Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 97 to 108 of 147
  1. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    I can't find that Suggs quote but I remember him saying it when he got drafted. It was
    his 40 time that dropped him. Again, that quick 1st step has nothing to do with 40 time.
    It's something natural where you have it or you don't.

    You're right about Oher's back ground and all but if I had the tutors he had, I would have
    gotten into Harvard. My nephew got a tutor for his ACTs after scoring 1100 points and increased his score to 1400. Luckily for me, colleges didn't require ACTs but we took them.
    I know some guys that went out and got drunk the night before their ACTs. They didn't have any of the study guides and stuff they have now, but Gruden said on national TV 2 years ago that Oher has no clue as to whom to block and should have after all this time.

    I said you were right on teaching the techniques and some foot speed can be added if
    he loses weight and starts running every day. Someone posted he has lost weight so
    he will already be quicker.


    Oher is one lucky guy. A decade ago he was living in a shack and today he is on the of richest guys in the country because of his size and family that adopted him. BTW, his brother who was little in the book and movie is now playing basketball for Loyola in Bmore just to be
    close to Michael. He took his entire team to Oher's house for a party. They all freaked out.

    Their father, Sean, still holds the SEC record for assists at Ole Miss. I met LeeAnne and Sean
    in Indy. They sat in front of Mista T and I in the club level and he is one muther ficker not to mess with. The movie made him look like he was a complete p*ssy who never made a major decision in that family. He wasn't too nice either and didn't even speak to LeeAnne. He sat
    next to his sister and talked to her the entire game. They must have had a fight-lol. She talked to me more than him and I thought he was gonna kick my ass but LeeAnne was a princess. I fell in love with her. She was worth an ass kicking-lol
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 04-25-2013 at 01:19 AM.





  2. #98

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    I can do that too.

    How many SB victories does Joe Thomas, Russell Okung, Jake Long, Trent Williams, Ryan Kalil, Jason Peters, Jared Veldheer, or D'Brickashaw Ferguson have?

    I think our two perspectives indicate one truth: the QB is the most important position and in today's NFL it is impossible to get to and win a SB without great QB play.

    Everything else matters, but in varying degrees and they are all dependent on the QB being capable.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    I don't think I could possibly agree more....

    It's LT... then the Pacific Ocean.... and then you can talk about other positions on the field. The rest of the positions are far closer in value then ANYTHING is to the QB position. It is my "opinion" that LT is marginally the second most important position, but I can at least see how an argument can be made for passrusher, CB and maye even DT.

    But to say a LT cant contribute to wins/losses is just a ridiculously simpleton view of football. ALL the positions contribute to wins/losses, some are jsutless aparent then others.





  3. #99

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoeJangles View Post
    Just like every other position DOES contribute to wins. Again if it was as important as you say there is no way we win the Superbowl last year. Especially since, as you say "within 48 hours there is likely to be at least 3 teams with not only 1, but 2 better LT's than the Ravens. Cheifs/Pats/Rams. " Unless you believe Joe is that much better than Brady that he could overcome that.
    EVERY position contributes to wins, even long snappers...

    Well, Flacco was MUCH better then Brady throughout the playoffs. Isn't a better player, but WAS PLAYING better at that time.

    Additionally, the Pats roster, on the whole, was pretty lackluster, TBH. They have 2 plus TE's, 2 plus OT's, one of the best guards in football, and pretty much the rest of their roster is of average to below quality... outside of the QB position the ravens had a much stronger roster, complemented by a hit QB.
    It's not like I tried to say that the 2nd most important position is more important then all the others combined, just individually.





  4. #100
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Where Ravens Fans Roam Free
    Posts
    9,274
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    What team in the past decade has won with "serviceable" QB play? Hell, what team has even gotten to the SB with "serviceable" QB play? Roethlisberger's first SB may be the only one that you could argue, but he has been nothing short of great almost every season afterwards.

    Also, the three LT prospects in this draft are by and large considered some of the best overall players, so that doesnt necessarily prove or disprove that LT's are vital for the success of an offense.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Forum Runner
    Maybe not the last decade but the Ravens won a SB with Trent Dilfer, the Bucs won with Brad Johnson, the Redskins won with Mark Rypien. Every year it seems like there are 3-5 OTs taken in the first round. LTs that have any ability tend to go in the top half of the first round if not the first ten picks. I am not saying that a LT is more important than a QB. The QB is the most important position on the team in today's NFL. I am just saying that downplaying the need for a quality LT is only done by teams who don't have a quality LT. This is especially true if a team has just signed their QB to a $120 million contract.





  5. #101

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoeJangles View Post
    I am still trying to figure out how the second most important position on a team does not contribute to wins, almost the inverse. Again, there is no point arguing.
    you are mistakenly assigning causation when coorelation is a more orrect assessment. You see that many of the best LT's are on the worst teams.. That is true, because the worst teams pick in the draft where the best LT's are available, not because they don't help TERRIBLE organizations win. And if you look a little mroe deeply, some of the better TE's in football last eyar WERE on plaoff teams... Okung, Staley, Duane Brown, Solder/Vollmer, Clady, Trent Williams.. all top 10 tackles, all on playoff teams.





  6. #102
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    That's the point I was making when I said the last 3 of 4 SB LTs made were pro bowlers
    and Denver had Ryan Clady in the playoffs - all top teir LTs. The teams with the good
    QBs and LTs are usually in the playoffs.





