No more Bell offseason Mock

[JLambert58]

Alright War, since I trashed your first pick, I'll try to give you an honest assessment of the rest:

3) Ian Thomas I like pretty well,  Seems like a McDonald type, big boy who can run and be dynamic when he makes a catch.  Can he block?

4) Smith from USC looks decent, not super excited but he does seem to have a nose for the ball-carrier.  More of a Buck type I think.

5) Faycon looks good.  Raw but nice size speed talent prospect.  I question his run support.    Still think he'd be a steal in the 5th.

5) James looks dynamic, we could use a reliable KR/PR and he could be a nice 5th WR.

7) Street you have listed as a DT.  He wouldn't be a DT in our system.  I'd slim him down and slide him to OLB.  Like his motor.  Looks dynamic with some talent.  

Overall, I like the idea, but I'd rather see more Defense, an earlier ILB and a Safety.

[warfelg]

9 hours ago, JLambert58 said:

Alright War, since I trashed your first pick, I'll try to give you an honest assessment of the rest:

3) Ian Thomas I like pretty well,  Seems like a McDonald type, big boy who can run and be dynamic when he makes a catch.  Can he block?

4) Smith from USC looks decent, not super excited but he does seem to have a nose for the ball-carrier.  More of a Buck type I think.

5) Faycon looks good.  Raw but nice size speed talent prospect.  I question his run support.    Still think he'd be a steal in the 5th.

5) James looks dynamic, we could use a reliable KR/PR and he could be a nice 5th WR.

7) Street you have listed as a DT.  He wouldn't be a DT in our system.  I'd slim him down and slide him to OLB.  Like his motor.  Looks dynamic with some talent.  

Overall, I like the idea, but I'd rather see more Defense, an earlier ILB and a Safety.

Thomas is not much of a blocker at all.  He's an athletic TE who's more of a big bodied WR than inline TE.  

Smith I'm looking at as a VWill challenger.

Facyson I'm thinking of taking from CB to FS.  He'll have the ability to cover that, and would play the ball more in the air than go for the hit.

Exactly what I'm looking for in James.  Take starters off of returns.

Street won't be able to slim down that much.  He's 6'2" 290 without much body fat at all:

That's him from showing up to now.  I can see him getting to 300.  Or maybe being a base 4-3 end type that when we go 3-4-5, he can be the "OLB" but really be a rush guy.  Basically he doesn't have the hip ability to drop at all, but getting him to rush as a situational guy he could have an impact.

[steelcurtain29]

Ansah in our scheme? Trading way too much for Barkley?

 

Seems very unrealistic.

[3rivers]

11 hours ago, JLambert58 said:

Alright War, since I trashed your first pick, I'll try to give you an honest assessment of the rest:

3) Ian Thomas I like pretty well,  Seems like a McDonald type, big boy who can run and be dynamic when he makes a catch.  Can he block?

4) Smith from USC looks decent, not super excited but he does seem to have a nose for the ball-carrier.  More of a Buck type I think.

5) Faycon looks good.  Raw but nice size speed talent prospect.  I question his run support.    Still think he'd be a steal in the 5th.

5) James looks dynamic, we could use a reliable KR/PR and he could be a nice 5th WR.

7) Street you have listed as a DT.  He wouldn't be a DT in our system.  I'd slim him down and slide him to OLB.  Like his motor.  Looks dynamic with some talent.  

Overall, I like the idea, but I'd rather see more Defense, an earlier ILB and a Safety.

what about having proven UFA players for immediate important needs and draft for depth and eventual replacement (next year or the year after)?  With this in mind,  UFA CB (Grimes)  and ILB  (Bowman) then with Safety a need after Mitchell is gone spend a high pick unless there is cap space for UFA safety.  With the no more bell mock, we should have some cap space. If we keep Bell , we have to rely on good draft picks and they have to produce immediately. Someone on one of the networks said there is no way we make it without bell. To me, there is no way we make it with Bell and not defence, as this year proved (unless we score 60 points)

If we were to use the non exclusive tag and he signed elsewhere to a bad team, this could be  quite a deal. Of course, if we draft duds and get the wrong UFA's , then nobody wins  in this.  No quite Hershel walker trade, but tow RD1's with a bad team could be used to get many picks and then consider the 3 or so UFAs of already proven high caliber players it would be worth it . I doubt anyone signs bell from us if we  use the non exclusive though. 

[JLambert58]

9 hours ago, warfelg said:

Smith I'm looking at as a VWill challenger.

We need a Shazier replacement, not a VWill challenger.  But Smith is definitely more in that mold.  

9 hours ago, warfelg said:

Facyson I'm thinking of taking from CB to FS.  He'll have the ability to cover that, and would play the ball more in the air than go for the hit.

Facyson doesn't look at all like a Safety to me.  Not a strong tackler from what I saw.  Guy is pure Corner imo.  I like him as a depth CB.

9 hours ago, warfelg said:

Street won't be able to slim down that much.  He's 6'2" 290 without much body fat at all:

Looks like he already slimmed down 13 lbs.  I'd see him more as 3-4 OLB, but probably not a very good one in the NFL.  Maybe he would do better to bulk up as a 4-3 DE.

[warfelg]

34 minutes ago, JLambert58 said:

We need a Shazier replacement, not a VWill challenger.  But Smith is definitely more in that mold.  

Hence why in the free agency period I bring up signing Davis who is more sideline to sideline.

Quote

Facyson doesn't look at all like a Safety to me.  Not a strong tackler from what I saw.  Guy is pure Corner imo.  I like him as a depth CB.

Ok?  I said twice about him being a FS.  I value playing the ball in the air over tackling at FS.

Quote

Looks like he already slimmed down 13 lbs.  I'd see him more as 3-4 OLB, but probably not a very good one in the NFL.  Maybe he would do better to bulk up as a 4-3 DE.

Shoulda read what I wrote after that.

[JLambert58]

3 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Ok?  I said twice about him being a FS.  I value playing the ball in the air over tackling at FS.

Our safeties have to be strong tacklers.  

 

3 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Shoulda read what I wrote after that.

I did.    Meh.  He'd be a poor, poor man's James Harrison.  That's why I said he should drop weight.  Only way he'd fit for us imo.  

[Magnus-Viktor]

s

[3rivers]

21 hours ago, steelcurtain29 said:

Ansah in our scheme? Trading way too much for Barkley?

 

Seems very unrealistic.

Ansah would be for a 4-3 or if we plan the nickel for most snaps. Barkley is out of reach I would think. The walterfootball chart looks costly to move up that much.  I would rather have a better OL and a good RB, lots of good RB's out there, not many (if any) truly dominant OL's. 

[warfelg]

23 hours ago, steelcurtain29 said:

Ansah in our scheme? Trading way too much for Barkley?

 

Seems very unrealistic.

For Ansah:  Just a pure pass rusher.  Stand up of hand in ground.  I would love us to go get a pure rusher like that and never ask him to drop in coverage.

For Barkley:  Let's just say it wasn't for Barkley.....what do you think it would take to jump from 28 to 3-5?

[JLambert58]

18 minutes ago, warfelg said:

For Ansah:  Just a pure pass rusher.  Stand up of hand in ground.  I would love us to go get a pure rusher like that and never ask him to drop in coverage.

I'm a fan of Ansah, but this is exactly why JH didn't play, we don't do that anymore. 

But maybe we should mix it back in.  It's like going for it on 4th and a foot, sometimes you just have to out-execute rather than out guess your opponent.  

[warfelg]

4 minutes ago, JLambert58 said:

I'm a fan of Ansah, but this is exactly why JH didn't play, we don't do that anymore. 

But maybe we should mix it back in.  It's like going for it on 4th and a foot, sometimes you just have to out-execute rather than out guess your opponent.  

We really should.  Especially if we're going to be playing that 2-4-5 more.  We need to have a guy who''s just a pass rusher.

Think the Wade Phillips 3-4.  It's a "3-4" but Robert Quinn barely dropped into coverage despite being an "OLB".  Ditto for Ware when he was in Denver.  And again Ware in Dallas.  Rex Ryan did the same things, where one of his OLB's was just a rush guy.  Look into Terrell Suggs and his time in Baltimore he's barely ever dropped.

To me this is why our pass rush is going to continue to suffer.  The longer we ask our OLB's to be a jack of all trades they will never master just one of them.  We're going to continue to struggle to set an edge off one side or rush from one side as long as we ask both to rush, set edge, drop in zone, drop in man.

Reason I don't do it with my team is you would have to teach them skills of an ILB, DE, Rush, Corner, and Safety.  That's so much to learn.  If you teach one guy to be a mostly drop guy, situational rusher; and the other is a pure rusher; I think you are making a better team.

The counter argument I tend to get from coaches is then your rush becomes much more predictable, and the idea of the 3-4 was to make it so the OL had to 'guess' which side the rush is coming from.  I always counter that stunts, twists, loops, slant rushes, and moves on the defensive front can be much more effective than switching up the rush.

Let's say that we go base package and Ansah were here, a way we could still make the rush hard to predict:

So what's all of that?

At the snap, Tuitt rushes as a 5T, drawing the double team.  Hargrave locks on with the center, dragging to Hargraves right, using the OC to create a seal.  Heyward loops around Hargraves slant attack, up through the ally.  That leaves the RB to block Heyward or puts the LG in a different position to block Heyward.  Watt rushes from a wide-9 position, chipping the TE along the way, who's covered by the Buck.  Mack and Dupree are in drop zones for crosses over the middle.

Boom, pressure without blitzing and no need to change who's the rush lb.  We did this 3 times this year.

Time 1 - Sack

Time 2 - It was a run play that Williams made the stop in the hole

Time 3 - Williams was in 'spy' coverage, shot the gap when it was a dropback, and the QB completed the pass to the spot Williams abandoned.  

So, worked 2 times, would have worked all 3 if it weren't from blown coverage.                       

[JLambert58]

13 minutes ago, warfelg said:

If you teach one guy to be a mostly drop guy, situational rusher; and the other is a pure rusher; I think you are making a better team.

Agree.  More predictable, but probably more effective. 

[warfelg]

6 minutes ago, JLambert58 said:

Agree.  More predictable, but probably more effective. 

And doesn’t need to be same 4 gaps predictable. Just clearer defined roles predictable. 

Then you mess them up by doing that about 8 straight times and on the 9th you bring Dupree instead of Watt and run the same 3 down linemen concept. Next thing you know Dupree is 1-on1 with a RB. 

 

And this is is why I don’t like Butler. His unpredictability is predictable. 

[3rivers]

13 hours ago, warfelg said:

And doesn’t need to be same 4 gaps predictable. Just clearer defined roles predictable. 

Then you mess them up by doing that about 8 straight times and on the 9th you bring Dupree instead of Watt and run the same 3 down linemen concept. Next thing you know Dupree is 1-on1 with a RB. 

 

And this is is why I don’t like Butler. His unpredictability is predictable. 

the only time dupree might win a battle under 4 seconds. All this to help him get stats?