why we should trade up for a franchise QB

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:16 pm

This franchise has been very, very special to many of us for many years

we are as pissed about our current situation as we can be

we are seeing things get better and we just don't see the value in giving up a few good young players for 1 QB
we understand the importance of a GOOD QB but it's not worth the draft picks

we'll get there with this FO - GIVE THEM TIME

did any of you see what I saw this w/e

I saw much, much better QBs being 'beaten' by better teams

NOBODY can tell me that Manning is as good a QB as Rogers (NOT close) ... OR that Smith is better than Brees

better teams won those games - this FO of ours is building a better team - GIVE THEM TIME

emoses14 · Post by **emoses14** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:25 am

riggofan wrote: Bad team or not, the local sports news and radio here is DOMINATED by the Redskins nearly year round. . .

Fans may be frustrated and worn out by the Skins, but they'll be back and tuned in again like always as soon as free agency starts up in March. Its crazy to think what this place would be like if Snyder ever fields another champion team.

It has been my experience, everywhere except NY, that the NFL has a uniquely inherent and "to the core" stranglehold on the passion of its local fanbase. I suspect the Giants have it over their fans, but the uankees seem to be NY's "NFL" team. There's a deep pride that I believe DC and skins fans everywhere have that is DYING for just a winnning team, let alone one that dominates again.
Smithian is right in a way, but I think he's missing the fandom that is simmering and waiting for something to really be galvanized by and its not Free agency or a big name; its playoffs, its superbowl wins, its in restoring our team to the rightful place we all know it belongs, its finally being able to shove our team in other teams faces. They want to believe, but have "beaten fan syndrome" with snyder's free agent splashes, with quick starts before the rest of the league figures us out, and with watching promising season endings only to see no foundation carried over to the following season. We're conditioned to expect the worst.

When they win, the skins will dominate the positive dc chatter like they do the negative and it will be tremendous.

A great young qb, a great team, and play ranging from solid to great, every play, every game will bring these fans back.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:01 am

The presence of Jeff Fisher, one of Mike Shanahan’s closest friends in coaching, as the Rams’ new head coach is interesting in and of itself.

This friendship could be just what we need to trade up. As I have been saying, if Shanny trades up, it will be a creative formula instead of just straight up draft choices. By creative I mean, we would be giving up a combination of players and draft choices for a the #2 and players and draft choices. Much like the Herschel Walker trade, but minus the fleecing. I'll live the creativity to ShanAllen and Fischer and Co.

http://www.realredskins.com/rich-tandle ... -2011.html

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:03 pm

SkinsJock wrote:did any of you see what I saw this w/e

I saw much, much better QBs being 'beaten' by better teams

NOBODY can tell me that Manning is as good a QB as Rogers (NOT close) ... OR that Smith is better than Brees

better teams won those games - this FO of ours is building a better team - GIVE THEM TIME

No, I didn't see what you saw. I see you reaching for something to support your position that the Redskins can forgo the effort to secure a top QB, but it is a REACH.

What I saw I was somewhat surprised about, but not OVERLY surprised. What I saw was Tom Brady destroying the Broncos with 6 TD passes ... no surprise there ... and as much as I cheer for the Kid named Tebow, he's not going to keep pace with a Tom Brady, EVER.

I also saw a former number #1 overall drafted QB who was labeled a total bust surprisingly emerge and go head to head with one of the best in the business, Drew Brees. Anyone who watched that game saw Alex Smith play lights out, which is the ONLY reason the 49ers came out of that game on top. Smith's QB rating was 103, compared to Brees' 93. He simply played his rear end off, and matched Brees, series for series in the 4th QT.

I saw a solid Texan team lose to a Ravens team, primarily due to being forced to go with a backup rookie QB who has played extremely well filling in, but had, not surprisingly, no answer and no prayer against that stout Ravens defense who kept the kid at bay with a QB rating of 28, while Flacco managed a 97 even with the horrendous play of the Raven's offensive line, who had better play better next week, else the Pats and Brady will be back in the Super Bowl again ... and arguably, Brady is the best, when Peyton Manning isn't on the field.

I saw a resurgent NY Giant's team HANDLE Green Bay in Green Bay, and Eli Manning playing circles around Aaron Rodgers .... Manning's rating for the game 114.5 .... Rodgers 78.5. The facts are, Eli is having a terrific year, and now belongs in the same conversation with the other elite QBs like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc. Eli is getting it done, and that's the ONLY reason why the Giant are where they are right now.

Perhaps the biggest surprise to me was how run of the mill average the Giant's defense made Aaron Rodgers look yesterday .... and as I have REPEATEDLY said, Green Bay is an average team without Aaron Rodgers putting up those obscene passing stats he generally puts up. I saw Rodgers miss a lot of throws yesterday, while the much touted Packer's receivers drop a lot of Balls too. That's why they lost, whether it was due to great defense or a poor showing by the Pack's offense, Rodgers didn't look very special yesterday, and that was the difference in the game.

The one common denominator I saw in every single game ... without exception, is that the winner in each game had the QB who played the best, with the highest QB rating.

What did you see that I'm missing?

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:11 pm

RayNAustin wrote:The one common denominator I saw in every single game ... without exception, is that the winner in each game had the QB who played the best, with the highest QB rating.

What did you see that I'm missing?

Every team this weekend had a solid offensive line?

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:27 pm

riggofan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:The one common denominator I saw in every single game ... without exception, is that the winner in each game had the QB who played the best, with the highest QB rating.

What did you see that I'm missing?

Every team this weekend had a solid offensive line?

Is this a question or a statement? Did you even watch the Ravens game? Their offensive line was horrendous ... they could hardly complete a hand off without disruption in the backfield. Flacco was sacked 5 times, and constantly had someone in his face, while the Ravens defense was held to only 2 sacks of Yates.

Smith was sacked 4 times, while the 49ers sacked Brees 3 times.

The only team that actually won the game with defense was the Ravens against a rookie QB. Not even the 49ers highly ranked defense could stop the Saints from putting up 32 points .... the 9ers had to outscore them. 4 lead changes inside the final 4 minutes? It was a shoot out at the OK coral.

Look at the winning scores:

45-10
36-32
37-20
20-13

My response was to the suggestion that all of the best QB's lost to the better teams, which was an attempt to make the case that the QB position is less important than others maintain.

I just showed the opposite was the case, based on facts rather than perceptions. One could certainly argue that Brees is a better QB than Alex Smith, and I would agree with that, all things being equal. But, yesterday, Smith played better, albeit against a defense that isn't as good as the 49er defense.

This leads me back to one of the points I bring up all the time in response to those that say the Redskins aren't talented enough to be contenders yet. The fact is, among the playoff teams that played this year, the Redskin defense is much better than the Patriots, Packers, Saints, Giants ... which were all front runners for the Super Bowl, with two of them one game away.

That's why the Redskins could expect such a marked improvement with a high end QB.

PS: did I forget to mention we beat the Giants twice this year? Both times, decisively? :wink:

VRIEL1 · Post by **VRIEL1** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:03 pm

"WHY WE SHOULD TRADE BACK FOR A FRANCHISE QB"

I'm soooo tired of hearing how the only way we will be good next year is if the team throws all their draft picks to land RGIII. I guess Flynn is no good, the back up to Brady is no good, Tannehill is no good, etc. etc. etc.

I'm just guessing but I'd bet the Bengals are not upset they didn't get a top two spot QB. Wait, Tebow was drafted 25th overall. I bet the Bronco's are kicking their butts that they didn't get a franchise QB cause he wasn't drafted in the top 5.

SprintRightOption · Post by **SprintRightOption** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:17 pm

Phil Simms said it best on Saturday talking about Tebow and running/option QB's. When a team gets behind, a team that plays like a wishbone college team will never win. So true Phil. So true.

Are there anymore running QB's in the final four teams for the Super Bowl? I say trading anything for RGIII is a waste. Only Andrew Luck would be worth trading for and if he can't be gotten trade down for picks.

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Building on this reply I saw 12 teams make the playoffs with only 2 NOT having a franchise QB - Tebow and Yates - and they are gone.

Of the 20 teams that didn't make it in which ones have a franchise QB?

Romo, Vick, Cutler, Bradford, and Newton in the NFC. Romo, Vick, Cutler, and Bradford all suffered serious injury, and Newton was rookie of the year with absolutely no support. They can't all get in.

Rivers and maybe Palmer in the AFC. One has Norv as a coach and the other took over mid-season and lost virtually all support.

In other words, to even make the playoffs you almost have to have a franchise QB and to move on it is tantamount to a necessity. In the absence of great QB play you need to be historically great elsewhere.

The QB is clearly the most important player on the team.

Do we need to continue to build the rest of the team? Yes.

Do we need a premier QB if we wnat to go somewhere? Yes.

PS - there is a difference between a running QB and a QB who can run. The play of the game in the 49R NOS game was a run by Smith. Rodgers and Manning can both run - especially Rodgers. Brees pretty much can't. Tebow is clearly the only "running QB" who played this past weekend but all the others pulled it down and ran at least once for something significant. I admittedly have a bit of a man crush on RGIII. If he is ultimately a "running QB" as I would characterize Tebow and Vick, I don't think I want him - but I don't think that's what he is. He wants to pass first but can take off if needed.

RayNAustin wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:did any of you see what I saw this w/e

I saw much, much better QBs being 'beaten' by better teams

NOBODY can tell me that Manning is as good a QB as Rogers (NOT close) ... OR that Smith is better than Brees

better teams won those games - this FO of ours is building a better team - GIVE THEM TIME

No, I didn't see what you saw. I see you reaching for something to support your position that the Redskins can forgo the effort to secure a top QB, but it is a REACH.

What I saw I was somewhat surprised about, but not OVERLY surprised. What I saw was Tom Brady destroying the Broncos with 6 TD passes ... no surprise there ... and as much as I cheer for the Kid named Tebow, he's not going to keep pace with a Tom Brady, EVER.

I also saw a former number #1 overall drafted QB who was labeled a total bust surprisingly emerge and go head to head with one of the best in the business, Drew Brees. Anyone who watched that game saw Alex Smith play lights out, which is the ONLY reason the 49ers came out of that game on top. Smith's QB rating was 103, compared to Brees' 93. He simply played his rear end off, and matched Brees, series for series in the 4th QT.

I saw a solid Texan team lose to a Ravens team, primarily due to being forced to go with a backup rookie QB who has played extremely well filling in, but had, not surprisingly, no answer and no prayer against that stout Ravens defense who kept the kid at bay with a QB rating of 28, while Flacco managed a 97 even with the horrendous play of the Raven's offensive line, who had better play better next week, else the Pats and Brady will be back in the Super Bowl again ... and arguably, Brady is the best, when Peyton Manning isn't on the field.

I saw a resurgent NY Giant's team HANDLE Green Bay in Green Bay, and Eli Manning playing circles around Aaron Rodgers .... Manning's rating for the game 114.5 .... Rodgers 78.5. The facts are, Eli is having a terrific year, and now belongs in the same conversation with the other elite QBs like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc. Eli is getting it done, and that's the ONLY reason why the Giant are where they are right now.

Perhaps the biggest surprise to me was how run of the mill average the Giant's defense made Aaron Rodgers look yesterday .... and as I have REPEATEDLY said, Green Bay is an average team without Aaron Rodgers putting up those obscene passing stats he generally puts up. I saw Rodgers miss a lot of throws yesterday, while the much touted Packer's receivers drop a lot of Balls too. That's why they lost, whether it was due to great defense or a poor showing by the Pack's offense, Rodgers didn't look very special yesterday, and that was the difference in the game.

The one common denominator I saw in every single game ... without exception, is that the winner in each game had the QB who played the best, with the highest QB rating.

What did you see that I'm missing?

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:49 pm

RayNAustin wrote:
riggofan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:The one common denominator I saw in every single game ... without exception, is that the winner in each game had the QB who played the best, with the highest QB rating.

What did you see that I'm missing?

Every team this weekend had a solid offensive line?

Is this a question or a statement?

Yeah a question. But I'm still not sure I totally buy what you're saying. QB play was one common factor, but I think the deciding factor in most of the games this weekend was which team played better defense.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:17 am

riggofan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:
riggofan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:The one common denominator I saw in every single game ... without exception, is that the winner in each game had the QB who played the best, with the highest QB rating.

What did you see that I'm missing?

Every team this weekend had a solid offensive line?

Is this a question or a statement?

Yeah a question. But I'm still not sure I totally buy what you're saying. QB play was one common factor, but I think the deciding factor in most of the games this weekend was which team played better defense.

Well, I suppose that could be said of any game, no matter what the final score is .... could be 56-45 ... and you could say the winner played better defense by 11 points. However, neither score brings to mind good defense as far as I'm concerned. How I'd characterize three out of four of the games this past weekend is ...

Patriots over the Broncos 45-10 was an offensive blow out

Giants over the Packers 37 -20 was an offensive blow out

49ers over the Saints 36-32 was an offensive shoot out

The only game that was decided by defense was not surprisingly, the Baltimore Ravens.

StorminMormon86 · Post by **StorminMormon86** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:43 am

Alex Smith proved a lot of people wrong on Saturday. I'm just glad the Packers and Saints are gone and get to watch the Superbowl...now hopefully Brady can deal the same result out to the Ravens.

I do not want to get RGIII if it's going to cost us draft picks. I don't think that fits with the "Shanaplan" anyway, but if his guy isn't there in the draft, we'll go elsewhere. I hardly ever listen to sports talk radio, so what's the geenral consensus around the DC area in terms of who we're going after in the offseason? Rookie or FA, or both?

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:54 am

RayNAustin wrote:Patriots over the Broncos 45-10 was an offensive blow out

Giants over the Packers 37 -20 was an offensive blow out

49ers over the Saints 36-32 was an offensive shoot out

The only game that was decided by defense was not surprisingly, the Baltimore Ravens.

Yeah I completely disagree with all of this. I don't know if you watched or listened to ESPN at all on Monday, but all these former coaches and players could talk about was how the defenses of the Giants and 49ers let those teams beat out the superior QBs from the Packers and Saints. I understand the scores were high, but if you watched those games the defenses were the deciding factor as much or more than the QB play. Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers were two of the best QBs in the league this year. They didn't suddenly start sucking this weekend.

The Ravens game was decided by a sloppy kick returner and the wheels coming off TJ Yates wagon in the last 5 minutes. The Texans defense was as good or better than the Ravens, and they frankly should have won the game.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:03 pm

I'm not sure I'd characterize the Saints game as a defensive showdown. The Ravens game was good defense on both sides. And, to some extent the Giants D played well.

But, watch the 9ers game. The offenses were turning the ball over and allowing big play after big play. There were 4 lead changes in the last 3 1/2 minutes.

Any semblance of good defense by the Saints on any of the last 2 9er drives would have ended that game.

StorminMormon86 · Post by **StorminMormon86** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:17 pm

The Saints lost because Alex Smith played better than Drew Brees. It's that plain and simple.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:34 pm

StorminMormon86 wrote:The Saints lost because Alex Smith played better than Drew Brees. It's that plain and simple.

Not true. The Saints lost because their defense couldn't stop anyone in the last 4 minutes. Brees lead the team back twice to take the lead. Each time, they allowed plays of 20+ yards on catch and runs to Vernon Davis. The other play was a scramble from Smith. There wasn't anything Brees could have done any better--aside from playing Safety and making a tackle.

Brees made a few miscues in the first half. But, in the second half, he put the team in position to win. The defense folded. 462 Yards passing and 4 TDs and he still lost. That's not getting out dueled by Smith. The only thing Brees did wrong on that last possession was score too quickly. He left the niners 1:30 seconds and they scored.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:40 pm

The Hogster wrote:
StorminMormon86 wrote:He left the niners 1:30 seconds and they scored.

