Whos Ready 2 see some ballhawking plays being made?

[firehawk350]

It's what you're on now. First multi-quote, now I have to tell you what the innernets is?

Al Gore would be so ashamed.

Being the better player is debatable. Merriman is a very fine apss-rusher. But, as a LB, he struggles. Ware has shown himself to be quite a force in coverage, as well as playing the run. Thus, he is the better LB. (Hint: LB = Linebacker)

He also doesn't take steroids. So he's got that going for him.

This is incredibly simplistic, and displays a general lack of knowledge in the difference between Parcells' schemes and Wades. Sink this in your head - the Chargers blitzed TWICE as much as we did last year. No team in their right mind is going to be sliding to Ware consistently, because we will actually send our other LBs this year.

Even if they did isolate Ware, he dealt with that ALL last year and still managed double digit sacks.

He'll get 13+ sacks this year - and be in the running for DMVP. I guarantee you that.

First off, I'll assume you mean the internet. inTernet...

That was my point, Merriman vs. Ware is a debatable subject. It's definitely not a blanket Ware is better.

Sink THIS into your head, yes, the Chargers sent other LBs (happy?), they had BETTER LBs (one more for ya) and had a D-line which could allow them to run free. Let's see what your missing. Oh that's right, 2 out of the 3 necessary pieces in that puzzle. And by the way, it's always the simplest plans that work the best.

You guarantee me that huh? What's that worth? And define in the running? Mentioned in the top 3 candidates consistently?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

LOL... Firehawk obviously doesn't comprehend Parcells' or Phillips' schemes.

Let's just say that we'll see if Ware is as big a non-factor as you think.

firehawk doesn't comprehend much of anything

 

[firehawk350]

Yeah, and sometimes posters disregard the subject portion of the sentence and begin reading from the verb forward.

And why would that make superstars out of Henry and Newman? Newman plays to not get beat, and that won't change with more pressure. He may get 4-5 INTs, but that is far from superstar range. And Henry has problems turning his head around, IE awareness. Again, that's not fixable through pressure.

 

[smarta5150]

And why would that make superstars out of Henry and Newman? Newman plays to not get beat, and that won't change with more pressure. He may get 4-5 INTs, but that is far from superstar range. And Henry has problems turning his head around, IE awareness. Again, that's not fixable through pressure.

What is superstar status for a CB.

Deion Sanders was never known for getting INTs but he was the best CB in the league for years.

He took your #1 WR out of the game.

 

[superpunk]

First off, I'll assume you mean the internet. inTernet...

It must be difficult being so oblivious.

That was my point, Merriman vs. Ware is a debatable subject. It's definitely not a blanket Ware is better.

Again. Better LB. (at this point, I'm not even sure you can read) Ware is a better LB than Jason Taylor, too - it doesn't make him a better player.

Sink THIS into your head, yes, the Chargers sent other LBs (happy?), they had BETTER LBs (one more for ya) and had a D-line which could allow them to run free. Let's see what your missing. Oh that's right, 2 out of the 3 necessary pieces in that puzzle. And by the way, it's always the simplest plans that work the best.

It is not simply the Dline, but also the confusion associated with the different pieces sent in the Phillips 3-4. Ware managed 11.5 sacks without any of that - playing in a system that required him to win his individual matchups to get sacks. Phillips' system will not require that.

Better LBs is debatable. Shaun Phillips wasn't **** til Wade got hold of him. We have some talented, athletic LBs that Wade could put in better position to make plays.

You guarantee me that huh? What's that worth? And define in the running? Mentioned in the top 3 candidates consistently?

We'll just have a sig bet, or avatar bet. Whoever loses has to wear the other's avatar/sig of choice for 3 months.

In the running would be getting mentioned at the end of the year. In a similar vein to Champ Bailey and merriman last year. They didn't win, but they were definitely considered. You can tell the difference, and so can I.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

That short middle zone that James is SUPPOSED to be covering is the key between getting pressure and getting sacks.

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on the coverage. Last season, Dallas employed a straight, read and react cover 2 scheme, which is vulnerable down the middle because of innate coverage gaps. It also magnifies all of Roy Williams' weaknesses and none of his strengths. However, other schemes, such as the Phillips' 34, commit more coverage resources to the middle of the field. In fact, his playbook states outright that his defenses "will cover inside to outside." Ergo, if Phillips elects to use Williams nearer the line of scrimmage as he's intimated, the short middle zone immediately becomes less exploitable.

 

[DallasEast]

And why would that make superstars out of Henry and Newman?

Hint: read the SUBJECT portion of my first comment.

* insert Who Wants To Be A Millionaire theme here*

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I find if funny that firehawk, who wouldn't know a pass-rush if it hit him in the back of his head, is trying to get into a debate about it

 

[firehawk350]

It must be difficult being so oblivious.

Again. Better LB. (at this point, I'm not even sure you can read) Ware is a better LB than Jason Taylor, too - it doesn't make him a better player.

It is not simply the Dline, but also the confusion associated with the different pieces sent in the Phillips 3-4. Ware managed 11.5 sacks without any of that - playing in a system that required him to win his individual matchups to get sacks. Phillips' system will not require that.

Better LBs is debatable. Shaun Phillips wasn't **** til Wade got hold of him. We have some talented, athletic LBs that Wade could put in better position to make plays.

