| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RainbowCarebear
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 22764
Location: Avenging his brother by slaying three of Prince Rhaegar's bannermen and later Rodrik Greyjoy
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| marky_b27 wrote: | | RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | RainbowCarebear wrote: | | marky_b27 wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | If we take another defensive end I'm going to explode. |
I would normally, but if it's a new regime, then it's new rules, so I'll give them a pass |
Could he be SLB/DE? If so, fine fills two spots where we can use an upgrade. |
Why do we need an upgrade at SLB? |
Kendricks would move to Will, and can anyone come up with a reasonable argument why our Pass rush sucks? And saying it's the wide 9, is beyond terrible, it have worked for the past 12 years or so. |
Wide 9 sucks |
Touché, Wide 9 have been getting lots of sacks the since Washburn first used it in Tennessee. Did our players suddenly regress over 1 year? Babin shouldn't be wearing down, he haven't played a lot of snaps in his career.
_________________
"Of gold and silver and gemstones, it had none; bronze and iron were the metals of winter"
"He is part of you, Robb. To fear him is to fear you."
"These are northmen, Uncle. The north remembers." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
marky_b27
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 17042
Location: Nottingham, England
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wide 9 isn't working this year, that's all I care about.
_________________
| oland11 on America's use of Fahrenheit wrote: | | I know. We're stupid. |
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Again bloody fool him Howie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RainbowCarebear
Joined: 31 Aug 2011
Posts: 22764
Location: Avenging his brother by slaying three of Prince Rhaegar's bannermen and later Rodrik Greyjoy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| marky_b27 wrote: | | Wide 9 isn't working this year, that's all I care about. |
Which kind of bring my point, what about next year? I hope we remain in a 1-gap defense and only use wide 9 on obvious pass downs. But what about our pass rush? Do we hope new coaches will fix our pass rush?
_________________
"Of gold and silver and gemstones, it had none; bronze and iron were the metals of winter"
"He is part of you, Robb. To fear him is to fear you."
"These are northmen, Uncle. The north remembers." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Remixxxxxxx
Joined: 06 Mar 2009
Posts: 10031
Location: E808 on the avi; P90 on the sig
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| marky_b27 wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | marky_b27 wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | If we take another defensive end I'm going to explode. |
I would normally, but if it's a new regime, then it's new rules, so I'll give them a pass |
It doesn't really matter who the regime is for me, we can't continue to burn picks on defensive ends in the first two rounds. If they want to take one in round four or five that's fine, but we have much bigger needs then another defensive end to sit on the bench for a year or two before starting.
If we don't take a quarterback I'd like to see us go offensive line with two of our first three picks, and then safety, defensive tackle, or outside backer with the other[unless Tyler Eifert is an option]. |
But if we're in a 34 (or moving towards a 34), then we need pass rushers - they are the most important part of the defense |
IF we're moving toward a 3-4 defense then I can see the arguement, but I can't agree with it at all. If we can get someone like Porter, Travis Long, Lerentee McCray, Ansah, or Buchanan in the third-fifth rounds and grab two quality offensive lineman in the first three rounds, that's an awesome draft, IMO.
There's no reason, with our issues at safety and on the offensive line, that a pass rusher should be picked in the first round.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky_b27
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 17042
Location: Nottingham, England
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | marky_b27 wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | marky_b27 wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | If we take another defensive end I'm going to explode. |
I would normally, but if it's a new regime, then it's new rules, so I'll give them a pass |
It doesn't really matter who the regime is for me, we can't continue to burn picks on defensive ends in the first two rounds. If they want to take one in round four or five that's fine, but we have much bigger needs then another defensive end to sit on the bench for a year or two before starting.
If we don't take a quarterback I'd like to see us go offensive line with two of our first three picks, and then safety, defensive tackle, or outside backer with the other[unless Tyler Eifert is an option]. |
But if we're in a 34 (or moving towards a 34), then we need pass rushers - they are the most important part of the defense |
IF we're moving toward a 3-4 defense then I can see the arguement, but I can't agree with it at all. If we can get someone like Porter, Travis Long, Lerentee McCray, Ansah, or Buchanan in the third-fifth rounds and grab two quality offensive lineman in the first three rounds, that's an awesome draft, IMO.
There's no reason, with our issues at safety and on the offensive line, that a pass rusher should be picked in the first round. |
Free agency?
Draft should be BPA, not drafting for need (which is what we've done the last 3 years)
_________________
| oland11 on America's use of Fahrenheit wrote: | | I know. We're stupid. |
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Again bloody fool him Howie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Remixxxxxxx
Joined: 06 Mar 2009
Posts: 10031
Location: E808 on the avi; P90 on the sig
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | RainbowCarebear wrote: | | marky_b27 wrote: | | Remixxxxxxx wrote: | | If we take another defensive end I'm going to explode. |
I would normally, but if it's a new regime, then it's new rules, so I'll give them a pass |
Could he be SLB/DE? If so, fine fills two spots where we can use an upgrade. |
Why do we need an upgrade at SLB? |
Kendricks would move to Will |
We have a young player doing very will in a spot, why would we want to move him over? It makes no sense to draft a strongside linebacker in the first three rounds. If we could draft a weakside backer like Greene, Hodges, or Jenkins then that's okay.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky_b27
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 17042
Location: Nottingham, England
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Next year, even in a 43, the SAM might be a different kettle of fish to our SAM this year
_________________
| oland11 on America's use of Fahrenheit wrote: | | I know. We're stupid. |
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Again bloody fool him Howie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eagles_808
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 24962
Location: Torrance, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| marky_b27 wrote: | | Draft should be BPA, not drafting for need (which is what we've done the last 3 years) |
Not true, this year we took BPA with Kendricks, Curry and Boykin. Same could be argued with Cox, but we moved up for him.
In the year's leading up to this one, you are absolutely correct.
_________________
insignia by Kiltman | #championCHIP | #Sparkles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Remixxxxxxx
Joined: 06 Mar 2009
Posts: 10031
Location: E808 on the avi; P90 on the sig
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Okay, let's say for the hell of it we go out and add Britton to play RT/OG. That still leaves us with a need at offensive guard[because Mathis sucks], center[Kelce is ehhhh] and a possible replacement for Jason Peters. I don't think it's hard to say that if we're picking between 7-14 that we can land Joeckel or Lewan in one of those spots.
I just don't see the reason to draft a Mingo or Moore in the first two rounds, when there's other more pressing needs. I'd even be okay with us taking a wideout over a pass rusher at this point.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Remixxxxxxx
Joined: 06 Mar 2009
Posts: 10031
Location: E808 on the avi; P90 on the sig
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| marky_b27 wrote: | | Next year, even in a 43, the SAM might be a different kettle of fish to our SAM this year |
That's a very good point, but Kendricks is a freak. I'm a believer in that there's very few backer spots he can't play. We need to keep him on the strongside, and get players used to there spots. That's an issue this team always has had, we're switching players to much.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky_b27
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 17042
Location: Nottingham, England
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Eagles_808 wrote: | | marky_b27 wrote: | | Draft should be BPA, not drafting for need (which is what we've done the last 3 years) |
Not true, this year we took BPA with Kendricks, Curry and Boykin. Same could be argued with Cox, but we moved up for him.
In the year's leading up to this one, you are absolutely correct. |
I'd say Cox was a need
In any case, in the last 3 years, we've targeted a specific player to draft.
_________________
| oland11 on America's use of Fahrenheit wrote: | | I know. We're stupid. |
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Again bloody fool him Howie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky_b27
Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 17042
Location: Nottingham, England
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Remixxxxxxx wrote: |
Okay, let's say for the hell of it we go out and add Britton to play RT/OG. That still leaves us with a need at offensive guard[because Mathis sucks], center[Kelce is ehhhh] and a possible replacement for Jason Peters. I don't think it's hard to say that if we're picking between 7-14 that we can land Joeckel or Lewan in one of those spots.
I just don't see the reason to draft a Mingo or Moore in the first two rounds, when there's other more pressing needs. I'd even be okay with us taking a wideout over a pass rusher at this point. |
I still maintain that BPA is the way forward
_________________
| oland11 on America's use of Fahrenheit wrote: | | I know. We're stupid. |
| RainbowCarebear wrote: | | Again bloody fool him Howie. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eagles_808
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 24962
Location: Torrance, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| marky_b27 wrote: | I'd say Cox was a need
|
Zingy for the win!
_________________
insignia by Kiltman | #championCHIP | #Sparkles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EaglesFan5-36-81
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Sig by Eagles_808
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Remixxxxxxx wrote: |
Okay, let's say for the hell of it we go out and add Britton to play RT/OG. That still leaves us with a need at offensive guard[because Mathis sucks], center[Kelce is ehhhh] and a possible replacement for Jason Peters. I don't think it's hard to say that if we're picking between 7-14 that we can land Joeckel or Lewan in one of those spots.
I just don't see the reason to draft a Mingo or Moore in the first two rounds, when there's other more pressing needs. I'd even be okay with us taking a wideout over a pass rusher at this point. |
Mathis would cost more to release him than it would to keep him this year, so he's staying and starting. Kelce is much better than ehhh, but due to the injury I could see concern. Reguardless, this is a stacked FA OL class, and we could add a LT, with Peters kicking to RT, and Herremans kicking back into guard, which would be a good start. If Kelce is 100% then its even better and could mask Mathis.
If we go to a 34 we may need to add a 34 edge rusher. Also, in most 43 schemes, Kendricks doesn't have the length to play the strongside (I think he'd be better off on the weakside in this scheme as well where he can chase and tackle as opposed to have to disengage a ton. Plus although I don't have an issue with him covering tight ends, I would think physically it would be easier for him to cover a running back who is 5-10 to 6-1, as opposed to 6-2 to 6-6.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eagles_808
Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 24962
Location: Torrance, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| EaglesFan5-36-81 wrote: | | in most 43 schemes, Kendricks doesn't have the length to play the strongside (I think he'd be better off on the weakside in this scheme as well where he can chase and tackle as opposed to have to disengage a ton. Plus although I don't have an issue with him covering tight ends, I would think physically it would be easier for him to cover a running back who is 5-10 to 6-1, as opposed to 6-2 to 6-6. |
I can agree with this. I have no issue moving Kendricks to the WILL in the base 4-3 if we get an adequate player at SAM. Plus we do play a ton of nickel anyway.
_________________
insignia by Kiltman | #championCHIP | #Sparkles |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
