Understanding Our History
-
Please add "Red Right 88" to this list. Had Sipe not thrown into tight coverage, in the endzone, things might have been different. Now, is it the QB or the coach for calling that play?
-
according to Sam R, Sipe was instructed to "throw the ball into Lake Erie" if nothing was open.
Also from what I remember, reports were that Newsome was the secondary reciever. Sipe checked down and still threw into coverage.
So, it seems to be a QB mistake.
(of course, Sipe got us there, and in position to make a winning field goal or score the touchdown, and had a great season)
-
Here is the real clue guys: It is great balance that wins Championships. Not just great defense, not just great offense, but quality balance between offense, defense, and special teams.
A great defense with a lousy offense will not win you a title. The Bears have had some of the greatest defenses in history and never got to a title game. Not until their offense was at full steam in 1985 did they win a SB. Their defense in the 3-4 years surrounding 1985 was just as good, but their offense faltered.
A great offense with a lousy defense will not win you a title. The Dan Fouts led Chargers of the 80s, or the Marino Dolphins prove that.
Oh, there may be a rare statistical exception, but if you go back to say 1950 and the AAFC/NFL merger I suspect you will find that nearly every champion was in the top 10 in both offense and defense that year. (Plus combine quality special teams).
You can win a title without a great QB. Dilfer, Rypien and a few others proved that....but those offenses were well balanced and those QBs did a good job of "managing" those offenses such that they were very productive (and they had sound running games).
-
according to Sam R, Sipe was instructed to "throw the ball into Lake Erie" if nothing was open.
Also from what I remember, reports were that Newsome was the secondary reciever. Sipe checked down and still threw into coverage.
So, it seems to be a QB mistake.
(of course, Sipe got us there, and in position to make a winning field goal or score the touchdown, and had a great season)
The Soldier said:
according to Sam R, Sipe was instructed to "throw the ball into Lake Erie" if nothing was open.Also from what I remember, reports were that Newsome was the secondary reciever. Sipe checked down and still threw into coverage.
So, it seems to be a QB mistake.
(of course, Sipe got us there, and in position to make a winning field goal or score the touchdown, and had a great season)
Well, how they tell it on the Browns history DVD (meaning Sipe, Newsome, and Sam), is that Ozzie was open, it was a good read, but the wind kept the ball up in the air to long.
-
Here is the real clue guys: It is great balance that wins Championships. Not just great defense, not just great offense, but quality balance between offense, defense, and special teams.
A great defense with a lousy offense will not win you a title. The Bears have had some of the greatest defenses in history and never got to a title game. Not until their offense was at full steam in 1985 did they win a SB. Their defense in the 3-4 years surrounding 1985 was just as good, but their offense faltered.
A great offense with a lousy defense will not win you a title. The Dan Fouts led Chargers of the 80s, or the Marino Dolphins prove that.
Oh, there may be a rare statistical exception, but if you go back to say 1950 and the AAFC/NFL merger I suspect you will find that nearly every champion was in the top 10 in both offense and defense that year. (Plus combine quality special teams).
You can win a title without a great QB. Dilfer, Rypien and a few others proved that....but those offenses were well balanced and those QBs did a good job of "managing" those offenses such that they were very productive (and they had sound running games).
You can win a title without a great QB. Dilfer, Rypien and a few others proved that....but those offenses were well balanced and those QBs did a good job of "managing" those offenses such that they were very productive (and they had sound running games).
I would hardly call the BALT O under Dilfer balanced. That O was 1 dimensional
-
Regarding The Drive, it should be kept in mind that Marty went Prevent D that entire drive. That really didn't give the D much of a chance to seal the game.
Masters said:
Regarding The Drive, it should be kept in mind that Marty went Prevent D that entire drive. That really didn't give the D much of a chance to seal the game.Good point. Whenever I see "prevent" I always wonder if the coach making this call has ever watched football. Whenever a strategy begins with you giving the other team something, your plan is flawed.
Pass completions have a funny way of never happening when the QB is on his back, which is hard to do when your front 7 is now a front 3 and there's 8 db's out there.
-
Masters said:
Regarding The Drive, it should be kept in mind that Marty went Prevent D that entire drive. That really didn't give the D much of a chance to seal the game.Good point. Whenever I see "prevent" I always wonder if the coach making this call has ever watched football. Whenever a strategy begins with you giving the other team something, your plan is flawed.
Pass completions have a funny way of never happening when the QB is on his back, which is hard to do when your front 7 is now a front 3 and there's 8 db's out there.
88fingerslewy said:
Good point. Whenever I see "prevent" I always wonder if the coach making this call has ever watched football. Whenever a strategy begins with you giving the other team something, your plan is flawed.Pass completions have a funny way of never happening when the QB is on his back, which is hard to do when your front 7 is now a front 3 and there's 8 db's out there.
Indeed sir. Prevent Defense prevents you from winning.
-
Well, here are the statistical facts, which I think to a great degree prove my point about requiring quality balance on a championship team. I am going to go back to the AFL/NFL merger of 1970. It is only since then I believe that all teams in the league were ranked statistically from 1-32 or 1-28, however many teams were in the league. I am listing each year, the Champion for that year, and the statistical rank of that team in the league for offense and defense, which I further break down into their rank for Points scored or allowed and Yards gained or allowed:
Year Team Offense rank points yards Defense rank points yards
2008 Steelers 22 20 1 1
2007 Giants 14 16 17 7
2006 Colts 2 3 23 21
2005 Steelers 9 15 3 4
2004 Pats 4 7 2 9
2003 Pats 12 17 1 7
2002 Bucs 18 24 1 1
2001 Pats 6 19 6 24
2000 Ravens 14 16 1 2
1999 Rams 1 1 4 6
1998 Broncos 2 3 8 11
1997 Broncos 1 1 6 5
1996 Packers 1 5 1 1
1995 Cowboys 3 5 3 9
1994 49ers 1 2 6 8
1993 Cowboys 2 4 2 10
1992 Cowboys 2 4 5 1
1991 Redskins 1 4 2 3
1990 Giants 15 17 1 2
1989 49ers 1 1 3 4
1988 49ers 7 2 8 3
1987 Redskins 4 3 6 18
1986 Giants 8 10 2 2
1985 Bears 2 7 1 1
1984 49ers 2 2 1 10
1983 Raiders 3 7 13 4
1982 Redskins 12 7 1 4
1981 49ers 7 13 2 2
1980 Raiders 7 16 10 11
1979 Steelers 1 1 5 2
1978 Steelers 5 8 1 3
1977 Cowboys 2 1 8 1
1976 Raiders 4 2 12 18
1975 Steelers 5 7 2 4
1974 Steelers 6 8 2 1
1973 Dolphins 5 9 1 3
1972 Dolphins 1 1 1 1
1971 Cowboys 1 1 7 3
1970 Colts 6 8 7 9
As you can see, I believe my point is made. It takes offensive and defensive balance generally to win a title. For the most part, the title winners are among the top 10 in both offense and defense.
-
From my statistical analysis above here are some items that can be gleaned:
A. The best statisical offensive teams, i.e those that ranked #1 in both categories include the 1999 Rams, 1997 Broncos, 1989 49ers, the 1979 Steelers, the 1972 Dolphins, and the 1971 Cowboys
B. The best statistical defensive teams, i.e. those that ranked #1 in both categories include the 2008 Steelers, the 2002 Bucs, the 1996 Packers, the 1985 Bears, and the 1972 Dolphins
C. The very best teams to ever win the Super Bowl, by statistical rankings of their units are:
1. The 1972 Miami Dolphin (combined statistical score of 4....lowest number being the best) the only perfect score!
2. The 1996 Packers (score of
3. The 1989 49ers (score of 9)
3. The 1979 Steelers (also score of 9)
5. The 1991 Redskins (score of 10)
D. The "worst" teams to ever win a Super Bowl by statistical rankings are:
1. The 2001 Patriots (score of 55)
2. The 2007 Giants (score of 54)
3. The 2006 Colts (score of 49)
4. The 1980 Raiders (score of 45)
5. The 2008 Steelers (score of 44)
5. The 2002 Bucs (also score of 44)
Now, here is the real question: Why are so many of these "worst Super Bowl winners" from this most recent decade?
Does anyone have a clue about this anomaly?
-
Is this what you were going for, cause I can't read the chart you posted.
Year Team Offense rank points yards Defense rank points yards 2008 Steelers 22 20 1 1 2007 Giants 14 16 17 7 2006 Colts 2 3 23 21 2005 Steelers 9 15 3 4 2004 Pats 4 7 2 9 2003 Pats 12 17 1 7 2002 Bucs 18 24 1 1 2001 Pats 6 19 6 24 2000 Ravens 14 16 1 2 1999 Rams 1 1 4 6 1998 Broncos 2 3 8 11 1997 Broncos 1 1 6 5 1996 Packers 1 5 1 1 1995 Cowboys 3 5 3 9 1994 49ers 1 2 6 8 1993 Cowboys 2 4 2 10 1992 Cowboys 2 4 5 1 1991 Redskins 1 4 2 3 1990 Giants 15 17 1 2 1989 49ers 1 1 3 4 1988 49ers 7 2 8 3 1987 Redskins 4 3 6 18 1986 Giants 8 10 2 2 1985 Bears 2 7 1 1 1984 49ers 2 2 1 10 1983 Raiders 3 7 13 4 1982 Redskins 12 7 1 4 1981 49ers 7 13 2 2
If you are looking for a band that sounds just like your favorite band, just forget about us. If you are looking for a band that will make you forget about your favorite band, we are here, just walk down Remedy Lane a few times and you will never be the same again... Daniel Gildenlow, Pain of Salvation -
I dont know much about what wins championships as it is entirely situational, but offense makes for an interesting game. If the browns were to lose a game i would rather have them losing 27 - 30 rather that 0 - 3. give me those touchdowns, give me the excitement.
-
Sorry about the jumbled mess that came out on my recent post. That is not the way I produced it. The website automatically eliminated the spaces I put between the numbers on the grid.
-
Is this what you were going for, cause I can't read the chart you posted.
Year Team Offense rank points yards Defense rank points yards 2008 Steelers 22 20 1 1 2007 Giants 14 16 17 7 2006 Colts 2 3 23 21 2005 Steelers 9 15 3 4 2004 Pats 4 7 2 9 2003 Pats 12 17 1 7 2002 Bucs 18 24 1 1 2001 Pats 6 19 6 24 2000 Ravens 14 16 1 2 1999 Rams 1 1 4 6 1998 Broncos 2 3 8 11 1997 Broncos 1 1 6 5 1996 Packers 1 5 1 1 1995 Cowboys 3 5 3 9 1994 49ers 1 2 6 8 1993 Cowboys 2 4 2 10 1992 Cowboys 2 4 5 1 1991 Redskins 1 4 2 3 1990 Giants 15 17 1 2 1989 49ers 1 1 3 4 1988 49ers 7 2 8 3 1987 Redskins 4 3 6 18 1986 Giants 8 10 2 2 1985 Bears 2 7 1 1 1984 49ers 2 2 1 10 1983 Raiders 3 7 13 4 1982 Redskins 12 7 1 4 1981 49ers 7 13 2 2
Is this what you were going for, cause I can't read the chart you posted.
Year Team Offense rank points yards Defense rank points yards 2008 Steelers 22 20 1 1 2007 Giants 14 16 17 7 2006 Colts 2 3 23 21 2005 Steelers 9 15 3 4 2004 Pats 4 7 2 9 2003 Pats 12 17 1 7 2002 Bucs 18 24 1 1 2001 Pats 6 19 6 24 2000 Ravens 14 16 1 2 1999 Rams 1 1 4 6 1998 Broncos 2 3 8 11 1997 Broncos 1 1 6 5 1996 Packers 1 5 1 1 1995 Cowboys 3 5 3 9 1994 49ers 1 2 6 8 1993 Cowboys 2 4 2 10 1992 Cowboys 2 4 5 1 1991 Redskins 1 4 2 3 1990 Giants 15 17 1 2 1989 49ers 1 1 3 4 1988 49ers 7 2 8 3 1987 Redskins 4 3 6 18 1986 Giants 8 10 2 2 1985 Bears 2 7 1 1 1984 49ers 2 2 1 10 1983 Raiders 3 7 13 4 1982 Redskins 12 7 1 4 1981 49ers 7 13 2 2
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
-
Note some of these anomalies on the chart:
1. Those 2001 Pats who had the worst combined number had the strangest divergence between the points and the yards allowed.
Though they were 19th in yards gained, they were 6th in points scored. The mark of a very efficient offense.
Though they were 24th in yards allowed, they were 6th in points allowed. Very much a bend but don't break defense.
2. It could truly be said that defense won championships for the 2008 Squealers, the 2002 Bucs, and the 2000 Ratbirds. They had offenses that essentially ranked in the bottom half of the league standings, but defenses right at the very top.
Again, all teams in the 00s decade. Seems like a trend of sorts.
3. Contrarily, the offenses carried the day for the 2006 Colts (yes, their defense got hot in postseason but we are talking overall) and the 1976 Raiders whose defenses ranked in the bottom half of the league.
-
Note some of these anomalies on the chart:
1. Those 2001 Pats who had the worst combined number had the strangest divergence between the points and the yards allowed.
Though they were 19th in yards gained, they were 6th in points scored. The mark of a very efficient offense.
Though they were 24th in yards allowed, they were 6th in points allowed. Very much a bend but don't break defense.
2. It could truly be said that defense won championships for the 2008 Squealers, the 2002 Bucs, and the 2000 Ratbirds. They had offenses that essentially ranked in the bottom half of the league standings, but defenses right at the very top.
Again, all teams in the 00s decade. Seems like a trend of sorts.
3. Contrarily, the offenses carried the day for the 2006 Colts (yes, their defense got hot in postseason but we are talking overall) and the 1976 Raiders whose defenses ranked in the bottom half of the league.
3. Contrarily, the offenses carried the day for the 2006 Colts (yes, their defense got hot in postseason but we are talking overall) and the 1976 Raiders whose defenses ranked in the bottom half of the league.
True, but championships aren't won in the regular season.
-
3. Contrarily, the offenses carried the day for the 2006 Colts (yes, their defense got hot in postseason but we are talking overall) and the 1976 Raiders whose defenses ranked in the bottom half of the league.
True, but championships aren't won in the regular season.
Masters said:
True, but championships aren't won in the regular season.No, but a defense usually does't change its stripes. That Colts team is the only time in the history of the Super Bowl at least that a defense that poorly rated got a Super Bowl win out of it. It obviously stepped up its game that year.
Very often, a team with that bad a defense never sees the postseason.
-
Masters said:
True, but championships aren't won in the regular season.No, but a defense usually does't change its stripes. That Colts team is the only time in the history of the Super Bowl at least that a defense that poorly rated got a Super Bowl win out of it. It obviously stepped up its game that year.
Very often, a team with that bad a defense never sees the postseason.
No, but a defense usually does't change its stripes. That Colts team is the only time in the history of the Super Bowl at least that a defense that poorly rated got a Super Bowl win out of it. It obviously stepped up its game that year.
Very often, a team with that bad a defense never sees the postseason.
You won't get a disagreement from me on that. While the Colts D were a regular season exception, their playoff D was tops and that was my point.
What you tend to see is playoff teams have top 10 O's and D's. What might be an interesting thing to look at is come playoffs, how did the SB winning teams D and O rank against the other playoff teams. I'd be surprised if in most cases the SB winner was the team giving up the least amount of points per game throughout the playoffs.
-
Here is the real clue guys: It is great balance that wins Championships. Not just great defense, not just great offense, but quality balance between offense, defense, and special teams.
A great defense with a lousy offense will not win you a title. The Bears have had some of the greatest defenses in history and never got to a title game. Not until their offense was at full steam in 1985 did they win a SB. Their defense in the 3-4 years surrounding 1985 was just as good, but their offense faltered.
A great offense with a lousy defense will not win you a title. The Dan Fouts led Chargers of the 80s, or the Marino Dolphins prove that.
Oh, there may be a rare statistical exception, but if you go back to say 1950 and the AAFC/NFL merger I suspect you will find that nearly every champion was in the top 10 in both offense and defense that year. (Plus combine quality special teams).
You can win a title without a great QB. Dilfer, Rypien and a few others proved that....but those offenses were well balanced and those QBs did a good job of "managing" those offenses such that they were very productive (and they had sound running games).
Here is the real clue guys: It is great balance that wins Championships. Not just great defense, not just great offense, but quality balance between offense, defense, and special teams.
Very nice point. I think perhaps one of the best illustrations of this can be found in the 1964 championship game, as depicted by Terry Pluto in When All the World Was Browns Town.
Offense and defense combined for that win. Moreover, Paul Brown had been replaced as head coach by Blanton Collier, a coach that was not as dictatorial as Brown and who was able to incorporate player input and feedback into the winning game plan for that particular matchup with the Colts, something Brown could not have done due to his personality: Brown was the coach, why would he ever have to ask a player for their input?
I believe that the 1964 championship team was innovative in terms of "teamwork:" offense, defense and coaching staff used film study to break down the Colts' and changed the way teams prepared to play the game.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login