Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

"Defense wins championships"


Ænima

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else tired of this phrase? Not all teams have to be like the Bucs and Ravens to win a Superbowl. The Rams had a good defense when they won it, but everyone knows it was their offense that was the staple of the team. The Patriots were a very balanced team, not exactly defensive monsters. Denver had a good D, but I think having Elway and Davis helped too. Well I guess my point is that having a balanced team can be just as effective as having a juggernaut defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care, since we have a great D anyway.

Hey, what is that first letter in your name? Do you have some sort of magic keyboard? What language is it from? It looks like someone cramed an A and an E together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that you have to have the most feared defense in the league like the Ravens, but you have to have a good coupling of either a high-powered prolific offense with a good defense or a serviceable offense and an outstanding defense. More importantly, a team has to play to it's strengths.

An example, the Ravens utilized a stifling turnover producing nightmare defense with an offense that simply didn't hurt itself and didn't make a bunch of mistakes. They won mostly by field position and an offense that stayed within itself and took what was given to it.

The Rams utilized a "score from anywhere on the field" offense with a good defense that normally bent but didn't break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cskin

I'm not sure that you have to have the most feared defense in the league like the Ravens, but you have to have a good coupling of either a high-powered prolific offense with a good defense or a serviceable offense and an outstanding defense. More importantly, a team has to play to it's strengths.

An example, the Ravens utilized a stifling turnover producing nightmare defense with an offense that simply didn't hurt itself and didn't make a bunch of mistakes. They won mostly by field position and an offense that stayed within itself and took what was given to it.

The Rams utilized a "score from anywhere on the field" offense with a good defense that normally bent but didn't break.

But don't you think that could be done opposite? Is it really hard to imagine an outstanding offensive team with a serviceable defense winning it? Let's say the Rams D didn't go from good to horrible but from good to average the next year. They easily could have won it all again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the idea behind this whole thing is that you can win a championship with an outstanding defense even if you have an ok or even bad offense. It is easier for opponents to gameplan againts a poor defense and a great offense than vice versa. The best way to beat a team with a great offense is to keep the ball out of their hands. Case in poin, the Giants vs. Bills Super Bowl. The Giants ran the ball up the gut all day and controlled the clock limiting the amount of time the Bills' offense was on the field.

I think this whole premise is based on what I said and that is, you can game plan a great offense much better than a great defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tom [Giants fan]

I think the idea behind this whole thing is that you can win a championship with an outstanding defense even if you have an ok or even bad offense. It is easier for opponents to gameplan againts a poor defense and a great offense than vice versa. The best way to beat a team with a great offense is to keep the ball out of their hands. Case in poin, the Giants vs. Bills Super Bowl. The Giants ran the ball up the gut all day and controlled the clock limiting the amount of time the Bills' offense was on the field.

I think this whole premise is based on what I said and that is, you can game plan a great offense much better than a great defense.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah you're right Tom. I guess I am just tired of some people using that phrase everytime their defense is upgraded a little. I've seen that a lot on other forums, particularly the Jets boards (to rationalize trading Coles and a #1 pick for Robertson :rolleyes: )

For whoever was asking - To get Æ hold alt and hit 5522 on the number pad. You can get a lot of weird stuff from that. See I just hit random numbers and got this ¤. I don't know what they mean, someone told me how to make the Æ and I use it because that is how it is on the Tool cd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ænima

For whoever was asking - To get Æ hold alt and hit 5522 on the number pad. You can get a lot of weird stuff from that. See I just hit random numbers and got this ¤. I don't know what they mean, someone told me how to make the Æ and I use it because that is how it is on the Tool cd.

Thanks, that is awsome, I never knew that.

Æ

ç

¥

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for the lambs to win that superbowl it took a defensive effort at the end of the game to do it.

And while the flash of Swann in the superbowl is the only reason he is in the hall of fame you have to credit the steel curtain for those superbowl wins.

Defense wins superbowl and NBA titles see San Antonio as well as the Stanley Cup see New Jersey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by panel

Hey, what is that first letter in your name? Do you have some sort of magic keyboard? What language is it from? It looks like someone cramed an A and an E together.

