The Curse of the Highest Scoring Offense

[ivanvamp]

Very interesting. Sure, we all want the Pats to pile up the points, but is that really the way to win a Super Bowl title? Some interesting facts:

- The top 7 scoring teams of all-time all failed to win the Super Bowl. All made the playoffs, and 3 made the Super Bowl, but those 3 lost ('07 Pats, '83 Redskins, '67 Raiders).

- Of the top 15 scoring teams of all-time, just one ('99 Rams) won the Super Bowl. And that team needed a defensive stop in the last second to do it.

- Of the top 20 scoring teams of all-time, all 20 made the playoffs, 11 made the Super Bowl, and 4 won it all.

Having a pinball, Techmo-Bowl offense sure is fun and it's a sure-fire way to get into the playoffs (and it gives you a real good chance to make it to the Super Bowl), but it doesn't seem to be the best formula for winning it all.

Just found this to be interesting...

 

[Rob0729]

Past trends are pretty much useless though. The rules have changed over the last 5 years to tip the balance to the offense. I think as we go along, the saying "defense wins championships" is going to become less and less true.

 

[ivanvamp]

Past trends are pretty much useless though. The rules have changed over the last 5 years to tip the balance to the offense. I think as we go along, the saying "defense wins championships" is going to become less and less true.

Let's just look at 2001 to the present, the "Patriot" era. Here are the top scoring offenses and their season results:

2001: St. Louis - 14-2, lost in Super Bowl
2002: Kansas City - 8-8, missed playoffs
2003: Kansas City - 13-3, lost in Divisional round
2004: Indianapolis - 12-4, lost in Divisional round
2005: Seattle - 13-3, lost in Super Bowl
2006: San Diego - 14-2, lost in Divisional round
2007: New England - 16-0, lost in Super Bowl
2008: San Diego - 8-8, lost in Divisional round
2009: New Orleans - 13-3, won Super Bowl
2010: New England - 14-2, lost in Divisional round
2011: Green Bay - 15-1, lost in Divisional round

So only one out of the last 11 top-scoring offenses has won the Super Bowl, and only four of those teams even made the Super Bowl.

I don't think you can win in today's NFL with a lousy offense, but it doesn't appear that you can get away with simply having a dominant offense and very little else.

 

[borg]

High octane offense means high fantasy points.
SuperBowls are over rated.
Office bragging rights rule.
Red Zone Red Zone
President Gronk of Gronkzikistan....starring in...A Very Gronk Christmas

 

[Rob0729]

Let's just look at 2001 to the present, the "Patriot" era. Here are the top scoring offenses and their season results:

2001: St. Louis - 14-2, lost in Super Bowl
2002: Kansas City - 8-8, missed playoffs
2003: Kansas City - 13-3, lost in Divisional round
2004: Indianapolis - 12-4, lost in Divisional round
2005: Seattle - 13-3, lost in Super Bowl
2006: San Diego - 14-2, lost in Divisional round
2007: New England - 16-0, lost in Super Bowl
2008: San Diego - 8-8, lost in Divisional round
2009: New Orleans - 13-3, won Super Bowl
2010: New England - 14-2, lost in Divisional round
2011: Green Bay - 15-1, lost in Divisional round

So only one out of the last 11 top-scoring offenses has won the Super Bowl, and only four of those teams even made the Super Bowl.

I don't think you can win in today's NFL with a lousy offense, but it doesn't appear that you can get away with simply having a dominant offense and very little else.

And since the rules changed begun to help out the offense, one won the Super Bowl zand two others made it to the Super Bowl. Seems like it trend is starting to turn.

Why don't you do it with the top defense? I bet the defense who gave up the fewest points have not won many Super Bowls:

2001: Steelers - 13-3 - Lost in AFC Championship game
2002: Bucs - 12-4 - Won the Super Bowl
2003: New England - 14-2 - Won the Super Bowl
2004: Steelers - 15-1 - Lost in the AFC Championship Game
2005: Chicago, 11-5 - lost in Super Bowl
2006: Ravens - 13-3 - Lost in the divison round
2007: Colts - 13-3 - Lost in the Division round
2008: Steelers - 12-4 - Won Super Bowl
2009: Jets - 9-7 - Lost in the Championship game
2010: Steelers - 12-4 - lost in the Super Bowl
2011: Steelers - 12-4 - lost in the Wild Card Round

So there have been just as many top rated defenses in points allowed who have made the Super Bowl in the same time. They have a better record in the Super Bowl (3-1 vs.1-3), but only one top rated defense has won a Super Bowl since they started to change the rules to give the offense the advantage (which started after the 2003 and really upped the advantage in the last 5 years). This appears to be a shift in the balance of power between the offense and defenses in the Super Bowl.

 

[Deus Irae]

How many offenses ranked last have gone to the Super Bowl?

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Picking the team that finished in one particular ranking spot on offense, out of 32 possible slots, will pretty much always have a low correlation with championship success. If you win more often than once in 32 tries, them maybe that skill did help!

A more meaningful analysis would be championship odds and playoff odds when you have

-a top 10 offense (points scored)
-a top 10 defense (judged by POINTS allowed)
-both of these
-neither of these
-a bottom 10 offense (points scored)
-a bottom 10 defense (judged by POINTS allowed)

 

[Raymond]

How many offenses ranked last have gone to the Super Bowl?

 

[mayoclinic]

Very interesting. Sure, we all want the Pats to pile up the points, but is that really the way to win a Super Bowl title? Some interesting facts:

- The top 7 scoring teams of all-time all failed to win the Super Bowl. All made the playoffs, and 3 made the Super Bowl, but those 3 lost ('07 Pats, '83 Redskins, '67 Raiders).

- Of the top 15 scoring teams of all-time, just one ('99 Rams) won the Super Bowl. And that team needed a defensive stop in the last second to do it.

- Of the top 20 scoring teams of all-time, all 20 made the playoffs, 11 made the Super Bowl, and 4 won it all.

Having a pinball, Techmo-Bowl offense sure is fun and it's a sure-fire way to get into the playoffs (and it gives you a real good chance to make it to the Super Bowl), but it doesn't seem to be the best formula for winning it all.

Just found this to be interesting...

Just out of curiousity, the 2009 Saints weren't one of the top 15 scoring teams of all time? And didn't they lead the league in scoring in 2009?

As far as I can tell, in the last 15 years the following teams have made or won the SB who have averaged over 30 points per season:

2011: Patriots (32.1, 3rd; lost)
2009: Saints (31.9, 1st; won)
2007: Patriots (36.8, 1st; lost)
2001: Rams (31.4, 1st; lost)
1999: Rams (32.9, 1st; won)
1998: Broncos (31.3, 2nd; won)

I think it's interesting that the 3 teams that won all had decent run/pass balance despite being explosive offenses - the Broncos with Terrell Davis, the Rams with Marshall Faulks, and the Saints with a RBBC approach that average 6th best in the league in rushing.

I don't think having an explosive offense is a detriment to winning the Super Bowl. I think relying on an offense to carry you against the better teams in the league is difficult, especially if the offense is one-dimensional. Run-pass balance and defense are critical. As you note, the Rams won in 1999 on a last minute defensive stop. The Saints required an onside kick and a key interception to win in 2009.

 

[ivanvamp]

How many offenses ranked last have gone to the Super Bowl?

I don't understand the purpose of this question.

 

[ivanvamp]

Just out of curiousity, the 2009 Saints weren't one of the top 15 scoring teams of all time? And didn't they lead the league in scoring in 2009?

Good question. Turns out they had the 16th best scoring offense (in terms of points per game) of all time. Just missed the cut.

As far as I can tell, in the last 15 years the following teams have made or won the SB who have averaged over 30 points per season:

2011: Patriots (32.1, 3rd; lost)
2009: Saints (31.9, 1st; won)
2007: Patriots (36.8, 1st; lost)
2001: Rams (31.4, 1st; lost)
1999: Rams (32.9, 1st; won)
1998: Broncos (31.3, 2nd; won)

I think it's interesting that the 3 teams that won all had decent run/pass balance despite being explosive offenses - the Broncos with Terrell Davis, the Rams with Marshall Faulks, and the Saints with a RBBC approach that average 6th best in the league in rushing.

I don't think having an explosive offense is a detriment to winning the Super Bowl. I think relying on an offense to carry you against the better teams in the league is difficult, especially if the offense is one-dimensional. Run-pass balance and defense are critical. As you note, the Rams won in 1999 on a last minute defensive stop. The Saints required an onside kick and a key interception to win in 2009.

Agreed. Believe me, I'm not arguing that the Patriots should downgrade their offense. I want them to put up as many points as possible. But they will absolutely need their defense to do the job or they're not winning the Super Bowl.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't understand the purpose of this question.

Well your post was kind of meaningless (Both Patriots teams were basically one play away from winning the SB, and both were clearly significantly impacted by an injury to a major offensive player in the AFCCG, the #16 scoring offense of all time won the SB, etc....), so I thought I'd extend it.

 

[mayoclinic]

Believe me, I'm not arguing that the Patriots should downgrade their offense. I want them to put up as many points as possible. But they will absolutely need their defense to do the job or they're not winning the Super Bowl.

The defense did their job in both 2007 and 2011 for the most part, but both times couldnt make the stop with the game on the line. I expect the Pats to score over 30 PPG and be a top 3 scoring offense this year. In the 3 seasons that the team has averaged 30PPG or better under BB and TB they have gone 17-0, 14-2 and 13-3, been the #1 seed in the AFC all 3 times, and made the SB twice. It's a great place from which to start. But down the stretch the team needs to be able to run the ball more effectively, mix a ground control and clock killing type of game in with the explosive offense, and above all be better at playing situational defense.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Very interesting. Sure, we all want the Pats to pile up the points, but is that really the way to win a Super Bowl title? Some interesting facts:

- The top 7 scoring teams of all-time all failed to win the Super Bowl. All made the playoffs, and 3 made the Super Bowl, but those 3 lost ('07 Pats, '83 Redskins, '67 Raiders).

- Of the top 15 scoring teams of all-time, just one ('99 Rams) won the Super Bowl. And that team needed a defensive stop in the last second to do it.

- Of the top 20 scoring teams of all-time, all 20 made the playoffs, 11 made the Super Bowl, and 4 won it all.

Having a pinball, Techmo-Bowl offense sure is fun and it's a sure-fire way to get into the playoffs (and it gives you a real good chance to make it to the Super Bowl), but it doesn't seem to be the best formula for winning it all.

Just found this to be interesting...

Someone else brought this up previously, but I'd still like to respond. You're taking one single ranking (0 for 7, and 1 for 15), and seem to be jumping to the conclusion that having this ranking is a bad thing. My question would be then 'what is the best ranking, that gives a team the best chance of winning'?

Since a team can be ranked anywhere from 1-32 on offense, is there a sweet spot? Does being somewhere between 5-10, for example, seemingly give a team a much better chance as long as the defense is no lower than X? Is there perhaps zero correlation between offensive ranking and winning a championship, with all 32 places having virtually the same percentage chance? Is it possible that when compared to the percentage chances of all 31 other rankings that having the number one offense actually does give your team a better chance of winning the championship than any other ranking? Without comparing the percentage to those 31 other slots we don't know if these percentages are good, bad or average.

It's a common phenomenon in sports in general and in NFL football in particular. For example I have read similar stats in regards to being the preseason favorite, or being the top ranked playoff seed. The problem with the analysis in all of these articles is that they are comparing that one slot to the entire field, finding the winning percentage to be less than 50%, and coming to the incorrect conclusion that a team is better off not having that ranking.

To properly analyze these stats we would need to see how often each of #1-32 wins it all, as well as what the rankings have been for the winning teams in the post-Polian Competition Committee Officiating Changes Era.

Causation and correlation; as fans that constantly hear the 'haven't won since' comments from others, we should be familiar with those two terms.

 

[Ring 6]

If each team has a 1/32 chance to win the SB and a 1/16 chance to get there, as well as a 3/8 chance of making the playoffs, I would think that 1/11 winning the SB, 4/11 making the SB and 10/11 making the playoffs says that scoring the most points is a pretty good thing.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

For example I have read similar stats in regards to being the preseason favorite, or being the top ranked playoff seed.

Or even, with respect to Andy Dalton, having a red-headed quarterback.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

The defense did their job in both 2007 and 2011 for the most part, but both times couldnt make the stop with the game on the line. I expect the Pats to score over 30 PPG and be a top 3 scoring offense this year. In the 3 seasons that the team has averaged 30PPG or better under BB and TB they have gone 17-0, 14-2 and 13-3, been the #1 seed in the AFC all 3 times, and made the SB twice. It's a great place from which to start. But down the stretch the team needs to be able to run the ball more effectively, mix a ground control and clock killing type of game in with the explosive offense, and above all be better at playing situational defense.

the running game is mucho importante. there are going to be days when brady has a bad day at the office. and on those occasions the running game is going to have to carry the team because the defense probably won't do it.

 

[robbomango]

I made this awhile ago, on the left are the rankings by SB winners and on the left are rankings by SB losers, includes by points and yards for defense and offense. For reference....

I highlighted teams that seemed a bit lopsided 1 way or the other. Also 2011 is missing, it was made before the SB.

 

[Marqui]

Why does it have to be one or the other? From what I've seen, the most well rounded/talented team both an impact offense and defense have been winning SBs lately.

 

[ivanvamp]

Well your post was kind of meaningless (Both Patriots teams were basically one play away from winning the SB, and both were clearly significantly impacted by an injury to a major offensive player in the AFCCG, the #16 scoring offense of all time won the SB, etc....), so I thought I'd extend it.

I guess you didn't have a point then.