Defense wins championships?

[denverYooper]

Read something on fifthdown this morning that ties together multiple threads (Cam Newton, Defense): http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-be-deceiving/

The idea of “good defense” has morphed from stopping the opponent to making big plays. The best way to do this is to trick an offense into making a mistake. This is why we’ve seen rapid growth in versatile and confounding 3-4 schemes that are predicated on disguise concepts and blitzes (especially out of sub-packages). This has been the defensive approach of the past two Super Bowl champions (the ’09 Saints were second in the N.F.C. in forced turnovers and the ’10 Packers were fifth; ahead of the Packers were the Steelers, Patriots, Giants, Bears and Eagles – all playoff teams save for the 10-6 Giants).

Creating big plays requires taking risks (which often means blitzing). Those risks are contributing to more passing yards. But passing yards don’t always lead to points. Defenses know that with space being limited, offenses can’t spread out and dictate terms of engagement in the red zone the same way they can between the 20s. Thus, in taking risks, defenses have embraced more of a “bend but don’t break” mentality.

I don't have a reference atm, but I think the Packers opponents are 3/11 thus far in the red zone.

The Packers are 5/9.

[Scott Campbell]

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/why-passing-totals-can-be-deceiving/

[denverYooper]

There is a good chance that with their full offensive complement this year, Green Bay's offense might spend less time on the field but produce more points -- which would make the defense "worse" by some metrics (yards, TOP).

[gbgary]

The Packers currently have a Passer Rating Differential of +33.5 (126.4 vs. 92.9). They led the league last year with a PRD of +31.7. I'd say they're doing quite well. It ain't about the yards you give up. It's about touchdowns and turnovers.

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-be-deceiving/

i guess so. gotta morph my old-school defensive thinking.

[bobblehead]

Final 2010 Passer Rating Differential
  	Team 	        Off. PR	 Def. PR    Net
1 	Green Bay 	98.93 	 67.23 	   +31.7
2 	New England 	109.76 	 81.23 	   +28.53
3 	San Diego 	101.85 	 76.14 	   +25.71
4 	Pittsburgh 	95.25 	 73.78 	   +21.47
5 	Tampa Bay 	96.25 	 77.57 	   +18.68
6 	Baltimore 	93.64 	 76.34 	   +17.3
7 	Kansas City 	90.06 	 78.08 	   +11.98
8 	Philadelphia 	92.06 	 80.61 	   +11.45
9 	Atlanta 	90.80 	 82.19 	   +8.61
10 	New Orleans 	90.81 	 83.16 	   +7.65

Just look at New England and their 2nd ranked rush attack (FO). Or the Jets and their 5th ranked (FO) unit.

I don't see the Jets on this list. It must be a fluke that they made the championship game. And as I said when we had the original topic, lets look at the QB's in the top 10...do they correlate with the top 10 QB's in the league? I am not surprised that teams with exceptional QB's win more games....nor am I surprised that teams with bad defenses lose more games....or that teams with good defenses win more games.....or that teams with bad QB's lose more games....or that where these things correlate that the effect may be even more obvious....HOLY SHIT, we are on to something....better teams win more.

[bobblehead]

Kind of like in the Super Bowl eh?

Pounding the Rock
Steelers - 126
Packers - 50

Correlations to winning in 2010 from the previous thread on this subject.
Passer Rating Differential - .77
Pounding the Rock - .30

Those are the undeniable facts. Are you saying you think they change in the playoffs?

Lets analyze a bit. In the first quarter both teams ran ok. Pitt had 33 yards on 5 carries, GB had 21 on 5 carries. Big Ben threw a pick 6.

Second Quarter Pitt had 10 yards on 6 carries....3 for negative yards. GB had 2 possessions. The first was a 3 and out from shotgun without running the ball. On the second Starks ripped off a 12 yard run before ARod threw a TD pass. We were up 21-10 going into the half. Pitt did pad the rushing stats against the nickel D in the second half, but couldn't overcome turnovers. They also couldn't overcome a first half where Ben threw the pick 6 and then they were unable to run the ball effectively (or did we stop the run?) and fell behind by 2 scores.

Look, I have agreed all along that superior QB play is the first indicator of success in the NFL.....however, if you can't run and can't stop the run you won't win in the playoffs (even if you are lucky enough to get there). We beat Pitt in the superbowl for 3 reasons. ONe, our D was better at both run and pass. Two, our QB was better. Three we ran enough to keep them off balance.

I will make a bet, or prediction. The eagles are likely to be the biggest disappointment in the league this year. They are horrendous against the run. The rams ran all over them before Jackson went down (and they stopped running). Against the Falcons they LOADED up to stop the run in the second and third quarters and the Falcons didn't adjust, and still won (don't blame vick, the backup QB played fine). The eagles will give up a ton of yards to the run and will be fatigued late in every game. They will be a huge let down.

[pbmax]

I don't see the Jets on this list. It must be a fluke that they made the championship game. And as I said when we had the original topic, lets look at the QB's in the top 10...do they correlate with the top 10 QB's in the league? I am not surprised that teams with exceptional QB's win more games....nor am I surprised that teams with bad defenses lose more games....or that teams with good defenses win more games.....or that teams with bad QB's lose more games....or that where these things correlate that the effect may be even more obvious....HOLY SHIT, we are on to something....better teams win more.

Jets are 0-2 in the AFC Championship game. And the Chargers struggled most not with their run game, but with their special teams. And good running attack did not save the Patriots either.

But this is not a matter of a single case or exception. Go read the entire CHFF article on this and consistently, through eras, passing offense and passing defense has been the difference. Running games have been up and down, same with run defense and rules, but passing makes the difference. Not that you would never run, but passing (and defending the pass) get you to the lead more often.

[pbmax]

I will make a bet, or prediction. The eagles are likely to be the biggest disappointment in the league this year. They are horrendous against the run. The rams ran all over them before Jackson went down (and they stopped running). Against the Falcons they LOADED up to stop the run in the second and third quarters and the Falcons didn't adjust, and still won (don't blame vick, the backup QB played fine). The eagles will give up a ton of yards to the run and will be fatigued late in every game. They will be a huge let down.

First, the fact that the Packers played nickel with a lead should tell you how much the did NOT fear the run at that point of the game, not that they were better versus the run than the Steelers.

But more importantly, the run defense could be a downfall for the Eagles, if they don't play with the lead.

[denverYooper]

First, the fact that the Packers played nickel with a lead should tell you how much the did NOT fear the run at that point of the game, not that they were better versus the run than the Steelers.

But more importantly, the run defense could be a downfall for the Eagles, if they don't play with the lead.

They had a 10 point lead on Sunday and the Falcons still ran back into the game.

[MadScientist]

I will make a bet, or prediction. The eagles are likely to be the biggest disappointment in the league this year. They are horrendous against the run. The rams ran all over them before Jackson went down (and they stopped running). Against the Falcons they LOADED up to stop the run in the second and third quarters and the Falcons didn't adjust, and still won (don't blame vick, the backup QB played fine). The eagles will give up a ton of yards to the run and will be fatigued late in every game. They will be a huge let down.

Interesting point, but I think what is going on hear is not so much about the run or pass defense. What it really sounds like is that the Eagles have an exploitable weakness that could well kill their chances. A few years ago the Vikings were impossible to run against, but they couldn't stop the pass, and teams like GB and NE just destroyed them with out even trying to run. Philly has some great corners, but bad linebackers, and so that's where teams will attack, if they can. They keep talking about offenses needing balance to keep a defense honest, but defenses need to be balanced in their ability to make stops to keep the offense honest.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the NFL is becoming a very different game. Bunch of smurfs running all over the field catching passes. I'm not sure how important the running game is on either side of the ball.

[Fritz]

It's hard to give up old perceptions rooted in what's thought of as wisdom. In this case, running the ball and stopping the run. This also ties in to our perceptions of those two activities as more cave-man-like and therefore more manly than passing and defending the pass. When a sports medium wants to symbolize the old NFL they don't show you shots of Dick "Night Train" Lane or Emile Tunnel (who was that guy? You old timers know who I mean?) - you get Ray Nitschke or Butkus with steamy breath looking at the camera.

But that CHFF article is excellent and revealing - it really is all about passing and defending the pass. Even the glory teams of the 60's were less dependent upon Taylor and Hornung and more dependent upon Starr and Carroll Dale and Boyd Dowler and Company.

I'm still trying to adjust to it.

[Deputy Nutz]

All rules that have been made or reinforced in the last 10 years have been to bolster the passing game. No rules have applied to helping the running game. In fact in todays game you are foolish to base your offense around the run. It is disappointing and I do not like it. I like to watch smashmouth football, not a 7 on 7 tournament.

[mraynrand]

All rules that have been made or reinforced in the last 10 years have been to bolster the passing game. No rules have applied to helping the running game. In fact in todays game you are foolish to base your offense around the run. It is disappointing and I do not like it. I like to watch smashmouth football, not a 7 on 7 tournament.

I love you , Deputy Nutz. Sincerely, Mike Smith

[bobblehead]

Interesting point, but I think what is going on hear is not so much about the run or pass defense. What it really sounds like is that the Eagles have an exploitable weakness that could well kill their chances. A few years ago the Vikings were impossible to run against, but they couldn't stop the pass, and teams like GB and NE just destroyed them with out even trying to run. Philly has some great corners, but bad linebackers, and so that's where teams will attack, if they can. They keep talking about offenses needing balance to keep a defense honest, but defenses need to be balanced in their ability to make stops to keep the offense honest.

But that was kinda my point. In the NFL you can't be BAD at anything. This all came about because MM would forget to call running plays and/or we were inept at it and I would go bonkers. I hate a team that can't run. My point was that if you can't run and stop the run you will lose. I understand that being able to pass and stop the pass is just as important. And special teams. See my point? People are getting giddy saying we don't need a running game or need to worry about stopping the run because all indicators are built around the pass and stopping the pass. I argue that they bleed into one another. When you stop the run you make a team one dimensional and its easier to beat them. If you can't run teams simply load up and pin back the ears to stop the pass. Balance wins in the NFL and you can't be particularly bad at anything.