The 2017 FA Thread - OP Updated with Signings (Sundberg, Galette, VD, Hood re-signed) *** Terrell McClain, Stacy McGee, DJ Swearinger, Terrelle Pryor, Chris Carter, Brian Quick, ZACH BROWN(!!)***

[RandyHolt]

@Morneblade good stuff. No fears of going back to a 4-3.

 

And guys are projected to 3-4 from a 4-3 almost as a rule; it seems a given they will pan out. Why can't the reverse be true? Heck we switch to a 4-3 on 2nd and 3rd down anyways, don't we?

 

If we went to a 4-3, we would be fine. What may overcome a guy like Anderson lacking experience, we may more than make up for by eliminating the gaping hole in the center of our defense, ever since Mike converted us.

 

We have given the 3-4 a chance. We really have.  Should we give it another 8 years of failure before giving up?  There should be a we tried we failed lets scrap it rule. 10 years seems fair and we are quickly pushing that.

[CommanderDOOM]

We haven't had a dominant player on the DL till maybe now with Allen. Lets see how this year goes

[Morneblade]

3 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

@Morneblade good stuff. No fears of going back to a 4-3.

 

And guys are projected to 3-4 from a 4-3 almost as a rule; it seems a given they will pan out. Why can't the reverse be true? Heck we switch to a 4-3 on 2nd and 3rd down anyways, don't we?

 

If we went to a 4-3, we would be fine. What may overcome a guy like Anderson lacking experience, we may more than make up for by eliminating the gaping hole in the center of our defense, ever since Mike converted us.

 

We have given the 3-4 a chance. We really have.  Should we give it another 8 years of failure before giving up?  There should be a we tried we failed lets scrap it rule. 10 years seems fair and we are quickly pushing that.

 

What's ironic is is that when you look at the players, are are almost to a man, converted 4-3 players. Kerrigan: 4-3 End. Murphy 4-3 End. Allen, 4-3 DT. McClain 4-3 DT. McGee 4-3 DT Smith 4-3 End. I think Galette and Anderson might be the only guys playing their natural position. That is because most colleges run a 4-3 because it so hard to find a NT.

[skinny21]

4 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

@Morneblade good stuff. No fears of going back to a 4-3.

 

And guys are projected to 3-4 from a 4-3 almost as a rule; it seems a given they will pan out. Why can't the reverse be true? Heck we switch to a 4-3 on 2nd and 3rd down anyways, don't we?

 

If we went to a 4-3, we would be fine. What may overcome a guy like Anderson lacking experience, we may more than make up for by eliminating the gaping hole in the center of our defense, ever since Mike converted us.

 

We have given the 3-4 a chance. We really have.  Should we give it another 8 years of failure before giving up?  There should be a we tried we failed lets scrap it rule. 10 years seems fair and we are quickly pushing that.

It's kind of hard to argue that the 3-4 deserves more time - as you said, we've been at it for years with not much to show - and yet...

 

it kinda depends on what you mean by given it a chance.  I'm not going to go back through the personnel history, but we've made mistakes, skimped at certain positions, tried bandaids/castoffs frequently, etc.  As much as I defended Barry at times, given the numerous comments from players, it's looking like his tenure was a dumpster fire (I know many will say "duh" to this).  

 

Outside of the unknown outcome of the NT position, this year's squad feels like the most talent we've had in a long time, so I'm not quite ready to move on.  Not that I would mind if they did, but I'm not going to be disappointed that they're sticking with it.  Let's see if they can figure out the NT spot and then see how things play out from there.  

 

Generally speaking though, I will acknowledge that the 43 might be the better fit for our current personnel, even though it would probably mean a step back for the D in the short term (the adjustment period).  

 

 

@MornebladeI thought Alabama played a 3-4?

 

[carex]

5 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

@Morneblade good stuff. No fears of going back to a 4-3.

 

And guys are projected to 3-4 from a 4-3 almost as a rule; it seems a given they will pan out. Why can't the reverse be true? Heck we switch to a 4-3 on 2nd and 3rd down anyways, don't we?

 

If we went to a 4-3, we would be fine. What may overcome a guy like Anderson lacking experience, we may more than make up for by eliminating the gaping hole in the center of our defense, ever since Mike converted us.

