NFL VI

[Kalbear]

Time for another topic.

The Bears are a really good example of one of the better adages of football outsiders: defense is hugely variable from year to year. Some recent examples of this include this year's Bears, the 2002 Bucs, the the 2001 Pats, the 2004 Bears and the 2006 Ravens.

Why does this happen? Probably because defenses, unlike offenses, are more likely to be hurt by attrition from year to year. Injuries are the obvious choice, but in general an offense is as good as the QB (and the QB tends to not be that variable from year to year when they're already good), whereas a defense is more dependent on the sum of its parts.

The big thing here: a team with a dominant defense has to be in a win now mode. They won't get many chances. The team with a dominant offense can keep trying for a few years.

[Stego]

Th Bears defense and defensive scheme and its success is directly proportional t how well the DT's keep blockers off the linebackers. It may not seem like a simple equation, but:

Bears defense - Tank Johnson = losses.

[Kalbear]

That was true last year, but even when Tank Johnson was playing their defense was doing poorly. There are two keys in the tampa 2 - the play of the DT and the play of the safeties. In the Bears' case, it's the play of the DTs and the play of the safeties combined with Urlacher, who plays the role that the SS plays most of the time. With Tank out, the Bears losing a bunch of power at safety (and having Adam Archuleta there as well) and Urlacher losing some of his touch with injury it's been a bad year.

[Young Wolf]

I want to hear more about this devil child. Is he a serious threat to Sarah and my son's future as evil overlord? Does he have that perfect cleft chin?

WE MUST KNOW THESE THINGS!!!

YW

[Jaime L]

Bears defense - Tank Johnson = losses.

Cowboys just recently activated him. Kinda concerned that he'll fix the biggest weakness on that defense. Then again Tank Johnson + Texas Gun Laws = Maybe I shouldn't be so worried.

...

About on the field stuff anyway.

[Kalbear]

Gah. I meant Tommie Harris. Tank Johnson wasn't a big deal last season. It was Harris' loss that mattered then and mattered now.

I suck.

[Podrick Clegane]

Can the loss of Ron Rivera be underestimated?

[Bronn Stone]

Can the loss of Ron Rivera be underestimated?

Possibly. But it is hard to imagine how another coach would make a difference in light of the severe losses in personnel.

[Rockroi]

The Bears are a really good example of one of the better adages of football outsiders: defense is hugely variable from year to year. Some recent examples of this include this year's Bears, the 2002 Bucs, the the 2001 Pats, the 2004 Bears and the 2006 Ravens.

Why does this happen? Probably because defenses, unlike offenses, are more likely to be hurt by attrition from year to year. Injuries are the obvious choice, but in general an offense is as good as the QB (and the QB tends to not be that variable from year to year when they're already good), whereas a defense is more dependent on the sum of its parts.

The big thing here: a team with a dominant defense has to be in a win now mode. They won't get many chances. The team with a dominant offense can keep trying for a few years.

Kal, I would need to look at a lot more information before I could get on this bandwagon. While I do agree defenses from team to team is more dependant on the sum of its parts, I cannot just say that because some of the performance of these teams that defense is as swingy as you suggest.

The teams you mentioned (the 2002 Bucs, the the 2001 Pats, the 2004 Bears and the 2006 Ravens) don’t all fit your standard either.

First, its not like the 2002 Bucs came out of nowhere; the 2001 Bucs were, arguably, one play away from the Superbowl and had just as good of a defense as the 2002 Bucs. So, they had some consistency. Second, the 2001 Pats had a stifling defense, but the 2003 and 2004 Pats also had great defenses with by-in-large the same parts (while the 2002 defense was not what we had hoped it would be). Third, the 2004 and 2006 bears and Ravens respectively each has no worthwhile offense, and their D was all that kept them in games.

Further, there HAVE been great teams that relied on their defense that had comparable success from year-to-year. The 1986 Giants made the playoffs every season until 1990, IIRC; the Cowboys of the 90s had a great O but also had a great D; the Ravens of 2000 never repeated their colossal SB season, but they have been a perennial playoff team for many years since.

Also, this list fails to categorize great offensive teams that also simply fell off the face of the earth. While we consider the 1999 Rams to be a dynasty, they never did repeat in the SB; the 2006 NO Saints had all the offense in the world; their 2007 counterpart struggles mightily today (though improving); the 2002 Raiders were an amazing offense, but never made it that far in the playoffs again.

I think the teams you chose fit, somewhat, your hypothesis. However, I think that the hypothesis is skewed. Here is what I would say: “A team that relies almost solely on one side of the ball will have more success in the log run if they rely on offense than if they rely on defense.†However, as I hopefully demonstrated above, this is hardly the rule.

[Swordfish]

Kal, I would need to look at a lot more information before I could get on this bandwagon. While I do agree defenses from team to team is more dependant on the sum of its parts, I cannot just say that because some of the performance of these teams that defense is as swingy as you suggest.

...............

I think the teams you chose fit, somewhat, your hypothesis. However, I think that the hypothesis is skewed. Here is what I would say: “A team that relies almost solely on one side of the ball will have more success in the log run if they rely on offense than if they rely on defense.†However, as I hopefully demonstrated above, this is hardly the rule.

See also: Pittsburgh Steelers.

[Kalbear]

This is post-salary cap. Pre-salary cap, the rules are entirely out. You simply can't field a team with pro-bowl caliber talent at every position in the d these days.

And I'm mostly talking about teams that had only their defense. The Patriots of 2003-2004 didn't, and they relied on both offense and defense to win games. But look at the Ravens or Bears; when a team is heavily reliant on their D to keep them in the game, they are more likely to lose that power than a team that is more reliant on an offense. This makes intuitive sense as well.

And yeah, you'll get a couple years where it'll be okay. But where is the season-to-season strength? I mean, sure, the Colts haven't been as insane as they were in 2004 on offense, but they've been the top of the league for 5 years. Why is it that defense varies so much from year to year by comparison?

[Rockroi]

I thought of the Steelers in 2005, but they had a gritty running game (Parker far more than Bettis) and a very able QB (who has since hit the skids) and the SB MVP that season. So their D, while very good, was not exactly carrying that team. Also, the Steelers had been making the playoffs since 2001 so they also do not fit the mold there.

Its interesting that the best team that really fits Kal's hypothesis was not mentioned: the 1985 Chicago Bears- arguably the greatest defensive team ever. However, the Bears also share a strange distinction: of all the teams that won a SB in the 80s, the Bears were the only one not to repeat. In fact, the team pretty much imploded, and not under Ditka or hos two idiot-savant successors did the team return to prominance. Now, the 1986 Bears did have Peyton, but really nothing more on O.

However, it could be equally argued that once a team wins a Super Bowl... hey, they tend to not last.

(edited to add that Kal has since explained that this is all post salary cap).

[Swordfish]

I thought of the Steelers in 2005, but they had a gritty running game (Parker far more than Bettis) and a very able QB (who has since hit the skids) and the SB MVP that season. So their D, while very good, was not exactly carrying that team. Also, the Steelers had been making the playoffs since 2001 so they also do not fit the mold there.

Hmmm... in that case, it's possible I'm not understanding his point.

i thought the gist of it was that good offenses tended to be more sustainable over time than good defenses.

the steelers have had solid to spectacular defenses since the 70's with only a few notable years that i would consider exceptions. While there has been a lot of turnover, generally speaking they have managed to have guys in place to step right in and keep the defense from declining. (harrison, hampton, etc...)

they may be the exception though, and not the rule......

[Heal]

Should I say his name?? yes here is this forums only vikings fan ADRIAN PETERSON breaks the single rushing game record in only his 8th nfl regular season game hes insane. No doubt about the best draft choice of this last draft. I know it will be hard for us to make the playoffs, but B2(Brooks Bollinger) gets his first start in Minnesota this week hes been a great filler so far this year with 21-28 189 yards and a touchdown. We'll see I guess.

[Stego]

Now imagine Moss and Peterson on the same team....

[Kalbear]

Hmmm... in that case, it's possible I'm not understanding his point.

i thought the gist of it was that good offenses tended to be more sustainable over time than good defenses.

the steelers have had solid to spectacular defenses since the 70's with only a few notable years that i would consider exceptions. While there has been a lot of turnover, generally speaking they have managed to have guys in place to step right in and keep the defense from declining. (harrison, hampton, etc...)

they may be the exception though, and not the rule......

It's more that you can't have a spectacular defense from year to year, and that in general you will bounce around a lot more in variance on D than on O. Honestly, I don't think Pittsburgh has had that amazing of a defense from year to year. They've been good some times, and meh other times. I'd have to go back and analyze them, but I remember quite a few years when the Pitt D wasn't that great.

[Starkess]

I'm just popping in to take offense at the subtitle. Don't hate 'em cause they rock!

Go Pats!!!!

[Kalbear]

I'm just popping in to take offense at the subtitle. Don't hate 'em cause they rock!

I don't hate them because they rock. I hate them because their QB is literally the father of Satan and heralds the apocalypse.

Big difference.

[Heal]

.....THE PATRIOTS ARE OVERRATED, TOM BRADY IS OVERRATED, RANDY MOSS IS OVERRATED(should still be on vikes). Don't get me starterd about the Patriots they will make it to the playoffs they will not make it to the Super Bowl I mean really colts were missing Marvin Harrison so get over it Pats Fans!

ADRIAN PETERSON ROCKS MY SOCKS OFF!! Hes just an amazing player and hes a rookies it's not even funny how good he is.

[Kalbear]

I'm just trying to imagine how angry Moss would be at the world if he had Tavaris Jackson or Brooks Bollinger throwing to him. No meter maid would be safe.