PDA

View Full Version : Does D Still Win Championships?



Packnut
06-20-2007, 08:41 PM
Interesting article by Clayton brings up a good debate. I tend to agree with him for the most part. Unless you have a D like the Bears that scores points and creates turnovers, your offense still needs to generate points. If his contention is true that you need to score 21 a game then we're in trouble, cause this Packer offense ain't scoring 21 per game

Teams know they can't win with just defense
By John Clayton
ESPN.com
(Archive)
Updated: June 20, 2007
Comment
Email
Print
The Colts might have opened a new era by winning the Super Bowl this year.

They are the first Super Bowl winner since the 1983 Raiders to not finish in the top 10 in scoring defense. In a league that usually evolves into defense-dominated games in the playoffs, offense carries more importance than teams want to admit.

As the cliché goes, defense wins championships. While defense is obviously still an important part of the equation, a defense not accompanied by a top-level offense isn't going to get it done. And having a top-level offense starts with the quarterback position. To win a Super Bowl in the 2000s, you need a quarterback who can beat Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

The days of building a defense alone to win a Super Bowl ended at the turn of the century when Brady started winning Super Bowls and continued last season with Manning. Their presence ended a brief dark ages at the quarterback position that plagued the late 1990s.

It sounds simple, but the stat to watch is points scored. If an offense can't score at least 21 points a game, forget about winning a Super Bowl.

In the past four years, five teams averaged less than 20 points per game and still made the playoffs. Four of those teams were eliminated in the first round; the fifth, the 2004 Rams, got past the first round as an 8-8 wild-card team by beating a 9-7 Seahawks team in Seattle. The next week the Rams were blown out by the Falcons 47-17.

The NFL competition committee gets worried when team scoring drops to an average of around 20 points per game. When that happens -- and it often does -- the league considers rule changes to add more offense. The most recent example is when the NFL tightened up the interference and illegal-contact rules against defensive backs. Throwing more flags for tight coverage provided a brief offensive spike.

General managers countered by drafting more speed on defense, and to a certain degree the strategy is working. Teams that use the Cover 2 defense (such as the Bears) have acquired lighter and faster athletes who can cover more ground. The good 3-4 defenses also are finding quicker players in an effort to create a few more big plays.

Perhaps the biggest reason the AFC has held an edge over the NFC in interconference play and the Super Bowl is because it has quarterbacks such as Manning and Brady who can produce points. It's hard to rank Ben Roethlisberger in the hierarchy of great quarterbacks after just three seasons, but he has led an offense that has averaged 22 points or better when he starts.

Despite a motorcycle accident and an appendectomy, Roethlisberger ran an offense that averaged 22.1 points last season. His offenses put up 23.3 and 24.3 points per game in his other years as a starter. With Roethlisberger taking more control of the passing offense this year, it's not surprising that the Steelers are talking about getting back to the playoffs.

Last season, 16 teams averaged 20 or more points. Eleven of those teams made the playoffs. Ten of the 20-point teams were in the AFC. Before last season, the Bears focused on being able to score the 21 points they tallied in their 2005 playoff loss to Carolina. If they could do that, they'd win. The Bears jumped from 16.3 to 26.7 points per game, finished 13-3 and reached the Super Bowl. Sure, Devin Hester's returns and defensive touchdowns contributed to that, but the bottom line is that they scored more points, and that made them a Super Bowl contender.

It was also easy to figure out the Ravens and Chargers were going to be playoff teams last year because of the improvement of their offenses. Coach Brian Billick and the Ravens added QB Steve McNair, and the Ravens' scoring average went from 16.6 to 22.1 points per game. QB Philip Rivers boosted the Chargers' scoring average from 26.1 to 30.8.

QB Drew Brees had an even bigger impact in New Orleans, helping boost the Saints' scoring average by more than 11 points (14.7 to 25.8 points per game) and leading them to the NFC title game.

The teams to watch in 2007 that scored less than 20 points per game last season (and missed the playoffs) are the 49ers, Cardinals, Broncos and Redskins. They all averaged in the 18- or 19-point area and should be better on offense. If they can get three or four points better, they will be right in the playoff hunt.

The Buffalo Bills are another team that could take a big step forward on offense. QB J.P. Losman looked great running a version of the Rams' offense last week in minicamp. With the talent on hand and improvement by Losman, the Bills could easily jump from 18.8 points per game into the 20s. But that improvement on offense might not be enough for a Buffalo team that lost three key defensive starters.

Say what you want about defenses winning championships; the top teams in the league are getting better on offense. The Patriots have added receivers Randy Moss, Donte' Stallworth and Wes Welker to give Brady more targets. Manning and the Colts could score even more points if first-round draft pick Anthony Gonzalez works out as a slot receiver. Meanwhile, the Chargers added a deep scoring threat for Rivers by grabbing wide receiver Craig Davis in the first round.

While I'm not predicting a year in which scoring will improve leaguewide, improving on offense will be key for a number of teams looking to move forward. A good defense alone isn't enough to get through the playoffs and win a ring.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.





Leave a comment on "Teams know they can't win with just defense"
Also See
Clayton: Quinn working through early growing pains
More NFL Headlines
Mike & Mike, Ditka to call MNF game for ESPN
Gruden still trying to lure Plummer to Bucs camp
Contract talks break down between Walker, Bills
NFL discusses concussions
Nike nixes Humane Society request it sack Vick



Inside NFL

In his debut Three and Out column, Jeffri Chadiha tackles the latest on Pacman Jones, Daunte Culpepper's status and more. Chadiha

The NFL will look to advise its newest members on how to deal with fame and fortune at the rookie symposium. Floyd Reese

Peyton Manning and the Colts won the Super Bowl last year. But where do they rank among Joe Theismann's top five teams in the AFC? The List

While the addition of Thomas Jones takes pressure off Chad Pennington, the absence of Tiki Barber puts pressure on Eli Manning. Sal Paolantonio

If the Jets are to take the next step, they will need more production from their offense, starting at quarterback. William Bendetson

What does the involvement of federal agents in the investigation of allegations of dogfighting on Michael Vick's property mean? Q&A
ESPN.com: Help | PR Media Kit | Sales Media Kit | Report a Bug | Contact Us | Site Map | Jobs at ESPN | Supplier Information | Copyright ©2007 ESPN Internet Ventures. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and Safety Information/Your California Privacy Rights are applicable to you. All rights reserved.

RashanGary
06-20-2007, 08:48 PM
I'd rather have a good defense than a good offense but in a perfect world, if you're going to win, you'll need a fair amount of both along with ST's and you have to be special in at least one area.

Packnut
06-20-2007, 08:54 PM
I'd rather have a good defense than a good offense but in a perfect world, if you're going to win, you'll need a fair amount of both along with ST's and you have to be special in at least one area.


Well, the best place to be special imo is the turnover ratio. I believe it's the best stat in today's game in deciding the success of a team. It looked like our D started getting some towards the latter part of the season. Let's hope that was a sign of what's to come.

HarveyWallbangers
06-20-2007, 09:13 PM
Right off the bat, the Colts are a bad example because their defense played lights out during the playoffs. That is really what put them over the top. Manning wasn't special in the playoffs.

That turned me off the premise right away. I think the second paragraph shows how important defense is. It's just not very often that a mediocre defense in the regular season, plays lights out in the playoffs.

The Colts held their opponents (Baltimore and KC) to 14 points combined in their first two playoff games. In the Super Bowl, they held the Bears to 11 first downs and forced 4 turnovers--while holding them to 10 offensive points. They did give up 34 points to New England, but they played well. New England scored 14 points off two defensive TDs. They shutdown the Pats running game, kept Brady in check, and made the big plays at the end.

