| Reviewing the repeatability of defenses is a challenge since literally every league has different scoring. All player listings to follow were created using the standard performance scoring as seen on The Huddle statistics which awards one point per sack, two points per turnover recovered and six point touchdowns. Safeties are two points.
Be careful in applying this in light of the differing scoring scenario that your league may employ. This scoring measures the sacks, turnovers and touchdowns but in others the introduction of yardage or points allowed can have a tremendous difference to the results.
| |
2000 |
Pts |
2001 |
Pts |
2002 |
Pts |
2003 |
Pts |
2004 |
Pts |
| 1 |
DEN |
144 |
CLE |
118 |
TB |
122 |
BAL |
125 |
BUF |
146 |
| 2 |
TB |
140 |
NE |
117 |
PHI |
119 |
NE |
125 |
BAL |
127 |
| 3 |
NO |
131 |
CHI |
117 |
GB |
113 |
STL |
120 |
ATL |
116 |
| 4 |
OAK |
127 |
GB |
115 |
NO |
113 |
KC |
115 |
NE |
112 |
| 5 |
TEN |
121 |
PIT |
114 |
CAR |
112 |
TEN |
110 |
IND |
111 |
| 6 |
MIA |
109 |
STL |
113 |
OAK |
110 |
MIA |
101 |
CHI |
109 |
| |
| 7 |
PHI |
105 |
SD |
109 |
ATL |
105 |
MIN |
100 |
PIT |
106 |
| 8 |
BAL |
103 |
NYJ |
108 |
BAL |
101 |
DET |
98 |
CIN |
103 |
| 9 |
STL |
100 |
PHI |
107 |
PIT |
99 |
CAR |
97 |
DET |
100 |
| 10 |
PIT |
100 |
TB |
103 |
NE |
99 |
SF |
93 |
TB |
96 |
| 11 |
KC |
98 |
MIA |
102 |
DET |
94 |
NYG |
92 |
NO |
95 |
| 12 |
CAR |
96 |
OAK |
95 |
SD |
93 |
ATL |
91 |
NYJ |
93 |
| |
| 13 |
SEA |
95 |
CAR |
92 |
TEN |
93 |
SEA |
90 |
NYG |
93 |
| 14 |
SD |
93 |
SEA |
92 |
HOU |
92 |
TB |
89 |
CAR |
90 |
| 15 |
DET |
88 |
NO |
91 |
MIA |
88 |
GB |
86 |
SEA |
89 |
| 16 |
NYJ |
87 |
IND |
89 |
KC |
88 |
PHI |
85 |
PHI |
87 |
| 17 |
ATL |
87 |
JAX |
89 |
SEA |
87 |
PIT |
83 |
KC |
86 |
| 18 |
IND |
87 |
CIN |
88 |
DAL |
85 |
OAK |
82 |
GB |
85 |
| 19 |
BUF |
83 |
DEN |
88 |
WAS |
85 |
DAL |
81 |
HOU |
84 |
| 20 |
NYG |
82 |
BAL |
87 |
DEN |
83 |
BUF |
80 |
ARI |
81 |
| 21 |
CHI |
80 |
NYG |
87 |
CLE |
76 |
NO |
79 |
MIN |
79 |
| 22 |
GB |
80 |
SF |
85 |
STL |
76 |
IND |
79 |
WAS |
77 |
| 23 |
WAS |
80 |
TEN |
81 |
NYJ |
76 |
DEN |
76 |
SAN |
76 |
| 24 |
CLE |
74 |
DET |
77 |
NYG |
74 |
CLE |
69 |
MIA |
75 |
| The Following season: |
Remained
Top 6 |
Became
7-12 |
Became
13-24 |
Not in next
Top 24 |
| Top 6 became |
Avg. |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
| Top 6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
| 7 to 12 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
| 13 - 24 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
| Duds |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
| 7 to 12 became |
Avg. |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
| Top 6 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
| 7 to 12 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| 13 - 24 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
| Duds |
1 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Top 6 was: |
Avg. |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
| Top 6 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
| 7 to 12 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
| 13 - 24 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| 24+ |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
The history of Top 6 defenses in this scoring scenario is not very good. In all but one of the last five seasons, there were either one or no team that repeated into the next Top 6. What happened to many were merely dropping down to the 7th to 12th range (still a starter) but even that has fallen apart the last two years.
The 7th to 12th area is no more easy to count on. While two did remain in the same tier, on average the other four teams involved would be equally spread out among the other three categories. You can still rely on a Top 12 defense repeating to the Top 12 about half the time, but as with kickers and tight ends, only the Top 6 truly make any difference for you.
When you are hunting for one of those Top 6 defense and considering the past season, you can almost use a dart if you hope repeatability matters. Consider too that the difference between the 7th best and 12th best defense rarely matters more than one point per game.
| Repeat Repeatability |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
| 1 |
BAL |
8 |
20 |
8 |
1 |
2 |
| 2 |
TB |
2 |
10 |
1 |
14 |
14 |
| 3 |
NE |
|
2 |
10 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
CAR |
12 |
13 |
5 |
9 |
9 |
| 5 |
PIT |
10 |
5 |
9 |
17 |
8 |
| 6 |
PHI |
7 |
9 |
2 |
16 |
16 |
| 7 |
NO |
3 |
15 |
4 |
21 |
10 |
| 8 |
MIA |
6 |
11 |
15 |
6 |
|
| 9 |
ATL |
17 |
|
7 |
12 |
4 |
| 10 |
OAK |
4 |
12 |
6 |
18 |
|
| 11 |
STL |
9 |
6 |
22 |
3 |
|
| 12 |
TEN |
5 |
23 |
13 |
5 |
21 |
| 13 |
GB |
22 |
4 |
3 |
15 |
24 |
| 14 |
DET |
15 |
24 |
11 |
8 |
12 |
| 15 |
SEA |
13 |
14 |
17 |
13 |
13 |
| 16 |
KC |
11 |
|
16 |
4 |
20 |
| 17 |
SD |
14 |
7 |
12 |
|
19 |
| 18 |
CHI |
21 |
3 |
|
|
7 |
| 19 |
NYJ |
16 |
8 |
23 |
|
11 |
| 20 |
IND |
18 |
16 |
|
22 |
5 |
| 21 |
DEN |
1 |
19 |
20 |
23 |
|
| 22 |
BUF |
19 |
|
|
20 |
1 |
| 23 |
NYG |
20 |
21 |
24 |
11 |
15 |
| 24 |
CLE |
24 |
1 |
21 |
24 |
|
| 25 |
CIN |
|
18 |
|
|
6 |
| 26 |
MIN |
|
|
|
7 |
23 |
| 24 |
HOU |
|
|
14 |
|
17 |
| 28 |
SF |
|
22 |
|
10 |
|
| 29 |
DAL |
|
|
18 |
19 |
|
| 30 |
WAS |
23 |
|
19 |
|
22 |
| 31 |
JAX |
|
17 |
|
|
|
| 32 |
ARZ |
|
|
|
|
18 |
Defense Repeatability
32% - 0%
Only Baltimore and New England have produced repeats for the Top 6 and if you remove those two defenses, then it plummets to zero percent for repeat reliability in this scoring scenario. Green Bay is the only other team to manage the feat in the last five years and they fell to 24th in 2004. The Bills are a hot defense this season since they were #1 in 2004, but historically they have been barely worth keeping as a back-up. Defenses do change over time but for the measureables of this fantasy scoring, it's pretty much either take New England or Baltimore or wait and take your chances. This actually suggests getting a few decent defenses and playing the matchup game instead of just one and letting it ride every week.
|