Bing Bong

yep there's Fitspatspick, and Fitsmagic. Tygod (I liked T-Mobile) and Tie Rod (didn't get it), but every QB will get both sides of the coin.

Musclehamster, unfortunately eschewed by it's namesake, Doug Martin. Who doesn't want to be the musclehamster?

It's also decision making. regardless of the soft pass he telegraphed it to boot. Not to mention him tossing up those picks. No such things as the "right" throw if those players running free after 5 seconds are a result of the defense blitzing.. begging you to throw that in a collapsing pocket.. on top of poor mechanics = picks DBs rarely see in an NFL game.

That's so funny, straight up mean. DIII coaches are so bad from my experience. Played DIII soccer, I remember my coach was a total idiot. We'd ironically tailgate the football games like it was DI I specifically remember heckling the coach for punting with it with somebody who apparently never punted in his life. He shanked it 4 times for 10-20 yards max in a row. I yealled "just go for it you can't punt and that 10 is nothing with your defense." The look he gave me.. I made damn sure I was never taking a class of his, easy or not.

I've fallen in love with every regime's early moves that I've learned not to get too close to my GF and have my heart broken at her incompetence and firing. But this GF gave me something I've never experienced, a playoff game. She may be a keeper, but I'm still not going to get excited about her cap superiority.

lol forget about that point, I thought Houston was drafted to a 4-3 defense and Andy Reid changed it to a 3-4 in his 3rd year, point being he was wise not to overhaul his front 7. But I'm pretty sure Romeo Crennel ran a 3-4 when they drafted Houston. I can't speak to Vallejo beating out Ragland meaning he's going to be a better asset than Ragland. Any defensive coordinator should use their best assets to put out the best scheme. Wade Phillips dictates his scheme according to his best players. Ragland was likely getting back into football shape, shaking off the rust, he made contributions in the latter part of the year in KC. Why not keep him around instead of having 4 friggin tightends. Neither of us know really what he'll become. But having a good player should be exciting for a coordinator not "crap I have to tailor my defense around this guy cause I have a SCHEME" Scheme's a very broad definition for a defense. 4-3 or 3-4 I really don't care, the better football players can play both. So Shaq Lawson should stay lol to get back to the thread, who else are we playing at DE? Unless Rex/Whaley just had an absolute abysmal draft, one of those guys oughta pan out. Cheap rookie contracts are nice to have, especially 1st round graders.

1) Kicker 2) Matt Prater 3) Lawrence Taylor and Matt Prater very good choices. I'd rather pick an easier position to have more time to party with Lawrence Taylor and Michael Irving. And I'm sure Matt Prater would join the posse.

Holy hell it's impossible to find historical schemes **** it. It's not that important cause no one else apparently cares. It's all about the players. Hughes. There's a guy. Colts couldn't figure it out, we've ran him through coaching, scheme, player changing hell. He's just a good player playing a sport he is good at and doesn't have a problem slightly changing positions.

Alright we're getting somewhere. You agree that no good regime change would trade 3rd round year 3 Justin Houston because of scheme right? Yet that happens ALL the time. SCHEME is not this all powerful force that prevents good coaches and players from coaching something that works. Talent that good talent should play for any SCHEME. So it's not a laughable notion. Neither of us can sit down draw some plays on the chalkboard to get Houston 20 sacks in a season despite being in the wrong SCHEME. So I can't explain to you how Ragland could have worked out last year. I can point to how other players were adapted to scheme change successfully. I don't think he sucks at all. He's a bad example because he's our ONLY example. I'm just saying it worries me if FO has such a set in stone mindset that affects their decision making especially when they don't exactly have a wealth of LBs (2017). And I just realized Houston plays in a 34 halfway through typing this. Too tired to rewrite an example. Holy hell it's impossible to find historical schemes **** it. It's not that important cause no one else apparently cares. It's all about the players.

He was drafted as a 3-4 pass rushing OLB and would likely be a marginally better player in that SCHEME. But he's such a good football player he's still one of the best pass rushers regardless. His scouting notes: "Houston is a bit undersized as a traditional 4-3 defensive end but fits the mold of a 3-4 outside linebacker." I disagree. But that's fine. He's certainly no Justin Houston. Look it's been fun sparring with you guys but if you don't get what I'm trying to get across and are just going to scoff at the notion of a player playing a scheme he wasn't drafted for then it's just condescending. You could just acknowledge my point and disagree. Otherwise just not really worth arguing about for Ragland and a season that's long gone anyway. I'm talking about the philosophy I want to see in building a team. Not Ragland. He's just an example. So is Justin Houston. Actually I'm going to hit the treadmill, the inspiration for my long-winded thoughtless ramblings.. let's keep this up boys. Let's just not be jerks lol.

My argument's not about a crappy player. Both schemes need LBs He acquired a player that fit his scheme. Again not my argument. He also didn't trade away Justin Houston because he didn't "fit his scheme".

Put in Ragland on rushing downs for one so we don't get ran through. Have him on the rotation. Play him lol. He's a football player, we don't eliminate half the NFL players because we're running a "scheme". Scheme is a fluid dynamic, frankly arbitrary concept. You're seriously asking a question "how do we fit this player in because of the Panthers scheme?" By that logic we need the entire Panthers players. Players and coaches wouldn't move around the league. It's a sport with football players that have the instinct to play any down. Yet you're admitting somehow Wade and Beli can. I'm not going to explain how it'll be perfect I'm just telling you this isn't unprecedented. You're acting like we're building a space rocket with specific components, not a sports team. "How will we ever run the West Coast offense without Walsh Montana and Rice you can't just pair SCHEME with any other players." Said no one.

I DON'T KNOW MAN I'M NOT A DC. you're obviously not one because you think it's laughable a DC coming to a new team can't "adapt with their [patented, non-adjustable] scheme" like it's a damn Lego set. Yet you admit golly gee Wade can do that he's just on another level. How about we expect better.

You adapt the scheme genius

Nah u give me your thoughts Or keep how about just keep Ragland over Humber lol. Enlighten me.

I don't like seeing people we trade away for marginal returns do well as is the case with Ragland and Dareus. Don't need choir boys on the team. If Dareus can perform back to his capability than we've seen 2 coordinators (McD and Rex) that failed and 2 (Schwartz and Jags dude) that proved capable of managing high maintenance talent. Character issues can be trouble to the locker room, but that's a reflection of a coach that can't manage it too. Rebuilding for the sake of removing problem players is the easy way, easy excuse for the reality that you couldn't bring out the best in someone when others have. Many of the greatest coaches are the ones that can babysit a guy, get him to buy into a winning style of play. Unless what I just said contradicts THE PROCESS. I do not speak ill of THE PROCESS. Please don't ban me mods. ?

We disagree that Ragland would have been a solid piece to keep. That's fine. If we're both agreeing that coaches, coordinators should adapt to personnel than that's what I (and I believe Hapless too if I can speak for him) was just trying to get across. This Ragland trade was one thing that worried me about McD's mindset which brought all this up. He didn't have character problems and was a good LB last year. Goes back to using Personnel. We disagree if he would have been capable not a big deal. I just hope it's not an indication he can't adapt to what he's given.

right we went with a scheme McD knew, but certainly different from the defense we see in Carolina. Made the playoffs babee! Point is the season, and grand scheme of things in a "rebuild" are totally different mindsets. A championship caliber coach is always trying to win, using scheme that works with the players he has. Has nothing to do with a rebuild. That's the GMs problem. The coach gets a few more gadgets to work with next season that he wants to use based on his shortcomings the year before, and again.. uses a scheme to work with the players he have. McDermott is not rebuilding. He's coaching winning football, if he's trying to do any less than I don't want him there. Beane is rebuilding. For McDermott, every season should be a vacuum where he makes the most out of the 53 he is given. Players and coaches with any sort of competitive nature don't give a damn about a rebuild when it's week 10, 5-5 having poured so much work, sacrificed bodies, to get there, and having so much left to go and prove.

Yep, I said 2 posts above, Wade Phillips specifically said he adjusts his d to his personnel. A defensive coordinator thinks the only time he's gotten success is the only way. OCs, coaches, all of them. If I was taking over for Schwartz I'd say to myself "wow! he was really successful, I should build off of his defensive approach" But the sentiment for most seems like "Schwartz had a flash in a pan, I'm going to overhaul this to get my defensive scheme I had working (likely less successful the year prior), and show how it's really done. I think Schwartz is one of the better coordinators in that regard. He saw Pettine sacking the heck out of people and came in saying let's keep the aggression Pettine had working for him, and add some of my kinks that I think will work better for this Dareus fella. If was a change in the defenses he ran prior in Detroit and Tennesee, more aggressive (the philosophy Pettine used was the blueprint), yet still had his fingerprints on what he saw could better. To his strength, the only single personnel I think Schwartz really needs is one of the premier DTs, but he doesn't need the best at the position. He made Haynesworth, drafted Suh, utilized Dareus to the max, and of course now hangs his hat on Fletcher Cox. But it is not a coincidence that these guys had their career years under Schwartz. He needs the talent sure, but he maximizes that talent. every. time. and has these guys as the premier players at their position when they play with his scheme. So he's not demanding on his personnel for preexisting. He's maximizing the personnel. He doesn't throw up his hands because he doesn't have Aaron Donald, he makes his DT look like Aaron Donald. I do personally. But offensively we could be a disaster. To those he say it couldn't be worse... It could be much much worse.

But we are crying over our spilled milk. Somehow defense was our strength last year in the most unlikely of places. Knowing the Offense wasn't going to win games, a bad day was always going to be a big reason we got blown out. But for once me made the playoffs, and are one year closer to getting the components on front 7 D McD wants to work with. It was really the best of both worlds when it's all said and done. I can gripe about how our front 7 could be marginally better had we not immediately forced the scheme change for front 7, just as I gripe about the Chargers game. But we made the playoffs, invested in the pieces we need to improve on both sides. It's really on Beane at this point to make sure he drafted right. We all now one trade up draft gamble can set us aside, make or break the regime, and this was the draft gamble. Whaley did the exact same thing in his draft gamble, but the one thing I give him credit for is taking his existing peices and running with it. He didn't blow up the team to show he's in charge, and had the best team we've had the whole drought (luck didn't go our way that time). Everybody said it wasn't Whaley's team because it wasn't.. but that's a positive, a GM that didn't fix what didn't need to be broken. We see other GMs step in and go "this ain't my vision", and may dump Mario, Hughes, McKelvin, whatever. His draft didn't pan out and we got Wrexed. That's what it's all going to come down to for Beane. He retooled heavily and still made the playoffs, it was fantastic. If we have a philosophy to really build around a specific style of football, we better make darn sure we execute. I give more credit to McD than anything. Despite some blunders (IMO), best coaching season we had in the drought. For once we won the games we were expected to win. And upset the Falcons.. That's really all it takes for a good coach, win the games we should. 2014 would have broken the drought with a much better record if that happened. It's Beane I'm still reserving judgement on. We might be moving on the 2-D chess boys. THE PROCESS.

Wade Phillips specifically said he adjusts his d to his personnel.

We also paid ivory a good amount of cap money

Yeah set your bar at 3 picks under pressure as not good.

"Bad luck resulted in five interceptions. " huh?

Then don't throw it!