That is an actual letter used in the Danish alphabet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The a and e together originally comes from Latin, where it made the long i sound (as in words like rice); or it least that's how my college Latin professor taught us to pronounce it. The word Caesar, for example, was actually pronounced like the German derivative "Kaiser." (There was no "k" in the Latin alphabet - the "c" was always a hard c as in the word cat. Likewise Italian only uses a "k" for imported words, and the c never sounds like an s; it's either a k sound or if followed by an "e" or an "i" makes a "ch" sound like cherry....

Sorry, as usual I'm providing too much firggin info :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder how much of that "defense wins championships" came from the days when defensive players didn't get any money, so you could get an entire front 7 for the price of a backup QB.

Nowdays, defensive players get big bucks. (In the draft, it's not unusual for half the folks in the first round to be defense.)

I even remember a college coach a few years ago saying that, the way the focus has changed in football, it's tough to find good receivers, because all the kids who used to try for that position now want to be CBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought this was a dumb aphorism, also. Thanks, Tom, for trying to give it some rational support, but I don' think you've succeeded:

I think the idea behind this whole thing is that you can win a championship with an outstanding defense even if you have an ok or even bad offense. It is easier for opponents to gameplan againts a poor defense and a great offense than vice versa. The best way to beat a team with a great offense is to keep the ball out of their hands. Case in poin, the Giants vs. Bills Super Bowl. The Giants ran the ball up the gut all day and controlled the clock limiting the amount of time the Bills' offense was on the field.

Why I don't buy it: if you limit your offense (to counter the other team's great offense) by focusing on a grind out the clock running game, a) you will not score as much as you otherwise would (compared to if you had called plays with an intent to score as much as possible), B) because you are limiting your offense, you will likely give the other team's (great) offense better field position than it would otherwise have, allowing it to score on more of its (admittedly fewer) possessions, and c) even though you give the other team's great offense fewer possessions by grinding out the clock, you will also have accordingly fewer possessions, and thus accordingly fewer chances to score yourself. Thus, I don't see how this gameplan is terribly effective against a great offense. It's pretty hard to gameplan against a great offense or defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A (possible) counter-argument, using our "before" and "after" (Spurrier) offenses as a comparason.

The grind-it-out, don't-make-mistakes, offenses tend to be better at moving the chains. They may have several 12-play drives that don't score, but they to chew up clock.

The pass-happy offense will have several 3-play scoring drives, but they'll also have several three-and-out's.

The people who sit back, play defense, and eat the clock, will limit how many times the gamblers get to throw the dice.

(It's tougher to make an argument as to offense-vs.-defense, simply because, when your defense works, they give the ball to the offense.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the question here is who handicaps the best defenses? :)

The Rams defense was atrocious in 1997 and 1998, but was #1 in the NFC in 1999.

In 2001 the Panthers were terrible on D and last year they were #2 in the Conference.

The Redskins could surprise critics and have a top unit. The talent overall is there to do it.

What this team really needs is for Smith to stay healthy and accept a new role and for the other players on the DL to have solid seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view it as a consistency issue. Defense, by nature, is easier to play than offense in that the precision and timing are not as important. If the precision and timing of an offense are just a little off, the offense has trouble.

Defense, OTOH, unless it is just plain confused about what the offense is doing, is somewhat of a constant, especially if it is relatively straightforward (a la the Bucs). You pretty much know what you're going to get from it. That's pretty important when a team is in the playoffs and every team it faces is pretty good.

I agree, though, that the saying is overly simplistic. And I don't like that MartyBall crap, either. It keeps the other team in the game. I want my team to score early and often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I think it's complete b.s. I believe "Balance" wins championships. Sometimes in off years teams that are heavily to one side or the other might grab a title, but nearly always it's well built teams that have a good-very good defense and a similar offense, or better. You can look at the Modern Era, say, 1992-2002, and during that era, of the 11 Super Bowl Title winners, only two teams were unbalanced, the '00 Ravens and the '02 Bucs, the Dallas teams of '92, '93, and '96 all featured proefficient offenses and nice shut down defenses, that while not outstanding, rarely had trouble keeping teams offenses in check. The Niners of '94 had a very good defense and a terrific offense, the Packers and Broncos of '96, '97, '98, (both those teams were the most dominant of that period, but the Broncos repeatedly choked in the playoffs until '98) were both highly effective on offense and had good defenses that usually could hold opponents in check, while their offense battered the opponent into submission. Indeed the only teams that seem to go against this grain since the 1983 were the Bears of '85, the Giants of '90 (in my view lucky victors over the Niners that year, I think the Niners would have throttled that Bills team, and would have won if not for a late unfortunate fumble and Montana's injury), the Ravens of '00, and the Bucs of '02. The Redskins defense was erratic in '83 (giving up 31 to the cowboys, 48 to the packers and 35 and 38 to the Raiders if I remember right), but that may be further indictment of the problem of being lobsided, having a defense off it's game combined with a terrible offensive showing showed that beloved Redskin incarnation to the door in my bitterest moment as a Redskin fan ever.

But I digress, anyway, I can count only four Super Bowl winners over the past twenty years that featured a tremendous imbalance on one side of the ball. The great Redskins, Niners, Cowboys, Packers and Broncos teams that won 12 Super Bowls in that era all featured tremendous balance, as did the '86 Giants (great running attack, effective, if not prolific passing attack), and most of the other Super Bowl victors of that era.

Quite simply, being able to impose your will on opponents on both sides of the ball, is what nearly always wins. Heck in each year that it hasn't happened you can trace a potential abberation as to why. In 1985, it was Bears, Bears, Bears from day one. No other team could figure out how to cope with that defense other than Miami. In 1990 the Giants came up with an incredible bit of luck, and genius in knocking out Montana and then stripping the ball off Craig on what looked to be the last possession of the football game as the Niners ran out the clock. They needed a Montana concussion, a lucky strip/fumble, and a Norwood miss to win that Super Bowl. They earned it, but few other than New Yorkers, believe that Giants team was up to the level of other champions of that era, including the '86 Giants, or even the Niners and Bills of '90. In 2000 and 2002, the modern NFL era was truly in effect, no dynamite teams appears to be in control, and '00 featured a complete let down in both conferences, where the Rams self-destructed against the Saints, the Niners had yet to wake up, the Bucs and Eagles couldn't get the job done, and the Ravens managed to impose their defense so effectively, that their inept offense was camouflaged on their way to a title, that rarely, has ever happened in NFL History. But in '02 it happened again, in large part because the Bucs defense played at a similar level, the eagles self destructed, then the Raiders did so likewise, and the offense was just good enough to get the job done. But all in all there are only 4 teams, four, that were unbalanced really over the past twenty years.

Balance wins, not defense, not offense, balance. The stronger your side is on both sides of the ball, the more effective you are in imposing your will, the better shot you've got at winning a title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, all 3 Redskins teams that won the Super Bowl had good balance. The 1982 team allowed the fewest points in the NFL that year. The 1991 team finished among the conference leaders in sacks and interceptions. The 1987 team featured two pro bowl caliber ends in Mann and Manley and a secondary with two pro bowl corners in Green and Wilburn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That '87 Redskin team is an interesting case. They remind me a lot of the '90 Giants, a team that wasn't necessairly the best in the league, but it got it done in the clutch and took home a title because they were good, they were smart, they were brilliantly coached, maximized their talent, and hat the brains and balls to handle anything including a frigid playoff game at Chicago, 10 points down to Denver with an injured Williams, and playing the Vikings in a title game when they may have been the hottest team in the NFL, and that clutch goal line stand that ended with Darrin Nelson and Green meeting as the ball reached his hands on the goal line underlined how that team got the most out of everything in nearly every game that year (I'll take the losses to Atlanta, and the Eagles as games where things just didn't go right).

But despite all those qualities I didn't think that Redskins game was any better than the '86 team, I just think the path to the Super Bowl that year was easier, with that terrific Niner team ousted by the Vikes, we had a clear path to Super Bowl Glory. Quite different than having to handle NY in NY to get to the super bowl (and w/o a botched field goal snap, and a dropped bomb of a pass to G. Clark, we might have pulled off an upset). That '87 team will always reign as an asterisk team to me, a fairytale season and team that had a magnificent run in the playoffs, but probably wasn't much, if any better than our '86 team, and certainly not the equal of our '83 team.

Btw, it's all about balance, just a reminder ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...