PDA

View Full Version : Amazing Stats for "Awesome Passing Game = Terrible Defensive Stats" Theory



redjersies
02-03-2012, 04:38 PM
The theory that I was trying to find information on concerns the idea that if a team has anexcellent passing attack, this will lead to more total plays. More total plays will lead to more total yards for the offense, and more total yards against the defense. Thus, a good passing attackoften results in a high offensive ranking and a low defensive ranking (especially for the defensive secondary). I mainly observed this through intuition, bywatching good offensive teams over the years and noticing how they often had low-ranked defenses. However, I decided to look up some stats ina search for evidence which might help confirm my views on this.</P>


(Note: All these statisticss come from the website www.teamrankings.com (http://www.teamrankings.com))</P>


PASSING OFFENSE (Passing Yards Per Game) (2011)</P>


#1 New Orleans---346.7</P>


#2 New England---315.8</P>


#3 Detroit---305.5</P>


#4 Green Bay---303.8</P>


#5 New York Giants---294.5</P>


#6 San Diego---276.6</P>


-----------------------------------------------</P>


PASSING OFFENSE (Pass Attempts Per Game) (2011)</P>


#1 New Orleans---42.7</P>


#2 Detroit---41.7</P>


#3 New England---37.9</P>


#4 NY Giants --- 37.5</P>


#5 Atlanta---37.3</P>


-------------------------</P>


PLAYS PER GAME (2011)</P>


#1 New Orleans---71.0</P>


#2 New England---67.4</P>


#3 Atlanta--- 66.8</P>


#4 San Diego---65.5</P>


#5 New York Giants---65.4</P>


#6 Detroit---65.4</P>


-----------------------------</P>


PASSING DEFENSE (NFL Team Opponent Pass Attempts Per Game) (2011)</P>


#32 New Orleans---39.5</P>


#31 Green Bay---39.5</P>


#30Chicago---39.4</P>


#29 San Francisco---38.9</P>


#28 Detroit---38.0</P>


#27 New England----37.8</P>


(The Giants were #25)</P>


----------------------------------------</P>


PASSING DEFENSE (Opponent Passing Yards Per Game) (2011)</P>


#32 Green Bay---301.2</P>


#31 New England----282.9</P>


#30 New Orleans----266.7</P>


#29 Chicago---254.1</P>


#28 Detroit---252.4</P>


(New York Giants were #23)</P>


-------------------------------------------</P>


TOTAL DEFENSE (Yards Allowed Per Game) (2011)</P>


#32 Green Bay----412.1</P>


#31New England----401.5</P>


#30 Tampa Bay----394.4</P>


#29Oakland---387.6</P>


#28 Detroit---382.8</P>


(New Orleans was #26, and New York Giants were #22)</P>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------</P>


To sum it all up, I think there is indeed some significant evidence that an excellent passing game leads to more total plays, to better offensive stats, but to worse defensive stats. Thus, we must not underestimate New England's defense due to a low statistical ranking. Also, we have even more reason to be proud of our own New York Football Giants defense!</P>


</P>


</P>


</P>

redjersies
02-03-2012, 06:45 PM
I did too much work on this for somebody not to reply...lol. Anyway, I was hoping, by some miraculous chance, that maybe some of the New York Giants football players would read this and that it would help them ever so slightly in there preparation...or maybe some trainer would read it, then mention it to an assistant coach--who, of course, would mention it to a player or an important coach. Anyway, I am doing everything I can think of to help our team!

Axels15
02-03-2012, 06:53 PM
I appreciate the work you put into that, but it seemed pretty obvious without looking up all the stats.

That said, the Giants are still putting up great passing numbers this post season, but the defense has also been playing very well.

So the correlation is not necessarily perfect

giantsfan420
02-03-2012, 07:01 PM
excellent post redjersies.

u actually gave us a lil insight into defensive meetings and fewells head imho.

you were able to figure this out by being a great fan...imagine paid football professionals who work on stats, tendencies, and trends and what they figure out.

very well done thought out post. i still maintain that my response in ur original thread tho has to be factored into this, in some way at least. meaning, these coaches gameplan against these offenses, and i have to assume that when fewells gameplanning for NO, GB, NE...part of his thinking and maybe its coughlins job, is to make sure we can maintain balance as to not let it just become a blatant, no defense shootout.

but great post again, well done sire.

redjersies
02-04-2012, 04:13 PM
excellent post redjersies. u actually gave us a lil insight into defensive meetings and fewells head imho. you were able to figure this out by being a great fan...imagine paid football professionals who work on stats, tendencies, and trends and what they figure out. very well done thought out post. i still maintain that my response in ur original thread tho has to be factored into this, in some way at least. meaning, these coaches gameplan against these offenses, and i have to assume that when fewells gameplanning for NO, GB, NE...part of his thinking and maybe its coughlins job, is to make sure we can maintain balance as to not let it just become a blatant, no defense shootout. but great post again, well done sire.</P>


Thanks! I imagine you are right concerning the fact that pro coaches--who spend all year on such things--have tons more of such things figured out by analyzing the stats. Plus, you are probably correct, the coaches are probably already gameplanning--to an extraordinary depth--concerning these things. </P>


It just seems like all year, a good many of the game broadcasters and analysts (on TV or internet) have been saying how terrible New England's defense is, how terrible Green Bay's secondary was, how sorry the Saints defense was, how much the Giants had struggled defensively, etc. I just was hoping that some would see that there is a correlation between having an awesome offensive passing game and terrible defensive stats (on paper). I just didn't want us to underestimate them, because I imagine they are actually a very good defense which is disguised by having a low defensive ranking. </P>


Anyway, hopefully some people learned a possible explanation that isn't mentioned much when people analyze defensive stats. I know I learn alot on these boards by reading other people's posts. Often people bring up things that I had never thought about, which makes it interesting.</P>