The pats keep Fin the Fins!

"Deus ex dolphin wrote:

I'm so tired of the 'Brady comes full circle by beating the Rams to end his career 'story line already. I'm not even going to watch the game live this year. I've got lots of entertainment options and football keeps ticking down the list when I have to put up with hearing about the Pats again for the next two weeks.

Also, seeing the Saints get robbed on a blatant DOUBLE penalty (PI and helmet to helmet) just kills my desire to watch the games.

Yeah I skipped the Eagles game last year. Glad the Patriots lost but I am not sad I missed it. I won't bother with this one either. I'm just fucking over it. I have absolutely 0 desire to watch Brady and the Patriots win or lose.

"resnor wrote:

Yeah, but the only justification for that that I could find was that it looked like he might have grazed his facemask.

I get that those calls are subjective, but grazing the facemask is not roughing the passer.

Here is the rule concerning hitting the QB in the helmet/facemask as written by the NFL:

"In covering the passer position, Referees will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders impermissibly use the helmet and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of the body to hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck area (see also the other unnecessary roughness rules covering these subjects)."

He did not forcibly hit Brady. In fact, after reading the actual rule (I'll supply the link) I think the refs call that penalty incorrectly 90% of the time.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2018-nfl-rulebook/#article-9.-roughing-the-passer

"The_Dark_Knight wrote:

The officials made bad calls on both games. Nothing new, it happens all of the time. I just wish teams could challenge penalties and not just plays.

Based on Sean Payton being a member of the competition committee, it's likely going to happen.

That said, I've come around a bit on replay. I get the intent, but it just drags sometimes. I'm definitely not on the "abolish it" train that I see some folks doing, but some kind of modification to speed things up is greatly needed imo. Like, put a firm 10 second timer on it, or you get to look at the replay from each angle ONE time, or you just get one look altogether.

Essentially, something to let you fix the blatantly obvious misses while leaving the rest as is.

"danmarino wrote:

No more than likely about it. The Saints would have been able to run the clock down to 4 seconds and then kicked a FG. That call, 100% cost the Saints the game.

No doubt. I don't care what they are saying this morning on the NFL channel. Usually one play won't cost a team the game, but clearly anybody who is not biased or told to say that it doesn't can see that it did.

This is one of those, " Wanna get away" moments for that ref on the sideline. Payton was incredulous.

"resnor wrote:

Didn't they say that he got his facemask?

No, Steratore said it was clearly a bad call and there was no foul.

"texanphinatic wrote:

Yeah I skipped the Eagles game last year. Glad the Patriots lost but I am not sad I missed it. I won't bother with this one either. I'm just ****ing over it. I have absolutely 0 desire to watch Brady and the Patriots win or lose.

I feel ya. I don't see the Rams beating the Pats.

The only saving grace is that Brady isn't Brady anymore. He played badly yesterday, but the Chiefs were not able to stop the run. If the Rams can stop the run I think they have a chance. The Rams rushing defense, however, is putrid. 23rd in total yards allowed and dead last in ypc allowed. They give up 5.1 yards per carry. If the Rams can't stop the run, and the Pats control the clock like they did against KC, Pats will win yet another SB.

I think what we are witnessing, once again, is that defense wins championships. The Rams have the 20th ranked and the Pats have the 7th ranked. The Pat's defense looked lost earlier on in the season and the Pats looked bad. However, once the Pats defense started playing well the Pats started to win and went on a roll. Pretty typical for the Pats since 2001. Yet Brady gets all the glory.

Maybe the Rams defense can pull a Giants and play at a high level. Hopefully ......

"texanphinatic wrote:

Based on Sean Payton being a member of the competition committee, it's likely going to happen.

That said, I've come around a bit on replay. I get the intent, but it just drags sometimes. I'm definitely not on the "abolish it" train that I see some folks doing, but some kind of modification to speed things up is greatly needed imo. Like, put a firm 10 second timer on it, or you get to look at the replay from each angle ONE time, or you just get one look altogether.

Essentially, something to let you fix the blatantly obvious misses while leaving the rest as is.

The problem, IMO, with replay is it has allowed the refs to be less attentive. It seems they are relying more and more on replay. Which sucks for us fans because it's boring waiting for them to review the call. When a call gets overturned they should fine the ref. Maybe that would help make the refs more attentive.

I'm a fan of replay because it SHOULD save teams from getting robbed by a bad call. That's why I am for being able to challenge most penalties. With that option the Saints win yesterday. With that option, the Pats drive ends with no points because they reverse the roughing the passer penalty call against Brady.

"danmarino wrote:

I feel ya. I don't see the Rams beating the Pats.

The only saving grace is that Brady isn't Brady anymore. He played badly yesterday, but the Chiefs were not able to stop the run. If the Rams can stop the run I think they have a chance. The Rams rushing defense, however, is putrid. 23rd in total yards allowed and dead last in ypc allowed. They give up 5.1 yards per carry. If the Rams can't stop the run, and the Pats control the clock like they did against KC, Pats will win yet another SB.

I think what we are witnessing, once again, is that defense wins championships. The Rams have the 20th ranked and the Pats have the 7th ranked. The Pat's defense looked lost earlier on in the season and the Pats looked bad. However, once the Pats defense started playing well the Pats started to win and went on a roll. Pretty typical for the Pats since 2001. Yet Brady gets all the glory.

Maybe the Rams defense can pull a Giants and play at a high level. Hopefully ......

Man absolutely. Last night watching that game, I thought to myself the exact same thing. I am not a Flores guy, but I am glad we have a defensive coach, and hopefully continue to pour resources into building a great defense.

"danmarino wrote:

I feel ya. I don't see the Rams beating the Pats.

The only saving grace is that Brady isn't Brady anymore. He played badly yesterday, but the Chiefs were not able to stop the run. If the Rams can stop the run I think they have a chance. The Rams rushing defense, however, is putrid. 23rd in total yards allowed and dead last in ypc allowed. They give up 5.1 yards per carry. If the Rams can't stop the run, and the Pats control the clock like they did against KC, Pats will win yet another SB.

I think what we are witnessing, once again, is that defense wins championships. The Rams have the 20th ranked and the Pats have the 7th ranked. The Pat's defense looked lost earlier on in the season and the Pats looked bad. However, once the Pats defense started playing well the Pats started to win and went on a roll. Pretty typical for the Pats since 2001. Yet Brady gets all the glory.

Maybe the Rams defense can pull a Giants and play at a high level. Hopefully ......

Since all QBs, including Brady, hate inside pressure, it will be interesting to see if Donald and Suh can get pressure up the middle. If they can't, then I will have major respect for the pats OL. If they can, then this will be a good test for the pats defense and our new HC. If they are able to mitigate the rams offense and keep the pats in the game then it could be a good one. If the pats do win. I wonder if Belichick and Brady will hang em up and go out on top.

"Surfs Up 99 wrote:

Since all QBs, including Brady, hate inside pressure, it will be interesting to see if Donald and Suh can get pressure up the middle. If they can't, then I will have major respect for the pats OL. If they can, then this will be a good test for the pats defense and our new HC. If they are able to mitigate the rams offense and keep the pats in the game then it could be a good one. If the pats do win. I wonder if Belichick and Brady will hang em up and go out on top.

lets...f'n..hope.

If it took another SB Win for them to both ride off into the sunset, I say let them have it! Ill personally don a pats jersey and rooting my ass off for them if that was guaranteed.

"Surfs Up 99 wrote:

Since all QBs, including Brady, hate inside pressure, it will be interesting to see if Donald and Suh can get pressure up the middle. If they can't, then I will have major respect for the pats OL. If they can, then this will be a good test for the pats defense and our new HC. If they are able to mitigate the rams offense and keep the pats in the game then it could be a good one. If the pats do win. I wonder if Belichick and Brady will hang em up and go out on top.

I feel like Brady will retire regardless after this Super Bowl. I do not think BB will go anywhere win or lose.

