Didn't Eli win two super bowls?

[fivetwos]

Quarterback is by FAR the most important player on the field.

Therefore, stopping the other teams QB (pass rush) is also important.

Get a quarterback, a solid staff with a plan, and some pass rushers (in that order) and you'll have a shot.

 

[OmerV]

Scoring quickly and playing with a lead is a better tool for stopping an opposing offense than a good defense is.

How does scoring quickly stop the opponent's offense, and without a good defense what prevents the opponent from scoring quickly? Scoring quickly may just be the start of a shootout if neither defense can stop the other.

 

[Future]

How does scoring quickly stop the opponent's offense, and without a good defense what prevents the opponent from scoring quickly? Scoring quickly may just be the start of a shootout if neither defense can stop the other.

Playing with a lead is better for a defense than having good defensive personnel. Otherwise, welcome to 2020. Trying to win 20-17 is pointless.

 

[Brooksey]

Scoring quickly and playing with a lead is a better tool for stopping an opposing offense than a good defense is.

Let's address the first part of your statement about scoring quickly...

Scoring in 10 seconds (quickly) and playing with a 7-0 lead is a better tool for stopping an opposing offense then scoring in 8 minutes and playing with a 7-0 lead?

 

[Williamsboys]

Eli Mannig won 2 Super Bowls because their offense didnt have to average close to 40 points in order to win.

 

[Future]

Let's address the first part of your statement about scoring quickly...

Scoring in 10 seconds (quickly) and playing with a 7-0 lead is a better tool for stopping an opposing offense then scoring in 8 minutes and playing with a 7-0 lead?

There's no difference between the two.

By quickly I mean on early possessions, not literal time.

 

[OmerV]

Playing with a lead is better for a defense than having good defensive personnel. Otherwise, welcome to 2020. Trying to win 20-17 is pointless.

Gotta disagree with that.

First of all, it's going to be harder to play with a lead if you don't have good defensive personnel (and good defensive coaching).

Second, you seem to think that as long as a team scores that means the other team can't score when they get the ball. So, again, how does that make sense, and how, if a team doesn't have a good defense, can it ensure it isn't the other team that is scoring quickly?

I will concede that playing with a big lead helps a defense, but without the defense it will be hard to build that kind of big lead. To get a big lead obviously requires both the offense scoring, and the defense not allowing scores.

 

[Brooksey]

There's no difference between the two.

By quickly I mean on early possessions, not literal time.

Scoring early in the game and taking a lead is not a better defensive tool than the defense shutting you out on its own. It's a tool but not a better one

In a perfect scenario you have the #1 offense and the #1 defense..not what we have right now which the #1 offense and #31 defense.

 

[Aven8]

Eli Manning only played well in the playoffs and against us. That’s his career in a nutshell.

 

[Future]

Scoring early in the game and taking a lead is not a better defensive tool than the defense shutting you out on its own. It's a tool but not a better one

In a perfect scenario you have the #1 offense and the #1 defense..not what we have right now which the #1 offense and #31 defense.

The point is that the #1 defense still gets smoked by the #1 offense. Taking a lead is better becuase there's no such thing in the NFL as a defense that is going to stop a high-performing offense.

 

[OmerV]

Eli Manning only played well in the playoffs and against us. That’s his career in a nutshell.

How did he even get to the playoffs if he didn't play well other times? The Giants couldn't get to the playoffs solely off playing the Cowboys twice a year.

 

[Section446]

Eli came through in the clutch when he needed to, Dak doesn't have that gene.

 

[Future]

Gotta disagree with that.

First of all, it's going to be harder to play with a lead if you don't have good defensive personnel (and good defensive coaching).

Second, you seem to think that as long as a team scores that means the other team can't score when they get the ball. So, again, how does that make sense, and how, if a team doesn't have a good defense, can it ensure it isn't the other team that is scoring quickly?

I will concede that playing with a big lead helps a defense, but without the defense it will be hard to build that kind of big lead. To get a big lead obviously requires both the offense scoring, and the defense not allowing scores.

It's never harder to play defense with a lead lol.

No, I don't think that's the case. I think you're better off trying to win a shootout than you are trying to grind out a game. The league is officiated to be that way. Being resistant to that is a death sentence.

 

[kskboys]

Defense doesn't win championships anymore, but the point that QBs don't win in a vacuum is still true.

OMG, you really need to get out from under that rock and watch some football!!!! Remember that thing called the super bowl? Soooooooooooo, were you just drinking too much, or did you go to the kitchen and forget to come back for the entire 4th quarter when the KC D completely shut down SF? C'mooooooooooooonnn, you can't be this naive.

 

[75boyz]

Quarterback is by FAR the most important player on the field.

Therefore, stopping the other teams QB (pass rush) is also important.

Get a quarterback, a solid staff with a plan, and some pass rushers (in that order) and you'll have a shot.

One of the simplest yet most accurate breakdown formulas to NFL success I have read. Outstanding post.
Lacking all 3, the Cowboys are behind those that do possess at least a couple of these elements.

Nice post again

Go Cowboys

 

[kskboys]

Eli came through in the clutch when he needed to, Dak doesn't have that gene.

So tossing a ball up for grabs and getting lucky is coming through in the clutch? I think your definition of clutch needs some work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[TheCoolFan]

Yes Eli had a good defense but him and his offense also didn't hand out turnovers to the Patriots left and right like the Cowboys have in 2 games so far.

 

[KJJ]

Of course he didn't! His defense did....

Just a gentle reminder to the DDS crowd......

The Giants were behind in both Super Bowls when Eli made two huge plays with the games on the line to Tyree and Manningham which is why he was named Super Bowl MVP both games. Just a gentle reminder.

 

[kskboys]

Eli made critical throws in both games. So, yes, he did win it.

Furthermore, are you saying that the Giants offense in either of those Super Bowls was better than the Cowboys offense of today?

Look, the stronger unit usually is going to win the Super Bowl for a team - or get them there. But it's not an absolute certainty that if your defense is better than your offense, you're going to win the Super Bowl.

In fact, since 1993, 12 of the 25 Super Bowl winners had better offenses than defenses (https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/9r7q6x/the_last_25_super_bowl_champions_and_their/). Two of the 25 winners were equally balanced offensively and defensively. That mean the Super Bowl winners over the past 25 years had better offenses than defenses.

In the case of both Giants Super Bowl winners, the offenses were ranked HIGHER than their defensive units. In 2011, when the Giants won, there offense was ranked 9th and their defense was ranked 24th.

My conclusion: We have the ability on offense to get to the Super Bowl, theoretically speaking. And our offense is better than our defense. So this doesn't provide an excuse for Dak. In both of Eli's wins, his offense (and he was the focal point of their offense) was better than his defense.

Eli may have gone out on a whimper, but he was not merely a bus driver for his Super Bowl teams. Statistics prove otherwise. He stepped up when it counted. And if the name of the game is winning Super Bowls, who cares if he was pedestrian in the regular season. I don't care if you can swim when I'm in shallow water. I need to know if you can rescue me when I'm drowning. That's when I care if you can swim.

More to the point, I don't care if Dak is great in the regular season, just like Giants fans didn't care if Eli wasn't John Elway. When he got to the post-season, he turned into John Elway even as the defense stepped up its game.

We need Dak to do the same thing, especially since he has the talent on offense. That's the standard we have as Cowboys fans. Unfair? Maybe. But he can always go somewhere else if he doesn't like the standard.

Here's what you missed: It's not that you have to have a dominant D to win a super bowl, but you have to have a D that can get stops. You're completely misinterpreting the statement that D's win championships. What the statement really means is that you're not going to win it all w/o a D.

Take 2011, the year you yourself picked. Are you aware that the Giants D held every team they faced in the playoffs under 21 points? And that includes holding the 3rd ranked GB to 20, and the 2nd ranked Patriots to 17. D was huge in that playoff run.

 

[kskboys]

The Giants were behind in both Super Bowls when Eli made two huge plays with the games on the line to Tyree in Manningham which is why he was named Super Bowl MVP both games.

He only deserved it in the 2nd one.

Justin Tuck was the MVP in the 07 super bowl.