Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

More or less what I'm getting at in theory, but I'd want to see more of Neal before thinking that he can handle that role.  

 

 

That's a fair point...I reference Stanford only to say that the team was able to get solid MLB play from a street FA in Edmunds' absence.  Now, to be fair, Stanford is one of the best athletes in the NFL, so I don't know if you can expect to routinely be able to pluck guys like that off the street, but they managed to do so, which is great.

 

I'm probably looking for Edmunds to play over the TE against large personnel groupings with Milano/LorAx playing more traditional off-ball roles, and then using Edmunds as a stand-up EDGE defender against smaller groupings with Milano/LorAx/Stanford (and perhaps Neal and Bush) rotating in as my other coverage LBs.  That way you can still take advantage of Edmunds' ability to mirror TEs and backs when OCs try to get physical mis-matches by playing extra TEs, while also putting his exceptionally rare pass rush traits (burst, bend, length, etc) to their maximal use.

I think tht could actually create an opportunity to dsguise coverages more as well.  Given that he is dangerous in coverage and rushing the passer.

Posted
3 hours ago, chris heff said:

I found the article by Eric Wood to be too politically correct. 

 

Interesting how some people have taken the concepts of respect and diplomacy and turned them into negatives with the phrase "politically correct."

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

Interesting how some people have taken the concepts of respect and diplomacy and turned them into negatives with the phrase "politically correct."

 

 

I believe that the use of a colloquialism such as “politically correct” is appropriate when someone is being overly careful to side step an issue. Did you read the article?

Posted
24 minutes ago, chris heff said:

I believe that the use of a colloquialism such as “politically correct” is appropriate when someone is being overly careful to side step an issue. Did you read the article?

 

I only read the segments that were posted here. I'm sure this isn't the way you meant it, but the term PC was coined by people who just wanted to get away with being d-bags and got tired of being called out on it.

 

In the context of your statement, I'd be more inclined to say "generously diplomatic."

 

 

Posted
2 hours ago, thebandit27 said:

Edmunds can play MLB in this scheme; that doesn't necessarily mean that MLB in this scheme is the best use of his skill set.

 

I personally think that he'd be a near-dominant player in the Bruce Irvin LEO/Joker/Elephant/whatever-they're-calling-it-these-days role.  It doesn't hurt that Stanford looked quite capable as the MLB when Edmunds was hurt.

Or if Devin White were to slip to us at 9...

Posted

I may sign up just to read Wood's columns every week. From the cliff notes and excerpts I've read, he is right on the money on everything. His opinion makes a lot of sense to me. Apparently Wood has the brains to match with the brawn. Not surprising at all.

×
×
  • Create New...