Jackson to the Boys

[vikesfan]

This is starting to get ludicrous.

(1) Let me quote: "Suggs did NOT play RDE, he played LOLB and on pass downs he lined up at LDE in often a 5 man line which is how they got him on the TE so much."

(1) He played end on a 4 man rush line. You can call it DE or LB or Mary Poppins - call it anything you want. He was a rush end on a 4 man line.

It was NOT a 5 man line. It was a 4 man line. BAL did not use a 5 man line. They run a 3-4 not a 5-2. If you are referring to blitzing - again BAL did not blitz on pass downs they played a 4 man line and they got most of their sacks doing that.

Saying he got sacks by playing against a TE on a 5 man line is ridiculous.

If you don't believe me which I now know you don't no matter how obvious what I say is I googled this in 30 seconds:

ravenszone.net/yemplate.php?subsection=single_news_show&section=press& content_id3374

Okay that spells it out for you. They used a 4 man rush line and he didnt even get the benefit of blitzing.


(2) To quote: "In Arizona he'd have been the RDE lining up against Orlando Pace, Walter Jones and company. He undoubtedly would have had more than the 1 sack Pace got us, but I doubt he gets 12 in the situation Pace was in."

(2) Right and in BAL he was lining up against the top LTs in the AFC you think they have punks playing LT in the AFC. I would rather have Suggs against Walter and Orlando then Calvin.

He might have gotten more playing time in Arizona and he might have gotten more sacks. He was playing part time in BAL. Imagine him fulltime? Or just use him on pass rush downs HE still gets 12 sacks even as a rush specialist he is worth a #1 selection.

12 sacks is 12 sacks is 12 sacks... plus add on the hurries he got they help too and the alterations to offenses he created.

He basically was a pass-down rush-end pass-rush specialist on a 4 man line and got 12 sacks. He could do that here maybe he gets a couple less sacks maybe he gets a couple more. But he plays just like a big time player which he is.

And if you really can't bear him being a DE (again there is no reason he couldnt be a DE if KGB and Freeny and Kearse are) but if you can't then move him to do Colvins job WHY SIGN COLVIN? You could have drafted Colvin in Suggs.

Plus as the Cards get better he would be a key. Why is everyone here saying that Cards need to draft and/or sign a DE. You wouldnt have to waste FA money or a pick on a DE if drafted him - that hole would be filled.

(3) To quote: "He's better than Pace, he proved that, but remember we got Bryant Johnson too and if he and Pace develop, the trade won't look so bad. Suggs was in a situation where he only played on pass downs, he didn't have to battle 330 pound pro bowl LT's every down and then rush the passer on pass downs as well, situational pass rushing has it's advantages that way."

(3) Yes he did he was part of a 4 man line - teams had 2 lineman and a TE available to block him - they were NOT blocking him with the TE.It was a 4 man line rush in pass downs and he was the most dangerous pass rusher. He was NOT being blocked by TEs.

(4) To quote: "Great rookie year, great pass rusher, totally different situation impossible to quantify what he would have done here."

(4) Bogus notion bad teams have great players and producers he would have been as good here. In the 12 sack range... maybe a couple more maybe a couple less but right there. According to this logic if Boldin had been on a better team he would have had better numbers. Ludicrous.

If B Johnson develops if C Pace develops IFs are for losers.
Proven sack masters are not a dime a dozen. If Pace and Johnson were any good the CARDS woulnd't be looking for DEs and WRs still they good focus on other areas. This is how teams stay bad (like the Vikes) draft bad then make excuses.

 

[40yearfan]

Originally posted by vikesfan
This is starting to get ludicrous.

(1) Let me quote: "Suggs did NOT play RDE, he played LOLB and on pass downs he lined up at LDE in often a 5 man line which is how they got him on the TE so much."

(1) He played end on a 4 man rush line. You can call it DE or LB or Mary Poppins - call it anything you want. He was a rush end on a 4 man line.

It was NOT a 5 man line. It was a 4 man line. BAL did not use a 5 man line. They run a 3-4 not a 5-2. If you are referring to blitzing - again BAL did not blitz on pass downs they played a 4 man line and they got most of their sacks doing that.

Saying he got sacks by playing against a TE on a 5 man line is ridiculous.

If you don't believe me which I now know you don't no matter how obvious what I say is I googled this in 30 seconds:

ravenszone.net/yemplate.php?subsection=single_news_show&section=press& content_id3374

Okay that spells it out for you. They used a 4 man rush line and he didnt even get the benefit of blitzing.


