San Diego Points For/Against Analysis (Long Read)

[Deus Irae]

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/standings

SAN DIEGO = 14-2, 492 PF, 303 PA, differential +189
NEW ENGLAND = 12-4, 385 PF, 237 PA, differential +148
NEW YORK JETS = 10-6, 316 PF, 295 PA, differential +21

CHICAGO = 13-3, 427 PF, 255 PA, differential + 172
DENVER = 9-7, 319 PF, 305 PA, differential + 14

just for kicks:

OAKLAND = 2-14, 168 PF, 332 PA, differential -164hope that answers your question.

Ok, you apparently miss the kicker there in your numbers.... New England allowed 237 points, Chicago 255, the Jets 295. That vaunted defense you're talking about allowed 303 points, or about 70 points more than New England. Arguing that a high powered offense somehow proves your defense is great is a questionable assertion at best. Football Outsiders, using their weighted defensive rankings, for example, rated San Diego's defense at #16, clearly a mediocre ranking. By comparison, New England was rated #5. San Diego may, or may not, be a great defense, but the stat you just cited to doesn't back up that claim particularly well, if at all.

 

[mgcolby]

i acknowledge your attempt to provide a quality analysis, but there are some gaping holes in your thesis (as well as data inaccuracies).



san diego @ home scores 31.1 vs 21.8, a +9.3 differential
san diego @ home allows 16.5 vs. 18.9, a +2.4 differential (not 3.4)

Your correction actually makes it worse.

san diego has also been plagued with key starters missing games due to injury and suspension on defense, but all starters will be healthy for the patriots. review the first few games of the season for the chargers in order to obtain an accurate picture as to what the patriots are in store for.

SD week 1 vs. Oakland
0 PA, 183 total yards (96 passing, 87 rushing), 9 sacks, 0 INT

SD week 2 vs. Tenessee
7 PA (with 3:09 remaining in the 4th), 218 total yards (163 passing, 55 rushing), 0 sacks, 2 INT

SD week 4 vs. Baltimore (week 3 was a bye)
16 PA (intentional safety after punter was hurt and TD with 34 seconds remaining), 214 total yards (158 passing, 56 rushing), 1 sack, 1 INT

to use the statistics that you provided paints an inaccurate picture as to what defense the patriots are going up against. the chargers, when healthy, have one of the best defenses in the league. they have 61 sacks on the season, a punishing run defense, above average corners, and mediocre safeties.

as much as patriot fans will argue using these ppg figures i can assure you that BB and friends would not agree with your skewed statistics. BB knows what he's up against --> the chargers at full strength.

Do you think using those three offenses helps to support your case?

So you did that against possibly the worst offense in the history of the NFL (Oakland) First four out of five games they averaged 4.9 ppg, a horrible Kerry Collins led Titans and a team that averaged 13.3 in the first 5 games of the season (excluding yours) and you guys held them to 7 (wow). Then you guys held the Ravens to 16 (a week after the Browns held them to 15), a team that in its first 5 (excluding yours) averaged 18.2 ppg.

In those three games you referenced you held them to a combined 13 points under the average of their first 4 opponents (other than SD).

Great job!

So your defense held 2 horrible offenses and one very average offense

 

[abyzmul]

Ok, you apparently miss the kicker there in your numbers.... New England allowed 237 points, Chicago 255, the Jets 295. That vaunted defense you're talking about allowed 303 points, or about 70 points more than New England. Arguing that a high powered offense somehow proves your defense is great is a questionable assertion at best. Football Outsiders, using their weighted defensive rankings, for example, rated San Diego's defense at #16, clearly a mediocre ranking. By comparison, New England was rated #5. San Diego may, or may not, be a great defense, but the stat you just cited to doesn't back up that claim particularly well, if at all.

instead of quoting only the bottom half of my post, i suggest you read the paragraph above. that would help to prevent you from looking like an ass.

however, in order to quote the bottom half you must've intentionally DELETED the paragraph that described what part of those statistics you should be focusing on. impressive.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

1) wasn't trying to skew facts, wanted to make sure the analysis was fair. i could've ignored it since it worked against the chargers but that wouldn't be right.

2) trend figures are an inaccurate depiction of the two teams.

