Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Elite QB or an Elite D?


SteelCityColt

Recommended Posts

 Warning this is a long post!

 

It’s often been a common complaint on these forums that we won’t ever win a SB until we can put together a decent defense. Not all that strange considering one of football’s holy tenants is “Defense wins championships”. It got me wondering , does it really? Or are you better off having the franchise QB. After all teams can spend years in the playoff wilderness searching for one (Browns/Bills).

So I thought I’d draw some pretty pictures to look at the question. Before we get going though, winning a SB is tough, even having an all conquering team is no guarantee. To that end for the purposes of this exercise I’ve used win % as the baseline as I’m interested in what has a greater effect on a team being consistent winners. This is not presented as a finished piece of analysis but more as hopefully a springboard for others to chip in with their own thoughts and findings.

Before we can even consider the playoffs (Playoffs?! Don’t talk about the playoffs?!) we need to look at the regular season, after all the best teams not only make the post season on a regular basis but also tend to secure a bye week. All the data has been taken from the last 10 seasons (07-16) and looks at individual team stats, comparing a factor against their win %. To * correlation I used a trend line to work out the R squared value. R squared shows the correlation between two sets of data and will range between 0 and 1 with higher values showing more apparent correlation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination). One note of caution thought, correlation does not always imply causation! (http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)

The first query then is, does a good defense help you win more than a good QB in the regular season. For D the metrics I chose to look at were Points Allowed per game, Yards allowed per play, Sacks and their average Turnover Margin per game:

m5ymx.png

fmho5z.png

t6bazn.png

wvbspg.png

As we’d expect there is a fairly decent correlation between points allowed and win % but not perhaps as strong as we’d expect. We can see teams are having success (over 50%) whilst still giving up over 21 points a game as an average. That’s quite telling considering the discussion in another topic the other day:

Where it was postulated that 19 points or less is what we should expected from an “elite” defense.

 

Turnover margin again, as you’d expect, show a correlation, though I expected them to have more of an effect on win % than points allowed if I’m honest. The really interesting one for me was the lack of correlation between average yards allowed per play and winning. As you can see there is a marked lack of relationship compared to the other two graphs. On first pass it seems crazy I know, but thinking it through in terms of football it does make some sense. As long as you’re only giving up yards, not points (or perhaps limiting to FGs vs TDs) you are going to stand a much better chance of winning a game. Does this lend support to the theory of a D that bends but does not break? Commonly this is a description that is given to teams without an elite D, so does it suggest that as long your D is solid it doesn’t have to be spectacular?

I also expected the “splash” plays, namely sacks and turnovers to have more of an impact on the outcome of games especially the turnovers.

 

How does this compare to having a good/franchise/elite QB though? Now this was a tougher one to try and pick the metrics for. After all if we had nice easy numbers to say QB A is better than QB B we wouldn’t have debates about who’s the best QB. It was also never going to be a like for like comparison to look at a team (Defense) vs an individual, but that’s the nature of the beast for this body of work. I went with 3 of the more common QB yard sticks, Yards/Attempt, Passer Rating & Completion %:

154x5qh.png

2b89ht.png

wqwvus.png

 

Much as I expected, the “better” the QB the greater a team’s win %. However as we can see Yards/Attempt and Passer Rating have a stronger correlation then the defensive metrics suggesting that QB plays is having a great effect on a team’s chance of winning. It does somewhat match what I expected, when I think back and consider anecdotally the teams that have made the playoffs on a consistent basis tend to have a “franchise” QB at the helm. It would also support the belief the league has shifted via rule changes to being much more accommodating to teams with good passing attacks.

 

The surprising one for me here was how there was a drop off in correlation when looking at completion %. It would suggest on a superficial level that you’re better off having a QB who can make the plays but isn’t necessarily metronomic with his accuracy. It would need much deeper exploration to substantiate of course.

 

On the face of it then, the above would suggest you have a better chance of winning more games in the regular season with a high level QB then you do with a high level D. Does this hold for the post season? After all it’s another widely accepted tenant that certain players, mostly QBs,  are amazing in the regular season but can’t hack it in the post season. Well let’s look at the same metrics for the post season:

28a16vn.png

v6jbbo.png

9a0ge8.png

1z6urly.png

 

It’s worth noting at this point that obviously looking only at post season games our sample is much smaller than the regular seasons so we leave ourselves more open to variance.

