Elite offense or elite defense?

[RockThatBlue]

Which would you rather your team have?

[scooter4910]

Is this an either/or scenario?

[Lawrence Owen]

Elite offense.  But good defense.

 

You win games by scoring points.  Granted an elite defense can completely take a certain phase of an offence out of a game, But an elite offence can't be stopped on every down.  If every position of your offense clicks, it is impossible to stop.  Take Seattle/Colts game when Luck and Wilson were rookies.  Seattles pass defense was considered 'elite'. They pretty much shut our offence down most of the game.  But Luck and T.Y. 'clicked' just 2 times, and that was all it took.  

But, you have to be good in defense, Just an elite offense cannot get you very far when teams with Elite defenses also have good offenses.  If you cannot stop the other team once in a while, you allow them to control a game, (aka pats).

[chad72]

I think this is a slam dunk, elite defense all the way.

 

The 2 times the #1 offense met the #1 defense, the #1 offense got decimated (2002 Raiders vs Bucs, 2013 Broncos vs Seahawks). Besides, the #1 passing offense has never won a SB (2007 Patriots, 2013 Broncos etc.) I am taking defense all the way if it is an "or" situation.

 

You can have a good opportunistic offense that does not have to score much if you have that elite defense. That gives you the luxury of not having to force the issue on offense and stay patient and sooner or later, the offensive opportunities will present themselves. Plus, it also gives the offense a little room for error should your QB make a mistake or two and against playoff Ds, it is bound to happen. Not to mention, a defense can flip field position with turnovers to help the offense out to score points. 

[Surge89]

I think this is a slam dunk, elite defense all the way.

The 2 times the #1 offense met the #1 defense, the #1 offense got decimated (2002 Raiders vs Bucs, 2013 Broncos vs Seahawks). Besides, the #1 passing offense has never won a SB (2007 Patriots, 2013 Broncos etc.) I am taking defense all the way if it is an "or" situation.

You can have a good opportunistic offense that does not have to score much if you have that elite defense. That gives you the luxury of not having to force the issue on offense and stay patient and sooner or later, the offensive opportunities will present themselves. Plus, it also gives the offense a little room for error should your QB make a mistake or two and against playoff Ds, it is bound to happen. Not to mention, a defense can flip field position with turnovers to help the offense out to score points.

I feel like your inside my mind lately... lol

[Gavin]

Is this an either/or scenario?

Usually is on this forum, Where ya been?

[scooter4910]

Usually is on this forum, Where ya been?

Never can tell and if I take a stand I need to be prepared to be slaughtered by all the experts around here.

 

Okay....Irresistible force paradox.

 

I'll go with a superior offense. You can continue to rack up points with a great offense but the best you can do with a great defense (unless your defense is scoring points) is hold the opponent to zero which could still result in a tie.

[21isSuperman]

Seahawks have an elite defense and they made the Super Bowl 2 years in a row.  Pats had an elite defense last year and won the Super Bowl.  I'm an advocate of the defense wins championships mantra.  Give me the elite defense.

[rock8591]

Elite defense by far.

[BleedBlu8792]

Seahawks have an elite defense and they made the Super Bowl 2 years in a row.  Pats had an elite defense last year and won the Super Bowl.  I'm an advocate of the defense wins championships mantra.  Give me the elite defense.

 

The Pats had a decent defense... Elite? Not even close..

[amfootball]

Seahawks have an elite defense and they made the Super Bowl 2 years in a row.  Pats had an elite defense last year and won the Super Bowl.  I'm an advocate of the defense wins championships mantra.  Give me the elite defense.

Pats defense was not elite. It was very good but far from elite especially the run defense. The Pats won largely based on Brady and the offense as Brady threw 50 times in both the Ravens and Seattle games and was the first QB in SB history to ever win attempting 50 passes. Based on this, I would say defense first but honestly just give me an elite QB every time ...

[shakedownstreet]

lotta teams with great defenses struggle to win 8 games a season. even the best defenses get scorched in the modern nfl

 

gimme a great offense & an opportunistic defense

[Surge89]

Pats defense was not elite. It was very good but far from elite especially the run defense. The Pats won largely based on Brady and the offense as Brady threw 50 times in both the Ravens and Seattle games and was the first QB in SB history to ever win attempting 50 passes. Based on this, I would say defense first but honestly just give me an elite QB every time ...

Your view is skewed :-)

When you have a coach that always brings a relevant defense you may never consider it elite but it was as close as you can get. Great secondary with an isolation corner and a safety who can cover the other side. A great group of linebackers and an above average line.

We've seen what happens when you have an elite QB and load that offense. You score 3 points in a champ game or go one and done for years. Hell green bay is barely learning. Rodgers is finally getting help on the other side of the ball.

[amfootball]

Your view is skewed :-)

When you have a coach that always brings a relevant defense you may never consider it elite but it was as close as you can get. Great secondary with an isolation corner and a safety who can cover the other side. A great group of linebackers and an above average line.

We've seen what happens when you have an elite QB and load that offense. You score 3 points in a champ game or go one and done for years. Hell green bay is barely learning. Rodgers is finally getting help on the other side of the ball.

Sure. I am not saying no defense or even average defense but the Pats defense was not elite at all. It was very opportunistic when it needed to be in the post-season but the Ravens ran rough shod over us both with the run game and the pass game. Truthfully, we should have lost that game if not for Brady and the trick plays. It was a stroke of genius by Bill and Josh to somehow get us back into that game and of course Brady had a spectacular second half. I just think the elite QB is more paramount than anything else. I am not saying winning can't be done other way as Wilson is far from elite, same with Flacco but if I had to pick a path I would start with the elite QB and then go to the defense. A good coach is essential no matter what.

[Lawrence Owen]

2006 Colts beat NE's MUCH better defense with their high powered offence due to 1 thing,....pressure.  our corners were not nearly as good as the ones we have now, but we had a pass rush.  Getting pressure on Brady ended up with us getting 3 sacks, and making him make fast decisions and throw 3 picks.  Our offense played hard nosed.  Ran the ball, and play action after it was set up.  

 

We have potentially a good pass rush coming from the outside this year in Mathis and Cole, and Anderson is known(atleast in college) to be able to get penetration and get to the QB.

 

With our new RB's we got this year, hard nosed running is the exact term for what we can/will do.  And the outside speed is perfect for the playaction off of that running style.

 

The only real question is will the o-line stay healthy enough to get in sync with each other next year and be able to play cohesively? (stopping the run IMO is more of a 'being efficient with your assignments and  making the tackle' problem)

[Yehoodi]

This is kind of a tough question to answer as stated as it really stems on who you are facing, match ups, how good is the other two phases of your team.  Also bad bounces in the playoffs.  But over the long haul I will take an elite offense with a solid D.

 

If I were to modify the question and say elite offense/situation or good defense or elite defense/situation or good offense, I will take the former hands down.  

 

I never bought the defense wins championships line, I think it has a lot more to do with folks not being so free wheeling in the playoffs and the scores mostly go down.   Many will site the "best" offenses and will do so but just referencing points as to who is the "best" ('83 skins, '98 Vikings, '07 pats, '13 Broncos, and so on) in that category, well with that point the greatest defense since the Merger did not even make the playoffs ('77 Falcons).   Also, more often than not the great defense also had a great offense to compliment it.  Indeed the 1985 Bears' offense was the 2nd in scoring and less than 10 points behind the 1st place SD Chargers.

 

Especially in today's fantasy football world, I will take a elite offense and good/situational defense.  Also, when one looks at all of the SB champions more times than not, the team is defined by its offense and QB than by its defense.  Surely there are a few examples sprinkled in when you had an all decade defense that broke through and won, those are the exception and not the norm.   Also, with the exception of the 70 Steelers, all of the great D's are one year wonders at winning SBs.   And I would add that the 70s Steelers offense were no chumps, so it was not all the Steelers D too.

 

Give me a elite QB, a solid run game. solid Oline, one great WR and two situational WRs/TEs and good/solid D any day of the week.  This formula defines most of the NFL champions.  

[Yehoodi]

Your view is skewed :-)

When you have a coach that always brings a relevant defense you may never consider it elite but it was as close as you can get. Great secondary with an isolation corner and a safety who can cover the other side. A great group of linebackers and an above average line.

We've seen what happens when you have an elite QB and load that offense. You score 3 points in a champ game or go one and done for years. Hell green bay is barely learning. Rodgers is finally getting help on the other side of the ball.

 

I would just like to point out that the Pats D gave up 24 points in the SB, which is tied for the 6th most point given up by a winning team.  Which means by deduction it was enough points yielded to win about 40 SBs.

 

Also another interesting point higher on the list of points yielded are the 70 Steelers (31 - SB 13, tied more most with Ravens SB 47) and 2000s Pats (29 - SB 38, 2nd most all time), also there are 2000s pats (21 - SB 39, 9th).  So although most will site the 70 Steelers and 00s Pats as having great Ds. they have yielded some of the highest points in SB and if it were not for their offense perhaps they do not win the SB.

 

And btw, SB 13 was the one in which Dallas' Jackie Smith was wide open in the end zone and dropped a sure TD earlier in the game.   You may have heard Verne Lundquist's "bless his heart he got to be the sickest man in America" radio broadcast.

[oldunclemark]

Which would you rather your team have?

Elite offense..especially if you play indoors or in warm weather

NE won that way this season......so did Indy and NOLA...

...Cant hope (with the rules the way they are) to stop everybody..can hope to score on everyone

[chad72]

Elite QB can be neutralized if he does not get much help from his D. We have seen it countless times. Kurt Warner has experienced it, Peyton Manning has experienced it, and even Tom Brady has experienced it after giving his team the lead in a SB.

 

Yes, having a very good QB is important. Big Ben and Eli, when their D gave them the ball back enough times, did not have to score TDs every possession to win. But when they had to, they did, and that is where having a very good QB matters.

 

Defense gives the offense a chance, every single time, by keeping them in the game and not letting the game get away. But yes, ultimately you do need a very good QB to cash in on it. Elite QB under pressure does not mean elite offense. It is just that he plays big when it matters most.

 

The Patriots' D shut the Seahawks' offense in the 4th qtr. of the SB, that was where the game was slowly won and Brady cashed in like the elite QB he is when it mattered most. If the other team is just as good, they are going to make plays but if the Broncos were down by 10, the Broncos' D was not going to force 3 and outs like the Patriots' D did to keep them in the game long enough till the turnaround happened. Heck, the Chargers vs Patriots SNF game, for the longest time, it was 16-14 but the Patriots' D forced 3 and outs enough times that eventually, the opportunity presented itself and Brady and Edelman cashed in. That is what D does for you, keep the offense in the game and give them a fighting chance. Patriots go up 17-9 in the 3rd qtr. in the Indianapolis SB vs the Giants on a Hernandez TD. The Giants' D shut them down after that and Eli gets 2 FGs at best after that till around the 3 minute mark when it is 15-17 when he makes the TD drive. The Giants' D kept him in the game, Eli cashed it in when he had to. I can give countless examples of these kinds.

 

Another case where the Colts did not cash in was the divisional round in 2013 - the D forced 4 three and outs but Andrew Luck and company did nothing, absolutely nothing with it and we went into the 4th qtr. down 22-29 and then the floodgates opened. The very good/elite QB has to cash in, period, eventually. Otherwise, the elite D won't matter, that part I totally agree with. That was the problem with the Ravens of the 2000s after their 2000 SB, losing all those games due to an anemic offense. Steve McNair or whoever else it was, could not cash in on the gains of their D, whether it was field position due to turnovers or punts.

[ViriLudant]

2006 Colts beat NE's MUCH better defense with their high powered offence due to 1 thing,....pressure. our corners were not nearly as good as the ones we have now, but we had a pass rush. Getting pressure on Brady ended up with us getting 3 sacks, and making him make fast decisions and throw 3 picks. Our offense played hard nosed. Ran the ball, and play action after it was set up.

We have potentially a good pass rush coming from the outside this year in Mathis and Cole, and Anderson is known(atleast in college) to be able to get penetration and get to the QB.

With our new RB's we got this year, hard nosed running is the exact term for what we can/will do. And the outside speed is perfect for the playaction off of that running style.

The only real question is will the o-line stay healthy enough to get in sync with each other next year and be able to play cohesively? (stopping the run IMO is more of a 'being efficient with your assignments and making the tackle' problem)

The only reason the Colts won a SB in '06 is because of the defense stepping up in the playoffs .

[LockeDown]

If our elite D is like the 1985 Bears, then I'd pick the D because they sacked the QB every other play. 

[chad72]

The only reason the Colts won a SB in '06 is because of the defense stepping up in the playoffs .

 

Agree. The overlooked aspect was how Freeney and Mathis and the whole D forced so many punts and Peyton cashed in almost every single time in the second half. People just look at the QB cashing in part, not the fact that the D tightened up to give more possessions for the offense in the second half and Peyton, who loves the "quiet" setting of the dome finally cashed in during playoff time for his only playoff 4th qtr. comeback. The tone was set when Peyton and the Colts scored 15 points in their first 2 possessions to tie the game after the half. If not for lousy special teams play that gave Ellis Hobb an 85 yard kick return, Patriots would not have gone up 28-21. After that, when Brady had to go the distance, just 2 FGs. A D can only do so much while being backed up (due to lousy ST or QB turning it over) and not having enough chances to stop an offense (case in point - when Brady threw his first INT vs Seahawks, it was in the end zone, so Patriots' D minimized the damage to 0 points, when Brady threw his second INT to Bobby Wagner, it was close to mid field and it cost the Patriots 7 points).

[PeterBowman]

there has to be a sort of balance, unless your D is historically great. IE '85 Bears ,  '00 Ravens, or put on a historically great performance like the '14 Seahawks. But the other side of the ball still has to make plays too from time to time. The 2014 Broncos has a very good D but in the Super Bowl coudln't get off the field on 3rd down. This put more pressure on the O and that played right into the strength of the Seahawks D, who played WAY above their already elite level.

[Surge89]

I would just like to point out that the Pats D gave up 24 points in the SB, which is tied for the 6th most point given up by a winning team.  Which means by deduction it was enough points yielded to win about 40 SBs.

 

Also another interesting point higher on the list of points yielded are the 70 Steelers (31 - SB 13, tied more most with Ravens SB 47) and 2000s Pats (29 - SB 38, 2nd most all time), also there are 2000s pats (21 - SB 39, 9th).  So although most will site the 70 Steelers and 00s Pats as having great Ds. they have yielded some of the highest points in SB and if it were not for their offense perhaps they do not win the SB.

 

And btw, SB 13 was the one in which Dallas' Jackie Smith was wide open in the end zone and dropped a sure TD earlier in the game.   You may have heard Verne Lundquist's "bless his heart he got to be the sickest man in America" radio broadcast.

 

Oh I agree.  That's why I said as close as you can get to elite :-).  Still though that Patriots Defense literally shut the Seahawks down in the 4th. And that is why I said Am's view might be a little skewed.  Not just "any" defense could shut down Seattle last year and for a quarter the Patriots defense did just that.  And that was after Brady put them in a hole earlier.  Of course he completely redeemed himself and came to play in the 4th lol

[GoPats]

there has to be a sort of balance, unless your D is historically great.

 

This is how I look at it as well. It's not about either unit being "elite," it's about balance. This was pretty well exemplified in the Super Bowl. Yes, Brady and the offense had that 4th quarter comeback, but without the stops in between the two drives ending in touchdowns for NE, they wouldn't have had enough possessions. Ironically the defense almost coughed it up there at the end (again), but this time they had one more play in them. 

 

If I was forced to pick one or the other, I'd go with D. There are examples of historically good defenses winning Super Bowls with somewhat anemic offenses, but you don't see that a lot the other way around. 

[21isSuperman]

The Pats had a decent defense... Elite? Not even close..

 

 

Pats defense was not elite. It was very good but far from elite especially the run defense. The Pats won largely based on Brady and the offense as Brady threw 50 times in both the Ravens and Seattle games and was the first QB in SB history to ever win attempting 50 passes. Based on this, I would say defense first but honestly just give me an elite QB every time ...

Looking at their stats, they weren't elite.  But they were very good.  Give a top QB like Brady a very good defense and you see what happens.  Give Luck the same and I'd love to see what he can do with it.

[Yehoodi]

Oh I agree.  That's why I said as close as you can get to elite :-).  Still though that Patriots Defense literally shut the Seahawks down in the 4th. And that is why I said Am's view might be a little skewed.  Not just "any" defense could shut down Seattle last year and for a quarter the Patriots defense did just that.  And that was after Brady put them in a hole earlier.  Of course he completely redeemed himself and came to play in the 4th lol

 

I hear yah . . . . and agree on one level.  However, 24 points was pretty much around their average scoring for the year.  And although they did shut down them in the 4th, by extension, they then let them score 24 points in three quarters.   Its not like they were averaging 30 points a game or something and we held them to 24.

 

And although Brady did throw 2 picks from what I recall, one was in the red zone and Seattle got the ball around the 20, which they would have gotten anyways had the pats scored and kicked off, so no loss to the defense.  And then he had a second pick in our end of the field, given them a shorter field, but that is the only thing that I can think of that Brady did that put our D in a bad spot.  True we only scored 14 points by the end of the 3rd we did score 28 overall.   So yes Brady could of gotten some more points earlier and by the same time the D could of held Seattle to say 17 or 14 by the end of the 3rd. 

 

Both sides stepped up in the 4th tho and yes the D came up big in the 4th which helped, so agree on that point.

[shakedownstreet]

If I was forced to pick one or the other, I'd go with D. There are examples of historically good defenses winning Super Bowls with somewhat anemic offenses

 

yeah but that was mostly a decade or so ago. the nfl has changed

[Qwiz]

Elite defense all day.

[shakedownstreet]

Elite defense all day.

 

you know what they say... if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with

 

    

[Lawrence Owen]

Flat out right now, Indy's offense is good enough as it is right now.  Even the o-line if it stay healthy. (which was their problem last year.)

Out pass defense is very good.  Especially with the two secondary draft picks coming in and being taught Pagano pass defense.  

Our front 7 was where the lack of production came from.  Mathis back, and have Cole on the other side will help with pass rush.  The 3 down linemen is the ? mark.  Yes, i am a BIG Anderson fan, and think he will become a stud.  I also think Langford will be good as well considering he plays better in a 3-4 rather than a 4-3 like when he was with the Rams (which is a major reason they let him go,)  Art Jones is another decent guy.

 The real issue for me this year is NT and MLB.  Would be nice to see Kerr step up.  I heard he is working hard to improve his 3 down capabilities, which is good.  Jackson is a good run stopper, but cannot cover very well, and Freeman is the opposite. (though injuries hampered his performance last year.)

I truly think our defense will be fine next year.

 

(BTW, Brown, the guy whom everyone was harping over is a DT/DE, not an NT, and I personally think we got a better person for that position for our scheme and him in Anderson.)

[Qwiz]

you know what they say... if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with

Oh I love the one I'm with

[Warhorse]

Elite fan base. Then I woke up....

[amfootball]

Elite fan base. Then I woke up....

lol.

[Luck_Is_Skilled]

Let me see, if I had to choose between the 2013 Broncos or the 2013 Seahawks I have go with the superior offense. Yes the Broncos got trounced in the Super Bowl but I believe that was more of a whirlwind scenario where everything just went totally wrong.

I can only imagine what we would have seen if Denver would have gotten into any kind of rhythm.

[chad72]

Let me see, if I had to choose between the 2013 Broncos or the 2013 Seahawks I have go with the superior offense. Yes the Broncos got trounced in the Super Bowl but I believe that was more of a whirlwind scenario where everything just went totally wrong.

I can only imagine what we would have seen if Denver would have gotten into any kind of rhythm.

 

Like I said before, as long as playoff officiating lets them play for the most part with more contact than the regular season, no great offense can sustain good, let alone great rhythm vs any elite defense. That has to be factored in, based on history, even recently.

[Colts_Fan12]

Defense all day everyday I'm tired of our D being average

[amfootball]

I think an elite long snapper is key too.

[Shane Bond]

I cringe when any of the Patriots games are used as a reference or example for excellence.

[Qwiz]

Let me see, if I had to choose between the 2013 Broncos or the 2013 Seahawks I have go with the superior offense. Yes the Broncos got trounced in the Super Bowl but I believe that was more of a whirlwind scenario where everything just went totally wrong.

I can only imagine what we would have seen if Denver would have gotten into any kind of rhythm.

Everything went wrong because of that sweltering defense. The Broncos didn't just self-implode.