NO Palmer or Young to Miami according to Mort

[fyo]

what the hell are you talking about, New England was 14-2. Their defense did something right 

I thought you were the one extolling the virtues of OFFENSE WINS GAMES (and championships). Ergo, defense doesn't matter (much).

[Spider-Dan]

The answer to that question seems pretty simple to graph out:

New England's potent offense
+ New England's heavy-turnover defense
= early New England leads
= opponents cranking up the offense to get big chunks of yardage to catch up on the scoreboard.
Result: increased opponent yardage totals

The #2 team in the league in offensive points scored was SD.
SD allowed their opponents to score exactly 9 points more than NE allowed (so, similar opponent scoring).
SD was literally the best team in the league in defensive yards allowed (NE was #25).

New England's defense was not good.

[Sunstroke]

^^^ I didn't say that it was good...just that it forced a lot of turnovers.

I'll take the deflection to mean that you recognized the logic in the "game-calling" justification as a response to your original question.

[Pappy13]

So New England's defense FORCED (I like that emphasis) twice as many turnovers as Miami's defense, and yet somehow they still managed to allow over 900 yards more to opposing offenses (5864 to 4949) and nearly 90 more first downs (348 to 264)?  How does that work?

Your argument is almost completely summarized as "Sean Smith can't catch, therefore New England had a quality defense."  The Patriots' defense was not even close to good last year.

Like I said, bend but don't break.  Make the offense beat you, don't beat yourself.  Make them sustain long drives where they are more likely to turn the ball over.

It doesn't really matter whether it's Sean Smith, luck or whatever the fact of the matter is that New England was better at keeping teams off the scoreboard than Miami last year. I never said they had a quality defense, I said it was probably better than Miami's. You made your own inference that meant New England had a quality defense.

[Pappy13]

The answer to that question seems pretty simple to graph out:

New England's potent offense
+ New England's heavy-turnover defense
= early New England leads
= opponents cranking up the offense to get big chunks of yardage to catch up on the scoreboard.
Result: increased opponent yardage totals

Miami's weak offense
+ Miami's non-turnover creating defense
= early Miami deficits
= opponents playing conservative on offense to control ball and burn clock.
Result = decreased opponent yardage totals

Excellent analysis. 100% agree.

[Spider-Dan]

I'll take the deflection to mean that you recognized the logic in the "game-calling" justification as a response to your original question.

No, I recognize the logic (or, the idea of it)... but it doesn't hold up in this case.  SD scored the second-most points in the league, allowed less than one additional point per game (compared to NE), and their defense didn't allow people to run up and down the field.

A good defense doesn't simply allow other (clearly one-dimensional!) offenses to get first-down after first-down, just because their own offense is good.  NE allowed the third most opposition first-downs in the league.

[Pappy13]

No, I recognize the logic (or, the idea of it)... but it doesn't hold up in this case.  SD scored the second-most points in the league....

New England scored 32.4 points per game and SD scored 27.6 pts per game. That's a difference of 15%.

...and their defense didn't allow people to run up and down the field.

New England gave up 366.5 yards per game and SD gave up 271.6 yards per game. That's a difference of 26%.

A good defense doesn't simply allow other (clearly one-dimensional!) offenses to get first-down after first-down, just because their own offense is good.  NE allowed the third most opposition first-downs in the league.

True. I'm sure that they would have liked to have prevented a few more first downs and less yardage, but would you rather give up yards and first downs or points? New England actually gave up fewer points than San Diego and scored more, quite a bit more. New England was 14-2 and SD was 9-7.

[dolfan13]

scoring offense is the most important differentiating factor between being a mediocre team and a contender.

having weak skill players on offense is not going to get you very far in today's nfl.

[Spider-Dan]

New England scored 32.4 points per game and SD scored 27.6 pts per game. That's a difference of 15%.

I don't see how that invalidates the statement that San Diego scored the second-most points in the league.  Relative to their peers, San Diego was better in putting points on the board than every team but one.

New England gave up 366.5 yards per game and SD gave up 271.6 yards per game. That's a difference of 26%.

Again, it's great to look at percentages, but relative to their peers, New England's defense allowed more yards than 24 other teams (including Miami).

True. I'm sure that they would have liked to have prevented a few more first downs and less yardage, but would you rather give up yards and first downs or points?

The point is that teams that don't have their offense turn over the ball a total of 10 times (for the entire season) don't get the luxury of choosing.  I mean, hypothetically, would I mind giving up the most turnovers in the league, the most points in the league, and the most yards in the league if it meant that I'm holding the Lombardi trophy at the end?  Of course not.  But NE didn't accomplish that goal, partially due to their lackluster defense.

It's a lot easier to keep the opponent from scoring (and win games) when your offense isn't turning over the ball at all.  Consider that last year, NE played 4 games where they did not win the turnover battle.  Of those 4 games, they lost 3, and won the remaining game in OT.

That is not a solid defense.  It's a collection of frontrunners that were fortunate to get a record-setting season from their QB.

[Pappy13]

I don't see how that invalidates the statement that San Diego scored the second-most points in the league.

It doesn't invalidate it, it just quantifies it. 2nd most in the league is not that significant when you realize that there was still a whopping 15% difference between the 2 teams. Especially when you consider that there was a 26% difference between #1 and #25 for defensive yards allowed.

I think it's time to just agree to disagree.

[Pappy13]

scoring offense is the most important differentiating factor between being a mediocre team and a contender.

Actually it's scoring differential. The larger the difference between how many points you score to how many points are scored against you, the better your chances of having a winning record. Pittsburgh, Baltimore and the Jets did not really have high scoring offenses last year, Dallas for instance outscored all of them, what they had were defenses that didn't give up many points. New England just happened to have both.

[MikeO]

I thought you were the one extolling the virtues of OFFENSE WINS GAMES (and championships). Ergo, defense doesn't matter (much).

IT does, you need a top flight offense to win a CHAMPIONSHIP in this league!! But to say the Pats defense isn't any good when they ended the year 14-2....I mean come one. We all HATE the Pats. But give the devil its due, their defense was damn good last year. I don't care what their ranking was, they made big plays in big spots. Helped them win 14 games!

[fyo]

But to say the Pats defense isn't any good when they ended the year 14-2....I mean come one. We all HATE the Pats. But give the devil its due, their defense was damn good last year. I don't care what their ranking was, they made big plays in big spots. Helped them win 14 games!

Bullshit. Their D was well below average. The 14-2 record was achieved IN SPITE of their defense.

Calling it "damn good" is just plain laughable.

[MikeO]

Bullshit. Their D was well below average. The 14-2 record was achieved IN SPITE of their defense.

Calling it "damn good" is just plain laughable.

  Live in your fantasy world and believe what ya want

[Spider-Dan]

MikeO, it seems like your rating system for players and teams is very simple:

Did Mark Sanchez's team win a lot of games last year?  If so, then Sanchez is a good QB.
Did New England win a lot of games last year?  If so, then New England's defense was good.

Do you consider any statistic besides W-L in your evaluations?  Or is it exactly as simple as "Green Bay won the Super Bowl, therefore they had the best special teams and best offensive line and best running back corps"?