Poor Vikings.

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by phightin

They lost to an oakland team that just went into pittsburgh and won and also beat the bengals a couple weeks ago so again I'll ask follow the NFL much?

That's cool and all, Captain Condescension, but it does nothing to address these two simple facts:

1. They lost to the Lions.

2. They lost to the Chiefs.

You cannot claim that a team is "better than their record" when they can't beat the two of the four worst teams in the league, and barely escape against the other two.

I get that there's a feeling among fans of NFC East teams that isn't all that different than the one fans of SEC teams share. But when a team is a turd, call it a turd. 3-9 doesn't lie.

[jbergey22]

Im with Erik on this one. They've lost to Detroit and KC while 2 of their victories have been against 2 of the worst teams in the league as well in St Louis and Tampa Bay.

Washington may have more talent than some of these crappy teams but it doesnt make them any better because the results arent there.

Plus the NFC East seems very weak this year.

Giants were killed at New Orleans and Denver, lost to Arizona, San Diego while winning 0 non divisional games against teams with winning records

Cowboys lost to Denver, Green Bay while winning 0 non division games over teams with winning records

Philly lost to the Saints, San Diego while also have 0 out of division wins over teams with winning records.

Perhaps this is why the AFC West is having their best season in quite a few years, beating on the mediocre NFC East this year.

That makes them a combined 0-8 in non divisional games of teams with winning records.

[Erik W.]

The Giants were crushed by Denver.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Erik W.

The Giants were crushed by Denver.

Opps, let me fix that. I guess that makes them 0-8

[jaxmagicman]

But in the end, the Vikings are 10-2 and the Saints are 12-0, so who cares if they almost lost. They won. They have shown that they are the cream of the crop so far.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

But in the end, the Vikings are 10-2 and the Saints are 12-0, so who cares if they almost lost. They won. They have shown that they are the cream of the crop so far.

Im taking the Colts. Much tougher schedule plus they have won 20+ games in a row. But I think the point of the whole discussion is that it is too early to make outrageous statements. The Saints, Vikings and Colts all have weaknesses and none of them have exactly played the most difficult of schedules. Weaknesses tend to be exploited more so in tough matchups like you seen with the Vikings last week.

Not easy to go into Arizona against the best WR duo in recent history without your pro bowl corner and play your best game.

[molarmite]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

But in the end, the Vikings are 10-2 and the Saints are 12-0, so who cares if they almost lost. They won. They have shown that they are the cream of the crop so far.

That's why I don't like records to decide who's cream of the crop. Let me set this straight, I am NOT saying the Vikings are better than the Saints right now.

If the Redskins kicker makes that FG that he probably makes 49/50 times, Saints are 11-1. If Chester Taylor catches the ball instead of letting it go through his hands and having it get picked off, Vikes could be 11-1 too. Or if the Ravens kicker makes that FG he probably does a majority of the time, the Vikes could be 9-3.

So at the extreme, the Saints could be 3 games ahead of the Vikings or they could be tied based off 3 plays in the entire season. That is why you cannot look at records when comparing great teams, you have to look at how they played the games.

[mlyons]

Here's the thing. No matter what the circumstances, in today's NFL, losing to a good team is never better than beating a bad team. Nothing matters more than the results, especially when home field advantage in the playoffs is at stake.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

An offense that cannot deal with a good defense wouldn't be called a great offense.

Study actually shows great offense is more likely to win championships than great defense.

Advanced NFL Stats: Does Defense Win Championships?

I don't care what study you have seen. Anytime 2 teams meet in the SB, the team with the great D always wins. There might be an exception but i'm not sure. This of course is only if a really good D is present.

Patriots/Giants
Patriots/Rams
Tampa/Raiders
Giants/Denver

The list goes on and on. Even the year the Rams won the Super Bowl, in the playoff they were comprimised by a great Tampa D. The Rams did win that game. But it goes to show that a great D usually lays the beat down on any offense.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Here's the thing. No matter what the circumstances, in today's NFL, losing to a good team is never better than beating a bad team. Nothing matters more than the results, especially when home field advantage in the playoffs is at stake.

Which is the one thing the '72 Dolphins will always have over any future team that goes undefeated. They had to play the AFC Championship game AWAY.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I don't care what study you have seen. Anytime 2 teams meet in the SB, the team with the great D always wins. There might be an exception but i'm not sure. This of course is only if a really good D is present.

Patriots/Giants
Patriots/Rams
Tampa/Raiders
Giants/Denver

The list goes on and on. Even the year the Rams won the Super Bowl, in the playoff they were comprimised by a great Tampa D. The Rams did win that game. But it goes to show that a great D usually lays the beat down on any offense.

In 2007, Patriots had better offense and better defense than the Giants. That's not a game where a great defense won the game. Giants was 17th in the league in terms of points allowed. That's no great D.

In 2001, Patriots wasn't winning with a great D either. They were 6th in points allowed, and 24th in yards allowed. They were also 6th in points scored and 19th in yards.

2002 Tampa and 1986 Giants would indeed be great Ds winning championship, but of course great D, just as great O, will win championships.

I think you better review your facts.

[jbergey22]

Off the top of my head it seems you need balance in order to win the Super Bowl. The 2000 Ravens were probably the 1 exception I can think of.

A lot of times a great offense is a great defense so Id probably lean towards Skip's point of view on this.

Pittsburgh in the 70s had a great offense and great defense. The 49ers of the 80's were known for a great offense but their defense was very good as well. The Cowboys of the 90s won because of a precision offense and a great defense. That takes us to the 00's where the Pats have been a lot of both. They won super bowls when they were balanced they didnt win in 07 when they had the most potent offense in history but a below average defense.

If I had to choose between a great offense/poor defense or a great defense/poor offense its seems more teams have made it further with the former rather than the later.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

In 2007, Patriots had better offense and better defense than the Giants. That's not a game where a great defense won the game. Giants was 17th in the league in terms of points allowed. That's no great D.

In 2001, Patriots wasn't winning with a great D either. They were 6th in points allowed, and 24th in yards allowed. They were also 6th in points scored and 19th in yards.

2002 Tampa and 1986 Giants would indeed be great Ds winning championship, but of course great D, just as great O, will win championships.

I think you better review your facts.

You watch football right? You are making statements as if you didn't watch a single game and just looked at stats. I don't care if the Giants gave up 1000 points during the season, they were not the same team in the Super Bowl. The Giants got better defensively and peaked in the playoffs. So yes, they were a great D by the time the playoffs came. The first 12 games have nothing to do with it. They are just stats.

Teams sometimes do get better or worse as the season progresses.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Off the top of my head it seems you need balance in order to win the Super Bowl. The 2000 Ravens were probably the 1 exception I can think of.

A lot of times a great offense is a great defense so Id probably lean towards Skip's point of view on this.

Pittsburgh in the 70s had a great offense and great defense. The 49ers of the 80's were known for a great offense but their defense was very good as well. The Cowboys of the 90s won because of a precision offense and a great defense. That takes us to the 00's where the Pats have been a lot of both. They won super bowls when they were balanced they didnt win in 07 when they had the most potent offense in history but a below average defense.

If I had to choose between a great offense/poor defense or a great defense/poor offense its seems more teams have made it further with the former rather than the later.

Of course no team has much of a chance with a poor offense. That puts the D on the field too often, they get tired and start giving up points. But you don't need a really great O if you have a great D.

I also thought the '85 Bears had an average at best O. Their D was the best i've seen since '75.

All I was trying to say is......a really good D more often than not disrupts a great O.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Of course no team has much of a chance with a poor offense. That puts the D on the field too often, they get tired and start giving up points. But you don't need a really great O if you have a great D.

I also thought the '85 Bears had an average at best O. Their D was the best i've seen since '75.

All I was trying to say is......a really good D more often than not disrupts a great O.

That makes sense.

A great defense and a strong running game(w/o having a great offense) is an equation that has proved successful.

If you dont score a lot of points but can maintain possession while your defense dominates on the other side it can prove very successful so with that I do understand your point.

I think back to some of them great offenses the Oilers had in the early 90s and they could never make it to the Super Bowl because their defense would fall apart.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You watch football right? You are making statements as if you didn't watch a single game and just looked at stats. I don't care if the Giants gave up 1000 points during the season, they were not the same team in the Super Bowl. The Giants got better defensively and peaked in the playoffs. So yes, they were a great D by the time the playoffs came. The first 12 games have nothing to do with it. They are just stats.

Teams sometimes do get better or worse as the season progresses.

Hrm, now if you are saying a team that played great defense in a game is very likely to win, then I agree. Of course that's going to be the case. A team that played great offense in a game is very likely to win too.

I mean, I can make this statement and it would mirror yours exactly:

"I don't care if the Patriots scored 1000 points during the 2007 season. They were not the same team in the Super Bowl. The Patriots got worse offensively and hit the lowest point in the playoffs ( they scored only 20 in the conference final too). So yes, they weren't a great O by the time the playoffs came. The first 17 games have nothing to do with it. They are just stats."

You might as well say Tampa Bay won in 2002 because of great O. The score in that Super Bowl was 48-21, not 13-6.

[Dargone]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

You watch football right? You are making statements as if you didn't watch a single game and just looked at stats. I don't care if the Giants gave up 1000 points during the season, they were not the same team in the Super Bowl. The Giants got better defensively and peaked in the playoffs. So yes, they were a great D by the time the playoffs came. The first 12 games have nothing to do with it. They are just stats.

Teams sometimes do get better or worse as the season progresses.

Yeah, football is a much different animal than baseball when it comes to statistics. Who was injured? Who did they play? Were they home or away? On grass or on turf? What about playcall selection? Was the defensive line scheme changed? What about blitz packages? How about secondary coverage? I could go on and on. There are far, far more "fuzzy" statistics in football than in baseball.

Also, I would always take the great defense and medicore offense. See '85 Bears and '00 Ravens. The '91 giants combined a solid running game and a great defense to beat an explosive offensive team (and the most lopsided time of possession ever).

The Niners of the 80s and the Cowboys of the 90s had both of course.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Hrm, now if you are saying a team that played great defense in a game is very likely to win, then I agree. Of course that's going to be the case. A team that played great offense in a game is very likely to win too.

I mean, I can make this statement and it would mirror yours exactly:

"I don't care if the Patriots scored 1000 points during the 2007 season. They were not the same team in the Super Bowl. The Patriots got worse offensively and hit the lowest point in the playoffs ( they scored only 20 in the conference final too). So yes, they weren't a great O by the time the playoffs came. The first 17 games have nothing to do with it. They are just stats."

You might as well say Tampa Bay won in 2002 because of great O. The score in that Super Bowl was 48-21, not 13-6.

The Patriots were not as dominating offensively in the playoffs as they were during the season. That is true. But they were still a very good offensive team.

I just have seen on too many occasions a team that is supposedly so great on O just lay an egg when they meet a good D.

As far as the Tampa raiders SB goes.......How many people kept blabbing about the Raiders O? I think among my friends I was the only one to win money that SB. Tampa came in with a strong D and I knew they'd beat the raiders. It's how it usually works. 21 points for a great O? who cares? they got slaughtered. Sometimes when you get a big enough lead you let up.

In history you can find a few teams with a poor O and great D that won SB's. You will not find it in reverse no matter how great the O is. The SanDiego Chargers of the 80's comes to mind.

To me it would be like saying great hitting wins championships. When in fact it is usually pitching. Now I do realize that D is not as important in the NFL as pitching is in MLB.....But I think the lean is towards defense.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

As far as the Tampa raiders SB goes.......How many people kept blabbing about the Raiders O? I think among my friends I was the only one to win money that SB. Tampa came in with a strong D and I knew they'd beat the raiders. It's how it usually works. 21 points for a great O? who cares? they got slaughtered. Sometimes when you get a big enough lead you let up.

But weren't you saying that earlier games don't mean much? So what you don't realize is that the Raiders had horrible O, and that's why they lost the Super Bowl! They had bad O in the Super Bowl! It's not the defense! It's the offense that failed to score more than the other team! It's always about scoring more than the other team, so it's always about O!


I really think this is all nonsense. Both are important, and strength in one can compensate the other. There is no such a thing as D over O.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

But weren't you saying that earlier games don't mean much? So what you don't realize is that the Raiders had horrible O, and that's why they lost the Super Bowl! They had bad O in the Super Bowl! It's not the defense! It's the offense that failed to score more than the other team! It's always about scoring more than the other team, so it's always about O!


I really think this is all nonsense. Both are important, and strength in one can compensate the other. There is no such a thing as D over O.

Right, and baseball is about the hitting. When you lose you just did not hit as much as the other team.