Defense (by itself) no more wins a Super Bowl than skill at flying a jet does.
by FriarBob on Mar 22, 2011 4:08 PM EDT
Email
PrintThis is in response to the "Defense, Defense, Defense..... wins championships!!!" fan post a while back... which, I'm sorry, is simply not true. Oh it's not completely false either. Defense is important. But it's also not the end-all and be-all of winning a super bowl. Let's review recent history for some examples:
Last year, when the Steelers had the #1 defense in the league in points and the #2 in yards, even though the Packers were #2 in points and #4 in yards, and even though the Packers were slightly better in points per game, a decent bit better in overall yards per game, and significantly better in pass yards per game (this against the greatest weakness of the Steeler defense)... none of that mattered, the fact that the Steelers were better on defense meant that they were guaranteed to win the Super Bowl, right?
Oops.
What about when the Colts had a significantly better defense than the Saints in both average yards AND average points... guaranteed second ring for Peyton, right?
Oops.
What about when the Cardinals had the 28th best points defense and the 19th best in yards, they were absolutely guaranteed to lose in the first round of the playoffs and if, by some insane miracle, they actually made the super bowl they were guaranteed to lose by at least 30 points, right?
Oops.
What about when the Patriots had a better offense AND a better defense than the Giants... they were guaranteed to win the Super Bowl, right?
Oops.
What about when the Colts had the worst run defense in the league (by over 30 yards per game, no less!), had the 21st overall defense in yards, and 23rd overall in points? This in the year the Ravens led the league in defense in both points (by a large margin) and yards (also by a significant margin), the Patriots were #2 in points and #6 in yards, and the Bears were at #3 in points and #5 in yards. Obviously the Colts had NO chance whatsoever of getting past the Ravens, and if by some miracle they squeaked past the Ravens, the Patriots would surely clean up whatever was left... and even if, by some pure stroke of insane luck, they managed to make the Super Bowl, they'd face one of the better running duos in the league and have no chance whatsoever against the Bears. Blowout loss is absolutely guaranteed... right?
Oops.
No, defense is not by ANY means the end-all and be-all of winning a championship.
You first need a competent management team (preferably a GM, but a competent owner or even a powerful head coach might suffice -- in theory at least) with a well-thought-out plan for success that they are allowed to execute.
Second, you need a trifecta of competent leadership for the team: a competent head coach, a competent offensive coordinator, and a competent defensive coordinator.
Third, you must have both a very good offensive and defensive line. Doesn't have to be elite (though that would be nice), but it must be very good.
Fourth, you must have a very good or elite QB. They are necessary, but if you don't have any of the above they aren't going to be elite because you won't get the maximum possible use out of them. Jordan Palmer has more chance of being elite behind a great OL (and with a great coach and OC) than Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, or Drew Brees would have behind our OL from the last two years or with Bratsuckski calling the plays for him. Please note that I am NOT saying he WOULD be elite... just that his odds would be better.
Only then does the skill of the rest of the players become critical. And at that point, you need balance... you need a team that is at least decent in all three phases of the game (offense, defense, and special teams), and you need to be very good at at least one, preferably two of them.
That's the key to winning a championship.
So please don't insult our intelligence by insisting that the way for a Bengals team to win a championship is to draft a bunch of superstars on defense and nothing else matters. The only way the Bengals will win a Super Bowl is for Mike Brown to either A) leave and be replaced by a competent owner, B) become competent himself (hey, it's theoretically possible), C) hire a competent GM, or D) hire a competent coach/GM or give sufficient power to Marvin to give him a shot to prove he is such a creature after all. (Not that I expect he is, but again it's theoretically possible he is and has just been hamstrung by Mikey.)
After that, we need a competent coaching staff. We might actually already have that, but without drafting to a competent and well-thought-out plan for multiple years it still is extremely unlikely to be good enough.
Then we need to improve our OL, and probably the DL as well. I didn't say we shouldn't draft DL, btw... I just don't see it as the end-all and be-all of this one draft.
After all that, we need at least a good QB and a good offense and defense. Ideally we should have an elite QB while we're at it... but as the Steelers and Giants have proven, even a merely "quite good" QB is enough to get you into the game and give you a shot at winning.
If we can get (or find out after the fact that we already have -- yeah, not likely, but again theoretically possible) all of that, then maybe we'll have a shot at winning a Super Bowl someday.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Cincy Jungle's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Cincy Jungle's writers or editors.
36 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think we all know that a competent front office is the first step.
