How big of a need is DT 3T?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Probably the best way to utilize Tank, would play him all over the line.

Day 3 would be an excellent time to draft some of those lunch-pail 5 Tech's. Think finding that NT is the biggest need to address for this scheme as they don't have anyone on the current roster for that position.

But you really can't do that in this scheme because the DLs in this scheme have very strict gap responsibilities and are used to control the LOS and keep the LBs clean. They really aren't used to freelance because you end up with a run defense that looks like ours has for the last few seasons. You end up getting gashed in the run game.

This is why I really wonder if Lawrence has a position in this scheme? I mean, he may, but I wonder. I don't think he's the guy who will be content to just eat blocks.

 

[visionary]

If Quinn was honest, he is going to build his defense around his talent, not his scheme. Didn't Michael Bennett play LE for the Seahawks when Quinn was their DC?

Bennet is a very different player than D Law

I don’t think D Law can play the LE podium this defense as designed . Quinn will try to fit him in but it will create big issues for us

 

[Cowboyny]

But you really can't do that in this scheme because the DLs in this scheme have very strict gap responsibilities and are used to control the LOS and keep the LBs clean. They really aren't used to freelance because you end up with a run defense that looks like ours has for the last few seasons. You end up getting gashed in the run game.

This is why I really wonder if Lawrence has a position in this scheme? I mean, he may, but I wonder. I don't think he's the guy who will be content to just eat blocks.

If he isn’t a good fit for either the 4t or the Leo, they just may have him play at the 3, which has 1 gap responsibilities. He is too good of a player not to find a role for

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If he isn’t a good fit for either the 4t or the Leo, they just may have him play at the 3, which has 1 gap responsibilities. He is too good of a player not to find a role for

I don't agree. He is a good player but he isn't as good as his contract IMO. If it were me and he didn't really have a role, I'd rather see us trade him and provide cap relief while still getting something back for him. To me, that would be the wise move.

 

[kskboys]

I don't agree. He is a good player but he isn't as good as his contract IMO. If it were me and he didn't really have a role, I'd rather see us trade him and provide cap relief while still getting something back for him. To me, that would be the wise move.

His salary in all likelihood makes him untradeable.

 

[Rayman70]

Ted Slaton from Florida is about 6 5 and a mammoth 353 pounds and is a dominating beast from both the 1 or 3 tech. Go watch him on YT. He would be a round 2 or 3 steal. He could start next to Gallimore day 1.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

His salary in all likelihood makes him untradeable.

I don't think so ksk. For example, and this is just an example, lets say a team like the Cowboys decided to move on from Dak. The team could trade Dak, save themselves like 5 mil a season, over a couple of years, and give themselves time to groom a young guy. A team like Detroit could also do something like this and not kill their cap.

Would you trade a guy like Lawrence, who may not fit the new scheme, for a Rodgers? That would give you two years of a Rodgers QB behind our OL for something like 33 AAV. If you extend him, maybe a few more? That would be cheaper then the deal you have to pay out for Dak by 5 to 7 mil a year, would free up like 25 mil, just this season on Lawrence, not to mention future cap and it would attract FAs. That would create a situation where you could sign some defensive FAs, improve your Offense significantly and really help your cap at a very critical time. That would make you an instant Super Bowl favorite. Would you do that if you had the opportunity?

 

[Rayman70]

and lets not forget w e still have Tristan Hill who was quietly getting better each week before he was hurt. Hill, Gallimore, Slaton and bring back McCoy...and that would be a very nice group. I do think Woods will be gone..in fact, both woods'..

 

[kskboys]

I don't think so ksk. For example, and this is just an example, lets say a team like the Cowboys decided to move on from Dak. The team could trade Dak, save themselves like 5 mil a season, over a couple of years, and give themselves time to groom a young guy. A team like Detroit could also do something like this and not kill their cap.

Would you trade a guy like Lawrence, who may not fit the new scheme, for a Rodgers? That would give you two years of a Rodgers QB behind our OL for something like 33 AAV. If you extend him, maybe a few more? That would be cheaper then the deal you have to pay out for Dak by 5 to 7 mil a year, would free up like 25 mil, just this season on Lawrence, not to mention future cap and it would attract FAs. That would create a situation where you could sign some defensive FAs, improve your Offense significantly and really help your cap at a very critical time. That would make you an instant Super Bowl favorite. Would you do that if you had the opportunity?

Possibly, but DLaw is only a decent player, and it would be tough to get someone to take this on.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Possibly, but DLaw is only a decent player, and it would be tough to get someone to take this on.

I believe that he is a better player then just "decent", if in the right scheme. I mean, I agree but if you are trading a higher contract for a lower contract in Lawrence, then it works right?

