The S.M.A.R.T.A.S.S. is Back! 2022 Edition

That small sample size is proof you can't win with a historically bad defense lol? How'd the Packers go 15-1 to begin with? Them not making it to the Super Bowl doesn't prove your point. The 13-3 Patriots not winning the Super Bowl doesn't prove your point either. The '76 Raiders and 2009 Taints would disprove your point if the sole criteria is a Lombardi trophy.

But historically bad defenses didn't prevent the Packers and Patriots teams from having success, they just lost a single game (for whatever reason) at the wrong time. Maybe it was the bad defense that cost them in that particular game, but it's not the smoking gun you're looking for. It could simply be because they played a hot team at the wrong time. The Packers lost to a 9-7 Giants team. Well that same Giants team beat the #1 defense in the NFCCG the following week, and then Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. What would prove your point is if no team ever won more than 8 or 9 games with a historically bad defense, which is what I think you were fishing for when you brought it up.

I was surprised myself to see teams with defenses worse than ours, have more success. Sorry to rob your boy Kirky of that excuse however. As I've said before, just because the defense is lousy, doesn't mean the offense has to stop at being the 10th best and clock out for the day. There's no rule that says it can't be #1. There's no rule that says it has to disappear for 2 quarters every game. The 535th best offense doesn't exactly sound like a championship offense. If you have a top 5 defense like the 2017 Vikings, it can still have a bad game and give up 38 points and cost you the season.

Yep, everybody knew the defense was terrible, it was no secret going into that game. The offense knew going in that it would probably have to score 35+ to win, but it only managed 24, against the 27th ranked defense. That's unacceptable independent of how bad the defense played. That was an unacceptable performance by a $35m QB who was brought here to win those games, 5 years ago. Cuz we were doing just fine losing those kind of games with $8m QB's. Cousins wasn't signed to maintain the status quo, so why people keep going out of their way to defend his underwhelming presence, is beyond me.

The offense had 2 chances to tie that game at the end, and failed miserably on both opportunities. Imagine you're sitting on a one score lead against Mahomes, Burrow, or any of these other elite QB's (that the stans think Kirk belongs with), and you know they're going to get 2 more drives. How many times out of a 100 do you stop any of these other QB's both times, with a playoff game on the line? How do you like your chances? We now know for a fact the offensive guru and Cousins are 0/1 in that scenario. Heck they didn't even threaten to score. Going 3-n-out on the first attempt, with 2 of the worst screen passes in NFL history, and a checkdown on 3rd and 12 that wasn't going anywhere even if Cook caught it. On the 2nd attempt we got the pass behind KJ that would've extended the drive, before the 4th and 8.

Oh, I'm not talking about just winning. I'm talking about winning the Super Bowl. Going 15-1 or 16-1 doesn't mean crap without the trophy, we all know that.

But tell us, how many record-setting offenses in scoring in the Super Bowl era have won a Super Bowl? 98 Vikings, nope. 2011 Packers? 2013 Broncos? I know, I know, 2007 Patriots. Nope. The fact is, out of the top 21 scoring offenses in NFL history during the Super Bowl era only 2 have won a Super Bowl. The 99 Rams and 2009 Saints. Now the Saints, well they had the 20th-ranked defense in points. So they were the real deal. But the 99 Rams, well their defense was ranked 4th in points at 15 ppg.

Seriously, though. Instant sick feeling in my stomach. Definitely some little t trauma there...