Dalbuc, I agree with Booker. I took it as a sign that he recognized the importance of offence. I understood him as saying that with a mediocre offence and a great defence you could get to 8 wins (10 with special teams) - but if you wanted more (ie. to go to the playoffs) you need a very good offence. I think that was his point.
Frankly the idea that teams adds two wins is silly overall and certainly not something repeatable if you think of returns. It doesn't give me a good vibe along with the owner running take shots comments that he understand the place of offense. If his inking is that defense gets you 8 wins and your QB is taking on the other 3 to the playoffs then he has that relationship almost 100% wrong. Put HOUs QBs on SEA, are they even an 8 win team?
Dal, in one of his interviews Lovie made the point you make here about offenses, that it is about efficiency
Dalbuc, I agree with Booker. I took it as a sign that he recognized the importance of offence. I understood him as saying that with a mediocre offence and a great defence you could get to 8 wins (10 with special teams) - but if you wanted more (ie. to go to the playoffs) you need a very good offence. I think that was his point.
Frankly the idea that teams adds two wins is silly overall and certainly not something repeatable if you think of returns. It doesn't give me a good vibe along with the owner running take shots comments that he understand the place of offense. If his inking is that defense gets you 8 wins and your QB is taking on the other 3 to the playoffs then he has that relationship almost 100% wrong. Put HOUs QBs on SEA, are they even an 8 win team?
Specials adding two wins is totally believable. Just look at KC this year (who I believe have Chicago's old ST coordinator) - special teams play has definitely earned them a couple extra wins they otherwise wouldn't have. When you take all the punting, punt returns, kicking, kick returns, and field goals in a game - elite play from that unit can certainly turn the tide in games. Lovie's point isn't that ST's on its own wins you two games, but if you add an elite special teams unit to an elite defence it can be the difference and result in two more wins and I think that's spot on.And dalbuc, I'm (like everyone) skeptical of Lovie's ability to have a good offence. But I think these comments were acknowledging that you can win a lot of games with a great defence and ST unit - but if you want to win the game you'd better have a great offence. I took it as Lovie recognizing the limits of "play defence, win football games" - hopefully hahaha.
Ahhh but never ask about offense. I don't care about running the ball. ARI was 13 th passing. Cincy was the 8th passing team.
You say you are all about efficiency, stop talking yards. Arizona was 15th in pass rank, Cincy 12. You want to explain KC?
Ahhh but never ask about offense. I don't care about running the ball. ARI was 13 th passing. Cincy was the 8th passing team.
You say you are all about efficiency, stop talking yards. Arizona was 15th in pass rank, Cincy 12. You want to explain KC?
I thought I was talking efficiency, had my data sorted on the wrong column. :( What is there to explain about KC. Smith was an 89 rated QB. Awfully darn good. Simply put again, teams that can't pass efficiently don't win ball games. The effect of defense and anything else are light years behind that factor in creating wins and losses.
Couldn't help but chuckle in regard to his comment about using Revis correctly.
I noticed that too! Actually, there seems to have been a couple of times where he was biting his tongue on the coaching habits of the previous regime lolz
I am excited to see a healthy Revis. I hope they can use him.
Ahhh but never ask about offense. I don't care about running the ball. ARI was 13 th passing. Cincy was the 8th passing team.
You say you are all about efficiency, stop talking yards. Arizona was 15th in pass rank, Cincy 12. You want to explain KC?
I thought I was talking efficiency, had my data sorted on the wrong column. :( What is there to explain about KC. Smith was an 89 rated QB. Awfully darn good. Simply put again, teams that can't pass efficiently don't win ball games. The effect of defense and anything else are light years behind that factor in creating wins and losses.
Awfully darn good last week. Overall, mediocre - QBR was 49.4. That's good for 22 (Glennon was 27). He threw for 60%, had a spiffy td/int, had a meager (6.5) ypa (right there with Brandon Weeden and Matt Schaub), and took a lot of sacks. 20th ranked at FO (Glennon 22). Offense, 15. Passing 18, Running 2. Special Teams, 1.Defense, 9. Point is - there are rules, and then there are exceptions to rules. Doesn't make the rule less valuable, just less absolute. The reality is if you don't have a top tier QB (or a QB playing out of his skull - Flacco) you beat the bushes for that QB. But you can't just take the season off if you don't have one - you've got to get yourself in the best position every where else to compete. You get in the playoffs and hope your QB goes Joe Flacco. KC got their offense to the middle of the pack from 31. They moved their D from 31 to 9. They got their ST from 22 to 1.
If you are using that QBR thing from ESPN don't even bother me with that stupid metric. His rating puts him ahead of Cam for example. He is efficient at what he does. No, nothing is an absolute. You can hit on a 20 and get blackjack too. Doesn't mean you should plan on doing it. Jets went back to back AFCC with suck levels of play from Sanchez (granted his post-season got a lot better) but I do not want to emulate that model nor is it going to work most of the time. Your plan is the happy path. If your happy path is to run and play defense your path is going nowhere fast. The question for me is where is Lovie's heart really at? Did he learn from his time in CHI that having a DOA passing game is doom? No coach says they want to be bad at anything but when push comes to shove what do you believe? Does Lovie want to win games in the first half or keep things close middle around and win in Q4? The hiring of Tedford says he wants to be more dynamic. That press conference though was loaded with nothing but the same tired platitudes about dead forms of offense that he was notorious for. He hire means a lot more than comments for sure but I really wanted to see him come out and say that we need to be able to throw. We need to be dynamic not just "take shots down the field".
Ahhh but never ask about offense. I don't care about running the ball. ARI was 13 th passing. Cincy was the 8th passing team.
You say you are all about efficiency, stop talking yards. Arizona was 15th in pass rank, Cincy 12. You want to explain KC?
I thought I was talking efficiency, had my data sorted on the wrong column. :( What is there to explain about KC. Smith was an 89 rated QB. Awfully darn good. Simply put again, teams that can't pass efficiently don't win ball games. The effect of defense and anything else are light years behind that factor in creating wins and losses.
Dal, I know you place a big emphasis on passing, but the last two sentences are at odds with each other aren't they? Maybe I misunderstand, but it is the "effect of defense" as well as the talent of the QB (and scheme, and other players) that impacts passing efficiency, right? That was sort of my point in another thread -- there are not many really good QBs and they are tough to come by so that is why teams still focus on things like running game and defense, those are the "equalizers" . . . albeit arguably less so given recent rule changes, right?So to use your words . . "teams that can't pass efficiently don't win ball games" isn't it true that teams that have a defense that keeps teams from "passing efficiently" should win games? Isn't your intended point really the team that passes the most efficiently in any given game wins? As an example - and I don't have access to the stats you guys do -- wasn't Dalton's efficiency way down in their recent playoff loss and, if so, wasn't that in large part because of the SD defense?
Yes, the effect is called passer differential rating. You are exactly right. You can google for it and see it calculated up and it is a remarkably effective indicator of success - and on my tablet it is hard to cut and paste in links so I'm not or I would :). . It is worth looking at because the top 7 teams in this all made the playoffs and the measure hold pretty much true year in and year out. Every playoff team was in the plus range except GB and obviously these are team metrics so the non Rodgers weeks sucked them down. We pulled a -9 difference on the year. SEA was +38, NO was +20 for example. The reason that I say defense can only do so much is that suppression of the passer now is so difficult that the effective range of suppression is smaller - there is a lot of end point variation but within the "normal" range not so much. We allowed an opposing QBR of 89. Even driving that down to 80 leaves us on the negative side of things. BUF was great at pass defense, their opposition QBR was a scant 75 but their QB play was only worth a 75. Their record, not so good. Teams with questionable pass defense, GB and Dallas both did better than BUF because the balance is more towards the offense. In theory,as ATL showed, you can be good passing, 89, but soooooo bad at pass defense (102) you lose but again allowing a 100+ passer rating is really!really! really bad. Don't get me wrong,pass defense matters and matters a lot. It is why I'm always onboard with drafting pass rushers. It is why I never liked either safety because I don't think they help do much to suppress the passer. Still, when you focus on winning the biggest bang for the buck is the passing game and being efficient in it. Lovie talked about the passing game in terms of big plays which doesn't frankly help a great deal. His comments and the lack of emphasis coupled with his history scare me a bit.
Yes, the effect is called passer differential rating. You are exactly right. You can google for it and see it calculated up and it is a remarkably effective indicator of success - and on my tablet it is hard to cut and paste in links so I'm not or I would :). . It is worth looking at because the top 7 teams in this all made the playoffs and the measure hold pretty much true year in and year out. Every playoff team was in the plus range except GB and obviously these are team metrics so the non Rodgers weeks sucked them down. We pulled a -9 difference on the year. SEA was +38, NO was +20 for example. The reason that I say defense can only do so much is that suppression of the passer now is so difficult that the effective range of suppression is smaller - there is a lot of end point variation but within the "normal" range not so much. We allowed an opposing QBR of 89. Even driving that down to 80 leaves us on the negative side of things. BUF was great at pass defense, their opposition QBR was a scant 75 but their QB play was only worth a 75. Their record, not so good. Teams with questionable pass defense, GB and Dallas both did better than BUF because the balance is more towards the offense. In theory,as ATL showed, you can be good passing, 89, but soooooo bad at pass defense (102) you lose but again allowing a 100+ passer rating is really!really! really bad. Don't get me wrong,pass defense matters and matters a lot. It is why I'm always onboard with drafting pass rushers. It is why I never liked either safety because I don't think they help do much to suppress the passer. Still, when you focus on winning the biggest bang for the buck is the passing game and being efficient in it. Lovie talked about the passing game in terms of big plays which doesn't frankly help a great deal. His comments and the lack of emphasis coupled with his history scare me a bit.
Thanks for the response. To the part in bold, I guess we will see if that was standard press conference "coach speak" because that comment doesn't necessarily mesh withy what I have read about Tedford who seems to be more focused on short efficient passing (and run game)
If you are using that QBR thing from ESPN don't even bother me with that stupid metric. His rating puts him ahead of Cam for example. He is efficient at what he does. No, nothing is an absolute. You can hit on a 20 and get blackjack too. Doesn't mean you should plan on doing it. Jets went back to back AFCC with suck levels of play from Sanchez (granted his post-season got a lot better) but I do not want to emulate that model nor is it going to work most of the time. Your plan is the happy path. If your happy path is to run and play defense your path is going nowhere fast. The question for me is where is Lovie's heart really at? Did he learn from his time in CHI that having a DOA passing game is doom? No coach says they want to be bad at anything but when push comes to shove what do you believe? Does Lovie want to win games in the first half or keep things close middle around and win in Q4? The hiring of Tedford says he wants to be more dynamic. That press conference though was loaded with nothing but the same tired platitudes about dead forms of offense that he was notorious for. He hire means a lot more than comments for sure but I really wanted to see him come out and say that we need to be able to throw. We need to be dynamic not just "take shots down the field".
Personally I don't care for the QBR or the old "passer rating" - I'd rather look at the numbers by themselves and in combination. I know that you weren't using the former - I just included it because not all the numbers from Smith are as rosy and in fact, he's the style of QB who should have a relatively high passer rating.I never said he wasn't effective or efficient - he's the definition of Joe Average. He's largely a dink-and-dunker who takes few chances and whose numbers look better because he's getting a huge share from YAC from guys like Jamaal Charles. But their offense was where it was in large part because Jamaal Charles carrying the ball (and catching mostly short passes). You need to get your reading glasses out - "my plan is the happy path?" My plan is to focus on improving the QB play. That's job 1, 2, 3. This year that means maxing out whatever talent is in Glennon during the offseason, upgrading the veteran #2 (who hopefully can push Glennon - Shaun Hill maybe?), and hope like hell you can find a reasonable draft pick option. There's nothing happy about that. The reality is that the top tier guys are finite in number. And unless you plan to simply tank it and hope you stumble on the right combo of draft pick and draft class, you have to build the team up in every other possible way. To me, the actions of Lovie matter more than words, especially when they come from a coach at a press conference. To me Tedford - whether he's ultimately a good choice or not - represents that. I'd also point out that the Shea and Martz hires in Chicago represented that understanding as well. I'm not sure what happened with Shea, but it's clear that Martz simply went off the rails (and wasn't helped by the crap personnel that Angelo and crew assembled on offense).
Bucs are going to draft an athletic QB. As to whether that QB is going to be starter material or not remains to be seen. But with Wilson, Kaepernick, etc it is clear that Lovie is leaning towards that direction. He isn't against Glennon's skill sets because he knows you can win with that type of QB. But a QB that can move simply brings another layer to an offense.
[To me, the actions of Lovie matter more than words, especially when they come from a coach at a press conference. To me Tedford - whether he's ultimately a good choice or not - represents that. I'd also point out that the Shea and Martz hires in Chicago represented that understanding as well. I'm not sure what happened with Shea, but it's clear that Martz simply went off the rails (and wasn't helped by the crap personnel that Angelo and crew assembled on offense).
Martz wasn't as best I recall his hire, that was forced on him and one reason things never worked well. When he got canned who'd he bring in but good OL Mike Tice. You can see I was very optimistic about Tedford when he was hired. I like Tedford's offense when I've seen it. It is a good system. What Lovie said doesn't match with what the Tedford hire is about. I hope Lovie lets Tedford be Tedford. The disconnect between actions and words is what I was noting.Also, on the happy path I wasn't saying your as in Booker Reese I was speaking in general terms of that a plan is how you will move forward. My concern was if Lovie's plan was to be a good offense or just to try and be good enough.
