Where Are Those That Questioned If D Wins Championships?

[chad72]

Yeah, it is nice to have the stats in the regular season like Brees, Rodgers, Peyton (and occasionally Brady too).

Offense wins games to get you to the playoffs, but D wins you those close games to win you championships!!!

How many times do they have to re-run the story again and again for us to finally get it???

The Colts 29 points in 2006 SB had a defensive TD, Steelers 27 points in 2008 had a defensive TD, Saints 31 points in 2009 had a defensive TD, Packers 31 points in 2010 had a defensive TD and in the years we have not had a defensive TD, I can't remember 30 plus points scored purely offensively by a team in the SB since 2004, I think when the Pats put up 32 points.

When the going gets tough, the offense gets tight in the big games, does not want to make mistakes especially when the other team does not want to give up a big play and points are at a premium in the playoffs and that is why you need a good D (not a great one always) to win in the playoffs.

[cokomenow]

They've all run away. they can't face the simple truth

[JCPatriot]

Of course you need a good D. Has anyone really questioned that? Most of the people that I have seen question the cliche that "Defense Wins Championships" have argued that defense doesn't win championships alone. It usually takes a balanced, complete team to win a championship. I don't see how this contradicts that.

[chad72]

Of course you need a good D. Has anyone really questioned that?

Yep, a few got carried away with Brees' and Rodgers' stats on this forum and decided that is what the new era needs, to be able to keep up offensively to win championships. Those were the ones who felt a better O than D is necessary to win championships.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Yep, a few got carried away with Brees' and Rodgers' stats on this forum and decided that is what the new era needs, to be able to keep up offensively to win championships. Those were the ones who felt a better O than D is necessary to win championships.

And yet, E. Manning and T. Brady have combined for more passing yardage (>10,000 combined) ever by a Super Bowl QB tandem by approximately 1200 yards more than the previous largest total, then by P. Manning and D. Brees in 2009. Hmmmmm......

[chad72]

And yet, E. Manning and T. Brady have combined for more passing yardage (>10,000 combined) ever by a Super Bowl QB tandem by approximately 1200 yards more than the previous largest total, then by P. Manning and D. Brees in 2009. Hmmmmm......

No one is denying it is a passing league overall and the numbers that come with them but when it comes to the playoffs, the passing yardage does not have the gaudy numbers that you see in the regular season since you play better Ds and the D is counted on to make plays to win close games, IMO, more than O!!! Seems to be the case especially in conference championship games and SBs when the stakes get higher!!!

[JCPatriot]

No one is denying it is a passing league overall and the numbers that come with them but when it comes to the playoffs, the passing yardage does not have the gaudy numbers that you see in the regular season since you play better Ds and the D is counted on to make plays to win close games, IMO, more than O!!! Seems to be the case especially in conference championship games and SBs when the stakes get higher!!!

It's not as cut and dry as that. I think most would agree that the Ravens have a better defense than the Pats, but the Pats beat them in the conference championship. The Giants needed a clutch drive in the 4th quarter tonight to take the lead. If Manningham doesn't make a spectacular catch on that last drive, there is a good chance that the Pats win. Of course, then the argument would be that the Pats D won the game by making the stop. Most playoff games are won or lost because a team either scores or fails to score in a critical situation. Is that due to offense or defense? It is a balance between the two (and throw in some special teams). The Pats had several wide open looks that Brady either missed or the receiver dropped. That's not great defense but lack of offensive execution. I'm not saying you don't need a good D, but you need positive contribution from all three phases of the game. Great D alone is not sufficient. In fact, I would not say that either of the teams that played tonight had really great defenses.

[ruksak]

Do people even know what they're saying when they say "Defense wins championships"?

Silly.

[colts_mp]

Umm..the Giants had the 27th ranked defense this year...but since the Pats had the 31st ranked defense I guess you're right.

[GoColts8818]

If it was all about defenses shouldn't the 49ers and Ravens been playing tonight?

