Does Defense Win Championships?

[Carmen Cygni]

There's an old adage in football that I'm sure most of heard at some point in this great sport and it goes like this: "Offense wins games, Defense wins championships". 

I for one am a believer in this saying. In the many decades in which I have closely followed football, I have seen one, maybe two exceptions to this maxim. I'll leave out those minimal examples to see whom maybe able to pick out those few anomalies, while placing the primary focus of this thread on researching and discovering the truth behind this axiom. 

Let the discussion begin. 

[Soko]

I think you need a good defense to win championships - as you said, almost never will you see a poor performing one hoist the Lombardi.

But I don’t think there’s really any must haves for a SB run, except for a bit of luck. I’ve seen meh QBs, non-elite defenses, average offensive lines, average defensive lines, average secondaries, and average coaches all win championships.

I’d say broadly that you need to be very good at one or two aspects (coaching, QB, run game, pass rush, secondary) and be serviceable-to-good at most others to win it. But there are always exceptions, so sweeping statements are never entirely accurate.

[Carmen Cygni]

5 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I think you need a good defense to win championships - as you said, almost never will you see a poor performing one hoist the Lombardi.

But I don’t think there’s really any must haves for a SB run, except for a bit of luck. I’ve seen meh QBs, non-elite defenses, average offensive lines, average defensive lines, average secondaries, and average coaches all win championships.

I’d say broadly that you need to be very good at one or two aspects (coaching, QB, run game, pass rush, secondary) and be serviceable-to-good at most others to win it. But there are always exceptions, so sweeping statements are never entirely accurate.

Agree, and in this case I can only name one, and have a sound argument for one other. Almost all championships are secured by a top defense. 

[Soko]

@Carmen Cygni

I guess it depends on what your definition of top is. I think most had defenses that played well, but I think a number of them weren’t amongst the top in the league. Again, largely depends on where you figure “top” to be (top 5? Top 10? In what metric?) 

[Jlowe22]

It's just a saying.  Obviously having a great defense gives you an advantage, but the more accurate saying would be, "Elite QBs win championships"  To win without a QB playing at an elite level takes a special kind of historical defense.  Even guys that won like Eli and Flacco had elite postseason runs. 

It might be easier for an elite defense to drag a garbage QB to the superbowl though.  You can limit your garbage QB by not letting him throw so much, but you can't really stop your garbage defense from giving up points.

As with everything in life, there are exceptions, but if you wanted a formula for long term success, I'd go with elite QB over elite defense.

 

[Carmen Cygni]

2 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

@Carmen Cygni

I guess it depends on what your definition of top is. I think most had defenses that played well, but I think a number of them weren’t amongst the top in the league. Again, largely depends on where you figure “top” to be (top 5? Top 10? In what metric?) 

Points allowed is primarily the most important statistic for defense, and here is doesn't have to necessarily be in the regular season, but most certainly in the team's playoff run.

Let's take NE's recent dominance for instance. In the years in which the Patriots have won the SB their defense through out the entire season for points allowed was ranked . . .

#6 in '01

#1 in '03

#2 in '04

#8 in '14

#1 in '16

[Carmen Cygni]

5 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

It's just a saying.  Obviously having a great defense gives you an advantage, but the more accurate saying would be, "Elite QBs win championships"  To win without a QB playing at an elite level takes a special kind of historical defense.  Even guys that won like Eli and Flacco had elite postseason runs. 

It might be easier for an elite defense to drag a garbage QB to the superbowl though.  You can limit your garbage QB by not letting him throw so much, but you can't really stop your garbage defense from giving up points.

As with everything in life, there are exceptions, but if you wanted a formula for long term success, I'd go with elite QB over elite defense.

 

List all the elite QBs that have won the SB with an average defense. (As I mentioned in the OP, there is only one, arguably two.)

On the contrary, there are many more top defenses that have won with sub-par QBs. 

[Soko]

@Carmen Cygni

Points allowed then. 

2012 Ravens - 13th in defensive PPG.

2011 Giants - 25th in defensive PPG.

2009 Saints - 20th in defensive PPG.

2007 Giants: 17th in defensive PPG.

2006 Colts: 23rd in defensive PPG.

So in the last 10 years, half of the super bowl champions had defenses that ranged from slightly above average to pretty bad in PPG. Since it’s “primarily the most important statistic for defense”, I’d say that that fact alone debunks the claim.

 

[Iamcanadian]

4 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

@Carmen Cygni

Points allowed then. 

2012 Ravens - 13th in defensive PPG.

2011 Giants - 25th in defensive PPG.

2009 Saints - 20th in defensive PPG.

2007 Giants: 17th in defensive PPG.

2006 Colts: 23rd in defensive PPG.

So in the last 10 years, half of the super bowl champions had defenses that ranged from slightly above average to pretty bad in PPG. Since it’s “primarily the most important statistic for defense”, I’d say that that fact alone debunks the claim.

 

Solid post and tough to argue against, still it means that 5 SB winners had at least decent defenses and it certainly does not help to have a bad defense in the SB quest.

I would also point out that I believe it was the 2011 Giants who got a lot of talent back for a SB run, after losing them for most of the season, so stats can be a bit misleading.

I would say that the whole shot at winning a SB starts with a franchise QB, but even Denver proved that theory has holes. But if I want to be a serious contender year in and year out, I want a franchise QB above all.

[Jlowe22]

1 minute ago, Carmen Cygni said:

List all the elite QBs that have won the SB with an average defense. (As I mentioned in the OP, there is only one, arguably two.)

On the contrary, there are many more top defenses that have won with sub-par QBs. 

If you're going by scoring ranks, Saints in 09 were 20th, Giants in 2011 were 25th, Ravens in 2012 were 13th, giants 2007 17th.

[Jlowe22]

2 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

Solid post and tough to argue against, still it means that 5 SB winners had at least decent defenses and it certainly does not help to have a bad defense in the SB quest.

I would also point out that I believe it was the 2011 Giants who got a lot of talent back for a SB run, after losing them for most of the season, so stats can be a bit misleading.

I would say that the whole shot at winning a SB starts with a franchise QB, but even Denver proved that theory has holes. But if I want to be a serious contender year in and year out, I want a franchise QB above all.

It's always better to not be garbage on any side of the ball.  

[Carmen Cygni]

27 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

@Carmen Cygni

Points allowed then. 

2012 Ravens - 13th in defensive PPG.

2011 Giants - 25th in defensive PPG.

2009 Saints - 20th in defensive PPG.

2007 Giants: 17th in defensive PPG.

2006 Colts: 23rd in defensive PPG.

So in the last 10 years, half of the super bowl champions had defenses that ranged from slightly above average to pretty bad in PPG. Since it’s “primarily the most important statistic for defense”, I’d say that that fact alone debunks the claim.

 

Contrar mon frere. 

An offense can carry the team thru the regular season (offense wins games), but the majority of these defenses turned it on when it mattered most in the postseason (defense wins championships).

You have the exception ('12 Ravens) and the other arguable oddity ('09 Saints) listed above but all the others played top defense in the post-season. 

'06 Colts allowed 16 pts/g in the playoffs.

'07 Giants allowed 16 pts/g in the playoffs and shut down the most prolific offense in NFL history in the SB. 

'11 Giants only allowed 14 pts/g in the playoffs. 

A strong argument can be made against this adage for the '09 Saints that allowed over 19 pts/g but they also produced a phenomenal 8 takeaways in 3 playoff games including 5 in the game in which they surrendered 28 points to the Vikings. 

The one true exception to this axiom is the '12 Ravens who allowed 22 pts/g that was lead by a man on fire in Joe Flacco, and a strong running game. Though there is also something to be said about a defense led by HOF'ers Ray Lewis and Ed Reed. 

 

 

 

 

 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

38 minutes ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Points allowed is primarily the most important statistic for defense, and here is doesn't have to necessarily be in the regular season, but most certainly in the team's playoff run.

Let's take NE's recent dominance for instance. In the years in which the Patriots have won the SB their defense through out the entire season for points allowed was ranked . . .

#6 in '01

#1 in '03

#2 in '04

#8 in '14

#1 in '16

You should look into DVOA. The Patriots may have ranked 6th in points allowed in 2001, but their defensive DVOA was 19th.

[biletnikoff]

It' just a stupid illogical,meaningless,  sports cliche.

Until a defense out cores an offense, it means  nothing.

A defense  can keep another team from scoring but still only in a passive aggressive manner. It can can help field position  for an offense but nothing extreme enough to matter  unless the offense  scores any points.

Defense doesn' win championships. It just hopes to keep the other team at bay long enough...as long as the offense scores points

[Jlowe22]

8 minutes ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Contrar mon frere. 

An offense can carry the team thru the regular season (offense wins games), but the majority of these defenses turned it on when it mattered most in the postseason (defense wins championships).

You have the exception ('12 Ravens) and the other arguable oddity ('09 Saints) listed above but all the others played top defense in the post-season. 

'06 Colts allowed 16 pts/g in the playoffs.

'07 Giants allowed 16 pts/g in the playoffs and shut down the most prolific offense in NFL history in the SB. 

'11 Giants only allowed 14 pts/g in the playoffs. 

A strong argument can be made against this adage for the '09 Saints that allowed over 19 pts/g but they also produced a phenomenal 8 takeaways in 3 playoff games including 5 in the game in which they surrendered 28 points to the Vikings. 

The one true exception to this axiom is the '12 Ravens who allowed 22 pts/g that was lead by a man on fire in Joe Flacco, and a strong running game. Though there is also something to be said about a defense led by HOF'ers Ray Lewis and Ed Reed. 

 

 

 

 

 

There's also the fact that historical defenses that manage to carry the Trent Dilfers of the world to a superbowl don't last for twenty years like Brady, Manning, etc.  You want a dynasty, you need an elite QB.  You need to also give that elite QB help, but it's almost impossible to keep a historical defense together for that long.

There's no one magic formula for success, but if I were building a team, my main goal in life would be to find a franchise QB.