Showing the fact that our 9 postseason games in the SB run were based on poor offense and solid defense (hardly cherry picking).
2001 season
1.---team closes out last NINE games in a row not allowing more than 17 pts in a contest.
2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :
16-13 OAK (16 offensive pts scored)
24-17 PIT (10 offensive pts scored)
20-17 STL (13 offensive pts scored)
*
WE WON THREE PLAYOFF GAMES AND THE SUPER BOWL WITHOUT SCORING MORE THAN 16 OFFENSIVE PTS*
2003 season
1.---allowed 14.9 points per game (1st in the entire NFL)
2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :
17-14 TEN (17 offensive pts scored)
24-14 IND (FIVE FG's from Vinateri +
ONE offensive TD)--defense also scored a safety
32-29 CAR (the halftime score was 0-0)
2004 season
1.---allowed 16.2 points per game (2nd in the entire NFL)
2.---poor offensive showings in postseason + excellent defensive showings :
20-3 IND (score was 13-3 with 7:10 remaining in the game until 1 yd Brady sneak)
41-27 PIT (
the outlier where our offense showed up right from the get-go)
24-21 PHI
Actually, it's entirely cherry picking.
This is a classic example of really wanting to believe something and torturing the facts to make them fit what you want to believe.
Since 2007, the offense not defense has been the problem. In 2001 and 2003 your "championchip" defenses had the ability to close out Super Bowls and promptly allowed game tying TD's.
This is the type of reality that tends to get ignored when reality wants to be ignored.