Projected team strength and weaknesses

Witherspoon's 14 PD's and 4 interceptions last season don't seem like numbers that suck in terms of a linebacker in pass coverage. Witherspoon played both the pass and run exceptionally well last season, imho.

 

>> For what it's worth, you don't need to be strong at LT to run the ball well. Just look at Atlanta.

or T Steussie

>> so some skepticism is in order.

i prefer hope but certainly a concern

>> Honestly I'd rather just start him from day one instead of messing around with Foster always bouncing things to the outside.

I didn't think Foster always bounces things outside and remember him making some tough runs inside. The worry to me is more his holding on to the ball, especially when he goes up inside. From watching the clip on Shelton he doesn't look to be a guy that looks to just hammer it up inside for 3 yds and a cloud of dust. He looked like he had a great bounce to get outside to either side of the center and looked to go there often ... and to me looked more effective there than when we was running up the middle where he seemed to run high and an easy target to bring down ... though there were a couple of runs on the clip near the goaline where he got his pads down to about knee level and really shot through the hole (could be a great redzone weapon).

>> And here is actually where we might miss Moose the most, since his too frequently cited run blocking actually was pretty good.

obvious but neglected point. course his umpteen TDs mite be missed some too.

>> Jake will have to get it through his head that our receivers aren't 6'2" anymore and not airmail his passes.

supposedly that was where moose wanted the passes. but yes jake did have a problem in some games floating the ball over the receiver. i think but can't say for sure that he did pretty much cure that problem on the backend of last season.

>> Proehl is an ideal #3 man

I love Proehl in many respects but wonder why he is the ideal #3. I'd think that Carter with his speed if he can hold up would help to open up the underneath stuff for Smith and Colbert as well as the running game.

>> I wouldn't count on Freddie Jones adding much, though.

Not questioning your analysis of Freddie as I'm not up on him but why do you think we went out and got him? Is it in hopes of certain sets only? My hope is that they can get him to be a good blocker and then provide better receiving. Maybe he is just a prayer? Are they dissatisfied with the younger guys or wanting to push them?

>> Our pass defense should be ridiculous. Assuming Rucker transforms some of those quarterback pressures into sacks and Jenkins stays healthy, we should kill quarterbacks if our coverage is aggressive at all.

I'm not as confident as you. Ruck, Buck and Jenks worry me. If they return to form then yes I would say we should be very good in pass defense ... though I continue to doubt Trog's ability. But I don't honestly feel that they will return to the Del Rio and SB form. So I worry. Since I haven't seen our new FS candidates we brought in FA and until I do I will be concerned about our pass defense even if the DL plays well ... but at least am hopeful for improvement over last year which with our other additions and players coming back from injury has me feeling very good about our overall defense.

>> since both Witherspoon and Morgan pretty much suck in that respect

I didn't think Witherspoon sucked. I know that Morgan isn't the greatest but wonder how many MLBs are whole lot better than he for us to say that he sucks.

>> As far as the safeties are concerned, Minter is more worrisome to me in pass coverage

Not disagreeing but here I'm hoping that he will be able to play more his game with the additions and that he will again look like a leader on the defense.

>> The run defense still looks like an issue. Hopefully we'll get enough production from our tackles to help, but Morgan is not a filler. He makes a ton of tackles downfield, but the only times I can ever recall him blowing up plays was the Indianapolis game two years ago.

I'd like to call BS as I thought two years ago he was the main man of the D. But last year I thought he played like crap the entire year. Hopefully, whatever the cause for his play to slide so badly last year he fixes this year.

>> That's one reason I'd like to see Davis on the field, but I'm not sure if the gain there is worth playing Witherspoon out of position at SLB. With the corners we have now, and since Minter isn't much in coverage anyway, it might be nice to play him up more. That or sub Davis for him and play Draft or Short at SLB.

Davis is a confusing. I can't recall Fox ever coming out and saying that so and so was going to be put into a position and then not doing what he said. Could be that it has happened. Of course trying to speculate on anything this FO will do based on their history seems to be futile. Supposedly he is a helluva player and I think WP gave us a good report already on him so I'm expecting he will be on the field a lot from the get-go.

I don't know if this has been discussed but why would Davis not be a candidate for SLB? I thought Short sucked nearly as bad as Favors. Not familiar with Draft but I thought he played MLB for ATL thus I thought him insurance for Morgan as they obviously weren't thrilled with Vinnie. Signing him and drafting the rook is confusing to me ... should I take this as writing on the wall for Morgan? Or was he insurance for Short, which I realize is the common perception? In any case a very interesting situation to watch and debate.

>> that we habitually run too much with our #1 back of that game

it will be interesting to me that if Shelton shows well how much we will use him. my thoughts are that in the past 3 years that there was so much of a dropoff between the first guy and the second guy (or the second guy was coming off injury) that we were pretty much forced to run the first guy to death. I'm going into this season thinking that either Davis is done or they will shelf him for much of the season hoping to get a big plus in the post season. So I'm assuming Foster will get a lot of carries but they will also give Shelton quite a few carries to help keep Foster fresh ... that is if Shelton doesn't beat out Foster which I think possible especially if Foster continues to put the ball on the ground.

on paper, I think we look great despite a few dim spots. i'm excited about our chances this year moreso than i have been about this team maybe ever.

 

Not my question to answer, but I'd imagine it's because he can freelance v/s the nickel and v/s the coverage, where the starters aren't asked to do that. A lot of times, being the slot guy isn't about being a mismatch on your opponent...personally, Proehl isn't the perfect flavor for me, but if you're looking for the technique-heavy guy, that's what it's about.

"in that respect" should give you a hint as to what he was talking about (and why I agreed). And yeah, they're both kinda weak in that regard.

There's no specific reason, IMO. I think people like to pigeonhole fast, short/small players to the weakside, but that's really not what it's about in this league. I think specifically you can look at a guy like Davis as a player who's always succeeded on the strong side, who's always basically played that area, and is an ideal matchup on the TE (though height is a disadvantage, we wouldn't be likely to go get a 6'5 LB anyway) from either position. Past that, you look at it that either as the SLB or as a moved up SS (either as a blitz alignment, or as part of being under-coverage in a 3 deep) he should be great at covering the TE in man and should be able to run with a wide range of backs. .

Really was hoping for more from him, though the point in which he was playing? No one looked good. Certainly not WW. WW really stepped up, but by that point Fields was the SLB most of the time again, so it's hard to call it a great excuse...but I wouldn't write him off. He certainly didn't suck at all with NY.

>>

Problem is, there wasn't that concern with Foster in 2003, especially when he'd carried the ball well in lieu of an injured Davis mid-year. The thing is, whether we had a great backup or not, we were often tempted to use our starting guy a ton. I'm fine with the 60%+ running ratio if we can do two things - not be so damned deliberate/easy to read, and don't wear out the guy you'll need in January, by late October.

Would be great to see Shelton get a strong share of the carries, but I don't know if we will. Hopefully, but not terribly likely unless Foster gets banged up and Davis isn't around.

 

>> "in that respect"

and my question was directed to that respect. i know he is not great in PD but are other MLBs in the NFL such that in comparison we can say that Morgan sucks in PD? I don't know, so it's an honest question. Without it being said here otherwise, I would have ignorantly perhaps believed that most MLBs suck in PD and that Morgan was average in comparison to other MLBs in respect to PD.

>> but I wouldn't write him off.

You know me better. I've been known to conclude on a player after one play and then stubbornly stand my ground. I will admit to that I have concluded wrong on at least a couple of players that came on to be very good players. Hoov in particular comes to mind. Some mite even say I was mistaken on Moose.

>> Problem is, there wasn't that concern with Foster in 2003, especially when he'd carried the ball well in lieu of an injured Davis mid-year. The thing is, whether we had a great backup or not, we were often tempted to use our starting guy a ton.

You have a strong point in your first sentence above. Just to be stubborn I will speculate that though he ran well they were still being very careful with him. Running well for (?) a couple of games is a lot different than the wear and tear of several ... but perhaps he could have been used more and that I suppose is your point. Possibly they were concerned of his drops? He ran well against Indy? If so, is that saying much?

I think we are in agreement that we both hope Fox proves you wrong and we see Foster and Shelton (Davis?) share the carries ... unless Foster keeps dropping the ball.

 

Sure he caught some key passes but dropping better than 10% of the passes thrown his way is cause for concern.

 

When you watch the actual games you can see just how bad Witherspoon and especially Morgan are in coverage. Most of Will's PDs and Ints came from tips and zone, not from covering backs or tight ends. Seriously, this issue has been discussed and pretty much everyone agrees on it, so it's not like this is just my opinion.


HeadCase:
Could just be a matter of perspective, I guess. Statistically, Foster bounced outside significantly more than Davis has in a Panther uniform (looking at wide left and wide right versus all other runs for both players), but it isn't an overwhelming discrepancy. The thing that stands out more in the statistics is how bad Foster is in short yardage and goal line situations, which I guess is where I get some of my perception that he bounces things. He's simply not good at running straight ahead when we need a few key yards.

As for #3 WR, they aren't going to pull coverage much. It depends on the defensive assignments, but you're generally not going to get the other team to go after your slot guy and leave one of the others open. Instead what you generally want from a #3 is the ability to get open or to find a spot in the zone, and to make critical catches. Proehl is old, but it amazes me how little people remember the key receptions he has made for us not only in the end zone, but to get first downs. 44 of Proehl's 61 receptions with Carolina have either been for first downs or touchdowns.

Regarding Freddie, he was close to a vet minimum. There's no risk in bringing him in and giving him a shot. If we don't feel he has anything left, we can cut him in training camp and lose only the 50k bonus or whatever it was that we paid him.

As for Del Rio, it's already been proven that the idea that we were better under him is a total myth. Statistically we're almost identical in terms of yards allowed, points allowed, sacks, etc. People liked Del Rio more because he was fiery, not because we were performing better back then. Our rankings have dropped in the intervening period, but only because other defenses have gotten better, not because we've gotten worse.

And on Morgan, yes he does suck in pass coverage. If he isn't one of the worst middle linebackers in the league at covering a back or tight end, I invite anyone to give me five names who are even more pathetic. And you can call BS however much you want on Morgan not being a filler, but that's also a thing pretty much everyone has come to acknowledge. It's absolutely undeniable on film, and stands out in his lack of tackles behind the line too. He's just not a downhill player, which is ok in our system, but leaves us vulnerable in run D.

As for Davis, he would not be a candidate at SLB for the same reason he will not be a candidate for FS - he doesn't have the skills for it. He's too much of a liability in coverage to play FS, and doesn't have the stand-up strength to play SLB. SLB is often required to jam the tight end and to take on blockers, neither of which Davis is good at. Despite being a ferocious tackler, his upper body strength is sub-par, which shows up on film and at his few bench reps at the combine (Kevin Burnett is a slightly larger OLB, but had nearly 100 more pounds on his max bench and plenty more reps). Davis is a Derrick Brooks WLB-type, although he could also be played as a Michael Boulware at SS. I'd rather see him at WLB. But don't feel bad about not understanding the distinction. I had to educate Fowler and Olson in an Email about the differences between WLB and SLB, along with a few national writers as well (far more disturbing since I expect a lack of knowledge from the Observer).

 

If are linebackers weren't bad in coverage then why were we getting burned consistantly by TE and the short passing game? Just maybe Witherspoon had those numbers based on the shear number of passes thrown to the people he was supposed to cover.

 

No, I think the numbers are real in the sense that Witherspoon is a smart player and he reacts well out of a zone alignment. Morgan seems hopeless in either case, but Witherspoon can play an area, he just has trouble staying with a man.

 

Honestly, I've never really seen Morgan do anything great in coverage. Witherspoon got better toward the end of last year, but Morgan was getting picked on in the playoffs of 2003. He's gotten better against the TE, luckily.


>> Just to be stubborn I will speculate that though he ran well they were still being very careful with him.

Still makes it a conscious choice. You can say that it's being careful, but yet when he was the #1 he'd get his 20+ carries, and be involved in the passing game. That's not being careful if there are realistic concerns - the end result is it's still conscious choice of using Davis too much.

Agreed. And it shouldn't matter whether Foster fumbles a few times - he needs subbed out, and he needs to be in games if he's not the feature. We're just habitual about running a back into the ground, and it's cost us.

 

Goings/Hoover being locks for the team . . . Does Cramer make it on the final rooster? I think from the end of last year we all know he can block, I forget who he laid out . . but it was nice . . Is there room for him at TE or long snapper if the FB position is full