POLL Who will win the NFC East?

[Rockinkuwait]

If a defense has 20 more turn overs but gives up 40 more points what D is better?

It's always tough to really grade a D.. Like Dallas last year. Points weren't too bad but teams played so conservatively against them knowing Dallas' offense was pitiful without Romo. Teams threw well against Dallas, but once Romo went down they threw on Dallas less than any team in the league. Likewise even though they were dead last in forcing turnovers, again I think in reality they were probably a bit better, but teams put the emphasis on their play calling of not taking chances. A short field is the only easy way Dallas without Romo is going to get scoring..

Another is pace of play. Take a lot of the Peyton Manning teams, especially in Indy. Sure he hurried to the line, but they used almost every second of the clock on every play before snapping, they didn't turn over the ball much to put their D on short fields and they did well at keeping drives alive. So that season where they were 1st in points allowed and everyone called it the elite D Peyton wanted, they weren't quite as good as that lone number. They had the 5th best starting field position on defense on average. They had the high turnover rate because opponents were throwing more, taking more chances to keep up (team was really built to play with the lead an help that as well). They were really good, but 4th in points per drive and 17th in yards per drive (most drives started further from their own end zone, so teams had to go further to score).



But compare that 07 colts to the 07 seahawks.

07 colts, allowed 262 points on 162 drives.

07 seahawks allowed 291 points on 208 drives.

So basically at 10 drives a game for Indy, the Seahawks gave up 29 more points in about 4.5 games worth of defensive play, or under 7 points a game.



So worse situations (seahawks were 18th in average opponent starting field position) and they were 2nd in plays per drive, 4th in yards per drive, 1st in points allowed per drive, while being out on the field a lot more. But not a top 5 scoring D that year, even though you could make the argument they were better than the #1 scoring D.



Philly kind of took that to the extreme with Kelly's hurry up.

Take the Eagles and Bears D last year. Eagles gave up fewer points per drive than the Bears, but 33 more points through the course of the season.

Eagles gave up .05 more points per drive than the Falcons. Based on the Falcons drives against them, that's 8 more points in a season. But in reality Philly gave up 85 more points last year because they had so many more drives against them.

Or the Cards and Texans D's last year. Tied for 7th in points allowed. But the Texans D had 12 more drives against them, and were 29th in average opponent starting field position vs. 13th for the Cards. It's not an end all, but it does open up the story, and when I say in other threads "I think Carson's MVP type play was a big help to their defense" that's kind of where I am going.

 

[Manster7588]

It's always tough to really grade a D.. Like Dallas last year. Points weren't too bad but teams played so conservatively against them knowing Dallas' offense was pitiful without Romo. Teams threw well against Dallas, but once Romo went down they threw on Dallas less than any team in the league. Likewise even though they were dead last in forcing turnovers, again I think in reality they were probably a bit better, but teams put the emphasis on their play calling of not taking chances. A short field is the only easy way Dallas without Romo is going to get scoring..

Another is pace of play. Take a lot of the Peyton Manning teams, especially in Indy. Sure he hurried to the line, but they used almost every second of the clock on every play before snapping, they didn't turn over the ball much to put their D on short fields and they did well at keeping drives alive. So that season where they were 1st in points allowed and everyone called it the elite D Peyton wanted, they weren't quite as good as that lone number. They had the 5th best starting field position on defense on average. They had the high turnover rate because opponents were throwing more, taking more chances to keep up (team was really built to play with the lead an help that as well). They were really good, but 4th in points per drive and 17th in yards per drive (most drives started further from their own end zone, so teams had to go further to score).



But compare that 07 colts to the 07 seahawks.

07 colts, allowed 262 points on 162 drives.

07 seahawks allowed 291 points on 208 drives.

So basically at 10 drives a game for Indy, the Seahawks gave up 29 more points in about 4.5 games worth of defensive play, or under 7 points a game.



So worse situations (seahawks were 18th in average opponent starting field position) and they were 2nd in plays per drive, 4th in yards per drive, 1st in points allowed per drive, while being out on the field a lot more. But not a top 5 scoring D that year, even though you could make the argument they were better than the #1 scoring D.



Philly kind of took that to the extreme with Kelly's hurry up.

Take the Eagles and Bears D last year. Eagles gave up fewer points per drive than the Bears, but 33 more points through the course of the season.

Eagles gave up .05 more points per drive than the Falcons. Based on the Falcons drives against them, that's 8 more points in a season. But in reality Philly gave up 85 more points last year because they had so many more drives against them.

Or the Cards and Texans D's last year. Tied for 7th in points allowed. But the Texans D had 12 more drives against them, and were 29th in average opponent starting field position vs. 13th for the Cards. It's not an end all, but it does open up the story, and when I say in other threads "I think Carson's MVP type play was a big help to their defense" that's kind of where I am going.

I will agree there are many variables, but what is the simplest way to grade a D?

 

[deanpet21]

I will agree there are many variables, but what is the simplest way to grade a D?

That is exactly what I said. Everything factors in when you evaluate a defense. Not just points.

 

[Manster7588]

Wrong. They beat an Eagles team that beat the Pats at Foxboro. They beat a Buffalo team that was very much in the playoff hunt before the Skins beat them to eliminate them from the playoffs. I think the East was better than the AFC South last year. Giants and Eagles were better than the Jags and Colts last year.

All those great wins were against how many winning teams?

 

[Manster7588]

That is exactly what I said. Everything factors in when you evaluate a defense. Not just points.

But there are to many factors to place a bet on, only sure factor is points, every thing else can be argued.
A bend don't break D will give up yards but tighten up at the 40 and force a punt or hold the O the a FG.

 

[PhoenixEagles1]

Eagles do not have a better dline than the Giants right now. Besides Cox its just average at best. I cant see how they do anything this year.

I agree the Eagles are the worst team in the East but they will have the best D. The Eagles have one of the best DLINE in the entire NFL. Cox is a superstar. Logan got pro bowl talk last year. Vinny Curry was one of the most sought after pass rushers in FA and got 50 million. On the other end you have a solid Brandon Graham and a 17 sack guy in Conner Barwin fighting for the starting position. You just don't know how superior the Eagles DLINE is to the Giants. But, the O will be one of rhe worst in the NFL.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I will agree there are many variables, but what is the simplest way to grade a D?

Tough.. Points per drive is one I like, definitely not perfect, but a simple number that does take pace of play into consideration and takes out scores allowed by things like pick 6's or return TD's, safeties, and only includes points allowed when the D is on the field.




Less explaining away of those weird outliers there that just don't meet the eye test.

IE the Grossman SB Bears were the #2 scoring team tied with Indy that season. Eye test says not close.

So to explain what you see, you have to say "yeah but the D and Hester had 9 TD's".. Points per drive, they were 10th in scoring at 1.8 points per drive, Indy was scoring 2.65 points per drive (by far the best), on pace for 105 more points that year.

Or the Texans a few years ago. Watt's team was 24th in points allowed, but Schaub was a pick 6 machine which helped to contribute to that.

Of course it still leaves some outliers in their. Average starting field position by the offense, the situation (ie the need to put up points vs. Brees and the Saints or Jamarcus Russell and the Raiders) etc. Which makes it fun because there's always room for debate.



Not perfect, but anything which you can see helps remove those types of outliers I am feeling better about.

 

[PDay8810]

I will agree there are many variables, but what is the simplest way to grade a D?

CMON!....the eye test is far and away the easiest. True points allowed by the defense & 3rd down conversion rate remain the most telling.

the old saying remains as true as ever... Stats don't tell the whole story.

 

[Manster7588]

CMON!....the eye test is far and away the easiest. True points allowed by the defense & 3rd down conversion rate remain the most telling.

the old saying remains as true as ever... Stats don't tell the whole story.

3rd down is a good measuring stick, that Stat sl I NE has been one of Dallas major flaws in recent years. And it's maddening.

 

[PDay8810]

It's always tough to really grade a D.. Like Dallas last year. Points weren't too bad but teams played so conservatively against them knowing Dallas' offense was pitiful without Romo. Teams threw well against Dallas, but once Romo went down they threw on Dallas less than any team in the league

really? I thought it was much more execution in the 4th QTR when the game is in balance. Least it was for Dallas last season when you factor the were ahead or tied in the 4 QTR in 7 of their loses and less than a score behind in two other loses.

 

[PDay8810]

3rd down is a good measuring stick, that Stat sl I NE has been one of Dallas major flaws in recent years. And it's maddening.

perhaps it was a rhetorical question. cause I know you know this game

 

[Manster7588]

perhaps it was a rhetorical question. cause I know you know this game

Rhetorical or not, it's better than Fantasy Stats.

 

[PDay8810]

Rhetorical or not, it's better than Fantasy Stats.

dean doesn't count. Homers/Haters never factor logic in their statements. Washington's front 7 is suspect, as is their safety play, but to hear dean tell it, their the class of the division even without it being shown on the field

 

[Rockinkuwait]

really? I thought it was much more execution in the 4th QTR when the game is in balance. Least it was for Dallas last season when you factor the were ahead or tied in the 4 QTR in 7 of their loses and less than a score behind in two other loses.

1st 4 games Dallas was 10th most pass attempts against them, 23rd most rush attempts.
Last 12 games. Dallas was 32nd most pass attempts against them, 2nd most rush attempts. The second Romo went down, Dallas became the team which opponents tried to have the heaviest run/pass split in the league against.


An overwhelming part of a teams turnovers (90% or so) come from the QB passing (INT's and QB fumbles). But so does an overwhelming part of a teams yards and TD's. Teams played conservative against Dallas more than any other team in the league once Romo went down. Dallas was middle of the pack in YPC allowed, so it wasn't that they were a gaping run D that caused that push to run.

And you really saw it on 1st and 2nd down. Dallas had 233 pass attempts on them on 1st/2nd down the last 3/4 of the season. no team within 50 attempts of that. When teams could open the playbook and go either way, they chose to run.

And in the red zone. Teams went with a 60/40 run/pass split against Dallas in the red zone. Vs. the NFL average of a 44/56 split there. On red zone plays with 5+ yards for a 1st down or TD, league is 35/65 run to pass. Against Dallas, 60/40 still. A huge difference in coaches sticking with the run and being ok getting a field goal rather than risking that low chance of a turnover to get 4 more points.





Yeah they lost a lot of 4th quarter leads but look at them.

Falcons game. Textbook falling apart in the 4th. But offense scores 0 points in the 2nd half too.

Saints scored on the end of a drive started in the 3rd. Dallas stopped them on their next two drives in the 4th too.

Giants game special teams TD with 14 minutes left. Dallas D gave up a 3 and out is all in the 4th.

Seahawks game. Gave up 3 points in the 4th to Seattle on that big drive by Wilson. Of course they took the lead in the 4th because Hardy had that INT he brought back to the Seattle 16 where the offense went 3 and out and kicked the FG to get the lead. 0 net points allowed by the D

Eagles game, Dallas D really struggle late but gave up 6 4th quarter points. Pick 6 though is what gave the eagles their first lead in the 4th though too. Dallas D gave up less than the Dallas O in that one.

Bucs game. D gave up a final drive for a TD after the offense went 3 and out, and got pushed back to their own 2. Bucs started nearly at midfield on that drive. Dallas O scored 6 points though in the game.

Jets game. Dal struggles on D in the 4th sure, but again, 13 points by the offense (scored 16 but one was a 2 yard drive after a Dal D turnover forced).


So in those 7 losses with the lead heading into the 4th, the D gave up 47 points. Or 6.8 points in the 4th... Not great in those 7. But only two of them would you consider excessive. Jets/Falcons games. Other 5 they gave up a total of 23 points in those games 4th quarters.

 

[PDay8810]

I don't know what to say.... Nice effort?

Like I said....Dallas without Romo and Dez or a hobbled Dez, their top corner, horrible defense that couldn't get a turnover and all that AND STILL, in every game with the exception of 3. You can research till the cows come home and it still boiled down to execution in the 4th QTR and not other teams playing not to lose game. No offense but that's a bull shit statement....which was the only reason why I spoke up in the first place

 

[PDay8810]

we need to get some redskin votes

R E S P E C T

Dean demands it

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I don't know what to say.... Nice effort?

Like I said....Dallas without Romo and Dez or a hobbled Dez, their top corner, horrible defense that couldn't get a turnover and all that AND STILL, in every game with the exception of 3. You can research till the cows come home and it still boiled down to execution in the 4th QTR and not other teams playing not to lose game. No offense but that's a bull shit statement....which was the only reason why I spoke up in the first place

I don't really know what you are disagreeing with here. I was just showing the facts. If you are disagreeing with the reasons behind them, ok. I'm not saying that is why Dallas lost. I am saying you want to find a team that struggles to get turnovers and plays better defense than they probably should have, look for a really inept offense.

Don't get all worried that "this is dallas you are talking about here". I'm not even saying they are a bad defense... I am not even saying "this is why they lost". I am just explaining the situation last year based on the facts. I really think a healthy Romo would have led to more points allowed last year, a run/pass ratio that favored the pass more against them, and more turnovers forced.


So why are you saying that opponents went into just bulldoze run run run mode against Dallas? And Cleveland. And San Fran. Hmm, the 3 worst offenses happen to be the 3 teams opponents want to throw the least against? And Cleveland and SF you could argue are two of the 5 worst pass D's in the league... But teams choose again and again to run on them when it's arguably their best matchup to throw??? Why?


Like I said, they weren't a bad defense against the run, but teams just chose to try and pound the rock against them. Yet they want to chuck it all over Carolina who has a MUCH better pass D than Dallas last year. Tell me, why do defenses want to just keep chucking the ball against arguably the toughest statistical pass D of last year? Because you need to throw the ball to keep up with a great offense.


I first noticed that about 10 years ago when an Oakland fan was telling me about how great Rob Ryan was and how Kirk Morrison was the next Urlacher and how their defense made big strides, just couldn't get those lucky turnovers (sound familiar?) ... Not really, they were still just as bad on both side of the ball but Walter was a joke at QB, and teams just ran the ball, and Kirk got a lot of tackles because of that. Then next year, Culpepper was a little better than Walter the year before (not great, but not absolutely horrendous), and poof, that D dropped right back to bottom of the pile. But they really up in turnovers as teams threw a bit more and ran less.

And it makes perfect sense. Why would you want to try and go gun it out against Cassel? The best chance for him to win is give him short fields, and the best way to do that is turn it over. And the best way to do that is throw the ball. If you have a better reasoning why teams did that, then lets hear it.


If it boiled down to defensive execution in the 4th, we'd see huge points given up there in those games you showed right? But, we don't, heck the D pitched a 4th quarter shutout in one of the games you point to as the D not executing. Another they had a pick 6 to give them the lead. Others they didn't even allow a TD. Sure offensive execution was pitiful in those games in the 4th, but yeah, you get shut out in the 4th, or throw pick 6's in the 4th, you probably will lose in that quarter.

 

[PDay8810]

If it boiled down to defensive execution in the 4th, we'd see huge points given up there in those games you showed right?

