Player types for '08, Part two (defense)
by hoosierteacher
on Jan 19, 2008 3:16 PM MST
in News
With the offense out of the way, it is now time to take a look at the defense. Remember, we aren't looking at which players we want, but the type of player we might want. Not knowing what kind of scheme we will run on defense makes this a difficult proposition. But I have been studying defensive coordiantor Slowik, and I think his system is starting to fall together in my mind.
This is what I think we need in terms of player types, and it is a subjective call. There is plenty of room for disagreement. I will again list player types we need even if the position doesn't need to be filled. The article is a combination what we might seek in the offseason, as well as simply what type of player we should expect to play in Slowik's scheme.
DT
Slowik has a lot of wiggle room to go in whatever direction he wants to go. We have Thomas ready to go, and McKinley. The big question is, "are they true starters, or good rotational guys?"
I think Thomas has the potential to develop into a solid DT, and I think McKinley helps in rotation.
Given the depth and speed at DE, I imagine Slowik will want big DT types to tie up the OL so that the DEs can do their thing. I also think Slowik will go after large DT types because of the run defense issues Denver had in '07.
It is pretty much a lock that Denver picks up at least one, and perhaps two DTs this offseason.
DE
Denver looks set at DE for next year. Doom is a big name in Denver already, and 1st round pick Jarvis Moss will return in '08 after being out this year with an injury. Crowder is developing steadily, Engelberger looks ok (more so in run support), and fans have high hopes for Mallard. There is youth, depth, and speed at this position, and it is reasonable to assume that the pass rush will continue to be the focus of the DEs.
One might think that Denver should shift gears and bring in DEs better suited to stopping the run, but with so much talent already in place a turnover of personnel would be hard to imagine. Look for speed and the ability to shake pass blocks as the core skills Denver prefers for this position.
MLB
Denver has flexibility for MLB. Traditionaly, Denver likes to put three speed demons at the LB positions. But with limited talent and depth across the board, Denver is freed up to go in either direction (speed or size).
The chief concern is whether Williams stays at MLB or moves to OLB. Either move is a no-lose proposition. I suggest that Williams will stay at MLB for several reasons.
- By being the second most proficient tackler in the NFL (first in the AFC), you've got to wonder why Denver would mess with something that isn't broken.
- By leaving Williams at MLB, Denver (in the offseason) can focus on players that have a history at OLB, instead of dividing their research and targets between MLB and OLB.
- Moving Williams will mean he has been moved around almost every year he has played for Denver (he has played every LB position already). He should get the chance to focus on one position instead of playing musical chairs.
- Denver has been grooming Williams to be the MLB replacement for Wilson since he (Williams) came to Denver. It is unlikely that there would be a change in plans.
- With his speed, Williams is a great blitz threat at the WLB position.
- With his great speed, Williams is the best bet to "man on" with most TEs in the league.
Denver may well pick up one or two LBs, but I don't see Williams being replaced at MLB.
OLB
Let's take a quick look at what we have in depth.
- Gold - Once a speed demon and a solid tackler, he underachieved this year. Badly.
- Webster - Went from terrible to below average.
- Winborn - Showed enough skill to get a two year extension, and looked good on special teams. Does Denver think he can start in '08, or was he just a temporary bandaid at the end of the season?
- Holdman - Considered competitive to start in '07, he was out for the season on IR. He will be 32 in '08.
- Beck - a very young, but unknown quality.
- Green - a 28 year old back-up. Despite the poor play of players in front of him, the coaching staff must have thought he wasn't immpressive enough to move into a starting role.
The WLB has two main responsibilities in most defensive schemes. He blitzes the blind side of right handed QBs, and covers a zone on the weak side to prevent runs to that side of the field. If the FB is a threat, he may cover him in man.
The SLB might cover the TE (a role sometimes filled by the strong safety). He also has responsibilty for wide runs towards the sideline, HB screens, and inside runs towards the srong side. Runs up the middle are the most common runs, and runs to the strong side are second. He is involved in more plays than the WLB.
For either position I see Denver again going with speed. The AFC west features teams that thrive on elite TEs, and defenses in the AFC West should use fast SLBs for coverage. Denver may very well go after speed for both OLB spots to allow themselves the flexibility to put a player on either side, as opposed to taking risks on two types of players that can't fill the other position if one of the players is a bust.
Going for a big, run stopping OLB would diverge from traditional Denver philosphy, and wouldn't fit Slowik's probable schemes.
Denver will likely pick up one or two OLBs in the offseason.
CB
Denver has two of the best in place (Bailey / Bly), and two decent nickle backs (Paymah / Foxworth). There may be a need for a development player for down the road, but I doubt Denver goes this route. However, Denver may go this route if either Paymah or Foxworth leaves due to being FAs. They both have trade value as well.
Clearly, being a man instead of zone coverage team, Denver would want fast, coverage kind of guys instead of hard hitting, zone kind of guys.
SAF
Hamza has shown he can play the position well, and with his youth he has time to develop nicely.
Lynch is the big question mark (see the excellent four part series by MHR contributer Styg50). He may retire, but seems to lean towards returning. He is excellent in run defense, a heavy hitter, and has elite instincts to read plays. He also has two neck injuries in recent history, and gets slower every year.
Ferguson is likely done after being being placed on IR on not playing very well.
Cargile and Rogers are young and unknown qualities.
Denver needs a coverage SAF for this position. A speed SAF gives the team the option of playing a SS in either pass or rush, something Lynch is moving further from with age. Two coverage SAFs gives the CBs the ability to make INTs, someting they can't go for if they don't have speedy SAFs behind them.
Denver may very well go for a SAF this offseason. Phillips is the elite SAF on the draft boards, and many draft predictions have Phillips going to Denver (see Guru's excellent diary updates on the draft database). Many great minds at MHR advocate SAF, DT, LB, OL, or WR. I estimate about half of the opinions lean towards Phillips, and he fits the SAF type Denver wants.
He would compete with Hamza for the FS position, with the "lesser" SAF being a perfect fit for SS.
Conclusion
MHR newcomer Calvin (the prodigy at MHR) has a terrific diary up on the need to bolster our offense before we fix the defense. He favors building the OL, where other members (like Villyn) prefer building at the WR spot.
Amongst members wanting a defense first approach for this year, divisions fall along members wanting SAF, while most others want DT followed by OLB.
We all have opinions, and no, they don't stink. Everyone has made solid points for their cases. I feel we have the following needs on defense:
SAF / DT (tied for critical need)
LB (need)
a second DT (need)
a second LB (need)
That's five needs on defense. Let's review the list I suggested for offense.
OL (Need)
OL (Strong want)
WR (want)
OL (extra) [added since last article]
TE (extra)
HB (extra)
And now let's combine them (in my opinion). Bear in mind that this is with all things being equal. There are considerations (who is available in the draft, trades, etc) that I'm not taking into account.
DT or SAF (critical need)
DT or SAF, the other one (critical need)
LB (need)
OL (need)
a second DT (need)
a second LB (need)
OL (Strong want)
WR (want)
OL (extra) [added since last article]
TE (extra)
HB (extra)
Ok gang, jump in with your thoughts, differences, questions, compliments, or jeers! Enjoy the playoffs on Sunday, and stay warm! Have a terrific weekend!!!
0 recs |
21
comments
EmailComments
Solid Analysis...
by Zappa on Jan 19, 2008 5:53 PM MST 0 recs
I very much agree
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 19, 2008 6:08 PM MST
up
0 recs
I am probably
I believe the first could happen, but not if a MLB is a reach at #12. For now, I will assume that it won't happen.
The biggest bonus, as you say, to moving him to weakside would be his speed in a blitz. In that event I have a question:
If we kept him at MLB, would there be possible formations or packages that we could call up which would allow him to blitz weakside, even though he is the MLB? Just for fun, what if in one formation Dj lined up weakside while Lynch lined up at MLB and the regular stongside was in, with Paymah/foxy on the slot/TE? Champ could play a bump/man coverage on his guy, Bly could play off on his , Hamza could play centerfield with his priority being deep help for Bly. Fox/Paymah could bump the TE/slot and drop back, taking a short right zone, in case Champ's reciever breaks in hard on him, and Lynch would have the option of dropping into a mid-zone if the TE broke inside.
For the LBs, the SAM would have a priority of stuffing the run with short man coverage responsibilities if the TE went into a route, while DJ would be a 'hot' read, and could threaten blitz, or lineup in a 3 point stance between Crowder and Doom (that would be scary as Hell!) or drop sit in a zone underneath Lynch. Of course he could fake and then do any combination of the above as well. If the TE went in motion, that would be DJs guy, no problem, or he could blitz and Lynch could take a zone between himself and bly. Lynch and DJ would both be diagnosing the play, with DJ calling out the assignment and choosing his option and Lynch probably setting up the strongside guys (it would be tight quarters over there). DJ would read run or pass and Lynch would read DJ, to determine where the play would go and where the defense would prioritize.
Not a base formation (since that would make Lynch a LB) but a possibility for a different nickle or dime package where the WILL would come out, making the offense wonder whether we were looking at supporting the run or pass, since it is technically a slower defense (with the WILL out) but with more options regarding coverage...
Thoughts?
by styg50 on Jan 19, 2008 8:44 PM MST 0 recs
Question
I read you saying that Lynch would move to MLB (present in a 4-3) but I also read you having a nickle back in the play. If it is a nickle, who is playing back at SS while Lynch is at MLB? If it is a 4-3, who is at SLB?
I'm sure you are being clear and I'm the one who isn't reading clearly.
Let me know the formation and which players you would have at each position. (I also need the d-line, because you mention Williams going between Crowder and Doom, and I didn't know if you meant having Crowder line up as a DT in that case?).
I look forward to helping flesh out your plan. I just want to be sure I know what we're talking about. It should be fun!
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 1:16 AM MST
up
0 recs
Are you talking about...
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 1:18 AM MST
up
0 recs
Picture worth a thousand words
I thought I may have packed too much info in too tight, so I will go ahead and elaborate via drawing!
This is more of a nickel, perhaps for down and distance where a team has a history of passing, but where you would like to protect against a short run. I'm not sure how it would look against a 4 WR set or the back coming out of the backfield...probably have to call a timeout and put in a dime...
Crowder definietly lined up at DT for more speed on the backside of the play (including DJ).
I think the benefit would be DJs skills being off a blocker. Though like I said, I haven't really thought about the role of the tailbacks in this... The hope would be that the offense would see a 'heavier' run stopping defense, which it could do with Lynch and the SAM playing up close and Champ and the nickle corner bumping their receivers on the inside, so as to prevent themselves from being blocked out of run support. But if the offense read it this way and went to pass, the short routes and TE should be covered, and the big play should be covered, with a weak area about 15 yards downfield. The seam should be safe, maybe... Meanwhile DJ is stronger and faster than any other WILL that has been in the game up to that point, so his change up (along with the speed Crowder brings to the inside rush) could potentially blow up the QBs blindside. DJ could be untouched, though if the TE comes in motion he will be obligated to take him...
by styg50 on Jan 20, 2008 2:18 AM MST 0 recs
I have Thomas...
I think I would like to keep a run stuffer in on this particular call though...
???
by styg50 on
Jan 20, 2008 2:20 AM MST
up
0 recs
Got it.
BTW, I'm still working on the template you sent and learning "paint", as well as working on...you know...Guru's secret project. I can't wait to be proficient enough to include diagrams in most of my work. Thanks again for the template!
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 3:59 AM MST
up
0 recs
Breakdown on the Styg Scheme
Here's a few match-up issues to consider. (Keep in mind that EVERY defensive play will have match-up weaknesses).
- If you have Bailey bump his guy, and Bly play "off", you should really consider having Hamza's first priority be to help Bailey, not Bly. Bump coverage carries a higher risk of losing your man, while playing off is lower risk.
- Playing to strengths, Bailey much prefers playing off of his coverages. Let's ammend the Sword formation to have Bailey off, Bly in bump, and Hamza's priority to assist Bly. Besides, Bly's style is more high risk, so the change plays to his strength as well. We'll keep Hamza covering Bly as his priority.
- I think we want to avoid having two guys in on directing the players (ie Lynch setting up the strongside guys). We really need one guy accounting for both sides to lessen confusion and to avoid a missed coverage or needless double coverage.
- Fox or Pay in coverage on the TE is sound, depending on who the TE is. Some bigger TEs will run over a corner, but a good corner should beat a most TEs in pass coverage.
- If the offense runs a strong side run play you are in big trouble. You have a TE blocking your corner (mismatch), and your SLB blitzing. In the Strong-I you have diagramed the FB is already set to run block that strong side. (This is one reason why you don't really want a nickle formation facing a Stong-I. The Strong-I, which you have as the offense in your diagram, is indicated by the FB offset to the strong side).
- Lynch is in a very tough spot. He either commits to the blitz right away or he loses a step. A blitzer really shouldn't have a secondary responsibility. Either way, the only reason to go zone is for a pass, and he is already blitzing (which is already a pass defense move) so there is no reason to have a zone as a secondary plan. Even if there were a reason to put a player in a fall back responsibility out of a blitz, do you really want a player droping into a zone after they started to blitz (and backpeddling at that)?
- The way you use DJ is sound. Consider having Doom blitz outside the tackle while DJ is shooting the LT-LG gap. On the strong side, also consider having Moss shoot outside the tackle.
- Consider not using Crowder as a tackle. With two speady types on each side blitzing (WLB/DE, SLB/DE) why not just use big DTs to ensue that the Center and the two Guards can't help the overworked Tackles? With Lynch blitzing the middle, we have the FB tied up if the DTs get a good push.
- I think you meant to put the nickle corner's priority to cover the TE if the TE doesn't motion. If the TE DOES motion, then the nickle goes into zone. Am I correct?
~~~~~~~~
Assuming we make a few tweaks, and assuming you make the case for some of the concerns I raised, we move to the next step. Because you are one of my top coaches, we'll very much assume we made it past the initial pub exam. Let's call in the entire crew and go deeper.
What you are proposing is a unique formation for the team. It is really a 4-3-1 nickle with a MLB replaced by a SS. So now let's not look at the proposal on the tactical level we have been, but at more of a coach/managment level.
- If our WLB isn't as capable of blindside blitzes from the outside, then the WLB shouldn't be the WLB anyway, and perhaps Williams or someone else should be there. Instead of planning plays to take advantage of a player at a position they don't play at , we have to ask ourselves why we have to move a player out of position in the first place.
- This makes the point that whomever we place at WLB needs to have the skill set I listed (primarily the abilities of speed and shedding blocks). If that WLB can't do his job, I don't want to have to lose the MLB player to cover for him, and lose (perhaps) the more critical position of MLB to someone having to cover that. It ripples downhill, with Lynch now covering a different position. To paraphrase, "Let's fix the WLB position without scheming around it".
- Consider that the formation, when it comes out on the field, will become predictable. The play you have drawn up already contains variations, but these are predicated (so far) on if the TE goes in motion in not. The next step is to draw up more plays for the formation. Let me elaborate on this:
All of this sounds harsh so far, but you don't evaluate a play or a formation by pointing out the merits. You attack it and see if it holds up. It's kind of like defending a thesis or dissertation before an academic board. They won't tell you what they like, they'll interogate you to see if the work holds up.
How do I rate the plan overall?
~~~~~~~~~
I like the idea behind the play (a heavy blitz), but I would just make some tweaks.
First, let's go with the same idea as the illustration, but turn it into a nickle (move Lynch back to a mid zone and have him watch for a run play). Lynch is overkill on the blitz (you already have 6 guys coming at the QB), and the big weakness against the Big-I is little run protection to the strong side.
Let's tweak the CBs to play to their styles as we went over earlier. Let's also replace Crowder with a DT that will enhance the blitz by the WLB and R-DE.
Does it look a little different? Yes. But that's how most plays get on the field. They start as an idea, then go through adjustments, then the final product comes out. In fact, most ideas don't even make it to the tweak stage. They just die at the pub.
Your idea has made it to the field in my opinion. There is no reason why the MLB on a team can't be the WLB in nickle formations (it happens). You could put a slower SS up near the line to help with run support, but given the potential for the nickleback to be runblocked by a TE, you might not want that SS blitzing or dropping too far back.
Very well done!
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 11:14 AM MST
up
0 recs
Great breakdown
I did not really think about the roles of the RB, because I really don't know much about the roles of the RB :) I had a feeling they were a major wrench, but I wanted to at least get the discussion started...
I think it would be a rare formation call (once per game, critical late game or momentum shifting stop) or at least that is how I would write it into the playbook. Ideally you might only bring it out 4 or 5 times a year, but you would want it to be very specifically potent, so we need to hash out the weaknesses...
Let's see, I'll work over it one point at a time, I think:
- I agree 100% about switching the CB strategy. I figured Bly should be the one who bumps, because it matches him well, but I just figured at the time that anything Bly can do, Champ can do better. :) Plus, with Champ traditionally lined up strong side, I wanted him in a position to make a tackle on a run (3 or 4 yards would be too late, and a first down). But I have faith that Champ can get to the play in time playing in his favored manner of off the WR, eyes in the backfield.
- I never really meant that DJ would direct the play, just that Lynch would take the responsibility for calling out assignments from MLB (he is more than qualified), taking his cue from the way DJ decides to line up. Dj wouldn't have to say anything, though the play would probably be called into him... I don't like this setup anybetter though, except that I have always liked the idea of DJ being the 'silent assassin' on the weakside, but that is neither here nor there...:)
- The nickle on the TE would probably be Foxy, with his safety experience, that should help him hang with the TE, but the great ones would still be a mismatch, and might actually call for Bailey to take him instead, putting the nickle DB on the outside WR. A powerful young safety with speed could also take the TE instead of a CB. If we were to draft Philips, but he didn't manage to crack the starting lineup right away (I think Lynch would embrace a challenge of that nature) plays like these would be an opportunity to get him on the field (though not necessarilly this one...as I said before, if we call this one, we probably need it to work pretty badly...)
- Regarding nickle vs. strong-I, I never really meant to draw it up as a strong-I, but even at that, it could very well be a regular I which could be strong as well. I don't really see any way around this, except that as a guy who might call in this play, I wouldn't call it in if I expected that they could run strongside (personell, injuries, or time left on the clock, or whatever). Serious weakness....I think the hope would be that you would catch them passing (and get a sack or force a turnover) and rely on everyone getting a jump on their secondary responsibilities to stop the run. I would imagine that the offense would have a much different formation if they traditionally passed in these situations as well. Sort of a quagmire at this point.
- I show Lynch blitzing in the diagram, but I never thought of him as blitzing. I needed to give him a different color of arrow I think. I imagined him as dropping straight into pass coverage or playing the run, while the SLB played run all the way. Technically, I think DJ is the only blitzer in fact. Addressing another point here, The nickle would definitely drop back, covering the seam as a priority. I suppose this leaves the SAM covering the TE down low, good or bad? Lynch and the nickle have overlapping pass coverages as well I think, so that might not be good either...
- DJ shoots the gap, Moss off the outside. Safety, for 2 points. Sounds good! :)
- OK, OK, I'll take Crowder out (but YOU have to tell him). The question is, do we put in Corey Williams (FA acquisition) or that young stud we drafted who has been knocking the coaches socks off in practice? :)
- I'm certainly not advocating shoring up the WLB position, I agree 100% that we shouldn't do this if it is to cover some deficiency in the WLB. Let us think of this play as more of an 'opportunity', and let us look at it in light of what personnel we are replacing... If Gold comes back, he would be coming out on this play, otherwise it will be Winborn (he replaced Gold this year) but most likely a rookie (trying to keep him off of blockers while he learns the speed of the game). Think of this as rest for Gold, and just a changeup in any other case. In fact, if you could time the playcall right, Gold would be coming out anyway for a breather. The more I think about this play, the less I think it could be effective (and terribly exploited) by playcalling QBs and great defense readers. Let us add some focus to it at this point by saying that if it telegraphs, it will be out. Lets tweak it so that it can cover a Strongside run, stuff a weakside run, get heavy pressure weakside on passing plays, and protect short (5 yards) and long (big play).... Speaking of the importance of Lynch, it will be the SS job to prevent the 15 yard completion I suppose. Hope he reads his coverage right. :)
I will add one more caveat for consideration. DJ next year will become a "true" MLB, in the sense that we will stop thinking of him as 'displaced.' He will have MLB skills (he already does, really), so he should be able to shed a blocker. For this reason, I am not too worried about the HB or TB blocking him en route to the QB. I fully expect DJ to beat him, and in fact, from a scheme point of view, I think we could count on it. DJ won't even slow down... ;) In fact, let's rename this play "Sword of DJclese".
A final point about the pressure: this play should be about the QB pressure with just enough of a safety-valve to not get destroyed by the run or pass if it fails. It is not so much about a lot of pressure, as it is about precise pressure. Think about it as the difference between cage-fighting and greco-roman. Rather than a lot of show and violence, it is about a timed sequence that is over before it began. At worst you have to do a move to get out of the counter, and live to fight another day...
This round is on me.
by styg50 on
Jan 20, 2008 5:29 PM MST
up
0 recs
I think you have improved the play.
- We have fixed the CB coverage.
- We cleared up who calls the ball.
- (You list two #4s, so I'm combining 3 and the second "4") I think we solve the nickle/safety coverage of the seam/TE by having Lynch play a zone where a curl route by the TE is likely on the strong side, and where a strong side run might go. Two birds in one stone. You can put the SAM on the TE in man. If the play goes to the TE you have dbl coverage, if it doesn't you have the TE already on the strong side and the SAM to tie up the TE. Nice work Styg!
- (The first one) With the above point, we have fixed the problem.
- We have fixed the DE routes for their shoots.
- Lol. I'm paying you to tell Crowder. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. If I was the head coach and you were the coordinator I'd also be paying you to pick which of the two DTs you think is best on the play. I'm staying out of that one!
- The only issue I have left is that with personnel changes and the positioning of the players we still telegraph our intentions. Draw up a few more plays that are effective for this formation (probably just two) so that the opposition doesn't know what to expect when we put this play in a few times a year. The plays can't be window dressing of course, they have to differ substantialy from the Sword and be effective enough to not just be diversions. (Don't literaly draw up another couple of plays. That's just what we would do if we were really "at the office").
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 11:58 PM MST
up
0 recs
If the offense
Wouldn't this lineup become a huge problem, it the O goes single back/empty backfield/Shotgun? I mean, it would be baaad to have DJ lined up against af 3rd reciever in Bly's side.
On the other hand you, of course, could hop that the pass-rush would get to the QB before he can get rid of the Football.
This is more a question, than it is a critique of lineup...
by Claaaaas on
Jan 20, 2008 5:18 AM MST
up
0 recs
The FB
Your second question (about the single back or empty backfield) would not be an issue. The defense will send in a different formation if the see the offense substituting in extra receivers.
Good questions my friend. You are a quick learner!
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 11:18 AM MST
up
0 recs
Great analysis (as allways)
LB: What about going for D. Conner, who plays both positions (MLB/OLB). Then we would be able to mix up him and Williams in whatever way that fits the matchups better? For an example on passing downs, where Slowik might dial up a blitz, we could line up DJ on the outside. That version may be used more when playing elite TE's (entire AFC: Gates, Gonzalez and Miller). This is of course a bit the same as styg is saying. The difference however is Conner/Lynch at MIKE - i know what i would prefer, no offense, John.
2nd question:
As to picking up speed players: From my, unschooled, POV, i thought that tackling was the main issue of LB' and SAF's in '07? That shouldn't improve by getting smaller, and faster palyers schould it? I see where you're going: "If we're gonna blitz, we will need speed, but if that makes our tacling worse than '07, that would be devastating... to me at least...
/Claaaas
by Claaaaas on Jan 20, 2008 5:22 AM MST 0 recs
More good questions from Claaaaas
- The only problem with mix and matching players at the LB position is that each position has hundreds of play assignments to remember (more when you through in special adjustments for each team). You really want to keep a player at a position and let him specialize. I don't know about Conner (I'm leaving the players to the MHR draft experts), but if he comes in I want him to be a fit at one of the OLB positions and stay there.
- Here's the point on speed that I think a lot of people miss. They assume that if you have one talent you don't have another. Let's instead make the following rule:
I don't want speed if a guy can't tackle. I don't want strength if a guy can't tackle. I don't want intelligence if the guy can't tackle. I don't care what talents a guy brings to a team; if he can't tackle he shouldn't play on defense.
Thus, under my rule, I want big guys at some positions (most notably DT) and fast guys at others (LB). We are going to take it for granted that guys who can't tackle (no matter how fast they are) are not allowed on the team.
This also goes to an earlier discussion I had in a different diary about the need to have a fast receiver to complement Marshall's YAC and Scheffler's possession hands. A few folks chimed in to say that many fast WRs don't have good hands. Here again, "If a receiver doesn't have good hands, I don't want him". The assumption is that I want a fast receiver who can actually catch the ball.
Football talent is not a zero sum game. There are big guys who can't tackle, and there are good tacklers without speed. Sometimes there may be a correlation, but not always.
