Defensive Player Of The Year!

[MKdave]

Ok so the season is officially over so we can now make an informed decision over who will be voted Defensive player of the year.
Don't just pick Reed because you're a ravens fan. Pick who you really think should win.

Because I'm generous, Here are a few key stats on the contenders:

Ed Reed: 9 interceptions (2 TD) , 264 yards (including NFL record), 1 FF, 2 FR (1 TD), 1 sack, 25 PD

DeMarcus Ware: 84 tackles, 20 sacks, 6 FF, 1 FR, 0 INT, 0 PD

James Harrison: 101 tackles, 16 sack, 7 FF, 0 FR, 1 INT, 4 PD

Albert Haynesworth: 51 tacles, 8.5 sacks, 3 FF, 1 FR, 0 INT, 0 PD

Kris Jenkins : 50 tackles, 3.5 sacks, 1 FF, 0 FR, 0 INT, 0 PD

Troy Polamalu : 7 interception, 59 yards, 0 FF, 0 FR, 0 sacks, 24 PD

Ray Lewis: 117 tackles, 3.5 sacks, 2 FF, 2 FR, 3 INT, 12 PD

Charles Woodson: 7 interceptions, 169 yards, 1 FF, 1 FR, 3 sacks, 24 PD

Joey Porter: 47 tackles, 17.5 sacks, 4 FF, 1 FR, 0 INT, 0 PD

Jameel McClain : 2 safeties, 2 blocked punts, 2.5 sacks

Stats courtesy of NFL.com

PS. I said at the beginning of the season Ed would have 9 picks. I told you to write it down. Hopefully you did.

[STL Raven]

I guess this will all boil down to what you like more -- sacks, or interceptions. Since Reed nabbed 2 more balls than Polamalu, plus broke his previous INT return record, I'd give him the edge.

When Reed picked his 7th ball, Polamalu became irrelevant in the discussion.

[MKdave]

[quote name='STL Raven' post='114142' date='Dec 29 2008, 12:55 PM']I guess this will all boil down to what you like more -- sacks, or interceptions. Since Reed nabbed 2 more balls than Polamalu, plus broke his previous INT return record, I'd give him the edge.

When Reed picked his 7th ball, Polamalu became irrelevant in the discussion. [/quote]

I agree. I think the same could be said about DeMarcus Ware and James Harrison.
I was pretty surprised to learn that Ed had more sacks and FF than Polamalu though.

[laci]

Whoever wins, MY fav is Ngata

He run the ball yesterday!!!

[MKdave]

[quote name='laci' post='114148' date='Dec 29 2008, 01:03 PM']Whoever wins, MY fav is Ngata

He run the ball yesterday!!!

[/quote]

I considered putting him there, I think he deserves to be in that company. But I didn't because he has no shot at getting it.

[Marc2k6]

This is not a fair poll, Ed Reed's name should have been mixed in with the others to make me read the other names on the list. Ed Reed!

[laci]

Obviously, Ed Reed is the most spectacular, but I think Harrison and Woodson are well balanced, reliable performers. I give it to Harrison, as tackles and sacks make the defense tick.

-----

oops, I cannot vote. So I can only give it virtually :S

[WACKO4FLACC0]

Ed Reed 100%... he is playing like he is fresh out of college... making big plays when we need them and helping the team turn our record around to now 11-5 and GOING TO THE PLAYOFFS!

[thewarden86]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114144' date='Dec 29 2008, 07:58 AM']I agree. I think the same could be said about DeMarcus Ware and James Harrison.
I was pretty surprised to learn that Ed had more sacks and FF than Polamalu though.[/quote]

IMO, it comes down to Ware and Harrison. Obviously, I'd like to see JH get it but.... I guess we'll see.

[GermanRavensFan]

Harrison, Ware or Reed.
I really doubt that Ed will get it because Harrisons Stats are amazing....

[MKdave]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='114187' date='Dec 29 2008, 03:13 PM']IMO, it comes down to Ware and Harrison. Obviously, I'd like to see JH get it but.... I guess we'll see.[/quote]

what? I'd say a pick is 3 times the play that a sack is, (because you have to get 3 sacks for the same result) and no one has 27 sacks, so it should be Ed Reed! And that's not even factoring in the 3 scores he has.

[thewarden86]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114193' date='Dec 29 2008, 10:24 AM']what? I'd say a pick is 3 times the play that a sack is, (because you have to get 3 sacks for the same result) and no one has 27 sacks, so it should be Ed Reed! And that's not even factoring in the 3 scores he has.[/quote]

Dave.....where is it written that a pick equals "3X" a sack? lol. C'mon man.

[MKdave]

[quote name='thewarden86' post='114198' date='Dec 29 2008, 03:34 PM']Dave.....where is it written that a pick equals "3X" a sack? lol. C'mon man.[/quote]

Fine. This season there were 1036 sacks, and 450 interceptions. Therefore, in the current NFL landscape, an interception happens every 2.3 sacks, making it 2.3 times the play.

9 x 2.3 = 20.7, plus Ed Reed has a sack, making the sack total required to have had a better season, excluding the other stats, 21.7.
His 25 pass deflections and 3 touchdowns MORE that make up for Harrison's and Ware's FF and tackle advantage, therefore Ed Reed should be DPOY.

QED.

[bce086]

Ed Reed, leads the league in interceptions, makes them at CLUTCH times, and broke his own record for longest Int return..... hands down its gotta be Ed Reed.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114199' date='Dec 29 2008, 10:40 AM']Fine. This season there were 1036 sacks, and 450 interceptions. Therefore, in the current NFL landscape, an interception happens every 2.3 sacks, making it 2.3 times the play.

9 x 2.3 = 20.7, plus Ed Reed has a sack, making the sack total required to have had a better season, excluding the other stats, 21.7.
His 25 pass deflections and 3 touchdowns MORE that make up for Harrison's and Ware's FF and tackle advantage, therefore Ed Reed should be DPOY.

QED.[/quote]

Or, you could've just mentioned that it takes three sacks to force a three-and-out (a/k/a turnover, in most cases), while it only takes one INT to force a turnover.

Y'know. Much simpler.

[atcsraven]

Once I got to Reed, I stopped "reeding". The best-period.

[MKdave]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='114205' date='Dec 29 2008, 03:47 PM']Or, you could've just mentioned that it takes three sacks to force a three-and-out (a/k/a turnover, in most cases), while it only takes one INT to force a turnover.

Y'know. Much simpler. [/quote]

That's what I meant when I said :
[quote]I'd say a pick is 3 times the play that a sack is, (because you have to get 3 sacks for the same result [i]I.E a turnover[/i] )[/quote]
But apparently that's not enough proof for the warden, so I gave him more.

[laci]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114199' date='Dec 29 2008, 04:40 PM']Fine. This season there were 1036 sacks, and 450 interceptions. Therefore, in the current NFL landscape, an interception happens every 2.3 sacks, making it 2.3 times the play.

9 x 2.3 = 20.7, plus Ed Reed has a sack, making the sack total required to have had a better season, excluding the other stats, 21.7.
His 25 pass deflections and 3 touchdowns MORE that make up for Harrison's and Ware's FF and tackle advantage, therefore Ed Reed should be DPOY.

QED.[/quote]

With a sack, you stop a play. With an INT you also stop 1 play, not 2.3. In this sense, a PD and a tackle also stops 1 play. On the other hand, generally an interception also means turnover, like a fumble, so interceptions and fumbles could be compared rather than interceptions and sacks. Whether you have more sacks or PD-s depends on position, but I think there are two general aspects: play stops and turnovers.

[theFRANCHISE]

In regards to who I voted for, I picked Ed Reed mainly because I value turnovers over tackles.

The main reason why tackle numbers can sometimes be inflated, is if a player is constantly on defense because their offense isn't scoring; not only that, but that player may also be the only one making plays (see: Patrick Willis, Ernie Sims, etc.).

However, that same argument can be made for a defensive player on a winning team, if their offense is also dismal. Therefore, my logic is, if a player can force a turnover, regardless of whether or not their team is winning, they are at least giving their team a chance to score (on offense or on defense).

With that said...I wouldn't be surprised if the award is still given to James Harrison. For all intents and purposes, DeMarcus Ware drops out of the discussion because he simply couldn't will his team to victory. Harrison and Reed have essentially done that this season for their respective teams. Harrison, however, will get the edge because: 1) the award has gone to a defensive back only 8 times since its inception in 1971, and 2) sacks are valued by AP voters more than turnovers, in many cases.

