Recipe for a Successful SB Run: Did the Ravens get lucky or did they plan it that way?

[lobachevsky]

Of course the Ravens were "lucky" - ANY TIME you have a one-and-done playoff scenario with teams of largely equal talent, luck is going to be a factor - maybe even the predominant factor. To say so doesn't mean they weren't also very good, or imply that the team was undeserving of being crowned the NFL Champions.

If you run that same 2012 playoff scenario ten times, the Ravens might only win the trophy one of those times. But if you ran ANY random year's playoff bracket ten times, the weakest teams in the field might win it less than once on average, with the very best team winning it all maybe two or three times max.

I think a large part of Ozzie's philosophy on building a team recognizes this: Rather than attempting to build a dominant team for a relatively small window (1-3 years), where - even if you're clearly the best team in the NFL - your odds of winning the championship are probably less than 50% due to mere variance, it's far more profitable to build a sustainable, routinely playoff-caliber team that most years will just give you a shot.

...

Only one time in the last 10 years did the team with the best regular-season record win the SB. Mostly the champions have been middle-of-the-pack teams that got healthy at the right time, played well, and ran good.

But that's not to say the success of the Steelers, Pats, Ravens and Giants (the only teams to win multiple championships since the turn of the millennium) is mere luck: It's the almost-inevitable result of the fact that those teams find a way to get to the post-season more often. Whether it's with a 14-2 or 10-6 record doesn't matter much: Just get in, hope your players step up and "luck" is in your favor. The more often you do this, the more championships you're likely to win.

:word & well put.

John Harbaugh's coaching philosophy fits this perfectly. An inferior team is only going to beat you if (1) you play uncharacteristically badly, (2) they play uncharacteristically well, or (3) they get lucky. To minimize the chances of any of these happening, you play consistently, avoid risk, & commit no unforced errors (e.g., costly penalties).

The one thing I would add is the effect of turnovers. My guess is that a positive turnover ratio correlates pretty highly with winning, especially in the playoffs (where teams tend to be more evenly matched). You can't avoid them entirely but you can minimize the ones that come from mental errors or simply trying to do too much & forgetting to secure the ball (R2, I'm looking at you!).

If you beat up on the bad teams & hold your own with the better ones--say 4-2 in the division, 3-1 vs the other 2 divisions you play in full, and split the games with other 2 teams that finished where you did in their AFC divisions--you finish 11-5, which with 2 exceptions in 34 years of 16-game seasons (Broncos, 1985; Pats, 2008) has been good enough to punch a ticket to the dance. That's not even math, it's simple arithmetic.

And once you're on the dance floor, anything can happen. As Ravens fans saw the last two years, to their distress & subsequent elation.

[JAB1985]

Plan & luck go together to make it to and win the SB. You have to have both!

yep, 100% accurate. You can only plan so much before you need a little luck. Whether by injury or simply a bad matchup losing before you face them. Theres a number of "lucky" things that determines a champion but the base work has to be there to be a contender. Its a league of parity, and what separates 1-32 isnt that much but what separates 1-12 is even less.

[Real Fan Dan]

Whether it's with a 14-2 or 10-6 record doesn't matter much: Just get in, hope your players step up and "luck" is in your favor. The more often you do this, the more championships you're likely to win.

Good post. The points I made just builds on what you're saying. Once you've built that playoff caliber team, certain things need to happen during the season that bonds the team and puts them over the edge to become a champion. Most of that is intangible, but I think the Ravens purposely set some of those events up that would hopefully spark the team to take the next step up. I think some of that was part of their year long strategy and it worked. IOTW i think they actually created some of that adversity that they knew the team could overcome and make them stronger, at the same time creating a surprise new look at the end the year that would catch the opposition off guard. They planned to get lucky.

[Paintballguy]

I stopped reading at Bleacher Report.

[Real Fan Dan]

I stopped reading at Bleacher Report.

Me too. But it was the only site that had something recent on strategies to build a successfull SB run when I googled it. Since their 'recipe' was so simplistic I used it to add in a number of other points as well as the intangibles.

[GOTA]

One element that defined both the Ravens championships has been the bold move. Replacing a starting QB midway through a season and replaces the long time offensive coordinator at the end of the season were key moves that were critical to those championship runs. It will be interesting to see if the Ravens can repeat without having to do something on that scale that shakes up the entire team. Though, I guess you can interpret playing without Ray Lewis and Ed Reed as moves on that same level.

[alienrace]

There is always some luck involved. Gone are the days where a team was so dominant you knew from the start of the season they were going to win it all.

The Ravens fielded from 2010-2012 what I think was the best team in football. They fell short the first two years, and things went their way the third.

Winning it all nowadays is mostly accomplished by having a team that is consistently good an in the dance year in and year out.

[Ravenous1]

Building a team that can make the playoffs is the plan. From there some luck is required.

[SNAFU]

Thread: Recipe for a Successful SB Run: Did the Ravens get lucky or did they plan it that way?


Fate.

[Real Fan Dan]

One element that defined both the Ravens championships has been the bold move. Replacing a starting QB midway through a season and replaces the long time offensive coordinator at the end of the season were key moves that were critical to those championship runs. It will be interesting to see if the Ravens can repeat without having to do something on that scale that shakes up the entire team. Though, I guess you can interpret playing without Ray Lewis and Ed Reed as moves on that same level.

Great points. Although i don't think they planned on pulling Banks in favor of Dilfer more than a week or so ahead of time during the 2000 season. But I do think the Ravens planned, as part of their 2012 overall season strategy, on taking Cameron out at some point later in the season to both motivate the team and give the O a whole new look that other teams wouldn't be ready for. I think they kept the idea as a possible option until it looked like it might work, then they took the chance and did it knowing full well they would probably lose a couple games, but it just might give them the edge to put them over the top come playoff time.

[lobachevsky]

All this blather about "intangibles" is IMHO roughly 90% after-the-fact horseshit (& thats factoring in Ray & Ed's last ride together for the last ~10%).

Increase that to roughly 100% for the foolish notion that they somehow "planned" to make those "bold moves" waaaay back at the beginning of the season. Canning the OC 2/3 of the way in, & replacing him with someone who's been with the team less than a year & had no experience as an OC at any level, is a gesture of exasperation, not inspiration. Starting the Big Whopper at LT was a function of Jah Reid's injured toe & a lack of other options, not some clever hoarding of McKinnie's stamina.

Mad props to the players for manning up. Mad props to Harbaugh for having the guts to fire Cam & the flexibility to put McK back on the field. Mad props to Oz for building a team that can deal with adversity & more often than not fight through it. But for dogsake let's not mistake extemporizing driven by a sense that the season was getting away for some deep devious strategy.

[Real Fan Dan]

All this blather about "intangibles" is IMHO roughly 90% after-the-fact horseshit (& thats factoring in Ray & Ed's last ride together for the last ~10%).

Increase that to roughly 100% for the foolish notion that they somehow "planned" to make those "bold moves" waaaay back at the beginning of the season. Canning the OC 2/3 of the way in, & replacing him with someone who's been with the team less than a year & had no experience as an OC at any level, is a gesture of exasperation, not inspiration.
.

Yup. I believe they had Cam's firing planned at least as an option if it looked like it would wake the team up and give them that surprise look at the end of the year. Master stroke imo.

If you look at almost every SB champ they all overcame some major adversity that brought them together as a team and took them over the top. Most of them also had something new added to their gameplan that opponents weren't used too, and of course all of them had luck. Most of the teams in the playoffs are fairly close talent wise. The champion is the one who comes up with an edge. None of this is new or unknown.

I think the Ravens staff thought about this stuff ahead of time and at least considered all their options. In the end they made the bold moves, changed their look, inspired their players to play out of their minds and won a championship. It wasn't all planning and it wasn't all luck, but i think they had the foresight to consider these things ahead of time, and they were ready when it came time to pull the trigger.