Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CharlottePanther

Shula also deserves some credit for our stout D.

90 posts in this topic

When is the last time a team won a SB playing shitty D. Even teams with lower ranked D's like the Saints, Colts and Giants stepped up with huge defensive plays to win the SB. The Giants contained Brady twice to win it.

Exactly.

Those who think a high scoring offense with a shitty D wins championships are the same whi that think Madden is real football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When is the last time a team won a SB playing shitty D. Even teams with lower ranked D's like the Saints, Colts and Giants stepped up with huge defensive plays to win the SB. The Giants contained Brady twice to win it.

 

What the fug are you even talking about? I'm talking about how stupid people sound taking a basic concept and summing up the whole fuging game in a nutshell. Thanks for making that point, I feel much better about the idea that we should cut all of our offensive talent and just call dive plays on offense while we spend all of our money on defense, I mean that's where it starts and ends right? I know that because Joe Namath mentioned it on Monday Night Football while I poo my huggies in my father's lap in 1986.

 

Question, is anybody in this thread actually serious about analyzing football or are you guys just here to parrot broad football clichés that you first heard when you were 2 years old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence? there is no 1 stat that you can say definitively leads to wins and loses. But TOP is a great barometer.

 

There are obviously exceptions to every rule like Baltimore last year and the wildcard Giants but take a look at the other winning SB teams season TOP over the last 10 year. They are all top 10.

 

NE, Pitt, GB, NY (1st SB), NO, IND all had top 10 TOP,

 

Then have a look at the amount of #1 overall seeds (usually based off high octane Offenses) that have failed to win the big one.

 

Its no surprise that team like the Giants, Minn, Jax and Wash are on the negative side of TOP while the Broncos, Seattle, Chiefs, Saints and NE are on the positive. But there are exceptions like ATL and Phily. But keep in mind Philys 3 wins came against teams with a combined record of like 1-15, They beat the Skins on opening day when RGIII clearly wasn't ready, the Giants and Tampa.

 

Um, Indy was bottom ten in TOP in 2006. So how strong exactly is a rule that has recently had a 30% failure rate, at least?

 

I wasn't going to fact-check this but Madhatter cosigned your post and seeing as how I'd be surprised if he could tie his shoes I couldn't help

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stop talking about wins! the most important thing is making top 10 on sc!!!! Second most important is insulting people on a message board cuz I can't back up my claims

 

Thank you for continuing to come into the thread to tell everybody sarcastically that you agree with people who warp stats in favor of your confirmation bias keep us posted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"hey guys, you should catch up to the modern nfl. here is a 7 year old anomaly to prove how old fashioned you are"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol you think this is an anamoly.

 

Pretty much any informed person who follows football understands that TOP is a byproduct stat that can be caused by many different things, it can be caused by a team that plays good offense, like the Saints are right now, a team that likes to run the ball a lot, like the 2-4 Texans (though a lot of this is also due to high percentage passing, despite the horrid turnovers), or, in our case, simply outclassing opponents that aren't playing good football in any phase of the game.

 

It's not something you specifically aim to achieve but the end result of a myriad of different efficiency aspects. If you think Bill Belichick makes it the no.1 priority goal for his team before they walk out of the tunnel you're pretty much useless in this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol you think this is an anamoly.

Pretty much any informed person who follows football understands that TOP is a byproduct stat that can be caused by many different things, it can be caused by a team that plays good offense, like the Saints are right now, a team that likes to run the ball a lot, like the 2-4 Texans (though a lot of this is also due to high percentage passing, despite the horrid turnovers), or, in our case, simply outclassing opponents that aren't playing good football in any phase of the game.

It's not something you specifically aim to achieve but the end result of a myriad of different efficiency aspects. If you think Bill Belichick makes it the no.1 priority goal for his team before they walk out of the tunnel you're pretty much useless in this debate.

we don't have wes welker, randy moss, gronk, ahern, brady, manning, harrison, etc

we have a 34 year old steve smith, brandon lafell, ted ginn jr, and greg olsen. we are not going into games expecting to move the ball primarily with 8-12 yard passes.

you mention the 2006 colts. they had a few blowouts that year (some look like respectable scores because the other teams scored in garbage time) but they also had a number of close games.

now, let's say you are an opposing coach. how would a team keep it close to have a shot at winning?

A) trying to score quickly and putting manning back on the field

B) taking 9 minutes per possession and keeping manning on the sideline

C) do the mike martz thing and use the same gameplan no matter who you face

D) none of the above (explain)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, I'm sorry we don't have playmakers at receiver

 

somebody should've told Brady the same thing last week because then the Pats wouldn't have beaten the Saints

 

Also I don't think a formula's been established to beat Manning the way he's playing right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the fug are you even talking about? I'm talking about how stupid people sound taking a basic concept and summing up the whole fuging game in a nutshell. Thanks for making that point, I feel much better about the idea that we should cut all of our offensive talent and just call dive plays on offense while we spend all of our money on defense, I mean that's where it starts and ends right? I know that because Joe Namath mentioned it on Monday Night Football while I poo my huggies in my father's lap in 1986.

 

Question, is anybody in this thread actually serious about analyzing football or are you guys just here to parrot broad football clichés that you first heard when you were 2 years old?

You ask me what the fug I'm talking about and then post this nonsense. Nobody is suggesting to cut anybody or just call dive play, that's just plain retarded.

 

I think most people would agree that the best teams are balanced teams, you need both a productive O and D.

 

I don't think its a good idea to be building your roster strictly leaning to one particular side.

 

But are you telling me the Bucs, Pitt, Ravens, NE and GB didn't have great defenses when they won the SB? Even those that weren't statistically great stepped up and made the plays in the big game defensively. NO picked off Manning to win, The Colts picked off Cutler to win (Peyton threw 1 TD pass that game) the Ravens stopped SF on a goal line stand to win last year, the first time around they were the #1 D, Pitt had like the #1 D and #3 D when they won. The 3 SB's the Pats won, their D was ranked 6th, 1st (against us) and 2nd. The Bucs had the #1 D. Packers had the #2 D. Even the Giants who weren't great statistacally had a great Dline to pressure Brady, they were like his nemesis. No other team was built to beat NE like the Giants were.

 

The cliché Defense wins championships carries a lot of merit. Hell, the years we got to NFCCG's we had good D's (2nd, 10th and 5th).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, Indy was bottom ten in TOP in 2006. So how strong exactly is a rule that has recently had a 30% failure rate, at least?

 

 My apologies, I clicked on the wrong year by accident. They were ranked 20th in TOP, however they still had a positive TOP.

 

I did say there were exceptions to the rule and it was just a good barometer, I stand by that.

 

Just look at the teams with winning records right now and their TOP's, and were only 5 games in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites