good defenses need at least ONE of the following

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsareNumberone. Show PatsareNumberone's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    You guys need to quit arguing with Nick C. Didn't he tell you he played High School Football? He's the only one that truly understands the game here. I love it when guys throw out eronious terms like- 3rd best of his era or top 10 of his generation as if you can actually prove it. LMAO
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : The Patriots may have not have had elite players on defense during the superbowl wins, but they were far better than the players they have now.
    Posted by Grogan77[/QUOTE]

    Agreed
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : No That's why BB let Ty Law go, because he was elite-yeah right LBs were not the deepest. They had talent Point is during the SB years BB built a team, that had talent and worked as a team. there were no elite players on defense.
    Posted by kansaspatriot[/QUOTE]

    If you don't think that Ty Law was one of the top 5 corners of his time, you just don't know football.  Yes, the Patriots let him go, but if this is your only disqualifier for an elite player, I lose respect for your opinion

    I'm sure you think that Randy Moss is a chump, too.  Guy only got 900 receptions for 12,000++ yards and 150 touchdowns.  Middle of the pack guy, just like Ty Law
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : If you don't think that Ty Law was one of the top 5 corners of his time, you just don't know football.  Yes, the Patriots let him go, but if this is your only disqualifier for an elite player, I lose respect for your opinion I'm sure you think that Randy Moss is a chump, too.  Guy only got 900 receptions for 12,000++ yards and 150 touchdowns.  Middle of the pack guy, just like Ty Law
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    In regards to Moss, now that's an elite player. From start to finish last year with the Patriots.

    Ty Law, I think he was exceptional, not elite

    http://www.nfl.com/player/tylaw/2501705/careerstats
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : In regards to Moss, now that's an elite player. From start to finish last year with the Patriots. Ty Law, I think he was exceptional, not elite http://www.nfl.com/player/tylaw/2501705/careerstats
    Posted by kansaspatriot[/QUOTE]

    okay, he's not Deion Sanders or Darrelle Revis. Point being I'd have still taken Law in his prime over 99% of all other cornerbacks.  He was a shutdown corner.  Just ask Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison

    Anyhow, I think we agree on Law being one of the best corners, but not the best ever.  I didn't say the CB needs to be the best ever, just a shutdown corner who takes out the #1 receiver.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following :   I think we agree on Law being one of the best corners, but not the best ever. Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    oh yeah, most definetly bro. I agree
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]I agree with some points but you lost credibility when you said Ras-I has been "incredibly disappointing" Steelers have the pass rush and the safety but they still got shredded by a good QB in aaron rodgers and Joe Flacco week 1. Ravens D is good but they got shredded by a terrible Matt hasselbeck week 2. jets D is good except for allowing the Raiders to run wild on them. No defense this year has been spectacular so saying our D is terrible is not smart. My point is, as good as those defenses are, they have lost their team games this year. They are clearly better defenses then ours BUT those "great" defenses with superior pass rush/corners/safeties lost games for their teams this year. I would say Brady lost the game for us against buffalo, not the defense, his INT's had at the very least a 13 point swing against us and last I remember, we lost by 3. McCourty and Chung have the potential to be great, Ras-I has looked decent in limited action. We lack "beasts" for lack of a better term at the three aspects of D you listed but we have young players that can develop into big time playmakers. To write this team off this early is ridiculous.
    Posted by GadisRKO[/QUOTE]

    re
    McCourty and Chung have the potential to be great, Ras-I has looked decent in limited action."

    mccourty potential to be good to very good. ras i much better potential as a cover db than mccourty

    front 7 is very mediocre (with or without mayo)
    at least unless albert can play and make a difference o rwe pick up someone else or bb plays the d like he did against tampa.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]To be honest, I think safety spots are a little overrated. A good safety is one that doesn't let the play get behind him -- and he can be a great safety if the guys in front of him are legit.  Troy Polamalu's career would be a whole lot different if he didn't have the Steelers' pass rush in front of him. Same with Ed Reed.  Not have terrible safeties is a msut though. You need credible safeties perhaps more than at any other spot.  You can work around bad OLBs and pass rush with elite corners (Jets) and vice versa wth elite rushers (Steelers). And if your run defense is mediocre, you can make up for that by controlling the passing game (GB, NO, Indy) but you can't get away with guys that let people walk past them on the last level. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    z,
    reed would have been a star anywhere.
    and your point about last level is taken
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]FInally, I would agree or remaining youth movement needs would be on the defensive side, such as DE, OLB and on offense for WR. I think with the rookie cap in place, BB could easily hit these with 2/3 1st rd picks and then go right into 2nd rd pick with the remaining need. Our base is really good, in my opinion.  People flipped out with our D last year, too.  Our 2008 and 2009 Ds were far worse than this, in my opinion.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    "DE, OLB and on offense for WR."
    dont forget free safety and center
     

Share