OLB's - A sad day

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?

FinSaint · 10-02-2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by x626xBlack

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

Personal preference... I like the front D-line line-up more in the base 4-3, it's just more logical and ordered to me than the 3-4 line-up.

Also, I like the responsibilities of the LBs in the 4-3 more than in the 3-4 where the line gets rather blurred between OLBs and DEs.

Both can definitely work well in the NFL regardless of what conference or division a team plays in, but you must have the right personnel to run either one - not sure if the Saints have the personnel to ran either one successfully, but they're certainly closer with the base 4-3.

blackangold · 10-02-2012, 03:21 PM

I am a fan of the 5-2.. always have been but you never see it used. All I know is going to a 3-4 or 5-2 is better than being the worst D in the league.

SaintFanQ · 10-02-2012, 04:01 PM

Why did we get rid of Jo-lonn Dunbar?

I used to think he was a really good player for us!

Sorry if this has been asked already on the forum somewhere and I missed it!

FinSaint · 10-02-2012, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by SaintFanQ

Why did we get rid of Jo-lonn Dunbar?

I used to think he was a really good player for us!

Sorry if this has been asked already on the forum somewhere and I missed it!

Well, there hasn't been any official announcement about it - which there never really is - but I'd venture a guess that after Spags was done with the player evaluations, Dunbar didn't fit into his scheme.

Also, they were bringing in two MLBs in Lofton and Hawthorne (MLB is his natural position), so they probably thought that they didn't need another Mike.

IMO, Dunbar wasn't as good of a player as many here seem to think, and I wasn't at all upset when they decided not to re-sign him - I've said as much before on this topic.

jeanpierre · 10-02-2012, 05:17 PM

The 5-2 is basically the Bears 46 Defense...

They had an abundance of effective pass rushers that could be in the opposition's backfield in less than three seconds...

burningmetal · 10-02-2012, 05:45 PM

That figures.

We sign a couple good players and they all get hurt (though Lofton is at least able to play through his injury). Then the would be backups are either suspended or changed positions. I was high on Wilson as a speed rushing OLB, but they move him to end, which I thought could work out, however he has barely been on the field. I get that they are both raw, but Wilson and Gallette need to be on the field, getting after the QB. What could we possibly have to lose by putting in some guys who can actually get up the field?

10-02-2012, 11:23 AM	#1
FinSaint Site Donor 2015 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Finland... formerly Southern Virginia Posts: 4,963	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	#2
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,039	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?

10-02-2012, 11:39 AM	#3
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 x626xBlack Curious, what are your reasons for preferring the 4-3? Personal preference... I like the front D-line line-up more in the base 4-3, it's just more logical and ordered to me than the 3-4 line-up. Also, I like the responsibilities of the LBs in the 4-3 more than in the 3-4 where the line gets rather blurred between OLBs and DEs. Both can definitely work well in the NFL regardless of what conference or division a team plays in, but you must have the right personnel to run either one - not sure if the Saints have the personnel to ran either one successfully, but they're certainly closer with the base 4-3.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

10-02-2012, 03:21 PM	#4
blackangold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,422	Re: OLB's - A sad day I am a fan of the 5-2.. always have been but you never see it used. All I know is going to a 3-4 or 5-2 is better than being the worst D in the league.

10-02-2012, 04:01 PM	#5
SaintFanQ Site Donor 2019 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leicester, England Posts: 801	Re: OLB's - A sad day Why did we get rid of Jo-lonn Dunbar? I used to think he was a really good player for us! Sorry if this has been asked already on the forum somewhere and I missed it!

10-02-2012, 04:44 PM	#6
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 SaintFanQ Why did we get rid of Jo-lonn Dunbar? I used to think he was a really good player for us! Sorry if this has been asked already on the forum somewhere and I missed it! Well, there hasn't been any official announcement about it - which there never really is - but I'd venture a guess that after Spags was done with the player evaluations, Dunbar didn't fit into his scheme. Also, they were bringing in two MLBs in Lofton and Hawthorne (MLB is his natural position), so they probably thought that they didn't need another Mike. IMO, Dunbar wasn't as good of a player as many here seem to think, and I wasn't at all upset when they decided not to re-sign him - I've said as much before on this topic.
	"I'm not bashing people, I'm bashing their opinions because in my opinion their opinion is wrong" - Danno

10-02-2012, 05:17 PM	#7
jeanpierre Site Donor 2018 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Thibodaux Posts: 43,543 Blog Entries: 39	Re: OLB's - A sad day The 5-2 is basically the Bears 46 Defense... They had an abundance of effective pass rushers that could be in the opposition's backfield in less than three seconds...

10-02-2012, 05:45 PM	#8
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: OLB's - A sad day That figures. We sign a couple good players and they all get hurt (though Lofton is at least able to play through his injury). Then the would be backups are either suspended or changed positions. I was high on Wilson as a speed rushing OLB, but they move him to end, which I thought could work out, however he has barely been on the field. I get that they are both raw, but Wilson and Gallette need to be on the field, getting after the QB. What could we possibly have to lose by putting in some guys who can actually get up the field?
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

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