Can we make up the difference?

[CanesSkins26]

Tom Brady when he won those SuperBowls was anything but prolific.

In the 2003 SB Brady set a Super Bowl record with 32 completions, threw for 354 yards, and 3 tds.

Rogers, Farve, Peyton Manning and Steve Young were the only Qbs I can remember tearing it up in the SuperBowl.

Aikman in 1992 - 273 yards, 4 tds

Elway in 1998 - 336 yards, 2 tds

Warner in 1999 - 414 yards, 2 tds, and set a SB record for most attempts without an int

Brady in 2003 - 354 yards, 3 tds

Eli Manning in 2007 - Became the first quarterback to throw two go-ahead touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl

Brees in 2009 - tied the SB record with 32 completions, 288 yards, 2 tds

Just because you don't remember it happening, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

3/4s of those teams and QBs mentioned had top defenses in there respective years.

Oh and 99 percent of them had a great defense.

Which is it?

[chiefhog44]

Tom Brady when he won those SuperBowls was anything but prolific.

In the 2003 SB Brady set a Super Bowl record with 32 completions, threw for 354 yards, and 3 tds.

Rogers, Farve, Peyton Manning and Steve Young were the only Qbs I can remember tearing it up in the SuperBowl.

Aikman in 1992 - 273 yards, 4 tds

Elway in 1998 - 336 yards, 2 tds

Warner in 1999 - 414 yards, 2 tds, and set a SB record for most attempts without an int

Brady in 2003 - 354 yards, 3 tds

Eli Manning in 2007 - Became the first quarterback to throw two go-ahead touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl

Brees in 2009 - tied the SB record with 32 completions, 288 yards, 2 tds

Just because you don't remember it happening, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

3/4s of those teams and QBs mentioned had top defenses in there respective years.

Oh and 99 percent of them had a great defense.

Which is it?

So funny, that was a total...I hope he doesn't call my bluff post. I was thinking Brees lit it up as did Warner

[yupchagee]

Tom Brady when he won those SuperBowls was anything but prolific.

In the 2003 SB Brady set a Super Bowl record with 32 completions, threw for 354 yards, and 3 tds.

Rogers, Farve, Peyton Manning and Steve Young were the only Qbs I can remember tearing it up in the SuperBowl.

Aikman in 1992 - 273 yards, 4 tds

Elway in 1998 - 336 yards, 2 tds

Warner in 1999 - 414 yards, 2 tds, and set a SB record for most attempts without an int

Brady in 2003 - 354 yards, 3 tds

Eli Manning in 2007 - Became the first quarterback to throw two go-ahead touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl

Brees in 2009 - tied the SB record with 32 completions, 288 yards, 2 tds

Just because you don't remember it happening, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

3/4s of those teams and QBs mentioned had top defenses in there respective years.

Oh and 99 percent of them had a great defense.

Which is it?

The fact that a QB "lit it up" in the SB doesn't mean that he was a great QB.

Ex: Doug Williams.

[chiefhog44]

Tom Brady when he won those SuperBowls was anything but prolific.

In the 2003 SB Brady set a Super Bowl record with 32 completions, threw for 354 yards, and 3 tds.

Rogers, Farve, Peyton Manning and Steve Young were the only Qbs I can remember tearing it up in the SuperBowl.

Aikman in 1992 - 273 yards, 4 tds

Elway in 1998 - 336 yards, 2 tds

Warner in 1999 - 414 yards, 2 tds, and set a SB record for most attempts without an int

Brady in 2003 - 354 yards, 3 tds

Eli Manning in 2007 - Became the first quarterback to throw two go-ahead touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl

Brees in 2009 - tied the SB record with 32 completions, 288 yards, 2 tds

Just because you don't remember it happening, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

3/4s of those teams and QBs mentioned had top defenses in there respective years.

Oh and 99 percent of them had a great defense.

Which is it?

The fact that a QB "lit it up" in the SB doesn't mean that he was a great QB.

Ex: Doug Williams.

Right, because none of the aforementioned QB's were great. Dude, drop the point. It's a passer's league now.

[HEROHAMO]

Tom Brady when he won those SuperBowls was anything but prolific.

