Quote:
Originally Posted by BumpNRun
2008 NYG (W) (dominant D) vs NE
2007 IND (W) vs Chi (Dominant D)
2006 PIT (W) (dominant D) vs Sea
2005 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Phi
2004 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Carolina
2003 TAM (W) (dominant D) vs Oak
2002 NE (W) (dominant D) vs STL
2001 BAL (W) (dominant D) vs NYG
2000 STL (w) vs Titans (dominant D)
1999 DEN (W) vs Falcons (dominant D)
3 out of the last 10 where offense wins... so u tell me... if I go further back , the numbers look even worse in the case of your argument...
Numbers dont lie.
|
Only two of these teams, Baltimore and Tampa Bay, had only above average offense and relied more on their defense. New england and Pittsburgh both had dominant offenses. New England not so much the first year they won.
However, you don't find any teams whose defense was only above average and whose offense was dominant. Indy was that way during the '06 regular season, but their defense was dominant in the playoffs.
Most teams win by being better than their opponent on both sides of the ball. As evidenced by the blowouts in most Superbowls. And all dynasties are that way, the Packers of the 60s, the Steelers of the 70s, the 9ers of the 80s, the Boys of the 90s and the Pats of late.
Now, after saying all that, it basically comes down to one question, if you could have one side of the ball be dominant and the other be just above average, what would you do?
Well, you and I would go with dominant defense and above average offense.