Jump to content

This Is Rival Talk v1.0


CWood21

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Tell me the last time a bad defense won the Super Bowl.  I'll wait.

Depends on your definition of a bad defense - which I'll submit is changing in recent years because of rules changes.

Philly - which was considered to have a good regular season defense -  gave up 618 total yards and 33 points - in the 2017 SB and won.
Now - I wouldnt consider that good defense - and they won - so there's your answer: 2017.

Off the top of my head, the last STOUT defensive effort in the SB was SEA handling DEN. That was fairly impressive.

In fact, recent SBs have reflected the changes in rules:

2016 - 62 total points and 961 total yards given up.
2017 - 74 total points and 1156 total yards given up.

Unless the rules change back, I think we can dispense with calculating the defenses from the days of yore.
If things stay the way they are now, it would be like comparing days when they wore leather helmets with today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leader said:

Philly - which was considered to have a good regular season defense -  gave up 618 total yards and 33 points - in the 2017 SB and won.

This whole post is neglecting the fact that NFL offenses have gotten better.  I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that it takes 85 Bears to win Super Bowls.  I'm saying it takes a top defense that year to win the Super Bowl.  By that, I mean you have to have a defense capable of stopping the offense of the time. 

The Eagles were the fourth best defense in points allowed last season. 

The Eagles allowed 10 and 7 points to get to the Super Bowl.

They were among the best defenses in the NFL and they went up against the #2 scoring offense in the NFL. 

No offense to you, but I hate the excuse that the Eagles allowed 33 points and 618 yards against the Patriots.  Yeah, they allowed a lot of yards and 33 points.  They also scored a hell of a lot of points on their own, forcing the Patriots to keep up with them, and it is completely disregarding the fact that if the Eagles, the #4 scoring defense in the league, allowed 33 points, what other team had any shot in hell? 

The Eagles were a good defense.  And let's not act like the turning point in the game wasn't the sack fumble late in the fourth quarter.  If the Patriots had made a defensive play like that, they would have won.  Just like their defense forced the comeback against the Falcons. 

Edited by Outpost31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked when the last bad defense won a SB and I answered it. Philly played bad D and won. Done. Further I said that with rules changes which strongly favor the offense - this is probably a trend we should get used to. Evidence the last two SBs. Done. Its not that complicated. Defenses are being "discounted" across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nazgul said:

The 2008 Saints had the #1 offense and the #20 defense and won the Super Bowl.
The 2011 Giants were the #25th ranked defense in the NFL.

Yep, yep.  Knew someone was gonna bring up the Saints. 

The Saints held the Cardinals to 14 points in the Divisional Round.
The Saints had 3 fumble recoveries and two interceptions to beat the Vikings. 
The Saints vaunted offense scored 24 points in the Super Bowl, their defense allowed 17, and their defense scored 7. 

Knew someone was gonna bring up the 2011 Giants, too. 

The Falcons scored 2 points against those Giants.  You think the defense allowed those two points?
The Giants allowed 20 points against "the bestest QB season ever in the history of ever" and forced 4 turnovers.
17 points against the Niners, then 17 points against the Patriots.

Guess what... Good defense got them to and won the Super Bowl. 

In relation to the Chiefs, I don't think the Chiefs have the talent those teams that turned around their defense had. 

People forget the 2009 Saints had three pro bowl defenders, including the best safety duo in the NFL that year and Darren Sharper had an MVP performance that year.  I feel gross talking him up, but he had 9 interceptions and 3 defensive touchdowns.  That secondary was wildly underrated, and that showed in the Super Bowl, didn't it, or did Porter not seal the game with an iconic pick six? 

That 2011 Giants team had all the talent in the world, too.  Linval Joseph, JPP, Tuck and Umeniyora were all in the middle of breaking out or having broken out as really good DL. 

And what everybody seems to be forgetting about how this whole conversation started...

Those teams had EXPERIENCED QUARTERBACKS. 

This entire thing started over me saying I'd bet against the Chiefs because they don't have the defense or the experience, and everyone is harping on the defense. 

Chiefs have neither. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leader said:

You asked when the last bad defense won a SB and I answered it. Philly played bad D and won. Done. Further I said that with rules changes which strongly favor the offense - this is probably a trend we should get used to. Evidence the last two SBs. Done. Its not that complicated. Defenses are being "discounted" across the board.

Philadelphia was not a bad defense.  They forced multiple stops and forced a sack/fumble.  You can act like you're right all you want, but if you think there's a different defense that could have beaten the Patriots that year and held them to less than 618 yards and 33 points, I'd like to know which defense that was. 

And what evidence is there from the previous Super Bowl exactly?  The Patriots defense allowed 21 points.  The Falcons defense scored 7 points.  The Patriots defense had 5 sacks, recovered a fumble and allowed the Falcons, which were a top offense, to score only 21 points, 0 points in the entire second half.  That was after they allowed 16 points in the divisional round, 17 points in the Championship round.

Sorry, neither of those were bad defenses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it's not as simple as saying, "Well duh, the team that gives up less points than the other team will win..."

Time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time for 52 years, the Super Bowl winner has been the defense that provides the edge.  Last year it was the defense that came up with key stops and timely turnovers when both offenses were on fire.  The year before the Patriots held the Falcons to 0 points in the second half.  Knocked them out of field goal range, forced turnovers.  If that defense had one hiccup in the second half, the Patriots lose that game.  In 2015, geriatric Manning beat the most athletically gifted QB of our time.  The year before that the Patriots literally won the game on an iconic defensive play.

You can point to every single Super Bowl and find a point in the game where the defense won it. 

As Packer fans we should know that.  Aaron Rodgers had one of the most incredible Super Bowl performances of all time, even better considering all the drops our receivers had, and we still do not win that game without Clay's forced fumble.  Or Nick's pick six.  Or Bush's interception.  Or his pass deflection on the final drive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Philadelphia was not a bad defense.  They forced multiple stops and forced a sack/fumble.  You can act like you're right all you want, but if you think there's a different defense that could have beaten the Patriots that year and held them to less than 618 yards and 33 points, I'd like to know which defense that was. 

And what evidence is there from the previous Super Bowl exactly?  The Patriots defense allowed 21 points.  The Falcons defense scored 7 points.  The Patriots defense had 5 sacks, recovered a fumble and allowed the Falcons, which were a top offense, to score only 21 points, 0 points in the entire second half.  That was after they allowed 16 points in the divisional round, 17 points in the Championship round.

Sorry, neither of those were bad defenses. 

Outpost - as stated already, its not that complicated.

I'd already indicated 2017 Philly had a good D. Regardless, you'd asked about the SB and I correctly pointed out they got their hats handed to them - yet still won.

So I guess it can be done eh? Thats all. Thats all you'd asked. Thats all I answered - except to point out that with recent / current rules changes that strongly favor the offenses - it serves no purpose to go back to Herb Adderley days and fit those efforts into your computations. The two NFLs are worlds apart and based on all we know now - its the leagues intent to keep it that way. Thats all.

As stated - the last truly stout defensive effort in a SB was the Legion of Boom's dismantling of the DEN offense. Perhaps thats what prompted the rules changes. Dont know or much care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leader said:

Outpost - as stated already, its not that complicated.

I'd already indicated 2017 Philly had a good D. Regardless, you'd asked about the SB and I correctly pointed out they got their hats handed to them - yet still won.

So I guess it can be done eh? Thats all. Thats all you'd asked. Thats all I answered - except to point out that with recent / current rules changes that strongly favor the offenses - it serves no purpose to go back to Herb Adderley days and fit those efforts into your computations. The two NFLs are worlds apart and based on all we know now - its the leagues intent to keep it that way. Thats all.

As stated - the last truly stout defensive effort in a SB was the Legion of Boom's dismantling of the DEN offense. Perhaps thats what prompted the rules changes. Dont know or much care.

But it's not as simple as that.  Two points that counter your argument:

1. You can't win the Super Bowl if you don't get there.  Eagles allowed 10 points and then 0 net points to get to the Super Bowl.

2. Eagles defense sealed the win against the Patriots. 

You can do the same thing with every major rule change.  It's the defenses that rise above the rule changes and play the best defense comparatively to the rest of whatever current state the NFL is in that frequently rise to the top and win Super Bowls. 

No bad defense has ever won a Super Bowl because no bad defense has ever gotten to a Super Bowl. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leader said:

As a secondary / ancillary thought....what with defenses struggling against current rules changes - it might be worth considering drafting some offensive talent at the top of the board.

Value of offensive players goes down when offense is designed to thrive by the NFL. 

For example, if the NFL decided defensive backs couldn't touch receivers at any point ever, Trevor Davis would be just as capable of a 1,000 yard season as Thielen or Diggs. 

The easier it is for offenses, the less talent it takes to thrive on offense.

That said, I still think a tackle would be really good for us in round one.  Bulaga would be a beast at guard and we wouldn't have to worry about depth on the OL. 

OT, QB, EDGE... Some positions never lose value.  Receiver though?  Tight end?  The easier the NFL makes it on them, the easier it is to find players who can play there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I feel like the defense will always carry more importance since they can prevent points, and create points. Offenses can, in a way, prevent scores if they have a lead and the time clock on their side. They can run the clock out and prevent the other team from having a chance. But regardless of what point in the game we are at, the defense has the ability to prevent and create points. Offenses just don't have that ability.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Value of offensive players goes down when offense is designed to thrive by the NFL.

You realize the flip side of that coin right?
If rules "against" the defense (or favoring the offense) negates stellar or superior defensive talent.........
A team can win a SB with a less than stellar defense - just like the 2017 Eagles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leader said:

You realize the flip side of that coin right?
If rules "against" the defense (or favoring the offense) negates stellar or superior defensive talent.........
A team can win a SB with a less than stellar defense - just like the 2017 Eagles.

It's not true though.  2017 Super Bowl turned on a defensive line play.  The Eagles had four first round picks on that line.  Two second round picks on that line. 
Two first round picks in the secondary.  Two second round picks in the secondary.  One third round pick in the secondary. 

So the Eagles had 6 first round picks, 4 second round picks and a third round pick on that defense. 

Please stop calling the Eagles 2017 defense less than stellar.  You're using one single game to negate a season of dominant defensive play.  They were, in fact, a stellar defense that allowed 10 net points in two games to get to the Super Bowl. 

 

Edited by Outpost31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Okay Outpost. No need to beat it to death. A team won the SB playing bad defense. Question answered. And its likely we're gonna see more "offenseiveallapalloozas" in the future  -  unless they change the rules back.

You can't get to the SB without winning 2 playoff games though. 2 games that they layed absolutely dominant defense. Last year's eagles are decidedly NOT an example of "a team won a SB playing bad defense".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...