Peter King still doesn't get it

Pages : 1 2 [3]

offiss
02-16-2006, 02:35 AM
I know this thread is about Art Monk and I agree with most of what others have said, but how does playing in a 3-4 defense dimish any MLB's accomplishments as a run stopper? It means you don't have two DT's eating up the Guards so they get a free run at you. Ask Ray Lewis how much he liked having to play in a 3-4 . . . or just check out that NFL films video where he keeps talking about how he is getting "double teamed," when in fact Will Shields was simply mopping the field with him (at least in part because he had no protection from the DT's). As another example, if Brian Urlacher played in a 3-4 he would be litterally eaten alive. Not trying to dimish all you said, but this dictum about the 3-4 is misplaced.


Not really, a 4-3 MLB has to take on linemen as well, usually a center, and he's responsible for bothsides of the field, which also makes his ability to read a play more significant, in a 3-4 a LB is usually just going to cover his terroritory [his side of the field] which is less confusing, as well as being tougher to fool with misdirection, where as a 4-3 LB breaks the wrong way it's usually to late to recover.

The key with the 3-4 is the nose tackle and his ability to occupy 2 linemen, the center and a guard, essentially becoming a blocker for the LB on that side if yuou don't have a dominant force at nose guard then a LB will get hit, rest assured Carson didn't make his bones taking on guards all by his lonesome, and even if he did that wouldn't make him any better than an average D-tackle in a 4-3. A MLB has much more resposibility in a 4-3, rather than a 3-4, and they both have to fight off linemen, but the 3-4 LB has a backup plan with the other inside LB, a 4-3 LB is all alone in the middle.

You might want to ask Ray Ray how he would pan out playing under Parcells, or Belichik? Something tells me he wouldn't mis a beat in either of those 3-4 schemes.

Luxorreb
02-16-2006, 06:32 AM
As we've all said before...
Peter King is fat and Giants biased.
Art Monk belongs in the HOF!!!
Only other thing to say is the NFL should reevaluate who votes on the HOF. It's become obvious there is bias. Not because of off the filed drug use or dirty play or any legal situations or any league fines, punishments etc. We should all let the numbers and situational play decide who gets in and who doesn't. Art Monk had league records when he played as a previous poster stated,"what else could you want?"
The Fatso King theory of Pro Bowls is also INSANE. Let's take a look at our HOFers.
Nuff said.
F X X X YOU PETER KING and the fat check you cash. You're much like piece of doggy doo.
Next thing we know Phil McConkey will be up for the HOF.
Middle finger salute to the powers that be. It's a f'n travesty!
GO REDSKINS!!!

dmek25
02-16-2006, 08:05 AM
we all look very pathetic devoting 3+ pages to some fat ass that has something personal against art monk

onlydarksets
02-16-2006, 09:08 AM
we all look very pathetic devoting 3+ pages to some fat ass that has something personal against art monk

If you change your preferences to 40 posts per page, then it's only 1 page ;)

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum