Steve Smith takes Cam over Tebow anyday.

[teeray]

How the hell did I missed this? I'm not sure where you get your numbers from half the time since you never post sources but your FG rate looks retarded. I'm pretty sure that graphs breaks scores down by downs. The average offense red-zone TD efficiency is OVER 50%.

LOL. You are terrible at stats and understanding what you are looking at.

And this is just another perfect example of you twisting a statement, and then only using half of the data to suit your argument or presenting it out of context(what year, what are they really measuring). I was mainly referring to any type of "score" close to or in the red-zone. Not just touchdowns, but just scores in general. Here's what a FG chart really looks like:

By field position:

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/11/just-for-kicks.html

By FG distance:

http://www.bookofodds.com/Daily-Life-Activities/Sports/Articles/A0153-Behind-the-Numbers-It-s-Easier-to-Kick-a-Field-Goal-Today

So basically if you turn the ball in close or in the red zone the average offense has 80%+ for some sort of score. There's some teams that have a much higher red-zone percentage btw, even ours.

Titans red-zone efficiency for a TD is 71% this year. GB is 61%. Detroit 58%. Atlanta. Minnesota, Chicago is 55%. Jacksonville, Minnesota 54%. All top half half in the league...all our opponents...4 are top 10).

So, sorry but you're not going to stop these guys from scoring something on you no matter who you are when you give them the ball at the 30. Like I said, no defense can really stop an offense from scoring once they make it in FG range. Only if the offense or quarterback is retarded. The least they should come away with is a FG. Which is why statistically, a turnover is worth at least 3.5 points anywhere on the field. Because sometimes they get field goals, and other times they score touchdowns.

Your favorite site actually gives it a greater value. It tells you this:

And that was in 2002. Just for the record the league is even more pass happy and offensively driven today. This is just for passing TD's:

Year Touchdowns Interceptions

2002 694 528

2003 654 538

2004 732 524

2005 644 506

2006 648 520

2007 720 534

2008 646 465

2009 703 517

2010 746 510

(notice 2008 the year Tom Brady got hurt- Patriots alone took a 25 TD nose dive compared to 07...the rest of it had a lot to do with their opponents too..had to score more in 2007 to try and keep up.)

Also notice touchdowns/interception ratios. Interceptions are even more important today and you should have less than QB's did 10 years ago if you wanna compete. The rules have continued to help offense.

By comparison:

1975 26 433 533

1976 28 432 497

1977 28 388 562

1978 28 468 639

More interceptions than touchdowns.

30's

1935 64 238

1936 67 216

Numbers are a lot lower due to teams, by the ratio is four times as many interceptions as touchdowns! Defense mattered in those days.

And then in 1937 points got a small bump:

1937 90 206

Know why? Well an extra team did join the league, but interceptions didn't really seem to increase. That year the NFL made it a rule for players to have NUMBERS on shirts, and had to be visible. QB's weren't as blind.;p; Thought that would be a fun history lesson.

Anyway, to get back to the point, a turnover, no matter where it takes place: it's value is worth more than FG: 3.75 points. And that's for an average offense in 2002. For an efficient pass happy offense in 2011, it's worth even more, especially in the red-zone. So when you take into consideration FG's as well as TD's and you face efficient offenses like the Packers in 2011 and you turn over the ball in your own red-zone or close to it...you're fuged.

You said:

That's why teams like the Lions and Atlanta only have to move 30 yards for a TD. But no...that's irrelevant....our defense should have stopped them! No NFL defense really does...but if ours doesn't, they suck.

You were talking about Detroit and Atlanta having to go 30 yards for a TD and how no one stops teams when they have to do that. Not making a field goal. I didn't twist anything. No one has ever said that we have to keep them from scoring in those situations. Just keep them out of the end zone.

But whatever, you can't even read the simple graph that I provided which shows the likely hood of certain scores (including field goals) by starting field position, so why would I continue to waste my time with someone who lacks the capacity to understand simple stuff like that.

[ed bell]

How the hell did I missed this? I'm not sure where you get your numbers from half the time since you never post sources but your FG rate looks retarded. I'm pretty sure that graphs breaks scores down by downs. The average offense red-zone TD efficiency is OVER 50%.

LOL. You are terrible at stats and understanding what you are looking at.

The graph makes perfect sense. I think your ability to comprehend statistics, what they mean and how they are calculated is in serious doubt... Put some time into what people are showing you and comprehend it before making yourself look like an ass.....How ironic that you would post "LOL. You are terrible at stats and understanding what you are looking at." as a response to that graph.

[Showtime]

The graph makes perfect sense. I think your ability to comprehend statistics, what they mean and how they are calculated is in serious doubt... Put some time into what people are showing you and comprehend it before making yourself look like an ass.....How ironic that you would post "LOL. You are terrible at stats and understanding what you are looking at." as a response to that graph.

Really, I love how so many of you just make comments, and offer no explanation. That is graph is 1st down scoring plot. I know this, because I've seen them before. It's not an overall scoring % plot.

It's telling you the likelyhood of scoring a FG or a touchdown if you have a 1st down at that particular location. Naturally if you a 1st down at that location, you're far more likely to go for a touchdown, not a FG.

If you actually plot scores, both of them combined, all you get is one exponential line. It's just another graph Teeray posed that tries to twists facts and try to argue a turnover in your red-zone isn't a killer. Scoring % increases for both touchdowns and FG's the closer you get the the end zone. They never decrease.

[mav1234]

He never said the chance of getting a decreased at the 30 compared to a different distance or w/e, he said most defenses still stop touchdowns, even when the drive starts on the 30 yard line... and he's right...

FGs are not our defenses problems... holding teams to more FGs would be excellent and a huge sign of progress.

[Showtime]

You said:

You were talking about Detroit and Atlanta having to go 30 yards for a TD and how no one stops teams when they have to do that. Not making a field goal. I didn't twist anything. No one has ever said that we have to keep them from scoring in those situations. Just keep them out of the end zone.

But whatever, you can't even read the simple graph that I provided which shows the likely hood of certain scores (including field goals) by starting field position, so why would I continue to waste my time with someone who lacks the capacity to understand simple stuff like that.

No you know very well I'm talking about simply a defense stopping an opponent from scoring. You filled in the "for a touchdown" part yourself and then instead of offering a scoring % chart, which would actually be useful, you're offering a 1D(first down) scoring chart that splits the chances of a FG or a TD. You don't label it. You don't mention it. You try to pass it off as something else and it's not even the correct way to measure red-zone efficiency.

Red-zone efficiency:

29th Cleveland 40.74%

The 29th worst offense has 40% chance of scoring a TD when in the red-zone this year. The average offense:

16th San Diego 52.27%

A top 10 offense:

10th Atlanta 54.90%

So in our case, Atlanta has a greater than 50% chance of scoring a TD when in our red-zone. And that's just touchdowns. So basically the average offense will get a touchdown on half their drives, and FG's the rest of the time when in the red-zone. Which also matches up identically with what yards per point says. 10 points for about every 160 yards(2 80 yard drives)

yard per point:

16th Dallas 15.7

That means 10 points for 157 yards of offense. And that's an average offense. Red-zone efficiency backs this up.

If you look at both combined it goes pretty much hand in hand with what I'm saying. You have to be retarded to not score something when you get the ball in the red-zone. We've done that repeatedly this year. Scored nothing when we had the ball in that situation. And thus people expect our defense to do something, no other defense really does. Defenses get scored on in that situation, minimum it's a FG, usually it averages to be more than that.

[AceMan]

[Showtime]

I know you're probably watching a game, but this first offensive drive is yet another example of both of the things I'm talking about.

1. Our defense does help us.

2. Not even the "#1 defense" can stop one of the most inefficient offenses from scoring in that situation. We got the ball at their 30.

[CPcavedweller]

I know you're probably watching a game, but this first offensive drive is yet another example of both of the things I'm talking about.

1. Our defense does help us.

2. Not even the "#1 defense" can stop one of the most inefficient offenses from scoring in that situation. We got the ball at their 30.

I think it would be wise to reserve your judgements. If we get another stop here and then carry that momentum throughout the game on O and D then i'll agree. I'm watching Shirley, he seems to be making all the difference in the world, taking up doulbe teams.

[CPcavedweller]

As well as kearse. Another difference is Jordan Senn, and his hitting, no non-seanse mentality.

[teeray]

The chart I used showed exactly what I intended it to show. Everyone else seems to understand what I was trying to demonstrate.

[mav1234]

1) Especially in the first half. Let's see how the game goes.

2) What if... our offense isn't that inefficient in the first half?

[CPcavedweller]

1) Especially in the first half. Let's see how the game goes.

2) What if... our offense isn't that inefficient in the first half?

Well hopefully they are showing Cam the offenses YPP as the game progresses so he knows how far to throw the ball.

[Showtime]

I think it would be wise to reserve your judgements. If we get another stop here and then carry that momentum throughout the game on O and D then i'll agree. I'm watching Shirley, he seems to be making all the difference in the world, taking up doulbe teams.

That's up to our offense and Texan's offense. Don't expect forced fumble recoveries every game. The rest will only come if the Texans gift us.

Avg D gets .5 FFR's per game. Our D's been pretty good in this category though. The rest are all screw ups by offenses.

....And they just killed that momentum.

So just to re-cap.

-Drive 1 defense: Defense got us a red-zone FFR and took away the Texan's first drive.

-Drive 1 offense: We scored.

- Drive 2: Defense got a stop on the second drive

- Drive 2: And then our offense responded with a 3 and out.

This is WHY we lose leads.

- Drive 3: Another stop by our defense....

[CPcavedweller]

That's up to our offense and Texan's offense. Don't expect forced fumble recoveries every game. The rest will only come if the Texans gift us.

Avg D gets .5 FFR's per game. Our D's been pretty good in this category though. The rest are all screw ups by offenses.

....And they just killed that momentum.

So just to re-cap.

-Defense got us a red-zone FFR and took away the Texan's first drive.

- We scored.

- Defense got a stop on the second drive

- And then our offense responded with a 3 and out.

This is WHY we lose leads.

I'm not worried about the turnovers. As long as the DT's are taking up enough blocks to let the LB's fly around and let the DE's have one on ones I have confidence in this defense.