This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
'GroveDiesel said:
nep 45den 10top:nep 26:37den 33:23to the op --- yes, I would imagine next year gb and no would prefer to have a good defense rather than a bad defense.And his answer was phrased as a statement. That's usually how these things work.The league is spread thin in the modern era. Even if all the GM's do their jobs well, you're still not going to have a league full of balanced teams. Some are going to skew towards O, some towards D. Some towards run, some towards pass. Some towards quick-strike, some towards ball control.It's the teams that build their teams well for any of these styles, AND gameplan effectively, week-in/week-out in ways that successfully emphasize these styles, that will find success. Been that way for ages now. That's how you get titles for both the Trent Dilfer Ravens and the Greatest Show on Turf. Build, scheme, execute.Coaches who try to play Parcellsball, no matter who they have on their rosters, fail in this era.'pittstownkiller said:
I've seen this argument ("they were ahead so much teams had no choice but to pass most of the game") used several times this year and I don't think it is a good one. The effect of facing more passes is only enough to nudge one's results, it isn't enough to make a good defense look bad.2011'David Yudkin said:
I don't think that it is necessarily a conscious decision to try to build a great passing offense at the expense of everything else. There is a little bit of "we have a QB who is a differentiator so let's give him the tools to get the most out of him we can", yes. But look at the Pats as an example. They haven't neglected the defensive side of the ball, or the running game, for the passing game. They have just made poor personnel decisions on the defensive side, while more of their offensive personnel decisions have worked out. First four draft picks... 2007 4 of first 5 picks are defense. 2008, three straight defensive picks and 4 out of 5 are defense. 2009, first 3 players taken are defense. 2010, 3 of first 4 are defense (other is Gronk with a 2nd round pick). 2011, only one defensive player taken in first few rounds, but they also took a tackle and 2 RBs to address the running game.To me, those aren't the moves of a team who tried to end up with the pass-heavy team that the 2011 Pats ended up being. I think there is a difference between the media noticing that great passing offenses tend to do well, versus whether teams built those at the expense of other positions.'pittstownkiller said:
To me one-dimensional relates to a pass-first offense; everything else suffers in these cases.
I am smart enough to know when a dig is thrown my way, now whether it is intentional or unintentional, is irrelevant. I am not a prisoner of the moment nor am I having a knee-jerk reaction; I am watching teams that have put all their eggs in the passing game basket, fail and was wondering what will come of it. NEP were a whole lot more dominant when they had a nasty defense, then they have been when Brady is slinging the ball to Welker 20 times a game. Besides his one Ram team, Martz has had very limited success in the NFL. Parcell's system, which is straight out of the Shula-Landry-Lombardi mold, has proven itself to be a very solid way to build a football team. Even Walsh's WCO is not based on putting the ball 50 yards in the air but primarily on short crossing routes. The carelessness with the football, which is an extension of running risky plays, has come back to burn these explosive offenses; something will give. How much better of a passing offense can NOR or GNB build? NOR should be embarrassed losing to Alex Smith and either NYG of SFO will lose Sunday and the team that lost to this games, is going to be even farther down in its failure.
Packers defense does not go dime all that often.They mostly run a nickel, but not because they are forced to...because they chose to (to keep Woodson in there as a 3rd CB).Their defense in 2010 was very very good...they were not built to play like they did this year...it just sort of...happened.
Would you say that in 2010 GNB was more balanced on offense with A. Green handling the running game?
I think they were about the same, their passing was just more lights out this season. Running numbers were not much different.Then again, they were running out there with Brandon Jackson and Kuhn last year for most of the season.Green was not on the team in 2010.Id love old school in his prime Ahman though...power, speed, and great hands.
Parcells' BCO makes a valiant return.
Most of the lobsided teams had issues defensively. IMO, if they don't make huge strides to improve defensively they will again be extra pass happy. If they did make some defensive improvements, then they will only be pass happy.New England still is defensively challenged and lost their only proven RB.Green Bay added Benson, but 32 teams let him sit as a free agent for months. I personally don't view him as an uber talented back. The defense might be a little better, but I don't think they will be great.Detroit struggled to filed a healthy RB each week last year. This year they again have RB issues.The Saints ALWAYS pass a ton. IMO, they will be the 2011 version of the 2007 Pats . . . mad at the league and looking for retribution.The only team that I see going back much closer to normal is the Giants. They won't have the worst running game in the league again and I doubt their defense is so bad (that was mostly dur to a flood of injuries).
I don't see them adding that many carries just with Benson on hand.He won't see more than 20 carries a game...and likely more in the 15-20 range.Basically just more of him vs. using 3 or so guys at a time.Green as a change of pace and Kuhn to get a few here and there.
I think we have seen 2 good/great defenses against the packers that play 2 safeties deep and tackle well. Bears have always limited the deep ball vs Rodgers.
