Shula also deserves some credit for our stout D.

[Chimera]

Lol you think this is an anamoly.

Pretty much any informed person who follows football understands that TOP is a byproduct stat that can be caused by many different things, it can be caused by a team that plays good offense, like the Saints are right now, a team that likes to run the ball a lot, like the 2-4 Texans (though a lot of this is also due to high percentage passing, despite the horrid turnovers), or, in our case, simply outclassing opponents that aren't playing good football in any phase of the game.

It's not something you specifically aim to achieve but the end result of a myriad of different efficiency aspects. If you think Bill Belichick makes it the no.1 priority goal for his team before they walk out of the tunnel you're pretty much useless in this debate.

we don't have wes welker, randy moss, gronk, ahern, brady, manning, harrison, etc

we have a 34 year old steve smith, brandon lafell, ted ginn jr, and greg olsen. we are not going into games expecting to move the ball primarily with 8-12 yard passes.

you mention the 2006 colts. they had a few blowouts that year (some look like respectable scores because the other teams scored in garbage time) but they also had a number of close games.

now, let's say you are an opposing coach. how would a team keep it close to have a shot at winning?

A) trying to score quickly and putting manning back on the field

B) taking 9 minutes per possession and keeping manning on the sideline

C) do the mike martz thing and use the same gameplan no matter who you face

D) none of the above (explain)

[frash.exe]

Gee, I'm sorry we don't have playmakers at receiver

 

somebody should've told Brady the same thing last week because then the Pats wouldn't have beaten the Saints

 

Also I don't think a formula's been established to beat Manning the way he's playing right now

[CelticCat]

What the fug are you even talking about? I'm talking about how stupid people sound taking a basic concept and summing up the whole fuging game in a nutshell. Thanks for making that point, I feel much better about the idea that we should cut all of our offensive talent and just call dive plays on offense while we spend all of our money on defense, I mean that's where it starts and ends right? I know that because Joe Namath mentioned it on Monday Night Football while I poo my huggies in my father's lap in 1986.

 

Question, is anybody in this thread actually serious about analyzing football or are you guys just here to parrot broad football clichés that you first heard when you were 2 years old?

You ask me what the fug I'm talking about and then post this nonsense. Nobody is suggesting to cut anybody or just call dive play, that's just plain retarded.

 

I think most people would agree that the best teams are balanced teams, you need both a productive O and D.

 

I don't think its a good idea to be building your roster strictly leaning to one particular side.

 

But are you telling me the Bucs, Pitt, Ravens, NE and GB didn't have great defenses when they won the SB? Even those that weren't statistically great stepped up and made the plays in the big game defensively. NO picked off Manning to win, The Colts picked off Cutler to win (Peyton threw 1 TD pass that game) the Ravens stopped SF on a goal line stand to win last year, the first time around they were the #1 D, Pitt had like the #1 D and #3 D when they won. The 3 SB's the Pats won, their D was ranked 6th, 1st (against us) and 2nd. The Bucs had the #1 D. Packers had the #2 D. Even the Giants who weren't great statistacally had a great Dline to pressure Brady, they were like his nemesis. No other team was built to beat NE like the Giants were.

 

The cliché Defense wins championships carries a lot of merit. Hell, the years we got to NFCCG's we had good D's (2nd, 10th and 5th).

[CelticCat]

Um, Indy was bottom ten in TOP in 2006. So how strong exactly is a rule that has recently had a 30% failure rate, at least?

 

 My apologies, I clicked on the wrong year by accident. They were ranked 20th in TOP, however they still had a positive TOP.

 

I did say there were exceptions to the rule and it was just a good barometer, I stand by that.

 

Just look at the teams with winning records right now and their TOP's, and were only 5 games in.

[frash.exe]

You ask me what the fug I'm talking about and then post this nonsense. Nobody is suggesting to cut anybody or just call dive play, that's just plain retarded.

 

I think most people would agree that the best teams are balanced teams, you need both a productive O and D.

 

I don't think its a good idea to be building your roster strictly leaning to one particular side.

 

But are you telling me the Bucs, Pitt, Ravens, NE and GB didn't have great defenses when they won the SB? Even those that weren't statistically great stepped up and made the plays in the big game defensively. NO picked off Manning to win, The Colts picked off Cutler to win (Peyton threw 1 TD pass that game) the Ravens stopped SF on a goal line stand to win last year, the first time around they were the #1 D, Pitt had like the #1 D and #3 D when they won. The 3 SB's the Pats won, their D was ranked 6th, 1st (against us) and 2nd. The Bucs had the #1 D. Packers had the #2 D. Even the Giants who weren't great statistacally had a great Dline to pressure Brady, they were like his nemesis. No other team was built to beat NE like the Giants were.

 

The cliché Defense wins championships carries a lot of merit. Hell, the years we got to NFCCG's we had good D's (2nd, 10th and 5th).

 

Keep summing up every superbowl to one defensive play, and keep cherry picking stats to try and prove a point, but understand that anybody that has a clue can obviously tell that you have no idea what you're talking about. You completely ignore offensive accomplishments in the superbowl like Drew Brees' 82% completion rate or Joe Flacco's 3 touchdown passes in the last one, while chest thumping about defensive plays that would've been moot if it weren't for the offense's ability to put points on the board.

 

But, by all means, continue commentating. Tell me more about the Indy defense shutting down Rex Cutler

[CelticCat]

Keep summing up every superbowl to one defensive play, and keep cherry picking stats to try and prove a point, but understand that anybody that has a clue can obviously tell that you have no idea what you're talking about. You completely ignore offensive accomplishments in the superbowl like Drew Brees' 82% completion rate or Joe Flacco's 3 touchdown passes in the last one, while chest thumping about defensive plays that would've been moot if it weren't for the offense's ability to put points on the board.

 

But, by all means, continue commentating. Tell me more about the Indy defense shutting down Rex Cutler

 

LOL, Cutler. The point being it was Indys D that stepped up. Rex threw for 160 odd yards and had 2 picks. Peyton didn't have one of his usual dominating performances, he threw for 250 yards with 1 TD and 1 pick. It turned into a kicking contest and Haydens 56 yard INT return that sealed the win.

 

Look, nobody is suggesting Brees didn't have a part in winning the SB. But that game was decided by Tracy Porters INT of Peyton. He was stymied again with only 1 TD and 1 INT in that game too.

 

If you still have a problem with people saying Defense wins championships after all the recent winners I listed with very highly ranked Ds I don't know what to tell you.

 

There will always be exceptions, but the majority had good D's. Its fair to say D wins Championships. That doesn't mean go out and sign Rex Grossman or Blaine Gabbert.

[Chimera]

LOL, Cutler. The point being it was Indys D that stepped up. Rex threw for 160 odd yards and had 2 picks. Peyton didn't have one of his usual dominating performances, he threw for 250 yards with 1 TD and 1 pick. It turned into a kicking contest and Haydens 56 yard INT return that sealed the win.

Look, nobody is suggesting Brees didn't have a part in winning the SB. But that game was decided by Tracy Porters INT of Peyton. He was stymied again with only 1 TD and 1 INT in that game too.

If you still have a problem with people saying Defense wins championships after all the recent winners I listed with very highly ranked Ds I don't know what to tell you.

There will always be exceptions, but the majority had good D's. Its fair to say D wins Championships. That doesn't mean go out and sign Rex Grossman or Blaine Gabbert.

you're arguing with a mule, bro

"defense wins championships" obviously means you want to play defense every snap of the game.

you can only think in terms of polar extremes on the huddle

[MadHatter]

Um, Indy was bottom ten in TOP in 2006. So how strong exactly is a rule that has recently had a 30% failure rate, at least?

I wasn't going to fact-check this but Madhatter cosigned your post and seeing as how I'd be surprised if he could tie his shoes I couldn't help

Hahahaha....you are a funny little man. Don't worry, the world has a special place for you. As you know, we need ditch diggers too.

[MadHatter]

you're arguing with a mule, bro

"defense wins championships" obviously means you want to play defense every snap of the game.

you can only think in terms of polar extremes on the huddle

Agreed.

Because the avg huddler to join in the past couple of years has the intelligence of a 3rd grader whose parents repeatedly dropped them on their heads and the football acumen of a pre-pubescent 12yo little girl. They think Madden has solid correlation to real football.

Sad really.

[MadHatter]

LOL, Cutler. The point being it was Indys D that stepped up. Rex threw for 160 odd yards and had 2 picks. Peyton didn't have one of his usual dominating performances, he threw for 250 yards with 1 TD and 1 pick. It turned into a kicking contest and Haydens 56 yard INT return that sealed the win.

Look, nobody is suggesting Brees didn't have a part in winning the SB. But that game was decided by Tracy Porters INT of Peyton. He was stymied again with only 1 TD and 1 INT in that game too.

If you still have a problem with people saying Defense wins championships after all the recent winners I listed with very highly ranked Ds I don't know what to tell you.

There will always be exceptions, but the majority had good D's. Its fair to say D wins Championships. That doesn't mean go out and sign Rex Grossman or Blaine Gabbert.

Agree.

Peyton and the high octane Infy offense and Brees and the high scoring Saints offense both had struggles in the playoffs until the year one particular thing happened.....their defense showed up.

The year the Cokts won the SB their defense played out if their minds in the playoffs.

The year the Saints won was the year if the bounty and when their defense showed up.

The Madden generation has no idea what defense is.

[Growl]

Lol Indy had like the worst defense in the league the year they won the super bowl. saying "but they stepped it up when it counted!" is a glorious, pathetic example of a cop out.

 

 

"Guys guys guys, it's alright if the offense isn't putting up lots of points and we don't make it to the super bowl, when the NFL elects to send us instead of the winning teams, we will ground and pound and defense in that game and win! yeah! real football! ground and pound and pound and ground! GROUND POUND HEEERRRRFFF"

[frash.exe]

You guys are funny when people shoot down your little belief systems with facts

"Lalalalala I'm not listening you are madden playing garbage men lalalalalala "

[frash.exe]

LOL, Cutler. The point being it was Indys D that stepped up. Rex threw for 160 odd yards and had 2 picks. Peyton didn't have one of his usual dominating performances, he threw for 250 yards with 1 TD and 1 pick. It turned into a kicking contest and Haydens 56 yard INT return that sealed the win.

Look, nobody is suggesting Brees didn't have a part in winning the SB. But that game was decided by Tracy Porters INT of Peyton. He was stymied again with only 1 TD and 1 INT in that game too.

If you still have a problem with people saying Defense wins championships after all the recent winners I listed with very highly ranked Ds I don't know what to tell you.

There will always be exceptions, but the majority had good D's. Its fair to say D wins Championships. That doesn't mean go out and sign Rex Grossman or Blaine Gabbert.

...the majority of Super Bowl winners also had good offenses. The success rate (to wit, Super Bowl) as a matter of fact is as consistent with good offenses as it is with good defenses. You probably didn't know that though since you get all your opinions from espn pundits.

[frash.exe]

Agree.

Peyton and the high octane Infy offense and Brees and the high scoring Saints offense both had struggles in the playoffs until the year one particular thing happened.....their defense showed up.

The year the Cokts won the SB their defense played out if their minds in the playoffs.

The year the Saints won was the year if the bounty and when their defense showed up.

The Madden generation has no idea what defense is.

The saints were dead in the middle of the league in defensive efficiency in 2009 (and the colts were right there with them that year) and the colts were bottom ten in 2006.

Seeing Drew Brees and Peyton Manning in he same Super Bowl a few years ago should've made the little light bulb in your head go off to put to rest these misconceptions but you're old so take some ginkgo balboa and get with the program ebenezer