True or False: Defense Wins Championships

Just to throw some math out there, the cutting edge analysis shows that the strenght of a football team is determined by three parts offense, three parts defense and one part special teams. Therefore, i don’t care which of the units a team seek to improve, because it’s the mixture of them, that’s important.

That said, and this isn’t well founded in numbers, I prefer offense. It seems to me, that it, in this era, it’s easiest (= cheapest i terms of CAP-space etc.) to build a highpowered offense. It seems that a great offense will keep you in contention every year, while you wait for your below average D to have a decent year.

I don’t like balance approach, though. The cap simply makes it impossible to be great in every aspect of the game. Instead you should focus on one unit, and hope for a lucky break in the other unit.

The absolute best approach, in my oppinion, is building a top nodge offense, and pair it with an uncommon defensive scheme. That way, you can get cheap defensive talent, because other teams doesn’t need the same talent as you – as we’ve witnessed with the Denver O-line the last 15 years. I guess you can call this method the Colts-approach.
If you don’t like the offense approach – please take af defensive approach. It’s imparative to focus on one unit, and hope for a decent year out of the other one. The cap makes it impossible to be great on all sides of the ball – you will, more often than not, end up with a vanilla team.

/ But hey – my guess is as good as anyone’s

1) Yes, balance is crucial. Defense alone doesn’t win.

2) However, I ascribe to defense winning championships. Why? The odds of a team winning the SB because it is best at any one thing is small. (How often do first seeds go all the way in any sport?) But look again at the list. The stingiest teams are always in the running, having either won or lost the SB, or made the Conference game the overwhelming portion of years.

3) Last, the rules have been changed time and time again because defenses adapt and keep scores down. Only last year was a rule implemented to help the defense (you can now knock a receiver out of bounds before he comes down with the ball). Despite years of rules designed to help offenses, the NFL continues to have to find ways to help offenses score. (My bias). By this reasoning, there is an institutional bias against defenses, and yet best defenses still manage to attain SB and conference level play DESPITE those rule changes that favor offenses.

My vote is “absolutely”, while acknowledging that balance is still needed. Lack of a defense though, despite some balance, won’t fly. Then one just has a team balanced by poor play on boths sides.

: )

Really, it doesn’t matter if it is on the defensive or offensive side of the ball. We have seen teams win it either way. Baltimore back in 01 won it with pure defense. They had a lot of 3-0, 6-3, “a field goal will win it” type games. Then, we could look at teams like the 99 rams, with the greatest show on turf. They aired it out and would blow up the scoreboard.

I think it is nice to have balance. It is also nice to dominate one side of the ball. Basically, to win a championship, you either have to completely dominate one side of the ball and then manage the other side, or you could play balanced and beat teams a different way each time you step on the field.

I voted “not by themselves” because it isn’t always won by defense. Baltimore had an all time outstanding defensive squad, but you can’t just put a defense like that together overnight. That was something we aren’t likely to see again. Seriously?? Win the superbowl with Trent Dilfer??? Talk about a defense……….

I think I should clarify: when I’m talking about balance, I’m not talking about both sides of the ball & special teams all being equal. As was pointed out by CV above, that is an unrealistic expectation in an era of salary caps.

Balance, IMHO, means that a team does not focus on one side of the ball to the exclusion or detriment of the other. If you want to build a dominating defense, great. But make you create an average to above average offense to support it. We’ve seen the last two years what happens when you have a strong offense that has poor support from the defense.

I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to suggest that the converse is true. A dominating defense without an average to above average offense most likely isn’t going to make a deep run into the playoffs.

but would look at a different statistic along with PPG. That being how many points did that Defense put (or allow to be put) on the board via turnovers. At the end of the day it is all about you outscoring your opponent. And as long as your average Offense can put some points up and your better than average Defense plays great, you should win. Of course there are a few exceptions to that rule. The last two SB winners are good examples of that.

