mgteich

We have started the camps. We have seven linebackers who seem to be almost locks for the 53, barring injury:

Mayo, Guyton, McKenzie, Spikes, Banta-Cain, Woods and Cunningham.
================================================== ==

We really don't know how Belichick will use this combination of seven. For example, Guyton and McKenzie could spend some time outside in certain sets. I expect that many combinations will be tried in camp and in the preseason.
================================================== ==

It is against the backdrop of the seven linebackers above that we can assess needs and the competition for additional roster spots.

We have some competitors for the remaining 1-3 spots. None should be considered in any way a lock. We have Ninkovich, Crable, Williams, Alexander, and Murrell. I expect that Belichick will add a veteran or two to the mix. For example, I still expect to see Burgess in camp.

I think that we need to keep one additional OLB to give us a total of eight linebackers. Ninkovich and Crable seem to have the best shot at this position at the moment.

We could add a 9th or even a 10th linebacker, or the position could be given to other positions. We have db/ster's Arrington, Lockett, Murrell, Alexander and Slater all competing for these roster spots (assuming 5 "real" corners and 4 "real" safeties on the 53). We could even keep all six corners: Bodden, McCourty, Butler, Springs, Wilhite, and Wheatley. Corners do get injured often.
================================================== ====

The open questions for me are
1) Who will be the 8th LB who I hope and expect to be an OLB?
2) How will we use to presumed final two defensive roster spots, after the minimum of 6 DLs, 8 LB, 9 DB's).

The choices are 7th DL, 9th LB, 10th LB, 10th DB, Ster with no real position (like Slater). We could even have only 24 defensive roster spots.

I have no clue with regard to the identity of the OLB. My expectation on the last two roster spots are Arrington and the 7th defensive lineman.
================================================== =

Obviously injuries can have a huge effect on the positions of the last 4 rosters spots after these 49. The 3rd TE seems back for 2010!
QB 2
RB 4
WR 5
TE 3
OL 9
DL 6
LB 8
DB 9
P 1
K 1
LS 1

Nikolai

Though I'm underwhelmed with his performance at LB at times, Alexander might find a way onto the team because of his special teams ability.

__________________
We get what we deserve.

------------------
“On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson..they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.”

Elijah

disregard that, didn't read "almost locks for the 53" :x

TheComeback

Why do people keep saying that Guyton and McKenzie could be used outside? It's not going to happen. Guyton got blown up as an OLB and has no functional strength against the run. Yes, he's fast, but that doesn't matter when a tackle can throw you around like a toy. And McKenzie is even smaller than Guyton, at only 235 lbs last time I checked.

Our OLBs are Banta-Cain, Ninkovich, Cunningham, Woods, Crable, and Murrell. All of these guys weigh 250+ lbs for a reason (except Crable, but maybe that's why he's so injury prone). Why would we put undersized players at that position? It's like saying the Colts should try Gary Brackett at DT.

I do agree that we should probably get another OLB, however, Burgess seems like the only viable option at this point. Would he get in the way of developing players like Cunningham, Ninko, and Crable? You could probably throw Murrell onto that "developing player" list as well, as he's only been in the league for a few years.

AndyJohnson

Burgess is not an OLB. He is a DE, that can only play in nickel/dime sub packages or in the 43. I realize that this is the position guys who are OLBs also play, but Burgess is not a candidate to play OLB in the base except in an emergency.

stinkypete

I think Ninkovich is the most likely to see significant time in the rotation.

I wouldn't say Mackenzie is a lock. I think he has promise and hope he breaks the rotation, he's a former 3rd round pick coming off injury and with no playing time under his belt. Other guys who have been in his position: O'Connell, Crable, Claridge, Thomas, Scott, not a very good group, though Thomas blossomed elsewhere. Not to rain on the Mackenzie bandwagon, but he has to earn himself a place and has a long way to go to do that.

satz

I really am baffed with the guyton and mcZ as olb they are NOT big enough to be strong against the run. At there size all the offence has to do is rotate the TE to block them and then pull the gaurd into the gut of your defence into your ILB or Run behind a pulled tackle.either way you are going to be torn up .

Burgess role is now cunningham`s. Burgess was a 3rd down rusher and cunningham is going to start the season doing the same thing till he develops.

Alxender and McZ are going to fight for the other spot now .spl team 4th ILB

Right now tully, woods ,ninkovich and cunningham are the starting rotation.

crabel fringe player.

__________________
NFL - A perfect american business model .
HarleyDavidson-Turning gas into noise for more than 100 yrs without the side effects of power and still making a tonne of money a great american business model.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

mgteich

Agreed...........

Patspsycho

McZ = McKenzie?

PatsCanDoIt

This is pretty much the situation. I think Woods was banged up at the end of last season. Both TBC and Ninkovich's snaps increased while Woods' snaps decreased.

__________________
Three. Word. Chant.