Well if everyone would like to click on this link 1st to see that i was right a little while back about myth #1: http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=810646&postcount=71 Then Read this: Every so often, an apparent new trend pops up in the NFL that gets its legs for some unfounded reason. And it usually involves a concept that teams can get by with inferior players at a certain position. As one GM said to me at the owners' meetings this week, "I hope the latest myth floating around here lasts until after the draft, because I want a certain position to fall to me." Another GM looked at me and laughed when I asked him what he thought of the latest myth. I expect five players to be drafted in the first round at the position some people with a straight face now claim isn't that important -- cornerback. If teams pass on them because they buy into the new myth, they might regret it. Before we get to the new concept floating around The Breakers hotel this week, here are two other ridiculous myths that have circulated around the NFL in recent years: Myth No. 1: Just manage the game. After Trent Dilfer led the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl championship the idea that a team really didn't need a great quarterback to win it all started circulating. The myth said that a QB who could manage the game was good enough as long as the defense was above par. That myth caused a few teams to skip on quarterbacks like Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger. The fact is, the quarterback position is the most important one on the field. Sooner or later, every offense is going to have to run a two-minute drill to pull out a win and no manage-the-game guy can do that consistently in the heat of battle. Myth No. 2: Don't waste a first-round pick on a running back. The Broncos had great success with their running game with late-round backs like Terrell Davis and Mike Anderson, to name a few over the years. The prevailing thought was that other teams should be able to succeed with late-round picks, too. How do you think the six teams that passed on Adrian Peterson feel about that concept? The Broncos' offensive line was pretty darn good and maybe, just maybe, teams made a mistake on their evaluation of Terrell Davis. Those two examples lead me to the myth of 2008: Cornerbacks are only as good as the pass rush: The Giants' Super Bowl victory has led some teams to conclude it was exclusively the pass rush with a bunch of average guys behind them in coverage that helped New York shut down the vaunted Patriots' passing attack. This myth should fade quickly, but a number of people came up to me this week and tried to make a case for downgrading corners. I made a few points as I heard the corner situation unfold in front of me: 1. You can't play Cover 2 all day and have corners play the flat area every down. All an offense has to do is put trips (three receivers) to one side and the opposite corner is all alone. As for the pass rush, a three-step drop and a ball directed at the receiver who is being single-covered takes the pass rush out of the equation. 2. Down in the red zone, the fade route to a tall receiver really means the corner has to make a play on the ball and the rush will not be a factor before the fade is thrown. 3. Sometimes it's the jam of the corner on the receivers that sets up the pass rush. 4. Corey Webster is one of the Giants' corners who supposedly is just average. I asked Giants GM Jerry Reese about Webster and his first comment was, "Did you see the interception against the Packers?" Pass rush and corner play work hand in hand, just like an offensive line and a running back or a QB and his receivers. I wonder who actually starts these myths. Is it the team that wants a corner to fall to them? Is it an outside observer who never coached or watched film? Or does someone actually believe you can get by with average guys? Don't get me wrong, pass rush is a critical component to any football team, and the Giants' pass rush was great in Super Bowl XLII. But passing on a first-round corner later this month and reaching for a lower-graded pass rusher instead is dangerous business. Chris Long (Virginia) and Vernon Gholston (Ohio State) will both be drafted before the first cornerback is taken because they are excellent football players. But soon after they come off the board, we will hear cornerbacks Leodis McKelvin, Aqib Talib, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie and Michael Jenkins called. Unless, of course, this latest myth has become a reality. I doubt it.
Yeah, there's some breaking news...teams do better when they have better players at each position...genius. In other news, the United States is now between Canada and Mexico. Finally, when your job consists of having to put words on paper no matter how little of substance there is to write about, you end up with tripe like this article.
i think the point was more that the importance of players at certain positions are emphasized too much, both in the draft and free agency, depending on how teams tend to win season by season. the extreme examples here were that trent dilfer won a super bowl with a dominant defense and run game, and the giants won a super bowl with a mediocre secondary and a dominant pass rush (not to mention who i think is one of the best recievers in the game in burress on offense.) the main point is that after the whole world saw how the giants pass rush dominated new england, pass rushers are probably going be given higher value in the upcoming draft, even if they dont deserve it. i think this happens every year, probably a lot more among fans and media tho. also, i dont see mangini and tannenbaum as guys who will be too affected by hype about stuff like this.
DL >>> CB A mediocre DL with great CB's gets you run on all day. The opposing team will not need to pass much. Mediocre CB's with a great DL stops the run, and allows pass rushers to tee off in the passing game. Every SB winner since and including the Ravens, with the exception of the Colts, had a dominating DL, and with the exception of the Ravens, mediocre CB's. Every winner with the exception of Manning, and one of Brady's wins, had a game manager behind center. 90% of what this tool is saying is flat out wrong if you consider SB'd from 2000 to now.
go back to 2004, remove noodle, insert namath, and the jets have a legit shot at another trophy. yes, even with herm's marshmellow camp.
What did noodle arm do in 2004 to loose it for us? I remember some horrible conservative play calling and 2 missed kicks.
I completely disagree with Kirwan's article. If corners are so important, why isn't the Bronco defense the best in the league? They have the best CB pair in the NFL? Why did the Pats win titles with wide receivers and waiver wire wonders at CB? No team wins a SB without a dominant DL these days. Teams have won without elite CBs and with very ordinary RBs. Tony Dungy disagrees. This from the ESPN NFL blog: Colts coach Tony Dungy played defensive back in the NFL, but he would put his money on pass-rushers over cornerbacks every time. "Bill [Polian] and I talk about that," Dungy said from the league meetings in West Palm Beach, Fla. "If you had that choice, you've got to go with the front people because they are harder to find and they have more of an impact on the game."
The people who complained about trading up for Revis and Harris because we went 4-12 might find this shocking.
If the Bucs and the first PAts team had mediocre CBs, than about 95% of the teams in the NFL have mediocre CBs.
Talk about misinterpreting a an article. Show me where in the article where Kirwin says that CBs are more important than DL.
I don't trust any ideas that come out of Pat Kirwan. He was a part of the architecture that collapsed the Jets in the laste 1980's and early 1990's. My tag would likely have been K1rw4n5ux if the internet had been around then for me to let off steam on.
It's more about what he didn't do. Not one offensive TD against Pittsburgh, not one. He perhaps is absolved of blame for the final 2 drives in regulation, but there was a whole game before that for him to put us out of sight and he failed to put the points on the board.
Well said. You're probably alluding to Ty Law's impact, but I wouldn't rush to call Samuel or Poole (in his prime) mediocre. Also, what about Bryant McFadden? Choppped liver? But I digress. My question is this: What position on a defense is most tolerant of mediocrity? In other words, if you had ten superstars, what position would you feel most comfortable filling with a scrub? (And just for the sake of simplicity, we'll call this a 4-3 Cover 2).
How about we insert 20 other starting Quarterbacks that year who would have loved to have had Cm lining up behind them. As the man stated Qb is the most important position on the offensive side of the ball. The buck stops there.
I can tell you didn't watch many Denver games in 2007. Bailey did not have a great year and Bly was mediocre at best.
Yeah he had what, A hundred-something yards through the air and an interception? Doug Brien definitely lost that game for us. But Chadwick was a non-factor. We got more offense out of Moss returning punts and Vilma returning that pick than from our quarterback. Unacceptable.
Christ we're still talking about what Chad didn't do 4 years ago? No wonder people question if this franchises mentality and direction has changed...the fans are still stuck in '05.