We'll just have a sig bet, or avatar bet. Whoever loses has to wear the other's avatar/sig of choice for 3 months.

In the running would be getting mentioned at the end of the year. In a similar vein to Champ Bailey and merriman last year. They didn't win, but they were definitely considered. You can tell the difference, and so can I.

Okay, agreed, how about this... If Ware is mentioned, I'll finish every prediction I make next year here with "if Romo/Roy wills it" depending if it's defense or offense. And I'll wear a signature of your choice. Name your stakes...

 

[firehawk350]

Hint: read the SUBJECT portion of my first comment.

* insert Who Wants To Be A Millionaire theme here*

Ugh, it's like talking to one of those speech automated phone systems... Big boy... BIG BOY!

 

[superpunk]

Okay, agreed, how about this... If Ware is mentioned, I'll finish every prediction I make next year here with "if Romo/Roy wills it" depending if it's defense or offense. And I'll wear a signature of your choice. Name your stakes...

I already did.

I'll come up with something when you lose.

 

[DallasEast]

Ugh, it's like talking to one of those speech automated phone systems... Big boy... BIG BOY!

Darn, it's like talking to someone who thinks he's watching football, but it's actually a game of lacrosse.

 

[firehawk350]

Not necessarily. It depends entirely on the coverage. Last season, Dallas employed a straight, read and react cover 2 scheme, which is vulnerable down the middle because of innate coverage gaps. It also magnifies all of Roy Williams' weaknesses and none of his strengths. However, other schemes, such as the Phillips' 34, commit more coverage resources to the middle of the field. In fact, his playbook states outright that his defenses "will cover inside to outside." Ergo, if Phillips elects to use Williams nearer the line of scrimmage as he's intimated, the short middle zone immediately becomes less exploitable.

Yeah, good point. Parcells used more of a straight-up blitz package whereas Wade likes zone blitzes. Anyways, that's again, assuming that everyone is on the same page immediately. It's a more complex system, and more complex systems take time to get down. And we're assuming Roy will be money covering inside...

 

[firehawk350]

I already did.

I'll come up with something when you lose.

Okay, that's fine. I thought you were just throwing an idea out there. As you said something to the effect of like a signature or avatar bet. Indicating a choice between the two... Indicating a non-conclusive decision.

 

[superpunk]

Yeah, good point. Parcells used more of a straight-up blitz package whereas Wade likes zone blitzes. Anyways, that's again, assuming that everyone is on the same page immediately. It's a more complex system, and more complex systems take time to get down. And we're assuming Roy will be money covering inside...

Actually, Wade has always preached simplicity. The scheme is not complex - just more aggrezssive. That's why the teams he goes to instantly get better pressure.

 

[firehawk350]

Darn, it's like talking to someone who thinks he's watching football, but it's actually a game of lacrosse.

Okay, let me break this down real simple-like for you. You said that consistent pressure will make Newman and Henry superstars under the assumptive inversive logic. Oh wait, let me back that up.
It is well-known that a non-existent pass rush turns a good secondary into swiss cheese. You assume that a great pass rush turns your decent but unspectacular secondary into a great one because if A=B then the opposite of A must also equal the opposite of B. That just isn't true... A better pass rush will help without a doubt. But you break down the weaknesses in Newman and Henry and just because of more errant throws doesn't mean these guys will pick up a whole crapload of INTs... Why???
Newman is a guy who will play not to get beat, so instead of going for INTs and chance giving up the big play, he'll knock the ball down instead. He could foreseeably increase his INT #s, but not up to superstar range (IMO 7-10).
Henry's problem is awareness, he has a problem getting his head around to spot the ball, and that won't change no matter how much pressure there is.

 

[firehawk350]

Actually, Wade has always preached simplicity. The scheme is not complex - just more aggrezssive. That's why the teams he goes to instantly get better pressure.

I'll take your word on this one, I have never heard Phillips mention anything about simplicity. But then again, I haven't heard much from Phillips...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'll take your word on this one, I have never heard Phillips mention anything about simplicity. But then again, I haven't heard much from Phillips...

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84642

“It's player-friendly in that you can learn it quickly,” Phillips said. “That's part of my success. We've got it down pretty good so they can do it in a year.”

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'm sorry I'm not a master of the innernet... Whatever that is...

Ware is a better LBer than Merriman? Wow, since you said it, it must be true! This is based on what? I think they're comparable, but I doubt you can say Ware is good enough that he's bottom line, the better player.
Anybody can have a bad day, against any team (you against the Lions, Skins against the 06 season) but Ware didn't have ANY multi-sack games except against the worst o-line you played against. I think that's the aberration.
No, I don't think it's going to be easy to stop Ware, but for just a moment, imagine your the other team. What would your game plan against the pass rush be? Slide protection over to wherever Ware is and take your chances with the rest of the pass rush one on one.

I remember the Chargers losing a game just because Merriman blew an easy assignment in his LB role. He blew coverage and gave up the GW 7 points.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Firehawk judges corners by the number of INTs they get?

That's clue #857 about his football I.Q.

Oh, and hawk -- Don't count on Bradie James being on the field nearly as much as he was last year.

I'll take your word on this one, I have never heard Phillips mention anything about simplicity. But then again, I haven't heard much from Phillips...

We couldn't tell.