PDA

View Full Version : MidSeason Thoughts


bigbluedefense
11-11-2011, 10:24 PM
I haven't done one of these in a long long time. I miss it, but I just don't get a chance to really get on here much anymore. I've probably forgotten half the stuff I wanted to say throughout the season, but I'll try my best while I have some time to kill right now. Same as always, bulletin format. It might get long and probably not very fluid, so bare with me.

-Aaron Rodgers is having an amazing season...but...

I want to see this guy establish himself as a closer. It's the one thing that I've noticed that's missing from his game. He's unbelievable, he has it all. The rocket arm, the deadly accuracy, the mobility, ability to read defenses, get rid of the ball quickly, championship pedigree, it's all there...BUT...

If you pay close attention, he hasn't established himself as a closer. Let's wind the clock back and show you what I'm talking about:

*Playoff game vs Arizona: Has the ball to win the game. Everyone remembers the strip sack fumble returned for a TD. But that's not the play that sticks out to me. The play before that does. Aaron Rodgers has a clean pocket, has a WIDE open Greg Jennings down the field, and just misses him. He missed him. If he puts that ball on the money, it's 6 and they advance to the next round. But he missed him. Then they lost the game.

*Playoff game vs Philly: Starts out guns blazing. Goes up 21 to 3 I believe at half. But then, in the 2nd half the Eagles mount a comeback. Rodgers has numerous opportunities to close the game out and prevent the comeback, but falls short each time. They win the game bc of a shoestring tackle on DeSean Jackson and a INT by Williams to close the game. Rodgers didn't close it out when he had many opportunities to in the 2nd half.

*Playoff game vs Chicago: Again, starts out hot. Has a chance to close out the game but throws an INT to Urlacher. Again, has numerous chances towards the end of the game to get some key first downs to close it out, but fails each time and it's up to their defense to end the game. Rodgers again doesn't close it out, his defense does.

*SB vs the Steelers: Once again, starts out guns blazing. And keeps scoring throughout the 2nd half too. BUT, his last drive, he has a chance to close it out. He has the ball in the redzone, and a TD puts Pittsburgh away. They're up 3, they score a TD, they're up 10 and that's ballgame. Instead, he comes up short on 3rd down, settle for a FG, and once again, the defense closes out the game. That's easier said than done btw, Roethlisberger is notoriously clutch. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that he would go 3 and out.

*This season vs the Chargers: Lights up the scoreboard, but at the end of the game when he can score once more to put them out of the game, he doesn't convert on his last couple of tries. He gives Rivers an opportunity to score and tie the game at the end but his defense closes it out (to be fair, they sucked for the majority of the game, but that's not the point. Rodgers couldve closed it out himself but didn't do it when they needed it the most)

So to summarize my thoughts on Rodgers this year, basically, I want to see him establish himself as a closer. It's the ONE thing missing from his game. Is he unbelievable? Absolutely. Arguably the best in the league. But if he doesn't establish that closer instinct, he can be had in the playoffs. And if they want to be a dynasty, he needs to learn how to do it. As great as his season is, no it's not the best ever. Not until he shows me he can close.

-Left Tackle has become the most overrated position in football

I know the SD/Oak game is fresh in our minds so many will object to this idea, but hear me out. Every draft, we hear about how important the qb position is and how qbs move up draft boards as a result. What's the next position that moves up boards? Left Tackle. The guy that protects the qb's blindside has to be just as important right?

Wrong. Let's take a look at teams with elite or even very good qbs: GB, Indy (before this year), NE, NYG, DET, Chicago, ATL, NO, Pittsburgh etc etc etc. I'm not gonna name them all.

But what do they all have in common? They have average to below average LTs. The truth is, if you have a great qb, you don't need a great LT. Half of pass protection is the qb's ability to manipulate the pocket. His ability to get the ball out fast, make quick decisions etc. His LT is an overvalued commodity, teams have proven that they don't need elite LTs to protect their franchise qb's blindside bc a franchise qb is good enough to make an average oline look like a good one with his own abilities as a quarterback.

Let's look at the teams with an elite LT but no quarterback: Miami and Cleveland. Both suck. So does that elite LT really make that much of a difference? No. Remember when Denver spent a high pick on Clady? Did it make any difference? When they had the franchise qb they were good, when they didn't, it didn't matter how dominant their LT was, they still sucked.

Sure, in a perfect world you have both. But we all know that in football, you gotta pick and choose your spots when it comes to talent. You can't have it all.

And if you're a team with a top 5 pick, it's a general consensus that if you can't get that franchise qb, get the safe stud LT, bc you'll eventually need it anyway.

Wrong. It's a bad investment. In today's NFL, it's not necessary and actually holds your team back when you invest that high of a pick in a "franchise LT." You're better off getting an elite WR, or a DE, or CB, 3 positions that in my eyes hold more weight now then LT. Pass rusher is the qb of the defense in the sense of how important he is to the defense, and WR dictates coverages. CB can dictate coverages too. Those positions are all more important than LT.

LT isn't what it's perceived to be. It's not that important.

-The Bengals are for real

The perception before this season started was that the Bengals were in the Suck for Luck contest. I was a big Bengal supporter, I've been a fan of their drafts the past couple of years and saw this transformation occurring before this season, so their success does not surprise me at all.

They got rid of all their cancers, Carson was holding that team back, Chad has been washed up for awhile now, and starting fresh was much needed. They have a ton of talent on defense. I love that dline. I haven't hidden my love for Geno Atkins in the past, Dunlap is developing nicely as is Michael Johnson, and Domata has been quietly underrated for a long long time. They have a solid LB core, and a good secondary.

You gotta give Zimmer a ton of credit. He's a hell of a coordinator. And that offense has talent too. Great oline, solid run game (nobody spectacular but servicable 3 headed RBC), and they have great weapons in AJ, Simpson and Gresham. This is a good team. Go up and down the roster. They have talent. They're one of the more talented teams in the league.

They're young, that could hold them back. But if Dalton can continue to develop, they can make more noise. The future is bright for this team as long as they keep having good drafts. They have a great opportunity to take over their division with Baltimore and Pittsburgh getting old in front of our eyes. Both those teams can't stay young forever. They have 2 years left in the tank at most.

Cinncy can establish themselves as the future king of that division if they play their cards right, and can make some noise this year if Dalton can continue to improve.

-The Wide 9

We heard a lot about the wide 9 this year. Why? Simple, it's in the NFC East now. So it'll get national attention. But this isn't some new phenomenon. The wide 9 has been around a long long time. And it works. The problem is Philly doesn't have the LBs to make it work. I really started getting into the Wide 9 scheme last year when I got to see Tennessee play 4 games against the East. I was very impressed with how they brought pressure with 4 guys. I thought it was very unique and effective how they lined up.

It's hard to explain this without pictures, but long story short, the wide 9 attacks pass protections with speed, angles, and stunts. They'll line up their DTs over the OTs, and line up their DEs wide, and essentially have 2 DEs running free at the qb against smaller blockers, ie TEs and RBs blocking them. It's brilliant.

Or they'll slide their line in one side so they basically have a DT and a DE lined up outside the OT, and 1 comes unblocked on that side. It's essentially equivalent to a zone blitz, it's the same concept but with the dline.

Then you mix it up and bring a LB on the blitz on the other side to keep contain etc, there's a wide variety of packages you can throw at an offense with the wide 9 scheme.

It's a very effective method of pass rushing with a minimal amount of rushers. Now to build around that wide 9 line, you need the right personnel behind those 4 guys.

You need bump and run CBs who can play on an island. You need safeties who can come up and fill gaps and stop the run. You need your CBs to be very good at tackling to protect the edges against the run. You need 3 LBs who can shed blocks and play zones in the middle of the field.

Tennessee made it work. They had the personnel to do it. They rarely blitzed LBs, they either went 4 man rush with 2 deep safety and made you earn every yard, or if they did blitz, they sent the DBs after you behind the wide 9 and really confused your protection schemes with the speed/angles concepts of the wide 9.

The scheme can work. In fact, I'm waiting to see some 3-4 teams incorporate some of it's concept's into their pass rushes. It makes sense, why not incorporate some of these angles out of a 34 front?

The basic flaw of this scheme is it's ability to stop the run. They believe in stopping the run "on the way to the quarterback" so essentially run defense is an afterthought.

While a wide 9 defense will never be a top 5 run defense, let's put this in perspective. A wide 9 with the proper personnel can still be effective vs the run, it can hold it to respectable numbers. The Titans in their heyday were solid vs the run. And to be fair, does run defense mean as much as it used to?

With the way offenses are nowadays, I almost rather have you run on us than throw on us. As long as we can contain the run, that's good enough. And that's the wide 9 mentality.

The scheme works. And with some new wrinkles, it can work brilliantly. But just like any scheme, you need the right players for it.

-There's 2 Raiders that are really sticking out to me

Lamar Houston and Stefen Wisniewski. Both these guys look like studs in the making. Wisniewski looks more impressive to me than Pouncey did for the Steelers last year. The way he pulls, the way he can get up to full speed downfield, his physicality, his pass protection, this guy is a beast. He can do it all.

And Houston, he's playing LE in a 4-3 and still beasting it. I always viewed him as a 3-4 End or a 4-3 UT, but the guy is killing it regardless. I'd love to see him kick inside and see what he can do at DT. Speaking of which, how great was that DT class? Suh, McCoy, Alualhu, Houston, Geno, Price, Linval Joseph, that's a hell of a DT class.

-Is the fall of the Patriots offense really that surprising?"

Think about it. They were exposed last year by the Jets in the playoffs. The Jets knew they had no deep threat, so they basically played Cover 0 or Cover 1 all game.

They played bump and run on the outside, and flooded the middle of the field with zone defenders to prevent those crossing routes and YAC underneath, and bumped and ran with those TEs in man with the safeties.

The result? Brady had nowhere to go, and had a horrible game.

Fast forward to this season, and the Cowboys, Steelers, and Giants do the same thing, and the result was the same as well. My question is, why did it take so long for teams to follow the blueprint? This should have been employed by every team this season since game 1.

If the Patriots want to get out of this offensive funk without going out and getting a deep threat (cough Randy Moss), they need to do a better job running the ball. They can run that no huddle 2 TE offense, but if they want to do that, then run the ball effectively and punish teams for playing nickel against that personnel grouping.

Right now, they are not winning the battle at the LOS, and as a result, the run game isn't effective enough for them to beat this concept defenses are throwing at them to stop their passing attack.

The key to the Patriots resurgence isn't necessarily finding a deep threat. It's finding a run game. And a checkdown RB. That would be their counter to this scheme that's stopping them right now.

-What's wrong with the Chargers?

A lack of talent. This team just isn't very talented. And a lot of concepts that worked in the past, aren't working now.

In the past, Rivers had a healthy Gates who essentially was uncoverable, a Vincent Jackson who can catch it against double coverage whenever Rivers would just throw it up there, and if both those guys were covered downfield, a very underrated Darren Sproles to check down to and turn a 5 yard checkdown into a 15 yard gain. Plus a core of tall WRs around them that he can use as body up guys against single coverage when the coverage dictated it.

That's why his numbers were so dominant lately. But that's all gone this year. And you see the result. Now don't get me wrong, Rivers had sick numbers before bc he also has deadly accuracy, a quick release, and great anticipation skills.

But this year's mistakes aren't all bc of a potential injury. The guy lost a lot of what he used to have. Without Sproles, the checkdown isn't half of what it used to be. Gates looks old and fat out there and isn't a safety valve anymore. He can't play jump ball with Jackson anymore for some unknown reason (Jackson just hasn't been great this year for some reason).

You take away those guys, and of course his numbers will go down. That's the case with any qb. This team just lacks talent right now and they really need to start fresh. It's time for a do-over. Time to rebuild. Don't waste Rivers prime years away by trying to do patchwork to this core unit. This core is done, it's time to start fresh and get some new guys around Rivers and give it another go in 2 years if they have a couple of good drafts. Bc right now, this team isn't good enough.

Rivers isn't blameless though. He's made some terrible decisions this year as well, and his physical limitations are starting to show. But he's still Phillip Rivers, he'll turn it around with some help. It's no secret around here that I'm one of his harshest critics on this board, and I've been called out numerous times in the past for scoffing at the idea that he's a top 5 qb in this league, but make no mistake, I don't think he's a bad qb. I think he's a very good one. But he can't win with this team. It just isn't talented enough.

-I don't see what's so special about Rob Ryan

I don't see it. Why does this dude talk so much? What has he accomplished? Did he ever have a dominant defense? No. He was a mediocre coordinator in Oakland, and a mediocre one in Cleveland.

Was he really an upgrade over Wade Phillips? I don't think so. I think the team quit on Wade, which is why last year they looked pathetic on defense, but as a coordinator, I'll take Wade 10 out of 10 times over Rob Ryan.

Look what Wade did with Houston. Wade's resume speaks for itself. Everywhere he goes, the defense improves. Rob is so mediocre, he's really just known as Rex Ryan's brother more than anything else.

I know statistically the Cowboys look good on defense this year, but they don't intimidate me at all. Rob Ryan's schemes are nothing special. Who has he really played that was impressive offensively? Just the Patriots and Eagles.

The Eagles lit him up. The Patriots, yeah, he did well against them. Is that really surprising though? You don't think Rex helped him out on that one? Maybe I'm being harsh, but I don't understand the Rob Ryan hype.

That's enough for now. I need to go to bed. There's so much more, but I can't remember it all.

EDIT: More thoughts:

-Jim Harbaugh is proof that coaching schemes are getting too complicated for their own good

What makes the 49ers so good? They are simple. They execute fundamentals. It sounds like common sense, but when you look at how complicated schemes have become, you realize that it's overkill.

Jim Harbaugh is brilliant bc he's bringing football back to a more simple approach. He doesn't have all these complex route combinations for his WRs, he has a simple "blitz beater" route for Alex Smith on every play.

NFL coaches scoff at the idea. It's just something that works in college. Well...why can't it work in the NFL? Just bc? If a play has a blitz beater that will beat teh coverage, why can't it work? A perfect example of how simplifying something makes perfect sense yet is not done bc coaches want to be complicated.

Even defense. The 49ers aren't pulling a NE and throwing a bunch of formations and blitz/read options on their guys. They line up, and they keep it simple. Basic stuff. But by dumbing it down, that allows their guys to play fast and effective.

I'll give you an example, a lot of blitz packages are more complicated than you think. It's not just "go get em". It involves a lot of reads at times.

Scenario A: TE is lined up tight left next to the LT and the RB behind the qb. If he stays in to block, the WILL is allowed to rush, the FS plays deep zone if the RB runs his route to the right. If the RB runs to the FS's side, he picks him up in man underneath, so the CB is on an island.

If the TE runs his route, the LB is man on him, the FS is man on the RB or in zone depending on the scenario stated above. So again, the CB also needs to read those guys to know if he has help up top or not.

If the TE brushes and goes, the WILL blitzes, but the FS has a 2 man read now, he has to pick up the deeper route, the TE or the RB, whoever goes deeper, and the CB has to cover his man or break off and play the flat if the RB runs his route in this scenario.

As you can see, it can get a little complicated for defenders. Don't forget, these are dumb athletes. It may be simple to you and me, but Antonio Cromartie's head hurts just reading that.

So you get blown assignments etc. SF took away the complexity,and dumbed it down. And it's working.

I think this is the effect Bill Bellichick has had on the league. He's known for his complexity. And everyone has tried to copy that. And it's gotten to a point where we need to go in the opposite direction to get the effectiveness that Bill got when he introduced his niche to the game.

And Harbaugh is bringing that. Rex Ryan had a great quote in Hard Knocks. While he was teaching, he said "Who makes it complicated? Coaches. We make it complicated"

So true. A great coordinator keeps it simple for his players, but complicated for his opponents. Rex understands that. His schemes are basic in some ways but complicated in others.

That's the recipe for success nowadays. Being complex just to be complex doesn't do you any good.

-Lance Briggs is criminally underrated

Lance Briggs in my eyes has had a HOF caliber career. But the guy doesn't even get recognized as a PB caliber player. It's ridiculous. This guy has been the best 4-3 OLB in the league for a long time now, but he just doesn't get any credit. I don't get it.

It's a testament to how the 4-3 OLB has lost it's significance, but at the same time, I cannot understand why he's still so underrated. He's the best defender on the Bears, and has been their best defender for the past 6 years. It's time he gets some recognition for it.

hawkeye123
11-11-2011, 10:47 PM
Nice write up. I love your posts.

Auron
11-11-2011, 11:14 PM
Although Rodgers hasn't had that signature "Game Clinching" Drive moment yet, to his credit he also doesn't make the critical back breaking turnovers that lose the game for his team. Yes he had a fumble in the '09 Playoffs... but one of his best attributes is that he takes care of the ball so well. So many QBs try to force the ball into a spot when it just isn't there late in games, and leads to momentum changing Turnovers that cause the other team to Win. Lately Rodgers just doesn't turn the ball over period.. he has maybe 1 Interception this year that did not hit a Receivers hands. Which is impressive considering how many Interceptions some of the upper level QBs have this season (Brady, Brees, Rivers)

I think he'll get his game clinching 4th qtr drives, he'll be patient and get the opportunities at some point this season.

49ers are playing some lights out Defense this year. Anyone have thoughts on the play of Justin Smith, and Navarro Bowman? 2 key players on that D'. Justin Smith has been the best 3-4 DE this season and is playing at an unbelievable level.. while Bowman is having a career year himself.

Agreed Rivers hasn't played well, but he's not getting help around him. Seems like when you see the wide angles on the replays.. No one is getting open for him. Gates is a shell of his old self... but still gets receptions because of his veteran savvy. I think Norv Turner gets fired at the end of season, SD is going to have to re-tool along the Offensive Line and get Rivers some targets at WR that he can work with.

vidae
11-11-2011, 11:16 PM
Great writeup! Always look forward to these kinds of posts from you dood.

Ngatachance92
11-11-2011, 11:24 PM
I keep hearing how Baltimores getting old, but really what everyone means is Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are getting old, other than those two the rest of our team is relatively young.

JETS5128
11-11-2011, 11:54 PM
Really great post man I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on the Jets

Raiderz4Life
11-12-2011, 02:23 AM
I love it. Been waiting for this for weeks man. Again I agree with most of it except maybe with that last part about Briggs. Urlacher > Briggs especially if you go back 6 years.

Ness
11-12-2011, 03:45 AM
49ers are playing some lights out Defense this year. Anyone have thoughts on the play of Justin Smith, and Navarro Bowman? 2 key players on that D'. Justin Smith has been the best 3-4 DE this season and is playing at an unbelievable level.. while Bowman is having a career year himself.

Bowman is arguably playing better than Patrick Willis right now. We're really lucky to have two inside linebackers playing at an All Pro level.

BigBanger
11-12-2011, 03:52 AM
Vincent Jackson is routinely bracketed on just about every snap of almost every game this year. When teams play him one-on-one (see New England), he's had huge games this season, but defenses simply aren't worried about the middle of the field anymore and they don't need to bring a safety up into the box.

Darren Sproles is the most underrated player in the NFL. His impact has been felt in New Orleans and without him in San Diego, the offense is anemic. He is an X-Factor and a huge one. Defenses have to game plan around him and he opens up the entire offense and makes people around him better. He's a matchup nightmare. The loss of Sproles has been catastrophic. Rivers simply has nowhere to throw the ball most of the time. Teams are taking Vincent Jackson away and Rivers is left with Malcolm Floyd and a check down. That's it. Floyd is a good receiver, not a great one and does make some big plays but is too inconsistent to rely on from a play-to-play basis, and Vincent Jackson has never been able to work the underneath routes. Rivers has nowhere to go with the ball. This is a bad offense with a, statistically, deceiving defense. I agree, they are just not that good. And Gates ... he's slow and "hurt."

bantx
11-12-2011, 03:57 AM
Another reason rivers is playing the way he is; He has no time out there. He take two steps and he has someone in his face. I'm not saying that its the only reason for his playing, but it's one of the main reasons, he just doesn't trust his oline.

Edit: whats with the parenthesis around hurt?

Norv is an idiot, he would not use sproles while he was here. We kept shying away frrom him more and more it was apparent that we stopped using him as a weapon.

Iamcanadian
11-12-2011, 10:54 AM
-Aaron Rodgers is having an amazing season...but...

I want to see this guy establish himself as a closer. It's the one thing that I've noticed that's missing from his game. He's unbelievable, he has it all. The rocket arm, the deadly accuracy, the mobility, ability to read defenses, get rid of the ball quickly, championship pedigree, it's all there...BUT...

If you pay close attention, he hasn't established himself as a closer. Let's wind the clock back and show you what I'm talking about:

*Playoff game vs Arizona: Has the ball to win the game. Everyone remembers the strip sack fumble returned for a TD. But that's not the play that sticks out to me. The play before that does. Aaron Rodgers has a clean pocket, has a WIDE open Greg Jennings down the field, and just misses him. He missed him. If he puts that ball on the money, it's 6 and they advance to the next round. But he missed him. Then they lost the game.

*Playoff game vs Philly: Starts out guns blazing. Goes up 21 to 3 I believe at half. But then, in the 2nd half the Eagles mount a comeback. Rodgers has numerous opportunities to close the game out and prevent the comeback, but falls short each time. They win the game bc of a shoestring tackle on DeSean Jackson and a INT by Williams to close the game. Rodgers didn't close it out when he had many opportunities to in the 2nd half.

*Playoff game vs Chicago: Again, starts out hot. Has a chance to close out the game but throws an INT to Urlacher. Again, has numerous chances towards the end of the game to get some key first downs to close it out, but fails each time and it's up to their defense to end the game. Rodgers again doesn't close it out, his defense does.

*SB vs the Steelers: Once again, starts out guns blazing. And keeps scoring throughout the 2nd half too. BUT, his last drive, he has a chance to close it out. He has the ball in the redzone, and a TD puts Pittsburgh away. They're up 3, they score a TD, they're up 10 and that's ballgame. Instead, he comes up short on 3rd down, settle for a FG, and once again, the defense closes out the game. That's easier said than done btw, Roethlisberger is notoriously clutch. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that he would go 3 and out.

*This season vs the Chargers: Lights up the scoreboard, but at the end of the game when he can score once more to put them out of the game, he doesn't convert on his last couple of tries. He gives Rivers an opportunity to score and tie the game at the end but his defense closes it out (to be fair, they sucked for the majority of the game, but that's not the point. Rodgers couldve closed it out himself but didn't do it when they needed it the most)

So to summarize my thoughts on Rodgers this year, basically, I want to see him establish himself as a closer. It's the ONE thing missing from his game. Is he unbelievable? Absolutely. Arguably the best in the league. But if he doesn't establish that closer instinct, he can be had in the playoffs. And if they want to be a dynasty, he needs to learn how to do it. As great as his season is, no it's not the best ever. Not until he shows me he can close.

Talk about nitpicking, he won the Super Bowl, what more proof do you want that he can perform at the big moments. Nothing is missing from his game, I repeat, nothing.

-Left Tackle has become the most overrated position in football

I know the SD/Oak game is fresh in our minds so many will object to this idea, but hear me out. Every draft, we hear about how important the qb position is and how qbs move up draft boards as a result. What's the next position that moves up boards? Left Tackle. The guy that protects the qb's blindside has to be just as important right?

Wrong. Let's take a look at teams with elite or even very good qbs: GB, Indy (before this year), NE, NYG, DET, Chicago, ATL, NO, Pittsburgh etc etc etc. I'm not gonna name them all.

But what do they all have in common? They have average to below average LTs. The truth is, if you have a great qb, you don't need a great LT. Half of pass protection is the qb's ability to manipulate the pocket. His ability to get the ball out fast, make quick decisions etc. His LT is an overvalued commodity, teams have proven that they don't need elite LTs to protect their franchise qb's blindside bc a franchise qb is good enough to make an average oline look like a good one with his own abilities as a quarterback.

Let's look at the teams with an elite LT but no quarterback: Miami and Cleveland. Both suck. So does that elite LT really make that much of a difference? No. Remember when Denver spent a high pick on Clady? Did it make any difference? When they had the franchise qb they were good, when they didn't, it didn't matter how dominant their LT was, they still sucked.

Sure, in a perfect world you have both. But we all know that in football, you gotta pick and choose your spots when it comes to talent. You can't have it all.

And if you're a team with a top 5 pick, it's a general consensus that if you can't get that franchise qb, get the safe stud LT, bc you'll eventually need it anyway.

Wrong. It's a bad investment. In today's NFL, it's not necessary and actually holds your team back when you invest that high of a pick in a "franchise LT." You're better off getting an elite WR, or a DE, or CB, 3 positions that in my eyes hold more weight now then LT. Pass rusher is the qb of the defense in the sense of how important he is to the defense, and WR dictates coverages. CB can dictate coverages too. Those positions are all more important than LT.

LT isn't what it's perceived to be. It's not that important.

Total rubbish, NE drafted a LT in round 1 this past draft, Atlanta has a 1st rounder playing LT, New Orleans has a 1st rounder playing LT, Detroit has a 1st rounder playing LT, Chicago drafted a 1st rounder to play LT but he wasn't good enough and Cutler has been running for his life ever since. Indy has a 1st rounder playing LT when they won the Super Bowl, he retired and Indy hasn't repeated. Pittsburgh had a 2nd rounder playing LT and he retired as well and they have only survived because Roethlisberger can take the punishment and is exceptionable at surviving the pass rush.
Obviously all these teams consider LT to be a very crucial position but according to you, what do they know?

-The Bengals are for real

The perception before this season started was that the Bengals were in the Suck for Luck contest. I was a big Bengal supporter, I've been a fan of their drafts the past couple of years and saw this transformation occurring before this season, so their success does not surprise me at all.

They got rid of all their cancers, Carson was holding that team back, Chad has been washed up for awhile now, and starting fresh was much needed. They have a ton of talent on defense. I love that dline. I haven't hidden my love for Geno Atkins in the past, Dunlap is developing nicely as is Michael Johnson, and Domata has been quietly underrated for a long long time. They have a solid LB core, and a good secondary.

You gotta give Zimmer a ton of credit. He's a hell of a coordinator. And that offense has talent too. Great oline, solid run game (nobody spectacular but servicable 3 headed RBC), and they have great weapons in AJ, Simpson and Gresham. This is a good team. Go up and down the roster. They have talent. They're one of the more talented teams in the league.

They're young, that could hold them back. But if Dalton can continue to develop, they can make more noise. The future is bright for this team as long as they keep having good drafts. They have a great opportunity to take over their division with Baltimore and Pittsburgh getting old in front of our eyes. Both those teams can't stay young forever. They have 2 years left in the tank at most.

Cinncy can establish themselves as the future king of that division if they play their cards right, and can make some noise this year if Dalton can continue to improve.

Let's wait till they play the tough part of their schedule, I'm impressed with Dalton and the Bengals but the organization has a history of poor management and has a long way to go to prove to me that things have really changed.

-The Wide 9

We heard a lot about the wide 9 this year. Why? Simple, it's in the NFC East now. So it'll get national attention. But this isn't some new phenomenon. The wide 9 has been around a long long time. And it works. The problem is Philly doesn't have the LBs to make it work. I really started getting into the Wide 9 scheme last year when I got to see Tennessee play 4 games against the East. I was very impressed with how they brought pressure with 4 guys. I thought it was very unique and effective how they lined up.

It's hard to explain this without pictures, but long story short, the wide 9 attacks pass protections with speed, angles, and stunts. They'll line up their DTs over the OTs, and line up their DEs wide, and essentially have 2 DEs running free at the qb against smaller blockers, ie TEs and RBs blocking them. It's brilliant.

Or they'll slide their line in one side so they basically have a DT and a DE lined up outside the OT, and 1 comes unblocked on that side. It's essentially equivalent to a zone blitz, it's the same concept but with the dline.

Then you mix it up and bring a LB on the blitz on the other side to keep contain etc, there's a wide variety of packages you can throw at an offense with the wide 9 scheme.

It's a very effective method of pass rushing with a minimal amount of rushers. Now to build around that wide 9 line, you need the right personnel behind those 4 guys.

You need bump and run CBs who can play on an island. You need safeties who can come up and fill gaps and stop the run. You need your CBs to be very good at tackling to protect the edges against the run. You need 3 LBs who can shed blocks and play zones in the middle of the field.

Tennessee made it work. They had the personnel to do it. They rarely blitzed LBs, they either went 4 man rush with 2 deep safety and made you earn every yard, or if they did blitz, they sent the DBs after you behind the wide 9 and really confused your protection schemes with the speed/angles concepts of the wide 9.

The scheme can work. In fact, I'm waiting to see some 3-4 teams incorporate some of it's concept's into their pass rushes. It makes sense, why not incorporate some of these angles out of a 34 front?

The basic flaw of this scheme is it's ability to stop the run. They believe in stopping the run "on the way to the quarterback" so essentially run defense is an afterthought.

While a wide 9 defense will never be a top 5 run defense, let's put this in perspective. A wide 9 with the proper personnel can still be effective vs the run, it can hold it to respectable numbers. The Titans in their heyday were solid vs the run. And to be fair, does run defense mean as much as it used to?

With the way offenses are nowadays, I almost rather have you run on us than throw on us. As long as we can contain the run, that's good enough. And that's the wide 9 mentality.

The scheme works. And with some new wrinkles, it can work brilliantly. But just like any scheme, you need the right players for it.

You use Tennessee as your only example of a team it works for and what have they accomplished????

-There's 2 Raiders that are really sticking out to me

Lamar Houston and Stefen Wisniewski. Both these guys look like studs in the making. Wisniewski looks more impressive to me than Pouncey did for the Steelers last year. The way he pulls, the way he can get up to full speed downfield, his physicality, his pass protection, this guy is a beast. He can do it all.

And Houston, he's playing LE in a 4-3 and still beasting it. I always viewed him as a 3-4 End or a 4-3 UT, but the guy is killing it regardless. I'd love to see him kick inside and see what he can do at DT. Speaking of which, how great was that DT class? Suh, McCoy, Alualhu, Houston, Geno, Price, Linval Joseph, that's a hell of a DT class.

-Is the fall of the Patriots offense really that surprising?"

Think about it. They were exposed last year by the Jets in the playoffs. The Jets knew they had no deep threat, so they basically played Cover 0 or Cover 1 all game.

They played bump and run on the outside, and flooded the middle of the field with zone defenders to prevent those crossing routes and YAC underneath, and bumped and ran with those TEs in man with the safeties.

The result? Brady had nowhere to go, and had a horrible game.

Fast forward to this season, and the Cowboys, Steelers, and Giants do the same thing, and the result was the same as well. My question is, why did it take so long for teams to follow the blueprint? This should have been employed by every team this season since game 1.

If the Patriots want to get out of this offensive funk without going out and getting a deep threat (cough Randy Moss), they need to do a better job running the ball. They can run that no huddle 2 TE offense, but if they want to do that, then run the ball effectively and punish teams for playing nickel against that personnel grouping.

Right now, they are not winning the battle at the LOS, and as a result, the run game isn't effective enough for them to beat this concept defenses are throwing at them to stop their passing attack.

The key to the Patriots resurgence isn't necessarily finding a deep threat. It's finding a run game. And a checkdown RB. That would be their counter to this scheme that's stopping them right now.

Seems to me that it is their defense that is the problem, they cannot stop anybody. Last game is a perfect example, Brady gave them the lead but the defense in turn allowed a winning final drive. When your defense is ranked #32 in the league, it is quite difficult for the offense to survive when they have to score repeatedly to match what their defense is giving up.

-What's wrong with the Chargers?

A lack of talent. This team just isn't very talented. And a lot of concepts that worked in the past, aren't working now.

In the past, Rivers had a healthy Gates who essentially was uncoverable, a Vincent Jackson who can catch it against double coverage whenever Rivers would just throw it up there, and if both those guys were covered downfield, a very underrated Darren Sproles to check down to and turn a 5 yard checkdown into a 15 yard gain. Plus a core of tall WRs around them that he can use as body up guys against single coverage when the coverage dictated it.

That's why his numbers were so dominant lately. But that's all gone this year. And you see the result. Now don't get me wrong, Rivers had sick numbers before bc he also has deadly accuracy, a quick release, and great anticipation skills.

But this year's mistakes aren't all bc of a potential injury. The guy lost a lot of what he used to have. Without Sproles, the checkdown isn't half of what it used to be. Gates looks old and fat out there and isn't a safety valve anymore. He can't play jump ball with Jackson anymore for some unknown reason (Jackson just hasn't been great this year for some reason).

You take away those guys, and of course his numbers will go down. That's the case with any qb. This team just lacks talent right now and they really need to start fresh. It's time for a do-over. Time to rebuild. Don't waste Rivers prime years away by trying to do patchwork to this core unit. This core is done, it's time to start fresh and get some new guys around Rivers and give it another go in 2 years if they have a couple of good drafts. Bc right now, this team isn't good enough.

Rivers isn't blameless though. He's made some terrible decisions this year as well, and his physical limitations are starting to show. But he's still Phillip Rivers, he'll turn it around with some help. It's no secret around here that I'm one of his harshest critics on this board, and I've been called out numerous times in the past for scoffing at the idea that he's a top 5 qb in this league, but make no mistake, I don't think he's a bad qb. I think he's a very good one. But he can't win with this team. It just isn't talented enough.

The Chargers have a HC who basically stinks. Every year he finds a way to screw up the team. Last year it was Special Teams, this year it has been penalties. Give any NFL HC a true franchise QB, playing in the woeful AFC West and they would have no trouble winning their conference.
Now that Turner is actually getting a challenge by improving other teams, his total incompetence is shinning through even more.
Blaming Rivers for that mess is missing the point entirely.

-I don't see what's so special about Rob Ryan

I don't see it. Why does this dude talk so much? What has he accomplished? Did he ever have a dominant defense? No. He was a mediocre coordinator in Oakland, and a mediocre one in Cleveland.

Was he really an upgrade over Wade Phillips? I don't think so. I think the team quit on Wade, which is why last year they looked pathetic on defense, but as a coordinator, I'll take Wade 10 out of 10 times over Rob Ryan.

Look what Wade did with Houston. Wade's resume speaks for itself. Everywhere he goes, the defense improves. Rob is so mediocre, he's really just known as Rex Ryan's brother more than anything else.

I know statistically the Cowboys look good on defense this year, but they don't intimidate me at all. Rob Ryan's schemes are nothing special. Who has he really played that was impressive offensively? Just the Patriots and Eagles.

The Eagles lit him up. The Patriots, yeah, he did well against them. Is that really surprising though? You don't think Rex helped him out on that one? Maybe I'm being harsh, but I don't understand the Rob Ryan hype.

What hype, he is the Cowboys DC. Yes, the team quite on Phillips so how can Phillips have been a better DC for the Cowboys??? Last I looked, it is the screwups by Romo that cost the team victories not Ryan's defense.

That's enough for now. I need to go to bed. There's so much more, but I can't remember it all.

EDIT: More thoughts:

-Jim Harbaugh is proof that coaching schemes are getting too complicated for their own good

What makes the 49ers so good? They are simple. They execute fundamentals. It sounds like common sense, but when you look at how complicated schemes have become, you realize that it's overkill.

Jim Harbaugh is brilliant bc he's bringing football back to a more simple approach. He doesn't have all these complex route combinations for his WRs, he has a simple "blitz beater" route for Alex Smith on every play.

NFL coaches scoff at the idea. It's just something that works in college. Well...why can't it work in the NFL? Just bc? If a play has a blitz beater that will beat teh coverage, why can't it work? A perfect example of how simplifying something makes perfect sense yet is not done bc coaches want to be complicated.

Even defense. The 49ers aren't pulling a NE and throwing a bunch of formations and blitz/read options on their guys. They line up, and they keep it simple. Basic stuff. But by dumbing it down, that allows their guys to play fast and effective.

I'll give you an example, a lot of blitz packages are more complicated than you think. It's not just "go get em". It involves a lot of reads at times.

Scenario A: TE is lined up tight left next to the LT and the RB behind the qb. If he stays in to block, the WILL is allowed to rush, the FS plays deep zone if the RB runs his route to the right. If the RB runs to the FS's side, he picks him up in man underneath, so the CB is on an island.

If the TE runs his route, the LB is man on him, the FS is man on the RB or in zone depending on the scenario stated above. So again, the CB also needs to read those guys to know if he has help up top or not.

If the TE brushes and goes, the WILL blitzes, but the FS has a 2 man read now, he has to pick up the deeper route, the TE or the RB, whoever goes deeper, and the CB has to cover his man or break off and play the flat if the RB runs his route in this scenario.

As you can see, it can get a little complicated for defenders. Don't forget, these are dumb athletes. It may be simple to you and me, but Antonio Cromartie's head hurts just reading that.

So you get blown assignments etc. SF took away the complexity,and dumbed it down. And it's working.

I think this is the effect Bill Bellichick has had on the league. He's known for his complexity. And everyone has tried to copy that. And it's gotten to a point where we need to go in the opposite direction to get the effectiveness that Bill got when he introduced his niche to the game.

And Harbaugh is bringing that. Rex Ryan had a great quote in Hard Knocks. While he was teaching, he said "Who makes it complicated? Coaches. We make it complicated"

So true. A great coordinator keeps it simple for his players, but complicated for his opponents. Rex understands that. His schemes are basic in some ways but complicated in others.

That's the recipe for success nowadays. Being complex just to be complex doesn't do you any good.


Let's see how the 49ers survive the meat of their schedule before jumping all over this guy and his schemes. They play in the NFL West and the last time I looked, it is a pitiful Division. He has a very talented team and has brought some measure of success for his heaped upon QB Alex Smith, but let's see if he can sustain it against the better teams in the NFL before we anoint him.

-Lance Briggs is criminally underrated

Lance Briggs in my eyes has had a HOF caliber career. But the guy doesn't even get recognized as a PB caliber player. It's ridiculous. This guy has been the best 4-3 OLB in the league for a long time now, but he just doesn't get any credit. I don't get it.

It's a testament to how the 4-3 OLB has lost it's significance, but at the same time, I cannot understand why he's still so underrated. He's the best defender on the Bears, and has been their best defender for the past 6 years. It's time he gets some recognition for it.

I couldn't agree more. Urlacher gets most of the credit but Briggs is one hell of a player and grossly underestimated.

NY+Giants=NYG
11-12-2011, 10:59 AM
Booooo! I hate your write ups! Please find better use of your time! : P

Also, I will not take my developmental pick like before! I am taking a stand like the Wall Street protestors!

Flyboy
11-12-2011, 11:12 AM
Darren Sproles is the most underrated player in the NFL. His impact has been felt in New Orleans and without him in San Diego, the offense is anemic. He is an X-Factor and a huge one. Defenses have to game plan around him and he opens up the entire offense and makes people around him better. He's a matchup nightmare. The loss of Sproles has been catastrophic.

So, so true. Best free agency pickup in the offseason by FAR.

Saints-Tigers
11-12-2011, 11:58 AM
This closer stuff is getting ridiculous, and it's not surprisingly, been almost all from Giant fans lately. Great writeup though.

Rosebud
11-12-2011, 12:02 PM
Booooo! I hate your write ups! Please find better use of your time! : P

Also, I will not take my developmental pick like before! I am taking a stand like the Wall Street protestors!

NYG you know what you want, and that automatically eliminates you from being like the Occupy-tards.

Razor
11-12-2011, 12:21 PM
-Is the fall of the Patriots offense really that surprising?"

Think about it. They were exposed last year by the Jets in the playoffs. The Jets knew they had no deep threat, so they basically played Cover 0 or Cover 1 all game.

They played bump and run on the outside, and flooded the middle of the field with zone defenders to prevent those crossing routes and YAC underneath, and bumped and ran with those TEs in man with the safeties.

