Old rule... Defense wins championships.

bigbuc · 01-17-2011, 11:26 AM

Ok guys even with all the rules in place to help offenses in the NFL. The last four teams are all great defensive football teams. In fact 7 of the 8 teams that played this weekend are in the top 8 in scoring D. And of the four left three are in the top four in scoring.

Morton · 01-17-2011, 11:34 AM

Yep. Defense is still the most important thing for a team in the NFL.

Obviously, you still need a competent offense to win even with an elite defense, but if you don't have an above-average defense, no matter how elite your offense is, you simply can't win a Super Bowl.

(And yes, the Saints last year had an above-average defense.)

jrdrylie · 01-17-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morton

Yep. Defense is still the most important thing for a team in the NFL.

Obviously, you still need a competent offense to win even with an elite defense, but if you don't have an above-average defense, no matter how elite your offense is, you simply can't win a Super Bowl.

(And yes, the Saints last year had an above-average defense.)

Actually, last year the Saints were 25th in total defense and Indianapolis was 18th. There are 32 teams, so 16th would be average. So both were actually below average. Nice try though.

crossroads · 01-17-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Actually, last year the Saints were 25th in total defense and Indianapolis was 18th. There are 32 teams, so 16th would be average. So both were actually below average. Nice try though.

Yeah but the Colts were 8th in scoring defense allowing 19.2 points per game. The Saints were 20th in that category.

bigbluedefense · 01-17-2011, 12:44 PM

There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. That's the lesson of the story. As a franchise, you need to have an identity and stick with it. That's what leads to annual success.

Teams that always try to copy the new flavor of the week will always be 2 steps behind. Know what you are, draft for it year in and year out, and you'll have success.

I prefer a smashmouth team. I prefer defense. But I'm not going to sit here and say that's the only way to win. It's just the way I prefer to win.

Morton · 01-17-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Actually, last year the Saints were 25th in total defense and Indianapolis was 18th. There are 32 teams, so 16th would be average. So both were actually below average. Nice try though.

Last year the Saints intercepted 26 passes, which was 3rd in the league. They held opponents to only 15 passing TDs, which was 5th in the league. They also held opposing passers to a 68.6 QB passer rating, which was 3rd in the league.

As we all know, passing defense is the most important defense in the NFL, especially when your opponent is in catch-up mode after falling behind in points. Thus, the Saints defense last year was well above-average in all the categories that counted.

Halsey · 01-17-2011, 01:17 PM

Simple minded rules are meaningless. If defense was all it took to win championships, teams wouldn't spend any resources on offense or special teams. Every team left in the playoffs spent at least 1 first round pick on their QB, and have multiple high round picks on their O-lines and offensive skill players.

Morton · 01-17-2011, 01:21 PM

Obviously, defense alone will rarely win you championships. Occasionally you'll win with a truly great defense and a mediocre offense a la the 2000 Ravens, but that is rare.

However, teams simply do not win Super Bowls without at least an above-average defense. It simply doesn't happen. You won't go far in the playoffs with a mediocre defense, no matter how good your offense is. The basic pre-requisite for playoff and Super Bowl success is a good, solid defense. Then you get your foot in the door, and if you add an above-average QB and a way to put points on the board, you become a championship team.

But it all *starts* with a solid defense. No ifs and or buts. I implore you to find a Super Bowl winning team that did it with a mediocre defense.

RagingColt · 01-17-2011, 01:39 PM

Thanks for the crash course Morton.

RagingColt · 01-17-2011, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. That's the lesson of the story. As a franchise, you need to have an identity and stick with it. That's what leads to annual success.

Teams that always try to copy the new flavor of the week will always be 2 steps behind. Know what you are, draft for it year in and year out, and you'll have success.

I prefer a smashmouth team. I prefer defense. But I'm not going to sit here and say that's the only way to win. It's just the way I prefer to win.

Agree with most of these points.

BeerBaron · 01-17-2011, 02:04 PM

I had my feelings summed up like this in my sig for a while:

"An offense wins games.
A defense wins championships.
A quarterback makes dynasties."

And I believe it roughly be the truth. Even the greatest defense will struggle to win games if their offense can't score. That's why you need at least a moderately effective offense who will avoid mistakes and get your defense some rest between series. I think the Patriots of the early 2000s are a good example of this balance...they weren't elite on offense by any stretch, but they did enough for their BB led defense to put teams away for them. The 2000 Ravens probably had the worst offense of any team to ever win the Superbowl. They could run fairly well...but that was about it. But they had an all time great defense who didn't need many points for the offense to get them the win.

So you need an offense to help you win games, and if you have that, a good defense will make you into a team that can win championships.

And finally, if you have an elite QB on top of those other two things, there isn't much stopping you from hitting the dynasty level.

diabsoule · 01-17-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. That's the lesson of the story. As a franchise, you need to have an identity and stick with it. That's what leads to annual success.

Teams that always try to copy the new flavor of the week will always be 2 steps behind. Know what you are, draft for it year in and year out, and you'll have success.

I prefer a smashmouth team. I prefer defense. But I'm not going to sit here and say that's the only way to win. It's just the way I prefer to win.

That's what I prefer as well. I like a big, mauling offensive line with a power run game that can wear the defense down as the game goes along. I also like an attacking defense that puts a ton of pressure on the QB. It's why I like the defenses of the deceased Jim Johnson, Dick LeBeau, Rex Ryan, Gregg Williams, and Steve Spagnuolo.

bigbluedefense · 01-17-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diabsoule

That's what I prefer as well. I like a big, mauling offensive line with a power run game that can wear the defense down as the game goes along. I also like an attacking defense that puts a ton of pressure on the QB. It's why I like the defenses of the deceased Jim Johnson, Dick LeBeau, Rex Ryan, Gregg Williams, and Steve Spagnuolo.

Youre telling me. It's the style of defense that the Giants personnel is begging to have, but for some odd reason, the Giants coaching staff outside of Spags refuses to do it.

So frustrating. Rex I think is the best of the bunch. I see his defense every week, and I just love what he does. He's awesome. He's the closest thing we have in today's league to the 46 defense of yesteryear.

iowatreat54 · 01-17-2011, 03:15 PM

This was actually brought up a week or two ago by some Iowa fans, asking if you (Iowa fans) would still be as big of a fan if Iowa went to some version of the spread. It works the same for me here...

Would I be fan if the Bears went to a spread-type offense that scores a lot and doesn't play defense? Of course. But I'd ***** about it even if we won a lot. I hate teams that don't play defense. I'd rather win a game 6-4 than 60-58. Sure, everyone loves scoring, but to me watching a defense dominate >>>>>> watching an offense score with ease.

BeerBaron · 01-17-2011, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowatreat54

This was actually brought up a week or two ago by some Iowa fans, asking if you (Iowa fans) would still be as big of a fan if Iowa went to some version of the spread. It works the same for me here...

Would I be fan if the Bears went to a spread-type offense that scores a lot and doesn't play defense? Of course. But I'd ***** about it even if we won a lot. I hate teams that don't play defense. I'd rather win a game 6-4 than 60-58. Sure, everyone loves scoring, but to me watching a defense dominate >>>>>> watching an offense score with ease.

I am with you there. Maybe it has something to do with the team you've always rooted for ingraining that philosophy in you, but I love seeing games where the defenses are just going wild. Swarming to the ball, big hits, sacks, forcing turnovers, sacks, defenders celebrating after making good plays....I love it.

Give me two teams playing eachother in that style on a day where it's 10 degrees out and the snow is coming down.......mmmmmmmmmmm.....awesome.

bigbluedefense · 01-17-2011, 03:24 PM

I've always been a defense guy. I hate offense. I want a mean nasty physical team. I love smashmouth football. I love when a defensive team comes into the house of these pretty fancy finesse offenses, punches them in the mouth, then leaves with the W. I love that.

As a Giants fan, I'm embarassed when our defense sucks. Giants football is all about defense. We don't want to be pretty. And that's the kind of football I love. Mean, nasty, physical.

iowatreat54 · 01-17-2011, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

I am with you there. Maybe it has something to do with the team you've always rooted for ingraining that philosophy in you, but I love seeing games where the defenses are just going wild. Swarming to the ball, big hits, sacks, forcing turnovers, sacks, defenders celebrating after making good plays....I love it.

Give me two teams playing eachother in that style on a day where it's 10 degrees out and the snow is coming down.......mmmmmmmmmmm.....awesome.

I wish I was an Iowa fan earlier, but in the early aughts, Iowa beat PSU 6-4 in a game. It was 6-2 late in the 4th quarter, and on 4th down from inside their own 5, Iowa decided to run the punter out of the end zone to take the safety. After the game, Ferentz said it's because they were more confident that PSU wouldn't score with their offense and our D on the field that it was an easy choice. It was known as the FU safety.

I think you're right with it depending who you've been a fan of. I can't imagine the Bears ever not focusing on D. Even when they sucked, they still couldn't care less about their offense. Give me a strong D and a offense centered around pounding the rock all day. I don't really care who we have at QB, as long as he's a hilarious personality.

Timbathia · 01-17-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

I've always been a defense guy. I hate offense. I want a mean nasty physical team. I love smashmouth football. I love when a defensive team comes into the house of these pretty fancy finesse offenses, punches them in the mouth, then leaves with the W. I love that.

This is the reason why typically defense wins championships. In the playoffs there is more hype and pressure - this feeds a quality defense (or physical-based positions) as they get more psyched up and play better. It has the opposite effect on skill players (and thinking positions), as under pressure they tend to tighten up (miss throws, drop passes, etc.).

It certainly doesnt mean that a defense will always win, but there is an advantage to the defense in pressure games.

Morton · 01-17-2011, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

.

As a Giants fan, I'm embarassed when our defense sucks. Giants football is all about defense. We don't want to be pretty. And that's the kind of football I love. Mean, nasty, physical.

You must have really disliked the past two years, huh?

CJSchneider · 01-17-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Actually, last year the Saints were 25th in total defense and Indianapolis was 18th. There are 32 teams, so 16th would be average. So both were actually below average. Nice try though.

Actually last year the Saints scored 8 Defensive TD's, which was double the next closest team (Titans, Eagles and Packers scored 4 each).

Morton · 01-17-2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJSchneider

Actually last year the Saints scored 8 Defensive TD's, which was double the next closest team (Titans, Eagles and Packers scored 4 each).

I already disproved his bum comments earlier in the thread by pointing out that the Saints were top 5 in INTs, defensive passer rating, and passing TDs allowed.

If he wants to be taken seriously, he's going to have to do actual research and back his arguments up with some real data next time. Just ignore him.

bigbluedefense · 01-17-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morton

You must have really disliked the past two years, huh?

Yes.

Although our defense wasn't bad this year. But once Fewell's blitzes got figured out, he reverted to Cover 2 and Cover 3 and our defense sucked towards the end of the season.

descendency · 01-17-2011, 04:34 PM

Executing wins championships, not offense or defense.

umphrey · 01-17-2011, 05:38 PM

No doubt in my mind that if the Packers defense was just the slightest bit less spectacular they wouldn't even be in the playoffs, and I give them most of the credit for both playoff wins too.
Does anyone think we would have beat the Jets with 9 points with just a good defense? How bout the Bears with 10 points? The Eagles, Vick, at home with 21?
The 21 Atlanta got was misleading. 7 came from a fumble turnover, 7 came from a kick return TD, and 7 came when we were winning by 28 in the 4th quarter.

soybean · 01-17-2011, 06:36 PM

Welker's statement is all the proof you need to know that BB was thoroughly outcoached by Rex Ryan...

Quote:

"You work all week on one thing and then you get something different," a stone-faced Wes Welker said. Asked to elaborate, Welker said the Patriots planned for man coverage, only to be stifled by a mix of zone defenses.

"We tried to make adjustments, but we never really could get in a rhythm," he said.