ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Greg Easterbrook had a pretty thought provoking piece in which he wrote why believed yards are better than points in regards to Offense. I don't completely buy it but the argument is pretty interesting.
Quote:
Why Are Yards Better Than Points? New England finished the regular season as the NFL's third-highest scoring team ever, yet the Patriots are out. Misery loves company: all seven of the NFL's seven highest-scoring teams failed to win the Super Bowl that season. Here they are, from first to seventh in points scored:
2007 Patriots -- lost Super Bowl
2011 Packers -- lost divisional, at home.
2012 Patriots -- lost conference title game, at home.
1998 Vikings -- lost conference title game, at home.
2011 Saints -- lost divisional, on road.
1983 Redskins -- lost Super Bowl.
2000 Rams -- lost wildcard, on road.
The highest scoring team ever, the 2007 Patriots, averaged 38 points during the regular season, then wheezed out with 14 points in a Super Bowl defeat. This year's Patriots averaged 35 points during the regular season, then put up just 13 points at home in a playoff loss. The 1983 Redskins averaged 34 points during the regular season, then scored just nine points in their Super Bowl defeat. Only the 2011 Saints came close to their season average, scoring 32 points in their divisional-round loss.
Yet, teams that finish No. 1 in offense as measured by yards do well in the Super Bowl. Eight No. 1 offensive teams have won the ultimate contest, most recently the 2009 New Orleans Saints. Here are the eight first-overall offenses that won the Super Bowl:
2009 -- New Orleans
1999 -- St. Louis
1997 -- Denver
1989 -- San Francisco
1979 -- Pittsburgh
1977 -- Dallas
1972 -- Miami
1971 -- Dallas
Why?
Quote:
Your columnist is going to go all squishy and propose that the reason the record-scoring-total NFL teams failed to win the Super Bowl is psychological. They became spoiled, expecting to score quickly, expecting to see defeat in the eyes of opponents by the third quarter. During the regular season, when opponents were playing at 90 percent intensity, games seemed easy. But during the playoffs, intensity cranks to maximum, and the accustomed easy scoring stopped. Cornerbacks who backed off during the regular season were up on the line jamming receivers. Defensive ends were going all-out trying to knock the quarterback on his keister and make him hear footsteps.
It's not an entirely new argument, and sort of meshes with the 'finesse' accusations. He brings up the K-Gun Bills:
Quote:
The 2007 Patriots are hardly the only highest-scoring team whose offense, spoiled by quick-and-easy, seized up at the last. The no-huddle Bills of 1990 scored at least 40 points four times, then scored 19 points in losing the Super Bowl. The 1983 Redskins scored at least 40 points four times, then scored only nine points in the Super Bowl. The 2011 Packers scored at least 40 points six times, then scored 20 points in their playoff loss at home. In college, the 2010 Oregon Ducks scored at least 50 points six times, then scored 19 points in losing the BCS title game.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The Patriots have been overachievers the past two years. It doesn't have the talent to compensate for injuries, and it wins so much because it puts in 99% effort in the regular season and plays with terrific schemes to mask its deficiencies.
But in the playoffs a good team at 99% will not beat emotional, talented teams that play at 100%. It's what happened against the Giants in 2011 and the Ravens in 2012.
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The 2007 Patriots were not just #1 in points scored. They were #1 in yards, as well.
The 2000 Rams were #1 in yards, and #1 in points
The 1998 Vikings were #1 in yards as well as points
The 1983 Redskins were #1 in points, but they were also #3 in yards, so they weren't slouches. The Raiders, who won that year, were #3 in points and #7 in yards
The 2011 Saints were "only" #2 in points, but they were #1 in yards while...
The 2011 Packers were #1 in points and #3 in yards
The 2012 Patriots were #1 in both points and yards
Having two teams on his list from 2011 should have tipped Easterbrook off to the problem with his argument.
__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius
1 ~ He immediately lost all Credibility from the outset, as he compared "Most Points Ever"not to "Most Yards Ever" but instead blatantly avoided the obvious comparison, going instead with "Yearly Yards Leaders."
And had he gone with "Most Yards Ever", he would've been forced to admit that the Top 18 All Time Highest Yards Leaders have all failed to win the Super Bowl.
So much for Yards being "better" than Points.
2 ~ The worst part, though, was his attempt to explain his hideous distortions with the brilliant "argument" that Defenses simply didn't try as hard during the regular season!! Brilliant!!
every one of dose teams had a below average defense that there #1 offense was hideing all year...and the teams that did win with the #1 offense all had good defenses the 99 rams and 09 saints were not great but it was there defense that won the game for them not there offense, at the end of the day it take a good team makeing plays at the right time and a lot of luck to win a SB pats have just not had all 3 the last few years
Somewhere there is a good explanation for why the Pats seem to play less inspired football at crunch time in big playoff games. Perhaps it is an overly subjective view, but every season since 06 the team has lost to a team that seemed to want it more. That's just what it looks like from outside looking in.
To me, I will always (and have always) judged a team's strength of offense, defense, and therefore overall success by the amount of points they score and allow. Nothing else matters (as much) because points are what wins games, not yards.
Somewhere there is a good explanation for why the Pats seem to play less inspired football at crunch time in big playoff games. Perhaps it is an overly subjective view, but every season since 06 the team has lost to a team that seemed to want it more. That's just what it looks like from outside looking in.
There are fewer rules during the big game, so defenses can get away with much more holding/bumping/... Though why the offensive lines aren't implementing the same plan makes me wonder why they don't hold more.
That's obviously not all of it, but it's part of it.
37Likes
Why Yards are Better than Points
Linear Mode
