PDA

View Full Version : New York Life Protection Index


Vinny
10-18-2011, 04:10 PM
The New York Life Protection Index is the authoritative measure of a team’s aptitude in pass protection. In today’s football, the ‘golden age’ of passing, a pro football team’s ability to protect the quarterback is a key attribute to winning games. The New York Life Protection Index was created by sports information leader STATS to provide a composite gauge for this undervalued component of the game. While the New York Life Protection Index is calculated using a proprietary formula, the fundamentals are comprised of the length of a team’s pass attempts combined with penalties by offensive linemen, sacks allowed and quarterback hurries and knockdowns. The New York Life Protection Index is updated weekly throughout the regular season. http://newyorklife.stats.com/fb/protection.asp?type=overall&year=2011

Overall
Rank Team Games Index
1 New Orleans Saints 6 88.2
2 Tennessee Titans 5 83.0
3 Buffalo Bills 6 78.2
4 New England Patriots 6 76.8
5 Dallas Cowboys 5 74.7
6 Green Bay Packers 6 74.4
7 Detroit Lions 6 73.9
8 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 6 71.5
9 San Diego Chargers 5 70.8
10 Carolina Panthers 6 69.5
11 New York Giants 6 67.8
12 Cincinnati Bengals 6 67.1
13 Indianapolis Colts 6 67.1
14 Cleveland Browns 5 66.7
15 Denver Broncos 5 66.2
16 Oakland Raiders 6 66.0
17 Philadelphia Eagles 6 64.2
18 Houston Texans 6 63.8
19 Washington Redskins 5 62.8
20 Kansas City Chiefs 5 61.7
21 Pittsburgh Steelers 6 59.4
22 Arizona Cardinals 5 58.4
23 Atlanta Falcons 6 57.6
24 New York Jets 6 56.9
25 Baltimore Ravens 5 53.7
26 Chicago Bears 6 45.3
27 Miami Dolphins 5 45.1
28 San Francisco 49ers 6 44.7
29 Jacksonville Jaguars 6 43.6
30 St. Louis Rams 5 43.2
31 Seattle Seahawks 5 41.9
32 Minnesota Vikings 6 39.7

nero THE zero
10-18-2011, 04:45 PM
"Proprietary" :kitten:

Wonder if they adjust for SOS.

J_R
10-18-2011, 04:51 PM
Overall
Rank Team Games Index
1 New Orleans Saints 6 88.2
2 Tennessee Titans 5 83.0
3 Buffalo Bills 6 78.2
4 New England Patriots 6 76.8
5 Dallas Cowboys 5 74.7
6 Green Bay Packers 6 74.4
7 Detroit Lions 6 73.9
8 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 6 71.5
9 San Diego Chargers 5 70.8
10 Carolina Panthers 6 69.5
11 New York Giants 6 67.8
12 Cincinnati Bengals 6 67.1
13 Indianapolis Colts 6 67.1
14 Cleveland Browns 5 66.7
15 Denver Broncos 5 66.2
16 Oakland Raiders 6 66.0
17 Philadelphia Eagles 6 64.2
18 Houston Texans 6 63.8
19 Washington Redskins 5 62.8
20 Kansas City Chiefs 5 61.7
21 Pittsburgh Steelers 6 59.4
22 Arizona Cardinals 5 58.4
23 Atlanta Falcons 6 57.6
24 New York Jets 6 56.9
25 Baltimore Ravens 5 53.7
26 Chicago Bears 6 45.3
27 Miami Dolphins 5 45.1
28 San Francisco 49ers 6 44.7
29 Jacksonville Jaguars 6 43.6
30 St. Louis Rams 5 43.2
31 Seattle Seahawks 5 41.9
32 Minnesota Vikings 6 39.7

Cerberus
10-18-2011, 06:52 PM
"Proprietary" :kitten:

Wonder if they adjust for SOS.

I'd have to know what their "proprietary" formula is before I can put any stock into it.

Goatcheese
10-18-2011, 06:55 PM
They've been worse than 18th the last two weeks.

It's been brutal to watch them get embarrassed out there. They've been even worse with their run blocking.

infantrycak
10-19-2011, 12:02 PM
I'd have to know what their "proprietary" formula is before I can put any stock into it.

Yup. ESPN's much lauded "more accurate" QB rating had Tim Tebow outscoring Aaron Rodgers in his debut.

I can't believe the Aikman ratings haven't caught on more. They were remarkably accurate at predicting games.

Cerberus
10-19-2011, 04:12 PM
Yup. ESPN's much lauded "more accurate" QB rating had Tim Tebow outscoring Aaron Rodgers in his debut.

I can't believe the Aikman ratings haven't caught on more. They were remarkably accurate at predicting games.

I believe the old saying "stats are for losers". To me, my team can be ranked 32nd in D, 32nd in O, have the worst rated QB, etc., but if they go 16-0 that is all I care about.

Don't get me wrong, stats are fun to play with, but they seldom tell the truth. Kind of like the old saying "figures lie, and liars figure".

infantrycak
10-19-2011, 04:31 PM
I believe the old saying "stats are for losers". To me, my team can be ranked 32nd in D, 32nd in O, have the worst rated QB, etc., but if they go 16-0 that is all I care about.

Don't get me wrong, stats are fun to play with, but they seldom tell the truth. Kind of like the old saying "figures lie, and liars figure".

Well I believe in the better saying "stats are misused by miss-users." Stats themselves have to be analyzed. Look at Asomougha and say well he only had 1 pass defensed and no INT's (haven't looked it up - just illustration) and my answer is stats are one of the worst indicators around for DB's. If they are racking up PD's and INT's then QB's think the DB is beat. Flip side, I don't think a QB gets to a 100 QB rating or 2 to 1 TD to INT % on luck.

Stats aren't everything and they aren't nothing.

Cerberus
10-21-2011, 09:20 AM
Well I believe in the better saying "stats are misused by miss-users." Stats themselves have to be analyzed. Look at Asomougha and say well he only had 1 pass defensed and no INT's (haven't looked it up - just illustration) and my answer is stats are one of the worst indicators around for DB's. If they are racking up PD's and INT's then QB's think the DB is beat. Flip side, I don't think a QB gets to a 100 QB rating or 2 to 1 TD to INT % on luck.

Stats aren't everything and they aren't nothing.

Like I said, they are fun to play with but seldom tell the whole story. If a QB has a QB rating of 45.0 because of interceptions, but then you go back and look at the film and see two of his passes were deflected by his WRs and then intercepted, the low QB rating is deceptive. Likewise, I tried to explain to Texan fans that thought Foster was going to run roughshod over the Raiders that their run-defense numbers were skewed by long runs. Some joked that Foster would run for 300 yards, and I showed how the Raiders would allow carries of 1, 2, 2, -2, 25, 1, 1, 0, 2, 1, 2, 2, 15, etc., which isn't going to get the offense many first downs, but they would have an average of 4.0 ypc. That is a lot different than 4, 4, 3, 5, 7, 2, 4, 4 . . . so the stats in these cases would be deceptive.