Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Is this really Super Bowl team?


Shocker

Recommended Posts

Realistically?  I mean sure a lot of good signs but this is not a Super Bowl team.  Otherwise, this is fan dreaming right?  IMO...way too many flaws here.  Coaching all the way down.  Just being realistic here.

Personally...before the season I never considered us a serious player to win it.  Just not there yet.

Aren’t we similar to Green Bay?  We “could” because of our QB and “might” put it all together and make a run but that isn’t realistic.  These teams doing something new, different that gives them a dominant edge win it.  And yes, Belichicks team is always in the mix with that QB and he is constantly changing.

This team top to bottom is good...but not Super Bowl level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Shocker said:

Personally I am going to enjoy the season...relax knowing we are flawed but knowing our owner will get us straight eventually.  It will be a while but keep pounding.

In a year I expect this team to look amazingly different.

I like your optimism and I want to believe we will get right eventually but we've already used up a lot of cam and Luke already. How much longer do they have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think y’all could be if y’all could somehow manufacture a pass rush. The pass rush (or lack there of) last night was just pitiful and will continue to hamstring the back 7 if nothing is done about it. I know y’all secondary has its own problems (like ours), but getting at least a little pressure on opposing QB’s will mask those deficiencies in most situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Iron Saint said:

I think y’all could be if y’all could somehow manufacture a pass rush. The pass rush (or lack there of) last night was just pitiful and will continue to hamstring the back 7 if nothing is done about it. I know y’all secondary has its own problems (like ours), but getting at least a little pressure on opposing QB’s will mask those deficiencies in most situations.

man, youre not wrong.

that lack of pass rush was hard to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, csuncc1989 said:

I like your optimism and I want to believe we will get right eventually but we've already used up a lot of cam and Luke already. How much longer do they have?

5 years at least. at that time luke will be 32 and Cam 34. More worried about luke than cam though, I think Cam will be with us for at least another 7 years. Ideally we extend him for 5 years after the 2019 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not nearly as pessimistic as many are here. 

We are a playoff team and if we can get things going defensively we could make it.

That game the other night was terrible.  It was also a short week and the Steelers did a better job of preparing for the short week than we did.  

In the playoffs you have, at minimum, the regular week to prepare.  In the SB you have 2 weeks.  I think our next game defensively will truly tell the tale.  If defensively we perform well.  Thursday night was not us, if we get hammered again.  We will be one and done.

I do think our #1 objective in the off season is Pass Rush.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're somewhere in the 6-10 range of best teams i think.  we could beat anyone, but we could also lose to anyone.  i do think the packers are a good comparison.   we really needed to do something when cam was on his rookie deal.  i don't think we're coached well enough to win now that he's off it.  we're not going to build a dynasty with this staff. they're not capable.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP https://support.google.com/assistant/thread/311339676?hl=en&sjid=11489775381582229063-AP
    • When we drafted Luke, we already had Cam, Smith, Olsen, Stewart, Deangleo, Gross, Kalil, CJ, Hardy, Beason, TD, Gamble (and maybe more I'm forgetting), we had a lot of great pieces in place. Going pure BPA for a player with Luke's potential when the LB you already have is different when you already have all those pieces in place.  Our OL right now is probably in a better shape than that team and our RBs and TE have potential compared to proven vets back then, but after that, the 2012 roster was in a far better shape than we are right now. We need a #1 WR, DEs, LBs, DBs, C, and depending who you ask a QB.  Going BPA at pick #5 when that player is a DT and your current best player on either side of the ball is a DT, seems irresponsible. If he's the only player they like that high left, then you trade back and go with position of more need at a slot that makes sense for the player while adding other picks.  If you trade back and he falls because other teams don't need/want a DT, then you consider him at that point because of the value.    
    • This sounds like the same back and forth when we drafted a LB when we already had a LB or as mentioned prior back to back DLs. I want the BPA, if it is another DT so be it. (No not a kicker/punter for those people that think they are funny))
×
×
  • Create New...