(2) To quote: "In Arizona he'd have been the RDE lining up against Orlando Pace, Walter Jones and company. He undoubtedly would have had more than the 1 sack Pace got us, but I doubt he gets 12 in the situation Pace was in."

(2) Right and in BAL he was lining up against the top LTs in the AFC you think they have punks playing LT in the AFC. I would rather have Suggs against Walter and Orlando then Calvin.

He might have gotten more playing time in Arizona and he might have gotten more sacks. He was playing part time in BAL. Imagine him fulltime? Or just use him on pass rush downs HE still gets 12 sacks even as a rush specialist he is worth a #1 selection.

12 sacks is 12 sacks is 12 sacks... plus add on the hurries he got they help too and the alterations to offenses he created.

He basically was a pass-down rush-end pass-rush specialist on a 4 man line and got 12 sacks. He could do that here maybe he gets a couple less sacks maybe he gets a couple more. But he plays just like a big time player which he is.

And if you really can't bear him being a DE (again there is no reason he couldnt be a DE if KGB and Freeny and Kearse are) but if you can't then move him to do Colvins job WHY SIGN COLVIN? You could have drafted Colvin in Suggs.

Plus as the Cards get better he would be a key. Why is everyone here saying that Cards need to draft and/or sign a DE. You wouldnt have to waste FA money or a pick on a DE if drafted him - that hole would be filled.

(3) To quote: "He's better than Pace, he proved that, but remember we got Bryant Johnson too and if he and Pace develop, the trade won't look so bad. Suggs was in a situation where he only played on pass downs, he didn't have to battle 330 pound pro bowl LT's every down and then rush the passer on pass downs as well, situational pass rushing has it's advantages that way."

(3) Yes he did he was part of a 4 man line - teams had 2 lineman and a TE available to block him - they were NOT blocking him with the TE.It was a 4 man line rush in pass downs and he was the most dangerous pass rusher. He was NOT being blocked by TEs.

(4) To quote: "Great rookie year, great pass rusher, totally different situation impossible to quantify what he would have done here."

(4) Bogus notion bad teams have great players and producers he would have been as good here. In the 12 sack range... maybe a couple more maybe a couple less but right there. According to this logic if Boldin had been on a better team he would have had better numbers. Ludicrous.

If B Johnson develops if C Pace develops IFs are for losers.
Proven sack masters are not a dime a dozen. If Pace and Johnson were any good the CARDS woulnd't be looking for DEs and WRs still they good focus on other areas. This is how teams stay bad (like the Vikes) draft bad then make excuses.

Yappity, yappity, yap---you are really starting to get on my nerves. Why don't you post on the Vikes board? Did they throw you off for being so damned arrogant?

There are some very knowledgeable football fans posting on this board who have followed the Cardinals for years and know a thousand times more than you about this team. If you have an opinion, state it, but don't come on here calling Cards fans stupid. You keep this crap up and we'll have to send Vito over to have a little talk with you.

 

[azdad1978]

Originally posted by vikesfan
This is starting to get ludicrous.

(1) Let me quote: "Suggs did NOT play RDE, he played LOLB and on pass downs he lined up at LDE in often a 5 man line which is how they got him on the TE so much."

(1) He played end on a 4 man rush line. You can call it DE or LB or Mary Poppins - call it anything you want. He was a rush end on a 4 man line.

It was NOT a 5 man line. It was a 4 man line. BAL did not use a 5 man line. They run a 3-4 not a 5-2. If you are referring to blitzing - again BAL did not blitz on pass downs they played a 4 man line and they got most of their sacks doing that.

Saying he got sacks by playing against a TE on a 5 man line is ridiculous.

If you don't believe me which I now know you don't no matter how obvious what I say is I googled this in 30 seconds:

ravenszone.net/yemplate.php?subsection=single_news_show&section=press& content_id3374

Okay that spells it out for you. They used a 4 man rush line and he didnt even get the benefit of blitzing.


(2) To quote: "In Arizona he'd have been the RDE lining up against Orlando Pace, Walter Jones and company. He undoubtedly would have had more than the 1 sack Pace got us, but I doubt he gets 12 in the situation Pace was in."

(2) Right and in BAL he was lining up against the top LTs in the AFC you think they have punks playing LT in the AFC. I would rather have Suggs against Walter and Orlando then Calvin.

He might have gotten more playing time in Arizona and he might have gotten more sacks. He was playing part time in BAL. Imagine him fulltime? Or just use him on pass rush downs HE still gets 12 sacks even as a rush specialist he is worth a #1 selection.

12 sacks is 12 sacks is 12 sacks... plus add on the hurries he got they help too and the alterations to offenses he created.

He basically was a pass-down rush-end pass-rush specialist on a 4 man line and got 12 sacks. He could do that here maybe he gets a couple less sacks maybe he gets a couple more. But he plays just like a big time player which he is.

And if you really can't bear him being a DE (again there is no reason he couldnt be a DE if KGB and Freeny and Kearse are) but if you can't then move him to do Colvins job WHY SIGN COLVIN? You could have drafted Colvin in Suggs.

Plus as the Cards get better he would be a key. Why is everyone here saying that Cards need to draft and/or sign a DE. You wouldnt have to waste FA money or a pick on a DE if drafted him - that hole would be filled.

(3) To quote: "He's better than Pace, he proved that, but remember we got Bryant Johnson too and if he and Pace develop, the trade won't look so bad. Suggs was in a situation where he only played on pass downs, he didn't have to battle 330 pound pro bowl LT's every down and then rush the passer on pass downs as well, situational pass rushing has it's advantages that way."

(3) Yes he did he was part of a 4 man line - teams had 2 lineman and a TE available to block him - they were NOT blocking him with the TE.It was a 4 man line rush in pass downs and he was the most dangerous pass rusher. He was NOT being blocked by TEs.

(4) To quote: "Great rookie year, great pass rusher, totally different situation impossible to quantify what he would have done here."

(4) Bogus notion bad teams have great players and producers he would have been as good here. In the 12 sack range... maybe a couple more maybe a couple less but right there. According to this logic if Boldin had been on a better team he would have had better numbers. Ludicrous.

If B Johnson develops if C Pace develops IFs are for losers.
Proven sack masters are not a dime a dozen. If Pace and Johnson were any good the CARDS woulnd't be looking for DEs and WRs still they good focus on other areas. This is how teams stay bad (like the Vikes) draft bad then make excuses.

Dude now you really are getting on people nerves. Stop forcing it down our throats when we follow this team. From what I gather from you, you don't follow the Ravens thus getting your own opinion from other people. If Suggs is so good why did the Vikes not draft him? Maybe you need to go back at the "Vikes" message boards.

 

[Russ Smith]

vikesfan, if you want to disagree with me that's fine, that's the purpose of the board. But, learn to EDIT your damn posts! You copy an entire post and add in a bit here and there it's damn near impossible to read through and see who wrote what unless you're the one being responded to.

1) you said and still seem to be saying Suggs played RDE(the R stands for Right by the way) in fact he didn't, he played LOLB. Hint that means he wasn't lining up against LT's in the AFC he was lining up against RT's. And the way the Ravens line up, he often found himself lined up on TE's. Months ago I posted a quote from Suggs himself, he had 4 sacks at the time and HE said to paraphrase "2 of them were coverage sacks and 2 were beating the TE." I am not saying all 12 were, but the way they play he was often in a 5 man line with he and Boulware lining up as DE's with 3 guys inside. They don't always rush all 5, in fact they often don't, but they line up that way to force a matchup problem.

2) from your own link :Unlike Suggs, Boulware plays every down, and so the rookie is far fresher in passing downs than the veteran. Also, Boulware has battled a sore toe for much of the season, and said that this weekend’s bye should help it heal. So even the Ravens website YOU quoted admits that Suggs got a big advantage by NOT playing on first and second downs.

3) Suggs did on occasion line up on the right side, this is when Baltimore moved him around to get matchups, some times he and Boulware line up on the right side. This is good coaching by the ravens, but this would NOT have happened here, the Cards would have made him the RIGHT defensive end and lined him up head up on LT's every game like they did with pace.

4)Again, Suggs was MUCH better than Pace this year and far better than I expected him to be, but the argument that playing every down would have increased his sack totals is impossible to quantify. There's simply no question playing on run downs would have worn him down, that's why situational pass rushers exist, so they don't have to play every down.

As for pace and johnson, they're rookies, on a bad team, they had to play a lot, right away, when they weren't necessarily ready to do so. THey didnt' get the luxury Suggs did, he started one game all year and that was because Boulware got hurt. Even after Hartwell got hurt, they started Cornell Brown because the COACH said they couldn't afford to have Suggs playing every down he wasn't able to stand up against the run. Pace played the run on every down at DE, Suggs' own coach didn't think he could handle it as a run defending LB, think he would have excelled in the same role Pace had to play?

Personally I think and did then the smart pick was Leftwich. I think Suggs had a great rookie year, I think he compares favorably to a young Kevin Greene, who was basically a situational pass rusher his whole career, and that was in an era that 330+ pound Ol's were rare, not the norm.

 

[vikesfan]

1) you said and still seem to be saying Suggs played RDE(the R stands for Right by the way) in fact he didn't, he played LOLB. Hint that means he wasn't lining up against LT's in the AFC he was lining up against RT's. And the way the Ravens line up, he often found himself lined up on TE's.

1) My bad he was the LDE, but it doesn't matter really if he was on the left or right. He was not lining up on TEs solo. With a 4 man rush he was lining up on a T if there was a TE there then he was facing a double team. Strahan is an LDE who is a passrusher. The "L" or "R" doesn't matter, he was a DE on a 4 man line facing 5 OL and a TE. Since Boulware was injured there was no real other sacker on the team so basically he was the only sacker on the team. So are NFL coaches going to put 5 OL on 3 DL and then put the TE on him? I don't think so. If he was lining up on TE side then it makes his sacks MORE IMPRESSIVE not less that means he was being doubled.



2) Months ago I posted a quote from Suggs himself, he had 4 sacks at the time and HE said to paraphrase "2 of them were coverage sacks and 2 were beating the TE." I am not saying all 12 were, but the way they play he was often in a 5 man line with he and Boulware lining up as DE's with 3 guys inside. They don't always rush all 5, in fact they often don't, but they line up that way to force a matchup problem.

2) Okay well you read my link. The majority of sacks came on passing downs with a 4 man line you read that in my link right. There is nothing there about going solo on TEs or 5 man lines. Now if he really said that and I believe you that he did maybe he was doubled by a TE and OT and he beat the OT and TE. Maybe he was being modest that could be it too. Or maybe those 4 sacks were like that - all 8 weren't.

3) From your own link :Unlike Suggs, Boulware plays every down, and so the rookie is far fresher in passing downs than the veteran. Also, Boulware has battled a sore toe for much of the season, and said that this weekend’s bye should help it heal. So even the Ravens website YOU quoted admits that Suggs got a big advantage by NOT playing on first and second downs.

3) Re-read the link dude. It says Boulware was hurt much of the year so Suggs played way more then they planned. Suggs wasn't just in on passing downs cause of the injury he played a lot.
And even if he was just a pass rush specialist he is worth it just as that - if some dude is getting your team 12 sacks + hurries you will be winning games.

4) Suggs did on occasion line up on the right side, this is when Baltimore moved him around to get matchups, some times he and Boulware line up on the right side. This is good coaching by the ravens, but this would NOT have happened here, the Cards would have made him the RIGHT defensive end and lined him up head up on LT's every game like they did with pace.

4) Again he would have gotten some 1 on 1s and he would have gotten maybe a few sacks less or maybe a few sacks more cause he would have played more. And now you have good coaches here so even if Suggs was SLIGHTLY less productive last year here then in BAL. If you had him now this team would be on its way to a winner faster. What a waste of money and roster space a guy like Pace is.


5) Again, Suggs was MUCH better than Pace this year and far better than I expected him to be, but the argument that playing every down would have increased his sack totals is impossible to quantify. There's simply no question playing on run downs would have worn him down, that's why situational pass rushers exist, so they don't have to play every down.

5) Freeny does it, KGB does it - it can be done. Plus as bad as the coach staff was there is no way they would have worn the kid out. I mean they were not idiots only an idiot would do that like the Vikings coach for eg.


6) As for pace and johnson, they're rookies, on a bad team, they had to play a lot, right away, when they weren't necessarily ready to do so.

6) So was Boldin and he excelled. So do a lot of rookies.

7) They didnt' get the luxury Suggs did, he started one game all year and that was because Boulware got hurt. Even after Hartwell got hurt, they started Cornell Brown because the COACH said they couldn't afford to have Suggs playing every down he wasn't able to stand up against the run. Pace played the run on every down at DE, Suggs' own coach didn't think he could handle it as a run defending LB, think he would have excelled in the same role Pace had to play?

7) Hartwell iirc played ILB not OLB for the Ravens. That is a position Suggs cannot play. Completely irrelevant statement.


8) Personally I think and did then the smart pick was Leftwich. I think Suggs had a great rookie year, I think he compares favorably to a young Kevin Greene, who was basically a situational pass rusher his whole career, and that was in an era that 330+ pound Ol's were rare, not the norm.

8) Trufant would have been a good pick. Gross would hjave been a good pick. Leftwich a 1st round QB was slightly more risky but I liked him if a team was going to go QB. But Suggs was the best pick IMO. Sackers are a rare rare commidity they help a team more then just about any position. But any of those guys I liked.

Look at Greene's sack numbers. OTs were pretty heavy in his heyday not 330s though. Look at KGB in GB and his weight and stats and Freeny in Indi if they can do it so can Suggs. He outsacked Freeny and Kearse this year.

 

[Southpaw]

Repeat after me.

It just doesn't matter
It just doesn't matter
It just doesn't matter

I hope you feel better now VikeyMan.

Breathe deeply. Once again.
Maybe a little Cervantes will chill you out. Nitszche? Voltaire. Anything to calm the demons.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by vikesfan
11) My bad he was the LDE, but it doesn't matter really if he was on the left or right. He was not lining up on TEs solo. With a 4 man rush he was lining up on a T if there was a TE there then he was facing a double team. Strahan is an LDE who is a passrusher. The "L" or "R" doesn't matter, he was a DE on a 4 man line facing 5 OL and a TE. Since Boulware was injured there was no real other sacker on the team so basically he was the only sacker on the team. So are NFL coaches going to put 5 OL on 3 DL and then put the TE on him? I don't think so. If he was lining up on TE side then it makes his sacks MORE IMPRESSIVE not less that means he was being doubled.


Russ:
He wasn't being doubled, they were setting the line so they could get him one on one. Early in the year there were several instances where this meant against a TE because of matchups. The NFL adjusted, teams realized if they did that Suggs would kill them. In fact off that same site you posted there was a story about Boulware and it quoted Suggs as saying that he and Boulware were adjusting to a change teams had made where they were now using the TE to chip Boulware, and Suggs was exclusively facing RT's.



2) Okay well you read my link. The majority of sacks came on passing downs with a 4 man line you read that in my link right. There is nothing there about going solo on TEs or 5 man lines. Now if he really said that and I believe you that he did maybe he was doubled by a TE and OT and he beat the OT and TE. Maybe he was being modest that could be it too. Or maybe those 4 sacks were like that - all 8 weren't.

Russ:

Well we had this debate running here for months with people like Lex who apparently watched a lot more Raven games than you did. Nobody ever denied that some of Suggs EARLY sacks came head up on the TE, again this changed, but you don't get that if you're playing RDE on the 2003 Cardinals defense. And you dont' get a whole lot of passing downs either. When we played the Ravens Suggs barely played, because there were so few passing downs that day.


3) Re-read the link dude. It says Boulware was hurt much of the year so Suggs played way more then they planned. Suggs wasn't just in on passing downs cause of the injury he played a lot.
And even if he was just a pass rush specialist he is worth it just as that - if some dude is getting your team 12 sacks + hurries you will be winning games.

Russ:
Well then your link sucks since Boulware played in, and STARTED 15 games this season! He missed the last one, the ONLY game all year Suggs started. He had a toe injury early in the year but he played through and was 2nd to Suggs in sacks, despite playing every down.


4) Again he would have gotten some 1 on 1s and he would have gotten maybe a few sacks less or maybe a few sacks more cause he would have played more. And now you have good coaches here so even if Suggs was SLIGHTLY less productive last year here then in BAL. If you had him now this team would be on its way to a winner faster. What a waste of money and roster space a guy like Pace is.

Russ:
Pace has played one year and he's a waste?



5) Freeny does it, KGB does it - it can be done. Plus as bad as the coach staff was there is no way they would have worn the kid out. I mean they were not idiots only an idiot would do that like the Vikings coach for eg.

Russ:
None of those guys play every down. THat's the point you're ignoring, if he was a Cardinal, he would have had to play every down, or he would have barely played. This team wasn't good enough to put teams in 3rd and long all the time, just didn't happen much. If we take him at 6, he's the starting RDE playing the same role Pace did, the only way he doesn't start, is if he's so bad against the run, they have to bench him.



