Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

best defensive line in the nfl

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by danman253
    Originally posted by yourfavestoner
    Originally posted by The Legend
    Originally posted by pav
    Originally posted by The Legend
    Bears
    Ravens
    Eagles
    Falcons
    Buccs
    Colts
    Seahawks
    Jags

    TEAMS OVER VIKINGS
    That's just plain ridiculous Jags and Bears might be close, other than but other than that, you are dillusional. And i'm considered the insane one on here. You must have a grudge agianst the Vikings. I don't even know who the Seahawks or Buccs have playing on there lines other than simeon rice. Call me arrogant, but if i've never heard of them, they are irrelevant. Falcons, John Abraham and Kerney are great, but who is stuffing the run? Yeah falcons have a horrible run defense, but somehow you manage to rate their line over that of the vikings. Jags, two great runstuffers who get into the backfield, but their ends aren't exactly household names. The Giants have a better line than The buccs, Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons, but you somehow forgot to mention them. And don't say that i'm a Giants homer, because if i'm not mistaken the 3 DE in the Probowl from the NFC were Peppers, Osi and Strahan. The Ravens have Suggs and an unproven Haloti on the team and you are putting them ahead of Pat and Kevin Williams, Udeze, and James. I tried to find the most well rounded NFL defensive Line in the league and this is what i got. Let's be reasonable people. If i am starting a team and i had to pick a Defensive Unit to play for me, It is Udeze and James, pure young passrushers, Pat Williams a veteran NT who not only stuffs the run, but gets into the backfeild, and Kevin Williams, another young DT who routinely disrupts plays in the backfeild and made it to the probowl at a very young age. Give me a break people. I agree, i should have put the bears in, don't give me buccs or ravens or jags or colts or anybody else.
    that proves you have no football knowledge...

    did you forget who lead in sacks in the nfl?

    Grant Wistrom
    Marcus Tubbs
    Rocky Bernard
    Bryce Fisher

    buccs


    Rice
    White
    Spires
    McFarland
    Hovan

    jags

    there end had more sacks then the whole vikings dline

    gaints

    no i just forgot to list them simple they should be on the list

    ravens

    Pryce
    Suggs
    Nagta
    Green
    Thomas
    Gregg

    you have to remember the ravens run a diffrent defence 4-6

    the player above had a total of 25 sacks last year

    panthers

    not to take anything away from them cause they got a nice line but there starter have total of 19 sacks last year

    See? This is why Pro Bowl voting is so screwed up. People like you see names that you recognize and assume that he's better than somebody you don't know. Oh yeah, and those pure pass rushers you love so much on the Vikings? They combined for five sacks.


    Meanwhile, Seattle led the league in sacks, and Jacksonville led the league in sacks per pass attempt. But you don't know their defensive linemen, so they must not be good.

    The Seahawks DL is better than the Vikings. We led the league in sacks last year. That doesn't make us the best but we are still one hell of a line.
    Rocky Bernard is a quick DL who penetrates well. Marcus Tubbs when healthy is a beast. Winstrom may be getting older but has gas in tha tank. Bryce Fischer may be the weakest of them all, and he had a great season last year, he had one of the highest sack totals on our team. James and Udeze are unproven. Pat Williams is on the downfall. Kevin Williams is good, but i'd take Bernard over him

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Dam8610
      I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
      excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

      and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?

      Comment


      • how about seattle or miami , the two teams that lead the NFL in sacks last year for 1 and 2?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by njx9
          Originally posted by Dam8610
          I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
          excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

          and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?
          I don't recall saying that the Colts defense is better than the Bears defense, and I'd like you to show me where I did. Since when is a combination of logic and facts "excuses"? Fact: The Steelers scored 14 of their 21 points on their first 3 drives. Fact: The Colts outscored the Steelers 18-7 after the first quarter, and 15-0 in the 4th quarter. Fact: The Colts had shut down this same offense earlier in the season. All of that corrolates with my conclusion that the 35 day hiatus had a great deal to do with the Colts not winning the game.


          The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

          If luck is where preparation meets opportunity, then clutch is where failure meets luck.

          <Add1ct> setting myself on fire can't be that hard
          <Add1ct> but tackling a mosquito might prove a challenge

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dam8610
            Originally posted by njx9
            Originally posted by Dam8610
            I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
            excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

            and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?
            I don't recall saying that the Colts defense is better than the Bears defense, and I'd like you to show me where I did. Since when is a combination of logic and facts "excuses"? Fact: The Steelers scored 14 of their 21 points on their first 3 drives. Fact: The Colts outscored the Steelers 18-7 after the first quarter, and 15-0 in the 4th quarter. Fact: The Colts had shut down this same offense earlier in the season. All of that corrolates with my conclusion that the 35 day hiatus had a great deal to do with the Colts not winning the game.
            That and the Colts don't play exceptionally well coming from behind. That is how you beat the Colts. Get up by 10 early. Then you run the ball right down their throat and you can eat up huge chunks of time of possesion because no one can stop the run on that team. Brings me back to Freeney. They Steelers ran right at him that whole game and it worked.

