05-15-2012, 10:48 AM #11
BTW, the Giants had the 27th ranked defense.
05-15-2012, 11:32 AM #12
05-15-2012, 05:31 PM #13
The Giants had the 27th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.
The 2009 Saints had the 25th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.
Saying you don't need a good defense to win a Superbowl is not an opinion it is a proven fact.
Of course if your offense sucks, the defense is worse and the coaching staff seems to be less effective than both of those units then it is really pointless to think you can get by what you have on either side of the ball.
05-15-2012, 05:43 PM #15
The Giants were a mediocre team until the end of the season, part of the reason when they went on the run they did was because their defense picked up significantly.
Just like Kevon said earlier in the thread, you just need to score more points than you allow. There's many ways to skin that cat.
05-15-2012, 07:19 PM #16
- Join Date
- Dec 1969
- West Fargo, ND
- Blog Entries
In 2010, the Packers had the #1 ranked defense in the ppg during theist season.
In 2009, the Saints had the #3 ranked defense...
In 2008, the Steelers were #4...
In 2007, the Giants were #1 again...
And so on... And in EVERY one of these cases the defense held post season opponents to and average of 20 ppg or below.
I think the it is fair to say that you don't need a defense to be playing well to MAKE it to the postseason. But you need a defense that is playing well to win the Super Bowl.Zeus wrote:
When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?
05-16-2012, 01:12 PM #17
Try to keep up, might get a bit complex.
To simply say they were the 27th ranked defense during the regular season and equating that to playing awful defense in the playoffs is myopic. Like Nodak pointed out, they had the #1 ranked defense in the postseason. Something tells me that's part of the reason why the Patriots only scored 17 points (their lowest point total of the season [tied with week 8 loss to Steelers... who also have a pretty good defense]).
Also, if you broke out the last 5 games of the season, you'll notice that the defense really started putting it together and were playing much better than the 27th ranking would indicate.
Last edited by C Mac D; 05-16-2012 at 01:17 PM.Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.
05-16-2012, 01:39 PM #18
There are only 12 teams in the postseason (so the teams ranked #3 and #4 that were pointed out are not that special). Of the 12, at least 4 only play ONE GAME and at least 4 play no more than TWO GAMES. Those are hardly fair sample sizes and can be easily twisted by out-of-normal numbers.
While it is obvious to any observer the Giants defense in 2012 and 2007 and the Saints defense in 2009 were much better than the regular season numbers indicated (in particular those Giants teams) it should also be obvious to ANY observer that defenses simply are not as integral to winning a Super Bowl as they once were.
Offense is the name of the game right now. Anyone can see that the Packers, Saints and Steelers won based on very prolific offenses (now the Steelers also happen to have a dynamic defense). The Giants were the No. 5 scoring offense in 2011 (which is kind of low for a winner), but the Packers were No. 3 in 2010 (because the Saints only played ONE game which also skewed the Seahawks to No. 2), the Saints were No. 2 in 2009 (because the Packers played ONE game where the Cardinals played NO DEFENSE), Steelers No. 2 in 2008, the Colts No. 3 in 2006.
So, the offenses were scoring as well, but again, those numbers are very skewed by the small sample sizes the playoffs allow.
It really seems to be that your defense needs to be able to make big plays here and there (Colts in 2006, Packers in 2010, Saints in 2009 for example) but your offense carries you ... unless you are the Giants of course ... then all talking of what leads you to wins goes out to windows because they are completely all over the place
05-16-2012, 01:46 PM #19
The Packers had one of the best defenses in the league in 2010... 5th in the league actually (regular season). In 2011 when their defense disappeared, they were 1-and-done in the playoffs.
And saying the Steelers had a 'very prolific' offense in 2008 is laughable. It was ranked 22nd in the league (20th in scoring)... they did, however, have the #1 defense.
If you disagree, you disagree... no big deal, I just feel bad because you're missing a big part of the game and only seem to be paying attention to the offenses. But - that's what casual fans do.
Last edited by C Mac D; 05-16-2012 at 02:17 PM.Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.
05-16-2012, 05:42 PM #20
I by no means think that defense does not matter. It definitely does. But the game has definitely shifted in the last few years to offensive teams having more and more success. That is quite obvious to the most intense of fans as well as the "casual" ones.
In 2007, the 14th scoring offense won the title while carrying the 16th scoring defense. In 2008, the 20th scoring offense won while carrying the BEST scoring defense. In 2009, the TOP scoring offense won while carrying the 20th scoring defense. In 2010, the 10th scoring offense won with the No. 2 scoring defense. In 2011, the 9th scoring offense made it carrying the 25th scoring defense.
It is obvious in the Super Bowl runner ups also. In 2007, the top scoring offense made the bowl carrying the 4th scoring defense. In 2008, the 3rd scoring offense made it carrying the 28th scoring defense. In 2009, the 9th scoring offense made it carrying the 8th scoring defense. In 2010, the 12th scoring offense made it while carrying the BEST scoring defense. In 2011, the 3rd scoring offense made it carrying the 20th scoring defense.
So the last 10 Super Bowl participants include and average of the 8th scoring offense and the 13th scoring defense.
So while the defense still matters (an average in the top half of the league) ... being able to score matters more (an average in the top 4th of the league).
To win it all though, the averages are 10th and 13th ... still in favor of the offenses.