What if?

[snackdaddy]

No.

Even with the GSOT offense at its best we would have trouble winning if we had the worst defense in the league.

Bad defense almost cost us a playoff spot in 2000 and it cost us the first round game that year too. Well, maybe Hakim's fumble caused it. But you get my drift. We gave up almost 30 points per game that year.

 

[Rainram]

but offenses have been minimizing their mistakes in general so pick sixes and fumble returns and all that stuff just don't happen with the same volume anymore.

.

Defenses have adapted very well too.

Curious if there are statistics to support your theory quoted above...? (And I know you specifically referenced INTs and Fumbles returned for TD...but what about overall turnovers)

I sure do see lots of Defensive points being scored. Without knowing the numbers...I think I disagree.

And as it pertains to this thread...I'll take the dominant, punishing D (and let's not kid ourselves...we still have to prove ourselves a bit in this department too. But we're close.)

 

[RamFan503]

Give me a great defense and an adequate offense. I can't see how swapping them is a good thing. If our defense was as ineffective as our offense has been thus far, they wouldn't be able to stop anyone and the offense would have to be historically great in order to win games. One or two plays by our offense and we are 5-0 right now. Yes.... 5-0. I rewatched that WA game and as poorly as we played, we absolutely had a chance to win that game. Neither side of our team played well enough to win. So actually, if the defense played better (actually converting the pick six that was there for the taking - for example), we likely would have won that game even without a decent offensive showing.

Our offense is pretty close to adequate for this defense. Let's go pound some teams into submission and score enough points to win. I still think that is the recipe for consistent playoff football.

Say what you will about a defense being easier to field. I don't even necessarily disagree with it. But being that is the case, it is also IMO why great offenses are so often shut down in the big games. Even though the offense knows the play when the defense doesn't, it only takes one or two near misses to end a drive. Great defenses make a living off of forcing those misses even by the most elite offenses.

Obviously you still need balance. But given the choice of how to build a team, I lean toward defense.

 

[PARAM]

From 99-01 we had perhaps the best offense since the 1950's Rams teams. It got us into 2 Superbowls and 1 Championship. Not a bad haul. But I'd much rather have a stellar D. You can't win a 0-0 game and the defense can put points on the board. An offense can't take any off it.

 

[RamzFanz]

Last I checked tavon has been used quite a bit this year. Oh and just because the ball doesn't always fly his way doesn't mean he's not a big part of the play(distraction) and such

He averaged 5 touches a game last season. This season he has 6 5 5 7 5. Guess which games we won.

 

[Zaphod]

Crazy thing is, the game we just lost against the Packers, our offense gained more yards and had better time of possession, which kind of surprised me. But no one would say that our offense is better

Overall, I would say that because people tend to enjoy offense more, it's simply more financially efficient in terms of supply and demand to acquire talent for the defensive side of the ball, and this game is all about maximizing your resources.

That said, the ultimate goal for NFL ownership is to make money, and a good offense draws more fans.