Under Review - Why Justin Bannan Should Return
by Colby on May 25, 2011 3:52 PM MDT
in Strictly My Opinion
Email
Print
On March 3rd, right before the leagues current Collective Bargaining Agreement was about to expire, the Broncos cut two of their starting defensive lineman from last season Jamal Williams and Justin Bannan.
Justin Bannan started all 16 games for the Broncos in 2010. His numbers are not anything too impressive, but generally stats never are for lineman in a 3-4 defense. #97 for the Broncos finished the year with 25 tackles, the third highest amount in his 9 year career thus far.
It is very important for the Broncos to make phone calls the minute free agency opens up. Fox said in press conferences following the draft that they would address the defensive tackle position in free agency. I would sure hope so considering the Broncos defensive tackle position looks like this right now:
- Kevin Vickerson
- Marcus Thomas
- Mitch Unrein
- Louis Leonard
What makes Justin Bannan special for the Broncos is that he is versatile. Bannan played the end position and defensive tackle for Buffalo Bills in his career and nose tackle for the Baltimore Ravens.
With help from Brian Shrout's MHR Primer on defensive lineman, you can see here that Justin Bannan is lined up in front of the right tackle. This is the spot that Justin Bannan played most of the season for the Broncos as you will see in my video below.
In the above picture though, you can see that Bannan played a little off center in the five-tech spot. What does this mean? Well it could mean nothing, or it could be displaying his versatility that he is very capable of playing in a 4-3 which we are moving to. In a 4-3 the defensive lineman play a little off center which he would be required to do in a defensive tackle spot.
Bannan was not the problem with the Broncos defense last season. The injury to Robert Ayers and obviously Dumervil became the large problem in our 3-4. The depth at the nose tackle position was another problem. I think Justin Bannan has to return along with a different defensive tackle. Marcus Thomas is nothing more than a backup but Bannan has excelled before at the defensive tackle position. In his last year for the Ravens before he left, he had 30 tackles playing at both end and tackle positions. It's just a thought. I'm sure he played more end than tackle for the Ravens but we need someone in that position and at 305 pounds he could work, at least for this season.
The only reason that Bannan was cut was to prevent paying him a half million dollar roster bonus at the beginning of a new league year. We might not have a choice but to bring him back and see what he can do in a 4-3.
In my below video I noticed a few things. Bannan always hustles until the whistle blows. Against the Titans, Bannan was near every tackle against Chris Johnson. Also, Bannan would not get controlled very easy. Very rarely would he get pushed back. He has a quick step and pushes back the tackle a yard but than seemed to struggle having any moves to get to the quarterback. However, one of my favorite plays in the following highlights is when he blows by the center and gets to the quarterback. Hope that is what is what we can expect if we resign him.
Oh also! If you have anyone you want me to look at and from what game, let me know and I will see what I can do.
63 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Meh
One, I don’t think he is anything more than a situation player at this point in his career, I think there will be suitable FA available that will come at a cheaper price.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman
Agreed.
Maybe I am missing something but from the video provided, he seemed pretty much irrelevant in the 5 technique. He doesn’t seem to have the quick step, moves, or speed necessary to challenge a legitimate tackle in this league. A better video would be one that showed his ability in run stuffing. I didn’t see anything extraordinary in the above clip in that regard either, though. The first play was nice, but CJ stil got about 8 yards; not exactly a perfect run stop.
I still voted yes in regards to signing him, but only because DT is such a gaping hole. We need all the help we can get.
so...
I’m having trouble figuring out how to edit posts. Any idea how? I click ‘actions’ but that doesn’t seem to do anything. Anyway…
to clarify the above, I noticed that the first play is against the ravens, not the titans. But its still not really a highlight reel run stop. I’m all for signing him (it couldn’t hurt), but it seems to me that all of the ‘push’ that he is getting is off of linemen defending shotgun/5 step drop plays that are designed to shift momentum to the outside, rather than stop a D lineman in his tracks. In plays that are more run oriented, he gets swallowed up by the tackle or the double team.
Not trolling. Am I missing something?
On comments, you can't go back and edit
You can do that for your fan posts or fan shots though.
"Bombs dropping down overhead. Underground. It's instilled to want to live." -EV
Did not understand at all why we cut him in the first place.
Bannan Vickerson, Marcus Thomas, Leonard/Unrein and Cofield/Mebane would be plenty to get us through the season
Then we can draft a DT in the draft next year.
Follow me on Twitter: ballinnickcast
Xbox360 gamertag: SnipeMeHarder
"They said I couldn't be a high school quarterback, they said I couldn't get a D1 scholarship. You're not good enough, you're not skilled enough. They said I couldn't win a heisman. They said I couldn't win a national championship. They said I wouldn't be a first round draft pick. They said I couldn't play in the league. Appreciate that." - Tim Tebow.
Still holding out on us drafting a DT, huh?
You must enjoy the pain of constant disappointment there ;)
"Pain don't hurt" - Swayze (Road House) -- We miss you man!
Where have I heard that before"
“We can draft a DT NEXT year!”
Oh, yeah, now I remember. A brew pub where I used to live always had a sign in their window that read “Free beer tomorrow!”
