HC_Chief |
02-09-2021 01:47 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
(Post 15540974)
You're seeing something that isn't there because you value LB way more than the modern NFL does.
It isn't 1995 anymore.
If Spags wanted to run a base 4-3, he would. Regardless of personnel.
Don't kid yourself into thinking he's running what he believes to be an inferior base defense because the LB's suck. It just isn't true.
|
Nickel isn't "inferior" unless you face a strong running game. Then it might be. I just look at it this way: the formula for beating KC is to get pressure with front four alone (much easier said than done), deep shell coverage, run the ball and eat up clock, use play-action off the run game, screens to counter aggressive blitzing, and hope a couple of things bounce your way (e.g. piss poor officiating). Now, that strategy has come close numerous times this season, and worked exactly twice: Oakland and TB.
Our DL does a good job of disrupting the LOS. We have a legit playmaker in Jones. Our secondary does a good job in coverage, and a great job of capitalizing on mistakes due to three playmakers. Our LBs, no. Too many arm tackles, too many whiffs, too many missed assignments, too many bad reads, too slow, bad angles. Get someone at the second level who can make plays, and this defense is stacked. Stuff the run, bring in nickel when teams are forced to play catchup.
Doesn't have to be our first pick in the draft. We just need to look for a playmaker at LB. Someone disruptive. They don't have to be the "best" LB in the league. Hell, would you rate Mathieu, Sorenson, or Sneed as best in the league at their position? No way, but they are playmakers. When opportunities arise, they step up and make big plays. Sometimes they whiff. Sometimes they take bad angles. And sometimes they turn a game around by making a huge play. We need that in our LB corps.
edit: or maybe we need new coaches for our LBs?
|