 

Even then I was somewhat taken aback by the numbers. The above would seem to suggest that points allowed and yards per play aren’t nearly as important in winning a playoff game, but winning the turnover battle becomes markedly more important. This would suggest that come the playoffs a bend don’t break D won’t get it done but one that can make splash plays has a greater chance.  

 

What about our golden armed QB though? Do we see a similar change in his numbers in the post season?

15zmh49.png

15pr8et.png

xp9d8g.png

 

Again we see a drop in the correlations but not quite as markedly as the defensive metrics. It lends weight to my suspicion that with the smaller sample size and the inherent nature of the playoffs (pressure, more evenly matched teams etc.) that it’s a just more of a crap shoot. However we do still see that on the whole better QB play increases the win %. I found it very interesting too that completion % pretty much has no effect on whether a team wins or loses in the playoffs. Does that suggest a gunslinger is better than a safe dink and dunker come the post season?

 

So to answer my original question, my own opinion would be that I’d much rather have the Elite QB over the Elite D, but, you do need at least a few players on D who can make plays come the big games.

 

The more observant readers will have noticed I’ve neglected the running game in the breakdown so far, after it’s again common football wisdom that you need to running game to succeed in the post season. Or do you? Here’s the correlations for the regular season and post season between Rushing Yards/Attempt and Win %:

 

307yoeq.png

11r86d5.png

 

Wow, I mean this really made me question my methods Watson. It would suggest that a productive running game is not all that important to winning (though it has more effect in the post season). Then I thought about it, and looked to our own fair Colts. When you consider the amount of games we have won without having a 100 yard rusher, or even the threat of the running game it does firm up my belief a decent QB can overcome a number of deficiencies elsewhere on a team. The other thing to consider is the hidden effects of a running game. Wearing down the defense, setting up play action for a more explosive passing game etc. etc.

So there you have it folks, thank you for sticking with me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if you're stacked at every position unless you have a franchise QB you aren't going to be a great team. You have to have a franchise QB whether its a Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Brees, Rothlesburger type or a Cousins, Dalton, etc. Denver showed this year that a great D with no QB will only take you so far. I knew they would be mediocre. For some reason others thought they'd win the division again. They'll be the same next year unless Lynch or Semian breaks out and becomes that franchise guy.

 

Bottom line....When you have a franchise QB, you cant have a terrible D like we've had. (That will soon be changing mark my words) You have to have, not really a monster D like a Denver or Seattle, etc, but you have to have some playmakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, COLTS449 said:

I don't care if you're stacked at every position unless you have a franchise QB you aren't going to be a great team. You have to have a franchise QB whether its a Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Brees, Rothlesburger type or a Cousins, Dalton, etc. Denver showed this year that a great D with no QB will only take you so far. I knew they would be mediocre. For some reason others thought they'd win the division again. They'll be the same next year unless Lynch or Semian breaks out and becomes that franchise guy.

 

The counter argument to this would be:

 

2015 - Broncos

2013 - Ravens

2003 - Bucs

2001 - Ravens

 

Not that I disagree with you, but there are examples where a great D has carried a team all the way without having a franchise QB. 2013 I might be tempted to take out as Joe Flacco got hot at the perfect time. 

 

When I was putting this together I struggled off the top of my head the converse situation where a QB had carried an inept D all the way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

The counter argument to this would be:

 

2015 - Broncos

2013 - Ravens

2003 - Bucs

2001 - Ravens

 

Not that I disagree with you, but there are examples where a great D has carried a team all the way without having a franchise QB. 2013 I might be tempted to take out as Joe Flacco got hot at the perfect time. 

 

When I was putting this together I struggled off the top of my head the converse situation where a QB had carried an inept D all the way. 

 

 

01 and 03 yeah. But as you said Flaco played like a top 5 QB the last several games of 13 as well, and even though 18 wasn't the same player last year he was still Manning.

