Alone atop the AFC at 11-3

[Ring 6]

Andy, I guess I just don't understand why you bothered to chime in. You jumped in to correct my thinking about the Pats' defensive performance. Obviously you wanted me to change what I thought about it. I then said I'm willing to be convinced, but you need to give me actual data to think about. You then say that you don't need to because you have enough eye-test evidence to satisfy you.

Perhaps you should reread. I really simply objected to the thought process that its instructive to predict what would happen if a team starts stinking at what it does well, but everything it does poorly remains the same.
I think you were responding to me as if I was the cumulation of everyone who was responding to you.

But....if this was all about satisfying you and not convincing me, why even enter the discussion? It really makes no sense. I mean, I guess if you like hearing yourself talk (or reading your own writing, as the case may be), and that somehow makes you feel good, be my guest. But if your purpose was to engage in meaningful conversation and if you really meant to attempt to change my thinking on something you think I'm in error about, it's an odd way to go about it by not, you know, actually producing evidence and instead just claiming that you yourself are satisfied.

But maybe I'm weird that way.

Again, I stated above what I objected too.
Why would I have to do an exhaustive analysis of statistical splits to support that?
I think it is self explanatory what I am saying you are wrong about, and statistics are not necessary or relevant.

And to you too. I mean that sincerely.

Way, way too much bs discussion on this board. I see no point in having the discussions where 2 people find 29 different ways to repeat the same pov over and over pretending they are trying to get agreement when it is clear that will never happen. I'm not interested in any more of that, so I will save my discussions for ones that can be more mature, civil and productive. I am sure we can have many of those.

 

[ivanvamp]

If your argumnet is that if the defense never takes the ball away and stinks in the red zone it will allow a lot of points, that would hold fro every team in the NFL, so I'm not sure why you are making a point of it.

Actually, it wouldn't hold for every NFL team. There are many different ways to skin a cat. The Pats' "formula" for keeping the other team from scoring a lot of points is to make a pretty good percentage of red zone stops and create a lot of turnovers.

But Pittsburgh is allowing a mere 15.6 points per game (#2 in the NFL). And yet:

- They are 25th in the NFL in red zone stops (the opponent gets a TD 58.6% of the time they enter the red zone).

and

- They are dead last in the AFC (and 31st in the NFL) in takeaways (with just 14).

So they keep the other team from scoring a lot of points by having one of the worst red zone defenses and lowest number of takeaways in the league. In direct contradiction to what you just said.

How, then, do the Steelers prevent points?

(1) Good run defense. They allow 3.9 ypc (9th in the NFL).
(2) Really good pass defense. They allow a mere 56.8% completion percentage (5th in the NFL). They allow the fewest number of passing yards per game in the league (180/g). They hold opposing QBs to a low passer rating of 75.5 (6th in the NFL).
(3) They simply don't allow a lot of yards and first downs, period. They are #1 in the NFL in yards allowed (just 276.9) and they have allowed the 4th fewest first downs in the league (235).
(4) Along with that, they just don't allow many red zone opportunities. They are tied for 1st in the league with just 2.1 red zone opportunities allowed per game.

So how does Pittsburgh prevent points? By stoning the other team long before they get close enough to score. They don't create many turnovers, and if you can get it into the red zone against them the odds are good that you'll get a TD. But they just don't let you get there. They are tough against the run and great against the pass and they make it very hard for you to move the ball at all.

This is probably a more reliable formula than the Pats' formula, which is so dependent upon events which have a more random nature to them; namely, turnovers created.

 

[ivanvamp]

Way, way too much bs discussion on this board. I see no point in having the discussions where 2 people find 29 different ways to repeat the same pov over and over pretending they are trying to get agreement when it is clear that will never happen. I'm not interested in any more of that, so I will save my discussions for ones that can be more mature, civil and productive. I am sure we can have many of those.

Are you suggesting that I've been uncivil here?

