HoosierCat Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Interesting piece. Caught my eye since it seems to run counter to some of the conventional wisdom 'round these here parts...http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Comme...harkush1828.htmWhile we have had it pounded into us for years that teams have to be able to stop the run to win in the NFL, the Eagles’ success suggests otherwise. Over the last three seasons, Philadelphia has ranked 18th, ninth and 22nd in the league defending the run, and yet it has appeared in three straight NFC title games.New England, with the second-best record the last three seasons, was 19th vs. the run, but sixth in QB sacks when it won the Super Bowl in 2001, 31st vs. the run in 2002 and fourth vs. the run this year. Green Bay has ranked 16th, 21st and 10th vs. the run over the past three seasons, while the Rams have been third, 14th and 20th.The numbers go on and on, and what they’ll bear out is the most important correlation between winning and defense in the NFL today — the ability to rush the passer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Stud QB + potent pass rush + top coach = big-time successDammit!! All we have is the coach ingredient! With Palmer filling the "Stud" factor next season, the only question mark is the pass rush! Good article link there joisey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 The problem I have with this article is the less than subtle points that he chose to ignore. Also, his "Big-time Success" theory is confusing whether he's suggesting Super Bowl wins or playoff entry. As we all know, a teams success through the regular season doesn't always promote nor project the post-season. Stuff happens from week 17 to week 18 (first playoff weekend) as we all realize, however, just looking at stats and not aspects that are often times unspoken before hand become the main culprit afterwards for losing; this misguides the "experts" all of the time. Like environment or injuries. Like playing in a dome or moderate weather traveling to a cold weather environment. All his top five Quarterbacks, little is said of their great offensive lines that 3 (Manning, McNair, Favre) are in the top five in sacks allowed by the offense, Brady is 13th.This is what I know, 6 of the top 10 best rushing offenses made the playoffs; I consider playoffs "big success". I also know that 7 of the top 10 best turnover teams (best differential) made the playoffs. Of the top five teams with the most sacks, only 2 made the playoffs. This is a good article with some great points -- I'm just playing devil's advocate though. Thanks Joisey for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Ya know Josh, I totally agree on the issue of games being won or lost on the line. I feel that a line talented enough to put pressure on the QB, is also the line that is at least adequate at stopping the run. Unfortunately this year the Bengals appeared to be neither. Although I'd like to add after reading Marvins comments at the teams website, that's going to change next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 This is a good article with some great points -- I'm just playing devil's advocate though. Thanks Joisey for the link. You're all welcome. Personally, my feeling is that the question of, what elements, in what proportion, make for a championship team...doesn't really have an answer. If there really were a "magic formula," it would have been discovered a long time ago. From what I've seen, the most successful teams are those that 1) excel in one or two areas, and are at worst NFL-average in all others, and 2) are at the right place at the right time playing the right team. By that I mean things like, do the Pats still beat the Rams in the Super Bowl if the Rams have a coach less willing to ride his pass-happy-attack-that's-not-working down in flames? Just one example.That said, it's always fun to debate precisely *which* areas it's best to overachieve in. And there's little doubt we could use a pass rush -- any pass rush. And given that when teams were running on the Bengals, they were often doing it by running over Duane Clemons, maybe we need a more complete DE opposite Justin Smith as opposed to a big 'ol DT... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirkendall Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 Personally, I feel a championship team for all sports is team chemistry. That always is the one consistant with all of the champs year in and year out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalszoneBilly Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Duane Clemons. I cannot recall his name being mentioned in any good Bengals defensive plays. How did we get saddled with this under achiever? I remember him getting his butt run over time and time again though.And personally I consider playoffs success. Big success = Super Bowl appearance. Sublime success = Super Bowl win!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Clemons did OK; he was certainly an upgrade over Rein-turd. And if I remember right he came cheap, one of those 3-year, $4.5 million-type deals the Bengals do a lot of. But his successes came in clumps, and most of the time, yeah, he was getting stampeded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsfan2 Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Clemons did OK; he was certainly an upgrade over Rein-turd. And if I remember right he came cheap, one of those 3-year, $4.5 million-type deals the Bengals do a lot of. But his successes came in clumps, and most of the time, yeah, he was getting stampeded. KC fans didn't seem to have a lot of good things to day about him either. Even they admitted though that his play had improved in Cincinnati over what it had been in KC. He was pretty instrumental in the win over the Seahawks as I recall. You have to remember also .... even the coaches are saying it. This was the first year these guys played together in this system. We fill a couple of spots, and I'd bet we see improvement from Clemmons ...... Smith ........... Simmons ... and James. Good point was made about James on Bengals.com. Said he'd probably not taken that many snaps in a season since he came into the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted January 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2004 You have to remember also .... even the coaches are saying it. This was the first year these guys played together in this system. We fill a couple of spots, and I'd bet we see improvement from Clemmons ...... Smith ........... Simmons ... and James. From what Frazier's said, and from Marvin's hints about his being more involved with the defense next year, I think the Bengals also see it as more of a scheme/discipline issue than a talent issue -- at least as far as DTs and DEs are concerned.I remain unconvinced. I do agree that they should be better with a year under their belt...but there just isn't enough quality on the d-line, IMHO. It'll be interesting to see what they do on draft day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.