With Ayers, Doom and Miller..
in there I think the DT’s don’t have to be superstars, just fill the middle and keep the OL off the linebackers.
I might be wrong but I think it is more important to bring Thomas back than Williams or Bannan. JMO
Kansas Bob
you can play snake with the buffering icon on youtube videos???
"Have you ever heard of the emancipation proclamation?"
- "I don't listen to hip-hop"
Yes.
I don’t really know why, but you can. Thank you random YouTube staff.
by Jake Edmisten on May 25, 2011 8:33 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
You under rate Thomas..he has got better and better thru his 4 years here and will be a good player for us.
FIRE DE MAURICE SMITH...he can go suck dog balls for all I care!
NFLPA??? National Fools and Lame Pricks Association!
ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT WE HAVE IN TEBOW? Watching Kyle orton is like watching re-runs of the Brady Bunch...you always know whats going to happen and makes you feel sick at the end!
"I actually watched the World Cup. I HATE baseball. Hockey’s over. Hey, at least we have the WNBA. Oh, man. I’m making a noose. Want one?"
Harv Neptune.
Again, why try to switch a player from what he knows?
Marcus Thomas is a 4/3 player and was drafted to be the same. McDaniels and his big ideas didn’t have a big repertoire of players that fit the scheme and it hurt us. Sure we had success early on when it began, but when teams had film on us, we struggled because the players weren’t 3/4 players. Thomas and Bannan may be what the doctor ordered in Fox/Allen’s playbook. One thing for sure, we will have to get players from somewhere…
Justin bannan isn't an elite football player...
But, he plays to the whistle and gives a 100% on every down. I think back at the defenses performance last year and still for the life of me can figure out where we went wrong? I have to believe a large part of it was playcalling on ‘Winks’ part. I know Wink can’t be blamed for every bad play, but the defense looked great for a few downs and then fell apart. Something was amiss in my opinion. Bannan made some of the more memorable plays though that stuck out to me, and, woud he fit better in a 4/3 scheme? His original position with the Bills.
Good points and questions.
Bannan is not a Suh type guy…people that dis him are looking for too much flashy stuff.
The problem last year stems from the soft front-7. Doom and Ayers were our two most talented guys in the front 7 IMHO and we lost them both. The DT talent we had was a couple “good” players and a bunch of back-ups. Add to that LBs that aren’t aggressive or supremely talented and you get the puke that was last year’s defensive performance. Wink didn’t do much to maximize what he had, but even if he was calling the right plays, the players on the field weren’t up to the task of executing the plays and winning their one-on-one battles.
Bannan will be a solid player in either scheme. One of the great things about him is how versatile he is. Is he going to get big sack numbers? NO. Is he going to consistently break the pocket? NO, but he will from time-to-time…look at the above review for evidence of that. I do think that he is a player that will benefit greatly from having better talent around him. He will be able to make more of an impact with Ayers, Doom, and Von Miller on the field because it will leave him one-on-one more and he can battle through that all day long.
Bring Bannan back Broncos! Pay the man some money and sign him to a 2 year deal. He’s got it left in the tank easily.
"Bombs dropping down overhead. Underground. It's instilled to want to live." -EV
I answered no
Bannan was said to have been blind-sided by his release. I sort of think of it as breaking up with your girlfriend over Facebook – in public and without warning. Asking him back would take a lot of begging, IMO. Asking him back at a discount would be even worse.
Justin Bannan isn’t a Bronco. Neither Dennis Allen nor John Fox have any loyalties to him. And we don’t need to feel like we do either, IMO. He’s a 32 year old that hasn’t played in a 4-3 since he’s been in the league. Sure, he could probably adapt if we needed him to. But again, he’s no longer a Bronco. So I just don’t see why he would be at the top of our list.
To me, Bannan is a guy that we put out a feeler with as soon as free agency starts. We let our “ex” know that we’re interested, but we don’t beg or act overly interested. INstead, we let him know we were in a tough spot and that we wish things had worked out differently – that we’re still interested. If we end up being his best offer, he’ll come back. If not, he won’t. No biggie.
My sights are still aimed higher. I’m still looking for a guy like Cullen Jenkins or Albert Haynesworth as our main squeeze. I’d be fine with Bannan coming back in addition, but he’s not the one I think about. Him alone isn’t going to make me happy.
Von. Doom. Pow!
Opps... correction on some sloppiness -)
He’s a 32 year old that hasn’t played excelled in a 4-3 since he’s been in the league. He did play in the 4-3 before, as was noted. But he was never good at it.
Von. Doom. Pow!
I think he stated that he would return
He played for CU, so he knows Colorado.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
Follow me on Twitter @MHR_KaptainKirk
My feeling is that he probably holds a grudge and that we won't be his first choice
Here’s a link from the Denver Post after Bannan was released:
“I’ve never been so blindsided,” Bannan said. “I’ve never been so confident that I held up Denver Broncos my end of the bargain. I did my job. I gave it everything I had. It broke my heart. …”
He did go on to say in there that he loved Colorado, but I think it’s a bit overshadowed. He continued on in what I perceive as probably the same interview, although this is from a different link at the BaltimoreSun…
"I’ve got a pregnant wife on my hands, and she’s upset," Bannan said of his wife Sommer who is due on Sept. 10. "We thought we had a home base for at least a little bit. Our world really just got turned upside down today. So it really came as quite a shock, and it’s very upsetting to me and my family.
On that same article, he also says of the Baltimore Ravens:
"I love that place," said Bannan, who spent four seasons with the Ravens before leaving for the Broncos for the 2010 season. "I love Baltimore. I still keep in contact with a lot of guys back there. They’re family to me, the Ravens organization is family to me. So that’s a definite possibility.
Bannan goes on to say that “(Kelly) Gregg is like (my) brother”. He also talks about the Jets, saying half his “gang” is over there, referring to Rex Ryan, defensive coordinator and former Ravens linebackers coach Mike Pettine and former Ravens Bart Scott, Trevor Pryce and Jim Leonhard.
So again, if we’re the only offer he has, then sure. But I don’t think a 3-4 defender like Bannan is going to be our first choice, and I don’t think we’ll be his.
Von. Doom. Pow!
by Rodney A on May 25, 2011 10:42 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Very nice
thanks for the links
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
Follow me on Twitter @MHR_KaptainKirk
by KaptainKirk on May 26, 2011 12:04 AM MDT up reply actions
If the broncos are really serious in creating or building a contender, they will have to dish out the doe..
To me, Bannan is a guy that we put out a feeler with as soon as free agency starts. We let our "ex" know that we’re interested, but we don’t beg or act overly interested.
Since we didn’t address the position in the draft, it is a no-brainer that the next ‘pool’ ( as Fox calls it) is the next best option. I don’t think anybody would deny that Bannan is at best a serivcable backup and no one could every say he is an elite DE/DT. That bird don’t fly and I believe he recognizes that, but if he could help us get the boat going in the right direction then I would be for it. ‘Begging’ him to come back? Nope…
He's a 2nd tier DT, IMO
He’s not someone he want to build around. Him as our best starter would make for another scary roster up front. Maybe ‘beg’ was a strong word, but the point is that he’s never been successful in a 4-3. And he’s not real happy with us. Why ask him back? Why chase him?
I’m just saying we’ll likely make contact and take him later if he’s still available. But he won’t be our main squeeze, our main target. It would be ill-advised for us to chase after him instead of moving after a bigger fish first.
Von. Doom. Pow!
He was one of our 16 game starters...
I wish the site that gives stats was still free (PFFocus?) because I was wondering last night how many times did teams run at him, and how successful was he? I’m with you on him, I would ‘chase’ him, but if he was the best option or we were in a tight then yeah…BTW, Bannan is well aware that the NFL stands for “Not For Long” and it is a business. It’s always tough when you have to get up and move everything after you get settled in, so I can see his point about being upset…
by bfree2bronc on May 26, 2011 11:25 AM MDT up reply actions
Play the vaunted 2-3-4
We haven’t had any real DT’s in years, we refuse to draft them, why should we bother playing them?
I say we keep the money, stuff it into footballs, then burn them. Oh, also, I’m bitter that the Broncos hate Dline and refuse to have any. (HOW many useless FA’s over the last 2 years alone? 3 Oline picks last year, more this year, nothing for dline. Oh the bitterness!)
So yeah, don’t play any. Or sign me. THEN people will see the utility of having NFL players in NFL positions. (alternately, don’t be embarrassed when 3rd tier running backs have 200 yards against us. Oh wait, that was last year…)
Off rant: Thomas and Vick are nothing but back ups. Sign me 2 real, quality DT’s that pass their physicals and play well for at least 10 games each. THEN we have a shot to field a real NFL defense. Short of that, our poor MLB is gonna get blasted and our new toy Miller is gonna get crunched.
by Gelder on May 25, 2011 5:41 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?
"Bombs dropping down overhead. Underground. It's instilled to want to live." -EV
I would like him back
there is absolutely no one there is what people are forgetting. Vick and Thomas would be an OK at best duo, but Bannan outplayed them both last year. He’s no superstar but if we bring him back to a cheaper contract I’d be happy.
Seriously, Unreid and Leonard, WTF?!?!?!?!? I hope we can sign at least 2-3 DT’s, those guys won’t cut it. Mebane and Cofield may be pipe dreams. If there teams don’t resign them, someone else will pay them out the wazoo and when was the last time Denver got into a bidding war for an FA and won? Bringing back Bannan, even if just as a rotational player, would be a very smart move
If you reply to a comment/post/fanshot of mine, I will more likely then not respond to it, unless you come off like a d-bag.
I don't think we're "forgetting" how thin and talentless our roster is at DT
We just don’t see it as an either/or scenario. It’s not a case where we either take Bannan or we’re stuck with the roster as is.
I choose Option C – somebody that’s better than Bannan.
If Bannan weren’t a Bronco last year, nobody would have ever mentioned his name. We wouldn’t be having a discussion about how important it is to bring back a 3-4 DL to play in our new 4-3. Bannan wouldn’t even be on our radar. He’s not great, nor is he a great fit. He’s maybe mediocre and a mediocre fit. I’d be happy to have him, but not if it’s only him. I want more talent.
