Jump to content

The Offseason target


diamondbull424

The Offseason target  

15 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you most prefer?

    • Dez Bryant
    • Jordy Nelson
    • Jimmy Graham
    • Sammy Watkins


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Darth Pees said:

Because ultimately the season came down to one series, where we had virtually 100% chance of winning and making the playoffs, and one unit blew it and it wasn't the offense. I don't see what relevance that defensive collapse has to how the offense performed week 1. We still overcame those offensive struggles and ended up in a position with our own destiny in our hands and a virtual lock to be in the postseason but the defense crapped the bed again to close out a game, and here we are. 

I'm just saying it's hard to really "blame" the offense for last year. Everyone knew they were going to be atrocious. That was the expectation.

The season was 16 games long. It "came down" to one series because it was that close given all the proceeding events. The week 6 loss to the Bears is 100% as relevant as week 17 vs the Bengals. I just hate the type of reasoning where if one play went differently people change their evaluation of an entire unit for an entire year. 

Also re: the "game that mattered":

bengals offense vs ravens defense:

24 points/(15 possessions - 2 kneel downs) = 1.846 points per drive   (right about league median for teams over the season)

ravens offense vs bengals defense:

(27 points - 7 for pick 6)/(15 complete possessions) = 1.333 points per drive (right about 30th)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

The season was 16 games long. It "came down" to one series because it was that close given all the proceeding events. The week 6 loss to the Bears is 100% as relevant as week 17 vs the Bengals. I just hate the type of reasoning where if one play went differently people change their evaluation of an entire unit for an entire year. 

You're merging a statement about evaluation with a statement about wins being as important early as they are late towards an overall record. They're two completely different concepts.

Of course the Week 6 Bears game is as relevant as the Week 17 Bengals game when analyzing why we aren't in the playoffs from a W/L standpoint.

In no way though is a Week 6 game as relevant as a Week 17 game in terms of evaluating towards team strengthening/building. 

No one's evaluation of any unit changed because of that one play. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

In no way though is a Week 6 game as relevant as a Week 17 game in terms of evaluating towards team strengthening/building. 

Because...?

Are you saying because young players developed over those 10 weeks? That wouldn't change too much in terms of that scope of evaluation. You could also say that some of the players that got injured between those weeks are better included, since we won't likely lose the same set of players to injury (unless it's Jimmy Smith). So that's a case against extra weight for week 17. I don't think the difference is very significant either way as a data point 

And did you see the points per drive of the offense in this all-important week 17 game? Or is just the last play that has more weight than the rest of the season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Because...?

Are you saying because young players developed over those 10 weeks? That wouldn't change too much in terms of that scope of evaluation. You could also say that some of the players that got injured between those weeks are better included, since we won't likely lose the same set of players to injury (unless it's Jimmy Smith). So that's a case against extra weight for week 17. I don't think the difference is very significant either way as a data point 

And did you see the points per drive of the offense in this all-important week 17 game? Or is just the last play that has more weight than the rest of the season?

It's 10 more weeks of information, statistics, and analytics. In what possible universe is that not exponentially better or more valuable for team building?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DreamKid said:

It's 10 more weeks of information, statistics, and analytics. In what possible universe is that not exponentially better or more valuable for team building?

I'm so lost with what you are saying here. A week 17 game is 10 more weeks of data? No one is talking about weeks 1-6 vs weeks 1-17. There were no ranges in this discussion. 

Also cuz I feel like being more pretentious, that'd be linearly more valuable not exponentially.

And again I only said somethig about week 6 because it's talked about as a game we lost because of our run D, when really the defense held the Bears to worst offense type in the league production. We should win the vast majority of games when that happens. We lost because the offense was ridiculously awful. Even week 17 alone doesn't hurt my case. The defense was average on a per drive basis and the offenses was near worst offense in league levels. And yet more people are taking away that the defense was the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

And yet more people are taking away that the defense was the problem.

