Originally posted by buck:
Saying that does not make it true. Assertions are not facts.
If you did read the articles, you would know it is indeed a FACT.
There are 269 users in the forums
Originally posted by buck:
Saying that does not make it true. Assertions are not facts.
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by buck:
Saying that does not make it true. Assertions are not facts.
If you did read the articles, you would know it is indeed a FACT.
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:I think the thought behind this thread is pretty sensible, but I don't think we have to think in terms of one side of the ball, or the other. We don't have to knock one side of the ball or the other. We can meet the needs on both sides of the ball with the remaining picks we have. We are in a position to go BPA at 31 and 34 with FS, SS, DE, or NT. Those two picks should net us two future starters or depending how the draft falls, we could trade down and end up with another 2nd and third round pick, and possibly another 7th, and still end up getting great value. Considering the guys that I'd really want will be most likely gone (Tavon Austin, Datone Jones, Vacarro, etc), I'd say trade down and pick up the extra 2nd and 3rd. You can still get a solid NT prospect in Brandon Williams and pick up some of the other quality talent at WR and TE with the extra picks.
I will say that I am not in favor of trading any of our picks in the first three round for picks next year. We need to enter the draft with a load up now to win now while still adding players that will help secure the longterm success of the team. DE, NT, FS, SS, and TEs are musts. We also need to pick up a WR that has the potential to be a no. 1 or no.2 to prepare for the departure of Anquan Boldin/AJ Jenkins in case he doesn't pan our/or if Michael Crabtree's contract demands are too high. Fortunately we can get guys like Da'Rick Rogers, Keenan Allen, or Quinton Patton as insurance for any of the above scenarios.
Originally posted by buck:
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by buck:
Saying that does not make it true. Assertions are not facts.
If you did read the articles, you would know it is indeed a FACT.
Now, you're hurting my feelings. You ignored me. I read the articles and posted my take on them. (see post #53).
Originally posted by Rascal:
Of course those articles weren't written about this last Super Bowl. But, you get the drift and where the trend has been heading. Forget about the authors for the moment, just take Bruce Arians' quote for it. Or take a look at this past postseason, 3 teams with top defenses all went down :
- - 9ers (3rd ranked Total D and 4th ranked Passing D)
- - Seahawks (4th ranked Total D and 6th ranked Passing D)
- - Broncos (2nd ranked Total D and 3rd ranked Passing D)
As you can see, even if you want to discount the 9ers because Justin Smith wasn't 100%, both the Broncos and Seahawks also went down. Need I say more ? Obviously, it tells you even though is great to have a stout D, it will only get you so far. To add, the Ravens didn't win the Super Bowl because of its D, it was 9ers' bad play-calling by Greg Roman which cost us the game. I don't care how good an opposing D is, if your O is not good enough to get the ball in from the 7 yard line with 4 goes, then there is something seriously wrong with your team !! Perhaps if we had an Anquan Boldin or a Justin Hunter things might have been different ? Perhaps. Oh, by the way, Ravens' D was ranked 17th in Total D just in case you didn't know. Or hey the Steelers' D was ranked 1st in Total D and Passing D and they didn't even get into the playoffs.
That should settle it right ?
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Had our defense played at a championship level just 2 and a half months ago we'd be polishing up #6 in the trophy case.
There is no such thing anymore.
Instead, if our offense had not left us lagging with so many 3 and outs and down by 22 in the 1st half, we would be talking about "Quest for 7" now.
Originally posted by buck:
Sorry, I missed this post. I guess I ignored you.
No. It is not settled.
I agree that it appears to be the trend, but Bruce Arian's quote is not conclusive evidence of anything except what he feels..
But, as of now, I do not think your assertion is a fact. We disagree.
Not a big deal, and I am sure that it will come up again.
Originally posted by buck:
Assertions are not facts.
I am not sure if statistics are really facts, either, but here are some interesting stats that seem to indicate that defense might really win Championships. .
If you look at the stats for last years play-offs, SF was:
1. #1 in total offense
2. #1 in rushing offense
3. # 1 in points scored per game
The Ravens were tied for 2nd second best in scoring defense; in points given up per game.
SF was the second worst in points given up per game.
Originally posted by smithc28:
Thanks.
My thoughts were more go WR with first pick whether Hopkins, Allen, Austin etc pick a RZ tight end Eifert the better but I wouldn't be upset with Kelce, Escobar. Then pick FS, SS, DE and NT with our net 4 picks. Our next 4 picks still being a 2nd rounder, 2 third rounds and a 4th.
I really don't see how anyone can argue. Who's going to make the bigger impact:
Scenario 1. Eifert and Keenan Allen with first two picks and Swearinger, Brandon Williams with next two or
Scenario 2. Datone Jones and Cyprien with first two and Kelce, Da'rick Rodgers with next two.
I see scenario 1 winning out all day.
Originally posted by smithc28:Austin will be gone we'd have to trade up. So plan B... Robert Woods was a freshman caught 12 passes for 224 yards and three touchdowns in 2010 while being covered by Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman. Welcome Robert woods who will make Sherman his b***h the next decaded!
Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I think the thought behind this thread is pretty sensible, but I don't think we have to think in terms of one side of the ball, or the other. We don't have to knock one side of the ball or the other. We can meet the needs on both sides of the ball with the remaining picks we have. We are in a position to go BPA at 31 and 34 with FS, SS, DE, or NT. Those two picks should net us two future starters or depending how the draft falls, we could trade down and end up with another 2nd and third round pick, and possibly another 7th, and still end up getting great value. Considering the guys that I'd really want will be most likely gone (Tavon Austin, Datone Jones, Vacarro, etc), I'd say trade down and pick up the extra 2nd and 3rd. You can still get a solid NT prospect in Brandon Williams and pick up some of the other quality talent at WR and TE with the extra picks.
I will say that I am not in favor of trading any of our picks in the first three round for picks next year. We need to enter the draft with a load up now to win now while still adding players that will help secure the longterm success of the team. DE, NT, FS, SS, and TEs are musts. We also need to pick up a WR that has the potential to be a no. 1 or no.2 to prepare for the departure of Anquan Boldin/AJ Jenkins in case he doesn't pan our/or if Michael Crabtree's contract demands are too high. Fortunately we can get guys like Da'Rick Rogers, Keenan Allen, or Quinton Patton as insurance for any of the above scenarios.
Thanks.
My thoughts were more go WR with first pick whether Hopkins, Allen, Austin etc pick a RZ tight end Eifert the better but I wouldn't be upset with Kelce, Escobar. Then pick FS, SS, DE and NT with our net 4 picks. Our next 4 picks still being a 2nd rounder, 2 third rounds and a 4th.
I really don't see how anyone can argue. Who's going to make the bigger impact:
Scenario 1. Eifert and Keenan Allen with first two picks and Swearinger, Brandon Williams with next two or
Scenario 2. Datone Jones and Cyprien with first two and Kelce, Da'rick Rodgers with next two.
I see scenario 1 winning out all day.