Best DL Fisher's ever had?

Considering 'imo' turns it from a statement to an opinion, yes you do need to say it to make that point.

And no, in my opinion, Kearse was the best Fisher has had. It has nothing to do with you.

 

you girls stop fighting, i think both of you are pretty.

 

Haha^. this is a dumb argument, Its like asking who is better, Eddie goerge or frank wycheck?
But if I had to, I'd say goerge...

 

Um...

What importance to the debate would this question have? None. Where would Kearse's best season stack up to Strahan's best season? Irrelevant.

There are 2 points. First, it is easy to compare pass rushing DE's to each other as there is a stat to represent what they do - sacks. There are no official stats for QB pressure and getting double/triple teamed. So it's easy to compare DE to DE. I was merely making the case that even in Kearse's BEST season, he wasn't even a top 3 pass rusher at DE and beyond that season, he was never top 5 in the NFL. AH, in his best season, was a strong candidate for Defensive Player of the Year...not best DT!

Since DT's are hard to compare since a lot of what they do don't have stats, it's easier to look at the improvement of the D when that player played well.

Obviously, as illustrated, our D got dramatically better when AH had his best two seasons going from last to 8th to 2nd while even in Kearse's best statistical season, our D got worse instead of better. Obviously AH had a much bigger impact.

I was unaware that tackles don't count. Many people claim AH only REALLY played 2 seasons and was a lazy guy the rest of his career. If that's true and he rotates out all the time and doesn't play 16 games...how the heck does he have OVER 100 MORE tackles than Kearse (who was a super athlete and could chase guys down all over the field) in like 30% fewer games started. Can you imagine how many more tackles per play AH has over Kearse if you counted snaps?

If one DL completely outperforms another in a stat that is meaningful to both (which tackles are), that is significant....especially when one guy is called lazy for most of his career. Can you explain how the always hurt, lazy, out of shape and constantly rotated out AH has more than 100 tackles MORE than Kearse who played a ton more snaps, is a high motor guy, super fast for a DE and can chase people down all over the place?

The departure of Kearse did drop our D significantly, but more so for other reasons than losing him. Haynesworth's loss had a huge and immediate loss to our D and snowballed into the rest of the team. For example, with the D not able to shut down the opposition and just get KC the ball back, KC had to force more balls into coverage decreasing his overall play and hurting our offense...but it starts with the D not being able to stop people. KC was content to just throw the ball away and rely on the D getting it back the previous season. Not without AH. Additionally, without a big masher at DT, QB's were able to step up into the pocket which really hurt our DE's ability to get the angle on the QB. With AH in there, the QB can't step up most of the time and prevents anyone else from being doubled. AH at his 2008 level would have kept us in the top 15 on D at worst. Teams like NE wouldn't be leaving Brady in the backfield to eat lunch while deciding which open WR to throw the ball to after double or triple moves. With AH in there...a triple move means a sack for the QB and a double move meant pressure, forced throw, or sack most of the time. Last year it meant a 30-50yd TD.

What? Even AH couldn't have helped with us having a hole at CB filled by rookies or Harper? He would have had a big impact and the proof is the Colts. They had rookies playing too and without Sanders but didn't lose a beat...because they still had a heck of a pass rush. It's HOW the D scheme is built.

Gut

 

Of course it's irrelevant. That was my point. Pitting Kearse against other DE's in the league somehow proves he did less than Haynesworth for his team? It's illogical. If that's the case you want to make, I say make it a two way street. What's the matter? Don't think Haynesworth would measure up against his peers in '99? Haynesworth against Sapp in his prime? please. Truth is there is a lot you can measure DT's with by stats when compared to their peers. It's a much better indicator than measuring a player by the success of the team around them. Either way, both defenses suffered after the players' departure. It's a moot point.

I already did. Would you really argue that Haynesworth is a better D-Lineman than Dwight Freeney? Then why would use tackles to argue that Haynesworth is a better D-Lineman than Kearse early in his career? Tackles weren't as imperative to Kears's role. He created pressure and sacks. He was better at that than Haynesworth was at any facet of his game. You yourself talk about things that can't be measured by stats.

The significant drop off on defense this past season had a lot to do with reasons other than Haynesworth's departure. New DC, and rookie CB's starting games.

The Colts are a poor example of what you're talking about. You assume because they had ONE rookie CB starting games, the Colts just plug anyone in at anytime. The Colts do have a good system, but they are careful in developing their corners, and they have been for some time. The Colts draft for the future. That's the benefit of having a future HOF QB. We draft for needs.

 

Funny, when I started a whole thread on Fisher's job security you were questioning my thoughts despite my asking what keeps his job safe.

Then why ask it?

I'm sure if opinion swayed in your favour you'd be singing a different tune.