OLB's - A sad day

TheOak · 10-02-2012, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

This past offseason...

I believe we give Spagnuolo until the end of the season, at this point we're 0-4 so the point may be moot, though I hold out hope...

But why not explore going to a true 3-4...

The money we'd save on Will Smith and Sedrick Ellis alone would give us three very good defensive lineman, and possibly another linebacker...

And we drafted Martez Wilson, who, when given the opportunity, evokes memories of what Pat Swilling was capable of doing...

Originally Posted by jeanpierre

And just another thought...

Why not have five down defensive lineman, two linebackers, and three cornerbacks and one free safety...

If we can't get a pass rush then, with the DL having one-to-one, then ALL the DL should be cut immediately at the end of the season...

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.

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...

Mardigras9 · 10-02-2012, 03:46 PM

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.

Agreed, they can get as much pressure with three as they are now with four. Let's move toward damage control.

FinSaint · 10-02-2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Mardigras9

Agreed, they can get as much pressure with three as they are now with four. Let's move toward damage control.

I say, stick with Spags' scheme, because that'll lead to success eventually. It might seem like a lost cause right now, but I certainly wouldn't just throw away all the work they've done in the offseason and leading up to this point for the sake of just doing something different in hopes of it working out.

Also, I don't think the Saints have the personnel to run a 3-4 successfully at the moment. So it would be better to continue with this base 4-3 and give bigger roles and more playing time to those players that Spags and the FO see as worth keeping around after this season, so that they'll keep learning the system and be better prepared for next season while hopefully improving as this season goes on.

Then bring in better players during the offseason via the draft and the free agency to complement the existing roster - players that fit Spags' scheme.

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.

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.

10-02-2012, 06:29 AM	#1
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	Re: OLB's - A sad day Originally Posted by jeanpierre This past offseason... I believe we give Spagnuolo until the end of the season, at this point we're 0-4 so the point may be moot, though I hold out hope... But why not explore going to a true 3-4... The money we'd save on Will Smith and Sedrick Ellis alone would give us three very good defensive lineman, and possibly another linebacker... And we drafted Martez Wilson, who, when given the opportunity, evokes memories of what Pat Swilling was capable of doing... Originally Posted by jeanpierre And just another thought... Why not have five down defensive lineman, two linebackers, and three cornerbacks and one free safety... If we can't get a pass rush then, with the DL having one-to-one, then ALL the DL should be cut immediately at the end of the season... 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.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

10-02-2012, 07:29 AM	#2
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, 03:46 PM	#3
Mardigras9 Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Land Mass between LA and AL Posts: 4,375	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. Agreed, they can get as much pressure with three as they are now with four. Let's move toward damage control.

10-02-2012, 04:00 PM	#4
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	Re: OLB's - A sad day Originally Posted by Mardigras9 Agreed, they can get as much pressure with three as they are now with four. Let's move toward damage control. I say, stick with Spags' scheme, because that'll lead to success eventually. It might seem like a lost cause right now, but I certainly wouldn't just throw away all the work they've done in the offseason and leading up to this point for the sake of just doing something different in hopes of it working out. Also, I don't think the Saints have the personnel to run a 3-4 successfully at the moment. So it would be better to continue with this base 4-3 and give bigger roles and more playing time to those players that Spags and the FO see as worth keeping around after this season, so that they'll keep learning the system and be better prepared for next season while hopefully improving as this season goes on. Then bring in better players during the offseason via the draft and the free agency to complement the existing roster - players that fit Spags' scheme.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

10-02-2012, 07:17 AM	#5
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,748	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, 07:30 AM	#6
darksoul35 1000 Posts + Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 1,044	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: 1,044

10-02-2012, 08:14 AM	#7
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	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	#8
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,748	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.

10-02-2012, 08:38 AM	#9
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	Re: OLB's - A sad day Read two posts above mine.. The comment originated from jeanpierre

10-02-2012, 08:39 AM	#10
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,748	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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

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