Orton's Arm Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I've felt for some time that last year's defense got its gaudy numbers from obliterating inferior offenses instead of being competitive against good offenses. The usual counterargument is that every defense looks better against a bad offense than it does against a good offense. To settle the issue, I did a comparison on how well the Patriots' offense did against our defense as opposed to how it did against the other defenses it faced. In the first 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed them to score on 44% of their drives. The Patriots scored an average of 2.67 points per drive. In the second 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed the Patriots to score on 60% of their drives. The Patriots scored 2.60 points per drive. (They had more FGs the 2nd time around). Averaging the two games, the Bills' defense allowed the Patriots to score on 53% of their drives, and score 2.63 points per drive. The average Patriots' opponent allowed the Patriots' offense to score on 48% of their drives for 2.52 points per drive. So the Bills' defense did slightly worse than the average defense the Patriots faced. Considering all the talent the Bills had on defense last year, this kind of performace says something very negative about the defensive scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I've felt for some time that last year's defense got its gaudy numbers from obliterating inferior offenses instead of being competitive against good offenses. The usual counterargument is that every defense looks better against a bad offense than it does against a good offense. To settle the issue, I did a comparison on how well the Patriots' offense did against our defense as opposed to how it did against the other defenses it faced. In the first 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed them to score on 44% of their drives. The Patriots scored an average of 2.67 points per drive. In the second 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed the Patriots to score on 60% of their drives. The Patriots scored 2.60 points per drive. (They had more FGs the 2nd time around). Averaging the two games, the Bills' defense allowed the Patriots to score on 53% of their drives, and score 2.63 points per drive. The average Patriots' opponent allowed the Patriots' offense to score on 48% of their drives for 2.52 points per drive. So the Bills' defense did slightly worse than the average defense the Patriots faced. Considering all the talent the Bills had on defense last year, this kind of performace says something very negative about the defensive scheme. 469306[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I've felt for some time that last year's defense got its gaudy numbers from obliterating inferior offenses instead of being competitive against good offenses. The usual counterargument is that every defense looks better against a bad offense than it does against a good offense. To settle the issue, I did a comparison on how well the Patriots' offense did against our defense as opposed to how it did against the other defenses it faced. In the first 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed them to score on 44% of their drives. The Patriots scored an average of 2.67 points per drive. In the second 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed the Patriots to score on 60% of their drives. The Patriots scored 2.60 points per drive. (They had more FGs the 2nd time around). Averaging the two games, the Bills' defense allowed the Patriots to score on 53% of their drives, and score 2.63 points per drive. The average Patriots' opponent allowed the Patriots' offense to score on 48% of their drives for 2.52 points per drive. So the Bills' defense did slightly worse than the average defense the Patriots faced. Considering all the talent the Bills had on defense last year, this kind of performace says something very negative about the defensive scheme. 469306[/snapback] You must not be wearing any pants because I can clearly see your nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 The depth of your argument is based on one team last year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I don't buy it. It IS true that every really good D gets a larger portion of their good stats vs. weaker teams. Even the 15-1 85' bears can attest to that, having their worst defensive performance against the best offense they faced that year (Miami). It sounds as if you are saying that all things are equal this year, except the schedule is different which is a very simplistic way of looking at it. Our defense in general is unable to generate pressure with just the front 4, and this has been the case for a while now. This causes an issue in stopping teams on third down. This does not mean though that there will ever be (nor should be) an asterisk placed by their name for their 2004 stats. They were well earned and We were at or near the top in so many categories (Sacks, Turnovers, Yards, Points) that it cannot be ignored (IMO). The defense in 2004 was what it was. This is a new season and some things have changed while some have remained the same. Nobody EARLY last season thought we could even win vs. the Rams and Seahawks let alone beat the crap out of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I've felt for some time that last year's defense got its gaudy numbers from obliterating inferior offenses instead of being competitive against good offenses. The usual counterargument is that every defense looks better against a bad offense than it does against a good offense. To settle the issue, I did a comparison on how well the Patriots' offense did against our defense as opposed to how it did against the other defenses it faced. In the first 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed them to score on 44% of their drives. The Patriots scored an average of 2.67 points per drive. In the second 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed the Patriots to score on 60% of their drives. The Patriots scored 2.60 points per drive. (They had more FGs the 2nd time around). Averaging the two games, the Bills' defense allowed the Patriots to score on 53% of their drives, and score 2.63 points per drive. The average Patriots' opponent allowed the Patriots' offense to score on 48% of their drives for 2.52 points per drive. So the Bills' defense did slightly worse than the average defense the Patriots faced. Considering all the talent the Bills had on defense last year, this kind of performace says something very negative about the defensive scheme. 469306[/snapback] *ambient cricket noise* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I've felt for some time that last year's defense got its gaudy numbers from obliterating inferior offenses instead of being competitive against good offenses. The usual counterargument is that every defense looks better against a bad offense than it does against a good offense. To settle the issue, I did a comparison on how well the Patriots' offense did against our defense as opposed to how it did against the other defenses it faced. In the first 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed them to score on 44% of their drives. The Patriots scored an average of 2.67 points per drive. In the second 2004 game against the Patriots, our defense allowed the Patriots to score on 60% of their drives. The Patriots scored 2.60 points per drive. (They had more FGs the 2nd time around). Averaging the two games, the Bills' defense allowed the Patriots to score on 53% of their drives, and score 2.63 points per drive. The average Patriots' opponent allowed the Patriots' offense to score on 48% of their drives for 2.52 points per drive. So the Bills' defense did slightly worse than the average defense the Patriots faced. Considering all the talent the Bills had on defense last year, this kind of performace says something very negative about the defensive scheme. 469306[/snapback] But didn't our stats figure into the final Pats numbers? If you take us out they probably scored on 45% of their possessions (did you factor out points scored off TOs?) for 2.48 points per drive. Much more compelling argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 So the Bills' defense did slightly worse than the average defense the Patriots faced. Considering all the talent the Bills had on defense last year, this kind of performace says something very negative about the defensive scheme. 469306[/snapback] You're a bit late to the game with this one. It's a well known fact that Bills generate very little QB pressure from their front 4, meaning a good QB can run a hurry up offense and drive down the field at will. Hence the past blowouts at NE. For more proof, see the Kansas City Massacre of 2003. Fortunately, there aren't many QBs in the league as good as Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 Methodology (read if you want to know the details about my analysis) - I ignored drives when NE was attempting to run out the clock, or where there wasn't enough time for anything to really happen. - I ignored points that the NE defense scored against anyone else's offense. - I looked for drives in which a Buffalo turnover led to a NE 3-and-out followed by a field goal. Clearly that field goal would have been the fault of our offense, not our defense. There were no such instances. There was a case when the NE offense used a Bills' turnover to drive 27 yards for a TD. I treated this as a normal drive, because our defense should have stopped this TD, and because this is how I treated the other teams in the analysis. - I looked at what the NE offense did on a per-drive basis. There were two reasons for this: 1) if your own offense is good at chewing up the clock, the other team's offense will have fewer possessions. All else being equal, your defense will therefore allow fewer yards and fewer points. 2) A defense that allows a 10 minute TD drive has done more damage than a defense that allows a quick strike for a TD. Yet the first defense will allow fewer points and yards throughout the game, because the other team's success in chewing up the clock will lead to fewer possessions for both teams. What really matters is the average number of points your own offense must score on each drive in order to win. The higher the number, the more pressure your defense is putting on the offense. The worst-case scenario would clearly be a defense that allowed a TD every drive, because then your offense would have to be perfect to win. NE's games in 2004 were as follows: Indy Ariz Buf Miami Seattle Jets Pitt St. Louis Buf KC Balt Cle Cinn Miami Jets San Fran There are more bad defensive teams on this list (Indy, Ariz, Seattle, St. Louis, etc.) than good ones. The Patriots' best offensive performance came against St. Louis. In that game, they scored on 80% of their possessions, averaging 4.00 points per possession. The worst game for the Patriots was against Baltimore; when they scored on 33% of their possessions, and gained an average of just 1.33 points per possession. For the year, an average of 15% of the Patriots' drives ended because of a turnover (18% if you count turnovers on downs). Against the Bills, 11% of the Patriots' drives ended because