PDA

View Full Version : AFCW stat rankings


Ugly Duck
10-23-2006, 07:48 AM
Offense:

#4 Roidy Eggo
#23 Denver
#24 Chiefs
#31 Raiders

Defense:

#1 Roidy Eggo
#4 Denver
#5 Raiders
#11 Chiefs

Halfcan
10-23-2006, 07:50 AM
#24 Thanks Solari-nice play calling.

I can live with #11 since a lot of that is the Squelers game. At least we are creating turnovers and hitting the QB quit a bit.

StcChief
10-23-2006, 09:30 AM
Raiders #5 on D.....

Still surprised AZ didn't beat them yesterday.
That Bear hangover is killing teams, glad we don't play them this year.

Too early to tell.

FAX
10-23-2006, 09:33 AM
So, we just beat the #1 ranked offense and defense in the West?

That's a good thing.

FAX

jspchief
10-23-2006, 09:36 AM
#24 Thanks Solari-nice play calling.

3-3 with Huard as our QB. I can't complain.

If we're still there after Green's return, I'll have a problem with it.

Hoover
10-23-2006, 09:38 AM
Take out the Steeler's game and our defensive stats would be much better.

Hoover
10-23-2006, 09:41 AM
3-3 with Huard as our QB. I can't complain.

If we're still there after Green's return, I'll have a problem with it.
I agree, sitting at .500, and the back up QB was the starter for all the wins. Yeah, I'll take that.

I actually hope that Green takes his time, Haurd looks really good. It would be nice to bring back Green at home vs a weak team.

I feel good about this team, but we need a couple teams infront of us to fade.

Rain Man
10-23-2006, 10:06 AM
We're all ranked high on defense because we all play the others' offenses.

KingPriest2
10-23-2006, 10:56 AM
3-3 with Huard as our QB. I can't complain.

If we're still there after Green's return, I'll have a problem with it.


3-2 not 3-3

jspchief
10-23-2006, 11:19 AM
3-2 not 3-3Whatever. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It's not like Huard came in and outplayed Green in week 1.

We've had a backup QB for 90% of the football we've played this year, and still managed to keep it at .500. I can excuse a poor offensive ranking in light of the circumstances. The relevance of who gets credit for game 1 escapes me.

Basileus777
10-23-2006, 11:26 AM
AFC West in terms of scoring, not yards.

Offense

San Diego - #1 (35.6 ppg)
Kansas City - #21 (19.5 ppg)
Denver - #31 (13.2 ppg)
Oakland - #32 (12 ppg)

Defense

Denver - #1 (7.3 ppg)
San Diego - #7 (17 ppg)
Kansas City - #14 (20.7 ppg)
Oakland - #23 (22.5 ppg)

Oakland's defense is not nearly as good as the yardage makes it appear. It also shows just how sad Denver's offense is.

KingPriest2
10-23-2006, 11:41 AM
Whatever. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It's not like Huard came in and outplayed Green in week 1.

We've had a backup QB for 90% of the football we've played this year, and still managed to keep it at .500. I can excuse a poor offensive ranking in light of the circumstances. The relevance of who gets credit for game 1 escapes me.


Just trying to correct you

carlos3652
10-23-2006, 11:43 AM
Oakland's defense is not nearly as good as the yardage makes it appear. It also shows just how sad Denver's offense is.

ROFL... I dont defend Oak much, but this is a pointless stat when the offense goes three and out, or when they lead the league in Giveaways @ 20, thats a 3.3 turnovers per game rate...

That leaves short yardage situation for the defense and very hard to keep the other team off the board...

The OAK defense has allowed only 13 TD's (better than half the teams in the AFC - same as KC), and has allowed 14 FG (last in the AFC)

Short yardage situations because your offense lets you down doesnt make them a bad defense...

Count Alex's Losses
10-23-2006, 11:50 AM
Yards per game is the best indicator. The scoring defense is really influenced by turnovers. In the case of Oakland's offense, that's really skewing the defensive points allowed stat.

Basileus777
10-23-2006, 11:51 AM
ROFL... I dont defend Oak much, but this is a pointless stat when the offense goes three and out, or when they lead the league in Giveaways @ 20, thats a 3.3 turnovers per game rate...

That leaves short yardage situation for the defense and very hard to keep the other team off the board...

The OAK defense has allowed only 13 TD's (better than half the teams in the AFC - same as KC), and has allowed 14 FG (last in the AFC)

Short yardage situations because your offense lets you down doesnt make them a bad defense...

It doesn't make them a good one either. Oakland's defense is better the scoring rankings (23), but not as good as the yardage ranking (5). Oakland's defense isn't bad and the offense puts it in bad situations, but they don't have a top 5 defense either.

RINGLEADER
10-23-2006, 11:52 AM
Its nice to be near the top ten...especially, as others have pointed out, a lot of the yardage depressing our stats comes from the steeler game.

Anyway, the defensive stats that count most in my book are:

1) Scoring Allowed
2) Turnovers Created
3) Third-Down Conversions Allowed

Yesterday we did well with the first two (until we started giving them short fields) but were abysmal in the third category. Allowing conversions on third-and-twenty is unforgiveable.

Basileus777
10-23-2006, 11:54 AM
Yards per game is the best indicator. The scoring defense is really influenced by turnovers. In the case of Oakland's offense, that's really skewing the defensive points allowed stat.

Points are more important than yards because it takes into consideration redzone offense and defense. It doesn't matter how much you can move the ball if you are kicking fgs all the time. Same thing with regard to bend don't break defenses. Denver clearly has a better defense than San Diego despite the fact that they have given up more yards. Denver actually has 6 more giveaway yet has given up 10 less ppg than San Diego.