3) the last 5 games of the season, however, were against much stronger opponents for the chargers than for the patriots. view:

SD last 5 : Buffalo, Denver, KC, Seattle, Arizona
NE last 5 : Detroit, Miami, Houston, Jacksonville, Tennessee

the only team the patriots faced that had a shot at going to the playoffs were the jags (tenn was a long-shot, and clearly not playoff caliber).

denver, was bumped out by SF.. KC and seattle both made it to the playoffs. so to look at the last few games and to try and compare the results from the chargers to patriots, you don't come anywhere near an accurate depiction of how the two teams are.

new england barely beat detroit and lost to houston.

My research shows the beat Houston, 40-7. Please update your database!

 

[abyzmul]

Your correction actually makes it worse.

yes, the correction was to be fair and not to ignore statistical data that works against he chargers. my posts in the other thread addressed that issue.

Do you think using those three offenses helps to support your case?

So you did that against possibly the worst offense in the history of the NFL (Oakland) First four out of five games they averaged 4.9 ppg, a horrible Kerry Collins led Titans and a team that averaged 13.3 in the first 5 games of the season (excluding yours) and you guys held them to 7 (wow). Then you guys held the Ravens to 16 (a week after the Browns held them to 15), a team that in its first 5 (excluding yours) averaged 18.2 ppg.

In those three games you referenced you held them to a combined 13 points under the average of their first 4 opponents (other than SD).

Great job!

So your defense held 2 horrible offenses and one very average offense

go read through the other thread, the link is above. yes, it does validate the argument, and you should also note that v. young did indeed play in that game against the chargers. to attempt to downplay that victory is meaningless. young entered the game when the chargers were winning 17-0. the game ended 40-7 with a touchdown being scored against the 2nd string defense with under 4 minutes to play.

i would bet you pounded your chest when the patriots beat the vikings a week after the vikings beat the seahawks too, completely ignoring the fact that the seahawks lost matt hasselbeck in that game.

your points are moot.

 

[abyzmul]

My research shows the beat Houston, 40-7. Please update your database!

will do, please insert miami there instead of houston. heaven forbid you lose to houston.. it's better that it was miami.

 

[mgcolby]

i'm sorry you see things that way.. denver, KC, and seattle are definitely stronger than tennessee and the jets. for you to attempt at spinning that in your favor is just idiotic. nice try though.

Denver finishes 9-7 and loses at home to the 49ers in a game that would have clinched the 5th seed in the Playoffs.

KC 9-7

Seattle barely wins the worst division in football and needs a botched kick to win the game to earn the right to go into Chicago to get a beating.

Meanwhile the Jets finished the season 6-2 and went 10-6 with the 5th seed.

The Jets beat KC and Seattle handidly and probably beat the Broncos. Not a very good example. Again!

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Originally Posted by SadThePatriots
when you have the #1 scoring offense, your defense will inherently have more opportunities to give up points because the opposing team will have more possessions. on the other extreme, if you are a low scoring team with high time of possession, your defense will have lower points allowed due to less opponent possessions. instead of looking at points allowed you should be looking at the differences between points & allowed points scored to get a better perspective on the overall performance of the team.

remember when everyone was talking about denver having the stingiest defense? their offense was a time of possession machine.. they grind the clock by pounding their notorious chop blocking running game up and down the field. it takes a long time to score like that though, which is why both their PF and PA are low.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/standings

SAN DIEGO = 14-2, 492 PF, 303 PA, differential +189
NEW ENGLAND = 12-4, 385 PF, 237 PA, differential +148
NEW YORK JETS = 10-6, 316 PF, 295 PA, differential +21

CHICAGO = 13-3, 427 PF, 255 PA, differential + 172
DENVER = 9-7, 319 PF, 305 PA, differential + 14

just for kicks:

OAKLAND = 2-14, 168 PF, 332 PA, differential -164

That was applicable for the first 9 games of the season. Starting with their first game against you, they lost whatever mojo they had, and imploded as few teams have.

Their offense was an abomination. The had more 3 and outs than the clock-killing drives your talking about.

Their PF were low because they couldn't score! Why do you think they got rid of Jake while a possible playoff spot was on the line?

I watched every single one of these games this year with a great deal of interest. I have no idea where you are getting your "analysis".

