The Time is Right: Raiders should reinstall 3-4 Defense
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 5:00 PM PST
139 comments
There are compelling reasons to go back to a 3-4 defensive front seven, i.e. one having Defensive Ends flanking a Nose Tackle at the LOS and, a 2nd row of 2 outside linebackers and 2 inside linebackers.
Oakland used the 3-4 set successfully from 1976 through 1989, winning 62% of the games. By contrast, since converting to a 4-3 Defensive (2 DTs, 2DEs, 2 OLBs and 1 MLB) we have won only 52% of our games. Incidentally, in all three of our SB Championship victories and the seasons leading up to those Super Bowls, we used the 3-4 defense.
While no one will attribute our successes or failure solely to the configuration of the front 7, the use of our personnel's talent is a major factor to the results in the record book. Therefore, after considering our current player strengths and weaknesses and the inherent advantages of the 3-4 Defense scheme, the benefits of reinstalling the 3-4 should be clear.
Consider our DE strength: Greg Ellis, Matt Shaughnessy, Jay Richardson and Rich Seymour. Ellis played OLB at Dallas very successfully and Richardson and Seymour are prototype DEs in the 3-4 scheme, stalwart and quick - if not fast.
Consider our DT weakness: though sometimes terrific Gerard Warren lacks consistency and Tommy Kelly can't be described any better. Desmond Bryant is developing w/ promise. These DTs are quick but not huge and have been pushed around in the interior on too many occasions. But they might work out as DEs in a 3-4 set.
Now consider our LB strength and weakness: Thomas Howard and Trevor Scott on the outsides are doing a great job; our "MLB", Kirk Morrison is a sure but soft tackler who isn't a true MLB (can't intimidate or direct play) but either a misplaced ILB in a 4-3 set or, more likely, a 3-4 OLB forced to play Middle by default in a 4-3 scheme. Our Linebackers are fast and more suited to the 3-4 scheme that sends them against QBs just as the 4-3 sends DEs.
Finally consider that DC, John Marshall, knows the 3-4; he helped install it in S.F. when they converted to it in '07.
All things considered, if we were to install the 3-4 today it would look much like this:
RDE - Gerard Warren / Jay Richardson
LDE - Rich Seymour / Matt Shaughnessy
ROLB - Trevor Scott / Sam Williams
LOLB - Greg Ellis / Slade Norris
RILB - Thomas Howard / Ricky Brown
LILB - Kirk Morrison / Jon Alston
NT - Tommy Kelly / Desmond Bryant
SS - Tyvon Branch / Mike Mitchell
FS - Michael Huff / Hiram Eugene
RCB - Nnamdi Asomugha / Jonathan Holland
LCB - Chris Johnson / _____________
A 3-4 we will only require a stud Nose Tackle by way of draft or FA and probably another ILB, e.g. Alabama's Rolando McClain, Missouri's Sean Wheatherspoon, or Iowa's A.J. Edds. We should be able to get one of those three and that only leaves us with the Yokozuna NT. The advantage of converting now are especially appealing because we really need to upgrade the Offensive line to give our excellent running backs and Bruce Gradkowski every opportunity to show this league how excellent they really are.
Discussions of who that Nose Tackle cornerstone should be and your thoughts about returning to the 3-4 are now open for discussion.
0 recs |
139 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
My thoughts exactly
I have been considering this for some time. The Raiders possess great speed at LB. Along with Scott and his power. The problem is that they dont quite mesh as a 4-3 set and someone is going to get 86’d pretty soon. That would be pretty bad, because these guys are good. I think a 3-4 set would suit their speed alot better. THen if you could bring in someone to fill the gap left by those three, you could keep a pretty good LB core in tact and add to it.
One more thing to consider. Seymore would accel in this system……
I don't think we have the players for it.
Out of the current players we have on the DL, Seymour is the only one that suits the 3-4. We don’t have a monster NT (though there will a couple available in FA) and we would need at least one more DE like Seymour. Ellis is not 3-4 end and he doesn’t want to play LB (in fact he came to Oak to be 4-3 end). Admitedly I haven’t seen much of Scott or Shaunessy but my guess is they are 4-3 ends who would have to be converted to pass rushing LBs in a 3-4.
Linebacker wise I think we would need 1 more ILB and a solid 3-4 OLB with us keeping Morrison at ILB and using Scott or someone as one of the pass rushing OLBs.
So looking at personel, I would say we’d need 4 (NT,DE,ILB & OLB) players to fill a switch to 3-4. Those players will be out there but there are also alot of other teams looking for similar.
If we stick to 4-3 then I would say we only need 2 players (NT & OLB/MLB – depending on what happens with Morrison & Howard) in the front 7.
So 4 new guys in the front 7 or just 2. All this without even looking at least 1 other Corner…
by KiwiRaiderFan on Feb 15, 2010 2:18 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
+1 totally agree
The Raiders are not just a NT away from running a 3-4 defensive front. DE, OLB, and ILB would also be huge issues, and we do not have the personnel to fill those spots.
The Giants, Eagles, Saints, and others have shown that a base 4-3 can be effective so long as the system is dynamic to show opposing offenses different looks. The Raiders simply need to create a more dynamic 4-3 defense, rather than attempting to install an entirely new 3-4 base defense.
I'm in the smallest of minorities, but I'm still a big supporter of JaMarcus Russell.
Desmond Bryant (290 6'5") is big enough and strong enough to play the DE in a 3-4
Howard, Morrison and Scott are proven 3-4 type LBs so we only need 1 player added to the 2nd row (ILB).
It’s true that Dallas and Ellis parted company when Dallas transitioned to a 3-4. Ellis, at (270) he isn’t a prototypical 3-4 DE and switched to LB. He was doing well there until he tore his Achilles tendon in 2006. But the DE could have Shaughnessy is 275, a little light, but he’s shown toughness in the trench and/or Richardson, 290, whose coming along well. I’m compelled to reconsider the value of Seymour who I believe would work out much better as a 3-4 DE than he has at either a 4-3 DE or DT.
Given the above, we would only need 2 acquisitions for the transition – a NT and another ILB. Depth is always a concern too.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 15, 2010 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
We mustn't forget the hole at corner...
But I believe you could be right. We have some depth at LB, too, and some young guys who could thrive in a rotation, and Ricky Brown could be back, and work nicely sharing the middle on some plays with a solid new ILB to complement him and his sack abilities from the interior position.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
Al will never let the secondary languish for long, if there's any area we historically shine it there
As for LBs, I’m waiting for Slade Norris to make the scene. I want to mention something about Warren and Kelly; these guys have shown some very good moments at times so I know they have the ability (Al must have been watching their highlights) but the issue is their consistency. We may see a difference with these two characters with our new D-Line coach, Mike Waufle.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 16, 2010 8:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yes. They're both like two different players each one
I can’t stand that in a player; how are they able to show up occasionally and not every down? Maybe they improve with some depth and the right rotation. Who knows. I hope you’re right about Mike Waufle.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
We don't have the players for either
But the ones we do have would funtion better in the 3-4.
"We can't stop here... This is bat country."
Ha ha! my point exactly!
Kelly could work in a rotation. I’m pretty much done with both of them, but Kelly had flashes of ability, so maybe surround him with some talent and work him into a rotation? Who am I to say I know what will work for this football team?
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
3-4 Defense
I’m for the switch. I think Kirk Morrison would benefit and Trevor Scott would excel. We’d still need a nose tackle, as you mentioned, and one more inside linebacker. You sign one and draft the other. It’s easier said than done, but it’s feasible.
I think we do have the personnel needed for the 3-4 defense with a few more additions needed as previously stated. It’s not like we’ve done a great job with the 4-3 scheme. Although our defense wasn’t the weakness, we were pretty bad against the run.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Feb 15, 2010 2:25 PM PST reply actions
Not sure I'm all for switching 100% right now, but this transition is not as difficult for quality football players to make as people cut it out to be
you get the right personnel (I don’t believe ours is that ill-suited for it, but a good draft and a reassignment of guys utilizing strengths can do wonders too) and the fact that the alignment creates problems for today’s successful multiple receivers and eligible tight ends and motion slot guy spreads because of the mismatch of lineman to lineman. I think we shouldn’t sell ourselves short before we see how capable the team is in executing defense from this alignment. Kelly and Warren won’t work in it. Get some depth at NT, build around them, and see what happens.
That being said, I don’t think we’ll see a change in alignments, and actually like it that way. Get some great playmakers and leaders, especially in the trenches, and this team is 100% better immediately.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
they don't work at all, really, do they?
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
see above, my hope is that MikeWaffle will put a consistent fire under their arses and get a commensurate return out of them
I watched highlights today and keyed on Warren – he is really good sometimes and lame others.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 16, 2010 8:17 PM PST up reply actions
I 100% Agree
I’ve been saying this for days! But, I think I would switch it around a tad. To me, Thomas Howard isn’t a 3-4 OLB, He could move inside and we could draft a 3-4 OLB. So my front seven would go something like this
DE: Richard Seymour
NT: Draft/FA
DE: Desmond Bryant/ Jay Richardson
OLB: Trevor Scott
ILB: Thomas Howard
ILB: Kirk Morrison/ Draft
OLB: Draft/ Ellis/ Shaunghessy?
BR3AKF4 St 0N CR4ACK
Howard ILB is better, but get another ILB, and move Kirk to OLB, Scott is other OLB. Shaughnessy can back Seymour
Wilfork, Pickett, Franklin, Hampton all viable NTs in FA. Then we have plenty of Draft space for the OL and a CB.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 15, 2010 4:08 PM PST up reply actions
Well
You got the NT position settled, But then with Kirk at OLB it almost automatically weakens our pass rush. I would Release Kirk and Draft Rolando. And Pass Rushing OLB/DE are easy to find in later rounds
BR3AKF4 St 0N CR4ACK
I was trying to be frugal but, at the end of the weekend, I agree with you
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 15, 2010 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
What about Ricky Brown, too?
and Slade will be in this rotation, and maybe making some plays with all that speed and the rest of the team fulfilling their assignments and not blowing them…
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
Ricky Brown and Slade
More of ILB in the 3-4 Scheme. You cant have a pass defending OLB in the 3-4. You want him to be able to drop into coverage but the main reason he’s there is because he has a nack for getting in the backfield
"Our Destiny is not written for us, but by us."
-Barack Obama
Long time reader, first time poster
I agree with the 3-4 scheme switch although it would require quite a personnell overhaul though. Morrison has not shown he can be the key guy in a 4-3 scheme however if you do install the 3-4 another ILB who is a much stronger cog in run support can help support some of his weaknesses. Rolando McClain or a Brandon Spikes would be great picks. The kid from TCU would also be a solid pick possibly in the 2nd rd if he’s still there. If this is the thought process the kid Price from UCLA would be a great pick in the 1st (since he would most likely be available at # 8) who could be used in the NT position . Trevor Scott was used well in the “elephant” position so a transition to OLB wouldn’t be too hard to visualize being a reality. All in all, best case scenario would be a hybrid 3-4 or 4-3 scheme with Seymour as DE primarily no matter which formation is utilized seeing as how he’s definitely coming back at least 1 more year.
TCU's Daryl Washington is better than the ghoulish one and faster. TCU has another LB whose also welcome here
Jerry Hughes (260) and with 4.64 speed. Michigan’s Brandon Graham is impressive and Sean Weatherspoon is something else!. So if we can’t get McClain we live with it and may end up with an all-pro when the dust settles.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 15, 2010 8:28 PM PST up reply actions
Welcome, TAW. This draft will be a good one; no doubt.
It’s being called the best 1st round since ‘83, and it’s just so stacked with stud juniors this year coming out early. I don’t see the change happening, but wouldn’t mind seeing us use some 3-2-6 dime coverage sets with the two best coverage Mike backers in the defensive backfield covering full backs, tight ends, and big receivers. Mike Mitchell leveling guys over the middle.
