The Senator Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 never heard of it Apparently, it's the Mizzou of the Northeast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Right now the league's five highest-scoring teams -- Green Bay, Detroit, New England, Buffalo and New Orleans -- are a combined 17-3. None of these teams are in the top 10 for defense. In the modern game, high-scoring is the surest path to victory." http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7056133/tmq-says-nfl-comebacks-losing-team-lost-lead The point of the stat about the top five scoring teams is not that they're winning. Of course when you score more, you win more. The point is that none of those teams are in the top 10 for defense - so they are also giving up a lot of points too. Which emphasizes the main point of the article: high-octane offenses are in. You don't care if you give up 30. Just go out there and score 40! I lost my longer response by clicking into the reply box and hitting the backspace (which activates the browser back button)... I think this is a dumb argument. The top 5 defenses based on scoring this year are a combined 16-4, and none are in the top 5 for offense. This is not much different than the 17-3 that was cited as evidence for scoring being key. Looking at last year to get more data, Atlanta was both 5th in scoring and preventing scores so I’ll toss them out an just look at top 4: Top Offenses: NE, SD, Phili, Indi. Combined record = 43-21 Top Defenses: Pitt, GB, Baltimore, Chicago. Combined record = 45-19 So, really, scoring more is the surest path to victory? I’d agree scoring more than your opponent is. I don’t see any substance to this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 With this type of football, it should really require a different metric to rate defenses other than yards allowed. I'd look at yards per play, 3rd down conversion rate and QB passer rating allowed. I like to look at what's on the scoreboard at the end of the game. Take the number under the Buffalo bills sign and subtract the number under the other teams sign...If there is a remainder that is a positive number...that's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 i have to agree that the nfl pretty much castrated defenses. i don't really like it. i've always been a fan of the defensive struggles. the ravens-jets game was pretty awesome. tmq really has had a direct line to my brain all season Agreed...I still love the Bills to win, any way they can, but I so much prefer to see some defense, on a more regular basis. The odd shoot-out style battle used to be a blast, but when I go to the bar on Sundays, and look up, every few minutes there is some huge play in a game, everybody whoopin' it up, it normally illicits me to think "do any teams play defense anymore?" rather than "what a great play!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 Right now the league's five highest-scoring teams -- Green Bay, Detroit, New England, Buffalo and New Orleans -- are a combined 17-3. None of these teams are in the top 10 for defense. In the modern game, high-scoring is the surest path to victory." http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7056133/tmq-says-nfl-comebacks-losing-team-lost-lead While that record is true, I think it is premature to take that data and proclaim that a high octane offense is a surer road to the holy grail than a good defense. High scoring offenses make for fun watching but I still think you need that grind-it-out and tough defense to consistently be a winner. Brady, as with PManning, are rare and can guide the team to victory despite other problems on the team. This does not mean that a strnong D is not important - it emphasizes the value of a great QB. And they are called great because they are rare. For a solid and long term winning team, you need a good defense. NO ifs, ands or buts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLFan Posted October 6, 2011 Share Posted October 6, 2011 I lost my longer response by clicking into the reply box and hitting the backspace (which activates the browser back button)... I think this is a dumb argument. The top 5 defenses based on scoring this year are a combined 16-4, and none are in the top 5 for offense. This is not much different than the 17-3 that was cited as evidence for scoring being key. Looking at last year to get more data, Atlanta was both 5th in scoring and preventing scores so I’ll toss them out an just look at top 4: Top Offenses: NE, SD, Phili, Indi. Combined record = 43-21 Top Defenses: Pitt, GB, Baltimore, Chicago. Combined record = 45-19 So, really, scoring more is the surest path to victory? I’d agree scoring more than your opponent is. I don’t see any substance to this argument. Also note that the Super Bowl teams were top defenses who also had very good offenses. You still need a top defense to win championships. Ask New England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted October 7, 2011 Share Posted October 7, 2011 I lost my longer response by clicking into the reply box and hitting the backspace (which activates the browser back button)... I think this is a dumb argument. The top 5 defenses based on scoring this year are a combined 16-4, and none are in the top 5 for offense. This is not much different than the 17-3 that was cited as evidence for scoring being key. Looking at last year to get more data, Atlanta waationals both 5th in scoring and preventing scores so I’ll toss them out an just look at top 4: Top Offenses: NE, SD, Phili, Indi. Combined record = 43-21 Top Defenses: Pitt, GB, Baltimore, Chicago. Combined record = 45-19 So, really, scoring more is the surest path to victory? I’d agree scoring more than your opponent is. I don’t see any substance to this argument. But media sources say that offense is more important. You're just about the lone voice in the wilderness saying that the team that scores the fewest points is sure to lose the game. Everybody else is accurately pointing out that the team that scores the most points is sure to win the game. How can both those things possibly be true? C'mon man - - get on the media analysis bandwagon! Enough of this thinkin' for yourself stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts