Commanders agree to terms on deal for Taylor

[YosemiteSam]

isn't jason taylor like 87 years old?

Nah, he is only 78.

 

[dargonking999]

Who's the D-coordinator? Does he have a name?:laugh2:

His name is Mr. Defensive Coordinator.

 

[Sonny#9]

Who's the D-coordinator? Does he have a name?:laugh2:

Oops

Meant to answer that -- Greg Blanche. He was the d-line coach last year. He was Chicago's d-coordinator:

From Commanders.com:

Prior to joining the Commanders, Blache spent five seasons with the Chicago Bears as defensive coordinator. During his tenure, Blache's defenses forced 138 turnovers, including 37 in 2001, the most by a Bears defense since 1990, and accounted for 13 touchdowns (two in 1999, four in 2000, five in 2001, one in 2002, and one in 2003).


In 2003, Blache's defense finished the season fifth in the NFC in total defense, and 14th in the NFL, the team's highest league overall-ranking since 1998.


In 2002, Blache dealt with numerous injuries to the Bears defense, leading to 11 different starting lineups over the course of 16 games. While juggling personnel, the Bears defense continued with their attacking, aggressive style that set records during the 2001 season.


They forced 64 tackles behind the line of scrimmage in 2002 and forced at least one turnover in 33 consecutive games, the second-longest active streak in the NFL at that time.


In 2001, Blache molded the Bears defense into one of the top units in the league, producing the top-ranked scoring defense by allowing only 203 points in 16 games (12.7 points per game). His run defense finished second in the NFL and first in the NFC, allowing just 82.1 yards per game, while allowing only three rushes of 20 yards or more all seasons and only six rushing touchdowns.

 

[Sonny#9]

How would it be improved? you have a CB returning from a ACL injury, you still have a void at S from Taylor. You have thin depth on your DL, and not to mention age.

Landry at FS, Doughty at SS, who played well in the position last year.

Then you have a new coach stepping in as D-coord.

The only defensive coach to leave was Williams. All others remain the same, running the same system.

There is nothing there that screams improvement.

Well other then the same players, in the same system, with a better pass rush?

 

[cobra]

B/c other then the breadth and depth of your football knowledge consists of statements like this and "We have 5 Superbowls!" and therefore very limited, I will make this brief. Not like it's going to make any difference. You'd actually need to think for that to happen. And well, that's not your strong suit.

Look, I can think. I can do math too: 3 is only 60% of 5.

in 20 games: Campbell: 57.7% (Including 60% last year) 3997 yards, 22 TD, 17 INT. Never has Campbell thrown more picks then TDs. And has already shown he has better accuracy then Carter.

So, I present a bunch of areas which indicate a strong similarity with respect to their attributes, skill set, demeanor, and background.

Your response is to argue that QCampbell is marginally more productive than Quincy. I won't waste my time by pointing out the stronger support cast QCampbell had, because it does not matter or disprove the comparison that QCampbell has marginally better stats.

How does a slight difference in production make it an inapt comparison? Being comparable does not mean they will be identical with identical outputs. What it means is that they are sufficiently similar to make a comparison worthwhile. I put for a lot of things which would suggest they are comparable. You did not refute any of them.

Yeah, Quincy was out of the league after 4 years as he should have been. And QCampbell will be out of his starting job next year too. (Actually, I really, really hope he isn't; I love your team's commitment to his spareness). The only difference between Quincy and QCampbell is that QCampbell does not have a drug problem and so some team will think he is reliable to pick up as a backup.

 

[cobra]

Doughty at SS, who played well in the position last year.

Really? Your fan base's ability to consistently over-esteem the quality of your own players never ceases to amaze me.

Doughty is not a horrible player. But he is a backup for every other team in the league.

 

[Alexander]

it's like he's mad because Dallas didn't try to veto the trade

That would have been nice.

 

[dargonking999]

Landry at FS, Doughty at SS, who played well in the position last year.



The only defensive coach to leave was Williams. All others remain the same, running the same system.



Well other then the same players, in the same system, with a better pass rush?

He played well, but that doesn't mean he's even close to the level of Taylor. That means Drop off. That means no improvment.

That's like saying, the only person to leave was the CEO, everyone else remained the same. You think there going to run the same system? Seriously? When you get a new coach you're going to get something different. It might not be a overhaul, but there not going to be running the same system.

How do you get a better pash rush? What did you upgrade to make your pass rush better.

And you still forget about your LB's and CB's who have old people getting older, and players returning from big injury's.

Again how do you equate this with improvement? Not to mention your defense played over it's last year?

You are in for a rude awakening wearing those Burgundy colored glasses.

 

[cobra]

Meant to answer that -- Greg Blanche. He was the d-line coach last year. He was Chicago's d-coordinator

Yeah, and he was so great there that he lost his job and couldn't get another one. Going from D-coordinator to D-line coach is really a promotion, right? This is the guy who was going to retire this off-season until Danny Boy screwed up things with Greg Williams and then was desperate for a DC, right?

Interesting comparison:

Blatche loses his job as DC in Chicago and is forced to take a demotion to position coach.

Williams loses his job as DC in Washington, and he has another DC position within a week.

But Commanders fans will tell you there is no step-down there. Right....

 

[dargonking999]

Yeah, and he was so great there that he lost his job and couldn't get another one. Going from D-coordinator to D-line coach is really a promotion, right? This is the guy who was going to retire this off-season until Danny Boy screwed up things with Greg Williams and then was desperate for a DC, right?

Interesting comparison:

Blatche loses his job as DC in Chicago and is forced to take a demotion to position coach.

Williams loses his job as DC in Washington, and he has another DC position within a week.

But Commanders fans will tell you there is no step-down there. Right....

They will also tell you that losing a pro-bowl S is not a step down. In fact its actually an improvement

 

[Alexander]

On an interesting note, Vinnie Cerrato (their GM?) stated in an interview he was 100% positive Taylor plays more than just the one year.

 

[Sonny#9]

So, I present a bunch of areas which indicate a strong similarity with respect to their attributes, skill set, demeanor, and background.

Everyone of your points is based on your "observations." Which I am sure are entirely objective. So go with it, if it makes you feel better. I couldn't care less. I know homer when I see one -- unable to carry on an intelligent debate -- instead relying on the same tired old material.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

I think Campbell is a game manager at best. Teams can win with game managers (Brad Johnson, Eli Manning, Trent Dilfer, etc). You just can't really ask them to put the team on their shoulders and win games for you.

A game manager is a good QB, just not a great one. You don't toss away a good QB, but you always have your eyes looking for a great one.

I'd agree with this, adding that some QBs evolve from good to great only after experience, like Rich Gannon for instance.

 

[cobra]

unable to carry on an intelligent debate

Look, I'm trying to get you to debate with me. But all I can get is just insults and dismissiveness out of you.

Seriously: which of the observations are wrong? I state a premise, and then you refute it. That's how a debate works. Don't accuse me of unwilling to talk about things when I'm trying to get you to do so and your ignore it.

(And free protip: you should probably drop the intelligence angle and calling me stupid. I'm being playful and open to you. But that is one label which you do not want to be casting in this direction.)

I know homer when I see one

Are you accusing me of being a homer for talking up Qunicy? Because I think he is a piece of garbage, a horrible person, and have nothing but hate for the guy.

Or are you accusing me of being a homer for recognizing that QCampbell is not any good? Because if that is the case, then I guess every other media source is an agreement with me because the objective analysis is that QCampbell is an average at best quarterback. He doesn't sniff being a franchise qb at this point. (As opposed to Romo, who most people have rated as a top 10 if not top 5 QB and has been to back to back Pro Bowls). There is absolutely nothing homer-ific about saying that Romo is a top tier QB and QCampbell is not. That is consensus. So leave your labels at home.

 

[dargonking999]

Look, I'm trying to get you to debate with me. But all I can get is just insults and dismissiveness out of you.

Seriously: which of the observations are wrong? I state a premise, and then you refute it. That's how a debate works. Don't accuse me of unwilling to talk about things when I'm trying to get you to do so and your ignore it.

(And free protip: you should probably drop the intelligence angle and calling me stupid. I'm being playful and open to you. But that is one label which you do not want to be casting in this direction.)

Are you accusing me of being a homer for talking up Qunicy? Because I think he is a piece of garbage, a horrible person, and have nothing but hate for the guy.

Or are you accusing me of being a homer for recognizing that QCampbell is not any good? Because if that is the case, then I guess every other media source is an agreement with me because the objective analysis is that QCampbell is an average at best quarterback. He doesn't sniff being a franchise qb at this point. (As opposed to Romo, who most people have rated as a top 10 if not top 5 QB and has been to back to back Pro Bowls). There is absolutely nothing homer-ific about saying that Romo is a top tier QB and QCampbell is not. That is consensus. So leave your labels at home.

Call me stupid one more... i seen hancock too much

 

[cobra]

adding that some QBs evolve from good to great only after experience.

I agree that QBs can get better.

But QCampbell isn't even good yet. He has a losing record and chokes a lot. Hell, he may not even have his job next year unless he dramatically improves.

Right now the issue with him is whether he can evolve from barely average to good.

Great isn't even in the discussion with him.

 

[khiladi]

He isn't 30, Quincy.

He will be 34 in one month.

Let's put it this way:

Would you give up a 2nd round pick next year and a 6th round pick in 2010 for Greg Ellis?

Greg Ellis had more sacks in 3 less games last year. And Greg Ellis is one year younger then Jason Taylor. He also has 1 less year of wear and tear on his body.

So would you give that up for Ellis right now? I wouldn't.

Jason taylor is light years ahead of Greg Ellis in terms of performance and Jason Taylor has never ruptured his achilles tendon... How many times in his career has Greg Ellis broken 10 sacks per year?

 

[Sonny#9]

I'd agree with this, adding that some QBs evolve from good to great only after experience, like Rich Gannon for instance.

I agree -- I could see him becoming like a Jeff Garcia, or possibly Hassleback. Don't forget Hasselback was awful his 1st couple of years in Seattle -- he couldn't be out Trent Dilfer!

 

[YosemiteSam]

I'd agree with this, adding that some QBs evolve from good to great only after experience, like Rich Gannon for instance.

I wouldn't say Gannon was a great QB. Now he became prolific with experience. I think right now that is where Romo is. You can't label him a great QB even though he has put a team on his back, but hasn't proven he can win when it really counts.

In my eyes, Romo is like Gannon thus far. He is a prolific QB. He is still very young and can become a great QB. In my opinion, you don't go from game manager to great QB. There has to be a real spark there (flashes of greatness) in the beginning. Romo had that, Steve Young (Tampa Bay and San Fran behind Montana) had that, Roger Staubach had that. (playing behind Craig Morton) Those are (except Romo) are QBs that didn't always start in the beginning, but showed flashes of greatness before they took the reigns. I don't think I've seen that from Campbell. Of course, that doesn't mean he can't break the mold.

 

[Zaxor]

On an interesting note, Vinnie Cerrato (their GM?) stated in an interview he was 100% positive Taylor plays more than just the one year.

that is interesting...if he got some sorta guarantee from Taylor...that makes all the difference as far as long term outlook...if they get 3-4 (Typical Taylor years)out of him they made a good deal.