nfoligno

1. Colvin as a DE. Did you watch the team in 2001? You continue to throw out examples that simply show you do not understand the situation. You ask if Wilber Marshall or Otis Wilson would have been considered DEs. Your question only proves you don't get it. Both rushed the passer, but did so as LBs. They did not move to DE. That is simply a different situation entirely. If Colvin blitzed from the LB position, I would agree you do not count that as a sack. If Colvin stood next to the DE and attacked the QB, that too would be as a LB, not as a DE. But what Colvin did was different. Period. On 3rd downs, we would play nickel D. In that situation, you usually see the SLB sit on the bench, while an extra DB would play. Well, we did drop the LB and add a DB, but instead of sitting, Colvin would play DE instead of Brob. He flat out became our DE. Not some 5th Defensive linemen, nor a LB standing on the outside. He became our DE. That is not similar at all to Marshall, Otis, or other LBs who were good at rushing the passer. Colvin was different in that he would actually line up as our DE. A key difference is where you see a person's hands. His were on the ground, hence, a downlinemen. Sure, technically speaking, his stats are going to go to the LB position, but I simply argue that stats are not always reflective. I still argue that the pressure he provided while playing DE on 3rd downs is NO different from pressure a situational pass rusher would have provided on 3rd downs. If Colvin sat on the bench on 3rd downs, and we inserted a speedy DE to attack the QB, you would obviously credit that sack to the DL. Well, I simply do not see the difference in what Colvin did. He was our situational pass rusher. Whether it was Colvin playing DE, or some #3 or #4 DE off the bench, the point is, pressure was created from the DL on that down. 2. Beyond the play of Colvin, we do not agree as much as one may think if looking at the number of posts. My point is our DL did what it was supposed to do, as did our defense. What I am not sure you understand is, I agree the set up of our defense was not what it should be. I agree you try to build a defense around a pass rushing DL. That was simply not Blache's defense. Do you not recall his famous quote, "Sacks are over-rated". He built a defense based on stopping the run and getting pressure w/ bull rushes and blitzes. By and large, it worked. Then it failed miserably in the playoffs, but my point is, you can not rip the players too much. They did as the defense was designed for. 3. We agree adding a DE like Rice would have been great for that team. At the same time, I would add that Rice would have been wasted in our scheme, as he would have been told to hold his gap and not all out pass rush, which would have taken him out of his game. Rice would have been great, but probably not as much w/ Blache as our DC. 4. Regarding Engram, I am going off memory, which I think is pretty good as it was an issue I was all over. I blasted Angelo the day he made the move. It was prior to the season, and Angelo at the time said he wanted to give more reps to our other, younger WRs. You can throw in the "more talented" idea as well. Engram was not the sort of WR most GMs seek, and yet is the sort that changes the game as much as most any. If you think back, we had Booker, Bates, White and Terrell, each of which younger and considered a higher pure talent than Engram. Terrell was a top 10 pick rookie. White was a high pick 3rd rounder entering his 2nd season. Booker and Bates were 3rd year, 3rd rounders. We also had Marcus Robinson coming off injury, and I think two years removed from his 1,400 yard season. Then there was Engram. Engram was entering his 6th season (drafted in '96). While not some old man, his ceiling was not considered as high as the others, and it was believed him being on the roster would hold back other, younger WRs, who were thought to have higher ceilings. I recall all too well ripping Angelo for the move, as most everyone saw it as a developmental move, as opposed to keeping your most proven WR. The one thing I would throw out there is, if Engram were not cut, Booker likely would never have developed the way he did, as he and Engram played the same role. At the same time, I still hated the move, and feel we still have yet to truly replace him on the roster. 5. Was our defesne one that I agree w/ in principle? No. We were copying Baltimore who won a SB w/ a very similar defense. Baltimore did not have a stud DL that rushed the passer either, but was an all around aggressive defense that did apply pressure. Our defense was very similar. But in that game, we faced a QB that made our DL and LBs look silly. I remember all too well collapsing the pocket, or putting McNabb on the move, only to see him make moves that made our bigger, slower DL look silly, escape pressure, and find wide open receivers. IMHO, while our defense did not help us, I would argue our offense killed us. Our OL got man-handled. A-Train had around a 2 ypc average, not even getting 50 yards. We had less than 100 yards passing, w/ 3 picks to boot. Several of Phily's scores were on short fields due to our weak offense, also reflected in a 36-24 TOP. Through the season, our offense was able to run the ball, win the battle of TOP and field position. In this game, our offense stunk. 10 total 1st downs and 3 picks kept our defense on the field too much, which was too much for an aggressive defense to hold temp. It isn't that I loved that defensive style. I would far prefer a defense like NYG's this year, where the DL wreaks havoc, and everything else feeds off the DL. That was not our defense in 2001, nor was it intended to be. We were set up to be like Baltimore. While everyone rips the defense for its play against McNabb, at the same time, I think fans forget just how bad the offense was. While never expected to be great, they were HORRIBLE, and not many defenses can over-come such a horrible performance.

Never thought this would happen. Quite happy I was wrong.

I would add that sometimes a thread gets stale, and is only kept up by one or two posters. If breaking news like this is simply thrown into that thread, it will get lost in the shuffle. We won a NFL hearing, where in we moved up in the 3rd round. I would say that absolutely warrants a new thread. Hell, if this was first posted simply in the former thread, I guarantee you someone else would have started it new, not having a clue it was already mentioned.

Disagree 100%. It's one thing to not count Urlacher in DE/DL sacks, but in Colvin, I believe you have a different situation. Colvin wasn't simply a pass rushing LB. He played LB on 1st and 2nd down, and then played DE on 3rd downs. Two years ago, Anderson was a rookie that played basically as a situational pass rusher. Do you count his sacks as DE sacks? If so, there is no difference. Colvin didn't simply blitz on 3rd downs. He lined up at DE. He didn't simply standup as a LB on the LOS. He had his hand down on the ground, and was in fact our DE. I believe BRob moved inside, and Colvin lined up at DE in 3rd down situations. So sorry, Colvin's numbers would count. To dismiss his sack totals would be no different from dismissing the sack totals of any pass rushing specialist, like Anderson as a rookie. Sorry, it just isn't that simple. On offense that year, we had around 1,800 yards on the ground. Not bad at all. But a closer look shows that we ranked very high in rushing attempts, and our 3.7 ypc average shows that despite the solid total yardage numbers, our rushing really wasn't that good. When a team passes the rock all day, they are going to connect. Also, this was our scheme. We played more of a bend, don't break scheme. We allowes yards, particularly in front of us, but nothing that would hurt us. Sorry, but when our defense was #1 in the league against the pass (scoring) what else matters? If another teams dinks and dunks on us, but doesn't score, so what? It kills me when someone gets so caught up in the yards stat. Does another team get extra credit for yards? Last I checked, all that mattered was scoring, and in that regard, we were #1. One, as I said before, you have to credit Colvin in DL totals as you would any situational pass rusher. Two, you argue we "had" to blitz. I argue that was simply our scheme. We build a defense based around a DL that, #1, stopped the run, and #2, attacked the QB. And we supplemented the DL w/ an aggressive group of LBs and safeties. When were we supposed to go all the way? Heading into 2001, Angelo took over after the draft, and few thought much of our team. In fact, Angelo cut Engram in order to give our young players more PT since he felt it was a developmental year, not a 13 win season. If you mean 2002, you are not going to get any argument out of me. I have, since he joined in 2001, ripped Angelo. It made me sick that we had a good team, and he did NOTHING to improve it. Preaching to the choir here. For the first couple years under Angelo, I think the only FA he added close to significant was Desmond Clark. Granted, we had a lot of FAs of our owns, but Angelo made the choice to give the likes of BRob and McQ big paydays, while allowing Colvin and Parrish to walk, and/or to ignore other FAs available. I deleted the list, due to space, but read it. As I said, I think it is simply wrong to not count Colvin, and I am not even sure about the argument against him. Not all 10.5 sacks were as a downlinemen, but the majority were. I am going off memory, but I thought I remember an articled detailing his sacks, and something like 8 of the 10.5 came while playing DE. I would not count Boone, but I would credit 8 sacks from Colvin, which puts their total over 20. Further, I am not totally sure I understand the point. Not every scheme relies on the DL to get to the QB. Ours was a scheme where getting to the QB was probably the 3rd priority. 1st was stopping the run. 2nd was mantaining gaps. 3rd was pushing toward the QB. But our scheme also relies on pressure from other areas. While it was not close to the same, I would argue it was similar to a 3-4 in the sense that we relies on QB pressure from other areas. Our 48 total sacks would indicate that scheme worked fairly well. Tell me something. We have been arguing for a while, and I am not even sure anymore what we were/are arguing about specifically. I agree Angelo should have done more to improve the team. I agree we should have added a DE like Rice, and screamed for such, back then. I was sick the day Angelo gave Bryan Robinson $25m. I agree the best defense is one where the DL can get to the QB, which is also why I have never cared for the 3-4. So what exactly are we arguing about?

I would argue it depends on scheme. For example, on the bears a couple years ago, we ran a scheme where the WR and QB were supposed to read a defense, and adjust w/o communication. If the two didn't read the defense the same, the results were poor, which is what we often saw. All positions must show some level of brains/smarts. I am not arguing OL is an exception, but still question how great it is. While OL has to know various audibles, I would argue the actual number of assignments is less than the number of routes a WR must learn. Now the one thing I would throw out there. I would say WR is a position where talent can better overcome a lack of IQ. Hence why it is considered a skill position. As for Harrison and Wayne, you say their wonderlic was low. Fine. But I am sure we can find plenty of OL who had low wonderlics as well, and still were very good players. There will always be plenty of exceptions. For me, the main position I would have an issue w/ the wonderlic is at QB. After QB, wonderlic is simply not as great of a factor too me.

Not pointless. Just not the only factor. Just as a player w/ a weaker 40 time may still prove to be an elite player, a guy w/ a low IQ test can still prove not only capable, but football smart. The wonderlic is one of many tests/factors, of which I would argue you try not to place too much emphasis on any one. Do you look at it and consider it. Yes. But it is no more than that. A consideration or factor.

No argument it is a brutal system. At the same time, have you ever been asked, "What would you do for $1m dollars?" So, would you bomb and IQ test and face public scrutiny for $1m? Yea, it is brutal, but some perspective here. They get paid VERY well to deal w/ this brutality.

I am not saying there is not complexity, but I think there is a massive over-simplification there. At Wr, you need to know all the routes and know well each and every play. That is a lot right there. But you also have to know the adjustables very well. Further, many offenses expect the WR to know the defense, and adjust. I am not saying anyone can block, but w/ the exception of the center, I do not agree OL need as much by way of smarts as WR.

Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling to sorry for them as they take their IQ to the bank.

One, if we want Hester to play WR, would you not agree that is a position that very much needs to show a level of smarts? Two, of all the positions on the offense, I would think OL the least of those in need of a high IQ. You learn your blocking, but I am not sure you need to master the playbook quite much. You need to know the plays, sure, but I simply do not think it would be equal to the QB or WRs.

I get that. Yet at the same time, when the harm is not truly realized, the punishment is nearly always less, regardless of the rule of law. Hey, I would love it if SF was forced to give us a pick. I simply do not see that happening, and at worst, see SF simply losing (ala NE) a late pick. I still simply do not care for this whole ordeal. I simply find it hard to believe we do not, in any way, tamper. I find it hard to believe we never speak w/ a players agent at the combine, before we are allowed to. Or that we allow talks to be floated through channels before the start of FA. So w/ that assumption, it seems pretty hypocritical to be calling out SF like this.

Possible, though it may not matter. Opinions of the wonderlic are varyied. Vince Young did as crapy as any, and was still a high pick. Further, I would argue some positions may put more weight on the wonderlic than others. I am not sure it is nearly as important for the guys in the trech than it is for numerous other positions.

A difference I would point out is, Miami got Shula. SF did not take anything from us, and only broke the rules.

I think it would be interesting to see how we grade these OTs out. Long is a top 3 pick (value). Clady has become a top 10 pick, w/ some having him go as high as #5, though that is based largely on need. Most seem to have Williams next. Most feel he can be a LT, but he also has the size and strength to slide over to RT if it doesn't workout on the left. Also, he did play some OG in college, and may slide in there temporary too. Problem is, w/ Clady's stock rising, it lessens the liklihood of Williams falling to us. Denver and Carolina are prime candidates to grab him in front of us. That leaves the group of Alberts, Otah and Cherilius. I suppose we can throw in Baker as well. The consensus seems to have Otah 1st, w/ Alberts very close behind, and then Cherilius and then Baker. I wonder if this is how the bears rank the group though. Of this group, I think only Cherilius is not considered a potential LT. I think Otah has about as much upside as any, but I also think Albert has more potential at LT, and may be able to play anywhere on the OL (minus center). From what I have read, Cherilius is strictly a RT. Baker I think will be a LT in the NFL, but never a great one. So anyway, I am just curious to see how our staff grade these guys out. They may have Albert graded higher than Otah, or maybe Albert is not even grades as a 1st rounder. Who knows. I go back and forther between Otah and Alberts. I guess one thing that could put Otah over the top for me would be knowing whether he could play inside or not. I'll say this. Which ever of these two we do not draft, I think Pitt does.

Has that ever happeend? NE was caught cheating against NYJ, and they simply had to give up a pick. That I can think of, teams have had to give up their pick, but I can not recall a team ever getting another teams pick.

Maybe, but is that not a knock on Turner? I think Booker will help, but our offense just seemed so predictable, and not just do to Berrian, IMHO.

Been talking about him for a while, but thus far, I have been pertty well blasted w/ him being a reach. Most mocks have him going to around Pitt, and Pitt takes Otah, Albert could drop even further.

Just call me Rex

Honestly, it was only a partial joke. I have said it before, but I would take Shoop over Shea or Crowton in a second. As for Turner, while I think he is better, at the same time, he has a lot more to work w/ than Shoop did, and yet has not impressed me. I give Shoop credit for 2001, when we did not have superior talent, and yet our offense was still productive. W/ that said, after 2001, he showed his true colors in not being able to adapt to injuries, changes in personnel, or simply the need to alter game plans.

Holy crap. Lagavulin is the nastiest anything I have had. I had a bottle of it after a party, and gave it away. Tasted like Robatussen to me. I simply do not care for the Islay region. Too much peete. Funny thing is, I was talking to some guys on the golf coarse today about this exact topic (Lagavulin/Islay region)

I thought the same thing

Sounds good to me. Glenlivit, Highland Park, McAllen all work for me.

Damn, this is what I get for taking a freaking day off? And hey, I do not have a big head. It just seems that way because I am always right damnit!

Frankly, I do not even recall now what the original argument about corners and shut down corners was about. W/ regard to us, our corners, and the cover two, we simply disagree. I aruge we play far more cover two, and more scheme, and our corners simply do not play man nearly as much as you want to believe. Regarding 2001. You breakdown our sack totals. You say we only had 13.5 sacks by our DEs, but I would point out that Colvin may have been a LB, but the vast majority of his 10.5 sacks came from playing as a downlinemen on 3rd downs. Also, our 48 total sacks did not rank anything close to 19th. As I recall, that total was good enough for top 5 in sacks. To put that 48 sack total in perspective, our SB defense two years ago only had 40 sacks. Sorry, but that stat is so over-rated, it is a joke. We were so good against the run, it forced teams to try and attack us more through the air. Only one team had more pass attempts on their D. While we gave up passing yards, at the same time, we were also 1st in passing TDs allowed (12 total). No argument there. Angelo tired when he drafted Haynes, and then when he traded for Wale. Didn't happen. As for the QB, he tried w/ Rex, and that too didn't work. I am not sure how many times I have to say this, but I agree. Always have. I have said over and over again, that to me as well, DE would be the most important position, followed by DT, and then probably CB. I believe this aspect of the discussion came about because I said Ed Reed could be considered as good of a player to come out of that draft, while you think no Safety can tough a DE like freeney. I agree pass rushing DEs are the most important, but at the same time, simply believe Ed Reed constitutes one of those speical players that can reflect a higher value.

That reminds me. Since the big move over to this board, have we had a good Shoop debate? Probably our best OC in the last decade.