|
Roasted Donut posted:russy needs some heckin chonko woofers So they’re Ciara’s type?
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
All I want is a wide receiver better than Randy Moss who's 6'6 250 and runs a 4.3 40 and never gets hurt and I want him in the 5th round or later, plus his identical twin brother.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 14:27
|
|
|
Play posted:My friends, I have amazing news. He just does both of these things, and just does many more things on top of that Jerry is also a good wr name
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
Roasted Donut posted:russy needs some heckin chonko woofers Kelvin Benjamin is available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
DK Metcalf has been great but with Gordon suspended the hawks only have 2 good receivers. Seattle needs to get another big and good WR this draft. Probably with one of its top three picks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Josh Allen needs those Super Chonks more than Seattle
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:All I want is a wide receiver better than Randy Moss who's 6'6 250 and runs a 4.3 40 and never gets hurt and I want him in the 5th round or later, plus his identical twin brother. The last Madden I bought was like this. Late round 6'5 95 speed monsters in the 6th. They'd have like 50 release and route running so their overall would be garbage. Thing is those skills are trivially easy to level so every other team would have these early round 5'10 dudes and I'd have 4 muscle-Mosses punking everyone with non-stop go routes. Basically football is easy and I don't understand why my team hasn't won the last 30 lombardi's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:DK Metcalf has been great but with Gordon suspended the hawks only have 2 good receivers. They also need a new LB, D-line and O-line since Ifedi's contract is up. I feel like shoring up defense should be a priority here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
I never understand why people think more receivers = better team. QBs can only do so many reads. There's plenty of QBs who have had 1 good receiver and that's it and still lit up the NFL. I highly doubt that the Seahawks go for another one in the first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I never understand why people think more receivers = better team. QBs can only do so many reads. There's plenty of QBs who have had 1 good receiver and that's it and still lit up the NFL. are you saying that QBs....aren't the best?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I never understand why people think more receivers = better team. QBs can only do so many reads. There's plenty of QBs who have had 1 good receiver and that's it and still lit up the NFL. Because you create a nightmare scenario for the defense. Yeah there's guys who can be good with just one. But then that one guy could have a bad day or be well-covered by a top CB. That's when it really pays to have that strong 2nd or 3rd option who can also cause big problems for the defense. So to me if the best player available is a receiver and you already have one that's really good it makes a lot of sense to take that extra receiver. Maybe you shouldn't reach for one. But that's true in most cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2019 23:46
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:are you saying that QBs....aren't the best?! It's a team effort.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:Because you create a nightmare scenario for the defense. Yeah there's guys who can be good with just one. But then that one guy could have a bad day or be well-covered by a top CB. That's when it really pays to have that strong 2nd or 3rd option who can also cause big problems for the defense. That's a good point but I'll invoke the You Can Find Them Later argument that everyone's allowed to make once and only once itt
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I never understand why people think more receivers = better team. QBs can only do so many reads. There's plenty of QBs who have had 1 good receiver and that's it and still lit up the NFL. Rodgers has a top 10 receiver and mostly camp bodies at the other positions. Compare to 2011 when he had five starting caliber receivers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:40
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:They also need a new LB, D-line and O-line since Ifedi's contract is up. I feel like shoring up defense should be a priority here. Yeah but this FA class is rich with DL. Draft OLx2 and a WR with the top picks, draft defense with the rest, sign some good FA DLs. Wham bam so easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
Doltos posted:That's a good point but I'll invoke the You Can Find Them Later argument that everyone's allowed to make once and only once itt Are we still automatically applying this to running backs this year?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
RB might be the goon favorite position for not drafting in the first round but it really should be WR
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
hifi posted:RB might be the goon favorite position for not drafting in the first round but it really should be WR And I don't really agree about not drafting an RB. I think if you can take any draft pick and look at them and think you can get very strong years out of him on his rookie contract....it makes perfect sense to take one there. Now resigning for a big deal? I can see why you might not. But there's nothing wrong with taking one if you think he's going to produce at a high level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
BPA is pretty much the only way to draft but at some point you reach your limit on how much first round capital you put into a position. If I have two good WRs I'm probably not going after a third one in the first round unless onese coming into a big contract I can't afford or is retiring soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:06
|
|
|
hifi posted:RB might be the goon favorite position for not drafting in the first round but it really should be WR If the Bengals had drafted a baggageless Mixon with a first rounder I'd have been down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Doltos posted:I never understand why people think more receivers = better team. QBs can only do so many reads. There's plenty of QBs who have had 1 good receiver and that's it and still lit up the NFL. It's the same argument as any other position or position group, you're trying to double-down on strengths. Sometimes it does end up being an inefficient waste of resources, but sometime you're leveraging that thing you do well into an identity that's going to propel the team. There's different styles of football there, though- if you've got the one good receiver, it makes sense to feature them and run a bunch of isolation routes. If you've got multiple guys, it opens up your ability to do targeted damage on concepts. I don't understand why 4-WR sets have gone out of fashion in the modern NFL. Everyone out there is doing 11 personnel instead, and I don't think the personnel really makes sense to explain it. How many teams have a TE which is really a genuine mismatch? There are very few guys who are comparable to wide receivers as pass catcher AND all that challenging to defenses in terms of creating an additional gap. I mean a significant portion of the time you're just better off not challenging the defense with another gap if you're going to both lose it a significant portion of the time AND field a worse receiver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
For that I assume it’s because even a lovely TE can perform against a less optimal defense ie TE blocking against a Dime is more successful than a team going 4 against a Dime. So basically keeping the defense honest against the pass and run is better than letting the defense sell out against the pass/run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:And I don't really agree about not drafting an RB. I think if you can take any draft pick and look at them and think you can get very strong years out of him on his rookie contract....it makes perfect sense to take one there. Now resigning for a big deal? I can see why you might not. But there's nothing wrong with taking one if you think he's going to produce at a high level. Pay a vet RB you have already seen produce at a high level less than/similarly as what 1st round rookie RB would get. A rookie contract for an RB isn't a value, so who cares if you get strong years on a rookie contract or a vet contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:
I guess I look at it the other way. How often is your #4 reciever a bigger threat than your #1 TE?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Hand Row posted:For that I assume it’s because even a lovely TE can perform against a less optimal defense ie TE blocking against a Dime is more successful than a team going 4 against a Dime. So basically keeping the defense honest against the pass and run is better than letting the defense sell out against the pass/run. Yeah it's this. Your #4 WR is going to be garbage at blocking. Your #1 TE is going to be passable at catching and potentially really good at blocking. The DC has to decide quick whether to sell out against the pass or assign a player to occupy the TE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:It's the same argument as any other position or position group, you're trying to double-down on strengths. Sometimes it does end up being an inefficient waste of resources, but sometime you're leveraging that thing you do well into an identity that's going to propel the team. There's different styles of football there, though- if you've got the one good receiver, it makes sense to feature them and run a bunch of isolation routes. If you've got multiple guys, it opens up your ability to do targeted damage on concepts. If you pass constantly the defense is going to adapt and take advantage of having 4 WRs out there. Your 11th guy is either a TE or a HB which makes it easier for coordinators to gameplan around. Specifically sending two blitzers down the A gap against this lineup is what made it fall out of style. It allowed defenses to stack a hole with two options for the blitzing linebackers pretty much ignoring whatever strong side the offense was trying to set up with that 5th guy. QB's under 6 man pressure, 5 guys are covering 4 WRs, and all of a sudden the QB either has to check down or throw against a roving safety. This forces offensive coordinators to go into drag routes and curls and all of a sudden the covering DBs have it a lot easier predicting routes. Plus if start falling behind this becomes tougher to deal with, essentially turning your passing attack into a running game. You're right at the moment that double high safety is exploitable by throwing four WRs out there and teams still do it plenty, especially teams that feature stud special teamer WRs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2019 06:15
|
|
|
Jacob Eason's officially declared. I feel like this a bad idea - isn't he more of a fringe Day 2 / Day 3 prospect? He could easily go in the first round with a solid year next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Jacob Eason's officially declared. I feel like this a bad idea - isn't he more of a fringe Day 2 / Day 3 prospect? He could easily go in the first round with a solid year next year. He's projected to be a late 1st / early 2nd and the 5th (ish, depending on who you ask) best QB available. He's probably hedging on the fact that he isn't sure if he will have a good year next year. I think he has decent decision making and was hampered by bad receivers, so he's probably banking on scouts seeing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
WinnebagoWarrior posted:I guess I look at it the other way. How often is your #4 reciever a bigger threat than your #1 TE? I think much more often than is reflected on the field right now. You're talking like, someone capable of producing more than like 300-400 yards as a 50%+ snap count player. You can throw a rock and hit that guy who isn't under a contract in the off-season and get that. Doltos posted:If you pass constantly the defense is going to adapt and take advantage of having 4 WRs out there. Your 11th guy is either a TE or a HB which makes it easier for coordinators to gameplan around. Specifically sending two blitzers down the A gap against this lineup is what made it fall out of style. It allowed defenses to stack a hole with two options for the blitzing linebackers pretty much ignoring whatever strong side the offense was trying to set up with that 5th guy. QB's under 6 man pressure, 5 guys are covering 4 WRs, and all of a sudden the QB either has to check down or throw against a roving safety. This forces offensive coordinators to go into drag routes and curls and all of a sudden the covering DBs have it a lot easier predicting routes. Plus if start falling behind this becomes tougher to deal with, essentially turning your passing attack into a running game. You don't have to pass consistently, though. Creating more gaps with your offensive formation doesn't make it easier to run the ball if you're not winning the gap, and I think my point is that teams should consider not creating those gaps if they're not likely to consistently win them. I think it's certainly worth considering that the "run and shoot" was out there all day every day for the better part of two decades on the college and professional level and it was very hard to blitz. It out-lived Buddy Ryan and the 46 as a viable defensive philosophy, it out-lived a period of time where the size/strength difference between LBs and IOL were much smaller than today. Here's a good article by Chris Brown on why it survived the stuff you're describing: http://smartfootball.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-killed-run-and-shoot.html quote:The R&S used the RB in the protection. The quarterback would do a half-roll to one side, the line would do a kind of sprint-out/turnback protection, and the runningback would often block the defensive end or end man on the line of scrimmage to the half-roll side. About 8-10 times a game, however, the running back would block the DE for a 1001 count, and then slide off and release for a screen pass as his linemen got downfield to block for him. Against an all-out blitzing team, no one covered him because he had already engaged a defender, so everyone assumed he was in the protection, they would rush upfield, and the runningback would release out into the open field. He goes on to say that the zone blitz was really what killed the "run and shoot" as a viable offense, but I think the thing is that you can't really be a zone blitz team in 2020. Old school, spot-drop style zone coverage is not a viable every-down tactic vs. a lot of the league right now, and that's even without trying to drop linemen to do it. I don't think you're going to start teaching defensive linemen how to suddenly read route patterns, and trust them to switch their coverages on the fly and the like. There's also so much stuff that's been developed for spread offenses since that time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
Kirios posted:Jacob Eason's officially declared. I feel like this a bad idea - isn't he more of a fringe Day 2 / Day 3 prospect? He could easily go in the first round with a solid year next year. His actual value is likely 2nd round. But he’s a tall white boy with a cannon. Gonna get snagged in the first. We live in a world where people draft Mitch and Josh Allen in the top 10. He definitely has a chance to be a good starter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:You don't have to pass consistently, though. Creating more gaps with your offensive formation doesn't make it easier to run the ball if you're not winning the gap, and I think my point is that teams should consider not creating those gaps if they're not likely to consistently win them. Many coaches have practiced that idea throughout the years by running away from defenders or setting up different blocking schemes for those gaps. I don't know how much that translates to running 4 wrs a lot. Run and shoot being hard to blitz and it outliving the 46 are two different lines of discussion. Run and shoot is of course harder to blitz because you're fielding 4 CBs against 4 WRs and probably a LB or a safety on the RB which will limit the amount of pass rushers. Receivers are also motioning so much in the backfield that you have to change coverage and rushing packages a lot. What killed the 46 was pretty much any strong passing attack offense. Teams were starting to kill it before the 90s appeared. What I'm describing isn't the 46 defense at all. It's simply a blitz package that a lot of different defenses utilize against teams that are constantly passing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Many coaches have practiced that idea throughout the years by running away from defenders or setting up different blocking schemes for those gaps. I don't know how much that translates to running 4 wrs a lot. I'm bringing up the 46 because I think the underlying premise is pretty similar to the double A-gap stuff- it's a pressure look where all the offensive linemen are covered. It's a little bit different in who can drop, but I think it's similar in many respects from it's ability to overload and limit some protection stuff you'd do. I think you're a little premature on the double A-gap stuff, my understanding was that was really a Mike Zimmer thing that came about when everyone in the league started running 11 personnel in the mid 2000's. It's hard for that to match up with 10 personnel because you're just on the face of it running a defensive package not matching the offensive package.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I'm bringing up the 46 because I think the underlying premise is pretty similar to the double A-gap stuff- it's a pressure look where all the offensive linemen are covered. It's a little bit different in who can drop, but I think it's similar in many respects from it's ability to overload and limit some protection stuff you'd do. Not even close. Like I said doubling up the A gap works in a bunch of different defenses. You can see it in single high safety like the 46 but you can pretty much run it out of any base set that has multiple players in the box. The 46 features three DBs which is like the exact opposite of what you run against 4 WRs. The double a gap stuff has been around for a while but Bill Belichick really took it to the next level. He loves that more than anything and then we kinda stole it from him in the 07 super bowl. Anyway that's just one thing that counters 4 WRs. You can simply run a 3-5 with heavy zone in the area of the field the offense is trying to get to, IE in short yardage situations you cloud up 5-8ish yards down the field and in long yardage you cloud up near the first down marker. You could do heavy press with a blitz like the Ravens do a lot. I think your argument is more in line with why don't teams do this more and I think the basic answer to that is that they have been but it's not the end all be all formation. Maybe in college but definitely not in the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:I think you're a little premature on the double A-gap stuff, my understanding was that was really a Mike Zimmer thing that came about when everyone in the league started running 11 personnel in the mid 2000's. It's hard for that to match up with 10 personnel because you're just on the face of it running a defensive package not matching the offensive package. Zimmee kind of perfected it in his first few years with the Vikings. It's also predicated on having very very athletic LBs and FS so you can still drop into coverage if you arent blitzing. Nowadays its pretty rare for MIN to show it, and it was always more to change the Oline protection to get more favorable pass rushing options / create confusion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Not even close. Like I said doubling up the A gap works in a bunch of different defenses. You can see it in single high safety like the 46 but you can pretty much run it out of any base set that has multiple players in the box. The 46 features three DBs which is like the exact opposite of what you run against 4 WRs. The 46 defense isn't just the one specific formation- there's a bunch of variants, including a Nickel version. It's neither here nor there, but the 46 was a 4 DB package, it's literally named for the SS playing the box role w/ 2 CBs and the FS. Doltos posted:The double a gap stuff has been around for a while but Bill Belichick really took it to the next level. He loves that more than anything and then we kinda stole it from him in the 07 super bowl. Anyway that's just one thing that counters 4 WRs. You can simply run a 3-5 with heavy zone in the area of the field the offense is trying to get to, IE in short yardage situations you cloud up 5-8ish yards down the field and in long yardage you cloud up near the first down marker. You could do heavy press with a blitz like the Ravens do a lot. I think your argument is more in line with why don't teams do this more and I think the basic answer to that is that they have been but it's not the end all be all formation. Maybe in college but definitely not in the NFL. I don't think it makes much sense, though. Defenses routinely drop out of those double A-gap mug looks against 11 if it's 2x2 or 3x1, and you're still not really putting anyone in that big of a bind- it's six potential rushers vs. six blockers. You pretty much would default have to go to single-high with a safety in direct coverage vs. a WR, and you're really still getting into zone blitz stuff where it starts to get tricky for an offense: https://twitter.com/fduffy3/status/1155225495136591880
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
I have never had more fun watching football than I did watching Zimmer's defenses from 2009 to 2013. The 2013 defense in particular was just smothering. It was also nice back in 2011 when they had Thomas Howard and Manny Lawson. I've almost forgotten what it's like watching a team where linebacking isn't a sucking chest wound.
Eifert Posting fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Dec 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Catfish Noodlin posted:The 46 defense isn't just the one specific formation- there's a bunch of variants, including a Nickel version. It's neither here nor there, but the 46 was a 4 DB package, it's literally named for the SS playing the box role w/ 2 CBs and the FS. The SS is so close to the line he's essentially a hybrid linebacker and indeed 46 defense paved the way for hybrid SS's that we know today. But with a single high safety and two CBs it's essentially 3 DBs but semantics. Six rushers vs six blockers assumes the RB stays back. Even then that's a mismatch defenses want. Single high safety doesn't matter as much when the pressure's on, although yea it can backfire if the blitz is picked up effectively. You don't have invalid points, it's just that there's pros and cons to every set you run. The double a gap gets exposed if the opposing team is ahead since you essentially vacate the middle, it's also susceptible to off tackle actions. 4 WR sets are great if you're running a kgun offense and are ahead, or if you have the personnel to really beat blitz coverage. It just isn't too amazing when you're behind and the defense doesn't have to play the run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
is burrow going to be the lowest rated #1 overall qb of the 2018 to 2020 drafts
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 03:13
|
|
|
Is he rated lower than Goff/Wentz?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 17:36 |
|
|
He’s definitely a better prospect then Goff and a higher floor than Wentz
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2019 06:19
|
|