Look at it this way…. Where else do we have to spend money in free agency? A 2nd running back. That’s it. We don’t need any other starters or major role players. RB and DT, that’s it. I expect us to bring in someone better than Bannan at DT. We should be able to afford it.
Von. Doom. Pow!
by Rodney A on May 25, 2011 6:59 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
I offered bringing in 2 DT's
I think Bannan could come back pretty cheap, I doubt anyone really wants him. We could sign him as a rotational player and sign a Mebane or Cofield (who I have trouble seeing us getting), or maybe a DT a step below them. My point was 2 DT’s, not just settling on Bannan or another.
Its easy to say “someone else” but who do you have in mind, besides Mebane and Cofield?
If you reply to a comment/post/fanshot of mine, I will more likely then not respond to it, unless you come off like a d-bag.
by DBroncs1414 on May 25, 2011 10:54 PM MDT up reply actions
Cullen Jenkins or Albert Haynesworth
But I got your point now. I think we agree we need a great FA, a good free agent and maybe another “body”.
Von. Doom. Pow!
Bannan can fill the gap people
and hes probably cheap we take Bannan and sign an undrafted rookie DT
No save ammunition all bullets in gun now- Bruce Campbell
Stand up straight a man looks more confident when he is erect- Taj
GO BRONCOS GO REDSOX GO NUGGETS
I would rather Coefield, Mebane or Jenkins.
FIRE DE MAURICE SMITH...he can go suck dog balls for all I care!
NFLPA??? National Fools and Lame Pricks Association!
ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT WE HAVE IN TEBOW? Watching Kyle orton is like watching re-runs of the Brady Bunch...you always know whats going to happen and makes you feel sick at the end!
"I actually watched the World Cup. I HATE baseball. Hockey’s over. Hey, at least we have the WNBA. Oh, man. I’m making a noose. Want one?"
Harv Neptune.
Me too and I hope they go after at least one of them hard.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
Follow me on Twitter @MHR_KaptainKirk
They need to go for one of those guys hard but i think letting Bannan go would be a mistake
No save ammunition all bullets in gun now- Bruce Campbell
Stand up straight a man looks more confident when he is erect- Taj
GO BRONCOS
Jenkins...
and someone else in the 350 range – Fox loves beef at DT.
A Bronco fan in San Diego - where history begins in 2004.
by BroncFanInChargerLand on May 25, 2011 10:10 PM MDT via mobile reply actions
Bannan @ 310lbs = cut by Fox
good technique guy tho for the right scheme
A Bronco fan in San Diego - where history begins in 2004.
by BroncFanInChargerLand on May 25, 2011 10:12 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
I am sure I saw somewhere
That this was possibly discussed when he resigned.
The 28-year-old was rewarded for his production with a two-year, $4.75 million contract extension signed prior to the lockout in March. Because of the timing of the pact, he receives a $1 million bonus this summer regardless of labor strife.
Took that off of wiki, but just to show the basics of the signing. I don’t really know what they may have discussed but I would find it pretty hard to believe he would sign a new two year deal and then just radically change his weight without some kind of input. Would he really do that on his own?
Opinions are like......, Well anyway, this is mine.
I'm not sure, but I'm certainly not sold either way
I’ve looked at both sides and I’m still on the fence.
- Excluding what I like to call The Great Roster Purge of 2010, Fox only ever had one primary starter at DT that didn’t weigh in the 300’s – he was 299lbs, and that only happened in one year.
- In that same eight year span, Fox always had a 340lb+ starter at DT for week-one, and sometimes both DTs were 340+.
- Fox just recently (after the draft) reiterated that “the bigger the better” when referring to DTs we’d look to bring in.
- Conversely, it’s also hard to believe that our only real DT would go out on his own and drop 30+ pounds.
In the end, though, I think it’s easier for me to believe that Little Vick went overboard with his weight loss/shape up than it is for me to believe Fox actually asked to have him drop under 300 pounds. It’s easier to believe that a young player trying to make a name for himself, went out in the offseason with his own idea on how he might play his best.
I just can’t force myself to believe Fox would go to our only DT and say, "You looked good last year at 321, and I prefer fat tackles like you… so here’s a new contract at “starters” money…. now go get skinny so that you look and play like a completely different person."
There’s no proof yet either way, but I’m leaning toward thinking a young guy went out and got carried away without permission.
Von. Doom. Pow!
Yeah.... BUT
Fox also stated in a recent interview that he wants to get faster with the front four – fat doesnt equale fast last time i checked. And it doesnt matter what Fox did before. He plugged guys he used in the scheme he had at Carolina. Coaches are always seeing new styles and wrinkles they want to add every year, and some just cant make the big changes to their playbook until they get a fresh start with new personnel. Is it crazy to think that Fox wants to go with a faster, lighter front as hes stated recently? The colts have been routinely successful with that style, why not us. Dont be surprised if Vick starts the year under 300lbs… cause im pretty sure he didnt just do all that work cause he felt like it. Professionals that do what they want arent professionals long, unless they are an unbelievable talent at a skill position, then they squeeze through a career with 6 or 7 diff teams.
