Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Updated Depth Chart/53 man roster
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 20, 21, 22  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Darbsk


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 1414
Location: Wales, UK
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is it just me or am I seeing a base 3-4 defence with Nickel looks rather than a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks:

Base 3-4

DE - Smith / Tuck
NT - Sims / Ellis
DE - McGee / Wilson

OLB - Woodley / Moore
MLB - Roach / Fields
MLB - Burnett / Maiava
OLB - Mack / Burris

Nickel Look

LDE - Woodley
DT - Tuck
DT - Smith
RDE - Mack

LB - Roach
LB - Moore

I know someone mentions this every year Laughing but it seems feasible to me based on the types of players we've been bringing in..........
_________________
"The fire that burns brightest in the Raiders organization is the will to win."
Mr. Al Davis RIP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 15412
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darbsk wrote:
Is it just me or am I seeing a base 3-4 defence with Nickel looks rather than a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks:


No you're seeing an hybrid similar to the one ran by the seahawks. The base is a 43 under.



You're getting the ability to get into 34 looks out of it when you have the right personnel, which we finally seem to do.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone


Last edited by oakdb36 on Tue May 13, 2014 12:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raidr4life


Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 6240
Location: Fresno, California
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darbsk wrote:
Is it just me or am I seeing a base 3-4 defence with Nickel looks rather than a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks:

Base 3-4

DE - Smith / Tuck
NT - Sims / Ellis
DE - McGee / Wilson

OLB - Woodley / Moore
MLB - Roach / Fields
MLB - Burnett / Maiava
OLB - Mack / Burris

Nickel Look

LDE - Woodley
DT - Tuck
DT - Smith
RDE - Mack

LB - Roach
LB - Moore

I know someone mentions this every year Laughing but it seems feasible to me based on the types of players we've been bringing in..........
It looks feasible but based on player interviews at the time of signing, Woodley saying he will be playing DE and Smith saying he will be playing DT, I don't see a major change happening, but nothing set in stone.
_________________
I felt a great disturbance in the forum, like millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, then were silenced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darbsk


Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 1414
Location: Wales, UK
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Darbsk wrote:
Is it just me or am I seeing a base 3-4 defence with Nickel looks rather than a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks:


No you're seeing an hybrid similar to the one ran by the seahawks. The base is a 43 under.



You're getting the ability to get into 34 looks out of it when you have the right personnel, which we finally seem to do.


Laughing You're probably right of course and normally I don't take the annual 'moving to 3-4 defence' talk too seriously but it just struck me looking over the various anticipated depth charts how many players we have on our roster that either started in or are very suitable to a 3-4.

I guess we are genuinely going to be a hybrid defence.........exciting times ahead!
_________________
"The fire that burns brightest in the Raiders organization is the will to win."
Mr. Al Davis RIP
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dessie


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 5320
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Darbsk wrote:
Is it just me or am I seeing a base 3-4 defence with Nickel looks rather than a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks:


No you're seeing an hybrid similar to the one ran by the seahawks. The base is a 43 under.



You're getting the ability to get into 34 looks out of it when you have the right personnel, which we finally seem to do.


Agreed, with the personnel we have we could see multiple fronts 2-4, 5-2, 4-4 even. Tarver has got a lot of tools this year. The front office I think are feeding the notion re the 4-3 to help confuse things. I wouldn't read much into what Woodley etc have been saying, it's like how they said they were happy with McGee as our starting NT, then pick up Sims and Ellis.
_________________
bitty wrote:
I don't understand why everybody thinks Green Bay is the pinnacle of NFL franchises?
In my opinion they are a joke. In the last ten years there drafts sucked.
#clueless
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
raidr4life


Joined: 10 Jan 2010
Posts: 6240
Location: Fresno, California
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dessie wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Darbsk wrote:
Is it just me or am I seeing a base 3-4 defence with Nickel looks rather than a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks:


No you're seeing an hybrid similar to the one ran by the seahawks. The base is a 43 under.



You're getting the ability to get into 34 looks out of it when you have the right personnel, which we finally seem to do.


Agreed, with the personnel we have we could see multiple fronts 2-4, 5-2, 4-4 even. Tarver has got a lot of tools this year. The front office I think are feeding the notion re the 4-3 to help confuse things. I wouldn't read much into what Woodley etc have been saying, it's like how they said they were happy with McGee as our starting NT, then pick up Sims and Ellis.
Coach speak isn't the same as a player saying he going to be playing a certain position.
_________________
I felt a great disturbance in the forum, like millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, then were silenced.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
91jmay


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 26269
Location: Wonderland
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

QB - Schaub, McGloin, Carr
RB - MJD, McFadden, Murray
FB - Reece, Olawale
WR - Jones, D. Moore, Butler
WR - Streater, Holmes
TE - Rivera, Kasa, Mastrud
RT - Watson, McCants
RG - Howard, Boothe
C - Wisniewski, Boothe
LG - Jackson, Bergstrom
LT - Penn, Barnes

RDE - Woodley, Robinson
UT - Smith, McGee
NT - Simms, Ellis
LDE - Tuck, C.J Wilson
WLB - S. Moore, Kevin Burnett
MLB - Roach, Burris
SLB - Mack, Maiava
CB - Brown, McGill, Chekwa
FS - Woodson, Young
SS - Branch, Ross
CB - Hayden, Rogers, T.J Carrie

K - Janikowski
P - King
LS - Condo
ST - Jones
_________________
GoldieLocksDown wrote:
The premature E-Clapulators

Nickname for Sio Moore and Khalil Mack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
MrOaktown_56


Joined: 15 Dec 2013
Posts: 3586
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

91jmay wrote:
QB - Schaub, McGloin, Carr
RB - MJD, McFadden, Murray
FB - Reece, Olawale
WR - Jones, D. Moore, Butler
WR - Streater, Holmes
TE - Rivera, Kasa, Mastrud
RT - Watson, McCants
RG - Howard, Boothe
C - Wisniewski, Boothe
LG - Jackson, Bergstrom
LT - Penn, Barnes

RDE - Woodley, Robinson
UT - Smith, McGee
NT - Simms, Ellis
LDE - Tuck, C.J Wilson
WLB - S. Moore, Kevin Burnett
MLB - Roach, Burris
SLB - Mack, Maiava
CB - Brown, McGill, Chekwa
FS - Woodson, Young
SS - Branch, Ross
CB - Hayden, Rogers, T.J Carrie

K - Janikowski
P - King
LS - Condo
ST - Jones


Agree with most of these except I think that Ausberry will make the team over Mastrud. That guy is just so bad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Professor Oak


Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 3969
Location: Pallet Town
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matrud isn't under contract. He's FA. (thankfully)
_________________
(o◕ ‿‿◕o)//
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricAllen21


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2469
Location: Fresno, California
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor Oak wrote:
Matrud isn't under contract. He's FA. (thankfully)


Mastrud is not even worth bringing back.. I want to see the who rises to the top between Leonaldt, Kasa, Rivera, Ausberry, Murphy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nodisrespect


Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 4550
Location: in the present
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raidr4life wrote:
Dessie wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Darbsk wrote:
Is it just me or am I seeing a base 3-4 defence with Nickel looks rather than a base 4-3 with 3-4 looks:


No you're seeing an hybrid similar to the one ran by the seahawks. The base is a 43 under.



You're getting the ability to get into 34 looks out of it when you have the right personnel, which we finally seem to do.


Agreed, with the personnel we have we could see multiple fronts 2-4, 5-2, 4-4 even. Tarver has got a lot of tools this year. The front office I think are feeding the notion re the 4-3 to help confuse things. I wouldn't read much into what Woodley etc have been saying, it's like how they said they were happy with McGee as our starting NT, then pick up Sims and Ellis.
Coach speak isn't the same as a player saying he going to be playing a certain position.
yup, plus Tuck isn't a full time player neither is Antonio smith. And we will probably limit Woodley, so plenty of snaps for everyone will be great for the defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
91jmay


Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 26269
Location: Wonderland
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ausberry can't block. He actually can't do anything, at least Mastrud can block half decent. I'd rather we bring in a proper blocking TE as competition though.
_________________
GoldieLocksDown wrote:
The premature E-Clapulators

Nickname for Sio Moore and Khalil Mack.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
oakdb36


Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 15412
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

raidr4life wrote:
Coach speak isn't the same as a player saying he going to be playing a certain position.


Woodley will be playing RE, he's telling the truth. The thing is he offers the ability to stand him up and drop him in coverage occasionally, which is what we asked from Houston last year. The difference is he has been playing that role his whole pro career in a 34 (on the strong side but still). He's a better fit. Houston was forced into that role because his athleticism made him our best option. He wasn't ideal for this though.

And while i'm at it, the idea that the LE is primarily a run defender in our base D comes from the guy we moved over there when Hunter was out (along with the thought that our scheme is extremely similar to the seahawks). We went with Vance Walker.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricAllen21


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2469
Location: Fresno, California
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

looks like

one of my camp bodies mccoy is gone... I thought the others would have made it to training camp
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EricAllen21


Joined: 28 May 2013
Posts: 2469
Location: Fresno, California
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

other notable

Camp Bodies:
Beltre LB, Cole LB, J Shaw OL, J Adams CB


Last edited by EricAllen21 on Fri May 16, 2014 6:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 20, 21, 22  Next
Page 9 of 22

 
Jump to:  
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