PDA

View Full Version : Were we really a top 10 defense from week 4 on?


Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 04:58 AM
This was born in another thread when Relianttexan asked me "If your going to judge the colts run defense on how they played in the playoffs then why not judge our defense in yds allowed the last 13 games of the season in which they were ranked 12th not 23rd.Or how bout we judge them the last 10 games of the season in which they were a top 10 D." I had pretty much ignored that "fact" because I didn't think it was possible that it was true. So this whole post is basically an answer to that question, but because of the scope it entails, I felt it was worthy of its own thread. This post will probably come in several parts because I see it being a lengthy but worthy read.

There is no standard for comparing defenses. You can rank them a number of ways. Ranking them by points allowed doesn't always work because its possible that the team's offense puts them in a bad position. So then you turn to yards. But then you have those bend but don't break situations.

My first inclination, when I read this was to simply take last year’s games, subtract the first 3 games stats from the total stats. Then Divide that number by 13 to get the average of the last 13 games. Then multiply those numbers by 16 to account for a full season. And Yardage wise, I'm proud to announce our Texans would have finished 13th overall in total yards, 14th overall in Rushing yards and an astonishing 11th in passing yards. If only it were that simple.

In some areas of the country, yards do count in the outcome of the game. Certain states will award a win to a team if after an overtime period teams are still tied, they count trips inside the 20 yard line and then total yards to determine the winner of a playoff game. Alas that is H.S. football. In the rest of the football world, the object of the defense is to keep the other team from scoring and if possible score themselves. Since for the most part defensive scores are an anomaly (with a few exceptions) they don’t really figure into the quality of the defense (despite what any fantasy football player would tell you) we will disregard them for this discussion. Points can’t be that determining factor either though. That is because the defense doesn’t play in a vacuum. Some offenses have a tendency to put defenses in a bad situation, or leave them on the field forever. So if you can’t look at yards and you can’t look at points, what can you possibly look at to give you an accurate measure of a defense?

It was no surprise to me that total yards = points. Mathematically that’s easy to prove. That’s probably why it’s not the most useful stat to break down defenses with. But if you split up yards by total rushing yards and total passing yards rushing yards figure into the equation much more heavily than passing yards, in fact Passing yards is around the threshold of the critical value of r – meaning it just barely meets the criteria for a correlation. That is because unlike rushing (in which a failed carry results in negative, or 0 yards) a failed pass attempt doesn’t really show up in the passing yardage. It’s just not a very effective way to measure passing effectiveness (or pass defense effectiveness).

This leaves you with yardage. What do you consider? Total yardage? That doesn't make much sense to me. Especially considering that the Ravens had almost 15% fewer plays on defense than the Titans did. I think that leaves you with yards per play. But I had to look to make sure there was a statistical significance between yan yards per play and points. So here is what I did. I took several major categories and from each team for the 06 season and compared them to points against. I then took the correlation coefficient and ranked them to attain the most relevant statistics. Here is a look at what each of the following statistics tells us and its correlation coefficient:

(note. The closer the number to 0 the lower the correlation. )


Total Yards ( .757) - This obviously has a high correlation to points. But like points it really doesn’t tell us much. Because total yardage is divided into two separate categories and doesn’t measure the importance of run versus pass defense, nor does it tell us what components of each respective aspect of the game are most important. It’s not a bad way to rank total defense but doesn’t account for those defenses that give up a lot of yards while not giving up many points.

Rush yards allowed (.549) /Pass yards allowed (.332) – The odd thing about this is that passing yards had such a low statistical significance. As a sub discussion of total yards they are helpful, but given the difference in plays from scrimmage on one side of the ball or another which isn’t accounted for, they may not be much help either.

Yards / Play (rushing and passing combined) (.772) – This was slightly higher than just total yardage. It tells you on each play what a defense yields. It will tell you, overall how the defense faired. What it won’t tell you is how the run defense faired or how the pass defense faired. It is very similar to total yards in that aspect but it also accounts for the fact that some teams had 800 something plays while others had over 1000.

Yards per Carry (.506) – I split this up from Yards per pass for a reason. It is kind of like the inverse of the whole completion % problem. Teams that allow a team to run the ball for say 3.4 yards, if they give up more rushes will actually stay on the field longer than a team who gives up 4.4 ypc. The whole 3 yards and a cloud of dust, take time off the clock phenomenon may be playing tricks with the numbers here.

Yards per Pass Attempt (.612) – Think of these as the WHIP of football. Statistically almost as significant as total yards by themselves they give you a better idea of what a team does on a per play basis. Ideally you would be able to split them up to where they happen but that involves a ton of work just to collect the numbers. Because yards/catch is so similar among teams Yards/Pass attempt winds up with an almost identical number to comp%.

Comp% (.615) is a little different number. But every bit as valid. Maybe more so. Most teams in the league will rank about the same in completion percentage that they would YPA since most teams are with in 2.5 yards per reception. Completion % though was a huge difference.

There will always be people who rank defenses differently. It is an inherently subjective ranking. You can argue that injuries, or a few bad games, or a few good games will skew the numbers. Between eras it becomes even more difficult. With the passing game having evolved as it has over the last 50 years more plays get run in a game. If you were going to ask me to use two barometers to to rank defenses within a certain year (2006 specifically) I would use the rushing yards against and completion% against numbers. They are specific enough to tell you something about the two different aspects of the defense while being broad enough to be categorized. An example of a stat that doesn't do that would be the yards per catch against. It doesn't take into account the completion% which since each team has a pretty close yards per completion average, is a stat that definitely figures into the effectiveness of any passing game.

I haven’t run the numbers yet to see where the Texans stand in those categories (to eliminate bias when I finally answer the question) but I will in the morning and then I’ll finally answer the question I started out trying to answer.

Mike

Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 05:21 AM
I keep editing it and rereading it. I'll read it in the morning to make sure it makes sense. If not, I'll edit it and make it more clear.

Mike

EZ_Goin
08-07-2007, 06:55 AM
Yards allowed is considered the standard when ranking defenses. I don't know where that puts the Texans, but that is most likely what the other poster was referring to. I have also heard the statement about being a top 10 defense the last half of the season on the radio a few times.

Kaiser Toro
08-07-2007, 07:52 AM
All of this stuff is nice, but how about just coming out and saying how you feel or if you want to make this a statistical analysis how about giving us the big uglies and some improvement points? Not you though as it has got to be pessimistic while using six sigma methodology that defines the Texans by numbers that fit nothing, but your battle black heart. :pirate:

The Texans D got better last year. What they need to get better at is creating TO's and the amount of three and out's. Qualilty defenses control the pace of the game. Great teams control it on both sides of the ball.

Rex King
08-07-2007, 07:54 AM
Double post

Rex King
08-07-2007, 08:05 AM
I did this pseudo-analysis a while back, mainly to take into account level of competition and what they gained against the rest of the league, but never posted it:

In those first 3 games:
YPG........ Avg....Opp Rank....Avg v Rest of League
Rushing....163....11..............121.6
Passing....321.....9...............237.5

Now over the last 13 games:
YPG.........Avg......Opp Rank....Avg v Rest of League....Our Rank
Rushing....112.8....15.............121.4.......... ...............12
Passing....190.7....20.............192.6.......... ................9

Season
YPG.........Avg........OurRank
Rushing....122.3......20
Passing....215.3......22


Now, there are obviously a lot of flaws, but the conclusions I draw from this pseudo-statistical analysis are
- We were obviously having some problems getting started, which could be attributed to a new defensive scheme, players in new positions, and new players starting, particularly Mario and DeMeco.
- We obviously improved over the season. And the obvious comparison is between the two games against Indianapolis.
- But how much? While our rank against the run and pass over the rest of the season look impressive, it becomes somewhat less so when factoring in the level of competition.
- We did better than would be expected against the rush over the rest of the season, taking the teams’ average against the rest of the league as an “average” opposing defense (again I realize this is flawed because I didn’t calculate the average rank of the defenses our opposing teams faced, didn’t factor in the particular game situations – blow-out vs. close game, time of possession, etc.).
- We did about what would be expected for an “average defense” against the pass over the rest of the season.

Looking forward to seeing your results. But I'm hoping the D's performance this year will render this moot.

gtexan02
08-07-2007, 08:15 AM
The thing about dropping your outlyers (the 1st 3 games) to re-rank ourselves from 23 to 13 is that you can't just do that with the Texans.

Firstly, we played some very powerful offensive teams in those first three weeks. Every schedule has hard games and easy games, and we had 3 very difficult games in the first 3 weeks. If you removed every teams 3 hardest games and recalculated, I bet we'd drop back towards 23rd very quickly

Secondly, games in the beginning of the season usually are played the hardest. Most teams are at full strength, are still vying for playoff contention, and come out guns blazing. Toward the end of the year, we had some pretty meaningless games (vs. CLE for example). Many of these games were used by coaches to examine potential starters for next year (see Chris Taylor). Throwing away meaningful games for meaningless garbage time games doesn't really tell the whole story


All in all I definately agree that our team had a much stronger D in the 2nd half of the year, but Im sure that could be said of a lot of temas if you remove their worst games and reanalyze their yardage

Mr teX
08-07-2007, 08:22 AM
are we really gonna do this?

We've just got to sit back wait & see this year. I think everyone noticed the improvement we had on defense @ the end of the year, but above all, i think that was just mainly the defense beginning to gel. If Okoye has the impact we think he will, & mario takes that next step, we will be among the top 10, bar none.

** sits back & waits for a titans fan to come in here with a defensive TO stat saying they're a top 10 defense. **

Rex King
08-07-2007, 08:28 AM
That's true, gtexan. There are a lot of factors that aren't accounted for. I don't think it really takes a statistical analysis to know that the defense played better later in the season, but it's interesting to me. Maybe pose the question to the chron stats blogger and let him run with it.

gtexan02
08-07-2007, 08:32 AM
Just a quick note:

Why is everyone giving this guy a hard time? Sure I pointed out flaws, but criticizing him for even doing th ework in the first place? Do you know how much work he put into this research? And then you blast him for trying to use stats/modeling to examine the team last year and predict this year?

I mean, what do you want all the posts to be?
"I feel the Texans are the best!"
"The defense looks better to me than it did last year"
"The offense looks worse to me"

How lame is that? Sure its great to have personal observations, but some of us love looking at numbers to sort of help us guage ourselves in comparison to other teams

Im sorry to most of you, but I don't trust too many of your "personal opinions" Too many people are way too optimistic or pessimistic, and it clouds your judgement. There are a few people who can take off the rose colored glasses, but the vast majorityleave 'em on all year long. And thats great, but thats why these sort of posts make so much sense--they give us a nonbiased look at our team.

Watching your team play against itself in camps is as close to meaningless as you can get. Its all relative. A team with an incredible D and a great O will stil have an O that gets beat up in camp. It doesn't mean their terrible, it just means the D is better. A team with a horrendous O and an even worse D will look like its got a great offense. Its all relative.

So texanmike, thanks for the post! I for one appreciate the time it took to do this. Hopefully the people who criticize will remember that not everyone feels the same way they do

Mr teX
08-07-2007, 08:47 AM
Just a quick note:

Why is everyone giving this guy a hard time? Sure I pointed out flaws, but criticizing him for even doing th ework in the first place? Do you know how much work he put into this research? And then you blast him for trying to use stats/modeling to examine the team last year and predict this year?

I mean, what do you want all the posts to be?
"I feel the Texans are the best!"
"The defense looks better to me than it did last year"
"The offense looks worse to me"

How lame is that? Sure its great to have personal observations, but some of us love looking at numbers to sort of help us guage ourselves in comparison to other teams

Im sorry to most of you, but I don't trust too many of your "personal opinions" Too many people are way too optimistic or pessimistic, and it clouds your judgement. There are a few people who can take off the rose colored glasses, but the vast majorityleave 'em on all year long. And thats great, but thats why these sort of posts make so much sense--they give us a nonbiased look at our team.

Watching your team play against itself in camps is as close to meaningless as you can get. Its all relative. A team with an incredible D and a great O will stil have an O that gets beat up in camp. It doesn't mean their terrible, it just means the D is better. A team with a horrendous O and an even worse D will look like its got a great offense. Its all relative.

So texanmike, thanks for the post! I for one appreciate the time it took to do this. Hopefully the people who criticize will remember that not everyone feels the same way they do


No one is giving him a hard time man, but even without doing the research (& good research it is) everyone who watched us last year, should've noticed how our defense improved the tail end of the season. Where that puts us this year, no one can be sure until the season starts & all the other factors that you pointed out have been considered.

Pantherstang84
08-07-2007, 08:54 AM
All of this stuff is nice, but how about just coming out and saying how you feel or if you want to make this a statistical analysis how about giving us the big uglies and some improvement points? Not you though as it has got to be pessimistic while using six sigma methodology that defines the Texans by numbers that fit nothing, but your battle black heart. :pirate:

The Texans D got better last year. What they need to get better at is creating TO's and the amount of three and out's. Qualilty defenses control the pace of the game. Great teams control it on both sides of the ball.

I think this post pretty much nails the premise of this thread. I have a boss that is a master at manipulating the numbers to fit his agenda. I can smell it a mile away and this thread has the same stench to it.:cowboy1:

Pantherstang84
08-07-2007, 08:56 AM
Yards allowed is considered the standard when ranking defenses. I don't know where that puts the Texans, but that is most likely what the other poster was referring to. I have also heard the statement about being a top 10 defense the last half of the season on the radio a few times.

I think by the time this thread is over with, we'll have a new standard to measure defenses by.

DBCooper
08-07-2007, 09:42 AM
I'm hope DeMeco doesn't read this.

real
08-07-2007, 09:51 AM
The thing about dropping your outlyers (the 1st 3 games) to re-rank ourselves from 23 to 13 is that you can't just do that with the Texans.

Firstly, we played some very powerful offensive teams in those first three weeks. Every schedule has hard games and easy games, and we had 3 very difficult games in the first 3 weeks. If you removed every teams 3 hardest games and recalculated, I bet we'd drop back towards 23rd very quickly

Secondly, games in the beginning of the season usually are played the hardest. Most teams are at full strength, are still vying for playoff contention, and come out guns blazing. Toward the end of the year, we had some pretty meaningless games (vs. CLE for example).

Regardless of who is telling the story, you know it will get spun.

Kaiser Toro
08-07-2007, 09:58 AM
Just a quick note:

Why is everyone giving this guy a hard time? Sure I pointed out flaws, but criticizing him for even doing th ework in the first place? Do you know how much work he put into this research? And then you blast him for trying to use stats/modeling to examine the team last year and predict this year?

I mean, what do you want all the posts to be?
"I feel the Texans are the best!"
"The defense looks better to me than it did last year"
"The offense looks worse to me"

How lame is that? Sure its great to have personal observations, but some of us love looking at numbers to sort of help us guage ourselves in comparison to other teams

Im sorry to most of you, but I don't trust too many of your "personal opinions" Too many people are way too optimistic or pessimistic, and it clouds your judgement. There are a few people who can take off the rose colored glasses, but the vast majorityleave 'em on all year long. And thats great, but thats why these sort of posts make so much sense--they give us a nonbiased look at our team.

Watching your team play against itself in camps is as close to meaningless as you can get. Its all relative. A team with an incredible D and a great O will stil have an O that gets beat up in camp. It doesn't mean their terrible, it just means the D is better. A team with a horrendous O and an even worse D will look like its got a great offense. Its all relative.

So texanmike, thanks for the post! I for one appreciate the time it took to do this. Hopefully the people who criticize will remember that not everyone feels the same way they do

Yes that was a quick note. The premise is simply why the frig are we having this pessimistic bs at the beginning of the season? I think it is great that someone puts time and effort into quantifying things, but where was it at the end of last season and why the need to post redundantly around one's lament?

Just as objectivity is needed, so is timing.

real
08-07-2007, 10:08 AM
No one is giving him a hard time man, but even without doing the research (& good research it is) everyone who watched us last year, should've noticed how our defense improved the tail end of the season. Where that puts us this year, no one can be sure until the season starts & all the other factors that you pointed out have been considered.

Those are fool's factors...

Saying that we played meaningless games is meaningless in itself...

Football is football....

Like the Texans are the only team that had meaningless games at the end of the year....What about teams that rest starters??? What about teams that had this player hurt, and this player suspended???What about the teams that played in rain and couldn't pass a lot so they were forced to run a lot skewing their rushing stats???? What about the fact that every team doesn't play every team???What about if David Carr is the opposing QB???? Everyone wasn't afforded that luxury!!!

These "factors" can go on and on....And the thing is, IMO, it gets more and more ridiculous...

I trust my eyes, and what my eyes saw last year was a team that started of tentative with a lot of young guys, no real veteran presences, no co-hesiveness--that found a beast in Demeco Ryans a playmaking MLB, A young talented Mario, Some good street pick-ups at DT, a talented young corner in Dunta who is really looking good so far; added a talented young DT...Weaver at SDE...A deeper LB core, A deeper slightly more talented DB core...

I'm not sure why we shouldn't expect an improved defensive product...After spending so many picks on the defensive side of the ball and their improved play over the course of the season I think it's merely pessimism that would make you think otherwise...

gtexan02
08-07-2007, 10:44 AM
Yes that was a quick note. The premise is simply why the frig are we having this pessimistic bs at the beginning of the season? I think it is great that someone puts time and effort into quantifying things, but where was it at the end of last season and why the need to post redundantly around one's lament?

Just as objectivity is needed, so is timing.

I don't see reranking the Texans from 23 to 13 as being pessimistic?

tsip
08-07-2007, 12:01 PM
I thought this was the kind of thing that was done during the off season when posters were bored, not during the real season!

We wait all season to debate what happened last year?...no thanks

gtexan02
08-07-2007, 12:07 PM
The season has started already? I saw the HOF game, but we have no games to discuss or anything yet...

Double Barrel
08-07-2007, 12:10 PM
We handed the Super Bowl Champions their last defeat of the 2006 season.

It was the first time in Texans history that we finally beat the Colts, too.

Obviously, our defense had a hand in that victory. That's good enough to indicate to me that they have improved. With regards to rankings, I probably just don't care enough to debate the subject, because it's meaningless speculation at this point.

The fact that we implemented a 4-3 after four years of a 3-4, as well as added new personnel and coaches, should help us to understand that the first part of the 2006 was subjected to a learning curve. But we did improve, and I think it is reasonable to expect a better defense out of the gate this year as a result.

ObsiWan
08-07-2007, 12:19 PM
TexanMike

Interesting intellectual exercise. Unlike some of the posters, I enjoyed it.

I have a couple of other metrics for defensive effectiveness for you to consider. And no, I haven't "run the numbers". I'm just offering them up for the sake of discussing what you and other folks believe IS the best way to measure defensive effectiveness. Like you, I don't think that ranking by total ydg tells the story effectively enough.

1. Third down effectiveness. What percent of the time does your defense force a punt and give the ball back to its own offense. I would think this would rank at the top of any list.

2. Number of big plays given up; both total and big plays/game. Big plays are generally defined as 30+ yd pass or 20+ yd runs.

3. Red zone efficiency. This should be where your "bend but don't break" teams can move up the rankings. They may look like a sucky defense from a total ydg standpoint, until you find out that (just to toss out a number) they make opposing teams attempt a field goal 3 out of 4 times that they allow them into the red zone as opposed to giving up 6.

I would think that KC Joyner or the Stats, Inc (?) guys would have this sort of thing on their websites. Maybe some of the other guys know better places to look. Surely we aren't the only ones to wonder about such things.

Texans Horror
08-07-2007, 12:21 PM
No doubt the defense improved and will continue to improve. I think some players are fitting better into this system, and of course the key addition of a much-needed defensive tackle. Add in more time playing together, and the defense should be greatly improved.

How about the run game, though? The run game improved over the course of the season. Is it possible that with the Texans offense holding onto the ball longer, that this eased the burden and influenced the production of the defense? That's my opinion, and I hope to see more of it this year. Less four-and-out series from the Texans offense.

However, I am still interested to see the outcome of your stuff, Texans Mike. It sounds like you are doing some interesting research into how the team left off defensively last year. It may be most useful in seeing how the defense bridges to this year and give insight into expectations.

tsip
08-07-2007, 12:43 PM
The season has started already? I saw the HOF game, but we have no games to discuss or anything yet...

...or anything?...maybe how the players are doing, especially the new ones or maybe who will/won't make the team or win/loss predictions or how other teams will do or maybe Super Bowl/playoff predictions or our injury situation or what kind of job are the coaches doing or how's the team looking in TC camp/especially the DBs or QBs or WRs or OL, etc. etc.

Mr teX
08-07-2007, 01:31 PM
Those are fool's factors...

Saying that we played meaningless games is meaningless in itself...

Football is football....

Like the Texans are the only team that had meaningless games at the end of the year....What about teams that rest starters??? What about teams that had this player hurt, and this player suspended???What about the teams that played in rain and couldn't pass a lot so they were forced to run a lot skewing their rushing stats???? What about the fact that every team doesn't play every team???What about if David Carr is the opposing QB???? Everyone wasn't afforded that luxury!!!

These "factors" can go on and on....And the thing is, IMO, it gets more and more ridiculous...

I trust my eyes, and what my eyes saw last year was a team that started of tentative with a lot of young guys, no real veteran presences, no co-hesiveness--that found a beast in Demeco Ryans a playmaking MLB, A young talented Mario, Some good street pick-ups at DT, a talented young corner in Dunta who is really looking good so far; added a talented young DT...Weaver at SDE...A deeper LB core, A deeper slightly more talented DB core...

I'm not sure why we shouldn't expect an improved defensive product...After spending so many picks on the defensive side of the ball and their improved play over the course of the season I think it's merely pessimism that would make you think otherwise...


