Fielding a Top Ten Defense As It Relates to Winning

[T0mShane]

The Seahawks got Sam Bradford twice, the Cardinals twice, Mark Sanchez, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Ryan Tannehill and Christan Ponder.

The 49'ers got all those guys above.

Good call. I think the Seahawks are being wildly overrated, personally.

[Greenseed4]

Why do you have to have a top five defense to sniff the playoffs?  If only 57% of the top 10 defenses make the playoffs and twelve teams make the playoffs, then you have a better chance to make the playoffs with a defense out of the top 10 than in it. 

 

According to his stat, a top-five defense increases your chances from 57% to 70%.  So only 30% of teams ranked 6-32 will make it in.  

 

It's our best hope.  

[#27TheDominator]

Good call. I think the Seahawks are being wildly overrated, personally.

 

Ugh.  I agree with T0m. 

[RSJ]

Good call. I think the Seahawks are being wildly overrated, personally.

 

 

I agree too. On the flip side our defense could have been ranked much higher if the offense were to put simply any kind of drive together.

[Bugg]

The Jets were a top ten defense last year because teams did not have to explode offensively in order to beat them.

 

They let the Jets offense score points for them or give them field position because of ineptitude.

 

The rankings belie that this was a very ordinary defense last year. I actually think they may be better this year than last, but show worse results (ranking).

Suspect that it's more than a trend. This is a problem with football stats. Defense is not by itself in a vacuum. How a game is coached and played is dictated by how great or awful your opponent is, and especially if their offense can score points. Football stats are helpful only to a point. And if you have a very good QB or a defense that gets to the QB, the rest of your team is much less critical. When Ryan babbled about how great a pass defense the Jets had last year he should've had his fat mouth filled with pigs feet. It was crap. No one bothered to pass against the Jets because they would rather play field position , keep their own offense form taking chances and waiting out the inevitable Sanchez eff up.  

 

Further this top 10 defense nonsense doesn't take into account whether the offense on said team was any good and how that impacted how a game was played and coached each week, This thread acts like defense is a totally separate variable rather than one impacted by a team's offense and specials. A great punter might give that defense and extra 10 yards more to defend. A defense matched with a superior offense might not be all that good, just cleaned up a lot of blowouts. There are probably any number of other permutations that this thread hypothesis doesn't take into account.

[Gastineau Lives]

Suspect that it's more than a trend. This is a problem with football stats. Defense is not by itself in a vacuum. How a game is coached and played is dictated by how great or awful your opponent is, and especially if their offense can score points. Football stats are helpful only to a point. And if you have a very good QB or a defense that gets to the QB, the rest of your team is much less critical. When Ryan babbled about how great a pass defense the Jets had last year he should've had his fat mouth filled with pigs feet. It was crap. No one bothered to pass against the Jets because they would rather play field position , keep their own offense form taking chances and waiting out the inevitable Sanchez eff up.  

 

Further this top 10 defense nonsense doesn't take into account whether the offense on said team was any good and how that impacted how a game was played and coached each week, This thread acts like defense is a totally separate variable rather than one impacted by a team's offense and specials. A great punter might give that defense and extra 10 yards more to defend. A defense matched with a superior offense might not be all that good, just cleaned up a lot of blowouts. There are probably any number of other permutations that this thread hypothesis doesn't take into account.

This thread doesn't act like anything. You've just acted more like what this thread was intended to spur you to act like.

 

If you think defensive rankings mean nothing and are a matter of circumstances other than the defense itself, I call bullsh*t. There's a reason Rex's teams consistently rank among the league leaders in defense every single year (8 straight as either coordinator or head coach). Or Dick Lebeau's (eleven straight top ten defensive teams) or even more recently, the Niners of the last few years.

 

Also, I think you overestimate the whole "no one bothered to pass against the Jets" factor. Actually, they passed 30.8 times a game against the Jets in 2012,  31.7 in 2011 and 33.2 in 2010. This does not indicate some sort of paradigm shift. Especially considering that no matter how many times they threw the ball in each of those years, they still ran at sub-Sanchez efficiency passing the ball against us in each one of those years, no matter what kind of plays they called or game plan they employed. You act as if every team ran the ball down our throats from whistle to whistle and that the efficiency of the pass defense, Antonio Cromartie's performance in it et. al is some sort of mirage. It's not. 1 or even 2 passes a game spread out over sixty minutes is nothing. And hey, remember that old one about how the better you run the ball the easier it is to pass? Well, you would think that they'd be even better and more efficient passing against us last year since the run defense was so horrible. Didn't happen.

 

If you look at the rankings, as I have, over the last twenty years, you'd see that teams appear in the rankings for a certain number of years in a row. It's not happenstance or great punting or "cleaning up a lot of blowouts" - not in the age of parity they are not (maybe in Division I CFB)

[Scott Dierking]

This thread doesn't act like anything. You've just acted more like what this thread was intended to spur you to act like.

 

If you think defensive rankings mean nothing and are a matter of circumstances other than the defense itself, I call bullsh*t. There's a reason Rex's teams consistently rank among the league leaders in defense every single year (8 straight as either coordinator or head coach). Or Dick Lebeau's (eleven straight top ten defensive teams) or even more recently, the Niners of the last few years.

 

Also, I think you overestimate the whole "no one bothered to pass against the Jets" factor. Actually, they passed 30.8 times a game against the Jets in 2012,  31.7 in 2011 and 33.2 in 2010. This does not indicate some sort of paradigm shift. Especially considering that no matter how many times they threw the ball in each of those years, they still ran at sub-Sanchez efficiency passing the ball against us in each one of those years, no matter what kind of plays they called or game plan they employed. You act as if every team ran the ball down our throats from whistle to whistle and that the efficiency of the pass defense, Antonio Cromartie's performance in it et. al is some sort of mirage. It's not. 1 or even 2 passes a game spread out over sixty minutes is nothing. And hey, remember that old one about how the better you run the ball the easier it is to pass? Well, you would think that they'd be even better and more efficient passing against us last year since the run defense was so horrible. Didn't happen.

 

If you look at the rankings, as I have, over the last twenty years, you'd see that teams appear in the rankings for a certain number of years in a row. It's not happenstance or great punting or "cleaning up a lot of blowouts" - not in the age of parity they are not (maybe in Division I CFB)

Take a poll of Jet fans that watch the games, I I will bet that there would be at best a 50/50 split among those fans that would say that last years defense represented a top 10 quality in the league.

[JoeKlecko]

I hope my response won't be seen as a cop-out, but I actually think that all of you guys have good points.  I understand where GL is coming from, don't think he had an agenda, and do think the D was pretty good.  By the same token, I agree with others of you that imo the D was not really a top 10 D.  How many times on 3rd and 17 did they give up first downs?  Do top 10 Ds usually do that?  No.  I also agree that many factors can influence how a team plays in a game or vs a particular opponent (weather, injuries, matchups, field position, etc.).  The fact that it was almost a guarantee that Sanchez would turn the ball over a couple of times HAD to have had an impact on the game plans and decision making of opposing OCs and HCs.  I don't think stats alone give an accurate picture.  Not long ago someone posted a thread that purported to show that by some screwy metric, Sanchez was actually better than a number of the top QBs in the league at one particular thing.  Does anyone seriously think that Sanchez is a topflight QB?  No. Stats can give some understanding to what's happening on the field, but we have to use our eyes and brains as well.  Cromartie did play extremely well as did Wilson and the others in pass D after Revis went down, but that doesn't necessarily mean that opposing teams were afraid of them or significantly altered their plan of attack on offense because of that.

[SenorGato]

The Jets didn't have a top 10 defense last year. 15th against the run and 10th against the pass according to FootballOutisders, hardly the standard Ryan has consistently brought as a coach. 

