View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 31st, 2014, 7:05 pm



Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Peter Konz 
Author Message
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: WSU
Post Re: Peter Konz
i think you are forgetting the 3 FOURTH downs that the Saints went for


January 25th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: WSU
Post Re: Peter Konz
Would love to have Konz but Im not sure how much of a power player Konz is. He could play G but I dont think he d be exceptional at it, probably a strong upgrade though. Probably could get a better guard in the 2nd or 3rd rd and I have to believe that a team taking him in Rd 1 wants him to start at C. I see the Lions happy w Raiola and not drafting Konz even if he s there.


January 25th, 2012, 6:01 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3841
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Peter Konz
The Legend wrote:
i think you are forgetting the 3 FOURTH downs that the Saints went for

you are correct....I did forget that.

but just to add to my point...thats 3 opportunities to rest.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 25th, 2012, 6:06 pm
Profile
Post 
regularjoe12 wrote:
isnt the obvious answer "make a freakin stop"?\

I mean I understand what you are saying..buttime of possesion is a two way street. if you are on defense and want a rest...stop em on 3rd down....at least ONCE in a game.


NO! The DEFENSE DID MAKE THEIR STOPS, WHEN THEY WERE RESTED. THAT'S MY POINT. They made stops in the first Q AND in the second Q, but the offense kept putting them back out there without any rest.

That's ALL on the offense, and that's NOT a two way street.


January 25th, 2012, 6:12 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3841
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
isnt the obvious answer "make a freakin stop"?\

I mean I understand what you are saying..buttime of possesion is a two way street. if you are on defense and want a rest...stop em on 3rd down....at least ONCE in a game.


NO! The DEFENSE DID MAKE THEIR STOPS, WHEN THEY WERE RESTED. THAT'S MY POINT. They made stops in the first Q AND in the second Q, but the offense kept putting them back out there without any rest.

That's ALL on the offense, and that's NOT a two way street.



ok refresh my memory...with the exception of 2 fumble recoveries tell me about one of those stops please? Their punter never stepped onto the field.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 25th, 2012, 6:14 pm
Profile
Post Re: Peter Konz
RJ, I'm not doing it again. I JUST got done outlining the end of the 2nd half and start of the third Q.


January 25th, 2012, 6:19 pm
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3841
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Peter Konz
wjb21ndtown wrote:
m2karateman wrote:
And once again, let me reiterate....blaming OUR offense on the New Orleans loss in the playoffs is outrageous. It's the offense that works to score points, not prevent the other offense from scoring points. That's the job of the defense, and they failed miserably in the second half of the game. Having a semblance of a running game wouldn't have made that much difference. Certainly not to the tune of 17 points. Our offense scored 28 points. They did their job. The defense failed in that game, as well as in the last game of the season against Green Bay. It's not like our offense was giving the Saints the ball on a short field. Same with Green Bay. I want the Lions to have a better defense, and I would like to see a more consistent running game. But don't blame the lack of one on the failing of another.




M2 - to be clear, I don't fault our offense for not scoring enough points. I do fault them for not taking advantage of the defensive turnovers, but the primary reason I blame the offense for the N.O. loss is because they couldn't sustain drives. We only held the ball for 5 minutes and 13 seconds in the second Q. We went three and out taking 30 whopping seconds off of the clock our last possession of the second half, after which time N.O. marched down the field effortlessly with ONE DRIVE that took 5:03 seconds off of the clock to kick a FG to end the half. I give the defense a free pass from here on out. They were on the field for 3 minutes and 38 seconds of clock time, probably about 7-8 minutes of real time, forced a fumble, and got a WHOPPING 30 seconds of game time rest, probably about a minute and a half. That's on the offense, NOT the defense. From that point on they were gassed and demoralized, and I can't blame them for that.

THEN N.O. came out of the 1/2 putting our D right back on the field, scored, and we went three and out again! We only possessed the ball for 5 minutes 34 seconds in the 3rd quarter. That's ridiculous and ENTIRELY THE OFFENSE'S FAULT.

To start the 4th Q we had a 1 play 1 interception drive, again giving our D zero rest then we FINALLY put one drive together and scored before throwing yet another INT to end the game. We possessed the ball for around 3 minutes and 20 seconds for the 4th quarter.

You tell me how the defense was at fault, and I'll excuse them. They played their ASSES off the first quarter and for the majority of the 2nd quarter, until the OFFENSE kept screwing them and sending them out there on short rest.

ok here is the post...where does it say the D stopped thier drives other than the 2 forced fumbles? Common man even in the first N.O. was driving with ease. I was texting my buddy updates of the game I just re read those. I mentioned 3 times in the 1st quarter how easily our d was giving up ground. I'm having a hard time seeing how thats the offenses fault is all I'm saying.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 25th, 2012, 6:27 pm
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:11 pm
Posts: 1061
Location: Wolverine, Mi.
Post Re: Peter Konz
Getting back on topic, I'm amazed by all the imbibing of Konz Koolaid. By the time the draft arrives he may not even be a 1st round pick anymore. I recall few years back when Oher was listed as a top 5 pick. I'm not opposed to a replacement at C, it's just that I'm not yet convinced he should be the slam-dunk pick at 23. In fact, I'm hoping for a trade back more than ever this year.


January 25th, 2012, 9:52 pm
Profile
Team MVP
User avatar

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pm
Posts: 3365
Location: Saginaw, MI
Post Re: Peter Konz
liontrax wrote:
Getting back on topic, I'm amazed by all the imbibing of Konz Koolaid. By the time the draft arrives he may not even be a 1st round pick anymore. I recall few years back when Oher was listed as a top 5 pick. I'm not opposed to a replacement at C, it's just that I'm not yet convinced he should be the slam-dunk pick at 23. In fact, I'm hoping for a trade back more than ever this year.


Really? How far do you want to trade back, and to take who? Is there anyone that far back that will come in and make an immediate upgrade?

_________________
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:44p.m. "The Detroit Lions select...Ndamukong Suh". Those are some beautiful words.


Lionbacker2 Fantasy Champion 2011


January 25th, 2012, 10:35 pm
Profile
5th Round Pick - Traded

Joined: March 21st, 2005, 2:11 pm
Posts: 1061
Location: Wolverine, Mi.
Post Re: Peter Konz
kdsberman wrote:
liontrax wrote:
Getting back on topic, I'm amazed by all the imbibing of Konz Koolaid. By the time the draft arrives he may not even be a 1st round pick anymore. I recall few years back when Oher was listed as a top 5 pick. I'm not opposed to a replacement at C, it's just that I'm not yet convinced he should be the slam-dunk pick at 23. In fact, I'm hoping for a trade back more than ever this year.


Really? How far do you want to trade back, and to take who? Is there anyone that far back that will come in and make an immediate upgrade?



Unless there is a player the Lions are convinced will be a starter and difference maker, I would hope they would be open to trading back in the 1st. How far back? Hard to speculate. But trading back and acquiring an additional pick in the 2nd or 3rd, or an extra 4 and 5, couldn't hurt. Especially on a team in need of quality depth at alot of positions.


January 25th, 2012, 10:53 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7458
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Peter Konz
The Legend wrote:
i think you are forgetting the 3 FOURTH downs that the Saints went for and converted to 1st downs


Fixed it for you.


January 25th, 2012, 11:47 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7458
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Re: Re:
regularjoe12 wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
regularjoe12 wrote:
isnt the obvious answer "make a freakin stop"?\

I mean I understand what you are saying..buttime of possesion is a two way street. if you are on defense and want a rest...stop em on 3rd down....at least ONCE in a game.


NO! The DEFENSE DID MAKE THEIR STOPS, WHEN THEY WERE RESTED. THAT'S MY POINT. They made stops in the first Q AND in the second Q, but the offense kept putting them back out there without any rest.

That's ALL on the offense, and that's NOT a two way street.



ok refresh my memory...with the exception of 2 fumble recoveries tell me about one of those stops please? Their punter never stepped onto the field.


You are correct Joe.


