Here is one thing that I have been thinking about a lot recently: CB is one of the positions that the sum is greater than its parts. In other words, you do not get the full effect without a complementary CB. So if we had 1 great CB and 1 great pass rusher, then the 2nd CB would have a far greater impact than a 2nd pass rusher.
I have been studying the top defenses (i.e. Ravens vs Steelers vs Jets vs SB Giants and SB Bucs) very closely and have been trying to fine tune a theory on this. I welcome any input on this.
There are 255 users in the forums
CBs vs Pass Rushers
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM
- rayn36
- Veteran
- Posts: 102
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM
- 80849er4life
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,846
Prince Amukamara vs Von Miller
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM
- rayn36
- Veteran
- Posts: 102
Originally posted by 80849er4life:
Prince Amukamara vs Von Miller
The main reason for this debate (+ Quinn).
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM
- maxsmart
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,513
Great pass rusher OLB is more valuable than a great CB
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:35 PM
- 80849er4life
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,846
Originally posted by rayn36:Originally posted by 80849er4life:
Prince Amukamara vs Von Miller
The main reason for this debate (+ Quinn).
Jimmy Smith vs Robert Quinn
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM
- GhostofFredDean74
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 30,082
IMO, with the way the game is played today, you can get away with having less-than-great talent at CB, if you have a great pass rush (see the Steelers, Packers and Ravens). However, you can have HOF talent at CB, but if you can't generate a strong, consistent pass rush, those CBs will eventually get burned.
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:40 PM
- communist
- Veteran
- Posts: 12,141
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:this
IMO, with the way the game is played today, you can get away with having less-than-great talent at CB, if you have a great pass rush (see the Steelers, Packers and Ravens). However, you can have HOF talent at CB, but if you can't generate a strong, consistent pass rush, those CBs will eventually get burned.
thread can be closed.
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:44 PM
- GoreGoreGore
- 10HourChicken
- Posts: 54,337
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
IMO, with the way the game is played today, you can get away with having less-than-great talent at CB, if you have a great pass rush (see the Steelers, Packers and Ravens). However, you can have HOF talent at CB, but if you can't generate a strong, consistent pass rush, those CBs will eventually get burned.
Agree. Plus, Miller is considered the best pure pass rusher, Prince isn't the best corner, many would tell you that Peterson is better. This being the case, we take the best available player, which would be Miller.
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:51 PM
- rayn36
- Veteran
- Posts: 102
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
IMO, with the way the game is played today, you can get away with having less-than-great talent at CB, if you have a great pass rush (see the Steelers, Packers and Ravens). However, you can have HOF talent at CB, but if you can't generate a strong, consistent pass rush, those CBs will eventually get burned.
The game has changed dramatically. More teams are using 3 and 4+ receiver sets (WR and TE) in their passing games. Therefore, 1 great CB means less than it used to. But with a complementary CB, you can greatly solidify your coverage. We have seen this with Champ in Denver. But we have seen the similar results with Mario Williams in Houston and their atrocious pass def. Hypothetically, if Denver kept Champ and drafted Peterson/Prince and Houston drafted Quinn/Miller, which team would make a bigger leap?
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:53 PM
- SanDiego49er
- Veteran
- Posts: 47,965
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
IMO, with the way the game is played today, you can get away with having less-than-great talent at CB, if you have a great pass rush (see the Steelers, Packers and Ravens). However, you can have HOF talent at CB, but if you can't generate a strong, consistent pass rush, those CBs will eventually get burned.
I agree. It's the pass rush. Even Nate Clements would look better with a pass rush. Especially if he stops jumping so many routes...
Jan 28, 2011 at 3:57 PM
- jreff22
- Veteran
- Posts: 65,482
Originally posted by TheG0RE49er:Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
IMO, with the way the game is played today, you can get away with having less-than-great talent at CB, if you have a great pass rush (see the Steelers, Packers and Ravens). However, you can have HOF talent at CB, but if you can't generate a strong, consistent pass rush, those CBs will eventually get burned.
Agree. Plus, Miller is considered the best pure pass rusher, Prince isn't the best corner, many would tell you that Peterson is better. This being the case, we take the best available player, which would be Miller.
if Peterson was available?
Jan 28, 2011 at 4:04 PM
- ninertico
- Veteran
- Posts: 10,259
I understand the importance of having a Revis-type CB. I also know just how much Matthews did for GB CBs. In fact, Tramon Williams was a UDFA and this year is now the best cover corner? Case closed.
C'mon now!
C'mon now!
Jan 28, 2011 at 4:09 PM
- rayn36
- Veteran
- Posts: 102
I want to hear some arguments from the people who want Prince over Quinn/Miller...
Jan 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM
- nvninerfan1
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,601
I want either a stud DE that we can pair with Justin Smith or an OLB that can pressure QBs.
Our DBs would look good if there was havoc in the backfield more often.
Our DBs would look good if there was havoc in the backfield more often.
Jan 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM
- Schulzy
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,004
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
IMO, with the way the game is played today, you can get away with having less-than-great talent at CB, if you have a great pass rush (see the Steelers, Packers and Ravens). However, you can have HOF talent at CB, but if you can't generate a strong, consistent pass rush, those CBs will eventually get burned.
Well, I wouldn't say that the Packers have average talent at CB.
But your point is definitely well taken.