Are bad games by definition low-scoring games?

[Rain Man]

I was pondering this in light of the alleged game last night.

We obviously had poor play by the offenses, and nobody crossed the goal line. It's hard to tell if the defenses were good or bad because the offenses were self-destructing without much work by the defenses.

Then we hear this morning in the media about other "bad games" in NFL history, and they're always games where a smattering of field goals was the only scoring.

So I have a two-part question based on that discussion.

First, if you have a game that ends up with a 59-48 score, either the offenses were completely dominant or the defenses were terrible. Is that a "bad game"? Or is a bad game solely the realm of bad offenses?

Second, if you have a game that ends up with a 12-9 score, is it always a bad game? Can you have a game where the defenses are amazing and they're shutting down adequate offenses? Is that a good game?

Last night's game was obviously bad, and after thinking about it, I've concluded that it was bad in large part because the two quarterbacks spent a lot of time chucking the ball into empty parts of the field or into the sidelines. Is that what's really the identifier of a bad game? I can kind of see that, because it's a non-productive play that probably wasn't the result of good defense and probably was the result of uncontested errors that essentially waste time.

What do you think? What's the driving force that makes a bad game a bad game?

[BWillie]

In 2022 yes.

In 1975 they would think 37-31 games were gay and those teams would never have a shot to win SB.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by BWillie

In 2022 yes.

In 1975 they would think 37-31 games were gay and those teams would never have a shot to win SB.

In 1975 the Steelers won the SB. They scored 30 or more in 7 games.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by dlphg9

In 1975 the Steelers won the SB. They scored 30 or more in 7 games.

Oh, Im a firm believer good offense is better than good defense but the majority of people didn't feel that way. Even as late as the great show on turf Rams so many people thought they were frauds just because they scored alot (even though their defense was great too). There were alot of Herm Edwards types in the 90s and even 00s.

[Megatron96]

Short answer: A high percentage of sloppy play, poor decision-making by coaches and/or players and a big dose of bad luck, like the refs blowing multiple calls for instance.

I've seen low scoring games that were well-played; usually the defenses just came out and balled at an historic level while the offenses were good, just not at that same level.

Last night's game wasn't just about two QBs that looked washed or out of their depth, though they certainly did.

It was also about coaching mistakes and for DEN, Hackett literally trying to jam square pegs into round holes. I think he only called one PA (I could be wrong, but I only saw one), which resulted in a first down on a relatively easy pitch-and-catch for Wilson.

Otherwise, it was a lot of shotgun, no presnap motion, no rolling out, no moving pockets, or anything that Wilson is actually historically good at. And while I'm mentioning it, why wouldn't you design such plays for any QB you have, just to make things tougher for the defense while simultaneously making things easier for your struggling QB/OL now and again?

Now maybe that's really all on Wilson somehow. But I don't have a clue why a veteran QB of Wilson's caliber and experience wouldn't lean on the things that got him that contract in the first place, which is why I suspect Hackett is out of his depth.

Though I seriously hope they keep both Hackett and Wilson for the entirety of Wilson's contract. It's just delicious.

[Bearcat]

Today's NFL should have a decent amount of offense per game, so I think it does lean towards "bad" being low scoring, and more specifically inept offense.

I also put 'should' in italics because there's a lot of bad football that stems from a lot of bad quarterbacks..and defenses generally get labeled good after playing terrible offenses every week.

That said... the line between a good 28ppg offense and last night is scoring one TD per quarter or one FG per quarter. It's still a pretty fine line for even the best offenses in the league, so I wouldn't at all say ALL low scoring games are bad.


The flip side.... yeah, I think when there's zero resistance for offenses, it's not good football, either. It's still more entertaining than bad offense, IMO. If teams aren't even having to convert 3rd downs and it's just wide open receivers and gaping holes on both sides, it's not great. But, even Bills/Chiefs last season had several big 3rd/4th down conversions, so I think the bar is set pretty high on those games before crazy gets too crazy.

There are a lot more over the top offensive games in college than the NFL, and I'd still rather watch those than the ineptness of many NFL offenses.

[Baby Lee]

I don't think the score is all that correlative to the quality of the game.

High-scoring games can be a bundle of ineptitude.
Low-scoring games can be slobberknockers
Blowouts can be just one team in the zone and putting on a master class
Close games can be filled with errors and missed opportunities.

Each game can be good or bad in it's own way.

The distressing thing is, as bad as last night was, the Denver defense was good enough that if we're not alert we'll find ourselves in a similarly dispiriting and anxious contest hoping to eke out a low-scoring win and keep our weapons healthy.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Close games can be filled with errors and missed opportunities.

I've bit my tongue countless times when someone says "that was a great game!" because it was a close game... and a lot of times it's from casual Chiefs or KU fans.

I'm sure it happened a few times during those dark 6 weeks last year when they were beating the NYG and Packers and Cowboys in games you'd much rather not watch. Or like KU/Providence in the tournament last year, which was excruciatingly bad basketball.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I've bit my tongue countless times when someone says "that was a great game!" because it was a close game... and a lot of times it's from casual Chiefs or KU fans.

I'm sure it happened a few times during those dark 6 weeks last year when they were beating the NYG and Packers and Cowboys in games you'd much rather not watch. Or like KU/Providence in the tournament last year, which was excruciatingly bad basketball.

But the KU National Championship game was incredible.

[notorious]

Dropped passes, dumbass fatty QB play, noodle arm wheelchair QB's make it bad.

Great defense against competent offense is awesome.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by notorious

Dropped passes, dumbass fatty QB play, noodle arm wheelchair QB's make it bad.

Great defense against competent offense is awesome.

This.

A low scoring game because of two great defenses are playing is a good thing. It is fun to watch the chess match as the offenses figure out how to score.

Low scoring games because of bad/sloppy offense sucks.

[mililo4cpa]

I don't know about all low scoring games, but last night's game had everything: The Donkos lost

[carcosa]

I think the ideal score for a neutral game is 28-24. Good amount of scoring while still allowing for high level defensive play.

The ideal score of a Chiefs game is 69-0 tho

[lcarus]

Originally Posted by carcosa

I think the ideal score for a neutral game is 28-24. Good amount of scoring while still allowing for high level defensive play.

The ideal score of a Chiefs game is 69-0 tho

Agreed. But i loved last night's game quite a bit.

[FlaChief58]

Originally Posted by lcarus

Agreed. But i loved last night's game quite a bit.

Me too. Watching those two teams embarrass themselves on national tv was glorious!