BlueInCanada Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 We all know Spags likes to run with an extra secondary player on the field most of the time on defense, with how the Giants have drafted and addressed the LB spot (or lack or addressing) do you think Spags has convinced MacAddodles and the rest of the coaching staff to make it the base defense? Think of it this was, as it stands I figure the starting lineup or the majority of playing time lineup will be; DL- JPP/Snacks/Hankins/Vernon LB - Robinson/Kennard CB - DRC/Jenkins/Apple S - Collins, Thompson (or some other teams camp cut) As it stand the Giants might only NEED or Spags may only need two or three capable starting LBs in rotation, trying to hide the lack of talent/depth by putting the best defensive players on the field at the same time. Collins can play the run better then most LBs in the league, and Jenkins/DRC/Apple could be the best CB tandem in the league. I dont know maybe just spinning yarn here, but could be that Spags has other plans in mind for this defense than needing more then a couple starting LBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 We just call it a nickel defense and let us see who is still walking in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herc Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 I think it best fits our personnel for sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmenroc Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Fewell beat Spags to that strategy with the 3 safety look we had years ago. Fewell used 3 safeties to hide our lack of linebackers. If Spags can use 3 CBs to hide our linebacker AND safety deficiencies, good for him. I think that while there is a shift towards more passing in the NFL and as a result, a shift to more nickel defenses...I don't think that the primary defenses have been 3-4 or 4-3 seemingly forever is a mistake. I think that there has always been a need for 3 linebackers, guys with size who can run. Size, so they don't get run over and speed so they can get to the ball. To me, it's just really tough getting around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Fewell beat Spags to that strategy with the 3 safety look we had years ago. Fewell used 3 safeties to hide our lack of linebackers. If Spags can use 3 CBs to hide our linebacker AND safety deficiencies, good for him. This is what I thought too. Wasn't the 3 safeties thing a Fewell thing and not a Spags one? Also, I'm pretty sure the reason Fewell ran that defense in the first place was because of JR's insistence on signing Pop Warner linebackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 I remember when Fewell pulled that bullshit against Peyton Manning during one of his last years as a Colt and Manning checked into a run every play and moved the ball all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmenroc Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Again, there is a reason teams field linebackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Depending on the situation they will field many different looks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 I remember when Fewell pulled that bullshit against Peyton Manning during one of his last years as a Colt and Manning checked into a run every play and moved the ball all day. Exactly which is the problem. Fewell abandoned it a few games later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblue25 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 They're still getting killed by RB's going out to flat and TE's running hitches. The backend is really not the problem, but that's the problem they keep trying to solve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmenroc Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 They're still getting killed by RB's going out to flat and TE's running hitches. The backend is really not the problem, but that's the problem they keep trying to solve Like a dog chasing its tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrashTalker92 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Wasn't fewell using Grant as safety/LB? When checking grants size. He was a tag smaller than a avg LB but faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K3VIN Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Shit we should Just run a 4-0-7 Defense if we are hiding our LB problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Can't be worse than the current 4-1-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Fewell beat Spags to that strategy with the 3 safety look we had years ago. Fewell used 3 safeties to hide our lack of linebackers. If Spags can use 3 CBs to hide our linebacker AND safety deficiencies, good for him. I think that while there is a shift towards more passing in the NFL and as a result, a shift to more nickel defenses...I don't think that the primary defenses have been 3-4 or 4-3 seemingly forever is a mistake. I think that there has always been a need for 3 linebackers, guys with size who can run. Size, so they don't get run over and speed so they can get to the ball. To me, it's just really tough getting around that. He wasn't hiding the lack of linebackers, Perry Fewell is all about the DB. If he had to choose between Ray Lewis and Ronnie Lott, he'd take Ronnie Lott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Pretty sure they were fielding an 0-0-11 when Seattle ran for 350+ yards. It was the most disgraceful regular season loss I can recall. So, hat's off to Reese for the roster who produced that gem. Anyway, I agree with gmenroc....linebackers are there for a reason. Seattle, Denver, Carolina, Cincy, Pittsburgh - hard hitting defenses that can handle the run and the pass, because they have solid linebackers. Each of those teams put on clinics in the 2015 playoffs. Defensively, it was like watching a different league. I will say this.....I'm warming up to the Goodson pick. Clemson had a great defense, and Goodson is maybe the physically strongest linebacker drafted. If he can stay on the field in passing downs, would be great. But as a middle of the field headbanger, I like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Pretty sure they were fielding an 0-0-11 when Seattle ran for 350+ yards. It was the most disgraceful regular season loss I can recall. So, hat's off to Reese for the roster who produced that gem. Anyway, I agree with gmenroc....linebackers are there for a reason. Seattle, Denver, Carolina, Cincy, Pittsburgh - hard hitting defenses that can handle the run and the pass, because they have solid linebackers. Each of those teams put on clinics in the 2015 playoffs. Defensively, it was like watching a different league. I will say this.....I'm warming up to the Goodson pick. Clemson had a great defense, and Goodson is maybe the physically strongest linebacker drafted. If he can stay on the field in passing downs, would be great. But as a middle of the field headbanger, I like him. Great now the jinx is in on Goodson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Get ready to be ran on all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMFP Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Great now the jinx is in on Goodson LOL....probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmenroc Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Wasn't fewell using Grant as safety/LB? When checking grants size. He was a tag smaller than a avg LB but faster. Yeah, it was Deon Grant I believe. And I imagine Collins to be of similar or larger size to Grant...but I really don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 We have more than enough LBs on the roster even after the cuts.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Well I look forward to the D setting the tone in training camp again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblue25 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 We have more than enough LBs on the roster even after the cuts.... Quantity doesn't mean quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Quantity doesn't mean quality No I meant in terms of quality... I think we have enough for it to be a respectable group... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblue25 Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 No I meant in terms of quality... I think we have enough for it to be a respectable group... Except at the WILL...maybe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now