I was unaware that his Eagles team beat the Raiders in Super Bowl XV.

Meh... All we need is 22 players off the street.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah it was hell watching Tony,Priest,and Trent hang 40 points on teams and watching the D allow 41.ROFL
Shit I still remember thinking Priest could have had 40 TD's if DV would have let him!:cuss:

The quote, and phillosphy is fine. Is it perfect, probably not, but neither is anything else.

The thing many of the posters in the thread missed was the "to start" part of the phillosophy.

QB
RB
LT

These are some pretty big components of an offense, and it could be the start of any consistantly winning team. Problem is, DV stopped there, and didn't continue. If as mentioned, he would have added a WR or two and then worked on the D a bit, things might be a bit different.

His approach and defensive philosophy was fine - hand it to a DC and stick your nose out of it if it isn't your strong suit. Sadly, he picked as wrong as one could pick and landed GRROB and Gunther. I would hope that Haley takes the same approach with Crennel.

Right, I follow you. My bad.

Yeah, here's Vermeil's philosophy:

"Defense? What's that? Hey, have you met my friend Greg?"

DIE IN FIRE VERMEIL 4321

I remember when he said it all started in the trenches. Meaning you build a solid OL, and the rest should take care of itself. Its all about winning the battles up front. A stellar OL can make even average players stand out (Derrick Blaylock and larry johnson anyone?)

Thats not to say green wasnt a good QB, but our dominate OL which was probably one of the greatest ever assembled to play the game, certainly made his job much easier.

LT, QB, and RB on offense.

NT, OLB, and playmaking Safety on a 3-4 defense.

Yes, that is the formula. You can be average at other positions, but if you're outstanding on all those positions, I think you can find a way to make it work. I would even argue that if you have a good enough QB, LT and RB don't become nearly as high of a priority (see Drew Brees).

I agree. I also agree with the idea stated earlier about finding balance, which is probably the most difficult part of building a team. Personally, I like the idea of building from the lines first. However, I accept that the offensive and defensive lines do not exist in a vacuum. A good set of defensive backs can give a defensive line a few more seconds.

Dale Carter did a great interview on 810 a few months back. He said that DT would come up to him before the snap and say "Get me 3 seconds." I think that is a good example of how a defense can work together.

His methods were.... unsound.....

My philosophy (which has changed in the last decade - I once agreed with Vermeil) would be strong lines on both sides of the ball, and then the best playmakers you can get (regardless of position) behind them, with the caveat that your QB has to be at the very least a game manager and the defense needs some kind of an outside pass rush. But you can win a variety of ways, so I don't think you have to be married to the idea of needing specific positions. You can win with a Tony Gonzalez and a Priest Holmes with Trent Green game managing, for instance. Or you can win with (yes, I'm about to say this) Moss/Welker and a pedestrian RB with Matt Cassel game managing. Because the reality is there are only so many Mannings and Brady's in the league, so sometimes you have to do the best you can with what you can get. In some ways, I think the more important piece to the equation is the pass rush on the other side of the ball.

As for us, specifically, I think this team could double their wins next year by adding a pass rusher at OLB across from Hali, a more athletic pair of starting safeties and a high calibre MLB to QB the unit (Rolando McClain would get my vote, after a trade down) on defense, and a 2nd round or equivalent quality free agent WR to pair with bowe alongside a new starting center and at least one new guard.

QB, RDE, RB, LT, shutdown CB. The first five things you want.

I could not disagree more with Vermeil's statement, and I think his tenure here with the Chiefs does as much to disprove the theory as anything.

I think you build a good football team from the line out, on both offense AND defense. I think the big boys up front make your skill position players.

Roaf, Waters, Wiegmann, Shields, and Tait. How many pro bowls there?

What was Priest Holmes before he ran behind that line? Pretty average. What was Trent Green? A little above average maybe? What was Larry Johnson after Roaf and Shields retired? 2.7 ypc.

I say a great line can give an average QB extra time to make his reads and deliver the ball. More time for WR's to clear coverage. Bigger holes for RB's to run through. In Priest's case, more TIME to sort of glide sideways and pick a crease. Man, sometimes there'd be all friggin' day for him to wait for one. It was that line, man. Priest's biggest gift was his PATIENCE.Give me a great o-line on offense.

A studly front 4 (or in a 3-4, the front 3 and maybe one stud pass rushing OLB) on defense and all the sudden those corners look great because they don't have to defend but about 10 yards of the field. QB's have no time to progress through their reads, get flustered, and make bad decisions. RB's get tired of having no where to run and get tentative. I think the front line has more to do with a great secondary than you might think.

I really think it's STILL all about the big boys up front, and that without quality line play you're not going anywhere.

Those are very good fundamental points. I think that, in general, plays that last longer are an advantage to the offense. For example, a receiver can usually break free from coverage if given enough time. So, one philosophy could be to lengthen plays when on offense and shorten plays when on defense. I think the key to achieving this is with solid line play.