phinsforlife
Active Roster
Here are what I view as some very misguided notions with my comments. This leads to a discussion of offensive vs defensive regression, which arguably is a separate point, but the most interesting one. I will do it here as well for the sake of expediency even though it deserves its own thread because it is an important issue and the one that is about the future and what we do next:
#1 The Team Stinks Without Tua: Yes they stink without Tua. Beyond making the point about the importance of a backup QB, this should not be used as evidence for how good Tua is. Skylar Thompson being bad does not make Tua good. In my view the important question to ask is "How good is the team with Tua?" Understand the nuance here. This is a team point, and not at point about how good Tua exactly is. Bottom line, the team, with Tua, is only .500, and has only managed to beat one decent team. The other 4 wins have come against the dregs of the NFL competing for the #1 pick in next years draft. The 4 losses with Tua, have come against OK to better teams. I think this is what the question should be - how good is the team with what we have, as opposed to how bad we are when Tua is not playing. To be clear, this is a team point, and not a Tua point. We might stink without Tua, but we ain't so hot with him either. Neither is good. Team point, not a Tua point.
#2 If Tua Wouldn't Have Been Hurt We Would Still Be In The Playoff Hunt: Well I guess technically we wouldn't be eliminated yet (and we still aren't), so the dreamers would still be dreaming. But you just can't automatically assume we would have gone 4-0. Base case, per above we are .500 with Tua playing. 2-2 is a reasonable assumption, but I wouldn't argue 3-1 either. Having said all of that, I don't care. Are you watching the games? Do you see how we look against the better teams that will be in the playoffs? If we were to back in with a wildcard again, do you think anything would be any different? Best case, all we would have is another illusion and another big letdown at the end. It is pretty clear, this team is not good enough to compete in the playoffs, even with Tua. That is the issue. Again, I am making a team point, and not a Tua point.
#3 It Is All The Defenses Fault: While it is true that on balance the defense has been worse than the offense this year at least, it is a red herring and also has turned out not to matter. In 5 of our 6 wins, the defense was actually pretty good, and arguably better than the offense in a few of them. Our one win against a decent team, and that was with Tua, was against the Rams, 23-15, the defense was better than the offense that game. Harder to hold a team to 15 than it is to score 23. Gave up 17 to the Jags (fine), 10 to the Pats (very good and won us the game the offense only scored 15 with the backup), 19 to the Raiders and 15 to the Pats (fine to pretty good in both cases). The only bad performance in a win by the defense was the last Jets game. They also gave up only 16 to the Colts in the loss, and were very good in Houston last week especially considering the turnovers and fake punt. That game was on the offense. So although the defense has not been great in total, oddly, they contributed to the wins, and were also let down by the offense in two of the losses. Last week is a great example.
Offensive Versus Defensive Regression: Granted this is the separate, but related point, so I am going to try and cram it in here. This may be the most interesting point, because it is the only one important for the future and what they do next.
I discussed this season per #3 above. Below are the scores from every game last year.
Whatever our defense is, it is. Their performance, although random at times, is generally unaffected by the teams they play. They mostly (there are exceptions) play against their opponents, regardless of how good or bad their opponent is, the way they should play. Ergo if our defense is average, and they play a good offense, they tend to play like an average defense should play against a good offense (not great). If our defense is average, and they play a bad offense, they tend to play like an average defense should play against a bad offense (pretty good).
Our offense however, seems to be feast or famine. Against bad teams with bad defenses, especially at home, we look like a Madden football team. Against good teams with good defenses, we often seem to implode. This is not the case with a lot of good offenses. A lot of good offenses are not as good as we are against the bad teams, but they hold up much better against the good teams, and do not regress nearly as much.
Last year was instructive. Look at the results. First half of the season, against the bad teams, the offense was other-wordly. It then, in a relative sense, fell off the cliff once we started playing the better teams, starting with the KC game in week 9. The defense, even with Chubb and Phillips injured, held up pretty well against the better teams down the stretch. They were terrible against the Titans (that was a bad team too and one of the cases where they no-showed), and Ravens, but otherwise were generally pretty good, and kept us in games down the stretch against the better teams. Dallas which was the only win down the stretch against a decent team, that was about the defense and the kicker.
Point being, our defense, whatever it is, plays like whatever it is regardless of the opponent (and at times has stepped up against better teams in important games, like last week). The offense is feast or famine. Exploits the bad teams like nobody's business, but really regresses against the good teams with good defenses, more than other good offenses regress against better defenses.
