Should Church to WIL be an option?

[Cowboy_Ace]

I apologize, I was looking for decent discussion on what I deemed a semi worthy topic... I was wrong, wasn't the first time & won't be the last time.... Go cowboys!!

 

[CF74]

No worries Ace, these topics can be fun to some while others get their panties in a wad. It's a football discussion board. Some of the scheme gurus might come in later and explain in more detail why it can or can't work. I remember wanting to try Ware at MLB his rookie or second season, can't recall which and Juke patiently explained to me why it would be a waste of a good pass rusher. And now we finally have Lee and McClain. Always wanted a star in the middle, hope they both get back sooner than later...

 

[jobberone]

I apologize, I was looking for decent discussion on what I deemed a semi worthy topic... I was wrong, wasn't the first time & won't be the last time.... Go cowboys!!

I don't think it is a crazy idea and it has been bounced around. The problem with it right now is he has no experience there, it's the season not TC or preseason, and we have no one at safety to play to begin with. So you'd be taking your most experienced safety and moving him to a position he doesn't frequent, and having to replace him with ??whom.

If you had a surplus of safeties and wanted to get two plus him on the field AND you had a dearth of Wills yada then I could see it being more of an option. Right now it isn't IMO.

Now if you want to discuss putting him at LB in a SP then you've got a fan. It would depend on the package and the availability of supporting cast. I could see him playing a 3-1-7 or something similar including 4-2-5 yada. I'm not even certain who plays in those types of SPs right now. You'd still have to have some good coverage guys to use on the backend to afford moving him to a nickel LB and I don't know if we have that right now.

Name 5-7 DBs to put on the field without using a healthy Church.....

I've got Carr, Claiborne, OScan, Wilcox, and Moore then I've not seen any All22 to allow me to comment further. Just haven't done it this year...yet. That'll get you a 4-2-5. Add Carter and Church as the Nickel LBs or do you take Ro off the field even then? Lots of questions from me instead of answers.

Long term he could play some Will but then you're looking at what to do with one of Lee, Ro, and Carter down the road. My guess is Ro=Mike, Lee=Will and Carter=Sam with Lee and Carter the Nickel LBers much of the time until you start getting into the weirder SPs.

Hope that helps.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I don't think it is a crazy idea and it has been bounced around. The problem with it right now is he has no experience there, it's the season not TC or preseason, and we have no one at safety to play to begin with. So you'd be taking your most experienced safety and moving him to a position he doesn't frequent, and having to replace him with ??whom.

If you had a surplus of safeties and wanted to get two plus him on the field AND you had a dearth of Wills yada then I could see it being more of an option. Right now it isn't IMO.

Now if you want to discuss putting him at LB in a SP then you've got a fan. It would depend on the package and the availability of supporting cast. I could see him playing a 3-1-7 or something similar including 4-2-5 yada. I'm not even certain who plays in those types of SPs right now. You'd still have to have some good coverage guys to use on the backend to afford moving him to a nickel LB and I don't know if we have that right now.

Name 5-7 DBs to put on the field without using a healthy Church.....

I've got Carr, Claiborne, OScan, Wilcox, and Moore then I've not seen any All22 to allow me to comment further. Just haven't done it this year...yet. That'll get you a 4-2-5. Add Carter and Church as the Nickel LBs or do you take Ro off the field even then? Lots of questions from me instead of answers.

Long term he could play some Will but then you're looking at what to do with one of Lee, Ro, and Carter down the road. My guess is Ro=Mike, Lee=Will and Carter=Sam with Lee and Carter the Nickel LBers much of the time until you start getting into the weirder SPs.

Hope that helps.

The challenge Jobber is off the top of my head I don't know of a single safety to linebacker transition for any player that's already played a couple years in the NFL. Of course you have Urlacher but he transitioned immediately out of college.

 

[jobberone]

Generally MW this kind of thing doesn't work because you can't shed blockers at 220 well enough to play the run no matter Will or Sam. If you have a strong WDE against the run then along with a very strong 220-230 Will then maybe. You certainly could think about the move if you've got a guy who can run and cover then get thru traffic well enough to play the run. That's a tough row to hoe.