Having a Super Star QB helps a little too just saying...

[chad72]

Umm..the Giants had the 27th ranked defense this year...but since the Pats had the 31st ranked defense I guess you're right.

True!!! It is not how you played to get to the dance but how you play once you are in the dance!!! Like I said, offense gets you to the playoffs, that is where your superstar QB is needed more, the regular season. Once you get there, the team that can play good D at opportune times gets it done!!! There is no one size fits all formula but both Giants SB runs, no team scored more than 20 points on them in any game in the 8 games that they won.

Our Colts did the same in the 2006 playoff run. Except that Peyton won despite our horrendous ST coverage in the playoffs (except for AV kicking). Once you get to the playoffs, I guess you can throw regular season numbers aside!!! But they did win it with the D making more plays than in the regular season and that is undeniable. Yes, it is still QB driven, no doubt about that. Once you get there to the playoffs, the true balance of teams is revealed or lack of balance is exposed, maybe that is how I should have worded it.

[Superman]

I think this topic is another example of trying to make a very complex subject black or white, when the answer really lies somewhere in between. And I love chad72 as a poster, but this is a stretch.

In 2009, we played fantastic defense in the playoffs, shutting the Ravens down completely (Ray Rice had 67 yards and we forced 4 turnovers), and then shutting the Jets out in the second half. That's against two smash-mouthed, physical football teams. The kind of team that everyone always says the Colts struggle against, and yet, we handled both fairly easily.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing that a good defense doesn't give you a better chance of winning, especially in the playoffs. But the league is changing. Having a good defense and an average quarterback is just as detrimental to your chances as having an average defense and a good quarterback. And usually, all things being equal, the matchup between two teams with good defenses swings toward the team with the better quarterback (Giants/Niners).

You also have to recognize how many teams with good defenses miss the playoffs every year. The Seahawks, Titans, Browns and Dolphins were all in the top ten of scoring defense this year, and the only one to finish above .500 was the Titans. Ironically, they had the best quarterback play of the four. Also, the only teams with good quarterbacks to not make the playoffs were teams that suffered through some pretty pathetic quarterback play for a good stretch of the season (Chargers, Cowboys, Bills, Eagles, Jets).

Gotta have balance. You've got to be able to score in tight games, and you've got to be able to get stops in tight games. No question that you can't just load up on offense and expect to win championships, but you can't just load up on defense, either. Eli Manning out-quarterbacked Tom Brady last night, and that was the difference in a game with some pretty good defense on both sides. It's not one way or the other.

[JimJaime]

So if Welker held onto the ball at the 20 and the pats get say a fg and won the game are you saying the people said O wins championships were right??? Its a game as Brady says comes down to 2 or 3 plays.. Welker and Branch drops and manningham spectacular catch. (I still say that 2nd foot wasnt down lol)

[oldunclemark]

Yeah, it is nice to have the stats in the regular season like Brees, Rodgers, Peyton (and occasionally Brady too).

Offense wins games to get you to the playoffs, but D wins you those close games to win you championships!!!

How many times do they have to re-run the story again and again for us to finally get it???

The Colts 29 points in 2006 SB had a defensive TD, Steelers 27 points in 2008 had a defensive TD, Saints 31 points in 2009 had a defensive TD, Packers 31 points in 2010 had a defensive TD and in the years we have not had a defensive TD, I can't remember 30 plus points scored purely offensively by a team in the SB since 2004, I think when the Pats put up 32 points.

When the going gets tough, the offense gets tight in the big games, does not want to make mistakes especially when the other team does not want to give up a big play and points are at a premium in the playoffs and that is why you need a good D (not a great one always) to win in the playoffs.

400 yards..24 first downs for the NYGs... 39 min..time of posession...

Defense didnt win..

NYGs 'D:" wasn't great either

[chad72]

400 yards..24 first downs for the NYGs... 39 min..time of posession...

Defense didnt win..

NYGs 'D:" wasn't great either

Superman's post probably summed it up the best.

You need a good QB to make plays when it counts. But you cannot win with a terrible D in the playoffs, Packers and Saints are proof of that despite their ungodly offense in the regular season. Andy246's new thread topic summarizes it well enough too. Peyton went through the same, Brady's 18-0 Pats experienced the same and it was only when their Ds help the opponents' O in check did they win championships.

The Giants won because the Pats' D could not make enough stops to turn around the time of possession disparity. For all the yards that Eli gained, he did not light up the scoreboard whatsoever. But he did get the ball back enough times, thanks to his D, to make it count. That underscores the importance of the D, not the defensive TDs or sacks etc. that we get caught up with. Can the D give your QB enough possessions to make a dent when it matters? Especially when you have 2 equally good QBs at the helm.

[chad72]

In 2009, we played fantastic defense in the playoffs, shutting the Ravens down completely (Ray Rice had 67 yards and we forced 4 turnovers), and then shutting the Jets out in the second half. That's against two smash-mouthed, physical football teams. The kind of team that everyone always says the Colts struggle against, and yet, we handled both fairly easily.

We won both the Ravens and Jets games because our D got turnovers and stops and gave Peyton ample possessions. The Jets were up 17-13 at the half, our D shut them down in the second half and gave the ball back to Peyton several times, let us not forget that. Against the Ravens, I am sure we got at least 4 turnovers to change field position. Against the Saints, no punts in the second half, none, zilch, nada. No turnovers either. Results were reflective, weren't they?

Steelers, even when the Packers were scoring in the SB, went on a third quarter scoring spree last year to cut the game close because they had an aggressive D that got Big Ben the ball back till that fatal Mendenhall fumble, again caused by the Packers D that changed the momentum. The D generating favorable field position with punts, turnovers and stops (not just defensive TDs and sacks to look great in the stat sheet) is a singular factor in deciding most playoff games.

Saints shortened the game vs Peyton increasing time of possession (including with the onside kick) because the Colts' D could not get the ball back to Peyton. You need an aggressive D to give any elite QB enough possessions to be able to make a dent in the scoreboard. The Pats' 80 and 90 yard drives in Foxboro vs the bend-but-dont-break-Dungy-D that bent and broke were a big function of the scheme and lack of aggression. Pats' played that scheme vs the Giants yesterday with 2 safeties behind to protect their secondary. Guess what, the time of possession was lop sided.

I would give in to the fact that offense has a bigger role if Brees put up 30 plus on us in the SB (24 on O, 7 on pick six) or Rodgers put 30 on the Steelers (24 on O, 7 on pick six) or Eli put up 30 on the Pats yesterday. That did not happen. That is why a greater D than O wins championships 9 out of 10 times, IMO.

[JimJaime]

@chad72

So in other words 3rd down D is mucho importante.

[That Guy]

Let me respond to your cliche with another cliche:

"Defense wins championships,"

but

"the best defense is a good offense."

[everybodysgotone]

Chad72's premise is correct. To get any kind of consistency beating the best of the best a team must have balance and that most definitely includes playing defense. The Giants' 6 game win streak to close the season.....there's no other argument that holds water. They held every team to less than avg. score and played good offense. The Giants also have a great kicking game.

16 Sat, Dec 24 @ New York 29-14 W 17 Sun, Jan 01 Dallas 31-14 W WC Sun, Jan 08 Atlanta 24-2 W DIV Sun, Jan 15 @ Green Bay 37-20 W CONF Sun, Jan 22 @ San Francisco 20-17 W SB Sun, Feb 05 @ New England 21-17 W

[oldunclemark]

2 of the 10 worst defenmses in the NFL were in the Super Bowl..

Case closed...

[Blue Horseshoe]

If it was all about defenses shouldn't the 49ers and Ravens been playing tonight?

Having a Super Star QB helps a little too just saying...

