Buying into latest myth can get teams burned

[RSJ]

Buying into latest myth can get teams burned

By Pat Kirwan | NFL.com

Senior Analyst

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- Every so often, an apparent new trend pops up in the NFL that gets its legs for some unfounded reason. And it usually involves a concept that teams can get by with inferior players at a certain position.

As one GM said to me at the owners' meetings this week, "I hope the latest myth floating around here lasts until after the draft, because I want a certain position to fall to me." Another GM looked at me and laughed when I asked him what he thought of the latest myth.

I expect five players to be drafted in the first round at the position some people with a straight face now claim isn't that important -- cornerback. If teams pass on them because they buy into the new myth, they might regret it.

Before we get to the new concept floating around The Breakers hotel this week, here are two other ridiculous myths that have circulated around the NFL in recent years:

Myth No. 1: Just manage the game. After Trent Dilfer led the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl championship the idea that a team really didn't need a great quarterback to win it all started circulating. The myth said that a QB who could manage the game was good enough as long as the defense was above par. That myth caused a few teams to skip on quarterbacks like Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger. The fact is, the quarterback position is the most important one on the field. Sooner or later, every offense is going to have to run a two-minute drill to pull out a win and no manage-the-game guy can do that consistently in the heat of battle.

Myth No. 2: Don't waste a first-round pick on a running back. The Broncos had great success with their running game with late-round backs like Terrell Davis and Mike Anderson, to name a few over the years. The prevailing thought was that other teams should be able to succeed with late-round picks, too. How do you think the six teams that passed on Adrian Peterson feel about that concept? The Broncos' offensive line was pretty darn good and maybe, just maybe, teams made a mistake on their evaluation of Terrell Davis.

Those two examples lead me to the myth of 2008:

Cornerbacks are only as good as the pass rush: The Giants' Super Bowl victory has led some teams to conclude it was exclusively the pass rush with a bunch of average guys behind them in coverage that helped New York shut down the vaunted Patriots' passing attack. This myth should fade quickly, but a number of people came up to me this week and tried to make a case for downgrading corners.

I made a few points as I heard the corner situation unfold in front of me:

1. You can't play Cover 2 all day and have corners play the flat area every down. All an offense has to do is put trips (three receivers) to one side and the opposite corner is all alone. As for the pass rush, a three-step drop and a ball directed at the receiver who is being single-covered takes the pass rush out of the equation.

2. Down in the red zone, the fade route to a tall receiver really means the corner has to make a play on the ball and the rush will not be a factor before the fade is thrown.

3. Sometimes it's the jam of the corner on the receivers that sets up the pass rush.

4. Corey Webster is one of the Giants' corners who supposedly is just average. I asked Giants GM Jerry Reese about Webster and his first comment was, "Did you see the interception against the Packers?" Pass rush and corner play work hand in hand, just like an offensive line and a running back or a QB and his receivers.

I wonder who actually starts these myths. Is it the team that wants a corner to fall to them? Is it an outside observer who never coached or watched film? Or does someone actually believe you can get by with average guys?

Don't get me wrong, pass rush is a critical component to any football team, and the Giants' pass rush was great in Super Bowl XLII. But passing on a first-round corner later this month and reaching for a lower-graded pass rusher instead is dangerous business.

Chris Long (Virginia) and Vernon Gholston (Ohio State) will both be drafted before the first cornerback is taken because they are excellent football players. But soon after they come off the board, we will hear cornerbacks Leodis McKelvin, Aqib Talib, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie and Michael Jenkins called. Unless, of course, this latest myth has become a reality.

I doubt it.

Some people here have tried to make the argument that you need a pass rush and it is more important that CB play. I don't buy it since good DB's gives your defense more flexibility with different blitz packages.

[BroadwayJ667]

I think he's right, the only way to win is to build your team is to beat your division, then conference then Super bowl. What works one year, won't necessarily work next year

[124]

I'm sorry, but the Giants corners were horrific until the pass rush came around. Granted, Aaron Ross was a very good Corner from the get go (I still like to remind all of JN that I was his biggest fan, and even though we ended up with a stud in Revis, it proved much of you Ross haters wrong), but Corey Webster? That guy was a chump. The pass rush made him.

If the Jets are in a position to take Gholston, they must. Three pass rushers in Gholston, Pace and Thomas would be ideal, especially if one, god forbid, got hurt.

[SayNoToDMC]

Some people here have tried to make the argument that you need a pass rush and it is more important that CB play. I don't buy it since good DB's gives your defense more flexibility with different blitz packages.

Well if a jackass with a journalism degree said it, it's got to be true.

[RSJ]

I'm sorry, but the Giants corners were horrific until the pass rush came around. Granted, Aaron Ross was a very good Corner from the get go (I still like to remind all of JN that I was his biggest fan, and even though we ended up with a stud in Revis, it proved much of you Ross haters wrong), but Corey Webster? That guy was a chump. The pass rush made him.

If the Jets are in a position to take Gholston, they must. Three pass rushers in Gholston, Pace and Thomas would be ideal, especially if one, god forbid, got hurt.

Corey Webster is a very underrated corner, imo.

[RSJ]

Well if a jackass with a journalism degree said it, it's got to be true.

Right, lets put down his degree. Kirwan is actually an old FO person too.

Good comeback though.

Out of curiousity....What degrees do you hold?

[SayNoToDMC]

Right, lets put down his degree. Kirwan is actually an old FO person too.

Good comeback though.

Out of curiousity....What degrees do you hold?

You're right Corey Webster and Ross where one of the better CB tandems in the NFL

[MTJ06]

Myth No. 1: Just manage the game. After Trent Dilfer led the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl championship the idea that a team really didn't need a great quarterback to win it all started circulating. The myth said that a QB who could manage the game was good enough as long as the defense was above par. That myth caused a few teams to skip on quarterbacks like Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger. The fact is, the quarterback position is the most important one on the field. Sooner or later, every offense is going to have to run a two-minute drill to pull out a win and no manage-the-game guy can do that consistently in the heat of battle.

I agree with this myth most. People here keep saying "if dilfer can win the superbowl so can Chad" or "I think quarterbacks are overrated". Look down the list of SB winning teams and most had a very good to HOF QB at the helm not a "game manager"

[RSJ]

You're right Corey Webster and Ross where one of the better CB tandems in the NFL

They are pretty good.

But I think my main point was that Pat Kirwan has a job and you don't.

[124]

Corey Webster is a very underrated corner, imo.

I don't see how. He wasn't a starter on the Giants until later into the 2007 season. He isn't exactly good. He's decent, and improving, but he's nothing special. Maybe he can turn into something, but I just don't see it without a strong pass rush infront of him.

[tkiss24]

good corners are extremely important. if the ginats pass rush wasnt so incredibly effective, the corners woulda got tore up by brady and co. if you have two top flight corners on both sides of the field is osmehting all teams owuld love to have

[SayNoToDMC]

They are pretty good.

But I think my main point was that Pat Kirwan has a job and you don't.

I wish I had his job, I read all the stupid **** idiots like you post here and take for gospel and think I just should have got a journalism degree.

There writers have the life

How do you think Webster and Ross would have done if they where on the Jets, with our pass rush? Jackass

[RSJ]

I wish I had his job, I read all the stupid **** idiots like you post here and take for gospel and think I just should have got a journalism degree.

There writers have the life

How do you think Webster and Ross would have done if they where on the Jets, with our pass rush? Jackass

Idk, We had a rookie and barrett and held the same offense to 6 points.

You see it's ignorant dumbasses like you that sit back and act like he was handed a degree and a job rather than think logically about what he is writing.

[gangreenman]

Kirwan's wrong here.

A lot of teams have won SB's recently with good to great pass rushes and less then par secondaries.

NY Giants - Aaron Ross, Corey Webster

NE Patriots - Ellis Hobbs, Troy Brown

IND Colts - _____,________

A CB isnt nearly as important as a pass rush. Not even close.

Think about it logically...

There's not a CB in the league, no matter how good, that can shut down a legit #1 WR without a pass rush.

With a great pass rush, where the QB has little time to throw, you do not need to be the best there ever was to cover a guy for 2 or 3 seconds.

Of course, having good CB's is better than having $hitty ones. But if it were up to me, Id much rather have a good pass rush then a good secondary.

[RSJ]

I don't see how. He wasn't a starter on the Giants until later into the 2007 season. He isn't exactly good. He's decent, and improving, but he's nothing special. Maybe he can turn into something, but I just don't see it without a strong pass rush infront of him.

Webster is streaky - but when he turns it on like he did in the later part of 2007 he was very good.

[RSJ]

Kirwan's wrong here.

A lot of teams have won SB's recently with good to great pass rushes and less then par secondaries.

NY Giants - Aaron Ross, Corey Webster

NE Patriots - Ellis Hobbs, Troy Brown

IND Colts - _____,________

A CB isnt nearly as important as a pass rush. Not even close.

Think about it logically...

There's not a CB in the league, no matter how good, that can shut down a legit #1 WR without a pass rush.

With a great pass rush, where the QB has little time to throw, you do not need to be the best there ever was to cover a guy for 2 or 3 seconds.

Of course, having good CB's is better than having $hitty ones. But if it were up to me, Id much rather have a good pass rush then a good secondary.

All he is saying is that you need both and you shouldn't pass on aa more talented play to go for the flavor of the week. You are also comparing different styles of defense here. The Colts employ a totally different scheme than the Jets do or the Pats do. All of them work if you have the right pieces. With our scheme we could benefit from two good corners.

[gangreenman]

Webster is streaky - but when he turns it on like he did in the later part of 2007 he was very good.

No, when the pass rush developed in the later part of 2007 he started looking better.

This just proves our point really.

[gangreenman]

All he is saying is that you need both and you shouldn't pass on aa more talented play to go for the flavor of the week. You are also comparing different styles of defense here. The Colts employ a totally different scheme than the Jets do or the Pats do. All of them work if you have the right pieces. With our scheme we could benefit from two good corners.

Yes. But we would benefit more from a good pass rush.

Of course you need both, everyone does. If everyone could get both this wouldnt even be a discussion. The question is which is more important, and I'd say its pass rush by a long shot.

[RSJ]

No, when the pass rush developed in the later part of 2007 he started looking better.

This just proves our point really.

No he didn't start until the later part of 2007. So it's not like he got better, he just wasn't starting.

[gangreenman]

No he didn't start until the later part of 2007. So it's not like he got better, he just wasn't starting.

LOL, who was he backing up?

The fact that he didnt start just makes him look worse.

[RSJ]

Yes. But we would benefit more from a good pass rush.

Of course you need both, everyone does. If everyone could get both this wouldnt even be a discussion. The question is which is more important, and I'd say its pass rush by a long shot.

No it's really not. You can't blitz a safety if your corners suck. If you two gap like we do and you can't blitz a corner or safety you are extremly limited.

[gangreenman]

No it's really not. You can't blitz a safety if your corners suck. If you two gap like we do and you can't blitz a corner or safety you are extremly limited.

If you dont need to blitz a safety, its even better. No?

[RSJ]

LOL, who was he backing up?

The fact that he didnt start just makes him look worse.

He was a third year player and a former second round pick. He had his problems but got better. Unless you are saying that getting better throughout a season is not possible?

[RSJ]

If you dont need to blitz a safety, its even better. No?

No, it's just one extra scheme you can employ and one extra person you can bring. Always better to bring more.

[gangreenman]

He was a third year player and a former second round pick. He had his problems but got better. Unless you are saying that getting better throughout a season is not possible?

Well, getting better is possible.

But going from backup to somebody I've probably never heard of to a starter in one of the primer secondaries in the league, as you seem to think of it as, is a bit of a stretch, dontcha think?

