Could also be pre-draft disinfo.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I'm going to start being mean to TexasPackerBacker if we resign Raji; Buckeye too! I swear to God, I'll blow a gasket if that happens.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

It makes no sense at all considering Dom has talked about how much he likes the big bodies along the d-line and has used the bigger guys so often even though our most successful guys have been the smaller faster ones for the most part. It seems like Dom has no clue what he wants at that position.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

I like it a lot better having D Linemen who actually can function on their own.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I think a lot of people are missing the context that the DL have been used differently. The big bodies have been more often been askd to control the OL, not let there be running gaps on the inside and pass rush less. While the smaller guys have been asked to pass rush more, try to control the OL less and running game less. So what they were being asked to do was some what different and so their over all goals aren't the same. Those big guys could of been very successful and most wouldn't noticed as they were being asked to do the dirty works which rarely gets notice.

Example, everyone seems to remember Clay Matthews fumble in the Super Bowl...but how did he get that shot at the RB like that? Pickett pushed the OL backwards and he took away the inside run forcing him to outside and they basically sandwiched the RB. But that was one of the more clear cases of it... it happens a lot more in less clear cases where those big guys are successful in what they were asked to do (the dirty work) and fans are complaining that they aren't successful.


But a lot of those big bodies are in FA... so this might be the right time to get away from them some and ask the DL to do more pass rushing and less of the dirty work, and LBers more of the dirty work and less of the rushing.

Originally Posted by: beast 

Until last year, Pickett consistently occupied two blockers and performed the messing-things-up role as well as anyone. Last year, alas, he showed his age. I'd like to think he was slowed by some injuries, but the reality likely is that he's on the downside and is now just a guy. But until 2013 he was a stud, IMO.

Raji, on the other hand....don't get me going. To me he had 2 thirds of seasons that were good. The last third of 2010 and the first third of 2013. The rest of his tenure he's been average or less.

Great personality, but just not as good as one expects from a first rounder. Or, for most of his tenure in GB, a fifth rounder.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

You seems to like it when all the non-coverage guys have the same role... get to the ball ASAP and don't worry about anything else. You would probably really like Cover 2 and Tampa 2 style then.


I agree with you that it would probably be nice having DL being allowed to be more aggressive... it's easier to read how well the players are doing. Then clogging/protecting and stuff and more exciting... though they'll have to get better against the run.

Originally Posted by: beast 

The problem with our big guys lately though is they don't get that penetration and cause any disruption. They engage the o-lineman and then stay in 1 place while there are still running gaps to either side of them. They don't disengage and disrupt they play all they do is simply take on the 1 blocker in front of them. I've always liked the phrase "disruption is production". There isn't a stat for simply screwing up the play but it's a great thing to do. I don't necessarily need to see more tackles/sacks from the d-line but I would certainly like to see less standing there hand fighting at or beyond the LOS.

I don't really believe that their job has just been to stand there at the LOS and play patty cake without trying to cause any other disruption. If that's the case then we may as well ditch the base scheme all together.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

Until last year, Pickett consistently occupied two blockers and performed the messing-things-up role as well as anyone. Last year, alas, he showed his age. I'd like to think he was slowed by some injuries, but the reality likely is that he's on the downside and is now just a guy. But until 2013 he was a stud, IMO.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

As they say in military intelligence, it ain't so much about intent; It's about capability. Having the big fatties doing that clogging/protecting stuff basically put all the pressure on the LBs. Matthews even when he wasn't hurt got double teamed because the damn fatties weren't capable of doing the protecting of his lanes to pass rush, and whoever played opposite of Matthews generally didn't even need to be double teamed. Similarly, on runs, the fat fools in the D-Line couldn't even eat up blockers to allow our ILBs to stop people for short or no gains. Unless you have Donterrio Poe or somebody like that, and LBs like the Niners, you are better off with a front seven that is ALL moderately capable of making plays.

I don't see what that has to do with Cover Two v Man Coverage, as the back 4 or 5 has less pressure on them either way if the front seven has decent capability.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker