I never argued he was average.
Rubbish - go ahead and list the teams considered perennial SB contenders and you'll find a lot of great offenses and QB's. You can disagree, but to say the position is rubbish is a poor reflection upon yourself.
Considering that you routinely dismiss my stances with nothing to back them up, and are far more incorrect than I am, I'm going to place you on ignore as you offer nothing substantive or even humorous.
Goodbye.
Perennial doesn't mean guaranteed.
The Steelers, Packers have had great offenses and are considered perennial contenders. Luck had the Colts considered as a contender for several years before he was hurt.
Here's the irony: Point to stud offenses and QBs with one ring all you want and then find me a dominate defense with more than one - then find one that has several years of contention and compare it to those great offenses and count up the contending years. If the response is well a lot of those Qb's only have one ring, so what? You get more bites at the apple. If the response is well those teams sometimes had good balance, note that I'm not saying you ignore an entire side of the ball.
They havent' been known as a defensive for years. Announcers bring that up literally every single time they're on national television.
Ben has been up and down in SB's. But they're an offensive team the past several years and listed as a perennial contender. Just like the Packers.
And if we want to go with a balanced team, your preference is defense with a solid offense. Mine is an offense with a solid defense, and that looks better this year with these rules. To your Patriot example, they've been offensive based teams with solid (at times) defenses.
Good talk.
To be completely fair.... as perennial contenders, what was the last SB they made and was that back when you would contend they were a defensive minded team?
Sorry man, you can’t convince me. Aside from a Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, etc the only way to be consistently competitive is to build and maintain a strong defense.
Where are these defensive contending teams?
Last SB you had a shootout, and one team even had a strong defense.
Two SB's ago you had two dominant offenses.
Three years ago you had two great defenses. We won, yay!
The last defense that was truly dominant to win was ours. We fell off a cliff. Seattle was huge for NFL history just by getting to two...and they still ended up losing. To an offensive based team. Yeah, you can say well it's Brady, but it's also the brand of football.
Even when you have two defensive teams you see big points totals - The Ravens and Niners SB was 34-31. I see far more consistent contention from the offensive teams than I do the defensive ones.
The Broncos contended for one year with a great defense. All time great. Same with the Ravens of 2000, Bears of 1985. Seahawks are the only team I can think of who answers that question in today’s NFL. They had a five year run with a championship and top 5 defenses.
Name me the other top 5 defensive teams that maintained 10 years of solid playoff appearances. Don’t say the Steelers. They’ve had two Top 5 defenses in the last 10 years. The constant there is Roethlisberger (6 playoff appearances). Patriots haven’t had a top 5 defense in more than 10 seasons.
Defense does matter. I don’t think you can just suck and win shootouts for years on end. The Saints are that example, but their defense has been bottom 5. If they’re middle of the road, their run with Brees is remarkably better.
You have to have a quarterback. You cannot sustain success without the quarterback.
Im in full agreement with Mo and Kinger. We can quote cliches, but only top of their era defenses win championships. Just look at super bowl winners since the 80s. The bears, the ravens, the broncos and to a certain degree the Bucs ....other than them. All super bowl winners had very solid offenses.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)