 

[mgcolby]

yes, the correction was to be fair and not to ignore statistical data that works against he chargers. my posts in the other thread addressed that issue.



go read through the other thread, the link is above. yes, it does validate the argument, and you should also note that v. young did indeed play in that game against the chargers. to attempt to downplay that victory is meaningless. young entered the game when the chargers were winning 17-0. the game ended 40-7 with a touchdown being scored against the 2nd string defense with under 4 minutes to play.

i would bet you pounded your chest when the patriots beat the vikings a week after the vikings beat the seahawks too, completely ignoring the fact that the seahawks lost matt hasselbeck in that game.

your points are moot.

Vince Young came into the game, how does that validate anything. It was his first game and he didn't even start. That is a pathetic argument.

I was impressed with our win over Minnesota because they were 4-2 coming off back-to-back wins at that point. Our defense shut them out (the only TD came on a kick return) at home on Monday night. But the most impressive thing about that game was the game plan and our WR's finally having a big game.

Look this argument is dumb because what happened in September/October doesn't mean sh!t at this point. The teams that play their best football after Thanksgiving are the teams that historically go far in the playoffs.

 

[abyzmul]

That was applicable for the first 9 games of the season. Starting with their first game against you, they lost whatever mojo they had, and imploded as few teams have.

Their offense was an abomination. The had more 3 and outs than the clock-killing drives your talking about.

Their PF were low because they couldn't score! Why do you think they got rid of Jake while a possible playoff spot was on the line?

I watched every single one of these games this year with a great deal of interest. I have no idea where you are getting your "analysis".

the broncos (despite the switch at QB) are a running oriented, time possession offense. to think that they aren't is just stupid.

the broncos were described as the stingiest defense for the first 9 weeks of the season, thank you for furthering my point.

 

[abyzmul]

Denver finishes 9-7 and loses at home to the 49ers in a game that would have clinched the 5th seed in the Playoffs.

KC 9-7

Seattle barely wins the worst division in football and needs a botched kick to win the game to earn the right to go into Chicago to get a beating.

Meanwhile the Jets finished the season 6-2 and went 10-6 with the 5th seed.

The Jets beat KC and Seattle handidly and probably beat the Broncos. Not a very good example. Again!

i'll say it again, to argue that the jets and tennessee are tougher opponents than denver, kc, and seattle is simply idiotic. period. congratulations on being added to my sig.

 

[Oswlek]

i'll say it again, to argue that the jets and tennessee are tougher opponents than denver, kc, and seattle is simply idiotic. period. congratulations on being added to my sig.

This is the last time that I will respond to a post of yours if you continue to be so closed minded about things. I'm sure that you could care less, but I just wanted to put that out there.

The Jets played significantly better down the stretch than Denver or KC for that matter.

TN had won 6 games in a row and it would have been 7 if they had held on to a 26-7 lead vs. Balt until they were creamed by NE.

Seattle is a bad team. You, I and everyone else in the free world know that if Seattle was one of NE's recent opponents you would be saying that they would have lost 10 games if they were an AFCW team. And you know what? You would be right.

To hold onto the belief that Denver/KC/Seattle is any more difficult than Jax/TN/Jets tells me that you are either tremendously obtuse or you are just trying to stir the pot.

 

[Mooch]

i'll say it again, to argue that the jets and tennessee are tougher opponents than denver, kc, and seattle is simply idiotic. period. congratulations on being added to my sig.

You still can't grasp the fact that Tennessee and the Jets AT THE TIME WE PLAYED THEM were playing better than Denver, KC, and Seattle AT THE TIME YOU PLAYED THEM.

No matter how you spin it, those last three teams you claim as quality wins were stuggling mightily when you faced them -- Each one of those teams had lost at least the two prior games. The Seahawks had just dropped games to the 49ers and Arizona prior to playing you, the Chiefs had lost to the Ravens and the Browns prior to playing you and the Broncos lost to KC and the Seahawks prior to playing you. You caught every single one of those teams in the midst of their worst football of the year.

When we played Tennessee, they were coming off of a SIX GAME WINNING STREAK. The Jets coming into last week's playoff game, had won three in a row and 5 of their last 6.

