Here's a "What If" question.
 

If were to combine our offense in the past few seasons with our defense in '95, would we be the best NFL team of all time? Would the 85 Bears or 72 Dolphins be able to handle us?

Your thoughts.

i think we would have screwed it up somehow.

/honesty

Best ever? Dunno. Darn near unstoppable? Yes.

Not just because we'd be scoring 30 points and allowing 15, but because - as we saw in the 2003 season - opposing teams play even worse when they're down by three touchdowns.

Not if Marty is coaching. You could hand him the best offense of all time and he'd still do his damnedest to keep the opposition in the game with his conservative play not to lose bs.

I have to agree with the Keg man. He would go prevent defense in the last quarter and we would lose the game.

Hell, he'd go prevent offense in the 3rd qtr.

As long as Hank Stram was the head coach.

The key question here is, who's our kicker?


Aw, who am I kidding? It wouldn't matter. The kick will always be wide or out of bounds or it'll hit a seagull or something.

http://espn.starwave.com/i/magazine/...di_trophy3.jpg

about 7-8 of these.

Since the kicker is technically part of the defense, our kicker would be the unnamed one with the cold sensitive feet.

I have a theory that there is a balance to offense and defense. Historically the best defenses have had a porous defense, ie Cardiac Cardinals, Air Coryell and our squads of the last few years. The best defenses, the Shufflin' Crew, Purple People Eaters, Steel Curtain all had ball control low scoring offenses. I believe it has to do with time of possession. The best offenses score quickly and keep their D on the field to get tired quickly. The best defenses are aided by a great running game that keeps them off the field.

There's something to that, but I think it has more to do with the focus when the teams are built. I don't believe a strong offense can really hurt a solid defense, and vice versa. For instance, a strong defense that scores quickly might hurt a mediocre to bad unit and make them appear historically poor (i.e. us...), but in a similar situation, I don't think that same offense would make an average to good defense look bad, because a defense with any sort of talent would have the ability to help get itself off the field.

In other words, I think it's a matter of personnel and salary distribution. Our defense was bad because of the players, not because the offense scores too fast.

I think the key to consistent winning now that the salary cap has been established and teams have settled into it (I don't really count the mid- to late-90s, that was the learning curve) is/will be the Patriots (and to a lesser degree the Eagles) gameplan, where you don't really emphasize either side of the ball. Rather you focus on building a balanced squad that may not excel at any single thing, but at the same time is strong enough in all areas that it's hard to find an obvious weakness to exploit. It's not an easy thing, because I think successful drafting is more important now than ever, if you want to win for a long period, rather than a short 'window'.

Just some philosophical ramblings.

I thought the 85 Bears had a good offense.

Their top receiver besides Peyton with 49 was their TE Emory Moorehead with 35 and deep threat Willie Gault with 33. The did lead the NFC with 456 points but the defense returned 4 INTs for TDs, and were set up with a short field by 34 INTs and 20 fumble recoveries. The whole offense was Walter Peyton and a deep stable of backs who ran for 2700 yards and 27 TDs.

Even the worst teams of today are better than the best teams of the 70s and 80s. All the athletes are twice as strong and twice as fast, and the teams are now extemely well prepaired. Back in the day, the NFL was kida like a part time gig, and players sat around and ate steak during the offseason. Yeah, they played for the love of the game, but they weren't nearly as good of athletes.