For the record, who ever came up with the motto that defense wins championships, that is the biggest horse crap i have ever heard. Look at past champions: Denver, SF, STLouis, 92 Redskins and Dallas. Steve Young, Joe Montana, Emmith Smith, Terrell Davis, Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, John Elway, Jerry Rice, Tom Brady etc.....you really want to know what wins Superbowls? --------------->Offensives POWERHOUSES. And that my friends is a fact. Every blue moon you will have a defensives powerhouses like 2002 Bucs, 2000 Ravens and 85 Bears. So you remember, you can t win a championship without a very good offense.
One more thing, I m a huge Eagles fan, and they had one of the greatest the defense in the early 90s with Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons, Eric Allen and Seth Joyner and they never won a championship? Look at the Steelers of the 90s! Need i say more???!!!
go back and look again my friend....what you will find is that the majority of those teams had very good defensive teams.....take the last few champions for instance: Patriots = Defensive powerhouse with just enough O to get by Bucs = Same Patriots = Dominating D, poor offense Ravens = Dominating D, poor offense Rams = Dominating Offense, #3 rank D in the league clearly, over the last 5 years defensive play has lead to the title....if tht wasnt true, the Vikings, Colts, and Chiefs would have been to the Super Bowl in recent years
First of all, in todays football you won't find a team with great depth on both sides of the ball. You're either great on one side/poor on the other or just mediocre on both. Secondly, the Pats & Cowboys won b/c of their D. Everybody knows that. The one recent exception I'll give you is St Louis. Their offense was just that, exceptional. Finally, your Eagles were pre-expansion, when Dallas was able to Yankify if u will, the NFL. For better or worse, there are no more dynastys.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'>go back and look again my friend....what you will find is that the majority of those teams had very good defensive teams.....take the last few champions for instance: Patriots = Defensive powerhouse with just enough O to get by Bucs = Same Patriots = Dominating D, poor offense Ravens = Dominating D, poor offense Rams = Dominating Offense, #3 rank D in the league clearly, over the last 5 years defensive play has lead to the title....if tht wasnt true, the Vikings, Colts, and Chiefs would have been to the Super Bowl in recent years</div> Beef you hit the nail on the head! All the recent superbowl winners had great defenses and yes the viks,colts,chiefs have come up short due to lack of defense talent. Great regular season records but nothing in the gas tank when there opponent scores on them. Offenses wins you games, Defenses wins championships. I stand by my saying.
I like to say, "Passing sells tickets, but defense and rushing wins championships" Give me a team that can run the ball and stop the run and Ill give you a serious title contender...
Which could be a reason why teams should fear a hungry flippers team I did hear that wanny said he is gonna use williams more in the passing game. Good news for fantasy football fans.
Hmmmm, beef didnt the dolphins rank in the top 3 in defense and have the number 1 rusher in the league two years ago? what ever happened to that team?
The BEEF ---->a team that can run the ball and play good defense? How about the Ravens last year????!!!!Better yet, how about those Dolphins!?!Until the Dolphins have a passing game, they cannot be taken seriously!
still, caddy, everyteam that has won a title over the past 10 years has had a good defense, no team wins with a bad defense, but teams have won with bad offenses.
i ONLY hope that defenses dont take over the league like they do in hokey. its killed hokey and its getting to basketball to. i hope the league stays balanced like it is
Dawk, Hockey this year has eluded the dreaded neutral zone trap, so thats good for open hockey this year. Its one of the main reasons why the flames and lightning are in the cup. There's nothing wrong with great defenses. Philly has one and is plenty capable to go the superbowl.
The 2002 Dolphins were a statistical anomoly because they turned the ball over too much....no matter how good you are at other phases of the game, if you turn it over, you wont win big....if you doubt what im saying about defense and running games winning championships, find me the last team to win the Super Bowl with either a)an average defense or b)an unbalanced offense that featured the pass without the running game....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'>I like to say, "Passing sells tickets, but defense and rushing wins championships" Give me a team that can run the ball and stop the run and Ill give you a serious title contender...</div> While I agree stopping the run is key, I'm not of the belief that you need a great running game. The Pats are living proof of that. On many occasions they went with a spread offense of 4 or 5 WRs. They used screens & quick slants to make up for a lack speed in the backfield. If you wanna get specific, it's the o & d line that is crucial to any teams success. Tomlinson is the most electrifying back IMO. But without a decent OL the Chargers found themselves picking 1st overall yet again. As good as Ty Law is, he'd be a fool not to credit the DL for his performance in the AFC title game.
I think the running game is still a huge tool to have but the spread offense is becoming more common each year and teams that have a QB that can handle the decision making they can get away with a mediocre run game. As for defense you can NEVER get away with a mediocre defense and it showed last season in the AFC especially as you watched KC and INDY shred each other but the second Manning faced a real defense he crumbled. neither team really ever had a chance even thought Manning did scare me.
You guys can beat this one up forever. Casey Stengel once said something to the effect that ?Good pitching always beats good hitting and vice-versa.? ?Defense wins championships? is the phrase because it is much easier for a defense to make up for the shortcomings of an offense than it is for the offense to make up for the defense. How the two work together is very important. There are many reasons that a team appears to have a good defense. The trick to winning championships is to control the game the best way you can. Dallas made the playoffs last year?..but why? Their defense was #1. Did they really have the best defense in the league last year. No. But they controlled the clock and the game. They played their game and it worked to their benefit a majority of the time. The Rams never did have a great defense IMO. Their offense was so efficient, there were few three-and-outs, thus keeping the defense off the field more. The offense?s efficiency made the other team turn more one-dimensional, which helps the defense. Similarly, a good defense can make an offense look better than it really is. I disagree that the Patriots and Bucs didn?t have good offenses. They didn?t have the high-octane offenses, but they were very efficient. They were pretty good for what they were supposed to do. Just because you don?t score 40 points a game doesn?t mean the offense isn?t good. Whether it is three yards and a cloud of dust, short passing slants, or a high-flying attack, different offenses can be good (effective). In 2002, Tampa won with a great defense. Carolina was #2. Up and coming (obviously), but the D didn?t help them win in 02. Miami was #3 with a great ground attack on offense. Why weren?t they there to play Tampa. You have to make the plays in the playoffs. Philly?s great D didn?t. Washington had a top D?Denver?.Pitt?Indy. In 2003, New England didn?t have a superior offense, but it was good and got better in the playoffs. I didn?t look at the stats, but I would bet that they ran the ball better in the playoffs than in the regular season. In fact, New England and Carolina had two of the best defenses in the game last year and the Superbowl turned out to be an offensive battle. 61 points were scored against two of the best. Doesn?t sound like the defense led the way. That aside, I would say that the last four SB winners won because of their defense. I would say the four before that won because of their offense. I don?t think offenses are necessarily the key either. The key is to control the line of scrimmage, the game tempo, and make plays in the playoffs when you have the chance. Whoever steps up is who wins the championships.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cowboy71)</div><div class='quotemain'> In 2003, New England didn’t have a superior offense, but it was good and got better in the playoffs. I didn’t look at the stats, but I would bet that they ran the ball better in the playoffs than in the regular season. In fact, New England and Carolina had two of the best defenses in the game last year and the Superbowl turned out to be an offensive battle. 61 points were scored against two of the best. Doesn’t sound like the defense led the way. </div> You could play that superbowl 500 more times and you would never see an explosion like that at the end of each half. The game was all defense for 80% of it. We gave up two plays (S. Smith 39yarder, M. Muhammed 85 yarder) that were very uncharacteristic of us since I believe we had only givin up 2 or 3 pass plays for over 40 yards all season. Just like we ran the ball on them with good sucess which they didn't allow teams with a mediocre running attack like ours all season to do. That game was one of the strangest yet most exciting superbowls I have seen in a while and it just seemed like the stars were aligned or something. Also we had NO safety help for their last two touchdown drives with Harrison and Wilson down. It seemed like a rare case where both offenses were able to wear the opposing defense down.
