Realistic roster minima - who's in, who's out for defensive front seven?

[Ring 6]

Re: Old Counting - 8-9 Linebackers

I can certainly envision it. This is what we've seen in camp and preseason. I've been quite happy with the change from last year.

Could you explain what you mean by 2-5, and how it differs from 4-3 (or over/under)? Especially as it pertains to one/two gap? Thanks.

I mean compared to the 34, a lineup of say:

Cunngham Wilfork Haynesworth Carter
Ninko Spikes Mayo

is equivalent to a 25, with 2 DL 2 ILBs and 3 OLBs
I would expect we need more size than that or we will be run all over.

I'm not saying it is a 25, I mean based on the size of player BB has used at positions this would be moving from 3 DL personell to 2 and 4 LB personell to 5. I think he wants that 3rd true DL out there for the base.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeatman has played better in the games thus far, he may beat out Lee as the #3 TE.

I don't agree.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Re: Old Counting - 8-9 Linebackers

I mean compared to the 34, a lineup of say:

Cunngham Wilfork Haynesworth Carter
Ninko Spikes Mayo

is equivalent to a 25, with 2 DL 2 ILBs and 3 OLBs
I would expect we need more size than that or we will be run all over.

I'm not saying it is a 25, I mean based on the size of player BB has used at positions this would be moving from 3 DL personell to 2 and 4 LB personell to 5. I think he wants that 3rd true DL out there for the base.

Lets separate the two issues here, into what we've seen vs what you expect (both reasonable things to discuss, btw, my intention is not to discredit your prediction).

What we've seen: 4-3 with two big guys in the middle, mostly a 1 tech and 3 tech, and two smaller guys, mostly 5/7 or 7/7 tech outside, with an OLB on whichever side the DL is shifted from. Correct?

Ignoring for a second what you think will happen in Sept., what we've seen so far is 4-3. You threw the 2-5 out there, and pointed out he similarities, but what are the differences? I'm not trying to argue with you here, I honestly don't know. Is there any distinction?

I'd BB wants a true third DL out there, it's a reasonable opinion to have. I think we've worn this one out. Not really interested in debating it, I know what you think and what the reasoning is, and I think you know the other side.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: Old Counting - 8-9 Linebackers

Lets separate the two issues here, into what we've seen vs what you expect (both reasonable things to discuss, btw, my intention is not to discredit your prediction).

What we've seen: 4-3 with two big guys in the middle, mostly a 1 tech and 3 tech, and two smaller guys, mostly 5/7 or 7/7 tech outside, with an OLB on whichever side the DL is shifted from. Correct?

I have not rewatch game 2 rewinding and analyzing each play. And from a TV it is hard to breakdown, but in game 1 I saw mostly 1 gap on the weak side and 2 gap on the strong side.

Ignoring for a second what you think will happen in Sept., what we've seen so far is 4-3. You threw the 2-5 out there, and pointed out he similarities, but what are the differences? I'm not trying to argue with you here, I honestly don't know. Is there any distinction?

I was not saying we are playing a 25.
I'm saying compared to the size of players that BB has utilized over the year, ie 300lb DL, 260lb OLBs, the change from the 34 to 43 is to remove a DL and replace them with a LB (based upon our 34 definitions)
They are lining up in a 43, but compared to what BB has always done, this is a TINY defense. I would be very surprised that he would do this in real games consistently, because compared to prior years, it would substantially weaken us vs the run.

I'd BB wants a true third DL out there, it's a reasonable opinion to have. I think we've worn this one out. Not really interested in debating it, I know what you think and what the reasoning is, and I think you know the other side.

It would represent a huge departure from stopping the run being important.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

I agree with all. What is 2-5, and how does it differ from 4-3? I ask because I do not know. I googled 2-5, but most results are related to Madden video games. Please Explain what you mean by this. Thanks.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree with all. What is 2-5, and how does it differ from 4-3? I ask because I do not know. I googled 2-5, but most results are related to Madden video games. Please Explain what you mean by this. Thanks.

Dude, how many times do I have to explain this?
I have said twice not, its not a 25 defense. I am referring to the PERSONNELL. Compare to the 3 DL 4 LB formation we are accustomed to the personell we have been using are 2 DL and 5 LBs, 2 of which are playing in a DE position.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Dude, how many times do I have to explain this?
I have said twice not, its not a 25 defense. I am referring to the PERSONNELL. Compare to the 3 DL 4 LB formation we are accustomed to the personell we have been using are 2 DL and 5 LBs, 2 of which are playing in a DE position.

You haven't explained anything. I'm asking you what 2-5 is, and how it differs from 4-3. I honestly don't know. Is it just the ends standing up? Thanks in advance.

 

[Ring 6]

You haven't explained anything. I'm asking you what 2-5 is, and how it differs from 4-3. I honestly don't know. Is it just the ends standing up? Thanks in advance.

There is no 25.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

There is no 25.

Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't trying to bust balls, honestly didn't know. I appreciate your patience.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't trying to bust balls, honestly didn't know. I appreciate your patience.

I'm not sure what you were doing, but I think I explained 3 times 25 was a reference to the type of players in comparison to the 34.
In other words, if we use DE/OLB types at both DEs we took 50 lbs of beef off the the front 7, and while we have always used 3 300lbers we would be using 2. Going from 3 DL to 4 DL would make us smaller, in that event.

 

[MrNathanDrake]

Should Arrington be considered part of our DLine since he might see snaps at DE this year?

 

[Fencer]

Recasting my original post, we could say:

Except perhaps as and when injuries hit, and in the majority cases not for long even then:

We're not going below 3 at K/P/LS.
We're not going below 3 at QB.
We're not going below 4 at RB.
We're not going below 6 at WR, because of all the ST contributors there.
We're not going below 3 at TE.
We're not going below 8 on the OL.

So we're not going below 24 on offense.

We're not going below 5 at CB.
We're not going below 4 at S.
We're surely not going below 9 at DB overall.

That leaves 17 slots for DL, LB, and all the increases you want to make over my minimum figures above.

DL/LB that few people want to cut, or else that few people believe BB will cut, include:

Primary true LB (3)

• Mayo
• Spikes
• Ninkovich

Sub and special-team LB (3)

• Fletcher, if healthy
• A STer such as White
• Guyton (or a second STer, if he can play a bit of defense)

Big honking DL (5)

• Wilfork
• Haynesworth
• Ellis
• Love
• Pryor

Smaller DE and rushing OLB (3)

• Carter
• Anderson
• Cunningham/Moore

That's 14 of the 17.

Omissions include but are not limited to:

• Wright, solely for reasons of health
• The other of Cunningham/Moore (tough cut not to keep both)
• Warren (good guy to keep)
• Richard
• Brace (can be left on PUP)
• Deaderick (can be left on PUP)
• Weston, Cohen, et al.
• M. Carter

 

[MrNathanDrake]

Gerard Warren will make the team for sure.

He is insurance incase Haynesworth decides he doesnt want to play anymore, or gets injured (has never played a full 16 game season)

 

[mgteich]

I'm down to 13 "locks" in the front seven. I am not including Spikes.
==================================================
My last next two "almost locks" are
Warren, and
the second of Cunningham/Moore
=========================
I would then be quite satisfied with our 15 front seven defenders (for the first time since 2004).
==========================
We would then have 2 positions to use ANYWHERE. Obviously, I hope Spikes is one of those players.

A NITPICK
We could go with 4 corners (although I wouldn't) if Dowling goes to IR, but we would then have at least 5 safeties, so the implications for the front seven are the same. As you say, the secondary total will not be below nine.

Recasting my original post, we could say:

Except perhaps as and when injuries hit, and in the majority cases not for long even then:

We're not going below 3 at K/P/LS.
We're not going below 3 at QB.
We're not going below 4 at RB.
We're not going below 6 at WR, because of all the ST contributors there.
We're not going below 3 at TE.
We're not going below 8 on the OL.

So we're not going below 24 on offense.

We're not going below 5 at CB.
We're not going below 4 at S.
We're surely not going below 9 at DB overall.

That leaves 17 slots for DL, LB, and all the increases you want to make over my minimum figures above.

DL/LB that few people want to cut, or else that few people believe BB will cut, include:

Primary true LB (3)

• Mayo
• Spikes
• Ninkovich

Sub and special-team LB (3)

• Fletcher, if healthy
• A STer such as White
• Guyton (or a second STer, if he can play a bit of defense)

Big honking DL (5)

• Wilfork
• Haynesworth
• Ellis
• Love
• Pryor

Smaller DE and rushing OLB (3)

• Carter
• Anderson
• Cunningham/Moore

That's 14 of the 17.

Omissions include but are not limited to:

• Wright, solely for reasons of health
• The other of Cunningham/Moore (tough cut not to keep both)
• Warren (good guy to keep)
• Richard
• Brace (can be left on PUP)
• Deaderick (can be left on PUP)
• Weston, Cohen, et al.
• M. Carter

 

[jah]

How do we know we're keeping 5 CBs? We didn't do that for a large portion of 2010.

 

[Fencer]

How do we know we're keeping 5 CBs? We didn't do that for a large portion of 2010.

I don't think Dowling will be IRed unless he really needs to be. On the other hand, I think there will be 4 CBs other than him, as he's not starting the season ready.

Some positions will indeed lose a slot if there's an injury. If Mallett broke his arm, for example, we'd go down to 2 QB. But CB only starts the season at 4 or less -- IMO -- in such a scenario.

 

[mgteich]

If we keep only 4 corners, we would make up for it with an extra safety. As long as the total minimum is 9 in the secondary, the analysis of this thread remains valid.

How do we know we're keeping 5 CBs? We didn't do that for a large portion of 2010.

 

[jah]

If we keep only 4 corners, we would make up for it with an extra safety. As long as the total minimum is 9 in the secondary, the analysis of this thread remains valid.

Ah, that makes sense. I have us keeping 5 safeties in my 53 but 4 CBs.

 

[Fencer]

If we keep only 4 corners, we would make up for it with an extra safety. As long as the total minimum is 9 in the secondary, the analysis of this thread remains valid.

Right. With both Chung (game) and Meriweather (practice, at least) having gotten reps at "star" -- i.e. slot -- CB, there's a certain fungibility between the two positions.

That said, unless Dowling is IRed, I'm guessing strongly it's 5 CBs to start the year. My main hesitation is that Meriweather/Sanders/Chung/Brown all look like they'll make it, and that Nigerian guy we just signed seems like a good bet as well.

 

[mgteich]

I would add that Sanders has had many game reps at nickel and dime back.

I think Dowling is the real quesion. If he makes the roster, he is the #5 CB. If Dowling sin't available, I see no real reason to keep Wilhite instead of an additional safety.

If Wilhite is to make this team (doubtful), he needs to make it as a special teamer.

Right. With both Chung (game) and Meriweather (practice, at least) having gotten reps at "star" -- i.e. slot -- CB, there's a certain fungibility between the two positions.

That said, unless Dowling is IRed, I'm guessing strongly it's 5 CBs to start the year. My main hesitation is that Meriweather/Sanders/Chung/Brown all look like they'll make it, and that Nigerian guy we just signed seems like a good bet as well.