This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Quincy Black will see his fair share of time in Tampa's pass defense, likely as a hand down rusher off the edge. One article said they may again flex between 3-4 and 4-3 fronts a bit; but i'll leave more detail about that to the someone else.
Don't know for sure, but I think Grant has a good chance. I don't know what to think about the front seven shuffle in Oakland. I have a hard time thinking Groves will be any more successful than he was as a 4-3 DE or 3-4 WOLB. I think the Raiders would be more likely to play a safety in the box or bring Thomas Howard back from the doghouse than use Groves in the nickel.
What kind of numbers would you expect from Groves as a 2-down OLB? Was Scott projected as a 3-down LB? How about Wimbley? Even as a 2-down OLB, do you think Groves could be solid where he's DL-eligible (CBSSports)? What's the probability that he sticks at this new position?Jene Bramel said:
I think Scott, if he had stayed at WLB, was gonna be a 3 down guy, but with his hand on the ground on passing downs. Now, he'll be in a rotation at DE with Houston and Shaugnessy, and his value has taken a pretty big hit.Wimbley will actually be a 3 down LB, more or less, starting at SLB, and rushing on passing downs. I'm not too excited about his prospects to help fantasy owners. Might have a few games with nice sack numbers, but I don't see many 6 tackle games on the horizon. SLB for the Raiders is pretty barren fantasy territory.Groves, playing WLB, and being eligible at DL, is definitely worthy of a roster spot, in the right situation. But there's no guarantee he keeps the job. We really don't know what the status of Howard is, as far as the coaches opinion. Groves is starting now, but if Vince Young and CJ make him look like a DE playing LB, he might be gone by week 2. I wouldn't cut anyone I liked to pick up Groves, but if I had some DT or 3-4 DE I didn't care about, I might pick up Groves.I'll say this about Groves, he's had a good camp, and looked pretty dang mobile in the preseason. Surprised me, I though the best he might be was a situational pass rusher. I actually wondered if he'd make the team.What kind of numbers would you expect from Groves as a 2-down OLB? Was Scott projected as a 3-down LB? How about Wimbley? Even as a 2-down OLB, do you think Groves could be solid where he's DL-eligible (CBSSports)? What's the probability that he sticks at this new position?Jene Bramel said:
I think Scott, if he had stayed at WLB, was gonna be a 3 down guy, but with his hand on the ground on passing downs. Now, he'll be in a rotation at DE with Houston and Shaugnessy, and his value has taken a pretty big hit.Wimbley will actually be a 3 down LB, more or less, starting at SLB, and rushing on passing downs. I'm not too excited about his prospects to help fantasy owners. Might have a few games with nice sack numbers, but I don't see many 6 tackle games on the horizon. SLB for the Raiders is pretty barren fantasy territory.Groves, playing WLB, and being eligible at DL, is definitely worthy of a roster spot, in the right situation. But there's no guarantee he keeps the job. We really don't know what the status of Howard is, as far as the coaches opinion. Groves is starting now, but if Vince Young and CJ make him look like a DE playing LB, he might be gone by week 2. I wouldn't cut anyone I liked to pick up Groves, but if I had some DT or 3-4 DE I didn't care about, I might pick up Groves.I'll say this about Groves, he's had a good camp, and looked pretty dang mobile in the preseason. Surprised me, I though the best he might be was a situational pass rusher. I actually wondered if he'd make the team.What kind of numbers would you expect from Groves as a 2-down OLB? Was Scott projected as a 3-down LB? How about Wimbley? Even as a 2-down OLB, do you think Groves could be solid where he's DL-eligible (CBSSports)? What's the probability that he sticks at this new position?Jene Bramel said:
Thanks for summarizing what has become a pretty fluid situation. It sounds like Groves' upside is that he sticks at WLB and produces in the ballpark of where we anticipated to see Scott (pre shuffle)... and his downside is that he's gone by Week 2... but, if he sticks and you can play him at DL, the dividends could be big.