To consider here is strength of the regular season schedule ie… average D faces below avg O over 16 games and appears to be better than it is. This may help explain why the top D’s always made the playoffs but didn’t necessarily win it all. Once confronted by a top O the immovable object is frequently moved by the irresistable force. Great thought provoking post B and rec’d

because they face a high powered offense that simply overwhelms them. Teams who concentrate on one part of the game struggle consistantly with getting to the show. It all boils down to a healthy balance of all three parts of the game, offense, defense, and special teams. An example (without stats) is an offense scores an average of 34 points per/game, defense allows 38 points per/game, special teams gives the ball up at the 37 yd line on average, turnovers -10. You won’t won period. Balance of all three. 13-3 Baby!!!

What sticks out to me is not that so few teams won the Championship. 13 of the 25 teams made the Super Bowl. Sure sounds like a lot, to me. Another 4 teams lost in their conference title game. So, 17 of the top 25 defenses led their teams to at least the conference championship game. The fact that they didn’t all win the Super Bowl doesn’t prove to me that defense doesn’t win championships…

This is such a tiny sample. What about the Broncos turning it over 8 times against the Cowboys? Was that the fault of the Orange Crush for not also creating 8 turnovers?

maybe not quite how Jedi said it…but He has said its about the whole team…and lots of the brainiacs on MHR have talked about it to. And i kinda feel like its way true…but i dont have all the statistics to show. But doesnt it make sense…and its like you gotta think about this at lots of different ways.

The special teams way of looking at it…the special teams can give the offense good field position…then the offense plays out in the middle of the field…and if they dont score the special teams set it up so the defense is playing deep in the other end…which means when we get the ball back.

The offenses way of looking at it…the defense keeps the other team from scoring…so the offense isnt in a catch up thingie…and can do ball control…or take chances when they want to and not cuz they have to…and by taking lots of time the defense can be way rested and stuff….so if the offense has to give the ball back…we are ahead or the clock is nearly run out or the field position is what we want.

The defense way of looking at it…if we are ahead…they can take chances if they want too and maybe get a turnover…or make the other team go down the field little bits at a time…and maybe a turnover somewhere…and not letting the other offense get into a rhythm…and when they get the ball back to the offense…the field position is good…and the score is good…and the clock is good.

So…like…its a village…right?

I would look at the defensive rank of the SB winners and see how many of them had a top 5 or even a top 10 defense. This list tells me that the team with the top d wins the SB about 1/3 of the time…that’s pretty good. I would be curious to see the percentage of SB winners that have a top 5 D, because clearly they still have a championship caliber D, even though it isn’t necessarily the best. Remember the saying is “Defense wins championships” not “the team with the best defense wins championships”.

to take it a step further, focus on run-stopping abilities of sb teams, and turnover differential of sb champion clubs. pretty important, also. defense does win championships, just not alone, or the single best one(statistically-which is another problem).

i’ll take a dominant d over a dominant o, even today, if you could only have one. then there’s st’s(field position) to consider. bad defense will not get you there, though. neither will not scoring at all. so, some balance is required, obviously. run the ball/stop the run is #1 in my book.

Year D-Rank O-Rank
1970 7 6
1971 7 1
1972 1 1
1973 1 5
1974 2 6
1975 2 5
1976 12 4
1977 8 2
1978 1 5
1979 5 1
1980 10 7
1981 2 7
1982 1 12
1983 13 3
1984 1 2
1985 1 2
1986 2 8
1987 6 4
1988 8 7
1989 3 1
1990 1 15
1991 2 1
1992 5 2
1993 2 2
1994 6 1
1995 3 3
1996 1 1
1997 6 1
1998 8 2
1999 4 1
2000 1 14
2001 6 6
2002 1 18
2003 1 12
2004 2 4
2005 3 9
2006 23 2
2007 17 14
2008 1 20

What I notice out of 39 Super Bowls Winners:
24 had top 5 D
35 had top 10 D
24 had top 10 O
32 had top 10 O
29 had too 10 O and D
most SB winners were good on both sides of the ball, but only 3 of them were far superior on offense than they were on defense but 6 were far superior on defense than they were on offense.

So to me, balance is the best way to go, but if you have to pick a side to dominate on, defense gives you the better chance of winning a title (although we won ours with a better offense…still top 10 D though). I also don’t think that points for/against is the only thing to look at because many factors affect that such as special teams..and the fact that a horrible offense makes things harder on the defense and vice versa.

I totally love the comments and the research that’s been thrown into the discussion.

