NFL Thread 14 - Super Bowl

[Rhom]

Well, yeah, I thought it was obvious that terrorists are behind everything - even sports. I for one have heeded the cautionary tales from Black Sunday, The Last Boy Scout, etc.

The Sum of All Fears (book version... not the movie) is what scares me about Super Bowls!

:leaving:

[Prince of the North]

The Sum of All Fears (book version... not the movie) is what scares me about Super Bowls!

:leaving:

Yes, thanks! I knew there were more but I just couldn't think of any at the time. That scenario scares me as well.

Jaime and I are just having a bit of fun but the point I was making earlier is that, even though we may not like the two-week gap between the conference championships and the Superbowl, I don't think the NFL will give it up easily. The luxury of having that extra week to use, if necessary, was perfectly illustrated after 9/11.

[Prince of the North]

*does not want LF to go to Chicago*

I've been insulating myself from Super Bowl hype for the most part even though I can't wait for the actual game.

It's actually a strange thing for me...as much as I love the NFL I hadn't had anything close to a favorite team until Rodgers started playing for GB. So while I've always been totally interested in what's going on, I've never been too vested in it.

That's pretty much me to a tee. I have never had a favorite NFL team and I never will but I love the NFL. That's why I'm already shedding a tear for the upcoming labor strife and very likely lock-out :crying:

Bring on the Superbowl! :cheers:

[Jaime L]

I do have to admit - I'm confused how you can be redeemed from raping women and making bad decisions by winning the superbowl. Is this the same way that Ray Lewis was redeemed for killing someone and Vick was redeemed (at some point) for arranging for dog raping and destruction?

Keep in mind raping people and electrocuting dogs are awful, awful things...if you don't win the Superbowl the next season. Mike Vick should be ashamed! Roethlisberger...we'll see. Let's keep an open mind here guys.

It's possible he's a rapist piece of shit...or alternatively a courageous heroic winner who refuse to let these slutty women bring him down. We just don't know.

[Kalbear]

Most people agree, the Bears greatest need is offensive line. Most people also agree, Jerry Angelo sucks at using high draft picks on offensive players. I think Greg Olsen is the only offensive first or second round that isn't a huge bust (Hester and Forte were both third rounders I think), and he might as well be a bust playing in Mike Martz's offense.

Devin Hester was a second rounder. So was Forte.

Fitz to the Bears would make me sad, mostly because I don't think Fitz would be that happy with the Bears. He'd probably be a complete fucking beast and a half in a Martzian offense - he runs stupid good routes, is a smart receiver and is damn fast - but I don't see him being happy without an elite QB. And Cutler isn't.

It would be good for the Bears and would probably rival the Delhomme-Smith silliness in the mid 2000s, but I like Fitz too much to wish that on him.

On the other hand, Fitz to the Colts? Makes sense. They need more help at receiver, they could likely trade a pick, and Fitz would be thrilled to play with Manning.

Fitz to the Pats also makes sense, but I hate that idea. Plus they're getting Chad Ochocinco, and everyone knows this. Even if they don't give anything for him, CJ will retire and hang around the Pats offices until they let him in like a sad street urchin.

[awesome possum]

Fitz to the Bears would make me sad, mostly because I don't think Fitz would be that happy with the Bears. He'd probably be a complete fucking beast and a half in a Martzian offense - he runs stupid good routes, is a smart receiver and is damn fast - but I don't see him being happy without an elite QB. And Cutler isn't.

The numbers Cutler put up his last season in Denver shows that, with an elite WR, he can be an elite QB. I look back in my head at some of the incomplete passes or even the shitty overthrows in the NFC Championship game and a guy like Fitzgerald would catch most of those easily.

[Kalbear]

I don't know if that's true. While he put up really good numbers in Denver they weren't significantly better than the numbers he put up this year other than yards - and the primary reason that they put up so many more yards was that in Denver they were playing from behind a huge amount and their special teams weren't nearly as good (and the defense wasn't nearly as good at getting him field position).

