Which Team? - Page 2

Mr. Stiller · 08-06-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMontainya

WOW, most the guys you used in your example have never even played an NFL down yet, but there great depth? I guess you were right on when you said "homer alert".

Do you follow me around trying to prove me wrong because I'm a steeler fan?

We don't have great depth?

We have arguably one of the best backup QB's in the league.

We have a great Trio of WR's.

We have a great 1-2 punch in Parker-Davenport.

We have good Depth at the OL. Colon is one of the best backups in the league. Plays any position.

Our DE's aren't nearly as deep, but Chris Hoke is probably the top Backup NT in the league.

We always have had great Depth at LB.

we have 2 young corners in BMac and Colclough. Ike and DeShea are a solid duo. *** is looking great and Madison is starting to come into his own as well.

As for Safety. I think we have the best backup safeties in the league..

As FS either Ryan Clark or Anthony Smith are the backup and are definitely above average.

At SS we have Tyrone Carter.. Who plays possessed like Troy anytime he's called upon.

duckseason · 08-06-2007, 03:58 PM

For most fans, there is only one team for which they can name all the reserves without looking it up. I know my Cowboys have incredible depth at many positions, but I'm not in a position to rank their overall depth amongst the rest of the league because I can only name a handful of the league's backup FS's or TE's or RG's off the top of my head. In other words, there really aren't many of us here at NFLDC who hold a very accurate opinion on this subject. I think that for the most part, the overall talent in the NFL is dispersed quite evenly. There's not as much separating top-tier teams from bottom-tier teams as some of us make it seem.

HawkeyeFan · 08-06-2007, 05:52 PM

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 08-06-2007, 06:58 PM

Denver... not. Well, I suppose cutler could play every position at the same time if he wanted. So yeah, deepest team in the league. :).

PackerLegend · 08-06-2007, 07:16 PM

how about picking teams to find the most depth at each poistion?

just a quick example not how i would actually put them

QB-Packers- Favre, Rodgers, Martin
HB-Chargers- LT,Turner ,Sporles
WR- Lions- Williams, Johnson, Furrey, McDonald, Drummond

Remember i was just wondering if people want to give each position to a team and that is not how i would do it just a quick example of how it would be done, please give thoughts.

keylime_5 · 08-06-2007, 07:30 PM

Patriots, Chargers, Bears and Eagles.

Freddy G · 08-06-2007, 07:38 PM

Browns have good depth at......ummmmm...?????......well,.............uhhh hhhh......long snapper. yeah, our long snappers are great!!!

bearsfan_51 · 08-06-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stiller

Do you follow me around trying to prove me wrong because I'm a steeler fan?

We don't have great depth?

We have arguably one of the best backup QB's in the league.

We have a great Trio of WR's.

We have a great 1-2 punch in Parker-Davenport.

We have good Depth at the OL. Colon is one of the best backups in the league. Plays any position.

Our DE's aren't nearly as deep, but Chris Hoke is probably the top Backup NT in the league.

We always have had great Depth at LB.

we have 2 young corners in BMac and Colclough. Ike and DeShea are a solid duo. *** is looking great and Madison is starting to come into his own as well.

As for Safety. I think we have the best backup safeties in the league..

As FS either Ryan Clark or Anthony Smith are the backup and are definitely above average.

At SS we have Tyrone Carter.. Who plays possessed like Troy anytime he's called upon.

Yeah sorry dude, you're being a huge homer. You basically just named everyone on your team and said "they're one of the best backups in the league". Granted I said the Bears had the best depth, but even I'm not that delusional.

For example, Najah Davenport? He got cut by the ******* Packers who have NOBODY at runningback. I wouldn't even want Davenport on my team, let alone as my #2.

Charlie Batch? What has Charlie Batch ever done in his entire career to justify being one of the best backups in the league? He had like two good games in place of Big Ben. Steelers fans only think he's good because they haven't had to watch him play for an extended period of time. He's a decent backup, I would even say above average, but I certainly wouldn't put him any higher than guys like Gus Frerotte and Brad Johnson. In fact I'd put him slightly below.

Who the hell is Colon?

Ryan Clark? Ryan Clark is the best backup safety in the league? Ryan Clark. Yeah...ok.

Shiver · 08-06-2007, 07:59 PM

Atlanta has the best depth. Why you may ask? Because Atlanta is my favorite team.

CASE CLOSED

LSUALUM99 · 08-06-2007, 08:15 PM

Great Depth is often an indicator of a team with not alot of top tier talent. Top tier talent is typically expensive and thus you can't afford top tier back ups.

Teams like NE and Philly are the exception more than the rule. Although, I really think Philly is out of time to make a run in the NFC. Chicago, if they can get the QB play more consistant, looks to be the dominant team in the NFC for a while.

The Colts are the ANTI-Patriots. They have Highly paid stars and very few great backups. The Colts are one of the best teams, but I'd argue they are the thinnest.

BTW - having alot of depth is only advantageous if your starters leave/get hurt. For one game I'd take a team with several stars any day.

duckseason · 08-06-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUALUM99

BTW - having alot of depth is only advantageous if your starters leave/get hurt.

For certain positions, yes. But it's a big advantage to have the d-line depth of a team like the Bears, or CB depth like many teams have. Having multiple capable TE's or RB's can be quite useful as well. There's a lot of "backup" guys around the league who make significant and consistent contributions to their respective teams.

LSUALUM99 · 08-06-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duckseason

For certain positions, yes. But it's a big advantage to have the d-line depth of a team like the Bears, or CB depth like many teams have. Having multiple capable TE's or RB's can be quite useful as well. There's a lot of "backup" guys around the league who make significant and consistent contributions to their respective teams.

In context of my quote, it was in reference to having depth as opposed to stars.

I'll take Champ Bailey with a total scrub backing him up vs. two halfway decent CB's.

I'll take Antonio Gates and a scrub versus two halfway decent TE's also. Two RB's like say JJ and MBIII are ok, but I'd rather have LT and a 4th stringer.

For instance, the conversation revolved around depth at QB earlier in the post. Depth at QB is only a good thing if your starter sucks or gets hurt. I'd rather have Peyton / Sorgi than the bears with 3 guys who have started in the NFL. So, while it's never bad to have good backups, it's not always relevant.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 08-06-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shiver

Atlanta has the best depth. Why you may ask? Because Atlanta is my favorite team.

CASE CLOSED

You are mistaken sir. It is very clear to myself, and anyone else who can count to five for that matter, that it is in fact my most preferred team who is the best at everything. Your favoured team, on the other hand, should probably play baseball instead, for they are so incompetent they mustn't be playing football. As a matter of fact, it would not shock me if the players on your team enjoyed sexual relations with members of the same sex, as they are that dissatisfactory on the football field.

BuckNaked · 08-06-2007, 08:48 PM

The Vikings have great RB and S Depth, but everywhere else is mediocre to below average.

Go_Eagles77 · 08-06-2007, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUALUM99

Although, I really think Philly is out of time to make a run in the NFC.

Please explain. I'm not gonna make an argument until I hear your (or someone else's) case on the subject.

LSUALUM99 · 08-06-2007, 09:20 PM

I think Philly's contention threat in the NFC has always been about McNabb. I personally think he's losing favor with management and with the players. I don't think TO was entirely to blame for the failure there and alot of the players seem to have sided with TO in the TO v. McNabb bashing. That, with his injury status preventing him from playing full seasons 3 of the last 4 years leads me to believe McNabbs on the backside of his career.

Dawkins is getting old, Michael Lewis is gone, Kearse can't stay healthy, their OL is not as good as it has been (Andrews is still a stud though). When McNabb is in the game they feel compelled to throw the ball 75% of the time even though Westbrook is a good RB option and their WR corp is still not very good. As long as McNabb plays at a ProBowl level they will always be competitive but I think his best days are behind him.

Dam8610 · 08-06-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUALUM99

The Colts are the ANTI-Patriots. They have Highly paid stars and very few great backups. The Colts are one of the best teams, but I'd argue they are the thinnest.

On offense? You'd be mistaken. The Colts are deep at OL, WR, and TE with mostly known and proven commodities. Defensively you're dead on, but the Colts are a very deep offensive team.

