#42 we trade away (plus Dat) for Howard

[ABQCOWBOY]

Gibberish is never a "Hos-ism." It must have just the right amount of buckshot and be home spun humor. Hence..."A wise old cowboy once told me..."

:wink2:

I like the "lean too" one better.

 

[Juke99]

I like the "lean too" one better.

Thank you...uh, I'm getting better at Hos-isms than Hos.

Here, this is better.... "A wise old cowboy once told me, the big guns might fire in the morning but it'll be a long day before the sun goes down over my Uncle Horatio's lean-to"

 

[Scotman]

The very fact that you are rational enough to say that tells me your mind is open. pardon me, I'm going to break it down piece by piece because I think this is a great post.[/color]

I think he is well suited for both schemes. His size and strength will be hard to deal with. You want that in a player regardless of scheme.



One negative is his age. How much longer can he be effective? In other words, if we are moving in this direction then we will be looking for his replacement sooner than we think. He and Glover could just as easily be a solid DT pair in a 4-3. He is the biggest key to the 3-4 this year. I think he is much more suited to be the NT than Glover. Great signing.



Not just a 4-3 guy, but one of the best in the NFL at it. Great character too. His talent alone is proof that we will run multiple defensive looks. They will get him on the field.



I agree with evey word. If the 3-4 is working well here he might be trade bait. Just my opinion, but it will be kind of sad to lose a guy with his character. Even if I have been on his back ever since he got here. I admit it, I wanted that WR.



I'm going to disagree with you on this one. I think he is more suited to the 4-3 than the 3-4, but he is potentially an asset in either scheme. I don't think DT is a good fit at all. The reason I say more suited to the 4-3 is that he is actually very quick. I'm not talking abotu 40 speed, I'm talking about reflexes. I can see him comfortable in either scheme.



Interesting player. I think he moves Kenyon Coleman inside and gives us some valuable backup. You said the key word with all of these guys...smarts. The reason almost all of our players could play either scheme is that they are smart. That is so underrated.



I think his only hope to make this squad is as a 3-4 OLB and I don't see an open spot for him.



I think his only real shot is to move to DT. He can play either scheme but I agree, he is more suited to 3-4 if he stays DE.



I don't see a spot left for him quite frankly.



I think he will be good in either scheme, but better in the 3-4. I think he needs to stay at OLB and not DE. The reason is speed. Pure unadulterated speed that is hard to deal with. We are going to love this guy.



I agree, but I think he is smart enough to make the adjustment. This guy is a key to how much we play of each scheme this year every bit as much as Glover is. Parcells loves him. Not hard to understand, the guy is smart as hell and leaves nothing on the field. His veteran presence and leadership are never more needed than this year.



Agree. Just get this kid on the field already. I truly believe he will be a difference maker at this level. Loved this pick.



I was so excited when we got him in the 4th. Been a little disappointed so far. make or break year. Tailor made for the new scheme. If he can't cut it this year, he likely never will. He was practically gifted Coakley's spot last year and couldn't take it from him.



I have my doubts about him because the only real playing time he has got so far ws as the result of an injury to Singleton. Supposed to be so superior yet needed a gift to play. It is between him or James inside. If neither can step up the 3-4 may be shelved for one more year.



I agree with this 100%.



I agree with this as well. Despite the negative rap on him often spun here this is the first "big" LB that Parcells went after.



On the money again.



I call him the "Real QB Killa" because he was the roster addition when a certain QB was waived. Just a joke. I'm sure someone will be offended by it. He's a fringe player in either scheme IMO. I think he is on the bubble.



I agree with you 100% again, but I do think he is a down the road look, meaning he probably is PS this year. I can see him filling O'Neil's spot on ST if he plays well enough in TC. More suited to the 3-4 than O'Neil IMO.







We disagree her eand there on numbers, bt verall, I'd say on the money.



This is the key to understanding all of this. Too often it is completely ignored. Veterans have value. Leaders have value. If we try and rush a bunch of young kids out there we will basically hve a college defense with an NFL lean. Not nearly good enough.



What you are really doing is saving my day. This was worth the time to think about.



I agree. Depending upon the trade value I can see a scenario where 2 of them might be moved. I don't think Dat is going anywhere.



For now I can't include James. I want to, but he's proven nothing so far.



I think best 11 on the field does mean 4-3 as of right now. By the end of the season if Shanle or James step up I don't know that we can say that. There are going to be growing pains. I'm willing to live through them. No problem.



This isn't just a transition to the 3-4 either. We're getting younger, bigger, and faster with the exception of Aaron Glenn and jason Ferguson. I still think this is a 2 year transition with the 2006 off season being just as crucial in finding building blocks.



See, that's exactly what I've been trying to explain for a long time. It isn't about the scheme we run it is about how we stop the schemes they run. I like that we're building an adaptable defense. I don't are what scheme is used as long as we are doing what wins games.



Preach it Asthma and don't psare the expletives if you feel moved.



All questions we will be asking as the games gear up.



One reminder, it is also easy to see the problems these rookies will face in trying to stop NFL players for the first time in their lives. Remember, the other guy is shooting back and sometimes you'll miss.



I just want to come up with a new nickname for them and forget the stupid schemes and numbers. It wasn't a 4-3 damnit, it was Doomsday.



Great post. Had fun with it. Thank you.

Not sure how to quote both of you properly. The combination of those two posts are tremendous. You're both very convincing.

Excellent work by both of you!

 

[Hostile]

Not sure how to quote both of you properly. The combination of those two posts are tremendous. You're both very convincing.

Excellent work by both of you!

Asthma deserves the credit. He's a top asset to this forum with his thought provoking posts. They inspire.

 

[Banned_n_austin]

OK, I'm lost. What is the purpose of that post? Hopefully, it's not just to pad the post count.

The purpose was that I was just ribbing you about being so off-base - that's all. For your sake, I hope it doesn't become a pattern. If it does, you'll never get your wish in seeing Henson.

FYI: People who get enamored with post counts are petty. Who cares about how many times you've posted? I got suspended and lost about 1,500 posts before I started this handle and then came back and never a peep to the mods about a count. Worrying about stuff like that is a word that rhymes with "grey".

 

[Banned_n_austin]

Let me give you credit for actually looking at it fromt eh standpoint of seeing that the players could succeed as opposed to the scheme is wrong. Thank you.

Well, the way I look at it, we are probably going to start the game lined up in a 4-3. I don't get infatuated with the scheme thing, because we are going to be running both. Although, I don't deny that we have 3-4 personnel in place and we're going to use it accordingly, I think we are better suited if we run A LOT of the 4-3.

We've talked about this bofore. But I think as the game progresses and as the need for a pass rush increases, then we will mix in the 3-4 later in the game.

I actually think BOTH schemes will compliment each other very well ...

The writing is on the wall. You just have to read it.

Now, someone start a thread about what our offense will look like this year. That's what I am getting all jacked up about! I can't wait to see the 2 TE set. I absolutely LOVE that look and I think it will suit JJ very well in his running style as well as protect Bledsoe. We also don't have to worry about Morgan in a 2 TE set. However, I expect to see a multitude of looks from the offense, but as we talked about the other night in chat, seeing a lot of the 2TE set seems imminent given our personnel.

I am just as excited about our offense as I am about our defense.

 

[AsthmaField]

Not sure how to quote both of you properly. The combination of those two posts are tremendous. You're both very convincing.

Excellent work by both of you!

As usual, Hos hits things on the head and I'm a little swing and hit, swing and miss. I actually really enjoy seeing counter-points to my points. There are some posters on here that can really make you re-think some of you points of view.

I consider it foolish to be stubborn about one's views and not give serious thought to other's way of thinking. A lot can be learned that way and understanding can be had at the expense of a few seconds reading.

So many times, I've seen disagreements where both sides have very good points and both sides have foolish points... yet neither side is open to reason.

That's my Jack Handy deep thought for today