Does Defense Win Championships?

[Phire]

The premise of the question sets up cyclical debates. Neither offenses nor defenses win you championships. Solid team efforts, with a bit of luck, wins championships. Any time you point at one side of the ball and say "that's the reason for winning it all" it inevitable ropes in the other side. Well, if offenses are more important, then the opponent needs a strong defense to neutralize it, right? And if defenses win championships, then you'd want an offense capable of overcoming that defense, right?

The team that plays the best offense, defense, and special teams, with some luck, wins championships. And even that statement is deficient because it doesn't take into account things like how well the coaches are calling plays or how well you're prepared to execute.

But there is some food for thought if we're sticking to the offense/defense binary. 

Let's say Team A has a bad offense and a great defense. Let's say Team B has a great offense and a bad defense.

Team A's great defense will put the bad offense on the field more.

Team B's great offense will keep the bad defense off the field more.

Because time is a limited resource in football, I'd actually give the slight edge to the unit that can control that time better. I'm sure there are other arguments to be made but alas that's what happens when you take something complicated like winning a championship and trying to boil it down to offense or defense.

[Carmen Cygni]

15 minutes ago, Phire said:

The premise of the question sets up cyclical debates. Neither offenses nor defenses win you championships. Solid team efforts, with a bit of luck, wins championships. Any time you point at one side of the ball and say "that's the reason for winning it all" it inevitable ropes in the other side. Well, if offenses are more important, then the opponent needs a strong defense to neutralize it, right? And if defenses win championships, then you'd want an offense capable of overcoming that defense, right?

The team that plays the best offense, defense, and special teams, with some luck, wins championships. And even that statement is deficient because it doesn't take into account things like how well the coaches are calling plays or how well you're prepared to execute.

But there is some food for thought if we're sticking to the offense/defense binary. 

Let's say Team A has a bad offense and a great defense. Let's say Team B has a great offense and a bad defense.

Team A's great defense will put the bad offense on the field more.

Team B's great offense will keep the bad defense off the field more.

Because time is a limited resource in football, I'd actually give the slight edge to the unit that can control that time better. I'm sure there are other arguments to be made but alas that's what happens when you take something complicated like winning a championship and trying to boil it down to offense or defense.

Well said. 

What is being done here is more of a theoretical argument where a very large amount of variables should be accounted for, but are not, in an attempt to simplify a very complicated process for means of highlighting one out of many aspects of football. 

FWIW, I do enjoy the debate and thought process by everyone, and while I certainly regard everyone else's opinion on the matter, I'm still pressing the original premise forward which has stood strong vs counter examples. 

[childofpudding]

Defense wins championships is a saying that colors our perceptions of what wins championships.

The correlative factor for win% in the last 20 years is higher for points per game than points allowed per game, both in the regular season (0.65 vs. 0.58) and in the playoffs (0.51 vs. 0.43). While some of that may be attributable to defense/ST scoring, at best it's about even. They're both important and go hand-in-hand.

[Jlowe22]

1 hour ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Quite possibly when looking at overall win totals, but a top offense will never win the big game without a top defense. Whereas the opposite has been proven to be a achievable goal to obtain a championship. 

A top offense can win the superbowl without a top defense, they just may not be able to win the superbowl with a garbage defense.  It is almost impossible to keep at least one team from putting up an insurmountable number of points against you if your defense is garbage.  With the opposite, the score is usually low and in a one score game a bad offense can sometimes muster up a TD and a few field goals and it's enough to win the game.  But a majority of the time, you need a defense to keep the score respectable AND an offense to score TDs.

[Carmen Cygni]

2 hours ago, Jlowe22 said:

A top offense can win the superbowl without a top defense, they just may not be able to win the superbowl with a garbage defense.  It is almost impossible to keep at least one team from putting up an insurmountable number of points against you if your defense is garbage.  With the opposite, the score is usually low and in a one score game a bad offense can sometimes muster up a TD and a few field goals and it's enough to win the game.  But a majority of the time, you need a defense to keep the score respectable AND an offense to score TDs.

Still waiting for the proof. The only exception accepted so far is the '12 Ravens who finished #12 in PPG (21.5) and slightly lowered that PPG to 18 during their postseason run. No other counter-example has been given otherwise to support your premise here. 

[Jlowe22]

5 minutes ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Still waiting for the proof. The only exception accepted so far is the '12 Ravens who finished #12 in PPG (21.5) and slightly lowered that PPG to 18 during their postseason run. No other counter-example has been given otherwise to support your premise here. 

How many "proofs" did you need?  There's already a list of teams on the first page that did not have a top defense.  A competent one yes, but not tops in the league.  

And in the modern era, where high powered offenses are more common, we have a grand sample size of two superbowls where the offense was carried by the defense.  That's one more than your one exception.  Every other superbowl, both sides of the ball were competent.

And the most recent superbowl was only won because an elite QB led his offense to overcome a defecit that could not have been accomplished with just any QB.  The Pats may have had the number 1 defense, but no superbowl would have been won without Brady and the offense.

And in 2004, Patriots defense gave up 320 yards, 3 TDs, and no picks  for a 113 rating to Jake Delhomme.  In what world was that a top defensive performance?  Or it doesn't matter as long as the defense was highly ranked throughout the year?

[Carmen Cygni]

16 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

How many "proofs" did you need?  There's already a list of teams on the first page that did not have a top defense.  A competent one yes, but not tops in the league.  

And in the modern era, where high powered offenses are more common, we have a grand sample size of two superbowls where the offense was carried by the defense.  That's one more than your one exception.  Every other superbowl, both sides of the ball were competent.

And the most recent superbowl was only won because an elite QB led his offense to overcome a defecit that could not have been accomplished with just any QB.  The Pats may have had the number 1 defense, but no superbowl would have been won without Brady and the offense.

And in 2004, Patriots defense gave up 320 yards, 3 TDs, and no picks  for a 113 rating to Jake Delhomme.  In what world was that a top defensive performance?  Or it doesn't matter as long as the defense was highly ranked throughout the year?

Which all were refuted as to have played as a top defense in the playoffs with the lone exception of the '12 Ravens who were just above average in their playoff run. 

Regardless of high powered offenses, none were able to win a championship without a top defense. 

It's a matter of opinion that Brady is the only that could have overcome such a deficit vs the #27 ranked defense in PPG. 

'03 Patriots had the #1 defense in PPG and #2 in takeaways. That can't be dismissed. 



 

 

[Jlowe22]

Just now, Carmen Cygni said:

Which all were refuted as to have played as a top defense in the playoffs with the lone exception of the '12 Ravens who were just above average in their playoff run. 

It's a matter of opinion that Brady is the only that could have overcome such a deficit vs the #27 ranked defense in PPG. 

'03 Patriots had the #1 defense in PPG and #2 in takeaways. That can't be dismissed. 



 

 

So it doesn't matter that the Patriots gave up 4 Tds to Carolina in the superbowl because their defense was highly ranked throughout the year, therefore defense won the championship?

But with the other teams that had mediocre defense throughout the year does matter that they played better in the postseason?

Even with the 09 Saints, that had mediocre defense that got takeaways, including 5 against the Vikings, the game still came down to an offensive drive for a field goal, and the offense still had to score 31 points.  And they scored 45 against Arizona, so it's not like there was no room for error there.  The defense did play well in the superbowl, but the offense still scored 24 points against the number 8 ranked Colts defense.

And since Tom Brady did something that had never been done before against the Falcons, I have confidence in my opinion that not many QBs could have done that.

Even if you discount all that, your lone exception that even you admit, proves that top offense can win a superbowl without top defense.  They may not can win with a garbage defense like I said, but it is certainly possible to win without a defense that is tops in the league.  

But my ultimate opinion is that you need both, either a great defense or offense, and at the very least competence on the other side of the ball.  A majority of superbowls are won this way.

[Carmen Cygni]

17 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

So it doesn't matter that the Patriots gave up 4 Tds to Carolina in the superbowl because their defense was highly ranked throughout the year, therefore defense won the championship?

But with the other teams that had mediocre defense throughout the year does matter that they played better in the postseason?

Even with the 09 Saints, that had mediocre defense that got takeaways, including 5 against the Vikings, the game still came down to an offensive drive for a field goal, and the offense still had to score 31 points.  And they scored 45 against Arizona, so it's not like there was no room for error there.  The defense did play well in the superbowl, but the offense still scored 24 points against the number 8 ranked Colts defense.

And since Tom Brady did something that had never been done before against the Falcons, I have confidence in my opinion that not many QBs could have done that.

Even if you discount all that, your lone exception that even you admit, proves that top offense can win a superbowl without top defense.  They may not can win with a garbage defense like I said, but it is certainly possible to win without a defense that is tops in the league.  

But my ultimate opinion is that you need both, either a great defense or offense, and at the very least competence on the other side of the ball.  A majority of superbowls are won this way.

A championship run is done in the postseason, and every example, pardon one, has proved that a top defense is needed as a team has never consistently won with high scoring affairs. There are deviations for specific games but overall the premise still stands concerning the criteria posed. 

"Offense wins games, Defense wins championships" does not neglect the importance of offensive play but instead places an emphasis on defensive play in critical situations (post season) which has been proven to be true in virtually all cases. 

We're at a point now where it has been proven that a defense can carry a poor offense on a championship run, but not vice versa, and not only that, but it is rare that a top offense can even win the ultimate prize without at least competent defensive play to be had. All in all, this theory has held quite strong. 

[Jlowe22]

1 minute ago, Carmen Cygni said:

A championship run is done in the postseason, and every example, pardon one, has proved that a top defense is needed to do so as a team has never consistently won with high scoring affairs. There are deviations for specific games but overall the premise still stands concerning the criteria posed. 

"Offense wins games, Defense wins championships" does not neglect the importance of offensive play but instead places an emphasis on defensive play in critical situations (post season) which has been proven to be true in virtually all cases. 

But it is misleading to say that defense won the championship when, in the championship game, the defense gave up a lot of points and the offense had to compensate.  The defense is not performing like a top defense in that scenario.  Yes, they performed that way during the season, but at crunch time, you needed offensive production to win the game. 

In any case, my original statement was that a top offense can win the superbowl without a top defense, and that is an accurate statement.  I did admit that a top offense probably cannot win the superbowl with a garbage defense, the way a historical defense can win with a garbage offense.

[EaglesPeteC]

Defense doesn't not win championships 

[Carmen Cygni]

 

9 minutes ago, EaglesPeteC said:

Defense doesn't not win championships 

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said:

A championship run is done in the postseason, and every example, pardon one, has proved that a top defense is needed as a team has never consistently won with high scoring affairs. There are deviations for specific games but overall the premise still stands concerning the criteria posed. 

"Offense wins games, Defense wins championships" does not neglect the importance of offensive play but instead places an emphasis on defensive play in critical situations (post season) which has been proven to be true in virtually all cases. 

We're at a point now where it has been proven that a defense can carry a poor offense on a championship run, but not vice versa, and not only that, but it is rare that a top offense can even win the ultimate prize without at least competent defensive play to be had. All in all, this theory has held quite strong. 

"Defensive play in critical situations". Let's look at some of the Patriots Super Bowls. 

2003: Carolina averaged 17 ppg in the playoffs. New England averaged 19. New England's defense gave up 2 4th quarter leads and put the onus on it's offense. So the better defense in points ppg lost and the game came down to an offensive drive off a special teams mistake. 

2004: New England had 17 ppg in the playoffs. Eagles had a 16 ppg average in the playoffs. Better team in ppg didn't win. 

2014: New England's defense gave up a 30 second touchdown drive to tie the game before the half. They forced Brady to tie the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history to get the lead. Almost blew it and got bailed out by Butler. 

Lets look at 2007: The Patriots ranked tied for 16th in ppg for the season. The Giants were 29th. In the playoffs the Giants averaged 16 points per game, the Patriots averaged 15.3. So the Patriots were the better defense in points per game in the regular season and the playoffs. They lost and the game essentially came down to whichever team had the ball late enough to score last. 

Sorry the statement just doesn't hold up that defense is the predominant factor. 

[Carmen Cygni]

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

"Defensive play in critical situations". Let's look at some of the Patriots Super Bowls. 

2003: Carolina averaged 17 ppg in the playoffs. New England averaged 19. New England's defense gave up 2 4th quarter leads and put the onus on it's offense. So the better defense in points ppg lost and the game came down to an offensive drive off a special teams mistake. 

2004: New England had 17 ppg in the playoffs. Eagles had a 16 ppg average in the playoffs. Better team in ppg didn't win. 

2014: New England's defense gave up a 30 second touchdown drive to tie the game before the half. They forced Brady to tie the biggest comeback in Super Bowl history to get the lead. Almost blew it and got bailed out by Butler. 

Lets look at 2007: The Patriots ranked tied for 16th in ppg for the season. The Giants were 29th. In the playoffs the Giants averaged 16 points per game, the Patriots averaged 15.3. So the Patriots were the better defense in points per game in the regular season and the playoffs. They lost and the game essentially came down to whichever team had the ball late enough to score last. 

Sorry the statement just doesn't hold up that defense is the predominant factor. 

2003: NE had the #1 defense throughout the entire regular season, were #2 in takeaways, allowed only 14 PPG in the two contests in the playoffs before the SB, and in the big game there proved to only a few discrepancies in the SB so I'm not going to buy that argument against.  

2004: NE and Philly were tied for #2 overall with 16.3 PPG, but NE held the overall edge being #3 in takeaways compared to Philly at #17. This proved to be an essential factor b/c in the SB NE's defense sealed the deal with a late interception that allowed the offense to kneel out and end the game. 

2007:  . . . really? I mean the Giants defense stepped up and stopped the most prolific offense in NFL history to that date. NE, offensively, was averaging almost 37 PPG, the Giants held them to 14 pts, and you want to debate a defensive average of .7 of a point b/w the two? C'mon, that's a reach. 

2014: Again, NE's defense sealed the deal with a game ending interception at the goal line. How much more heroic of an effort from a defense can one get? 

This was never a debate about the best defense in the playoffs, it was that a team needs top defensive play.(Though consequently it also proves that you still need top defensive play to even reach the SB let alone win it). In many of the examples you provided the results are essentially a wash or virtually identical with minimal statistical differences that featured a mere point or so (or less) in difference in their trip through the postseason. 

[Hunter2_1]

4 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said:

 

2014: Again, NE's defense sealed the deal with a game ending interception at the goal line. How much more heroic of an effort from a defense can one get? 

 

A shut out