Jeremy Shockey

JKool · 05-08-2008, 12:18 PM

SFIAH, thanks for the thoughts on points allowed. I think the conclusion might be something like this: the best predictor of SB victory is a top 10 defense in terms of points allowed.

However, since points allowed is a combined stat (it measures offensive as well as defensive success), it is hard to say which contribution (offensive or defensive) is more important. Thus, defense wins championships isn't supported by "points allowed" results alone.

Perhaps we could compare points allowed to traditional offensive stats (like yards per play, completion percentage, or something) to traditional defensive stats (like yards allowed per play, interceptions, sacks, or something) to determine which contributed more to the "points allowed". Maybe time of possession would be an interesting way to tease apart the contributions of offense and defense to points allowed?

This relates to the Shockey dispute in only one way. If Shockey were significant to increasing our time of possession, he would directly contribute to the important "points allowed" statistic. Of course, the "cost" and "character" arguments would still stand on their own.

Interesting!

SaintFanInATLHELL · 05-08-2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by JKool

SFIAH, thanks for the thoughts on points allowed. I think the conclusion might be something like this: the best predictor of SB victory is a top 10 defense in terms of points allowed.

Again I'm not so sure anymore. With point differential being an even stronger predictor.

The last two years have thrown the proverbial wrench into the works. Indy's 2006 regular season defense was awful. Sanders seems to be a singular guy that makes all the difference. They played like a top 10 defense in the playoffs. In the regular season they gave up 22.5 PPG. In the playoffs, it was 16.2. If that were projected onto the regular season, it would have been a top 3 defensive number. Same with the Giants: 21.6 in the regular season, 16.2 in the 4 playoff games. Again projected onto the regular season, that would have made the Giants tops in the league.

You have to have both excellent offense and defense to be successful. Pittsburgh in 2005 was a perfect example: top 10 offense and top 10 defense in the regular season. Won from the #6 playoff spot.

For the Saints to find balance, they needed to work on the defense. and maintain the offense.

What I'm saying is that improving the offense without a quantum leap in the performance of the defense wasn't going to be as helpful as keeping the offensive performance about the same, and vastly improving the defense.

However, since points allowed is a combined stat (it measures offensive as well as defensive success), it is hard to say which contribution (offensive or defensive) is more important. Thus, defense wins championships isn't supported by "points allowed" results alone.

As you said earlier it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. You have to have it, but if you offense is woeful, you cannot compete for the championship. See the 2007 Titans as the poster child for that argument.

Perhaps we could compare points allowed to traditional offensive stats (like yards per play, completion percentage, or something) to traditional defensive stats (like yards allowed per play, interceptions, sacks, or something) to determine which contributed more to the "points allowed". Maybe time of possession would be an interesting way to tease apart the contributions of offense and defense to points allowed?

All good possibilities for further research. It would take some digging to correlate.

This relates to the Shockey dispute in only one way. If Shockey were significant to increasing our time of possession, he would directly contribute to the important "points allowed" statistic.

But I think that's only a part of it. Playing keep away can certainly help your defense. But if they give up a TD over the top in 30 seconds, it won't matter how long you hold the ball.

At the end of the day, the defense has to be able to hold its own against most competition. And I think that trends towards "better" defenses by whatever category you want to measure.

Of course, the "cost" and "character" arguments would still stand on their own.

Interesting!

The defense argument is somewhat sideways to the Shockey argument because the Saints (at least on paper) look like they've greatly improved their defense.

If any two of the cost/character arguments can be resolved, then Shockey would be worth it. But with all of them in play, IMO it will cost too much for the perceived return.

SFIAH

05-08-2008, 12:18 PM	#1
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Re: payton wants shockey................... SFIAH, thanks for the thoughts on points allowed. I think the conclusion might be something like this: the best predictor of SB victory is a top 10 defense in terms of points allowed. However, since points allowed is a combined stat (it measures offensive as well as defensive success), it is hard to say which contribution (offensive or defensive) is more important. Thus, defense wins championships isn't supported by "points allowed" results alone. Perhaps we could compare points allowed to traditional offensive stats (like yards per play, completion percentage, or something) to traditional defensive stats (like yards allowed per play, interceptions, sacks, or something) to determine which contributed more to the "points allowed". Maybe time of possession would be an interesting way to tease apart the contributions of offense and defense to points allowed? This relates to the Shockey dispute in only one way. If Shockey were significant to increasing our time of possession, he would directly contribute to the important "points allowed" statistic. Of course, the "cost" and "character" arguments would still stand on their own. Interesting!
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

05-08-2008, 01:28 PM	#2
SaintFanInATLHELL The Professor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Lithonia, GA Posts: 2,783	Re: payton wants shockey................... Originally Posted by JKool SFIAH, thanks for the thoughts on points allowed. I think the conclusion might be something like this: the best predictor of SB victory is a top 10 defense in terms of points allowed. Again I'm not so sure anymore. With point differential being an even stronger predictor. The last two years have thrown the proverbial wrench into the works. Indy's 2006 regular season defense was awful. Sanders seems to be a singular guy that makes all the difference. They played like a top 10 defense in the playoffs. In the regular season they gave up 22.5 PPG. In the playoffs, it was 16.2. If that were projected onto the regular season, it would have been a top 3 defensive number. Same with the Giants: 21.6 in the regular season, 16.2 in the 4 playoff games. Again projected onto the regular season, that would have made the Giants tops in the league. You have to have both excellent offense and defense to be successful. Pittsburgh in 2005 was a perfect example: top 10 offense and top 10 defense in the regular season. Won from the #6 playoff spot. For the Saints to find balance, they needed to work on the defense. and maintain the offense. What I'm saying is that improving the offense without a quantum leap in the performance of the defense wasn't going to be as helpful as keeping the offensive performance about the same, and vastly improving the defense. However, since points allowed is a combined stat (it measures offensive as well as defensive success), it is hard to say which contribution (offensive or defensive) is more important. Thus, defense wins championships isn't supported by "points allowed" results alone. As you said earlier it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. You have to have it, but if you offense is woeful, you cannot compete for the championship. See the 2007 Titans as the poster child for that argument. Perhaps we could compare points allowed to traditional offensive stats (like yards per play, completion percentage, or something) to traditional defensive stats (like yards allowed per play, interceptions, sacks, or something) to determine which contributed more to the "points allowed". Maybe time of possession would be an interesting way to tease apart the contributions of offense and defense to points allowed? All good possibilities for further research. It would take some digging to correlate. This relates to the Shockey dispute in only one way. If Shockey were significant to increasing our time of possession, he would directly contribute to the important "points allowed" statistic. But I think that's only a part of it. Playing keep away can certainly help your defense. But if they give up a TD over the top in 30 seconds, it won't matter how long you hold the ball. At the end of the day, the defense has to be able to hold its own against most competition. And I think that trends towards "better" defenses by whatever category you want to measure. Of course, the "cost" and "character" arguments would still stand on their own. Interesting! The defense argument is somewhat sideways to the Shockey argument because the Saints (at least on paper) look like they've greatly improved their defense. If any two of the cost/character arguments can be resolved, then Shockey would be worth it. But with all of them in play, IMO it will cost too much for the perceived return. 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.