            Comment


            • Of course I will say the Bears have the best DLine, because they are my team,but if I would not consider them, then I like the Panthers and Falcons Dlines, and I love the Jags DTs.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jughead10
                Originally posted by Dam8610
                Originally posted by njx9
                Originally posted by Dam8610
                I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
                excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

                and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?
                I don't recall saying that the Colts defense is better than the Bears defense, and I'd like you to show me where I did. Since when is a combination of logic and facts "excuses"? Fact: The Steelers scored 14 of their 21 points on their first 3 drives. Fact: The Colts outscored the Steelers 18-7 after the first quarter, and 15-0 in the 4th quarter. Fact: The Colts had shut down this same offense earlier in the season. All of that corrolates with my conclusion that the 35 day hiatus had a great deal to do with the Colts not winning the game.
                That and the Colts don't play exceptionally well coming from behind. That is how you beat the Colts. Get up by 10 early. Then you run the ball right down their throat and you can eat up huge chunks of time of possesion because no one can stop the run on that team. Brings me back to Freeney. They Steelers ran right at him that whole game and it worked.

                Let's not forget how San Diego occasionally used that to their advantage as well. As soon as the ball was snapped Freeney was 5 yards down the field, and was way out of position to stop the run. I was so mad at that, I actually wanted to see an undefeated team.


                Originally posted by Scott Wright
                Terrellezzzzzzzz Pryorzzzzzzzz!
                Originally posted by njx9
                do i tell you when to flip the burger?

                Comment


                • 1. Bears
                  2. Patriots
                  3. Panthers
                  4. Vikings
                  5. Pittsburgh

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jughead10
                    Originally posted by Dam8610
                    Originally posted by njx9
                    Originally posted by Dam8610
                    I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
                    excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

                    and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?
                    I don't recall saying that the Colts defense is better than the Bears defense, and I'd like you to show me where I did. Since when is a combination of logic and facts "excuses"? Fact: The Steelers scored 14 of their 21 points on their first 3 drives. Fact: The Colts outscored the Steelers 18-7 after the first quarter, and 15-0 in the 4th quarter. Fact: The Colts had shut down this same offense earlier in the season. All of that corrolates with my conclusion that the 35 day hiatus had a great deal to do with the Colts not winning the game.
                    That and the Colts don't play exceptionally well coming from behind. That is how you beat the Colts. Get up by 10 early. Then you run the ball right down their throat and you can eat up huge chunks of time of possesion because no one can stop the run on that team. Brings me back to Freeney. They Steelers ran right at him that whole game and it worked.
                    enough said.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jughead10
                      Originally posted by Dam8610
                      Originally posted by njx9
                      Originally posted by Dam8610
                      I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
                      excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

                      and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?
                      I don't recall saying that the Colts defense is better than the Bears defense, and I'd like you to show me where I did. Since when is a combination of logic and facts "excuses"? Fact: The Steelers scored 14 of their 21 points on their first 3 drives. Fact: The Colts outscored the Steelers 18-7 after the first quarter, and 15-0 in the 4th quarter. Fact: The Colts had shut down this same offense earlier in the season. All of that corrolates with my conclusion that the 35 day hiatus had a great deal to do with the Colts not winning the game.
                      That and the Colts don't play exceptionally well coming from behind. That is how you beat the Colts. Get up by 10 early. Then you run the ball right down their throat and you can eat up huge chunks of time of possesion because no one can stop the run on that team. Brings me back to Freeney. They Steelers ran right at him that whole game and it worked.
                      Do you know anything about the Colts? Honestly, do you? Because if you do, you certianly don't display it. The Colts don't play well from behind? Is that why they beat the Buccaneers in 2003 after being down by 21 with 4 minutes left? Is that why Peyton Manning is at or near the top of the league in career 4th quarter game tying or game winning drives, and comeback wins? It's also extremely evident that you didn't watch that game AT ALL, because it was the Steelers' passing game that got them up early, and it was their run game that almost wound up costing them the game.

                      Originally posted by ChrisCybulski
                      Originally posted by Jughead10
                      Originally posted by Dam8610
                      Originally posted by njx9
                      Originally posted by Dam8610
                      I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
                      excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

                      and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?
                      I don't recall saying that the Colts defense is better than the Bears defense, and I'd like you to show me where I did. Since when is a combination of logic and facts "excuses"? Fact: The Steelers scored 14 of their 21 points on their first 3 drives. Fact: The Colts outscored the Steelers 18-7 after the first quarter, and 15-0 in the 4th quarter. Fact: The Colts had shut down this same offense earlier in the season. All of that corrolates with my conclusion that the 35 day hiatus had a great deal to do with the Colts not winning the game.
                      That and the Colts don't play exceptionally well coming from behind. That is how you beat the Colts. Get up by 10 early. Then you run the ball right down their throat and you can eat up huge chunks of time of possesion because no one can stop the run on that team. Brings me back to Freeney. They Steelers ran right at him that whole game and it worked.

