Quote:
Originally Posted by jbergey22
Off the top of my head it seems you need balance in order to win the Super Bowl. The 2000 Ravens were probably the 1 exception I can think of.
A lot of times a great offense is a great defense so Id probably lean towards Skip's point of view on this.
Pittsburgh in the 70s had a great offense and great defense. The 49ers of the 80's were known for a great offense but their defense was very good as well. The Cowboys of the 90s won because of a precision offense and a great defense. That takes us to the 00's where the Pats have been a lot of both. They won super bowls when they were balanced they didnt win in 07 when they had the most potent offense in history but a below average defense.
If I had to choose between a great offense/poor defense or a great defense/poor offense its seems more teams have made it further with the former rather than the later.
|
Of course no team has much of a chance with a poor offense. That puts the D on the field too often, they get tired and start giving up points. But you don't need a really great O if you have a great D.
I also thought the '85 Bears had an average at best O. Their D was the best i've seen since '75.
All I was trying to say is......a really good D more often than not disrupts a great O.