My reasoning is, it's been pretty obvious that BB has been wanting to bring in some new blood. I think BB and Brady are being professionals, but I think there is a chasm between the two philosophically. Brady wants to play until the wheels fall off and BB wants to get value for a player before that happens. That's why he wanted to trade Gronk last year. Gronk probably would have netted them at least a 2nd rounder from some team. Now Gronk will retire at seasons end and the Pats will get nothing. Same with Brady. I think Gieselle (or whatever her name is) wears the pants in the Brady household. We know she wants him to retire. I think this season showed that Brady isn't the same anymore. He played horribly last night. (77 passer rating with a 3rd INT being saved by an offsides penalty) Brady is very average this year. In fact, he's playing like pre-2007 Brady.

If Brady retires and BB stays, the Pats will not miss a beat. The ONLY way to make sure the Pats don't win while BB (and Adams) are there is to beat them.

"KeyFin wrote:

No, Steratore said it was clearly a bad call and there was no foul.

Oh I agree it was a terrible call.

"danmarino wrote:

I feel like Brady will retire regardless after this Super Bowl. I do not think BB will go anywhere win or lose.

My reasoning is, it's been pretty obvious that BB has been wanting to bring in some new blood. I think BB and Brady are being professionals, but I think there is a chasm between the two philosophically. Brady wants to play until the wheels fall off and BB wants to get value for a player before that happens. That's why he wanted to trade Gronk last year. Gronk probably would have netted them at least a 2nd rounder from some team. Now Gronk will retire at seasons end and the Pats will get nothing. Same with Brady. I think Gieselle (or whatever her name is) wears the pants in the Brady household. We know she wants him to retire. I think this season showed that Brady isn't the same anymore. He played horribly last night. (77 passer rating with a 3rd INT being saved by an offsides penalty) Brady is very average this year. In fact, he's playing like pre-2007 Brady.

If Brady retires and BB stays, the Pats will not miss a beat. The ONLY way to make sure the Pats don't win while BB (and Adams) are there is to beat them.

I am trying to remember, but I think the Dolphins have had reasonable success, regardless of our HC, against the Patriots at home, right? Confidence is a funny thing. When we play them here, we are confident and focused. However, when we play there, the wheels come off. We need to figure out a way to bottle that energy, focus, etc. that we use to beat them at home and play with that every week regardless of the opponent. Then we will have something. :D

"danmarino wrote:

I think what we are witnessing, once again, is that defense wins championships.

Yeah I have to always correct people when they say this. It's just not true statistically. The z-score for the winning offense in all playoff games (so points scored IN the game) is 0.7294 while for defense it's 0.5464. In the SB the discrepancy is even higher: 0.9389 for offense to 0.4072 for defense, meaning that if you look at all SB's in history you'll see the winner score WAY more points on average than what was the norm for a winning team in the regular season (average ppg in entire SB era is 20.8):
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/super-bowl/

And you can see the same trend this year. Look at the two teams in the SB. NE scored 41 and 37 points in their 2 playoff games so far while the Rams scored 30 and 26 points, all above the league average of 23.34 ppg this year. And on defense they gave up 22, 28, 23 and 31 points, two of which are way worse than league average. So the average ppg on offense for the two SB teams in the playoffs this year is 33.5 while average points allowed per game is 26. So the offenses are WAY above league average (standard deviation is 4.76 so that's 2.13 standard deviations above the mean) while the defenses are slightly BELOW league average (-0.56 below the mean).

So again.. while on average you need both an above average offense and an above average defense to win in the playoffs and in the SB, offense is clearly more important (on average).

The Rams have the defensive line to beat the Patriots... between Donald and Suh, thats a combo similar to what Brady faced before with Strahan and Osi Omenyura

"cbrad wrote:

Yeah I have to always correct people when they say this. It's just not true statistically. The z-score for the winning offense in all playoff games (so points scored IN the game) is 0.7294 while for defense it's 0.5464. In the SB the discrepancy is even higher: 0.9389 for offense to 0.4072 for defense, meaning that if you look at all SB's in history you'll see the winner score WAY more points on average than what was the norm for a winning team in the regular season (average ppg in entire SB era is 20.8):
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/super-bowl/

And you can see the same trend this year. Look at the two teams in the SB. NE scored 41 and 37 points in their 2 playoff games so far while the Rams scored 30 and 26 points, all above the league average of 23.34 ppg this year. And on defense they gave up 22, 28, 23 and 31 points, two of which are way worse than league average. So the average ppg on offense for the two SB teams in the playoffs this year is 33.5 while average points allowed per game is 26. So the offenses are WAY above league average (standard deviation is 4.76 so that's 2.13 standard deviations above the mean) while the defenses are slightly BELOW league average (-0.56 below the mean).