OTOH, you have a difficult situation anyway with trying to get LBers who can do the same. Generally they can play the run better than cover. Here you'd have a guy who can cover better than play the run. Anytime you put a safety in the box he basically assumes that position of cover LB playing the run.

 

[JBell]

Spencer and Lawrence please get healthy.

Church with a pass rush = one of the better safeties in the league.

 

[BAT]

I've read some posters liked the idea of church for wlb in this scheme, & with all the injuries to our lbs, she we try it out? Put Moore at safety? I know I'm getting crazy now lol.....go cowboys!

Church has played LB in Big Nickel. I am one of those who believe he would be a good fit at WILL, at least on passing downs. I am for getting the best 11 guys on the field. If that means putting a playmaker like Moore at Safety and moving Wilcox closer to LOS then even better. Landry and Jimmy were not sticklers about height and weight like Parcells was, they stressed results period. Landry placed more emphasis on smarts while Jimmy valued speed and chutzpah but both understood that measurements does not take the place of playmaking.

 

[BAT]

When he comes up to the LOS, you are forgetting that LBers are already in the box, and he can usually navigate through traffic.

He wouldn't have that protection as a LBer.

Also, there are completely different positions with different responsibilities.

We have enough problems at safety right now. Removing the best we have only makes it worse.

Will is ALWAYS covered by the 3 tech DT so you are incorrect. Will is the only LB in 3-4 under that is ALWAYS protected, that is why the best Wills have always been undersized. Derrick Brooks and Thomas Davis were barely 230 at the beginning of their careers. Cowboys have traditionally had undersized LBs: Lee Roy Jordan, Chuck Howley, Hollywood Henderson, Dixon Edwards, Darrin Smith, Dexter Coakley were all considered small when they played. Heck Korey Toomer is barely 230.

And you can bet your sweet ace that Jimmy would have played Roy Williams at OLB. Jimmy and Landry were visionaries, they wanted to create mismatches at every position. At 220, Church is big enough to play WILL. The question is is he tough enough or smart enough (learn different angles and reads).

 

[CF74]

This thread just got interesting again.

 

[jobberone]

Will is ALWAYS covered by the 3 tech DT so you are incorrect. Will is the only LB in 3-4 under that is ALWAYS protected, that is why the best Wills have always been undersized. Derrick Brooks and Thomas Davis were barely 230 at the beginning of their careers. Cowboys have traditionally had undersized LBs: Lee Roy Jordan, Chuck Howley, Hollywood Henderson, Dixon Edwards, Darrin Smith, Dexter Coakley were all considered small when they played. Heck Korey Toomer is barely 230.

And you can bet your sweet ace that Jimmy would have played Roy Williams at OLB. Jimmy and Landry were visionaries, they wanted to create mismatches at every position. At 220, Church is big enough to play WILL. The question is is he tough enough or smart enough (learn different angles and reads).

I agree Church can play the coverage part of a Will. If you put an undersized guy over there in this defense he's going to get picked on in the run game. I do not agree the Will is always covered in this D. One of the problems in a penetrating D is you put a lot of pressure on the LBers to play their lanes. You have a 3 who is going to shoot more often than shoot and hold and a lot more often than two gap. Your 1 is also going to play a hybrid 1/3 more often than not and also shooting. And your WDE is generally going to be up the field. So your LBers in this defense is going to have to stop the run because a significant number of run plays is going to have you 1 and/or 3 moved out of their lanes. This is more on the Mike than the other two LBers but they are also going to have to back up the line (linebackers right) at the Will and Sam.

Here's where Spencer helps his Sam. Selvie, despite last years' PFF stats, doesn't play the run well and that puts pressure on the Will. If you have a good or better WDE all around then the Will gets a bit of a break.

Traditionally the Will in this D has done well being undersized as some have pointed out. They are just good instinctual players who are moving at the snap and create more problems in the run game than you'd expect for a player their size. This is the biggest key to any LBer more so than strength although put it together and you get a great player. I think Ro is this kind of player. Lee is even more instinctive. Durant not bad not really great at it but better than average.

Anyway I'm ranting so let's hear the rest of the gang.

 

[jazzcat22]

Reminds me of the Roy Williams to LB threads. Ah, memories.

Give him a biscuit...

 

[hairic]

Church vs OG in 2011 SEA:



I should probably grab that play from the coaches film.

 

[LatinMind]

I've read some posters liked the idea of church for wlb in this scheme, & with all the injuries to our lbs, she we try it out? Put Moore at safety? I know I'm getting crazy now lol.....go cowboys!

Stop

 

[Cowboy_Ace]

Stop

Make me? Lololol

 

[tm1119]

Spencer and Lawrence please get healthy.

Church with a pass rush = one of the better safeties in the league.

Really?

 

[xwalker]

I've read some posters liked the idea of church for wlb in this scheme, & with all the injuries to our lbs, she we try it out? Put Moore at safety? I know I'm getting crazy now lol.....go cowboys!

It could be done situationally.

Consider that the WLB has barely played this year. They have been in the Nickel on most snaps in both games. Carter and McClain were the Nickel LBs against the Titans with Hitchens getting less than 10 snaps in a 3 LB set.

The 3rd LB was replaced by the CB Moore in the Nickel against 3 WR sets.

Against the Niners on a few plays they used Wilcox in place of the 3rd CB with Heath replacing Wilcox at Safety. That is sometimes referred to as a big Nickel.

They still have to play run defense when they have a 3rd CB replacing the 3rd LB. If the offense goes to a 2nd TE in place of the 3rd WR that would normally be when you play the base defense with 3 LBs; however, if you are expecting pass in that situation then you could use a Safety in place of a LB. Some teams even use the 3rd CB in that situation depending on the specific TEs involved.

Summary: There are situations where using a Safety in place of a LB is a reasonable option.

 

[The Natural]

Make me?

lmao

 

[Cowboy_Ace]

It could be done situationally.

Consider that the WLB has barely played this year. They have been in the Nickel on most snaps in both games. Carter and McClain were the Nickel LBs against the Titans with Hitchens getting less than 10 snaps in a 3 LB set.

The 3rd LB was replaced by the CB Moore in the Nickel against 3 WR sets.

Against the Niners on a few plays they used Wilcox in place of the 3rd CB with Heath replacing Wilcox at Safety. That is sometimes referred to as a big Nickel.

They still have to play run defense when they have a 3rd CB replacing the 3rd LB. If the offense goes to a 2nd TE in place of the 3rd WR that would normally be when you play the base defense with 3 LBs; however, if you are expecting pass in that situation then you could use a Safety in place of a LB. Some teams even use the 3rd CB in that situation depending on the specific TEs involved.

Summary: There are situations where using a Safety in place of a LB is a reasonable option.

I honestly meant it for situational bc of all the injuries.

 

[xwalker]

I honestly meant it for situational bc of all the injuries.

Yes, it's reasonable in theory so don't let the critics beat you down too much.

The biggest for the Cowboys would be replacing Church at Safety. It would be better for a team that somehow ended up with 3 really good Safeties on the roster. IIRC last year the Niners had 2 veteran starters at Safety AND drafted a Safety in the 1st round. That would be a good situation to try it more often.

 

[jobberone]

It could be done situationally.

Consider that the WLB has barely played this year. They have been in the Nickel on most snaps in both games. Carter and McClain were the Nickel LBs against the Titans with Hitchens getting less than 10 snaps in a 3 LB set.

The 3rd LB was replaced by the CB Moore in the Nickel against 3 WR sets.

Against the Niners on a few plays they used Wilcox in place of the 3rd CB with Heath replacing Wilcox at Safety. That is sometimes referred to as a big Nickel.

They still have to play run defense when they have a 3rd CB replacing the 3rd LB. If the offense goes to a 2nd TE in place of the 3rd WR that would normally be when you play the base defense with 3 LBs; however, if you are expecting pass in that situation then you could use a Safety in place of a LB. Some teams even use the 3rd CB in that situation depending on the specific TEs involved.

Summary: There are situations where using a Safety in place of a LB is a reasonable option.

That's been standard fare for awhile now. I thought he was referring to the base 3 LB set. I think Church could play the Will some esp in SPs. But I think he could play some in base sets. I think if you left him out there all the time then they'd game him for sure. They probably would anyway but it wouldn't be as often if it wasn't standard fare.