Size DOES matter...

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

I'm not twisting anything. The defense was #4 in the league and the team went 18-1. You're the one trying to twist that.

I just want to make sure I undertand... So are you saying that the offensence's time of possession doesn't influence the defenses rank?

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

If? Perpendicular?

Talent and execution. Ask Welker.

Talent and excution are bigger factors than height I don't think height is the be-all end-all, or even the most important factor.... but it is a factor.

|| Paralell
|- Perpendicular

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

But in general, taller CBs are not as fast as smaller ones (some are, but they are the exceptions). So the question becomes, which is more effective given equal intangibles? A CB who is constantly on the WR's hip but can't outjump him? Or a CB who has extra reach but is a few steps behind a faster receiver?

I agree sir. I think when evaluating a CB, you have to look at the whole package. Height is just one aspect.

 

[Sicilian]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

I agree sir. I think when evaluating a CB, you have to look at the whole package. Height is just one aspect.

In that respect, we are in agreement then.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

I just want to make sure I undertand... So are you saying that the offensence's time of possession doesn't influence the defenses rank?

Again...... the defense was ranked #4. The team was 16-0 in the regular season and made it to the Super Bowl. That's success. The season before, the team was 12-4 and the defense was ranked #2. The team made it to the AFCCG. That is also success. You are the one trying to find ways to twist that.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Again...... the defense was ranked #4. The team was 16-0 in the regular season and made it to the Super Bowl. That's success. The season before, the team was 12-4 and the defense was ranked #2. The team made it to the AFCCG. That is also success. You are the one trying to find ways to twist that.

Yes or no. It was a yes or no question. Just answer the question, Claire.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Yes or no. It was a yes or no question. Just answer the question, Claire.

It's not a yes/no question, as you must certainly know. It's also completely irrelevant, as you must certainly know.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

It's not a yes/no question, as you must certainly know. It's also completely irrelevant, as you must certainly know.

Does a team's offensive time of possession have a signinifcant effect on the rank of it's defense?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know.

OK, now it's a mulitple choice question. A, B or C? I can't be any more clear.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Does a team's offensive time of possession have a signinifcant effect on the rank of it's defense?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I don't know.

OK, now it's a mulitple choice question. A, B or C? I can't be any more clear.

If you can't be any more clear, I'm sorry for you. There is no direct correlation. Just looking at last season should be enough to prove that.

#1 defense Pittsburgh: #7 in time of possession
#2 defense Tennessee: #22 in time of possession

As I said, it's not a yes/no question.

 

[khayos]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Where did you look that up? I'm presuming Colts are #1 on TOP given all the Manning audibles.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

If you can't be any more clear, I'm sorry for you. There is no direct correlation. Just looking at last season should be enough to prove that.

#1 defense Pittsburgh: #7 in time of possession
#2 defense Tennessee: #22 in time of possession

As I said, it's not a yes/no question.

Does greater offensive time of possession means less offensive time of possessoin for the oposing team?

Does less time with the ball means less opportunity to gain yards?

Is the statisic for defensive rank is the total number of yards oppsoing teams gain against your defense?

Do you answer yes to all these three statements?

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Where did you look that up? I'm presuming Colts are #1 on TOP given all the Manning audibles.

NFL.com

NFL Stats: by Team Category: POINTS PER GAME

NFL Stats: by Team Category: TIME OF POSSESSION

 

[khayos]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

BOY was I wrong. #26. Thanks for the links

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Does greater offensive time of possession means less offensive time of possessoin for the oposing team?

Yes, given that TOP is a zero sum game.

Does less time with the ball means less opportunity to gain yards?

It depends on how you're trying to frame your argument. A quick strike team might score more often on the same amount of time. Therefore, a team might have 10 possessions and use less time than a team that only had 7 possessions. This is one of the reasons the TOP argument is misleading when left on its own. In a zero sum sense, the answer is "Yes". In a game style sense, the answer is "not necessarily".

Is the statisic for defensive rank is the total number of yards oppsoing teams gain against your defense?

I was using scoring defense. However, the 2007 team was also #4 in total yards and the 2006 team was #6 in total yards.

Do you answer yes to all these three statements?

No, I don't. Furthermore, I'm not answering any more of your questions, because you've continued to move the goalposts rather than just admit that you have been wrong. At this point, you're just tilting at windmills.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Does greater offensive time of possession means less offensive time of possessoin for the oposing team? Yes.

Does less time with the ball means less opportunity to gain yards? No. Teams can gain a lot of yardage in a short period of time. One only has to look at the SB to see that. Arizona got 64 yards in about 10 seconds.

Is the statisic for defensive rank is the total number of yards oppsoing teams gain against your defense? You really should proof read your questions so they make sense. I am pretty sure that yards on interceptions and fumble recoveries are posted as offensive yards. Therefore they are also recorded as defensive yards against even though the "DEFENSE" wasn't on the field. Just like the Offensive PPG includes TDs that were scored by the defense when scored on an interception of fumble recovery.

Do you answer yes to all these three statements?

No, I didn't answer "YES" to all 3 of the statements.

While having a good offense CAN help the defense, that's not always the case. Why don't you go back and look at the 2003 and 2004 Colts offenses and tell me what their time of possession and where their defense was ranked.

Where I think you are falling short on your assessment, NEGoldenAge, is that you don't seem to understand that teams can run a different number of plays and still have similar times of possession. For example, in 2008, the Pats ran the most number of plays from scrimmage with 1095. But their average time of possession was 57 seconds less then the top team in Baltimore. Baltimore ran 1058 plays. So they ran fewer plays per game, but had a greater time of possession.

 

[Synovia]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Is the statisic for defensive rank is the total number of yards oppsoing teams gain against your defense?

Yes, which is why his entire argument is a joke.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

No, I didn't answer "YES" to all 3 of the statements.

While having a good offense CAN help the defense, that's not always the case. Why don't you go back and look at the 2003 and 2004 Colts offenses and tell me what their time of possession and where their defense was ranked.

Where I think you are falling short on your assessment, NEGoldenAge, is that you don't seem to understand that teams can run a different number of plays and still have similar times of possession. For example, in 2008, the Pats ran the most number of plays from scrimmage with 1095. But their average time of possession was 57 seconds less then the top team in Baltimore. Baltimore ran 1058 plays. So they ran fewer plays per game, but had a greater time of possession.

Good stuff. I understand that point. You defense and a can absolutely affect time of possession, but limit your offense. There are certainly a LOT of factors that can affect it, but a great defense and a solid running game can allow a mediocre offense to have a greater offensive time of possession. I do however believe that situation is an anomoly in todays NFL. The NFL seems to be going the way of great offenses, and I truly think there are far fewer teams that operate like the Ravens.

I was speaking in general terms, and whenever you do so, you can almost always find exceptions. Generally speaking, if you have a good offense (in this particular case, the greatest of all time), that dominates in time of possession over a 16 game season, does it make your defense look better, statistically? To me, barring isolated examples, this really is a no-brainer.

 

[Sicilian]

Except that big leads and time of possession should have exposed our defense more in some ways, because teams would have been throwing against our "weak" secondary a lot more than usual.

Sure, pass rush helped that, but that's exactly the point. You can thrive with smaller corners who are quick enough to capitalize on mistakes made by a pressure front seven. In fact, larger corners who aren't as agile, would be MORE prone to attack than smaller ones if your defense isn't getting good pressure. They'd have more chance to lose their receivers.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Re: Size DOES matter.....

Yes, which is why his entire argument is a joke.

So teams aren't ranked on total yards given up? If you go to NFL.com, go to team stats, the default defensive rank given is yards. I always thought that was a better measure of a defense. The rank in score is a better indicator of Red Zone Defense.... at least that is my belief. I always thought that was generally the way it was looked at... but I could be wrong on that. Either way, I think that saying my entire argument is a joke based that is pretty harsh to say the least.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Except that big leads and time of possession should have exposed our defense more in some ways, because teams would have been throwing against our "weak" secondary a lot more than usual.

I agree... to a point. It does mean that teams will throw more, but on the same token, they become much more one-dimensional, so you can put your nickel and dime packages in.

For the record, I don't think our secondary was the "weak link" in the 2007 defense. I think the 2007 D was just "OK", and it was because of a combination of factors. I think an aging linebacker corpse, a couple of injuries and AD not adjusting as well as planned to ILB all contributed.

I brought it up in response to the stat given that NE had the 4th ranked Defense in 2007. Do you honestly think that the 2007 D was the 4th best? I don't think so, even considering that 2007 didn't really have to many really good D's. I think if the Pats had a similar O as they did in 06, the D would have looked significantly worse than they did. Do you agree?

Sure, pass rush helped that, but that's exactly the point. You can thrive with smaller corners who are quick enough to capitalize on mistakes made by a pressure front seven. In fact, larger corners who aren't as agile, would be MORE prone to attack than smaller ones if your defense isn't getting good pressure. They'd have more chance to lose their receivers.

As I said previously, I think each CB has to be judged on the total package, and that height is definitely a factor. It's not the only factor, and certainly not the most important, but it is a factor. There's some pretty agile tall dudes out there now.