Offense or Defense?

[djnemo65]

What does the Giants win over the Patriots prove? The Patriots had a higher ranked defense than the Giants in 2007. While that stat is a tad misleading because of the degree to which their offense dominated time of possession, that game was not a triumph of defense over offense so much as health over injury, with a little bit of luck thrown in (helmet catch anyone?). How about mentioning the 2006 Colts who had the worst run defense of all time? The 04-09 Skins who have been largely dominant on defense and haven't won a thing. And the 09 Cardinals? Give me a break, they were a tremendous underdog who made it all the way to the Superbowl and almost won by outscoring people all through the playoffs. That proves that offense isn't important?

If we are looking at Superbowl winners you will be hard pressed to find a recent winner that wasn't extremely competitive on both sides of the ball. With a few historical anomalies (the 00 Ravens come to mind) that has always been the case. The Steelers had one of the great defenses last year, but they also have a top five quarterback in his prime, a solid line, and excellent skill position players. Their offense underachieved for a large part of last season due to injury, but they got it together for the playoffs and were able to move the ball. They also won the championship on a last minute drive after their defense failed in the clutch. The old adage defense wins championships ignores the degree to which things like rule changes favoring the offense have changed the complexion of the game.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that this question is superfluous. You gotta have both.

[Chico23231]

The popular sports saying "Defense wins champonships" is correct. Slingin Sammy's post are perfect examples. Of course there will be exceptions every now and then (Greatest show on turf Rams early 2000s), but generally you want a Defense over Offense any day.

[Longtimefan]

If your objective is to win championships, it's imperative you be among the best in both areas. One without the other is going to consistently lead to uneven results.

[SmootSmack]

Don't underestimate special teams...seriously

[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.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Don't underestimate special teams...seriously

The problem with only having a great D and a poor O is that a special teams gaffe can lose a game. The margin for error is so thin when you have a poor offense only capable of putting up 14 points, which magnifies any mistakes on special teams. The botched punt which lost the game at Carolina is a case in point.

BTW, don't get too high on our D. They are just as liable during this rotten stretch. They couldn't stop the Giants from converting 3rd and long all day, and they let a rookie QB drive the ball up and down the field in Detroit for 275 first half yards. Despite a markedly improved pass rush, we're getting zero plays from the secondary, aside from an occasional INT by Hall. Where is Laron Landry??? Where is Carlos Rogers??? As far as I'm concerned, those two have been MIA all year.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

The problem with only having a great D and a poor O is that a special teams gaffe can lose a game. The margin for error is so thin when you have a poor offense only capable of putting up 14 points, which magnifies any mistakes on special teams. The botched punt which lost the game at Carolina is a case in point.

BTW, don't get too high on our D. They are just as liable during this rotten stretch. They couldn't stop the Giants from converting 3rd and long all day, and they let a rookie QB drive the ball up and down the field in Detroit for 275 first half yards. Despite a markedly improved pass rush, we're getting zero plays from the secondary, aside from an occasional INT by Hall. Where is Laron Landry??? Where is Carlos Rogers??? As far as I'm concerned, those two have been MIA all year.

I think our D is built to be the stronger of the two units but not to carry a team to victory like the Ravens did in previous years (not this year, they have a helluva offense), the Titans last year, and Bears during the season they made it to the SB.

[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?

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think our D is built to be the stronger of the two units but not to carry a team to victory like the Ravens did in previous years (not this year, they have a helluva offense), the Titans last year, and Bears during the season they made it to the SB.

And what did the Ravens do on offense? They took stock of their QB's skill set, and brought in the Cam Cameron/Al Saunders system to fit those skills. Flacco is going to be a great QB in that system for many years.

I really thought Campbell would have been a great fit had we given him one more year in the Saunders system. I questioned his ability to play the short, passing on rhythm WCO the day we hired Zorn - it's just not a good fit.

[30gut]

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..

Only when that top ranked defense can get key stops and force turn overs.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

And what did the Ravens do on offense? They took stock of their QB's skill set, and brought in the Cam Cameron/Al Saunders system to fit those skills. Flacco is going to be a great QB in that system for many years.

I really thought Campbell would have been a great fit had we given him one more year in the Saunders system. I questioned his ability to play the short, passing on rhythm WCO the day we hired Zorn - it's just not a good fit.

Not to mention the fact that the Ravens did a good job scouting and got themselves a LT in the supplemental draft (Gaither), picked up a good QB, and shored up that line with Oher.

[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).

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Don't underestimate special teams...seriously

I was so on my way to mention the special teams. Facetious minds think alike.

[SBXVII]

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..

I think it all depends on how the HC sets up his team, but in the end If you don't have more points on the board then your opponent you lose. If you have a great Defense then you atleast have to have an Offense that can put a few points on the board, atleast more then 21 points.

If you have the top scoring offense then utilize that and make sure you scoring on every drive. Try to get the ball first in order to make the other team play catch up.

To me either one will work. No different the people saying my look at the Defense they are getting tired out there.....Hello, there's an Offense out there too, you can't tell me that an offense on the field too long does not get tired also.