Freeney, Taylor vs Seymour.

[Flying Fungi]

Pretty sure Graham had something to do with that.

trade Graham!

:singing:

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I'll go out on a limb and say that Seymour makes a better 3-4 outside LB than those other two make DTs in a 1 or 2 man front, as Seymour plays from time to time.

 

[arrellbee]

bingo bingo bingo. Guys get rated so high simply based upon their limelight as a sackmaster. There is more to being an effective, balanced DE than a sackmaster. There is no doubt that Freeney does an incredible job as a pass rusher, but he can be shut down 1on1. In fact i believe a healthy Matt Light can shut down Freeney by himself.

Originally Posted by Digger44
I may be wrong on this, but I was confident that in our win run on Indy, Light drew Freeney 2-3 games and Freeny did not present any problems. Matt really stepped up and played.

Pretty sure Graham had something to do with that.

Actually, Digger44 had a pretty perceptive recollection.

I, as well as a lot of folks I'm sure, kept hearing the pundits and broadcasters talk about how the Patriots double teamed Freeney all the time. I was curious, so I started watching the last playoff game with the Colts play by play to see how often Freeney was double teamed. I kept looking ... and looking ... After getting through the whole game, the tally was - Light handled Freeney one-on-one the WHOLE game except for two plays. Ironically, those two double teams were the ONLY times that Freeney got pressure on Brady !! On one of the double team plays, Andruzzi was involved and Freeney got around him as Light passed him off to Andruzzi. On the other double team, it was actually a two TE block where one of the TEs came across in motion. That didn't work too well. A few times Freeney switched to left DE and was handled one-on-one on that side also.

The comments about Freeney being pretty absent on run defense are very pertinent also. The Pats ran quite a few times to Freeney's side and Light didn't let him get anywhere near a runner on any running play. The game log shows Freeney with 1 tackle I believe, but I never could see where it was.

The guy that I don't understand as to why he doesn't get more credit is right DT Monty Reagor. He did get double teamed a lot with Andruzzi and Koppen and still caused trouble. I think he got around 7 tackles/assists in the game. Likely the only reason they can afford for Freeney to be such a one-trick pony is actually because of Reagor playing so solid in the middle. It's kind of puzzling why Reagor doesn't seem to get much credit or mention, even on the IndyStar Colts board. It's all Freeney adulation.

 

[workhorse]

I challenge anyone to go watch some tape of a colts game and do nothing but watch the DLine. Then spin more than ballerinas... the whole lot of them. Sometimes you have the distinct pleasure of seeing synchronized spinning... it is quite entertaining. I swear that the spin move is the only move these guys are taught. Like Michigan Dave said, they take themselves out of a good many plays by spinning away from the ball carrier.

I think Freeney is one of the most overrated players in the league. He does have incredible speed for such a large man, but he is no Richard Seymour.

Are you bashing him because you honestly think he sucks or because he is a Colt? It's really hard to throw all three of these guys into a comparison because while they may hold the same lable as defensive end, they don't play the same position type.

I will admit that you can run at Freeney at times, but the man is so fast that he catches a lot of plays on the back side. I would be willing to bet that his numbers aren't too far off from Seymour's when it comes to tackles (and Seymour has 5 inches and 40 pounds on him right?). There are two things that are being over looked with Freeney here. First the guy is a turnover machine. We all know the game changing factor that turnovers can be. Second, Freeney commands so much attention that it frees up guys like Mathis to run wild.

Are three of these guys are very good, each will have people saying they are the best, but everyone here knows that they would love to have any of them on their team. And if you say you don't, you're lying.

 

[Digger44]

Actually, Digger44 had a pretty perceptive recollection.

I, as well as a lot of folks I'm sure, kept hearing the pundits and broadcasters talk about how the Patriots double teamed Freeney all the time. I was curious, so I started watching the last playoff game with the Colts play by play to see how often Freeney was double teamed. I kept looking ... and looking ... After getting through the whole game, the tally was - Light handled Freeney one-on-one the WHOLE game except for two plays. Ironically, those two double teams were the ONLY times that Freeney got pressure on Brady !! On one of the double team plays, Andruzzi was involved and Freeney got around him as Light passed him off to Andruzzi. On the other double team, it was actually a two TE block where one of the TEs came across in motion. That didn't work too well. A few times Freeney switched to left DE and was handled one-on-one on that side also.

