Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Interesting Super Bowl STATS from Football Freakonomics
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
ClydeSide
I was looking at NFL.com's Football Freakonomics and some interesting stats jumoed out at me.

Here's the link if you want to take a look:
http://www.nfl.com/features/freakonomics/episode-15

What got my interest were the offensive and defensive rankings of Super Bowl Winners.
For instance, New England won in 2001 and ther offense was ranked #6 but the defense was only #24! I didn't remeber that. And Belichick is a defensive guru, right?

Here's some more:

2002 TB O-24 D-1 (Gruden didn't add much to Dungy's team. Sapp did more than Chucky)
2006 Ind O-2 D-28 (and Dungy is a defensive guru?)
2008 Pitt O-20 D-1 (Cowher's 2005 team was more balanced--O-9; D-4)
2009 NO O-1 D-21 had dreadfuk defenses
2011 NYG O-9 D-22 (Can you believe t? This still makes me sick.)

If you look at 1990's the Super Bowls were pretty consistently won by teams with the 1, 2, or 3 ranked offenses. It's a little more erratic siince 2000. If you have a GREAT defense--like one for the ages, you can win. But it looks like offense is the way to go. Indy and NO had terrible defenses and

Jon Gruden is not the answer. I remember after he won the Super Bowl the people in Tampa hated his guts.



HOUSEoPAIN
These are the kind of posts that make me want to pull my hair out.

Defense is ranked in terms of yards/game - am I wrong? I was trying to find something different online, all I can find is defenses ranked by yards/game. That is such a motherfucking STUPID way to rank a defense it isn't even funny - this is why Juan's defense last year was 'good' while the Super Bowl winning defense that held Brady to 17 points (again beating one of the best QBs ever) was 'bad.' I simply can't fathom who would buy shit like this based on yards.

Remember our MO during the earlier JJ years? We would give up a ton of yards, but hold like a brick wall at the goal line - and thus give up few points, and thus win games, even though we were rarely in the top 5 'ranked' defenses in the league, no team in the league wanted to face our D.

One year I remember Dallas being ranked as a top defense, even though they sucked - because they would give up a lot of long pass interference penalties, and thus their 'yards per game' would be abnormally lower than a usual defense that sucked.

A #1 defense with a solid offense will almost always beat a #1 offense with a solid defense. This is why Gruden won (yes, he took over Dungy's team and won with Brad Johnson, that deserves credit).

It's as important to score points as it is keeping points off the board (no shit), but a great defense can also act as an offense (I have the Bears on my fantasy team, they have scored more points to date than all but 5 players in the league). It doesn't work the other way around.
ClydeSide
I see your point--and I agree about JJ's defenses giving up yardage. But New Orleans and Indy won because of their offenses. Manning and Brees. The Brad Johnsons and Trent Dilfers of the world are rare occurences. Another thing: Green Bay is the only WCO team this century to win a Super Bowl.

mcnabbulous
It's not about offenses. It's about QB's. It's pretty simple.

The Giants have had some really great defensive runs in the playoffs, which have helped lead to SB's, but they've also gotten incredibly clutch play from Eli.

You get a QB or you don't have a chance.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (ClydeSide @ Nov 28 2012, 09:10 PM) *
Green Bay is the only WCO team this century to win a Super Bowl.


NO is WCO. NE has WCO tendencies.
Phits
Regular season stats don't mean squat, in today's NFL. It's all about when you get hot, not about what your ranking is. Of late the very good teams don't expend their energy on being the best regular season team> A tweak here or there throughout the year and BOOM here comes the post season run. Regular season is for trial and error.

QUOTE (ClydeSide @ Nov 28 2012, 07:27 PM) *
I was looking at NFL.com's Football Freakonomics and some interesting stats jumoed out at me.

Here's the link if you want to take a look:
http://www.nfl.com/features/freakonomics/episode-15

What got my interest were the offensive and defensive rankings of Super Bowl Winners.
For instance, New England won in 2001 and ther offense was ranked #6 but the defense was only #24! I didn't remeber that. And Belichick is a defensive guru, right?

Here's some more:

2002 TB O-24 D-1 (Gruden didn't add much to Dungy's team. Sapp did more than Chucky)
2006 Ind O-2 D-28 (and Dungy is a defensive guru?)
2008 Pitt O-20 D-1 (Cowher's 2005 team was more balanced--O-9; D-4)
2009 NO O-1 D-21 had dreadfuk defenses
2011 NYG O-9 D-22 (Can you believe t? This still makes me sick.)

If you look at 1990's the Super Bowls were pretty consistently won by teams with the 1, 2, or 3 ranked offenses. It's a little more erratic siince 2000. If you have a GREAT defense--like one for the ages, you can win. But it looks like offense is the way to go. Indy and NO had terrible defenses and

Jon Gruden is not the answer. I remember after he won the Super Bowl the people in Tampa hated his guts.

Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 28 2012, 11:14 PM) *
It's not about offenses. It's about QB's. It's pretty simple.

The Giants have had some really great defensive runs in the playoffs, which have helped lead to SB's, but they've also gotten incredibly clutch play from Eli.

You get a QB or you don't have a chance.

Chicken vs The Egg

It's not about QB's, it's about offensive line play. You have great line play or your QB doesn't stand a chance.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 29 2012, 08:38 AM) *
Chicken vs The Egg

It's not about QB's, it's about offensive line play. You have great line play or your QB doesn't stand a chance.


That's not true. The Steelers line in 2008 was awful. Manning never had good line play in Indy, as we are now learning the hard way. Great QB's can overcome mediocre line play. We just wouldn't know what that is like.
ClydeSide
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 29 2012, 08:36 AM) *
Regular season stats don't mean squat, in today's NFL. It's all about when you get hot, not about what your ranking is. Of late the very good teams don't expend their energy on being the best regular season team> A tweak here or there throughout the year and BOOM here comes the post season run. Regular season is for trial and error.


That definitely makes some sense to me. The Giants got their guys back at the right time.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 08:56 AM) *
That's not true. The Steelers line in 2008 was awful. Manning never had good line play in Indy, as we are now learning the hard way. Great QB's can overcome mediocre line play. We just wouldn't know what that is like.

It is true. Manning had a great offensive line playing in front of him. The lack of success for Mudd in Philly has no bearing on what he did in Indy. They had talent and a great scheme which helped to protect Manning. The fact that he is unable to replicate that success for the Eagles is irrelevant. The Steelers line in 2008 was awful? Our current offensive line is awful, Pittsburgh was far from it. You don't go 12-4 with an awful offensive line. You don't win the Superbowl with an 'awful' o-line. It sounds cliche, but it's true games are won and lost in the trenches. A good offensive line can make a QB look better than he is.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 28 2012, 11:14 PM) *
It's not about offenses. It's about QB's. It's pretty simple.

The Giants have had some really great defensive runs in the playoffs, which have helped lead to SB's, but they've also gotten incredibly clutch play from Eli.

You get a QB or you don't have a chance.


The 'final four' last year included 2 suberb defensive teams, one good defensive team, and one not-so-good defensive team. The AFCCG could've gone either way, and the NFCCG would've been dominated by SF if not for that one dipshit muffing two punts. In both cases, as in the Super Bowl, the games were far more defensive. And Eli's first Super Bowl run he wasn't an elite QB, he just didn't lose the game, as his defense held Brady to 14 points. Arguably the best QB eve has now been dominated twice by New York's defense.

Apart from that, of the utmost importance is having a coach who understands basic clock management and how to play to his team's strengths and weaknesses.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 29 2012, 10:47 AM) *
The 'final four' last year included 2 suberb defensive teams, one good defensive team, and one not-so-good defensive team. The AFCCG could've gone either way, and the NFCCG would've been dominated by SF if not for that one dipshit muffing two punts. In both cases, as in the Super Bowl, the games were far more defensive. And Eli's first Super Bowl run he wasn't an elite QB, he just didn't lose the game, as his defense held Brady to 14 points. Arguably the best QB eve has now been dominated twice by New York's defense.

Apart from that, of the utmost importance is having a coach who understands basic clock management and how to play to his team's strengths and weaknesses.

When did making it to the final four matter? It means nothing to the majority of the people on this board.
Additionally, I still don't think Eli is elite, but he's clutch. Which he proved in both SuperBowls.
There may be a fluke from time to time, but great QB's win SB's. Relying on a shutdown defense in this era is foolish. The best defense in football just benched their QB with the 104 QB rating because he wasn't giving them enough. That should tell you everything you need to know.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 10:58 AM) *
The best defense in football just benched their QB with the 104 QB rating because he wasn't giving them enough. That should tell you everything you need to know.


Yes it tells me that my point is obviously correct, and you can't see the obvious.

The team with the best defense in football just threw an unproven rookie into his first start over a very solid QB, knowing that no matter what happened, their defense could be RELIED UPON to bail him out and win the game. As it happened, Harbaugh's first draft pick looked great, and the 49ers now look that much better.

Reliable offense behind a shutdown defense is the MO of 4 of the top 6 teams in football, and we all know that Atlanta's offense will get shut out in their first game of the playoffs against whoever they play.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 10:58 AM) *
The best defense in football just benched their QB with the 104 QB rating because he wasn't giving them enough. That should tell you everything you need to know.

The HC of the best D in the league would rather have an unknown playing QB. That should tell you where the value is.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (HOUSEoPAIN @ Nov 29 2012, 11:13 AM) *
Yes it tells me that my point is obviously correct, and you can't see the obvious.

I'm not sure it's so obvious. You and I clearly disagree on how Harbaugh is perceiving things.

QUOTE
The team with the best defense in football just threw an unproven rookie into his first start over a very solid QB, knowing that no matter what happened, their defense could be RELIED UPON to bail him out and win the game.

He's not a rookie. This is his second season. I tend to think that despite the fact that Smith was 'solid,' Harbaugh realizes that in this era, you need more than that. He needs the upside that Kaepernick provides.

QUOTE
As it happened, Harbaugh's first draft pick looked great, and the 49ers now look that much better.

His first draft pick sure does look great, but that was Aldon Smith. Kaepernick was his second pick.

QUOTE
Reliable offense behind a shutdown defense is the MO of 4 of the top 6 teams in football, and we all know that Atlanta's offense will get shut out in their first game of the playoffs against whoever they play.

Which teams are you referring to? I'm just curious which teams you would define in that capacity.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 29 2012, 11:16 AM) *
The HC of the best D in the league would rather have an unknown playing QB. That should tell you where the value is.

He's unknown to you. Harbaugh watches practice every day. Amazing how often you disregard that.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 11:55 AM) *
He's unknown to you. Harbaugh watches practice every day. Amazing how often you disregard that.

Seeing your QB in practice is not the same as a live NFL game. The unknown is how he will perform over an extended period as a starter when facing opposing NFL defenses.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 29 2012, 12:11 PM) *
Seeing your QB in practice is not the same as a live NFL game. The unknown is how he will perform over an extended period as a starter when facing opposing NFL defenses.

I won't argue with this, but he does face one of (the?) best defenses in practice every day. Part of that unknown is the possibility that he'll offer greater upside than Smith.

Like I said, the guy has a 104 rating and got benched. So something clearly caused that.
D Rock
What unknown? KapperNack is more than an unknown at this point. What is 100% known is the mediocre nature of Alex Smith.

In the end, they feel they need more from the position than mediocre.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Nov 29 2012, 12:52 PM) *
What unknown? KapperNack is more than an unknown at this point. What is 100% known is the mediocre nature of Alex Smith.

In the end, they feel they need more from the position than mediocre.

I think we're on the same page, but I'd call Smith "good" rather than "mediocre."

The fact that they feel the need to upgrade from "good" is very telling.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 12:22 PM) *
I won't argue with this, but he does face one of (the?) best defenses in practice every day. Part of that unknown is the possibility that he'll offer greater upside than Smith.

Like I said, the guy has a 104 rating and got benched. So something clearly caused that.

It's just speculation, but the rumor mill suggests that the Kaepernick was hand picked by the head coach, to replace Smith. Itís highly doubtful that the Niners would pay Smith $8.5 million in to ride the bench next season so there are really two options; release him or trade him. Could be the west coast version of Bledsoe/Brady.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (Phits @ Nov 29 2012, 01:03 PM) *
It's just speculation, but the rumor mill suggests that the Kaepernick was hand picked by the head coach, to replace Smith


Speculation? It would seem to be 'the obvious conclusion since day 1' - any head coach, whether offensive or defensive minded, wants their success or failures hitched to 'their guy' - I think with few exceptions this is the norm in the league.

P.S. This is why I think whoever is coach next year will sit on Foles for one year, then look to draft one in 2014.
ClydeSide
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 28 2012, 11:16 PM) *
NO is WCO. NE has WCO tendencies.


Sean Payton's offense sure doesn't look like Andy Reid's to me.
xsv
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 01:00 PM) *
I think we're on the same page, but I'd call Smith "good" rather than "mediocre."


I think that's a stretch. Very good completion pct this year, but mostly due to a very low ypa.

Overall, I think average, and perhaps even a touch below average is a more accurate description.

Of course, I'd take him over Vick in a nanosecond.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (ClydeSide @ Nov 29 2012, 01:34 PM) *
Sean Payton's offense sure doesn't look like Andy Reid's to me.

Then the argument could be made that we don't run the WCO, which I'd disagree with, but has been made around here.

It doesn't look the same because they have a QB who is capable of running it at a high level. Many of the same principles are there though.

One way that we have changed our offense dramatically is longer drops by Vick. I think this is due to his height limitations and his inability to make quick reads/decisions.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (xsv @ Nov 29 2012, 01:51 PM) *
I think that's a stretch. Very good completion pct this year, but mostly due to a very low ypa.

Overall, I think average, and perhaps even a touch below average is a more accurate description.

Of course, I'd take him over Vick in a nanosecond.

His advanced passing stats indicate that he's having a well above average year across the board.

His YPA is at a very respectable 8.0 this year. Donovan only reached that level thrice with Philly and at a much lower completion %.
ClydeSide
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 04:50 PM) *
His advanced passing stats indicate that he's having a well above average year across the board.

His YPA is at a very respectable 8.0 this year. Donovan only reached that level thrice with Philly and at a much lower completion %.


I saw him play at Nevada--and he's clutch. He's mobile, tall and can see the field well, has a live arm, makes good reads--what's not to like. ANOTHER QB THAT THE EAGLES DID NOT RECOGNIZE.

Rodney Peete, Pederschmuck, Detmer Brothers, McNabb, Feeley, Garcia, Vick.

Meanwhile other teams somehow found Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Ben Rothlisberger, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, RG NIII......I can't go on....I'm going to hurl.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (ClydeSide @ Nov 29 2012, 08:43 PM) *
has a live arm

His arm strength is definitely his big question mark.

QUOTE
ANOTHER QB THAT THE EAGLES DID NOT RECOGNIZE.

Huh? He was drafted #1 the offseason after the Eagles went to the SB. How and why would they have gone after him?

QUOTE
Meanwhile other teams somehow found Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Ben Rothlisberger, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, RG NIII......I can't go on....I'm going to hurl.

What do you mean "other teams somehow found..." several of these guys? The Mannings, Luck, and RGIII were all top-1 or 2 picks. Each of the other guys were drafted or acquired when we had a pretty established QB. It wasn't until 2007 when we were realistically in a position to acquire a new QB. We missed on Kolb, which happens, but implying that we should or could have acquired one of these other guys is naive and short-sighted.

