Can the 05 Colts scoring defense be better than Da 85 Bears?

[still_life]

85 Bears: 98 pts allowed through first 6 games (198 total)
05 Colts: 57 pts allowed through first 6 games

85 Bears went on to allow 10 pts/game in the final 10 games. The Colts final 10 games are:

At Houston
At New England
Houston
At Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Tennessee
At Jacksonville
San Diego
At Seattle
Arizona

I only see 5 of those games with the team having a shot at putting 20 on the board. Holding the Texans to 3 or 6 tomorrow would really help. Then they have them again at home in a few weeks.

[Clarett'sGreyGoose]

85 Bears: 98 pts allowed through first 6 games (198 total)
05 Colts: 57 pts allowed through first 6 games

85 Bears went on to allow 10 pts/game in the final 10 games. The Colts final 10 games are:

At Houston
At New England
Houston
At Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Tennessee
At Jacksonville
San Diego
At Seattle
Arizona

I only see 5 of those games with the team having a shot at putting 20 on the board. Holding the Texans to 3 or 6 tomorrow would really help. Then they have them again at home in a few weeks.
NE, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Jacksonville, San Diego might all be able to hang 20 up there. one more possibility would be Seattle, they're a different team at home.

[still_life]

They held Jacksonville to 3 pts already. I had Seattle over them at putting up 20. That game and the Arizona one might be meaningless though, and they play back-ups.

[Clarett'sGreyGoose]

They held Jacksonville to 3 pts already. I had Seattle over them at putting up 20. That game and the Arizona one might be meaningless though, and they play back-ups.
you're right, those could be meaningless games for both Indy and Seattle. as for Arizona, every game is a meaningless game.

[Drew Beringer]

I don't know.

[AshesAshes]

It could happen.

[NameTaken69]

its gonna be tough but having houston twice will increase there chances

[mat1419]

this is ridiculous and once again proves how much you rely upon stats and how little stats mean...i'll challenge you to bring this up in january and i'll bet they're not within 50

[Clarett'sGreyGoose]

you think they'll give up almost 200 points in the next 10 games? 2 of those being HOUSTON?

[still_life]

I'd take that bet. No way they give up 20/game the rest of the way.

[Clarett'sGreyGoose]

I'd take that bet. No way they give up 20/game the rest of the way.
well he says not within 50, so he thinks the final total will be 248+. that's 191 points in 10 games, or an average of 19.1/game. let's see how they do.

[NameTaken69]

well he says not within 50, so he thinks the final total will be 248+. that's 191 points in 10 games, or an average of 19.1/game. let's see how they do.
i think 19.1 is very possible

[Spicoli hey bud]

no fucking chance

[Clarett'sGreyGoose]

i think 19.1 is very possible
look at the teams they face. Houston twice and Jacksonville, who they already held to 3 points, once. Arizona and Tennessee too.

[still_life]

20 today doesn't help. But that's also part of the flaw with the scoring defense stat. Special teams and offensive turnover TDs shouldn't count against the D. Houston had a kickoff return in garbage time. So really, they allowed 14 points today on the road to a desperate team. Not too bad at all. More importantly, they only allowed 139 yards of offense. That's great defense.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

this is ridiculous and once again proves how much you rely upon stats and how little stats mean...i'll challenge you to bring this up in january and i'll bet they're not within 50
If stats are meaningless- which baseball has proved false- what's your suggestion of determining a players value or overall team performance?

[b e L I E v e]

its possible, although pretty unlikely

and go figure, one year ago we were looking at the amazing offence of the Colts, and completely bashing the teams defence

[mat1419]

If stats are meaningless- which baseball has proved false- what's your suggestion of determining a players value or overall team performance?
i'm not sure how baseball's proved anything (actually I think baseball supports the fact that stats aren't an accurate portrayal of reality in all cases)...but stats are a measuring bar of how well a player performs at a giving time in a giving situation...but are not necessarily an indicator of their overall impact. example...a quarterback goes 30-50 for 400 yards and 3 touchdowns...looks great, but what if their team was down 35 to nothing and the stats piled up against prevent defense when it was throw every down? stats are misleading. if they weren't we could feed them into a machine and know who's going to win every game. Determining a player's overall value or team's performance is subjective, it takes logic and insight. If we're going on stats...we can use the ones Still Life brought up and say Jake Plummer is as good as John Elway at this point in his career. The stats, to a point, back that...but a person with football IQ should have a flag raised up that tells them it's not right.

You can look at stats to back things up...that's why they're kept, but there has to be some sort of unwritten criteria should become apparent to someone who really understands and really watches the games that says Tom Brady's intangibles aren't measurable, or Shaun Alexander's stats aren't really indicitive or where he ranks as a top tier football player (I don't buy him as a great back). It makes everything debatable. But if you're going to rely solely on statistical evidence as a means to support every argument, you're only making half an argument.

[NetNerdsRevenge]

i'm not sure how baseball's proved anything (actually I think baseball supports the fact that stats aren't an accurate portrayal of reality in all cases)
Actually when you dive in deep to baseball statistics it will tell you a lot. For instance, during 1999-2003, Keith Foulke had a better Value as a closer than Rivera. By asking any normal fan who offered more value to his team, they would undoubtedly say Rivera.

but stats are a measuring bar of how well a player performs at a giving time in a giving situation...but are not necessarily an indicator of their overall impact. example...a quarterback goes 30-50 for 400 yards and 3 touchdowns...looks great, but what if their team was down 35 to nothing and the stats piled up against prevent defense when it was throw every down? stats are misleading.
If you read box scores it will tell you when a team scored. I'm not sure if the football has stats such as these, but I know in baseball they track hits, homeruns, etc. by a player based on which inning it is. It wouldn't be hard for football to do the same thing, and im sure someone out there (still_life) can find them.

if they weren't we could feed them into a machine and know who's going to win every game.
Its called winning percentage and there are formulas to predict a games outcome.

Determining a player's overall value or team's performance is subjective, it takes logic and insight. If we're going on stats...we can use the ones Still Life brought up and say Jake Plummer is as good as John Elway at this point in his career. The stats, to a point, back that...but a person with football IQ should have a flag raised up that tells them it's not right.
You also cant completely ignore the fact that Plummer has similar numbers as much as you dont want to believe it.

You can look at stats to back things up...that's why they're kept, but there has to be some sort of unwritten criteria should become apparent to someone who really understands and really watches the games that says Tom Brady's intangibles aren't measurable, or Shaun Alexander's stats aren't really indicitive or where he ranks as a top tier football player (I don't buy him as a great back). It makes everything debatable. But if you're going to rely solely on statistical evidence as a means to support every argument, you're only making half an argument.
Of course you cant tell the whole story by looking at a players line, but dont let your eyes deceive you. I understand football is different from baseball, but maybe Alexander is better than you think he is...

[mat1419]

Actually when you dive in deep to baseball statistics it will tell you a lot. For instance, during 1999-2003, Keith Foulke had a better Value as a closer than Rivera. By asking any normal fan who offered more value to his team, they would undoubtedly say Rivera.


If you read box scores it will tell you when a team scored. I'm not sure if the football has stats such as these, but I know in baseball they track hits, homeruns, etc. by a player based on which inning it is. It wouldn't be hard for football to do the same thing, and im sure someone out there (still_life) can find them.


Its called winning percentage and there are formulas to predict a games outcome.


You also cant completely ignore the fact that Plummer has similar numbers as much as you dont want to believe it.


Of course you cant tell the whole story by looking at a players line, but dont let your eyes deceive you. I understand football is different from baseball, but maybe Alexander is better than you think he is...
I'm really not going to take this argument much further than one more response. I'll answer your baseball argument and simply say, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmerio. Stats don't tell the whole story. And there are no formulas to predict the outcomes of football games. There are just Las Vegas oddsmakers who claim there are. And I don't care about Jake Plummer, and his numbers are very good, and his beard is incredible, but he's not John Elway and it's that simple, you can stat a man to death and that will still be the truth.

