Coach Tuesday Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Just occurring to me, if the gameplan is to shift to smaller, quicker-penetrating defensive linemen, it seems to me that doesn't play to London's strengths. He needs a lot of protection in order to run around and make plays - he's not strong enough to take on blockers and get to the ball carrier on his own. I don't expect him to be cut, but I am wondering whether we take a linebacker at #8. It will be an absolute miracle if Hawk is there, but it won't happen. I don't like Greenway, I hope they wouldn't target him. Any thoughts?
drnykterstein Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Here let me rephrase that and tell you what I thought I just heard from you: "London Fletcher cannot tackle by himself, he needs other players to do his work for him so that he can be good"
Stl Bills Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 IMHO its a missconception that he can't shed blocks. Playing behind Bannan and Anderson (not to mention No TKO next to him) for the majority they year usually provided him with TWO o-lineman in his face on most plays, and he still made plays. He's short but he's built like a fire-hydrant and always seems to be around the ball. Everyone who claims he can't shed a block was always quick to compare him to Urlacher (who's probably the best MLB in the game); I don't get this sh*t.
tennesseeboy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Just occurring to me, if the gameplan is to shift to smaller, quicker-penetrating defensive linemen, it seems to me that doesn't play to London's strengths. He needs a lot of protection in order to run around and make plays - he's not strong enough to take on blockers and get to the ball carrier on his own. I don't expect him to be cut, but I am wondering whether we take a linebacker at #8. It will be an absolute miracle if Hawk is there, but it won't happen. I don't like Greenway, I hope they wouldn't target him. Any thoughts? 627080[/snapback] I'm a little nervous about the "smaller, quicker-penetrating defensive linemen". Sounds nice in a passing game...but they are going to have to be extremely quick to get in there before the quarterback hands off to a amaller, even quicker penetrating running back. Run stoppers who are near the line of scrimmage are a good thing.
34-78-83 Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Let's see, he played in a cover 2 scheme for that crying coach in St. Louis, no?
stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 I'm a little nervous about the "smaller, quicker-penetrating defensive linemen". Sounds nice in a passing game...but they are going to have to be extremely quick to get in there before the quarterback hands off to a amaller, even quicker penetrating running back. Run stoppers who are near the line of scrimmage are a good thing. 627171[/snapback] Every generation is convinced that they were the first to invent the wheel.
5 Wide Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 My guess would be somewhere between spikes and posey, probably middle linebacker
Stl Bills Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 My guess would be somewhere between spikes and posey, probably middle linebacker 627185[/snapback]
nonprophet Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 I'm a little nervous about the "smaller, quicker-penetrating defensive linemen". Sounds nice in a passing game...but they are going to have to be extremely quick to get in there before the quarterback hands off to a amaller, even quicker penetrating running back. Run stoppers who are near the line of scrimmage are a good thing. 627171[/snapback] Well that's what the Cover 2 is all about: stopping the pass, not the run. The Bills will get run on, but if they can keep the RB from ripping off long runs on a regular basis, they'll eventually stop a drive with a sack, interception, fumble-recovery or knock-down. The Bills are back to having a bend-but-don't-break defense. They're tooling up the offense to be a high-scoring, fast-paced affair—just like the old days—so that a team trying to play ball control will have to abandon it in order to play catch-up. Forget Norwood's missed kick; the Bills lost to the Giants because the offense didn't score enough.
34-78-83 Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Ok , here are the two starting DT's who played in front of Fletcher at STL during the SuperBowl winning season: Jeff Zgonina 6-2 290 lbs D'Marco Farr 6-1 280 lbs (FWIW)
R. Rich Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Just occurring to me, if the gameplan is to shift to smaller, quicker-penetrating defensive linemen, it seems to me that doesn't play to London's strengths. He needs a lot of protection in order to run around and make plays - he's not strong enough to take on blockers and get to the ball carrier on his own. I don't expect him to be cut, but I am wondering whether we take a linebacker at #8. It will be an absolute miracle if Hawk is there, but it won't happen. I don't like Greenway, I hope they wouldn't target him. Any thoughts? 627080[/snapback] Why wouldn't you like Greenway? The guy was clearly one of the best LBs in the nation last year.
drnykterstein Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Why wouldn't you like Greenway? The guy was clearly one of the best LBs in the nation last year. 627326[/snapback] He might end another one of the great white MLB's, ala brooski (we're not worthy!!), thomas, or romanowski.
R. Rich Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 He might end another one of the great white MLB's, ala brooski (we're not worthy!!), thomas, or romanowski. 627384[/snapback] Not quite sure what skin color has to do w/ it. In fact, most of the dominant MLBs in league history were white (Samurai Mike and Ray Ray excluded).
K-9 Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Well that's what the Cover 2 is all about: stopping the pass, not the run. The Bills will get run on, but if they can keep the RB from ripping off long runs on a regular basis, they'll eventually stop a drive with a sack, interception, fumble-recovery or knock-down. The Bills are back to having a bend-but-don't-break defense. They're tooling up the offense to be a high-scoring, fast-paced affair—just like the old days—so that a team trying to play ball control will have to abandon it in order to play catch-up. Forget Norwood's missed kick; the Bills lost to the Giants because the offense didn't score enough. 627257[/snapback] [/quote WRONG!!! For the trillionth time: the Bills lost to the Giants in SB 25 because our defense COULDN'T GET OFF THE FRICKEN FIELD!!! 19 points in 19 minutes of possession is amazing. There, I feel better. Sorry for the shouting. By the way, hasn't every losing team in every game in every sport's history lost because they didn't score enough points?
tennesseeboy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Well that's what the Cover 2 is all about: stopping the pass, not the run. The Bills will get run on, but if they can keep the RB from ripping off long runs on a regular basis, they'll eventually stop a drive with a sack, interception, fumble-recovery or knock-down. The Bills are back to having a bend-but-don't-break defense. They're tooling up the offense to be a high-scoring, fast-paced affair—just like the old days—so that a team trying to play ball control will have to abandon it in order to play catch-up. Forget Norwood's missed kick; the Bills lost to the Giants because the offense didn't score enough. 627257[/snapback] Some would argue that they only had 19 minutes offense because they couldn't stop the run.
stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Fletcher plays with heart. If this new coach contemplates a cover 2 style, moxie in the middle counts a lot.
tennesseeboy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Fletcher plays with heart. If this new coach contemplates a cover 2 style, moxie in the middle counts a lot. 627423[/snapback] It does...but I'd like the running back to have to get through 320 lbs of nasty beef on the way past the line of scrimmage. On another note remember that Thurman Thomas guy during our Super Bowl years? He ran short route after short route and ate up the clock for us year after glorious year, keeping a number of offenses off the field. Those four and five yard runs can kill you if you don't stop them.
stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 It does...but I'd like the running back to have to get through 320 lbs of nasty beef on the way past the line of scrimmage. On another note remember that Thurman Thomas guy during our Super Bowl years? He ran short route after short route and ate up the clock for us year after glorious year, keeping a number of offenses off the field. Those four and five yard runs can kill you if you don't stop them. 627430[/snapback] OK. Off with Fletcher's head. Replacement, please?
tennesseeboy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Absolutely no way! I think Fletcher is terrific. I think we still need the 320 lbs of nasty on the line. The name Ngata comes to mind.
stuckincincy Posted March 13, 2006 Posted March 13, 2006 Absolutely no way! I think Fletcher is terrific. I think we still need the 320 lbs of nasty on the line. The name Ngata comes to mind. 627442[/snapback] Oops - sorry Tenny - I misinterpreted your words...
Recommended Posts