Defense vs "Elite" QB

It's (generally) easier to build a defense because it isn't predicated on one particular guy at a specific position. 

That said, I think the goal is to be overwhelming at one, good on the other and solid on Special Teams. You probably need to be better on Special teams if your defense is your cornerstone.  

I believe if they play the the AFC-CG in New England or on a neutral field and Brady/Pats beat the Broncos.

I'd strive for the D, though I'm not sure it is easier. I do get idea though.

Patriots offense was pretty damn good last year, defeated a top defense.  

Year before that Seahawks defense held up against the best offense and Peyton Manning.  

2012 the Ravens beat the 9ers.  9ers were a poor offense.  Raven's were top 10.  

So on and so forth.  

I'd love to see our defense be better year in, year out.  I prefer having Aaron Rodgers.  

Defense wins championships. 

Carolina's defense outplayed Denvers defense last night. In just about every way possible. 

Cam **** the bed. So did Tolbert. 12 penalties. 

Its hard to win a SB. 

I want the rip-roaring defense, but it's tough to build a super defense across the board. Think how strong Denver is in all areas, and the unsung heroes last night were the interior D linemen. Little press, but they gave Newton no lanes to run through and just kept coming all night. Top that off with top-notch linebackers and secondary, and it's a special defense. Kudos to Elway, he's done it. But they also sacrificed a lot of cap space and had a year where the defense didn't suffer major injuries.

I would be happy with a top-five D and Rodgers. As he proved this year, you're never out of a game if you have a top-flight QB.

Packers are set up to have one of the top secondaries in the NFL for the next 3-4 years. Shields, Rollins, Randall, Clinton-Dix, and Burnett are all under contract for the next 3 years or so. That's as good a core as anyone and that's not counting Gunter and some of the additional depth. 

CM3 is as good an outside edge rusher as there is and Mike Daniels is top level DL. They have both for 3-4 years. 

The point is that the Packers have almost all the pieces to be a top 3 defense. They need a good ILB so they can move CM3 back to where he's a HOF-level player. And then another pass rusher on the DL. Those guys don't grow on trees, but add another edge rusher (and with Peppers for one more year) and you could have a dominant defense.

Here's a question related to this. If you were limited to one choice would you rather add one impact player to this team on offense or defense right now? Obviously, both of these are pipe dreams but would you rather have Rob Gronkowski or JJ Watt? 

JJ Watt FOR SURE!

NaVorrow Bowman. Then Lavonte David. Then Calvin Johnson. 

Yup. If we're dreaming, give me JJ Watt all day.

To answer your question, p'boi, I think it's much easier to field a top-shelf defense. 
QBs on the level of Manning, Brady, and ARod are 'once in a generation', and the success of an offense is directly related to a single player.
Defenses must rely on the function of the entire unit to succeed, and are much less dependent on one single player. Although it may require more than one player to consistently be a top defense, none of them individually have to be 'generational' players.

I do agree defense wins championships. I think it was Boris that posted the same in the game thread, and I posted it also shows that games are won/lost in the trenches. For all the weapons any offense may have, they can't win consistently, and certainly can't win in the playoffs, without an OL that can block and protect.
Conversely, if the DL can't penetrate and stuff lanes, the defense as a whole suffers.

Another point that seems to proven year after year is that SPEED is the key to success at the LB positions. Absolutely no substitute, and if a defense doesn't have it, they will watch the teams that do post-season.

ChilliJon posted:

Carolina's defense outplayed Denvers defense last night. In just about every way possible. 

Had Osweiler played CAR might have had to actually defend the pass. 

I said in the game thread that a team can't win the SB with a QB who can't complete 60% of his passes, referring to Newton. Well, I couldn't have been more wrong, about the Broncos. I thought Wade and that D could be the difference, but I expected Peyton and the offense were going to have to do more than they did. The DEN O was essentially spotted 17 points from their D. With the way the DEN D played they should have scored 30+ easily.

I guess if your elite QB goes down, then that is that.  At least you probably have someone to back him up.

If all 11 guys on your elite defense go down, I think your chances are even worse.  

Sticking to QB as my pick.  

Solid reasoning!

I read that that the #1 defense has played in the Super Bowl 12 times, and is 10-2 in those games.

That would also mean having the #1 defense gets you to the superbowl 25% of the time.  Curious what the offensive numbers look like?  What if you expanded to top 5 in offense and defense?  

In many cases, the best defense wins, but it's really who can defend the pass. You have to have no glaring weaknesses and then have a top flight pash rush or a great secondary that makes the pass rush look better than it really is.

You can win Super Bowls by having a ferocious pass rusher(s) combined with a decent secondary (examples include Miller/Ware; Giants with Tuck/JPP/Strahan; Lawrence Taylor, Charles Haley, Reggie White, James Harrison, Suggs, the 1970s Steelers DL)

You can also win Super Bowls by having a superstar secondary or shut-down corner to take out the other teams top WR. Examples include Revis, Deion Sanders, the Seahawks cover guys, Darrell Green, etc.

The Packers have a very good secondary and if they move CM3 back to OLB, a top 5 pash rusher. That's why ILB has killed them so badly the last few years. It's such a glaring weakness that they have to move a HOF edge pash rusher to ILB.

Easy...much easier to get a QB.  Even the Vikings have a pro bowl QB.

Difficult...we've only had two pro bowl QB's in the last 20 years.

DH13 posted:

Difficult...we've only had two pro bowl QB's in the last 20 years.

Only because Tolzzzzzzien has not been given a shot

I think an interesting angle on the roster is would you rather have Tolzien as a stable back up or use his roster spot for a free agent? 

If it was Trevathon I think I'd rather have the starting LB and gamble 12 can stay healthy or Hundley can step up. 

Cost to keep Tolzien would be significantly less than getting someone like Trevathon though. From a pure roster spot though I agree with you.

With the lack of quality starting QBs in the league, Tolzien needs to go elsewhere.