Spotting a Couple of Forum Football Fallacies

[KDawg]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Kirk Cousins, as another poster brought up, is a prime example of drafting the best football player available. Now, there are different ways to determine BPA, but that's a discussion for an entirely different thread. Instead, I'll state that the term defense wins championships on its face isn't incorrect. It could be correct, dependent on your team. Just the same, a statement such as Offense wins Championships could be equally true. As could a statement such as balance wins championships.

I don't agree that a draft should be "focused" on anything. It's premature to use a statement such as that without knowing what's available at your pick. If for some reason, all of the prospects we wanted in the second on the defensive side of the ball are gone when we get a chance to pick, we have options: 1) Reach (bad move). 2) Draft the highest player on our board, even if its offense. 3) Trade back and hope that our picks net us other players we targetted. Stating "we need to focus on this..." prior to a draft is a slippery slope. If I told you I wanted to focus on a corner in the draft but the best corner available when we got on the board in the second round was a guy we had ranked as a 6th rounder, would you advocate selecting him? I certainly wouldn't. Not there.

The goal, as DC9 pointed out, is to score more points than the other team. But, that can be accomplished in various ways: A) High scoring offense. B) A Shut Down Defense. C) Balance. D) Anything in Between.

While the premise is simple, the means is not.

---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 03:18 PM ----------

Here is a good article about defense vs. offense with respect to SB winners.

I respect the research and the history of the game. But history can be broken, and there are no hard-cut "rules". So while there may be a trend as to teams that have won Super Bowls, it's not a rule.

But that IS an excellent read. Thank you for finding it!!

[SkinsWarrior81]

Unless you are grading on a roster that stays the same, does not age, and does not lose talent, you are correct. However, since all of those things do change, drafting BPA is not always the way to go. If you are going from one year of bad defense to another year of losing 2 quality starters on defense with no foreseeable successors to those positions, no amount of offensive players are going to compensate for the woefully inadequate production from said defense. This takes into account aging and fading offensive players as well. The best approach is to try and balance a team properly in order to maintain a status quo and insert special talent where available or warranted to tip that side of the ball over the edge.

[Oldfan]

Well, I think it makes sense to focus on the defense. That doesn't mean if there is good value there we shouldn't take the offensive player...

I'm not debating your point. I just want to be sure you understand mine.

Here's a hypothetical: Our offense is the the stronger unit. During the draft, we can opt to draft an offensive player who will help us just as much as a defensive player in that round. It would make no difference which we draft. The relative strengths of of the units are not a factor.

[SkinsWarrior81]

I'm not debating your point. I just want to be sure you understand mine.

Here's a hypothetical: Our offense is the the stronger unit. During the draft, we can opt to draft an offensive player who will help us just as much as a defensive player in that round. It would make no difference which we draft. The relative strengths of of the units are not a factor.

You aren't playing with a linear timeline here. Injuries, personal lives, performance spikes and dips all play heavily into how much of an effect drafting any player wil have. Youhave to take the BPA for the situation you are in, not just any random player because he is good.

[DJD2]

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 to an extent but at some point you have to weigh overall improvement value vs. need (or at the very least factor in need to the overall improvement value you assign). Cousins is a good example of value and need, and Shanhan has repeatedly talked about the grade they had on him. However for arguements sake if an identical Cousins is there next round when it is time to pick, then even though his grade my be very high and could even be considered BPA at that point, filling a hole elsewhere with a lower graded player may end up being the better overall move. Intuitively it would seem that the more balanced a team can be, while raising the overall level of talent, would give them the better chance at success.

[Oldfan]

Here is a good article about defense vs. offense with respect to SB winners.

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...rs-stats-picks

and another

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/...championships/

The author begins with a false assumption:

In today’s era of high-scoring offenses and prolific passing attacks, we wondered if an old NFL axiom holds true: Does defense still win championships?

The "axiom" was never true. It was just a misunderstanding of those deceptive rankings as I explained earlier.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

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

So, this team is sat at 8-6 right now. What numbers would you apply to this team OF as things stand, following the above logic ?

[Oldfan]

You aren't playing with a linear timeline here. Injuries, personal lives, performance spikes and dips all play heavily into how much of an effect drafting any player wil have. Youhave to take the BPA for the situation you are in, not just any random player because he is good.

Your reply seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the paragraph you quoted. The hypothetical states that the offensive and defensive prospects would help us equally. You have to take the facts of my hypothetical as a given.

[PeterMP]

I'm not debating your point. I just want to be sure you understand mine.

Here's a hypothetical: Our offense is the the stronger unit. During the draft, we can opt to draft an offensive player who will help us just as much as a defensive player in that round. It would make no difference which we draft. The relative strengths of of the units are not a factor.

The problem is that it is a hard thing to say.

If your offense is stronger, then you likely have better back ups and everything at multiple positions. You probably have more flexibility in case of moving people around if there are injuries because the players are probably more talented and better to fill into their non-normal position better, etc.

If you could say absolutely your claim that they would help you equally, then obviously it doesn't matter.

You see that this year on offense. We had so much depth at WR it made sense to try and convert one of our WR to TE.

On the flip side, we have issues putting decent CB and safeties on the field. With a little more depth at CB, we might have been able to slide a CB over to safety and improve the secondary. The person would have played more even if not at his position and improved the entire defense.

I just don't think your idea of I know these two guys are both going to equally help me is ever very practical and because of that it makes sense to focus (and note I mean the focus and not obsess (I frequently tell students they should focus on X, but that doesn't mean they should ignore everything else.)) in areas where you are weak, especially if they are potentially over lapping in nature (e.g. safties and CBs).

I think you've taken the word focus and extrapolated to obsess/ignore everything else.

[Oldfan]

So, this team is sat at 8-6 right now. What numbers would you apply to this team OF as things stand, following the above logic ?

It's hard to say. I don't have enough confidence now to state an opinion.

A true 8-win team could win between six and ten games depending on how their luck runs in a 16-game season. I thought they were better than their record when they were 3-6. I don't think they're as good as they look after winning five straight.

[jgbkab1]

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.

If you look at it in terms of 2011 to 2012, that may not be true. If comparing our 14 game season to last years 16 game season, the numbers aren't all that different except for one area. Points scored on offense. We have scored about a touchdown more this year than last year. The only real difference is Griffin on offense (even though Garcon was added, Fred Davis was lost so it's really a wash).

On defense, we lost a lot of players but the result are still about the same. We're giving up more yards through the air but we're giving up less on the ground. We've given up six less touchdowns on defense with two games to go with the Bengal, Cowboys and the Saints putting up 30 on us. And the Saints and Cowboys only got there after we took our foot off the gas.

IMO, it seems like it would take a lot more additions to the defense to stop a touchdown than it would be to add a touchdown on offense. And that's because we already have our superstar on offense. We don't have a name brand defensive player even before the injuries.

[Oldfan]

...I just don't think your idea of I know these two guys are both going to equally help me is ever very practical..

I agree, but the hypothetical helped explain my position. That was its sole purpose.

---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 04:03 PM ----------

True to an extent but at some point you have to weigh overall improvement value vs. need (or at the very least factor in need to the overall improvement value you assign). Cousins is a good example of value and need, and Shanhan has repeatedly talked about the grade they had on him. However for arguements sake if an identical Cousins is there next round when it is time to pick, then even though his grade my be very high and could even be considered BPA at that point, filling a hole elsewhere with a lower graded player may end up being the better overall move. Intuitively it would seem that the more balanced a team can be, while raising the overall level of talent, would give them the better chance at success.

The statement you quoted didn't say anything at all about drafting the BPA. It says, in effect, if you think a defensive prospect and an offensive prospect are equal in how much they will improve your team, the relative strengths of your offense and defense are not a factor in the decision.

[UK SKINS FAN '74]

It's hard to say. I don't have enough confidence now to state an opinion.

OK, but would you say the ratio of strength is weighted more towards offense than defense. I'd say it does. Which in turn means you have more scope to improve on defense and would lead me to weight my rebuilding via the draft & FA towards defense in an attempt to achieve maximum potential.

As for special teams, we have a kicker going 15/15 and we wanna drop 'teams from the discussion....

[HeluCopter29]

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.

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.

I see what you're getting at, and more over I agree with it.

But that doesn't mean that bringing in Percy Harvin or (let's live in an ideal world for a second) Calvin Johnson is necessarily the best move.

Basically, focusing on bringing in some good DB's will net us a better result because we already have a really good offense.

Or better said, it's easier to get better when your worse then when you're already really good.

[Oldfan]

OK, but would you say the ratio of strength is weighted more towards offense than defense. I'd say it does. Which in turn means you have more scope to improve on defense and would lead me to weight my rebuilding via the draft & FA towards defense in an attempt to achieve maximum potential.

We agree that our offense is better than our defense. But my OP argues that your plan to improve by favoring the defense is wrong because if the opportunity to improve your team, say by three points, is presented, it doesn't matter whether you improve the offense or the defense.

---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 04:28 PM ----------

I see what you're getting at, and more over I agree with it.

But that doesn't mean that bringing in Percy Harvin or (let's live in an ideal world for a second) Calvin Johnson is necessarily the best move.

Basically, focusing on bringing in some good DB's will net us a better result because we already have a really good offense.

Or better said, it's easier to get better when your worse then when you're already really good.

Well, you said you were agreeing, but you went further and disagreed. If you could bring in a grade A receiver it would improve the team just as much as bringing in a grade A corner. The overall team grade would be the same. So, the situation boils down to "Which one is available?"