Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by FuzzyLumpkins, Feb 13, 2014.
I thought crawford was a dt? Did I miss something?
Guys, we're playing 'things never said on CZ' this morning. I got next: Jerry Jones is charming when he's had a little bit to drink. And Norv Turner has nice skin.
He got hurt so early last year, we didn't get a chance to see him settle in the 4-3, but most speculation has him playing outside for the most part, and possibly rotating inside in select packages.
Who's most? I haven't seen anything of him playing de.
A guy as talented as Crawford can pretty much line up anywhere. Thus the confusion.
The question is do you want to line him up further away from Ben Bass and fill in the gaps or do you want him right next to Bass and wish teams luck trying to block that?
He is a Dt coming from marinelli. But people in this forum know more then him and continue to think he will be a De because he was drafted as one to play as a 3-4 De.
I'm only citing random scuttlebutt, so I'm not taking a position, either way. Broaddus is the one I first heard talking about where he'd fit and that they'd try him at the 3 and the 5. I think posters here heard that and ran with it a bit. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them move him around in the lineup as they sort out what's going to be a rotation with a ton of moving parts this offseason.
All depends on the defense you use. In this defense where its more of a zone scheme, you need that passrush. Because CBs are naturally off the WR. When in Man that plays to these players strengths. And makes the DL that much more effective because of the physical play at the LOS.
So your statement is nonsense and you know it.
Last week was the first time Broaddus openly said he talked with marinelli at Vr and Marinelli told him he viewed Crawford as a DT in 2014.
I agree I was just wondering why in th op he was listed as a de. I've haven't seen anywhere that he was gonna play de. I have no doubt he could. I just haven't seen anyone say he was gaonna.
If you do not think that people have not brought up the three step drop thing before, you have not been paying very much attention.
Ok. I only recall last offseason and the debates about how the lines were likely to shake up. I have no way of knowing who Broaddus might have spoken with or if he was just expressing his own opinion at that point. He might have said so, but I don't recall, anyway. I only know that's probably where I, personally, got the idea that they'd move him around and try him in both spots.
I've obviously heard the phrase 'three step drop' as it's applied in discussions about coverage and pressure. I haven't heard it in the imaginary context it was used in in this thread, though. You have? I mean, other than from Risen when he's trying to be cute for all of us because he wants his belly rubbed?
I am fairly certain I have read on this very board that the three step drop can render any pass rush meaningless. If there were actually a search function, I am sure it would not be that hard to find.
Tom Coughlin nullified the pass rush we would generate by having Manning run tons of 3 step drops. He did this to us for years. Ware, Ratliff and Co. used to get good pressure quite often but you couldn't count on Davis, Newman, Jenkins, Bradie, et al to be able to cover curls, slants, ins and the like. Run quick flares into the flats and dump off has been another opponent favorite. That just used to drive me nuts because Ratliff would be destroying their center and prime Ware would be doing his thing but he would just throw quick passes getting our guys run over and left in the dust.
It has been a tonic against us for quite some time and a big reason why Demarcus Ware's prime years were squandered.
Don't even try to wrap your brain around the idea of how that completely negates a pass rush and makes coverage ability more critical.
Shorter field to defend. Less time to cover. Must draft better corners.
It was discussed just yesterday between Jterrell and Risen amongst others.
I believe Risen is taking his comments to a extreme as JT was saying you need talent on both levels of the D like Seattle because:
If you have good DB's and no passrush- the good DB's are rendered ineffective given the amount of time the QB and the WR has to get open and,
If you have a good passrush and lousy DB's- the offense can go into a 3 step drop and avoid the rush altogether as the crap DB's get carved up.
All makes sense to me, but some posters have to take one point and squeeze the blood out of that stone at all costs no matter how cogent the argument.
Well, if you two are fairly certain a straw man exists and that it was propped by at least one poster, then I think we can all safely conclude that it does, indeed exist and should therefore be widely applied to any argument that involves the importance of coverage players.
Good work, everybody. I think we're done here.
This is the truth of the matter.
Great DB's with no passrush = poor defense
Great passrush with no DB's = poor defense.
You need both. Your chances of defensive success is better if you have a great pass rush though. But you have to have some coverage skills back there. A group of Jeff Heaths at the back end will fail no matter how good your pass rush is.
Exactly- in a nutshell.