Did anybody hear what the Rams' GM said?

[evmiii]

What a novel idea; Score more points than your opposition. You can attack that on offense with your elite QB, sound running game and good OL and try to win 100-99, or you can have a dominating defense and win 3-0. Both count as wins. Most teams continually strive to find a balance between the two. Simple in concept, not so much in application.

[Burgold]

When you have an elite defense you can win without an elite QB, but can you win with an elite QB without having an elite defense?

I've always felt you need to have an elite something. It can be defense, quarterback, run game, but if you are going to be a threat for the Superbowl you have to be elite at something. The second thing is that you can't be terrible at anything. You can have weaknesses, you can have holes, but no trenches.

 

Baltimore and Denver showed that an average QB with a solid running game can win a Superbowl behind an elite defense.

The Rams and Patriots showed you can win a Superbowl with a elite passing game and average defense.

It's been a little while since the elite run game carried the day, but we certainly have seen it historically.

 

We've also seen that elite by itself is not enough. Elway, Marino, and a slew of other elite QBs could never win the big game or even get there because the holes they had to overcome were too big. Likewise, we've seen really good, even elite defenses not even make the playoffs or get kicked out in round one because the offenses couldn't lift enough of their load. Schottenheimer's teams were often examples of this. Often, so have been the Ravens in more recent years.

[JSSkinz]

Bad QB's turn the ball over which gives the D a short field which turns into points.

 

2 Int's a game or an int and a fumble most likely turn into 7 points.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

No one knows the perfect formula in the NFL. What's about to follow isn't going to be rocket science either, so please refrain from mocking me...

 

Football seems to ebb and flow with great offenses and great defenses taking center stage depending on the eras. Despite some of the numbers being put up recently, we actually seem to be in a defensive era. Look at the teams that have won Super Bowls over the past decade: Giants twice, Seahawks, Steelers twice, Broncos, etc. Of course, there were some good offenses that won too (Saints, Packers). But, of the last 11 Super Bowls, the losing team has scored 17 or fewer points. Even some teams that didn't win the Super Bowl but were knocking on the door recently were defense-focused (49ers under Harbaugh, Carolina as examples). 

 

Anyway, I think that the teams that sustain success fall into one category: they are great at something. In the end, teams need to win a certain way and get used to a cadence for how a successful game goes. Think to our rhythm last year...when we were playing well we would jump out to a lead, bear down on defense, and then sustain drives behind Cousins to close things out. That formula was pretty successful in November and December. 

 

So, I don't care if a team can't be stopped running the ball, has a great QB, or has a dominant defense. If they have something that they can hang their hat on, they will find success. Of course, they will lose games. A great defensive team may not be able to recover from its offense giving up defensive scores. A great running team might be lost if it finds itself losing by 17 in the second quarter. 

 

But, that's my take (again, nothing profound). It doesn't matter which aspect of your team is great, but similar to that Moneyball concept, you need to identify your sweet spot and build it up. 

[Boss_Hogg]

90% of the game is half-mental

[tshile]

wait i thought it was the team that scored the most points that won?

[ANONYMOUS SOURCE.]

But does he know that 40% of statistics are made up?

Maybe they should metric the hell out of Fischer and see what shakes out lol. Whatever the Rams are doing is obviously working so keep on keeping on Les....... Oh wait.

[Darrell Green Fan]

I've always felt you need to have an elite something. It can be defense, quarterback, run game, but if you are going to be a threat for the Superbowl you have to be elite at something. The second thing is that you can't be terrible at anything. You can have weaknesses, you can have holes, but no trenches.

Baltimore and Denver showed that an average QB with a solid running game can win a Superbowl behind an elite defense.

The Rams and Patriots showed you can win a Superbowl with a elite passing game and average defense.

It's been a little while since the elite run game carried the day, but we certainly have seen it historically.

We've also seen that elite by itself is not enough. Elway, Marino, and a slew of other elite QBs could never win the big game or even get there because the holes they had to overcome were too big. Likewise, we've seen really good, even elite defenses not even make the playoffs or get kicked out in round one because the offenses couldn't lift enough of their load. Schottenheimer's teams were often examples of this. Often, so have been the Ravens in more recent years.

Yep agree with this post and I'm not saying a great QB can do it all But the fact that the teams with Elway and Marino were even competitive, Elway's were way more than just competitive, with all those holes just proves how far a great QB can take a team.

