Nadie_AZ: Once and for all?

I thought scoring more points than the other team over and over again is what won championships. What do I know?

So neither subby nor FoxSports understand how generalizations work.

I guess that should probably be "understands."

No, it won't. If the 2011-2020 decade is filled with a higher amount of Patriots-esque teams, then we can say the game is no longer "defense wins championships".

Until then, there has not been nearly a high enough evidence that the statement has become untrue.

Chiefs defense beat the Packers.

So TFA didn't watch SB XLV then?

Krieghund:

Now the Pats and the Saints, those are both teams I'm a fan of, and they have lousy defenses.

Krieghund: But, as the article says: They also have a mediocre-at-best defense - the 19th best in the league in points allowed and the league's worst pass defense.

Yep. Those stats imply that every point and every yard are equal, which is pure baloney.

An 80 yard touchdown drive to start the game is far more significant than one late in the 4th quarter when you're down by 30.

The Saints don't have a 49ers-esque defense, but since the Rams loss, they are allowing less than 19 points a game. This includes games against Detroit, The Giants, Carolina, and 2 games against Atlanta. They are solid against the run, but are porous on pass defense. Of course, considering most teams have to scrap the run, seeing themselves multiple scores can lead to inflated passing yards. I would imagine the ppg allowed is kind of important.

Krieghund: Krieghund: The Packers have a solid defense.

But, as the article says: They also have a mediocre-at-best defense - the 19th best in the league in points allowed and the league's worst pass defense.

This is where figures lie and liars figure. The Packers have been playing in front of big leads this season, so they're much more likely to be in a prevent defense. They're also much more likely to have opponents throw the football once the pressure is on to make a big comeback. The result is a lot of dink and dunk passing stuff, and bad stats. Except for the stat that matters.

Now the Pats and the Saints, those are both teams I'm a fan of, and they have lousy defenses.

Good point, also, their secondary is a bunch of ball hawks. They have the most interceptions by far in the NFL with 31.

robsul82: Not to mention, have the Saints not been playing in front of big leads this season?

Not in week 8 in St. Louis.

I love a good defense and ball control teams, but I wouldn't mind seeing this

NFL Team Opponent 1st Half Points/Game

03 Detroit 14.4
07 Denver 12.9
12 NY Giants 11.6
16 New Orleans 11.4
18 New England 10.6
22 Green Bay 10.2
26 Atlanta 9.3
29 Baltimore 8.1
30 Houston 7.3
31 Pittsburgh 7.1
32 San Francisco 5.3

NFL Team Opponent 2nd Half Points/Game

05 NY Giants 13.4
08 Atlanta 12.4
09 Green Bay 12.2
13 Denver 11.5
18 New England 10.8
22 Houston 10.1
24 Detroit 9.8
25 New Orleans 9.8
28 San Francisco 8.8
29 Cincinnati 8.8
30 Baltimore 8.6
32 Pittsburgh 7.1

Nadie_AZ: Once and for all?

I thought scoring more points than the other team over and over again is what won championships. What do I know?

"Usually the team that scores the most points wins the game."

That theory passes about as much muster as baseball's "Good pitching beats good hitting" rule. Try telling that to the Oakland Athletics teams of the past 5 years.

rcf1105: Pratty: Until then, there has not been nearly a high enough evidence that the statement has become untrue.

What evidence is there that the statement was true to begin with?

Something like 34 or 36 out of all Super Bowls have been won by a team with a Top 5 defense. The old Steel Curtain is a good example, as they had a decent but not a world beater offense, but a top end defense. Things like the Purple People Eaters(Though they did not win any, but a lot of success from that squad and a better offense than a lot of them), the 2000 Ravens, you get the idea. Traditionally, stronger defenses have gone further than strongest offense, hence the statement.

BetterOffJed: That theory passes about as much muster as baseball's "Good pitching beats good hitting" rule. Try telling that to the Oakland Athletics teams of the past 5 years.

Except, that rule is generally true? There are always exceptions, as with any rule, but still.

A powerful offense scores points, and makes the opponents one dimensional, and helps it's defense. A powerful offense also needs the defense to get turnovers

A good defense needs a running game to help time of possession and keep the opposing offense off the field

And also a 60+ yard drive might look good for stats, but if they don't end in a touchdown you will be hard pressed to win games. Packers use a "bend but don't break" strategy that has done just fine, but the stats would say otherwise

4NSpy: I love a good defense and ball control teams, but I wouldn't mind seeing this

[i.imgur.com image 637x354]

==========

I believe I would like that also

/GO PACK GO

Pratty: No, it won't. If the 2011-2020 decade is filled with a higher amount of Patriots-esque teams, then we can say the game is no longer "defense wins championships".

Until then, there has not been nearly a high enough evidence that the statement has become untrue.

Pretty much. There have been some hints with recent teams, but not enough to make this year a determining factor.

Even then, both of these defenses could be categorized as opportunistic, given the number of turnovers both have generated.

John Nash: Pratty: No, it won't. If the 2011-2020 decade is filled with a higher amount of Patriots-esque teams, then we can say the game is no longer "defense wins championships".

Until then, there has not been nearly a high enough evidence that the statement has become untrue.

Pretty much. There have been some hints with recent teams, but not enough to make this year a determining factor.

Even then, both of these defenses could be categorized as opportunistic, given the number of turnovers both have generated.

I would say the Packers D is a new type of D, the same kind the Saints used in 2009. Try and force a lot of turnovers because your offense is awesome and not break too much in the process. I think the Pats D is terribad, the Packers is the best of the three despite giving up slightly more yards(Green Bay's D gave up more yards, but was also passed on more and has a slightly better yards per attempt than the Pats, though not the Saints, while their 31 INTs blow away the Saints, but not the Pats, while they also hold QBs to a lower QB rating than either) and the Saints have the most balanced offense of the three, so their rushing game gives them another edge of dimension.

The real test will be how the team works if A. the team fails to get turnovers or B. the offense fails to capitalize on them like they did the rest of the year.

It always has been and always will be about balance.

That's why smart money's on the Giants and Steelers (if Ben's healthy).

I tend to think the lackluster defenses, and the disparity between offense and defense, is due in part to the wonky offseason. If we see defensive performance return to more normal levels next year, it's a compelling argument.

I find both the Patriots and Packers to be quite offensive.

robsul82: Pratty: (Green Bay's D gave up more yards, but was also passed on more and has a slightly better yards per attempt than the Pats, though not the Saints, while their 31 INTs blow away the Saints, but not the Pats, while they also hold QBs to a lower QB rating than either)

I was told there'd be no math on this exam.

I lied.

/The coffee is cold

In the packers case it's probably more that they just build such ridiculously high leads that they play prevent defenses and give up big passing numbers.

THough, I thought the same thing about the patriots defense. The patriots defense, however, just plain sucks.

From the AFC: Broncos are likely going to be laughed out of town unless the Steelers rushing defense melts down or Ben hurls about 5 interceptions. Patriots have epically bad defense. Cincinnati limped into the playoffs by sheer luck and never beat anybody worth noting. Steelers have been winning games in bunches... but very unconvincingly. Texans are at their 3rd string quarterback and are newbs at the playoffs. Ravens look the most likely to go to super bowl. (Steelers fan here, so that says a lot)

From the NFC: Saints, Packers, and 49ers all have good shots to make the super bowl. 49ers for their awesome defense, Saints and Packers for their prolific offenses. If it comes down to 49ers and one of the previous two, will the niners be able to stop them? If it comes down to Saints and Packers... how many points will they score on each other before the offenses collapse into exhaustion? At the rate of current high-scoring epicness, I choose Saints to go to super bowl. But then again, they looked that way last year and crapped out to the 7-9 Seahawks.

Pratty: I would say the Packers D is a new type of D, the same kind the Saints used in 2009. Try and force a lot of turnovers because your offense is awesome and not break too much in the process. I think the Pats D is terribad, the Packers is the best of the three despite giving up slightly more yards(Green Bay's D gave up more yards, but was also passed on more and has a slightly better yards per attempt than the Pats, though not the Saints, while their 31 INTs blow away the Saints, but not the Pats, while they also hold QBs to a lower QB rating than either) and the Saints have the most balanced offense of the three, so their rushing game gives them another edge of dimension.

The real test will be how the team works if A. the team fails to get turnovers or B. the offense fails to capitalize on them like they did the rest of the year.

Green Bay also turns the ball over on offense very infrequently. If you make that C, then they'd be in big trouble.

John Nash: Pratty: I would say the Packers D is a new type of D, the same kind the Saints used in 2009. Try and force a lot of turnovers because your offense is awesome and not break too much in the process. I think the Pats D is terribad, the Packers is the best of the three despite giving up slightly more yards(Green Bay's D gave up more yards, but was also passed on more and has a slightly better yards per attempt than the Pats, though not the Saints, while their 31 INTs blow away the Saints, but not the Pats, while they also hold QBs to a lower QB rating than either) and the Saints have the most balanced offense of the three, so their rushing game gives them another edge of dimension.

The real test will be how the team works if A. the team fails to get turnovers or B. the offense fails to capitalize on them like they did the rest of the year.

Green Bay also turns the ball over on offense very infrequently. If you make that C, then they'd be in big trouble.

Yeah, but that seems less statistically likely than failing to get turnovers off, say, Alex Smith and might be able to be compounded into B.

hurdboy: I'll just leave this here....

[i.cdn.turner.com image 292x389]

/Two Dat

1999 Rams were #4 in both defensive yards and scoring.

velvet_fog: Nadie_AZ: Once and for all?

I thought scoring more points than the other team over and over again is what won championships. What do I know?

"Usually the team that scores the most points wins the game."

[cache.deadspin.com image 504x317]

Haha, beat me to it. :)

hovis: It always has been and always will be about balance.

That's why smart money's on the Giants and Steelers (if Ben's healthy).

To be fair, Ben almost seems to play better when he's hurt - up to a certain point. I'm thinking this ankle injury may have gone beyond that point, though. :-/

/feel free to prove me wrong, Ben. :)

It's Peanut Butter Jelly Time: The best defense is a good offense.

Y'know who said that? Mel, the cook on Alice.

I am thinking it is going to be Saints v Steelers for some strange reason. Dont know why.

robsul82: I don't think that was a comment on defenses. More on the underdog motif.

I thought it was a response to the headline since the Rams were well known for their offense and not for their defense, which unbeknownst to most was actually really good too.

QB play edges out D for championships.