1. There are many instances of average offense teams with great D's beating explosive offensive teams in big playoff games, even going back each of the past 30 years. Can you say the same thing about the reverse, naming some dominant offenses that beat great D's? Physical great D almost always beats the great offense.
2. Interesting that you posted that pass/run ratio showing how both teams didn't have a strong commitment to the run, and don't see how their losses are somehow related
1. Yes, there are. BUT, the best offenses in the league will IN THE LONG RUN have the most success. Yes, some teams just don't play other well (Colts vs NE in the playoffs vs early BB defense, NE vs Denver, etc), but in the long run, the stronger the offense (no matter how it is done), the better the results.
2. I don't know why a team needs to run the ball more than 50% of the time. Again, in 2001 and 2003, we ran the ball less than 50% of the time AND it wasn't as productive (3.6 Y/A in '01+'03 vs 4.1 Y/A in '07).
Seriously, this "have to run run run" is getting ridiculous. The Steelers won the SB last year because of Big Ben and their defense. They ran the ball less than 50% of the time last year, as well as averaging just 3.7 Y/A, ranking 29th in the NFL.
The Colts, well, I've already explained that they run the ball well enough and they won in 06 because their defense got it together. Manning picked apart our weak secondary (similarly to how Brady picked apart the Giants in 07 week 17).
The Steelers won the SB in '05 with, yes a strong running game, but it was partly due to the young QB they had. Their offense was middle of the pack, their defense is what won it for them
2003-2004 Pats had a balanced offense, defense was beastly.
2002 was TB, who passed almost 60% of the time, didn't have a good running game, won because they had the #1 defense in the league
01 pats were a balanced offensive team that came together late and had a good defense.
REALLY, winning the Superbowl comes down to who is peaking at the end of the season. The #1 defense doesn't always win, nor does the #1 offense. Sometimes, the best team doesn't win. In the long run, though, the best team out there will win. It doesn't matter how they win (strong D, strong O, passing, running, etc).
I just don't get it. The '07 Patriots were 1 play from going undefeated. Their offense had a stinker and the still almost won. There is no set "blueprint", offensive/defense style, or team that will guarantee a win. That's why they play the game.
This thread is also misleading. The 2003-2004 Colts were GREAT teams. They just ran into a better/hotter team in the playoffs.
1 last thing. The Colts are 82-27 (75%) since 2002 (including playoffs) and the Patriots are 19-2 since 2007 (with Brady). How do you possibly argue against that? If you want to mention the defense, fine. I agree that teams with great defenses tend to have more success in the playoffs (they still need a potent offense, though), but to complain about not being "tough" enough on offense or not running enough is ridiculous.