Would you rather... #1 offense, or #1 defense?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Short answer: #1 D.

    One thing I think is overlooked is how much harder it is to field an historic #1 Defense in 2013/4 than it is to field an historic #1 Offense.

    People talk about the '85 Bears and say we'll never equal them. What goes unsaid is that the 85 Bears could crush a receiver coming over the middle, pancake a back, and take down a QB without worrying about slapping his helmet, or otherwise contacting his head, neck, knees or ankles. In 2013/4, receivers look for--and often get--a holding/PI flag on every play. It's become a big soccer game out there.

    We have overcome this, and being the most penalized team in the NFL, to field an historic defense. I mean, does anybody really respect how difficult it is for an offense to CONSTANTLY lean on its defense in a year; even more so when flag-happy officials are eager to penalize us and give opposing teams one fresh set of downs after another?

    To the point of offense, it's no secret that teams are passing--and completing--more throws since the onset of these new pass-friendly rules. What Peyton Manning and the Broncos have done deserves real credit, but not without the disclaimer that it only happened AFTER it became virtually illegal to play a physical style of defense. Peyton was great before this, but only achieved legendary status once the league was softened up to start protecting QBs and the passing game. That hardly seems fair given the physicality and catch-at-all-costs style of play you see with guys like Wes Welker--he'll run headfirst into a wall or assassinate Aqib Talib, but blow him up and expect a drive-extending penalty.

    It would be one thing if we happened to be the best D this year, but we are in the conversation for best defenses of all time--and may have won best secondary of all time. Does anyone appreciate how difficult it is to become historic on defense nowadays? And while it's still historic to break offensive records, that was bound to happen as the rules evolved. In short, it's harder to be an historic D than it is to be an historic O, and that's why I'll take the D.

    One other thing in our favor: in the playoffs, officials have been calling very loose games. I recall John Clayton saying there were only 7 PI calls combined so far. I believe they will be even more sensitive to that, given what happened with the Seahawks-Steelers Superbowl. So in addition to losing home field (as do we) and the major altitude advantage, one more very important competitive advantage that the Broncos will lose THEIR "12th Man"--officials happy to throw a flag and extend drives.

    Again, when the #1 O loses home field, altitude, and the officials--plus all the other qualifications--I'll take the #1 D any day.
    User avatar
    NET Rookie
    Posts: 238
    Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 5:33 pm

  • Well said. I think it would be best to have the #1 defense, coupled with the #2 offense. That would be a team!!!
    NET Practice Squad
    Posts: 81
    Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:46 pm

  • Norcalhawklover wrote:Well said. I think it would be best to have the #1 defense, coupled with the #2 offense. That would be a team!!!

    That might be us next year. If Harvin is healthy and we keep Rice this offense can be downright nasty next year.

    "Jed York does not own the 49ers; Russell Wilson does"
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2779
    Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:40 am

  • If the question is no.1 offense with Denver's D or the no.1 defense with the Hawks offense then I'd take the no.1 defense every time.
    User avatar
    el capitan
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:48 am

  • #1 defense

    Easier to win on the road with a good defense
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2027
    Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:31 pm

  • #8 offense vs #22 defense all day
    Adopt A Rookie: Nick Vannett, TE - Ohio State University
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 8846
    Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
    Location: WA

  • Norcalhawklover wrote:Well said. I think it would be best to have the #1 defense, coupled with the #2 offense. That would be a team!!!

    Why not #1 on both sides of the ball
    User avatar
    -The Glove-
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 7901
    Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am

  • Image

    For real though, defense. Remember the great '07 Pats? The '02 Raiders? The '98 Vikings? The '11 Packers? How'd all that high power offense work out for them?
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 3108
    Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:36 am
    Location: PNW

It is currently Tue May 22, 2018 2:16 am

Please REGISTER to become a member


  • Who is online