Matt Chatham on the Patriots defense and pointlessness of cumulative stats in general

[luuked]

I have already referred to it in this weeks rewatch thread but given all the soap opera drama that is going on thanks to our friends at ESPN I thought I should make a separate thread on it. This way we might actually have some intelligent football stuff to talk about.

As many of the more regular posters here know Matt Chatham (former LB and ST player for the Pats) has pivoted his more general football podcast to be solely focused on the Pats this year. It has been an amazing source of information as he usually does a post mortem on each game going through things on an almost play-by-play basis in depth.

This weeks edition has a shorter section on the Jets game but then he quickly moves on to talk more in general about some of his overall thoughts this year. This involves a very reasonable opinion on Cooks, why according to film Dorsett is an underrated player that should be watched next offseason, how injuries like Bradys achilles get totally overblown and some more misc stuff.

However, what I want to point people towards is the second part of the episode which is one long rant on how the Patriots defense is perceived completely unfairly despite being pretty good this year. It is an epic takedown of hot takes from the media, fans and so-called stats done with facts and insight. He goes through general perceptions of why anything yardage based is useless, how aggregate statistics fail the sport of football, how football is a game of strategy where sometimes you want to trade yards for time or less risk and then goes through most of the other playoff teams and points out how the perception of them vs. the Pats is just stupid.

I have tried to put a link in here that takes anyone interested right to his rant but if it doesnt work (or you want to hear the whole thing) just skip to 55:00.


NYJ Part II Breakdown; Plus Why Stats Fail to Understand the Patriots Stingy D — The REAL THING Patriots Podcast — Overcast


The one thing I please ask for inside this thread is that similar to our weekly rewatch threads we keep the hot takes and garbage posts outside. If you want to do that there is a 30+ pages post about how the Patriots dynasty is screwed and everyone hates each other next door.

Otherwise just enjoy this amazing rant..

 

[NYPatsFan]

I'm actually listening to it as I read your post. I haven't gotten to the second half yet.

 

[TennisBallHead]

For a special teams scrub, Chatham sure has a smug, obnoxious air about him. I'll pass.

Oh, and Dorsett stinks.

 

[Nikolai]

It's one of the things I try to account for when I've been doing my predictions the last several weeks. I created a predictor 5-6 weeks ago and while I'm not a weekly winner, I went from bottom 5 in alamo's deal to top third or so...kinda like our defense.

Seriously, though, one of the factors I've tried to look at is how little past games mean for current performance. I haven't perfected it yet, but it's far better than it was, and a far better indicator of where our D stands than the basic aggregate stats. There are ways to figure it out.

 

[jimnance]

Just like in 2014 and 2016, the 2017 Patriots defense is top 5 in the NFL.
I said that back then well before the end of the season and uninformed people laughed.
They weren't laughing by the end of both SBs. Yes, this defense is right there.
If Hightower were healthy, it might be the best in the NFL.
As it stands, it's top 5. Patriots , once again, are being underestimated by many,including their own fans.

 

[nowayback]

Heard it all, super as always

 

[Sicilian]

For a special teams scrub, Chatham sure has a smug, obnoxious air about him. I'll pass.

Oh, and Dorsett stinks.

Your loss. It's good stuff.

 

[Sicilian]

I've seen some posters on here mention this (just so no one thinks I'm claiming this as original), but along the same lines that he's talking is the idea that looking a certain way against perceived sub-par opponents could have to do with gameplanning around that deficiency. For example, if you know a team has a good running game and terrible QB, you're probably going to gameplan to stop the run first and foremost. Then when that subpar QB hits some big plays in what are more favorable matchups than he usually sees, it doesn't pass the "eye test" because it appears that you're being carved up by a crap QB. But, when the chips are down, and a passing situation comes up that you NEED to have on defense, I'll bet this D performs more often than not in those scenarios.

His comments on finding stats that always account for the same situations is a great one, and one that I think gets overlooked far too often. To me it's like looking at two hockey teams, seeing they give up a similar number of goals, but one gives up a ton more shots. Quick thinking might make you think one team just has a better goalie, but it could also be that the higher shot total team gameplans to have most of the shots come from long distances or from outside. They'll concede pucks to the net if they think they're low percentage plays. You always have to look deeper than the stats.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I enjoyed it. He knows a lot.
I think Chatham could be good on mainstream radio or TV if he dropped his mainstream-media-is-so-dumb tonality that comes off

He's great though, a lot of solid info

 

[WaterfallJumper]

For a special teams scrub, Chatham sure has a smug, obnoxious air about him. I'll pass.

For a troll, you sure have a smug, obnoxious air about you. I'll pass.

 

[patfanken]

Just finished listening to this pod, and I have to say that no football fan who really wants to understand the game, should miss this podcast. Matt, in the second half goes on a rant that takes apart a lot of the comparative stats that we see so often used.
It should be noted that his analysis comes not only from a guy who played in the league for a lot of years, but also from a guy who has an MBA and has more than a passing understanding of comparative statistics.

This is good guys

 

[FourierSeries]

Patriots have had a good to great defense for the majority of Belichick's tenure as head coach. Not sure why this is a surprise to anyone with a brain. Sure, it may be a surprise to the idiots who thought the week 1-4 defense would be the one that Patriots would be taking to the playoffs, but that's only because they are either new to the sport, or because they simply chose to forget that the defense starts slow every season.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

Patriots have had a good to great defense for the majority of Belichick's tenure as head coach. Not sure why this is a surprise to anyone with a brain. Sure, it may be a surprise to the idiots who thought the week 1-4 defense would be the one that Patriots would be taking to the playoffs, but that's only because they are either new to the sport, or because they simply chose to forget that the defense starts slow every season.

Good. I might add to that the fact that quite often the players involved are NOT elite athletes however our coaches do a superb job developing them. The old "do your job" motto.

 

[jimnance]

Always enjoy Chatham. Straight-up football. I usually gain some insight from him.
Most of what was in this podcast was stuff I already knew. But good to hear him set casual fans straight. Not to mention posers who think they know football but he exposes them.

 

[RobertWeathers]

As it stands, it's top 5. Patriots , once again, are being underestimated by many,including their own fans.

People need something to complain about....

 

[jmt57]

For a special teams scrub, Chatham sure has a smug, obnoxious air about him. I'll pass.

So what, the only people providing NFL analysis worth paying attention to are former Pro Bowlers?

Actually some comments now make sense, since your go-to guys for NFL opinions must be Marshall Faulk, Shannon Sharpe and LaDainian Tomlinson.

How the Patriots have managed to win a single game with Bill Belichick, Matt Patricia, Josh McDaniels and Nick Caserio, all of whom have never played in the NFL, is simply mind boggling. No idea how Bill Walsh or Paul Brown ever became a head coach either.

 

[maineman209]

Chatham's delivery could use some work. However, his observations about raw, aggregate yardage stats and apples-to-oranges comparisons are spot on.

About a decade ago, there was a season in which the Packers were touted by BSPN as having the best run defense in the league based on rushing yards allowed. However, aside from Peterson, their defense hadn't faced one RB who was ranked in the Top-10 or any other team whose ground game ranked in the top half of the league.

Meanwhile, the Pats were ranked ~12th against the run after having faced 6 of the Top-10 RBs and after having played 12 of their 16 games against teams whose ground games were ranked in the top half of the league, 8 of those in the top 11.

Nevertheless, the notions that the Packers' run-D was "great" while the Pats' run-D was "mediocre" persisted.

In a typical season, the Pats play as many as six games against teams with highly-ranked ground games - just in their own division (in 2016, the Bills ranked #1 in rushing yards, #1 in ypa, and #1 in rushing TDs). Of course, the likely reason that BUF, MIA and the Jetes have often had prolific running games is that their QBs have often sucked.

Aggregate yardage stats won't tell anyone anything about that.

 

[Uptown]

The Patriots’ defense took "bend but don’t break" to a new level in 2017

 

[sarge]

That was a great podcast by chattam and it made a lot of sense. I thought his take on why the defensive strategy changes so much once the other team gets beyond the 50 yardline was an eye opener and makes perfect sense when the end game is allowing the least points. His argument that a different defensive strategy with these same players could make for much better yardage stats but allow more points made a whole lot of sense as well.

Thanks for sharing that!

 

[luuked]

Chatham's delivery could use some work. However, his observations about raw, aggregate yardage stats and apples-to-oranges comparisons are spot on.

I think given that he sits in a chair at home drinking some booze while recording it on his laptop in his spare time it was fine. I honestly think his show would benefit a lot from being a video medium where he could visualize things. But that would add a lot of work on top of just recording and I guess it is not really viable with his listener-ship numbers.