Why Does Everyone Want A LB Early?! WASTED PICK!

[Au165]

(03-22-2018, 09:50 PM)Jakeypoo Wrote: Eh the majority of teams run Nickle in those situations anyways no matter who they have at LB. I still think we need to fast LBERS but no matter what we will be playing more Nickle and Dime then base. 

Seattle didn't when they were at their best. Jacksonville also ran a decent amount of base formation even against 3 wide sets. Seattle was interesting because they ran a lot of single high man and would drop Chancellor into the box and man up across the field. The best defenses can leave their base defense on the field in more situations, that is what makes them so hard to play against. I'm not saying they don't have sub packages, they just don't get caught as easily not having the right personnel. 

[*ochocincos*]

Everyone talking about how they want a fast, athletic LB but...

Jordan Evans recorded a 4.5 40 time at his pro day, which would have been 2nd-fastest time for LBs in 2016 Combine (Yes, I know that typically Pro Day 40 times are about 0.1 faster than Combine). He also was very good in coverage in college. He is the definition of an athletic LB.

And I know it was back in 2010, but Vinny Rey had a 4.54 time and was also touted for his athleticism and speed.

I'm favor of getting another LB and especially one that's athletic and fast but people saying the Bengals have "no" athletic, fast LBs are wrong. And just being fast and athletic doesn't mean you'll be a great LB, especially against the run.

The biggest problem with Rey, Evans, and Vigil are they are being put at the wrong LB spot. All are more ideal WILL LBs. Their worst spot is at SAM. They can be decent MIKEs but struggle some in defending the run because they can't get off blocks very well.

[Au165]

(03-23-2018, 10:22 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Everyone talking about how they want a fast, athletic LB but...

Jordan Evans recorded a 4.5 40 time at his pro day, which would have been 2nd-fastest time for LBs in 2016 Combine (Yes, I know that typically Pro Day 40 times are about 0.1 faster than Combine). He also was very good in coverage in college. He is the definition of an athletic LB.

I'm favor of getting another LB and especially one that's athletic and fast but people saying the Bengals have "no" athletic, fast LBs are wrong. And just being fast and athletic doesn't mean you'll be a great LB, especially against the run.

Flowers was also an athletic LB here once upon a time but didn't quite work out. You can be athletic and not be good, you can be good and not be super athletic. I think we just need a good linebacker...

[*ochocincos*]

(03-23-2018, 10:25 AM)Au165 Wrote: Flowers was also an athletic LB here once upon a time but didn't quite work out. You can be athletic and not be good, you can be good and not be super athletic. I think we just need a good linebacker...

Very true, but some people seem to think as long as you are a "good" LB you can be put at any LB spot in a 4-3, which is wrong (from my observations). A guy like Ryan Shazier is successful because he can be a free-flowing LB and best utilize his speed and athleticism, which is more what a 4-3 WILL does. I have my doubts a guy like Shazier would be successful in a 4-3 at MIKE or SAM.

[Au165]

(03-23-2018, 10:33 AM)ochocincos Wrote: Very true, but some people seem to think as long as you are a "good" LB you can be put at any LB spot in a 4-3, which is wrong (from my observations). A guy like Ryan Shazier is successful because he can be a free-flowing LB and best utilize his speed and athleticism, which is more what a 4-3 WILL does. I have my doubts a guy like Shazier would be successful in a 4-3 at MIKE or SAM.

It's kind of an over simplification of a 4-3. All 4-3 aren't created the same a 4-3 even front where the linebackers sit between each gap nice and squarely is what most people think of when they think 4-3. This does tend to be a little more interchangeable depending on what kind of coverage shells you like to run. If Shazier was in a 4-3 even he would be fine in any position, but when you start getting into over or under fronts things get a littler murky. I think Shazier can play Mike or Will in almost any scheme, I'd be most concerned about Sam because of the run fit responsibilities and his size.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-23-2018, 10:40 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's kind of an over simplification of a 4-3. All 4-3 aren't created the same a 4-3 even front where the linebackers sit between each gap nice and squarely is what most people think of when they think 4-3. This does tend to be a little more interchangeable depending on what kind of coverage shells you like to run. If Shazier was in a 4-3 even he would be fine in any position, but when you start getting into over or under fronts things get a littler murky. I think Shazier can play Mike or Will in almost any scheme, I'd be most concerned about Sam because of the run fit responsibilities and his size.

You're right, I was oversimplifying, but you definitely got my point. Shazier's best fit would be WILL. He'd do well there. He could be solid at MIKE. He'd likely struggle at SAM.
Not every athletic, fast LB fits well into MIKE or especially SAM.

[Au165]

(03-23-2018, 10:45 AM)ochocincos Wrote: You're right, I was oversimplifying, but you definitely got my point. Shazier's best fit would be WILL. He'd do well there. He could be solid at MIKE. He'd likely struggle at SAM.
Not every athletic, fast LB fits well into MIKE or especially SAM.

It's kind of about how a coordinator schemes around the guy. If they use a more closed front and let their linebackers roam versus an open front requiring more gap responsibility. I think Austin want's bigger run stopping linebackers is what I heard which means we are probably looking at more of an open pass rushing front, which I personally like.

[sandwedge]

(03-23-2018, 10:48 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's kind of about how a coordinator schemes around the guy. If they use a more closed front and let their linebackers roam versus an open front requiring more gap responsibility. I think Austin want's bigger run stopping linebackers is what I heard which means we are probably looking at more of an open pass rushing front, which I personally like.

So do you see any LBs in this draft that could play SAM? 

[Au165]

(03-23-2018, 11:52 AM)sandwedge Wrote: So do you see any LBs in this draft that could play SAM? 

Edmunds I think could be a 3 down SAM that could offer personnel versatility, but he isn't really in our range. Uchenna Nwosu from USC is an interesting prospect to me that could fill the roll. I honestly think Lawson on base sets can get the job done though and will develop into what we are looking for.

[Mike M (the other one)]

What about Dorace Armstrong Jr Kansas?
I too am in favor of developing Lawson. Hopefully this past off season he's been going harder at learning his position. He's looked good in limited play time. Also hoping that Jordan Evans can develop much faster, but he might still need another year in the system.

[3wt]

So I was just watching some tape (yesterday) on DaRon Payne.  And he looked good.  But the player that constantly got my attention was Evans.

I am beginning to think he won't even be there (Dallas would be a natural destination).  But if he was there I'd jump all over the guy.   He could play SAM or MIKE.   But I'd love the guy in the middle.   He looks like  a 3 down linebacker to me.

[*ochocincos*]

(03-23-2018, 12:58 PM)3wt Wrote: So I was just watching some tape (yesterday) on DaRon Payne.  And he looked good.  But the player that constantly got my attention was Evans.

I am beginning to think he won't even be there (Dallas would be a natural destination).  But if he was there I'd jump all over the guy.   He could play SAM or MIKE.   But I'd love the guy in the middle.   He looks like  a 3 down linebacker to me.

What concerns me about Evans is he never had an interception in college. Sure, he has speed and athleticism, but he does/might lack true coverage skills.

[Hammerstripes]

(03-23-2018, 08:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: Seattle didn't when they were at their best. Jacksonville also ran a decent amount of base formation even against 3 wide sets. Seattle was interesting because they ran a lot of single high man and would drop Chancellor into the box and man up across the field. The best defenses can leave their base defense on the field in more situations, that is what makes them so hard to play against. I'm not saying they don't have sub packages, they just don't get caught as easily not having the right personnel. 

Sure, there may be some rare instances, but do you really want the following:

1.  A LB covering the other team's best tight end?  How well did that work for us when we tried to do it?
2.  A safety covering a slot guy?

You're just asking for trouble trying to use a "base" defense when the other team isn't truly in a base offense.

[BURROWorBUST]

Doing my mock, it was very hard passing on Vander Esch, and not because he's from BSU. He's just good, and would make us better on D. But I tried being realistic about our priorities. #1 is the Oline. Mixon is too great of a talent to waste behind an inferior line. But if Edmunds is there at 21, I'd seriously reconsider.

[Beaker]

I go BPA in the 1st round no matter what. Needs should be a secondary consideration in the opening round, those can become higher priority in the later rounds. Look at when we took William Jackson III....our biggest need was WR, and we were stocked at CB. But we took him and he is gonna be a very good CB. That's how you build a winning team.

[Luvnit2]

(03-21-2018, 10:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Everyone keeps saying that backer is a need for us, which shocks me and I'm just so confused!

The NFL is transitioning (If it's not already there) to playing a nickel defense as a team's base defense, which means we only need two backers.

We have Burfict, even if he's suspended for four games (which could be reduced), and Preston Brown, who's pretty damn good himself, which means we have our backers who will be on the field for the majority of our snaps, so we don't need another backer early!

I realize that Brown's only on a one-year contract, but we can hopefully resign him next year or just draft a backer early.

We could even draft a guy mid-to-late and hope that we develop him, but why waste an early pick on a backer in this draft when we have other needs?!

What am I missing here?!

You said it yourself, we have 1 LB who is good to start the year as Burfict gone for 4 games. That is assuming Brown does not get hurt. But, my reasoning is simple, Burfict is an intangible player we can't count on due to injuries and suspensions. We have Brown secured for only one year. So looking at depth and starting LB group it would be great to have another possible great LB with Burfict and Brown in 2018.

[Luvnit2]

(03-24-2018, 11:19 AM)Beaker Wrote: I go BPA in the 1st round no matter what. Needs should be a secondary consideration in the opening round, those can become higher priority in the later rounds. Look at when we took William Jackson III....our biggest need was WR, and we were stocked at CB. But we took him and he is gonna be a very good CB. That's how you build a winning team.

I agree with BPA, but if you can find BPA with a position of great need like LB in round 1, I hope they take it.

[Luvnit2]

(03-23-2018, 08:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: Seattle didn't when they were at their best. Jacksonville also ran a decent amount of base formation even against 3 wide sets. Seattle was interesting because they ran a lot of single high man and would drop Chancellor into the box and man up across the field. The best defenses can leave their base defense on the field in more situations, that is what makes them so hard to play against. I'm not saying they don't have sub packages, they just don't get caught as easily not having the right personnel. 

The more your base can stay on the field, the better your defense. Brady and others love situational defenses, they won't even give them time to sub in without being offside.

Yes, a lot of teams add a 3rd and sometimes 4th wide receiver, but if they do, we get time to switch up personnel if we like to match it. I see very rare situations that we have less then 2 LBers on the field with any formation.