PDA

View Full Version : 08/09 Playoff winning QBs averaging 217 yards per game


Pages : [1] 2

Popps
01-11-2009, 01:44 PM
Football 101 continues this year...

Thus far, the stats of the winning QBs in all playoff games combined come out to....

217 0 1
300 1 1
271 2 1
161 1 0
220 2 1
217 1 2
135 0 0

(Yards/TD/Int)

Those numbers yield a paltry 217 yards a game and barely over a 1:1 TD/Int ratio.

High flying offenses like Indy, Denver and New Orleans watch the games from home... while defense and ball-control-oriented teams move on. Even teams like Arizona, who had great offensive stats this year have redefined themselves for the playoffs where defense, running the ball and clock control win games. (Arizona had over 140 yards rushing and 5 INTs, 2 sacks and a forced fumble yesterday.)

As is the case every year, QBs who play roles move deeper in the playoffs than those who have to carry teams... and even those who can carry teams turn into role-players, or go home.

Defense wins championships is a cliche for a reason. This year is just another reminder. Our front office would do well to pay serious attention to the style of football being played right now. A very clear template for winning in January is on display.

lex
01-11-2009, 01:46 PM
Football 101 continues this year...

Thus far, the stats of the winning QBs in all playoff games combined come out to....

217 0 1
300 1 1
271 2 1
161 1 0
220 2 1
217 1 2
135 0 0

(Yards/TD/Int)

Those numbers yield a paltry 217 yards a game and barely over a 1:1 TD/Int ratio.

High flying offenses like Indy, Denver and New Orleans watch the games from home... while defense and ball-control-oriented teams move on. Even teams like Arizona, who had great offensive stats this year have redefined themselves for the playoffs where defense, running the ball and clock control win games. (Arizona had over 140 yards rushing and 5 INTs, 2 sacks and a forced fumble yesterday.)

As is the case every year, QBs who play roles move deeper in the playoffs than those who have to carry teams... and even those who can carry teams turn into role-players, or go home.

Defense wins championships is a cliche for a reason. This year is just another reminder. Our front office would do well to pay serious attention to the style of football being played right now. A very clear template for winning in January is on display.

Well, also, I think the teams that had the most rushing yards won 3 out of 4 games last week.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:05 PM
Well, also, I think the teams that had the most rushing yards won 3 out of 4 games last week.

I'm surprised even one team that out-rushed the other lost.

This is great football to watch. Nice to finally see some smash-mouth ball and some hitting after the novelty-ball we've been playing.

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 02:14 PM
Football 101 continues this year...

Thus far, the stats of the winning QBs in all playoff games combined come out to....

217 0 1
300 1 1
271 2 1
161 1 0
220 2 1
217 1 2
135 0 0

(Yards/TD/Int)

Those numbers yield a paltry 217 yards a game and barely over a 1:1 TD/Int ratio.

High flying offenses like Indy, Denver and New Orleans watch the games from home... while defense and ball-control-oriented teams move on. Even teams like Arizona, who had great offensive stats this year have redefined themselves for the playoffs where defense, running the ball and clock control win games. (Arizona had over 140 yards rushing and 5 INTs, 2 sacks and a forced fumble yesterday.)

As is the case every year, QBs who play roles move deeper in the playoffs than those who have to carry teams... and even those who can carry teams turn into role-players, or go home.

Defense wins championships is a cliche for a reason. This year is just another reminder. Our front office would do well to pay serious attention to the style of football being played right now. A very clear template for winning in January is on display.

Huh?

First off, Arizona threw for a couple hundred yards in the first HALF then just ran the clock out because they had such a commanding half time lead 27-7. They had a DECENT run mix in the first half, but hardly "redefining their game". Their defense has been a turnover machine ALL SEASON.

Secondly, Indy made the play offs.

Thirdly, the chargers have been an air team this season too.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 02:19 PM
Looks to me like balance is prevailing over everything. This is nothing revolutionary.

bronco militia
01-11-2009, 02:21 PM
protecting the football is prevailing over everything...

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:22 PM
Looks to me like balance is prevailing over everything. This is nothing revolutionary.

Nope. Just further proof that a playoff can be easily won with sub-par QB stats/play... but absolutely cannot be won with sub-par defense.

Business as usual in the playoffs.

Hopefully we'll rebuild this organization to reflect that reality instead of trying to play cute with offensive toys while ignoring the defense for ten years.

Spider
01-11-2009, 02:24 PM
meaning we could have won with Griese if we had a D ............ interesting where stats and arguments take us ;D

lex
01-11-2009, 02:24 PM
Nope. Just further proof that a playoff can be easily won with sub-par QB stats/play... but absolutely cannot be won with sub-par defense.

Business as usual in the playoffs.

Hopefully we'll rebuild this organization to reflect that reality instead of trying to play cute with offensive toys while ignoring the defense for ten years.
Not that I disagree with the value of having a good defense but we are currently a dominant running game away from being an offense thats better than anything youre seeing in the playoffs. I want a better defense too, though.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:28 PM
Not that I disagree with the value of having a good defense but we are currently a dominant running game away from being an offense thats better than anything youre seeing in the playoffs. I want a better defense too, though.

Probably true. We saw glimpses of what this team could do with Hillis running the ball. Look at Jay's stats in those games. They weren't huge. Didn't need to be.

That's playoff football.

That said, we still would have gotten our clocks cleaned in the playoffs.

The difference is... in the playoffs, you meet teams who DO have dominant defenses or at least defenses that are hot. Then, your own D has to be able to keep you in the game, or it's all over.

Absolutely the running game is a major cog. It's the 2nd biggest element to building a championship, behind an effective defense.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 02:28 PM
Nope. Just further proof that a playoff can be easily won with sub-par QB stats/play... but absolutely cannot be won with sub-par defense.

Yes. This was my point when I made the statement that "The QB is an afterthought in the modern NFL" in 2003. You laughed at that and argued tooth and nail at how wrong it was. You said that football 101 was that you needed a star quarterback. I've never changed my opinion that defense and a running game are important. I just no longer believe that you can be a consistent winner with a sub-par quarterback. Apparently, now you do. *shrug*

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:30 PM
meaning we could have won with Griese if we had a D ............ interesting where stats and arguments take us ;D

Actually... before his arm injury, absolutely.... and I was here (or on other boards) stating as much. When Griese was healthy, you could have simply kept him out of the way and asked him to do very little.

A playoff winning QB just has to be good enough to not turn the ball over, and to make crucial throws at crucial times.

So, yea... had this team approached things properly, I think he might have been able to win one before the injury.

But, Shanahan played cute... ignored the D-line and brought in gobs of cornerbacks and offensive toys.

lex
01-11-2009, 02:32 PM
Probably true. We saw glimpses of what this team could do with Hillis running the ball. Look at Jay's stats in those games. They weren't huge. Didn't need to be.

That's playoff football.

That said, we still would have gotten our clocks cleaned in the playoffs.

The difference is... in the playoffs, you meet teams who DO have dominant defenses or at least defenses that are hot. Then, your own D has to be able to keep you in the game, or it's all over.

Absolutely the running game is a major cog. It's the 2nd biggest element to building a championship, behind an effective defense.

Thats true. Our defense clearly needs to get better. But addressing LG, where Hamilton gets ragdolled too often by bigger more physical defenses is an issue of concern, as is Wiegmanns age. Plus, like you, Im a huge fan of Hillis. I dont see him as the best RB we had this past year, but that doesnt mean a lot. Id like to see Denver get someone to split the load with him. Naturally, Id also like to see more defense other than a couple of players to help the running game. But paramount is getting a competent HC who can be an architect for that kind of defense.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:34 PM
Yes. This was my point when I made the statement that "The QB is an afterthought in the modern NFL" in 2003. You laughed at that and said that football 101 was that you needed a star quarterback. I've never changed my opinion that defense and a running game are important. I just no longer believe that you can be a consistent winner with a sub-par quarterback. Apparently, now you do. *shrug*

Wrong, of course.

The QB is never an "afterthought," and I realize that now you have come to understand the game a bit better.

Your stance was in support of Griese post-injury... where you said he was "basically the same as Brady." (LOL)

Now, we all realize that you've changed your position yet again to state that we need a blue-chip, big-stat star to win a SB. You used that as your thesis for why Plummer had to go and Matt Leinart had to be drafted. (Remember?)

Well, you didn't get your Matt Leinart, but you got a blue-chip QB. Here we are, years later...a worse team.

What was I saying? That we needed a defense and a running game. I've said the same thing going back to Brian Griese.

Now, talk about post-injury Griese... and you're correct, he wasn't capable of anything. He could hardly throw the ball 20 yards. He was a statue in the pocket and made terrible decisions. He brought nothing, and when replaced... the team immediately began winning without almost any other change being made.

So, keep flip-flopping.... keep learning the game, bro. You'll get there.... and we'll be here to help you.

Drek
01-11-2009, 02:39 PM
What dominates the playoffs changes from year to year.

Last year New England, Dallas, Green Bay, Indy, and Seattle were in the playoffs and all of their offenses focused on passing, all of their defenses weren't really all world either.

This year a lot of the big passing offenses hit some big speed bumps, like Peyton Manning having his leg cut on shortly before the season started, Brady being out for the season from opening day, the Dallas offense imploding because they got T.O. running his mouth, and the Seahawks falling off the map because Hasselback couldn't stay healthy.

Its just as likely that next year the Ravens will have to play most of the year without Ed Reed or Ray Lewis and miss the playoffs completely, or the Titans will lose Haynesworth and be back to the middle of the pack.

I think what best supports the "defense wins championships" adage is that typically defense is a product of 11 men being used well within a system while a powerful passing attack is very much on the shoulders of one man, the QB. A running game is the middle ground, where you rely on your 5 OLs as much as your RB and your FB and TE can contribute as well. If any one of those guys gets hurt you could very possibly find another cog for the machine, but if you're a high flying passing game the chances that you replace QBs without missing a beat is pretty damn slim.

Ideal world we should develop all three evenly. We've got a great foundation for a powerful passing offense and the better part of a great running game, but we got near nothing on defense and we still need at least some of the 'backs to stay healthy in order to actually carry the ball.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 02:41 PM
You argue yourself in circles...

I never argued that Matt Leinart had to be drafted. I just thought he'd be great under Shanahan. I was more than happy to get Cutler. My argument there was that Plummer had to go. And his heartless display the following season underscored it.

But I never said that was the end all answer to our problems. I was well aware that we needed defensive line help. You just took my argument against Plummer to mean I didn't believe we still had work to do on defense. That wasn't the case at all. I knew we had a bad defense, and that a bad quarterback only multiplied our problems.

The only person here flip flopping is you. It's great to learn that you now believe what I told you back in 2003 - we could have won with Griese if we had focused on defense and a running game. You said back then - "what's easier - replacing a whole side of the ball, or getting rid of one guy and replacing him with someone else?"

Don't pretend that you know football better than anyone else on this board. The only one you'll convince is yourself.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 02:44 PM
The best part is that you're whole argument now is "the QB is an afterthought."


High flying offenses like Indy, Denver and New Orleans watch the games from home... while defense and ball-control-oriented teams move on.... As is the case every year, QBs who play roles move deeper in the playoffs than those who have to carry teams... and even those who can carry teams turn into role-players, or go home.


...and you call me a flip flopper.

Flop us out another take Popps, and pretend like you're telling us something.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:45 PM
You argue yourself in circles...

I never argued that Matt Leinart had to be drafted. I just thought he'd be great under Shanahan. I was more than happy to get Cutler. My argument there was that Plummer had to go. And his heartless display the following season underscored it..

... and I told you no QB was going to solve our problems... and was correct.


But I never said that was the end all answer to our problems. I was well aware that we needed defensive line help. .

Your first mention of the D-line came after we drafted Cutler. It was very cute.
After years of ignoring the defensive woes, including blaming Shanahan for Griese's poor play... you finally "recognized" the need for D-line help.
Again, almost child-like in your obvious nature.


Don't pretend that you know football better than anyone else on this board. The only one you'll convince is yourself.

Only you, guy... but you're getting there.

Anyway, go watch the playoffs and pay attention. It's all going to make sense to you soon enough.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:47 PM
The best part is that you're whole argument now is "the QB is an afterthought."
.

Wrong. That's your infamous quote, which you later recanted for "we must have a blue-chip QB."

Your fundamental problem is that you couldn't understand the difference between a broken-armed Brian Griese and Tom Brady.

Get it?

The QB isn't an "afterthought." However, if your QB sucks absolute ass... you've got a problem.

Your insistence that a league-leading, 1st round QB was the answer to all problems has been debunked... and your education continues.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:48 PM
Anyway... back to the game. It's 7-7 at the half. Another defensive battle.

What a shocker!

Taco John
01-11-2009, 02:48 PM
... and I told you no QB was going to solve our problems... and was correct.

And I told you that no QB was going to solve our defensive problems, but our QB problem might be solved... And was correct. So far, Cutler hasn't managed to solve our defensive problems, but he has solved our quarterback problem.

You made the case that we didn't have a quarterback problem - and you were wrong.



Your first mention of the D-line came after we drafted Cutler. It was very cute.

I'm not sure what you think lying buys you in this discussion. Certainly not respect or credibility.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 02:50 PM
Wrong. That's your infamous quote, which you later recanted for "we must have a blue-chip QB."

Your fundamental problem is that you couldn't understand the difference between a broken-armed Brian Griese and Tom Brady.

Get it?

The QB isn't an "afterthought." However, if your QB sucks absolute ass... you've got a problem.

Your insistence that a league-leading, 1st round QB was the answer to all problems has been debunked... and your education continues.



You've absolutely confounded yourself. Which is it? Is the QB an afterthought, and defense and running game are most important? Or is the QB the most important?

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:53 PM
Huh?
.

The numbers tell your story, bro. Don't shoot the messenger.

Huh?

First off, Arizona threw for a couple hundred yards in the first HALF then just ran the clock out because they had such a commanding half time lead 27-7. .

I love how people on the wrong side of an argument use one potential exception as their example as opposed to the vast majority of norms.

That said, Arizona is indeed an offense-heavy team. Great if you can do it... but only effective when your defense steps up and makes big plays.

They shut down the best RB in the league the prior week and intercepted the QB 5 times yesterday.

You honestly think Arizona wins that game yesterday if their D played the way they did early in the season? C'mon, dude. You're smarter than that.


Secondly, Indy made the play offs.


One and done, just like the offense-only Broncos teams the past decade.

Surprise!


Thirdly, the chargers have been an air team this season too.

Again, we're not talking about week 3... we're talking about the playoffs, and there's a reason that our teams have fizzled every year. Shanahan built up cute, gimmicky offensive teams and poo-poo'd the defense.

Rivers threw for just over 200 yards last week and we're looking at a 7-7 tie going into half-time this week.

The better defense will define this game today, not fancy QB numbers.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 02:54 PM
Your insistence that a league-leading, 1st round QB was the answer to all problems has been debunked... and your education continues.


I've never made the case that a 1st round QB was the answer to all of our problems. I did make the case that it was the answer to our QB problems.

If Plummer was playing for the Chargers right now, he'd have committed at least two turnovers that would have led to points, and you'd be covering for him blaming the defense for giving up those points.

I never said that getting rid of Plummer would solve our problems on defense. But you can lie about it all you want. You've argued yourself in circles here and can't hardly tell up from down. Your credibility speaks for itself.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:55 PM
You've absolutely confounded yourself. Which is it? Is the QB an afterthought, and defense and running game are most important? Or is the QB the most important?

So, Taco... this is your new strategy?

Someone pointed it out on another thread. You just re-ask the same question and ignore answers? Can't recall who, but someone nailed this. I guess I can't blame you... having no real position on anything.

Ready?

1. The QB is NOT an afterthought, HOWEVER... your QB cannot be horrible.
(See the difference between post-injury Griese and Tom Brady, which you said were "the same." LOL)

2. Defense is where championships start, and the running game is close behind.

3. Even great QBs play ROLES on champions.. they don't carry them.

It can't be made more simple, even for someone as football challenged as yourself.

Popps
01-11-2009, 02:58 PM
As for the D-line, Taco... you earned the nick-name "QB Only" around here for a reason. Even with your defense of Greise... you couldn't be talked sense to.
You absolutely ignored the need for any other team improvement until we drafted Cutler.

As I said, it was so child-like in its transparency, it was almost cute.

You've erased the archives, or we'd have no problem solving these little issues.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 03:02 PM
So, Taco... this is your new strategy?

Someone pointed it out on another thread. You just re-ask the same question and ignore answers? Can't recall who, but someone nailed this. I guess I can't blame you... having no real position on anything.


You are the one who pointed it out on the other thread when I had to repeatedly ask you questions in order to get you to stop squirming and actually answer them. You're inventing friends now?



1. The QB is NOT an afterthought, HOWEVER... your QB cannot be horrible.
(See the difference between post-injury Griese and Tom Brady, which you said were "the same." LOL)

Ok, so we share this take. So why were you so gung ho on Plummer then, when he was clearly horrible when the playoffs rolled around? At the very least you could admit that you were wrong. That would lend a lot of credibility to your positions now.


2. Defense is where championships start, and the running game is close behind.

Oh, wait... so QB is an afterthought? You're confounding yourself again. When I made this statement back in 2003, you laughed at it, and continue to bring it up to this day.

You argue yourself in circles.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 03:06 PM
As for the D-line, Taco... you earned the nick-name "QB Only" around here for a reason.


:rofl:

Dude, you are delusional. I don't have that nickname. Though it's true that you and you alone continued again and again and again to call me that because I believed that we needed to replace Plummer.

I never made the argument that replacing Plummer would solve all of our problems. My argument was that it would solve our QB problems.

Seriously Popps... Lying doesn't help your arguments out. Even if you're lying out of delusion and believe the lies you create are actually true. That only hurts your case.

Anyone who's ever been on the opposite side of an argument with you knows what I mean.


Even with your defense of Greise... you couldn't be talked sense to.
You absolutely ignored the need for any other team improvement until we drafted Cutler.

More lies.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 03:08 PM
At the end of the day, the team that wins is going to be the one that has enough offense to get past the other team's defense, and enough defense to keep the other team from outscoring them.

Balance is what wins Championships.

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:10 PM
:rofl:

Seriously Popps... Lying doesn't help your arguments out..

Taco, you said yourself in the other thread that "no matter what happens, I'm right."

So, you can erase the archives, swap positions... claim you never said things, and then later re-claim them, do whatever you want.

Bottom line is, your "replace the QB and we're a champion" theory was blown out of the water.

Your "gutless drunk" theory will be next to fall.

As someone else pointed out, it's odd that being right to you is so important.... as a guy who is so routinely wrong.


Anyway, your education is on TV if you want to watch. Maybe you'll save yourself from comparing an injured Brian Greise to Tom Brady in the future.

Otherwise, maybe just run along and post fake news stories on other sites, or whatever it is you do.

Rock Chalk
01-11-2009, 03:11 PM
Looks to me like balance is prevailing over everything. This is nothing revolutionary.

Yet you want to keep Bates' offense which passes 2:1.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 03:16 PM
Yet you want to keep Bates' offense which passes 2:1.

I do?

This is news to me. I've yet to form much of an opinion about Bates yet. I'm still on the fence about the guy.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 03:21 PM
Taco, you said yourself in the other thread that "no matter what happens, I'm right."

With regards to the mark Shanahan has left on this team, absolutely.



So, you can erase the archives, swap positions... claim you never said things, and then later re-claim them, do whatever you want.

I suppose that I could do that - but I think everybody here is familiar with my style and appreciate that I'm consistent with my points of view. I think anyone who has ever been on the other side of an argument with you is familiar with your style too.



Bottom line is, your "replace the QB and we're a champion" theory was blown out of the water.

Here's a good example of your style: you just lied. I never espoused the theory "replace the QB and we're a champion." The archives will bear this out. The last three years of Plummer's tenure with this team is still in there.


As someone else pointed out, it's odd that being right to you is so important.... as a guy who is so routinely wrong.

It's funny to watch you invent friends out of thin air. I guess being a compulsive liar will cause a man to do some strange things. How about a link to this? I'd love to see that. :rofl:

Rock Chalk
01-11-2009, 03:23 PM
With regards to the mark Shanahan has left on this team, absolutely.





I suppose that I could do that - but I think everybody here is familiar with my style and appreciate that I'm consistent with my points of view. I think anyone who has ever been on the other side of an argument with you is familiar with your style too.





Here's a good example of your style: you just lied. I never espoused the theory "replace the QB and we're a champion." The archives will bear this out. The last three years of Plummer's tenure with this team is still in there.




It's funny to watch you invent friends out of thin air. I guess being a compulsive liar will cause a man to do some strange things. How about a link to this? I'd love to see that. :rofl:
I call bull****.

You specifically said Plummer was the problem with this team...>REPEATEDLY you ****ing lying piece of ****.

Well, we got a better QB and guess what, we are a worse ****ing team.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 03:28 PM
I call bull****.

You specifically said Plummer was the problem with this team...>REPEATEDLY you ****ing lying piece of ****.

Well, we got a better QB and guess what, we are a worse ****ing team.


I definitely believed that Jake was a problem with this team... Even a major problem with this team. But I never once said that he was the only problem with this team. If you guys think that's true, there's no point in even having a discussion with you - you're too far out there.

That said, I do believe that we had a good enough team to beat the Steelers at home if Jake could have kept from committing four turnovers. That would have put us in the Superbowl with the Seahawks. Anything would have been possible then.

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:31 PM
It's funny to watch you invent friends out of thin air. I guess being a compulsive liar will cause a man to do some strange things. How about a link to this? I'd love to see that. :rofl:


Meck said it. I have no idea where, nor do I care to look. He's only one of many who have noticed the same thing.

No need to invent anything with you, bro. You're like a one-man sit-com with your flip-flos, comparing Griese to Brady and "QB is an afterthought" comments.

Why would anyone need to make anything up?


Anyway, back to making up fake news stories for you. Have fun with that.

The rest of us will watch the games and further our understanding of what we're seeing out there.

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:33 PM
I call bull****.

You specifically said Plummer was the problem with this team...>REPEATEDLY you ****ing lying piece of ****.

Well, we got a better QB and guess what, we are a worse ****ing team.

It goes beyond lying with Taco. It's just fun. Some speculate he does this to build traffic and it could be. But, I think he's misguided enough to believe a lot of his own bull****... until it is proven untrue, at which time he deletes the archives.

I love Taco's "post a link" line. Dude erases the archives and then tells you to "post a link."

:rofl:

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:35 PM
That said, I do believe that we had a good enough team to beat the Steelers at home if Jake could have kept from committing four turnovers. .

You believe that because you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Our defense got SHELLED out of the gate. We NEVER STOPPED A DRIVE in the first half, Taco... even when we had them starting deep in their own territory.

What did you think... your imaginary QB was going to put up 60 points in a playoff game against a tough D like the Steelers?

Ever think that maaaaaaaaaaybe the Steelers dominant D had just a weeeeee bit to do with opposing QBs having problems?

Hmmmmm........

Stay with us, bro. You'll get there.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 03:36 PM
I love Taco's "post a link" line. Dude erases the archives and then tells you to "post a link."

:rofl:

It's true that 2001-2004 is gone. But there's still several years of archives available.

Of course, since we both know that you're lying, we both know that you're going to need to find a diversion so that you don't have to back up anything you are saying.

Being a compulsive liar is not "football knowledge."

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 03:39 PM
The numbers tell your story, bro. Don't shoot the messenger.



I love how people on the wrong side of an argument use one potential exception as their example as opposed to the vast majority of norms.

That said, Arizona is indeed an offense-heavy team. Great if you can do it... but only effective when your defense steps up and makes big plays.

They shut down the best RB in the league the prior week and intercepted the QB 5 times yesterday.

You honestly think Arizona wins that game yesterday if their D played the way they did early in the season? C'mon, dude. You're smarter than that.



One and done, just like the offense-only Broncos teams the past decade.

Surprise!



Again, we're not talking about week 3... we're talking about the playoffs, and there's a reason that our teams have fizzled every year. Shanahan built up cute, gimmicky offensive teams and poo-poo'd the defense.

Rivers threw for just over 200 yards last week and we're looking at a 7-7 tie going into half-time this week.

The better defense will define this game today, not fancy QB numbers.

What the **** dude? I mean seriously. Indy's "high flying offense" was "one and done" to the #2 scoring team in the NFL.

Meanwhile, your "AZ reinvented themself" argument is retarded. And COMPLETELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE.

Popp's point: Ball control and defense teams win in the playoffs.

Carolina is a run the football and defense team as good as any other in the NFL.

Arizona beat them mercilessly. Fitz had over 100 yards in the first half. All WITHOUT Anquan Boldin.

Don't shoot the messenger, Popps, but your point isn't even coincidental.

Another ball control Defensive team (Atlanta) lost to the "high flying" Cardinals last week.

Meck77
01-11-2009, 03:42 PM
You guys have been at this what 10 plus years now? I don't think either of you are going to find common ground now. ;D

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 03:48 PM
Also real quick:

"You honestly think Arizona wins that game yesterday if their D played the way they did early in the season? C'mon, dude. You're smarter than that."

I understand that as a casual fan you've probably only picked up some ESPN highlights with absolutely zero understanding of what the Cardinals are doing defensively, though you now try and spin it to suit your own silly argument.

The TRUTH is the Cardinals were #2 in the NFL with a whopping 30 takeaways this season. What they did Sunday was above average, but also par for the course for an opportunistic Defense.

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:50 PM
What the **** dude? I mean seriously. Indy's "high flying offense" was "one and done" to the #2 scoring team in the NFL..

Yep... the #2 offense that ran the ball all day and the QB threw for 200 yards.

Perfectly illustrated. SD also played some solid D that afternoon.


Meanwhile, your "AZ reinvented themself" argument is retarded..

Sticks and stones, junior.

They played crappy D early on... now they're playing great D.

Call it whatever you want. They're a totally different team than they were to start the season.

Again... they shut down a top RB in the wildcard game, and then had FIVE interceptions and a huge day on defense yesterday.

Can they move the ball? Sure. But, if they weren't playing defense this way... they'd sitting with Indy at home.


Carolina is a run the football and defense team as good as any other in the NFL..

Their defense went belly-up and put their squad in a pass-only mode. Hence, the loss.

I will say this... Carolina stepped on their dicks. They ARE a playoff structured team and 9 times out of 10 probably win that game.

Again... your insistence on talking about the exceptions instead of the norm to prove your point is odd.


Don't shoot the messenger, Popps, but your point isn't even coincidental.

Another ball control Defensive team (Atlanta) lost to the "high flying" Cardinals last week.

The better defense that day won the game... and the numbers stayed small, though larger than other games, correct. Again begging the question, if your' point is right... why do you need to harp on the one exception instead of ALL of the rest of the norms. I wonder.

217 average for QBs in these wins. That's all you need to know about how playoff games are won. It's the same every year.

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Also real quick:

"You honestly think Arizona wins that game yesterday if their D played the way they did early in the season? C'mon, dude. You're smarter than that."

I understand that as a casual fan you've probably only picked up some ESPN highlights with absolutely zero understanding of what the Cardinals are doing defensively, though you now try and spin it to suit your own silly argument.

The TRUTH is the Cardinals were #2 in the NFL with a whopping 30 takeaways this season. What they did Sunday was above average, but also par for the course for an opportunistic Defense.

You big name-caller.

Mean-guy.

Call me retarded again.

Still taking about the Cards game, huh? Wonder why you're clutching to the one exception out of ALL the games I listed.

Hmm.

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:53 PM
The TRUTH is the Cardinals were #2 in the NFL with a whopping 30 takeaways this season. What they did Sunday was above average, but also par for the course for an opportunistic Defense.


Oh, great... then we agree.

But, if you watched Arizona this year... and I caught a few games, they had major struggles on both sides of the ball leading up to the playoffs.

If you watched how they played against Philly... and how they're playing now and can't see a difference, I can't help you. If you need TV analysts to point that out to you, that's your business. I don't.

lex
01-11-2009, 03:54 PM
What the **** dude? I mean seriously. Indy's "high flying offense" was "one and done" to the #2 scoring team in the NFL.

Meanwhile, your "AZ reinvented themself" argument is retarded. And COMPLETELY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THE POINT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE.

Popp's point: Ball control and defense teams win in the playoffs.

Carolina is a run the football and defense team as good as any other in the NFL.

Arizona beat them mercilessly. Fitz had over 100 yards in the first half. All WITHOUT Anquan Boldin.

Don't shoot the messenger, Popps, but your point isn't even coincidental.

Another ball control Defensive team (Atlanta) lost to the "high flying" Cardinals last week.

Carolina only had 15 rushing attempts yesterday. Put simply, their QB lost them the game. They would have been better off sticking with what they did well and not resorting to Jake, whose mistakes dug them in deeper. You could say their defense let them down but you could also say that when they really lost it was when they tried to deviate from the run.

Popps
01-11-2009, 03:55 PM
It's true that 2001-2004 is gone. But there's still several years of archives available.

Of course, since we both know that you're lying, we both know that you're going to need to find a diversion so that you don't have to back up anything you are saying.

Being a compulsive liar is not "football knowledge."

Taco, a "compulsive" liar has to lie more than once.

You've never proven one of my posts to be incorrect. Of course, you'd have to bring up the archives you deleted to do as much.

Again, the best part about all of this is... you freely admit to the goofy **** you post. (Most of it. You fib about some.)

1. Griese as good as Brady
2. QB is an afterthought
3. I'm right no matter what happens...

on and on.

Dude, why are you wasting time with me when you could be making up fake news stories and posting them on other football boards?

fontaine
01-11-2009, 03:56 PM
I call bull****.

You specifically said Plummer was the problem with this team...>REPEATEDLY you ****ing lying piece of ****.

Well, we got a better QB and guess what, we are a worse ****ing team.


And Taco was right. Plummer stumbled his way in the playoffs when we did have a decent defense that got us past the vaunted Pats.

We always needed to get a better QB just like we needed a better defense, but Shanahan treated the D like a used Diaper, periodically filling it with more crap in used up journey men DL who treated Denver like a retirement home.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:00 PM
You guys have been at this what 10 plus years now? I don't think either of you are going to find common ground now. ;D

Kill-joy.
;D

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 04:13 PM
Yep... the #2 offense that ran the ball all day and the QB threw for 200 yards.

Perfectly illustrated. SD also played some solid D that afternoon.

What the hell are you on? Seriously, I want some. Rivers had over 4000 yards passing this year!

Sticks and stones, junior.

They played crappy D early on... now they're playing great D.

Call it whatever you want. They're a totally different team than they were to start the season.

No they weren't... early in the season was when the played their best football. Remember halfway when everyone was talking about them as the 2 seed?

Again... they shut down a top RB in the wildcard game, and then had FIVE interceptions and a huge day on defense yesterday.

Can they move the ball? Sure. But, if they weren't playing defense this way... they'd sitting with Indy at home.

Well they had about 30 points of lee-way to work with, so they definitely didn't need to play defense like that.

Their defense went belly-up and put their squad in a pass-only mode. Hence, the loss.

Because they were getting gouged THROUGH THE AIR, right?

I will say this... Carolina stepped on their *****. They ARE a playoff structured team and 9 times out of 10 probably win that game.

Hurray! Maybe that 90% chance will win them a consolation prize?

Again... your insistence on talking about the exceptions instead of the norm to prove your point is odd.

No, I'm not, you just don't have a point...

The better defense that day won the game... and the numbers stayed small, though larger than other games, correct. Again begging the question, if your' point is right... why do you need to harp on the one exception instead of ALL of the rest of the norms. I wonder.

What "norms"? Half the teams playing this weekend were top 5 scoring teams, dude, no matter how YOU look at them.

217 average for QBs in these wins. That's all you need to know about how playoff games are won. It's the same every year.

Clinically insane.

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 04:13 PM
You big name-caller.

Mean-guy.

Call me retarded again.

Still taking about the Cards game, huh? Wonder why you're clutching to the one exception out of ALL the games I listed.

Hmm.

No, I called your argument retarded. Because it absolutely is.

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 04:15 PM
Carolina only had 15 rushing attempts yesterday. Put simply, their QB lost them the game. They would have been better off sticking with what they did well and not resorting to Jake, whose mistakes dug them in deeper. You could say their defense let them down but you could also say that when they really lost it was when they tried to deviate from the run.

They were sticking to what they do. They just ended up getting their ass handed to them (through the air) quick which compounded the problem.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:20 PM
No, I called your argument retarded. Because it absolutely is.

Right. Math is retarded. Sounds good.

lex
01-11-2009, 04:22 PM
They were sticking to what they do. They just ended up getting their ass handed to them (through the air) quick which compounded the problem.


Uh, no. They ran the ball 15 times and Jake Delhomme has been the weak link for the last several weeks of the season. They got behind and felt compelled to pass, which only dug them in a deeper hole. They averaged 5 yards per carry but didnt run enough.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:34 PM
So, we can add the Pittsburgh game now...

Top offense meets top defense.

Defense and running game wins again. Not the fancier QB.

Looks like the winning QB in this game will throw for well under 200 yards.

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 04:35 PM
Uh, no. They ran the ball 15 times and Jake Delhomme has been the weak link for the last several weeks of the season. They got behind and felt compelled to pass, which only dug them in a deeper hole. They averaged 5 yards per carry but didnt run enough.

Lex the first half was 9 runs and 11 passes, and the majority of the passes came on third and long. At that point they were ass raped to the tune of 27-7, what do you expect them to do?!

In the first quarter they were 8 runs and 5 passes. And like I said, got down early, and compounded the problem. What exactly don't you agree with?

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 04:35 PM
Right. Math is retarded. Sounds good.

Show me the "math" in your argument, please.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:37 PM
This will probably bring the average down to something like...

210 yards per game, and around 1.5 TDs v. 1 INT.

lex
01-11-2009, 04:37 PM
Lex the first half was 9 runs and 11 passes, and the majority of the passes came on third and long. At that point they were ass raped to the tune of 27-7, what do you expect them to do?!

In the first quarter they were 8 runs and 5 passes. And like I said, got down early, and compounded the problem. What exactly don't you agree with?

Dont forget that on their very first drive they went up 7-0 by running the ball primarily. I wouldnt be surprised if the majority of that 9 was on that first drive.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 04:39 PM
I don't quite understand what the number of yards a QB throws for matters. Elway won a Superbowl throwing for only like 130 yards. That didn't mean he wasn't Elway, and couldn't throw for 300 if he needed to. More important than that, Elway had the ability to erase his mistakes if given the opportunity.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:39 PM
Show me the "math" in your argument, please.

The math is inherent.

Top offense loses to top defense almost every time.

Playoff football is defined by defense and running the ball, not fancy QB stats.

We've built our team using the exact opposite philosophy the past decade and have fared horribly because of it.


Now, the #5 QB Rivers is being sent home by a dominant defense and running game. It's playoffs 101.

Again, the point of this thread is that hopefully the front office is paying attention. This lesson is given every year right about this time for those who want to pay attention.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:42 PM
I don't quite understand what the number of yards a QB throws for matters.

It doesn't, that's the point.

The larger point is that there is a clear template for playoff success that we as a franchise have ignored, and instead tried to load up on random secondary players and wide receivers.

lex
01-11-2009, 04:43 PM
I don't quite understand what the number of yards a QB throws for matters. Elway won a Superbowl throwing for only like 130 yards. That didn't mean he wasn't Elway, and couldn't throw for 300 if he needed to. More important than that, Elway had the ability to erase his mistakes if given the opportunity.


Thats the significance of what Popps is saying. Defense and rushing offense provides a stronger link to success than passing. In fact, I cant remember the exact stat but in most of the SBs the winning team was the one with the most rushing yards.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 04:47 PM
But if youre quarterback commits 4 turnovers in a post season game, what does any of it matter?

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:48 PM
Ha! Funny... did you just hear Simms? (A QB)

"... people want to talk about the QB, but if you follow football... it comes down to the best defenses every sesason."

Ahh. What's he know.

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 04:51 PM
In fact, I cant remember the exact stat but in most of the SBs the winning team was the one with the most rushing yards.

P'bly. That tends to be a misleading stat though, the team ahead is usually running the ball in the 4th to kill the clock, while the team behind is usually passing it.

The Super Bowl is typically a pretty high scoring game though, when seems to trend against the notion of just D, D, and more D. The last time there's been a SB with 30 or less total points was 1975.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:52 PM
But if youre quarterback commits 4 turnovers in a post season game, what does any of it matter?

Well if you remember, our QB threw only 1 INT before Indy had mounted a playoff record for first-half points against our defense.

Again, great defenses trump great QBs, Taco... and they certainly trump average QBs, which is what Griese and Plummer were.

Cutler is above average, and if we put a D and a running game out there, he might have some success. Just like Griese and Plummer might have... and Elway did.

It's not a secret. People just love to get fixated on the QB because it's the most obvious position on the field.

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 04:54 PM
Ha! Funny... did you just hear Simms? (A QB)

"... people want to talk about the QB, but if you follow football... it comes down to the best defenses every sesason."

Ahh. What's he know.

Didn't he break a few records passing against us in the SB? 22 for 25 I think.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:54 PM
P'bly. That tends to be a misleading stat though, the team ahead is usually running the ball in the 4th to kill the clock, while the team behind is usually passing it.975.

You can't "kill the clock" if you can't run the ball.

The example of Arizona getting up a couple of scores yesterday is a good example. They managed to run the ball even when Carolina KNEW they were going to. THAT is what a great running team can do.

So, running stats aren't a product of luck, they're a product of ability. Great teams run to PROTECT their leads... when other teams KNOW they're going to run.

If you notice our attempts to run when we had a lead this year, they failed miserably. That's the difference.

Popps
01-11-2009, 04:56 PM
Didn't he break a few records passing against us in the SB? 22 for 25 I think.

A lot of records have been broken against our defenses over the years. I try not to think about it.

I can't wait for this franchise to return to proper football. I really can't.

This small-player, novelty-ball is so tiresome.

lex
01-11-2009, 04:58 PM
P'bly. That tends to be a misleading stat though, the team ahead is usually running the ball in the 4th to kill the clock, while the team behind is usually passing it.

The Super Bowl is typically a pretty high scoring game though, when seems to trend against the notion of just D, D, and more D. The last time there's been a SB with 30 or less total points was 1975.

Not so much. For a lot of the years that the NFC was winning SBs during their streak, the AFC was seen more as the pass oriented conference whereas the NFC was seen as defense and running games. Denver ended that streak in 1997. Green Bay probably had the better defense and passing game but Denver had the better rushing game by far and a legend at QB that kept the defense honest for the most part. This was a great offense because of the balance. Denver won the rushing battle and won the game. So, even though Green Bay may have had the better defense, they did a worse job against the run and Denver won.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 04:59 PM
Well if you remember, our QB threw only 1 INT before Indy had mounted a playoff record for first-half points against our defense.

Only 1 INT? How many TD's did he throw?


Again, great defenses trump great QBs, Taco... and they certainly trump average QBs, which is what Griese and Plummer were.

Sure they do. And they utterly demolish teams with bad QBs who end up putting added pressure on a bad defense. I never made the argument that we should ignore our problems on defense. I just made the case that we needed to address the problem that we had at QB.

Our defense wasn't great against Pittsburgh at home, but we still could have won with them if Jake didn't commit 4 turnovers on offense that day.

That said, one turnover that day would have cost us the game. I've never had an doubt that we needed to improve our defense. But I think everyone can agree that we weren't going to win a Superbowl with a guy who throws more INTs in the post season than he does TDs.

Florida_Bronco
01-11-2009, 05:00 PM
Looks to me like balance is prevailing over everything. This is nothing revolutionary.

Yep, although some stooges around here will try to warp it to fit their tired old cliche' which never worked in the first place.

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 05:04 PM
You can't "kill the clock" if you can't run the ball.

The example of Arizona getting up a couple of scores yesterday is a good example. They managed to run the ball even when Carolina KNEW they were going to. THAT is what a great running team can do.

So, running stats aren't a product of luck, they're a product of ability. Great teams run to PROTECT their leads... when other teams KNOW they're going to run.

If you notice our attempts to run when we had a lead this year, they failed miserably. That's the difference.

I understand the importance of running, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a misleading stat.

And I looked up the stats, you're wrong on our running game this past year.

W/ the lead...

Hillis avg. 4.9
Pittman avg. 3.9
Young avg. 6.1

Our problem down the stretch was that everyone was on IR. Not much anyone could do about that.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 05:04 PM
Yep, although some stooges around here will try to warp it to fit their tired old cliche' which never worked in the first place.



It worked once as far as I know... For the Ravens. They're the only team that I can remember who has ever won the Superbowl purely based on their defense. They'd have been a multi-year dynasty if they had Elway, Young, Montana, or any number of great leaders to compliment their defense. Three Superbowls at least.

Popps
01-11-2009, 05:06 PM
Yep, although some stooges around here will try to warp it to fit their tired old cliche' which never worked in the first place.


Yea, who's ever heard of defense or running games playing any part of any NFL championships.

:rofl:

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 05:06 PM
Not so much. For a lot of the years that the NFC was winning SBs during their streak, the AFC was seen more as the pass oriented conference whereas the NFC was seen as defense and running games. Denver ended that streak in 1997. Green Bay probably had the better defense and passing game but Denver had the better rushing game by far and a legend at QB that kept the defense honest for the most part. This was a great offense because of the balance. Denver won the rushing battle and won the game. So, even though Green Bay may have had the better defense, they did a worse job against the run and Denver won.

The NFC dominance was largely in the pre-cap era when teams bought their championships.

Our championship teams were pretty well balanced. One, TD got MVP and dominated, the other Elway got MVP and passed for 300. If teams focused on one area, we'd just attack their weakness. That's the strength in being balanced.

Popps
01-11-2009, 05:10 PM
It worked once as far as I know... For the Ravens. .

See, this is where I can't tell if you're doing your deliberately obtuse routine, or you really don't understand the point.

Taco... MOST SBs have been won by teams with great defenses and running games, dude. Honestly... are you just trying to build your post count?

Why do you think every player and analyst in the history of the NFL says it starts with defense and running the ball?

You're confusing that concept for ONE example of a Baltimore team that had poor QB play.

Oh, that team also could run the ball a little... remember?

So, the pattern stayed in place. That was just one more example that an average or even BELOW average QB can win a SB with a great defense, whereas you'll almost NEVER see a great QB win a SB with a ****ty defense.

You need to understand what we're talking about. It's about football 101 and conceptually, how you build a team. You're trying to make this an example of a horrible QB winning a SB, which isn't the point anyone is making.

Popps
01-11-2009, 05:11 PM
Willie Parker ran the ball today for almost as many yards as Rothlisberger threw it.

Playoff football.

lex
01-11-2009, 05:12 PM
The NFC dominance was largely in the pre-cap era when teams bought their championships.
I dont think thats true but even if it was, the NFC teams had to go through each other, many of which played with defense and by running the ball. Whereas, the AFC teams werent so much like this.

Our championship teams were pretty well balanced. One, TD got MVP and dominated, the other Elway got MVP and passed for 300. If teams focused on one area, we'd just attack their weakness. That's the strength in being balanced.

I said this at the beginning of the thread that I think a great offense (ie one with the kind of balance on our 90s teams) can beat dominant defenses. But you also rarely see that combination of a running game and QB. And so generally, Popps is right. Its not an absolute. There are exceptions. But what he has described is a tried and true formula. Its part of why Marty Schottenheimer has been successful as a head coach.

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 05:16 PM
See, this is where I can't tell if you're doing your deliberately obtuse routine, or you really don't understand the point.

Taco... MOST SBs have been won by teams with great defenses and running games, dude. Honestly... are you just trying to build your post count?

Why do you think every player and analyst in the history of the NFL says it starts with defense and running the ball?

You're confusing that concept for ONE example of a Baltimore team that had poor QB play.

Oh, that team also could run the ball a little... remember?

So, the pattern stayed in place. That was just one more example that an average or even BELOW average QB can win a SB with a great defense, whereas you'll almost NEVER see a great QB win a SB with a ****ty defense.

You need to understand what we're talking about. It's about football 101 and conceptually, how you build a team. You're trying to make this an example of a horrible QB winning a SB, which isn't the point anyone is making.


You're compaing one position (QB) to an entire defense + OL + HB + FB. Of course all that combined is more important than one position, but the QB position is still (by far) the most important position on the field.

A more fair comparison would be comparing the importance of a QB to the WLB (or whatever pos). Would anyone rather have an All-Pro WLB over an All-Pro QB?

Florida_Bronco
01-11-2009, 05:22 PM
Yea, who's ever heard of defense or running games playing any part of any NFL championships.

:rofl:

To win a championship, EVERYTHING has to come together. Offense, defense, special teams, coaching...etc.

Popps
01-11-2009, 05:22 PM
You're compaing one position (QB) to an entire defense + OL + HB + FB. Of course all that combined is more important than one position, but the QB position is still (by far) the most important position on the field.

I understand why you say that, and you're partially correct. My initial statements dealt with that exact fixation on the QB, and not the other crucial positions on the team.

In fact, that's basically been my position for years, now... and continues to be.
Cutler had no chance with the defense we put out there... and same for Plummer and Griese. Yet, the talk around here is so dominated with whether or not its all their fault.

Beyond that, there are philosophical, underlying reasons I think the stats come out this way. (Low QB numbers in the playoffs.) Those reason are that great teams build for the end of the year. We were always cute at the beginning of the season, but when playoff ball came around... we folded like a cheap tent.

So, it's not QB v. D and running game... it's philosophy. I love having a great QB. Elway is my favorite Bronco of all time. (Real original, I know.)

But, the best thing we ever did for John was to install that defense and give him Terrell.

Beyond that, 80% of Superbowl winning QBs aren't hall of famers. They're just decent QBs who played a role that particular season. By play a role, I mean they put together great seasons... but within the confines of the properly built playoff team.

Taco confuses that statement for... "it's O.K. for QBs to be horrible."

Clearly, no rational person believes that.

Popps
01-11-2009, 05:24 PM
To win a championship, EVERYTHING has to come together. Offense, defense, special teams, coaching...etc.

No doubt, but there are cogs around which you build championships. Just trying to put up fancy QB numbers isn't how you go about it.

lex
01-11-2009, 05:28 PM
See, this is where I can't tell if you're doing your deliberately obtuse routine, or you really don't understand the point.

Taco... MOST SBs have been won by teams with great defenses and running games, dude. Honestly... are you just trying to build your post count?

Why do you think every player and analyst in the history of the NFL says it starts with defense and running the ball?

You're confusing that concept for ONE example of a Baltimore team that had poor QB play.

Oh, that team also could run the ball a little... remember?

So, the pattern stayed in place. That was just one more example that an average or even BELOW average QB can win a SB with a great defense, whereas you'll almost NEVER see a great QB win a SB with a ****ty defense.

You need to understand what we're talking about. It's about football 101 and conceptually, how you build a team. You're trying to make this an example of a horrible QB winning a SB, which isn't the point anyone is making.

I think its partly tied to how many good QBs there are. The more good/great QBs there are, the more it comes down to balance. When theres a dearth of good/great QBs, it becomes a greater advanatge to have a good/great QB. When you had a lot of great QBs retire at the end of the 90s, there was a dearth. You had a lot of game managers and part of the problem was coaches having less time to turn a team around. Since they would have less time, theyd play the QB who could most help them win now. It wasnt congruent with investing in a QB. But then you had a few good organizations like the Steelers, Broncos, and Giants investing in quality QBs. This is why there was a 5 year window where New England tried to get away with running a lean operation. But when Pittsburgh, NYG, and Denver started investing in quality QBs, it became more of an arms race and so balance became more important.

Spider
01-11-2009, 05:29 PM
Back in the day , the AFC was a pass happy league , the NFC , well tough nose defense , ground out running game . Steelers and ground chuck and bradshaw , The Raiders with the long ball attack with Stabler and Plunkett , the Niners , with Montana , The Cowboys with Starbaugh ............... what does this prove ? not a damn thing , but you have to have a complete team ...... win all 3 phases , and beat the man in front of you ...... Hell Minnesota , had the purple people eaters ,0-4 in sb ,Boroncos had the orange Crush and went 0-4 , Kelly and the Bills had the K gun and went 0-4 ......

Taco John
01-11-2009, 05:32 PM
Taco confuses that statement for... "it's O.K. for QBs to be horrible."

Clearly, no rational person believes that.

Is that anything like you saying that I believe that you need a "QB only" to win?

I think you were just upset that Jake didn't work out like you had hoped, and were frustrated and took it out on me. I think that frustration continues to this day.

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 05:38 PM
Beyond that, 80% of Superbowl winning QBs aren't hall of famers. .

Well, lets see here.

1 HOF Bart Starr
2 HOF Bart Starr
3 HOF Joe Namath
4 HOF Len Dawson
5 HOF Johnny Unitas
6 HOF Roger Staubach
7 HOF Bob Griese
8 HOF Bob Griese
9 HOF Terry Bradshaw
10 HOF Terry Bradshaw
11 NOT HOF Ken Stabler
12 HOF Roger Staubach
13 HOF Terry Bradshaw
14 HOF Terry Bradshaw

Okay... I think I made my point here. Young, Montana, Elway, Brady, Peyton are all HOFs too. ;D

I understand your overall point though. I don't even think you and Taco are that far apart. I think you guys just like to argue. ;D

lex
01-11-2009, 05:46 PM
Well, lets see here.

1 HOF Bart Starr
2 HOF Bart Starr
3 HOF Joe Namath
4 HOF Len Dawson
5 HOF Johnny Unitas
6 HOF Roger Staubach
7 HOF Bob Griese
8 HOF Bob Griese
9 HOF Terry Bradshaw
10 HOF Terry Bradshaw
11 NOT HOF Ken Stabler
12 HOF Roger Staubach
13 HOF Terry Bradshaw
14 HOF Terry Bradshaw

Okay... I think I made my point here. Young, Montana, Elway, Brady, Peyton are all HOFs too. ;D

I understand your overall point though. I don't even think you and Taco are that far apart. I think you guys just like to argue. ;D

The HOF is biased towards QBs who win SBs as well as other positions that win SBs. Bart Starr wasnt a QB on a SB team because he was a hall of famer. He was a hall of famer because he was a QB on a great Packers team.

Meck77
01-11-2009, 05:47 PM
It worked once as far as I know... For the Ravens. They're the only team that I can remember who has ever won the Superbowl purely based on their defense. They'd have been a multi-year dynasty if they had Elway, Young, Montana, or any number of great leaders to compliment their defense. Three Superbowls at least.

Whoops...The Ravens were ranked 16th on offense that year. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=TM&season=2000&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1 Ironically enough that is where our offense ranked this season.

You seem pretty satisfied with our offense other than an RB. So what does that say about the Raven's O of 2000 that won a SB?

Popps
01-11-2009, 05:47 PM
Is that anything like you saying that I believe that you need a "QB only" to win?

I think you were just upset that Jake didn't work out like you had hoped, and were frustrated and took it out on me. I think that frustration continues to this day.

That's because you are more a fan of players than the team. My frustration comes from the 2nd worst decade of Broncos football ever. You're QB-only, not me.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 05:49 PM
That's because you are more a fan of players than the team.


Not hardly. There are a few players that I'm a fan of, but I wouldn't even need five fingers to count them all.

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 05:50 PM
the 2nd worst decade of Broncos football ever.

2008 8 8 0
2007 7 9 0
2006 9 7 0
2005 13 3 0
2004 10 6 0
2003 10 6 0
2002 9 7 0
2001 8 8 0
2000 11 5
2000's 85-59 W% 0.590

1969 5 8 1
1968 5 9
1967 3 11
1966 4 10
1965 4 10
1964 2 11 1
1963 2 11 1
1962 7 7
1961 3 11
1960 4 9 1
1960's 39-97-4 W% 0.287


1979 10 6
1978 10 6
1977 12 2
1976 9 5
1975 6 8
1974 7 6 1
1973 7 5 2
1972 5 9
1971 4 9 1
1970 5 8 1
1970's 75-64-5 W% 0.540

1994 7 9
1993 9 7
1992 8 8
1991 12 4
1990 5 11
1990's (pre shanahan) 41-39 W% 0.513

Only the 80's were better win percentage wise than the 00's (unless you use Shanahan's late 90's success against him, which would be weird)

Spider
01-11-2009, 06:14 PM
The HOF is biased towards QBs who win SBs as well as other positions that win SBs. Bart Starr wasnt a QB on a SB team because he was a hall of famer. He was a hall of famer because he was a QB on a great Packers team.

and Jim Kelly ?
Fran Tarkenton ?
Dan No Ringo ?
Dan Fouts ?
Warren Moon ?

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 06:26 PM
The HOF is biased towards QBs who win SBs as well as other positions that win SBs. Bart Starr wasnt a QB on a SB team because he was a hall of famer. He was a hall of famer because he was a QB on a great Packers team.

What QBs from Starr's era do you think were better than him that aren't in the HOF? Starr was a great QB and deserves to be there.

Spider
01-11-2009, 06:28 PM
What QBs from Starr's era do you think were better than him that aren't in the HOF? Starr was a great QB and deserves to be there.

;D I didnt get that take either

Drek
01-11-2009, 06:48 PM
2008 8 8 0
2007 7 9 0
2006 9 7 0
2005 13 3 0
2004 10 6 0
2003 10 6 0
2002 9 7 0
2001 8 8 0
2000 11 5
2000's 85-59 W% 0.590

1969 5 8 1
1968 5 9
1967 3 11
1966 4 10
1965 4 10
1964 2 11 1
1963 2 11 1
1962 7 7
1961 3 11
1960 4 9 1
1960's 39-97-4 W% 0.287


1979 10 6
1978 10 6
1977 12 2
1976 9 5
1975 6 8
1974 7 6 1
1973 7 5 2
1972 5 9
1971 4 9 1
1970 5 8 1
1970's 75-64-5 W% 0.540

1994 7 9
1993 9 7
1992 8 8
1991 12 4
1990 5 11
1990's (pre shanahan) 41-39 W% 0.513

Only the 80's were better win percentage wise than the 00's (unless you use Shanahan's late 90's success against him, which would be weird)

Why would that be wierd? Shanahan had early success. He hasn't gotten it done much since then. Should he be given an indefinite pass for years old work? I don't see why.

Oh, and I bolded division titles for you. 60's obviously was horrible, but since then the Broncos have won more division titles in every decade than to date in 2000. Could've tied it up with the 70's if they hadn't choked down the stretch this year.

Oh, and playoff record post-merger by decade:
2000's: 1-4
1990's: 8-3
1980's: 6-5
1970's: 2-3

See the problem? Coaches keep their jobs by winning division titles and winning playoff games. Shanahan kicked ass at both in the late 90's but hasn't really done a whole lot of either since.

In that time he's also gone to hell with the joke of sending out FA retreads from other teams on defense and trying to find quick fix patches as opposed to actually building a legitimate defense.

I'm not all on the "defense wins championships" bandwagon, you need balance across the board with an area or two of strength. In a game by game situation then of course the winning team should look better in most facets. They scored more points and gave up less. But fact is, since the merger this has been the worst 8 year stretch of Broncos football to date. Thats pretty damn sad and totally not acceptable.

Popps
01-11-2009, 06:50 PM
What QBs from Starr's era do you think were better than him that aren't in the HOF? Starr was a great QB and deserves to be there.

Look, you're being pretty realistic about this conversation so I think you can understand the point when I put it this way...

You've got a shot to win a SB with a decent QB, not even a star... just an efficient, decent QB.

Conversely, it's very, very rare that SBs are won without a peak performing defense.

We can argue a few examples like the Rams, and Colts (who I think were the worst SB team in history) ... but the overall trend is that YES, balance is important... but D and running game-heavy teams fare better come playoff time.

Fancy QB stats are great for video games. They're not necessary to win championships and that story plays out almost every single year.

The Rams were one of the highest-scoring teams in NFL history.

How did they get into the SB? They beat a team 11-6.

How did the high-scoring Broncos get in the first time? 14-10.

Big offenses are fun to watch, but if you can't play small-ball... you don't win SBs.

This franchise and its fans need to get off the QB-obsession and build a proper playoff style team.

Popps
01-11-2009, 06:53 PM
AFC Championship game: Pittsburgh and Baltimore


Anyone out there want to venture a guess where these two teams ended up as far as defensive rankings this year?

Taco?

frerottenextelway
01-11-2009, 06:55 PM
AFC Championship game: Pittsburgh and Baltimore


Anyone out there want to venture a guess where these two teams ended up as far as defensive rankings this year?

Taco?

1 and 3.

Titans finished 2nd. Fire Fisher!!! :approve:

Popps
01-11-2009, 07:03 PM
1 and 3.

Titans finished 2nd. Fire Fisher!!! :approve:

I show 1 and 2 for regular season stats.

Popps
01-11-2009, 07:04 PM
Either way, it's no coincidence (yet again) that the top two teams, defensively are playing for a trip to the SB.

Karenin
01-11-2009, 07:35 PM
Anyway... back to the game. It's 7-7 at the half. Another defensive battle.

What a shocker!

38-24, what a defensive battle!!!!!

****ing moron.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 07:37 PM
That's actually pretty funny.

Popps
01-11-2009, 07:47 PM
38-24, what a defensive battle!!!!!

****ing moron.

Hey sparky... check the QB stats.

Under 200 yards passing.

Massive day on the ground for Pittsburgh.

Huge plays by the defense. Take away a couple of junk scores by SD late, and this is a blowout.

So, all points of the thesis remain in tact. I never said points couldn't be scored. That's not the thesis.

But, you don't sound that bright. Maybe you can help Taco spam other boards with fake news?

Popps
01-11-2009, 07:48 PM
That's actually pretty funny.

Do you think Pittsburgh won because of their quarterback today?

Just curious.

Oh, and you never answered the question about Pitt/Balt's defensive rankings.

I'll fill you in... 1 and 2.


Anyway, run along.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 08:02 PM
Do you think Pittsburgh won because of their quarterback today?

Just curious.




In the sense that Ben didn't commit 4 turnovers today, yeah, I think he was critical to the Steelers win. The Steelers wouldn't have won this game if that had happened. Not only would they not have been able to score as many points as they did, but the Chargers put up 24 on their defense.

Four turnovers by Roethlisberger, and the Steelers are sitting at home next week.

colonelbeef
01-11-2009, 08:42 PM
Wrong, of course.

The QB is never an "afterthought," and I realize that now you have come to understand the game a bit better.

Your stance was in support of Griese post-injury... where you said he was "basically the same as Brady." (LOL)

Now, we all realize that you've changed your position yet again to state that we need a blue-chip, big-stat star to win a SB. You used that as your thesis for why Plummer had to go and Matt Leinart had to be drafted. (Remember?)

Well, you didn't get your Matt Leinart, but you got a blue-chip QB. Here we are, years later...a worse team.

What was I saying? That we needed a defense and a running game. I've said the same thing going back to Brian Griese.

Now, talk about post-injury Griese... and you're correct, he wasn't capable of anything. He could hardly throw the ball 20 yards. He was a statue in the pocket and made terrible decisions. He brought nothing, and when replaced... the team immediately began winning without almost any other change being made.

So, keep flip-flopping.... keep learning the game, bro. You'll get there.... and we'll be here to help you.

You are confusing many issues together. The youth movement coupled with key injuries is to blame for the .500 record over the past 3 years, not the fact that we have an upgrade at QB.

TheReverend
01-11-2009, 08:47 PM
Whoops...The Ravens were ranked 16th on offense that year. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&conference=ALL&role=TM&season=2000&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=TOTAL_YARDS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1 Ironically enough that is where our offense ranked this season.

You seem pretty satisfied with our offense other than an RB. So what does that say about the Raven's O of 2000 that won a SB?

I'd like to nominate that as "ignorant/I obviously don't know **** about my team post of the year"

Denver was #2 on offense. Not 16. Way to go, though.

Popps
01-11-2009, 09:55 PM
In the sense that Ben didn't commit 4 turnovers today, yeah, I think he was critical to the Steelers win. The Steelers wouldn't have won this game if that had happened. Not only would they not have been able to score as many points as they did, but the Chargers put up 24 on their defense.

Four turnovers by Roethlisberger, and the Steelers are sitting at home next week.

:rofl:

Classic Taco-dodge.

Did Rothlisberger win the game today, Taco?


Who was more important to the team's win today, Taco... Pitt's #1 D or Ben's 180 yards passing.

I didn't ask for one of your many "what if" scenarios.

I asked a simple question... who won that game for them today?

Popps
01-11-2009, 09:57 PM
I'd like to nominate that as "ignorant/I obviously don't know **** about my team post of the year"

Denver was #2 on offense. Not 16. Way to go, though.

We were ranked 16th in scoring, boss.

Baltimore was ranked 14th in 2000.

Now, say you're sorry to Meck and make it nice.

Go on.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 10:24 PM
:rofl:

Classic Taco-dodge.

Did Rothlisberger win the game today, Taco?


Who was more important to the team's win today, Taco... Pitt's #1 D or Ben's 180 yards passing.

I didn't ask for one of your many "what if" scenarios.

I asked a simple question... who won that game for them today?


I didn't dodge any more than you did. I think we both know that committing 4 turnovers would have killed Pittsburghs chances, even with that great defense (that allowed 24 points today).

Pittsburgh won today because they out scored San Diego, not because they kept San Diego off the score board. I wouldn't credit Big Ben for the win, except to say that he did what he was supposed to do: manage the game. This was something that Plummer seemed incapable of. And it's something that Jay still needs to learn.

Taco John
01-11-2009, 10:25 PM
One more thing I thought worth noting...

Here are the top 5 passing leaders in the NFL:

1. Phillip Rivers
2. Donovan McNabb
3. Kurt Warner
4. Peyton Manning
5. Joe Flacco

I agree that defense is important (and always have). But there seems to be something to be said for having a quarterback who knows what to do with the football.

lex
01-11-2009, 10:25 PM
Well get used to setting up the run with the pass and running out of the SG 60% of the time.

Popps
01-11-2009, 10:30 PM
I didn't dodge any more than you did. I think we both know that committing 4 turnovers would have killed Pittsburghs chances, even with that great defense (that allowed 24 points today).

Pittsburgh won today because they out scored San Diego, not because they kept San Diego off the score board. I wouldn't credit Big Ben for the win, except to say that he did what he was supposed to do: manage the game. This was something that Plummer seemed incapable of. And it's something that Jay still needs to learn.

Wrong.

You can't "manage a game" when your team is behind by 21 points.

When we allowed Pittsburgh to score on EVERY SINGLE possession until half-time in the AFCCG, we effectively negated the ability to "manage" anything.

Get it?

Rothlisberger was able to "manage" the game today by doing absolutely nothing.... turning the game over to his top D and effective running game.

So, while he didn't blatantly screw up... he was simply a cog in a properly assembled playoff team.

Plummer, Griese and Cutler were not. All three of them (at varying times) could have won a SB with the proper cast. None of them did (have) ... and won't until we assemble a teams similar to the two you're seeing in the AFCCG next week.

So, dodge away if it makes you feel better. But, the facts are out there on the table for you. Pitt's #1 D took control of that game today and allowed their offense to just hand the ball to Parker all day long.

They'll now get to go play the #2 D in the league, who also used the same style to win their games.

Popps
01-11-2009, 10:32 PM
One more thing I thought worth noting...

Here are the top 5 passing leaders in the NFL:

1. Phillip Rivers
2. Donovan McNabb
3. Kurt Warner
4. Peyton Manning
5. Joe Flacco

I agree that defense is important (and always have). But there seems to be something to be said for having a quarterback who knows what to do with the football.

Ummm.. those aren't the passing leaders, Sparky. I have no idea where you get that from.

I'll give you a hint, Brees was #1 and his team didn't even make the playoffs.

Spider
01-11-2009, 10:35 PM
We were ranked 16th in scoring, boss.

Baltimore was ranked 14th in 2000.

Now, say you're sorry to Meck and make it nice.

Go on.
LOL , so many factors go into this ranking , but Popps , you know as well as I do that the Ravens were damn lucky to have sharpe , after all in the post season Game vs the Raiders , Sharpe won that game damn near single handed .....
The Ravens offense was a very misleading offense , in a sense they did just enough , to keep their defense in good situations ...... but they was far from poor , they didnt look pretty but in 4 games they put up over 30 points and in 4 other games they had 20 +
Dilfer had something ( you may want to look this up cause Iam not sure anymore ) 12 TD and 11 picks that season , keeping his mistakes way down

Popps
01-11-2009, 10:41 PM
LOL , so many factors go into this ranking , but Popps , you know as well as I do that the Ravens were damn lucky to have sharpe , after all in the post season Game vs the Raiders , Sharpe won that game damn near single handed .....
The Ravens offense was a very misleading offense , in a sense they did just enough , to keep their defense in good situations ...... but they was far from poor , they didnt look pretty but in 4 games they put up over 30 points and in 4 other games they had 20 +
Dilfer had something ( you may want to look this up cause Iam not sure anymore ) 12 TD and 11 picks that season , keeping his mistakes way down

The Ravens were 5th in rushing and #1 in defense that year.

That'll nearly lock up a championship, or at least a trip deep into the playoffs every year.

Conversely, plenty of top QBs with fancy numbers like Brees miss the playoffs every season.

But, yea... you're right. The Ravens offense did what it had to do, and the results speak for themselves.

Spider
01-11-2009, 11:01 PM
The Ravens were 5th in rushing and #1 in defense that year.

That'll nearly lock up a championship, or at least a trip deep into the playoffs every year.

Conversely, plenty of top QBs with fancy numbers like Brees miss the playoffs every season.

But, yea... you're right. The Ravens offense did what it had to do, and the results speak for themselves.
;D feel bad for Brees , I dont think he is a player like Marino was ....... if brees had the right head Coach ........still think Brees with Gruden would be a pain in the ass combo for all D cords

Popps
01-11-2009, 11:03 PM
;D feel bad for Brees , I dont think he is a player like Marino was ....... if brees had the right head Coach ........still think Brees with Gruden would be a pain in the ass combo for all D cords

Oh, ****... if Brees lands in Tampa, they're still playing right now. He's a rare talent, and Tampa has a real defense. (Though they did melt down a bit late-season.)

Brees is just one in a long line of examples of how useless fancy QB numbers are.

Put that guy in a good system with a real defense and he wouldn't need to put up over a couple hundred a game.

Spider
01-11-2009, 11:12 PM
Oh, ****... if Brees lands in Tampa, they're still playing right now. He's a rare talent, and Tampa has a real defense. (Though they did melt down a bit late-season.)

Brees is just one in a long line of examples of how useless fancy QB numbers are.

Put that guy in a good system with a real defense and he wouldn't need to put up over a couple hundred a game.

:thumbsup: no kidding .... I will add everyone is in love with Sproles , I am not very impressed with him , in fact in the Denver game , I said Sproles wasnt an every down back , Warrick Dunn is still alot better .... I wish we could land D ward of the Giants ......

Popps
01-11-2009, 11:17 PM
:thumbsup: no kidding .... I will add everyone is in love with Sproles , I am not very impressed with him , in fact in the Denver game , I said Sproles wasnt an every down back , Warrick Dunn is still alot better .... I wish we could land D ward of the Giants ......

I think Sproles was underused by SD this year and I think he'll make a great tandem back somewhere. He's got enough power to not be useless as a 1st down runner, can catch and is obviously very dangerous. I wouldn't sign him to a massive contract, but he's worth something. He could be a great fit for a lot of teams. Someone mentioned him and Hillis as a tandem. That would be sweet.

I'm with you on Ward, as well.

Spider
01-11-2009, 11:20 PM
I think Sproles was underused by SD this year and I think he'll make a great tandem back somewhere. He's got enough power to not be useless as a 1st down runner, can catch and is obviously very dangerous. I wouldn't sign him to a massive contract, but he's worth something. He could be a great fit for a lot of teams. Someone mentioned him and Hillis as a tandem. That would be sweet.

I'm with you on Ward, as well.

;D everytime I see Sproles I picture a D hall on roids , I think Sproles would be an excellent scat back ,but yeah Hillis and Sproles would be a lethal combo , Specially if you lined up Hillis as FB and used him the way Tampa used Alstott

Popps
01-11-2009, 11:22 PM
;D everytime I see Sproles I picture a D hall on roids , I think Sproles would be an excellent scat back ,but yeah Hillis and Sproles would be a lethal combo , Specially if you lined up Hillis as FB and used him the way Tampa used Alstott

Hillis is much more of a polished runner than Alstott. But, your point is well-taken. The great thing about that set would be that either is a real threat to run, or swing out and catch a pass.

****, I can't wait for next season already. This is going to be a long, painful off-season. (In a good way, but still long.)

Spider
01-11-2009, 11:24 PM
Hillis is much more of a polished runner than Alstott. But, your point is well-taken. The great thing about that set would be that either is a real threat to run, or swing out and catch a pass.

****, I can't wait for next season already. This is going to be a long, painful off-season. (In a good way, but still long.)

Same here ......... but we all have something to talk about in this offseason ;D

Popps
01-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Same here ......... but we all have something to talk about in this offseason ;D

I think this might be the most buzz we've had around the boards in a decade or so.

Spider
01-11-2009, 11:26 PM
I think this might be the most buzz we've had around the boards in a decade or so.

agreed:thumbs:

Meck77
01-11-2009, 11:28 PM
I'd like to nominate that as "ignorant/I obviously don't know **** about my team post of the year"

Denver was #2 on offense. Not 16. Way to go, though.

Likewise. ;D

Know your facts about your team pal. 2008 Broncos were 16th in scoring and so were the 2000 Ravens. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STAT S&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

My point that you missed was that the 2000 Ravens had an average offense to go along with their dominate defense. Taco made the point that they were carried completely by their defense which was not correct. Furthermore Taco has been saying our offense is pretty good! If that is the case then you'd have to say that about the 2000 Ravens which statistically ended up where we did.

Popps
01-11-2009, 11:31 PM
Likewise. ;D

Know your facts about your team pal. 2008 Broncos were 16th in scoring and so were the 2000 Ravens. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STAT S&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

My point that you missed was that the 2000 Ravens had an average offense to go along with their dominate defense. Taco made the point that they were carried completely by their defense which was not correct. Furthermore people have been saying our offense is pretty good! If that is the case then you'd have to say that about the 2000 Ravens which statistically ended up where we did.

That Ravens team controlled the ball with their running game. Again, further illustrating the importance.

While perhaps Dilfer was a sub-par QB by SB standards, that Ravens team was just another illustration of the "template," once you break it down.

Conversely, you'll rarely if ever find a template with a pass-happy offense, fancy QB stats and a average to below average D winning SBs.

Meck77
01-11-2009, 11:42 PM
That Ravens team controlled the ball with their running game. Again, further illustrating the importance.

While perhaps Dilfer was a sub-par QB by SB standards, that Ravens team was just another illustration of the "template," once you break it down.

Conversely, you'll rarely if ever find a template with a pass-happy offense, fancy QB stats and a average to below average D winning SBs.

Sure but it boils down to points no matter how you slice it. People like to use intangible things to judge how good teams are. It's done with points, wins, losses, playoff appearances, playoff wins, SBs. Yards are great but it's the points they translate to that decide games. Yes REV sounds silly to have to go over this but I've seen plenty of posts about how great we are because of the amount of yards we got. Yeah all those yards got us an invitation to sit our asses down while others played football in the playoffs.


I try to look at the team objectively and not root for a single guy to excel or fail like others do around here. The facts and our stats are what we have to work with but guys here like to throw opinions out and try to make them facts. It doesn't work that way.

We can get there with Jay but he needs some help and needed a new coach to get him there. It was a bold move that had to be taken because the game has passed shanny by and our pathetic defense year after year reflected it.

Is Mcdaniels the answer? Only time will tell but I'll draw my conclusions from the STATS I described above and not opinions like "Bowlen is out of his mind".

Lomax
01-12-2009, 12:27 AM
Wow this is a long thread and I don't want to read all of it but here's my take...

The playoffs are different than regular season in a few ways. And this is why, IMO, "high flying" offenses haven't generally thrived in the playoffs (unless they are record-setting offenses, like the '99 & '01 Rams and the '07 Patriots).

1. Horrible weather.
2. Playoff atmosphere.
3. Only the best teams are left.

Weather. Particularly rain, snow, cold and wind, favors defense and power. Balls are mud-slick and hard, causing fumbles, tipped and errant passes. Wind carries the deep ball and FG range is reduced. Quickness and change of direction is minimized. All of that favors smash-mouth style football.

Playoff atmosphere. Favors the defensive teams playing on the road. Crowd noise makes it difficult to road teams to change the calls at the LOS. Defensive teams are not affected by crowd noise.

Good competition. This means well-rounded teams. Teams that can throw the ball for 350 yards can only do it because the QB is not under pressure. In the playoffs, teams can pressure well, so instead of getting an average of 5 seconds to throw, you may only get 3.5. It makes a big difference. Same goes with running the ball. When teams only give you 3.5 seconds to throw, they can stick 8 in the box and play zone, run blitz, and generally clamp down on the run.

But to say that you don't need good QB play is not something that these playoffs has supported. You don't need 300 yards. But you need solid play. the ability to convert, capitalize on scoring opportunities and avoid the costly turnovers.

Popps
01-12-2009, 12:39 AM
Wow this is a long thread and I don't want to read all of it but here's my take...

The playoffs are different than regular season in a few ways...

1. Horrible weather.
2. Playoff atmosphere.
3. Only the best teams are left.

Weather. Particularly rain, snow, cold and wind, favors defense and power. Balls are mud-slick and hard, causing fumbles, tipped and errant passes. Wind carries the deep ball and FG range is reduced. Quickness and change of direction is minimized. All of that favors smash-mouth style football.

Playoff atmosphere. Favors the defensive teams playing on the road. Crowd noise makes it difficult to road teams to change the calls at the LOS. Defensive teams are not affected by crowd noise.

Good competition. This means well-rounded teams. Teams that can throw the ball for 350 yards can only do it because the QB is not under pressure. In the playoffs, teams can pressure well, so instead of getting an average of 5 seconds to throw, you may only get 3.5. It makes a big difference. Same goes with running the ball. When teams only give you 3.5 seconds to throw, they can stick 8 in the box and play zone, run blitz, and generally clamp down on the run.

But to say that you don't need good QB play is not something that these playoffs has supported. You don't need 300 yards. But you need solid play. the ability to convert, capitalize on scoring opportunities and avoid the costly turnovers.

Nicely put. The game changes come late December. The majority of teams you face won't be allowing you to come back from 14+ points, so if your defense can't weather a little early storm (no pun intended)... you'll be going home.

In the past decade, the one "solid" defensive showing we've had in the playoffs was against New Engaland, who was very beat up and just a shell of themselves. That said, we beat them handily due to solid defense and a fairly decent day running the ball.

Outside of that, our D has gone ass-up in every single playoff game and most must-win games over this last decade.

Thankfully, those days are over... and hopefully the new regime puts a proper playoff structure in place. It's long overdue.

Gort
01-12-2009, 03:47 AM
Defense wins championships is a cliche for a reason. This year is just another reminder. Our front office would do well to pay serious attention to the style of football being played right now. A very clear template for winning in January is on display.

it's also important to score more points than the other team. this is an often overlooked stat, but a very important one. the team with the most points wins 100% of the time.

Popps
01-12-2009, 08:59 AM
it's also important to score more points than the other team. this is an often overlooked stat, but a very important one. the team with the most points wins 100% of the time.

Interesting. :)

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 09:18 AM
Likewise. ;D

Know your facts about your team pal. 2008 Broncos were 16th in scoring and so were the 2000 Ravens. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?offensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STAT S&archive=true&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-o=2&conference=null&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_SCORED&d-447263-n=1&season=2008&qualified=true&Submit=Go&tabSeq=2&role=TM&d-447263-p=1

My point that you missed was that the 2000 Ravens had an average offense to go along with their dominate defense. Taco made the point that they were carried completely by their defense which was not correct. Furthermore Taco has been saying our offense is pretty good! If that is the case then you'd have to say that about the 2000 Ravens which statistically ended up where we did.

No, Meck, they weren't.

Here let me help you out by actually performing your end of the argument for you:

"Baltimore, while having the 16th ranked offense in 2000, had the 14th ranked scoring offense. The 2008 Broncos had the #2 offense in the NFL but a mediocre 16th in scoring."

Good job, Meck! Now you're making sense.

Unfortunately, scoring comes from opportunities and teams with defenses that get turnovers show it in the scoring column. That's why Balt was in the top half of scoring in 2000, and why Denver was mediocre in 2008 (LAST in takeaways by a large margin).

Popps
01-12-2009, 10:30 AM
No, Meck, they weren't.

Here let me help you out by actually performing your end of the argument for you:

"Baltimore, while having the 16th ranked offense in 2000, had the 14th ranked scoring offense. The 2008 Broncos had the #2 offense in the NFL but a mediocre 16th in scoring."

Good job, Meck! Now you're making sense.

Unfortunately, scoring comes from opportunities and teams with defenses that get turnovers show it in the scoring column. That's why Balt was in the top half of scoring in 2000, and why Denver was mediocre in 2008 (LAST in takeaways by a large margin).


Yea, but he was still right.

They were in the middle of the pack scoring-wise, and so were we, this year.

That was his point, and he was correct.

barryr
01-12-2009, 10:51 AM
Bottom line is 4 teams are left in the playoffs and of them, 3 finished 1-2-3 in defense this year. Coincidence? Probably not. Only the Cards at #19, didn't finish high in defense, but are playing really well in the playoffs.

Popps
01-12-2009, 11:13 AM
Bottom line is 4 teams are left in the playoffs and of them, 3 finished 1-2-3 in defense this year. Coincidence? Probably not. Only the Cards at #19, didn't finish high in defense, but are playing really well in the playoffs.

The Cards D is absolutely on fire. 5 INTs, 2 sacks and a FF the other day, after shutting down the league's best runner the week before.

That kind of D allows your offense to take chances and make use of your weapons.

Sure, Arizona had some nice offensive production in the first half, but it was their defense that locked down that game for them.

And no... it's not a coincidence that the #1, #2 and #3 defenses are still playing right now. This is business as usual in the playoffs.

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 11:17 AM
Yea, but he was still right.

They were in the middle of the pack scoring-wise, and so were we, this year.

That was his point, and he was correct.

No. His OP states the Ravens offensive ranking with a link to the offense (not scoring) and then says Denver's was 16, when it was NOT it was 2.

It's not an issue about semantics. It's an issue over what it insinuates. Now, if you want to make the statement that Balt's D was so dominant and gave the O the opportunities to perform comparable with this season's Denver unit in scoring, I agree. Even his final revised statement that there offense was average and not awful which is what people commonly remember (though wrong), I agree.

But saying they're comparable to our offensive unit is just a gross exaggerration and very, very wrong.

Popps
01-12-2009, 11:54 AM
But saying they're comparable to our offensive unit is just a gross exaggerration and very, very wrong.

Well, they were comparable at putting the ball in the endzone/points on the board.

In what way don't you think they were comparable?

If I had to pick a way, I'd say it was that while we put up pretty QB numbers with our fancy QB... they bashed teams in the mouth and controlled the clock by running the ball, as most championship teams can do when they have to.

Outside of a few Hillis games, we couldn't do that this year. That's where I think the offenses were different. But, points-wise... very similar.

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 01:08 PM
Well, they were comparable at putting the ball in the endzone/points on the board.

In what way don't you think they were comparable?

If I had to pick a way, I'd say it was that while we put up pretty QB numbers with our fancy QB... they bashed teams in the mouth and controlled the clock by running the ball, as most championship teams can do when they have to.

Outside of a few Hillis games, we couldn't do that this year. That's where I think the offenses were different. But, points-wise... very similar.

Okay, Popps, fine. If you want to argue for arguments sake with no factual background to your point, let's really take an in-depth analysis of this "comparison".

Relevant stats:

2008 Denver Broncos
#2 offense, 396 ypg, 18 INTs thrown by QB, 48% conversion on 3rd down, 34 attempted field goals, 13 takeaways by defense, defense allows 44% conversion on 3rd down.

2000 Baltimore Ravens
#16 offense, 313 ypg, 19 INTs thrown by QB, 40% conversion on 3rd down, 39 attempted field goals, 49 takeaways by defense, defense allows 34% conversion on 3rd down.

What this says for the slow kids:

-Jay was better at protecting the ball.
-Denver was significantly better converting on third down.
-Denver was a better redzone team reflected by the # of attempted field goals, especially when you consider Denver obviously moved the ball better (by 83 yards per game).

So what's glaring at you? Is it what I've been saying all along? Maybe an extra 36 ****ing turnovers might have been handy?!?!? That's not even counting the extra defensive stops made by Balt's D.

Popps
01-12-2009, 01:35 PM
Okay, Popps, fine. If you want to argue for arguments sake with no factual background to your point, let's really take an in-depth analysis of this "comparison"..

First off, that wasn't MY argument, and secondly... he was still correct. The offensive output was similar.

You want to bring more factors in and talk about turnovers? Absolutely, I agree 100%. Great defenses force turnovers and bad ones don't.

Sounds like we're on the same page. Put a top-flight defense out there, jam the ball down team's throats with the running game and don't ask Jay to do it all himself.

Isn't it great when we all agree!

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 02:27 PM
First off, that wasn't MY argument, and secondly... he was still correct. The offensive output was similar.

You want to bring more factors in and talk about turnovers? Absolutely, I agree 100%. Great defenses force turnovers and bad ones don't.

Sounds like we're on the same page. Put a top-flight defense out there, jam the ball down team's throats with the running game and don't ask Jay to do it all himself.

Isn't it great when we all agree!

No one is going to disagree about Denver needing better defense and more turnovers, but any comparison between this OFFENSIVE UNIT and Baltimores 2000 OFFENSIVE UNIT is completely off base.

You give Jay 36 more short field drives off of turnovers (+probably another 40 possessions of off defensive stops) and last year he probably breaks the Patriots scoring record. Period. With or without running the football more.

I didn't even add in intangibles like Jay forcing the ball because of our inept D, or how our O actually scored 37 more points than Balts (no rule changes were made but a rule was "re-emphasized), and many, many other factors.

This is all simple common sense. If you still think they're the same caliber of offensive units, then I don't know what the **** to tell ya man.

Meck77
01-12-2009, 02:29 PM
What are you still crying about Rev? I was talking points. So I put the wrong link up. The 2000 ravens and 2008 Broncos were similarly ranked in scoring.

I made the point because Taco said the 2000 Ravens won the SB based on their D only and that just isn't the case. They had a middle of the road offense in SCORING like we did this year. AVERAGE...Not good...AVERAGE in the NFL

mr007
01-12-2009, 03:03 PM
So, the pattern stayed in place. That was just one more example that an average or even BELOW average QB can win a SB with a great defense, whereas you'll almost NEVER see a great QB win a SB with a ****ty defense.



Save a handful of players listed below, how many "average" or "below average" QBs have done anything significant come SB time?


Beyond that, 80% of Superbowl winning QBs aren't hall of famers. They're just decent QBs who played a role that particular season. By play a role, I mean they put together great seasons... but within the confines of the properly built playoff team.



No offense but I really think you're taking this to an extreme. To say 80% of SB winning QBs aren't hall of famers is simply a dumb statement. In fact, in the past 30 years, more than 80% of the winning QBs are hall of famers:

79 - Terry Bradshaw
80 - Terry Bradshaw
81 - Jim Plunkett
82 - Joe Montana
83 - Joe Theismann
84 - Jim Plunkett
85 - Joe Montana
86 - Jim McMahon
87 - Phil Simms
88 - Doug Williams
89 - Joe Montana
90 - Joe Montana
91 - Jeff Hostetler
92 - Mark Rypien
93 - Troy Aikman
94 - Troy Aikman
95 - Steve Young
96 - Troy Aikman
97 - Brett Favre
98 - John Elway
99 - John Elway
00 - Kurt Warner
01 - Trent Dilfer
02 - Tom Brady
03 - Brad Johnson
04 - Tom Brady
05 - Tom Brady
06 - Ben Roethlisberger
07 - Peyton Manning
08 - Eli Manning

Of these past 30 years of SBs, I would say more than 65% of these teams featured an offense that was better than their defense. Your argument may be valid for this year, but is by no means a definitive look at what builds an NFL championship team.

Popps
01-12-2009, 03:13 PM
Of these past 30 years of SBs, I would say more than 65% of these teams featured an offense that was better than their defense. Your argument may be valid for this year, but is by no means a definitive look at what builds an NFL championship team.

Fair enough... more HOF'ers on that list than I thought, though a lot of guys that weren't... and a lot of guys who never would have come close without being a proper playoff structure.

As for 50% of their offenses being "better than their defense," you're missing the point.

My point isn't that we shouldn't have a strong offense. We should. But, it should start with the ability to run the ball and control the clock.

The numbers of HOF-type QBs in any season is very low. Beyond that, you can have a numbers-guy like Cutler who may be outplayed in the long-run by a gritty type like Rivers. So, the point remains... those caught up in big QB numbers and who believe high-flying offenses are the key to SB wins are simply incorrect.

When you say 50% of the offenses are "better than the defense," you're asking yourself the wrong question. The question should be, was the defense good enough to allow the offense to do their job properly. Think of our 97 team. Elway played a big role, but was by no means the catalyst to our SB win. Terrell Davis, the O-line and an attacking defense were. Elway was there the whole time and never won a ring until we put those in place.

The argument doesn't just apply to "this year," it applies to the history of the game. That's the reason you hear coaches, players and analysts incessantly pounding the table about D and running games. They're not bull****ting.

Ask Cutler and Brees. They'll tell you. You can find them sitting at home on their couch this weekend, fancy QB stats and all.

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 03:18 PM
What are you still crying about Rev? I was talking points. So I put the wrong link up. The 2000 ravens and 2008 Broncos were similarly ranked in scoring.

I made the point because Taco said the 2000 Ravens won the SB based on their D only and that just isn't the case. They had a middle of the road offense in SCORING like we did this year. AVERAGE...Not good...AVERAGE in the NFL

So not only did you put the wrong link up, you also compared the wrong rankings?

...and it's an extremely misleading stat too that doesn't do much for your argument. That DEFENSE gave that offense the ball, over, and over, and over, and over, and... (repeat 49 times)

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 03:21 PM
Fair enough... more HOF'ers on that list than I thought, though a lot of guys that weren't... and a lot of guys who never would have come close without being a proper playoff structure.

As for 50% of their offenses being "better than their defense," you're missing the point.

My point isn't that we shouldn't have a strong offense. We should. But, it should start with the ability to run the ball and control the clock.

The numbers of HOF-type QBs in any season is very low. Beyond that, you can have a numbers-guy like Cutler who may be outplayed in the long-run by a gritty type like Rivers. So, the point remains... those caught up in big QB numbers and who believe high-flying offenses are the key to SB wins are simply incorrect.

When you say 50% of the offenses are "better than the defense," you're asking yourself the wrong question. The question should be, was the defense good enough to allow the offense to do their job properly. Think of our 97 team. Elway played a big role, but was by no means the catalyst to our SB win. Terrell Davis, the O-line and an attacking defense were. Elway was there the whole time and never won a ring until we put those in place.

The argument doesn't just apply to "this year," it applies to the history of the game. That's the reason you hear coaches, players and analysts incessantly pounding the table about D and running games. They're not bull****ting.

Ask Cutler and Brees. They'll tell you. You can find them sitting at home on their couch this weekend, fancy QB stats and all.

So...

your point is complete teams win superbowls?

STOP THE PRESSES!

Popps
01-12-2009, 03:24 PM
So...

your point is complete teams win superbowls?

STOP THE PRESSES!

You're a funny little guy. You have to have a big dramatic point of contention to call names, or you're just not comfortable. Any reason for that?

Yes, complete teams win Superbowls.

No, that was not my point.

My point was in regards to where those teams start... and the balance of defense to offense to QB numbers, and running game.

So, no.. that wasn't my point, but if it allowed you to call me a big dummy-face and you feel better about your place in the world, then let's just say that was my point.

M'kay?

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 03:33 PM
You're a funny little guy. You have to have a big dramatic point of contention to call names, or you're just not comfortable. Any reason for that?

Yes, complete teams win Superbowls.

No, that was not my point.

My point was in regards to where those teams start... and the balance of defense to offense to QB numbers, and running game.

So, no.. that wasn't my point, but if it allowed you to call me a big dummy-face and you feel better about your place in the world, then let's just say that was my point.

M'kay?

I'm amazed at what levels of insecurities you must have to keep seeing these phantom "name-callings" that haven't happened, Popps.

And how does a team "start" exactly? :rofl:

If Ray leaves in FA or retires, and then Ed Reed has a horrid injury and Ngata skips town in a year or two, and now they're average on D and Flacco's just a third year player... does that mean they "started" wrong because now their resources are offensively loaded?

(In case you don't catch the parallels, Al Wilson-broken Neck, John Lynch-retired, Trevor Pryce-left via FA; all within 3 years.)

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 03:36 PM
In fact, if you flip through this thread, you're the only one doing any name-calling, dude. Sweet "projection" case study for any psych majors in the house.

I'm gonna go out on an educated limb and say you're a short guy loaded with self-esteem complexes?

Popps
01-12-2009, 03:37 PM
I'm amazed at what levels of insecurities you must have

:rofl:

First sentence.

Yea, you sound like a secure guy, brother. Most secure guys have to have "**** you idiot" in every single reply.

Check your response to Meck. He's a great fan, great poster... he simply mis-linked some stats (which turned out to be correct in theory) and you blasted him as the piece of **** of the year, or some nonsense.

You'll grow out of it, man.


If Ray leaves in FA or retires, and then Ed Reed has a horrid injury and Ngata skips town in a year or two, and now they're average on D and Flacco's just a third year player... does that mean they "started" wrong because now their resources are offensively loaded?

(In case you don't catch the parallels, Al Wilson-broken Neck, John Lynch-retired, Trevor Pryce-left via FA; all within 3 years.)

I'm not sure where you're going with this. So, if a bunch of players from a great team leave... they're not great anymore? Possibly.

Unless.... wait for it.... those players were replace with OTHER great players.... wait for it..... like BALTIMORE (on D) and NEW ENGLAND have done over the years, and we have not.

Again, you can try to invent something to have a melt-down over and call me names. It's just kind of amusing after a while.

Popps
01-12-2009, 03:39 PM
In fact, if you flip through this thread, you're the only one doing any name-calling, dude. Sweet "projection" case study for any psych majors in the house.

I'm gonna go out on an educated limb and say you're a short guy loaded with self-esteem complexes?

You're a funny little dude. You say you're not calling anyone names, and in the SAME POST, you try to rip me... inaccurately, of course.

6'2", 185... happily married, great job... great life. No complaints, here.

But, go ahead dude.... keep "not" calling me names.

:rofl:

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 03:47 PM
:rofl:

First sentence.

Yea, you sound like a secure guy, brother. Most secure guys have to have "**** you idiot" in every single reply.

Check your response to Meck. He's a great fan, great poster... he simply mis-linked some stats (which turned out to be correct in theory) and you blasted him as the piece of **** of the year, or some nonsense.

You'll grow out of it, man.



I'm not sure where you're going with this. So, if a bunch of players from a great team leave... they're not great anymore? Possibly.

Unless.... wait for it.... those players were replace with OTHER great players.... wait for it..... like BALTIMORE (on D) and NEW ENGLAND have done over the years, and we have not.

Again, you can try to invent something to have a melt-down over and call me names. It's just kind of amusing after a while.

Golly, you're so smart. Except for anytime you open your mouth.

It'd be hilarious to see how you'd interact with yourself here, but then we'd have to put up with two clueless know nothings ranting about how "HoF quarterbacks don't win superbowls!" which was obviously extremely well thought out.

Honestly, you should just look at how you treat Taco, who really does know more about football than you and your endless senseless rants that have probably never ended up being right.

Oh, and regarding Baltimore and NE... they've kept their key CORE in tact, while Denver happened to have theirs ripped out by age and circumstance.

Oh well, I'm looking forward to when your mid-life crisis ends and you can take a modicum of security in your existence.

Popps
01-12-2009, 03:56 PM
Golly, you're so smart. Except for anytime you open your mouth.

Wow, a name-calling! GASP!

"HoF quarterbacks don't win superbowls!" which was obviously extremely well thought out..

Not what I said, but you know that.


Honestly, you should just look at how you treat Taco, who really does know more about football than you

:rofl:

Look, we know you're on Taco's nuts, hence your unprovoked blast at Meck77, but this is over the top.

our mid-life crisis ends and you can take a modicum of security in your existence.

Again, if there's something wrong in my life, you'll have to let me know what it is. (Besides maybe reading some horrible football takes of yours.)


Things are great, here. But, thanks for the life-lesssons... You secure guy.

:rofl:

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 04:01 PM
Wow, a name-calling! GASP!



Not what I said, but you know that.



:rofl:

Look, we know you're on Taco's nuts, hence your unprovoked blast at Meck77, but this is over the top.



Again, if there's something wrong in my life, you'll have to let me know what it is. (Besides maybe reading some horrible football takes of yours.)


Things are great, here. But, thanks for the life-lesssons... You secure guy.

:rofl:

I like Meck just as much as Taco, and I'm certain he knows that... way to reach for some hidden conspiracy though. You and gaff should get together and cry about a hollow existence (sorry, gaff!). Also, you should learn the definition of "name-calling", because you've got it horribly wrong...

80% of superbowl's aren't won by HoF quarterbacks? wasn't that the line?

and the other essential point of the thread being that it takes a complete team to win a championship.

really, you're like a orangemane, modern version of lombardi. SO insightful.

Popps
01-12-2009, 04:02 PM
LOL

O.K. secure guy! Keep calling me names!

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 04:02 PM
LOL

O.K. secure guy! Keep calling me names!

How many emoticons does it take to numb the pain, Popps?

You can open up to me.

Popps
01-12-2009, 04:28 PM
How many emoticons does it take to numb the pain, Popps?

You can open up to me.

No, I think you numb pain by calling people names. Right? Go on... let it out, little guy. You'll get there.

TheReverend
01-12-2009, 04:42 PM
No, I think you numb pain by calling people names. Right? Go on... let it out, little guy. You'll get there.

Yup. You've got me pegged.

I'll just leave so this thread doesn't get further derailed from your Hall of Fame insight of "complete teams win superbowls", "Hall of Famer QBs don't win the superbowl", and about how ball control teams like Carolina beat offensive teams like Arizona every time... oh wait... :spit:

Popps
01-12-2009, 04:59 PM
Yup. You've got me pegged.

I'll just leave so this thread doesn't get further derailed from your Hall of Fame insight of "complete teams win superbowls", "Hall of Famer QBs don't win the superbowl", and about how ball control teams like Carolina beat offensive teams like Arizona every time... oh wait... :spit:

Wow, another name-calling post! Double-awesome!!!

Circle Orange
01-13-2009, 09:33 AM
Meh.

All these 'defensive' teams always shine when the playoff field is mediocre on offense to begin with, or they get turnovers. The Titans fell on their sword last week, and were ridiculous. Sandy Egoo had the crazy punt returns and turnover.

And once again Pittsburgh seems to be the 'default' AFC team in the title game everytime the conference is iffy. I am so tired of them and all the Ravens hype. If you ask me, Cinderella is wearing a purple slipper this year.

We'll see the Ravens again in 2019...these 'defensive' teams pop up every ten years before disappearing once again. It's all based on the structure of the team, not some cliches about defense winning. How the hell do you win with no points?

Popps
01-13-2009, 03:19 PM
How the hell do you win with no points?

Again, no one said that. Ever. Not on this thread, nowhere.

The discussion was that for so many years around here, the QB has been pointed to as the sole key to SB success. It's not. The QB numbers in this year's playoffs just once again point out that come December, the better defenses move on.

Certainly, you have to have an effective offense. Doesn't have to be the 98 Broncos, though.... it just has to be effective. (See the 07 Giants.)

Some have said this just boils down to balance, and to over-simplify it... sure, that's true. But, if you start digging into stats and really looking at the make-up of teams who are playing this time of year, even those great offenses are being set up to succeed by very good, if not great defenses.

Conversely, look at this year's Saints. Brees almost broke Marino's passing record and where is he? Sitting at home. I believe the Saints were the highest scoring team in the league... but I'd need to check.

Scoring Offense
Pittsburgh - 20th
Baltimore - 11th
Philly - 6th
Arizona - 4th

Defense Scoring Allowed
Pittsburgh - 1st
Baltimore - 3nd
Philly - 4th
Arizona - 27th


So, of the four teams remaining...

-Half of them were great on D, average on O
-One was great on both
-One was great on O, bad on D

Now, take your one exception of that group and really look into what they've done lately and you'll see tha their defense has been playing extremely well.... particularly in the playoffs where they shut down the league's best RB and then had a monster day against Carolina.

So, even if you take the ONE exception from the group and break it apart, it still favors a general trend...

Teams can't win in the playoffs without great defensive play, however... they CAN win with just marginal offensive output.

If they can put up great offensive numbers... great! Even better. But, the clear lesson on this yearly occurrence is that the place you want to START to build your champion is on defense.

We've taken the exact opposite approach and hence have made no progress since the 05 playoff run.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 03:24 PM
Again, no one said that. Ever. Not on this thread, nowhere.

The discussion was that for so many years around here, the QB has been pointed to as the sole key to SB success.

Again, no one said that. Ever. Not on this thread, nowhere.

Popps
01-13-2009, 03:27 PM
Again, no one said that. Ever. Not on this thread, nowhere.

Sure... the implication was not only that has QB been the blockade to our winning playoff games, but that scrapping and starting with a QB would ensure playoff success.

Here we are, three years into the "rebuild," and no better than when Pittsburgh **** all over our defense in 05.

Actually, we're worse.

But, those days are behind us. Thankfully.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 03:35 PM
Sure... the implication was not only that has QB been the blockade to our winning playoff games, but that scrapping and starting with a QB would ensure playoff success.

Here we are, three years into the "rebuild," and no better than when Pittsburgh **** all over our defense in 05.

Actually, we're worse.

But, those days are behind us. Thankfully.

Oh, okay. So you allow yourself to interpret those "implications" and judge TJ off of your perception but you can't see beyond the literal interpretation of what she said? :thumbsup:

Popps
01-13-2009, 03:49 PM
Oh, okay. So you allow yourself to interpret those "implications" and judge TJ off of your perception but you can't see beyond the literal interpretation of what she said? :thumbsup:

:rofl:

Wow, I know you're hot for him... but that's a little heavy on the Freudian slip, brother.


TJ isn't the only one who's been misguided about this team's needs. Beyond that, the thread was more an observation of performance and numbers than anything else.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 04:13 PM
:rofl:

Wow, I know you're hot for him... but that's a little heavy on the Freudian slip, brother.


TJ isn't the only one who's been misguided about this team's needs. Beyond that, the thread was more an observation of performance and numbers than anything else.

That's not a Freudian slip... I'm comparing how you give yourself the freedom to interpret TJ (boy) but read CircleOrange (girl) literally to suit your own agenda. The post is pretty clear... Maybe you should get back to practicing English with your leap frog?

You're slower than I thought... and I thought pretty little of you...

mr007
01-13-2009, 04:31 PM
The discussion was that for so many years around here, the QB has been pointed to as the sole key to SB success. It's not. The QB numbers in this year's playoffs just once again point out that come December, the better defenses move on.

I don't know who has stated that a QB is ever the sole key to SB success... for most teams the QB is the most important one and having a franchise QB is the biggest factor in building a successful team.


Certainly, you have to have an effective offense. Doesn't have to be the 98 Broncos, though.... it just has to be effective. (See the 07 Giants.)

Teams can't win in the playoffs without great defensive play, however... they CAN win with just marginal offensive output.


The Rams, Colts, 49ers, and Cowboys would tend to disagree with that statement.

Most of your argument stems from the idea that championship teams are built from solid defenses. The truth is, championship teams can be built in any manner of ways... some prefer to start on the offensive side of the ball, getting the Quarterback, oline, receivers, and backs dialed in while working on a defense that isn't top-notch, but will do well enough to support their high powered offense (Colts, Rams, 49ers, Cowboys, etc).

Other teams tend to start with an awesome defense and work with an average offense to get the job done (Bucs, Steelers, Ravens).

The overall point is you obviously aren't going far in the playoffs with a complete crap defense that never generates turnovers or gives your offense an opportunity to play. If your oline, receivers, backs, QB, etc are also incapable it is very rare to see anyone go deep in the playoffs regardless of how good their defense is.

You need some sort of balance on the team, whether that comes from a stellar offense with an average defense or vice versa, either are formulas for success as has been proven in the past 30 years of playoffs with the single position of Quarterback being most influential to a team.

Popps
01-13-2009, 04:34 PM
That's not a Freudian slip... I'm comparing how you give yourself the freedom to interpret TJ (boy) but read CircleOrange (girl) literally to suit your own agenda.

Uh. O.K. Raider Rev. Whatever you say. It's cool, man. You can be Pocket Pet #2.

:rofl:

Popps
01-13-2009, 04:36 PM
I don't know who has stated that a QB is ever the sole key to SB success... for most teams the QB is the most important one and having a franchise QB is the biggest factor in building a successful team.


The Rams, Colts, 49ers, and Cowboys would tend to disagree with that statement.

Most of your argument stems from the idea that championship teams are built from solid defenses. The truth is, championship teams can be built in any manner of ways... some prefer to start on the offensive side of the ball, getting the Quarterback, oline, receivers, and backs dialed in while working on a defense that isn't top-notch, but will do well enough to support their high powered offense (Colts, Rams, 49ers, Cowboys, etc).

Other teams tend to start with an awesome defense and work with an average offense to get the job done (Bucs, Steelers, Ravens).

The overall point is you obviously aren't going far in the playoffs with a complete crap defense that never generates turnovers or gives your offense an opportunity to play. If your oline, receivers, backs, QB, etc are also incapable it is very rare to see anyone go deep in the playoffs regardless of how good their defense is.

You need some sort of balance on the team, whether that comes from a stellar offense with an average defense or vice versa, either are formulas for success as has been proven in the past 30 years of playoffs with the single position of Quarterback being most influential to a team.


Great post, but more than just balance... balance that MUST include a very strong defense is where you start.

Again, the point here is that its nearly impossible to win a championship with a marginal defense, but plenty of marginal offenses have done it.

In any case, we're going to start building this team properly. That's my gut-feeling, so we'll see how it plays out.

TheReverend
01-13-2009, 04:41 PM
Uh. O.K. Raider Rev. Whatever you say. It's cool, man. You can be Pocket Pet #2.

:rofl:

Sure thing, Popps. Keep fightin the ignorant fight.

...and keep rockin those emoticons. I hear they hide insecurity well.

Popps
01-13-2009, 04:46 PM
Sure thing, Popps. Keep fightin the ignorant fight.

...and keep rockin those emoticons. I hear they hide insecurity well.

Sorry to have any fun, crabby. Don't let me rock Crabby-world, Raider Rev.

Question.... how long will you pout?

Going to jump back on board at some point, or... ?

frerottenextelway
01-18-2009, 03:15 PM
K. Warner 21/28 279 4 0
D. McNabb 27/46 375 3 1

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 03:17 PM
K. Warner 21/28 279 4 0
D. McNabb 27/46 375 3 1

...but... I thought winning in the play offs was all about defense and running? That's what popps told me!

Popps
01-18-2009, 03:21 PM
Warner had a great day. Again, if you want to be foolish and assume that playing great defense means your QB can't have a big day, feel free.

Arizona's defense has been red hot. They had a lapse today for a quarter, or this game wouldn't have been close.

That said... what's this bring the QB yardage up to... 230 or so?

As I said, when you have to use the exception to the norm to make your point, you're fighting a futile fight.

Popps
01-18-2009, 03:22 PM
...but... I thought winning in the play offs was all about defense and running? That's what popps told me!

Raider Rev, playoffs is one word. I understand you'd have trouble with that, though... seeing as how we haven't won but a single game in a decade.

fontaine
01-18-2009, 03:24 PM
Warner played his guts out. Stood tall in the pocket and really sacrificed his body out there.

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 03:26 PM
You're really reaching now, Poops.

Keep dreaming fruitcake.

Philly's D got exposed on the same level as Den's in the AFCCG. If you were an Eagles fan right now you'd be screaming about it and completely ignoring how INEPT their offense was in the first half. But, naturally, you can't see or make the connection. You're an abnormally dumb human being, and I look forward to the day you realize and keep to yourself. Until then, have fun talking to yourself, banging on your drum while people roll their eyes at every absurd comment you make.

frerottenextelway
01-18-2009, 03:27 PM
Warner had a great day. Again, if you want to be foolish and assume that playing great defense means your QB can't have a big day, feel free.

Arizona's defense has been red hot. They had a lapse today for a quarter, or this game wouldn't have been close.

That said... what's this bring the QB yardage up to... 230 or so?

As I said, when you have to use the exception to the norm to make your point, you're fighting a futile fight.

230 yards per game would be a 3,600 yard season. Pretty solid numbers there.

One team is going to the SB because of their offense, one will be going because of their defense.

Popps
01-18-2009, 03:33 PM
230 yards per game would be a 3,600 yard season. Pretty solid numbers there.

One team is going to the SB because of their offense, one will be going because of their defense.

If Arizona's defense hadn't caught fire in the playoffs, they'd be sitting at home with Drew Brees and his fancy, fantasy football stats.

They're a great offense, no doubt. That's half the story, and often... not even half.

Popps
01-18-2009, 03:36 PM
You're really reaching now, Poops.

Keep dreaming fruitcake.

Philly's D got exposed on the same level as Den's in the AFCCG. If you were an Eagles fan right now you'd be screaming about it and completely ignoring how INEPT their offense was in the first half. But, naturally, you can't see or make the connection. You're an abnormally dumb human being, and I look forward to the day you realize and keep to yourself. Until then, have fun talking to yourself, banging on your drum while people roll their eyes at every absurd comment you make.

Keep yappin' there, Raider Rev.

You keep telling me how dumb I am because I understand the basics of football. You keep pouting there in Crabby-land, calling people names and doing whatever it is you do.

Hey, tell me how awesome your Raiders were in the 90s again. I never get sick of hearing your old, grumpy stories.

frerottenextelway
01-18-2009, 03:36 PM
If Arizona's defense hadn't caught fire in the playoffs, they'd be sitting at home with Drew Brees and his fancy, fantasy football stats.

They're a great offense, no doubt. That's half the story, and often... not even half.

They just gave up 380 passing to McNabb!!!! That would be a 6,000 yard season over 16 games.

CEH
01-18-2009, 03:37 PM
Arizona sure looked alot like our Denver team today didn't it?
During the season, their offense score 1 more point than their D gave up
Had Denver's D done that we would have made the playoffs

Mostly all the playoff teams have a first round QB. They must have assumed QB is pretty important postion to address it in the first

From '06-'08 I have no problems with how we attempted to draft.

It was the '00 - '05 drafts with picks like Middlebust, Tovessi, Pierce than left us with no defensive foundation

Denver needs to agree on a scheme and stick to it. Draft players to fit the scheme, win the division and bring back home field advantage.

Popps
01-18-2009, 03:41 PM
They just gave up 380 passing to McNabb!!!! That would be a 6,000 yard season over 16 games.

Again, the fantasy-football thing really doesn't play out here in the real world.

See, McNabb having a lot of passing numbers today means jack ****. His team lost. His defense couldn't step up and get the job done against a great offense.
(Yes, great offenses are great to have!)

Arizona made big plays on defense all day, and if they don't fumble that INT, the game is likely over in the first half. The fact that McNabb got some pasisng yards in a failed comeback attempt isn't really relevant.

Beyond that, Arizona's D also played lights-out the past two playoff games.

So, again... when you find yourself using the exception instead of the norm to prove your point you're probably on he goofy side .

But, if your point is that teams DON'T need a great defense, or at least a top-performing D to win in the playoffs, I welcome you to enjoy that viewpoint. I simply won't be sharing it.

frerottenextelway
01-18-2009, 04:06 PM
Again, the fantasy-football thing really doesn't play out here in the real world.

See, McNabb having a lot of passing numbers today means jack ****. His team lost. His defense couldn't step up and get the job done against a great offense.
(Yes, great offenses are great to have!)

Arizona made big plays on defense all day, and if they don't fumble that INT, the game is likely over in the first half. The fact that McNabb got some pasisng yards in a failed comeback attempt isn't really relevant.

Beyond that, Arizona's D also played lights-out the past two playoff games.

So, again... when you find yourself using the exception instead of the norm to prove your point you're probably on he goofy side .

But, if your point is that teams DON'T need a great defense, or at least a top-performing D to win in the playoffs, I welcome you to enjoy that viewpoint. I simply won't be sharing it.

You're arguing yourself in circles. There was 57 points scored, including 7 passing touchdowns in this game. Arizona's defense was god awful, but their offense scored a boatload of points. It watched like a college game.

Popps
01-18-2009, 04:14 PM
You're arguing yourself in circles. There was 57 points scored, including 7 passing touchdowns in this game. Arizona's defense was god awful, but their offense scored a boatload of points. It watched like a college game.

Circles? No. As I said, Arizona's D has been red-hot. That's allowed them to advance. Had they NOT gotten hot, defensively... they would be at home watching games with Drew Brees and the #1 passing game.

3 out of 4 in the AFCCGs were top 5 defenses.

You're using the exception to the norm as the base of your argument, and even that one exception is somewhat invalid because of the hot D Arizona has been playing.

As I said, you're welcome to believe that defense and running the football don't create champions. Every coach and player in NFL history will tell you you're wrong. But, no one can stop you from believing whatever you want.

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 05:01 PM
Keep yappin' there, Raider Rev.

You keep telling me how dumb I am because I understand the basics of football. You keep pouting there in Crabby-land, calling people names and doing whatever it is you do.

Hey, tell me how awesome your Raiders were in the 90s again. I never get sick of hearing your old, grumpy stories.

So I take it you're not proud of the Broncos Superbowl teams?

Popps
01-18-2009, 05:06 PM
So I take it you're not proud of the Broncos Superbowl teams?

Raider Rev,

What a silly thing to say. C'mon, now. I know your puppet-master Taco has told you that our championship defenses were garbage, but you really have to pick better places to learn football.

We advanced to win our first ever SB by beating a team 14-10.

That right there is called a defensive struggle.

Our championship defense was fantastic, and put up incredible numbers in both playoff games.

Given, the mouth-breathers out there who only see fancy quarterback stats only saw Elway and Davis, but the other half of the story was over on defense, where our line-up was filled with HOFers, top-flight performers, savvy vets and multiple SB winners.

So, yea... I loved our championship teams. Davis ran for 2000 yards... we played attacking, aggressive defense and ranked in the top 7, I believe... including epic playoff performances.

So, no... I don't choose to bash the championship team, unlike your other half.

Popps
01-18-2009, 05:06 PM
Oh, and if you're asking me if winning meaningful games a decade ago is enough reason to employ someone who is currently failing.. the answer is no.

frerottenextelway
01-18-2009, 05:12 PM
Raider Rev,

What a silly thing to say. C'mon, now. I know your puppet-master Taco has told you that our championship defenses were garbage, but you really have to pick better places to learn football.

We advanced to win our first ever SB by beating a team 14-10.

That right there is called a defensive struggle.

Our championship defense was fantastic, and put up incredible numbers in both playoff games.

Given, the mouth-breathers out there who only see fancy quarterback stats only saw Elway and Davis, but the other half of the story was over on defense, where our line-up was filled with HOFers, top-flight performers, savvy vets and multiple SB winners.

So, yea... I loved our championship teams. Davis ran for 2000 yards... we played attacking, aggressive defense and ranked in the top 7, I believe... including epic playoff performances.

So, no... I don't choose to bash the championship team, unlike your other half.

We averaged 30 points a game in the playoffs with our 97 and 98 teams. So yeah, there was 1 game we didn't score a lot, but if we're not cherry picking here, then that point is really silly.

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 05:16 PM
Raider Rev,

What a silly thing to say. C'mon, now. I know your puppet-master Taco has told you that our championship defenses were garbage, but you really have to pick better places to learn football.

We advanced to win our first ever SB by beating a team 14-10.

That right there is called a defensive struggle.

Our championship defense was fantastic, and put up incredible numbers in both playoff games.

Given, the mouth-breathers out there who only see fancy quarterback stats only saw Elway and Davis, but the other half of the story was over on defense, where our line-up was filled with HOFers, top-flight performers, savvy vets and multiple SB winners.

So, yea... I loved our championship teams. Davis ran for 2000 yards... we played attacking, aggressive defense and ranked in the top 7, I believe... including epic playoff performances.

So, no... I don't choose to bash the championship team, unlike your other half.

That has nothing to do with the fact that you criticized me for liking our 90s teams...

Just how oblivious are you?

I'm guessing that on a scale from 1-10, you're a 13

Popps
01-18-2009, 05:18 PM
That has nothing to do with the fact that you criticized me for liking our 90s teams...

Just how oblivious are you?

I'm guessing that on a scale from 1-10, you're a 13

"Criticized you for liking?

:rofl:

C'mon, little guy... let's not be silly.

I criticized you for sounding like a Raiders fan, justifying your team's crappy current state by using examples of successes in past decades.

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 05:19 PM
...and the insecure one calls me little. You're so cute, Popps. One day you'll grow up and be a real boy, but for now your nose is getting too long.

gunns
01-18-2009, 05:23 PM
completely ignoring how INEPT their offense was in the first half.

Or was it the Arizona D? They gave up no TD's in the first half. And in almost all instances you will find the team causing the most turnovers will win and that was the Card's D with a INT and a FF. Not many, but enough.

The Cards game today, they had a very good D in the first half with a very good offense. Man what we could have done this year with our offense and a very good D.

frerottenextelway
01-18-2009, 05:26 PM
Or was it the Arizona D? They gave up no TD's in the first half. And in almost all instances you will find the team causing the most turnovers will win and that was the Card's D with a INT and a FF. Not many, but enough.

The Cards game today, they had a very good D in the first half with a very good offense. Man what we could have done this year with our offense and a very good D.

Their D was helped in the 1st by McNabb missing a couple easy touchdown throws on blown coverages.

Popps
01-18-2009, 05:26 PM
...and the insecure one calls me little. You're so cute, Popps. One day you'll grow up and be a real boy, but for now your nose is getting too long.

Again, life's good here. Sorry.

You sound like a mad little guy. Hate to hear you sounding so bitter about life all the time.

Maybe you could realize that people just disagree with you in life sometimes.... and it doesn't make them stupid?

Maybe intelligent people can have an argument without calling great fans like Meck stupid?

Hmmmm.

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 05:29 PM
Again, life's good here. Sorry.

You sound like a mad little guy. Hate to hear you sounding so bitter about life all the time.

Maybe you could realize that people just disagree with you in life sometimes.... and it doesn't make them stupid?

Maybe intelligent people can have an argument without calling great fans like Meck stupid?

Hmmmm.

I wish you had a clue about how funny this entire post is!

Popps
01-18-2009, 05:34 PM
I wish you had a clue about how funny this entire post is!

Thing is, I probably wouldn't care. Let's be honest.

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 06:09 PM
Thing is, I probably wouldn't care. Let's be honest.

Of course not. You're far too obtuse to realize any of the VAST deficiencies in your person.

Popps
01-18-2009, 06:21 PM
Of course not. You're far too obtuse to realize any of the VAST deficiencies in your person.

Oh no! You called me doo-doo head again! Shoot.

Anyway, 'gotta run Raider Rev. The top two defenses are playing. You should go watch.

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 06:23 PM
Oh no! You called me doo-doo head again! Shoot.

Anyway, 'gotta run Raider Rev. The top two defenses are playing for a chance to play a top air offense which just bent over the #3 defense to the tune of 32 points. You should go watch.

Fixed for ya.

Popps
01-18-2009, 06:31 PM
Fixed for ya.

You mean you put your own fantasy football slant on reality?

Gotcha.

:thumbsup:

ludo21
01-18-2009, 06:31 PM
Ha!

You guys should get a room

TheReverend
01-18-2009, 06:41 PM
You mean you put your own fantasy football slant on reality?

Gotcha.

:thumbsup:

#4 offense in the NFL, #2 in scoring. Yep, I'm the one that's really "slanting it", aren't I?

Popps
01-18-2009, 08:04 PM
Only four of the past 12 Super Bowl winners have featured a top-10 offense. But nine of the last 12 Super Bowl winners have featured a top-10 defense.

Selling titles, not tickets
Offense wins games. Defense wins championships.

And look for NFL defenses to rely more on interchanging, flexible parts -- moving safeties to linebacker and cornerbacks to safeties and linemen into pass defense. Defenses will keep building on the concept that being more flexible in its personnel assignments often creates more confusion for offenses.

And look for more quarterbacks to "manage" their offenses.

Coughlin was an assistant coach on the Giants' 1990 Super Bowl title team, thus, he has been around past Giants outstanding defensive teams other than his own. Reese joined the Giants as a scout in 1994. He understands the Giants' rich defensive history from Steve Owen in the 1920s to Emlen Tunnell in the '40s to Sam Huff in the '50s to Andy Robustelli in the '60s on to recent stars Lawrence Taylor and Strahan.

"We've had a lot of teams in the past that were not very sexy on offense and you can find those now in this league," Reese said. "But the Giants have always put a premium on defense. Now, we held the ball on offense for 10 minutes on the opening drive in the Super Bowl against the Patriots. That was at least two offensive possessions for them that they didn't get. If that had not happened, who knows what would have happened? It did, though, and our defense throughout the game dictated the game. That's what it takes to win that last game."

http://www.nfl.com/kickoff/story?id=09000d5d80a44908&template=with-video&confirm=true

Inkana7
01-18-2009, 08:07 PM
Rev's right. That's why the saying is "Offense wins championships." Duh.

frerottenextelway
01-18-2009, 08:45 PM
Only four of the past 12 Super Bowl winners have featured a top-10 offense. But nine of the last 12 Super Bowl winners have featured a top-10 defense.


That's not true.

96 Packers, 97 Broncos, 98 Broncos, 99 Rams, 04 Patriots, and 06 Colts all had top 10 O's (all were top 3 except the Pats).

Here's a fun stat though. The last time less than 30 total points was scored in a SB was 1975. It's not uncommon for the SB to feature 50 or even 60 points.

Popps
01-18-2009, 09:47 PM
That's not true.

96 Packers, 97 Broncos, 98 Broncos, 99 Rams, 04 Patriots, and 06 Colts all had top 10 O's (all were top 3 except the Pats).


Looks like 6 of 12 to me, too. Those are NFL.com's numbers, not mine... so you'll have to take that up with them.

That said, let's look at the teams you quoted...

96 Packers - Defensive Rank - 1st (Better than their offensive ranking)

97 Broncos - Defensive Rank -5th

98 Broncos - Defensive Rank - 11th

04 Partiots - Defensive Rank - 9th

06 Colts - Defensive Ranka - 21st (Ranked 1st in post-season defense)

So, again... even your exceptions that you're choosing to base the thesis of your argument upon still carried top flight defenses with them.

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 04:44 AM
Rev's right. That's why the saying is "Offense wins championships." Duh.

Wow, way to comprehend a conversation. That's been far from what I've been saying. You need a complete team to win a superbowl, OR a lot of luck.

fontaine
01-19-2009, 05:23 AM
The funniest thing about this 9 page thread is that it was created on the basis of something that was never really said around here.

No one worth reading said the QB position is the sole reason for playoffs/super bowls. We're really arguing over nothing here.

It's going to be a really long, long offseason.

gunns
01-19-2009, 05:30 AM
I think it was created to show that defense is vital to winning a championship and you just need a good QB to manage the offense. While Arizona's O is high flying, their defense has stepped up in two categories in the postseason....INT's and sacks. They are 1 and 2 in the post season respectively in those categories in the post season. We should know how vital these two categories are because we sucked in both this year and got no where even with a damn good offense.

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 05:37 AM
I think it was created to show that defense is vital to winning a championship and you just need a good QB to manage the offense. While Arizona's O is high flying, their defense has stepped up in two categories in the postseason....INT's and sacks. They are 1 and 2 in the post season respectively in those categories in the post season. We should know how vital these two categories are because we sucked in both this year and got no where even with a damn good offense.

"Stepping up" may apply to sacks where they were in the top half all season, but they've been a take the ball away team all year! They were 2nd in the NFC in takeaways with 30 this season... this isn't just magically happening, it's been happening all year long!

fontaine
01-19-2009, 05:39 AM
I think it was created to show that defense is vital to winning a championship and you just need a good QB to manage the offense. While Arizona's O is high flying, their defense has stepped up in two categories in the postseason....INT's and sacks. They are 1 and 2 in the post season respectively in those categories in the post season. We should know how vital these two categories are because we sucked in both this year and got no where even with a damn good offense.

Yes, but who actually is disagreeing that you don't need a real defense to win a championship?

Who are these phantom posters who are being referred to?

Given, the mouth-breathers out there who only see fancy quarterback stats

The discussion was that for so many years around here, the QB has been pointed to as the sole key to SB success.

I'd like to know if I'm one of these mouth breathers!!

:~ohyah!:

CEH
01-19-2009, 06:18 AM
Mother Nature plays defense thats why you see alot of defensive battles especially in the east.

There are only a few great Ds where if they get a 10 pt lead it's a boat race.
Most teams have an average to above average defense but most teams won't go anywhere without a QB who can make plays when they are needed

Tom Coulgin should know this as he watched Eli escaped a certain sack (and possibly the game) and heave the ball 50 yards to Tyree.

Big Ben last night being the difference between two great Ds according to Simms. Same with Warner and McNabb. No matter if Philly or Ari won the QB was the difference maker.


You can have a great D and never get to the SB like Balt since '00 looking all while for a QB or you can be like Denver/NO high scoring and no D.

No way I believe the FO here is expecting a D that gives up 28 ppg to succeed nor do I want a "role manager" for a QB.

I want balance with one side top 10 and the other top 15-18

All you have to do is look at both our SBs to see a role manager in one and a difference maker in the other. This is the way I expect Cutler and the offense to go once we solidify the defense. The Tampa game this year is a great illustration. Game manager in a defensive battle

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 06:22 AM
Mother Nature plays defense thats why you see alot of defensive battles especially in the east.

There are only a few great Ds where if they get a 10 pt lead it's a boat race.
Most teams have an average to above average defense but most teams won't go anywhere without a QB who can make plays when they are needed

Tom Coulgin should know this as he watched Eli escaped a certain sack (and possibly the game) and heave the ball 50 yards to Tyree.

Big Ben last night being the difference between two great Ds according to Simms. Same with Warner and McNabb. No matter if Philly or Ari won the QB was the difference maker.


You can have a great D and never get to the SB like Balt since '00 looking all while for a QB or you can be like Denver/NO high scoring and no D.

No way I believe the FO here is expecting a D that gives up 28 ppg to succeed nor do I want a "role manager" for a QB.

I want balance with one side top 10 and the other top 15-18

All you have to do is look at both our SBs to see a role manager in one and a difference maker in the other. This is the way I expect Cutler and the offense to go once we solidify the defense. The Tampa game this year is a great illustration. Game manager in a defensive battle

Great post. Donovan missed at least a half a dozen open receivers last night in the first half alone. THAT is what cost them the game. Happily.

frerottenextelway
01-19-2009, 07:40 AM
Looks like 6 of 12 to me, too. Those are NFL.com's numbers, not mine... so you'll have to take that up with them.

That said, let's look at the teams you quoted...

96 Packers - Defensive Rank - 1st (Better than their offensive ranking)

97 Broncos - Defensive Rank -5th

98 Broncos - Defensive Rank - 11th

04 Partiots - Defensive Rank - 9th

06 Colts - Defensive Ranka - 21st (Ranked 1st in post-season defense)

So, again... even your exceptions that you're choosing to base the thesis of your argument upon still carried top flight defenses with them.

6 out of 12 are "exceptions" to the rule. Pretty ****ty rule to have that many exceptions.

A thing about great offenses (and 5 of those 6 were great) is they'll statistically improve their defenses a lot. The opposing team has fewer possessions than normal and is forced to gamble to keep up pace. The same thing happens vice versa.

Popps
01-19-2009, 10:54 AM
6 out of 12 are "exceptions" to the rule. Pretty ****ty rule to have that many exceptions.

A thing about great offenses (and 5 of those 6 were great) is they'll statistically improve their defenses a lot..

Agree, and of course... you know that works both ways, right? Turnovers? How many times do you think Baltimore's D put their offense in position to score easy points this year? Even Arizona's offense has feasted on opportunity created by their defense.

Again, you seem like a smart guy... and such, you understand that I'm not saying having a high-powered offense is bad. Clearly, it's not. It's great.

HOWEVER, the point being made here is that you don't need to get into Playstation-style shootouts to win every game. The modest average of QB numbers throughout the playoffs has indicated this, yet agin.
You don't HAVE to play grind-it-out, 14-10 games... BUT, you have to be able to WIN those games, and stay IN those games to win in the playoffs.

In the past, we could not. Why? In my opinion, because our staff has hasn't committed to the defensive front seven properly. More recently, we've decided that we must have a big numbers QB, and have spent even LESS resources on the key positions. (Those same positions that have kept Pittsburgh at or near championship level for so long.)


Again, we can post stats back and forth, but the body of that statistical evidence points to teams needing top flight defenses to win in the playoffs more often than fop flight offenses. Hence, we need to start building this team in the right place.

****, we already have a great offensive core. But, we need to make Jay's job easier. Rothlisberger is up for his 2nd Superbowl win because his team's front office knows it's less important for him to end up a top 5 passer than it is to build a proper playoff-style football team.

Kaylore
01-19-2009, 10:56 AM
As is the case every year, QBs who play roles move deeper in the playoffs than those who have to carry teams... and even those who can carry teams turn into role-players, or go home.


:spit: Is this a serious post?

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 11:01 AM
:spit: Is this a serious post?

No. He's dead serious and completely correct.

That's why Eli Manning was sacked and lost the SB.

And why Peyton never managed to make the greatest comeback in CG history to go to the SB.

And why Tom Brady has zero rings.

Wake up, Khan. The only QB with a SB ring is Trent Dilfer.

2KBack
01-19-2009, 11:09 AM
Great team > Great QB

I don't see how there is an argument here. If you are dependent on one single player to be Champions, then you've already lost. As Denver Bronco fans we should know this better than most.

Popps
01-19-2009, 11:10 AM
Mother Nature plays defense thats why you see alot of defensive battles especially in the east.

Agree, good point.. and at some point, almost all roads to the SB go through a cold, crappy-weather city. Yet another reason to build your team to be able to run the ball and play defense.

most teams won't go anywhere without a QB who can make plays when they are needed

Tom Coulgin should know this as he watched Eli escaped a certain sack (and possibly the game) and heave the ball 50 yards to Tyree.

Good example, and yet... if you look at the style of games of games New York routinely plays, Manning isn't asked to carry the team on his back with 350 yard passing games every week. He's a part of an effective, total system. He's part talented QB, part manager.



No way I believe the FO here is expecting a D that gives up 28 ppg to succeed nor do I want a "role manager" for a QB

Well, we've already got a talented QB, so that's not really the point. The point is what kind of team to build around that talented QB.

Though, I agree... Tom Brady was underrated for years because he simply took care of business, and it appears Ben R. has been underestimated in the same way.


I want balance with one side top 10 and the other top 15-18

All you have to do is look at both our SBs to see a role manager in one and a difference maker in the other. This is the way I expect Cutler and the offense to go once we solidify the defense. The Tampa game this year is a great illustration. Game manager in a defensive battle

The Atlanta and New York games were also great examples.

Set your QB up to succeed. We pounded the rock down team's throat in those games, and Jay still made highlight reel throws in those games. We just didn't have to ride him for the entire game.


I agree, it's balance... but history shows us that it's balance that MUST be accompanied by top flight defensive play.

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 11:12 AM
Great team > Great QB

I don't see how there is an argument here. If you are dependent on one single player to be Champions, then you've already lost. As Denver Bronco fans we should know this better than most.

You don't see how there's an argument there, because no one is arguing that.

Kaylore
01-19-2009, 11:15 AM
No. He's dead serious and completely correct.

That's why Eli Manning was sacked and lost the SB.

And why Peyton never managed to make the greatest comeback in CG history to go to the SB.

And why Tom Brady has zero rings.

Wake up, Khan. The only QB with a SB ring is Trent Dilfer.

And apparently playing against number 1, 2 and 3 defenses is going to have no effect on offensive output by a QB and not related in any way at all to his production! No, these quarterbacks and offensive coordinators are producing less by choice! Yes, the other team and it's desire to stop these QB's is purely arbitrary. If no defense was on the field they would still be "role-players". These coordinators are savvy and know that to throw for a lot of yards and touchdowns is foolish! Why score 30 points? They want to score 10 because it's prudent! ::)

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 11:20 AM
And apparently playing against number 1, 2 and 3 defenses is going to have no effect on offensive output by a QB and not related in any way at all to his production! No, these quarterbacks and offensive coordinators are producing less by choice! Yes, the other team and it's desire to stop these QB's is purely arbitrary. If no defense was on the field they would still be "role-players". These coordinators are savvy and know that to throw for a lot of yards and touchdowns is foolish! Why score 30 points? They want to score 10 because it's prudent! ::)

Defense and role players win championships! That's why the Cardinals are in the Superbowl and hung 32 points on the #3 defense in the league.

But as Popps educates us: "Even teams like Arizona, who had great offensive stats this year have redefined themselves for the playoffs where defense, running the ball and clock control win games"

Fun fact!
Larry Fitzgerald had 100+ yards receiving well before halftime in each of the last two games!

Popps
01-19-2009, 11:20 AM
No. He's dead serious and completely correct.

That's why Eli Manning was sacked and lost the SB.

And why Peyton never managed to make the greatest comeback in CG history to go to the SB.

And why Tom Brady has zero rings.

Wake up, Khan. The only QB with a SB ring is Trent Dilfer.

Again, that's the height of ignorance if you think that's anyone's point, here.



Brady and Eli are great examples of QBs that made their name taking care of the ball.. and being on highly balanced teams with great defenses. Certainly both can and have put up big #'s when they need to.

You may recall most people considering Eli and Brady average QBs at one point. In fact, your puppet-master called Brady average for years around here before conceding. In fact, popular opinion on Brady early on was that he was just a product of a great NE team.


If Kaylore and yourself someone misinterpret all this for "quarterbacks can't make great plays"... I'm not sure how to help you.

It's an easy conversation to follow if you actually try, and don't apply idiotic statements about Trent Dilfer when they don't apply.

2KBack
01-19-2009, 11:24 AM
You don't see how there's an argument there, because no one is arguing that.

well I've missed a few pages since the thread started, so I'm not positive what it's devolved into. If i'm not mistaken, this thread was started to show that teams need to rely more on defense and a blanced offense in the playoffs instead of trying to ride the back of a "franchise QB."

These playoffs are a very good example of such a theory. The comment that QB's should be more role players is probably accurate. The ideal situation for any team should be having the QB put in the simplest and safest scenario imaginable. Ball protection is always vital, and that importance goes double in the playoffs. It's in the best interest of the team, considering the defenses that tend to play in the postseason, to minimize risk and play smarter. Having a great QB allows for success when the plan/plays break down. There will be times when they might need such a playmaker at the position. Still the most sound and consistant approach is too keep the ball out of the air too much, control the ball, and play good defense.

It is in that way that all QB's should be role players first...playmakers second.

Popps
01-19-2009, 11:25 AM
These coordinators are savvy and know that to throw for a lot of yards and touchdowns is foolish! Why score 30 points? They want to score 10 because it's prudent! ::)

Wow, K. I expect that kind of stupidity from Raider Rev.

Pretty surprised to see you resort to that nonsense, though.

You're actually capable of having a real conversation/debate.... usually.

Northman
01-19-2009, 11:25 AM
Wow.

Guess it must be tough to be a Bronco fan these days. lol

Popps
01-19-2009, 11:33 AM
well I've missed a few pages since the thread started, so I'm not positive what it's devolved into. If i'm not mistaken, this thread was started to show that teams need to rely more on defense and a blanced offense in the playoffs instead of trying to ride the back of a "franchise QB."

These playoffs are a very good example of such a theory. The comment that QB's should be more role players is probably accurate. The ideal situation for any team should be having the QB put in the simplest and safest scenario imaginable. Ball protection is always vital, and that importance goes double in the playoffs. It's in the best interest of the team, considering the defenses that tend to play in the postseason, to minimize risk and play smarter. Having a great QB allows for success when the plan/plays break down. There will be times when they might need such a playmaker at the position. Still the most sound and consistant approach is too keep the ball out of the air too much, control the ball, and play good defense.

It is in that way that all QB's should be role players first...playmakers second.

You're not mistaken.

You simply paid attention, made a good observation and didn't feel it necessary to skew the topic to create nonsense.

Nice post.

frerottenextelway
01-19-2009, 11:56 AM
Agree, and of course... you know that works both ways, right?


I quite sure I said as much in my post.

Kaylore
01-19-2009, 12:01 PM
Wow, K. I expect that kind of stupidity from Raider Rev.

Pretty surprised to see you resort to that nonsense, though.

You're actually capable of having a real conversation/debate.... usually.

LOL The irony of this post. So you go to name calling saying I'm not capable of having an argument?

Awesome.

Let's review. Your arguments to this point have said the following and are hilariously ignoring common sense.


That to win the Super Bowl you do not need a good QB. Indeed you go so far as to suggest that anything more than a role player could be detrimental to your chances.
You argue that good offenses have "reinvented" themselves into offenses with lower production. Of course the rest of American knows that when you play playoff calibre defenses your offense won't be as prolific, however you seem to think this was a tactical move. What was it you said "adapt or go home" I believe.
Your sample size is ridiculously tiny. "The last two Super Bowls" even though the game is yet to be played and even though one of the teams going hung their hat on their offense.


Honestly it just seems like you're trying to win the Argument you always have with Taco that you don't need a great QB to win a Super Bowl and that's why you created this thread. I would argue two great QB's are going to the Super Bowl. One is a league MVP and former Super Bowl winner. The other already has a ring. One of the teams hung their hat on their offense and beat out the "defensive heavy" teams.

How did role-player Delhomme look in his home playoff game? Six turnovers all by himself. Jake Plummer in AFCG comes to mind. The Giants needed Eli to make more plays and he didn't - big defensive line and all. How about them Titans? Their juggernaut defense didn't even win a playoff game because their offense couldn't move the ball in the clutch.

If you want to argue that defenses are important to championship caliber teams then you'll get no argument from anyone here. However when you start arguing backwards logic like "the QB's that win are role-players" you're being completely ridiculous. And this idea that the good offenses "throttled it down" is just hilarious. Top-tier defenses throttle you down.

Popps
01-19-2009, 12:08 PM
LOL The irony of this post. So you go to name calling saying I'm not capable of having an argument?

Awesome.
.

Nah, man. You just rattled out horse-**** about how it was "bad to score points."

C'mon, dude. You're better than that. Usually.

Popps
01-19-2009, 12:12 PM
"the QB's that win are role-players" you're being completely ridiculous. .

Again, the important factor is to qualify "role player."

Being a smart guy, I know you can differentiate between John Elway the franchise carrier... and John Elway the role player.

Guess which one won a championship?

Was John Elway the role player adverse to making big, spectacular plays? Of course not. He made many great plays and had some big statistical games.

However, he played a role in a high-functioning offense, based on the RUN... not on his passing.

Odd, isn't it... that in order to get Elway to the promise land, we'd need to build a team on the running game and stock it with a talented, play-making defense.

Or, maybe it's not that odd. Maybe that's how championship teams are built.

Kaylore
01-19-2009, 12:20 PM
It is in that way that all QB's should be role players first...playmakers second.

I disagree. It would be nice if you had a defense that never allowed any points and running game so strong that your QB only had to hand off the ball and he'd win. But what about a QB that can score any time, any moment? What about a QB that demoralizes a defense because he's unstoppable on third down? Peyton Manning in the AFCG showed what a good QB can do. Tom Brady took his team down the field against the Rams in waning moments to set up the game winning field goal. Plays like this aren't possible with a role-player at QB. You need a playmaker at QB.

Can you get to the Super Bowl without a franchise QB? Yes.

2009: Kurt Warner, Ben Roethlisberger
2008: Eli Manning*, Tom Brady
2007: Peyton Manning*, Rex Grossman
2006: Matt Hasselbeck, Ben Roethlisberger*
2005: Tom Brady*, Donovan McNabb
2004: Tom Brady*, Jake Delhomme
2003: Brad Johnson*, Rich Gannon
2002: Tom Brady*, Kurt Warner
2001: Trent Dilfer*, Kerry Collins
2000: Kurt Warner*, Steve McNair

I have bolded the elite QB's. And really I'm being unfair to Delhomme because he had a good year in '04. But the point is of the ten super bowls in the last decade, they all had at least one franchise QB playing in it except one (2001), so this idea that you only need a role player is technically true, but your odds of going with a great QB are much higher than without one (25%) and you need an amazing defense and special teams.

Inkana7
01-19-2009, 12:24 PM
Roethlisberger and Hasselbeck in 2005, Tom Brady in at least 2001 and Steve McNair in 2000 all had great defenses and with the exception of Brady, great running games. Hasselbeck had the NFL's scoring leader and MVP to hand off to, for crissake.

Kaylore
01-19-2009, 12:24 PM
Again, the important factor is to qualify "role player."

Being a smart guy, I know you can differentiate between John Elway the franchise carrier... and John Elway the role player.

Guess which one won a championship?

Was John Elway the role player adverse to making big, spectacular plays? Of course not. He made many great plays and had some big statistical games.

However, he played a role in a high-functioning offense, based on the RUN... not on his passing.

Odd, isn't it... that in order to get Elway to the promise land, we'd need to build a team on the running game and stock it with a talented, play-making defense.

Or, maybe it's not that odd. Maybe that's how championship teams are built.
His threat of the pass was why TD had the game he did. Popps you need to look at the whole picture. They were so scared of Sharpe that they kept their safeties back and we ran on them all day. The following year the Falcons keyed on shutting down TD and making Elway beat them and Elway tore them to shreds.

Really that team is an anomaly though because our defense was just below average and our offense and special teams were the team, so those two seasons were the exception, not the rule.

2KBack
01-19-2009, 12:29 PM
Of course it is better to have a a great QB versus a not so great QB. Just like it's better to have a great defense over a not so great defense. I think the difference lays in which one makes the biggest difference when measuring success. Defense accounted just as much in those championships as a QB (with the possible exception of Indy and AZ, though both of those defenses are/were playing lights out in the post season). So if you look at it, all the SB bowl winners had good defenses, and a lot of them had great QBs. That would indicate to me that Defense is the foundation of a championship team. A QB is great to have... and likely helps your odds, but if you had to choose where to focus first, I would choose defense.

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 12:32 PM
Careful Khan, Popps the genius is about to come up with a brilliant nickname for you too, like ChiefsKhan.

He obviously belongs to Mensa.

TheReverend
01-19-2009, 12:33 PM
Of course it is better to have a a great QB versus a not so great QB. Just like it's better to have a great defense over a not so great defense. I think the difference lays in which one makes the biggest difference when measuring success. Defense accounted just as much in those championships as a QB (with the possible exception of Indy and AZ, though both of those defenses are/were playing lights out in the post season). So if you look at it, all the SB bowl winners had good defenses, and a lot of them had great QBs. That would indicate to me that Defense is the foundation of a championship team. A QB is great to have... and likely helps your odds, but if you had to choose where to focus first, I would choose defense.

2K... all of that goes without saying. Of course an entire phase of the game is more important than any single player, otherwise Marino would've been a dynasty all by himself. BUT it is the most important position on the field, withOUT question.

But you've missed what Popps has devolved his absurd point into and missed a ton of priceless gems too.

My personal favorite was that 80% of superbowls aren't won by great QBs... meanwhile, the list is dominated by Hall of Famers...

The guy is priceless man!

2KBack
01-19-2009, 12:46 PM
2K... all of that goes without saying. Of course an entire phase of the game is more important than any single player, otherwise Marino would've been a dynasty all by himself. BUT it is the most important position on the field, withOUT question.

But you've missed what Popps has devolved his absurd point into and missed a ton of priceless gems too.

My personal favorite was that 80% of superbowls aren't won by great QBs... meanwhile, the list is dominated by Hall of Famers...

The guy is priceless man!

I don't know. Are you sure you are interpeting the message right? Could it be that 80% of superbowls aren't won on the shoulders of the QB? That doesn't mean the team didn't have a great QB, but rather had the right balance between running, passing, and playing defense. Take the Patiots for example, they have a great QB, but their championships were built on smart play and defense. Brady was relied on at the end of the games, but he didn't carry the team. I'd say it's more of a case of how much credit you give to the QB. I personally think they get too much blame, and too much credit.

Kaylore
01-19-2009, 12:48 PM
Careful Khan, Popps the genius is about to come up with a brilliant nickname for you too, like ChiefsKhan.

He obviously belongs to Mensa.

Actually there is someone on here who does belong to Mensa. I think it was Broncobuff, but it might be someone else.

Northman
01-19-2009, 12:55 PM
Yes, but who actually is disagreeing that you don't need a real defense to win a championship?

Who are these phantom posters who are being referred to?





I'd like to know if I'm one of these mouth breathers!!

:~ohyah!:

End thread.

Popps
01-19-2009, 12:56 PM
Careful Khan, Popps the genius is about to come up with a brilliant nickname for you too, like ChiefsKhan.

He obviously belongs to Mensa.

Nah, Kaylore is good peeps.

Hey, I wonder if spelling playoffs (not play offs) correctly is mandatory for Mensa membership?

Popps
01-19-2009, 12:59 PM
I don't know. Are you sure you are interpeting the message right? Could it be that 80% of superbowls aren't won on the shoulders of the QB? That doesn't mean the team didn't have a great QB, but rather had the right balance between running, passing, and playing defense. Take the Patiots for example, they have a great QB, but their championships were built on smart play and defense. Brady was relied on at the end of the games, but he didn't carry the team. I'd say it's more of a case of how much credit you give to the QB. I personally think they get too much blame, and too much credit.

Precisely.

Great analysis, top to bottom.

Again, people have short memories. Tom Brady was ripped up and down on this board as an "average" QB. I told people he was more than average.
However, the REASON he was considered average was that he was part of a high functioning unit and had a great defense.

People want it to be all about the QB. I guess it's sexier that way... or easier to understand. But, it's simply not. Great QB play is a must to win a championship, but as you pointed out... that's not the debate, here.

Northman
01-19-2009, 01:04 PM
Careful Khan, Popps the genius is about to come up with a brilliant nickname for you too, like ChiefsKhan.

He obviously belongs to Mensa.


:rofl:

Priceless

Killericon
01-19-2009, 01:07 PM
Precisely.

Great analysis, top to bottom.

Again, people have short memories. Tom Brady was ripped up and down on this board as an "average" QB. I told people he was more than average.
However, the REASON he was considered average was that he was part of a high functioning unit and had a great defense.

People want it to be all about the QB. I guess it's sexier that way... or easier to understand. But, it's simply not. Great QB play is a must to win a championship, but as you pointed out... that's not the debate, here.

Or maybe there are no absolute certainties when it comes to how to win a Superbowl. Maybe you can do it with Trent Dilfer, or maybe you can do it with the Rams' 2000 defense. Maybe you don't need a certain set of strengths, you just need to be good enough to beat a certain set of 4/3 teams.

Northman
01-19-2009, 01:07 PM
Defense and role players win championships! That's why the Cardinals are in the Superbowl and hung 32 points on the #3 defense in the league.

But as Popps educates us: "Even teams like Arizona, who had great offensive stats this year have redefined themselves for the playoffs where defense, running the ball and clock control win games"

Fun fact!
Larry Fitzgerald had 100+ yards receiving well before halftime in each of the last two games!


Guess 8-8 must be the standard then. If thats the case we are close to a championship. Hilarious!

Killericon
01-19-2009, 01:08 PM
Guess 8-8 must be the standard then. If thats the case we are close to a championship. Hilarious!

A 9-7 team is in the Superbowl.

Northman
01-19-2009, 01:09 PM
A 9-7 team is in the Superbowl.

Exactly my point.