Harping on that sack argument, the reason why Ware won't get the nod despite being the league's sack leader is because Harrison has done more on the field than Ware, both in statistics and intangibles.

But...when speaking of intangibles, that's where Ed Reed again enters the discussion. With every turnover he creates, the Ravens have a distinctly better shot at winning, as evidenced in the 45-0 record since 2000 when the team has a +2 turnover ratio; remember, there have been teams who have still lost with a positive turnover ratio (see: the San Diego Chargers). Though Reed has only contributed to that record since his league debut in 2002, his impact in furthering that record cannot be denied, since he leads all defensive backs in INTs from that span.

In essence, you can't go wrong with either Ed Reed or James Harrison. But, other than supporting my team, it's hard not to give Reed the edge, simply for all he's done to stand out on a team with a staggering amount of injuries.

[MKdave]

[quote name='laci' post='114211' date='Dec 29 2008, 03:59 PM']With a sack, you stop a play. With an INT you also stop 1 play, not 2.3. In this sense, a PD and a tackle also stops 1 play. On the other hand, generally an interception also means turnover, like a fumble, so interceptions and fumbles could be compared rather than interceptions and sacks. Whether you have more sacks or PD-s depends on position, but I think there are two general aspects: play stops and turnovers.[/quote]

Yeah, but with a sack you stop 1 play, with a pick, you stop all potential for a touchdown. Which is really what playing defense is all about.

[flynismo]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114193' date='Dec 29 2008, 10:24 AM']what? I'd say a pick is 3 times the play that a sack is, (because you have to get 3 sacks for the same result) and no one has 27 sacks, so it should be Ed Reed! And that's not even factoring in the 3 scores he has.[/quote]

Great explanation! Seriously, that was great, because I've been sitting here trying to think of a way to compare sacks and interceptions to each other.
One interception carries more weight than one sack (for obvious reasons). Since there is no official formula explaining how many sacks should be the equivalent of an interception, I think yours is the closest thing.
You could argue that the total sacks don't show the whole picture, since there will be times that the player didn't get the sack, but the pressure that was caused led to an incompletion or even an INT; but you could also argue that shutdown defenders change the way the game is played by deflecting passes, generating excellent coverage that results in the other teams best receivers being taken out of the game, and just their mere presence on the field.
When I consider all that, I think Reed is the clear DPOY (his 3 TDs and breaking his own record didn't hurt his cause either )

[MKdave]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='114212' date='Dec 29 2008, 03:59 PM']The main reason why tackle numbers can sometimes be inflated, is if a player is constantly on defense because their offense isn't scoring; not only that, but that player may also be the only one making plays (see: Patrick Willis, Ernie Sims, etc.).[/quote]

Good point actually, while researching pick and sack stats for my other posts, I noticed that we are second last in total tackles, because our offense has the ball for the majority of games. How is Ed even supposed to record tackles when there are guys like Ray Lewis, Bart Scott and Haloti Ngata infront of him, and he's on the field for less that 30 minutes every game (because of our aforementioned ball control offense)

Also I think DB tackles should be disregarded alltogether (which is why I didn't list them) because you can't tell if the player stuffed a runner or got beat in coverage (I'd have listed TFL but I couldn't find them).

[laci]

that's right I also think that turnovers are much more valuable, I only said that INT's shouldn't be converted to sacks . If anything then recovered fumbles should be compared to interceptions.

---

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114219' date='Dec 29 2008, 11:07 AM']Also I think DB tackles should be disregarded alltogether (which is why I didn't list them) because you can't tell if the player stuffed a runner or got beat in coverage (I'd have listed TFL but I couldn't find them).[/quote]

Agreed. Usually, it's never good for a defensive back to be one of the team leader in tackles, unless they are constantly involved in run support, are used as blitzers, or play special teams on the side.

If a defensive back has to make a tackle, that generally means that the ballcarrier got to the second level -- which usually indicates a big play and/or a first down. That's a big no-no on defense, since coaches always tell players to keep the ballcarrier in front of them and don't let the offense get anything behind them.

[MKdave]

[quote name='laci' post='114220' date='Dec 29 2008, 04:07 PM']that's right I also think that turnovers are much more valuable, I only said that INT's shouldn't be converted to sacks . If anything then recovered fumbles should be compared to interceptions.

---[/quote]

And Ed Reed beats them both there too .

