New York Life Protection Index

Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by Vinny, Oct 18, 2011.

  1. Vinny

    Vinny shiny happy fan Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    21,847
    Likes Received:
    1,513
    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
     
  2. nero THE zero

    nero THE zero Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,748
    Likes Received:
    184
    Location:
    Spring
    "Proprietary" :kitten:

    Wonder if they adjust for SOS.
     
  3. J_R

    J_R Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    159
    Code:
    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
     
  4. Cerberus

    Cerberus Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,704
    Likes Received:
    349
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I'd have to know what their "proprietary" formula is before I can put any stock into it.
     
  5. Goatcheese

    Goatcheese Nightmare Over

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,275
    Likes Received:
    672
    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.
     
  6. infantrycak

    infantrycak Semi-grand Poobah Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    53,993
    Likes Received:
    2,458
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    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.
     
  7. Cerberus

    Cerberus Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,704
    Likes Received:
    349
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    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".
     
  8. infantrycak

    infantrycak Semi-grand Poobah Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    53,993
    Likes Received:
    2,458
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    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.
     
  9. Cerberus

    Cerberus Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,704
    Likes Received:
    349
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    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.
     

Share This Page