[gangreenman]

No, it's just one extra scheme you can employ and one extra person you can bring. Always better to bring more.

Okay, but if we already have a good pass rush, that would help those gadget plays.

If the OL is already focused on stopping two good pass rushers, that means they are more likely not to be prepared for a safety or corner coming, meaning that the QB is getting hit within 2 or 3 seconds of snapping the ball.

If this is the case, then I'd also say your wrong about needing two great secondary players to cover the receivers for 2 or 3 seconds.

[RSJ]

Well, getting better is possible.

But going from backup to somebody I've probably never heard of to a starter in one of the primer secondaries in the league, as you seem to think of it as, is a bit of a stretch, dontcha think?

You have never heard of Sam Madison? Madison played well - but nagging injuries forced him out and Webster never let go of the starting gig.

[gangreenman]

You have never heard of Sam Madison? Madison played well - but nagging injuries forced him out and Webster never let go of the starting gig.

Madison played like crap.

Please, enough with this conversation. Lets talk about the Jets. I think we can both agree that the Giants secondary wasnt stellar.

[RSJ]

Okay, but if we already have a good pass rush, that would help those gadget plays.

If the OL is already focused on stopping two good pass rushers, that means they are more likely not to be prepared for a safety or corner coming, meaning that the QB is getting hit within 2 or 3 seconds of snapping the ball.

If this is the case, then I'd also say your wrong about needing two great secondary players to cover the receivers for 2 or 3 seconds.

We run a 3-4 so it is never really as simple as the OL keying on our two best pass rushers. The pass rush is in large part due to the unpredictability of the scheme. Also, like Kirwan states in the article, the initial bumping of the WR helps out the pass rush. You are not going to jam a WR whom if he beats your crappy corner is going to toast your defense.

[gangreenman]

We run a 3-4 so it is never really as simple as the OL keying on our two best pass rushers. The pass rush is in large part due to the unpredictability of the scheme. Also, like Kirwan states in the article, the initial bumping of the WR helps out the pass rush. You are not going to jam a WR whom if he beats your crappy corner is going to toast your defense.

Oh please.

The Chargers run a 3-4

The Patriots run a 3-4

You think the OL doesnt know where Merriman is or where AThomas is on every play and who is blocking them?

Give me a break.

BTW, Justin Miller/David Barrett and Darelle Revis are more then fine if their task is to hold the receivers in check as the pass rush gets to the QB.

[RSJ]

Madison played like crap.

Please, enough with this conversation. Lets talk about the Jets. I think we can both agree that the Giants secondary wasnt stellar.

I think what the Giants did so well was to attack the Pats guards with a quick DE like Tuck and Quick LB like Kawicka Mitchell. This put pressure at Brady's feet so he couldn't step into the pocket. I agree that the secondary had little to do with the victory - but it is not a reason to reach for a pass rusher is all I'm saying.

[RSJ]

Oh please.

The Chargers run a 3-4

The Patriots run a 3-4

You think the OL doesnt know where Merriman is or where AThomas is on every play and who is blocking them?

Give me a break.

BTW, Justin Miller/David Barrett and Darelle Revis are more then fine if their task is to hold the receivers in check as the pass rush gets to the QB.

Have you ever heard of a stunt? It is much easier to confuse the OL with a pass rush in a 3-4 than a 4-3. Drop A Thomas and blitz the other two.

[gangreenman]

I think what the Giants did so well was to attack the Pats guards with a quick DE like Tuck and Quick LB like Kawicka Mitchell. This put pressure at Brady's feet so he couldn't step into the pocket. I agree that the secondary had little to do with the victory - but it is not a reason to reach for a pass rusher is all I'm saying.

The only point im trying to make is that having a great pass rush would benefit a defense more then having a great secondary.

[gangreenman]

Have you ever heard of a stunt?

Yes.

Thats how this discussion started, remember?

[RSJ]

The only point im trying to make is that having a great pass rush would benefit a defense more then having a great secondary.

And it's not true. Both are equal parts.