Evolve don't Revolve

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 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 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.

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).

I also replied to you after you said you read the articles (Post #60). In other words, it is not an assertion. It is indeed true as proven by stats. Hey, at least take Bruce Arians' words for it huh. LOL.

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 ?

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 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.

How did we get down by 22 in the first half, the offense did not let the Ravens score. It was the defense. So the point is, if the defense had allowed one TD less, different game. Same with ST. Why did we make a comeback? Cause the defense adjusted and did its job and gave the ball back to the offense and gave it opportunities. If they did not, then the niners would have never had a chance.

Another good example, as good as Peyton Manning is, it was when he had a good Defense to help him that he won. Once coach left and the main D people were not being replaced, never got back to the SB or AFCCG. Another instance? Remember when nobody could stop Marino-Niners did, and gave Montana the ball and opps to march down the field to play their game and not fast break.

When John Harbaugh was interviewed before the superbowl and asked what the ravens need to do to beat the niners, he said score fast and get them out of their game plan. Which they did. So if the D held and did not get blitzed in the first half different story. I believe with the addition of Boldin and a TE better than Walker our O will be better. However, with the loss of Dashon we won't unless we find someone to replace or others to take up the slack on other parts of the D.

Not saying don't draft O, but if the better talent is on D with the first few picks then we should go there, which according to others should be. As for TE, everyone is looking at Eiffy and Ertz and Escobar for their receiving skills, but I think the niners go Kelce, cause the reports say the first three's blocking skills are not that great. All you have to do is look at who we let go last year and kept- Celek and who we did not draft last year.

Also, Bruce Arians, deserves some respect, but he should look around, until he wins one as a GM and Head Coach the stats would disagree with him. As I said even the mighty Pats lost when they only had an O and no D. 18-0, then lost to the team with the better D, not once but sevral times. Our Offense will be better this year, with 1 year under Kaeps belt and the new additions. The niners are not going to go to much four or even 3 wide enough to warrant a wr this year.

If we can get a D that created opportunities like they did in JH's first season, think how much more the niners will score with a short field and more experience O next season.

I always want more offense, but this year we need to beef up the defense. It makes the most sense.

Our Offense for next year is already gangbusters - - OLine, Kaep, Gore, Vernon, Crab, Boldin. Name as many teams as you can that can boast that lineup. Plus, we already spent our first two picks last year on offensive weapons. We have to give Jenkins and LMJ a chance to grow.

What's more, our D was the best in the league until Cowboy went down. Then Aldon Smith got tired, our DBs were getting torched and we couldn't even rely on them during the playoffs. ----> 21, 24, 21... know what those are? 1st half points given up to GB, ATL and BALT. That's how teams lose.

Like I said, I'm all about offense but we're about as good as you can get there. Defense, we're aging and falling off while Seattle is getting better!

So, here's my thoughts on the Draft. The absolute strengths in this draft, particularly around where we are going to be picking is without question DLine and DBs. Coincidentally, we have dysfunction in those areas. It would be silly not to pick our future starters from this crop, imo.

Carlos Rogers is slowing down and won't play out the rest of his contract. Not at 7, 8 and 9 Million the next 3 years.

Nnamdi is a total question mark and only on a 1 year deal.

BIG hole where Goldson was. Do you want Dahl as our future FS or the 2nd best Safety in a strong Safety class?

Whitner's contract is up after this year.

Justin Smith played down from his 2011 monster year and got injured and getting older.

Soap and RJF are gone with only Glenn Dorsey to fill those roles (as well as another potential Cowboy injury).

I'm not suggesting it, but one could argue that getting Elam/Cyprien AND Reid would be beneficial to the future of our D (and THEN target NT, TE, CB with the next 3 picks). FWIW, my preference is Eric Reid (31), Johnthan Banks (34), Hankins/JWilliams (61), Travis Kelce (74).

It's not like we NEED to win next year or it all falls apart. Our team is stacked all over the place, so we need to supplement the leaks to keep this ship going strong. My thoughts.

Manningham is on IR for the 2013 season?

Offensive depth is much better than defense depth at this point. Plus we need a starter at FS, and NT.

I think we will take a WR, and TE, but no need to spend either of our first two picks on those positions. Take a developmental WR with good upside, and with the depth of the TE class, no need to spend a high pick there.

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.

I'd say it means that you can get by without an elite defense if anything. It doesn't mean that defense doesn't win championships. I think that you or another poster alluded to the fact of how the defense of several recent Super Bowl winners has been ignored. It seems that since commentators are trumpeting the idea that defense doesn't win championships anymore, many fans are just drinking the kool-aid.

The Ravens may have had the 17th ranked D in the regular season, but their D was not playing at that level throughout the postseason. Had we faced a truly mediocre D in the Super Bowl, we win, handily. People conveniently ignore that the Packers were top 5 in points and yards in 2010. The New York Giants only gave up 54 points in four postseason games after the 2011 regular season, the Steelers track record on D is well documented for the 2005 and 2008 season Super Bowls, in 2007 the Giants tightened up again giving up only 65 points in four postseason games, and again in 2006 the Colts defense got hot in the playoffs when Bob Sanders returned to the lineup.

It seems to me it's more like defenses, particularly defenses that get hot in the playoffs when championships. The only team that bucks that trend is the 2009 Saints who I would've said had an average defense all the way through their championship run.

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.

Here's what I see as the difference between taking receivers early as opposed to DL & S...there's a bigger drop-off in talent among the big dudes than the receivers. Getting one of the best FS early is just a no-brainer...it's a true position of need and to go WR/TE with the 1st two picks, while looking "sexy" doesn't cut the mustard. I get the point...load up the offense so we simply outscore everyone...but, the problem I have with that is what got us to the SB was balance...we became a strong offense when Kap took over. However, as the season wound down the defense struggled, largely because of JS's injury, but it also showed too much of a dependence on him and a lack of quality b/u's that Fangio trusted. So, it makes perfect sense to address that depth early on, when the best "bigs" are available. I'd be happy with two of them at #31 and 34, then take FS Phillip Thomas at #61. We could still get an excellent TE in Kelce and WR D. Rogers in the 3rd. Both those guys should help solidify TE and WR without sacrificing top DL and S talent earlier.

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.

This. This is the inconvenient truth that people want to ignore.

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.

Why must it be O, O, D, D or D, D, O, O?

I would think a happy cpompromise would be most effective, ie:

Scenario 3: Tank Carradine and Keenan Allen with the first two picks and Travis Kelce and Amerson/Thomas with the next two

or

Scenario 4: Tank Carradine (WANT, btw) and Ertz with the first two picks and Amerson/Thomas and Rodgers with the next two

Originally posted by smithc28:

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.

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!