I’ve seen great football players make the transition quickly enough in the past, and lots of these guys fit the hybrid LB/DE mold that works so well with 4 linebackers and a huge NT.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
Definitely
Definitely as long as Jim Marshall is allowed to come up with elaborate blitzes if we move players around such. Seymour moving from right to left & on nickel maybe moving Scott to DE in a traditional nickel package that would be a great idea. In the games we were most competetive the scores weren’t very high but our defense played solid. Using all-out blitzes on 1st & 2nd down wouldn’t be a bad idea. Our offense has major issues thus trying to put all our eggs in 1 basket on defense wouldn’t be a bad start. Playing a high-risk style defense isn’t too bad considering we don’t have much to lose. 7 years of 11+ losses, you figure might as well try to change it up a tad.
I actually agree with going to a 3-4
But it really depends on adding strength down in the DL either way. A good nose tackle would be the key. Kelly & Seymour would do well I believe as the DE’s with Scott and Howard as the OLB’s. It would also depend on ensuring at least one more starting Linebacker is added to the mix. I don’t like Ricky Brown, Jon Alston, or Sam Williams as starters and don’t believe they can hold up through the course of the season as anything more than special teams players.
However without gaining a starting NT & MLB, I don’t think we are ready for a switch.
No more raining on BN's rainy parade, they took their ball and went home, lmao.
Kirk may have played his last year here. It's been tough on him playing out of position and tough on us his not being much of a presence in the middle
… always more reactive than proactive is Morrison and if we have better olb’s than him where does he fit? I’m looking forward to a healthy Slade Norris but he needs to get buffed more. Not confident about Sam Williams, Ricky Brown, Jon Alston. We need some hammers in the 2nd Row and arm tackling from a LB is disgraceful. Not sure about Kelly at DE but Seymour is better there than anywhere he’s been (except NE).
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 16, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
3-4 or 4-3
I’m fine with both as I think talent is more important than the scheme the team is running.
It seems to me that the front 7 the Raiders put out on defense is bellow average no matter how it’s lined up.
The NFL seems to be trending towards the 3-4 which means it might be good for the Raiders to ride the wave as more players and coaches are getting comfortable with that scheme.
Of course sometimes when everyone is going one way it’s a good idea to go the other way as more offenses are game planning for the 3-4 so a 4-3 defense could cause problems and the Raiders would have more of a chance to grab players who fit the 4-3 defense as there wouldn’t be as much use for their talents around the league.
I just saw that both R-Rated Superstar and Sons-of Blanda are “Authors” here now on Silver & Black Pride. I want to say congrats to both of you and I look forward to reading what you come up with.
Thank you, sirbed. Another factor is John Marshall's recent 3-4 experience with SF when they converted to it in '07
The upside is its versatility for bringing pressure on QBs – the permutations for assault combinations exceeds the 4-3’s. We saw it first hand with Dallas, Baltimore and the NYJets … Pittsburgh and SD used it against us too. But while the trend is 3-4, < 1/3 of NFL teams are currently using it.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 16, 2010 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
The more I think about it the more I like the 3-4 idea
but I guess more than anything is I’d like to see the Raiders be more aggressive on defense either with a scheme change or who knows maybe even blitzing from time to time.
I just remember the Eagles game where Philadelphia never seemed to overcome their shock at the Raiders blitzing and changing things up.
It seems to me the Raiders must be easy to gameplan against because you know what they’re going to do and that I think is part of the reason for all the failure.
I love aggressive football on both sides of the ball and to me that’s been missing from the Raiders for awhile now.
3-4 DEF
THE WAY I SEE IT, THE RAIDERS PRACTICE BOTH SCHEMES ALREADY WHEN THEY
ARE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. I DUE BELEIVE THAT THEY PLAY BETTER WHEN THEY ARE IN A 3-4 BUT THEY DON’T SHOW IT MUCH IN THE SEASON. I THINK THEY ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE BETTER IN THAT SCHEME, BUT ARE SAVING IT FOR PLAYOFF’S TO MIX IT UP FOR ANY OPPONENT. OUR DEFENCE IS YOUNG, AND VERY TALENTED. GIVE THEM SOME TIME AND YOU WILL SEE A GREAT MIXTURE OF BOTH THAT NOT EVEN PEYTON WILL KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON….GO RAIDERS FOR LIFE!!!!
Playoffs
Um, yeah, let’s work on .500 first or how about losing 10 games or less.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Feb 16, 2010 11:00 PM PST up reply actions
Playoffs?? HAHAHAHA.. that might be the dumbest thing ever posted!!
We still don’t have the talent to win more than 5 or 6 games again… JR Russell is human garbage. Grad is mediocre at best and would be cut by any other team, we are just stacked with pathetic talent at QB so he gets a shot. But he is still shit and doesn’t deserve to start for a real team. We have no O line.. a garbage D line. A top pick WR that can’t catch to save his life. The rest of the WR corp will never be better than mediocre trash.. we are still a pathetic organization with a pathetically ignorant head coach.. whose strings are pulled by a senile rotting corpse! And until Davis is dead.. we will never be the team we were…so you can discuss schemes, D’s and O’s all you want.. but it’s another double digit loss season coming up… those are the cold hard facts… How stupid do all those people that spent good money Russell and Heywad Bey jerseys feel? You can hang them in the closet with those Moss jerseys which are hanging right next to the Javon Walker jerseys.. 2 more BRILLIANT Davis signings.. Come on.. now that is freakin funny!!
How is Schilens, Murphy and Miller trash, wow, I stopped reading after that stupidity...put them on another team with a good QB and they flourish.
so pessimistic, u might as well “Grab your strap and bang yourself.” We will only go up from here, go be a saints fan. We can actually make the playoffs if we draft an OT and improve the oline with Grads at the helm of QB.
The RaiderLaker
If the NFL does outlaw the 3-point stance
having a more versatle front 7 will be that much more important. A switch to a 3-4 maybe more important as players will be playing up anyways so the players who can move around and establish position more quickly may become a premium.
Just a thought.
No more raining on Bruins Nation's rainy parade, they took their ball and went home.
I always enjoyed the 3-4 more.
just want to say however that the nfl is a lot different now then it was back then.
However, i think it would be best, and i believe we have the power to get key personnel, and use them, to transfer to a 3-4.
