PDA

View Full Version : *** Defense Wins Another Super Bowl ***



jrfernan
02-03-2008, 09:00 PM
Numbers, numbers, numbers.....

New England Patriots 2007 Season Statistics

----PTS----------YDS----------Pass Yds---------Rush Yds
----36.8/1st----411/1st-------295/1st---------115/13th

Super Bowl -vs- New Jersey Giants

----PTS---------YDS---------Pass Yds---------Rush Yds
----14-----------274 ----------229--------------45


Sure! The Giants OFFENSE won them this Super Bowl! LOL!!! :rolleyes:

BroncoKazuki
02-03-2008, 09:01 PM
No the OFFENSE DID WIN..........


oh god... you'll never get it :rolleyes:

im just wasting my energy

Max Power
02-03-2008, 09:03 PM
No the OFFENSE DID WIN..........


oh god... you'll never get it :rolleyes:

im just wasting my energy

the offense finally came through at the end while the defense was pulling all the weight for most of the game.

I know it's hard to grasp for you, but defense is an important part of a football team.

BroncoKazuki
02-03-2008, 09:08 PM
the offense finally came through at the end while the defense was pulling all the weight for most of the game.

I know it's hard to grasp for you, but defense is an important part of a football team.

Its not hard... I know how important Defense is to the game.

But as I see it, Manning, his O-line, the Play action paid off in the end for the Giants.


The Defense came up monstrously huge, and that is probably due to Strayhan(sp?) leadership that solidified that front 7.


Last time I check, we have a very young, inexperienced D-line, an LB corps with no real leader, a aging Safety core and a revolving door of Coaches.

That to me spells disaster for any team defensively and i believe most don't ever give any stock to that at all.

But we are at a position to fix the Run game for good and get rid of the RB by committee. I mean how many 4th 5th 6th, 7th and UFA's did we sign that never EVER EVER pan out, out of those picks could have been an DT, S, OLB, ILB, FS, DB, OG,OT,C ect. So really you wanna keep wasting picks each year to find an answer for the RB question in the later rounds. While the likes of the chargers, giants, pats that have 1st and early 2nd round picks for RBs. God please make it stop theres no Davis Clone in the 3rd and below that will never happen ever again. EVER! we gotta get the run game fix so we can safely say its fixed at that position. Just like how we fixed the QB position. Then again how many times do we gotta keep going through this.

I for one do not its time to fix the RB once and for all so we can focus on the damn Defensive and Offensive Line .

Momentum
02-03-2008, 09:08 PM
No the OFFENSE DID WIN..........


oh god... you'll never get it :rolleyes:

im just wasting my energy


Yup all 87 rushing yards. Beastly. :rolleyes: :coffee: :coffee:

SBboundBRONCOS
02-03-2008, 09:09 PM
you know im going to end this stupid ridiculous arguement once and for all


complete team peformances win championships :smug:

you will not win a SB if your defense holds a team to 14 points but the offense can not put up more than 14 points and vice versa.

if you score 35 points a game but the d gives up 36 guess what you lose

the giants played a near perfect football game - a few mistakes but thats what wins games (period)

BroncoKazuki
02-03-2008, 09:13 PM
Yup all 87 rushing yards. Beastly. :rolleyes: :coffee: :coffee:

Nice flamebait.. (hits report button)

jrfernan
02-03-2008, 09:14 PM
Yup all 87 rushing yards. Beastly. :rolleyes: :coffee: :coffee:

Right!

Along with Eli's net 247 passing yds. Wow!!! Peyton is nervous about his records!

Yep, the Giants offense......what a JUGGERNAUT! Nearly threatening some of 49ers Super Bowl records.

Momentum
02-03-2008, 09:15 PM
Nice flamebait.. (hits report button)

I love it when you ignore stats that go against anything you believe.

BroncoKazuki
02-03-2008, 09:27 PM
Right!

Along with Eli's net 247 passing yds. Wow!!! Peyton is nervous about his records!

Yep, the Giants offense......what a JUGGERNAUT! Nearly threatening some of 49ers Super Bowl records.

no for the most part the Pats and Giants kept the game mostly in check for 2 1/2 quarters down below 10 points.

The Defense for the Giants set up the Offense to make key plays witch let Manning put 14 pts up at the end.

yes the run game was not a big factor but there was a ton of PLAY ACTION that made the linebackers of the Patriots to bite letting Manning to throw.

Something an RB can open up for us. The Pats virtually feared the run so they kept blitzing but the RB and the O-line protected Manning.

Strayhan(sp?) lead his front 7 with his Veteran leadership to pound the snot out of Brady with all the youth on that D-line. I think that Veteranship, put that D-line over the edge to overwhelm the Pats O-line.


Last time i checked we had a revolving door of coaches and a very inexperienced d-line, yea I'm sure another rookie D-linemen, Line backer or Safety can come in and make our D play better. They will still have bumps but i guess I'm wrong and your right ;). I saw what I saw and it was the Veteranship of the front 7 lead by Strayhan and the Playmaking Play-action Offense won them the game of a total of 17-14.

Momentum
02-03-2008, 09:30 PM
I guess knocking down Brady 18 times and sacking him on the final drive to burn a timeout means jack. :coffee:

BroncoKazuki
02-03-2008, 09:42 PM
I guess knocking down Brady 18 times and sacking him on the final drive to burn a timeout means jack. :coffee:

Kinda dense arent you,

I gave major props to the Defense, as much as you hate to admit that I did. But I also laid out a very strong fact that No matter who we draft defensively we will still suffer due to inexperienced bumps and bruises.


Sure discount the Offensive play, discount how a top RB can do wonders, how a strong O-line can protect a QB. Keep discounting that.

Im not knocking the D-line but we wasted pick after pick and we keep throwing money at piss-poor RB's that has to stop. If both sides are gonna get better we gotta bite the bullet and fix that RB position no matter how much you hate it.

If it stays un-fixed the RB will always be a Need year in and Year out and you can quote me on that. :coffee:

lancane
02-03-2008, 09:47 PM
I guess knocking down Brady 18 times and sacking him on the final drive to burn a timeout means jack. :coffee:

The defensive coaching, and schemes had nothing to do with that right? The fact they actually have veteran leaders has nothing to do with it either does it...name the first round picks of the front seven, and name the rookies who led the team on the front seven?

Momentum
02-03-2008, 09:49 PM
Kinda dense arent you,

I gave major props to the Defense, as much as you hate to admit that I did. But I also laid out a very strong fact that No matter who we draft defensively we will still suffer due to inexperienced bumps and bruises.


Sure discount the Offensive play, discount how a top RB can do wonders, how a strong O-line can protect a QB. Keep discounting that.

Im not knocking the D-line but we wasted pick after pick and we keep throwing money at piss-poor RB's that has to stop. If both sides are gonna get better we gotta bite the bullet and fix that RB position no matter how much you hate it.

If it stays un-fixed the RB will always be a Need year in and Year out and you can quote me on that. :coffee:

Unless Travis Henry is cut, a day one runningback wont happen.

jrfernan
02-03-2008, 09:50 PM
The defensive coaching, and schemes had nothing to do with that right? The fact they actually have veteran leaders has nothing to do with it either does it...name the first round picks of the front seven, and name the rookies who led the team on the front seven?

He, he, he....<ad infinitum>:P

BroncoKazuki
02-03-2008, 09:54 PM
Unless Travis Henry is cut, a day one runningback wont happen.

Wont Stop Shanahan.


I mean we drafted Cutler when Jake Plummer came off his Best season ever in his career.

So I don't see your argument holding water really, and dont even say that QB is different, its not, it wont stop Shanahan from wanting that RB that can solidify a position for many years giving the greater focus to the Defense and the Offensive Line without ever worrying about the RB, QB and WR positions for a long time.:salute:

Momentum
02-03-2008, 11:05 PM
Wont Stop Shanahan.


I mean we drafted Cutler when Jake Plummer came off his Best season ever in his career.

So I don't see your argument holding water really, and dont even say that QB is different, its not, it wont stop Shanahan from wanting that RB that can solidify a position for many years giving the greater focus to the Defense and the Offensive Line without ever worrying about the RB, QB and WR positions for a long time.:salute:

Stop putting your personal desires on Mike. The highest RB he ever took was Tatum, and that won't likely change.

neutessa
02-03-2008, 11:20 PM
Stop putting your personal desires on Mike. The highest RB he ever took was Tatum, and that won't likely change.

It may not change this year, but I don't know that you can assume that given the reports that the Broncos were desperately trying to get back into the 2006 first round for a shot at Laurence Maroney...

BroncoKazuki
02-03-2008, 11:22 PM
Stop putting your personal desires on Mike. The highest RB he ever took was Tatum, and that won't likely change.

the best Highest RB we ever took was Portis and I bet thats eating Shanahan up as he saw the skins go into the playoffs while we were licking our wounds because our RB's suck.

Porits was also a 2nd round pick who we traded for Champ, if we have kept him we would be focusing on defense and our solution for WR this year. (not that I mind the pick but Hindsight we may have slightly blundered even though we have the best shutdown corner in NFL History)

and Tatum was a very high 2nd round backup RB that has but all disappeared from the league after we traded him away.

Momentum
02-04-2008, 01:25 AM
the best Highest RB we ever took was Portis and I bet thats eating Shanahan up as he saw the skins go into the playoffs while we were licking our wounds because our RB's suck.

Porits was also a 2nd round pick who we traded for Champ, if we have kept him we would be focusing on defense and our solution for WR this year. (not that I mind the pick but Hindsight we may have slightly blundered even though we have the best shutdown corner in NFL History)

and Tatum was a very high 2nd round backup RB that has but all disappeared from the league after we traded him away.

AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN... THERE GOES WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY HE HAD LEFT!!!!!

Clinton Portis was the #51 pick in his draft.

Tatum Bell was #41.

Give it up already!!!!

lancane
02-04-2008, 01:29 AM
AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN... THERE GOES WHAT LITTLE CREDIBILITY HE HAD LEFT!!!!!

Clinton Portis was the #51 pick in his draft.

Tatum Bell was #41.

Give it up already!!!!

Not really...he never said we took him at a higher spot! :confused: You lose credibility for running your mouth again, cause all he said was simply that Portis was the best highest drafted running back we have had, and that is sadly very true!

BroncoKazuki
02-04-2008, 01:33 AM
Not really...he never said we took him at a higher spot! :confused: You lose credibility for running your mouth again, cause all he said was simply that Portis was the best highest drafted running back we have had, and that is sadly very true!

Nice one Lancane :thumb: CP coming again (when i can, must spread some contributor points around)

Never did i say we drafted him high, I said he was the best highest drafting running back we ever had.


Tatum Bell was the highest backup RB we drafted because in fact he is, he was a starting backup... not a true starter.

Momentum
02-04-2008, 04:58 AM
the best Highest RB we ever took was Portis and I bet thats eating Shanahan up as he saw the skins go into the playoffs while we were licking our wounds because our RB's suck.

Porits was also a 2nd round pick who we traded for Champ, if we have kept him we would be focusing on defense and our solution for WR this year. (not that I mind the pick but Hindsight we may have slightly blundered even though we have the best shutdown corner in NFL History)

and Tatum was a very high 2nd round backup RB that has but all disappeared from the league after we traded him away.

Give it up.

Steve_Harbula
02-04-2008, 09:31 AM
Let's watch the snarky insults in this discussion, please. And all discussions, for that matter.

BroncoKazuki
02-04-2008, 02:58 PM
Give it up.

congrats your the first person on these boards I will igg.

following reason, you cannot back up what you say and you keep trying to discredit me.


In fact you cant stand that I used a technicality to win my argument fine so be it then.

ShadeofBlue
02-04-2008, 04:07 PM
As I saw it, in the first Giants-Pats game, Giants ST got the return for TD and had an excellent game, the O had an excellent game, the D had an okay game. Giants lost. Superbowl, D played great for Giants, ST and O played okay. Giants won. This tells me that the D did indeed win the game for the Giants by keeping the Pats down enough that the O had a chance to pull it out. The D didn't score any points so depending on how you want to define "winning the game" you can argue it, but they were the *reason* the Giants had even a small chance of winning.

I will give the Giants O props for that long drive in the first that kept Brady on the sidelines. If they had gotten a TD out of it, or been able to engineer even more drives like that, I might have given the O more credit. But after the turnover, fumble, etc and a bunch of short drives . .well can't say the O did better than okay. Few spectacular plays at the end, but most of the game they were stifled.

But the Giants had a GREAT D line rotation. Tons of depth and everyone really contributed. The guy that got the sack in the Pat's last drive was a rookie (AFAIK) that was able to play at that high of a level in the biggest game of the year.

During our 7-9 season, our DT's were rookies, converted DE's and people that got cut.

Maybe we can get high quality FA's on D -- or the coaches feel M. Thomas/ Steven Harris have made enough progress to make then legit starters. Maybe Lynch will stick around and we won't have a huge hole at safety (which, as is, had a huge time picking up receivers in zone coverage and giving bly/ baily help over the top). Perhaps we'll land someone to help out our LB core.

But if not I think we'll have to look there first.

Drafting O is sexy. Giving Jay more weapons, hoping for a dominate rushing game. I'd love to see that. But T. Henry was the leagues leading rusher for the first 5 weeks and that didn't exactly make us a great team in that stretch. And if we don't have O. tackles and a FB that can open holes in the inside and we have to bump everything outside again, I don't see any RB back there doing much more than who we already have. I could see an O lineman, but I for one thing T. Henry will be here again and if we pick up a RB it will be more in case Henry keeps getting hurt, and not to be our #1 guy.

Its all immaterial -- the coaches will get who they get. But man, I hope I don't have to hear about how Vince Young is good because "he just wins games" and that Cutler doesn't. Where as the real story is A. Haynesworth wins games, and our D gives up more points than anyone else.

Heres to a guy that will be a difference maker -- whatever the position-- and that we get back to the big dance sooner rather than later. :cheers:

Cugel
02-04-2008, 06:15 PM
Kinda dense arent you,

I gave major props to the Defense, as much as you hate to admit that I did. But I also laid out a very strong fact that No matter who we draft defensively we will still suffer due to inexperienced bumps and bruises.


Sure discount the Offensive play, discount how a top RB can do wonders, how a strong O-line can protect a QB. Keep discounting that.

Im not knocking the D-line but we wasted pick after pick and we keep throwing money at piss-poor RB's that has to stop. If both sides are gonna get better we gotta bite the bullet and fix that RB position no matter how much you hate it.

If it stays un-fixed the RB will always be a Need year in and Year out and you can quote me on that. :coffee:

In fairness, I'm going to use this quote and not your previous one, because it's clear you aren't saying defense is unimportant.

But, this is still nonsense. The Giants don't have an elite RB like L.T. or Larry Johnson. They don't have elite CBs. They certainly don't have a secondary that can hold a candle to the Broncos secondary with Dre Bly and Champ Bailey.

What they DO have that the Broncos don't is a totally dominant D-line! That enabled them to get serious pressure almost all night with only 4 D-linemen, and then to blitz from unexpected directions with 1 LB or S. I watched all night to see how many men the Giants were bringing, and it was almost always 4 or 5 guys.

They disguised blitzes, delayed blitzes, but ONLY WITH 1 LB OR S! They didn't bring 7 or 8 that I can remember during the entire ball-game. They got consistent pressure with just 4.

Randy Moss was not much of a factor in the game NOT because he wasn't open but because time after time, the pressure got to Brady before he could throw downfield to take advantage of one-on-one coverage.

As for crediting their offense, NONSENSE! The Giants offense scored 17 points. That's normally a mediocre half for Brady! The final score should have been 34-17, not even close, and it would have been except for the Giants defense!

And the Giants did it WITHOUT blitzing 7 or 8 guys. They only needed 1 extra blitzer on most occasions, and they even got tremendous pressure from Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiori combined for 10 tackles, 2 sacks and a forced fumble. Strahan added a sack and OLB Kavika Mitchell got 2.

All those guys are elite players. But, not all were taken in the first round. Just Tuck was taken in the 3rd round of the 2005 draft, just TWO spots before the Broncos drafted backup CB Foxworth. That shows you that talent can be had as late as the 3rd round of the draft if you know where to look.

But, the Giants kept taking talent on the defense and offensive lines until they had built dominant units. They still needed an elite QB in Eli Manning, but the Broncos have a QB who I believe will be elite in Cutler.

The Giants RBs aren't any better than the Broncos RBs. Brandon Jacobs got barely over 1000 yards and Ward got another 602. Neither or those guys could hold a candle to Tiki Barber, who retired. Neither is better than Henry (who has rushed for 1500 yards in his career, and was leading the NFL in rushing when he was injured), nor even Selvin Young, who has better speed and elusiveness than either Jacobs or Ward.

Nor do the Giants receivers compare favorably with the Broncos: The Giants leading WR was Plaxico Burress with 70 catches for 1025 yards, while Amani Toomer added another 59. That's NOT a big year for either player. 70 catches for your leading receiver is nothing to brag of.

Brandon Marshall by comparison got 102 catches for 1325 yards, a MUCH better performance. Marshall is a better receiver right now than Plaxico, and will only get better.

But, the Broncos as a team were nowhere near the efficiency of the Giants. And you only have to look at the offensive and defensive lines to see why.

Adding another RB is not going to do anything to address the fundamental disparity between the very best teams in the NFL and the Broncos.

To sum up, the Patriots had a better QB than the Giants, much better WRs, a better RB and better TEs. Their offensive line was as good as the Giants. What they did NOT have was a D-line that could get pressure like the Giants. It was NO accident that the Giants led the league in sacks this season. They pressured Brady all night and sacked him 5 times and hit him virtually every time he threw!

It all starts and ends with the O-line and the D-line. If you don't have an elite unit on both sides of the ball, forget about the SB, because you won't come close!

And, even if you have the Best QB in football, it won't be enough if the other team has a dominant D-line that can disrupt him all night. That is the OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS LESSON FROM THE GIANTS WIN!

JoRo
02-04-2008, 06:51 PM
I will be honest in this due to having two days away so I won't have to really read any flaming.


I did not read basically ANY of this thread.. because I knew what this argument would be "the defense only has to be good enough we need an RB blah blah blah..." to the "YOU NEED DEFENSE ROAR"

I only came in the thread cuz I wanted to read Cugels point (and btw cp to you)

He worded it exactly how it needed to be, and it mirrors my feelings on this almost perfectly.

I do want us to look at RB if Henry is cut, and if Henry is going to make the money we have him slated to: I want him cut...

but if we keep him he is good enough if we fix our lines.


Which DO need to be fixed over the other crap on our team.

What was the biggest problem most of the year for us? Teams rushing all day... and then we couldn't get enough pressure except with Doom. Then we played the Chargers... who held us to 3 points.

Why you ask?

Cutler was spanked all day long. Heck even the Lions were in our face all day... when Denver played elite front 7's (minus the Pittsburgh game... but even then Cutler was pressured..) the line completely fell apart.

Yes there were injuries, but you can not honestly look at our current group and say we are at the same level as the friggin Chargers or Colts, Giants or Pats. I don't care if we have pro bowlers.. but Cutler should not be snapping the ball on a three step drop and get crushed... and we should not be having games where we basically have to abandon the run due to it being useless. When you have one of those problems I would say it is either RB or QB... but we had games this year on and off where one or the other happened... which is OL.

Yes Hamilton is coming back... off a year he lost due to a concussion... you want to rely on him that greatly? Granted I think our backups inside will prove to be good enough... but look outside...

Our STARTING LEFT TACKLE RETIRED.. and when he did play... he was mediocre this year... the backup has back problems which helped lead to him falling... and yes I do think Harris has talent... which is why I do doubt we draft a LT in the first (which saddens me actually as that is the position I would take right now, trade down a few slots if possible and take Williams or take Clady at 12) but with Pears basically needing training wheels all year (and I don't care what you say he was average at best at LT... look at our ASR ((adjusted sack rate) for the games he started)

And that is simply our OL... the DL is obvious as well...



Now for the biggest problem with draftin a OT or DT... they have very little impact as rookies. Studys have shown that adding a new OT rarely makes a difference the first year, a line usually needs to gel and work together before they begin to play really well... and a DT rarely stops all the problems of a run D in his first year, he has so much to learn going from college where he dominated simply because he was better than his opponents to the pros where he isn't... but I still think I would take a year letting a very talented linemen learn if he panned out than take a flash position.

I think it was MUG that explained his planet theory a few years ago... linemen are always big now (280 up) but the truly gifted athletes are almost always highly sought after and then kept till they burn out, which is why you rarely see a franchise tackle hit the market on O or D. At 12 I think we have a chance to take one and if one is there that is most definately the move I make.

Long rant... but point is:

It all starts up front. Yes you need talent elsewhere.. but it's kind of like having a really nice car but no engine to help it move forward..Sure it looks nice... but if it doesn't leave the driveway what good is it?.. that is what happens when your Oline sucks... and no ours doesn't SUCK... (look at the Chefs) but if we keep trying to get by at OT with low level talent... it will head that way (low level as in rounes 4-7 and UDFA guys at LT... Lepsis was an exception... and if you doubt that look at the starting LT for the Bills... he is the second coming of Lepsis as he moved from a previous position and is shining NOW but that is why he was low..)


My 10 cents worth (LONG rant)

AC1
02-05-2008, 12:34 PM
In fairness, I'm going to use this quote and not your previous one, because it's clear you aren't saying defense is unimportant.

But, this is still nonsense. The Giants don't have an elite RB like L.T. or Larry Johnson. They don't have elite CBs. They certainly don't have a secondary that can hold a candle to the Broncos secondary with Dre Bly and Champ Bailey.

What they DO have that the Broncos don't is a totally dominant D-line! That enabled them to get serious pressure almost all night with only 4 D-linemen, and then to blitz from unexpected directions with 1 LB or S. I watched all night to see how many men the Giants were bringing, and it was almost always 4 or 5 guys.

They disguised blitzes, delayed blitzes, but ONLY WITH 1 LB OR S! They didn't bring 7 or 8 that I can remember during the entire ball-game. They got consistent pressure with just 4.

Randy Moss was not much of a factor in the game NOT because he wasn't open but because time after time, the pressure got to Brady before he could throw downfield to take advantage of one-on-one coverage.

As for crediting their offense, NONSENSE! The Giants offense scored 17 points. That's normally a mediocre half for Brady! The final score should have been 34-17, not even close, and it would have been except for the Giants defense!

And the Giants did it WITHOUT blitzing 7 or 8 guys. They only needed 1 extra blitzer on most occasions, and they even got tremendous pressure from Justin Tuck and Osi Umenyiori combined for 10 tackles, 2 sacks and a forced fumble. Strahan added a sack and OLB Kavika Mitchell got 2.

All those guys are elite players. But, not all were taken in the first round. Just Tuck was taken in the 3rd round of the 2005 draft, just TWO spots before the Broncos drafted backup CB Foxworth. That shows you that talent can be had as late as the 3rd round of the draft if you know where to look.

But, the Giants kept taking talent on the defense and offensive lines until they had built dominant units. They still needed an elite QB in Eli Manning, but the Broncos have a QB who I believe will be elite in Cutler.

The Giants RBs aren't any better than the Broncos RBs. Brandon Jacobs got barely over 1000 yards and Ward got another 602. Neither or those guys could hold a candle to Tiki Barber, who retired. Neither is better than Henry (who has rushed for 1500 yards in his career, and was leading the NFL in rushing when he was injured), nor even Selvin Young, who has better speed and elusiveness than either Jacobs or Ward.

Nor do the Giants receivers compare favorably with the Broncos: The Giants leading WR was Plaxico Burress with 70 catches for 1025 yards, while Amani Toomer added another 59. That's NOT a big year for either player. 70 catches for your leading receiver is nothing to brag of.

Brandon Marshall by comparison got 102 catches for 1325 yards, a MUCH better performance. Marshall is a better receiver right now than Plaxico, and will only get better.

But, the Broncos as a team were nowhere near the efficiency of the Giants. And you only have to look at the offensive and defensive lines to see why.

Adding another RB is not going to do anything to address the fundamental disparity between the very best teams in the NFL and the Broncos.

To sum up, the Patriots had a better QB than the Giants, much better WRs, a better RB and better TEs. Their offensive line was as good as the Giants. What they did NOT have was a D-line that could get pressure like the Giants. It was NO accident that the Giants led the league in sacks this season. They pressured Brady all night and sacked him 5 times and hit him virtually every time he threw!

It all starts and ends with the O-line and the D-line. If you don't have an elite unit on both sides of the ball, forget about the SB, because you won't come close!

And, even if you have the Best QB in football, it won't be enough if the other team has a dominant D-line that can disrupt him all night. That is the OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS LESSON FROM THE GIANTS WIN!

Great post! I don't have a problem with people arguing in favor of skill players over linemen (though I don't agree with it), but to use this game to further that argument is ridiculous.

One thing you omitted (or maybe I missed) was the amount of time afforded to Eli by his offensive line. Imagine what Cutler can do with that kind of time.

Cugel
02-05-2008, 06:12 PM
I will be honest in this due to having two days away so I won't have to really read any flaming.


I did not read basically ANY of this thread.. because I knew what this argument would be "the defense only has to be good enough we need an RB blah blah blah..." to the "YOU NEED DEFENSE ROAR"

I only came in the thread cuz I wanted to read Cugels point (and btw cp to you)

He worded it exactly how it needed to be, and it mirrors my feelings on this almost perfectly.

I do want us to look at RB if Henry is cut, and if Henry is going to make the money we have him slated to: I want him cut...

but if we keep him he is good enough if we fix our lines.


Which DO need to be fixed over the other crap on our team.

What was the biggest problem most of the year for us? Teams rushing all day... and then we couldn't get enough pressure except with Doom. Then we played the Chargers... who held us to 3 points.

Why you ask?

Cutler was spanked all day long. Heck even the Lions were in our face all day... when Denver played elite front 7's (minus the Pittsburgh game... but even then Cutler was pressured..) the line completely fell apart.

Yes there were injuries, but you can not honestly look at our current group and say we are at the same level as the friggin Chargers or Colts, Giants or Pats. I don't care if we have pro bowlers.. but Cutler should not be snapping the ball on a three step drop and get crushed... and we should not be having games where we basically have to abandon the run due to it being useless. When you have one of those problems I would say it is either RB or QB... but we had games this year on and off where one or the other happened... which is OL.

Yes Hamilton is coming back... off a year he lost due to a concussion... you want to rely on him that greatly? Granted I think our backups inside will prove to be good enough... but look outside...

Our STARTING LEFT TACKLE RETIRED.. and when he did play... he was mediocre this year... the backup has back problems which helped lead to him falling... and yes I do think Harris has talent... which is why I do doubt we draft a LT in the first (which saddens me actually as that is the position I would take right now, trade down a few slots if possible and take Williams or take Clady at 12) but with Pears basically needing training wheels all year (and I don't care what you say he was average at best at LT... look at our ASR ((adjusted sack rate) for the games he started)

And that is simply our OL... the DL is obvious as well...



Now for the biggest problem with draftin a OT or DT... they have very little impact as rookies. Studys have shown that adding a new OT rarely makes a difference the first year, a line usually needs to gel and work together before they begin to play really well... and a DT rarely stops all the problems of a run D in his first year, he has so much to learn going from college where he dominated simply because he was better than his opponents to the pros where he isn't... but I still think I would take a year letting a very talented linemen learn if he panned out than take a flash position.

I think it was MUG that explained his planet theory a few years ago... linemen are always big now (280 up) but the truly gifted athletes are almost always highly sought after and then kept till they burn out, which is why you rarely see a franchise tackle hit the market on O or D. At 12 I think we have a chance to take one and if one is there that is most definately the move I make.

Long rant... but point is:

It all starts up front. Yes you need talent elsewhere.. but it's kind of like having a really nice car but no engine to help it move forward..Sure it looks nice... but if it doesn't leave the driveway what good is it?.. that is what happens when your Oline sucks... and no ours doesn't SUCK... (look at the Chefs) but if we keep trying to get by at OT with low level talent... it will head that way (low level as in rounes 4-7 and UDFA guys at LT... Lepsis was an exception... and if you doubt that look at the starting LT for the Bills... he is the second coming of Lepsis as he moved from a previous position and is shining NOW but that is why he was low..)


My 10 cents worth (LONG rant)

I think everyone agrees that the Broncos will have to pick up an OT or two in the draft or get one via FA (preferably the draft).

Lepsis retired and Harris has never started. Erik Pears doesn't appear to be the answer at any position. Right now the Broncos O-line just isn't elite and that is painfully evident in the red-zone.

However, the question remains whether you need to use a #12 draft pick to get the kind of OL who fits the Broncos system. Normally, 1st round OTs tend to be huge road-graders who are immensely strong, whereas the Broncos need smaller more agile OL who fit their zone blocking system.

It's possible that Shanahan will think that an OL provides the best value at #12, but he might also choose the best player, who could be a LB or S or even DT. I don't think he's addicted to who is slated to be picked at a certain spot, if he thinks a player will be gone by his next pick and he thinks that player is someone who will fit in and provide value for his team.

That doesn't always work out well (see WR Darius Watts - a reach in the 2nd round because Shanahan figured he had to take him there).

Frankly, I hope the Broncos trade back in the first, acquire extra picks and take a S or LB in round one, then take a DT in round two and an OT in round 3 (moving up in round 3). They could also take a RB if one they like is available. It all depends on the players on the board when they pick.

But, OL and DT have to be the priorities along with S and LB.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much value at #12 for anything other than OT and that might not be a great idea. You're paying too much for a player who might not be right for your system (for example see George Foster, #17 pick of the first round, and a bust in Denver).

Was George Foster always destined to be a bust? Or was he perhaps wasted in Denver, learning a system he could never master because he was too big and slow? Might he have done better being drafted for another team with a more traditional offense? We'll never know. But, it's something to consider. :coffee:

AC1
02-05-2008, 08:52 PM
I think everyone agrees that the Broncos will have to pick up an OT or two in the draft or get one via FA (preferably the draft).

Lepsis retired and Harris has never started. Erik Pears doesn't appear to be the answer at any position. Right now the Broncos O-line just isn't elite and that is painfully evident in the red-zone.

However, the question remains whether you need to use a #12 draft pick to get the kind of OL who fits the Broncos system. Normally, 1st round OTs tend to be huge road-graders who are immensely strong, whereas the Broncos need smaller more agile OL who fit their zone blocking system.

It's possible that Shanahan will think that an OL provides the best value at #12, but he might also choose the best player, who could be a LB or S or even DT. I don't think he's addicted to who is slated to be picked at a certain spot, if he thinks a player will be gone by his next pick and he thinks that player is someone who will fit in and provide value for his team.

That doesn't always work out well (see WR Darius Watts - a reach in the 2nd round because Shanahan figured he had to take him there).

Frankly, I hope the Broncos trade back in the first, acquire extra picks and take a S or LB in round one, then take a DT in round two and an OT in round 3 (moving up in round 3). They could also take a RB if one they like is available. It all depends on the players on the board when they pick.

But, OL and DT have to be the priorities along with S and LB.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be much value at #12 for anything other than OT and that might not be a great idea. You're paying too much for a player who might not be right for your system (for example see George Foster, #17 pick of the first round, and a bust in Denver).

Was George Foster always destined to be a bust? Or was he perhaps wasted in Denver, learning a system he could never master because he was too big and slow? Might he have done better being drafted for another team with a more traditional offense? We'll never know. But, it's something to consider. :coffee:

Big doesn't necessarily have to mean slow. We've been picking uni-dimensional players who are quick but small, because that's what was available in the later rounds. You could either get the quick guys or the big, strong guys. The first round affords us to get guys who are big, strong and quick. Shanahan has stated quite a few times that being small isn't a prerequisite, being quick is, and if that quick guy can be big and strong, that's perfect.

This round has three solid prospects who have the requisite quickness and smarts to play in our scheme in Clady, Baker, and Williams (if by some miracle, Long falls to us, that's four). Getting our pick out of these three would be a great choice at 12 (in fact, unless Ellis falls to us, I think OT offers the best value at this spot). It's likely that if we don't pick OT that both Carolina and Chicago might.

So trading down will most likely cost us the chance to get one of them. However, I think it still is the most optimal strategy. The advantage of getting another day one pick is huge, especially as it affords us the opportunity to draft a starter at one of the many positions we need one in.

Ultimately, if we do decide to pick at 12, I'll be happy as long we pick the best player available. But I do think OT offers us the best value. I think the top half of the first round is where you get your QB, LT, and DL-anchor. All other positions can be filled with players from lower down in the draft.

SBboundBRONCOS
02-06-2008, 10:30 AM
i will state again Defense did not win this game on its own.

if i remember correctly the D gave up a huge TD late in the game 2:30ish left to go down by 4. so the offense had to go down and score. sure they held them to under 20 points but that is not what won the game for them

kratos_godofwar
02-06-2008, 10:36 AM
Okay, but we are not the Giants or the Patroits. We are the Denver Broncos and the last time we won the Super Bowl, it was because of offense. And what do you know, it's still the same coach who we have today. I think the Giants would have lost the SB if it weren't for thier offense. Their D kept them in the game, but the Giants Offense won them the game. Manning, Tyre, and Plaxico.

jrfernan
02-06-2008, 11:11 AM
i will state again Defense did not win this game on its own.

if i remember correctly the D gave up a huge TD late in the game 2:30ish left to go down by 4. so the offense had to go down and score. sure they held them to under 20 points but that is not what won the game for them

Sure, if you slice a game down to its smallest components then any INDIVIDUAL play can be considered the "reason why" a team won.

Arguably, Manning was not the MVP of the SB. The kid that made that INCREDIBLE catch wtih HIS HELMET was the REAL MVP. Or, if we break it down even further we can say that Plaxico was the MVP for making the winning catch after running a perfect route to gain separation in the end zone. Why stop there! I nominate the rookie DT who sacked Brady on that last drive. That was THE REAL REASON the Giants won!

With that line of thinking then various kickers should have been MVPs of SBs and not QBs or RBs etc. After all, didn't Adam Vinatieri ACTUALLY WIN TWO SBs in the last seconds of play? He, not Brady or Branch, was the REAL reason the Pats won those two SBs. Right?

What some are failing to grasp is that the Giants held the HIGHEST SCORING offense in the HISTORY of the NFL(and that's saying a LOT, considering what the Broncos, Cowboys, Rams and Niners did in years past) to FOURTEEN POINTS......14........

And you say....


sure they held them to under 20 points but that is not what won the game for them

LOL!!!!!!!!!

"sure they held them under 20 points" as if to say........"It's no big deal!"

But it was indeed a BIG DEAL. No team had held the Pats to under 20 points the entire regular season(even on the Pats worst day they managed AT LEAST 20 points; which would have won them the SB had they gotten that many).

You speak of holding them UNDER 20 POINTS. That's NOT what happened! They were held under 17 points; heck, they were held under 15 points! LOL!!! A team that averaged NEARLY FORTY POINTS PER GAME during the regular season!

But, to some that wasn't a big deal.

In fact, it was such a big deal that I'll go as far as to say that the Giants holding the Pats at 14 points and under 300 yds of total offense is the SINGLE BIGGEST feat of the 2007 NFL season. Not the 50 TDs by Brady, or the 20+ TDs by Moss, or Sanders' outstanding defensive play, or Favre's amazing comeback.

For as good as all of those players were, during the regular season, the Giants D did the ultimate trick: Stopped a DYNASTY DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS!

jrfernan
02-06-2008, 11:35 AM
Another point that some are failing to see, or recall, is that the Pats offensive collapse was NOT IN ANY WAY related to bad QB play.

It wasn't like Brady had a career bad game, like Payton Manning's SIX interceptions against the Chargers. If Brady had done something like that in the SB, then I'd say....."Well, the Pats had an off day and Brady chocked and the Giants got a gift handed to them."

But that is NOT what happened. Brady did not make errant throws because he was OFF. He made errant throws because he had FOUR GUYS IN HIS FACE............ALL GAME LONG!

If those FOUR GUYS(and variants of them) don't play up to the level they did, Brady gets his typical 3-4 TD game and the SB is history and the Pats go into the record books as the GREATEST DYNASTY EVER.

Interestingly enough, all of the talk about the PATS being the GREATEST DYNASTY EVER has been toned down a few decibels after last Sunday's loss. Some "experts" on ESPN are now saying that this loss toppled them from their perch, that they are NOT the ULTIMATE FOOTBALL TEAM.

Interesting what the Giants defense was able to do; not only for one game, but actually changing the face of history. AMAZING!

I LOVE IT! I think it's one of THE MOST incredible stories in the HISTORY of American sports. We witnessed history that we can pass on to our grandchildren!

jrfernan
02-06-2008, 12:33 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jt-giantsdefense020308&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

"Their front four is what really set the tone for four quarters," said New England's Randy Moss, who admitted the Patriots couldn't match the Giants' intensity.

"Those guys (on the defensive line) should be the most valuable," Giants wideout Amani Toomer said. "They went after (Brady) with a vengeance."

Pretty impressive coming from guys that actually PLAYED THE GAME.

SBboundBRONCOS
02-06-2008, 01:22 PM
you could argue this all day . . . . blah blah blah

the fact is the pats had one of the easiest schedules i have ever seen against terrible Defenses.

the good teams held them usually in a respective points scored area

hell the freaking Jets held them to 20.

and if it wasnt for the offense NY would have lost. the defense didnt score any points that i recall.

im not saying the D wasnt good but you can not say that they won this game on there own.

the only team to truely win with D was the Ravens and they still had one hell of a RB in their backfield

BroncoKazuki
02-06-2008, 06:01 PM
read post 34

Kinda love how you discounted Manning's last effort to escape the clutches of the Patriots Defensive Line.

Without Manning's pulling away keeping the drive alive, this board would be flooded with Fairweather Pats fans' spewing how great the pats are and how much they have 'man love' for Brady.

The reason is without Manning's final effort there would have bee no miraculous catch, no final TD to win the game. Thats the bottom line.

The Defense for the Giants came up big... no... they came up HUGE and stuffed the Pats by manhandling their Offensive Line.

Yet the tone was set by the 16 play 3 point FG kick in the first. The Offense for the Giants put up strong drives that wore out the old Patriots Defense. I think that played a factor to the Pats loss as well.

I didnt see the Giants defense score points all they did was hold down the Pats offense and let their Offense put together drives to win witch they did.

The Giants team was hungry and the Pats thought of themselves as already having the game in the bag. The Giants came in with a very hot QB in Eli Manning (if you discout him again Im really gonna tear you a new one) a strong Defense that had something to prove to the world and a Special teams who gave them great field position. Put all 3 together and you got the SuperBowl 42 Champions.


I doubt 1 DT would be able to super upgrade our Defense when we have so many holes on both sides. Even though you might not agree, going Offense Day 1 and Defense day 2 would be beneficial. Then next year going Defense day 1 and Offense day 2 would help us as well. The bottom line is, we gotta stockpile weapons for both sides, it just means that the value of our pick is more of the Offense then the defense.

.........................................Pts scored..............pts allowed......offense rank....def rank
kbtw.. 2007.......Giants..............23.3............... .......21.9...............14................17

jrfernan
02-06-2008, 07:34 PM
Kinda love how you discounted Manning's last effort to escape the clutches of the Patriots Defensive Line.

Without Manning's pulling away keeping the drive alive, this board would be flooded with Fairweather Pats fans' spewing how great the pats are and how much they have 'man love' for Brady.

The reason is without Manning's final effort there would have bee no miraculous catch, no final TD to win the game. Thats the bottom line.


Manning's INTENSITY and COMPETITIVENESS on that last drive is stuff of legend. He's a TRUE COMPETITOR! A champ.

But, please don't make more of his pass than what it was. He heaved a desparate, wobbly, misguided pass in the GENERAL DIRECTION of the receiver and the receiver made a MIRACULOUS catch. The pass reminded me of Sonny Jurgensen's "floating duck" passes. Which he did by choice, not as an accident(as Eli's pass was).

I'll illustrate it for you this way...

A kid has to face a bully at school and decides to take his cousin along. The cousin has NO FEAR. In fact, he is so fearless that he goes right up to the bully and before the bully gets a chance to say the first word, the cousin pummles him and knocks him down.

The cousin walks away and leaves the kid to handle the rest. While the prettiest girl in school walks by she sees the kid standing over the bully, talking down to him and intimidating him.

The girl, very impressed by the kid, goes with him to the movies on a date. Meanwhile, the cousin is sitting by himself, somewhere having an ice cream sundae.

That's pretty much what happened in this SB.

BroncoKazuki
02-06-2008, 07:46 PM
Manning's INTENSITY and COMPETITIVENESS on that last drive is stuff of legend. He's a TRUE COMPETITOR! A champ.

But, please don't make more of his pass than what it was. He heaved a desparate, wobbly, misguided pass in the GENERAL DIRECTION of the receiver and the receiver made a MIRACULOUS catch. The pass reminded me of Sonny Jurgensen's "floating duck" passes. Which he did by choice, not as an accident(as Eli's pass was).

I'll illustrate it for you this way...

A kid has to face a bully at school and decides to take his cousin along. The cousin has NO FEAR. In fact, he is so fearless that he goes right up to the bully and before the bully gets a chance to say the first word, the cousin pummles him and knocks him down.

The cousin walks away and leaves the kid to handle the rest. While the prettiest girl in school walks by she sees the kid standing over the bully, talking down to him and intimidating him.

The girl, very impressed by the kid, goes with him to the movies on a date. Meanwhile, the cousin is sitting by himself, somewhere having an ice cream sundae.

That's pretty much what happened in this SB.

guess when it comes down to it you cant give credit where credit is due and that drive was all Eli's doing. If it was Payton they would crown that throw a god's throw. But Eli's throw is being suggested as the kind of play right near Montana's 10 yard throw, Elway's the drive, Elway's helicopter, Smith's Dragging 2 defenders to win that SB ect.

like I said that play could have ended right there, and for a moment Manning looked like he was gonna be sacked. He threw it in the vicinity of his WR witch was still in range and jumped at the right time, who made the play of his life. It took 2 people to create that play not just one. Manning trusted him to make that play and his WR did.

sometimes I really think your thick headed.

jrfernan
02-06-2008, 08:04 PM
guess when it comes down to it you cant give credit where credit is due and that drive was all Eli's doing. If it was Payton they would crown that throw a god's throw. But Eli's throw is being suggested as the kind of play right near Montana's 10 yard throw, Elway's the drive, Elway's helicopter, Smith's Dragging 2 defenders to win that SB ect.

like I said that play could have ended right there, and for a moment Manning looked like he was gonna be sacked. He threw it in the vicinity of his WR witch was still in range and jumped at the right time, who made the play of his life. It took 2 people to create that play not just one. Manning trusted him to make that play and his WR did.

sometimes I really think your thick headed.

KAZUKI! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :confused:

Please re-read my post. I said what Manning did is STUFF OF LEGEND!!! That's a PRETTY HIGH compliment. What more do you want me to say!?

I LOVED IT!

What Eli did was AMAZING! His focus and determination were inspiring. In fact, I told my wife that in my NEARLY FORTY YEARS of watching football that was ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING PLAYS I'd ever seen!

HOWEVER, I am not blind to the fact that the COUSIN(the DEFENSE) knocked the bully down for the kid(the OFFENSE).

The Giants D kept the game within GRASP of a MEDIOCRE OFFENSE. THAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of that ENTIRE game. However fantastic, acrobatic, miraculous, intense, exciting, <enter your favorite adjective here> the ending was.....the D gave the offense a chance against THE MOST PRODUCTIVE OFFENSE THE NFL HAS EVER SEEN.

To illustrate it another way:

If we were giving TEN STARS over FOUR QUARTERS of play:

- Offense *****
- Defense *********

BroncoKazuki
02-06-2008, 08:21 PM
KAZUKI! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :confused:

Please re-read my post. I said what Manning did is STUFF OF LEGEND!!! That's a PRETTY HIGH compliment. What more do you want me to say!?

I LOVED IT!

What Eli did was AMAZING! His focus and determination were inspiring. In fact, I told my wife that in my NEARLY FORTY YEARS of watching football that was ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING PLAYS I'd ever seen!

HOWEVER, I am not blind to the fact that the COUSIN(the DEFENSE) knocked the bully down for the kid(the OFFENSE).

The Giants D kept the game within GRASP of a MEDIOCRE OFFENSE. THAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT aspect of that ENTIRE game. However fantastic, acrobatic, miraculous, intense, exciting, <enter your favorite adjective here> the ending was.....the D gave the offense a chance against THE MOST PRODUCTIVE OFFENSE THE NFL HAS EVER SEEN.

To illustrate it another way:

If we were giving TEN STARS over FOUR QUARTERS of play:

- Offense *****
- Defense *********

Ok i'll recend that but its best to say that Manning's throw of legend and the catch of legend should go hand in hand not one way or the other.


Also... the Giants Defense is ranked 17th in the NFL giving up 21 points.

Thats because of the Defensive Coaching Schemes, the veteran leadership of the front 7,the hunger of both sides wanting to remedy their loss from week 17, the want to prove oneself (Eli and his Head coach) and for the most part 95% of the NFL community that are hard core fans (not fairweather) wished for the demise of the Patriots.

All that played out during that game. the Defense witch some had pegged to be part of the reason why the Giants should lose as well as Eli all came to play.

in my scoring of things both sides get 10/10 because when it comes to be in the big game if your defense is ranked 20th and your offense 15th. You'll play like your D should have been ranked 5th and your offense 1st.

jrfernan
02-06-2008, 08:55 PM
Ok i'll recend that but its best to say that Manning's throw of legend and the catch of legend should go hand in hand not one way or the other.


Also... the Giants Defense is ranked 17th in the NFL giving up 21 points.

Thats because of the Defensive Coaching Schemes, the veteran leadership of the front 7,the hunger of both sides wanting to remedy their loss from week 17, the want to prove oneself (Eli and his Head coach) and for the most part 95% of the NFL community that are hard core fans (not fairweather) wished for the demise of the Patriots.

All that played out during that game. the Defense witch some had pegged to be part of the reason why the Giants should lose as well as Eli all came to play.

in my scoring of things both sides get 10/10 because when it comes to be in the big game if your defense is ranked 20th and your offense 15th. You'll play like your D should have been ranked 5th and your offense 1st.

There's no doubt that what we saw during that SB needs to be pondered for some time in order to appreciate. So many things that can be applied, not only to football, but to PERSONAL life!

Multiple things happened, as you've noted:

- Leadership
- Determination
- Focus
- Preparation
- Execution(without it, Preparation is rendered useless)
- Team work
- Fearlessness
- on and on....

Don't misunderstand me, I RESPECT what Eli did. VERY MUCH. In fact, I'm quite happy that he proved everyone wrong and beat his nemesis, Phillip Rivers, to a SB trophy. It quieted a lot of critics.

The Giants O line was impressive, giving Eli plenty of time to do his thing. Toomer, once again, showed he's an excellent receiver, making some nice side line catches. I was happy for the much-maligned Plexico and was moved by how emotional he became at the end of the game. It showed he's human!

Also, the Giants were going against a VERY GOOD defense. So the offense needs to be credited as well. Something else that I learned from that game is that in order to have ANY success running the football against NE(and SD as well) we need BIGGER backs. I'd be very happy with a Matt Forte in later rounds, if we could get him.

I see all of that and it's all good.

But, when I look back on that SB, ONE phase of the game stands out WELL ABOVE ALL OTHERS: The Giants PASS RUSH.

It was the Ever Ready Bunny! It kept coming and coming........

It set the tone for EVERYTHING ELSE that the Giants did that went well for them. It gave the rest of the team confidence. Certainly, it wasn't the other way around. It wasn't like the Giants O was scoring in bunches and giving their D any hope.

When all things are said and done, ON PAPER, the ONE STAT that sticks out above ALL OTHERS is that NE scored 14 points! For posterity, for those who will NEVER see the game, the ONE TELLING stat are the 14 POINTS!

We can try to tell a blind man how impressive that throw by Eli was and how the receiver caught it with his hand and helmet, the blind man may, or may not appreciate it. BUT, when we tell the blind man that an offense that averaged nearly 40 points per game was held to 14 that MOST certainly will impress him!

BroncoKazuki
02-06-2008, 09:28 PM
The Offense got the ball first though, and they drew first blood.

it can be looked at both ways but when it comes down to it... the Giants came to the Superbowl to play ball. Not one side could do it alone, they needed both.

a complete game was hand with heroics on both side. Mannings heroic throw,

and the pile Driving Strayhan gave Brady witch make me smile ear to ear.

we need a complete team to take that next level and thats something we should strive for.

jrfernan
02-06-2008, 09:53 PM
we need a complete team to take that next level and thats something we should strive for.

Absolutely! Recall my See Saw analogy?