Re: Last year's defense

[pantherclaw]

Last year's defense was pn the field the entire game. 

Hard to craft a fair, unbiased opinion due to that.  

Yes, physically bigger teams ran on us, but if our offense could have kept the opposing teams offense off the field even a fair amount,  the team would have won more games.  

I don't expect the defense to struggle if our offense improves at all.  

[KSpan]

18 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

 

Lolz.

[poundaway]

24 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

 

He was talking about on the thread dude.

Sheesh.

I am sorry we were 2nd in yards.  Can we move on now to the OP?

You can't maintain a lead when you are 29th in points scored, 30th in offensive yards and 31st in offensive turnovers.  Its hard to get a true evaluation of the D because they faced the 2nd most defensive drives at the 32nd ranked starting field position, because the O was turnover central.

The offense averaged less than 18 points and 298 total yards a game.  I don't know how you argue the D is the cause of lost leads.

 

Edited July 25, 2022 by poundaway

[CamTheMan]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Pretty much.

Even the people who haven't thrown that out recently (likely because it actually has been shown to be ridiculous) still like to talk as if the defense last season was something special.

"Average at best" is a pretty good description, though I'm not even sure I'd give them that much credit.

People really need to learn to stop depending so much on stats and rankings. They don't mean jack.

Responding any more after this would be a waste of time so I'll end it with this. Firstly, we allowed under 4 yards per carry the entire first half of games, which would be top 3 in the NFL. That is what I would consider as early on. Our second half yards per carry was 4.3, which would have still been in the top half of the league. We were 6th in net yards per pass attempt. We were 11th and 12th in hurry rate and knockdown rate, respectively. 8th in pressure rate. 9th in sack percentage. 11th in expected points contributed by passing defense and 8th in expected points contributed by rushing defense.  We were 4th in yards per play.

We were 15th in points per drive, even considering we had the worst starting position in the league. Our average starting position was a whole 2 yards farther than 2nd worst, and 7.5 yards farther upfield than the team in first. 5 yards farther than average. We had the 2nd most defensive drives in the league.

Let me throw out stats for a second and use basic logic since you hate statistics. Our quarterback was worst in the league. Our offensive line was bottom 3 in the league. Our WR2 had one of the most inefficient seasons from any WR in decades. We fired one college offensive coordinator and replaced him with another college coordinator halfway through the season. We turned the ball over at one of the highest rates in the league. We had no run game offensively. We had a terrible special teams. Yet we won 5 games and competed in many more, as your original stat suggested. How in the world did we possibly do that if our defense was average or even below average, like you're suggesting. 

Oh, but none of these objective statistics mean anything. You, a random poster on an internet thread, is more reliable than hundreds of metrics that will disagree with you. We should stop relying on stats and instead rely on what? What exactly should we rely on other than quantitative data to form opinions? 

[poundaway]

1 minute ago, CamTheMan said:

Responding any more after this would be a waste of time so I'll end it with this. Firstly, we allowed under 4 yards per carry the entire first half of games, which would be top 3 in the NFL. That is what I would consider as early on. Our second half yards per carry was 4.3, which would have still been in the top half of the league. We were 6th in net yards per pass attempt. We were 11th and 12th in hurry rate and knockdown rate, respectively. 8th in pressure rate. 9th in sack percentage. 11th in expected points contributed by passing defense and 8th in expected points contributed by rushing defense.  We were 4th in yards per play.

We were 15th in points per drive, even considering we had the worst starting position in the league. Our average starting position was a whole 2 yards farther than 2nd worst, and 7.5 yards farther upfield than the team in first. 5 yards farther than average. We had the 2nd most defensive drives in the league.

Let me throw out stats for a second and use basic logic since you hate statistics. Our quarterback was worst in the league. Our offensive line was bottom 3 in the league. Our WR2 had one of the most inefficient seasons from any WR in decades. We fired one college offensive coordinator and replaced him with another college coordinator halfway through the season. We turned the ball over at one of the highest rates in the league. We had no run game offensively. We had a terrible special teams. Yet we won 5 games and competed in many more, as your original stat suggested. How in the world did we possibly do that if our defense was average or even below average, like you're suggesting. 

Oh, but none of these objective statistics mean anything. You, a random poster on an internet thread, is more reliable than hundreds of metrics that will disagree with you. We should stop relying on stats and instead rely on what? What exactly should we rely on other than quantitative data to form opinions? 

Mr Scot:  I watched the games so I knows stuff.

[Mr. Scot]

15 minutes ago, CamTheMan said:

Responding any more after this would be a waste of time so I'll end it with this. Firstly, we allowed under 4 yards per carry the entire first half of games, which would be top 3 in the NFL. That is what I would consider as early on. Our second half yards per carry was 4.3, which would have still been in the top half of the league. We were 6th in net yards per pass attempt. We were 11th and 12th in hurry rate and knockdown rate, respectively. 8th in pressure rate. 9th in sack percentage. 11th in expected points contributed by passing defense and 8th in expected points contributed by rushing defense.  We were 4th in yards per play.

We were 15th in points per drive, even considering we had the worst starting position in the league. Our average starting position was a whole 2 yards farther than 2nd worst, and 7.5 yards farther upfield than the team in first. 5 yards farther than average. We had the 2nd most defensive drives in the league.

Let me throw out stats for a second and use basic logic since you hate statistics. Our quarterback was worst in the league. Our offensive line was bottom 3 in the league. Our WR2 had one of the most inefficient seasons from any WR in decades. We fired one college offensive coordinator and replaced him with another college coordinator halfway through the season. We turned the ball over at one of the highest rates in the league. We had no run game offensively. We had a terrible special teams. Yet we won 5 games and competed in many more, as your original stat suggested. How in the world did we possibly do that if our defense was average or even below average, like you're suggesting. 

Oh, but none of these objective statistics mean anything. You, a random poster on an internet thread, is more reliable than hundreds of metrics that will disagree with you. We should stop relying on stats and instead rely on what? What exactly should we rely on other than quantitative data to form opinions? 

This is why I don't care about stats. If you put enough qualifiers on anything, you can make it say what you want.

I go by the games I watch, which (Lord help me) is all of them, and those games tell me the offense was terrible, but the defense was also nothing special.

it doesn't matter how many stats and qualifiers you throw out. They weren't good enough.

[pantherclaw]

Stats and rankings are meaningless, when they don't support your opinion. 

[CamTheMan]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

This is why I don't care about stats. If you put enough qualifiers on anything, you can make it say what you want.

I go by the games I watch, which (Lord help me) is all of them, and those games tell me the offense was terrible, but the defense was also nothing special.

it doesn't matter how many stats and qualifiers you throw out. They weren't good enough.

This entire thread that you created is based on a stat you found to discredit our defense. People reply back with stats disproving you, and you go on about how stats don't matter and how watching the games matter. I also watched every game, sometimes multiple times to look at specific players and schematics. I disagree with your opinion, therefor the logical conclusion would be to look to stats and quantitative data to find out if they confirm or deny our surface level observations. You holding onto your own subjective beliefs in the face of overwhelming data disproving it is worrying on a macrolevel and I'd say is the main contributor to the problem we face today where people can't disagree about anything without it devolving. 

[poundaway]

1 hour ago, poundaway said:

Mr Scot:  I watched the games so I knows stuff.

 

56 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I go by the games I watch, which (Lord help me) is all of them, and those games tell me the offense was terrible, but the defense was also nothing special.

it doesn't matter how many stats and qualifiers you throw out. They weren't good enough.

Told ya.

[Mr. Scot]

29 minutes ago, CamTheMan said:

This entire thread that you created is based on a stat you found to discredit our defense. People reply back with stats disproving you, and you go on about how stats don't matter and how watching the games matter. I also watched every game, sometimes multiple times to look at specific players and schematics. I disagree with your opinion, therefor the logical conclusion would be to look to stats and quantitative data to find out if they confirm or deny our surface level observations. You holding onto your own subjective beliefs in the face of overwhelming data disproving it is worrying on a macrolevel and I'd say is the main contributor to the problem we face today where people can't disagree about anything without it devolving. 

Overwhelming data...yeah, sure

To be clear, wins and losses are the one stat I do care about, because that's the only one that matters.

But I'd add this: If you need to resort to some kind of out there, specifically chosen stat in order to prove that someone is good...

...they're not.

[poundaway]

I don't know how anyone watches the games and goes: "Our D lost us that game."

[Jackie Lee]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Overwhelming data...yeah, sure

To be clear, wins and losses are the one stat I do care about, because that's the only one that matters.

But I'd add this: If you need to resort to some kind of out there, specifically chosen stat in order to prove that someone is good...

...they're not.

Also the closer you get to basic wins and losses stats you get the more they hold weight. Anyone want to defend only 9 interceptions on the year with Gilmore accounting for 2 no coaching required? 

[CamTheMan]

20 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

If you need to resort to some kind of out there, specifically chosen stat in order to prove that someone is good...

...they're not.

Do you not see the irony in you saying this in a thread YOU made about a random team stat, which you blamed entirely on the defense...? 

If you need to resort to some kind of out there, specifically chosen stat in order to prove that someone ISN'T good...

...they are.

[Mr. Scot]

12 minutes ago, CamTheMan said:

Do you not see the irony in you saying this in a thread YOU made about a random team stat, which you blamed entirely on the defense...? 

If you need to resort to some kind of out there, specifically chosen stat in order to prove that someone ISN'T good...

...they are.

That's the thing...

...I don't.

I already knew the defense was bad, and so do many, many others.

But the people trying to say the defense is good? What do they cite?

Stats. Well...except the ones about wins, losses and scoring (i.e. the only ones that matter).