The thing about a cornerback is that quite a few teams have one either great, or very good corner, which coincides with the other team's top receiver. Not a lot of teams have two dynamite receivers (Indy being the main exception), so Champ Bailey, for example, can match up with and often shut down the opponents main threat. With the majority of receivers in the NFL being average, at best, having average corners doesn't generally present a problem. Plus, with the sorry state of many teams' quarterbacks, average cornerbacks can sometimes excel. The thing about kickers is they account for points, plain and simple. Bring them on the field (except during kickoffs) and they are expected to put points on the board. It's not like a cornerback getting beat on a play and the safety is there to make the tackle. The kicker either gets the points, or doesn't. That becomes pretty important when you look at the close games many of these teams play. Just watch when your team botches a extra point and how many times that comes back to haunt them.
But that doesn't necessarily invalidate the point about kickers. The same could be said of most closers, yet closers still matter. It makes it harder to determine the quality of the player which in turn makes it harder to pay them more. Your right though, that point doesn't really detract from their importance to the team. The thing about a cornerback is that quite a few teams have one either great, or very good corner, which coincides with the other team's top receiver. Not a lot of teams have two dynamite receivers (Indy being the main exception), so Champ Bailey, for example, can match up with and often shut down the opponents main threat. Which makes Champ Bailey important, right? I don't follow your arguement. Good corners let you roll coverage elsewhere or allow you to send an extra man at the QB because your corner doesn't need the help.
I'm not saying cornerbacks are not important. It's just where they fall on a given list of the most important positions. If an opponent runs the ball the majority of the time, the cornerback isn't all that involved. If the team has a mediocre-to-terrible quarterback, chances are the passing game won't be too much of a focus, taking some pressure off the cornerback. Also, there are other defensive backs who can help out a cornerback. Last week when Randy Moss scored, beating three defenders around him, it wasn't only the cornerback who was in position to possibly make a play. There were three guys around him, all who had an opportunity to break up the pass. Defenses can dedicate other players to help out a cornerback. But I still feel, overall, every position is crucial in a game such as football, which makes ranking most important near-impossible.
If the Jets would have had Champ Bailey then they don't need 3 guys to cover Moss. I just think the cb position is way too low on this list. While the running game is important, the NFL is a passing league and having good corners is key to successful defense IMO.
Bailey's listed at 6'0" which, I assume, makes him like 5'10". Blanket coverage wouldn't have stopped most of the completions to Moss. At least two of the catches were against fine coverage. He's just tall. Either way, you miss dyams' point: even if Bailey erases Moss, there's still a whole 'nother side of the field to throw to, plus the slot receiver, plus the tight ends and backs. One great corner does not shore up an entire defense.
I think in general, on the offfensive side, a good O-line, top to bottom, will make mediocre RBs and QBs look great, and a bad O-Line will make great RBs and QBs look mediocre. So IMHO, the O-Line is the most important. AGNP
