Chris Ballard: No [indoor] team with a 3-4 defense has ever won a Super Bowl

[Superman]

He said this in a hallway presser yesterday. At first, everyone missed the "indoor" part, and I'm not sure he actually used that caveat at first, but he clarified when someone mentioned the Steelers. Before that, I was obviously thinking about the early 2000s Patriots. 

 

So the challenge is this: Can you think of any indoor team that ran a 3-4 defense and won the SB? I've been thinking about it since I heard it, and I think he's right.

 

[George Peterson]

Sounds like one of those overly specific things to me that happens when you cherry pick stats and forget you're looking at disproportionate sample sizes.  It's hard to win the Superbowl no matter where you play and how you set up your defensive formations.  There's nothing about indoors that makes the 3-4 defense all that difficult, personally I suspect coincidence.

[ReMeDy]

That binder of his knows everything!

[indyagent17]

Who Cares?

[Boiler_Colt]

Well really, there aren't very many indoor teams to win the Super Bowl. Rams, Colts, Saints. Any others I'm missing?

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, indyagent17 said:

Who Cares?

 

well apparently Chris Ballard, since he's the one who originally said it. Superman seems to as well since he created a thread about it.  And I'd say that ReMeDry and George Peterson are at least intrigued by the thought since they also replied.  

 

If you don't care, then why bother posting?

[Jason_]

4 minutes ago, George Peterson said:

Sounds like one of those overly specific things to me that happens when you cherry pick stats and forget you're looking at disproportionate sample sizes.  It's hard to win the Superbowl no matter where you play and how you set up your defensive formations.  There's nothing about indoors that makes the 3-4 defense all that difficult, personally I suspect coincidence.

 

my initial reaction was the same...but I'm not so sure there couldn't be some type of correlation.

[krunk]

2 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Well really, there aren't very many indoor teams to win the Super Bowl. Rams, Colts, Saints. Any others I'm missing?

Cowboys

[krunk]

I don't think the Chris Ballard stat means a whole bunch though.

[George Peterson]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

my initial reaction was the same...but I'm not so sure there couldn't be some type of correlation.

Just as likely to be self-fulfilling prophecy IMHO.  No one tries it because no one has succeeded trying it... so no one ever tries it and the ice is never broken.

[indyagent17]

1 minute ago, J@son said:

 

well apparently Chris Ballard, since he's the one who originally said it. Superman seems to as well since he created a thread about it.  And I'd say that ReMeDry and George Peterson are at least intrigued by the thought since they also replied.  

 

If you don't care, then why bother posting?

dude just because Ballard said it does not mean it really matters. Guess what, No indoor team that plays in Canada has every won the superbowl. it just a whole lot of nothing to me. But thanks the quote brother

[Boiler_Colt]

Just now, krunk said:

Cowboys

Oh, true. But didn't their old stadium have an open roof?

[Jason_]

1 minute ago, indyagent17 said:

dude just because Ballard said it does not mean it really matters. Guess what, No indoor team that plays in Canada has every won the superbowl. it just a whole lot of nothing to me. But thanks the quote brother

 

where did I say that it really matters?  you asked who cares.  I answered that and that alone.  I never said Ballard was right.

[Jason_]

2 minutes ago, George Peterson said:

Just as likely to be self-fulfilling prophecy IMHO.  No one tries it because no one has succeeded trying it... so no one ever tries it and the ice is never broken.

 

eh, I doubt there's really been anyone previously that's given it much thought but I could be wrong.  Like you said, we're already talking about a small sample size.  Plus the fact we're talking about only indoor teams, which have won far fewer SBs than outdoor teams.  

 

Ultimately I think your first post was right.  I doubt there really is any correlation.  

[NorthernBlue]

10 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Well really, there aren't very many indoor teams to win the Super Bowl. Rams, Colts, Saints. Any others I'm missing?

Well to be fair, there are only 8 teams that play indoors. Not a lot of dome teams win the SB cause there isn't a lot of dome teams in the first place. 

 

I think there is a bit of an advantage of being an outdoor late in the season, but not to the extent people make it out to be.

[Defjamz26]

It sounds like Ballard is a traditionalist. Defense wins champions, WCO, Height-Weight-Speed players, draft and develop, and 4-3 defense. That’s what I would take out of that comment.

 

I can’t say I blame him for his mindset. He has a clear vision of what he wants the Colts to be. That clear vision was lacking from the previous regime. I think Ballard has gone out and gotten a staff that shares his vision. It’s good news for us.

[krunk]

17 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:

Oh, true. But didn't their old stadium have an open roof?

No it was a dome then but it could be opened up.

[chad72]

Given the shortage of quality coverage backers, having the 4 to rush the passer and the ability to use more nickel and dime with man and zone mixed in has greater chances to win the SB.

 

When the Saints won their SB, they used a lot of 3-3-5 but then they had Vilma who was stellar in coverage. They did blitz a lot. However, they did use more 4 man fronts than 3 man fronts for base fronts. Base fronts matter only so much when the ultimate proportion is not dominated by the 4-3 front. 

 

Rams in 1999, Colts in 2006, Saints in 2009, it happens few and far between for the indoor teams that I am not sure it is a valid sample space for any statistical correlation. Atlanta, if they didn't choke vs the Patriots, ran a heavy Seahawks like 4-3 as well.

 

[krunk]

I think Ballard just wanted to put us in line with how all the other Dome teams won the Super Bowl.  Didn't want to be doing things that were outside of the winning formula for the other Dome Teams.    All of them had big offense and bend but don't break 4-3 defense, although the saints 4-3 was a bit more aggressive under Greg Williams. 

[Boiler_Colt]

10 minutes ago, krunk said:

No it was a dome then but it could be opened up.

The old Texas Stadium just had a hole in the roof. I guess the retractable portion was never finished.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Stadium

[Crunked]

7 minutes ago, krunk said:

No it was a dome then but it could be opened up.

I believe Jerrah once described the old stadium as a dome, with a hole in the top so GOD could watch his favorite team play or something to that effect.....

[Introspect]

38 minutes ago, krunk said:

No it was a dome then but it could be opened up.

Not true.... The stadium had an opening in the roof. The cowboys moved out of the stadium in 2008.

 

[Superman]

Even if his statement is true, I don't think it means indoor teams have a tougher time winning if they run a 3-4. At least, not necessarily. And I didn't take Ballard's comment to mean that, but it's obviously something that has influenced his decision making. 

 

As for the difference in the scheme, I think the size of players in a 3-4 front is greater on average than that of players in a 4-3 front. That probably means your average 4-3 plays faster. Good offensive teams are probably faster/better indoors, which might mean less effective defense from a 3-4 indoors. But, teams play so much nickel now that it kind of doesn't matter.

 

Still, I think his objective on defense is to get faster, but still play tough physically. Not undersized, as a matter of fact, he seems to like bigger DBs, but he definitely wants more speed up front. So do I.

[Steamboat_Shaun]

1 hour ago, J@son said:

 

my initial reaction was the same...but I'm not so sure there couldn't be some type of correlation.

 

It's probably not that far-fetched to think that a 3-4 is more suitable for a smashmouth outdoor team like Baltimore or Pittsburgh, and since you definitely want to build your team to maximize your home field advantage, I tend to think there's some merit to what he's saying,

[krunk]

28 minutes ago, Introspect said:

Not true.... The stadium had an opening in the roof. The cowboys moved out of the stadium in 2008.

 

That's still basically a dome for the most part.  A dome with a hole in it.

The playing conditions are virtually the same.   Same surface.

[Swan Ronson]

Maybe it was just a statement of fact.

[aaron11]

so there are not that many dome teams

 

have many of them have ran a 3-4 for long stretches?  i guess the colts have, but who else?

[grmasterb]

29 minutes ago, krunk said:

The playing conditions are virtually the same.

 

Come again?

 

 

[krunk]

2 minutes ago, grmasterb said:

 

Come again?

 

 

What's different about it?  It was straight astroturf just like any other dome of that time.

Most of it was covered just like a dome.    Not much different.

For darn sure wasn't the same as playing in an outdoor stadium.

[Four2itus]

Perhaps it's about practicing on grass?

[grmasterb]

7 minutes ago, krunk said:

What's different about it?  It was straight astroturf just like any other dome of that time.

Most of it was covered just like a dome.    Not much different.

For darn sure wasn't the same as playing in an outdoor stadium.

I've never seen that slippery white stuff in a dome.

[krunk]

12 minutes ago, grmasterb said:

I've never seen that slippery white stuff in a dome.

Yeah but they are in Dallas.   The weather is hot damn near most of the entire year except when it rains.    Most of the time the weather won't even come into play.  That stuff probably came from some rain.  I couldn't really see it because I'm at work and it blocks video out.

[oldunclemark]

Didnt  New Orleans run a lot of 3-4?

[coltsva]

1 hour ago, grmasterb said:

I've never seen that slippery white stuff in a dome.

I have! 

[LockeDown]

if college produces more and better 4/3 players, then that's the defense I want to run.  Availability.  I don't want to wait 6 years to find a Vince Wilfork in his prime. 

[aaron11]

i looked around a little, and could only find 3 dome teams that have ran much 3-4

 

colts, saints and texans 

[Douzer]

If Ballard wants to run a 4-3, so be it, he's the GM. But if he's declaring that a dome team, running a 3-4 can't win a SB, I call bull%$&^. Just run the defense you want, no need to hard sell it with statistical tripe.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, Douzer said:

If Ballard wants to run a 4-3, so be it, he's the GM. But if he's declaring that a dome team, running a 3-4 can't win a SB, I call bull%$&^. Just run the defense you want, no need to hard sell it with statistical tripe.

 

It didn't come across that way to me.

[Fluke_33]

Is Anderson a tweener in this system?  Does he need to add weight to be a dt or lose weight to be a de?  

 

Or does he stay at his current weight and play dt on passing downs and de on running downs?

[Shepman]

This is Ballard's polite way of saying our linebackers suck and it is easier to get the pieces we need using 4-3.