Want a Superbowl

I just read that entire thing, and still have no idea where it was going. No offense.

"Whitedolphin54 wrote:

Defense wins Championships ?

Heard it all before ?

Hmmnnn!

An axiom that is no longer true, much like "run and stop the run."

"Desides wrote:

An axiom that is no longer true, much like "run and stop the run."

I agree.
I think New Orleans proved that just 48 hours ago.

"pigskinguy wrote:

I agree.
I think New Orleans proved that just 48 hours ago.

I respectfully disagree, they had a good defense. Offense will not win consistently without help from the D. Both teams were lucky to beat us during the season. I think the Colts were an ideal team for the Saints to play. And it was a an interception from Porter that turned the game too, not what Brees and the offense were doing. Anyway that aside, it wasn't my argument.

I still think that even in this Offense orientated season, that the defense will win you a championship.

My point was that we will never win a SB without quality players on Defense, and we have few. I know I will get ripped for this post, but it is only an opinion. Just want guys honest thoughts, thats all

"Whitedolphin54 wrote:

I respectfully disagree, they had a good defense. Offense will not win consistently without help from the D. Both teams were lucky to beat us during the season. I think the Colts were an ideal team for the Saints to play. And it was a an interception from Porter that turned the game too, not what Brees and the offense were doing. Anyway that aside, it wasn't my argument.

I still think that even in this Offense orientated season, that the defense will win you a championship.

My point was that we will never win a SB without quality players on Defense, and we have few. I know I will get ripped for this post, but it is only an opinion. Just want guys honest thoughts, thats all

20th scoring defense, 25th defense in yardage.

Gave up over 325+ passing yards to colts, got 0 sacks, gave up almost 100 yards rushing at 5+ ypc, and gave up 48% 3rd down conversions. Yea, totally good defense.

"Stitches wrote:

20th scoring defense, 25th defense in yardage.

Gave up over 325+ passing yards to colts, got 0 sacks, gave up almost 100 yards rushing at 5+ ypc, and gave up 48% 3rd down conversions. Yea, totally good defense.

they werent a good defense they were opportunistic.....I will say...

"Stitches wrote:

20th scoring defense, 25th defense in yardage.

Gave up over 325+ passing yards to colts, got 0 sacks, gave up almost 100 yards rushing at 5+ ypc, and gave up 48% 3rd down conversions. Yea, totally good defense.

LOL I know m8, they were lucky but you would have to expect that if your team was racking up 30+ points a game. Trust me it will even out with rule changes over the next few seasons :lol: I am not a great stat enthusiast. Are you saying that you should have only great offensive players in the future ?

If the Fins had some great D players they may have beaten both those teams, would have been in the play offs and would have been there instead. Food for thought ?

I suppose you could argue that if we had great WR's we would have beaten them too

"Whitedolphin54 wrote:

LOL I know m8, they were lucky but you would have to expect that if your team was racking up 30+ points a game. Trust me it will even out with rule changes over the next few seasons :lol: I am not a great stat enthusiast. Are you saying that you should have only great offensive players in the future ?

If the Fins had some great D players they may have beaten both those teams, would have been in the play offs and would have been there instead. Food for thought ?

If they had some great O players they may have beaten both teams as well. That sword cuts both ways.

As I looked at the final four teams the one thing they all had in common was big receiving targets.

"Stitches wrote:

If they had some great O players they may have beaten both teams as well. That sword cuts both ways.

That is true, but my sword will cut your neck off anytime soon :yes:

I still believe that Defense will win a Championship over Offense. I see your point and accept it may be true, but in truth, I am just being nice to you :lol:
I would still invest in two LB's and a Fs in the first 3 rounds of the draft. Just to make your offense look good :tongue2:

"Whitedolphin54 wrote:

That is true, but my sword will cut your neck off anytime soon :yes:

I still believe that Defense will win a Championship over Offense. I see your point and accept it may be true, but in truth, I am just being nice to you :lol:
I would still invest in two LB's and a Fs in the first 3 rounds of the draft. Just to make your offense look good :tongue2:

If you'd venture to the draft forum, I actually have that happening. :tongue2:

"Stitches wrote:

20th scoring defense, 25th defense in yardage.

Gave up over 325+ passing yards to colts, got 0 sacks, gave up almost 100 yards rushing at 5+ ypc, and gave up 48% 3rd down conversions. Yea, totally good defense.

I think third in INT's is damn good though and telling. I also think thirteen fumbles recovered is good, which tied for fifth.

"alen1 wrote:

I think third in INT's is damn good though and telling. I also think thirteen fumbles recovered is good, which tied for fifth.

The 7th Cavalry is always welcome, late as usual, but always welcome :lol:

"alen1 wrote:

I think third in INT's is damn good though and telling. I also think thirteen fumbles recovered is good, which tied for fifth.

I agree, but none of those things make their D anything great (or necessarily good). They were very opportunistic, and able to score a lot of points off of those takeaways. 5 of their INTs (of 26) came from the LBs. Our LBs had 2 by comparison, yet I highly doubt if our LBs were able to come up with 3 more INTs that we would've been that much better (record-wise). If we want our defense to improve (in the W category) it's got to come in pass defense and takeaways, not necessarily LB play. And I think not having rookie CBs next year will help a ton.

"alen1 wrote:

I think third in INT's is damn good though and telling. I also think thirteen fumbles recovered is good, which tied for fifth.

Like i said, not really interested in those yardage stats as it is a misconception, when an offense does well. An opponent will always have good D stats against a team that passes well against them.

I remember Dan Marino passing for 400 yards plus against the Raiders in 84 I think. But I also remember that the the two corners for the Raiders that day were all over our WR's [Hayes and Haynes ?} and even had an interception returned for a TD. They won 43-34 but ruined what was an almost perfect day for Dan. Just goes to show that on even a great offensive showing we lost a game because we never had a defense that could cope with their average Offense. We looked like the Colts/Saints of now, if not better. They were a good side but more evenly balanced than we were. i know things have changed, but just remember what goes around, comes around :yes:

"Stitches wrote:

I agree, but none of those things make their D anything great (or necessarily good). They were very opportunistic, and able to score a lot of points off of those takeaways. 5 of their INTs (of 26) came from the LBs. Our LBs had 2 by comparison, yet I highly doubt if our LBs were able to come up with 3 more INTs that we would've been that much better (record-wise). If we want our defense to improve (in the W category) it's got to come in pass defense and takeaways, not necessarily LB play. And I think not having rookie CBs next year will help a ton.

We need better LB's. And we need a great FS

"Stitches wrote:

I agree, but none of those things make their D anything great (or necessarily good). They were very opportunistic, and able to score a lot of points off of those takeaways. 5 of their INTs (of 26) came from the LBs. Our LBs had 2 by comparison, yet I highly doubt if our LBs were able to come up with 3 more INTs that we would've been that much better (record-wise). If we want our defense to improve (in the W category) it's got to come in pass defense and takeaways, not necessarily LB play. And I think not having rookie CBs next year will help a ton.

I think their discipline in coverage and their various looks that Gregg Williams provides helps them. They are an aggressive defense that are led by a ball hawk safety and a pretty good front seven. I felt that they were better in the post season than they were in the regular season defensively and that's always key IMO.

I think if our defense had 11 more INT's, regardless of which position it came from, and more discipline, we would have won more games. Would you agree?

"Stitches wrote:

20th scoring defense, 25th defense in yardage.

Gave up over 325+ passing yards to colts, got 0 sacks, gave up almost 100 yards rushing at 5+ ypc, and gave up 48% 3rd down conversions. Yea, totally good defense.

yet the game chaning play in the SB was a pick six
a big play by the defense :up:

"Whitedolphin54 wrote:

Like i said, not really interested in those yardage stats as it is a misconception, when an offense does well. An opponent will always have good D stats against a team that passes well against them.

I remember Dan Marino passing for 400 yards plus against the Raiders in 84 I think. But I also remember that the the two corners for the Raiders that day were all over our WR's

Then why did Green Bay have the 7th best passing offense but gave up the 3rd fewest yards? Or Dallas the 6th passing offense but gave up 9th fewest yards? New England had the #3 passing offense but 12th fewest yards. :tongue2:

I just saw the two best offensive teams in the league play in the Superbowl. They have good, not great defenses. We want a superbowl in today's NFL we need an explosive passing game.

"alen1 wrote:

I think their discipline in coverage and their various looks that Gregg Williams provides helps them. They are an aggressive defense that are led by a ball hawk safety and a pretty good front seven. I felt that they were better in the post season than they were in the regular season defensively and that's always key IMO.

I think if our defense had 11 more INT's, regardless of which position it came from, and more discipline, we would have won more games. Would you agree?

Certainly, those 11 takeaways would've had to come from games we already won for it not to help which is simply improbable.

Most people cite our LB play as being the thing that needs the most improvement (on D) in order for us to win, and that was mainly what I was arguing against (though I think improved LB play can certainly help).

"Killerphins wrote:

yet the game chaning play in the SB was a pick six
a big play by the defense :up:

Or maybe it was a game changing play by special teams. :tongue2:

"Stitches wrote:

Then why did Green Bay have the 7th best passing offense but gave up the 3rd fewest yards? Or Dallas the 6th passing offense but gave up 9th fewest yards? New England had the #3 passing offense but 12th fewest yards. :tongue2:

Good point, I wil get back to you :lol:

"Stitches wrote:

Or maybe it was a game changing play by special teams. :tongue2:

that was big
and risky to try the onside kick
but has anyone ever seen manning get a route jumped like that at such a crucial point in the game
i sure havent
that was a great defensive play
the pick six was the game changer
decided the outcome