Originally posted by MattyP
Originally posted by soapbox
However, does that site argue against a run-first defense being less important than a pass-first defense? If you look, the Pittsburgh Steelers have been near the top in the league in rush stopping the past few years, and they have also been near the top in total defense (#2/#1 in '07 iirc). I would think making a team have to throw would be a better objective than allowing the run. Look at teams like Denver... when Denver failed to stop the run in '07, that's when EVERYTHING fell apart... even with the league's best CB tandem (or top 2 with GB, but I'd still say, out of credentials, Denver had the best).
Yes it does. All you have to do is look at my favorite team (the Vikings) and you'll see why. They have been first in the league in stopping the run (yds and yds/attempt) for 2-3 years now and really no overall success. Granted, there is probably some misleading information in that stat because teams line up against the Vikes and basically don't really try to run. Why would you need to if you can pass so effectively? But the fact is, stopping the pass is just as important, if not more important.
I don't know if I completely agree with these sites because it's so hard to distill the game down to simple stats like that. But I do think they make a good case for discussion.
The reason I stayed away from the Vikes was for that very reason. When you have NO pass defense, it's pretty hard to have a good overall defense.
I meant like a team with the #1 run defense and #15 pass defense vs #1 pass defense and #15 run defense.
I'd think that might be misleading too though because of the whole "run out the clock" thing as well.
If you look at the Vikes run defense in terms of yards per attempt, it wasn't overly terrific.
Originally posted by soapbox
However, does that site argue against a run-first defense being less important than a pass-first defense? If you look, the Pittsburgh Steelers have been near the top in the league in rush stopping the past few years, and they have also been near the top in total defense (#2/#1 in '07 iirc). I would think making a team have to throw would be a better objective than allowing the run. Look at teams like Denver... when Denver failed to stop the run in '07, that's when EVERYTHING fell apart... even with the league's best CB tandem (or top 2 with GB, but I'd still say, out of credentials, Denver had the best).
Yes it does. All you have to do is look at my favorite team (the Vikings) and you'll see why. They have been first in the league in stopping the run (yds and yds/attempt) for 2-3 years now and really no overall success. Granted, there is probably some misleading information in that stat because teams line up against the Vikes and basically don't really try to run. Why would you need to if you can pass so effectively? But the fact is, stopping the pass is just as important, if not more important.
I don't know if I completely agree with these sites because it's so hard to distill the game down to simple stats like that. But I do think they make a good case for discussion.
The reason I stayed away from the Vikes was for that very reason. When you have NO pass defense, it's pretty hard to have a good overall defense.
I meant like a team with the #1 run defense and #15 pass defense vs #1 pass defense and #15 run defense.
I'd think that might be misleading too though because of the whole "run out the clock" thing as well.
If you look at the Vikes run defense in terms of yards per attempt, it wasn't overly terrific.
