Start a team with seven positions

[pacolts56 3,459]

Seven RBs  

[runthepost 812]

Just now, pacolts56 said:

Seven RBs

 

 

Mack CMC Zeke Kamara Barkley Bell Gurley 

[2006Coltsbestever 24,410]

8 hours ago, braveheartcolt said:

With a twist......

 

Manning, Freeney, Harrison, Glenn, Nelson, Sanders & Viniateri......

Great topic @Superman

 

QB - Peyton (1st)

 

LT - Munoz (2nd), protect Peyton's blindside.

 

DE - Reg White (3rd), pass rush is very important.

 

WR - Rice (4th), if Peyton had him it would be lights out.

 

LB - L Taylor (5th), more pass rush and fast.

 

CB - Sanders (6th), having a shutdown CB is huge. Takes away half the field.

 

OG - Nelson (7th), beef up the O.line more for a great running game and to protect the QB more.

[Chrisaaron1023 1,511]

6 hours ago, stitches said:

Defense:

 

4. CB: yep, I want a shut down corner. Like I said earlier, newest research shows pass-coverage and especially on the boundary is paramount. and it affects pass-rush more than pass-rush affects CB play. 

 

5. CB: yep, give me one more... I'm shutting down both sides of the field and hoping this gives additional time to my pass-rush to get there. They will play on island and I will scheme out everything else(i.e. slot receivers and TEs)... if I have to I will double away from them. 

 

6. WILL: I want a sideline to sideline monster to clean up the run game and take on crossing routes in the short-intermediate middle in coverage.  

 

7. EDGE: I still want a player capable of beating his man one-on-one on the line and creating pressure/affecting the pass when my pro-bowl CBs lock down their match ups. 

 

So what do you think? Does it make sense? 

Yupp. We think alike. When I build a team in Madden i start with two shutdown corners. Then i actually switch LB's and EDGE. I will punish you with press man or zone and then destroy you with the edge rushers. 

[Hoose 844]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

My choices: QB, OT, WR, DT, DE, Will, FS

Pretty much my thinking as well, with the exception of a shutdown CB instead of the Will. 

Fun topic. 

[pacolts56 3,459]

QB..... Left Guard.... Left Tackle.... 3 Tech.... Edge Rusher.... Mike.... Shutdown CB 

[DougDew 3,388]

2 hours ago, DougDew said:

Reich and Eberflus are my coaches, right?

 

QB, LT, 3T, WILL, SS, DE, C

I'm changing mine, slightly, with Reich and Eber.

 

QB, LT, 3Tech, WR, WILL, DE, SS.  

[Fluke_33 1,009]

I'll name that tune in 3 notes.  QB DE and OT.  The rest you can compensate for.

[Imgrandojji 981]

So far I'm the only one that put Center first.

 

It's an underrated position but I'm a little surprised

[Jared Cisneros 4,373]

QB, LT, C, LG, DE, DT, MLB

 

Get your franchise QB and build the trenches around him on both sides of the ball. Afterward, get a field general mlb to command the front 7. Should be able to dominate on both sides of the ball.

[Superman 35,731]

7 hours ago, stitches said:

I approached this exercise as a blank canvas, so I assumed I can play any system I want - i.e. I want us to play more man coverage... A LOT MORE. Also... I've been saying this a lot - IMO Ballard wants us to play more man. He has consistently said that and his moves suggest that(drafting Hooker 1st round(IMO Hooker is a waste of a gamechanger in Tampa 2), drafting Ya-Sin who is more of a man corner than zone corner, drafting Wilson, who again IMO is more of a press-man corner(he's not good but he was projected to be more man corner than zone), etc.

 

I think we didn't have the personnel to play more man in the beginning so Ballard was content with masking our deficiencies at corner with that Tampa 2 that helps the corners in the deep field with 2 safeties. 

