The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:23 am**

RayNAustin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

The point is what?

The point is you have no point.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:04 am**

Smithian wrote:The Redskins can take back the town easily, but it won't be easy.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:58 am**

The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

The point is what?

The point is you have no point.

Ray makes a good point. What you are saying might have been true in another era, but in today's game the more balanced team does not always win when it matters. Success is closely correlated with offensive performance, in the playoffs as well as in the regular season.

The NFL is an offense-oriented league, and that is increasingly true as time goes on. I'm not a fan of that fact, but there's no use pretending it's not reality.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:01 am**

Irn-Bru wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

The point is what?

The point is you have no point.

Ray makes a good point. What you are saying might have been true in another era, but in today's game the more balanced team does not always win when it matters. Success is closely correlated with offensive performance, in the playoffs as well as in the regular season.

The NFL is an offense-oriented league, and that is increasingly true as time goes on. I'm not a fan of that fact, but there's no use pretending it's not reality.

It's a novice point that goes without saying, but has been exaggerated by fans recently. Rule changes have made it easier to pass in the NFL. Teams are more pass oriented than ever, resulting in higher yardage and point totals.

But, of the 4 teams remaining in the playoffs right now, only the New England Patriots finished in the Top 9 in terms of Scoring--Points Per Game.

2 of those 4 remaining teams finished the season in the Top 5 in Total Defense--in terms of Points Allowed Per Game.

Like I said, at the end of the day, yes, scoring points is at a premium in terms of making the playoffs. But, when it counts, the team that is more balanced generally still comes out on top.

Simply because offense is at an apex right now, doesn't mean the value of defense has declined. If anything, that has placed a higher premium on playing defense.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:15 pm**

The Hogster wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

The point is what?

The point is you have no point.

Ray makes a good point. What you are saying might have been true in another era, but in today's game the more balanced team does not always win when it matters. Success is closely correlated with offensive performance, in the playoffs as well as in the regular season.

The NFL is an offense-oriented league, and that is increasingly true as time goes on. I'm not a fan of that fact, but there's no use pretending it's not reality.

It's a novice point that goes without saying, but has been exaggerated by fans recently. Rule changes have made it easier to pass in the NFL. Teams are more pass oriented than ever, resulting in higher yardage and point totals.

But, of the 4 teams remaining in the playoffs right now, only the New England Patriots finished in the Top 9 in terms of Scoring--Points Per Game.

2 of those 4 remaining teams finished the season in the Top 5 in Total Defense--in terms of Points Allowed Per Game.

Like I said, at the end of the day, yes, scoring points is at a premium in terms of making the playoffs. But, when it counts, the team that is more balanced generally still comes out on top.

Simply because offense is at an apex right now, doesn't mean the value of defense has declined. If anything, that has placed a higher premium on playing defense.

Of the remaining teams, the Pats were 3rd in scoring offense, the Giants 9th, 49ers 10th, and the Ravens 12th. These are teams that have good offenses.

And yes, while the 49ers and Ravens had top 5 scoring defenses, the Giants and Patriots finished 25th and 15th, respectively. If you go by yardage, they were 27th and 30th.

As for the 49ers, their defense is very good, but their ranking is also bolstered by the very easy schedule they played this year. Here are the rankings (by points scored) of the offenses that they beat in the regular season this year:

4 -Detroit
8 - Philly
9 - Giants
18 - Cinci
22 - Pittsburgh
23 - Seattle
23 - Seattle
24 - Arizona
26 - Washington
27 - Tampa Bay
30 - Cleveland
32 - St. Louis
32 - St. Louis

3 wins against teams with top 15 offenses and 10 against teams ranked 18th or lower.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:22 pm**

Coming back to whether the Skins should trade up (and how) or not under different circumstances, you can read:

RGIII To Declare; How much Would You Pay?

(Correct link now) oops:

Interesting difference between trading up to 2nd or 3rd picks!

It might make sense to trade up to 3rd because it would be a move ahead of the Browns 4th pick. However, the Browns could easily move up to 2nd or 3rd too. :lol:

:

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:24 pm**

CanesSkins26 wrote:And yes, while the 49ers and Ravens had top 5 scoring defenses, the Giants and Patriots finished 25th and 15th, respectively. If you go by yardage, they were 27th and 30th.

Come on man. The Giants defensive ranking doesn't remotely reflect that team now that they're healthy. Are you seriously trying to argue that the Giants have not won the past two weeks with great defense? And if so WHY?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:55 pm**

Sexy Rexy!!!

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:11 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:Coming back to whether the Skins should trade up (and how) or not under different circumstances, you can read:

RGIII To Declare; How much Would You Pay?

Interesting difference between trading up to 2nd or 3rd picks!

It might make sense to trade up to 3rd because it would be a move ahead of the Browns 4th pick. However, the Browns could easily move up to 2nd or 3rd too.

Think you need to check that link, RiC.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 2:59 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
Redskin in Canada wrote:Coming back to whether the Skins should trade up (and how) or not under different circumstances, you can read:

RGIII To Declare; How much Would You Pay?

Interesting difference between trading up to 2nd or 3rd picks!

It might make sense to trade up to 3rd because it would be a move ahead of the Browns 4th pick. However, the Browns could easily move up to 2nd or 3rd too.

Think you need to check that link, RiC.

RGIII To Declare; How much Would You Pay? <--- Try this one

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:04 pm**

riggofan wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:And yes, while the 49ers and Ravens had top 5 scoring defenses, the Giants and Patriots finished 25th and 15th, respectively. If you go by yardage, they were 27th and 30th.

Come on man. The Giants defensive ranking doesn't remotely reflect that team now that they're healthy. Are you seriously trying to argue that the Giants have not won the past two weeks with great defense? And if so WHY?

I never said that the D wasn't a main reason for why the Giants won their first two playoff games. Obviously their D played lights out against the Falcons.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:53 pm**

The Hogster wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Ray makes a good point. What you are saying might have been true in another era, but in today's game the more balanced team does not always win when it matters. Success is closely correlated with offensive performance, in the playoffs as well as in the regular season.

The NFL is an offense-oriented league, and that is increasingly true as time goes on. I'm not a fan of that fact, but there's no use pretending it's not reality.

It's a novice point that goes without saying, but has been exaggerated by fans recently. Rule changes have made it easier to pass in the NFL. Teams are more pass oriented than ever, resulting in higher yardage and point totals.

What's a novice point? You aren't being specific about what you are disputing. When Ray pointed out that the top competitors in the NFL have some of the worst defenses, you said "you have no point."

What is that supposed to mean? That it's obvious that you don't need a good defense to compete in the NFL? Then why are you disputing what Ray said?

But if you meant to contradict Ray, or to refute something more specific, you sure didn't make it easy for onlookers to figure out what that was.

I assume that you meant to contradict Ray, because of this argument below:

But, of the 4 teams remaining in the playoffs right now, only the New England Patriots finished in the Top 9 in terms of Scoring--Points Per Game.

2 of those 4 remaining teams finished the season in the Top 5 in Total Defense--in terms of Points Allowed Per Game.

Like I said, at the end of the day, yes, scoring points is at a premium in terms of making the playoffs. But, when it counts, the team that is more balanced generally still comes out on top.

I think this is a misunderstanding of Ray's argument, or at least the argument I'd make (which I believe is close to Ray's). My argument is this: the importance of a good defense to a successful team has declined in recent years, such that teams can have a great offense without needing a great defense to have winning seasons and win playoff games.

If you look at weighted statistics for 1993 NFL teams — the earliest year such statistics are available — versus 2011 NFL teams, this becomes apparent. Here are the playoff contenders in each season along with their offensive/defensive rankings, and the average ranking of the teams. Starting with 1993:

Code: Select all

1993   OFF   DEF      

SF      1     19
DAL     2     17
DEN     3     12
KC      4      4
NYG     6     15
LA      10    18
BUF     13     8
MIN     14     3
HOU     15     2
PIT     16     1
GB      17     5
DET     22     16

Avg   10.25   10

And now 2011:

Code: Select all

2011OFF  DEF   

GB     1    24
NO     2    28
NE     3    30
PIT    6    7
NYG    7    20
HOU    9    8
DET    10   9
ATL    12   6
BAL    13   1
CIN    17   17
SF     18   3
DEN    23   19

Avg   10.08  14.33

In 1993, teams needed on average a better defense than offense to make the playoffs, while both averaged top-10. In 2011, by contrast, the importance of having a good defense sunk dramatically, such that the average defense of a playoff team was middle-of-the-pack compared to the league. Offense, in the meanwhile, remained essentially just as important.

Perhaps you will say that these stats don't matter, since you are more interested in whether a team wins "when it counts," like in the playoffs. I'd like to note here that even if you take this route, your original, crude dismissal of Ray's post has now been blown up. He did have a point, because as he said:

I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach.

Ray was simply saying that in today's NFL, a defense can be mediocre or even bad while the offense carries it. This is clearly reflected in statistical trends, both in the case of individual teams like the Packers or Patriots and in larger trends such as averages from entire years of play.

Now to the "when it counts" idea. Here is a list of conference champion game competitors since 2005, along with their season defensive rank (according to the same adjusted stats I used earlier). The teams in bold are the teams that won.

2011 NYG (20) SF (3) | NE (30) BAL (4)
2010 PIT (1) NYJ (5) | GB (2) CHI (6)
2009 NO (14) MIN (17) | IND (15) NYJ (1)
2008 PIT (1) BAL (2) | ARI (23) PHI (3)
2007 NE (12) SD (6) | NYG (14) GB (16)
2006 CHI (2) NO (22) | IND (25) NE (7)
2005 SEA (15) CAR (2) | PIT (3) DEN (9)

I picked conference championship games for a reason. Every team that played in these games had to have played well enough in the regular season to get to the playoffs and have already won at least one playoff game. I want to draw your attention to two points that this list illuminates:

(1) As you can plainly see, there are plenty of teams with mediocre (or worse) defenses who made it this far into the postseason. They won "when it mattered," often against teams with better defenses in the first couple rounds of the playoffs (I've done quick searches on this subpoint but haven't lined up the stats here; you can research that part for yourself if you are skeptical).

(2) In every season listed above save one, a team with the inferior defense won its conference championship game and made it to the Super Bowl.

A mediocre defense is sufficient to win, provided the offensive power is there, both in the regular season and "when it counts."

Finally, you write:

Simply because offense is at an apex right now, doesn't mean the value of defense has declined. If anything, that has placed a higher premium on playing defense.

This argument isn't a good one because it proves too much. Suppose we had an NFL where the top 12 teams made the playoffs every year but there was no correlation between good defense and winning or making the playoffs. Since, by random chance, some teams with better offenses would still lose in the playoffs to a team that happened to have a better defense, this same response of yours would "work" just as well. So the argument itself is not specific enough to be of any value.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:51 pm**

Redskin in Canada wrote:Coming back to whether the Skins should trade up (and how) or not under different circumstances, you can read:

RGIII To Declare; How much Would You Pay?

Interesting difference between trading up to 2nd or 3rd picks!

It might make sense to trade up to 3rd because it would be a move ahead of the Browns 4th pick. However, the Browns could easily move up to 2nd or 3rd too.

I have said that there is no reason to go to #2 and I maintain that stance. No one behind us has the juice to be us to #3 and if we let it be known that we are going to #2 Cleveland will just out bid us of they really want RG3.

We might even be able to trade with Cleveland.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:05 pm**

Irn Bru wrote:

This argument isn't a good one because it proves too much. Suppose we had an NFL where the top 12 teams made the playoffs every year but there was no correlation between good defense and winning or making the playoffs. Since, by random chance, some teams with better offenses would still lose in the playoffs to a team that happened to have a better defense, this same response of yours would "work" just as well. So the argument itself is not specific enough to be of any value.

Credit you for doing some homework. But, you did a horrible job at making any point for yourself or for Ray. And you used 2 million words to say little that is comprehensible or even relevant to what I said.

While a good offense can and has gotten teams very far in the NFL, you need BALANCE to when when it matters. When it matters means when it's time to get a ring. When it's time to get hardware. That's what I mean by it at least. You can try to redefine that all you want. Have at it.

At the end of the day, the facts remain, that the Superbowl is not like the NBA Championship Series. It's one game, one shot, one chance. And, historically the winners of the SUPERBOWL have had to not only outscore their opponent, but also stop their opponent. Put simply, you need balance.

If Offense was the end all be all, even today, we'd be looking at the Saints versus the Packers and the Patriots versus the Texans.

Better yet, we'd have seen a better offensive performance from the Falcons agains the Giants. Instead their only points scored were on DEFENSE.