And NOBODY would have thought that...Alex Smith... LOL I don't need to finish.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:49 pm

The Hogster wrote:
StorminMormon86 wrote:The Saints lost because Alex Smith played better than Drew Brees. It's that plain and simple.

Not true. The Saints lost because their defense couldn't stop anyone in the last 4 minutes. Brees lead the team back twice to take the lead. Each time, they allowed plays of 20+ yards on catch and runs to Vernon Davis. The other play was a scramble from Smith. There wasn't anything Brees could have done any better--aside from playing Safety and making a tackle.

Brees made a few miscues in the first half. But, in the second half, he put the team in position to win. The defense folded. 462 Yards passing and 4 TDs and he still lost. That's not getting out dueled by Smith. The only thing Brees did wrong on that last possession was score too quickly. He left the niners 1:30 seconds and they scored.

EXACTLY. I think Ray's point about the QBs is correct that most of these teams that made it this far in the playoffs had stud quarterbacks. I just think the defenses were largely the deciding factor in the games this weekend. I'm sure you can find plenty of articles like this, but here is one from the WashPost just a few hours ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nf ... story.html

Brees threw for 928 yards in the Saints’ two playoff games, and yet they’ve been ousted. He passed for 462 yards and four touchdowns Saturday at San Francisco. But the Saints committed five turnovers. The New Orleans defense couldn’t stop the 49ers when it mattered and the Saints lost, 36-32.

The NFC championship game matches one top defensive team, the 49ers, against a team playing improved defense, the Giants. The AFC title game has the Patriots, whose beleaguered defense fared better in Saturday night’s lopsided triumph over Denver quarterback Tim Tebow and the Broncos, matched up with the imposing defense of the Ravens, who know the challenge becomes far greater now against Brady. The three-time Super Bowl-winning quarterback tied the NFL postseason record with six touchdown passes against the Broncos.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/15/419070 ... fense.html

Defense still matters.

Leave it to the old-fashioned NFC to drive that point home in exclamatory fashion with two shocking upsets in the divisional playoffs.

The upstart San Francisco 49ers took us back to reality on Saturday with a 36-32 victory against Drew Brees and the New Orleans Saints.

Don't let the final score fool you.

The 49ers won their first playoff game in nine years and are one win away from their first Super Bowl since the 1994 season because of a bludgeoning defense.

San Francisco recorded three sacks and forced five turnovers - three fumbles and two interceptions.

That was only a precursor to the 37-20 beat-down the Giants put on the defending Super Bowl champion Packers, who were considered by many to be a shoo-in to repeat.

Of course, that was before the Giants took a page out of their 2007 Super Bowl title run by going to Green Bay and taking the life away from a favored opponent and glamour quarterback.

Certainly, the Cowboys have no one but themselves to blame for the Giants being in the playoffs while they are sitting at home still with just one playoff victory since the end of the 1996 season.

But there is no question that the Giants are the better team and deserve to be where they are.

The Giants have the league's best defensive line and are simply a different team when they are healthy, which they 8weren't for most of the season.

They are now. And that pass rush made quarterback Aaron Rodgers and the Packers' seemingly unstoppable offense do a "discount double check" all game long.

Rodgers was sacked four times and the Packers turned the ball over four times. It should have been five, but they were saved by a horrible non-fumble call by the officials.

Add the Ravens-Texans matchup to the list of examples that show defense matters.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:28 pm

I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:00 pm

Another thing that must be accounted for are the rules changes, particularly contact rules which have really taken a bite out of defense, and given a big advantage to offenses recently over the last few years, with that trend continuing with these new rules about unnecessary roughness, and helmet to helmet contact which is awfully hard to avoid, and should only be called when a defensive player can be seen intentionally leading with their head, and not simply because contact was made which is often due to the fact that these players are moving, and an offensive player can duck right into an oncoming defensive player resulting in helmet to helmet contact.

Part of the big deterrence to down field passing was always safeties crushing receivers who would dare play the middle of the field ... ala Sean Taylor and his ability to make receivers get alligator arms, and linebackers crushing receivers on those slants ... with a lot of that being taken away with the rules regarding "defenseless" players .... which I'm not necessarily arguing against, just pointing out.

