I wouldn’t go that far. He was one and done again last year.
One example would be that you can compile a bunch of regular season wins with a high-flying passing attack, but those typically get shut down by good defenses and/or bad weather in the playoffs.
You don’t even need it to be a high flying passing attack. You could decide to use a blizzard of dinks and dunks instead of a running game and do fine in the regular season. Again, that doesn’t seem to do as well in the playoffs.
Funny you should mention that- Martyball seems like it’s tailor made for winning playoff games.
I never said it was an exhaustive list. Your point was that nothing changes between the regular season and the playoffs. I only had to produce one counter-example to refut your position. I offered two.
I have already discussed Marty’s particular ineffectiveness in the playoffs upthread.
You’re not talking about the difference between the playoffs and the regular season; you’re talking about the difference in weather conditions.
First, weather is an actual difference between the regular season and the playoffs.
Second, I could have sworn I put something in there about good defenses.
Weather is only a factor if you’re a wild-card team, or play somewhere cold. San Diego was generally neither during Schottenheimer’s playoff runs there.
And it’s pretty obvious that the defenses get better in the postseason. So what? The offenses are better, too. You’re not going 12-4 if you can’t score against good defenses anyway.
It was field goals. The Chargers were in position for a long FG at the end of the Jets game, and didn’t try to improve their field position. Kaeding missed the kick. Then the next week the Jets did the same thing, missed the kick, and lost to Pitt. Then Pitt lost to NE; it was the 15-1 year for Pittsburgh.
You sure about that?
2007 New York Giants: 16th ranked offense
2006 Indianapolis Colts: 3rd ranked offense
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers: 16th ranked offense
2004 New England Patriots: 7th ranked offense
2003 New England Patriots: 17th ranked offense
2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers: 24th ranked offense
2001 New England Patriots: 19th ranked offense
2000 Baltimore Ravens: 16th ranked offense
1999 St Louis Rams: 1st ranked offense
1998 Denver Broncos: 3rd ranked offense
Only 4 of the past 10 champions ranked 15th or better in offense. Seems to me that a good offense isn’t a particularly relevant aspect of a team when it comes to the postseason.
Alternately 7 of the past 10 champions were ranked in top half of the league in defense, including 3 who were among the top 3 in the league. Your argument isn’t necessarily wrong, but that is blatantly cherry picking stats to support an already formed conclusion.
Defense wins championships.
Eight were in the top half in defense. Seven of ten were in the top 10. (The 8th team just missed, at 11th.)
He equated good offense with good defense, not me.
Which is fine, but using the top 15 when there are 3 that are 16th isn’t a honest way to debate.
Football Outsiders ran a article on this a couple years ago and concluded that defense success correlates to post season success, while offensive success was more consistent year to year. So a team like the Ravens have a better a shot at a super bowl run, but also a better shot at terrible seasons like they did in 2007.
I don’t think you need a statistical analysis to show that offense translates into regular season success while defense translates into postseason success. It’s an axiom of the NFL for a reason. As a general rule, good defense trumps good offense.
When they’re bunched up at 16th and worse, then yeah, making 15th the line of demarcation is totally legit. That’s pretty much how it works.
Dude, you just did a statistical analysis in post #48. Unfortunately, it’s just not a sound one.
Total yards are a poor way to measure an offense. A team with a significant lead late in the game is not trying to maximize their yardage – they are trying to run the clock out. Conversely, lots of bad teams pad their stats in late-game garbage time, throwing for yards against soft defenses. Moreover, teams that run the ball more don’t put up as many yards as teams that rely on the pass.
New Orleans, Denver, Houston and Arizona ranked 1-2-3-4 in total yards this year. Would anyone seriously argue that those are the top 4 offenses? Would you argue that the Steelers and Titans are below-average? That the Giants and Panthers are not among the very best offenses in the league? Total yards says you must.
Sorry, but it was “a general axiom” that the sun revolved around the Earth. Some of us look for something a little more substantive than that “Chris Berman and Tom Jackson say it every week, so it must be true.” When you focus on efficiency rather than raw yards, and filter out the garbage time, the fact is that offense is just as important as defense.
I’m curious if you have any support for this claim.
Uh, yes?
If something exists, statistics should show it. If they don’t either one is using the wrong stats, or it doesn’t exist.
You want to use statistics as a weapon. Skew them to best support your case. That may how you do it, but that doesn’t mean it is the right way for it be done. What would be better would be to come to the numbers open-minded. Let them show you what is happening, and not let preconceived judgements cloud your conclusions. Ask the question “Does a better defense improve post season success” and let the numbers objectively tell you whether you are correct rather than ask “How can I use the numbers to show that I’m right?”
Right. Because teams never get extra yards from being behind late in the game, or having a crappy defense that gives up quick scores, or playing a schedule of particularly poor passing defenses, or playing in a dome, etc al.
You guys are kidding, right? furt listed 4 of the best offenses in the league, acting as if they stunk. Then he went on to say that total yards is bunk; you have to judge an offense based on efficiency. Well, guess what? Those same four offenses are all in the top five for yards per play. Stunner! The teams with the most yards just happen to have the most potent offenses. Unintuitive, I know. And yet, there it is.
Now you’re going to argue that (among other things) having a bad defense inflates offense because it generates more possessions? Isn’t that backwards? Don’t you get more possessions out of having good defense? ie: more three and outs, fewer long methodical drives allowed?
This is crazy talk. You always put the line at the edge. For example, if you’re grouping teams that rank 1, 3, 4 and 5, you don’t say they’re all “top ten”, you say they’re all “top five.” That’s just how it is. It’s not me; that’s how everybody uses numbers.
EDIT: And I’m pretty sure you used the term “cherry picking” wrong. Cherry picking doesn’t refer to how you present data. It refers to how you select it.
Not all yards are created equally. 8 yards on third and 12 is not as valuable as 4 yards on 3rd and 2. 15 yard gains down 20 late in the 4th aren’t as valuable as in a competive game. In fact if you are ahead late you aren’t trying for yards as muh as you want to kill time.
Long touchdown passes are pretty quick.