Dispelling the new myth about our offense and defense

[Stew23]

Well we can't really compare Jake and Cam without Steve, because that's where the comparison really lies, not with comparing them together because that's illogical.

2004

Player Att Comp Yds Comp % Yds/Att TD TD % INT INT % Long Sck Sack/Lost Rating

Jake Delhomme 533 310 3886 58.2 7.3 29 5.4 15 2.8 63 33 246 87.3

Damn that Steve Smith and his amazing 60 yards for the season. But if you want to go with their first years with Smith, for arguments sake, although this is a stupid argument...well even though we had a great year....

PASSING STATISTICS

Player Att Comp Yds Comp % Yds/Att TD TD % INT INT % Long Sck Sack/Lost Rating

Jake Delhomme 449 266 3219 59.2 7.2 19 4.2 16 3.6 67 23 168 80.6

Fairly average numbers for old Jakey boy.

Everybody knows Jake had average numbers. That's the entire point. Why are you comparing a year when Smith doesn't play with him if you just said we can't compare those stats?

2008 Smith: 18.2 avg yards per catch. Triple Crown.

Jake's accuracy was equally as bad as Cam's...worse actually: 59.4..

But how did Jake's yards per pass look that year? Let's see:

Jake: 3,288 total yards 7.9 yards per pass.

18.2 per catch and 7.9 yards per pass

Yes that's Smith once again.

[Stew23]

Does Wes Welker make Tom Brady?

Thank you Mav for posting this. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was just going to use this.

Wes Welker, is the #1 receiver in the NFL right now and averages 14.5 yards being thrown to by Tom Brady, a 66% passer. What would Cam Newton look like in yards if he had the "the #1" receiver in the NFL instead of Steve Smith? Let's find out:

14.5 X 46 receptions = 667 yards.

That's how many estimated yards Welker would have with Cam that is if Cam could throw like Brady. So no he doesn't make Tom Brady.

Steve has 918 yards. 918-667= 251 yards.

Cam would be ranked: 11th in passing with 2142 yards with the #1 receiver in yards the NFL right now and that's IF Cam could throw it to him at a rate of 66%.

So just how fuging good is Steve Smith this year? And everybody thinks it's Cam.

You must not understand football to not know how amazing it is to be able to have 918 yards, 20.0 avg per catch, when you're QB is rated at 87.0 rating and only completes passes at 60.6 and only has 8.3 yards per pass.

But what if Smith had the #1 QB in the NFL, Aaron Rodgers? That one's harder to figure out, but you can imagine. Steve Smith would destroy Jerry Rice's record with any decent QB in completion percentage throwing him the ball. Just a DECENT QB. While Cam would look average with any other top 10 receiver 5-10.

[The_Mango55]

Now you're comparing the 5 yard screens to Welker with the 20-30 yard passes to smith? If Cam played in Tom Brady's offensive system he would have a higher completion percentage but it wouldn't mean he's playing any better. Yards per attempt is a much better stat than comp %

I think you're getting dumber as you arguments get shot down.

[Stew23]

Now you're comparing the 5 yard screens to Welker with the 20-30 yard passes to smith? If Cam played in Tom Brady's offensive system he would have a higher completion percentage but it wouldn't mean he's playing any better. Yards per attempt is a much better stat than comp %

I think you're getting dumber as you arguments get shot down.

It would mean Tom Brady would have 7000+ yards and 50+ bombs. And if Aaaron had him...he would be God.

You are right though, yards per attempt both Brady and Aaaron are kings. I still can't believe how many people are watching Steve do things like slow down to catch a pass that should have been in the endzone and gets taken down at the 1, or jumps up 6 feet in the air to catch a sailed high ball and takes it downtown against the Saints.

How many? Me for one. Might be 2-3 other guys. Everybody else watching thinks its Cam. LOL. He did the same type of things with Jake and everyone knew who it was. Now they think it's Cam.

Bunch of freaking traitors. And it will bite you in the ass just like it did with Clausen. You guys made me out to be some crazy fuging hater last year too, and I only told you the truth. You JUMP ON ROOKIES like fuging flies and DON'T CREDIT OUR VETS AND REAL PROS!

But everyone's posting videos of Cam every week. Not ONE fuging video of Steve Smith's highlights this year on youtube. NOT 1.

THIS is what you need to watch:

Steve Smith 2008.

And it has good music too! TRAITORS! This entire place. Traitors.

[Marguide]

Your list ranks offenses by EXPECTED POINTS ADDED. NOT EFFICIENCY. MORON!

EFFICIENCY IS YPP. YARDS PER POINT. Your list doesn't even have it.

But this one does: http://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/yards-per-point

We were 22nd before yesterday. We are now 21st. We have IMPROVED when we didn't play at all! That's how bad our efficiency is.

This means our offense is incapable of beating a defense ranked better than 21st. That means our offense could not beat our OWN fuging defense you idiots! Offense efficiency is the #1 reason a PPG rankings for the defense goes up or down. Nothing affects a PPG ranking more for the defense than offense inefficiency. Whether its yours, or your opponents(aka schedule full of efficient offenses).Which is why our defense is ranked 28 in points allowed or 29th whatever they are today.

Making the Defense's PPG 29th. It will not improve without the offense ranking better in offense efficiency. It's is nearly impossible.

Okay, I'm bored and will play this game.

You realize that by using this metric alone you are suggesting that Denver's offense is far better than New England's, Philly's and Pittsburg's? Does that make logical sense to you?

