Which would you rather have?

[Ozzy]

Last year with one of the best defenses of all time we would of gone 8-8 at best without RW. His ability to avoid pressure last year won us more than a handful of games. I love defense as much as anyone but give me an Elite QB every time. I've seen a few monster defenses not make the playoffs. A top 3 QB doesn't miss all that often. Not sure either answer is wrong though.

 

[Threedee]

1992 Seahawks are a strong argument for QB. One of the better defenses we've ever seen, and the offense could never come through.

 

[Anonymous]

I believe the more accurate phrase about defense was coined years ago by Chris Berman, when he said that to win on the road in the playoffs, you better pack your defense. I think that from that the defensive mantra has evolved, but it being the end-all-be-all, no.

I'd rather have an offense that can score at will, and a defense that simply has a good chance.

There is no better defense, than a good offense.

 

[LymonHawk]

In the SB our defense, literally, scored more than the 'Greatest Offense of All Time.'

1992 was an anomaly.

 

[jblaze]

Elite defense. I'd take 11 great players over 1 great QB anyday. If 1 guy has a bad day on defense, not a big deal. if you elite QB has a bad day, you have no chance.

It has a lot to do with mentality and identity as well. There's nothing better than getting the tone set and smacking people in the mouth on defense. When people start making "business decisions", you've already won.

 

[volsunghawk]

Defense wins championships.

Nuff said

if that's the case then why didn't 2006 Bears or the 2000 Titans win the SB? The Colts won in 2006 and Rams did in 2000 but Chicago and Tennessee had better defenses respectively. How about 2011 Packers beating the Steelers? Saints beating the Colts in 2007? Sure, top defenses do win championships but so do teams that have HOF QBs.

2000 Titans = The 2000 Ravens defense was even better

2006 Bears = The 2006 Colts were a different animal in the postseason. They stepped it up defensively and embraced running the ball. Look at Manning's performances in the 2006 playoffs... nothing to write home about.

You mentioned the Rams in 2000, but I guess you're talking about the 1999 season teams there. The 1999 Titans were nothing to speak of on defense (meanwhile, the Rams had that amazing high-powered offense... but they also had a top 10 defense - 4th in points allowed and 6th in yards).

The 2010 Packers team that beat the Steelers in the SB were ranked 2nd in points allowed and 5th in yards allowed on defense.

The Saints beating the Colts in the SB that followed the 2009 season? Yeah, that Saints team was a bottom third of the league team on defense. The Colts were a better defensive team in that game (though not by much). And yet, what was the play that sealed that game for the Saints? Right, a pick six.

If you have to be a team that has an elite defense with a solid QB or one that has an elite QB with a solid defense, you'll find much more support for the team with the elite defense winning championships. Tom Brady's an elite QB and has been for a long while now. He's lost to a team with a better defense and worse QB twice in the SB, and hasn't won a SB since the Pats defense fell out of its top 10 ranking.

 

[SnoCoHawk]

It's been great having a historically great defense but I'd like to try having an elite quarterback and receivers for a while, too. Then I can decide which is preferable.

 

[MidwestHawker]

Teams with elite QBs are always in some sort of playoff contention unless the elite QB gets hurt.

Teams with elite defenses can still be the 1992 Seahawks.

 

[kearly]

Sometimes a great offense is difficult to recognize. The Seahawks have had a top 10 offense each of the last three years by DVOA, in fact they were #1 in 2012.

I guess I would rather have a great defense, because an elite defense is easier to recognize. And they are also scarcer right now, which gives good defensive teams a competitive advantage. There's also the stat about #1 defenses dominating in the Super Bowl whereas #1 offenses are iffy.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

The Patriots won Super Bowls by having both.

Ever since they lost the defense part, they haven't been able to get past the Giants.(!)

 

[NINEster]

88% of all SB were won with a Top QB. only 12% have been won without a TOP WB but with a top Defense. So QB.

Simms, Williams,Stabler, Theismann, McMahon, Flacco, Dilfer, Rypien, Hostetler, and Brad Johnson were all TOP QBs?

How many of them are in the HOF?

Another of your facts?

Simms was very good for his day. 22/25 in a 1986 Super Bowl? 88% completion percentage is unheard of in any era.

Theismann also good.

Doug Williams was a one hit wonder but was part of a 35 (?) point 2nd quarter.

McMahon sucked, but it's possible the '85 Bears could have won with anyone at QB.

Flacco is not elite but good enough with the right pieces (you might as well put Wilson's name on this list if you wanna go down this route...just sayin)

Dilfer -- see McMahon.

Rypien -- Decent enough. Had 3 very good WRs and a sick power run game.

Hostetler -- A one hit wonder who could do no wrong in the 1990 NFC Championship game.

Brad Johnson -- see Dilfer.

Really, this "TOP QB" thing is 2003 and newer, which is not so coincidental with rule changes inspired by Polian to help Peytonicus. If you look at the list from 2003-2014, it's far more QB-centric than any other period in NFL history.

The Colts/Bears QB had it been played in 2001, the Bears might have had a better shot.

The 2011 49ers would have easily cruised to a SB victory in another era, no question.

You still have to want an elite defense and here's why:

Even those late '90s/early '00s 49er teams......really good offenses......deep down, Niner fans knew we'd contend but legit SB contender was always a bit of a question mark. Now these newer Niner teams with a less cohesive offense but strong defense has gotten the team to 3 consecutive NFC Championships.

If I had the evil power to manipulate the Seahawks right now, I'd make the defense even weaker than it is now at the expense of offense.

 

[Rat]

The Patriots won Super Bowls by having both.

Ever since they lost the cheating* part, they haven't been able to get past the Giants.(!)

Fixed.

 

[scutterhawk]

I'd prefer a fast, smart D, a Running 0 with a Beast of a running back and an extremely smart and fast QB.
I'd prefer that.

Welp, that's whatchyagot.
It's how Pete's been designing it.
Ball control, smash ya in the mouth Offense, and get after your ass Defense= pretty darned good system.
RW is a perfect fit for the formula that Pete has dreamed up for us fans.

 

[TheRealDTM]

Give me Luck and I don't care who else is on the team.

 

[LymonHawk]

88% of all SB were won with a Top QB. only 12% have been won without a TOP WB but with a top Defense. So QB.

Simms, Williams,Stabler, Theismann, McMahon, Flacco, Dilfer, Rypien, Hostetler, and Brad Johnson were all TOP QBs?

How many of them are in the HOF?

Another of your facts?

Simms was very good for his day. 22/25 in a 1986 Super Bowl? 88% completion percentage is unheard of in any era.

Theismann also good.

Doug Williams was a one hit wonder but was part of a 35 (?) point 2nd quarter.

McMahon sucked, but it's possible the '85 Bears could have won with anyone at QB.

Flacco is not elite but good enough with the right pieces (you might as well put Wilson's name on this list if you wanna go down this route...just sayin)

Dilfer -- see McMahon.

Rypien -- Decent enough. Had 3 very good WRs and a sick power run game.

Hostetler -- A one hit wonder who could do no wrong in the 1990 NFC Championship game.

Brad Johnson -- see Dilfer.

Really, this "TOP QB" thing is 2003 and newer, which is not so coincidental with rule changes inspired by Polian to help Peytonicus. If you look at the list from 2003-2014, it's far more QB-centric than any other period in NFL history.

The Colts/Bears QB had it been played in 2001, the Bears might have had a better shot.

The 2011 49ers would have easily cruised to a SB victory in another era, no question.

You still have to want an elite defense and here's why:

Even those late '90s/early '00s 49er teams......really good offenses......deep down, Niner fans knew we'd contend but legit SB contender was always a bit of a question mark. Now these newer Niner teams with a less cohesive offense but strong defense has gotten the team to 3 consecutive NFC Championships.

If I had the evil power to manipulate the Seahawks right now, I'd make the defense even weaker than it is now at the expense of offense.

What part of "88% of all SB were won with a Top QB." did you not understand? You want to make up your own rules? LOL!

 

[LymonHawk]

Last year with one of the best defenses of all time we would of gone 8-8 at best without RW. His ability to avoid pressure last year won us more than a handful of games. I love defense as much as anyone but give me an Elite QB every time. I've seen a few monster defenses not make the playoffs. A top 3 QB doesn't miss all that often. Not sure either answer is wrong though.

Without Sherman making 'the tip' we never get to the SB.....so there.

 

[AgentDib]

Take a look at the relative Simple Ranking System (SRS) of Superbowl Champions since 1970. SRS typically ranges from -10 (very bad) to +10 (legendary) with 0 SRS normalized to the league average every year.

The result is clear; you need good play on both sides of the ball to win championships. Since 1970 no winner has had either an offense or a defense below -2.0 SRS.



Five teams have won with barely below average defenses. The 1970 Baltimore Colts (-0.5 DSRS), 1998 Denver Broncos (-0.6), 2006 Indianapolis Colts (-1.1), 2009 New Orleans Saints (-0.5) and 2011 New York Giants (-1.5). Only two teams have won with slightly below average offenses. The 1987 Indianapolis Colts (-1.3 OSRS) and 2002 Buccaneers (-1.0).