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
"Excellence can be obtained; if you care more than others think is wise…risk more than others think is safe…dream more than others think is practical…expect more than others think is possible." - Anonymous Author
by Alexander Wall on May 26, 2011 1:38 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
re: size at DT
I’m too lazy to look but some of the ‘bigger’ DTs Fox used pre-dated his arrival, as was shown in a post here. And I realize that Fox had a long tenure in Carolina, but the tendency is to associate Fox with big DTs and disregard the other aspects of how the DL was constructed in Carolina. In other words, the fact that he had big DTs should not be mis-interpreted to mean that he MUST have them, or, that the story behind the DL under Fox is told solely through the weight of their DTs. Big can be good and big can be bad, too.
It’s apparent that the “must have big DTs” narrative is overriding all other considerations in the minds of many fans here at MHR. It’s reminiscent of the “magic inch” that supposedly would doom Alphonso Smith, who came up short (truly) and therefore could never perform adequately. Since it was an rationale that was only cited for Smith, the indication is that there were other reasons for disliking his acquisition (e.g., traded for a future 1st, etc.), and the magic inch was a convenient pretext for stating a dislike of Smith’s acquisition.
I, too, see Fox as a HC who is constantly learning and adapting. I also place far more importance on what Dennis Allen likes than most here. It’s become a habit of many here to assume certain things and never question those assumptions. All things being equal, bigger is better, but things aren’t equal. Stereotypical thinking doesn’t tell us much about contingent circumstances, except what we’d like to have if we could. Immovable object-ness was an essential feature of the FB3-4 but we’re not using that now, and pretty big DT who can also move could easily be the best option for now. In other words, if big is all that counts then re-sign Jamal Williams. But there’s more to it than just big.
******* "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - Charles Darwin
by Colinski on May 26, 2011 4:56 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
More on size
The Fox likes big DTs appears to be based only on two noticeably big fellows — Jenkins and Kemoeatu. Jenkins was drafted under Seifert and Kemoeatu signed as a FA, after coming into the league as a CFA and then succeeding in Baltimore.
No examples of Fox favoring or purposely selecting big DTs exists that I’m aware of (I haven’t ruled out UFAs but none ascended to starters if they did exist), but he did keep some big ones on the roster for a while. The assumption that bigness was an overriding consideration (and DTs are never tiny) is only an assumption. It could be the case that they were kept/acquired because they were good, and being big was an added bonus. Whatever the case, it’s certainly a ‘big’ assumption.
******* "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - Charles Darwin
by Colinski on May 26, 2011 5:27 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well of course there's more to it than 'just big'
You talk about assumptions, but to me, the assumption is anything that history doesn’t support…. like saying a rookie, never-has-been DC is going to all the sudden be given ‘the keys’ to a defense by a defensive minded coach.
It’s not just that Fox had two 340+ DTs in Carolina. It’s the eight years he used them. After Jenkins’ 2nd injury in as many years, do you assume it was coincidence that Fox grabbed big boy Kemoeatu? Because I assume he got him because he wasn’t sure he could rely on Jenkins any longer… and that he wanted a big replacement for a big man. Even when the roster was purged of talent in 2010, Fox brought in big boy Louis Leonard for the beef, although he couldn’t secure a spot in the end.
Then there’s the notion that it’s not just that he used two huge DTs in Carolina, it’s also that he didn’t use small ones. Aside from 2010, they were all about 300+.
And then there’s the idea that our team looks to be pretty well set at rushing the passer, far moreso than at stopping the run. So the DTs need to be big, beefy run stoppers.
To buy into your assumption that there was never a philosophy of using big DTs to counter balance the use of smaller, quicker linebackers… then we’d have to assume there was never much of a philosophy at all, just luck of the draw – a couple of DTs that were really big, none that were small, but all just by coincidence.
I don’t believe that. And I don’t think there’s anything overly presumptious or naive about my argument. I’m not saying that just because Fox used big DTs in the past that we’re guaranteed to use them here. I’m saying that’s a factor and pretty much every other factor points in the same direction.
Von. Doom. Pow!
a quick response on acquiring Leonard
Fox had Leonard with the Panthers in 2010
after their roster was purged of other talent. He got cut. Denver later signed him. The point I was making was that Fox did make an attempt to go after yet another Big DT, he was just handcuffed on the payroll and the cheaper Leonard couldn’t make the cut. That was the only year in Fox’s HCing career where Fox didn’t have one of those really big DTs on the roster to start in week one.
Von. Doom. Pow!
a little more on Leonard
I tend to look at age besides weight, which is a very rough indicator. Leonard, like Vickerson, had an inauspicious start in the league but developed enough to be traded for a 6th round pick. Curiously, you could argue that Carolina acquired him from Cleveland because of his size, but his position for the Browns was DE, so he’s probably bulked up over time just as Vickerson has (or had).
Fox worked with what he had in Carolina and he had Jenkins to start, and then drafted Peppers in his first year (or the team did). There’s logic behind staying with big NT types in the middle if you’re got Peppers but it’s at least some part contingent logic. If Fox was intent on ‘bigness’ then it should show up more in his moves. His draftees aren’t big DTS, when he does draft DTs. Examples of DT drafted/acquired include Hayden or Landri, who are hardly supportive of the big thesis. Hollis Thomas, who you cite, shows a NT type, but he was a vet brought in to replace Ra’Shon Harris, who was cut mid-season. The Panthers didn’t re-sign him for 2010.
