Alone atop the AFC at 11-3

[jays52]

You're right... yards don't matter in football, the patriots only let up their yards when they're up big, in garbage time, in a prevent defense, and they have no worries on defense at all.

I wouldn't say that, but yardage is probably the worst overall statistical representation of the efficacy of a defense. There are many things it fails to represent and account for.

1) Opening field position (generally the result of starting after kickoffs)
2) Gameplan design to compete with a scoring team/defending a passing gameplan
3) Yards ceded to bait bad plays and stops
4) Defending a lead (time=beneficial, advantageous to give up yards)
5) Turnovers to plays run probability
6) Red area efficiency *the big defensive stat*

Does it matter? Yes, but I would rather see a stat that combines third down efficiency relative to yardage allowed. That would be a much better representation of what yardage allowed seeks to do.

I haven't met anyone involved with football teams that pay much attention to yardage allowed. Most coaches look at red zone, turnovers, and scoring to find a statistical representation of a defense. When one applies this to the Patriots, they will find that defensively the Patriots are actually about five teams above average.

 

[Rob0729]

You're right... yards don't matter in football, the patriots only let up their yards when they're up big, in garbage time, in a prevent defense, and they have no worries on defense at all.

I never said that. I don't think the Pats' defense is nearly as bad as some make it out to be, but there is A LOT of room for improvement. This defense is clearly not the worst defense in the NFL and they are fairly stingy in the points department when the game matters. At times they are a shutdown defense. They need to seriously work on consistency though.

My point is with high powered offenses, yards and points do not coorelate. You have yet to provide proof to the opposite.

Personally, I do not care about yards allowed. It is a useless stat in a vacuum. The Pats are above average in points allowed and red zone defense and takeaways even with being the worst defense in terms of yards. You look at the whole picture and things are not as bad as that one stat implies.

 

[mvrabel50]

I wouldn't say that, but yardage is probably the worst overall statistical representation of the efficacy of a defense. There are many things it fails to represent and account for.

1) Opening field position (generally the result of starting after kickoffs)
2) Gameplan design to compete with a scoring team/defending a passing gameplan
3) Yards ceded to bait bad plays and stops
4) Defending a lead (time=beneficial, advantageous to give up yards)
5) Turnovers to plays run probability
6) Red area efficiency *the big defensive stat*

Does it matter? Yes, but I would rather see a stat that combines third down efficiency relative to yardage allowed. That would be a much better representation of what yardage allowed seeks to do.

I haven't met anyone involved with football teams that pay much attention to yardage allowed. Most coaches look at red zone, turnovers, and scoring to find a statistical representation of a defense. When one applies this to the Patriots, they will find that defensively the Patriots are actually about five teams above average.

What are you basing this on, do you know a lot of NFL coaches?

My whole frickin point was that yardage is an indication of a defense, not the only indication, not the biggest indication, but it is an indication and it's impossible to argue that.

 

[jays52]

What are you basing this on, do you know a lot of NFL coaches?

My whole frickin point was that yardage is an indication of a defense, not the only indication, not the biggest indication, but it is an indication and it's impossible to argue that.

hahahaha come on man, no need to get angry. No, I obviously don't know any NFL coaches, but I never suggested that I did. Football isn't this giant nebulous ball of complexity. It's got a few fundamental things that hold true for every level. Is yardage a stat? Yes. Do the best defenses, in general, allow fewer yards than the bad ones? Of course.

You were using the most flawed representation to argue a point. When that happens, you are going to lose discussions. It's nothing personal, it's not an attack, but it's a good opportunity to learn some stuff and ultimately make your opinions better.

 

[mvrabel50]

i never said that. I don't think the pats' defense is nearly as bad as some make it out to be, but there is a lot of room for improvement. This defense is clearly not the worst defense in the nfl and they are fairly stingy in the points department when the game matters. At times they are a shutdown defense. They need to seriously work on consistency though.

my point is with high powered offenses, yards and points do not coorelate. You have yet to provide proof to the opposite.

personally, i do not care about yards allowed. It is a useless stat in a vacuum. The pats are above average in points allowed and red zone defense and takeaways even with being the worst defense in terms of yards. You look at the whole picture and things are not as bad as that one stat implies.

new york giants this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Whether it's a result of big plays (horrible secondary, lousy pass rush) or small plays (can't get off field, wearing down defense), giving up a lot of yards is usually a very bad sign for a defense. It's only this year that most people here have sold their soul for the "yards don't matter" canard.