I said execution...which was offense at times, defense at times and a solid group effort at times.
dropped passes, running wrong routes, coverage confusion...it's all there when you lose 9 of your 12 losses in the 4th QTR. Call it what you want but I disagree with your stats that you refer to as facts. Stats tell a story to a degree, their not the facts. Teams were balanced against Dallas as Dallas was for the most part against them. That tends to be the objective for most teams in the NFL...Balance

Look....it came down to a 4 QTR play here and there 9 outta 12 losses. It wasn't teams holding back as you are implying. Dallas's defense played well at time and at times they didn't.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I said execution...which was offense at times, defense at times and a solid group effort at times.
dropped passes, running wrong routes, coverage confusion...it's all there when you lose 9 of your 12 losses in the 4th QTR. Call it what you want but I disagree with your stats that you refer to as facts. Stats tell a story to a degree, their not the facts. Teams were balanced against Dallas as Dallas was for the most part against them. That tends to be the objective for most teams in the NFL...Balance

Look....it came down to a 4 QTR play here and there 9 outta 12 losses. It wasn't teams holding back as you are implying. Dallas's defense played well at time and at times they didn't.

Teams were NOT balanced against Dallas, which is why Dallas had the highest Run to Pass ratio in the league against them once Romo went down. If you think that's balanced, show me how you think that. I am not saying I for sure 100% am stuck on that being the reason teams overwhelmingly chose to run more than pass against Dallas, it just makes the most sense. Give me something that makes better sense if you want to explain it not being that. Like you say, teams strive for balance. Why did they do the exact opposite of that when playing dallas (except for when Romo was starting the year)?



And again, not saying this is why they lost games. I am saying that if that D played at a similar level with a better offense, teams would not run the highest run to pass rate in the league against them. More passing means more points, more yards, more turnovers on average. That is all I am saying. If you have a counter to that, feel free to share it.


And that's great to point out that they were bad in the 4th quarter. Not saying they weren't, just that it wasn't all on the D which it seems you are not saying which is fine, my bad there. But they were 23rd worst point differential at the end of the 3rd quarter too. So lets not pretend they were better than a bottom 10 team heading into the 4th quarter either.




And the timeless "it came down to a 4th quarter play here and there" is the story for almost every team. Just 6 plays in the 4th quarter of last year and instead of the Titans holding the #1 pick in the draft, they are holding a home playoff game.



Lets do that bit of logic for the 4 win chargers ok?

Verrett's unnecessary roughness led to the Bengals getting out of the hole and into scoring position which cost them the Bengals loss.

Leveon Bell at the goal line, can't come down to an easier single play than that one.

Rivers to Woodhead at the Packers 3 to close the game completion wins it... Maybe you can find an easier one.

Cover Zach Miller on one play and they beat the Bears.

Flowers covering Crabtree better in Oakland gives them the time to get the comeback against Oakland instead, more downs eats up too much clock.

Barksdale false start puts SD in 3rd and forever and have to settle to tie instead of go for the win in the loss to the Ravens.

Rivers Delay of game at the 1 yard line vs. the Chiefs loses that one with time running out, easy one.

David Johnson fumble costs them the game in the 4th vs. the Raiders.

Tourek not tracking the deep ball on that throw by Rivers over the middle easily cost them against the Broncos.

So just a single play in some games in the 4th quarter and the Chargers would be the AFC West division champs, and better than the SB winning Bronco's... instead of a 4 win team.





If someone wanted to do that with the Giants you can look at a play in the 4th quarter of some of their games and they are 14-2 last year.


So yes... Technically we were only a "4th quarter play in some games" away from a Titans/Cowboys Superbowl last season.

 

[PDay8810]

Teams were NOT balanced against Dallas, which is why Dallas had the highest Run to Pass ratio in the league against them once Romo went down.

I don't know what 506 passes to 460 rushing attempts says to you but it's balanced to me. Somebody has to have the highest pass/run ratio. But 506 to 460 is balanced and that's what you seem to have a problem with, and frankly you can type 10 paragraphs and it's still balanced.

Point remains....Dallas lost not because teams choose to play the game close. They lost for exactly what I said.