6) So was Boldin and he excelled. So do a lot of rookies.

Russ:
Ah yes, take one of the alltime great draft steal outliers and use him as a comparison of what to expect from Pace and Johnson, excellent debate tactic. A lot of rookies don't excel as well, and go on to have nice careers.

7) Hartwell iirc played ILB not OLB for the Ravens. That is a position Suggs cannot play. Completely irrelevant statement.

Russ:
Brain fart on my part it was Adalius Thomas, not Hartwell that got hurt. Even after that Suggs couldn't start, they moved Cornell Brown from backup ROLB to starting LOLB ahead of Suggs, only after Boulware got hurt too, did Suggs get a start.


The Cards tried to get Colvin, at the time we were told he would have played a hybrid LB position and rushed the passer on passing downs, this board was actually quite confused at the time precisely what that means. None of us were really sure what he was going to be doing, the assumption was situational pass rusher but we didn't know. The Cards made it quite clear they wanted an everydown DE and they weren't high on Suggs because he wasn't that. he's a great pass rusher, but in a much worse situation to do that, my guess is his numbers aren't as good.

FYI, when I said your link, I meant the site itself, the specific link you posted doesn't work for me so I have no idea what it said. But that site has several articles that refer to things mentioned above.

There's tons of old threads on Suggs on this board, none of this is new material. I do agree Suggs would have made more plays this year than Pace and johnson combined did. That doesn't necessarily mean it was a bad decision, you can't judge something like that in one year. Going in we knew Johnson was raw, and Pace probably wasn't ready, doesn't mean next year both won't be much better players than they were this year.

 

[vikesfan]

Dude read your own tagline it says it all just sub in Suggs for Boldin.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by vikesfan
Dude read your own tagline it says it all just sub in Suggs for Boldin.

Jeez, I wish I could make these rollyeyes so much bigger.

 

[Northern Card]

Vikesfan... has fast become the long lost relative who arrives full of compliments and gratitude... and not too long after is complaining the free bed is too hard and food and drink are not up to their palate.

You really have overstayed your welcome. Drop us a line from time-to-time, but please - GO AWAY!

 

[vikesfan]

Here is another one for you.
IF he played here IF he played there. IF Pace and Johnson become good. If if if. 12 sacks in the NFL playing part time as a rookie.
Bottom line. DG said he should have been taken at #6 I will go with DG on that he has a pretty good draft record. DG would be his coach this year. And this team would not have to waste FA money or a draft pick on a pass rusher. Really if your team is filled with IFs you are not going anywhere. "If (substitute 1 of many Card players names) develops this year like I know he can" - your team ain't going anywhere.

The truth is people thought he would suck and he didn't suck and they just can't admit they were wrong. Simple as that. They actually believed that he is slow crap. So now they say he would have sucked here. Weak.

Was his college team great was he playing for a great team that had lots of pass rushers helping him out. Was he playing at some small college or in a cheap conference.
To paraphrase the Buddy Ryan Chris Carter quote: "All he does is get sacks."


Hey Graves took DG! I think Graves in effect admitted he was wrong. He brought in a guy who said Suggs should have been drafted by the Cards! Why bring that guy in of all people the man who criticized publically your great draft day coup? Why bring in a guy who wants final say on player decisions? He already cut another great Graves move in Blake.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

It looks like Vikesfan is having a little trouble with the ladies...

http://www.americansingles.com/default.asp?p=7070&MemberID=855658&prm=5096

 

[SECTION 11]

Personally I put more stock in run defense than sacks.

 

[Ryanwb]

Jackson to the Boys

I thought this thread was about Michael Jackson going home!

 

[azdad1978]

Originally posted by MaoTosiFanClub
It looks like Vikesfan is having a little trouble with the ladies...

http://www.americansingles.com/default.asp?p=7070&MemberID=855658&prm=5096

Dude thats a low blow.

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by SECTION 11
Personally I put more stock in run defense than sacks.

Run defense is a given. Run defense is not as hard to do. It is like the the OLINE pass protecting vs. run blocking.

It is easier to find run blockers and stoppers it is requires less talent. Get some big uglies with committment and you can run block and run stop. What is harder to find and do is pass rush and pass block.

You can find run blockers and stoppers much easier. Finding guys who pass block and pass rush is harder. That is is why an elite LT is worth so much or an elite DE.

Yes you have to run stop and run the ball but that is easier to do the pass block and pass rush and therefore players who can do that are the key to being an elite NFL team.

PS I love all the personal attacks on me by the different posters on here shows real class.

 

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by MaoTosiFanClub
It looks like Vikesfan is having a little trouble with the ladies...

http://www.americansingles.com/default.asp?p=7070&MemberID=855658&prm=5096

Oh my Gawsh !!!!

Tell us you made that up.

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by vikesfan
Dude read your own tagline it says it all just sub in Suggs for Boldin.

Except that Mac didn't want Suggs either, remember he was involved in our drafts too.

FYI go back to right after the Cards signed Blake and see what Dennis Green, ESPN employee said about the move, hint, he liked it, said he'd always liked Blake. He changed his mind, I'm fine with it, but blaming Graves for signing Blake is silly when Green endorsed the move at the time.

I don't how you haven't hurt your neck with all the ducking you've been doing.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by Northern Card
Vikesfan... has fast become the long lost relative who arrives full of compliments and gratitude... and not too long after is complaining the free bed is too hard and food and drink are not up to their palate.

You really have overstayed your welcome. Drop us a line from time-to-time, but please - GO AWAY!

Vikesfan talks a good game for a fan of a team that hasn't been to the playoffs for nearly the amount of time that the Cards have been out of the January dance.

Total Defense Rankings:
Minnesota: 23
Arizona: 26

Rushing D:
Minnesota: 17
Arizona: 19

Passing D:
Minnesota: 26
Arizona: 29

Look in the mirror, guy. Your defense is almost as bad as the Cards'. Your linebackers suck. You have one good safety, whom you took from us. You have Chuck Wiley starting on your defensive line. And Kenny Mixon on the other side. Are you really in such a place to talk about how all our players suck?

The only reason that the Vikes are any good is because of Bennett, Culpepper, and Moss. That's it. You don't have anyone else that's really any good. Take away one or two of those players, and you're looking at the Minnesota Cardinals.

 

[vikesfan]

"All he does is get sacks."

 

[SECTION 11]

Originally posted by vikesfan
PS I love all the personal attacks on me by the different posters on here shows real class.

Ehh, I dunno.
If you get condescending on people, they're going to poke ya a little.

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by kerouac9


Total Defense Rankings:
Minnesota: 23
Arizona: 26

Rushing D:
Minnesota: 17
Arizona: 19

Passing D:
Minnesota: 26
Arizona: 29

That's funny. I just got done scribbling down the same rankings from NFL.com.

 

[vikesfan]

Originally posted by kerouac9


Vikesfan talks a good game for a fan of a team that hasn't been to the playoffs for nearly the amount of time that the Cards have been out of the January dance.

Total Defense Rankings:
Minnesota: 23
Arizona: 26

Rushing D:
Minnesota: 17
Arizona: 19

Passing D:
Minnesota: 26
Arizona: 29

Look in the mirror, guy. Your defense is almost as bad as the Cards'. Your linebackers suck. You have one good safety, whom you took from us. You have Chuck Wiley starting on your defensive line. And Kenny Mixon on the other side. Are you really in such a place to talk about how all our players suck?

The only reason that the Vikes are any good is because of Bennett, Culpepper, and Moss. That's it. You don't have anyone else that's really any good. Take away one or two of those players, and you're looking at the Minnesota Cardinals.

I know all that. You are not telling me anything new. I agree with you.

Who got us Bennett Culpepper and Moss? DG did! And when did the Vikes become the new Cards? When DG left. When the DG leftovers leave or age we will be the Cards. Our owner is pulling a Bidwill/Brown type move. That is why DG resigned. Our owner was going cheap. And DG would not coach unless the owner was willing to do what it takes to win a SB. The only good players on the team are from DG.

 

[kerouac9]

Originally posted by vikesfan
Yes and who got us Bennett Culpepper and Moss? DG did! And when did the Vikes become the Cards? When DG left. When the DG leftovers leave or age we will be the Cards. Are owner is pulling a Bidwill/Brown type move. That is why DG resigned. Our owner was going cheap. And DG would not coach unless the owner was willing to do what it takes to win a SB.

Then you should change your handle from "vikesfan" to "Dennis Green's Jockstrap Rider".

As I remember, Green was essentially forced out of Minny, and then couldn't find a job the past two years.

 

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by vikesfan


PS I love all the personal attacks on me by the different posters on here shows real class.

Did your Selective memory just kick in again ?


Touche'