Of course yards matter. The Patriots in their Super Bowl years (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007) were 24/7/9 and 10 in terms of yardage allowed, and we all know that 2001 was a bizarre statistical year for that SB team.

I've shown this before, but it seems to be needed again:

2000 - 20th
2001 - 24th
2002 - 23rd
2003 - 7th
2004 - 9th
2005 - 26th
2006 - 6th
2007 - 4th
2008 - 10th
2009 - 11th
2010 - 25th
2011 - 32nd

While 2001 serves as an obvious outlier, we can see that, 2001 aside, the Patriots best defenses ranked highest in defensive yards allowed, and the weakest defenses ranked lowest.

Also, the 2010 and 2011 defenses have, by far, the largest rankings difference between points allowed and yards allowed (again, with the 2001 outlier excluded).

Can a defense that gives up yardage the way this 2011 team does win a Super Bowl? Sure, if everything falls into place (again, see the 2001 team). If everything doesn't work out just so, however, it'll be another disappointing playoff run.

 

[Rob0729]

new york giants this year.

I wouldn't put the Giants in the "high powered offense" category. They are 8th in offensive yards and 12th in points scored. They are nothing like the Pats, Packers, and Saints with the ability to consistently have a double digit lead in the fourth like they do. Not really a relevant comparison. They are a good offense, but too inconsistent to be a high powered offense. The Pats, Packers, and Saints are all scoring over 31 points a game while the Giants are scoring 24.9 PPG. That is a significant difference. The Jets score more points per game than the Giants.

 

[mvrabel50]

hahahaha come on man, no need to get angry. No, I obviously don't know any NFL coaches, but I never suggested that I did. Football isn't this giant nebulous ball of complexity. It's got a few fundamental things that hold true for every level. Is yardage a stat? Yes. Do the best defenses, in general, allow fewer yards than the bad ones? Of course.

You were using the most flawed representation to argue a point. When that happens, you are going to lose discussions. It's nothing personal, it's not an attack, but it's a good opportunity to learn some stuff and ultimately make your opinions better.

ha, i was just busting your balls... i like how you said you talk to a lot of coaches to beef up your arguement... that was good.


there's no flawed representation... read my posts from the start coach.

 

[mvrabel50]

I wouldn't put the Giants in the "high powered offense" category. They are 8th in offensive yards and 12th in points scored. They are nothing like the Pats, Packers, and Saints with the ability to consistently have a double digit lead in the fourth like they do. Not really a relevant comparison. They are a good offense, but too inconsistent to be a high powered offense. The Pats, Packers, and Saints are all scoring over 31 points a game while the Giants are scoring 24.9 PPG. That is a significant difference. The Jets score more points per game than the Giants.

ha, you should change your point to, "there's no correlation of yards to points for the top three ppg offenses".

I've been trying to find the yards per quarter allowed, but they don't have it for some reason on the defensive splits. Not that this really has anything to do with my initial point i was trying to make, but you have me interested since you brought it up.

 

[patsfan13]

How can you say that isn't true... a team that doesn't let up any yards isn't going to get scored on a lot, a team that lets up a lot of yards (garbage time or not) will EVENTUALLY get scored on.

No correlation between yards and points??? How do you score points if you don't put up yards?

Some but it doesn't tell the whole story or even the most important part of the story.

How good is the red zone D, simple example. Team A lets the opposition go from the 10yd line to the D's 1 yd line, they give up 89 yards, the opposition get a field goal, Team B lets the opposition go from their 30 yd line but the opposition scores a touchdown, they give up 70 yds. Which D is more successful the team that gives up 70 yds and 7 pts or the team that gives up 89yds and 3 pts?


You should look at points allowed, point differential & turnover differential. Those are the key stats.

 

[shmessy]

What are you basing this on, do you know a lot of NFL coaches?

My whole frickin point was that yardage is an indication of a defense, not the only indication, not the biggest indication, but it is an indication and it's impossible to argue that.

So are turnovers and sacks.

What's your point?

 

[shmessy]

Whether it's a result of big plays (horrible secondary, lousy pass rush) or small plays (can't get off field, wearing down defense), giving up a lot of yards is usually a very bad sign for a defense. It's only this year that most people here have sold their soul for the "yards don't matter" canard.

Most people HERE have sold their soul for the "yards don't matter canard"??????

How 'bout in Green Bay (31st) or New Orleans (25th) also, big boy?

Think it might be an indication of something?

 

[Deus Irae]

Most people HERE have sold their soul for the "yards don't matter canard"??????

How 'bout in Green Bay also, big boy?

I wasn't posting on a Green Bay message board, big boy.

 

[mvrabel50]

Some but it doesn't tell the whole story or even the most important part of the story.

How good is the red zone D, simple example. Team A lets the opposition go from the 10yd line to the D's 1 yd line, they give up 89 yards, the opposition get a field goal, Team B lets the opposition go from their 30 yd line but the opposition scores a touchdown, they give up 70 yds. Which D is more successful the team that gives up 70 yds and 7 pts or the team that gives up 89yds and 3 pts?


You should look at points allowed, point differential & turnover differential. Those are the key stats.

I NEVER said that yards tell the whole story, just that it was one of the many indications of how good/bad a team's defense is.

Your example works if you're looking at one game but not so much with a whole season.

 

[SpiderFox53]

really?
what is Gronk and Hernandez's stats in last year's playoff loss vs. Jets? did they broke playoff records last year?

Gronk and Hernandez are not the same players they were last year, (wasn't Hernandez injured in the game?), and the Jets defense is no where near as good as it was last year in the middle of the field.

 

[jays52]

Whether it's a result of big plays (horrible secondary, lousy pass rush) or small plays (can't get off field, wearing down defense), giving up a lot of yards is usually a very bad sign for a defense. It's only this year that most people here have sold their soul for the "yards don't matter" canard.

Of course yards matter. The Patriots in their Super Bowl years (2001, 2003, 2004, 2007) were 24/7/9 and 10 in terms of yardage allowed, and we all know that 2001 was a bizarre statistical year for that SB team.

I've shown this before, but it seems to be needed again:

2000 - 20th
2001 - 24th
2002 - 23rd
2003 - 7th
2004 - 9th
2005 - 26th
2006 - 6th
2007 - 4th
2008 - 10th
2009 - 11th
2010 - 25th
2011 - 32nd

While 2001 serves as an obvious outlier, we can see that, 2001 aside, the Patriots best defenses ranked highest in defensive yards allowed, and the weakest defenses ranked lowest.

Also, the 2010 and 2011 defenses have, by far, the largest rankings difference between points allowed and yards allowed (again, with the 2001 outlier excluded).

Can a defense that gives up yardage the way this 2011 team does win a Super Bowl? Sure, if everything falls into place (again, see the 2001 team). If everything doesn't work out just so, however, it'll be another disappointing playoff run.

Ah, but is that a better representation than points allowed?

2000- 17th
2001- 6th!
2002- 17th
2003- 1st
2004- 2nd
2005- 17th
2006- 2nd
2007- 4th
2008- 8th
2009- 5th
2010- 8th
2011- 14th

What about turnovers?

2000- 24th
2001- 6th
2002- 16th
2003- 2nd
2004- 3rd
2005- 17th
2006- 4th
2007- 9th
2008- 21st
2009- 12th
2010- 2nd
2011- 6th

I would argue that in looking at those statistics, one is able to see that the best defenses the team has had, and the championship teams were ranked higher in these statistical categories than in yards allowed. I think that the 2003 and 2004 defenses were the best in the league, certainly better than 7th and 9th, respectively. However, the 2003 and 2004 teams were in the top 3 of both points and turnovers. It also serves to illustrate the hidden strengths and weaknesses of teams misrepresented by yardage. See the 2001 team. Sixth in points allowed and takeaways. Far more akin to the team that shut down the greatest show on turf than a 24th ranking would represent. I would argue that the 9th ranking in turnovers the 2007 team had is a glaring outlier for a unit that had so many teams trying to keep up through the air. I also remember this argument being made in 2003 and 2004 to people citing yardage when the Pats clearly were the best defense in the NFL.

Is this year's defense relatively bad? Yes. Yet it is not the worst in the league, and it is clearly not the worst in the post-Brady era.

 

[mvrabel50]

So are turnovers and sacks.

What's your point?

read my first post

 

[AzPatsFan]

I never thought i would see the day that a 32 ranked defense would be a number 1 seed....Not to mention a patriots team.

The Brady or bust era is a enigma

I never thought I'd see the day when the best record in the AFC goes to the team with the worst ranked Defense in the league.

I never thought I'd see the day when the best record in the NFC and the best record overall, also goes to the team with the next to worst ranked Defense in the league, too.

I never thought I'd see the day when the team with the best ranked Offense also goes to the team among the worst three ranked Teams in Defense.

What a strange season, and the obvious distortion of the defensive Rules.

 

[PatsFan24]

The Pats don't have to have a great defense, or even a good defense, as long as they play well on offense.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

can't believe it...win last 2..and road to Sb goes through us...love it