01-10-2017, 08:44 PM
(01-10-2017, 08:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Agree, Foster is definitely the quicker diagnosing, rapidly reacting of the two. As a Buckeye follower, I have come to the conclusion that McMillan is more a master of technique, in that he wraps his tackles and is where he is supposed to be according to the particular defensive call. I see Foster as more naturally instinctive, given the freedom to read and react as he sees fit. The only drawback I see with a guy like Foster is that I feel like the training table/conditioning regiment of CFB has kept him trim for the position, his body style strikes me as the type to swell up when left to his own devices. Whereas with McMillan, I feel like the diet and conditioning team has built him up to handle the role in major college football, and he may not have the ass that it takes to be a 4-3 LB in the NFL.
I agree with most of what you wrote. I like McMillan's size. I like Foster's range. You combine the two it would be a no brainer. IMO, Foster would fit the Bengals as a WLB with Burfict at MLB. I think McMillan would be better at MLB with Burfict at WLB. In short yardage situations, I would prefer McMillan. In most other situations, I would prefer Foster.
Pick your poison. I'm less worried about Foster's size because I think he can develop size. I'm more worried about McMillan's range and short area quickness because there is only so much you can do to develop those traits.
