Legendary O or Legendary D?

[RamsOfCastamere]

If the Rams were to have a dynasty, would you rather have a team with a Legendary O, scoring 30+ and above, or a team with a nasty defense, rarely allowing over 10 pts a game. Both teams are equal -- same number of wins, same number of championships.

Personally, I'm a fan of smash-mouth football. I like watching quarterbacks scramble like ants, under pressure, fearful, and a tough, bruising running game.

 

[jjab360]

Great offenses are a lot more exciting, imo.

 

[RamBall]

Both, I want a relentless attacking D that gets turnovers and 3 and outs. Then the O cant help but score 30+, and an O that is capable of the quick strike to establish an early lead and force the opponent to become 1 dimensional, which then plays right to the strength of the D, relentless pass rush and QB pressure.

I'd like to think the Rams arent to far off from this dream scenario right now. Why wouldnt Fisher want this type of team, after all he was hired to build a championship team, and you cant go wrong if you build both D and O. With each being needed over the course of the season, some weeks you need to grind it out and others you need to be able to keep up in a shoot out.

But it would be hard to build a team as exciting as your signature, I sometimes sit here watching it for 2 or 3 minutes before I move on to the next post

 

[jrry32]

Legendary O...mainly because it's more sustainable. Legendary Os are usually led by legendary QBs.

 

[Thordaddy]

My preference would be a legendary defense,mostly because I doubt it really happens if it's an offense,we saw a legendary offense rise and fall largely because the defense backing it was sporadically good bad good bad and unreliable .
IMO an average offense getting the ball back quickly will score and in the end I just believe time of possession is dependent on so many other important stats like turnover differential that TOP is the most important stat and will more often than other stats indicate winning.

 

[Thordaddy]

Legendary O...mainly because it's more sustainable. Legendary Os are usually led by legendary QBs.

Ybit jrry how many rings hath Payton Manning,versus Terry Bradshaw who was not a great QB for the Steelers first two SB wins and never rivaled what Manning was in his 4th season

 

[jrry32]

Ybit jrry how many rings hath Payton Manning,versus Terry Bradshaw who was not a great QB for the Steelers first two SB wins and never rivaled what Manning was in his 4th season

How many rings would Peyton have won with Bradshaw's team? :wink:

My point here is that with the salary cap in place, you never know how long you can keep a defense together. But you can keep a legendary QB and they'll typically keep you competitive for a decade or more.

 

[Thordaddy]

How many rings would Peyton have won with Bradshaw's team? :wink:

My point here is that with the salary cap in place, you never know how long you can keep a defense together. But you can keep a legendary QB and they'll typically keep you competitive for a decade or more.

But "competitive" isn't the goal defined in the question dynastic dominance was and FWIW the Steelers with Manning would be a both not an either or which again was THE question.
IMO great defence is more system dependent than offense, you can play great defense without premier athletes IF they all honor their assignments but it's just almost impossible to play great/ dymasty level offense without great athletes

 

[Mojo Ram]

Legendary D
You're never out of a game. If your offense is average or sub par just keep it close and strike when it matters the most. See AZ @ Seattle yesterday for example.

The '99 Rams legendary O was stifled by both Tampa and Tennessee, and it took a miraculous catch by Proehl to get out of the NFC....and a clutch one-on-one defensive play to win the SB.

The league has changed i get that...but the very best defensive teams are still the teams winning playoff games.

 

[rhinobean]

I'll go with Legendary D. Reasons given in previous posts. Showing up in the recent winning of our team!

 

[jrry32]

But "competitive" isn't the goal defined in the question dynastic dominance was and FWIW the Steelers with Manning would be a both not an either or which again was THE question.
IMO great defence is more system dependent than offense, you can play great defense without premier athletes IF they all honor their assignments but it's just almost impossible to play great/ dymasty level offense without great athletes

The question says that there's no difference between the dynasty outcomes. Meaning you win the same number of games and rings. Which is why I chose offense because I believe after the dynasty ends, a team with a legendary QB can stay competitive longer. Like the Patriots have with Brady despite their dynasty ending in 2007(or 2004 if you only consider rings).

If the team is going to fall off either ways after the dynasty ends...then give me defense because I find a dominating defense to be more fun to watch.

 

[Faceplant]

The question says that there's no difference between the dynasty outcomes. Meaning you win the same number of games and rings. Which is why I chose offense because I believe after the dynasty ends, a team with a legendary QB can stay competitive longer. Like the Patriots have with Brady despite their dynasty ending in 2007(or 2004 if you only consider rings).

If the team is going to fall off either ways after the dynasty ends...then give me defense because I find a dominating defense to be more fun to watch.

Correct. Per the OP, the outcomes are the same. I will take a high flying O...although I love me some ass kicking D almost as much.

 

[nighttrain]

just one time would like to see both in Horns
train

 

[A55VA6]

Legendary defense. If your defense is good enough, you'll stop the other team from scoring, and you'll score defensive TD's or give great field position to your offense. It changes everything.

 

[V3]

Ybit jrry how many rings hath Payton Manning,versus Terry Bradshaw who was not a great QB for the Steelers first two SB wins and never rivaled what Manning was in his 4th season

And what about the new rules in the NFL? The new rules make it very difficult for defenses to be "elite" like they once were. You're much more likely to have an elite O than an elite D these days, and like jrry said, it has a much greater likelihood of lasting longer.

The rules change everything. I'm going with a legendary O.

 

[HitStick]

Beast D and above average O that can still put up a big play here and there.

Basically the Chiefs, Seahawks, 9ers, Cards, Carolina...

If the Rams can finish the D,and upgrade the Online...they can play some Marty Ball and win games.

Sure a studly O is fun to watch; however, winning is more fun. The Rams had a legendary offense and we all saw what a few injuries can do to that.

 

[Angry Ram]

Legendary D
You're never out of a game. If your offense is average or sub par just keep it close and strike when it matters the most. See AZ @ Seattle yesterday for example.

The '99 Rams legendary O was stifled by both Tampa and Tennessee, and it took a miraculous catch by Proehl to get out of the NFC....and a clutch one-on-one defensive play to win the SB.

The league has changed i get that...but the very best defensive teams are still the teams winning playoff games.

Word.

 

[V3]

Beast D and above average O that can still put up a big play here and there.

Basically the Chiefs, Seahawks, 9ers, Cards, Carolina...

If the Rams can finish the D,and upgrade the Online...they can play some Marty Ball and win games.

Sure a studly O is fun to watch; however, winning is more fun. The Rams had a legendary offense and we all saw what a few injuries can do to that.

A few injuries on D will have the same effect. It's all about depth when dealing with injuries.

 

[HitStick]

A few injuries on D will have the same effect. It's all about depth when dealing with injuries.

That depends. The D is so much more important to have everyone working together that as long as a player understands what he is supposed to do,you can oovercome an injury much easier than an Offense that loses a receiver, running back, or quarterback.

 

[Sum1]

I'll take wins anyway they come...my preference is to have a balanced team that can pick up the slack on either side of the ball when needed.

How about a team that wins by an average of 30-15 every week...:woot: