Were we really a top 10 defense from week 4 on?

[leebigeztx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

But we can agree to disagree.

Indeed we can...

Especially if your definition of best = most talented

 

[ObsiWan]

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.

 

[real]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[Mr teX]

LOL, yeah i feel the same way...

 

[HJam72]

Factors suck.

 

[TK_Gamer]

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]

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]

[/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I do not watch educational programming.

lol

 

[Mr teX]

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]

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??

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]

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]

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?