Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
1985 Bears... 2000 Ravens... 2013 Seahawks? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Raider Nation
- Start date
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Not to knock the Seahawks defense, who were fantastic this year. But this is EXHIBIT A of how to cherry pick stats. For starters, there were 3 teams in 2001 that averaged better than 14.26 ppg allowed (PIT, CHI, PHI). Since then, there have been a number of teams very similar (or slightly better than) than SEA was this year counting only the regular season. Adding in the post season gives SEA a very slight advantage. But there were a number of teams since 2002 that were just a smidge behind the caveat of regular and post season added together ppg allowed. And there were 2 or 3 teams that allowed fewer points in 2000.
Bottom line, the Seahawks had one of the top defenses in the past few years, but they weren't statistically in the Top 5 out of the past 15 years in looking at straight points allowed. Certainly people could make a case that there are more points scored now than in the past and that might make the SEA defense better than some of those other teams.
biju
Footballguy
I actually agree with this. I hate cherry picking stats.
Having said that, subjectively it is clear this defense has the right to be brought up in the discussions some of their statistical brethren should not be in. I have to think this is the difference between the schedule played and the clear level of dominance they displayed over an exceptionally strong offensive in the Superbowl.
I would love to have this objectively verified, but the variance in rules, eras, salary cap, and schedule makes this nearly impossible to quantify.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
As I said, a valid argument is that teams score more now than in prior seasons. I think DEN inflated scoring this year, as I don't think the other 31 teams really scored a ton more than other seasons. Would have to research it more. Lots of moving parts and puzzle pieces to the equation.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
CapnJB
Footballguy
If you take away 160 points from Denver's Points Scored... giving them only one more than the number two team, the average score per game is still 0.3 points higher per game than last year. And it would still be the highest season since 1965ish. And that's IF you knocked 160 points (23 Touchdowns!) off of what Denver actually scored. The other 31 teams DID score more than ever... whether you think it happened or not.
BaBastage
Footballguy
I don't have the time or motivation to follow this up, but someone might go look at deviation from mean (or deviation from median, with only 30-ish members of each group, I'm not sure which is statistically more reliable) on a year-by-year basis to normalize this out.
For example, go back 30 years, and determine the mean / median for each year. Let's say in 2013, the average point per game was 16. If Seattle had 14.26 PPG this year, they would have a score of -1.74.
That still doesn't tell the entire story..... maybe another viewpoint would be percentage from mean. ((Season Avg PPG - Team PPG) / Season Avg PPG) would help weight it such that outliers stood out more.
There are probably more ways to look at it... but at least it puts this season in context with prior years, given that rules, offensive styles, etc change.
Hooper31
Footballguy
This isn't rocket science. Calculate the league mean and standard deviation for each season. Find out how many standard deviatons below the mean each team was. Bet Drinen could do this in less than 60 seconds.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Here are the average team scoring totals per game each season since the merger in 1970.
2013 23.42012 22.82011 22.22010 222008 221983 21.82007 21.72002 21.71987 21.62009 21.52004 21.51995 21.51985 21.51998 21.31984 21.22003 20.81999 20.82006 20.72000 20.71997 20.71981 20.72005 20.61989 20.61975 20.61986 20.51980 20.51996 20.41994 20.31988 20.31972 20.31982 20.21990 20.11979 20.11973 19.51971 19.41970 19.32001 19.21976 19.21991 191993 18.71992 18.71978 18.31974 18.21977 17.2However, I think this is a piece of the puzzle but is not looking at things the right way. Looking at a league average is not the best way to go, as teams don't play every team. IMO, the best way to compare defenses is as follows.
For each team defense, we should be looking at how their opponents did in all their other games and compare that average to the defense in question. This year, for example, the Seahawks played the Bucs and allowed 24 points. In 15 other games, TB averaged 17.6 ppg. So for that one game, SEA would earn a net +6.4 points for that game. (They allowed 6.4 points more to TB than TB scored against all other opponents.) Rinse and repeat for all games to end up with a total for the season. Divide that by the number of games in the season. Then we would have a number saying TEAM X allowed opponents to score Y amount less per game. Then use that number to compare all teams in any season in any era. At least that would be a good basis for comparison and a good place to start.
2013 23.42012 22.82011 22.22010 222008 221983 21.82007 21.72002 21.71987 21.62009 21.52004 21.51995 21.51985 21.51998 21.31984 21.22003 20.81999 20.82006 20.72000 20.71997 20.71981 20.72005 20.61989 20.61975 20.61986 20.51980 20.51996 20.41994 20.31988 20.31972 20.31982 20.21990 20.11979 20.11973 19.51971 19.41970 19.32001 19.21976 19.21991 191993 18.71992 18.71978 18.31974 18.21977 17.2However, I think this is a piece of the puzzle but is not looking at things the right way. Looking at a league average is not the best way to go, as teams don't play every team. IMO, the best way to compare defenses is as follows.
For each team defense, we should be looking at how their opponents did in all their other games and compare that average to the defense in question. This year, for example, the Seahawks played the Bucs and allowed 24 points. In 15 other games, TB averaged 17.6 ppg. So for that one game, SEA would earn a net +6.4 points for that game. (They allowed 6.4 points more to TB than TB scored against all other opponents.) Rinse and repeat for all games to end up with a total for the season. Divide that by the number of games in the season. Then we would have a number saying TEAM X allowed opponents to score Y amount less per game. Then use that number to compare all teams in any season in any era. At least that would be a good basis for comparison and a good place to start.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
And if we really want to better refine things, maybe points allowed by the offense should be weeded out, as the defense didn't technically allow the points. Even that gets dicey, as turnovers in your own red zone could put your defense in a terrible spot, but in those instances the defense would still be the ones allowing the points.
GameUsedTiger
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
Here is why the statement is wrong. Every team in almost every sport has that one team or type of team that gives them trouble. That doesn't mean they aren't great. It just means that against particular matchups, you look different.
The Chicago Bulls could completely dominate the league for long periods (and they did), but they always struggled against the teams with the massive PF and SG combo. So, the teams that had that combo (like the Knicks or Jazz) always played them close and it resulted in some "average" games by the Bulls. However, there is no denying that when you saw those 90's Bulls, you were watching one of the best teams ever..in history...period.
To say the Seahawks are the best ever because of that one game can't hold up because it also means that, based on that one game, the Broncos are terrible, and we know that not to be true. And more impotantly, saying it in that way also takes away from what the Hawks did all season and that is where this type of conversation really makes its merits. You have to look at an entire season (or more) and while the Hawks are very very good in today's era, I don't think they are nearly as dominant as the Ravens or Bears were.
You can beat the Seahawks but against the Ravens and Bears in those years, you honestly did not have a sincere hope that you could beat those teams. I know that is a statement that you can'tback up with a nice stat, that's just a statement coming from "if you were around then and watched those games, that's what you thought/felt." THat night that the Dolphins actually beat the Bears on MNF felt like watching NC State upset Houston or something. It was just one of those nights where it all went a certain way but nobody really thought it would. That's how dominate that Bears team was. You were beat on Tuesday before you ever began practice unless absolutely everything went your way and you caught every break possible.
To me, that defines what I think of when I think of best defense ever much more than trying to say "well this team allowed so many points" or "this team looked this good in this particular big game". It is more about remembering how those seasons played out and knowing (KNOWING) by week 8 or 9 that nobody had a chance against these guys...under no circumstances except the flukiest of flukes...it just wasn't going to happen. The Bear were that good. The Ravens felt very, very similar. The Seahawks are more like "Yes, highly favored as they should be, but I won't fall out of my chair when the Cardinals beat them at home."
CalBear
Footballguy
Dan Marino and the Dophins put up 38 points against the 1985 Bears defense in week 13.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Right. but only two other teams got to 20 against that Bears D, and (counting the playoffs), they held 14 of their 19 opponents to 10 points or less. And 7 of their 19 opponents' offenses failed to find the end one (4 shutouts, plus three other games). That is insane.
biju
Footballguy
I understand what you're saying and agree with a part of it. I think you do your argument a disservice by talking up the Bulls and how they didn't fare well against the teams that match up well and then say you didn't "fall out of your seat" when the Cardinals won. I see that as very similar, just as the 49ers games, the Panthers game, and the Rams. The outlier for me was the Colts game because they are a team the Seahawks should beat. As a matter of fact, I think if you play that game 10 times the Seahawks win more than they lose, but obviously there's no way of knowing or quantifying that.
I also don't agree with the statement that you didn't feel you could beat the Ravens. You might not be able to score much on the Ravens, but that offense was so bad. Their wins were 100% on the defense all the way through the season, but they were far from unbeatable and their record reflected that. I also contend the rules made a big effect on the hitting that Ravens team did and they wouldn't have the same luxuries today as they did then.
The 85 Bears were an awesome team to watch and I was a fan. They dominated teams. It's a bit of a different era for sure with much less passing, so their front 7 were a joy to watch. I don't think they have nearly as much success today in this passing league and the number of formations, but that wasn't what they were built for or prepared for so again it is difficult to know how they would have done.
In the end, the only thing we will have is subjective methods of comparison and they won't work due to the era, the rules (and their enforcement), the salary cap, and the schedules they played.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I went back and did what I suggested a few posts ago. Recalculate teams' ppg totals against other opponents, filter out points allowed by the offense, and calculated points allowed.
Not sure if I got all the teams listed in this thread, but here are a lot of them . . .
2002 TBB -12.42 ppg
1985 CHI - 11.64 ppg
2000 BAL -11.01 ppg
2013 SEA - 10.59 ppg
1976 PIT - 10.31 ppg
1986 NYG - 7.96 ppg
1991 PHI -6.34 ppg
Will calculate some others when I have the time . . .
Not sure if I got all the teams listed in this thread, but here are a lot of them . . .
2002 TBB -12.42 ppg
1985 CHI - 11.64 ppg
2000 BAL -11.01 ppg
2013 SEA - 10.59 ppg
1976 PIT - 10.31 ppg
1986 NYG - 7.96 ppg
1991 PHI -6.34 ppg
Will calculate some others when I have the time . . .
Last edited by a moderator:
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Yes. If teams faced each other once, removed points from that game and divided by one less game. If they met twice, eliminated scores from those two games and averaged remaining games. Filtered out points allowed by offense: safeties, fumble and interception returns, blocked kicks for TD, and extra points from those scores. Left punt and kickoff returns as points allowed by defense. Included playoff games for the teams I included (but only used regular games to calculate average ppg for the teams they faced).
Last edited by a moderator:
dhockster
Footballguy
Premier
Footballguy
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I listed them in the right order. So TB allowed 12.42 ppg less to their opponents than those teams scored against the rest of those teams' opponents.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
This is pretty interesting, but it doesn't really allow for comparison across years, right? I mean, the value of of 10 points in 2013 is very different than in 1976.Anarchy99 said:
dhockster
Footballguy
Gotcha.Anarchy99 said:
Keep in mind that points does not tell the story. If offenses continually turn the ball over in their end of the field, so that the other teams are already close or within field goal range, there is not much a defense can do to prevent points. A defense can make a team go three and out on their own 15 yard line and the other team kicks a field goal and gets 3 points. The 1991 Eagles were last in your rankings primarily due to this reason. The offense turned the ball over 43 times.
I would love to see an analysis that looked at every drive against a defense, where it started, the result, and the actual points that should be counted against the defense.
I will link again to the football outsiders analysis because they say they have factored some of this into their analysis.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/dvoa-ratings/2014/historical-dvoa-estimates
Also, here is their summary discussion of best defenses:
Shifting to the other side of the ball, the 1991 Eagles are the best defense for now and it’s not even close. The 1969 edition of the Purple People Eaters, who come in second, are closer to 35th place than they are to first. The Steel Curtain makes three appearances in the top-10 in a four-year span (and they won the Super Bowl in the fourth year). Having four Hall of Famers on one defense is a good thing.
You may be surprised to see the Eagles so far ahead of the pack –- I was too. They are generally in the conversation when people talk about all-time great defenses, but not the clear frontrunner. This is partially an issue of a difficult schedule -– their VOA without opponent adjustments is "only" -38.2% -– but that still leaves them comfortably ahead of the pack. The other major reason is their teammates. While the Eagles had an average special teams unit in 1991, that offense was terrible. Their offensive DVOA of -24.6% is the worst by far of any of the other teams with top defensive DVOAs. This set them up in more unfavorable situations than many of the other all-time great defenses. In contrast, Buddy Ryan’s other all-time great defense, the 1985 Bears, had the fifth-best offense in the league. This gave them more opportunities to shine, which helps explain why their defense only comes in 12th all-time instead of first or second like you might expect. The fact that the 1991 Eagles were still able to end up in the conversation despite their albatross of an offense is perhaps their most impressive accomplishment.
I say perhaps, because the 1991 Eagles have another remarkable thing to brag about –- their incredible balance. They had the No. 2 defense against both the pass and the run. Only the 2002 Bucs and 2000 Ravens, respectively, managed to top them. The 1998 Chargers slide into third place for run defense, which helps explain how a team that started Ryan Leaf and Craig Whelihan at quarterback managed to scrape together five wins.
Last edited by a moderator:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
My going in position was that simply deducting points allowed on offense was only part of the story as it would not account for poor field position if the offense coughed up the ball at the one yard line.
Similarly, their are other factors that make for defensive analysis. Turnovers forced, yardage allowed, etc. As far as 1991 PHI goes, it's hard to be considered an all time great when you don't even make the playoffs. Not saying that makes them any less of a defense, but it's hard to use "great" on a non-playoff team.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
So which points would matter more? The ones in 1976 or the ones in 2013?
PIT allowed 10.31 fewer points per game when the league averaged 19.2 ppg. So they allowed 54% fewer adjusted points per game compared to the league average.
SEA allowed 10.59 fewer points per game when the league averaged 23.4 ppg. So they allowed 45% fewer adjusted points per game compared to the league average.
When teams score fewer points, there will be a greater percentage difference. People can decide for themselves what the list shows, means, or ignores.
dhockster
Footballguy
Hey, it's all subjective. No problem if you don't think they were great. My only question is did you see them play?
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I'm not saying anything good, bad, or indifferent. They rate very high in other factors beyond straight points. I remember them getting a ton of turnovers in the few games I saw them play. However, it is easy for them to be overlooked when they did not make the postseason, no matter how inept the offense may have been.
biju
Footballguy
They did, but it's worth noting the Bucs knew all of the Raiders' plays/audibles since they didn't change year over year from the system Gruden coached which is likely the reason for the INTs and sacks. Plus, the Raiders scored two TDs against the Bucs.Premier said:
Statistically (aside from the scores) this was more dominant, but this was more about knowing what the offense was about to do instead of actual dominance IMO.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
The Seahawks did it to not just the number 1 offense, but statistically the number 1 offense in NFL history. Big, big difference between Rich Gannon and Peyton Manning. I think the 2002 Bucs defense as a whole was arguably a bit better than the 2013 Seahawks defense, but Seattle's Super Bowl performance was a little better than TB's, IMO.Premier said:
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
And listen, this always comes across as sour grapes when I point it out, but Brooks admitted it himself....
THEY KNEW EVERY PLAY THAT WAS COMING!!!
Kudos, they still crushed Oakland. But knowing exactly what's coming at you is a bit of an advantage.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I said "as a whole." But if you want to ignore the Bucs other 18 games that year, which makes them one of the best ever without even counting the Super Bowl, and act like the last game doesn't count because the Raiders were too stupid to change things when they got a new coach, have at it.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Please go back and read the block of quotes I was replying to. It was clearly all about Super Bowl Sunday performances.
