Re: Sums Up The Defense
posted at 6/22/2014 12:05 PM EDT
In response to wozzy's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
I highlighted the point in yellow above. I'll repeat the question here in red type:
Now if you want to respond, please try to stay on topic and explain why an increase from ~35 offensive TDs per season to ~55 is not an improvement in offensive output and why an increase in TDs given up by the defense from ~22 to about ~37 is not a decrease in defensive productivity.
Note that I'm not saying anything about penalties or about single games like the Super Bowl. I'm talking about overall quality of the offenses and defenses in the early 2000s and in the early 2010s. The point is simply that the offenses have been much more productive recently and the defenses much less productive. This is obvious from the stats.
If the goal is to win Super Bowls, than no, it is not an improvement.
If the offense blows up the Browns in the regular season to increase it's regular season average, in a modern NFL that is geared toward inflated scoring and ballooned scores than no, it's not an improvement.
If the offense is feast or famine, does all its damage in the regular season or against sub par defenses only to throw up two touchdowns and two turnovers against superior playoff defenses, to the detriment of both the defense and special teams than no, it's not an improvement.
I never cared back in the early 2000s that the offense was boring and methodical.
I never cared how much we won the game by, only that we won.
I'll take the proven, ball control, clutch performing, run balanced offense's of the early 2000s every day of the week.
I want to win Super Bowls, not really interested in your fantasy team. We've become the early 2000 Colts, great when it really doesn't matter.
Points scored/points allowed and turnovers follows the most important stat of all; wins vs losses. Those early teams were better in every phase, including offense.
Dude, they lost the Super Bowl for a multitude of reasons in 2011. The biggest problems were Gronk's injury, which unfortunately changed the offense from a productive one to a much less productive one and the continuing struggles in pass defense. But that one game doesn't mean that the offense overall was worse in 2011 than it was in say 2003. The 2011 offense gained 428.0 yards per game (2nd in the league), scored 57 TDs and 483 points, gave up 12 interceptions and 32 sacks. In 2003, the offense gained 314.9 yards per game (17th in the league), scored 32 TDs and 299 points, gave up 13 interceptions and 32 sacks. There's just no way you can argue that the 2003 offense was more productive than the 2011 unless you resort to voodoo. "Feast or famine" isn't an argument. It's voodoo. The reality is that in 2003, the team (offense and defense) scored 0, 31, 23, 17, 38, 17, 19, 9, 30, 12, 23, 38, 12, 27, 21, 31 in the regular season and 17, 24, and 32 in the playoffs. In 2011 they scored 38, 35, 31, 31, 30, 20, 17, 20, 37, 34, 38, 31, 34, 41, 27, 49 and 45, 23, 17 in the playoffs. Looking at those outputs, 2003 was clearly more famine and less feast, while 2011 was mostly feast. Yes, the Pats had a low score in the SB, but Gronk was hurt so the offense changed (and, though you think it's unimportant, the defense allowed the Giants' offense to keep the Pats offense off the field).
Say what you want, the data shows the 2011 offense was far more productive than the 2003. The big difference between the two teams is the Pats could actually win low-scoring games in 2003 because the defense was good. In 2003, the defense gave up just 291.6 yards per game (7th), just 22 TDs and 229 points, got 29 interceptions and 41 sacks. In 2011, the defense gave up a whopping 411.1 yards per game (31st), 39 TDs and 333 points, got 23 interceptions and 41 sacks. In the Super Bowl, when the offense wasn't great with an injured Gronk, the defense needed to step up. They didn't give up a ton of points, but they gave up too many long drives which allowed the Giants to play keep away. And when they needed a tough stand at the end of the game to protect a slim lead, they couldn't do it. The offense didn't play well--that's clear. But there's some truth to the old cliche that defenses win championships and in no way was the 2011 defense championship calibre.