Pieces in place similar to SB champ Bucs?

[rayzor 13,170]

it depends, do we have the offensive playbook for the team we'd be facing?

 

i guess that would be the browns.

 

so...maybe. depends on how many pigs you see flying overhead.

 

sober.

[CAPantherFan 85]

I like the idea of bring Charles Woodson in!  Even if gets injured he'd bring a mature presence to the locker room and if he is healthy a huge boon to our D.  I don't think he'd be too expensive now that's he been unemployed for this long....

 

Or am I dreaming?

[SauceBoss 356]

We'll have the best D in our division and likely by a lot.

This is like saying we are the coolest kid on the short bus.

[La Pantera 1,111]

This is like saying we are the coolest kid on the short bus.

You should know all about that...

Where did our D rank last year?

[CRA 13,935]

You should know all about that...

Where did our D rank last year?

18th in points per game....

Yardage IMO is bogus to only acknowledge.

[Chimera 3,579]

18th in points per game....

Yardage IMO is bogus to only acknowledge.

So is using points.

pick sixes, safeties, special teams, short field after a turnover, etc

case in point: our defense outscored our offense last season against Seattle

[CRA 13,935]

So is using points.

pick sixes, safeties, special teams, short field after a turnover, etc

case in point: our defense outscored our offense last season against Seattle

That is why you have to you use the collective information....

I don't consider what we had a top 10 D. Top 10 Ds don't lose games repeatedly that are essentially "gimmes" for them to make some basic plays to win.

Doesn't pass the the ole eye test

[panthers04100 302]

I would say this team is similar to our 2003 Super Bowl team the only huge difference being the wr's

[Chimera 3,579]

I would say this team is similar to our 2003 Super Bowl team the only huge difference being the wr's

if this team can finish games half as good as the 2003 team, we'd be looking at 13-3

(assuming we continue to dominate for 58.5 minutes of most games)

[KillerKat 12,866]

what a terrible comparison

[iamhubby1 3,626]

That is why you have to you use the collective information....

I don't consider what we had a top 10 D. Top 10 Ds don't lose games repeatedly that are essentially "gimmes" for them to make some basic plays to win.

Doesn't pass the the ole eye test

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

What exactly is this collective information you speak of? Stats and film are just about it. Stats are a tool. (Ask Billy Ball) Used properly, they can assist you. Just because you have a point of view that stats can disprove. Does not automatically discount those stats. You have built in disclaimers all over the place. This, no use stats, is just another.

 

You always seem to go a little over the top when you try to make a point. "Gimmies"?

 

I can't understand the negativity? Most teams have a hard time stopping Offenses these days. Why is it so damming when we do it? We did it better, for the most part, than half the league. To hear you, it is down right disastrously bad.

 

And? You get to use the ol' eye test for validation? If you call, eye test, I call, stats. Your turn.

 

Fear of the past should not cloud your view of the Future.

 

 

 

[CRA 13,935]

Um, stats and games ARE part of it all. Top 10 defensive units generally don't allow opponents to have the best completion percentage against them in all the NFL. They generally aren't in the bottom half in points against, and they don't allow what occured to them against Atl, Tampa, etc.

So again, claiming they were a top 10 D just bc of yardage....is incomplete and I still don't get why people use that (including the NFL) as the ranking for a D.