Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by JCBRAVE, Apr 3, 2013.
D and O line for sure.
OL and DL. Then QB.
As a singular position, QB is the most important, but group-wise you've gotta go with OL and DL.
I do agree that the lines are paramount but for the sake of mixing it up i'll say an elite LB corps can do a lot for a team. Big, strong, fast linebackers who tackle well and can rush the passer have the potential to affect the defense in more ways than DLs and even DBs can. They can create pressure if the line lacks that ability and if they're good block shedders can cover up the inadequacies of a line that can't stuff the run. They can also really help in taking away easy throws to slots and RBs. I'm thinking of LBs in the mold of Von Miller, Clay Matthews etc. Of course having a Patrick Willis or vintage Ray Lewis in the middle is a must.
Since QB is a single player, thats out the window, and we seem to all say O-Line, then D-Line, then would it be LB's or WR's? It's sure as hell not DB's or RB's, or is it?
I think you can get by with anybody at RB so long as you have a respectable passing game.
I'd take a nasty set of LBs over a nasty set of DBs. Great play by the front 7 will make your secondary much better, while the opposite isn't as true.
I think I'd also take a great RB over one or two really good WRs.. You don't want to be like Green Bay with absolute crap at RB that can't do anything, even with Aaron Rogers and all of those receiving weapons. I'd rather have a guy who can get me 4-5 yards a pop on the ground, who fights and gets those extra yards, keeping the down and distance manageable. Remember the Titans in 1999 and 2008? We had no receivers, but great running back play, along with the great D-line and LB play.
So LBs > CBs?
RBs > WRs?
It's just that it's harder to find a good receiver than it is to find a good RB, RB's grow on trees, you saw that thread I made about the next great RB right? We could do the same for WR and watch us have half the names.
hmm, idk about half, lots of good up and coming receivers in the league right now.
Receivers might be a bit harder to find, but the position may also be a bit less important as well. RBs are a dime a dozen, but some teams still struggle to find a good franchise RB.
Teams that lack a solid RB:
Miami, New York Jets, Indianapolis, Shittsburgh, Cincinnati, Denver, Green Bay, Arizona, St. Louis.
That's over a fourth of the league, and you could argue for some additional teams to be put on there, like Detroit, New England, Giants, or basically any team that has less-than-desirable RB play.. which would be almost half the league.
Ask those guys about how running backs grow on trees, they experience relatively weak RB play week in and week out. Now an incompetent O-line could be to blame, but even teams that have solid O-lines can struggle to have good run games. Look at a team like Green Bay.. Good O-line, amazing vertical passing game, absolute God-awful run game.
lets see, add a name
if you have to choose only one position to be great in the NFL, it's gotta be QB. With a good QB and an average OL, you can be great.
OL is important. Not so much one position of it, but the unit of 5 has to be solid. Having Bruce Matthews in his prime and everyone else be the 2012 Titans OL, the OL would still be bad.