Official NFL 2007 Thread

[alldaws1]

I was at work for the games today, I did get to listen to the 3rd quarter on my lunch break. If anyone had told me Maroney would've had 100 yards I would have said the Jags didn't stand a chance. You take away his performance and who knows what would've happened.

Brady would have thrown for 100 more yards to make up for it

[HailtotheYo]

Weren't there a handful of people saying something about the Jags beating the Pats ?

Yeah, Garrard isn't going to take that team to an AFC Title game or Super Bowl .... FACT

Wow, brilliant deduction there, tell me what was your first clue?

While other people can go further than one post, and recall things in this thread that were discussed earlier you choose to be ignorant just so you can post yet more personal shit aimed at me. Fine, be an idiot. I'll have to begin each post with a spoiler tag spelling out every single bit of what my post means and refers to just so you stand a chance of getting it. You clearly can't think so I'm sure the explination that follows will be beyond you as well.

For everyone else, I was talking about the conversations about Garrard in earlier posts. You know, the ones talking about him being 'good enough' and 'servicable' and all sorts of other shit saying that he was good. Well yeah, he's good, but after watching his two games in the playoffs this year there is no way that the Jags go to the AFC Title game or Super Bowl with him as their QB. Sure, he isn't going to blow it for you like Eli has for the Giants, but he isn't going to do anything special and he doesn't have that "something" that other QB's (peyton/brady) do. Their D and running game aren't good enough to overcome teams like the Patriots and Colts. They need someone else at QB. Sure, Garrard will keep them at their current state .... a good team just under the level it takes to win it all. I'm not saying he's a horrid QB or that he makes bad passes all the time. I'm just putting it out there that the Jags won't get further than they are now with him as their QB.

[JStarr]

Really, I don't see any particular reason Garrard CAN'T take the Jags to a Super Bowl. But he needs that one big-time bad-ass receiver to get it done. Most of the incompletes that I was seeing were drops. And they'll have to get one soon before Taylor hangs up his helmet. Rumors are starting to fly that the Cardinals might not be able to keep both Fitzgerald and Boldin...if the Jags had someone like one of them, shit. I'd call them a definite contender and borderline favorite.

Should be more like...

Weren't there a handful of people saying something about the Jags beating the Pats ?

Yeah, Northcutt/Matt Jones/Williams/Wilford aren't going to take that team to an AFC Title game or Super Bowl .... FACT

Before this season, all the things you're saying about Garrard were the same ones I was saying about Ben Roethlisberger. And that was AFTER he'd just won a Super Bowl. I saw him as a guy who could never win games by himself because he had the defense and running game to fall back on. This year, he did just that for most of the year.

I dunno, I still like Garrard quite a bit, and if he does get the Jags to a Super Bowl sometime in the future, this post will get dug out of the archives. 'Cuz I like to say I told ya so.

[Maxx]

Oh forgive me for not having an encyclopedic knowledge of your posts, especially when the ones I've dealt with most are borderline worthless and easily disproved. What I do know is that you hadn'tposted in this thread since the Steelers/Jags game last week, so I was a bit annoyed to see you come out and act like you'd been predicted Patriots victory for the last week.

Trent Dilfer won a Superbowl, Brad Johnson won a Superbowl, David Garrard sure can. Know where taking him out at QB gets the Jags? Absolutely no where and in a much worse place than they are now. The Jags need a playmaker at wide receiver, badly. Reggie Williams has developed into a nice red zone threat, Matt Jones has alot of potential, but the Jaguars have still be devoid of a playmaker at WR since Jimmy Smith.

The Jags defense and running game are perfectly fine. The defense was lacking Marcus Stroud and Mike Peterson last night, and if you don't think they'd have made a huge difference against the Pats running game, well then you aren't worth talking to. The Jags need another DB, as Rashean Mathis can't cover everyone.

The running game will get better when the passing game gets better. The Jags were able to score with passing TDs last night because the Pats were setting up to stop the run ALOT. Why? The Jags running game is very good, but their passing game isn't.

18 TDs, 3 INTs and the problem is the QB? No. If they had a Terrell Owens or a Randy Moss on the team, they'd be leaps and bounds better. But they don't have that big playmaker presence in the passing game, so a team like the Pats can play light in pass protection and load up to stop the run and the Jags can't win.

David Garrard is absolutely not the problem in Jacksonville.

[Trey]

Weren't there a handful of people saying something about the Jags beating the Pats ?

Yeah, Garrard isn't going to take that team to an AFC Title game or Super Bowl .... FACT

[naiwf]

Really, I don't see any particular reason Garrard CAN'T take the Jags to a Super Bowl.

[Maxx]

Bold prediction, you never know whats going to happen or when an injury might occur, and if the Jags can get a playmaking WR, their chances increase huge.

[HailtotheYo]

Trent Dilfer won a Superbowl, Brad Johnson won a Superbowl, David Garrard sure can.

They both had the benefit of having respectively, arguably the greatest defense ever and one of the ten greatest defenses ever. Trying to compare those two with the defense that Garrard has behind him is idiotic. Johnson and Dilfer didn't have to do anything other than NOT lose them the game. Garrard needs to do more than that because the Jags defense (while good) isn't anywhere near the Bucs/Ravens defenses of Dilfer and Johnson. It isn't like Dilfer had anyone overly spectacular on his WR corp either. Sure, Qadry was fast, but he by no means was a great WR. Johnson had McCardell and Keyshawn .... two very good WR's. The biggest thing that both of the QB's you mentioned had going for them though, is the D .... Garrard's isn't even close. Garrard needs to be something more than he is presently, and I don't see him as being able to do more than he did this year. Hell, he may not even be able to have this year again next year. Besides, there's more to it than just what he DOES. What he DOESN'T do (as I mentioned before) plays a part in it as well.

Know where taking him out at QB gets the Jags? Absolutely no where and in a much worse place than they are now. The Jags need a playmaker at wide receiver, badly. Reggie Williams has developed into a nice red zone threat, Matt Jones has alot of potential, but the Jaguars have still be devoid of a playmaker at WR since Jimmy Smith.

Well, there's this thing called the Draft, not sure if you've heard of it. This year there are several viable options in this years draft that would serve as a GREAT understudy of a very compitent QB such as Garrard. There are guys in this year's draft that would provide that 'something' extra that Garrard doesn't have. As has been said before, he's servicable and would be a great teacher. Personally, while they don't have a stop the presses WR corp, it is CERTAINLY as good as the one that Dilfer managed.

The Jags defense and running game are perfectly fine. The defense was lacking Marcus Stroud and Mike Peterson last night, and if you don't think they'd have made a huge difference against the Pats running game, well then you aren't worth talking to. The Jags need another DB, as Rashean Mathis can't cover everyone.

Yes, the defense and running game are perfectly fine. I agree that they're good enough to progress. You also just eliminated aspects of the Jags that aren't Garrard. Kind of takes away from defending him really. I mean ..

The running game will get better when the passing game gets better. The Jags were able to score with passing TDs last night because the Pats were setting up to stop the run ALOT. Why? The Jags running game is very good, but their passing game isn't.

... did you read that ? Yeah, they're passing game needs to get better, and isn't very good. You said so yourself and I agree. Last I checked, the QB is where the passing game starts.

18 TDs, 3 INTs and the problem is the QB? No. If they had a Terrell Owens or a Randy Moss on the team, they'd be leaps and bounds better. But they don't have that big playmaker presence in the passing game, so a team like the Pats can play light in pass protection and load up to stop the run and the Jags can't win.

And that's the difference between himself and Manning or Brady. Brady won without a great WR corp before Moss showed up. Manning is known for being the Colts offensive coordinator. Garrard ? The Jags have improvised a gameplan that is effecient and works off the run. Anyone can do that, and there are more than a handful of QB's that can run it. Garrard is good, yes. He isn't anything special and certainly doesn't have the defense reading ability of a Manning, or the management of a Brady. Ok, those 18 TDs and 3 INTs did what ? Got them exactly as far as they'd been coming and nothing more. Not to mention that he equaled in two playoff games, his INT total for the season. It also doesn't help him that he threw his three INT's in three of the last four games he played this year, otherwise known as the home stretch. That doesn't sound like Super Bowl or AFC Title QB play does it ? He doesn't change the game and isn't dynamic in a way that is going to push the Jags over the hump.

David Garrard is absolutely not the problem in Jacksonville.

There's a difference between being THE problem, and just not being what's needed to be the solution. Garrard isn't the solution in Jacksonville. He won't pull the team down, however he won't push them up either.

[livid]

Garrard is fine; the receivers aren't. If Garrard had a legit #1 threat at WR we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If you're suggesting that Garrard doesn't have the "it" factor, may I rewind to the 4th down run he had against the Steelers last week? To make a play like that, you have to have confidence, you have to have moxy and you have to be able to see when an opening is there and he did all of that. He didn't get them to the Superbowl, no, but in his first full year as a starter, he got them further than Leftwitch ever did. Give him some targets in the passing game and he'll be more than serviceable but Garrard, is by no means, the reason why the Jaguars didn't win because he had a good game. However, he has nobody to throw the ball to and that creates a problem when people are stacking against the run. For 3 straight years they tried to find the answer with high draft picks on WR's but none of them have panned out and all of them have problems with dropping the ball.

