Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    You can't take one sample and use it to generalize and label. Have offenses been much more efficient in the past 6-7 years, especially the past 2-3? Yes. Rule changes probably have had some effect, but a lot of it is that quarterbacks are getting better and better, offenses are evolving, and execution is at a much higher level.

    While I would agree that scoring a lot of points helps your chances to win, it'd be silly to entirely dismiss defense altogether, and simply say it's an 'offensive era'. As evidenced in the AFCCG, playing solid defense (or not, for that matter) can have a huge effect on the outcome of the game. Baltimore played incredibly good defense, and our offense sputtered. To put full blame on Brady and the offense, and completely disregard the fact that the Ravens were actually fielding a defense is a bit short-sited in my opinion. But that's neither here nor there.

    Back to the topic... are offenses performing better as of late? Yes. But that doesn't mean that defense is irrelevant or completely useless when building a winning football team. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    You can't take one sample and use it to generalize and label. Have offenses been much more efficient in the past 6-7 years, especially the past 2-3? Yes. Rule changes probably have had some effect, but a lot of it is that quarterbacks are getting better and better, offenses are evolving, and execution is at a much higher level.

    While I would agree that scoring a lot of points helps your chances to win, it'd be silly to entirely dismiss defense altogether, and simply say it's an 'offensive era'. As evidenced in the AFCCG, playing solid defense (or not, for that matter) can have a huge effect on the outcome of the game. Baltimore played incredibly good defense, and our offense sputtered. To put full blame on Brady and the offense, and completely disregard the fact that the Ravens were actually fielding a defense is a bit short-sited in my opinion. But that's neither here nor there.

    Back to the topic... are offenses performing better as of late? Yes. But that doesn't mean that defense is irrelevant or completely useless when building a winning football team. 

     



    I am not dissmissing D, I am saying the league has changed.  I have been attacked on this board for literally 3 years for saying it, simply pointing to a weak offense of our own in the postseason as to why we're losing SBs.

     

    Meanwhile, a small group have run around here making excuses for our own offense's failures, which actually have been the root cause of the playoff losses, not the D.

    The Ravens won because Flacco>Kaepernick.  Brady has always been WORSE than the other QB in each of our bad playoff losses.  The Washers here were quick to see our own D was so abysmal and be referencing points allowed, etc, even if our own QB or offense would turn it over, sometimes multiple times.

    As you can see, when SF turned it over last night, multiple times, it affected their own D.

    Not so fantastic with a bad offense for an entire half and turnovers, huh? Imagine if our D gave up 21 points in the first half in a SB?

    The Washers would have BB strung up here, thread after thread.

    ____________________________________

     

    I don't think it's fair to say that the Ravens won simply because Flacco performed better than Kaepernick. Normally (and this has been the case since football started) the team whose QB performs better tends to win. That doesn't mean that this is suddenly an offensive-driven league, or that other factors have no affect.

     

    I could argue that the Ravens won because Jacoby Jones returned that kick for a TD. 

    Again, I think you're generalizing too much. It's still football; it's still a team game. The Ravens had to get a late defensive stop, they needed a KR TD, they needed some great plays by Boldin and co.

    Are offenses better? Definitely. But I disagree with you when you say, "As you can see, it's an offensive QB era, with offenses winning championships... offense is still the way to a SB." 


    Playing good team-football and executing across the board is the key to a Super Bowl. As always, scoring a lot of points helps, but so does playing good defense. Back in '03/'04, New England won the SB by a score of 32-29, and in '11/'12, they lost 21-17. Offenses are performing better, but football is still football. Execute well, play hard, and make key-plays, and you'll win.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    You can't take one sample and use it to generalize and label. Have offenses been much more efficient in the past 6-7 years, especially the past 2-3? Yes. Rule changes probably have had some effect, but a lot of it is that quarterbacks are getting better and better, offenses are evolving, and execution is at a much higher level.

    While I would agree that scoring a lot of points helps your chances to win, it'd be silly to entirely dismiss defense altogether, and simply say it's an 'offensive era'. As evidenced in the AFCCG, playing solid defense (or not, for that matter) can have a huge effect on the outcome of the game. Baltimore played incredibly good defense, and our offense sputtered. To put full blame on Brady and the offense, and completely disregard the fact that the Ravens were actually fielding a defense is a bit short-sited in my opinion. But that's neither here nor there.

    Back to the topic... are offenses performing better as of late? Yes. But that doesn't mean that defense is irrelevant or completely useless when building a winning football team. 

     



    I am not dissmissing D, I am saying the league has changed.  I have been attacked on this board for literally 3 years for saying it, simply pointing to a weak offense of our own in the postseason as to why we're losing SBs.

     

    Meanwhile, a small group have run around here making excuses for our own offense's failures, which actually have been the root cause of the playoff losses, not the D.

    The Ravens won because Flacco>Kaepernick.  Brady has always been WORSE than the other QB in each of our bad playoff losses.  The Washers here were quick to see our own D was so abysmal and be referencing points allowed, etc, even if our own QB or offense would turn it over, sometimes multiple times.

    As you can see, when SF turned it over last night, multiple times, it affected their own D.

    Not so fantastic with a bad offense for an entire half and turnovers, huh? Imagine if our D gave up 21 points in the first half in a SB?

    The Washers would have BB strung up here, thread after thread.

     




    Did you watch the game?

    Despite all the offensive play, it was a 13 possession game not an 8 possession game,

    which generally means more scoring.

    I don't care for either QB but they did play well.

    Still, it DID come down to one final defensive stop by an old, tired, and injured RAVENS DEFENSE, to win that game.

    Without that one goal line stand, all Flacco's and his offenses efforts (((((while holding on to a slim lead))))))) would have failed.  Sound familiar?

    Too bad the Pats didn't have such a D in 06, 07, 10, 11, 12.

    Defense wins championships!

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    You can't take one sample and use it to generalize and label. Have offenses been much more efficient in the past 6-7 years, especially the past 2-3? Yes. Rule changes probably have had some effect, but a lot of it is that quarterbacks are getting better and better, offenses are evolving, and execution is at a much higher level.

    While I would agree that scoring a lot of points helps your chances to win, it'd be silly to entirely dismiss defense altogether, and simply say it's an 'offensive era'. As evidenced in the AFCCG, playing solid defense (or not, for that matter) can have a huge effect on the outcome of the game. Baltimore played incredibly good defense, and our offense sputtered. To put full blame on Brady and the offense, and completely disregard the fact that the Ravens were actually fielding a defense is a bit short-sited in my opinion. But that's neither here nor there.

    Back to the topic... are offenses performing better as of late? Yes. But that doesn't mean that defense is irrelevant or completely useless when building a winning football team. 

     



    I am not dissmissing D, I am saying the league has changed.  I have been attacked on this board for literally 3 years for saying it, simply pointing to a weak offense of our own in the postseason as to why we're losing SBs.

     

    Meanwhile, a small group have run around here making excuses for our own offense's failures, which actually have been the root cause of the playoff losses, not the D.

    The Ravens won because Flacco>Kaepernick.  Brady has always been WORSE than the other QB in each of our bad playoff losses.  The Washers here were quick to see our own D was so abysmal and be referencing points allowed, etc, even if our own QB or offense would turn it over, sometimes multiple times.

    As you can see, when SF turned it over last night, multiple times, it affected their own D.

    Not so fantastic with a bad offense for an entire half and turnovers, huh? Imagine if our D gave up 21 points in the first half in a SB?

    The Washers would have BB strung up here, thread after thread.

     

     




    Did you watch the game?

     

    Despite all the offensive play, it was a 13 possession game not an 8 possession game,

    which generally means more scoring.

    I don't care for either QB but they did play well.

    Still, it DID come down to one final defensive stop by an old, tired, and injured RAVENS DEFENSE, to win that game.

    Without that one goal line stand, all Flacco's and his offenses efforts (((((while holding on to a slim lead))))))) would have failed.  Sound familiar?

    Too bad the Pats didn't have such a D in 06, 07, 10, 11, 12.

    Defense wins championships!



    Not sure this is too fair either. A great offense doesn't guarantee championships, nor does a great defense. Normally defense tends to perform better in the postseason, as players tend to get more nervous, more tight, and this throws off the timing and execution of the offense moreso than it does to a defense. 

    All that said, it takes a village. If the Patriots offense had performed better in the '07/'08 SB, they probably win that game. The offense really, really struggled and failed to adjust to a unique defensive scheme by the Giants (credit to them for getting creative).

    The '09/'10 loss to the Ravens was just a catostrophe all-around. Soft-defense, out-of-synch offense sans Welker. 

    Similar situation is '10/'11 in the loss to the Jets, although less excuses than the former year.

    The '11/'12 SB loss... the offense could have been better, no doubt, but the defense didn't do them any favors. I think I'd tend to blame the defense more for that loss.

    But to bring this all together, it really is a team game. As I've mentioned above, offenses are executing better than they were 10 years ago, but that's not to say it's strictly and offensively driven game. On the flip side of that, great defenses don't do you too much either. If that held true, Seattle or San Fran would have won the Super Bowl.

    It comes down to execution, being well-prepared, mental-toughness, and ultimately making a play when you have to in order to win. Saying offense or defense (exclusively) wins SBs is rather short-sited IMO.

    I hope Prolate shows up later and shares his thoughts. He tends to articulate these points very well (better than I ever could), and I love reading his posts. 

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    You can't take one sample and use it to generalize and label. Have offenses been much more efficient in the past 6-7 years, especially the past 2-3? Yes. Rule changes probably have had some effect, but a lot of it is that quarterbacks are getting better and better, offenses are evolving, and execution is at a much higher level.

    While I would agree that scoring a lot of points helps your chances to win, it'd be silly to entirely dismiss defense altogether, and simply say it's an 'offensive era'. As evidenced in the AFCCG, playing solid defense (or not, for that matter) can have a huge effect on the outcome of the game. Baltimore played incredibly good defense, and our offense sputtered. To put full blame on Brady and the offense, and completely disregard the fact that the Ravens were actually fielding a defense is a bit short-sited in my opinion. But that's neither here nor there.

    Back to the topic... are offenses performing better as of late? Yes. But that doesn't mean that defense is irrelevant or completely useless when building a winning football team. 

     



    I am not dissmissing D, I am saying the league has changed.  I have been attacked on this board for literally 3 years for saying it, simply pointing to a weak offense of our own in the postseason as to why we're losing SBs.

     

    Meanwhile, a small group have run around here making excuses for our own offense's failures, which actually have been the root cause of the playoff losses, not the D.

    The Ravens won because Flacco>Kaepernick.  Brady has always been WORSE than the other QB in each of our bad playoff losses.  The Washers here were quick to see our own D was so abysmal and be referencing points allowed, etc, even if our own QB or offense would turn it over, sometimes multiple times.

    As you can see, when SF turned it over last night, multiple times, it affected their own D.

    Not so fantastic with a bad offense for an entire half and turnovers, huh? Imagine if our D gave up 21 points in the first half in a SB?

    The Washers would have BB strung up here, thread after thread.

    ____________________________________

     

    I don't think it's fair to say that the Ravens won simply because Flacco performed better than Kaepernick. Normally (and this has been the case since football started) the team whose QB performs better tends to win. That doesn't mean that this is suddenly an offensive-driven league, or that other factors have no affect.

     

    I could argue that the Ravens won because Jacoby Jones returned that kick for a TD. 

    Again, I think you're generalizing too much. It's still football; it's still a team game. The Ravens had to get a late defensive stop, they needed a KR TD, they needed some great plays by Boldin and co.

    Are offenses better? Definitely. But I disagree with you when you say, "As you can see, it's an offensive QB era, with offenses winning championships... offense is still the way to a SB." 


    Playing good team-football and executing across the board is the key to a Super Bowl. As always, scoring a lot of points helps, but so does playing good defense. Back in '03/'04, New England won the SB by a score of 32-29, and in '11/'12, they lost 21-17. Offenses are performing better, but football is still football. Execute well, play hard, and make key-plays, and you'll win.

     

     




    Disagree. You're playing semantics.  When the 3rd downs were there, goal line/red zone plays;, which QB performed better?

     

    Flacco.

    He also didn't throw an INT like Kaepernick.  Flacco>Kaepernick. That's how fine a line these games can be.  It's literally the 1-2 or 3 plays where one QB makes better decisons than the other.

    Offensive league, QB league.

    The D is nothing more than the entity that becomes attrition. D's are on the field longer, have more rules against them, etc.

     



    Flacco had a rough 2nd half. He didn't turn the ball over (which was huge), but besides that, he (and the Ravens offense) really struggled. 

     

    I agree that when QBs make better decisions and when they play well, their team tends to perform better. But this has been true for many, many years. 

    I would argue that you're looking at this in too one-dimensional of a way. Defenses still inhabit the field, and QB's bad-decision(s) can be influenced by those opposing him. It's not like they're back there playing 7-on-7. Generally a better defense forces more poor decisions. 

    Did Flacco outperform Kaepernick? Yes, but it isn't as wide of a gap as you seem to think. Barring the INT from Kaep, I'd argue that he had a better game. 

    Having a good QB helps you win games. Having a good offense helps you win games. Having a good defense helps you win games. Having good special-teams helps you win games. Having a good coach helps you win games. Executing helps you win games. 

    The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

    Again, are offenses executing better? Yes. Is it partially a result of rule-changes? Probably. But I'm not convinced that this is an offensively driven league any more than it's a defensively driven league, or a coach driven league, etc. 

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    As if the power outage didn't pull momentum from Balt? Come on. That game would have been like a 42-13 game without the power outage.

    Flacco clearly outplayed Kaepernick.  Balt took away his pistol and they isolated him by the 2nd qtr.

    The power outage gave them like 30 minutes to step back and adjust, let alone whatever adjustments they were going to make at halftime.

     

     



    So because they adjusted at halftime and during the outage, any subsequent success Kaepernick had should be disregarded? Or because San Francisco had time to relax and breathe during the outage, any subsequent success on their part, or subsequent failures of Baltimore, should be disregarded? 

     

    I guess I don't get your point. Did the delay work to San Fran's advantage? It would appear that way. But that doesn't mean that none of their 2nd-half play should count. It is what it is. 

    Kaepernick had a GREAT 2nd-half, much better than Flacco's. He failed when it mattered the most, and his 1st-half left a lot to be desired, but he still played rather well. Flacco gets the edge, but a massive gap in QB performance didn't exist, nor does it explain the outcome of the game.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from dreighver. Show dreighver's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    As if the power outage didn't pull momentum from Balt? Come on. That game would have been like a 42-13 game without the power outage.

    Flacco clearly outplayed Kaepernick.  Balt took away his pistol and they isolated him by the 2nd qtr.

    The power outage gave them like 30 minutes to step back and adjust, let alone whatever adjustments they were going to make at halftime.

    You'd argue he had a better game? What?  Maybe if he wasn't so abysmal at the beginning and end, you could argue that.  Please, dude.

    Again, you're making my point for me. QB in the NFL is literally about the handful of plays you make or don't make.

     

     

    That last sentence... when has that ever been untrue? That hasn't suddenly become a reality in the last few years. That's how football has always been, regardless of what position you play. 

    QBs tend to have the most noticable impact on the game because they handle the ball so often, and therefore they make more impactful decisions than most other players. This has always been true, and hasn't occurred in the past few years. 

    The TEAM who plays better wins. When your QB plays better, your team plays better. But to say that the QB who plays better will always win in this day and age is off-base IMO.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    LOL

    As you can see, it's an offensive QB era, with offenses winning championships.  Besides what appeared to be offciaiting heavily favoring Baltimore at every turn, replete with false starts, ref pushing, grabbing and holding SF receivers, offense is still the way to a SB.

    All we hear is how great SF and Balt's Ds are, but note how quiet the Washers are now.

    The D battling and waiting around for a FG, a TD, anything in last year's SB as NE's held to 13 points is all on our offense, not our defense.

     



    So did the Giants offense win them the Super Bowl last year or was it their defence?

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    As usual junior is out to lunch spewing a goofball analysis even a child could see through.

    The facts are the Ravens averaged .33 points per drive more than the Pats did in last year's SB. That comes up to less than a FG over the course of the Pats' game. This is the "big" offensive difference junior shouts from the rooftops about. Pitiful.

    So if Welker can catch the ball Brady hit him with the offensive efficiencies are pretty much equal.

     

    Junior gets bludgeoned again. It sucks to be junior.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    As if the power outage didn't pull momentum from Balt? Come on. That game would have been like a 42-13 game without the power outage.

     


    Do you just make this nonsense up? Or do "the voices" tell you these things?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam757. Show jam757's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    It does seem like Baltimore would have won going away without the power outage. Curious to think if anyone believes the Pats would have had a chance in this game against SF? While SF played poorly in the first half the final outcome still left me wondering if the Pats would have had what it takes to come out on top against that team. It seems like that would have been a better match up for the Niners.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    im telling ya rusty, people are morons. last night said it all...its an offensive league, and ours has choked in the playoffs.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to jam757's comment:

    It does seem like Baltimore would have won going away without the power outage. Curious to think if anyone believes the Pats would have had a chance in this game against SF? While SF played poorly in the first half the final outcome still left me wondering if the Pats would have had what it takes to come out on top against that team. It seems like that would have been a better match up for the Niners.




    It is doubtful we would have beat SF if our D gave up as many points per drive as they did against the Giants last year. That would have led to 31 points for the 9ers.

    With our offense running poorly and receivers getting no separation plus dropping passes it is unlikely Brady's skills alone could have put up more points than that.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to pezz4pats's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to dreighver's comment:

     

    You can't take one sample and use it to generalize and label. Have offenses been much more efficient in the past 6-7 years, especially the past 2-3? Yes. Rule changes probably have had some effect, but a lot of it is that quarterbacks are getting better and better, offenses are evolving, and execution is at a much higher level.

    While I would agree that scoring a lot of points helps your chances to win, it'd be silly to entirely dismiss defense altogether, and simply say it's an 'offensive era'. As evidenced in the AFCCG, playing solid defense (or not, for that matter) can have a huge effect on the outcome of the game. Baltimore played incredibly good defense, and our offense sputtered. To put full blame on Brady and the offense, and completely disregard the fact that the Ravens were actually fielding a defense is a bit short-sited in my opinion. But that's neither here nor there.

    Back to the topic... are offenses performing better as of late? Yes. But that doesn't mean that defense is irrelevant or completely useless when building a winning football team. 

     



    I am not dissmissing D, I am saying the league has changed.  I have been attacked on this board for literally 3 years for saying it, simply pointing to a weak offense of our own in the postseason as to why we're losing SBs.

     

    Meanwhile, a small group have run around here making excuses for our own offense's failures, which actually have been the root cause of the playoff losses, not the D.

    The Ravens won because Flacco>Kaepernick.  Brady has always been WORSE than the other QB in each of our bad playoff losses.  The Washers here were quick to see our own D was so abysmal and be referencing points allowed, etc, even if our own QB or offense would turn it over, sometimes multiple times.

    As you can see, when SF turned it over last night, multiple times, it affected their own D.

    Not so fantastic with a bad offense for an entire half and turnovers, huh? Imagine if our D gave up 21 points in the first half in a SB?

    The Washers would have BB strung up here, thread after thread.

     

     




    Did you watch the game?

     

    Despite all the offensive play, it was a 13 possession game not an 8 possession game,

    which generally means more scoring.

    I don't care for either QB but they did play well.

    Still, it DID come down to one final defensive stop by an old, tired, and injured RAVENS DEFENSE, to win that game.

    Without that one goal line stand, all Flacco's and his offenses efforts (((((while holding on to a slim lead))))))) would have failed.  Sound familiar?

    Too bad the Pats didn't have such a D in 06, 07, 10, 11, 12.

    Defense wins championships!




    no, it doesnt sound familiar.....if brady played as well as flacco did in that game in the playoffs of recent memory, the pats would have 5, maybe even 6 rings right now. he hasnt, so they dont.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    im telling ya rusty, people are morons. last night said it all...its an offensive league, and ours has choked in the playoffs.




    Nice self description Rusty Clone.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxfan94. Show redsoxfan94's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

     

    im telling ya rusty, people are morons. last night said it all...its an offensive league, and ours has choked in the playoffs.

     




    Nice self description Rusty Clone.

     



    saw this one coming a mile away. nice rebuttle babe, as always...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    To funny Rusty.  This game was EXACTLY like the Pats recent playoff failures.  Offense starts out fast and then fades in the second half BUT they still have a lead.  All they need is that ONE defensive stand by the D.   Balt got it and won the Super Bowl, NE did not and they lost 2 Super Bowls.

    Can you imagine if the Pats only scored 6 points (2 FG) the whole second half of the Super Bowl???  You would be all over them.  Difference here is the Balt D saved Flacco's butt.  To bad NE D coudlnt make one stop when it really mattered....

     

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Remember When People Raved About SF and Balt's D?

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to redsoxfan94's comment:

     

    im telling ya rusty, people are morons. last night said it all...its an offensive league, and ours has choked in the playoffs.

     




    Nice self description Rusty Clone.

     

     



    saw this one coming a mile away. nice rebuttle babe, as always...

     




    What's to rebut? Your spewing nonsense with no factual bakup Rusty Clone?

     

Share