of turnovers. There were only four games in which the Patriots' offense had more success (either in points per drive or percentage of drives where points were scored) than its average success against the Bills. These games were against the following teams: - Indy - Seattle - St. Louis - Cinn Even Cleveland's defense did a better job against the Patriots than our defense did. The Browns allowed the Patriots to score on 40% of their drives, and average 2.55 points per possession. The Arizona Cardinals allowed the Patriots to score on 50% of their drives, and to gain an average of 2.3 points per possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thailog80 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Methodology (read if you want to know the details about my analysis) - I ignored drives when NE was attempting to run out the clock, or where there wasn't enough time for anything to really happen. - I ignored points that the NE defense scored against anyone else's offense. - I looked for drives in which a Buffalo turnover led to a NE 3-and-out followed by a field goal. Clearly that field goal would have been the fault of our offense, not our defense. There were no such instances. There was a case when the NE offense used a Bills' turnover to drive 27 yards for a TD. I treated this as a normal drive, because our defense should have stopped this TD, and because this is how I treated the other teams in the analysis. - I looked at what the NE offense did on a per-drive basis. There were two reasons for this: 1) if your own offense is good at chewing up the clock, the other team's offense will have fewer possessions. All else being equal, your defense will therefore allow fewer yards and fewer points. 2) A defense that allows a 10 minute TD drive has done more damage than a defense that allows a quick strike for a TD. Yet the first defense will allow fewer points and yards throughout the game, because the other team's success in chewing up the clock will lead to fewer possessions for both teams. What really matters is the average number of points your own offense must score on each drive in order to win. The higher the number, the more pressure your defense is putting on the offense. The worst-case scenario would clearly be a defense that allowed a TD every drive, because then your offense would have to be perfect to win. NE's games in 2004 were as follows: Indy Ariz Buf Miami Seattle Jets Pitt St. Louis Buf KC Balt Cle Cinn Miami Jets San Fran There are more bad defensive teams on this list (Indy, Ariz, Seattle, St. Louis, etc.) than good ones. The Patriots' best offensive performance came against St. Louis. In that game, they scored on 80% of their possessions, averaging 4.00 points per possession. The worst game for the Patriots was against Baltimore; when they scored on 33% of their possessions, and gained an average of just 1.33 points per possession. For the year, an average of 15% of the Patriots' drives ended because of a turnover (18% if you count turnovers on downs). Against the Bills, 11% of the Patriots' drives ended because of turnovers. There were only four games in which the Patriots' offense had more success (either in points per drive or percentage of drives where points were scored) than its average success against the Bills. These games were against the following teams: - Indy - Seattle - St. Louis - Cinn Even Cleveland's defense did a better job against the Patriots than our defense did. The Browns allowed the Patriots to score on 40% of their drives, and average 2.55 points per possession. The Arizona Cardinals allowed the Patriots to score on 50% of their drives, and to gain an average of 2.3 points per possession. 469349[/snapback] T-Bone ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 There is also a real factor that often comes into play in the NFL where a team matches up against another team well for whatever reason based on player for player. Division rivalries also play into it too. There was a time in the Heyday of the Cowboys where they would lose to the Redskins every year, even when the Skins were a downtrodden team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 I don't buy it. It IS true that every really good D gets a larger portion of their good stats vs. weaker teams. Even the 15-1 85' bears can attest to that, having their worst defensive performance against the best offense they faced that year (Miami). It sounds as if you are saying that all things are equal this year, except the schedule is different which is a very simplistic way of looking at it. Our defense in general is unable to generate pressure with just the front 4, and this has been the case for a while now. This causes an issue in stopping teams on third down. This does not mean though that there will ever be (nor should be) an asterisk placed by their name for their 2004 stats. They were well earned and We were at or near the top in so many categories (Sacks, Turnovers, Yards, Points) that it cannot be ignored (IMO). The defense in 2004 was what it was. This is a new season and some things have changed while some have remained the same. Nobody EARLY last season thought we could even win vs. the Rams and Seahawks let alone beat the crap out of them. 469320[/snapback] I realize our defense isn't the same as last year's, due to the absence of Pat Williams, the injury to Takeo Spikes, and other factors. But even having said that, I believe last year's defense was very much overrated. Jerry Gray is a one-trick pony: all he ever seems to do is blitz. Against offenses that can't pick up the blitz this is a great strategy. He was able to pile up a lot of pretty stats. But