Why Yards are Better than Points

[DocHoliday]

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.

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?

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:

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.

Check it out: TMQ -- What's really lurking in the psyche of these Harbaughs? - ESPN

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

 

[randomk1]

This makes no sense. You don't score a lot of points without being able to move the ball well.

 

[Joker]

your first mistake was reading anything written by Greg Bunnybrook...he's a proven liar and an agenda driven ratfaced hack.

 

[Off The Grid]

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!!

 

[patsfan-1982]

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

 

[BTTA]

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.

 

[MTM558]

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.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

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.

 

[Steve102]

I hear BB in my head, telling me "stats are for losers". Yards over points?

 

[RayClay]

Yet the teram that scores the most points in the Super Bowl has won 100% of the time. Hmmm

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

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!!

game, set, match
Off the Grid over Mr. Easterbrook
6-0, 6-0, 6-0

 

[Rob0729]

Once again, Easterbrook shows why he is a failed political analyst turned to sports writer and banished to ESPN Page 2 with all the other looneys and nutcases. He should stick analyzing teams' cheerleaders because he once again showed his lack of knowledge of football.

Here are the #1 in yards over the last 10 years:

2012 - Patriots - lost in the AFCCG
2011 - Saints - Lost in the NFCCG
2010 - San Diego - Did not make the playoffs
2009 - New Orleans - Won Super Bowl
2008 - New Orleans - Did not make the playoffs
2007 - Patriots - Lost Super Bowl
2006 - Saints - Lost in NFCCG
2005 - KC - Lost in Wild Card Round
2004 - KC - Did not make the playoffs
2003 - Vikes - Did not make the playoffs
2002 - Oakland - Lost in the Super Bowl

So from 2002-2012, the offensive yardage leaders have won one Super Bowl, 3 Conference Championships, and missed the playoffs four times. Based on this information, you are more likely to miss the playoffs than win the Super Bowl if you lead the league in offensive yards.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

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."

Ah, sophistry!

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!!

Yeah, because that works so well, especially against the Patriots.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This thread did a brilliant job of reminding me exactly how much Gregg Easterbrook sucks. I still can't understand why ESPN re-hired the guy.

The amount of cherrypicking and mental gymnastics that he performs to make data "fit" his conclusions/agendas would be impressive if it wasn't so fundamentally ******ed.

 

[jmt57]

Aside from all the fine rebuttals already pointed out above, the first thing that jumped out to me was the dates of the second (yards) list; half were from the 1970s, and only one was from the 2000s. That alone should have been a red flag to Easterbrook to investigate his hypothesis further rather than jumping to an incorrect conclusion. This is an example of what happens when one forms an opinion first and then looks for stats to back that opinion up, rather than analyzing stats and then forming an opinion.

 

[rjw]

"Yay we won!"
"Oh yeah? Well, we got more yards than you."

I'd rather have 30 points than 300 yards any day.

 

[BrickPat]

Yet the teram that scores the most points in the Super Bowl has won 100% of the time. Hmmm

I hate it when you see a messageboard meatball right over the plate and someone else hits it first. Damn you.

 

[Off The Grid]

game, set, match
Off the Grid over Mr. Easterbrook
6-0, 6-0, 6-0

666!!! DEEPLY honored, Brother Beach!! :rocker:

 

[terabthia2]

Gregg Easterbrook is Professional Patriots Hater. Anyone can see and rip apart (and have very well, I might add, in this thread) the Swiss cheese holes in this "argument". He conconcted this number salad just simply to create another anti-Patriots article. He must have felt it was time for another one. Or something. :bricks:

I mean, you can probably create an interesting discussion along the lines of "It's not necessarily HOW MUCH you score but WHEN you score that counts" but in doing that, the first thing you DON'T want to do is say something incredibly ridiculous like: "Why Yards are Better Than Points".