Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Carl Banks scoffs at Clowney-LT comparisons.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Carl Banks scoffs at Clowney-LT comparisons.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...t-comparisons/
    Mood: WOOF!

  • #2
    Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), I concur with Banks' scoff.

    Comment


    • #3
      Clowney is a freak of nature, but lt changed the game. I remember mel kiper called jamarcus russell the next John elway. Lol
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sharick88 View Post
        Clowney is a freak of nature, but lt changed the game. I remember mel kiper called jamarcus russell the next John elway. Lol
        I still dont really like this argument.

        The changed the game thing was a schematic issue as much as it was LT.

        Put any pass rushing LB (demarcus ware, aldon smith, etc.) in a 34 defense back in the early 80s and teams are going to have to change how they block him.

        Comment


        • #5
          When the next LT comes around, we'll all know it, and if someone has to tell us, then the answer will be "no".

          Until then, yes, Bank is correct, it's ridiculous.
          "I like linebackers. I collect 'em. You can't have too many good ones." - Bill Parcells

          "Name the starting linebackers from 2007." - Jerry Reese

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
            I still dont really like this argument.

            The changed the game thing was a schematic issue as much as it was LT.

            Put any pass rushing LB (demarcus ware, aldon smith, etc.) in a 34 defense back in the early 80s and teams are going to have to change how they block him.
            The 3-4 was around the NFL for a while before LT.

            And while I can't remember a 3-4 team with the linebackers that the Giants had, it was LT that changed the game more than the scheme.

            To suggest otherwise is like arguing the Chicago Bulls' success was as much due to the Triangle Offense as Michael Jordan.
            "I like linebackers. I collect 'em. You can't have too many good ones." - Bill Parcells

            "Name the starting linebackers from 2007." - Jerry Reese

            Comment


            • #7
              I agreed. There is a thread in the Draft section.
              The Problem is the Oline, PERIOD

              Comment


              • #8
                I will admit I have not gone crazy looking into the whole Clowny Frenzie but making one crushing tackle when you didn't get blocked and then being put up as a possible 1st rounder sounds crazy to me. Remember it's men against boys in college, not like LT where it was a man beating down other men making them look like boys.
                We'll see in time but does anyone remember the Boz, lot of Hype but never really put it all together in the NFL.
                Forget the Past, Live for the Future!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't blame Banks for getting upset about the Clowney/LT comparison. It's like people that compare Manziel to Steve Young or Brett Favre. It's too early to compare a player that's coming out of college to a HOF player.
                  One of these teams is not like the others

                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by joemorrisforprez View Post
                    The 3-4 was around the NFL for a while before LT.

                    And while I can't remember a 3-4 team with the linebackers that the Giants had, it was LT that changed the game more than the scheme.

                    To suggest otherwise is like arguing the Chicago Bulls' success was as much due to the Triangle Offense as Michael Jordan.
                    The 34 was used without any of the linebackers rushing the QB. All four dropped in coverage.

                    That's why I said putting any other pass rushing OLB would have accomplished the same thing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Joe Morrison View Post
                      I will admit I have not gone crazy looking into the whole Clowny Frenzie but making one crushing tackle when you didn't get blocked and then being put up as a possible 1st rounder sounds crazy to me. Remember it's men against boys in college, not like LT where it was a man beating down other men making them look like boys.
                      We'll see in time but does anyone remember the Boz, lot of Hype but never really put it all together in the NFL.
                      That tackle had nothing to do with Clowney being projected as a high first rounder.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
                        The 34 was used without any of the linebackers rushing the QB. All four dropped in coverage.

                        That's why I said putting any other pass rushing OLB would have accomplished the same thing.
                        Miami ran a 3-4 scheme with Bob Matheson employed as a pass-rushing LB.

                        This is probably the best article I've seen regarding how Lawrence Taylor changed the game. Specifically, he turned the left tackle position into the 2nd most important position on offense.

                        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...89/1/index.htm


                        ....The football field is usually an efficient economy: There is seldom a free lunch on it. Of course there are the weaknesses and strengths of individual players, and a smart coach will know how to exploit them. Systematic opportunity is rare. Yet Walsh had stumbled upon a systematic opportunity, and in time other coaches borrowed heavily from him. His short, precisely timed passing game might not offer an entirely free lunch, but the discount to the retail price was steep. The passing game was transformed from a risky business with returns not all that much greater than those of the running game into a clearly superior way to move the football down the field. As a result, the players most important to the passing game became a great deal more valuable.

                        In that context Taylor posed a problem. The system Walsh brought to the 49ers of the early '80s enabled Joe Montana to get rid of the ball faster than anyone else in football, and usually that was fast enough. Now it wasn't. Walsh's system was all about rhythm, and rhythm was precisely what you didn't have when you heard Taylor's footsteps behind you. Walsh came to a pair of conclusions. The first was that he needed to find himself a player like Taylor to terrorize opposing quarterbacks. The second was that he needed to use his first pick of the next draft to find a left tackle, because, as Parcells observed, the only way to handle this monster coming off the edge without disrupting the rhythm of the new passing attack was to have a single player with the physical ability to deal with him. The old left tackle was coming to the end of his natural life.....
                        Last edited by joemorrisforprez; 04-10-2014, 07:15 PM.
                        "I like linebackers. I collect 'em. You can't have too many good ones." - Bill Parcells

                        "Name the starting linebackers from 2007." - Jerry Reese

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Comparing and saying these kids coming into the NFL are the next LT,Geno Atkins or whoever is just out of control. These guys haven't proven anything on an NFL field to warrant comparisons to these All Pro Greats. Clowney not worthy of being compared to LT, Aaron Donald Not worthy of being compared to Geno Atkins or Suh, Evan can't be compared to Megatron until these guys come into the NFL and make big statements and continue to produce. All the comparison talk is nonsense.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slipknottin View Post
                            The 34 was used without any of the linebackers rushing the QB. All four dropped in coverage.

                            That's why I said putting any other pass rushing OLB would have accomplished the same thing.
                            Wow. I totally disagree
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by joemorrisforprez View Post
                              Miami ran a 3-4 scheme with Bob Matheson employed as a pass-rushing LB.

                              This is probably the best article I've seen regarding how Lawrence Taylor changed the game. Specifically, he turned the left tackle position into the 2nd most important position on offense.

                              http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...89/1/index.htm
                              And I still argue that any pass rushing LB would have forced the same change.

                              You needed a LT that could block one.

                              Would a Demarcus ware or Aldon smith or Clay Matthews have been easily blocked by the previous type of LT? No they wouldn't have.

                              It was a schematic issue as much as Taylor was good.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X