It looked to me like having better special teams couldn't have hurt those two teams

[oldunclemark]

It looked to me like having better special teams couldn't have hurt those two teams

47 first downs...745 yards..

only 7 punts...

'O' is the way to go.

[gspdx]

Neither of these defenses could have won the game without a pretty good offense. The defenses didn't win on their own. I have always said it takes all 3 parts of the game - offense, defense, and special teams. Defense alone doesn't win. Period. It's a cool saying.

[Blue Horseshoe]

47 first downs...745 yards..

only 7 punts...

'O' is the way to go.

Missed field goal which would have sent game to overtime and 2 fumbles both of which led to scores

[oldunclemark]

Missed field goal and 2 fumbles both of which led to scores

It was a very offenssive game..and I'm not just talking about the halftime show..

[gspdx]

So I guess we are still here, and we don't believe that D wins championships. A full team wins championships.

[everybodysgotone]

2 of the 10 worst defenmses in the NFL were in the Super Bowl..

Case closed...

Again, look at their six game win streak to close the season including a world championship. That's what's relevant. The only "closed case" on this matter is your attitude/perspective. This isn't the first time you've been wrong on here. It's clear from your history you're trying to justify your homering for the old Indy ways (which are all but gone) by how you view other teams doing business......including the current world champs. Your assessment and perceived parallels are incorrect though. Like it or not the Colts are going to be more balanced in various phases moving forward....everything Irsay has done is congruent with his mission statement on this. I suspect you'll come around eventually, just like most others that are so resistant and unaccepting of change.

[gspdx]

Again, look at their six game win streak to close the season including a world championship. That's what's relevant. The only "closed case" on this matter is your attitude/perspective. This isn't the first time you've been wrong on here. It's clear from your history you're trying to justify your homering for the old Indy ways (which are all but gone) by how you view other teams doing business......including the current world champs. Your assessment and perceived parallels are incorrect though. Like it or not the Colts are going to be more balanced in various phases moving forward....everything Irsay has done is congruent with his mission statement on this. I suspect you'll come around eventually, just like most others that are so resistant and unaccepting of change.

So based on this the Colts defense was the best defense of the year when we won the Superbowl? I agree that a more balanced team is a good thing, but saying Defense wins championships just isn't true. It takes a complete team. Trying to build a beast defense isn't a guarantee for a championship either. That is all I'm trying to say. It takes a complete team.

[everybodysgotone]

Trying to build a beast defense isn't a guarantee for a championship either. That is all I'm trying to say. It takes a complete team.

Exactly. Re-read what I've put up here and you'll see that's the case.....in addition to a post search for my long standing position.

But some here would have folks believe you can pummel everyone to death in the postseason with your offense & your offense alone (or heavily leaning that direction) "because the league has changed"......and that is incorrect. There ought to be enough evidence out there this year for even the most casual fan (not you, gspdx) to see this. Indy has been a mostly imbalanced team for the better part of a decade being unable to rely on different phases for enough contribution to beat the best of the best consistently - end of file.

[gspdx]

Exactly. Re-read what I've put up here and you'll see that's the case.....in addition to a post search for my long standing position. But some here would have folks believe you can pummel everyone to death in the postseason with your offense & your offense alone (or heavily leaning that direction) "because the league has changed"......and that is incorrect. There ought to be enough evidence out there this year for even the most casual fan (not you, gspdx) to see this. Indy has been a mostly imbalanced team for the better part of a decade being unable to rely on different phases for enough contribution to beat the best of the best consistently - end of file.

Quite true.

[fvantagio]

2 of the 10 worst defenmses in the NFL were in the Super Bowl..

Case closed...

In ypg yes. But both where at the top in turnovers and giants where at the top in sacks as well. If you can get consistent pressure and create plays defensively then you can afford to give up 300 yards. In todays NFL you dont need a Steel Curtain type defense, you need a opportunistic, playmaking defense. QBs will get their yards, they will get their TDs, thats pretty much a given now. But if you can get 30+ sacks and 15-20 picks on the defensive side at the end of the season, then you can win it all. Why did the giants win? Because they got a pick and created pressure. That was the difference in the game.

