NFL '12 Season Thread

[Neutron66]

You need something more than 17 tight ends to win a super bowl, it's called defense

Yeah, and you're not gonna' win a SB with a good defense but an offense that can't score.



Fortunately, it looks like both teams have improved in those respective categories. I expect a Ravens/Patriots Championship rematch.

 

[STDiva]

Is John coaching the Patriots?

I can't wait until the 9ers wipe the floor with Brady and those TEs.

 

[ravendude16]

Yeah, and you're not gonna' win a SB with a good defense but an offense that can't score.



Fortunately, it looks like both teams have improved in those respective categories. I expect a Ravens/Patriots Championship rematch.

I'll have to see how that patriot secondary looks live in 2 weeks, I'm still not a believer in them yet

 

[D-rock]

To win the Superbowl you need to score more points than the other team. There is a multitude of ways to go about doing that involving either scoring a lot oneself, being able to prevent the other team from scoring a lot, or if a team is lucky being good at both.

However, considering teams like the Patriots, Packers, Saints, and Indy before they collapsed it's very viable to win any game with a lousy defense when you can score a lot. The whole defense winning championships things is just a saying and only one viable solution.

 

[STDiva]

To win the Superbowl you need to score more points than the other team. There is a multitude of ways to go about doing that involving either scoring a lot oneself, being able to prevent the other team from scoring a lot, or if a team is lucky being good at both.

However, considering teams like the Patriots, Packers, Saints, and Indy before they collapsed it's very viable to win any game with a lousy defense when you can score a lot. The whole defense winning championships things is just a saying and only one viable solution.

Quit being so logical.

 

[Neutron66]

I'll have to see how that patriot secondary looks live in 2 weeks, I'm still not a believer in them yet

Nor am I a believer in the Ravens offense. The Bengals aren't exactly a defensive powerhouse.

 

[ravendude16]

To win the Superbowl you need to score more points than the other team. There is a multitude of ways to go about doing that involving either scoring a lot oneself, being able to prevent the other team from scoring a lot, or if a team is lucky being good at both.

However, considering teams like the Patriots, Packers, Saints, and Indy before they collapsed it's very viable to win any game with a lousy defense when you can score a lot. The whole defense winning championships things is just a saying and only one viable solution.

Whoa, buddy let's take a second to look at the stats and data before we go around just spitting out "facts.. So let's take a look at the last 20 super bowls:

1993: Dallas Cowboys: defensive rank = 5
1994: Dallas Cowboys: defensive rank = 2
1995: San Francisco 49ers: defensive rank = 6
1996: Dallas Cowboys: defensive rank = 3
1997: Green Bay Packers: defensive rank = 1
1998: Denver Broncos: defensive rank = 7
1999: Denver Broncos: defensive rank = 9
2000: St. Louis Rams: defensive rank = 4
2001: Baltimore Ravens: defensive rank = 1
2002: New England Patriots: defensive rank = 6
2003: Tampa Bay: defensive rank = 1
2004: New England: defensive rank = 1
2005: New England: defensive rank = 2
2006: Pittsburgh Steelers: defensive rank = 4
2007: Indianapolis Colts: defensive rank = 23
2008: New York Giants: defensive rank = 17
2009: Pittsburgh Steelers: defensive rank = 1
2010: New Orleans Saints: defensive rank = 20
2011: Green Bay Packers: 2
2012: New York Giants: 25

So, in the past 20 years 16 out of the 20 super bowl winners had a defense that finished in the top 10. So, yes sometimes a good offense or a match up can single handily win a super bowl, but most of the time you need a pretty good defense. So the good old saying comes in : Offense wins the regular season, defense wins championships. But almost always you need a good defense and offense. So please, do some research next time. :google:

 

[ravendude16]

Nor am I a believer in the Ravens offense. The Bengals aren't exactly a defensive powerhouse.

What? The bengals have a good defense... good secondary, linebackers, and a strong defensive minded coach. they will easily finish in the top 12 this year

 

[Deepcover]

Broncos... Yeah! My team, and my team forever!!! Manning is the man.

Super Bowl baby!!!!

I honetsly thought you were a Cowboys fan traitor
:die:

 

[Deepcover]

Knowing the leadership qualities that Manning possesses, it would be really interesting to watch that unfold in Dallas. The only downside to Manning in Dallas would be how ESPN would shove "MANNING VS. MANNING" down our throats for at least two weeks out of the season.

Yes I agree with you there.

 

[D-rock]

Whoa, buddy let's take a second to look at the stats and data before we go around just spitting out "facts.. So let's take a look at the last 20 super bowls:

1993: Dallas Cowboys: defensive rank = 5
1994: Dallas Cowboys: defensive rank = 2
1995: San Francisco 49ers: defensive rank = 6
1996: Dallas Cowboys: defensive rank = 3
1997: Green Bay Packers: defensive rank = 1
1998: Denver Broncos: defensive rank = 7
1999: Denver Broncos: defensive rank = 9
2000: St. Louis Rams: defensive rank = 4
2001: Baltimore Ravens: defensive rank = 1
2002: New England Patriots: defensive rank = 6
2003: Tampa Bay: defensive rank = 1
2004: New England: defensive rank = 1
2005: New England: defensive rank = 2
2006: Pittsburgh Steelers: defensive rank = 4
2007: Indianapolis Colts: defensive rank = 23
2008: New York Giants: defensive rank = 17
2009: Pittsburgh Steelers: defensive rank = 1
2010: New Orleans Saints: defensive rank = 20
2011: Green Bay Packers: 2
2012: New York Giants: 25

So, in the past 20 years 16 out of the 20 super bowl winners had a defense that finished in the top 10. So, yes sometimes a good offense or a match up can single handily win a super bowl, but most of the time you need a pretty good defense. So the good old saying comes in : Offense wins the regular season, defense wins championships. But almost always you need a good defense and offense. So please, do some research next time. :google:

I'd argue that's a little deceptive. For one, the game has changed so much in the last ten years, especially with the passing game within the league, what happened for half your list is no longer applicable. Even the parts that are do you notice the what's happening on the most recent part of the list? It looks different than the other part. The defensive ranks are getting lower.

Also what does that rank? If I had to guess I would say it's either yards or points allowed, but who knows since there is nothing listed, and there is no "defensive rank" stat. Lets even say it is indeed points allowed, that still doesn't take into account things like opponent adjustments or time of possession, and a whole bunch of other stuff. It isn't necessarily a good indicator of where they really ranked. It also doesn't take into account something you slightly alluded to. Almost all those team except for two or three exceptions (I'm counting the two Giant wins and one team along with Tampa and Baltimore) had anywhere for good to historically great offenses. Most of their offensive ranks would probably be around as high as the defensive ones. It's easy to keep the other team from scoring when you can maintain possession of the ball and have long drives all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the rank is actually due to the offense of those teams.

Also some of those ranks look a little wonky, although that probably because the criteria for “defensive rank“ doesn‘t match well with how they really performed. The St. Louis and 2011 Green Bay highest among them, but also some of the New England ones also.

I could also point out that if only a few plays happened differently the list would look even worse for the defensive strength because teams like Arizona, New England twice including some of their opponents in the games they won, and Indy who lost recently among others had a worse defense than the people they played, but almost won those games. When something like that is so close to being invalided by a handful of plays out of thousands that happen in a season and dozens that happen in one game the theory behind it probably isn't sound.

At best you proved what I stated before that it's best to have both a great offense and defense, but I still stand by that having a great defense doesn’t help one win the Superbowl more than any other game in the season, and anymore between having a great offense or a great defense it's probably better to have a great offense.

 

[Red001]

d-rock in this pass happy era i to think a great offense is more important to win that one game

red001

 

[ravendude16]

I'd argue that's a little deceptive. For one, the game has changed so much in the last ten years, especially with the passing game within the league, what happened for half your list is no longer applicable. Even the parts that are do you notice the what's happening on the most recent part of the list? It looks different than the other part. The defensive ranks are getting lower.

Also what does that rank? If I had to guess I would say it's either yards or points allowed, but who knows since there is nothing listed, and there is no "defensive rank" stat. Lets even say it is indeed points allowed, that still doesn't take into account things like opponent adjustments or time of possession, and a whole bunch of other stuff. It isn't necessarily a good indicator of where they really ranked. It also doesn't take into account something you slightly alluded to. Almost all those team except for two or three exceptions (I'm counting the two Giant wins and one team along with Tampa and Baltimore) had anywhere for good to historically great offenses. Most of their offensive ranks would probably be around as high as the defensive ones. It's easy to keep the other team from scoring when you can maintain possession of the ball and have long drives all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the rank is actually due to the offense of those teams.

Also some of those ranks look a little wonky, although that probably because the criteria for “defensive rank“ doesn‘t match well with how they really performed. The St. Louis and 2011 Green Bay highest among them, but also some of the New England ones also.

I could also point out that if only a few plays happened differently the list would look even worse for the defensive strength because teams like Arizona, New England twice including some of their opponents in the games they won, and Indy who lost recently among others had a worse defense than the people they played, but almost won those games. When something like that is so close to being invalided by a handful of plays out of thousands that happen in a season and dozens that happen in one game the theory behind it probably isn't sound.

At best you proved what I stated before that it's best to have both a great offense and defense, but I still stand by that having a great defense doesn’t help one win the Superbowl more than any other game in the season, and anymore between having a great offense or a great defense it's probably better to have a great offense.

"I could also point out that if only a few plays happened differently the list would look even worse for the defensive strength" - yeah, well if lee evans would have caught the football the ravens would be the defending world champions, could that be true, maybe but in no way is it a fact. Saying stuff like if this play happened or that play didn't happen means nothing. If david tyree wouldn't have made that leaping catch the giants wouldn't have won the super bowl, okay maybe so but the fact remains that he did and they did win the super bowl so it doesn't matter.

look, all I did was find the defensive ranks from the past 20 years, and for the most part a lot of those defenses were strong defenses (those 3 super bowls the patriots won, defense way under rated, hence why they haven't won one since).

You said, that all a team really needs is an offense :noway: if you're going to be a super bowl winning team you need to have either a great offense and a good defense or a great defense and a good offense. Either way you need a good defense.

I hear people say that in today's nfl era that all you need is a great offense and I laugh. With the passing era before us, it's even more important that you have a great defense. People don't get that, you won't out pass brady or rodgers on a regular basis. You need to have a defense that can stop the other offense can give you a chance to win.

Look, you slightly curved your statement and that's fine. As long as you now realize (and anyone else reading) that you need both components to win championships that's good. I honestly don't know why I care, people don't just change their minds, so what's the use trying... really what's the point of even being here if I do is be a complete :douchebag: and trust me I realize it and feel terrible after it because I know you guys are good guys, for some reason seeing people put down information without really looking at the facts pisses me off, it will probably just be better if I stopped posting all together... :rant:

 

[Ace Bandage]

If the Bears can't pass against the Packers, they're going to be in trouble when it comes to facing the rest of the league. Also, someone needs to send out a missing person's report for Brandon Marshall. Did he make the trip to Green Bay?

Oh, how I do enjoy seeing Jay Cutler get knocked on his ass. Little whiny bitch can't even stay upright in this game.

I realize it and feel terrible after it because I know you guys are good guys, for some reason seeing people put down information without really looking at the facts pisses me off, it will probably just be better if I stopped posting all together.

Why are you always talking about how you're going to quit posting in this thread? Who gives a fuck? If you want to post, then do it. If you don't want to, then don't. Nobody is going to give a fuck if you stop posting here.

 

[Moonchild22]

 

[Ace Bandage]

This is the Cutler I remember: 7/19 for 70 yards and 3 picks.

:eek:

 

[STDiva]

Well I'm losing in fantasy this week. Thanks Jay.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Clay Mathews is a maniac.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I started both Cutler and Marshall this week.

 

[STDiva]

I started both Cutler and Marshall this week.

Same. I have Cutler in 3 leagues. I never thought I'd say this, but Alex Smith might be a smarter start this season over Gay Cutler. Pissin me off.