Spotting a Couple of Forum Football Fallacies

[MartinC]

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.

I agree with the above statement - I'm a BPA guy when it comes to the draft.

I was thinking more of free agency and veteran trades, perhaps because of a recent thread about us going after Percy Harvin should he be shopped. My view is we will get more return from investing our available cap space in acquiring upgrades for our defense than offense in free agency. Adding a great talent like Harvin would elevate our offense but adding a free safety like say Byrd from the Bills would have a potentially bigger impact on our defense.

That's not to say you ignore offense in free agency in our position - if you can add talent you do - but in our position I would prioritise defensive help in free agency when planning how we use the cap space available.

[Oldfan]

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

Assume we are talking about a .500 team

If your strong offense averages 35 points a game and your defense allows 35 points a game, a three point improvement is just as likely on either side of the ball. The only difference is the total score:

38-35 on average or...

35-32 on average.

[daveakl]

Defense wins championships!

The truth is that the best team is more likely to win the Super Bowl and it doesn't matter whether that team is stronger on defense or on offense.

Have you checked out the ranking of the teams defense that wins the super bowl vs. the opposing teams offense to back that up? Otherwise I agree with drafting BPA regardless of which side of the ball they play on.

[Jumbo]

I would note for everyone that, basically, the idea of offense and defense having about equal value at baseline is part of the football outsiders concept as OF stated.

I think the point about defense being able to score point is a serious one to discuss, but also kind of hairy as debating whether scheming for, or selecting talent for, "scoring points on D" (even more than "scheming for" or selecting talent for creating TOs) can be quite the tangent itself.

Looking at the form of the premise (which is the last line after the OP's set up), and seems like a standard BPA argument, I'm usually in that camp, but don't find most "rules" inviolate. If I have serious talent at one spot, and am very weak at another, I might see choices where BPA (using the draft in this example) may not do as well for my team as improving a weakness.

Then it really does get more complicated (to me) for adherence to the simple theorem as we move on in examples.

In this team, for instance, if a top wr was available to us, I'd still be sorely tempted though we show strength there right now (and let's assume we close out that way). However, if there were a CB who was a rank lower in terms of BPA than that wr, yet seemed likely a real potential improvement there, I'd be pulled in that direction.

Good posts, Martin.

[illone]

I agree with the premise that you should improve your team any way you can.

Sure, conventional wisdom would suggest the Skins to upgrade the defensive side of the ball, but what if you have a TE or WR that would make your offense even more unstoppable?

New England and even the Giants proved that you don't need a top tier defense to win it all.

I saw a stat recently that showed the history of when the #1 scoring offense played the #1 scoring defense..... in 6 games, the better offense won 4 times.

"defense wins championships" is something a baltimore raven fan would say after winning it all with Trent Dilfer.

[skinznsoxrox]

Assume we are talking about a .500 team

If your strong offense averages 35 points a game and your defense allows 35 points a game, a three point improvement is just as likely on either side of the ball. The only difference is the total score:

38-35 on average or...

35-32 on average.

No one lets up more than 30 ppg average in the NFL.
Only one team scores more than 30 ppg (Patriots)

Where is your research coming from? What basis do you have for these estimates? The whole thing is based on a premis that just simply cannot be boiled down as far as you're making it out to be. There are way too many unknown factors that go into drafting a player or the success of a team throughout the season

[Kelvin Bryant]

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..

True, but perhaps a bit oversimplified. Defenses also score touchdowns and offenses allow them. And even when not directly allowing touchdowns, an offense can certainly make things easier or more difficult for the defense.

So while your 50/50 split may (or may not) be accurate, basing it on the argument "scoring touchdowns == preventing touchdowns" doesn't strike me as convincing.

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.

True in principal. However, if one side is significantly weaker than the other, the number of available players who might provide an improvement is much higher for that side. Also, the potential individual improvements are greater (replacing a good player with a very good player provides less value than replacing a poor player with a very good player).

[skinznsoxrox]

[QUOTE=Kelvin Bryant;9342529]True, but perhaps a bit oversimplified. Defenses also score touchdowns and offenses allow them. And even when not directly allowing touchdowns, an offense can certainly make things easier or more difficult for the defense.

So while your 50/50 split may (or may not) be accurate, basing it on the argument "scoring touchdowns == preventing touchdowns" doesn't strike me as convincing.

True in principal. However, if one side is significantly weaker than the other, the number of available players who might provide an improvement is much higher for that side. Also, the potential individual improvements are greater (replacing a good player with a very good player provides less value than replacing a poor player with a very good player).[/QUOTE

QFT

[Oldfan]

Have you checked out the ranking of the teams defense that wins the super bowl vs. the opposing teams offense to back that up?...

I have heard that argument. It doesn't hold water.

The first time I heard that "defense wins championships," Lombardi's Packers were used as an example. The Pack's offense was typically ranked about #4 while the defense ranked #1.

The Packers offense was the most dominant ball control offense in the history of the game. It created fewer drives for both teams; fewer drives meant fewer yard and fewer points for both team -- resulting in a #1 ranking for the defense which was on the bench for much of the game and a lower ranking for the offense.

Ball control -- and the deceptive rankings it causes -- are the reason that coaches and fans believed that "defense wins championships."

[TheDane]

Whoever scores more points will win the game.

You're going to have to slow down there and explain that one again.

[skinznsoxrox]

I have heard that argument. It doesn't hold water.

The first time I heard that "defense wins championships," Lombardi's Packers were used as an example. The Pack's offense was typically ranked about #4 while the defense ranked #1.

The Packers offense was the most dominant ball control offense in the history of the game. It created fewer drives for both teams; fewer drives meant fewer yard and fewer points for both team -- resulting in a #1 ranking for the defense which was on the bench for much of the game and a lower ranking for the offense.

Ball control -- and the deceptive rankings it causes -- are the reason that coaches and fans believed that "defense wins championships."

See now you are muddying the water yourself- if the Packers offense helped the defense so immensely then why are they both condidered to be valued at 50/50?

[Jumbo]

Since I can think of, most of the teams/seasons associated with top-ranked d's (even when the d's are truly excellent by all standards) had notably solid running games that used up the clock. Part of the reason the term "game manager" became part of the lexicon. Means not much of a passing game featured and the offense relied on the run.

---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 10:55 AM ----------

See now you are muddying the water yourself- if the Packers offense helped the defense so immensely then why are they both condidered to be valued at 50/50?

Not muddying. The distinction would be the nature of the ground game "helping" a perception and the stats/rankings re: the d's level. Had the team accompanied the same (as a team) by featuring a pass attack but still had all the same d personnel, the argument would claim that the d would likely "look worse" because they were on the field notably more and thus vulnerable more (and likely would have given more yards/points over time).

[daveakl]

I have heard that argument. It doesn't hold water.

The first time I heard that "defense wins championships," Lombardi's Packers were used as an example. The Pack's offense was typically ranked about #4 while the defense ranked #1.

The Packers offense was the most dominant ball control offense in the history of the game. It created fewer drives for both teams; fewer drives meant fewer yard and fewer points for both team -- resulting in a #1 ranking for the defense which was on the bench for much of the game and a lower ranking for the offense.

Ball control -- and the deceptive rankings it causes -- are the reason that coaches and fans believed that "defense wins championships."

I think you are missing my point.

The best offense can score x points on the worst defense. X will go down as the quality of the defense improves.

The best defense will give up y points to the worst offense. Y will go up as the quality of the offense improves.

The rate the X goes down is not proportional to Y going up.

The best defense (Ravens of 2000) can win games without the offense ever scoring but the best offense can not win games if the defense allows the other team to score every time.

[Oldfan]

True, but perhaps a bit oversimplified. Defenses also score touchdowns and offenses allow them. And even when not directly allowing touchdowns, an offense can certainly make things easier or more difficult for the defense.

My argument is simplified for easy understanding. I think you are over-complicating it by bring in minor issues that don't change anything -- offenses and defenses are equally important even in those infrequent instances when their roles are reversed.

True in principal. However, if one side is significantly weaker than the other, the number of available players who might provide an improvement is much higher for that side. Also, the potential individual improvements are greater (replacing a good player with a very good player provides less value than replacing a poor player with a very good player).

Sounds like you are making the same point Martin made earlier. This was my response to him:

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.

---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 02:12 PM ----------

See now you are muddying the water yourself- if the Packers offense helped the defense so immensely then why are they both condidered to be valued at 50/50?

I don't consider them 50/50. The offense was the stronger unit. That's why the people who used them to support the notion that "defenses win championships" went wrong.

[skinnyskins]

I agree that offense and defense are equally important.

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.

The problem with this argument is that it fails to consider WHY a defense or offense is sub par. If it is because some positions lack talent or depth then they should take priority in the draft over a position with existing talent, even if the best player available could fill a spot on the roster that already has an average player. This is because selecting a player to fill a position of need has a higher return than selecting a player to fill a position that already has a serviceable player since only one of them can be on the field at the same time.

This seems pretty obvious..