dave mcbride Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Actually, the exclusion of Moss wasn't willfully contrarian...it was an oversight. He was supposed to be slotted in there at 4. 451734[/snapback] gotcha. i still think he's the obvious #1, but i know reasonable people disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 My list of players if I had a team for just this year, and didn't have to worry about aging... 1. Moss 2. TO 3. Chad 4. Roy Williams 5. Ward 6. Harrison 7. Holt 8. A Johnson 9. Larry F 10. Moulds hon mention: Jimmy Smith, Joe Horn, Coles, Chambers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Fergy Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 But Mularkey said Moulds sucks, can't catch and can't get open any more. 450770[/snapback] Have you always spoke out of your a@#$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan Trapped in Pats Land Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 look where he put moss and owens. thats insain. no way is chad johnson better than eather of those 2 guys. 450799[/snapback] Ummmm, yeah he is. Put Chad Johnson with Culpepper, Collins or McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Have you always spoke out of your a@#$ 451759[/snapback] Wait a minute, that's a trick question, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted September 23, 2005 Author Share Posted September 23, 2005 This is absolutely incorrect. If you are forced to march down field with 10+ play drives every time you are, more than likely, going to make a mistake. A dropped ball, a sack, a turnover. Moving the chains isn't always enough. Quick strikes aren't just for the highlight reel. They turn games around by shifting momentum and elimating the probablity of game changing mistakes. Show me a team that consistantly puts up big points and I guarantee they consistantly have big plays. Moving the chains is important, but if your team is incapable of hitting the big play you're not going to win many games. Granted, you're also not going to win many games if you can't sustain drives...both are important, but saying that big plays are only for Sportscenter is just wrong. 451485[/snapback] Take a look at the old 49ers....They ran the perfect west coast offense...that kept moving the chains....They did not have Jerry Rice running in for 80yard TDs......or look at the modern day Patriots....same thing.....Bottom line is you want to win the game....By having long drives, you keep your DEFENSE fresh so that they can attack....The best way for that is to keep long sustained drives that will break the back of the opponent defense...... It is not important to "Put up BIG Points", but rather important to "put up WINNING points"....I would rather win 9-6 than 42-3.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Take a look at the old 49ers....They ran the perfect west coast offense...thatkept moving the chains....They did not have Jerry Rice running in for 80yard TDs......or look at the modern day Patriots....same thing.....Bottom line is you want to win the game....By having long drives, you keep your DEFENSE fresh so that they can attack....The best way for that is to keep long sustained drives that will break the back of the opponent defense...... It is not important to "Put up BIG Points", but rather important to "put up WINNING points"....I would rather win 9-6 than 42-3.... 451866[/snapback] if you're winning 9-6, then no receiver is winning the game for you - your defense is. in which case a discussion of who is the best receiver (i.e., the guy who catches the ball, runs, and tries to score as many touchdowns as possible) is entirely moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 23, 2005 Share Posted September 23, 2005 Take a look at the old 49ers....They ran the perfect west coast offense...thatkept moving the chains....They did not have Jerry Rice running in for 80yard TDs......or look at the modern day Patriots....same thing.....Bottom line is you want to win the game....By having long drives, you keep your DEFENSE fresh so that they can attack....The best way for that is to keep long sustained drives that will break the back of the opponent defense...... It is not important to "Put up BIG Points", but rather important to "put up WINNING points"....I would rather win 9-6 than 42-3.... 451866[/snapback] re the niners, you're wrong. in his peak years (1985-1989), rice had incredibly high ypc numbers plus lots of long 50 yd.+ touchdowns. and in 1989, a year that the niners were dominant, montant averaged over 9 yards per pass attempt (one of the highest ever). http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiceJe00.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted September 24, 2005 Author Share Posted September 24, 2005 re the niners, you're wrong. in his peak years (1985-1989), rice had incredibly high ypc numbers plus lots of long 50 yd.+ touchdowns. and in 1989, a year that the niners were dominant, montant averaged over 9 yards per pass attempt (one of the highest ever). http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiceJe00.htm 451918[/snapback] My point was to look at them overall over those years...not just a few games or a single season....As for the 9-6 game, my point was not about offense or defesen...the bottomline is at the end of the day what matters is the number on the Win-Loss columns.... A short pass system allows for a more ball control offense that will run the other team defense to ground....One of the best example is our own super bowl 25. If we could have controlled the clock just enough for 5 more minutes, we would have won it.....not the Giants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 re the niners, you're wrong. in his peak years (1985-1989), rice had incredibly high ypc numbers plus lots of long 50 yd.+ touchdowns. and in 1989, a year that the niners were dominant, montant averaged over 9 yards per pass attempt (one of the highest ever). http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/RiceJe00.htm 451918[/snapback] And many of Rice and Taylors catches were 5 yard slants and the like taken the distance. The RAC was severe. Walsh was methodical and Montana was not a bomb thrower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 And many of Rice and Taylors catches were 5 yard slants and the like taken the distance. The RAC was severe. Walsh was methodical and Montana was not a bomb thrower. 452140[/snapback] The question isn't whether the QB throws bombs or not, but whether the WR is a big play threat. Rice and Taylor could take it the distance on any slant, that's the definition of a big play threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 And many of Rice and Taylors catches were 5 yard slants and the like taken the distance. The RAC was severe. Walsh was methodical and Montana was not a bomb thrower. 452140[/snapback] i watched those games. many of those passes were deep passes -- 30 yards plus. there's a fair amount of retrospective re-interpretation based upon not watching any games (as far as i can tell). montana threw a very accurate deep ball. it seems pointless to add at this point, but taylor averaged 18 ypc as well in 89, the year that the SF offense was at its peak. again, i watched many of those plays. they weren't just a bunch of 5 yard slants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted September 24, 2005 Share Posted September 24, 2005 My point was to look at them overall over those years...not just a few games or a single season....As for the 9-6 game, my point was not about offense or defesen...the bottomline is at the end of the day what matters is the number on the Win-Loss columns.... A short pass system allows for a more ball control offense that will run the other team defense to ground....One of the best example is our own super bowl 25. If we could have controlled the clock just enough for 5 more minutes, we would have won it.....not the Giants... 452128[/snapback] the point is that i am loooking at it over a five year period. and as far as i can tell, scoring more points will always help you in the win-loss column. good offense plus good defense is the best combo, obviously. i'll take it any day over a low scoring offense plus a ball control defense any day of the week. if you want to bring up recent cases, new england's offense is in fact excellent -- loaded with good (not great) receivers and an upper tier RB plus the best qb in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts