While reading and commenting in other threads today the question of how defense relates to championships again reared its ugly head. We've all heard it, and most of us have said it or believed it at one time or another. Defense wins championships. The question: Is it true?
Being a huge fan of defensive football myself, I'm going to have to work hard to remain objective on the topic. Any of you that have been around Arrowheadpride.com for a few years can bare witness to my defensive homer-ism. I love sacks, pressures, huge hits, stuffed runs, quarterbacks picking turf out of their face masks, and all manor of defensive domination. In my not so humble opinion, there is no better game of football than a 9-6 or 10-7 contest between two defenses that rack up ten sacks, thirty pressures, five interceptions, eight batted down passes, sixteen runs for a loss, and countless numbers of bruises and sprains resulting from smash mouth style hits. Keep your 45-38 offensive juggernaut games off my television. I'm likely to turn the channel to some other game out of boredom.
I don't want to get to complex or include too much number crunching as to get away from the basic question so I've opted to stick to just rankings. However, I'll be using the simple rating system from Pro-Football-Reference.com as my starting point. All numbers that I use will come from their base ratings, in which 0.0 is the average and teams are ranked in relation to that average. (Above for better, below for worse). Please click that link if you'd like a breakdown of how the numbers are generated.
Without further ado: the jump.
First off a couple notes:
| Season | Winners Offensive Rank | Winners Defensive Rank | Losers Offensive Rank | Losers Defensive Rank | |
| 2000 | 0.0 | 8.0 | -1.3 | 3.8 | |
| 2001 | 1.2 | 3.1 | 10.4 | 2.9 | |
| 2002 | -1.0 | 9.8 | 6.3 | 4.3 | |
| 2003 | 2.1 | 4.9 | -1.5 | 0.6 | |
| 2004 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 2.0 | 3.5 | |
| 2005 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 5.8 | 3.4 | |
| 2006 | 6.9 | -1.1 | 4.9 | 3.0 | |
| 2007 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 15.9 | 4.2 | |
| 2008 | 1.6 | 8.2 | 4.1 | -6.0 | |
| 2009 | 11.2 | -0.5 | 4.4 | 1.5 | |
| 2010 | 3.1 | 7.9
|
2.5 | 7.7 | |
| 2011 | 3.1 | -1.5 | 9.4 | -0.1 |
We can immediately throw out the idea that the best defense in the league wins the championship with any measurable regularity. If things were that simple no one would ever debate this topic and the Ravens would be a dynasty. We can also toss out the idea that the best offense in the league wins the Superbowl with any regularity as well. It simply doesn't happen.
In the last twelve championship games the better defense has won the game eight times while the worse defense has been victorious four times. That's a simple enough two-thirds ratio of defenses winning championships when only defense is considered. Four times in that span the team with both the better offense and the better defense won the Superbowl. That's not at all surprising. It's what we would all expect. Twice, however, in 2007 and 2011 the team with the lower ranked offense AND the lower ranked defense managed to hoist the Lombardi trophy. The thing that's really facinating about that is that BOTH times this has happened the game matched the Giants against the Patriots. Both times the New England had the higher ranked offense AND defense but still lost the game. Does this mean Tom Coughlin is the superior coach over Bill Belichick?
In the twelve years represented on this table the better offense (regardless of defensive ranking) has prevailed six times, while the worse offense won the game six times. Clearly, we can state that there was no coloration from having the better ranked offense to winning the Superbowl. After all, it doesn't seem to matter if you have the better unit or not.
That leaves us with the mixed years. The years in which no team had the better offense AND the better defense. The teams in question split the two categories with each other. In those instances (it happened six times) the better defense won the game four times out of six. Yet another two-thirds ratio in favor of the defense. So, at a quick glance it appears that defenses actually do win championships.... two-thirds of the time. If I were sitting in a Vegas casino I'd play absolutely any game that gave me 66.666.....7% odds of winning. After all, the house has the advantage on every bet in the building except the backing bet on a pass line bet on a craps table, which is about fifty/fifty odds. (But, I've never gambled a single time in my life. Gambling is evil! Kids, just say no. It'll keep the idiots among you from sitting down left chair at a blackjack table and ruining my day by taking a hit on 14 when the dealer is showing a 3 and I'm sitting on 17)
But I digress, on to more important things. (Seriously though, If you don't know how to play Blackjack the CORRECT way you should always sit in the far right chair so you don't screw up everyone at the table that actually knows what they are doing. And telling me, "It's my money, I can play however I want", is akin to begging me to slap the smug off your face.)
Hmmm, I appear to have digressed again. Ignore that degenerate Vegas addicted gambler. He's an idiot. I hear he rides a motorcycle without a helmet and spreads strawberry jelly on top his grilled cheese sandwiches too.
| Season | Winner Total Ranking | Loser Total Ranking | Winner Total (-) Loser Total | Final Score Differential |
| 2000 | 8.0 | 2.5 | 6.0 | 27 |
| 2001 | 4.3 | 13.3 | -9 | 3 |
| 2002 | 8.8 | 10.6 | -1.8 | 27 |
| 2003 | 7.0 | -0.9 | 7.9 | 3 |
| 2004 | 12.8 | 5.5 | 7.3 | 3 |
| 2005 | 7.8 | 9.2 | -1.4 | 11 |
| 2006 | 5.8 | 7.9 | -2.1 | 12 |
| 2007 | 3.2 | 20.1 | -16.9 | 3 |
| 2008 | 9.8 | -1.9 | 11.7 | 4 |
| 2009 | 10.7 | 5.9 | 4.8 | 14 |
| 2010 | 11.0 | 10.2 | 0.8 | 6 |
| 2011 | 1.6 | 9.3 | -7.7 | 4 |
Since I've gone to all the trouble of learning how the chart building tool works, lets look at another one. This chart adds together the offensive and defensive rankings for each team and then shows the mean difference between the teams as compared to the final score of the Superbowl.
Maybe it's not the better offense or the better defense that wins the game. Someone once told me the better team usually wins. In related news, I've also been told that moving the kick off forward by five yards completely ruins the game and takes away the entire play out of football and that we might as well just eliminate the kick and start on the twenty yard line. In order to appease that person, I'm going to pretend like special teams don't exist and just focus on offense and defense again.
As you can see, if one team ranks clearly above the other team when offensive and defensive ranks are added together, it doesn't mean a damn thing in relation to who's going to win the championship. In the last twelve years the team with the highest combined ranking has won six Super Bowls, and lost 6 Super Bowls. I guess you don't have to be the better team to win the championship.
In 2007 the Patriots team total is a whopping 16.9 points higher than the Giants. So, of course, the Giants won the game by a field goal. The very next season in 2008 the Steelers could have looked at that chart and been worried that an 11.7 point dominate out-ranking would set them up to lose the game. It didn't, they won by four.
Well, at least we can say that the more dominate one team is over another, the more lopsided the score will be IF the dominate team manages to win...right?..... You guessed it, the answer is an emphatic no. The 2003 Patriots are 7.9 ranking point favorites and won the game by a field goal; While the 2009 Saints at only a 4.8 ranking advantage defeated the Colts by fourteen points.
There doesn't appear to be any coloration at all between offensive ranking and winning championship games.Half the time the better offense wins, half the time they lose. Simply put, offense doesn't matter. (....and here comes the hater's in the comments... /sticks out tongue and gives the raspberry). Having the better overall team ranking is a wash as well. Half the time you win, and half the time you lose. Even when you win or lose the game score doesn't even match up with the disparity in total team rankings.
BUT......
If we only look at defensive rankings (paying no attention to offense) the team with the better defense wins the Super Bowl 66.66...7% of the time. A clear two-thirds advantage goes to the best defensive unit. Four times in the last twelve years the team with the better offense AND the better defense won, as compared to twice when the worse offense AND worse defense went home champions. Again, a two-thirds advantage. Finally, in the years where the teams matching up in the championship game split offensive and defensive dominance, defense wins four out of the six times. Amazing! Another two-thirds advantage in favor of the defense.
So to answer the question in the title of the post: Does defense win championships? Yes, 2 out of 3 times... any way you slice it. Now if you all will excuse me, I've got to start placing my 50:1 bets on the Chiefs winning the Super Bowl in the 2012 season. Right after I smack the smug off a few blackjack players.
3 recs | 138 comments
Of course defense wins championships.
Along with offense and special teams. And coaching.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
but the only visible coloration is defense.
Texas Chief - February 7, 2012
I see.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
Did you mean ‘correlation’? Just wondering, cause I’m colorblind, so I wasn’t sure if I just couldn’t see what you were saying. ;)
chuq - February 7, 2012
no.. I meant color.
Defenses have a purple aura of calming, and offenses have a red hot aura that negatively effects the players ability to think straight.
Purple > Red… the Coloration is important.
Texas Chief - February 7, 2012
Ted Turner would approve.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
Had to rec a subtle and awesome reference.
TRSChief - February 8, 2012
Oh, well, then it must be an infra-red, since the Defenses’ coloration was the only one visible, right?
chuq - February 7, 2012
It's all about balance
not just one side of the ball.
Nicoloco - February 7, 2012
Usually the team that wins the Super Bowl in February
wins championships.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
but... the game has been played far more times in January than February
Texas Chief - February 7, 2012
Those teams didn't win championships...duh
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
Yeah...NE is still did better that 30 other teams in the playoffs this year
KCinAZ - February 7, 2012
opps...i responded in the wrong place...disregard...
KCinAZ - February 7, 2012
Nope, I'm definitely regarding now.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
ha
KCinAZ - February 7, 2012
I voted special teams!!!
NE is consistently Top 10 in ST.
Nick Britt - February 7, 2012
Special teams are huge to good teams.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
NE hasn't won a championship
Since they quit video taping the other teams
ArrowheadHunter - February 7, 2012
Making two Super Bowls isn't too shabby.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
yeah NE did better than 30 other teams this year...
KCinAZ - February 7, 2012
The video cheating didn't hurt New England back in the day.
It certainly seems like they can’t get over the hump without it if you look solely at the Super Bowl wins. However, these past two Super Bowls the Pats lost where just like their first three wins.
They all came down to the final moments with either team in position to become world champions… so there is that. One can argue that New England is exactly the same in that sense, just without that extra luck they had in the early millennium.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
Also
I am sure other teams did it.
NE just got caught.
Nick Britt - February 7, 2012
agreed
KChiefs58 - February 7, 2012
The best team wins championships
Defense wins championships is yet another over-generalization in football. If it were that simple, quarterbacks would never get drafted in the first round.
old_school - February 7, 2012 via mobile
not according tot he numbers in the carts it doesn't.
the best team wins 50% of the time.
Texas Chief - February 7, 2012
So the worse team wins the other 50% of the time
HIV 2 Elway - February 7, 2012 via mobile
So it is 50/50?
You either win or you lose?
This changes everything…
Nick Britt - February 7, 2012
you got it
flip a coin, win or lose … I think we’re on to something major here, Nick
upamtn - February 7, 2012
Heh.
I think you should make a FanShot that quickly summarizes that theory.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
???
The objectively better teams won 50% of the time, the objectively better defenses won 66% of the time.
Doesn’t sound like an over generalization, it sounds like someone didn’t RTFP.
Druful - February 7, 2012
Chiefs have always been so unbalanced since I've watched them
Vermeil was all O, no D, Herm was just almost total suckiness with Thigpen making us competitive at least but still no D whatsoever, Most of Schottenheimer was all D, no O (with exception of one DeBerg year, both Montana years and regular season Bono of all things) this season was inconsistent but surprisingly good D but less than no O (never seen a more pathetic offensive team in my life), Haley’s time has been marked by improvement across the board until this season’s O, Cunningham was mediocre on both sides of the ball but I thought they were improving as well when he got axed by a lame-ass Peterson. Still, what Vermeil did to Chiefs offense so quickly was a miracle to behold. Trent Green, Willie Roaf, Priest Holmes, they’ll do that to a team.
Nicoloco - February 7, 2012
Thanks for doing this Texas Chief
Interesting analysis for sure.
No matter what the stats say, I’d rather have a dominant D & average O then the other way around. Defensive football is just more fun to watch, IMO.
jmcgoblue - February 7, 2012
I be with ya there
upamtn - February 7, 2012
We will be lucky to be average this year without modifying the QB
KU football is more likely to win a championship than the Chiefs. We represent average in all it’s splendor! They need to balls up and make a bold move the fans can get behind. Rock Star QB is a must to ever think about a championship. I think Matt Cassel is a great person. I think he puts his all in to his work. The bar in the NFL has been raised and without a top tier rock star QB a championship is what we will continue to watch other teams win at the end of each season.
ArrowheadHunter - February 7, 2012
There is a lot that goes into teams making it to the Super Bowl.
Occasionally, there is a team that makes it to the Super Bowl that probably doesn’t have it all, but they just get hot at the right time and have a lot of luck on their sides.
Mostly though, teams can’t have more than one glaring weakness in offense, defense and special teams.
Organizations that are well run are usually more likely to be in the playoff championship hunt.
Great consistent coaching helps immensely.
Teams need several star players that play well together and a few super stars capable of taking over a game almost through sheer will.
Teams have to not turn the ball over when it matters, get first downs and keep the opposing offense off the field as much as possible.
Championship teams usually draft well and manage free agency well without going overboard.
There is so much to factor in, but it isn’t just offense or defense. It is a healthy mix of everything with a lot of it’s your year sprinkled on top.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
and a really good defense =P
Texas Chief - February 7, 2012
definitely doesn't hurt.
What we should focus on is what the Chiefs are missing in the Super Bowl recipe.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
The big problem with relying on your offense
is that generally you have to rely on being the last one to score. It makes for an exciting last 2 minutes but often ends up with disappointment along the lines of “how did we score over 40 points and still lose?” See also Saints v. 49ers playoff game.
sir eccles - February 7, 2012
The big problem (OTOH) with relying too much on your D
is that you end up being the Ravens.
Eastcoastransplant - February 7, 2012
Defense wins games on a week to week basis.
To play in BIG games with the BIG boys, you have to be able to play offense and lots of it.
G.L. - February 7, 2012
November called,
and that Chiefs month agrees with you about offense.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
I would say above average defenses wins championships
as long as
Even when the Pats won all their titles, they still had above average D’s. They just happened to have sick offenses as well. To get into the “hunt” (not win, but hunt)
You either have to have
Above average O and D
Excellent D average O
Excellent O average D
pretty sure I didn’t reinvent the wheel here… but having an excellent D or O with the opposite being garbage wont get you anywhere.
Brad-KC - February 7, 2012
It takes scoring more points than the other team on a consistent basis
DrDC - February 7, 2012
i get what you're saying
but the 9-7 Giants might disagree with you.
I would classify them as an above average O and D beating a great O mediocre D.
Brad-KC - February 7, 2012
The Patriots had a terrible D
DrDC - February 7, 2012
They finished 15th in pts allowed.
I wouldn’t call that terrible. More like very slightly above average….
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
Heard today the Giants were outscored for the season. First SB winner ever.
electriclight - February 7, 2012
So defense does win championships!
oh, wait.
Chiefs_swagger - February 7, 2012
but TD's allowed
not really. by yards? yeah by miles. I think they both were around 14 or 16 in points allowed
Brad-KC - February 7, 2012
Allowing fewer points than the other team also works.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
Agree to disagree
DrDC - February 7, 2012
Defense wins championships. Period. Nuff said. Fo sho. Done.
Just look at the list of the past few SB games and you’ll see the oversized difference a defense has on the game.
February 5, 2012 – New York Giants 21, New England 17
Consistent pressure by the front 4 allowed the Giants to stop the Patriots potent offense, especially when it mattered most. 1 turnover also helped.
February 6, 2011 – Green Bay 31, Pittsburgh 25
The Packers picked off Big Ben 3 times, including 1 pick six.
February 7, 2010 – New Orleans 31, Indianapolis 17
A pick six by the Saints to seal the deal in a game with two great offenses and so-so defenses.
February 1, 2009 – Pittsburgh 27, Arizona 23
Pitts offense was outscored by the AZ offense. The difference? 7 pts from the Pitt D off a pick six.
