Alone atop the AFC at 11-3

[mvrabel50]

No I stand by my point. The Giants are not a high powered offense by any stretch of the definition. Yes they are capable of putting up over 30 points in games, but not consistently. They have had 5 games this season where they scored 20 or fewer points in a game. High powered offenses don't look average like that so frequently.

A high powered offense is an offense capable of scoring 30 plus points any given week. The Giants can do that, but not with the consistency that is required by a high powered offense. Again, 11 teams have scored more points this year than the Giants. You can't be a high powered offense if nearly a third of the league scores more points than you do.

But then again, the Pats, Packers, and Saints are probably the only true high powered offenses because the points total drop significantly after those three teams.

Great points.

 

[lamafist]

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.

Hmmm. Couldn't find yards allowed by quarter either, but I did find points allowed by quarter.

So far this season, the Pats have given up 63 points in the 1st quarter, 69 in the 2nd, 50 in the 3rd, and 115 - yes, a buck fifteen - in the 4th.

 

[patsfan13]

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.

So how do YOU explain the teams that are 31st and 32nd in the league in yards allowed are tied for 14th in points allowed................

 

[lamafist]

So how do YOU explain the teams that are 31st and 32nd in the league in yards allowed are tied for 14th in points allowed................

Well, for the Pats, the average starting field position for an opponent's drive is the 24.88th yard line. That would be the farthest average starting field position for an opponent in the league. The Saints' and Packers' opponents have had the 4th and 5th longest fields on average, respectively.

These teams offenses not only score a lot of points, but they also routinely help their teams win the field position battle. The difference between starting drives on the 20 vs. on the 30, over the course of your average game, would come out to be a touchdown's difference in Expected Points. So this definitely matters.

Meanwhile, the Patriots' defense has faced the 5th fewest total number of opposing possessions in the league. This makes their pts per game a little less exceptional, as half the league has faced 10-26 more drives over those 14 games... and it makes ranking last in yards allowed per game even worse, considering how many fewer drives they've had to defend.

On a per drive rate, as opposed to per game, the Patriots' rank 21st in points and last in yards. Of course, points-per-drive is still affected by starting field position.

 

[Rob0729]

I was just arguing about the Pats defense with a buddy of mine. He was saying that the opinion of the 'analysts' were wrong and that the Pats defense was not that bad.

While I'm usually at the losing end of our arguments, I only had to point out that the opinions of people who have both played the game and coached it carry a bit more weight than those of us speculating on message boards and around water coolers.

The consensus among those types of people is that the defense is bad. It's as simple as that. Statistics be damned.

Just because you played the game doesn't mean you are great at analyzing the game.

First, few national analysts watch every single game for every single team. They are making assessments from clips packages or while watching multiple games at the same time. Some analysts just look at the final stats sheet and make assumptions.

Second, many analysts are analysts not because they know their stuff, but because they are big names or say a lot of catchphrases. A lot of the analysts today are the same guys who majored in lawn maintenance in school or something like that just to graduate. A lot of players are too dumb to grasp a system like the Pats' run. Doesn't that tell you that there are a lot of former players who are too dumb to properly analyze film. There are a lot of players in this league with zero regular or football intelligence.

Third, if you listen to the analysts, most of them say the Pats defense is bad not by breaking down specific reasons why they are bad, but using the statistic that the Pats give up the most yards in the league. So statistics are not damned because that is what most analysts first bring up when talking about this defense.

 

[patsfan13]

Well, for the Pats, the average starting field position for an opponent's drive is the 24.88th yard line. That would be the farthest average starting field position for an opponent in the league. The Saints' and Packers' opponents have had the 4th and 5th longest fields on average, respectively.

These teams offenses not only score a lot of points, but they also routinely help their teams win the field position battle. The difference between starting drives on the 20 vs. on the 30, over the course of your average game, would come out to be a touchdown's difference in Expected Points. So this definitely matters.

Meanwhile, the Patriots' defense has faced the 5th fewest total number of opposing possessions in the league. This makes their pts per game a little less exceptional, as half the league has faced 10-26 more drives over those 14 games... and it makes ranking last in yards allowed per game even worse, considering how many fewer drives they've had to defend.

On a per drive rate, as opposed to per game, the Patriots' rank 21st in points and last in yards. Of course, points-per-drive is still affected by starting field position.

All true, I would also note that those teams are among the highest in point differential so they are frequently playing with a big lead and trading yards for time later in games.

 

[mvrabel50]

Just because you played the game doesn't mean you are great at analyzing the game.

First, few national analysts watch every single game for every single team. They are making assessments from clips packages or while watching multiple games at the same time. Some analysts just look at the final stats sheet and make assumptions.

Second, many analysts are analysts not because they know their stuff, but because they are big names or say a lot of catchphrases. A lot of the analysts today are the same guys who majored in lawn maintenance in school or something like that just to graduate. A lot of players are too dumb to grasp a system like the Pats' run. Doesn't that tell you that there are a lot of former players who are too dumb to properly analyze film. There are a lot of players in this league with zero regular or football intelligence.

Third, if you listen to the analysts, most of them say the Pats defense is bad not by breaking down specific reasons why they are bad, but using the statistic that the Pats give up the most yards in the league. So statistics are not damned because that is what most analysts first bring up when talking about this defense.

sounds like a lot of hot air....

 

[Reckedtrek]

sounds like a lot of hot air....

Right. So the Pats still suck, right? Too bad we didn't make the playoffs again.

:bricks:

 

[PatriotsReign]

I do not want the Jets to make the playoff, and shut up their idiot head coach.. let the fans have thei way with him on the airwaves.. the more this happens, the more they realize what an absolute idiot he is.

Now here's a place we can agree...If Rex ran for some office, neither of us would vote for the dope.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Just because you played the game doesn't mean you are great at analyzing the game.

First, few national analysts watch every single game for every single team. They are making assessments from clips packages or while watching multiple games at the same time. Some analysts just look at the final stats sheet and make assumptions.

Second, many analysts are analysts not because they know their stuff, but because they are big names or say a lot of catchphrases. A lot of the analysts today are the same guys who majored in lawn maintenance in school or something like that just to graduate. A lot of players are too dumb to grasp a system like the Pats' run. Doesn't that tell you that there are a lot of former players who are too dumb to properly analyze film. There are a lot of players in this league with zero regular or football intelligence.

Third, if you listen to the analysts, most of them say the Pats defense is bad not by breaking down specific reasons why they are bad, but using the statistic that the Pats give up the most yards in the league. So statistics are not damned because that is what most analysts first bring up when talking about this defense.

When Rodney Harrison says that he hates the Patriots' defense, is that because he is too dumb to 'get it', or because you don't think he's watching the games?

 

[Ring 6]

Well, for the Pats, the average starting field position for an opponent's drive is the 24.88th yard line. That would be the farthest average starting field position for an opponent in the league. The Saints' and Packers' opponents have had the 4th and 5th longest fields on average, respectively.

How does 24.88 compare to other teams? If the average is 26.15 then the difference would seem insignificant.

These teams offenses not only score a lot of points, but they also routinely help their teams win the field position battle. The difference between starting drives on the 20 vs. on the 30, over the course of your average game, would come out to be a touchdown's difference in Expected Points. So this definitely matters.

But it isnt the 20 vs the 30. Since you have the Pats # and ranking, please post the other numbers, such as average to add some perspective.

Meanwhile, the Patriots' defense has faced the 5th fewest total number of opposing possessions in the league. This makes their pts per game a little less exceptional, as half the league has faced 10-26 more drives over those 14 games... and it makes ranking last in yards allowed per game even worse, considering how many fewer drives they've had to defend.

Time of possession is a function of BOTH offense and defense. In this case it is very arguable that the stat you are trying to prove as more significant (yards allowed) is the exact reason this fact is skewed.
If the Patriots allow fewer drives because they are on the field longer by allowing more yards and first downs, then you cannot say that their points allowed have less value, because the way they play defense is a big reason they face fewer drives.
Thats not to say that allowing more yards is a positive, but its pretty easy to see that if you do allow more yards each possession will take up more clock and you will face fewer possessions.
This negates your implication that the yards per game is even worse because it is the exact reason they have faced fewer possessions.

On a per drive rate, as opposed to per game, the Patriots' rank 21st in points and last in yards. Of course, points-per-drive is still affected by starting field position.

But again, if my defense allows 8 drives that average 4 minutes a piece and allows 21 points and 350 yards and yours allows 10 drives that average 3.2 minutes and you allow 21 points and 300 yards, points per drive isnt really relevant. My defense allowed 50 more yards that didnt result in points and took up 6.4 minutes extra on those drives while you cut the drives shorter and faced more drives.
Surely there may be other implications, but your stats are certainly conflicting with each other.
You can't say if one style of defense leaves you on the field longer results in fewer drives and the same number of points it should be compare per drive to a defense that faces more drives but allows just as many points.

 

[Rob0729]

When Rodney Harrison says that he hates the Patriots' defense, is that because he is too dumb to 'get it', or because you don't think he's watching the games?

Not saying every analyst is too dumb to get it. I am saying a lot of them are. I was responding to a post that said "every analyst" and I said a lot of them are just empty suits. Funny, most people on this board still ridicule Tom Jackson for "They hate their coach". But he can't be wrong though because he used to play the game.

Rodney is known for the hyperbole though. If you watch this past Sunday's night game, he did a near 180 on the Pats defense where he claimed the defense turned the corner and shutting down Tebow after the first quarter might have been a turning point for the defense which Dan Patrick riduculed on the air.

 

[mvrabel50]

Right. So the Pats still suck, right? Too bad we didn't make the playoffs again.

:bricks:

Never said or implied that the patriots suck... so not sure what the hell you're talking about. i was just pointing out that rob's post stated the very obvious and then made a bad point.

 

[shmessy]

Not saying every analyst is too dumb to get it. I am saying a lot of them are. I was responding to a post that said "every analyst" and I said a lot of them are just empty suits. Funny, most people on this board still ridicule Tom Jackson for "They hate their coach". But he can't be wrong though because he used to play the game.

Rodney is known for the hyperbole though. If you watch this past Sunday's night game, he did a near 180 on the Pats defense where he claimed the defense turned the corner and shutting down Tebow after the first quarter might have been a turning point for the defense which Dan Patrick riduculed on the air.

"Just win (the ratings) baby!".

 

[mvrabel50]

Just because you played the game doesn't mean you are great at analyzing the game.

First, few national analysts watch every single game for every single team. They are making assessments from clips packages or while watching multiple games at the same time. Some analysts just look at the final stats sheet and make assumptions.

Second, many analysts are analysts not because they know their stuff, but because they are big names or say a lot of catchphrases. A lot of the analysts today are the same guys who majored in lawn maintenance in school or something like that just to graduate. A lot of players are too dumb to grasp a system like the Pats' run. Doesn't that tell you that there are a lot of former players who are too dumb to properly analyze film. There are a lot of players in this league with zero regular or football intelligence.

Third, if you listen to the analysts, most of them say the Pats defense is bad not by breaking down specific reasons why they are bad, but using the statistic that the Pats give up the most yards in the league. So statistics are not damned because that is what most analysts first bring up when talking about this defense.

I think a lot of analysts tell you why they think they're bad, more so on a local scale than national.... You're always hearing that the pats d isn't great in man to man coverage, haven't been a great tackling team, bad footwork from the cbs, inconsistent pass rush, hard time getting off the field on third down, etc...

 

[Rob0729]

I think a lot of analysts tell you why they think they're bad, more so on a local scale than national.... You're always hearing that the pats d isn't great in man to man coverage, haven't been a great tackling team, bad footwork from the cbs, inconsistent pass rush, hard time getting off the field on third down, etc...

Yes, but a lot of the local guys have also said the defense is not as bad as they are given credit for because they give up a lot of yards outside the 20s, but tighten up in the red zone and that they give up a lot of yards, but not a lot of points. It goes both ways.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The real key that we can't quantify is how well they actually execute the gameplan.

From my perspective, the best defensive effort this year was against San Diego

Why?

Based on our history, it has been shown that if you eliminate Gates and big plays then make them matriculate the ball; a very talented, gaffe prone offense will screw up.

This was proven in Week 2. Also, when the defense needed it; they came up with a monster turnover on the fumble.

Yet in that game, the stats would say they sucked.

Was that the gameplan? I don't know but I do know many stats don't explain what is trying to be interpreted.

 

[mvrabel50]

Yes, but a lot of the local guys have also said the defense is not as bad as they are given credit for because they give up a lot of yards outside the 20s, but tighten up in the red zone and that they give up a lot of yards, but not a lot of points. It goes both ways.

I agree with that, but was just pointing out that some analysts do give you reasoning why they think they aren't good.

 

[mvrabel50]

Well, for the Pats, the average starting field position for an opponent's drive is the 24.88th yard line. That would be the farthest average starting field position for an opponent in the league. The Saints' and Packers' opponents have had the 4th and 5th longest fields on average, respectively.

These teams offenses not only score a lot of points, but they also routinely help their teams win the field position battle. The difference between starting drives on the 20 vs. on the 30, over the course of your average game, would come out to be a touchdown's difference in Expected Points. So this definitely matters.

Meanwhile, the Patriots' defense has faced the 5th fewest total number of opposing possessions in the league. This makes their pts per game a little less exceptional, as half the league has faced 10-26 more drives over those 14 games... and it makes ranking last in yards allowed per game even worse, considering how many fewer drives they've had to defend.

On a per drive rate, as opposed to per game, the Patriots' rank 21st in points and last in yards. Of course, points-per-drive is still affected by starting field position.

lamafist, where are you finding those numbers??

 

[Ivan]

I think a lot of analysts tell you why they think they're bad, more so on a local scale than national.... You're always hearing that the pats d isn't great in man to man coverage, haven't been a great tackling team, bad footwork from the cbs, inconsistent pass rush, hard time getting off the field on third down, etc...

And criticism like that tends to be much more valid than the knee jerk blanket "omg they suck" takes we get in the first quarter every week here. It would be impossible to argue that this is a good defense or that they don't have a host of problems because they clearly do, unfortunately so much of the criticism lacks any analysis or context that it simply comes across as a neverending stream of b.tching and moaning, and when a team wins as consistently as this one does that becomes really old and tiresome. I am much more interested in what they have to do to pull out a Championship run and what they need to do going forward to address the defense because that's what really matters, not just crying for the Party Starter and james Sanders.

Much as I love the draft and the time leading up to it I usually wait until late February and March to start looking at prospects, this year I am already looking at what little is out there because they have so many needs, which is really odd for a team winning as much as they have the past 2 seasons.