How do you rate a defense

[Orton's Arm]

Both total points allowed and total yards allowed are a function of both your offense and defense. Suppose that Team A has an offense like the Giants of the early '90s--an offense that's very good at chewing up the clock. Team B has an offense like the one Kevin Gilbride ran with the Houston Oilers--an offense that gets on and off the field very quickly, regardless of whether it scores or goes three-and-out. Assuming that the two teams' defenses are equally good, Team A's defense will have to defend significantly fewer drives than Team B's defense. Suppose that Team A's opponents average six drives per game, whereas Team B's opponents average ten drives per game. Because the two teams' defenses are equal, this would mean that Team A's opponents would obtain 40% fewer points per game and yards per game than Team B's opponents, simply because Team A's opponents would have 40% fewer offensive drives.

 

But if you were to evaluate both teams' defenses on the basis of points allowed per drive, the above problem would disappear. In addition, the number of points your defense allowed per drive is a good measure of the number of points your offense must produce each drive for you to win the game.

[bobobonators]

i rate the success of a defense by points allowed and redzone effectiveness (keeping teams to fg as opposed to td); (obviously the two are somewhate related)

Edited November 20, 2011 by bobobonators

[K-9]

Both total points allowed and total yards allowed are a function of both your offense and defense. Suppose that Team A has an offense like the Giants of the early '90s--an offense that's very good at chewing up the clock. Team B has an offense like the one Kevin Gilbride ran with the Houston Oilers--an offense that gets on and off the field very quickly, regardless of whether it scores or goes three-and-out. Assuming that the two teams' defenses are equally good, Team A's defense will have to defend significantly fewer drives than Team B's defense. Suppose that Team A's opponents average six drives per game, whereas Team B's opponents average ten drives per game. Because the two teams' defenses are equal, this would mean that Team A's opponents would obtain 40% fewer points per game and yards per game than Team B's opponents, simply because Team A's opponents would have 40% fewer offensive drives.

 

But if you were to evaluate both teams' defenses on the basis of points allowed per drive, the above problem would disappear. In addition, the number of points your defense allowed per drive is a good measure of the number of points your offense must produce each drive for you to win the game.

 

Just as a point of clarification, the Oilers ran a run 'n shoot offense but not a hurry up offense. A better example in your scenario would be our own Bills who ran a genuine, no huddle offense and often did it in a hurry-up mode.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Orton's Arm]

Just as a point of clarification, the Oilers ran a run 'n shoot offense but not a hurry up offense. A better example in your scenario would be our own Bills who ran a genuine, no huddle offense and often did it in a hurry-up mode.

 

GO BILLS!!!

You're probably right, and I appreciate the clarification.

 

Just to add to my earlier post: I remember that, back when Jerry Gray was the Bills' defensive coordinator, we heard a lot of talk about how good the Bills' defense (supposedly) was. When you looked at the number of points the Bills' defense allowed to the Patriots per game, it didn't seem all that bad. But a big part of the reason for that was that the Bills' defense had allowed the Patriots to achieve numerous, clock-killing drives that resulted in scores. If you looked at how the Bills' defense did on a points per drive basis, you'd see that the Bills' offense would have had to have been close to perfect to have beaten the Patriots. (The offense would have required five or more points per drive, IIRC.) Put another way: the Patriots' offense scored a touchdown practically every time it touched the ball. But because it was so good at killing the clock, there weren't many drives for either team over the course of the game, which limited both teams' points and yards.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

You're probably right, and I appreciate the clarification.

 

Just to add to my earlier post: I remember that, back when Jerry Gray was the Bills' defensive coordinator, we heard a lot of talk about how good the Bills' defense (supposedly) was. When you looked at the number of points the Bills' defense allowed to the Patriots per game, it didn't seem all that bad. But a big part of the reason for that was that the Bills' defense had allowed the Patriots to achieve numerous, clock-killing drives that resulted in scores. If you looked at how the Bills' defense did on a points per drive basis, you'd see that the Bills' offense would have had to have been close to perfect to have beaten the Patriots. (The offense would have required five or more points per drive, IIRC.) Put another way: the Patriots' offense scored a touchdown practically every time it touched the ball. But because it was so good at killing the clock, there weren't many drives for either team over the course of the game, which limited both teams' points and yards.

 

Absolutely. Your analysis shows that our defense then, and our defense now, puts a LOT of pressure on our offense to keep up on the scoreboard. And that's bass ackwards because your offense needs to rely on your defense to keep a game close. Aside from some timely turnovers, we haven't stopped offenses pretty much all year.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[benderbender]

I have been reading a lot that the Jets have a super bowl defense, yet they are 15th in points allowed. Is not keeping the other team from scoring the ultimate goal? Who cares how many non-scoring yards they get against you?

 

Ours gives up 40 plus points a game