The top 8 offenses last year

[Slashar00]

1Denver
2Philadelphia
3Green Bay
4New Orleans
5San Diego
6Detroit
7New England
8Chicago


I was just looking at the stats from last year and realized that we played all of the top offenses last year except New England. In fact, those top offenses gave us 7 out of our 8 losses. In total, we went 1-7 against the best offenses in the league (splitting with Philly). The only team that beat us without a top 8 offense was the Chiefs who had a remarkable run last year.

Yes, our defense was bad last year, but we played against really great offenses. When we didn't play against a top 8 offense, we went 7-1. I thought this was interesting. Maybe our defense last year wasn't as terrible as I once believed.

 

[slick325]

Interesting. But....the D was that bad. They helped pad the stats of these offenses with their play against them.

 

[pugilist]

yeah it's something to consider, but you need to look at each game individually and put it in the right context..

For example, we faced Green Bay and Chicago without their franchise QB in Aaron Rodgers and Jay Cutler respectively..

Matt freakin McGloin lit up our defense last year, let that sink in

 

[Galian Beast]

1Denver - 457 (517)
2Philadelphia - 413 (278 and 366)
3Green Bay - 400 (433 without Rodgers)
4New Orleans - 399 (625)
5San Diego - 393 (506)
6Detroit - 392 (623)
7New England - 384
8Chicago - 381 (490 without Cutler)

So while you had a good thought, the reality is that we were well above their competitors average with the exception of Philly.

It's actually quite embarassing. Many of these teams were the top simply because they played us. We were that bad.

What's more interesting is that the offense wasn't as productive as it could have been. It was simply more opportunistic.

I'm sure it didn't help that we were 24th in the NFL in rushing yards and second to last in attempts.

 

[percyhoward]

What's more interesting is that the offense wasn't as productive as it could have been. It was simply more opportunistic.

That was an offense whose TD percentage ranked 19th on drives that began in opponents' territory, and 3rd on drives that began inside its own 35.

Not one of the league's more opportunistic offenses, in other words, but still one of its most productive.

 

[Kevinicus]

yeah it's something to consider, but you need to look at each game individually and put it in the right context..

For example, we faced Green Bay and Chicago without their franchise QB in Aaron Rodgers and Jay Cutler respectively..

Matt freakin McGloin lit up our defense last year, let that sink in

Not really. He made a few great throws and the wrs made a few very good catches in the first half, but lit up they were not.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1Denver - 457 (517)
2Philadelphia - 413 (278 and 366)
3Green Bay - 400 (433 without Rodgers)
4New Orleans - 399 (625)
5San Diego - 393 (506)
6Detroit - 392 (623)
7New England - 384
8Chicago - 381 (490 without Cutler)

So while you had a good thought, the reality is that we were well above their competitors average with the exception of Philly.

It's actually quite embarassing. Many of these teams were the top simply because they played us. We were that bad.

What's more interesting is that the offense wasn't as productive as it could have been. It was simply more opportunistic.

I'm sure it didn't help that we were 24th in the NFL in rushing yards and second to last in attempts.

We had Ernie Sims, Cam Lawrence, Jeff Heath, and Nick Hayden all in the base defense for the GB and Chicago games due to injuries of our own. If you want to make an exception then you had best determine if it is unique. Simply pointing at something and waving your hands is not a good argument.

I also hope you don't think you have done more than show noise in variance. Our yardage surrendered last year was league worst but its not like it was some outlier. Minnesota, Chicago and Philadelphia had similarly poor defenses.

 

[Hoofbite]

The defense sucked last year. What's new?

 

[Galian Beast]

That was an offense whose TD percentage ranked 19th on drives that began in opponents' territory, and 3rd on drives that began inside its own 35.

Not one of the league's more opportunistic offenses, in other words, but still one of its most productive.

Look at our rank in yards vs pts scored

 

[Galian Beast]

We had Ernie Sims, Cam Lawrence, Jeff Heath, and Nick Hayden all in the base defense for the GB and Chicago games due to injuries of our own. If you want to make an exception then you had best determine if it is unique. Simply pointing at something and waving your hands is not a good argument.

I also hope you don't think you have done more than show noise in variance. Our yardage surrendered last year was league worst but its not like it was some outlier. Minnesota, Chicago and Philadelphia had similarly poor defenses.

I hate when people reply and yet they've made no point...

 

[SAboys889]

1Denver
2Philadelphia
3Green Bay
4New Orleans
5San Diego
6Detroit
7New England
8Chicago


I was just looking at the stats from last year and realized that we played all of the top offenses last year except New England. In fact, those top offenses gave us 7 out of our 8 losses. In total, we went 1-7 against the best offenses in the league (splitting with Philly). The only team that beat us without a top 8 offense was the Chiefs who had a remarkable run last year.

Yes, our defense was bad last year, but we played against really great offenses. When we didn't play against a top 8 offense, we went 7-1. I thought this was interesting. Maybe our defense last year wasn't as terrible as I once believed.