Go_Eagles77 · 08-06-2007, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUALUM99

I think Philly's contention threat in the NFC has always been about McNabb. I personally think he's losing favor with management and with the players. I don't think TO was entirely to blame for the failure there and alot of the players seem to have sided with TO in the TO v. McNabb bashing. That, with his injury status preventing him from playing full seasons 3 of the last 4 years leads me to believe McNabbs on the backside of his career.

Dawkins is getting old, Michael Lewis is gone, Kearse can't stay healthy, their OL is not as good as it has been (Andrews is still a stud though). When McNabb is in the game they feel compelled to throw the ball 75% of the time even though Westbrook is a good RB option and their WR corp is still not very good. As long as McNabb plays at a ProBowl level they will always be competitive but I think his best days are behind him.

You make a few good points, but a few confusing ones.

You're right about McNabb, the eagles really need him to stay healthy, it may be a make-or-break year for him. No arguing that. But I believe he has a much better chance to stay healthy than many people think, not 1 of his injuries was related, it may be hard to believe but most of his injuries were just freak accidents. In the event he does go down again, AJ Feeley is a lot like Garcia in the way that he thrives in the West Coast offense, sure he had little success in Miami, but that was a completely different offense, just like how Garcia was mediocre in Cleveland and Detroit. In week 17 AJ Feeley was the NFL.com QB of the week against Atlanta's 1st string Defense, with the eagles' 2nd string offense. But a healthy McNabb is clearly a top QB in the league.
Dawkins is getting up there in age, but he's still a top 3 safety in the league, he is showing no signs of slowing down this season, Dawk's age has no effect on the eagles' chances this season.
Michael Lewis was benched in the middle of the season last year, he was and I'm sure still is terrible in coverage, our current starter, Sean Considine, is very good in coverage, he gained around 15 pounds in the off-season so that could improve his tackling.
If Kearse goes down, we have one of the deepest D-Lines in the NFL, I'm blanking out right now and I actually don't remember if he was injured in the 2005 season, the important thing is he's healthy right now, but if we keep him fresh and rotate our D-Line a lot that shouldn't be too much of an issue.
I'm not quite sure why you don't think the O-Line isn't as good as it has been, this may be the best it has been. ever. It is the biggest line in the league and they are very injury resistant, last year they stayed each together all year and if they do that again, with the younger players getting more experience, it could be scary. Our future is bright at the Oline too, with Winston Justice and Max Jean-Gilles waiting in the wings.
Andy Reid and Marty Morninwig have said that we will run the ball much closer to 50/50, and we can clearly see that they want to stick with that by drafting 2 RBs in the draft, Tony Hunt and Nate Ilaoa (who's a long shot to make the roster) but Tony Hunt is absolutely lighting it up in camp, steam-rolling over would-be tacklers.
Kevin Curtis is a very pleasant surprise in TC, he's catching everything that comes his way and he has great break-away ability, and is great at getting separation from the DBs, yesterday he had a diving catch and collided with the goal post, held on the football and popped right back up. Reggie Brown has another year of experience and he is dominating in TC, his hands aren't quite as good as Curtis' but he is a great playmaker, Jason Avant and Hank Baskett are both very young and looking very impressive as well, both have great hands and are hard to cover and bring down. Baskett, an UDFA last year, had the 2 longest receptions of any reciever last year, both in the mid 80s, even though he was known as a red-zone guy coming out of college, and is definitely gonna be threat again this year. Greg Lewis is another guy who makes a living at the other end of the 1st down marker, he's a very reliable guy.

There's my argument, a little longer than I expected but I hope you read it and give some feedback.

JK17 · 08-06-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerChris

You are mistaken sir. It is very clear to myself, and anyone else who can count to five for that matter, that it is in fact my most preferred team who is the best at everything. Your favoured team, on the other hand, should probably play baseball instead, for they are so incompetent they mustn't be playing football. As a matter of fact, it would not shock me if the players on your team enjoyed sexual relations with members of the same sex, as they are that dissatisfactory on the football field.

Excellent Reference...funny and fitting to the conversation. Props.

TitleTown088 · 08-06-2007, 10:34 PM

Oh, it's gotta be the Packers because [b]I[/b ]know the names of the backups and the backups of the backups on my team. Right( some) Panther and Steelers fans? I mean, come on guys. How can a team that didn't even make the wild card have the best dept in the NFL? It's like the title said " name the backups on your team" to some of these people... my god.

Mr. Stiller · 08-06-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Yeah sorry dude, you're being a huge homer. You basically just named everyone on your team and said "they're one of the best backups in the league". Granted I said the Bears had the best depth, but even I'm not that delusional.

For example, Najah Davenport? He got cut by the ******* Packers who have NOBODY at runningback. I wouldn't even want Davenport on my team, let alone as my #2.

Charlie Batch? What has Charlie Batch ever done in his entire career to justify being one of the best backups in the league? He had like two good games in place of Big Ben. Steelers fans only think he's good because they haven't had to watch him play for an extended period of time. He's a decent backup, I would even say above average, but I certainly wouldn't put him any higher than guys like Gus Frerotte and Brad Johnson. In fact I'd put him slightly below.

Who the hell is Colon?

Ryan Clark? Ryan Clark is the best backup safety in the league? Ryan Clark. Yeah...ok.

Najeh Davenport got cut by the packers because his ankle injury. I would certainly take Najeh over Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe.

Charlie Batch is 3-0 as a starter in replacement of Ben. He's accurate and can come in at any time and play great. Sorry I didn't say he was "The best". I said one of. You named 2 guys you think are better backup QBs. If they're "The best" and Batch is #3, I'd say thats "One of the best".

Willie Colon is a fiery Backup OL. He plays every position. He is the one that shut down Adalius Thomas and Trevor Pryce in last years baltimore game.. which wasn't bad considering the time before Starks gave up 4 sacks.

Ryan Clark? I said he was above average. Please don't act to be above me by putting words in my mouth. Ryan Clark is a very consistent Veteran. Maybe not all big plays, but he's in on the play a lot of the time. He did great for us last year.

I would say:

QB: Roeth/Batch

WR: Ward- Holmes - Wilson - Washington - Reid is pretty deep.

TE: Miller - Spaeth - Tuman/Boyd

NT: Hampton - Hoke

S: Smith - Polamalu - Clark - Carter

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf) · 08-06-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stiller

Najeh Davenport got cut by the packers because his ankle injury. I would certainly take Najeh over Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe

Scared me for a minute when I didn't know which Adrian Peterson you were talking about :P

Mr. Stiller · 08-06-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CutlerChris

Scared me for a minute when I didn't know which Adrian Peterson you were talking about :P

I had a feeling someone would do that.

TitleTown088 · 08-06-2007, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stiller

Najeh Davenport got cut by the packers because his ankle injury. I would certainly take Najeh over Adrian Peterson or Garrett Wolfe.

Najeh Davenport got cut by the Packers because he sucks donkey balls. If you cannot make the Green Bay Packers as a RB, you suck.

Bearsfan123 · 08-06-2007, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JK17

Really? I mean the Bears may have three guys who have played in the league and won, but I wouldn't be thrilled with that depth. I don't have anything against Grossman, but Griese hasn't played in a while, and Orton was nothing special at all, just a guy they plugged into the offense, and for Baltimore McNair has shown he was a good QB, and is still a decent one, but Boller never proved anything, and Smith is a 5th round draft pick.

As a homer, I could just say San Diego is better then all of those listed with Rivers/Volek/Whitehurst, but I also think your overrating the need for three quarterbacks in order to "have depth". I would rather have a great/good QB, decent backup, and not much behind that, Like the Panthers and Jets have just off the top of my head, then the situation that at least CHI has, and maybe BAL.

Okay lets look at this

Rivers=Grossman- At this point you cant argue otherwise. Rivers was more consistent by far but Grossman showed flashes of brilliance that eclipsed him and games far beneath him. Grossman went deeper in the playoffs and with his flashes of brilliance i think it should be called a draw.

Volek=Griese- On this one I dont know so much. I MIGHT give the nod to Volek but neither has shown me in any action that either deserves a nod over the other.

Orton>Whitehurst- Orton has pro wins. No argument can be made against that.

So by a hair Bears win IMO. If you change the Volek ruling then you have a Chargers V by ruling of second string to third string but it would again be by a hair.