What's worse? Great offense and no defense, or great defense and no offense?

They are stressful, but I still love a good low-scoring game.

quote:

---

great defense and no offense

---

There is nothing more frustrating than watching an elite D (which is more and more rare today) lose a game because of an inept offense that can't move the ball or capitalize on great situations the D places them in.

Great offense and no defense is worse. You feel like you've wasted something. Teams like this often finish 6-6 or so. But a team with a great defense and no offense is always going to compete and usually finish pretty well.

Trust me, I know, being an Ole Miss fan.

I know the conventional wisdom is that defense > offense here, but I prefer a great offense. I think it's more reliable to count on college offenses ruining their own drives with penalties, botched execution, etc. to slow themselves down enough for an elite offense to win. When you have a bad offense, you can't count on ANYTHING to result in points.

Basically it's easier for a great offense to punish mistakes than a great defense, because even if the defense forces a turnover, a bad offense can still negate any advantage the turnover causes.

well if we are going to lose it's more fun to see offense

I'd rather have an LSU like team than a Iowa style team. 100%

Defense wins championships, but not having an offense won't get you anywhere (see a&m/iowa/utah currently)

Having only a great offense will get you there, but having no defense will earn you an arse-whuppin when it comes time for the big games (see any Big 12 team that has made the playoffs thus far)

quote:

---

LSU has now had both and they suck equally.

---

Iowa fans would trade with you, I'd wager.

Great defense and no offense is better.

Your defense can score. You're offense can't prevent the other team from scoring.

While I sure hope you don't do it, y'all should back a Brinks armored car up to Travis William's front door and start shoveling out money until he says stop.