PDA

View Full Version : Which is harder to build: Offense or Defense?


Taco John
09-04-2009, 08:25 PM
Vote

listopencil
09-04-2009, 08:30 PM
I'm gonna say D. Because the rules favor the O, and I think the D requires more teamwork.

Rock Chalk
09-04-2009, 08:32 PM
Both can be difficult to build.

jhns
09-04-2009, 08:32 PM
I said offense. I think they take about the same number of resources. Different coaches/front offices usually are better at getting talent for one more than the other. The big factor that made me vote offense is that the offense usually takes more time to develope. I have seen some dramatic improvements on defenses in very short times. Offenses normally need time to gel. Rookies also seem to play better a lot faster on defense compared to offense.

watermock
09-04-2009, 08:33 PM
The O starts with the franchise QB.

Then fill, LT,RB,WR,TE.

We had 4 of 5.

listopencil
09-04-2009, 08:33 PM
I like lamp.

oubronco
09-04-2009, 08:35 PM
I'm still waiting to see a real defense

Popps
09-04-2009, 08:39 PM
I'm gonna say D. Because the rules favor the O, and I think the D requires more teamwork.

Probably agree, though I don't think there's a right answer. I know which one I think is more important, but both are a challenge to build.

Shanahan is a brilliant football mind, and over 14 years, he had no trouble building an offense but very mixed results, defensively.

Just depends on the situation.

But, an average offense can win a SB. An average defense? Very, very rarely.

Rock Chalk
09-04-2009, 08:42 PM
I like lamp.

Linux Apache Mysql PHP?

houghtam
09-04-2009, 08:43 PM
Offense.

My main reasoning is that you have 3 positions (QB, #1 WR, RB) that account for a crapload of money. In the age of the salary cap, it's very difficult for any team to hold on to 3 superstars at those positions for very long.

baja
09-04-2009, 08:45 PM
I said defense because it takes 11 good players working together, one weak link and it gets exploited. Offense on the other hand can be very good with a couple of super stars at a couple of key positions, think Elway and TD.

BroncoMan4ever
09-04-2009, 08:46 PM
defense, every year there is a another team showcasing a top flight offense, but it seems to be the same teams every year with top defenses. it takes years to build a dominant defense, a good offense can be created in an offseason by an intelligent coordinator who knows how to use his players strengths and hide weaknesses. an elite player or 2 can make an offense good. the same can't be said for a defense. defense is more about the collective group the entire team, if you are weak in the front 7 it won't matter if you have all world talent in the secondary. also with the rules bent more toward aiding the offense and limiting the defense it makes it harder for a defense to become good.

BroncoMan4ever
09-04-2009, 08:50 PM
Offense.

My main reasoning is that you have 3 positions (QB, #1 WR, RB) that account for a crapload of money. In the age of the salary cap, it's very difficult for any team to hold on to 3 superstars at those positions for very long.

that's crap. you can win with mediocre offensive talent if you have elite defensive talent. look at the Ravens super bowl years ago, ****ty offense and a great defense, in fact their offense was so bad that midway through the regular season that year, they went something like 4 straight games without a TD, and still got to and won a super bowl because of their defense.

look at the Patriots. the supposed top QB in the league, a WR who had the best statistical season ever, and a good running game even though they never used it, beaten by a dominant defense

offense is fun to watch and easier to create, but defense is what will win championships and is much harder to make

scorpio
09-04-2009, 08:51 PM
Linux Apache Mysql PHP?

nerd rep

Taco John
09-04-2009, 08:52 PM
I said defense because it takes 11 good players working together, one weak link and it gets exploited. Offense on the other hand can be very good with a couple of super stars at a couple of key positions, think Elway and TD.

A "couple" of stars?

Elway, TD, Zimmerman, Sharpe, Schlereth, Nalen, Griffith, Rod, Eddie

That's 9 bonafide stars.

Bob's your Information Minister
09-04-2009, 08:53 PM
The Chiefs are already showing signs of improvement on defense.

The offense....baby steps.

baja
09-04-2009, 08:55 PM
Another reason D is harder to build is because the defense has to react to whatever the O schemes while the O can focus on finding and exploiting a weakness of the defense.

watermock
09-04-2009, 08:56 PM
A "couple" of stars?

Elway, TD, Zimmerman, Sharpe, Schlereth, Nalen, Griffith, Rod, Eddie

That's 9 bonafide stars.

Talent wins O.

Scheme wins D.

listopencil
09-04-2009, 08:57 PM
Hey TJ, since you are a Duck today, if I talk a bunch of crap and smack you on the shoulder are you gonna punch me in the face?

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 08:58 PM
Anyone who voted defense is not really well, smart. Offense is MUCH harder to build, always has been, and probably always will be.

watermock
09-04-2009, 08:58 PM
Talent>System

baja
09-04-2009, 08:58 PM
A "couple" of stars?

Elway, TD, Zimmerman, Sharpe, Schlereth, Nalen, Griffith, Rod, Eddie

That's 9 bonafide stars.

OK look at the other super bowls elway carried the average team he had on his shoulders in spite of an unimaginative coach in Dan reeves (Run Run Run bail us out John)

watermock
09-04-2009, 08:59 PM
Anyone who voted defense is not really well, smart. Offense is MUCH harder to build, always has been, and probably always will be.

True

listopencil
09-04-2009, 09:00 PM
Talent wins O.

Scheme wins D.

Chicken **** ≠ chicken salad in either case.

listopencil
09-04-2009, 09:00 PM
Anyone who voted defense is not really well, smart. Offense is MUCH harder to build, always has been, and probably always will be.

Nope. You're wrong.

Taco John
09-04-2009, 09:02 PM
Hey TJ, since you are a Duck today, if I talk a bunch of crap and smack you on the shoulder are you gonna punch me in the face?


Right in the kissah...

baja
09-04-2009, 09:02 PM
Anyone who voted defense is not really well, smart. Offense is MUCH harder to build, always has been, and probably always will be.

You have a habit of declaring others no so smart and the implication is that you are, I don't see it.

Taco John
09-04-2009, 09:04 PM
Personally, I don't know how anybody could honestly believe that the D is harder to build than an NFL offense. Especially when you factor in modern offensive systems, and the amount of brains you need in those helmets in order to get an offensive system operating at peak efficiency.

A dominating offense takes about 5 years to build, I'd wager. I think you could put a dominating defense on the field in 3. Obviously this is contingent on making the right moves in the draft and FA.

But, that's just my opinion. People are welcome to differ.

FireFly
09-04-2009, 09:08 PM
I'm gonna say D. Because the rules favor the O, and I think the D requires more teamwork.

QFT

Also, I think its harder to keep a good d together

baja
09-04-2009, 09:09 PM
Anyone who voted defense is not really well, smart. Offense is MUCH harder to build, always has been, and probably always will be.

