My Observations Pre Season Game 1

[lamafist]

Really? Lets look at how Jacksonville's last plays on each of their drives, in order, and see exactly how the drives ended:

First quarter:
1) Sack, 3 yard run, incomplete, FG.
2) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
3) run for 6 yard loss, 10 yard pass, sack, punt
4) 7 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Second quarter:
1) 7 yard run, 0 yard run, 0 yard run, FG.
2) (1st and 15) 10 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Third quarter:
1) incomplete, 2 yard run, incomplete, punt.

4th quarter
1) 1 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
2) interception
3) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, punt

The problem with this reasoning is that by looking only at the last 4 plays of drives, you're pre-selecting for successful defense. If the defense gave up 10+ yards over four plays, the drive wouldn't be ending.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

The problem with this reasoning is that by looking only at the last 4 plays of drives, you're pre-selecting for successful defense. If the defense gave up 10+ yards over four plays, the drive wouldn't be ending.

I'm not pre-selecting for successful defense. The defense could have been bad, and the drives would have ended in touchdowns. They did not. They ended because the defense, both run and pass, were good enough to get them off the field before this occurred.

All I'm doing here is making a list of how all of our drives ended. None of them ended in touchdowns, and they all (other than the interception) were dependent on stopping the run.

Again, I'd rather have a team give up 5ypc on average that's 10+ yards half the time and 0 yards the other half the time, than a team that gives up 3.5ypc on average, but gives up 3.5 yards every single time. The first team gets off the field and the second team gives up TDs.

 

[Bostonian1962]

I am certainly not joking. I thought it was pretty easy to see which is better. What specifically there do you disagree with? Would you prefer team A?


Really? Lets look at how Jacksonville's last plays on each of their drives, in order, and see exactly how the drives ended:

First quarter:
1) Sack, 3 yard run, incomplete, FG.
2) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
3) run for 6 yard loss, 10 yard pass, sack, punt
4) 7 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Second quarter:
1) 7 yard run, 0 yard run, 0 yard run, FG.
2) (1st and 15) 10 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Third quarter:
1) incomplete, 2 yard run, incomplete, punt.

4th quarter
1) 1 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
2) interception
3) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, punt

The run D was awesome. Jacksonville could not sustain drives because they could not run the ball or complete passes. See all the 3rd and longs there that are set up by negative or short run plays? See the lack of sustained drives, and how none of them end in "TD"?



Giving up a 15 yard play (or even 4 of them) is not a total failure. Because on the other 19 plays, they gave up squat and consistently got off the field and kept the other team out of the end zone.


No **** the total rushing yards isn't the only factor. It's insulting to me that you attempt to portray that as the argument I'm making rather than address the topic. So again, I ask you, besides the number of 10+ yard runs (4), do you have anything else to base an argument on that the run defense is bad? Your avoidance of the question causes me to think that you don't.

So again, the run D was consistently good enough to get off the field, and they only gave up 98 yards. The fact that there were 4 10+ yard run plays mixed in there is completely irrelevant.

For a guy with only 98 posts, you argue quite effectively. In fact, you win via KO. Your stats above made me check, and the Patriots run D held Jax SIXTEEN times to 3 yards or less, 6 or 7 of those being for no gain, or losses. In fact, it was 16 rushes for a total of 17 yards. They weren't the '85 Bears, but clearly they weren't poor or bad, or not good. They were quite good, especially for the first preseason game. I didn't need to look at the stats to see that. I've watched the game now 6 times (it's an illness). Welcome to the board rookie. Remind me never to get in an argument with you.

 

[lamafist]

I'm not pre-selecting for successful defense. The defense could have been bad, and the drives would have ended in touchdowns. They did not. They ended because the defense, both run and pass, were good enough to get them off the field before this occurred.

All I'm doing here is making a list of how all of our drives ended. None of them ended in touchdowns, and they all (other than the interception) were dependent on stopping the run.

Yes, you are, in fact, selecting for successful defense.

The Jaguars' offense had 21 sets of downs in the game. 12 of them resulted in net gains of 10 yards or more. That's over 50%. You singled out 10 sets of downs. In a representative selection, the Patriots would have allowed 10+ yards in 5 or 6 of them. Instead, they allowed 10+ yards in zero of them -- hardly representative. How did this come about? Because down series in which the Jaguars gained 10+ yards but did not score TDs were automatically discounted.

Think of it this way: even the 2007 Pats didn't scored touchdowns on half their drives. In fact, their td/possession rate was 42%. Meanwhile, their down-series conversion rate was 81%. So if you looked at the last set of downs on every drive for the '07 Pats, they would have been stopped on 58% of them, while in an unbiased sample, they would have been stopped only 19% of the time.

 

[lamafist]

Again, I'd rather have a team give up 5ypc on average that's 10+ yards half the time and 0 yards the other half the time, than a team that gives up 3.5ypc on average, but gives up 3.5 yards every single time. The first team gets off the field and the second team gives up TDs.