For DL, we obviously need a DT. I know Seymour and Ellis(or someone else who can pass rush, and has good vision for the run) can do the job on the outside, but a 3-4 DT is key. They are big and strong fellas who can get the double team, and stuff the middle. They allow the ends to flank left and right, and to make it easier for any blitzer to blitz, and any LB to make a play. Because listing free agent DTs are easy, I’m going to give a link to DTs that are in FA with some descriptions and ratings:
http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2010DT.php
I particular like the top 11, but seymour is no DT.
My top draft candidates in the second and third that I think we should take a look at are:
Dan Williams(please)
Terrence Cody
Cam Thomas(if we can’t get williams, please get Thomas)
I like both williams and thomas, only because they can do more than stuff the line.
As for LBs, I believe we already have the capable starters. Trevor scott will be a superb outside LB, as will Ellis, and believe it or not Howard still. Howard is an extremely fast LB who can rush on the outside. His speed is the only reason I put him on the outside, and he can rush the passer effectively. He can be very effective there. If not then we can try morrison there, but i don’t think he’ll be that effective. I think we can find a good draftee as well. In the middle, either morrison or Howard, and a free agent or draftee.
Free agent MLBs:
http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2010ILB.php
Like the top 10 candidates
Free agent OLBs:
http://walterfootball.com/freeagents2010OLB.php
I also like the top 10. plus there are plenty of veterans this year.
My draftees for MLB:
Rolando McClain(obviously the best)
Brandon Spikes
Sean Witherspoon(can be converted)
Daryl Washington(very interesting prospect)
Sean Lee(this guy is also very interesting, and has great upside)
I’ll be happy with any of these guys on our squad.
My draftees for OLB:
Ricky Sapp(he’d be interesting)
Sergio Kindle(seems like a complete package in an OLB)
Navarro Bowman(he has great upside. Explosive in basically any situation like pass coverage, run stopping and pass rushing. also a great tackler).
DE Brandon Graham(although he is a mid first rounder, and I don’t think we should get him, he can convert to OLB, and he’ll be great there. From watching highlights of him, the guy is great).
I really like Navarro Bowman, who is a second rounder. If we somehow get ricky sapp that would be good, and sergio would be good as well. Also Bowman has a great personality and a story. Take a look at him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=—IbIKKB26g
With what we can do, I believe achieving the 3-4 can be accomplished. I also believe that our defense will be a lot better with our versatility in calling blitzes(if they blitz that is) and we can be a force. especially with our secondary being above average. I’m all in for going toward a 3-4.
nice breakdown, p. I like this Bowman kid. Huge heart.
That’s exactly the kinda guy you want, I think. We’ll be watching the combine closely this year.
I don’t see him going that high in the first round, strictly based on the needs of the top 12 picks, but who knows with the draft.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
Who? Bowman? Graham?
I don’t think we’ll get graham. either an OT or Rolando McClain are my hopefuls in the first. If we get McClain, then a DT, maybe Dan Williams or Cam Thomas will be nice in the second.
But what I would do:
Anthony davis in the first, then I would pick up either dan williams or cam thomas(so we can have someone in the middle) in the second.
It also depends who we’ll get in free agency. Also, I think there are talks that we may try to get Karlos Dansby. I doubt we will, but if we do, then damn that is awesome.
Like McClain too, but think the Browns will take him
I’m not sure Davis is the bestt of the four tackles available projected in the first round. Four teams in the top ten picks will be looking hard at the top qbs. Interestingly enough, a lot of guys projected Bradford ahead of Matthew Stafford if he’d have come out last year. We could see Suh or McCoy fall further than suspected. If these top qbs have solid combines they could get a lot of attention from four or five teams definitely thinking qb right about now.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
I believe
it’s a lot more likely that the browns pick either desmond bryant or the best QB available. That’s eric Mangini style.
Mangini's not running the show here now. Mike Holmgren is
and Holmgren will have the final say on that matter, but he could like one of those qbs. Mangini may not last because of the butting of heads he’ll have to do on a regular basis with a Holmgren in charge of personnel.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
Mangina never gives up. it's his pathetic personality.
i think they’d get desmond bryant, but that’s just my projection.
I love Dez Bryant, but haven't seen him on anybody's board in the top tens
but you never know with wideouts. I think Holmgren will take the best DT available in the first round, and avoid qb and skills position in the first, but we’ll know by the first pick if he’s really calling the shots, which I’m pretty sure he will be (as he should, how many disciples of that guy are coaching teams still?).
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
I can picture homgren
slapping mangina.
Mangna goes to a corner, with a couple tears in his eyes, and..
Homgren says, “No! I said No!(waving his finger at him like mangina is a dog) we will not draft this guy! No!”
I know that was kinda messed up, but the whole description was Holmgren showing who’s boss. Plus I like to stab at mangina when possible.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 16, 2010 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
I like Mangini
Hes a good HC IMO. Kinda reminds me of Lane Kiffin for some reason. I know you hate him cause your a Pats fan and all
"Our Destiny is not written for us, but by us."
-Barack Obama
not exactly that
but he’s a sore loser, and he was full of himself when he left us. I remember when he didn’t even shake belichek’s hand after the game and he hardly shows good character to the guy who basically mentored him(ie. belichek). He’s like that guy, who I forgot his name, that was a brilliant strategist and he betrayed the union.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 17, 2010 11:27 AM PST up reply actions
nope.
Last name I think started with a B. I think the name is a bit catchy.
that's some funny shit, P!
You can tell when the rivalry hatred and fanhood come out!
I don’t like Mangini either. The analogy works.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
I like Bowman
Hes a monster! And PSU is known for breeding LB’s
"Our Destiny is not written for us, but by us."