The result? Brady had nowhere to go, and had a horrible game.

Fast forward to this season, and the Cowboys, Steelers, and Giants do the same thing, and the result was the same as well. My question is, why did it take so long for teams to follow the blueprint? This should have been employed by every team this season since game 1.

If the Patriots want to get out of this offensive funk without going out and getting a deep threat (cough Randy Moss), they need to do a better job running the ball. They can run that no huddle 2 TE offense, but if they want to do that, then run the ball effectively and punish teams for playing nickel against that personnel grouping.

Right now, they are not winning the battle at the LOS, and as a result, the run game isn't effective enough for them to beat this concept defenses are throwing at them to stop their passing attack.

The key to the Patriots resurgence isn't necessarily finding a deep threat. It's finding a run game. And a checkdown RB. That would be their counter to this scheme that's stopping them right now.

Very, very good post all together there, BBD. I have to take issue with the above statement though. We're running the ball very well this year actually. The problem is that we don't stick with it when it works. We have checkdown RBs as well, but Brady has seemed unwilling to go to them when needed this year as opposed to previous years. I don't think our running game is a problem. I do, however, believe that it can solve a lot of our offensive problems. Just like you. Also, a deep threat would be great for the Patriot offense. Brady just can't throw it deep this year after he hurt his elbow, it's really showing whenever he throws the ball for more than 20 yards.

49erNation85
11-12-2011, 01:29 PM
The one thing people are for getting about the 49ers schedule this year is we haven't even played people in the NFC west yet. Each team we beaten are none divisional teams. Our great defense and run game will help run the table once division play starts.But our passing game needs to take off if we want to win in Play offs.

nobodyinparticular
11-12-2011, 01:33 PM
-There's 2 Raiders that are really sticking out to me

Lamar Houston and Stefen Wisniewski. Both these guys look like studs in the making. Wisniewski looks more impressive to me than Pouncey did for the Steelers last year. The way he pulls, the way he can get up to full speed downfield, his physicality, his pass protection, this guy is a beast. He can do it all.

And Houston, he's playing LE in a 4-3 and still beasting it. I always viewed him as a 3-4 End or a 4-3 UT, but the guy is killing it regardless. I'd love to see him kick inside and see what he can do at DT. Speaking of which, how great was that DT class? Suh, McCoy, Alualhu, Houston, Geno, Price, Linval Joseph, that's a hell of a DT class.


I love it! I am going to agree with you 100%. I will also say that Veldheer and Shaugnessy should/would get the same attention as well. I freaking love the 6'8" monster out of Hillsdale. He is a 2nd year player who is getting better every single game. At this point, I see him as Michael Roos of the 2005 and 2006 season--one of the very good LTs on the rise. And Shaughnessy would right up there with (or better than) Lamarr Houston if he didn't tear his shoulder. But if you saw the play he tore his shoulder on, you would understand exactly what is so amazing about this man-beast. On the play, the Jets' TE engaged Shaughnessy and instead of getting caught up in a hand-fight and trying to disengage, Shaughnessy just hooked him under the arms and flung him a good 3 or 4 feet as if it were nothing.

I think the best thing about the Raiders moving forward is that they don't just have one player on the rise in the trenches, but the Raiders have multiple players who look like Pro Bowlers in the making on both sides of the ball.

Sloopy
11-12-2011, 01:48 PM
Love the write up... can't say I agree with you about Cincy this year

They only have two losses this year admittedly but they only really have one quality win (Buffalo). Their other wins have been against Cle, Jax, Indi, Sea, Tenn.

The toughest part of their schedule is ahead of them with two games each against the Steelers and Ravens.

I'm not saying they won't be good but I think they are still on the cusp of almost their.

As far as the Ravens getting old:
I think this has been harped on why this isn't true in a couple of threads already.

Xonraider
11-12-2011, 02:31 PM
I love it! I am going to agree with you 100%. I will also say that Veldheer and Shaugnessy should/would get the same attention as well. I freaking love the 6'8" monster out of Hillsdale. He is a 2nd year player who is getting better every single game. At this point, I see him as Michael Roos of the 2005 and 2006 season--one of the very good LTs on the rise. And Shaughnessy would right up there with (or better than) Lamarr Houston if he didn't tear his shoulder. But if you saw the play he tore his shoulder on, you would understand exactly what is so amazing about this man-beast. On the play, the Jets' TE engaged Shaughnessy and instead of getting caught up in a hand-fight and trying to disengage, Shaughnessy just hooked him under the arms and flung him a good 3 or 4 feet as if it were nothing.

I think the best thing about the Raiders moving forward is that they don't just have one player on the rise in the trenches, but the Raiders have multiple players who look like Pro Bowlers in the making on both sides of the ball.

Agree too. Shaughnessy looks impressive when he is on the field, it is a shame he got hurt. Houston has his ups and downs though, but he was solid in the game against San Diego. Aaron Curry has looked impressive and I think McClain is being a little slow to develop but every now and then shows flashes of potential, not to mention he is very good in coverage. Routt has been decent in coverage and Chekwa looks very good when he is on the field, imo. The one that seems lost at times is DVD. I think we should draft a DT some time soon (either this year or next) to get some youth inside, because Kelly and Seymour are certainly not young.

mqtirishfan
11-12-2011, 02:45 PM
The Rodgers point seems unfair to me, especially this season. He's completing 70% of his passes and the Packers are undefeated. Would it make him a better QB if the Packers scored fewer points in the first three quarters so he'd have a comeback to mount in the 4th? The only game you bring up that the Packers lost was the '09 playoff game. Every other game he didn't "close" was a victory.

jackalope
11-12-2011, 02:51 PM
Although Rodgers hasn't had that signature "Game Clinching" Drive moment yet, to his credit he also doesn't make the critical back breaking turnovers that lose the game for his team. Yes he had a fumble in the '09 Playoffs... but one of his best attributes is that he takes care of the ball so well. So many QBs try to force the ball into a spot when it just isn't there late in games, and leads to momentum changing Turnovers that cause the other team to Win. Lately Rodgers just doesn't turn the ball over period.. he has maybe 1 Interception this year that did not hit a Receivers hands. Which is impressive considering how many Interceptions some of the upper level QBs have this season (Brady, Brees, Rivers)

I think he'll get his game clinching 4th qtr drives, he'll be patient and get the opportunities at some point this season.

49ers are playing some lights out Defense this year. Anyone have thoughts on the play of Justin Smith, and Navarro Bowman? 2 key players on that D'. Justin Smith has been the best 3-4 DE this season and is playing at an unbelievable level.. while Bowman is having a career year himself.

Agreed Rivers hasn't played well, but he's not getting help around him. Seems like when you see the wide angles on the replays.. No one is getting open for him. Gates is a shell of his old self... but still gets receptions because of his veteran savvy. I think Norv Turner gets fired at the end of season, SD is going to have to re-tool along the Offensive Line and get Rivers some targets at WR that he can work with.

I would agree with this. Seems a little ridiculous to fault a guy for giving his team a lead and then not blowing it. Aaron Nagler, a guy who give a lot of good insight on Green Bay, wrote about how Rodgers tends to get conservative in the second half of games after building a lead. He uses the example of the Minnesota game, in which he was making perfect throws into triple coverage and very small windows early on. Once Green Bay was leading in the second half, he started opting for safer throws, including throwing it away to settle for a field goal rather than try to squeeze it into double coverage in the endzone. I don't think this is a bad attribute for your quarterback to have. It's not costing them games.

Also, this may be a bit unrelated, but it's worth noting something about the Chicago game, which a lot of people cite as Rodgers' blemish of last season's playoff run. There is certainly no proof of this, but a lot of people believe Rodgers played a good portion of that game with a concussion. Rodgers took a very hard helmet-to-helmet hit from Peppers, and wasn't the same after that. The interception he threw directly to Urlacher was an extremely uncharacteristic throw. Now, it may very well have been just a case of Rodgers playing poorly and having some trouble against the Bears (I'm pretty sure Urlacher has more interceptions of Rodgers than any other player, so this wouldn't be too surprising), but my guess would be he had a concussion. I really hope I'm wrong, because that would have been Rodgers' third concussion of the year, which would be concerning.

Rosebud
11-12-2011, 03:23 PM
He ravens are pretty young, for the most part, the problem is that the two pieces that are slowing down have been absolutely monumental to their success and they don't have studs in place to take over for them. Ngata and Ray Ray are studs, they've hot some guys like Jimmy Smith with the talent to become a stud, but they're slowly losing the things that have made then so successful.

As for Rosgers I don't want to get into it too much since he has been incredibly successful so far n admittedly my hatred of Packers fans on real life taints my opinion a little bit, but I understand BBD is trying to say, and yes it's nitpicky, but when we're talking about a guy who's playing as well as Rodgers n the Packers are playing the things that could cost them in the playoff won't be monumental issues pike the giants' awful run game n very streaky play calling, or the lions n eagles inabilities to stop the run. If the holes were that glaring they wouldn't be undefeated right now.

Ps sorry bout the typoes, my cracked phone screen doesn't always get along with my fat ****** thumbs.

nobodyinparticular
11-12-2011, 03:24 PM
Agree too. Shaughnessy looks impressive when he is on the field, it is a shame he got hurt. Houston has his ups and downs though, but he was solid in the game against San Diego. Aaron Curry has looked impressive and I think McClain is being a little slow to develop but every now and then shows flashes of potential, not to mention he is very good in coverage. Routt has been decent in coverage and Chekwa looks very good when he is on the field, imo. The one that seems lost at times is DVD. I think we should draft a DT some time soon (either this year or next) to get some youth inside, because Kelly and Seymour are certainly not young.

I think the only thing that makes DVD look lost in coverage is his lack of ball skills. He has amazing shadowing ability, elite coverage speed and his hip turn and agility are top notch. The only problem is when he has blanket coverage on his man and the ball is still thrown his way. He just looks stupid when the ball comes his way. Just like Stanford Routt. This is a common theme among Raider DBs--Routt and DVD are really bad at it. Even Nnamdi wasn't great and coming down with the ball when it came his way, but at least he was able to turn and get a good hand on the ball. Routt and DVD both have that thing where they just look silly with their back turned trying to somehow still get an eye on the ball and throw a hand up in desperation. Hopefully Rod Woodson can coach them up a bit.

I think at this point McClain brings two very good things to the table at this point--the ability to clean up in a pile and length in coverage. McClain is very good at sticking his helmet in a pile at the line of scrimmage and bringing the RB down for a 1 or 2 yard gain. The past decade Raider MLBs wait for the RB to come through the pile and fall forward for 4 or 5 yard gains. I am consistently impressed with how McClain is able to clean up in those piles and bring the RB down. And how many times have we seen McClain throw his ridiculously large arms/hands up and knock a ball down. I would like to see tighter coverage from him, but realistically the MLB isn't going to have tight coverage on a receiver because the Raiders like to keep him in the middle of the field.

As far as the future of the dline, I could see the Raiders moving Houston in the middle and using Wimbley/Shaughnessy at the ends a lot more in the future. In that case, the only need for a dlineman would be for a 4-3 NT to replace Henderson when he retires. If the Raiders still plan on keeping Houston on the end then the Raiders certainly need to address the future of the interior line soon.

StripedWalrus
11-12-2011, 03:53 PM
-The Bengals are for real

The perception before this season started was that the Bengals were in the Suck for Luck contest. I was a big Bengal supporter, I've been a fan of their drafts the past couple of years and saw this transformation occurring before this season, so their success does not surprise me at all.

They got rid of all their cancers, Carson was holding that team back, Chad has been washed up for awhile now, and starting fresh was much needed. They have a ton of talent on defense. I love that dline. I haven't hidden my love for Geno Atkins in the past, Dunlap is developing nicely as is Michael Johnson, and Domata has been quietly underrated for a long long time. They have a solid LB core, and a good secondary.

You gotta give Zimmer a ton of credit. He's a hell of a coordinator. And that offense has talent too. Great oline, solid run game (nobody spectacular but servicable 3 headed RBC), and they have great weapons in AJ, Simpson and Gresham. This is a good team. Go up and down the roster. They have talent. They're one of the more talented teams in the league.

They're young, that could hold them back. But if Dalton can continue to develop, they can make more noise. The future is bright for this team as long as they keep having good drafts. They have a great opportunity to take over their division with Baltimore and Pittsburgh getting old in front of our eyes. Both those teams can't stay young forever. They have 2 years left in the tank at most.

Cinncy can establish themselves as the future king of that division if they play their cards right, and can make some noise this year if Dalton can continue to improve.


Let's wait till they play the tough part of their schedule, I'm impressed with Dalton and the Bengals but the organization has a history of poor management and has a long way to go to prove to me that things have really changed.

I think as an organization the Bengals have made alot of strides in the last few years. The drafts have been excellent and team drama has dropped off especially now that Chad is gone. I understand the skepticism because I imagine all Bengal fans are skeptics too. The team has drafted extremely well and the young players are bringing a new life to Cincy...I just hope they keep it up.

bigbluedefense
11-12-2011, 05:55 PM
Talk about nitpicking, he won the Super Bowl, what more proof do you want that he can perform at the big moments. Nothing is missing from his game, I repeat, nothing.

You're right, I am nitpicking. I said he's arguably the best qb in the league. But nobody is perfect. I'm just pointing out the one thing we haven't seen from him yet. I am in no way saying he's not an incredible qb. I'd probably take him over anyone in the league outside of Tom Brady, I'm simply pointing out 1 thing that we haven't seen yet. Nothing more, nothing less.


Total rubbish, NE drafted a LT in round 1 this past draft, Atlanta has a 1st rounder playing LT, New Orleans has a 1st rounder playing LT, Detroit has a 1st rounder playing LT, Chicago drafted a 1st rounder to play LT but he wasn't good enough and Cutler has been running for his life ever since. Indy has a 1st rounder playing LT when they won the Super Bowl, he retired and Indy hasn't repeated. Pittsburgh had a 2nd rounder playing LT and he retired as well and they have only survived because Roethlisberger can take the punishment and is exceptionable at surviving the pass rush.
Obviously all these teams consider LT to be a very crucial position but according to you, what do they know?

And I ask you, all those teams you mentioned, how many of them have elite LT play? The answer is none. Great qbs in this league don't need a great LT. In a perfect world, yeah sure, having both is a great thing, but if you have a franchise qb, you are probably better off investing a high draft pick in a different position that gives you a better return.

Nothing for nothing, but if you want to evaluate offensive linemen coming out of the draft, the return on 1st round Cs has been much much better than the returns on 1st round LTs. Most of these LTs are being pushed up draft boards bc of the position and it's perceived necessity.

Last time I checked, every one of those qbs you mentioned are doing just fine with mediocre LTs protecting their blindside. And your point of all those 1st round picks actually hurts your argument. How many of those 1st round picks are good? All of them are mediocre right now.


Let's wait till they play the tough part of their schedule, I'm impressed with Dalton and the Bengals but the organization has a history of poor management and has a long way to go to prove to me that things have really changed.

The Bengals weren't always terrible. They were a good team in the 80s. It's not fair to the organization to just assume they're going to suck just bc they're the Bengals. They put together 3 straight years of great drafting, and they have chips to play with. And their division rivals are getting older, is it really that crazy to think they have a chance to take control of the division in 2 years?

Mike Zimmer is a great DC too. Me personally, he's my preferrance as our next HC. I think he's going to make a great HC.

You use Tennessee as your only example of a team it works for and what have they accomplished????

Tennessee has been running this scheme for years. And I used them as an example bc I studied the scheme through them. They are not the only team in the league that uses the wide 9. And they have plenty of success with it. Do I really need to go into it? 2008 was probably the best wide 9 defense they had. They were the #1 seed in the AFC that year. Not too shabby.

Seems to me that it is their defense that is the problem, they cannot stop anybody. Last game is a perfect example, Brady gave them the lead but the defense in turn allowed a winning final drive. When your defense is ranked #32 in the league, it is quite difficult for the offense to survive when they have to score repeatedly to match what their defense is giving up.

I agree, but you're missing the point of that post. I wasn't talking about NE's defense at all. I was talking about their offense, and it's drop off in production the last 4 weeks. Their offense has seen a steady decline in points over the past 4 weeks, and I was discussing that it shouldn't be surprising bc the blueprint to stop them was shown to us in the playoffs last year.

The Chargers have a HC who basically stinks. Every year he finds a way to screw up the team. Last year it was Special Teams, this year it has been penalties. Give any NFL HC a true franchise QB, playing in the woeful AFC West and they would have no trouble winning their conference.
Now that Turner is actually getting a challenge by improving other teams, his total incompetence is shinning through even more.
Blaming Rivers for that mess is missing the point entirely.

First and foremost, Turner has won the division every year except last year. So I don't get your point there. Also, re-read what I wrote. I was saying that it wasn't all River's fault. I wasn't blaming him at all.

What hype, he is the Cowboys DC. Yes, the team quite on Phillips so how can Phillips have been a better DC for the Cowboys??? Last I looked, it is the screwups by Romo that cost the team victories not Ryan's defense.

Rob Ryan has a perception of being a great DC, and I fail to see it. Nowhere on his resume have we ever seen him put together a dominant defense.

And I think when the dust settles on this season, Dallas's defense won't be as statistically impressive as it has been right now. He gets the recognition of a great DC, but I fail to see the what's he's done to earn that reputation.

Let's see how the 49ers survive the meat of their schedule before jumping all over this guy and his schemes. They play in the NFL West and the last time I looked, it is a pitiful Division. He has a very talented team and has brought some measure of success for his heaped upon QB Alex Smith, but let's see if he can sustain it against the better teams in the NFL before we anoint him..

I don't think the 49ers will do much in the postseason bc of their qb, but let's be fair, they beat some respectable teams. They beat Detroit, they beat Philly, they beat Cinncy.

It's not like they played the Colts every week.

Raiderz4Life
11-12-2011, 06:01 PM
Norv winning the AFCW is more of the division sucking than him being a competent coach. SD just happened to be a big fish in a small pond.

bigbluedefense
11-12-2011, 06:06 PM
Norv winning the AFCW is more of the division sucking than him being a competent coach. SD just happened to be a big fish in a small pond.

I agree. It's not all on Norv though. That's a cop out. The guy's postseason record is solid. If he was an awful coach, he would lose in the postseason vs better competition. But he's won, more than a lot of coaches who are recognized to be better than him.

Norv's system is also the reason why that offense was so explosive in the past to begin with. I'm not saying that he's a great coach, but to simply blame all their woes on Norv Turner is a lame excuse to me.

He's part of the problem, but he's not the entire problem alone.

bigbluedefense
11-12-2011, 06:07 PM
If the Chargers want to point the finger at someone who isn't on the field, they need to point it at AJ Smith. I blame him before I blame Norv Turner.

Raiderz4Life
11-12-2011, 06:18 PM
I agree. It's not all on Norv though. That's a cop out. The guy's postseason record is solid. If he was an awful coach, he would lose in the postseason vs better competition. But he's won, more than a lot of coaches who are recognized to be better than him.

Norv's system is also the reason why that offense was so explosive in the past to begin with. I'm not saying that he's a great coach, but to simply blame all their woes on Norv Turner is a lame excuse to me.

He's part of the problem, but he's not the entire problem alone.

I'll agree with this. Norv's not the only one to blame. AJ has a lot of blame as well. Just seems that SD has really become depleted of talent. Every year they regress a little more.

I love it.

vidae
11-12-2011, 07:18 PM
I'll agree with this. Norv's not the only one to blame. AJ has a lot of blame as well. Just seems that SD has really become depleted of talent. Every year they regress a little more.

I love it.

The Chiefs and Raiders are both adding a lot of young talent through the draft.. this division will get better and we'll have some actual competition soon!

Raiderz4Life
11-12-2011, 08:16 PM
The Chiefs and Raiders are both adding a lot of young talent through the draft.. this division will get better and we'll have some actual competition soon!

Yea..unfortunately the Raiders keep doing dumb stuff with their picks...but we seem to be good at finding talent outside the 1st.

vidae
11-12-2011, 09:24 PM
I've been really happy with the way that Pioli has drafted the last two years. Hopefully he can keep that going.

Raiderz4Life
11-12-2011, 09:40 PM
If the Raiders can find a good GM..*prays*.....I think we can be alright as well. We got good pieces...DMC...McClain shows flashes...Houston and Shaugnhessy...Wimbley and Curry are really doing a solid job.

TimmG6376
11-12-2011, 09:46 PM
Rodgers has "closed" plenty of times, however, as we all know this is a team game. One that sticks out to me is the game they lost to Atlanta last season. With the game in the balance Rodgers drove down the field eventually hitting Nelson for a TD to tie the game with 56 seconds left. Only to have the pathetic special teams give up a big kick return to put the Falcons one first down from a game winning FG.

There have also been some late game drives this season killed by 3rd down drops.

I do agree that the offense seems to get a little too conservative with a 2nd half lead. But I attribute that more to McCarthy than Rodgers. McCarthy seems to want to run this spread offense that puts up big points through 3 quarters then suddenly in the 4th quarter he thinks they can switch to a power running team to kill the clock. Against the Vikings it worked. Usually it doesn't. But who am I to question the coach of an 8-0 team.

TitanHope
11-12-2011, 09:51 PM
Tennessee's '08 defensive personnel was probably the ideal Wide 9 DL, mainly because of Albert Haynesworth. He single handedly eliminated the disadvantage in run defense that having the DE's at 9-Tech caused. Then add in Kyle Vanden Bosch, and you really could run JAG's to fill it out and have an elite DL. Fortunately, a healthy Antwan Odom was a solid LE, and Tony Brown was criminally underrated then too.

I think Jim Schwartz would be wise to use this up in Detroit, if he already isn't. Suh may not be the '07 version of Fat Al (which I think was his best year, not in '08 which was his statistically best season), but he's already a great player. And what difference there is between Al and Suh, Fairley will make up due to his edge over Tony Brown (when Fairley fully develops and if he stays healthy, that is). Then you have KVB, who's used to the scheme and has been extremely productive in it, and a guy like Cliff Avril who is absolutely perfect for this. To me, it's the ideal spot.

The only thing is it requires great gap discipline by the LB's and S's. The Titans had two good ones in Keith Bulluck and David Thornton, but MIKE was definitely a weak spot. This was when Stephen Tulloch finally started seeing major playing time and was the year he secured the starting spot by year's end, but while he was quicker and made more plays than Ryan Fowler, of my God was he over aggressive in his gap responsibilities. Led to some big runs by opposing teams, but fortunately, Haynesworth covered him up most of the time. And back then, Michael Griffin and Chris Hope was a Top 5 safety tandem. I'm not sure if the Lions have that back 7 to compliment the DL. With it, you have the '08 Titans. Without it, you have the '11 Eagles.

Flyboy
11-12-2011, 09:54 PM
New Orleans has a 1st rounder playing LT

Just wanted to state that this is not even close to being accurate. Jermon Bushrod was drafted in the 4th round of the '07 draft and has quietly become a pretty damn good LT for us. Not great, but better than I initially expected and he has tremendously improved from season to season.

phlysac
11-12-2011, 09:59 PM
They play in the NFL West and the last time I looked, it is a pitiful Division.

Only 1 of their 8 games has been against an NFC West opponent.

Their opponents through 8 games are 31-33.
Their opponents the final 8 games are 26-39.

Auron
11-12-2011, 11:24 PM
[/B]Just wanted to state that this is not even close to being accurate. Jermon Bushrod was drafted in the 4th round of the '07 draft and has quietly become a pretty damn good LT for us. Not great, but better than I initially expected and he has tremendously improved from season to season.

Yeah people forget he's a 4th rounder, including myself at times.

Still don't really get Bushrod, he's a really streaky player... some weeks he can go in and handle Julius Peppers, and Mario Williams in back to back weeks without needing much help at all.. then the next week he'll get dominated by Adrian Clayborn, and Robert Quinn... (Rookies who while highly talented, still are learning to find their way in this league)

I'll give him credit he did much better in the 2nd game against Clayborn, but he got a lot of help in Pass Protection from the Backs, Tight Ends.

TonyGfortheTD
11-13-2011, 12:18 AM
I think declaring the Bengals as for real before they start a difficult two game stretch may be jumping the gun a bit.

Ngatachance92
11-13-2011, 12:29 AM
The Bengals are sheep in wolves clothing says I... You will see... you will all seeeeeeee....

Bengalsrocket
11-13-2011, 02:42 AM
The Bengals are sheep in wolves clothing says I... You will see... you will all seeeeeeee....

That's better than being a naked sheep though, right?

Ngatachance92
11-13-2011, 02:44 AM
Good point.

ChiFan24
11-13-2011, 04:12 AM
Total rubbish, NE drafted a LT in round 1 this past draft, Atlanta has a 1st rounder playing LT, New Orleans has a 1st rounder playing LT, Detroit has a 1st rounder playing LT, Chicago drafted a 1st rounder to play LT but he wasn't good enough and Cutler has been running for his life ever since. Indy has a 1st rounder playing LT when they won the Super Bowl, he retired and Indy hasn't repeated. Pittsburgh had a 2nd rounder playing LT and he retired as well and they have only survived because Roethlisberger can take the punishment and is exceptionable at surviving the pass rush.
Obviously all these teams consider LT to be a very crucial position but according to you, what do they know?

The Bears part isn't remotely true either. Carimi was drafted as a RT and has been out with a knee injury since week 2. The Bears have been more than happy to start a seventh rounder at LT.

None of those teams invested premium first round picks in a LT (actually I'm not totally sure about Backus, but that was like 10 years ago so it's really not relevant to the point). As long as you have a passable one that won't get your QB killed, you're fine. I agree 100% with BBD's original point.

And to further illustrate that point - is there a single good team that has spent a top 10 pick on a LT in the last 5 years? The Bengals spent one on their current RT, and I'm sure they'd do that pick over again if they could. Am I forgetting someone?

Pat Sims 90
11-13-2011, 04:31 AM
The Bengals spent one on their current RT, and I'm sure they'd do that pick over again

Andre Smith turned himself around and has played up to his draft stock this year time will tell if he keeps it up.

Larry
11-13-2011, 09:02 AM
Good post OP.

AHungryWalrus
11-13-2011, 09:27 AM
The Bears part isn't remotely true either. Carimi was drafted as a RT and has been out with a knee injury since week 2. The Bears have been more than happy to start a seventh rounder at LT.

None of those teams invested premium first round picks in a LT (actually I'm not totally sure about Backus, but that was like 10 years ago so it's really not relevant to the point). As long as you have a passable one that won't get your QB killed, you're fine. I agree 100% with BBD's original point.

And to further illustrate that point - is there a single good team that has spent a top 10 pick on a LT in the last 5 years? The Bengals spent one on their current RT, and I'm sure they'd do that pick over again if they could. Am I forgetting someone?

D'Brick was drafted in 06. So, kinda within 5 years.

Saints-Tigers
11-13-2011, 01:36 PM
If it came down to the end of the game, only a fool would take Eli Manning over Aaron Rodgers, and that's where this thread is headed.

Rosebud
11-13-2011, 02:04 PM
If it came down to the end of the game, only a fool would take Eli Manning over Aaron Rodgers, and that's where this thread is headed.

Yet you're the only one to even suggest that so far. Rodgers relying on his D to close out games is something to nitpick when talking about the "best QB in the NFL". Especially when it's not like he hasn't gotten chances to drive the dagger home with some game ending drives. The D has held so it's not a major gripe, but it's something people don't talk about that could come back to bite them as that D is not as dominant as the O and as a Packers fan I'd rather have that O determining the outcome of games than that D.

ChiFan24
11-13-2011, 02:31 PM
D'Brick was drafted in 06. So, kinda within 5 years.

Yeah, that's why I said 5 years instead of 6.....I was starting with 2007 (as in, the past 5 drafts).

I guess I missed Dallas in 2011 too. Still, I think it's a pretty good point. Every other team that's done it is among the worst in the NFL.

AHungryWalrus
11-13-2011, 03:11 PM
Yeah, that's why I said 5 years instead of 6.....I was starting with 2007 (as in, the past 5 drafts).

I guess I missed Dallas in 2011 too. Still, I think it's a pretty good point. Every other team that's done it is among the worst in the NFL.

Well, clearly, most of the recent teams picking in the top 10 are going to be bad, so it's kind of a misleading statistic. You have to give a team 2-3 years after a top ten pick to kind of turn it around, so realistically there are only two years (5 and 4 years ago) that are legitimate examples.

Xenos
11-14-2011, 01:54 AM
If the Chargers want to point the finger at someone who isn't on the field, they need to point it at AJ Smith. I blame him before I blame Norv Turner.
I do blame AJ for questionable picks like the Buster Davis one and some of his more recent draft picks. Though it seems to be bad luck for certain ones. The Larry English one comes to mind. If the guy could stay on the field, he would be great IMO, but he can't stay on the field. It's such a shame really. It's the story of this year I guess. Our once talented depth is now depleted due to injuries or just plain regression. There is talent on this team (guys like Butler and Vaugh Martin comes to mind), but they're not coming together as a unit.

Besides more lifeblood from the draft, maybe we just need a complete overhaul in coaching staff first and a new offensive scheme that doesn't rely on just the deep ball.

Edit: Actually that's not entirely fair to Norv. I hate to say it but Rivers is just making poor decisions this year as well as making poor throws. He's not reading the defense as well as in previous seasons. But most importantly, his anticipation and timing on his throws is off this year, which is why he has those interceptions. I see a lot of throws behind the receivers instead of in front, leading to more batted balls in the air and thus more interceptions. I'm just hoping that something changes for him as well as for Norv. As much as a lot of SD fans want Norv fired, I don't because it means that this team has failed in what it wants to accomplish.

ChiFan24
11-14-2011, 02:58 AM
Well, clearly, most of the recent teams picking in the top 10 are going to be bad, so it's kind of a misleading statistic. You have to give a team 2-3 years after a top ten pick to kind of turn it around, so realistically there are only two years (5 and 4 years ago) that are legitimate examples.

Ehh...I thought about that, but really, it's not at all uncommon to go from the top ten to the playoffs in a matter of a year or two. I would just argue that drafting an OT in the top ten is a bad way to go about doing that.

TheFinisher
11-14-2011, 06:45 AM
-I don't see what's so special about Rob Ryan

I don't see it. Why does this dude talk so much? What has he accomplished? Did he ever have a dominant defense? No. He was a mediocre coordinator in Oakland, and a mediocre one in Cleveland.

Was he really an upgrade over Wade Phillips? I don't think so. I think the team quit on Wade, which is why last year they looked pathetic on defense, but as a coordinator, I'll take Wade 10 out of 10 times over Rob Ryan.

Look what Wade did with Houston. Wade's resume speaks for itself. Everywhere he goes, the defense improves. Rob is so mediocre, he's really just known as Rex Ryan's brother more than anything else.

I know statistically the Cowboys look good on defense this year, but they don't intimidate me at all. Rob Ryan's schemes are nothing special. Who has he really played that was impressive offensively? Just the Patriots and Eagles.

The Eagles lit him up. The Patriots, yeah, he did well against them. Is that really surprising though? You don't think Rex helped him out on that one? Maybe I'm being harsh, but I don't understand the Rob Ryan hype.




I mean, he only improved the league's 31st ranked defense from a year ago to a top 10 unit this year... but other than that he hasn't accomplished much :rollseyes:

Iamcanadian
11-14-2011, 10:44 AM
The Bears part isn't remotely true either. Carimi was drafted as a RT and has been out with a knee injury since week 2. The Bears have been more than happy to start a seventh rounder at LT.

None of those teams invested premium first round picks in a LT (actually I'm not totally sure about Backus, but that was like 10 years ago so it's really not relevant to the point). As long as you have a passable one that won't get your QB killed, you're fine. I agree 100% with BBD's original point.

And to further illustrate that point - is there a single good team that has spent a top 10 pick on a LT in the last 5 years? The Bengals spent one on their current RT, and I'm sure they'd do that pick over again if they could. Am I forgetting someone?

The Bears drafted Chris Williams to play LT for them but he wasn't good enough so they switched him to OG.
NE drafted Solder in the last draft and he was their starting LT till he got hurt.
The Jets drafted Ferguson in round 1 to play LT.
I guess I cannot mention Miami who took Long #1 overall since they have no QB to take advantage of his abilities.
KC has a round 1 LT and won their division last year.
Houston drafted its LT in Round 1.
Dallas drafted their future LT in round 1, Atlanta as well. San Francisco also has a round 1 LT.
Add all these to the other 1st round LT's I mentioned in my original post and most of the teams in the NFL have invested a round 1 pick in their LT's.
It is quite obvious that NFL GM's by far and large, consider LT one of the most important positions on a football team, #2 on offense next to the QB.
Just because the poster thinks it was a wasted pick doesn't make it true. He is in conflict with practically every GM in pro football and I'll take their advice on this matter over his every time.

DraftSavant
11-14-2011, 11:25 AM
Agree with everything you said about Harbaugh/49ers. Less volume; more creativity.

Rosebud
11-14-2011, 11:33 AM
The Bears drafted Chris Williams to play LT for them but he wasn't good enough so they switched him to OG.
NE drafted Solder in the last draft and he was their starting LT till he got hurt.
The Jets drafted Ferguson in round 1 to play LT.
I guess I cannot mention Miami who took Long #1 overall since they have no QB to take advantage of his abilities.
KC has a round 1 LT and won their division last year.
Houston drafted its LT in Round 1.
Dallas drafted their future LT in round 1, Atlanta as well. San Francisco also has a round 1 LT.
Add all these to the other 1st round LT's I mentioned in my original post and most of the teams in the NFL have invested a round 1 pick in their LT's.
It is quite obvious that NFL GM's by far and large, consider LT one of the most important positions on a football team, #2 on offense next to the QB.
Just because the poster thinks it was a wasted pick doesn't make it true. He is in conflict with practically every GM in pro football and I'll take their advice on this matter over his every time.

You seem to be missing the point. Teams are still investing heavily in the position, that's why BBD is calling it over-rated, cause of those guys picked Brick is the only one who's become an elite LT and playing on a successful team. Pretty much all of those other first round LTs are just mediocre or on bad teams.

Job Reborn
11-14-2011, 12:11 PM
BBD : "The perceived importance of LTs causes many of them to be overdrafted"

IamCanadian : "Lol no plenty of teams draft LTs in the first round".

...

...

The **** kind of argument is that?

DraftSavant
11-14-2011, 12:34 PM
You seem to be missing the point. Teams are still investing heavily in the position, that's why BBD is calling it over-rated, cause of those guys picked Brick is the only one who's become an elite LT and playing on a successful team. Pretty much all of those other first round LTs are just mediocre or on bad teams.

I still don't think I'd call Ferguson an elite LT. Very good, sure, but not elite.

The previous generation of LTs really spoiled fans/teams league-wide. There isn't a Pace/Jones/Roaf/Ogden in the league right now.

Jughead10
11-14-2011, 01:00 PM
I still don't think I'd call Ferguson an elite LT. Very good, sure, but not elite.

The previous generation of LTs really spoiled fans/teams league-wide. There isn't a Pace/Jones/Roaf/Ogden in the league right now.

Peters has been the closest thing. And he is up and down. But his ups are so damn good. Undrafted.

bigbluedefense
11-14-2011, 01:17 PM
If it came down to the end of the game, only a fool would take Eli Manning over Aaron Rodgers, and that's where this thread is headed.

That's funny. I guess I missed the part of the thread where I was talking about Eli Manning.

Or the Giants.

Or anything even remotely close to suggesting what you're implying.

D-Unit
11-14-2011, 01:42 PM
Loved the write up BBD!!!

...but Rob Ryan is good. Really good. Don't let one game (against Philly) affect your entire judgement. His contributions have been nothing short of miraculous.

cmarq83
11-14-2011, 01:53 PM
The Bears drafted Chris Williams to play LT for them but he wasn't good enough so they switched him to OG.
NE drafted Solder in the last draft and he was their starting LT till he got hurt.
The Jets drafted Ferguson in round 1 to play LT.
I guess I cannot mention Miami who took Long #1 overall since they have no QB to take advantage of his abilities.
KC has a round 1 LT and won their division last year.
Houston drafted its LT in Round 1.
Dallas drafted their future LT in round 1, Atlanta as well. San Francisco also has a round 1 LT.
Add all these to the other 1st round LT's I mentioned in my original post and most of the teams in the NFL have invested a round 1 pick in their LT's.
It is quite obvious that NFL GM's by far and large, consider LT one of the most important positions on a football team, #2 on offense next to the QB.
Just because the poster thinks it was a wasted pick doesn't make it true. He is in conflict with practically every GM in pro football and I'll take their advice on this matter over his every time.

Ummm not even a little bit true.

Iamcanadian
11-14-2011, 02:21 PM
I do blame AJ for questionable picks like the Buster Davis one and some of his more recent draft picks. Though it seems to be bad luck for certain ones. The Larry English one comes to mind. If the guy could stay on the field, he would be great IMO, but he can't stay on the field. It's such a shame really. It's the story of this year I guess. Our once talented depth is now depleted due to injuries or just plain regression. There is talent on this team (guys like Butler and Vaugh Martin comes to mind), but they're not coming together as a unit.

Besides more lifeblood from the draft, maybe we just need a complete overhaul in coaching staff first and a new offensive scheme that doesn't rely on just the deep ball.

Edit: Actually that's not entirely fair to Norv. I hate to say it but Rivers is just making poor decisions this year as well as making poor throws. He's not reading the defense as well as in previous seasons. But most importantly, his anticipation and timing on his throws is off this year, which is why he has those interceptions. I see a lot of throws behind the receivers instead of in front, leading to more batted balls in the air and thus more interceptions. I'm just hoping that something changes for him as well as for Norv. As much as a lot of SD fans want Norv fired, I don't because it means that this team has failed in what it wants to accomplish.

Actually, I blame them both. After Smith fired Schotty, his reputation as a drafter took a hard hit. I suspect Schotty who I know loved Rivers, had a huge say in San Diego's draft successes. Smith also hired Turner, a roll over HC who many teams had tried, with the result that San Diego has been a basically underachieving team in the weak, weak AFC West Division.
IMO, both of them need to go before San Diego will be anything. They are just wasting the prime years of their franchise QB.
In this case I put zero blame on Rivers, teams need leadership from their HC to make things work, last year Turner failed to have a working Special Teams Unit, this year, the team is taking crucial penalties at a very high rate. The team has no real organization and in this atmosphere, players are going to stumble around without real direction and begin coming apart.

D-Unit
11-17-2011, 12:18 PM
-I don't see what's so special about Rob Ryan

I don't see it. Why does this dude talk so much? What has he accomplished? Did he ever have a dominant defense? No. He was a mediocre coordinator in Oakland, and a mediocre one in Cleveland.

Was he really an upgrade over Wade Phillips? I don't think so. I think the team quit on Wade, which is why last year they looked pathetic on defense, but as a coordinator, I'll take Wade 10 out of 10 times over Rob Ryan.

Look what Wade did with Houston. Wade's resume speaks for itself. Everywhere he goes, the defense improves. Rob is so mediocre, he's really just known as Rex Ryan's brother more than anything else.

I know statistically the Cowboys look good on defense this year, but they don't intimidate me at all. Rob Ryan's schemes are nothing special. Who has he really played that was impressive offensively? Just the Patriots and Eagles.

The Eagles lit him up. The Patriots, yeah, he did well against them. Is that really surprising though? You don't think Rex helped him out on that one? Maybe I'm being harsh, but I don't understand the Rob Ryan hype.

This is a recent article that does a good job at understanding a part of what Rob Ryan does. Hopefully, that helps you come around a bit on Rob Ryan.

http://www.foxsportssouthwest.com/11/16/11/Xs-and-Os-Breakdown-Rob-Ryans-Fire-Zone-/landing_cowboys.html?blockID=605480&feedID=3742

JBCX
11-17-2011, 02:00 PM
Rob Ryan's probably the best defensive coordinator in the NFC East.

Jughead10
11-17-2011, 02:03 PM
Rob Ryan's probably the best defensive coordinator in the NFC East.

Someone wins in the special olympics too.

Raiderz4Life
11-17-2011, 02:07 PM
Rob Ryan's probably the best defensive coordinator in the NFC East.

That's not saying a whole lot.

I will say Rob Ryan is pretty good. Not a great DC but he's gotten a lot out of less talented teams (Raiders, Browns)

D-Unit
11-17-2011, 02:08 PM
That's not saying a whole lot.

I will say Rob Ryan is pretty good. Not a great DC but he's gotten a lot out of less talented teams (Raiders, Browns)
You... or anyone think Rob will get a HC job next season?

Raiderz4Life
11-17-2011, 02:10 PM
You... or anyone think Rob will get a HC job next season?

Not sure if he'd be a primary candidate but if Dalls can keep playing defense at a high level....he might get some looks. His brother being a HC will probably help a bit..just on a "its in the blood lines" type deal.

JBCX
11-17-2011, 02:10 PM
You... or anyone think Rob will get a HC job next season?

As an Eagles fan, I would personally love to see him as the new head coach of that team.

MetSox17
11-17-2011, 02:12 PM
I don't think the perceived value of a LT is overrated, but i do think a ton of guys are being overdrafted because of the lack of quality players.

The same way some QBs who have no business being drafted where they were (Locker, Gabbert), some teams reach for a LT because they see only a certain amount of players in the first tier of talent. I still value the LT position a lot, and i don't blame teams that go that route. Go ask the Browns if they regret taking Joe Thomas. .

A lot of teams that have taken it upon themselves to draft a young, talented kid to play a tackle position, have had good to great offensive line play and running games since then. Look at the Jets, Browns, Dolphins, Cowboys, Niners, Ravens.. there have been plenty of teams that have successfully established a good offensive line and running game due to taking a tackle in the first round. I don't think the position is overvalued one bit, it is just a matter of GMs getting desperate and overdrafting a guy.

Jughead10
11-17-2011, 02:15 PM
A lot of teams that have taken it upon themselves to draft a young, talented kid to play a tackle position, have had good to great offensive line play and running games since then. Look at the Jets, Browns, Dolphins, Cowboys, Niners, Ravens.. there have been plenty of teams that have successfully established a good offensive line and running game due to taking a tackle in the first round. I don't think the position is overvalued one bit, it is just a matter of GMs getting desperate and overdrafting a guy.

A few of those teams I bet wished they invested a 1st round pick on a better QB. 40 million dollar LTs protect 5 cent QBs. Also Oher has been up and down. False start machine and had to moved to RT.

MetSox17
11-17-2011, 02:22 PM
A few of those teams I bet wished they invested a 1st round pick on a better QB. 40 million dollar LTs protect 5 cent QBs. Also Oher has been up and down. False start machine and had to moved to RT.

It's not like they lost out on a franchise QB in exchange for a LT. Don't bend the argument i'm making into something else.

the new jesus
11-17-2011, 02:24 PM
I love the nitpicking of Rodgers. Until the Packers score on every possession I guess there will always be questions about him.

Jughead10
11-17-2011, 02:25 PM
It's not like they lost out on a franchise QB in exchange for a LT. Don't bend the argument i'm making into something else.

No they didn't lose out on a franchise QB because of the LT. They lost out on franchise QBs because they took the wrong one a year or two earlier.

But I still agree with the original point. The difference between most of those guys and average players isn't that great.

MetSox17
11-17-2011, 02:27 PM
No they didn't lose out on a franchise QB because of the LT. They lost out on franchise QBs because they took the wrong one a year or two earlier.

Well then, that's another argument for another day. The Browns/Dolphins inability to draft a quarterback is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

AntoinCD
11-17-2011, 02:34 PM
A few of those teams I bet wished they invested a 1st round pick on a better QB. 40 million dollar LTs protect 5 cent QBs. Also Oher has been up and down. False start machine and had to moved to RT.

In 2006 the Jets took D'Brick over Matt Leinart or Jay Cutler. Sure in hindsight Cutler would have been a good selection however he wasn't expected to be a top ten pick and the Jets thought they had something in Kellen Clemens

In 2007 the Browns took Joe Thomas over Brady Quinn. They ended up getting Quinn anyway but that was a great decision. Sure the Cardinals drafted a bust but Quinn(the 2nd QB drafted) has shown nothing either.

In 2008 the Dolphins drafted Jake Long over Matt Ryan. This one is a toss up IMO. Ryan started off brilliantly but has if anything regressed. Long is one of the top LTs in the game. The Dolphins are where they are for a myriad of reasons, not just QB play.

In 2009 the Rams took Jason Smith over Sanchez. Sure Smith is a bust but is Mark Sanchez really a guy you want to have as your franchise QB. He has been to 2 AFC Championship games but that isn't really on him. Put him in a bad team and he is a bottom 10 QB IMO.

In 2010 the Redskins took Trent Williams in the top 5. The next QB taken was Tim Tebow. Enough said???

As MetSox said, it's not like these teams all had to decide between a LT or a franchise QB and took the LT. Only Maimi and St Louis did and neither were horrific decisions

JBCX
11-17-2011, 02:40 PM
In 2006 the Jets took D'Brick over Matt Leinart or Jay Cutler. Sure in hindsight Cutler would have been a good selection however he wasn't expected to be a top ten pick and the Jets thought they had something in Kellen Clemens


That's why organizations fail at the draft: because they think, foolishly, that they "have something" with a marginal prospect already on their roster. If you have a chance to draft a potential franchise QB, you have to do it, unless you already have a PROVEN top-10 QB on your roster (such as Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Manning, Rivers, etc.)


In 2007 the Browns took Joe Thomas over Brady Quinn. They ended up getting Quinn anyway but that was a great decision. Sure the Cardinals drafted a bust but Quinn(the 2nd QB drafted) has shown nothing either.


What has Joe Thomas done for the Browns? Their offense is inept. Who cares if they have a top LT? They still can't score points. Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers don't care who their LT is and they still put up 40 points a game. The Browns could have picked a handful of other first rounders with the Joe Thomas pick and could have been better off in the long run.


In 2008 the Dolphins drafted Jake Long over Matt Ryan. This one is a toss up IMO. Ryan started off brilliantly but has if anything regressed. Long is one of the top LTs in the game. The Dolphins are where they are for a myriad of reasons, not just QB play.


If the Dolphins had Matt Ryan right now, they'd be a playoff team. Look at the Colts - if they have Manning, they are a playoff team, but without Manning, they look listless and terrible. A competent QB can do so much for a team, because if the players know that their QB sucks, they don't play as hard, and the defense stays on the field longer and gets tired more easily when the QB of their team can't mount TD drives.


In 2009 the Rams took Jason Smith over Sanchez. Sure Smith is a bust but is Mark Sanchez really a guy you want to have as your franchise QB. He has been to 2 AFC Championship games but that isn't really on him. Put him in a bad team and he is a bottom 10 QB IMO.


At least if they had picked Sanchez, they'd have some kind of QB they could build a team around. Picking the LT did nothing to improve their team in the slightest.


In 2010 the Redskins took Trent Williams in the top 5. The next QB taken was Tim Tebow. Enough said???


Or they could have traded up for Bradford.


As MetSox said, it's not like these teams all had to decide between a LT or a franchise QB and took the LT. Only Maimi and St Louis did and neither were horrific decisions

I would argue that for the fans of the Dolphins and the Rams, picking the LT over the QB has been arguably a terrible experience. Both of these teams are going nowhere without a QB, and the LT simply does nothing to improve their teams.

Jughead10
11-17-2011, 02:42 PM
I get there wasn't a situation where a team drafted a LT and passed on Aaron Rodgers. But I'm just saying is that these teams should worry about getting a QB before going out and spending top 10 money on a LT. Otherwise you are just pissing money away.

AntoinCD
11-17-2011, 02:50 PM
St Louis were never going to trade away from the #1 spot and not take Bradford.

Is Sanchez really a QB you can build around or is he someone you can put into a team with a lot of talent and expect not to make many mistakes?

There is no point in taking a QB in the draft simply because you need a QB. If you think he will be a franchise guy then sure you have to make it. But none of these guys who have been mentioned(Sanchez, Ryan, Quinn, Leinart, Cutler, Freeman, Flacco etc) were definite franchise QBs during the pre draft process.

I do agree that LT isn't always the right pick. The Browns could have had Adrian Peterson for example. The LT spot is overvalued in the draft in comparison to others, however to say that they should have taken QBs instead of LTs is silly IMO. It's fine using hindsight to say why didn't such and such a team take Joe Flacco instead of a LT for example. Well Flacco wasn't thought of as a sure thing and there is no point using such a high pick unless you are sure(especially when considering the guaranteed money)

MetSox17
11-17-2011, 02:50 PM
I get there wasn't a situation where a team drafted a LT and passed on Aaron Rodgers. But I'm just saying is that these teams should worry about getting a QB before going out and spending top 10 money on a LT. Otherwise you are just pissing money away.

Okay, and what you aren't understanding is that those picks need to be made anyway. Do you understand the concept of scarcity? You can't just say "Oh hey, i feel like getting a top 10 qb today, let me go grab one". Do you think GMs are idiots, that they somehow don't understand that everyone needs a good quarterback to win? The difficult part comes when you have to decide where you want to place your risk. In every situation that i've mentioned, no team has made the "wrong" decision in drafting their OT. The only one you can make even a small case for is the Dolphins and Matt Ryan, and Matt Ryan sucks dick while Jake Long is a top two LT in the league.

Jughead10
11-17-2011, 02:55 PM
Okay, and what you aren't understanding is that those picks need to be made anyway. Do you understand the concept of scarcity? You can't just say "Oh hey, i feel like getting a top 10 qb today, let me go grab one". Do you think GMs are idiots, that they somehow don't understand that everyone needs a good quarterback to win? The difficult part comes when you have to decide where you want to place your risk. In every situation that i've mentioned, no team has made the "wrong" decision in drafting their OT. The only one you can make even a small case for is the Dolphins and Matt Ryan, and Matt Ryan sucks dick while Jake Long is a top two LT in the league.

And that's where I disagree. While the players aren't complete busts, dollar and cents wise and draft value wise a lot of these tackles haven't been great picks. Just average ones. For example, do you think Ferguson has played like someone who should have went 4th overall?

MetSox17
11-17-2011, 03:01 PM
And that's where I disagree. While the players aren't complete busts, dollar and cents wise and draft value wise a lot of these tackles haven't been great picks. Just average ones. For example, do you think Ferguson has played like someone who should have went 4th overall?

You're using one argument to complement the other, pick one.

Was it the wrong decision to take a LT? No, it wasn't.

Was it the wrong decision to take that LT? In cases like Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, Russell Okung, yes it was.

As far as D'Brick goes, yes, i do think he has shown to be worthy of his draft slot. If we're playing the hindsight game, just take a look at the rest of that top ten and tell me that the Jets screwed up in taking a LT that has stabilized that offensive line and running game for years now.

bigbluedefense
11-17-2011, 04:01 PM
Okay, and what you aren't understanding is that those picks need to be made anyway. Do you understand the concept of scarcity? You can't just say "Oh hey, i feel like getting a top 10 qb today, let me go grab one". Do you think GMs are idiots, that they somehow don't understand that everyone needs a good quarterback to win? The difficult part comes when you have to decide where you want to place your risk. In every situation that i've mentioned, no team has made the "wrong" decision in drafting their OT. The only one you can make even a small case for is the Dolphins and Matt Ryan, and Matt Ryan sucks dick while Jake Long is a top two LT in the league.

I understand your argument but I'm not necessarily saying that they should have taken a Qb over that LT they chose.

They could have went after a DE, a CB, or a WR. All positions I feel would have a better impact for them then a LT.

Like Jug said, having a 50 million $ LT protect a 2 cent qb makes no sense. Why not go after the top DE in the draft, or the top CB etc? I think those guys can provide more impact.

I think having a stud LT has become more of a luxury than a necessity is what I'm trying to say. Having an elite QB, DE, CB, or WR however are more of a necessity. At least in my opinion.

MetSox17
11-17-2011, 04:33 PM
I understand your argument but I'm not necessarily saying that they should have taken a Qb over that LT they chose.

They could have went after a DE, a CB, or a WR. All positions I feel would have a better impact for them then a LT.

Like Jug said, having a 50 million $ LT protect a 2 cent qb makes no sense. Why not go after the top DE in the draft, or the top CB etc? I think those guys can provide more impact.

I think having a stud LT has become more of a luxury than a necessity is what I'm trying to say. Having an elite QB, DE, CB, or WR however are more of a necessity. At least in my opinion.

JugHead was the one that made the comment about the QB. I'm simply saying that they weren't bad choices to go with LTs, but scarcity causes team to reach on players, NOT the overvaluing of the position.

bigbluedefense
11-17-2011, 05:51 PM
JugHead was the one that made the comment about the QB. I'm simply saying that they weren't bad choices to go with LTs, but scarcity causes team to reach on players, NOT the overvaluing of the position.

See, that's where I'm gonna respectfully disagree with ya (I understand your point). I think the fact that they're reaching for those players has overvalued the position.

Bc there's a general consensus that behind QB, LT is arguably the most important position in football bc he protects the QB, thus they're worth reaching for.

Me personally, I don't think that's the case. They don't have that much of an impact. Unless it's a slamdunk stud LT, are they really worth reaching for?

A stud LT can block a premier pass rusher by himself in theory, but name 1 LT in this league that blocks D. Ware by himself? Even the Joe Thomas/Jake Long's of the world get help against those guys.

So schematically, it's not as huge of an advantage as we believe. And even the best of the best LT's get beat for sacks against premier pass rushers, so it's not like your qb is untouchable.

To me, a guy who can schematically impact the game is more valuable. A stud DE draws double teams (even against teams with a stud LT), a stud CB can play on an island and allow you to double up on the opposition's #2 WR, a stud WR draws double coverage.

Those guys to me, impact the game more than a LT. I'd draft those positions over LT, unless an absolute stud falls to my draft spot (of course, your grades always dictates your pick first and foremost).

I know it's not the conventional thought, but I rather have an impact player in those positions than LT, and I rather invest top dollar in those positions as a result.

In a perfect world, yeah sure, having a stud LT is great. But in a salary cap era, I don't want to allocate so much money to a position that I can get away with spending less on.

Saints-Tigers
11-17-2011, 06:01 PM
I think the LT spot is really overrated, particularly in comparison to the other O-line spots.

I personally think having a dominating interior is better. You can get two dominating guards for nearly the same price as one dominating LT, and if you have even decent protection on the edges, you'll be able to pound the rock, and your QB will always have plenty of room to step up and make throws. (see 2009 Saints).

Jughead10
11-17-2011, 08:53 PM
I think the LT spot is really overrated, particularly in comparison to the other O-line spots.

I personally think having a dominating interior is better. You can get two dominating guards for nearly the same price as one dominating LT, and if you have even decent protection on the edges, you'll be able to pound the rock, and your QB will always have plenty of room to step up and make throws. (see 2009 Saints).

Depends on the offense though too. The Saints have a lot of intermediate throws. The ball gets out real fast. Before edge rushers can't expose the tackles.

Xenos
11-17-2011, 10:33 PM
Actually, I blame them both. After Smith fired Schotty, his reputation as a drafter took a hard hit. I suspect Schotty who I know loved Rivers, had a huge say in San Diego's draft successes. Smith also hired Turner, a roll over HC who many teams had tried, with the result that San Diego has been a basically underachieving team in the weak, weak AFC West Division.
IMO, both of them need to go before San Diego will be anything. They are just wasting the prime years of their franchise QB.
In this case I put zero blame on Rivers, teams need leadership from their HC to make things work, last year Turner failed to have a working Special Teams Unit, this year, the team is taking crucial penalties at a very high rate. The team has no real organization and in this atmosphere, players are going to stumble around without real direction and begin coming apart.
They both like Rivers and AJ would have gotten Rivers regardless of whether Marty was there or not. The interesting thing about their fallout from what I've heard was because of Butler and what happened during the 2003 draft (AJ's first draft as GM when Butler unexpected passed away due to cancer). Marty in essence was the reason AJ passed on Polamalu and traded down for Sammy Davis. But that was only one of the reasons that they hated each other. At least according to what our beat writer believes.

Iamcanadian
11-17-2011, 10:44 PM
See, that's where I'm gonna respectfully disagree with ya (I understand your point). I think the fact that they're reaching for those players has overvalued the position.

Nobody can argue that it is wise to overreach for a prospect at any position. Teams that draft the BPA do not overreach except maybe for the QB position. Each pick in a draft has a group of players who are relatively of equal value, in cases like this, the team drafts the BPA who fills a need. They don't draft the BPA who fills a need if he is ranked below another group of players.
People talk about the draft like the 10th best player went #10 and the 11th best player went #11 etc. etc. but the real way the draft works is that on each team's board, there are a group of 3-10 players who may all be close enough in the ranking to go #10, the team then makes the best choice for that team based on its own criteria.
Of course, there is a wide variance by different teams about who fits in each group, it can depend on the quality of each team's scouting department, the quality of each team's scouts and the quality of the man who makes the final decisions on draft day. In these areas there is a wide variance in the ability to draft.

Bc there's a general consensus that behind QB, LT is arguably the most important position in football bc he protects the QB, thus they're worth reaching for.

I just don't understand where this rubbish is coming from. Each team determines the priorities for the schemes they run, within that scheme there are primary and secondary positions. I have never heard anyone in pro football claim that LT is next to the QB in priority of positions. Yes, LT is a primary position on a football team but so is QB, DE, DT and CB. RB used to be rated pretty high but it has fallen off some in recent years and WR has come on some.
Of course, by scheme, a 3-4 team will have a pass rushing OLB as a primary position and a DE rated lower. A Cover 2 defense will have a Safety as a primary position and a CB rated lower.
But never has it ever been stated anywhere I know and I've been a draftnik for over 55 years, that a LT is the #2 position on a football team.
Please explain where you are getting this idea from????

Me personally, I don't think that's the case. They don't have that much of an impact. Unless it's a slamdunk stud LT, are they really worth reaching for?

A stud LT can block a premier pass rusher by himself in theory, but name 1 LT in this league that blocks D. Ware by himself? Even the Joe Thomas/Jake Long's of the world get help against those guys.

So schematically, it's not as huge of an advantage as we believe. And even the best of the best LT's get beat for sacks against premier pass rushers, so it's not like your qb is untouchable.

Unfortunately, you are disagreeing with practically every GM in pro football and when it comes down to deciding which positions are primary for a football team, I'll go with the NFL GM's and ignore your advice which IMO as well as the GM's, has absolutely no merit.
Basically, it comes down to who do you want protecting you most valuable player on your team, the QB. Do you want a stud who for most of the time can eliminate the stud DE's in this game or do you want some hack trying to get the job done. It is a tremendous advantage to have a stud LT who can give his QB an extra second or 2 to find his receiver and complete the pass.
All your talk about perfect DE's or perfect CB's is just ridiculous, they get dominated just as much as the better LT's do.

To me, a guy who can schematically impact the game is more valuable. A stud DE draws double teams (even against teams with a stud LT), a stud CB can play on an island and allow you to double up on the opposition's #2 WR, a stud WR draws double coverage.

Let's see, there is one dominating CB in pro football who can consistently shutdown a WR and even he can be beat occasionally. There are maybe 2 others who can come somewhat close to his ability. Many stud DE's get dominated by the top LT's in the game, without help, otherwise you would have 35 sacks a game.

Those guys to me, impact the game more than a LT. I'd draft those positions over LT, unless an absolute stud falls to my draft spot (of course, your grades always dictates your pick first and foremost).

No GM is going to say that a DE or a CB are not primary positions on a football team and if they are ranked above a LT at draft time, they will get picked before the LT, if they are ranked below the LT, they will get drafted later. These 3 positions are all considered primary positions on a football team and of equal value on draft day.

I know it's not the conventional thought, but I rather have an impact player in those positions than LT, and I rather invest top dollar in those positions as a result.

As I said, if the LT is ranked above the DE and CB, it is considered a primary position by GM's and they will not pass on a higher ranked LT to draft a DE or a CB. You are right though, it isn't conventional thought that a LT isn't as important as a CB or a DE, in fact no GM in pro football believes in what you are saying, so I think that makes your idea ridiculous and out of touch with reality. Who cares what you think if it makes no sense to those who played the game and make the decisions about who to draft.

In a perfect world, yeah sure, having a stud LT is great. But in a salary cap era, I don't want to allocate so much money to a position that I can get away with spending less on.

Well again, no GM believes in what you are saying, none, so who cares how you would allocate your budget when it has no validity in fact.

Sorry to be so hard on you but your whole premise is simply wrong. LT is not considered the #2 position on a football team, just another primary position on the team, and based on that, your whole argument holds no water because the premise is incorrect, so I might have got a bit carried away in my argument and I'm sorry if I offended you.

JBCX
11-17-2011, 10:54 PM
Iamcanadian's entire argument can be summed up as:

"You are wrong because NFL GMs say so, despite the fact that I don't personally know any NFL GMs and have probably never talked to one in my life"

DraftSavant
11-17-2011, 10:57 PM
NFL GMs and coaches are infallible and never wrong. That's why they keep their jobs for so long.

JBCX
11-17-2011, 11:01 PM
NFL GMs and coaches are infallible and never wrong. That's why they keep their jobs for so long.

And they make so many excellent decisions. That's why there are very few rosters in the NFL that aren't stacked with talent.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:06 AM
Football is the ultimate team sport and the better you can be by hiding, overcoming your biggest weaknesses the better off you'll be. There is a common beef where people like to prioritize which positions are most important and the fact of the matter is, each position can have varying degrees of importance.

MI_Buckeye
11-18-2011, 01:20 AM
Football is the ultimate team sport and the better you can be by hiding, overcoming your biggest weaknesses the better off you'll be. There is a common beef where people like to prioritize which positions are most important and the fact of the matter is, each position can have varying degrees of importance.

True to a degree. I don't think you can ever be an elite team without being rock solid at QB. The Packers could have the Aaron Rodgers of offensive guards or strong safeties, and they wouldn't be the unbeaten defending champs.

ChiFan24
11-18-2011, 01:41 AM
Well again, no GM believes in what you are saying, none, so who cares how you would allocate your budget when it has no validity in fact.

Well it's a good thing you clicked on a thread about BBD's personal thoughts.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 02:35 AM
True to a degree. I don't think you can ever be an elite team without being rock solid at QB. The Packers could have the Aaron Rodgers of offensive guards or strong safeties, and they wouldn't be the unbeaten defending champs.
There have been plenty of Super Bowl winning teams without great QBs.

MetSox17
11-18-2011, 03:26 AM
Me personally, I don't think that's the case. They don't have that much of an impact. Unless it's a slamdunk stud LT, are they really worth reaching for?

We're gonna disagree on the reason why teams reach for one, so i'll just leave it at that.

A stud LT can block a premier pass rusher by himself in theory, but name 1 LT in this league that blocks D. Ware by himself? Even the Joe Thomas/Jake Long's of the world get help against those guys.

You're right, not many (if any) LTs can block Ware all by themselves, but you know what? Thankfully for the rest of the league, there is only one Demarcus Ware.

So schematically, it's not as huge of an advantage as we believe. And even the best of the best LT's get beat for sacks against premier pass rushers, so it's not like your qb is untouchable.

It is an advantage because it allows you to keep your tight end naturally on the "normal" strong side of the line. The tackles are vulnerable positions because you're automatically at a disadvantage by being at the end of the line. The guys inside have the benefit of playing off each other, the RT usually has the benefit of a TE lining up next to him. The LT, the majority of the time, will be 1 on 1 with a rusher. How can it not be a schematic advantage to have a left tackle that can hold his own, by himself? It's like having Darrelle Revis on your team. You can leave him 1 on 1 and not worry too much about it. Same thing with your tackle

To me, a guy who can schematically impact the game is more valuable. A stud DE draws double teams (even against teams with a stud LT), a stud CB can play on an island and allow you to double up on the opposition's #2 WR, a stud WR draws double coverage.

I just explained how it can be to a schematic advantage in my previous paragraph. With this response, you're making it seem as if there is no advantage to having a good LT, but there is to having a good player elsewhere. And besides, how many "stud" DEs or CBs have come out the past few years? After Revis, who has made a huge impact as a CB? What about DE? How's Derrick Harvey, Vernon Gholston, Chris Long, Glenn Dorsey, Sedrick Ellis, Tyson Jackson, Larry English, Aaron Maybin, Robert Ayers.. need i go on? How have they fared? How much schematic impact have they had?

Those guys to me, impact the game more than a LT. I'd draft those positions over LT, unless an absolute stud falls to my draft spot (of course, your grades always dictates your pick first and foremost).

Now you're overvaluing other positions. The same thing you accuse teams of doing, you're doing in other places.

I know it's not the conventional thought, but I rather have an impact player in those positions than LT, and I rather invest top dollar in those positions as a result.

Since we're talking about drafting, it doesn't really matter whether you're spending top dollar or not. Pay is now being determined by draft slots. You'd have a case for this a few years ago, but now it's moot.

In a perfect world, yeah sure, having a stud LT is great. But in a salary cap era, I don't want to allocate so much money to a position that I can get away with spending less on.

All the past Superbowl winners except for the Steelers have had stud LTs. Most consistently good playoff teams as well. Not sure how you can get away with skimming at that position


Responses in bold.

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 06:04 AM
Responses in bold.

Your definition of "stud" must be extremely stretched. Clifton? Bushrod? Diehl?

Meh. Solid to above-average at absolute best. The QB was much more important to avoiding pressure in each of those cases.

MI_Buckeye
11-18-2011, 06:23 AM
There have been plenty of Super Bowl winning teams without great QBs.

Not in today's NFL

bam bam
11-18-2011, 06:29 AM
http://www.theclevelandfan.com/images/stories/Dilfer.jpg

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 06:34 AM
THE WAS ONE. ONE EXAMPLE.

And a major, major exception to the rule.

I the decade or so since then, we've had:

Tom Brady thrice. (Future Hall of famer)
Brad Johnson. (Still a better QB than Dilfer, had a very great defense too)
Peyton (Future Hall of famer.)
Eli (I have him in my top 5-6 of QBs currently, more than capable of playing at elite level.)
Big Ben twice. (Squarely in the top 5 QBs currently, also capable of playing elite.)
Drew Brees (Top 3 QB right now, with a few more great seasons he could gain HoF consideration.)
Rodgers (No comment.)

You simply are not going to win a Superbowl in modern times without a great QB, unless you have an all time great defense full of Hall of Famers on the other side. And that is much harder to accomplish.

bam bam
11-18-2011, 08:22 AM
http://www.theclevelandfan.com/images/stories/Dilfer.jpg

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 08:27 AM
Jesus Christ, Trent Dilfer was a HORRIBLE QB and had one of the greatest defenses of all time aiding him.

Unless a team acquires the pieces for one of the greatest defenses of all time, a lousy QB simply is not going to win a Superbowl anymore.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 08:29 AM
Jesus Christ, Trent Dilfer was a HORRIBLE QB and had one of the greatest defenses of all time aiding him.

Unless a team acquires the pieces for one of the greatest defenses of all time, a lousy QB simply is not going to win a Superbowl anymore.

With all the rule changes there is even less of a chance of that ever happening again. That team won a Super Bowl without scoring a offensive TD in 5 games. I'd bet that will never happen again.

bam bam
11-18-2011, 08:29 AM
http://www.bradjohnson14.com/profile/images/Milk.jpg

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 08:31 AM
Johnson actually wasn't too bad, made a Pro Bowl around that time.

And he still had a defense with at least 3 potential Hall of Famers (Sapp, Brooks, Lynch) and several other very good players (Ronde, Rice, McFarland, Superbowl MVP Dexter Jackson.)

bam bam
11-18-2011, 08:32 AM
http://www.theclevelandfan.com/images/stories/Dilfer.jpg

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 08:33 AM
I keep telling you, that happened one time and will never ever happen again.

jrdrylie
11-18-2011, 08:35 AM
To see the importance of QB, just look at the playoff race.

Green Bay-First round QB
Detroit- First round QB
Chicago-First round QB
New York Giants- First Round QB
San Francisco- First round QB
New Orleans- Second round QB, but was the 32nd pick

Pittsburgh- First round QB
Baltimore- First round QB
Oakland- First round QB

See a trend? The only anomalies are New England, Cincinnati, and Houston. 75% of playoff teams have first round QBs. Same thing was true last year.

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 08:37 AM
And out of that list, those who didn't actually draft the QB in question paid him a lot as a free agent or traded a ton to get him.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 08:37 AM
To see the importance of QB, just look at the playoff race.

Green Bay-First round QB
Detroit- First round QB
Chicago-First round QB
New York Giants- First Round QB
San Francisco- First round QB
New Orleans- Second round QB, but was the 32nd pick

Pittsburgh- First round QB
Baltimore- First round QB
Oakland- First round QB

See a trend? The only anomalies are New England, Cincinnati, and Houston. 75% of playoff teams have first round QBs. Same thing was true last year.

Except that New England has a HOF QB. Dalton was basically a few picks away from being a first rounder. If you want to consider the Jets a contender still another 1st round QB, although he sucks.

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 08:38 AM
Except that the New England has a HOF QB. And Dalton was basically a few picks away from being a first rounder. If you want to consider the Jets a contender still another 1st round QB, although he sucks.

And Houston traded quite a bit for Matt Schaub. And Leinart was a first rounder, though I wouldn't count him for this example.

jrdrylie
11-18-2011, 08:39 AM
I keep telling you, that happened one time and will never ever happen again.

Army, Navy, and Harvard used to kick ass in college football too. Fact is, times change. I don't think you have to have an elite QB to win a Super Bowl. But if you don't have a guy at least on the level of Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, or Tony Romo, aka in the 8-12 range of QBs, you aren't winning a Super Bowl.

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 09:07 AM
I'm so goddamn sick of people bringing up Dilfer to make a point how any QB can win a SB. As was previously stated he's the only QB in the last 15 years who won a SB that can be considered a bad QB. On the opposite side of the ball they had a top 3 defense of all time with several HOF'ers. On offense they still had some big weapons like Lewis and Sharpe who Dilfer used well that year. Dilfer is the freaking exception and certainly not the rule.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 10:45 AM
Big Ben as a rookie and Eli Manning beating NE were both bus driver QBs at the time. They weren't elite QBs.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 10:49 AM
Big Ben as a rookie and Eli Manning beating NE were both bus driver QBs at the time. They weren't elite QBs.

I'm just going to pretend I didn't hear that.

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 10:58 AM
Big Ben as a rookie and Eli Manning beating NE were both bus driver QBs at the time. They weren't elite QBs.

Ben as a rookie didn't win the Superbowl, and Ben a little older struggled in the Superbowl, but had beastly defense. Eli actually played well and led them on the drive when it counted. He also, had a beastly defensive line terrorizing Brady all game.

Basically, there are 3 formulas:

Most common:
Great QB + Solid/Adequate Defense (Saints, Colts, Packers as recent examples)

Still doable:
Solid QB + Great Defense (Early career Brady Pats, Steelers, 02 Bucs)

Happened one time ever:
Awful QB + All Time Great Defense (2000 Ravens)

Even going back pre-2000, you have the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams, Elway/Terrell Davis Broncos, Favre-led Packers, 90s Cowboys with Aikman, 49ers with Steve Young...

And before that, the game was so different that it mattered less, but you still had Montana led 49ers and Bill Parcells Giants who had Phil Simms.

The fact of the matter is that you simply will never, ever win a Superbowl in the modern era of the NFL without at least a solid QB, and only then if you also have a defense that is tops in the NFL.

Prowler
11-18-2011, 11:00 AM
I'm so goddamn sick of people bringing up Dilfer to make a point how any QB can win a SB. As was previously stated he's the only QB in the last 15 years who won a SB that can be considered a bad QB. On the opposite side of the ball they had a top 3 defense of all time with several HOF'ers. On offense they still had some big weapons like Lewis and Sharpe who Dilfer used well that year. Dilfer is the freaking exception and certainly not the rule.

Lol, thank you. The 3 Lewis's were MVP type players. Jamal and Priest combined for 2,000 yards rushing, Ray was a beast, and Jermaine was scoring special teams TDs.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 11:00 AM
I'm just going to pretend I didn't hear that.
Do you what you want. That's my opinion. Big Ben as a rookie rode the Steeler's running game and AMAZING defense and Eli, without a lot of luck and that vaunted defense wouldn't have beaten the "new school Patriots" either. So please people... stop saying you can't win in today's NFL without an elite QB.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 11:02 AM
Do you what you want. That's my opinion. Big Ben as a rookie rode the Steeler's running game and AMAZING defense and Eli, without a lot of luck and that vaunted defense wouldn't have beaten the "new school Patriots" either. So please people... stop saying you can't win in today's NFL without an elite QB.

Yeah the one catch was lucky, but Eli played very well that game. Not to mention even better in the NFC championship and beating the Cowboys.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 11:04 AM
Ben as a rookie didn't win the Superbowl, and Ben a little older struggled in the Superbowl, but had beastly defense. Eli actually played well and led them on the drive when it counted. He also, had a beastly defensive line terrorizing Brady all game.

Basically, there are 3 formulas:

Most common:
Great QB + Solid/Adequate Defense (Saints, Colts, Packers as recent examples)

Still doable:
Solid QB + Great Defense (Early career Brady Pats, Steelers, 02 Bucs)

Happened one time ever:
Awful QB + All Time Great Defense (2000 Ravens)

Even going back pre-2000, you have the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams, Elway/Terrell Davis Broncos, Favre-led Packers, 90s Cowboys with Aikman, 49ers with Steve Young...

And before that, the game was so different that it mattered less, but you still had Montana led 49ers and Bill Parcells Giants who had Phil Simms.

The fact of the matter is that you simply will never, ever win a Superbowl in the modern era of the NFL without at least a solid QB, and only then if you also have a defense that is tops in the NFL.
I can do that. ...because Solid is NOT elite. That's the part I disagree with.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 11:04 AM
Eli matched Tom Brady in that game and won it for the giants. Our DL terrorizing Brady slowed him down, but Eli did way more than just drive the bus and get lucky. That's absolutely absurd.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 11:05 AM
Yeah the one catch was lucky, but Eli played very well that game. Not to mention even better in the NFC championship and beating the Cowboys.
Hmmm.... I'm I really arguing with a Giants fan about Eli being elite?

I guess I can't win that one. lol.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 11:07 AM
Hmmm.... I'm I really arguing with a Giants fan about Eli being elite?

I guess I can't win that one. lol.

He wasn't playing like he is now, but the whole point was that you need a top 12 QB. He was always that. Although Ben for his first one wasn't. And the officials gifted them one.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 11:08 AM
Eli matched Tom Brady in that game and won it for the giants. Our DL terrorizing Brady slowed him down, but Eli did way more than just drive the bus and get lucky. That's absolutely absurd.
Tom Brady was not Tom Brady that day. I don't like to see you guys puff up his performance because your defense was the biggest reason you won. Eli is still in the argument today whether he is elite or not. To his credit, he's gaining more recognition, but at the time... he was not, even though he may have had a good game. 1 game doesn't classify you.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 11:10 AM
He wasn't playing like he is now, but the whole point was that you need a top 12 QB. He was always that. Although Ben for his first one wasn't. And the officials gifted them one.
Well now were getting into the weird zone where you have to decide who's a top 12 QB and are top 12 QBs elite??? Where that line is and how you define it can be all over the board.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 11:10 AM
Hmmm.... I'm I really arguing with a Giants fan about Eli being elite?

I guess I can't win that one. lol.

Of course you can't win, because you're comments in this thread so far have been incorrect. If you wanted to win you'd have to change you're argument because Eli delivered in a way that no Bus Driver could. To attribute that to luck is simple absurd.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 11:13 AM
Tom Brady was not Tom Brady that day. I don't like to see you guys puff up his performance because your defense was the biggest reason you won. Eli is still in the argument today whether he is elite or not. To his credit, he's gaining more recognition, but at the time... he was not, even though he may have had a good game. 1 game doesn't classify you.

He was great that entire run. Our running game which "carried" the offense sputtered in the playoffs and it was Eli that drove the team on game winning drives to even get us into the playoffs. The D was incredible, but Eli was far more than just a Bus Driver during that run. Eli has been a top 10 QB for quite some time so I'd say he's elite...

Well now were getting into the weird zone where you have to decide who's a top 12 QB and are top 12 QBs elite??? Where that line is and how you define it can be all over the board.

I'm sorry. Are you trying to suggest Eli isn't a top 12 QB?

Saints-Tigers
11-18-2011, 11:15 AM
I think Eli is second tier, and has elite moments. Much like Ben. Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Peyton... those are elite to me.

Prowler
11-18-2011, 11:17 AM
I'd like to throw out a few tweaks to people's arguments.

People need to factor swagger into the equation. Mark Sanchez is a terrible regular season QB, but he has a 94.3 rating in 6 playoff games. Tim Tebow apparently is worse than middle school qbs through 3 1/2 quarters but turns into Bo Jackson during the final few minutes.

So, teams need a qb who isn't bad enough to keep a team from reaching the playoffs, but should also be able to magically win in the playoffs? If the Broncos(I like to refer to them as the Tebows) reach the Super Bowl, do you believe that Tim Tebow would be stopped with 5 mins remaining in the 4th quarter?

Trent Dilfer-Terrible QB
Mark Sanchez-Terrible Regular Season QB, Total Playoff Gamer
Tim Tebow-Terrible QB through 3 1/2 quarters

Teams can't win a Super Bowl with Dilfer level QBs without an all time great defense. Teams can win a Super Bowl with Sanchez or Tebow class QBs provided they can actually make it to the playoffs.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 11:19 AM
I'd like to throw out a few tweaks to people's arguments.

People need to factor swagger into the equation. Mark Sanchez is a terrible regular season QB, but he has a 94.3 rating in 6 playoff games. Tim Tebow apparently is worse than middle school qbs through 3 1/2 quarters but turns into Bo Jackson during the final few minutes.

So, teams need a qb who isn't bad enough to keep a team from reaching the playoffs, but should also be able to magically win in the playoffs? If the Broncos reach the Super Bowl, do you believe that Tim Tebow would be stopped with 5 mins remaining in the 4th quarter?

Trent Dilfer-Terrible QB
Mark Sanchez-Terrible Regular Season QB, Total Playoff Gamer
Tim Tebow-Terrible QB through 3 1/2 quarters

Teams can't win a Super Bowl with Dilfer level QBs without an all time great defense. Teams can win a Super Bowl with Sanchez or Tebow class QBs provided they can actually make it to the playoffs.

Even if I give you that argument, what's not to say they are down 35-3 with 5 minutes left when they play a playoff caliber team.

Prowler
11-18-2011, 11:21 AM
Even if I give you that argument, what's not to say they are down 35-3 with 5 minutes left when they play a playoff caliber team.

That's one of the exceptions. They must survive to make the playoffs, and with Tim Tebow, a team must also survive(keep it close) for 3 and a half quarters.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 11:25 AM
That's one of the exceptions. They must survive to make the playoffs, and with Tim Tebow, a team must also survive(keep it close) for 3 and a half quarters.

Denver has had a nice little run of playing inept offenses like themselves. So far all Tebow has down has shown he can step it up in the 4th quarter more than those guys.

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 11:33 AM
Tim Tebow will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER EVER ever ever ever ever ever ever win a Superbowl as a starting QB.

I will be my postership on it.

JBCX
11-18-2011, 11:33 AM
Tim Tebow will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever EVER EVER ever ever ever ever ever ever win a Superbowl as a starting QB.

I will be my postership on it.

Will he beat the Bears this year as a starting QB?

It's easy to put something on the line when it comes to far-away, long-distant predictions like winning Super Bowls (eventuallly). Put your money where your mouth is and bet your "postership" on Tebow vs. your Bears D.

BeerBaron
11-18-2011, 11:38 AM
Will he beat the Bears this year as a starting QB?

It's easy to put something on the line when it comes to far-away, long-distant predictions like winning Super Bowls (eventuallly). Put your money where your mouth is and bet your "postership" on Tebow vs. your Bears D.

I don't deal with trolls. If I truly had it my way you would have been gone long ago. You're a stat quoting little contrarian who absolutely no one would miss. You make bold proclamations (Redskins winning the Superbowl) then squirm out from under it whenever called on it.

I have been ignoring you, and will continue to ignore you, and with any luck, my fellow legitimate posters will as well.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 11:44 AM
I don't deal with trolls. If I truly had it my way you would have been gone long ago. You're a stat quoting little contrarian who absolutely no one would miss. You make bold proclamations (Redskins winning the Superbowl) then squirm out from under it whenever called on it.

I have been ignoring you, and will continue to ignore you, and with any luck, my fellow legitimate posters will as well.

To be fair BB, how was he supposed to know that Beck and Rex would continue to be god awful QBs? Sure they've been awful their entire careers, but you know...maybe they were just conning everyone into thinking they sucked so that they could team up on the Redskins and tag team the league a new asshole!

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 11:45 AM
D-Unit,

This myth that Eli didn't carry the offense in the 2007 playoffs is a joke. Our run game was pretty non exsistent except for the Green Bay game which was the 2nd coldest game ever. Our defense did play very well but it's the playoffs most teams have good defenses there.

Tamba Bay

Eli 20-27 185 Yards 2 TD 0 INT
RB's 30 attempts 100 Yards 3.33 Avg 1 TD

Dallas

Eli 12-18 163 yards 2 TD 0 INT
RB's 20 attempts 88 yards 4.44 Avg 1 TD

Green Bay

Eli 21-40 254 Yards 0 TD 0 INT
RB's 37 Attempts 130 Yards 3.5 Avg 2 TD

New England

Eli 19-34 255 Yards 2 TD 1 INT
RB's 23 Attempts 87 Yards 3.78 Avg 0 TD

So how did Eli not carry the offense through that playoff run? The only interception he threw wasn't even his fault because it hit Steve Smith right in the chest and it popped out of his hands. Take away Tyree's catch and Eli still threw a ton of big completions in the Super Bowl. He did call the audible to Plax to get him wide open for the game winning TD. In the Dallas game right before the half he led the team 71 yards in 46 seconds right before the half and got us a TD. It was a huge drive that kicked the Cowboys in the nuts. The Cowboys were very disheartened with the 14-14 tie at half because they were moving the ball at will and Eli still kept it tied. The defense then stepped it up big time and the rest is history in that game. In the Green Bay game he outplayed Favre and put the Giants in position 3 times before Tynes finally hit a FG.

Prowler
11-18-2011, 11:47 AM
Denver has had a nice little run of playing inept offenses like themselves. So far all Tebow has down has shown he can step it up in the 4th quarter more than those guys.

I don't really care at all about Tebow or anything I said. I was adding to the argument about 1st round qbs and Dilfer in Super Bowl. Everybody talks about good qbs or what not, but some Qbs change into completely different players under different circumstances.

JBCX
11-18-2011, 11:49 AM
I don't deal with trolls. If I truly had it my way you would have been gone long ago. You're a stat quoting little contrarian who absolutely no one would miss. You make bold proclamations (Redskins winning the Superbowl) then squirm out from under it whenever called on it.

I have been ignoring you, and will continue to ignore you, and with any luck, my fellow legitimate posters will as well.


Yeah, take the attention off the fact that you are scared to put your money where your mouth is and make a bold prediction that can be verified this year.

Making a claim such as "Tebow will never win a Super Bowl" is as soft and as safe a prediction as anyone will ever make. I may have made a bad prediction about the Redskins, but at least I put my money where my mouth is.

Anyone can claim that "player X will never win the Super Bowl", but it takes balls to claim that "player X won't beat team Y this year", because that can actually be verified before the season is over.

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 11:51 AM
And anyone can claim a bad team will win a SB but you look dumb doing it. It was dumb then and it looks even more dumb now. No one could give a **** that you put your money where your mouth is. Now you just look like an ass who likes to make wild predictions and on the 1% chance you were right we'd have never heard the end of it. If you make a stupid prediction then expect to take a beating when it doesn't come close to happening.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 11:57 AM
Yeah, take the attention off the fact that you are scared to put your money where your mouth is and make a bold prediction that can be verified this year.

Making a claim such as "Tebow will never win a Super Bowl" is as soft and as safe a prediction as anyone will ever make. I may have made a bad prediction about the Redskins, but at least I put my money where my mouth is.

Anyone can claim that "player X will never win the Super Bowl", but it takes balls to claim that "player X won't beat team Y this year", because that can actually be verified before the season is over.

...uh, you understand that the internet isn't all one person, right? That me and BB are separate people, right?...

JBCX
11-18-2011, 11:59 AM
...uh, you understand that the internet isn't all one person, right? That me and BB are separate people, right?...

I was addressing BeerBaron with that line and accidentally quoted you.

Brodeur
11-18-2011, 12:06 PM
D-Unit,

This myth that Eli didn't carry the offense in the 2007 playoffs is a joke. Our run game was pretty non exsistent except for the Green Bay game which was the 2nd coldest game ever. Our defense did play very well but it's the playoffs most teams have good defenses there.

Tamba Bay

Eli 20-27 185 Yards 2 TD 0 INT
RB's 30 attempts 100 Yards 3.33 Avg 1 TD

Dallas

Eli 12-18 163 yards 2 TD 0 INT
RB's 20 attempts 88 yards 4.44 Avg 1 TD

Green Bay

Eli 21-40 254 Yards 0 TD 0 INT
RB's 37 Attempts 130 Yards 3.5 Avg 2 TD

New England

Eli 19-34 255 Yards 2 TD 1 INT
RB's 23 Attempts 87 Yards 3.78 Avg 0 TD

So how did Eli not carry the offense through that playoff run? The only interception he threw wasn't even his fault because it hit Steve Smith right in the chest and it popped out of his hands. Take away Tyree's catch and Eli still threw a ton of big completions in the Super Bowl. He did call the audible to Plax to get him wide open for the game winning TD. In the Dallas game right before the half he led the team 71 yards in 46 seconds right before the half and got us a TD. It was a huge drive that kicked the Cowboys in the nuts. The Cowboys were very disheartened with the 14-14 tie at half because they were moving the ball at will and Eli still kept it tied. The defense then stepped it up big time and the rest is history in that game. In the Green Bay game he outplayed Favre and put the Giants in position 3 times before Tynes finally hit a FG.

Didn't you make this post like a week ago, and about a thousand other times?

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 12:07 PM
I've made that post about 2 or 3 years ago and have since re-posted 2 other times. No one has yet to refute it because people like to make things up in their heads about the playoff run Eli had.

nrk
11-18-2011, 12:30 PM
I've made that post about 2 or 3 years ago and have since re-posted 2 other times. No one has yet to refute it because people like to make things up in their heads about the playoff run Eli had.

You're only addressing the offense.... the defense is what carried that team. D-Unit mentioned it was luck and the defense. The most points the Giants D gave up that playoff run was 20 and that went to OT. Then the amazing performance to hold the Pats to 14. That defense is what put them in position to win games. No doubt Eli was clutch when he was needed to be though. Most people seem to only remember the helmet catch, but Eli shaking off defenders and keeping the play alive is what was most impressive.

As for Eli being elite, I don't think so. Top 10 for sure but in my eyes that doesn't make you elite. There's only a few qb's playing right now that I'd consider elite.

Complex
11-18-2011, 12:38 PM
He wasn't playing like he is now, but the whole point was that you need a top 12 QB. He was always that. Although Ben for his first one wasn't. And the officials gifted them one.

Top 12 is not elite that more 1/3 of the league.

Complex
11-18-2011, 12:43 PM
Ben as a rookie didn't win the Superbowl, and Ben a little older struggled in the Superbowl, but had beastly defense. Eli actually played well and led them on the drive when it counted. He also, had a beastly defensive line terrorizing Brady all game.

Basically, there are 3 formulas:

Most common:
Great QB + Solid/Adequate Defense (Saints, Colts, Packers as recent examples)

Still doable:
Solid QB + Great Defense (Early career Brady Pats, Steelers, 02 Bucs)

Happened one time ever:
Awful QB + All Time Great Defense (2000 Ravens)

Even going back pre-2000, you have the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams, Elway/Terrell Davis Broncos, Favre-led Packers, 90s Cowboys with Aikman, 49ers with Steve Young...

And before that, the game was so different that it mattered less, but you still had Montana led 49ers and Bill Parcells Giants who had Phil Simms.

The fact of the matter is that you simply will never, ever win a Superbowl in the modern era of the NFL without at least a solid QB, and only then if you also have a defense that is tops in the NFL.

Is this since 2000? because then the most common would be Solid QB + Great D.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 12:50 PM
Of course you can't win, because you're comments in this thread so far have been incorrect. If you wanted to win you'd have to change you're argument because Eli delivered in a way that no Bus Driver could. To attribute that to luck is simple absurd.
This is really not about "winning" anything. This is about sharing opinions. My opinion is that Eli was a bus driver QB then and is still not elite. Sorry, Top 10 is NOT elite when there are only 32 teams. 1/3 of the league being qualified as elite is not my opinion of "elite".

Oh and I should mention... Troy Aikman is probably the best bus driver QB of all time.... but still... A Bus Driver. So if you get offended that I call Eli a bus driver, consider where I'm coming from.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 12:54 PM
D-Unit,

This myth that Eli didn't carry the offense in the 2007 playoffs is a joke. Our run game was pretty non exsistent except for the Green Bay game which was the 2nd coldest game ever. Our defense did play very well but it's the playoffs most teams have good defenses there.

Tamba Bay

Eli 20-27 185 Yards 2 TD 0 INT
RB's 30 attempts 100 Yards 3.33 Avg 1 TD

Dallas

Eli 12-18 163 yards 2 TD 0 INT
RB's 20 attempts 88 yards 4.44 Avg 1 TD

Green Bay

Eli 21-40 254 Yards 0 TD 0 INT
RB's 37 Attempts 130 Yards 3.5 Avg 2 TD

New England

Eli 19-34 255 Yards 2 TD 1 INT
RB's 23 Attempts 87 Yards 3.78 Avg 0 TD

So how did Eli not carry the offense through that playoff run? The only interception he threw wasn't even his fault because it hit Steve Smith right in the chest and it popped out of his hands. Take away Tyree's catch and Eli still threw a ton of big completions in the Super Bowl. He did call the audible to Plax to get him wide open for the game winning TD. In the Dallas game right before the half he led the team 71 yards in 46 seconds right before the half and got us a TD. It was a huge drive that kicked the Cowboys in the nuts. The Cowboys were very disheartened with the 14-14 tie at half because they were moving the ball at will and Eli still kept it tied. The defense then stepped it up big time and the rest is history in that game. In the Green Bay game he outplayed Favre and put the Giants in position 3 times before Tynes finally hit a FG.
Your team won games because of your defense. Eli was just "good enough".

TimmG6376
11-18-2011, 12:59 PM
Ben as a rookie didn't win the Superbowl, and Ben a little older struggled in the Superbowl, but had beastly defense. Eli actually played well and led them on the drive when it counted. He also, had a beastly defensive line terrorizing Brady all game.

Basically, there are 3 formulas:

Most common:
Great QB + Solid/Adequate Defense (Saints, Colts, Packers as recent examples)

Still doable:
Solid QB + Great Defense (Early career Brady Pats, Steelers, 02 Bucs)

Happened one time ever:
Awful QB + All Time Great Defense (2000 Ravens)

Even going back pre-2000, you have the "Greatest Show on Turf" Rams, Elway/Terrell Davis Broncos, Favre-led Packers, 90s Cowboys with Aikman, 49ers with Steve Young...

And before that, the game was so different that it mattered less, but you still had Montana led 49ers and Bill Parcells Giants who had Phil Simms.

The fact of the matter is that you simply will never, ever win a Superbowl in the modern era of the NFL without at least a solid QB, and only then if you also have a defense that is tops in the NFL.

The Packer defense last year was 2nd in points and 5th in total yardage. In the the microcosm of one season they were a pretty damn good defense and way better than the defenses that the Colts and Saints won with. Not in the league with those historically great defenses you referenced but much more than adequate.

To the original point though you are right. And rule changes each season are making it even harder for even the League's best defenses to dominate like the Ravens did.

NY+Giants=NYG
11-18-2011, 01:04 PM
Oops wrong thread..

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:08 PM
What did I miss? What's going on now?
It's been a merry-go-round... the original argument has been tossed to the curb.

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 01:11 PM
Your team won games because of your defense. Eli was just "good enough".

How could you even say that when in the Dallas game led us down the field to score before the half. You were gashing us in the run game and without that TD you roll us in that game. You had all the confidence in the world and we couldn't do a lick to stop Barber. 3 big passes later and all of a sudden it was a game again and we regained our mojo. That was all Eli. Also, in the SB the defense was great but we still would have lost if Eli doesn't lead us down the field in the last 2 minutes. I really don't know why I get into these holoow arguments. He did more than drive the bus in that playoff run.

JBCX
11-18-2011, 01:12 PM
How could you even say that when in the Dallas game led us down the field to score before the half. You were gashing us in the run game and without that TD you roll us in that game. You had all the confidence in the world and we couldn't do a lick to stop Barber. 3 big passes later and all of a sudden it was a game again and we regained our mojo. That was all Eli. Also, in the SB the defense was great but we still would have lost if Eli doesn't lead us down the field in the last 2 minutes. I really don't know why I get into these holoow arguments. He did more than drive the bus in that playoff run.

If the defense didn't hold an all-time great offense to 14 points, Eli loses that game.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:16 PM
How could you even say that when in the Dallas game led us down the field to score before the half. You were gashing us in the run game and without that TD you roll us in that game. You had all the confidence in the world and we couldn't do a lick to stop Barber. 3 big passes later and all of a sudden it was a game again and we regained our mojo. That was all Eli. Also, in the SB the defense was great but we still would have lost if Eli doesn't lead us down the field in the last 2 minutes. I really don't know why I get into these holoow arguments. He did more than drive the bus in that playoff run.
He was "good enough" in the first half to keep the game tied. But in the 2nd, your DL just demolished our OL and Romo. I don't forget that game. Romo yelling at our OL, like wtf get your act together! Your defense definitely won the game. I really don't give a lot of credit to Eli because he made some throws. It's not like he carried that team to victory despite the lack of support he got. Cowboys offense just got shutdown.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 01:24 PM
This is really not about "winning" anything. This is about sharing opinions. My opinion is that Eli was a bus driver QB then and is still not elite. Sorry, Top 10 is NOT elite when there are only 32 teams. 1/3 of the league being qualified as elite is not my opinion of "elite".

Oh and I should mention... Troy Aikman is probably the best bus driver QB of all time.... but still... A Bus Driver. So if you get offended that I call Eli a bus driver, consider where I'm coming from.

Well you were the one who first used the word win, which is why I used it. Eli Manning is elite right now and has always been an elite late game QB.

Your team won games because of your defense. Eli was just "good enough".

The defense gave Eli the oppurtunity to win games, but the fact that he went out and won those games is a truth-fact.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 01:28 PM
He was "good enough" in the first half to keep the game tied. But in the 2nd, your DL just demolished our OL and Romo. I don't forget that game. Romo yelling at our OL, like wtf get your act together! Your defense definitely won the game. I really don't give a lot of credit to Eli because he made some throws. It's not like he carried that team to victory despite the lack of support he got. Cowboys offense just got shutdown.

No one wins a superbowl without support. Peyton Manning doesn't win a superbowl without a running game and run defense that came out of no where. Tom Brady doesn't win superbowls without a great defense, strong OL, dependable running game and dependable receivers. Aaron Rodgers doesn't win a superbowl without that D coming up with some crucial stops. Our team won that game and our team won that game because of the defense...and eli manning.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 01:29 PM
He was "good enough" in the first half to keep the game tied. But in the 2nd, your DL just demolished our OL and Romo. I don't forget that game. Romo yelling at our OL, like wtf get your act together! Your defense definitely won the game. I really don't give a lot of credit to Eli because he made some throws. It's not like he carried that team to victory despite the lack of support he got. Cowboys offense just got shutdown.

And ours didn't. Because of Eli.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:31 PM
Well you were the one who first used the word win, which is why I used it. Eli Manning is elite right now and has always been an elite late game QB.



The defense gave Eli the oppurtunity to win games, but the fact that he went out and won those games is a truth-fact.
haha. I'll clarify... you just can't "win" (as in make a Giants homer come to his senses about how the rest of the world feels about Eli).

Eli being elite now is irrelevant to the discussion and I see that you stop short of calling him elite in the past by prefacing your description of him as only an elite "late game" QB.

Eli was the QB and his team won... doesn't make him elite. You said it best... the defense gave Eli the opportunity to win games. That's what I call bus driver.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:33 PM
No one wins a superbowl without support. Peyton Manning doesn't win a superbowl without a running game and run defense that came out of no where. Tom Brady doesn't win superbowls without a great defense, strong OL, dependable running game and dependable receivers. Aaron Rodgers doesn't win a superbowl without that D coming up with some crucial stops. Our team won that game and our team won that game because of the defense...and eli manning.
Where are you going with this? Don't make up an argument that's not been part of the discussion. Of course a QB doesn't win alone. It's the degree of support that matters and Eli had a lot of it. In his cas, you could also toss in luck when you talk about support.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:40 PM
And ours didn't. Because of Eli.
Tunnel vision defense when you argue one game as your main basis for support. The path to the Giants SB win was based off defense and a supporting offense, not the other way around. The reason why the Giants haven't been able to build a dynasty is because you lost your DC and lost Strahan while Eli has been there the whole time.

I know you won't like to hear this too, but winning the SB isn't the main prize in the NFL. One and dones simply don't get a ton of respect. If they don't repeat success, then they are quickly forgotton. The biggest prize is building a dynasty with multiple SB wins or appearances during a window of time.

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 01:42 PM
We were cruising to another SB until someone shot himself let's not forget. We've yet to recover from that I will admit. Also, the SB is the main prize in the NFL. I don't know if I've heard anything more ridiculous. If you turn it into a dyntasy all the better.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 01:43 PM
Tunnel vision defense when you argue one game as your main basis for support. The path to the Giants SB win was based off defense and a supporting offense, not the other way around. The reason why the Giants haven't been able to build a dynasty is because you lost your DC and lost Strahan while Eli has been there the whole time.

I know you won't like to hear this too, but winning the SB isn't the main prize in the NFL. One and dones simply don't get a ton of respect. If they don't repeat success, then they are quickly forgotton. The biggest prize is building a dynasty with multiple SB wins or appearances during a window of time.

Actually the reason we didn't win a second superbowl is because Plax shot himself. If he doesn't and the receiving corps doesn't go to **** in Killdrive's stupid offense that team wins a back to back superbowls and who knows what happens.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:47 PM
Actually the reason we didn't win a second superbowl is because Plax shot himself. If he doesn't and the receiving corps doesn't go to **** in Killdrive's stupid offense that team wins a back to back superbowls and who knows what happens.
Let's not go into hypotheticals about losing Plax as the reason. Blaming Plax and your OC is almost shooting your own defense in the foot. ...saying Eli needed Plax. ... buuuuuuus driverrrrr......

ChiFan24
11-18-2011, 01:49 PM
I just woke up and this thread is 3 pages longer than it used to be. How can you people even be awake before 1, let alone argue about Trent Dilfer?

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 01:55 PM
We were cruising to another SB until someone shot himself let's not forget. We've yet to recover from that I will admit. Also, the SB is the main prize in the NFL. I don't know if I've heard anything more ridiculous. If you turn it into a dyntasy all the better.
History is not kind to one hit wonders. We remember the Packers from the 60's, the Steelers, Dolphins of the 70's, the Niners, Redskins, Raiders of the 80's, Niners, Cowboys, Bills, Broncos of the 90's, the Patriots, Rams of the early 2000s.

Sustained success, even w/out a SB will make people remember you... and THAT is the main prize. To be "never forgotten".

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 01:59 PM
History is not kind to one hit wonders. We remember the Packers from the 60's, the Steelers, Dolphins of the 70's, the Niners, Redskins, Raiders of the 80's, Niners, Cowboys, Bills, Broncos of the 90's, the Patriots, Rams of the early 2000s.

Sustained success, even w/out a SB will make people remember you... and THAT is the main prize. To be "never forgotten".

Our record starting off 2008 proved we weren't a 1 year wonder. We were playing better football than we did in the SB run. We beat 8 teams in a row that all had a .500 record or better but then came the shot heard around NY. It crippled us because we couldn't change the offense in time to better suit the remaining talent. Also, the 2007 Giants will never be forgotten so you don't have to worry about that.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 02:08 PM
Our record starting off 2008 proved we weren't a 1 year wonder. We were playing better football than we did in the SB run. We beat 8 teams in a row that all had a .500 record or better but then came the shot heard around NY. It crippled us because we couldn't change the offense in time to better suit the remaining talent. Also, the 2007 Giants will never be forgotten so you don't have to worry about that.
We both know the reason because of that is because they pulled off such a shocker. The one play that won't be forgotten is the Tyree catch.

But ask the common fan... they wouldn't be able to tell you the year you won and when they think of the great teams of the 2000s, the Giants won't be at the forefront of most people's minds. They will think of the Patriots, Colts, Steelers. ...and the Colts are there even though they just won 1 because of their sustained winning and 2 SB appearances.

If the Giants are mentioned it's as the greatest shocker of all time. Not as a great team during that decade.

Sorry, I love my Giants brothers, but I'm keepin' it real.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 02:11 PM
Let's not go into hypotheticals about losing Plax as the reason. Blaming Plax and your OC is almost shooting your own defense in the foot. ...saying Eli needed Plax. ... buuuuuuus driverrrrr......

Yeah Eli needed a receiver with experience in the offense, most QBs need to not have guys who run the wrong routes because they don't know the offense surrounding a second year Steve Smith who was still learning the stupid offense himself. All NFL QBs need there to be receivers running the routes they are throwing.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 02:14 PM
We both know the reason because of that is because they pulled off such a shocker. The one play that won't be forgotten is the Tyree catch.

But ask the common fan... they wouldn't be able to tell you the year you won and when they think of the great teams of the 2000s, the Giants won't be at the forefront of most people's minds. They will think of the Patriots, Colts, Steelers. ...and the Colts are there even though they just won 1 because of their sustained winning and 2 SB appearances.

If the Giants are mentioned it's as the greatest shocker of all time. Not as a great team during that decade.

Sorry, I love my Giants brothers, but I'm keepin' it real.

Man this just makes me feel like such a jackass for being happy my team won the trophy all 31 other teams were trying to win...

JBCX
11-18-2011, 02:17 PM
The 2007 giants were easily the flukiest Super Bowl winner ever.

Rosebud
11-18-2011, 02:18 PM
The 2007 giants were easily the flukiest Super Bowl winner ever.

Totally, that's why they were so awful the year after and were the only team to beat the Pats that year. Clearly the tell-tales of a team that was undeserving of their superbowl win...GTFO...

Giantsfan1080
11-18-2011, 02:21 PM
I'm bowing out of this now and should never have dipped my foot in the pool. Good luck Rose.

JBCX
11-18-2011, 02:21 PM
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2113_Giants_would_be_worst_team_to_win_a_Super_ Bowl.html

They had the worst passer differential of any Super Bowl winner.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 02:26 PM
Man this just makes me feel like such a jackass for being happy my team won the trophy all 31 other teams were trying to win...
Why? There's nothing wrong with being thrilled in the moment and being positive about the future when you win your first SB in a while.

But if you think you achieved true greatness, then maybe you should qwell your enthusiasm. One and done SB winners aren't respected as high as teams who built a winning dynasty and that's the way it should be.

I'm done here.

Jughead10
11-18-2011, 02:29 PM
Why? There's nothing wrong with being thrilled in the moment and being positive about the future when you win your first SB in a while.

But if you think you achieved true greatness, then maybe you should qwell your enthusiasm. One and done SB winners aren't respected as high as teams who built a winning dynasty and that's the way it should be.

I'm done here.

I don't think anyone ever argued this point. You're arguing against yourself here.

Saints-Tigers
11-18-2011, 02:31 PM
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2113_Giants_would_be_worst_team_to_win_a_Super_ Bowl.html

They had the worst passer differential of any Super Bowl winner.


But they took one of the hardest playoff schedules... and won. It's not like they lucked out and played bad teams or had homefield.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 02:50 PM
I don't think anyone ever argued this point. You're arguing against yourself here.
Ugh.. I hate being dragged back in....

The point being, that if Eli was the reason, then how come he hasn't had repeat success? Throughout the change around him, he's been one of the main common denominators.

Which goes back to the argument about the varying degrees of importance for different football positions. QB being the most important if judged in parallel with other positions, but being elite is not a definite requirement to winning.

Which goes back to football being the ultimate TEAM sport. So if teams are winning despite not having great Left Tackles, it's because the TEAM can make up for it, not that the position is "overrated".

J-Mike88
11-18-2011, 07:25 PM
Totally, that's why they were so awful the year after and were the only team to beat the Pats that year. Clearly the tell-tales of a team that was undeserving of their superbowl win...GTFO...
GTFO yourself.
He's right.
Half the time, Giant fans want Coughlin fired.
A third of Giant fans hate their own QB most of the time.

That team was a fluke, but I have to admit, it was a great Super Bowl. Memorable, and very profitable for myself as well.

bigbluedefense
11-18-2011, 08:19 PM
GTFO yourself.
He's right.
Half the time, Giant fans want Coughlin fired.
A third of Giant fans hate their own QB most of the time.

That team was a fluke, but I have to admit, it was a great Super Bowl. Memorable, and very profitable for myself as well.

Do you consider the Packers run to be a fluke?

Bc the Giants road to the SB was almost identical to the Packers.

bigbluedefense
11-18-2011, 08:23 PM
Anyway, how did this even become an argument about the Giants? Not one bulletin was about the Giants in the original post.

Sooo, to get back on topic, I'm going to mention Leon Hall's injury. That was a big blow. Now I'm questioning if they can survive and land a wildcard spot.

Losing Leon really hurts their defense and what they like to do schematically.

nrk
11-18-2011, 08:33 PM
Do you consider the Packers run to be a fluke?

Bc the Giants road to the SB was almost identical to the Packers.

Really? The Giants never went undefeated through most of the season following their SB win. Giants were on a 8 game win streak from playoffs to the next season, Packers eclipsed that this year alone while looking like the best team in the NFL. There were no talks of Giants going undefeated. The Packers are still on that run from the playoffs.

bigbluedefense
11-18-2011, 08:36 PM
Really? The Giants never went undefeated through most of the season following their SB win. Giants were on a 8 game win streak from playoffs to the next season, Packers eclipsed that this year alone.

The Giants only lost 1 game before Plax shot himself in 08 the following year.

Still finished the #1 seed in the NFC that year as well. If they were a "fluke", how the hell do they win the #1 seed the next year?

nrk
11-18-2011, 08:43 PM
The Giants only lost 1 game before Plax shot himself in 08 the following year.

Still finished the #1 seed in the NFC that year as well. If they were a "fluke", how the hell do they win the #1 seed the next year?

1 loss and undefeated definitely are close but the Packers are on a, what, 15 game win streak? That kind of streak has to be rare.

I wasn't trying to argue if they were a fluke or not. That defense was legit and as much as I hate Eli Manning hes clutch as hell.

bigbluedefense
11-18-2011, 08:45 PM
1 loss and undefeated definitely are close but the Packers are on a, what, 15 game win streak? That kind of streak has to be rare.

I wasn't trying to argue if they were a fluke or not. That defense was legit and as much as I hate Eli Manning hes clutch as hell.

Fair enough. Don't get me wrong, this Packers team is sick. I just don't get how the Giants were a fluke is all. I guess every SB champ that didn't repeat must have been a fluke then too.

It's not like the Giants wet the bed the following year. The homer in me still believes that we would have repeated as Champs if Plax doesn't shoot himself. We were unstoppable when he was in the lineup.

But wouldve/couldve/shouldve doesn't mean ****. So it's a moot point.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 08:53 PM
Anyway, how did this even become an argument about the Giants? Not one bulletin was about the Giants in the original post.

Sooo, to get back on topic, I'm going to mention Leon Hall's injury. That was a big blow. Now I'm questioning if they can survive and land a wildcard spot.

Losing Leon really hurts their defense and what they like to do schematically.
Bengals were never a legitimate threat to go far this year. To their credit, they did well versus an easy schedule. But we knew they wouldn't stay ahead of PIT and BAL all year.

D-Unit
11-18-2011, 08:58 PM
Fair enough. Don't get me wrong, this Packers team is sick. I just don't get how the Giants were a fluke is all. I guess every SB champ that didn't repeat must have been a fluke then too.
It's not like the Giants wet the bed the following year. The homer in me still believes that we would have repeated as Champs if Plax doesn't shoot himself. We were unstoppable when he was in the lineup.

But wouldve/couldve/shouldve doesn't mean ****. So it's a moot point.
I wouldn't say that's the correct interpretation to take away from it. it's not necessarily about a repeat as much as it's about sustained success during a era of time. As quickly as the Giants rose, so did they seemingly fall. Even the 90's Bills built a winning dynasty even though they never won the SB. I consider that team to be greater than the '08 Giants. Just my opinion...

NY+Giants=NYG
11-18-2011, 09:04 PM
I wouldn't say that's the correct interpretation to take away from it. it's not necessarily about a repeat as much as it's about sustained success during a era of time. As quickly as the Giants rose, so did they seemingly fall. Even the 90's Bills built a winning dynasty even though they never won the SB. I consider that team to be greater than the '08 Giants. Just my opinion...

That happens when you lose your star WR to a stupid situation. LOL. Shooting yourself in the leg. Good god. When I think about it, it makes me bad. Spags did well, then bounced. We then made the very, very bad mistake of hiring Bill sheridan. That's when you document our epic crash! I doubt he gets another shot at DC again. Just look like Tim Lewis. Where is he now? Atlanta? He left us and went to Seattle.

mellojello
11-18-2011, 09:42 PM
Fair enough. Don't get me wrong, this Packers team is sick. I just don't get how the Giants were a fluke is all. I guess every SB champ that didn't repeat must have been a fluke then too.

It's not like the Giants wet the bed the following year. The homer in me still believes that we would have repeated as Champs if Plax doesn't shoot himself. We were unstoppable when he was in the lineup.

But wouldve/couldve/shouldve doesn't mean ****. So it's a moot point.Plax really messed everything up for the NYG. The only similarity though between the Packers & Gmen is that they both barely got into the playoffs, went on a hot streak, and ran the table.

The difference though is that GB had to overcome so many injuries throughout their season that the fact that they even made it into the playoffs was pretty impressive. Once GB got going, they started winning in impressive fashion by wide margins. The NYG were squeezing by each and every week, but getting it done. The Gmen were no doubt a very underrated team. They were like 7 pt. dogs in every game in those playoffs. I don't think GB was an underdog at all last playoffs. After the SB win, the GMen were no longer vegas underdogs very often, but when Plax got hurt, it changed everything (not in vegas, but on the field) and that team was never the same, especially in the redzone. It looked to me like Eli was just throwing it up there and Plax was really just making Eli look good.

Looking at this GB team though, I don't see one guy, other than Arod, that is so critical to their team that it would cause a similar decline of what we saw with the NYG, post-Plax and that says something about the difference in depth & QB play of these two teams. I know you know all this stuff already, but I agree, the GMen were dangerous with Plax. We'll never know what could have been and that's too bad because that team is one of my favorites since I like looking for those teams that others generally overlook.

MetSox17
11-18-2011, 09:42 PM
The Giants only lost 1 game before Plax shot himself in 08 the following year.

Still finished the #1 seed in the NFC that year as well. If they were a "fluke", how the hell do they win the #1 seed the next year?

Speaking of which, we don't make fun of the Giants enough for losing at home as the #1 seed in the divisional round. Hell and fire rained down on Dallas the year before when we lost to the Giants at home.

NY+Giants=NYG
11-18-2011, 09:45 PM
Speaking of which, we don't make fun of the Giants enough for losing at home as the #1 seed in the divisional round. Hell and fire rained down on Dallas the year before when we lost to the Giants at home.

Haha, that's why I don't mind playing away. I get more nervous playing at home.

bam bam
11-18-2011, 09:48 PM
http://www.theclevelandfan.com/images/stories/Dilfer.jpg

NY+Giants=NYG
11-18-2011, 09:50 PM
Plax really messed everything up for the NYG. The only similarity though between the Packers & Gmen is that they both barely got into the playoffs, went on a hot streak, and ran the table.

The difference though is that GB had to overcome so many injuries throughout their season that the fact that they even made it into the playoffs was pretty impressive. Once GB got going, they started winning in impressive fashion by wide margins. The NYG were squeezing by each and every week, but getting it done. The Gmen were no doubt a very underrated team. They were like 7 pt. dogs in every game in those playoffs. I don't think GB was an underdog at all last playoffs. After the SB win, the GMen were no longer vegas underdogs very often, but when Plax got hurt, it changed everything (not in vegas, but on the field) and that team was never the same, especially in the redzone. It looked to me like Eli was just throwing it up there and Plax was really just making Eli look good.

Looking at this GB team though, I don't see one guy, other than Arod, that is so critical to their team that it would cause a similar decline of what we saw with the NYG, post-Plax and that says something about the difference in depth & QB play of these two teams. I know you know all this stuff already, but I agree, the GMen were dangerous with Plax. We'll never know what could have been and that's too bad because that team is one of my favorites since I like looking for those teams that others generally overlook.

It looked to me like Eli was just throwing it up there and Plax was really just making Eli look good.

How else would you like Eli to throw it? Not use Plax? Mark S. is doing that now. That's what you do when your WR is 6'5 and has long arms. I actually missed that. It was fun to see Plax go up and get the ball like Gates and other WRs do for Rivers. It's too bad Plax went out like that. I was actually happen with that season. I thought it had a lot of promise. Then we had to move Hixon to X, and that wasn't the same.

I agree. I liked that team a lot. Just a bad decision by Plax, and things went down hill. Then Spags left, and we hired a moron, in Bill Sheridan. That's one thing I hate about Coughlin. Stop hiring stupid coordinators!

J-Mike88
11-18-2011, 10:00 PM
Do you consider the Packers run to be a fluke?

Bc the Giants road to the SB was almost identical to the Packers.
No I don't.
There are quite a few differences, which you can't deny.

#1- Many people predicted the Packers to get to the Super Bowl before the season even began. From former players, ESPN guys, Sports Illustrated, etc. People were very high on the Packers, and that includes the Vegas odds.

#2- The season before, the Packers offense finished the year almost unstoppable. And they figured to get better as they were all young aside from #76 and #80.

#3- They didn't need one magical (lucky, bizarre, take your pick) play to win the Super Bowl. I loved that play by the way. In fact, the Packers were on their way to blowing the Steelers out at 21-3, until Woodson broke his collar bone. Big Ben had a 40 passer rating with Wood in there, but once Wood left, it was over 100.

#4- The follow-up. I don't have to remind you of how the Packers have backed up that "fluke" if you want to call it. All you need to do is look at all the threads here, or watch any NFL pregame show, see the current Odds-to-win-Super Bowl books.

bigbluedefense
11-18-2011, 10:30 PM
No I don't.
There are quite a few differences, which you can't deny.

#1- Many people predicted the Packers to get to the Super Bowl before the season even began. From former players, ESPN guys, Sports Illustrated, etc. People were very high on the Packers, and that includes the Vegas odds.

#2- The season before, the Packers offense finished the year almost unstoppable. And they figured to get better as they were all young aside from #76 and #80.

#3- They didn't need one magical (lucky, bizarre, take your pick) play to win the Super Bowl. I loved that play by the way. In fact, the Packers were on their way to blowing the Steelers out at 21-3, until Woodson broke his collar bone. Big Ben had a 40 passer rating with Wood in there, but once Wood left, it was over 100.

#4- The follow-up. I don't have to remind you of how the Packers have backed up that "fluke" if you want to call it. All you need to do is look at all the threads here, or watch any NFL pregame show, see the current Odds-to-win-Super Bowl books.


I'm not going to go into this over and over, but I just fail to see how the Giants were a fluke champion when they came back the next year and were the 1 seed in the NFC. That's not a fluke. That's a good team.

Plax really messed everything up for the NYG. The only similarity though between the Packers & Gmen is that they both barely got into the playoffs, went on a hot streak, and ran the table.

The difference though is that GB had to overcome so many injuries throughout their season that the fact that they even made it into the playoffs was pretty impressive. Once GB got going, they started winning in impressive fashion by wide margins. The NYG were squeezing by each and every week, but getting it done. The Gmen were no doubt a very underrated team. They were like 7 pt. dogs in every game in those playoffs. I don't think GB was an underdog at all last playoffs. After the SB win, the GMen were no longer vegas underdogs very often, but when Plax got hurt, it changed everything (not in vegas, but on the field) and that team was never the same, especially in the redzone. It looked to me like Eli was just throwing it up there and Plax was really just making Eli look good.

Looking at this GB team though, I don't see one guy, other than Arod, that is so critical to their team that it would cause a similar decline of what we saw with the NYG, post-Plax and that says something about the difference in depth & QB play of these two teams. I know you know all this stuff already, but I agree, the GMen were dangerous with Plax. We'll never know what could have been and that's too bad because that team is one of my favorites since I like looking for those teams that others generally overlook.

Back in the 07/08 days, our playbook was built around Plax. His job was to clear everything out for everyone else and the design of our route combinations was based on that principle, which is why he had such a huge impact even when he only caught 3 passes. When he went down, so did the entire playbook, so we were basically screwed.

That's why Mayock had us taking Mario Manningham in the 1st round in 08, bc Coughlin kept stressing in the offseason in 07 how we were too reliant on Plax in our passing concepts.

Speaking of which, we don't make fun of the Giants enough for losing at home as the #1 seed in the divisional round. Hell and fire rained down on Dallas the year before when we lost to the Giants at home.

You know how it is, when Dallas loses, everyone loves to go in hard on them bc they're the Cowboys. I think this current crop of Cowboys will always get overly criticized until they win a ring.

It's unfair, but that's just how it is.

mellojello
11-18-2011, 10:39 PM
I agree. I liked that team a lot. Just a bad decision by Plax, and things went down hill.Special team...years from now, I'll forget a lot of SB winners, but never that one. Same can be said about the Packers last year, but for different reasons.

NY+Giants=NYG
11-18-2011, 11:03 PM
I'm not going to go into this over and over, but I just fail to see how the Giants were a fluke champion when they came back the next year and were the 1 seed in the NFC. That's not a fluke. That's a good team.

Exactly! It's not like we were in last place. We continued to do well. Bad situation with Plax, and then Spags, left, and we hired idiot # 2 as our DC the following year.

jackalope
11-20-2011, 09:14 PM
While Rodgers played his worst game of the year today, his third down touchdown pass to Jordy with 3:00 left and a two-point-lead was clutch. Should help satisfy your issue with him as a "closer."

NY+Giants=NYG
11-20-2011, 09:18 PM
No bradshaw... No Ware.. No OL. And people dropping balls like it's their job. I can't wait to play the Saints and packers!