UK Redskins Fan Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Our attack on addicted's numbers demonstrates the value of the approach I used. One can argue with my estimates to a point, but if they try to go beyond a reasonable range, they will get tripped up. If you take the coaching out of the equation I guess the most accurate way of assessing the importance of each unit would be to look at how much money the league as a whole spends on each position. Although I can't find anything like it i'd be surprised if no one had ever made such a study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If you take the coaching out of the equation I guess the most accurate way of assessing the importance of each unit would be to look at how much money the league as a whole spends on each position. Although I can't find anything like it i'd be surprised if no one had ever made such a study. There goes Of's next thread idea. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If Jim Zorn, who created the offense, would publish a report of his findings after reviewing the play-by-play video, we could create some useful stats on the performance of Jason Campbell. He could tell us whether an interception was the QB's fault, a receiver's, an O lineman or his own because of poor playcalling. If all offensive coordinators around the NFL would do the same, we would have some useful QB stats. Good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eljeasel Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I do like reading your posts. Cant agree with the specifics, but alot of the general ideas I do agree with. Namely, using YPA and other team stats as individual stats and refusing to acknowledge the team nature of football I get behind 100%. Your number systemIm not sure I agree with. The problem with giving % values is that it could be different for different teams. I dont think your post expressly contradicts that so lets not split hairs. Nice post my man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanTaylorthePunterSlayer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 70% of the time statistics are right all the time. Lol. Good one, Fantana...:hysterical: Interesting thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 For starters, your proportions (offense v. defense) are seriously out of line. You have the offense totalling 55% -- a value of more than double the defense (25%) Yes I know this very well and I do think the teams win-loss success rate is mostly determined by how well the Offense does vs. how well the Defense does. I also don't believe that the 3 sides of the football are equally weighted or ever should be. I believe regardless of what that chart says that a team can overcome bad Special Teams play and bad Defensive play with a good Offense but can not overcome a bad offense. Which is why as you pointed out, I have the offense weighted like I do. I know you can cherry pick and point out the QB's who scored a lot and there teams lost as much as we did but how many teams in this past decade outside of Maryland can you point to and say that they won almost every game because they had a superior Defense and had no offense? Not too many come to mind from the 32 teams besides Baltimore. Since I can't really think of any other teams like that you are talking about 1 out of 32 teams which is an anamoly, not the norm. In addition to the logical deduction that it's just as important to stop the other team from scoring as it to score, there is the DVOA study that I referred to in the OP which opposes your numbers: My belief is that a team can get over problems with special teams and defense easier then they could with an offense much more then they would if the offense was poor. I disagree that its as important to stop other teams from scoring as it is to score yourself. Here's some research for you to check out: The 10 Worst Offenses in 2008: 23 San Francisco 49ers 24 Kansas City Chiefs 25 Buffalo Bills 26 Chicago Bears 27 St. Louis Rams 28 Seattle Seahawks 29 Oakland Raiders 30 Detroit Lions 31 Cleveland Browns 32 Cincinnati Bengals Do you see any winners on that list? From the bottom 10 offenses in the league last year, 0 teams made it to the playoffs Now check this out. The top 10 offenses in the league for 2008: 1 New Orleans Saints 2 Denver Broncos 3 Houston Texans 4 Arizona Cardinals 5 New England Patriots 6 Atlanta Falcons 7 New York Giants 8 Green Bay Packers 9 Philadelphia Eagles 10 Carolina Panthers Playoff teams are bolded and underlined so they stand out. From the top 10 offenses in the league last year, 5 teams made it to the playoffs Now lets look at the other side of the ball The 10 Worst Defenses in the league in 2008: 23 New Orleans Saints 24 Atlanta Falcons 25 San Diego Chargers 26 Cleveland Browns 27 Oakland Raiders 28 St. Louis Rams 29 Denver Broncos 30 Seattle Seahawks 31 Kansas City Chiefs 32 Detroit Lions Playoff teams are bolded and underlined so they stand out. From the 10 worst defenses in the league last year, 2 teams made it to the playoffs I take from that if you have a bad defense you can still win in this league. That's my point all along. Lets see if I am right The 10 Best Defenses in the league in 2008: 1 Pittsburgh Steelers 2 Baltimore Ravens 3 Philadelphia Eagles 4 Washington Redskins 5 New York Giants 6 Minnesota Vikings 7 Tennessee Titans 8 Dallas Cowboys 9 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 10 New England Patriots So from that list we have 6 playoff teams which is pretty impressive. I come away with this....We had 5 playoff teams from the best offensive list and 2 from the worst defensive list. We have 6 playoff teams from the best defensive list and zero from the worst offensive list. I can't help but believe that my thought was correct, a team with a great offense can overcome a bad defense but a team with a great defense can not overcome a bad offense. That's why I don't think these two areas should be equal weight. This is just from last year. If you want to disprove it look at previous years. 2008 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs 2007 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs 2006 - 1 team was in the 10 last offensive spots and made the playoffs 2005 - 1 team was in the 10 last offensive spots and made the playoffs 2004 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs 2003 - No team ranked in 10 last spots in offense made the playoffs In the last 6 years we've had 2 teams in the bottom 10 in Offense make it to the playoffs. If that doesn't tell you that the offense is more important then the defense or special teams then I don't know what else will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Our attack on addicted's numbers demonstrates the value of the approach I used. One can argue with my estimates to a point, but if they try to go beyond a reasonable range, they will get tripped up. Give me a minute and I will back up my posts. Research takes time brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 If you take the coaching out of the equation I guess the most accurate way of assessing the importance of each unit would be to look at how much money the league as a whole spends on each position. Although I can't find anything like it i'd be surprised if no one had ever made such a study. You could use the franchise tag numbers, but I have a feeling that some of the marquee players in the NFL drive up those numbers based on selling jerseys and putting fannies in the seats and not on their value to the team effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Good post. Thank you, Sir. If you have the time, I'd be interested in your estimates. I assume my 10% estimate for the QB is far too low for you, but I'd be interested in which of the factors you would downgrade to cover the difference. 21% = Coaching 34% = Defense 11% = Special Teams 12% = O line 12% = RB and receivers 10% = QB ---------- 100% Total Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Just a quick line to say thank you Of. Although I may not always agree with your thoughts on certain things, (the progress of the O and the current QB springs to mind, smiles); one thing's for sure, your threads are always thought provoking, and real interesting to see someone thinking outside the box on many things that make perfect sense when you look at them. For that Sir, you should be commended for adding a new slant to the rich and varied fabric of this place we call "home." Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Your number systemIm not sure I agree with. The problem with giving % values is that it could be different for different teams. I dont think your post expressly contradicts that so lets not split hairs. I didn't say it, but my estimates were meant to be a league average. The actual values would, most certainly, vary from team to team. The coaches scheme can emphasize or deemphasize the QB's role, for example, by altering the run/pass ratio. Nice post my man! Gracias, Amigo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Just a quick line to say thank you Of. Back atcha. Your posts are always worth reading even when you foolishly don't agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Really OldFan you don't want to respond to the guy who you said was wrong? I'm doing some more research on this topic and to further drive home my point check this out: 2003 - 1 Team made playoffs in 10 worst defense list 2004 - 4 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list 2005 - 3 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list 2006 - 1 Team made playoffs in 10 worst defense list 2007 - 0 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list 2008 - 2 Teams made playoffs in 10 worst defense list Total 10 Teams out of possible 72 teams made the playoffs over the last 6 years with bad defenses. By comparrison 2 teams out of possible 72 teams made the playoffs with bad offenses. Guess we know they aren't equal now huh? I'll stop piling on now I promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Back atcha. Your posts are always worth reading even when you foolishly don't agree with me. :rotflmao: Touche brother, and ty. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Also, Short throws 0-10yrds then the reciever gains 20+. The QB should only get credit from the LOS to the point where the reciever catches the ball. Yeah but a big part of YAC comes from how the QB delivers the ball. If he throws an accurate, well-timed pass that places the ball just into your hands out front while you are in stride, you are going to have a far better chance at running with it--think the great Larry Fitzgerald touchdown at the end of the superbowl. That was a phenomenal throw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Really OldFan you don't want to respond to the guy who you said was wrong? I am responding to other posters as well. Your post is up next, but tell me first -- what stat are you using to grade offenses and defenses? What's your source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yeah but a big part of YAC comes from how the QB delivers the ball. If he throws an accurate, well-timed pass that places the ball just into your hands out front while you are in stride, you are going to have a far better chance at running with it--think the great Larry Fitzgerald touchdown at the end of the superbowl. That was a phenomenal throw. There was a TD throw? All I saw was a guy and a girl sitting on a coach getting freaky :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I am responding to other posters as well. Your post is up next, but tell me first -- what stat are you using to grade offenses and defenses? What's your source? Real easy, total offense and total defense from NFL.com and the list of playoff teams from those years. That any my own brain which aint much there most of the time, heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 My belief is that a team can get over problems with special teams and defense easier then they could with an offense much more then they would if the offense was poor. I disagree that its as important to stop other teams from scoring as it is to score yourself. There may be some truth to this but I don't see it in the way you support it. There is only a one team difference in your favor. If anything, it just shows that the NFL doesn't offer a big enough sample size for games in a season to create meaningful stats based on games won. I think that greater emphasis is placed on offense these days because the rules have been changed to give passing games historical advantages. The passing game has become the way to move the ball and win--not the rushing offense, and not necessarily defense (although it is still the best way to compensate for having a mediocre passing game). A great example of teams that are great through their passing game are Indy and New England. But both teams also have a defense that's good enough to stop another teams passing game and cover for when their own offense goes into lulls. This could explain why two other great passing teams - Denver and New Orleans, haven't achieved similar success. But I think the real reason why so much emphasis has been placed on passing games in forums such as the draft and free agency, is because the three most important elements of the passing game incidentally are the hardest to find or take the longest to develop. I'm talking about the quarterback, #1 receiver, and blind-side offensive tackle. I firmly believe that those three positions are the most important single positions on any NFL roster. You certainly need an entire offensive line to pass protect, and multiple receivers to throw the ball to, but your other players don't have to be nearly as good as the guys manning the three positions I described and that is why they are drafted so much higher. And its great to have a fast-talented defense, but there is a lot of variation to what you can do on that side of the ball making it so that you can compensate positional deficiencies fairly well. You don't have to have a 280+ pound pass rushing monster playing right end like the Texans do--you can have a 250 pounder fulfill the same role in a 3-4. You can compensate for mediocre coverage with great pressure or vice versa. Defense is definitely a more holistic unit than the offense. However, when one looks at almost all the great passing offenses, they have great players at the 3 positions I described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 There may be some truth to this but I don't see it in the way you support it. There is only a one team difference in your favor. Wait how did you come to that? I posted 6 years of stats to support my assertion that bad defenses can be overcome league wide by a stronge enough offense. If the opposite were true then how come only 2 teams out of 72 spots made the playoffs that had bad offenses in the last 6 years? What is this about only a 1 team difference? Care to explain that? Where did you get that from? 10 teams with defenses ranked 23rd to 32 made the playoffs where as 2 teams with offenses ranked as badly made the playoffs in the same stretch? The evidence is right there, that sample is from the entire NFL and includes both confrences. If anything, it just shows that the NFL doesn't offer a big enough sample size for games in a season to create meaningful stats based on games won. Really? 10 out of 72 is 13.88%, 2 out of 72 is 2.77%. That's a definitive answer in my book with a 6 season sample. I think that greater emphasis is placed on offense these days because the rules have been changed to give passing games historical advantages. The passing game has become the way to move the ball and win--not the rushing offense, and not necessarily defense (although it is still the best way to compensate for having a mediocre passing game). A great example of teams that are great through their passing game are Indy and New England. But both teams also have a defense that's good enough to stop another teams passing game and cover for when their own offense goes into lulls. This could explain why two other great passing teams - Denver and New Orleans, haven't achieved similar success. I didn't argue that or even try to explain it. I will say I believe you are correct that the league is rewarding offenses today more then Defense with regards to its rules. That's why it simply didn't make sense to me to go back more then the last 6 years in my arguement. The leagues changed so much over the years with protecting offensive players its become an offensive league. My thought is they've done that based on years of studying fans watching behaviors. When two teams are moving the ball and scoring alot more people tune in and more moneys made. They lose money on boring games that are low scoring and have taken steps to do away with that. In addition its a certainity that if you have a team that is both good offensively and defensively they stand a much greater chance to win it all. That's what people forget about Dallas when Vegas puts out odds they make it to the Superbowl at the second highest percentage behind the Patriots after there crappy year. Dallas with Demarcus Ware and company have a steller top 10 Defense and with Tony Romo sits to pee has a potent top 10 