Irn-Bru wrote:I don't think it's the best measure; in fact, it has as many problems as judging defenses by yards allowed. (Yards allowed probably is the better measure if you only have a choice between those two, however.)
I'm having trouble getting my head around that ... so you're saying, you'd prefer your defense to give up less yards rather than fewer points? You cannot be serious?
There are many reasons that a team might give up a lot of yards, as I indicated before ... which is often a tactical decision with high powered offensive teams that play with consistently big leads as do the teams we've been discussing, with the patriots being the #2 offense in the NFL. I'll take that, along with a defense that keeps the ball in front of them and is a FG forcing red zone nightmare any day. Not that I'm suggesting the NE defense has been anything other than a nightmare for NE DC .... and of course they cannot be satisfied with the D's performance (what coach is ever satisfied?). But in the points allowed department, they were not bad .. not great ... but not terrible either.
Irn-Bru wrote:I prefer other statistical analyses, such as those done by Football Outsiders or Advanced NFL Stats. Those also avoid the pitfalls of measuring defensive strength in yards allowed, or other simplistic ways of looking at it.
I prefer wins over statistics, and a defense stingy with points allowed as that is the key to winning from a defensive perspective. If my defense hold the opponent to 14 points or less, I don't care if they give up 500 yards a game. Better that, than 300 yards and 21 points.
Irn-Bru wrote:I think it's misleading to rely on yards allowed or points allowed. Creating weighted averages that take into account things like opponent strength is the way to go.
I don't think it's possible to have a better measure than points allowed, since that is the main goal of the defense to prevent the other team from scoring. You can have the prettiest wheels in town but if the tires don't hold air, you're in trouble.
Those complex statistical factors may make for interesting conversation and debate ... but at the end of the day ... it's any given Sunday, and personnel matchups and execution that determines the course of the game. Some teams simply match up better against other teams that would generally be considered more talented.
Irn-Bru wrote:I largely agree with you, but I still hold the same proviso as before: what makes the Pats successful is not the fact that they have UDFAs playing for them: that only describes one or two of the pieces that make their offense work — and their offense was far more influential in their success than their defense. If anything, the Pats are an example of how relying on UDFAs to play significant amounts of time can harm you . . .
You mean, harm them all the way to the Super Bowl? Come on now, you pulling my leg here ... I feel a tug.
Irn-Bru wrote:What has traditionally made the successful FO's successful (Pats, Ravens, Philly) is that they can draft better than average and use their draft picks to acquire cheap, young talent. Being good at scouting talent in the UDFA pool helps — I don't mean to downplay the significance of depth here, which the Redskins for a long time have lacked and are only recently turning around — but that is not what makes the Pats the Pats.
That's certainly true, and was the exact formula so masterfully done by Bobby Beathard. I still believe he is one of, if not the best talent evaluators ever. He got far too little credit for much of the success attributed to Joe Gibbs, not to take anything away from Joe.
The reality is, Tom Brady makes the Patriots the Patriots, and has for a long time, just as Peyton Manning made the colts what they have been the past dozen years, and we saw what they were without him last year. And really, the Patriots have made their fair share of misses in the draft too, otherwise they wouldn't be comprised of 50+% UDFA, Trades, and late round picks. I mean that's just obvious math, and indicates that they've either traded a lot of 2nd and 3rd and 4th round picks, or they missed on a lot of them.
Irn-Bru wrote:It does make a good story to point out the correlation, which is why many people have been commenting on it recently. But all that means is that you and I have the opportunity to bash Belichick's results versus his purported genius at personnel management.
I don't care for Mr. Candid Camera too much myself, but as a coach and a talent guy, it's really hard to argue with results. When was the last time the Patriots were not contenders and often favorites to go to the big game? Rarely, under the Belichick-Brady regime. I don't think there is a more consistently performing team over the past decade than the Pats, which is probably why people hate them.
Irn-Bru wrote:I don't think it's neglect to trade a few picks to get a potential franchise QB, if that's who the FO likes (and I hope and pray they do in fact like RGIII/Luck as that player). It's really important to get our guy.
I think it would constitute gross malfeasance if they don't make every possible effort to secure that #2 pick from the Rams and grab one ... either one. Of course the possibility exists that someone like the Browns could offer what we don't have to offer ... such as two #1s this year .. and that would certainly be no indictment of the FO, just a harsh reality. But if they try to get cute, and pull off a heist and loose out ...in some misconceived ploy to be too frugal ... well, that's when they'll deserve harsh criticism, because until this team secures a top flight QB .. we're going to continue seeing what we've been seeing ... a lot of potential wasted.
Irn-Bru wrote:But the general rule that we shouldn't throw away our draft picks is a good one, IMO.
I don't think throwing anything of value away is a good idea. But attaining a top flight QB that can deliver up high performance for the next dozen years or more isn't remotely close to throwing picks away ... and you can assume that I mean several picks.
What would a 25 year old Peyton Manning be worth to the Redskins? 2 #1s .... 3 #1's ..... 4 #1's ? Would you draw the line somewhere there? I'd give up the next 4 years of #1 picks for a young Peyton Manning in a New York City second. And throw in a number 2. And maybe even a player.
Now is RG3 or Luck the next Peyton Manning? Who knows ... probably not ... but nobody knew Peyton Manning would become Peyton Manning either, except maybe Peyton. Given hindsight .... where would you draw the line on Peyton's value in draft picks?
And this past year, Cam Newton ... as highly rated as he was at draft time, exceeded everyone's expectations. Knowing what we all know now ... is Newton worth 2 #1s and 2 #2's ? I'd have to say you're nuts if you said no.
Personally I see no reason to believe why Luck and RG3 can't come in next year and play at a reasonably similar level to what Newton did with the lowly pathetic Panthers. And don't be surprised if Indy takes RG3 instead of Luck ... some talent people have them rated at dead even, and there is no old staff left there locked into the old offensive scheme that Peyton has been running all these years. They might like to have the successor to Peyton be a dynamic thrower AND run threat.
I think RG3 is a Michael Vick with character and a brain. I'm anxious to see how both he and Luck play this year ... particularly if one of them is wearing Burgundy and Gold. One of them better be.