Your example only makes your case if it's tweaked to just the right averages -- reduce team B's ypc by a mere half of a yard per carry, and you go from a team that scores TDs to a team that doesn't pick up a single first down.

Belichick's defensive philosophy has always been to prevent big plays and force teams to move the ball steadily down the field if they want to score. You can't get off the field if you don't even get to 3rd down. In your example, team B would force teams to make a 3rd down conversion every set of downs, while team A would only get the chance to get off the field 25% of the time.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Yes, you are, in fact, selecting for successful defense.

The Jaguars' offense had 21 sets of downs in the game. 12 of them resulted in net gains of 10 yards or more. That's over 50%. You singled out 10 sets of downs. In a representative selection, the Patriots would have allowed 10+ yards in 5 or 6 of them. Instead, they allowed 10+ yards in zero of them -- hardly representative. How did this come about? Because down series in which the Jaguars gained 10+ yards but did not score TDs were automatically discounted.

Think of it this way: even the 2007 Pats didn't scored touchdowns on half their drives. In fact, their td/possession rate was 42%. Meanwhile, their down-series conversion rate was 81%. So if you looked at the last set of downs on every drive for the '07 Pats, they would have been stopped on 58% of them, while in an unbiased sample, they would have been stopped only 19% of the time.

You're missing my point alltogether and arguing with yourself here. The fact that the defense gave up 10 first downs does not concern me. The field is not 10 yards long. Giving up a first down is not the end of the world, and giving up a first down does not mean the run defense was bad.

 

[Ring 6]

No, I expect you to say, hmmm, I didn't see that, let me check, as opposed to "I'm right they 2 gapped the whole game". But you've been claiming since camp started that Belichick will never change from the 3-4 2-gap and treating it as folly whenever anyone mentions they might.

Do you go back and watch again every time someone has a different opinion than you?
How am I 'treating it like folly' when I say that I wuold be very surprised if BB abandons the 2 gap philosophy he has employed every season of his career? "I'll believe it when I see it" equals treating it like 'folly'? Come on.

Now who's making asinine analogies? Are you saying an interception is the same as a 10 yard run? Because that's the semantics game you've been playing with me. You have now gone whacko if you think those are equal. See how that works?

What is equal is ignoring awful plays and saying they aren't part of the assessment. I am glad to see you agree that is wrong now.

So anything less than 30 yards is a successful pass defense? Whatever. You saw what you saw and I saw what I saw. I hope we get to argue about stupid crap like this every week after a 30 point win.

Or we could try a novel approach and recognize different people have different opinions and arguing about it is pointless.

 

[Ring 6]

Condescending ******** quote #1 "I just think my standard is higher. Nothing wrong with that."

Not condescending at all, it summarizes the discussion. My standard in this case is higher. You are fine with that proportion of bad plays I am not. There is nothing wrong with us having a different standard of good.

Condescending ******** quote #2 "Look, its fine if you think allowing 4 running plays over 10 yards out of 23 qualifies as good run defense. I don't. "

In response to:

I'm sorry, I broke down every friggin running play from drives 2 through 7 to show exactly how important and impressive the run D was in this game and all he can spit at me is 4 plays over and over again and then tries to say that Butler wasn't poor but the run D was.

You say it qualifies as good run defense. How is it condescending for me to credit you with exactly what you said?

You may not realize when you're tone is condescending, but it doesn't help your credibility any either.

You may be oversensitive too, and that doesnt help your credibility either.

 

[Ring 6]

I am certainly not joking. I thought it was pretty easy to see which is better. What specifically there do you disagree with? Would you prefer team A?

A team that allows over 10 yards on half of the running plays against their defense will probably go winless.

Are you one of those guys that thinks 3.4 yard per rush defensively is terrible because they will get 10 every 3 carries and will score every drive?

Really? Lets look at how Jacksonville's last plays on each of their drives, in order, and see exactly how the drives ended:

First quarter:
1) Sack, 3 yard run, incomplete, FG.
2) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
3) run for 6 yard loss, 10 yard pass, sack, punt
4) 7 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Second quarter:
1) 7 yard run, 0 yard run, 0 yard run, FG.
2) (1st and 15) 10 yard pass, 0 yard run, incomplete, punt.

Third quarter:
1) incomplete, 2 yard run, incomplete, punt.

4th quarter
1) 1 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, FG.
2) interception
3) 3 yard run, incomplete, incomplete, punt

Why would we look at the unscucessful ends of drives to determine how the defense played? Why must you cherry pick?

The run D was awesome. Jacksonville could not sustain drives because they could not run the ball or complete passes. See all the 3rd and longs there that are set up by negative or short run plays? See the lack of sustained drives, and how none of them end in "TD"?

4.3 per carry is not awesome. 4 long runs in 23 plays is not awesome.

Giving up a 15 yard play (or even 4 of them) is not a total failure.
Because on the other 19 plays, they gave up squat and consistently got off the field and kept the other team out of the end zone.

Its a total failure by the front 7, which is what I said.

No **** the total rushing yards isn't the only factor. It's insulting to me that you attempt to portray that as the argument I'm making rather than address the topic.

This was your total argument to that point:

Are you implying that 98 yards is a lot because Jacksonville was passing instead of running since they were playing from behind? Because if you are, you're wrong.

So again, they only gave up 98 rushing yards.

So again, I ask you, besides the number of 10+ yard runs (4), do you have anything else to base an argument on that the run defense is bad? Your avoidance of the question causes me to think that you don't.

The first drive was poor. That and the long runs were the majority of the negative.

So again, the run D was consistently good enough to get off the field, and they only gave up 98 yards. The fact that there were 4 10+ yard run plays mixed in there is completely irrelevant.

Its not completely irrelevant at all. They played 23 plays of run defense. An ENORMOUSLY high number of them were very bad. I never said every play of run d was bad. I never said more were bad than good. I said when you consider all the run defense plays, which like every game by every team had some good some bad and some in between it adds up to a poor day. Go ahead and taint the discussion by eliminating all the plays that you don't want to count. That doesn't change the reality. And the reality is that if we are gashed at that high a proportion on run defense, we will be in big trouble.

 

[Ring 6]

You're missing my point alltogether and arguing with yourself here. The fact that the defense gave up 10 first downs does not concern me. The field is not 10 yards long. Giving up a first down is not the end of the world, and giving up a first down does not mean the run defense was bad.

If the pass D were not outstanding, thise rushing yards would have led to a lot more points.

 

[jsull87]

The problem with this reasoning is that by looking only at the last 4 plays of drives, you're pre-selecting for successful defense. If the defense gave up 10+ yards over four plays, the drive wouldn't be ending.

Your right he definitely is pre selecting it's like saying lets have a look at the scoring drives... this is pre-selecting for an unsuccessful defense.

 

[Ring 6]

Your right he definitely is pre selecting it's like saying lets have a look at the scoring drives... this is pre-selecting for an unsuccessful defense.

Isn't the point of assessing the run defense to assess everything that they did?
We won 47-12 you could twist an argument to say everything was great. But it wasn't.

 

[jsull87]

Isn't the point of assessing the run defense to assess everything that they did?
We won 47-12 you could twist an argument to say everything was great. But it wasn't.

...exactly? i was agreeing with you guys that you can't cherry pick drives to suit your hypothesis.

 

[Ring 6]

...exactly? i was agreeing with you guys that you can't cherry pick drives to suit your hypothesis.

Right, I was agreeing with you. Like "yeah, and......"

 

[nnmnmmnn]

...exactly? i was agreeing with you guys that you can't cherry pick drives to suit your hypothesis.

I did not cherrypick any drives. I listed ALL the drives. Sorry if the fact that none ended in TDs is inconvienient to you. I also apologize for he fact that ALL drives (except the int) were stopped, in part, because of good run defense.

If I somehow missed some drives that ended in TDs, and am guilty of cherrypicking, feel free to add the ones I left out. But I'm pretty sure I got them all.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

I don't know why I bother responding to this ****. A guy makes a statement that the run d had nothing to do with lack of sustained drives, it was all the great pass D.

So I spend the time looking through the game log, and point out exactly how drives ended and why they were not sustained, and I'm surrounded by wagonloads of idiots calling me a cherrypicker.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know why I bother responding to this ****. A guy makes a statement that the run d had nothing to do with lack of sustained drives, it was all the great pass D.

So I spend the time looking through the game log, and point out exactly how drives ended and why they were not sustained, and I'm surrounded by wagonloads of idiots calling me a cherrypicker.

Most people would think its an indication your argument is weak, not that all those people who disagree with it are idiots.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Most people would think its an indication your argument is weak, not that all those people who disagree with it are idiots.

You can disagree all you'd like. Just don't ******* accuse me of cherrypicking stats. Do you even know what the term means? Or is it just something you throw around when you're proven wrong?

Again, you said that the lack of sustained drives had nothing to do with the run d. I listed all the plays that ended EVERY SINGLE DRIVE. Do you care to actually address the point or are you going to continue to dance around it?

 

[Ring 6]

You can disagree all you'd like. Just don't ******* accuse me of cherrypicking stats. Do you even know what the term means? Or is it just something you throw around when you're proven wrong?

Thats what you did. You tried to reduce the question of how the run defense was in that game to only plays that favored your answer. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but thats what you did,

Again, you said that the lack of sustained drives had nothing to do with the run d.

No I never said that at all. I said overall the run D was not good.

I listed all the plays that ended EVERY SINGLE DRIVE. Do you care to actually address the point or are you going to continue to dance around it?

I have addressed it dozens of times. I never said they played poorly on all plays, or that they didn't make good plays. I said that overall the run defense was not good. Pointing out the good plays and overlooking the bad does not change that.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

They got in the end zone zero times primarily because of the pass defense.

My listing of how EVERY drive ended, illustrating exactly how the run d had a huge part is not cherrypicking. It is ALL the data on how drives ended.

Go ahead, call me a cherrypicker again. You're only making yourself look stupid.