Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Giving our defense excuses


Peppermint9030

Recommended Posts

should lead to you being banned...I've heard "were not bad we just play a good 30 minutes on defense", "We just don't have much depth"...Depth? We don't have talent! One decent LB, one good CB, and a solid DE...That is it the rest of the defense can be scraped...Hardy your a rotation guy at best...Our DT's BLOW, our Line Backers BLOW, our secondary BLOW'S, our scheme BLOW'S...Overreacting? NO, look at the talent around the league! Our starters may not crack other teams "depth"... One thing that makes this hard for me is Fox has Denver winning by holding opponents under 13 a game, they were 28th in D last season...Our defense has drastically dropped from last year...The type of fall that the offense would take if you put Jimmy in for Cam...Drastic, scrapped, it looks horrible, it is horrible...If it walk's like a fuging duck, and talk's like a fuging duck then guess what people it's usually a fuging DUCK! We can't stop the run, can't tackle worth a poo, and can't cover besides Gamble, and we don't have a consistent pass rush...Well I guess that mean's our defense blows...Sugar coat that every one I'm waiting for it...I thought Rivera was a defensive guy? No one thought the D would drop this bad...And don't hand me that "well wait till next off season" poo we wasted two early picks on the DT's of the "future"...Does that show you a little something...fug without Cam we have the worst draft in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we have a decent amount of talent, but a lot of it is young. I really think a large part of our problem is depth... we just can't stay with it for the full game. That's because many of the guys we are starting are typically rotation players who would be coming off the bench to keep our starters healthy, but with injuries to LBers and to our starting DT, we're playing a lot of youth and rotation guys, and we're wearing them out. It's not that we're great on first string and horrible after, it's that I think we are actually relatively average when fresh but terrrrible in depth because our average first string is supposed to be our depth.

As to this defense not having talent, when it's healthy it has plenty of talent. Even right now, we have one great DE, one good DE, a good LB, a good CB, one good safety and one average safety. We also have promising youth at nickle back (being forced to start at 2nd CB because our FO piss me off curse curse) and DT (well, mcclain anyway, though Rivera actually thought fua was better this last game and mcclain was a bit worse).

It's way more complicated than "we don't have talent." It's fair to say we don't have healthy, experienced talent, because we are playing backups and a fair number of young guys, but I think that if we make smart FA moves and draft well we could very quickly build this defense up.

But we will need to make FA moves I think, and I'm not sure that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

should lead to you being banned...I've heard "were not bad we just play a good 30 minutes on defense", "We just don't have much depth"...Depth? We don't have talent! One decent LB, one good CB, and a solid DE...That is it the rest of the defense can be scraped...Hardy your a rotation guy at best...Our DT's BLOW, our Line Backers BLOW, our secondary BLOW'S, our scheme BLOW'S...Overreacting? NO, look at the talent around the league! Our starters may not crack other teams "depth"... One thing that makes this hard for me is Fox has Denver winning by holding opponents under 13 a game, they were 28th in D last season...Our defense has drastically dropped from last year...The type of fall that the offense would take if you put Jimmy in for Cam...Drastic, scrapped, it looks horrible, it is horrible...If it walk's like a fuging duck, and talk's like a fuging duck then guess what people it's usually a fuging DUCK! We can't stop the run, can't tackle worth a poo, and can't cover besides Gamble, and we don't have a consistent pass rush...Well I guess that mean's our defense blows...Sugar coat that every one I'm waiting for it...I thought Rivera was a defensive guy? No one thought the D would drop this bad...And don't hand me that "well wait till next off season" poo we wasted two early picks on the DT's of the "future"...Does that show you a little something...fug without Cam we have the worst draft in the NFL.

You really need to relax man or those arteries in your head are going to BLOW. :sifone:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fwiw, I knew our defense would be bad when Beason, Davis, and Edwards went down. We weren't any better than average last year, and losing players of that caliber take you from average to below average. Injuries are not an excuse, but they are definitely a reason. And before anyone brings up Green Bay from last year, there are a handful of times in NFL history that a team has suffered that many key injuries and still been able to finish with a championship season. Most of the time, teams suffering through multiple key injuries end up not being very good. The few that do go on and keep winning are usually teams that get lucky in the depth department.

That being said, I am not sold on Mcdermott either and wasn't sure about the hire when we hired him. But I certainly ain't gonna judge him or any other coach (win or lose) on 8 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind the scheme but we clearly have issues. We're clearly playing players who wouldn't be playing on good teams. Definitely not a recipe for success but we do have some good players( DE's,Gamble), a couple of them out (Beason and TD), and some decent ones (Godfrey,Andersen, Connor). We really need a ballhawk FS, and another corner with some skills and size opposite of Gamble ( I like Butler, but he's still proving himself), and we need some power in the middle of our DL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not read that because it was too long but I will say most of our defense is undrafted free agent practice squad bums. Or guys with that kind of talent. That is a fact. Your defense is not going to be good when that is the case. There is a lot of personnel moves that will have to be made on that side of the ball before our defense is good. Hopefully the right moves will be made and we will be a top defense like we were forever ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our safeties are divas who pray they don't have to tackle and our DTs are inexperienced marshmallows.

Healthy or not, Beason and Davis couldn't even save this D. A ball hawking safety and a stud DT would do wonders for covering some of our lack of skill/depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...