[QUOTE=Omniscient]
One of my favorite ESPN articles on the topic, for Insiders.
That was written in 2005. Here in 2008 things still have not improved.
[/QUOTE]
That’s hilarious. If I was a Bears fan, I would probably cry instead of laugh.
At least I can take some hope from the fact that we have a franchise QB in Carson Palmer.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I think you got a real bargain in Bodden. I only saw him play last season but he was the only guy in the Browns’ secondary covering anyone and seemed to have a real nose for the ball.
[/QUOTE]
Bodden may have indeed been a bargain, but it wasn’t due to his coverage skills last year.
He’s a bit mysterious - his 2005 season was the most dominant cornerbacking season I’ve ever personally seen (especially considering the lack of pass rush). He was probably the best corner in the league in the second half of 2005. Chad was doing his “who covered 85” checklist - the only corner to get a “yes” check was Bodden. Bodden owned him so hard that Chad was probably coughing up his semen for 2 weeks.
2006 he spent most of the season injured or tending injuries and performed pretty badly. But they were the nagging minor injury type of thing, it seemed, so I had high hopes for his 2007.
He was pretty bad. He got flat out burned very frequently, his reactions were a step slow, his speed wasn’t as good, and he had a tendency to fall down a lot for some reason. It may be that some of the nagging injuries sustained in 2006 didn’t heal properly. When he was getting burned, he often fell over and grabbed his leg or something, but some Browns fans think he was trying to make an excuse for poor play.
Funny thing was that during his 2005 season, he wasn’t a recognized name at all so he didn’t get any credit. But some people started talking about him, and by 2007 people had heard of him in the context of being a young up and comer and started singing his praises - behind the curve. When he was really great, he didn’t get credit, and when he was pretty bad, he got more credit than he deserved.
He did have a nose for the ball and made some big picks. But by the middle of the year, he was looking like the third best cornerback on the team. Eric Wright, the 2nd round draft pick, looked lost sometimes during the first half of the season, but started displaying good coverage skills in the second half. Brandon McDonald, a 5th round pick, came out of nowhere to supply some very nice coverage in limited playing time.
I wasn’t happy about getting rid of him, but I trust Savage. I suspect that his nagging injuries are here to stay, or Savage would’ve demanded more compensation for him. I’ve also heard that Bodden might be looking to get a new contract - and based on the way he’s played in 06 and 07, I wouldn’t want to be in the position of giving it to him.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
I wasn’t happy about getting rid of him, but I trust Savage. I suspect that his nagging injuries are here to stay, or Savage would’ve demanded more compensation for him. I’ve also heard that Bodden might be looking to get a new contract - and based on the way he’s played in 06 and 07, I wouldn’t want to be in the position of giving it to him.
[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, I suppose, but it’s always been my opinion that you can never have too many good cornerbacks in the modern NFL, and I imagine he could have been re-signed for something like $10 million over 3 years.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Fair enough, I suppose, but it’s always been my opinion that you can never have too many good cornerbacks in the modern NFL, and I imagine he could have been re-signed for something like $10 million over 3 years.
[/QUOTE]
I’m a stickler for having a good secondary. Before they skewed the rules towards the offense, if you had a good secondary and stopped the pass, you only had to worry about your line. I like depth, too.
Because the NFL has a serious glut of receivers and a loss of good corners, I don’t know why more people go to a Madden offense where you’ve got 4 or 5 speedy receivers out there a lot more in a shotgun formation.
Yes, the shotgun is getting popular, but you have to combine that with the receivers, much like the Colts are working on.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
I’m a stickler for having a good secondary. Before they skewed the rules towards the offense, if you had a good secondary and stopped the pass, you only had to worry about your line. I like depth, too.
Because the NFL has a serious glut of receivers and a loss of good corners, I don’t know why more people go to a Madden offense where you’ve got 4 or 5 speedy receivers out there a lot more in a shotgun formation.
Yes, the shotgun is getting popular, but you have to combine that with the receivers, much like the Colts are working on.
[/QUOTE]
Madden? Do you mean Martz, killer of QBs?
[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Madden? Do you mean Martz, killer of QBs?
[/QUOTE]
I think he’s saying you should coach the games like you would play the video game.
[QUOTE=Omniscient]
I think he’s saying you should coach the games like you would play the video game.
[/QUOTE]
Bingo. Not many teams have a very good corner. Less have two, and almost nobody has 3.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Because the NFL has a serious glut of receivers and a loss of good corners, I don’t know why more people go to a Madden offense where you’ve got 4 or 5 speedy receivers out there a lot more in a shotgun formation.
Yes, the shotgun is getting popular, but you have to combine that with the receivers, much like the Colts are working on.
[/QUOTE]
Well, even the Colts keep at least one tight end on the field almost all the time. They’re much more likely to use a three-wide formation, with Dallas Clark occasionally splitting out as a “fourth WR”, than a true 4- or 5-wide set.
I think the reason 4/5-wide formations aren’t used much is the law of diminishing returns; wideouts are valuable because each forces the defense to cover a much greater expanse of the field than a TE, fullback or tailback.
The problem is that the more receivers you line up, the less field each has to work with, and so the less extra effort goes into covering each.
Add to that the fact that quarterbacks can only make so many reads, and by the time he gets to his fifth read he’s probably been sacked already, and keeping an extra blocker or two on the field makes more sense.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Well, even the Colts keep at least one tight end on the field almost all the time. They’re much more likely to use a three-wide formation, with Dallas Clark occasionally splitting out as a “fourth WR”, than a true 4- or 5-wide set.
I think the reason 4/5-wide formations aren’t used much is the law of diminishing returns; wideouts are valuable because each forces the defense to cover a much greater expanse of the field than a TE, fullback or tailback.
The problem is that the more receivers you line up, the less field each has to work with, and so the less extra effort goes into covering each.
Add to that the fact that quarterbacks can only make so many reads, and by the time he gets to his fifth read he’s probably been sacked already, and keeping an extra blocker or two on the field makes more sense.
[/QUOTE]
Right, but then we get to the engine of the offense: the offensive line. All these plans crumble without the line to support it. (Didn’t the Colts get rid of Dallas Clark?)
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Right, but then we get to the engine of the offense: the offensive line. All these plans crumble without the line to support it. (Didn’t the Colts get rid of Dallas Clark?)
[/QUOTE]
Nah, they franchised him.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Nah, they franchised him.
[/QUOTE]
Missed the edit window…
Upon further review it appears they’ve since signed him to a 6-year deal at $41 million total.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
I’m a stickler for having a good secondary. Before they skewed the rules towards the offense, if you had a good secondary and stopped the pass, you only had to worry about your line. I like depth, too.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but since they skewed the rules specifically against defensive backs, having a good secondary isn’t particularly valuable. Under the current rules, your best bet for attacking the passing game is a pass rush. Look what happened to the Patriots’ “Madden offense” in the Superbowl.
Since you can no longer pressure receivers, you have to pressure the quarterback.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Maybe, but since they skewed the rules specifically against defensive backs, having a good secondary isn’t particularly valuable. Under the current rules, your best bet for attacking the passing game is a pass rush. Look what happened to the Patriots’ “Madden offense” in the Superbowl.
Since you can no longer pressure receivers, you have to pressure the quarterback.
[/QUOTE]
This is also true. Really, what it comes down to is what the copycat NFL regards as the theory du jour.
News from Pittsburgh: Cedric Wilson punched his ex-girlfriend in the face at a bar.
I don’t care how good he is, that right there should be enough for the Rooneys to make him go away. There’s no call for that sort of behavior from anybody.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
News from Pittsburgh: Cedric Wilson punched his ex-girlfriend in the face at a bar.
I don’t care how good he is, that right there should be enough for the Rooneys to make him go away. There’s no call for that sort of behavior from anybody.
[/QUOTE]
Cincinnati-bound, is he?
Either there or Oakland. It depends on who gets to him first.
Well, to be fair, it was his ex.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Well, to be fair, it was his ex.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. Well, in that case, he goes to Denver.
I dunno, that story sounds pretty wacky to me:
I might punch her too if she held me at gunpoint in my own home for a 12-hour standoff with police. (I’m assuming. How else do you hold police at bay for 12 hours?)
Gotta be careful who you make your baby-mama.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
How else do you hold police at bay for 12 hours?
[/QUOTE]
Throw a continuous stream of doughnuts in the other direction.
He just got cut. Team says “this is not the type of conduct we expect from our players,” etc.