Spotting a Couple of Forum Football Fallacies

[Oldfan]

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

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2012-09-05/super-bowl-2012-defense-wins-championships-49ers-stats-picks

and another

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/20/does-defense-really-win-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.

[Est.1974]

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' date=' 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 ?[/quote']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.

[Est.1974]

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' date=' 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.[/quote']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?"

[skinfan2k]

In this day and age, you can win with a powerful offense. You need a defense that creates turnovers. thats it

[bedlamVR]

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 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 think I am kind of getting you - and i agree . These falicies are from a time of football (defense wins championships) and you draft to the weakest unit - Is based on a time of football when a team took the best part of a decade to mature and it was easy to plot the path to victory .

(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 ----------

In this day and age, you can win with a powerful offense. You need a defense that creates turnovers. thats it

Absolutely right - but I think to win you need a complementary defense to the offense so the opponent spends most of the game going against your strength- If you have a grind it out offense who mainly wins low scoring game by ball control - then a bend but dont break defense might not be the best complementary fit as you are giving the offense less time to do their thing .. however an opportunistic (even feast or famine like) defense who can take the risks to create turn overs - might end up being fairly easy to score on or might generate those key turnovers but either way gets the ball back to the offense then you can grind out another score but take the ball away from the opponents offense and their ability to score ...

Of course that would be the plan - and the likely hood of the plan surviving first contact with the enemy is pretty slim ..

[zCommander]

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

It pains me to agree with OF here.

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.

[Pwyl]

. 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?"

I think you're leaving out one of the variables,

[Mahons21]

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 ----------

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?"

And if you bring in a Grade A QB, compared to a grade B+ receiver the overall team grade would be higher. Though the decision would make no sense.

[DC9]

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

I won't. It's that obvious.

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.

[brandymac27]

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.

[SWFLSkins]

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. :munchout:

Hhahhahah lol TDNR...lol..but read those two. J/K, Defense wins championships when the other team fails to score more than your team all throughout the playoffs.

[FSUSkins24]

Thanks for the insight Troy Aikman

Haha I definitely think that was a Madden style quote. He was the original captain obvious.

[Oldfan]

In this day and age, you can win with a powerful offense. You need a defense that creates turnovers. thats it

In today's game, you need the same thing it took to win as it did in yesterday's game. You need the stronger team. It doesn't matter whether you are comparatively stronger on offense or defense.

[Hogs Ahead]

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.

I'm not sure I can agree with this statement. Salary cap and a limited number of players on the field ensure that at some point there will be diminishing returns based on the current strength of your unit.

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.

[Oldfan]

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.

I think we all agree with that.

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.

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?

And all of this is occurring in today's NFL, which is supposed to be centered around high-powered offenses.

That's another fallacy. Good defenses that can limit high-powered offenses are just as important.

I think this boils down to two reasons:

Playoff football is played in cold weather, where the conditions favor a defense.

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.

[Bang]

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.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

I'm not sure I can agree with this statement. Salary cap and a limited number of players on the field ensure that at some point there will be diminishing returns based on the current strength of your unit.

When someone offers you an argument based on a hypothetical, and you disagree with it, you must stick with the facts they presented in the hypothetical. When you change the facts as given, as you did here, you aren't countering their argument.

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?

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.

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.

Offense 25, Defense 25 = 50

Offense 35, Defense 25 = 60

[skinfan2k]

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.