Free Agents Still Out There
-
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
-
I think any coach would find Bademosi interesting. He's a really smart kid from Stanford... and a freaky athlete who runs a sub 4.4. He played his ass off on STs and you can't help but wonder why he couldn't become a special player.
But football's funny that way. It doesn't always translate. Didn't at Stanford. But we'll see. Right now, Gipson has shown he can play free safety in the NFL, albeit in small samples. We probably got a 3rd round value in Slaughter if he's healthy. I think we have a lot of options at FS.
If we sign Rhodes, and we might, so be it. I just hope it isn't at the expense of finding a 5-7 year starter already on the roster.
-
Small blurb. Must because you never read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How about try looking for the information prior to claiming they've never talked about him.
Cue the "what, is he supposed to say bad things about him" comment.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
Your one blurb on Gipson is outweighed by the ten I've seen on Bademosi.
But I guess that one paragraph is gospel.
I actually expect to see more of Bademosi at FS, if he adjusts to that position well. He is the more talented of the two, and has good coverage skills. I'm still just hoping for the competetion with those 2 and Slaughter, and again do not want to see that hampered by throwing too much money into FA at a position we already have players at.
Imagine if the Steelers would have brought in a high-priced, aging, FA pass-rusher instead of letting James Harrison, an UDFA, battle it out for his job... OR, If the Colts brought in a FA C instead of moving Jeff Saturday, a UDFA, to C after his rookie season struggles at G... OR, if San Diego would have upgraded their TE position instead of letting 2nd year UDFA Antonio Gates get another shot after only a 25 catch season as a rookie...
Get the picture?
I understand that for each of those stories there's a few hundred stories from the oppositie side. All I'm saying is that sometimes it's better to "wait and see" what you HAVE... instead of the "glass is half empty" approach.
-
http://www.draftbrowns.com/2013/06/browns-film-room-tashaun-gipson/
"He did nothing special"
And that were you and I.....and knowledgeable football guys.....disagree somewhat. 'Special' I'll concede.....serviceable, more than. While you have a leg up in contending an old vet may be better, gipson did much better than you give him credit for. Rhodes isn't special either, so I'm not sure why you believe a maxed out vet is a better option than an up and comer that more than held his own as an udfa filling in. Rhodes started.... gipson stepped up and shined IMO. Less than fantastic is OK as well, especially when its an undrafted rookie filling in for injury.
So please, contrast your evaluation with the film breakdown I've linked. One source is not end all be all, but draftbrowns guys think he is something to work with.Certainly was better than young. Go to PFF and look as well.
Pardon my preference to take amateur/ professional breakdown over yours....but I don't see Rhodes as an upgrade when considering gipson will get better while Rhodes is destined to decline. Competition due
Doesn't hurt.....I agree....but you assume his competition is junk, which I do not. Cherry picking stats isn't an acceptable retort either. Cutting a promising prospect simply for competition isn't an acceptable answer when its at the expense of a player the browns invested in or developed.
And
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition. It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
You also cannot find any objective analyst or professional who says he isn't starter material. Link anything by some "neutral observor" that says that. He is purely an unknown commodity. The only people that do this thing for a living are: the Browns front office and coaching staff. Last year's group thought enough of him to have him start toward the end of the field. This years new FO/coaches will have their time with him...and with Bademosi, and will evaluate him accordingly.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition.
Well, he beat out Eric Hagg...and Usama Young...and so far he seems to be ahead of Bademosi.
So, you CANNOT say he hasn't had competition. I mean, I know those guys aren't the cream of the crop...but they were veteran NFL defensive backs. I mean, do you require that he beat out Ed Reed and Ronnie Lott?
It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
3.3 tackles, for a DB is pretty good. Maybe not for a MLB...but 3.3 is "highly adequate"
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
No, I would say that "we are better at that position"...and better is something. From my view, Kerry Rhodes may in fact be Usama Young revisitited. I would hope not. You never know. As I said, I am not opposed to getting Kerry Rhodes to provide that additional competition. I am just not as convinced as you are that Kerry Rhodes, indeed, would be an upgrade over Gipson. I think it is 50/50. If he were, fine. But I would have to see it.
More importantly....you need to convince the Browns FO/coaches that he is, enough to sign him up. If our FO doesn't go after him....after having hired his DC for the last two years, then, to me, that would be telling. It would be telling me that they don't think much of him. They, who are in a position to know.
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Again, I personally would not object to this arrangement...if it works out that way.
-
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
You also cannot find any objective analyst or professional who says he isn't starter material. Link anything by some "neutral observor" that says that. He is purely an unknown commodity. The only people that do this thing for a living are: the Browns front office and coaching staff. Last year's group thought enough of him to have him start toward the end of the field. This years new FO/coaches will have their time with him...and with Bademosi, and will evaluate him accordingly.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition.
Well, he beat out Eric Hagg...and Usama Young...and so far he seems to be ahead of Bademosi.
So, you CANNOT say he hasn't had competition. I mean, I know those guys aren't the cream of the crop...but they were veteran NFL defensive backs. I mean, do you require that he beat out Ed Reed and Ronnie Lott?
It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
3.3 tackles, for a DB is pretty good. Maybe not for a MLB...but 3.3 is "highly adequate"
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
No, I would say that "we are better at that position"...and better is something. From my view, Kerry Rhodes may in fact be Usama Young revisitited. I would hope not. You never know. As I said, I am not opposed to getting Kerry Rhodes to provide that additional competition. I am just not as convinced as you are that Kerry Rhodes, indeed, would be an upgrade over Gipson. I think it is 50/50. If he were, fine. But I would have to see it.
More importantly....you need to convince the Browns FO/coaches that he is, enough to sign him up. If our FO doesn't go after him....after having hired his DC for the last two years, then, to me, that would be telling. It would be telling me that they don't think much of him. They, who are in a position to know.
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Again, I personally would not object to this arrangement...if it works out that way.
Once again, that analysis you linked is from a Browns fan. It's tough to find an objective analyst or professional who agrees that Gipson is starter material.
You also cannot find any objective analyst or professional who says he isn't starter material. Link anything by some "neutral observor" that says that. He is purely an unknown commodity. The only people that do this thing for a living are: the Browns front office and coaching staff. Last year's group thought enough of him to have him start toward the end of the field. This years new FO/coaches will have their time with him...and with Bademosi, and will evaluate him accordingly.
At the very most, you'll find that he's listed as a question mark. He proved to be "not terrible" in his limited time, but did nothing to warrant having the starting spot essentially handed to him. And that's what's happening...Gipson has had the starting spot handed to him. There's no real competition.
Well, he beat out Eric Hagg...and Usama Young...and so far he seems to be ahead of Bademosi.
So, you CANNOT say he hasn't had competition. I mean, I know those guys aren't the cream of the crop...but they were veteran NFL defensive backs. I mean, do you require that he beat out Ed Reed and Ronnie Lott?
It's McCoy vs. Weeden. There's a guy who's going to clearly be the starter facing off against a person with exponentially less talent.
The day that 3.3 tackles a game is considered "special" is the day that I'll admit I know nothing about football.
3.3 tackles, for a DB is pretty good. Maybe not for a MLB...but 3.3 is "highly adequate"
Being better than Usama Young does not mean he's a starter. This is the exact problem I have with most of the logic on this board. It seems like many are content to say " Well, he's better than what we had...so we're good at that position."
No, I would say that "we are better at that position"...and better is something. From my view, Kerry Rhodes may in fact be Usama Young revisitited. I would hope not. You never know. As I said, I am not opposed to getting Kerry Rhodes to provide that additional competition. I am just not as convinced as you are that Kerry Rhodes, indeed, would be an upgrade over Gipson. I think it is 50/50. If he were, fine. But I would have to see it.
More importantly....you need to convince the Browns FO/coaches that he is, enough to sign him up. If our FO doesn't go after him....after having hired his DC for the last two years, then, to me, that would be telling. It would be telling me that they don't think much of him. They, who are in a position to know.
What we had was shit. Pure, unadulterated shit. Our team has been awful for a decade. An entire decade of players that more than likely wouldn't make it on most any other team's taxi squad. Being better than the guy before you only means that you suck slightly less than he does...it's by no means a ringing endorsement.
Rhodes has been a legitimate starter for many years. That's more than most of our players can say.
You're mistakenly assuming I'm asking for any one of our safeties to be cut. I'm not. Adding Rhodes gives us 5 safeties. Rhodes and Ward starting. Gipson and Slaughter as backups. Bademosi at special teams/corner/third string. That's almost exactly what every team carries into the season: a starter, a backup, and a utility player.
Again, I personally would not object to this arrangement...if it works out that way.
3.3 tackles per game for an entire season would yield about 52 tackles on the season.
There were 41 safeties who recorded more tackles last season.
I'm sorry, but that's not "highly adequate". That's just "bad".
If we get Rhodes, I'll be happy. If we don't, I'll be upset and will firmly believe that it was a stupid non-move reminiscent of past regimes but I'll still pull for Gipson. Actually, I'm pulling hardest for Slaughter because I believe he has the most potential.
I don't want us to make moves just to make moves but I also don't want us to stand pat just to stand pat. if the move is logical and makes the team better, it should be made. There's been plenty of times this "wait and see" mentality has fucked us...many more times than it's worked out for us, actually.
-
If our DBs overall are making few tackles....to me, that is a good thing, because it means that the DL and LB are making all the tackles.
But, lets try do some comparisons here:
Gipson played 10 games, started only 3: had 23 tackles and 6 assists
U. Young played 13 games started 11: had 36 tackle and 16 assists
Hagg: played 11 games, had 4 starts: had 20 tackles and 2 assists
Free safeties that made the Pro Bowl last year:
Earl Thomas played 16 games, started 15: 60 tackles 11 assists
Dashon Goldson played 16, started 16: 53 tackle, 14 assists
Ed Reed, played 16, started 16: 49 tackles 9 assists.
Not sure how you want to measure this: by games played or only by starts? Tackles or tackles and assists.
Lets start with the sure starters:
Thomas in 16 games had 3.75 solo tackles per game. Or 4.4375 solos and assists per game.
Or 4.0 solos and 4.73 solos and assists per start.
Goldson in 16 games played and started had: 3.31 solo tackles per game, or 4.187 solos and assists per game.
Reed in 16 games played and started had: 3.06 solo tackles per game, or 3.625 solos and assists
Usama Young in 13 games and 11 starts had: 2.77 solo tackles per game, or 4.0 solos and assists per game.
Or 3.27 solos per start, or 4.72 solos and assists per start
Hagg in 11 games played and 4 starts had: 1.818 solo tackle per game. Or 2.0 solos and assists per game.
Or 5.0 solo tackle per start, and 5.5 solos and assists per start.
Gipson in 10 games and 3 starts had: 2.3 solo tackles per game. Or 2.9 solos and assists per game.
Or 7.66 solo tackles per start, or 9.666 solos and assists per start.
So, I don't know what you want to take from this. Obviously you could have a situation where Gipson appeared in only a handful of plays in a game....or maybe he only appeared on special teams, and not at all on defense.
His per start average is quite high....but I guess we would have to know count just his tackle in starts rather than in all games to figure that out. Perhaps that is where that 3.3 figure comes from because I don't see it coming from here.
-
-
Everything has fucked us.
The positions where the Browns have left open to battle ... Fullback, guard, free safety ... Even punter and kicker ... Are positions where guys can emerge from anywhere on the roster.
This is the smartest, most organized front office and coaching staff we have had in 13 years.
Maybe something good will happen.
Z
-
Safeties are being asked to tackle less and cover more. Earl Thomas is probably the perfect safety in today's league. He's a willing and capable tackler but the dude can run and cover. He's smaller and faster than the prototype of even 10 years ago.
I can imagine the front office having this discussion: Are we better in 2014 and 2015 with one of the young guys by then an experienced YOUNG veteran at FS... or starting over after Rhodes moves on after two seasons, probably not his best two seasons?
-
-
Well... kinda. The position is changing as it becomes more and more a passing league. Their Fulcher-eseque ability to step into the box as a tackler is less important than their ability to step up and cover tight ends and even slot receivers. We're seeing more and more college and even pro corners (Jammer the latest) becoming safeties because they can cover.
Two of the top 34 tacklers last year were safeties (Morgan Burnett, Roman Harper). Have to think that's unusually low. All the rest were linebackers.
-
Shep....you confuse this passing league with the no one runs the ball anymore league. There is still balance to most teams so far as run/pass ratio....
To hear you tell it, running the ball is an after thought. That's just not true. Yes, the most successful teams pass the ball well, but defending the run is still emphasized for s reason. Passing is still riskier than running, so ask sobo if any single coach in this league would chose to pass rather than run if the success rate of each was equivalent.
You completely misunderstand what "passing league" means.....
-
San Francisco actually ran that ball more than it passed.
Baltimore threw the ball 55% of the time.
It's still a balanced league. You play to your strengths but also you gave to factor in your opponents weaknesses.
-
San Francisco actually ran that ball more than it passed.
Baltimore threw the ball 55% of the time.
It's still a balanced league. You play to your strengths but also you gave to factor in your opponents weaknesses.
San Francisco actually ran that ball more than it passed.
Baltimore threw the ball 55% of the time.
It's still a balanced league. You play to your strengths but also you gave to factor in your opponents weaknesses.
And I have no doubt that this offensive coaching staff will want to be a fully balanced attack. We all know Norv Turner's history of having a balanced attack: in Dallas you had Emmitt Smith and the likes of Irvin and Harper. In San Diego he had LaDanian Tomlinson and one of the league's best passing attacks with Rivers/Gates et al.
And remember, when Chudzinski was here as OC, especially in 2007, you had Jamal Lewis gaining 1300 yards. In fact, he gained more yards that year than any Browns running back not named Jim Brown. Plus the likes of Braylon and K2 and DA had their best years here under him.
-
Generally, I don't misunderstand much of anything (!). But seriously, I do think you're misrepresenting my point a little.
- I certainly don't think the fact that it's a passing league means teams won't run the ball at all anymore. That's, well... I don't know why we'd even say that.
- Most winning teams pass the ball a ton in the first half to take a lead because that wins games, as the "analytics" have shown. Allows your defense to primarily defend the pass, blitz, etc. Somebody put up the stat that teams with winning records pass 67% of the time in the first half.
- Don't get too hung up on the pass/run ratio. The RO is going to throw that off for one thing. For another, teams that take a lead are going to run the ball a lot more in the second half. The run now exists in service to the passing game.
- VERY few teams (if any) are really running the ball to win football games. That's done with the pass and the pass rush. Teams will run the ball just to show it, if you know what I mean. To prevent defenses from pinning back their ears. The Packers just drafted two of the better college running backs because they know they have to improve in that area. They did NOT draft either in round one, which few of the top teams would do anymore.
- The marginalizing of RBs in the draft and in free agency absolutely is part of the NFL becoming a passing league. It's virtually impossible for a team to draft a really good running back and build an offense around him. The best of our generation (Adrian Peterson) has played in the same number of Super Bowls as Eric Dickerson (0) because they didn't play behind a Pro Bowl (or eventual HOF) passer. Peterson's prime years are running out so he really needs Ponder to take the next step.
Although Ponder lacks a cannon, I do like him a lot. He's nimble, has a quick, compact release, is accurate, and has a little more arm than given credit for. More than Dalton. He also blew the doors off the Wonderlic and is crazy smart.
- It's true that coverage is becoming more important at safety than run support. It's true that 3-4 ILBs are getting smaller and quicker because EVERY down is a passing down and even in a base formation you need guys on defense who can cover a pretty fast TE. Robertson fits perfectly.
Offenses are obviously evolving (more receivers, less interest in a "fullback," spread formations, 12s with two TEs in slot, the RO, less and less focus on running the ball, especially early)... and defenses are reacting with multiple pass rushers including inside (like Watt, ILBs who can blitz), smaller/quicker linebackers, and safeties who can cover.
But no: I'm not "misunderstanding" anything!
-
By the way, SF and Baltimore in the Super Bowl (the latter about as predictable as blood rain) did seem to represent a return of "balance." But remember that in the previous 5 Super Bowls, the 10 teams averaged a ranking of 23rd in rushing the football. The best teams didn't run the ball very well, including the champions.
Also recall that SF's team passer rating was 104.0 (between Smith and Kaep). And Flacco was the #1 passer in the post-season, also over 100. And SF's run/pass ratio is thrown off a ton by their RO.
AND... Baltimore was a freak champ. They were in the top 10 in zero categories and lost 4 of their last 5.
As the playoffs showed, Baltimore is now going to be like everybody else: About as good as their QB.
