Peter King on CB's and their impact (1 Viewer)

[BoNcHiE]

http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=10259&d=1203977966

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Scorpius the Allfather]

But, you want me to use my brain!?! I don't know how, just tell me what to think and I'll think it!

 

[dat dam dog]

I conclude I can't read that link.

Ah, I doubt CBs have much impact until late in their first year, if that fast.


ddd

 

[sycamoresaint]

great point, but patrick willis was their 1st round pick and defensive rookie of the year. i just think that proves that an inability to do anything on offense can hurt a good defense. either that or their defensive coordinator is venturri.

 

[BoNcHiE]

I conclude I can't read that link.

Ah, I doubt CBs have much impact until late if their first year, if that fast.


ddd

How can you not read that? Are you drunk again

j/k

 

[cruize]

On a team with J. David as the only healthy starter, a rookie CB with the talent of Talib can't help but make an impact for the Saints.

 

[Bless U Boys]

Okay ross was a 1st rounder and webster was a (2nd ?). I conclude that you need talent on all 3 levels of the defense.

 

[Bless U Boys]

You think Jason David would have locked up on those guys w/ Tuck, Strahan, and Osi bringing the heat? He still would have blown it.

 

[dat dam dog]

How can you not read that? Are you drunk again

j/k

I just tried again,

Maybe I should reboot, yes I'm drunk again.

But I was serious, I can see "Stat of the week"

and the word "amuel", and (this is in bold there: Corey Webster , aaron ross, sam madison, dw mcQuarters, tom brady, nate clements, and Michael Lewis.

Is that a combination or what?

No, I reall can't read it. The non bold letters are garbage.


ddd

 

[St. PJ]

I think that was short, to the point, and backed up statistically. You could probably make the same argument for a few other teams. Denver jumps to mind, becase with Bly and Bailey you would think no one would be able to throw on them. They even have a solid LB corp. I guess not being able to get a rush from the defensive line and not having a good DT really makes a big difference. I guess this is why the 34 is ineffective (see NYJ) when a 43 DT is plugged in the gap someone like Jamaal Williams usually occupies. I guess it is also why 43 defenses fall on their face without a 43 DT or interior pass rush much like we did and why a team that drafted numerous DE's in the first round and was ridiculed for it wound up winning a superbowl against the most prolific passing attack becuase of it. I guess the Saints would do well to go after Dorsey or Ellis.

 

[BoNcHiE]

You think Jason David would have locked up on those guys w/ Tuck, Strahan, and Osi bringing the heat? He still would have blown it.

Like I said, draw your own conclusions.

 

[Saints fan in VA]

The front 7 will make the back 4 look 85% better. No rush means time for the QB to pick apart the DB's

 

[CitySaint]

What has been the impact of the Saints ignoring the secondary in the draft for years? The only exception is Mckenzie and he wasn't drafted we were just lucky GB wanted to dump him. We have been picking up top draft talent for the D-line since 2000. How effective has that been for us? 2000 was the only year we had a decent defense, and it can be argued that the 2000 defense was a fluke because the next year and afterwards teams began exposing and exploiting them.

A team has to have the whole package to be good or great. If one area is a serious weakness it effects the defense as a whole. It's the same for offense you can't be an all running team and expect to succeed or all passing. Good offenses can do both.

 

[BoNcHiE]

What has been the impact of the Saints ignoring the secondary in the draft for years? The only exception is Mckenzie and he wasn't drafted we were just lucky GB wanted to dump him. We have been picking up top draft talent for the D-line since 2000. How effective has that been for us? 2000 was the only year we had a decent defense, and it can be argued that the 2000 defense was a fluke because the next year and afterwards teams began exposing and exploiting them.

A team has to have the whole package to be good or great. If one area is a serious weakness it effects the defense as a whole. It's the same for offense you can't be an all running team and expect to succeed or all passing. Good offenses can do both.

We had a top 3 passing defense in 2006 and 2005. In 2003 we were 8th.

In 2004 and 2007 we suffered from a serious lack of pass rush. Consequently our pass defense went to crap. See the correlation? At no point during that 2003-2007 period did we have more then one good corner.

 

[stadanko]

I want to know what Peter King has to say about 50 years olds with faux hawks and their impact.

 

[CitySaint]

I don't think being a highly ranked pass defense in certain years had anything to do with pass rush. IMO the defense has been below avg for years and they emphasize every other offseason upgrading the D-line talent and at the same time ignoring other issues.

I agree that having a pass rush is an important asset, but you can only invest so much in one area. What we currently have needs to be more effective before we go out looking for more top passrushing talent.