Do remember that Groves won a starting LB job in week 2 of 2009, as a WOLB in Jacksonville's 3-4 front. He did nothing with the opportunity there and it was as a true LB, not as a hybrid DE. Not sure what he'll do with Oakland but it is worth knowing his history.I think Scott, if he had stayed at WLB, was gonna be a 3 down guy, but with his hand on the ground on passing downs. Now, he'll be in a rotation at DE with Houston and Shaugnessy, and his value has taken a pretty big hit.Wimbley will actually be a 3 down LB, more or less, starting at SLB, and rushing on passing downs. I'm not too excited about his prospects to help fantasy owners. Might have a few games with nice sack numbers, but I don't see many 6 tackle games on the horizon. SLB for the Raiders is pretty barren fantasy territory.Groves, playing WLB, and being eligible at DL, is definitely worthy of a roster spot, in the right situation. But there's no guarantee he keeps the job. We really don't know what the status of Howard is, as far as the coaches opinion. Groves is starting now, but if Vince Young and CJ make him look like a DE playing LB, he might be gone by week 2. I wouldn't cut anyone I liked to pick up Groves, but if I had some DT or 3-4 DE I didn't care about, I might pick up Groves.I'll say this about Groves, he's had a good camp, and looked pretty dang mobile in the preseason. Surprised me, I though the best he might be was a situational pass rusher. I actually wondered if he'd make the team.What kind of numbers would you expect from Groves as a 2-down OLB? Was Scott projected as a 3-down LB? How about Wimbley? Even as a 2-down OLB, do you think Groves could be solid where he's DL-eligible (CBSSports)? What's the probability that he sticks at this new position?Jene Bramel said:Thanks for summarizing what has become a pretty fluid situation. It sounds like Groves' upside is that he sticks at WLB and produces in the ballpark of where we anticipated to see Scott (pre shuffle)... and his downside is that he's gone by Week 2... but, if he sticks and you can play him at DL, the dividends could be big.
Thanks alot. Didn't know that.
Thanks, I'll keep a close eye on this one. When I last looked at the snap counts, I thought I remembered seeing Haralson as an 85-100% player, with Brooks primarily replacing Lawson.
Looking at DEs playing OLB, how do we see Groves (w/ risk of losing WLB job) versus Michael Johnson in Cincy (risk of Dhani Jones sticking at MLB)?
I didn't watch the entire game but from what I saw he was not in nickel or dime.
in the process of listening to the roundtable and looking at the first thread and noticed that durant is listed as the every down guy, and that morrison is no longer listed -- what changed?
I had all three listed throughout the preseason, with a note that Durant was still very much in the mix. The three never played together in any preseason game and beat writers refused to speculate for me when asked. Last week's game was the first time we've seen the situation in its entirety.
Sunday night should be interesting
Pretty much all nickel for the Cardinals last week, which is often a good situation for a rangy OLB next to a thumping MLB. Lofton would have done better if the Cardinals had run the ball more often.
Any insight on the role of gerald mcgrath of tenn. when he returns from suspention.Jene Bramel said:
Competing with Winborn for a job at first, then likely base defense OLB only.
Alexander started at OLB in place of Carter this past Sunday. That particular article doesn't mention it, but Carter mainly played DE in situational packages. Both made significant plays during the game from those positions. It hasn't been expressed explicitly by any coaches, but it seems as if this setup will be used going forward.If you own Carter, you might consider dumping him. He'll most likely be useless in FF since he's still listed as a LB.
Agreed. And thanks very much for helping us stay on top of this one, Sidewinder.
With Chillar still likely out and the injuries at safety, I think both Desmond Bishop and Hawk are likely every-down players this week. It'll be interesting to see whether Bishop or Hawk sits when Chillar returns. I think Hawk may have just a very slight edge on Bishop right now.
Grant was speculated to be an every-down player after the last preseason game, but the Rams have played lots of dime and used three other backers as the second linebacker in nickel packages. Last week, it was mostly dime, with Bryan Kehl the primary nickel backer with Laurinaitis.
Not too far along yet today, but there were a couple of interesting early looks with five linebackers (3-5) against Tennessee's two back, two tight end sets.
No, McRath sat in subpackages.First post updated.Still some injury situations clouding the mix (DEN, GB, CHI, ATL) this week and dime packages muddying the waters in PHI and WAS. The Cowboys are also looking at both Jason Williams and Sean Lee in subpackages, and there's an injury issue with Bradie James that's making that determination difficult as well.Didn't get to see the game, but looking at the statsid McRath play 3 downs and push Witherspoon off the field in nickle?
Will do. Changes will be in bold beginning with this week's update. Also added a note on those removed in past two weeks.
thx Jene, kick A** customer service, as usual
Yup.
