mgteich

We were 5th in points allowed last year, and had varying ratings on other stats. There will be lots of questions, but I think that all but the last four roster spots are set. For example, I have Wilhite and Wheatley and Arrington making the 53.

ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN
in the battles for the 6th DL, 9th OLB, and 4th S. These players could be someone we have, or a free agent or the roster spot could even go to another position. My change is that I now believe that it is possible that Sanders could go.

HOWEVER, as of now, the incumbants still seem the most likely to win roster spots: Brace, Ninkovich and Sanders. Murrell looked good though. I could certainly see us keeping a free agent, Murrell or Williams and Lockett or Slater.

KontradictioN

If our DE questions can be answered, I don't see why this defense wouldn't be a very good defense. Personally, though, I wasn't exactly inspired with what I saw out of Damione Lewis in the Saints game. Deaderick looked pretty good at times, but lost other times playing against the second and third string. I did see some bright spots with him though. There were times in which he was able to engage two defenders and make a push toward the backfield. But I have to think he's going to have a hard time cracking the starting line-up unless horrible injuries happen to the DE position during the season.

__________________

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


CREDIT - Sicilian

jczxohn1

IMO, Wheatley will stay, Wilhite will go, and so may Aikens, plenty of ST guys this yr. and young WR's look too good to lose.

Murrell definitely makes the team, Sanders possibly go, but most likely not. He calmed down the safety position at a bad time last year,evem if he isn't flashy. McGowan looses his role to Chung. I expect Brace to be the most likely to be replaced by a vet to be named later. Just taking too long for him to pick it up, and Ty's loss needs to be addressed soon.

__________________
Felger started his question, "Correct me if I'm wrong," BB quickly interjected, "I can't wait--"


``The officials now are evaluating the players and their performance, I mean, that's great,'' Belichick deadpanned. ``I can't say how much that means to me, really.''

pherein

Most look at stats they want to see

nfl your 11
NFL Stats: by Team Category

FBO your #16
FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Innovative Statistics, Intelligent Analysis | 2009 DEFENSE EFFICIENCY RATINGS

Saint were #21 by the NFL and #14 by FBO, problem becomes do these stats matter?

Greer might be equal to Revis
Did Revis get robbed of DPOY honor? - AFC East Blog - ESPN

Saints defense was excelling in important areas that would never make them seem better than the Jets.
Commentary: This is November? | wwltv.com | WWL Saints football

Im just saying this because I think allot of important statistic are forgotten. Top #10 doesn't mean swat if your not covering important things

letekro

That's fine, because the top 4 should be Banta, Burgess, Murrell and Cunningham. I can't imagine the 5th OLB will get much run barring injury.

KontradictioN

Burgess is more of a DE in the 4-3 and subpackages than he is a 3-4 OLB, going by last year. As of right now, it's looking like TBC, Cunningham, and Murrell. Hopefully, Murrell continues to look solid.

__________________

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


CREDIT - Sicilian

Fencer

Stats I'd like to see are points per possession (adjusted for clock-running-out) and field position handed the other units (takeaways an OK proxy for that, albeit a very approximate one).

Those are, I think, the real measures of a defense's success.

__________________
"To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." -- Oscar Wilde

AndyJohnson

I'm not concerned about the DEs themselves or the OLBs themselves.
But I am concerned with the DE/OLB combinations together.
I'm talking about the base D, because I think our sub package DL (DEs at DT and OLBs at DE) is going to be improved over last season, maybe a lot.
I like our ILBs in run D better than I have in many years so that mitigates the DE issue because they share the inside gap with the ILB.
I do worry about the outside runs with players with a lot to prove at DE and OLB IMO.
However, our outside run defense has always been more a team D effort than anything else. We have rarely ever struggled against the run whn teams go wide, when there are problems it has been inside the tackles, and we appear strongest there. When it is working properly the gaps get controlled, the play gets pushed to the boundary and the pursuit fills in. If I had to pick a run D weakness to live with it would be the DE/OLB combo.

I am very excited to see our nickel/dime coverage. Since 2006 I have felt the biggest weakness in our team was defending the pass in pass only situations where the athleticism of the back 7 is critical, and has not been impressive. I think we will see that our back 7 is going to be faster, more agile, and more athletic than we have seen in a number of years. If that is the case, we will have an excellent defense.
While I hate QB rating as a yardstick for QBs because it is so flawed, it actually is much less flawed for a defense. QB rating against is probably going to be the most important defensive stat this year, aside from points allowed.

AndyJohnson

I dont think Murrell has jumped over anyone on the depth chart just yet.
I agree that whatever the number of OLBs when we line up in a 34 Burgess is the last one on the list to play. However, depending on Cunninghams development he maybe first on the list in sub packages.
In a perfect world, to me, Cunningham wins the job opposite TBC. Ninkovich subs in for both in the base, Burgess subs in for both in the nickel/dime. TBC and JC play about 75% of the snaps each and Ninkovich and Burgess split up the other 50% (75+75+50=200 for 2 spots).
The only issue I see there is that it seems TBC and JC would each be better suited to get their rest in the base, which would leave Burgess out of the equation.
UNLESS???? I have always thought that the best use for Burgess would be INSIDE in the nickel and dime, rushing from over the G. He did that in Philly (I think he got a sack vs us the SB from that alignment IIRC) and I think he did in Oakland too. I would love to see BB try that.
If we have TBC-Wright-Burgess-JC across the DL in nickel/dime, that could be a very effective rush. Burgess moves seem to support that he doesnt need as much open space on the outside to operate as some DEs do.

Marqui

Murrell has clearly passed Ninkovich on the depth chart.