Brian Young signed.

BlackandBlue · 03-09-2004, 12:30 PM

I\'m still confused about this move, but whatever, I\'m just a fan. If they start Sullivan and Young, Sullivan will have to play the 2, but I thought they were getting him away from that. I think of DT, I think stuffing the run as the priority, and I don\'t see how this will be an upgrade from last year.

his downside is he sometimes gets rolled over by some more powerful backs .

[Edited on 9/3/2004 by BlackandBlue]

ScottyRo · 03-09-2004, 12:36 PM

That may be true, but a lot of the talk I hear about Young reminds of what we were hearing when Ditka was bringing in LaRoi Glover: undersized, but has a great motor. Glover turned out to be a steal for us, so perhaps Young will too.

whowatches · 03-09-2004, 09:05 PM

I hear ya BnB. I\'m not so excited about this one. I want to be, and I trust that Pease had some input into the decision.

What concerns me most is the flip-flopping we keep doing on our D-line philosophy. Do we want run-stuffers in the middle or pass-rushers? I dunno? We lack consistency in our planning in my opinion. We\'ll see. I\'m no expert, but I do know that constant shifts in strategy sometimes indicate a lack of real expertise.

.02

BrooksMustGo · 03-09-2004, 09:40 PM

What concerns me most is the flip-flopping we keep doing on our D-line philosophy. Do we want run-stuffers in the middle or pass-rushers? I dunno? We lack consistency in our planning in my opinion. We\'ll see. I\'m no expert, but I do know that constant shifts in strategy sometimes indicate a lack of real expertise.

I have spent a LOT of time the last few weeks thinking on this. WhoDat mentioned the other day that we seem to adopt the philosophy of whoever won the last superbowl. I am not a big Venturi fan, but I find it doubtful that the defensive coordinator is changing the entire scheme every off-season.

I am ready for us to just decide what kind of team we are going to be and then become that. Interestingly enough we don\'t just do it on defense. Ricky was too much of a power runner, so we draft Deuce to be a recieving threat. We then try to have fast deep threat WR\'s. Last year, our TE\'s became much bigger parts of the game plan.

Maybe the draft will give a better indication of what exactly Haz is trying to build here?

deadflatbird · 03-10-2004, 10:07 AM

Its ok to change philospy\'s... they do it all the time depending on talent that is there or if the game evolves. I am more concern with the D schemes... I think we need a new D-coach

03-09-2004, 12:30 PM	#11
BlackandBlue Kinder, gentler Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: dirty south Posts: 3,889	Brian Young signed. I\'m still confused about this move, but whatever, I\'m just a fan. If they start Sullivan and Young, Sullivan will have to play the 2, but I thought they were getting him away from that. I think of DT, I think stuffing the run as the priority, and I don\'t see how this will be an upgrade from last year. his downside is he sometimes gets rolled over by some more powerful backs . [Edited on 9/3/2004 by BlackandBlue]

03-09-2004, 12:36 PM	#12
ScottyRo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Williamsburg, VA (ugh, the food here) Posts: 1,704	Brian Young signed. That may be true, but a lot of the talk I hear about Young reminds of what we were hearing when Ditka was bringing in LaRoi Glover: undersized, but has a great motor. Glover turned out to be a steal for us, so perhaps Young will too.

03-09-2004, 09:05 PM	#13
whowatches 500th Post Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 575	Brian Young signed. I hear ya BnB. I\'m not so excited about this one. I want to be, and I trust that Pease had some input into the decision. What concerns me most is the flip-flopping we keep doing on our D-line philosophy. Do we want run-stuffers in the middle or pass-rushers? I dunno? We lack consistency in our planning in my opinion. We\'ll see. I\'m no expert, but I do know that constant shifts in strategy sometimes indicate a lack of real expertise. .02
whowatches 500th Post Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 575

03-09-2004, 09:40 PM	#14
BrooksMustGo 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,762	Brian Young signed. What concerns me most is the flip-flopping we keep doing on our D-line philosophy. Do we want run-stuffers in the middle or pass-rushers? I dunno? We lack consistency in our planning in my opinion. We\'ll see. I\'m no expert, but I do know that constant shifts in strategy sometimes indicate a lack of real expertise. I have spent a LOT of time the last few weeks thinking on this. WhoDat mentioned the other day that we seem to adopt the philosophy of whoever won the last superbowl. I am not a big Venturi fan, but I find it doubtful that the defensive coordinator is changing the entire scheme every off-season. I am ready for us to just decide what kind of team we are going to be and then become that. Interestingly enough we don\'t just do it on defense. Ricky was too much of a power runner, so we draft Deuce to be a recieving threat. We then try to have fast deep threat WR\'s. Last year, our TE\'s became much bigger parts of the game plan. Maybe the draft will give a better indication of what exactly Haz is trying to build here?
	http://www.blackandgold.net/site/signature/buddysig.jpg

03-10-2004, 10:07 AM	#15
deadflatbird 100th Post Join Date: May 2003 Location: Virginia Posts: 255	Brian Young signed. Its ok to change philospy\'s... they do it all the time depending on talent that is there or if the game evolves. I am more concern with the D schemes... I think we need a new D-coach

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