Thread: TJ performance vs defensive rankings

**** THIS IS NOT A TJ BASHING OR PRAISING THREAD *****

Many analysts and others believe that TJ's performance is the variable
in determining the Vikes future, so I decided to analyze how TJ did in
comparison to the defenses he faced and will face.

Below is a statistical analysis of TJ's wins and losses and the
ranking of total defensive and pass defense of all opponents

TJ Wins:






Tot Def

Pass Def

QB rating
Atlanta



29




23




75.1
@Chicago

28




27




73.8
Oakland


22




8




79.9
@Giants



7




11



139.2
Detroit



32




31



110.4
@San Fran
25




22




95.9
Chicago


28




27




50








____



____



_____
Average


24




21




89.2


I'm not counting SD game as a TJ win, as when he left the game when the
Vikes were down by 14 and Bollinger (QB rating 133.3) came in to win the game
SD





14




14




65.6


TJ's Losses:







Tot Def

Pass Def

QB rating
@Detroit


32




31





26.4
Bollinger 91.7
@Dallas



9




13





44.2
Wash





8




16





63.1
@Denver


19




7





90.1








____



____



_____
Average



17




17




55.9


Losses without TJ:






Tot Def

Pass Def

QB rating
@KC




13




5




68.9

Holcomb
GB





11




12



72.4

Holcomb
Philly



10




18




82.3

Holcomb
Bollinger 99.6
@GB




11




12




65.5

Bollinger







____



____



_____
Average

11




12




72.3


The above stats tells me a few things:
1. TJ has a good chance to win against teams with defenses in the bottom third
2. TJ doesn't have a good chance against defenses in the top third
3. The Giants win and first Lions loss are outliers, when taken out, the results


becomes even more polerized.
4. The 4 losses when TJ was out were against teams in the top third and given above

data, they would probably have been losses for TJ
5. TJ plays much better at home Home record (4-1) Away (3-3)

----
Using the above findings to predict next years wins and losses

Presumed Wins:






Tot Def
Pass Def
@ARI




17


28
HOU




24


25
@NO




26


30
@CHI




28


27
CHI





28


27
ATL





29


23
DET





32


31
@DET




32


31


Presumed losses:






Tot Def
Pass Def
@TB





2




1
IND





3




2
@TEN




5



10
NYG





7



11
@GB




11



12
GB






11



12

Borderline:






Tot Def
Pass Def
@JAC




12



15
CAR





16



17


Conclusions:
Strangely enough TJ will be facing teams 6 teams in the top third, 8 in the
bottom third, and only 2 in the middle third.

Using the past performance of defenses and TJ's performance against defenses
to predict the future.
With a reasonable increase in TJ's performance he
should be able to perform well enough for 10 wins.

Given that the Vikes D is improved it should even increase that possibility.

I've not had a lot of confidence in TJ, but seeing the above I realized that TJ
isn't bad, he just hasn't matured enough as a QB to be able to beat top third
defenses.
Which is totally reasonable.
BUT is able to consistantly beat the
teams he should beat, bottom third D's, which is a good sign to me.

Exactly where did you draw those defensive rankings from?

Did you use 2006 rankings?

Did you use 2007 rankings after the win/loss against MN & the rest of the season was figured in?

Or did you use the defensive rankings at the time the actual game was played?

"singersp" wrote:

Exactly where did you draw those defensive rankings from?

NFL.com 2007 regular season stats

Did you use 2006 rankings?

No

Did you use 2007 rankings after the win/loss against MN & the rest of the season was figured in?
Or did you use the defensive rankings at the time the actual game was played?

I used the end of year rankings... I agree the above could have shed some better light, but I
don't have that kind of time.


I will admit the stat analysis isn't super scientific, but I just was curious and thought this might shed some light.

"gagarr" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

Exactly where did you draw those defensive rankings from?

NFL.com 2007 regular season stats

Did you use 2006 rankings?

No

Did you use 2007 rankings after the win/loss against MN & the rest of the season was figured in?
Or did you use the defensive rankings at the time the actual game was played?

I used the end of year rankings... I agree the above could have shed some better light, but I
don't have that kind of time.


I will admit the stat analysis isn't super scientific, but I just was curious and thought this might shed some light.

It doesn't do a whole lot for me. You'd have to look at how tough of opponents those teams played as to how their ranking merit.

It's a lot easier to have a higher defensive ranking when you play a lot of sub-par teams, even if you aren't a good team.

Also, what was the record of those teams?

