|
Post by airman on Feb 4, 2008 14:48:49 GMT -6
the argument that defense wins championships is a interesting one.
had this been a high school game I think the giants would have lost. most guys who subscribe to the defense wins championships at the high school level have a very limited offense. they run the ball all the time and when you do this the clock is against you.
the theory defense wins championships works when your offense gets up by a couple touchdowns and you then can play with reckless abandon on defense.
the giants have a multiple style of offense and therefore they move the ball.
|
|
|
Post by chadp56 on Feb 4, 2008 15:04:08 GMT -6
Two players have shared the award, Harvey Martin and Randy White. When you hold the top scoring offense in the history of the league to 14 points, then you should give it to a defensive player. I think Tuck should have got it. These things aren't decided by enough football minds I don't think, or else it would have went to someone else.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 4, 2008 16:18:08 GMT -6
Wild game. Reminded me in a way of the Hawaii-Georgia Bowl game, in that the high-flying O with the great receivers and had little chance because the front four just outmatched the blockers. Loved a few of the schemes and athleticism from the Giants.
Not interested in the O vs. D debate. Championship teams win championships is the best I know. Some of them have amazing D's, others have great Os, others are inbetween. Tough to win many games at all without being at least somewhat proficient on both sides of the ball.
I know one thing: O and D distinctions aside, the Giants linemen and blockers fared better than the Patriots linemen and blockers. The Giants have the better front 4/passing rushing 7, obviously, but that was the difference. Whether Eli was the game's MVP, I don't know. I think he was the offensive MVP, along with the line in general, though the receiving corps made great plays. Collectively the Giants front-four may have deserved it as a group.
But I didn't get the impression that the Giants were too into the individual stats for this game. They certainly won it as a team. To how many of you guys did this remind you of the 2002 Rams-Patriots game? Even down to the improbable game winning drive.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Feb 4, 2008 16:27:55 GMT -6
To how many of you guys did this remind you of the 2002 Rams-Patriots game? Even down to the improbable game winning drive. exactly. Pats in 2001 were supposed to get the doors blown off by the Rams and just came out and out-executed and flustered a fantastic offense
|
|
ram7gm
Sophomore Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by ram7gm on Feb 4, 2008 17:12:59 GMT -6
The more physical team usually wins and I definitely think the Giants out-hit the Pats. They were playing on another level in terms of their aggression and physicality. NE hadn't been hit in the mouth like that all year. Brady got comfortable playing behind an OL that played lights out all year long... until yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by theprez98 on Feb 4, 2008 18:37:59 GMT -6
The hit by Tuck ( i think it was Tuck) on second and ten during New Englands last series was awesome. Brady took a beating early and he was clearly rattled. Lots of hurried balls even when he wasn't pressured and terrible throws. It was Jay Alford, rookie from Penn State. For once, Penn State beat Michigan.
|
|
ram7gm
Sophomore Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by ram7gm on Feb 5, 2008 8:45:07 GMT -6
And there's always the argument that the best defense is a productive, ball-control offense (if not high-scoring, pass-happy). Take a look at NYG's opening drive that ate up 9:59 of the 1st quarter. That's almost ten minutes of NE's defense getting tired and Brady, Moss, and co. sitting on the sideline holding down the grass.
Doesn't matter how good your offense is, how many TDs your golden boy QB threw for that season... if they're not on the field they're useless!
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 5, 2008 9:35:05 GMT -6
one can make a case for just about anything by stating various statistics in a manner that best suits their case ...
2007 Top Defense - Pittsburgh Steelers 2007 Top Offense - New England Patriots Super Bowl Winner - New York Giants: 7th Defense, 16th Offense Super Bowl Loser - Patriots: 4th Defense, 1st Offense
2006 Top Defense - Baltimore Ravens 2006 Top Offense - New Orleans Saints Super Bowl Winner - Indianapolis Colts: 21st Defense, 3rd Offense Super Bowl Loser - Chicago Bears: 5th Defense, 15th Offense
2005 Top Defense - Tampa Bay 2005 Top Offense - Kansas City Super Bowl Winner - Pittsburgh: 4th Defense, 15th Offense Super Bowl Loser - Seattle: 16th Defense, 2nd Offense
2004 Top Defense - Pittsburgh 2004 Top Offense - Kansas City Super Bowl Winner - New England: 9th Defense, 7th Offense Super Bowl Loser - Philadelphia: 10th Defense, 9th Offense
2003 Top Defense - Dallas 2003 Top Offense - Minnesota Super Bowl Winner - New England: 7th Defense, 17th Offense Super Bowl Loser - Carolina: 8th Defense, 16th Offense
2002 Top Defense - Tampa Bay 2002 Top Offense - Oakland Super Bowl Winner - Tampa Bay: 1st Defense, 24th Offense Super Bowl Loser - Oakland: 11th Defense, 1st Offense
2001 Top Defense - Pittsburgh 2001 Top Offense - St. Louis Super Bowl Winner - New England: 24th Defense, 19th Offense Super Bowl Loser - St. Louis: 3rd Defense, 1st Offense
2000 Top Defense - Tennessee 2000 Top Offense - St. Louis Super Bowl Winner - Baltimore: 2nd Defense, 16th Offense Super Bowl Loser - New York Giants: 5th Defense, 13th Offense
1999 Top Defense - Buffalo 1999 Top Offense - St. Louis Super Bowl Winner - St. Louis: 6th Defense, 1st Offense Super Bowl Loser - Tennesse: 17th Defense, 13th Offense
1998 Top Defense - San Diego 1998 Top Offense - San Francisco Super Bowl Winner - Denver: 11th Defense, 3rd Offense Super Bowl Loser - Atlanta: 8th Defense, 7th Offense
1997 Top Defense - San Francisco 1997 Top Offense - Denver Super Bowl Winner - Denver: 5th Defense, 1st Offense Super Bowl Loser - Green Bay: 7th Defense, 4th Offense
|
|
|
Post by coryell2009 on Feb 5, 2008 11:45:43 GMT -6
I kneel before the greatness of Coach Huey.
Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Feb 5, 2008 12:45:04 GMT -6
Most common? Great balance wins championships (duh) Super Bowl Winner - New England: 9th Defense, 7th Offense Super Bowl Winner - New England: 24th Defense, 19th Offense Super Bowl Winner - St. Louis: 6th Defense, 1st Offense Super Bowl Winner - Denver: 5th Defense, 1st Offense Great Defense Wins Championships Super Bowl Winner - New York Giants: 7th Defense, 16th Offense Super Bowl Winner - Pittsburgh: 4th Defense, 15th Offense Super Bowl Winner - New England: 7th Defense, 17th Offense Super Bowl Winner - Tampa Bay: 1st Defense, 24th Offense Super Bowl Winner - Baltimore: 2nd Defense, 16th Offense Great Offense wins Championships? Yeah, you can...but less common than defense. Super Bowl Winner - Indianapolis Colts: 21st Defense, 3rd Offense Super Bowl Winner - Denver: 11th Defense, 3rd Offense Sorry, someone has to challenge Huey instead of just kneeling before him.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 5, 2008 13:34:40 GMT -6
I wasn't taking a stance either way ... again, there isn't one sole factor that plays into winning.
I was just putting up information I had gathered.
of the 11 super bowls listed, the team that had the "best" defense won 7 times. So, what I was getting at was that a person could viably say that "Defense wins championships. period" based on these results.
at the same time, there were 5 times in which the team with the "best" offense won. So... someone could say "Offense wins. Period" ...
and, this is where I often step back and scratch my head ... same stats, 2 totally different points of view.
I'll let the media and fans clamor over what is THE best way to win a championship. As for me and our program, we'll try to be the best we can be on defense, the best we can on offense, and the best we can in the kicking game and go that route in an effort to win
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 5, 2008 13:40:10 GMT -6
and .. to fuel this trivial fire ...
could we say the giants defense was "better" than the patriots even though statistical rankings say otherwise soley because they won?
or, is it possible that matchups do matter in a head to head game and that the giants defense matched up better with the patriots offense than the patriots "higher ranked" defense matched up with the giants offense?
also, the league's top rated defense made the super bowl just once in the last 11 seasons while the leagues top rated offense made it 5 times.
but, before you go saying "it's offense" they lost 3 of those times.
stats ... haha, gotta love 'em
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 5, 2008 15:14:01 GMT -6
of the 11 super bowls listed....defense won 7 times....there were 5 times in which the team with the bestoffense won. 7 + 5 = 12 Chief. ;D I really have too much time on my hands. in one of the super bowls (denver) had the better offense AND defense but, thanks for paying attention to my meaningless ramblings ...
|
|
|
Post by airman on Feb 5, 2008 17:25:20 GMT -6
the argument that defense wins championships is a interesting one. had this been a high school game I think the giants would have lost. most guys who subscribe to the defense wins championships at the high school level have a very limited offense. they run the ball all the time and when you do this the clock is against you. the theory defense wins championships works when your offense gets up by a couple touchdowns and you then can play with reckless abandon on defense. the giants have a multiple style of offense and therefore they move the ball. What?? By that theory the Dan Fouts Chargers should have won several Superbowls. The theory behind "Defense Wins Championships" is: Our offense vs your defense Our defense vs your offense As you watched the game on sunday, everyone kind of expected the Patriots offense to take off. But as you watched the game you could see NE having severe issues on offense, they were spending so much time defending NY's Dline that blitzes were icing on the cake. Whereas NY was moving the ball and it seemed like NE always "had to make a play" to get off on 3rd down. We've all been there no matter which side of the ball you're on. For NE that game boiled down to that one important act: "someone has to make a play, get a turnover, etc"...aka...get lucky and pull one we don't deserve to win out. For the Giants it boiled down to "Just don't make a mistake Eli, just don't turn it over." The play of this Superbowl was the fumbled handoff that NE fell on, but the RB fought for and came up with. A recovery there gives NE the ball on NY's 20. That was a game changing play. NE never got out to any kind of lead that made NY have to get out of their comfort zone. Look back over time, great offenses have rarely won any Championships. If defense didn't win Championships, the Yankees would never lose. No one has their kind of lineup. Even the mighty Colts, arguably the best offense in the league couldn't get back there. Why? Dwight Freeney didn't play and their defense was not the same without him. The MJ Bulls were great, tremendous offense...but when their defense holds you to 80 pts, that's going to be a problem...MJ will score half that himself. Offense and Defense are not exclusive events, it is possible to win consistently with a mediocre ball control offense and a great defense. The Ravens and Buccaneers proved that. However, the converse is not true. I don't know about other states, but in Ohio it's a pretty rare occurrence when a team wins a State Title with a defense giving up 17 ppg or more, regardless of how many ppg their offense scores. dc, I am talking at the high school level. I have seen top defenses just destroyed by passing teams and i have seen top offenses destroyed by defenses. fact is i like a team which places all its eggs in the defensive basket. I say this cause most teams who do that play a offense that has to play from ahead. get them down now you get them out of their comfort zone. as a offensive coach there is nothing better then trying to see a run exclusive team run a drop back passing attack because they are behind and the clock is working against them. why it usually becomes duck hunting season at that point. I have also seen great offenses get stopped cause they failed to have answers to pressure. the big mistake BB and the Patriots made is not using the aggression of the giants against them. you have a great rbs in faulk and maroney, run screens to the back and run draws to the backs.
|
|
|
Post by morris on Feb 5, 2008 18:18:46 GMT -6
they tried screens and I have to say throughthe playoff the Giants were extreme good against the screen. Their backers did a great job of getting into the linemen and force their way through.
Now about the Pats defense being ranked higher there is a number of factors one has to look at there. They played in a bad division. They got ahead early and fast which made teams have to go more into a 1 dimensional team and more predictable. It is somewhat along the lines of when the Rams had the 3rd best defense.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 5, 2008 20:54:50 GMT -6
The play I wanted to see the Pats try was the fake bubble pump and go. Would it be some game changer? Who knows. But they covered the bubbles and the quicks so well I wanted to see them give it a shot.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Feb 5, 2008 21:55:47 GMT -6
dc, I am talking at the high school level. I have seen top defenses just destroyed by passing teams and i have seen top offenses destroyed by defenses. I thoroughly disagree... The majority of football teams that win state championships play outstanding defense. Sure, they have proficient offenses, usually because they are on the field so much, and receive so many opportunities due to the great defense... but sometimes, the offenses of these state champions, leave a lot to be desired.... but the defense is so good, they still dominate. In Illinois... not one state champion had suspect defense. I don't know the last time I saw a state championship game that was 42-38.... Its either low scoring and close, or a high scoring blow out!
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 5, 2008 22:06:29 GMT -6
Two things make sense in this post......the only immutable truths Championship teams win championships is the best I know. AND...... Gotcha. and no problem, I'm married, paying attention to meaningless ramblings is something I'm use to.
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 5, 2008 22:11:42 GMT -6
and by the way, congrats to the Giants.....their defense was defintely A factor....was it THE factor......hell no.
They don't win this game with the Dolphin's defense.
They don't win this game with Kyle Boller as the quarterback.
