Defense wins championships?

IT'S OVERRATED

After really taking a look at the playoff games thus far, and really what teams were successful this season, I'm really starting to think "Defense wins championships" is an old mantra. It can certainly help, but I'm starting to think that it's all about offensive consistency and splash plays on defense. Let's look at the rankings of offense and defense this season for every playoff team (teams still alive highlighted)...

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Total offense rankings for playoff teams
New England - 1st
Denver- 4th
Washington- 5th
Houston- 7th
Atlanta- 8th
Indy- 10th
SF- 11th
GB- 13th
Baltimore- 16th
Seattle- 17th
Minnesota- 20th
Cincinnati 22nd

Total defense rankings for playoff teams
Denver- 2nd
SF- 3rd
Seattle- 4th
Cincinnati- 6th
Houston- 7th
GB- 11th
Minnesota- 16th
Baltimore- 17th
Atlanta- 24th
New England- 25th
Indy- 26th
Washington- 28th


The LOWEST point total scored this past weekend to win a game was 30. Winning teams put up 45, 41, 38, and 30. Is anyone here confident the Steelers could put up 30+ points on GB, SEA, HOU, or DEN in a playoff game? Because I'm not.

I suggest that we build around the offense, and we draft gamblers on defense. Gamblers meaning guys that are going to make a big play or nothing, because consistency doesn't do anything for us. We've had back to back CRAP seasons with the #1 ranked defense in the NFL, which we all know didn't look like the best defense in NFL. Hack's guy David Amerson is a great example of the guys I want. He's going to get burnt here or there, but he can make a big, game changing play too. I say so what, if he gets burnt, we're going to give up points anyway.

The good news is we have a franchise QB that can go out and win big games, but he's getting older. We need to get him another weapon at WR with Wallace leaving, and I'd like a RB that can change the game in 1 play the way Willie Parker could (not as a starter).[/FONT]

 

I am not confident that we can put up those kind of points, but it isn't like we are giving points up like some of these teams do either. Of the teams left, the only one I think I worry about putting up a CHUNK of points against us would be New England.

Baltimore scored 33 points between the 2 games combined against us, 7 off of a punt return for a TD. (ironically we scored that same 33 points against them, but one of those had Batch as the starting QB and the other had Lefty.)

That being said, I think we have lots of areas for improvement with this offense. We are extremely young on that side of the ball whereas we are older on the defensive side. The projected Oline for this coming year (assuming Colon is cut) would have 4 starters from the last 2 drafts. Strangely enough Gilbert at 24 would be the OLDEST Oline starter we would have. A bunch of this team is 24, 25 or 26 years of age on that side of the ball.

This group will improve.

 

I think goodell has put an emphasis on O so the D is less and less important now you have to have your D make a play here or there and you win but rarely do defenses dominate anymore like they used too

 

I think you're basically agreeing with me without saying it outright. You say average 30 points like it's not a lot. If we averaged 30 PPG this season we'd be sitting at 3rd behind New England and Denver... and we'd be the team to beat in the NFL. Currently we're averaging 21, good for 22nd in the league. The year before we averaged 20.

I'd be happy in the neighborhood of 25-28 PPG.

You say it's still important, sure it is... but my argument is that in today's NFL you just aren't going to see a defense that can dominate and consistently hold down a top 10 offense... So you want splash plays versus holding them down in yardage. Our defense is better than any team out there at not giving up a big play, and holding down yards, but they're not able to force turnovers, which results in back to back mediocre seasons.

 

What a lot of people seem to forget is that while the D played good at the end, they never really faced any offense that I would call "good" They held the browns in check, the ravens are streaky, the bengals have shown a lot of improvement but even then 3rd string QBs were looking pretty good. The offense hurt us big against the cowgirls but they came back and took the lead and then it was mute point as we watched the defense get the cowboys into mutilple 3rd and longs and every thime they convert, I worry when we have a team in anything less than 3rd and 20 especially with a lead. Yes, you need offense to win but you also have to have a defense that can hold a lead and what have is neither, if the defense keeps teams from scoring 20, the offense can't score but 10 points, if the offense puts up 30 the defense fails and allows 34, it has been like that for awhile. This team can win but they need a half decent oline, with that comes better running which makes the offense unprdictable and therefore harder to stop but if you can't run then everyone sits back and the dline pins their ears back and all they need to do is rush the passer. This team needs some help on offense but the defense really needs a lot of help and it starts with the dline, if they can penetrate then the lbers can work their magic.

 

Teams may have put up 44 points, but the highest average in the NFL was 35.

 

Whoa!!
Wait a minute...
All I ever see on this board is how YPG as a means of defensive ranking is bogus and that PPG is a better measure. But now you're citing YPG when ranking defenses?
Lets look at it from a PPG stand point, just to be consistent:

Seattle 1st
SF 2nd
Denver 4th
Atlanta 5th
Cincinnati 8th
NE 9th
Houston 9th
Green Bay 11th
Baltimore 12th
Minnesota 14th
Indy 21st
Washington 22nd

Bolded teams are still alive. It tells a little different story, doesn't it?

 

I actually saw a study on this a few years ago and they came to the conclusion that you don't necessarily have to have a great d to win it all. But from my recent memory it's been the defensive teams that have got it done. Arizona had the number one offense and we beat them. Green Bay had the 32nd ranked D and they won it all. The Giants kept Brady in check twice and won it all. The Eagles were a great offense when they lost to the Pats but the Pats had a great D. The greatest show on turf also lost to the Pats d as well. I'm still of the mind that Defense is usually what's gonna determine it. Most playoff games are tight contests and as we saw in Denver this week defense can certainly give you a much better shot. I think it's actually natural for a Steelers fan to believe in the old saying really.

 

Green Bay was 5th over all and 2nd in scoring when they won the SB.

 

Their D was? I know their offense was good but I thought their D was the weak link there.

 

Yeah, they only won by 6 and our O was sh*tty in that game, overall.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/t...rGame/position/defense/year/2010/seasontype/2

 

Oooopsie

 

Well we can definitely say the lack of defense loses championships!

 

Thank goodness!!!! The way Goodell changed this game... It will be a sad day when a hot pass-attack offense and horrid defense wins a SB.

 

Stop blaming Goodell. The game was slanted towards offensive football long before he became commish.

 

I saw that one, it was a great hit. I thought that one should have been flagged though. It looked helmet to helmet. That one flag on Ray Lewis is a tough situation because the TE ducked right into Ray's Helmet. The new rules are really screwing with the game. Guys don't know what to do anymore.

 

I dont think that if a player is knocked unconscious his fumble should count, since he doesnt have any controll over the ball, that rule should be changed........