Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I didn't get involved in anything different. The guy said that it was an exception to the rule. I took it as meaning that a team won't win with just defense, which is true and the Ravens winning once is just an exception. You trying to prove him that a defense can win a superbowl is pretty pointless. You won't find a team doing what the Ravens did again, unless the NFL starts to get less and less talent and some team gets an easy road to the Superbowl against a soft team. And the Ravens had a record setting defense anyway, playing about as well as you could possibly play on defense. Tampa did it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Rams ranked #7 in Todal defense the year they won. Nice try though. And do you believe the Rams actually had a stellar defense the year they won? Were they not involved in a 40-50 type scoring game against the Vikings that year in the playoffs? And besides, even if the defense was ranked top 10, its pretty foolish to point to their defense winning and not to the offense with Faulk, Bruce, Holt and Warner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 it looks to me like this guy is going to have an answer for any real stat we throw at him..its all good though man, you were confused when you got yourself involved. i get it, i get overly excited sometimes too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Tampa did it as well. hey man, you stop with that logic right now!! we wont have any of that here in the nonsense room!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Tampa did it as well. I don't think Tampa had a terrible offense, but I'll agree with the Tampa superbowl being about mainly defense. Am I to take it that every year defense will win it because you've shown two teams solely relying on their defense since the Superbowl was established, have won it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 it looks to me like this guy is going to have an answer for any real stat we throw at him..its all good though man, you were confused when you got yourself involved. i get it, i get overly excited sometimes too. Thanks for trying to just ridicule me by stating I'm confused just because I have a differing opinion. Its nice though that you can prove to all the people on this site that age does not equal maturity or respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 it seems to me like you are not able to listen to logic when someone shows you that at least 3 out of the last 7 super bowl champs have won it with D. and if you can see that tampa did it, how in the hell can you not see that b-more did it even more so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Did the 70's Steelers win only on defense, or did they have a solid team overall? How about the 80's 49ers and Redskins? 90's Cowboys? Patriots? Colts? I merely have a problem with people saying "defense wins championships" win both sides of the ball are required. A top 5 defense doesn't mean you're guaranteed a championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 it seems to me like you are not able to listen to logic when someone shows you that at least 3 out of the last 7 super bowl champs have won it with D. and if you can see that tampa did it, how in the hell can you not see that b-more did it even more so? Its nice to see that you can count Baltimore and Tampa as being 3, considering Chicago didn't actually win. Its also nice that you only want to count the last 7 instead of looking at the history of football, or even going back to 1990. Is that because it would be 2 in the last 17 superbowls, and that number isn't as good as 2 out of 7? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Henry --- [My evidence] Which is largely irrelevant when you consider the significant lower level of talent available in the college game, which makes it easier to run offenses that showcase the ability of a handful of star players. As levels of play increase (Pop Warner to High School to College to semi-pro and Pro) certain strategies that work at one level are necesarily abandoned as the talent pool increases, and the difference between good players and average players decreases. Running an entire offense out of the shotgun, where it is more difficult to develop a downhill running game, is one of those strategies, in my opinion. Ultimately, there will be as many variations on the shot-gun theme as there have been with the QB taking the snap from under center. At the college level, we already have run-dominated schemes, pass-dominated schemes, and balanced schemes. I'm sure we will have shot-gun schemes that won't transfer successfully to the pro game and those that will, just as we had with the QBs under center. [Other pro teams using it effectively] That's evidence for considering using the formation in more than just third-and-long situations. That is not evidence that supports running it as the base formation. As noted in an earlier post, when Joe Gibbs took the reins in 1981, the conventional pro formation was a two-back set with a halfback and fullback. I maintain that our team would not have won three Super Bowls if we had stayed with the conventional approach. The Gibbs-Coryell offense gave defenses wrinkles they'd never seen before. Innovation on the offense combined with the influx of talent through the 1981 draft resulted in success. If you had applied your arguments then, they would have made more sense than they do now because the Coryell offense had been sucessful only at San Diego State. At the pro-level, it was considered flashy, but not the way that big boys should win football games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsaddict2621 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Oldfan, look on the bright side.... The seven to nine win season you see is beween three and five games more than I expect they'll win this year. So you're telling me as a Redskins "fan" you expect us to only win 4 games? That's not even realistic, that's just flat out pessimistic as hell. If you look at the talent level, the schedule, and no major injuries, this team should go 7-9 at worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Its nice to see that you can count Baltimore and Tampa as being 3, considering Chicago didn't actually win.Its also nice that you only want to count the last 7 instead of looking at the history of football, or even going back to 1990. Is that because it would be 2 in the last 17 superbowls, and that number isn't as good as 2 out of 7? why would i go back to the 90s when i was speaking about the last 7 years? you are the one who clearly wants to use those stats so go ahead. you can prove your own point if you want, but that wasnt even close to what i was talking about. its like me talking about cars and you jumping in and bragging about how you like turtles. apples and oranges man, apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Did the 70's Steelers win only on defense, or did they have a solid team overall? How about the 80's 49ers and Redskins? 90's Cowboys? Patriots? Colts?I merely have a problem with people saying "defense wins championships" win both sides of the ball are required. A top 5 defense doesn't mean you're guaranteed a championship. I dont think anyone is questioning that, silly. But, the amount of teams that HAVE won Champoinships with a great defense and sub-par offense is alot more than have one with a great offense and sub-par defence. Several teams that have won SB's have had average to poor dffences. Outside of Indianapolis, NO TEAM had done that with a bad defense. And Indy got lucky enough to all of a sudden start to play well on the defensive side of hte ball when the playoffs started (and got Bob Sanders back from injury). History shows that. And that is why that old battlecry is still used today. And if the search function here went back far enough I'd find the post in which I showed that to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 why would i go back to the 90s when i was speaking about the last 7 years? you are the one who clearly wants to use those stats so go ahead. you can prove your own point if you want, but that wasnt even close to what i was talking about.its like me talking about cars and you jumping in and bragging about how you like turtles. apples and oranges man, apples and oranges. Why the hell would you only bring up the last 7 years then to prove anything? Especially when you don't even count the Patriots winning with both sides of the ball in 3 of them and the Colts thumping the Bears last year, who were vaunted for defense as Manning dismantled them. I just hate when people pick and choose their stats just to prove a point without taking everything into consideration. That would be like saying Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player ever, and not count Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan or Bill Russell because you just wanna talk about the last 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRay Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 How could anyone read my post and think that my position has anything at all to do with the result of Saturday's game? I can't decide if posters are too lazy to read or too lazy to think. So what is your postion based on ?.. I do not think anyone really know what this offense is actually going to look like until the reg. season. I agree if the o-line does not protect JC then it could be a long year. Oh by the way defenses does win championships I know it may sound cliche to you but look at what the Bucs did, Ravens even more recently look at the Colts. They have been criticize all year for their defense once they were in post-season they were playing just as good of defense as anyone else in the play-offs in some cases they were playing better than some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Ultimately, there will be as many variations on the shot-gun theme as there have been with the QB taking the snap from under center. At the college level, we already have run-dominated schemes, pass-dominated schemes, and balanced schemes. I'm sure we will have shot-gun schemes that won't transfer successfully to the pro game and those that will, just as we had with the QBs under center. As noted in an earlier post, when Joe Gibbs took the reins in 1981, the conventional pro formation was a two-back set with a halfback and fullback. I maintain that our team would not have won three Super Bowls if we had stayed with the conventional approach. The Gibbs-Coryell offense gave defenses wrinkles they'd never seen before. Innovation on the offense combined with the influx of talent through the 1981 draft resulted in success. If you had applied your arguments then, they would have made more sense than they do now because the Coryell offense had been sucessful only at San Diego State. At the pro-level, it was considered flashy, but not the way that big boys should win football games. Last time I checked the Chargers used it pretty well in the NFL in the late 70's, where Gibbs was the OC and Coryell was the HC. They just had no defense to speak of. So It was already proven to work "with the big boys". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sekhmet187 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 I dont think anyone is questioning that, silly.But, the amount of teams that HAVE won Champoinships with a great defense and sub-par offense is alot more than have one with a great offense and sub-par defence. Several teams that have won SB's have had average to poor dffences. Outside of Indianapolis, NO TEAM had done that with a bad defense. And Indy got lucky enough to all of a sudden start to play well on the defensive side of hte ball when the playoffs started (and got Bob Sanders back from injury). History shows that. And that is why that old battlecry is still used today. And if the search function here went back far enough I'd find the post in which I showed that to be the case. Well I would say that the first Cowboys Superbowl and even the second, was won with offense and only a sub-par defense, but then again, my memory might be shaky. The Colts are a second team, and I would venture that Denver's Superbowls were because of a great offense and sub-par defense. The only team I can think of that has won a superbowl in the last 20 years with a "bad" offense, was Tampa and Baltimore, so thats why I generally believe offense is slightly more important than defense, but they're both important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Why the hell would you only bring up the last 7 years then to prove anything? Especially when you don't even count the Patriots winning with both sides of the ball in 3 of them and the Colts thumping the Bears last year, who were vaunted for defense as Manning dismantled them. I just hate when people pick and choose their stats just to prove a point without taking everything into consideration. That would be like saying Kobe Bryant is the best basketball player ever, and not count Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan or Bill Russell because you just wanna talk about the last 10 years. go back and read this thread over again and then come back and talk trash. i was in a convo with oldfan speaking about within the past 7 years 3 teams have either made it to or won the SB mainly off of their D. that was why he said it was the exception. you got all into this "all time" topic by yourself. and you will stay there by yourself until you want to get into a topic that is worth talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 you are really getting in the middle of a discussion and turning it to something you want to talk about. the simple point was him saying that D can NOT and me showing him it CAN. i didnt once say that O couldnt win a SB. i was merely pointing out that D can win it. nor did i say they could do it every year. if you want to discuss that we can, but you are jumping on me and warping this to get involved in something that wasnt about offense or 20-30 years of stats. Mike, when someone says that "Defense wins championships," they are asserting that the defense is more important than the offense in winning championships. I am saying that the best team: offense, defense, special teams, will win championships more often than not. I'm stating a general rule. Your pointing out a few exceptions (teams that were heavily-weighted to the defense) over the history of Super Bowls proves nothing. The Bears had a good offensive team. The Ravens had Jamal Lewis controlling the ball and keeping their defense off the field. They weren't just defensive teams, they were the best teams overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel2 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Panic, Panic! Please stop with the negativeness. The backup's backups won the game. If they had lost what would you be saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 i dont agree with you though. i believe in the saying "the best defense is a good offense" but you are more then welcome to not agree with that. but to say it is just an exception is absurd to me. without a D you are lucky to win a ring as the Rams were lucky that Dyson didnt get in the end zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Well I would say that the first Cowboys Superbowl and even the second, was won with offense and only a sub-par defense, but then again, my memory might be shaky. The Colts are a second team, and I would venture that Denver's Superbowls were because of a great offense and sub-par defense.The only team I can think of that has won a superbowl in the last 20 years with a "bad" offense, was Tampa and Baltimore, so thats why I generally believe offense is slightly more important than defense, but they're both important. .............. You're 21, You werent even born for the first Cowboys SB victory, much less the first one they were in. So, yeah, your memory is gonna be REAL shakey. But, since you were wondering 1992 Cowboys: 1st ranked defence. #5 in points alowed. That means is pretty damn good. 1993 Cowboys: 8th ranked defence, #2 in points allowed. Edit: Forgot to add this. 1997 Broncos: 4th ranked defence. #7 in points allowed. 1998 Broncos: 12th ranked defence. #8 in points allowed. Which puts them as one of the worst defenses in history to win a SB. And one we would have killed for last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 Last time I checked the Chargers used it pretty well in the NFL in the late 70's, where Gibbs was the OC and Coryell was the HC. They just had no defense to speak of. So It was already proven to work "with the big boys". It was proven to score points but so did the Run and Shoot. That's why I used the word "flashy." Gibbs proved it could win games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 It was proven to score points but so did the Run and Shoot. That's why I used the word "flashy." Gibbs proved it could win games. 1979: 12-4 1980: 11-6 1981: 10-6 It had already won games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted August 13, 2007 Author Share Posted August 13, 2007 So what is your postion based on ?.. I do not think anyone really know what this offense is actually going to look like until the reg. season. I agree if the o-line does not protect JC then it could be a long year. Oh by the way defenses does win championships I know it may sound cliche to you but look at what the Bucs did, Ravens even more recently look at the Colts.They have been criticize all year for their defense once they were in post-season they were playing just as good of defense as anyone else in the play-offs in some cases they were playing better than some. Ray, read the first post. It has nothing to do with the first preseason game or pessimism based on anything that the team has done recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.