StupidNation

Give us a good reason why we should think Whitner has been playing great and has been a game changer. Trust us, we'll listen, but we've seen him now for 3 years and he's no game-changer. Great on defending the run, below average in coverage, and now he's at FS so it exposes him even more.

Bingo... I haven't seen him change a game since his first or second start with his INT and his PD in the end zone. Since then he's been in prevent mode.

I would have lined up Poz or Mitchell and blasted him off the field. Agree 100% I think he felt he could beat Whitner, but wanted to beat him in a punkish way by juking him out of his jock. It worked, but he didn't know Mitchell was going to take him down. Still he played a great game and he killed the secondary. I have a pretty good memory and Lynch hasn't been money at the goal-line. He's been most successful from 4 or 6 yards out or more. His goal-line runs have been stuffed pretty consistently before the last couple of games. He's still better than Jackson at that point, but I think they were looking for answers.

Many people have noticed how Pennington can basically throw a softball to Ginn or someone else and they would be open. McGee gets a pass, it's just that easy, he's playing injured and shouldn't have played. I've played on a bad knee and it takes 3 days after you play on it just to have your muscles relax. It shows how little faith they have in McKelvin, but then again he too is a rookie, so again a pass. Where is the safety play? The role of the safeties are to break up plays and help provide protection for CBs. Scott's job the past 2 games have been serviceable. Simpson has been horrible and his hawking abilities in the secondary leave a lot to be desired, and Whitner is not a ball-hawk in the secondary and never was. Scott looked above average against Gates, and the TE this game didn't have much of a role, which may be because of Scott, but what did Simpson or Whitner do today? Whitner got torched, and torched often. He was playing off the receivers so much you wasn't even in the screen, and in the replays you could see him running up, or in the case of Ginn's big run, getting torched. We need real safeties that are ball-hawks. Ever notice why having a great safety who makes plays on passes makes game changing plays? Atogwe, Reed, Polamulu, Griffin, Dawkins 2 years ago, and others. We need some play out there in the secondary to protect getting killed by the pass. CBs have to play WR, but ball-hawking safeties make the game that much harder to throw up 70-75% completion rates like Warner, Pennington, and Rivers did to us. It's our weakness, and I don't see us fixing it soon. BTW, it never makes sense to invest so much money in a S in the top 10 picks. Other than Sean Taylor, who is dead, was there anyone who lived up to the billing? LaRon Landry, Whitner, Williams, Huff, et al. just aren't worth picking there. I haven't seen a safety drafted that high live up to the billing. Usually they are diamonds in the ruff in the 2nd round, or late 1sts.

Love Trent, great player, think he's the future, but he didn't play great. He played ok, but held the ball too long. It didn't help that we didn't help to have a game-plan that was mostly predictable with the exception of the 1st drive of the 2nd half, and the drive where Royal fumbled. We need a better-game plan, and Trent had a bad game. He wasn't horrible, but he wasn't good and there were a few drops that were costly, and his fumbles were also costly (well the one in particular).

You have to throw in Whitner in the secondary. A good FS is around the ball trying to make a play on it. Simpson hasn't been that guy, and now Whitner isn't either. I think the reason we have Scott at SS is to fix finding a ballhawk. Whitner isn't a hawk. He looked horrible on some plays. (Cue in Dean to tell me I'm wrong, but I watched the game again and he got owned on several big occasions for big gains). I know McGee was hurt, but the FS should have been there to make some plays. We need a real FS and we don't have one. If you want to see what they do to a game, watch Ed Reed. Now not everyone can be him, but a real FS plays the ball and makes plays on the ball. We don't have one.

Kelly had some awful games. He's played very good overall. NFL fans overall are fickle. Apply Bills to NFL and there you have it. Savior one week, Satan the next. Edwards is the future.

When you don't like the idea, and can't argue, use labels. Oh wait... you did that... You want to see bigotry? Say God should be the center-piece of all laws. Of course no hypocrisy here, move along.

Thank God all these scientists agree with you too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scien..._global_warming

The Hannity/Rush Republicons are nothing more than party voices. They might dissent on issues that are not vital to their party, but overall they are nothing more than talking points. If they were serious about being conservative guys like Buchanan and Paul would have more footing with their shows. Paul is a Taft Republican, and Buchanan is paleo-conservative.

Sounds like the guy is making sense you hate the truth.

The most lame-duck candidate was Dole. He was set-up just for the automatic fail.

What part of history did you gage this from? FDR or Carter? If it's just Clinton did it ever occur to you he got "credit" for the internet boon?

I hate the fear-mongering of 9/11 in respect to abusing our civil liberties, but using it as a "tactic" is like saying we shouldn't use history to make points. To say that radical Islam isn't a threat or doesn't hate anyone who isn't part of radical Islam forgets what Mohammed did, and his successors. We should be made aware of what they represent, but I also think we need to re-think our foreign policy to let the world burn without us as a political policy. If individuals want to fight in Rwanda or the Congo to combat genocide they certainly can, but as a UN Peacekeeper, not as U.S policy.

Do you know what black liberation theology is? The theology that Obama believes and was part of for 20 years? I'm extremely familiar with it, before there was an Obama. It's the liberation theology of Marx, where Christianity is seen as a vehicle for Marxist ideology (which I know doesn't bother liberals even though the idea is anti-American), but you add the black element. The black element is so radical and so extreme they profess to hate God if God does not give them victory over other races. It's the worst version of "Christianity" I've ever seen. Even fundies who hate "them colored people" don't believe they should hate God for victory. How that is passable by anyone and not truly exposed by the media is absolute proof this county is asking to be destroyed from within.

