Late to the party Bedard on 98.5

[Haley]

It is pretty fascinating how similar NE and Indy are according to DVOA right now. Total DVOA (14%/13.8%), offensive DVOA (9.1%/9.9%), defensive DVOA (2.3%/1.9%)... hell, even special teams (7.3%/5.8%)!

The similarities continue if you dig deeper, both are elite passing offenses who can't run, and both are average pass defenses and marginally below average run defenses. I wonder if there has even been a match between two teams so evenly matched across the board.

Of course, NE's numbers include their first month, so there is reason to believe they aren't an accurate representation of the team that will take the field Sunday night.

*All DVOA data is from week 9, but since both teams had a bye this week, they shouldn't change all that much.

True, but now take a look at this:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/115715/2014-nfl-strength-of-schedule

 

[RobertWeathers]

But thats the point, its speculation. Too many people equate stats with QB play, and really the consistent thread is winning. A ton of QBs can put up big numbers while losing, or win some, lose some games. What really separates a QB is making the plays that decide games. Sometimes those happen by getting an early lead, sometimes they happen late, and sometimes all game long.
There is no real way to do it, but if you separate out the meaningless stats (stats accumulated in a loss are meaningless to me, as are piling on when you already have won) then stats would be a good gauge. Otherwise winning is the #1 stat for a QB IMO.
If you look back at the greatest winners in NFL history almost all started on teams that stank. Brady, Bradshaw, Montana, Elway, Favre and Manning to name a few.
If you switch a winning QB with a losing QB, the teams fortunes would change, not the QBs in almost all cases.
That is not to say Luck is a loser, but to say Luck isn't better than Wilson because his cumulative numbers are better.

Thats fine. Going back to my original point on Luck, my belief is that because he wins games for a team that does not have as good of a defense as SEA, he will win games if on SEA regardless. I don't think SEA becomes a lesser team with Luck at QB. Good QBs adapt. I think Luck is one of those players.

Miami D slipped because Miami changed its philosophy. The Miami defenses of the 80s were as talented as the Miami defenses of the 70s, but were playing on an uneven field of being paired with an offense that threw the ball all over the field, leading to more points, but also more short field, time on the field and difficulty for the defense.

I don't agree. Shula wasn't doing his job adding quality talent throughout the roster in the mid/late 80s and that is why their record also was lousy. Keep in mind that MIA did not score as many points but yet their D allowed more than what they did earlier in the decade. I'm still not convinced that it's a philosophical thing. You either have a good D or you don't.

The 49ers are not a good comparison. The WCO (especially their version) is a ball control offense and as friendly in support of your own D as any run first offense.

Those 49er defenses were loaded with playmakers. They stopped the run. They stopped the pass. Vastly underrated. They could have had any offensive scheme (within reason and successful) and still be a stout D.

 

[Oswlek]

True, but now take a look at this:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/115715/2014-nfl-strength-of-schedule

DVOA takes schedule into account, and it should be noted that NE's performance was against the easier portion of theirs. Indy's has actually been more difficult to date (though not much, 4% to 2%) and is substantially easier from here, yet another reason NE needs to take them down Sunday night.

 

[Ring 6]

Thats fine. Going back to my original point on Luck, my belief is that because he wins games for a team that does not have as good of a defense as SEA, he will win games if on SEA regardless. I don't think SEA becomes a lesser team with Luck at QB. Good QBs adapt. I think Luck is one of those players.

Not disagreeing, just describing the analysis.

I don't agree. Shula wasn't doing his job adding quality talent throughout the roster in the mid/late 80s and that is why their record also was lousy. Keep in mind that MIA did not score as many points but yet their D allowed more than what they did earlier in the decade. I'm still not convinced that it's a philosophical thing. You either have a good D or you don't.

No point in discussing this really when I say the defense played worse because of the phliosophy and you say they werent as good. Its a chicken and egg thing.

Those 49er defenses were loaded with playmakers. They stopped the run. They stopped the pass. Vastly underrated. They could have had any offensive scheme (within reason and successful) and still be a stout D.

The point as pertains to this discussion is that they did not play an offensive style that hampered their D.

 

[Ring 6]

DVOA takes schedule into account, and it should be noted that NE's performance was against the easier portion of theirs. Indy's has actually been more difficult to date (though not much, 4% to 2%) and is substantially easier from here, yet another reason NE needs to take them down Sunday night.

Just another example of why football teams cannot be effectively judged compared based upon statistics.

 

[Haley]

DVOA takes schedule into account, and it should be noted that NE's performance was against the easier portion of theirs. Indy's has actually been more difficult to date (though not much, 4% to 2%) and is substantially easier from here, yet another reason NE needs to take them down Sunday night.

I know they intend to, I simply don't think its possible to correct for strength properly, especially mid year. I also don't believe Indy's schedule would be properly classified as stronger than ours to date. If you just read the games played you can see that isn't true.

 

[Oswlek]

Just another example of why football teams cannot be effectively judged compared based upon statistics.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Football players may be impossible to rate in isolation, but teams can be reasonably assessed.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Not disagreeing, just describing the analysis.




No point in discussing this really when I say the defense played worse because of the phliosophy and you say they werent as good. Its a chicken and egg thing.



The point as pertains to this discussion is that they did not play an offensive style that hampered their D.

All good. Moving on...

 

[Oswlek]

I know they intend to, I simply don't think its possible to correct for strength properly, especially mid year. I also don't believe Indy's schedule would be properly classified as stronger than ours to date. If you just read the games played you can see that isn't true.

Indy
Denver, Philly, Jax, TN, Balt, Hou, Cincy, Pitt, NYG

NE
Miami, Minny, Oak, KC, Cincy, Buff, NYJ, Chi, Denver

They both played Denver and Cincy, so those can be ignored. Otherwise, NE played three dumpster fires (Minn, Oak, Chi), one bad team (NYJ) and three good teams (KC,Buff, Mia). Indy played two dumpster fires (Jax, NYG), a bad team (TN), an average team (Hou) and three good teams (Philly, Balt, Pitt).

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Football players may be impossible to rate in isolation, but teams can be reasonably assessed.

Don't agree. An analysis such as this is bastardizing statistics by not accounting for when they are attained and then valuing some more than others based upon who they were attained against. For example, as you say the Patriots are rated as an 'average' pass defense. A lot of that is because of the numbers Manning and Cutler among others put up in losses that were meaningless. Probably the biggest statistical negative about the Patriot pass D is the Denver game, and in fact it was an excellent pass D game.

Football is about winning. Football is about situational success. Football is about making plays when it matters. Any calculation based upon cumulative stats is just another version of fantasy football that ignores what the game is really all about.

 

[Oswlek]

For example, as you say the Patriots are rated as an 'average' pass defense.

Exactly, which is why you must understand context. It doesn't mean you can't learn anything from statistics, you just have to use them properly.

 

[Ring 6]

Indy
Denver, Philly, Jax, TN, Balt, Hou, Cincy, Pitt, NYG

NE
Miami, Minny, Oak, KC, Cincy, Buff, NYJ, Chi, Denver

They both played Denver and Cincy, so those can be ignored. Otherwise, NE played three dumpster fires (Minn, Oak, Chi), one bad team (NYJ) and two good teams (Buff, Mia). Indy played two dumpster fires (Jax, NYG), a bad team (TN), an average team (Hou) and three good teams (Philly, Balt, Pitt).

Its a stretch to call Balt and Pitt good teams. Indy has struggled against good teams.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly, which is why you must understand context. It doesn't mean you can't learn anything from statistics, you just have to use them properly.

They are flawed. Cumulatively stats across different opponents, matchups, and game situations are not insightful.
Again, its great for a fantasy football perspective, but doesn't do much in terms of determining who is better at winning football games.

How do you understand context without breaking down every play within the framework of how much it mattered to the outcome of the game, what the situation was, who the opponents was, and in a case like this who the opponents opponents were that lead you to weigh the result based on strength of opponent.

 

[Oswlek]

Its a stretch to call Balt and Pitt good teams.

Not even remotely. And even if so, then you have to say it is a stretch to say Miami and Buffalo are good teams.

 

[Oswlek]

They are flawed. Cumulatively stats across different opponents, matchups, and game situations are not insightful.
Again, its great for a fantasy football perspective, but doesn't do much in terms of determining who is better at winning football games.

I couldn't care less about cumulative stats like total passing or rushing yardage. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

 

[Ring 6]

I couldn't care less about cumulative stats like total passing or rushing yardage. I'm not sure what gave you that idea.

That is what these stats are based upon.

 

[Ring 6]

Not even remotely. And even if so, then you have to say it is a stretch to say Miami and Buffalo are good teams.

Yes it is.

 

[Oswlek]

That is what these stats are based upon.

No it isn't. DVOA is a totally different animal.

 

[Oswlek]

Yes it is.

Really? This is the level of discourse you want around here?

There is no reason whatsoever to not consider Baltimore and Pitt good teams for the purposes of my little exercise.

 

[Ring 6]

Not even remotely. And even if so, then you have to say it is a stretch to say Miami and Buffalo are good teams.

'
Its not remotely a stretch to call Pittsburgh a good team when they lost to the Jets and Bucs? Really?