 

I really want to see if Eberflus starts playing more man after what we did in KC. I know it's one game, and I know KC was injured, but I wonder when Eberflus will get sick of all those QBs papercutting us to death with those WIDE OPEN throws underneath. We cannot stop anyone (that's not Marcus Mariota) with that Tampa 2. Even the Tannehill and old Eli's of the world had no problem moving the ball against this defense.  We jumped from 25% high under Eberflus to 73% against Mahomes and the results were encouraging. Of course you will give up some more big throws but that's why you drafted Malik Hooker in 1st round. This is precisely what his role was supposed to be. He is supposed to be able to help cover the deep field as a single high safety. Get him healthy and get the training wheels off. 

 

Part of my scenario in the OP was you're starting a roster for the coaching staff you have, so I was just making sure you're honoring the scenario. I agree, I think they've shown signs of wanting to play more varied coverages, and I hope they do. Still, it's interesting that for a team that's has only played heavy man coverage on a couple of occasions, you'd prioritize corner that way. I knew you had thought it through, but wanted to hear/read your rationale.

 

1 hour ago, Fluke_33 said:

I'll name that tune in 3 notes.  QB DE and OT.  The rest you can compensate for.

 

Nope. Need the other four, or your submission will be returned to sender... ;)

[aaron11 2,350]

i would not normally say guard but if QN is an option then i would take him 

 

i'll go with QB, LT, DE, WLB, FS,WR and for the last pick RB/LG if QN is on the table 

 

on defense im going with a good player at all three levels at first, and then later looking to build depth and make the line a real strength 

[Superman 35,731]

6 hours ago, SteelCityColt said:

Good topic @Superman.

 

Personally:

 

QB - Self Explanatory 

OT (Specifically my LT) - Gotta protect the Franchise

OG - Probably LG to shore up one side of the line, but maybe RG for balance.

TE - I'd go TE over WR in the modern game, a Gronk can be a #1 receiver and monster blocker too

DE - PASS RUSH, PASS RUSH and more PASS RUSH. A legit 15+ sack every season guy and drive a whole D IMO. Either they have to account for him, or he's going to be disrupting that backfield. 

CB - Was torn between this and FS. Although I think we've not seen a Revis type corner since, if you could have a Revis guy who can follow their #1 and shut him out 1 on 1 it's huge. 

 

 

You get one more.

 

QB, OT, OG, TE, DE, CB...

[Superman 35,731]

12 minutes ago, Imgrandojji said:

So far I'm the only one that put Center first.

 

It's an underrated position but I'm a little surprised

 

I don't know if everyone else is going in order of importance. I didn't, just went offense, then defense.

[Jared Cisneros 4,373]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know if everyone else is going in order of importance. I didn't, just went offense, then defense.

Mine is in order, tell me what you think of my opinion above.

[Superman 35,731]

2 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Great topic @Superman

 

QB - Peyton (1st)

 

LT - Munoz (2nd), protect Peyton's blindside.

 

DE - Reg White (3rd), pass rush is very important.

 

WR - Rice (4th), if Peyton had him it would be lights out.

 

LB - L Taylor (5th), more pass rush and fast.

 

CB - Sanders (6th), having a shutdown CB is huge. Takes away half the field.

 

OG - Nelson (7th), beef up the O.line more for a great running game and to protect the QB more.

 

This is a bit of a cheat. The idea isn't that you get to choose seven all time great players. You get seven players who will be among the top five at their position, currently in the league. I don't know if that changes your answers, but it might. 

 

7 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

on defense im going with a good player at all three levels at first, and then later looking to build depth and make the line a real strength 

 

Same idea for me, and I wanted to be strong up the middle, closest to the ball on pretty much every play. 

[Superman 35,731]

12 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

QB, LT, C, LG, DE, DT, MLB

 

Get your franchise QB and build the trenches around him on both sides of the ball. Afterward, get a field general mlb to command the front 7. Should be able to dominate on both sides of the ball.

 

I'm struggling to think of any SB team that didn't have a difference maker at one of the offensive skill positions. Edelman probably isn't top five, but he isn't a JAG either. The Pats last two SB wins, a WR and a RB won SB MVP. So you're going to go with replacement level players at WR, RB and TE, and give preference to the OL, and ask the QB to elevate the offense by himself. 

That's my opinion. I think I get your approach, I just wonder if you're asking too much of the QB, and not compensating enough on the defense. 

[stitches 6,169]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Part of my scenario in the OP was you're starting a roster for the coaching staff you have, so I was just making sure you're honoring the scenario. I agree, I think they've shown signs of wanting to play more varied coverages, and I hope they do. Still, it's interesting that for a team that's has only played heavy man coverage on a couple of occasions, you'd prioritize corner that way. I knew you had thought it through, but wanted to hear/read your rationale.

 

 

 

OK here's mine if we assume Eberflus straight up refuses to play man and we hover around 15-25% of man coverage in most games(what he's been doing in every single game except for the latest KC game):

 

QB

OT

WR

 

EDGE, 3TECH, EDGE, WILL...

 

If we play predominantly Tampa 2 IMO it's waste of resources to have all pro CBs ... and even safeties(that's why I said I think Hooker's talent, for as much as I love him and I've been his biggest defender around here, is wasted playing a third of the backfield on passing downs. His best ability is his range and in Tampa 2 he is boxed into  much smaller area of the field... IMO you can have much more ordinary defenders in that role. 

 

So yeah. If we continue to play zone, I would go full pass-rush mode. Give me 3 pass-rushers on the line and a WILL and unleash them after the QB... and hope you can get there before their receivers settle into the soft areas of the zones. 

[egg 927]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

just want to talk football theory.

 

 

By top five, I mean perennial Pro Bowl, high quality, near All Pro caliber players. 

 

And for the other 46 players on your roster, you get average, JAG level players. 

 

 

In my opinion, no matter what 7 you pick, you will have a below average team.

 

A good team needs some great players, and some average players (by default), but mostly good players who are between great and average.

 

This notion that you have "elite", or "average" is actually, in my opinion, what fueled the debate last year about Mack, and this year about Brissett.

 

A good example is Sheard. He is not great, but he's not average either. He is good, and along with other good players, is very important to the Colt defense.

 

The Colts of 95 had many good players on both sides of the ball. That's how they came so close to the SB. But how many names do we remember?

 

The Manning era Colts had many good players throughout those years.

[Jared Cisneros 4,373]

2 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm struggling to think of any SB team that didn't have a difference maker at one of the offensive skill positions. Edelman probably isn't top five, but he isn't a JAG either. The Pats last two SB wins, a WR and a RB won SB MVP. So you're going to go with replacement level players at WR, RB and TE, and give preference to the OL, and ask the QB to elevate the offense by himself. 

That's my opinion. I think I get your approach, I just wonder if you're asking too much of the QB, and not compensating enough on the defense. 

For the first year yes. I would build the trenches and see what my QB can do, and plan to draft the other positions. If I get top 5 players at those 7 positions, I believe I could build a long term winner with the help of the draft around those elite players at important positions.

[Superman 35,731]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

In my opinion, no matter what 7 you pick, you will have a below average team.

 

A good team needs some great players, and some average players (by default), but mostly good players who are between great and average.

 

This notion that you have "elite", or "average" is actually, in my opinion, what fueled the debate last year about Mack, and this year about Brissett.

 

A good example is Sheard. He is not great, but he's not average either. He is good, and along with other good players, is very important to the Colt defense.

 

The Colts of 95 had many good players on both sides of the ball. That's how they came so close to the SB.

 

Ehh, the point isn't really to discuss the best way to build a roster. I want to know how people would prioritize certain positions in building a roster. 

 

I also think it's rare to have a team with seven top five players on the roster.  The Rams went all in last year, went to the SB, but probably only had four top five players -- Donald, Gurley, Whitworth, Havenstein. I'll give you half a season of Goff tearing it up and six games of Cupp being excellent. 

 

The 2007 Pats had Brady, Welker, Moss, Vrabel (12 sacks), Wilfork and Samuel. Was anyone else top five? 

 

So my point is that with a top heavy roster, assuming your top seven are healthy and a great scheme match, I think you could do some damage with 46 replacement players. It's definitely not the ideal, but that's not the point of the exercise.

[Superman 35,731]

4 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

For the first year yes. I would build the trenches and see what my QB can do, and plan to draft the other positions. If I get top 5 players at those 7 positions, I believe I could build a long term winner with the help of the draft around those elite players at important positions.

 

That's the other part about it. Even replacement level JAGs have a good game every once in a while, so maybe you get a 10 catch game from one average WR this week, and another 8 catch game from another WR a couple weeks later, but in between, you're might wind up having a couple three catch, 28 yard performances from those same guys. 

 

But yeah, in theory, if you're building a roster and moving into the future, some of those JAGs will be rookies who might be able to get better. Just wanted to look at the immediate snapshot of your roster, though.

[Jared Cisneros 4,373]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

That's the other part about it. Even replacement level JAGs have a good game every once in a while, so maybe you get a 10 catch game from one average WR this week, and another 8 catch game from another WR a couple weeks later, but in between, you're might wind up having a couple three catch, 28 yard performances from those same guys. 

 

But yeah, in theory, if you're building a roster and moving into the future, some of those JAGs will be rookies who might be able to get better. Just wanted to look at the immediate snapshot of your roster, though.

Yeah, that's why I picked a QB and am protecting his blindside, so he can carry the offense. With only 7 choices, there will be defeciences at certain positions, so hopefully an elite QB can handle the offense by himself and raise his receivers games a bit. Any roster with only 7 choices will have some major holes, just relying on the QB in mine and sacrificing the receivers.

[2006Coltsbestever 24,410]

27 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is a bit of a cheat. The idea isn't that you get to choose seven all time great players. You get seven players who will be among the top five at their position, currently in the league. I don't know if that changes your answers, but it might. 

 

 

Same idea for me, and I wanted to be strong up the middle, closest to the ball on pretty much every play. 

I would still go with:

 

QB (1st), if we go players now Pat Mahomes

LT (2nd), Tyron Smith to protect him

DE (3rd), Myles Garrett, 9 sacks already this season. Pass rush is important.

 

-My top 3 positions would remain the same regardless of player as in QB, LT, and DE if I were even drafting. After that I would have to think a little. 

[OffensivelyPC 5,645]

12 hours ago, Superman said:

So, what seven positions are you taking to start your roster?

 

Offense: QB, RB, OT, OG, C, WR, Slot, TE

Defense: DT, DE, Will, Mike, Sam, CB, Nickelback, FS, SS

ST: K, P, LS

Offense: QB, LT, WR

Defense: DE1, DE2, DT, CB

 

If we're gonna put names on it:

 

Offense: Pat Mahomes, Tyron Smith, Michael Thomas

Defense: Khalil Mack, Aaron Donald, Myles Garrett, Jaire Alexander

[Myles 2,635]

QB, OT, OG, C, DE, LB, S

 

I feel that would ensure the running game is good.   Would ensure good time of possession to help the defense.  Have a top five player at each level on the defense (DE, LB and S).   

 

 

 

 

 

[2006Coltsbestever 24,410]

12 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I would still go with:

 

QB (1st), if we go players now Pat Mahomes

LT (2nd), Tyron Smith to protect him

DE (3rd), Myles Garrett, 9 sacks already this season. Pass rush is important.

 

-My top 3 positions would remain the same regardless of player as in QB, LT, and DE if I were even drafting. After that I would have to think a little. 

To follow this up your topic is a tough question because in certain years you have guys like Nelson coming out of the draft. He Is an OG as we know and I wanted him over Chubb who is a DE.

[SteelCityColt 8,213]

51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You get one more.

 

QB, OT, OG, TE, DE, CB...

Obviously can’t count, I’ll take WLB for $1000 please.

[egg 927]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

assuming your top seven are healthy and a great scheme match, I think you could do some damage with 46 replacement players. 

 

I respectfully disagree. You are going nowhere with 46 replacement players, no matter how great or what positions the top seven are playing.

[Myles 2,635]

4 minutes ago, egg said:

 

I respectfully disagree. You are going nowhere with 46 replacement players, no matter how great or what positions the top seven are playing.

It depends what a replacement player is.   I think he defined them as league average players.  I think with a top 5 QB, OT, OG, C, DE, LB, S, the average pieces around them would be just fine.   With an average team, perhaps you are an 8-8 team.  Just adding a top 5 QB would get you to 10 wins.  The other 6 top 5 players would lift you to 12 or more (theoretically).

[Superman 35,731]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

 

I respectfully disagree. You are going nowhere with 46 replacement players, no matter how great or what positions the top seven are playing.

 

Cool, still not the point of the exercise.

[DougDew 3,388]

This is contingent upon what type of defense is played. In a 43 zone, I'd mirror the old Tampa Bucs disbursement of talent on three levels of the D.

 

Warren Sapp, Derrick Brooks, John Lynch.  3T, WILL, SS.  And a good/great D always needs a DE.

 

For Reich's offense, I'd go with QB and OT, but I'm torn if I prefer a WR or C.  I want OL stoutness in the middle, but a WR who the defense needs to account for can open up a lot of things on O.

[egg 927]

Just now, Myles said:

 I think with a top 5 QB, OT, OG, C, DE, LB, S, the average pieces around them would be just fine.  

 

And you have not even one above average WR?  no TY (and no one like him... Not one above average TE (no Doyle or Ebron)........no Marlin Mack (he's above average).....No above average Corner backs.......No above average interior DL.......you got yourself a bad team.

[Coffeedrinker 7,092]

Good topic:  I am going to go, in order of importance

 

QB

DE

LT

LG

DE

DT

C

 

It was close between C and WILL, both are very important but I think the ability for the center and QB to see everything the same gave the edge to the center position.  If you can have a dominant side of an oline it will make a world of difference in the offense.

 

On the defensive side a strong pass rush with just 4 and the ability to keep the LBers clean will make JAGs look good in the back 7.

 

[aaron11 2,350]

the thing with a 3-4 man coverage defense is its harder to build and maintain.  it makes CB one of the most expensive  positions on the team, when you can get away with a lot less playing zones or mixed man zone 

 

really good nose tackles are also rare and they are key to the scheme 

[lollygagger8 10,301]

1) Big Q Nelson 

2) Big Q clone 

3) Big Q twin 

4) Big Q copy 

5) Big Q stunt double 

6) Big Q triplet 

7) Big Q's fumanchu (still stronger than most players) 

 

I think if you had 7 Big Q's on your team, you could pretty much impose your will to a 16-0 season. 

 

[OffensivelyPC 5,645]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

the thing with a 3-4 man coverage defense is its harder to build and maintain.  it makes CB one of the most expensive  positions on the team, when you can get away with a lot less playing zones or mixed man zone 

 

really good nose tackles are also rare and they are key to the scheme 

Good thing we were allowed to just assume we could make it work.  I like to think my guys value winning over money to the point that they took a discount so we can build the roster in other places.  Cuz that happens...

[aaron11 2,350]

10 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Good thing we were allowed to just assume we could make it work.  I like to think my guys value winning over money to the point that they took a discount so we can build the roster in other places.  Cuz that happens...

i dont blame anyone for going that route in this thread

 

 personally i was taking this to mean long term and what i think i could maintain.  real teams still go man coverage there are different schools of thought 

[SouthernIndianaNDFan 656]

QB- Peyton Manning 

WR- Randy Moss

WR- Antonio Brown 

WR- Julio Jones 

OT- Orlando Pace

OG- Quenton Nelson 

RB- LaDainian Tomlinson 

 

Outscore everyone. A team built for shootouts on the fasttrack inside Lucas Oil. Hope your JAG defense can make enough plays to limit opponents to under 28-31 points, because you're scoring 35 by halftime. My thinking is to either condense all of the talent on offense, or go vice versa and have it all on defense. You spread yourself too thin, then the greatness of the individuals starts to go unnoticed, whereas condensed they have a sort of compounding effect. Just my thoughts, sure would be fun to watch. 

 

[aaron11 2,350]

23 minutes ago, lollygagger8 said:

1) Big Q Nelson 

2) Big Q clone 

3) Big Q twin 

4) Big Q copy 

5) Big Q stunt double 

6) Big Q triplet 

7) Big Q's fumanchu (still stronger than most players) 

 

I think if you had 7 Big Q's on your team, you could pretty much impose your will to a 16-0 season. 

 

i have wondered what he would look like playing dline, i guess nt is where he would fit in