The comments about Freeney being pretty absent on run defense are very pertinent also. The Pats ran quite a few times to Freeney's side and Light didn't let him get anywhere near a runner on any running play. The game log shows Freeney with 1 tackle I believe, but I never could see where it was.

The guy that I don't understand as to why he doesn't get more credit is right DT Monty Reagor. He did get double teamed a lot with Andruzzi and Koppen and still caused trouble. I think he got around 7 tackles/assists in the game. Likely the only reason they can afford for Freeney to be such a one-trick pony is actually because of Reagor playing so solid in the middle. It's kind of puzzling why Reagor doesn't seem to get much credit or mention, even on the IndyStar Colts board. It's all Freeney adulation.

Thanks dude, thats how I remembered it, but i am getting old. I am confident, and I say it again, a healthy Matt Light can handle Freeney 1on1.

 

[arrellbee]

It's really hard to throw all three of these guys into a comparison because while they may hold the same lable as defensive end, they don't play the same position type.

yes.

I will admit that you can run at Freeney at times, but the man is so fast that he catches a lot of plays on the back side.

Against the Pats in the last playoff game they couldn't run at him at will. He never got close to a runner. He never caught anybody from behind on the backside either - wasn't even close.

I would be willing to bet that his numbers aren't too far off from Seymour's when it comes to tackles (and Seymour has 5 inches and 40 pounds on him right?).

You already said that it's really hard...compare.. You are right. Seymour's responsibilities are very very different than Freeney's. In the 3-4 more tackles are made by LBs. Seymour's job has been explained well in other posts in the thread. By the way, you probably lose the bet anyway. Freeney had 34 tackles and Seymour had 46 tackles.

There are two things that are being over looked with Freeney here. First the guy is a turnover machine. We all know the game changing factor that turnovers can be.

Well, Freeney had 6 for the season - that's still less than 1 for every two games, but that's pretty good. Taylor had 4. I'm not sure I agree that forced fumbles are so highly important. At less than one every 2.6 games, I think I would value much more the ability to defend for stopped drives on a consistent basis - after all, those are 'turnovers' also.

Second, Freeney commands so much attention that it frees up guys like Mathis to run wild.

I'm not sure how the right DE can free up the left DE.

One thing that is really very important to consider about the Colts defensive 7. They are really specialized for game situations where the Colts are ahead and the other team must emphasize a passing game. This let's them heavily concentrate on pass rushing at the expense of taking risks with the running game. And because they get ahead regularly, the overall scheme works. You will notice that early in games or when the Colts are behind, the defensive line can give up some significant yards. The stats that you are so fond of come mostly against weak teams (of which the Colts played a bunch last year), when the Colts are way ahead in the score, or against weaker DTs. I suggest to you that this may be fine, but what Colt's fans discuss all of the time on their board is why they can't succeed in the playoffs against strong teams and would be glad to see a defensive scheme that was more aligned to winning those playoff games. Remember, it's the Pats that have the NFL all time record for winning streaks. It's going to be fun to see how Freeney does this year in the 4 games with the NFC East, the 4 games with the AFC East, and the games against Cincinatti and Denver.

Are three of these guys are very good, each will have people saying they are the best, but everyone here knows that they would love to have any of them on their team. And if you say you don't, you're lying.

Well, that's pretty obnoxious and presumptive. I would certainly never try build a defense with a one-trick pony like Freeney. You give up too much overall - and I would like to win playoff games and superbowls. I would say it's nearly 100% certain that Belichick would never even have a Freeney type on the roster - he can't or won't do what Belichick needs for a DE.

 

[workhorse]

yes.Against the Pats in the last playoff game they couldn't run at him at will. He never got close to a runner. He never caught anybody from behind on the backside either - wasn't even close.

One game does not make a player. One can find a game or two every season that even the best players don't look like it.

You already said that it's really hard...compare.. You are right. Seymour's responsibilities are very very different than Freeney's. In the 3-4 more tackles are made by LBs. Seymour's job has been explained well in other posts in the thread. By the way, you probably lose the bet anyway. Freeney had 34 tackles and Seymour had 46 tackles.

Their numbers aren't that far off. Seymour did have more that season, but the year before it was Seymour with 39 and Freeney with 34. For their careers Seymour averages 30 tackles a season and Freeney about 32. Sisnce Seymour missed a few more games than Freeney, I checked the per game average. Seymour averages 2.1 tackles a game and Freeney is at 2.0.

Well, Freeney had 6 for the season - that's still less than 1 for every two games, but that's pretty good. Taylor had 4. I'm not sure I agree that forced fumbles are so highly important. At less than one every 2.6 games, I think I would value much more the ability to defend for stopped drives on a consistent basis - after all, those are 'turnovers' also.

Freeney has 23 in four year, Seymour has 3 in five years, and Tyalor has 27 in nine years.

I'm not sure how the right DE can free up the left DE.

There are only so many guys you can use to block people. You really can't double team both ends at the same time. Or keep both or tight ends out of your passing game to be used as blockers.

One thing that is really very important to consider about the Colts defensive 7. They are really specialized for game situations where the Colts are ahead and the other team must emphasize a passing game. This let's them heavily concentrate on pass rushing at the expense of taking risks with the running game. And because they get ahead regularly, the overall scheme works. You will notice that early in games or when the Colts are behind, the defensive line can give up some significant yards. The stats that you are so fond of come mostly against weak teams (of which the Colts played a bunch last year), when the Colts are way ahead in the score, or against weaker DTs. I suggest to you that this may be fine, but what Colt's fans discuss all of the time on their board is why they can't succeed in the playoffs against strong teams and would be glad to see a defensive scheme that was more aligned to winning those playoff games. Remember, it's the Pats that have the NFL all time record for winning streaks. It's going to be fun to see how Freeney does this year in the 4 games with the NFC East, the 4 games with the AFC East, and the games against Cincinatti and Denver.

In the Colts loss to SD, Freeney had five tackles and a sack. That wasn't a game where the Colts had the lead and the D could just pin their ears back and rush the quarterback. Is Freeney better when he can just rush? Ya. But what defense isn't better when they can take one part of a team's offense away? That's what they are all trying to do.

Well, that's pretty obnoxious and presumptive. I would certainly never try build a defense with a one-trick pony like Freeney. You give up too much overall - and I would like to win playoff games and superbowls. I would say it's nearly 100% certain that Belichick would never even have a Freeney type on the roster - he can't or won't do what Belichick needs for a DE.

I don't think that it's either obnoxious or presumptive. You can say with a straight face that you don't want a player that average 32 tackles a year and has 51 sacks and 23 forced fumbles in 4 years player for the Pats? I've seen thread on this very board talking about Freeney's up coming contract status and people wanting the Pats to make a run at him.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I don't think the opinion of some fans equates to you being able to predict what Bioli wants. They would only use Freeney as an outside LB, and he would not be willing to take the loss in pay or the change of position unless he really gets sick of losing in the playoffs. :bricks:

 

[workhorse]

I don't think the opinion of some fans equates to you being able to predict what Bioli wants. They would only use Freeney as an outside LB, and he would not be willing to take the loss in pay or the change of position unless he really gets sick of losing in the playoffs. :bricks:

First, I never said Bioli, I was talking about the fans. Second, your opinion make you able to predict what Bioli wants?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

More so than a measly, whining little dog turd of a Colts fan. Why don't you go back to suckling Peyton's nutsack?

 

[arrellbee]

Well, a couple things. First, be assured that I'm not just trying to be difficult or whack at you. I'm trying to examine perspective and serious considerations.

Second, I think you are missing some major issues. That's certainly OK and especially for a fan type. But if we try to step back and take off the rosy glasses, I really do think Freeney has some serious shortcomings despite all of the hype.

Originally Posted by arrellbee
yes.Against the Pats in the last playoff game they couldn't run at him at will. He never got close to a runner. He never caught anybody from behind on the backside either - wasn't even close.

One game does not make a player. One can find a game or two every season that even the best players don't look like it.

OK. No problem - I certainly agree with that. But you have stopped with discounting one game without actually looking at more examples. I might also comment that, as far as I can tell, the serious Colts fans on the IndyStar board think that playoff games are VERY important !! And that was a playoff game and loser goes on vacation.
But let's look at 2005. In three games against teams who would end up going to the playoffs (NE, SEA, and CIN) Freeney had 0 tackles, 0 sacks, and 0 forced fumbles. In the second game with JAC he also had a complete goosegg. That's what I am trying to point out. A true top-notch player makes significant contributions in games against top opponents. In the two playoff games (2004-NE and 2005-PIT) Freeney had 1 tackle and 1 sack in each game. Maybe you define that as a top-notch production for a DE in a 4-3 system, but I don't think I do - ESPECIALLY in playoff games.
So it's not just one game that you can dismiss. There are 5 games against top teams in recent history.

Originally Posted by arrellbee
You already said that it's really hard...compare.. You are right. Seymour's responsibilities are very very different than Freeney's. In the 3-4 more tackles are made by LBs. Seymour's job has been explained well in other posts in the thread. By the way, you probably lose the bet anyway. Freeney had 34 tackles and Seymour had 46 tackles.

Their numbers aren't that far off. Seymour did have more that season, but the year before it was Seymour with 39 and Freeney with 34. For their careers Seymour averages 30 tackles a season and Freeney about 32. Sisnce Seymour missed a few more games than Freeney, I checked the per game average. Seymour averages 2.1 tackles a game and Freeney is at 2.0.

Again, I suggest you are missing a major point. First, 34 versus 46 is recent history - last year. And that is not 'pretty close'. And you are missing what a number of posters tried to say - Seymour's primary job is NOT tackles or sacks in the 3-4 defense - maybe you aren't that familiar with the 3-4 operation. His job is to occupy blockers and keep them off of the linebackers. The linebackers are expected to make the lions share of the tackles in the 3-4 scheme. On the contrary, most all teams running a 4-3 expect the linemen to make most of the tackles. Freeney ranks about 100th among defensive linemen in terms of tackles for 2005 AND 2004. I totally understand that the Colts use a scheme that empasizes the DEs primarily in pass rush. That's OK, but you simply can't make a case that Freeney is anywhere near a top-notch defensive lineman in terms of tackles.

Originally Posted by arrellbee
Well, Freeney had 6 for the season - that's still less than 1 for every two games, but that's pretty good. Taylor had 4. I'm not sure I agree that forced fumbles are so highly important. At less than one every 2.6 games, I think I would value much more the ability to defend for stopped drives on a consistent basis - after all, those are 'turnovers' also.

Freeney has 23 in four year, Seymour has 3 in five years, and Tyalor has 27 in nine years.

Again, to belabor the point - that's not Seymour's job. On the other hand, if you are making the case that this is a big aspect of Freeney's elite status, one FF every 2.6 games doesn't seem like a particular strength per se. As I said in the last post, the crucial importance to the TEAM is to stop drives and force a punt to 'turn over' the ball to the other team something like 10 to 12 times a game. I'm sorry - Freeney's forced fumbles of one every three games compared to a need to stop a drive 30 some times over that stretch just doesn't seem to be that big a deal - even if he's in the top 10.

Originally Posted by arrellbee
I'm not sure how the right DE can free up the left DE.

There are only so many guys you can use to block people. You really can't double team both ends at the same time. Or keep both or tight ends out of your passing game to be used as blockers.

Well, I can see what you are saying. Certainly you can't double team all of the defensive linemen in a 4-3 defensive scheme. But you are, nevertheless, looking at it a little simplistically. With one TE you have 6 offensive blockers. So you CAN double team both DEs. Simple math. If teams use a two TE set, like the Patriots do frequently, they could actually double team 3 defensive linemen. So your original claim that Freeney gets elite status because he can free up the left DE isn't particulary appropriate. Further, if teams have a left tackle at least as good as Matt Light (you probably think there are a number that are at least as good) we have seen in fact that teams don't even have to double team Freeney. So you can't give him 'elite player' status on that basis.

Originally Posted by arrellbee
One thing that is really very important to consider about the Colts defensive 7. They are really specialized for game situations where the Colts are ahead and the other team must emphasize a passing game. This let's them heavily concentrate on pass rushing at the expense of taking risks with the running game. And because they get ahead regularly, the overall scheme works. You will notice that early in games or when the Colts are behind, the defensive line can give up some significant yards. The stats that you are so fond of come mostly against weak teams (of which the Colts played a bunch last year), when the Colts are way ahead in the score, or against weaker DTs. I suggest to you that this may be fine, but what Colt's fans discuss all of the time on their board is why they can't succeed in the playoffs against strong teams and would be glad to see a defensive scheme that was more aligned to winning those playoff games. Remember, it's the Pats that have the NFL all time record for winning streaks. It's going to be fun to see how Freeney does this year in the 4 games with the NFC East, the 4 games with the AFC East, and the games against Cincinatti and Denver.

In the Colts loss to SD, Freeney had five tackles and a sack. That wasn't a game where the Colts had the lead and the D could just pin their ears back and rush the quarterback. Is Freeney better when he can just rush? Ya. But what defense isn't better when they can take one part of a team's offense away? That's what they are all trying to do.

OK. I'll use your argument from up above. It's only one game. That was a good game for Freeney. It's too bad that it didn't help the Colts win. As I mentioned in the above paragraph, there were 5 examples against playoff caliber teams where Freeney had 0 stats or was very ineffective. 5 games to 1. (By the way, San Diego was not a playoff team and were only 1 game over .500)

Originally Posted by arrellbee
Well, that's pretty obnoxious and presumptive. I would certainly never try build a defense with a one-trick pony like Freeney. You give up too much overall - and I would like to win playoff games and superbowls. I would say it's nearly 100% certain that Belichick would never even have a Freeney type on the roster - he can't or won't do what Belichick needs for a DE.

I don't think that it's either obnoxious or presumptive. You can say with a straight face that you don't want a player that average 32 tackles a year and has 51 sacks and 23 forced fumbles in 4 years player for the Pats? I've seen thread on this very board talking about Freeney's up coming contract status and people wanting the Pats to make a run at him.

Well, you said: "And if you say you don't, you're lying. " Well, maybe it was in the heat of the moment and you were just typing away. I hope it was that, because if it wasn't your comment was not only obnoxious and presumptive but it was just downright s**ty. The only way I can interpret it is that you say I am lying. I assure that I am not lying in the slightest. I have explained in a lot of detail why I feel Freeney is actually not a top DE, especially against playoff caliber teams - his performance seems to support that in fact. For all of the reasons I have given, I would start a lot of DEs rather than Freeney, even if he were on the roster. I certainly wouldn't spend any money to sign him as a free agent. I certainly can't fault any Pats fans who might credit the hype surrounding Freeney and think they might like him on the team. You have to take time to dig into what he actually contributes before you begin to have questions about whether the media hype is credible. However, you should be getting a lot of hints from knowledgable fans who have posted in this thread that not all Pats fans regard Freeney all that highly.

 

[workhorse]

More so than a measly, whining little dog turd of a Colts fan. Why don't you go back to suckling Peyton's nutsack?

You are pleasant. Is that the best you could do to add to a civil discussion?

 

[workhorse]

Again, I suggest you are missing a major point. First, 34 versus 46 is recent history - last year. And that is not 'pretty close'. And you are missing what a number of posters tried to say - Seymour's primary job is NOT tackles or sacks in the 3-4 defense - maybe you aren't that familiar with the 3-4 operation. His job is to occupy blockers and keep them off of the linebackers. The linebackers are expected to make the lions share of the tackles in the 3-4 scheme. On the contrary, most all teams running a 4-3 expect the linemen to make most of the tackles. Freeney ranks about 100th among defensive linemen in terms of tackles for 2005 AND 2004. I totally understand that the Colts use a scheme that empasizes the DEs primarily in pass rush. That's OK, but you simply can't make a case that Freeney is anywhere near a top-notch defensive lineman in terms of tackles.