Yes rule changes favor passing because high scores means more "excitement" and "interest" from fans. But, at the end of the day, when the lights are on, you have got to produce points AND defend. Balanced teams stand a better chance in those situations, and if you'd quit blathering on to prove a moot point, you'd realize that the winners of the SUPERBOWLS have generally been good offensive teams who either (i) have a good defense, or (ii) have consistently won the TURNOVER battle. In fact, that single statistic has the most influence on the outcomes of games.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:01 pm**

The Hogster wrote:and if you'd quit blathering on to prove a moot point, you'd realize that the winners of the SUPERBOWLS have generally been good offensive teams who either (i) have a good defense, or (ii) have consistently won the TURNOVER battle.

First we dismissed the existence of the regular season and said that the playoffs are what mattered. Now it's just the Super Bowl. :lol:

Well, even then I think it can be shown that offenses are of increasing importance and defenses of decreasing importance.

Oh well. I was wondering how you'd find a way to sidestep a whole pile of stats that disagree with your several assertions. The trends are there in black and white. I can't argue with someone who won't condescend to talk about them. So I guess in a sense this was inevitable.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:10 pm**

The Hogster wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

The point is what?

The point is you have no point.

Ray makes a good point. What you are saying might have been true in another era, but in today's game the more balanced team does not always win when it matters. Success is closely correlated with offensive performance, in the playoffs as well as in the regular season.

The NFL is an offense-oriented league, and that is increasingly true as time goes on. I'm not a fan of that fact, but there's no use pretending it's not reality.

It's a novice point that goes without saying, but has been exaggerated by fans recently. Rule changes have made it easier to pass in the NFL. Teams are more pass oriented than ever, resulting in higher yardage and point totals.

But, of the 4 teams remaining in the playoffs right now, only the New England Patriots finished in the Top 9 in terms of Scoring--Points Per Game.

2 of those 4 remaining teams finished the season in the Top 5 in Total Defense--in terms of Points Allowed Per Game.

Like I said, at the end of the day, yes, scoring points is at a premium in terms of making the playoffs. But, when it counts, the team that is more balanced generally still comes out on top.

Simply because offense is at an apex right now, doesn't mean the value of defense has declined. If anything, that has placed a higher premium on playing defense.

This argument is like a dog chasing his tail, which can go round and round till the dog falls down. But what really is "pointless" is to apply this argument to the overall debate about how badly the Redskins need a QB, which is really really badly. Now, if you don't think that's true, then you'll need to travel at least the next galaxy to find someone who will agree with you, other than Rex's mother, because here in the Milky Way Galaxy, bipedal life forms understand this to be an indisputable fact.

And, aside from Denver's 25th ranked scoring offense beating the Steelers #1 Ranked scoring defense (which sorta shoots holes in your theory) , the reality is, of the 12 teams making the playoffs this year 9 of them were in the top 12 in offensive points scored, with only 5 being in the top 12 in defense points allowed. That shows the edge goes to the offense when it comes to making the playoffs. By the time the playoffs start, anyone can beat anyone on any given day, proven by Denver, and and San Fran, and to a degree, the Giants.

Nevertheless, of the 8 playoff games played so far, 6 games were won by a team scoring 28 or more points, while only 2 games were won with less than 28. In 4 of those 8 games, the winning team scored more than the league leading Packer's 35 points per game average, and 2 of them scored 45 points. Again, the edge is heavily favoring the offense.

Of the 4 teams playing in their respective championships, 3 of them scored more than tha Packer 35 point average in the previous game won to make it there ... only 1, the Ravens, got there with defense. Again, offense wins out. What does this say in the context of the Redskins and their 18 points per game average? It says they don't have a chance of going anywhere until they get a QB that can find the end zone more often, consistently.

So, for every example you give to prove you are right, I can give you 2 showing you're wrong. The most obvious of them are packers who had the best record in the NFL this year, and also the #1 scoring team. The Next 3 best records were the Saints #2 offense, Patriots #3 offense and 49ers #11 offense ..... that's 3 out of 4 of the best records going to the #1, 2 and 3 scoring offenses.

Best records = best offenses MOST of the time ... not all, but most.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:47 pm**

RayNAustin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

The point is what?

The point is you have no point.

Ray makes a good point. What you are saying might have been true in another era, but in today's game the more balanced team does not always win when it matters. Success is closely correlated with offensive performance, in the playoffs as well as in the regular season.

The NFL is an offense-oriented league, and that is increasingly true as time goes on. I'm not a fan of that fact, but there's no use pretending it's not reality.

It's a novice point that goes without saying, but has been exaggerated by fans recently. Rule changes have made it easier to pass in the NFL. Teams are more pass oriented than ever, resulting in higher yardage and point totals.

But, of the 4 teams remaining in the playoffs right now, only the New England Patriots finished in the Top 9 in terms of Scoring--Points Per Game.

2 of those 4 remaining teams finished the season in the Top 5 in Total Defense--in terms of Points Allowed Per Game.

Like I said, at the end of the day, yes, scoring points is at a premium in terms of making the playoffs. But, when it counts, the team that is more balanced generally still comes out on top.

Simply because offense is at an apex right now, doesn't mean the value of defense has declined. If anything, that has placed a higher premium on playing defense.

This argument is like a dog chasing his tail, which can go round and round till the dog falls down. But what really is "pointless" is to apply this argument to the overall debate about how badly the Redskins need a QB, which is really really badly. Now, if you don't think that's true, then you'll need to travel at least the next galaxy to find someone who will agree with you, other than Rex's mother, because here in the Milky Way Galaxy, bipedal life forms understand this to be an indisputable fact.

And, aside from Denver's 25th ranked scoring offense beating the Steelers #1 Ranked scoring defense (which sorta shoots holes in your theory) , the reality is, of the 12 teams making the playoffs this year 9 of them were in the top 12 in offensive points scored, with only 5 being in the top 12 in defense points allowed. That shows the edge goes to the offense when it comes to making the playoffs. By the time the playoffs start, anyone can beat anyone on any given day, proven by Denver, and and San Fran, and to a degree, the Giants.

Nevertheless, of the 8 playoff games played so far, 6 games were won by a team scoring 28 or more points, while only 2 games were won with less than 28. In 4 of those 8 games, the winning team scored more than the league leading Packer's 35 points per game average, and 2 of them scored 45 points. Again, the edge is heavily favoring the offense.

Of the 4 teams playing in their respective championships, 3 of them scored more than tha Packer 35 point average in the previous game won to make it there ... only 1, the Ravens, got there with defense. Again, offense wins out. What does this say in the context of the Redskins and their 18 points per game average? It says they don't have a chance of going anywhere until they get a QB that can find the end zone more often, consistently.

So, for every example you give to prove you are right, I can give you 2 showing you're wrong. The most obvious of them are packers who had the best record in the NFL this year, and also the #1 scoring team. The Next 3 best records were the Saints #2 offense, Patriots #3 offense and 49ers #11 offense ..... that's 3 out of 4 of the best records going to the #1, 2 and 3 scoring offenses.

Best records = best offenses MOST of the time ... not all, but most.

balance: An even distribution of weight enabling someone or something to remain upright and steady: syn equilibrium

Yeah. No argument on your point made in this most recent post. We ABSOLUTELY need a QB. No doubt. But, you're over reacting to the idea that you need an explosive offense to compete. Not true and the facts don't bear that out. You keep talking about records, and making the playoffs. I never disputed that good offensive teams often make the playoffs.

But, I think I may be one of the football purists who don't buy into the theory that Defense is being devalued. I think people like you apparently have bought into this idea that Defense used to win Championships but now it doesnt. No.

Balance has generally beaten a team that is one dimensional in the Superbowl. That's just fact. Defense alone never won Championships. You always had to have some balance. When is the last 3-0 or 9-7 Superbowl you've seen?

Let's take your theory and expose it. Just look over the past decade. How many Superbowls have the Colts won?? Now, how many have the Steelers won? Did the Raiders beat the Bucs that year? Did the Packers not have one of the defenses that took away the ball at a high clip last year?

Did the Saints not clinch their SB victory over the Colts with an Interception?

Did the 15-0 Pats not lose to the Giants and their defense that disrupted Brady et al?

Is this a QB driven league? Yes. Does a powerful offense go a long way? You bet. But, is Offense now more important than defense? Hell no.

BALANCE is necessary. See what you're missing is that BALANCE gives both sides EQUAL importance. You can't even realize that I'm not in total disagreement with you. An above avereage Offense can BALANCE out an average Defense. And VICE VERSA. But, to think that these teams with a Top 5 offense and a bottom 3 Defense are better off than a team with more balance from now and going forward? That's just insane.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:53 pm**

We need a QB that allows us to compete for the division. The NFC east, is not the rest of the NFL. Lets win the division first, then determine what we need to win the superbowl. Just sayin.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:21 pm**

The Hogster wrote:BALANCE is necessary. See what you're missing is that BALANCE gives both sides EQUAL importance. You can't even realize that I'm not in total disagreement with you. An above avereage Offense can BALANCE out an average Defense. And VICE VERSA. But, to think that these teams with a Top 5 offense and a bottom 3 Defense are better off than a team with more balance from now and going forward? That's just insane.

Okay. I've read all of this back and forth, and I still come back to one question I have for you. How does all of this relate to the redskins trading up or not trading up for a franchise QB?

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:42 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
The Hogster wrote:BALANCE is necessary. See what you're missing is that BALANCE gives both sides EQUAL importance. You can't even realize that I'm not in total disagreement with you. An above avereage Offense can BALANCE out an average Defense. And VICE VERSA. But, to think that these teams with a Top 5 offense and a bottom 3 Defense are better off than a team with more balance from now and going forward? That's just insane.

Okay. I've read all of this back and forth, and I still come back to one question I have for you. How does all of this relate to the redskins trading up or not trading up for a franchise QB?

I guess my own perspective would be that our bottleneck at QB is all the more important because offense correlates more strongly with success than defense. So that is an argument in favor of sacrificing to move up if needed, or in other words making a QB a big priority this offseason.

I guess if one doesn't think that offense (and especially passing offense) is particularly important at this moment in the NFL, one might not be so eager to trade up if the costs are steep.

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:05 pm**

Irn-Bru wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
The Hogster wrote:BALANCE is necessary. See what you're missing is that BALANCE gives both sides EQUAL importance. You can't even realize that I'm not in total disagreement with you. An above avereage Offense can BALANCE out an average Defense. And VICE VERSA. But, to think that these teams with a Top 5 offense and a bottom 3 Defense are better off than a team with more balance from now and going forward? That's just insane.

Okay. I've read all of this back and forth, and I still come back to one question I have for you. How does all of this relate to the redskins trading up or not trading up for a franchise QB?

I guess my own perspective would be that our bottleneck at QB is all the more important because offense correlates more strongly with success than defense. So that is an argument in favor of sacrificing to move up if needed, or in other words making a QB a big priority this offseason.

I guess if one doesn't think that offense (and especially passing offense) is particularly important at this moment in the NFL, one might not be so eager to trade up if the costs are steep.

Agreed, but that's not what he's arguing, since he's already conceded we need a better QB.

We just need BALANCE. Right, and how I see it is...

We have a good enough defense. We have a more than capable running game. We have a terrible QB situation...so...I guess in the end, he's agreeing that we have to trade up to get a franchise QB!

Posted: **Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:46 pm**

PulpExposure wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
The Hogster wrote:BALANCE is necessary. See what you're missing is that BALANCE gives both sides EQUAL importance. You can't even realize that I'm not in total disagreement with you. An above avereage Offense can BALANCE out an average Defense. And VICE VERSA. But, to think that these teams with a Top 5 offense and a bottom 3 Defense are better off than a team with more balance from now and going forward? That's just insane.

Okay. I've read all of this back and forth, and I still come back to one question I have for you. How does all of this relate to the redskins trading up or not trading up for a franchise QB?

I guess my own perspective would be that our bottleneck at QB is all the more important because offense correlates more strongly with success than defense. So that is an argument in favor of sacrificing to move up if needed, or in other words making a QB a big priority this offseason.

I guess if one doesn't think that offense (and especially passing offense) is particularly important at this moment in the NFL, one might not be so eager to trade up if the costs are steep.

Agreed, but that's not what he's arguing, since he's already conceded we need a better QB.

We just need BALANCE. Right, and how I see it is...

We have a good enough defense. We have a more than capable running game. We have a terrible QB situation...so...I guess in the end, he's agreeing that we have to trade up to get a franchise QB!

+1

The post I've been waiting for.

It seems we have a fairly good defense with some strengths and weaknesses. It seems we have an offense with a glaring need at the most important position in football. One way to look at this is simply to look at our trove of picks over the next 3 years, look at the roster and project who will still be here in three years, identify what we need, and decide what we can get (besides QB) with all those picks (minus three #1s) and cash. If we think we can fill all the needs adequtely with the retained picks and cash then we should pull the trigger on a trade up for a likely franchise QB. If we think RGIII is a likely franchise QB we should talk to the Rams.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:04 am**

PulpExposure wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
The Hogster wrote:BALANCE is necessary. See what you're missing is that BALANCE gives both sides EQUAL importance. You can't even realize that I'm not in total disagreement with you. An above avereage Offense can BALANCE out an average Defense. And VICE VERSA. But, to think that these teams with a Top 5 offense and a bottom 3 Defense are better off than a team with more balance from now and going forward? That's just insane.

Okay. I've read all of this back and forth, and I still come back to one question I have for you. How does all of this relate to the redskins trading up or not trading up for a franchise QB?

I guess my own perspective would be that our bottleneck at QB is all the more important because offense correlates more strongly with success than defense. So that is an argument in favor of sacrificing to move up if needed, or in other words making a QB a big priority this offseason.

I guess if one doesn't think that offense (and especially passing offense) is particularly important at this moment in the NFL, one might not be so eager to trade up if the costs are steep.

Agreed, but that's not what he's arguing, since he's already conceded we need a better QB.

We just need BALANCE. Right, and how I see it is...

We have a good enough defense. We have a more than capable running game. We have a terrible QB situation...so...I guess in the end, he's agreeing that we have to trade up to get a franchise QB!

The way I see it is... If we trade up and grab RG3 it will still take a while. It make take a few years even. From what I am hearing from people that actually played the game (college ball) - RG3 could be better than Luck in the long run. If we do this it will set us back but my question is will it be worth the risk? If RG3 turns out to be a flop I wont blame this crew for taking a leap of faith. I do not believe in mortgage the future approach except for when you/we are in this situation.

If this crew does not then I hope they find someone because there really isn't much out there except a bunch of long shots. I really do not expect to be picking 6th next year. If we do the Shans and everyone involved really should be replaced. I would rather take a chance.

I said before last year that it might take 7 years and most if not half said it would take 2 to 3 years. This is going to be a long ride but next year if we grab a really good QB we could be playoff caliber.

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:36 am**

DarthMonk wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:
The Hogster wrote:BALANCE is necessary. See what you're missing is that BALANCE gives both sides EQUAL importance. You can't even realize that I'm not in total disagreement with you. An above avereage Offense can BALANCE out an average Defense. And VICE VERSA. But, to think that these teams with a Top 5 offense and a bottom 3 Defense are better off than a team with more balance from now and going forward? That's just insane.

Okay. I've read all of this back and forth, and I still come back to one question I have for you. How does all of this relate to the redskins trading up or not trading up for a franchise QB?

I guess my own perspective would be that our bottleneck at QB is all the more important because offense correlates more strongly with success than defense. So that is an argument in favor of sacrificing to move up if needed, or in other words making a QB a big priority this offseason.

I guess if one doesn't think that offense (and especially passing offense) is particularly important at this moment in the NFL, one might not be so eager to trade up if the costs are steep.

Agreed, but that's not what he's arguing, since he's already conceded we need a better QB.

We just need BALANCE. Right, and how I see it is...

We have a good enough defense. We have a more than capable running game. We have a terrible QB situation...so...I guess in the end, he's agreeing that we have to trade up to get a franchise QB!

+1

The post I've been waiting for.

It seems we have a fairly good defense with some strengths and weaknesses. It seems we have an offense with a glaring need at the most important position in football. One way to look at this is simply to look at our trove of picks over the next 3 years, look at the roster and project who will still be here in three years, identify what we need, and decide what we can get (besides QB) with all those picks (minus three #1s) and cash. If we think we can fill all the needs adequtely with the retained picks and cash then we should pull the trigger on a trade up for a likely franchise QB. If we think RGIII is a likely franchise QB we should talk to the Rams.

+2
Getting a franchise QB will bring balance to the force... er, the Redskins. So I guess Hogster and Ray are both arguing that we need to trade up, only the Hogster doesn't realize it. :lol:

Posted: **Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:02 pm**

Deadskins wrote:
Smithian wrote:The Redskins can take back the town easily, but it won't be easy.

The Redskins can take back the town quickly*, but it won't be easy.

You start winning? The town is back bleeding Burgundy and Gold. Winning isn't easy. Head out there next season with Rex Grossman or another no name QB and don't have a winning record.... There may be 50,000 butts in seats in December. Probably less if the opponent doesn't travel well.

The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

why we should trade up for a franchise QB