February 3, 2008 – New York Giants 17, New England 14
This is the year NE averaged 80pts a game (or so it seems). Front 4 pressure made the difference and shut down a record breaking offense.
February 4, 2007 – Indianapolis 29, Chicago 17
Colts defense gets a pick 6 to seal the deal and 5 turnovers (playing against Rex Grossman helped too)
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
I would argue that in 5/6
of those SB’s… the winning team had a better O than D. Not that their D was bad..but their O was better.
Brad-KC - February 7, 2012
Which ones?
By my count I would say 3 times the better O has won. IND, GB and NO.
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
actually I agree with you
Hit he sauce tonight. Might want to disregard 90% of my posts. You’re right. I’d say 3-2 O-D
Brad-KC - February 7, 2012
If option "D" is possible,
Then why have only 3 AFC teams been to the Superbowl in the last 10 years?
Chiefs1 - February 7, 2012 via mobile
?
Im very confused by what you are asking. An AFC team is always in the SB, just like a NFC team.
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
pretty sure 10 AFC teams have been to the SB in the last 10 years :)
Brad-KC - February 7, 2012
I'm thinking he means DIFFERENT teams.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
i know i know. I can rib the guy though...cant I?
Brad-KC - February 7, 2012
Of course. :)
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
How often does the best team win?
How many teams can’t beat the Giants? A good D and a hot qb = a chance. Too bad they don’t have a best of three for the Sb/DvC. We could still be watching football this month.
12t - February 7, 2012
“Defense doesn’t win championships. Clark Hunt wins championships.”
Quotes from 2016
ExRoyalsFan - February 7, 2012
Like whatshisname did for Michael Jordan.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
omg, now I have to edit this to remove the silly ???'s and put in the appropriate !!!'s
of course defense wins championships, are you an Idiot? ok, we won’t go there and rub it in any more, but sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh, Tex … I spend ALL DAY explaining this to you and still you have to ASK? come on, man!
kids, I swear … buy e’m books, send ‘em to school and STILL they don’t learn! :-)
upamtn - February 7, 2012
all the good teach edit blogs.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
teachers*
case in point.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
hey, have to admit at the end of his diatribe it DID look like maybe he learned a LITTLE something after all :-)
key point to remember is that you have to win games to get TO those championships, and you win those other games with defense as well … I’ll maintain that til long after I’m dead
upamtn - February 7, 2012
Put it on your gravestone.
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
And you still want an O linemen in the draft? :)
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
yeah I do ... the OG "defends" the QB from the other team's defense :-)
upamtn - February 7, 2012
This loop hole was brought to you by the letters "u""p"&"s"
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
hahahaha!a
and the letters C-Y-A
upamtn - February 7, 2012
how about the letters b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t?
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
Well done sir.
nateforchiefs - February 7, 2012
Huh-huh, huh...
He loves sacks.
ArrowSpread - February 7, 2012
Heh
NJChieffan16 - February 7, 2012
Interesting notes on Marcus McNeil
http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/39716/report-marcus-mcneill-likley-to-be-cut
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
The Chiefs, had they had any semblance of an offense this year,
would have repeated as AFC West Champs. But of course, the Chiefs are perennially one-sided in their history. They can never put a complete season together, which is why they have not won a playoff game in so long.
NJChieffan16 - February 7, 2012
A good defense might win a championship game for you
But you need an elite QB to get you there before you can even discuss winning the game. Who are the perineal playoff teams? You know the list, and 95% of those teams have an elite QB.
In my humble opinion, (and by all means, dispute this) QBs account for so many more regular season wins than defenses do, and that is what is more important than anything in the grand scheme of making a championship team.
Get to the playoffs in the arm of your QB. Get through the playoffs with hot QB and defensive play. Win a championship with some key plays by your defense and minimal mistakes by your offense.
RememberDelaney37 - February 7, 2012 via mobile
Huh.
I think you should make a FanPost regarding that theory.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
Huh.
I think you should make a FanPost regarding that theory.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
Heh.
I think you should make a FanShot that quickly summarizes that theory.
TRSChief - February 7, 2012
Heh.
I think you should make a FanShot that quickly summarizes that theory.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
Huh
I think you should write a major, best-selling sports book that emphasizes that theory in-depth, complete with charts, graphs, illustrations and philosophical quotes from various football personnel from around the league, both current and former
upamtn - February 7, 2012
Of Course
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
Defenses *USED* to win Championships...
Once upon a time, it might have been true that an Elite Defense was the key to a team’s success in the Post Season. I’m just not sure if that’s still the case. Not to be a Defensive apologist, but with all of the recent NFL rule changes favoring the Offense, I just don’t know that an Elite Defense can dominate the way it used to. As has been noticed, NFL Champions require balance and… as recent history can attest to, it doesn’t hurt for them to ‘get on a hot streak at the right time’.
All too often, teams with a dominant Offense (the Saints, for example) or teams with a dominant Defense (ie. the Ravens) can bull their way into the Playoffs. Offense or Defense, a true Elite unit, can rack up the wins during the Regular Season. However, more often than not, their dominance on one side of the ball only serves to mask a flawed unit on the other side.
While teams can win with that formula in the Regular Season, during the Playoffs, it doesn’t work as well. First off, they’re (normally) facing a higher caliber of opponent. Second, teams tend to spend more time game planning against their opponents in the Playoffs. During the grind of the Regular Season, teams are hurt, looking forward to future matches, or still hung up on past matches, they’re struggling to find their identities, or waiting for players to ‘fit in’ to a new system. During the Regular Season, teams want to win each game, but they have to look towards the ‘bigger picture’.