RashanGary
06-20-2007, 09:25 PM
Well, the best place to be special imo is the turnover ratio. I believe it's the best stat in today's game in deciding the success of a team. It looked like our D started getting some towards the latter part of the season. Let's hope that was a sign of what's to come.

Very true. A clutch QB who is patient as well as a defense that dominates go a long, long way. I think QB and defense might be a good place to start for a SB team. Hey, speaking of which, that seems to be our teams strengths. You think we play higher than expectations with this in mind?

KYPack
06-20-2007, 09:33 PM
For Clayton, this is great stuff. I was thinking about this the other day while watching NFL network. The AFC has a lot of gunslingers in their prime, Brady, Manning, Ben, Palmer, etc.

RashanGary
06-20-2007, 09:36 PM
KY, you honestly don't think Clayton brings quality stuff? He is one of my favorite as far as covering the NFL. He knows as much as anyone about what is going on around the NFL. It's rare that he says something that I just know is bullshit, which is saying something now-a-days.

Packnut
06-20-2007, 09:39 PM
Well, the best place to be special imo is the turnover ratio. I believe it's the best stat in today's game in deciding the success of a team. It looked like our D started getting some towards the latter part of the season. Let's hope that was a sign of what's to come.

Very true. A clutch QB who is patient as well as a defense that dominates go a long, long way. I think QB and defense might be a good place to start for a SB team. Hey, speaking of which, that seems to be our teams strengths. You think we play higher than expectations with this in mind?

I got my fingers crossed. It sure would help Favre and company out if they can get the D to give them some quality field position.

Bretsky
06-20-2007, 10:12 PM
Well, the best place to be special imo is the turnover ratio. I believe it's the best stat in today's game in deciding the success of a team. It looked like our D started getting some towards the latter part of the season. Let's hope that was a sign of what's to come.

Very true. A clutch QB who is patient as well as a defense that dominates go a long, long way. I think QB and defense might be a good place to start for a SB team. Hey, speaking of which, that seems to be our teams strengths. You think we play higher than expectations with this in mind?


Do we have a dominating defense against good offenses ?

Joemailman
06-20-2007, 10:16 PM
Well, the best place to be special imo is the turnover ratio. I believe it's the best stat in today's game in deciding the success of a team. It looked like our D started getting some towards the latter part of the season. Let's hope that was a sign of what's to come.

Very true. A clutch QB who is patient as well as a defense that dominates go a long, long way. I think QB and defense might be a good place to start for a SB team. Hey, speaking of which, that seems to be our teams strengths. You think we play higher than expectations with this in mind?


Do we have a dominating defense against good offenses ?

Good offenses rarely get dominated. That's why they're good offenses.

packers11
06-21-2007, 12:28 AM
Good offenses rarely get dominated. That's why they're good offenses.

I don't know about that comment...

The colts have had one of the best offenses the past 3-4 years...

They put up only 14 points against New England the first time...

Then... the next year...

They went into New England during the playoffs, only put up 3 points and lost....

The next year...

They went into Pittsburgh, put up 18 and lost....

Then...

They went into Baltimore and barley won, Payton looked so rattled and the offense was terrible... No offensive TD's were scored, all FG's from the colts...

Therefor I say a really good defense CAN DOMIANT a good offense...

Pacopete4
06-21-2007, 02:11 AM
clayton doesnt make sense once again..



yes, legendary offenses such as the colts can win u a ton of games... but can they win u the whole thing?... absolutely not!


Great defenses alone cannot either, you still need ur mix with O and ST. But great D's can take u a long way, just look at the bears...

Rastak
06-21-2007, 07:13 AM
clayton doesnt make sense once again..



yes, legendary offenses such as the colts can win u a ton of games... but can they win u the whole thing?... absolutely not!


Great defenses alone cannot either, you still need ur mix with O and ST. But great D's can take u a long way, just look at the bears...



