Statistical Comparison: 2012 Vikes vs 4 Super Bowl Winners

[CalVike]

Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl less than 5 years ago, in 2008, and the strength of that team was their defense, not their passing game. Their offense was nothing special that year. Roethlisberger is obviously a better player than Ponder but you don't have to go all the way back to the Ravens and Bucs to find a team that relied more on defense than their QB to win it all. Heck, the 2007 Giants weren't ranked especially high on offense or defense at the end of the regular season but they came together, found the right balance and pulled off an upset to win the Super Bowl.

Exactly, Jim. I would have included the very teams you mention in my comparison charts but I ran out of gas. The 2008 Steelers had 4991 yards total offense (3301 passing, 1690 rushing). The 2007 Giants had 5302 yards total offense (3154 passing, 2148 rushing).

[Mothman]

Exactly, Jim. I would have included the very teams you mention in my comparison charts but I ran out of gas. The 2008 Steelers had 4991 yards total offense (3301 passing, 1690 rushing). The 2007 Giants had 5302 yards total offense (3154 passing, 2148 rushing).

Thanks for the info and thanks for putting this thread together. It's interesting!

[Crax]

Pittsburgh won the Super Bowl less than 5 years ago, in 2008, and the strength of that team was their defense, not their passing game. Their offense was nothing special that year. Roethlisberger is obviously a better player than Ponder but you don't have to go all the way back to the Ravens and Bucs to find a team that relied more on defense than their QB to win it all.

Didn't we already discuss that? I already said Big Ben was mediocre during the season, but was 2nd overall in the playoffs. The steelers were also second in scoring average in the playoffs meeting up with the cardinals who were first in scoring average.

If you want to call them a defensive only team, then show some playoff stats to back that up, please. Statistically the Ravens,Eagles, and Titans were all better defensively in the playoffs than the Steelers that year. In fact, Arizona who also made the super bowl was only slightly worse. Are you going to call Arizona a defensive team now too?

If your argument is that you can be mediocre during the season and have your QB play well through a playoff run, than I agree with you. The steelers weren't the Bucs/Ravens.

[CalVike]

If your argument is that you can be mediocre during the season and have your QB play well through a playoff run, than I agree with you. The steelers weren't the Bucs/Ravens.

This is true as you say but not the main point. The main point is that a team that is not a juggernaut offensively in the regular season and in many ways mediocre can, and often does, win the Super Bowl. There is no obvious trend away from strong running, solid but not stellar offense, and decent defense at all. My argument is that the model you call obsolete is alive and well in 2012. I realize you are trying to separate the playoffs from the regular season but I think that is an oversimplication of the realities of NFL football. The regular season and playoffs all matter and there is no obvious trend to pass first offense even in the playoffs.

[Mothman]

Didn't we already discuss that? I already said Big Ben was mediocre during the season, but was 2nd overall in the playoffs. The steelers were also second in scoring average in the playoffs meeting up with the cardinals who were first in scoring average.

If you want to call them a defensive only team, then show some playoff stats to back that up, please.

I didn't say they were a "defensive only" team. I said the strength of the team was defense, which is a very different statement. The Bucs and Ravens teams that won the Super Bowl weren't just defensive teams either. One-dimensional teams don't win the Super Bowl.

Statistically the Ravens,Eagles, and Titans were all better defensively in the playoffs than the Steelers that year. In fact, Arizona who also made the super bowl was only slightly worse. Are you going to call Arizona a defensive team now too?

Of course not. However, I don't see what the Titans, Ravens or Eagles stats have to do with anything. I'm not saying Pittsburgh won because they had the absolute best defense in the regular season and the postseason.

If your argument is that you can be mediocre during the season and have your QB play well through a playoff run, than I agree with you. The steelers weren't the Bucs/Ravens.

My argument is that good team performance wins championships and that a variety of models can be successful. There's no secret formula to building a champion.

I guess you've lost me. You write about which models will or won't work but I can't figure out just what you think the models for these SB-winning teams were, what current model you believe works and if that excludes other models.

The 2008 Steelers certainly weren't built exactly like the Bucs or Ravens but they weren't built like the Saints or Packers teams that recently won it all either. The Bucs team that won the SB was pretty different from the Ravens team that won too. All of these teams were different.

[cstelter]

Opponent's winning percentage at time of game

Thanks for taking the time to collect all these stats. I know it takes a lot of work to do this and I truly appreciated looking over your results. I know the above stat especially is somewhat difficult to attain because it involves going into all the individual team schedules up the point they played you. However, I have a few thoughts about its usefulness...

I believe using the final win percentage makes more sense than the percentage at the time of the game. Think about it-- every single teams plays a 0% win team in game 1. In week 2 you might play an excellent team that had an off week in week 1 before winning 15 straight-- that counts as a 0% win team on your record. Conversely you could play a wretched 1-16 team that won their first game because they plyaed the 2nd most wretched team in the leag in week 1 and got lucky. In that case you get to count that you beat a 100% winning team.

This year, we beat a 4-2 (.666) team in AZ that will likely wind up 5-11 (.3125). We played an 0-1 IND team that wound up 10-6 or 11-5. We played a 2-3 (.400) team in WAS that will end up at least 0.562. We even played a 4-4 (.500) DET team that will in all liklihood end up at 4-12 (.25).

To me it is more meningful that we lost to a 6 or 7 win TB team and a 10 or 11 win SEA team than that we lost to a 2-4 TB team and a 4-4 SEA team.

I suppose that you can argue that with injuries early in the season some teams are worse or better when you played them than they wound up the season, but somehow I think that's the exception rather than the norm.

[Raptorman]

Here's a stat for all you stat nuts. The Vikings are the most balanced team in the NFL when it comes to run vs pass. This is true not only for number of play but also for yardage. I took my number from the team stats line at NFL.com so if they are off, blame them and tell me. I have made mistakes before.

Vikings run vs pass.

Code: Select all

Rushing attempts:  449     Percentage:  49.7%     Yards:  2,147   Percentage:  48.9%
Passing attempts:   455    Percentage:  50.3 %    Yards:  2,524   Percentage: 51.1%

As to other teams in the playoffs, number of running plays is shown first, passing plays second. As a points of reference. The average rushing to passing percentage of teams that have won the super bowl the last 6 years is 45% rushing attempts and 55% passing attempts.

Code: Select all

             Rushing %     Yards      Passing %     Yards
Atlanta.       39%        1,332       61%        4,296 
Denver         44%        1,660       56%        4,218 
Green Bay      45%        1,630       55%        3,716 
Indy           40%        1,590       60%        3,944 
New England    44%        2,017       56%        4,386
Houston        49%        2,021       51%        3,580
San Fran       53%        2,362       47%        3,050
Seattle        57%        2,362       43%        2,822
Washington     53%        2,435       47%        3,335

Based strictly on the stats, the teams most likely to win the Super Bowl this year are Green Bay, New England and Denver.

[CalVike]

I believe using the final win percentage makes more sense than the percentage at the time of the game. Think about it-- every single teams plays a 0% win team in game 1. In week 2 you might play an excellent team that had an off week in week 1 before winning 15 straight-- that counts as a 0% win team on your record. Conversely you could play a wretched 1-16 team that won their first game because they plyaed the 2nd most wretched team in the leag in week 1 and got lucky. In that case you get to count that you beat a 100% winning team.

This year, we beat a 4-2 (.666) team in AZ that will likely wind up 5-11 (.3125). We played an 0-1 IND team that wound up 10-6 or 11-5. We played a 2-3 (.400) team in WAS that will end up at least 0.562. We even played a 4-4 (.500) DET team that will in all liklihood end up at 4-12 (.25).

To me it is more meningful that we lost to a 6 or 7 win TB team and a 10 or 11 win SEA team than that we lost to a 2-4 TB team and a 4-4 SEA team.

I suppose that you can argue that with injuries early in the season some teams are worse or better when you played them than they wound up the season, but somehow I think that's the exception rather than the norm.

If you look at the post above with opponent win% at time of game, I edited & added a new graphic with final opponent winning percentage. The Vikings 2012 have median of 0.600 higher than any other team and their average opponent is above 0.500.

[CalVike]

Here's some statistics on ALL PLAYOFF Games played by Super Bowl Winners & Losers from 1966 to 2011. For example, it includes the 3-4 playoff games of the Super Bowl winner and the 3-4 playoff games of the Super Bowl loser for each year. No cherry picking. From my perspective, there are NO big swings in passing yards across decades for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000-2011. The passing yard averages are quite low because playoff defenses are better, in my estimation. My opinion is that the Vikings and their 2012 style fit the mold just fine. If you can see in the stats how the Vikings are up a creek with their approach, let me know because I don't see it. Their increase in rushing yardage will easily account for any loss in passing yardage. Note also that number of first downs per game is remarkably consistent across the decades.

[CalVike]

Update: Stats in the first several posts of this thread are now updated to include the Game 16 final regular season game versus the Packers.