Offseason Arguments (coach, managers, MVP, wild card)

[Beenhere4ever]

This could cover a lot of things, but I want to start with this: Does the Super Bowl outcome expose as baloney the notion that "the rules are tilted against defenses"? Despite all the penalties for unsafe hits, a defense has humiliated one of the hottest offenses. One theory I have is that owners and general managers don't think a stingy defense will create the same fan excitement as an incredible offense that can run up memorable scores. They are voting their pocketbook and hoping it doesn't cost them in competition. The thing about this is all you need is to create a stampede in this direction and it creates the appearance of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For sure, the top college quarterbacks love multiple teams running up the offers to them. People who labor on lines and defensive backfields get hardly any discussion on college football shows (Jadeveon Clowney being an exception). If big scores are the story every week, the analysts can just repeat "its the rule book". And if you get enough teams to drink the Koolaid, one day they might meet up with a team smart enough to figure out how it is all profit based and kind of a mass consciousness obscuring reality.

Not sure of course, but can't help but wondering since, for sure, the Broncos were the very epitome of this team philosophy of running up big scores.

[skins_fan82]

Yeah, the rules have definitely been catered to offense and a lot of scoring the past few years. That's all on Mr. Goodell.

But a good defense can generate a good offense. Look at the Superbowl for instance. The average field position for the Seahawks offense was their own 43. Wilson and company didn't have to go very far to score. The offense only scored 27 of the 43 points. Defense scored 9, and ST scored a TD. And on the three drives where Seattle did score, two of those three possessions started in Broncos territory.

Seattle's defense completely dominated one of the best NFL offenses of all time. They're fast, physical, and they swarm around the ball like bees. This was the first time since 2005 that the superbowl MVP was not a quarterback. Goes to show that this new era of offensive power like Denver's isn't the only template for a superbowl caliber team.

Seattle is a defense first team, and they run the ball a lot on offense (more than anybody in the NFL, #1 in rushing attempts). Shutdown the opposing offense, build an early lead, and then run it until the gun goes off in the 4th.

[susancruzs]

Interesting thoughts and I agree. Packers D was good when they won the SB, the next year they went 15-1, Aaron played lights out and their D was bad. 2012 it was better, not to 2010 levels, in 2013 when Aaron was out D dropped off.

It will be interesting to see what happens this year, Caper stays but McCarthy made some strong statements yesterday. They know they have to concentrate on defense, period.

[Beenhere4ever]

Except for the teams already owning a solid defense, I would think EVERY GM would try to get some key personnel on the defensive side. Now I'm thinking that SOME owners just aren't on board. If they have any prayer of a wild card spot, they'll tell their flunkies to hire a showbiz personality to rouse the faithful. To me, those teams deserve to GO DOWN. If a team owner interferes in self-interest ("my fans aren't that interested in championships"), then it is ridiculous to fire a coach for a bad record. I'm sort of hoping fans won't REWARD that kind of interference. Let the owner put his Golden Boy on the field and get chewed up by the teams with better team philosophy.