In the 2003 SB Brady set a Super Bowl record with 32 completions, threw for 354 yards, and 3 tds.

Rogers, Farve, Peyton Manning and Steve Young were the only Qbs I can remember tearing it up in the SuperBowl.

Aikman in 1992 - 273 yards, 4 tds

Elway in 1998 - 336 yards, 2 tds

Warner in 1999 - 414 yards, 2 tds, and set a SB record for most attempts without an int

Brady in 2003 - 354 yards, 3 tds

Eli Manning in 2007 - Became the first quarterback to throw two go-ahead touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl

Brees in 2009 - tied the SB record with 32 completions, 288 yards, 2 tds

Just because you don't remember it happening, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

3/4s of those teams and QBs mentioned had top defenses in there respective years.

Oh and 99 percent of them had a great defense.

Which is it?

Your points you made still do not prove that Defense does not win Championships. Which is the main point I made.

Most every great QB who won the SuperBowl had a good defense behind him or great defense.

Aikman had Emmit Smith, Irvin, Novacheck, and a boat load of pro bowlers on defense as well.

Eli had and still has the best front defensive front four in football.

Warner had Marshall faulk who gained 2000 yards rushing and receiving as well as a triple threat receiving.

Elway had Terrell Davis. Previously he had lost three SuperBowls. It wasnt until he got a decent team that he won the big one.


Not discrediting the value of a great QB. However If I had a choice I would take the Great defense vs a great QB.

Bradys first two Championships were won with a good defense and a master defensive coordinator in Billicheck. As well as solid play from Brady.


I guess Ill put it this way. All the great QBs would not have won jack without at least a top 10 defense. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Brees did not have a top defense but his defense led the league in turnovers.

There have been many great QBs like Marino and Elway who carried there teams pretty far until they ran into a great defense and were just demolished in the playoffs.

So for me Build the defense first. You just dont keep chasing after a QB. If there is a great QB then we should snag him. This draft I see none. So we should be aiming towards defensive players who are worth something.

[Countertrey]

Eli Manning in 2007 - Became the first quarterback to throw two go-ahead touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl

Just tossing this in...

Frankly, the use of this example to assert that the quarterback is the key in championship games is just ludicrous. This game was a prime example ot the DEFENSE doing the vast amount of the work, the OFFENSE getting completely, out of the blue lucky, and then getting the credit for the win. That Manning was named MVP was a complete travesty (and further evidence that the press should never be permitted to name sports award winners), and an insult to several defensive stalwarts in that game, each of whom (but expecially Justin Tuck) deserved to be named MVP FAR ABOVE anyone on the offense, including the blind squirrel, Eli Manning.

[VetSkinsFan]

Eli Manning in 2007 - Became the first quarterback to throw two go-ahead touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a Super Bowl

Just tossing this in...

Frankly, the use of this example to assert that the quarterback is the key in championship games is just ludicrous. This game was a prime example ot the DEFENSE doing the vast amount of the work, the OFFENSE getting completely, out of the blue lucky, and then getting the credit for the win. That Manning was named MVP was a complete travesty (and further evidence that the press should never be permitted to name sports award winners), and an insult to several defensive stalwarts in that game, each of whom (but expecially Justin Tuck) deserved to be named MVP FAR ABOVE anyone on the offense, including the blind squirrel, Eli Manning.

[langleyparkjoe]

eli manning is such a .. ugh.. can't even say it here.

[SkinsJock]

eli manning is such a .. ugh.. can't even say it here.

The NY Giants won the Super Bowl because they got really good play from both sides of the ball - NOT because of the QB but more because their defense played so well and the offense had a couple of incredible plays


we need to build this franchise back so that we are a lot younger and with more depth at both offensive and defensive line - that being said I hope we don't get a QB like Eli that needs to be lucky to be good - I just hope that this franchise gets a really good QB soon and surrounds him with young players that will both play well together and develop and help this franchise back into being a consistent playoff contender

[langleyparkjoe]

Yea I agree with that SJ

[SkinsJock]

this is really very simple - we do not need to try and score more points:

