Aikman Efficiency Ratings

[Cowboy Brian]

On Tuesday 29th December 2009, @Troy_Aikman said:


reply
Aikman Efficiency Ratings Through Week 16, 2009

Offense

Aik NFL Team AER
1 1 Saints (n) 90.0
2 7 Colts (a) 89.1
3 4 Packers (n) 88.9
4 8 Vikings (n) 88.3
5 11 Chargers (a) 86.5
6 2 Patriots (a) 86.5
7 3 Cowboys (n) 84.2
8 15 Dolphins (a) 82.9
9 10 Eagles (n) 82.2
10 12 Cardinals (n) 81.4
11 14 Ravens (a) 81.3
12 6 Giants (n) 81.1
13 9 Steelers (a) 80.7
14 13 Titans (a) 80.0
15 17 Falcons (n) 79.8
16 5 Texans (a) 78.9
17 20 Bengals (a) 78.8
18 16 Jaguars (a) 77.0
19 19 Broncos (a) 75.6
20 18 Panthers (n) 75.4
21 23 Commanders (n) 74.7
22 21 Jets (a) 73.3
23 29 49ers (n) 72.5
24 28 Chiefs (a) 68.4
25 22 Seahawks (n) 68.1
26 24 Bears (n) 67.6
27 25 Lions (n) 66.0
28 26 Buccaneers (n) 65.3
29 32 Browns (a) 65.0
30 30 Bills (a) 63.1
31 31 Raiders (a) 62.4
32 27 Rams (n) 60.7

NFL Average 77.1


Defense

Aik NFL Team AER
1 1 Jets (a) 84.0
2 3 Ravens (a) 81.3
3 18 49ers (n) 80.4
4 2 Packers (n) 80.2
5 24 Saints (n) 78.7
6 4 Bengals (a) 78.5
7 13 Panthers (n) 78.2
8 5 Broncos (a) 77.8
9 7 Eagles (n) 77.6
10 20 Cardinals (n) 77.0
11 6 Steelers (a) 76.4
12 9 Vikings (n) 76.1
13 8 Patriots (a) 75.9
14 11 Commanders (n) 74.4
15 16 Colts (a) 74.0
16 12 Cowboys (n) 72.5
17 23 Falcons (n) 72.5
18 21 Bills (a) 71.6
19 15 Chargers (a) 71.3
20 19 Dolphins (a) 70.8
21 14 Texans (a) 70.4
22 27 Raiders (a) 69.6
23 25 Seahawks (n) 68.7
24 26 Buccaneers (n) 68.3
25 32 Browns (a) 68.3
26 22 Jaguars (a) 67.4
27 30 Chiefs (a) 67.3
28 17 Bears (n) 66.6
29 28 Titans (a) 65.8
30 10 Giants (n) 65.7
31 31 Lions (n) 64.9
32 29 Rams (n) 63.3

NFL Average 72.9

Ratings Courtesy of STATS, LLC


http://www.twitlonger.com/show/1d3l4

He said earlier today that our Takeaways could be a lil better, as our Red Zone but with 3rd fewest points allowed you can't really fault our defense.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That's odd.

I see scoring defense 3rd, scoring offense 13th.

Anyone else on Earth besides Troy's formula think we have a below average defense?

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

While I think Aikman's ratings are better than just looking at yards gained/allowed, passer rating, and the various other useless stats we have in the NFL, even in spite of not forcing as many turnovers as we'd like, the Cowboys defense is NOT in the middle of the pack. They've been one of the best defenses in the league this year, no doubt.

You don't hold offenses like San Diego, New Orleans, Philly, all to 20 points or less consistently for a season and be average.

 

[theogt]

That's odd.

I see scoring defense 3rd, scoring offense 13th.

Anyone else on Earth besides Troy's formula think we have a below average defense?

Troy's formula is garbage. I stopped paying attention to it a while back.

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Saints defense higher than ours???

Whatever.. Their defense sucks.

 

[Dallas]

Troy's formula is freakin oddball. Has he ever posted how he comes to these numbers exactly?

 

[Temo]

Troy's formula is freakin oddball. Has he ever posted how he comes to these numbers exactly?

It's not his formula, it's a formula that STATS inc (or some other company, I forget) created based on attributes that he said were important to football success.

By the way, this is not the only system that ranks the Cowboys offense as elite and the defense as middling; most have similar rankings.

Largely, it's because efficiency systems like defenses that prevent first downs and offenses that get first downs. Our offense has often marched up and down the field but not scored, while our defense has often BEEN marched up and down the field, but not allowed touchdowns.

It's up to the reader to decide if the efficiency numbers are meaningful or not.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Troy's formula is freakin oddball. Has he ever posted how he comes to these numbers exactly?

I think he just gets paid to use his name.

 

[Sarge]

Troy's formula is garbage. I stopped paying attention to it a while back.

I stopped paying attention to Troy, in general, a long time ago.

His latest recommendation of getting rid of the helmets was an all time doozy.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

I stopped paying attention to Troy, in general, a long time ago.

His latest recommendation of getting rid of the helmets was an all time doozy.

He won us 3 super bowls, respect please.

 

[Temo]

I stopped paying attention to Troy, in general, a long time ago.

His latest recommendation of getting rid of the helmets was an all time doozy.

It's not an all time doozy when lots of other knowledgeable people have suggested it would cut down on head injuries.

 

[Sarge]

It's not an all time doozy when lots of other knowledgeable people have suggested it would cut down on head injuries.

Who would those "knowledgeable people" be?

 

[Sarge]

He won us 3 super bowls, respect please.

I've always respected Troy Aikman, the football player.

Him winning 3 Super Bowls has no bearing on what I think of him as an analyst.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Temo]

Who would those "knowledgeable people" be?

This is a pretty interesting article, for one. I'm not saying Aikman is right, but he's not coming from an unknowledgeable or uneducated place. He's read a lot of the same research.

 

[Sarge]

This is a pretty interesting article, for one. I'm not saying Aikman is right, but he's not coming from an unknowledgeable or uneducated place. He's read a lot of the same research.

That article also states... By all accounts, banning helmets isn't on anyone's agenda. Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the NFL, says the league isn't contemplating the idea. Its focus is on improving helmet technology and on rules "that help take the head out of the game." Not wearing helmets, he says, "is not going to eliminate the risk of concussion in a sport that involves contact." Dr. Thom Mayer, a medical adviser to the NFL players' union, says there isn't enough research showing that playing without helmets would reduce brain injury. "It's an interesting theoretical question, but I don't think anybody would consider playing NFL football without a helmet," he says.

Larry Maddux, the head of research and development for helmet-maker Schutt, says even without helmets, players would inadvertently get hit in the head—and regular knocks and bumps could turn into concussions. Thad Ide, the vice president of research and development at Riddell, the NFL's official helmet sponsor, says getting rid of helmets would be a bad move. "There would always be incidental contact," he says.

 

[Temo]

That article also states... By all accounts, banning helmets isn't on anyone's agenda. Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the NFL, says the league isn't contemplating the idea. Its focus is on improving helmet technology and on rules "that help take the head out of the game." Not wearing helmets, he says, "is not going to eliminate the risk of concussion in a sport that involves contact." Dr. Thom Mayer, a medical adviser to the NFL players' union, says there isn't enough research showing that playing without helmets would reduce brain injury. "It's an interesting theoretical question, but I don't think anybody would consider playing NFL football without a helmet," he says.

Larry Maddux, the head of research and development for helmet-maker Schutt, says even without helmets, players would inadvertently get hit in the head—and regular knocks and bumps could turn into concussions. Thad Ide, the vice president of research and development at Riddell, the NFL's official helmet sponsor, says getting rid of helmets would be a bad move. "There would always be incidental contact," he says.

Yes, what a surprise that a VP at Riddell, a helmet manufacturer, would say getting rid of helmets would be a bad idea.

And again, Aiello also says "it's an interesting theoretical question", which won't be attempted. And probably shouldn't. Which is about the same context as what Aikman said: that not wearing helmets would probably cut down on brain injuries, but that it won't happen.

And again, I'm not saying we should get rid of helmets, but it's not a "loony" idea as people have made it out to be, and there are people seriously talking about the theoretical implications. And Aikman isn't an idiot.

 

[goliadmike]

Saints defense higher than ours???

Whatever.. Their defense sucks.

Turnovers help out that defense along with scoring defense ie Sharpers TDs off interceptions.

 

[Sarge]

Yes, what a surprise that a VP at Riddell, a helmet manufacturer, would say getting rid of helmets would be a bad idea.

And again, Aiello also says "it's an interesting theoretical question", which won't be attempted. And probably shouldn't. Which is about the same context as what Aikman said: that not wearing helmets would probably cut down on brain injuries, but that it won't happen.

And again, I'm not saying we should get rid of helmets, but it's not a "loony" idea as people have made it out to be, and there are people seriously talking about the theoretical implications. And Aikman isn't an idiot.

You're certainly entitled to your wrong opinion.

 

[jobberone]

Make better helmets and get rid of as much helmet to helmet contact as possible is the only 'remedy'. Playing without a helmet is like riding without one. Not a great idea and I speak from experience there.

 

[speedkilz88]

The Gladiator