re: If the Packers go 19-0 this year

quote:

---

Well, i stand corrected, a sample of 10 in one sport is definitive proof.

---

Well, one of the points of the OP was in "today's game and rules." So, talking about modern era football, yes, 10 is a good sample. It is certainly more than anecdotal. I mean why would I look at teams from the 70s and 80s when by your own admission the rules have changed to favor the offense.

quote:

---

They have changed the rules over the years to favor offense and passing in particular. Also more passing oriented offenses were still relatively new in the early 80's. The game is now more sophisticated and offenses in general are much better.

---

LINK

quote:

---

That is the worst example ever. Did you not watch that post season and super bowl?

---

Well, aren't you shooting holes in your own argument? If you only look at postseason stats, yes, Indy played well on both sides of the ball. But, they had to get into the playoffs to win the playoffs. And, over the course of the year, the Colts had one of the worst defenses to win a championship.

The issue with looking at postseason only stats is that it is a much smaller sample. You are only looking at 12 teams to start with, and at least 4 of those teams only play 1 game and at the most any team only plays 4 games. Much smaller sample; so, one game can skew the stats. Example, the 2009 saints were 8th and 9th out of 12 in O and D, but won the Super Bowl. But for heck of it:


Postseason only:

(total offense)/(total defense)

_(4) / (3) 2010 Green Bay
_(8) / (9) 2009 Saints
_(7) / (4) 2008 Steelers
_(8) / (4) 2007 Giants
_(2) / (1) 2006 Colts
_(3) / (8) 2005 Steelers
(10) / (5) 2004 Patriots
_(6) / (4) 2003 Patriots
_(8) / (1) 2002 Buccaneers
_(7) / (6) 2001 Patriots
(10) / (3) 2000 Ravens


^ this data tells me nothing because it is not on an even playing field. The teams listed played more games than almost all the teams they are ranked against.

I don't think the Packers are going to win this year.

quote:

---

That was the Bob Sanders year when he came back and D played lights out again.

---

Again, if you aren't going to use the Colts as an offensive team to win it all. Then, who are you using to make your argument? Just the 2011 Packers? I mean, if you are arguing that the 2011 Pack is the first team to ever do it, then I don't think 1 team puts us a few steps past the "Defense wins championships." Seems more like an anomaly than a change in the rule.

Just for kicks the 70's:

Yr Team O D
70 Balt (6) (7)
71 Dallas (1) (7)
72 Miami (1) (1)
73 Miami (5) (1)
74 Pitt (6) (2)
75 Pitt (5) (2)
76 Oak (4) (12)
77 Dall (2) (8)
78 Pitt (5) (1)
79 Pitt (1) (7)

5 times the SB winner ranked higher in O, the lowest ranked O to win was #6. #1 O won 3, #1 D won 3.

You've got a a point. But, almost all of those teams had pretty good D's too. There were what, 26-28 teams in the league then? Looks like expanded in '76; so, 26 for 70-75, then 28? Anyways, point is, 7th ranked D is about top 25%. The only one with an average D was '76 Oakland.

Also, one of the points that is often made is that the league has become an offensive league which is true. But, it looks like offense was more effective for winning championships back then than it is today. Half of the 70's teams were stronger on O. Where as, last 11 years, more of the teams have been stronger on D. Interesting to say the least.

ABB

I was thinking the same thing about the 2000's.

I think the broader point is teams that win the SB are usually good on both sides of the ball, at least for the season they won. Teams that are truly shitty on O winning, like the 2000 Ravens are just as rare as teams with shitty D winning like the 2006 Colts.

quote:

---

I was thinking the same thing about the 2000's.

I think the broader point is teams that win the SB are usually good on both sides of the ball, at least for the season they won. Teams that are truly shitty on O winning, like the 2000 Ravens are just as rare as teams with shitty D winning like the 2006 Colts.

---

Yea, I can see what you are saying, but in the 70's only 1 team was middle of the pack on one side of the ball. '76 Oakland had an average defense that year. However, in the 2000's there were 6 teams, SIX Super Bowl winning teams, that were average or below average on the offensive side of the ball. It's not like they were top 25% on the offensive side too. They were middle of the pack or worse.

(O)/(D)
(22) / (1) 2008 Steelers
(16) / (7) 2007 Giants
(15) / (4) 2005 Steelers
(17) / (7) 2003 Patriots
(24) / (1) 2002 Buccaneers
(16) / (2) 2000 Ravens


And only two that were below average on the defensive side:

(1) / (25) 2009 Saints
(3) / (21) 2006 Colts


The 2001 Pats were below average on both sides. How did that team win?

(19) / (24) 2001 Patriots

Only two teams in the last 11 years mirror the 70's teams (IE: really good on both sides of the ball):

(9) / (5) 2010 Green Bay
(7) / (9) 2004 Patriots


Also, I realize we are leaving out a lot of variables by just looking at total O and D for the season. Maybe, that is why it looks that way. Like I said, the 2009 Saints' D was really soft, but they were #2 in takeaways that year.