 

But I forgot to mention how much I respect Your original post. It was a VERY well thought out post, with great insight, and is a good discussion. So what I'm trying to say is awesome thread bro. It'll be interesting to see some of the input from other posters as the day goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

I don't care if you're stacked at every position unless you have a franchise QB you aren't going to be a great team. You have to have a franchise QB whether its a Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Brees, Rothlesburger type or a Cousins, Dalton, etc. Denver showed this year that a great D with no QB will only take you so far. I knew they would be mediocre. For some reason others thought they'd win the division again. They'll be the same next year unless Lynch or Semian breaks out and becomes that franchise guy.

 

Bottom line....When you have a franchise QB, you cant have a terrible D like we've had. (That will soon be changing mark my words) You have to have, not really a monster D like a Denver or Seattle, etc, but you have to have some playmakers.

Exactly. There have been teams that have won it with a average to below average QB. Luck can care this team. But needs more help than he got. But if you asked if I would rather have Denver's team or the Colts team right now, I'd pick the Colts because of Luck. We will be okay. If we had a good GM from the beginning, we would be Super Bowl contenders(maybe favorites) right now IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

Thank you, I'm a very boring person.

I find it absolutely fascinating. Ive been doing some stuff of my own, but neither as adept or as driven as you are. I know that there are a lot of factors going into this that need to be considered and I think you came up with the best metrics without making it too bulky and overbearing for the average person. Look forward to seeing anything else you work out in the coming days/weeks/months. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaturdayAllDay said:

I find it absolutely fascinating. Ive been doing some stuff of my own, but neither as adept or as driven as you are. I know that there are a lot of factors going into this that need to be considered and I think you came up with the best metrics without making it too bulky and overbearing for the average person. Look forward to seeing anything else you work out in the coming days/weeks/months. 

 

Yeah. Steal City went all out bro. Much respect for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, COLTS449 said:

 

01 and 03 yeah. But as you said Flaco played like a top 5 QB the last several games of 13 as well, and even though 18 wasn't the same player last year he was still Manning.

 

But I forgot to mention how much I respect Your original post. It was a VERY well thought out post, with great insight, and is a good discussion. So what I'm trying to say is awesome thread bro. It'll be interesting to see some of the input from other posters as the day goes on.

 

I take it back about Flacco, he actually overcame the 2nd worst defense (in terms of average points allowed by a SB Winner per game over the season) to win. 

 

Season Team PPG (Season)
2016 NE 16.37
2015 DEN 17.89
2014 NE 19.73
2013 SEA 14.26
2012 BAL 21.60
2011 NYG 22.80
2010 GB 15.80
2009 NO 21.05
2008 NYG 14.95
2007 IND 20.80

 

As with all these things, numbers only tell a fraction of the story of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I take it back about Flacco, he actually overcame the 2nd worst defense (in terms of average points allowed by a SB Winner per game over the season) to win. 

 

Season Team PPG (Season)
2016 NE 16.37
2015 DEN 17.89
2014 NE 19.73
2013 SEA 14.26
2012 BAL 21.60
2011 NYG 22.80
2010 GB 15.80
2009 NO 21.05
2008 NYG 14.95
2007 IND 20.80

 

As with all these things, numbers only tell a fraction of the story of course. 

 

Good stuff but you skipped the PIT win in 08. NYG won 07, we 06.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, COLTS449 said:

I don't care if you're stacked at every position unless you have a franchise QB you aren't going to be a great team. You have to have a franchise QB whether its a Brady, Rodgers, Luck, Brees, Rothlesburger type or a Cousins, Dalton, etc. Denver showed this year that a great D with no QB will only take you so far. I knew they would be mediocre. For some reason others thought they'd win the division again. They'll be the same next year unless Lynch or Semian breaks out and becomes that franchise guy.

 

Bottom line....When you have a franchise QB, you cant have a terrible D like we've had. (That will soon be changing mark my words) You have to have, not really a monster D like a Denver or Seattle, etc, but you have to have some playmakers.

The OP said 'Elite QB'. You're saying 'Franchise QB', and mention Cousins, and Dalton, who definitely aren't 'elite'. Not to me anyway.

 

I agree that you're mainly going nowhere with a garbage QB, and if 'franchise QB' refers to good or better, then I'm in agreement with you.

