Sam Adams, anyone?

Why would an NFL team go out and sign a square peg when they are looking for something to fit a round hole? No good GM would knowingly sign a player who obviously doesn't fit their scheme...

 

Did anyone ever notice why the Jaguars always have good LB's no matter who is in there?

You know why they have two Mammoth DT's who are stout and decent to qaulity ends who are speed rushers. McCrary and Spicer and Hayward are their DE's McCrary is undersized and Hayward isn't huge. But they do well becasue teams have to put atleast 3 guys to block Henderson and Stroud. which lets the DE's get single blocks and the LB's roam.

If you look at the pro bowl LB's they have a good D-Line who occupy's blocks for them so they can roam and make plays. We need good DT's can Albert be good yes would Adams help I think he would do decent and allow our LB's atleast a bit more freedom so I say give him a shot he's not going to cost a fortune by any stretch.

 

Big DTs doesn't equal good DTs...

Stroud and Henderson were both fairly early 1st round picks (#13 and #9, respectively). And yes, they are big, but that isn't what makes them good. They are big and athletic, much like Sam Adams was in his prime (when he was motivated). But bringing in Sam Adams today is not the same as bringing in Stroud or Henderson today (or Adams of 10 years ago).

But Warren Sapp was a great DT who wasn't very big for a DT because he was a great penetrator. We are looking for guys who can penetrate and disrupt opposing offenses. Not space eaters. Space eaters are fine for some defenses but not for others. The Bucs won a Super Bowl and dominated for years with a defensive scheme that was about penetration rather than clogging run lanes with space eaters. We made it to the Super Bowl in 2000 without a space eater at DT because we had penetrators like Salavea and John Evans.

 

I said they were big and stout not just big. By stout meaning very good and don't get pushed off the ball.

 

"Stout" doesn't mean good. It just means big and strong.

And again, we don't look for DTs who simply are space eaters. Some defenses do, but that's not what Fisher and co are looking for and it's not what benefits our defensive scheme...

 

Stout against the run...not in the weight room...

Most people talking about football say a player is stout when they mean that player is stout against the run...not just physically strong. IE...they hold up against the run and can handle a double team.

Gut

 

Even if I were to let that go, it doesn't change the fact that we aren't looking to add a space eater because that's not what our defense is predicated on...

 

hahha....ya think....but he was that good once and certanily if given a chance w/ some help around can prob return to great form....also some expierence on this team wouldnt hurt....they [DTs] all young (i consider albe young for some reason i still feel he has so much to learn)...and even after all those reasons thats still not the main one....simply beucase we dont hve very good DTs

ALBE- could be top 5...but is now maybe top 15 now/top 10; STARKS- really only one good yr; LONG - good rusher but we need to see more b4 anything (mihgt not be nything after serious injury); BROWN- good/@ times very good roation player.


...we need him

 

Sk...

You're quoting us the party line...but that's not how it works.

In ANY 4-3 D, you need a guy who can handle the double team. That player is not generally a 'penetrator' because he's gonna draw the double team most of the time (if he's any good) lined up in the OC/OG gap. You'll notice on almost any play a DT is aligned there...mostly to draw a double team and protect the MLB. Saying otherwise is suggesting we run some new form of the 4-3 D. We don't.

How do you consider Mahelona a penetrator? He's slow. Salave'a wasn't a penetrator either..but rather...he was 'stout' against the run. If he was a good penetrator, he'd have a season in which he got about 10 sacks. Our DT's don't. We...like most 4-3 D's...try to find one big DT who can handle the double team and a penetrating DT to play the 3 technique (outside the OG's shoulder). If you notice, we have a 325lb Albert paired with a 300 lb whomever. Schwartz tries to do things a bit backwards. He plays Albert on the opposite side of KVB to try and get our RDE singled...Albert draws the double...our 'penetrator is supposed to draw a double (in the OC/OG gap) to free up KVB. Guess what...it's not working. The DT opposite Albert is being successfully single blocked allowing the OG to help double KVB...

That leaves us with Albert and KVB double teamed...and single blocking on the 2 worst players on the line. How many OC's can handle Sam Adams (right now) by themselves? Adams is huge, but still quick for a 350lb guy.

And you must agree...the scheme is lacking since even with several better players last year...we were still just about last in most defensive stats...like points.

Schwartz 'tweaked' the D when he came here (changed us from a man to zone coverage team). Why wouldn't you take advantage of whatever players are available and adjust the scheme for maximum effectiveness???

You say that Albert is inconsistent. How consistent do you think he can be being double teamed most of the time? How consistent can KVB be getting doubled most of the time?

You say we don't have the players, but why don't we? And is it possible to even get the players to make this D a top 10 D without drafting D for the next 5 years?

You'll notice even on the Bucs D under Dungy, they have one quick penetrating DT (Sapp) and one guy to suck up double teams (McFarland). McFarland didn't get the stats (cause his job was the double team), but he was an important player. One of the reasons their LB's could roam so well in pursuit.

Maybe Schwartz can learn something from some of the top DC's in this league...if you can't get a star, get a good role player and give him a role he can perform well in. Too often we're trying to fit square pegs into schwartz's idea of a round hole (see Hill being asked to play deep jump balls instead of the short zone or getting S help on top, see Lamont asked to play deep centerfield instead of riding the bench...or covering a short zone on 3rd and 20, see TBrown trying to take on a double team (in the OC/OG gap) when his forte is speed and penetration because that's where Schwartz aligned him, see not moving Haynesworth around to mess up blocking schemes...like occasionally putting him and KVB on the same side and blitzing Bulluck from the backside, see not moving KVB around more on passing downs).

And when I mention things like drafting CB's who's forte is man to man and bringing them into a D that now plays mostly zone...how can you not criticize that?

This type of thinking means we can't draft players who don't fit into Schwartz specific scheme...which is a problem. Then you're WASTING talent! Maximizing talent is the whole point. You keep saying we don't have enough talent...well guess why not!

Go grab a Keyshawn, Sam Adams, trade for a Jared Allen, and glue Lamont's butt to the bench and we'll be fine...even with Schwartz 'coordinating' the D. I'm not sure even he could mess that up...though I'm sure he'd give it a shot.

But instead...we won't grab a Sam Adams because he's a 'space eater'. Could he help our DL? Certainly. Should Schwartz tweak his D to take advantage of that? Certainly. We're not asking to switch from a 4-3 to a 6-1...just make a few simple adjustments to maximize our talent.

Afterall...a lack of talent is the only thing people can point to other than the coaching staff, right?

Notice that the good-great DC's find a way to fit players into their system or they adjust the system to accomodate the strength of the players. Look back at when Buddy Ryan came to the Oilers...our DE's had to make adjustments but were still very effective (even though one had to play as a 3 technique DT) and sometimes we adjusted the scheme to take advantage of what the players could do. That's good coaching!

What's Schwartz doing? Perhaps that's why we didn't want Adalius Thomas...he doesn't fit our defense.

Ugh!

 

Short and sweet, I dont want Sam Adams