dew1679666265

Yeah, if they keep moving in the direction of two-hand touch on QBs then the likelihood of injury will go down even more and it'll make that much more sense to go in the heavy passing offense direction. And it wasn't you that said a run-first offense can't work, but it's been said on the board before and I don't agree with it.

Let me clarify my argument by saying that I don't think the running game/defense mentality is better than a pass-first, pass often mentality, but I do disagree with the idea that a running game/defense mentality is an "archaic" way of thinking that cannot win consistently in today's game. If the personnel are right and the scheme is solid, that mentality can still work. It's similar, to me, to the thinking that the triple option or the spread option cannot work in the SEC. Sure it can, if it's run properly by the right players. Same with the running game/defense mentality in the NFL.

Gotcha.

They already exist. Lilly is out, Harden is gone, and the cast of characters to replace them is weak. We know Lilly is out after surgery, we don't know that he'll return to form. Waiting for them to clearly be massive would be a pretty reckless way of dealing with the situation. By then it's too late. I don't think the answer to that is bringing in 1-2 more averagish guys. If they targeted a Bedard or Sheets, that'd be fine by me. But we don't need more rotation filler as much as we could use another top of the line type starter. Problem is, we probably don't have the cash at this point to bring in that top of the line guy, so there's little we can do right now about the rotation. I'm not asking for roster fillers, I've been hoping for a Harden replacement all offseason, which means an actual good pitcher. As it stands now, the rotation has holes, and the replacement of Bradley with Byrd isn't going to make up for that. That's what I'm saying. I want a top of the line starter, but I'm not sure there are any available in our price range (currently). Sheets and Bedard certainly are top of the line guys, but both are likely to be out of our price range.

We've still got plenty of time until the combine, so I'd prefer to wait until closer to it before we start doubling up on teams. If we need to, though, you can have the Steelers.

Even with a top passing game, you have to have at least a decent defense. Also, with heavy passing game, if your QB gets hurt, your team sucks. Look at the Eagles for an extended time without McNabb or the Colts without Peyton. They're awful. If the Titans of 99-03 lost one defensive player, they generally could make it work with him hurt. With a running/defense mentality, you have to have more good players but also have more flexibility if one gets hurt. If you rely on the QB to win games for you alone, then you have to really hope he doesn't get hurt. And if he does, the team becomes terrible. Without a high quality defense, you're not going to win consistently in the NFL unless you have Peyton Manning and he never gets hurt. That just doesn't happen much.

Disagree. The style of play requires fielding a no weak link defense and a top not RB, and both of those things are very cap unfriendly. Defense requires crazy guys going 100% and throwing their bodies around. That leads to injuries and it leads to guys deteriorating quickly. QBs are protected. They get hit, but the great ones have very long careers that produce sustained success. RB's come and go, defenses are expensive to maintain, both of those things lead to cap problems that a franchise QB does not. It is precisely that mentality that leads to cap problems that you blame for the Titans decline. It's not what we were paying the guys when they were there, it's that Floyd Reese got too reliant on veterans and massively backloaded contracts. To be able to pass the ball with the best teams in the league, you have to have a very highly paid QB and (generally) very high paid WRs as well. No successful, veteran filled team is cap friendly and that's what the Titans tried to build. The Eagles, Patriots and Colts all have integrated young players into their team and, thus, have cheap production on their roster. The Titans didn't do this, not because it can't be done, but because it was easier to backload deals and rely on veterans who had been winning for us in the past. Thus far, Reinfeldt has done a better job of not signing long-term deals for veterans and, instead, developing young players. The Titans of the 90s and early 2000s didn't do that.

I will add that even if the mentality is to win with the running game and defense, it's still important to have a quarterback who can make plays and is better consistently than an Orton or a Dilfer. Much in the same way that it's very hard to consistently win if you only have a great passing attack and no running game at all. I realize that the Colts and Eagles have had virtually no running game for a while now, but most teams don't have Hall of Fame QBs leading their passing game. There has to be some level of balance in the NFL if you're going to win consistently and don't have one of the greatest players in the history of the game playing for you.

That doesn't really compare to the stretch of success that Indy, New England and Philly, and it helps that Tennessee had a pro bowl caliber QB on the roster. Part of what made McNair a Pro Bowl caliber QB was the running game with Eddie George taking pressure off of him. He would not have done well early on and probably wouldn't have developed into the QB he did if we relied on the passing game from 1998-2001. The reliance did shift to passing a bit more from 2002-2003, but like I said, the focus was still on "winning with defense." As for the stretch of success, the biggest difference between Indy/Philly/NE and Tennessee is handling of the salary cap. As I said, by 2004 we were something silly like $40-50 million over the salary cap and then $20-something over before 2005. We didn't handle the cap well, we were paying too much to guys who were cut in 2004-2005 (Rolle, Mason, Wycheck, Runyan, etc) and were playing with cheap vets and rookies. The dropoff had nothing to do with the style of play of the team, but with being massively over the cap.

I think there's two things. As you say, it has to be an elite defense, not just very good, but also, it's no way to win consistently. You can put together a great year, maybe two, with a defense and run the ball mentality, but that's about it. This is what I was most annoyed with Urlacher's statements earlier this year. He laments that they aren't a run the ball and win with defense team anymore, saying that it worked with Orton. The problem, of course, is it didn't work with Orton and they are no longer a very good defense, let alone elite. That was about a 1.5 year window closed abrubtly. You can win consistently with that mentality, but again, you have to have and keep the exact right personnel to make it work. The Titans had 11-13 wins in 4 of 5 seasons from 1999-2003 with largely that mentality. They did open up the offense some from 2002-2003, but still relied on a good defense. There's much less margin for error with that type of mentality, though, The reason for the dropoff after 2003 was age and being some $40+ million over the salary cap.

I'd rather not see that #1 offense vs. #1 defense matchup, because I have seen it before. I'd rather see offense on offense this time around, and it looks like a real possibility. Out of the possibilities, I consider the Jets making it to the Super Bowl to be far and away the worst case scenario. As a Bears fan, I don't want to see the Jets make it to the Superbowl since it would just reinforce the archaic "defense and run the football" mentality that the Bears have used since the dawn of time. The thing with the defense/run the ball mentality, is that the defense must be elite for that to work. Last year's Titans and this year's Jets are examples of that, but as you saw with the Titans this year, the defense dropped a bit and we went 8-8.

They already exist. Lilly is out, Harden is gone, and the cast of characters to replace them is weak. We know Lilly is out after surgery, we don't know that he'll return to form. Waiting for them to clearly be massive would be a pretty reckless way of dealing with the situation. By then it's too late. I don't think the answer to that is bringing in 1-2 more averagish guys. If they targeted a Bedard or Sheets, that'd be fine by me. But we don't need more rotation filler as much as we could use another top of the line type starter. Problem is, we probably don't have the cash at this point to bring in that top of the line guy, so there's little we can do right now about the rotation.

If nothing else, Dooley has impressed me with his staff hires. Last night he hired Charlie Baggett, an NFL coach who was the WR coach for some of the best years for Webster Slaughter, Randy Moss, Cris Carter, Antonio Freeman, Plaxico Burress, Andre Rison, Derrick Mason and others. Everywhere he's been he's either put players in the NFL or put players in the Pro Bowl. Then today, Dooley brings in Kevin Steele as the new DC. Fantastic hire of another guy with ties to Saban (as do most of our coaches). Add on the hiring of Texas Tech special teams coach Eric Russell and this is shaping up to be a comparable staff to the one Lane Kiffin had here. I've heard a rumor that UGA offensive line coach Stacy Searles might be a possibility (that'd be a humongous coup), but it sounds like a longshot.

Chan Gailey has been hired as HC by the Bills.

It sounds like the Dolphins are close to hiring Nolan as their DC. He interviewed with them almost immediately after leaving Denver.

Poor Leslie can't catch a break. He supposedly always does great in the interviews and was supposed to be the leading candidate. After his defense shut down the Cowboys I thought it would be his. Yeah, if the choice is between Gailey and Frazier, I don't know why you don't go with Frazier. Hire Frazier as the HC and Gailey as the OC, even.

Except he will be handed the 5th OFer job, which is pretty much the same thing. He was never going to platoon with Fukudome, since they are both lefties. I'm perfectly fine with Fuld as the 5th OF. Excellent defender with a so-so bat and cheap - you're really not going to get better than Fuld in that spot without vastly overpaying.

If we had a healthy Xavier Nady, as far as Im concerned, Marlon Byrds our 4th outfielder. Not at all. Nady and Byrd are somewhat similar offensively, but Byrd is an average center fielder defensively, whereas Nady is not a very good defensive right fielder. Defense makes Byrd better than Nady, especially considering Nady's coming off an injury.

Chan Gailey has apparently emerged as the top candidate for the Bills' head coaching job. Also, Mike Nolan left the Broncos.

Nady's not a likely candidate to get big money as a fourth OF. And keep in mind, with the likely platoon in right field, the fourth OF would get more ABs than most 4th OFs would. I also don't think we have a "massive" hole in our rotation. I'd only be interested in a top-of-the-line potential starter (a Bedard or Sheets). We have plenty of middle of the road type starters.

Theriot was asked what he thought about Ben Sheets, he started by talking about Sheets' ability to be dominant on the mound and how much he'd help the team on the field and then added on that Sheets is a good guy in the clubhouse. If he's asked the question, I don't see how it's fair to criticize him for answering it fully. Here's the entirety of the quote: I just don't see a problem with a player being asked a question and answering it.

I really can't say for sure. I think you're right, but don't take me as in any way authoritative.

For a cheap contract and if he's healthy, I'd be interested. Career #s v lefties: .308/ .383/.471/.854

I don't know if poor chemistry improves on-field performance, but teams can win with bad chemistry. It's just one example, but the '77 Yankees won the World Series with a locker room that did not get along at all. To me, bad chemistry has much more to do with bringing in free agents and retaining your own free agents than with on-field performance (in baseball at least). On-field performance is probably affected much more in football and basketball, etc.

Please tell us where Theriot says anything of the sort - that "the thing that decides wins and losses is the joy level in the clubhouse". Maybe you don't mind the team spokesperson putting this much emphasis on how warm and cozy the clubhouse is, but I prefer the team spokesperson put more emphasis on the importance of their value on the playing field. You know, where games are actually played. I'm convinced at this point that Theriot will personally be happier with Silva on the team over Bradley, even if it means losing more games over the course of a season. Heaven forbid some teammate of Theriots farts in his general direction. Theriot's happiness should take precedent over the team's success. :thumbsup: Theriot doesn't say a thing there about wins and losses or overall success of the team. He's simply commenting on how he enjoys being around Sheets and likes him. I don't see anything about that statement that implies he thinks the Cubs will win more or less because he likes Sheets. And going by the "But" at the beginning of his statement, it appears he said something else before the quoted statement. I have no idea what he said, but it's possible he said something about Sheets' value on the field in that portion of his comment.