 

We have given the 3-4 a chance. We really have.  Should we give it another 8 years of failure before giving up?  There should be a we tried we failed lets scrap it rule. 10 years seems fair and we are quickly pushing that.

 

Many consider 3-4 OLBs to be a bit to small for DEs in  4-3

 

I think it breaks down like this: 3-4 DL make good DTs.  Pass rushing OLB make decent REs to go against LTs.  3-4 ILB do pretty good as 4-3 LBs, but they aren't always thought of as being the best MLB

 

@Morneblade  Murphy was mostly a 3-4 OLB in college and Kerrigan was a DE, but he'd be fairly unsized as a DE on the side he prefers to play

[Morneblade]

8 hours ago, skinny21 said:

It's kind of hard to argue that the 3-4 deserves more time - as you said, we've been at it for years with not much to show - and yet...

 

it kinda depends on what you mean by given it a chance.  I'm not going to go back through the personnel history, but we've made mistakes, skimped at certain positions, tried bandaids/castoffs frequently, etc.  As much as I defended Barry at times, given the numerous comments from players, it's looking like his tenure was a dumpster fire (I know many will say "duh" to this).  

 

Outside of the unknown outcome of the NT position, this year's squad feels like the most talent we've had in a long time, so I'm not quite ready to move on.  Not that I would mind if they did, but I'm not going to be disappointed that they're sticking with it.  Let's see if they can figure out the NT spot and then see how things play out from there.  

 

Generally speaking though, I will acknowledge that the 43 might be the better fit for our current personnel, even though it would probably mean a step back for the D in the short term (the adjustment period).  

 

 

@MornebladeI thought Alabama played a 3-4?

 

The actually go back and forth, they were a 4-3 3 years ago, played some 3-4 and were kind half and half this year. It seems to depend if they have a real NT or not.

 

Personally I would ditch the 3-4 NOW. It's been a huge failure and it schematically has issues against the run. We are in a run heavy, physical conference.

 

7 hours ago, carex said:

 

Many consider 3-4 OLBs to be a bit to small for DEs in  4-3

 

I think it breaks down like this: 3-4 DL make good DTs.  Pass rushing OLB make decent REs to go against LTs.  3-4 ILB do pretty good as 4-3 LBs, but they aren't always thought of as being the best MLB

 

@Morneblade  Murphy was mostly a 3-4 OLB in college and Kerrigan was a DE, but he'd be fairly unsized as a DE on the side he prefers to play

 

I went and looked on Murphy, and it"s hard to tell. I see him listed as both. Some areas had him as a DE, some a OLB, and some as OLB/DE. But for the sake of argument, let's say Murphy was a 3-4 OLB for at least his 5th year senior season, which seems to be the case.

 

You have a point about certain guys being small, but 4-3 usually has a smaller, quicker DE on the weak side that is a pass rushing specialist. Andre Carter, for instance, was only 265 and was our weakside DE. The issue with converting DE's to OLB is coverage. Most have not done it before, and usually are not good at it. Kerrigan, Smith, Murphy are all a huge liability in coverage. And that is the problem with making DE's OLB's. And then there are times when they just are not real comfortable standing up, even as a rusher. This doesn't happen to everyone, but I have heard it be an issue for some players, and the adjustment never really seems to happen.

[HTTRDynasty]

A little something, other than Kirk news/reactions to get you through the day:

 

 

[Mania]

On 7/16/2017 at 6:46 PM, skinny21 said:

It's kind of hard to argue that the 3-4 deserves more time - as you said, we've been at it for years with not much to show - and yet...

 

it kinda depends on what you mean by given it a chance.  I'm not going to go back through the personnel history, but we've made mistakes, skimped at certain positions, tried bandaids/castoffs frequently, etc.  As much as I defended Barry at times, given the numerous comments from players, it's looking like his tenure was a dumpster fire (I know many will say "duh" to this).  

 

Outside of the unknown outcome of the NT position, this year's squad feels like the most talent we've had in a long time, so I'm not quite ready to move on.  Not that I would mind if they did, but I'm not going to be disappointed that they're sticking with it.  Let's see if they can figure out the NT spot and then see how things play out from there.  

 

Generally speaking though, I will acknowledge that the 43 might be the better fit for our current personnel, even though it would probably mean a step back for the D in the short term (the adjustment period).  

 

 

@MornebladeI thought Alabama played a 3-4?

 

We aren't in 3-4 100% of the time.  We run a hybrid scheme and are lining up in the 4-3 about 60% of the time we are lining up in the 4-3.  

[carex]

1 hour ago, SkinsFanMania said:

We aren't in 3-4 100% of the time.  We run a hybrid scheme and are lining up in the 4-3 about 60% of the time we are lining up in the 4-3.  

 

we know that.  But hybrid schemes aren't exactly new.  In the early 90s before he went to the Cowboys Charles Haley was an OLB-DE for the 49ers.  Plenty of teams use some sort of hybrid scheme, but most of the time they keep their three DL, maybe subbing out the NT for someone quicker and just have one LB put their hand in the dirt

 

The Skins have essentially caused themselves trouble by trying to get to many Lawrence Taylors, not enough Carl Banks.  If we switched to a 4-3 regularly our LE would be undersized and our LBs would all be drawn from our ILB

[roanoker]

With all the new players we'll have at training camp, I'm excited to see what ends up on the field on the final cut.

 

“My mom always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.” - Forrest Gump

[carex]

would it be okay to talk roster predictions here?  Cause the Post and ESPN hae put out theres

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, carex said:

would it be okay to talk roster predictions here?  Cause the Post and ESPN hae put out theres

A predict your 75? Or all the way to the 53? 

How could anyone predict that and pass it off as anything other than a completely uneducated guess?

 

Don't get me wrong though, its about time for that thread and I will absolutely make my own predictions, then passionately stand by them until Im wrong.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

On 7/16/2017 at 2:54 PM, TheShredSkinz said:

We haven't had a dominant player on the DL till maybe now with Allen. Lets see how this year goes

Sean Gilbert was pretty good for a year. Ditto whatshisface that went to the Broncos and ripped them off.

 

edit: Daryl Gardener

[carex]

26 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

A predict your 75? Or all the way to the 53? 

How could anyone predict that and pass it off as anything other than a completely uneducated guess?

 

Don't get me wrong though, its about time for that thread and I will absolutely make my own predictions, then passionately stand by them until Im wrong.

 

well right now they're just predicting the obvious, no UDFA making the team, both predict Hall to make it,, Moreau to PUP, the biggest questionable stuff if one has Carrier making it, one has Sprinkle and both predict only 8 OL

[RandyHolt]

6 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Sean Gilbert was pretty good for a year. Ditto whatshisface that went to the Broncos and ripped them off.

 

edit: Daryl Gardener

 Dana Stubblefield fresh off being the NFC DPOTY.  Asked to read / 2 gap, did little here of note.  Big Daddy Dan Wilkinson. Our bend don't breaks wasted those players, as we gave up 9 yards on first down and 99 yard drives, yet never wavered.

 

Fatty was good before he got here / fat cat disease. Nice pull on Gardener, I had forgotten about him.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Also don't forget about those two halves in the preseason for Jarvis Jenkins before he tore his YMCL or that one game Fatass had after his brother died.

[98ORAKPO98]

https://apnews.com/a963965452e84210a559686cb408f9ef/dt-stacy-mcgee-emerges-key-contributor-raiders-defense

 

Del Rio has seen a change in McGee’s confidence this season and compared the “hump move” he used on one of his sacks Sunday to Hall of Famer Reggie White.

McGee said he’s been working on that move for a few years since former teammate Antonio Smith taught it to him.

“I guess it took a couple of years to really figure it out and get it done,” he said.

 

 

 

 

 

Hoping to see the Perine and Marshall show this year...

 

 

[CommanderDOOM]

On 7/23/2017 at 6:03 PM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Sean Gilbert was pretty good for a year. Ditto whatshisface that went to the Broncos and ripped them off.

 

edit: Daryl Gardener

 

On this 34 we've ran since MS was in charge, we've yet to have a guy on the line be a dominant force in the ilk of a Donald, Suh, Watt, or even Tennessee Al. Hopefully Allen is more Hulk than Bruce.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, TheShredSkinz said:

On this 34 we've ran since MS was in charge, we've yet to have a guy on the line be a dominant force in the ilk of a Donald, Suh, Watt, or even Tennessee Al.

