[d-mac37]

Originally Posted by BumpNRun

in the post beofre my last post... Defense wins 70% of the time.... then again .. the obvious is always ignored..

Last I ckecked, 70% is not 'always'.

But your point is taken.

Now if you consider Tampa Bays' D had Oaklands' offensive playbook (including audibles) and that Callahan was too stupid to change them, due to the 'dumbest coach in America' the last 10 years should have been 60%....

[Bram Raider]

Originally Posted by OTF

Very good read...

Random Thoughts: Rumors vs Facts « HUDDLE NOTES

A good read maybe, but lets remember that its just his opinion and no more valid than mine or yours.

For instance, read this from the same guy:
Random Thoughts: Most Overrated Players in 2008 NFL Draft « HUDDLE NOTES

Glen Dorsey DT LSU – If you think that Glen is going to be the impact player in the NFL the way he was in college then all I have to say to you is ask these players who were picked in the 2003 draft – Dwayne Robertson DT #4, Jonathan Sullivan DT # 6, Jimmy Kennedy DT # 12, Ty Warren DT #13, William Joseph DT # 25. Except for Ty Warren all of these players have struggled to come close to their college performance. The reason is very simple, on the field work ethic!

And its the dumbest reason ever for Dorsey not to exceed.
He has a GREAT on the field work ethic.


Or read this by the guy:
Drew’s Talent Top Ten « HUDDLE NOTES

Malcolm Kelly WR - Malcolm is the best WR in this very deep class of WR’s. He has the size, strength, speed, football intelligence and determination to be the best. Malcolm reminds me a lot of Terrell Owens and Eric Moulds but I believe he is faster and quicker than both of those WR’s. His injuries are not a concern for me because injuries are part of the game and those injuries will not affect his overall talents. Malcolm has the abilities to impact right a way for the team that drafts him and be the focal point of a teams passing game.

The writer rates highly on my moron scale.
Sorry, but its true.

[ULEN]

Too many arm chair GM's. Even on this site.

I don't know 1 guy on this board that has the college film to look at.

You make your opinion based on what you read online and half of those reports aren't accurate and are based off other reports that might be legit.

For those that claim that they know what they are talking about I would like to see them post a Top 200 draft board so we can take a look at the end of next year since they swear they know what they're talking about.

[Mykle VanHausen]

Originally Posted by BumpNRun

Decent read.. Subjective but decent.

Originally Posted by BumpNRun

Decent read.. Subjective but decent.

Its a blog.

Know how I know?

"ridicules"

Thats just ridiculous to spell it that way...

BoylHart?

Thats sounds like a serious medical condition...or cooking instructions for some of those "road kill" eaters!

I'm assuming he can't spell Boil Heart either.

Concerning Gholston, I don't know if he takes plays off, but I do know, though compensated for their loss, blind people cannnot feel Gholston's intesity thru most electronic appliances.

Long: Could be a tweener. Doesn't have a ton of upside and not a naturally great pass rusher. Could play be TWEEN LB and DE.

Jonathan Stewart? Who cares...we got ours

J. Long: Most people feel thats alot of ****ing money for a RT and have no illusions, he is NOT an LT. He'll get scorched by the edge rushers of the NFL. Freeney, Merriman, that guy from the Texans, Derrick Burgess, on and on...

You may be right about Ryan at QB. He threw 20 or so picks, but they also threw the ball over 600 times. But, again, not on our radar, who cares!

Mcfad: "Gayle Sayers?! O.J. Simpson?!" your f'in high...

Who ever drafts McChicken is going to watch him become a mere mortal as soon as he takes a nick. Speed is the 1st thing to go.
If he goes to the Jets, he's got a fighting chance with Faneca on his side ala Peterson and Hutch. (But Peterson also had 2 other Pro Bowlers blocking for him 2...

I'm afraid you sir have NO IDEA what constitues fact from opinion since you opbviously gave nothing but opinions based on little or shaky "facts".

Then again, thats what you get when you don't realize your reading a blog.

[Mykle VanHausen]

Originally Posted by d-mac37

Last I ckecked, 70% is not 'always'.

But your point is taken.

Now if you consider Tampa Bays' D had Oaklands' offensive playbook (including audibles) and that Callahan was too stupid to change them, due to the 'dumbest coach in America' the last 10 years should have been 60%....

Really! How hard can it be to not **** it up? They were an AFC Championship team for 2 years before you got there genius!

Sickening...

I still feel robbed. That was a GREAT team.

[BumpNRun]

Originally Posted by Mykle VanHausen

Its a blog.

Know how I know?

"ridicules"

Thats just ridiculous to spell it that way...

BoylHart?

Thats sounds like a serious medical condition...or cooking instructions for some of those "road kill" eaters!

I'm assuming he can't spell Biol Heart either.

Yessir.. Everybodies voice is heard in this day and age of information... Not saying it is far fetched or even a bad opinion. But it is heavily opinionated.

[Mykle VanHausen]

I am.

[03dvldog]

DECENT READ. Its all smoke screens to try to get people to fall where they want them.

[leafs43]

Originally Posted by BumpNRun

2008 NYG (W) (dominant D) vs NE
2007 IND (W) vs Chi (Dominant D)
2006 PIT (W) (dominant D) vs Sea
2005 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Phi
2004 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Carolina
2003 TAM (W) (dominant D) vs Oak
2002 NE (W) (dominant D) vs STL
2001 BAL (W) (dominant D) vs NYG
2000 STL (w) vs Titans (dominant D)
1999 DEN (W) vs Falcons (dominant D)

3 out of the last 10 where offense wins... so u tell me... if I go further back , the numbers look even worse in the case of your argument...

Numbers dont lie.

2002 NE (W) (dominant D) vs STL

St. Louis had the #3 defense in the league that year. NE wasn't even top 5.

2004 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Carolina

Neither of these teams were in the top 5 for defense that year. The cowboys and bills were #1 amd #2 in defense and neither even made the playoffs. If I recall correectly the Panthers made it to the Super Bowl by a decent rushing attack and a good D.

2005 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Phi

Same thing as the previous year. Neither team had top 5 defenses. The top 5 defensive teams this year struggled to make the post season. What should be noted is that they both got to the super bowl by a combination of a good rushing attack and a complimentary passing game i.e. balanced.

2006 PIT (W) (dominant D) vs Sea

Same pattern. Neither team was top 5 in defense. 1 team, the seahawks had the MVP in rushing who carried them to the SB in Alexander, and the other had another potent rushing attack in a 2 back system. Both had solid defenses but they weren't the best in the league that year.

2008 NYG (W) (dominant D) vs NE

This is another mess up getting stats backwards. New England had the #4 defense in the league. The Giants were around 7th overall.





So in actuality in the past 10 years only 2 teams, Baltimore and Tampa Bay (and they had our coach!), went to the super bowl and won solely because of their defense.

You are right, the numbers don't lie.

[Bram Raider]

They say Offense wins matches and Defense wins Championships.

Is it a lie?
Good grief, my world just fell down around my ears.

[BumpNRun]

Originally Posted by leafs43

St. Louis had the #3 defense in the league that year. NE wasn't even top 5.



Neither of these teams were in the top 5 for defense that year. The cowboys and bills were #1 amd #2 in defense and neither even made the playoffs. If I recall correectly the Panthers made it to the Super Bowl by a decent rushing attack and a good D.



Same thing as the previous year. Neither team had top 5 defenses. The top 5 defensive teams this year struggled to make the post season. What should be noted is that they both got to the super bowl by a combination of a good rushing attack and a complimentary passing game i.e. balanced.



Same pattern. Neither team was top 5 in defense. 1 team, the seahawks had the MVP in rushing who carried them to the SB in Alexander, and the other had another potent rushing attack in a 2 back system. Both had solid defenses but they weren't the best in the league that year.



This is another mess up getting stats backwards. New England had the #4 defense in the league. The Giants were around 7th overall.





So in actuality in the past 10 years only 2 teams, Baltimore and Tampa Bay (and they had our coach!), went to the super bowl and won solely because of their defense.

You are right, the numbers don't lie.

we are talking better defense HEAD to HEAD not in the NFL... the better defensive team wins.. nice try though, your numbers just lied

[BumpNRun]

Originally Posted by leafs43

This is another mess up getting stats backwards. New England had the #4 defense in the league. The Giants were around 7th overall.

NYG had the best defense THAT game........................against the #1 offense in the NFL....NYG offense?.. 14th.... star running back by committee?

[GdaMac]

Originally Posted by BumpNRun

2008 NYG (W) (dominant D) vs NE
2007 IND (W) vs Chi (Dominant D)
2006 PIT (W) (dominant D) vs Sea
2005 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Phi
2004 NE (W) (dominant D) vs Carolina
2003 TAM (W) (dominant D) vs Oak
2002 NE (W) (dominant D) vs STL
2001 BAL (W) (dominant D) vs NYG
2000 STL (w) vs Titans (dominant D)
1999 DEN (W) vs Falcons (dominant D)

3 out of the last 10 where offense wins... so u tell me... if I go further back , the numbers look even worse in the case of your argument...

Numbers dont lie.

Only two of these teams, Baltimore and Tampa Bay, had only above average offense and relied more on their defense. New england and Pittsburgh both had dominant offenses. New England not so much the first year they won.

However, you don't find any teams whose defense was only above average and whose offense was dominant. Indy was that way during the '06 regular season, but their defense was dominant in the playoffs.

Most teams win by being better than their opponent on both sides of the ball. As evidenced by the blowouts in most Superbowls. And all dynasties are that way, the Packers of the 60s, the Steelers of the 70s, the 9ers of the 80s, the Boys of the 90s and the Pats of late.

Now, after saying all that, it basically comes down to one question, if you could have one side of the ball be dominant and the other be just above average, what would you do?

Well, you and I would go with dominant defense and above average offense.

[leafs43]

Originally Posted by BumpNRun

we are talking better defense HEAD to HEAD not in the NFL... the better defensive team wins.. nice try though, your numbers just lied

Oh now because one team plays better then the other it is automatically assumed it was all defense then? Nevermind offense staying on the field allowing defenses to rest and stay fresh and eating up clock. Never mind not giving up turnovers. It is all defense. Defense even runs the offense apperantly.

It is a 2-sided game. And what I showed is that not only do you have to be sound defensively, you have to have some kind of offense capable of putting points on the board. With either one missing a team falls flat on its face.

And this just in.....OUR OFFENSE IS WORSE THEN OUR DEFENSE. Even the best defenses in history had a complimentary offense, even the Raven's when they won the SB.

My numbers actually don't lie. If you look back and compare the past super bowl winners and their offensive ranks with their defensive ranks, it is nearly a 50/50 split of which side of the ball was more dominant on that particular team.

Originally Posted by BumpNRun

NYG had the best defense THAT game........................against the #1 offense in the NFL....NYG offense?.. 14th.... star running back by committee?

Why do you think it was considered probably the biggest Super Bowl upset? Because the defenses of both teams were nearly equal and new england had a much better offense

And it was the running game for the Giants that actually won their super bowl.

They limited time of possession for the Pats in the first half to 5 minutes. You don;t do that with just a good defense. You need a complimentary offense yet again to play your style of ball.

[BumpNRun]

Originally Posted by leafs43

St. Louis had the #3 defense in the league that year. NE wasn't even top 5.



Neither of these teams were in the top 5 for defense that year. The cowboys and bills were #1 amd #2 in defense and neither even made the playoffs. If I recall correectly the Panthers made it to the Super Bowl by a decent rushing attack and a good D.



Same thing as the previous year. Neither team had top 5 defenses. The top 5 defensive teams this year struggled to make the post season. What should be noted is that they both got to the super bowl by a combination of a good rushing attack and a complimentary passing game i.e. balanced.



Same pattern. Neither team was top 5 in defense. 1 team, the seahawks had the MVP in rushing who carried them to the SB in Alexander, and the other had another potent rushing attack in a 2 back system. Both had solid defenses but they weren't the best in the league that year.



This is another mess up getting stats backwards. New England had the #4 defense in the league. The Giants were around 7th overall.





So in actuality in the past 10 years only 2 teams, Baltimore and Tampa Bay (and they had our coach!), went to the super bowl and won solely because of their defense.

You are right, the numbers don't lie.

Originally Posted by gdamac

Only two of these teams, Baltimore and Tampa Bay, had only above average offense and relied more on their defense. New england and Pittsburgh both had dominant offenses. New England not so much the first year they won.

However, you don't find any teams whose defense was only above average and whose offense was dominant. Indy was that way during the '06 regular season, but their defense was dominant in the playoffs.

Most teams win by being better than their opponent on both sides of the ball. As evidenced by the blowouts in most Superbowls. And all dynasties are that way, the Packers of the 60s, the Steelers of the 70s, the 9ers of the 80s, the Boys of the 90s and the Pats of late.

Now, after saying all that, it basically comes down to one question, if you could have one side of the ball be dominant and the other be just above average, what would you do?

Well, you and I would go with dominant defense and above average offense.

I'd always go dominant defense... servicable offense.... Steady vs Spectacular is the way to go..

I can understand how some people would want McFadden as he would bring an identity to this franchise... But we already have that in Russell...