| You Can't Win if You Don't Score Bob Loblaw |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
What is the secret to success in the NFL? What is it that makes some teams go to the playoffs every year and others always get to
pick in the first hour of the draft each April? Why do some teams have the same head coach longer than some of us have careers, while
other teams coaches change more often than the Yankees starting lineup? Winning is the way and to win you have to score. As Stiffler’s
lacrosse coach once said: “you don’t score, until you score.” The ball needs to get into the end zone and points are what win games. As
Lee Corso once said on Gameday, “the team who scores the most today will probably win this game.” Nothing rings more true than that.
For many of you who live in the greater Indianapolis area, like me, or do not have the funds to buy the all-inclusive NFL ticket, like me,
you are stuck watching the games the networks give us on Sundays. Since Fox and CBS assume that when the Colts are playing no one
in this city will ever change the channel, even during commercials (probably since many of us assume the game is never at a break since
Peyton is on most of the commercials anyway), we usually only get that one game when the Colts play at 1 pm. Once that game is over
we have apparently been tagged as the place to watch the ugly, defensive-minded, NFC game of the week at 4 pm. Maybe it is because
we live in the cold weather, or are near Chicago and they assume we love watching the black and blue, sack-fest field goal-laden games
of yesteryear, or they think we need a break from the scoring barrage of Payton’s laser rocket arm we just watched at 1. For whatever
reason, our 4 PM game rarely features an offensive juggernaut and often involves the same types of teams.
While watching one of these 19-13 games recently, two thoughts at once formed in my mind (yes, somehow, on a weekend things
began to click). Why, I asked myself, do the same teams always seem to be locked in these low scoring ugly games? I decided, rather
than researching something important that would help society like medicine or finance, to check on some of the teams that I associate
with winning or losing ugly on a regular basis to see if I could find a connection. What I found was not surprising and relates to the whole
basis of Sunday success.
I picked 6 teams who, at some point in the last 3 years, have made the playoffs, but have also had years where they did not. I
figured the data would be skewed if I only picked winning teams or picked those teams that are just not very good year in and year out. I
averaged their points per game in each of the seasons for 2004, 2005, 2006, and so far in 2007, to see if there is a connection between
scoring and winning, and sure enough there is. The teams I chose are ones that I often find myself asking, “Why does it seem like every
game they play ends up with a score like 16-13? The Jets, Ravens, Bears, Redskins, Buccaneers, and Jaguars are my test subjects.
Amazingly, there appears to be a direct correlation between points scored and winning. Unbelievable, huh?
Here are the scoring averages^ per game for the last 3 years for each of these teams along with their record. A star by the year
indicates that they made the playoffs.
pick in the first hour of the draft each April? Why do some teams have the same head coach longer than some of us have careers, while
other teams coaches change more often than the Yankees starting lineup? Winning is the way and to win you have to score. As Stiffler’s
lacrosse coach once said: “you don’t score, until you score.” The ball needs to get into the end zone and points are what win games. As
Lee Corso once said on Gameday, “the team who scores the most today will probably win this game.” Nothing rings more true than that.
For many of you who live in the greater Indianapolis area, like me, or do not have the funds to buy the all-inclusive NFL ticket, like me,
you are stuck watching the games the networks give us on Sundays. Since Fox and CBS assume that when the Colts are playing no one
in this city will ever change the channel, even during commercials (probably since many of us assume the game is never at a break since
Peyton is on most of the commercials anyway), we usually only get that one game when the Colts play at 1 pm. Once that game is over
we have apparently been tagged as the place to watch the ugly, defensive-minded, NFC game of the week at 4 pm. Maybe it is because
we live in the cold weather, or are near Chicago and they assume we love watching the black and blue, sack-fest field goal-laden games
of yesteryear, or they think we need a break from the scoring barrage of Payton’s laser rocket arm we just watched at 1. For whatever
reason, our 4 PM game rarely features an offensive juggernaut and often involves the same types of teams.
While watching one of these 19-13 games recently, two thoughts at once formed in my mind (yes, somehow, on a weekend things
began to click). Why, I asked myself, do the same teams always seem to be locked in these low scoring ugly games? I decided, rather
than researching something important that would help society like medicine or finance, to check on some of the teams that I associate
with winning or losing ugly on a regular basis to see if I could find a connection. What I found was not surprising and relates to the whole
basis of Sunday success.
I picked 6 teams who, at some point in the last 3 years, have made the playoffs, but have also had years where they did not. I
figured the data would be skewed if I only picked winning teams or picked those teams that are just not very good year in and year out. I
averaged their points per game in each of the seasons for 2004, 2005, 2006, and so far in 2007, to see if there is a connection between
scoring and winning, and sure enough there is. The teams I chose are ones that I often find myself asking, “Why does it seem like every
game they play ends up with a score like 16-13? The Jets, Ravens, Bears, Redskins, Buccaneers, and Jaguars are my test subjects.
Amazingly, there appears to be a direct correlation between points scored and winning. Unbelievable, huh?
Here are the scoring averages^ per game for the last 3 years for each of these teams along with their record. A star by the year
indicates that they made the playoffs.
Baltimore:
2004-19.8 ppg-9-7
2005-16.6 ppg-6-10
2006-22.1 ppg-13-3*
2007-17.2 ppg-4-8 through 12 games
Chicago:
2004-14.4 ppg-5-11
2005-16.3 ppg-11-5*
2006-26.7 ppg-13-3* (Super Bowl)
2007-19.75 ppg-5-7 through 12
Jacksonville:
2004-16.3 ppg-9-7
2005-22.6 ppg-12-4*
2006-23.2 ppg-8-8
2007-16.8-8-4 through 12
New York Jets:
2004-20.8 ppg-10-6*
2005-15.0 ppg-4-12
2006-19.8 ppg-10-6*
2007-18.4 ppg-3-9 through 12
Tampa Bay Buccaneers:
2004-17.6 ppg-5-11
2005-18.8 ppg-11-5*
2006-13.2 ppg-4-12
2007-20.1 ppg-8-4 though 12
Washington Redskins:
2004-15.0 ppg-6-10
2005-22.4 ppg-10-6*
2006-19.2 ppg-5-11
2007-19.1 ppg-5-7 though 12
2004-19.8 ppg-9-7
2005-16.6 ppg-6-10
2006-22.1 ppg-13-3*
2007-17.2 ppg-4-8 through 12 games
Chicago:
2004-14.4 ppg-5-11
2005-16.3 ppg-11-5*
2006-26.7 ppg-13-3* (Super Bowl)
2007-19.75 ppg-5-7 through 12
Jacksonville:
2004-16.3 ppg-9-7
2005-22.6 ppg-12-4*
2006-23.2 ppg-8-8
2007-16.8-8-4 through 12
New York Jets:
2004-20.8 ppg-10-6*
2005-15.0 ppg-4-12
2006-19.8 ppg-10-6*
2007-18.4 ppg-3-9 through 12
Tampa Bay Buccaneers:
2004-17.6 ppg-5-11
2005-18.8 ppg-11-5*
2006-13.2 ppg-4-12
2007-20.1 ppg-8-4 though 12
Washington Redskins:
2004-15.0 ppg-6-10
2005-22.4 ppg-10-6*
2006-19.2 ppg-5-11
2007-19.1 ppg-5-7 though 12
As you can see, other than Jacksonville in 2006, each of these teams had their best year when they averaged the most points. What
a concept. While this year is not yet over, the trend appears to be the same again. Obviously this study does not take into account
things like weather, strength of schedule, different coaching styles, and easier/tougher divisions. Someday when ScrubSports has the
kind of funding that CNN and ESPN enjoy, we will undertake a more exact scientific breakdown of this topic. The message, though, is
clear: score The ball and you will win. Winning teams score touchdowns, average teams kick field goals. That is the difference.
Now, as an Indianapolis resident, whose home team has had great success the last few years, I thought it would be fun to compare
the Colts scoring average over the same time period to that of these teams. Low and behold, the evidence again shows why the Colts
have been in the playoffs every one of these years and the others have not: they have scored points:
a concept. While this year is not yet over, the trend appears to be the same again. Obviously this study does not take into account
things like weather, strength of schedule, different coaching styles, and easier/tougher divisions. Someday when ScrubSports has the
kind of funding that CNN and ESPN enjoy, we will undertake a more exact scientific breakdown of this topic. The message, though, is
clear: score The ball and you will win. Winning teams score touchdowns, average teams kick field goals. That is the difference.
Now, as an Indianapolis resident, whose home team has had great success the last few years, I thought it would be fun to compare
the Colts scoring average over the same time period to that of these teams. Low and behold, the evidence again shows why the Colts
have been in the playoffs every one of these years and the others have not: they have scored points:
COLTS:
2004-32.7 ppg-12-4*
2005-25.6 ppg-14-2*
2006-26.7 ppg-12-4* Super Bowl Win
2007-28.1 ppg-10-2 through 12
2004-32.7 ppg-12-4*
2005-25.6 ppg-14-2*
2006-26.7 ppg-12-4* Super Bowl Win
2007-28.1 ppg-10-2 through 12
Of the above teams, only the 2006 Bears had a higher average over the 3 full seasons then the Colts worst season (25.6 vs. 26.7).
The Bears are also a statistical anomaly, as they appear to score a large number of their points through special teams and defensive
touchdowns (I think Mike Brown has more career TD’s then Cedric Benson). So, as you can see, the Colts success has been led by scoring
points. One factor that cannot be overlooked is that the Colts play 8 home games a year in a dome, so that should carry some weight as
well. But by scoring, they win. What a concept.
So how to fix this problem you ask? That will be discussed at another time. Things like drafting offensive weapons, being aggressive
in short yardage, not tightening up when the game is close, and, most importantly, scoring touchdowns in the red zone rather than
settling for field goals, makes the difference between another average year and a playoff berth. The old style run ‘em over, grind it out,
tough guy football only gets you so far, right Brian Billick? So this Sunday when you are staring at the TV ask yourself, "is my team a
scoring team or a boring team?" the answer may open the door to a better future.
^Any mathematical errors found are in no way the fault of the author and can only be explained by a lack of poor mathematical coaching that he received growing up,
causing him to get a C in math almost every year of his life.
The Bears are also a statistical anomaly, as they appear to score a large number of their points through special teams and defensive
touchdowns (I think Mike Brown has more career TD’s then Cedric Benson). So, as you can see, the Colts success has been led by scoring
points. One factor that cannot be overlooked is that the Colts play 8 home games a year in a dome, so that should carry some weight as
well. But by scoring, they win. What a concept.
So how to fix this problem you ask? That will be discussed at another time. Things like drafting offensive weapons, being aggressive
in short yardage, not tightening up when the game is close, and, most importantly, scoring touchdowns in the red zone rather than
settling for field goals, makes the difference between another average year and a playoff berth. The old style run ‘em over, grind it out,
tough guy football only gets you so far, right Brian Billick? So this Sunday when you are staring at the TV ask yourself, "is my team a
scoring team or a boring team?" the answer may open the door to a better future.
^Any mathematical errors found are in no way the fault of the author and can only be explained by a lack of poor mathematical coaching that he received growing up,
causing him to get a C in math almost every year of his life.