                      Let's not forget how San Diego occasionally used that to their advantage as well. As soon as the ball was snapped Freeney was 5 yards down the field, and was way out of position to stop the run. I was so mad at that, I actually wanted to see an undefeated team.
                      Let's not forget how the Colts sat 3-4 defensive starters in that game, all of which could have played if it was a must win game. I know it's unfortunate, but the Colts really didn't care about the undefeated season.

                      Originally posted by njx9
                      Originally posted by Jughead10
                      Originally posted by Dam8610
                      Originally posted by njx9
                      Originally posted by Dam8610
                      I'm not denying the fact that the Colts defense gets help from the offense, just the opinion that they get more help from their offense than other defenses do from theirs. As for failing in games that matter, the Colts never seem to have a problem with the Broncos. They wouldn't have had a problem with the Steelers if they hadn't been on a 35 day hiatus prior to the game either.
                      excuses and a shot at the donkeys... boy, i'm convinced. :roll:

                      and come on. do you really believe that having one of the best offenses in the HISTORY of the nfl isn't a bigger advantage for the colts than having the third worst offense in the nfl in chicago? are you serious?
                      I don't recall saying that the Colts defense is better than the Bears defense, and I'd like you to show me where I did. Since when is a combination of logic and facts "excuses"? Fact: The Steelers scored 14 of their 21 points on their first 3 drives. Fact: The Colts outscored the Steelers 18-7 after the first quarter, and 15-0 in the 4th quarter. Fact: The Colts had shut down this same offense earlier in the season. All of that corrolates with my conclusion that the 35 day hiatus had a great deal to do with the Colts not winning the game.
                      That and the Colts don't play exceptionally well coming from behind. That is how you beat the Colts. Get up by 10 early. Then you run the ball right down their throat and you can eat up huge chunks of time of possesion because no one can stop the run on that team. Brings me back to Freeney. They Steelers ran right at him that whole game and it worked.
                      enough said.
                      Sure, if you want to look like you don't know what you're talking about.


                      The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

                      If luck is where preparation meets opportunity, then clutch is where failure meets luck.

                      <Add1ct> setting myself on fire can't be that hard
                      <Add1ct> but tackling a mosquito might prove a challenge

                      Comment


                      • how many come from behind wins did the colts have last season, exactly?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by njx9
                          how many come from behind wins did the colts have last season, exactly?
                          vs. Jaguars (4th quarter comeback)
                          vs. Rams

                          So two. Not the most in the league, but certainly not the least.


                          The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

                          If luck is where preparation meets opportunity, then clutch is where failure meets luck.

                          <Add1ct> setting myself on fire can't be that hard
                          <Add1ct> but tackling a mosquito might prove a challenge

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dam8610
                            Originally posted by njx9
                            how many come from behind wins did the colts have last season, exactly?
                            vs. Jaguars (4th quarter comeback)
                            vs. Rams

                            So two. Not the most in the league, but certainly not the least.
                            the jags, who put a whopping three points and had an incredibly average rushing attack and a rams team with no power running game (barely any running game, averaging 96 yards per game) and a 6 point lead going into the third? what does this prove about their defense's ability to play from behind?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by njx9
                              Originally posted by Dam8610
                              Originally posted by njx9
                              how many come from behind wins did the colts have last season, exactly?
                              vs. Jaguars (4th quarter comeback)
                              vs. Rams

                              So two. Not the most in the league, but certainly not the least.
                              the jags, who put a whopping three points and had an incredibly average rushing attack and a rams team with no power running game (barely any running game, averaging 96 yards per game) and a 6 point lead going into the third? what does this prove about their defense's ability to play from behind?
                              They were down by much more than 6 points in the Rams game, but I suppose that doesn't count because the offense made up some of that ground before halftime? I also suppose the Jaguars game doesn't count as a comeback win because it was only a 3 point defecit? Don't raise your standards just because I proved you wrong.


                              The problem arises when people use statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support instead of illumination.

                              If luck is where preparation meets opportunity, then clutch is where failure meets luck.

                              <Add1ct> setting myself on fire can't be that hard
                              <Add1ct> but tackling a mosquito might prove a challenge

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Dam8610
                                Originally posted by njx9
                                Originally posted by Dam8610
                                Originally posted by njx9
                                how many come from behind wins did the colts have last season, exactly?
                                vs. Jaguars (4th quarter comeback)
                                vs. Rams

                                So two. Not the most in the league, but certainly not the least.
                                the jags, who put a whopping three points and had an incredibly average rushing attack and a rams team with no power running game (barely any running game, averaging 96 yards per game) and a 6 point lead going into the third? what does this prove about their defense's ability to play from behind?
                                They were down by much more than 6 points in the Rams game, but I suppose that doesn't count because the offense made up some of that ground before halftime? I also suppose the Jaguars game doesn't count as a comeback win because it was only a 3 point defecit? Don't raise your standards just because I proved you wrong.
                                they were down by 17 after one quarter, 6 after 2, up 4 after 3 and up 25 before an irrelevant rams score at the end.

                                so wow... yeah. a team that didn't really run the ball and doesn't have a power game, and a team without much of any offense to speak of that was up by 3?

                                sorry, these are not impressive.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information