 

[maddmann]

i dont think it matters what happened in the season for both of these two teams.these two teams probably have the most heart and fight than any other teams in the league. its gonna be a dog fight. good luck to both but more to my chargers LOL. kids watching this game will want to grow up to play in games like this one will be!! this game will make future LTs and Bradys, if that makes any sense, i dont know F*** workin on sunday

 

[Deus Irae]

instead of quoting only the bottom half of my post, i suggest you read the paragraph above. that would help to prevent you from looking like an ass.

however, in order to quote the bottom half you must've intentionally DELETED the paragraph that described what part of those statistics you should be focusing on. impressive.

Look, I don't mind that you're a troll who feels a need to insult with every response. Frankly, most of the Charger fans who've come here clearly live under bridges, so you're in the definite majority. But do try not to be stupid. Your argument using the raw numbers is not statistically definitive or impressive for the defense, which was my point (FYI: the percentage differential of the Patriots and Chargers is identical to about 3 decimals, with NE's percentage being slightly better on the 4th decimal), and that was what I was focusing on. Your "paragraph above" was your opinion without factual backup and was, therefore, ignored as outside the scope. Again, Football Outsiders has your team's defense ranked 16th, which is mediocre by definition. Here, from Webster's online dictionary, just for you:

of moderate or low quality, value, ability, or performance : ORDINARY, SO-SO

Now, you can continue to be the ass you've shown yourself to be, or you can try having a civil discussion. It's your call, but idiots who can't be civil don't particularly impress me.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

the broncos (prior to the switch at QB) are a running oriented, time possession offense. to think that they aren't is just stupid.

the broncos were described as the stingiest defense for the first 9 weeks of the season, thank you for furthering my point.

They were run oriented because Jake was a liability every time he dropped back to pass.

Watch the parsing of your verbs.

Really, the amount of invective in your posts reveals an astonishing degree of low self-esteem. You have my sympathy.

 

[abyzmul]

Look, I don't mind that you're a troll who feels a need to insult with every response. Frankly, most of the Charger fans who've come here clearly live under bridges, so you're in the definite majority. But do try not to be stupid. Your argument using the raw numbers is not statistically definitive or impressive for the defense, which was my point (FYI: the percentage differential of the Patriots and Chargers is identical to about 3 decimals, with NE's percentage being slightly better on the 4th decimal), and that was what I was focusing on. Your "paragraph above" was your opinion without factual backup and was, therefore, ignored as outside the scope. Again, Football Outsiders has your team's defense ranked 16th, which is mediocre by definition. Here, from Webster's online dictionary, just for you:



Now, you can continue to be the ass you've shown yourself to be, or you can try having a civil discussion. It's your call, but idiots who can't be civil don't particularly impress me.

i'm sorry that i hurt your feelings, next time i won't call you an ass when you're being an ass. i'll just point ----->.

who cares what football outsiders says? that's an opinion also, but apparently you're arguing that their opinion is worth more?

a big variable which you're not addressing is that the chargers will be at full strength coming off of the bye. in the three games that the chargers were at (or near) full strength they have allowed 16 points total.

according to this poll the patriots don't stand a chance.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=2730

that's a collection of people's votes, but once again i'm not putting any decisive value on opinions alone.

 

[abyzmul]

They were run oriented because Jake was a liability every time he dropped back to pass.

Watch the parsing of your verbs.

Really, the amount of invective in your posts reveals an astonishing degree of low self-esteem. You have my sympathy.

pardon, it's not were, they still are. it should be "despite the switch at QB". the broncos are a run oriented team who happen to have a QB with a strong arm.

 

[Deus Irae]

i'm sorry that i hurt your feelings, next time i won't call you an ass when you're being an ass. i'll just point ----->.

who cares what football outsiders says? that's an opinion also, but apparently you're arguing that their opinion is worth more?

a big variable which you're not addressing is that the chargers will be at full strength coming off of the bye. in the three games that the chargers were at (or near) full strength they have allowed 16 points total.

according to this poll the patriots don't stand a chance.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/polling?event_id=2730

that's a collection of people's votes, but once again i'm not putting any decisive value on opinions alone.

Football Outsiders is a stat site, slick..... It's not based upon an opinion, but a formula.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Football Outsiders is a stat site, slick..... It's not based upon an opinion, but a formula.

That's not fair, Deus. That's too much for him to take in at any one time.