IF you could build a team from the ground up...

[thirteen28]

- Build the lines first.
- Solid defense
- Offense based on either a variant of the Coryell scheme or the Perkins-Earhardt scheme. No West Coast BS with it's long, ridiculously complicated playcalls. The other two are easier to teach and implement.
- Offense would emphasize stretching the field vertically in the passing game. Would use the pass to set up the run, not vice versa. Pass to score, run to win.

A model for me would be either the Steelers of the 70's or the Cowboys of the 90's, obviously adapted to the present NFL. Both of those teams had stout defenses, but they also both had very good offenses. Both could do the power running game, but if you tried to cheat up and stop it, they could absolutely destroy you in the deep passing game. You had to pick your poison, and unless they had an off day, you were damned if you did and damned if you didn't.

And can we please put to bed that mindless mantra of "defense wins championships"? God, I fking HATE that saying. All of us Rams fans should hate it.

Look at the Rams right now - we have an excellent defense ... are we going to win any kind of championship this year? Hell no, because we have an abysmally bad offense. Look at the 70's Rams - dominant defense for almost a decade, no championships? Why? Because we had a coach not unlike the one we had now, one who never understood the QB position and always put plodding offenses on the field. The D was good enough to get the Rams to the playoffs, but once they were up against teams with better QB's, they came up short.

Defense and the running game, properly understood IMO, are used to close out games when you have the lead. But a good offense - including a good passing offense - is where you get the lead in the first place. When you go down the whole "defense wins championships" route you start neglecting the offense, and you end up with what the Rams have now under a guy who undoubtedly believes that mantra, and not coincidentally, has never won a championship. Please, for the love of God, but that stupid saying to rest.

 

[Mojo Ram]

And can we please put to bed that mindless mantra of "defense wins championships"? God, I fking HATE that saying. All of us Rams fans should hate it.

That statement doesn't mean defense with horrible offense wins championships.

I buy the mantra across all of the major sports spectrum.

 

[thirteen28]

That statement doesn't mean defense with horrible offense wins championships.

I buy the mantra across all of the major sports spectrum.

The instant you have to start adding qualifiers to it is the instant that you are weakening the proposition.

I don't doubt good defense is important. The reason I so strenuously reject the statement is because teams that go down that route - like the current Rams and the 1970's Rams - soon start fielding offenses that *prevent* them from winning championships (or in the current Rams case, even making the the playoffs).

Not to mention, offense can win championships too. See '99 Rams, '51 Rams.

 

[blackbart]

-
And can we please put to bed that mindless mantra of "defense wins championships"? God, I fking HATE that saying. All of us Rams fans should hate it.
.

No we can't just take a look at the history of the SB and you can see most of the winners had a great defense. GSOT even had an exception D to go with it.
Last year's Broncos were certainly no offensive juggernaut.

 

[thirteen28]

No we can't just take a look at the history of the SB and you can see most of the winners had a great defense. GSOT even had an exception D to go with it.
Last year's Broncos were certainly no offensive juggernaut.

The GSOT defense was good, but part of the reason it was good was because the offense consistently gave it a big lead to play with. They had a ton of margin for error.

I would propose that overall, the current Rams D has more talent and is better overall than the '99 D. And yet this team won't even sniff the playoffs with our current offense.

And what else do you see when you look at the history of the SB? Good quarterbacks. Good offenses.

 

[MountainRam]

Give me Russel Wilson, I will be the next Pete Caroll.
Give me Tom Brady, I will be the next Bill Belichick
Give me Case Keenum, I will be the next Jeff Fisher

QB and everything else is baloney

 

[thirteen28]

Give me Russel Wilson, I will be the next Pete Caroll.
Give me Tom Brady, I will be the next Bill Belichick
Give me Case Keenum, I will be the next Jeff Fisher

QB and everything else is baloney

Exactly.

If DEFENSE wins championships ... then why is the QB - an offensive player - the most important position on the team?

 

[yrba1]

BPA, teams that draft based on positional needs are doomed to fail. But assuming all positions are equal in talent, I'd go QB and OL first, then defense, then skill positions.

 

[Mojo Ram]

The instant you have to start adding qualifiers to it is the instant that you are weakening the proposition.

Generally speaking.
Great teams win championships, of course...but in the NFL, NBA (for example) bad or mediocre defenses don't win squat even with an elite offense.
-Aaron Rodgers and that elite offense have been scoring TD's for years and the only year they won a title was in 2010 when they fielded an elite defense(#2 ranked).
-The GSOT in '99 found out that scoring 33 pts/gm wasn't happening in the playoffs. With a mediocre defense we don't win IMO.
-The GSOT in 2000? Scored 540 points. Squeaked in as a wildcard, one and done. Bad defense.
- Seattle vs Denver. #1 scoring offense trumped.
-Arizona a year ago. Slinging the football all over the yard until they met playoff caliber defense. Trumped.

Not trying to change anyone's mind here @thirteen28
There are examples that can be cherry picked for both sides, but i believe that defense has more times than not, been the X factor. More so than elite offense. I think it is even more clear in NBA history.

I have a detailed post looking at this somewhere in the archives. I'll look for it.

 

[thirteen28]

Generally speaking.
Great teams win championships, of course...but in the NFL, NBA (for example) bad or mediocre defenses don't win squat even with an elite offense.
-Aaron Rodgers and that elite offense have been scoring TD's for years and the only year they won a title was in 2010 when they fielded an elite defense(#2 ranked).
-The GSOT in '99 ? Found out that scoring 33 pts/gm wasn't happening in the playoffs. With a mediocre defense we don't win IMO.
-The GSOT in 2000? Scored 540 points. Squeaked in as a wildcard, one and done. Bad defense.
- Seattle vs Denver. #1 scoring offense trumped.
-Arizona a year ago. Slinging the football all over the yard until they met playoff caliber defense. Trumped.

Not trying to change anyone's mind here @thirteen28
There are examples that can be cherry picked for both sides, but i believe that defense has more times than not, been the X factor. More so than elite offense. I think it is even more clear in NBA history.

I have a detailed post looking at this somewhere in the archives. I'll look for it.

Well, first, I can't address NBA history, as I follow pro basketball so little that I can barely spell NBA (only on a good day, when I got plenty of sleep the night before. Then I might get it right).

The common denominator on the winning side of all several of those examples you gave was that there was a good QB. The Packer had a good D that year, but they also had Aaron Rodgers. The 99 Rams had a good D, but also had Kurt Warner. The Cardinals lost to the Panthers last year, but the Panthers had decent QB in Cam Newton.

I think what is true is this - it really helps to have one unit that is dominant, but A) the other unit has to be at least average, and B) you have to have the QB, period.

In the cases of the Packers that won it all with Aaron Rodgers, as well as the 99 Rams, I think those defenses were good but were made better by having dominant offenses to back them up. Most of the time those offenses gave them big leads, and they knew even if they had a bad day or were less than perfect, the offense could score almost at will. In cases such as the 2000 Ravens or the 2002 Bucs, the defenses were dominant, but the offenses were good enough - average - and you weren't going to shut them out the whole game. The latter example is notable because under Tony Dungy, the Buc had a putrid offense which always failed them in the playoffs. Once Gruden came in and got them to an average level, they finally got over the hump.

And ironically, Dungy finally got his ring with the Colts with a defense that was average at best - but with an top flight offense that had Peyton GD Manning at QB. Dungy learned his lesson from his Bucs days. If only our coach would do the same.

 

[sjm1582002]

I remember reading the GM (forgot his name) for those Giant teams that somehow won a couple of SB's saying you need three things if you're gonna to win a SB.

Got to have that franchise QB.

Then, you gotta be able to protect your franchise QB.

Finally, you gotta be able to get after and disrupt the opposing QB.

Seems like we are maybe 2/3's there and if Goff is a money player.......maybe all the way?

 

[ramsplaya16]

Build the lines first, then out from there, after lines are done I go QB, big physical bump and run corners and WR, smart MLB and athletic OLBS, a specimen at TE, a coverage safety and a run support safety, RB would probably be one of the last positions I pick because if you have a great line it's less important.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Trenches....

O-line and D-line first. Build from the trenches.

don't forget the steroids with this crew....

If DEFENSE wins championships ... then why is the QB - an offensive player - the most important position on the team?

Because a great defense will baffle all except the elite QB's....

 

[tempests]

put that stupid saying to rest.

Yeah, I don't know. People still remember the Godzilla vs Mothra Super Bowls, like Oak vs TB or Denver vs Seattle. In neither case the game was close.

Great offenses rely on precision and timing, whereas great defenses disrupt that timing. One is easier to accomplish than the other.

 

[Ballhawk]

Front office and coaches. There is a good reason that some teams always win and others don't.
All starts with the front office people knowing what they are doing.

 

[Prime Time]

Give me Russel Wilson, I will be the next Pete Caroll.
Give me Tom Brady, I will be the next Bill Belichick
Give me Case Keenum, I will be the next Jeff Fisher

QB and everything else is baloney

I submit for your consideration: Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler, Brad Johnson, and Trent Dilfer, who through no fault of their own are wearing Super Bowl rings. Btw the Broncos didn't win the Super Bowl last season because of Peyton Manning. He was a shell of himself.

 

[MountainRam]

I submit for your consideration: Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon, Jeff Hostetler, Brad Johnson, and Trent Dilfer, who through no fault of their own are wearing Super Bowl rings. Btw the Broncos didn't win the Super Bowl last season because of Peyton Manning. He was a shell of himself.

Sure there is possibility of such a season always. For continued success, you need a QB of high caliber.

 

[PressureD41]

I agree 1st things 1st, build the DL & OL, then I want a smash mouth blitzing Defense. I like press CBs. Don't give me tiny DBs unless his name is Toby Wright#32 then its Okay!!!
On Offense I have always liked a balanced 2 TE power run game the Skins had under Gibbs. Give me that
Give me a fiery HC, not a smirking Pete Carroll/Jim Harbaugh type
But at the end of the day its a QB league know
mic drop!

 

[Prime Time]

Sure there is possibility of such a season always. For continued success, you need a game manager who doesn't turn the ball over. QB of high caliber.

 

[Rynie]

I'm watching Prescott and Elliot being interviewed after beating the Steelers.

Look what a very good offensive line has done for them. Good defense and offensive lines allow you to build around them. A franchise QB to start with.



Side note------Now, Fisher almost drops the ball during his locker room victory speech.

Are you saying they are good *ONLY* because of the offensive line? If so, that statement couldn't be more false.