Yeah but DL like that don't come around too often. You're talking about guys who were, at their best, playing at a Hall of Fame level.

 

You ever play that game Want, Settle, Get? We want this, we'd settle for this, but we get this... Redskins DL edition would be something like we want a Pro Bowler, we'd settle for a competent starter, we get Jeremy Jarmon.

[Koolblue13]

4 hours ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah but DL like that don't come around too often. You're talking about guys who were, at their best, playing at a Hall of Fame level.

 

You ever play that game Want, Settle, Get? We want this, we'd settle for this, but we get this... Redskins DL edition would be something like we want a Pro Bowler, we'd settle for a competent starter, we get Jeremy Jarmon.

We haven't inveated draft picks or FA money into our Dline in forever, until this year and while Allen was a projected top 5 talent, its still only one pick.

[TheGreek1973]

On 7/23/2017 at 10:38 PM, 98ORAKPO98 said:

https://apnews.com/a963965452e84210a559686cb408f9ef/dt-stacy-mcgee-emerges-key-contributor-raiders-defense

 

Del Rio has seen a change in McGee’s confidence this season and compared the “hump move” he used on one of his sacks Sunday to Hall of Famer Reggie White.

McGee said he’s been working on that move for a few years since former teammate Antonio Smith taught it to him.

“I guess it took a couple of years to really figure it out and get it done,” he said.

 

 

 

 

 

Hoping to see the Perine and Marshall show this year...

 

 You know Marshall just may surprise the heck out of us.  This year is it for him, he is more than two years removed from his injury and needs to show he belongs in the NFL.  One thing about him with his speed, he can actually backup Thompson as he suppose to be an excellent receiver out of the backfield.

[Koolblue13]

23 minutes ago, TheGreek1973 said:

 You know Marshall just may surprise the heck out of us.  This year is it for him, he is more than two years removed from his injury and needs to show he belongs in the NFL.  One thing about him with his speed, he can actually backup Thompson as he suppose to be an excellent receiver out of the backfield.

Making the PS would surprise me.

[Darrell Green Fan]

Again with the Marshall love. LOL.  To me it was very clear last preseason that he simply does not have the instincts to be an NFL running back.  Vision, reading the hole, picking the time and spot to burst and breaking tackles is much more important than straight line speed. 

[TSO]

5 hours ago, Darrell Green Fan said:

Again with the Marshall love. LOL.  To me it was very clear last preseason that he simply does not have the instincts to be an NFL running back.  Vision, reading the hole, picking the time and spot to burst and breaking tackles is much more important than straight line speed. 

 

This may be the case, and I really have no idea what will happen with Marshall outside of the fact that he's still on the team so I've gotta think someone in the building believes there's some potential there, but I believe people overdo this whole "RB instincts" thing. 

 

Let me elaborate. 

 

I believe there is absolutely such a thing in terms of feel for the game, vision, adjusting their body to fit through lanes, etc... and that we can call those things "instincts"... but I don't believe it's some inherent trait that either exists in them or not like so many insinuate. 

 

I believe that it can be developed. 

 

Here's where I think people go wrong about this and get confused.

 

RBs, unlike players from most other positions, have more experience doing their jobs and have less of an adjustment to make from college to the pros. They carry the ball a lot. The concepts they run in college are virtually identical, even in spread offense's or whatever college-type offense they're in. The nature of their position, and the space with which they get to operate in often, allows them to develop skills in college that can translate to the pros (even with the better, more skilled talent there) than with other positions. 

 

So, on the surface, what seems like they don't need time to develop and they just are who they are really just has to do with the above and how they can get all of that via their experience in college. 

 

But what happens when it comes to guys who've had little experience in college and didn't get to develop those skills due to a lack of reps or injury or whatever? Those guys suddenly need the time to develop just as much as the accepted understanding regarding any other position does.

 

Does that mean they're not worthy to draft? Stay away from those types as a team philosophy? Maybe, as it can be argued that it's a position you want to remain young at, pay cheaply, and get guys to plug in quickly - and that doesn't outweigh the potential reward in finding a gem for a lower draft pick... but I digress. 