 

I believe in a balanced team, with the emphasis on D. I don't believe the QB needs to be 'elite' for the team to be successful. However, I also don't believe the D needs to be 'elite' to be successful.

 

With what the Colts have now, they definitely need upgrades on D. Maybe 2 - 3 playmakers, and a couple more solid guys, and I believe they're in the thick of it. Personally, if we get the right guys (a couple who can elevate the pay of those around them), we're not that far off, and could turn the corner in one off season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, buccolts said:

The OP said 'Elite QB'. You're saying 'Franchise QB', and mention Cousins, and Dalton, who definitely aren't 'elite'. Not to me anyway.

 

I agree that you're mainly going nowhere with a garbage QB, and if 'franchise QB' refers to good or better, then I'm in agreement with you.

 

I believe in a balanced team, with the emphasis on D. I don't believe the QB needs to be 'elite' for the team to be successful. However, I also don't believe the D needs to be 'elite' to be successful.

 

With what the Colts have now, they definitely need upgrades on D. Maybe 2 - 3 playmakers, and a couple more solid guys, and I believe they're in the thick of it. Personally, if we get the right guys (a couple who can elevate the pay of those around them), we're not that far off, and could turn the corner in one off season.

 

I said something like you can have an elite guy like a Brady, Rogers, Brees, Ben, Luck, etc. Or a guy like Dalton or Cousins who aren't anywhere near those guys, but are still franchise QB's capable of leading a team to a big playoff run.

 

And we need a couple dominant EDGE rushers, a couple all around ILB's, a run stuffing NT, and a top tier corner.

 

We can get that in FA and the draft with Melvin Ingram, AJ, Bouye, Brandon Williams, Tim Williams, Jarred Davis. Just worried Davis wont be there in the 2nd, but there's a handful of ILB's I like in the 2nd-4th range, then JRM in the 4-5-6 range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, COLTS449 said:

 

 

And we need a couple dominant EDGE rushers, a couple all around ILB's, a run stuffing NT, and a top tier corner.

 

 

 

The OP would suggest that sacks and stuffing the run isn't as important as you might have thought. However, it's a much more nuanced thing that can't easily be broken down by a few metrics. For instance a pass rush isn't just about sacks, getting a QB off his spot and forcing an errant throw in some cases might be just as good or even better than a sack (if say it leads to an INT). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes both, or atleast portions of both. You basically have to have cake and eat it to which people have been trying to accomplish since the beginning of time and failing to do so. Jim McMahon was still pretty good even if he wasn't great. Even crippled up Peyton Manning was good enough in the big games, and so was Brock like it or not. Meanwhile there are alot of GOAT quarterbacks who are short on hardware like Marino, Favre and Young.

 

As for the Colts I still maintain they need the * you don't find on a state sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elite QB has to be first. One-sided wins like the Seahawks' D's and Broncos' D's wins are few and far between. Those Ds are historic (top 3 or 4 all time, both of them, you can look it up) but not sustainable from year to year due to free agency and salary cap. However, an elite QB who can raise the level of the folks around him is sustainable for well over a decade, IMO. With an elite QB and very good/elite OL, you can win several ways on O, indoors/outdoors.

 

Like Peyton once said "you cannot defend a perfect throw". An elite D will help you in road games and will travel well and keep you in games but in most cases, the QB still has to finish the game for you, ala Eli in SB 2007, SB 2011, Big Ben in SB 2008, Brady in SB 2016. Though I mainly focused on 4th qtr. comebacks in the last few minutes and not the work done before the 4th like Drew Brees in 2009 or Rodgers in 2010, the elite QB is still the backbone of the team.

 

Where the D comes in is the increase in the margin for error for the QB, to not make the QB pay too much for his mistakes by getting the ball back sooner after a mistake, making timely stops to enable a comeback etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2017 at 9:16 AM, SteelCityColt said:

 

Even then I was somewhat taken aback by the numbers. The above would seem to suggest that points allowed and yards per play aren’t nearly as important in winning a playoff game, but winning the turnover battle becomes markedly more important. This would suggest that come the playoffs a bend don’t break D won’t get it done but one that can make splash plays has a greater chance.  

