weather, better teams on the schedule, the big fat "perfect" target that the Pats had on them, and the largest clearly mappable factor - Morris's injury, and there is your answer. Impossible to tease any single thing out and say this is IT. But having spent a long time on this question, I have never strayed from the Morris theory as the MOST right once I came to it.

 

[maverick4]

They also can't seem to figure out the fact that there is a hell of alot of space in between being "the best offense in NFL history," and being "figured out."

It's amazing how people are seeing this as black and white, when it simply isn't that way at all. The Colts still have one of the best offenses in the NFL post-2004. Yet, it's not like Manning throws 49 TDs each year, or has even come close to doing it since...

It's a GREAT point. The 01-04 Colts put up huge points but the Pats figured them out, and we shut them down every time in the playoffs.
The 2001 Rams were one of the best offenses ever, but we shut them down in the Superbowl.

Those offenses were historically great, but their coordinators stubbornly ran the same stuff, and most of the time they were simply too good to be stopped. That is, except when it mattered.

The stat-heads can obviously come up with the same bogus cherry picking stats to show that the 01 Rams and the 01-04 Colts offenses actually weren't figured out by any defense, but they would be wrong based on the fact that our defense did "catch up" to their schemes and stopped them when it mattered.