This just goes to show why MHR is the premier fansite for Denver (if not for any team out there). :D

I am constantly amazed at the quality of analysis here at MHR. Awesome!

Okay, so I wasn’t very satisfied with my initial look at TD4HOF’s numbers. So I referred to my muse, and as he so often did with his favorite receivers, Elway told me to go deep.

As I looked deeper into the rankings of the offense and defense of the Super Bowl winners since 1970, two different categories of teams jumped out at me. I’ll start this long-winded comment by defining them. Regardless of whether the offense or defense is ranked higher, or how high either is ranked:

• Balanced teams have an offense and defensive ranked within six positions of each other.

• Lopsided teams have an offense and defense ranked eight or more positions apart.

There are no teams with an offense and defense ranked seven positions apart. That seems appropriate, since #7 is retired.

30 of the 39 Super Bowl winners were balanced.

• All but four of these were ranked in the top 5 on at least one side of the ball.
• All but one of these were ranked in the top 7 on at least one side (the 2007 Giants are the aberration, which also happens to be a common description of Eli in these parts).

So balance is good, as long as one side of the ball is ranked in the top five.

Then John said “go deeper,” so I did. Of these 30 balanced Super Bowl winners:

• 5 had the same ranking for O and D
• 5 had O and D rankings 1 position apart, 3 of which had a higher ranked O
• 3 had O and D rankings 2 positions apart, 2 of which had a higher ranked O
• 5 had O and D rankings 3 positions apart, 4 of which had a higher ranked O
• 4 had O and D rankings 4 positions apart, 1 of which had a higher ranked O
• 3 had O and D rankings 5 positions apart, 2 of which had a higher ranked O
• 5 had O and D rankings 6 positions apart, 3 of which had a higher ranked O

Two things strike me:

• The distribution is surprisingly even — having a more or less balanced team does not make a difference.
• For the teams that did not have an equally ranked offense and defense, a slight majority (14 out of 25) had a higher ranked offense.

9 of the 39 Super Bowl winners were lop-sided. (Almost all have a unique number of “positions apart” between offense and defense rankings, so I won’t list them as it isn’t really pertinent to the following discussion).

• 6 of these teams had a higher ranked D, and every single one had the number one ranked D.
• 3 of these teams had a higher ranked O, and none had the number one ranked O (they were ranked 2, 3, and 4, if you’re curious).

So here are some inappropriately definitive conclusions:

• Well balanced teams are a little more likely to win if the offense is higher ranked
• A lopsided team with a higher ranked defense will only win if it is the number one defense
• A lopsided team with a higher ranked offense will only win if it is not the number one offense

You might also want to say “well balanced teams are more likely to win than lopsided teams,” but hold off before we start using past performance to predict future returns. Although the games are taken into account in the above discussion, a funny thing happened on the way to the new millennium. Take a look at the oddities in the nine years from 2000 to 2008:

• Only two of the teams had a higher ranked offense
• 5 of the 9 total lopsided teams won in these years
• The lowest ranked team that had the same rankings for O and D won in 2001 (ranked 6, all other “same ranked” teams are 3 or higher)
• The two most dramatically lopsided defenses won in 2002 and 2008, ranked 17 and 19 positions (respectively) ahead of the other side of the ball
• The most dramatically lopsided O won in 2006, ranked 21 positions ahead of the other side of the ball
• The only team without either side of the ball ranked in the top 5 (or top 7, or even top 13) won in 2007

From 1970 to 1999, the Super Bowl winner was far more likely to be a balanced team (26 of 30 teams were balanced). Since 2000, the Super Bowl winner has been more likely to have a higher ranked defense (6 of 9) and/or be a lopsided team (5 of 9).

I’m far from ready to predict a Super Bowl winner based on this analysis (e.g. always bet a lopsided #1 ranked defense). I’d want to look at the stats of the Super Bowl losers before I’d be willing to take that step, and I’m not sure where TD4HOF got these numbers. But if you want to point me in that direction, I might be willing to make a stab at it.

Apologies to BShrout… I’m still not sure if defense wins championships, although it does look like it’s trending that way over the past nine years. Oh, and I hope the bullets weren’t too annoying (you’re probably not even reading this part if they were). I kept losing track of the data when I tried paragraphs.