 

 

This statement says it all. Have the elite QB to win it at the end. Have enough play makers on D to make the splash plays or the plays to keep you in the game. If you have an elite QB, you need to take advantage of it with some aggression on D.

 

Gregg Williams did in the one year when things were cooking for the Saints knowing Brees could bail him out. The Colts perennially sat back and played bend-but-don't-break while Peyton was here which resulted in bend-and-break vs elite balanced Os resulting in more imbalanced TOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tough call.   An elite QB can win you allot of regular season games and get you to the playoffs nearly every year.   That gives you a shot and if your "D" can play well in the playoffs, a Superbowl may be in the cards.  

 

An elite "D" can also get you to the playoffs, but not as easily.   Low scoring games can go either way many times.  However, if you make the playoffs, there is a good shot at advancing.   That is assuming that instead of an elite QB, you have a decent one.   Osweiller doesn't make that list.   It's a tough question if you factor in extremes.  

 

Mid 2000's:  Peyton Manning and Indy's defense or Flacco and Baltimore's defense?   Maybe Peyton and Baltimore's defense.   What would Flacco have done with Indy's defense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most important factor that distinguishes teams in the playoffs is not just an elite QB or elite D, it is an elite coach, IMO. An elite coach with an elite QB or an elite D can do more damage than just the elite QB or elite D themselves, IMO.

 

Coaching decisions are so critical with field positioning and using the right personnel and preparation (whether it is for crowd noise, prepared for plays that a team may have run just 4 or 5 times the entire year, for throwing 50 times vs running 50 times, or for going up tempo or slowing down tempo and shrinking the game and possessions, calling a gutsy onside kick, preparing for Hail Mary, even taking a safety for field position etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2017 at 7:00 AM, SteelCityColt said:

2015 - Broncos

2013 - Ravens

2003 - Bucs

2001 - Ravens

 

'01 and '03 are different, IMO. First, those were all time GREAT defenses, similar to the '85 Bears. Second, the league was different then than it is now, especially when it comes to the value of a strong rushing attack (which both of those teams had). 

 

And I'd say that in 2013 and 2015, those teams got good QBing in the playoffs. Manning wasn't great in 2015, but he made a lot of good plays in the postseason. And Flacco had probably the best four game stretch of his career in the 2013 playoffs. 

 

I think you have to have at least decent QBing to win in the playoffs. Sometimes average QBs get hot for a few weeks, and sometimes good QBs have a bad game or two. Same for defenses. I think championship runs happen when good QBing and good defense converge. Doesn't mean you have to be great on either side, but you can't be bad, either.

 

Specific to the Colts, I think we have a borderline great QB, but we don't have a great offense. The scheme is flawed and the attack isn't balanced. If the offense was great, the Colts would have won the division running away in 2016. And of course, we know the defense is bad; if the defense were top 10, the Colts would have won the division. On defense, the issue is personnel (maybe coaching also, but definitely personnel); on offense, the issue is coaching. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Superman said:

 

'01 and '03 are different, IMO. First, those were all time GREAT defenses, similar to the '85 Bears. Second, the league was different then than it is now, especially when it comes to the value of a strong rushing attack (which both of those teams had). 

 

And I'd say that in 2013 and 2015, those teams got good QBing in the playoffs. Manning wasn't great in 2015, but he made a lot of good plays in the postseason. And Flacco had probably the best four game stretch of his career in the 2013 playoffs. 

 

I think you have to have at least decent QBing to win in the playoffs. Sometimes average QBs get hot for a few weeks, and sometimes good QBs have a bad game or two. Same for defenses. I think championship runs happen when good QBing and good defense converge. Doesn't mean you have to be great on either side, but you can't be bad, either.

 

Specific to the Colts, I think we have a borderline great QB, but we don't have a great offense. The scheme is flawed and the attack isn't balanced. If the offense was great, the Colts would have won the division running away in 2016. And of course, we know the defense is bad; if the defense were top 10, the Colts would have won the division. On defense, the issue is personnel (maybe coaching also, but definitely personnel); on offense, the issue is coaching. 

 

I can't disagree with any of the above. The OP was very simplistic and more a stream of consciousness on my part as I started to mess around with some numbers rather than a polished piece of analysis. 

 

Flacco is a good example of a "good" QB getting hot enough to elevate their play at just the right time, even prior to the playoffs his run towards the end of the regular season was crazy. As you touch upon, having good players doesn't necessarily mean you're nailed on certs for the big one, or even the playoffs. But it does give you a better chance of all the stars aligning for that season. A good example for me would be the Panthers until they fell short in the SB. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take the Elite QB anyday and just a Good Defense. As long as the Defense is Good you can win SB's with an Elite QB. Since the 1992 Season (going back 25 seasons) only 2 teams have won a SB without an Elite QB, that was the Ravens in 2000 with Dilfer and the Bucs with Johnson in 2002. I guess you could argue Flacco isn't Elite but he played like it during their SB run in 2012. Flacco had 11 TD's and no INT's during that run. Going back to 1992 here are the QB's that have won:

Aikman 3 times, S. Young 1, Favre 1, Elway 2, Warner 1, Brady 5, Big Ben 2, Eli 2, Rodgers 1, Brees 1, Wilson 1, and Peyton 2 - all are either in Hall of Fame or will be in the Hall of Fame. Wilson will make it if continues play solid the next 5 years or so. Only Dilfer, Johnson, and Flacco wont be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

I can't disagree with any of the above. The OP was very simplistic and more a stream of consciousness on my part as I started to mess around with some numbers rather than a polished piece of analysis. 

 

Flacco is a good example of a "good" QB getting hot enough to elevate their play at just the right time, even prior to the playoffs his run towards the end of the regular season was crazy. As you touch upon, having good players doesn't necessarily mean you're nailed on certs for the big one, or even the playoffs. But it does give you a better chance of all the start aligning for that season. A good example for me would be the Panthers until they fell short in the SB. 

 

All good stuff. Just wanted to offer my two cents, and specifically, push back against the idea that you can win a SB without good QBing. I wouldn't want to be the team trying to prove that theory.

 

We all know that the rule changes since 2004 have made passing offense more prominent, and in this current era in the NFL, there are no teams that have done it without at least timely QBing, no matter how good their defenses were. On the other hand, there have been several teams with good defenses that fell short, mostly due to bad QBing -- the 2016 Texans are a great example. There are also teams with good QBs that couldn't get any stops -- the 2013 and 2014 Colts might be in the mix there. 

 

I'm just kind of resistant to the either/or nature of the discussion. I think balance should be the goal. With a hard salary cap and reverse-ordered draft, the league is designed to benefit bad teams and penalize good teams. It's insanely difficult to achieve top five status in either category, let alone both; and even harder to sustain that status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Superman said:

We all know that the rule changes since 2004 have made passing offense more prominent, and in this current era in the NFL, there are no teams that have done it without at least timely QBing, no matter how good their defenses were. On the other hand, there have been several teams with good defenses that fell short, mostly due to bad QBing -- the 2016 Texans are a great example. There are also teams with good QBs that couldn't get any stops -- the 2013 and 2014 Colts might be in the mix there. 

 

I'm just kind of resistant to the either/or nature of the discussion. I think balance should be the goal. With a hard salary cap and reverse-ordered draft, the league is designed to benefit bad teams and penalize good teams. It's insanely difficult to achieve top five status in either category, let alone both; and even harder to sustain that status.

 

This might have been the better question to pose, can you win it all with a Defense, strong running game and the most mediocre of QBs? The Texans are a great example as you say, not just in 2016, of why you need at least a competent game manager back there. 

 

You're right too that it should never be an either or, and yes it's probably impossible to be a top 5 team on either side of the ball consistently over a sustained period of time let alone both. The only team I can think of is NE and even then they've waxed and waned from season to season. What they have done well is made the most of the talent they have on the roster. If they are stronger on O they go O heavy, and vice versa. I think too they always have a leg up on D in having one of the best defensive minds in the game in BB. On most of the graphs in the OP for defense there is a outlier point far to the right, and that's NE. Over the period of time they've been very good on D. It just so happens they have an elite QB to boot. Life's just not fair sometimes :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would take the Elite QB anyday and just a Good Defense. As long as the Defense is Good you can win SB's with an Elite QB. Since the 1992 Season (going back 25 seasons) only 2 teams have won a SB without an Elite QB, that was the Ravens in 2000 with Dilfer and the Bucs with Johnson in 2002. I guess you could argue Flacco isn't Elite but he played like it during their SB run in 2012. Flacco had 11 TD's and no INT's during that run. Going back to 1992 here are the QB's that have won:

Aikman 3 times, S. Young 1, Favre 1, Elway 2, Warner 1, Brady 5, Big Ben 2, Eli 2, Rodgers 1, Brees 1, Wilson 1, and Peyton 2 - all are either in Hall of Fame or will be in the Hall of Fame. Wilson will make it if continues play solid the next 5 years or so. Only Dilfer, Johnson, and Flacco wont be.

Flacco playing at an elite level for a bit doesn't make him elite.   I don't think Wilson is elite.   You forgot about Eli, he's not close to elite.   But you are correct that an elite QB makes your chances much better.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

Flacco playing at an elite level for a bit doesn't make him elite.   I don't think Wilson is elite.   You forgot about Eli, he's not close to elite.   But you are correct that an elite QB makes your chances much better.  

Good points, I don't think Flacco is Elite for his career. Not sure about Eli, his teams beat the Patriots twice in the SB which is really impressive. I am talking career wise because Eli will make the Hall of Fame IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2017 at 9:00 AM, SteelCityColt said:

 

The counter argument to this would be:

 

2015 - Broncos

2013 - Ravens

2003 - Bucs

2001 - Ravens

 

Not that I disagree with you, but there are examples where a great D has carried a team all the way without having a franchise QB. 2013 I might be tempted to take out as Joe Flacco got hot at the perfect time. 

 

When I was putting this together I struggled off the top of my head the converse situation where a QB had carried an inept D all the way. 

 

 

 

To add to this: 

 

 

1990 Giants - won the SB with a backup QB and #1 ranked defense that held the Bills to just 19 points in the SB. 

 

 

Defenses are winning championships more and more in the modern NFL. The last several SB's have all been decided with major turnovers and defenses playing lights out at the right time. Even this past SB, the fumble and the Pats holding down the Falcons completely changed that game around. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jet1968 said:

Seems to me that the teams I usually see win the Super Bowl have very good defenses. 

 

You need good D's to keep teams in games but you need good QB'ing to finish the job. No matter how many stops the Patriots' D got, if Brady did not cash it in, they do not win the SB. Applies to both the Seahawks and Falcons that they shut out in the 4th qtr. in both their last 2 SB wins. Giants shut Brady down in the 4th qtr. in the SB played in Indy. However, in all cases, the QB had to finish the job. Was the case with Eli in 2007 and 2011 too.

 

The Texans vs Patriots 2017 playoff game, the D was doing a decent job keeping them in the game but QB'ing went from game manager level to bad in an instant, field position was flipped thanks to Osweiler's turnovers, and that made the D eventually pay. There was a point in the Colts vs Patriots divisional playoff round in 2013 playoffs when the Colts' D got 4 consecutive 3 and outs but the O did nothing with it in Foxboro. Both have to feed off each other and when one gives you the chance, the other one has to seize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

You need good D's to keep teams in games but you need good QB'ing to finish the job. No matter how many stops the Patriots' D got, if Brady did not cash it in, they do not win the SB. Applies to both the Seahawks and Falcons that they shut out in the 4th qtr. in both their last 2 SB wins. Giants shut Brady down in the 4th qtr. in the SB played in Indy. However, in all cases, the QB had to finish the job. Was the case with Eli in 2007 and 2011 too.

 

The Texans vs Patriots 2017 playoff game, the D was doing a decent job keeping them in the game but QB'ing went from game manager level to bad in an instant, field position was flipped thanks to Osweiler's turnovers, and that made the D eventually pay. There was a point in the Colts vs Patriots divisional playoff round in 2013 playoffs when the Colts' D got 4 consecutive 3 and outs but the O did nothing with it in Foxboro. Both have to feed off each other and when one gives you the chance, the other one has to seize it.

 

The OP was poor in not recognising that offense and defense are dependent entities. For example poor offense will put more strain on the defense by forcing them onto the field more and giving them less recovery time. Conversely if your D is bad your O is probably going to be starting from poor field position consistently, most likely your own 25 or less :P. That would seem to be the common sense theory, but how true is it?

 

If from the OP we use the take away that points allowed is more important a metric than yards allowed let's see how our offensive performance affects this, and how strong a relationship it is:

 

8053f37d1a.png

 

Straight up points scored vs points allowed shows there is a degree of relationship between the 2 about on the same level as the effect the number of sacks a team gets which is interesting. 

 

80541edd2c.png

 

Offensive yards gained has minimal correlation suggesting it's not a factor. Combined with the OP which suggesting yards allowed didn't actually have that strong an effect on win % it would suggest total yards is not a great metric for assessing the effectiveness of an offense or defense. 

 

805415d9e6.jpg

 

TOP shows a similar correlation to points scored which fits common sense, The more you hold the ball the less opportunity for the opponent to score.

 

8054097984.png

 

More telling is turnovers on offense, which shows the highest correlation. 

 

The above would suggest then a good offense,especially one that is good on ball security, can be as effective as a defensive measure as a good pass rush say. 

 

It's not exactly mind blowing stuff, but it's always good to see it supported by numbers. If there's appetite form other posters I might look at it the other way round and see if a good D makes your O better. I think I know the answer already but what can I say, graphs excite me.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

 

The OP was poor in not recognising that offense and defense are dependent entities. For example poor offense will put more strain on the defense by forcing them onto the field more and giving them less recovery time. Conversely if your D is bad your O is probably going to be starting from poor field position consistently, most likely your own 25 or less :P. That would seem to be the common sense theory, but how true is it?

 

If from the OP we use the take away that points allowed is more important a metric than yards allowed let's see how our offensive performance affects this, and how strong a relationship it is:

 

8053f37d1a.png

 

Straight up points scored vs points allowed shows there is a degree of relationship between the 2 about on the same level as the effect the number of sacks a team gets which is interesting. 

 

80541edd2c.png

 

Offensive yards gained has minimal correlation suggesting it's not a factor. Combined with the OP which suggesting yards allowed didn't actually have that strong an effect on win % it would suggest total yards is not a great metric for assessing the effectiveness of an offense or defense. 

 

805415d9e6.jpg

 

TOP shows a similar correlation to points scored which fits common sense, The more you hold the ball the less opportunity for the opponent to score.

 

8054097984.png

 

More telling is turnovers on offense, which shows the highest correlation. 

 

The above would suggest then a good offense,especially one that is good on ball security, can be as effective as a defensive measure as a good pass rush say. 

 

It's not exactly mind blowing stuff, but it's always good to see it supported by numbers. If there's appetite form other posters I might look at it the other way round and see if a good D makes your O better. I think I know the answer already but what can I say, graphs excite me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come away with some points by chewing clock and not turning over the ball is the simple offensive recipe for playoff success. A big reason Brady was able to win those early SBs when he was not nearly the QB he is now.

 

The other aspect is, no matter how the D did during the regular season, if it is tops in the postseason, you can stop trying to fit it into any theory. Cases like the 2006 Colts 180 on D, the rope-a-dope they pulled are few and far between. Same thing with time of possession with critical 3rd down conversions. Giants weren't in the top part of the league in running the ball or TOP in the regular season in 2011 but once the playoffs came, they threw those stats out the window and got smarter. Eli gets smarter and safer during the playoffs, explains his road record for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without looking at the stats to much I'm honestly inclined to pick a better D.

 

Just looking back at the last 20 years we've had 2 sb trips and one win with an all time great at qb and the second best qb prospect potentially ever.

 

I see both sides, but how many years were we an unstoppable O that was usually bounced in round 1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, IinD said:

 

 

Just looking back at the last 20 years we've had 2 sb trips and one win with an all time great at qb

 

Manning was the best defensive player we had.   If he didn't put up quick points, thus making the opposing offenses basically give up on the run game and start passing, Freeney would not have been the player he was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...