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!
since Peterson is so good in coverage and Hill showed good ability to get to the QB last year with 7.5 sacks, I'm wondering why it wouldn't be the other way around if anything.
great question. i was assuming 2 down for Hill, but JP as a rush end could get Hill back on the field for 3rd down, or Hill's pass rush skills could keep him on the field. Definitely a situation i'll be watching. You still have to admit he's the 3rd most attractive LB there and most teams do not produce three good IDP LBs.
Unfortunately it's the occasional game that he comes through with 8 solo tackles, 2 sacks a pick and two forced fumbles that we grasp onto.Consistency has been a huge fantasy issue with him over the years and I believe that's bred from his universal skills. On the field, he brings value in his ability to play near everywhere, but it's probably hard for him to get into a statistical groove.
i'm not sure if it turns out this way, but that is what i was thinking, cracker... do you even need to trot out a teeny nickle back & banish a LB to the sidelines on certain down & distance situations... if peterson covers better than 90% of the CBs in the league (slight exaggeration)?and tatupu is already has mature and well developed coverage ability (ex-QB knows a lot about passing game tendencies, routes and how to jump them)...
I beleive a 2 down backer prolly does lose a 1/3 of the plays, or very close to it.Really, the term 2 down LB is a bit misleading. Not being on the field in nickel situations will have 2 down backers on the sidelines on first and long, 2nd long, and most 3rd downs. For the most part, they also will be spectators in the 2 minute defense.
nickel packages are used in clear passing situations, which usually occur on 3rd and long, but could also be used on 1st or 2nd down depending on the situation and the offensive personnel being used. the term "2 down" LB is just shorthand for a player who plays in the base defense but not in the nickel package.might be interesting to look at the relative % of downs that would be labeled clear passing downs...but, when you factor in all the teams that regularly use 3WR formations on early downs these days, chances are those 2 down LBs are indeed seeing fewer than 67% of the total snaps.
Last information I've seen from a camp report by homebrumiesterHe saw Hill on the strong side -- which would hurt his value. Certainly though, any linebacker capable of more than 8 sacks like Hill has great value in that setup.
That staff interview is one of the most insightful and helpful threads ive read. thanks
No current plans in the works for this. I'm a
when it comes to the podcast terminology I hear in the FBG halls. We may work it out in the future, though.We are, however, planning a weekly IDP Roundtable to be posted every Thursday morning starting the second week of August. It'll be in the same format as our prior team interview.
He will be all over the field, as he always has been. That's where a lot of his NFL value comes from. I would worry about Hill v. Hill before worrying about Peterson's impact.
We know that Peterson isn't coming out, so it comes down to Tatupu v. Hill as the other nickel backer. Are they comfortable with the coverage abilities of their safeties? If their base defense has the personnel to cover when the offense goes with three wide receivers, maybe we won't see them use as much nickel.Personally, I think all three will see plenty of time on third downs with Peterson acting as a rush end and in coverage at times. The flexibility that their abilities bring to the table is very valuable.
Who's the will on that team anyway?
It's the "Chad Brown / Anthony Simmons" saga all over again. We may never know the true starting WLB or SLB on the team.
It's only game 1. Let the pre season play out and then decide. I am.
It looks like a right/left thing in Seattle right now, with Peterson lining up on the right/weak side most often.
Really??I thought it was the exact opposite. Unless I'm mistaken, it was my assumption that Peterson was lining-up on the TE side, but simply not shifting when/if the offense shifts.
Honestly, I'm a little
too.Sporting News has it one way, newsrags have it another. Gamebook suggests Hill started on the left side this weekend. Whether that was strong side or not is impossible to know, but it normally is, and if the backers aren't moving that may be telling.