Let's go back to 2012. The Colts were the worst team in the league and the Rams were next. Both started at the sme spot but took totally different approaches. The Colts went with a QB and the Rams stockpiled their roster with a ton of high picks.

The Colts went from the bottom to 11-5 and the playoffs in one year, soon they were in the AFC Championship Game. The Rams even with the huge advantage of all those additional picks still haven't even reached .500 and they have a good, not great, defense.

[RemoveSnyder]

This is all that Les Snead is saying:

 

 

Peyton Manning:  0-4 (2012), 4-4 (2013), 1-3 (2014).

5 - 11 when giving up 25 or more points.  5 wins, 11 losses. 16 total. 

 

Drew Brees: 3-8 (2012), 0-4 (2013), 2-8 (2014).

5 - 20 when giving up 25 or more points.  5 wins, 20 losses. 25 total. 

 

Aaron Rodgers: 1-5 (2012), 2-3 (2013), 1-3 (2014).

4 - 11 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Roethlisberger: 0-5 (2012), 2-4 (2013), 2-5 (2014).

4 - 14 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Tom Brady: 4-3 (2012), 5-2 (2013), 2-3 (2014).

11 - 8 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Russell Wilson: 0-2 (2012), 0-1 (2013), 0-4 (2014).

0 - 7 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Andrew Luck: 2-4 (2012), 4-4 (2013), 2-6 (2014).

8 - 14 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Carson Palmer: 1-7 (2012), 1-4 (2013), n/a (2014), 2-3 (2015).

4 - 14 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Joe Flacco: 4-3 (2012), 1-3 (2013), 1-5 (2014).

6 - 11 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Cam Newton: 2-5 (2012), 0-1 (2013), 0-7-1 (2014).

2 - 13 - 1 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

Eli Manning: 3-3 (2012), 0-7 (2013), 1-9 (2014).

4 - 19 when giving up 25 or more points. 

 

... cont.

 

 

 

The one in Snead's study, is Brady. 

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

90% of the game is half-mental

 

 

I don't know who said that be he seem's like my kind of drinking buddy!

 

Hail. 

[RemoveSnyder]

What a novel idea

 

You're missing the point. 

 

There are tiers at which ANY QB has a winning record. 17 points or less, winning record.

There is a tier where it is highly likely, 17 to 20 pts, 85% of the QBs have winning records. 

There are tiers at which it becomes at toss up, 21 to 24 points, 50/50.

At 25 pts or above, you lose ... unless you are Tom Brady.

 

*Not that you can't win when giving up 25 points or more, obviously. Wins do occurs. But you can see the averages for yourself. In the long run, giving up 25 or more points means you have a losing record. 

 

 

Discuss. 

[RemoveSnyder]

There are only 12 teams that make the playoffs. 

 

This chart is pretty clear.

The only team in the top 12 spots that didn't make the playoffs were the Jets.

The only team outside the top 12 spots that made the playoffs were the Redskins. 

 

 

 

Right. Obvious is obvious. Allow the fewest points per game, you win the game. You win the games, you go to the playoffs. 

 

So you work backwards. How do you create a defense that can hold the opposition to around 17 points per game on average?

 

If it were as simple as: "draft every player with a Sparq rating of 85th percentile or higher," then I guess everyone would be doing that. Therein lies the difficulty. It's not a secret. You ask any GM, head coach, fan, if they would like to have the seattle D, the Denver D, their answer is yes. Everyone knows this.

 

However, everyone is competing for limited resources. The guy you really needed in the draft just got selected one pick before you. Oops. 

 

Only the people who are able to shift through the nonsense and continually pluck players from the draft that can sack/pressure the QB, can Press WRs, can stuff RBs, can jar loose completions with hits, will be able to achieve the top of the league status. 

 

 

*One of the things I do is scout collegiate teams with good defensive numbers/output, but whom are not traditional powerhouses and do not benefit from otherworldly depth (Alabama), teams such as Boston College and Northwestern and Temple -- from this year. 

[Warhead36]

A great QB is necessary for sustained success year in and year out, as in a ~10 year period. But during that 10 years, if you want to make a legit Super Bowl run, you need a great D, although there have been some exceptions to this rule(06 Colts and 09 Saints).