-
By the way, SF and Baltimore in the Super Bowl (the latter about as predictable as blood rain) did seem to represent a return of "balance." But remember that in the previous 5 Super Bowls, the 10 teams averaged a ranking of 23rd in rushing the football. The best teams didn't run the ball very well, including the champions.
Also recall that SF's team passer rating was 104.0 (between Smith and Kaep). And Flacco was the #1 passer in the post-season, also over 100. And SF's run/pass ratio is thrown off a ton by their RO.
AND... Baltimore was a freak champ. They were in the top 10 in zero categories and lost 4 of their last 5.
As the playoffs showed, Baltimore is now going to be like everybody else: About as good as their QB.
By the way, SF and Baltimore in the Super Bowl (the latter about as predictable as blood rain) did seem to represent a return of "balance." But remember that in the previous 5 Super Bowls, the 10 teams averaged a ranking of 23rd in rushing the football. The best teams didn't run the ball very well, including the champions.
Also recall that SF's team passer rating was 104.0 (between Smith and Kaep). And Flacco was the #1 passer in the post-season, also over 100. And SF's run/pass ratio is thrown off a ton by their RO.
AND... Baltimore was a freak champ. They were in the top 10 in zero categories and lost 4 of their last 5.
As the playoffs showed, Baltimore is now going to be like everybody else: About as good as their QB.
Like having a hot goalie in hockey. I think like the 8th seeded LA Kings won the Cup because their goalie got hot. The Scavengers won because they got hot....which includes their QB.
You play that NFL tournament 100 times, and Baltimore maybe wins 5 times. Denver, New England, Green Bay, Atlanta etc. all probably win more
-
Gip, I couldn't agree more. In a me-too league, nobody's gonna model themselves after last year's Ravens! "Hey, let's not be terribly good at any one thing, let's look downright shitty down the stretch... and then have our QB get crazy hot in the playoffs and win this damn thing!"
The Packers ALMOST have it down to a science... but they found out you can't totally suck ass on defense (as they did in 2011)... or have a complete inability to run the football (as they've had for three years except for the championship run with somebody named James Starks). You don't have to run it great... few top teams do... but you have to be credible.
Consistency at the top, especially head coach... one of the league's top quarterbacks... and a pass rush. That's how you win. But if Clay Matthews gets dinged and has a down year and you can't run AT ALL? Not so much.
The NFC has more good teams (and players) right now... but the Denver Broncos seem so close to perfect. Peyton Manning, truly great left tackle, terrific receivers, can run the ball well enough, and they can really get after the passer. Bam.
-
Gip, I couldn't agree more. In a me-too league, nobody's gonna model themselves after last year's Ravens! "Hey, let's not be terribly good at any one thing, let's look downright shitty down the stretch... and then have our QB get crazy hot in the playoffs and win this damn thing!"
The Packers ALMOST have it down to a science... but they found out you can't totally suck ass on defense (as they did in 2011)... or have a complete inability to run the football (as they've had for three years except for the championship run with somebody named James Starks). You don't have to run it great... few top teams do... but you have to be credible.
Consistency at the top, especially head coach... one of the league's top quarterbacks... and a pass rush. That's how you win. But if Clay Matthews gets dinged and has a down year and you can't run AT ALL? Not so much.
The NFC has more good teams (and players) right now... but the Denver Broncos seem so close to perfect. Peyton Manning, truly great left tackle, terrific receivers, can run the ball well enough, and they can really get after the passer. Bam.
Gip, I couldn't agree more. In a me-too league, nobody's gonna model themselves after last year's Ravens! "Hey, let's not be terribly good at any one thing, let's look downright shitty down the stretch... and then have our QB get crazy hot in the playoffs and win this damn thing!"
The Packers ALMOST have it down to a science... but they found out you can't totally suck ass on defense (as they did in 2011)... or have a complete inability to run the football (as they've had for three years except for the championship run with somebody named James Starks). You don't have to run it great... few top teams do... but you have to be credible.
Consistency at the top, especially head coach... one of the league's top quarterbacks... and a pass rush. That's how you win. But if Clay Matthews gets dinged and has a down year and you can't run AT ALL? Not so much.
The NFC has more good teams (and players) right now... but the Denver Broncos seem so close to perfect. Peyton Manning, truly great left tackle, terrific receivers, can run the ball well enough, and they can really get after the passer. Bam.
Though, losing Dumerville to the purple pukers could hurt Denver a little.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login