 

[Ring 6]

Are you suggesting that I've been uncivil here?

Not at all.
I am saying there are SO many discussions on this board like that, and they are not worth it.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, it wouldn't hold for every NFL team. There are many different ways to skin a cat. The Pats' "formula" for keeping the other team from scoring a lot of points is to make a pretty good percentage of red zone stops and create a lot of turnovers.

But Pittsburgh is allowing a mere 15.6 points per game (#2 in the NFL). And yet:

- They are 25th in the NFL in red zone stops (the opponent gets a TD 58.6% of the time they enter the red zone).

and

- They are dead last in the AFC (and 31st in the NFL) in takeaways (with just 14).

So they keep the other team from scoring a lot of points by having one of the worst red zone defenses and lowest number of takeaways in the league. In direct contradiction to what you just said.

How, then, do the Steelers prevent points?

(1) Good run defense. They allow 3.9 ypc (9th in the NFL).
(2) Really good pass defense. They allow a mere 56.8% completion percentage (5th in the NFL). They allow the fewest number of passing yards per game in the league (180/g). They hold opposing QBs to a low passer rating of 75.5 (6th in the NFL).
(3) They simply don't allow a lot of yards and first downs, period. They are #1 in the NFL in yards allowed (just 276.9) and they have allowed the 4th fewest first downs in the league (235).
(4) Along with that, they just don't allow many red zone opportunities. They are tied for 1st in the league with just 2.1 red zone opportunities allowed per game.

So how does Pittsburgh prevent points? By stoning the other team long before they get close enough to score. They don't create many turnovers, and if you can get it into the red zone against them the odds are good that you'll get a TD. But they just don't let you get there. They are tough against the run and great against the pass and they make it very hard for you to move the ball at all.

This is probably a more reliable formula than the Pats' formula, which is so dependent upon events which have a more random nature to them; namely, turnovers created.

Great example.
The equivalent of your argument is:
If the Steelers start giving up 400 yards a game they will allow a lot of points.

The difference is there seems to be a perception that yards is set in stone and turnovers and red zone defense are some how smoke and mirrors.
I would suggest those differences are consistent with the very nature of the 2 teams philosophies, so the good is a function of the bad and vice versa, in both cases.

 

[ivanvamp]

Not at all.
I am saying there are SO many discussions on this board like that, and they are not worth it.

I agree. And I do try to be civil and respectful. And none of what I've said to you here was intended to be combative, really. I've just tried to understand your motive for entering the discussion with me and your approach to making your point, that's all.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree. And I do try to be civil and respectful. And none of what I've said to you here was intended to be combative, really. I've just tried to understand your motive for entering the discussion with me and your approach to making your point, that's all.

Totally understood.

 

[ivanvamp]

Great example.
The equivalent of your argument is:
If the Steelers start giving up 400 yards a game they will allow a lot of points.

Correct. If they stop doing the things on defense that they do well, in order to not give up a lot of points they'd suddenly need to do really well in the things that they're not typically good at. Which, of course, is possible, but not likely given their track record this season.

The difference is there seems to be a perception that yards is set in stone and turnovers and red zone defense are some how smoke and mirrors.

Turnovers are more volatile year to year. That's because turnovers, while they can be caused, are often a function of luck (a weird bounce of a football can either keep a drive alive or kill it).

Take Pittsburgh, for example.

Takeaways:
2008 - 29 (6th in AFC)
2009 - 22 (13th in AFC)
2010 - 35 (2nd in AFC)
2011 - 14 (14th in AFC)

I would say that their philosophy is to try to create turnovers, but some years they do better at that than others. Now, look at this:

Points per game allowed:
2008 - 13.9 (1st in NFL)
2009 - 20.3 (t7th in NFL)
2010 - 14.5 (1st in NFL)
2011 - 15.6 (2nd in NFL)

That's pretty consistent. The higher number is the outlier. I wonder why it's that high.

Yards per game allowed:
2008 - 237.2 (1st in NFL)
2009 - 305.3 (4th in NFL)
2010 - 276.8 (2nd in NFL)
2011 - 276.9 (1st in NFL)

Interesting. The increase in points allowed came in a year where they generated fewer turnovers, but saw a huge leap in yards allowed. So they weren't getting stops and weren't turning people over, and -voila!- they gave up a lot more points. But in 2011, they have had very few takeaways and yet they're not giving up points. Why? It's because they are getting stops.

So Pittsburgh consistently is one of the best teams in the league in limiting the other team's yards. They are also one of the best teams in the league in limiting the other team's points. But their turnovers created stat is very volatile.

This is just one example of why yards allowed is a more reliable and consistent indicator than turnovers created.

 

[AzPatsFan]

They've actually shadowed one another for the most part. The times they haven't? 2001 (again, the outlier season), 2010 and 2011. You seem as if you're trying to dismiss yardage allowed rather than noting it's imperfect. I don't buy that approach. Points allowed is imperfect, too, as 2010 showed and 2011 is showing. Heck, one could reasonably argue that yards allowed has been a more accurate barometer of the Patriots defense than points allowed during the BB era, because the points allowed in 2010 and 2011 are so out of touch with what's actually on the field.



Turnovers are important in looking at individual games and breaking down reasons for wins and losses. They become much less meaningful over the course of a full season, because the rollover effect of statistically bizarre outcomes can't really be adjusted for. Just a look at 2008-2011 demonstrates that pretty well, IMO.



I would argue that you're ignoring the impact of two things - coaching and playing style. The Patriots are consistently ranked higher in points allowed than yards allowed, regardless of the quality of the defense. Therefore, in order to look at either stat, this must be taken into account. As for turnovers, they're far too likely to produce out of whack numbers over the course of a season.



I don't think there's any question that this defense is about as bad as any BB's put on the field since becoming Patriots head coach (arguing 2000, 2002, 2005, 2011 is an exercise in futility (although it can be fun futility) because of the radical changes in the way the Patriots play. Talent-wise, it's quite possibly the worst BB's ever put on the field.

My point is that the "good experienced Pats's Defenses" were older and slower. So they could only produce fewer turnovers.

The younger, faster, Pat's rebuilding Defense get more turnovers to go with their youthful errors.

But whatever the case, Belichick plays a Read-and-React Defense that tries NOT to give up the Big play and Quick score. He endeavors to do this by keeping the plays in front of his defenders, sometimes at the cost of making a play.

 

[Ring 6]

Correct. If they stop doing the things on defense that they do well, in order to not give up a lot of points they'd suddenly need to do really well in the things that they're not typically good at. Which, of course, is possible, but not likely given their track record this season.



Turnovers are more volatile year to year. That's because turnovers, while they can be caused, are often a function of luck (a weird bounce of a football can either keep a drive alive or kill it).

Take Pittsburgh, for example.

Takeaways:
2008 - 29 (6th in AFC)
2009 - 22 (13th in AFC)
2010 - 35 (2nd in AFC)
2011 - 14 (14th in AFC)

I would say that their philosophy is to try to create turnovers, but some years they do better at that than others. Now, look at this:

Points per game allowed:
2008 - 13.9 (1st in NFL)
2009 - 20.3 (t7th in NFL)
2010 - 14.5 (1st in NFL)
2011 - 15.6 (2nd in NFL)

That's pretty consistent. The higher number is the outlier. I wonder why it's that high.

Yards per game allowed:
2008 - 237.2 (1st in NFL)
2009 - 305.3 (4th in NFL)
2010 - 276.8 (2nd in NFL)
2011 - 276.9 (1st in NFL)

Interesting. The increase in points allowed came in a year where they generated fewer turnovers, but saw a huge leap in yards allowed. So they weren't getting stops and weren't turning people over, and -voila!- they gave up a lot more points. But in 2011, they have had very few takeaways and yet they're not giving up points. Why? It's because they are getting stops.