I think you’re cueing on a few big players here in order to develop a Fox likes big DTs thesis, and others have, too. It’s not a question of whether DTs are big (to some out-of-norm degree), but of whether Fox has a disproportionate fondness for them which we can expect to guide his actions in the future. More of the Fox acquisitions don’t fit the profile so the correlation is weak. It could be argued that Fox sometimes likes big DTs — especially when they’re good — but that’s also true of everybody else, too.
******* "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - Charles Darwin
It's rare for DTs in a 4-3 to be 340lbs+
You argue that it’s coincidence that Fox had at least one big boy as a starter in his first eight years with the Panthers. You say it’s a weak correlation to associate Fox with big having a propensity to prefer big DTs, even though that’s what history shows.
To you, it’s coincidence that first, Kris Jenkins fell into Fox’s lap. Then it was again coincidence when Kemoeatu, who was brought in once Jenkins kept getting hurt, just happened to also be really huge. Jenkins played healthy for a couple years and then was traded while Fox still had big, fat Kempeatu (who started for three years). That was in 2008 preseason. So for that season, Fox still had an enormous DT to start. During TC in 2009, Kempeatu was sent to season ending IR due to a torn Achilles heel. You then say Ra’Shon Harris was brought in as replacement and then cut mid-season. In reality, he was brought in and cut after two games to make room for a new big fatty (I know, coincidence again), Hollis Thomas. He finished the year in Carolina and never played again. So that left Fox without any big fat DTs for the first time ever. Carolina was ultra, ultra cheap on the roster last year. So since they couldn’t pay big money for a big DT, they instead traded for one – Big fatty, Louis Leonard. Unfortunately, he didn’t pan out and only played in two games.
It’s rare for 4-3 teams to use DTs that are that fat. Fox always did. You call it coincidence. Not because you have a different theory, but rather because it doesn’t fit your theory that we “Fox likes fat DTs” believers are wrong. You have nothing to go on to say he doesn’t like fat DTs other than to say you think this is all coincidence.
You bring up the few DTs that Fox did draft and act as if that’s more important than the guys he played. Fox had big fat Kris Jenkins for his first six years. He still had big fat Kemoeatu when he traded Jenkins the following year. And he still had the same fat kid during the ‘09 draft (Kemoeatu got hurt later in that year’s TC). That’s his first eight drafts where Fox had at least one starting 340lb+ DT on the roster… it’s easy to see why he wouldn’t be drafting one… if you want to see it.
I don’t actually believe that you don’t see a very big trend here… more of a rule, really. I think you’re only seeing what supports your original view point. You’ll not admit you’re wrong. I can see that, so you can have the last word here. We will see who’s right when we have a Big, fat starting DT this year – or not.
Von. Doom. Pow!
what I'm saying
You say it’s a weak correlation …
That’s for all DTs. There’s support for the argument that he likes ‘one’ big NT type in his starting lineup. And I’ve been proceeding on the assumption that a NT/UT defensive tackle pairing would be what we use.
I think cjfarls has it right in his post three posts down. I’d look for signs of a hybrid scheme, which is due more to Allen’s influence. I’d still expect to see a NT position but the player I expected to fill it — Vickerson — is hardly a big NT now. I think we’re more concerned with getting a ‘good’ DT at this point than a big one but someone probably needs to fill Vickerson’s NT shoes now, and that could be Leonard or someone else. Quality is a more important criterion than size though.
******* "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." - Charles Darwin
by Colinski on May 27, 2011 1:14 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
id find the video for you myself if i had the time, but i dont right now
Just look at all the recent Fox interviews it wasnt too long ago, a few months at most. He literally states that he wants the front four to be fast athletic guys. Thats not what he did mostly in carolina.
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
"Excellence can be obtained; if you care more than others think is wise…risk more than others think is safe…dream more than others think is practical…expect more than others think is possible." - Anonymous Author
by Alexander Wall on May 26, 2011 1:41 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
I've never heard that interview,
And I’ve never heard of that interview.
It’s all opinion at this point, but it is a case where we’ll eventually have a right and wrong. There will eventually be starters at DT, and we’ll know their weights. I find it hard to believe Fox, with all his history, gave a contract to what’s now essentially our only DT, while he was at 321 pounds, only to tell him to go lose 35 pounds so that he no longer resembles his former playing style. It’s hard to believe.
You find it easier to believe that John Fox is suddenly changing not a trend or a type, but an overall football philosophy that he’s used for decades…. But beef up front to keep blockers off your fast, athletic linebackers. In some ways, I can see why people believe that over believing one of our players sort of went rogue. It’s easier to want to believe. But I just can’t. It doesn’t pass the common sense test.
Even if Fox was in a mid-life crisis and did all the sudden decide to go with smaller DTs, after decades of the opposite, I still find it incredibly hard to believe that you make your first decision there… to give a contract with starters money… to a guy that you just evaluated at 321 pounds… only to tell him to drop and become somebody completely different. But I guess we shall see.
Let me know if you find that video later. I did a quick search, but I don’t even know where to begin. I’ve never heard of it before. (Not to be confused with wanting a fast, athletic defense – we’re both speaking specifically and only about the DTs.)
Von. Doom. Pow!
While I agree with your logic Rodney and also agree that Fox is unlikely to have asked Vick to drop that much weight, I think you do miss some data points which might change your mind about Fox’s “scheme” overall.
This first is that interview AW references about prefering athletic DTs does exist… it was just a week or 2 ago (I think) and there was a fan post for it. So from the horses mouth, we did hear Fox say if forced to choose he preferred quick feet and athleticism over size, but he did then say bigger with athleticism is better than small/quick. While that does make it seem likely he likes “bigger”, if forced to choose we could see smaller guys if they are the more talented overall, even if they are smaller than historically.
The second point is that I think Fox has proven to be one of the more flexible scheme guys in the NFL, so I don’t think it is unheard of that he tailors his scheme to whatever talent he has available…. and if that is smaller/quicker DTs, he’ll deal with it and adjust.
Unlike Shanny and McD who were definite “scheme over talent” coaches, Fox has totally switched his schemes around over the years based on the talent available. In the early 2000s he played a pretty traditional 4-3, mid-decade switched to a “tampa-2” scheme with very little blitzing, and in recent years back to a more traditional 4-3 with more blitzing. Now, he’s brought in a DC from the NOLA line of crazy 4-3/3-4/“joker” blitz-heavy hybrid scheme, and drafted a SLB ideally suited to some of those hybrid roles… totally different from anything he’s done in the past. On offense he’s always been pretty balanced pass/run overall, but went from a balanced pass attack in the early 2000s when Smtih/Delhomme were in their prime (with MM & Keyshon), to a much more run heavy scheme in recent years as he got some run-oriented mauler olineman and high-draft pick RBs. When he had a big QB injury run, he even went to a “no QB” offense and had D.Williams running a “wildcat” scheme for a number of games rather than line up Danny Woeful.
So basically, on both sides of the ball, I think Fox shows that he’ll put the best players on the field, and then use a scheme that fits the talent, rather than having his scheme and getting players to fit it like McD and Shanny are famous for.
Now all that said, I agree he is very unlikely to have told BigVick to lose all that weight… my guess is he told BigVick to focus on his footwork/athleticism, and with the lockout etc. Vickerson went a bit overboard without supervision….
Bannan is replacement level… we may get him back, but only at good price and if the higher tier folks are unavailble. I’d be happy to bring him back, as he’s a serviceable player…. but hardly heartbroken if he gets a better offer elsewhere.
by cjfarls on May 26, 2011 2:36 PM MDT up reply actions 3 recs
Very well said
And I’ll admit you got me thinking a little about all the different trends and tweaks. Still, I find myself going back to the idea that these are, well, trends and tweaks, rather than overall changes in philosophy.
In other words, I appreciate Fox’s willingness to go to a Tampa Two when he wants to play to a middle linebacker’s particular strength (further drop backs in his middle zone). But that’s still nothing near the change we’re talking about in all the sudden preferring smaller DTs. That’s a philosophy change, not a tweak, IMO.
Now back to your point on playing to his players’ strengths. I agree, but it doesn’t change my mind here. The primary reason is that there’s nothing existing that he needs to truly build around. The only DT we’re married to is the one that he himself signed. We essentially need to add 3.5 more DTs, so you’re playing to nobody’s strength or weakness… you’re picking players that fit whatever scheme you choose. And let’s not forget. There are more potential free agents this year than any year in the last 20 years. Also, we have no other major expenditures we need to spend on in FA. RBs are a dime a dozen, so we shouldn’t be on a stiff budget at DT.
Great points, again, on Fox bending to fit his players’ strengths. I really like that and it’s a good point to underline. Still, when he just made over the linebacker corps, he did so with the exact same type of linebackers he’s used in the past – preferring speed and instincts to size and strength. I see no reason to believe he’ll keep the smaller, quicker linebackers without also going with the twinkie lovers in the front-middle. That would represent a philosophy change, IMO, not just a tweak.
I’m going to look for that video.
Von. Doom. Pow!
I disagree that a switch to a Tampa2 is only a tweak
but otherwise agree. And I agree completely that a good DT or 2, not just replacement level guys like Bannan, are likely on our FA shopping list. If we really wanted Bannan we would’ve kept him.
A Tampa2 only works if you can get consistently get good pressure with your front 4, because otherwise the soft zones will just be eaten up by any QB with time. That implies the need for faster and more athletic DTs. The tampa2 fit for Fox beacuase he had Peppers, Jenkins and Ruckers that could all rush the opposing oline… and thus he could get away with softer zones and wait for the QB to make a hurried mistake. Jenkins was really the key, and it was his athleticism, not his size, at DT that made it work (having Peppers outside doesn’t hurt either). Tampa2 is much more about the d-line than it is about the LBs (though having a good coverage MLB is also important).
However once Jenkins wasn’t available, Fox had to switch schemes (fairly drastically)… the big fat guys he was left with didn’t penetrate the pocket like Jenkins did, so he was forced to more blitzes, etc. I thik its unknown on whether that was by design, or simply whether they were the best available (at any size). We see the same thing in Indy last year or 2, when they started getting bigger DTs, but also had to start blitzing more to compensate (Coyer’s influence too).
