The Almighty Quarterback Bandwagon Runs Out of Control

[DogofWar1]

I largely agree with Mahons, in that while yes, scoring 7 points is initially equal to stopping 7 points, the rules give some advantages to the offense in terms of importance. Clock management is important, but also how an offense sets the tempo of a game. The best defenses in the league might be able to set the tempo of a game, but generally that is the offense's job. A run heavy team will chew up the clock, while a pass heavy team might run up the score so quickly that the opponent's offense becomes one dimensional without any input of the defense.

At the start of any given game, offense and defense are equally important (but even that's not quite true, maintaining the status quo results in a tie, and you need to score more than your opponent. It's not a huge difference in importance, but it's there). But here's the problem, defenses break down. All it takes is one drive, or even one play, for you to find yourself behind. Once you're behind, while defense is still important, they aren't equally important, because if you maintain the status quo, you lose. You MUST score 7+ points more than your opponent.

Now the flip-side is that if you're leading, logic would dictate that defense becomes more important, but most teams recognize that the inherent comparative disadvantage the defense is at can result in a large point swing quickly. Consider last week against the Boys, we were ahead 28-3 at the half, a 25 point margin, but ultimately only won by 7. When you are behind you MUST score, when you are tied, you MUST score, and when you lead you still SHOULD score.

That's the big thing that I think creates the difference, offense has a wider margin of error than defense, and that margin of error difference makes scoring more often more important. Again, you don't neglect defense, but the tie-breaker probably goes to the offense.

And that doesn't even account for the fact that the inherent favoritism towards offense makes it easier for a team to schematically choose to build around offensive success as opposed to defensive success. Green Bay, New England, New Orleans, and 2010 and earlier Indianapolis are four examples, their offenses have been consistently great, while their defenses have fluctuated. Their scheme was/is based more on scoring than on stopping scores. Now, if you have an elite defense like Baltimore, you can get away with A LOT, and they represent sort of the flip-side in scheme building.

Think of it like this, would you rather win 100-99 or win 1-0. Both *should* be equally valid philosophies, but you almost never hold your opponent to 0, and you have to account for that. Even the best defenses fail at critical times, so having an offense is vital. There's an inherent push towards the 100-99 philosophy compared to the 1-0 philosophy because of the smaller margin of error that defenses have, which is compounded by the rules favoring the offense. That's on top of the fact that an offense can control the tempo of the game.and clock management. A lot of teams just sort of decide that if they are going to have to score due to defensive failings, they might as well score A LOT, and dictate the game with their offense.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

Why?

The Steelers outgained the Ravens by 100 yards, the Ravens lone touchdown came on special teams by Jacoby Jones.

In a 20-14 loss do you think a team improves their chances to win if they don't fumble the ball away 5 times?

I ask again: Is it possible for a team to be non-competitive on offense and still be a competitive team?

You are crazy. The Steelers have NOT played well on offense without Big Ben. You throw out that "outgained by 100 yards" stat, but did you actually look at how the Steelers did? Leftwich: 18-39 199 yds 0TD 1 INT, a 50 yd rusher and a 33 yd rusher (only 3.0 ypc) and a lucky run by Leftwich. That sucks. You can't pretend that it's good. The Ravens played awful and it was the Steelers defense that kept the game close, it wasn't the offense being competitive. The next game with Batch they were also awful. Batch: 20-34 199 yds 0TD 3INT, Dwyer 19 yds on 9 carries, Rainey 5 carries for 17. In what wacky world is that good or even competitive?

[Oldfan]

I largely agree with Mahons, in that while yes, scoring 7 points is initially equal to stopping 7 points, the rules give some advantages to the offense in terms of importance...

The question is which unit is more important and the answer is: neither. Offense and defense are equally important. Now, if you want to ask different questions, then there are different answers. For example, in your post, you answered these questions:

Which unit has more control?
Which unit should be favored when building a team?
Which unit has a wider margin of error?
Which unit can set the tempo?

I won't bother debating your answers to those questions because they aren't on topic. None of those questions are relevant to importance.

I don't know how to make this more clear than to just repeat myself.

Seven points prevented by the defense is exactly equal to seven points scored by the offense. Therefore, offense and defense are equal in importance.

My logical deduction is supported by seven years of reseach data at footballoutsiders.com.

The total quality of an NFL team is three parts offense, three parts defense, and one part special teams.

There are three units on a football team, but they are not of equal importance. Our DVOA ratings provide good evidence for this. The special teams ratings are turned into DVOA by comparing how often field position on special teams leads to scoring compared to field position and first downs on offense. After figuring out these numbers, the top ratings for special teams are roughly one-third as high as the top ratings for offense or defense.

[DogofWar1]

The question is which unit is more important and the answer is: neither. Offense and defense are equally important. Now, if you want to ask different questions, then there are different answers. For example, in your post, you answered these questions:

Which unit has more control?
Which unit should be favored when building a team?
Which unit has a wider margin of error?
Which unit can set the tempo?

I won't bother debating your answers to those questions because they aren't on topic. None of those questions are relevant to importance.

I don't know how to make this more clear than to just repeat myself.

Seven points prevented by the defense is exactly equal to seven points saved by the offense. Therefore, offense and defense are equal in importance.

And yet, those other questions factor into the importance of the unit in a real world football game. An offense has a much greater impact on a game through control, tempo setting, reacting to defense's smaller margin of error, and ease of building a team.

I think you're evaluating offense and defense in a vacuum, which is ok, but, we have to evaluate their importance in the real world as well, and the moment you bring the real world into it you need to include factors such as tempo, margin of error, etc. The questions are very relevant to the importance of each unit, as a unit with greater impact on the game has greater importance.

In the real, an offense (usually) has a greater impact on the final score of the game. Therefore offense is greater in importance.

[Oldfan]

...In the real, an offense (usually) has a greater impact on the final score of the game. Therefore offense is greater in importance.

Out of curiosity, how many touchdowns have you ever seen scored by an offense that were not given up by a defense?

[DogofWar1]

Out of curiosity, how many touchdowns have you ever seen scored by an offense that were not given up by a defense?

Depends at what stage we're talking about. I suppose the answer philosophically one is looking for is "none," but again, that's the margin of error problem. (There's also plays like last week's TD to Moss where the defense played it fine, but still failed, but I suppose technically that could still be argued as "given up")

An offense has 3, and sometimes 4, chances to get a new set of downs. They need only cross the 1st down line once to get a new set of downs, and can continue until they score, assuming they don't get a big play and score. A defense meanwhile, needs only one poor play to allow a first down or touchdown.

An offense generally has a plan on each play that ultimately goes to a single person, and the offense uniformly acts in such a way as to assist in that goal. A defense has to account for the possibility of a run, or a pass to multiple targets. A defense will ALMOST NEVER hold an offense perfectly. Shut outs, even in situations with great defenses vs. crappy offenses, rarely happen.

As a coach you must account for the fact that your defense will almost certainly give up points. You can't just expect your defense to not give up points. You go into the game mentally accounting for the deficit you may find yourself in. You erase that deficit by scoring on offense. At a certain point you can adjust based on the real game score.

[Oldfan]

Depends at what stage we're talking about. I suppose the answer philosophically one is looking for is "none," but again, that's the margin of error problem. (There's also plays like last week's TD to Moss where the defense played it fine, but still failed, but I suppose technically that could still be argued as "given up")

An offense has 3, and sometimes 4, chances to get a new set of downs. They need only cross the 1st down line once to get a new set of downs, and can continue until they score, assuming they don't get a big play and score. A defense meanwhile, needs only one poor play to allow a first down or touchdown.

An offense generally has a plan on each play that ultimately goes to a single person, and the offense uniformly acts in such a way as to assist in that goal. A defense has to account for the possibility of a run, or a pass to multiple targets. A defense will ALMOST NEVER hold an offense perfectly. Shut outs, even in situations with great defenses vs. crappy offenses, rarely happen.

As a coach you must account for the fact that your defense will almost certainly give up points. You can't just expect your defense to not give up points. You go into the game mentally accounting for the deficit you may find yourself in. You erase that deficit by scoring on offense. At a certain point you can adjust based on the real game score.

Your only worthwhile answer to my question was NONE; and from that you ought to realize that offense and defense are equally important.

[Mahons21]

http://footballoutsiders.com/any-giv...-over-redskins

Good article on the value Griffin has to this offense. Also makes a lot of points I agree with, ie Griffin hasn't had much help on the offensive side of the ball(keep in mind this was written write after Carolina game).

[DogofWar1]

Your only worthwhile answer to my question was NONE; and from that you ought to realize that offense and defense are equally important.

I can see why NLC gets so frustrated debating you, you rarely respond to actual statements made, and you cherry pick points for your own advantage. You fail to explain WHY an offense being able to set the tempo for a game doesn't give it more impact than the defense, why an offense being able to control the clock gives it more impact than the defense (other than mentioning that a defense can force 3 and outs, which fails to address the next problem), address the fact that an offense has a larger margin of error compared to a defense, or address the fact that an offense is under pressure to score significantly more often than a defense is forced to stop an opponent, as they seek to create a buffer of 7+ points at any given point in the game.

If you actually addressed these points, you'd realize that offense and defense are NOT equally important.

[Oldfan]

I can see why NLC gets so frustrated debating you, you rarely respond to actual statements made, and you cherry pick points for your own advantage. You fail to explain WHY an offense being able to set the tempo for a game doesn't give it more impact than the defense, why an offense being able to control the clock gives it more impact than the defense (other than mentioning that a defense can force 3 and outs, which fails to address the next problem), address the fact that an offense has a larger margin of error compared to a defense, or address the fact that an offense is under pressure to score significantly more often than a defense is forced to stop an opponent, as they seek to create a buffer of 7+ points at any given point in the game.

If you actually addressed these points, you'd realize that offense and defense are NOT equally important.

Let's use this statement as an example:

You fail to explain WHY an offense being able to set the tempo for a game doesn't give it more impact than the defense.

If you understood the concept of importance as it applies to offense and defense, you wouldn't be asking for an explanation. And my attempt to explain why an offense being able to set the tempo doesn't make the offense more important isn't going to help you understand.

What you are calling my cherry-picked reply was the only reply of substance available to me.

This question was asked with the hope that it would cause you to understand the equality between offense and defense: Out of curiosity, how many touchdowns have you ever seen scored by an offense that were not given up by a defense?

The answer of course is "none." A defense is always on the field with an offense. One team is trying to score and the other team is trying to stop it from scoring. Neither unit is more important than the other. Neither has more impact on winning.

This isn't a question open to debate. Importance in this context is a concept. You either understand it or you don't.

Stopping the opponent from scoring seven points is just as important as scoring seven points. In my mind, that's a logical deduction. It's not a statement of opinion open to debate.

[Oldfan]

Mahons and DogofWar:

Let's see if this explanation helps.

Let X = weight of all advantages and disadvantages for all offenses under the rules;
Then X is the same for all teams in the league
Thus, no team has an advantage under the rules
and the defense's challenge to stop the offenses given X is the same for all teams

Let X + 1 = a rule change favoring the offense
Then X + 1 is the same for all teams
Thus, no team has an advantage under the rules
and the defense's challenge to stop the offense given X + 1 is the same for all teams
Thus the rule change favoring the offense would simply result in higher scoring games

In the end, a football game amounts to:

Team A's offense v. Team B's defense
Team B's offense v. Team A's defense

...with all the rules, advantages, and disadvantages for offense and defense the same.

So, whatever advantage you can identify for the offense is the same for both teams and the challenge for both defenses is the same. Since offensive advantages are the same for both teams, they don't affect the game's outcome. They can only affect the scoring level of games.

[MrSilverMaC]

Out of curiosity, how many touchdowns have you ever seen scored by an offense that were not given up by a defense?

I'm not really interested in being in this conversation, only reading it. But we've all seen at least two this year. The Whistle that let Carolina score, and the TD in Detroit on Thanksgiving. In both instances the refs scored a touchdown after the defense had stopped the ball carrier. It was the difference in the lions/texans game, and could have been the difference in the Skins/panthers game as well.

Pardon the drive by post.

[jly0784]

I'm not really interested in being in this conversation, only reading it. But we've all seen at least two this year. The Whistle that let Carolina score, and the TD in Detroit on Thanksgiving. In both instances the refs scored a touchdown after the defense had stopped the ball carrier. It was the difference in the lions/texans game, and could have been the difference in the Skins/panthers game as well.

Pardon the drive by post.

this stubborn old codger doesnt want to hear any of that.... he made a thread, wrote a lot of crap, and he sticks by it, hed rather have a cutler rather than either manning or brady.... those 2 plays you listed will mean nothing to him....

[Jumbo]

this stubborn old codger doesnt want to hear any of that.... he made a thread, wrote a lot of crap, and he sticks by it, hed rather have a cutler rather than either manning or brady.... those 2 plays you listed will mean nothing to him....

...meanwhile, this newcomer (assuming such for now until I check for a dupe acct), writes a little OT rule-violating crap that gets him a nice little break from the action....

[darrelgreenie]

Did anyone watch the Steelers the last two weeks? They aren't competitive without Roethlisberger.

I bet you were shocked right? Steelers 23-20 with the great Charlie Batch

http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/201212...ghts&tab=recap

They are freaking dreadful on offense without him.

There.

Okay. They are not competitive on offense without him.

Yep, watched the better part of both games and I thought they were competitive. They lost to the Ravens by 3 in a game where it became obvious that Leftwhich couldn't throw the ball due to injury in the second half. Against Cleveland they were within a touchdown in a game where they lost 5 fumbles.