2019 Draft Prospects To Keep An Eye On

[Steve]

I don't think he's ever played RT. OT's have to survive on the edge with quick feet against blazing fast, quick edge rushers. Better idea is to identify a LT/RT that has tape/experience against quality edge rushers. Now... Lamp DOES have college tape against quality edge rushers... Something about short arms....

A lot of players switch sides when they move to the NFL. Not everyone can, but most can. It is just a bad idea to do it suddenly, because everything is reversed adn it takes a while to get used to doing it both ways.

Lamp hasn't played RT before doesn't mean he can't. since he is playing RG, from LT suggests he is well on the way to being able to. The footwork is closer between RT and RG than it is between RG and LG (or LT).

By the way, here is the latest thing on the bullshit about OT arm length.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play
http://www.thepowderblues.com/forum/forum/los-angeles-chargers-forum-nfl-forum-padres-forum/the-los-angeles-chargers-forum/737526-arm-length-tackle?p=737531#post737531

[Boltjolt]

I wasn't really comparing NE's D to ours. I was trying to respond to Steve's post where he questioned whether Dexter could chase down QB's and provide pressure up the middle. I was trying to show that pressure doesn't have to come from your DT's (ala NE). NE employs a "system" first and foremost. They find/draft players that fit that system. That's why they're able to succeed with players that other teams don't value. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Some don't believe Dexter fits our "system". Therefor, they don't see his value @28. Example: "If he can't provide pass rush from the 1-tech/3-tech, he can't help us..." IMO, this isn't true. Woody points out that "modern" 4-3 defenses often employ 3-down linemen in nickle/dime formations... and he's absolutely correct. Bringing in extra DB's or cover LB's requires subbing out DL and thumper LB's. But people also have to acknowledge that your 3 down lineman operate differently in those formations, too. They operate more closely to 3-4 techniques/assignments than 4-3 techniques/assignments.

BTW, per Gus, we operate our 4-3 with 3-4 elements. In many cases, the 3-4 and 4-3 are not that different... especially how we run it in 4-3 under/over schemes. IMO, Dexter would help us flip back and forth easily between 3-4 and 4-3 philosophies. Would make us much harder to scheme against. Our defense last year was easy pickings for the Patriots... especially when we had to commit to playing zone coverage. Why were we in zone coverage? Personnel. Had we been able to defend the run with better/fewer DL against NE... I think we would have seen different pass coverage. We just didn't have the horses along the DL. Having Perryman hurt didn't help. But does anyone count on Perryman being healthy all year long...? Better find a solution to that problem without having to draft MIKE in the first-half of the draft. We have bigger needs at FS/OT/DL... Why not address 2 needs with one pick?

We don't run 3-4 "elements of" very often so why worry about it it? Certainly not the way Pagano ran it. Especially in the first round.
And we didn't have to commit to playing zone,that's what Gus runs most of the time. We mostly play zone. He went to more man in the second half....finally.

[Steve]

Our D is a hybrid between the 34 and 43. People like to call it a 43 scheme, but if you call the LEO a rush LB instead of a rush DE, then our front 7 alignments look a lot like the Ravens 34 D that so many teams use.


The distinction between 34 and 43 is largely going away anyway. AS I will once again point out, the "base" D is not a regular defense and hasn't been for any NFL team for decades. Teams play their nickel and dime package the vast majority of the time. They will always unless you think you can find 3 LB who can run with the 3 WR and TE that most teams play in their offenses 70-75% of the time. Every team in the NFL plays a 425 nickel or more recently, have followed our lead and are just playing their dime D.

All of the situational rush lines NFL teams play are 4 man rush line. 34 TEams usually play with 2 OLB like 43 DE, and 2 inside rushers (usually DE) lined up like 43 DT. Some 43 teams sub out a DT and bring in another OLB or DE, but all of them are using a 4man, one gap set of alignments.


Regardless of how you want to line people up, the QB can always step away from edge rushers by stepping up into the pocket unless there is a DT pushing the pocket to the QB. If the rush comes from just the inside, then the QB can slide outside. It doesn't take speed, because RIvers is good at doing this. If you want to be successful, you need to push the inside and outside of the pocket at the same time. Then the QB can't go outside and can step up.

