4godkingandwol…

November 23rd, 2010 at 8:07 PM ^

... I'm not one for cliches like "Defense wins championships", but the fact that not one BCS champion in recent memory has been rated lower than a top 10 total defense...  Well, that's something to chew on, anyway.

moredamnsound

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:06 PM ^

At first I thought you were talking about us and I thought "mediocre D" - that's generous. But now I see what you were talking about.

On this subject--defense wins championships. It is possible for them to win. It should be a good game.

BlueInDallas

November 23rd, 2010 at 9:42 PM ^

I don't like to hear the argument that all we need is to pair a mediocre defense with our explosive offense.   We need an above-average defense, in my view, to win a NC.  Offenses can sputter from time to time, and I don't think we are immune to that.  If we want to go 12-0 and win a NC, we need a Defense that can cover a sputtering offense from time to time.  That is the difference between 9-3 or 10-2 and 12-0.

Having said that, I'll take a mediocre defensive performance this Saturday.

Go BLue !

Vasav

November 23rd, 2010 at 10:27 PM ^

However, there are some great passing attacks that Auburn has defeated, correct? I'm thinking of Arkansas without looking up stats. And, as has been pointed out, they still have to beat Bama, beat SC again, and then beat a team that has a great offense and defense. In the case of Oregon, the offense they'll face is better than theirs is.

If they do manage to win a national title, it would be pretty incredible.

sandiego

November 24th, 2010 at 12:32 AM ^

I lay (or is it lie?) in bed dreaming that Michigan has a mediocre defense.  As I drift to sleep on a cloud of rainbows and pillows, I can almost feel GERG rubbing a sort, furry, stuffed badger in my special place.

Bando Calrissian

November 24th, 2010 at 3:18 AM ^

I've gotten neg-bombed to hell for this train of thought today, but it seems to me you're a lot more likely to win with a great defense than with a bad defense that depends on the offense to outscore whatever it gives up.  Why wouldn't you want to depend on your offense for 2-3 scores instead of 5-6?  And why is it so controversial to think you'd be a lot more successful in the former scenario than the latter?

dwinning

November 24th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^

The line of thought you're advancing - "Why wouldn't you want to depend on your offense for 2-3 scores instead of 5-6?" - assumes there are people here who want to depend on the offense to put up 35-42 points a game.  Which is false.  Nobody's arguing in favor of having a mediocre defense.  Everybody here wants a '97 defense.  Nobody is saying, "because our offense is good, let's not worry about defense." 

dearbornpeds

November 24th, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^

     When I read the title of the post, I thought you were referring to THE GAME.  Then I realized we don't have a mediocre defense and I got depressed again.