158 replies to this topic

[Dogman2]

Let's talk about potential matchups, injuries, schemes here.

http://espn.go.com/b...-serious-injury

Ninkovich left Sunday's finale with a hip injury in the second quarter, but the Herald's Jeff Howe reported that "there's a good chance he can play when the Patriots open the postseason Jan. 13, according to a source. He suffered some strained muscles in his hip, which is a positive development after there was some legitimate, initial fear the injury could cost him the postseason."

Having a healthy Nink is a positive but if Francis plays the way he did against Miami, he should get the reps.

[ShaneTrot]

Let's talk about potential matchups, injuries, schemes here.

http://espn.go.com/b...-serious-injury



Having a healthy Nink is a positive but if Francis plays the way he did against Miami, he should get the reps.

Nink sets the edge, does this kid, if he did he would play. Nink is one of the most underrated players on this team. He would be a helluva loss.

[TomTerrific]

Let's talk about potential matchups, injuries, schemes here.
...
Having a healthy Nink is a positive but if Francis plays the way he did against Miami, he should get the reps.

Actually, I'm at least as interested in the status of Dennard and Talib, neither of which played on Sunday. Any news?

Not that the secondary was so terrible against the Fins, but the indications up to now have been that these two, especially Talib, make a big difference in its performance.

[Reverend]

Actually, I'm at least as interested in the status of Dennard and Talib, neither of which played on Sunday. Any news?

Not that the secondary was so terrible against the Fins, but the indications up to now have been that these two, especially Talib, make a big difference in its performance.

Having those two guys in upgrade four positions in the nickel, so yeah, huge deal. Talib was active, I believe, and simply didn't play. Dennard was active but limited in practice, which is a pretty good sign--or at least better than not practicing.

Houston really did us a solid by sucking.

[soxfan121]

Houston really did us a solid by sucking.

Houston did everyone a favor by rediscovering their true talent level before the end of the season. Obviously, the Pats and Denver and their old, banged up QBs and other assorted injured guys are thankful.

But I think Cincy is going to be VERY happy they're getting the sinking Texans this weekend. Cincy has been playing well and Dalton-to-Green is one of the top 5 QB-WR pairings in the league right now. A victory for Cincy is more likely over the Texans than it was going to be against either Denver/New England. But either way, Cincy or Houston is going out to whomever they play in Round 2 - the talent disparity is too large.

The big wildcard matchup in the AFC is the Indy-Baltimore game. The Ravens aren't even close to the same team the Patriots saw in Week 3, with or without the limping returns of Lewis & Suggs. I think Indy has enough pixie dust left to pull the "upset" and set up a trip for Luck to Denver...if Houston wins. And if Houston wins, they come to New England, where they've already been spanked.

The path to a Denver-New England AFC Championship seems pretty clear.

[m0ckduck]

Has it been widely reported that Pats have led the AFC in turnover take-away/give-away for three straight seasons? Maybe I missed the bulletin, but I was surprised to see the extent of the margin: New England is at +70 differential since 2010 season began; composite runners-up are at only +36.

Edited by m0ckduck, 01 January 2013 - 05:11 PM.

[Eddie Jurak]

Nink sets the edge, does this kid, if he did he would play. Nink is one of the most underrated players on this team. He would be a helluva loss.

Probably more of a loss on running downs - I like Nink in all situations but they at least have some solid depth at DE. Losing Wilfork, Spikes, Mayo, McCourty, Talib, even Dennard would hurt the defense more.

[PedrosRedGlove]

I agree that the players you list would be bigger losses, (Spikes being arguable, yes he gets the hype for being a highlight reel against the run but he is still a liability any time the opposition throws the ball if he isn't blitzing.) but I don't think the loss of Ninkovich should be understated. People get frustrated to see him helplessly bull rush the right tackle over and over, but obviously Belichick does not, I'm guessing Nink's job is primarily just contain and collapse, and he does it adequately and consistently. His reliability makes him one of the unsung heroes in this defense for me.

While Francis and Scott have been performing well down the stretch, they are not every down players, so I don't think the decision should be Nink vs Francis or Scott. If we have those two playing the majority of snaps at the end we might have a problem. However, if Nink can get back to health, they provide some great depth to the line rotation, both spelling Nink to rest him, as well as allowing Bill to use his versatility at other spots if necessary.