ClydeSide
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 09:01 PM) *
His arm strength is definitely his big question mark.


Huh? He was drafted #1 the offseason after the Eagles went to the SB. How and why would they have gone after him?


What do you mean "other teams somehow found..." several of these guys? The Mannings, Luck, and RGIII were all top-1 or 2 picks. Each of the other guys were drafted or acquired when we had a pretty established QB. It wasn't until 2007 when we were realistically in a position to acquire a new QB. We missed on Kolb, which happens, but implying that we should or could have acquired one of these other guys is naive and short-sighted.


Some teams know what they're doing. The Eagles don't. Not one Super Bowl win. We have not had a great QB since Norm VanBrocklin--and we didn't have him for long.

I have said ths before though: McNabb would have been much better in a vertical offense like Billick set up for Cunningham when he plaed for the Vikings. McNabb was NOT a good fit for the WCO. But give him prtection, a running game, and Randy Moss and Chris Carter downfield, he woulda killed it. Which always takes it back to Andy Reid.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (ClydeSide @ Nov 29 2012, 09:29 PM) *
Some teams know what they're doing. The Eagles don't. Not one Super Bowl win. We have not had a great QB since Norm VanBrocklin--and we didn't have him for long.

The Eagles just put a solid team on the field for over a decade. That's hard to do. I don't think Lurie should be held accountable for the 50 years of futility before him.

QUOTE
I have said ths before though: McNabb would have been much better in a vertical offense like Billick set up for Cunningham when he plaed for the Vikings.

That's basically what we had from 2006-2008

QUOTE
McNabb was NOT a good fit for the WCO.

He was fine when he was mobile. Once he lost his mobility, he lost his ability to consistently move the chains...which is why we became more vertical focused.

QUOTE
But give him prtection, a running game, and Randy Moss and Chris Carter downfield, he woulda killed it. Which always takes it back to Andy Reid.

If you give those things to me, I'll throw for 20 TD's a year.
ClydeSide
His completion percentage was too low for the WCO. Look at Montana and Young. He did not make good reads, failed to see wide open receivers, and when they were open he threw wormburners and missed over their heads. He couldn't hit a guy in the flat to save his life. When he threw a swing pass it was usually behind the runner. Worst of all, he could not lead the team from behind in the 4th QTR. Now, if he had an open receiver downfiield he could use his cannon.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (ClydeSide @ Nov 29 2012, 10:02 PM) *
His completion percentage was too low for the WCO. Look at Montana and Young. He did not make good reads, failed to see wide open receivers, and when they were open he threw wormburners and missed over their heads. He couldn't hit a guy in the flat to save his life. When he threw a swing pass it was usually behind the runner. Worst of all, he could not lead the team from behind in the 4th QTR. Now, if he had an open receiver downfiield he could use his cannon.

I would agree with much of that, but when he was mobile, he was able to compensate for his accuracy issues.

Once he lost that, beginning in 2003-2004, we started going more vertical. He still missed too many open opportunities, which is why I wanted to move on from him.

When he was mobile, he had a really solid skill set for the WCO. More accuracy would have been ideal, but he was a force.
ClydeSide
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Nov 29 2012, 10:09 PM) *
I would agree with much of that, but when he was mobile, he was able to compensate for his accuracy issues.

Once he lost that, beginning in 2003-2004, we started going more vertical. He still missed too many open opportunities, which is why I wanted to move on from him.

When he was mobile, he had a really solid skill set for the WCO. More accuracy would have been ideal, but he was a force.


He was a force--but that's why I always thought he would have been better in a Sid Gillman offense: imagine McNabb in Pittsburg, or Dallas, or the old Redskins? Whoa. Doug Williams won the Super Bowl in that system--and he was not half the QB McNabb was. And remember Cunninham trying tp learn the WCO? His release was too long. Then he went to Minnesota and threw for 4000 yards. The SYSTEM matters. And Reid's system is old hat. EVERYBODY knows what he's doing.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.