Defensive Rankings for the Past Decade (2001-2010)

by Pantology on Jan 29, 2011 1:27 PM EST

So I've always loved to watch strong defensive teams. Hence the reason I can't help but love watching the Ravens and Steelers play in addition to my home-team; the Arizona Cardinals.
I also happen to love charts and statistics, so when I saw this post over at "Behind the Steel Curtain" attempting to analyze the defenses of 2010, I couldn't resist the urge to at least make an attempt at analyzing it over the course of the past decade.

See the full article along with about 12 charts here.

I'll save you some time and let you know that the Baltimore Ravens were 2nd for Points Allowed, 2nd for Yards Allowed, 7th for Sacks, 2nd for interceptions, and 25th for forced fumbles.

Overall, I'd rate them the third best defense of the past decade. Losing by just a hair to the Eagles, who surprised me.

The opinions posted here are those of the administrator of this blog and his loyal readers. They are in no way official comments from the team, and should not be misconstued as such, even though he thinks he could do just as well or even a better job!

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I am shocked by 3rd in sacks judging by how bad our pass rush has been the last few seasons, we might be first had we continued a good pass rush. I remember that 2006 defense had 60 sacks I believe. Man, I honestly think that the 2006 defense was better than the 2000 defense, that was a damn good squad.

"My youngest brothers think I'm a dorky older brother, I can't tell jokes because, 'I'm not funny.' They're much more street smart than I am. They can say whatever they want, cause 'they're funny.' I do pick on them. I try to be funny, but they don't laugh. Even if I am funny, nothing I say is funny to them because I'm just the older brother who's not that cool." - Joe Flacco

by Mr MaLoR on Jan 29, 2011 3:22 PM EST reply actions

Correct, 2006 the Ravens had 60 sacks. (Same with 2007).

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 29, 2011 4:37 PM EST reply actions

Doh.. something got messed up. 2006 is the same as 2007.
Will check into this.

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 29, 2011 4:39 PM EST up reply actions

Not letting me erase my old comments.
Thanks for inadvertently making me notice my silly copy/paste error.

It has been corrected across the board.
I regret to say this caused the Ravens to drop to 7th in sacks and 2nd in interceptions… thereby dropping to 3rd overall.

starts running from the lynch-mob

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 29, 2011 5:35 PM EST reply actions

Too bad you didn't go back to the 2000 Ravens Super Bowl season,

By far the best defense of the decade, and perhaps enough to have vaulted the Ravens to the top of the heap if figured into these rankings.

aka 'Rexx'

by Bruce Raffel on Jan 30, 2011 10:41 AM EST reply actions

Originally I did started this concept back in December and I did include 2000 as part of the decade.
But as I revisited this a couple days ago and started this project it occurred to me that if I included 2000 that would technically make it an 11 year span.
My thought with this would be to expand it to more stats, perfect the methodologies, and then have it on a constantly revolving 10 year span. Or theoretically it could be expanded by decade, i.e. “Best of the 70s” “Best of the 80s” etc. In that circumstance, definitely, would want to go from 2000-2009, 2010-2019, etc.

Appreciate the recommendation

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 30, 2011 10:58 AM EST up reply actions

Just to show though, in 2000, the Ravens were 1st for points allowed per game, 2nd for yards allowed per game, 22nd for sacks, and 5th for interceptions.

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 30, 2011 11:47 AM EST up reply actions

It was the PPG stats I was thinking of

as they set the record for a 16 game sseason with the fewest allowed ever.

aka 'Rexx'

by Bruce Raffel on Jan 30, 2011 7:38 PM EST up reply actions

That leads to one problem I have with this ranking system.

Regardless of how few points that defense gave up, they still get the same ranking (1). This fact doesn’t allow for variation year to year. I will admit that I haven’t looked at the numbers, so I don’t know if it holds true, but one year a team could give up 244 points and lead the league (Pitt this year), while another year 165 points given up could be the best (Balt in ’00). Both defenses would get the same ranking. While it is certainly harder to defend now, I think this variability should be taken into account.

Another issue that I have deals with the turnovers. The Ravens being 25th in fumbles could be irrelevant if they force more turnovers than other teams overall (i.e. have more interceptions than the 24 teams that force more fumbles).

In the end, I think that using numbers rather than ranking may create a ‘better’ system.

"Give us 10 points and the game is over...And they didn't score on us. Make sure you quote that. They didn't score on our defense."

"Ray Lewis has lost a step? I don't think so, Ray Lewis is still the best linebacker in football."-JH

by organizedchaos52 on Jan 30, 2011 8:32 PM EST up reply actions

I disagree on the idea of just using overall points allowed over the course of the decade.
Ranking is important, the NFL is constantly changing, it is important to keep numbers in context. Same reason people look at the numbers and acknowledge there is a difference between Marino throwing for 4k yards in a season and Manning/Rivers throwing for 4k.
So while one season allowing 20 points may be #1, another year 10 points may be.
Not to discount the achievement of only allowing 10.3 points per game. That is extremely impressive.. but the Titans also only allowed 11.9 the same year, but still ended up 20th overall in my rankings.

As for overall turnovers, I can understand the concept you have there. The original article I cited for my inspiration did account for turnovers as a whole in a more holistic manner.
In general, they definitely are not the most important item. For example, look at the Lions, they were 6th for FF, but were 32nd for points allowed. Doesn’t matter how many times the opponent loses the ball if you still let them score.

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 30, 2011 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

But

if you were to add up total points allowed over all the years then average them, I think it would be a better representation. It would actually help the Titans, who lose 19 spots in rankings, but would only lose 26 points in 2000. While I completely agree that the game has changed in drastic ways toward making it easier for offenses to score, we aren’t comparing a 2010 defense to a 2001 defense. We’re comparing each teams’ 2001-2010 defenses. So that argument doesn’t hold since each teams’ defense recorded statistics in each year. I’m not sure I’m explaining what I mean very well. Please let me know if I’m not, and I’ll try to do better.

In terms of turnovers, I’m not sure that they are not very important. It could be the fact that I only watch the Ravens closely and religiously, but I feel like INTs happen more than fumbles (something expected if I only base it on the Ravens apparently). Thus, leading the league in fumbles wouldn’t necessarily be a big step toward leading the league in turnovers.

You also run into the problem that any defense’s performance is inherently tied to the performance in other aspects in the game (offense, special teams). A defense could lead the league in turnovers, but if their offense gives the ball right back than those turnovers aren’t helping. If the offense turns the ball over deep in their own territory, there’s a much greater chance that the defense gives up points.

I think another important stat to keep in mind when trying to rank defenses is time of possession. If an offense can hold the ball for 35+ mins, the defense should be pretty rested and play much better, whereas if an offense holds the ball for less than 25 mins, the opposite should be true.

I’ve thought more about my argument now, and I think I’ve found a better way to explain it. What I’m worried about are years in which the discrepancies between teams is large, whether it be between 1 and 2 or 31 and 32 or anywhere in between. If there is no discrepancy, then the data should end up pretty much the same as it is now with ranking.

"Give us 10 points and the game is over...And they didn't score on us. Make sure you quote that. They didn't score on our defense."

"Ray Lewis has lost a step? I don't think so, Ray Lewis is still the best linebacker in football."-JH

by organizedchaos52 on Jan 30, 2011 9:15 PM EST up reply actions

I understand about the points allowed now.

Actually FF do happen more, apparently. The #1 for ints was 21.1 (Bears), #1 for FF was 24.3 (Colts)

As far as time of possession as well as turnover differentials, I worry both rely too much on how the offense performed.
I strictly wanted to analyze the defenses. I hate for a team with a great defense to look worse statistically because the offense couldn’t stay on the field or handed the ball over.

If you check the original post I did include the numbers for all the rankings I listed in the chart I showed here. I just didn’t want to load this up with all 12, this was just kind of a post to let you guys know about the other post.

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 30, 2011 9:46 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks.

I would never have guessed that. Although I suppose the Colts probably get a lot of their forced fumbles from Freeney/Mathis, and Suggs doesn’t hasn’t been forcing fumbles recently.

As for analyzing defenses, I’m not sure you can strictly analyze defenses. You’d have to somehow account for all the factors that affect defenses outside of their own play (one easy example being that PPG counts points scored on turnovers and kick returns). Otherwise, there are confounding hidden variables in the data.

I plan to check out the original post at some point, a little swamped with work right now. But thanks again for posting it here.

"Give us 10 points and the game is over...And they didn't score on us. Make sure you quote that. They didn't score on our defense."

"Ray Lewis has lost a step? I don't think so, Ray Lewis is still the best linebacker in football."-JH

by organizedchaos52 on Jan 30, 2011 10:13 PM EST up reply actions

I feel so dumb just now realizing this, but what you were talking about is what I did do. I just took the points allowed for each year and averaged them then ranked off averages.

Tom Coniam
Devoted Fan of Arizona Cardinals and ASU Sun Devils
But also a general Arizona sports fan

Maintainer of the "Protect The Nest" Facebook community.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Protect-the-Nest/157471224301129

by Pantology on Jan 30, 2011 11:00 PM EST up reply actions