What was the score in those wins & loses? Are they the loses of the offense or the defense?

That's pretty good research though. It probably took some time to get all that together, so thanks. I'm not 100% sure how much of an indicator it is though.

Nice work!
There's some pretty interesting points there...some I'd missed or forgoten about.
Like the Giants game...I kind of had that pegged as a defensive throwdown, turns out it was TJack's best QB rating of the year too.
That first DET game was kind of an anomaly.
They tried so hard to pass the ball, but TJack was not ready for the pressure at that time.
He's made some mistakes since then, but at least it hasn't looked like that!

Unfortunately, the rankings of teams varies so much from year to year these days, that its hard to count on any of that.
Right in our own division, we have CHI and DET with bad defensive ranks last year, but CHI has a good defense, when/if they're healthy.
DET is changing to more of a pound the ball, eat the clock offense, and, has made moves to solidify their defene.
GB has a good defense, with a ton of young talent...but, if Harrell can't stay healthy, and they traded Williams away...there might be a new hole in the middle of their line.

I've not had a lot of confidence in TJ, but seeing the above I realized that TJ
isn't bad, he just hasn't matured enough as a QB to be able to beat top third
defenses.
Which is totally reasonable.
BUT is able to consistantly beat the
teams he should beat, bottom third D's, which is a good sign to me.

Good sign to me too!!
For so many years, that seemed to be the downfall of our Vikings...beating tough teams, and keeping games close we wern'r expected to be in, but then going up against lesser competition and laying a big stinky turd.
With an improved defense, WRs, and All Day, TJack may not have to improve dramatically, to beat those top third teams too!

"singersp" wrote:

"gagarr" wrote:

"singersp" wrote:

Exactly where did you draw those defensive rankings from?

NFL.com 2007 regular season stats

Did you use 2006 rankings?

No

Did you use 2007 rankings after the win/loss against MN & the rest of the season was figured in?
Or did you use the defensive rankings at the time the actual game was played?

I used the end of year rankings... I agree the above could have shed some better light, but I
don't have that kind of time.


I will admit the stat analysis isn't super scientific, but I just was curious and thought this might shed some light.

It doesn't do a whole lot for me. You'd have to look at how tough of opponents those teams played as to how their ranking merit.

It's a lot easier to have a higher defensive ranking when you play a lot of sub-par teams, even if you aren't a good team.

Also, what was the record of those teams?

What was the score in those wins & loses? Are they the loses of the offense or the defense?

I understand where your coming from Singer... I thought about lots of other things that could be taken into account, but the variables could go on forever.
Plus, as mountainviking points out that things change from year to year.
So doing extensive analysis isn't going to be any more definitive.

I just wanted to do something simple to see if TJ's performances had anything to do with the opponents D.
As I said above, besided the Giants and Lions game, everything fell into line quite well.
It was pretty polarized, which other factors shouldn't affect too much.

As for records and points, I was just trying to look at opponents D's.
Excluding everything on O, might not be best thing, but when doing any kind of statistical analysis you must define the parameters of the study.

Here's a stat comparison I wouldn't mind seeing...not sure where a guy would start?
But, Does the offense play better when the defense is playing well, and vice versa...seems to me, that they set each other up for success.
In games our offense stalls, eventually, the defense gets drained.
And, if the defense is getting smoked, it puts so much more pressure on the offense to keep up.

"mountainviking" wrote:

Here's a stat comparison I wouldn't mind seeing...not sure where a guy would start?
But, Does the offense play better when the defense is playing well, and vice versa...seems to me, that they set each other up for success.
In games our offense stalls, eventually, the defense gets drained.
And, if the defense is getting smoked, it puts so much more pressure on the offense to keep up.

Time of Possession is a quick gage on that, if the O is balance with run/pass.
I'm a big fan of 3 and outs then I am of INT's... because most INT's are a mistake.
3 and outs are a strong D.

But I don't think anyone counts 3 and outs as a stat... Do they?

the research isn't perfect, but it is still stats proving something.

"mountainviking" wrote:

Here's a stat comparison I wouldn't mind seeing...not sure where a guy would start?
But, Does the offense play better when the defense is playing well, and vice versa...seems to me, that they set each other up for success.
In games our offense stalls, eventually, the defense gets drained.
And, if the defense is getting smoked, it puts so much more pressure on the offense to keep up.

when both teams play good, teams win. i dont think there is much influence other than on point in the game where certain things happen. the way the league is now, the offensive dictate the play more than the defense does.