"It's a passing league"
-
There were only two teams in the league who ran the ball more than they threw it this year. ...you're watching them play against each other right now.
Has the league turned to passing? Yep. Does that guarantee success? Nope. Is there still some merit to a running game? Yep.
-
This game is VERY intense defensively but the offense looks AWFUL!
Give me Brady vs Manning anyday
-
Zombo said:
Manning will eat the offspring of the winner of this game.
Z
If he has time to throw. The niners have been in the backfield all night
-
Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning."
What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work.
If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up.
-
Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning."
What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work.
If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up.
Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning."
What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work.
If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up.
It's going to be awfully cold at the Superbowl, I wouldn't be surprised if Peyton lost to the 9er/seahawk D.
-
Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning."
What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work.
If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up.
Okay, see, this is the problem. Yes, it would be nice to have a Peyton Manning (or a Drew Brees, or a Tom Brady). No one is arguing that. What I oppose is this mindset of "Well, you need a Peyton Manning to win, and we don't have one, so I guess we should just sit here on our hands and keep trying QBs until we finally get a Peyton Manning."
What I'm trying to point out is that there are alternatives for teams who do not have one of those guys. I'm not saying Cleveland doesn't need a QB. Obviously, they do. But this "tons of passing is the only way" mentality really limits the potential for any kind of success. The "it's a passing league" people insist that tons of passing is the ONLY way. I'm not against passing if you have a team that can pass and win games passing. What I am against is losing leads late in the game over and over and over again because you insist on throwing the ball more than anyone else in the league and you don't have the players who can make that work.
If a Peyton Manning doesn't present himself,... find another way to win. It IS possible. Are you going to beat Manning in the Superbowl? Maybe not, but let's be in the Superbowl and figuring that out instead of at home waiting for a Peyton Manning to show up.
You see I take that statement kind of beyond face value. When I say it's a passing league, I mean that you have to have a franchise QB in order to make it far. Part of being a franchise QB is obviously being able to throw like the guys who were in the playoffs this year. Like I said in another thread, the commonality of every good, winning team in the NFL is having a franchise QB.
-
There were only two teams in the league who ran the ball more than they threw it this year. ...you're watching them play against each other right now.
Has the league turned to passing? Yep. Does that guarantee success? Nope. Is there still some merit to a running game? Yep.
There were only two teams in the league who ran the ball more than they threw it this year. ...you're watching them play against each other right now.
Has the league turned to passing? Yep. Does that guarantee success? Nope. Is there still some merit to a running game? Yep.
And then, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the other game featured two of the greatest QB's to play the game.
There's no one way to win a game. But having a franchise QB helps.
-
I've said it before, the run game helps passing game....what's more successful, an offense which keeps the D honest, or one that looks at the opposing DC and says "we're going to throw the ball now and forever"? the 'run vs. pass' argument is Retarded.
-
@mike-h said:
Ok, then why take a receiver at No. 4.... To improve the passing game?
Like JRB said, without a franchise QB who can minimize mistakes and make big plays when needed... Forget about the rest.
Because the chances of Bridgewater/manziel/bortles being a franchise QB aren't clear cut. And we have Brian hoyer, which some people are still kinda high on.
-
@mike-h said:
Not sure you understood my point. But I'll play along.
So, the guy who had two decent starts, who was sent packing by four teams, has a better shot than the top 3 cfb prospects in this years draft?
Man, Vegas really loves guys like you.
Hey, the guy with 2 good starts beats the guy with 0.
I'm not high on any of the top 3 prospects. I am a Mariota fan but you know how that went.
There's been multiple drafts where the top 3 QB prospects have been below average - average.
-
@mike-h said:
Ok, then why take a receiver at No. 4.... To improve the passing game?
Like JRB said, without a franchise QB who can minimize mistakes and make big plays when needed... Forget about the rest.
Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either.
-
@mike-h said:
Ok, then why take a receiver at No. 4.... To improve the passing game?
Like JRB said, without a franchise QB who can minimize mistakes and make big plays when needed... Forget about the rest.
Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either.
Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either.
This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you.
Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers.
Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team.
The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter.
There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback.
There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl.
If that doesn't do it for you, try this:
Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason.
Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason.
Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason.
Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18.
Or how about this:
2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason.
2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason.
All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today.
The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either.
This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you.
Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers.
Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team.
The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter.
There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback.
There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl.
If that doesn't do it for you, try this:
Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason.
Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason.
Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason.
Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18.
Or how about this:
2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason.
2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason.
All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today.
The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
Or how about this:
2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason.
2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason.
All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today.
The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
I've been saying this for months on here and it's amazing how many people don't get it. It's such common sense yet people refuse to believe it.
-
We need to draft a QB first, no doubt.
-
@mike-h said:
How good was Seattle before Wilson? They hard Lynch. Were talking Super Bowls, not winning eight games a year.
Not arguing running isnt important, that's fucking Retarded and not the point.
You mean Flynn?
-
Yeah, that''s why we should draft one of the iffy qbs with the #4 overall. San Fran and the 'Hawks didn't. Guess the Patriots didn't either.
This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you.
Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers.
Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team.
The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter.
There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback.
There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl.
If that doesn't do it for you, try this:
Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason.
Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason.
Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason.
Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18.
Or how about this:
2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason.
2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason.
All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today.
The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
The Watkins/Clowney thing is more about drafting BPA. And those BPAs happen to be at positions of need too.This talk about Watkins and Clowney is horseshit. Shut up, all of you.
Wasting a top five draft pick on a #2 WR isn't going to instantly improve this team. Ask Matt Millen how well his teams did with multiple first round receivers.
Wasting a top five pick on a DE that we'll probably end up eventually converting to OLB (for the second year in a row) isn't going to instantly improve this team.
The Seahawks have a first round safety and a first round DE/OLB, just like we do. Their best defensive player is a fifth round corner. There's no supreme talent deficit between our defense and their defense. They're not loaded with first round players across the board, they just play better football than us. If anything, we have higher average ADP among our defensive starters than they do. We can add 11 first round picks to our defense but, without a smart DC and some continuity, it won't matter.
There wasn't a single top five draft pick wide receiver on the field today. The highest drafted receiver of the entire bunch had the opportunity to send his team to the Super Bowl and he was promptly shut down by the aforementioned fifth round cornerback.
There was, however, a top five quarterback on the field today. And he's going to the Super Bowl.
If that doesn't do it for you, try this:
Only 2 of the top 7 WR's this season (yards) made it to the postseason.
Only 2 of the top 7 DE's (tackles) made it to the postseason.
Only 3 of the top 7 DE's (sacks) made it to the postseason.
Yet 5 of the top 7 QB's were still playing in Week 18.
Or how about this:
2 of the 9 Pro Bowl receivers made it to the postseason.
2 of the 6 Pro Bowl DE's made it to the postseason.
All 6 Pro Bowl QB's made the postseason. Further, all 6 made it past the Wild Card round. Three of them played today.
The Watkins/Clowney argument holds no water.
You want to see the postseason? Get a franchise QB. Plain and simple.
Don't worry tho, I think Lombardi is 100% on the "do whatever it takes to get manziel and let other teams fool us into trading up for him" bandwagon.
-
@mike-h said:
No, I mean they had Lynch running the ball, but had a shit sandwich at QB.
Saying passing or running is more important is a useless waste of typing or speaking. To win football you need to be able to do everything well.
Check.
While I am rooting for Seattle, I do detect from yesterday that their passing game is not first rate, though their defense and run game are.
Russell made a few good plays, and it was enough to beat San Fran at home......but I don't know if it will be enough to be Peyton Manning on a neutral field.
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