- we need to get the FO to bring in players through the draft and free agency that make the players around them on both offense and defense better - they also need to get much younger players involved - franchises with too many older players cannot hold up for a whole season - we've seen it first hand
- we need the OC and the DC to come up with offensive and defensive schemes that suit the players they have and then ensure that the position coaches ensure the players are all on the same page come game day
- we need the HC to do a much better job than he did last year in keeping everyone, coaches and players, focused on just one thing - getting better each and every week

Maybe by the early part of 2012 we might see some progress towards seeing a consistent and determined effort on the field each week

the points will happen and the franchise will contend again

[VetSkinsFan]

this is really very simple - we do not need to try and score more points:

- we need to get the FO to bring in players through the draft and free agency that make the players around them on both offense and defense better - they also need to get much younger players involved - franchises with too many older players cannot hold up for a whole season - we've seen it first hand
- we need the OC and the DC to come up with offensive and defensive schemes that suit the players they have and then ensure that the position coaches ensure the players are all on the same page come game day
- we need the HC to do a much better job than he did last year in keeping everyone, coaches and players, focused on just one thing - getting better each and every week

Maybe by the early part of 2012 we might see some progress towards seeing a consistent and determined effort on the field each week

the points will happen and the franchise will contend again

Using statistics, we DO need to score more points. The most successful teams out there score a significant number of points more than we do. There are outliers, but statistics don't lie.

[SkinsJock]

If the FO stops making stupid mistakes and starts remaking this franchise back into putting a consistently competitive product on the field the offense will score enough points and the defense will prevent the other team from scoring enough points - DONE

statisticians will make up anything they want to prove their point - we just need to give ourselves a better chance at success than worrying about having better stats

statistics are for baseball and fantasy football

[yupchagee]

this is really very simple - we do not need to try and score more points:

- we need to get the FO to bring in players through the draft and free agency that make the players around them on both offense and defense better - they also need to get much younger players involved - franchises with too many older players cannot hold up for a whole season - we've seen it first hand
- we need the OC and the DC to come up with offensive and defensive schemes that suit the players they have and then ensure that the position coaches ensure the players are all on the same page come game day
- we need the HC to do a much better job than he did last year in keeping everyone, coaches and players, focused on just one thing - getting better each and every week

Maybe by the early part of 2012 we might see some progress towards seeing a consistent and determined effort on the field each week

the points will happen and the franchise will contend again

I think you hit on the biggest problem. Last year the coaches tried to force players into roles that they were sometimes not suited for. Exhibit A: Andre Carter.

[Red_One43]

I think you hit on the biggest problem. Last year the coaches tried to force players into roles that they were sometimes not suited for. Exhibit A: Andre Carter.

But what does this say about Shanahan? Haslett, as DC, in St. Louis used a base 4-3 but used a lot of 3-4. So, Haslett could have pulled that off this year given the the 4-3 talent we had like Andre Carter. BUT no, Shanahan wanted the D changed to a base 3-4 now. Was Shanahan dumb for doing this knowing the talent? or Was he thinking in the long run and just saying let's do it now and work towards the future? But no, he traded for a Veteran QB and gave up two draft choices. He wanted to win now or Was he solidfying the QB position to buy time to bring in a rookie to groom for the future? Did Shannan go after the top free agents in 2010 that could help him win now (Dansby LB, Faneca G)? or Did he show restraint and wait for the 2011 FA market which so far as yielded Atogwe S? Did Shanahan want to win in 2010? Of course ht did, but the priorty went to the future instead of now. Mike is no "Future is Now" George Allen.

[SkinsJock]

This is a BIG issue - I think that Mike thinks that this franchise is not in as bad a shape as many of us here

He badly misjudged the offensive linemen he had

He made a bad trade for McNabb - these things happen but it looks worse when there are so many other mistakes going on

His OC/son did not have a very good start here - the QB fiasco hurt a lot

His DC did not have the players to run the 3-4 and both seemed unwilling to go to a 4-3 and try transitioning to the 3-4

Mike the HC did not have a great begining here in the way he handled Haynesworth


just not a good first year here - there were some good things but all in all not good IMO


