Jump to content
SportsWrath

Are the Giants moving to a base 4-2-5?


BlueInCanada
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 :ermm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...