NFL.com: How to build a Super Bowl Contender....

[NewColtsFan]

 

So Daniel Jeremiah and Bucky Brooks teamed up to write an article about what are the ingrediants needed to be a Super Bowl contender.    They listed the 10 top teams and broke down what they have.    And they noted what some of the teams lack....    

 

SPOILER ALERT:   The Colts, despite being in the top-10 on most every off-season power poll by most every major media outlet,  are not listed as one of the top-10 teams.   When you see how they break things down,  I think their reasoning will make sense.    What do we have?    What do we lack?

 

So, I'm giving you the link to this story.    You won't have to scroll down far.     It's the first part of an article that has other stories connected to it after this story.     Just click, scroll and read.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001026304/article/what-makes-a-super-bowl-contender-plus-a-giant-wr-question

[2006Coltsbestever]

I just read the article, I am not buying that the Browns and Steelers are better than us. I see their reasoning behind it but I do not believe those teams are better, JMO. I guess we will find out when the season starts whether or not that the Browns live up to all the hype they are getting. We will also see how good Big Ben is without Brown.

[LockeDown]

Even Ballard himself says we need more talent...but still...Mitch Tribisky,  Dak Prescott and Baker Mayfield have already ascended to franchise QBs?

[ScotColt]

The Dallas Cowboys.... what a joke

[21isSuperman]

Not a fan of their list at all, even though I do like Bucky Brooks.

 

Dak Prescott might be the most overrated QB in the league.  I don't think he's a franchise QB, I think he's more a game manager/very good backup level.  In 3 years in the league, he's never thrown for 25 TDs in one season and has never had a 4000 yard season.

 

Mitch Trubisky showed promise, but still needs to be better.  That team was carried by its defense.

 

Cleveland has a lot of promise, but they also added a lot of new pieces.  I want to see how these new pieces interact and what kind of chemistry they have before calling them Super Bowl ready.

 

I'd also throw KC and New Orleans into the Super Bowl ready category.

[Superman]

These are the ingredients they list:

1 franchise quarterback
3 offensive linemen
3 offensive playmakers
2 pass rushers
3 defensive playmakers

 

The Colts have a franchise QB, probably have three offensive linemen (AC, Nelson, Kelly), three offensive playmakers (Hilton, Mack, Ebron), but don't have two pass rushers (not proven), and don't have three defensive playmakers (Leonard only, can't crown Hooker, too early for Kenny Moore, and there's really no one else).

 

By their criteria, the Colts don't make the cut. Not yet.

[RNGDShobby]

By their criteria, no. And thats fine. But Steelers? Ha!

Conner has had one season where he was okay behind a strong O-line.

TJ Watt only shows up once every 3 or 4 games!

[RNGDShobby]

I'd say the Colts have 3 decent pas rushers in Houston, Sheard and Autry. 

Autry led the team in sacks despite missing a few games. He was pretty effective.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

By their criteria the Patriots didn't really make the cut. They also say Dak and Mitchell Trubisky are franchise QB's, so to me that just goes to show that they don't really know what they are talking about. This is just something they threw out because there isn't really anything going on right now as we await the draft. 

 

 

[Superman]

30 minutes ago, RNGDShobby said:

I'd say the Colts have 3 decent pas rushers in Houston, Sheard and Autry. 

Autry led the team in sacks despite missing a few games. He was pretty effective.

 

Guys who get sacks aren't the same as pass rushers. Sheard and Autry don't qualify, IMO. We'll see what Houston does, but he's not a sure thing either.

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

By their criteria the Patriots didn't really make the cut. They also say Dak and Mitchell Trubisky are franchise QB's, so to me that just goes to show that they don't really know what they are talking about. This is just something they threw out because there isn't really anything going on right now as we await the draft. 

 

 

 

So im guessing you don’t kniw both guys,  Jeremiah and Brooks used to be NFL Scouts.   Jeremiah for 9 years.   Brooks somewhat less than that.

 

The idea that they don’t know what they’re talking about us pretty close to ZERO.   Doesn’t mean they’re always right.   Nobody is.   

 

You've got to kearn how not to agree with them, without thinking you know better than they do (you dont) or that they’re just blowing smoke to fill time.

 

You can certainly disagree with them and still think they know what they’re talking about.   Others here have made some good points of disagreement.

 

Just some food for thought...

 

[Superman]

1 hour ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

They also say Dak and Mitchell Trubisky are franchise QB's

 

The bar for "franchise QB" has been lowered at this point. Most times that phrase is used, it just means a player capable of starting for a playoff contender, and/or young enough that the team isn't actively looking for a replacement. Dak and Trubisky check both boxes.

 

As a comparison, Derek Carr is better than both IMO, but there are rumors the Raiders would look at replacing him. He's old enough that he probably won't get any better, he's not quite good enough to carry a team to the playoffs (outside of 2016), and his contract is flexible enough that they could move on from him if they really wanted. Add in that the current coach/GM combo didn't draft him and they pick in the top five this year, and it makes for a hot topic, even though it's kind of ridiculous that they'd seriously consider getting rid of him at this point.

 

I think the Cowboys and Bears have their QB box checked, for now. They have good enough QBing to go deep in the playoffs. I wouldn't call either of them true franchise QBs, but that's a different topic.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

14 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

So im guessing you don’t kniw both guys,  Jeremiah and Brooks used to be NFL Scouts.   Jeremiah for 9 years.   Brooks somewhat less than that.

 

The idea that they don’t know what they’re talking about us pretty close to ZERO.   Doesn’t mean they’re always right.   Nobody is.   

 

You've got to kearn how not to agree with them, without thinking you know better than they do (you dont) or that they’re just blowing smoke to fill time.

 

You can certainly disagree with them and still think they know what they’re talking about.   Others here have made some good points of disagreement.

 

Just some food for thought...

 

 

Hey grandpa lighten up! Sorry I got on your lawn. 

 

I'm really sorry I said they didn't know what they are talking about. I should have said that what they said was a bunch of fluff and their analysis was garbage. I know they are both knowledgeable football guys, but with this article they got it wrong. I gave a couple of reasons why I thought they were wrong. Any one who has watched any amount of football can tell you what it takes to build a Super Bowl winner. 

 

You've got to learn not to read so much into what other people say. I didn't say I knew any better than they did about football. That would be silly of me to say. They have experience and insight with football that I'll never have. Going back to the previous paragraph, I shouldn't have said they don't know what they are talking about. My bad. However, I stand by my statement that their analysis is garbage. If you think that based on what Dak and Trubisky have done on the field makes them "franchise QB's" then I have to completely disagree. Could they be game managers for a Super Bowl winning team? Certainly, but in no way have they proven to be "franchise QB's" yet in this league.

 

Maybe you just need to spend less time critiquing everyone else's opinions on this forum. I enjoy a lot of your football analysis and insight but you really do have a way of coming across as condescending. If you want to disagree with me that's great. I love debate and discussion. Part of what you said was very good. Pointing out the fact that both have served as NFL scouts was a great rebuttal, but they way you did it was just a little arrogant. I know who both of these guys are. So since you are giving me advice or"food for thought" I'll do the same for you. Stick to the football and avoid the life lessons. Thanks!

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

45 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The bar for "franchise QB" has been lowered at this point. Most times that phrase is used, it just means a player capable of starting for a playoff contender, and/or young enough that the team isn't actively looking for a replacement. Dak and Trubisky check both boxes.

 

 

I totally understand what you are saying. That would mean that guys like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and Mark Rypien were franchise QB's. I just have a hard time stomaching that sentiment. I'm not doubting that the Cowboys or Bears could win a Super Bowl with Dak and Trubisky but when I think of franchise QB's I think of guys like Rodgers, Brees, Luck, Brady, and Big Ben.

[NewColtsFan]

40 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

Hey grandpa lighten up! Sorry I got on your lawn. 

 

I'm really sorry I said they didn't know what they are talking about. I should have said that what they said was a bunch of fluff and their analysis was garbage. I know they are both knowledgeable football guys, but with this article they got it wrong. I gave a couple of reasons why I thought they were wrong. Any one who has watched any amount of football can tell you what it takes to build a Super Bowl winner. 

 

You've got to learn not to read so much into what other people say. I didn't say I knew any better than they did about football. That would be silly of me to say. They have experience and insight with football that I'll never have. Going back to the previous paragraph, I shouldn't have said they don't know what they are talking about. My bad. However, I stand by my statement that their analysis is garbage. If you think that based on what Dak and Trubisky have done on the field makes them "franchise QB's" then I have to completely disagree. Could they be game managers for a Super Bowl winning team? Certainly, but in no way have they proven to be "franchise QB's" yet in this league.

 

Maybe you just need to spend less time critiquing everyone else's opinions on this forum. I enjoy a lot of your football analysis and insight but you really do have a way of coming across as condescending. If you want to disagree with me that's great. I love debate and discussion. Part of what you said was very good. Pointing out the fact that both have served as NFL scouts was a great rebuttal, but they way you did it was just a little arrogant. I know who both of these guys are. So since you are giving me advice or"food for thought" I'll do the same for you. Stick to the football and avoid the life lessons. Thanks!

 

You really think “anyone who watches football can tell you what it takes to build a Super Bowl caliber team”..?!?

 

Wow!

 

You think Joe Average Fan knows what it takes?    That’s an astounding  statement.    Astonishing, really...

 

So, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. 

 

Oh, and one last thing....

 

Grandpa says.....  

 

Get!   Off!    My!   LAWN!!!     

 

 

 

 

[chad72]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

These are the ingredients they list:

1 franchise quarterback
3 offensive linemen
3 offensive playmakers
2 pass rushers
3 defensive playmakers

 

The Colts have a franchise QB, probably have three offensive linemen (AC, Nelson, Kelly), three offensive playmakers (Hilton, Mack, Ebron), but don't have two pass rushers (not proven), and don't have three defensive playmakers (Leonard only, can't crown Hooker, too early for Kenny Moore, and there's really no one else).

 

By their criteria, the Colts don't make the cut. Not yet.

 

They left out something that differentiates the good teams from the great ones, superior coaching and adjustments. Excellent coaching can minimize weakness and maximize strengths better than just good to average coaching.  That way, in the salary cap era, even when you cannot have all the necessary on-the-field ingredients to be the better team, you are better because of the coaching on game day, IMO. 

 

While elite QB play can make up for some offensive deficiencies, superior coaching and preparation gives you far more room for error. There is no 1 defensive position that can make up for defensive deficiencies elsewhere and cannot be schemed out, IMO, unlike the elite QB who can adapt better on the offensive side. 

[Superman]

29 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

I totally understand what you are saying. That would mean that guys like Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and Mark Rypien were franchise QB's. I just have a hard time stomaching that sentiment. I'm not doubting that the Cowboys or Bears could win a Super Bowl with Dak and Trubisky but when I think of franchise QB's I think of guys like Rodgers, Brees, Luck, Brady, and Big Ben.

 

I completely agree. It's a lazy term at this point.

[Superman]

14 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

They left out something that differentiates the good teams from the great ones, superior coaching and adjustments. Excellent coaching can minimize weakness and maximize strengths better than just good to average coaching.  That way, in the salary cap era, even when you cannot have all the necessary on-the-field ingredients to be the better team, you are better because of the coaching on game day, IMO. 

 

While elite QB play can make up for some offensive deficiencies, superior coaching and preparation gives you far more room for error. There is no 1 defensive position that can make up for defensive deficiencies elsewhere and cannot be schemed out, IMO, unlike the elite QB who can adapt better on the offensive side. 

 

Yeah, they gave the Pats a pass on not having a second pass rusher, primarily because of Belichick. But that's more of an organizational issue, while I think their focus was on roster composition.

 

I agree about the importance coaching, though. I think coaching is more important in football than any other sport, and the fact that you practice three times a week and play once (compared to other sports, like NBA, which is the opposite) underscores the importance of the coaching staff getting the team prepared and pushing the right buttons on Sundays.

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

27 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

You really think “anyone who watches football can tell you what it takes to build a Super Bowl caliber team”..?!?

 

Wow!

 

You think Joe Average Fan knows what it takes?    That’s an astounding  statement.    Astonishing, really...

 

So, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. 

 

Oh, and one last thing....

 

Grandpa says.....  

 

Get!   Off!    My!   LAWN!!!     

 

 

 

 

 

The fundamentals winning football are pretty simple. We can all spout off things like "Protect the QB", be able to "rush the passer"and on and on.Almost every NFL team and fan knows what it takes to build a winner, the tricky part is being able to find the right players to do those things. Do I think that any Joe Schmo off the street can evaluate players and build a roster? Heck no! Most GM's can't build a Super Bowl winning roster but they do know what it takes to win in the NFL.

[Barry Sears]

I thought videotaping your opponent's practice and deflating footballs would make the list of criteria...

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

The fundamentals winning football are pretty simple. We can all spout off things like "Protect the QB", be able to "rush the passer"and on and on.Almost every NFL team and fan knows what it takes to build a winner, the tricky part is being able to find the right players to do those things. Do I think that any Joe Schmo off the street can evaluate players and build a roster? Heck no! Most GM's can't build a Super Bowl winning roster but they do know what it takes to win in the NFL.

 

Like I said....    we’ll just agree to disagree....    it’s just safer that way....

 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

1 hour ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Like I said....    we’ll just agree to disagree....    it’s just safer that way....

 

 

 

That's fine. But it is sports not rocket science. Sometimes I think we may make this harder than it really is. Just my opinion though. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me or tells me why they think I am wrong as long as they can be respectful about it. I love debate and discussion.

[horseshoecrabs]

Having stability in the front office is a good foundation to start. A good owner, a stable GM, The right coaches to instill a winning culture. Pieces of a good core of players, added to the puzzle gradually to keep improving, Cap management, to make sure you keep being relevant for years down the road, with a minimum of constant turnover. Each year there is going to be roster changes, because of the business side but, Gutting your team every other year doesn't make for continuity. You want players to fit into your program and culture that you are trying to build. 

[NewColtsFan]

58 minutes ago, Mel Kiper's Hair said:

 

 

That's fine. But it is sports not rocket science. Sometimes I think we may make this harder than it really is. Just my opinion though. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me or tells me why they think I am wrong as long as they can be respectful about it. I love debate and discussion.

 

Look...   you think fans can figure out what or how to build a Super Bowl contender.

 

And right here,  on this very website,  our community hasn't even reached a consensus on how and why we lost to KC in the playoffs.     Seriously, if you read a lot of threads,  it doesn't matter the issue,  there's a large group of regular fans, who have full lives,  they have families and jobs and other interests....   they follow the Colts,  but don't get into the nuts and bolts.   Those are the majority of people here.    They're all good, decent people who love the Colts,  but don't follow them all that closely beyond wins and losses.

 

So, no, I don't think most fans know what a team needs to reach the level of Super Bowl contender.

 

By the way,   I don't want any of my words to be viewed as knock on anyone.   They weren't meant that way and should not be taken that way.    Only that the building of a Super Bowl contender is harder and more complicated than it might appear to be.

 

[Mel Kiper's Hair]

3 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Look...   you think fans can figure out what or how to build a Super Bowl contender.

 

And right here,  on this very website,  our community hasn't even reached a consensus on how and why we lost to KC in the playoffs.     Seriously, if you read a lot of threads,  it doesn't matter the issue,  there's a large group of regular fans, who have full lives,  they have families and jobs and other interests....   they follow the Colts,  but don't get into the nuts and bolts.   Those are the majority of people here.    They're all good, decent people who love the Colts,  but don't follow them all that closely beyond wins and losses.

 

So, no, I don't think most fans know what a team needs to reach the level of Super Bowl contender.

 

By the way,   I don't want any of my words to be viewed as knock on anyone.   They weren't meant that way and should not be taken that way.    Only that the building of a Super Bowl contender is harder and more complicated than it might appear to be.

 

 

I think I have taken an over simplistic view. I agree with you that the vast majority of causal football fans  could not build a Super Bowl winning team. In fact, most NFL GM's can't. Going back to what I originally meant was in reference to the article by Brooks and Jeremiah. They said (my paraphrase) you need a franchise QB, a pass rush, some playmakers on offense and defense. In my opinion, what they stated was pretty obvious and any NFL fan would know that. Based on the article, the casual fan would have a understanding of building a contender. That being said, would I want any fan from this forum running the Colts? Not in a million years!

[crazycolt1]

The average fan couldn't even put a successful crew together let alone managing a NFL team.

 

[EastStreet]

not that i disagree in general about the key attributes because most are common sense, but it's a lot more than that. a good coach can be as important as any of those categories. NE would have missed out last year, and the Eagles would have missed out the year before....

 

one key thing for writing an article about how to be a playoff or SB team, is not letting Brooks write the article. the guy is horrible on many subjects, especially his boards and certainly his mocks.

[NewColtsFan]

13 minutes ago, Irish YJ said:

not that i disagree in general about the key attributes because most are common sense, but it's a lot more than that. a good coach can be as important as any of those categories. NE would have missed out last year, and the Eagles would have missed out the year before....

 

one key thing for writing an article about how to be a playoff or SB team, is not letting Brooks write the article. the guy is horrible on many subjects, especially his boards and certainly his mocks.

 

The overall article,  which includes several other stories is written by Brooks.

 

But the part of the article that we're dealing with,  how to build a Super Bowl contender is equal parts Brooks and Jeremiah.    It's an article by two people.    Jeremiah has equal input.

 

There isn't a real problem with the article, unless you happen to disagree with it.

 

Some here disagree with certain aspects of it,  some disagree because it doesn't include the Colts, which I thought was surprising given that we're roughly in every top-10 in all power rankings.

 

But this was their view,  not the view of one peson.

 

[aaron11]

 

On 4/16/2019 at 6:19 PM, NewColtsFan said:

So, no, I don't think most fans know what a team needs to reach the level of Super Bowl contender.

a fan would need a lot of luck to build a super bowl team, but real GMs need it too.  i think its a stretch to say the patriots even fulfill the criteria in the article.  i know they addressed that, but its more about coaching and schemes than it is play makers on either side of the ball for them

[EastStreet]

17 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

The overall article,  which includes several other stories is written by Brooks.

 

But the part of the article that we're dealing with,  how to build a Super Bowl contender is equal parts Brooks and Jeremiah.    It's an article by two people.    Jeremiah has equal input.

 

There isn't a real problem with the article, unless you happen to disagree with it.

 

Some here disagree with certain aspects of it,  some disagree because it doesn't include the Colts, which I thought was surprising given that we're roughly in every top-10 in all power rankings.

 

But this was their view,  not the view of one peson.

 

I'm aware it's co-authored.... As I said, I'm OK with the attributes they list, but critical of the ones they leave out. Their formula would leave out the last 2 SB winners (if not the last  5). Regardless of the co-authoring, anything with BB's name on it throws up a flag for me. I like his personality, but the dude is way off on a lot of things.

[Hoose]

On 4/16/2019 at 1:44 PM, chad72 said:

 

They left out something that differentiates the good teams from the great ones, superior coaching and adjustments. Excellent coaching can minimize weakness and maximize strengths better than just good to average coaching.  That way, in the salary cap era, even when you cannot have all the necessary on-the-field ingredients to be the better team, you are better because of the coaching on game day, IMO. 

 

While elite QB play can make up for some offensive deficiencies, superior coaching and preparation gives you far more room for error. There is no 1 defensive position that can make up for defensive deficiencies elsewhere and cannot be schemed out, IMO, unlike the elite QB who can adapt better on the offensive side. 

Well said. Belichick is the reason the Pats keep winning SBs. He's an amazingly talented coach, maybe the best ever. He can scheme for a team's weakness better than anyone I've ever seen. He doesn't get out coached. Ever. So yes...Coaching is definitely a major factor in the Super Bowl equation.