 

Basically you want that QB as soon as possible to start getting you competitive, then build up the D so that the QB's prime can align with an elite D to give yourself a legit championship window within your 10 year QB competitive window.

[oraphus]

While having a great D can help you win.. having good QB can help you win just as much. its all shades of gray in relationship to each other. We don't need to go any further than the Redskins...

2012 - great qb play, avg at best rest of the team - won division

2013 - poor QB play, same avg team - worst div record

2014 - poor QB play, same avg team - worst div record

2015 - great QB play,  avg team - won division

 

The only major difference in the last 4 years has been the QB play.. and coincidently our record reflects this.

This is extreme oversimplification but the point stands..

 

so on a 1-10 scale. 1-terrible, 10-great

Denver D - 10, Den O - 4

 

So if redskins can get to:

Skins D - 7, Skins O - 7  .. they can have just as good a shot to win the superbowl.

[RemoveSnyder]

I'm not saying a great QB can do it all But the fact that the teams with Elway and Marino were even competitive

 

You obviously need a baseline level of ability at the Quarterback position. Everyone knows this. 

 

There is such a thing as false contention. You use the word competitive. 

I assume you're talking about the yearly opportunity to win a Super Bowl, right?

 

Very simply, is Drew Brees a "contender" QB?

My answer is very simply, Yes. What's yours? 

 

What if I told you that Drew Brees was not a "contender" QB in 2015, no matter how well he played?

You'd likely call me for hindsight. But really tho, Brees was not a contender in 2015.

[Bandit Rover Blitzer Spy]

Yep agree with this post and I'm not saying a great QB can do it all But the fact that the teams with Elway and Marino were even competitive, Elway's were way more than just competitive, with all those holes just proves how far a great QB can take a team.

Let's go back to 2012. The Colts were the worst team in the league and the Rams were next. Both started at the sme spot but took totally different approaches. The Colts went with a QB and the Rams stockpiled their roster with a ton of high picks.

The Colts went from the bottom to 11-5 and the playoffs in one year, soon they were in the AFC Championship Game. The Rams even with the huge advantage of all those additional picks still haven't even reached .500 and they have a good, not great, defense.

I always hate people claiming that colts team was a bad team. They flopped. You don't suddenly go from a perennial playoff team to the worst team in the league in one offseason from losing one player. Patriots showed that when they lost brady. Colts are a soft team that flopped. It's not like they've had the decade of awful that the rams have had, lacking talent at nearly every position. The 2011 colts had many guys who went on to become starters for other teams, the 2011 rams? Not so much.

[RemoveSnyder]

Attention:

It's not either / or.

The thread thesis is not: "Great QB -OR- Great Defense ... pick one."

 

 

It's how good are BOTH your QB and Defense, collectively, simultaneously. 

 

 

Alex Smith is a "contender" QB. 

Alex Smith has been carried by the KC defense. Undeniable.

Russell Wilson has benefitted GREATLY by his defense. In fact, Russell Wilson has one victory in his career when they give up 25 points or more. One. Otherwise he is 1-13 in games where the opponents score 25 or more points. Wilson is not Tom Brady.

 

So that's somewhat important to understand. Because apparently you can win a Super Bowl even if you are not as talented as Brady. Likewise, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Bress and whoever else of the super-arm-talent QBs that have won a Super Bowl can be undone by a defense that isn't good enough. 

 

The discussion is not the defense that the great QB faces, but his own defense. 

 

And what's so compelling, at least to me, about what Snead has said, is that, the difference between having a surefire winning record (and thus being a contender) versus having a surefire losing record is the difference between 17 and 25. In other words, one score. 

[RemoveSnyder]

The fewer points your team gives up, the more likely you are to win.

Oh my goodness, the Rams GM is a genius.

Too bad all those extra draft picks and he still can't build a team worth squat.

 

No, you seem to have missed the point. Which is odd since it's such a very simple one. 

 

 

What Snead is pointing out here is the margin between a QB having a surefire winning record, when his team gives up 17 points or less, versus having a surefire losing record, when giving up 25 points or more. And everything in between is quantified. 

 

And when he says QB's record, it means the team record as well. Since the case study covered those QBs who played in 45 games over a three year period. It was 21 QBs altogether. So, inherently, it dealt with QBs that were their organizations committed choice. 

