Typical Belichick. He says a lot but doesn't really say anything. Wins are more important than stats? Points are the most important stat? Who woulda thunk it!

I like stats because they are fun and sometimes revealing. I'm not going to let Bill Belichick spoil my party.

I wonder if someday we can have a discussion about stats without somebody feeling the need to point out that wins and losses are more important than stats.

---

It isn't about stats not being important.. it is many stats can be canceled out by other stats..

IMO.. a low time of possession number would negatively influence your defensive numbers because they would have to face more plays per game, and later in the game due to fatigue factor would give up more yards/points.

In other words.. looking just at defensive numbers without looking at correlating stats and measuring the impact of them.. can one really say that the single stat is the root cause for the effect?

A team that has a grinding running game, will dominate the time of possession and elevate the numbers of defense, making it appear that they are better than they are.

I love stats.. but stats have correlations to other stats.. and we can argue endlessly which is the most important.

Apparently I should have pared down the quote..

---

That's all very true, pack. Your statements have been a lot more insightful than the Belichick quote.

I'd be interested to look into the time of possession thing more. I've always thought that a TOP advantage was usually more of an effect of winning (or having a lead) than a cause of it--sort of like rushing yards.

---

Agreed Greg about the running. I think it's the same with TOS but this year has been weird. One of our losses, we had the ball 36 minutes to their 24 and still lost.

There is no catch all stat. There is no magic formula to winning a SB. You can increase your odds by having the #1 D as it happened 4 times in the past decade.

Belichick was taking a page out of Mike Ditka's book by slamming people who use stats. Well, I happen to like stats. We all do. If you play fantasy football, you love stats. When you argue who is better than who, you use stats. Stats are another form of dick measuring contests between fans. My team is better than your team. Oh yeah? Prove it. OK, fine, here are these stats...

Well, just for fun, I'll give you even more stats. These are the past 10 Super Bowl winners with their Offense rankings, ther Defense rankings, the point differential ratings, and the takeaway/giveaway differential rankings. The '07 Giants are the one team where a stat nut would just take a look at them and say WTF?

Have fun with this.


Funny thing looking at it was the '07 Giants even were -9 when it comes to Takeaways/Giveaways. They had an average O, a mediocre D, lousy when it comes to turnover ratio, yet they manage to win it all.

It happens. The game is weird. But historically, when the Packers lead the league in D, we get a Championship. That's what I can make out of all this jazz.

(by the way, getting that graph to line up isn't easy).

---

The '07 Giants were a slightly above average team that just got blazing hot at exactly the right time. That's really all there is to it.

The big exceptions to the "defense wins championships" mantra during the 2000's are the '06 Colts and the '09 Saints. But the Colts were the exception that proved the rule. As I recall, their offense kind of sputtered in the playoffs that year, while their defense got hot, with Bob Sanders coming back from an injury, and really it was their defense that they rode to the championship.

That leaves last year's Saints as the only team of the past decade that really and truly relied on their offense more than their defense to win in the playoffs.

---

Just to add to this, if I remember right, The Saints last year did have the most takeaways last year and led the NFL in defensive scores. Their ranking may not have been high but the TOS was the best in the league.

I think the one constant in football has always been win the turnover battle and you wil winn most games.

---

Bart Starr in the 1960's didn't have great passing stats. The defense was what kept them in the games. Starr was great and getting what he could, and not making the big mistakes.
Today, if you don't have a good defense, you are in trouble. Look at the 1989 Packers. "Majic" scored like crazy, but our D gave up almost as many points. Every game was a shootout. It was an exciting season, but had we had a decent defense, we would have won the SB. (IN my opinion)

---

That is the point.. there is no one stat that can completely and directly correlate to success by itself.

Even my TOP argument can be altered with big explosive plays.. but I would argue, more so than not, if you control the ball.. you dictate the 3rd down conversions, score on a greater percentage of drives and thus keep the opposing offense off the field.. thus keeping their conversion ration lower and less points upon the board.

So if you are score on a greater number of drive, keep the ball out of the offenses hands, you defense rank with be greater and it will lead to more wins.

But I agree.. it is not a magic formula and there will be anomalies to be found where teams do something irregular, lets say lead the league in forcing turnovers and scoring with them and alter the importance of the others.

There is a reason I preach balance, it might not guarantee a victory, but it most definitely will improve your odds.

---

Let us not forget; Starr not only had a great defense during his playing days but a great running game as well.
He called his own game and was a master at controlling the clock.

Well, when I have time later, I'll show stats of passing vs rushing. I've had a million of them in other threads. I really think D is a lot more important than O balance and can prove it with stats.

I'll use both Packers championship teams and SB teams from the past 10 years. The thing both have in common is the #1 stat of all is an elite D. If there's one cliche that works, it's D wins championships. That is above all the other stats.

---