Thoughts of a Negative Poster

[Bang]

I'm not interested in debating this with you any longer.

.

I've got news for you.

You haven't debated anything with me.

In our latest exchange you made up a number to back your made up position. Pulled it right out of your ass and threw it down on the board as if it was actually real.

10 million a year avg salary for defensive ends.. that is so laughably wrong, and I'm not sure if you said it because you have zero respect for the intelligence of the board as to believe that no one would question your ridiculous claims and point out your obvious lie, or because you've got your own head stuffed so far up your own rear thast you actually believe that when you make up a number that it actually a fact. Given your typical condescension and superiority complex, I'm betting it's the latter.\

Actually, given you believe this:

Of the people who seem not to understand me, there are two groups: those who honestly don't understand and those who pretend not to understand. With experience, it isn't hard to separate them and deal with them appropriately

tells me that you really do believe your made up bull**** is real, and as usual, anyone who disagrees is simply too stupid to understand you or is just argumentative.

The arrogance.

Nice "debating" with you again, oldguy.

But for the record, I'll give you a chance to prove that defensive ends on average make 10 million per year.

You should be able to rather easily, since you're so sure of it, i figure you must have read it somewhere. I mean if it's so obvious then my quick links that proved was wrong should be easily shot down by one so dismissive.

If you can show me that, then maybe i'll believe that Dan Snyder decided 35 million was a good price to pay for some name recognition and mediocrity.

But since you can't, i'm guessing you'll just ignore this.

~Bang

[Oldfan]

...In our latest exchange you made up a number to back your made up position. Pulled it right out of your ass and threw it down on the board as if it was actually real..

Do you make up numbers? Is that why you have the gall to accuse others?

This is that site I looked at. I forgot that they were listing the top 20 DE salaries and my 10 mil was an estimate of average in the top 20. In any case, your argument based on the seven mil a coach makes is weak crap.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl/165803-top-salaries-2012-players-each-position/

DE:

Dwight Freeney, Colts - $17,035,000 - Signed thru 2012

Jared Allen, Vikings - $15,519,850 - Signed thru 2013

Elvis Dumervill, Broncos - $12,600,000 - Signed thru 2015

Julius Peppers, Bears - $12,400,000 - Signed thru 2015

Charles Johnson, Panthers - $10,750,000 - Signed thru 2016

Chris Long, Rams - $10,310,000 - Signed thru 2012

Mario Williams, Bills - $9,800,000 - Signed thru 2017

Tommy Kelly, Raiders - $9,500,000 - Signed thru 2014

Antonio Smith, Texans - $8,000,000 - Signed thru 2013

Will Smith, Saints - $6,433,333 - Signed thru 2013

Justin Smith, 49ers - $6,375,000 - Signed thru 2013

Kyle Vanden Bosch, Lions - $6,230,000 - Signed thru 2013

Justin Tuck, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2013

Osi Umenyiora, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2012

Sedrick Ellis, Saints - $5,816,000 - Signed thru 2012

Jason Babin, Eagles - $5,775,000 - Signed thru 2015

Robert Mathis, Colts - $5,750,000 - Signed thru 2015

Chris Clemons, Seahawks - $5,300,000 - Signed thru 2012

Calais Campbell, Cardinals - $5,000,000 - Signed thru 2016

Trent Cole, Eagles - $4,600,000 - Signed thru 2017

[kleese]

There are three things I liked about Schwartz

1) He has solid NFL experience; 2) he doen't strike me as highly egotistical and 3) he's exceptionally bright. With those qualities, he will listen to his assistants, recognize good advice when he hears it, and change his mind when necessary.

I don't know the inside scoop on Detroit. I don't know how much credit o blame to give him, but I would hire him to coach my football team.

I'm with you on JS... Huge fan of his and he was a name that interested me way back in 2004. I like him a lot and the Lions quick rise lends some credence to those feelings.

This year is a bit of head scratcher though and he certainly deserves blame for it... They just haven't looked good all year... As a matter of fact I'm not sure they've played a solid 60 minutes all season long. A little puzzling.

But this sometimes happens... I've mentioned I am a Reds fan. In 2010, they won the division after a decade of misery. They were quickly dispatched in the playoffs, but it was a great season... Akin to the 2011 Lions. Then in 2011, with expectations raised, the Reds floundered and finished below .500. It was a bit odd. Then, they regrouped and had their best season in 40 years last year... A bit of a sophomore slump if you will and entering 2013 they might be the favorite to win the World Series. So I wouldn't give up on JS yet, but next year is huge for him.

[Oldfan]

....So I wouldn't give up on JS yet, but next year is huge for him.

I feel confident judging Shanahan's record 1999 - 2008 because he had full control, but when coaches have to play the talent hand dealt by a GM it's much harder to decide how much credit or blame to assign. So, would have to hear some substantial and well-founded criticism of him to give up on Schwartz.

[Bang]

Do you make up numbers? Is that why you have the gall to accuse others?

This is that site I looked at. I forgot that they were listing the top 20 DE salaries and my 10 mil was an estimate of average in the top 20. In any case, your argument based on the seven mil a coach makes is weak crap.

http://www.49erswebzone.com/forum/nfl/165803-top-salaries-2012-players-each-position/

DE:

Dwight Freeney, Colts - $17,035,000 - Signed thru 2012

Jared Allen, Vikings - $15,519,850 - Signed thru 2013

Elvis Dumervill, Broncos - $12,600,000 - Signed thru 2015

Julius Peppers, Bears - $12,400,000 - Signed thru 2015

Charles Johnson, Panthers - $10,750,000 - Signed thru 2016

Chris Long, Rams - $10,310,000 - Signed thru 2012

Mario Williams, Bills - $9,800,000 - Signed thru 2017

Tommy Kelly, Raiders - $9,500,000 - Signed thru 2014

Antonio Smith, Texans - $8,000,000 - Signed thru 2013

Will Smith, Saints - $6,433,333 - Signed thru 2013

Justin Smith, 49ers - $6,375,000 - Signed thru 2013

Kyle Vanden Bosch, Lions - $6,230,000 - Signed thru 2013

Justin Tuck, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2013

Osi Umenyiora, Giants - $6,000,000 - Signed thru 2012

Sedrick Ellis, Saints - $5,816,000 - Signed thru 2012

Jason Babin, Eagles - $5,775,000 - Signed thru 2015

Robert Mathis, Colts - $5,750,000 - Signed thru 2015

Chris Clemons, Seahawks - $5,300,000 - Signed thru 2012

Calais Campbell, Cardinals - $5,000,000 - Signed thru 2016

Trent Cole, Eagles - $4,600,000 - Signed thru 2017

I'm not accusing you of making up numbers.

I'm stating you absolutely did, and you've posted this and proven it.

those are the TOP Salaries.

In fact, i mentioned this in my post that you ignored.

YOUR words: "7 mil a year is chump change DEs make 10 mil average"

for one, the top SIX guys making over 10 mil do not constitute an average for defensive ends. Anyone who can read can see that in your post. it's right there above these words. Hell, the average of those guys above is only 8.5 mil, and they're the CREAM.

I already posted these numbers with this link last night http://www.spotrac.com/top-salaries/nfl/average/defensive-end/

You must have missed it in your dismissal. You probably should have looked, though, it might have saved you this embarrassing post I'm quoting now.

I then showed you that the ACTUAL average salary among defensive ends is 1.5 million.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/average-nfl-salary-by-position.html

You're dead wrong, you made it up completely to boost your entirely made up fantasy of Snyder's motivations for dropping 35 million on this coach, and now you're trying to prove it with a post that does nothing but utterly prove that you are totally off base in your assumption of the average salary of a defensive end. Roughly 7 times off.

So, yeah.

You're either to dumb to understand this conversation, or you're just being argumentative.

Next time you make up some numbers to support your totally speculative assertion, it''d probably be a good idea to not be off by so much, and it's probably a good idea to not try to prove your point with a post that completely shows how wrong you are..

~Bang

[daveakl]

I thought it did.

No, not at all.

To say that the goal of Snyder must not be to create the best team because his decision to hire Allen and Shanahan is different then your map is very telling.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I wanted Jim Schwartz here, not Zorn. But, he would not have put up with the Vinny and Dan show.

Schwartz has the brainpower to compete with Belichik. But, you would still need a GM.

Do you blame his personnel for Schwartz's 22-39 record? Based on this season, it would seem that 2011 was the anomaly right?

Edit: I saw your earlier reply...disregard.

[Oldfan]

No, not at all.

To say that the goal of Snyder must not be to create the best team because his decision to hire Allen and Shanahan is different then your map is very telling.

Then you need to explain why my reasoning isn't sound.

This is a question of probability.

If you want to buy a racehorse capable of winning stakes races, would the purchase of a five-year old with a well-established mediocre racing record make sense? Wouldn't you be more likely to succeed with a younger horse with more potential?

Given full control of the Broncos (1999 - 2008) Mike produced mediocre results over that span. Yes, it's possible that he could suddenly figure things out and do a much better job, but how likely is it? How likely is it that that five-year old racehorse is going to blossom into a stakes winner?

[daveakl]

Then you need to explain why my reasoning isn't sound.

This is a question of probability.

If you want to buy a racehorse capable of winning stakes races, would the purchase of a five-year old with a well-established mediocre racing record make sense? Wouldn't you be more likely to succeed with a younger horse with more potential?

Given full control of the Broncos (1999 - 2008) Mike produced mediocre results over that span. Yes, it's possible that he could suddenly figure things out and do a much better job, but how likely is it? How likely is it that that five-year old racehorse is going to blossom into a stakes winner?

I'm not sure why you are using this analogy again, it really does not fit in any way, shape, or form.

I never said that your reasoning wasn't sound. I said that your assertion that Snyder does not have the goal of being the most successful team because he did not follow your model is very telling.

[Oldfan]

I'm not sure why you are using this analogy again, it really does not fit in any way, shape, or form.

I never said that your reasoning wasn't sound. I said that your assertion that Snyder does not have the goal of being the most successful team because he did not follow your model is very telling.

If you didn't understand how the analogy fits, then you didn't understand my reasoning based on probability. And, if you didn't understand that hiring Shanahan made it less likely to succeed in becoming #1, then you wouldn't understand that Snyder would not have hired Shanahan if he wanted a coach to take the Skins to the top of the NFL.

[Bang]

If you didn't understand how the analogy fits, then you didn't understand my reasoning based on probability. And, if you didn't understand that hiring Shanahan made it less likely to succeed in becoming #1, then you wouldn't understand that Snyder would not have hired Shanahan if he wanted a coach to take the Skins to the top of the NFL.

So in other words, it doesn't matter that person after person has poked holes in your reasoning, and have shown you a myriad of ways how it can be unsound.

But you disagree, to the point of making up numbers, and then trying to stand on them after it's been shown to you how wrong it is.

You don't want anyone to prove anything to you.

You ask for people to prove your reasoning unsound, and as soon as they do, you dismiss them and say things like "You don't like my argument, i don't like yours".

fappityfapfapfap. Jackityjacksmackitysmack.

~Bang

[elkabong82]

No. I would be looking for the best combination of brainpower and experience I could find in a man with a promising future. I don't want a retread.

That's not a sound argument.

I don't think Snyder is willing or able to lead this team to #1. So, I'm lowering my goal. I'll be satisfied if I can watch RG3 perform -- healthy -- for several years.

So even though you admit your standards would have made you possibly miss out on Belichick, coach of the team you want to emulate and replace, you wouldn't revise your standards? That seems pretty self-destructive.

Historical precedent/trends are a sound argument. If something has never happened before then it is hard to believe it will happen. The odds are against it. If you're going to argue against that point you have to bring evidence. Simply countering with "no it's not" is bogus especially for someone making a thread calling for more reasoned arguments. You have told others that they have to prove that an argument is unsound, yet you didn't do the same.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don't know the inside scoop on Detroit. I don't know how much credit o blame to give him, but I would hire him to coach my football team.

I watched the end of the Colts/Lions game, the Lions defense on the last play, looked like they played zone with everyone pulled back into the end zone, seemed weird considering it gave Luck or a RB a free ride into the end zone, Luck threw a shovel pass and then game over. I was curious the next day how the Detroit press would characterize it, and a couple of articles globalized Schwartz as struggling with clock management and making curious decisions late in games. Granted that's just opinion. But for a defensive guru -- he hasn't made their defense anything special. He has IMO an above average QB with the top WR in the league. IMO this isn't a team bereft of talent. I haven't watched him though that closely, in small doses, he seems a bit high strung. In their one good season, you got him fist pumping like they won the super bowl after each win, the hot exchange with Harbaugh post game -- in the Thanksgiving game where he threw the flag and perhaps cost them the game, he blamed on being hot and emotional in the moment about the call in question.

Not saying being high strung is a bad thing, Bill Parcells was emotional too but more talk of him these days being canned than anything about being a hot coach of the future. Maybe unfairly? I don't know.

Here's one blog that summarizes some of the critiques on Schwartz.

http://rotoexperts.com/29591/detroit-lions-fans-deserve-better-than-schwartz/

[daveakl]

If you didn't understand how the analogy fits, then you didn't understand my reasoning based on probability. And, if you didn't understand that hiring Shanahan made it less likely to succeed in becoming #1, then you wouldn't understand that Snyder would not have hired Shanahan if he wanted a coach to take the Skins to the top of the NFL.

I don't understand how the analogy fits because it is a bad analogy. But I also would think based on it that you don't have a real understanding of horse racing and do not understand why it is flawed.

[Oldfan]

So even though you admit your standards would have made you possibly miss out on Belichick, coach of the team you want to emulate and replace, you wouldn't revise your standards? That seems pretty self-destructive.

Not at all. The Belichik hiring beat the odds to succeed. I want to beat him at the NFL game, but make it more likely that my plan succeeds in doing that.

Historical precedent/trends are a sound argument. If something has never happened before then it is hard to believe it will happen. The odds are against it. If you're going to argue against that point you have to bring evidence. Simply countering with "no it's not" is bogus especially for someone making a thread calling for more reasoned arguments.

Why is it hard to believe that a sound plan can succeed even though it has never been done before? We hear about such successes once a week in the business world.

Arguments can be supported with logical reasoning OR evidence; and they can be supported with logical reasoning AND evidence. The lack of historical evidence isn't an essential.

---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 12:44 PM ----------

I don't understand how the analogy fits because it is a bad analogy. But I also would think based on it that you don't have a real understanding of horse racing and do not understand why it is flawed.

I owned a small string of racehorses a while back.

We have no place to go with this. You think it's a false analogy. I disagree.

[pjfootballer]

I am still unsure how this thread hasn't been closed / people have not been banned. Had a vast majority of posters made this thread and then turned it into a bait and switch for them to argue and make fun of others, they would have been banned a long time ago. This is a common theme with threads from OldFan. I am not a Fan and it is getting Old.

It's a love/hate relationship for alot of people. Kind of like the gawkers that slow down to look at a fender bender hoping to see a body with a sheet over it.

[Hitman21ST]

Not at all. The Belichik hiring beat the odds to succeed. I want to beat him at the NFL game, but make it more likely that my plan succeeds in doing that.

Why is it hard to believe that a sound plan can succeed even though it has never been done before? We hear about such successes once a week in the business world.

Arguments can be supported with logical reasoning OR evidence; and they can be supported with logical reasoning AND evidence. The lack of historical evidence isn't an essential.

So, logically:

We take two very good offensive minds (Mike and Kyle), give them "the best QB in the NFL" along with a very good running back and good receivers, and give them a defense that, while it doesn't blow people away, has shown that it can make critical plays at critical times to win the game.

This is pretty much what Belichick did with the Patriots. Their defenses were never world beaters, they just made the plays at the right times.

We are following the "Patriot model" in a way, but are altering it to fit the Redskins. A sound plan that has a proven track record of being successful.

[Bang]

If you didn't understand how the analogy fits, then you didn't understand my reasoning based on probability. And, if you didn't understand that hiring Shanahan made it less likely to succeed in becoming #1, then you wouldn't understand that Snyder would not have hired Shanahan if he wanted a coach to take the Skins to the top of the NFL.

Reality be damned.

First off, even IF your ****amame notion that Snyder spent 35 million ONLY for name and mediocrity holds any water, you'd have to expect that given Snyder's history of being passionate and at least TRYING to win (albeit incorrectly), would mean that he gambled that Shanny WOULD be able to turn the team around. Given the amount he has spent on tyrying to win, even on simply BUYING the team in the first place,, to think that he would just shrug and say "I don't care,, get me to average, and give me a name who can do it" is SUCh a leap.. it goers against everything we've already known about Snyder.

sure he gets starstruck, but he has made his mistakes while trying to win.

And sometimes gamblers win. Even on long shots.

But I've never ever heard of a gambler betting enormous amounts of money to win because he just wants his horse to finish in the middle of the pack with a famous jockey.

But this is what you maintain.

Snyder doesn't really want to win, he just wants mediocrity and a name. And so he paid 35 million dollars for it... because you know, to those guys it's just chump change. ()

I don't know what's more comical,, listening to you try to prove that throwing away 35 million on mediocrity is Snyder's plan, or listening to you contort around that stupidity with all this other ridiculous "reasoning".

You demand everyone prove where your reasoning is unsound. And they do, over and over.

How about since you seem to be standing alone, why don't you prove where everyone else's reasoning is wrong.

Instead of just calling people stupid, how about prove them wrong? You know, with actual facts and such, not speculations. Should be easy for you.. since you've got it all figured out. There ought to be some references you can point to to back up some of your claims..

And try to do it without making up any numbers or other ridiculousness.

~Bang

[daveakl]

I owned a small string of racehorses a while back.

We have no place to go with this. You think it's a false analogy. We disagree.

Honestly, if you are being serious that you owned some racehorses then you would see that comparing the purchase of a five y/o horse that is a middle of the road finisher in stakes races to a young horse that has potential but has not ever shown they can win a race is a horrible analogy. Only looking at the age comparison (and not taking into account many other factors that go with owning horses) makes it flawed.

[Mahons21]

Why is the patriots defense of their championship years do consistently underrated? Harrison, vrabel, seau, Seymour, bruschi, mcginnest, Ty warren, ty law, lawyer milloy. That's a fair amount of house hold names for one defense.

[Oldfan]

So, logically:

We take two very good offensive minds (Mike and Kyle), give them "the best QB in the NFL" along with a very good running back and good receivers, and give them a defense that, while it doesn't blow people away, has shown that it can make critical plays at critical times to win the game.

This is pretty much what Belichick did with the Patriots. Their defenses were never world beaters, they just made the plays at the right times.

We are following the "Patriot model" in a way, but are altering it to fit the Redskins. A sound plan that has a proven track record of being successful.

There's not very much in common with the Patriots model.

If you look at the All-Pro Partiots in th Belichik era, the majority were on the defensive side of the ball. Yet, on the offense, Belichik was always ahead of the curve. On defense, Shanahan copied the 3-4 too late to take advantage of the personnel advantages.

Our offense is highly dependent on the QB position. Belichik's is not. Grade A pocket passers don't grow on trees, but finding a good one is much easier than finding an athlete QB.

There's more, but that's enough to make my point.

---------- Post added December-14th-2012 at 01:07 PM ----------

Why is the patriots defense of their championship years do consistently underrated? Harrison, vrabel, seau, Seymour, bruschi, mcginnest, Ty warren, ty law, lawyer milloy. That's a fair amount of house hold names for one defense.

I counted 20 Belichik defensive players who had been designated All-Pro -- several multiple times.

[Bang]

Why is the patriots defense of their championship years do consistently underrated? Harrison, vrabel, seau, Seymour, bruschi, mcginnest, Ty warren, ty law, lawyer milloy. That's a fair amount of house hold names for one defense.

Probably because their offense overshadows them. They've been very good, but not great on defense most of the time. They do what they have to do. (usually protect a fast lead)

Whatever flaws it has, Brady more than covers.

the brilliance of Bellicheck is knowing whenv to move players out. he is constantly and consistently retooling. Every draft he has more picks than rounds. every year they load up on young talent. So when they can mmove a guy like richard seymour for a first round pick, they do it, and they know his position is covered... and he has another high pick to play with.

and they can do this for one main reason. Continuity. They've changed schemes along the way, but they've kept continuity in key places (namely QB. Having arguably the best of all time makes success MUCH easier.)

In doing this they can scout players way in advance, because they know what they'll want them to do.

And when they can scout that far in advance because they know what they want to do, then tey can also make fairly drastic changes in approach and keep up the same level of success.

In the last 8 years or so, they've been to multiple Super Bowls.. and in that time they ran a hard running scheme peppered with short passing to small receivers (the deion branch's and Corey dillons..)

then they shifted that to a high flying vertical attack to taller and rangier receivers offense (Moss)

and then they had some adversity.. their best OL held out for a year, and they lost another one.. so they shift ON THE FLY to get away from the now vulnerable 7 step drop deep passing, and move into a quicker new offense in which tight ends are dominating.

the Pats now have more TEs on the roster than WRs..

But their defensive schemes stay pretty much the same with some wrinkles here and there. It's effective because it's a good scheme, he's a good coach, and they can acquire and groom the right players for it pretty much every single April..

In comparing them to us. we've had a multitude of coaches and guiding hands, and they've had one. That, and Brady, is Bellicheks secret to success. every year, retooling and reshaping, constantly building.

All teams who dominate show pretty much the same thing. The eagles, same thing, every year, more picks than rounds. . the difference is Andy doesn't adapt to his players.. he looks to conform players to his scheme,, which has not changed at all over the years. And we see the inevitable happening to him, while Bellichek looks like he might be going back to another Super Bowl.

~Bang

[Mahons21]

Wow thats impressive. One would think they'd get more recognition then they do.

Don't get me wrong, Brady had ice in his veins, during those runs. But I question if they win those superbowls without a dominant defense.

Brady's success to date is a large factor in that defense being overlooked, I would imagine.

[elkabong82]

Not at all. The Belichik hiring beat the odds to succeed. I want to beat him at the NFL game, but make it more likely that my plan succeeds in doing that.

Why is it hard to believe that a sound plan can succeed even though it has never been done before? We hear about such successes once a week in the business world.

Arguments can be supported with logical reasoning OR evidence; and they can be supported with logical reasoning AND evidence. The lack of historical evidence isn't an essential.

Then your perception of likelihood in that matter is off. Belichick was sought after, and it went beyond team record. Shanahan is still a good coach, and using the playoff win as the sole measure of performance is incredibly flawed, proof being that Belichick didn't really measure up either. If you want your plan to likely succeed then it takes more considerations than what you have presented. You need to look at the full context of a candidates resume. Summarily dismissing a candidate based on just 1 thing, like you did with Shanahan, eliminates good candidates.

Historical trend is evidence. We're not talking about a lack of evidence because the evidence does exist that Superbowl winning coaches have failed to reclaim the trophy on other teams in every single case. If you are going to incorrectly state that the argument is based on lack of evidence then I can state that your argument against Shanny and Bruce the past decade is also based on lack of evidence and therefor doesn't count. But that isn't true, since both of our arguments have failure as evidence.

However, your argument is debunked because Shanahan has won Superbowls in the past and does not eliminate the possibility he learns from mistakes and improves. There is historical evidence of coaches improving with new teams, at various levels too. The argument I've used on historical precedent is better and can only be countered with the fact that most trends eventually come to an end.

You ask why it is hard to believe a sound plan can succeed when it hasn't before, I ask why don't you think the Redskins currently have a sound plan?

You have already concluded the Redskins won't succeed under Shanahan, even though the possibility still exists, and you base it off past record instead of current state and by eliminating any possibility of improvement, as if people can't improve despite the fact it happens. That is poor reasoning and it is based on a ridiculous assumption, not reasoning because you have no actual evidence, that Snyder just wanted to hire a name to fill seats and doesn't want to win, even though winning fills seats and all of his actions indicate he wants to win.

In reality you disagree with the coaching hire but for some reason aren't just leaving it at that and instead you take it a step further and claim that because Snyder didn't do what you would have, then it means he doesn't really want to win. Perhaps arrogance is that reason, perhaps you're just jaded from Snyder's past actions, but whatever the case your bias has led you to a faulty assumption that you are trying to pass off as fact. Snyder wants to win, but for the longest time he thought he could just by a championship as evidenced by all the big name acquisitions. That was wrong, but to twist it any other way requires a lack of reasoning in favor of bias.

[Bang]

Wow thats impressive. One would think they'd get more recognition then they do.

Don't get me wrong, Brady had ice in his veins, during those runs. But I question if they win those superbowls without a dominant defense.

Brady's success to date is a large factor in that defense being overlooked, I would imagine.

Well, you'll note that they haven't won one in a while for everything i said above t is also true he has never managed to replace Bruschi and Vrabel and Harrison. Their secondary is very young and rather porous.

But, they're built to hold an ever growing lead, not win 10-7 slugfests.

~Bang