Not saying to not expect good things from our defense b/c that's the beautiful thing about starting a new season, there's renewed optimism.

You're right for the most part, football is football but i'm not into skewing stats trying to show something that may or may not be there b/c short of being absolutely terrible at everything, almost anyone can do this to try to cast their team in a better light. I just prefer to wait & see how the finished product looks once we play our 1st preseason game.

& some of the factors are "fools" factors but losing your starting QB or FS have consequences that reverberate throughout the teams' offense or defense & does effect the way it performs; i.e. the colts with the return of bob sanders or the bengals in the playoffs when they lost CP.

Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for a 1st,2nd or 3rd string depth chart.

badboy
08-07-2007, 01:33 PM
A good defense: Honey, I was not at the sports bar with the guys watching the game. I was staring at the stars in the night sky thinking of how much I love you and that you were right when you called my mother a poor cook and a busy body.

A good offense: Honey, I am very interested in what you are saying. Keep talking about what your girlfriend told you. I am just going to call in an order of chinese food so you don't have to cook.

Special teams: Honey, I just got a call from the guys. I will clean the garage next Sunday. You remember my friend Freddy? He needs some help picking out what to wear to his wife's birthday party and the guys value my taste in wardrobe. It should not take more than 3 hours or so. The guys said to tell you hello.

Mr teX
08-07-2007, 01:39 PM
A good defense: Honey, I was not at the sports bar with the guys watching the game. I was staring at the stars in the night sky thinking of how much I love you and that you were right when you called my mother a poor cook and a busy body.

A good offense: Honey, I am very interested in what you are saying. Keep talking about what your girlfriend told you. I am just going to call in an order of chinese food so you don't have to cook.

Special teams: Honey, I just got a call from the guys. I will clean the garage next Sunday. You remember my friend Freddy? He needs some help picking out what to wear to his wife's birthday party and the guys value my taste in wardrobe. It should not take more than 3 hours or so. The guys said to tell you hello.

Doug Heffernan is that you?

badboy
08-07-2007, 01:44 PM
Doug Heffernan is that you?Uh, who dat?

Mr teX
08-07-2007, 01:56 PM
Uh, who dat?

he's the guy from King of Queens, he was always doing or saying things like that to his wife.

Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 02:20 PM
All of this stuff is nice, but how about just coming out and saying how you feel or if you want to make this a statistical analysis how about giving us the big uglies and some improvement points? Not you though as it has got to be pessimistic while using six sigma methodology that defines the Texans by numbers that fit nothing, but your battle black heart. :pirate:

The Texans D got better last year. What they need to get better at is creating TO's and the amount of three and out's. Qualilty defenses control the pace of the game. Great teams control it on both sides of the ball.

Why In the hell would I let something like facts get in the way of a good argument? I'm not saying the Texans defense didn't improve. I'm not even saying they're not a top 10 defense. I just asked the question. Haven't yet plugged the numbers in to see what happened.

Mike

Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 02:38 PM
The thing about dropping your outlyers (the 1st 3 games) to re-rank ourselves from 23 to 13 is that you can't just do that with the Texans.

Firstly, we played some very powerful offensive teams in those first three weeks. Every schedule has hard games and easy games, and we had 3 very difficult games in the first 3 weeks. If you removed every teams 3 hardest games and recalculated, I bet we'd drop back towards 23rd very quickly

Secondly, games in the beginning of the season usually are played the hardest. Most teams are at full strength, are still vying for playoff contention, and come out guns blazing. Toward the end of the year, we had some pretty meaningless games (vs. CLE for example). Many of these games were used by coaches to examine potential starters for next year (see Chris Taylor). Throwing away meaningful games for meaningless garbage time games doesn't really tell the whole story


All in all I definately agree that our team had a much stronger D in the 2nd half of the year, but Im sure that could be said of a lot of temas if you remove their worst games and reanalyze their yardage

Yeah, I agree. I say that we take the worst 8 games and the best 8 games out and just talk about our feelings man.

Seriously though. You're exactly right. But the statement was made and I got curious.

Mike

Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 02:49 PM
TexanMike

Interesting intellectual exercise. Unlike some of the posters, I enjoyed it.

I have a couple of other metrics for defensive effectiveness for you to consider. And no, I haven't "run the numbers". I'm just offering them up for the sake of discussing what you and other folks believe IS the best way to measure defensive effectiveness. Like you, I don't think that ranking by total ydg tells the story effectively enough.

1. Third down effectiveness. What percent of the time does your defense force a punt and give the ball back to its own offense. I would think this would rank at the top of any list.

2. Number of big plays given up; both total and big plays/game. Big plays are generally defined as 30+ yd pass or 20+ yd runs.

3. Red zone efficiency. This should be where your "bend but don't break" teams can move up the rankings. They may look like a sucky defense from a total ydg standpoint, until you find out that (just to toss out a number) they make opposing teams attempt a field goal 3 out of 4 times that they allow them into the red zone as opposed to giving up 6.

I would think that KC Joyner or the Stats, Inc (?) guys would have this sort of thing on their websites. Maybe some of the other guys know better places to look. Surely we aren't the only ones to wonder about such things.

Yeah.. this will be a pretty long exercise I think. I need to figure out a way to factor in your big 3, yards/carry,yards/attempt/first down efficiency. I need to get those numbers for something like 10 years and break down every game. And which ones are tied to wins and losses the heaviest. The most interesting thing to me... was that there is very little, if any correlation between tds and passing yards.

Mike

real
08-07-2007, 03:04 PM
& some of the factors are "fools" factors but losing your starting QB or FS have consequences that reverberate throughout the teams' offense or defense & does effect the way it performs; i.e. the colts with the return of bob sanders or the bengals in the playoffs when they lost CP.

Otherwise there wouldn't be any need for a 1st,2nd or 3rd string depth chart.

You missed the point....

All factors are fools factors...

Football is football...The 11 guys on the field on any given play need to perform....

Otherwise the "factors" never stop....No team in the NFL is safe from all outside influences that may or may not have an affect on their play on Sunday...

The factors don't matter...you are what you are...

If you lose more than you win, you're a loser...doesn't matter how many close victories, how many "meaningless" wins or how many players were injured...

The reason I say this is because EVERY TEAM has internal and external factors that contribute to wins and losses on game day...

How can you look at all of the factors that affected the Texans and not assume that there were factors affecting the opposing team?

Yes we had meaningless games, and injured players...I was just under the impression that this kind of stuff happened to everyone--not just us...

Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 03:08 PM
You missed the point....

All factors are fools factors...

Football is football...The 11 guys on the field on any given play need to perform....

Otherwise the "factors" never stop....No team in the NFL is safe from all outside influences that may or may not have an affect on their play on Sunday...

The factors don't matter...you are what you are...

If you lose more than you win, you're a loser...doesn't matter how many close victories, how many "meaningless" wins or how many players were injured...

The reason I say this is because EVERY TEAM has internal and external factors that contribute to wins and losses on game day...

How can you look at all of the factors that affected the Texans and not assume that there were factors affecting the opposing team?

Yes we had meaningless games, and injured players...I was just under the impression that this kind of stuff happened to everyone--not just us...

I agree with you on in a "grand scheme of things" type of way. In the end you're right. But when you try to evaluate a defense or an offense or an individual player these things do come into play.

Mike

gtexan02
08-07-2007, 03:08 PM
We handed the Super Bowl Champions their last defeat of the 2006 season.