But that’s not an option right now. And I think that’s it’s crystal clear that Marvin in hamstrung by Mikey-boy. When you have MB saying that he won’t budge on Carson, and when you have your head coach saying in turn that he’s come to terms with the fact that his franchise QB won’t be available for 2011 it’s clear who pulls the strings. Personnel decisions should be left to the Head Coach when you don’t have a GM. So should coaching decisions, but it’s taken nearly a decade for Marvin to get rid of Bob.
So with that said, all we can focus on is strengthening all 3 phases of our game, as you said. I personally believe that right now the phase that could help us the most is defense. A strong defense can bail out a weak offense, and without a QB it’s safe to say we won’t have a great offense. If we build the lines, as you say, and worry about a QB next year I think the team is much better off.
And with all that said, you still haven’t let us know what you prefer. I think it’s clear that you don’t want to draft for the defense. But does that mean you want a QB? And if so who is going to be that franchise guy? Do you want a receiver with the 4th overall? And if so, which one? Offensive line? Is one worth the 4th overall? You have to let the available talent dictate how you draft as well and this year defense is king.
Actually… I wouldn’t mind drafting defense. I just don’t want us to be so dead-set on it that we overlook a player that might help us more.
If there is an elite, once-in-a-draft-class type of DE available, I’d take him. If not, what I really want most is for us to trade down to around 10… and then use the extra picks to trade back into the first round at around 20 or so. Get two really good players from the “cream of the crop”.
But I’m also willing to look at those two top WR players and consider them as well. I’m not interested in yet ANOTHER first round OLB at this point, nor do I want a safety at #4. And even as badly as we need one, I don’t want an OG at #4 either. I’d like us to find a way to get one at around #20 to #30 if we could tho… ideally with an OT at around #10.
where was this voting option?
I’m stubborn. A very limited selection of skewed & innacurate Facts won’t change my mind. It’s defense, defense, defense, of course!
by ephram on Mar 22, 2011 5:52 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Teams w/ elite defenses have a good shot at making hte playoffs.
Once you’re in, anything can happen.
Change gone come mane! Trust me! Cause i Bleed tigerblood!--Jerome Simpson
See Baltimore Ravens for Defense winning Super Bowls
See Big Ben’s first super bowl for D winning super bowls. A Dominate D will win you championships.
What about when the Colts had a significantly better defense than the Saints in both average yards AND average points…
1) The difference between the Colts and Saints in 2009 was 2 points per game. 2 lousy points. How is that SIGNIFICANT? The NFL range from best to worst was 14.8 up to 30.9 and you’re going to tell us that 2 points is significant?
2) The Saints gave up FEWER rushing yards, but more passing yards (although they had a higher sack total and 10 MORE INT’s).
3) The Saints also had 6 more defensive touchdowns in 2009 than the Colts.
So all said, looking at more of the “facts” i must confess that i fail to see how you can claim that the Colts defense was SIGNIFICANTLY better?
by ephram on Mar 22, 2011 6:02 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
And it's not a bad thing to nitpick.
If this were some artwork, nitpicking is fine and dandy but you’re being overly critical and missing his point.
Nitpicking..
But made a valid point.
1st round draft wishes.
Bengals: Blaine Gabbert, Nick Fairley or AJ Green!
Cavaliers: Kyrie Irving and Harrison Barnes!
Valid point
I’m not saying that he’s wrong. Just that he’s losing focus of why FriarBob wrote this.
by Doc Scratch on Mar 23, 2011 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
i'm not really trying to nitpick, but to...
Show that his thesis is really unfounded when the main points that he builds it upon are not accurate.
He also uses Arizona as an example of why his thesis was correct….but Arizona LOST.
Maybe I’m just one of those anal people who gets annoyed when people use innacurate data to try to justify a pre-convieved position :-)
He also uses Arizona as an example of why his thesis was correct….but Arizona LOST.
And if you actually READ the text instead of merely venting your spleen upon it, you would note I never said they won. Let’s look at exactly what I DID say:
…and if, by some insane miracle, they actually made the super bowl they were guaranteed to lose by at least 30 points, right?
Oops.
I never said they won. I said that they were supposed to be blown out… and they should have been. By the standards of the original argument that this post was in response to, no defense ranked #28 in points had ANY business being in the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl. Yet they were there, and they weren’t blown out, and in fact came within millimeters of pulling off the greatest comeback victory of any Super Bowl in the history of the NFL.
In fact, had they blitzed just ONCE during the TD final drive they might well have avoided putting us in a position of having to try to decide if the refs really did get that call right or not. I’m sure not a single Steelers fan will ever admit it, but if he did actually get that second toe down it was by about a millimeter of toe brushing a millimeter of grass tip.
But let’s get back to the real point. The real points is I never said they won. I said they were supposed to lose in a blowout. Because based solely on their defensive rankings, they should have. And they didn’t. Is that inaccurate data supporting a preconceived notion? Nope. Biased, maybe, but not inaccurate.
I still stand by what i said....here's why
.
Original Post:
What about when the Cardinals….they were absolutely guaranteed to lose in the first round of the playoffs and if, by some insane miracle, they actually made the super bowl they were guaranteed to lose by at least 30 points, right?
My comment:
…the main points that he builds it upon are not accurate….He also uses Arizona as an example of why his thesis was correct…but Arizona LOST
.
.
.
1) Arizona LOST. Therefore it held in that case that the better defense won. Which contradicts the premis of the post that Defense is not important to winning Super Bowls. Clearly it was.
2) In the world in which i live, 6.5 points is NOT a blowout. This claim of “30 points” is again, more innacurate data supporting preconceived notions.
The main point of my comments is that this thesis is really unfounded when the main points that are built upon it are not accurate. You claim that ARI was supposed to lose by 30, but the spread was 6.5 points. which is actually one of the closer point spreads since SBXXIII (when the Bengals last played in one).
1) Arizona LOST. Therefore it held in that case that the better defense won. Which contradicts the premis of the post that Defense is not important to winning Super Bowls. Clearly it was.
And once again, you twist my words. Please read very carefully…
Defense (by itself) …
…Defense is important. But it’s also not the end-all and be-all of winning a super bowl. …
Do I really need to go on? Fine. In every single instance I pointed out, I pointed out that defense ALONE was not the only reason for the victory of loss of the game. And it wasn’t. It wasn’t in that case, nor in any other game. In every single game for the last five years, defense played a part. But so did the offense, the special teams, the coaching staff… and in some cases, luck, weather, and injuries as well. The title AND the opening paragraph make it blatantly plain that defense is important, but that it’s not the ONLY thing that’s important.
In the world in which i live, 6.5 points is NOT a blowout. This claim of "30 points" is again, more innacurate [sic] data supporting preconceived notions.
Do I really need to explain to you the difference between betting odds and reality? If so, then never mind, I’m not going to waste my breath any further. You win, we must draft defense and nothing but defense, because clearly offense, special teams, coaching staff, practices, playing surfaces, and luck have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of the game.
Do I really need to explain to you the difference between betting odds and Friar Bob’s reality?
YES, please…
I get that you thought Arizona was bad, and apparently you thought they would lose by at least 30 points….but i fail to see how that means that they were guaranteed to lose by at least 30 points.
I’m sorry that i can’t clearly draw the connection between your world and reality. I’m sure the problem that i have in making this connection is a fault with me that i will have to try to correct.
Sorry if my reply to your post has caused you to such anger. My intention was to merely point out and clarify the illogical conclusions and false data presented as facts. Your hypothesis could be correct, but the data didn’t clearly show a correlation between the facts and the hypothesis.
Of course, i realize that we’re talking sports, and i shouldn’t be so quick to take notice when generalities, preconceived notions, and opinions get transformed into facts. Again, that’s another defect that i should try to amend.
1) The difference between the Colts and Saints in 2009 was 2 points per game. 2 lousy points. How is that SIGNIFICANT? The NFL range from best to worst was 14.8 up to 30.9 and you’re going to tell us that 2 points is significant?
2.1 points a game, of and by itself, may not sound like much. But the rankings were #8 vs #20. That’s not so minor. And when the Saints lost 5 games by 3 points or less in 2008, suddenly 2.1 points sounds a lot more important.
2) The Saints gave up FEWER rushing yards, but more passing yards (although they had a higher sack total and 10 MORE INT’s).
3) The Saints also had 6 more defensive touchdowns in 2009 than the Colts.
I happen to agree that the OVERALL effect was that the Saints were better than they appeared… but by the rankings most people look at (yards and points), they weren’t.
And before that Super Bowl, who did you predict to win, by the way? If you were one of the few non-Saints-fans who thought they had a snowball’s chance in hell, congratulations, you are among fairly elite company.
If you were one of the few non-Saints-fans who thought they had a snowball’s chance in hell, congratulations, you are among fairly elite company.
Cool
i had them 50/50
Both teams had elite QB’s, average RB’s, and good defenses.
So i saw them as equal…
by ephram on Mar 23, 2011 7:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I feel we have most of the keys in place.
Lewis is the best we’re proven to get until Mikey one-ups himself, Gruden could feasibly be great but it’ll take a year to see it. Zimmer, when he can get his defense motivated, has one of the best defenses out there. He can geta bunch of perennial average talents and cast-offs and make them into the #4 ranked defense in the NFL. If that’s not motivating guys, I don’t know what is but we need guys who buy into it and make things happen.
We can shore up our offensive line (we’re mostly there if Smith gets healthy, we just need some solid interior lineman play) and our defensive line was lights-out.
The only thing missing are the good management and the good to elite QB. If Palmer hadn’t called it quits, I felt pretty positive going into the season that we could win the division again. We’re not far off, we’re not as needy as people make us out to be, and I feel that this past season was an anomaly. However, Palmer did call it quits for this team, so now we need a good-to-elite QB. I don’t think Ponder can be more than just “very good” and Kaepernick’s a project. Heck, everyone’s a project but we have no QB for them to learn from. This is probably why we’re better off waiting for proven talents (i.e., Luck, Landry Jones) to take over. Simultaneously, we can have Jordan or the Fever start so they can actually learn things and pass them on otherwise.
Agree
but I think Kaepernick is less of a project than some think. He had a good Senior year, a hell of a Senior Bowl and an amazing Pro Day today.
The rest of what you said about the roster makes total sense. If they get rid of Chad, add a talented WR and QB early in the draft, re-sign J-Joe and get some more D and O-Line help they’re right there.
by Anthony Cosenza on Mar 22, 2011 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions
What about when the Patriots had a better offense AND a better defense than the Giants... they were guaranteed to win the Super Bowl, right?
To be fair that’s a pretty bad example..
That play right there is the only reason they beat the Patriots. 17-13.
1st round draft wishes.
Bengals: Blaine Gabbert, Nick Fairley or AJ Green!
Cavaliers: Kyrie Irving and Harrison Barnes!
You're kidding, right?
you dont really think that Tyree’s catch was the only reason they won, do you? I mean, the eight sacks on Brady by Strahan, Tuck and co. Had nothing to do with the win, right?
by Anthony Cosenza on Mar 22, 2011 10:02 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean.. the catch was pretty important right?
Although if anyone remembers, that Pats had about 5 chances to end the game before Tyree’s catch. And a few after.
so then defense won the game :)
1st round draft wishes.
Bengals: Blaine Gabbert, Nick Fairley or AJ Green!
Cavaliers: Kyrie Irving and Harrison Barnes!
the Giants won for the same reason that the #1 seeds don't always advance to the Final 4
In a 1-game situation (Super Bowl) anything can happen in terms of turnovers, penalties, injuries, etc… that will result in the team who was superior throughout the season not always winning every Super Bowl.
In the late 90’s when the Rams were the “Greatest Show on Turf” they would get to the Super Bowl and get slowed down by good defenses. They were considered the “best team” but didn’t always win.
And yes…that 1 play was huge in the Giants winning :-)
The phrasing was deliberate
I never said don’t draft defense. I said “defense (by itself)”…
We need BOTH offense AND defense to improve.
Ding ding ding
winner winner winner winner winner
Let’s not draft a QB despite the fact that our franchise guy is leaving. Let’s not draft the best offensive playmaker despite the fact that our offense did worse than our defense. Let’s not draft a DE despite the fact that the depth after Michael Johnson and Carlos Dunlap isn’t really spectacular and Geathers (aka starting DE opposite Dunlap) is extremely replaceable and overpaid. Let’s draft a CB despite the fact that we’re loaded at the position because the top three CBs we have all have expiring contracts either this offseason or next because we obviously don’t even want to attempt to resign them and then if we somehow manage that impossible task, let’s convert him to safety and pray to God that he actually is a successful one, Reggie Nelson’s accomplishments (read: quite a lot) be denied.
Yeh guys, I love our priorities.
by Doc Scratch on Mar 23, 2011 2:08 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You tell me what the priority should be??
Mike Brown is playing this cp9 thing out till the last second. Do we draft a QB with the 4th pick, do we go dline, cb/safety, wr you tell me. If we draft Gabbert/Newton/Ponder/Dalton and Palmer shows up at camp then what? This is so fucked, sometimes I wish I grew up in another city lol.
by Throw the ball on Mar 23, 2011 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions
i did grow up in another city
And for some reason became a bengals fan.
by JCompton41 on Mar 23, 2011 2:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Same here.
Though my dad grew up in Florence so I got it through him.
Priority should obviously be QB but that’s not really that much of an option, so let’s either get a replacement for Geathers (Bowers) or a shiny hood ornament that can make plays (Green) for our pathetic offense. People say how Megatron isn’t important because he’s not allowing the Lions to win, he brought the Lions a four-game win streak with two back-up QBs.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cincy Jungle
Related FanShots on Cincy Jungle
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Things to know about NFL men who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
