Clayton
Well-Known Member
I don't understand the logic by saying that secondary players matter a ton and skill players dont matter at all. If your skill positions stink then you can't exploit the other teams secondary players.
I think today's NFL requires solid professional play in the D-backfield than ever before. I also think skill positions is really skill position. Solid QB is absolutely required if the team is going to win. The difference between the best WR/RB and 10th or 15th best WR/RB is much less than QB. Teams can still be dominant with league average wides and backs.I don't understand the logic by saying that secondary players matter a ton and skill players dont matter at all. If your skill positions stink then you can't exploit the other teams secondary players.
Teams can be dominant with league average CBs and Safeties, too, as long as they have a good QB.I think today's NFL requires solid professional play in the D-backfield than ever before. I also think skill positions is really skill position. Solid QB is absolutely required if the team is going to win. The difference between the best WR/RB and 10th or 15th best WR/RB is much less than QB. Teams can still be dominant with league average wides and backs.
Passing league....rushing the QB still matters, but you also better be able to defend... cause the different sets, formations which spread the field, along with the ball coming out of the QB's hand reel quick requires it to win football games.
1. QB
2. DL
3. OL
4. DB
5. WR
6. TE
7. RB
8. LB
9. K
10. P
11. PR
12. KR
1,000,000,000. Long snapper
And soon enough the KR will be totally worthless.
Teams can be dominant with league average CBs and Safeties, too, as long as they have a good QB.
Patriots and Eagles arguably both had better skill players than secondary players last year
Teams can be dominant with league average CBs and Safeties, too, as long as they have a good QB.
Patriots and Eagles arguably both had better skill players than secondary players last year
Teams definitely do attack DBs. Usually when I break down a game, its one DB getting targeted a lot on the Chiefs (Gaines, Acker, Peters in his rookie year, etc)Yes they can but DB's have higher standards today when offenses scheme to put players in space. Bunch of this game now is NBA like, they isolate on the d-back they want to attack with a formation and hope a misplayed tackle results in a 20 plus yard play instead of the 4 to 6 yards.
I'm just commenting on your question as to why the DB position gets more love as to now being a more valued position on the field. I'm not sure there is a wrong opinion here.
that is just changing the question.Every good team builds from the inside out but putting QB at 3rd is pretty much on par for you... stupid. So again, you’d rather have a 25 year old Tyron Smith over a 25 year old Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers.
that is just changing the question.
It isnt an O-lineman vs. QB. it is the whole Oline vs. the QB
So in your scenario you should be asking 5 elite Olineman at 25 vs. Tom Brady at 25.
I have seen many Superbowls where the better QB loses the superbowl. Cant think of a superbowl off hand where the team that won the trenches lost the game.
I can completely see the OL being rated #1, but with that said I am not gonna argue with people that say QB #1 or DL. As all three should be in the top three in which ever order as they are all that important. Graded 1 a,b,c if you will. Doesnt mean we think QB isnt important.
There is only a handful of QBs ever, to be able to drag a team to a superbowl when the team isnt to that caliber. manning (colts) was probably the last one to do it. So if you can guarantee to get "that guy" sure put QB at #1, but realistically talking for 32 teams that wont be the case. if your game plan was to land that guy you will most likely miss & then your gameplan is a failure.
I'll be stupid enough to take OL at #1.
Well there is 5 spots on the starting oline, so yes. It does have to do with 5 players vs. 1.It has nothing to do with 5 the players versus 1. It’s whats the most import and every single person but Manster put QB. It’s just not debatable. Do you ever see teams mortgaging there future and trading 3 first round picks to get a star OLineman? Never happened but it happens all the time for QBs. OLine is never more important then QB but you two want to pretend it is because you have the best OLine in the NFL... and they’ve won a ton of playoff games the last 3-4 years they’ve been dominating... right
Did he say just LT or entire OL? If you are going to list all time great QBs, maybe he thinks having all 5 of T Smith, Z Martin, T Frederick, David Decastro and Jackie Slater would be more important than just Rodgers or Brady. Sure doesn't seem like a slam dunk if you look at it that way.Every good team builds from the inside out but putting QB at 3rd is pretty much on par for you... stupid. So again, you’d rather have a 25 year old Tyron Smith over a 25 year old Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers.
It has nothing to do with 5 the players versus 1. It’s whats the most import and every single person but Manster put QB. It’s just not debatable. Do you ever see teams mortgaging there future and trading 3 first round picks to get a star OLineman? Never happened but it happens all the time for QBs. OLine is never more important then QB but you two want to pretend it is because you have the best OLine in the NFL... and they’ve won a ton of playoff games the last 3-4 years they’ve been dominating... right
Did he say just LT or entire OL? If you are going to list all time great QBs, maybe he thinks having all 5 of T Smith, Z Martin, T Frederick, David Decastro and Jackie Slater would be more important than just Rodgers or Brady. Sure doesn't seem like a slam dunk if you look at it that way.
It's my opinion, and you go ballistic over it. Just like you did over the importance of a.