Subzero717
Active member
Its going to be a long offseason.
theENGLISHseahawk":27j3pg1i said:The 4-3 under scheme is designed to create pressure from the LEO and three-technique. The whole point of the scheme is to create favourable match-ups for those two players and exploit one side. The five-technique isn't asked to do a lot of pass rushing.
The reason this scheme doesn't work in terms of a pass rush is because we have a 6-6, 325lbs monster playing the three-technique, and not a 295lbs athletic interior pass rusher.
theENGLISHseahawk":mjtcz1g3 said:The 4-3 under scheme is designed to create pressure from the LEO and three-technique. The whole point of the scheme is to create favourable match-ups for those two players and exploit one side. The five-technique isn't asked to do a lot of pass rushing.
The reason this scheme doesn't work in terms of a pass rush is because we have a 6-6, 325lbs monster playing the three-technique, and not a 295lbs athletic interior pass rusher.
McGruff":3iyuqbf5 said:theENGLISHseahawk":3iyuqbf5 said:The 4-3 under scheme is designed to create pressure from the LEO and three-technique. The whole point of the scheme is to create favourable match-ups for those two players and exploit one side. The five-technique isn't asked to do a lot of pass rushing.
The reason this scheme doesn't work in terms of a pass rush is because we have a 6-6, 325lbs monster playing the three-technique, and not a 295lbs athletic interior pass rusher.
Great points and people are being idiots to think Red is the problem.
McGruff":1r9596l7 said:theENGLISHseahawk":1r9596l7 said:The 4-3 under scheme is designed to create pressure from the LEO and three-technique. The whole point of the scheme is to create favourable match-ups for those two players and exploit one side. The five-technique isn't asked to do a lot of pass rushing.
The reason this scheme doesn't work in terms of a pass rush is because we have a 6-6, 325lbs monster playing the three-technique, and not a 295lbs athletic interior pass rusher.
Great points and people are being idiots to think Red is the problem.
scifly":jlbx1e59 said:His run stopping skills are mediocre if that. Now his production comes from special teams only, he's invisible otherwise. Kudos for getting his money tho, that's one crafty, fat burglar.
How objective...FlyingGreg":3lpl1xby said:Get off the Red suck fest and objectively evaluate.
FlyingGreg":1enzb7rf said:McGruff":1enzb7rf said:theENGLISHseahawk":1enzb7rf said:The 4-3 under scheme is designed to create pressure from the LEO and three-technique. The whole point of the scheme is to create favourable match-ups for those two players and exploit one side. The five-technique isn't asked to do a lot of pass rushing.
The reason this scheme doesn't work in terms of a pass rush is because we have a 6-6, 325lbs monster playing the three-technique, and not a 295lbs athletic interior pass rusher.
Great points and people are being idiots to think Red is the problem.
Great points to explain why we need to change it up, actually. And it's ridiculous to label someone as an "idiot" who questions the scheme. Some of us aren't sheep that march in step with everything this team does, especially when it's clear we need to adjust. The losses to Detroit, Miami and Atlanta are red lights blinking in every possible direction what the issue is.
So you think it's working the way it is?? Really? What other team just pisses away a pass rusher like we do?
Get off the Red suck fest and objectively evaluate.
HawKnPeppa":2l7zgjbp said:So do YOU think it was working the way it WAS??! Red played WORSE at DT. He's already been there, done that and bombed the exam. Why do you insist on putting him in a position he's terrible at... or is your memory actually that short? Last time I checked there were two stars on top of your anchor, so I'd assume that something is very functional between your ears. Knock it off already. This is completely bonkers.
themunn":ssn9njhb said:HawKnPeppa":ssn9njhb said:So do YOU think it was working the way it WAS??! Red played WORSE at DT. He's already been there, done that and bombed the exam. Why do you insist on putting him in a position he's terrible at... or is your memory actually that short? Last time I checked there were two stars on top of your anchor, so I'd assume that something is very functional between your ears. Knock it off already. This is completely bonkers.
I don't have a short memory, but I don't remember much of Red Bryant at defensive tackle because he started a whole 1 game (10 total games) for one of the worst teams in memory over 2 years before he moved to End.
I'd presume that he's a better player now than he was 3 years ago and might actually have improved as a DT in that time
HawKnPeppa":3u7725el said:So do YOU think it was working the way it WAS??! Red played WORSE at DT. He's already been there, done that and bombed the exam. Why do you insist on putting him in a position he's terrible at... or is your memory actually that short? Last time I checked there were two stars on top of your anchor, so I'd assume that something is very functional between your ears. Knock it off already. This is completely bonkers.
Basis4day":2oliczgl said:themunn":2oliczgl said:HawKnPeppa":2oliczgl said:So do YOU think it was working the way it WAS??! Red played WORSE at DT. He's already been there, done that and bombed the exam. Why do you insist on putting him in a position he's terrible at... or is your memory actually that short? Last time I checked there were two stars on top of your anchor, so I'd assume that something is very functional between your ears. Knock it off already. This is completely bonkers.