We have 2 great outside rushers in Bosa and Ingram, and some solid, but lesser rushers in Rochelle and Nwosu. But we need to not just rush off the edge and we need someone to push the inside pocket. To some degree, Ingram has always been that guy, with Bosa being an effective guy there too. But, if we want to slide them inside, we need more edge players to provide the outside rush, or the QB will just slide outside and get away.

As far as Dexter, he fits the scheme to a point. Seattle got a lot of mileage running the D with big widebodies at DL. Mebane was one DT, along with Branch (320 lbs), and Red Bryant (330 lb DE). You can play the scheme with big bodies. My point is that we are probably not going to do that. Seattle's offense back then was a very low powered affair. They ran the ball, played ball control and kept games close. The other teams in their division had run oriented/balanced offenses. Stopping the run was key to beating those teams.

We have a little bit different requirements. We have an offense that scores points. Teams that want to run the ball against us are likely to stop themselves. Either a defensive play, offensive mistake or penalty will kill most run first drives. Then we keep scoring and teams will fall behind. We need to protect a lead. Teams both choose to throw more and are forced to throw more vs our D because of our O.

People also forget small players can be effective run defenders too. They are not going to be super stout, and defeat the OL strength vs strength, but smaller quicker DL can still penetrate and make plays tackling the RB in the backfield. Not many run-first teams can sustain drives if they get behind on down/distance.

[NoMoreChillies]

Our D is a hybrid between the 34 and 43. People like to call it a 43 scheme, but if you call the LEO a rush LB instead of a rush DE, then our front 7 alignments look a lot like the Ravens 34 D that so many teams use.


The distinction between 34 and 43 is largely going away anyway. AS I will once again point out, the "base" D is not a regular defense and hasn't been for any NFL team for decades. Teams play their nickel and dime package the vast majority of the time. They will always unless you think you can find 3 LB who can run with the 3 WR and TE that most teams play in their offenses 70-75% of the time. Every team in the NFL plays a 425 nickel or more recently, have followed our lead and are just playing their dime D.

All of the situational rush lines NFL teams play are 4 man rush line. 34 TEams usually play with 2 OLB like 43 DE, and 2 inside rushers (usually DE) lined up like 43 DT. Some 43 teams sub out a DT and bring in another OLB or DE, but all of them are using a 4man, one gap set of alignments.


Regardless of how you want to line people up, the QB can always step away from edge rushers by stepping up into the pocket unless there is a DT pushing the pocket to the QB. If the rush comes from just the inside, then the QB can slide outside. It doesn't take speed, because RIvers is good at doing this. If you want to be successful, you need to push the inside and outside of the pocket at the same time. Then the QB can't go outside and can step up.

We have 2 great outside rushers in Bosa and Ingram, and some solid, but lesser rushers in Rochelle and Nwosu. But we need to not just rush off the edge and we need someone to push the inside pocket. To some degree, Ingram has always been that guy, with Bosa being an effective guy there too. But, if we want to slide them inside, we need more edge players to provide the outside rush, or the QB will just slide outside and get away.

As far as Dexter, he fits the scheme to a point. Seattle got a lot of mileage running the D with big widebodies at DL. Mebane was one DT, along with Branch (320 lbs), and Red Bryant (330 lb DE). You can play the scheme with big bodies. My point is that we are probably not going to do that. Seattle's offense back then was a very low powered affair. They ran the ball, played ball control and kept games close. The other teams in their division had run oriented/balanced offenses. Stopping the run was key to beating those teams.

We have a little bit different requirements. We have an offense that scores points. Teams that want to run the ball against us are likely to stop themselves. Either a defensive play, offensive mistake or penalty will kill most run first drives. Then we keep scoring and teams will fall behind. We need to protect a lead. Teams both choose to throw more and are forced to throw more vs our D because of our O.

People also forget small players can be effective run defenders too. They are not going to be super stout, and defeat the OL strength vs strength, but smaller quicker DL can still penetrate and make plays tackling the RB in the backfield. Not many run-first teams can sustain drives if they get behind on down/distance.

great writeup really helps me understand more thx mang

I must be "old school" as i perfer to run Gordon more and lessen Rivers INT and furious hand clapping with 2sec left on play clock. Would be thrilled with Kaleb McGary rnd 2. Bradbury film looks good too.

[like54ninjas]

great writeup really helps me understand more thx mang

I must be "old school" as i perfer to run Gordon more and lessen Rivers INT and furious hand clapping with 2sec left on play clock. Would be thrilled with Kaleb McGary rnd 2. Bradbury film looks good too.

Risner at #28, Cajuste ar #60, or Scharping at #91 would be a fantastic picks.

Donnell Greene (LOT) MINNESOTA is a beast in the run game. Simply mauls people. He has some technical and footwork issues in kickslide/hand use but a lot to work with 4/5.

[Boltjolt]

Risner at #28, Cajuste ar #60, or Scharping at #91 would be a fantastic picks.

Donnell Greene (LOT) MINNESOTA is a beast in the run game. Simply mauls people. He has some technical and footwork issues in kickslide/hand use but a lot to work with 4/5.

My only concern about Cajuste is he isnt a great run blocker but it's not a huge concern.
wouldn't stop me from drafting him.

[Boltnut]

A lot of players switch sides when they move to the NFL. Not everyone can, but most can. It is just a bad idea to do it suddenly, because everything is reversed adn it takes a while to get used to doing it both ways.

Lamp hasn't played RT before doesn't mean he can't. since he is playing RG, from LT suggests he is well on the way to being able to. The footwork is closer between RT and RG than it is between RG and LG (or LT).

By the way, here is the latest thing on the bullshit about OT arm length.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/does-arm-length-affect-ot-play
http://www.thepowderblues.com/forum/forum/los-angeles-chargers-forum-nfl-forum-padres-forum/the-los-angeles-chargers-forum/737526-arm-length-tackle?p=737531#post737531

Yeah, I agree in regards to arm length. I posted the same article on the CMB 2 years ago. I was pushing for Connor Williams... and others were arguing that his arms were too short to play OT. The same arguments were made against Lamp.

I agree that OT's that have good feet can transition from LT to RT. However, I was responding to the notion that Bradbury (college center) could be moved to RT. Not many OG's or centers are moved to OT from college IOL. Although, I believe Braden Smith did just that for Indy last year.

[NoMoreChillies]

move Lamp to RT and Bradbury at RG?

[Topcat]

move Lamp to RT and Bradbury at RG?

Actually, I suggested drafting Bradbury to compete at LEFT guard--give Feeney some competition, while also grooming Bradbury for C after Pouncey leaves us...

[Steve]

It doesn't matter who competes with whom really. Someone needs to be brought in to compete against Feeney, Schofield and Tevi is the overall point.

I think Feeney will win the job and continue to develop and be a fine OL. If we were still a moderately bad team with too many holes to fill, then it is worth giving him time to develop. Those days are past. Kennan Allen, Joey Bosa, Phillip Rivers .... (not going to list all the established starters, but you get the drift) are all pretty safe and have established themselves. Others, not so much.

The one thing I am against is the idea of targeting a position in a certain round. Let the draft come to us. There are still some FA OL running around that we can bring in, and it is no unheard of to have UDFA rookies who can compete. If someone is there, we shouldn't hesitate to take them, just we shouldn't reach.

The draft we need to adopt Napolean's plan for the draft. First we show up, .... then we see what happens.

[blueman]

Tevi showed more improvement over the course of the season just being thrown in there than Feeney IMHO. Both should have competition but I like Tevi moving forward a smidge more than Feeney.

[Steve]

Tevi showed more improvement over the course of the season just being thrown in there than Feeney IMHO. Both should have competition but I like Tevi moving forward a smidge more than Feeney.

I would agree with that, but I think a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that Tevi really didn't play much as a rookie. Both can become much better players than they are now, if they fix some technical problems.

For 13 games we had a pretty good OL. THe last 3 games (and NE), not so much.