NFL Thread II

[Kalbear]

But seriously, this team is probably the most talented, and deepest that Pats have fielded in memory. The only possible question mark is the LB'er corp, but it is still a incrediably experianced and diverse group that gets to sit behind one of the best D lines in football.

I still have a lot of questions about the effectiveness of Moss and Stallworth, but I do agree that at least Welker is better than any of their #2 receivers. Honestly, until I see Moss actually doing something useful I'd take the Branch/Givens/Patten combo over Moss/Stallworth/Welker. I also have a lot of questions about Maroney running the ball constantly and not having Dillon around. Defense they should be very good though, and they're obviously the clear favorites, but don't count out teams like Baltimore yet.

[Jaime L]

When did he become Rachede Caldwell? I remember this from last year and being similarly baffled. Is this some inside joke? Is a personal friend of Rock? Does Caldwell call him Rockroids?

In the NFC West, I have the Broncos well into the playoffs and the Chiefs cratering. I'm moving pieces around.

Fair enough.

[Jaime L]

Oops

[Kalbear]

It's Rock's fucked-up spelling of basically anyone in the Patriots not named Tom Brady. (and even then, I think he's spelled it "Thom Bradie". It was great when he was lauding Vinatieri and would misspell his name differently in the same sentence.

Reche Caldwell. Reche. And he even caught some passes from Testaverde the other night.

[CelticBrennus]

I still have a lot of questions about the effectiveness of Moss and Stallworth, but I do agree that at least Welker is better than any of their #2 receivers.

Agreed, as do I. But I am not too worried as both as established and proven players. Moss I think will be a complete model citizen while in NE, and even if he has lost a step, he is still a fantastic reciever. Stallworth, well, all he has to do is sprint down the field every other play for him to be worth it.

I expect to have a good idea how they play out in a month or two, as they start getting used to game play again, and begin to synch with Brady.

I also have a lot of questions about Maroney running the ball constantly and not having Dillon around.

Agreed again. I think though that he will be 100% and ready to go for when the season starts, and is arguably ready right now. Sure, his ypc #'s were not out of this world in the last preseason game, most RB's need a certain number of carries to get themselves ready for the start of the season. And honestly, his injuries were not the training or conditioning style injuries, but rather the freak think that can happen to any given RB any time they touch the ball. I think he will do fine though, and he can still get plenty of rest with Morris, Evans and the ever underrated Faulk behind him.

Defense they should be very good though, and they're obviously the clear favorites, but don't count out teams like Baltimore yet.

On defense the only question is whether they will be #1, #2 or #3 IMO. Ok, I am overstating that slightly, but what ever questions there are, they will still be one of the best scoring D's in the game.

[Kalbear]

On defense the only question is whether they will be #1, #2 or #3 IMO. Ok, I am overstating that slightly, but what ever questions there are, they will still be one of the best scoring D's in the game.

Eh. Don't take last year's stats as good indicators of this year. Scoring defense is very much a non-consistent factor year over year, and past performance is not a good predictor of future performance.

In any case, you shouldn't really care about whether they have a good scoring defense; that isn't a good indicator or benchmark for determining defensive success or (more importantly) winning games. Being a great scoring defense didn't help them against the Colts; the Bears did a lot better against the Colts because they forced drives to end, and that's a better indicator. The Pats had problems with this last year; they were good in the red zone but bad between the red zones. I believe that to be primarily caused by their poor LB play; LBs are a lot more important between the 20s, but when they have less field to cover they can mask some deficiencies. Honestly, I'd predict their defense to improve but give up more points this year.

[Jaime L]

Reche Caldwell. Reche. And he even caught some passes from Testaverde the other night.

I bet he looked them in like a champ.

[Rockroi]

Caldwell is still on the roster, isn't he Rock? If the camera pans to the sidelines, and you see him standing there, his big, giant eyes staring back at you, will you scream?

I'm screaming on the inside.

Yeah- my spelling sucks. And I don't want to take the time to check on the correct spelling.

And I think we can agree there is a large difference between having Reche Caldwell as your #4-6 WR and having Reche Calwell has your #1 WR... seriously, I just threw up in my mouth.

[Kalbear]

And I think we can agree there is a large difference between having Reche Caldwell as your #4-6 WR and having Reche Calwell has your #1 WR... seriously, I just threw up in my mouth.

The difference is that last year, he was starting. This year, when both Moss and Stallworth go down to their typical injuries, he'll be playing as their backup while you have about $8mil of gimpy receiver on the bench.

But Welker's a champ at least.

[CelticBrennus]

In any case, you shouldn't really care about whether they have a good scoring defense; that isn't a good indicator or benchmark for determining defensive success or (more importantly) winning games.

Clearly not. But allowing opposing teams to score few points is a better indicator of success then many others, such as passing or rushing yardage. Its not perfect, but its a pretty good benchmark for determining sucess. To paraphrase a famous Madden quote, you tend to win when you score more points then the other team.

Number one, two and three for scoring D was the Ravens, Pats and Bears. Thats pretty good company. It is not a conicidence that the best scoring D's in the league last year were among the acknowedged best, belonging to some of the best teams.

In 2005, they were 17 (losing both ILB's will do that to a 3-4); in 2004 they were No 2; in 2003 they were no 1; in 2002 they were 17; and in 2001 they were no 6.

So, it appears from past performance anyway, that as long as injuries dont tear them apart, and they have a decent O, they can count on being in the top 5. Its not a guarentee, but its safer then saying the Browns will have a top scoring D.

Being a great scoring defense didn't help them against the Colts; the Bears did a lot better against the Colts because they forced drives to end, and that's a better indicator.

Ah, so once again the entire seasons performance is reduced to one half of one game?

Is a team perfromance in one half of one game an indicator of their ability to perform over a 16-19 game season? You could just as easily lay the blame on the failure of the O to sustain a drive in the second half, allowing the Colts O to wear down the D.

By the same logic the Cheifs had a terrible rushing game last year since they were held to a abysimally tiny number of rushing yards against the Colts.

The Pats had problems with this last year; they were good in the red zone but bad between the red zones.

Bend but dont break, thats been their philosophy for years. Let them come away with 0 or 3 points rather then 7.

I believe that to be primarily caused by their poor LB play; LBs are a lot more important between the 20s, but when they have less field to cover they can mask some deficiencies. Honestly, I'd predict their defense to improve but give up more points this year.

I will predict a scoring D in the top 3 or 5, as they recharged the LB'ers and have a deeper Dline and secondary corp. More importantly, since they have more RB's and possession recievers, tehy will be able to sustain clock killing drives again, giving the D more rest, and shorter fields.

Kal: The money that Kelley Washington, Randy Moss, and Dante Stallworth will cost the Pats less then what they would have spent signing Branch. I think you could likely include Welker in that list as well.

[Rockroi]

The difference is that last year, he was starting. This year, when both Moss and Stallworth go down to their typical injuries, he'll be playing as their backup while you have about $8mil of gimpy receiver on the bench.

As long as Bug-Eye doesn't start 16 games, I'm really okay with this. And being a Pats fan is all about living with a mess of injuries.

[Kalbear]

Ah, so once again the entire seasons performance is reduced to one half of one game?

The Pats did poorly against the Colts in two games, not one. The reason I use the Colts is because the Bears also played them.

The Pats also had a really easy schedule by comparison to the prior year; playing against the offensive juggernauts of Miami, Buffalo, NYJ + the NFC North will do that to you. Mostly, I compare their defense against a good team and see how another defense plays against that good team; this is the only way to see what works and what doesn't. Against the Colts, the Pats did not do well on scoring defense in either game. Against the Colts, the Bears did better - and this was despite having a far worse offense helping out. This is comparing apples to apples, if you like. Similarly, the Bears did better against other NFC North opponents than the Pats did.

Is a team perfromance in one half of one game an indicator of their ability to perform over a 16-19 game season?

No, but their performance against one team twice in a season + how that team performed against another good defense is a good indicator.

But we've had this argument many times before about the 2006 Pats, and it ended up coming up in my favor last time as well as indicated by the Pats actually losing the game we were arguing about - twice! My point was that scoring defense is not a particularly useful stat for predicting success. You say it is. You were shown to be wrong. Why argue this any further?

Scoring defense is not a sustainable indicator of success. There are a lot of better ones, including rushing yards allowed. (if you're interested, that is sustainable and it is a good sign that the Pats are going to do well)

Kal: The money that Kelley Washington, Randy Moss, and Dante Stallworth will cost the Pats less then what they would have spent signing Branch.

BS. Branch is making less than that in Seattle right now. Just because the average contract is for $7.5 mil/year doesn't mean that's what he'd be making now.

More importantly, since they have more RB's and possession recievers,

Uh, what? They lose Dillon, gain the mighty Sammy Morris, and they have more RBs? Similarly, are you calling Moss and Stallworth possession receivers? Moss, he of the 'never go over the middle' and Stallworth, who is known for the long ball? Welker's a better possession receiver, but they actually lost more possession receivers to land him.

[Bazzlebane]

Have you ever thought about how Reche Caldwell feels about his demotion? Last year he was the #1 WR on one of the NFL's best teams, on the field in the AFC Championship game, getting the opportunity to drop passes from the great Tom Brady. Now, he's essentially a scrub.

I think the Pats need to find a way to get Reche on the field. He can contribute by returning punts. Just think about the possibilities -- his ginormous eyes gazing up, high in the air, watching the punted ball at the top of its arc, wobbling in the wind. If you had HD TV, you could probably see the relfection of the ball itself in his cavernous eyeballs. Opposing punt team defenses would be so mesmerized by the humongous saucers, open wider than ever, that they won't even notice when he muffs the kicks, allowing him to pick the ball up off the ground and get a head start on the return.

I'll send Bill an email.

[CelticBrennus]

The Pats did poorly against the Colts in two games, not one. The reason I use the Colts is because the Bears also played them.

Yeah, one game where it literally came down to the last play (blame Brady for that one, 4 freaking INTs), and another where there was a collapse of both the O and D. The Pats also played the Bears, and the D did pretty well for themselves there.

The Pats also had a really easy schedule by comparison to the prior year; playing against the offensive juggernauts of Miami, Buffalo, NYJ + the NFC North will do that to you.

Compared to the Bears playing two games against each of those mightly NFC North teams, or SD playing the offensive juggernaut that is Oakland twice?

Mostly, I compare their defense against a good team and see how another defense plays against that good team; this is the only way to see what works and what doesn't. Against the Colts, the Pats did not do well on scoring defense in either game.

They had a pretty good D for 3 of those 4 halves, especially against one of the premier O's in the history of the game.

Against the Colts, the Bears did better - and this was despite having a far worse offense helping out. This is comparing apples to apples, if you like. Similarly, the Bears did better against other NFC North opponents than the Pats did.

They did better against the Packers and Vikings? Those were some pretty one sided ass whoopings by the Pats D if you care to recall. They creamed the Vikings 31-7, demolished the Packers 35-0, and beat the Bears 17-13, and the Lions 28-21. A 4-0 record against the entire division, including the Conference champ is not to shabby. It is certainly better then the record the Bears put up against the AFC East.

And the Bears did not perform that well against the AFC East mind you, which was one of the more competitive divisions in the league in 2006.

No, but their performance against one team twice in a season + how that team performed against another good defense is a good indicator.

It may be useful, but its a tiny sample size as you would have to agree.

But we've had this argument many times before about the 2006 Pats, and it ended up coming up in my favor last time as well as indicated by the Pats actually losing the game we were arguing about - twice!

Two games clearly and without a doubt must prove your point about how a team did over 18 games. A seaons worth of games provides enough to give us a decent sample size, while relying on two makes the argument more dependant on the circumstances of those two games, and the individual matchups they contain.

My point was that scoring defense is not a particularly useful stat for predicting success. You say it is. You were shown to be wrong. Why argue this any further?

Scoring defense is not a sustainable indicator of success. There are a lot of better ones, including rushing yards allowed. (if you're interested, that is sustainable and it is a good sign that the Pats are going to do well)

I never said it was the best one out there, merely a servicable one that is better then mere yardage. A team can get a 1000 yards a game and still lose if they dont get to the end zone. The point of a D is to stop the other team from scoring, not to limit their rushing yards.

The Pats let LT run for something around 120 yards and score 2 td's, but still won that game didnt they? Did the D play a bad game there?

I suppose it is mere coincidence that the top three scoring D's were univerally agreed to be some of the best around. Or how those teams are also the 2, 5 and 6 in rushing D's?

And since the Pats had a better rush D then the Bears did last year do you think they were a better D overall?

Uh, what? They lose Dillon, gain the mighty Sammy Morris, and they have more RBs?

A healthy Maroney, losing the oft injured and quickly exhausted Dillon, replacing him with a servicable back. Bad phrasing on my part.

Similarly, are you calling Moss and Stallworth possession receivers?

Nope, but Welker, Washington, Gaffney and Caldwell (whichever ones make the team) are nothing better then possession guys, none are credible No. 1's, which is what Gaffney and Caldwell were forced to be last year.

[CelticBrennus]

BS. Branch is making less than that in Seattle right now. Just because the average contract is for $7.5 mil/year doesn't mean that's what he'd be making now.

Pats 2007 Salary Cap costs

Moss=3 mil

Stallworth=2.7mil

Welker=1.7

Washington=600k

Not too shabby.

You know what Branch's salary cap cost is?

[Kalbear]

Yeah, one game where it literally came down to the last play (blame Brady for that one, 4 freaking INTs), and another where there was a collapse of both the O and D. The Pats also played the Bears, and the D did pretty well for themselves there.

Gah. Why do you do this? The Pats playing the Bears and how well the Pats D did against the Bears offense and Rex Grossman doesn't matter at all! Yes, they did well against one of the worst QBs in the league. So what? This is the same stupid argument about how Manning is worse than Brady, because Manning can't beat the Pats. No, comparing how Grossman did against the Pats defense to how Brady did against the Bears defense is useless for seeing which has a better defense.

They did better against the Packers and Vikings? Those were some pretty one sided ass whoopings by the Pats D if you care to recall. They creamed the Vikings 31-7, demolished the Packers 35-0, and beat the Bears 17-13, and the Lions 28-21. A 4-0 record against the entire division, including the Conference champ is not to shabby. It is certainly better then the record the Bears put up against the AFC East.

Again, so what? Comparing how the Bears did against the AFC East to how the Pats did against the NFC North DOES NOT MATTER. You're not comparing the same thing to each other. But you're close to something, so let's go through it.

Bears vs. Green Bay (2 games): 238 rushing, 26 points, 4 turnovers, 51% completion. (1-1, the second game is infamous for its total pointlessness, but whatever. If you take out the last game, it's 103 rushing, 0 points, 3 turnovers, 52% completion)

Pats vs Green Bay: 44 rushing, 0 points, 1 turnover, 38% completion. Wow, that's awesome! There are some reasons for why the Pats did so well against GB in this game, but I'll stand by the stats.

Bears vs Minnesota (2 games): 97+190 rushing, 16+13 points, 7 turnovers, 50%completion. Also 8 points scored by the Bears D and 6 by the Bears ST).

Pats vs Minnesota: 22 rushing, 7 points, 4 turnovers, 55% completion.

Bears vs Detroit: (2 games): 46+67rushing, 28 points, 4 turnovers, 60% completion. If you're curious, the Bears did much better in the first game where Kitna had a better completion % - and the reason was almost certainly turnovers.

Pats vs Detroit: 77 rushing, 21 points, 5 turnovers, 55% completion.

Now, onto the AFC East:

Bears vs Buffalo: 58 rushing, 7 points, 5 turnovers, 50% completion.

Pats vs Buffalo (2 games): 75+99 rushing, 6+17 points, 4+0 turnovers, 55% completion

Bears vs Miami: 161 rushing, 24 points (24 vs the defense; you can't blame the defense for not stopping Jason Taylor), 2 turnovers, 50% completion.

Pats vs Miami (2 games): 62+131 rushing, 10+21 points, 3+0 turnovers, 55% completion - interesting to note that in both the Bears loss and the Pats loss, the rushing yardage was so high.

Bears vs NYJ: 108 rushing, 0 points, 2 turnovers, 55% completion

Pats vs NYJ(2 games): 51+117 rushing, 17+17 points, 1+1 turnover, 63%completion - interesting to note that in the Jets win they rushed for a lot more.

I'm not sure I have the time to do the full comparison here, but I don't see how the Pats so thoroughly dominated the same competition that the Bears played by comparison to what the Bears did. I see that they both struggled against Miami, the Pats did worse against the Jets and Buffalo, the Bears did worse against Minnesota. The total points given up by the Bears was greater here. However, they gave up less rushing and caused more turnovers. These things are more important and are in general better indicators of future success on a defense than how many points were given up.

The point of a D is to stop the other team from scoring, not to limit their rushing yards.

That's a too simplistic view of the defense, and it's why the view of the Pats scoring defense as being this great thing is so flawed. The point of the D is not to stop a team from scoring; it's to get the ball back as quickly as possible with the best field position possible AND the lowest score possible. It is to cause a change of possession as efficiently as possible - and that efficiency does include stopping scores, in case you're wondering. But it also includes position on the field and time on the clock.

Really, neither scoring defense or rushing defense is a particularly good indicator of anything without taking into account who they've played and how good those teams are. However, as I argued at the time - the Pats were not as good against the run as Baltimore or Chicago, and that did cost them against a good running team. Really, it should have cost them more against San Diego but they got lucky, and lucky also counts for a lot.

[CelticBrennus]

That's a too simplistic view of the defense, and it's why the view of the Pats scoring defense as being this great thing is so flawed.

Christ man, I never said its not flawed. In fact I have specifically said it is flawed, and is not a great measuring point.

All I have said is that it is a decent way to guage the defense. A team that allows a lot of points is not as good as a team that allows only a few points. Generally speaking the fewer points allowed the better. Thats it. Thats all I have ever claimed on this.

It is a rough way to measure how good a defense is at its most important job. Of course 3 and outs are important. Of course field position is important, of course turnovers are important.

I simply use it because the teams at the top of it tend to be the best D's, and its a good and simple way to get a overall view of the strength of a D that will take rush and pass D into account.

Really, neither scoring defense or rushing defense is a particularly good indicator of anything without taking into account who they've played and how good those teams are. However, as I argued at the time - the Pats were not as good against the run as Baltimore or Chicago, and that did cost them against a good running team.

And I agree here, I have never disagreed with this, and my entire points on scoring or rushing D is to point out that they are simply serviceable tools for making generalizations about a teams sucess. I mean, if you have a much better way to rank them, lets hear it.

Except that the Pats and Bears are virtually identical in terms of run D, ranked 5 and 6 on NFL.com, with the Bears allowing 4.0 per carry, the Pats 3.9, Bears 5.2 more yards per game, more first downs at a higher percentage, but the Pats let in 4 more rushing TD's.

Really, it should have cost them more against San Diego but they got lucky, and lucky also counts for a lot.

Or that it may have been part of the gameplan? The Pats over the years have won a lot of games against League MVP's, be they Marshall Faulk's, Peyton Manning's, or LT's to it to be merely luck.

The D did a pretty good job of containing the league MVP, one of the best O lines and TE's in the game.

[Kalbear]

And I agree here, I have never disagreed with this, and my entire points on scoring or rushing D is to point out that they are simply serviceable tools for making generalizations about a teams sucess. I mean, if you have a much better way to rank them, lets hear it.

Ta Da! In particular, note that this doesn't have the Pats rush D and the Bears rush D close to the same. Why? Because they aren't based solely on yards gained, which is in general not the best stat, and they're weighted based on the strength of the team.

The D did a pretty good job of containing the league MVP, one of the best O lines and TE's in the game.

You really think so? LdT got 180+ yards of rushing and receiving. Looking back at the game description makes me think this was another Schott fuckup - when you have LdT and 4 minutes remaining, why throw 2 out of 3 times on your first possession when it's tied? especially when you just ran for 5 on first down? Who does that? Craziness. Well, that was lucky, as was the silly interception-fumble "Tom Brady is so clutch he makes the other guys do stupid things" play. But seriously, the Bolts should have just kept running the ball, gotten some decent field position and gone for a field goal. Never let the Pats offense on the field again.

[Bronn Stone]

You really think so? LdT got 180+ yards of rushing and receiving. Looking back at the game description makes me think this was another Schott fuckup - when you have LdT and 4 minutes remaining, why throw 2 out of 3 times on your first possession when it's tied? especially when you just ran for 5 on first down? Who does that? Craziness. Well, that was lucky, as was the silly interception-fumble "Tom Brady is so clutch he makes the other guys do stupid things" play. But seriously, the Bolts should have just kept running the ball, gotten some decent field position and gone for a field goal. Never let the Pats offense on the field again.

One of the main reasons he is currently unemployed is that pretty much everyone in San Diego not named Schottenheimer saw at halftime that the Patriots couldn't stop LT that day. I shake my head every time I am asked why the Chargers didn't just ram Tomlinson down the Patriots throats until they stopped him. Marty abandoned Martyball on a day it would have most likely worked.

[Lord O' Bones]

The more I think about it, the most they can give him is reckless endangerment right? Thats just a huge fine. Hopefully he doesnt have a shit load of pit bulls in the trunk.

The results are in:

"Chicago Bears linebacker Lance Briggs was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after crashing his Lamborghini and leaving it alongside an expressway on the city's North Side, Illinois State Police said Monday.

After meeting with police Monday afternoon, Briggs also was cited for failure to give immediate notice of an accident and improper lane usage, said Master Sgt. Luis Gutierrez."

Improper lane usage?