Printable View
Agree 100%. I even take that to the offensive side of the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by monroeski
A great line can produce huge rushing yard without a great running back. A great running back can't do anything without a good line.
I would rather have the best offensive line in football than the best running back in football.
I disagree to a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by monroeski
There are a few examples of either that come to mind... not always in the NOW era (I'm thinking back to a few in the late 80's)... but a few exceptions to that rule.
Generally true... but not always.
This really only affects the safeties and not the corners. The corners first and primary reponsibility is the pass... period. Safeties can be brought up to support vs. the run... but even then their primary responsibility is the pass... it's just that they may be out of position being brought up to help out vs. the run.Quote:
Originally Posted by monroeski
Even when corners are brought up... you can still provide good pass coverage if you have good "bump and run" corners. And corners can be brought up when the space behind them is restricted (i.e. the back of the endzone).
So I agree here as well... but also only to a point here as well. Supporting vs. the run only affects part of the secondary more than the other.
If you don't have a pass rush, your corners are going to be out maneuvered eventually. The wide receiver's primary advantage is that he knows where he's supposed to be going; even the best coverage can only last, what, 4-6 seconds at the longest? Without a pass rush the whole thing is a mess.
Look at Indy; they've made some seriously weak corners look pretty passable.
You can take that both ways... A good secondary that results in more "coverage" sacks.
Eventually a D-lineman is also going to break free in on the QB.
Generally speaking, I'd feel much more comfortable with a good pass rush than good coverage. But there are exceptions.
Speaking from the perspective of a fan of a team without either good coverage OR a good pass rush, I'd rather pay the money for the pass rush; I see a lot more less-than-great corners play well in spot duty than I see less-than-great DL or LB play. I think you can fake having good corners; you have to actually have a good line.
Look no further than Deangelo Hall. He is indeed a burner, but that doesn't make you a good football player.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abarine
And he just got paid right? The NFL is screwy.
He got paid by the Raiders...the money all spends the same, of course, but you can earn it very differently.
and tis of vick?Quote:
Originally Posted by spamjedi
what does the NFL and in specific terms, Atlanta do? they ripped up his contract? or they have to pay the money in guranatee's?
indeed he shouldnt get his signing bonus money, and thus DeAngelo Hall, runs fast and thats about it, lol, they dont pay Olympians ><
a under-paid player imo are defensive linemen in the 2-3rd tiers, those who play the run plugs etc, they dont earn very much ive seen (thanks from madden i got 6x DT's over 350lbs with 90+ strength...no NFL team would have that because of the cash youd spend...)
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...o&confirm=true
best news all off season. Gumble is not commentating anymore.
1 stupid commentator down, every other commentator to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by rabidmoose171
And because in the real world you need more than just fat strong guys on your line.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajwest
'Cept for Madden. He is sheer genius!Quote:
Originally Posted by [PinPals]Apu
:D
I am also glad Gumbel is gone. Now just get rid of kornhusker and I'll be much happier. At least Dennis Miller was funny.
Look at what the Broncos have TRIED to do in the past years, build a great CB/S position and then work on the rest. Problem is, we forgot about the front 4 on both sides of the ball. Injuries screwed us and now we are left with crap other than our CB's, which can do nothing great since the rest of our team has no heart or enthusiasm to win for the team.