Hell, if Feagles isn't on the roster, they may not win it.
|
|
|
Post by spos21ram on Feb 5, 2008 22:53:58 GMT -6
dc, I am talking at the high school level. I have seen top defenses just destroyed by passing teams and i have seen top offenses destroyed by defenses. I thoroughly disagree... The majority of football teams that win state championships play outstanding defense. Sure, they have proficient offenses, usually because they are on the field so much, and receive so many opportunities due to the great defense... but sometimes, the offenses of these state champions, leave a lot to be desired.... but the defense is so good, they still dominate. In Illinois... not one state champion had suspect defense. I don't know the last time I saw a state championship game that was 42-38.... Its either low scoring and close, or a high scoring blow out! But those championship teams had a good offense. I think we've come to the conclusion that a balance between a good offense and good defense wins championships.
|
|
|
Post by Coach Huey on Feb 6, 2008 10:55:02 GMT -6
i would say you need one side "great" and the other side no worse than "good" ... "great" + "fair" just doesn't seem to cut it very often. "good" + "good" may come up short as well.
rarely has a team been "poor" on 1 side of the ball and won a championship. even the baltimore team had a "fair" to "good" offense.
so, ratings Great Good Fair Poor
would say that helps when at least 1 is Great while the other is at least Good --- possibly Fair but may depend on how matchups fall into play during playoffs. Someone alluded to who you face in league and how defense is built for that. Could have a Great defense in your leauge but then face someone in 2nd round that is polar opposite of your league and it gives you fits and end up losing ... was it because your defense was Poor? or did the matchup just not play out that favorably for you.
Likewise, if all you ever see was cover 3 on defense then you get geared up to exploit in offensively and have a "great" offense. Then, wham, here comes cover 2, cover 4, man, robber, blah, blah ... but no cover 3 .... oops ... offense could look "Fair"...
which, when discussing matchups, having balance may prove to be a key in that you often have to lean on one side more during a rough matchup to get you through... the ability to have different answers for different scenarios proves valuable --- this is where the term "good teams win ugly" comes from.
"we won this week because our defense played great --- totally shut down that powerful offense of theirs" "we won last week because our offense just couldn't be stopped."
both comments by same coach in consecutive weeks ..... what won them the championship??? balance... and, they had at least a "great" and a "good"
|
|
ram7gm
Sophomore Member
Posts: 133
|
Post by ram7gm on Feb 6, 2008 11:17:58 GMT -6
Interesting note about the Patriots (other than during the Super Bowl, of course) was how balanced they were, yet incredibly diverse. It seemed that they never won 2 games in a row the same way, but at least 1 unit/facet of their team ALWAYS played great, even if it wasn't always the same one. In other words, one week they might beat a team with a high-flying, 4 wide passing attack and Brady's 5 TD passes. The next week they pound the ball for 250 yards on the ground behind 3 TEs and only 1 Brady TD. After that they might win with lights-out defense and only a so-so offensive output.
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Feb 6, 2008 13:05:42 GMT -6
I agree with Huey. It's just an extension of the toolbox approach. It's kind of a redundant argument to say that you have to be good at something to be good and it's hard to be good if you're terrible at anything else. How it balances out is somewhat random from there. If I have a great offense and a solid defense but I get every kick blocked and I give up punts and kickoffs for TDs, well I'll probably lose. Similarly if I have a great D and an inept offense I will probably lose.
This is no different to me really than having a so-called "great" offense with a glaring weakness in pass protection, turnovers, or the red zone. Or having a "great" run stuffing D that can't rush the passer and couldn't cover a barbie doll.
Bill Walsh was right: a great team that is evenly matched in talent must have the ability to rely on different parts of its team and different strengths to win football games. John Wooden was right that you focus on yourself and you discipline your team to be as sound in all phases of the game as possible.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Feb 6, 2008 14:08:13 GMT -6
dc, I am talking at the high school level. I have seen top defenses just destroyed by passing teams and i have seen top offenses destroyed by defenses. I thoroughly disagree... The majority of football teams that win state championships play outstanding defense. Sure, they have proficient offenses, usually because they are on the field so much, and receive so many opportunities due to the great defense... but sometimes, the offenses of these state champions, leave a lot to be desired.... but the defense is so good, they still dominate. In Illinois... not one state champion had suspect defense. I don't know the last time I saw a state championship game that was 42-38.... Its either low scoring and close, or a high scoring blow out! I think it is improper to try and separate offense and defense at the H.S. ranks because the vast majority of the time, the team with the "best athletes doing what their coach tells them" are the ones who win. In H.S, you NEVER see a super super high potent offense that is not a good defensive team, simply because of the great football players on offense. At the H.S. level, those players would be playing defense if the other guys on the team were not at the level the coach needed/wanted.
|
|