Fans saw our offense get us the lead and our defense lose it and the game. You can't blame them for not caring about per drive basis figures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

What you are doing is pinpointing. Stuff like "clutch plays" at the end of "games that matter". That kind of cherry picking is what I disagree with. I'm saying look at the entire game/season. That's the opposite of pinpointing. One unit performed very well and another was terrible for half a season and middle of the pack for the other half. How is it I am pinpointing, but you are not?

In a discussion about moves for next year, I'm not "blaming" the offense. I'm saying it needs to be improved. And that the defense will likely be more than fine without much help. So, I don't know why expectations going into last season for the offense are important. Let's expect it to be better this year.

Well that is where we disagree. The defense had almost just has many downs as ups, and is that to be expected from the side which we invested almost all of resources into?

Honestly, look at what the defense faced this year with rookie quarterbacks and backups. Yes the offense was really bad, but they picked it up late in the season despite all the injuries and let downs. The defense literally had no excuses, and they couldn't pull their weight. We don't need to nitpick. Over an entire season, the defense didn't perform up to par.

The front office specifically tried to build this defense, so we wouldn't face a let down like against the Steelers last year. This year it happened 3 times anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wackywabbit said:

I'm so lost with what you are saying here. A week 17 game is 10 more weeks of data? No one is talking about weeks 1-6 vs weeks 1-17. There were no ranges in this discussion. 

Also cuz I feel like being more pretentious, that'd be linearly more valuable not exponentially.

And again I only said somethig about week 6 because it's talked about as a game we lost because of our run D, when really the defense held the Bears to worst offense type in the league production. We should win the vast majority of games when that happens. We lost because the offense was ridiculously awful. Even week 17 alone doesn't hurt my case. The defense was average on a per drive basis and the offenses was near worst offense in league levels. And yet more people are taking away that the defense was the problem.

We lost because their defence made more plays than ours. Both offenses where bad, yet I see close to the same amount of drives and lengths. Again, the difference is, we had nothing invested in this offense, the defense was supposed to carry this team. As Mike Zimmer said, the Vikings build a team where the offense had to put 20 points on the board, and that would end up in a W. Our defense were no way near that, especially when it mattered the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Yes. Yes I can.

Again, did the offense put us in a position to win?

Are we wrong to expect, that when we use all the FA coins we had on the defense and the high draft picks (for more than one off season), that the defense could hold up their end of the deal?

Fair enough if not a single hit, sack, interception against Big Ben dropping to pass 56 times is ok, or letting a team with no passing game run for more than 200 yards when we are build to stop the run, is a good defense to you, because there is some statistic and a graph that shows something (I don't actually get the point). I believe our defense performed worse when it came to scoring than the Patriots defense did. So much waste of talent then, because New England had nothing on that defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I went back and re-read the last page or so to figure out what exactly you guys are arguing about, and I'm not entirely sure why its gone from this:

7 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

That said, I don't necessarily think we need to be a balanced team. Some/many disagree here but I thought the defense did play to the level it should for the most part. I think it's going to be easier to improve the team overall by giving the offense a viable weapon or two than by making the defense marginally more talented to cover up another hole or two. But, I don't think we need a huge shift to a balanced team.

to what is being argued in the last few posts.

It feels like you guys are arguing 2 very similar, yet very different arguments - wacky's arguing about the merit of individual games over the course of a season meaning the same amount and that the offense was crap, and everyone else is arguing that the defense under-performed compared to (rightly held imo) expectations.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@wackywabbit There's been a lot of replies so I'll just say this: There's a reason DVOA makes the following statement in their calculations:

Quote

LAST YEAR represents 2016 rank. WEIGHTED DEFENSE is adjusted so that earlier games in the season become gradually less important. It better reflects how the team was playing at the end of the season.

Week 6 against the Bears is not nearly as important as week 17 against the Bengals. Saying we missed the playoffs because we didn't play well in week 6 is, to me, dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...