A defensive history of the Green Bay Packers.

[Deleted member 6794]

It's not just Green Bay that had great defense in the Super Bowl. It is almost impossible to win without a good defense. In the last 20 years, the teams that won the Super Bowl and the defensive scoring rank for the season.

Brady had defense's ranked 6, 1, 2 and 8.
Rodgers, Packers were ranked 2nd.
Wilson 1.
Big Ben, 1 and 3.
Elway, 6 and 8.
Favre, 1
Ravens were 1 and 12.
Eli, well Eli had 17 and 25, When the Giants got the playoffs, the defense stepped up and held the other teams to 14 points per game.
Brees defense was 20.
Payton Manning his was 23. Same as Eli, when the Colts made it, the defense stepped up and held the other teams to 6, 8, 34 and 17 points.

So having a good QB is good, but it won't necessarily win you the big game.

You forgot the 1995 Cowboys (3rd), the 1999 Rams (4th) and the 2002 Bucs (1st).

Here's the offensive scoring rank of the teams winning the Super Bowl over the last 20 years:

1995 Cowboys 3rd
1996 Packers 1st
1997 Broncos 1st
1998 Broncos 2nd
1999 Rams 1st
2000 Ravens 14th
2001 Patriots 6th
2002 Buccaneers 18th
2003 Patriots 12th
2004 Patriots 4th
2005 Steelers 9th
2006 Colts 2nd
2007 Giants 14th
2008 Steelers 20th
2009 Saints 1st
2010 Packers 10th
2011 Giants 9th
2012 Ravens 10th
2013 Seahawks 8th
2014 Patriots 4th

So while there have been three teams ranked 20th or worse in scoring defense winning the Super Bowl there has been only one on offense. Five teams both on defense and offense were ranked outside of the top 10.

Teams winning the Super Bowl over the last 20 years had an average ranking of 7.25 on defense and 7.45 on offense.

It's a myth that defense wins championships. It's important to have a good TEAM to win the Super Bowl.

 

[Raptorman]

It's a myth that defense wins championships. It's important to have a good TEAM to win the Super Bowl.

This is correct, and it's also a myth that you need an elite QB to win. Winning the Super Bowl is hands down a team game. Good offense with a QB that doesn't throw the ball away, and a good defense to hold back the other team.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Just because you continue to ignore the facts I've posted several times in response to your claim that defenses win championships doesn't mean they aren't true.

Look at the reply from Raptorman. The point is simply this: if the SB pits the #1 O against the #1 D, one would be delusional not to bet on the #1 D. Your so- called facts cannot disprove this point. I love the GB Packers. And ARod is the best QB in the NFL. That could get them to 14 wins and one and done at Lambeau if the D isn't at least top 10. But if the matchup suggested above happens and you'd like to bet I'd be happy to take your money.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

This is correct, and it's also a myth that you need an elite QB to win. Winning the Super Bowl is hands down a team game. Good offense with a QB that doesn't throw the ball away, and a good defense to hold back the other team.

It does take a team effort and an elite QB. There are few exceptions to this. I guess I can sum up my point this way - if all I knew about a SB matchup was that it pitted a #1 O versus a #1 D, I would always bet on the D. I love the quote, I think it was Bear Bryant - "Offense sells tickets. Defense wins championships." No not EVERY time, just MOST of the time. To those who want to deny this, that's fine. I don't have anything else to say about it that isn't noted in this post. Thanks again to Raptorman for the stats.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

You forgot the 1995 Cowboys (3rd), the 1999 Rams (4th) and the 2002 Bucs (1st).

Here's the offensive scoring rank of the teams winning the Super Bowl over the last 20 years:

1995 Cowboys 3rd
1996 Packers 1st
1997 Broncos 1st
1998 Broncos 2nd
1999 Rams 1st
2000 Ravens 14th
2001 Patriots 6th
2002 Buccaneers 18th
2003 Patriots 12th
2004 Patriots 4th
2005 Steelers 9th
2006 Colts 2nd
2007 Giants 14th
2008 Steelers 20th
2009 Saints 1st
2010 Packers 10th
2011 Giants 9th
2012 Ravens 10th
2013 Seahawks 8th
2014 Patriots 4th

So while there have been three teams ranked 20th or worse in scoring defense winning the Super Bowl there has been only one on offense. Five teams both on defense and offense were ranked outside of the top 10.

Teams winning the Super Bowl over the last 20 years had an average ranking of 7.25 on defense and 7.45 on offense.

It's a myth that defense wins championships. It's important to have a good TEAM to win the Super Bowl.

Thanks for proving my point that superior Ds win more championships than superior Os.

 

[TJV]

Look at the reply from Raptorman. The point is simply this: if the SB pits the #1 O against the #1 D, one would be delusional not to bet on the #1 D. Your so- called facts cannot disprove this point. … But if the matchup suggested above happens and you'd like to bet I'd be happy to take your money.

The reply by Raptorman began with his agreement with captainWIMM that, “It's a myth that defense wins championships. It's important to have a good TEAM to win the Super Bowl.”, so perhaps you too should look at that reply.

Regarding being delusional, your memory only has to go back 5 years to find two #1 scoring defenses that lost the Super Bowl. Perhaps you don’t remember but in the 2014 regular season, the Seahawks had the number 1 scoring D and they lost to the Pats. Also you may remember the 2010 regular season in which the Steelers had the #1 scoring D and they lost to the Packers. Those facts, like those presented by captainWIMM aren't "so-called" facts. They're just facts. The point is simply in 2 of the last five Super Bowls, someone would have been happy to take your money as you bet on the team with the #1 scoring D. BTW, the #2 scoring D in the 2012 regular season lost the title to the team with the 10th rated offense.

I know there's a lot of denial on this forum but if a #1 O is playing a #1 D in the SB, the smart money is always on the D. End of story.

Obviously not the end of the story. And why is it so often those who are losing an argument feel the need to write something like that? As far as being in denial, it’s you who calls facts "so-called".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Look at the reply from Raptorman. The point is simply this: if the SB pits the #1 O against the #1 D, one would be delusional not to bet on the #1 D. Your so- called facts cannot disprove this point. I love the GB Packers. And ARod is the best QB in the NFL. That could get them to 14 wins and one and done at Lambeau if the D isn't at least top 10. But if the matchup suggested above happens and you'd like to bet I'd be happy to take your money.

Over the last 20 years it only happened 11 times (regular season and playoffs) that the #1 offense played the #1 defense. The top-ranked defense won six of those games. While that is one win over 50% it's a far cry from being a sure thing.

As I've mentioned in my previous post in this thread a good offense is equally important as a good defense. But don't let facts get in the way of continuing to believe in what Bear Bryant said several centuries ago.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thanks for proving my point that superior Ds win more championships than superior Os.

Do you really think that a difference of 0.2 in average ranking makes up a significant difference??? Geez!!!

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

The reply by Raptorman began with his agreement with captainWIMM that, “It's a myth that defense wins championships. It's important to have a good TEAM to win the Super Bowl.”, so perhaps you too should look at that reply.

Regarding being delusional, your memory only has to go back 5 years to find two #1 scoring defenses that lost the Super Bowl. Perhaps you don’t remember but in the 2014 regular season, the Seahawks had the number 1 scoring D and they lost to the Pats. Also you may remember the 2010 regular season in which the Steelers had the #1 scoring D and they lost to the Packers. Those facts, like those presented by captainWIMM aren't "so-called" facts. They're just facts. The point is simply in 2 of the last five Super Bowls, someone would have been happy to take your money as you bet on the team with the #1 scoring D. BTW, the #2 scoring D in the 2012 regular season lost the title to the team with the 10th rated offense.
Obviously not the end of the story. And why is it so often those who are losing an argument feel the need to write something like that? As far as being in denial, it’s you who calls facts "so-called".

Fair enough, I'll leave it at this - The #1 D has played the # 1 O 6 times in SB history. 5 times the #1 D has won, the last being Seattle's dismantling of Peyton Manning and the Broncos. That's just a fact. I don't think there's an argument to be won or lost here, that's really childlike attitude. At least you are consistent in this regard. But if you feel the need to win Jack, fine, you win. Feel better son? Just stating the facts Jack!

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Do you really think that a difference of 0.2 in average ranking makes up a significant difference??? Geez!!!

See reply to Jack. I think it's ok to disagree on whether people believe a superior D or superior O is more likely to win a championship. And maybe I'm still a little sore form the Packers relatively recent 15 - 1 season, and then one and done by the Giants in Lambeau. Now that hurt because the Giants were clearly the superior team. The loss versus Seattle is worse, and would have shown that a superior O can beat a superior D, as long as both teams understand the game doesn't end after 56 minutes.

I want the Packers to win another SB or two before we lose A-Rod. That will not happen if they don't improve their D. Since 2010 it's been a case of two steps backward and two steps forward during the offseason, but always resulting in an average to slightly above average D. You can believe that ARod and the O will carry the day if the D just stands pat from the last two seasons, but that's wishful thinking. This is a Packers forum and we all want them to win (OK not the Viking fans who troll here). But they have failed defensively at "money time". How many more years are fans willing to accept that?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Fair enough, I'll leave it at this - The #1 D has played the # 1 O 6 times in SB history. 5 times the #1 D has won, the last being Seattle's dismantling of Peyton Manning and the Broncos. That's just a fact.

Only one of these games happened over the last 20 years, a period in which the rules were altered greatly favoring the offense.

I want the Packers to win another SB or two before we lose A-Rod. That will not happen if they don't improve their D. Since 2010 it's been a case of two steps backward and two steps forward during the offseason, but always resulting in an average to slightly above average D. You can believe that ARod and the O will carry the day if the D just stands pat from the last two seasons, but that's wishful thinking. This is a Packers forum and we all want them to win (OK not the Viking fans who troll here). But they have failed defensively at "money time". How many more years are fans willing to accept that?

There's no denying the Packers defense has to improve their performance during the playoffs for the team to win another Super Bowl. They don't neecd to play at an elite level though for that to happen.

 

[TJV]

Fair enough, I'll leave it at this - The #1 D has played the # 1 O 6 times in SB history. 5 times the #1 D has won, the last being Seattle's dismantling of Peyton Manning and the Broncos. That's just a fact. I don't think there's an argument to be won or lost here, that's really childlike attitude. At least you are consistent in this regard. But if you feel the need to win Jack, fine, you win. Feel better son?

That's great logic joey. You think it's more important if the #1 D plays that #1 O? Shouldn't they have a better chance of winning against a less than #1 O? And in the past five years the #1 D lost the Super Bowl twice, so your post was demonstrably wrong - I just pointed that out.

And are you really so clueless as to call others childlike? You are the one that directed two posts at me with nothing but childish insults – no substance whatever. You are the one who insisted others are in denial when you are the one denying facts. And you said it would be delusional not to bet on the #1D in the Super Bowl when you would have lost that bet twice out of the last 5 Super Bowls. If you want to be honest, hold up a mirror when you fling silly accusations, son.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Okay gents, time out here for a while at least.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Right gentlemen, I`ve unlocked the thread, but we can do without the personal digs please. Keep on subject and avoid the jibes. Thank you.