My Observations Pre Season Game 1

[Ring 6]

My listing of how EVERY drive ended, illustrating exactly how the run d had a huge part is not cherrypicking. It is ALL the data on how drives ended.

Go ahead, call me a cherrypicker again. You're only making yourself look stupid.

I don't know what you want.
I am talking about how the run defense played. You are talking about how they played on the last few plays of drives. By definition you are cherry picking results. Sorry.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

They got in the end zone zero times primarily because of the pass defense.

See this statement? I provided data on how EVERY drive ended to show you that you are wrong. Continuing to call me a cherrypicker shows that you either do not understand what this means, or you'd rather derail the discussion than admit you were wrong. In either case, I'm done with you if you cant discuss it in a reasonable way.

 

[Ring 6]

See this statement? I provided data on how EVERY drive ended to show you that you are wrong. Continuing to call me a cherrypicker shows that you either do not understand what this means, or you'd rather derail the discussion than admit you were wrong. In either case, I'm done with you if you cant discuss it in a reasonable way.

Wait. You are saying the run defense was better than the pass defense? Really?
As far as your little hissy fit, I cannot help that you are cherry picking your data. I am not in any way deflecting anything.
I have made my case, over and over and over. The run defense made good plays and bad and in my opinion the overall assessment is not good.
If you want to change that discussion to the defense allowed no TDs, OK I guess, but then you must consider that the pass defense was exceptional, and had more to do with the overall success than the run defense.
I really have no clue what you are trying to argue here, unless its that while the defense allowed only 12 points there were some running plays involved. I will agree with you there.

 

[Ring 6]

My listing of how EVERY drive ended, illustrating exactly how the run d had a huge part is not cherrypicking. It is ALL the data on how drives ended.

Go ahead, call me a cherrypicker again. You're only making yourself look stupid.

Your listing showed that the pass defense was more responsible than the run defense also. You actually proved the statement of mine that you copied in here. Thanks.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Wait. You are saying the run defense was better than the pass defense? Really?

I said nothing of the sort. I noticed this is one of your favorite tactics here, you've done it multiple times in this thread. You make an absurd statement, and attempt to attribute it to the person you're arguing with.

As far as your little hissy fit, I cannot help that you are cherry picking your data. I am not in any way deflecting anything.

Pointing out that I am not cherrypicking is not a hissy fit. I presented ALL the data relevant to how be d ended drives and got off the field. I listed how ALL the drives ended. In direct response to an assertion YOU made about how the d got off the field.

I have made my case, over and over and over. The run defense made good plays and bad and in my opinion the overall assessment is not good.

You havent made any case at all. All you've done is stated an opinion. Unless you count attacking strawmen and making condescending remarks as "making a case".

If you want to change that discussion to the defense allowed no TDs, OK I guess, but then you must consider that the pass defense was exceptional, and had more to do with the overall success than the run defense.

19 plays. 2 YPC. That has everything to do with it.

I really have no clue what you are trying to argue here, unless its that while the defense allowed only 12 points there were some running plays involved. I will agree with you there.

You know exactly what I'm arguing. The run defense was outstanding. It contributed to getting off the field on EVERY drive, keeping the other team out of the endzone. 4 plays of 10+ yards is meaningless in the context of this game. It had no effect. Unlike the other 19 plays that averaged 2 yards each, which had a major effect on the outcome of the game.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Your listing showed that the pass defense was more responsible than the run defense also. You actually proved the statement of mine that you copied in here. Thanks.

I'm not going to walk you through each one, but there's a general trend in there. A negative or 1-2 yard running play on 1st or 2nd down that set up longer passing plays and third downs. If that's not your run d contributing to getting off the field, I don't know what is.

If your conclusion is that the passing d was more responsible than the run d, please explain what you think the run d could have done better in these situations.

 

[The Scrizz]

I am certainly not joking. I thought it was pretty easy to see which is better. What specifically there do you disagree with? Would you prefer team A?


Really? Lets look at how Jacksonville's last plays on each of their drives, in order, and see exactly how the drives ended:

First quarter:
1) Sack, 3 yard run, incomplete, FG.
2) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
3) run for 6 yard loss, 10 yard pass, sack, punt
4) 7 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Second quarter:
1) 7 yard run, 0 yard run, 0 yard run, FG.
2) (1st and 15) 10 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Third quarter:
1) incomplete, 2 yard run, incomplete, punt.

4th quarter
1) 1 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
2) interception
3) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, punt

The run D was awesome. Jacksonville could not sustain drives because they could not run the ball or complete passes. See all the 3rd and longs there that are set up by negative or short run plays? See the lack of sustained drives, and how none of them end in "TD"?



Giving up a 15 yard play (or even 4 of them) is not a total failure. Because on the other 19 plays, they gave up squat and consistently got off the field and kept the other team out of the end zone.


No **** the total rushing yards isn't the only factor. It's insulting to me that you attempt to portray that as the argument I'm making rather than address the topic. So again, I ask you, besides the number of 10+ yard runs (4), do you have anything else to base an argument on that the run defense is bad? Your avoidance of the question causes me to think that you don't.

So again, the run D was consistently good enough to get off the field, and they only gave up 98 yards. The fact that there were 4 10+ yard run plays mixed in there is completely irrelevant.

I already posted the drive charts, don't bother, he's never wrong.

I'll go to BB for the final word on EEI tonight. Andy was convinced that Bill would be very unhappy with the run D. What he said (paraphrasing) was that they got gashed early, talked about it on the sidelines and was pleased that they didn't make the same mistakes a second time. So he was happy that they were able to adjust in game after just one series and do what they were told to do.

 

[The Scrizz]

Wait. You are saying the run defense was better than the pass defense? Really?
As far as your little hissy fit, I cannot help that you are cherry picking your data. I am not in any way deflecting anything.
I have made my case, over and over and over. The run defense made good plays and bad and in my opinion the overall assessment is not good.
If you want to change that discussion to the defense allowed no TDs, OK I guess, but then you must consider that the pass defense was exceptional, and had more to do with the overall success than the run defense.
I really have no clue what you are trying to argue here, unless its that while the defense allowed only 12 points there were some running plays involved. I will agree with you there.

Bill disagreed with you. Was pleased at the in game adjustments by the run D. "Didn't repeat their mistakes".

 

[The Scrizz]

The problem with this reasoning is that by looking only at the last 4 plays of drives, you're pre-selecting for successful defense. If the defense gave up 10+ yards over four plays, the drive wouldn't be ending.

Of course you're ignoring the fact that they would have had 6 straight 3 and outs if not for a dumb penalty on a punt. No pre-selecting necessary when they are getting 3 and outs.

Jacksonville had 10 drives - 6 3-and-outs (should have been 7) and 1 turnover.

 

[Ring 6]

I said nothing of the sort. I noticed this is one of your favorite tactics here, you've done it multiple times in this thread. You make an absurd statement, and attempt to attribute it to the person you're arguing with.

Exactly how is asking you a question attributing something to you?
I asked if that is what you are saying, because that is what it sounded like you implied.
If I was going to make an absurd statement and attribute it to you, it wouldn't be in the form of a question.

Pointing out that I am not cherrypicking is not a hissy fit.

You seem quite angry.

I presented ALL the data relevant to how be d ended drives and got off the field. I listed how ALL the drives ended. In direct response toan assertion YOU made about how the d got off the field.

When did I assert anything about how the defense got off the field? I said overall the run D was not good. You cherry picked certain plays to argue against that OVERALL assessment.
You said something to the effect that the run D was good because they allowed zero TDs, and I said that had more to do with the pass D than the run D.

You havent made any case at all. All you've done is stated an opinion. Unless you count attacking strawmen and making condescending remarks as "making a case".

I said that the pass d had more to do with the success than the run D and your attempt at disproving that actually proved it, as the plays you copied in indicate the pass D was more responsible for the plays you focussed on than the run D.

19 plays. 2 YPC. That has everything to do with it.

3-15 27 yards an int and 2 sacks. That is the pass Ds contribution to the cherry picked plays.

You know exactly what I'm arguing. The run defense was outstanding. It contributed to getting off the field on EVERY drive, keeping the other team out of the endzone. 4 plays of 10+ yards is meaningless in the context of this game. It had no effect. Unlike the other 19 plays that averaged 2 yards each, which had a major effect on the outcome of the game.

We won 47-12. I'm not talking about the contribution to winning or losing of run defense in a game we scored 47 points. I am talking about how the run defense played. Overall, it was not good.

 

[Ring 6]

Bill disagreed with you. Was pleased at the in game adjustments by the run D. "Didn't repeat their mistakes".

That is not true. He did not say the run D was good, he said he was pleased with the adjustments.
I did not say every play was bad. I said overall the run D was not good.

 

[Ring 6]

I already posted the drive charts, don't bother, he's never wrong.

No, sometimes I am. But when I say allowing over 10 yards on better than 1/6th of all running plays isn't good, I am not wrong.

I'll go to BB for the final word on EEI tonight. Andy was convinced that Bill would be very unhappy with the run D. What he said (paraphrasing) was that they got gashed early,

"Gashed" doesnt sound good.

talked about it on the sidelines and was pleased that they didn't make the same mistakes a second time. So he was happy that they were able to adjust in game after just one series and do what they were told to do.

I am talking about the overall game. If every game we get 'gashed' and need to make adjustments, few of us will be happy with the run d.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not going to walk you through each one, but there's a general trend in there. A negative or 1-2 yard running play on 1st or 2nd down that set up longer passing plays and third downs. If that's not your run d contributing to getting off the field, I don't know what is.

If your conclusion is that the passing d was more responsible than the run d, please explain what you think the run d could have done better in these situations.

No, the general trend was that the pass defense allowed nothing. 3-15 for 27 yards 2 sacks and an Int in the plays YOU handpicked as the only ones you want to discuss.

But the failure in your argument is that I am talking about the entirety of the run defense and you only want to limit it to the good plays.
I have never said there were not good plays. There were good and there were bad. For my taste, the proportion of bad was too high for my liking. I that so hard to understand?

 

[The Scrizz]

That is not true. He did not say the run D was good, he said he was pleased with the adjustments.
I did not say every play was bad. I said overall the run D was not good.

How can you say this is not true and then quote exactly what I said. You basically said that BB would agree with your assessment that the D was poor while I pointed out that they improved significantly after the first drive. Bill pointed out the same thing.

Bill didn't seem to upset with the run D, certainly didn't say anything about it being poor. I think he was taking the plays IN CONTEXT as I was doing instead of looking at yards per carry or 4 long runs or whatever your rationale for calling it poor was.

Of course you called my placing the improvement in context 'excuses'. So was BB making excuses too?

 

[nnmnmmnn]

No, the general trend was that the pass defense allowed nothing. 3-15 for 27 yards 2 sacks and an Int in the plays YOU handpicked as the only ones you want to discuss.

But the failure in your argument is that I am talking about the entirety of the run defense and you only want to limit it to the good plays.
I have never said there were not good plays. There were good and there were bad. For my taste, the proportion of bad was too high for my liking. I that so hard to understand?

I'm not limiting it to the good plays. You made the statement that the run d did not contribute to getting off the field. So I listed how EVERY series ended, and what plays got them off the field. Yes they were all good plays, I completely agree! They got off the field because they had spectacular run and pass defense.

If you want to go on rambling about two gap defense, cherry picked stats, and 4 bad plays, then rock on Mr. Andyjohnson. :rocker:

 

[Ring 6]

How can you say this is not true and then quote exactly what I said. You basically said that BB would agree with your assessment that the D was poor while I pointed out that they improved significantly after the first drive. Bill pointed out the same thing.

You said he disagreed with me. He did not. I never had any discusion about different parts of the game, I said IMO the run D wasn't good. Nothing BB said disagees with that.

Bill didn't seem to upset with the run D, certainly didn't say anything about it being poor.

Didn't say good either did he. Are you really telling me you want BB to 'seem upset' in order to believe he was not thrilled with the run D?

I think he was taking the plays IN CONTEXT as I was doing instead of looking at yards per carry or 4 long runs or whatever your rationale for calling it poor was.

He didnt call it good or bad, he said he was happy with the adjustments.
Do you really think 4 runs over 10 yards out of 23 plays isnt alarming?

Of course you called my placing the improvement in context 'excuses'. So was BB making excuses too?

BB wasnt asked if the run D was good, ignored the bad, said it was the first game, said they were backups, etc, etc.
If the question to BB was: Did your run defense play well?
And he said "Yes they were outstanding, forget about the bad plays, we adjusted so they don't matter". Then I would say he was making excuses.

By the way, are you not at all concerned about a frequency of 10+ runs of more than 1 in every 6? Do you really know how high that is?

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not limiting it to the good plays. You made the statement that the run d did not contribute to getting off the field.

No I did not. You just made it up that I said that.

So I listed how EVERY series ended, and what plays got them off the field. Yes they were all good plays, I completely agree! They got off the field because they had spectacular run and pass defense.

I am discussing ALL of the plays.

If you want to go on rambling about two gap defense, cherry picked stats, and 4 bad plays, then rock on Mr. Andyjohnson. :rocker:

But now that I've proven you wrong, you seem to be trying to ignore it.

You have 'proven anything wrong'. All you have proven is that you prefer to ignore the alarming issues with run defense in that game by sweeping them under the carpet and creating a discussion where you can focus on the parts you want to.
If you feel good about a run defense that makes some good plays and don't care that they had an ALARMING frequency of abject failure by the front 7, by all means go ahead.
I'm not quite sure why you feel it is important that I eliminate that part of run defense from my opinion, but you have yet to convince me those issues arent something I should be concerned with.
I can tell you that if we get to the regular season and we are allowing runs of over 10 yards more than 1 time out of every 6 plays, the most common discussion on this board will be how we just can't stop the run.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

I really don't give a crap if they give up a 10 yard play 1 out of 6 times if they give up an average of 2 yards on the other 5 out of 6.

If they can maintain that standard, they will continue to get off the field without giving up TDs, just as they did in this game.

If you still don't get it, try this:
Give Jacksonville the ball at the 20. If they have a 10 yard run and 5 2 yard runs, the farthest they can get the ball is their own 40 before they have to punt. And that's only if you put them in one specific order.

You Cannot sustain drives against a run defense like that. It is a fact.

:rocker:

 

[Ring 6]

Lets add some perspective here.
The run defense allowed runs over 10+ yards on 4 of 23 plays (17%) and 2.2 ypc on the rest of the plays.Some call that 'dominant' I call it not good.
So lets compare to other games.

1) Last year vs Cleveland
44 rushes 5 went for 10+ (11%)
and the other 39 averaged 3.4.
If you exclude the top 17% of run (8 of them) the remaining plays averaged 3.0

A lower proportion of long runs and a 3.0 ypc vs 2.2 on the 'other' 83%.
That day was roundly considered abysmal.

2) Last years playoff loss.
3 runs out of 29 for 10 or more (10%)Subtract the worst 17% and the other 83% allowed 2.2 per carry.
So, just as in this game we allowed 2.2 per carry on the 'best' 83%.
We allowed 3 long runs in 29 plays vs 4 in 23.
This was not considered a good day by the run defense.



3) The Baltimore playoff loss. Where commentary was that we were pushed around, abused, and run over.
62 rushes 3 went for 10 yds or more (5%)If we take away the 17% longest runs the remaining 83% of the running plays? We allowed 2.1 ypc.

So in that game on the 83% best plays we were better than the game in question. We allowed over 10 yards more than 3 times less frequently.


So, tell me again why I shouldn't be concerned about allowed 10 or more yards on a whopping 17% of our plays because we 'held them' to 2.2 on the rest, which is about what we have done on 'the rest of the plays' when the run D sucked?

 

[Ring 6]

I really don't give a crap if they give up a 10 yard play 1 out of 6 times if they give up an average of 2 yards on the other 5 out of 6.

Perhaps you should look up how enormously high 1 in 6 plays over 10 yards is and how not so impressive 2.2 on the other 83% is.

If they can maintain that standard, they will continue to get off the field without giving up TDs, just as they did in this game.

Based on what? All the times they did better than that and couldnt get off the field?

If you still don't get it, try this:
Give Jacksonville the ball at the 20. If they have a 10 yard run and 5 2 yard runs, the farthest they can get the ball is their own 40 before they have to punt. And that's only if you put them in one specific order.

You Cannot sustain drives against a run defense like that. It is a fact.

Its not close to a fact.
Teams do not hand the ball off every play.
Running games do not get their average every play. A big part of the typical 4.0 ypc is the longer runs. 2.2 on 5/6ths of the runs is not as awesome as you want to think it is.