FavreFan wrote:
IkeSouth wrote:
yeah just look at whatever the pats do. thats how you win rings.
Agreed. Just get the best QB and coach of all time on the same team at the same time for 15 years. More teams should try that.
Pretty easy.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contract? https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=96566 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contract? |
Rich Eisen made the point that defensive players don't win championships. I'll extend it one step further and ask if you should even spend the money at all. What are the major big money defensive signings that have led to Super Bowls or even great success? Reggie White comes to mind, but that is way too far back to be relevant now. Anyone else? |
|
| Author: | Hawg Ass [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
I think Charles Woodson had a huge hand in helping the Packers get back to winning the Super Bowl. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
By the way, he referenced Suh, Watt, and I believe Justin Houston. All three on teams that are struggling with the highest paid defensive players in the league. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Hawg Ass wrote: I think Charles Woodson had a huge hand in helping the Packers get back to winning the Super Bowl. That's a good one, but his deal was only like $6-8 million a year.
|
|
| Author: | Hawg Ass [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: I think Charles Woodson had a huge hand in helping the Packers get back to winning the Super Bowl. That's a good one, but his deal was only like $6-8 million a year.At the time it was signed, it was a pretty big contract. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
No. Spread the money around and draft well. Most huge defensive signings end in disappointment. I'd never give that kind of money to a non-QB, and even with the QB's, it's a select few. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Besides Brady and Gronk I do not think the Pats sign big giant deals. And if they do they are short term. |
|
| Author: | veganfan21 [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
So not a defensive player but I think the Pats conceded maybe at least two SB appearances by refraining to give Moss a new contract and then declining to sign a big WR when he left. This was pre Gronk and maybe around the time Welker emerged. Biggest weakness on those teams was Brady was forced to paper cut you to death because he didn't have someone like Moss. I think a big money contract to a WR would have been worth it for that team. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Rich Eisen made the point that defensive players don't win championships. I'll extend it one step further and ask if you should even spend the money at all. What are the major big money defensive signings that have led to Super Bowls or even great success? Reggie White comes to mind, but that is way too far back to be relevant now. Anyone else? Dion Sanders and Ken Norton Jr |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Fri Oct 09, 2015 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Probably not. For the price of Suh, Denver got Ware, TJ Ward, and Aqib Talib a year ago. All are having pro bowl caliber seasons for the best defense in the league so far. |
|
| Author: | Jaw Breaker [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Charles Haley (actually that may have been a trade) |
|
| Author: | Darkside [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Sherman made a bigger impact than Wilson IMHO. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Darkside wrote: Sherman made a bigger impact than Wilson IMHO. I disagree. Sherman is better at his position, but it's obviously not as important of a position. I think if you replaced them with a league-average player at their position, the team would be much worse without Russell than without Sherman. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
FavreFan wrote: Darkside wrote: Sherman made a bigger impact than Wilson IMHO. I disagree. Sherman is better at his position, but it's obviously not as important of a position. I think if you replaced them with a league-average player at their position, the team would be much worse without Russell than without Sherman. I couldn't disagree more. That defense carried that team and Sherman was the most valuable member of the secondary. He literally eliminated a side of the field. Russell was basically asked to be Kyle Orton. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: Darkside wrote: Sherman made a bigger impact than Wilson IMHO. I disagree. Sherman is better at his position, but it's obviously not as important of a position. I think if you replaced them with a league-average player at their position, the team would be much worse without Russell than without Sherman. I couldn't disagree more. That defense carried that team and Sherman was the most valuable member of the secondary. He literally eliminated a side of the field. Russell was basically asked to be Kyle Orton. Earl Thomas was every bit as important as Sherman to the defense. And the best CB of all time is still somewhat dependent on a pass rush to be effective. Your last sentence is laughably wrong. Russell's never played behind a great offensive line. Orton would have gotten killed behind that line by now. If Russell was a pocket QB, I would agree with you and Darko. His best attribute is extending plays and then making a great play. Orton didn't have that quality whatsoever. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
He was asked to manage the game and make an occasional play with his legs. You could find many guys to do what Wilson did. Revis is the only guy that can do what Sherman did. Wilson is being exposed this year. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Nas wrote: He was asked to manage the game and make an occasional play with his legs. You could find many guys to do what Wilson did. Revis is the only guy that can do what Sherman did. Wilson is being exposed this year. Actually, his play this year is why I've gotten on board with him. He got his fat contract, lost Marshawn Lynch for almost all year so far, has a horrible offensive line, isn't getting much from his receivers, and is still having a very good year. Rodgers is the only other QB in the NFL that can extend a play and then make a great throw consistently. Almost every QB in the league besides them that can extend plays with their legs is wildly inconsistent and/or inaccurate with their arm. |
|
| Author: | Darkside [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
That's a strong argument on the first paragraph farvio but as far as their championship year I gotta give the edge to the defense being the reason, and not Wilson. Wilson is dealing with deficiencies this season to be sure but unless he literally leads them to a title I'm sticking with Sherman for 13. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Darkside wrote: That's a strong argument on the first paragraph farvio but as far as their championship year I gotta give the edge to the defense being the reason, and not Wilson. Wilson is dealing with deficiencies this season to be sure but unless he literally leads them to a title I'm sticking with Sherman for 13. That's fair. Might have been the best defense I've ever seen in my life, so I'm not gonna fault someone for that position. Even still, I would disagree with any type of characterization of Wilson being Trent Dilfer along for the ride on that team. I think he was more important than that, and not easily replaceable. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
FavreFan wrote: Darkside wrote: That's a strong argument on the first paragraph farvio but as far as their championship year I gotta give the edge to the defense being the reason, and not Wilson. Wilson is dealing with deficiencies this season to be sure but unless he literally leads them to a title I'm sticking with Sherman for 13. That's fair. Might have been the best defense I've ever seen in my life, so I'm not gonna fault someone for that position. Even still, I would disagree with any type of characterization of Wilson being Trent Dilfer along for the ride on that team. I think he was more important than that, and not easily replaceable. Ravens defense was probably better |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: Darkside wrote: That's a strong argument on the first paragraph farvio but as far as their championship year I gotta give the edge to the defense being the reason, and not Wilson. Wilson is dealing with deficiencies this season to be sure but unless he literally leads them to a title I'm sticking with Sherman for 13. That's fair. Might have been the best defense I've ever seen in my life, so I'm not gonna fault someone for that position. Even still, I would disagree with any type of characterization of Wilson being Trent Dilfer along for the ride on that team. I think he was more important than that, and not easily replaceable. Ravens defense was probably better I think they were better, but they also could get away with a lot more. Considering the NFL would rather defenses not even take the field these days, what Seattle did was very impressive. |
|
| Author: | IkeSouth [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
yeah just look at whatever the pats do. thats how you win rings. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
IkeSouth wrote: yeah just look at whatever the pats do. thats how you win rings. Agreed. Just get the best QB and coach of all time on the same team at the same time for 15 years. More teams should try that. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
FavreFan wrote: Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: Darkside wrote: That's a strong argument on the first paragraph farvio but as far as their championship year I gotta give the edge to the defense being the reason, and not Wilson. Wilson is dealing with deficiencies this season to be sure but unless he literally leads them to a title I'm sticking with Sherman for 13. That's fair. Might have been the best defense I've ever seen in my life, so I'm not gonna fault someone for that position. Even still, I would disagree with any type of characterization of Wilson being Trent Dilfer along for the ride on that team. I think he was more important than that, and not easily replaceable. Ravens defense was probably better I think they were better, but they also could get away with a lot more. Considering the NFL would rather defenses not even take the field these days, what Seattle did was very impressive. Agreed. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Should you ever sign a defensive player to a huge contra |
FavreFan wrote: IkeSouth wrote: yeah just look at whatever the pats do. thats how you win rings. Agreed. Just get the best QB and coach of all time on the same team at the same time for 15 years. More teams should try that. Pretty easy.
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|