If You Had Elway's Power

[spikerman]

Would you be willing to give up some offensive firepower to build a truly nasty defense? I'm not looking for specifics. I'm just wondering.

[tripp]

Was under the impression we have a pretty nasty defense?

I think we have a great team. I'm just not sold on our coaching staff (Fox, and JDR).

[BroncoWave]

Personally, I wouldn't. Recent trends show it's better to have a great offense than a great defense in today's NFL. Given the rule changes that make it impossible to play defense anyway, I think the goal should be to just build the biggest juggernaut of an offense possible and try to outscore everyone else.

Going defense can work if you just really go to the other extreme like a Seattle, 01 Ravens, or 03 Bucs, but you have to sacrifice a lot of offense to do that.

Given the pieces we have, I wouldn't sacrifice any of this offense we've put together if I could avoid it.

[spikerman]

Was under the impression we have a pretty nasty defense?

I think we have a great team. I'm just not sold on our coaching staff (Fox, and JDR).
I thought so too, but bad game or not, nasty defenses don't have what happened to them today happen. They especially don't get repeatedly abused on third and long.

[chazoe60]

Absolutely. Defense wins championships, always has always will.

[I Eat Staples]

Nope. You don't lose games if you can put up 40 points.

Defense is more about scheme than talent anyway. I loved JDR in his first season, but he's left a lot to be desired since.

[tripp]

I thought so too, but bad game or not, nasty defenses don't have what happened to them today happen. They especially don't get repeatedly abused on third and long.

But is that poor performance on defense or bad play calling?

[spikerman]

Personally, I wouldn't. Recent trends show it's better to have a great offense than a great defense in today's NFL. Given the rule changes that make it impossible to play defense anyway, I think the goal should be to just build the biggest juggernaut of an offense possible and try to outscore everyone else.

Going defense can work if you just really go to the other extreme like a Seattle, 01 Ravens, or 03 Bucs, but you have to sacrifice a lot of offense to do that.

Given the pieces we have, I wouldn't sacrifice any of this offense we've put together if I could avoid it.

Good point, but it seems like really good defenses travel better than really good offenses. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[BroncoWave]

Absolutely. Defense wins championships, always has always will.

Recent trends show otherwise.

[spikerman]

But is that poor performance on defense or bad play calling?

I honestly have no idea. Ha ha

[BroncoWave]

Good point, but it seems like really good defenses travel better than really good offenses. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

If you can get the 1 seed that's not an issue though. Super Bowls like last year's almost never happen weather-wise, so that's usually not a concern.

[spikerman]

Nope. You don't lose games if you can put up 40 points.

Defense is more about scheme than talent anyway. I loved JDR in his first season, but he's left a lot to be desired since.

They would have lost today with 40 points.

[chazoe60]

The two most prolific offenses in the history of the game (us last year and NE during the 18-1 season) scored a combined 22 points in the SB. Give me a world class defense over a world class offense any day.

[BroncoWave]

They would have lost today with 40 points.

I disagree. NE wouldn't have had as much time of possession and scoring opportunities had we gotten points instead of turnovers on a few drives, and they wouldn't have gotten to 43. Assuming we get to 40, that probably means we didn't turn it over so it changes what NE does.

[I Eat Staples]

They would have lost today with 40 points.

Haha good point, I probably should have said 50 to be safe.

But in my defense, if Peyton doesn't throw those 2 picks then that should take points away from New England and bring them below 40.

[BroncoWave]

The two most prolific offenses in the history of the game (us last year and NE during the 18-1 season) scored a combined 22 points in the SB. Give me a world class defense over a world class offense any day.

Isolated examples. You also have prolific offenses like the Colts, Saints, and Packers who have won recent Super Bowls.2012 Ravens did it in the playoffs with offense as well. It's becoming less and less common that teams win it with defense. It still happens, but it's happening more often with good offenses.

[silkamilkamonico]

Would you be willing to give up some offensive firepower to build a truly nasty defense? I'm not looking for specifics. I'm just wondering.



Truly nasty defenses are built from scheme, coaching, and culture. Not players.

[7DnBrnc53]

Isolated examples. You also have prolific offenses like the Colts, Saints, and Packers who have won recent Super Bowls.2012 Ravens did it in the playoffs with offense as well. It's becoming less and less common that teams win it with defense. It still happens, but it's happening more often with good offenses.

They won one Super Bowl each. Not really that impressive.

[spikerman]

Truly nasty defenses are built from scheme, coaching, and culture. Not players.

I hadn't really thought about that. Does Denver have that? If not, what are they missing? How do you explain what Seattle did last year with a very basic scheme?

[tripp]

Truly nasty defenses are built from scheme, coaching, and culture. Not players.

I tend to agree with this. Look no further than the team we just played today.

[I Eat Staples]

They won one Super Bowl each. Not really that impressive.

Winning a superbowl is hard. This isn't the NBA, there aren't many true dynasties in the NFL.

[Joel]

Our D's plenty good enough, and has been for a while: If you were Elway, would you trade some QB ability for a world class RB to take some pressure off him? Bearing in mind that before he was 0-3 in SBs before and 2-0 after doing that. That's what makes getting stomped by a team with NO run game and mediocre WRs so galling: I don't know what happened to that stellar rushing offense we supposedly developed over the last 2½ games, but it was sure hard to find against a bottom 10 run D missing its best DE and LB today.

MANNING DID NOT PLAY BADLY TODAY!

Sorry, but that can't be overemphasized: His second Int was right on target but popped up on a fluke play, and without that his stats and Bradys look almost identical except that Brady had 2 TDs, and Manning 100 yds, more. Why? Because Brady was in a lot of 3rd and manageables that let him extend drives, while Manning was in a lot of 3rd and longs that forced him to throw deep passes into coverage and pass rushes expecting it. Even before it got out of control, our run game was steadily stuffed with lots of backfield penetration and/or penalties pushing us into double digit 3rd down yardage.

Show me a QB—or ANY offensive player—who has a lot of success on 3rd and 15 or 4th and 6. When the offense is so one-dimensional the D knows what's coming, bad things happen.

[7DnBrnc53]

Our D's plenty good enough, and has been for a while: If you were Elway, would you trade some QB ability for a world class RB to take some pressure off him? Bearing in mind that before he was 0-3 in SBs before and 2-0 after doing that. That's what makes getting stomped by a team with NO run game and mediocre WRs so galling: I don't know what happened to that stellar rushing offense we supposedly developed over the last 2½ games, but it was sure hard to find against a bottom 10 run D missing its best DE and LB today.

MANNING DID NOT PLAY BADLY TODAY!

Sorry, but that can't be overemphasized: His second Int was right on target but popped up on a fluke play, and without that his stats and Bradys look almost identical except that Brady had 2 TDs, and Manning 100 yds, more. Why? Because Brady was in a lot of 3rd and manageables that let him extend drives, while Manning was in a lot of 3rd and longs that forced him to throw deep passes into coverage and pass rushes expecting it. Even before it got out of control, our run game was steadily stuffed with lots of backfield penetration and/or penalties pushing us into double digit 3rd down yardage.

Show me a QB—or ANY offensive player—who has a lot of success on 3rd and 15 or 4th and 6. When the offense is so one-dimensional the D knows what's coming, bad things happen.

I agree with you about Manning. The pivotal play was that bogus hold call on Cornick before Edelman's punt return TD. I have seen worse holds that weren't called. It should have been 3rd and 3 instead of 3rd and 20, and if we convert, the game is probably a lot different.

As for Brady, he picked up some galling long yardage plays tonight. I can't believe that we couldn't cover Edelman and Amendola when it counted. Those plays made me want to rip my hair out, and it showed me how stupid and clueless Del Rio is. Bring back Dennis Allen now!!!!

[Slick]

I think John has built the best team he possibly could. If Manning is your QB you build his offense and do the best you can with the defense. He's done that.

[Simple Jaded]

I would give up some of these weapons, JT specifically, to get even better on defense. Here the thing imo, you have a QB/OC/system that that can get a lot out of talented players, JT's replacement wouldn't be nearly as good but he doesn't have to be.

That being said, no way in hell I let DT and Sanders go.

[tripp]

I would give up some of these weapons, JT specifically, to get even better on defense. Here the thing imo, you have a QB/OC/system that that can get a lot out of talented players, JT's replacement wouldn't be nearly as good but he doesn't have to be.

That being said, no way in hell I let DT and Sanders go.

I think Sanders has been signed for a long deal, and DT will be a Bronco for years to come. Chris Harris needs to be signed too. But where does the defense need to improve? Aqib Talib and Chris Harris are great corners, and I think Roby has the skill set to be great too. D-Line is pretty good already. I think if anything, you upgrade on O-line. Perhaps RT?

[NightTrainLayne]

Recent trends show otherwise.

Yeah. Like last year's Super Bowl.

[Dapper Dan]

If the offense played as good as they have been, the game would have been different. There's plenty of blame to go around. The ints. Poor special teams. Maybe the only moving we should do is giving up a 7th for a kicker. Oh wait.

[BroncoWave]

Yeah. Like last year's Super Bowl.

Look at trends, not isolated games.

[Simple Jaded]

I think Sanders has been signed for a long deal, and DT will be a Bronco for years to come. Chris Harris needs to be signed too. But where does the defense need to improve? Aqib Talib and Chris Harris are great corners, and I think Roby has the skill set to be great too. D-Line is pretty good already. I think if anything, you upgrade on O-line. Perhaps RT?

Hard to argue with that, but I think to have a truly nasty Defense like Spikerman is talking about I think some pressure up the middle would help scratch that itch.

Btw, we're told that Manning knows more than we do so when he says he stunk we have to take his word for it. That 2nd int may have went off Welker's hands but the correct play was to Sanders in 1-on-1 coverage down the seem.

[tripp]

Hard to argue with that, but I think to have a truly nasty Defense like Spikerman is talking about I think some pressure up the middle would help scratch that itch.

Like others have been saying, I honestly think it's way more to do with the scheming, than it is to do with the talent of the players. Patriots are a prime example. Who would you start on the Patriots over the Broncos, defense wise. Maybe Wilfork over Wolfe/Knighton? Outside of that, who? I would take Talib over Revis. I'm not loving the play calling on defense.

[NightTrainLayne]

Look at trends, not isolated games.

I see a definite trend. We have the best offense in the league, bar none, and we get our asses whipped every time we play a really good defense.

[Simple Jaded]

Like others have been saying, I honestly think it's way more to do with the scheming, than it is to do with the talent of the players. Patriots are a prime example. Who would you start on the Patriots over the Broncos, defense wise. Maybe Wilfork over Wolfe/Knighton? Outside of that, who? I would take Talib over Revis. I'm not loving the play calling on defense.

I know routes, run plays and bubble screens, I think most are pretty nuanced when it comes to offense, but other than a zone blitz or some coverages I wouldn't know defensive playcalling even if I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last nite.

[tripp]

I know routes, run plays and bubble screens, I think most are pretty nuanced when it comes to offense, but other than a zone blitz or some coverages I wouldn't know defensive playcalling even if I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last nite.

Nah me either haha, if someone were to ask me what would you do differently, I wouldn't be able to tell them. I just didn't think we looked good at all on defense. Somehow BB can fashion an assortment of players together and make it a viable defense to stop us, yet JDR can't against the Pats. Why? Were we not aggressive enough? Did we not stick to the game plan? Are we not disguising our blitzes? :confused:

[DenBronx]

I would hire a lumberjack to chop Gronkowskis knees off.

[tripp]

I would hire a lumberjack to chop Gronkowskis knees off.

Was hoping Ward would lay him out a couple of times.

