Jeremy Shockey

JKool · 05-08-2008, 10:11 AM

Memnoch, do not fear for my sanity. I did qualify with "on this point", and I was referring to the claim about the 9ers defense. SFIAH is a fine writer, and has some convincing arguments, but I'm not sucked in (on this point) just yet.

SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey.

Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success. It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game?

So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships".

SaintFanInATLHELL · 05-08-2008, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by JKool

SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey.

I think it's stickier than that. Shockey is under contract. Actually it's pretty cap friendly. He's going to want it reworked. The question is when, and how long will he be satisfied to play under the existing contract.

These are all unknowns. The Saints would be perfectly within their rights to say: "You signed it. Play it out." But the problem I see is that if this, or anything else, makes Shockey unhappy, then what effect will it have in the locker room.

There has to be clarity on both sides on how that would work. Ideally for the team it would be "Show us 2 years of production, then we'll get the huge contract to you."

But I'm unsure if that would work.

Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success.

Yup. Since 1970 and the merger, only 4 SB teams have been outside the top in regular season "points allowed": the 1976 and 1983 Raiders, the 2006 Colts, and the 2007 Giants.

BTW offensive performances were nearly as strong. These teams finished outside the top 10 in points scored the season they won:

82 redskins (strike shortened), 90 giants, 00 ravens, 02 bucs, 03 pats, 07 giants.

I believe the 07 giants are the first SB team in this period to finish outside the top 10 on both sides of the ball and still win.

Looking at the offense started to point to point differential. It seems to be the strongest indicator of all of championship success. Only one team who won the SB since 1970 fell outside the top 10 in point differential for the regular season: The 2007 New York Giants.

It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game?

Going back through it again, I'm just not so sure anymore.

For example in Dan Marino's career with the Dolphins, the offense was consistently excellent. But the only year they went to the SB, the defense was outstanding too. There were other years where the defense was up and down, but they never had the same success.

So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships".

It looks like I need to rethink this. Almost always SB winning teams have bothe excellent offense and defense and are near the top in point differential.

You need both.

SFIAH

05-08-2008, 10:11 AM	#1
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: payton wants shockey................... Memnoch, do not fear for my sanity. I did qualify with "on this point", and I was referring to the claim about the 9ers defense. SFIAH is a fine writer, and has some convincing arguments, but I'm not sucked in (on this point) just yet. SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey. Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success. It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game? So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships".
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-08-2008, 11:21 AM	#2
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,783	Re: payton wants shockey................... Originally Posted by JKool SFIAH, nice posts. I enjoyed them a good deal. I'm still almost on board with the Anti-Shockey sentiment. IMO the strongest arguments are the "cost" argument and the "chemistry" argument. The second hasn't convinced me yet (and might never), and it is hard to tell what the cost will be (yet). However, I like this "cost" concern: Shockey's contract will make it difficult to get substantial (and desirable) contracts with Smith and Colston - those two are certainly worth more than Shockey. I think it's stickier than that. Shockey is under contract. Actually it's pretty cap friendly. He's going to want it reworked. The question is when, and how long will he be satisfied to play under the existing contract. These are all unknowns. The Saints would be perfectly within their rights to say: "You signed it. Play it out." But the problem I see is that if this, or anything else, makes Shockey unhappy, then what effect will it have in the locker room. There has to be clarity on both sides on how that would work. Ideally for the team it would be "Show us 2 years of production, then we'll get the huge contract to you." But I'm unsure if that would work. Regarding the "scoring defense", I'm still a bit unclear. Is this just the "points allowed" category? It is interesting to me that such a stat is a good predictor of championship success. Yup. Since 1970 and the merger, only 4 SB teams have been outside the top in regular season "points allowed": the 1976 and 1983 Raiders, the 2006 Colts, and the 2007 Giants. BTW offensive performances were nearly as strong. These teams finished outside the top 10 in points scored the season they won: 82 redskins (strike shortened), 90 giants, 00 ravens, 02 bucs, 03 pats, 07 giants. I believe the 07 giants are the first SB team in this period to finish outside the top 10 on both sides of the ball and still win. Looking at the offense started to point to point differential. It seems to be the strongest indicator of all of championship success. Only one team who won the SB since 1970 fell outside the top 10 in point differential for the regular season: The 2007 New York Giants. It is also interesting to me since I think this stat also reflects the success of the offense (which may be your point, I can't tell yet). It reflects the success of the offense, since as we all know, a clock-grinding offense keeps the opponent's offense off the field. Maybe that is your point about the running game? Going back through it again, I'm just not so sure anymore. For example in Dan Marino's career with the Dolphins, the offense was consistently excellent. But the only year they went to the SB, the defense was outstanding too. There were other years where the defense was up and down, but they never had the same success. So, overall, I'm not convinced that points allows is a purely defensive statistic (like yards allowed, third downs allowed, and the like, are). Thus, I'm skeptical that "scoring defense" is a good indicator of how good a defense is (but I may be misunderstanding), and, in turn, I now question the simple (though I concede there may be a more complex way of understanding this) version of "defenses win championships". It looks like I need to rethink this. Almost always SB winning teams have bothe excellent offense and defense and are near the top in point differential. You need both. SFIAH
	Super Bowl Championships: New Orleans Saints:1, Carolina:0, Atlanta Chokers: STILL ZERO Only Atlanta choked in an unchokable situation... Life is definitely good.