Here are your 20 dumb asses;

aborquez147, azbroncfan, baja, BroncoMan4ever, brophog, Dos Rios, Dr. Broncenstein, Durango, Finger Roll, go_broncos, Iron Clady, JCMElway, Killericon, listopencil, maher_tyler, marv, oubronco, rugbythug, scorpio, STBumpkin

here are your 6 smart guys;

houghtam, jhns, MrPeepers, Taco John, Tombstone RJ, watermock

I rest my case.

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 09:09 PM
Nope. You're wrong.

How do you build a defense?

FireFly
09-04-2009, 09:09 PM
Talent wins O.

Scheme wins D.

See, now I actually think its exactly the opposite

baja
09-04-2009, 09:11 PM
Personally, I don't know how anybody could honestly believe that the D is harder to build than an NFL offense. Especially when you factor in modern offensive systems, and the amount of brains you need in those helmets in order to get an offensive system operating at peak efficiency.

A dominating offense takes about 5 years to build, I'd wager. I think you could put a dominating defense on the field in 3. Obviously this is contingent on making the right moves in the draft and FA.

<b.But, that's just my opinion. People are welcome to differ.

Well that's a relief!

Popps
09-04-2009, 09:17 PM
A dominating offense takes about 5 years to build, I'd wager. I think you could put a dominating defense on the field in 3. .

Should have called Shanny in 05.

It may very well take a bit longer to build a dominating offense, but it just doesn't matter. Defense wins championships. You have to have balance, but the Steelers are far from offensively dominant... and they're repeat champions with a team good enough to compete again this year.

1. Kick holy ass on defense.
2. Run the ball when people know you're going to run.
3. Pass effectively.
4. Win Superbowls.

listopencil
09-04-2009, 09:18 PM
How do you build a defense?

Sorry, I'm just not smart enough to put it into words. You'll have to ask someone else.

NFLBRONCO
09-04-2009, 09:22 PM
Ask shanny

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 09:24 PM
Sorry, I'm just not smart enough to put it into words. You'll have to ask someone else.

Touche

You really out did yourself there.

baja
09-04-2009, 09:25 PM
Sorry, I'm just not smart enough to put it into words. You'll have to ask someone else.

You can pick one of the 9 smart guys that chose offense (26%)

listopencil
09-04-2009, 09:30 PM
You can pick one of the 9 smart guys that chose offense (26%)

Good idea, and maybe they can explain why it's harder to build a good D.

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 09:31 PM
Should have called Shanny in 05.

It may very well take a bit longer to build a dominating offense, but it just doesn't matter. Defense wins championships. You have to have balance, but the Steelers are far from offensively dominant... and they're repeat champions with a team good enough to compete again this year.

1. Kick holy ass on defense.
2. Run the ball when people know you're going to run.
3. Pass effectively.
4. Win Superbowls.

Your missing the point. Its harder to build an offense. No one is saying defense doesn't win. It does. Offense is harder to build.

I'll give you one simple reason offense is harder to build: the Qb position. No other position on the team affects the entire team more than this one player. Teams spend decades to find this one player. Can you win without a good QB, yep, but not consistently and not for a long periord of time. It takes great offenses and great QBs to build dynasties.

baja
09-04-2009, 09:33 PM
Good idea, and maybe they can explain why it's harder to build a good D.

They're so damn smart they can make a good case for either.

azbroncfan
09-04-2009, 09:54 PM
How many first round picks have the Pats used on Offense vs Defense during their latest run?

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 09:55 PM
Here are your 20 dumb asses;

aborquez147, azbroncfan, baja, BroncoMan4ever, brophog, Dos Rios, Dr. Broncenstein, Durango, Finger Roll, go_broncos, Iron Clady, JCMElway, Killericon, listopencil, maher_tyler, marv, oubronco, rugbythug, scorpio, STBumpkin

here are your 6 smart guys;

houghtam, jhns, MrPeepers, Taco John, Tombstone RJ, watermock

I rest my case.

What case? For the life of mean I can't figure out what your point is.

Mogulseeker
09-04-2009, 09:59 PM
D. Finding a pass rush is about as hard as finding a franchise QB.

UberBroncoMan
09-04-2009, 10:05 PM
It's a good offense.

The only reason I can see defense doing so well is because everyone is used to the pile of **** defense we've been pumping out for a few years.

Popps
09-04-2009, 10:12 PM
D. Finding a pass rush is about as hard as finding a franchise QB.

Exactly.

houghtam
09-04-2009, 10:14 PM
that's crap. you can win with mediocre offensive talent if you have elite defensive talent. look at the Ravens super bowl years ago, ****ty offense and a great defense, in fact their offense was so bad that midway through the regular season that year, they went something like 4 straight games without a TD, and still got to and won a super bowl because of their defense.

look at the Patriots. the supposed top QB in the league, a WR who had the best statistical season ever, and a good running game even though they never used it, beaten by a dominant defense

offense is fun to watch and easier to create, but defense is what will win championships and is much harder to make

The question wasn't "what wins championships?", it was "what's harder to build?" I agree with you that defense (along with a ball control offense) wins championships more handily than offense. However, in answering the poll question, I think it's a lot more difficult to build (and hold onto) top flight talent on offense than it is for defense.

Taco John
09-04-2009, 10:40 PM
They're so damn smart they can make a good case for either.

I noticed that you haven't actually added anything to this discussion, while a lot of people actually have.

Just an observation.

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 10:57 PM
D. Finding a pass rush is about as hard as finding a franchise QB.

Not necessarily. Look at the Titans, good to great defenses consistently over the last what twelve years? No rings my friend, no Lombardis...

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 11:00 PM
I hate being right all the time.

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:03 PM
This isn't a preference question. There's actually a right/wrong answer to this one.

Right: offense, wrong: defense

Why: Offense dictates the game. Sorry. I'm a defensive guy myself, but those of you that played even at a low level understand that defense is a REACTIONARY force.

That being said, it's the offense that GENERALLY SPEAKING requires the intelligence AND the positional talent, meanwhile the defense is GENERALLY SPEAKING reflexive and positional talent.

Intelligent positions:
QB
LB
S

However, the intelligence in LB and S can be schemed out... but you can't do that for a QB. You live and die by their ability and it's synergy with their intelligence.

And this is coming from a guy who hates QBs.

baja
09-04-2009, 11:06 PM
I noticed that you haven't actually added anything to this discussion, while a lot of people actually have.

Just an observation.

Not true;

Three posts by me;

I said defense because it takes 11 good players working together, one weak link and it gets exploited. Offense on the other hand can be very good with a couple of super stars at a couple of key positions, think Elway and TD.

Another reason D is harder to build is because the defense has to react to whatever the O schemes while the O can focus on finding and exploiting a weakness of the defense.

OK look at the other super bowls elway carried the average team he had on his shoulders in spite of an unimaginative coach in Dan reeves (Run Run Run bail us out John)

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:09 PM
Not true;

Three posts by me;


"Quote:
I said defense because it takes 11 good players working together, one weak link and it gets exploited. Offense on the other hand can be very good with a couple of super stars at a couple of key positions, think Elway and TD."

Match-ups work both ways. You think a defense can't exploit a weak point on the offense just as easily? Bringing a blitz over a soft spot in the OL, double teaming a play making receiver and solo covering a weaker one with a poorer defender?

This is silliness, baja


"Quote:
Another reason D is harder to build is because the defense has to react to whatever the O schemes while the O can focus on finding and exploiting a weakness of the defense."

Honestly, this is dumb to the point of me not knowing where to begin...

"Quote:
OK look at the other super bowls elway carried the average team he had on his shoulders in spite of an unimaginative coach in Dan reeves (Run Run Run bail us out John) "

WTF does that have to do with what's more difficult to build?

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 11:11 PM
This is why Shanny is such a disappointing coach in a lot of ways. He HAD the offense. The man KNOWS offense. All he had to do was put together a half way decent defense and the Broncos would have won a few more playoff games. Seriously, wtf?

SureShot
09-04-2009, 11:12 PM
I was surprised at the voting results until I saw who voted.

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:13 PM
This is why Shanny is such a disappointing coach in a lot of ways. He HAD the offense. The man KNOWS offense. All he had to do was put together a half way decent defense and the Broncos would have won a few more playoff games. Seriously, wtf?

Uhhhhhhhh

what?

watermock
09-04-2009, 11:13 PM
Why: Offense dictates the game. Sorry. I'm a defensive guy myself, but those of you that played even at a low level understand that defense is a REACTIONARY force.

That being said, it's the offense that GENERALLY SPEAKING requires the intelligence AND the positional talent, meanwhile the defense is GENERALLY SPEAKING reflexive and positional talent.



umm, no?

SureShot
09-04-2009, 11:13 PM
umm, no?

Is that a question?

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 11:19 PM
Uhhhhhhhh

what?

Shanny's the best coach the Broncos ever had. Like, by a mile. Why couldn't he put together a half way decent defense when he already had the great offenses? He'd done the hard work. He put great offenses consitently on the field. What he never did was have consistent defenses. Why? He's smarter than this.

Just hire a great defensive cooridantor and step away. Seriously, how hard is that? Its not. Hell, I could have put together better defenses than Shanny did. Hell, theirs posters on this board who know how to draft better defensive talent than Shanahan.

Why couldn't he get it done?

baja
09-04-2009, 11:20 PM
Quote:
OK look at the other super bowls elway carried the average team he had on his shoulders in spite of an unimaginative coach in Dan reeves (Run Run Run bail us out John) "

WTF does that have to do with what's more difficult to build?

A QB like Elway can turn an average offense into a good offense but one defensive player cannot turn a average defense into a good defense so it's harder to build the defense, for example we lucked into Elway and that one player raised the bar on O ersier to fiind one player. Brady was a 6th round pick that made an average O very good. Try that on the D.

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:23 PM
Quote:
OK look at the other super bowls elway carried the average team he had on his shoulders in spite of an unimaginative coach in Dan reeves (Run Run Run bail us out John) "

WTF does that have to do with what's more difficult to build?

A QB like Elway can turn an average offense into a good offense but one defensive player cannot turn a average defense into a good defense so it's harder to build the defense, for example we lucked into Elway and that one player raised the bar on O ersier to fiind one player. Brady was a 6th round pick that made an average O very good. Try that on the D.

You should watch Al Wilson and the Broncos defense sometime. 2006-2007.

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:23 PM
Shanny's the best coach the Broncos ever had. Like, by a mile. Why couldn't he put together a half way decent defense when he already had the great offenses? He'd done the hard work. He put great offenses consitently on the field. What he never did was have consistent defenses. Why? He's smarter than this.

Just hire a great defensive cooridantor and step away. Seriously, how hard is that? Its not. Hell, I could have put together better defenses than Shanny did. Hell, theirs posters on this board who know how to draft better defensive talent than Shanahan.

Why couldn't he get it done?

Are you serious, man? For the past decade, we had MULTIPLE times were our defense was the superior unit doing the heavy lifting of the team into the play-offs...

Zoobie
09-04-2009, 11:24 PM
Your missing the point. Its harder to build an offense. No one is saying defense doesn't win. It does. Offense is harder to build.

I'll give you one simple reason offense is harder to build: the Qb position. No other position on the team affects the entire team more than this one player. Teams spend decades to find this one player. Can you win without a good QB, yep, but not consistently and not for a long periord of time. It takes great offenses and great QBs to build dynasties.

Okay, but we're not talking about building dynasties.

Building an offense is more difficult only because of Quarterbacks. Finding a QB who can bring longevity, continued success, and consistantly dominant play is the hardest feat to accomplish when building a team hands down. WRs and RBs are a dime a dozen(finding a rare one of either can help, but is much less than neccesary), and offensive line play can be pushed to the wayside by a dominant QB i.e. Rothelisberger.

Having said all of this, defense wins championships plain and simple. I would take a dominant defense over a dominant offense 10 times out of 10. While it is true defense generally are REACTIONARY, an elite defense dictates what offenses do(Steelers, Ravens), as do great defensive coaches. With few exceptions, success is dictated by players, not plays.

baja
09-04-2009, 11:29 PM
You should watch Al Wilson and the Broncos defense sometime. 2006-2007.

I did and Al Wilson did not single handily make a average D into a good D

You wants say he raised the bar to the degree Elway did when we played in the earlier SBs?

maybe Gradishar but not Al Wilson as much as I love him.

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 11:33 PM
Are you serious, man? For the past decade, we had MULTIPLE times were our defense was the superior unit doing the heavy lifting of the team into the play-offs...

Yah ok but over a long stretch of time Shanny's teams were way more productive on the offense than on the defense. Shanahan excelled out of getting guys like Rueben Droughns to look good. He resurrected Plummers career. That ain't easy people.

Why'd he fire Coyer? I don't get it. This is what I'm saying: Offense is harder to build. Most teams are built upwards with defense. The defense is great first because it's easier to build. Its a quicker adjustment. It's easier to build a good or great defense quickly.

DBroncos4life
09-04-2009, 11:38 PM
I doubt you will find many coaches that can pull out 8 wins with the 30th ranked D.

Tombstone RJ
09-04-2009, 11:40 PM
Okay, but we're not talking about building dynasties.

Building an offense is more difficult only because of Quarterbacks. Finding a QB who can bring longevity, continued success, and consistantly dominant play is the hardest feat to accomplish when building a team hands down. WRs and RBs are a dime a dozen(finding a rare one of either can help, but is much less than neccesary), and offensive line play can be pushed to the wayside by a dominant QB i.e. Rothelisberger.

Having said all of this, defense wins championships plain and simple. I would take a dominant defense over a dominant offense 10 times out of 10. While it is true defense generally are REACTIONARY, an elite defense dictates what offenses do(Steelers, Ravens), as do great defensive coaches. With few exceptions, success is dictated by players, not plays.

I play to win.

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:51 PM
I did and Al Wilson did not single handily make a average D into a good D

You wants say he raised the bar to the degree Elway did when we played in the earlier SBs?

maybe Gradishar but not Al Wilson as much as I love him.

Oh really? Watch 2006 week 1-8, and then weeks 9-17 when he's breaking.

The report your results here.

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:54 PM
Yah ok but over a long stretch of time Shanny's teams were way more productive on the offense than on the defense. Shanahan excelled out of getting guys like Rueben Droughns to look good. He resurrected Plummers career. That ain't easy people.

Why'd he fire Coyer? I don't get it. This is what I'm saying: Offense is harder to build. Most teams are built upwards with defense. The defense is great first because it's easier to build. Its a quicker adjustment. It's easier to build a good or great defense quickly.

That's because he set offensive records as a HC. It'd be like taking the greatest defensive coach in NFL history who had a really solid offensive ranking as well and bitching about his O rank... it'd just be stupid.

As for Coyer, I'm not going back down that road. It's years old, I have probably 200 posts on the topic.

Cliffs:
I feel he was a PHENOMENAL LB coach.
I feel he was a good DC.
I disagree with many other things and personally wanted his firing

TheReverend
09-04-2009, 11:56 PM
Another easy answer to this question:

Salary cap.

Which side's top 15 gets paid more reflects which is more difficult to acquire and build.

Not that that would stop the stupid people from claiming that this a "preference" question.

Popps
09-04-2009, 11:56 PM
The problem here is that too many people measure a "dominant" offense by QB yardage stats.

Cutler threw for 4K yards last year and our offense was in the middle of the pack.

If you want to talk about a dominant offense... talk about one that keeps other team's off of the field. Show me a team that can line up and run on 3rd and 2 when teams know you're running.

Time of possession, ability to convert 3rd downs... short yardage downs, etc.


Most people see something like the 08 Cardinals and assume they must have been a "dominant" team. They barely made the playoffs. It was only when their defense woke up and went on an absolute tear that they pushed into the SB. Yes, they were a great passing offense, but that and a quarter won't get you a cup of coffee.

Conversely, the Steelers went up against the toughest schedule in the NFL... and finished 12-4. Their offensive numbers looked much more modest, while their defense was #2 overall.

Again, 3 of the top 4 teams in the final four last year were in the top 4 defensively, including the SB winner. Only one was in the top 4 (Arizona) and the rest were 9th or lower. (2 in the bottom half of total offense.)

So, it boils down to how you define "dominant." Most people simply define it incorrectly.

cutthemdown
09-05-2009, 12:02 AM
I think on offense you need real talent. Real athletic superiority to be special. On defense you can get by with guys who sell out, hustle, play as a unit.

For that reason I believe offense is harder to build.

Plus a good QB is the toughest thing to find.

TheReverend
09-05-2009, 12:03 AM
The problem here is that too many people measure a "dominant" offense by QB yardage stats.

Cutler threw for 4K yards last year and our offense was in the middle of the pack.

If you want to talk about a dominant offense... talk about one that keeps other team's off of the field. Show me a team that can line up and run on 3rd and 2 when teams know you're running.

Time of possession, ability to convert 3rd downs... short yardage downs, etc.


Most people see something like the 08 Cardinals and assume they must have been a "dominant" team. They barely made the playoffs. It was only when their defense woke up and went on an absolute tear that they pushed into the SB. Yes, they were a great passing offense, but that and a quarter won't get you a cup of coffee.

Conversely, the Steelers went up against the toughest schedule in the NFL... and finished 12-4. Their offensive numbers looked much more modest, while their defense was #2 overall.

Again, 3 of the top 4 teams in the final four last year were in the top 4 defensively, including the SB winner. Only one was in the top 4 (Arizona) and the rest were 9th or lower. (2 in the bottom half of total offense.)

So, it boils down to how you define "dominant." Most people simply define it incorrectly.

Two bolded statements:

#1: Second best team in the entire NFL at converting 3rd down. A remarkable 48%.

#2: Cardinals defense stayed on their season long trend in the play-offs. They were a remarkable pressure-turnover team week one, and they stayed in that same mold through the SB.

Otherwise, good post.

TexanBob
09-05-2009, 12:04 AM
Both can be difficult to build.

Agreed. I chose "offense" because it has to be more sophisticated and requires more teamwork and timing than defense does. So it takes longer to build and perfect than defense, which plays more on emotion. Offenses have to flat out execute to be effective. Defenses can get by on 2-3 dominant players who simply show great instinct and intensity.

DBroncos4life
09-05-2009, 12:04 AM
Another easy answer to this question:

Salary cap.

Which side's top 15 gets paid more reflects which is more difficult to acquire and build.

Not that that would stop the stupid people from claiming that this a "preference" question.

Its hard to argue with the fact that QBs, LTs, then DL's being the highest paid players in the NFL. More money will be tied up into O players which to me makes the D the clear cut winner. I think the teams that invest more money into the D get better returns, in the long run. I think we got the O in place without having to worry about cap problems for a couple of years. We sold Mike short. It was like the Colts all over again.

By the way we had the games BEST LT locked up for a easy contract and one of the better young QBs locked up for another three years.

TheReverend
09-05-2009, 12:06 AM
Its hard to argue with the fact that QBs, LTs, then DL's being the highest paid players in the NFL. More money will be tied up into O players which to me makes the D the clear cut winner. I think the teams that invest more money into the D get better returns, in the long run. I think we got the O in place without having to worry about cap problems for a couple of years. We sold Mike short. It was like the Colts all over again.

By the way we had the games BEST LT locked up for a easy contract and one of the better young QBs locked up for another three years.

You can't be serious....... Ha!

WTF do you think more money gets tied up on offense?!?!?!?!??!

Sorry man, but this post is hilarious...

DBroncos4life
09-05-2009, 12:08 AM
You can't be serious....... Ha!

WTF do you think more money gets tied up on offense?!?!?!?!??!

Sorry man, but this post is hilarious...

Do I think more money gets tied up in offense? Yeah, the two top highest paid positions in the NFL are QB and LT.

TheReverend
09-05-2009, 12:14 AM
Do I think more money gets tied up in offense? Yeah, the two top highest paid positions in the NFL are QB and LT.

And why is that.........?

Popps
09-05-2009, 12:16 AM
All I know is, I see the makings of a balanced team taking shape. I think the style of offense we'll run will help keep our defense off of the field, and I think we've gone a long way in a short time to build a tougher, smarter defense.

Of course, it's early... but for the first time in years, I might have more questions about our offense than our defense going into a season. Personally, I don't mind that scenario. Especially with a guy like McDaniels at the helm. The dude is going to put together a potent offense over time. Bank on it.

DBroncos4life
09-05-2009, 12:18 AM
Look at it this way Cassel, he is what the 20th best QB in the NFL and he is tagged for 14 million dollars. Peppers is way better, when healthy top 5 in his position but he has the same value when tagged. Teams are willing to spend more money at key positions even if it means less value to their teams at other positions. More often then not the D suffers.

DBroncos4life
09-05-2009, 12:19 AM
And why is that.........?

over value. Would you rather spend 14 mill on Peppers or Cassel.

TheReverend
09-05-2009, 12:22 AM
over value. Would you rather spend 14 mill on Peppers or Cassel.

So many wrongs things in 2 sentences......

Not over value... its a simple fundamental of capitalism... everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it.

QBs, LTs, RBs, WRs... they get paid what they get paid, because they're HARDER to find and replace ( though I personally believe RBs are a dime a dozen outside of an Adrian Peterson/LT/TD/Barry/Jim Brown)

If they were easy to build, they wouldn't cost that much.

Defenses are easier to build... so they cost less.

Period. There's NO arguing this.

DBroncos4life
09-05-2009, 12:25 AM
So many wrongs things in 2 sentences......

Not over value... its a simple fundamental of capitalism... everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it.

QBs, LTs, RBs, WRs... they get paid what they get paid, because they're HARDER to find and replace ( though I personally believe RBs are a dime a dozen outside of an Adrian Peterson/LT/TD/Barry/Jim Brown)

If they were easy to build, they wouldn't cost that much.

Defenses are easier to build... so they cost less.

Period. There's NO arguing this.

OK did the Giants have more money in the D the year they won the SB or the O

That question will back fire on me.

TheReverend
09-05-2009, 12:28 AM
OK did the Giants have more money in the D the year they won the SB or the O

That question will back fire on me.

Good question but Im not sure...

the only people getting paid worth a sht were Strahan and Plax, and sorta Eli (rookie deal).

Almost everyone else was on later rookie deals.

Edit: And yeah, it kinda will backfire, but probably not how you intended. Strahan and Osi were the defensive studs for years, they've been seamlessly replaced by Tuck and Kiwi.

Tombstone RJ
09-05-2009, 12:30 AM
OK did the Giants have more money in the D the year they won the SB or the O

That question will back fire on me.

Your saying their Defense won them the SB. You are correct. However, I bet you anything Manning is their highest paid player. Why? Because he doesn't through INTs at bad times and put their defense is lousy field position.

I don't know if the Gmen spent more for their defense or not. I'm guess probably not...

Mogulseeker
09-05-2009, 12:35 AM
This isn't a preference question. There's actually a right/wrong answer to this one.

Right: offense, wrong: defense

Why: Offense dictates the game. Sorry. I'm a defensive guy myself, but those of you that played even at a low level understand that defense is a REACTIONARY force.

That being said, it's the offense that GENERALLY SPEAKING requires the intelligence AND the positional talent, meanwhile the defense is GENERALLY SPEAKING reflexive and positional talent.

Intelligent positions:
QB
LB
S

However, the intelligence in LB and S can be schemed out... but you can't do that for a QB. You live and die by their ability and it's synergy with their intelligence.

And this is coming from a guy who hates QBs.

My experience says otherwise.

I played OLB in little league and for the freshmen team and Free Safety in HS (Colorado 5A), and if one thing is for sure in football: dominant defenses dictate the flow of the game. From the teams that I've been around, most teams call two-three plays in the huddle, the QB makes the read, and reacts accordingly by making the correct audible, and makes the play.

When you're calling all sorts of bull-rushes and stunts on the line, mixing in zone and man coverages with the back 7/8, safety blitzes, free fire rushes, man cover 2, zone cover 2, man flats, etc, it can get complicated. It confused the hell out of me, and there were some DUMB guys on my team. (We, too, had coverage audibles, and formation audibles, but they weren't as complicated at the offense.)

One thing you said is correct:

That being said, it's the offense that GENERALLY SPEAKING requires the intelligence AND the positional talent, meanwhile the defense is GENERALLY SPEAKING reflexive and positional talent.

Offense tends to be smarter than defense, and offense is much more methodical, BUT who's to say a methodical scheme is harder to build? Defense requires guys to be big, strong, and fast BECAUSE itís reactive (in a different sense than what I alluded to earlier). For instance, if youíre a Safety dropping back in a cover 2 zone (or a man press for that matter) you donít know which way a receiver is going, but you have to stick with him Ė that requires skill.

Safety is a tough position to play in terms of thinking on your feet, much like a QB. It's fun though. I might have been the weakest player on my team at 5í8Ē 165 (couldn't even bench 225 ONCE Ė could on a machine, not free-weight), but I was the fastest, and ran damn near a 4.5 40. We ran a comanche defense, so most of my role was either dropping back in the cover 2 or man coverage, with the occasional blitz - I never covered TEs.

You can find guys with good awareness and ability to read plays and follow procedure Ė itís harder to find those athletes, therefore defense is harder to build.

Don't get me wrong; Iím much more a fan of offense. When our (Broncos now) defense is on the field, Iím just wating for our offense to get the ball back. But defense wins championships.

DBroncos4life
09-05-2009, 12:35 AM
Good question but Im not sure...

the only people getting paid worth a sht were Strahan and Plax, and sorta Eli (rookie deal).

Almost everyone else was on later rookie deals.

I think you get what you pay for. I don't believe the Steelers nor the Pats really spend way too much money one way or another. I think teams the the Rams and the Colts have paid a lot for O's with a couple of championships just like the Ravens and Bucs did on D.

My point is with so much money being tossed at talent for O most of the time leaves little money to be spent on D. More often then not more money is being spent on a lesser player on O because he is at a higher capped position then a better player on D. There is nothing you can say to me that is going to make me believe the 20th best QB in the NFL is worth the same as a top five DE just because he plays a important position.

DBroncos4life
09-05-2009, 12:36 AM
Your saying their Defense won them the SB. You are correct. However, I bet you anything Manning is their highest paid player. Why? Because he doesn't through INTs at bad times and put their defense is lousy field position.

I don't know if the Gmen spent more for their defense or not. I'm guess probably not...

Strahan was.

Mogulseeker
09-05-2009, 12:36 AM
over value. Would you rather spend 14 mill on Peppers or Cassel.

Peppers. Why? because:

An elite pass rusher is about as hard to find as a franchise Quarterback

azbroncfan
09-05-2009, 04:59 AM
Are you serious, man? For the past decade, we had MULTIPLE times were our defense was the superior unit doing the heavy lifting of the team into the play-offs...

A very one demensional D. Shanny never had a good COMPLETE D that could defend the run and rush the passer. Getting a D where you can consistently rush the passer with 4 guys is extremely tough.

azbroncfan
09-05-2009, 05:09 AM
#2: Cardinals defense stayed on their season long trend in the play-offs. They were a remarkable pressure-turnover team week one, and they stayed in that same mold through the SB.

.

No the Cards D was a huge question mark in the playoffs. Their D gave up 56, 49,47, 37, 35 pts during a couple games and gave up 426 total pts. Their great Offense scored 427 throughout the year. That D played much better in the playoffs and was the difference and shaved off 4-5 ppg.

DrFate
09-05-2009, 06:08 AM
Offense is harder to build - the timing between the linemen, between the QB and pass catchers, etc. I hate the metaphor, but it is like a dance - if one person is out of synch, a dance partner gets dropped on her head. A lineman misses a block - your QB is out for the season. A WR runs the wrong route - you have a pick 6. The back misses a chip - you get the idea.

If a DLineman whiffs on a back, there is a backer there to save him. If the backer misreads the play, there is a DB there to clean up (that's why they call them 'safeties')

You need players to play D. You need guys with strength and speed and smarts. But the teamwork between the offensive players HAS to be coordinated or you have a cluster.

tnedator
09-05-2009, 06:30 AM
I'm guessing if we went to the Ravens forum or another team that has had consistantly strong defenses, but weak offenses, they would vote offense. On Broncos boards, where we have typically had good offenses, but weak defenses, we would like vote defense.

baja
09-05-2009, 06:46 AM
No Special Teams are the hardest to build after all why do you think they call them "special teams"

houghtam
09-05-2009, 07:06 AM
I'm guessing if we went to the Ravens forum or another team that has had consistantly strong defenses, but weak offenses, they would vote offense. On Broncos boards, where we have typically had good offenses, but weak defenses, we would like vote defense.

I actually did pose this question to a friend of mine who happens to be a Ravens fan. He answered tongue-in-cheek that it's offense, since it seems like the Ravens can never get their stuff together in that regard. He then said looking at it objectively, offense is more difficult.

chex
09-05-2009, 07:10 AM
If a defense is so easy to build, why haven't we had a good one in ages?

baja
09-05-2009, 07:14 AM
If a defense is so easy to build, why haven't we had a good one in ages?

How many teams have dominant offensives today?

How many teams have dominant defensives today?

chex
09-05-2009, 07:28 AM
Personally, I don't know how anybody could honestly believe that the D is harder to build than an NFL offense. Especially when you factor in modern offensive systems, and the amount of brains you need in those helmets in order to get an offensive system operating at peak efficiency.

A dominating offense takes about 5 years to build, I'd wager. I think you could put a dominating defense on the field in 3. Obviously this is contingent on making the right moves in the draft and FA.

But, that's just my opinion. People are welcome to differ.

Well, duh. Of course it's about making the right moves. Isn't it the same for every single position on the field? Just the fact that we've spent so many draft picks on defense over the years with absolutely zilch to show for it proves how hard it is to build a great defense, or even a mediocre one for chrissakes.

Again, if it were easier to build a defense, in 3 years you say, then why haven't we had a good one in forever? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you got some calls from NFL teams given your own 3 year estimate. I'm sure there would be plenty of teams looking to improve on D instantly, given that you feel a dominating defense can be built in a few years time. So imagine the improvement from now to year 1, and from year 1 to year 2, before you have a dominating D.

broncogary
09-05-2009, 07:35 AM
So many wrongs things in 2 sentences......

Not over value... its a simple fundamental of capitalism... everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it.

QBs, LTs, RBs, WRs... they get paid what they get paid, because they're HARDER to find and replace ( though I personally believe RBs are a dime a dozen outside of an Adrian Peterson/LT/TD/Barry/Jim Brown)

If they were easy to build, they wouldn't cost that much.

Defenses are easier to build... so they cost less.

Period. There's NO arguing this.

Exactly. Moving up for Moss really paid off. :spit:

colonelbeef
09-05-2009, 07:43 AM
offense, anybody saying defense just plain doesn't understand football.

Cmac821
09-05-2009, 07:46 AM
QB is the hard thing to find on offense, but finding lock down corners and effective DL is really hard. And getting a ball hawk safety isn't easy.

rbackfactory80
09-05-2009, 08:12 AM
There are very few defenses that don't get run over late in the game. With that being said I think its not about having a perfect offense or defense but rather the perfect mix. An offense that does its job and keeps the defense fresh enough so it can be affective late in the game. If you have a great d and your o goes three and out the entire game no defense will hold up. Balance is something great football teams usually have.

chex
09-05-2009, 08:23 AM
offense, anybody saying defense just plain doesn't understand football.

Oh, ok thank you. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

I love posts like this, the "if you don't agree with me you don't know what you're talking about" kind.

NYBronco
09-05-2009, 08:44 AM
Oh, ok thank you. Thank you for clearing that up for us.

I love posts like this, the "if you don't agree with me you don't know what you're talking about" kind.

Yikes and I thought I understood football. I'm forced to punt, oh wait it's only 2nd down.

chex
09-05-2009, 08:48 AM
Yikes and I thought I understood football. I'm forced to punt, oh wait it's only 2nd down.

Punt? What does Irish currency have to do with anything? :giggle:

Tombstone RJ
09-05-2009, 08:55 AM
If a defense is so easy to build, why haven't we had a good one in ages?

Oh the irony. That's why Shanny's tenure can be looked at as a real disappointment.

Cito Pelon
09-05-2009, 08:56 AM
They're both hard to build.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
09-05-2009, 09:03 AM
that's crap. you can win with mediocre offensive talent if you have elite defensive talent. look at the Ravens super bowl years ago, ****ty offense and a great defense, in fact their offense was so bad that midway through the regular season that year, they went something like 4 straight games without a TD, and still got to and won a super bowl because of their defense.

look at the Patriots. the supposed top QB in the league, a WR who had the best statistical season ever, and a good running game even though they never used it, beaten by a dominant defense

offense is fun to watch and easier to create, but defense is what will win championships and is much harder to make

There are examples both ways. The 99 Rams were a joke defensively, but they had the greatest show on turf on offense.

I voted for offense. more moving parts. Players need smarts as well as ability, and those players are hard to find.

Is it any surprise that JMFW is on defense?

Mr.Meanie
09-05-2009, 09:10 AM
Its hard to argue with the fact that QBs, LTs, then DL's being the highest paid players in the NFL. More money will be tied up into O players which to me makes the D the clear cut winner. I think the teams that invest more money into the D get better returns, in the long run. I think we got the O in place without having to worry about cap problems for a couple of years. We sold Mike short. It was like the Colts all over again.

By the way we had the games BEST LT locked up for a easy contract and one of the better young QBs locked up for another three years.

Except without, you know, Peyton Manning...

footstepsfrom#27
09-05-2009, 09:15 AM
The toughest positions to find championship caliber players:

1) Quarterback
2) Pass rushing DE
3) Left OT
4) Cornerback

Draw...

Mr.Meanie
09-05-2009, 09:26 AM
If I had to make a list of both types of teams, here is what I would say:

ELITE OFFENSE:
Colts
Patriots
Cardinals
Saints

ELITE DEFENSE:
Ravens
Steelers
Vikings
Giants

After looking at that list, I would say for the offense to be dominant, you need a good OLine, a stud QB, and at least 1 elite WR. Colts, Pats, and Saints have arguably the best 3 QBs in the league, and all of them with the exception of the Saints have one of the top 5 WRs in the league.

On Defense, the Ravens, Steelers and Vikings have an absolutely dominant DLine, Linebackers and Secondary, while the Giants have the 1 of the best 2 DLines in the league.

It would seem to have a dominant Defense you need a top 5 pass rusher and an elite DLine, including NT/DT and great LB play, combined with a Polomalu/Reed/Winfield secondary.

I'm not sure what this all adds up to, except that it is obviously exceedingly hard to build either one and it relies on a few key dominant players at certain positions.

Mr.Meanie
09-05-2009, 09:28 AM
Great discussion btw. Best thread in a while

TheDave
09-05-2009, 09:29 AM
Depends on the Coach... Obviously defense was harder for Shanny to build.

Mogulseeker
09-05-2009, 09:35 AM
offense, anybody saying defense just plain doesn't understand football.

I disagree. I think anybody who says Offense just doesn't understand football. Actually, I'm not a stubborn, pompous ass like that.

It's a debatable topic.

I still say defense.

If it were offense, then Gary Kubiak and the Texans would have won 3 Super Bowls already.

Taco John
09-05-2009, 09:54 AM
I disagree. I think anybody who says Offense just doesn't understand football. Actually, I'm not a stubborn, pompous ass like that.

It's a debatable topic.

I still say defense.

If it were offense, then Gary Kubiak and the Texans would have won 3 Super Bowls already.



tink Gary is going to have a lot easier time building his defense than he has had building his offense.

Tombstone RJ
09-05-2009, 10:14 AM
I disagree. I think anybody who says Offense just doesn't understand football. Actually, I'm not a stubborn, pompous ass like that.

It's a debatable topic.

I still say defense.

If it were offense, then Gary Kubiak and the Texans would have won 3 Super Bowls already.

Texans have not had a consistent running game my friend. Nor consistent QB play with the injuries. Kubes offenses have not been up to par.

Mogulseeker
09-05-2009, 10:42 AM
They're both hard to build.

Thank you for that genius observation!

Archer81
09-05-2009, 10:46 AM
Without decent line play on other side good offense or defense is pretty hard to pull off.


:Broncos:

Bronco Yoda
09-05-2009, 10:49 AM
The question wasn't "what wins championships?", it was "what's harder to build?" I agree with you that defense (along with a ball control offense) wins championships more handily than offense. However, in answering the poll question, I think it's a lot more difficult to build (and hold onto) top flight talent on offense than it is for defense.

^ this

broncosteven
09-05-2009, 11:01 AM
...

1. Kick holy ass on defense.
2. Run the ball when people know you're going to run.
3. Pass effectively.
4. Win Superbowls.

Are you Dan Reeves?

THere have been 40 SB's and less than 5 have been won by teams with Great D's and marginal O's.

I would say the 71 Colts, you could argue that Miami's repeat team was run 1st but they controlled the game with O and played great D. Then we skip 30 years to the Ravens.

I think the Loser teams get to the SB with this formula but don't have enough to win it all. We had some great D's in the 80's that failed us when it counted.

Popps
09-05-2009, 11:05 AM
tink Gary is going to have a lot easier time building his defense than he has had building his offense.

Then why does his defense still rank below his offense, statistically... despite featuring a #1 overall pick on the D-line?

Because it's very difficult to build either.

You don't build one or the other, and you certainly don't build one at a time.

You build a complete team using a proper philosophy. (See NE/Pitt.)

mr007
09-05-2009, 11:09 AM
Probably agree, though I don't think there's a right answer. I know which one I think is more important, but both are a challenge to build.

Shanahan is a brilliant football mind, and over 14 years, he had no trouble building an offense but very mixed results, defensively.

Just depends on the situation.

But, an average offense can win a SB. An average defense? Very, very rarely.

What the hell are you talking about? Averages defenses win way less than average offenses...

See Rams, 49ers, Cowboys, Packers, Redskins, and of course our beloved Broncos, just to name some recent ones.

mr007
09-05-2009, 11:10 AM
Are you Dan Reeves?

THere have been 40 SB's and less than 5 have been won by teams with Great D's and marginal O's.

I would say the 71 Colts, you could argue that Miami's repeat team was run 1st but they controlled the game with O and played great D. Then we skip 30 years to the Ravens.

I think the Loser teams get to the SB with this formula but don't have enough to win it all. We had some great D's in the 80's that failed us when it counted.

Some people are a little delusional based on the past few years...

Rohirrim
09-05-2009, 11:11 AM
I have to go with D. It starts with lines. It's hard to find good OTs but it's getting nearly impossible to find good DTs. At least with O, you can have a good QB or RB that can make up for some weakness on your line. But on D, a weak line just makes everything behind it weaker.

Popps
09-05-2009, 11:11 AM
THere have been 40 SB's and less than 5 have been won by teams with Great D's and marginal O's.

Well, the problem with this conversation is that someone like you is going to assume that the Broncos didn't have a great defense. (Despite them being top 5 in most categories and setting playoff records for defensive performance.)

You're going to turn this into a black and white argument where the 2000 Ravens are your example of a team with a great defense.

The truth is, the Cowboys and 49ers dynasties in the 90s had great defenses. The Steelers in the 70s? Ever hear of the Steel Curtain?


Very few SB winning teams in the history of the league have featured average defenses.

The Colts are probably the only one I've seen in my lifetime, and maybe the Rams. (Though their defense was way above average when they won it all.)



Look, you had to go to Dan Reeves to make your argument. So, clearly... you needed to use the most extreme example you could think of.

Problem is, Reeves has been to how many Superbowls?

Oops.

Popps
09-05-2009, 11:12 AM
Some people are a little delusional based on the past few years...

Oh, you mean the past few years where average offenses and great defenses won Superbowls?


Gotcha.

mr007
09-05-2009, 11:18 AM
Yeah that's what I mean. What were we top 5 in again during our SB years?

Ohh yeah, offense.

BroncoInferno
09-05-2009, 11:20 AM
The 99 Rams were a joke defensively

That's a popular myth. The Rams '99 defense allowed only 242 points, 4th best in the league that year. They were 6th in yards. Hardly a "joke."

Popps
09-05-2009, 11:40 AM
That's a popular myth. The Rams '99 defense allowed only 242 points, 4th best in the league that year. They were 6th in yards. Hardly a "joke."

This is what I'm talking about.

It's almost impossible to have this discussion, because for whatever reason... if a team had a great offense, people just automatically assume their defense wasn't any good. (And to an extent, vise versa.)

The Rams had a very good defense that year. One of their playoff wins was in a game that featured less than 30 combined points.

There was a lot of talk that year about the Rams being the best team ever. They weren't, of course. But, that talk was largely based on them being proficient on both sides of the ball.

Our 97/98 teams ranked near the top of the league in almost every statistical category and was opportunistic, savvy and played its best in its biggest games.



You've got to have balance, no question. But, the point is... you may as well start with a great defense because you won't be winning a SB without one.

Conversely, we've seen teams like the Ravens, Bucs, Giants, Steelers and others win SBs very recently with "good" offenses, not great.

gyldenlove
09-05-2009, 11:49 AM
It is much harder to build a good offense.

A good defense needs a good system and some good individual players.

A good offense needs a good system, good individual players and good cooperation.

A defense can mask a lacking system by having more talent or lacking talent by a better system, on offense that is not possible.

Popps
09-05-2009, 11:56 AM
A defense can mask a lacking system by having more talent or lacking talent by a better system, on offense that is not possible.

:spit:

Maybe you missed our running game the past decade?

How about Griese and Plummer's success in our offense?

Take a look at our 05 offensive roster, and then tell me about all of the "great players" we had.

Taco John
09-05-2009, 12:00 PM
For my part, I think that it takes both sides of the ball to build a championship. I just think that it's more difficult to build a good offense than it is to build a good defense due to the chemistry issues, playbook, and multiple dozens of variations that have to be installed over the years to make that offense "NFL functional." And that's not even factoring the brains that it takes for the offensive players to get the stuff down. I believe that it's much easier for a defense to build that sort of cohesiveness because there are vastly fewer moving parts.

Rohirrim
09-05-2009, 12:46 PM
For my part, I think that it takes both sides of the ball to build a championship. I just think that it's more difficult to build a good offense than it is to build a good defense due to the chemistry issues, playbook, and multiple dozens of variations that have to be installed over the years to make that offense "NFL functional." And that's not even factoring the brains that it takes for the offensive players to get the stuff down. I believe that it's much easier for a defense to build that sort of cohesiveness because there are vastly fewer moving parts.

But still too many for our LBs. ;D

Also, it depends on the offense. There have been championship offenses that have relied on three or four running plays and the rest was just to set those plays up. Teams that completely control on the ground (Riggins' Skins, Broncos w/TD) don't really have to get too complex. They're going to do what they do best, which is shove the ball down your D's throat. If you can't stop it, too bad for you.

broncosteven
09-05-2009, 01:01 PM
Well, the problem with this conversation is that someone like you is going to assume that the Broncos didn't have a great defense. (Despite them being top 5 in most categories and setting playoff records for defensive performance.)

You're going to turn this into a black and white argument where the 2000 Ravens are your example of a team with a great defense.

The truth is, the Cowboys and 49ers dynasties in the 90s had great defenses. The Steelers in the 70s? Ever hear of the Steel Curtain?


Very few SB winning teams in the history of the league have featured average defenses.

The Colts are probably the only one I've seen in my lifetime, and maybe the Rams. (Though their defense was way above average when they won it all.)



Look, you had to go to Dan Reeves to make your argument. So, clearly... you needed to use the most extreme example you could think of.

Problem is, Reeves has been to how many Superbowls?

Oops.

I totally misunderstood.

I thought you meant D's Won SB's and teams only need warm bodies at QB's to win the SB.

You are right all those teams you mentioned had great D's, even Robinson was able to scheme the talent he had into a to 15 or better D each of those years but ALL of those teams had GREAT Offenses.

So maybe I missed your point but my point is that without Bradshaw throwing the ball downfield the Steel curtain is short a few Lombardies.

Even the year Da Bears won it all it was more because McManon was throwing to Willie Gault than because the D kept people from scoring.

Royalfan19
09-05-2009, 01:08 PM
"Dominant" defenses I think are as tough to build as "Dominant" offenses.

But we are talking about "good" defenses/offenses, and in this case I think offense is a lot tougher.

You can take the talent on over half of the teams in the NFL and make a "good" defense as long as you can get the players to buy into the system and play with fire, maintaining execution and integrity throughout.

Thats not the case with offense. You either have a QB or you don't, you either have a playmaker or you don't. And those are required attributes of a good offense ontop of solid O-line play, turnover free games and penalty free drives. Anything less than that and a offense can at best be average.

And as for the elusive D-linemen, I don't think you need playmakers on the D-line to be a good defense, only a dominant one. There are plenty of teams that managed to have top 5 scoring and yardage defenses (see Seattle 2005) with unspectacular D-lines that don't get pushed around but keep the O-linemen off their back 7.

Royalfan19
09-05-2009, 01:13 PM
I totally misunderstood.

I thought you meant D's Won SB's and teams only need warm bodies at QB's to win the SB.

You are right all those teams you mentioned had great D's, even Robinson was able to scheme the talent he had into a to 15 or better D each of those years but ALL of those teams had GREAT Offenses.

So maybe I missed your point but my point is that without Bradshaw throwing the ball downfield the Steel curtain is short a few Lombardies.

Even the year Da Bears won it all it was more because McManon was throwing to Willie Gault than because the D kept people from scoring.

1.) Franchise QB
2.) Dominant Offense that keeps the clock moving
3.) Dominant Defense and Special teams that wins the field position battle

I think 80% of teams have had 2 of those three things when winning the superbowl, and rarely, every once in a while you get a team that has 1 of those 3 things.

Mogulseeker
09-05-2009, 01:28 PM
It is much harder to build a good defense.

A good defense needs a good system and some good individual players and good cooperation.

A good offense needs a good system, good individual players.

A offense can mask a lacking system by having more talent or lacking talent by a better system, on defense that is not possible.

I fixed that for you.

frerottenextelway
09-05-2009, 03:26 PM
Offense. QB and LT are the hardest positions in football to fill - by far imo. You don't see that on D, where the closest thing would be MLB (or NT in a 3-4), and MLB just isn't that hard to fill in comparison. Plus D players tend to be cheaper and generally easier acquired.

colonelbeef
09-05-2009, 03:56 PM
:spit:

Maybe you missed our running game the past decade?

How about Griese and Plummer's success in our offense?

Take a look at our 05 offensive roster, and then tell me about all of the "great players" we had.

Being coached by the best offensive mind in the league, running behind an all time offensive line. You seem to have missed that point