[aberdien]

I would build a well-balanced team like it looks Elway has done.

We're fine. Our defense is good, our offense is good. We just got outplayed. We aren't very good at improvising, so if the gameplan is disrupted, bad things happen.

[I Eat Staples]

I see a definite trend. We have the best offense in the league, bar none, and we get our asses whipped every time we play a really good defense.

We got our asses whipped by a team with a subpar defense.

[CrazyHorse]

Would you be willing to give up some offensive firepower to build a truly nasty defense? I'm not looking for specifics. I'm just wondering.

Nope. I'd change the coaching staff. It's a big reason why we lost today. It's not something you typically do when you have a winning team though.

[Northman]

If there was a guarantee that you could build a once in a lifetime defense than yea, i guess you could cut some offensive firepower. But, defenses like the Bears, Ravens, Bucs, and last years Hawks dont come around that often and often times (as we've already seen with this years Seattle team) they just dont last whether its the loss of coordinators, players, or injuries. Ultimately you need a good balance but when Elway and company won it was the offense that forced opponents to play from behind. Most people forget in most of Denver's games during that time we had jumped out to 14 to 21-0 leads which forced teams to abandon their gameplans and play from behind. And in turn it allowed our defense to take more risks in order to force turnovers, etc. If you are playing for just 1 championship than yea, you could trade away offensive players to try and build a really good defense. But if you are in it for the long haul and looking to have multiple championships you need to find that balance and you need to have an offense that can jump out on teams early. Technically this team should be better than last years so while this one game doesnt mean the end of the world i do wonder if the defense will have the mental fortitude to overcome early mistakes and multiple 3 and outs by the offense. For me as a fan i would much rather build a team that has the chance to win more than one championship but i dont think you can do that by scrapping the offense and going all out on just defense.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I think Sanders has been signed for a long deal, and DT will be a Bronco for years to come. Chris Harris needs to be signed too. But where does the defense need to improve? Aqib Talib and Chris Harris are great corners, and I think Roby has the skill set to be great too. D-Line is pretty good already. I think if anything, you upgrade on O-line. Perhaps RT?

Hard to argue with that, but I think to have a truly nasty Defense like Spikerman is talking about I think some pressure up the middle would help scratch that itch.

Btw, we're told that Manning knows more than we do so when he says he stunk we have to take his word for it. That 2nd int may have went off Welker's hands but the correct play was to Sanders in 1-on-1 coverage down the seem.

I just don't buy it. Welker was open and it was a pass he normally catches. Manning makes those throws all the time. Welker had time to make the catch and protect himself from the hit. That one is on Wes. The first pick was all on Manning.

[BroncoWave]

I see a definite trend. We have the best offense in the league, bar none, and we get our asses whipped every time we play a really good defense.

Yeah, not really. You're once again putting too much weight on one team, Seattle, who is just a bad matchup for us.

San Fran is #2 in the league in total defense right now and we destroyed them.

KC is #5 and we beat them as well.

Indy is #9 and NYJ are #10, once again, 2 more wins.

So that makes us 4-1 against top 10 defenses this year, averaging 29.6 ppg in those contests.

I would say all of that supports my theory of it being better to have a good offense than a good defense.

[BroncoWave]

Did you not watch the last Super Bowl played?

Do you not know what the word "trend" means?

There can be exceptions to trends when a team like Seattle comes along with a historic defense, but for the most part in recent years teams have been winning with offense. Whether it be teams with great QBs and killer offenses (Green Bay, Indy, New Orleans), or a team like Baltimore two years ago whose offense caught fire in the playoffs and carried them to a title, that has become the best way to win in today's NFL. Even those Giants teams (expecially the 2011 one) weren't as dominant defensively as people are making them out to be in hindsight. Neither of them even had a top 15 defense.

But please, continue to ignore the actual trends and pretend that one single game proves your point.

[atwater27]

Do you not know what the word "trend" means?

There can be exceptions to trends when a team like Seattle comes along with a historic defense, but for the most part in recent years teams have been winning with offense. Whether it be teams with great QBs and killer offenses (Green Bay, Indy, New Orleans), or a team like Baltimore two years ago whose offense caught fire in the playoffs and carried them to a title, that has become the best way to win in today's NFL. Even those Giants teams (expecially the 2011 one) weren't as dominant defensively as people are making them out to be in hindsight. Neither of them even had a top 15 defense.

But please, continue to ignore the actual trends and pretend that one single game proves your point.
Settle down Beavis. San Fran would have whooped us too last year. I was actually more worried about playing them then Seattle. The Pats don't exactly have the greatest D this year, but their all time great defensive minded head coach and his scheme made us look like Jacksonville. It is becoming a COMMON trend.

[BroncoWave]

Settle down Beavis. San Fran would have whooped us too last year. I was actually more worried about playing them then Seattle. The Pats don't exactly have the greatest D this year, but their all time great defensive minded head coach and his scheme made us look like Jacksonville. It is becoming a COMMON trend.

San Fran has the #2 defense in the NFL this year and we had our way with them. We matchup way better with them than with Seattle. They don't have the same type of physical corners who can shut down our WRs at the line like Seattle does.

And as for Seattle, they have been absolutely pedestrian this year. Could very easily have 4 or 5 losses at this point. These teams that win super bowls with great defenses (01 Ravens, 03 Bucs as examples) rarely sustain it for long at all. Yet these teams with great QBs and offense are contenders year after year after year.

You can ignore the trends and look at isolated examples all you want, but any smart GM (which Elway is), knows the ways of the current NFL and how you have to build to consistently win.

[atwater27]

San Fran has the #2 defense in the NFL this year and we had our way with them. We matchup way better with them than with Seattle. They don't have the same type of physical corners who can shut down our WRs at the line like Seattle does.

And as for Seattle, they have been absolutely pedestrian this year. Could very easily have 4 or 5 losses at this point. These teams that win super bowls with great defenses (01 Ravens, 03 Bucs as examples) rarely sustain it for long at all. Yet these teams with great QBs and offense are contenders year after year after year.

You can ignore the trends and look at isolated examples all you want, but any smart GM (which Elway is), knows the ways of the current NFL and how you have to build to consistently win.
Consistently win what? Not hating on Johnie E, but we haven't consistently won against the best teams. Matter of fact, we are pretty damn sorry for the talent we have. What is the point of assembling supposedly overpowering offensive talent if it is useless against the best teams?

[BroncoWave]

Consistently win what? Not hating on Johnie E, but we haven't consistently won against the best teams. Matter of fact, we are pretty damn sorry for the talent we have. What is the point of assembling supposedly overpowering offensive talent if it is useless against the best teams?

We've consistently been at the top of the AFC and have been a Super Bowl contender. As random as the playoffs are, that is all you can ask of a GM is to build a contender, which he has done. I'm sorry your expectations are so unrealistic.

[CoachChaz]

Nope. I'd change the coaching staff. It's a big reason why we lost today. It's not something you typically do when you have a winning team though.

I agree 100%. However...this staff is something that will remain in place as long as we have a prima donna QB

[HORSEPOWER 56]

There's nothing wrong with our defense. For some reason the Patsies just have our number in Foxborough. I would argue that our defense is as good if not better than KC's talent wise. They murdered the Pats at Arrowhead.

I hate the way we scheme for the Pats defensively and offensively at Foxborough. It's always been that way. We always seem to play right into their hands schematically, our players play their worst, and our coaches coach their worst. Everyone - all three facets just decides to mail it in every time we play there.

[tomjonesrocks]

There's nothing wrong with our defense. For some reason the Patsies just have our number in Foxborough.

For some reason.

[silkamilkamonico]

There's nothing wrong with our defense. For some reason the Patsies just have our number in Foxborough. I would argue that our defense is as good if not better than KC's talent wise. They murdered the Pats at Arrowhead.

I hate the way we scheme for the Pats defensively and offensively at Foxborough. It's always been that way. We always seem to play right into their hands schematically, our players play their worst, and our coaches coach their worst. Everyone - all three facets just decides to mail it in every time we play there.

I agree and people are overlloking this.

Patriots got their ass handed to them 4 weeks ago, on National televsion, and benching of their HoF QB. Belichek even had to answer questions at the press conference if they were moving away from Brady the rest of the year. That loss helped them re-focus, and re-evaluate the season. They played their way back into the AFC HFA mix and against a big game against Denver (who all they have heard about as being world beaters) - and they beat Denver up. OUr offense was frustrating last night and the kicking game leaves a lot of questions on decision making from ELway (hopefully people leave it at that and not turn it into some season changing decision that "ruins our chances", which I don't believe it does).

Our defense, however, got their ass kicked every which way and sideways. I hope this is their re-defining moment and the learning experience comes in handy during the playoffs.

[jhildebrand]

Would you be willing to give up some offensive firepower to build a truly nasty defense? I'm not looking for specifics. I'm just wondering.

Some nasty anywhere would be fine with me. I didn't read this thread but I started watching Pitt and Balt in the 3rd quarter last night and that is all I could see-A whole bunch of NASTY. That was before things got out of hand. Both D's were playing extremely fast, physical, and aggressive. The Pitt O line was nasty on some runs and passes. Leveon Bell is NASTY picking up some of the blocks he did. It honestly made me question what our team's identity is-not face of the team but what is their true identity.

I continue to see and find the Broncos to be hamstrung by Fox in big games. He goes too conservative. The first two drives were wasted in trying to 'get a feel.' Once NE scored, which is usually when we see the Broncos open things up a bit, is when the team got to playing "their game." The identity of this team should be playing their game-throwing it all over the field. Win or lose with it. Let's quit with the trying to run to control things nonsense. All Super Bowl teams to some degree dictate the terms of their games. Denver needs to start doing that.

[jhildebrand]

Nope. I'd change the coaching staff. It's a big reason why we lost today. It's not something you typically do when you have a winning team though.

I agree. I wanted to see Gase inserted as the HC at the end of last year. While they wont do it, I would be ok if they did it now. Del Rio to remain DC and see if you can't bring Allen back in some capacity. We need a younger, more aggressive and offensive minded personality running the show.

[Northman]

I agree and people are overlloking this.

Patriots got their ass handed to them 4 weeks ago, on National televsion, and benching of their HoF QB. Belichek even had to answer questions at the press conference if they were moving away from Brady the rest of the year. That loss helped them re-focus, and re-evaluate the season. They played their way back into the AFC HFA mix and against a big game against Denver (who all they have heard about as being world beaters) - and they beat Denver up. OUr offense was frustrating last night and the kicking game leaves a lot of questions on decision making from ELway (hopefully people leave it at that and not turn it into some season changing decision that "ruins our chances", which I don't believe it does).

Our defense, however, got their ass kicked every which way and sideways. I hope this is their re-defining moment and the learning experience comes in handy during the playoffs.

Maybe we should of tried to bench Peyton and put Oz in. :lol:

[Simple Jaded]

I agree 100%. However...this staff is something that will remain in place as long as we have a prima donna QB

Well then I hope this staff is in place for at least 3-4 more years.

[tripp]

Maybe we should of tried to bench Peyton and put Oz in. :lol:

Why didn't Oz come in towards the end of the 4th quarter? Wasn't sure the point of having him stay in with 4 mins left in the 4th.

[BroncoWave]

Maybe we should of tried to bench Peyton and put Oz in. :lol:

Why didn't Oz come in towards the end of the 4th quarter? Wasn't sure the point of having him stay in with 4 mins left in the 4th.

Agreed. We were just asking for a pointless injury at that point. Made no sense to me.

[Simple Jaded]

Why didn't Oz come in towards the end of the 4th quarter? Wasn't sure the point of having him stay in with 4 mins left in the 4th.

Because John Fox was being aggressive?

[NightTrainLayne]

Yeah, not really. You're once again putting too much weight on one team, Seattle, who is just a bad matchup for us.

San Fran is #2 in the league in total defense right now and we destroyed them.

KC is #5 and we beat them as well.

Indy is #9 and NYJ are #10, once again, 2 more wins.

So that makes us 4-1 against top 10 defenses this year, averaging 29.6 ppg in those contests.

I would say all of that supports my theory of it being better to have a good offense than a good defense.

You're putting too much weight on total yardage rankings through half of a season. You talk about trends, and then make your argument aboutone team over 8 weeks of one NFL season. That, my friend, is not a reliable "trend". Had I bet you last night that the final score would have been 43-21 with Manning throwing for well over 300 yards and two TD's, you would have said, "no way". Heck, I would have said "no way". But I would have done so based on the same trend you're hocking here.

My degree's in Finance, so you'll have to indulge me for a second while I go to an analogy from the Finance sector.

You don't have time to, but a whole book was written on this topic: This Time is Different - Eight Centuries of Financial Folly (http://www.reinhartandrogoff.com/)

The basic premise is this: Every time you turn around there is some new statistical anomaly that shows "this time is different". In the case of the Financial markets, it usually boils down to a belief permeating the markets that this time there is no downside. We've got it all figured out, and this time we've elimited the the downside risk, and this market can only go up.

Inevitably, this always, in the end, leads to conditions that precipitate a crash.

You've shown a few years that you believe show a "trend" toward defense essentially not mattering. This time is different.

Maybe you're right. I'm not really old yet like Dread, but I've been around long enough to see a lot of really prolific offenses, and developments on the offensive side of the ball and rules in the NFL leading to more and more scoring. But every time I start to think that it's different now, and that you can win without defense. .. . I get proven wrong. My first real disappointment goes back to the run-and-shoot offenses of the late 80's early 90's. I've seen this notion before.

Maybe you're right. Maybe it is different this time. I won't hold my breath.

[Joel]

Well, the thing about that long term trend is the NFL self-correct virtually every year to maintain the parity that makes for entertaining (read: Profitable) games. Every time offense OR defense gets too overpowering the owners restore equilibrium over the next few Competition Committee meetings. The ovefall trend is toward more offense, but not necessarily more decisive nor overpowering offense.

Remember, it was only a decade ago people talked about Tampa 2 like it was some novel impenetrable forcefield rather than something that had been around for decades. Or consider the return of the 3-4 that had become almost nonexistent by the mid-eighties, remembered now as the power running era despite being perceived then as an era of "explosive, unprecedented passing." Which it was—then. Just as the owners adapt the rules to restore parity, defenses and offenses adapt to each other; that's how the pass spawned zones and blitzes, which in turn spawned floods, crosses and screens.

The perpetual ebb and flow of that "static dynamism" is a big part of what makes football so fascinating and such a quintessential modern sport: It CAN'T be mastered, because even if some genius with too much free time did manage to solve it, that would only GUARANTEE a rules change to "unsolve" it again. It's like a Rubiks cube; once solved, it must be mixed up again before it can be solved again.

As far as the RECENT trend: Six of the last eight SB teams and ALL four winners had great defenses; we must go back half a decade to Manning vs. Brees before finding a SB without one (and even then, the Saints head-hunters were very good that year, and beat one of the all-time great offenses when it yet again forgot to bring a D to the postseason.) Before that, another great (head-hunting) D won, then the Giants great D ruined a perfect season for the (then) best offense ever (even though they had an elite D, too, so yet again both SB teams had first rate defenses.) Mannings defenseless Colts beat the Bears great D in '06, but that was nearly a decade ago.

The trend is stark, and only more so since all the strait-jacketing defensives rules of the past 5 years or so. Remember last years pre-SB stat about how the #1 offense has only reached the SB 4 times in 48 seasons, and only WON it ONCE? 2% is pretty long odds.