Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Read the thread. Bottom line - QB, in my opinion, may be the most important position on the team, but you don't need a great one, merely you have to have a good one.(read: Flacco, Wilson, Eli, etc) What you need is a competitive offense and a great defense. So let's stop dreaming of Brady and build the D to elite level and bolster O line. EJ may well be all we need in a QB.

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

Read the thread. Bottom line - QB, in my opinion, may be the most important position on the team, but you don't need a great one, merely you have to have a good one.(read: Flacco, Wilson, Eli, etc) What you need is a competitive offense and a great defense. So let's stop dreaming of Brady and build the D to elite level and bolster O line. EJ may well be all we need in a QB.

 

Amen

Posted

good teams win championships, regardless of which side of the ball that "good" comes on. putting a touchdown on the board has the same effect on the score differential as keeping a touchdown off the board.

 

what seems more likely to me is that a few years ago, the league got a little offense-obsessed and began to overvalue offensive players and, as a byproduct, undervalue defensive players. the seahawks f.o. saw this and capitalized on it by putting together a defense that was stronger than the offense they could have put together for the same amount of money/draft-picks.

Along those lines, I've been thinking that it doesn't really matter that teams can't put together defenses that will consistently and absolutely shut down opposing offenses any more. If your defense stands out relative to the competition and your offense is competent you will come out ahead. But as you say it's also a question of how good your scouting is.

Posted

Seattle is stacked at every single position, including the coaching staff and front office.

 

Where is their weakness?

The salary cap.

Posted

Along those lines, I've been thinking that it doesn't really matter that teams can't put together defenses that will consistently and absolutely shut down opposing offenses any more. If your defense stands out relative to the competition and your offense is competent you will come out ahead. But as you say it's also a question of how good your scouting is.

 

Luck comes into play too. GIants Pats playing ten games, and the Pats probably win the majority. They got the two games where Eli played out of his mind.

Posted

Gilmore has long hair, McKelvin is long, Williams is rough, Byrd is All Pro. Don't see why our defense with a true run stuffing DT & another top level LB couldn't be stout.

 

Still if our QB suffers an injury every 4 games we're dead.

 

 

Posted

Luck comes into play too. GIants Pats playing ten games, and the Pats probably win the majority. They got the two games where Eli played out of his mind.

Lets not forget that the Giants D line gave ole Tommy a hard time in both games, as they held the Patriots to 14 pts in 2007 & 17 pts in 2011.

 

As good as that Patriot O line usually is it wasn't good enough in either game, as Brady was under constant pressure. I'm happy that Bill Bilcheat isn't smart enough to figure that out, and sad at the same time because the Bills have been clueless about the O line for 17 years.

Posted

Luck comes into play too. GIants Pats playing ten games, and the Pats probably win the majority. They got the two games where Eli played out of his mind.

 

I'm not sure I'd call it luck as much as a good matchup for the Giants. The two teams have played 4 times since the 2007 season, the Giants winning 3 of them (incidentally, the last 3--the only one NE won was the meaningless game to go 16-0).

 

It just happens that the Giants brand of pass rush, with ends playing inside, matches up really well with NE's OL. That's the thing with OL play: teams always have to optimize. No team is invulnerable along the line, and practically every team is better at either run blocking or pass protection. Under the tutelage of the now-retired Dante Scarnecchia, NE's OL had been extremely good in run blocking for a long time, and rather middling in pass protection. They optimize that way because Brady is exceptional at leaking around in the pocket to areas where the protection is better than others. The Giants specialize(d) in not allowing that to happen by getting pressure up the middle with pass-rushing ends without having to stunt...it's a pretty unique approach and it served them extremely well (obviously).

 

Most teams can't do that, and very few will bother to build their defense specifically to attack NE's interior OL in that fashion.

 

I guess that's my (extremely) long-winded way of saying that, IMO, it seems more like a case of favorable matchup as opposed to luck.

Posted

Hmmm. Top defense and top running game against the most pass happy dominant offense in the history of the league and the biggest game in the biggest stage was one of the biggest blowouts in Super Bowl history.

 

We had a top 10 defense and a top 5 running game and we stunk.

Posted (edited)

though there are exceptions to everything, I feel that in today's NFL, it is easier to succeed (have a winning record/get into the playoffs) with a good offense and average defense as opposed to an average offense and a good defense.

 

The Hawks didn't just have a good defense this season, they had one of the best defenses in the history of the game(when you take into account how it's so much harder nowadays for teams to play defense).

Edited by bobobonators
Posted

Giants twice, Ravens and Seahawks, that's four times in the last ten years.

 

"Giants twice"...no. The Giants D those 2 seasons was crappy. In the playoffs, they played well, but so did the pats D--almost the same ppg allowed.

 

Ravens won their SB with a mediocre D and the hot hand of their QB.

Posted

Seattle is stacked at every single position, including the coaching staff and front office.

 

Where is their weakness?

Their Division opponents SF and AZ (10-6).

 

They are a young team and all too soon (in 2 years time) they could lose a bunch to FA as they are up for new contracts.

Posted

The topic being discussed is whether great/dominating D's win championships (irrespective of the offense, according to some), not whether a SB team's D played well enough on one day to win a SB.

 

This. The Giants defense was worse than the Pats in '07. Just as the Ravens was worse than the 9ers last year. If you're looking @ the two Eli teams as a blue print for anything you might as well say mediocrity on both sides of the ball wins championships (the 2011 Giants had a negative pt differential).

 

That's the great thing about the "Defense" side of this argument though. It's impossible to lose because the winning defense invariably gives up fewer points than their opponent in the last game.

Even if said defense sucked all year & played well for a couple games like the '06 Colts (Denver this yr almost pulled that off too).

Not surprisingly if the exact opposite happens (the defense is good all year & manages to win a shootout in the SB - like the '04 Patriots) well then heck, they still get to say "defense wins championships". Super. How convenient. You can see why it's impossible to argue with "defense wins championships" guy. It's not because they're right.

Posted

Stupid plays don't win games either. It started from the get go when the hotshot Bronco returner decided returning the opening kickoff from 9 yards deep in the end zone was an intelligent move. He got to the 12, which ensured that the errant snap on the next play would reach the end zone. It was downhill from there.

I think some key Bronco offensive players were trying too hard, that guy included. On more than one occasion, a Bronco receiver came up short by trying to juke a Seattle defender when plowing straight ahead would have netted a first down instead and one of the fumbles occurred because the receiver tried to stiff arm for additional yardage instead of wrapping up the ball and guaranteeing a first down on a long gain.

Posted

This. The Giants defense was worse than the Pats in '07. Just as the Ravens was worse than the 9ers last year. If you're looking @ the two Eli teams as a blue print for anything you might as well say mediocrity on both sides of the ball wins championships (the 2011 Giants had a negative pt differential).

 

That's the great thing about the "Defense" side of this argument though. It's impossible to lose because the winning defense invariably gives up fewer points than their opponent in the last game.

Even if said defense sucked all year & played well for a couple games like the '06 Colts (Denver this yr almost pulled that off too).

Not surprisingly if the exact opposite happens (the defense is good all year & manages to win a shootout in the SB - like the '04 Patriots) well then heck, they still get to say "defense wins championships". Super. How convenient. You can see why it's impossible to argue with "defense wins championships" guy. It's not because they're right.

No, "defense wins championships" is applicable to when teams are held to well below their output in the SB. That describes the majority of SB wins. It's not a guarantee, nor does it mean a team with a crappy offense can win a SB.

×
×
  • Create New...