Travis was probably a better runner out of the backfield, but Lynch is definitely better at blocking and catching out of the backfield. I also agree Jackson should get more carries and see what happens.

Since you won't address the Charges game and why they put Scott over Whitner I know I'm not the one who needs simplification. Whitner is a fantastic tackler in the run game, I'm not impressed with his tackling in the passing game as he always plays in "prevent" and then tries to destroy the guy. The guy is good taking angles with the opposition coming up-field, but I've yet to see him do anything in the passing game that stops a big play unless he is ahead of them. Not at all. Most INTs that are done because of athleticism are usually when they read the eyes of the QB and jump the route. Dante DID do that in his first season once, and almost did it again in the same game. He has yet to do that again. His other INTs are from over-throws and he was in position. Those are lucky, but they do count and players should get credit. Then explain Gates for me and why they put in Scott over Whitner. Who is more important to the Charges offense: Nickel or SS? Case closed, Gates is the most important person when Chambers is out. Assumptions are worthless as most of the INTs were bad passes picked off by overthrows to Wilson, or by LBs who were in their zones in passing lanes. I watched the clips and Whitner gives a cushion. I doubt he could do what Crowell did. Crowell averages more INTs and PDs than Whitner does. Whitner was brought in to stop the new Os of today who pass to run right? It shows a couple of things, first he isn't used in that role because he can't do it, and when he is used he isn't effective. Did it occur to you he lacks ball instincts? He has great tackle instincts, and may be top 3 in run defense as a strong safety. Let me make easy for you: Would you say that Roy Williams is good in pass coverage if he only averaged 1 INT and 1 PD? (Williams sucks but outshines Whitner in this regard) How about Polamalu would he be considered good in coverage? Compare the stats. Anyone considered decent in coverage has a minimum of 2 INTs a year and 8 PDs. Until Whitner is used on the D line and used in the secondary PDs and INTs are a measure to show they are good on pass defense. The coaches have shown me they don't trust him enough to use him against Gates or Witten. It's not a Crusade. I don't start threads, but I respond to homerism. Being considered for Pro Bowl by the fans isn't the same as him being good in coverage. I've noticed when he's passed on all the time. I can see you don't.

You can't, or shouldn't expect to win in Dec and January without a ground game. You can't expect a QB to win you every game on O.

Just like Atlanta pre and post Turner? Jackson has faster playing speed than Lynch. Lynch isn't slow, but he isn't considered elite in the fast or quick categories. Freddie Jackson, right now, is a better runner. Why not see if it's the OL or Lynch?

Let me get this straight... do you count the guy who tackles the receiver the guy in coverage? If so how in the hell do you consider me infantile for stat checking if you can't watch the game? Next, you say Whitner wasn't the guy predominantly defending him, so you end up using a stat for INTs in your defense? When does Whitner not intercepting a ball have to do with anything? Second, how do you end up saying Whitten wasn't being defending predominantly by Dante yet use interceptions by the QB to players other than Dante as your defense? The bizarro world you make statements is hard for anyone to fathom. You never answered how anyone would consider it insightful if you made the same comparisons to other SS saying they were great in coverage but had nothing to back it up. I inserted the names Lott, or Dawkins, but feel free to do that with any safety who is good in coverage I'd love to hear how it's possible.

When you get owned take it like a man. Acting like une fille n'est pas tres chic, n'est pas?

I didn't want to rub it in. I was hoping the simple comparison of SD to SD and Whitner to Whitner comps were applicable.

I'll actually take 2 excellent DTs over 2 excellent Safeties or CBs any day of the week.

Jackson needs more carries as he averages more per carry, both last year and this year. Jackson doesn't side-step and goes forward, Lynch is a home-run big play or little to no yards. Lynch has great effort, but has less vision than Jackson. There is only one way to know, and that is if Jackson starts. Jackson did start one game, and pulled up a 5.1 yard per carry on 16 carries. The difference was if you take away his long carry he's still at 4ypc. Do that with Lynch and he's always around 2.5-3. For the first half of last game he was around 2.5 yards per carry. You have 2 options: -Sign FAs and play them mid-season -Change the RB Changing the RB for a game will expose more thoroughly what's happening. If you watched last game they both averaged 3.7, but the difference was Jackson highest was 7 yards so he was constantly gaining ground every touch, whereas Marshawn didn't. Stop the with BS that Lynch runs hard. So freaking what! Last time I checked Rudy didn't make it to the pros either. Effort is great, but vision and talent with effort is superior. Give Jackson a shot.

It's not infantile to hope for PDs or INTs. Only idiots deny those things, and I mean ONLY idiots. Let's re-do some conversations in history, tell me how funny they would be: "Ronnie Lott was great at safety, he was great in pass coverage despite only 1 INT and 1 PD a season." "Brian Dawkins has been fantastic in pass coverage this year despite only 1 INT and 1 PD a season." Only in homer-land would that work. Yes, my infantile insistence is called logic, which is cold and characteristically unbearable to those who try to work around it. But let's look at it another way, and I wasn't thinking about him, why was Scott covering Gates rather than Whitner? Didn't we draft Whitner for that reason? Wasn't it to stop the new Os that focus on TEs so we needed a fast SS who could stop them? It might have something to do with 9 Rec for 90 yards back in 2006 and realized that Dante was going to get torched by their best receiver for the game. Scott, a back-up, was better in coverage with Gates. SS line up with TEs by the way. Gates in 2006 when Whitner covers him 9 rec 90 yards Gates in 2008 with Scott, back-up, covers him 4 rec 55 yrds Don't let your rose-colored sunglasses stop you from watching the game.