Gosselin: Route to Super Bowl doesn't require star receiver

[Synovia]

This alludes to the fact that while you do need a deep threat (basically, just having a balanced offense and the capability of doing anything), the potent passing games overly reliant on the pass don't really have a strong history of WINNING Superbowls.

Um, yeah, sure.

Passing DVOA:

Pittsburgh 2008 : +12.9%
NYG 2007: -3%
Colts 2006: +56.9%
Pittsburgh 2005: +35.1%
Pats 2004: +48.7%
Pats 2003: +15.8%
Tampa 2002: +13.9%
Pats 2001: +12.2%
Ravens 2000: -16.1%
Rams 1999: +35.0%

I get exactly the opposite impression as you: You have to have a potent passing game to have a reasonable chance. The only two teams to win since the Greatest Show On Turf without a potent passing game are the NYG and the Ravens in 2000. The Ravens may have had the best defense since the 85 bears, and passed much better in the playoffs then they did during the regular season. As far as the giants, again, stifling defense, and a QB who played much better in the playoffs than the regular season.

 

[maverick4]

What is your definition of potent?

In the past 9 years, the only teams with a pro bowl receiver to win a Superbowl are Marvin Harrison (due to Pats and Bears choke jobs) and Troy Brown (added to the pro bowl roster as a replacement).

 

[Synovia]

In the past 9 years, the only teams with a pro bowl receiver to win a Superbowl are Marvin Harrison (due to Pats and Bears choke jobs) and Troy Brown (added to the pro bowl roster as a replacement).

Yeah, because Probowl receiver is a good way to judge a potent passing offense.

Making the probowl is 5% talent, 85% popularity, and 10% first half performance.

 

[maverick4]

Making the probowl is 5% talent, 85% popularity, and 10% first half performance.

Not for wide receiver, it's extremely competitive every year.

 

[Synovia]

Not for wide receiver, it's extremely competitive every year.

Again, its competitive, but it says nothing about being elite. Or even being particularly good. The probowl is ALWAYS a combination of popularity, your team's record through the first 8 games, and your stats from the previous year. Your average fan doesn't understand the game well enough to vote properly.


How many times do we have guys in the probowl who aren't even in the top half of their position? Its pretty often.

 

[maverick4]

How many times do we have guys in the probowl who aren't even in the top half of their position? Its pretty often.

You're right it does happen a ton, just not at the wide receiver position.

That position is always competitive and full of talented receivers with plenty of stats, and many don't make it every year because the ones who do make it had amazing seasons.

It's important to have the ability to throw deep and to have talent at wide receiver. I think the difference is that while those teams have talent at WR, they aren't forcing the ball to those guys over and over (boosting their stats). Those guys are good enough to make plays, any play, but they're part of a balanced offense so they're less likely to make a pro bowl.

 

[Synovia]

You're right it does happen a ton, just not at the wide receiver position.

2009 Pro Bowl receivers (AFC)

Andre Johnson, Houston
Brandon Marshall, Denver
Reggie Wayne, Indianapolis
Wes Welker, New England



You know what that is? The top 4 in receiving yards.


Andre Johnson deserved it, but theres almost no reason Wayne made it (other than previous years performance) and Welker gets in because hes a patriot. He was good, but Moss was better than both him and Wayne. Mason, Bowe, Jackson, were all better than Wayne and Welker.



You know why Anquan Boldin made the probowl? Because he plays next to Larry Fitzgerald, and Calvin Johnson plays for a ****ty team. Greg Jennings, Antonio Bryant, TO, Santana Moss, and a whole handful of others were better than Anquan last year.

 

[maverick4]

Your argument isn't really helping you.
What you need to argue is that the pro bowl voting is BS is because there are players who get in who are un-deserving, and thus that stat about pro bowl receivers and superbowl championships is invalid.
However, you just kind of showed how tough it is to get selected as a pro bowl receiver, and that there really weren't any un-deserving players who got it.

 

[Synovia]

However, you just kind of showed how tough it is to get selected as a pro bowl receiver, and that there really weren't any un-deserving players who got it.

Um,no. What I just showed is that the Pro Bowl receivers aren't necessarily the best guys. Thats the whole point.


Can you tell me the last team to win the superbowl without having a receiver get 1000yds?

 

[maverick4]

Can you tell me the last team to win the superbowl without having a receiver get 1000yds?

I'm not arguing that you don't need quality receivers, you definitely do.

You just listed the receivers who made the pro bowl. You even suggested they had the most production and made it in over others who were also deserving. So... it looks like the receivers who made it, with most production/yards, are on more pass-happy teams, and that the ones who made it aren't as un-deserving as what you would find in pro bowl voting for other positions.

It's easy to point to other positions where a guy simply didn't belong in the pro bowl. It's a lot harder when it comes to receiver.

 

[Synovia]

\
You just listed the receivers who made the pro bowl. You even suggested they had the most production

No, i did not suggest that at all.

and made it in over others who were also deserving.

If others were also deserving, then the pro bowl not doesn't serve to give any distinct separation in receiver quality, which is why using it as a qualifier is asinine.

So... it looks like the receivers who made it, with most production/yards, are on more pass-happy teams, and that the ones who made it aren't as un-deserving as what you would find in pro bowl voting for other positions.

Right, but plenty of players are just as deserving, which means that the probowl distinction is just as meaningless with regards to deciding who is "elite"

It's easy to point to other positions where a guy simply didn't belong in the pro bowl. It's a lot harder when it comes to receiver.

No, its not. The stats for receivers are very superficial. Two guys with 1000 yards receiving can have vastly different value. A couple of years ago Chris Chambers had over 1000 yards receiving and made the pro bowl. The problem? He was targeted almost 200 times. He caught the ball less than 50% of the time it was thrown to him. Football outsider's stats say, that year, he hurt his team more than any other player in football. He killed more drives than anyone else in the league, and he was a pro bowler.

 

[maverick4]

OK let's go about this another way. Arguing about the validity of pro bowl receiver selection isn't getting us anywhere.

Let's look at the recent Superbowl winners over the past 10 years:
Pitt
NYG
Indy
Pitt
NEP
NEP
Tampa
NEP
Baltimore
Rams
Denver
Denver

It's true that you can look at most of these rosters and point to an extremely talented receiver on that team. However, what you'd also find is that their receivers don't have ridiculous stats. They may have 1000+ yards, yes, but not so much that their offense disproportionately skews toward throwing to them.

What you'd find, is that those teams all had very potent running games, as well as physical defenses. They had the ability to throw the ball very effectively, but didn't disproportionately make that the main feature of their offense. Even for the most pass-happy offense on that list, Indy, I would argue that Peyton changed a lot in those playoffs, showing a ton of patience and ball-control mentality, that he normally didn't have. The other pass-happy team on that list, the Rams, barely won against an inferior but physical Titans team.

 

[Synovia]

It's true that you can look at most of these rosters and point to an extremely talented receiver on that team. However, what you'd also find is that their receivers don't have ridiculous stats. They may have 1000+ yards, yes, but not so much that their offense disproportionately skews toward throwing to them.

What you'd find, is that those teams all had very potent running games, as well as physical defenses. They had the ability to throw the ball very effectively, but didn't disproportionately make that the main feature of their offense.

And again, I would disagree. Almost all of those teams have the same Modus Operandi: Score points early, run out the clock. They all have "potent running games" because they jumped out to early leads, and ran lots in the 2nd half. They all had elite WRs. They all threw the ball well, and often in the first half. They're all very good passing teams.


The only two teams on that list that weren't pass first offenses were the Ravens and Giants.

 

[RDS11]

OK let's go about this another way. Arguing about the validity of pro bowl receiver selection isn't getting us anywhere.

Let's look at the recent Superbowl winners over the past 10 years:
Pitt
NYG
Indy
Pitt
NEP
NEP
Tampa
NEP
Baltimore
Rams
Denver
Denver

It's true that you can look at most of these rosters and point to an extremely talented receiver on that team. However, what you'd also find is that their receivers don't have ridiculous stats. They may have 1000+ yards, yes, but not so much that their offense disproportionately skews toward throwing to them.

What you'd find, is that those teams all had very potent running games, as well as physical defenses. They had the ability to throw the ball very effectively, but didn't disproportionately make that the main feature of their offense. Even for the most pass-happy offense on that list, Indy, I would argue that Peyton changed a lot in those playoffs, showing a ton of patience and ball-control mentality, that he normally didn't have. The other pass-happy team on that list, the Rams, barely won against an inferior but physical Titans team.

Again, for the 3 straight thread, passing the ball well is much more important than running the ball well. Same thing on defense : stopping the pass is much more important than stopping the run. 2 examples comes to mind : the Indy Colts, in 2005, had the worst rushing defense in the regular season, yet they won the Super Bowl. Also, Super Bowl 25 : Belichick said to his defense that they would win the game if they let Thomas rush for 100 yards (taken from 'Education of a Coach').

And what do you make of the 2001 Pats championship : Brown had 101 catches, good for 5th in the league, for more yards than the leading rusher. Isn't this one of those 'ridiculous stat' for a wide receiver and an example of 'an offense that disproportionately skews toward throwing to them' ?

The league is always changing, but the fact is most coaches have a hard time adapting. And eventually the game slip them by. It took a long time for the pass to become a key element of most game plans, because coaches were reluctant letting go the type of offense which had been successful in the past. It took a 73-0 beating in a Championship game for NFL coaches to understand that the T formation, a passing formation, was much more effective than the old single wing, which was run heavy.

With Ernie Adams and Bill Belichick running things, 2 football historian and stats freaks, I would believe that they are ahead of the curve and won't let the game past them by. And if they decide that the shotgun offense is the way to go, I put much more thrust in their judgment than yours or any other sports writer.

 

[maverick4]

passing the ball well is much more important than running the ball well. Same thing on defense : stopping the pass is much more important than stopping the run. 2 examples comes to mind : the Indy Colts, in 2005, had the worst rushing defense in the regular season, yet they won the Super Bowl. Also, Super Bowl 25 : Belichick said to his defense that they would win the game if they let Thomas rush for 100 yards (taken from 'Education of a Coach').

Stopping the pass and passing determine who wins the Superbowl? Based on what facts? Look at the list of Superbowl winners over the past 10 years - the vast majority of them were run-based offenses and physical defenses who could stop the run. I already pointed out the 2 exceptions you raised, when a pro bowl receiver actually won a Superbowl: the 06 Colts won because their defense got MUCH better going into the playoffs, and Peyton Manning matured as a QB (on top of Patriot and Bears choke jobs). The 2001 Rams lost to a far inferior Patriots opponent because they were stubbornly/predictably pass-happy and got stuffed by a physical Patriots team that figured them out.

 

[maverick4]

They all have "potent running games" because they jumped out to early leads, and ran lots in the 2nd half. They all threw the ball well, and often in the first half. They're all very good passing teams.

The only two teams on that list that weren't pass first offenses were the Ravens and Giants.

Let's look.

-None of the Patriots championship teams were pass-first or pass-happy teams who only ran to use the clock in the second half.
-Bill Cowher's Steelers were a run-heavy team.
-The NY Giants and Baltimore too.
-Both Denver championships were fueled by Terrell Davis.
-The Bucs were not a pass-first offense under Brad Johnson (beating the pass happy Raiders).

The only ones who have won a championship who qualify on what you said, are the 99 Rams and the 06 Colts. That is two out of 10 teams. The Colts won due to a historic Patriots meltdown and a Bears choke-job, and the Rams barely beat a far inferior Titans team.

That's hardly strong evidence for your claim that Superbowl teams score early by passing, then run to close the game. That is pretty much the recipe to describe many more Superbowl losers who made it to the championship and lost.

 

[RDS11]

Stopping the pass and passing determine who wins the Superbowl? Based on what facts? Look at the list of Superbowl winners over the past 10 years - the vast majority of them were run-based offenses and physical defenses who could stop the run. I already pointed out the 2 exceptions you raised, when a pro bowl receiver actually won a Superbowl: the 06 Colts won because their defense got MUCH better going into the playoffs, and Peyton Manning matured as a QB (on top of Patriot and Bears choke jobs). The 2001 Rams lost to a far inferior Patriots opponent because they were stubbornly/predictably pass-happy and got stuffed by a physical Patriots team that figured them out.

We agree on 1 point : that to win one team has to be efficient everywhere. That being said, historically teams that were great at passing the ball did much better than teams that were great at rushing the ball :

Great run defense does not equal championship :
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: Best run defenses of the Super Bowl Era
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: We stomp on another gridiron cliché

Great run offense does not equal championship :
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: Best rushing teams of the Super Bowl Era
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: The great ground attacks

Now, let's look at the team that have the most efficient passing attack :
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: Best passing teams of the Super Bowl Era

And great pass defenses :
Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: The Steel Curtain's secret

Now, you are bringing up the Steelers has having a great run defense. While it is true, they also have a great pass defense first and foremost : in 2008, they allowed only 4.3 yards per pass attempt (league avg = 6.2). They also got 5 interceptions more than league avg. The run defense was the best too (3.3 yards per run versus league avg of 4.2) but they did not get more turnovers from fumbles recovery than the league avg.

2006, the Colts where much better against the pass than the runs.
The 2004 Pats were just a bit better than league avg versus the run (3.9 vs 4.1) and the pass (5.9 versus 6.2).
The 2003 Pats were dominant against the pass (29 ints, 12 more than league avg, 0.9 yards per pass better than league avg) and very good against the run (0.6 yards per run better than league avg, good for 6th in the league).

Same goes for the 2002 Bucs : dominant against the pass (31 ints, 13 more than league avg, best yards per pass in the league, half a yard better than 2nd place !) and very good against the run (3rd in the league for yards per run).

2001 Pats were both below league avg against the run and the pass, but again they did a little bit better against the pass (+0.1 yards per pass more than avg, but 4 more interceptions than avg....vs the run they avg +0.2 vs league avg).

The 200 Ravens might be the only exception as they did a lot better against the run than the pass (they were good against the pass too, but not as dominant). But then again, it might be the exception that confirms the rule since they are the most dominant team against the run of the past 30 years.

The 1999 Rams were 4th in the league for yards per run, but 2nd for INTs (+11 versus league avg).

The 1997 Broncos were worst in the league for yards per run avg (so the 2006 Colts is NOT an exception).

Even looking at the past 10 years, some teams were able to win a Super Bolw while fielding the worst rush defense in the league. But all teams were at least good against the pass. There's no bottom 5 pass defense in all those teams.

I hope this will put the pass/rush argument to rest.

 

[RDS11]

Let's look.


-Bill Cowher's Steelers were a run-heavy team.

Well, the only time they won a Super Bowl with Cowher they were 28th in the league for rushing attempts, and 9th for passing attempts.

They were also not running well, averaging 3.4 yards per carry, last in the league.

Maybe if Cowher had pass the ball more often in all other AFC Championship games that he lost he would have a couple more rings.

 

[RDS11]

Well, the only time they won a Super Bowl with Cowher they were 28th in the league for rushing attempts, and 9th for passing attempts.

They were also not running well, averaging 3.4 yards per carry, last in the league.

Maybe if Cowher had pass the ball more often in all other AFC Championship games that he lost he would have a couple more rings.

I screwed up the Steelers stats above. That being said, In 2005 they were much more efficient (versus league avg) thrwoing the ball than running. And in 2008 they were lucky to have such great defense, because they were below average both passing and running the ball.

You mentioned that in 2002 the Bucs beat a pass-happy Raiders teams, but the Bucs were pass happy themselves. In fact, they were not very good at it (nor were they at running the football) but at least they limited the number of INTs to 10.

One trend I noticed when looking at those average is that ''running teams'' that won the Super Bowl had to be backup up by an outstanding defense (re: 2000 Ravens). For ''running teams'' it takes a top 5 defense to win the Super Bowl. Passing teams had a little more success without the help of a great defense. The 2006 Colts were 21st in the league on defense that year.

But again, you have better chance by being efficient in all aspects of the game.