[Reverend]

Has it been widely reported that Pats have led the AFC in turnover take-away/give-away for three straight seasons? Maybe I missed the bulletin, but I was surprised to see the extent of the margin: New England is at +70 differential since 2010 season began; composite runners-up are at only +36.

Wow. Wasn't there some discussion awhile back that Belichick believed fumbles and turnovers were a skill whereas many did not?

Anyway, I found this nifty piece over at WEEI with Belichick talking about it. To cross the streams, Nink is one of the best with five strips this season.

[Eddie Jurak]

PRG, I think those are all very good points and that you are correct that losing Ninkovich would not be trivial.

Losing Ninkovich is also a blow to LB depth. My guess is that if a LB went down, BB would probably rather move Ninkovich to LB than put White or Rivera in. I listed Spikes as harder to replace than Ninkovich because the Pats are thin at LB and deep at DE. But losing Ninkovich hurts them at LB, too, so he's a bigger loss than Spikes.

[bowiac]

Wow. Wasn't there some discussion awhile back that Belichick believed fumbles and turnovers were a skill whereas many did not?

Anyway, I found this nifty piece over at WEEI with Belichick talking about it. To cross the streams, Nink is one of the best with five strips this season.

Every single coach with a good fumble recovery rate will go on at length about how it's a skill. When the Jets were blocking field goals left and right, they were going on about how hard they practice that too.

That said, turnovers and fumble recovery are different things. Tom Brady doesn't throw many interceptions - that's basically his most defining statistical skill actually. And while I don't think you can really do much to recover fumbles at a greater rate, you probably can cause them in the first place at varying rates.

[DrewDawg]

I've heard that, like 1 run games in baseball, it's something that varies greatly from year to year. However, it seems like BB's teams, at least the last few years, have been very consistent in this.

[soxfan121]

Every single coach with a good fumble recovery rate will go on at length about how it's a skill. When the Jets were blocking field goals left and right, they were going on about how hard they practice that too.

That said, turnovers and fumble recovery are different things. Tom Brady doesn't throw many interceptions - that's basically his most defining statistical skill actually. And while I don't think you can really do much to recover fumbles at a greater rate, you probably can cause them in the first place at varying rates.

I think the point of emphasis is that turnovers are the worst possible thing the offense can do with the ball and the single best thing a defense can do without the ball. It's why Ridley was inactive for the AFCC last year and why every fumble this season has caused such consternation.

The turnover differential is not coincidence - it's BB's main focus in every meeting, practice session, film study and conversation. Protect the ball, go get the ball. Seems too simple but it's the simplicity that attracts BB to it.

[simplyeric]

I think the point of emphasis is that turnovers are the worst possible thing the offense can do with the ball and the single best thing a defense can do without the ball. It's why Ridley was inactive for the AFCC last year and why every fumble this season has caused such consternation.

The turnover differential is not coincidence - it's BB's main focus in every meeting, practice session, film study and conversation. Protect the ball, go get the ball. Seems too simple but it's the simplicity that attracts BB to it.

I think avoiding mistakes is an attainable skill, as a team: if you focus more than the other teams on not screwing up, you could theoretically reduce screw ups (fumbles) by some statistically real percentage. If you bench people when they fumble, then a. you're reinforcing the importance of not fumbling, and b. you're playing people who, for whatever reason, fumble less.
I also think capitalizing on mistakes is an attainable skill: if you focus more on end-of-play attention to the ball, and practice ball awareness, and also on attacking the ball in the QB's/RB's/recevier's hands, you'd be more likely to be looking for the stripped ball at the end of a running play.
The issue isn't whether it can be done...the issue is whether it can be done relative to the other teams. It's sorta like in car racing: these days you can have marginal differences in pit-stop times that can make the difference, but there was a time years ago when people didn't pay as much attention to optimizing pit times. Obviously, if you had a football team that just didn't pay attention to ball awareness and fumble recovery, they'd probably not be that good at turnovers. But all the teams DO pay attention to it, so it's hard to say if one team is actually "better" anymore.

The relevant stat wouldn't be differential because as noted above, you could have an average defensive number and a way below average offensive number (Brady, and BJ-GE, who rarely fumbled), or the inverse (dirty Sanchez........).
You'd have to isolate "offensive retention rate per play", likely independent of interceptions thrown, and probably QB stripped balls. Interceptions and strips have way too many variables: collapsed O-line, bad routes, bad QB decisions. The QB is too much of a determinism himself, which would cloud the overall "coachability" of non-turnovers, i.e. non fumbles. So you'd take basically non-QB-related losses, effectively only fumbles.
Then you isolate "defensive causation rate per play". One thing the Patriots try to do is cause opposing teams to run more plays. This may result in more turnovers, (or retained fumbles), but doesn't mean the team is more skilled at causing turnovers, only that they are more skilled at pushing the generic regression to the mean. For defenses, you'd have to somehow correct for the opposing QB situation, possibly simply by eliminating QB turnovers. Here again, interceptions might great D-line, or terrible O-line, or great safeties or terrible QB.
Finally, you'd want to look at recovery percentages of both of those (offensive drops retained v. lost; defensive caused drops v. recovered).

There might be relevant info there. Hard to say. I guess what I mean is: it would be really really hard to find the statistical information in turnovers, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

[slamminsammya]

According to this article, the Pats defense has consistently been a full standard deviation above the average in defensive interception rate. The hypothesis is that because the offense is so dominant and teams are so often playing from behind, opposing offenses are forced to throw the ball much more aggresively, thereby leading to more interceptions.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Wow. Wasn't there some discussion awhile back that Belichick believed fumbles and turnovers were a skill whereas many did not?

I think the "state of the art" statistical wisdom is that recovering fumbles is not a repeatable skill (nor, I don't think, is converting passes defended into interceptions). That doesn't mean there's no skill in generating recovered fumbles, though... if you force fumbles at a greater rate, then even if recovery is random, you'll still recover them at a greater rate too.

[Kevin Youkulele]

I think the "state of the art" statistical wisdom is that recovering fumbles is not a repeatable skill (nor, I don't think, is converting passes defended into interceptions). That doesn't mean there's no skill in generating recovered fumbles, though... if you force fumbles at a greater rate, then even if recovery is random, you'll still recover them at a greater rate too.

The fumble recovery statistic seems to have sources of noise analogous to RBI (other than the self-RBI from a HR, which are almost always a minority of RBI) to the extent that one needs to be in the right place at the right time to get them. Forcing a fumble seems a lot less noisy--it should be generated by players good at hitting in ways that dislodge the ball.

[Super Nomario]

I think the "state of the art" statistical wisdom is that recovering fumbles is not a repeatable skill (nor, I don't think, is converting passes defended into interceptions). That doesn't mean there's no skill in generating recovered fumbles, though... if you force fumbles at a greater rate, then even if recovery is random, you'll still recover them at a greater rate too.

The fumble recovery statistic seems to have sources of noise analogous to RBI (other than the self-RBI from a HR, which are almost always a minority of RBI) to the extent that one needs to be in the right place at the right time to get them. Forcing a fumble seems a lot less noisy--it should be generated by players good at hitting in ways that dislodge the ball.

If you look at the leaders in forced fumbles year after year, you see two kinds of players: 1) pass rushers, and 2) Charles Tillman. It seems like Spikes and Mayo have shown a real ability to force fumbles, but if they had such a skill, wouldn't they have forced more than one fumble in a season before this year? I looked at this in a little more detail on my blog.

[Reverend]

Looks pretty random (data from ESPN):

Forced Fumbles

	NE	LgAvg	StDevs		Leader
2012	32	16.4	2.9		NE	32
2011	10	15.5	-1.4		Jets	23
2010	11	17.8	-1.1		Giants	38
2009	18	15.9	0.5		Chi	25
2008	13	15.9	-0.6		Jets	29
2007	20	17.4	0.5		Tampa	28
2006	14	16.5	-0.5		Chi/Miami	27
2005	8	17.3	-2.2		Indy	27
2004	23	17.3	1.3		Indy	27
2003	19	17.0	0.5		StL	25
2002	15	15.9	-0.2		Philly	29

Which is actually potentially bad if not disastrous news with respect to sustainability; the Pats could be a bit overrated going into the playoffs due to being lucky on forcing fumbles.

That's not to say they're not awesome; you can be awesome and still be overrated.

• Back to top

[PedroKsBambino]

Just some differentiation of the terms of the discussion...

Turnover differential has four components, and they potentially are differently situated in terms of randomness.

Two are very likely not wholly random (both interception rates). This is definitely true of interceptions thrown, and both what I've read and would expect suggests it is not random on interceptions made, either.

A third, the rate that your team fumbles, may not be random (e.g. it seems reasonable that teams will weight a player's proclivity to fumble differently, and/or train players not to fumble with different levels of effectiveness). However, the rate you recover your own fumbles would seem to be random, excepting that fumbled snaps have a higher recovery rate for the fumbling team than other types of fumbles. So on balance, that'd suggest it is not random but may or may not have significant team to team variation.

The fourth, the rate of the other team's fumbles you cause, may be random and may not be---I'm not sure. The rate that your team recovers of those fumbles, seems to be random.

Perhaps we can get all the numbers on the components there and see if there's more of a story here or not!

[Reverend]

The fourth, the rate of the other team's fumbles you cause, may be random and may not be---I'm not sure. The rate that your team recovers of those fumbles, seems to be random.

Perhaps we can get all the numbers on the components there and see if there's more of a story here or not!

I suppose anything's possible.

[simplyeric]

Just some differentiation of the terms of the discussion...

Turnover differential has four components, and they potentially are differently situated in terms of randomness.

Two are very likely not wholly random (both interception rates). This is definitely true of interceptions thrown, and both what I've read and would expect suggests it is not random on interceptions made, either.

A third, the rate that your team fumbles, may not be random (e.g. it seems reasonable that teams will weight a player's proclivity to fumble differently, and/or train players not to fumble with different levels of effectiveness). However, the rate you recover your own fumbles would seem to be random, excepting that fumbled snaps have a higher recovery rate for the fumbling team than other types of fumbles. So on balance, that'd suggest it is not random but may or may not have significant team to team variation.

The fourth, the rate of the other team's fumbles you cause, may be random and may not be---I'm not sure. The rate that your team recovers of those fumbles, seems to be random.

Perhaps we can get all the numbers on the components there and see if there's more of a story here or not!

This is what I was trying to describe...or something similar/related to it.
My big issue being that 'non QB fumbles' allowed or created is a rate stat, not a counting stat:
Fumbles allowed per play.
Fumbles created per play.
FAPP and FCraPP, both independent of fumbles recovered or lost.
Do the Patriots get more turnovers because their FCraPP rate is higher, or just because they make opponents run more plays (if in fact they consistently do)?

[PedroKsBambino]

My big issue being that 'non QB fumbles' allowed or created is a rate stat, not a counting stat:

You're really expressing a preference for how we show the number, right? I agree a rate state is probably the way to show it, though the actual turnovers are the same either way (e.g. the rate stat is just the turnovers/number of opportunities)

[Dogman2]

Did either of you read Rev's chart?

[PedroKsBambino]

Yes. It speaks to one-fourth of the larger question being discussed, seemed to me. And did a nice job with that fourth.

Did you see more there that I may have missed?

[Reverend]

The fourth, the rate of the other team's fumbles you cause, may be random and may not be---I'm not sure. The rate that your team recovers of those fumbles, seems to be random.

Perhaps we can get all the numbers on the components there and see if there's more of a story here or not!

[PedroKsBambino]

You have one team's data for several years, not adjusted for number of 'plays'---that's not a large enough data set to make a conclusion. That's why we'd want more data.

Do you disagree with that?

Mind you, awesome you pulled what you did! Just was saying that to really be confident we knew what was going on we'd need a bunch more stuff---perhaps Football Outsiders or Joyner or someone has already done all that somewhere

Edited by PedroKsBambino, 03 January 2013 - 10:24 AM.

[crystalline]

Plus Rev's table looks like it only reports forced fumbles recovered by the forcing team, is that correct? Most fumble stats skip those where a team drops the ball and then grabs it again. For the number of events we're talking about most of the noise is sample variance and including both types would help dramatically.

PKB did a good job breaking down the components.
Additional ways to improve the statement would be to differentiate between fumbles where contact with the other team caused them vs contact w/ the ground.


On the overall point I'd be willing to wager that BB's teams have more skill at causing and avoiding fumbles than the average team. Also plausible that other teams have placed increased emphasis on it raising the average.

[simplyeric]

Did either of you read Rev's chart?

Yes. It shows total number of fumbles, not adjusted for the specific things that I thought were necessary, which were number of plays, and isolation from QB fumbles (because I think QB strip sacks or fumbles on a scramble are a different animal). If you really really wanted to dig the data, you'd also correct for opponent tendencies (do you play v. Sanchez a lot? Or v. BJ-GE?) , weather, etc.

Let's take a basically trivial case: if you have one team that doesn't tell players to punch at the ball at every tackle, and one team where the coach says "I want you to punch at the ball every single time you get near a guy", I bet you'd see one team cause more fumbles.
And if the coach said nothing, v. saying "at the end of every play I want to see you scrambling towards the ball, just in case it pops out", I bet you'd see one team recover more fumbles than the other.
In the abstract, it's a "teachable" and "improveable" skill. But, that doesn't mean it can fully overcome opponent's strengths, careful play management, or random chance. The point is, there may be data that could be teased out, but it might be really really hard to do (and it might not be all that useful to do it).

Edited by simplyeric, 03 January 2013 - 10:37 AM.

[Saints Rest]

Yes. It shows total number of fumbles, not adjusted for the specific things that I thought were necessary, which were number of plays, and isolation from QB fumbles (because I think QB strip sacks or fumbles on a scramble are a different animal). If you really really wanted to dig the data, you'd also correct for opponent tendencies (do you play v. Sanchez a lot? Or v. BJ-GE?) , weather, etc.

Let's take a basically trivial case: if you have one team that doesn't tell players to punch at the ball at every tackle, and one team where the coach says "I want you to punch at the ball every single time you get near a guy", I bet you'd see one team cause more fumbles.
And if the coach said nothing, v. saying "at the end of every play I want to see you scrambling towards the ball, just in case it pops out", I bet you'd see one team recover more fumbles than the other.
In the abstract, it's a "teachable" and "improveable" skill. But, that doesn't mean it can fully overcome opponent's strengths, careful play management, or random chance. The point is, there may be data that could be teased out, but it might be really really hard to do (and it might not be all that useful to do it).

I remember a few years back, (can't remember the exact year) the Pats lost one of those ugly-unexpected losses, to the Brown's or similar. In this game, there was a questionable fumble -- either a screen pass that was a lateral or a strip-sack that might have been an incomplete pass. As the ball bounced around on the ground, only one Patriot (Stephen Neal IIRC,) made any attempt at recovering the loose ball, while all the other Pats stood around. The play was indicative of how lethargic the team was that day. But afterwards, BB praised Neal and said that a Patriot should trdeat every ball on the fumble as a loose ball until told otherwise

Now think about how often you see a Patriot chasing a ball on the ground where no opponent does. Seems to happen about once per game. 9 times out of 10, it is a dead ball, but on occasion, it is a fumble and the Pats recover, due mainly to their hustle, which all leads back to the coaching/culture of the team.

My point being that the Pats seem to have a different attitude than most (not all, most) teams about loose balls. I think this is emblematic of a likely grander overall philosophy preached from Day One from above about ball security -- both ways. Thus it makes sense that the stats say that the Pats lead in turnover differential by such a wide margin. More than can be accounted for by Brady (who is likely coached to be conservative with the ball) and random variance.

[Reverend]

You have one team's data for several years, not adjusted for number of 'plays'---that's not a large enough data set to make a conclusion. That's why we'd want more data.

Do you disagree with that?

Mind you, awesome you pulled what you did! Just was saying that to really be confident we knew what was going on we'd need a bunch more stuff---perhaps Football Outsiders or Joyner or someone has already done all that somewhere

Heh. I was only speaking to the fourth point and prodding you on the "I'm not sure part." No worries.

But maybe this is what I get for not writing a 500 word post. Basically, I thought the data was pretty self-evident to make it not worth going any further; I left the data on all teams in the spreadsheet so I could do up any team pretty quick. It pretty much just looks like noise. Sure, weighting for number of plays would be more rigorous, but from 2007-2012 the Pats had a top five offense in terms of yards at least five times, I think, so that's not a terrible quick and dirty control. Also, look at how stable the league average is. Basically, I figured the Pats were a good "best case scenario" case test such that if we didn't see any consistency there, we wouldn't see it anywhere. What you do see is the best offenses look like they correlate with higher forced fumbles which lends credibility to the position that it's random with a consequent correlation to number of plays the defense plays.

I wanted to believe that Belichick was a mad genius here, but the quick and dirty numbers don't even come close to suggesting it.

[Reverend]

Plus Rev's table looks like it only reports forced fumbles recovered by the forcing team, is that correct? Most fumble stats skip those where a team drops the ball and then grabs it again. For the number of events we're talking about most of the noise is sample variance and including both types would help dramatically.

Why does it look like that? Even CBSportsline's in game thingie reports who fumbled and who recovered. I'm not sure this is accurate. Also, sites like pro-football reference report different numbers for forced fumbles and fumble recoveries. This seems to me like a bizarre assumption to just make without any links or reasons given.

If anything, the problem may be that different sites appear to report different numbers of fumbles/forced fumbles.

Additional ways to improve the statement would be to differentiate between fumbles where contact with the other team caused them vs contact w/ the ground.

Like, for example, forced fumbles as opposed to just fumbles?

On the overall point I'd be willing to wager that BB's teams have more skill at causing and avoiding fumbles than the average team. Also plausible that other teams have placed increased emphasis on it raising the average.

I would have been too until I looked at the numbers over the last ten years and found the contention almost completely insupportable. I agree incorporating number of plays would be more rigorous, but there is so much variance that that doesn't look necessary, especially given the consistency of the offense. I just can't imagine that the number of plays on defense varies as much season to season as that forced fumble stat does, although I admit I don't know where to find number of plays data.

Yes. It shows total number of fumbles, not adjusted for the specific things that I thought were necessary, which were number of plays, and isolation from QB fumbles (because I think QB strip sacks or fumbles on a scramble are a different animal). If you really really wanted to dig the data, you'd also correct for opponent tendencies (do you play v. Sanchez a lot? Or v. BJ-GE?) , weather, etc.

As per above, I can't imagine number of plays are going to vary enough to suggest it's not random. Also, it's ten years.

And if the coach said nothing, v. saying "at the end of every play I want to see you scrambling towards the ball, just in case it pops out", I bet you'd see one team recover more fumbles than the other.

True, if you compare total emphasis to no emphasis. But within the actual margins of the NFL, Belichick would have been a "best case" and it doesn't look like there is a discernible effect, or rather, not one that isn't overwhelmed by a much larger random effect.


I mean, I wanted to believe too, but this is a priori conjecture. We're going into the playoffs here guys! We're going to be having visitors from other boards--boards of good teams. Trolls too. We need to get into playoff shape here!

[McBride11]

Plus Rev's table looks like it only reports forced fumbles recovered by the forcing team, is that correct? Most fumble stats skip those where a team drops the ball and then grabs it again. For the number of events we're talking about most of the noise is sample variance and including both types would help dramatically.

For the data over on ESPN, it lists "Forced Fumbles" (NE 32) and "Fumbles Recovered" (NE 21). So, to your question no. What I am not sure of is how fumbles not necessarily caused by the D get recorded. More specifically, when Kaepernick had like 235 fumbles on the snap this year during the game vs SF, if that counts in the FF category. Because if it does, then that FF stat is inflated a good bit. Alternatively, if not, we get judgement calls. Well maybe on that snap Vince blew up the center and caused a fumble whereas the next one CK just dropped it. And given a small sample size, those several can alter the totals.

However, I do think the overall idea speaks to one of BB's basic tenets "don't beat yourself." The Pats make them move up and down the field by not giving up the big play thereby increasing the total number of plays (further increased by a high possession count the opposing offense gets). With increasing plays comes increasing chances to make a mistake. And that's where extra turnovers could be gained.

Unless Charles Tillman plays defense for you.

Edited by McBride11, 03 January 2013 - 12:45 PM.

[simplyeric]

...

True, if you compare total emphasis to no emphasis. But within the actual margins of the NFL, Belichick would have been a "best case" and it doesn't look like there is a discernible effect, or rather, not one that isn't overwhelmed by a much larger random effect.

...

That's where I end up. It definitely is a "skill"... It's just that within the margin of error/sample size/noise between seasons and personnel, all teams have that skill. Extra attention to that detail by particular coaches or players might nudge the needle by some real amount, but you might not be able to really measure it.

I do think that if rosters stayed together longer and played many more games, you might find a trend.

might.

[RedOctober3829]

Rob Ninkovich is back at practice along with the two others who missed practice yesterday(Brady and Hightower).

https://twitter.com/...896170066919424

Huge news that Nink is even practicing at this point in the process. Looks like they really dodged a bullet. It looked to me he was done for a while given the way he was taken off the field.

[DrewDawg]

But afterwards, BB praised Neal and said that a Patriot should trdeat every ball on the fumble as a loose ball until told otherwise

I remember reading somewhere that in every practice, on every play, Rodney Harrison would come to the ball carrier and try to tomahawk the ball out. On every play. Even in no contact drills.

[Al Zarilla]

I remember reading somewhere that in every practice, on every play, Rodney Harrison would come to the ball carrier and try to tomahawk the ball out. On every play. Even in no contact drills.

Speaking of Rodney, in one of the endless tributes to Ray Ray on ESPN since he announced, one of the analysts mentioned Rodney as one of those very few guys (and also Junior Seau) that you always looked to see where he was before every play.

Ninkovich news is great.

[Dogman2]

Rob Ninkovich is back at practice along with the two others who missed practice yesterday(Brady and Hightower).

https://twitter.com/...896170066919424

Huge news that Nink is even practicing at this point in the process. Looks like they really dodged a bullet. It looked to me he was done for a while given the way he was taken off the field.

100% participation in practice by the 53. At this point in the season, this is outstanding news.

[Super Nomario]

I remember reading somewhere that in every practice, on every play, Rodney Harrison would come to the ball carrier and try to tomahawk the ball out. On every play. Even in no contact drills.

And Rodney had a total of 15 FF in a 15-year career, never more than 3 in a season (and only once more than 2).

In general, turnovers are pretty random. One major factor in the Pats' favor is that they're good. Teams around the league have about half the turnover rate (1.5 % vs 3%) when leading as they do when trailing. This isn't just a product of "teams that are trailing are worse and more likely to turn the ball over." 8 of the Pats' turnovers are while trailing, versus just 5 while leading, even though they've run more than twice as many plays leading (700) versus trailing (299).

[lostjumper]

Rob Ninkovich is back at practice along with the two others who missed practice yesterday(Brady and Hightower).

https://twitter.com/...896170066919424

Huge news that Nink is even practicing at this point in the process. Looks like they really dodged a bullet. It looked to me he was done for a while given the way he was taken off the field.

Just saw this. This is great news. For him to even be out there a week before they play points to him being ready to go next week. Full participation by the team bodes well too. I think if they are healthy, the Pat's are the best team out there, and this bye is giving them a great chance to get healthy.

[DrewDawg]

And Rodney had a total of 15 FF in a 15-year career, never more than 3 in a season (and only once more than 2).

And? I don't think he was doing it as "practice" for himself, but more as something that annoyed his teammates so that they were used to covering up the ball so Harrison didn't knock it loose.

[MentalDisabldLst]

100% participation in practice by the 53. At this point in the season, this is outstanding news.

[TheoShmeo]

This doesn't really belong in this thread but I don't think it's threadworthy (dope/mod, please move if you disagree), and it contains some fun facts that I was unaware of and thoroughly enjoyed.

So enjoy:

TOTAL VICTORIES SINCE 1994 (Regular Season)
New England Patriots .........................................205
Green Bay Packers................................................... 196
Pittsburgh Steelers .................................................. 192
Indianapolis Colts .................................................... 183

TOTAL VICTORIES SINCE 1994 (Incl. Postseason)
New England Patriots .........................................224
Green Bay Packers................................................... 211
Pittsburgh Steelers .................................................. 209
Indianapolis Colts .................................................... 194
Denver Broncos ....................................................... 187
Philadelphia Eagles .................................................. 177

WINNING PERCENTAGE SINCE 1994 (Incl. Postseason)
Team W L T Pct.
New England Patriots 224 109 0 .673
Green Bay Packers 211 119 0 .639
Pittsburgh Steelers 209 121 1 .633
Indianapolis Colts 194 133 0 .593
Denver Broncos 187 132 0 .586
Philadelphia Eagles 177 147 2 .546
New York Giants 171 148 1 .536

SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1994
New England Patriots............................................ 3
Green Bay…………………………………….. ........................... 2
Pittsburgh Steelers…………………………………….. ............... 2
Denver Broncos ........................................................... 2
N.Y. Giants .. .............................................................. 2
7 Teams ...... .............................................................. 1

CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1994
New England Patriots............................................ 6
Pittsburgh Steelers ...................................................... 4
Green Bay Packers ...................................................... 3
New York Giants.......................................................... 3
Denver Broncos ........................................................... 2
St. Louis Rams ............................................................ 2
Indianapolis Colts ........................................................ 2
14 Teams .... .............................................................. 1