ETA: went and looked at FO's take on him, and Cutler shows up really nicely there as well in 2008 (6th overall). So you might have a point.

Don't get me wrong - the Bears' receivers are collectively pretty horrible. And Fitz's amazing hands and ability to get separation would be great, as is his strength on 1 on 1 fights. He would improve Cutler. But I'm not sure that he would be as good as he could be; under another QB that is more accurate but possibly not as hard-throwing he's probably do better. Like, say Bradford (though Arizona owuld very likely never trade in-division).

Still, worth a dream or two.

[Kalbear]

I was thinking about this sort of the other day as well - that as fans people almost always want that star receiver for their team, thinking that if they just make the trade for a receiver things will be better - and that you should go out and bite the bullet and get that star receiver.

But in reality, teams don't improve that much with a star receiver. They improve some, but anecdotally it's not that much.

Megatron is a beast and a half, but he hasn't improved the Lion's offense significantly since he got there.

TO did give Philadelphia a great season - but people forget that while he was huge in the superbowl, the eagles got there completely without him.

Then there's Brady and Moss - who had a great year one year, a good one another year but won zero superbowls together. and Brady had his historically best DVOA season without him - though things got far better when they got back their line.

Brandon Marshall didn't noticeably improve Miami. Santonio Holmes didn't elevate the Jets to tremendous heights. Getting Housh and Boldin didn't make the Ravens into a huge passing offense machine. And the Bengals did better when Ocho and TO were out, passer-wise.

I'm trying to think of other high-profile examples where a receiver did make a difference. The nice thing is that there's tons of examples because for whatever reason receivers move around a lot. Other than 2007 and Brady/Moss (and you can argue reasonably that the more important receiver there was Welker, not Moss) can you think of examples where a receiver really helped a team?

[Swordfish]

I do have to admit - I'm confused how you can be redeemed from raping women and making bad decisions by winning the superbowl. Is this the same way that Ray Lewis was redeemed for killing someone and Vick was redeemed (at some point) for arranging for dog raping and destruction?

yes. Except for the winning the superbowl part, it's exactly the same.

[Jaime L]

I was thinking about this sort of the other day as well - that as fans people almost always want that star receiver for their team, thinking that if they just make the trade for a receiver things will be better - and that you should go out and bite the bullet and get that star receiver.

But in reality, teams don't improve that much with a star receiver. They improve some, but anecdotally it's not that much.

Megatron is a beast and a half, but he hasn't improved the Lion's offense significantly since he got there.

TO did give Philadelphia a great season - but people forget that while he was huge in the superbowl, the eagles got there completely without him.

Then there's Brady and Moss - who had a great year one year, a good one another year but won zero superbowls together. and Brady had his historically best DVOA season without him - though things got far better when they got back their line.

Brandon Marshall didn't noticeably improve Miami. Santonio Holmes didn't elevate the Jets to tremendous heights. Getting Housh and Boldin didn't make the Ravens into a huge passing offense machine. And the Bengals did better when Ocho and TO were out, passer-wise.

I'm trying to think of other high-profile examples where a receiver did make a difference. The nice thing is that there's tons of examples because for whatever reason receivers move around a lot. Other than 2007 and Brady/Moss (and you can argue reasonably that the more important receiver there was Welker, not Moss) can you think of examples where a receiver really helped a team?

I think, taking a step back, can you say that about a single player (even a star) at any other position outside of QB? I mean the impact of one guy is always going to be muted. Think it's telling though that in the situations you cited, the team's offense demonstrably did improve. Not sure how big of an impact you need before you say a receiver makes a difference but I think it's clear The Pats were better in Moss' first year, Sanchez was better playing with Holmes. The Eagles did improve with TO. Separating out the receiver's impact from everything else surrounding it is near impossible but in a number of cases you can see offenses getting better, at least in part due to having a weapon on the edge.

The reverse is also sometimes true - look at what happened when Moss left Daunte Culpepper in Minnesota and TO left McNabb in Philly. Receivers have an impact. To me the only question to me is whether that impact is greater or less than getting a comparable star at another position like DE or CB.

[awesome possum]

I think plugging a WR in a team that has other gaping holes without filling those holes will lead to failure. The Bears have one or two gaping holes that would (hopefully) be filled up in the draft and free agency- thus the one remaining hole is a big time WR.

Kal's right in the end though, all this is good for is a dream or two. Never going to happen.

[Kalbear]

I think, taking a step back, can you say that about a single player (even a star) at any other position outside of QB?

Demonstrably, yes. Darren Sharper made a huge difference in the Saint's defense. Bob Sanders did the same. The Bears defense improved considerably with Peppers. The Lion's defense improved considerably with Suh and VandenBosch. The Jets improved considerably with D'Brickashaw and Mangold. The Browns did with...gah, what was his name? The OT that they drafted. The Eagles improved tremendously on defense with Samuel.

This doesn't always happen; AT to the Pats didn't work out. But I guess it seems like that when a star player does well in multiple places the team can or can not improve depending on that player's position. For something like DE, CB, Safety (hugely underrated, I think), OT, center - you can get a direct improvement just from a new player performing at the level they were before. Whereas with receivers a lot of time it doesn't end up really helping the team all that much - even on offense.

Culpepper without Moss isn't a fair comparison either, given that Culpepper suffered a huge injury. And McNabb got injured all over the place when TO left. And as I said about the Pats - they were better in Moss's first year, but they didn't decline when he left. They took a huge nosedive when Welker got injured, making me think that the missing piece wasn't Moss, it was Welker. Which honestly doesn't disprove your point, it just moves the target a bit.

And I think it's also reasonable to say that some people work only with another set of people. That they're a niche player who doesn't have globally awesome skills, but when they're in that niche they're phenomenal. Dallas Clark is not the best TE in history or close to the athletic stud that Gates is, but it's clear that he works amazingly well with Manning. Deion Branch isn't a stud receiver either, but he definitely ups Brady's game (and Brady works well with him). Welker and Brady as well; I don't think any QB would work nearly as well with Welker, and almost no receiver has quite the skill set and smarts that Welker has; it works great in that scheme and with that set of people, but might suck elsewhere.

That all being said - maybe I've been listening to sports radio a lot. Seahawks fans keep saying how the Seahawks need a good receiver and that their receivers suck and yadda yadda, and they should get someone in FA or trade or target a top one. And i'm like...what? What made you watch this year's Seahawks and think that their main problem was a lack of receivers? Same with the Bears - they led the lead in sacks allowed, had an anemic running game, and this clearly means you need a burner receiver? The hell?

I don't discount the notion that a receiver can improve a team. My argument would be more like given the positions, what is the most and the least likely to improve a team's overall performance if you improve on that position? And for me, it'd look like:

QB

OT

Safety (especially in tampa 2)

CB (especially if not in tampa 2)

DE

DT

Center

OG

LB

RB

WR

TE

And most importantly, if you're got serious issues at the top 5 positions improving the lower ones isn't going to help much at all.

[Jaime L]

I'd probably put WR towards the middle of that chart. At least above RBs (absolutely fungible), ILB (Rarely big impact guys - infact all the dominant ones Lewis, Urlacher, Brooks came out of the 90s) and probably equal to OGs. I've personally become biased against DTs because I've watched Haynesworth and Stubblefield go down in flames once they joined a new team but that's just my misery. I get their importance. And in a 3-4, I'd put NTs higher than DEs and right up there with OLBs in importance outside of QB and OT.

I've also become biased against CBs over the years. I think they're overrated in the way people talk about them shutting down one half of a field. The Skins have had Probowl CBs for any number of the past 30 years from Darrell Green to Champ Bailey to Shawn Springs to DeAngelo Hall (who didn't deserve it this year) and the quality of the defense has largely been unrelated to their respective performances. It's not like Asomugha has ever made the Raiders D great or Bailey on the Broncos. And the dominant defenses you can barely ever name a shutdown corner on the Ravens or Steelers. Feel like they're just so dependent on the pass rush (no one maintains coverage pass 4-5 seconds) and you can get by with average guys as long as they're not horrible. Also think last year was an aberration with the kind of seasons Revis and Woodson had and neither were anything you can expect to count on year to year from CBs.

I do agree with the impact safeties have on the modern game. Guys are lynchpins to the defense and can dominate in their own right. Think personnel guys have it backwards in their hierarchy because safeties can and do play so much more of a key role both in the run game and as a wild card as opposed to an Asomugha whom you always know exactly where he's going to line up.

[Kalbear]

While I think that RBs are largely fungible, I also think that getting a star RB improves a team more than a star WR does. What I don't think is the case is that if you lose a star RB that the drop off is so tremendous, but I think it's still more valuable than a WR if only because they get the ball more and are involved in significantly more plays than WR or TE due to blocking, passcatching and the like. It's hard to say; we've had a dearth of true star RBs that make or break a team's offense since Faulk retired. LdT was the next closest but even he's not that amazing, just good.

While Asomugha hasn't made the raider team great on D, they're definitely good because of him. Their problem is the fact that their second corner is horrible, but he's a star and they'll take a big hit if they lose him. Similarly, with Samuel the Pats lost a ton of defensive ability just from him. The big advantage that Revis/Asomugha give a defense is the ability to blitz more while retaining good coverage. Now, if you can generate pressure with 4 guys you don't need to blitz more - so I'd say that CB, DE and DT are all around the same value there. It's not about taking away half of the field - it's about being able to generate favorable matchups. That's why I specified not in the tampa 2. If you're doing mostly cover 3 or man, a great cornerback is essentially your version of the safety in the tampa 2. They have to man up and take away an option, or they have to blitz as needed, or they need to shed a block and stop the outside. They have a ton of responsibilities. In tampa, they're mostly zone and as such don't have to have nearly the same independence.

I do think that LB has the potential on some teams to rival the safety value. The Bears basically treat Urlacher like a safety in that he's both the leader of the team and the person they want to funnel the play to. But that's unusual. LB's definitely overrated, and you can get really good value from late LB drafts.

[Jaime L]

While Asomugha hasn't made the raider team great on D, they're definitely good because of him. Their problem is the fact that their second corner is horrible, but he's a star and they'll take a big hit if they lose him. Similarly, with Samuel the Pats lost a ton of defensive ability just from him. The big advantage that Revis/Asomugha give a defense is the ability to blitz more while retaining good coverage. Now, if you can generate pressure with 4 guys you don't need to blitz more - so I'd say that CB, DE and DT are all around the same value there. It's not about taking away half of the field - it's about being able to generate favorable matchups. That's why I specified not in the tampa 2. If you're doing mostly cover 3 or man, a great cornerback is essentially your version of the safety in the tampa 2. They have to man up and take away an option, or they have to blitz as needed, or they need to shed a block and stop the outside. They have a ton of responsibilities. In tampa, they're mostly zone and as such don't have to have nearly the same independence.

Agree the presence of the truly elite guys make DCs feel more comfortable blitzing, but I don't think that's an equivalent virtue to teams that are able to generate a great pass rush with 4-5 guys. In my view an elite CB and average pass rusher do not equal an elite pass rusher and an average CB. Elite passrushers can eliminate everyone's mistakes, an elite CB only takes away one guy on the field. Also think their impact on turnovers is quite different. I don't even mean just comparing Asomugha's interceptions to Clay Matthews strip sacks, I mean the kind of in the heat of the moment bad decisions a great pass rusher creates as opposed to the impact of a CB which often only applies to the pre-snap decision making. And that doesn't even get into how CBs are pretty much only impact players in one phase of the game: the passing game, whereas DEs and DTs are the cornerstones of the run defense.

Also while I would agree that while guys like Revis and Asomugha help with the numbers game (i.e.: allowing more blitzing), it's no different than the impact of a Moss or TO in their prime forcing teams to commit a CB and a safety over the top and play 9 vs. 10 all game. So at worst I'd call the two equal, but as a fan of a team who has had good CBs but not good WRs for the past twenty years, I just value the latter so much more.

Anyway it's an interesting debate all the same. I guess this is my roundabout way of saying I think the Broncos are crazy if they take that CB Peterson out of LSU at #2 considering all their other needs.

[Kalbear]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

With Asomugha and Revis their defenses are able to blitz 5 or more guys far more effectively. With that, the CB not only creates a good matchup, he also allows for more aggressive pressure that wouldn't otherwise be there. Or, in the case of Pats/Jets, it allows for a ridiculous amount of effective coverage when you do drop 7 or 8; everyone is REALLY covered.

My point is that having that kind of CB allows you to generate pressure. It's not just more comfortable, it's really allowing it to be at all effective.

I do think that in general (and I was wrong initially) that a DE or a DT is better for overall gains given that a good one will (hopefully) stop more runs and more passes, but I think there's an argument to be made for each. at least we're agreed that LBs are kinda ass.

[awesome possum]

Same with the Bears - they led the lead in sacks allowed, had an anemic running game, and this clearly means you need a burner receiver? The hell?

A team can't have more than one need? The OL is definitely number one on the list, but WR (and CB) are right up there. And maybe more important. The Bears led the league in sacks because of three games: Giants, Seattle, and the Packers at Lambeau. Add one of the games against the Lions and you have one shy of half of the total sacks given up throughout the year. In four games. The line was almost decent in several games, and actually played well in one or two. In the last eight games of the season, Joe Flacco was the most sacked QB in the league.

If Jerry Angelo allows Mike Tice to draft the guys he wants for the line (as they did with Webb), it can only improve. Even with third through seventh rounders.

I'm not sure if the receivers will get much better on their own, I know they're still young and all, but I just don't have the same faith.

[Kalbear]

A team can't have more than one need? The OL is definitely number one on the list, but WR (and CB) are right up there. And maybe more important. The Bears led the league in sacks because of three games: Giants, Seattle, and the Packers at Lambeau.

They can, but the fans are often acting like all they need is a WR.

And no, it wasn't just those three games that made them bad. They were pretty atrociously bad in many games. They weren't great against the Packers either - 3 sacks in the first half. They might not have given up as many sacks as the Ravens did in the last 8 games, but they still need help there.

Hmm. Logan Mankins. Hmm.

What's interesting to me is that a lot of Seattle talkies are talking about spending big money on Asomugha, but he's 31 and isn't going to have a huge career length. But for the Bears, he'd be about perfect. 4-5 years is about as long as the rest of the defense has to go, and he'd be a killer need. With him they'd likely have the best defense, period. I'd much rather get Asomugha than Fitz.

[awesome possum]

What's interesting to me is that a lot of Seattle talkies are talking about spending big money on Asomugha, but he's 31 and isn't going to have a huge career length. But for the Bears, he'd be about perfect. 4-5 years is about as long as the rest of the defense has to go, and he'd be a killer need. With him they'd likely have the best defense, period. I'd much rather get Asomugha than Fitz.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd take Asomugha over Fitz. I don't see why it's not possible to have both.

A first rounder and maybe a third through sixth (or next year's second) along with Caleb Hanie for Fitzgerald, who is due to make $7 mil in 2011. Those might almost offset each other so there's enough money to make a serious play towards Asomugha.

Wishful homer thinking, of course, but there it is.

[Arlingzen Bill]

Maybe the Packers should xend Flynn to the Cardinals in a package for Fitz... Driver is near the end and Jones is coming up on a contract...Jennings, Nelson, Fitzgerald, Finley and Driver...Tell me that isn't a scary receiver set...Won't happen but man o man