Harry Greene article on front page

[Skkorpion]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/storypage.php?Story_ID=651&Category=cardinals

 

[joeshmo]

Only a few issues I have with the article.

1. "While coverage could and should be improved, it wasn't a fatal flaw."

Not a Fatal flaw. Our Coverage Unit allowed 25% of the leagues special teams touchdowns. As for averages our punt coverage unit was slightly below average in the rankings, but the kickoff coverage unit was by far the worst unit in the league by a full 3.1 yards worse then the 31st ranked team. the return game was average to above average. So although the return game needs to be upgraded the coverage unit was clearly the fatal flaw of the field position battle with this team.

2. "As to stopping the run, the Cards let Davis walk and he was the best anchor on the team. I don't expect Clancy to be Davis' equal in that regard"

Davis was the best anchor says so much on how bad we really were at stopping the run. He is now the 4th/5th DT on Seattles depth chart. Clancy was last year and is more then Davis equal in that regard(anchor), without question IMO.

 

[Garthshort]

Concerns

Harry, here in NY, my Giant friends loved Clancy and bemoan his loss. Based, partly on what I've read and heard that the Giants didn't want to lose him, I consider him to be a upgrade over Davis. But I do have a major concern about the safety position, where we have little to no experience in reserve. And where there is a big question about one of the starters. But I certainly appreciated the article.

 

[DakotaCardsFan]

Only a few issues I have with the article.

1. "While coverage could and should be improved, it wasn't a fatal flaw."

Not a Fatal flaw. Our Coverage Unit allowed 25% of the leagues special teams touchdowns. As for averages our punt coverage unit was slightly below average in the rankings, but the kickoff coverage unit was by far the worst unit in the league by a full 3.1 yards worse then the 31st ranked team. the return game was average to above average. So although the return game needs to be upgraded the coverage unit was clearly the fatal flaw of the field position battle with this team.

I totally agree with you. It amazed me that we led the league in touchbacks, with a touchback to kickoff ratio of 23:86 or 26.7%, and still allowed 3X as many kicks returned for touchdowns than anyone else.

 

[SeattleCard]

Great article, thanks Harry.

 

[WildBB]

definitely like the Cards' chances against Seattle if the Seahawks have to win the game through the air.



#6) THE PASS DEFENSE This is almost as big as the O-Line play this year. This will determine alot if the CB's hold up this yr.

 

[Harry]

If Rolle can play, the pass defense will be outstanding. The pressure that will be generated by the front 4 and Dansby will truly be a thrill to watch. This is where Clancy will help the most. He is a penetrater and he will collapse the pocket often. Even when Watson is playing he can demand a double-team as well. With that type of pressure you will see a major improvement in the secondary. I expect fewer long completions and several more interceptions. If they can stay reasonably healthy, I expect this to be a top 5 defense this year in "points allowed."

 

[conraddobler]

I see your point and it's a good article.

I'll go out on a limb and say that this team shocks some people, the new stadium, new line coach, Deuce ends up starting and he plus Brown ends up being our much less experienced version of KC's guards.

That with a top 5 defense equals we contend for the NFC title, dosen't mean we'll win it, I see us in the championship game though.

I like Rowen a lot, he was pretty good IMO for a first year OC, he's trying to pull off some things KC does, I think with Edge and with Pope and with a better line, he'll do it.

Injuries are an unknown, we can take one or two bigtime injuries, not to Edge though, otherwise we can surive anyone else going down but maybe Big, however if any team is due for some miracle injury free season we are. I don't think Warner going down is going to matter much, I have faith in Matt, he's smart and poised enough to be a help if he has to play.

Basically we have more firepower than KC ever had, what we don't have is the line, if you start Deuce he will reward you, maybe not the first few games but I can see the defense carrying us in a more than a few of these, if we start Deuce, no one's going to want to play us towards playoff time, no one.

It's all if's but I like this team, a lot.

 

[CardinalChris]

Only a few issues I have with the article.

1. "While coverage could and should be improved, it wasn't a fatal flaw."

Not a Fatal flaw. Our Coverage Unit allowed 25% of the leagues special teams touchdowns. As for averages our punt coverage unit was slightly below average in the rankings, but the kickoff coverage unit was by far the worst unit in the league by a full 3.1 yards worse then the 31st ranked team. the return game was average to above average. So although the return game needs to be upgraded the coverage unit was clearly the fatal flaw of the field position battle with this team.

QUOTE]

I agree and could care less that we average 2 yards per return an team X. Our coverage unit was below professional level and caused a lot of problems for our defense. It also always seemed to happen right when momentum went he Cardinal's way, deflating the team.

 

[D-Dogg]

That with a top 5 defense equals we contend for the NFC title, dosen't mean we'll win it, I see us in the championship game though.

I will lose my freaking mind if we are in the NFC title game. Seriously...I might paint my house red and pay tons to the HOA!!!

 

[Duckjake]

I

agree and could care less that we average 2 yards per return an team X. Our coverage unit was below professional level and caused a lot of problems for our defense. It also always seemed to happen right when momentum went he Cardinal's way, deflating the team.
__________________

This all true but let's not lose sight of the fact that the Cardinals defense gave up 18 scoring drives of 70 yards or more last season. Several of them to open the game. And these were mostly in either the first half or early in the 2nd half. It wasn't all poor special teams play giving up short fields.

 

[kerouac9]

I

This all true but let's not lose sight of the fact that the Cardinals defense gave up 18 scoring drives of 70 yards or more last season. Several of them to open the game. And these were mostly in either the first half or early in the 2nd half. It wasn't all poor special teams play giving up short fields.

But what was the league average on those drives? That averages to 1.125 drives per game. Considering that most offensive possession start between their own 20 and 30, that actually doesn't seem like a ton. Where does that stat come from? I'll investigate it myself versus some of the other Ds in the league.

 

[kerouac9]

Not to belabor this point, Duckjake, but the Cards' defense was 4th in the NFL in 3rd down percentage. That doesn't indicate that this defense had a hard time getting off the field.

What is interesting to me is FootballOutsiders.com's 2005 review of the defenses around the league. According to them, our D is actually quite overrated. FO ranks the Cards' D as 21st in the NFL in 2005, a decline of 7 spots from 2004.

 

[Duckjake]

But what was the league average on those drives? That averages to 1.125 drives per game. Considering that most offensive possession start between their own 20 and 30, that actually doesn't seem like a ton. Where does that stat come from? I'll investigate it myself versus some of the other Ds in the league.

The info came from the drive charts found on nfl.com/scores. I doubt you'll find another team that gave up as many 80 yard scoring drives to open the game as the Cards did last season.

To get the entire meaning you have to have seen another post of mine that listed the number of short field TD's the Cards surrendered-14. Almost the exact same number that they gave up in 70+ yard drives. So the point is that the poor scoring defense was not as heavily related to poor special teams play as we might think.

Edit: The Bears- league leaders in scoring defense gave up 9
(70+) in 17games with 3 of those coming in week 16 against the Vikings. The Cards managed 14 scoring drives of 70+. Three of those came in the last game against the Colts.

 

[kerouac9]

All right, I thought I'd look at scoring drives of 70 yards in the regular season or more in the regular season for the 2005 playoff teams. Here's what I found:

Broncos: 18
Bears: 9
Bengals: 14
Bucs: 13
Colts: 15
'Hawks: 15
Steelers: 11
Pats: 19
Jags: 15
Skins: 14
Giants: 21
Panthers: 16

It looks like your metric is pretty bogus, since the average for the playoff teams is 14.92 70+ yard scoring drives in the regular season. Top defenses didn't have that much fewer.

 

[Duckjake]

All right, I thought I'd look at scoring drives of 70 yards in the regular season or more in the regular season for the 2005 playoff teams. Here's what I found:

Broncos: 18
Bears: 9
Bengals: 14
Bucs: 13
Colts: 15
'Hawks: 15
Steelers: 11
Pats: 19
Jags: 15
Skins: 14
Giants: 21
Panthers: 16

It looks like your metric is pretty bogus, since the average for the playoff teams is 14.92 70+ yard scoring drives in the regular season. Top defenses didn't have that much fewer.

9 (Chicago) isn't fewer than 18(Cards)? Since when?

Seriously, I saw the same thing when I went back and did more research. 18 seemed like a lot at first especially after hearing for 30 years that football was all about field position. But after seeing what a large % of scores came after 60+ yard drives I've changed my mind on that.

In your research did you notice how many long drives playoff teams gave up in the 4th quarter with the game well in hand or in week 16 or 17? Or what the ratio was between short field >60 and long drives 70+?

It doesn't appear that a short field makes that much difference. Teams are just as likely to drive it 80 on you as 40. For instance in last years' NE/Oak game there were 7 TD's. 5 came on drives over 60 yards.

Would be interesting to see those results.