Are You Ready For Some Football - Play Offs

[reismark]

Originally posted by JohnT
Btw, Congrats to

Sloth

for winning the Lombardi individual picks.

Uh, John, we're not done yet. There's still the playoffs, ya know.

[Imran Siddiqui]

does carolina have less talent than the skins?

rucker/peppers/smith/davis/foster/jenkins

And how many of those are on the offensive side of the ball?

Davis, Foster (who plays the same position as Davis, so he doesn't count) and Smith. Compare that to the Redskins. The 'Skins have a better QB. Even without Coles they have a good recieving corp (led by Gardner). They have a piss poor running game since they gave away one of the best RBs in the NFC.

davis has like 1400 yards and coles has like 1200 yards.

I'd much rather have the 1400 yard RB than the 1200 yard WR. You can SEE the results with the relative records of the teams. BOTH teams were 7-9 last year. Davis goes from Washington to Carolina... Carolina goes 11-5 while Washington goes 5-11.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

does carolina have less talent than the skins?

rucker/peppers/smith/davis/foster/jenkins

And how many of those are on the offensive side of the ball?

Davis, Foster (who plays the same position as Davis, so he doesn't count) and Smith. Compare that to the Redskins. The 'Skins have a better QB. Even without Coles they have a good recieving corp (led by Gardner). They have a piss poor running game since they gave away one of the best RBs in the NFC.

davis has like 1400 yards and coles has like 1200 yards.

I'd much rather have the 1400 yard RB than the 1200 yard WR. You can SEE the results with the relative records of the teams. BOTH teams were 7-9 last year. Davis goes from Washington to Carolina... Carolina goes 11-5 while Washington goes 5-11.

not even close to fair. there are teams w/o good backs that are in the playoffs. u can't expect spurrier to get a team anywhere. and I'd take coles, who is a serious threat at wr over davis. unless my alternative was ladell betts or troy hambrick. eep! but otherwise.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Stuie

Guess we have to wait for the dust to settle.

Ok, the dust settled. Apparently Spurrier needed someone to inform him that he had resigned.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=1696792

[Imran Siddiqui]

not even close to fair. there are teams w/o good backs that are in the playoffs.

Not many. The only ones I can think of are Tennessee (George), New England (Smith/Faulk), and Dallas (Hambrick). Philly, which didn't have a 1000 yard back had THREE good backs (two which have run for a 1000 yards before and Westbrook who looks like he can be a future 1000 yard runner).

TWO of those teams have very good QBs (Brady and McNair) and Dallas is a credit to Parcells.

The 'Skins have an above average QB with a good WR core and crappy RBs. Sorry, but they would have been a MUCH better team if they kept Davis and passed on Coles. They probably would have been close to .500 again. A great running back is worth more than a great WR, because the RB gets a minimum level of carries, while a WR may not make a catch or have anything thrown to him.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The 'Skins have an above average QB

Excuse me... and who was that?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by reismark

Uh, John, we're not done yet. There's still the playoffs, ya know.

Uh, well, the regular season then.

Or, how about: Sloth, you loser!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Excuse me... and who was that?

Ramsey is a decent QB. Give him a line scheme and more than 2 seconds of protection and he'll throw some nice passes .

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

not even close to fair. there are teams w/o good backs that are in the playoffs.

Not many. The only ones I can think of are Tennessee (George), New England (Smith/Faulk), and Dallas (Hambrick). Philly, which didn't have a 1000 yard back had THREE good backs (two which have run for a 1000 yards before and Westbrook who looks like he can be a future 1000 yard runner).

TWO of those teams have very good QBs (Brady and McNair) and Dallas is a credit to Parcells.

The 'Skins have an above average QB with a good WR core and crappy RBs. Sorry, but they would have been a MUCH better team if they kept Davis and passed on Coles. They probably would have been close to .500 again. A great running back is worth more than a great WR, because the RB gets a minimum level of carries, while a WR may not make a catch or have anything thrown to him.

they would have been a better team if they kept davis BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEIR ALTERNATIVE WAS LADELL BETTS. I think I mentioned something like this in my prior post.

the eagles, cowboys, patriots, titans all lack stud backs. thats 4/12.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ramsey is a decent QB. Give him a line scheme and more than 2 seconds of protection and he'll throw some nice passes .

