DocHoliday
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,023
- Reaction score
- 113
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.This is off the topic, but its been brought up a few times, so maybe it should be part of the conversation.
Did they play better with him, or is that just the perception and hope?
He played in 6 games, but one was J-ville where he really didn't play hardly at all. So we are really down to 5 games.
Those 5 included SF where we stunk on D, Miami who we dominated in the game he didn't play and we so-so in the one he did. Indy where Talib played poorly and was given a pass for being out of game shape. The Jets, which was a rout, but we did allow Sanchez to go 26-36-301. The 6th (and 7th if we count playoffs) was Houston, which would be a point in his favor.
Personally I think the jury is out on whether we actually played better if much better with Talib at corner. His injury issues that kept him out of many games including the AFCCG should be taken into account too.
Is it that we are so adamant in getting a corner that we are not only ignoring Talib's risk factors but also overrating his contributions? Personally I think people overrated his play during the season because it gave them hope the defense was 'fixed'.
I thought it was interesting that Bedsrd doesn't feel Arrington will be happy with slot corner money. Gotta wonder if the second CB the Pats draft is going to be Mathieu then. He'd be the slot replacement as well as the ST ace the Pats could use in a late round pick
No we did play better with Talib. Just look at what Boldin did to us before and after Talib got hurt. That pretty much destroys your whole argument. Ironically I see it as your perception and hope that we didn't play better play better with Talib b/c reality says otherwise.
How can we definitively know that?Against the Ravens, it wasn't Talib coming off the field that made the biggest difference. It was Cole going on.
This is based on a sample size of one game (and realistically, less than half a game with Talib actually involved). In the second half (where 75% of the Ravens points were scored), they also completely shifted gears offensively, essentially moving to the shotgun exclusively and attacking downfield. It's impossible to say how effective this would have been with Talib still in there, but it does point out that there were more factors at play than simply Talib vs. No Talib.
Not only that, it still doesn't answer the question: Was it Talib that made the defense better? Or was it having ANY halfway decent corner, allowing McCourty to shore up the safety position and Arrington to play the slot where he's better suited? The point is, no one is arguing that the Patriots need a CB, they're arguing that the CB doesn't need to be Talib given his list of risks off the field and seeming inability to stay on the field.
AndyJohnson said:. . . Did they play better with him, or is that just the perception and hope? . . . .
. . . Personally I think the jury is out on whether we actually played better if much better with Talib at corner. . . .
. . . . Is it that we are so adamant in getting a corner that we are not only ignoring Talib's risk factors but also overrating his contributions? . . .
Because they weren't abusing Talib's replacement. They were abusing Talib's replacement's replacement. The issue in that game wasn't the lack of a top-end CB, it was the lack of CB depth, namely a #4 CB that played terribly.How can we definitively know that?
Because they weren't abusing Talib's replacement. They were abusing Talib's replacement's replacement. The issue in that game wasn't the lack of a top-end CB, it was the lack of CB depth, namely a #4 CB that played terribly.
My problem is with Andy's post which questions whether the team was better with Talib or without him. To me that is utter non-sense.
Because they weren't abusing Talib's replacement. They were abusing Talib's replacement's replacement. The issue in that game wasn't the lack of a top-end CB, it was the lack of CB depth, namely a #4 CB that played terribly.
While I agree with Sciz, they clearly targeted Cole, we did have trouble sticking with Boldin who could just go up over whoever was guarding him.
Well we know that Talib fits in with our defense. He gets it. Whether or not his character issues will rear their ugly head, that's the big question. I mean how uncomfortable is it having one guy - Dennard who may see jailtime, and another who could be suspended at any time for another infraction - Talib as your starting corners?
I think we might see the use of the Transition tag. Either that or the Pats craft a contract with protection built-in like they did with Lloyd. One guy that might be worth pursuing with a prove-it deal would be Nnamhdi Asomugha. I find it hard to believe that a guy who was elite for so long could suddenly drop off a cliff. If he fits the system, he would be a classic 'buy low' and get huge rewards reclamation project type of player. Didn't we do something like that with Randy Moss?
No we did play better with Talib. Just look at what Boldin did to us before and after Talib got hurt. That pretty much destroys your whole argument. Ironically I see it as your perception and hope that we didn't play better play better with Talib b/c reality says otherwise.
From the Andy Johnson post I originally quoted
I agree with you Sicilian that we don't need Talib specifically we need anybody who is a quality #1 CB. My problem is with Andy's post which questions whether the team was better with Talib or without him. To me that is utter non-sense.
.