Superbowl Winners and Pass Rush

[Smashin222]

Superbowl Champions
2011 -- Giants #3 in the league
2010 -- Packers #2 in the league
2009 -- Saints # 13 in the league
2008 -- Steelers #2 in the league
2007 -- Giants #1 in the league
2006 -- Colts #30 in the league
2005 -- Steelers #3 in the league
2004 -- Patriots #3 in the league
2003 -- Patriots #6 in the league
2002 -- Tampa Bay # 6 in the league

Superbowl Losers
2011 -- New England #14
2010 -- Pittsburgh #1
2009 -- Indy #16
2008 -- Arizona #14
2007 -- Patriots #2
2006 -- Chicago #8
2005 -- Seattle #1
2004 -- Philly #2
2003 -- Carolina # 7
2002 -- Oakland # 6 in the league


Just thought I'd inject some facts into the discussion. My reading?

There are a lot of ways to get to a superbowl. Having a dominant pass-rush is a really really good one.

 

[jday]

Superbowl Champions
2011 -- Giants #3 in the league
2010 -- Packers #2 in the league
2009 -- Saints # 13 in the league
2008 -- Steelers #2 in the league
2007 -- Giants #1 in the league
2006 -- Colts #30 in the league
2005 -- Steelers #3 in the league
2004 -- Patriots #3 in the league
2003 -- Patriots #6 in the league
2002 -- Tampa Bay # 6 in the league

Superbowl Losers
2011 -- New England #14
2010 -- Pittsburgh #1
2009 -- Indy #16
2008 -- Arizona #14
2007 -- Patriots #2
2006 -- Chicago #8
2005 -- Seattle #1
2004 -- Philly #2
2003 -- Carolina # 7
2002 -- Oakland # 6 in the league


Just thought I'd inject some facts into the discussion. My reading?

There are a lot of ways to get to a superbowl. Having a dominant pass-rush is a really really good one.

There is clearly merit to the relation between Super Bowl wins and pass rush. The question is what are you implying?

Are you making the statement that because the Cowboys did not focus on their pass rush, that the Cowboys are once again destined for mediocrity.

or

Are you making the statement that the Cowboys may have improved their pass rush be extension of improving their secondary.

or

Was this a face-value contribution meant only to initiate a discussion of the above points?

 

[NorTex]

How are we defining pass rush? Sacks?

 

[muck4doo]

It's meant that instead of finding a well balanced team that does well in all areas, you must instead put everything into one blanket of concern.

 

[ShiningStar]

everyone and their stats, what were the records like? Do better records matter? the year of the dragon? how was was the number 1 WR? all these things take into effect.

 

[jday]

It's meant that instead of finding a well balanced team that does well in all areas, you must instead put everything into one blanket of concern.

Actually, it is the salary cap that has created a league where having a balanced team that does everything well very rare. Which means, GM/Owners have to pick their poison, often times, to ensure they have talent in areas their coaches deem important. I think the Cowboys made the most of what they had to work with this off-season.

 

[Smashin222]

There is clearly merit to the relation between Super Bowl wins and pass rush. The question is what are you implying?

Are you making the statement that because the Cowboys did not focus on their pass rush, that the Cowboys are once again destined for mediocrity.

or

Are you making the statement that the Cowboys may have improved their pass rush be extension of improving their secondary.

or

Was this a face-value contribution meant only to initiate a discussion of the above points?

I've made my position pretty clear that I think the Cowboys pass-rush is fine as is. We've been top seven in 3/4 years and I think these numbers indicate that's certainly good enough. I personally think that improving the secondary will only help our pass rush and will improve the defense on other fronts (fewer plays of 20 yards, better on 3rd downs, better red-zone d)

But mostly I wanted to initiate a discussion. I think too many folks on both sides of the debate speak in absolutes. Risen Star for example asserts that no team has won a superbowl relying on their db's. I think that's silly. I think the numbers above indicate there are several teams who certainly haven't relied on their pass-rush at all.

I also think it helps establish his argument that the safest way to a superbowl is through a strong pass-rush.

But i think most of all it proves there are a lot of ways to get to the big dance, and that when talking about the NFL, its probably best to check absolutes at the door

 

[Smashin222]

How are we defining pass rush? Sacks?

yes, this is sacks, I agree probably a terrible measure of a pass rush (I wish they measured how long a QB holds onto the ball or some other measure like that) but this seems to be the framework for the passrush discussion

 

[Smashin222]

Actually, it is the salary cap that has created a league where having a balanced team that does everything well very rare. Which means, GM/Owners have to pick their poison, often times, to ensure they have talent in areas their coaches deem important. I think the Cowboys made the most of what they had to work with this off-season.

I agree!

 

[Smashin222]

Superbowl Champions
2011 -- Giants #3 in the league
2010 -- Packers #2 in the league
2009 -- Saints # 13 in the league
2008 -- Steelers #2 in the league
2007 -- Giants #1 in the league
2006 -- Colts #30 in the league
2005 -- Steelers #3 in the league
2004 -- Patriots #3 in the league
2003 -- Patriots #6 in the league
2002 -- Tampa Bay # 6 in the league

Superbowl Losers
2011 -- New England #14
2010 -- Pittsburgh #1
2009 -- Indy #16
2008 -- Arizona #14
2007 -- Patriots #2
2006 -- Chicago #8
2005 -- Seattle #1
2004 -- Philly #2
2003 -- Carolina # 7
2002 -- Oakland # 6 in the league


Just thought I'd inject some facts into the discussion. My reading?

There are a lot of ways to get to a superbowl. Having a dominant pass-rush is a really really good one.

What's interesting is if you average out both sides, you get #7. Which is right where we were with an awful secondary last year

if you drop the highest and the lowest, the winning team is about #5 and the losing team is still about #7.

Begs the question of how much improvement from our front seven has to happen before we can match a superbowl-caliber front-seven. (also note that our rush D was pretty darn good last year)

 

[perrykemp]

Nice Post. Thanks for putting this together.

IMHO, the Packers represent a case-study on how important pass rush is in a teams path towards winning a Superbowl.

In 2010, a very flawed 10-6 Packer team beset with an incredible number of injuries none-the-less maintains a very good pass rush all season/postseason with two good pass rushers in Clay Matthews and Cullen Jenkens. The Packers finish #2 in the NFL in sacks and win the SB.

In 2011, the Packers trot out one of the top 3 offenses in NFL history -- they totally blow other teams off the field dominate the regular season with a 15-1 record. They let Cullen Jenkins go in FA and fail to replace him and they only manage 29 sacks (ranked 27th in the NFL) for the season, fail to mount anything close to a decent pass rush in most games, and are soundly beaten at Lambeau in the 1st round of the playoffs.

In summary:

2010 - Flawed, injured 10-6 team with a very good pash rush -> Superbowl victor
2011 - Top 3 Offense of all time -- terrible pass rush - 1st round exist at home in Lambeau

 

[MichaelWinicki]

There's no doubt in my mind that pass rush is very important. You have to make the QB uncomfortable.

But give last year's defense Carr, Claiborne, subtract Newman and last year's defense would have ranked higher than 7th when it comes to sacks. Would it be unrealistic to think last year's pass rush could have gained another half-dozen sacks with better coverage? I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[burmafrd]

The Colts stat the year they won was VERY misleading; their D was playing a WHOLE lot better in the playoffs. Saints were getting turnovers like crazy the year they won. So the two that stand out are exceptions for a reason.

 

[Risen Star]

Not a single one of those defenses were built from the back in.

 

[HoosierCowboy]

if pass rush were the answer, why not just sign 6 or seven guys who can only rush the passer and turn them loose every play--sacks is not a meaningless stat but it can depend as much on having a good offense (playing with a lead and forcing opponent to pass long) and anything. stats can be meaningless (and also very meaningful): I learned this at an early age when a terrible college team I liked was about 5th in the nation in pass defense only because they gave up about 500 yards a game on the ground

 

[burmafrd]

if pass rush were the answer, why not just sign 6 or seven guys who can only rush the passer and turn them loose every play--sacks is not a meaningless stat but it can depend as much on having a good offense (playing with a lead and forcing opponent to pass long) and anything. stats can be meaningless (and also very meaningful): I learned this at an early age when a terrible college team I liked was about 5th in the nation in pass defense only because they gave up about 500 yards a game on the ground

way to miss the point

These were all teams that MADE It to the SUPER BOWL.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Not a single one of those defenses were built from the back in.

That's a good point.

The Cowboys have consistently been a better pass rushing team than they have been at defending the pass.

Glad you agree that throwing some resources at the secondary was needed.

 

[Smashin222]

Not a single one of those defenses were built from the back in.

Why do you think the Cowboys are being built from the back in?

we've ranked in the top seven 3 out of 4 years including a number 1 finish?

If we make the superbowl with a top seven defense, we would not be an outlier given the numbers above.

It seems more like, we built our pass-rush and now we're fixing our secondary.
thoughts?

 

[jday]

Nice Post. Thanks for putting this together.

IMHO, the Packers represent a case-study on how important pass rush is in a teams path towards winning a Superbowl.

In 2010, a very flawed 10-6 Packer team beset with an incredible number of injuries none-the-less maintains a very good pass rush all season/postseason with two good pass rushers in Clay Matthews and Cullen Jenkens. The Packers finish #2 in the NFL in sacks and win the SB.

In 2011, the Packers trot out one of the top 3 offenses in NFL history -- they totally blow other teams off the field dominate the regular season with a 15-1 record. They let Cullen Jenkins go in FA and fail to replace him and they only manage 29 sacks (ranked 27th in the NFL) for the season, fail to mount anything close to a decent pass rush in most games, and are soundly beaten at Lambeau in the 1st round of the playoffs.

In summary:

2010 - Flawed, injured 10-6 team with a very good pash rush -> Superbowl victor
2011 - Top 3 Offense of all time -- terrible pass rush - 1st round exist at home in Lambeau

I'm pretty sure I heard Mickey Spags say something like, "It's the chicken and the egg debate." He was referring to the question of what is more important? Pass Rush or Secondary?

I personally feel it's more like the ying and the yang. You can't have one without the other. Give a QB and a receiver time, and I don't care who you have at corner, he's going to get burned. Likewise, with a collection of the best talented pass rushers the league has to offer, if you don't have guy's who can press, the QB will dink and dunk to death with short passes and screens.

OP, I simply do not have time to do this myself, so is it possible for you to provide where these same teams ranked in regards to pass? I'm about to head to church, so if you haven't done so by the time I get back, I'll see if I can find some time to do the research.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

7th in the league in pass rush with, I believe, 42 sacks while playing with a sub par, at best, secondary.


It'll be very interesting, and nice, to see this defense get the chance to rush the passer when their secondary can cover for more than 2 seconds on a regular basis.