Chris Henrys Dealer Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 I wanted to start a whole spiel about how we need some better coverage backers, but the numbers don't really bear it out. Anyway, it's too late now as a whole three lines have been typed. Here are the breakdowns by game of receptions against us. Fullbacks and RBs are classified under RB. NYJ WRs, 12 for 188 yards, 1 TD. TEs, 1 for 4 yards, 0 TD. RBs, 7 for 32 yards, 0 TD. MIA WRs, 7 for 81, 1 TD TEs, 6 for 93, 0 TD RBs, 8 for 44, 0 td BAL (2 games) WRs, 14 for 148, 1 TD TEs, 8 for 76, 0 TD RBs, 8 for 74, 0 TD PIT (2 games) WRs, 21 for 228, 0 TD TEs, 2 for 34, 0 TD RBs, 9 for 50, 2 TDs CLE (2 games) WRs, 21 for 429! 3 TDs TEs, 15 for 174! 4 TDs!!! RBs, 9 for 116! 1 TD DEN WRs, 19 for 201, 1 TD TEs, 0 for 0, 0 TD RBs, 4 for 20, 0 TD TENN WRs, 9 for 89, 0 TD TEs, 5 for 39, 1 TD RBs, 7 for 82, 1 TD DALLAS WRs, 7 for 86, 0 TD TEs, 6 for 97, 0 TD RBs, 5 for 24, 0 TD WASHINGTON WRs, 14 FOR 175, 0 TD TEs, 0 FOR 0 RBs, 5 for 41, 1 TD NEW ENGLAND WRs, 10 for 178, 1 TD Tes, 5 for 47, 1 TD RBs, 3 for 35, 0 TD BUFFALO WRs, 12 for 172, 1 TD TEs, 0 for 0 RBs, 3 for 11, 0 TD NYG WRs, 9 for 116, 0 TD TEs, 6 for 64, 0 TD RBs, 4 for 21, 0 TD PHI WRs, 14 for 148, 1 TD TEs, 5 for 60, 0 TD RBs, 12 for 75, 0 TD Totals: WRs - 169 receptions for 2,239 yards, 13.2 ypc, 10 touchdowns TEs - 59 receptions for 688 yards, 11.6 ypc, 6 touchdowns RBs - 84 receptions for 625 yards, 7.4 ypc, 5 touchdowns So overall, my theory about our LBs isn't really true. If you take out the Cleveland stinker of a game, they were pretty effective, only conceding two touchdowns to tight ends. Same with the running back out of the outfield....5 touchdowns on 84 catches. So yeah, once again an attempt to stir up some talk and waste time at work fails miserably, but you guys have the stats to check out. An argument can be made that as teams had so much success running against us, they didn't need to pass as much. I think that is true to an extent...but also shows how much speedier overall our D has become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scales Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Don't get high on your own supply. anyway i'd prefer if the opposing ballmovers got zero yards out of the ends and backs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henrys Dealer Posted March 23, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Going back to those stats. It really shows that our passing D is in good shape. We had twenty interceptions last season, conceding 21 TDs. (ESPN has us at 23, but I've gone through every game and can only count 21 passing TD's conceded.) The 20 interceptions had us ranked 7th overall (wtih NE) [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&sort=int&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2004"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?s...son=2&year=2004[/url] Conceding 21 Td's would have us tied for 15th in the NFL. Again, if you take out our horror games against Cleveland, these would be better. [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&sort=td&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2004"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?s...son=2&year=2004[/url] A TD / Interception ratio of -1 was our best ranking in years I believe. For example in 2003, we conceded 23 touchdowns, while intercepting 14. A ratio of -7 In 2002....we conceded 30 TDs...and intercepted only 9!!! -21!!!! So the trend is definitely upwards...if we can stop the run....thereby casing opponents to be in more obvious passing downs, and get more heat from the d-line in terms of pressure on QBs...we might even post a positive ratio this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Keep in mind, we played Cleveland without Wins-low and Baltimore (basically) without Heap. Plus, this year we get to play the Cheifs and Gonzales. I think a pass