Quote:
|
Originally Posted by whoman69
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.