While the ideal would be to have both (duh), the past few years we have had a great OC, but very bad DCs. Going into the new regime, we seem to have a great DC, but a mediocre OC. So, mgocommunity, what would you rather have?
Would you rather have a good OC or DC?
The best offense is a good defense
You have to choose? Ok...now i understand the RR years.
Talent can score on O but a good D can keep you in any game. We all saw what the #6 O and a bad D gets you....
I would rather have skilled upper class men at all positions, about two deep.
Who said Borges is mediocre? Let's give him a chance with the best offensive weapon in college football.
I'd take whichever is the opposite side of the ball from the head coach's expertise.
If everything was equal, I'd probably say defense. That could be in large part due to the nightmares that remain from last year.
as long as we have Denard Robinson, he's an offense just by himself!
Its like asking would you rather have this hot chick or this hot chick. You obviously want both.
See that is impossible. It's worse than chosing between Desmond or Woodson.
How sure are you that Magee was a great OC? Remember RR was the main driver of that offense.
I also would say that Borges is better than most OC's Michigan has ever had. He's at least much, much better than Greg Robinson was at DC
Technically, if you have the best D possible, you can win games w/o fielding an offense. Barring massive onside kick success, the same is not true the other way around.
Wins Championships. I'd rather have a good DC.
Since our defense was giving up so many points, our offense was more prone to failure despite their greatness, because they weren't getting the ball enough. If we could have forced a few three and outs and gotten some stops, we could have put up sinful amounts of points. With a rock solid defense and a mediocre offense, the offense will put up points once they're on the field long enough.
A well-coached offense is sooooo much more gratifying to me as a fan. No matter how much fight is in a defense, they'll give up scores. And when they can't rely on scoring coming on offense, even the best units get deflated. Muschamp was a firey dude, and there was talent top to bottom on UT's D, but they just couldn't get it done with no help from the O.
It seemed different when the offense was the strongly coached unit, because they very much dictate the pace and tenor of the game. Defense gives up a long drive, no problem, lets go score. It just feels less Sisyphean when the O is the better unit.
They aren't mutually exclusive.
Gingers dont have souls give me mary anne
Ginger may have been hotter but EVERYBODY knows that Mary Anne would've been an absolute tiger in bed. I'm guessing the only thing that chick wouldnt do hasnt been invented yet.
I'll say great DC but if the OC is completely incompetent it won't matter.
that's too easy...defense is gonna win us Big Ten Championships, which DB continually says is the #1 goal....DC all day
I would base it on what the head coach’s weakness is at. Good OC, if head coach is a defensive minded and vice versa, but it’s not a realistic scenario. You try to pick the best on both sides.
Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. There's my stance.
DC inspires fear in our enemies and confidence in our players. Trust in the power of the DC.
Defense wins championships or at least big ten titles
If you have to pick between a good OC or a good DC you shouldn't be a head coach. I just want the O to bail out the D when they have a bad game and vice versa.
Another gratuitous Ginger
A Good DC. Defense wins championships but Offense get the girls.
No I was a high school QB so I'm just bragging, Our Defense won us most of our games, but I was sleeping with the cheerleader.
A great OC can make ok players a great offense. Defense is about personal. peroid.
It does get pretty personal down there in the trenches.
A good defense will always keep you in the game.
DC by far. If you can stop other teams, you put them in poor field position and create turnovers. Therefore, even average OC's will put up points because the defense is so good.
You have just described the archetypal Big Ten Manball team to a T. Congratulations, you win the thread.
No reason you couldn't or shouldn't have both.
the past few years we have had a great OC,
Disagree. I was very underwhelmed by Calvin Magee. I frankly expected a lot more offensive creativity from him. We were about as predictable in our playcalling as we were under DeBord. Only in one of his three years were we actually good on offense, and IMO that was far more due to Denard's individual brilliance than anything Magee did.
But anyway, I'd always take the great DC. I think it's more difficult to build a great defense than a great offense. On offense, one great player (especially at QB) can carry the show. Defense is much more of a team effort.
We deserve all the good things in life.
it always has been and it always will be.
For entertainment = OC
Winning = DC
I actually really enjoyed our offense last year and it's entertainment value outweighed some of the crappy defense. I'd rather see a 65-63 overtime win than a 10-7 win and I've seen both. I'm not really looking forward to a more traditional offense but am looking forward to some semblance of a defense.
Man what a barn-burner that was
Neither. Special teams all the way!
This is the Big Ten. Defense wins championships.
I rather win. But like most people I rather have a better D than offense.
Defense. Do you know what I would do if we shut them out again in my lifetime? I don't either, but it would be something pretty crazy
people saying THIS IS B10, WE PLAY MANBALL DEFENSE GO FIGHT WIN, this article actually points out that a great offense usually outpaces a great defense.
Yes, I realize that it isn't exactly apples to apples since it is the NFL, but it does make you pause before snapping to the "defense wins championships" line.