[gspdx]

Why did the giants win? Because they got a pick and created pressure. That was the difference in the game.

Or they won because the controlled the time of possession and Eli took care of the ball and didn't throw any picks. We can spin this as the offense won the game or the defense won the game. The bottom line is it took the entire team.

[everybodysgotone]

Why did the giants win? Because they got a pick and created pressure. That was the difference in the game.

....and forced a safety, got sacks, allowed just 17 points (the only stat that matters), and had few penalties, and had batted down/tipped passes.

Or they won because the controlled the time of possession and Eli took care of the ball and didn't throw any picks. We can spin this as the offense won the game or the defense won the game. The bottom line is it took the entire team.

..... the kicking game was also a huge factor.

Look at the points allowed by the Giants over their last six games especially considering their opponents. It was an amazing run. The Giants defense was a big part of their winning ways and there's no way they get to where they got without it. Period. Their D-line is extremely talented and could become dominant.

[Superman]

We won both the Ravens and Jets games because our D got turnovers and stops and gave Peyton ample possessions. The Jets were up 17-13 at the half, our D shut them down in the second half and gave the ball back to Peyton several times, let us not forget that. Against the Ravens, I am sure we got at least 4 turnovers to change field position.

That's what I said. Our defense shut them down, and Peyton capitalized. However, if our offense can't score on two pretty good defenses...

Against the Saints, no punts in the second half, none, zilch, nada. No turnovers either. Results were reflective, weren't they?

We played a silly defense in the Super Bowl. We didn't lose because we couldn't play defense, we lost because we chose to allow Drew Brees to go Madden 2008 on us and complete every pass he tried. One adjustment, and maybe we get a 3rd down stop and swing the game the other way, where they're chasing us in the second half. That game was the beginning of the end for Caldwell and Coyer.

Steelers, even when the Packers were scoring in the SB, went on a third quarter scoring spree last year to cut the game close because they had an aggressive D that got Big Ben the ball back till that fatal Mendenhall fumble, again caused by the Packers D that changed the momentum. The D generating favorable field position with punts, turnovers and stops (not just defensive TDs and sacks to look great in the stat sheet) is a singular factor in deciding most playoff games.

Yet, our good offense and average defense almost always beats the Steelers. Even in 2008, when we had ZERO defensive tackles available, and couldn't force a turnover to save our lives, we beat the Steelers. All I'm saying is that it's not a black and white proposition.

Saints shortened the game vs Peyton increasing time of possession (including with the onside kick) because the Colts' D could not get the ball back to Peyton. You need an aggressive D to give any elite QB enough possessions to be able to make a dent in the scoreboard. The Pats' 80 and 90 yard drives in Foxboro vs the bend-but-dont-break-Dungy-D that bent and broke were a big function of the scheme and lack of aggression. Pats' played that scheme vs the Giants yesterday with 2 safeties behind to protect their secondary. Guess what, the time of possession was lop sided.

Agreed. Good offenses will work the heck out on a passive defense. The Pats did a good job limiting the Giants to field goals for most of the game, but when it's go time, a good quarterback will figure you out and rip you to shreds. If anyone knows that, it's Colts fans, because we learned it in SB44. Again, the beginning of the end for Caldwell and Coyer.

I would give in to the fact that offense has a bigger role if Brees put up 30 plus on us in the SB (24 on O, 7 on pick six) or Rodgers put 30 on the Steelers (24 on O, 7 on pick six) or Eli put up 30 on the Pats yesterday. That did not happen. That is why a greater D than O wins championships 9 out of 10 times, IMO.

Good offense doesn't always equal a lot of points scored. The Saints offense did everything they needed to do, and their primary objective was to dominate time of possession. The Giants did the same thing, and scored the game-winning touchdown with less than a minute on the clock. And for the Packers to score 24 points on a defense that was only giving up 14 a game through the regular season is impressive offense, not to mention the 300 passing yards on a team that only gave up 214 passing yards a game. All three of those games you mention featured excellent offense by the winning team.

Give me a 6th ranked offense and a 12th ranked defense, or vice versa, rather than a 1st ranked offense and 30th ranked defense, or vice versa. Balance is the key, to me. It's not that a good defense wins championships, and it's not that a great offense beats a good defense. You have to have balance, and perhaps more importantly, both phases have to be playing well at the right time. Like the Giants this year, who played great defense at the end of the season and in the playoffs. Balance.

[Jules]

Giants D was often banged up during the season. I remember Rex Ryan saying before the title games that he picked the Giants and "They are ranked 27th but they have been playing at a mugh higher level then that."

When healthy it's possible the Giants are a top 10 D? Or up there somewhere.

Giants also IMO had a tougher road to get to the SB on the road then the Pats did. The Pats D got a bit inflated with the Tebow game IMO. When playing Flacco it was nearly a loss and could have been.......when the Giants played the Niners it was one of the best defensive battles I have seen in some time from both sides. And I always felt if you could handle the GB passing attack, you can handle just about any offense you face.

Remember chad what you always say...Good D's travel well in the playoffs.

Ahhhhh so glad I took the Giants/under like I did in 2007 too. My hunch paid off again.

[chad72]

That's what I said. Our defense shut them down, and Peyton capitalized. However, if our offense can't score on two pretty good defenses...

We played a silly defense in the Super Bowl. We didn't lose because we couldn't play defense, we lost because we chose to allow Drew Brees to go Madden 2008 on us and complete every pass he tried. One adjustment, and maybe we get a 3rd down stop and swing the game the other way, where they're chasing us in the second half. That game was the beginning of the end for Caldwell and Coyer.

Yet, our good offense and average defense almost always beats the Steelers. Even in 2008, when we had ZERO defensive tackles available, and couldn't force a turnover to save our lives, we beat the Steelers. All I'm saying is that it's not a black and white proposition.

Agreed. Good offenses will work the heck out on a passive defense. The Pats did a good job limiting the Giants to field goals for most of the game, but when it's go time, a good quarterback will figure you out and rip you to shreds. If anyone knows that, it's Colts fans, because we learned it in SB44. Again, the beginning of the end for Caldwell and Coyer.

Good offense doesn't always equal a lot of points scored. The Saints offense did everything they needed to do, and their primary objective was to dominate time of possession. The Giants did the same thing, and scored the game-winning touchdown with less than a minute on the clock. And for the Packers to score 24 points on a defense that was only giving up 14 a game through the regular season is impressive offense, not to mention the 300 passing yards on a team that only gave up 214 passing yards a game. All three of those games you mention featured excellent offense by the winning team.

Give me a 6th ranked offense and a 12th ranked defense, or vice versa, rather than a 1st ranked offense and 30th ranked defense, or vice versa. Balance is the key, to me. It's not that a good defense wins championships, and it's not that a great offense beats a good defense. You have to have balance, and perhaps more importantly, both phases have to be playing well at the right time. Like the Giants this year, who played great defense at the end of the season and in the playoffs. Balance.

Well written indeed. The fastest show on turf, the Rams, when they won in 2001, were also a top 10 D, something that is easily overlooked because of their offense. Balance indeed is the key. +1

[gspdx]

....and forced a safety, got sacks, allowed just 17 points (the only stat that matters), and had few penalties, and had batted down/tipped passes. ..... the kicking game was also a huge factor. Look at the points allowed by the Giants over their last six games especially considering their opponents. It was an amazing run. The Giants defense was a big part of their winning ways and there's no way they get to where they got without it. Period. Their D-line is extremely talented and could become dominant.

I agree. The Giants D stepped up. But it took a complete team to win those games. All I'm saying is it takes a complete team. Delense doesn't win championships - a complete team does.