Am I the only one that didn't expect the shittiest roster in the NFL to be totally rebuilt in less than two years?
It seems so.......
@iced
If you force teams to come up in the box, you're going to win some match-ups outside. Even Quick proved he was capable of winning 1 on 1s(Carolina) when they had to pull their safety up to play the run.
Doesn't matter how good the CB or defense is, when you're on an island, you will get beat sometimes. Especially when you're going up against athletes like Givens, Austin, and Cook.
What has made Seattle so tough to beat is that they can stop the run while keeping Earl Thomas over the top. If you run all over them and force Earl Thomas to play the run, you can throw on them. Or better yet...if they don't have Earl Thomas play the run, you continue to pound it down their throats.
The point I was trying to make was if the opponent has a shut down DB, that one shut down DB can not cover more than one WR at one time. That means there should be another WR or TE or RB that could get open. Plus I think "X" gave several examples of our WR's beating those DB's.
You wait long enough, it will always be a rebuild (especially if you define the term by player percentages).No way Les... This was a freaking COMPLETE AND TOTAL REBUILD. Period.
You wait long enough, it will always be a rebuild (especially if you define the term by player percentages).
Why? All teams are constantly rebuilding. You have to. That's why even a Super Bowl winning team gets 7 draft picks for an eventual roster of 53.
Yes, I know. And my comment still stands. I don't believe it was a complete and total rebuild, but it's not worth getting into again.I was specifically talking about The Complete and Total REBUILD that Fisher and Co had to do upon taking the job with the Rams.
Yes, I know. And my comment still stands. I don't believe it was a complete and total rebuild, but it's not worth getting into again.
But of course, as time goes on, players are going to keep getting replaced. That's just the nature of the NFL.
Not sure what the point of even bothering to post that was, but you have a great day.
True, but replacing well over 40 in a two year span is a little more than a phasing out process.Yes, I know. And my comment still stands. I don't believe it was a complete and total rebuild, but it's not worth getting into again.
But of course, as time goes on, players are going to keep getting replaced. That's just the nature of the NFL.
True. And I've long since admitted that if your definition of rebuild is based around player percentages, then it is a rebuild.True, but replacing well over 40 in a two year span is a little more than a phasing out process.
You have a problem with hash? I can't tell you the amount of times I've rehashed hash.True. And I've long since admitted that if your definition of rebuild is based around player percentages, then it is a rebuild.
But certainly, that whole argument isn't something that needs to be rehashed for you.
<What does this mean?
Really?
He dropped 1 TD, and was bullied at the LOS on another when the db dropped an easy int because Quick just stopped.
If you've had to rehash hash, was it really hash in the first place?You have a problem with hash? I can't tell you the amount of times I've rehashed hash.
I disagree about Carolina. Quick got open against zone coverage, not man to man - and Carolina's back 4 is dependent on their front 7's success. Their secondary doesn't rival Seahawks or Cards, the two teams that we need to beat 4x if we want a chance at sniffing the playoffs. The Niners secondary isn't a strong as those 2 but they're still stout.