offense. It isn't simply that vegas thinks people are more likely to bet on the Pukes, they aren't that stupid. They place these odds on the idea that the best overall teams on paper stand the greatest chance to make it to the Superbowl and they simply do not look at one side of the ball otherwise you'd see the odds for NO and Arizona much higher. But I think the real reason why so much emphasis has been placed on passing games in forums such as the draft and free agency, is because the three most important elements of the passing game incidentally are the hardest to find or take the longest to develop. I'm talking about the quarterback, #1 receiver, and blind-side offensive tackle. I firmly believe that those three positions are the most important single positions on any NFL roster. I agree with you on that. Why is it that the teams this decade with the most success: Patriots, Colts, and Eagles have the arguably best QB's in the game today? Because with the right signal caller that makes the right plays they are too hard to beat most weeks even with a majority of average players around them. Its no mistake that over the last 10 years the Superbowls been played by the best QB's in the game today. You certainly need an entire offensive line to pass protect, and multiple receivers to throw the ball to, but your other players don't have to be nearly as good as the guys manning the three positions I described and that is why they are drafted so much higher. Agree again with you here, you said it. I never said that the Oline wasn't important, to me I see it as the third most important aspect of a team. Only behind QB and Defense. And its great to have a fast-talented defense, but there is a lot of variation to what you can do on that side of the ball making it so that you can compensate positional deficiencies fairly well. You don't have to have a 280+ pound pass rushing monster playing right end like the Texans do--you can have a 250 pounder fulfill the same role in a 3-4. You can compensate for mediocre coverage with great pressure or vice versa. Defense is definitely a more holistic unit than the offense. I really hated that we weren't breaking down the importance of position more and going with Defense as a whole but you made me understand why and you are right. I believe with a top 10 Defense you can have a middle of the road offense and do well. I also think if both aspects of the team are middle of the road you can do well. I just don't think that you can have a bad offense and do much of anything in todays NFL simply with a great defense and when that happens its unusual (2 out of 72) However, when one looks at almost all the great passing offenses, they have great players at the 3 positions I described. No arguement there boss. Great post, only thing I don't get is your 1 team difference comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Addicted, there are three arguments working against your position: 1. There is no logical basis. You can't say it's important to run the ball consistently on offense and then deny that it's equally important to stop the run on defense. You can't say that an efficient passing game is important and then deny that it's equally important to stop the passing game on defense. 2. Your personal research uses the NFL yardage stat to rank offenses and defenses. Your method is simplistic. For example, your stats do not reflect takeaways by the defense or giveaways by the offense -- vital factors in ranking them. The DVOA stats, a more sophisticated statistic based on about 20 years of data, comes to the logical conclusion that offense and defense are equally important. 3. Your results, based on yardage stats, can be logically explained. The offense can't be successful if it does not gain lots of yardage, but the defense can give up considerable yardage and still be successful with the "bend but don't break" strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnb123 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This thread is just people making up a bunch of numbers off their heads. Special teams- 90% Defense- 5% o-line- 1% coaching- .5% RB- 1% QB- 2% WR- .5% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Who needs stats? Just watch the actual games... for example, I have seen all of Campbells starts the past 3 seasons. My opinion is that he sucks. He is mediocre at best and will not take this team to the promised land. The Skins will be well suited to either getting Colt Brennan ready or if they have no faith in Colt, make the trade for Cutler. The Skins WILL have a new starter for a QB for the 2010 season - no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 This thread is just people making up a bunch of numbers off their heads.Special teams- 90% Defense- 5% o-line- 1% coaching- .5% RB- 1% QB- 2% WR- .5% You proved that you could make up unrealistic numbers and post them to equal 100%. That's a good beginning. Now, try making them realistic while conforming to the formula supported by the study I cited. The offense and defense should be equally weighted and the special teams one-third of the weight of the offense or defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UK Redskins Fan Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This thread is just people making up a bunch of numbers off their heads.Special teams- 90% Defense- 5% o-line- 1% coaching- .5% RB- 1% QB- 2% WR- .5% Yeah it is, but actually, assigning some kind of value to each position is important if you're trying to build a team. For instance, if you're willing to pay $12m / year for a top ranked DT how much should you be willing to pay a top ranked QB, a position that may be 2, 3 or 10 times as important to your team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.