PDA

View Full Version : What Sells Tickets? Good Offense or Good Defense? You Be The Judge...


HomeBred_Texan
03-28-2005, 02:58 PM
Personally, I want offense. I would much rather go to every game as a season ticket holder and watch the Texans lose 50 to 49 than to watch them play a defensive game and win 7 to 3. I love it when the Colts come to town. I wouldn't miss Mannings for the world. All though last year on the way home from the game I rolled my Explorer at 610 and 45. Almost killed me and my daughtr. But we are OK and back for another season. Still looking for a ride though....

scourge
03-28-2005, 03:08 PM
The saying goes, "Offense sells tickets, Defence wins championships."

However, I personally dont see it your way. As a season ticket holder, I would rather see them just win... whether its 3-0 or 19-10.

Reddevil63
03-28-2005, 03:10 PM
A good team will sell tickets. I personally would be equally upset with a 50-49 loss, because we scored enough to win but the D didnt hold up, as I would a 7-3 loss because the D didnt its job but the Offense fell asleep. A team that wins 49-3 would sell out alot more than the other two teams.




This is all just my opinion though, but as a whole I think people tend to want to see offense.

D-ReK
03-28-2005, 03:10 PM
Winning sells tickets...It doesn't matter how the team achieves getting the W, all that matters is that they get it...

z0rpAn
03-28-2005, 03:37 PM
lets see, who sold more tickets last season the Ravens or the Colts?

Someone find that for us?

I would much rather buy a ticket for a stud offensive team. Simply put if I'm watching a low scoring game on tv, I tend to take my Sunday nap instead.

Panther5407
03-28-2005, 03:44 PM
Well, I think the Raven fans can answer that, as long as they win at least and are fun to watch. People like Ray Lewis, Suggs and Reed will make sure of that though.

TheOgre
03-28-2005, 03:45 PM
They showed stats on the Super Bowl Champs since the merger. Offense wins Championships as much as Defense. It is an overused saying.

Here are what I view as the positions I view as a combination of difficult to fill and important:

- Shut down CB
- Quarterback
- All-purpose star WR
- Offensive left tackle
- Pass-rusher (usually OLB for 3-4, DE for 4-3)
- D-line stud run stuffer (usually NT in 3-4, and DT in 4-3)

We appear to have the first three licked. We still need to fill the last three needs. We may have the pass-rusher in Peek, but the verdict is still out. We do not have the D-line clog (like Casey Hampton or Jamal Williams). I don't see Wand as that iron wall on the left side, however, I don't see us getting the opportunity to draft one any time soon either.

I'm not including RB in this list because I think they are relatively easy to acquire in comparison to the other positions.

I want us to fill 5 of the 6 needs above sufficiently before I consider us a perenniel contender for the Super Bowl.

Meloy
03-28-2005, 04:02 PM
They showed stats on the Super Bowl Champs since the merger. Offense wins Championships as much as Defense. It is an overused saying.

Here are what I view as the positions I view as a combination of difficult to fill and important:

- Shut down CB
- Quarterback
- All-purpose star WR
- Offensive left tackle
- Pass-rusher (usually OLB for 3-4, DE for 4-3)
- D-line stud run stuffer (usually NT in 3-4, and DT in 4-3)

We appear to have the first three licked. We still need to fill the last three needs. We may have the pass-rusher in Peek, but the verdict is still out. We do not have the D-line clog (like Casey Hampton or Jamal Williams). I don't see Wand as that iron wall on the left side, however, I don't see us getting the opportunity to draft one any time soon either.

I'm not including RB in this list because I think they are relatively easy to acquire in comparison to the other positions.

I want us to fill 5 of the 6 needs above sufficiently before I consider us a perenniel contender for the Super Bowl.

It seems Wand is the man whether he turns out to be or not. Few think DJ will drop to 13th and no one else at OLB looks like instant sack machine in draft. I hope Peek, Dunte and Babin fill that roll with 8-10 sacks and another 10- 12 pressures that force QB to hurry. As Marcus SPears is projected to be gone, I do not think we will get what you want for NT. I also think most receivers & rb's will be gone. One of the top 3 and maybe one standout receiver may fall to 13. I expect a trade down as draft is deep in corners and we could get one or a receiver lower in 1st round and pick up another pick.

texansfan88
03-28-2005, 04:04 PM
I think in most cases it is offense

But if a Defense has the potential to hit someone so hard they break their neck on every play (85 Bears), I think I'd wanna pay some money

TheOgre
03-28-2005, 04:54 PM
It seems Wand is the man whether he turns out to be or not. Few think DJ will drop to 13th and no one else at OLB looks like instant sack machine in draft. I hope Peek, Dunte and Babin fill that roll with 8-10 sacks and another 10- 12 pressures that force QB to hurry. As Marcus SPears is projected to be gone, I do not think we will get what you want for NT. I also think most receivers & rb's will be gone. One of the top 3 and maybe one standout receiver may fall to 13. I expect a trade down as draft is deep in corners and we could get one or a receiver lower in 1st round and pick up another pick.

That is what I think we need in the long-term. The only key position I think we might draft in the 1st this year is a pass-rushing OLB. I really think we go WR. I listed what I think most teams need for long-term success. I actually think we will go either OLB or WR with this pick though. I really don't want to go into the season with Gaffney as our #2. I won't keep double-teams of of AJ.

Chance_C
03-28-2005, 04:58 PM
would much rather go to every game as a season ticket holder and watch the Texans lose 50 to 49 than to watch them play a defensive game and win 7 to 3

Not me. I would much rather see them win regardless of the score. Heck 2-0 on a safety is better than losing 50-49.

thegr8fan
03-28-2005, 06:01 PM
Personally, I want offense. I would much rather go to every game as a season ticket holder and watch the Texans lose 50 to 49 than to watch them play a defensive game and win 7 to 3. I would suggest you convert over to the AFL and smile all the way to game then.

A winning team sells tickets. Whether that team is offensive oriented, ie Colts or Defensive ie Ravens. Winning is the way to attract bandwaggon fans and sell out stadiums. Losing is a way to empty the stands and not attract fans. Offense and Defense need to be balanced for a Superbowl win, IMHO. That is why the offensive powerhouse Colts never go far in the playoffs. There are exceptions to the rule, as in the 85 Bears. But those are flukes, not the norm.

Blake
03-28-2005, 06:31 PM
The Jags had a nice season. 9-7. Almost made the playoffs. But they didnt have fans sitting in the seats.

jr0ck
03-28-2005, 06:46 PM
agreed with everyone stating that a 'winning team' sells tickets. and i think a team who loses 50-49 v one that loses 6-3 is equally frustrating because one part of the 'team' is not holding up their end of the bargain. when the rams won it all, high scoring was sheik. after the ravens did the giants dirty, defense was the flavor of the month. the patriots have shown that adaptability could be the greatest asset (ie. great coaching), as they can shoot you down in a shoot out, and beat you down in a brawl.

that being said, i love defensive struggles. every play matters, every possesion matters. true in any kind of game, but (stereotypically) games with high scoring offense's seem to be alot more loose and finesse than physical. when i want to watch basketball, i'll turn on the rockets. i'll take a 4-6 game where people throw their bodies around as opposed to a game where every other play is a highlight reel catch. and i seem to have this internal threshold that is crossed if 'my team' (old HS football team, texans, aggies, madden...) allow's more than 14 points...i go from this :cool: ...to this :hairpull: :mad: :hairpull: really quick...

almost forgot, i don't get the fascination with the almighty 'point'. why do most people think the more points the better?

outofhnd
03-28-2005, 08:41 PM
Defense baby!

What could be more thrilling than watching the texan D shutout a Minning led Colts offense with sacks and INT's

OzzO
03-28-2005, 09:27 PM
The Jags had a nice season. 9-7. Almost made the playoffs. But they didnt have fans sitting in the seats.

Small market vs. big stadium I believe. They were up there in home average attendance (14th.... Texans were 10th) :heh:

2004 attendance (http://dynamic.espn.go.com/nfl/attendance)

As for the thread - agree, winning teams sell tickets. I will say the high scoring affairs only to not quite win it at the end takes alot out of me at the end (re: Viking game). the defensive battles of low scoring are good as well.

Just give me a well played, close game... with the occasional whuppin we put on other teams is nice though.

Vinny
03-28-2005, 09:42 PM
Personally, I disliked watching a finesse team like the Run and Shoot Oilers. I love smash mouth running games and dominant defensive teams physically controlling football games. Some of the all-time great offensive teams never won it all. The Dan Marino Dolphins, the Dan Fouts Chargers, the Peyton Manning Colts and the Warren Moon Oilers were all huge dominant offensive machines but never won it all. I'll take wide open offense, but I am not a big fan of spending all our cap dollars on one side of the ball like the Colts do.

outofhnd
03-29-2005, 01:47 AM
Amen Vinny I get excited about a big time scoring play but nothing gets me up screaming like a big time Defensive play like a Stellar Hit or a turnover.
Partly because you never see those plays again on the Highlights all the Highlights tend to show you the finesse.

BornOrange
03-29-2005, 07:22 AM
I can't understand "fans" who would rather lose a high scoring game than win a low scoring game. That is just completely alien to me. The whole purpose of the game is to win, regardless of whether you feature the offense or defense.

I went to an Astros game in 86 when Nolan Ryan was pitching. He had his single game high as an Astro of 16 strikeouts. Floyd Youmans of Montreal was the other pitcher and he had something like 14 strikeouts. Both pitchers had a shutout after 9 innings. In the 10th, Ryan walked the first two batters and Dave Smith came in and struck out the side. In the bottom of the 10th, Glenn Davis hit the first pitch into the left field second deck. Probably the best game I have ever seen in person. Some lady in the row behind me said that it was the most boring game she had ever seen, that nothing happened until the very end.

Homebred Texan must be related to that lady.

Lucky
03-29-2005, 08:24 AM
I went to an Astros game in 86 when Nolan Ryan was pitching. He had his single game high as an Astro of 16 strikeouts. Floyd Youmans of Montreal was the other pitcher and he had something like 14 strikeouts. Both pitchers had a shutout after 9 innings. In the 10th, Ryan walked the first two batters and Dave Smith came in and struck out the side. In the bottom of the 10th, Glenn Davis hit the first pitch into the left field second deck. Probably the best game I have ever seen in person.
Dude, I was at that game sitting in left field! It was a great game, but not as great as the Met game the Saturday before. Mike Scott vs. Dwight Gooden. The 'Stros had a 4-0 lead going into the 9th, but Scott & Dave Smith both coughed up long balls. Then in the bottom of the 9th, Craig Reynolds (of all people) hits a walkoff HR. Unbelievable. What a great year that was with the Rockets & Astros.

What sells tickets? The experience. The Texans haven't had a great offense, great defense, or a winning record. But, they've sold out every game. There's a buzz around the stadium on most Sundays, and it's really unexplainable. You've either got it or you don't, and the Texans have got it.

TheOgre
03-29-2005, 01:21 PM
There are some great defenses that never won a Super Bowl either. The 80's-90's Saints, the 90's-00's Dolphins, and the Buddy Ryan Eagles to name a few.

JustBonee
03-30-2005, 09:26 AM
Defense wins games, except for the times that offense does. :rolleyes:
Lighting up the scoreboard excites fans more and it's more fun for the players, as long as they light it up more then the other guys. Defense is hard work and a defensive game wears on the fans.
Just my view.

Mr Shush
03-30-2005, 11:14 AM
Defense.

Defense defense defense.

Smash mouth football the way it should be. Anyone see Jags-Steelers last year? That was a game. Play of the year 2004: Ray Lewis' "Welcome to the NFL, Carson" late hit. Simply beautiful.

And while historically offense may have done ok, look at the recent record. Last offense-lead team to win a Superbowl: Warner's '99 Rams. Last offense-lead team to go to a Superbowl: Warner's '01 Rams. Sure, you don't want to be like the Ravens last year, with precisely three offensive players, two of whom missed most of the season, but give me Ed Reed over Michael Vick any day.

The cap means overspending on any player is a bad move with regards to improving the team. Offensive superstars all require overpaying relative to their playing value, because of their financial value (bums on seats). Vick and Moss are the biggest examples of this, but there are plenty more. That said, despite my general preference for defense, I do love watching both those guys, Vick especially. That doesn't mean I want them on my team. My dream is that the Pats cut Bruschi because of the stroke, it turns out to be the wrong call, we pick him up and he turns out to have three more years of elite play in him. Won't happen - I'll be surprised if the guy ever plays another snap, which is a real shame - but it's nice to dream.

Blake
03-30-2005, 11:45 AM
I think the Patriots have shown that a balanced attack is best.

In the playoffs, if you are an ofensive team like the colts, and you are off that day, or the defense shuts you down. You are done for the year.

Same thing with defense. If the other team just finds ways to put points up, you are going home.

But with a balanced team, you can lean on your offense, or you can lean on the defense. You have a better chance to stay alive. And that is the name of the game in the NFL playoffs.

Mr Shush
03-30-2005, 11:51 AM
Well of course if you can be great on both sides of the ball it's better than only one, but that's only possible with really outstanding coaching. And while the NE offense isn't at all bad, it's still not as good as their D. I also think that they almost certainly, over the past four years, have spent more money than most teams on D and less on O. With Law leaving and Brady getting a new contract, that may now change, but then I don't think they're going to be that great a team this year - they might not even win their division.

Vinny
03-30-2005, 11:55 AM
Since the playoffs are in December and January, I think having a good running game and a solid defense is the best way to go. Many of the NFL teams are in the North East so a good deal of the playoff games are in bad weather. Finesse teams just don't do as well when the weather gets bad in the Winter.

Mr Shush
03-30-2005, 12:07 PM
Yeah, especially in the AFC at the moment, with all the top teams except Indy and San Diego being either up north or up a mountain - Buffalo, NE, NYJ, Baltimore, Cincy and Pittsburgh.

TexanFanInCC
03-30-2005, 05:12 PM
tough....i think more people want to see offense, but i like defense. i think an offense would sell more tix...but then again, baltimore puts fans in the stands bc of their defense, not offense. their offense (other than jamal lewis) is not that good.

HomeBred_Texan
04-01-2005, 04:29 PM
Some lady in the row behind me said that it was the most boring game she had ever seen, that nothing happened until the very end.
Homebred Texan must be related to that lady.
Don't be a jerk.. I pay my money like everyone else does and have my own opinion. If you don't agree with my "opinion" that is perfectly fine. My point is last year we addressed defense, this year we need to address offense. Plain and simple. Another killer WR like Johnson couldn't hurt a thing. Then draft all linemen and cut them in camp if they can't cut the mustard...

TheOgre
04-01-2005, 05:09 PM
And while historically offense may have done ok, look at the recent record. Last offense-lead team to win a Superbowl: Warner's '99 Rams. Last offense-lead team to go to a Superbowl: Warner's '01 Rams.

Actually the '02 Raiders were the last offense led team to go to a Super Bowl.

The 49ers didn't win those championships with trademark defenses. They were more offense oriented than defense. They won 5 championships in the span of 15 years.

Don't get me wrong, I like defense. The difference is that I like balance. The Don Coryell Chargers never won with all offense. The same is true of the Denny Green Vikes (which is the lesson he allegedly learned from that tenure). Jim Mora couldn't win a playoff game with one of the best defenses even (the late 80's Saints), and at the same time he couldn't win with the offensive heavy Colts.

The name of the game is balance. I'd rather be top 10 in both than top 5 in one and 15-20 in the other. Someone needs to tell that to the Colts.

thegr8fan
04-01-2005, 10:22 PM
Someone needs to tell that to the Colts. shhh, don't tell them anything. :whistle: Course the fact that they went and got Tony Dungy as their head coach might be an indication that the 'cat is already out of the bag'. :hmmm: