Wright and Holdman Reportedly On Their Way Out

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Yeah, the signing of Fletcher gives us a great LB situation. In fact the biggest questionmark would have to be Fletcher, and the guy's a proven vet.

My other concern is #99. I am not yet convinced he is an everydown DE. He is not stout agains the run. I think alot of our problems against the run was in part to do with #99.
Gibbs defenses in the 80's & early 90's did alot of situation substitutions with great results.
Guys like DE's Marcus Koch & Todd Liebenstein, DT Darryl Grant and LB Rich Milot played on first down and obvious run plays.
LB Monte Coleman, DT Jumpy Geathers, etc. played on obvious pass plays. We had the personell at DE in 2006 to do a rotation, I am not sure why dictator Williams did not rotate them? I would have used Renaldo Wynn and Phillip Daniels on 1st down and obvious run plays. Andre Carter and Demtric Evans on 3rd and long and obvious pass plays. I know Daniels is usually our sack leader but he is also stout against the run and we had no other DE strong against the run but Daniels and Wynn. So by defalt they are the run stoppers. Obviusly you adjust your pattern depending on who you are playing and theri tendancies. This also keeps everyone fresh.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

My other concern is #99. I am not yet convinced he is an everydown DE. He is tiny. I think alot of our problems against the run was in part to do with #99.

I agree. It's usually not a good idea to have a starter on the defensive line with a glaring weakness against either the run or the pass.

I do think that we can build around his pass rushing skill though.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I agree. It's usually not a good idea to have a starter on the defensive line with a glaring weakness against either the run or the pass.

I do think that we can build around his pass rushing skill though.

I would not use #99 on 1st down against a strong running team. Save him for 3rd and long.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I would not use #99 on 1st down against a strong running team. Save him for 3rd and long.

I don't think we can afford to use him as a situaitonal pass rushed. We'd be too predictable.

I don't think we should ever have signed him, but now that we have him, we have to use him, at least on most downs.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think we can afford to use him as a situaitonal pass rushed. We'd be too predictable.

I don't think we should ever have signed him, but now that we have him, we have to use him, at least on most downs.

In humble my opinion that is a recipe for failure. Let the front office get the players and let the coaches decide who plays. What a player makes should never influence their playing time and the coaches should not judge them by income. They should earn their PT.
Look at the SS position. in 2006 we had the highest paid SS in the league on the bench and two lesser paid players playing in front of him. That was strictly out of merit. If you start sending the message to the players that you will start because of your high salary, players will get lazy and underperform.

Regarding being to predictable, when an offense is in 3rd and 10 or longer, that is already predictable. If they chance a run they most likely will not make a first down. I like those odds.

[EXoffender]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

My other concern is #99. I am not yet convinced he is an everydown DE. He is not stout agains the run. I think alot of our problems against the run was in part to do with #99....

I think I get what you're saying. The makeup of our DL isn't great. Griffin and Golston are both pass-rushinng DTs. We need someone on the DL who demands a double team. Improved play at MLB is also needed.