obi1
16 years ago

The best case scenario is to have a top defense... Of course the old addage, "If you don't get scored on, you can't lose..." applies here.

However, how many times have you heard "It's better to be lucky than good"... I noticed on the list, ALL of the superbowl winning teams seem to have a very good defense except for last couple of years, but several teams with not as good offenses have won the superbowl...

So I'd say defense first.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



You misread the list then. The majority of the teams in Zombie's list had offenses and defenses in the top 10, and of those the majority had a higher offensive ranking than defensive. Great D, greater O.

"obi1" wrote:



NO, I didn't.

Look at the Ravens, Bucs and the Pats. Their offensive stats weren't too impressive yet they all won the superbowl. Their defenses were top notch.

Other than the last 2 years, Just about EVERY superbowl Champion had stellar defenses... Mind you, they all had great offenses as well, but, The 3 teams I mentioned above did win w/o a stellar offense.
However, There is not a case of the great offensive team who won the superbowl with a mediocre defense... Other than the Giants and the Colts... LAST 2 years.

We also can't really count the Giants because they got VERY hot at the end for the superbowl and rode the momentum throughout teh playoffs.

One more thing, of all the points that the team was credited for in this list, how many of the points scored came by the way of returns/defense?

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



It's simple math. Count how many teams that won the Super Bowl had an offensive ranking higher than their defensive ranking. It's 11-6 in favor of a higher ranked offense.

"obi1" wrote:



I STILL don't understand how you say that I misread the list. IF I did, you are not getting my point.

I simply pointed out that before the last year or two, there were several teams who's mediocre offenses were made up by stellar defenses.
I understand YOUR point. Don't think I didn't get it because I noticed the same stat that YOU pointed out right away.

However, a team that is 1st on offense and 5th on defense would not be considered to have a MEDIOCRE defense where a tea that has a 14th rated offense with a 1st rate defense could be considered mediocre offense.

That was what I based my theory on...
blank
WhiskeySam
16 years ago
That's all well and good except the majority of the time their offenses are better than their defenses. That leads to the conclusion that in general balanced teams win titles, and of those balanced teams, the majority were better offensively than defensively relative to the rest of the league. I believe that was option C and pretty close to Packnic's original post.
Nemo me impune lacessit
zombieslayer
16 years ago



If Zombie used the official ranks it includes all scores because the NFL game book does not differentiate between an "offensive" and "defensive" score as any team in posession of the ball is defined as being the offense. This might be why many rankings are based on yards allowed/gained instead of points.

Edit: by that same token points allowed includes any int, fumbles, or returns for TDs or safeties taken AGAINST your team so it should even out.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



I use points for very simple reasons. I think yards is all bull. A lot of yardage is deceptive - garbage yardage after they're down by 20 points and their opponent goes to prevent D.

The other thing, I've seen a lot of games where the QB throws for 300+ yards, the RB runs for 100+ yards, and they still lose because they're kicking field goals or turning the ball over but the other team is in the end zone.

Points are real. They're what win games. Yards do not win games. They just help your fantasy team.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
zombieslayer
16 years ago



It's simple math. Count how many teams that won the Super Bowl had an offensive ranking higher than their defensive ranking. It's 11-6 in favor of a higher ranked offense.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



Bingo!
+1
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
beast
16 years ago
Shut down the other team.

I don't like the Bears but I like how they play with

Shut down the other teams offense with great defense

Get very good yardage with STs

And a solid QB that won't turn over the ball much but still make some plays and run the ball down the other teams throat.
UserPostedImage
beast
16 years ago



It's simple math. Count how many teams that won the Super Bowl had an offensive ranking higher than their defensive ranking. It's 11-6 in favor of a higher ranked offense.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



:eeeek: Wait there has only been 17 Super Bowls?

And here I thought there were 42 Super Bowls already.
UserPostedImage
WhiskeySam
16 years ago



It's simple math. Count how many teams that won the Super Bowl had an offensive ranking higher than their defensive ranking. It's 11-6 in favor of a higher ranked offense.

"beast" wrote:



:eeeek: Wait there has only been 17 Super Bowls?

And here I thought there were 42 Super Bowls already.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



We're referring to Zombie's list of Super Bowl winners going back to 1987.
Nemo me impune lacessit
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
16 years ago



If Zombie used the official ranks it includes all scores because the NFL game book does not differentiate between an "offensive" and "defensive" score as any team in posession of the ball is defined as being the offense. This might be why many rankings are based on yards allowed/gained instead of points.

Edit: by that same token points allowed includes any int, fumbles, or returns for TDs or safeties taken AGAINST your team so it should even out.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



I use points for very simple reasons. I think yards is all bull. A lot of yardage is deceptive - garbage yardage after they're down by 20 points and their opponent goes to prevent D.

The other thing, I've seen a lot of games where the QB throws for 300+ yards, the RB runs for 100+ yards, and they still lose because they're kicking field goals or turning the ball over but the other team is in the end zone.

Points are real. They're what win games. Yards do not win games. They just help your fantasy team.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



So many posts to reply to and so little time. Here goes...

All stats can be misleading. There have been plenty of teams that got their points come from their great defense. 85 Bears was just one example. If the offense only has to go 30-50 yards for a TD if really makes a big difference. We have all seen games that a team wins and all the points came from either defensive TDs or special teams returns.

There is no reason to assume just because your defense gets a lot of turnovers that your offense is going to give up a lot of turnovers as well. Those things do not "even out" over the course of a season. Take a look at the turnover +/-margins. The teams with the best records tend to win the turnover battle. Thus skewing the points scored for their team's offense.

It is funny to watch so many people chose option "C". That was not a choice. Who would not want the #1 ranked offense and Defense? Ok besides the Lions? It is like asking someone do you want incredible good looks or a boatload of cash and they say "Both." We already knew that. Now choose one of the options that is available. Don't wimp out. Make a real decision people.

It is not shocker that the teams that win the SB have balanced games. It would not matter if you had the #1 ranked offense OR defense if your team was also last on the other side of the ball &/or was extremely weak on special teams.
Those of us that have favored having a stud defense are saying that IF your offense is only an average offense and they (the defense limits the opponent to a lot of 3 and outs, your offense will have more opportunities to score. Your team will be in better field position. Your defense, come crunch time, will be more rested than the other teams defense who spent longer periods of time on the field. Case in point is to look at how many winning teams have better running games in the 4th Qtr. If your offense has been out there for most of the game so has the other guy's defense and those big boys are getting a bit tired. Winning teams can run the ball successfully even though the other team knows you are going to run the ball but they just can't stop you. (Packers teams from the 60's).
Other other side, if you have a high powered offense you may well score in 3-6 plays and then it is your defense that is right back out there again trying to stop the other teams offense. Some times it works other times it does not.

One thing that I do not think was mentioned in the post was that the rules in the NFL today are slanted to the offense. Every time the defenses get better the rules committee changes things a bit in order to juice the scoring back up. In reality and over the long haul, the high powered offense will find a way to beat the high powered defenses if for no other reason than the owners make it harder for the defense to do their job. I just find it more thrilling to watch a defense flex their muscles and smash the RB who is trying to get back to the line of scrimmage and get the QB running for his life.
UserPostedImage
WhiskeySam
16 years ago



If Zombie used the official ranks it includes all scores because the NFL game book does not differentiate between an "offensive" and "defensive" score as any team in posession of the ball is defined as being the offense. This might be why many rankings are based on yards allowed/gained instead of points.

Edit: by that same token points allowed includes any int, fumbles, or returns for TDs or safeties taken AGAINST your team so it should even out.

"wpr" wrote:



I use points for very simple reasons. I think yards is all bull. A lot of yardage is deceptive - garbage yardage after they're down by 20 points and their opponent goes to prevent D.

The other thing, I've seen a lot of games where the QB throws for 300+ yards, the RB runs for 100+ yards, and they still lose because they're kicking field goals or turning the ball over but the other team is in the end zone.

Points are real. They're what win games. Yards do not win games. They just help your fantasy team.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



So many posts to reply to and so little time. Here goes...

All stats can be misleading. There have been plenty of teams that got their points come from their great defense. 85 Bears was just one example. If the offense only has to go 30-50 yards for a TD if really makes a big difference. We have all seen games that a team wins and all the points came from either defensive TDs or special teams returns.

There is no reason to assume just because your defense gets a lot of turnovers that your offense is going to give up a lot of turnovers as well. Those things do not "even out" over the course of a season. Take a look at the turnover +/-margins. The teams with the best records tend to win the turnover battle. Thus skewing the points scored for their team's offense.

It is funny to watch so many people chose option "C". That was not a choice. Who would not want the #1 ranked offense and Defense? Ok besides the Lions? It is like asking someone do you want incredible good looks or a boatload of cash and they say "Both." We already knew that. Now choose one of the options that is available. Don't wimp out. Make a real decision people.

It is not shocker that the teams that win the SB have balanced games. It would not matter if you had the #1 ranked offense OR defense if your team was also last on the other side of the ball &/or was extremely weak on special teams.
Those of us that have favored having a stud defense are saying that IF your offense is only an average offense and they (the defense limits the opponent to a lot of 3 and outs, your offense will have more opportunities to score. Your team will be in better field position. Your defense, come crunch time, will be more rested than the other teams defense who spent longer periods of time on the field. Case in point is to look at how many winning teams have better running games in the 4th Qtr. If your offense has been out there for most of the game so has the other guy's defense and those big boys are getting a bit tired. Winning teams can run the ball successfully even though the other team knows you are going to run the ball but they just can't stop you. (Packers teams from the 60's).
Other other side, if you have a high powered offense you may well score in 3-6 plays and then it is your defense that is right back out there again trying to stop the other teams offense. Some times it works other times it does not.

One thing that I do not think was mentioned in the post was that the rules in the NFL today are slanted to the offense. Every time the defenses get better the rules committee changes things a bit in order to juice the scoring back up. In reality and over the long haul, the high powered offense will find a way to beat the high powered defenses if for no other reason than the owners make it harder for the defense to do their job. I just find it more thrilling to watch a defense flex their muscles and smash the RB who is trying to get back to the line of scrimmage and get the QB running for his life.

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



It's not turnover margin that evens out, it's turnovers and returns for scores. Slightly different stat.
Nemo me impune lacessit
porky88
16 years ago



It's simple math. Count how many teams that won the Super Bowl had an offensive ranking higher than their defensive ranking. It's 11-6 in favor of a higher ranked offense.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



Bingo!
+1

"WhiskeySam" wrote:



I would argue that teams with good defenses benefits and helps the offense more than vice versa. Considering they benefit from turnovers and field position. Good offenses benefit defenses how? By giving them a big point lead, but in the end if they already have a good defense that doesn't allow many points, then the lead is kind of a wash in the end.

Of course this backs up the theory that having both is probably the best. :thumbright:

My point is you can throw stats out all you want, but let's be honest.

Giants playoff run was fantastic because of their defense and Eli Manning's play.

Colts playoff run resulted in two wins that you have to chalk up to their defensive play. That being Chiefs and Ravens.

Steelers playoff run was the result of a fantastic defense and quite frankly, good coaching.

Patriots won with Brady and a good defense.

Buccaneers won with a good defense.

Ravens won with a good defense.

Rams won with their high powered offense, but their defense was also a takeaway machine.

Denver was more so John Elway and their running game.

96 Packers I fine tough to figure out actually. You can argue Brett Favre, but the defense and special teams were outstanding.

Cowboys won with a running game and great defense. Troy Aikman only threw more than 20 touchdown passes one time in his entire career.

49ers of Walsh and Redskins of Gibbs were basically offense in my opinion.

Giants of Parcells did it with defense.

85 Bears did it with defense.

You can fine examples for both, but the saying offenses wins game and defenses win championships kind of comes into play.

The offense will get you to the post season, but the defense wll win for you in the post season.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (12h) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

18h / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.