Defense Still Wins Championships (Un-Edited)

[Andy]

An unedited article I'm writing for the Montreal Gazette.

Defense Still Wins Championships

When former Alabama coach Red “Bear” Bryant said that defense wins championships, no one really knew how right he was. He was playing in an era where defense dominated games. Whether it be Dick Butkus and the Bears, or Mike Curtis and the Colts, having a bad defense wouldn’t get you anywhere. As the years went on, we saw an evolution; an evolution to where offenses would dominate the regular seasons, but would have a quit exit in the playoffs. Having good offenses and bad defenses won’t get you far in the playoffs, especially back in the 80’s, and it is still the case today.

It haunted the Dolphins as they went 8-10 in the playoffs during the Dan Marino era. They had one of the best offenses in the league with Dan Marino, Mark Clayton, and Mark Rupper. They’re defense however, were 19^th or worse (out of 28 teams for most of the years) 50% of the time and only had a top 10 defense 3 times (15%) during the Marino era. It’s the main reason why they couldn’t win the big one.

During the Barry Sanders era, the Lions were 1-4 in the playoffs, with “one and dones” in 3 straight years. Although they didn’t have a great quarterback in Scott Mitchell, they did have arguably the greatest running back of all time in Barry Sanders, and one of the best and most productive receivers in the 90’s, Herman Moore. They’re defense ranked 20^th of worse (out of 28 teams for most of the years) 4 times. They had only one defense in the top 10 during the Barry Sanders era (10 years).

The 2000’s Colts are another great example. Although Tony Dungy brought the Colts to a top 10 defense in 2002 and 2003, it slowly declined from that point. The Colts got one of the greatest year from any quarterback in league history in Peyton Manning’s 121.1 passer rating (and 49 TDs) season. Their defense ranked 25^th or worse 40% of the time, and although they may have looked pretty good on paper, they never had a very dominant defense. Their rush defense always held them back. In 2006, they had one of the worse years in NFL history in terms of rush defense. They gave up 368 yards on the ground to the Eagles and Titans in Week’s 12 and 13. The following week they gave up 375 yards on the ground to the Jaguars. Funny enough, they would come together in the playoffs and have the best defense. They won the Super Bowl. They shut down Larry Johnson, who had the most accumulative yards in football in 2005 and 2006, and they shut down Jamal Lewis, a member of the 2000-yard club. No one had a better offense than the Colts in the Tony Dungy/Jim Caldwell era, but it’s their defense that held them back from winning multiple championships.

Let’s fast forward to this year: The Year of the Quarterback. The best team in the NFC and AFC had great offenses, but terrible defenses. The third seed in the NFC had an amazing offense, but terrible defense. It was an offensive dominated regular season, with multiple big records set like the passing yards in a season record. Then the playoffs come around, which means it’s a whole new year; fresh records. The New York Giants, who had an average (at best) defense during the regular season held the 10^th ranked offense (Falcons) and the 2^nd ranked offense (Packers) to a combined 20 offensive points. They held the Falcons to 0, and the Packers to 20. The way their defense is playing, they can very well win the Super Bowl. Another example are the 49ers. An easy road to the playoffs with their 2^nd best team in their division being 8-8 and their division having the worst combined offense out of any division. Nevertheless, their defense was great and this automatically made them contenders. The Giants won the Super Bowl with a defense that averaged 13 offensive points a game. With Eli Manning and a good offense, allowing those amount of points will win you many games. The Patriots went far in the playoffs, as their defense played well in the playoffs. Their defense averaged 18 points in the playoffs. With Tom Brady at the helm, that will also win you many games.

The regular season may show one thing, but the playoffs are a whole new season. You must have a good defense, and a pretty good offense. It’s better to have a great defense than a great offense in the playoffs. The 2000 Ravens, the 2002 Bucs, the 2005 Steelers, and the 2008 Steelers all back that up. You’ll be hard pressed to find a team with a terrible defense win the Super Bowl.

[-JJ-]

Yep it still holds true, abeit hanging by a thread with the passing rules...but still there.

[GoColts00]

Completely Agree!

[colts_mp]

Miami receiver was Mark Duper not Rupper.

[colts_mp]

This year's Super Bowl had the 27th (Giants) and the 31st (Pats) defenses in the league. The 49'ers and Ravens who have top ranked and dominant defenses both lost the championship games.

[Andy]

Miami receiver was Mark Duper not Rupper.

You're right, my bad, my neighbours name is Michelle Rupper. Just a little mix up.

[Andy]

This year's Super Bowl had the 27th (Giants) and the 31st (Pats) defenses in the league. The 49'ers and Ravens who have top ranked and dominant defenses both lost the championship games.