constant blitzing is ill-suited to a team like NE that is good at blitz pickup and getting rid of the ball quickly. Ted Cottrell would have held his own against the NE offense; Jerry Gray has not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiz Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 Methodology (read if you want to know the details about my analysis) - I ignored drives when NE was attempting to run out the clock, or where there wasn't enough time for anything to really happen. - I ignored points that the NE defense scored against anyone else's offense. - I looked for drives in which a Buffalo turnover led to a NE 3-and-out followed by a field goal. Clearly that field goal would have been the fault of our offense, not our defense. There were no such instances. There was a case when the NE offense used a Bills' turnover to drive 27 yards for a TD. I treated this as a normal drive, because our defense should have stopped this TD, and because this is how I treated the other teams in the analysis. - I looked at what the NE offense did on a per-drive basis. There were two reasons for this: 1) if your own offense is good at chewing up the clock, the other team's offense will have fewer possessions. All else being equal, your defense will therefore allow fewer yards and fewer points. 2) A defense that allows a 10 minute TD drive has done more damage than a defense that allows a quick strike for a TD. Yet the first defense will allow fewer points and yards throughout the game, because the other team's success in chewing up the clock will lead to fewer possessions for both teams. What really matters is the average number of points your own offense must score on each drive in order to win. The higher the number, the more pressure your defense is putting on the offense. The worst-case scenario would clearly be a defense that allowed a TD every drive, because then your offense would have to be perfect to win. NE's games in 2004 were as follows: Indy Ariz Buf Miami Seattle Jets Pitt St. Louis Buf KC Balt Cle Cinn Miami Jets San Fran There are more bad defensive teams on this list (Indy, Ariz, Seattle, St. Louis, etc.) than good ones. The Patriots' best offensive performance came against St. Louis. In that game, they scored on 80% of their possessions, averaging 4.00 points per possession. The worst game for the Patriots was against Baltimore; when they scored on 33% of their possessions, and gained an average of just 1.33 points per possession. For the year, an average of 15% of the Patriots' drives ended because of a turnover (18% if you count turnovers on downs). Against the Bills, 11% of the Patriots' drives ended because of turnovers. There were only four games in which the Patriots' offense had more success (either in points per drive or percentage of drives where points were scored) than its average success against the Bills. These games were against the following teams: - Indy - Seattle - St. Louis - Cinn Even Cleveland's defense did a better job against the Patriots than our defense did. The Browns allowed the Patriots to score on 40% of their drives, and average 2.55 points per possession. The Arizona Cardinals allowed the Patriots to score on 50% of their drives, and to gain an average of 2.3 points per possession. 469349[/snapback] So, the Bills sucked against the Pats. Now we have statistical proof to something we already knew. Congratulations!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 But didn't our stats figure into the final Pats numbers? If you take us out they probably scored on 45% of their possessions (did you factor out points scored off TOs?) for 2.48 points per drive. Much more compelling argument there. 469333[/snapback] Good point. I took out our two games against NE, and redid the numbers. Against their other 14 opponents, they scored on 48% of their drives, averaging 2.50 points per drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 The depth of your argument is based on one team last year? 469318[/snapback] We didn't face many good offenses last year. The point about how we allowed a game-deciding nine minute drive to Pittsburgh and late-game comebacks by Jacksonville and the Jets has already been made. Our defense had some success against Cincy, but that was when Palmer was out with an injury; just as the INT against Pittsburgh came with Maddox at QB. I feel that last year's defensive successes were generally a result of taking advantage of other teams' weaknesses rather than shutting down their strengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted October 7, 2005 Author Share Posted October 7, 2005 There is also a real factor that often comes into play in the NFL where a team matches up against another team well for whatever reason based on player for player. Division rivalries also play into it too. There was a time in the Heyday of the Cowboys where they would lose to the Redskins every year, even when the Skins were a downtrodden team. 469355[/snapback] I agree with this. Part of the reason why the Patriots do so well against us is because their coaching staff has Jerry Gray's number. In fact, they've got his home number, his work number, his driver's license number, his social security number . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 7, 2005 Share Posted October 7, 2005 I agree with this. Part of the reason why the Patriots do so well against us is because their coaching staff has Jerry Gray's number. In fact, they've got his home number, his work number, his driver's license number, his social security number . . . 469410[/snapback] lol, good one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts