- Joined:
- Aug 16, 2011
- Posts:
- 9,049
- Liked Posts:
- 5,381
the early Brady superbowls were won on defense
ob1force
New member
- Joined:
- Dec 30, 2014
- Posts:
- 1,129
- Liked Posts:
- 801
How many SB's were won with a shitty defense and elite offense? I'd imagine not many if any at all.
Also, I think context matters. Some teams just catch fire at the right time and go on a tear.
I'm thinking GB in 2010. Idr their defense being considered that great throughout the year but during the playoffs, they stepped up.
BAL had a pretty good defense in 2012 but I really felt like Flacco was the difference for them that year. He's not an elite QB but he played elite during that SB run.
Also, I think context matters. Some teams just catch fire at the right time and go on a tear.
I'm thinking GB in 2010. Idr their defense being considered that great throughout the year but during the playoffs, they stepped up.
BAL had a pretty good defense in 2012 but I really felt like Flacco was the difference for them that year. He's not an elite QB but he played elite during that SB run.
Chicago Staleys
Realist
- Joined:
- Sep 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 13,006
- Liked Posts:
- 8,044
Ironically the 2006 Colts defense was terrible.
tgmxd
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,253
- Liked Posts:
- 870
Great defenses usually only have a limited window (2-3 years) before their top players usually breakdown (with lots of $$$ invested in multiple players eating up their cap) or regress
Look at the Seahawks defense and the Broncos defense (they seem slowly starting to show cracks)
Top 10 QBs on the other hand can literally give you a 10-15 year window
Even though they are expensive, they are much less likely to get injured so the cap space you invest isn't as likely to go to waste
That is why a top 10 QB is the most sustainable path to a superbowl ever year.
Obviously you can't win it without a superior combination of both
Look at the Seahawks defense and the Broncos defense (they seem slowly starting to show cracks)
Top 10 QBs on the other hand can literally give you a 10-15 year window
Even though they are expensive, they are much less likely to get injured so the cap space you invest isn't as likely to go to waste
That is why a top 10 QB is the most sustainable path to a superbowl ever year.
Obviously you can't win it without a superior combination of both
Chicago Staleys
Realist
- Joined:
- Sep 24, 2012
- Posts:
- 13,006
- Liked Posts:
- 8,044
If this was true then the Bears woulda been in the playoffs.
ob1force
New member
- Joined:
- Dec 30, 2014
- Posts:
- 1,129
- Liked Posts:
- 801
Yeah they kinda stepped up in the playoffs. Held the Chiefs/Ravens under 10 pts, and the Bears to 17. Only Brady and the Pats did any damage with 34 points. They really lucked out with inept offensive opponents though.
SugarWalls
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Sep 17, 2013
- Posts:
- 6,312
- Liked Posts:
- 5,489
Joe Flacco vs Colin Kaepernick lmao thats good shit. A battle of the giants.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 22,260
- Liked Posts:
- 17,710
- Location:
- Chicago, IL.
My favorite teams
The Colts were bad defensively until they got Bob Sanders back for the playoffs. That was their defensive leader and a big cog in their defense. Meanwhile we were missing Mike Brown and Tommie Harris which were major cogs in our defense and Mike was a locker room leader.
- Joined:
- Mar 29, 2012
- Posts:
- 10,796
- Liked Posts:
- 4,614
My only thought, Vikings.
- Joined:
- Aug 16, 2011
- Posts:
- 22,173
- Liked Posts:
- 11,863
- Location:
- Favorite Corner Bar
My favorite teams
I'm sure Belicheat has already found a weakness in the Vikings
Mjiton
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 18, 2016
- Posts:
- 1,731
- Liked Posts:
- 1,007
- Location:
- Illinois
I believe it's a game of balance. Each phase must be able to step up and cover for another. When the O isn't scoring as much. The D can keep the game close. When the D is faltering the O can keep it even. And when the D is holding it's own STs can score returns, Field goals, and give good field position. Help the O with returns or D by pinning the opponent. Obviously in the play-offs it helps to have certain players "get hot".
Like if say your O can't score a TD the entire game. The STs can run back TDs and the D can return interceptions and fumbles creating a massive come from behind 24-23 Monday night win that drives the opposing coach to the brink of insanity.
Like if say your O can't score a TD the entire game. The STs can run back TDs and the D can return interceptions and fumbles creating a massive come from behind 24-23 Monday night win that drives the opposing coach to the brink of insanity.
LiverpoolBearsFAn
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Dec 16, 2014
- Posts:
- 982
- Liked Posts:
- 715
- Location:
- Liverpool, England
Having a great QB can mask deficiencies in other areas, but I'd say you need to have at least a 'good' defence to win a Superbowl. Rodgers is case in point for how important a QB is and how much that one guy can do, because Green Bay haven't had a great defence his whole time there but he gets them to the playoffs consistently.
I'd say that QBs 'win championships' these days but they need a good defence to back them up.
I'd say that QBs 'win championships' these days but they need a good defence to back them up.
- Joined:
- Aug 17, 2011
- Posts:
- 42,043
- Liked Posts:
- 21,757
- Location:
- Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
I hate this oft argued dichotomy. Great teams, usually with some good fortune, win championships. Defense can keep you in games but not every game. O's can win on any given Sunday but not every given Sunday. So far one team has had an undefeated season and they were #1 on both sides of the ball. If you're not, you'll get beat at some point and that could be in the Playoffs. More than any other sport, Championships are won by great teams that get great game plans, adjustments and coaching in the playoffs.
Why did the Bears lose one game in 85? No adjustment on D and no O diversity without our starting QB that day. We may have been able to overcome one or the other but not both. Why is it that folks can't accept that a complex problem has a complex answer and not a binary one?
Why did the Bears lose one game in 85? No adjustment on D and no O diversity without our starting QB that day. We may have been able to overcome one or the other but not both. Why is it that folks can't accept that a complex problem has a complex answer and not a binary one?
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,973
Because they are trying to justify their idea to draft offense or defense with our first pick(s)
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,268
- Liked Posts:
- 23,082
- Location:
- USA
I saw a blog from a few years back that actually went thru which teams won more, the better defense or offense. In the Superbowl, the defense had an advantage in the earlier Superbowls and then in later years an advantage to the offense. Statistically speaking there was a negligible difference. They then expanded it to playoffs and a slight advantage went to the offense, but still negligible.
One thing, in recent years is the importance of the QB position. Anyone looking at the list should be able to tell you how important the quarterback position is to the team. It is simply the most important position on the team.
One thing, in recent years is the importance of the QB position. Anyone looking at the list should be able to tell you how important the quarterback position is to the team. It is simply the most important position on the team.
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 3,973
I would argue that QBs like Payton and Brady skewed that stat recently. If that's what you need to win a SB, most every other team is doomed.
I do think this philosophy is going to be changing soon. Average qbs are simply making too much, which prevents teams from being able to build a good enough team around that QB. I believe smart GMs will start to build their team, and then add the QB to it eventually. Or in our case, decide if he's going to be worth the 2nd contract he will demand. In short, it won't be a QB driven league any longer...
PickSix
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Mar 9, 2015
- Posts:
- 2,689
- Liked Posts:
- 1,336
I’m confused with the OP question of whether defense wins championships and then shifts gears to talking about QB’s.
How about documenting the defensive stats of the super bowl winners and let’s see if there is a commonality of whether those are considered great defenses. If not, then the answer is probably ... no.
If yes, then logic would say...yes.
How about documenting the defensive stats of the super bowl winners and let’s see if there is a commonality of whether those are considered great defenses. If not, then the answer is probably ... no.
If yes, then logic would say...yes.
anotheridiot
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jul 15, 2016
- Posts:
- 5,935
- Liked Posts:
- 734
Well, you cant have a great defense and a QB that gives the ball back constantly, or is constantly going three and out and putting them back on the field.
IBleedBearsBlood
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 11,579
- Liked Posts:
- 4,359
Noonthirtyjoe
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jul 22, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,509
- Liked Posts:
- 3,061
QBs get you to the playoffs. Defense wins SBs. Ask GB. Ask Payton. But balance is the key.
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up