DA forced zero punts

[ATENEARS]

Um...huh?

 

Which is more likely, the D helping the O or the O helping the D?

 

I'd say Defense helps the Offense more.

 

A good defense keeps the score low and also gives your own offense a chance to fail (not play uptight) without getting into dire straits. With a good defense, also comes takeaways, and field position, giving your offense better opportunities to score. Great defenses also find a way to score themselves.

 

On the flip side, if you have a great offense with a lacking Defense, your Offense may play tight not wanting to turn the ball over for fear it will result into points. Scoring 'too fast', becomes a problem at times. You'll have to win shoot-outs at times, and that ain't necessarily being dominate, such was usually comes with being a great defensive team.

 

Defense wins championships. Not all the time, there are exceptions, just not enough to erase the old saying.

 

Could also matter if your offensive team is dominate in the run or the pass or both.

 

Then there are special teams, which can't be over-looked.

 

Overall, It's the greatest team game .... which brings us to this silly point of even applying any of these factors to the current Cleveland Browns, who ain't neither a decent offensive or defensive team, so the word 'help' can't even be applied.

 

BTW, I also did not bring up DA or BQ other than to inform you properly that this ain't a QB thread, it's about Defense.

 

... but I'll let Ed speak for himself now about what this thread was really about.

[kshutchins]

i outlasted most Browns fans and left with less than 9:00 to play. As of then, DA had forced GB to punt zero times: he provided no pass rush, no pass coverage, and he couldn't stop the run. No matter what he did, GB trounced right through him. The Packers marched the ball right down his throat. That guy needs to learn how to tackle.

 

BTW, it was great to see Kath at the tailgate. She is prettier than when i met her in 1999. i wish we had more time to talk.

 

I think you're brilliant!! Especially that BTW part. You looked great too and ditto on the more time to talk.

 

[roach]

I'm not "reading" into anything. Roach brought up DA, not me. I asked roach if he felt that DA was as bad as the D. If he does, we're in agreement. If he doesn't, I'm confused.

 

i stand by my post.

[kshutchins]

i stand by my post.

 

I think the two peewee teams that played during halftime had more game than the Browns. The passer on the White team had skills on par with Derek Anderson: He almost completed a pass for a touchdown, and threw an interception.

 

[Mark O]

What I would like to see is for us to build the defense to a respectable level and let the offense struggle a bit but have the defense carry the team, which is kinda how the team was built in the 80's.

 

We need playmakers on defense.

[damajuki]

I'd say Defense helps the Offense more.

Thanks for answering my question, Ate, and I disagree totally with you.

 

I think points on the board make everyone better. The name of the game is to outscore the opponent, after all. And the unit responsible for points is the offense.

 

Defense wins championships, I agree, but only if there are points on the board to allow a win to occur. 3-0 is nice but dangerous living. 27-14 is better and 34-31 is just as good as either of them.

 

It's about points. It's ALWAYS about points.

 

You really disagree with me? Just look at two games I watched this weekend: ours and the Bears-Bungles.

 

The Packers scored quick and easy, going up big and allowing their D to attack and play loose, feeling good that if they happened to let up some points, the O could get 'em back. Of course, they didn't need the O to score more than the first TD but I'm sure they didn't mind the cushion.

 

Then check out what the Bungles did to the Bears. Four possessions, four scores, 24 points. Forced an already DA-like Cutler to have to try to pass his team back into it; guess what? It didn't work. 3 picks and a fumble guaranteed the Bungles win.

 

Would you say that the Bungles D won that game? Of course not. Palmer torched the crumbling Bears D and showed what a real QB does for a team. He makes it look easy. He inspires confidence. HE PUTS POINTS ON THE BOARD.

 

Oh, there's that pesky QB mention again. Hmm...why does that keep happening? Maybe because in both the games I just mentioned, two legit QBs destroyed the opposing D's and effectively decided the contests in the first quarter.

 

You can try to argue that the defenses weren't good enough and that it's about as chicken-or-egg as it gets but I'd simply say:

 

Which QB would you rather have had this weekend, in either of those games, regardless of the defense?

 

I rest my case.