D vs O debate: another stellar edition of NFL Live...

[Lloyd_Christmas]

This is an indictment of Brian Billick's ability to assess quarterback talent, not a refutation of the original argument.

I partly agree with you as I would have kept Dilfer and let him start the following year. He didn't make costly mistakes... when something isn't broken, don't fix it. With that defense, he was "good enough". Billick F'd it all up by making the switch.

However, Dilfer hasn't done much since leaving the Ravens, so I hold to my original point that the Ravens offense sucked... including Dilfer.

 

[PlattsFan]

One interesting thing is that of the real dynasties of the Super Bowl era, only the 70s Steelers were really distinguished by their D. The Packers had the power sweep running game, the 49ers had the West Coast offense, the Cowboys had one of the most talented offenses ever when you include O-line, and the Patriots offense has been underrated against their defense since '01.

To me, it's far easier for an offense to dictate the tempo of the game than a defense. They have the ball, after all, and choose what happens on every play. The vast majority of great defenses are married to a power running game that can chew up the clock (like the Steelers with Franco Harris). Playing defense is exhausting; it's impossible to keep up the pressure if your offense is runnin' and gunnin'. As was implied above, when an up-tempo passing team has a good defense they tend to be fast, aggressive, ball-hawking defenses rather than shut-down stalwarts.

I agree with the original post; it's a tautology to say that either is more important. They have to complement each other in style and talent. If the Ravens in their SB year had a better QB but a lesser running game, they wouldn't have done what they did. Their offense was the right thing for their defense, something Brian Billick didn't seem to understand enough. And the Patriots in '01 were deliberately very conservative on offense to chew up clock as much as possible (Charlie Weis has spoken about choosing a running play when he really wanted to play-action because the game plan called for caution).

I think the whole "defense-first" thing gets trotted out because dynamic passing offenses look great but expose their defense too much, so even if the defense is OK, it looks like it sucks. And good ball-control offenses are boring but protect the defense, so it looks like the defense is carrying the team. Either way, it looks like the defense is the issue, when the offense is just as important.

It's how the team as a whole fits together that's the important part, not defense first.

Oh, and the Steelers won last year because Champ Bailey intercepted Tom Brady in the end zone ...

 

[14thDragon]

Another facet

Maybe it is just my POV. One of the reasons defense is given so much credit for championships is the fact that you can control defense better then offense. (And a whole lot more then special teams.) Defense is a very planned facet of the game, it is about forcing the other guy into doing what you want.

Offense has a certian amount of luck to it. Get hit just the wrong way and every so often the ball pops out, the defender gets his hands a smidge higher and knocks the pass off its route, the defender makes just the right timing jump and intercepts the ball.

By building your D, you effectively gain greater control of the game. However the point is well taken that your offense has to be able to show up, espcially in the running game. Where if you can get a few breaks, some short feilds you can get a lead then keep the other team off the field.

 

[Brownfan80]

Outstanding post, Taildragger.
I especially liked your analysis of SB36.
I remember watching the game and thinking toward the end of the game ..."man, these guys are tired". To me it was obvious and I'm sure it was for the Rams as well.
But the Ram recievers did a pretty good job making our DBs constantly on the hustle. Though they did take some hard hits from our secondary they came back pretty admirably.
I thought Antoine actually had a good game that day. I'll check.

Smith had a very good day considering the Rams D that year was pretty stout. He didn't put up huge numbers (i think it was around 96 yards), but his play made it so that we could control the clock somewhat and protect our lead. He also served to slow the game down, allowing our defense to stay fresh as long as they did. At the time I posted (not on this board, someplace else that I forget) that Antslow was my Super Secret MVP of that game. He really held that game together until the 4th quarter when the gameplan started to fold. Then Brady and Vinny stepped in and did their thing and the rest is history.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I think the whole "defense-first" thing gets trotted out because dynamic passing offenses look great but expose their defense too much, so even if the defense is OK, it looks like it sucks. And good ball-control offenses are boring but protect the defense, so it looks like the defense is carrying the team. Either way, it looks like the defense is the issue, when the offense is just as important.

The paragraph above sums it up nicely.

I think the wild card that some may be overlooking is turnovers.

Lets look at the two extremes:
Fantastic Offense w/ mediocre defense - The offense is prolific and racks up yards and points, but has a greater potential for giving up a turnover than a catious, ball-contol style offense. Meanwhile the defense is typically on the field longer because the offense scores so quickly. This is especially true if the offense is geared more for the pass than the run. Tired defenses are less likely get turnovers and more likely to give up a lot of points... something the Colts struggled with prior to last year and the Rams struggled with from 99-01.

Fantastic Defense / mediocre offense - A top notch defense not only does well preventing or limiting points, but often forces turnovers leading to defensive scores or great field position for the offense. In this scenario, the offense must have a half way decent running game (not great - see A.Smith) rather than emphasizing the pass (although a conservative short pass attack like we had in 01 can sometimes work similar to a running game). In this scenario, the offense still has to be good enough to methodically move the chains and not just go 3 and out all the time. However, geting TD after TD is not necessary. Chewing up time, gaining field position, and scoring an occassional FG is usually all that is needed. In this scenario, the offense is less likely to turn the ball over.

Of those two scenarios, I see #2 as being the one that is usually more effective at winning in the playoffs because turnovers are momentum killers, give the opposing offense a short field, or worse - lead to defensive scores.

 

[the taildragger]

The paragraph above sums it up nicely.

I think the wild card that some may be overlooking is turnovers.

Lets look at the two extremes:
Fantastic Offense w/ mediocre defense - The offense is prolific and racks up yards and points, but has a greater potential for giving up a turnover than a catious, ball-contol style offense. Meanwhile the defense is typically on the field longer because the offense scores so quickly. This is especially true if the offense is geared more for the pass than the run. Tired defenses are less likely get turnovers and more likely to give up a lot of points... something the Colts struggled with prior to last year and the Rams struggled with from 99-01.

Fantastic Defense / mediocre offense - A top notch defense not only does well preventing or limiting points, but often forces turnovers leading to defensive scores or great field position for the offense. In this scenario, the offense must have a half way decent running game (not great - see A.Smith) rather than emphasizing the pass (although a conservative short pass attack like we had in 01 can sometimes work similar to a running game). In this scenario, the offense still has to be good enough to methodically move the chains and not just go 3 and out all the time. However, geting TD after TD is not necessary. Chewing up time, gaining field position, and scoring an occassional FG is usually all that is needed. In this scenario, the offense is less likely to turn the ball over.

Of those two scenarios, I see #2 as being the one that is usually more effective at winning in the playoffs because turnovers are momentum killers, give the opposing offense a short field, or worse - lead to defensive scores.

don't disagree with any of that...I would just point out that offenses can create their own turnovers, i.e. that pass by Big Ben to Kelly Herndon in Detroit...in my book that goes down as an "error" on the O rather than a "turnover" by the D...but unfortunately the NFL doesn't differentiate.