 

He's saying, there are certain thresholds at which any QB can be successful and other thresholds where any QB will not be successful. Any is a key word there. Just like the future Hall-of-Famer Peyton Manning, in this case study, he had 5 wins and 11 losses over the three year period in the games where they gave up 25 or more points. 

 

But as you can see by last year's statistics, the Denver D averaged 18.5 points per game.

 

So, essentially, the mystique of the QB is "un-deified" somewhat, when seen in this context. 

 

It's not solely about the QB. It's about the QB in conjunction with his defense.

And what Snead is also pointing out, is that Super Bowl winning QBs are not immune to this oddity ... unless you're Tom Brady. "So you're telling me there's a chance?"

 

So, again, seeing the humbling of a Super Bowl winning QB by his own team's defensive inability is just another way of saying: defense matters. 

 

 

Where I imagine having the "great QB" is such a benefit, are in those games between the 21 to 24 point range. Snead said that 11 QBs had winning records there and 10 had losing records. So, having the great QB who can win, (on average), in all ranges from: 17 or below, 17 to 20, 21 to 24, is probably where you get the separation between the place-holders and the stars.  

 

 

But what is compelling to me is that this margin is not some crazy disparate number, it's the difference between 17 and 25.

 

If you take 25 minus 17 you get = 8. A touchdown is 6 points and a two-point conversion is 2 points. 

In other words, one score.

 

Just like Tom Brady needed a two-point conversion to tie the Broncos in the AFC championship this year, but was unsuccessful. 

[RedBeast]

Has anyone said this yet? "**** the Rams GM."

GMSMs dingleberries have more football knowledge.

[RemoveSnyder]

Has anyone said this yet? "**** the Rams GM."

GMSMs dingleberries have more football knowledge.

 

Says the guy trolling the twitter thread with build the defense, build the lines posts. 

 

I was actually impressed with Snead. First time I ever heard him speak. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he's very similar to McC. I got that vibe from him. Snead has undeniably garnered some legit talent: Aaron Donald, Gurley, Ogletree, J. Jenkins ... from recent memory. 

 

May I remind you that McC had Gurely in his Top 5 last year, right behind Cooper and Scherff. 

 

They're probably are a lot more similar than you could ever imagine. 

[RedBeast]

Just being pro-Skins Monk...and yeah. Build the lines damnit!

[Warhead36]

No, you seem to have missed the point. Which is odd since it's such a very simple one. 

 

 

Yeah, except none of what he said is groundbreaking. Its just a fancypants way of saying what everyone already knows: the more points you ask your QB to absolutely have to score to win, the less likely he is to win. On the other hand, the fewer points he has to score(because of his D holding the other team to a low point total), the more likely he is to win. You make it sound like Snead invented the wheel.

 

Football people(coaches, GMs, etc.)tend to try to make everything seem more complicated than it is to prop up their own egos. Football in its essence is actually very simple.

[Conn]

I think Monk made it very clear in his OP that he sees this as a basic football truth that some people just forget or swipe to the side due to the "QB is everything" media onslaught. He doesn't think Snead is inventing or even re-inventing the wheel...he's just pointing something obvious out that some people seem to have forgotten...including some ES members.

Correct me if I'm wrong Monk but that's what I got out of it.

[RemoveSnyder]

^ Clearly. 

 

What I find profound is that margin between 17 and 25. The difference between being "in it" and not. The disparity in what people believe is the large gulf between Super Bowl QBs and Schlub QBs, is actually a helluva lot closer than folks want to admit.

 

The contention quotient is altered extremely by the defense that is coupled with that QB. Maybe moreso than people give it credit for. The best of the best QBs need a special defense as well, not just the average. 

 

If Alex Smith can be a contender, so to can Kirk Cousins. I refuse to believe that Cousins could not have won the Super Bowl this year if he was playing in place of Peyton, because of that D. However, per the numbers, the Redskins D was not in a tier that could carry the QB, any QB, to the SB. 

 

So, how do we fix that? 

 

 

[Koolblue13]

Well, it's looking like this off season is going to be all about the defense, with the way we are jettisoning guys off the roster.

It'd be amazing to see a very young, very good group of guys play together for a long time on our defense. Same coaches too.

I was making my comment about drafting a RB half in jest earlier in the thread. I think our offense is good enough to win a SB, but needs a RB. We'll see what MJ does.