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!
Rest of article available here: http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10...youll-ever-see/
Yup. Unfortunately, we're just really, really, REALLY bad at the third phase.
I've never been a fan of Crosby, but most of the people I know who seem knowledgeable on the subject say he's a very good coach.
So bad it makes the defense look good...
I'm not a fan of yards per play as a stat, as I think it's misleading. But...Offense Y/P: 1st - 6.8 Y/P (next closest team is 6.2; avg is 5.3)Defense Y/P: 2nd - 4.4 Y/P (Steelers first at 4.1)
I think Rivers can carry this team through the regular season. The AFC/NFC west are just loaded with average teams. I don't see the offense slowing down much, but I dont think the Defense is anything special. I dont see them as a tough out in the playoffs either.While some regression in inevitable, one would think the offensive and defensive numbers are more indicative of the Chargers chances going forward, and that the flukey special teams plays won't continue.This team is going to be a tough out in the playoffs.
As a Rivers/Floyd owner, I'm pretty ecstatic. I would like to see Matthews figure into the mix without taking anything away from passing game. If Rivers and Floyd can stay on pace, and Matthews can just steal touches from Tolbert and make the most of those touches, that would be nice.
Not to hijack the thread, but why do you say that? We judge the running game using yards per carry, and the passing game by yards per attempt (or AY/A) -- this seems like a natural extension.
in this case i think its more telling than the overall yardage difference due to the all the special teams and turnover tds they have given up.
Are you talking about all those losses last year, when the Chargers went 13-3?The converse is also a good question: At what point do we start to give some credit to the coaching staff for consistently putting together game plans that result in gaudy offensive and defensive statistics?SSOG said:
If I may channel Chase for a second . . .The effectiveness of a team's running game really isn't best measured by yards per carry. It's better measured by success rate or something similar.AB in DC said:
Drive stats:SD offense: 37.6 yards/possession (3rd), 2.2 points/possession (3rd)AB in DC said:
Every year? Like last year, when they were 13-3 in the regular season?Norv took over a very talented team, and during his tenure it has experienced a significant dropoff in talent level (Tomlinson, Turner, Merriman, Jamal Williams, etc.) while retaining a solid core of talent and trying to restock. During that time, the Chargers are 34-19 (.642) and 3-3 in the playoffs. If I'm not mistaken, Norv has the best winning percentage in Chargers history, and prior to his tenure, the Chargers had not won a playoff game for 12 seasons. Of course, people will still knock those results by saying they have enjoyed playing a weak division. But I don't think his results really track with your statement here.I agree that it can be frustrating feeling like their team is better than its record, and I certainly think the coaching staff bears some blame for it, as does A.J. Smith. But I also think the Norv and Smith bashing gets overplayed a lot around here.SSOG said:
Maurile hit it spot on, of course. Simpson's paradox is the reason why. This year, for example, the 49ers average more yards per play than the Falcons. But the Falcons average more yards per rush and more yards per pass than the 49ers.I'm also not a big fan of using yards for ranking offenses, although I gave in to the urge this time around because of the Chargers' crazy numbers. More trivia than anything, though.
In all fairness, he did say, "every year at this time." You conveniently left out the "at this time" part, which was the point. The Chargers are always getting off to bad starts under Norv Turner.
Simpson's Paradox.Team A runs 200 times for 1000 yards (5.0 yards per carry). They pass 100 times for 800 yards (8.0 yards per attempt). Their yards per play is 6.0.Team B runs 100 times for 400 yards (4.0 yards per carry). They pass 200 times for 1500 yards (7.5 yards per attempt). Their yards per play is 6.3.Team A averages more yards per carry *AND* more yards per pass, but team B averages more yards per play.Typically, the teams that throw the ball the most tend to be among the league leaders in yards per play, while teams that face the most passing attempts tend to be among the league leaders in yards per play allowed. Why? Because passes gain more yards than runs.AB in DC said:
No, like last year when they were 2-3, and the year before when they were 4-8, and the year before that when they were 1-3.
When Herm Edwards goes on a rant saying that YOU PLAY. TO PUT UP. GAUDY STATS.
Why complicate things?
Yes, but he finished by using a more general phrase, which I bolded above for convenience.It doesn't matter much if they start a season 2-3 and finish 13-3; that's what happened in 2009. It doesn't matter much if they start a season 2-3 and finish 11-5, make the playoffs and win 2 playoff games; that's what happened in 2007. It's not good to start 2-3 and finish 8-8, as they did in 2008... and as long as we are talking about "in all fairness", we can note that Ed Hochuli took a win away from them that season, so they should have been 9-7... and they did win a playoff game.
Sure, blame the coaches for those opening records in the past three seasons. Then follow that up by giving them credit for going 9-2, 4-0, and 12-0, respectively, during the rest of those seasons, and making the playoffs all three times and winning three games. Now, what did that exercise accomplish? I'd say the coaches will come out on the positive side, not the negative side.
In my experience, the coaches who continually screw it up but keep recovering typically find themselves digging themselves into a hole that they can't recover from. I'm thinking specifically of Dan Reeves in Denver (who coordinated a terrible offense for 3 quarters and then turned John Elway loose in the 4th), and of Les Miles at LSU (whose teams are frequently hailed as "the best X-loss team ever", including the only 2-loss national champions in college football history). Both of those guys are solid enough coaches who led their teams to very respectable showings (Dan Reeves had 3 SB appearances, Les Miles has a national championship ring and the best winning% in LSU history)... but Denver was far better off once they finally replaced Dan Reeves with someone whose teams didn't underperform so much, and LSU will likely be better off when they replace Les Miles with someone who understands basic game management.As a Broncos fan, I fear the day that San Diego abandons The Norv Turner Experience and gets an above-average coach.
