Thoughts on NFL thorugh week 10

[BigServer1]

Another Crazy week in the NFL, but is it Parity or Mediocrity? Here we go, Power Rankings for week 10...

#1 Colts- 9-0, that's all you need to know. It wasn't that pretty, but they are finding ways to win the game, the Defense is getting better and I would bet against Manning about as often as I would bet against Federer.

#2: Chargers- 49 points on the road, 42 of them in the second half. Like I have said before, the Offense is Prolific, but the Defense could use some work. 7-2 considering their schedule is impressive.

#3: Broncos- If Plummer looked better they would be #2. Great Defense, good ground game and a great homefield advantage. Next weeks game against the Chargers will be one to watch for sure.

#4: Bears- Good win against the Giants, but I feel like the G men just gave up, and the Bears had to get that 108yd field goal return play to blow the game open. You can't count on those plays in the playoffs. I really don't think the Bears are scaring anyone right now, their opponents combined record is 33-48, and only two of their wins are against teams who currently have a winning record. Sorry, but that's not very impressive.

#5: Baltimore- McNair comes through again in the clutch. All of a sudden those close games that the Ravens would lose they're winning. Great Defense, good Offense and a huge lead in their division.

#6: Patriots- A bit of a fall from grace after losing at home to the Jets. The Pats hadn't lost back to back games since Dec. 2002, so it was a bit of a suprise. At 6-3, they only have a one game lead over the Jets in the AFC East and they are beat up beyond belief, but Tom and Bill know how to get it done in January.

#7: Saints- BAD loss to Pittsburg. They are still 6-3 and leading the NFC South, but let's see if they can hold their own against an explosive Bengals Offense, and a hungry Falcons team in the next two weeks. Brees is still playing well, and Bush is coming around, but I think the Defense is the big question these next two games.

#8: Seahawks- They are 6-3 without Alexander and Hasselbeck. What happens when they come back? Defense is getting better, and if they click at the right time, look out.

#9: Giants- Is it just me or did they GIVE UP against the Bears. It seems that Tom Coughlin can't coach the big one, Manning looked bad and the team just didn't have what they needed to get it done. They really wasted a chance to be the best in the NFC...

#10: Jets- 5-4? Really? A win at New England? If Eric Mangini isn't right up there with Sean Payton (Saints) for coach of the year than voters are crazy. Also, Chad Pennington is playing great considering many wondered if he would ever play in the NFL again.

#11: Eagles- Good win against the Redskins, oh wait...it was the Redskins. Still, 5-4 and McNabb looks good, they just need that running game to come to life, meaning Westbrook needs to stay healthy.

#12: Jaguars- Bad loss against the Texans, who have now swept the season series against the Jags. Garrard had a rough day, but his recievers HAVE to make those catches if they want to move the ball and win games.

#13: Panthers- Up and down all season, from 0-2 to 4-2 to 4-4. They win tonight, and hopefully get back on track. Super Bowl talent for sure, but an inconsistent first half of the season to say the least.

#14: Cowboys- Romo looks good, Owens hasn't blown up (yet), and the Defense has been pretty good. This team is very talented, and could easily be 7-2. Those two tough losses could really hurt them in that division.

#15: Cheifs- Look out for those Dolphins... Tough loss, still a great team with Larry Johnson running the football and a physical Defense. Losing Gonzales hurts, and they have played a pretty tough schedule that just gets tougher and they're already in a hole in the AFC West.

#16: Falcons- Hmmmmmm...They lose to Detroit, and then they lose to The BROWNS??? Vick looks bad (foot in my mouth), and the Defense is struggling. 5-4 doesn't cut it with the Saints and the Panthers in that division.

#17: Bengals- How are they 4-5? Good Offense, not terrible Defense and a few close, tough losses. Carson Palmer and Ocho Cinco went OFF this weekend, put up 41 points, and still lost. This team is really talented, but I think the off the field issues have started to catch up with this team.

#18: Rams- Man, they must hate Josh Brown. Instead of being 6-3, they are 4-5 thanks to that guys leg. That's a tough way to lose games.

#19: Vikings- I thought they were pretty good, but they are continuing to disappoint. Maybe they close strong like last season.

#20: Packers- Favre is having a good year, and 4-5 is respectable with a bunch of washed up guys on both sides of the ball.

#21: Dolphins- Two straight wins against the Bears and the Cheifs, both playoff caliber teams. This team won 6 straight to close 2005, they could have a similar run this year, as Nick Saben is a helluva coach.