DIVISION CHAMPIONSHIPS SINCE 1994
New England Patriots ............................................ 12
Pittsburgh Steelers ...................................................... 10
Green Bay Packers ........................................................ 9
Indianapolis Colts .......................................................... 8

PLAYOFF VICTORIES SINCE 1994
New England Patriots ............................................ 19
Pittsburgh Steelers ...................................................... 17
Green Bay Packers ...................................................... 15
Philadelphia Eagles…………………………………………………… 11
Indianapolis Colts ........................................................ 11

PLAYOFF GAMES PLAYED SINCE 1994
New England Patriots............................................ 29
Pittsburgh Steelers .......................................................27
Green Bay Packers .......................................................26
Indianapolis Colts .........................................................23
Philadelphia Eagles .......................................................22
Baltimore Ravens .........................................................17

PLAYOFF SEASONS SINCE 1994
New England Patriots ............................................ 14
Green Bay Packers ...................................................... 14
Indianapolis Colts ........................................................ 14
Pittsburgh Steelers ...................................................... 12
Philadelphia Eagles ...................................................... 11
Minnesota Vikings........................................................ 10
Baltimore Ravens .......................................................... 9
Dallas Cowboys ............................................................. 9
Denver Broncos ............................................................. 9
San Francisco 49ers ....................................................... 9

PLAYOFF WINNING PERCENTAGE SINCE 1994
Team W L Pct.
New England Patriots ..............19....... 10 .................. .655
Pittsburgh Steelers ....................... 17 ....... 10 .................... .630
New York Giants........................... 10 ......... 6 .................... .625
Arizona Cardinals ........................... 5 ......... 3 .................. . .625
Denver Broncos .............................. 9 ......... 6 ................... .600
New Orleans Saints ........................ 6 ......... 4 .................... .600
Carolina Panthers ........................... 6 ......... 4 .................... .600
New Baltimore Ravens .................. 10 ......... 7 ................... .588

MOST PRO BOWLERS DRAFTED SINCE 1994
Since Robert Kraft’s purchase of the Patriots in 1994, the team has
drafted more Pro Bowl players than any other NFL team.
Rank Team Players
1. New England 20
2. Green Bay 19
3. Pittsburgh 18

PS: I have no source for this; it was sent to me via e-mail

Edited by TheoShmeo, 04 January 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[tims4wins]

The Pats offense and special teams only allowed 2 points this year - the safety on the holding call on Ridley in the end zone in the Thanksgiving Jets game (the Arizona blocked punt only ended up on the 2 yard line). That is a pretty crazy number to me.

To contrast, the butt-fumblin Jets allowed 51 points against their offense and special teams (which also doesnt include a blocked punt that ended up on the 2 yard line in the SF game).

[Al Zarilla]

This doesn't really belong in this thread but I don't think it's threadworthy (dope/mod, please move if you disagree), and it contains some fun facts that I was unaware of and thoroughly enjoyed.

So enjoy:

TOTAL VICTORIES SINCE 1994 (Regular Season)
New England Patriots .........................................205
etc...
PS: I have no source for this; it was sent to me via e-mail

That's a lot of years and a big sample size, but detractors of the Patriots, like (desperate) Jets fans, would say it's cherry picked because in the previous 5 years, the Pats went 19 - 61. But, no, that's a great run.

[Mystic Merlin]

The Kraft era began in 1994, so it's not really arbitrary.

[loshjott]

That's a lot of years and a big sample size, but detractors of the Patriots, like (desperate) Jets fans, would say it's cherry picked because in the previous 5 years, the Pats went 19 - 61. But, no, that's a great run.

It coincides with Kraft's ownership, so not really cherry picked.

[Al Zarilla]

I know 1994 started the Kraft era. Another huge switch by a team in the history of the NFL was with the Steelers before and after Chuck Noll. In terms of winning-losing-"tied" seasons:

Before Noll: 7-22-5

With and after Noll: 31-10-3

And, in Noll's first 3 seasons, they were 0 - 3.

[Pandemonium67]

The Pats' incredible playoff numbers are actually skewed down somewhat by the fact that they often have received byes, depriving them of several relatively easy wins.

[Mystic Merlin]

They actually haven't played a road playoff game since the 2006 AFCCG. They've been the #1 seed three times ('07/'10/'11), the #2 seed once ('12), the #3 seed once ('09), and missed altogether in '08.