Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Green Bay is 7-0 and I would argue that they have only 3 "stud playmakers" on the most prolific offense this year: Jennings, Rogers, and Finchley (possibly J. Nelson). On defense, their NT (whose name I forget) and Clay Mathews are the only "stud playmakers" I can think of. You'll note they do NOT have a "playmaker" at RB.
They have several good and very good players but none other than those named that would be instant starters on any team in the league (which is what a "stud playmaker" means to me).
My point being, solid players, not playmakers, are what make the team. Name me a team today that has 7 playmakers on both sides of the ball. Ain't happening. Get and lock in the good players and the playmakers will come.
|
Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson would start on many teams. But even so, I'm operating under a definition than you are.
You do not need to be a Pro Bowler to be a playmaker. Justin Smith of San Fran is a playmaker in my eyes, even if he'll never sniff the Pro Bowl. What are merely "good players" to you
are playmakers to me. The impact on the game the player provides is what makes him a playmaker or not.
__________________
Analysis using datasets (aka stats) is an attempt at reverse-engineering a player's "goodness".
Virtuosity remembered, douchebaggery forgotten.
The ideal character profile shoved down modern Western men and women's throats is
Don Juan.