Manziel Debate

[schmitty3]

I think he was getting at if you don't produce in the regular season and playoffs you don't get into the Superbowl.

[Big Dave2]

The Pack have a -61:00 in time of possession since the injury. Before the injury it was +28:00. In 7 games that Rodgers was QB they only held the ball for 28 more mins than the opponent. The QB/Offense does help the Time of Possession stat but not as much as the Defense when it comes to getting the O back on.

Pretty big swing.

If my post that you replied to did not answer your question then maybe this does.

When's the last time you heard "We need to get the Defense back on the field"

Never.

Exactly.

You just proved my point of why the Vikings need a quarterback.

[DrJuice1980]

I think it is a way for him to attempt a spin on a loosing argument. He's already tried the scare tactics, now comes the dip and twirl. Guys such a phony, so transparent, so erroneous. The only thing I like about him are his random video posts in the entertainment forum are pretty funny but that's because he doesn't need to type.

Everything else is:

Rinse.

Repeat.

[DrJuice1980]

That is really what you got from that? If it were just the QB then the change would've been close to even. Why isn't it? If Rodgers was the sole reason why did they lose to the Bungles and San Fran? Why was the time of possession only +28 in 7 games? That's an average of +4mins a game. Without him the average is -10mins. Way more than a 1 man reasoning.

Simple minds think "Whoever scores more, a game of catch up and whoever has it last wins"

Complex minds think "Whoever stops the other more will win"

Again its: "Get the Offense back on the field"

Not

"Get the Defense back on the field"

Id have better luck explaining this to the KinderCare down the road

[muskiemanAD]

There is a reason that they talk about the fact that 2 game managing QBs Dilfer and Johnson have ever won Super Bowls because they had top 5 D's of all time. The rest have been top 5 QB's for probably the other 90% of the games. Look how many teams had terrible D's and won Super Bowls in last 10 years alone. Saints, Packers, Colts...

[DrJuice1980]

Did you mean to add Eli and Big Ben, who have won 4 out of the last 8 Super Bowls, to the list of non-elite QBs with solid D's???

BOX!!!!

I live in the past though right LMIT?

[LABS4ME]

Look how many teams had terrible D's and won Super Bowls in last 10 years alone. Saints, Packers, Colts...

You mean the 2010 Packers? With, depending on how the stats were added up, had the 5th best defense in the NFL that year? That's how you win the Super Bowl. Get in as the 6th seed team as a Wildcard, and work your way through the palyoffs with a great QB and a D that makes stops! I believe they ended up close to the best in INTs, rushing yards allowed and lowest QB rating. If I remember correctly, the year before was the debacle with Arizona where it was almost 100 points. That is the last team with the ball wins. Without a D, it does not matter who is flinging the football, your chances are close to 50-50 for a win.

All things being equal, I'll take an average Def (ranked 12-18 inthe NFL) and a top five QB... but if you are near the bottom in defense ranking (packers), your stud QB will only take you so far. ie: the Packers. and yes, the Bengals game this year is a perfect example.

Good Luck!

Ken

[FISHINGURU]

Possibly the dumbest statement in this whole thread, and that's saying something. There is no level of football in which coverage gets better the longer a play runs. Period.

I agree, I was thinking someone should enter that statement in the most preposterous statement tourney.

[LMITOUT]

I think he was getting at if you don't produce in the regular season and playoffs you don't get into the Superbowl.

Pretty simple to understand, wasn't it?

I guess I'll have to dumb down my comments even more for Stuart Smalley to understand.

[DrJuice1980]

Youre right, theres no such thing as a coverage sack. Weird how those happen the longer a play drags on.

[FISHINGURU]

You claim how you watch all this football and break down film and you honestly think coverage gets better and better the longer a play goes?

It has NEVER been that way from the playground to the pros. Even less these days with all the rules favoring the offense.

Oh wait, nevermind, there are sometimes coverage sacks. That obviously means coverage gets better and better as a play breaks down. LMMFAO

[DrJuice1980]

Being that there are no "designed" routes when the play drags on and the underneath coverage and one on ones merge together. I would say its harder to complete a pass, wouldn't you?

[DrJuice1980]

Pretty simple to understand, wasn't it?

I guess I'll have to dumb down my comments even more for Stuart Smalley to understand.

How weak are you? You can't come up with any quality takes on topics, you give one-liners as comebacks then make fun and name call.

I see your true colors LMIT.

BTW, we were discussing the fact that defense wins championships, not regular season or playoffs. The key there is championships. And I'm the one that needs it dumbed down?

Put something together for once that involves insight.

Rinse.

Repeat.

[LMITOUT]

BTW, we were discussing the fact that defense wins championships, not regular season or playoffs.

That's the dumbest excuse I've heard all day, and I've been up since 5:30am.

What you have here, folks, is a person who has dug themselves a hole so deep that they cannot even see daylight anymore.

I'll take that as a surrender on your part. That's OK. The rest of us knew you had lost after your first few posts in this thread.

[DrJuice1980]

Rinse.

Repeat.

As you put it. No insight whatso ever.

Folks be careful when engaging LMIT. He will stalk you on this site, make remarks about you in the middle of other topics (called me a puke stain and left the forum), give no reason to his opinions and try to bring you down. Then make threats, when you call him out, about admin having a watchful eye out for you. I don't need to call him any names, be the judge yourself.

[LMITOUT]

Yep, looks like the white flag is a flappin'.

[Hester]

This gets better every time I log on the computer.

I'm starting to think you two are married.

[Stick in Mud]

For someone who believes they know everything, you're sure out of touch with reality.

LOL. This, coming from the Omniscient One. Can't make this stuff up.

I'd make a comment about irony, but I suspect it's unnecessary.

[JeffB]

The argument whether offense or defense wins championships is like arguing whether a boxers left hand or right hand wins fights. We have had right handed and left handed champions, but I've never seen a one armed boxer make it very far.

[DrJuice1980]

I would like know what I'm surrendering to you for. What was it that I haven't buried you in facts over? What has been this "great" take you've had? Haha! Was it the Stalin-esque scare tactics you tried to impose? Haha! Where's the meme that you're famous for, did I miss it or something? I haven't backed down from your banter have I? Do you really think I'm intimidated by you? Internet bully's make me laugh. Haha!

No white flag as there was nothing to surrender too. Another dip and twirl by LMIT. You're material is getting old and lame. Time to find something new.

Rinse.

Repeat.

[Stick in Mud]

You claim how you watch all this football and break down film and you honestly think coverage gets better and better the longer a play goes?

It has NEVER been that way from the playground to the pros. Even less these days with all the rules favoring the offense.

Interesting issue...Has anyone seen any data on either yards per play, interceptions, completion %, fumbles, sacks, first downs, etc. on plays that "break down" vs. those that don't. Maybe by comparing the outcomes of plays where the QB leaves the pocket (without the play being designed for him to do so, of course) vs. those where he doesn't?

I've never actually seen any data on this, and it probably varies by QB, of course, but with the insane amount of data that's collected concerning professional sports, it's odd to think that no one has ever looked at this.

[Big Dave2]

Pretty simple to understand, wasn't it?

I guess I'll have to dumb down my comments even more for Stuart Smalley to understand.

I believe "remedial" is the word you are looking for.

[Stick in Mud]

The argument whether offense or defense wins championships is like arguing whether a boxers left hand or right hand wins fights. We have had right handed and left handed champions, but I've never seen a one armed boxer make it very far.

Certainly true...they're both important. But the argument is really about which one is *relatively* more important. Does the average ranking of winners' defenses rank about their offenses? I wonder if you looked at it in terms of relative percentage of total spending...do teams that win spend more--on a relative basis--on their defenses or offenses? I've no idea what the answers are, but this sounds like perfect work for an ESPN intern.

[DrJuice1980]

"Defense wins championships."

Yeah, twenty years ago.

For someone who believes they know everything, you're sure out of touch with reality.

[Big Dave2]

I would like know what I'm surrendering to you for. What was it that I haven't buried you in facts over? What has been this "great" take you've had? Haha! Was it the Stalin-esque scare tactics you tried to impose? Haha! Where's the meme that you're famous for, did I miss it or something? I haven't backed down from your banter have I? Do you really think I'm intimidated by you? Internet bully's make me laugh. Haha!

No white flag as there was nothing to surrender too. Another dip and twirl by LMIT. You're material is getting old and lame. Time to find something new.

Rinse.

Repeat.

So......your take seems to be that the Vikings need to draft a MLB with their first round draft pick, LMIT's take seems to be that the Vikes need to draft a QB with their first round pick.

How about a poll?

How many members think the vikes need a MLB more and how many think it is QB they need?

I'll go first and vote QB.