if you could get 2 Pro-Bowl Corners, or 2 Pro-Bowl Linebackers, or 2 Pro-Bowl Defensive Linemen, which position would you rahter overload on.
or to give you a better visual
Richard Seymour / Marcus Stroud
or
Shawne Merriman / Ray Lewis
or
Champ Bailey / DeAngelo Hall
it is pretty easy for me, i would want a legit Pro-Bowl DT and a legit Pro-Bowl DE.
DB or LB or DL
-
Next Coming
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 18,956
- And1: 1,625
- Joined: Aug 17, 2004
- Location: War Room
-
Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
Depends on the defense I'm running. If it's something like the Pats run, I'm taking the two LBs.
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
Fatty
- Head Coach
- Posts: 7,495
- And1: 11
- Joined: Jan 02, 2005
- Contact:
-
Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
Fatty wrote:DL no matter the system.
Wholeheartedly disagree; there are quite a few teams that have great defenses with merely competent defensive linemen. Heck, look at how well the Pats did in Seymour
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
J.Kim
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 10,689
- And1: 23
- Joined: Jan 12, 2003
- Location: Washington D.C.
Yeah, but there's not enough coaches who can effectively teach that kind of scheme.
I'll take the DLs because the defensive scheme is much more simpler and easier to build around a DL-based defense than a LB-based defense.
That and the IMO, the Patriots work so well because Wilfork and the D-Line are monsters... but you know the Pats better than I do, so I'll leave that one to you.
I'll take the DLs because the defensive scheme is much more simpler and easier to build around a DL-based defense than a LB-based defense.
That and the IMO, the Patriots work so well because Wilfork and the D-Line are monsters... but you know the Pats better than I do, so I'll leave that one to you.
-
Harry10
- Banned User
- Posts: 8,784
- And1: 1
- Joined: Jun 16, 2002
Basketball Jesus wrote:Depends on the defense I'm running. If it's something like the Pats run, I'm taking the two LBs.
well you are the coach and the gm, and can pick the players and system, you just have to win.
so which position would you rather overload on.
but i agree with everyone else on this board, you are wrong, DL no matter what system, even if it was a 3-4, you are still going to have 2 double teams on the OL and that means the other non-pro-bowl DL is getting single coverage and the LBs are free to rome, and make the LBs and S look better than they really are.
-
Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
but i agree with everyone else on this board, you are wrong, DL no matter what system,
I didn't know subjective opinions could be wrong, but w/e. You seem to know the answers to your own questions.
You guys can have the DLs, I
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
studcrackers
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 52,226
- And1: 6,100
- Joined: Oct 31, 2004
- Location: Getting hit in the head
-
where is that quote from your sig bbj? link me to that
and i agree with bbj, if im running a 3-4 i want the linebacker. take the cowboys, the dlineman are very average for the most part but demarcus ware and greg ellis make that defense go b/c they're so good at pass rushing (ware's amazing at everything though)
and i agree with bbj, if im running a 3-4 i want the linebacker. take the cowboys, the dlineman are very average for the most part but demarcus ware and greg ellis make that defense go b/c they're so good at pass rushing (ware's amazing at everything though)
Jugs wrote: I saw two buttholes
-
NO-KG-AI
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 43,071
- And1: 18,192
- Joined: Jul 19, 2005
- Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets
-
Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
J.Kim wrote:How would you be so sure? The NFL (through its HoF), and the media tend to be biased, to favor the none-Line of Scrimmage based players, and slight those Line of Scrimmage players quite a lot. There's no sure-fire way to measure the worth of one unit versus the other. Perhaps a player like Lawrence Taylor was so good only because the Defensive Linemen on the Giants played so well (although this is definitely not the case. Just a hypothetical)
This is true, but then again by playing this logical question, you
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
studcrackers wrote:where is that quote from your sig bbj? link me to that
No can do from work. Go to The Dugout and click on the Aubrey Huff one. Then click on the link to his interview with some radio host.
and i agree with bbj, if im running a 3-4 i want the linebacker. take the cowboys, the dlineman are very average for the most part but demarcus ware and greg ellis make that defense go b/c they're so good at pass rushing (ware's amazing at everything though)
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
Next Coming
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 18,956
- And1: 1,625
- Joined: Aug 17, 2004
- Location: War Room
-
J.Kim
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 10,689
- And1: 23
- Joined: Jan 12, 2003
- Location: Washington D.C.
Gilbert0Arenas wrote:Quick name two players on the Skins defensive line.
Yeah exactly. An elite secondary can do wonders for a defense. Much harder to find great defensive backs as opposed to defensive lineman. Some of the best defensive ends in the leagues were mid round picks.
What does not being able to name two of the Redskins' D-Linemen have to do anything with having two pro-bowlers on the D-Line?
BTW, Andre Carter and Cornelius Griffin.
It's not THAT hard to name two of them...
-
Wizards2Lottery
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,317
- And1: 26
- Joined: Jun 25, 2006
- Location: All aboard the TANK
J.Kim wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
What does not being able to name two of the Redskins' D-Linemen have to do anything with having two pro-bowlers on the D-Line?
BTW, Andre Carter and Cornelius Griffin.
It's not THAT hard to name two of them...
Because it proves that you don't need an elite defensive line to be dominant. Most QB's get the ball out of there hands within 2-4 seconds regardless of pressure or not.
Having a shutdown corner allows you to run much more variations in a defense than having a Pro bowl defensive end. Besides that, elite secondary players are much more consistent than defensive ends. Theres only a few defensive lineman in the game who bring it every game.
-
NO-KG-AI
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 43,071
- And1: 18,192
- Joined: Jul 19, 2005
- Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets
Just because it's harder to find them doesn't mean they are more valuable.
The Patriots have 3 superbowls, and it seems like for most of the seasons there secondary is decimated with injuries.
The Patriots have 3 superbowls, and it seems like for most of the seasons there secondary is decimated with injuries.
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
-
Icness
- NFL Analyst
- Posts: 16,964
- And1: 129
- Joined: Apr 30, 2001
- Location: Back in the 616
- Contact:
-
If I could get Shaun Rogers and Tommie Harris on my DL together, I could have the crap the Bengals call LBs and still have a dominant defense. I'm a 4-3 guy though. Give those two to Dick Lebeau, or BBJ, and they're gonna need a lot of help.
I believe the key to defense is controlling the middle of the field, from the LOS all the way to as far as the QB can chuck it. If you can control the run between the tackles, get pressure on the QB up the gut, and keep WRs from doing damage while crossing the middle and running seams/posts, you're going to have a very good defense. You can do it with DL or LB--play to the strengths of your talent.
As far as lockdown CBs, I see them more as a luxury than a necessity. Look at New England--Samuel is a pretty good cover CB, but for most of their recent run they've had subpar CBs and still done quite well. Indy swaps CBs like Hugh Hefner swaps hotties and their pass D is always better than their run D.
I believe the key to defense is controlling the middle of the field, from the LOS all the way to as far as the QB can chuck it. If you can control the run between the tackles, get pressure on the QB up the gut, and keep WRs from doing damage while crossing the middle and running seams/posts, you're going to have a very good defense. You can do it with DL or LB--play to the strengths of your talent.
As far as lockdown CBs, I see them more as a luxury than a necessity. Look at New England--Samuel is a pretty good cover CB, but for most of their recent run they've had subpar CBs and still done quite well. Indy swaps CBs like Hugh Hefner swaps hotties and their pass D is always better than their run D.