  7. #103

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    It seems to me you guys keep proving the point that having a great LT's is overrated. It is obvious you do not need one to win. Usually the teams that waste the resources to get one ensure themselves of remaining bad enough to keep drafting early enough to get good players to win. Also, I would argue that you would have a hard time saying that any of those players were the second most important player on their team, as you seem to state their importance. Again I believe it is nice to have a great LT, but it is clearly overstated.

    It is pointless to discuss this any further, as we will keep going around and around on the subject.





  8. #104
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    61,273
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    That's the point I was making when I said the last 3 of 4 SB LTs made were pro bowlers
    and Denver had Ryan Clady in the playoffs - all top teir LTs. The teams with the good
    QBs and LTs are usually in the playoffs.
    Detroit made the playoffs in the 2011/2012 season and their LT was Jeff Backus, who is about as average as you can get.

    Let's assume Jah Reid gets hurt and Oher remains at LT and KO at RT. They beat the Giants, which secured them a playoff spot. The Bengals game didn't matter.

    So, the Ravens - with below avg to avg play at LT - made the playoffs.

    Additionally, the "3 out of the last 4 SB LTs were pro-bowlers" is kind of misleading for several reasons. Number one, the pro-bowl is a joke and more of a popularity contest than anything (as evident by how long it took London Fletcher to make it). Number 2, both Joe Staley and Matt Light lost those SB appearances. The Giants won with David Diehl, who was terrible and the Ravens won with McKinnie, who only went to 1 pro-bowl (2009). Finally, McKinnie had nothing to do with the Ravens getting to the playoffs last year. He didn't. They made it with Oher, a hodgepodge at LG, and a rookie at RT. Even though it is probable that McKinnie could have outperformed Oher at LT every single game throughout the regular season, they still went with Oher at LT until they had no other choice (and no, Bobbie Williams at LG was not a choice).

    All I'm saying is that there is the QB and the offensive coordinator and then everyone else on offense. The NFL is littered with QB's and offensive coordinators making the players around them look like all-pro's. Drew Brees, Shaun Payton, and Jermon Bushrod is a prime example. Eli Manning, Kevin Gilbride, and David Diehl is another. Ben Roethlisberger and Bruce Arians made guys like Max Starks and Jonathan Scott look a lot better than what they actually were/are.
    Disclaimer: The content posted is of my own opinion.





  9. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    They still got to the POs and SB with those LTs. I said one team didn't have a
    pro bowler LT and DET was terrible this year @ 4-12. They needed a LT.

    Man, we didnt start winning until we moved Oher to RT and KO to LG and inserted
    former pro bowler McKinnie at LT. That's when we picked up steam. WE lost all
    those games in the middle of the season with Oher at LT.

    Then we tore up the playoffs.

    Giants had a very physical and very good LT with BEatty.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 04-25-2013 at 12:34 PM.





  10. #106

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoeJangles View Post
    It seems to me you guys keep proving the point that having a great LT's is overrated. It is obvious you do not need one to win. Usually the teams that waste the resources to get one ensure themselves of remaining bad enough to keep drafting early enough to get good players to win. Also, I would argue that you would have a hard time saying that any of those players were the second most important player on their team, as you seem to state their importance. Again I believe it is nice to have a great LT, but it is clearly overstated.

    It is pointless to discuss this any further, as we will keep going around and around on the subject.
    I don't fidn that to be true at all.
    You think that because that was your opinion before you came here.
    If anything, all we have come to a consensus on is that QB is the most important position, and that it's not remotely close.

    You haven't even floated an idea of what you might think the 2nd most imoportant position is...





  11. #107
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    11,104

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dirt1 View Post
    Maybe not the last decade but the Ravens won a SB with Trent Dilfer, the Bucs won with Brad Johnson, the Redskins won with Mark Rypien. Every year it seems like there are 3-5 OTs taken in the first round. LTs that have any ability tend to go in the top half of the first round if not the first ten picks. I am not saying that a LT is more important than a QB. The QB is the most important position on the team in today's NFL. I am just saying that downplaying the need for a quality LT is only done by teams who don't have a quality LT. This is especially true if a team has just signed their QB to a $120 million contract.
    Eli in '07 was also not playing the QB position at an elite level. Everyone says winning a SB with average QB play can't be done -- right up until it gets done again.

    QB is enormously valuable, but the most important position in pro sports? QB is on the sidelines while the defense is on the field. And while special teams are on the field. That's more than half the game he is not even playing. When he is playing, maybe 40% of the time he takes the snap and turns around and hands it to someone else, usually being the only one of the 11 guys who isn't doing anything meaningful (unless you consider 'not fumbling' to be a large accomplishment.)

    So yes, QB is the most important position in football. But let's not get too carried away.
    "Chin up, chest out."





  12. #108

    Re: Is having a great LT overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by HotInHere View Post
    Eli in '07 was also not playing the QB position at an elite level. Everyone says winning a SB with average QB play can't be done -- right up until it gets done again.

    QB is enormously valuable, but the most important position in pro sports? QB is on the sidelines while the defense is on the field. And while special teams are on the field. That's more than half the game he is not even playing. When he is playing, maybe 40% of the time he takes the snap and turns around and hands it to someone else, usually being the only one of the 11 guys who isn't doing anything meaningful (unless you consider 'not fumbling' to be a large accomplishment.)

    So yes, QB is the most important position in football. But let's not get too carried away.

    I dont think its getting carried away at all.
    In baseball the most important player only plays ever 5th game.
    In basketball you can make a case for basically each of the 5 positions being nearly equal. In today's NBA, perhaps C is the least important, but in days of old it might have been the msot important, particualrly during the Wilt/Bill Russell days...

    I suppose you can make a case for hockey goalie, but really who watches hockey?





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->