On another note, how about Gates playing through the pain of a dislocated big toe?

Edited January 13, 2008 by Disco King

[OGpistolpete]

The NFL REALLY wants the AFC Championship game between Indianapolis and New England.

San Diego is getting some sketchy calls against them.

[naiwf]

The NFL REALLY wants the AFC Championship game between Indianapolis and New England.

San Diego is getting some sketchy calls against them.

[livid]

It's not enough when those big possession receivers all suck dick and have problems with dropping the ball. If Garrard has a legit threat at WR, then the team doesn't have to rely on the running game all the time and thus, will, in the end, make the running game better because there is a passing threat out there. The Jaguars need a guy who Garrard can count on, he needs to trust his receivers and with their current group of receivers, I'd find it hard to trust them to catch the ball myself.

[naiwf]

It's not enough when those big possession receivers all suck dick and have problems with dropping the ball. If Garrard has a legit threat at WR, then the team doesn't have to rely on the running game all the time and thus, will, in the end, make the running game better because there is a passing threat out there. The Jaguars need a guy who Garrard can count on, he needs to trust his receivers and with their current group of receivers, I'd find it hard to trust them to catch the ball myself.

[Thatz]

Yeah, I was really looking foward to seeing the rematch between the Colts and the Patriots next week. Instead we'll be lucky to get a close game...

[Maxx]

Trent Dilfer won a Superbowl, Brad Johnson won a Superbowl, David Garrard sure can.

They both had the benefit of having respectively, arguably the greatest defense ever and one of the ten greatest defenses ever. Trying to compare those two with the defense that Garrard has behind him is idiotic. Johnson and Dilfer didn't have to do anything other than NOT lose them the game. Garrard needs to do more than that because the Jags defense (while good) isn't anywhere near the Bucs/Ravens defenses of Dilfer and Johnson. It isn't like Dilfer had anyone overly spectacular on his WR corp either. Sure, Qadry was fast, but he by no means was a great WR. Johnson had McCardell and Keyshawn .... two very good WR's. The biggest thing that both of the QB's you mentioned had going for them though, is the D .... Garrard's isn't even close. Garrard needs to be something more than he is presently, and I don't see him as being able to do more than he did this year. Hell, he may not even be able to have this year again next year. Besides, there's more to it than just what he DOES. What he DOESN'T do (as I mentioned before) plays a part in it as well.

Know where taking him out at QB gets the Jags? Absolutely no where and in a much worse place than they are now. The Jags need a playmaker at wide receiver, badly. Reggie Williams has developed into a nice red zone threat, Matt Jones has alot of potential, but the Jaguars have still be devoid of a playmaker at WR since Jimmy Smith.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Maxx

[y2jerichoholic]

It's all clear now. Billy Volek>Phillip Rivers.

[mikevandam]

man it was nice to see the colts get turned sideways. And that hit on Reggie Wayne (?) was brutal

[Hellfire]

San Diego's fucked next week if Rivers and LT are both out. No Indy, beat up SD... I love it.

[HailtotheYo]

Note A: Wow, Maxx either can't, or just chooses not to read what is actually written in others' posts. Specific example is me saying that I agree the Jags D is good enough to progress, but him convaluting that into me thinking that their D isn't very good. Whatever. Note made, Maxx now ignored. Well in one moment that is. Yes, she was induced on Wednesday night, hence the week long absence from posting that you magically had an account of even though you don't claim to have encyclopedic knowledge of my posts. But you either went an looked it up, or already knew it and either way that makes you a douche. No, you're a piece of shit. My family has nothing to do with a discussion on a forum on the internet. I would pose the same question to you, but know better than to think you have anything in your life worth being away from here for. Now Maxx is ignored.

Note B: Yeah the argument can be made for better WR's but so can the argument that a standout WR isn't needed in order to win. Perfect example is the Ravens that won the Super Bowl with a subpar QB AND WR corp. But the Jags are built to run. They've drafted their team as such. They've built a running team. Del Rio is old school and his team reflects it. In order to turn the passing game around you have to start building a different way than what they've done to this point. That means not only drafting those "playmaker" WR's, but also drafting a QB that isn't built for a running team (like Garrard is). As was mentioned in a post earlier, dinking and dunking isn't going to get it done at the "top" of the league. Sure Garrard is going to be effecient in that regard. If you've paid attention though, he hasn't been on that same note when he's had to consistantly press with the passing game. As long as its managable within the gameplan he's fine. He's very limited though.

[NobBe Nobbs]

That means not only drafting those "playmaker" WR's, but also drafting a QB that isn't built for a running team (like Garrard is).

Edited January 14, 2008 by De