We need two more: we have to make up for cutting Cromartie, too. Three if we let Pace go. ....and four if we try to make up for Coples.....
Which doesn't matter because they dominated and won the super bowl. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The point doesn't matter. Who cares what people were discussing, if it's not the reality of what happened? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In that case why should we even have opinions then if we arent held to them after the fact? Might as well just discuss facts from now on then so each thread can be 1 post long.
Do we even have the $ this year to sign any one of the Beastie Boyz from Denver? Regarding Ostwielder our QB situation is fine imo. Get Fitz back get Petty ready. Draft a QB
The Panthers defense did dominate. Their offensive line and WR's and ultimately QB fell down on the job in front of a great defense. Going in everybody knew the Panther's OL was pedestrian and their receivers were all #2's and #3's. People, including me, thought Cam Newton's escapability would keep the Broncos pass rush at bay and in fact he only managed to get outside of it a few times. The fumble by Mike Tolbert was huge. It broke any chance the Panthers had to swing the game in the 3rd quarter. No fumbles in the regular season for Tolbert and he was carrying the ball like a loaf of bread when the game was on the line. Unforced errors.
There's usually around 2-3 dominant franchise QB's playing in the NFL at only one time. If your team is lucky enough to have one, GREAT! If not, then Plan-B is to build a dominant defense that can slow/stop the other team's franchise QB and hope for the best. All the while looking for your own Tom Brady. Worked very well for Seattle. Worked pretty good for Denver. Almost worked (twice) for the Jets. Of course you keep drafting your Geno Smiths and Bryce Pettys until one sticks. But building a great defense is something a GM and HC actually controls. And in the absence of a $20+M/yr QB, they should have the cap flexibility to do it. Focusing on Defense is not saying "A potent offense led by a franchise QB isn't important". It's saying quite the opposite. It's saying "If we don't have a dominant offense to counter their dominant offense, then we better have a dominant defense that can make their offense look avg, giving our avg offense a chance to win the game".
Every team that has won a Super Bowl since 2003 has had a franchise QB. Brady Brady Roethlisberger Peyton Eli Roethlisberger Brees Rodgers Eli Flacco Wilson Brady Peyton Of that list of people only Flacco is in real danger of missing the Hall of Fame at this point.
Agreed fully. Broncos dominated but the panthers sure didn't do themselves any favors. They had a shot to win the game. And if they won 17-16 , not many people would be all over the Broncos jock even though they would've dominated for 55 minutes of the game.
once a decade a defensive front wins you a superbowl.... the other several years tom brady, ben roethlistberger, or drew brees, or aarong rodgers wins it. also, getting a stud edge pass rushers is probably the next hardest thing to aquire after stud QB
when we have a top 5 pick to get a von miller type, im ok with this plan when we have the money to get a von miller type in free agency im ok with this plan until then, saying we need to build a championship defense is the same as saying we need a championship QB.
Hate this argument. Many of those QBs were supported by a dominant defense. They won SBs and therefore became franchise QBs. Not in all instances. In some it was purely elite offense supported by an OK defense. Other instances the rankings and stats show an elite defense and a statistically average offense.
