FlyingGreg wrote: Sarlacc83 wrote:
Not sure what my military rank has to do with a football forum discussion. I guess it's a matter of "when you don't have anything reasonable to offer to a discussion, default to the baseline and take a shot at the individual"? Stay in your lane, dude.
Ayways, back on point: So you think it's working having him play DE exclusively as a run-stopper? Like, seriously? I guess we'll see how he plays when he is healthy again. Red played "worse" at DT which was three seasons ago. The theory is he may be better moving back now with more game experience under his belt. But more importantly, the idea to move him back to DT is a concession that it's not working really well at DE and there's nowhere else to play him. He is expensive and has a long term deal on the books. Something has to give.
And it's not bonkers to want the defense to improve, especially when our biggest weakness is rushing the passer and we are starting off behind the 8-ball having a non-pass rushing DE take the majority of the snaps. Sometimes it helps to take off the homer glasses and honestly assess players we really like, which isn't easy.
I agree with you that Bryant's contract is not favorable given his role and his, so far, decreased production in his role as DE.
However, moving him inside won't help us, either, because as ENGLISH posted, Seattle is trying to get pressure from the DT position and Red doesn't offer that. We either need to make it work by drafting the proper 1 and 3 techs and leave the 5 tech alone or we have to abandon the entire scheme which also means dumping the LEO - in essence leaving us in need of 2 defensive ends.
Makes sense. Nice to see people can provide an intelligent counter-response without defaulting to being a moron. Thanks!
I think the line of demarcation for fans is you either like the Carroll scheme ... or you don't. The strong/traditional defenses have BOTH edge rushers and
a penetrating DT on the line. It seems like have to settle for a mixed bag, as dictated by the scheme. Conceptually, I get the idea of it -- I just don't know if it's functioning correctly.
Ultimately, the pass rush must be fixed in any possible way. We can't keep letting teams drive down the field and snatch wins from us. A pocket collapser is probably the #1 need.
I think it's a work in progress. By not having the same scheme as the other 4-3 defenses, Carroll and Schneider can look for those 'tweeners' who won't get drafted in the higher rounds. In terms of what we can get in value, it's a good idea.
However, as we're seeing this year, it leaves us very vulnerable where it comes to finding the pocket collapsing interior rusher because we really
need one and everyone who plays a 4-3 wants one, so we're not going to find value there. It's a tough spot.