Once the Playoffs come around, however, there is no ‘bigger picture’. Each and every game is a must win, if a team wants to advance to the big stage. This being the case, nothing is saved, nothing is held back. Teams spend weeks dissecting the flaws in their opponent’s game and preparing to counter their strengths. Once the Playoff comes, you can’t hide a weak Offense with a strong Defense, or vice versa. If there’s a weakness, it will be exploited.
Playoff teams can’t rely only on their Defense, or only on their Offense. Neither can they rely solely on their run game, or on 1 dynamic offensive playmaker. In the Playoffs, then, a team needs balance. It’s the only way to make sure that your singular strength isn’t rendered ineffective. Teams need a balance between the Offense and the Defense, as well as a balance within each unit.
It also doesn’t hurt to ‘get hot at the right time’. In the past few years, we’ve seen teams who’ve dominated the Regular Season. Then, sometimes they rest their players at the end of the season, only to get bounced early in the Playoffs. Even if they don’t rest players, the unstoppable Juggernauts can still get beaten by upstart underdogs who just ‘catch fire’. Maybe it’s the Laker’s syndrome? Some teams just feel like they can cruise through the Regular Season, just as long as they make it into the Playoffs. Once they make it there, though, all bets are off. A team that barely makes it into the Post Season can suddenly become a dangerous foe, able to scare any opponent.
So, I guess, my own Idiotic Ramblings boil down to- You need to be able to force your opponents to make mistakes, capitalize on those opportunities when they arise and all the while, limit your own errors. That’s how you win Championships. If you can do that with an Elite Offense or Defense, more power to you. If you can do it with the 24th and 15th units, that just happen to start ‘playing out of their minds’ once the Playoffs begin, well, I guess that works too, right?
chuq - February 7, 2012
have to agree with this, and to win the big prize you have to have somewhat more of a balance
as for “getting hot at the right time” … an offense can sometimes do that (Giants this year) but a killer defense will always be “hot”
upamtn - February 7, 2012
unless they're not.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
It’s true that the typical Elite Defenses tend to be consistently dominating. However, there have also been teams whose Defenses just happen to make big plays at key moments. It’s hard to rely on interceptions and fumble recoveries. A dominant D is normally characterized by average yards allowed, or points allowed, maybe even sacks, and QB pressures. Still, the Saints won a Superbowl with a monstrous Offense and a Defense that gave up yards and points, but that made the big plays when they really needed to. I might argue that this was a example of a Defense that wasn’t elite, but that just ‘got hot’ at the right time.
chuq - February 7, 2012
Marty's teams were always called "lucky" regarding turnovers ...
he always replied that the only way luck makes a difference is if you’re in good enough position to be able to take advantage of being lucky to begin with
upamtn - February 7, 2012
He was right
till he got into the playoffs and then his luck sucked
Steve_Chiefs - February 7, 2012
ha! yup, about the truth
never saw anyone so snakebit … other than me
upamtn - February 7, 2012
Well stop messing with snakes.
TRSChief - February 8, 2012
It could be argued that Cover 2 teams (or at least the Tampa-style Cover 2’s) are built to take advantage of that kind of ‘luck’. You apply pressure with your front seven and hope to get picks with loose zones and double coverages.
Marty’s style was ultra-conservative. He sought to minimize mistakes and take advantage of his opponent’s mistakes. The problem was, he was really one dimensional in how he would attack and pressure other teams. I, personally, love strong running teams that use hard nose defenses and fight for time of possession and field position. But, when you can’t run and your defense can’t stop the opposing offense… you get the Chiefs in the playoffs. Except for the Vermeil years. Where we just had Charles Barkley’s luck and ran into a team that was just consistently better offensively.
chuq - February 7, 2012
Tell that to the Steelers
GB torched them.
But generally, defense is more reliable than offense… except when it’s not.
Football is, IMO, the most difficult sport to break down.
In baseball, pitching is the most important thing. In basketball, you need a superstar and multiple good players. In hockey… well, I don’t know. Where’s craig?
But with football, it’s different. There’s no “one way” to win any given Sunday. But the two best ways to win CONSISTENTLY, year in and year out, are
1) Have a franchise QB, and
2) Have a great defense
In that order.
MNchiefsfan - February 8, 2012
You can win a lot of ways, but your best chance in the NFL today is to have a great QB.
You can win with just defense and a running game, its happened a couple times out of the last 20, but about 75% of the time it is a team with a great QB.
saskwatch - February 7, 2012
Huh.
I think you should make a FanPost regarding that theory.
Tarkus - February 7, 2012
Huh.
I think you should make a FanPost regarding that theory.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
Huh.
I think you should make a FanPost regarding that theory.
Nick Britt - February 7, 2012
Heh.
I think you should make a FanShot that quickly summarizes that theory.
TRSChief - February 7, 2012
Heh.
I think you should make a FanShot that quickly summarizes that theory.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
Huh, I think you deserve a rec
Steve_Chiefs - February 7, 2012
I loved the post Tex
But, it has been 40 years since the Chiefs have competed in one of those Super Bowl things. What will it take to get to the the Super Bowl and where are we at now in getting there?
Steve_Chiefs - February 7, 2012
I think Kalo would enjoy this post :-)
upamtn - February 7, 2012
It was a good post.
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
RAC'd Texas Chief
Chief-blinders-on - February 7, 2012
I forgot my manners
also Rac’d
Steve_Chiefs - February 7, 2012
Given the nature of the Super Bowl...
I have to wonder; if Justin Tuck doesn’t pressure Brady into a safety or if Chase Blackburn (who is fellow Marysville, Ohio native and the Giants would be stupid not to resign) doesn’t make that interception, would the Giants still win? You could also make the same case in asking if Manningham’s left foot was six inches more to his left… ? The fact is, in these kind of games where elite-caliber teams compete for championships, it often comes down to which team makes the fewest mistakes (not turnovers, but mistakes). I honestly believe that a defense has more opportunities to make a critical mistake than an offense would; I think that’s where the notion of defense winning championships stems from.
KCnOH - February 7, 2012
Or Special Teams
Take away SF’s two huge ST’s mistakes and we have different SB teams playing.
Eastcoastransplant - February 7, 2012
Defense has wont the past few championships
Or at least made some of the biggest plays. Yesterday the Safety,sacks, and the pick. Last year I believe the game turned on a fumble(can’t remember), year before Porters pick 6, year before that Harrisons 100 yard pick 6. I think I got that right, no?
KCinIL - February 7, 2012
i got one.
Offense and defense win championship games.
reedeasy - February 7, 2012 via mobile
so maybe we draft D?
Barron or a DT or a LB who knows what direction they are thinking
kcchiefs2782 - February 7, 2012 via Android app
QB in draft please trade up id love a backfield with a charles and a RG3 id squirt in my pants, of course i know im smokink crack it will never happen,hell id love to dream and im sure so would arrowhead.
woody555 - February 7, 2012
I do not think there is a magical formula of any kind.
You need one or the other to get you to the playoffs. From there on, the concept of “luck”, in my opinion, plays a huge role in the playoffs:
Just from this year off the top of my head:
- Texans beat Ravens if Jacoby Jones doesn’t make two ridiculous mistakes
- Ravens beat Patriots if Lee Evans catches a TD or Cundiff hits a FG I can hit and forces OT
- Giants go into halftime against Packers with a Hail Mary
- 49ers have a ball bounce off a guys knee and give the Giants a free TD.
- Denver.. Really.. Simply Denver. They have no skill. They won a damn playoff game.
Any of those games could have gone a complete other way without the offense or defense having anything to do with it. There is no way that anyone will ever convince me that the Giants were the best team in the NFL this year. Yet they are the champs. They have neither a dominant D or O. So I guess my point is, shit just has to bounce the right way or you are screwed come playoff time.
Steve_in_RI - February 7, 2012
completely agree!
I mean look at the Chiefs when we played the Colts on there super bowl run, we had a dominate offense and Running game, and the colts had the worst Run Defense in the whole league…and we got shut the F down in the run…rankings are nice but when it comes down to it, its Heart with a splash of Luck mixed in there.
KChiefs58 - February 7, 2012
also...
i meant to Rec your comment not flag it…haha
KChiefs58 - February 7, 2012
Defense does win championships...
When you are playing basketball.
Craiggotgame - February 7, 2012
Just a point. NE allowed the Giants to drive 88 yards for the winning score in the SB.
All they needed was 1 stop. Defense win Championships.
NFL season ticket holder - February 8, 2012
So logically:
Lack of defense loses championships!
TRSChief - February 8, 2012
defense still wins championships...........well sort of
It used to be that a defense was judged on how physical it was. Decleting a receiver over the middle, shutting down the run, being intimidating . However, the recent rule changes has made that style of defense almost impossible to run. Defenses are now judged on how many negative plays you can create(i.e sacks) and how many turnovers you force. Big plays now and again don’t matter, so long as you can do those 2 things. It is what this defense has been lacking the last several years
Lets look at how many sacks SB winning teams had since 2000. Keep in mind KC had 29 this year
2000 Ravens 35
2001 Patriots 39
2002 Bucs 43
2003 Patriots 41
2004 Patriots 40
2005 Steerlers 47
2006 Colts 25
2007 Giants 53
2008 Steelers 51
2009 Saints 35
2010 Packers 47
2011 Giants 48
Only the 06 colts had fewer sacks then we did this year. But, they also have arguably the greatest QB of all time to. If we take them out , SB winning teams have an average of 43 sacks during that time. KC needs to figure out a way to add 14 more sacks to this years total
But, that is just 1 part of the equation . Forcing turnovers is also a huge part as well. Can you take points off the other teams board while giving your offense another chance to score? How far off are the Chiefs in that category . KC forced 26 (20 int’s 6 FR)
2000 Ravens 49 (23 int’s 26 FR)
2001 Patriots 35 ( 22 int’s 13 FR)
2002 Bucs 38 ( 31 int’s 7 FR)
2003 Patriots 41 ( 29 int’s 12 FR)
2004 Patriots 36 (20 int’s 16 FR)
2005 Steelers 30 (15 ints 15 FR)
2006 Colts 26 (15 ints 11 FR)
2007 Giants 31 (15 int’s 16 FR)
2008 Steelers 29 (20 int’s 9 FR)
2009 Saints 39 ( 26 ints 13 FR)
2010 Packers 32 ( 24 ints 8 FR)
2011 Giants 31 (20 ints 11 FR)
Again, if we take out the abberation of the 06 Colts, teams averaged 35 turnovers during that span. That means KC needs to force 9 more turnovers to be on par with SB winning defenses of that time period. Can it be done? Only time will tell, but we need to shoot for those averages if this defense wants to make a splash in this new NFL
saints_chiefsfan1979 - February 8, 2012
Rec'd
Nice legwork.
TRSChief - February 8, 2012
Just don't show the stats from the 2003 Chiefs or we will all be depressed...
Missed opportunity…
Skrappy - February 8, 2012
actually the defense wasn't that bad
they had 36 sacks and 37 takeaways
they were 36% on 3rd down defensivley which was 12th in the league
19th in points allowed
they just ran into Peyton manning in the playoffs
saints_chiefsfan1979 - February 8, 2012
Agreed
They ran into Manning on a day when he was hot. I don’t think another QBoffense at the time wins that game
MNchiefsfan - February 8, 2012
I want to watch that game again and do a fanpost on it
Looking at the box score , KC never led in that game
saints_chiefsfan1979 - February 8, 2012
OT
If you are sitting at a blackjack table and blaming someone else because you are losing, then 1) You do not have any understanding of the game, and 2) The need to blame someone else is indicative of a larger flaw in your personality.
The cards are not set up so that if everyone plays perfectly, you all win. I had my biggest night ever playing next to the world’s craziest player. You cannot “mess up the shoe.” It is random, and that is something the human mind cannot seem to grasp.
There is no magic in how the player in the last spot plays. It is a matter of misguided perception. You only notice it more. If you are not a card counter, the only cards that matter as far as how you play are your cards and the dealer’s up card. Noticing what anyone else does only causes you to make mistakes.
In 15 years of dealing, I never once saw a person who yelled at another player for something they did who actually did everything correctly themselves.
KHAZAD - February 8, 2012
I've never yelled at another player...
I just get up and move to a different table.
The final spot before the dealer can most certainly affect the rest of the table, based on the count of the deck and circumstances (what the dealers up card is.. and what the player is sitting on…)
Of course there is no magic… it’s luck. BUT… you CAN maximize your odds by playing by a very specific set of rules. And IF you are playing by that specific set of rules..and the player sitting in the last position is not.. It can severely affect the game.
It’s gambling.. the player doesn;‘t have the advantage… most likely in the long term you are going to lose.. but if done correctly you can raise your odds to almost even. Don’t get me wrong.. I’m perfectly aware that odds and probability are not the same thing. While the odds can be tipped more in the favor of the player with careful play… probability will kill you if you count on it.
For instance.. every time a roulette wheel spins the number can come up odd or even (forget about 0/00 for now)… If it comes There’s a 50/50 odds of it coming up even/black/ every spin. That’s the odds. No matter how many times you spin the wheel.. the odds don’t change. It’s always 50/50 (discounting 0/00 for this conversation)…
However, a lot of gamblers bet based on probability. They see 11 odd numbers in a row (or black) and ASSUME that it’s more probable the next spin will come up even (or red). While they are correct… it is more probable that black wont continue to come up … it doesn’t change the odds. The wheel has no memory. It doesn’t know it’s come up odd 11 times in a row. Each and every spin taken individually has the same 50/50 odds. If there were 50 Odd numbers in a row.. on the 51st spin.. the odds remain 50/50. The probability changes… but not the actual odds.
Probability only matters in the long term (over thousands of spins).. not in the short term. And since most people gamble in the short term….probability has to be thrown out the window. You have to bet strictly on the odds, not probability.
Same thing for Blackjack. You’ve got to STRICTLY play the odds. You can’t deviate from the “correct” play if you want to maximize your odds. You can’t ever affect the probability.. (the dealer busted the last 4 times he was forced to take a card.. so THIS time he won’t …. so I’m taking a cards because it’s unlikely to be a 10 count)…. That doesn’t work. Probability is meaningless. You’ve got to stick to the odds. .. And a player sitting left chair that doesn’t play the odds.. and lets faulty probability logic control his/her game… can negatively effect the rest of the table…when discussing a dealer in a situation where they are forced to take a hit. They are no better than a player that doesn’t know the first thing about odds..and goes with their gut “feeling” on every hand.
Texas Chief - February 8, 2012
At the end of the day... the house has the advantage... and in the long term is going to win...
Everyone is playing for short term LUCK, unless they are going to sit down at one table and play for a few thousand hands.
It can be argued that because everyone is playing for short term luck…. nothing matters. It’s all pure luck…and no amount of skill/knowledge will change your luck. However… you can change your odds with “correct” play. Changing your odds is no clear indication of winning in the short term to be sure… but in the long term it can.
Texas Chief - February 8, 2012
A couple of things
First, if you are counting, it is an advantage for you to sit further left, but only because you will see more cards (and therefore have more info) before you make your own decision.
If you play correctly, yes it will maximize your likelihood of winning. However, in the long run, how the other people at the table are playing, no matter where they are sitting, has absolutely no bearing on whether you win or lose. It does limit THEIR chances- if they stand when they should hit or vice versa, they will lose more quickly more often.
However, as in your Roulette example (FYI- I have dealt on a roulette table where red came up 22 times in a row, and the entire table, including people who walked up just because there was so much red on the board, was wiped out because, as the streak got longer, they started betting on black because they felt it was “due”) The card that they take (or do not take) does not actually change the odds of the next card being the right or wrong card for you, because all the other cards were in the shuffler and the next card still has the same chance of being the right (or wrong) card for the table. You just notice and remember it more when the outcome of a move you think is bad ends up hurting you. It is human nature. Changing the count by one card has very little meaning even if you are counting. You need a very rich or very thin deck to have an advantage, and even then you must have the bankroll to overcome the times when it does not work. (Because sometimes in a deck full of 10’s and Aces, the dealer gets blackjack)
It is the same kind of misconception that causes many players to routinely not hit 16’s when they should. (My favorite quote by Blackjack Players “I don’t hit 16, but at least I’m consistent”- usually followed by other players nodding their head in agreement. I translate that as “I do the wrong thing for me, but if I do the wrong thing EVERY time, it should be OK”) The probable reason that these players do not hit 16 is the same reason it bugs you when someone else does not play like you do. They notice it more when it hurts them. If they bust themselves hitting 16 when they should, they lose their money and their cards right away. They feel like they took away their own chance at winning. If they stand, and still lose, because the dealer has the pat hand he is representing, they remember and feel it less. Human Nature. Still wrong.
Believe me, once you become more experienced and stop noticing how other players play, it will be more fun for you. You can still socialize, if that’s your thing. (Of course, if you really play correctly, eventually you will do something that the rest of the table will insist is wrong. At least one of them will cite a specific example as to how that “Killed the table” once. Remind yourself of how similar that sounds to your story of the bad third baseman) If you are not that social, the only reason they are there is to put more cards out for you to count if you are counting.
KHAZAD - February 8, 2012
question for you about Vegas Economy and tourism..
Is it getting any better?
I’ve been a once a year (at least) visitor for almost 20 years. I also hit some more local places as well.
About the last 5 years…the casinos seem dead. They/re busy on the weekend nights… but on a weekday.. it’s not uncommon for me to be sitting at a table (blackjack, craps, roulette…etc..) completely alone.
About 1/2 the tables aren’t even open, and the poker rooms only sit a coupe of tables, with the rest empty. It’s a pretty depressing trip until the weekend. (I imagine even more so for someone that makes their living dealing)…. I didn’t go out to Vegas in 2011, because my 2 2010 trips wern’t a lot of fun. I won money overall … but it was just so dead it was depressing.
Is it getting any better out there? I know the Vegas economy was one of the worst hit in the country. Any recovery happening? Is tourism on an upward trend.. or are there still 30 taxi’s sitting in a line outside every hotel waiting (hoping) for some passengers?
Texas Chief - February 8, 2012
I have not
lived in Vegas for some time. I did most of my dealing here. (KC) I still know some people though, and the Casino industry has suffered all over the country. It took about a year after all the bad economy talk for it to hit, but when it hit it hit hard. The economy of Vegas was also affected by an extremely inflated housing market and a record rate of building new homes when the bottom fell out. In an aggressive real estate market, there was a very high percentage of questionable loans as well and a ton of foreclosures. Real Estate is second only to tourism/gaming in it’s importance to their economy.
There is a place I recommend to anyone who goes out to Vegas if they are going to rent a car and don’t need to be in the middle of everything. It is called South Point. It is on LV Blvd, but south of the airport about 3 miles or so. (The opposite direction from the strip) It fronts LV Blvd and is right next to the highway. From the highway easy access to Frank Sinatra blvd (The Back way into the casinos) or to go downtown.
They have large rooms, a fairly thriving casino of their own with local clientele as well as tourists, a really good poker room and a sports book. I like it because I can get anywhere (Though I probably visit parts of the city you would have no interest in) without hitting alot of traffic, and I can get a good poker game right there. It is inexpensive as well. I stay there every time I go back.
KHAZAD - February 8, 2012
My normal course of action when in Vegas is to stay at the bigger casinos where they give me free rooms etc..
but I always rent a car and play at the less touristy places. I’m familiar with South Point, but haven’t stayed there.
My second favorite thing to do in Vegas is hop in a taxi and ask the driver to take me away from the strip/downtown areas restaurants/sports books.. to a favorite spot of the locals. I’ve “discovered” some of the best eatery’s in my life doing that.. places where the food is 5 star… but the prices are not because the decor and location don’t cater to the tourists. Smaller restaurants with great chefs .. without all the glitz and glamour of the strip.
Texas Chief - February 8, 2012
Defense gets you to the Championship
And your offense will either win it or lose it for you.
ChiefWarPaint - February 8, 2012
I love me some defense
But as greened above by chuq, QBs and offense are what get you there. The only current NFL QBs to have played in and won a Super Bowl are…
1) Peyton Manning, former 1st overall pick
2) Eli Manning (twice), former 1st overall pick
3) Ben Roethlisberger (twice), former 1st round pick
4) Aaron Rodgers, former 1st round pick
5) Drew Brees, first pick of the 2nd round
6) Tom Brady… well he’s the outlier here
You have to go back to the 2002-03 season (Brad Johnson & Tampa Bay) to find the last Super Bowl winner that wasn’t one of the six guys above. Clearly the change in rules has shifted to the offense’s favor, but don’t overlook that 8 of the previous 13 Super Bowl winners have also held the losing team under 20 points.
kc_radrh8r - February 8, 2012
Usually, the the team that scores the most points wins
at least the numbers hold that as true.
Seriously, I DO think defense wins championships. It was illustrated very boldly on Sunday.
SCKSChief - February 8, 2012
I voted Defense wins but it takes offense to get there
It really is about balance though. I think the Chiefs are a few upgrades on the O-line and a QB away from being a contender for the next 10+ years…
Spiderwomn69 - February 8, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Arrowhead Pride to post a comment.