Playing against us was a main reason those teams became a top offensive team

 

[percyhoward]

Look at our rank in yards vs pts scored

More to the point, look at the most opportunistic offenses vs the most productive.

These were the more opportunistic offenses in 2013.

Points on drives that began in opponents' territory:
1 Chiefs 132
2 Broncos 124
3 Patriots 118
4 49ers 97
5 Seahawks 89
6 Steelers 83
7 Eagles 79
8 Bills 79
9 Bengals 78
10 Chargers 75
11 Cowboys 74

Compared to the most productive...

Points per drive (all drives):
1 Broncos 2.98
2 Chargers 2.46
3 Saints 2.40
4 Cowboys 2.25
5 Bears 2.23

because of this...

Points on drives that began inside offense's 35:
1 Broncos 357
2T Cowboys 288
2T Bears 288
4 Saints 282
5 Eagles 278

Scores that come at the end of 65-yard drives are not opportunistic.

 

[Galian Beast]

More to the point, look at the most opportunistic offenses vs the most productive.

These were the more opportunistic offenses in 2013.

Points on drives that began in opponents' territory:
1 Chiefs 132
2 Broncos 124
3 Patriots 118
4 49ers 97
5 Seahawks 89
6 Steelers 83
7 Eagles 79
8 Bills 79
9 Bengals 78
10 Chargers 75
11 Cowboys 74

Compared to the most productive...

Points per drive (all drives):
1 Broncos 2.98
2 Chargers 2.46
3 Saints 2.40
4 Cowboys 2.25
5 Bears 2.23

because of this...

Points on drives that began inside offense's 35:
1 Broncos 357
2T Cowboys 288
2T Bears 288
4 Saints 282
5 Eagles 278

Scores that come at the end of 65-yard drives are not opportunistic.

My point is that we scored more points compared to the yard we actually got... unless you're going to refute that...

 

[xwalker]

1Denver
2Philadelphia
3Green Bay
4New Orleans
5San Diego
6Detroit
7New England
8Chicago


I was just looking at the stats from last year and realized that we played all of the top offenses last year except New England. In fact, those top offenses gave us 7 out of our 8 losses. In total, we went 1-7 against the best offenses in the league (splitting with Philly). The only team that beat us without a top 8 offense was the Chiefs who had a remarkable run last year.

Yes, our defense was bad last year, but we played against really great offenses. When we didn't play against a top 8 offense, we went 7-1. I thought this was interesting. Maybe our defense last year wasn't as terrible as I once believed.

Those rankings are based on yards. If you rank based on points/game scored:

1 Denver
2 Chicago
3 New England
4 Philadelphia
5 Dallas
6 Cincinnati
7 Kansas City
8 Green Bay

 

[TrailBlazer]

1Denver
2Philadelphia
3Green Bay
4New Orleans
5San Diego
6Detroit
7New England
8Chicago


I was just looking at the stats from last year and realized that we played all of the top offenses last year except New England. In fact, those top offenses gave us 7 out of our 8 losses. In total, we went 1-7 against the best offenses in the league (splitting with Philly). The only team that beat us without a top 8 offense was the Chiefs who had a remarkable run last year.

Yes, our defense was bad last year, but we played against really great offenses. When we didn't play against a top 8 offense, we went 7-1. I thought this was interesting. Maybe our defense last year wasn't as terrible as I once believed.

This doesn't justify having a historically bad defense.

 

[percyhoward]

My point is that we scored more points compared to the yard we actually got... unless you're going to refute that...

I was responding to "more opportunistic than productive." If all you're saying is we didn't waste many drives, that's certainly true.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Those rankings are based on yards. If you rank based on points/game scored:

1 Denver
2 Chicago
3 New England
4 Philadelphia
5 Dallas
6 Cincinnati
7 Kansas City
8 Green Bay

5th in points, but 16th in yards. Which is more indicative of how the offense performed? And how did the points scored stat get so skewed that they were top 5? Every other team on that list had a top ten ranking in total offense, but not Dallas.

 

[xwalker]

5th in points, but 16th in yards. Which is more indicative of how the offense performed? And how did the points scored stat get so skewed that they were top 5? Every other team on that list had a top ten ranking in total offense, but not Dallas.

I don't know the answer, but a few years ago they had the opposite problem. They were moving the ball all over the place but kept failing in the Redzone.

I would guess that the teams with more yards and less points kicked field goals when the Cowboys were scoring TDs.

 

[Galian Beast]

I was responding to "more opportunistic than productive." If all you're saying is we didn't waste many drives, that's certainly true.

And there we are, on the same page.

 

[percyhoward]

5th in points, but 16th in yards. Which is more indicative of how the offense performed?

Offensively, Dallas ranked 4th in points per drive, 12th in yards per drive.

To answer your question, points per drive has the higher win correlation.

And how did the points scored stat get so skewed that they were top 5? Every other team on that list had a top ten ranking in total offense, but not Dallas.

Partly because the Cowboys didn't have that many drives, and partly because they were so good in the red zone. Other teams that had more yards often also had more drives, and were usually not as good at finishing off their drives as the Cowboys.