Spotting a Couple of Forum Football Fallacies

[Oldfan]

On the Football Outsiders website, based on 20 years of the DVOA data, they recommend a 3-3-1 ratio for the value of offense, defense and special teams. In other words, they have the special teams value at one-third of offense or defense. However, since the rule change on kickoffs, that value has gone down somewhat.

In order to keep things simple here, I'm going to drop the value of the special teams entirely and talk about the value of offense and defense as being 50/50. This ratio makes sense because scoring a touchdown has the same value as preventing a touchdown.

We can now use those numbers as a way to grade teams. For example, we can say that a perfectly balanced 8-win .500 team would be graded like this:

Offense 25, Defense 25 = 50

Then, a .500 team stronger on offense might look like this:

Offense 30, Defense 20 = 50

And, a .500 team stronger on defense might look like this:

Offense 20, Defense 30 = 50

If you have followed me, then you will be able to spot some of the flawed reasoning you have read in this forum. For example:

Defense wins championships!

The truth is that the better team will probably win championship games and it doesn't matter whether their offense or their defense is stronger. It's only the combined strength of both units that matters.

Our defense is weaker than our offense, therefore we should focus on defense in the draft.

The truth is that, if you can draft a player who can significantly improve your team, it doesn't matter which side of the ball he plays on.




Edited Addition:

How ball control results in the myth that "Defense wins championships."

Coaches have favored a ball control strategy on offense since the game was invented. A dominant ball control offense will have these effects on the game:

--Their drives take time off the clock which results in fewer drives in the game for BOTH teams.

--Fewer drives for both teams results in lower scoring games.

--Lower scoring games make defenses look better than they really are on the points rankings.

--Lower scoring games make the dominant ball control offense look worse than it really is on the points ranking.

--Fewer drives in the game result in lower yardage for both teams.

--Lower yardage totals make the defenses look better than they really are on the yardage rankings.

--Lower yardage totals make the the dominant ball control offense look worse than it really is on the yardage rankings.

--A team with a strong ball control offense and a good defense, like Lombardi's Packers or Walsh's 49ers, will win championships.

--People who trust the offensive and defensive rankings on points or yardage are deceived.

--People compare those unreliable rankings and conclude that "Defense wins championships."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

[skinznsoxrox]

Oldfan, based on your theory that scoring a touchdown is equal to preventing a touchdown, an average team would be scoring roughly every other posession. I feel you will be hard pressed to find a team that consistentlyt scores on half their drives. Also, how can you factor in the importance of the defense and a team that can score defensively? Do they get double points for preventing and then scoring themselves?

Just curious what your opinions on this are.

[DC9]

Whoever scores more points will win the game.

[MartinC]

Our defense is weaker than our offense, therefore we should focus on defense in the draft.

The truth is that, if you can draft players who can improve your team, it doesn't matter which side of the ball they play on.

As a general rule I agree with the above - however if you have a very high ranked offense , which we have, and a very lowly ranked defense, which we have, I would argue you are likely to get more return all things being equal by adding talent to the defense.

For example we have a decent but not great WR corp. Garçon is very good but still not elite and then we have some young guys with potential and Santana who is still good but close to the end. If we added a stud receiver it would improve the group and make an improvement to our offense.

However if we could add a stud corner or outstanding FS or even maybe a stud DE who can help the pass rush my view is that would make a much bigger difference to the defense.

To put it in the same terms as the OP if added a stud WR we might move our average score a game up by a FG. However adding the same quality of player to a key position on our defense might save a TD a game. As you note there is no difference between scoring a TD and stopping a TD and from where we are right now I think there is far more scope to save an additional TD a game than score one.

[JMUSkins]

Whoever scores more points will win the game.

This. I'm not sure whether this thread was created to

A. State the obvious that you can always get better on both sides of the ball;
B. Call out people for innocuous posts that don't affect our team's performance; or
C. Grab attention for another 100 page argument.

I'll wait and see.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, based on your theory that scoring a touchdown is equal to preventing a touchdown, an average team would be scoring roughly every other posession.

That's not a valid assumption. My statement that preventing a TD is as important as scoring a TD isn't a theory. It is a logical deduction; one which does not correlate with scoring drives in any way.

Also, how can you factor in the importance of the defense and a team that can score defensively? Do they get double points for preventing and then scoring themselves?

No. You are confused somehow by my statement that scoring a TD is a important as preventing the opponent from scoring a TD, but I can't figure out where you went wrong.

---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 12:35 PM ----------

Whoever scores more points will win the game.

If what I said is obvious, how do you explain the fallacies?

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Whoever scores more points will win the game.

Thanks for the insight Troy Aikman

[pjfootballer]

<staff edit rule 12 violation

Edit to keep the peace. Merry Christmas!

[JMUSkins]

<staff edit rule 12 violation >

[Jumbo]

JMU had been banned for a week; PF is on the line, and before anyone else throws themselves on their knife, I suggest you wait for me to finish typing the post I'm trying to get in this thread.

One quick thing, for the glandularly reactive, look at the final line of the OP after the set-up. It is a valid and real topic for football conversation.

Now I'll finish typing.

[Oldfan]

As a general rule I agree with the above - however if you have a very high ranked offense , which we have, and a very lowly ranked defense, which we have, I would argue you are likely to get more return all things being equal by adding talent to the defense.

For example we have a decent but not great WR corp. Garçon is very good but still not elite and then we have some young guys with potential and Santana who is still good but close to the end. If we added a stud receiver it would improve the group and make an improvement to our offense.

However if we could add a stud corner or outstanding FS or even maybe a stud DE who can help the pass rush my view is that would make a much bigger difference to the defense.

To put it in the same terms as the OP if added a stud WR we might move our average score a game up by a FG. However adding the same quality of player to a key position on our defense might save a TD a game. As you note there is no difference between scoring a TD and stopping a TD and from where we are right now I think there is far more scope to save an additional TD a game than score one.

Martin, read this statement from the OP again: Our defense is weaker than our offense, therefore we should focus on defense in the draft.

That statement recommends an aspect of planning for the draft that does not make sense.

If you want to argue that the weaker unit, because of chance, is more likely to be helped by the draft, that's a different point.

But, the fact that we are more likely to be helped by the draft isn't a reason to go in planning for it because, when our turn comes to draft, we might be presented with some great opportunities to upgrade the offense. If so, we should grab them.

[skinznsoxrox]

Oldfan, I'm sorry but your arguement just does not make a lot of sense. If it is just as important to stop touchdown as it is to score them, and you have a prolific offense and a weak defense, of course you focus on the defense in the draft. The fact of the matter is that that a defender will help you stop more TDs than an offensive player will likely help you score if you are already putting up points.

As far as the "defense wins championships" I do not believe you heard that statement thrown around the NFL these days anymore. Sure when the Ravens and Steelers had their prolific D's in the 2000's that what everyone was saying but even the best defense in the game today (49ers) can get over 30 dropped on them. (see last Sunday Night)

[Oldfan]

...The fact of the matter is that that a defender will help you stop more TDs than an offensive player will likely help you score if you are already putting up points...

I don't think that's a reasonable deduction.

As far as the "defense wins championships" I do not believe you heard that statement thrown around the NFL these days anymore.

Not as much, but it still persists in this forum. In fact, I heard Bill Cowher say it a while back.

[Jumbo]

Below is what was going to be my post earlier.

This. I'm not sure whether this thread was created to

A. State the obvious that you can always get better on both sides of the ball;
B. Call out people for innocuous posts that don't affect our team's performance; or
C. Grab attention for another 100 page argument.

I'll wait and see.

Amigo, I like you as a poster, but this is nothing but a "hounding" post continuing your staff-observed "issues" with OF beyond discussing the topic and are not allowable. It is trolling the thread. You're lucky you're only getting a warning here instead of a week off. So here's your new edict---either stay out of the thread, or make posts that go ZERO (in your case) off sticking ENTIRELY to specific football points in this thread MO MATTER what anyone else does, or it will be a longer vacation. No PM to me needed on this.

Now back to current time--I have said this often enough in previous threads so hear me one last time---first, if OF ever does something requiring a ban, or start a thread determined unworthy, I CERTAINLY have ZERO hesitation to take any action I choose. He would likely tell you guys that he knows this from our exchanges over the years, and I am sure any mod on staff will do the same.

Similarly, I have told you guys (and some of you still come to every OF thread) that if your end of this **** doesn't stop you're out of here too and I keep getting ignored. I don't care how long you've posted on ES---make sure you get that---you WILL be GONE if I see the same **** again.

If you have consistent issues with the OPs threads or the OP and can't keep your arguments within the lines, then STAY OUT.

As to your admirable concerns to "what he's doing", if a mod action should be taken, wtf do you think other than that we will take one? And if we haven't closed a thread or banned someone for something, wtf do you think that means? Think hard.

And that can happen any time if merited--there are no "Shields of Immunity" for anyone.

Let us moderate the board on this stuff.

If you can argue per normal, fine. If you're someone who hasn't had repeated issues in these threads, I'm not talking to you...yet.

You guys just talk football and, yes, for most of you that includes allowable comment of argumentative style, but not the featuring of such as your primary content in a post, and at a lowering of such criticism to the level of flaming or trolling.

If I'm not clear enough for you to figure out what I'm saying, no apologies, and all the risk is on you.

Now it's Christmas, and though a heathen, I want to be all HO HO HO and have everyone aroung to watch are rmaing games. Help me help you.

[skinznsoxrox]

[QUOTE=Oldfan;9342464]I don't think that's a reasonable deduction. [QUOTE]

Why not? If its a bigger hole surely it will have a bigger impact