In summation, my point is made, we can come back in January and settle this, but I will throw out a few quick reasons why I make the claim that the Colts won't touch the Bears:

1) they're just not as good. plain and simple. I was only 3 when they played, but was lucky enough to have a family from Chicago who treat that team as if they were the second coming. The tapes of those games (and yes, they have tapes of every game from that season) were some of the first games I've seen. I don't really care about the stats. They had the 'it'. What 'it' is, I don't know. It's how they strutted, how they scared the opponent. There's a reason every ex player analyst talks about them so highly. It's the same reason they all laughed when people tried to call Ray Lewis as good as LT in the early 2000's. It's why you can hear hesitation every time someone tries to compare a football player to Walter Payton. Take it for what you will, but they just don't have that intangible.

2) The Colts offense is very, very good. And even though they're not where they were last year...they'll get there. And when they go up by 20 in the 3rd, the other teams will pass and the defense will usually protect the lead to an extent rather than go for a shut out. This will cause turnovers and points. Cheap points are still points. I'm not saying once that the Colts defense isn't a very good defense, these are just the factors that work against them.

3) They're in a dome. So in late December, rather than playing in -10 degrees on a frozen Soldier field, the offenses will be coming in at a pleasant 72 on turf. Don't think that won't be big.

4) The Colts are a good team with a good record. So, most likely, with the schedule in their favor, have a legit opportunity to wrap up home field with time to spare. Much like Philadelphia did last year. Philadelphia finished the season with 260 points allowed all year. 58 of which came in the last two weeks with much of the defense resting at least part of the game, and all of the last game where they had 38 scored against them. Will this happen to the Colts? Maybe, maybe not, but they're the most likely candidate in the NFL to have home field with a few weeks left.

In double summation, if your using stats to support an argument, it could be a worthwhile argument, if you're getting your argument from stats, you're missing pieces.

[usedforglue]

they'll slip up

[still_life]

If you read box scores it will tell you when a team scored. I'm not sure if the football has stats such as these, but I know in baseball they track hits, homeruns, etc. by a player based on which inning it is. It wouldn't be hard for football to do the same thing, and im sure someone out there (still_life) can find them.

Already looked at some of that before.

And I don't care about Jake Plummer, and his numbers are very good, and his beard is incredible, but he's not John Elway and it's that simple, you can stat a man to death and that will still be the truth.

And there's also some obvious football history to see why that is, you don't even need the stats. Plummer started his career buried out in the desert. Look at how more successful he is since joining the Broncos. Elway was a #1 pick to rebuild Denver. The Broncos were a good enough team to go to 3 Super Bowls in the 80's, because the AFC was so weak, and that's why they were pounded.

Elway started to peak at this stage of his career that Plummer is in, and Plummer's looking to have a career season this one. Give it some time. Elway didn't win shit without TD, and his stats were always lacking compared to the Marino's, Montana's, Moon's, Kelly's, and then Young's, Favre's, and Aikman's he played against.

[Caleb Cattivera]

no.

BUT. i have a REAL question for you.

who would win?

ditka...or God?

[NetNerdsRevenge]

I'm really not going to take this argument much further than one more response. I'll answer your baseball argument and simply say, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmerio. Stats don't tell the whole story. And there are no formulas to predict the outcomes of football games. There are just Las Vegas oddsmakers who claim there are. And I don't care about Jake Plummer, and his numbers are very good, and his beard is incredible, but he's not John Elway and it's that simple, you can stat a man to death and that will still be the truth.


In double summation, if your using stats to support an argument, it could be a worthwhile argument, if you're getting your argument from stats, you're missing pieces.
Steroid users are the exception, but overall, the game of Baseball can and is broken down into statistical evidence. There are many fallacies in the sport which stats show. If you want examples ill be happy to show you. I wasn’t speaking of football, but more of sports in general. Baseball does have a formula, (runs scored) ^2/ (runs scored) ^2 + (runs allowed)^2. It gets close to a team winning percentage. I don’t think it’ll work for football, but combining pts scored and pts allowed, maybe even pts avg a game and pts avg allowed a game would work to predict a teams winning percentage.

