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!

     

Greg Hardy DPOW X 2.......domination defense 5 x this year


Jmac

Recommended Posts

And you place too much emphasis on "Sacks" there is a difference between pressure and sacks. Hardy goes 100% every play if he doenst get the sack than he pressures the QB. Thats the kinda guy you want and not a guy that takes plays off or even stays hurt and he can play some DT and still be a force. Hardy is a luxury point blank for a DE. PFF backs this up every week as well. You say 31 teams would take Keek but those same 31 would take Hardy as well. Most importantly where did i say this was just about Hardy?  i could have sworn i said Kraken AND CJ. You are twisting my statement to help yours but anyway....Most of the time Any team building a defense is always gonna take a dominant DE over a MLB dont see how this is even arguable. We already had good DEs so we didnt fall in that situation. Glad we have Keek tho.

 

 

So based on that statement I'm guessing Keek doesn't go 100% every play? LOL, whats funny is I knew you were going to say "and you place too much emphasis on "Sacks" there is a difference between pressure and sacks." I didn't know we were talking about Hardy the DT?? Of course I know he's versatile, but as you so blatantly pointed out in your first point, you were exclusively talking about rushing the passer (I also do believe I said it's a luxury "point blank" to have Hardy on the team. Look at my last quote) in which I think we can still do without Hardy.

 

As for the "31 teams would trade for Hardy" thats just wrong. Currently, there are better DE's in the league then Hardy. Not saying he won't get there or become the best, but right now he's not.

 

I don't really feel like finishing this debate cause it's like talking to a wall. At the end of the day, my point is this ...

 

Keek is better, and I still think we can generate a pass rush without Hardy. Now carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So based on that statement I'm guessing Keek doesn't go 100% every play? LOL, whats funny is I knew you were going to say "and you place too much emphasis on "Sacks" there is a difference between pressure and sacks." I didn't know we were talking about Hardy the DT?? Of course I know he's versatile, but as you so blatantly pointed out in your first point, you were exclusively talking about rushing the passer (I also do believe I said it's a luxury "point blank" to have Hardy on the team. Look at my last quote) in which I think we can still do without Hardy.

 

As for the "31 teams would trade for Hardy" thats just wrong. Currently, there are better DE's in the league then Hardy. Not saying he won't get there or become the best, but right now he's not.

 

I don't really feel like finishing this debate cause it's like talking to a wall. At the end of the day, my point is this ...

 

Keek is better, and I still think we can generate a pass rush without Hardy. Now carry on.

 

And once again you missed the part where i said this was about HARDY AND CJ never just Hardy. Geez man.....you were right about talking to a wall this is pointless. Moving on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And once again you missed the part where i said this was about HARDY AND CJ never just Hardy. Geez man.....you were right about talking to a wall this is pointless. Moving on.

He's not the one changing the argument, you are. Your original premise was that Keek may not be the best player in the defense and by extension not the most important. You stated that Hardy was more important and now you've morphed it into some tandem DE combo being better than Keel by including CJ. Keep moving those goal posts buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not the one changing the argument, you are. Your original premise was that Keek may not be the best player in the defense and by extension not the most important. You stated that Hardy was more important and now you've morphed it into some tandem DE combo being better than Keel by including CJ. Keep moving those goal posts buddy.

I did?

 

See much as i love Kuechly the logic in this just doesnt add up. Yes he is a once in a while player, but in a passing league How good is this defense without pass rushers?

 

 

This defense could be pretty bad without Johnson and Hardy. I just havent convinced myself yet that Kuechlys impact is bigger than them i love Kuechly.

 

My first post. Yeah either you cant read or you definitely are drunk.

 

Obviously our source of contention is the value we place in both players. You would rather have the Kraken, I would rather have Keek. Your point can go both ways, you basically said if we didn't have Hardy we would be out of the playoffs. In the same way, if we didn't have Keek, I doubt we would be in the playoffs.

 

As Gruden said, 31 GM's would trade their MLB for Keek. He is what makes our D tick and the players comments have backed that up. Without Hardy, I believe we can still generate a solid pass rush.

 

As for this quote, "Brees made Keek Luke human when we  couldnt get to him the first time we played. Keek has actually given up a big plays when we have played good Qbs he cant do it without help" since you place such an overall emphasis on the pass rush, I do believe Hardy has had numerous games without a sack, I call that 'Luke human'. 

Yeah i made this all about Hardy. Yall got me lol....Moving along with life now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...