I don’t think we are not really disagreeing other than maybe on the point of the help going equally both ways. I still maintain that a good defense has more ways to its offense than does a good offense in helping its defense. To me, offensive time of possession only provides an indirect benefit to a team’s defense – in other words, the D still has to go out, make the stop and do their own part in undermining the opposing team’s clock game. Even though field position is king, time of possession is also a critical factore because as you correctly point out with the Indy example, good defenses will eventually break down late in the game against good offenses if their own offense fails to show up. Nevertheless, my view is that such situtations reflect more on the shortcomings of the offense than they does on the quality of the defense because, as I said above, bad offenses will make good defense seem worse than they actually are(statistically at least).

Anyway, I absolutely agree that balance is desirable and that, as a fan, a good offense is a wonderful thing to behold – but never at the expense of going without a good defense.

Living in the South since 4th grade and being a Bama fan, I’m a huge fan of running the football and playing tough defense. So a great defensive team is fine by me.

But I did love watching Vermeil’s Flying Circus.

A good offense can also leave your team playing a ton of minutes too. Thats what happened under Dick V. So again I think you hit it right that its a balancing act.

In the NFL because of salary cap and 53-man roster you have to decide which you want to be a little stronger. All I am saying is that I would prefer to invest a tad bit more $$$ in my defense rather than offense. I know other people will see it differently that is just my personal preference.