View Full Version : LB Situation

06-22-2001, 03:46 PM
One thing that concerns me right now, other than our thin WR corp, youthful and highly volatile DB's and questionable (at best) place kicking, would be the LB's.

I am holding onto the fact that Shottzie F'd most of our D with his schemes. However, I thought Patton started to show his age last year. Donnie looked marginal with most of his play. Lew Bush was a non-event, and most of our backups did squat. The only shining star from 2000-2001 was the emergence of Maz.

I'm wondering if they won't try and move Monty Beisel to a LB and see if he can add some depth to that corp. I'm still a little hot that we didn't address LB with the 4th or 5th rd picks.

Am I missing something here, or does this group look a little shallow right now?

06-22-2001, 03:52 PM
I used to be concerned until we signed Cadrez. I think there will be a battle for the 2 remaining spots between Maz, Cadrez, Patton, Bush, & possibly even Stills. O'Neal is said to be a future starter as well but I really haven't seen much from him yet.

One Arrowhead Dave
06-22-2001, 05:07 PM
I believe Coach V pointed out during mini camp that second year LB Andre O'Neal caught his eye (or something to that degree) .
O'Neal played good ball at Marshall and contributed last season on ST as a rookie. I'm pulling for Andre.

06-22-2001, 06:38 PM
I'm not too worried about our LB's, at least not as much as our DT's. Although why we passed on Carlos Polk for Layne is a complete mystery to me.

At starter I see Edwards, Maz (I think he'll beat Patton), and Bush. I wouldn't be surprised to see Atkins push Bush out with Stills as a situational rusher by midseason. O'Neil might push into the mix as well, but I'd be surprised. All in all our LB's aren't spectacular but young and promising.

Personally I'm hoping we don't even waste a roster spot on Caderez, although I know we will. His signing is just another case of KC being the retirement home for other teams used up vets. Give us your tired, your poor, your used up, washed out vets.......

06-23-2001, 02:45 AM
No worries whatsoever! We have good starters and exceptional back-ups capable of starting.....focus on CB position.

06-23-2001, 03:40 PM
Maybe, maybe not. At this level there are a lot of players that are essentially the same talent wise. The difference is coaching and motivation. Thats what we lacked last year, not necessarily the talent. Having said that, there are a lot of cuts to come..... you can bet they are scanning the rosters, film and waiver wire for help at all positions (that is also what we lacked last year-vision)

06-23-2001, 04:26 PM
I like our LB corps pretty well. I think we have good starters. They were horrible last year in a horrible defense. If you look at how Donnie Edwards fared last season, I think it's fair to say it was a poor year by his standards. I expect him to bounce back this year and maybe get recognised by a PB invitation. Patton and Maz will have a great battle at MLB. Patton is one of my favs, but he is getting older. If Maz is ready to take over, great. If not, he'll split time this year, and lead our revamped STs and start next year. I think Bush will prove that last season was an aberration. Apart from the fact that we grossly overpaid for him, I don't think he's that bad. He was all at sea in that defense last season and had off the field concerns too. Apparently he's rededicated himself this offseason and is out to prove something. I'm willing to give him that chance. Our back-ups will have a good mix of youth and experience. There are guys like Cadrez and the loser between Patton and Maz, and then young 'uns like Stills, O'Neal and Atkins. IMO the LB position is in better shape than either DT or CB.

06-23-2001, 06:16 PM
I caught an NFL Europe game today, and Stills had such a great game that they were talking about him STARTING for the Red and Gold this year. They claimed to be quoting DV. :confused:

Pitt Gorilla
06-25-2001, 05:01 PM
Patton will start over Maz.

06-26-2001, 11:00 AM
I just watched that game last night as it was re-telivised. What they actually said was that Stills had just talked to Vermeil and told Vermeil that he would start this year. Those were Still's words, not Vermeils. Anyhow, I like his spunk!

And by the way, Stills absolutely dominated that game. I loved the sack of Jackson when he first tried to run away from Stills and then paused to throw---WHAM!! That was a great hit and out shot the ball. It reminded me of Derrick Thomas.

06-26-2001, 11:09 AM
OOPS ... thanks for the correction Bowtieguy!

06-26-2001, 11:18 AM
I don't think Edwards really had that bad a year... there were several games where it seemed like he had to make every tackle... between Maz and Patton, I'm sure MLB will be fine. If Bush can regain his San Diego form, this actually should be a pretty good LB corps.

I think Cadrez was brought in more for his experience than anything else.

06-26-2001, 08:04 PM
I do some business with STILLS and he came in to visit with me today. He said DV called him a few times when he was in Europe and he did tell DV he was going to start. He's pumped with excitement and It sounded like DV liked his enthusiasm and told him with the right work ethic he could achieve his goals.

He's in great shape but down to 230 from the 236 he played at last year and looking to add it back pretty quick [said most of the food sucked]. I hope he gets a shot but I'm not sure were he fits now. He was never able to bulk up to the weight they wanted him at last year as a DE project.

He tied for the league lead in sacks and lead his team in tackles in Europe and IMO deserves a serious look at his natural position. I hope our new staff gives him a true shot to prove himself.

06-26-2001, 08:28 PM
I would love to see Stills win the job...I thought he was a huge steal when we got him out of W.Virginia but obviously he has proved me wrong to this point...Sure hope he can do some of things he did for W.Virginia for us...

06-26-2001, 08:37 PM
IMO, I think our LB position will be a strenght again this year if we truly go to an attack style D with our DB's in man coverage. I feel the poor showing last year was mostly due to the scheme [if you could call it that].

We put way to much pressure on the LB's last year. We spent most of the season in soft zone forcing the LB's out of run support less PATTON. We had our front four blitzing constantly leaving us vulnerable in the 5 to 7 yard from scrimmage range. Teams simply started exploiting that region with screens, outs and draws. OAKLAND destroyed us with it.

I'd rather see our DB's getting burned for the occasional big play then see teams walk down the field on 4 to 8 yd. plays and 5+ minute drives wearing down our D.

06-27-2001, 08:18 AM
Amen brother Philly,

It's frustrating to see the enemy score on a 70 yard bomb.

It's HUMILIATING to see him run 15 plays for 75 yards, particularly rushing, and score...