rich4eagle Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 You mean Defense ALWAYS wins championship. Of course this clueless bandwagon Stooler fagboy wouldn't know that because he doesn't know shit about football. A f*cking 6 year old on a peewee team has more knowledge than Retarded4Skin. Yup, just ask Belicheat....... Matt Light- 2nd rounder Logan Mankins- 1st rounder Nate Solder- 1st rounder Sebastian Vollmer- 2nd rounder Hmm two first rounders and two 2nd rounders on a 5 man Oline. I take it you're back on the Pats bandwagon again this week like you were for half of last year? Oh well, at least do some research before running your herpes infested cock holster Stooler boy. You son have no clue obviously what has happened the last 12 years but your are indeed great at pissing in the wind into my expertise..............................any time anywhere ..let me take all your money away........first off which one of these picks of the great Patriots was top of the draft like the ten we had in the last ten years.......................the Patriots draft 31 or 32 we draft 1 thru 5 and now can we score 6 points against a patheitc team...................keep defending stupid.............. you see it is about taking the best player available at the time unless you have an overwhelming need.......................meanwhile we have stank everywhere and kept taking OL guys to make it better..........................and that is documented and I do expect what I just said went over your head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I made it up, but I challenge you to discredit that we have paid more for OL guys the last 11 years and still stank There is no doubt that the Browns have had some stinko OLs in the past and if they were paid a farthing they were probably overpaid....but with the likes of Thomas, Mack, and Steinbach I can't say they have not performed up to their pay grade. And there may be some other current OL that aren't performing up to their pay grade. One of the big problems right now is that Steinbach isn't in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 SMART GMs don't risk getting their meal ticket franchise quarterbacks pulverized behind suspect o-lines either. Go look up the qb sacks\ knockdowns stats- it's a fair indicator of a teams record. Rothlisberger may not last the year the way he's getting creamed, because outside of Pouncey, their o-line got neglected. BTW, if your premise were true Rich, those winning genius GM wouldn't be wasting high picks on offensive linemen regardless- they'd be praying they could get lucky like the Colts did when they landed Jeff Saturday as an UFA, and drafting even more skilled position players. We ruined Couch getting him killed behind a suspect o-line. Ask Sam Bradford how he likes going out there and getting beat up every Sunday because his o-line sucks. And Rothlisberger was the LAST piece of the puzzle, as Gipper said. Unless Rich is referring to Bradshaw, who's lucky he didn't get paralyzed when Turkey Jones gave him a WWF piledriver into the turf. Green Bay had the luxury of sitting Rodgers behind Farve for years- that's a rarity in today's NFL. The Saints picked up Brees as the last piece of the puzzle too, IIRC. Troy Aikman had his career shortened by the concussions he took his first couple years in Dallas because his line couldn't protect him. And the chain is as strong as it's weakest link. Teams aren't going to bother testing Joe Thomas or Alex Mack- why should they? Any defensive coordinator with half a brain is going to attack Pinkston, Lauvao, and Pashos. I rewatched the game, and I don't think I saw the Browns o-line give McCoy a classic Peyton Manning bulletproof pocket once. So you just said the Steelers players of three and winners of two of the last five Super Bowls eat siht becuase they focused on other than the OLINE thznks your wisdom is astute Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 You clearly never read Dan Rooneys book the secret to winning in the NFL............and you obviously never understood Paul Browns "greatest show in football the Cleveland Browns dominationg for more than a decade................but you suck the manure you are fed.......................while Belichcik laughs and says keep sucking stupid so we can win...........and you beturass the Steelers formula has always been field stretchers on offense lead by a franchise QB and disrupters on D ...........................and then having the OL filled in. I don't care what they wrote....I care what they did.....and maybe in fact the formula you suggest was followed by the Browns in the 50s and the Steelers of the 70s ....but it was NOT followed by the Steelers of the 2000s. The 2000s Steelers plugged in the QB as the very last piece. That you cannot deny. And, yes, sure....I want a franchise QB here and I want the field stretchers....and I think it is now time to go out and get them. However, if we had to follow the 2000s Ravens route and go first with the dominant defense and the dominant running game (which the 2005 Steelers also used for their title), I will be happy with that as well. If we have a Trent Dilfer at QB or a Trent Dilfer II (i.e. BR circa 2005) and we win or challenge for a title...that is fine with me. You see....I don't really give a shit what the formula is. You and Ghoolie seem to be stuck on the formula. I'll take any formula that brings Ws. Right now, this team is trying to follow the 80s 49ers formula. If it works, fine. If not, go to the Ravens formula, or to the old Browns and Steelers formula, or the Packers formula. In the words of Tommy Lee Jones: "I don't care". But we are Brownstown focused on Dawgs and OLs and losing Actually, only you and the Ghool seem to be focusing on them. The "Dawg" BS can go as far as I am concerned. The OL can consist of your Granny and the Grateful Dead for all I care, as long as they block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 not sure on your babbling but only one team won the Bowl on Defense the 2000 Ravens............................but focus on that and be committed to losing to reality.......................OFFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake24 Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Like we talked about before game 1....we knew we didnt have playmakers and we knew we would have one of the worst offenses. Look at the top 10 or so teams...they all have playmakers on their team Whats more amazing is that more than half of our board members don't acknowledge this. Rich you are right, but at the same time, Why get your hopes up man? only to get your heart ripped out. We will still be a boring slow team until we draft or sign playmakers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 not sure on your babbling but only one team won the Bowl on Defense the 2000 Ravens............................but focus on that and be committed to losing to reality.......................OFFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS I don't know what league you have been watching the last decade or so, but in addition to the 2000 Ravens, the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs followed the same model, the 2005 Steelers followed the same model, and to a great extent the 2008 NY Giants also followed that formula. Yes, the Pats, Saints, Colts, and to an extent the 2008 Steelers were offensive juggernauts....but by no means has that been the only path to championship success. These teams with monster defenses...and quite frankly, mediocre offenses won Super Bowls. Sure, I want the offensive juggernauts....but beggars can't be choosers and I will take the defensive killers if that is all there is to take. Were you not watching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 not sure on your babbling but only one team won the Bowl on Defense the 2000 Ravens............................but focus on that and be committed to losing to reality.......................OFFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS OK yinzer. Let's give you the reins of the Cleveland Browns right here, right now. What are YOU going to do beginning November 2011 to make this team the offensive juggernaut you want it to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I don't know what league you have been watching the last decade or so, but in addition to the 2000 Ravens, the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs followed the same model, the 2005 Steelers followed the same model, and to a great extent the 2008 NY Giants also followed that formula. Yes, the Pats, Saints, Colts, and to an extent the 2008 Steelers were offensive juggernauts....but by no means has that been the only path to championship success. These teams with monster defenses...and quite frankly, mediocre offenses won Super Bowls. Sure, I want the offensive juggernauts....but beggars can't be choosers and I will take the defensive killers if that is all there is to take. Were you not watching? I dont know what you league you have been watching but what team won the Super Bowl with OL making tds and or the defense kiilling offense right now average score for winning team is 31 points ....................s.o much for the defense wins stupidity and OH yeah NO ! greatest pick ever Joe Thomas never played in a playoff game so much for dime a dozen OL guys] and BTW the Big Ben with NO OL has been in three super bowls and won two smoke that up your crack pipe ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I dont know what you league you have been watching but what team won the Super Bowl with OL making tds and or the defense kiilling offense right now average score for winning team is 31 points ....................s.o much for the defense wins stupidity and OH yeah NO ! greatest pick ever Joe Thomas never played in a playoff game so much for dime a dozen OL guys] and BTW the Big Ben with NO OL has been in three super bowls and won two smoke that up your crack pipe ' Obviously since you ignored my point you agreed with it. There have been several teams with mediocre offenses and great defenses that have won the title. There are no ifs and or buts about it and if you disagree you are fricking nuts. And yea, Big Ben with a questionable offensive line at times has won a couple and been to another SB. My point exactly. Mediocre offense....outf**kingstanding defense. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Defensive and Offensive rankings of recent Super Bowl winners: 2000 Ravens Offense rank: 16, Defense rank: 1 2002 Bucs Offense rank: 24, Defense rank: 1 2003 Pats Offense rank: 17, Defense rank: 1 2004 Pats Offense rank: 7, Defense rank: 2 2005 Steelers Offense rank: 15, Defense rank: 4 2006 Colts Offense rank: 2, Defense rank: 23 2007 Giants Offense rank: 16, Defense rank: 7 2008 Steelers Offense rank: 22, Defense Rank: 1 2009 Saints Offense rank: 1, Defense rank: 20 2010 Packers Offense rank: 10, Defense rank: 5 Also, 2010 Steelers SB losers: Offense rank: 14, Defense rank: 2 Thus, having a mediocre offense and an outstanding defense gives a team a title much more frequently than the other way around. The Saints and Colts were far more the abberation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Defensive and Offensive rankings of recent Super Bowl winners: 2000 Ravens Offense rank: 16, Defense rank: 1 2002 Bucs Offense rank: 24, Defense rank: 1 2003 Pats Offense rank: 17, Defense rank: 1 2004 Pats Offense rank: 7, Defense rank: 2 2005 Steelers Offense rank: 15, Defense rank: 4 2006 Colts Offense rank: 2, Defense rank: 23 2007 Giants Offense rank: 16, Defense rank: 7 2008 Steelers Offense rank: 22, Defense Rank: 1 2009 Saints Offense rank: 1, Defense rank: 20 2010 Packers Offense rank: 10, Defense rank: 5 Also, 2010 Steelers SB losers: Offense rank: 14, Defense rank: 2 Thus, having a mediocre offense and an outstanding defense gives a team a title much more frequently than the other way around. The Saints and Colts were far more the abberation. Sp what is your point that having defense that collapses in the Super Bowls wins a tomato Bottom line the Super Bowl winning team has an average point total of 31..........................and that says defense is not a winner but offense is...............................but keep spewiing useless stats without facts to support the numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdl15 Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Sp what is your point that having defense that collapses in the Super Bowls wins a tomato Bottom line the Super Bowl winning team has an average point total of 31..........................and that says defense is not a winner but offense is...............................but keep spewiing useless stats without facts to support the numbers i hate being proven wrong too... Great defense give mediocre offenses more chances to score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CantonLegend Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 not again man... do you guys have any substance to offer in these threads? we all know the WRs stink. we all know the QB isnt a future hall of famer. we all know running the ball isnt our team anymore the line is the most important part of a team but football is the purest TEAM sport in the entire world and 5 guys up front cant win it by themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CantonLegend Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Defensive and Offensive rankings of recent Super Bowl winners: 2000 Ravens Offense rank: 16, Defense rank: 1 2002 Bucs Offense rank: 24, Defense rank: 1 2003 Pats Offense rank: 17, Defense rank: 1 2004 Pats Offense rank: 7, Defense rank: 2 2005 Steelers Offense rank: 15, Defense rank: 4 2006 Colts Offense rank: 2, Defense rank: 23 2007 Giants Offense rank: 16, Defense rank: 7 2008 Steelers Offense rank: 22, Defense Rank: 1 2009 Saints Offense rank: 1, Defense rank: 20 2010 Packers Offense rank: 10, Defense rank: 5 Also, 2010 Steelers SB losers: Offense rank: 14, Defense rank: 2 Thus, having a mediocre offense and an outstanding defense gives a team a title much more frequently than the other way around. The Saints and Colts were far more the abberation. the saints defense was actually pretty good and the stats dont show that. they scored so often that the defense spent a ton of time on the field. the colts defense was better than the stats said too. freeney, mathis, bob sanders, antoine bethea, gary brackett etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowburn Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Mostly just through here. While I live in Tn, I have never met Ghoolie, and have met Rich once, but mostly through the boards and playing fantasy sports together. Tailgates are interesting...in the end it's all good. We don't stand around pointing fingers at people calling them idiots if that's what you mean. We shake hands, slap backs, and share a few hours together having a good time. Hope to attend my first browns board tailgate jam next month for rams game. lookin forward to sharing shots of Makers Mark with some of you crazy guys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 I knew either ghoolie or his henchman, rich4eagle, started this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bringbackbrownie2 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Sp what is your point that having defense that collapses in the Super Bowls wins a tomato Bottom line the Super Bowl winning team has an average point total of 31..........................and that says defense is not a winner but offense is...............................but keep spewiing useless stats without facts to support the numbers No that says without a top defense the 31 pts would look more like 40 or 50+. Defense and special teams add to that total anyway. The Packers had a pick 6 that was the difference in last year's Super Bowl (just like many previous Super Bowls). Having a top defense doesn't mean you allow 0 pts a game. The Gipper is using stats to prove his point. You have yet to refute his claims with any relevant facts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 not sure on your babbling but only one team won the Bowl on Defense the 2000 Ravens............................but focus on that and be committed to losing to reality.......................OFFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS Yawn- wrong again Rich. And I even managed to overlook Tampa Bay's SB that was won on DEFENSE. Short attention span? you're old enough to remember this one, right? The 1985-6 Bears set Super Bowl records for sacks (eight) and fewest rushing yards allowed (seven). Or perhaps you don't realize when your defense gets lots of three and outs, it sets up your offense to score a ton of of points? So much for those "victory margins" in the Super Bowl. Now don't go getting all hysterical on us when we've been showing you your premise is more full of holes than Swiss Cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Sp what is your point that having defense that collapses in the Super Bowls wins a tomato Bottom line the Super Bowl winning team has an average point total of 31..........................and that says defense is not a winner but offense is...............................but keep spewiing useless stats without facts to support the numbers The facts are right in front of you....its just that they get in the way of your delusion. And the fact is that more often a team with an outstanding defense and a mediocre offense wins titles than a team with an outstanding offense and a mediocre defense. (lets also note how many time that point total you cite was significantly augmented by defensive plays: The Bucs brought back two Ints for TDs. The 2008 Steelers win by like a 100 yard return by Harrison, etc. etc. etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 the saints defense was actually pretty good and the stats dont show that. they scored so often that the defense spent a ton of time on the field. the colts defense was better than the stats said too. freeney, mathis, bob sanders, antoine bethea, gary brackett etc Yes, these stat rankings don't account for turnover ratio which was very important for the Saints. And Indy's defense stepped it up in the playoffs, but they weren't all that during the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 We drafted O'Hara cut him to draft Faine Rich4nothin ******************************************** Come on, now, old buddy Rich - the Browns never drafted O'Hara. El Wrongo again and again. O'Hara was a good solid guy, but.... that's about the extent of the Browns drafting an offensive line. They signed him as a FA. That means he was overlooked in the draft, Rich. That means he was undrafted. And that was the crux of the Browns' problems. They didn't value the oline, and rarely drafted offensive linemen to build their offense. They just spend their high draft picks on flashy prima donna's, and qb who got the (*^(*% beaten out of him. And they rarely could ever gain a yard for a first down. Cam Newton went to Carolina, where he enjoys a talented, completely Carolina drafted oline. Rapistbooger went to a complete offense with a complete offensive line, and a top five defense. The Jags and stupid stinkin ratbirds last night? Two highly drafted qbs'. You'd never know it by how they played. Bad. Really, really, really pitiful. I'll gladly keep Colt over them and several others in the league. Btw, Rich - go look up how your squeelers and ratbirds have drafted offensive linemen over the years. Then look at how the Browns didn't do it, but rarely. That's the story. It will be a different story when the Browns draft a RT early on, and an OG, or sign one.... next spring. Meanwhile, when did it become "cool" to start a dumb ghoolie type thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Obviously since you ignored my point you agreed with it. There have been several teams with mediocre offenses and great defenses that have won the title. There are no ifs and or buts about it and if you disagree you are fricking nuts. And yea, Big Ben with a questionable offensive line at times has won a couple and been to another SB. My point exactly. Mediocre offense....outf**kingstanding defense. . Oh, I have not ignored your previous. I have not taken the time to answer how you turn a defunct offensive team to a juggernaut in mid season, which really says you question has no answer starting in November 2011 but does starting next year.. Meanwhile, I will restate again what all of you geniuses who think defense wins championships NEVER answer If defense wins Championships why is the average score of the winning team in the Super Bowl 31 points, because the loser sucked on defense or the winner had a really good offense.. Go ahead make up answer that defeats the FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 If defense wins Championships why is the average score of the winning team in the Super Bowl 31 points, because the loser sucked on defense or the winner had a really good offense.. Go ahead make up answer that defeats the FACT Rich, we already answered that one for you. Teams with great defenses force a lot of three and outs, giving their respective offenses more chances to score, as well as superior field position. Count in special teams scores, turnovers- stuff like that. I'll leave it up to Gipper to look it up, as I don't have the time to- but I'd be willing to bet the losing Super Bowl team- with very few exceptions- defense had the inferior stats, both in the game and for the season. BTW, the Colts won their Super Bowl because of their defense and Bob Sanders, not Peyton Manning who had a very pedestrian game. You think the Bears won their Super Bowl because of Jim McMahon? The Redskins won theirs with Doug Williams because the Donkeys had perhaps the worst defense ever to play in a Super Bowl, resulting in a mega blowout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bringbackbrownie2 Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Rich, we already answered that one for you. Teams with great defenses force a lot of three and outs, giving their respective offenses more chances to score, as well as superior field position. Count in special teams scores, turnovers- stuff like that. I'll leave it up to Gipper to look it up, as I don't have the time to- but I'd be willing to bet the losing Super Bowl team- with very few exceptions- defense had the inferior stats, both in the game and for the season. BTW, the Colts won their Super Bowl because of their defense and Bob Sanders, not Peyton Manning who had a very pedestrian game. You think the Bears won their Super Bowl because of Jim McMahon? The Redskins won theirs with Doug Williams because the Donkeys had perhaps the worst defense ever to play in a Super Bowl, resulting in a mega blowout. Winner. Why haven't the Colts gone back to the Super Bowl? Because Bob Sanders is done and their defense isn't good enough.. Manning is good enough to take his team to the playoffs, but defense wins championships.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 Rich, we already answered that one for you. Teams with great defenses force a lot of three and outs, giving their respective offenses more chances to score, as well as superior field position. Count in special teams scores, turnovers- stuff like that. I'll leave it up to Gipper to look it up, as I don't have the time to- but I'd be willing to bet the losing Super Bowl team- with very few exceptions- defense had the inferior stats, both in the game and for the season. BTW, the Colts won their Super Bowl because of their defense and Bob Sanders, not Peyton Manning who had a very pedestrian game. You think the Bears won their Super Bowl because of Jim McMahon? The Redskins won theirs with Doug Williams because the Donkeys had perhaps the worst defense ever to play in a Super Bowl, resulting in a mega blowout. NO you did not if defense wins why does offense win Super Bowls..31 points given up is not defense It is amusing to see us want to cling onto losing despite reality and statistics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 This thread is so amusing OL is the key despite the losing and defense wins Super Bowls even if the winner scores 31 points on average against those august useless defenses.......................and the beat goes on........................the herd drinking cool aid of losers keeps spouting the dumbmess amd yet Ghoolie and I Correctomundo going a dozen years have been correctomundo all dozen............................but the herd swills the cool aid and never gets it and maybe that is why Brownstown is where it is .......................LOSERS meantime losers we spent way more money on OL guys the last twelve years than any other team but we keep losing famously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 NO you did not if defense wins why does offense win Super Bowls..31 points given up is not defense It is amusing to see us want to cling onto losing despite reality and statistics WTF is it about the statistics you were given that you don't understand? Why have the SB winners averaged 31 ppg as you say (I will take your word for that stat)? Yea, maybe because the winner had a good offense and the loser a lousy defense. I never claimed that a championship team didn't need a good to great offense. I think they do. But the fact is....more often than not, the team with the superior defense is the team that wins. That is what the stats showed. I am not married to those stats....its just that those are the facts and nothing I made up. You cannot ignore them. (Also...by the way, how do we know that the prime consideration for these great Super Bowl winning offenses you profess is the fact that they had great offensive lines? Take the two aberrations: Colts/Saints. Great skill players on offense? yes. But also outstanding O Lines) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rich4eagle Posted October 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 WTF is it about the statistics you were given that you don't understand? Why have the SB winners averaged 31 ppg as you say (I will take your word for that stat)? Yea, maybe because the winner had a good offense and the loser a lousy defense. I never claimed that a championship team didn't need a good to great offense. I think they do. But the fact is....more often than not, the team with the superior defense is the team that wins. That is what the stats showed. I am not married to those stats....its just that those are the facts and nothing I made up. You cannot ignore them. (Also...by the way, how do we know that the prime consideration for these great Super Bowl winning offenses you profess is the fact that they had great offensive lines? Take the two aberrations: Colts/Saints. Great skill players on offense? yes. But also outstanding O Lines) Read your post............................you admit maybe the Offense was good.......................but question the FACT the winner of the bowl averaged 31 points.........................NOT HARD TO VERIFY.....................and then go onto to idiocy saying maybe the loser had a bad D.......................... DAH, Winners have a great D as prospered by you and the cool aid drinkers .......................but in the Bowl the D goes to shiet Blow gas your way out of those two facts the Winners score 31 on average and the loser got their with great D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 NO you did not if defense wins why does offense win Super Bowls..31 points given up is not defense It is amusing to see us want to cling onto losing despite reality and statistics Here's the most amazing stat of all Rich. The team that scores the most points wins!!! 100% of the time!!! You're using a ONE GAME (too small a sample size) to feebly attempt to prove your point. Using your flawed logic I could just as easily say the Saints ( who just racked up 62 points against the Colts) are the greatest offensive juggernaut in the last 15 years. Gipper's numbers clearly showed it's easier to get to (and win) the Super Bowl with a great defense and so-so offense. Yeah, 95 percent of the time you don't even GET to the Super Bowl without at least a decent, and more often than not- GREAT defense. I had to look up some SB history too. The average score in the Super Bowl is 30-15. So why is that? Mainly because there's been an inordinate number of blowouts in the game. (I'll count a blowout as a win by more than 10 points- there's been 21 of the 45 SBs that qualify.) And if you bother to look at those blowout games in more detail, the team that got blown out was horribly overmatched from the get-go, or happened to have an atypical horrible game. See above- you think if the Colts played the Saints again, they'd have another 62 points racked up on them? Don't think so. I for one am done arguing the point with you. There's still people who believe the government is hiding an alien spaceship in Roswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.