 

Talking about "instincts" with those type of guys is such an incredibly difficult proposition I don't think anyone, no matter how good of a scout they are, can do so with decent accuracy. I think you take their skill set and athleticism and hope they can develop those "instincts". 

 

I believe guys like Matt Jones and Keith Marshall were/are both in that boat considering their inexperience in college. They didn't follow the normal trajectory of drafted backs coming out of college with a bunch of carries to their name. So if you're going to draft them, if you're going to have them on your team, you need to be more patient than the norm with them. And that's hard to do when most RBs come out with a ton of experience carrying the ball at a position that requires arguably the least adjustment in terms of translating that experience to the pros. 

 

Hence, the fan angst and impatience that arises when a RB isn't immediately displaying his skills in the pros on a consistent basis, and the assumption that they just don't have the "instincts". 

 

That's just my opinion on this, though, and I admit it's not based on a ton of research. Maybe if I have the time one day I'll look into how many RBs with little experience in college are able to find success quickly in the pros, if at all. How much does the amount of carries in college affect the outcome of how quickly they translate their game to the pros? Would take time just to identify the parameters of the search, but it's intriguing. 

[ILikeBilly]

13 minutes ago, thesubmittedone said:

 

This may be the case, and I really have no idea what will happen with Marshall outside of the fact that he's still on the team so I've gotta think someone in the building believes there's some potential there, but I believe people overdo this whole "RB instincts" thing. 

 

Let me elaborate. 

 

I believe there is absolutely such a thing in terms of feel for the game, vision, adjusting their body to fit through lanes, etc... and that we can call those things "instincts"... but I don't believe it's some inherent trait that either exists in them or not like so many insinuate. 

 

I believe that it can be developed. 

 

Here's where I think people go wrong about this and get confused.

 

RBs, unlike players from most other positions, have more experience doing their jobs and have less of an adjustment to make from college to the pros. They carry the ball a lot. The concepts they run in college are virtually identical, even in spread offense's or whatever college-type offense they're in. The nature of their position, and the space with which they get to operate in often, allows them to develop skills in college that can translate to the pros (even with the better, more skilled talent there) than with other positions. 

 

So, on the surface, what seems like they don't need time to develop and they just are who they are really just has to do with the above and how they can get all of that via their experience in college. 

 

But what happens when it comes to guys who've had little experience in college and didn't get to develop those skills due to a lack of reps or injury or whatever? Those guys suddenly need the time to develop just as much as the accepted understanding regarding any other position does.

 

Does that mean they're not worthy to draft? Stay away from those types as a team philosophy? Maybe, as it can be argued that it's a position you want to remain young at, pay cheaply, and get guys to plug in quickly - and that doesn't outweigh the potential reward in finding a gem for a lower draft pick... but I digress. 

 

Talking about "instincts" with those type of guys is such an incredibly difficult proposition I don't think anyone, no matter how good of a scout they are, can do so with decent accuracy. I think you take their skill set and athleticism and hope they can develop those "instincts". 

 

I believe guys like Matt Jones and Keith Marshall were/are both in that boat considering their inexperience in college. They didn't follow the normal trajectory of drafted backs coming out of college with a bunch of carries to their name. So if you're going to draft them, if you're going to have them on your team, you need to be more patient than the norm with them. And that's hard to do when most RBs come out with a ton of experience carrying the ball at a position that requires arguably the least adjustment in terms of translating that experience to the pros. 

 

Hence, the fan angst and impatience that arises when a RB isn't immediately displaying his skills in the pros on a consistent basis, and the assumption that they just don't have the "instincts". 

 

That's just my opinion on this, though, and I admit it's not based on a ton of research. Maybe if I have the time one day I'll look into how many RBs with little experience in college are able to find success quickly in the pros, if at all. How much does the amount of carries in college affect the outcome of how quickly they translate their game to the pros? Would take time just to identify the parameters of the search, but it's intriguing. 

Chris Thompson only had 277 rushing attempts in college.  He was injured in (I think) his rookie year, but he now has experience and is now a pretty exciting RB.  Keith Marshall only had 253 rushing attempts in college.  As for a RB that exploded onto the NFL scene, AlMo had 733 rushing attempts in college. 

 

Maybe you are on to something TSO.