DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum DL...who makes the team?

I don't know what you mean by 4-3 with an ILB. I'm assuming you mean 4-2 with a S instead of MLB?

But, I can tell you why I'm against 5-2 as base defense.
Gregg and the league as whole are moving towards playing more nickel as "base" defense in response to offenses being in 3 wide formations more often.

Playing a 5-2 as a base defense doesn't fit the aim of being better against the pass. 5-2 is more of a run stopping front then pass.

Okay I think I got you now...(also when you write 4-3 you don't have to say/write 'with an ILB' b/c a 4-3 already explains that)...

Its a more complicated question then it seems because there are several ways to end up in a 5-2 front. It could be 43 over or under with the SAM playing on front.
Could be 34 with both OLB playing on the LOS..or it could be a true 5-2 with 5 DL down on the LOS.

If you mean a 'true' 5-2 with 5 down DL I wouldn't like that as base defense because its too limited in what the defense can handle its almost purely a run stopping front. I would reserve 5-2 with 5 DL for special situations only.

Now, if you're talking about flexing into a 5-2 look from a base 43 with Collins on the LOS I could definitely see some packages or playcalls like that.

Thanks ed!

I'm trying to think of the MIKE in our 4-3 alignment and how we could continue to play (2) LBs regardless of down and distance / run v pass fronts.

I'm not reading much certainty about who would play the MIKE...lots of namess thrown out there...but I'm not sure we have that guy on the team right now?

I forgot about Orchard. I didn't see him listed as a DL...I may have picked up LB. I think Orchard might push Nassib off the roster.

Been having this discussion for awhile now in the 43 thread.

First when we talk about 43 base we're not talking about a whole lot of snaps...probably less then 30%. So I don't think the teams needs to go after a MIKE from the FA/draft just to play around 1/4 of the snaps.

My take is they will shuffle bodies and the new player will be either Schobert or Alexander depending on who Gregg likes better.

BUT imho neither will come in and plug and play as the MIKE right away. There skillsets don't quite fit right out of the gate AND the MIKE usually has responsibility in making adjustments and defensive calls.

So...depending on who they like better between Schobert at SAM or Alexander at WILL will determine who plays MIKE between Kirko and Collins.

IF Alexander at WILL then Kirko plays MIKE:

SAM-Colline
MIKE-Kirko
WILL-Alexander

IF Schobert at SAM then Collins at MIKE:

SAM-Schobert
MIKE-Collins
WILL-Kirko

I believe that too many folks get caught up in what we will be running.

I say this because teams run all sorts of different looks and alignments on defense. Like last year, we were a 3-4, but we ran just about every major alignment imaginable.

I think there is an overemphasis on alignments. We'll use a bunch of them, just like we did last year and just like every other team in the NFL does. Teams aren't in their base defense as much as people think.

Bryant played 3T DT with the raiders and his play there lead to us signing him in the first place.

....If we are to play with primarily two LBers, why would we want to change all the positions in the 43?

I would think Bryant could be the 5th DE as well as a 3T DT.

Wonder if that makes the battle between a guy like Bryant and guys like Cooper/Orchard...even though their primary positions are different.

I guess it depends on how you look at it.
I wouldn't plug Alexander in at WILL or Schobert in at SAM because I would want change the positions in the 43.

And I get that continuity is good rationale for keeping as many people in familiar roles as possible.

My reason for a shuffle would be to put everyone where I think they fit. And I don't think either guy and can come in and take over the MIKE.Alexander seems smallish for MIKE and Schobert might be a tad slow and neither has experience being the MIKE and making the calls. IF I had to pick one or the other to play MIKE I would go with Schobert, a bit more NFL experience and more size.

But the defensive staff/Gregg certainly have some figuring to do when it comes to MIKE in the 43

I believe that too many folks get caught up in what we will be running.

I say this because teams run all sorts of different looks and alignments on defense. Like last year, we were a 3-4, but we ran just about every major alignment imaginable.

I think there is an overemphasis on alignments. We'll use a bunch of them, just like we did last year and just like every other team in the NFL does. Teams aren't in their base defense as much as people think.