Best defenses of all time

[mldardy]

I see you're searching for firmer footing now. He went from the perfect QB in that offense to hey, it's not like Matt Flynn could have won that Super Bowl.

Yes, I'm basing this on my educated opinion that the reason he's so active outside the pocket is because he lacks skills inside of it. This is a guy who oversaw one of the worst passing attacks in the league this year. What that team does worst is what he gets paid to do.

I was a fan of his last year. I just didn't see any maturation as a pro QB this year. I'm not easily fooled by the title. Congrats, but his skills as a QB didn't play a part in it. I'd give him credit for not turning the ball over. That's about it. Other than that he was carried there by a great supporting cast. Give Romo that same situation and he'd collect rings.

Now I'm not saying he's always going to play this way. I'd still take him over most of the young QBs in today's game but right now, today, he is not even close to the QB of Tony Romo.

Just give Wilson the credit he deserves stop being a hater and keep it moving. You are so hard up on not giving him credit. The proof that he matured is in the numbers and the results. There isn't anything else to dispute after that.

 

[Wayne02]

Yeah but I wasn't saying any QB could win in Seattle. You did say he was the perfect QB for that offense, which is complete nonsense. The league it littered with QBs who could produce more than he did this year.

Russell Wilson didn't lead the Seahawks to anything. That's the point. He was carried there by an epic defense and a beast of a running game.

He is the perfect QB for that team, seeing how he did his part to help that team to win a Super Bowl validates that. He was consistent the entire season, so don't just get caught up in the last game where the defense destroyed the Broncos. The league is not littered with QB'S who could have produced more than Wilson with 2 5'10 wide receivers as their main targets, stop being ridiculous. Give the man credit and stop trying to knock him for having a great defense.

 

[Risen Star]

He is the perfect QB for that team, seeing how he did his part to help that team to win a Super Bowl validates that.

Sure it does. Just like the Ravens winning a Super Bowl validated that Trent Dilfer or even Joe Flacco were the "perfect" QBs for their team.

He was consistent the entire season, so don't just get caught up in the last game where the defense destroyed the Broncos. The league is not littered with QB'S who could have produced more than Wilson with 2 5'10 wide receivers as their main targets, stop being ridiculous. Give the man credit and stop trying to knock him for having a great defense.

He was consistent the entire season. He was a marginal passing QB the entire year, I agree. Sure the league is littered with better QBs. I can name 10 QBs that are easily better passers than Wilson may ever be. Each and every one of those players would immediately improve the Seahawks offense. It's just a fact. It wouldn't be hard to improve on the 26th ranked passing offense in the league.

I understand why you're confused. You just saw them win the Super Bowl in dominating fashion. So you assume he must be great. I get it.

 

[Crown Royal]

People seem to get in the hype of a superbowl (basically ONE game) performance. I know they rank #1 but the seahawks defense did look leaky in some games this year and I still believe they (The defense) got lucky more than once against SF.. I am not sure they even should be top 5

I guess I saw that game differently. The offense from the 49ers was almost completely on the feet of Kaepernick.

 

[Crown Royal]

Sure it does. Just like the Ravens winning a Super Bowl validated that Trent Dilfer or even Joe Flacco were the "perfect" QBs for their team.

He was consistent the entire season. He was a marginal passing QB the entire year, I agree. Sure the league is littered with better QBs. I can name 10 QBs that are easily better passers than Wilson may ever be. Each and every one of those players would immediately improve the Seahawks offense. It's just a fact. It wouldn't be hard to improve on the 26th ranked passing offense in the league.

I understand why you're confused. You just saw them win the Super Bowl in dominating fashion. So you assume he must be great. I get it.

Wilson's an alright QB. Doesn't make a whole ton of mistakes, isn't asked to do too much as a passer (they run rather easy routes there). His best three features are his lack of mistakes, running ability, and he does have a very good deep ball.

 

[theSHOW]

Wilson's an alright QB. Doesn't make a whole ton of mistakes, isn't asked to do too much as a passer (they run rather easy routes there). His best three features are his lack of mistakes, running ability, and he does have a very good deep ball.

agreed. What I like about Seattles team is that eventually you have to pay the Quarterback but if he isn't doing much (ha ha) then you save their and can continue to pay a broader area of players. Eggs atre not all in 1 basket plan works.

First of all, his top two targets aren't Dez Bryant and Jason Witten.

Secondly, that doesn't absolve him from failing to mature as a pocket passer. I saw no progress in that area when I expected it because, like I said, I was a fan last year.

The Seahawks won the Super Bowl, but not because of Russell Wilson. Romo is a better QB right now. By a lot. You'd see how much of Wilson's BS leadership would help him in this circus in Dallas. While Romo would find his inner clutch playing in Seattle.

I would like to

I see you're searching for firmer footing now. He went from the perfect QB in that offense to hey, it's not like Matt Flynn could have won that Super Bowl.

Yes, I'm basing this on my educated opinion that the reason he's so active outside the pocket is because he lacks skills inside of it. This is a guy who oversaw one of the worst passing attacks in the league this year. What that team does worst is what he gets paid to do.

I was a fan of his last year. I just didn't see any maturation as a pro QB this year. I'm not easily fooled by the title. Congrats, but his skills as a QB didn't play a part in it. I'd give him credit for not turning the ball over. That's about it. Other than that he was carried there by a great supporting cast. Give Romo that same situation and he'd collect rings.

Now I'm not saying he's always going to play this way. I'd still take him over most of the young QBs in today's game but right now, today, he is not even close to the QB of Tony Romo.

believe all that but Wilson has winner written all over him. I don't think you win this argument that he is not progressing rapidly and making the plays when needed. And not giving the ball away. As for Romo could win if he were in Seattle I agree, but you still have to play the game and you have to win. Romo has not done that, I am sorry to say. Players need to make plays if they deserve the winner tag. If Romo wants that, no matter what defense or recievers are on our team he still needs to make a winning play.

 

[Doomsday101]

There is a distinct difference between Seattle, and some of the great defenses of the past like Pittsburgh, Rams, Eagles and Bears. I'm not sure any of Seattle's front seven would be a starter on those defenses, but their secondary is a different story. That's where Seattle's real talent lies.

Their talent is overall defense, front end to the backend. They shut down the run they get very good pressure and they make the tackles. What makes the defense great is the overall play as a unit, it is the same thing that made those other defense great it is not one part of a defense it is the overall unit playing as 1

 

[Doomsday101]

Just give Wilson the credit he deserves stop being a hater and keep it moving. You are so hard up on not giving him credit. The proof that he matured is in the numbers and the results. There isn't anything else to dispute after that.

I think he did a great job. He is smart guy he makes plays both with his feet and his arm. He knows when to slide and get out of bounds as opposed to taking the risk and does not do things to hurt his team. However it is the seahawks overall team that makes them great they have an outstanding running games that defense must focus on and that allows Wilson and the seahawks offense to be effective in their passing game. With the play of their defense seahawks can play their game on offense without taking big risk. I applude the entire team and coaching staff for putting this all together.

 

[Wayne02]

Sure it does. Just like the Ravens winning a Super Bowl validated that Trent Dilfer or even Joe Flacco were the "perfect" QBs for their team.



He was consistent the entire season. He was a marginal passing QB the entire year, I agree. Sure the league is littered with better QBs. I can name 10 QBs that are easily better passers than Wilson may ever be. Each and every one of those players would immediately improve the Seahawks offense. It's just a fact. It wouldn't be hard to improve on the 26th ranked passing offense in the league.

I understand why you're confused. You just saw them win the Super Bowl in dominating fashion. So you assume he must be great. I get it.

That's not it at all, guys like you are funny. You're just one of those guys that can't stand to see others have success. You haven't provided one shred of factual evidence yet, all you have given is your biased opinion, which doesn't shock me coming from you, but I expected better.

 

[Risen Star]

That's not it at all, guys like you are funny. You're just one of those guys that can't stand to see others have success. You haven't provided one shred of factual evidence yet, all you have given is your biased opinion, which doesn't shock me coming from you, but I expected better.

As opposed to you, who has provided a mountain of evidence for your claim that he's the "perfect fit" for that offense.

Apparently the perfect QB for Seattle is one that provides one of the least productive passing games in the league this year.

 

[Risen Star]

Wilson's an alright QB. Doesn't make a whole ton of mistakes, isn't asked to do too much as a passer (they run rather easy routes there). His best three features are his lack of mistakes, running ability, and he does have a very good deep ball.

I would agree with all that. He's alright. Doesn't make many mistakes. Can make the big play. I'd even say he's got the potential for much more.

What he isn't right now is a great QB or even the "perfect fit" for the Seahawks offense. That's complete and total nonsense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're giving an opinion as am I it's all based on opinion but the 85 Bears defense is mentioned by many as the greatest defense in NFL history primarily due to their front 7 that destroyed QB's en route to a 15-1 season and a 36 point blowout win in the SB. Offensively the Bears were average and were led by an average QB but the team is ranked as one of the top 5 greatest teams in NFL history due to their dominating defense that annihilated QB's. The Bears defense combined for 136 sacks in 84 (setting an NFL record with 72) and in 85. The Rams Fearsome Foursome and the Vikings Purple Gang were great "defensive lines" but they never led their teams to a championship.

The Purple Gang kept coming up short in SB's the Vikings were dominated in each of their 4 SB appearances while the Fearsome Foursome never even reached a SB. The Steel Curtain was no doubt a great defense due to their consistency over a period of several years but that defense was being complimented by a great offense that had Hall of Famers on the OL, at QB, RB and at both WR positions. Both sides of the ball were loaded with HOF players. No defense other than maybe the 2000 Ravens had as dominating a "season" defensively as the 85 Bears. Both teams won SB's in blowouts due to their great defenses. The 2000 Ravens had an average offense and arguably the worst QB to ever lead a team to a SB championship.

The 2000 Ravens went 4 straight games scoring only 6 offensive points but their defense only allowed an average of 10 points a game. The Seahawks blowout of the Broncos in the SB is why their defense is being compared to the 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens and some of the other great defenses. The Seahawks defense is being judged off the 2013 season. Judging the greatest front 7/defenses in NFL history is based on whether you're judging off of consistency over a period of seasons or one great season. The greatest offenses in NFL history are judged by one great statistical season. Every offense is measured by what the 1999 Rams greatest show on turf accomplished as well as the 2007 Pats and now the 2013 Broncos.

Everyone looks at the numbers. As great as the Steel Curtain defense was the Steelers never won a SB by more than 10 points. Both the Cowboys and Rams had success against the Steel Curtain and the Rams were being led by an average QB in Vince Ferragamo. What ultimately won those SB's for the Steelers was their explosive offense that couldn't be stopped in the 4th quarter. It was Bradshaw to Swann and Stallworth that sealed those victories. In all 4 of the Steelers SB victories it was future HOF offensive players (Harris, Swann and Bradshaw twice) that were named the games MVP. In the 85 Bears SB win it was Richard Dent who was named the games MVP. For the 2000 Ravens SB win it was Ray Lewis named the games MVP. For the 2002 Bucs it was Dexter Jackson a safety named the SB MVP and for the 2013 Seahawks it was Malcolm Smith named the SB MVP. All those teams won SB's with great defensive performance throughout the season and in the SB.

Regardless of the scheme it takes damn good players to be a dominate defense and the 85 Bears had some damn good players check their roster. The Cowboys ran the Tampa 2 this past season that the 2002 Bucs dominated with but the Cowboys ended up with one of the worst defenses in NFL history because they don't have a Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks, John Lynch or a Ronde Barber. Regardless of the scheme the Cowboys defense sucks because they have a bunch of average players that don't even know where to line up. They looked like crap under Wades scheme for most of his tenure and under Ryan's scheme that's worked fine in NO. I don't care what scheme you run you have to have good players for the scheme to work.

Well, the 85 Bears never accomplished, statistically, what the Vikings did. They do not have the quality of personnel the Vikings did. Those are not opinions, those are facts but I'm OK with the statement that it is simply opinion. What they did have was the advantage of playing in the TV era. Those Bears played at a time when there was much more media coverage, then did the Vikings of the late 60s, early 70s. I mean, I'm guessing that you probably never saw the Vikings of that era, which is understandable. However, if you look at the evolution of the game, you will see that right about the time the WCO became prevalent in the modern game is about the time the 46 died and the Bears Defense declined. From roughly 1983 to 1988, the Bears 46 Defense was pretty good. In 1979, Bill Walsh came to San Fran and started installing the WCO. It took about 3 years for him to get it installed (basically 1981) but in 82, the 49ers suffered a set back with the strike shortened season. I believe, only 9 games were played that year, and with a young team running a very timing intensive offense, the 49ers never really got off the ground. This basically delayed the WCO from spreading more quickly. As we all know, the NFL is a copy cat league. However, in 83, the 49ers were back on track and in 84, the 49ers again won the Super Bowl. After that, you started seeing more and more teams go to the WCO. By 1989, the WCO was the dominant offense in the NFL and the Bears 46 was done. In 1989, the Bears defense was 20th in the league and the 46 would never dominate in the NFL again.


That is why I believe the Bears 85 Defense was much more about Scheme then anything else.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sure it does. Just like the Ravens winning a Super Bowl validated that Trent Dilfer or even Joe Flacco were the "perfect" QBs for their team.




He was consistent the entire season. He was a marginal passing QB the entire year, I agree. Sure the league is littered with better QBs. I can name 10 QBs that are easily better passers than Wilson may ever be. Each and every one of those players would immediately improve the Seahawks offense. It's just a fact. It wouldn't be hard to improve on the 26th ranked passing offense in the league.

I understand why you're confused. You just saw them win the Super Bowl in dominating fashion. So you assume he must be great. I get it.

This may be true, but passing is not all there is to playing QB. I will agree that you can probably find several QBs who have better stats or may be better passers but you can not find, IMO, many QBs who are better decision makers, better complete packages. Not many QBs can both run and pass like he can and even fewer (probably none) who have that combination of skills who are better leaders and decision makers. He's among the very best QBs in this league IMO. Certainly among the best young QBs. That's just my opinion but I believe that's a fair statement on Wilson.

 

[Wayne02]

As opposed to you, who has provided a mountain of evidence for your claim that he's the "perfect fit" for that offense.

Apparently the perfect QB for Seattle is one that provides one of the least productive passing games in the league this year.

As opposed to you, who loves to live in the hypothetical world of ifs and buts, where are your facts? You're the one who made the claim that Wilson couldn't make throws from the pocket and that he can't read defenses, so where is your proof for this false claim?

 

[Risen Star]

As opposed to you, who loves to live in the hypothetical world of ifs and buts, where are your facts? You're the one who made the claim that Wilson couldn't make throws from the pocket and that he can't read defenses, so where is your proof for this false claim?

My facts would be the Seahawks' passing attack is the worst thing they do. It's one of the worst ranked in the league. I didn't make that up. It's a fact. One you try to excuse away by knocking his receivers and pretend the loss of a vastly overrated Sidney Rice and a guy who wasn't even there the year prior in Percy Harvin. A gadget player, not a polished receiver.

I'm sorry if I know the game and don't get easily confused watching the Super Bowl. Russell Wilson is like the 30th reason they played in that game. He led nothing. He carried nothing. He was along for the ride. Give him credit for not turning the ball over. Give him credit for making a big play when needed. But when it comes to being a real top flight NFL QB, he is nowhere near that right now. He's just not.

I don't think I have to convince many people that he's not the perfect QB for that offense. That there aren't plenty of other QBs in the league who would walk into Seattle and instantly improve that team.

 

[KJJ]

Well, the 85 Bears never accomplished, statistically, what the Vikings did. They do not have the quality of personnel the Vikings did. Those are not opinions, those are facts but I'm OK with the statement that it is simply opinion. What they did have was the advantage of playing in the TV era. Those Bears played at a time when there was much more media coverage, then did the Vikings of the late 60s, early 70s. I mean, I'm guessing that you probably never saw the Vikings of that era, which is understandable. However, if you look at the evolution of the game, you will see that right about the time the WCO became prevalent in the modern game is about the time the 46 died and the Bears Defense declined. From roughly 1983 to 1988, the Bears 46 Defense was pretty good. In 1979, Bill Walsh came to San Fran and started installing the WCO. It took about 3 years for him to get it installed (basically 1981) but in 82, the 49ers suffered a set back with the strike shortened season. I believe, only 9 games were played that year, and with a young team running a very timing intensive offense, the 49ers never really got off the ground. This basically delayed the WCO from spreading more quickly. As we all know, the NFL is a copy cat league. However, in 83, the 49ers were back on track and in 84, the 49ers again won the Super Bowl. After that, you started seeing more and more teams go to the WCO. By 1989, the WCO was the dominant offense in the NFL and the Bears 46 was done. In 1989, the Bears defense was 20th in the league and the 46 would never dominate in the NFL again.


That is why I believe the Bears 85 Defense was much more about Scheme then anything else.

The Vikings and their Purple Gang never accomplished what the 85 Bears did and that's winning a championship. Some have the 85 Bears ranked as the second greatest team in NFL history. Most have them ranked ahead of the Cowboys great 90's teams even though they didn't have near the offense the Cowboys did. The Vikings Purple Gang never put up the sack totals the Bears did from 84 to 85 that's the stat everyone looks at. The Purple Gang never terrorized QB's like the 84-85 Bears. The Purple Gang were complimented during most of their great years with a solid offense that was being led by a HOF QB. I started following the NFL in 1972 and watched 3 of the Vikings 4 SB losses.