It was the first time in Texans history that we finally beat the Colts, too.

Obviously, our defense had a hand in that victory. That's good enough to indicate to me that they have improved. With regards to rankings, I probably just don't care enough to debate the subject, because it's meaningless speculation at this point.

The fact that we implemented a 4-3 after four years of a 3-4, as well as added new personnel and coaches, should help us to understand that the first part of the 2006 was subjected to a learning curve. But we did improve, and I think it is reasonable to expect a better defense out of the gate this year as a result.


I agree with the second part, but if you had watched the Indy game, it was quite clear that the reason we won was primarily because of our OFFENSE (more specifically, our run game). We held the bal lfor a crazy amount of time. When Indy had it, our d didn't do much to stop them. Manning completed almost all of his passes, and I remember Addai running all over our Texans run D.

No matter what the D did, our offense won us that game

real
08-07-2007, 03:10 PM
I agree with you on in a "grand scheme of things" type of way. In the end you're right. But when you try to evaluate a defense or an offense or an individual player these things do come into play.

Mike


Factors = excuses


Notice how the winning team never says they won because the opposing team had some banged up players.

Tis' always the loser pointing out 'factors'.

Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 03:21 PM
In general from watching the games last year (and I watched ALL of them several times) I thought that we improved on defense last year. I didn't think we were a top defense. I felt like we had achieved mediocrity. Which for this team is a first. Some people feel differently, and so they conveniently point to the total yardage as the means by which we should measure a defense. I just disagree. This didn't happen at the end of last year because it wasn't really asked of me. Maybe nothing comes of it. Maybe I figure out how to solve the worlds energy problems. I don't really care as long as I, and some others, are enjoying football conversation that is a little beyond "Ra Ra Ra" I'm happy.

Mike

HOU-TEX
08-07-2007, 03:26 PM
I agree with the second part, but if you had watched the Indy game, it was quite clear that the reason we won was primarily because of our OFFENSE (more specifically, our run game). We held the bal lfor a crazy amount of time. When Indy had it, our d didn't do much to stop them. Manning completed almost all of his passes, and I remember Addai running all over our Texans run D.

No matter what the D did, our offense won us that game

I agree with you in saying our running game had alot of influence on the win. The defense did what they could against one of the NFL's best Offenses. It might not have been much, but what if Mario didn't cause that fumble. Our defense has to create more turnovers like this in order to even consider top ten status.

Indianapolis Colts at 10:12
1-10-IND45 (10:12) P.Manning pass incomplete deep right to M.Harrison.
2-10-IND45 (10:06) D.Rhodes up the middle to IND 45 for no gain (M.Williams). FUMBLES (M.Williams), RECOVERED by HST-A.Weaver at IND 47. A.Weaver to IND 47 for no gain (D.Rhodes).

Indianapolis Colts at 14:49
1-10-IND20 (14:49) J.Addai right guard to IND 32 for 12 yards (C.Brown).
1-10-IND32 (14:22) P.Manning pass short left to J.Addai to IND 33 for 1 yard (D.Ryans).
2-9-IND33 (13:36) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass short right to M.Harrison to IND 39 for 6 yards (M.Williams).
3-3-IND39 (12:49) (Shotgun) P.Manning pass incomplete short left to R.Wayne (D.Ryans).
4-3-IND39 (12:44) H.Smith punts 55 yards to HST 6, Center-J.Snow. D.Wynn to HST 10 for 4 yards (T.Hagler). (Punt hang time 4.7 seconds.)

Addai had 15 carries for 100 yds 6.6 ypc. While not pedestrian, I wouldn't call it running all over us.:cool:

gtexan02
08-07-2007, 03:36 PM
Averaging 6.6 yards per carry is an extremely good total. The only reason he didn't actually run all over us is because we held the ball so long that Peyton was forced to throw most of the time.

If you want to check stats, Peyton was 21 for 27, completing almost 80% of his passes.

That fumble by mario really helped, but the offense accounted for at least 75% of that win

real
08-07-2007, 03:39 PM
In general from watching the games last year (and I watched ALL of them several times) I thought that we improved on defense last year. I didn't think we were a top defense. I felt like we had achieved mediocrity. Which for this team is a first. Some people feel differently, and so they conveniently point to the total yardage as the means by which we should measure a defense. I just disagree. This didn't happen at the end of last year because it wasn't really asked of me. Maybe nothing comes of it. Maybe I figure out how to solve the worlds energy problems. I don't really care as long as I, and some others, are enjoying football conversation that is a little beyond "Ra Ra Ra" I'm happy.

Mike

Not knocking your process....

Just pointing out that depending on your personality and outlook, these "factors" can be twisted and manipulated in which ever direction you so choose...

Statistical analysis isn't football talk IMO, so if you're tired of the "Ra Ra Ra, I'm happy banter" and want to discuss football how about actually talking football...

What do you like about our defense ? What do you dislike ? How well do you think we'll do ? Will they be slightly improved, much improved, a dominant unit, mediocre ??? Why do you feel like that ??

Stats, data analysis and factors can twisted either way and don't really provide anything of substance to debate on....How the Texans statistically faired last year may or may not have anything to do with your perception of the team heading into this season...

That's all I'm sayin...

Texanmike02
08-07-2007, 03:51 PM
Not knocking your process....

Just pointing out that depending on your personality and outlook, these "factors" can be twisted and manipulated in which ever direction you so choose...

Statistical analysis isn't football talk IMO, so if you're tired of the "Ra Ra Ra, I'm happy banter" and want to discuss football how about actually talking football...

What do you like about our defense ? What do you dislike ? How well do you think we'll do ? Will they be slightly improved, much improved, a dominant unit, mediocre ??? Why do you feel like that ??

Stats, data analysis and factors can twisted either way and don't really provide anything of substance to debate on....How the Texans statistically faired last year may or may not have anything to do with your perception of the team heading into this season...

That's all I'm sayin...

That's where this all came from actually. I don't think we have a bad defense, but until we fix the secondary, I don't think we'll have a top 10 defense. I think we're undermanned at corner and at the very least FS. I love Demeco, but am kind of luke warm on the guys to his left and right. Then again, at least there is competition. I am a Mario guy (was calling for him before we drafted him), as well as an Okoye guy. (Was pleasantly surprised we got him). I believe in building from the inside out which I think we're finally doing on defense. I expect our defense to be average, maybe a little above average, but certainly not great this year, unless we figure out how to get pressure on the passer which will help mask our liability in the backfield.


Mike

HOU-TEX
08-07-2007, 03:52 PM
Averaging 6.6 yards per carry is an extremely good total. The only reason he didn't actually run all over us is because we held the ball so long that Peyton was forced to throw most of the time.

If you want to check stats, Peyton was 21 for 27, completing almost 80% of his passes.

That fumble by mario really helped, but the offense accounted for at least 75% of that win

So it goes from Addai running all over us to Manning passing most of the time. 21 of 27 for 205 yds isn't exactly lighting the passing game up. YKW threw 16 of 24 for 163 yds which is close to what Manning did, right?

My whole point is the offense and defense go hand in hand. You can't just say one of them won the game for us because the other had alot to do with the win as well.:cool:

ObsiWan
08-07-2007, 05:33 PM
Factors = excuses


Notice how the winning team never says they won because the opposing team had some banged up players.

Tis' always the loser pointing out 'factors'.

Then why have a message board where we do nothing but discuss "factors". Who plays QB is a factor. Who will start at #2 WR is a factor. How Mario or DeMeco or Dunta or whoever steps up as a leader is a factor.

Sooooo what you're saying is we are all on this board discussing "excuses" which, in the end, serves no real purpose. So we should just shut up crying about all these "excuses" and potential excuses. And whatever happens, happens.

real
08-07-2007, 05:51 PM
Then why have a message board where we do nothing but discuss "factors". Who plays QB is a factor. Who will start at #2 WR is a factor. How Mario or DeMeco or Dunta or whoever steps up as a leader is a factor.

Sooooo what you're saying is we are all on this board discussing "excuses" which, in the end, serves no real purpose. So we should just shut up crying about all these "excuses" and potential excuses. And whatever happens, happens.

No don't shut up....

We are obviously getting a lot accomplished, by posting on the board...




The point was that there aren't any more factors that affect us than any other team...

The common denominator with successful teams vs. losing teams isn't injuries...It's a front office who drafts well, and a coach who coaches well...

All the other factors cancel each other out IMO...

Mr teX
08-07-2007, 05:54 PM
You missed the point....

All factors are fools factors...

Football is football...The 11 guys on the field on any given play need to perform....

Otherwise the "factors" never stop....No team in the NFL is safe from all outside influences that may or may not have an affect on their play on Sunday...

The factors don't matter...you are what you are...

If you lose more than you win, you're a loser...doesn't matter how many close victories, how many "meaningless" wins or how many players were injured...

The reason I say this is because EVERY TEAM has internal and external factors that contribute to wins and losses on game day...

How can you look at all of the factors that affected the Texans and not assume that there were factors affecting the opposing team?

Yes we had meaningless games, and injured players...I was just under the impression that this kind of stuff happened to everyone--not just us...
But those 11 players react to these factors play in & out & game in & out.

Winners or Losers don't talk about it b/c it is what it is & it's an unspoken thing amongst pro athletes. It doesn't mean that the eventual winning team don't care, seek out or scheme around such factors to gain that winning edge.

Every team does have internal & external factors that affect them, but it's the magnitude of those factors that play an even bigger role & if only for that reason, coaches pay attention to them. Teams just don't fight for homefield advantage in the playoffs for nothing, they do it b/c they want as much of an advantage as possible & that advantage comes with securing every single factor in their favor they can. Does it mean they'll win the game? no but you've put your team in the best possible position to win.

throwing passes in Soldier Field in the middle of winter is a bit of a problem for most opposing teams, but it's an exponentially larger problem if you're a pass oriented team that doesn't run the ball well & your playing in front of 50-60,000 hostile bears fans.

On any given sunday some teams might be good enough to overcome them (NE pats) others might cower down underneath the pressure of them (Indy colts) but they do matter.

IMO it's just not as simple as lining up or having the best talent or scheme.

real
08-07-2007, 05:58 PM
IMO it's just not as simple as lining up or having the best talent or scheme.

Yes it is...

If you can't overcome "factors" then you're not a good football team...


As I said...Factors are just excuses...

Mr teX
08-07-2007, 06:01 PM
Yes it is...

If you can't overcome "factors" then you're not a good football team...


As I said...Factors are just excuses...

So the indy colts a few years back when they played NE in NE in the snow in hostile territory wasn't a good football team? Even though they were like 14-2?

Or the patriots this past year?

The Pencil Neck
08-07-2007, 07:10 PM
As one of the ones that's been saying that we had a top 10 defense the last 13 games (when looking at yardage), I went back and re-checked my numbers. I had gotten my original numbers from the game by game stats from NFL.com. But after checking on that, it looks like I might have been picking up the NET passing yardage instead of the GROSS.

This time, I took the totals from NFL.com and then got the rushing and (GROSS) passing numbers from the game by game pages for the first 3 games only. I removed those totals, got the averages, and then calculated for 16 games.

I come up with 190 ypg passing and 112 ypg rushing. Those would have ranked us 9th against the pass, 12th against the run, and 11th overall. JUST outside the top 10. But much better than where we ended up.

Now, the question of whether using yardage as the standard because it's not the best indication of a winning team is irrelevant to me. When comparing defenses, yardage and points are what's usually used. Those are the standards. The Raiders had a strong defense and it shows in their stats even though they were a bad team overall and they got no help from their offense.

On the points side, we averaged 20.6 ppg the last 13 games of the season and 32.7 ppg the first three. But if you mix everything together, we averaged 22.9. Although that's better, we ended up just in the middle of the pack. Of course, that doesn't take into account points given up by the offense (3 td's, iirc) or special teams (1 td, iirc.) But everyone has those sorts of things in their stats and the defense is the driving factor, so I'm not too worried about that (although it would be interesting to see the scoring averages with non-defensive scores removed.)

real
08-07-2007, 08:56 PM
So the indy colts a few years back when they played NE in NE in the snow in hostile territory wasn't a good football team? Even though they were like 14-2?

Or the patriots this past year?


You don't go 14-2 without overcoming factors...

You're twisting my words...

I never said good football teams always win or bad football teams always lose....good and bad are generalizations within themselves to begin with....

I stand by what I said....As a football team if you can't overcome factors, you are a bad team...

The Colts couldn't overcome the snow so they lost...pretty easy to connect the dots....

You don't win if you can't overcome 'factors'...

DBCooper
08-07-2007, 09:32 PM
The only stat I know is that we are 0-0 right now and tied for first place.

You can look at last year's stats until you are blue in the face, but too many variables (schedule, injuries, luck) happen in football. We have no idea how we will perform or how the other teams will perform until they play the game. (see last year's Saints)

My only job is to scream my head off and make these guys get pumped up for the City of Houston! The one thing we can do as FANS, is make the stadium so loud, no one will want to come to Houston to play football!

Have fun with your stats, football is about heart.

This team is better. You'll see.

leebigeztx
08-07-2007, 11:05 PM
i dont know exactly how it breaks down, but the defense played pretty well after they added Dalton. Actually after the 4th game, they played pretty well. Say what you want, but had the texans had a competent qb, the team could have won 2 more games. i mean the defense was playing pretty good and the running game was going well, but carr sucked majorily

Texanmike02
08-08-2007, 12:47 AM
As one of the ones that's been saying that we had a top 10 defense the last 13 games (when looking at yardage), I went back and re-checked my numbers. I had gotten my original numbers from the game by game stats from NFL.com. But after checking on that, it looks like I might have been picking up the NET passing yardage instead of the GROSS.

This time, I took the totals from NFL.com and then got the rushing and (GROSS) passing numbers from the game by game pages for the first 3 games only. I removed those totals, got the averages, and then calculated for 16 games.

I come up with 190 ypg passing and 112 ypg rushing. Those would have ranked us 9th against the pass, 12th against the run, and 11th overall. JUST outside the top 10. But much better than where we ended up.

Now, the question of whether using yardage as the standard because it's not the best indication of a winning team is irrelevant to me. When comparing defenses, yardage and points are what's usually used. Those are the standards. The Raiders had a strong defense and it shows in their stats even though they were a bad team overall and they got no help from their offense.

On the points side, we averaged 20.6 ppg the last 13 games of the season and 32.7 ppg the first three. But if you mix everything together, we averaged 22.9. Although that's better, we ended up just in the middle of the pack. Of course, that doesn't take into account points given up by the offense (3 td's, iirc) or special teams (1 td, iirc.) But everyone has those sorts of things in their stats and the defense is the driving factor, so I'm not too worried about that (although it would be interesting to see the scoring averages with non-defensive scores removed.)

The whole reason I did this was to just peel a little deeper. Going by record alone Chicago was the the 2nd best team in the league... But do you think they would have beaten NE Indy Balt or SD? Were they better teams? The same thing applies to yardage. As I said, while yardage might be the most common stat used to look at defense, since some defenses are out on the filed an extra 150 times if you figure just a conservative average of 5 yards a play that works out to an extra 750 yards you have to throw in against that defense. Since Balt gave up 4225 yards compared to Tenn's 5900 that is enough to move just about anybody out of the top 10 into the top 10. That was why I was looking for a better way. Kind of like ERA in baseball is just as reflective of not only the pitcher but the defenders behind him. Of course everybody is going to have their own opinion about what to use.

Mike

Mr teX
08-08-2007, 08:47 AM
You don't go 14-2 without overcoming factors...

You're twisting my words...

I never said good football teams always win or bad football teams always lose....good and bad are generalizations within themselves to begin with....

I stand by what I said....As a football team if you can't overcome factors, you are a bad team...

The Colts couldn't overcome the snow so they lost...pretty easy to connect the dots....

You don't win if you can't overcome 'factors'...

This post doesn't make much sense.....

Good & bad are generalizations but there's still a line that's crossed going from 1 to the other & it's usually the win/loss record.

Going by your logic, the 16-0 dolphins are the only good team in the history of the NFL b/c they were able to conquer every single factor every single time they were faced with one.

Only if you mean "bad" for that day can i see what you're saying, but noone in their right mind would or could say that that colts team that year was an overall bad team.

& the bolded isn't true either, teams can win in spite of these factors, doesn't mean that they overcame them, Sometimes dumb luck rears it's ugly head. How much do you want to bet Tom Brady knew nothing of the tuck rule when Woodson knocked the living crap out of him?

real
08-08-2007, 09:25 AM
This post doesn't make much sense.....

Good & bad are generalizations but there's still a line that's crossed going from 1 to the other & it's usually the win/loss record.

Going by your logic, the 16-0 dolphins are the only good team in the history of the NFL b/c they were able to conquer every single factor every single time they were faced with one.

Only if you mean "bad" for that day can i see what you're saying, but noone in their right mind would or could say that that colts team that year was an overall bad team.

& the bolded isn't true either, teams can win in spite of these factors, doesn't mean that they overcame them, Sometimes dumb luck rears it's ugly head. How much do you want to bet Tom Brady knew nothing of the tuck rule when Woodson knocked the living crap out of him?



If your definition of good is perfection, then I dunno what to tell ya...
I don't expect any team to be perfect...For me to say that a good team overcomes ALL factors would be like me asking a team, AKA a group of humans, to be perfect....Don't be silly...

I said good and bad are generalizations...

As a team if you can't overcome the fact that you have picked many first round bust...ding ding ding...you are a bad team...As a team if a key player gets injured and you can't overcome that, you're a bad team...

On any given Sunday if you can't overcome the snow, you were the worst team on that day...Doesn't mean it's a 'bad' team in general...but that day they were...

Every Sunday there are factors...Every team has things going against them, and every team has things going for them....Everyone is given an equal shot on Sunday...No ones "factors" are greater than anyone elses...how can you measure that ? Sure Indy was in the snow, but did the Patriots have any key players injured ?

I don't expect the most talented team to always win, but I do expect the best team to always win...

Mr teX
08-08-2007, 10:28 AM
If your definition of good is perfection, then I dunno what to tell ya...
I don't expect any team to be perfect...For me to say that a good team overcomes ALL factors would be like me asking a team, AKA a group of humans, to be perfect....Don't be silly...

I said good and bad are generalizations...

As a team if you can't overcome the fact that you have picked many first round bust...ding ding ding...you are a bad team...As a team if a key player gets injured and you can't overcome that, you're a bad team...

On any given Sunday if you can't overcome the snow, you were the worst team on that day...Doesn't mean it's a 'bad' team in general...but that day they were...

Every Sunday there are factors...Every team has things going against them, and every team has things going for them....Everyone is given an equal shot on Sunday...No ones "factors" are greater than anyone elses...how can you measure that ? Sure Indy was in the snow, but did the Patriots have any key players injured ?

I don't expect the most talented team to always win, but I do expect the best team to always win...

OK i see your point about the "bad" that day, but your crazy if you think that the colts with say......... Jim Sorgi at the helm, would have just as good of a chance to beat Brady & the patriots last year.

The best overall team doesn't always win,

signed,

The 06' San Diego Chargers, 98' Vikings, the 2001 Rams & countless other teams in all sports who lost games they were supposed to win.

But we can agree to disagree.

real
08-08-2007, 10:59 AM
But we can agree to disagree.

Indeed we can...

Especially if your definition of best = most talented

ObsiWan
08-08-2007, 11:03 AM
No don't shut up....

We are obviously getting a lot accomplished, by posting on the board... [your blatant sarcasm here wasn't lost on me by the way]


The point was that there aren't any more factors that affect us than any other team...

The common denominator with successful teams vs. losing teams isn't injuries...It's a front office who drafts well, and a coach who coaches well...

All the other factors cancel each other out IMO...

The Colts and Patriots are "good teams" in this day & time. Let Manning or Brady go down for the season with injury and let's see how they fair. These factors can't "cancel each other out" unless they happen to all teams equally; i.e., every team loses their starting QB. That is highly unlikely.


And I'm confused about something:
How did this go from a breakdown of Texans' defensive statistics to a discussion on the Zen of NFL Football.
:doot:

real
08-08-2007, 11:12 AM
The Colts and Patriots are "good teams" in this day & time. Let Manning or Brady go down for the season with injury and let's see how they fair. These factors can't "cancel each other out" unless they happen to all teams equally; i.e., every team loses their starting QB. That is highly unlikely.


And I'm confused about something:
How did this go from a breakdown of Texans' defensive statistics to a discussion on the Zen of NFL Football.
:doot:


You are proving my point....

If Brady goes down are the Patriots still a good team ? No..not unless others step up..

If the Colts lose Peyton are they still a good team ? No...not unless others step up

(stepping up = overcoming factors)

You are what you freaking are...If the Colts only hope at winning a superbowl is Manning being healthy, if he goes down and they can't win without him they are no longer a good team...Don't know how you don't see that...

If you can't overcome "factors" you lose...If you lose, you were the worst team...If you lose more than you win you are a bad team...

I stand by what I said...Factors are excuses....Only the losing team points out the factors...

Mr teX
08-08-2007, 11:13 AM
Indeed we can...

Especially if your definition of best = most talented

My definition of the best is based on the win/loss records of these teams at the time, as i stated b4.

real
08-08-2007, 11:17 AM
My definition of the best is based on the win/loss records of these teams at the time, as i stated b4.

:gun:

Mr teX
08-08-2007, 11:28 AM
:gun:

LOL, yeah i feel the same way...

HJam72
08-08-2007, 11:33 AM
Factors suck. :user:

TK_Gamer
08-08-2007, 12:00 PM
In my humble oppinion yardage is the general way to compare offenses and defenses general overal performance, not accurate but easily calculated. That is why it is the first stat listed in most stat sheet comparisons. The more telling stats are points scored vs points allowed as a percentile. This is still a team stat and can be influenced by both offense and defense. The telling stat is usually turnover differential, and 3rd down efficiency. This goes across all of sports and when the "Experts" start disecting a teams greatness its usually done with turnovers and efficiency comparisons. In my oppinion these stats all go out the window once the post season begins, because in every sport the teams that win in playoff games show the cream rises to the top. Champions "find a way" to win, regardless of "factors", statistics or talent.

Mr teX
08-08-2007, 12:09 PM
In my humble oppinion yardage is the general way to compare offenses and defenses general overal performance, not accurate but easily calculated. That is why it is the first stat listed in most stat sheet comparisons. The more telling stats are points scored vs points allowed as a percentile. This is still a team stat and can be influenced by both offense and defense. The telling stat is usually turnover differential, and 3rd down efficiency. This goes across all of sports and when the "Experts" start disecting a teams greatness its usually done with turnovers and efficiency comparisons. In my oppinion these stats all go out the window once the post season begins, because in every sport the teams that win in playoff games show the cream rises to the top. Champions "find a way" to win, regardless of "factors", statistics or talent.

Yeah, but it's usually the team that either has to deal with the least amount of "factors" effecting their play, or who has the most going in their favor.

real
08-08-2007, 12:12 PM
[/b]

Yeah, but it's usually the team that either has to deal with the least amount of "factors" effecting their play, or who has the most going in their favor.


No it's not...

The teams that normally win are the teams who draft the best and have the best coaches and Front office...

Using your logic anybody could win the Super Bowl in any given year...It'd be like a toss up....Whoever has the least things go wrong wins...

That's not how it happens....

The best teams win, and the worst teams lose...period...

ObsiWan
08-08-2007, 12:29 PM
You are proving my point....

If Brady goes down are the Patriots still a good team ? No..not unless others step up..

If the Colts lose Peyton are they still a good team ? No...not unless others step up

(stepping up = overcoming factors)

You are what you freaking are...If the Colts only hope at winning a superbowl is Manning being healthy, if he goes down and they can't win without him they are no longer a good team...Don't know how you don't see that...

If you can't overcome "factors" you lose...If you lose, you were the worst team...If you lose more than you win you are a bad team...

I stand by what I said...Factors are excuses....Only the losing team points out the factors...

I agree with the "good teams overcome adversity" part of your philosophy.

What I don't agree with is the "All the other factors cancel each other out IMO" part.

Or maybe I just don't understand what you meant by that.

If Mario goes down for us, is that the same as the Colts losing Dwight Freeney?

If the Colts lose Reggie Wayne, is that the same as us losing Kevin Walter?

I understand that if both teams are to remain competitive, they have to find someone to step up. That's a given. But the relative impact of those losses to each team are just not equal. And that's what I think you're telling me when you say "All the other factors cancel each other out" Help me with that part cause I ain't gettin' that part of your message.

real
08-08-2007, 12:48 PM
I understand that if both teams are to remain competitive, they have to find someone to step up. That's a given. But the relative impact of those losses to each team are just not equal. And that's what I think you're telling me when you say "All the other factors cancel each other out" Help me with that part cause I ain't gettin' that part of your message.


If Peyton goes down, no it's not the same as us losing Schaub...

If Peyton goes down and we lose our starting LT in Charles Spencer, David Carr is our QB, and Mario has foot pain is that equal ?

How do you measure something like that ?

If you could, then you could say that if Mario didn't have foot pain we would have won by more because he'd have put more pressure on the QB and maybe have gotten a sack or two...

The excu...err....factors can go on and on....Every team has adversities and no teams is greater than any others....Their is no measure for that..."if" something woulda been this or thata way doesn't make you a good team...you are what you are..If we'd have drafted better we'd be a better team....If you lose a key player and that is your excu...err...reason for losing a game it doesn't matter...You lost...You didn't overcome that...the better team won...

infantrycak
08-08-2007, 01:02 PM
Troy Aikman has done a very good job of blending stats into his Efficiency Ratings. Given the vagaries of off and on days for NFL teams and players, they predict the winners at a very high percentage.

badboy
08-08-2007, 02:31 PM
he's the guy from King of Queens, he was always doing or saying things like that to his wife.I do not watch educational programming.

real
08-08-2007, 02:49 PM
I do not watch educational programming.

lol

Mr teX
08-08-2007, 03:24 PM
No it's not...

The teams that normally win are the teams who draft the best and have the best coaches and Front office...

Using your logic anybody could win the Super Bowl in any given year...It'd be like a toss up....Whoever has the least things go wrong wins...

That's not how it happens....

The best teams win, and the worst teams lose...period...

you just proved my point,

Having a front office that drafts well & competent coaching staff is a factor! what you're failing to realize is that all these things affect & interact with each other.

The houston sports franchises are all testaments to this. The 1st coaching regime of the texans drafted poorly & for the most part spent money poorly for 4 years. They weren't as bad as Capers & co. had them playing like. Year 1 kubes comes in begins the reversal process. NE has been the direct opposite of us. How is that any different from what i'm saying?

& technically, anyone can win a superbowl in any given year, the chances might be that of the lottery, but it can happen. that's why everyone talks about the parity in the NFL.

It's pretty simple really...

real
08-08-2007, 03:33 PM
you just proved my point,
Having a front office that drafts well & competent coaching staff is a factor! what you're failing to realize is that all these things affect & interact with each other.The houston sports franchises are all testaments to this.



If a team isn't able to overcome the fact that their F.O. sux, then what does that make them ?? A good team?? :um:

Are you trying to say Houston was indeed a good team ?

No...you can argue that they were talented, but they WERE a bad team...



The 1st coaching regime of the texans drafted poorly & for the most part spent money poorly for 4 years. They weren't as bad as Capers & co. had them playing like. Year 1 kubes comes in begins the reversal process. NE has been the direct opposite of us. How is that any different from what i'm saying?

Don't know what you mean here...Drafting is another factor...If you draft poorly and can't overcome that factor you're a bad team....What's so hard to understand about that ?

And before you go on a tangent...no I'm not saying if you draft poorly you are a bad team...If you can overcome that bad draft then you have overcome a factor....Look at the Pistons drafting Milicic...They could have had Wade, but they didn't let that bad choice set them back...AKA they are a good team....

& technically, anyone can win a superbowl in any given year, the chances might be that of the lottery, but it can happen. that's why everyone talks about the parity in the NFL.

Exactly...In the NFL everyone is on an even playing field.....Everyone has a chance to win it all...

But guess who won't win it all...The BAD TEAMS...AKA the teams who don't overcome these "factors"....

real
08-08-2007, 03:42 PM
You're right though...It is pretty simple...

good teams win more than they lose, and bad teams lose more than they win...

Good defenses stop people more than they let them score, and Bad defenses let people score more than they stop them...

Good defenses overcome factors not in their favor, bad defenses don't...

You aren't a good defense, "but"....and you aren't a good team, "but"....

You are what you are...

Mr teX
08-08-2007, 03:55 PM
You're right though...It is pretty simple...

good teams win more than they lose, and bad teams lose more than they win...

Good defenses stop people more than they let them score, and Bad defenses let people score more than they stop them...

Good defenses overcome factors not in their favor, bad defenses don't...

You aren't a good defense, "but"....and you aren't a good team, "but"....

You are what you are...

Now why did we have to take this round-about way just for you to admit that they at least matter somewhat?