I'm concerned that Mike STILL thinks the franchise is not far off being any good and that is just not the case at all - we have a lot of issues on both sides of the ball and it is going to take a while to address these - this franchise needs to make a plan to rebuild and stick with it - I think Mike thinks that he can be competitive as he rebuilds and I doubt that BIG TIME


I predict that if this franchise does not show marked improvement in doing things "Mikey's way", Danny boy will make a change

[Red_One43]

This is a BIG issue - I think that Mike thinks that this franchise is not in as bad a shape as many of us here

Where do you get this from? Mike said it takes time to build a winning foundation. He hasn't even shown what he plans to do in FA this year. You got a glimpse of it before the work stoppage. Signing Atogwe. Visit from Shaun Rodgers. There were rumors of a planned visit from Kris Jenkins. This is evidence that he doesn't think that the status quo is alright. He fined more players his first year here than he did his entire tenure in Denver. He doesn't think it was bad here?

He badly misjudged the offensive linemen he had

Mike drafted three offensive linemen last year and one in the first round. He decided not to go after the older quality linemen in FA because of what is coming out this year and older guys like Fanaca are on their last legs - you don't build a winning foundation with those guys. How is that this is misjudging his O line? Hicks was supposed to be a back up. BMW would have surely held him off. I have ripped Dockery, but I have never denied that Dock has a strong upside so you can't blame Mike for starting the season with him. He did bench him for Kory. Again a LONG TERM MOVE. Reports I read said Kory got better. The whole O line got better as the season progressed. Look at the stats. Let's see what Mike does with Rabach this year. Let's see what he does in FA regarding the line.

He made a bad trade for McNabb - these things happen but it looks worse when there are so many other mistakes going on

I don't think that the trade in itself was bad, it was not willing to be flexible with the O and play to Donovan's strengths. Andy Reid got the most out of McNAbb because he allowed McNabb to improvise. Bottomline though - you are right because it cost us two draft choices and now we have to go after a QB that Mike might have otherwise waited until next year.

His OC/son did not have a very good start here - the QB fiasco hurt a lot

I am with you 100% on this one. Joe Gibbs took it too the defenses and said try to stop me and if you do, I will do something else. Kyle says I take what the D gives me. PASS, PASS, PASS, PASS when the running was working.

His DC did not have the players to run the 3-4 and both seemed unwilling to go to a 4-3 and try transitioning to the 3-4

Are you saying that Mike and Jim are just dumb and couldn't see that last year the 4-3 gave us a better chance to win? Like I said there is another way to look at it - LONG RANGE!

Look at it this way - it takes 2-3 three years to transition to a 3-4 D - Orakpo, Carriker, Hall, Fletcher, Alexander, Riley, Landry, Barnes, Blades, Bryant, Daniels, Buchanan, Doughty, Golston, Jarmon, Wilson, Jackson and anybody else who sticks will already have one year experience under their belts and if any of these guys don't return for the seaosn at least in OTA's (if we have them) and in training camp they will be able to help the new guys.

Mike the HC did not have a great begining here in the way he handled Haynesworth

Some coaches might have told Dan - sorry about your money - Albert is gone. Mike chose to hold Albert accountable for his paycheck. Albert's favorite coach, Jim Washvburn said it took 5 years of turmoil before he "gave in" to Albert. Mike is Mike - the way he handled Albert is the way he always handles players with like issues. I can't say that I agree with the way, he handled Albert, but I have no problem with it. It is good to see somebody hold a player accountable.

So with all that being said, YES, Mike did not have a great beginning in the way he handled Albert because it did get ugly. Jime Washburn was able to keep his 5 years of turmoil with Albert under wraps.

just not a good first year here - there were some good things but all in all not good IMO

Definitely a reasonably fair overall evaluation. Mike has left a lot to prove this coming year. I am confident that once free agency happens and is past, we will be happy with the results.

I'm concerned that Mike STILL thinks the franchise is not far off being any good and that is just not the case at all - we have a lot of issues on both sides of the ball and it is going to take a while to address these - this franchise needs to make a plan to rebuild and stick with it - I think Mike thinks that he can be competitive as he rebuilds and I doubt that BIG TIME

When you word it like this, I think you are correct, we have heard the spin of 9 very close loses that a team almost always win so many of those games but we didn't -- but I just fail to see where you get that Mike isn't doing something about these issues on both sides of the ball. Where hasn't he shown a plan and stick with it. He planned not to spend like crazy in FA last year and stuck with it. He planned to change to a 3-4 and stuck with it despite the yardage the D gave up. Luckily he didn't stick with the plan to keep Donovan as the starter - He and Kyle made a mistake - they are not going to play to Donovan's strengths - move on. Except for one Philly and one Giant game, we put a competive product on the field, so why wouldn't a coach, any coach think that he can't be competitive as he rebuilds. Look at the 3-13 Rams one year and then Super Bowl the next, I am not saying that is us, but I don't want a coach who doesn't think that he can't win.

I predict that if this franchise does not show marked improvement in doing things "Mikey's way", Danny boy will make a change

Danny's got a lot of money but not that kind of money to eat Mikes salary for 3 more years and then hire a quality coach afterward - say a Cowher. How is Danny going to afford having one of the highest player payrolls if he has to pay to big coaching salaries? Mike will be here at least three years unless the bottom completely falls out and that ain't happening. Mike is too good a coach to let that happen. Even if he might not be Super Bowl Mike anymore. He ain't THAT bad.

[1niksder]

This is a BIG issue - I think that Mike thinks that this franchise is not in as bad a shape as many of us here

I think Mike thinks this franchise WAS in worst shape than he thought...

He badly misjudged the offensive linemen he had

He made a bad trade for McNabb - these things happen but it looks worse when there are so many other mistakes going on

The offensive line that he had was on the bench by the end of the year, (9 or 10 different starting lineups in a 16 week season) the group at the end of the season wasn't great but they weren't that bad either.
McNabb wasn't a bad trade, his mobility was needed to help a O-line that consisted of a rookie LT, a undersized center, and a injured right side - BMW was one year back and Brown was just coming back.

His OC/son did not have a very good start here - the QB fiasco hurt a lot

McNabb did what he could to help the batter line and would have been more productive if he'd got help from his OC

His DC did not have the players to run the 3-4 and both seemed unwilling to go to a 4-3 and try transitioning to the 3-4

They brought in some players that fit the scheme but the transition isn't a 1 year process, and they needed to know who they had on the roster that would fit in the new scheme. Now they'll get rid of those that didn't workout and bring in guys that will be a better fit. They could have went with a 4-3 scheme last year and start off behind the 8 ball this year, how many more game would they have won had they waited a year

[quote="SkinsJock"Mike the HC did not have a great begining here in the way he handled Haynesworth


just not a good first year here - there were some good things but all in all not good IMO[/quote]
How should he have handled a guy that was overpaid prior to Shanny taking over the team?
Didn't he offer him a out before the fat man took more money?
What was he suppose to do with a guy that didn't want to do what he was being paid to do and was telling anyone that would listen. What kind of team would he have it he let the players tell him what they would and wouldn't do

I'm concerned that Mike STILL thinks the franchise is not far off being any good and that is just not the case at all - we have a lot of issues on both sides of the ball and it is going to take a while to address these - this franchise needs to make a plan to rebuild and stick with it - I think Mike thinks that he can be competitive as he rebuilds and I doubt that BIG TIME

MS wants to be competitive as he rebuilds as he stated last year, so I'm with you he should stick to his plan.

I predict that if this franchise does not show marked improvement in doing things "Mikey's way", Danny boy will make a change

I predict more of Mike's way or the highway for at least two years regardless of the outcome of the 2011 season.

[SkinsJock]

Can we make up the difference?

I'm as guilty as anyone here for slightly going off track with this thread

HOWEVER - I don't think it's as simple as just looking at points scored and then asking "can we make up the difference"?
I think the philsophy and attitude needed to change here and while the first year seemed to be filed with mistakes, I do think that Mike & Bruce have started the franchise heading in the right direction

Mike might have been a little too strict in handling both Haynesworth and the others in general - let's face it there was a lot to overcome here

I'm hoping that Mike & Bruce stick to the plan and continue to make each and every player fight like hell to be on the roster and help the other players around them


It will take another year BUT I do think we can "make up the difference" - it will just take a little time AND ... at the end of the day ... it will be because we play better 'team' football than the teams we play against each week and not because we found a "way to score more points"

[VetSkinsFan]

If the FO stops making stupid mistakes and starts remaking this franchise back into putting a consistently competitive product on the field the offense will score enough points and the defense will prevent the other team from scoring enough points - DONE

statisticians will make up anything they want to prove their point - we just need to give ourselves a better chance at success than worrying about having better stats

statistics are for baseball and fantasy football

You really don't have a clue about what you're talkin about. Or if you do, you want to be so vague you won't say anything. Either way,it's pretty sad.

[langleyparkjoe]

SJ.. this part right here--- If the FO stops making stupid mistakes and starts remaking this franchise back into putting a consistently competitive product on the field the offense will score enough points and the defense will prevent the other team from scoring enough points.

That part, all you did was describe what every franchise in NFL should do man. You just posted the most obvious thing in the entire world. WAKE UP MAN! THE LACK OF REAL NFL NEWS IS MAKING YOU COO-COO!

[SkinsJock]

^^ a lot of things are driving me nuts about this franchise and the NFL right now

I'm only pointing out that it's not as simple as just trying to score a few more points - this franchise needs to stop thinking we just need to add a few "stars" to help "score more points" and start adding a few players that suit what the OC and DC want to get done here

[Red_One43]

I'm only pointing out that it's not as simple as just trying to score a few more points - this franchise needs to stop thinking we just need to add a few "stars" to help "score more points" and start adding a few players that suit what the OC and DC want to get done here

What evidence to you have that the franchise thought that they could sign a few "stars" McNabb is the ONLY "star" that was signed in the offseason. And that could have also been a "sell tickets" signing as well. Did you see how quickly, they marketed McNabb as the face of the franchise?

Let's see - we passed on Dansby, Fanaca, Joey Porter. THESE are "stars."

We signed Grossman, Kemoatu, Anthony Young, Artis Hicks, Buchanan. Roydell Williams! THESE are NOT "stars?"

Traded for Carriker and Brown (4th rounder for a former pro bowler - why not?) THESE are NOT "stars."

We signed old guys to start the year - Galloway, Johnson, Draft, Holliday. Draft -cut in pre season. Only Holliday remained at the end of the season and he was productive. THESE were NOT stars - (usetabe, though)

Let's move to today - Signing Atogwe - Star? No. Does he fit the DC's system? Yes. Whaddayou talkin' about with this "need to start adding ..." stuff? While you were writng all of your posts, you missed that one.

The plan for FA this year was not to go out and get "stars' but get players with "Mike Shanahan work ethic." If the "star" has a work ethic then that kind of star will be signed.

[fanforlife]

statisticians will make up anything they want to prove their point - we just need to give ourselves a better chance at success than worrying about having better stats

#'s don 't lie. They didn't lie in the combines. They don't lie when a person gets inducted into the HOF. They don't lie when somebody breaks a world record or an NFL record. The #'s say that we need to score 5 more points/game to be with in the top 20 teams in the league. 7 more points/game & we're in the top 5 teams in the league in scoring. A person can skew anything to make it look different, but #'s will always say the same thing.

A better chance at success means better #'s. Better #'s means improvement. Improvement will hopefully mean one more TD/game.

I stand firm in my belief that if we can manage just one more TD/game we'll be in the play-offs sooner rather than later.

[langleyparkjoe]

statisticians will make up anything they want to prove their point - we just need to give ourselves a better chance at success than worrying about having better stats

#'s don 't lie. They didn't lie in the combines. They don't lie when a person gets inducted into the HOF. They don't lie when somebody breaks a world record or an NFL record. The #'s say that we need to score 5 more points/game to be with in the top 20 teams in the league. 7 more points/game & we're in the top 5 teams in the league in scoring. A person can skew anything to make it look different, but #'s will always say the same thing.

A better chance at success means better #'s. Better #'s means improvement. Improvement will hopefully mean one more TD/game.

I stand firm in my belief that if we can manage just one more TD/game we'll be in the play-offs sooner rather than later.

Good post, you really can't fight the # game.. its the proof we all look for.