 

[kskboys]

I believe that he is a better player then just "decent", if in the right scheme. I mean, I agree but if you are trading a higher contract for a lower contract in Lawrence, then it works right?

Decent, good, better than average, trying to find a defining term that pleases everyone is a waste of time. I said decent for the sake of argument, not to define the player. DLaw is good/above average/decent/nice player, etcc......!!!!

You're asking teams to take a whatever player being paid as a great player when he's not a great player. And why trade for a higher contract? Not sure how that makes sense.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Decent, good, better than average, trying to find a defining term that pleases everyone is a waste of time. I said decent for the sake of argument, not to define the player. DLaw is good/above average/decent/nice player, etcc......!!!!

You're asking teams to take a whatever player being paid as a great player when he's not a great player. And why trade for a higher contract? Not sure how that makes sense.

It works because Rodgers is out the door. So, what are you going to get for Rodgers and his contract? I mean, you said it yourself.

I don't consider clarification a waste of time. I actually think it's a good use of time because what you get when you leave room for ambiguity is a bunch of BS argument.

I think it's well worth the time to define the discussion but, to each his own.

 

[Cowboyny]

I don't agree. He is a good player but he isn't as good as his contract IMO. If it were me and he didn't really have a role, I'd rather see us trade him and provide cap relief while still getting something back for him. To me, that would be the wise move.

He may not be worth the contract, but he is still a good player. Highly unlikely they trade him, as he is the leader of our defense. I don't care about player fitting the scheme so much, that sounds more like Marinelli. It's up to the DC to figure out how to used him to be most successful.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

He may not be worth the contract, but he is still a good player. Highly unlikely they trade him, as he is the leader of our defense. I don't care about player fitting the scheme so much, that sounds more like Marinelli. It's up to the DC to figure out how to used him to be most successful.

I don't know. I can see him being traded. If we were smart, and he didn't fit the scheme, then we would try to find a decent trade. I mean, what is the point of bringing in a Quinn and then forcing him to keep a player that doesn't fit his scheme? I mean, that approach represents all that is wrong with this organization. If you didn't want to have to do this kind of thing, don't bring in Quinn and his Seattle scheme when you know it doesn't fit Lawrence. That's football 101 stuff.

 

[Cowboyny]

I don't know. I can see him being traded. If we were smart, and he didn't fit the scheme, then we would try to find a decent trade. I mean, what is the point of bringing in a Quinn and then forcing him to keep a player that doesn't fit his scheme? I mean, that approach represents all that is wrong with this organization. If you didn't want to have to do this kind of thing, don't bring in Quinn and his Seattle scheme when you know it doesn't fit Lawrence. That's football 101 stuff.

I think the whole idea going back to the 4-3 was that they had the better personnel for it, where Lawrence was a poor fit in Nolan's system. You would think they discussed how they would use their best Defensive Player prior to his hiring, but you never know.

 

[Cowboyny]

I don't agree. He is a good player but he isn't as good as his contract IMO. If it were me and he didn't really have a role, I'd rather see us trade him and provide cap relief while still getting something back for him. To me, that would be the wise move.

Fully understand what you are saying, but I believe Tank is apart of their future plan. Quinn will be tasked to devise a way to best use his strengths.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think the whole idea going back to the 4-3 was that they had the better personnel for it, where Lawrence was a poor fit in Nolan's system. You would think they discussed how they would use their best Defensive Player prior to his hiring, but you never know.

I agree, you don't really ever know but maybe they did discuss it. Maybe they decided that the value of freeing up cap by moving Lawrence would be needed to get a deal done with Dak, as you say, anything is possible.

 

[cnuball21]

I don't know. I can see him being traded. If we were smart, and he didn't fit the scheme, then we would try to find a decent trade. I mean, what is the point of bringing in a Quinn and then forcing him to keep a player that doesn't fit his scheme? I mean, that approach represents all that is wrong with this organization. If you didn't want to have to do this kind of thing, don't bring in Quinn and his Seattle scheme when you know it doesn't fit Lawrence. That's football 101 stuff.

Zero chance they brought in Quinn and Lawrence doesn't fit the scheme...he's literally out best player on defense by a large margin.

 

[stilltheguru]

Bennet is a very different player than D Law

I don’t think D Law can play the LE podium this defense as designed . Quinn will try to fit him in but it will create big issues for us

Dlaw is paid 20 m a year. He better play the pass rush side that Clemons/Beasley played

 

[Gaede]

What an interesting discussion. Hadn't contemplated that our best defender may not even fit the defense.

I'd say it's unlikely Jerry plans to trade him, even if he doesn't fit the defense. That said, I could absolutely see Lawrence demanding a trade, especially if he's going to become a block eater at this point in his career. I can see him being more vocal about a bad role for him, especially after last year's fiasco with Nolan