Type of player you prefer

[StanleySpadowski]

Do you prefer a big playmaker who does some great things yet makes some terrible plays or a player who won't make any huge plays but won't make any mistakes.

An example of this would be D. Hall vs.T. Newman.

Hall changes games with big picks and returns but gets burnt often while Newman simply doesn't give up any plays.

 

[Rack]

Poll doesn't make sense.


Of course you'd want BOTH types of players on your team. It all depends on what your team needs.

 

[DragonCowboy]

I was thinking playmaker, but then I saw what you meant...

Hall vs. Newman.

I'd definitely take Newman. This past year, he has never given up the huge pass completion for a game changing TD.

Although, he is a playmaker in some respects, he makes it almsot impossible for a completion...

 

[RealCowboyfan]

Playmaker> Why?> Because everybody going to make mistakes even Rocksteady Players...

Compare Deion Sanders and Emerson Walls...

 

[StanleySpadowski]

I'd rather have steadiness personally.

A team of eleven players who do there jobs every play would be much harder to beat than a team that gives up a few freebies every game.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

Poll doesn't make sense.


Of course you'd want BOTH types of players on your team. It all depends on what your team needs.

OK, if it's broad to look for your basic philosophy, pare it down to this year's first round pick for Dallas.

 

[ComicBookGuy]

You always want playmakers. Playmakers are the guys that win championships. Look at every Super Bowl winner and you'll see a team full of playmakers.

 

[Rack]

OK, if it's broad to look for your basic philosophy, pare it down to this year's first round pick for Dallas.

Depends on the position we draft.


At OLB we need more of the "Solid" type of player. We've got the playmaker (Ware).

If we drafted a WR I'd want a playmaker.

OL: Solid (is it possible to have a playmaking OL?)

FS: Playmaker/Ball hawk.

 

[THUMPER]

Depends on the position we draft.


At OLB we need more of the "Solid" type of player. We've got the playmaker (Ware).

If we drafted a WR I'd want a playmaker.

OL: Solid (is it possible to have a playmaking OL?)

FS: Playmaker/Ball hawk.

Rack em!

 

[Rack]

You always want playmakers. Playmakers are the guys that win championships. Look at every Super Bowl winner and you'll see a team full of playmakers.

You couldn't be more wrong.


You need BOTH. The difference is the casual fan only notices the playmaker. They don't notice the solid players.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

You always want playmakers. Playmakers are the guys that win championships. Look at every Super Bowl winner and you'll see a team full of playmakers.

I disagree. Who on the Steelers is really a playmaker? Defensively, Polamulu would probably be the closest thing the Steelers have to one, maybe Porter but neither made as many big plays last year as say Roy Williams or Ware.

Offensively Roethlisberger was about it. Ward doesn't make a huge amount of big plays but is steady as can be.

 

[Rack]

I disagree. Who on the Steelers is really a playmaker? Defensively, Polamulu would probably be the closest thing the Steelers have to one, maybe Porter but neither made as many big plays last year as say Roy Williams or Ware.

Offensively Roethlisberger was about it. Ward doesn't make a huge amount of big plays but is steady as can be.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

OL: Solid (is it possible to have a playmaking OL?)

You're telling me you're a Cowboys fan and you have to ask that?

Your penance is to watch 2 hours of Eric Williams tape (pre-injury).

 

[Rack]

You're telling me you're a Cowboys fan and you have to ask that?

Your penance is to watch 2 hours of Eric Williams tape (pre-injury).

Well I'd call that dominant, but not "Playmaking".

 

[Crown Royal]

I disagree. Who on the Steelers is really a playmaker? Defensively, Polamulu would probably be the closest thing the Steelers have to one, maybe Porter but neither made as many big plays last year as say Roy Williams or Ware.

Offensively Roethlisberger was about it. Ward doesn't make a huge amount of big plays but is steady as can be.

Technically, Randle El was a playmaker in that regard. I mean, he isn't steady, and really is often a no-factor, but every once in a while he makes one of those omgdidyouseethat plays.

I'll take Ward.

 

[Crown Royal]

FS: Playmaker/Ball hawk.

Those type of FS also often take chances and get burned. I'd rather have FS who knows his job - the defense's last line - and NEVER lets anywone past.

Play that way and you'll get your picks.

 

[JackMagist]

The 1st probelm with this pole is that every player on your team has to be able to make some plays or they wouldn't make the team.

The second problem is that you have to have a combination of these types of players.

If you have no "playmakers" you will be a mediocre team with no spark or flash. If you have all playmakers then you will have a bunch of hotdogs all scrambling to make plays with no continuity of purpose. Give me about 70/30 of these types of guys with the 70 being the rock solid guys and I think you will have a great mix.

 

[poke]

im not going to say EVERSON WALLS ( not emerson) was
more of playmaker than Deion...he was not.
BUT....Walls had 57 career int's while Deion had 51.
i know there were lots of reasons...yada yada yada
but please dont discount ole EVERSON. who by the way
had 11 ints as a rookie !
give me one playmaker type on offense...one on defense
one for special teams and the other 50 "rock solid".
JMO..i have been wrong before

 

[Tricky-22]

I want a nasty, mean, knuckledragging, snot blowing linebacker barely civilized enough to sit at the table and use silverware.

 

[poke]

I want a nasty, mean, knuckledragging, snot blowing linebacker barely civilized enough to sit at the table and use silverware.

i tell you what..if we had "that guy" i think a lot of our 'weaknesses'
on defense would be a lot less noticeable.
we need some serious attitude to give our D an identity.