Give just about any QB that and they'll throw some nice passes

[Imran Siddiqui]

they would have been a better team if they kept davis BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEIR ALTERNATIVE WAS LADELL BETTS.

Yeah so? What, you expect every team to have a great back as a backup? THEY KNEW THEIR ALTERNATIVE WAS BETTS. Hell, in fact, they thought Candidate would be as good as Davis. They already had decent wide recievers which is why the 'Skins should have kept Davis and passed on Coles.

the eagles, cowboys, patriots, titans all lack stud backs. thats 4/12.

4/12 = 33%. That means 66% of teams have a stud back.

I don't think the Eagles should be listed with this group anyway. The Eagles had the 8th best rushing offense in the NFL. They just used 3 backs to get it.

And Dallas was 12th!

Give just about any QB that and they'll throw some nice passes

No, not really. Most QBs have at least 3 seconds and can't make the passes. Ramsey's got at least half a second less than that. He's a decent QB with a nice arm. He can be really good in this league.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

they would have been a better team if they kept davis BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEIR ALTERNATIVE WAS LADELL BETTS.

Yeah so? What, you expect every team to have a great back as a backup? THEY KNEW THEIR ALTERNATIVE WAS BETTS. Hell, in fact, they thought Candidate would be as good as Davis. They already had decent wide recievers which is why the 'Skins should have kept Davis and passed on Coles.

the eagles, cowboys, patriots, titans all lack stud backs. thats 4/12.

4/12 = 33%. That means 66% of teams have a stud back.

I don't think the Eagles should be listed with this group anyway. The Eagles had the 8th best rushing offense in the NFL. They just used 3 backs to get it.

And Dallas was 12th!

Give just about any QB that and they'll throw some nice passes

No, not really. Most QBs have at least 3 seconds and can't make the passes. Ramsey's got at least half a second less than that. He's a decent QB with a nice arm. He can be really good in this league.

I think I already said that they shouldn't have given away davis. I dont know what more u want? u want to force me to use spurriers team as proof that u can't win w/o a rb and playaction?

and about the eagles. they nonetheless dont have a stud back=[. they're just a damn good team.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think I already said that they shouldn't have given away davis. I dont know what more u want?

No you didn't. You basically said they should have given away Davis, because without giving away Davis there was no way in Hell they could afford Coles... and you said you'd rather have Coles than Davis. QED.

and about the eagles. they nonetheless dont have a stud back

Doesn't matter... they do have a good running attack. A stud back HELPS immensely, but is not required for one. For Washington, Steven Davis was required for one.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think I already said that they shouldn't have given away davis. I dont know what more u want?

No you didn't. You basically said they should have given away Davis, because without giving away Davis there was no way in Hell they could afford Coles... and you said you'd rather have Coles than Davis. QED.

and about the eagles. they nonetheless dont have a stud back

Doesn't matter... they do have a good running attack. A stud back HELPS immensely, but is not required for one. For Washington, Steven Davis was required for one.

no I said I would take coles over davis. but if u haven't noticed or have been too zealous to read. in atleast 3 posts I said that I wouldn't have if I was the redskins cuz there was no1 behind davis....

if u'd stop looking for things to flame u'd see what I'm saying and we wouldn't need 80 posts to hammer it out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

no I said I would take coles over davis.

Well the 'Skins said the same thing . Also you said it after I said "I'd rather take Davis over Coles if I was the Redskins. " That indicates to me that you'd take Coles over Davis in this past offseason (read below).

in atleast 3 posts I said that I wouldn't have if I was the redskins cuz there was no1 behind davis....

No, more like two. That past one and one where you said I would do if my alternative wasn't Betts or Hambrick, BUT before that you said: "I'd probably take Coles" when I said "I'd rather take Davis over Coles if I was the Redskins." So you gave conflicting statements. You said you wouldn't take Coles over Davis if Betts was your backup, but you also said you'd take Coles over Davis if you were the 'Skins. Pardon me for 'not noticing'.

And even in general, I'd still take Davis over Coles. A top 10 RB is more valuable than a top 10 WR.