Printable View
It was an ok game. The steelers looked good, the saints looked bad. I liked Collinsworth announcing. He didn't pull any punches. I actually agreed with him on Vick, retired players grievances, Al Davis, and a few other comments. It was a fake game, but at least it was football. I'm not sure why I cheer on players that probably won't make the roster. Why don't we have 2 preseason games, and 18 regular season games?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfNoob
Yeah, nobody likes preseason games. The coaches are saving most of their playbook for later, and preseason injuries are the worst. I'd like to see fewer preseason games myself.
Agree. Take away 2 preseason games and add a regular season game :DQuote:
Originally Posted by r'aggro
Coming from the city that houses the previous superbowl champions...
I wouldn't say the Colts winning SuperBowl was a fluke. They stepped their game up, and time after time they kept delivering. Yea the run defense sucked a huge one, but they pressed past it and proved everyone wrong (what a crazy superbowl anyway, especially the opening kickoff lol).... do I see them repeating? No. Do I see them wininng in the future... possibly.
I don't care!
I JUST WANT FOOTBALL BACK ON TV. ITS THE ONLY TIME I CAN WATCH SPORTS, EAT PIZZA, AND DRINK BEER ALL WHILE BEING W/ MY G/F AND HER NOT COMPLAINING!!!!
/rant LOL
There was a preseason game on today?
The Steelers and Saints *sort of* played a game yesterday.
No team has ever won the SB with a run defence as bad as the Colts.Quote:
I wouldn't say the Colts winning SuperBowl was a fluke.
That sounds like an extreme fluke to me. And the only thing that will change my mind on that is if winning the SB with a bad run defence starts becoming the norm... not a onetime occurence. And I just don't see that happening anytime soon.
i watched some, was slow and weak aside from the worthlessberger bomb to wilson.... reggie bush still isn't adjusted to nfl speed, he does this super quick side to side head juke then gets stuffed, no power... all speed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
But they only made the playoffs with a bad run D, in the playoffs their run D was excellent. So its not really like they won a superbowl with bad run D. Their D just peaked at the right time, for whatever reason.
OK...Quote:
Originally Posted by md1198p
Specifically...
No team with a run defence like Indy had during the regular season has ever won the SB.
Yes they happened to play well at the right time.
Was their run defence in the playoffs indicative of their run defence being dominating overall? I think not.
My bet is that their run defence will suck again this year.
Moot point though... they were good for exactly four games... and in the end that's all that matters.
But it is a statistical anomaly... any way that you slice or dice it. And my money is on it won't happen again. And history is on my side.
I hate the defense wins championships theory. Its BALANCE that wins championships. You still need to score points to win a game, and you can just as easily play great defense and be defeated 10 to 3.also, I honestly feel pass defense in more important in todays NFL than run defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spank_Me_Hard
This past Superbowl was 2 one dimensional teams, a great offense against great defense. We saw what happened. The offense prevailed. I think thats it was just a matter of Indy's wekaness not being as great as the Bears. There defense was not as bad and the bears offense was.
I do believe it is going to be a growing trend. I like smashmouth football as much as the next fan, but as players keep getting faster and offenses more complicated, "hybrid" type players such as receivers that weigh almost as much as linebackers, running backs that run routes and catch like receivers, and tight ends that run like antalopes, the league will continue to be change into a passing one.
So the running game will be less important? I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Look at the eagles the past few years with the ratio of pass to run plays. Save for last year when westbrook got more carries since
mcnabb was gone. It hasn't worked out for them. I think Andy Reid has brainwashed you, the short pass is not the same as running the ball. Stud receiving tight ends and rb's that can catch out of the backfield are not new.
Just 2 years ago the steelers won the SB by being a running team.
The run game controls the clock, wears down the d, and sets up the pass. As the pass sets up the run.
Running for the offense will still be important, but it seems to me teams with big passing offenses are winning more and more often. You still need to be able to run and not be predictable but you need to be able to put points up, and be able to score quickly when needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PriMaTe
The Steeler did win by running, just as the Patriots and Colts have won by passing. Not that either team cannot run the ball, but they are pass first offenses.
A lot of teams now build their defense to just slow the opposing offense down and not give up big plays. The colts seem to be along these lines, they know they are gonna score a lot, and all they need to do is keep the other team from matching them. Once you are up by a lot, the other team has to somewhat abandon the run and run defense becomes a moot point.
Reid has not rubbed off on me, I completely disagree with his playcalling, the guy is a genius drawing up plays but cannot call a game for his life. I am very glad Morningwig(sp?) will be calling the plays this year like he did the second half of last year. I do not think teams should just abandon the run offensively, my arguement was that a team not good at stopping the run cannot win. I think in the right circumstances it could happen again.
coughQuote:
Originally Posted by PriMaTe
Well, they got to the SB by being a running team, anyway.;)
To an extent, I agree.Quote:
I hate the defense wins championships theory.
Most teams that have won the SB historically though have had a good defence (both against the run AND the pass).
There have been a few exceptions... the Rams and the Broncos come to mind.
I didn't think that either of those teams defences were that good. But their offenses were SO dominating that they got up on other teams so quickly... that they forced other teams out of their gameplans and forced them to basically abandon the run.
Still... though I didn't think that there defences were "good", they were good enough. And they were much better than what I think that the Colts have. I don't think that their run defence was anywhere near as porous as the Colts was last season.
And a good running, ball control, possession team can keep the ball out of a dominating offences hands. The Giants vs. the Bills back in 1991 is an excellent example of this.
I fully agree with this statement. Balance is more the key. And the Colts don't have it.Quote:
Its BALANCE that wins championships.
And yet even so... there are a few exceptions here as well.
The Ravens of a few years ago, and the aforementioned Giants come to mind. Both had VERY average offenses. But they were also ball control offences as well... they could run the ball consistently for 4 yards per pop.
Well... the game didn't really show this... but I think that the Bears offence is way better than the Colts defence. I think that if you replay that game a few times... that the Bears win it more than they lose it.Quote:
This past Superbowl was 2 one dimensional teams, a great offense against great defense. We saw what happened. The offense prevailed.
And I also think that the Bears had a key injury (Tommy Harris - DT) that hurt their defence much more than any injuries that the Colts had on offence. Tommy Harris was a TERROR last year... he made the defence dominant. He was the straw that stirred the drink. And got a lot less credit for the Bears defence than he deserved.
Urlacher is an awesome linebacker... but I think he gets most of the glory where Harris did a lot to collapse the pocket and keep blockers off of Urlacher.
Who knows what difference that Harris may have made had he played (both Colt RBs had a pretty good day running the ball). But we'll never know... we can only speculate.
This is all true... but only to a point.Quote:
but as players keep getting faster and offenses more complicated, "hybrid" type players such as receivers that weigh almost as much as linebackers, running backs that run routes and catch like receivers, and tight ends that run like antalopes, the league will continue to be change into a passing one.
There are players historically who fit these descriptions to a T.
Pass catching RBs... Roger Craig, Marshall Faulk, Ronnie Harmon, Larry Centers.
Fast TEs... Shannon Sharpe, Keith Jackson
Large WRs... Cris Carter, Keyshawn Johnson
There may be more of these type players than ever before... but there have been plenty of good exmaples of these players historically.