So again.. while on average you need both an above average offense and an above average defense to win in the playoffs and in the SB, offense is clearly more important (on average).

This feels, very "chicken or the egg" to me. A team's offense doesn't perform in a vacuum. They have to face a defense. There are factors on offense that will dictate how good that offense is, but there are factors on that defense that will also dictate how that offense runs and vice versa.

I can just as easily and accurately take your data and say the team whose defense performed worse allowed the other teams offense to score more.

(FTR, i don't subscribe to either philosophy of offense or defense winning championships.)

"Nappy Roots wrote:

lets...f'n..hope.

If it took another SB Win for them to both ride off into the sunset, I say let them have it! Ill personally don a pats jersey and rooting my *** off for them if that was guaranteed.

I still would and could not root for new england.

"Fin D wrote:

This feels, very "chicken or the egg" to me. A team's offense doesn't perform in a vacuum. They have to face a defense. There are factors on offense that will dictate how good that offense is, but there are factors on that defense that will also dictate how that offense runs and vice versa.

I can just as easily and accurately take your data and say the team whose defense performed worse allowed the other teams offense to score more.

(FTR, i don't subscribe to either philosophy of offense or defense winning championships.)

No question there's an inter-dependency between offensive performance and defensive performance. Whatever any and all those inter-dependencies are, there's an average ability of offenses to score and an average ability of defenses to prevent scoring, both in the regular season and in the playoffs. The question is therefore whether, given any latent (no direct ability to measure) ability of offenses and defenses, does the ability to score (or prevent scoring) in the playoffs increase or decrease relative to the regular season?

That's what those z-scores are measuring. It just turns out that offenses of the winning team become relatively speaking more potent in the playoffs and in the SB than defenses. Why is another story. I don't know, and that's where it would be interesting to see how the inter-dependencies change. But it's still statistically speaking true that ability to score and ability to prevent scoring increase in the playoffs and the SB for the winning team, but that the ability to score increases more.

And note that you can't really argue for the SB where the discrepancy is largest that somehow the teams are more unmatched in strength than in regular season games. If anything they're more matched in strength (by measures in the regular season) than a randomly picked regular season game, yet you see the result.

"cbrad wrote:

No question there's an inter-dependency between offensive performance and defensive performance. Whatever any and all those inter-dependencies are, there's an average ability of offenses to score and an average ability of defenses to prevent scoring, both in the regular season and in the playoffs. The question is therefore whether, given any latent (no direct ability to measure) ability of offenses and defenses, does the ability to score (or prevent scoring) in the playoffs increase or decrease relative to the regular season?

That's what those z-scores are measuring. It just turns out that offenses of the winning team become relatively speaking more potent in the playoffs and in the SB than defenses. Why is another story. I don't know, and that's where it would be interesting to see how the inter-dependencies change. But it's still statistically speaking true that ability to score and ability to prevent scoring increase in the playoffs and the SB for the winning team, but that the ability to score increases more.

And note that you can't really argue for the SB where the discrepancy is largest that somehow the teams are unmatched in strength. They tend to be more matched in strength than for any other single game and yet you see the result.

But see, when someone says defense (or offense) wins championships, they aren't saying the bold.

They are saying the team with the better defense will win. Or to put it another way, the team whose defense is better at stopping the other team's offense will win. They say that, because most understand, by the nature of the game, the offense always has the advantage, for one simple reason.....they aren't the reactive unit. The better a defense can control a given offense, the more likely they are to win. The teams with defenses that can do that, tends to be in playoffs.

Also, you shouldn't get caught up in comparing strengths, as the statically better unit may actually have a particular weakness that the other team's unit can exploit even though that unit may be overall worse.

Every play should be reviewable. So sick of the stupid only this or that you get three challenges per game let them be used for anything they think was unfair!!!

"Fin D wrote:

But see, when someone says defense (or offense) wins championships, they aren't saying the bold.

They are saying the team with the better defense will win. Or to put it another way, the team whose defense is better at stopping the other team's offense will win. They say that, because most understand, by the nature of the game, the offense always has the advantage, for one simple reason.....they aren't the reactive unit. The better a defense can control a given offense, the more likely they are to win. The teams with defenses that can do that, tends to be in playoffs.

No, in a whole bunch of debates on this issue I was responding to people who were explicitly saying the most important measure of offense (or defense) is points scored/allowed. In other words they already put themselves into a position where their preferred measure of offensive ability or defensive ability was precisely what I used. All I did was show the statistics.

"cbrad wrote:

No, in a whole bunch of debates on this issue I was responding to people who were explicitly saying the most important measure of offense (or defense) is points scored/allowed. In other words they already put themselves into a position where their preferred measure of offensive ability or defensive ability was precisely what I used. All I did was show the statistics.

WADR, I don't see what in this post is refuting what I said. Maybe I'm not following or something.

"Fin D wrote:

WADR, I don't see what in this post is refuting what I said. Maybe I'm not following or something.

OK let's try to clarify. What you said.. which is maybe the way you're understanding it, is actually not testable because it requires the ability to measure offensive or defensive performance independent of any and all inter-dependencies between the two. As evidence of that, note that you could equally argue whichever unit was better at stopping the other was "more important". Well.. you can't test that directly.

So if that kind of argument was being made I would have just pointed out it's not testable.

But that's not the origin of these arguments about "defense wins championships". First, over time (years really) it's been beaten out (lol) of posters that one should use points scored/allowed and not yards gained/lost as the preferred measure of how good an offense or defense is. Then I pointed out both in Club and here that in the regular season the best fitting plane between the z-scores of offensive points scored and allowed to win% shows that offense is about 5% more important in the regular season for winning (increasing points scored by one point increases win% about 5% more than decreasing points allowed by one point).

It's after that that the claim was "offense helps win in the regular season, but defense wins championships" or something like that. In other words, in these debates the measure used was not in question. The question was what happens IN the playoffs, not how playoff teams for example did in the regular season. And I didn't have those stats for a long time because that requires game records, not just season records. Once I got that data however, I showed "defense wins championships" is a myth, given of course the assumption the preferred measure is points scored/allowed. At least in Club, after those posts the issue hasn't resurfaced. Here it has a few times.

Context is more clear now?

"cbrad wrote:

No, in a whole bunch of debates on this issue I was responding to people who were explicitly saying the most important measure of offense (or defense) is points scored/allowed. In other words they already put themselves into a position where their preferred measure of offensive ability or defensive ability was precisely what I used. All I did was show the statistics.

I still think that when measuring the effectiveness of a defense or offense the best method is points for/points against.

Awhile back I did a comparison of each team in the (at the time) 7 Super Bowls that the Pats had been in since 2001.

I showed that the Pats offenses (I think) in all but 1 Super Bowl underperformed in regards to their average season ppg. I also showed that their defenses overwhelmingly held the opponent to the same or less than their average points allowed for the season. Basically, the Pats offenses wasn't nearly as effective in their Super Bowls, but their defenses were the same or better.

Because of this I feel that defense is more important. Now, I didn't go through every Super Bowl so maybe it's just the Pats that have this disparity, but I would assume I'd find the same types of thing in most SB's.

"danmarino wrote:

I still think that when measuring the effectiveness of a defense or offense the best method is points for/points against.

Awhile back I did a comparison of each team in the (at the time) 7 Super Bowls that the Pats had been in since 2001.

I showed that the Pats offenses (I think) in all but 1 Super Bowl underperformed in regards to their average season ppg. I also showed that their defenses overwhelmingly held the opponent to the same or less than their average points allowed for the season. Basically, the Pats offenses wasn't nearly as effective in their Super Bowls, but their defenses were the same or better.

Because of this I feel that defense is more important. Now, I didn't go through every Super Bowl so maybe it's just the Pats that have this disparity, but I would assume I'd find the same types of thing in most SB's.

Yeah, so if there's no issue with the measure used, then you just need to look at all SB winners, and all playoff game winners:

Those don't include this year's playoffs yet, but you can see that on average offense is more important than defense in winning a playoff game, and especially in winning the SB.