Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Last night proved (again) that CB is our biggest need


HeatCheck

Recommended Posts

People keep talking about how DT is a bigger need than CB, but I just don't see it. Upgrading our CB position will do more for this defense plain and simple. That is not to say we aren't weak at DT, we really are.

People were defending the CB position saying that Gamble wasn't playing the first 2 preseason games so we can't judge it fully. First, Gamble can only cover his side of the field so there's nothing he can do when someone else is burned, whether he is on the field or not. Second, Gamble was burned on multiple occasions proving that even he isn't on his A game. Now I realize this is his first game back so I will cut him a little slack but be really needs to turn it around, fast.

Yes the Bengals ran all over us but not all of that is attributed to the DTs. Especially when the majority of their yards came on runs to the outside. That to me is DEs not able to disengage blocks. Our DEs are pass rushers and not really known for their run defense. While the LBs can clean up the run game, even they were a step slow, taking wrong angles, not recognizing the run, or whatever they had to do.

Our DTs really are playing poor but our corners need more help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how the fug is a CB going to stop the run?

...the one thing that's dismantled the defense the past 2 games?

Yeah but DTs weren't the fault on the majority of the runs. There's nothing they can do on outside runs. But there is something to be said about our poor secondary.

Yes we have plenty of holes the defensive side, I am just saying upgrading the CB position will do more good for this team. Our run defense was bad last night but the blame goes around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but DTs weren't the fault on the majority of the runs. There's nothing they can do on outside runs. But there is something to be said about our poor secondary.

Yes we have plenty of holes the defensive side, I am just saying upgrading the CB position will do more good for this team. Our run defense was bad last night but the blame goes around.

the linebackers were playing the outside runs pretty well...

...it's the runs between the tackles that were setting up the play action, moving the chains/sustaining drives, and burning up the clock.

all this CB being the number one priority talk needs to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but DTs weren't the fault on the majority of the runs. There's nothing they can do on outside runs. But there is something to be said about our poor secondary.

Yes we have plenty of holes the defensive side, I am just saying upgrading the CB position will do more good for this team. Our run defense was bad last night but the blame goes around.

Yeah, but they are supposed to collaspe the pocket to avert the QB from stepping up as much as Dalton did. The only time the pocket collapsed was during all out blitzes and they beat that mostly with swing passes. My point is with a 4 man rush, Dalton could literally have dopped the football got down on all fours stood and dropped it again, picking it back up and still had time to get a pass off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the linebackers were playing the outside runs pretty well...

...it's the runs between the tackles that were moving the chains/sustaining drives, and burning up the clock.

all this CB being the number one priority talk needs to stop.

I can guarantee you there were more yards to the outside than to the inside. DTs can only so do much. Like you said they at least have the LBs (our strongest unit) behind them. Our safeties are not as strong as our LBs and they have clean up just as bad a mess.

DTs are not going to help in the pass game as much as you think. I remeber one play last night were we blitzed but because the QB (not sure which one) recognized and got it out quick the pass was completed. It was so quick I was surprised that the WR had as much room as he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand we need a pass rush to help the secondary but that goes for the DEs too. There truly aren't that many pass rushing DTs in the league to begin with. What you guys want and are more likely to find is a DT that takes up space and can be effective in the run game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand we need a pass rush to help the secondary but that goes for the DEs too. There truly aren't that many pass rushing DTs in the league to begin with. What you guys want and are more likely to find is a DT that takes up space and can be effective in the run game.

Okay then, double whammy. So why is CB a bigger need than our DTs that can't pass rush OR run stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...