Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

You're The GM: Find Your Next D Lineman

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by packers11
    a run stuffer is a need, the run D looked pretty damn weak in preseason. They ran it right at the DT's!
    Two problems with this: 1) our two starting DTs didn't play a lot in the preseason (Pickett didn't play at all and Jolly only played a game or two), 2) it's preseason. Our depth isn't great, but it turned out that it wasn't that great last year either. Williams is a good pass rusher, but when Jolly and Pickett were out last year, the run defense suffered. I do wish we had another big run clogging DT. I'm okay with Jenkins moving inside on passing downs, but it would be better to have somebody besides Colin Cole as a backup DT. Run clogging DTs are hard to find though.
    "There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson

    Comment


    • #32
      The Bates/Sanders defensive scheme calls for two, ideally, or at least one big run stuffer in the middle to allow the LBs, especially the MLB to roam and stop off teckle and outside runs. If your tackles are not quite so huge, you give up some moderate gains in the middle and your LBs have to be a little less quick to get outside.

      None of that spells disaster, just a little bit more bending in the bend-don't-break type defense.

      As was said, the successful running against the Packers was in large part, due to Pickett not playing. If he's back healthy, we will see more normalcy. If not, we still won't give up too much, especially when most teams don't have the patience to just run it upthe gut play after play.
      What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by HarveyWallbangers
        Originally posted by packers11
        a run stuffer is a need, the run D looked pretty damn weak in preseason. They ran it right at the DT's!
        Two problems with this: 1) our two starting DTs didn't play a lot in the preseason (Pickett didn't play at all and Jolly only played a game or two), 2) it's preseason. Our depth isn't great, but it turned out that it wasn't that great last year either. Williams is a good pass rusher, but when Jolly and Pickett were out last year, the run defense suffered. I do wish we had another big run clogging DT. I'm okay with Jenkins moving inside on passing downs, but it would be better to have somebody besides Colin Cole as a backup DT. Run clogging DTs are hard to find though.
        I disagree on our depth. Having such a deep defensive line was what helped us sustain a winning club throughout the mid-season injuries. At points of the season, Harrell, Pickett, Cole-train, KGB, Jenkins, and I believe one other was pretty banged up.

        I'm worried about our lines. They've got a lot of good players on both sides, but bodies in the rehab room don't do us a lot of good come Vikings Monday. Hopefully they can ride it out for a few weeks than be back at full strength.

        Comment


        • #34
          One thing I'm wondering is how much Sanders was influenced by seeing the Giants use so many DEs as DTs last year (successfully no less). The Giants lined up Justin Tuck at DT quite a bit and he's about the same size as Jason Hunter, Jeremy Thompson, and Michael Montgomery and quite a bit smaller than Jenkins. You can say that the Giants run a much more attacking style of defense than the standard Bates model, but that's one thing that we've heard out of Sanders in the offseason is that they intend to play a more "attacking" style of defense, which isn't the standard Bates concept (but instead more like what the Giants do).

          We haven't seen much of that in the preseason, but teams seldom tip their hands on their defensive schemes in the preseason.

          I'm interested to see if the Packers simply concluded that Muir and Bolston (and others) simply weren't a major improvement playing inside over our pile o' 275 DEs, who were more versatile and had more upside.
          </delurk>

          Comment


          • #35
            Will the Packers add a defensive tackle?

            "No," one scout said. "There's none to be had. Everybody is looking for those guys."
            more freedom, less government. Go Sarah!

            Comment


            • #36
              I haven't actually done a correlation, but I bet a lot of the same people who whine the loudest about the Bates/Sanders defensive scheme/bend-don't-break/very limited blitzing are the same ones now crying about how we NEED a big ol' run stuffer.

              Settle down, everybody. Thompson/McCarthy have it all under control. Everything will be all right. Trust me--better yet, trust them--the people who brought you 13-3/14-4 last season.
              What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?

              Comment

              Working...
              X