While reading and commenting in other threads today the question of how defense relates to championships again reared its ugly head. We've all heard it, and most of us have said it or believed it at one time or another. Defense wins championships. The question is : Is it true?
Being a huge fan of defensive football myself, I'm going to have to work hard to remain objective on the topic. Any of you that have been around Arrowheadpride.com for a few years can bare witness to my defensive homer-ism. I love sacks, pressures, huge hits, stuffed runs, quarterbacks picking turf out of their face masks, and all manor of defensive domination. In my not so humble opinion, there is no better game of football than a 9-6 or 10-7 contest between two defenses that rack up ten sacks, thirty pressures, five interceptions, eight batted down passes, sixteen runs for a loss, and countless numbers of bruises and sprains resulting from smash mouth style hits. Keep your 45-38 offensive juggernaut games off my television. I'm likely to turn the channel to some other game out of boredom.
I don't want to get to complex or include too much number crunching as to get away from the basic question so I've opted to stick to just rankings. However, I'll be using the simple rating system from Pro-Football-Reference.com as my starting point. All numbers that I use will come from their base ratings, in which 0.0 is the average and teams are ranked in relation to that average. (Above for better, below for worse). Please click that link if you'd like a breakdown of how the numbers are generated.
Without further ado: the jump.
First off a couple notes:
Years are listed based on the year in which the regular season started. For instance, the Giants just defeated the Patriots in a February 2012 Superbowl game. However, the season started in the calendar year 2011, so that game is listed as 2011.
As stated before 0.0 is the average rating for that season. Positives are better than average, negatives are worse.
"Winners" and "Losers" refer to the Superbowl match up. As championships are the game in question we're only looking at the final game that determines the championship for comparison.
Season
Winners Offensive Rank
Winners Defensive Rank
Losers Offensive Rank
Losers Defensive Rank
2000
0.0
8.0
-1.3
3.8
2001
1.2
3.1
10.4
2.9
2002
-1.0
9.8
6.3
4.3
2003
2.1
4.9
-1.5
0.6
2004
6.3
6.5
2.0
3.5
2005
3.8
4.0
5.8
3.4
2006
6.9
-1.1
4.9
3.0
2007
2.8
0.4
15.9
4.2
2008
1.6
8.2
4.1
-6.0
2009
11.2
-0.5
4.4
1.5
2010
3.1
7.9
2.5
7.7
2011
3.1
-1.5
9.4
-0.1
We can immediately throw out the idea that the best defense in the league wins the championship with any measurable regularity. If things were that simple no one would ever debate this topic and the Ravens would be a dynasty. We can also toss out the idea that the best offense in the league wins the Superbowl with any regularity as well. It simply doesn't happen.
In the last twelve championship games the better defense has won the game eight times while the worse defense has been victorious four times. That's a simple enough two-thirds ratio of defenses winning championships when only defense is considered. Four times in that span the team with both the better offense and the better defense won the Superbowl. That's not at all surprising. It's what we would all expect. Twice, however, in 2007 and 2011 the team with the lower ranked offense AND the lower ranked defense managed to hoist the Lombardi trophy. The thing that's really facinating about that is that BOTH times this has happened the game matched the Giants against the Patriots. Both times the New England had the higher ranked offense AND defense but still lost the game. Does this mean Tom Coughlin is the superior coach over Bill Belichick?
In the twelve years represented on this table the better offense (regardless of defensive ranking) has prevailed six times, while the worse offense won the game six times. Clearly, we can state that there was no coloration from having the better ranked offense to winning the Superbowl. After all, it doesn't seem to matter if you have the better unit or not.
That leaves us with the mixed years. The years in which no team had the better offense AND the better defense. The teams in question split the two categories with each other. In those instances (it happened six times) the better defense won the game four times out of six. Yet another two-thirds ratio in favor of the defense. So, at a quick glance it appears that defenses actually do win championships.... two-thirds of the time. If I were sitting in a Vegas casino I'd play absolutely any game that gave me 66.666.....7% odds of winning. After all, the house has the advantage on every bet in the building except the backing bet on a pass line bet on a craps table, which is about fifty/fifty odds. (But, I've never gambled a single time in my life. Gambling is evil! Kids, just say no. It'll keep the idiots among you from sitting down left chair at a blackjack table and ruining my day by taking a hit on 14 when the dealer is showing a 3 and I'm sitting on 17)
But I digress, on to more important things. (Seriously though, If you don't know how to play Blackjack the CORRECT way you should always sit in the far right chair so you don't screw up everyone at the table that actually knows what they are doing. And telling me, "It's my money, I can play however I want", is akin to begging me to slap the smug off your face.)
Hmmm, I appear to have digressed again. Ignore that degenerate Vegas addicted gambler. He's an idiot. I hear he rides a motorcycle without a helmet and spreads strawberry jelly on top his grilled cheese sandwiches too.
Season
Winner Total Ranking
Loser Total Ranking
Winner Total (-) Loser Total
Final Score Differential
2000
8.0
2.5
6.0
27
2001
4.3
13.3
-9
3
2002
8.8
10.6
-1.8
27
2003
7.0
-0.9
7.9
3
2004
12.8
5.5
7.3
3
2005
7.8
9.2
-1.4
11
2006
5.8
7.9
-2.1
12
2007
3.2
20.1
-16.9
3
2008
9.8
-1.9
11.7
4
2009
10.7
5.9
4.8
14
2010
11.0
10.2
0.8
6
2011
1.6
9.3
-7.7
4
Since I've gone to all the trouble of learning how the chart building tool works, lets look at another one. This chart adds together the offensive and defensive rankings for each team and then shows the mean difference between the teams as compared to the final score of the Superbowl.
Maybe it's not the better offense or the better defense that wins the game. Someone once told me the better team usually wins. In related news, I've also been told that moving the kick off forward by five yards completely ruins the game and takes away the entire play out of football and that we might as well just eliminate the kick and start on the twenty yard line. In order to appease that person, I'm going to pretend like special teams don't exist and just focus on offense and defense again.
As you can see, if one team ranks clearly above the other team when offensive and defensive ranks are added together, it doesn't mean a damn thing in relation to who's going to win the championship. In the last twelve years the team with the highest combined ranking has won six Super Bowls, and lost 6 Super Bowls. I guess you don't have to be the better team to win the championship.
In 2007 the Patriots team total is a whopping 16.9 points higher than the Giants. So, of course, the Giants won the game by a field goal. The very next season in 2008 the Steelers could have looked at that chart and been worried that an 11.7 point dominate out-ranking would set them up to lose the game. It didn't, they won by four.
Well, at least we can say that the more dominate one team is over another, the more lopsided the score will be IF the dominate team manages to win...right?..... You guessed it, the answer is an emphatic no. The 2003 Patriots are 7.9 ranking point favorites and won the game by a field goal; While the 2009 Saints at only a 4.8 ranking advantage defeated the Colts by fourteen points.
There doesn't appear to be any coloration at all between offensive ranking and winning championship games.Half the time the better offense wins, half the time they lose. Simply put, offense doesn't matter. (....and here comes the hater's in the comments... /sticks out tongue and gives the raspberry). Having the better overall team ranking is a wash as well. Half the time you win, and half the time you lose. Even when you win or lose the game score doesn't even match up with the disparity in total team rankings.
BUT......
If we only look at defensive rankings (paying no attention to offense) the team with the better defense wins the Super Bowl 66.66...7% of the time. A clear two-thirds advantage goes to the best defensive unit. Four times in the last twelve years the team with the better offense AND the better defense won, as compared to twice when the worse offense AND worse defense went home champions. Again, a two-thirds advantage. Finally, in the years where the teams matching up in the championship game split offensive and defensive dominance, defense wins four out of the six times. Amazing! Another two-thirds advantage in favor of the defense.
So to answer the question in the title of the post: Does defense win championships? Yes, 2 out of 3 times... any way you slice it. Now if you all will excuse me, I've got to start placing my 50:1 bets on the Chiefs winning the Super Bowl in the 2012 season. Right after I smack the smug off a few blackjack players.
Americus native Leonard Pope, who was an All-SEC tight end at the University of Georgia and now plays for the Kansas City Chiefs in the NFL, is returning to his hometown to tour the city's newest point pride, Phoebe Sumter Hospital.
Ballard suffered torn ACL in Super Bowl, Giants announce He was on crutches and in obvious pain, but that was all secondary in nature for New York Giants tight end Jake Ballard Tuesday during the huge parade and rally that honored the team's win in Sunday's Super Bowl. add to del.icio.us.look up in del.icio.us.add to furl
Let's recap the Kansas City Chiefs coaching movement since the end of the season....
Romeo Crennel was retained as head coach; Crennel will be the defensive coordinator; the defensive staff is staying intact; special teams coach Steve Hoffman was not brought back; Tom McMahon hired from the Rams as special teams coach; Richie Anderson (receivers) and Pat Perles (assistant offensive line) were not retained; Bill Muir (offensive line and offensive coordinator) retired; Crennel expects Jim Zorn to stick around; Brian Daboll hired.
That's the gist of it right there, which means we have two spots remaining -- receivers and offensive line (and possibly assistant offensive line).
Crennel confirmed on Tuesday's conference call that the Chiefs were still in the search process for the offensive line coach. There aren't any known candidates for that position.
Crennel also said he knows the direction he wants to go at receivers coach. Who would that be? We don't know yet but Kent Babb of the KC Star wondered if it was an in-house hire, perhaps offensive quality control coach Nick Sirianni. We'll see what the Chiefs announce on that.
That's all we've got on the Chiefs coaching search.
Kansas City's fifth offensive coordinator in four years is hoping to lend some much-needed permanence to his new team. Brian Daboll said Monday that he considers stability to be very important. "You look at teams, for the most part percentage-wise that have been successful over the years, one word I think is sometimes overlooked is continuity," Daboll said Monday at his introductory... add to del.icio.us.look up in del.icio.us.add to furl
"I am excited about the opportunity to come back home and work for a tremendous organization," Haley said. "It is an honor to work with the Rooney family and Coach Tomlin and continue the success that has become synonymous with the Steelers. My father has so many fond memories both from his playing days and his time in the personnel department with the team, and I look forward to helping bring more championships to Pittsburgh and to being a part of one of the storied franchises in the NFL."
The Chiefs will play the Steelers in Pittsburgh sometime next season. Until then...
One of the reasons I thought the Kansas City Chiefs hired Brian Daboll as offensive coordinator was because he ran an offense similar to the one in which Matt Cassel has had his most success. Maybe that played a role in the hire but it wasn't the overwhelming reason why Daboll was hired, Romeo Crennel said on Tuesday.
"It's more about Brian than it is Matt Cassel," Crennel said on a conference call with KC reporters this morning.
Crennel said Daboll was the first person he offered the coordinator job to and that the search took so long because Daboll was under contract with the Miami Dolphins. He also indicated that the Dolphins wanted to keep him and other teams were interested in him as well.
As for the the offense he'll run, Crennel said when you compare it to KC's offense last year or New England or Miami, it's more like the Dolphins. "You can see some no huddle, you can see some multiple tight ends, you can see some two back, some one back, so we can see it all," Crennel said. He also mentioned having balance in the offense as far as the running and passing game is concerned.
We'll have some more details on what he said about the staff (right after I eat at this Chinese buffet for lunch...yeah, we're a real professional operation around here). Check our Twitter feed -- @ArrowheadPride -- for a few more details, including Crennel's expectation that Jim Zorn will remain with the staff.
Chiefs head coach Romeo Crennel told reporters that it will be similar to what the Miami Dolphins ran last season now that they've hired Brian Daboll from the Dolphins as offensive coordinator. Daboll was asked in a conference call about what the 2012 Chiefs offense will look like and he kicked things off by using the word "attack".
"The first word I would like to use is attack," Daboll said. "When you're an offensive football coach, you really want to set precedent on a defense and attack a defense. That changes week to week based on things you may get but you have a set package as an offensive system where there's a thousand plays but you pick and choose on a weekly deal what you're getting defensively.
"I think it's important to be balanced to help the quarterback out in the run and the pass. Utilize different personnel groups, different formations. Sometimes we'll move in shifts, sometimes we'll be stationary. I think you have to have the ability to have an up tempo scheme where you have a no-huddle package. Threatening runs, passes and all those different things, you have to keep the defense as off balance as you can."
Both Crennel and Daboll mentioned having a balanced offense, the various formations and groupings and the no-huddle. It's the last one that has me excited -- the no-huddle. I've always felt Matt Cassel operates better in that environment than he does at other times.
Early thoughts on how the Chiefs new OC describes the offense? Everything always sounds better on paper so I'm already anxious to see these guys get out there.
So, that happened. Another NFL season has come and gone. Forgive my lack of enthusiasm as I watched the New York Giants win the Super Bowl for the fourth time in my lifetime, and the New England Patriots lose it for the fourth time .
Former Kansas City Chiefs head coach Todd Haley has been hired as the Pittsburgh Steelers' offensive coordinator. He replaces Bruce Arians, who was hired by the Colts last month after the Steelers chose not to retain him. "I am excited about the opportunity to come back... add to del.icio.us.look up in del.icio.us.add to furl
So, that happened. Another NFL season (and postseason) has come and gone. Forgive my lack of enthusiasm as I watched the New York Giants win the Super Bowl for the fourth time in my lifetime, and the New England Patriots lose it for the fourth time (to go along with their three championships). In fact, in the 38 Super Bowls I have lived through (not that I really remember Super Bowls IX through, oh, XV or XVI), 27 different teams have participated. Not one of them has been the Kansas City Chiefs—their Super Bowl appearances live in other people’s memories. [...]
Now that the 2011 NFL season is officially over and done with, it's time to shift our focus towards the impending free agency signing period coming up in just over a month's time.
Although it's not always visible, there's apparently a plan in place for the Chiefs according to team chairman Clark Hunt.
"When I became chairman of the club five or six years ago, what I mentioned at the time was I wanted us to be a team that drafted well and developed the players that we drafted," Hunt said.
And, that was it, the sum total of Hunt's vision for his team or at least all that he was willing to share with the media and ticket buying public.
Whether there is a real vision or plan is hard to believe given the way the last year or so has gone around the franchise. Details on the Chiefs road map are never discussed. Hunt wants to draft well and develop the talent the team selects into contributing players. add to del.icio.us.look up in del.icio.us.add to furl
John Rieger-US PRESSWIRE “This is a great opportunity,” Daboll said. “After meeting with Romeo, it was clear to me Kansas City was a good fit. I have a lot of respect for Romeo and a strong appreciation for the Kansas City Chiefs franchise. Romeo and I have similar ideas on the direction of the program and we have a good core group of players to get started with. I’m ready to get in as soon as possible and start working to be a part of something special.” From www.kcchiefs.com (share this quote) … [visit site to read more]
Brian Daboll said the right things, leaned on his impressive set of influences, and introduced himself to Kansas City as an offensive coordinator who's confident and comfortable -- and who might break from the pack and stay a while. add to del.icio.us.look up in del.icio.us.add to furl