So Pittsburgh consistently is one of the best teams in the league in limiting the other team's yards. They are also one of the best teams in the league in limiting the other team's points. But their turnovers created stat is very volatile.

This is just one example of why yards allowed is a more reliable and consistent indicator than turnovers created.

Using one team for 4 years with stats that kinda sorta seem to correlate is not really proof of anything.
Pittsburghs defensively philosophy is very different than ours.
Turnovers are created. The fact that they vary year to year does not really have anything to do with how valuable they are, or whether they are 'lucky'.
Most importantly cumulative stats without regard for the situations they were achieved in are not real useful.
You are simply arguing that some good numbers tend to correlate with overall good numbers. That is not exactly a breakthrough.

 

[Joker]

you know, Belichick took this team over and NOBODY knew what to expect...and there was plenty of negative press and fan feeback about this hire being "REAL BAD!!!!!"...and then, in what can only be described as a shocking ultimate gift out of nowhere to our long suffering fanbase...WE WON THE SUPER BOWL...and post game, fans began to understand how, and fans began to understand.."hey, we got a pretty damned good coach here...wow...and he left the Jets for US...double wow"...and then our team won again...and again...and then there came 2007 and the first 18 games and the whole country unified in jealous hatred of our franchise...while we all pinched ourselves to see if all this was really happening....

Today we get 10 threads like this for every ONE thread that is team positive.....one after another,board "experts" descend like tsetse flies in a steamy jungle of reprimands,caustic evaluations, denigrations and egotistical opinions bordering on clinically narcissistic streams of consciousness.

The answer is simple...if the Patriots bother you that much that all you can do every freakin' day is log on here and then run down every negative thing, real or imagined, that has ever happened since 2001 then maybe sports isn't the answer for you. It's for damn sure being a Patriot fan isn't.

 

[ivanvamp]

Using one team for 4 years with stats that kinda sorta seem to correlate is not really proof of anything.
Pittsburghs defensively philosophy is very different than ours.
Turnovers are created. The fact that they vary year to year does not really have anything to do with how valuable they are, or whether they are 'lucky'.
Most importantly cumulative stats without regard for the situations they were achieved in are not real useful.
You are simply arguing that some good numbers tend to correlate with overall good numbers. That is not exactly a breakthrough.

So I guess I'll argue my point the way that you have in this thread, by making an apparently obvious statement and not bothering to back it up with any actual data, and then just concluding that as long as I'm satisfied with it, case closed.

So here's the statement: Takeaways are more volatile than yards allowed, because they are (compared to yards allowed) more subject to luck, and thus a team that relies on them to stop the other team is putting itself at greater risk than a team that relies on simply stopping the other team without the need for turnovers.

There, argument over. Let's move on to something else now.

 

[goheels22002]

Today we get 10 threads like this for every ONE thread that is team positive.....one after another,board "experts" descend like tsetse flies in a steamy jungle of reprimands,caustic evaluations, denigrations and egotistical opinions bordering on clinically narcissistic streams of consciousness.

You really don't like us very much, do you?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

So I guess I'll argue my point the way that you have in this thread, by making an apparently obvious statement and not bothering to back it up with any actual data, and then just concluding that as long as I'm satisfied with it, case closed.

So here's the statement: Takeaways are more volatile than yards allowed, because they are (compared to yards allowed) more subject to luck, and thus a team that relies on them to stop the other team is putting itself at greater risk than a team that relies on simply stopping the other team without the need for turnovers.

There, argument over. Let's move on to something else now.

Ahhhh

No it's not because your arguement is god awful wrong.

It's complete nonsense.

The 90 year history of football shows that turnovers and turnover differential is the single most important factor in determining the outcome of a game.

Sorry, that just fact. It's indisputable.

Winning passing yards only has a .31 correlation to winning.

Winning rushing yards has a .58 and it's not causation.

Besides, truth is reality.