I don't have a short memory, but I don't remember much of Red Bryant at defensive tackle because he started a whole 1 game (10 total games) for one of the worst teams in memory over 2 years before he moved to End.
I'd presume that he's a better player now than he was 3 years ago and might actually have improved as a DT in that time
Red became the the Red we love after he moved to Defensive End. He got paid to be a DE. He's not going to be moved to DT. You can't have your cake and eat it in this situation.
Changing a players position when he's not effective at his current position (Red at DT, Mike Rob at QB, Sweezy on D) is one thing. Changing a person's position when they ARE effective is another. (ET to corner despite being a pro-bowl safety, Kam to LB despite being a pro-bowl safety, Mike Robinson to full-time backup qb despite being a pro-bowl fullback).
FlyingGreg":3pjv7u4y said:HawKnPeppa":3pjv7u4y said:So do YOU think it was working the way it WAS??! Red played WORSE at DT. He's already been there, done that and bombed the exam. Why do you insist on putting him in a position he's terrible at... or is your memory actually that short? Last time I checked there were two stars on top of your anchor, so I'd assume that something is very functional between your ears. Knock it off already. This is completely bonkers.
Not sure what my military rank has to do with a football forum discussion. I guess it's a matter of "when you don't have anything reasonable to offer to a discussion, default to the baseline and take a shot at the individual"? Stay in your lane, dude.
Ayways, back on point: So you think it's working having him play DE exclusively as a run-stopper? Like, seriously? I guess we'll see how he plays when he is healthy again. Red played "worse" at DT which was three seasons ago. The theory is he may be better moving back now with more game experience under his belt. But more importantly, the idea to move him back to DT is a concession that it's not working really well at DE and there's nowhere else to play him. He is expensive and has a long term deal on the books. Something has to give.
And it's not bonkers to want the defense to improve, especially when our biggest weakness is rushing the passer and we are starting off behind the 8-ball having a non-pass rushing DE take the majority of the snaps. Sometimes it helps to take off the homer glasses and honestly assess players we really like, which isn't easy.
FlyingGreg":3scpwt36 said:Basis4day":3scpwt36 said:themunn":3scpwt36 said:HawKnPeppa said:So do YOU think it was working the way it WAS??! Red played WORSE at DT. He's already been there, done that and bombed the exam. Why do you insist on putting him in a position he's terrible at... or is your memory actually that short? Last time I checked there were two stars on top of your anchor, so I'd assume that something is very functional between your ears. Knock it off already. This is completely bonkers.
I don't have a short memory, but I don't remember much of Red Bryant at defensive tackle because he started a whole 1 game (10 total games) for one of the worst teams in memory over 2 years before he moved to End.
I'd presume that he's a better player now than he was 3 years ago and might actually have improved as a DT in that time
Red became the the Red we love after he moved to Defensive End. He got paid to be a DE. He's not going to be moved to DT. You can't have your cake and eat it in this situation.
Changing a players position when he's not effective at his current position (Red at DT, Mike Rob at QB, Sweezy on D) is one thing. Changing a person's position when they ARE effective is another. (ET to corner despite being a pro-bowl safety, Kam to LB despite being a pro-bowl safety, Mike Robinson to full-time backup qb despite being a pro-bowl fullback).
That's the debate - you say Red is effective at DE? I'm not so sure about that.
Besides, this is a fan forum - the crazy ideas are welcome here. We aren't the defensive staff - and I doubt they move him.
Sarlacc83":3ga6dt9a said:FlyingGreg":3ga6dt9a said:HawKnPeppa":3ga6dt9a said:So do YOU think it was working the way it WAS??! Red played WORSE at DT. He's already been there, done that and bombed the exam. Why do you insist on putting him in a position he's terrible at... or is your memory actually that short? Last time I checked there were two stars on top of your anchor, so I'd assume that something is very functional between your ears. Knock it off already. This is completely bonkers.
Not sure what my military rank has to do with a football forum discussion. I guess it's a matter of "when you don't have anything reasonable to offer to a discussion, default to the baseline and take a shot at the individual"? Stay in your lane, dude.
Ayways, back on point: So you think it's working having him play DE exclusively as a run-stopper? Like, seriously? I guess we'll see how he plays when he is healthy again. Red played "worse" at DT which was three seasons ago. The theory is he may be better moving back now with more game experience under his belt. But more importantly, the idea to move him back to DT is a concession that it's not working really well at DE and there's nowhere else to play him. He is expensive and has a long term deal on the books. Something has to give.
And it's not bonkers to want the defense to improve, especially when our biggest weakness is rushing the passer and we are starting off behind the 8-ball having a non-pass rushing DE take the majority of the snaps. Sometimes it helps to take off the homer glasses and honestly assess players we really like, which isn't easy.
I agree with you that Bryant's contract is not favorable given his role and his, so far, decreased production in his role as DE.
However, moving him inside won't help us, either, because as ENGLISH posted, Seattle is trying to get pressure from the DT position and Red doesn't offer that. We either need to make it work by drafting the proper 1 and 3 techs and leave the 5 tech alone or we have to abandon the entire scheme which also means dumping the LEO - in essence leaving us in need of 2 defensive ends.