Re: CHFF: Jets find Belichick defense the cure for what ails you
Forget 2007 when the offense was putting them ahead by 30 points, I want real performances when the offense didn't make the offense one dimensional, but if you wanna use that sure.
First, your original request was 5 games within the last 5 years. I omitted '05. Who knows what was in there, and 2007 happened within the last five years. If you want to zero in on only the bad performances, you'll find your analysis saying what you want it to say. I am also one of those people that believes a good defense augments a good offense and vice versa. Teams like the 2009-2010 Jets and the 2000 Ravens are great defenses with pretty terrible offenses, and teams like that are fairly rare. I don't know why you think a good defense can only exist in the presence of a bad offense, and if that's what you want the Pats to be, you'll have to wait a few years until Brady retires. A good offense enables a good defense and vice versa. That's what made the SB (and 2007) teams so special.
And the Bears? Are you seriously telling me the Bears in 06 were a dominant offense, or are you hoping your stat makes it look better? Great D, but terrible offense. That's a poor game.
I go by the numbers. Everyone remembers the defense, but they had a pretty good rushing attack with Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson. The QB controversy gets the headlines, but the offense wasn't that terrible. I know that doesn't match up with anecdotal evidence, but I can't help the perceptions of other people.
The Cardinals we're a 9-7 team that season that got hot in the playoffs. Isn't that why EVERYONE here says the Jets are mediocre? That's not an elite team, but I guess it's nice being able to shut down a 9-7 in the snow.
Elite team? You asked for elite offense. Warner, Bolden, and Fitzgerald were a force out there. It was an elite offense. The last time I checked, both teams played in the snow, and the Pats put up 47 points.
2009, and that's no explosive offense. Matt Ryan and co. are decent, but not explosive yet.
I already noted the caveat.
Out of your list, I'm impressed with 2 games and that's because the Chargers are the only good team on that list, besides the Bears but their offense was not good I don't care what stats want to indicate. That offense cost them a super bowl.
You're seeing what you want to see. It's a common form of cognitive bias.
2006 - They beat a mediocre Bengals team (this is why I wanted ELITE teams, not 8-8, 9-7 teams, but you having to show teams like this reinforces what I've been saying all along) they beat a Bears offense that was mediocre they were one of the weakest SB teams of all time.
You said "top offense". You're switching to "elite team" now that I've given you examples? The D did shut down some top offenses. You're going to have to deal with that.
07 - Fantastic team, no one was stopping the Pats that year..Except for the Giants :[ This is the only kind of strategy that will help our D. We need our offense to be explosive similar to 07 to help them make the opposing offense one dimensional.
I'm not disagreeing with this, and I don't see that as a problem. In fact, I think that is the new reality in the NFL. Offense dictates the game in this era. I don't know what you think of the Pats, but they've been the one of the most consistently successful franchises since 2000 (or the most successful depending on your POV). I think that BB is betting that the wave of the future is blowing your opponent out of the water and force them to play one-dimensional football. If we would have had more capable players and planning on defense in 2009, I think we're looking at a 15-1 or 14-2 type of year last year.
Again you switched your requirements from "top offense" to "elite team" without telling me. Find me an elite team that shut down elite teams the way you demand the Pats do. You won't find them.