Actually the Colts defense is designed for the linebackers to make most of the tackles too. The Colts' linemen are all quick and undersized by most standards (Corey Simon is the exception and he has only been there one year) and quick. They are supposed to penatrate and disrupt. Everyone is told to go after the quarterback and tackle the running back if he comes your way. By penatrating and disrupting is keeps the blockers focus on the linemen and away from the linebackers to make the tackles. I mean how else could Rob Morris have a couple seasons with 130 tackles? I wasn't saying that Freeney was among the league's leaders for tackles, I was just pointing out that his numbers weren't too far off from Seymour's. Neither of them are expected to have great numbers when it comes to that, both are counted on to make big plays when they are needed.

Again, to belabor the point - that's not Seymour's job. On the other hand, if you are making the case that this is a big aspect of Freeney's elite status, one FF every 2.6 games doesn't seem like a particular strength per se. As I said in the last post, the crucial importance to the TEAM is to stop drives and force a punt to 'turn over' the ball to the other team something like 10 to 12 times a game. I'm sorry - Freeney's forced fumbles of one every three games compared to a need to stop a drive 30 some times over that stretch just doesn't seem to be that big a deal - even if he's in the top 10.

Maybe we'll just have to disagree on this point, but turnovers seem to have more of an effect on the outcome of a game than stops on third down. Besides, that not the only thing he does, it's an added benefit to the sacks.

Well, I can see what you are saying. Certainly you can't double team all of the defensive linemen in a 4-3 defensive scheme. But you are, nevertheless, looking at it a little simplistically. With one TE you have 6 offensive blockers. So you CAN double team both DEs. Simple math. If teams use a two TE set, like the Patriots do frequently, they could actually double team 3 defensive linemen. So your original claim that Freeney gets elite status because he can free up the left DE isn't particulary appropriate. Further, if teams have a left tackle at least as good as Matt Light (you probably think there are a number that are at least as good) we have seen in fact that teams don't even have to double team Freeney. So you can't give him 'elite player' status on that basis.

If you double team both with both tight ends, then you can't throw to them and you limit the number of options you have in your passing game. Not to mention who is going to block to linebackers or force them to drop into coverage by running a pattern?

OK. I'll use your argument from up above. It's only one game. That was a good game for Freeney. It's too bad that it didn't help the Colts win. As I mentioned in the above paragraph, there were 5 examples against playoff caliber teams where Freeney had 0 stats or was very ineffective. 5 games to 1. (By the way, San Diego was not a playoff team and were only 1 game over .500)

San Diego was the best team not to make the playoffs and they were better than several that did. It's hard to argue game by game and it takes too long. I could point out in the Seattle that many of the Colts starters didn't play much since it came the week after there first loss. Or I could mention most of the games that you point out Freeney was shut out, Mathis had good games. Freeney is a weapon on the Colts' defense that teams now scheme against. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but many times it can cost the team in another way.

Well, you said: "And if you say you don't, you're lying. " Well, maybe it was in the heat of the moment and you were just typing away. I hope it was that, because if it wasn't your comment was not only obnoxious and presumptive but it was just downright s**ty. The only way I can interpret it is that you say I am lying. I assure that I am not lying in the slightest. I have explained in a lot of detail why I feel Freeney is actually not a top DE, especially against playoff caliber teams - his performance seems to support that in fact. For all of the reasons I have given, I would start a lot of DEs rather than Freeney, even if he were on the roster. I certainly wouldn't spend any money to sign him as a free agent. I certainly can't fault any Pats fans who might credit the hype surrounding Freeney and think they might like him on the team. You have to take time to dig into what he actually contributes before you begin to have questions about whether the media hype is credible. However, you should be getting a lot of hints from knowledgable fans who have posted in this thread that not all Pats fans regard Freeney all that highly.

I wasn't trying to be sh***y. But I find it hard to believe that if someone said you can have Dwight Freeney on your team, as is, many here would say no. BTW, why did you change my name in my posts?

 

[PATSNUTme]

Actually the Colts defense is designed for the linebackers to make most of the tackles too. The Colts' linemen are all quick and undersized by most standards (Corey Simon is the exception and he has only been there one year) and quick. They are supposed to penatrate and disrupt. Everyone is told to go after the quarterback and tackle the running back if he comes your way. By penatrating and disrupting is keeps the blockers focus on the linemen and away from the linebackers to make the tackles. I mean how else could Rob Morris have a couple seasons with 130 tackles? I wasn't saying that Freeney was among the league's leaders for tackles, I was just pointing out that his numbers weren't too far off from Seymour's. Neither of them are expected to have great numbers when it comes to that, both are counted on to make big plays when they are needed.





Maybe we'll just have to disagree on this point, but turnovers seem to have more of an effect on the outcome of a game than stops on third down. Besides, that not the only thing he does, it's an added benefit to the sacks.



If you double team both with both tight ends, then you can't throw to them and you limit the number of options you have in your passing game. Not to mention who is going to block to linebackers or force them to drop into coverage by running a pattern?



San Diego was the best team not to make the playoffs and they were better than several that did. It's hard to argue game by game and it takes too long. I could point out in the Seattle that many of the Colts starters didn't play much since it came the week after there first loss. Or I could mention most of the games that you point out Freeney was shut out, Mathis had good games. Freeney is a weapon on the Colts' defense that teams now scheme against. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but many times it can cost the team in another way.



I wasn't trying to be sh***y. But I find it hard to believe that if someone said you can have Dwight Freeney on your team, as is, many here would say no. BTW, why did you change my name in my posts?

Let me ask you this question, before I leave to play 9 holes. Please give a very direct answer.

If you had to choose between Seymour and Freeney to anchor your DL, who would you choose?

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Workhorse:

My comments toward you were not meant to be civil, perhaps you are stupid in the head or something?

Your argument is dumb as a brick in the hot sun. I don't feel the need to go on and on making excellent points like Arrellbee does, because you are a troll who doesn't 'get it' about Freeney being a one trick pony. If people like Arrellbee want to feed the troll that is up to them. But I don't think you want to 'get it' about Freeney, and I don't give a crap about some damn troll from the whining little jerkoff Colts. Go back to your Batcave, and clean Peyton's gunbarrel, or whatever it is you do when you aren't crying about your soft team.

I would love to see Freeney be the DT in a 2 man line, engaging blockers in a two gap style and holding his ground. I already know that Seymour can pass rush when allowed to, and if that was all he did, he would have around a sack a game, give or take. No big deal for Seymour.

Freeney will NEVER be a two gap lineman in any 3-4 system, and he will never be hired by the Pats to do what Seymour does. The fact that you question Freeney's value to the Pats shows you simply don't understand a two gap defense like the Pats run. Freeney does not control the line of scrimmage, he spins like a ballerina so as to AVOID the line of scrimmage.

To even explain this to you is just a waste of cyberspace, you little Colts troll.

 

[workhorse]

Let me ask you this question, before I leave to play 9 holes. Please give a very direct answer.

If you had to choose between Seymour and Freeney to anchor your DL, who would you choose?

Like I said in an earlier post, I would want any of the the three. I think the only thing that would make me shy away from any of them at this point in their careers is that Taylor has been in the league for several more years that Freeney or Seymour. At some point in time his freakish speed for his size will start to diminish. It would be hard to pick one over the other, it just depends on the style of the defense I guess. That being said, I am glad we have Freeney, but I would not complain about having Seymour. Though up until this past season when the Colts signed Simon, Seymour would have been by far the biggest lineman on the Colts.

 

[workhorse]

Workhorse:

My comments toward you were not meant to be civil, perhaps you are stupid in the head or something?

Your argument is dumb as a brick in the hot sun. I don't feel the need to go on and on making excellent points like Arrellbee does, because you are a troll who doesn't 'get it' about Freeney being a one trick pony. If people like Arrellbee want to feed the troll that is up to them. But I don't think you want to 'get it' about Freeney, and I don't give a crap about some damn troll from the whining little jerkoff Colts. Go back to your Batcave, and clean Peyton's gunbarrel, or whatever it is you do when you aren't crying about your soft team.

I would love to see Freeney be the DT in a 2 man line, engaging blockers in a two gap style and holding his ground. I already know that Seymour can pass rush when allowed to, and if that was all he did, he would have around a sack a game, give or take. No big deal for Seymour.

Freeney will NEVER be a two gap lineman in any 3-4 system, and he will never be hired by the Pats to do what Seymour does. The fact that you question Freeney's value to the Pats shows you simply don't understand a two gap defense like the Pats run. Freeney does not control the line of scrimmage, he spins like a ballerina so as to AVOID the line of scrimmage.

To even explain this to you is just a waste of cyberspace, you little Colts troll.

You are a piece of work. You call me a troll? Find one post of mine where I am trolling. You are the one with the trollish behavior.

I don't know why anyone would think that Freeney would ever play DT, let alone on a two man line. The man is 6'1" and 270lbs. Seymour is 6'6" and 310. If Freeney were to line up in a system similar to what the Pats play, we would be a pass rushing LB in the 3-4 and a down end when they change it up on occasion and play a 4-3. I wouldn't expect Seymour to line up as an outside backer for the Colts defense and I don't know why you would expect Freeney to play DT for the Pats.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Yes, I call YOU a troll. You are at a Pats fan site, not a Colts fan site.

Once again, you fail to grasp even the most basic logic. Seymour, like Freeney, would play on the line of scrimmage if he were a Colt, so what is your point? I don't see Freeney playing outside LB in the Colts system, and don't expect Seymour to either. Duh!

Secondly, I already covered that Freeney could only fit into the Pats as a LB and that he would not submit to the lower level of pay, or the change in position away from his precious ballet spin. But you, being a troll, asked me why I could possibly say what Bioli would want to do, and then, you being a troll, turn around and state the same thing about how Freeney would fit into the system. It ain't gonna happen that way, Bucko! Freeney will continue to play on the DL, for money and glory, and that means he won't be a Patriot.

The reason I compare Seymour to Freeney on the DL is because Seymour can pass rush quite effectively when he is allowed to, in a much more direct and intimidating style than your dancing boy. Freeney cannot, however, hold his water at the line of scrimmage. I am comparing the versatility of the players. Seymour could tear up the Colts D-line, while Freeney has no clear value to the Pats at any position, because we have never seen him play LB, he will cost too much, and he is a one trick pony. Even the Pats LBs are required to take on blocks in a two gap style, something Freeney has never done and probably never will.

To explain this to you is a waste of time. I don't plan on trying to educate you any further on why Seymour is versatile, and could play Freeney's position, or DT, or NT, and maybe even outside LB like a McGinnest. Freeney is only know to do one thing, EVER. That ballet move.

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

To even explain this to you is just a waste of cyberspace, you little Colts troll.

Just a little heads-up 5 Rings since you haven't been here long enough to interact with Workhorse in the past... if you define "Troll" as simply a fan of an oposing team, then sure Workhorse qualifies.

If, however, like me you define "Troll" as a poster who's primary purpose is to cause trouble, stir $#it up, and derail decent football conversations, while bringing very little of substance or value to the board, regardless of team affiliation -- then you're barking up the wrong tree on Workhorse. There are about three Colts posters who actually bring something to the table here, and Workhorse has historically been one of them. I don't much care for his arguments and I hate his team, but calling him a Troll devalues the title when used on creatures like AquaBoy4Ever, who truly deserve it.

And by the way, IMHO, if Freeney just had a little more height, he would be an absolute monster for us in the Elephant role that Willie filled so well. A monster. And his explosive speed could very well make up for the lack of height. Could you imagine having to game-plan for Seymour at DE on one side, and Freeney at OLB on the other? Yikes. Of course, the gamble would be how would he do on run-stuffing and edge-containment because he's never been asked to do those things before. Dungy basically has him rushing the passer every down with instrutctions to try to get any runner on the way by... the DL doesn't have to read and react in the Tampa 2. Still an intruiging fantasy.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Perhaps the reason I see trolls everywhere is that 18 year old Aqua boy and others roam the site freely, even starting their own threads.

As far as Freeney playing LB, I already covered this. He won't be remotely likely to take the huge pay cut or the status cut to change positions drastically to become an outside LB in a two gap system just so he can play for the Pats. The Pats are also not likely to try to do this, for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, imagining him being taller than he is, and a successful outside LB to boot, is not exactly what this ranking was about. It has been the fall back argument for various Miami/Colts Non-trolls, however.

Seymour, on the other hand, has been observed at every position on the D-Line, as well as some fullback/ tight end/ special teams, and doesn't need to change a thing to play any position on the line for any team in the league, with hardly any drop off, even trying to imitate Taylor or Freeney.