OLB's - A sad day
 

I saw this elsewhere and had to recheck...

Lofton - 9 tackles
Shanle - 1 tackle
Herring - 1 tackle
Cadet - 1 tackle

Congrats... Our outside LB's had as many tackles as our 5th string RB.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Is "outside" what the O stands for?

I thought it stood for ofnouse.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Uhhh thats pretty f***ing bad!

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Shanle was beaten all day, he looked aweful. Can't even call him average.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Our defense is like the Maginot Line except you don't even have to go around it.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

The very least we can expect him to do is take someone with him when he trips.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

If I were Spags whatever game plan I was leaning towards this week I would do the exact opposite.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Maybe we can convince San Diego to play 9 on offense so we can leave our already nonexistent OLB's off the field. Complete wastes of space. Or, maybe roll Cadet over to WOLB? We'd be getting the same productivity...

Plus it doesn't help the OLB that the D Line sucks so bad, although Lofton is still managing.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

If they ever erect a statue of Shanle, it will be of him laying on his face with one-armed outstretched as the opponent runs past.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Hawthorne might do better.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Thats just sad

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

We need to go to a 4-1-6 defense, take the rest of the LB's and ship 'em to the NFL developmental or Lingerie league. Or maybe the kick off team, maybe they'll fall on someone and get credit for a tackle.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

:lolup:

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

"They moved the chains! Someone please go move the traffic cone! (Shanle)"

LOL - Good posts Danno.

Alaska

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

The sad thing also is that none of the LBs we drafted lately has developed.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

Wilson, being moved to DE, has been hit with his share of developmental challenges. And I really thought that Bussey would develop into at least a serviceable backup, but I guess the FO didn't think so because they let him go.

Casillas, while not having been drafted, has been hurt too often to have steady development, but he clearly has some potential to be at least a rotational change-up with his speed on the field. but maybe that says more about the overall quality of the LB corps than about Casillas as a player.

The Saints haven't done a good job at drafting LBs, but you could say the same thing about any defensive position really. I'd say that the drafting is the bigger concern than the actual development of the guys they've picked up along the way - thought it wouldn't hurt to get the best out of the guys in the current locker room.


Oh, and that stiff arm on Shanle's face in the beginning of the game was priceless! :-D

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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...

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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...

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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.

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.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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...

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

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.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

And is just as invalid.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

If any player can, it's Shanle!

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.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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.

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.

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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.

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!

Re: OLB's - A sad day
 

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.

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...

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?