As such, I expect us to grab the best guys we can… they may be 305 or they may be 350… If the 350 guys moves like a 305 guy, thats the ideal… but talent will dictate who we grab, not trying to fit some ideal physical mold for a fluidly evolving scheme preference.
That said, looking at our LBs we’d be well advised to grab some elite interior beef that can keep folks like DJ, WW and Von clean… all those fast guys will do much better if they’re protected. But a quick DT that can shoot a gap and demands attention from both sides can be just as effective there (see Jason Ferguson) as a big fatty who just drags multiple guys around.
Fox has run a lot of cover two in the past
I can’t really name off hand when each change took place and when he started to major in one versus minoring in another, but what I meant is that going from cover two to a a tampa two, to me, isn’t that great of a change. They’re both pretty conservative, bend-don’t-break philosophies, often dropping 7 in coverage and counting on four players to get consistent pressure. Although, you do have a point that with your MIKE responsible for a deeper zone, it does make it all the more important that pressure comes from the front.
Going back to the “tweak” versus “philosophy change” idea, I don’t even see Von Miller as a drastic change. I still expect a rather conservative defense largely zone coverage (cover two, cover three and tampa two), where we rely on four guys getting consistent pressure and often keep seven in coverage. I think the tweak is simply where that fourth rusher (Miller) comes from.
The tweak is that you have Miller come from the DE position on some passing downs, shifting Ayers inside. Other times you can zone blitz him while dropping Ayers (or even a DT) into coverage. And then there’s the joker role also. But again, even the joker role I consider to be a “tweak”, because even though it’s new, it’s not something we’re likely to “major” in.
The key here is that with VonDoom on the edges, we should have little doubt in our ability to get pressure from the front four. We need now, IMO, to put a premium on stopping the run and in collapsing the pocket from the inside, not necessarily penetrating it. I think with Miller, Doom and even Ayers, now that nobody can ever double team him or focus at all on him… our pass rush should be trusted. So our focus at DT, IMO, should be getting big strong guys that thump running backs and keep our linebackers clean, rather than guys that can penetrate.
To me, it just all points to needing fat DTs (your point wasn’t lost btw, that bigger doesn’t always equal better – just generally speaking).
One more note, Fox or Xanders recently said we’ll be using more under than over. For that to work best, you really need a nose guard that can consistenly command a double team. So again, all of that combined with Fox’s history of using bigger DTs just tells me that Vickerson might be in a little bit of trouble -)
Von. Doom. Pow!
Oh and glad to hear someone agrees that it's more likely LittleVic went overboard
than it is likely that he was told to drop all that weight. I think you’re the first to agree -)
Von. Doom. Pow!
I don't disagree Rodney
I just don’t know so didn’t say anything else. I thought your comment to mine was informative and just made me more curious what could be going on. The kid going overboard is certainly possible, likely even ;)
Opinions are like......, Well anyway, this is mine.
Yes purely for the reason that we have no one else
All this talk of Mebane, who has said he’d like to return to Seattle and Seattle has said they have a contract ready, or Cofield, who will be in a huge bidding war, is crazy. We have never been big FA spenders, and while I’d love Mebane or Cofield, I don’t see us being able to pick them up in a very competitive DT market, price will be much to high.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
I think that's a very realistic analysis of the situation :)
I’d be all for resigning Bannan for the simple reason that we need 2 before the year starts. Overpay him…no way, but he’s solid enough to be valuable.
Leonard is a guy I’m thinking may be a sleeper. We really haven’t seen what he’s capable of yet.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams
But Coach Fox has already seen what he's capable of..
Leonard was brought into Carolina’s TC last year after Carolina purged its roster of talent and expenses. Leonard was eventually released by Fox. Leonard was later brought into Denver, but that was prior to Fox being hired here. It’s a coincidence.
I see Leonard as being camp fodder – with a small chance of “breaking out”, just like all camp fodder.
Von. Doom. Pow!
Bannon is no longer a fit
He was cut because he does not fit the 4-3 and his high salary . I would much rather spend the money on Coefield or Mebane with all the D Tackles that were in this draft the price for a free agent may not be as high as we think . Re-signing Bannon would be a last resort I would much rather spend the money on Tommie Harris that fits a 4-3 defense and sign him to a performance based contract and re-signing Marcus Thomas makes a lot more sense than Bannon . In my opinion they need to at least two of the D tackles that are on the market and Marcus Thomas .
I voted yes
Nice work too Colby. Keep JB, he’s a hard working vet that wants to be in Denver and Wants to be a Bronco.
I just hope that the Broncos move up to draft BJ Raji or can pick up one of the following DTs in the Draft: Fili Moala,Terrance Knighton, Lamarr Houston, Dan Williams, Torell Troup or Earl Mitchell.
Pairing some of these young guys with the vets should improve the Broncos defense.
It really comes down to price
I want him back, but he’s not worth a huge contract.
by fiddlesticksman on May 27, 2011 12:09 PM MDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Report
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Things to know about NFL men who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