-Barack Obama
3-4 4-3 it doesn’t matter bcause we don’t blitz don’t believe in it. I love this team but until there is some change in the way the defense is ran we can expect more of the same. if we get this or if we get that when we get a dt i will believe things are starting to change when we apply the blitz i will believe things are changing when we start drafting players in the early rounds we can use I will believe. i think we are head in the same spot as last year. We have to play the afc south which runs the ball good and have two qb that throw great and everyone of them plays good denfense and all we did was sign a kicker. we can’t block a soul or stop the run why would you sign a kicker to 16mil. every olineman is going to want more cause we have become the NFL bailout plan. If we keep bruce or russell we are going to have to fix the oline cause I don’t think either one can be trusted to throw over 20 times a game. Everyone blames chris johnson for getting burn if you put revis on the other side of nnamdi he going to get picked on. because we don’t blitz or bring pressure. It is hard to cover 1on1 but when you only have 1 pass rusher its down right impossible. look at woodson every since he left us he has been a star. It’s no telling how good nnamdi would be if we put him in a system that puts pressure on a qb or the rest of the team. the raider will always be my favorite team but I have to be honest we aren’t going to win because we don’t even know if we have a head coach.
so full of downers there. is this a "giving up all hope" post?
but in all seriousness, you could tell from last season that we’re heading in the right direction. Grad is coming on(the games he started in he performed well in. and yes i think we can depend on him to throw more than 20 times a game). There is a big difference in a 3-4 compared to a 4-3. One particular detail is that a 3-4 is designed to disguise blitzes, which if they do turn in to a 3-4, they will have to blitz to be more effective. Plus they can have the personnel to do it. We are projecting the raiders to pick an OL in the draft in R1, and our defense should be better next year. The reason why I believe this is because they seem like they were making some changes last year, one of them being trevor scott moving to outside linebacker which is a great move and trying out blitzing schemes in certain games.
With the 3-4 one or more of the LBs will be coming and they're much faster to the ball than the down linemen - so it comes off
as a blitz while being hardwired in the scheme. Then, with some imagination we have two or more LBs shooting through G & T gaps and before you know it Al will be the most blitz-happy owner ever. This will help out C.J., or anyone (except Routt) who plays the LCB. Marshall know the 3-4 scheme and our players would quickly adapt to it. I agree with you that our failure to pressure the QB has been 5/8s or our defensive problem, that and the middle weakness -3/8 – against the run.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 16, 2010 10:12 PM PST up reply actions
god.
Al being blitz happy sounds kinda scary to be honest.
Al: “Cable, I wanna 8 man blitz.”
by patriotguy2 on Feb 16, 2010 10:16 PM PST up reply actions
OMG too funny
That one cracks me up I can picture the conversation and Cable falls to the ground clutching his chest upon hearing those words.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 17, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions
I was going to make a dialogue of it:
Al: “Cable, I wanna 8 man blitz.”
Cable: “Sure thing bos…. Wait what?”
Al: “An 8 man blitz.”
Cable: (chuckles) “You kidding me? A 10 man blitz would work better.”
Al: " I think I’m getting the hang of this ‘3-4’ scheme. I like it!"
by patriotguy2 on Feb 17, 2010 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
A little optomistic
I would say borderline delusional thinking Al would just suddenly love blitzing. We all know one thing about Al. He is always consistant in what he likes and not much has changed over the years. I doubt having him watch our team play the 3-4 and how it works in terms of scheme and it is blitzing without really blitzing because its just part of the 3-4 system.
I like the 3-4 and how it creates a lot of choices in terms of defense packages and utilization of all your def players using their strengths. I dont believe Al will want it because he just doesnt like the blitz period.
I must say I do enjoy your positive attitude in hoping what could happen if Al sees it working I just dont believe he will do it.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 17, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
It's kinda disguising your blitzer, and not ever designating a player to have an assignment other than the play's
as in certain, “scheme” defenses. Like some guys have pointed out, and I believe why you can see many teams in the league having some success with it, is that you never know which of those four backers are coming, and you can do a lot before the snap to make it appear someone covering is coming or vice versa. The remaining lbs can quickly drop into a zone or pick up a man, with the corners finding man to man on the receivers suddenly favorable. It also creates different gap problems for typical I form, pro form, 21 personnel, 11 personnel fronts, even single back and all receiver/te sets in the NFL. Plays designed to pull a guard don’t work the same because they assume a lineman at DT and DE will be opposite each sides guard and tackle, and the center blocking to the side of the run but having to gain leverage opposite that side of the field on his opponent. It’s where the magic of the 3 technique NT that always draws 2 guys, leaving every other pass rusher or defender one on one against a guy, and often with a free shot to the qb when their opponent blows the play.
The transition is not as hard as people are cutting it out to be; it’s still the same game their asking them to play. It’s worth considering the change because the formations seem to enhance the personnel’s abilities by working around them. We just need a starting NT, and a guy to develop behind him, and another solid Mike backer, and this can totally happen.
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
Wow, that was completely beyond understanding. I apologize! lol
Too many thoughts going on at once…
My point was by disguising who is blitzing on any particular play—easier to do with an extra backer and a mismatch of DL to OL—you maybe don’t call what your doing blitzing, to appease Al? Not sure about all that, but I’ve heard Al considers the blitzing a weakness and doesn’t because but don’t know if it’s true and I’ll leave that alone.
In whatever offensive front they bring: Two backs (FB and RB) either from any variation of the I, or even pro formation, and one tight end, 3 wideouts. Even in today’s occasional spread formations with essentially four wide receivers, 1 back (sometimes going out, or being the hot read too) or two tight end sets. The 3-4 seems to create some problems just by the mismatches, therein giving a young, athletic defense full of playmakers greater opportunity to make those plays. The middle of the field is clogged with two guys, and the flats are covered by the outside backers, leaving the corners to cover their receivers and the free safety to roam free and the strong safety to stay strong. The formation stuff gets confusing. I need a telestrator like Madden sometimes, I think! Wouldn’t that be cool to do online! Boom!
I hear Pat Kirwan, Tim Ryan, and some other guys on the NFL network talk about todays move to more of a passing game, and how the league’s successful 3-4 teams on defense—Bal, Pit, NYJ, Min…—are handling that move to more passing better by creating more consistent pressure. I guess we’d be fooling Al that we weren’t actually blitzing every play; it would always be a certain guys job to go after the qb and take his head off, only the guy would be a different one every time. Bring on the Lawrence Taylor like sack year for Howard, maybe even Trevor Scott?
"If your only ambition in life, is to be a better person; well, that's just the best ambition you can have..." Wayne "Rabbit" Bartholomew
the 3-4
depends a lot on the LBs. You need some good cover LBs, who are also great at sniffing out the run. The LBs are responsible for the middle of the field, and are also considered the safeties when it’s a running play(although so are the actual safeties). The 3-4 is a lot more flexible, and easier to manage. You can have a 4-3 DE play 3-4 OLB, a 4-3 DT play 3-4 end, a 4-3 OLB can play 3-4 MLB. There’s a lot of stuff you can do with it.
The OLBs are the main pass rushers, that should be fast, and should cover TEs well(not necessarily GREAT, but well). The MLBs are responsible for the middle of the field, and are basically the field generals of the who LB corps. They call the audibles, and they stop the RB if they get through the line, or help clog it up(like if the MLB sees a run play up the middle, chances are both see it, and before you know it there are 5 people in the line, with two more who are the OLBs, on each side. So that’s 7.). They also keep the middle of the field in check with some zone coverage(usually a man coverage consists of the RBs and Full Backs. Occasionally they defend the TE, but it’s usually the OLBs job), and help out the corners when their guy goes over the middle. The safeties can go into zones, man coverage, or blitz, but that’s better than a 4-3 mainly because they’ll have other guys covering for them. Like a MLB is the zone in the middle, while a corner is man on the slot guy. If the corner is blitzing usually the OLB covers the slot or TE, with the safety playing zone in the middle or above.).
3-4s are very strategic, and have always been my favorite type of defense.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 18, 2010 10:36 PM PST up reply actions
Excellent work here, patriot(/raider)guy. These transformations of assignments, e.g. OLBs become main pass rushers and
and player transitions, e.g. DEs become OLBs. We already have Trevor Scott moving into the 2nd Row from the DE and Greg Ellis plays both OLB and DE with equal virtuoso. Everything depends on getting the centerpiece Nose Tackle and someone like Rolando McClain to marshal everyone and anchor our erstwhile soft center-field. Marshall who seems to know what he’s doing at DC and has a 3-4 background should sell this to Al and use the overhead and film from our games with NYJ, Baltimore and Pittsburg.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 19, 2010 6:49 AM PST up reply actions
More good reasons to switch back to 3-4
We instantly bring more QB pressure with no loss of protection v the run, e.g. draws, and Al gets his cake and eats it too.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 19, 2010 6:40 AM PST up reply actions
Like people have said, we don’t have the players to run an effective 3-4 right now aside from Seymour unless we do a complete overhaul, but that’s asking for more years of rebuilding.
We could run the 3-4i right now
RDE – Tommy Kelly / Gerard Warren
LDE – Rich Seymour / Matt Shaughnessy
ROLB – Trevor Scott / Jay Richardson
LOLB – Greg Ellis / Slade Norris
RILB – Thomas Howard / Ricky Brown
LILB – Kirk Morrison / Jon Alston
NT – ______________ / Desmond Bryant
SS – Tyvon Branch / Mike Mitchell
FS – Michael Huff / Hiram Eugene
RCB – Nnamdi Asomugha / Jonathan Holland
LCB – Chris Johnson / _____________
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 6:22 AM PST up reply actions
+1 I agree
I think with a little tinkering and exploring more of what our defensive players can offer in a 3-4 system it would not require a complete overhaul.
I think everyone sees the one CB position as a complete achilles heel to our defense when it really isnt. We still have several strong postional players in the secondary that can shore up the other CB postion with double coverage and working on conditioning/mechanics.
We have a good core group we could make the switch I dont see the down side especially when you look oat how the defense performed last year.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 17, 2010 10:46 AM PST up reply actions
plus there are plenty of DT free agents
and we have the power to draft great LBs as well. this could work.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 17, 2010 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
you can also be like you know who,
and have mitchel try out CB, just to get some versatility. Or maybe even MLB.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 17, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
Great hitter, I really enjoy watching Mitchell lay the wood.
(I don’t even mind too much that he publicly celebrates each of his tackles as though it’s the play of the game)
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
Doesn't his hits remind you of one of the great raider safeties?
Like maybe Tatum?
similar but the effect isn't so spectacular b/c Mitchell relies on his arms and Jack was all head & shoulders
Mitchell’s still a missile – Mike Missile.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
Jay Richardson OLB?
No way! Hes too slow and too big. He’s more of a 3-4 DE. Maybe if he puts on a tad more weight. He’d be a good fit there, But not at OLB
"Our Destiny is not written for us, but by us."
-Barack Obama
But the 3-4 OLB are coming like DEs over half the time, right?
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
Not necessarily
Remember the Tyler Brayton experiment at linebacker? On the occasion he did have to cover a back or TE it was one the ugliest things I’ve ever had to witness. I think Richardson would have similar problems at OLB if pressed into coverage.
No more raining on Bruins Nation's rainy parade, they took their ball and went home.
No Richardson.
Think of DEs that are in the mold of Burgess, peppers, and of course Greg Ellis. They are fast, and display some finesse while also having some strength. Those are the type of guys you want in a 3-4 outside LB. Richardson, forgive me if I’m mistaken, is more of a strength oriented DE, and have average speed. If that’s the case, he won’t fit as a 3-4 OLB. He needs speed, so he can cover guys easier. But we also need to view his hip movement(how fluid it is), and I don’t know if he has good any good hip movement to compete with a guy like antonio gates.
How about Desmond Bryant? Heavier shorter and most importantly more agile
Does he go on the short list with Sam, or what?
If he were to go, we could have Warren or Kelly back up the great NT we’re going to bring in and have Jay go back to DE.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
I haven't seen him play. so i don't really know.
does he look like a 3-4 OLB to you? Think of a more agile 4-3 OLB.
Condolences S J B. The physical comparison btw Jay & Tyler are exact enough both 6'6" 280
So who do we have now to back up Trevor? Kirk could if we get McClain for ILB.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
Sam Williams?
Hes big and his horrible pass coverage abilities wouldn’t matter AS much because he’s a back up 3-4 OLB
"Our Destiny is not written for us, but by us."
-Barack Obama
but
one of the jobs of a 3-4 OLB is to cover the TE. But if he’s a back up, then maybe that’s okay. He can develop it.