Umm, you do realize what you just said.....that the Colts can't win the superbowl?

Zool
06-21-2007, 07:47 AM
clayton doesnt make sense once again..



yes, legendary offenses such as the colts can win u a ton of games... but can they win u the whole thing?... absolutely not!


Great defenses alone cannot either, you still need ur mix with O and ST. But great D's can take u a long way, just look at the bears...



Umm, you do realize what you just said.....that the Colts can't win the superbowl?I think the idea was they couldnt win it all without above average play on D.

Guiness
06-21-2007, 08:36 AM
Cue the copycat league.

Indi was the first winner since 83 without a top 10 defense? That hardly makes a trend. NE has had some pretty damn good success with a good defense - and yes, offset with a successful offense.

It takes balance. To say one side or the other of the ball is more important is just silly.

packinpatland
06-21-2007, 08:57 AM
I still go by the saying...................'any given Sunday'.

HarveyWallbangers
06-21-2007, 08:59 AM
You rarely see teams with an above average offense and a poor defense win the championship. The Colts would probably fall under that category--except their defense played lights out in the playoffs and carried them to the championship. That's rare in itself. You see more teams with great defenses and average or below average offenses (like Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and perhaps Chicago in 1985) win championships.

Packnut
06-21-2007, 09:00 AM
clayton doesnt make sense once again..



yes, legendary offenses such as the colts can win u a ton of games... but can they win u the whole thing?... absolutely not!


Great defenses alone cannot either, you still need ur mix with O and ST. But great D's can take u a long way, just look at the bears...


The Bears are a different animal on D due to their knack for creating TO's and scoring points. That is what allowed Grossman to have those 100+ passer rated games. We saw what happened against Indy when those TO's did'nt happen.

Patler
06-21-2007, 09:13 AM
You rarely see teams with an above average offense and a poor defense win the championship. The Colts would probably fall under that category--except their defense played lights out in the playoffs and carried them to the championship. That's rare in itself. You see more teams with great defenses and average or below average offenses (like Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and perhaps Chicago in 1985) win championships.

That's the point the article seemed to overlook. The Colts won because their defense played like a very good defense instead of like the mediocre defense they were during the season.

The Colts proved year after year that a great offense and a bad defense usually gets you sent home early in the playoffs. I suppose if you do it enough years, you might have your defense step up one year and play enough good games to get you through, as the Colts did this past season. I hardly think that can be a blueprint for future success.

wist43
06-21-2007, 09:48 AM
The focus has to be on defense... field position and turnovers are far more determinant factors than most offensive considerations.

If a team happens to luck into a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, then of course, it makes sense to maximize their talent, but if you can't stop the other fella, the odds are against you.

Indy did, in fact, play very good defense down the stretch, but it's not their identity. If Manning comes out and has an MVP season, but the defense doesn't step up and play at a championship level, they won't repeat. It's that simple.

Charles Woodson
06-21-2007, 10:08 AM
You rarely see teams with an above average offense and a poor defense win the championship. The Colts would probably fall under that category--except their defense played lights out in the playoffs and carried them to the championship. That's rare in itself. You see more teams with great defenses and average or below average offenses (like Baltimore, Tampa Bay, and perhaps Chicago in 1985) win championships.

Yea i was just about to bring up the Tampa Bay SB win. Their offense was horrible, i mean michael pitman at runningback and Brad Johnson at QB, but there defense was spectacular.

KYPack
06-21-2007, 09:03 PM
KY, you honestly don't think Clayton brings quality stuff? He is one of my favorite as far as covering the NFL. He knows as much as anyone about what is going on around the NFL. It's rare that he says something that I just know is bullshit, which is saying something now-a-days.

No I don't think he is very consistent, to tell ya the truth.

These guys are awash in all kinds of information, but the sometimes just spoon out the crap.

Clayton is a strange lookin' little wimp who is kinda funny to look at. The fact that he did bring up points I agree with surprised me to some extent.