The Greatest Show on Turf vs. the 2011 Saints (1 Viewer)

[Turfie]

That Rams offense was legendary. HOF tackle. HOF QB. HOF RB. Issac Bruce and Tory Holt at WR. They were clearly ahead of their class.

 

[WallyBB]

A little bit of context here, because we're talking two different eras.

- The 2011 Saints ran over 100 more plays than the 2000 Rams, which inflated the Saints counting stats a bit. The 2011 Saints ran the 4th most plays in the history of football (Rams were 68th).

- The 2000 Rams averaged more yards per play than the 2011 Saints (7.0 vs. 6.7). And the Rams did it in an era where offenses had fewer advantages. The 2nd best team in yards per play in 2000 was at 6.2, almost a full yard behind the rams. The 2nd best team in 2011 was Green Bay at 6.6, just 0.1 yards behind the Saints.

The 2011 Saints were basically doing what a lot of other teams were trying to do, just much much better than other teams were. The Greatest Show Rams revolutionized offense in the NFL. They're two different things.

It's like comparing Zion Williamson dunking from behind the free throw line to Jordan dunking from the free throw line. When Jordan did it, nobody in the world was doing that. Now everyone can do it, so Zion doing it isn't that big of a deal, relative to Jordan.

I really dislike using number of plays as a disparagement to the team (or player) with more. Both teams have the exact same amount of game time to work with. If a team, through offensive efficiency and on field success gets to run 100 more plays over the course of the season, it shouldn't be held against them.

I understand the yards per play logic, but the less plays you run, the more likely it is you can hold a higher yards per play average. To lead the league in yards per play while also performing the 4th most in history is in and of itself impressive. I would love to know the how many plays the Packers ran in 2011 to generate 0.1 less, I assume differnce is a lofty number. Which means to maintain that over significantly more plays in the same exact time frame is impressive.

I am not suggesting that either is more or less impressive... just Yards Per Play is not a be all end all stat in thos argument... it is context to look at, but there is impressive value on both sides of that stat.

 

[Loose Cannon]

I really dislike using number of plays as a disparagement to the team (or player) with more. Both teams have the exact same amount of game time to work with. If a team, through offensive efficiency and on field success gets to run 100 more plays over the course of the season, it shouldn't be held against them.

My post wasn't holding the 100 more plays against them at all. Just simply saying that comparing total season yardage vs. the Rams is not really an apples to apples comparison, because the Saints ran 10% more plays.

The Saints had more plays because the 99 Rams defense was an extremely good defense. Despite being overshadowed by that offense, they were #4 in scoring defense.

The only reason for mentioning the number of plays was to make the point that using counting stats (total points, yards) is silly. Which of course it is.

I understand the yards per play logic, but the less plays you run, the more likely it is you can hold a higher yards per play average.

Don't take this the wrong way, but that's not even remotely true. I plugged the 200 most prolific offensive seasons since the merger into a plot, and there's absolutely no correlation between number of plays run and yards per play. The r-squared value is 0.05, which basically means there is no correlation whatsoever between the two.

So no, running more plays doesn't make it less likely to have a higher yards per play. Here's the graph:

[/url]

Saints are gold stars, Rams are blue. It's pretty crazy that the Rams had three years straight in the top 10 of yards per play in the history of football. The three blue stars near the top of the yards per play axis are 99, 2000, 2001 (2000 was the highest year). That offense was just something else during its peak. It would probably still be the best in the NFL in 2020. especially given the tight rules around defensive pass interference and the lax rules around offensive pick plays.

It's also really interesting to see just what an outlier the 2011 Saints (the one way top right) offense was. It was a historically productive offense running a historical number of plays, which of course leads to gaudy numbers. That was a fun season, until it ended.

However, one testament to Sean Payton and Drew Brees is the sheer volume of gold stars up there. The Saints pretty much stay in the upper echelon of historical offenses every single year. The Rams could only dream of such prolonged success.

If you're wondering, the only years since Payton the Saints didn't make the top 200 offenses are 2007, 2010, and 2014.

 

[WallyBB]

Don't take this the wrong way, but that's not even remotely true. I plugged the 200 most prolific offensive seasons since the merger into a plot, and there's absolutely no correlation between number of plays run and yards per play. The r-squared value is 0.05, which basically means there is no correlation whatsoever between the two.

So no, running more plays doesn't make it less likely to have a higher yards per play. Here's the graph:

[/url]

First off, let me just say, this is excellent and indicative of the quality of conversation one can have on this board.

Second, doesn't this chart show exactly the opposite of what you say? The trend line through all of these data points clearly points to a correlation between running more plays and having a lower yards per play average. In fact, in a chart like this, wouldn't the most optimal offense be on the far upper right corner? Wouldn't the fact that Saints outlier so isolated from other 6.5 or higher offense signify that the Saints offense was able to hold that average up over a significantly higher number of plays in exactly the same amount of game time?

Im sorry but this chart reenforces my point. Thanks!

 

[Turfie]

I haven’t done any in depth analysis. But I remember that 99 Rams team as being the best offense that I’ve ever seen. This was coming after the 98 Vikings, 97 Packers, 94 Niners....etc.

Taking off the Saints glasses. It has been debated that the 2011 Saints offense wasn’t even the best in that season. Some say it was the Packers.

I don’t remember any debate in 1999. That said we were just trying to compare Rams vs Saints. Still give the sight nod to the Rams.

 

[Loose Cannon]

First off, let me just say, this is excellent and indicative of the quality of conversation one can have on this board.

Second, doesn't this chart show exactly the opposite of what you say? The trend line through all of these data points clearly points to a correlation between running more plays and having a lower yards per play average. In fact, in a chart like this, wouldn't the most optimal offense be on the far upper right corner? Wouldn't the fact that Saints outlier so isolated from other 6.5 or higher offense signify that the Saints offense was able to hold that average up over a significantly higher number of plays in exactly the same amount of game time?

Im sorry but this chart reenforces my point. Thanks!

It does not. Do some research on how to interpret correlation strengths via r-squared. I tried to lay it out as simplistically as I could in my last post, but apparently you skipped that part.

The correlation strength of the trend line in that chart is 0.05 (out of a scale of 0.0 to 1.0). It means there is absolutely nothing there.

 

[saint_drago]

Had that 2011 team won the Super Bowl they'd be remembered as one of the best to ever do it. They could beat you in so many ways with weapons all over the field. The defense wasn't great but they were solid. They were 13th in scoring defense.

 

[Turfie]

Had that 2011 team won the Super Bowl they'd be remembered as one of the best to ever do it.

Yep. It would have immortalized that offense. Likely the best offense in league history. A team that ran the table in the 2nd half of the season. A team that put up 45 in round 1. 30+ points away at SF. Lite up the Giants again and blowout the Patriots.

The individual efforts of Sproles and Graham would have gotten much more widespread acclaim. That offensive line could have leapfrogged the cowboys in terms of best ever. Evans would be a HOF lock. Brees would have leapfrogged Manning in many more lists.

Bounty gate was big news at the time. But had we won it all in 2011 - it might have been just as big as the current Astros situation.

So many what IFs.

Edit - It likely means that Cam Jordan never wears the black and gold too.

Edit II - Cam the man was already here. But now his resume has a ring.

 

[black_floyd]

Cam Jordan was already here in 2011.

 

[perret318]

The only 2 things I can think while reading this post:
1. %&$# Vernon Davis
2. %&$# Gregg Williams