Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I even miscounted fumbles!! Settles defense out scored Denver's offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Manning is done so is Brady their time is over. It is a new NFL, you need mobile athletic QBs. They may keep their teams competitive but neither one will win another super bowl. Mark my words. I'm marking them. I mean, I'm marking them as Manning comes off the greatest season a QB ever had. To be a good QB, you have to be a good QB. Some are mobile. Some are not. It's not as simple as they all need to be mobile--the league is riddled with mobile crappy QBs. The Bills have had their share of these guys: Flutie, RJ, Fitz. All were mobile. None were good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 When the #1 offense makes the superbowl, they have an 8-8 record. When the #1 defense makes the Super bowl, they have a 12-3 record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 "...Flutie.... None were good." Now you did it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 When the #1 offense makes the superbowl, they have an 8-8 record. When the #1 defense makes the Super bowl, they have a 12-3 record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Seahawks GM. Proud and wearing the belt! Built a monster defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) When the #1 offense makes the superbowl, they have an 8-8 record. When the #1 defense makes the Super bowl, they have a 12-3 record. That also shows that the #1 offense GETS to the Super Bowl more often. I think the nature of that ONE GAME favors the defensive teams. As was discussed earlier, it's easier to play amped up, emotional defense, than run a precision offense in the conditions present during the Super Bowl. I think the best way to get there and win, is to be damn good on both sides of the ball. Edited February 3, 2014 by Marauder'sMicro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 As you said, they are a complete team. They will be in contention until the price tags of their players pushes them to make tough decisions. They won't be able to keep everybody but fortunately for them they have a good sized window and won't have to make too many of those decisions for a few years. They could do what the Pats did & trade off players as they get older & more expensive for picks they can use on fresh affordable talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) Those words would be much bolder if these QBs weren't going to be 38 & 37 next year. Care to make another prediction Nostradamus? there are many who predicted their downfalls for well over 5 years now.. I'm still waiting for it to happen. Edited February 3, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://www.nfl.com/features/freakonomics/episode-15 This has been researched and debunked as I said earlier. I doubt seeing the evidence will change the opinion of those who cling to clichés. This argument is very similar to those who believe baseball is 75% or 90% pitching. It is wrong whether or not you believe the evidence. May I point out that if Seattle's offense had played poorly yesterday, or all year for that matter, the outcome would be very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColdBlueNorth Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 That defense was one of the most impressive things I have seen. God damn. Yup. Totally prepared. I was really impressed with the way their safeties would peel off a Denver receiver running a deep post to come up on the receiver trying to take advantage of the soft spots underneath. They saw the routes before they developed and ended up having tight over and under coverage on the places where TE's or Welker normally flourish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Hmmm. Top defense and top running game against the most pass happy dominant offense in the history of the league and the biggest game in the biggest stage was one of the biggest blowouts in Super Bowl history. This is a pretty sill statement as a view on how to win in the modern day NFL. One game, and now the whole landscape has suddenly changed again? Nothing changes the fact that this is still without a doubt a quarterback driven league. The rules alone make that indisputable. Anyone who says "Defense wins championships" or "Offense wins championships" is foolish. Teams with a marginal offense and great D can win (see Baltimore) and Teams with a great Offense and marginal D can win (see many examples last 20 years). There is no perfect formula. That being said, todays rules definitely favor the offense and the ability to get to and win the SB. Does it mean every year the better offense will win...of course not, thats ridiculous. Teams still have to play the games. It also does not mean the best defense will always win. If it was all about only the D, then Seattle would have been undefeated this year. And don't under estimate coaching as a factor in this game. John Fox and his staff had no answer for anything Seattle did. Seattle played a perfect game in all facets. Its was a masterpiece and I don't think Pete and his staff are getting enough credit. PS: I think Buffalo is on its way to being a team build similar to Seattle. Biggest difference right now though is how PHYSICAL that team plays on both sides of the ball, but especially the defense. I hope Schwartz brings some of that nasty to our guys and we add a couple physical playmakers on both sides of the ball in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 http://www.nfl.com/f...mics/episode-15 This has been researched and debunked as I said earlier. I doubt seeing the evidence will change the opinion of those who cling to clichés. This argument is very similar to those who believe baseball is 75% or 90% pitching. It is wrong whether or not you believe the evidence. May I point out that if Seattle's offense had played poorly yesterday, or all year for that matter, the outcome would be very different. That lays it out pretty well. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 This is a pretty sill statement as a view on how to win in the modern day NFL. One game, and now the whole landscape has suddenly changed again? Nothing changes the fact that this is still without a doubt a quarterback driven league. The rules alone make that indisputable. Anyone who says "Defense wins championships" or "Offense wins championships" is foolish. Teams with a marginal offense and great D can win (see Baltimore) and Teams with a great Offense and marginal D can win (see many examples last 20 years). There is no perfect formula. That being said, todays rules definitely favor the offense and the ability to get to and win the SB. Does it mean every year the better offense will win...of course not, thats ridiculous. Teams still have to play the games. It also does not mean the best defense will always win. If it was all about only the D, then Seattle would have been undefeated this year. And don't under estimate coaching as a factor in this game. John Fox and his staff had no answer for anything Seattle did. Seattle played a perfect game in all facets. Its was a masterpiece and I don't think Pete and his staff are getting enough credit. PS: I think Buffalo is on its way to being a team build similar to Seattle. Biggest difference right now though is how PHYSICAL that team plays on both sides of the ball, but especially the defense. I hope Schwartz brings some of that nasty to our guys and we add a couple physical playmakers on both sides of the ball in the draft. Excellent Post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmalibu Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Seahawks # 5 rushing team and # 10 passing It was not Defense alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwalter Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 good teams win championships, regardless of which side of the ball that "good" comes on. putting a touchdown on the board has the same effect on the score differential as keeping a touchdown off the board. what seems more likely to me is that a few years ago, the league got a little offense-obsessed and began to overvalue offensive players and, as a byproduct, undervalue defensive players. the seahawks f.o. saw this and capitalized on it by putting together a defense that was stronger than the offense they could have put together for the same amount of money/draft-picks. that being said, most of their success is a result of the fact that they have done an incredible job scouting tallent and finding 'diamonds in the rough' over the last few years. in a just world, john schneider, the seahawks gm would have won mvp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Seattle is stacked at every single position, including the coaching staff and front office. Where is their weakness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 good teams win championships, regardless of which side of the ball that "good" comes on. putting a touchdown on the board has the same effect on the score differential as keeping a touchdown off the board. what seems more likely to me is that a few years ago, the league got a little offense-obsessed and began to overvalue offensive players and, as a byproduct, undervalue defensive players. the seahawks f.o. saw this and capitalized on it by putting together a defense that was stronger than the offense they could have put together for the same amount of money/draft-picks. that being said, most of their success is a result of the fact that they have done an incredible job scouting tallent and finding 'diamonds in the rough' over the last few years. in a just world, john schneider, the seahawks gm would have won mvp. ,Good point. The teams that are willing to innovate, and move away from the norm will bear fruit. Just like buying stocks, you aren't looking to buy the stock today that everyone says is great, it is too late. The Oakland A's have been practicing this strategy under Billy Beane for years. It is not so much that you are re-inventing the wheel, as it is identifying undervalued assets(players in this case). And yes Seattle has done a nice job scouting, drafting and decision-making wise-they have also been the beneficiary of positive fortune. A QB making 550K leaves a lot of space on the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Not today. He made key plays on those 3rd downs....EJ needs to watch and learn how Wilson throws the ball to a moving target. You got to have confidence in your receive and release. EJ wouldn't have to do much if the defense holds them to 8pts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) EJ wouldn't have to do much if the defense holds them to 8pts! Does anyone believe Seattle would have won the SB will our offense? I sure as hell don't Edited February 3, 2014 by 75Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Read the thread. Bottom line - QB, in my opinion, may be the most important position on the team, but you don't need a great one, merely you have to have a good one.(read: Flacco, Wilson, Eli, etc) What you need is a competitive offense and a great defense. So let's stop dreaming of Brady and build the D to elite level and bolster O line. EJ may well be all we need in a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Read the thread. Bottom line - QB, in my opinion, may be the most important position on the team, but you don't need a great one, merely you have to have a good one.(read: Flacco, Wilson, Eli, etc) What you need is a competitive offense and a great defense. So let's stop dreaming of Brady and build the D to elite level and bolster O line. EJ may well be all we need in a QB. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 good teams win championships, regardless of which side of the ball that "good" comes on. putting a touchdown on the board has the same effect on the score differential as keeping a touchdown off the board. what seems more likely to me is that a few years ago, the league got a little offense-obsessed and began to overvalue offensive players and, as a byproduct, undervalue defensive players. the seahawks f.o. saw this and capitalized on it by putting together a defense that was stronger than the offense they could have put together for the same amount of money/draft-picks. Along those lines, I've been thinking that it doesn't really matter that teams can't put together defenses that will consistently and absolutely shut down opposing offenses any more. If your defense stands out relative to the competition and your offense is competent you will come out ahead. But as you say it's also a question of how good your scouting is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Seattle is stacked at every single position, including the coaching staff and front office. Where is their weakness? The salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Along those lines, I've been thinking that it doesn't really matter that teams can't put together defenses that will consistently and absolutely shut down opposing offenses any more. If your defense stands out relative to the competition and your offense is competent you will come out ahead. But as you say it's also a question of how good your scouting is. Luck comes into play too. GIants Pats playing ten games, and the Pats probably win the majority. They got the two games where Eli played out of his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Gilmore has long hair, McKelvin is long, Williams is rough, Byrd is All Pro. Don't see why our defense with a true run stuffing DT & another top level LB couldn't be stout. Still if our QB suffers an injury every 4 games we're dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Luck comes into play too. GIants Pats playing ten games, and the Pats probably win the majority. They got the two games where Eli played out of his mind. Lets not forget that the Giants D line gave ole Tommy a hard time in both games, as they held the Patriots to 14 pts in 2007 & 17 pts in 2011. As good as that Patriot O line usually is it wasn't good enough in either game, as Brady was under constant pressure. I'm happy that Bill Bilcheat isn't smart enough to figure that out, and sad at the same time because the Bills have been clueless about the O line for 17 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Grundy Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Welcome to the light my fellow posters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Great drafting, trading (Lynch), coaching = SB win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Luck comes into play too. GIants Pats playing ten games, and the Pats probably win the majority. They got the two games where Eli played out of his mind. I'm not sure I'd call it luck as much as a good matchup for the Giants. The two teams have played 4 times since the 2007 season, the Giants winning 3 of them (incidentally, the last 3--the only one NE won was the meaningless game to go 16-0). It just happens that the Giants brand of pass rush, with ends playing inside, matches up really well with NE's OL. That's the thing with OL play: teams always have to optimize. No team is invulnerable along the line, and practically every team is better at either run blocking or pass protection. Under the tutelage of the now-retired Dante Scarnecchia, NE's OL had been extremely good in run blocking for a long time, and rather middling in pass protection. They optimize that way because Brady is exceptional at leaking around in the pocket to areas where the protection is better than others. The Giants specialize(d) in not allowing that to happen by getting pressure up the middle with pass-rushing ends without having to stunt...it's a pretty unique approach and it served them extremely well (obviously). Most teams can't do that, and very few will bother to build their defense specifically to attack NE's interior OL in that fashion. I guess that's my (extremely) long-winded way of saying that, IMO, it seems more like a case of favorable matchup as opposed to luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auburnbillsbacker Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Hmmm. Top defense and top running game against the most pass happy dominant offense in the history of the league and the biggest game in the biggest stage was one of the biggest blowouts in Super Bowl history. We had a top 10 defense and a top 5 running game and we stunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) though there are exceptions to everything, I feel that in today's NFL, it is easier to succeed (have a winning record/get into the playoffs) with a good offense and average defense as opposed to an average offense and a good defense. The Hawks didn't just have a good defense this season, they had one of the best defenses in the history of the game(when you take into account how it's so much harder nowadays for teams to play defense). Edited February 4, 2014 by bobobonators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Giants twice, Ravens and Seahawks, that's four times in the last ten years. "Giants twice"...no. The Giants D those 2 seasons was crappy. In the playoffs, they played well, but so did the pats D--almost the same ppg allowed. Ravens won their SB with a mediocre D and the hot hand of their QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Seattle is stacked at every single position, including the coaching staff and front office. Where is their weakness? Their Division opponents SF and AZ (10-6). They are a young team and all too soon (in 2 years time) they could lose a bunch to FA as they are up for new contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The topic being discussed is whether great/dominating D's win championships (irrespective of the offense, according to some), not whether a SB team's D played well enough on one day to win a SB. This. The Giants defense was worse than the Pats in '07. Just as the Ravens was worse than the 9ers last year. If you're looking @ the two Eli teams as a blue print for anything you might as well say mediocrity on both sides of the ball wins championships (the 2011 Giants had a negative pt differential). That's the great thing about the "Defense" side of this argument though. It's impossible to lose because the winning defense invariably gives up fewer points than their opponent in the last game. Even if said defense sucked all year & played well for a couple games like the '06 Colts (Denver this yr almost pulled that off too). Not surprisingly if the exact opposite happens (the defense is good all year & manages to win a shootout in the SB - like the '04 Patriots) well then heck, they still get to say "defense wins championships". Super. How convenient. You can see why it's impossible to argue with "defense wins championships" guy. It's not because they're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonprophet Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Stupid plays don't win games either. It started from the get go when the hotshot Bronco returner decided returning the opening kickoff from 9 yards deep in the end zone was an intelligent move. He got to the 12, which ensured that the errant snap on the next play would reach the end zone. It was downhill from there. I think some key Bronco offensive players were trying too hard, that guy included. On more than one occasion, a Bronco receiver came up short by trying to juke a Seattle defender when plowing straight ahead would have netted a first down instead and one of the fumbles occurred because the receiver tried to stiff arm for additional yardage instead of wrapping up the ball and guaranteeing a first down on a long gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 This. The Giants defense was worse than the Pats in '07. Just as the Ravens was worse than the 9ers last year. If you're looking @ the two Eli teams as a blue print for anything you might as well say mediocrity on both sides of the ball wins championships (the 2011 Giants had a negative pt differential). That's the great thing about the "Defense" side of this argument though. It's impossible to lose because the winning defense invariably gives up fewer points than their opponent in the last game. Even if said defense sucked all year & played well for a couple games like the '06 Colts (Denver this yr almost pulled that off too). Not surprisingly if the exact opposite happens (the defense is good all year & manages to win a shootout in the SB - like the '04 Patriots) well then heck, they still get to say "defense wins championships". Super. How convenient. You can see why it's impossible to argue with "defense wins championships" guy. It's not because they're right. No, "defense wins championships" is applicable to when teams are held to well below their output in the SB. That describes the majority of SB wins. It's not a guarantee, nor does it mean a team with a crappy offense can win a SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solomon Grundy Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) We had a top 10 defense and a top 5 running game and we stunk. You forgot a "game managing" QB! Edited February 5, 2014 by the skycap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts