In this day and age, you can win with a powerful offense. You need a defense that creates turnovers. thats it
In this day and age, you can win with a powerful offense. You need a defense that creates turnovers. thats it
(I may be divesifying from the OPs point but...) Now a days in the NFL you have maybe three years to really get your team pointing in the right direction - and that is a luxury - You simply do not have time to build a balanced roster unless you have an element of luck and you have some late bloomers or players who excel in your system... so if player a and player b have equal talent but play on different sides of the ball and player a might help make a bad unit mediocre with some help and player b could make a good unit great or a great unit elite then it is not necessarily in the teams best interest to go for the balance player . It would be better in this NFL to have an absolutely dominant offense or defense and a so so opposite than an entire team that is so so but balanced... the trick it then to make hey while the sun shines - feed the dominant unit where you can but in the back ground take the players that give you some balance in the longer term ...
Take the patriots for example (and i know this is where I am going to get some disagreement...) but their early teams they were OK on offense - Tom Brady hid a multitude of so-so offensive players - but they were very good on defense, even dominant - as the decade has progressed you see that tide tipping to offense and now they have become so so on defense as players have aged and moved on and you have playmakers like Gonk and Hernadez and more aggressive offense has protected a what has been by comparison a bad defense...
You also see now that while the Patriots have been feeding the offense (when) they have been able too - their strongest unit ... (but also) been adding to their defense so you have Mayo and a bunch of other very good players who are growing in their scheme and quietly that defense will make a good run at being their dominant unit (especially when Brady steps away - Or Bilicheck for that matter)
The exception to this is the NY Giants (and maybe the 49ers now) - and they are a team who has been the most balanced in recent years - their offense or defense has been able to be potent they have good play makers on both sides of the ball . And as such they have won 2 superbowls in 5 years ...
The Giants are however aging all over the roster and that D line rotation is getting more and more suspect (as Tuck and Osi get older, and people like Strahan retire and promising depth - e,g, colefield get picked up as soon as they hit free agency ) and the parts they have on offense are getting harder to spot as that line starts aging and crumbling ..
So the question is if (prior to the salary cap and free agency and the 30 second attention span of the clamoring masses which has taken away the 20 year coaching careers with the same franchise) - the adage "Defense wins championships was true" - and no longer is - what is the equivalent truth now ...?
---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 10:35 PM ----------
Of course that would be the plan - and the likely hood of the plan surviving first contact with the enemy is pretty slim ..
Last edited by bedlamVR; December-21st-2012 at 04:21 PM.
If you have a DC that knows what he is doing than he only might need a player or two and use the players on the current roster more effectively and design scheme to their strength and weakness. You don't always have to have all the tools but you can still figure out a way to punch a hole in the wall.
Forewarning, I have not read through all the posts in this thread and the points I bring up very well may have already been discussed.
Regarding BPA: Disagree.
The likelihood that a player will have an impact on the team is and always will be one of the factors in determining who a team drafts. Ignoring that and drafting for BPA solely is extremely foolish in my opinion.
Regarding: Defense wins championships (slightly disagree)
I believe there's some truth to this "fallacy" as well. Going off recent history, we have the Giants over the Patriots, we have P Manning's superbowl ring which came only after his defense stepped it up in the playoffs, we have the Saints who also made their run when their defense was playing at a high level, and finally there's Brady who's only rings came when he had a dominant defense on the other side of the ball. And all of this is occurring in today's NFL, which is supposed to be centered around high-powered offenses.
I think this boils down to two reasons:
1.) Playoff football is played in cold weather, where the conditions favor a defense.
2.) It's more likely for a dominant defense to remain consistent.
---------- Post added December-21st-2012 at 06:22 PM ----------
Last edited by Mahons21; December-21st-2012 at 05:22 PM.
But I will comment on the draft comment you made at the end of the OP. Again, I think it's a bit obvious... but it's interesting BECAUSE most teams these day have to make a decision, an organizational decision, as to whether or not you become a defensive team or an offensive team.
Defensive teams spend their higher draft picks on defensive players.
Offensive teams spend their higher draft picks on offensive players. There is no team in the NFL that is the 100% solution. In fact, most teams win the Super Bowl with what I call the 70% solution. Meaning, they have about 70% of their rosters where they want them, and they coach up or coach around the rest.
So, to your point, yes, any good player makes a team better... but organizationally, if I put Darrell Revis in the Seahawks defensive backfield... it does more good than putting Calvin Johnson on the Jaguars offense.
I think the "defense wins championships" mantra is slightly outdated (if it ever really had any merit, I'm honestly not sure). I think as far as drafting goes, you do want to plan ahead in some regards (you need to know where help is needed on the team- both sides of the ball). I also think that if we pick at (hypothetically) #25 and by some miracle there's a stud WR/RB/etc, you take him- even if there happens to be a player available that fits a "need" position (for example a CB).
This is an interesting topic. And the more I think about it, the harder it is to determine what I would do if I were in a position to draft players. I think team needs are important, but you don't want to pass up a BPA or stud either b/c you're completely focused on need.
I think you do a little mixing of both scenarios in the draft, and then fill your holes (or maybe "needs" is a better term) in FA.
NO Pressure, No Diamonds, KNOW Pressure, Know Diamonds!
Griffin said that he was going to watch the game with his family and that he will never attend a Super Bowl if he needs a ticket to get in.
Last edited by Oldfan; December-21st-2012 at 06:07 PM.
Take for example our current team and the following draft board at our pick
BPA1 - Top Tier Left Tackle
BPA2 - Top Tier Defensive End
BPA3 - 2nd Tier Free Safety
Some would say that drafting the free safety is drafting for need and therefore a no-no, but because we can only have one LT and 2 DE's on the field at a time, those top tier guys would end up being rookie backups and therefore not improve our team nearly as much as the 2nd tier FS.
Now your argument specifies offense versus defense, whereas mine looks purely at BPA. Given the current state of this team, there are in fact still some holes on offense that could be filled if the right BPA were to come along...... For example if you change the LT in the list to an RT..... But if we extrapolate the argument out, and assume the holes on offense are filled with first and second tier talent. We eventually reach a point where no player we can draft on offense will improve our team as much as less talented players that we could draft on defense. i.e. a fulcrum where in fact the statement "Our defense is weaker than our offense, therefore we should focus on defense in the draft." becomes a true statement. I'm not ready to say we are there, but I'd be pissed as hell if we drafted an LT in the next draft, no matter what his talent level was.
As far as "Defense wins championships!" being false. I would generally agree with you...... however I have to ask if there isn't something to it. I think we can agree that an average team will not score on every offensive drive against an average defense. Therefore an average defense is preventing touchdowns at greater than a 1-1 ratio. In fact I would go so far as to say that a superior offense generally still is not scoring on every drive. Therefore, if the defense playing alongside that offense is so poor that it is allowing a touchdown on every drive, you can definitely say that that defense lost the game for it's team. You really can't argue that any offense should have been expected to keep up with the other team's offense because the defense was so poor.
Having said that, I think you could argue that ensuring that your defense reduce the other teams scoring rate to a rate below the scoring rate of your offense wins championships...... I think basically I just said "Balance Wins Championships" You MUST be able to prevent scores at a certain rate, and you MUST be able to score at a certain rate to win.
Why are those examples of "defense wins championships?" Why aren't they examples of teams that have good defenses to add to very good offenses are stronger than teams that don't?Regarding: Defense wins championships (slightly disagree)
I believe there's some truth to this "fallacy" as well. Going off recent history, we have the Giants over the Patriots, we have P Manning's superbowl ring which came only after his defense stepped it up in the playoffs, we have the Saints who also made their run when their defense was playing at a high level, and finally there's Brady who's only rings came when he had a dominant defense on the other side of the ball.
That's another fallacy. Good defenses that can limit high-powered offenses are just as important.And all of this is occurring in today's NFL, which is supposed to be centered around high-powered offenses.
The passing game is affected by wind, not cold. In windy conditions, the QB who can throw tight spirals with velocity has an advantage over his rival who can't. Dan Fouts explains that on the NFL channel when he tells us about losing a playoff game to Ken Anderson in windy Cleveland.I think this boils down to two reasons:
Playoff football is played in cold weather, where the conditions favor a defense.
Last edited by Oldfan; December-21st-2012 at 06:34 PM.
It's been my understanding over the years that the term "Defense wins championships" is not to describe a full season of defensive play, but was born in a time when most playoff and championship football was played outside in the cold and elements.
And when it got bad, the play tended to slog down, and a good defense could go a long way to securing the title in the toughest part of the season.
just some meandering thoughts..
If you looked at the average total points for and against for the postseason since 2002, the closest 3 margins are the Giants of 2011, who averaged 25 points per game, and gave up 14, the 2007 giants who averaged 21 per game and gave up 16, and the losing 2007 Patriots, the undefeated high flying scoring machine Pats, who in the postseason that year averaged only 22 points, and gave up 16 (eventually losing to the Giants .. giving up 5 sacks, after they only gave up 23 all season.)
But, at the same time, the 2006 Colts were supposed to be the indoor finesse team, while the Bears were supposedly a new incarnation of the monsters, and in the worst weather a Super Bowl ever had, the "finesse' Colts trounced the "rugged" Bears.
i looked back over the last ten years. Average points for and against for Super bowl winners in the postseason is 28 / 17.
Of the losers it's 25 / 19.
It would seem that the old cliche is holding.. and in the toughest part of the year vs the best teams, the better defenses have been a constant.
Also, an interesting nugget,, of the losers in the last 10 Super bowls, 8 of them had a postseason bye week. Of the winners, only 3 did.
I don;'t think that means anything to this debate, but it sure stuck out when i was looking things over. That would almost certainly be a team by team situation.. the giants, i believe, have benefitted from playing 4 games in their Super Bowl runs. Their defense fed on each win.
But our 2012 Redskins, at this point i believe would benefit from the bye, because to have it that would mean we'd won 7 in a row. time for a breather. 11 in a row is hard to do.
I'm going to dig a little more and look over the last ten postseasons and see how many games were played in domes, in outdoor northern stadiums, warm southern stadiums, etc.
Here's the hypothetical facts again: 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 the units are not a factor.
Do you still disagree?
Using the same model, I used in the OP, you can see that, in the following example, the perfectly balanced team is mediocre while the unbalanced team is better.I think basically I just said "Balance Wins Championships" You MUST be able to prevent scores at a certain rate, and you MUST be able to score at a certain rate to win.
Offense 25, Defense 25 = 50
Offense 35, Defense 25 = 60
5 out of the last 6 times when the #1 offense played the #1 defense, the offense won. You cant play smash mouth defense in this age of football.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)