The three best teams with the best records give up the most yards.

Based on this year, there are only two conclusions possible:

There is a segment of this "fanbase" that is miserable and can't handle the fact that this team is successful. The only way to counter this is to make patsfans.com miserable by flooding it with equally bad posts.

The requisite level of intelligence is simply not there to watch a football game and make conclusions that are obviously obvious.

If the three best teams with the best records give up the most yards; anyone with an IQ north of 2 should conclude that yards is hardly an indicative measurement. That's evident watching the games.

 

[ivanvamp]

Ahhhh

No it's not because your arguement is god awful wrong.

It's complete nonsense.

The 90 year history of football shows that turnovers and turnover differential is the single most important factor in determining the outcome of a game.

Sorry, that just fact. It's indisputable.

Winning passing yards only has a .31 correlation to winning.

Winning rushing yards has a .58 and it's not causation.

Besides, truth is reality.

The three best teams with the best records give up the most yards.

Based on this year, there are only two conclusions possible:

There is a segment of this "fanbase" that is miserable and can't handle the fact that this team is successful. The only way to counter this is to make patsfans.com miserable by flooding it with equally bad posts.

The requisite level of intelligence is simply not there to watch a football game and make conclusions that are obviously obvious.

If the three best teams with the best records give up the most yards; anyone with an IQ north of 2 should conclude that yards is hardly an indicative measurement. That's evident watching the games.

You really need to follow the entire discussion I've been having with Andy. What you think I'm saying is not what I'm actually saying.

 

[jan08]

you know, Belichick took this team over and NOBODY knew what to expect...and there was plenty of negative press and fan feeback about this hire being "REAL BAD!!!!!"...and then, in what can only be described as a shocking ultimate gift out of nowhere to our long suffering fanbase...WE WON THE SUPER BOWL...and post game, fans began to understand how, and fans began to understand.."hey, we got a pretty damned good coach here...wow...and he left the Jets for US...double wow"...and then our team won again...and again...and then there came 2007 and the first 18 games and the whole country unified in jealous hatred of our franchise...while we all pinched ourselves to see if all this was really happening....

Today we get 10 threads like this for every ONE thread that is team positive.....one after another,board "experts" descend like tsetse flies in a steamy jungle of reprimands,caustic evaluations, denigrations and egotistical opinions bordering on clinically narcissistic streams of consciousness.

The answer is simple...if the Patriots bother you that much that all you can do every freakin' day is log on here and then run down every negative thing, real or imagined, that has ever happened since 2001 then maybe sports isn't the answer for you. It's for damn sure being a Patriot fan isn't.

Happy Christmas Joker, you legend

Joker ranks first in the NFL in no BS allowed
First in Jets suckage
First in quality posts
First in making me laugh
First in brightening up a dull thread
27th in short paragraphs (thats the outlier)

 

[Joker]

I'll make this short...Merry Christmas to each and every Patriots fan both here and abroad...

oh..and one more minor point...it's good to be the king...

 

[Ring 6]

So I guess I'll argue my point the way that you have in this thread, by making an apparently obvious statement and not bothering to back it up with any actual data, and then just concluding that as long as I'm satisfied with it, case closed.

So here's the statement: Takeaways are more volatile than yards allowed, because they are (compared to yards allowed) more subject to luck, and thus a team that relies on them to stop the other team is putting itself at greater risk than a team that relies on simply stopping the other team without the need for turnovers.

There, argument over. Let's move on to something else now.

Of course I disagree

 

[Ivan]

You really need to follow the entire discussion I've been having with Andy. What you think I'm saying is not what I'm actually saying.

You need to realize what you are dealing with, he's the same poster who claimed it was complete nonsense to say an argument cannot be made that this is a good defense but then can't make even a semblance of an argument that it is, resorting instead to blather that has nothing to do with anything.

 

[ivanvamp]

Of course I disagree

Heh. Reminds me of this:

Argument Clinic - YouTube