Best Formula for Winning?

**12jg34** · 02-17-2009, 02:14 PM

What is the best formula for winning in the NFL?

I think the best formula is a great defense and an average to slightly above average offense (with an average to above average QB)

When the Pats won three Super Bowls, they won them all with efficient offenses and great defenses. The one time that they deviated from this strategy--in '07, when they had a superb offense, but above avg D--they didn't win the Super Bowl. (Granted, they were in the Super Bowl.)

You can also look to the Steelers' two Super Bowl wins from this decade. Both times they had a great defense and merely an average offense.

Now, I know people are going to chime in that there is no one way to win a Super Bowl. Many different ways work (superb offense-ok defense; both slightly above average offense and defense). I want to know what is the best way to win consistently in the NFL.

Because I recognize that the categories are a bit unclear, pick one of these:

A. Outstanding Offense-Average Defense
B. Outstanding Defense-Average Offense
C. Slightly Above Average Defense and Offense.

**Jeremiah W** · 02-17-2009, 02:22 PM

I think you have to be great in one phase if you are average in the other 2, or be good at all 3 to be a contender every year. Indy has been the most consistant contender, but only won the year the D stepped up. The Ravens have not won quite as much but have been close with a great D, solid special teams and suspect offense.

Beause of all the extra attention (and money) offensive players get, I think it is easier to build and maintain a great defense, and as long as you have decent to good Qb to go with it, you can win it all any time you stay fairly healthy.

**the_scarecrow3** · 02-17-2009, 03:07 PM

I think that the Denver Broncos proved this year that a bad defense trumps a good offense more often then not. If you look at the Super Bowl winners since 2000, the only one who had a poor/less than average defense is arguably the St Louis Rams of 2000. At the time, the Greatest Show on Turf, didn't need a defense because they outscore anyone. They were obviously the exception to the rule.

I think a consistent and game changing defense is necessary, but at the same time I think a consistent and game changing quarterback is more important. Think of all the years the Ravens were out in the wilderness with a fierce defense and no QB. In my opinion, that's the most important thing that the superbowl winners since 2000 and even earlier have in common. Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Manning, Warner....Dilfer? Hey, say what you want, I think getting rid of Dilfer was the worst thing we've done as a franchise. He wasn't flashy. He wasn't even THAT good. But he was fairly consistent.

Any team that has a consistent QB and a better than average defense is going to contend in this league for a long time, and that's why every year The Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Giants, and Chargers are usually in the discussion for making a Super Bowl run before the season even starts.

**wickedsolo** · 02-17-2009, 03:14 PM

Defense will win you championships. If they can't score, they can't win.

That being said, you need an offense that can make plays. A well balanced attack from both sides of the ball is ideal, but realistically a stout defense and an average offense can win you a championship, or at least get you to the playoffs.

High flying offenses will not always win you championships, but they will sell tickets.

**Dave Lap** · 02-17-2009, 06:31 PM

It doesn't matter which is better the offense or defense. You just need to be able to outscore the opponent.

**festivus** · 02-17-2009, 08:18 PM

In a copycat league, the best formula is the one used by the winner of the previous year's Super Bowl.

Or, in other words, what you need to win the Super Bowl is (a) a favorable match up against the winner of the other conference's champ, and (b) solid execution for sixty minutes. Sometimes you can substitute (1) good luck or (2) favorable officiating for one or both of (a) or (b).

You can't invent the categories first and start mashing SB winners into them afterward as if it makes the categories legitimate. How do you categorize the Pats SB winners?

When the Pats won three Super Bowls, they won them all with efficient offenses and great defenses. The one time that they deviated from this strategy--in '07, when they had a superb offense, but above avg D--they didn't win the Super Bowl. (Granted, they were in the Super Bowl.)

Really? Because it looked to me like the Pats always had a good offense, but in 07 they lacked a solid ground attack, so you could make the case that the year they lost the SB it was because their offense was the weakest it had been, notwithstanding their high scoring air attack.

So.... Welcome to the off season, anyway. Here we go. :)

**RAVENOUS52** · 02-17-2009, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

I think you have to be great in one phase if you are average in the other 2, or be good at all 3 to be a contender every year. Indy has been the most consistant contender, but only won the year the D stepped up. The Ravens have not won quite as much but have been close with a great D, solid special teams and suspect offense.

Beause of all the extra attention (and money) offensive players get, I think it is easier to build and maintain a great defense, and as long as you have decent to good Qb to go with it, you can win it all any time you stay fairly healthy.

I disagree with that assessment. We haven't been close since we won it, until this year. We've had a Super Bowl-caliber defense for 10 years and have failed to capitalize on it with a semi-decent offense.

Like I said in another thread, we picked up Steve McNair about two years too late.

**Jeremiah W** · 02-17-2009, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by RAVENOUS52

I disagree with that assessment. We haven't been close since we won it, until this year. We've had a Super Bowl-caliber defense for 10 years and have failed to capitalize on it with a semi-decent offense.

Like I said in another thread, we picked up Steve McNair about two years too late.

I think this year and the McNair year along with the Dilfer year showed how close the team has always been as long as the Qb does not blow it or injury does not decimate the team.

**RAVENOUS52** · 02-17-2009, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jeremiah W

I think this year and the McNair year along with the Dilfer year showed how close the team has always been as long as the Qb does not blow it or injury does not decimate the team.

Look at the folks we've had behind center for the last 10 years (including an over-the-hill McNair) and re-evaluate what you just said.

Names like Wright (aka "Radio"), Redman, Boller and Grbac:grbac: have helmed our offense during that period, giving us virtually no chance of winning anything other than the occassional division title. Looking back in hindsight, I now understand why we've been in the rear-view mirror of teams like the Patriots and Stoolers for most of the past decade in regards to seriously challenging for, or winning another Lombardi, even though our defense has played at a championship level through that entire period.