- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If the Packers go 19-0 this year
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:53 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:53 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
Well, i stand corrected, a sample of 10 in one sport is definitive proof.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:00 am to H-Town Tiger
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
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:10 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
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.
touche'
the rules today do favor offense, but there was still a #1 offense in 1976, it just won't have stats that compare to 2011.
BTW the SB winner that year Oakland was 13-1, #4 O, #12 D
ETA: Yes, I know that's anecdotal.
1 more ETA: The 70's Steelers, generally considered the greatest D of all time, had offenses that ranked 6, 5, 5 and 1 in their 4 SB titles.
LINK
This post was edited on 12/8/11 at 11:16 am
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:21 am to Chad504boy
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.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:22 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
quote:
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.
That was the Bob Sanders year when he came back and D played lights out again.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:23 am to Chad504boy
I don't think the Packers are going to win this year.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:24 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
the rules today do favor offense, but there was still a #1 offense in 1976, it just won't have stats that compare to 2011.
Yea, that makes sense. But, in all honesty, I don't feel like looking up every team of all time.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:29 am to Chad504boy
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.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:44 am to Archie Bengal Bunker
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.
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.
This post was edited on 12/8/11 at 11:45 am
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:56 am to BayouBengals03
quote:
I don't think the Packers are going to win this year.
My preseason prediction was Ravens over Saints, and I will stick with it.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:02 pm to H-Town Tiger
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.
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.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:08 pm to Ryno_Kill
quote:
I would say the NFL has made it a offensive driven league.
Offense is always in the driver's seat because that's how you get points.
The NFL has made it a quarterback driven league.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:18 pm to Archie Bengal Bunker
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.
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.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:32 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
I don't think the Packers are going to win this year.
....Because you're a Saintard. Every single thread about the Packers, you have to jump in and say "They aren't going to win" or "Saints will beat them."
Get over yourself and enjoy what the Packers are trying to accomplish this season.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 1:03 pm to H-Town Tiger
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News