[NCJETSFAN]

The NFL now is about an offense that can gain. Large chunks of the field at a time with alot of skill players. And snice we have not one of those we need a D to keep us somewhat in game

[jetsjetsjetss]

Take a poll of Jet fans that watch the games, I I will bet that there would be at best a 50/50 split among those fans that would say that last years defense represented a top 10 quality in the league.

 

wow the good old eye test.

 

I would also say sanchez is probably the worst player ever in the nfl if i watched the game but hes probably not. Your basing your arguments on opinion/emotion not facts

[Bugg]

This thread doesn't act like anything. You've just acted more like what this thread was intended to spur you to act like.

 

If you think defensive rankings mean nothing and are a matter of circumstances other than the defense itself, I call bullsh*t. There's a reason Rex's teams consistently rank among the league leaders in defense every single year (8 straight as either coordinator or head coach). Or Dick Lebeau's (eleven straight top ten defensive teams) or even more recently, the Niners of the last few years.

 

Also, I think you overestimate the whole "no one bothered to pass against the Jets" factor. Actually, they passed 30.8 times a game against the Jets in 2012,  31.7 in 2011 and 33.2 in 2010. This does not indicate some sort of paradigm shift. Especially considering that no matter how many times they threw the ball in each of those years, they still ran at sub-Sanchez efficiency passing the ball against us in each one of those years, no matter what kind of plays they called or game plan they employed. You act as if every team ran the ball down our throats from whistle to whistle and that the efficiency of the pass defense, Antonio Cromartie's performance in it et. al is some sort of mirage. It's not. 1 or even 2 passes a game spread out over sixty minutes is nothing. And hey, remember that old one about how the better you run the ball the easier it is to pass? Well, you would think that they'd be even better and more efficient passing against us last year since the run defense was so horrible. Didn't happen.

 

If you look at the rankings, as I have, over the last twenty years, you'd see that teams appear in the rankings for a certain number of years in a row. It's not happenstance or great punting or "cleaning up a lot of blowouts" - not in the age of parity they are not (maybe in Division I CFB)

Main point is youa re overvalueing one part of the team, doing so in a vacuum, and not taking into account how the offense, specials and the opponent factor into outcomes. The title of your thread implies a top 10 defense is the most importnat variable above anything else. And that is simply not true. A good defense is important, but the trend is clear that being able to score is what wins games. Look, we had a Super Bowl between 2 good defenses and the score was 34-31. If Rex Ryan fielded a merely competent offense in his first 3 seasons this team might have a title, may be hosts a playoff game or 2, makes the playoffs 3 times easily instead of Rube Goldberg lucky crap. . I dunno-may watching Sanchez fumble before half in the AFCF title game in Pittsburgh was a great memory for you, or his failure to simply drive the field once or twice vs. the Jints Christmas Eve 2011.

 

In bold-you do NOTHING to tell us what the offenses and specials of those teams were. You give us 2, don't mention you have to get something else(offense, specials) to get to 4, and then give us 4. Which basically renders your main point meaningless. Again, can you picture a great defense carrying a crappy offense that cannot score? I can't. No seniible person can. But if you want to pretend this team is headed for sunshine, lollipops and the playoffs based on a  "great defense" , knock yourself out-with dissappointment.

[#27TheDominator]

Why do the offenses and specials matter so much?  He is dealing teams over 20 years.  Are the Jets the only team in 20 years with a bad offense?  The guys thread is no pure indication of anything.  It's percentages. I think all this eye test baloney is a crock of sh*t.  The more valid answer is what constitutes a top 10 D?  Yards or points?  Advanced stats (probably what Gato posted)?  Yes the offense and specials have something to do with the D, but over 20 years there are other teams in the same or similar situations and the offense and specials influenced every single team's D over all those years.  

[Bugg]

Why do the offenses and specials matter so much?  He is dealing teams over 20 years.  Are the Jets the only team in 20 years with a bad offense?  The guys thread is no pure indication of anything.  It's percentages. I think all this eye test baloney is a crock of sh*t.  The more valid answer is what constitutes a top 10 D?  Yards or points?  Advanced stats (probably what Gato posted)?  Yes the offense and specials have something to do with the D, but over 20 years there are other teams in the same or similar situations and the offense and specials influenced every single team's D over all those years.  

Other teams in the same or similar situations...where is that anywhere in this thread opening? He has the ONLY variable being top 10 defense. I'm not discounting defense, but pointing out it's one variable in the equation. His equation makes it the only variable tied to success or failure. 

[Gastineau Lives]

Other teams in the same or similar situations...where is that anywhere in this thread opening? He has the ONLY variable being top 10 defense. I'm not discounting defense, but pointing out it's one variable in the equation. His equation makes it the only variable tied to success or failure. 

Wasn't my intention. I guess I should have added "(possibly)" to the end of the thread title.

[#27TheDominator]

Other teams in the same or similar situations...where is that anywhere in this thread opening? He has the ONLY variable being top 10 defense. I'm not discounting defense, but pointing out it's one variable in the equation. His equation makes it the only variable tied to success or failure. 

 

Because he is comparing teams with top 10 defenses.  It is silly to act like our defense rated highly because our offense was so bad, but every other team with a bad offense over 20 years didn't take advantage.  Somehow that proves that our D wasn't that good. I'm not arguing that it proves anything in particular, but with such a large sample it's hard to argue that it was the offenses fault. 

[Larz]

so hard to judge a defense with bad offense that turns it over a ton.  they defend short fields, so they don't give up a lot of yards but may give up more points than defenses with a low turnover offense

 

I've always like TD % in red zone and total first downs allowed and or 3 and outs

[Lupz27]

so hard to judge a defense with bad offense that turns it over a ton.  they defend short fields, so they don't give up a lot of yards but may give up more points than defenses with a low turnover offense

 

I've always like TD % in red zone and total first downs allowed and or 3 and outs

I like team wins! Rex got it right once, that was 2010, he threw away his ego maniac defensive bravado (Verbally), and said there was only 1 stat he wanted to lead the league in WINS!!! Didn't happen, but they did win 11 games, probably had the most satisfying victory in the last 30+ years (followed by the worst lost in the last 12 years), hope Rex gets back to the lets FUKING WIN who cares how, just have more points then the other team when the clock hits zero!

[Sperm Edwards]

Why are people taking the tone as though they're angry at Gastineau Lives for making this thread?

 

Seems to me all he did was compile data that says, in recent history, that teams that ended with a certain league-wide ranking or better were likely (by ___%) to have made the playoffs or finish the season with having more wins than losses.  

 

There is a correlation.  Team by team, there isn't necessarily causation as to how many games they won, due to the defensive yardage surrendered, because we don't know what the offenses were on those teams.

 

But I missed the part in the original post where he said if we have a top-10 defense in terms of overall yardage, then we will therefore have a 70% or whatever chance of making the playoffs in 2013.

 

Those finding fault dismiss a couple of things:

 

1) The significant starter-turnover from last year to this year.  Just because our "top 10" defense wasn't that good last year does not mean that it will be the same at best this year.  Yet he is left somehow defending this weak argument.

 

2) Dom brought it up, but it instantly occurred to me anyway, the Jets were not the only team to allegedly finish with a good defensive ranking in this way because teams didn't try to rack up yards or points on us.  It is brought up as though the Jets were unique in this way, even though it may not be uncommon at all.

 

 

What would have helped quell the angry people would be if there was some correlation between top-10 (yardage) defenses that were on teams with bottom-10 (yardage or scoring) offenses.  But it takes a long time to look this stuff up just for a single post and hardly think he owes it to anyone to do more work.  Maybe those giving him a hard time could look this up.  Doubt that will happen, though.

[Scott Dierking]

Why are people taking the tone as though they're angry at Gastineau Lives for making this thread?

 

Seems to me all he did was compile data that says, in recent history, that teams that ended with a certain league-wide ranking or better were likely (by ___%) to have made the playoffs or finish the season with having more wins than losses.  

 

There is a correlation.  Team by team, there isn't necessarily causation as to how many games they won, due to the defensive yardage surrendered, because we don't know what the offenses were on those teams.

 

But I missed the part in the original post where he said if we have a top-10 defense in terms of overall yardage, then we will therefore have a 70% or whatever chance of making the playoffs in 2013.

 

Those finding fault dismiss a couple of things:

 

1) The significant starter-turnover from last year to this year.  Just because our "top 10" defense wasn't that good last year does not mean that it will be the same at best this year.  Yet he is left somehow defending this weak argument.

 

2) Dom brought it up, but it instantly occurred to me anyway, the Jets were not the only team to allegedly finish with a good defensive ranking in this way because teams didn't try to rack up yards or points on us.  It is brought up as though the Jets were unique in this way, even though it may not be uncommon at all.

 

 

What would have helped quell the angry people would be if there was some correlation between top-10 (yardage) defenses that were on teams with bottom-10 (yardage or scoring) offenses.  But it takes a long time to look this stuff up just for a single post and hardly think he owes it to anyone to do more work.  Maybe those giving him a hard time could look this up.  Doubt that will happen, though.

The reasoning falls along the lines of the oft quoted stat -Teams that rush over 100 yards win xx amount of games (I forget what the number is-but it used to be high).

 

It is faulty causation attributed incorrectly

[Sperm Edwards]

The reasoning falls along the lines of the oft quoted stat -Teams that rush over 100 yards win xx amount of games (I forget what the number is-but it used to be high).

 

It is faulty causation attributed incorrectly

 

You were mean to him.

[Gastineau Lives]

Jets are currently #8 and in first for the wildcard. Just sayin.

[Maxman]

Jets are currently #8 and in first for the wildcard. Just sayin.

this is an awesome thread.

[Scott Dierking]

Jets are currently #8 and in first for the wildcard. Just sayin.

Houston Texans are number 1. Just sayin.

[The Crusher]

Houston Texans are number 1. Just sayin.

 

 

We have 8 new starters on defense.  Give it another year. 

[The Crusher]

This team smells a lot like 5-11. Defense be damned.

 

 

That's not the team that's me.  Sorry beans and bacon this morning.

[Gastineau Lives]

Houston Texans are number 1. Just sayin.

 

The number in my original post was 60% make the playoffs. Of the top ten this year, 6 of them are playoff teams right now with two others one game out. Just sayin.

[Scott Dierking]

The number in my original post was 60% make the playoffs. Of the top ten this year, 6 of them are playoff teams right now with two others one game out. Just sayin.

If you want to play that game, there are 4 teams in that top 10, that are possibly one game from being removed from the playoff hunt. Too early to start playing these games. just sayin'.

[Gastineau Lives]

If you want to play that game, there are 4 teams in that top 10, that are possibly one game from being removed from the playoff hunt. Too early to start playing these games. just sayin'.

 

Meh, just mehing.

[Jetsfan80]

If you want to play that game, there are 4 teams in that top 10, that are possibly one game from being removed from the playoff hunt. Too early to start playing these games. just sayin'.

We still going 5-11?

[#27TheDominator]

We still going 5-11?

That just might be the post we are all referring to when we jump on Shane about his projection for the team at the start of the year.  They do share an agenda, don't they.  Of course they are going to be better than 5-11, this offense has been a revelation!

[neckdemon]

you should do this for top passing offenses. i'd imagine top 5 passing offenses are like 90% to be in the playoffs in the last 10 years

[#27TheDominator]

you should do this for top passing offenses. i'd imagine top 5 passing offenses are like 90% to be in the playoffs in the last 10 years

 

I think the top 3 passing offenses last year were New Orleans, Detroit and Dallas.

[neckdemon]

I think the top 3 passing offenses last year were New Orleans, Detroit and Dallas.

 

 

in the past 5 years top 5 in total offense and top 5 in passing offense both made the playoffs at a 65% clip

[Gastineau Lives]

in the past 5 years top 5 in total offense and top 5 in passing offense both made the playoffs at a 65% clip

 

Just about the same as top ten in defense.