The Purple Gang didn't show up in any of their 4 SB's in which the Vikings were dominated. This entire topic is based on opinion but you'll never find anyone who knows football who has the opinion that the 70's Vikings had better teams than the 85 Bears. To have an average offense and QB and still be considered as one of the top 5 greatest teams in NFL history shows just how great the 85 Bears defense was. You can chalk it all up to scheme if you want but that defense was loaded with some excellent players who were as cohesive a unit as the NFL has ever seen.

 

[Wayne02]

My facts would be the Seahawks' passing attack is the worst thing they do. It's one of the worst ranked in the league. I didn't make that up. It's a fact. One you try to excuse away by knocking his receivers and pretend the loss of a vastly overrated Sidney Rice and a guy who wasn't even there the year prior in Percy Harvin. A gadget player, not a polished receiver.

I'm sorry if I know the game and don't get easily confused watching the Super Bowl. Russell Wilson is like the 30th reason they played in that game. He led nothing. He carried nothing. He was along for the ride. Give him credit for not turning the ball over. Give him credit for making a big play when needed. But when it comes to being a real top flight NFL QB, he is nowhere near that right now. He's just not.

I don't think I have to convince many people that he's not the perfect QB for that offense. That there aren't plenty of other QBs in the league who would walk into Seattle and instantly improve that team.

Improve that team? The team that went 16-3 and won the Super Bowl, hard to improve much more than that. Yes their defense is great, we all know that, you're trying to use that to knock Wilson for whatever reason. Their offense isn't built to be a passing offense, but that doesn't mean that Wilson isn't capable to throw the ball accurately and read defenses. You're making that point without any facts, just your opinion. Wilson doesn't have the same WR corp as most top passing offenses in this league, so that's one of the reasons why you see him scrambling around so much, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. He's the perfect QB for that team, and makes plays when they most need them. Stop basing everything on stats, playing the QB position is more than what you see on a stat sheet.

 

[KJJ]

By 1989, the WCO was the dominant offense in the NFL and the Bears 46 was done. In 1989, the Bears defense was 20th in the league and the 46 would never dominate in the NFL again.


That is why I believe the Bears 85 Defense was much more about Scheme then anything else.

By 89 most of the Bears key defensive players from their great 85 team were all over 30 they were past their prime.

 

[Risen Star]

Improve that team? The team that went 16-3 and won the Super Bowl, hard to improve much more than that. Yes their defense is great, we all know that, you're trying to use that to knock Wilson for whatever reason. Their offense isn't built to be a passing offense, but that doesn't mean that Wilson isn't capable to throw the ball accurately and read defenses. You're making that point without any facts, just your opinion. Wilson doesn't have the same WR corp as most top passing offenses in this league, so that's one of the reasons why you see him scrambling around so much, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. He's the perfect QB for that team, and makes plays when they most need them. Stop basing everything on stats, playing the QB position is more than what you see on a stat sheet.

Sure it's easy to improve that team. Once Wilson can make plays inside the pocket the team will be improved.

You keep talking about facts. What facts have you presented here to support your idiotic comment that Russell Wilson is the perfect QB for the Seahawks? Give me some facts on that. Since you're a fact checker and all.

My fact, again, is that the Seahawks passing offense ranked 26th in the league this year. Read that again. That's a fact. What Russell Wilson gets paid to do he did to the tune of the 26th best out of 32.

Now of course some teams pass more than others but I'd argue the reason why the Seahawks run their offense like they do is because the "perfect" QB they have can't play it any other way. They can not rely on Wilson to carry the offense with his arm. He's not good enough. Not even close. He was carried by a great defense and running game.

 

[KJJ]

In 1979, Bill Walsh came to San Fran and started installing the WCO. It took about 3 years for him to get it installed (basically 1981) but in 82, the 49ers suffered a set back with the strike shortened season. I believe, only 9 games were played that year, and with a young team running a very timing intensive offense, the 49ers never really got off the ground. This basically delayed the WCO from spreading more quickly. As we all know, the NFL is a copy cat league. However, in 83, the 49ers were back on track and in 84, the 49ers again won the Super Bowl. After that, you started seeing more and more teams go to the WCO.

Walsh's WCO was so successful mostly due to the talent he had offensively. He was blessed with the greatest QB and WR to ever play the game. The NFL is a copy cat league but not every team has had the success in the WCO as the 49ers did because they didn't have the talent they did. Like I said for any scheme to be successful you have to have the players. The Cowboys sucked in Kiffin's Tampa 2 defense because they don't have the talent to run it successfully.