Defense wins championships?

[bobblehead]

But these are game theory tactics, not traits of winning teams. Of course a team that always passes will be more predictable. So in that sense, you do need to run, but I think the 2010 Packers show you do not need to be very good to make it work.


.

See, I reject this. We were piss poor running the ball (and not calling many running plays) when Starks emerged. We started running effectively and STILL had to win 4 straight just to get the wildcard. I think we were pretty good (and stubborn) at running in the last 6 or 7 games. We have been good through 2 games so far. I expect that it will be really tough to run on chicago and we will struggle immensely on offense (but I hope I'm wrong).

[mraynrand]

You can't pass to set up the run.

WTF? Of course you can, just like you can run to set up the pass. If it's your strength and you can force the defense out of a standard formation to stop your strength then you can go the other way - but only if you are somewhat competent at it. Packers pass extremely well, and force nickel and dime defenses, so they can gash the defense with draws, screens and checkdowns, just like a running team can play action fake a defense that stacks 8 in the box - but only if they can pass. Difference now versus then is the the rules favor the pass game more than ever. So it's better to be a pass first team that can run OK (NE, Colts, NO, GB) versus a run first team that can pass OK (ATL, Baltimore, Jets).

[mraynrand]

See, I reject this. We were piss poor running the ball (and not calling many running plays) when Starks emerged. We started running effectively and STILL had to win 4 straight just to get the wildcard. I think we were pretty good (and stubborn) at running in the last 6 or 7 games. We have been good through 2 games so far. I expect that it will be really tough to run on chicago and we will struggle immensely on offense (but I hope I'm wrong).

Packer weren't 10-6 because they couldn't run the ball, they were ten and six because they couldn't pass with Rodgers concussed and couldn't rush the passer with Matthews and other defenders injured.

[bobblehead]

Incidentally, since I gamble on NFL I went through and checked the matchups this week for this stat. The teams with a 40 point advantage this week are as follows: (Home teams in caps)

lions +68, CHARGERS +44, cardinals +45, packers +44, steelers +39

Those are the huge differences. Lets see the blowouts commence (for the record I hope this is as strong as it says, I want to win money).

Ok, the good news and bad news. The lions, chargers, and packers all won (steelers just started). I forgot to list the TITANS at +41 and they won as well. I'm going to assume a steelers win. That would be 5 of 6 winners. Of those, only the packers covered the spread. This seems bad for betting purposes (granted, only a one week sample size).

Overall this stat went 8-6 at this point today. The large spreads in this rank fared very well, the closer ones were erratic (go figure).

My actual betting today did good. I bet over in the NE/Buffalo game. I took the vikings and the chiefs (right in the face of the stat). I also played the giants +9 which was against this stat as well.

In the end, towards the end of the season this stat may predict winners, but I stand by my assessment of "no shit, teams that have good QB's and play good defense win more". I still am not convinced it has any bearing on how teams approach game planning. Today I thought the running game was very good for GB. Chicago couldn't get anywhere. GB also passed much better. The better team won, go figure.

[pbmax]

Ok, the good news and bad news. The lions, chargers, and packers all won (steelers just started). I forgot to list the TITANS at +41 and they won as well. I'm going to assume a steelers win. That would be 5 of 6 winners. Of those, only the packers covered the spread. This seems bad for betting purposes (granted, only a one week sample size).

Overall this stat went 8-6 at this point today. The large spreads in this rank fared very well, the closer ones were erratic (go figure).

My actual betting today did good. I bet over in the NE/Buffalo game. I took the vikings and the chiefs (right in the face of the stat). I also played the giants +9 which was against this stat as well.

In the end, towards the end of the season this stat may predict winners, but I stand by my assessment of "no shit, teams that have good QB's and play good defense win more". I still am not convinced it has any bearing on how teams approach game planning. Today I thought the running game was very good for GB. Chicago couldn't get anywhere. GB also passed much better. The better team won, go figure.

This stat is for championship teams only. Which means two things about its predictions. One, it takes much closer to a full season of data to determine who is actually better at both. And 2, very poor teams who fall behind will skew the results if you try to predict ALL games based on it.

[bobblehead]

This stat is for championship teams only. Which means two things about its predictions. One, it takes much closer to a full season of data to determine who is actually better at both. And 2, very poor teams who fall behind will skew the results if you try to predict ALL games based on it.

Actually you are wrong. CHFF even specifically points to ALL games (but I suspect they use the final number and then go back to through the season...to which I again say "duh")

CHFF:
We introduced Passer Rating Differential as a way to statistically define and prove the all-encompassing importance of the passing game in pro football.

Anecdotal experience told us that Passer Rating Differential would be deadly accurate. But now we have a mounting body of evidence.

The Saints topped the indicator in 2009. They won the Super Bowl. The Packers topped the indicator in 2010. They won the Super Bowl, too.

That's two for two, for those of you keeping score at home.

Meanwhile, within a game, teams that posted the higher Passer Rating Differential won nearly 80 percent of all NFL games this year (203-53).

And as a predictor of playoff success, it was nearly flawless: the team with the higher Passer Rating Differential was 10-1. The ony game it failed to identify the winner was in Seattle's shocking wildcard win over New Orleans, an outcome that nobody but the biggest Seahawks rump swab could have anticipated.

The Packers were the perfect passing team this year: No. 1 in forcing Negative Pass Plays, No. 1 in Defensive Passer Rating and No. 1 in Passer Rating Differential. And now they're Super Bowl champs.

[HarveyWallbangers]

See, I reject this. We were piss poor running the ball (and not calling many running plays) when Starks emerged. We started running effectively and STILL had to win 4 straight just to get the wildcard. I think we were pretty good (and stubborn) at running in the last 6 or 7 games. We have been good through 2 games so far. I expect that it will be really tough to run on chicago and we will struggle immensely on offense (but I hope I'm wrong).

I didn't read the whole thread, but we only had to win two straight to get the wild card. With Rodgers out, we lost two straight games to drop to 8-6. We had to win our last two games to finish 10-6 and get the wild card. Probably doesn't matter in your argument, but just wanted to point it out.

[pbmax]

CHFF might be claiming it works at an 80% clip for each game, but the stat its based on is highly variable game to game and is very dependent on the opponent. I would trust it to describe the entire season, but I would be very cautious using it to predict games. In the parlance of Pro Football Reference, its retrodictive (explanatory) but not predictive.

[bobblehead]

. In the parlance of Pro Football Reference, its retrodictive (explanatory) but not predictive.

Thats what I have been saying this entire thread (though not as eloquently)

[bobblehead]

OK, stubborn as I am I went through it again for this week. The big spreads (30 or more) were:

Lions +33, Saints +67, 49ers +32, Redskins +31, Titans +38, Packers +60

The Packers are the only home team with a +30 so this makes them the mortal lock of all time. Bet the 401k on the Packers on the moneyline.

If you use this stat to figure the best teams in the league, the Lions are king at +42, Titans at +34, and Packers at +32. The "dream team" is -16.