Triumph

nashvillepatsfan

some fans should read # 3, and 4

furry

Does anybody believe 4 is true?!

supafly

Nice link, Triumph. Every now and then I find myself on the bleacherreport.com site somehow, it's mostly quite unreliable and just made up by fans--but every now and then they actually put up something that is useful.

I did enjoy the stats that showed our comparitive sack totals (vs NFL average) in '01, '03, and '04--and the fact that we've had a top 8 scoring defense 8x in the last 10 yrs.

supafly

If #4 is the rushing totals, then I guess so..

The proof is in the pudding. I think those teams had a much better defense though, and the slightest rushing to keep other teams honest was good enough. There's always the 04 season though, with Clock-killin' Cory Dillon.

nashvillepatsfan

some people do. lol.

With the exception of 04 with Dillon, I think our running game has always been 'just enough'. I wish that would change, but Bill stopped listening to me a few seasons ago

resdubwhite

I'll wager Adam Vinateri does.

DarrylS

Three is compelling and negates some of the talk about finding some big named pass rusher, in reality a sack can come from any position on the field.

To find a D lineman or OLB who can put consistent pressure on the passer would be nice.. but he has to fit this system.

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

furry

4 was the section on us apparently having a great running game, which we never have and I can't see how anybody could ever state that we have

patfanken

Perfect assessment of the Bleacherreport, but your also right about Triumph's article. It was an excellent job.

Matt Roth came in for a work out, and I really hope that we sign him. Not because I think he'll solve the "so called" pass rush issue, but because he'll be a solid contributor to the entire defense. The two most important points he makes in the "sack" segment is that where you rank in scoring defense is the most important defensive stat, and that it has little relationship to how you rank in sacks. Secondly, having a great individual sacker is NOT necessary to have success as a team in getting sacks.

I also appreciated his comments on the running game. I don't think people appreciate how important the running game is BEYOND actually gaining yards. I think the "clock killin" aspect is very underrated. For every minuted your team can control the ball is one minute less your opponents offense can score. A 10 minute scoring drive is a much more effective method to win the game than a 3 minute one.

As to the "game that shall not be mentioned" I think the loss of Stephan Neal in the first series of the game was a critical and highly UNDERRATED loss. I don't think the Giants would have had nearly the success they had rushing the passer they had, if he hadn't gone down.

And I appreciated that he noted that the Packer superbowl loss was closer than the score indicated.