Here's an example. I like smaller, athletic guys with quick feet on my offensive line. Someone might point out, "Let's not have small guys; they can't block as well". Not really true. I want the smaller, athletic, quick footed guys because they DO block better... in a zone block system.
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 11:35 AM MST
up
0 recs
O.K.
about the FB and the "sword", the FB also keeps Styg fearing that the offense might run to strong side, so i guess he has more plusses, than noticed by first glance.
Once again great, great work - this offseason is gonna be a lot of fun:D
by Claaaaas on
Jan 20, 2008 5:06 PM MST
up
0 recs
Why ever pick the slower option at LB?
Bigger LBs are more often found at MLB, just like bigger defensive linemen are more often found at DT. The reason is that you want big guys (who face a war in the trenches) to have the power to fight off offensive linemen. Lighter guys (DEs and OLBs) are better for the "side to side" speed needed where the offensive line is less of a factor. It's a question of which philosophy powers your scheme.
Let's say I prefer a big MLB who is not very fast, but he is massive in size and very strong. My philosophy is that the MLB's prime job is stopping the run. He is an extra brute to shed blockers that try to keep him off of the runner or off of the QB. He can be an extra guy to plug up running gaps while the OLBs or safeties swoop in for a tackle on inside runs. While he is a slower option at blitz, he is also harder to block one on one and requires a double team to stop him.
Let's say I prefer a fast MLB who isn't massive and strong. My philosophy is that I want a multi-function MLB. He has the speed to assist on runs, but can also better cover a middle zone on passes. If he makes a mistake, his speed helps him to cover it up and get a second chance. He is less likely to wear down as the game goes on. He can also better cover the field side to side.
Both options are valid. It depends on the style prefered by the coach for his scheme. There are arguments for size vs speed at every position on the field, and the arguments are all correct depending on the type of system employed.
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 20, 2008 11:36 PM MST
up
0 recs
Great read.
Norv Turner cost the chargers that game :P
by calvinandhobbes on Jan 20, 2008 4:03 PM MST 0 recs
Oh well....
by mdierk on
Jan 20, 2008 4:31 PM MST
up
0 recs
Good post...what FA's are a good fit though?
The Broncos biggest weakness was in the middle of the field (DT, MLB, and S) last leason, and when we overcompensated, we paid for it.
Denver will be building in the draft for most of these positions, but Denver's fortunate that there are accomplished players available that fit very well into Slowik's scheme.
I think you HAVE to look at a safety in the 1st round unless one of the top 3 DT's slides down the board. If none of the top DTs or Phillips is on the board, I'd be shocked if Denver didn't trade down and have two 2nd round picks. Kentwan Balmer (NC) and Sims (AUB) are both 2nd round probabilities, and, I assume, high on Denver's list.
Lance Briggs or John Vilma could step in with a very short learning curve and make a noticeable impact, and I think the Broncos will absolutely look closely at signing one or the other.
At DT, Al Haynseworth is available and is an impact player, but you have to think that he's exactly the kind of player Shanny won't bite on after this season's injury/attitude issues.
I think Denver gets an LB thru FA and one in the draft, but I'd be shocked if they took one before the 2nd round. I'd go so far as to say they won't take a LB before 4th round.
As far as Foxy and Paymah, based on performance over the last 2 seasons, I think it's clear that Paymah has much more upside. Unfortunately, Foxy took a little step backwards in 2007, although some of the onus falls on playing at safety on some plays, where he is simply overmatched and unfamiliar with the position.
by super7 on Jan 21, 2008 1:02 PM MST 0 recs
A lot I agree on
- I don't know if I think MLB was an issue, considering Williams was second in the League (first in the AFC) in tackles. But I agree that SAF, OLB, and DT were a problem.
- I agree that a DT or SAF would be terrific in the first. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we traded down.
- I think there are good FAs out there, but based on comments by both Shanahan and Bowlen it looks like the team is a little leary of going FA much this year.
- Fox was definetly misused as a SAF. It bothers me to see CBs used as SAFs and vice versa. They seem to be the same thing to many people, but I think the skill set is entirely different. Fox and Pay need to be in the nickle and dime formations as corners. I think a Hamza / Phillips duo in the backfield would be an awe inspiring thing. We need to fix the run defense so we can keep both of our safeties back.
by hoosierteacher on
Jan 21, 2008 10:42 PM MST
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
