Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

We're in the top 10 for something...


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Rhys

Rhys

    Not Rhys Lloyd

  • ALL-PRO
  • 926 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 04:27 PM

I was reading an article by Michael Lombardi this afternoon and came across this strange statistic in which we were tied for 9th in the league last season.

rushing attempts + passing completions

I always review how many rushing attempts and pass completions a team amassed after each game. To me, this statistic is symbolic of a team's ability to execute in each aspect of its offense. Here are last year's top performers:

2009 rushes and completions

Patriots, 856
Saints, 846
Vikings, 844
Dolphins, 840
Texans, 824
Jets, 817
Packers, 795
Bengals, 791
Ravens, 789
Panthers, 789

What's interesting about this statistic is that eight of the top 12 went to the playoffs last season. From another perspective, it indicates which teams can operate their offense effectively. There are exceptions. The Eagles are toward the bottom, but are a great quick-strike offense (scores on drives of less than four plays), which is why they led the league in that statistic.

Therefore, this season when reviewing the statistics after each game, do as many in the NFL do and add these two numbers together and see which team wins.


http://www.nfl.com/n...-camps-approach

In all fairness this could simply be attributed to our tireless running game and nothing more, but it is an interesting stat nonetheless and makes you wonder if our offense is more formidable than analysts make it seem. Hmmm...

Edited by Rhys, 12 July 2010 - 04:38 PM.
bolded some important text in the quote


#2 Urrymonster

Urrymonster

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,264 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 05:59 PM

Were they including Delhomme's passes to the opposition as complete?

#3 C47

C47

    89...Panther for Life...

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,196 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:03 PM

Were they including Delhomme's passes to the opposition as complete?


:lol:

#4 Rhys

Rhys

    Not Rhys Lloyd

  • ALL-PRO
  • 926 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:06 PM

Were they including Delhomme's passes to the opposition as complete?


Count those and we're in first place ;)

#5 89bottomline

89bottomline

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:09 PM

since coming into the league in 1995,the panthers are 2nd in defensive take a ways only behind the new england patriots

#6 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,171 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:13 PM

If these stats can stay the same or get a little better and our defense stays consistent, we might just be on the verge of a great year.

#7 Rhys

Rhys

    Not Rhys Lloyd

  • ALL-PRO
  • 926 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:21 PM

since coming into the league in 1995,the panthers are 2nd in defensive take a ways only behind the new england patriots


Since October 2002, on Sundays following a holiday in the early Fall, when the temperature is between 55-67 degrees Fahrenheit 3 and a half hours before kickoff, the Panthers (1 stop) are second behind the Colts (2 stops) for the most defensive stops on third down after 2 consecutive draw plays between the 36-42 yard line of the opposing team. :D

#8 Baschski

Baschski

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,837 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 06:56 PM

If these stats can stay the same or get a little better and our defense stays consistent, we might just be on the verge of a great year.


Retract that statement immediately. Optimism about this season is strictly prohibited here.

#9 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,171 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 07:04 PM

yeah, I was trying to think of something to counter it, but the blood left my brain.

#10 mr beauxjangles

mr beauxjangles

    Large Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,395 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 09:59 PM

if you are trying to measure a team's "ability to execute," don't you think you should, at a minimum, measure rushing attempts for positive yardage, or rushing attempts for say 3.3+ yards (average required to reach a first down when running three downs in a row), rather than just rushing attempts?

according to lombardi's logic, a team that did nothing but run the ball would have the highest "ability to execute" out of any team in the league. seems like amateur hour in the stats dept to me.

#11 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,638 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 12 July 2010 - 10:41 PM

if you are trying to measure a team's "ability to execute," don't you think you should, at a minimum, measure rushing attempts for positive yardage, or rushing attempts for say 3.3+ yards (average required to reach a first down when running three downs in a row), rather than just rushing attempts?

according to lombardi's logic, a team that did nothing but run the ball would have the highest "ability to execute" out of any team in the league. seems like amateur hour in the stats dept to me.


That isn't true at all. What he is measuring is the total number of offensive rushing plays and successful passing plays (completed passes). The top team NE threw much more than they ran. But they were able to sustain drives which is what they were measuring. The top five teams all threw more than they ran. The team that ran the most last year was 6th- the Jets and we were second and came in tenth.

The reason a team that ran all the time wouldn't lead the league is because they would not sustain drives and would have a ton of three and outs.

If you want to measure offensive efficiency there are much easier stats. How about the most first downs per game. Here is the list for the regular season.

New England
New Orleans
Minnesota
Houston Texans
Indianapolis
Dallas Cowboys
Green Bay Packers
Miami Dolphins
Pittsburgh Steelers
Atlanta Falcons
San Diego Chargers
New York Giants.

9 of the 12 were playoff teams.

How about points per game??

Saints
Vikings
Packers
Chargers
Eagles
Patriots
Colts
Giants
Ravens
Texans
Cardinals
Steelers

Regardless of the defense, the highest scoring teams were very likely to make the playoffs. Welcome to rocket science 102.

#12 N'wahlinsCayenne

N'wahlinsCayenne

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:07 AM

if you are trying to measure a team's "ability to execute," don't you think you should, at a minimum, measure rushing attempts for positive yardage, or rushing attempts for say 3.3+ yards (average required to reach a first down when running three downs in a row), rather than just rushing attempts?

according to lombardi's logic, a team that did nothing but run the ball would have the highest "ability to execute" out of any team in the league. seems like amateur hour in the stats dept to me.


Not really, because all the teams on this list have high time of possession. If they were bad in the run game, they wouldn't have high TOP. This stat Lombardi speaks of is about ability to move the chains and keep the ball for long periods, which tires out the defense and gives your defense a rest.

Edited by N'wahlinsCayenne, 13 July 2010 - 07:43 AM.


#13 N'wahlinsCayenne

N'wahlinsCayenne

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 13 July 2010 - 07:14 AM

Regardless of the defense, the highest scoring teams were very likely to make the playoffs. Welcome to rocket science 102.


But you would rather have a team that is able to hold onto the football for most of the game, right? I mean, how long is the health/freshness of your defense gonna hold up if they're on the field more than the opposition every game?

#14 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,073 posts

Posted 13 July 2010 - 08:50 AM

But you would rather have a team that is able to hold onto the football for most of the game, right? I mean, how long is the health/freshness of your defense gonna hold up if they're on the field more than the opposition every game?


This depends on the D.

Can you rush the passer? Are you small and athletic like Indy's D?


If an O puts up enough points, the D can and will go into a prevent style D instead of ball control D. Limiting big plays, and making the O take their time and have to play mistake free to score. And even then, the O gets the ball back and quickly marches down the field for another score, and the chess match starts over.

I love great D's, but give me a high flying O in the regular season every day, those teams always make the playoffs.....what they do when they get there is another story.

#15 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,638 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 13 July 2010 - 09:06 AM

But you would rather have a team that is able to hold onto the football for most of the game, right? I mean, how long is the health/freshness of your defense gonna hold up if they're on the field more than the opposition every game?


I realize that to a NO fan this would be an issue since in years past, your team could score points but not stop other teams. The issue of time of possession is one concern but the other is whether you let them score. You could theoretically lose the time of possession battle all the time but if the opposition didn't score it wouldn't matter how long they held the ball. Philly last year lost the time of possession by an average of 4 minutes a game but still outscored opponents.

Obviously the best of both world is to keep the ball and score the most points.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com