OLB's - A sad day

Danno · 10-02-2012, 07:17 AM

The 3-4 is now interesting. Before it probably wasn't wise since our two best players along the front are Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma. Both of those players are not suited for a 3-4 at all.

But now that Smith is merely average and Vilma is on the decline, it makes more sense now.

Martez would make a good OLB in a 3-4.
Jordan is definitley 3-4 end material
Bunkley can play nose

We have the ingredients now to possibly make the switch next year if we decide to. Spags is a 4-3 coach and we may want to give him some more time. He's proven his system works, and its a known fact that his schemes take a while for players to learn.

Either way, we need 3 or 4 new and better players along the front seven to achieve succes in either scheme.

jeanpierre · 10-02-2012, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

I brought up a 3-4 before and was laughed out of the forums for wanting to switch from something that was not working and too complicated for this year to something that made sense.

As for as for 5 down and two LB... That's the opposite direction I think we should go in. Here is my reasoning... Putting Shanle on the line is the equivalent of having only 4 down linemen and making Shanle one of two LB means you have 1 LB. If we are not going to stop the run at the line and cant get pressure we need 4 LBs and at least we can keep them to 2-3 yards per carry while being able to cover the dink/dunk passes.

There's been healthy debate for a 3-4 here; it just was when you called the question the 3-4 advocators were probably at the buffet with Sedrick and Will...

But make no mistake, I'm not a Shanle apologist, I just don't get all the heat on him when often times the breakdown in coverage has as much to do with the Safeties (ie Harper, Jenkins, mostly Harper)...

And I don't advocate Shanle as a down lineman either - in fact, the idea of five down linemen (which would only be for this season until this thing could be blown up and revisited) I have a front line of:

RDE Smith/Galette, RT Bunkley, NT Hicks, LT Ellis, LDE Wilson/McBride

with Johnson rotating in if not starting and have Ellis rotate at the tackle positions...this would be a stop gap for this season only...

I really believe we're wasting some good youth with Wilson on the bench and the salaries we're paying for the non production by Ellis and Smith...

darksoul35 · 10-02-2012, 07:30 AM

I have wanted Shanle gone for years.I still picture the Vernon Davis catch with him getting beat in my dreams.I thought the addition of our linebackers this season surely meant he was gone.Guess i was wrong

TheOak · 10-02-2012, 08:14 AM

My 3-4 idea was a week ago LOL.... Nothing to do with Vilma.

The problem with 5 d-linemen is that is designed to get someone on the QB... We just do not have the talent to get to the QB. If we did we would have seen it through the rotations...

What I see going on is that since we do not have the "one guy" that get to the QB, everyone tries and over penetrates, this giving a RB with one good cut open range from the line of scrimmage on.

I truly believe the breakdown in coverage from our safeties is because they know they have to cover Shanle also. If Shanle could do his job for more than 1 play a game our safeties wouldn't be trying to do the job of two people.

Danno · 10-02-2012, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

My 3-4 idea was a week ago LOL.... Nothing to do with Vilma.

The problem with 5 d-linemen is that is designed to get someone on the QB... We just do not have the talent to get to the QB. If we did we would have seen it through the rotations...

What I see going on is that since we do not have the "one guy" that get to the QB, everyone tries and over penetrates, this giving a RB with one good cut open range from the line of scrimmage on.

I truly believe the breakdown in coverage from our safeties is because they know they have to cover Shanle also. If Shanle could do his job for more than 1 play a game our safeties wouldn't be trying to do the job of two people.

What breakdown in coverages are you referring to? I've not seen many at all. We run a lot of zone which requires the safeties to stay back. The short and middle become the responsibilities of the LB's. Opposing QB's are abusing the hell out of our LB's, not our safeties.

Can you provide examples of all of these breakdowns in coverage by the safeties? I see mostly short passes completed with LB's covering a yard or two behind the receiver, or quick slants inside the CB and outside of the LB. The safeties have nothing to do with that at all.

TheOak · 10-02-2012, 08:38 AM

Read two posts above mine.. The comment originated from jeanpierre

Danno · 10-02-2012, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

Read two posts above mine.. The comment originated from jeanpierre

And is just as invalid.

neugey · 10-02-2012, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by Danno

I wonder... Can a player lose a step he never really had to begin with?

If any player can, it's Shanle!

FinSaint · 10-02-2012, 11:23 AM

It's interesting that they had a front 4 of Wilson-Smith-Jordan-Galette for a few plays, who arguably are the best pass rushers the Saints have at the moment, but they weren't able to create any more pass rush than the normal front 4 with natural tackles on the interior of the line.

I still personally like the base 4-3 more than the 3-4, so I'm biased toward keeping that, but if the coaches decide a change to 3-4 would be beneficial to their future success - I'd be OK with the switch.

TheOak · 10-02-2012, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by FinSaint

It's interesting that they had a front 4 of Wilson-Smith-Jordan-Galette for a few plays, who arguably are the best pass rushers the Saints have at the moment, but they weren't able to create any more pass rush than the normal front 4 with natural tackles on the interior of the line.

I still personally like the base 4-3 more than the 3-4, so I'm biased toward keeping that, but if the coaches decide a change to 3-4 would be beneficial to their future success - I'd be OK with the switch.

Curious, what are your reasons for preferring the 4-3?

10-02-2012, 07:17 AM	#21
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Re: OLB's - A sad day The 3-4 is now interesting. Before it probably wasn't wise since our two best players along the front are Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma. Both of those players are not suited for a 3-4 at all. But now that Smith is merely average and Vilma is on the decline, it makes more sense now. Martez would make a good OLB in a 3-4. Jordan is definitley 3-4 end material Bunkley can play nose We have the ingredients now to possibly make the switch next year if we decide to. Spags is a 4-3 coach and we may want to give him some more time. He's proven his system works, and its a known fact that his schemes take a while for players to learn. Either way, we need 3 or 4 new and better players along the front seven to achieve succes in either scheme.

10-02-2012, 07:29 AM	#22
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: OLB's - A sad day Originally Posted by x626xBlack I brought up a 3-4 before and was laughed out of the forums for wanting to switch from something that was not working and too complicated for this year to something that made sense. As for as for 5 down and two LB... That's the opposite direction I think we should go in. Here is my reasoning... Putting Shanle on the line is the equivalent of having only 4 down linemen and making Shanle one of two LB means you have 1 LB. If we are not going to stop the run at the line and cant get pressure we need 4 LBs and at least we can keep them to 2-3 yards per carry while being able to cover the dink/dunk passes. There's been healthy debate for a 3-4 here; it just was when you called the question the 3-4 advocators were probably at the buffet with Sedrick and Will... But make no mistake, I'm not a Shanle apologist, I just don't get all the heat on him when often times the breakdown in coverage has as much to do with the Safeties (ie Harper, Jenkins, mostly Harper)... And I don't advocate Shanle as a down lineman either - in fact, the idea of five down linemen (which would only be for this season until this thing could be blown up and revisited) I have a front line of: RDE Smith/Galette, RT Bunkley, NT Hicks, LT Ellis, LDE Wilson/McBride with Johnson rotating in if not starting and have Ellis rotate at the tackle positions...this would be a stop gap for this season only... I really believe we're wasting some good youth with Wilson on the bench and the salaries we're paying for the non production by Ellis and Smith...
	It's not that my way is the right way, I just make the right way my way...

10-02-2012, 07:30 AM	#23
darksoul35 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,022	Re: OLB's - A sad day I have wanted Shanle gone for years.I still picture the Vernon Davis catch with him getting beat in my dreams.I thought the addition of our linebackers this season surely meant he was gone.Guess i was wrong AlaskaSaints likes this.
darksoul35 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,022

10-02-2012, 08:14 AM	#24
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 18,978	Re: OLB's - A sad day My 3-4 idea was a week ago LOL.... Nothing to do with Vilma. The problem with 5 d-linemen is that is designed to get someone on the QB... We just do not have the talent to get to the QB. If we did we would have seen it through the rotations... What I see going on is that since we do not have the "one guy" that get to the QB, everyone tries and over penetrates, this giving a RB with one good cut open range from the line of scrimmage on. I truly believe the breakdown in coverage from our safeties is because they know they have to cover Shanle also. If Shanle could do his job for more than 1 play a game our safeties wouldn't be trying to do the job of two people.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

10-02-2012, 08:35 AM	#25
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Re: OLB's - A sad day Originally Posted by x626xBlack My 3-4 idea was a week ago LOL.... Nothing to do with Vilma. The problem with 5 d-linemen is that is designed to get someone on the QB... We just do not have the talent to get to the QB. If we did we would have seen it through the rotations... What I see going on is that since we do not have the "one guy" that get to the QB, everyone tries and over penetrates, this giving a RB with one good cut open range from the line of scrimmage on. I truly believe the breakdown in coverage from our safeties is because they know they have to cover Shanle also. If Shanle could do his job for more than 1 play a game our safeties wouldn't be trying to do the job of two people. What breakdown in coverages are you referring to? I've not seen many at all. We run a lot of zone which requires the safeties to stay back. The short and middle become the responsibilities of the LB's. Opposing QB's are abusing the hell out of our LB's, not our safeties. Can you provide examples of all of these breakdowns in coverage by the safeties? I see mostly short passes completed with LB's covering a yard or two behind the receiver, or quick slants inside the CB and outside of the LB. The safeties have nothing to do with that at all.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

10-02-2012, 08:38 AM	#26
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 18,978	Re: OLB's - A sad day Read two posts above mine.. The comment originated from jeanpierre

10-02-2012, 08:39 AM	#27
Danno Site Donor 2014 Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,640	Re: OLB's - A sad day Originally Posted by x626xBlack Read two posts above mine.. The comment originated from jeanpierre And is just as invalid.

10-02-2012, 11:18 AM	#28
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,591 Blog Entries: 13	Re: OLB's - A sad day Originally Posted by Danno I wonder... Can a player lose a step he never really had to begin with? If any player can, it's Shanle!

10-02-2012, 11:23 AM	#29
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,955	Re: OLB's - A sad day It's interesting that they had a front 4 of Wilson-Smith-Jordan-Galette for a few plays, who arguably are the best pass rushers the Saints have at the moment, but they weren't able to create any more pass rush than the normal front 4 with natural tackles on the interior of the line. I still personally like the base 4-3 more than the 3-4, so I'm biased toward keeping that, but if the coaches decide a change to 3-4 would be beneficial to their future success - I'd be OK with the switch.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

10-02-2012, 11:28 AM	#30
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 18,978	Re: OLB's - A sad day Originally Posted by FinSaint It's interesting that they had a front 4 of Wilson-Smith-Jordan-Galette for a few plays, who arguably are the best pass rushers the Saints have at the moment, but they weren't able to create any more pass rush than the normal front 4 with natural tackles on the interior of the line. I still personally like the base 4-3 more than the 3-4, so I'm biased toward keeping that, but if the coaches decide a change to 3-4 would be beneficial to their future success - I'd be OK with the switch. Curious, what are your reasons for preferring the 4-3?

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/51280-olbs-sad-day.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
OLB's - A sad day	This thread	Refback	10-01-2012 08:54 AM	5