Our defense leads the postseason in scoring allowed.

[Fixit]

I didn't see the very end of the game. I saw NO score and thought thats it. The next time i went back to the game SF had just scored the winning TD. At first i thought it was a reply, i still don't know how SF got down that close to throw that pass in such a short time. But One game doesn't equal a pattern, or prove anything.

Then how about this? Houston played better defensively than Baltimore, but kept giving the ball away deep in both their own territory and Baltimore's.

Defense doesn't win championships. Offense doesn't win championships. Execution on a game-by-game basis wins championships. Everything else is a bumper sticker saying.

 

[Fball]

The Pats are also the only team not to play a winning team in the postseason yet, so....

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Pardon me if I'm reading this wrong, but aren't the NYG d ranked like in the middle 20's? Not sure I would consider them an elite d.

I'll give you SF and Balt, but the gints won because the vaunted GB offense picked the wrong week to compile a season's worth of bonehead plays into. That's all. Baltimore has a very good d and I can see them "somewhat limiting" Brady to about 21-28 points (which is less then his average).

But if Flacco plays like his did yesterday and our defense even remotely shows up, I think it will be hard for them to come hear and get the win. Perhaps if this game was in Balt (where they play much better), but not in our house.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

The Pats are also the only team not to play a winning team in the postseason yet, so....

The donks were 9-8 heading into the game..... Thats on the plus side of 500. Let alone they had the misfortune of playing us twice. Take out those two games and they were 9-7 against the rest of the NFL (non Patriots).

Sure, Denver wasn't a great team, but lets not disrespect them too much. They totally earned the right to be in that game.

 

[Rob0729]

Really, the teams that played the best defense won. SF played better defense than NO. The Giants certainly played better defense than GB, Bal played better defense than the Texans.

Unless you have a fast break track meet where the last team to have the ball wins the the key is which team plays better defense wins.

What you and other say about offense wins would only apply if defense wasn't allowed or dismissed ie two fast break basket ball teams that are only interested in Offense. Again where the last team to have the ball wins.

So the 49ers winning 36-32 where there were 879 total yards of offense with the 49ers having an 85 yard TD drive that started with 1:37 left in the game and the 49ers down by 5 isn't the exact definition of a fast break track meet whith the team who had the ball last won. Yes, the Saints got the ball back to end the game but with about seven second.

 

[Fixit]

The Pats are also the only team not to play a winning team in the postseason yet, so....

Well, they did play Denver when they were 9-8, but then beat them for a second time, meaning they haven't beaten a team with a winning record.

/funwithlogic

 

[reflexblue]

Then how about this? Houston played better defensively than Baltimore, but kept giving the ball away deep in both their own territory and Baltimore's.

Defense doesn't win championships. Offense doesn't win championships. Execution on a game-by-game basis wins championships. Everything else is a bumper sticker saying.

Who ever plays scoring defense better wins, its not about yards or keep away.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Sorry but holding tebown and the broncs to ten points isn't much of a sample size

I bet going in to the Sb we still lead the postseason in scoring D.

 

[Rob0729]

I didn't see the very end of the game. I saw NO score and thought thats it. The next time i went back to the game SF had just scored the winning TD. At first i thought it was a reply, i still don't know how SF got down that close to throw that pass in such a short time. But One game doesn't equal a pattern, or prove anything.

Huh? So you replied to my post where I said that people are crazy to say that this weekend "proved" that defenses win championships. You gave me an example of a team that gave up 32 points and 472 yards as proof. Then when you were pointed out to be wrong, you said that one game doesn't mean anything after you were pointing to three games as if it means a whole lot more.

This weekend proved nothing. The 49ers won the game on offense as much or more than defense because eventhough their defense played well for three quarters, they still gave up 32 points and that isn't enough to beat any team without the offense being explosive. The Pats won on offense although their defense was spectacular. The Ravens benefitted from a special teams turnover which changed the whole momentum of the game. And the Packers had a lot of drops by wide open wide receivers.

BTW, I don't think anything has been proven either way. I am disputing anything was proven this weekend. Yes, the teams with the better defenses against dominant offenses won on the NFC side, but it is too simplistic to say that it was because of their defenses was that they won.

 

[Fball]

The donks were 9-8 heading into the game..... Thats on the plus side of 500. Let alone they had the misfortune of playing us twice. Take out those two games and they were 9-7 against the rest of the NFL (non Patriots).

Sure, Denver wasn't a great team, but lets not disrespect them too much. They totally earned the right to be in that game.

They were one of the worst playoff teams in memory, and they backed into the playoffs with ridiculously improbable wins, as well as a losing streak.

They were 8-8 at the end of the regular season, and 9-9 at the end of the postseason. They were not a winning team.

 

[Fixit]

Who ever plays scoring defense better wins, its not about yards or keep away.

Whoever scores more points wins. Points are typically scored on offense.

We could do this all day.

 

[Fixit]

They were one of the worst playoff teams in memory, and they backed into the playoffs with ridiculously improbable wins, as well as a losing streak.

They were 8-8 at the end of the regular season, and 9-9 at the end of the postseason. They were not a winning team.

This is such a semantics-based argument. The Pats beat Denver twice when they had a winning record. Denver was 9-7 without the two Pats losses. The Pats beat Denver after Denver put it on defending AFC champ Pittsburgh.

All it boils down to is that it doesn't matter who you beat in the regular season.

 

[Uncle Rico]

So the 49ers winning 36-32 where there were 879 total yards of offense with the 49ers having an 85 yard TD drive that started with 1:37 left in the game and the 49ers down by 5 isn't the exact definition of a fast break track meet whith the team who had the ball last won. Yes, the Saints got the ball back to end the game but with about seven second.

Yeah, the "this weekend proves defense wins" thing is a bit overblown. Winning teams had 45, 37, 36 and 20 points. High-powered offenses seem to play a role. Turnovers by losing teams were immense too.

 

[reflexblue]

So the 49ers winning 36-32 where there were 879 total yards of offense with the 49ers having an 85 yard TD drive that started with 1:37 left in the game and the 49ers down by 5 isn't the exact definition of a fast break track meet whith the team who had the ball last won. Yes, the Saints got the ball back to end the game but with about seven second.

I'm not sure what your point is here, this game does seem like an example of fast break football, obviously if you have only seven seconds left its going to take a miracle to go the leangth of the field to score.
Lets be clear when i say fast break i'm applying it in general not to a specific game. there are exceptions to everything but in vast Majority of times the team that plays the better SCORING Defense wins.

 

[Fixit]

...in vast Majority of times the team that plays the better SCORING offense wins.

Fixed.

Please stop. Teams have to score more points (or give up less points) than the other team to win. You can play great defense and lose. You can play great offense and lose. Winning teams score more points and give up less points than the losing team.

This argument is ridiculous.

 

[reflexblue]

Whoever scores more points wins. Points are typically scored on offense.

We could do this all day.

Yeah maybe, thats why its an opinion. But you used the SF NO game i'm going to use the Giants GB game. With the way GB scored this year it shouldn't have been a contest between the giants and gb. According to "Offense Wins" purists like ROB the giants shouldnt' have had a chance against the Packers It was the giants Defense that allowed them to win. It was the Giants defense that allowed them to beat us this year, and our defense that let us down at the end of that game. You have to have some semblance of a defense to win. Look at it this way if a team can't score they can't win, and a good defense can score by way of a INT or fumble recovery.

 

[Fixit]

Yeah maybe, thats why its an opinion. But you used the SF NO game i'm going to use the Giants GB game. With the way GB scored this year it shouldn't have been a contest between the giants and gb. It was the giants Defense that allowed them to win. It was the Giants defense that allowed them to beat us this year.

Coincidentally, the Giants offense also scored more points in both of those games.

Also, Green Bay has kind of a crappy defense and was extremely rusty on offense. The Giants didn't overwhelm GB; GB dropped like nine passes, Rodgers missed a bunch more on open guys...defense didn't "win" that game. The Giants executed better than GB in both phases.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

You can make arguments any way you want..... but since everyone seems to be favoring the NO vs. SF game.....

SF was 2nd in points allowed, which is obviously one of the most determinant factors in separating good defenses from mediocre and poor ones. Which is why our defense is more likely a middle of the road defense (as indicated by PPG average) rather then a bottom of the barrel (as indicated by our YPG average).

Yet even with this "vaunted" defense, NO still hung 32 points on it. That's only 2 points less then it's season average. The problem was that they made a crucial mistake at an inopportune time. I.e. the Brees Int. in the first that was returned to the 4. Ultimately, that mistake and the 7 points converted on it) lost NO the game. (the score was 32-29 without that mistake)

NO ultimately did enough to "win" this game, but because of one offensive error (Int.), it cost them overall.

Bottom line...... the team that plays mistake free ball (whether they are offensive or defensive minded) will generally win the game.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not sure what your point is here, this game does seem like an example of fast break football, obviously if you have only seven seconds left its going to take a miracle to go the leangth of the field to score.
Lets be clear when i say fast break i'm applying it in general not to a specific game. there are exceptions to everything but in vast Majority of times the team that plays the better SCORING Defense wins.

No, the team that plays the better scoring offense wins.

 

[Patspsycho]

Is it wrong that I see us sacking and picking off Flacco a few times?

I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't sack Flacco once; maybe one time, but our efforts will really be focused on shutting Rice down. We're going to force Flacco to win the game knowing that he can't keep up with Brady.