Late to the party Bedard on 98.5

[RobertWeathers]

Luck wouldn't be Luck with Seattles defense and Seattles defense may not be Seattles defense with Luck.
This is part of the issue with comparing players.
If you put up big stats because your D is weak you get overrated because of them, and then people assume you would do the same with a better D. In many ways they are interelated.

I disagree somewhat. I agree that a QB who chucks the ball around 40 times a game and builds a big lead now forces the opposing O to play catch-up and also chuck the ball around- thus forcing the D to change playcalling, etc. I get it. I think at the end of the day, a good QB is a good QB and knows how to manage a game and make plays with good players surrounding him and a good D will stop opposing offenses. Yes- Luck would change his game and may not put up the big #'s, but he would (I speculate...) still do very well in SEA system.

There have been many QBs who 'never had a good D' but in a lot of cases they have much to do with that. Don Shula didn't forget about defense when he drafted Marino. What he did was fall in love with throwing the ball, and therefore made it more difficult for his defense.
Style of play creates the perception of quality in a QB and also the quality of a defense.

Yes and no. The very good early 80's "Killer B's" got old and hurt and it took the late 80s for Shula to rebuild the defense with the likes of John Offerdahl, Bryan Cox, etc. Did he neglect the D- no, but it clearly slipped midway thru Marino's career because the talent wasn't as good.

Check out the 49ers of the 80s. I don't think they ever finished out of the top 10 in points allowed but also scored a ton of points.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Luck wouldn't be Luck with Seattles defense and Seattles defense may not be Seattles defense with Luck.
This is part of the issue with comparing players.
If you put up big stats because your D is weak you get overrated because of them, and then people assume you would do the same with a better D. In many ways they are interelated.

I disagree somewhat. I agree that a QB who chucks the ball around 40 times a game and builds a big lead now forces the opposing O to play catch-up and also chuck the ball around- thus forcing the D to change playcalling, etc. I get it. I think at the end of the day, a good QB is a good QB and knows how to manage a game and make plays with good players surrounding him and a good D will stop opposing offenses. Yes- Luck would change his game and may not put up the big #'s, but he would (I speculate...) still do very well in SEA system.

There have been many QBs who 'never had a good D' but in a lot of cases they have much to do with that. Don Shula didn't forget about defense when he drafted Marino. What he did was fall in love with throwing the ball, and therefore made it more difficult for his defense.
Style of play creates the perception of quality in a QB and also the quality of a defense.

Yes and no. The very good early 80's "Killer B's" got old and hurt and it took the late 80s for Shula to rebuild the defense with the likes of John Offerdahl, Bryan Cox, etc. Did he neglect the D- no, but it clearly slipped midway thru Marino's career because the talent wasn't as good.

Check out the 49ers of the 80s. I don't think they ever finished out of the top 10 in points allowed but also scored a ton of points.

 

[Rob0729]

On Browner, he needs more data on him. Said he was awful his first game back and not sure how much he had to do with the defense in the last two games. Was he a product of a good defense or was he a major contributor.

 

[Rob0729]

Thinks Luck will be better than Manning long term. Thinks he will be far better than Manning in the post season and that Manning is just an incredible regular season QB.

 

[Haley]

Bedard said that the Colt defense was better than the Pats defense until he was asked if he would take the Colts defense over the Pats defense in an actual game.

While the Colts might have a better defense than people generally credit them for, I really disagree with Bedard on ranking our defense lower than the Colts purely on stats. I mean, really, the Colts haven't played enough good teams to take their stats seriously. The Pats have a much more talented defense and they have shown that they can pull together when they need to. Who has tested the Colts D?

 

[Rob0729]

Bedard said that the Colt defense was better than the Pats defense until he was asked if he would take the Colts defense over the Pats defense in an actual game.

While the Colts might have a better defense than people generally credit them for, I really disagree with Bedard on ranking our defense lower than the Colts purely on stats. I mean, really, the Colts haven't played enough good teams to take their stats seriously. The Pats have a much more talented defense and they have shown that they can pull together when they need to. Who has tested the Colts D?

He said PFF has the Colts as a better defense. I don't think he ever said the Colts' defense was better.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Why would Tom need his fire lit? It's been burning like a wildfire for 15+ years. Or was that just a made up example?

I was going to say that it might have been Jimmy Garoppolo's agent feeding that particular rumor . . . and then I remembered that he (and Minitron, BTW) both have Don Yee—Brady's agent—repping them.

 

[Marqui]

On Browner, he needs more data on him. Said he was awful his first game back and not sure how much he had to do with the defense in the last two games. Was he a product of a good defense or was he a major contributor.

That's silly. Browner has been great these past 2 games. Don't know what games Bedards' been watching.

 

[Gronkandez]

Sounds to me like Bedard is just talking in circles. Wilson is better than Luck but I would take Luck with Seattle's defense...huh?

 

[Rob0729]

On Igconito, feels the Pats exposed something with the Broncos' o-line. Said they shuffled the deck last week on the interior of the line with the Raiders. Said it is something worth watching. Could be an issue with the Broncos going forward.

 

[Haley]

He said PFF has the Colts as a better defense. I don't think he ever said the Colts' defense was better.

Well, he was directly asked if he agreed and he paused for a second, and then his response was that the Colts defense is better than you think. He sounded like he wanted to agree but knew he would get roasted for that. Maybe that's just my take.

By the way, I think it was 'Mush Rush', not must rush.

 

[mayoclinic]

On Igconito, feels the Pats exposed something with the Broncos' o-line. Said they shuffled the deck last week on the interior of the line with the Raiders. Said it is something worth watching. Could be an issue with the Broncos going forward.

Wait, I thought the Broncos had an awesome OL and that we were the ones desperately in need of Incognito. I'm sure I read that on this very board not too long ago.

 

[Ring 6]

I disagree somewhat. I agree that a QB who chucks the ball around 40 times a game and builds a big lead now forces the opposing O to play catch-up and also chuck the ball around- thus forcing the D to change playcalling, etc. I get it. I think at the end of the day, a good QB is a good QB and knows how to manage a game and make plays with good players surrounding him and a good D will stop opposing offenses. Yes- Luck would change his game and may not put up the big #'s, but he would (I speculate...) still do very well in SEA system.

But thats the point, its speculation. Too many people equate stats with QB play, and really the consistent thread is winning. A ton of QBs can put up big numbers while losing, or win some, lose some games. What really separates a QB is making the plays that decide games. Sometimes those happen by getting an early lead, sometimes they happen late, and sometimes all game long.
There is no real way to do it, but if you separate out the meaningless stats (stats accumulated in a loss are meaningless to me, as are piling on when you already have won) then stats would be a good gauge. Otherwise winning is the #1 stat for a QB IMO.
If you look back at the greatest winners in NFL history almost all started on teams that stank. Brady, Bradshaw, Montana, Elway, Favre and Manning to name a few.
If you switch a winning QB with a losing QB, the teams fortunes would change, not the QBs in almost all cases.
That is not to say Luck is a loser, but to say Luck isn't better than Wilson because his cumulative numbers are better.

Yes and no. The very good early 80's "Killer B's" got old and hurt and it took the late 80s for Shula to rebuild the defense with the likes of John Offerdahl, Bryan Cox, etc. Did he neglect the D- no, but it clearly slipped midway thru Marino's career because the talent wasn't as good.

Check out the 49ers of the 80s. I don't think they ever finished out of the top 10 in points allowed but also scored a ton of points.

Miami D slipped because Miami changed its philosophy. The Miami defenses of the 80s were as talented as the Miami defenses of the 70s, but were playing on an uneven field of being paired with an offense that threw the ball all over the field, leading to more points, but also more short field, time on the field and difficulty for the defense.
The 49ers are not a good comparison. The WCO (especially their version) is a ball control offense and as friendly in support of your own D as any run first offense.

 

[Ring 6]

Bedard said that the Colt defense was better than the Pats defense until he was asked if he would take the Colts defense over the Pats defense in an actual game.

While the Colts might have a better defense than people generally credit them for, I really disagree with Bedard on ranking our defense lower than the Colts purely on stats. I mean, really, the Colts haven't played enough good teams to take their stats seriously. The Pats have a much more talented defense and they have shown that they can pull together when they need to. Who has tested the Colts D?

Patriots D is ranked high in both points and yards than the Colts.

 

[Haley]

Patriots D is ranked high in both points and yards than the Colts.

He was quoting DVOA from football outsiders.

Edit:
Link for ya
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

That's silly. Browner has been great these past 2 games. Don't know what games Bedards' been watching.

I agree...Browners presence out there is a big part of it...even revis said it

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Sounds to me like Bedard is just talking in circles. Wilson is better than Luck but I would take Luck with Seattle's defense...huh?

He does that sometimes

 

[Joker]

I just had my porcelain, oversized commode enameled inside the bowl with a picture of Manning with his mouth open...and a red triangle on his massive forehead...I call it the "Big Bad Browner Repository"...

 

[Oswlek]

He was quoting DVOA from football outsiders.

Edit:
Link for ya
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef

It is pretty fascinating how similar NE and Indy are according to DVOA right now. Total DVOA (14%/13.8%), offensive DVOA (9.1%/9.9%), defensive DVOA (2.3%/1.9%)... hell, even special teams (7.3%/5.8%)!

The similarities continue if you dig deeper, both are elite passing offenses who can't run, and both are average pass defenses and marginally below average run defenses. I wonder if there has even been a match between two teams so evenly matched across the board.

Of course, NE's numbers include their first month, so there is reason to believe they aren't an accurate representation of the team that will take the field Sunday night.

*All DVOA data is from week 9, but since both teams had a bye this week, they shouldn't change all that much.

 

[Oswlek]

On Browner, he needs more data on him. Said he was awful his first game back and not sure how much he had to do with the defense in the last two games. Was he a product of a good defense or was he a major contributor.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with Bedard on that one. Browner wasn't quite ready his first week, but he did a fine job against Chicago and was excellent last week. I can't fathom how anyone could form another conclusion.