tex Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 No disrespect intended because LaVar is one heck of a player. But… picking up extra picks and drafting Pennington would have been better. I believed as many did that LaVar was the second coming LT. That just hasn't come to past. This is not a knock on the front office because I supported drafting Arrington with the 2nd overall pick in the 2000 draft. In defense of LaVar there are some mitigating factors like having a new DC and a new system to learn every year since joining the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 It's a fairly meaningless question. There are more factors than what you present to consider. At the time we drafted Lavar, we had the NFC's Pro Bowl QB. Pennington didn't make sense until Johnson faltered. Drafting when we did, a QB was less necessary than a linebacker. And, while Pennington looks great, it's hard to know how he'd have developed if put in a different situation than the one he's in now. Lavar, if allowed to be in a single system for three full years might be better than Taylor ever was. As it is he remains a top player at his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Unless we're considering salary implications, I'd say Lavar in a heartbeat. I mean Pennington is a nice disciplined QB, but it wasnt Chad who beat Manning, it was the Jets defense. Defense wins chapionships, but offense gets teh glory. There are several other QBs who can do what Pennington is going to do this year (Ramsey is one of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Originally posted by blakman211 Unless we're considering salary implications, I'd say Lavar in a heartbeat. I mean Pennington is a nice disciplined QB, but it wasnt Chad who beat Manning, it was the Jets defense. Defense wins chapionships, but offense gets teh glory. There are several other QBs who can do what Pennington is going to do this year (Ramsey is one of them). Are you freekin' kidding me? 41 points for crying out loud !!! No wonder the defense played so well, they were hardly on the field! Time Of Pos: Colts 19:42, Jets 40:18 Passing: 19 of 25 for 216 yards and 3 TDs Rushing: 42 attempts for 180 yards and 2 TDs, mostly in the second half after the big lead was established. This is why I argue for beefing up our offense this of season. We already have the #5 defense. Imagine if they could sit on the bench more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted January 5, 2003 Author Share Posted January 5, 2003 Originally posted by Art It's a fairly meaningless question. There are more factors than what you present to consider. At the time we drafted Lavar, we had the NFC's Pro Bowl QB. Pennington didn't make sense until Johnson faltered. Drafting when we did, a QB was less necessary than a linebacker. And, while Pennington looks great, it's hard to know how he'd have developed if put in a different situation than the one he's in now. Lavar, if allowed to be in a single system for three full years might be better than Taylor ever was. As it is he remains a top player at his position. The pole is designed to move a known factor into the hypothetical in the simplest way possible. To divulge the true purpose of the poll would skew the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I know I shouldn't compare people to 5 watt light bulbs but you guys make it difficult. Never satisfied with what you have and of course there is always the grass is greener regardless of the system routine with other players. Pennington was collecting splinters on the bench until Testaverde finally showed his age and there were those who thought he was a wasted pick even though he was selected in late first round. And he is a pick by the Tuna and in our system you cant say he would have succeeded here because for one thing fans and the team isnt patient enough to have a QB riding the pine for 3 years and B Johnson isnt a Testaverde so I dont see where he would ve grown and there is of course the fact he is still in a smashmouth type offense. Only an idiot would trade a pro bowler for a guy who has looked good against teams with sorry defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Mike, I hate to break it to you, but RARELY in a game does an offense just chug together a half dozen time consuming drives to control the clock. Generally, in order to control the time of possession the defense actually has to get itself OFF the field. The Jets defense did that. In three of the first FIVE possessions the Jets defense held the Colts to three and out. Another was a fumble on a kickoff. In order to control time of possession, generally the defense has to do it's job. The thought that the offense has to play a perfect game for the defense to be great is ludicrous. I look at the Houston game and the Dallas games as prime examples of how things should be. Against Houston, the offense won that game. Controlled the ball well. Didn't turn it over. In that game, though, we only had five possessions of four plays or less that our defense created a situation that gave our offense the ball. Then, there's Dallas. We moved the ball, but kept turning it over. We kept putting our defense in a bad position. And yet, the defense had 11 possessions by the Cowboys end in four plays or less -- though one was a touchdown . Still, the defense gave up more yards against Dallas than Houston, but had a better game. It's possible for a defense to make stops even when the offense is spiking itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Mad Mike, the Colts defense didnt show up yesterday. I think Pennington is a skilled QB who will win it all this year, but things would have been extremely different if he had gotten into a shootout yesterday with Manning. It was the Jets defense that was stopping Manning and giving the ball back to the offense. Given, their offense was ding its job, but thats not all. There are two things that one nocites when he sees a 41-0 score. The first thing is teh 41 points one sees and they go, wow that must be an awesone offense. But a knowledgable person will see the zero points and say man that defense must have killed them. If you look at pennington stats (for the game), they're not something thats going to get you a trip to canton. If you look at the stats for guys like Manning or James, you will see that they had serious problems moving teh ball. U think thats coincidence? They had one of the top offenses in teh league this year. They just magically didnt show up yesterday. Its all in the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gridironmike Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I have always loved Pennington (I'm a Marshall fan), but Lavar was the proper choice. Heck, Brad Johnson should still be the quarterback here. How good would he look in the Ballcoaches offense? Defense wins championships (because they keep our offense on the field). We need to improve the offense this year. We owe it to the coach we signed to implement HIS system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 LaVar, no contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Art & blakman; I never said that the Jets defense was not strong. My problem was and is that you don't score 41 points with just defense. The jets drove up and down the field and Chad had a lot to do with that. And if you don't think that an offenses ability to produce multiple sustained scoring drives helps the defense you are both high. And BTW, even if the oponents offense scores YOU STILL GET THE BALL BACK. If you can't sustain a drive yourself, you hand the ball back to your opponent so they can score on you again and wear down YOUR defense. Art, I never said an offense has to play a perfect game, nor did I suggest that type of time of posesion is a standard. Yes, it's possible for a defense to make stops even when the offense is spiking itself but it is MUCH harder. Frankly I think your argument is ludicrous but judging from your other post this morning I'm guessing you are in a pissy mood and itching for a fight. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Oh, one more thing. I just realized where some of the confusion came from. My bad. I should have clearly stated that I would take Lavar. I just freaked out at the thought that Chad and the offense was a minor consideration and that the defense was more important in that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Its actually pretty simple, we'd have not taken Pennington anyway. Now, the offense Marty wanted to implement may have fit him well but since he'd probably have ridden the bench last year so the final results would have been the same. We'd now be stuck with a noodle arm qb to run a downfield pass offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PennSkinsFan Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Umm Lavar. Ramsey will be very good, that I have little doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Pennington is a perfect fit for a West Coast Offense. He'd probably be a bust in a vertical passing game. If we're really gonna talk hypotheticals here, I'd have rather traded down the #3 pick and picked up Urlacher in the 1st, Chad Clifton in the 2nd, and Darrell Jackson in the 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matty dread Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 What's the old saying, hindsight is always 20/20? 'Nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamebreaker Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Originally posted by NavyDave Only an idiot would trade a pro bowler for a guy who has looked good against teams with sorry defenses. Amen! That pretty sums up this whole argument right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.