Also, how do you measure greatness? What makes Rice the best receiver, or who ever you think is the best RB, the best? You can't bring up footage of every game, it takes to long. Stats give you the best look at the value of a player because you cannot conceivably watch every down of every game. Stats themselves can be debated by what they're worth, but dismissing them and saying that they mean little is a mistake.

[IAmNietzche]

20 today doesn't help. But that's also part of the flaw with the scoring defense stat. Special teams and offensive turnover TDs shouldn't count against the D. Houston had a kickoff return in garbage time. So really, they allowed 14 points today on the road to a desperate team. Not too bad at all. More importantly, they only allowed 139 yards of offense. That's great defense.hahaha i love how you twist things around to make yourself right no matter what... you were sooooo sure Indy was gonna hold the Texans to 3 or 6... "oh, there's no way indy gives up 20 a game, espcially when they play the texans twice"... but, wait a tick, i don't care how desperate the Texans are for a win, Indy still gave up 20 points to an absolute shit team. I hate all you Colts fans that think your team is actually good going 7-0 with the easiest schedule any team has had in recent memory.

Game 1 - Baltimore (2-4): a team who was expected to be good, but whose only wins this year have come against the Browns and Jets... and who lost to the Titans and Bears

Game 2 - Jacksonville (4-2): the only really impressive win so far. Jacksonville looks great this year with wins over Pittsburgh and Cincy, and looking at their schedule, its conceivable for them to win the rest of their games this year and go 14-2. They're only tough game will be week 14 against Indy @home, but I see them on a roll by then and getting the win.

Game 3 - Cleveland (2-4): they've beaten GB and Chicago, not a very impressive resume... and with if you only put up 13 points against the Browns with Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Edgerrin James, there is a problem.

Game 4 - Tennessee (2-4): up until last week I would have attributed the Titans record to a tough schedule, but a loss to the Cards proves that they are just plain bad. McNair is their only offensive weapon.

Game 5 - San Francisco (1-5): no comment

Game 6 - St. Louis (3-4): they lost to san fran.............. oh, and this is the game where the colts string of giving up 20 a game began (quote me)

Game 7 - Houston (0-6): being tied with these guys at half... there is no excuse. Giving up 20 no matter how the points came... there is no excuse.

that is a combined record of, what?... 14-29 no wonder this team is 7-0... it would be amazing if they weren't!

but wait... redemption
the combined record of the colts last 9 games is 28-29, granted its still a losing record but at least there is a bit of competition... i imagine the Colts will go 11-5 with losses to NE, PIT, JAC, SD and SEA... the playoffs are another story, this team will not make it to the super bowl folks... sorry to tell ya.

[still_life]

If you want an easy schedule, look at what Cincinnati went through so far. And the only real teams they played (Jags, Pitt) , they lost to.

Game 7 - Houston (0-6): being tied with these guys at half... there is no excuse. Giving up 20 no matter how the points came... there is no excuse.

At Houston was a division game, with a team dying for a win. 6 points came on special teams, 7 more came on a short field drive (34 yards). They didn't play bad defense at all, like I said, they allowed 139 yards total.

but wait... redemption
the combined record of the colts last 9 games is 28-29, granted its still a losing record but at least there is a bit of competition... i imagine the Colts will go 11-5 with losses to NE, PIT, JAC, SD and SEA... the playoffs are another story, this team will not make it to the super bowl folks... sorry to tell ya.

11-5? Give me a break. 13-3 is more likely than anything. SD can't win a close game, Seattle are annual chokers, and the other three games aren't impossible wins. I'm sure Indy is favored in every game the rest of the year.

This team has a SB build, no one else does right now. They have the leading rusher in the NFL, they have the best QB, they have a ball control offense. They have a big play defense that can force the sacks and turnovers, they have an accurate kicker (not clutch, just accurate). They have a guy that can return kicks (Rhodes). They have a defensive minded coach. It's all there, now they just need the homefield and it's a straight path to the Lombardi.

[asianxcore]

we are going to play a game called "lets learn to read stats" The 86 bears let up fewer points then the 85 bears, as well as the 00-01 Ravens. So if the colts do hold up and beat the 85 bears who cares who is in third place?

[fluke182]

85 Bears: 98 pts allowed through first 6 games (198 total)
05 Colts: 57 pts allowed through first 6 games

85 Bears went on to allow 10 pts/game in the final 10 games. The Colts final 10 games are:

At Houston
At New England
Houston
At Cincinnati
Pittsburgh
Tennessee
At Jacksonville
San Diego
At Seattle
Arizona

I only see 5 of those games with the team having a shot at putting 20 on the board. Holding the Texans to 3 or 6 tomorrow would really help. Then they have them again at home in a few weeks.
It's possible but man, my gut instinct says even if they do it, give them an asterisk because this beginning of the season schedule has been an absolute joke. We'll see what happens when they start playing real teams.

[still_life]

It's possible but man, my gut instinct says even if they do it, give them an asterisk because this beginning of the season schedule has been an absolute joke. We'll see what happens when they start playing real teams.

Fair enough, but that's only if we give the 2000 Ravens mark of 165 points allowed a huge asterisk. They played 6 games against teams with a winning record, and they played a 1-15 team, 3 games against 3-13 teams, and two games against a 4-12 team. That's 6 games against teams with a combined 11-53 record. 5 games against the bottom three teams in scoring offense. They also played 5-11 Dallas. It's no coincidence that the 2000 Titans, who played in the same division, allowed just 191 points that year, and were almost better defensively than that Raven team.

[fluke182]

Fair enough, but that's only if we give the 2000 Ravens mark of 165 points allowed a huge asterisk. They played 6 games against teams with a winning record, and they played a 1-15 team, 3 games against 3-13 teams, and two games against a 4-12 team. That's 6 games against teams with a combined 11-53 record. 5 games against the bottom three teams in scoring offense. They also played 5-11 Dallas. It's no coincidence that the 2000 Titans, who played in the same division, allowed just 191 points that year, and were almost better defensively than that Raven team.
I concur. I really think they need to try a bit harder on scheduling, because the Colts' sched is just ridiculous. They need to play a real team before it's decided they are really elite.

[still_life]

At Baltimore and hosting Jacksonville at the beginning was supposed to be tough. Baltimore is worse than expected, and the Jags seem pretty good. Colts got a big win there. It's not their fault Houston and the rebuilding Titans are in the division. And San Francisco is amazingly worse than they were last year.

[still_life]

Alright, they've allowed 98 pts through 8 games. So they are on pace for 196, or 2 fewer than Da 85 Bears. Oddly enough, the 05 Bears are also at 98 through 8.

I still like the odds of them finishing with less than 248. Especially with a nice home game against Houston this week.

btw, 196 would be the mark the 2002 Bucs had. Damn, there have been some good scoring defense numbers. Not just the 85 Bears and 00 Ravens.

[Caleb Cattivera]

Alright, they've allowed 98 pts through 8 games. So they are on pace for 196, or 2 fewer than Da 85 Bears. Oddly enough, the 05 Bears are also at 98 through 8.

I still like the odds of them finishing with less than 248. Especially with a nice home game against Houston this week.

btw, 196 would be the mark the 2002 Bucs had. Damn, there have been some good scoring defense numbers. Not just the 85 Bears and 00 Ravens.
wow i didnt realize the bears had only allowed 98 points. that's amazing. ive been a bears fan since i was a kid...and every year i hope for a good season...i still cant believe we're 5-3

[getupkid53]

the 05 bears are looking to compare with the 85 bears in points allowed too. Their defense is stellar. Not to take anything away from Orton, he's stepped up alright but, If we had a guy like Jeff Garcia running our QB (a reliable quarterback who's proven to be good behind a solid O line...the lions O line is horrendous) we'd be sitting pretty with the elites... probably not the colts, but I think the 05 bears would be able to give the panthers a run for their money (with a better QB).

I think with the bears playing the 49ers this week, they will be in the top spot in points allowed when all is said and done.

[still_life]

Oh look at this, 162 pts allowed in 12 games. The magic number is 248 right? I like their chances.

[Spicoli hey bud]

Oh look at this, 162 pts allowed in 12 games. The magic number is 248 right? I like their chances.
Bears - 120 allowed
Colts - 159 allowed

[still_life]

I know. So?

Colts - 12-0, 366 pts scored
Bears - 9-3, 201 pts scored

[Spicoli hey bud]

Oh look at this, 162 pts allowed in 12 games. The magic number is 248 right? I like their chances.

I know. So?
What do you mean so? You were talking about points allowed... see ^^

[still_life]

This didn't have anything to do with the 05 Bears.

[Spicoli hey bud]

No but it had to do with the 05 colts, who you said still had a good shot at the record. Except the bears have a better chance, which is something that is worthy enough to point out. I'm not making any claims as to which team is better so I don't know why your defending yourself with offensive statistics.

[still_life]

I said earlier in the thread the 05 Bears were on pace for it. No need to mention them again, this is an Indy thread.

[Caleb Cattivera]

this IS an indy thread. but the bears d is better than the colts

[Spicoli hey bud]

this IS an indy thread. but the bears d is better than the colts
which makes it a completely relevant topic to bring up

[still_life]

I'll take the Colts D any day since it comes with one of the best offenses ever. Seriously, they've given up a lot of garbage points this year. Their scoring defense would be just as low as the Bears if it wasn't for that. They've faced some better offenses than the Bears have too.

[Spicoli hey bud]

I'll take the Colts D any day since it comes with one of the best offenses ever. Seriously, they've given up a lot of garbage points this year. Their scoring defense would be just as low as the Bears if it wasn't for that. They've faced some better offenses than the Bears have too.
Are you nuts? With the Bears offense this year, it's a miracle they can hold off teams with their defense on the field so much. The fact is, Bears D > Colts D. They have been far more impressive.

[still_life]

Far more impressive? Did you see this Colts D last year? They've improved more than anyone. Even in garbage time today, on 1st and goal from the 2 yard line, they had a goal line stand. They're playing very well and deserve the credit they're getting. It looked like they returned to old form in the last few games, but they've held their last 2 opponents to a total of 10 pts. They do that in the playoffs, it's over, SB champs.

[Spicoli hey bud]

Far more impressive? Did you see this Colts D last year? They've improved more than anyone. Even in garbage time today, on 1st and goal from the 2 yard line, they had a goal line stand. They're playing very well and deserve the credit they're getting. It looked like they returned to old form in the last few games, but they've held their last 2 opponents to a total of 10 pts. They do that in the playoffs, it's over, SB champs.
yep, far more impressive. Throw everything else aside (offense, etc.) and it's plain and simple, the bears D is just better.

[still_life]

this is ridiculous and once again proves how much you rely upon stats and how little stats mean...i'll challenge you to bring this up in january and i'll bet they're not within 50

Well it's January, and they did it by one point *****. Should have bet something.

[ActorInThisPlay]

Far more impressive? Did you see this Colts D last year? They've improved more than anyone. Even in garbage time today, on 1st and goal from the 2 yard line, they had a goal line stand. They're playing very well and deserve the credit they're getting. It looked like they returned to old form in the last few games, but they've held their last 2 opponents to a total of 10 pts. They do that in the playoffs, it's over, SB champs.
yeah I'm going to have to agree...the Colts D was the best in the NFL this year.

[itsjdiggity]

haha

[mat1419]

Well it's January, and they did it by one point *****. Should have bet something.
ha...i'll take coming with in 1 point. good job bring it back though.

[mat1419]

yeah I'm going to have to agree...the Colts D was the best in the NFL this year.
bears

[still_life]

And let's not forget the Bears blew it today by allowing 34 points. 202 on the year. Good for the 9th best scoring defense since 1978, but they had a shot at second best.