Winning formula?

[Ham]

Team /QB /QB-rating /O-Rush /O-Pass /D-Rush /D-Pass
Colts Manning 101 /18th /2nd /32nd /2nd
Bears Grossman 73 /15th /14th /6th /11th

Pitts Ben 98 /5th /24th /3rd /16th
Seattle Hasselbeck98 /3rd /13th /5th /25th

New E Brady 92 /7th /11th /6th /17th
Philly McNabb 104 /24th /7th /16th /12th

New Eng Brady 85 /27th /9th /4th /4th
Carolina Delhomme 80 /7th /18th /11th /30th

Tampa B Johnson 92 /27th /15th /6th /1st
Oakland Gannon 97 /18th /1st /3rd /23rd

I hope this comes out read-able? (Guess not as well as I would like) I put this in PF and was somewhat shocked. The debate was you have to 'either' run the ball, stop the ball or pass the ball to win. Therefore, I took the superbowl teams from the last 5 years and broke them down a little. I figured that the season was more important than any one game. I wanted to see if one aspect of the game stood out as more important or consistant than another.

I looked how each aspect ranked among each team. I also added the QB and his rating. The rankings were for Offensive rushing and passing (O-R or P), then Defense against the rush and pass (D-R or P).

I guess what suprised me the most was that running the ball was not as consistant as one would think. The only real consistancy seems to be QB play. Other than Grossman each team had good to great QB play.

Don't know if you will find this as interesting or not but hey, I tried....

Ps, I put the QB rating in bold to make it a little easier to read, sorry for the hard read on the rest...

[SoulDawg74]

Team /QB /QB-rating /O-Rush /O-Pass /D-Rush /D-Pass
Colts Manning 101 /18th /2nd /32nd /2nd
Bears Grossman 73 /15th /14th /6th /11th

Pitts Ben 98 /5th /24th /3rd /16th
Seattle Hasselbeck98 /3rd /13th /5th /25th

New E Brady 92 /7th /11th /6th /17th
Philly McNabb 104 /24th /7th /16th /12th

New Eng Brady 85 /27th /9th /4th /4th
Carolina Delhomme 80 /7th /18th /11th /30th

Tampa B Johnson 92 /27th /15th /6th /1st
Oakland Gannon 97 /18th /1st /3rd /23rd

I hope this comes out read-able? (Guess not as well as I would like) I put this in PF and was somewhat shocked. The debate was you have to 'either' run the ball, stop the ball or pass the ball to win. Therefore, I took the superbowl teams from the last 5 years and broke them down a little. I figured that the season was more important than any one game. I wanted to see if one aspect of the game stood out as more important or consistant than another.

I looked how each aspect ranked among each team. I also added the QB and his rating. The rankings were for Offensive rushing and passing (O-R or P), then Defense against the rush and pass (D-R or P).

I guess what suprised me the most was that running the ball was not as consistant as one would think. The only real consistancy seems to be QB play. Other than Grossman each team had good to great QB play.

Don't know if you will find this as interesting or not but hey, I tried....

Ps, I put the QB rating in bold to make it a little easier to read, sorry for the hard read on the rest...

SD:

Comes back to my original Bitch about Couch not being good enough when peeps were making excuses you need the rest of the team first to come thru .

You need both , but a shit QB puts such a drag on everything else ,
you could field allstars on both sides of the ball ala the Rats , and get bounced outta contention year after year.

With Quinn , we might have somebody who can at least fit the minimum service requirement , anything better and we'll be in Gravy .


SoulDawg

[Ham]

SD:

Comes back to my original Bitch about Couch not being good enough when peeps were making excuses you need the rest of the team first to come thru .

You need both , but a shit QB puts such a drag on everything else ,
you could field allstars on both sides of the ball ala the Rats , and get bounced outta contention year after year.

With Quinn , we might have somebody who can at least fit the minimum service requirement , anything better and we'll be in Gravy .


SoulDawg

Speaking of QBs. I ran the Brown's numbers for the last five years as well. When it comes to rushing the swing between Super bowl YPC in rushing ran from 3.4 -4.7 yards. This means as bad as our rushing was it was still good enough to win 'if' we have talent in other areas a number of years. The problem was we sucked at QB as well (And D). The only year we had a winning season, only one area stood out which was passing. We ranked 18th for the first time. This was when (as bad as they were) we had our best QBing in Kelly & Tim that season.

season O-Rush YPC O-Pass win/loss
2002--- 23rd---- 4----- 18th-- 9-7
2003--- 20th---- 4.1--- 25th-- 5-11
2004--- 23th---- 3.8--- 25th-- 4-12
2005--- 25th---- 3.8--- 23rd-- 6-10
2006--- 31st---- 3.6--- 23rd-- 4-12

[bw]

I was told that one of the reasons top-picked players get such huge contracts is that their agents (and the players themselves) inwardly believe there is a very good chance their careers will be ruined by the team that drafted them. There is usually one reason that particular team is picking in the top five. They suck.

It's no accident that teams like Detroit consistently have so many draft-busts. It isn't that the drafted players are that bad. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every now and then. It's that the team drafting them is so poorly managed and so poorly coached they ruin good players -- All the time. They start them too soon, before they're ready, they rob them of all their natural motivation, they don't coach them up and they expose them to loserdom on a daily basis.

For six (6) years, that's what we were doing. We ruined a lot of players that, had they been drafted by another team, would have gone on to NFL success. We did it for six years, Cincinnati did it for fourteen years, Tampa did it for twenty years, New Orleans did it for twenty-five years, and Detroit is still doing it.

You can't take a twenty-year-old kid (Yes, Kid with a capital 'K') and throw him in the mix with a bunch of hardened, mean, tough, raw-meat-eating, grizzled veterans and expect him to survive without a LOT of help. And very good coaching. I really can't think of an instance where this has happened. Troy Aikman? Nope. He had a decent team and a decent O-Line. Peyton had Tarik Glenn and Marvin Harrison. And still, they both stunk up the joint (big time) their first year. Big, big time.

Currently, I like the way the Browns are bringing on their draft picks. It is the rare kid who can step right into the mix and duke it out with grown men every Sunday. Rare, but it happens.

And that's the biggest reason I hold out hope for this year. Not because of BQ and Joe T but because of the picks we got last year that will begin to gel into the mix. Add in the FAs from last year and this year and we could see a big jump. That, and the return of our walking wounded should put us into the mix this year. I look for JT to start around the fourth or fifth game. We now have a halfway decent O-Line without him but he will certainly upgrade the unit. I look (hope) for BQ to sit out most, if not all, of they year.

If RAC and Phil perceive their jobs as being on the line, they could start these kids too early, before they're ready and ruin them. I think it's important that Lerner let those two know that is not what he wants. Fans and the media have to realize that making a top notch football player is more difficult than they think. It takes time and if we don't use our time wisely...........................

[mattvan1]

Ham,
thanks for all the digging. What your research also shows is that it helps to be in the top of the league in 2 of the other 4 categories. The only exceptions to not being ranked in the top 10 in 2 categories are the 2006 Bears, 2004 Eagles and the 2003 Panthers. What would perhaps be interesting is to see where the QBs ranked respective to the rest of the league, as well as all of the teams in each year which ranked in the top 10 in 2 categories but did not make the SB, and the correspoding QB rating. Not suggesting that you do this, of course.

SoulDawg,
Let it go, my brother. For your own sake the sanity of those around you, please attempt to somehow gain closure. The man from Hyden is out of football now, enjoying his time with Heather. It would be nice to keep these boards Couch-free.

[Ham]

What would perhaps be interesting is to see where the QBs ranked respective to the rest of the league, as well as all of the teams in each year which ranked in the top 10 in 2 categories but did not make the SB, and the correspoding QB rating. Not suggesting that you do this, of course.

I'm suuuure you are not suggesting I do it.

Acutally, I did start ranking QBs but stopped because there were a lot of QBs who were fill-ins and backups that got enough time in to get ranked but but would have thrown the results out of wack. As far as the top 10 rankings for how all teams faired is interesting so if I can find the time I will do it.

[SoulDawg74]

Ham,
thanks for all the digging. What your research also shows is that it helps to be in the top of the league in 2 of the other 4 categories. The only exceptions to not being ranked in the top 10 in 2 categories are the 2006 Bears, 2004 Eagles and the 2003 Panthers. What would perhaps be interesting is to see where the QBs ranked respective to the rest of the league, as well as all of the teams in each year which ranked in the top 10 in 2 categories but did not make the SB, and the correspoding QB rating. Not suggesting that you do this, of course.

SD:

Perhaps its as simple as the Bears Panthers and Eagles having merely good QB's inliue of a great talent at that position.

Owens thru McNabb under the bus but he was correct whenhe said he wasn't gasping for air trying to swallow an Apple in crunch time like somebody else he knew.

Matt >

SoulDawg,
Let it go, my brother. For your own sake the sanity of those around you, please attempt to somehow gain closure. The man from Hyden is out of football now, enjoying his time with Heather. It would be nice to keep these boards Couch-free.

SD:

The statement stands as fact , I have no personal axe to grind with that hick from the sticks , hell I supported his choice over McNabb and the Rickey Williams deal when he was originally drafted ,

My issue was then and will forever remain with all those who cry and snivel whenever they say anything bad about their honey too me there worse than Jim Jones clones making exscuses and denying he ever poisoned the Kool aid .

Same as all those who remember the fateful day that idiot fArt traded away Paul Warfield for that other busta Number one QB we selected,
he's part of the bad side of our history.

Extenuating circumstances injuries and bad teams all being duly noted ,
he's just a stat .


SoulDawg

[jb]

Good to see y'all pop in for a visit.

I think this points out three things:

First, there is no singe, solitary aspect of football that championship teams MUST be domiant at as the cliche's go. As soon as the 2000 Rats have everyone running around saying "defense wins championships and you don't need a great QB to win a SB", the Pats last championship team shows up and put the contents of an extended clip from an AK into that axiom as Brady and great schemes carry them.

As soon as you get the "run the ball stop the run" crowd crowing that tune from the Ref assisted Stiller team, you get the Colts showing up this season.

Secondly, this is a function of minisculre sample size, and we're talking pure case study. I just toss that in.

Lastly, and this goes back to what I've been consistenly writing for years, winning a title is about two things: balance and identity.

You have to be pretty damn good at a few aspects of the game to the point of being the best in the NFL and you have to not be abysmal to where you have matchup deficiencies from hell.

Say what you want about the Colt's D, but the way they sacked up in the playoffs vs the run was unreal. Where the hell did THAT come from on some of their red zone stands?

BUt all these teams had an area, mostly two, that you can point at and say "damn, their ________ is great". They also had a dominant personality and flavor that stamped the teams.

Pittsburgh, for as much as the hill jack Appalachian excuses for women fawned over articilial grill, that was a defensive & run the ball team.

The Colts ARE Manning. Period.

NE ? Brady and Bellichik's defense.

Tampa? Theirs was the best long term D's of the 90's.

Lastly, BW nails it. Big time.

But at some point the Courtney Browns to actually have to step up or playing all the Jurkovic's of the world to cuk until they do hasno meaning. I think there's a certain symbiosis bwteen being set up to succeed and having the talent and brains and heart to be a great player. Definately a 2 way street though as BW says despite SD's Tree-like agenda.

So what's thin got to do with the price of rice on Tideman?

The Browns have NO identity other than being a bunch of losers. They need one.

Will it be a pass happy team as BE & KW2 want?

Or will Ja Lew and the upgraded OL establish a pound it in mentality?

Will it be a tough D that is matchup oriented and conservative?

Or will Grantham be allowed to blitz off the bus with the young LB's, interchangable sfaties, and two potentially solid press CB talents?

And doesn't thins scream for the case of bringing Quinn along slowly until we can position him to succeed instead of flouder in rudderless suck?

[SoulDawg74]

[quote="JB"]Good to see y'all pop in for a visit.

I think this points out three things:

First, there is no singe, solitary aspect of football that championship teams MUST be domiant at as the cliche's go. As soon as the 2000 Rats have everyone running around saying "defense wins championships and you don't need a great QB to win a SB", the Pats last championship team shows up and put the contents of an extended clip from an AK into that axiom as Brady and great schemes carry them.

As soon as you get the "run the ball stop the run" crowd crowing that tune from the Ref assisted Stiller team, you get the Colts showing up this season.

SD:

Whatever it takes, the NFL looked the other way when the inbred injected their way to 4 Championships in the 70's and early eighties , so whats the dif if they reward the aggressors and steal one from Homeless and them undeserving crows who had no bidness there anyway.

Nas >

Secondly, this is a function of minisculre sample size, and we're talking pure case study. I just toss that in.

Lastly, and this goes back to what I've been consistenly writing for years, winning a title is about two things: balance and identity.

You have to be pretty damn good at a few aspects of the game to the point of being the best in the NFL and you have to not be abysmal to where you have matchup deficiencies from hell.

Say what you want about the Colt's D, but the way they sacked up in the playoffs vs the run was unreal. Where the hell did THAT come from on some of their red zone stands?

SD:

There return to a defense worth noting coincided with Sanders return to health ,and setting up a kill zone in the secondary ,ala Ronnie Lott he was like adding three players back there , thats how profound a difference he meant .

Wither Poole or Jones can amount to butt a pimple on his ass and we'll see the same improvement in spades.

Nas >

BUt all these teams had an area, mostly two, that you can point at and say "damn, their ________ is great". They also had a dominant personality and flavor that stamped the teams.

Pittsburgh, for as much as the hill jack Appalachian excuses for women fawned over articilial grill, that was a defensive & run the ball team.

The Colts ARE Manning. Period.

NE ? Brady and Bellichik's defense.

Tampa? Theirs was the best long term D's of the 90's.

SD:

Tampa was Dungies team without Manning to bail out his conservative offensive mind set .

Had they a QB back then Dungy would still be there winning Champeeeeenships .

Nas >

Lastly, BW nails it. Big time.

SD:

Bw couldn't nail his own ass with a hammer and a ,
mirror so that means he
said something good about your boyee so you can chime in , in agreement and both of Ya can feel good about yourselves.

Nas >

But at some point the Courtney Browns to actually have to step up or playing all the Jurkovic's of the world to cuk until they do hasno meaning. I think there's a certain symbiosis bwteen being set up to succeed and having the talent and brains and heart to be a great player. Definately a 2 way street though as BW says despite SD's Tree-like agenda.


SD:

Thought so , you make allowances for him wearing Courtney Brown underoos while you worship at the shrine of the Bobblehead Duece.

Let that pagan worship go both of ya .

They're both busta's , for a million different reasons .

Nobody cares anymore why .

Nas >


So what's thin got to do with the price of rice on Tideman?

SD:

Ya just had to get it off your chest , because you jumped on that hook like a carp on a hot cigarette butt and you was a gaggin like McNabb in crunch time .

Nas >

The Browns have NO identity other than being a bunch of losers. They need one.

SD:

Brady is the face .

So goes your QB so goes your team ..

Add a cinematic darlin and suddenly the media has more than one rote paragraph when they talk about our draft and upcoming season hopes.

Babes in Toylland now line upto to be the next Mrs. Quinn , whats next topless Boobs in the stands Cheeerleaders a band egads man .

Nas >

Will it be a pass happy team as BE & KW2 want?

SD:

Nope ,

Butt we will pass more because we'll be able to , due to a running game which must be respected first before teams can sell out on the pass blitz.

A legit running game frees up the play action so they'll actually have room to make a catch and do something with the ball when they get the skin.

Nas >

Or will Ja Lew and the upgraded OL establish a pound it in mentality?

SD:

Nothing like being able to run when you need to , or have the luxury to take the air out of the ball with a lead in the fourth and the defense can't stop ya , balance in both aspects of the game will keep opposing teams guessing and playing us honest , thus making both units equally effective .

Finally we maybe able to exploit a defenses weaknesses imagine that .

Real offense indeed.

Nas >

Will it be a tough D that is matchup oriented and conservative?

SD:

It could be if we stay healthy and the Utes we played last year mature to their positions along with Robaire Smith adding some much needed punch
Alvin could only dream of providing .

Butt don't fool yoursel the DL is still quite a few Bricks short of a load , we have no real studs and everything will fall upon the linebackers.

Nas >

Or will Grantham be allowed to blitz off the bus with the young LB's,
interchangable sfaties, and two potentially solid press CB talents?

SD:

If the DL firms up we can bring it , Jones and Poole are both good tacklers when they aren't getting caught looking and can anticipate the play .

The defense will solidify if players can rely on each other to do their jobs .

Something which was impossible last year with the plethora of injuries , and the simoultaneous infusion of Utes at the same time

Nas >

And doesn't thins scream for the case of bringing Quinn along slowly until we can position him to succeed instead of flouder in rudderless suck.

SD:

Frye and Anderson are like the 6th man whose one job is to use all six fouls and hurt somebody ala Kurt Rambis

They''ll be the cannon fodder , and Brady will finally set his cleats in whats left of their carcasses .

The longer they stand and make a fight the longer he can sit.


SoulDawg

[Ham]

Ham,
thanks for all the digging. What your research also shows is that it helps to be in the top of the league in 2 of the other 4 categories. The only exceptions to not being ranked in the top 10 in 2 categories are the 2006 Bears, 2004 Eagles and the 2003 Panthers. What would perhaps be interesting is to see where the QBs ranked respective to the rest of the league, as well as all of the teams in each year which ranked in the top 10 in 2 categories but did not make the SB, and the correspoding QB rating. Not suggesting that you do this, of course.

SoulDawg,
Let it go, my brother. For your own sake the sanity of those around you, please attempt to somehow gain closure. The man from Hyden is out of football now, enjoying his time with Heather. It would be nice to keep these boards Couch-free.

Thanks Matt, for getting me going on this.

I looked at the top 10 teams in each catagory to see how they faired in wins and losses and here is what I got. (Since I took the time to look it up I am going to post it regardless of it's vanilla taste )

Offensive Rushing
Atlanta - 7-9
San Diego 14-2
Jacksonville 8-8
Washington 5-11
Tennessee 8-8
San Fran 7-9
NY Giants 8-8
Denver 9-7
KC 9-7
Pitts 8-8

Offensive Passing
Saints 10-6
Indy 12-4
Philly 10-6
St Louis 8-8
Dallas 9-7
Cincy 8-8
Detroit 3-13
Green Bay 8-8
Pitts 8-8
AZ 5-11

Again, more data showing there is more than one way to win. It does seem though that at the top of the passing game there is more domanince.

[bw]

Minnesota 2.8 YPC
Baltimore 3.3
Pittsburgh 3.5
Jacksonville 3.5
New England 3.9
Chicago 4.0
San Diego 4.2
Miami 3.5
Atlanta 3.7
Dallas 3.9

http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFL/D ... rt_col_1=7

Top ten teams in total rushing yards allowed. I listed the average YPC because I thought it was interesting. Or not.

In your listing of top rushing offenses, I noted that three of the top ten made the playoffs last year, albeit the NY Giants didn't deserve it. They still made it though.

In your listing of top ten passing teams, four of those teams made the playoffs.

In my listing of top ten rushing defenses, five made the playoffs.

Of the top ten pass-defensing teams, four made the playoffs.

So what I'm seeing from a casual (and probably inaccurate) glance is that it's not necessarily a given that you have to rush the football well, but you do have to defend the rush well.

Coincidence? I really don't think so. But, then again, it does bolster my view of how a team should be made up. So it must be accurate.