Here's what OTHER people are saying about efficiency NOT JUST PFFL. But people WHO DO understand FOOTBALL. From STAT INTELLIGENCE:

And yet this whole fuging place has it backwards and go around posting it all day long. Who has the idiot herpes?

I got out and still trying to eliminate the symptoms.

The author of the blog discussing this metric also says this:

*They don’t account for the risk/reward ratio very well. Interception prone one dimensional passing teams can have decent YPP offensive numbers while being bad teams. Conservative rushing teams can grind out victories and find success with lower numbers as long as they don’t fumble the ball. If a run-heavy team is posting 5.5 YPP is probably going to beat a pass-heavy team posting 6.0 YPP. That might sound weird. But, the pass heavy team will make more turnovers, and will move in fits and starts in a way that may not find paydirt. The run-heavy team will keep pushing its way to the end zone, while running clock and keeping its defense fresh on the sidelines. This is the main reason I haven’t personally used this stat myself in the past. The risk/reward ratio is very important. I’m hoping you’ll agree that YPP plus sloppiness score sheds more light on a game than just YPP.

So what else ya got?

[mav1234]

Okay, I'm bored and will play this game.

You realize that by using this metric alone you are suggesting that Denver's offense is far better than New England's, Philly's and Pittsburg? Does that make logical sense to you?

Two words for you:

Tee Bow. ;)

[Marguide]

Two words for you:

Tee Bow. ;)

Well, he does have God on his side. That has to count for something.

[mav1234]

But what if Smith had the #1 QB in the NFL, Aaron Rodgers? That one's harder to figure out, but you can imagine. Steve Smith would destroy Jerry Rice's record with any decent QB in completion percentage throwing him the ball. Just a DECENT QB. While Cam would look average with any other top 10 receiver 5-10.

you are really oversimplifying things to an insane degree. Not all throws are equal difficulty and you can't just "adjust" for completion percentage like that.

but on to the quoted material - if Smitty was on the Packers, he'd likely have fewer yards (this year anyway, career might be different) because they have such a better receiving corps it isn't even close.

[teeray]

Okay, I'm bored and will play this game.

You realize that by using this metric alone you are suggesting that Denver's offense is far better than New England's, Philly's and Pittsburg's? Does that make logical sense to you?

It is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Like I said it is a simple formula that is only good for broad generalizations. Not valuation of an offense.

But for some people it means offensive efficiency. :lol:

[teeray]

you are really oversimplifying things to an insane degree. Not all throws are equal difficulty and you can't just "adjust" for completion percentage like that.

but on to the quoted material - if Smitty was on the Packers, he'd likely have fewer yards (this year anyway, career might be different) because they have such a better receiving corps it isn't even close.

He has to oversimplify things.

[ed bell]

Brady averages 8.4 instead of only 8.3....Aaron has 9.9...pretty good for 8-0....

[ed bell]

....and nobody here appreciates Steve Smith...

[teeray]

I am personally a ranch guy.

[Stew23]

Okay, I'm bored and will play this game.

You realize that by using this metric alone you are suggesting that Denver's offense is far better than New England's, Philly's and Pittsburg's? Does that make logical sense to you?

The author of the blog discussing this metric also says this:

*They don’t account for the risk/reward ratio very well. Interception prone one dimensional passing teams can have decent YPP offensive numbers while being bad teams. Conservative rushing teams can grind out victories and find success with lower numbers as long as they don’t fumble the ball. If a run-heavy team is posting 5.5 YPP is probably going to beat a pass-heavy team posting 6.0 YPP. That might sound weird. But, the pass heavy team will make more turnovers, and will move in fits and starts in a way that may not find paydirt. The run-heavy team will keep pushing its way to the end zone, while running clock and keeping its defense fresh on the sidelines. This is the main reason I haven’t personally used this stat myself in the past. The risk/reward ratio is very important. I’m hoping you’ll agree that YPP plus sloppiness score sheds more light on a game than just YPP.

So what else ya got?

Better? That's debatable. More efficient? Yes.

Top 10 most efficient offenses in the NFL this year:

1 Detroit 11.9

2 San Francisco 12.1

3 Green Bay 12.1

4 NY Jets 12.3

5 Cincinnati 13.0

6 Baltimore 13.2

7 Buffalo 13.3

8 Chicago 13.9

9 New Orleans14.0

10 Atlanta 14.7

New England doesn't have a top 10 offense this year. Go figure...Brady's throwing as many picks as Cam. So no, they would NOT have a top 10 offense. And Neither does Philly or even San Diego.

Because that's what decides everything. How many POINTS you get PER YARD.

They are the only 2 bottom ranked offenses in overall efficiency(YPP, turnovers) in the league with a negative turnover margin that have winning records. 2 Two. Their QB's names are Ben Rothlesberger and Phillip Rivers. And these guys are pretty good in the 4th quarter in comeback drives. They win about half of theirs, not 7%.

I am so tired of dumbasses like Teeray that has the backing of the forum for being a moron and not knowing how to use stats. I oversimplify things for YOU Teeray.

Because guys like you can't put 2 and 2 together. You go around and pick ONE stat and you rank teams by ONE stat. Which is the dumbest poo on the planet. You rank offenses against average defenses, or better said LEAGUE AVERAGE to get a true top 10. You rank defenses against average offenses, LEAGUE AVERAGE to get a true top 10.