One More For The Defensive Line?

I think the problem that some people run into is in assuming that our numbers were balanced last year. Larsen was listed (and played) on both the offense and defense, so we had an extra RB because of his use on offense.

I believe that I was even tripped up on this at one point, but I also use an easy schematic representation to prevent this from happening. I also use a RB + WR = 10 heuristic, which I invented to solve the problem.

The reason that RBs + WRs (tend to) add up to ten is because QB = 3, TEs = 3 (usually), and OLs = 9 (often). That leaves 10 for the RBs and WRs. It’s not unusual to see teams go with more of less OLs but the ‘backup problem’ becomes an issue if there isn’t an OL versatile enough to handle more than one position. Hochstein’s presence on the roster is probably due to this.

Here’s last year’s roster configuration: QB – 3, WR = 6, TE – 3, RB – 4½*, OL – 9(OT – 4, OG – 4, OC – 1); DL – 7, LB – 8½*(OLB – 5, ILB – 3½), DB – 9(CB – 4, S – 5).

OFFENSE = 25½, DEFENSE = 24½, SPECIALISTS = 3

Curiously, my suggestion that we look at OT/OG hybrids in the draft was motivated by this numbers’ crunch. The objective was to keep the OL numbers down but also carry adequate OT backup while at the same time address our needs at OG. The choice of Beadles was an attempt to address the backup problem in this way, and McDaniels alludes to it at the conclusion of the draft.

PDF

On OL Zane Beadles’ Role

"We’re going to put him at tackle and he will also play guard. Ultimately, what we want to do is create competition at every spot that we can so that the best five players in September are the guys that are out there. That’s what the goal will be. So, if he happens to be one of the best five at guard and not one of the best five playing tackle, then he may have the opportunity to win a spot there, and we’ll have to worry about the third or fourth tackle position if we have to do something based on an injury. He’s played left tackle, but we feel that he could compete at both (right and left). Maybe a little more of a right tackle than a left tackle, but he has played a lot of football at the left side and he’s got the skills to be able to do both. We like his versatility."

On the offensive line

"Like I said, Olsen’s more of a guard to center. I know he played center last year, but in ’08 he played all guard. I think we’ll start him at guard. He’ll probably have an opportunity to come in and compete at both. J. D. Walton will certainly play center first and then move out to guard, as well. We want to be able to move those players in and out. With (OL) Russ Hochstein and (OC)Dustin Fry, it’s the same thing. We’re going to give everybody an opportunity to compete. I think what we did that’s really improved the competition at that spot is that we got bigger. I think that was a goal for us, both to assist us and protect us in the pocket, and then also being able to run the football."

4-OLB and 3-ILB. It is becoming an increasingly pass oriented league and with more and more teams going 4 and even 5 wide the nickle is becoming almost a base formation against some teams. Given that, substituting a 3rd safety for an ILB just makes sense.

Re: rush backer. I thought Koa Misi might have been our choice if he’d lasted longer. It would have made sense if we took Butler in the 3rd, too. There really weren’t that many OLB34s that would have met with our approval this year, and we needed to wait till the Dumervil and Moss situations were resolved anyways. I don’t see any alternate choices in the range in which we drafted that look like superior choices to the selections we made.

Re: LB numbers. I’ve yet to see any indication that our current group of ILBs contains anyone who would justify our adding one more ILB. It makes sense from an emergency depth point of view but it’s a question of talent, too. I can see the logic in keeping one more though (assuming the talent is there). We may need backup at ILB if there’s an injury. However, I still believe that whoever we use as the 4th ILB must be able to cover, or else we accomplished nothing by cutting Davis. If we can’t find that attribute then we need to go another route. And I haven’t given up on the idea of Larsen moving back on a semi-regular basis. The fact that he was stationed at FB in passing camp doesn’t mean he’s going to stay there exclusively. His time was far better spent at FB in a passing camp than moving back to ILB. That’s easy to understand.

The ILB numbers that we brought in are revealing. They look like T.C. fodder. I just don’t get the impression they’re trying to fill the position. You have to remember (or be aware) — the MSM was unaware for the most part that we moved Haggan over. The so-called experts had been predicting our need based on their lack of knowledge of our roster. I still like the idea of an added ILB who can double at OLB (like Butler) but it’s not a major need currently. I’d rather see them add and extra DL or DB in passing down situations. BTW — our DL depth makes adding a DL for certain situations attractive once again. Many fans may be reluctant to embrace this because we dropped the 4-3 but it’s the appropriate adjustment.