What's new
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!

NE's Team Defense 2007 Overall #1 (1 Viewer)

CBower4545

Footballguy
The Bears look to take a step down. Probably losing Tank Johnson for some games and who knows about Briggs. Brown is asking for a trade and the superbowl losers have trouble lately. They had 9 special teams/ defensive TDs, which would be hard to reproduce.

I think the Ravens will miss A. Thomas. The ravens had 60 sacks last years I just don't see them repeating that with losing Thomas. Also I wonder how Rolle will fair if their pressure is not as good. Still they have good history and good players they will be pretty good.

Now I think A. Thomas is perfect for NE, I'm not worried about the age of their linebackers(at least for fantasy), Meriweather will help, hopefully they get Samuel on the field. I think the improvement to the offense can only make things better for NE defense. Playing with big leads in the 3rd and 4th should help with sacks, turnovers, and big plays in general. NE posted 43 sacks with 23 Tos with only one TD very respectable, I think they should improve on that. With NE most likely be ranked under these two (and possibly others) I think their numbers jump up this year. A nice target to round out a championship sqaud.

 
Very possible. When was the last time an offense put up the most FP overall and their defense was the #1 fantasy defense?

 
Nah. Won't even be close.

Merely solid special teams, won't get enough sacks or nearly enough turnovers, and will let teams score on them.

They'll be top 7-12 real life, maybe similar in fantasy, but not close to #1 in either.

The likes of Baltimore, Chicago and San Diego are still alive and kicking.

Their offense certainly has more potential to be #1, though.

 
Nah. Won't even be close.

Merely solid special teams, won't get enough sacks or nearly enough turnovers, and will let teams score on them.
This is the same NE team that allowed the 2nd fewest points in the NFL we are talking about, right? They seem to have improved in several areas, yet this year they will let teams score one them? Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling here.
 
6 games against Jay Cutler (good but a 2nd year starter nonetheless), whoever the Chief's QB is, and a rookie QB make the Charger's my pick. But NE will win the lombardi trophy regardless of fantasy stats.

 
yeah SD also faces NFC North and get starts against Tavaris, Grossman, int-throwing Favre and probably Stanton in very late season against Det

 
Nah. Won't even be close.Merely solid special teams, won't get enough sacks or nearly enough turnovers, and will let teams score on them.They'll be top 7-12 real life, maybe similar in fantasy, but not close to #1 in either.The likes of Baltimore, Chicago and San Diego are still alive and kicking.Their offense certainly has more potential to be #1, though.
I don't get why everyone thinks that New England even has a PRAYER of being the #1 offense.Remember the Indy colts? You know, the team that has ranked 4th or better in scoring in 7 of the last 8 years and which returns pretty much their entire offense intact (an offense that has been playing together in its current form for so many years that any chance of regression is pretty much nonexistant)? How about San Diego, with three straight top-5 finishes (including #1 last year), a more experienced QB, and pretty much the same offense again?Why does everyone think that New England, a team whose entire offense is in massive upheaval, even has a PRAYER of passing those two offenses? New England hasn't ranked higher than 4th in scoring since 1996, and hasn't ranked higher than 7th in yards since 1994- both times under DREW BLEDSOE.I'd give New England's offense a roughly .5% chance to become the #1 offense in the entire league, and I feel like that's reasonably generous.Edit: More on topic, Baltimore's my choice for the #1 fantasy defense. They have a very, very long history of success (despite a huge cast of characters rotating through), they have one of the best talent-compilers in the entire NFL at GM, they have great coaching, and they were #1 last season. Looks like a winning combination to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of whether they are the # 1 offense or not - they can spread 4 specialized, dangerous WR's(Moss (deep), Stallworth (deep), Welker (over the middle), Caldwell/Brown (anywhere the others aren't)) with or without a TE (and they have two good catching ones in Thomas and Watson) with the speedy Maroney in the backfield.

They have the ability to sustain long drives if they choose - and BB likes to hold onto the ball.

I believe they have the ability to be the number one defense based upon the fact they can control the clock for 35+ minutes a game and have the defensive talent/playmakers to hold teams down.

Not to mention that they face some hapless offenses:

Miami x 2

Buffalo x 2

Cleveland @ home

Washington @ home

Jets x 2 (Jets are a ball-control offense and won't put up big points)

@ Dallas (certainly no juggernaut on offense).

 
SD does have the better schedule without a doubt. . Last year they victimized OAK for 15 sacks over two games where there avg per game was 3.5. They will only play OAK once this year in most leagues since they have OAK in week 17. They schedule last year was not all that hard either if you remeber OAK twice, A kerry collins lead Tennesse, a struggling Pitt team, Denver twice(with Cutler as a rookie and Plummer once), the same KC, Cleveland, Arizona, San Fran, and Buffalo. So I don't see schedule as such an advantage, since their 07 schedule is only a little better then then 06. Last year SD gave up more points, and had fewer take aways then NE. In my scoring NE scored more then SD.

SD does get Merriman for a full 16 which will help, but they lose two starters, one their leading tackler(Donnie Edwards), their offense stays the same, and have a coaching change. While NE returns theirs starters, adds two playmakers, an improved offense to create those leads that give big play opportunities, and they have better coaching.

I'll go with NE.

 
to SSOG I think Baltimore will be in the picture. I think there are reasons to believe they step down a little. But Here is my question does anyone know how many times the #1 fantasy defense has repeated year to year? From what I remember it doesn't happen often. Still people will draft Baltimore as the #1 and NE will go much later. I believe NE will be #1 but even if I am wrong(which happens believe me) I don't have to stretch for them like someone will for Baltimore

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Bears look to take a step down. Probably losing Tank Johnson for some games and who knows about Briggs. Brown is asking for a trade and the superbowl losers have trouble lately. They had 9 special teams/ defensive TDs, which would be hard to reproduce. I think the Ravens will miss A. Thomas. The ravens had 60 sacks last years I just don't see them repeating that with losing Thomas. Also I wonder how Rolle will fair if their pressure is not as good. Still they have good history and good players they will be pretty good.Now I think A. Thomas is perfect for NE, I'm not worried about the age of their linebackers(at least for fantasy), Meriweather will help, hopefully they get Samuel on the field. I think the improvement to the offense can only make things better for NE defense. Playing with big leads in the 3rd and 4th should help with sacks, turnovers, and big plays in general. NE posted 43 sacks with 23 Tos with only one TD very respectable, I think they should improve on that. With NE most likely be ranked under these two (and possibly others) I think their numbers jump up this year. A nice target to round out a championship sqaud.
So you are marking Briggs' holdout as a negative for Chicago, but still factoring in Samuel's holdout as a positive for NE?I think Denver can take a step up this year. I absolutely love their draft and think at least two of their draftees will make an impact in year 1, namely Thomas and Moss. Thomas fell only becuase of his issues with his college team and is a top round talent. Bly will work well with Bailey in coverage with many balls throw to Bly for chances to take back the other way.
 
Nah. Won't even be close.Merely solid special teams, won't get enough sacks or nearly enough turnovers, and will let teams score on them.They'll be top 7-12 real life, maybe similar in fantasy, but not close to #1 in either.The likes of Baltimore, Chicago and San Diego are still alive and kicking.Their offense certainly has more potential to be #1, though.
I don't get why everyone thinks that New England even has a PRAYER of being the #1 offense.Remember the Indy colts? You know, the team that has ranked 4th or better in scoring in 7 of the last 8 years and which returns pretty much their entire offense intact (an offense that has been playing together in its current form for so many years that any chance of regression is pretty much nonexistant)? How about San Diego, with three straight top-5 finishes (including #1 last year), a more experienced QB, and pretty much the same offense again?Why does everyone think that New England, a team whose entire offense is in massive upheaval, even has a PRAYER of passing those two offenses? New England hasn't ranked higher than 4th in scoring since 1996, and hasn't ranked higher than 7th in yards since 1994- both times under DREW BLEDSOE.I'd give New England's offense a roughly .5% chance to become the #1 offense in the entire league, and I feel like that's reasonably generous.Edit: More on topic, Baltimore's my choice for the #1 fantasy defense. They have a very, very long history of success (despite a huge cast of characters rotating through), they have one of the best talent-compilers in the entire NFL at GM, they have great coaching, and they were #1 last season. Looks like a winning combination to me.
I'm not a statistician, but I think NE has a hell of a lot better than a 1-in-200 chance of being the #1 offense. I would imagine if you were in Vegas the lowest odds on the board wouldn't even be that high.I'm a Pats fan, and I agree, they won't be the #1 offense, probably Top 5. But their odds are better than 1-in-200.
 
Oh and by the way I don't think NE offense will be #1, I just think they will be much better then #11 last year. A very good chance at being top 5. I think the increase in offense of firepower puts more pressure on the opposing offense to score. If you start getting down to a highpowered offense you start to take more chances. Does anyone know how many teams historically have had a top 5 offense and the #1 defense?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not a statistician, but I think NE has a hell of a lot better than a 1-in-200 chance of being the #1 offense. I would imagine if you were in Vegas the lowest odds on the board wouldn't even be that high.I'm a Pats fan, and I agree, they won't be the #1 offense, probably Top 5. But their odds are better than 1-in-200.
I may be wrong if someone does a study on it - but I wager more often than not #1 offenses tend to be from teams that have poor or average defenses, since generally NFL teams do what they can to win, not just to keep scoring after the game is in hand. If a team with a good defense keeps the score low, there will probably be less scoring opportunities for that team on the offensive side because they won't be throwing the ball so much for the second half or 4th quarter of the game. This factor probably keeps NE's offense less likely from being the #1 scoring offense any year.
 
I'm not a statistician, but I think NE has a hell of a lot better than a 1-in-200 chance of being the #1 offense. I would imagine if you were in Vegas the lowest odds on the board wouldn't even be that high.I'm a Pats fan, and I agree, they won't be the #1 offense, probably Top 5. But their odds are better than 1-in-200.
I may be wrong if someone does a study on it - but I wager more often than not #1 offenses tend to be from teams that have poor or average defenses, since generally NFL teams do what they can to win, not just to keep scoring after the game is in hand. If a team with a good defense keeps the score low, there will probably be less scoring opportunities for that team on the offensive side because they won't be throwing the ball so much for the second half or 4th quarter of the game. This factor probably keeps NE's offense less likely from being the #1 scoring offense any year.
I'd say in NFL terms, that is correct a la Oakland having the tough pass D last year (because teams only needed 10 points to win, and put it in ball control mode in the 3rd quarter up 17-3). For fantasy #s though, many points are gained by sacks and turnovers, which become more likely when the opposing offense opens up, typically trying to get back into a losing, one-sided scoring affair. The Rams several years ago, and the Colts just the last two years are good examples of this. The Eagles could also fall into this category when McNabb is healthy.
 
To phthalatemagic

No your right about Samuel Its not all roses for NE. His hold out is a negative for NE but I think Briggs is worse for Chicago. NE signed tory james, they let Law go before and were OK. Also Briggs has been more vocal then Samuel, saying he will never play for the bears again. (No link just yet but read it in pg 17 of USA Today Sports Weekly) To me Briggs hold out is part of a larger cloud that seems to be brewing in chicago, with the Tank johnson thing and the Brown thing. Seperate those things aren't that bad, but add them up and when you start to consider how superbowl losers have been trending latley it gives me a bad feeling about them.