Great! The Giants and Patriots both had great defenses in the playoffs... the playoffs are another season. The reason they went so far was because of their great defensive play in the playoffs.

[Kyle]

Great! The Giants and Patriots both had great defenses in the playoffs... the playoffs are another season. The reason they went so far was because of their great defensive play in the playoffs.

they did both step up their D in the playoffs....but i think they both have stronger offense than defense

[colts_mp]

Great! The Giants and Patriots both had great defenses in the playoffs... the playoffs are another season. The reason they went so far was because of their great defensive play in the playoffs.

Then why are you even using regular season defensive stats if that's a whole different season? The 2006 Colts and this year's Giants show that any team defense (no matter what the ranking in the regular season) has the ability to step up and play in the postseason.

[-JJ-]

This year's Super Bowl had the 27th (Giants) and the 31st (Pats) defenses in the league. The 49'ers and Ravens who have top ranked and dominant defenses both lost the championship games.

ranked how. come on ..yards.......

Another thing people forget. teams always get better in football. Defense gets better each game. So take a ranking early/midseason where you won't get the high average back down low..not to mention its useless yards ranked...then you see it means nothing come end of season and playoff time.

[Andy]

they did both step up their D in the playoffs....but i think they both have stronger offense than defense

I completely agree. My point is that you have to have a good defense to go far, no a better defense (than offense).

[Andy]

Then why are you even using regular season defensive stats if that's a whole different season? The 2006 Colts and this year's Giants show that any team defense (no matter what the ranking in the regular season) has the ability to step up and play in the postseason.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Lions and Dolphins defenses. I used their regular season defensive stats as an example as they did not have many playoff games. It was a point to prove that they did not have a good defense during the regular season or playoffs. Any team can step it up in the postseason, but they didn't. Their defenses weren't good enough to take them farther. The Lions and Fins defenses DID NOT step it up and their defense barely changed, and that's why they lost, a lot. Hope I cleared that up.

[cmgww]

And lets not forget the Giants' D got healthy at just the right time...sort of like the Colts getting Bob Sanders back for the 2006 playoff run

[colts_mp]

ranked how. come on ..yards.......

Another thing people forget. teams always get better in football. Defense gets better each game. So take a ranking early/midseason where you won't get the high average back down low..not to mention its useless yards ranked...then you see it means nothing come end of season and playoff time.

So what is the best measure then? Points per game? Niners 2nd, Ravens 3rd, Pats 15th and Giants were 25th in points allowed. Either way the great defenses lost the championship games.

And your other argument is just meaningless. Read again what you stated, "Defense gets better each game". So are you saying no one gets worse as the season goes on? The Giants defense allowed 184 points the first 8 games of the year and 216 the last 8 games. Not so much worse...just not better.

And who's taking a ranking early to mid-season? I'm talking about season end stats. The point is if you're not using rankings to figure out how good defenses are..then what measure are you using? At the end of the season what is the criteria for best defense? or even to say good defense or bad?

[dynasty13]

Does 'defense still win championships' still hold true?

Its easy to say that both teams' defenses stepped up come playoff time, but oddly enough, it was offensive plays that decided this game. Forget statistical 'rankings' for a second...and whether it was a couple of brilliant throws by Eli, or a couple of unfortunate drops by New England receivers down the stretch...the defense hardly had anything to do with the big plays in this game.Yes it was a relatively low scoring game, and yes a lot of it had to do with field position all day long...but when you hear something like 'defense wins championships' it makes you think that there were lots of big defensive plays and turnovers that decided it...and that just wasnt the case this year.

[chad72]

At the end of the season what is the criteria for best defense? or even to say good defense or bad?

I just looked at the offensive numbers and defensive numbers post season, this is what I came up with:

http://www.nfl.com/s...&qualified=true

http://www.nfl.com/s...=true&Submit=Go

Yes, I agree with the posters who said the postseason becomes a different season and the Colts of 2006, the Giants of 2007 and 2011 proved that (Giants did not give up more than 20 pts in their entire playoff run in both runs to win the SBs).

Defensively - Giants were No.1 in pts per game allowed, Patriots were No.3 in pts per game allowed

Offensively - Giants were No.5 in pts per game scored, Patriots were No.2 in pts per game scored

So, it definitely is not offense that won it for the Giants or Pats exclusively. Regardless of their regular season standings, both Ds stepped up in the playoffs and the ones that did not ended up going home. Yes, it does take balance on O and D. Giants won despite not scoring many pts in the NFCCG and SB because they won the time of possession battle - No.1 in that category throughout the playoffs (they had 11, 11 and 13 (2 in OT) offensive possessions in their NFC games leading to the SB if I remember right). Teams could not play keep away from Eli vs the Giants D.

I will have to look at drive charts by postseason teams to see how many possessions were generated for the offense by the D and ST with turnovers and punts, it is not hard to fathom Giants are tops in that category too.

[gspdx]

Regardless of their regular season standings, both Ds stepped up in the playoffs and the ones that did not ended up going home. Yes, it does take balance on O and D. Giants won despite not scoring many pts in the NFCCG and SB because they won the time of possession battle - No.1 in that category throughout the playoffs (they had 11, 11 and 13 (2 in OT) offensive possessions in their NFC games leading to the SB if I remember right). Teams could not play keep away from Eli vs the Giants D. I will have to look at drive charts by postseason teams to see how many possessions were generated for the offense by the D and ST with turnovers and punts, it is not hard to fathom Giants are tops in that category too.

I think what you said here is the major point. Both defenses stepped it up in the playoffs. They weren't the best defenses all year. So building the best defense in the league is no more a sure fire path to a championship than building a strong offense. The reason the Giants won the time of possesion is because their offense stayed on the field. So it took balance to win the championship. It's not all defense.

[gspdx]

You’ll be hard pressed to find a team with a terrible defense win the Super Bowl.

You'll be hard pressed to find a team with a terrible offense win the Super Bowl either.

[chad72]

I think what you said here is the major point. Both defenses stepped it up in the playoffs. They weren't the best defenses all year. So building the best defense in the league is no more a sure fire path to a championship than building a strong offense. The reason the Giants won the time of possesion is because their offense stayed on the field. So it took balance to win the championship. It's not all defense.

Agree, it is not all defense, and it is not all offense either . One cannot hide a terrible offense or terrible defense and expect to go far in the playoffs. Like Superman said, if you have 2 equally good Ds, the edge normally goes to the one with the better QB - like it happened with the Pats vs Ravens, and Giants vs 49ers. Gone are the 2000 Ravens' days.

[Andy]

You'll be hard pressed to find a team with a terrible offense win the Super Bowl either.

2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2005 Steelers....

[Yehoodi]

2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2005 Steelers....

all of those teams had middle of the road offenses, they were not terrible offenses . . .

[Andy]

all of those teams had middle of the road offenses, they were not terrible offenses . . .

Middle of the pack during the season (except for the Bucs, who had a bad offense and the Steelers didn't have the greatest offense in the season).

The Ravens had the 10th ranked offense in the 2000 playoffs.

The Bucs had the 8th ranked offense in the 2002 playoffs.

The Steelers had a good offense in the playoffs, but not in the season.

All these teams had great defensive postseason performances.

[Yehoodi]

Middle of the pack during the season (except for the Bucs, who had a bad offense and the Steelers didn't have the greatest offense in the season).

The Ravens had the 10th ranked offense in the 2000 playoffs.

The Bucs had the 8th ranked offense in the 2002 playoffs.

The Steelers had a good offense in the playoffs, but not in the season.

All these teams had great defensive postseason performances.

yes but my point was those teams did not have terrible offenses as you inferred with your earlier posts (#20) . . . surely they all had great Ds . . . but they weren't like the bottom 6 or so in offense . . .

[gspdx]

2000 Ravens, 2002 Bucs, 2005 Steelers....

They were not terrible offenses. It's just not true. I just think this agrument can be made either way. It should get tougher to score points in the playoffs because you should be playing the best teams. Teams that have good defenses and good offenses. The cupcakes are at home watching like we are. If your offense is actually terrible you don't make the playoffs because you don't score enough points in the regular season to make the playoffs.

[Andy]

They were not terrible offenses. It's just not true. I just think this agrument can be made either way. It should get tougher to score points in the playoffs because you should be playing the best teams. Teams that have good defenses and good offenses. The cupcakes are at home watching like we are. If your offense is actually terrible you don't make the playoffs because you don't score enough points in the regular season to make the playoffs.

They were not terrible offenses. It's just not true. I just think this agrument can be made either way. It should get tougher to score points in the playoffs because you should be playing the best teams. Teams that have good defenses and good offenses. The cupcakes are at home watching like we are. If your offense is actually terrible you don't make the playoffs because you don't score enough points in the regular season to make the playoffs.

They weren't good. My point was you can't win without a good defense, but you could win without a good offense. I said terrible, and it was a little far. Those offenses were on the borderline to being considered terrible. Either way, I just hope you understood my point I made in the article.