Except for the first TD the Steelers D either prevented a TD or started out playing half court, so that's not much credit to your offense. I've never been a believer in defense winning championships, but once the Conference Championships were set it was kinda inevitable, because none of the four teams has a great offense. Taking this SB (or the '96 one, for that matter, though the offense was better even if it couldn't run well) as a vindication of the West Coast offense is like, well, taking the Steelers SB wins as vindication of Roethlisberger: In both cases the defense won the championship and the offense was, I still insist, just along for the ride. Don't get me wrong, Rodgers is a great QB, IMHO, and no one would mind having Jennings and Driver to catch balls, but it's hard to call any offense so one dimensional good, let alone great.

I'm well aware the WCO usually takes far longer than a passing offense should to drive the length of the field, but that's not really a selling point; be glad your D stuffed Pitt long enough to take a solid lead (with help from Roethlisberger; that one pick six was the difference by itself, and ya'll regained control at the end of the third because of two Pitt turnovers, not because your punter had such a star performance). If you're going to say ya'll were TRYING to kill the clock, allow me to remind you there's no such thing as an "incomplete run". Meanwhile, the turnover percentage for passes, even WCO passes, is still MUCH higher than for runs. If you're passing 75% of the time it's because you CAN'T run, because building leads while taking time off the clock, resting your D and reducing their offense to spectators is how you win games, and the running game does that better than the passing game. Let me be clear: I LIKE passing, a lot; I just don't like 5 yard passes that dramatically increase my risks for very little gain.