#22: 49ers- Eh, Alex Smith looks much better than last year, that's about it...

#23: Steelers- I hate putting them this high, but Big Ben looked good this week, and they won a game (finally...).

#24: Browns- Hey, they beat the Falcons.

#25: Bills- They made the Colts take a long hard look at themselves, and then they lost.

#26: Texans- If they could play the Jaguars every week, they might be 9-0.

#27: Redskins- Tough year for the 'Skins, and it could be Joe Gibb's last hurrah. Pretty quiet hurrah.

#28: Titans- Good news: Vince Young will turn out to be a good QB. Bad news: Everything else.

#29: Lions- After beating the Falcons, they are out of Cardinal territory.

#30: Buccaneers- They lose again. And people picked them to win the division?

#31: Raiders- Still not the worst team in the NFL, but by far the worst Offense in the NFL. But, they have one more win than...

#32: THE CARDINALS!- A high powered Offense, a new stadium, a coach that's willing to flip out on National TV and they still are 1-8. That giveaway loss against the Bears killed this team. At this point, 1-15 is a realistic possibility, and that's sad considering the money this team spent and the fact that they STOLE Leinart at #10 in the Draft.

So there we have it...week 10. Questions, Comments, Complaints?

 

[TennisBatman]

Just a question...what do you think of Paul Zimmerman (Dr. Z)?

He also has a "power rankings", but he is known to make poor calls as far as games go.

What do you think about the running game and passing game, in general, in the NFL?

 

[BigServer1]

Just a question...what do you think of Paul Zimmerman (Dr. Z)?

He also has a "power rankings", but he is known to make poor calls as far as games go.

What do you think about the running game and passing game, in general, in the NFL?

Dr. Z has primarily good rankings, but you're right, he makes mediocre game predictions.

I think that the running game in football is essential to set up the passing game. Establishing a solid running game allows teams to run an effective play action pass. When a team runs the ball well, the Defense will start to bring Linebackers and sometimes Safties up to the line to defend the run, and they will bite in on a successful play fake. That allows a lot more space for the recievers to get open and gives the QB a lot of field to work with. Most good offensive teams that you see will establish a run game (or have a solid run game period) and then go to the air.

Hope that answers your question,

Josh

 

[TennisBatman]

I am aware of the concept of the running game going hand-in-hand with the passing game.

But I am more concerned about trends as far as how much teams tend to run or throw the ball.

When we see teams like the Texans put their top choice and the dollars that go with it, into an overrated defensive player, based on their faulty and exaggerated logic, and compare it to the results that the Saints got from the running back the Texans could have taken, it just shows how costly such a decision can be.

By looking at trends, we can see the value and dollar vs. output of top-level quarterbacks, offensive linemen, running backs, and the other players of the team.

We can really learn from history, even if it means looking just 1 year into the past.

 

[BigServer1]

I am aware of the concept of the running game going hand-in-hand with the passing game.

But I am more concerned about trends as far as how much teams tend to run or throw the ball.

When we see teams like the Texans put their top choice and the dollars that go with it, into an overrated defensive player, based on their faulty and exaggerated logic, and compare it to the results that the Saints got from the running back the Texans could have taken, it just shows how costly such a decision can be.

By looking at trends, we can see the value and dollar vs. output of top-level quarterbacks, offensive linemen, running backs, and the other players of the team.

We can really learn from history, even if it means looking just 1 year into the past.

Okay, so more of an advanced question...

I think that the current trend in the NFL is to go away from the running game, and play more through the air. I don't neccesarily agree with this trend, as I stated above, the offense starts on the ground, but I can see why a team like the Texans would take someone like Williams to help solidify a mediocre defense. What's funny is that in Dollar vs. Output between Bush and Williams, Williams wins hands down. He has 4.5 sacks, and 26 tackles, while Bush only has two total touchdowns and averages less than 3 yards a carry. I think that long run Bush is a much better choice, putting asses in the seats immediately for the Saints, as well as being a great decoy and having the potential to be a great back in this league.

What suprises me more is that someone like Matt Leinart fell to #10 in the draft. I think that the Texans could have shopped David Carr for some defensive help, and brought in Leinart. Or the Raiders? They DESPERATELY need a good QB. Oakland, Buffalo and Detroit all passed in succession on Leinart for defensive players, and all of those teams are devoid of a "franchise" QB.

Just my take, what do you think?

Josh

 

[TennisBatman]

Okay, so more of an advanced question...

I think that the current trend in the NFL is to go away from the running game, and play more through the air. I don't neccesarily agree with this trend, as I stated above, the offense starts on the ground, but I can see why a team like the Texans would take someone like Williams to help solidify a mediocre defense. What's funny is that in Dollar vs. Output between Bush and Williams, Williams wins hands down. He has 4.5 sacks, and 26 tackles, while Bush only has two total touchdowns and averages less than 3 yards a carry. I think that long run Bush is a much better choice, putting asses in the seats immediately for the Saints, as well as being a great decoy and having the potential to be a great back in this league.

What suprises me more is that someone like Matt Leinart fell to #10 in the draft. I think that the Texans could have shopped David Carr for some defensive help, and brought in Leinart. Or the Raiders? They DESPERATELY need a good QB. Oakland, Buffalo and Detroit all passed in succession on Leinart for defensive players, and all of those teams are devoid of a "franchise" QB.

Just my take, what do you think?

Josh

It's a really hard question that every team has to consider thouroughly both off season and during season.

I think a basic principle of planning is that you need a core group of a QB, a RB, and some offensive linemen. Starting with this basic core of players, teams decide to develop in different directions. For instance, some teams invest more in offensive linemen than others.

Another question is investment toward defense vs. offense. Coaches think about this a lot. Many have differing views. I myself am not sure which is the best strategy to take, but I believe a slight emphasis on offense is the way to a winning season.

 

[bluegrasser]

The Vikings still suck !

 

[BigServer1]

It's a really hard question that every team has to consider thouroughly both off season and during season.

I think a basic principle of planning is that you need a core group of a QB, a RB, and some offensive linemen. Starting with this basic core of players, teams decide to develop in different directions. For instance, some teams invest more in offensive linemen than others.

Another question is investment toward defense vs. offense. Coaches think about this a lot. Many have differing views. I myself am not sure which is the best strategy to take, but I believe a slight emphasis on offense is the way to a winning season.

I think that's a pretty good way to look at it, but I think that Defense is more important in the large scale, especially the playoffs. I think that Indy has really been rewriting this rule this season, but in general, teams that play solid D go deep in the playoffs. Look at the Broncos this year. Their run offense is good, but the air attack isn't that great, but the Defense is really solid and they are 7-2. The Chicago Bears also have won two of their games solely because of their Defense (Minnesota and Arizona). But like I said, teams like the Colts and Chargers seem to subscribe to your theory.

 

[norcal]

#22: 49ers- Eh, Alex Smith looks much better than last year, that's about it...

Frank Gore is proving to be an elite running back. Unusual to have good running stats when your team is so often behind in games. Defense is improving. Owner still sucks balls, he wants to move the team to Santa Clara and still call them San Francisco.

 

[drakulie]

#21: Dolphins- Two straight wins against the Bears and the Cheifs, both playoff caliber teams. This team won 6 straight to close 2005, they could have a similar run this year, as Nick Saben is a helluva coach.

Still suck!

 

[TennisBatman]

I think that's a pretty good way to look at it, but I think that Defense is more important in the large scale, especially the playoffs. I think that Indy has really been rewriting this rule this season, but in general, teams that play solid D go deep in the playoffs. Look at the Broncos this year. Their run offense is good, but the air attack isn't that great, but the Defense is really solid and they are 7-2. The Chicago Bears also have won two of their games solely because of their Defense (Minnesota and Arizona). But like I said, teams like the Colts and Chargers seem to subscribe to your theory.

As you mentioned, the Colts have a defense that is "getting better", so their success is not entirely based on offense. On the other hand, the Bears would't have the same success as they do, if their QB didn't step up in important games. The bottom line is, you not only have to consider how good teams' offense and defense are, but how they developed them in the first place.

The Colts developed their team with offense as a priority, but to this day have also been able to develop their defense. It's not really a question of whether offense or defense has a greater effect on game outcomes, but really how much you can improve your team's offense or defense by making player adjustements in the form of new drafts and free agent aquisitions.

If you remember the Cowboys of Jimmy Johnson's time, they were able to dominate the 49ers of the 90s because of their "no-name defense". This was a group of talented, but not well-known players, who were able to get the job done. But the Cowboys wouldn't have the success they did if it weren't for the powerful running and passing combo of Aikman and Smith.

In the offense, a large percentage of investment goes to the QB, because it is the QB who controls the flow of each play. The Patriots have a great QB in Tom Brady, but they got him with a 7th round pick. Every team in the NFL needs a solid QB in order to win, but 99% of the time this cannot be done with a 7th round pick. The Patriots had the benefit equivalent of winning the lottery, by acquiring Brady.

Now in the defense, you don't have a player who takes such a large responsibility as the QB. So responsibility is more evenly distributed, and control-wise, more of the responsibility goes in the initial selection of the play itself. This responsibility ultimately goes to the coaching staff. In the case of the offense, many teams give the responsibility of control to their QB, the Colts being an example. Control, or the brain work of the team, can also come from the coaching staff. But unlike player talent, coaching talent is not limited by the salary cap, and you can therefore have a strong defense without investing heavily in defensive players' salaries. Likewise with the offense, but I think it is more possible to develop strong defense by virtue of coaching than offense. Thus, my opinion that salary cap dollars are generally better spent on the offense.

 

[BigServer1]

Frank Gore is proving to be an elite running back. Unusual to have good running stats when your team is so often behind in games. Defense is improving. Owner still sucks balls, he wants to move the team to Santa Clara and still call them San Francisco.

True, Gore has really worked on his fumbling problem, and he is carrying the ball well this year. It really will be too bad if they move to Santa Clara, their owner is disabled in some way...

 

[BigServer1]

As you mentioned, the Colts have a defense that is "getting better", so their success is not entirely based on offense. On the other hand, the Bears would't have the same success as they do, if their QB didn't step up in important games. The bottom line is, you not only have to consider how good teams' offense and defense are, but how they developed them in the first place.

The Colts developed their team with offense as a priority, but to this day have also been able to develop their defense. It's not really a question of whether offense or defense has a greater effect on game outcomes, but really how much you can improve your team's offense or defense by making player adjustements in the form of new drafts and free agent aquisitions.

If you remember the Cowboys of Jimmy Johnson's time, they were able to dominate the 49ers of the 90s because of their "no-name defense". This was a group of talented, but not well-known players, who were able to get the job done. But the Cowboys wouldn't have the success they did if it weren't for the powerful running and passing combo of Aikman and Smith.

In the offense, a large percentage of investment goes to the QB, because it is the QB who controls the flow of each play. The Patriots have a great QB in Tom Brady, but they got him with a 7th round pick. Every team in the NFL needs a solid QB in order to win, but 99% of the time this cannot be done with a 7th round pick. The Patriots had the benefit equivalent of winning the lottery, by acquiring Brady.

Now in the defense, you don't have a player who takes such a large responsibility as the QB. So responsibility is more evenly distributed, and control-wise, more of the responsibility goes in the initial selection of the play itself. This responsibility ultimately goes to the coaching staff. In the case of the offense, many teams give the responsibility of control to their QB, the Colts being an example. Control, or the brain work of the team, can also come from the coaching staff. But unlike player talent, coaching talent is not limited by the salary cap, and you can therefore have a strong defense without investing heavily in defensive players' salaries. Likewise with the offense, but I think it is more possible to develop strong defense by virtue of coaching than offense. Thus, my opinion that salary cap dollars are generally better spent on the offense.

Good post. I think that Offensive players do indeed dominate the cap, but even high profile defensive players don't garner the same salary level (most of the time) as the high level offensive players. In that regard a lot of the cap naturally goes to offense, while good defensive guys can be attained at a much lower price, making a defense easier to assemble. I do think the Bears win with defense, and I don't think that Grossman has stepped up all that much in games. He might start to later in the year, but he hasn't been that impressive against a dominant defense yet.

I think that coaching is equally important on both sides of the ball. Football games are won in the trenches, and thus the offensive and defensive line coaches are two of the most important guys on the sidelines. Teams spend a lot of money on the Offensive or Defensive line, and many times, the same or better results can be gotten by hiring a great Offensive of Defensive line coach. Really great post, I like the way that you approach the organization of the game.

 

[TennisBatman]

Good post. I think that Offensive players do indeed dominate the cap, but even high profile defensive players don't garner the same salary level (most of the time) as the high level offensive players. In that regard a lot of the cap naturally goes to offense, while good defensive guys can be attained at a much lower price, making a defense easier to assemble. I do think the Bears win with defense, and I don't think that Grossman has stepped up all that much in games. He might start to later in the year, but he hasn't been that impressive against a dominant defense yet.

I think that coaching is equally important on both sides of the ball. Football games are won in the trenches, and thus the offensive and defensive line coaches are two of the most important guys on the sidelines. Teams spend a lot of money on the Offensive or Defensive line, and many times, the same or better results can be gotten by hiring a great Offensive of Defensive line coach. Really great post, I like the way that you approach the organization of the game.

Well, coaching, as I see it, mostly comes in two phases: preparation and execution. You mentioned offensive and defensive line coaches, which I agree have a great effect on their team's ability, but I believe their role appears in the preparation phase, rather than the execution phase.

I think most pro-level coaches are very good in the preparation phase, which is preparing their players for the next game. But the really good coaches, who consistently excel year-by-year, are the ones who can not only prepare their players, but also can make the right decisions during game time.
I think you know who I'm referring to. The coaches who are known for winning even though their players might not be putting up the highest numbers during the season. Bill Belichick, for one, is a coach who fits this description.

In the execution phase of coaching, the coaches take on some of the responsiblity for control of the team during game time. Some of the responsiblity, on the other hand, remains with the players on the field.
The players have to decide last-minute changes in the details for each play.
After the play begins, players still have to make decisions that can affect the outcome of the play.

This distribution of control between the coaches and the players exists on both the offensive and defensive sides of the ball, but I believe in the case of the defensive side of the ball, a relatively greater amount of control lies in the hands of the coaches, as compared to the offensive side of the ball, where a great deal of control lies in the player carrying the ball. This is usually either the QB or the RB. The concept of "control" is closely tied with each player's ability to make quick decisions. In the case of coaches, they still must make play-by-play decisions. However, for the defense, more of that decision-making power lies with the coaches than for the offense, based on my ideas stated above.


Some More Thoughts-------------------------------

To take an example of decision-making power, the Atlanta Falcons have a QB named Michael Vick who is not only a capable thrower but a very good runner as well. A few weeks ago, after the Falcons lost a crucial game, Vick said something like "I take full responsibility on the offensive side." Vick knows very well that he is the primary decision-maker for the Falcons' offense.
Just like Peyton Manning is the primary decision-maker for the Colts' offense.

Do you know how the Colts manage decisions for the offense during gametime? The coaching staff makes a list of 3 different plays and gives all of them to the Manning. Manning then thinks about the plays, and based on the opposing lineup, chooses the play he thinks is best. Obviously, 3 plays is a lot considering that each single play has several variations, and options for execution.

Decision-making is not only about play selection, but also about play execution. After a QB takes the ball, he often has a choice between 3 or more receivers as the target of the passing play.
He can decide to make it a running play by handing it off, or even run the ball himself.

Why do I mention such an obvious point? Because the defense does not have a player with the same level of decision-making power as the QB. Except in the case of a turnover, the defense does not have control of the ball during a play and therefore, in the interest of limiting the offense's advance of the ball, must anticipate and react to the actions of the offense.

How do they (the defense) perform this successfully? By proper coordination of actions between the players of the defense. Of the many types of blitzes, for example, whether performed by the Safety, the Linebacker, or multiple players, their result depends very much on coordination of the play. The Linebacker on the opposite side of the field has no way to inform the blitzing Safety whether any conditions are wrong for the blitz, such as a blocker in a suprisingly different position.
So, the result of the blitz depends on the defending players having faith in the play call and executing it to completion.

With the offense, the potential to change plans during the play is greater because they have direct control of the ball. The QB can choose any of the actions I mentioned above, and the receiver, or the runner, can choose the direction in which he moves the ball. This means that the initial play call has a much less rigid control over the actual execution of the play than for the defense. In general defensive situations, a bad defensive play call can lead to a huge gain by the opposing offense. But a bad offensive play call, barring poor execution by the players, can at worst lead to an incomplete pass by the QB or a loss of a few yards by the RB.


But to stay on topic, I better say something about the power rankings. I think the Colts should be commended for going 9-0 for two consecutive seasons, but as everybody knows, this does not necessarily mean success in the playoffs. However, I think 2 seasons of hard lessons for Peyton Manning should be enough to keep him from failing again in the playoffs. I will have to pay attention to more of the remaining games in order to get a clearer picture myself of the competition.

Anyways, I think it is very disappointing for Ben Roethlisberger and Carson Palmer, two QBs with a promising future, to have such lackluster seasons this year. Maybe it's not their time yet...