3-4 Defense
Because of the players that the Raiders have on the Defensive side of the ball I now think that they are more suited to play the 3-4 instead of the 4-3 this teams has speed and it is time that they take advantage of it ans switch to the 3-4 and it would not hurt if they did not play mantoman as much as they do. Other words mix it up.
I would definetly
Not put Desmond Bryant at NT. He doesnt have the girth to play the position. He looks more like a 3-4 DE. In fact, How does the this sound. Desmond Bryant at OLB? Maybe he cuts a good 15-20 pounds and he’d be a good strong OLB
"Our Destiny is not written for us, but by us."
-Barack Obama
if he does, then maybe.
and yes, DE will be better for him. Only huge guys should play NT. Guys that are around 310-335 should be good enough. But they also have to be strong. I would like to get Dan Williams, or maybe Cam Thomas.
The thing about
Desmond is, Hes crazy strong! I think he put of 34-35 bench reps of 225 pounds! Thats as much as any NT will put up. But hes doesn’t have that Vince Wilfork build. You know? The whole Mini Van thing
"Our Destiny is not written for us, but by us."
-Barack Obama
if he gains more weight
then he’ll be better at DT.
Its not so simple
It just isnt as easy as adding/losing weight you have to learn a new postion and the responsibilities that go with it as well as forgetting the things that were part of your other position so you dont mix the 2 up. A human body will also take some getting use to in terms of dexterity and agility taken or given depending on whether or not weight was gianed or lost.
If you take a guy and change him to a different position he would in my opinion have to be 1. a supperb ahtlete 2. a total student of the game 3. actually welcome the change not every player wants that because usually there is a learning curve to the positon and they may look out place for a bit.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
I agree
Which is why Desmond, if we switch to a 3-4, is better off at end. Besides, 4-3 DTs convert to 3-4 ends all the time(and easier too).
by patriotguy2 on Feb 18, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
ok
But above you said if gained weight he would be better at DT. So which is it?
He wont be DT if we go to a 3-4 because even if he gains a little weight he will still be too light to be a tank on the inside.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
well that's if he gains weight(with more muscle of course).
At the moment, end is his position, but if he happens to gain weight, weight and strength are key to DT. And I heard Bryant is very strong.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 18, 2010 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
Do you know how hard it is?
To gain that much weight, gain strength and still be somewhat agile enough and have atleast some speed in that short of a period of time? Even with all of the chemistry out there in the NFL to make these players into prototype Incredible Hulk look a likes 40lbs or there abouts is asking for way too much AND it puts a huge toll on the body which will grid his body down faster making him more susceptible to injury.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
I bet it's hard
which is why I have Bryant as an End. Not a Tackle.
Desmond is smart and wants to play; so your 2nd and 3rd concern is covered, as for the 1st issue
I watched film of him and besides looking awkward at times (being a normal rookie) he was sometimes pushed out of the play – I mean way out of the play – which doesn’t happen with more massive bodies. Bryant is 290 and not at all fat, so he could put on perhaps 25lbs of muscle in the off season. I once gained 28lbs in 4 months going to the gym 6 days/wk & 4-5 meals/day – it just takes the sustained intention. But, he I can’t see him being the NT for awhile … if ever.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 18, 2010 6:05 PM PST up reply actions
Ok
However at his now large size I would speculate he nearly maxed out on gaining that much more muscle and has probably tapped all or most of the available resources to put another “solid” 25 or more pounds on to be that affective.
I know it is possible to put on solid weight with the right formula but I would guess 1. You had not maxed out your potential at that point in terms of muscle growth and capacity and obviously your frame can sustain it. 2. As I said he still has to manage the body differently upon gaining that weight and still have some speed.
I put on 30+ Lbs over a summer and it was harder on my back etc etc so it plays a part of how your overall body feels and yes before oyu ask I gained from the gym not from the table or fridge or bar.
I do understand what you are getting at and everything I just think its a waste to convert a player who can perform at a good level at their current position to a different position when there are other plaers available out there to pick up that can do the same job and save the growing pains of the conversion or experiment.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 19, 2010 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
If we go 3-4
We need to move quick to fill holes in the FA before the draft. Wether it be O-line, D-line, LB and CB to many question marks to hap hazardly change.
Then we would need to draft mostly defense McClain in the first, Cody in the second for starters. Depending on free agent pick ups.
That hurt us last year drafting DE’s then picking up Ellis and Seymour and cutting the picks.
The future is uncertain... and the end is always near. JMorrison
Actually, I believe the conversion would free up draft space for our OL and CB position. We would be using our personnel
more suitably for their skill sets. I tweaked the possible Defensive Depth Chart … please review and advise.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
I'd like
Kelly at RDE and Warren as back-up
Bryant would be better at DE as well not big enough to be NT in a 3-4 (in my opinion)
McClain and Morrison at ILB Scott and Howard at outside to use speed to rush
We need to nab Mount Cody in the second and possibly Thomas or Troup also in the 3rd unless we get Wilfolk in FA
The future is uncertain... and the end is always near. JMorrison
Idk about Cody.
If he has the strength then sure, but I think he’ll be lazy on the line. I think it’s safe to draft someone like Dan Williams who is big at 327(Wilfork is 337 I think) and he has great strength. He’s very quick off the snap as well. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1125522
Not to mention Mount Cody isn’t an every down DT. Plus when he tires(which he does easily) he starts to loose some leverage.
I agree with patriotgug; Cody won't give us 4 quarter (unless, perhaps, his bamaBro Rolando is riding pushing him from behind)
I admit, I was scraping the bucket for the NT. Kelly isn’t as quick as Warren and doesn’t hustle as much either, that’s why I put Gerard at DE and Kelly at NT until we can get a real one.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 17, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
In a 3-4
almost all NT’s will not make four quarters thats why I said we needed either Thomas or Troup in the 3rd as well.
Williams will be gone by our second pick (depending on combine) he was also a bit of a one year wonder
The future is uncertain... and the end is always near. JMorrison
well we should get either one.
plus DTs can last 4 quarters. Wilfork can. In fact we’ve always stressed to play 60 minutes with our starters. But yes, a good rotation will be even better. We should go after one of the free agent DTs if we could, but if not, I think Kelly can be adequate. But drafting a DT will be key this offseason.
For us it would come down to the offenses ability
to continue to ensure good time of possession. Eliminating constant 3 & outs and getting some good long drives. Not getting behind would also limit the oppositions run game effectiveness. Any d-line is going to feel pressure if they are exposed for too many plays.
No more raining on Bruins Nation's rainy parade, they took their ball and went home.
+1
Which is why I think we should get a tackle with our first pick. Look at what a tackle did for Miami in 08. Jake Long improved the offense dramatically.
TOP is key
So the onus goes back to our currently weak OL right and Defensive middle. If we did nothing else but landed a good OT and NT our record would improve. If we did that and went to a 3-4 also we would win more than we lost. And, if we went to man blocking and dropped the Kiffin/Cable ZBS – we would go right into the playoffs. I think we have the size and strength on the O-line for a power blocking scheme free of the complexities and shortcomings of the ZBS. Like a pumpkin left on a DS porch from October through the Spring, is Tom Cable on our payroll.
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 18, 2010 6:55 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed
The amount of time our defense had to spend on the field last year was ridiculous. We need an offense that can give the defense a breather at least some of the time. We do need 2-3 guys that can suck it up in the middle so it can rotate and make sure that they can last the game because if they cannot putting a body in there that is too small will lead to big problems at the end of close games when they start pounding the ball up the middle.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
1976-1989
Oakland used the 3-4 set successfully from 1976 through 1989, winning 62% of the games. By contrast, since converting to a 4-3 Defensive (2 DTs, 2DEs, 2 OLBs and 1 MLB) we have won only 52% of our games. Incidentally, in all three of our SB Championship victories and the seasons leading up to those Super Bowls, we used the 3-4 defense.
That means absolutely nothing. Al Davis is still making moves and what not like it’s 1976-1989.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Feb 17, 2010 4:19 PM PST reply actions
True:
he still sees Cliff Branch out there on a weekly basis. he just can’t figure out WHY Cliffy is dropping the ball so much now!?!?!
It is all about coming together as a team. At the end of the day, the team is all we have. - T. Branch 10-14-09
by Raymond St. Martin (Saint) on Feb 18, 2010 7:04 AM PST up reply actions
One last shot before before the wrestling circuits
Signed by the Patriots (12/12/01) from the Eagles practice squad … Placed on injured reserve (10/23/02) … Placed on reserve/physically unable to perform list (8/26/03) … Placed on injured reserve (11/10/03) … Re-signed by the Patriots (3/24/06) … Placed on reserve/physically unable to perform list with a shoulder injury (8/26/08) … Activated from reserve/physically unable to perform list (10/20/08).
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 18, 2010 11:09 AM PST reply actions
above is info re Neal's injury proned "career"
by Sons-of-Blanda on Feb 18, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions
activated from 10/20/08
and he’s been healthy ever since. Plus he’s an excellent OL that we should take a look at.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 18, 2010 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
Not with all that baggage
Way too may injuries. He has been healthy for almost 2 whole seasons out of how many?
The healthy part of his career is probably just an anomoly. There are way too may other options out there to make a better choice of rather than rolling the dice with a guy who has quite a bum shoulder if SOBs injury reports are correct.
Remember Javon Walker and the knee stuff…… no thanks.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
but he's worth a look
I mean, if he’s been healthy for 2 years in a row, than what’s to say that he’ll be more healthy the next year? He’s been great on the pats OL. A real anchor. He’ll be a great addition, and an excellent upgrade, on the OL.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 18, 2010 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
I will agree to disagree
Only because I hate to gamble on guys with injury prone histories, just because most of the time it doesnt pan out but I will give you the point that he has for 2 seasons now. The biggest reason I would say no to him is we can 1 draft a very healthy young lineman or 2 or 3 2. we can sign a number of other free agents potentialy on the market.
I will bring it up in my next meeting with Al though, you know how it is with him taking all this outside advice we all give him. JK
Good point on Neal though
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
I was just thinking
If we get Neal, and then get Anthony Davis, or Bruce Cambell(Neal can bring leadership as well), that would be upgrade x100.
by patriotguy2 on Feb 18, 2010 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
Damn
Read the post below I hit the wrong button of course.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:47 PM PST up reply actions
Pipe dream
If, if, if……….if I picked all six numbers in the lotto draw my secretary will be taking dictation from me on the beach in Cabo for all my posts which is about as likely as all of those things you listed as happening.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 18, 2010 12:46 PM PST reply actions
well if we are talking about the future of our team
we can only use speculation. Which is using ifs. I don’t think Neal will come to the raiders, but it doesn’t hurt to try to get him.
Not just that
Its not just Neal it was together with the other 2 guys you mentioned “if” we can get them too then……. I just find when you try to add multiple individuals to the dynamic it makes it less likely. Getting Neal is not wrong to speculate or “if” about we all do it just trying to factor the dream of 2 other guys with him and making it a great line getting all of them is very unlikely in my opinion but I do respect your thoughts for real.
Win at all costs! Winning ugly is still winning! Remember the past and what got us to the top before. Jim Plunkett and winning ugly......enough said!
by TheLyleAlzadoPunch on Feb 19, 2010 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
like I said
it’s just someone on our blog coming up with it. The pats aren’t really trying to do that, but realistically, it could happen. But yes, it’s all just fun speculation.
One of our guys at our blog, was thinking of a trade possibility.
Would you be willing to trade your 1st or 2nd round pick for Matt Light and Nick Kazcur?
Maybe, but then i realized they are old as hell, so no, he's good but will it last?(Matt Light), 3rd pick then yes.
The RaiderLaker
Actually I change my mind, make that a 4th (since we have 2), and the 6th, and we give you Standford Routt(maybe good in zone).
The RaiderLaker
idk. They are old, but still very good.
if I were to choose a player to go with the 4th and 6th(would you give up a second or 3rd next year? along with the 4th this year?), I think either CJ or DHB and someone else that may help us. Maybe CJ and DHB. But Getting Light and Kazcur(who can also be a guard), while getting an OT like Anthony Davis will be great as well.
But I don’t think the pats will trade the Lineman anyways.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
