20 Dec 12
Originally posted by tomtom232Yards alone does NOT definitively rank defenses on its own.
Are you serious? An elite offense goes a long way to keep the other team from scoring. When you put up so many points you take the other team out of their game plan and make them play one dimensional on defense. If you give Buffalo Tom Brady and co their defensive numbers would likely be way better than the Patriots.
Yards counts the most, obviously since that's how they rank defenses LMAO! And you try to say you are not biased towards CK?
There are defenses who become much stronger in the redzone. There are defenses who allow yards but are also good at forcing turnovers. In both of those cases they will allow yards but also prevent teams from scoring.
Also, all of this is moot anyway. Why? Because the 49ers ALSO had to contend with the Patriots offense. "But... but... the 49ers have a great defense!" Yes, and Alex Smith also had a great defense against the Bills.
The Patriots TEAM is #17 in points allowed.
The Bills TEAM is dead LAST in points allowed.
Putting up 41 offensive points against the Patriots is much more impressive.
20 Dec 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNot really. But whatever floats your boat.
Yards alone does NOT definitively rank defenses on its own.
There are defenses who become much stronger in the redzone. There are defenses who allow yards but are also good at forcing turnovers. In both of those cases they will allow yards but also prevent teams from scoring.
Also, all of this is moot anyway. Why? Because the 49ers ALSO had ...[text shortened]... ints allowed.
Putting up 41 offensive points against the Patriots is much more impressive.
20 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll go with the upset in this one. The Vikings are fighting for a playoff spot while the Texans, they want the #1 seed but are far from fight fighting for their playoff lives. Plus AP is on another level this year.
Tomo will you make a call, who will win, the Vikings or the Texans?
27- 24 Vikings.
20 Dec 12
Originally posted by tomtom232That's not really a rebuttal.
Not really. But whatever floats your boat.
You can't really argue with the fact that teams that allow the fewest points are the teams who are hardest to score against. Yes, the offense can help the defense and visa versa, but the teams who allow the fewest points are the teams that are hardest to score against.
The Bills allow more points than anyone.
20 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232yeah! i watched some AP videos, he would be a good rugby player, power and pace, cant touch it.
I'll go with the upset in this one. The Vikings are fighting for a playoff spot while the Texans, they want the #1 seed but are far from fight fighting for their playoff lives. Plus AP is on another level this year.
27- 24 Vikings.
20 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe Bills defense spends more time on the field. Its easy to see what happens to the patriots defense when the offense loses the ball as it isn't the first time the defense has been exposed. Think about that... The bills defense spends way more time on the field and still gives up less yds than Pats. The Pats get picks but that's because other teams are usually forced to air it out but when they play a good team that can run the ball and give up the lead then their defense gets exposed.
That's not really a rebuttal.
You can't really argue with the fact that teams that allow the fewest points are the teams who are hardest to score against. Yes, the offense can help the defense and visa versa, but the teams who allow the fewest points are the teams that are hardest to score against.
The Bills allow more points than anyone.
The 49ers fumbled seven times... Not impressive but lucky the ball bounced their way or they would have been thrashed. The pats fumbled twice and lost both, and their defense was exploited like the crappy defense it is... It wasn't an impressive offensive showing and the efficiency rating would show you as much. It was an impressive defensive performance even with the almost epic comeback because harbaugh took his foot off of the gas too soon which allowed the Pats to finally get in rythym. For some reason Harbaugh thought the game would win itself after being up so much.
You're more of a homer than I am.
20 Dec 12
Originally posted by tomtom232Smoke, mirrors and spin.
The Bills defense spends more time on the field. Its easy to see what happens to the patriots defense when the offense loses the ball as it isn't the first time the defense has been exposed. Think about that... The bills defense spends way more time on the field and still gives up less yds than Pats. The Pats get picks but that's because other teams are us ...[text shortened]... ght the game would win itself after being up so much.
You're more of a homer than I am.
Teams who allow the fewest points are the hardest to score against. True or false?
20 Dec 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNot neccesarily. Definitely not true of the patriots... Its rather easy, if anything in the NFL can be termed such, to score against them but their offense spends a lot of time on the field limiting the tries of the other team. Meaning a team with a good defense that gets turnover and a good efficient running game to keep their offense off the field has the best chance of beating them and when everything goes right for said team they will score many points.
Smoke, mirrors and spin.
Teams who allow the fewest points are the hardest to score against. True or false?
Everybody knows the Pats defense sucks... When their offense turns the ball over twice and gets shut down any team , with even a claim at being average on offense, should put up some points against them. The knack is that very few teams are capable of shutting their offense down and no team can guarantee doing that. Like I said, it was impressive defensively not offensively.
20 Dec 12
Originally posted by tomtom232If it was "rather easy" to score points against the Patriots they wouldn't be only average in points allowed.
Not neccesarily. Definitely not true of the patriots... Its rather easy, if anything in the NFL can be termed such, to score against them but their offense spends a lot of time on the field limiting the tries of the other team. Meaning a team with a good defense that gets turnover and a good efficient running game to keep their offense off the field has th ...[text shortened]... nd no team can guarantee doing that. Like I said, it was impressive defensively not offensively.
There's no getting around that. Whether that's because their defense is average or if it's because their offense helps their defense, they STILL are about average for points allowed.
The Bills; on the other hand, allow more points than any other team. Whatever the reason is for that is irrelevant. It is simply a fact that they allow the most points.
21 Dec 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperGetting a ton of points and scoring easily on offense are two seperate things.
If it was "rather easy" to score points against the Patriots they wouldn't be only average in points allowed.
There's no getting around that. Whether that's because their defense is average or if it's because their offense helps their defense, they STILL are about average for points allowed.
The Bills; on the other hand, allow more points t ...[text shortened]... reason[/i] is for that is irrelevant. It is simply a fact that they allow the most points.
How many pick sixes has brady thrown? How many has fitzpatrick thrown? How many turnovers does each offense committ?
The point is the 49ers OFFENSE wasn't all that impressive... You keep ignoring this to try and credit the offense for everything including what the defense and special teams did. It was impressive but the offense didn't play very much above average and CK played below average fumbling and throwing a pick. I know he won offensive player of the week in the NFC but that's really rediculous, had the Pats recovered even one less than half those fumbles everybody would be crying for Alex Smith to return.
21 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Against the 49ers, Brady threw zero pick-6's. The 41 points was all scored by the offense. Also, Delanie Walker's fumble at the 5 was actually a "fumble." The league announced that was a blown call. That was an easy 7 taken away from the 49ers.
Getting a ton of points and scoring easily on offense are two seperate things.
How many pick sixes has brady thrown? How many has fitzpatrick thrown? How many turnovers does each offense committ?
The point is the 49ers OFFENSE wasn't all that impressive... You keep ignoring this to try and credit the offense for everything including what the defens red even one less than half those fumbles everybody would be crying for Alex Smith to return.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/20/nfl-admits-officials-replay-assistant-screwed-up-on-49ers-fumble/
Also, the 49ers averaged 8.6 yards per passing attempt, and 4.5 yards per carry on the ground. Kaepernick threw 4 deep touchdowns out of only 25 passing attempts.
Also, your claim he got "lucky bounces" from those fumbles is ridiculous. Whether it was the center, him, or both, he got a handful of bad snaps. It's not "luck" that either he or another 49er recovered the bad snap. That's usually what happens, unless you're the Jets.
21 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe NFL apparently went to a system defining a pass over 15 yards past the line of scrimmage as "deep" in 2006. I admit I was unaware of this and am a bit surprised by it. I've never heard a coach or commentator describing a route that breaks off at less than 20 yards (at least) as a "deep pass". But you are are technically correct under the NFL definitions now in force.
LOL!
Yes, NO one considered it deep.
http://wp.advancednflstats.com/playerstats.php?pos=QB
%Deep as defined by advanced NFL stats.com. "% Pass Att > 15 yards"
Throwing the ball beyond 45 feet is a very reasonable threshold for being considered a "deep" pass. The area 15-20 yards, well beyond the first down marker, are where Kaepernick's attempts really outshine Smith.
I do not consider such a change "reasonable".
21 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNow you're just being idiotic. Teams that fumble don't usually recover almost all of their fumbles it tends to be closer to 50/50.
Against the 49ers, Brady threw zero pick-6's. The 41 points was all scored by the offense. Also, Delanie Walker's fumble at the 5 was actually a "fumble." The league announced that was a blown call. That was an easy 7 taken away from the 49ers.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/20/nfl-admits-officials-replay-assistant-screwed-up-on-4 her 49er recovered the bad snap. That's usually what happens, unless you're the Jets.
I didn't say Brady threw any pick sixes, my point is that he doesn't usually throw picks and the offense generally doesn't turn the ball over. When they do the defense is exposed. The 49ers played 49ers offense with a bunch of fumbles thrown in that they managed to recover. Fumble that many times next time they play the Patriots and they will likely get blown off the field. Discounting fumbles because they didn't hurt then discounting what the defense did because you want your QB to be the next Montana is just being biased.
Then saying a team that avgs few pts against means that team is harder to score on without looking at the team as a whole is ridiculous. It can be easy to score, you could score every time you are on offense and take just 5 minutes every time yet, if the other team possesses the ball for 40 minutes you aren't going to score as much as you would against a team that only possesses the ball for 15 minutes even if you only score 60% of the time. Get the picture? So when the team that usually possesses the ball for 40 minutes all of a sudden only keeps it for 15 what do you think is going to happen?
These aren't the real numbers of course and they are extreme but they illustrate the point without factoring in other difficulties for a defense caused by their offense, like turnovers and avg field position.