I think this all contributes to the record setting pace we've seen with offenses and QBs recently ....particularly this year .... and you just can't ignore this change in philosophy.

Clearly, the NFL is instituting rules favorable to offense, and detrimental to defense, so if you want to capitalize on that, you'd better focus on that advantage.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:39 pm

riggofan wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:Patriots over the Broncos 45-10 was an offensive blow out

Giants over the Packers 37 -20 was an offensive blow out

49ers over the Saints 36-32 was an offensive shoot out

The only game that was decided by defense was not surprisingly, the Baltimore Ravens.

Yeah I completely disagree with all of this. I don't know if you watched or listened to ESPN at all on Monday, but all these former coaches and players could talk about was how the defenses of the Giants and 49ers let those teams beat out the superior QBs from the Packers and Saints. I understand the scores were high, but if you watched those games the defenses were the deciding factor as much or more than the QB play. Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers were two of the best QBs in the league this year. They didn't suddenly start sucking this weekend.

The Ravens game was decided by a sloppy kick returner and the wheels coming off TJ Yates wagon in the last 5 minutes. The Texans defense was as good or better than the Ravens, and they frankly should have won the game.

The 49ers gave up 472 yards of offense, 26 first downs, and 32 points, including 18 points in the 4th quarter. Is that the new standard for good defense? The Saints and 49ers had almost 900 yards of offense between them and put up 68 points.

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:01 pm

RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

riggofan · Post by **riggofan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:50 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:The 49ers gave up 472 yards of offense, 26 first downs, and 32 points, including 18 points in the 4th quarter.

They forced FIVE turnovers. And yeah I understand it got crazy in the last five minutes or so of that game. But if they gave up 18 points in the 4th quarter that means they gave up how many points in the first three quarters to one of the best offenses in the league?? 14.

Feel free to post the smart comments all you want. You apparently know better than everybody else in the world...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/re ... story.html
Opportunistic 49ers force Drew Brees-led Saints into 5 turnovers on the way to 36-32 win

With New Orleans poised to score on its opening possession, Donte Whitner delivered a crushing blow that knocked out running back Pierre Thomas and forced the first of five Saints turnovers.

San Francisco’s hard-hitting, opportunistic defense set the tone in the 49ers’ thrilling 36-32 playoff win the same way it has all season.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1MPJBT.DTL
Drew Brees gives credit to 49ers' defense

Drew Brees knew how tough the 49ers' defense was when he was watching it on DVD all week. The Saints' quarterback could have used a pause button Saturday, as the bruising Niners kept on coming and held the high-powered New Orleans offense to 17 points in the first 55 minutes of the game.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio ... id=8505285
Stingy 49ers hold down Drew Brees, Saints 36-32

Coach Jim Harbaugh's NFC West champions (14-3) proved that a hard-hitting, stingy defense can still win in the modern, wide-open NFL by holding off one of league's most dynamic offenses.

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:13 am

RayNAustin · Post by **RayNAustin** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:14 am

The Hogster wrote:
RayNAustin wrote:I don't think anyone of sound mind would say that defense doesn't matter, and I certainly haven't suggested that myself. Both the Ravens and 49ers are where they are because of good solid defenses all year, more so than offensive domination.

On the other hand, the three best records this year ... Pats 13-3 were ranked 31st in defense, New Orleans 13-3 24th in defense, and the Packers 15-1 LAST in defense.

How does a team go 15-1 with the last placed defense? A whole lot of offense, that's how.

I think those facts speak for themselves in the great debate here, and I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that so long as the outcome of games is determined by points, I'll take the dominant offense approach just like the Colts, Packers, Saints and Patriots have been doing for years.

And one cannot forget, a powerful offense helps an average defense look better too ... it's always easier to play defense when the other guy is forced to play catch up.

History repeating itself. This isn't new, and it isn't solely attributable to the rules changes. The 1990s Bills were an offensive juggernaught. They were also pretty decent defensively with guys like B Smith, C Bennet et all. But, at the end of the day, the more balanced team, always won when it mattered.

The point is what?