 
to SSOG I think Baltimore will be in the picture. I think there are reasons to believe they step down a little. But Here is my question does anyone know how many times the #1 fantasy defense has repeated year to year? From what I remember it doesn't happen often. Still people will draft Baltimore as the #1 and NE will go much later. I believe NE will be #1 but even if I am wrong(which happens believe me) I don't have to stretch for them like someone will for Baltimore
I don't think Baltimore is likely to be #1, I simply think it is more likely to be #1 than any of the other teams. Heck, Baltimore could have a 10% chance to finish the season as #1 and still be the most likely team to finish the season as #1.Now, as to which defense is a better VALUE- I agree, New England is probably the pick there. But the question isn't which defense represents the best value (which, for my money, is probably going to be the Denver Broncos, depending on what their ADP winds up being), it's what defense is going to be the overall #1. :shock:Also, another point worth making- defensive scoring varies more from league to league than scoring at any other position. Some leagues emphasize scoring defense, others emphasize turnovers, and a few even go off of yardage defense. Obviously which defense is #1 is going to vary DRASTICALLY based on the scoring system.
 
To phthalatemagicNo your right about Samuel Its not all roses for NE. His hold out is a negative for NE but I think Briggs is worse for Chicago. NE signed tory james, they let Law go before and were OK. Also Briggs has been more vocal then Samuel, saying he will never play for the bears again. (No link just yet but read it in pg 17 of USA Today Sports Weekly) To me Briggs hold out is part of a larger cloud that seems to be brewing in chicago, with the Tank johnson thing and the Brown thing. Seperate those things aren't that bad, but add them up and when you start to consider how superbowl losers have been trending latley it gives me a bad feeling about them.
I think you are reading too much into these holdouts. Just because two guys approach their holdout a different way doens't mean one of them is any more serious than the other. I can't see how you can factor in vague things like bad feelings about the 2007 Bears, the Ty Law holdout, something brewing in Chicago as legitimate. I don't think Tory James is an acceptable replacement for Asante Samuel either. I think both will be top 10, likely top 5 though. :shock:
 
I realize a 'feeling' doesn't necessarily make a convincing argument. I will say this though 'gut feelings' factor for me. I think at some point Fantasy Football does come down to a person's gut.

 
This is the same NE team that allowed the 2nd fewest points in the NFL we are talking about, right? They seem to have improved in several areas, yet this year they will let teams score one them? Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling here.
Did you ever look at that joke of a schedule they faced last year?
 
2006 Numbers Excluded

Since the merger, 55 teams have ranked in the top 5 in both points for and points against in the same year. That's roughly one and a half times per season. Only four times did no team in the league achieve such success: 2003, 2000, 1990 and 1982. Most years had one or two teams that ranked in the top five in both categories. 1987 saw three teams do it (Cle, SF and NO, but not the SB Champion Redskins who ranked 5th in points for and 6th in points allowed) while 1970 saw four (Vikings, Lions, Rams, Cardinals; the SB Champion Colts ranked 6th and 7th, while the NFC Champion Cowboys ranked 10th and 4th).

Does anyone know how many teams historically have had a top 5 offense and the #1 defense?
Ten.
tm year PF PAkan 1997 5 1gnb 1996 1 1chi 1985 2 1sfo 1984 2 1phi 1981 5 1pit 1978 5 1pit 1976 5 1mia 1973 5 1mia 1972 1 1min 1970 3 1
Ok, well how many teams have had a top 5 defense and the #1 offense?
Eleven.
Code:
tm 	year	PF	PAram	1999	1	4gnb	1996	1	1sfo	1995	1	2sfo	1992	1	3was	1991	1	2sfo	1989	1	3sfo	1987	1	3pit	1979	1	5dal	1978	1	3ram	1973	1	4mia	1972	1	1
Full list:
Code:
tm 	year	PF	PAgnb	1996	1	1mia	1972	1	1sfo	1995	1	2was	1991	1	2chi	1985	2	1sfo	1984	2	1clt	2005	2	2dal	1993	2	2sfo	1992	1	3sfo	1989	1	3sfo	1987	1	3dal	1978	1	3min	1970	3	1det	1970	2	2ram	1999	1	4dal	1994	2	3cle	1987	3	2sdg	1979	3	2ram	1973	1	4nwe	2004	4	2phi	2002	4	2kan	1997	5	1dal	1995	3	3min	1988	4	2phi	1981	5	1pit	1979	1	5pit	1978	5	1ram	1977	4	2pit	1976	5	1ram	1976	3	3min	1975	3	3mia	1973	5	1nyj	1998	5	2gnb	1997	2	5sfo	1996	3	4dal	1992	2	5sfo	1991	3	4nor	1987	2	5sfo	1985	5	2pit	1975	5	2pit	1972	5	2mia	1971	4	3ram	1970	4	3atl	1998	4	4oti	1993	4	4sfo	1983	4	4mia	1977	3	5min	1974	5	3was	1974	4	4gnb	1994	4	5min	1986	4	5gnb	2001	5	5sea	1984	5	5atl	1980	5	5crd	1970	5	5
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I may be wrong if someone does a study on it - but I wager more often than not #1 offenses tend to be from teams that have poor or average defenses
#1 offenses are more frequently on teams with top 5 defenses (11 times) than bottom 5 defenses (6 times). The average points allowed rank on teams with the number 1 scoring offense is 11.2, a bit above average. Nine times out of 37 the corresponding points allowed rank was 6 or 7, so that's the most "typical" type of defense to the extent that such a thing exists. Think of the 2006 San Diego Chargers or the 2005 Seattle Seahawks.
Code:
tm 	year	PF	PAgnb	1996	1	1mia	1972	1	1sfo	1995	1	2was	1991	1	2sfo	1992	1	3sfo	1989	1	3sfo	1987	1	3dal	1978	1	3ram	1999	1	4ram	1973	1	4pit	1979	1	5min	1998	1	6den	1997	1	6sfo	1994	1	6buf	1990	1	6sdg	2006	1	7sea	2005	1	7ram	2001	1	7mia	1984	1	7dal	1971	1	7rai	1974	1	9was	1983	1	11dal	1980	1	13clt	1976	1	13rai	1977	1	14sfo	1970	1	14sfo	1993	1	16cin	1988	1	16clt	2004	1	19kan	2003	1	19buf	1975	1	21sdg	1982	1	24sdg	1985	1	25mia	1986	1	26sdg	1981	1	26kan	2002	1	28ram	2000	1	31
Same numbers for #1 defense:
Code:
tm 	year	PF	PAgnb	1996	1	1mia	1972	1	1chi	1985	2	1sfo	1984	2	1min	1970	3	1kan	1997	5	1phi	1981	5	1pit	1978	5	1pit	1976	5	1mia	1973	5	1jax	1999	6	1phi	1980	6	1mia	1983	7	1nor	1991	8	1den	1989	8	1nor	1992	10	1pit	2004	11	1chi	2001	11	1ram	1975	11	1rav	2006	12	1nwe	2003	12	1kan	1995	12	1cle	1994	12	1was	1982	12	1chi	1986	13	1ram	1974	13	1rav	2000	14	1nyg	1990	15	1mia	1998	16	1tam	2002	18	1nyg	1993	18	1chi	1988	18	1clt	1987	18	1min	1971	18	1tam	1979	21	1atl	1977	25	1chi	2005	26	1
Average points for rank: 10.95.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I may be wrong if someone does a study on it - but I wager more often than not #1 offenses tend to be from teams that have poor or average defenses, since generally NFL teams do what they can to win, not just to keep scoring after the game is in hand. If a team with a good defense keeps the score low, there will probably be less scoring opportunities for that team on the offensive side because they won't be throwing the ball so much for the second half or 4th quarter of the game. This factor probably keeps NE's offense less likely from being the #1 scoring offense any year.
I'd say in NFL terms, that is correct a la Oakland having the tough pass D last year (because teams only needed 10 points to win, and put it in ball control mode in the 3rd quarter up 17-3).
Oakland had a tough pass D last year because Oakland has some really talented defensive players and a good DC. Oakland's pass D appeared tough because of that, and because the Raiders had a historically bad offense. But while I agree that playing a team that can't score means a team is likely to go into ball control mode earlier than normal, yards gained is not the same as points scored. And as the numbers presented above demonstrate, teams with great defenses still have better offenses than other teams, when measuring offense by points scored.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I may be wrong if someone does a study on it - but I wager more often than not #1 offenses tend to be from teams that have poor or average defenses, since generally NFL teams do what they can to win, not just to keep scoring after the game is in hand. If a team with a good defense keeps the score low, there will probably be less scoring opportunities for that team on the offensive side because they won't be throwing the ball so much for the second half or 4th quarter of the game. This factor probably keeps NE's offense less likely from being the #1 scoring offense any year.
I'd say in NFL terms, that is correct a la Oakland having the tough pass D last year (because teams only needed 10 points to win, and put it in ball control mode in the 3rd quarter up 17-3).
Oakland had a tough pass D last year because Oakland has some really talented defensive players and a good DC. Oakland's pass D appeared tough because of that, and because the Raiders had a historically bad offense. But while I agree that playing a team that can't score means a team is likely to go into ball control mode earlier than normal, yards gained is not the same as points scored. And as the numbers presented above demonstrate, teams with great defenses still have better offenses than other teams, when measuring offense by points scored.
Of course, a team with a better defense will make an offense look better. You'll win the field position battle more often giving your O a shorter field to work with. You'll also create more turnovers with a better D, giving the O not only shorter fields, but more posessions. My point is that a putrid O (such as Oakland had) can make a D look better if the O is bad enough. I don't disagree that Oakland's defense is looking solid (I am a Raider fan living in N.Cali), but to say that they were a top 3 pass defense last year is an arguable point. IMO, maybe top 10.Chase, you are undoubtably one of the top stats guys around here. While I don't always agree with the arguments your #s support, you can usually shut me up with them. Do you know where to find what the run/pass ratio was vs. Oakland? How does that compare w/ the rest of the league?

Sorry for the hijack.

 
I may be wrong if someone does a study on it - but I wager more often than not #1 offenses tend to be from teams that have poor or average defenses, since generally NFL teams do what they can to win, not just to keep scoring after the game is in hand. If a team with a good defense keeps the score low, there will probably be less scoring opportunities for that team on the offensive side because they won't be throwing the ball so much for the second half or 4th quarter of the game. This factor probably keeps NE's offense less likely from being the #1 scoring offense any year.
I'd say in NFL terms, that is correct a la Oakland having the tough pass D last year (because teams only needed 10 points to win, and put it in ball control mode in the 3rd quarter up 17-3).
Oakland had a tough pass D last year because Oakland has some really talented defensive players and a good DC. Oakland's pass D appeared tough because of that, and because the Raiders had a historically bad offense. But while I agree that playing a team that can't score means a team is likely to go into ball control mode earlier than normal, yards gained is not the same as points scored. And as the numbers presented above demonstrate, teams with great defenses still have better offenses than other teams, when measuring offense by points scored.
Of course, a team with a better defense will make an offense look better. You'll win the field position battle more often giving your O a shorter field to work with. You'll also create more turnovers with a better D, giving the O not only shorter fields, but more posessions. My point is that a putrid O (such as Oakland had) can make a D look better if the O is bad enough. I don't disagree that Oakland's defense is looking solid (I am a Raider fan living in N.Cali), but to say that they were a top 3 pass defense last year is an arguable point. IMO, maybe top 10.Chase, you are undoubtably one of the top stats guys around here. While I don't always agree with the arguments your #s support, you can usually shut me up with them. Do you know where to find what the run/pass ratio was vs. Oakland? How does that compare w/ the rest of the league?

Sorry for the hijack.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/tmstats2006.htmThe Raiders run/pass ratio against was 0.76, easily the friendliest in the league. The average ratio was 1.13.

If you're going to say the Raiders' pass defense was tops in the league because Oakland allowed only 2,631 passing yards, then you're right, that's misleading. But if you're going to say Oakland ranked 5th in yards per pass allowed, and that the Raiders are a top five pass D because of that, that's much better. Oakland also had 18 INTs, and ranked 3rd in INTs/attempt, behind only Green Bay and Baltimore. That probably understates the Raiders' prowess for the pick, however. Even after adjusting for number of attempts, the type of attempts the Raiders saw was likely harder to intercept than the type the Ravens saw.

 
I may be wrong if someone does a study on it - but I wager more often than not #1 offenses tend to be from teams that have poor or average defenses, since generally NFL teams do what they can to win, not just to keep scoring after the game is in hand. If a team with a good defense keeps the score low, there will probably be less scoring opportunities for that team on the offensive side because they won't be throwing the ball so much for the second half or 4th quarter of the game. This factor probably keeps NE's offense less likely from being the #1 scoring offense any year.
I'd say in NFL terms, that is correct a la Oakland having the tough pass D last year (because teams only needed 10 points to win, and put it in ball control mode in the 3rd quarter up 17-3).
Oakland had a tough pass D last year because Oakland has some really talented defensive players and a good DC. Oakland's pass D appeared tough because of that, and because the Raiders had a historically bad offense. But while I agree that playing a team that can't score means a team is likely to go into ball control mode earlier than normal, yards gained is not the same as points scored. And as the numbers presented above demonstrate, teams with great defenses still have better offenses than other teams, when measuring offense by points scored.
Of course, a team with a better defense will make an offense look better. You'll win the field position battle more often giving your O a shorter field to work with. You'll also create more turnovers with a better D, giving the O not only shorter fields, but more posessions. My point is that a putrid O (such as Oakland had) can make a D look better if the O is bad enough. I don't disagree that Oakland's defense is looking solid (I am a Raider fan living in N.Cali), but to say that they were a top 3 pass defense last year is an arguable point. IMO, maybe top 10.Chase, you are undoubtably one of the top stats guys around here. While I don't always agree with the arguments your #s support, you can usually shut me up with them. Do you know where to find what the run/pass ratio was vs. Oakland? How does that compare w/ the rest of the league?

Sorry for the hijack.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/tmstats2006.htmThe Raiders run/pass ratio against was 0.76, easily the friendliest in the league. The average ratio was 1.13.

If you're going to say the Raiders' pass defense was tops in the league because Oakland allowed only 2,631 passing yards, then you're right, that's misleading. But if you're going to say Oakland ranked 5th in yards per pass allowed, and that the Raiders are a top five pass D because of that, that's much better. Oakland also had 18 INTs, and ranked 3rd in INTs/attempt, behind only Green Bay and Baltimore. That probably understates the Raiders' prowess for the pick, however. Even after adjusting for number of attempts, the type of attempts the Raiders saw was likely harder to intercept than the type the Ravens saw.
Damn, I knew you were good! Sounds like your #s actually are agreeing w/ me this time. Maybe top 10, but they weren't passed against enough to earn top 3 honors. Proof of the efficiency came in YPA and INT/ATT. How do you get those so quick?Hijack ended.

I am saying that N.E. is nearly a lock for top 5 with or without Samuel, and the favorite for FF#1 if Samuel plays. The potent offense should be making other teams think 24 points may not do it, and force a higher pass/run ratio = more sacks and INTs, more than enough to make up for the extra 3-5 PPG more they may give up.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top