Offense or Defense?

[Wildcat]

After watching last nights game vs ATL, I was thinking to myself... Is it better to have a top ranked Offense than it is a top ranked Defense?? It's a legitimate question in today's NFL. Look at WSH for an example.. Num 30th ranked Offense and a top 6 Defense yet 2-5 is this teams record... For my Saints, you have the top ranked offense in the league, but just an avg D.. 7-0 is our record.. So I would take the Offense over Defense any day..

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

After watching last nights game vs ATL, I was thinking to myself... Is it better to have a top ranked Offense than it is a top ranked Defense?? It's a legitimate question in today's NFL. Look at WSH for an example.. Num 30th ranked Offense and a top 6 Defense yet 2-5 is this teams record... For my Saints, you have the top ranked offense in the league, but just an avg D.. 7-0 is our record.. So I would take the Offense over Defense any day..

could sworn your logo was eagles about 10 minutes ago not saints, and you need both, like the saints their d isn't the worst, you can't just have d and no o you have to have both like bmore last year their d was sick but their o wasn't that bad

[The Goat]

While I'm too lazy to look them up I think the Saints stats on d are pretty legit dude...Williams has that unit playing extremely well even w/ major talent out of the starting line-up cuz of injury (Ellis and Fujita).

...so yeah both sides of the ball must be quality but hasn't history proven that since forever?

[44Deezel]

Either. You just can't have one or the other ranked near the bottom of the league. If the Skins Offense was even a middle of the pack unit, their record would be much different. The Saints have had a high-powered Offense for years. They're legit this year, because their D is finally respectable (and opportunistic).

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 44Deezel

Either. You just can't have one or the other ranked near the bottom of the league. If the Skins Offense was even a middle of the pack unit, their record would be much different. The Saints have had a high-powered Offense for years. They're legit this year, because their D is finally respectable (and opportunistic).

And even better, they helped me in a come from behind fantasy win last night

[Daseal]

In today's NFL, a great O will beat a great D most of the time. I would rather have a good offense than a defense. Nearly every year the rule changes benefit the offensive side of the ball. This isn't 2 yards and a cloud of dust anymore. This is a game where you need to be consistently scoring 21+ points or you have little to no shot to being a good team.

If I were building a team. Id build my D to be opportunistic and turnover happy, even if that costs big plays -- because Id spend a lot more time on me O.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Daseal

In today's NFL, a great O will beat a great D most of the time. I would rather have a good offense than a defense. Nearly every year the rule changes benefit the offensive side of the ball. This isn't 2 yards and a cloud of dust anymore. This is a game where you need to be consistently scoring 21+ points or you have little to no shot to being a good team.

If I were building a team. Id build my D to be opportunistic and turnover happy, even if that costs big plays -- because Id spend a lot more time on me O.

How'd that Giants / Pats Superbowl work out? How about Steelers / Cards? Just sayin'

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Daseal

In today's NFL, a great O will beat a great D most of the time. I would rather have a good offense than a defense. Nearly every year the rule changes benefit the offensive side of the ball. This isn't 2 yards and a cloud of dust anymore. This is a game where you need to be consistently scoring 21+ points or you have little to no shot to being a good team.

If I were building a team. Id build my D to be opportunistic and turnover happy, even if that costs big plays -- because Id spend a lot more time on me O.

Really? Care to toss out some examples?

Maybe you can apply that to the regular season, maybe, but playoff football is always about defense and the running game.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Really? Care to toss out some examples?

Maybe you can apply that to the regular season, maybe, but playoff football is always about defense and the running game.

Colts over the Bears, Bears were the best defense that year and the Colts were one of the worst. The Panthers had a better defense than the 03 Patriots, with that crushing front four. When was the last time a team won the Superbowl without a strong passing attack?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Colts over the Bears, Bears were the best defense that year and the Colts were one of the worst. The Panthers had a better defense than the 03 Patriots, with that crushing front four. When was the last time a team won the Superbowl without a strong passing attack?

Yeah but how was that Colts D during that playoff run?

Ravens won with a crap passing attack. The Giants beat the Pats without an overly strong passing game.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yeah but how was that Colts D during that playoff run?

Ravens won with a crap passing attack. The Giants beat the Pats without an overly strong passing game.

Ravens are really the only example I can think of - they had a terrible offense, but 7 -10 points was usually enough for them to win, especially in the playoffs. The Giants had weopons in their passing game - clearly Plaxico Burress was a matchup problem that freed up some of the younger guys to make plays - Steve Smith, Kevin Boss, and David Tyree all made impact plays in the passing game that day. The Pats and the Giants were strong on both sides of the ball that year. The Ravens are the only Super Bowl champion that was terrible on one side of the ball.

BTW, I'm in agreement that the Colts D was pretty damn strong on their playoff run (once Bob Sanders was healthy).

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Yeah but how was that Colts D during that playoff run?

Ravens won with a crap passing attack. The Giants beat the Pats without an overly strong passing game.

Sanders helped the Colts stabilize the run defense in the playoffs sure, but you asked for a recent example of a great offense beating a great defense and the 2006 Superbowl counts as one. And btw, the Colts defense ranked 12th out of 12 teams in the playoffs that year, and were up on the 11th team by 40 yards per game. They set the bar pretty low during the season by being the worst run defense in history, but people seem to remember Bob Sanders coming back and things completely changing, when in fact they just went from worst ever to not worst ever.

And Eli Manning had a near 100 QB rating in the 07 playoffs. They passed very effectively during their run.

[mlmdub130]

@daseal, puppy kicker?

[GusFrerotte]

When my uncle coached Ohio State he had potent offenses coupled with solid defenses. THe Buckeye defenses he had were not tops in yardage allowed, but they always were #1 in turnover ratio in the Big Ten, which in my mind is just as effective as being #1 in yardage allowed. His defenses were more bend but don't break types, but they were also good with the ppg as well as turnovers. But to answer you, you need both. Think of the old Denver Nuggets in the 80's- early 90's. They scored 120 easy, but played no D and lost more than they won. The Saints D is solid with athletic DBs.

[mlmdub130]

@wildcat seriously wasn't your logo eagles now i guess it's like 40 minutes ago, pretty sure it was, when you sign back in tho let me know who your team is that week