January 25th, 2012, 11:49 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9908
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: Peter Konz
wjb21ndtown wrote:
RJ, I'm not doing it again. I JUST got done outlining the end of the 2nd half and start of the third Q.


And in your outline, you expertly described how the defense allowed long drives to the New Orleans offense. And once again, I ask, exactly how is that the Detroit offenses fault? If our defense was already burnt out by the middle of the second quarter, we definitely have a problem and should fire the strength and conditioning coach, not worry about the offense.

Look, I can understand if our team didn't score points, or our defense was making at least a couple stops and then our offense put them back on the field some few seconds later. But wjb, you are talking about the first half....that half that the Lions WON.

Tell me about the second half. The half where our defense came out of the locker room, presumably rested, and couldn't stop Grandma Moses and Brownie Troup #12 from marching down the field with ease, let alone the Saints.

I will admit, our offense didn't perform well, at all, in the second half. But they certainly weren't alone, and of the two units that day the defense was the one who failed miserably. As previously stated, the Saints punter got the easiest payday of his year that day. The most work he had was in pre-game warmups. And you want to somehow put that on our offense?

Yes, the defense got turnovers in the first half. Yes, our offense didn't capitalize. And what's your point? That somehow all of that lead to the Lions downfall in that game? No, not even close. What happened is that the Saints defense did what the Lions defense could NOT do...make a stop when it mattered. That is what killed the Lions hope of winning that game. Any offense in the league, even the Saints or Packers, won't always capitalize on turnovers from their defense. But a defense should, sometime in the game, be expected to force a team to punt. The defense didn't do that at all, and didn't once get the ball back into the hands of the offense in the second half of that game. It was a piss poor showing on defense, and everyone here knows it but you, it seems.

Now, maybe your point is that the Lions can't really compete in the playoffs until they get a reliable running game. If that's the case, I think most on this forum will whole heartedly agree with you, including me. But in no way shape or form did the lack of a running game cost the Lions that game. The point spread may have ended up slightly different, but it still would have amounted to a loss. The Saints were scoring at will, and toward the end of the game were running the ball simply to burn time. Had it been close, they would have simply aired it out and smoked the Lions that way.

_________________
Driver of the 'we need a coaching change' bandwagon. Climb aboard.


January 26th, 2012, 8:43 am
Profile
Play by Play Announcer - Al Michaels

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 9:00 am
Posts: 1839
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post Re: Peter Konz
To be fair, I think what WJB is saying is that if the Lions offense can extend drives in the first half of that game, it could have worn down the New Orleans defense for the second half. If that happens vs. New Orleans, the Lions have a chance to win the game--not just a half. And of course anytime you extend a drive, you keep the other team's QB on the sidelines. In today's NFL, elite QBs cannot be stopped. With guys like Brees, one can argue that the best defense is to keep them off the field.

I'm of the opinion that both sides of the ball need improvement but establishing a rushing game would be a great way to help the defense deal with solid QB play. In that regard, I'm completely OK with an O-lineman being the first round pick, even an interior lineman.

_________________
Proud member of the Contract Extension for Schwartz Fan Club.


January 26th, 2012, 12:08 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3841
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Peter Konz
mwill2 wrote:
To be fair, I think what WJB is saying is that if the Lions offense can extend drives in the first half of that game, it could have worn down the New Orleans defense for the second half. If that happens vs. New Orleans, the Lions have a chance to win the game--not just a half. And of course anytime you extend a drive, you keep the other team's QB on the sidelines. In today's NFL, elite QBs cannot be stopped. With guys like Brees, one can argue that the best defense is to keep them off the field.

I'm of the opinion that both sides of the ball need improvement but establishing a rushing game would be a great way to help the defense deal with solid QB play. In that regard, I'm completely OK with an O-lineman being the first round pick, even an interior lineman.


I would LOVE for us to improve the o-line. But if we dont focus on the defense we are not going to see the improvement we've been seeing over the past 3 years. If you only have 1 stop (not counting turnovers) in 2 games...you have a serious problem that can no longer be set aside.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


January 26th, 2012, 12:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.