I think the answer as to why is obvious. The speed and finesse thing works great at home against poor teams with poor coordinators that cannot adjust to it. But we are not tough, and not multi-dimensional. The better teams are able to cope with the motion and speed and finesse, and our offense, the way it is built, just cannot answer.
#1 The Team Stinks Without Tua: Yes they stink without Tua. Beyond making the point about the importance of a backup QB, this should not be used as evidence for how good Tua is. Skylar Thompson being bad does not make Tua good. In my view the important question to ask is "How good is the team with Tua?" Understand the nuance here. This is a team point, and not at point about how good Tua exactly is. Bottom line, the team, with Tua, is only .500, and has only managed to beat one decent team. The other 4 wins have come against the dregs of the NFL competing for the #1 pick in next years draft. The 4 losses with Tua, have come against OK to better teams. I think this is what the question should be - how good is the team with what we have, as opposed to how bad we are when Tua is not playing. To be clear, this is a team point, and not a Tua point. We might stink without Tua, but we ain't so hot with him either. Neither is good. Team point, not a Tua point.
#2 If Tua Wouldn't Have Been Hurt We Would Still Be In The Playoff Hunt: Well I guess technically we wouldn't be eliminated yet (and we still aren't), so the dreamers would still be dreaming. But you just can't automatically assume we would have gone 4-0. Base case, per above we are .500 with Tua playing. 2-2 is a reasonable assumption, but I wouldn't argue 3-1 either. Having said all of that, I don't care. Are you watching the games? Do you see how we look against the better teams that will be in the playoffs? If we were to back in with a wildcard again, do you think anything would be any different? Best case, all we would have is another illusion and another big letdown at the end. It is pretty clear, this team is not good enough to compete in the playoffs, even with Tua. That is the issue. Again, I am making a team point, and not a Tua point.
#3 It Is All The Defenses Fault: While it is true that on balance the defense has been worse than the offense this year at least, it is a red herring and also has turned out not to matter. In 5 of our 6 wins, the defense was actually pretty good, and arguably better than the offense in a few of them. Our one win against a decent team, and that was with Tua, was against the Rams, 23-15, the defense was better than the offense that game. Harder to hold a team to 15 than it is to score 23. Gave up 17 to the Jags (fine), 10 to the Pats (very good and won us the game the offense only scored 15 with the backup), 19 to the Raiders and 15 to the Pats (fine to pretty good in both cases). The only bad performance in a win by the defense was the last Jets game. They also gave up only 16 to the Colts in the loss, and were very good in Houston last week especially considering the turnovers and fake punt. That game was on the offense. So although the defense has not been great in total, oddly, they contributed to the wins, and were also let down by the offense in two of the losses. Last week is a great example.
Offensive Versus Defensive Regression: Granted this is the separate, but related point, so I am going to try and cram it in here. This may be the most interesting point, because it is the only one important for the future and what they do next.
I discussed this season per #3 above. Below are the scores from every game last year.
Whatever our defense is, it is. Their performance, although random at times, is generally unaffected by the teams they play. They mostly (there are exceptions) play against their opponents, regardless of how good or bad their opponent is, the way they should play. Ergo if our defense is average, and they play a good offense, they tend to play like an average defense should play against a good offense (not great). If our defense is average, and they play a bad offense, they tend to play like an average defense should play against a bad offense (pretty good).
Our offense however, seems to be feast or famine. Against bad teams with bad defenses, especially at home, we look like a Madden football team. Against good teams with good defenses, we often seem to implode. This is not the case with a lot of good offenses. A lot of good offenses are not as good as we are against the bad teams, but they hold up much better against the good teams, and do not regress nearly as much.
Last year was instructive. Look at the results. First half of the season, against the bad teams, the offense was other-wordly. It then, in a relative sense, fell off the cliff once we started playing the better teams, starting with the KC game in week 9. The defense, even with Chubb and Phillips injured, held up pretty well against the better teams down the stretch. They were terrible against the Titans (that was a bad team too and one of the cases where they no-showed), and Ravens, but otherwise were generally pretty good, and kept us in games down the stretch against the better teams. Dallas which was the only win down the stretch against a decent team, that was about the defense and the kicker.
Point being, our defense, whatever it is, plays like whatever it is regardless of the opponent (and at times has stepped up against better teams in important games, like last week). The offense is feast or famine. Exploits the bad teams like nobody's business, but really regresses against the good teams with good defenses, more than other good offenses regress against better defenses.
I think the answer as to why is obvious. The speed and finesse thing works great at home against poor teams with poor coordinators that cannot adjust to it. But we are not tough, and not multi-dimensional. The better teams are able to cope with the motion and speed and finesse, and our offense, the way it is built, just cannot answer.
Last edited:
