PDA

View Full Version : NFC North trying to get better on Defense



TNViking
04-28-2012, 06:24 PM
Interesting that the Vikings took as many Offensive players in the draft as the whole rest of the Division combined (4). The Packers drafted no offense. Of course GB had the worst ranked D in the league.

Looks like even in this offense based league some people think defense still matters.

kevoncox
04-28-2012, 07:07 PM
Look where the offensive players were taken.
Chi wr 2nd round
Lions wr 2nd round

Looks to me that offense still matters. Our Division was already an explosive offensive division.

singersp
04-28-2012, 07:20 PM
'
Looks to me that offense still matters. Our Division was already an explosive offensive division.



Exactly what about the Vikings offense screams "explosive" to you? AD by himself doesn't make our entire offense "explosive".

Going 9 & 25 doesn't exactly scream "explosive" either.

Ranger
04-28-2012, 08:05 PM
Exactly what about the Vikings offense screams "explosive" to you? AD by himself doesn't make our entire offense "explosive".

Going 9 & 25 doesn't exactly scream "explosive" either.

He's talking about the division.

12purplepride28
04-29-2012, 09:59 AM
Exactly what about the Vikings offense screams "explosive" to you? AD by himself doesn't make our entire offense "explosive".

Going 9 & 25 doesn't exactly scream "explosive" either.

:irked: reread the post. And it must be nice to have such a legit offense already and then only have to draft defense.

kevoncox
04-29-2012, 01:47 PM
:irked: reread the post. And it must be nice to have such a legit offense already and then only have to draft defense.

How do you get an explosive offense? You draft one!:punch:

Ranger
04-29-2012, 02:53 PM
How do you get an explosive offense? You draft one!:punch:

Or hire Dick Vermeil.

singersp
05-05-2012, 01:10 PM
Looks like even in this offense based league some people think defense still matters.

It does matter. The only way to counter that offense based league is with a great defense. IMO, "bend but don't break defenses" are going to become a thing of the past as it only slows down the opposing team from scoring & doesn't prevent it. If your offense isn't as good as your opponents, then you need to rely on giving your offense more opportunities with the ball & that means turnovers. The way you get turnovers is by being aggressive on defense.

Marrdro
05-10-2012, 08:08 AM
It does matter. The only way to counter that offense based league is with a great defense. IMO, "bend but don't break defenses" are going to become a thing of the past as it only slows down the opposing team from scoring & doesn't prevent it. If your offense isn't as good as your opponents, then you need to rely on giving your offense more opportunities with the ball & that means turnovers. The way you get turnovers is by being aggressive on defense.

Its all about balance my friend.

Ole Pukers......15-1 because of their Offense. What happened after that. Teams with an offense and defense (balance) sent them home.

Take it one step further......

You also have to have balance on offense and defense. Good enough to run when you face a team that can't stop the run and good enough to pass when you have a team that can't stop the pass.

Again, using the PUKERS for an example, they chucked it all over the place last year, and when they needed to run, they couldn't.

Balance......only thing (well that and depth) that will get you to the end my friend.

tarkenton10
05-10-2012, 11:30 AM
Its all about balance my friend.

Ole Pukers......15-1 because of their Offense. What happened after that. Teams with an offense and defense (balance) sent them home.

Take it one step further......

You also have to have balance on offense and defense. Good enough to run when you face a team that can't stop the run and good enough to pass when you have a team that can't stop the pass.

Again, using the PUKERS for an example, they chucked it all over the place last year, and when they needed to run, they couldn't.

Balance......only thing (well that and depth) that will get you to the end my friend.

Are you Jim Morrison reincarnated, my friend? "This is the end, my friend the end!!"

jmcdon00
05-15-2012, 10:48 AM
Its all about balance my friend.

Ole Pukers......15-1 because of their Offense. What happened after that. Teams with an offense and defense (balance) sent them home.

Take it one step further......

You also have to have balance on offense and defense. Good enough to run when you face a team that can't stop the run and good enough to pass when you have a team that can't stop the pass.

Again, using the PUKERS for an example, they chucked it all over the place last year, and when they needed to run, they couldn't.

Balance......only thing (well that and depth) that will get you to the end my friend.
Nope, you only need an offense. A defense helps but the two top seeded teams(packers and patriots) were all offense. Once you get into the playoffs it is more of a crapshoot with 1 and done, often the best teams don't win(as all Vikings fans are well aware).
BTW, the Giants had the 27th ranked defense.

C Mac D
05-15-2012, 11:32 AM
Nope, you only need an offense. A defense helps but the two top seeded teams(packers and patriots) were all offense.

And neither won the Super Bowl. Sort of a weak argument.

jmcdon00
05-15-2012, 05:31 PM
And neither won the Super Bowl. Sort of a weak argument.
Most of the time when you take one sentence out of a three sentence argument it becomes kinda weak. :beatupchickensmall:

The Giants had the 27th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.
The 2009 Saints had the 25th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.

Saying you don't need a good defense to win a Superbowl is not an opinion it is a proven fact.

Purple Floyd
05-15-2012, 05:39 PM
Of course if your offense sucks, the defense is worse and the coaching staff seems to be less effective than both of those units then it is really pointless to think you can get by what you have on either side of the ball.

tastywaves
05-15-2012, 05:43 PM
Most of the time when you take one sentence out of a three sentence argument it becomes kinda weak. :beatupchickensmall:

The Giants had the 27th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.
The 2009 Saints had the 25th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.

Saying you don't need a good defense to win a Superbowl is not an opinion it is a proven fact.

Did you notice how well their defense picked up in the playoffs?

The Giants were a mediocre team until the end of the season, part of the reason when they went on the run they did was because their defense picked up significantly.

Just like Kevon said earlier in the thread, you just need to score more points than you allow. ;) There's many ways to skin that cat.

NodakPaul
05-15-2012, 07:19 PM
Most of the time when you take one sentence out of a three sentence argument it becomes kinda weak. :beatupchickensmall:

The Giants had the 27th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.
The 2009 Saints had the 25th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.

Saying you don't need a good defense to win a Superbowl is not an opinion it is a proven fact.

The Giants had the 27th ranked defense in the regular season. They had the #1 ranked defense in ponts per game during the post season, when it counted.

In 2010, the Packers had the #1 ranked defense in the ppg during theist season.
In 2009, the Saints had the #3 ranked defense...
In 2008, the Steelers were #4...
In 2007, the Giants were #1 again...

And so on... And in EVERY one of these cases the defense held post season opponents to and average of 20 ppg or below.

I think the it is fair to say that you don't need a defense to be playing well to MAKE it to the postseason. But you need a defense that is playing well to win the Super Bowl.

C Mac D
05-16-2012, 01:12 PM
Most of the time when you take one sentence out of a three sentence argument it becomes kinda weak. :beatupchickensmall:

The Giants had the 27th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.
The 2009 Saints had the 25th ranked defense and won the Superbowl.

Saying you don't need a good defense to win a Superbowl is not an opinion it is a proven fact.

Scroll up and read Nodak's post.

Try to keep up, might get a bit complex.

To simply say they were the 27th ranked defense during the regular season and equating that to playing awful defense in the playoffs is myopic. Like Nodak pointed out, they had the #1 ranked defense in the postseason. Something tells me that's part of the reason why the Patriots only scored 17 points (their lowest point total of the season [tied with week 8 loss to Steelers... who also have a pretty good defense]).

Also, if you broke out the last 5 games of the season, you'll notice that the defense really started putting it together and were playing much better than the 27th ranking would indicate.

midgensa
05-16-2012, 01:39 PM
Scroll up and read Nodak's post.

Try to keep up, might get a bit complex.

To simply say they were the 27th ranked defense during the regular season and equating that to playing awful defense in the playoffs is myopic. Like Nodak pointed out, they had the #1 ranked defense in the postseason. Something tells me that's part of the reason why the Patriots only scored 17 points (their lowest point total of the season [tied with week 8 loss to Steelers... who also have a pretty good defense]).

Also, if you broke out the last 5 games of the season, you'll notice that the defense really started putting it together and were playing much better than the 27th ranking would indicate.

It is definitely true that all of these defenses are better than their regular season numbers indicated. But, talking about their postseason "ranking" is also kind of ridiculous.

There are only 12 teams in the postseason (so the teams ranked #3 and #4 that were pointed out are not that special). Of the 12, at least 4 only play ONE GAME and at least 4 play no more than TWO GAMES. Those are hardly fair sample sizes and can be easily twisted by out-of-normal numbers.

While it is obvious to any observer the Giants defense in 2012 and 2007 and the Saints defense in 2009 were much better than the regular season numbers indicated (in particular those Giants teams) it should also be obvious to ANY observer that defenses simply are not as integral to winning a Super Bowl as they once were.

Offense is the name of the game right now. Anyone can see that the Packers, Saints and Steelers won based on very prolific offenses (now the Steelers also happen to have a dynamic defense). The Giants were the No. 5 scoring offense in 2011 (which is kind of low for a winner), but the Packers were No. 3 in 2010 (because the Saints only played ONE game which also skewed the Seahawks to No. 2), the Saints were No. 2 in 2009 (because the Packers played ONE game where the Cardinals played NO DEFENSE), Steelers No. 2 in 2008, the Colts No. 3 in 2006.

So, the offenses were scoring as well, but again, those numbers are very skewed by the small sample sizes the playoffs allow.

It really seems to be that your defense needs to be able to make big plays here and there (Colts in 2006, Packers in 2010, Saints in 2009 for example) but your offense carries you ... unless you are the Giants of course ... then all talking of what leads you to wins goes out to windows because they are completely all over the place :)

C Mac D
05-16-2012, 01:46 PM
It is definitely true that all of these defenses are better than their regular season numbers indicated. But, talking about their postseason "ranking" is also kind of ridiculous.

There are only 12 teams in the postseason (so the teams ranked #3 and #4 that were pointed out are not that special). Of the 12, at least 4 only play ONE GAME and at least 4 play no more than TWO GAMES. Those are hardly fair sample sizes and can be easily twisted by out-of-normal numbers.

While it is obvious to any observer the Giants defense in 2012 and 2007 and the Saints defense in 2009 were much better than the regular season numbers indicated (in particular those Giants teams) it should also be obvious to ANY observer that defenses simply are not as integral to winning a Super Bowl as they once were.

Offense is the name of the game right now. Anyone can see that the Packers, Saints and Steelers won based on very prolific offenses (now the Steelers also happen to have a dynamic defense). The Giants were the No. 5 scoring offense in 2011 (which is kind of low for a winner), but the Packers were No. 3 in 2010 (because the Saints only played ONE game which also skewed the Seahawks to No. 2), the Saints were No. 2 in 2009 (because the Packers played ONE game where the Cardinals played NO DEFENSE), Steelers No. 2 in 2008, the Colts No. 3 in 2006.

So, the offenses were scoring as well, but again, those numbers are very skewed by the small sample sizes the playoffs allow.

It really seems to be that your defense needs to be able to make big plays here and there (Colts in 2006, Packers in 2010, Saints in 2009 for example) but your offense carries you ... unless you are the Giants of course ... then all talking of what leads you to wins goes out to windows because they are completely all over the place :)

Yeah, you're still missing the point. Hate to use regular season stats to prove you wrong... but here you go:

The Packers had one of the best defenses in the league in 2010... 5th in the league actually (regular season). In 2011 when their defense disappeared, they were 1-and-done in the playoffs.

And saying the Steelers had a 'very prolific' offense in 2008 is laughable. It was ranked 22nd in the league (20th in scoring)... they did, however, have the #1 defense.

If you disagree, you disagree... no big deal, I just feel bad because you're missing a big part of the game and only seem to be paying attention to the offenses. But - that's what casual fans do.

midgensa
05-16-2012, 05:42 PM
Yeah, you're still missing the point. Hate to use regular season stats to prove you wrong... but here you go:

The Packers had one of the best defenses in the league in 2010... 5th in the league actually (regular season). In 2011 when their defense disappeared, they were 1-and-done in the playoffs.

And saying the Steelers had a 'very prolific' offense in 2008 is laughable. It was ranked 22nd in the league (20th in scoring)... they did, however, have the #1 defense.

If you disagree, you disagree... no big deal, I just feel bad because you're missing a big part of the game and only seem to be paying attention to the offenses. But - that's what casual fans do.

Those are very valid points and I definitely did not realize the Steelers were as poor in 2008.

I by no means think that defense does not matter. It definitely does. But the game has definitely shifted in the last few years to offensive teams having more and more success. That is quite obvious to the most intense of fans as well as the "casual" ones.

In 2007, the 14th scoring offense won the title while carrying the 16th scoring defense. In 2008, the 20th scoring offense won while carrying the BEST scoring defense. In 2009, the TOP scoring offense won while carrying the 20th scoring defense. In 2010, the 10th scoring offense won with the No. 2 scoring defense. In 2011, the 9th scoring offense made it carrying the 25th scoring defense.

It is obvious in the Super Bowl runner ups also. In 2007, the top scoring offense made the bowl carrying the 4th scoring defense. In 2008, the 3rd scoring offense made it carrying the 28th scoring defense. In 2009, the 9th scoring offense made it carrying the 8th scoring defense. In 2010, the 12th scoring offense made it while carrying the BEST scoring defense. In 2011, the 3rd scoring offense made it carrying the 20th scoring defense.

So the last 10 Super Bowl participants include and average of the 8th scoring offense and the 13th scoring defense.

So while the defense still matters (an average in the top half of the league) ... being able to score matters more (an average in the top 4th of the league).

To win it all though, the averages are 10th and 13th ... still in favor of the offenses.

kevoncox
05-16-2012, 06:19 PM
I don't think you guy understand how much pressure a good offense puts on the opposite team. Yes the defense picked up in the playoffs but that can be for a couple of different reasons:

1) Additional film of what the opponent is doing that year.
2) Players are more focused on their jobs and not whats is happening next week etc.

When you have a great offense you force other teams to try and adjust to you

singersp
05-17-2012, 05:32 AM
It is definitely true that all of these defenses are better than their regular season numbers indicated. But, talking about their postseason "ranking" is also kind of ridiculous.

There are only 12 teams in the postseason (so the teams ranked #3 and #4 that were pointed out are not that special). Of the 12, at least 4 only play ONE GAME and at least 4 play no more than TWO GAMES. Those are hardly fair sample sizes and can be easily twisted by out-of-normal numbers.

That makes sense right there.

How many points or yards will a defense give up if they are one & done as compared to a team that makes it all the way to the SB? Typically, the team that plays more games will have a defense that gives up more points & certainly will have given up more yards than the one & done team. Ergo the one & done team may falsely appear to have had a better defense. Then there's the teams that get the 1st round bye as well.