cover LB would still be useful. Maybe that can be Caleb Miller's specialty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 [quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' date='Mar 21 2005, 04:58 PM']WRs - 167 receptions for 2,220 yards, 13.3 ypc, 10 touchdowns TEs - 61 receptions for 707 yards, 11.6 ypc, 6 touchdowns RBs - 84 receptions for 625 yards, 7.4 ypc, 5 touchdowns [right][post="65455"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] One of the perceptions I have is that of the 55 receptions by TEs that did not go for TDs, about 54 of them were for first downs -- at least it seemed that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henrys Dealer Posted March 27, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 [quote name='Cricket' date='Mar 23 2005, 11:03 AM']One of the perceptions I have is that of the 55 receptions by TEs that did not go for TDs, about 54 of them were for first downs -- at least it seemed that way. [right][post="66437"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] I went back and looked at the figures. Made some corrections to my earlier figures as well. No Denver tight end caught a pass against us. Billy McMullen is actually a wide receiver for Philly. Didn't we have some 3rd string McMullen Tight End? He might have been our long snapper. So here are the game by game passes to tight ends...and the number that went for first downs or touchdowns. Then the percentage: NYJ 1 0 0.0% MIAMI 6 5 83.3% BAL 1 0 0.0% PITT 1 0 0.0% CLE 3 2 66.7% DEN 0 0 - TEN 5 3 60.0% DALLAS 6 3 50.0% WASH 0 0 - PITT 1 1 100.0% CLE 12 6 50.0% BAL 7 3 42.9% NE 5 1 20.0% BUFF 0 0 - NYG 6 3 50.0% PHI 5 2 40.0% Overall, we conceded 59 passes to tight ends. 29 of them were for First Downs or TDs. For an overall percentage of approx. 49.2% To be fair this number might be slightly understated...there were 5 nine yard completions when 10 yards were required for example. Setting up managable 2nd, 3rd, or 4th downs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staticx682000 Posted March 27, 2005 Report Share Posted March 27, 2005 The only prob last year was team's did not exploit us through te's like they could have.Most of last year our middle was wide open......We do need help in covering the middle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henrys Dealer Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Well, 1 year passed and we're still looking at the same problem, except it might also be improving play at the Safety position. But overall, covering tight ends is a weakness for our defence. This past season, opposing tight ends racked up the following stats on us: 72 Receptions, 841 yards, 8 touchdowns, 11.7 ypc average, 52% of those receptions went for 1st downs. This number is probably understated by about 2 % if you factor in the catches that left an average of 1-2 yards to go. Here was the game by game breakdown: Team, Players, Receptions, Yards, Touchdowns, Avg., 1st downs, 1st down % Rec Yards TD Average 1st Cleveland Heiden 3 32 0 10.7 3 100.0% Minny Wiggins, Kleinsasser 4 23 0 5.8 1 25.0% Bears - 0 0 0 - 0 - Texans - 0 0 0 - 0 - Jaguars Wrighster, Brady 3 47 1 15.7 1 33.3% Titans Kinney, Scaife, Troupe 9 83 0 9.2 3 33.3% Steelers Miller 6 58 1 9.7 4 66.7% Packers Lee, Franks 10 90 1 9.0 6 60.0% Ravens Heap, Wilcox 5 37 0 7.4 1 20.0% Colts Clark, Fletcher 8 141 2 17.6 5 62.5% Ravens Heap, Wilcox 7 96 2 13.7 2 28.6% Steelers Miller, Tuman 4 70 0 17.5 4 100.0% Browns Heiden, Shea 4 41 1 10.3 2 50.0% Lions Pollard 3 42 0 14.0 2 66.7% Bills - 0 0 0 - 0 - Chiefs 5 59 0 11.8 3 60.0% I might have made a mistake in some numbers, but overall they looked right. Compare those numbers to the previous year, when we gave up the following numbers to TE's TEs - 59 receptions for 688 yards, 11.6 ypc, 6 touchdowns 49% of receptions going for 1st down. You could argue that having KK and Ohehateme back there, exposed our middle more. But could it also be that Odell Thurman bit too hard on play fakes? Brian Simmons slowed a step? What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatcat Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 CHD - for reference I would recommend Football Outsiders. They do a good breakdown of exactly what you are trying to do and then some..... The Bengals were rated #1 in the NFL for pass defense vs. #1WR. [b]#25 ranking vs. #2WR. [/b] # 7 ranking vs. other WR. [b]#29 ranking vs. TE[/b] #1 ranking vs. RB. [url="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef.php"]Football Outsiders[/url] Scan down to see the [b]DEFENSE vs. TYPES OF RECEIVERS[/b] [code] TEAM vs. #1 WR vs. #2 WR vs. Other WR vs. TE vs. RB 1 CHI -4.30% 13 -5.60% 13 -58.70% 1 -36.90% 2 -25.70% 5 2 NYJ 12.50% 20 -30.40% 3 -34.40% 5 16.30% 23 -12.00% 12 3 CAR -18.10% 2 -25.70% 5 7.20% 20 2.20% 17 -4.90% 16 4 DEN 5.40% 16 -3.70% 14 -53.30% 2 -37.30% 1 -2.70% 18 5 JAC -6.20% 12 -13.50% 8 3.70% 19 -23.50% 4 -4.00% 17 6 IND -6.90% 9 -21.60% 6 1.70% 17 -0.10% 16 -8.70% 13 7 WAS -13.50% 4 0.30% 15 -22.80% 8 -11.40% 9 -40.20% 2 8 PIT -16.20% 3 -9.80% 10 -1.50% 15 -10.20% 11 15.50% 30 9 DAL 19.50% 23 -67.30% 1 -27.30% 6 47.20% 31 -18.70% 6 10 CIN -40.00% 1 10.10% 25 -25.80% 7 34.20% 29 -45.90% 1 11 BAL 10.10% 18 -10.10% 9 14.10% 25 -1.10% 15 -13.40% 9 12 MIA 24.20% 27 2.50% 19 -42.00% 3 -10.70% 10 -15.70% 8 13 MIN -8.60% 7 -35.70% 2 -17.10% 9 32.10% 28 17.20% 31 14 BUF 1.00% 14 11.50% 26 19.10% 27 3.20% 18 2.80% 24 15 TB -9.40% 6 3.70% 20 34.90% 30 -4.10% 14 -0.80% 19 16 ARI 20.70% 24 14.90% 29 -1.90% 14 -14.10% 7 -30.60% 3 17 PHI 30.20% 29 -20.00% 7 36.50% 31 -15.00% 6 -25.80% 4 18 NYG -6.80% 10 -8.60% 12 -9.20% 12 -31.30% 3 -13.30% 11 19 DET 16.30% 21 8.50% 23 -13.80% 10 -23.30% 5 -6.90% 15 20 KC -11.60% 5 9.80% 24 -40.40% 4 24.60% 25 6.40% 27 21 CLE -6.60% 11 -26.20% 4 70.30% 32 -13.90% 8 0.90% 22 22 GB -7.30% 8 13.00% 28 14.20% 26 34.40% 30 -0.60% 20 23 ATL 5.90% 17 7.20% 21 -6.00% 13 28.80% 27 -8.50% 14 24 SD 21.50% 26 1.10% 18 19.40% 28 -10.00% 12 7.20% 28 25 SEA 10.50% 19 0.90% 17 13.00% 23 14.40% 21 -13.40% 10 26 NO 31.50% 31 22.70% 30 1.60% 16 16.10% 22 -0.50% 21 27 OAK 19.30% 22 7.90% 22 22.00% 29 5.70% 19 6.20% 26 28 STL 46.50% 32 0.60% 16 2.40% 18 -8.10% 13 -18.50% 7 29 NE 4.70% 15 11.80% 27 10.20% 22 24.60% 26 6.00% 25 30 HOU 20.90% 25 33.80% 31 13.70% 24 21.10% 24 8.30% 29 31 SF 26.80% 28 -9.10% 11 9.60% 21 61.00% 32 2.20% 23 32 TEN 30.60% 30 53.80% 32 -12.50% 11 14.40% 20 33.90% 32[/code] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 our lack of run d and short pass d stemmed from the youth at LB and the lack of safeties on the field. ohalate is about as effevtive as a cardboard cutout, the only tackle he had someone trippped over him laying on the ground. to think the level of play at LB as far as coverage and SS as far as coverage are the same this coming opening day and at any point last season is a kick in the face of the hard work the team put forth, madieu's return, the upcoming draft, and dexter jackson. by week 3-4 the defense will be a well oiled machine in the secondary and a lot more confident and gained some solidarity upfront from the multitude of cahnges that occured a year ago in those positions. the dozens of big palys odell and our DB's were able to come up with early in the year gave teams some fear of our pass D. which helped our ranking.. if all of those teams were as smart as the colts and exploiting it, it could have been a loooooong season.. i have no doubts we will be drafting madieu #2 and oneal and james replacements in the upcoming draft, as well as another LB likely.. stats can be decieving, if we only gave up 5 TD's to TE's but were all game winners it would be a larger problem ..etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Claptonrocks Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 well oiled machine?? ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThurmanMunster Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 [quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' post='66421' date='Mar 23 2005, 09:17 AM']Going back to those stats. It really shows that our passing D is in good shape. We had twenty interceptions last season, conceding 21 TDs. (ESPN has us at 23, but I've gone through every game and can only count 21 passing TD's conceded.) The 20 interceptions had us ranked 7th overall (wtih NE) [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&sort=int&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2004"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?s...son=2&year=2004[/url] Conceding 21 Td's would have us tied for 15th in the NFL. Again, if you take out our horror games against Cleveland, these would be better. [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&sort=td&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2004"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?s...son=2&year=2004[/url] A TD / Interception ratio of -1 was our best ranking in years I believe. [b] For example in 2003, we conceded 23 touchdowns, while intercepting 14. A ratio of -7[/b] In 2002....we conceded 30 TDs...and intercepted only 9!!! -21!!!! So the trend is definitely upwards...if we can stop the run....thereby casing opponents to be in more obvious passing downs, and get more heat from the d-line in terms of pressure on QBs...we might even post a positive ratio this year.[/quote] oh fuck ur a steelers fan in disguise. 23-14=9 not 7, uve had too many of SW's dealings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cricket Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='ThurmanMunster' post='239346' date='Mar 27 2006, 05:41 PM'][quote name='Stanley Wilson's Dealer' post='66421' date='Mar 23 2005, 09:17 AM'] Going back to those stats. It really shows that our passing D is in good shape. We had twenty interceptions last season, conceding 21 TDs. (ESPN has us at 23, but I've gone through every game and can only count 21 passing TD's conceded.) The 20 interceptions had us ranked 7th overall (wtih NE) [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&sort=int&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2004"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?s...son=2&year=2004[/url] Conceding 21 Td's would have us tied for 15th in the NFL. Again, if you take out our horror games against Cleveland, these would be better. [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=teampass&sort=td&pos=def&league=nfl&season=2&year=2004"]http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?s...son=2&year=2004[/url] A TD / Interception ratio of -1 was our best ranking in years I believe. [b] For example in 2003, we conceded 23 touchdowns, while intercepting 14. A ratio of -7[/b] In 2002....we conceded 30 TDs...and intercepted only 9!!! -21!!!! So the trend is definitely upwards...if we can stop the run....thereby casing opponents to be in more obvious passing downs, and get more heat from the d-line in terms of pressure on QBs...we might even post a positive ratio this year.[/quote] oh fuck ur a steelers fan in disguise. 23-14=9 not 7, uve had too many of SW's dealings. [/quote] SWD may want to look up the definition for [b]ratio[/b]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phatcat Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 [quote name='Cricket' post='239928' date='Mar 28 2006, 03:42 PM']SWD may want to look up the definition for [b]ratio[/b].[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henrys Dealer Posted March 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Best part is I'm in finance / trading and deal with numbers / ratios all day. Bloody hell, that must have been a rough night for me a year ago, to generate a post like that the next day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.