Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Redball Express, Jun 16, 2021.
That is my point, that is what he objected. I agree with you
The Future is in the future.
Can I have your permission to have that printed on a tee shirt?
I just want 10%
That is not an accurate summation in my opinion. I believe Future's main contention is that passing offense can play a significant role for success.
On the other hand, I read your downplaying of his argument. For example, you made the counter-argument that seven--later corrected to six--teams with top 10 passing offenses missed the playoffs. That would be a 60% failure rate among such teams. However, the 40% success rate of the remaining teams cannot be labeled as nonconsequential due to the other teams' lack thereof. Additionally, those four teams thrived in the playoffs due to all elements of their game, which, again, included their passing offenses.
Anyone can downplay the ramifications of a top quality passing offense in a pass happy league. The effort is not genuine since an example of 40% success rate among top ten passing offensive teams reaching the playoffs is still a far cry from zero percent.
Tampa was terrible until last year lol. They're the exact opposite of consistent. You could say the same thing about Seattle, who is perceived as a consistent contender, but hasn't been. They haven't been to a NFCCG since 2014. Green Bay is really the only team who has been consistently in the Super Bowl mix from the NFC, but they missed the playoffs in 17 and 18.
It just doesn't matter much what you did the year before. Atlanta missed the playoffs in 13, 14 and 15, went to the Super Bowl in 16, and has only made the playoffs once since.
I think everyone is wrong. It takes a good passing game, a good running game, a good run defense, a good pass defense, a good punt returning team, a good kickoff returning team, a good punter, a good kicker, a good defensive coaching staff, a good offensive coaching staff, a good special teams coaching staff, a good head coach and a good owner.
And a bit of luck.
Sorry, while there are exceptions I’d argue on the most part recent history and trends do matter when considering who are Legit contenders going in.
I agree. Football success depends on many factors. It would be inaccurate to diminish the importance of any of the factors you have mentioned.
From 3 separate posts in this thread:
“Dallas has a better passing offense than all of those teams except maybe GB and that's pretty much the only factor that matters in determining potential.”
“There is no team without flaws in a cap league, and passing offense is what makes teams competitive in the modern game. Dallas has that.”
“If you can throw the ball you are a contender. If you can't, you're not. It's very simple”
If these are interpreted to mean that passing offense isn’t the sole reason or the only determining factor, as he’s stated, that teams are or aren’t contenders, then I understand I misinterpreted his point and have been only arguing with myself.
These are not exceptions, they are the rule. The teams you pointed to as consistent have not been. There are no examples of consistency, especially in the NFC, who meet the standard you're referring to.
Even the fans play a part in a teams success. Home field advantage.
I don’t think there’s any way Philly isn’t playing Jax in the 2017 SB if that AFCCG was in Florida
Sorry, I don’t agree. And furthermore whether we agree or not on the teams with most current history of success in playoffs in NFC the Cowboys certainly wouldn’t be one of them.
Just a humble suggestion on my part but perhaps you should consider re-reading your reply to me, word-for-word, if you still have any lingering doubts.
It makes me nonevermind!
No, they made it because they can throw the ball. Everything in the NFL stems from that. Balance is a product of being able to throw the football. So yes, you need balance, but you can only have it with a great passing offense.
There are 8-10 teams who can throw the ball, there are 8-10 contenders. I am absolutely dismissive of any other factor - outside of maybe passrush - being relevant to success. They are not. The correlation between passing EPA and success is basically perfect. Championship Game rankings in passing EPA:
2020: 1, 3, 4, 5
2019: 1, 4, 7, 8
2018: 1, 2, 7, 8
So I'm not really interested in hearing about how you need to run the ball, control TOP, or whatever. The path to consistent success is throwing the football, and the rest falls into place behind it. Brandon Staley, who had the best defense in football last year, said specifically that he cared almost exclusively about giving up big plays in the pass game.
I don't really understand how you disagree. It is factual. The teams you specifically called out have no consistency. There is absolutely no correlation between recent or consistent playoff success and going to or winning a Super Bowl. So no, the Cowboys haven't been there, but that's not predictive of anything moving forward.
So if a passing game is all that's needed to win consistently wouldn't that mean you have to have a defense capable of stopping the other teams passing offense?
Yes, but the only way you do that is to score first and make the other team one dimensional, especially in a salary cap league.
There's not a defense in the league that can just line up and beat KC. If you get KC's A game, they are going to score 30 points every time. Even the Rams, good as they were last year, gave up 35 to Buffalo, 27 to Tampa and 32 to GB. Funny, those were all the in the top-10 of passing EPA. You just can not build a defense capable of defeating those offenses. It does not exist with the way the game is called.