But regarding fumbles I don't think it should be held parallel with interceptions unless you recover your own FF, because it's just luck otherwise.

[laci]

[quote name='flynismo' post='114217' date='Dec 29 2008, 05:06 PM']Great explanation! Seriously, that was great, because I've been sitting here trying to think of a way to compare sacks and interceptions to each other.
One interception carries more weight than one sack (for obvious reasons). Since there is no official formula explaining how many sacks should be the equivalent of an interception, I think yours is the closest thing.
You could argue that the total sacks don't show the whole picture, since there will be times that the player didn't get the sack, but the pressure that was caused led to an incompletion or even an INT; but you could also argue that shutdown defenders change the way the game is played by deflecting passes, generating excellent coverage that results in the other teams best receivers being taken out of the game, and just their mere presence on the field.
When I consider all that, I think Reed is the clear DPOY (his 3 TDs and breaking his own record didn't hurt his cause either )[/quote]


I can be convinced to give it to Reed

But the formula needs to be more sophisticated

sacks+tackles+PS's versus 3x(interceptions and fumbles)

or something like that

[laci]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114224' date='Dec 29 2008, 05:10 PM']And Ed Reed beats them both there too .

But regarding fumbles I don't think it should be held parallel with interceptions unless you recover your own FF, because it's just luck otherwise.[/quote]

yes, recovered fumbles, of course.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='MKdave' post='114224' date='Dec 29 2008, 11:10 AM']And Ed Reed beats them both there too .

But regarding fumbles I don't think it should be held parallel unless you recover your own FF, because it's just luck otherwise.[/quote]

But if you recover your own fumble, that's still assisting in a turnover. After all, you can force a fumble and it can always be recovered by the offensive team again; I think if the math was done, maybe 75% of forced fumbles DO NOT result in turnovers.

Therefore, to recover a fumble, would be to complete the turnover.

[kash96ravenstotalfan]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='114212' date='Dec 29 2008, 10:59 AM']In regards to who I voted for, I picked Ed Reed mainly because I value turnovers over tackles.

The main reason why tackle numbers can sometimes be inflated, is if a player is constantly on defense because their offense isn't scoring; not only that, but that player may also be the only one making plays (see: Patrick Willis, Ernie Sims, etc.).

However, that same argument can be made for a defensive player on a winning team, if their offense is also dismal. Therefore, my logic is, if a player can force a turnover, regardless of whether or not their team is winning, they are at least giving their team a chance to score (on offense or on defense).

With that said...I wouldn't be surprised if the award is still given to James Harrison. For all intents and purposes, DeMarcus Ware drops out of the discussion because he simply couldn't will his team to victory. Harrison and Reed have essentially done that this season for their respective teams. Harrison, however, will get the edge because: 1) the award has gone to a defensive back only 8 times since its inception in 1971, and 2) sacks are valued by AP voters more than turnovers, in many cases.

Harping on that sack argument, the reason why Ware won't get the nod despite being the league's sack leader is because Harrison has done more on the field than Ware, both in statistics and intangibles.

But...when speaking of intangibles, that's where Ed Reed again enters the discussion. With every turnover he creates, the Ravens have a distinctly better shot at winning, as evidenced in the 45-0 record since 2000 when the team has a +2 turnover ratio; remember, there have been teams who have still lost with a positive turnover ratio (see: the San Diego Chargers). Though Reed has only contributed to that record since his league debut in 2002, his impact in furthering that record cannot be denied, since he leads all defensive backs in INTs from that span.

In essence, you can't go wrong with either Ed Reed or James Harrison. But, other than supporting my team, it's hard not to give Reed the edge, simply for all he's done to stand out on a team with a staggering amount of injuries.[/quote]
Not to mention the fact that he's played all year with an injury!

[MKdave]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' post='114229' date='Dec 29 2008, 04:12 PM']But if you recover your own fumble, that's still assisting in a turnover. After all, you can force a fumble and it can always be recovered by the offensive team again; I think if the math was done, maybe 75% of forced fumbles DO NOT result in turnovers.

Therefore, to recover a fumble, would be to complete the turnover.[/quote]

yeah but to recover a fumble you have to be lucky in that the ball bounces your way. Forcing a fumble, you're lucky if it bounes to one of your team mates. But if you force the fumble, then scoop it before anyone else has a chance, that's skill.

In any event, I think a Pick is a better play than a fumble recovery.