Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Shariff Floyd - makes sense

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    the 80s
    Posts
    8,109

    Shariff Floyd - makes sense

    Well there ain't so much as fart going on in the other forum, so I'll post here instead.


    I just want to explore this topic, under the following assumptions..

    1- Warmack, star, and Geno are gone.
    2- We cut Pouha, Devito
    3- We've lost or will lose a lot of our run D we take for granted over the last few years. There's going to be a big swing at LB and we need to be stout up front.


    So how do we feel about Shariff Floyd tearing up in rotation with Ellis/Wilk/Coples or in a 40 front? I can already tell Werner is going to be this year's Melvin Ingram for JI. I feel that Ansah/Moore/Werner are all somewhat of a gamble as OLBs but i'd be happy with Ansah. However, Floyd is just a better football player than all 3 of them. Best player available at a position of need.


    The talent is definitely up front where we'll be picking.

  2. #2
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,862
    I think putting him at the nose would be a waste of his talents.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mendham, NJ
    Posts
    12,933
    I just dont know how Floyd would do as a 3-4 NT. To me he seems like a great fit as a DT in a 4-3. DT, NT is a very deep position this year.

  4. #4
    I hate the base 3-4 defense more and more each year. Every year we have to say 'gotta pass on this good player because he doesn't fit the 3-4.'

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Mendham, NJ
    Posts
    12,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    I hate the base 3-4 defense more and more each year. Every year we have to say 'gotta pass on this good player because he doesn't fit the 3-4.'
    It does seem to be getting harder to find guys that "fit" the traditional roles of the 3-4 defense.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by sec.101row23 View Post
    It does seem to be getting harder to find guys that "fit" the traditional roles of the 3-4 defense.
    The 3-4 defense was the best way to stop the run and rush the passer out of base formations when you faced a traditional offense especially one with a power running game.

    The league has gotten faster and much more passer orientated and the ILBs that excelled in a 3-4, big, downhill, run stuffing LBs that could take on blocks, simply cannot also be fast enough to cover space in the spread offense or backs out of the backfield.

    What we need to do is stick with rex's hybrid version which is why, IMO ansah is perfect for this defense. We can find a NT between pouha (at a discount) ellis, damon harrison etc and play them with wilkerson and coples to form a good group. We can play ansah as a hybrid DE, who is fast enough to also play in space and pair him with an OLB on the other side that is quicker (personaly favorite of mine is kiko alonso).

    We need to have a front that can play in space as well as line up as a 4 man line and that is just what ansah can allow us to do. Plus, demario is the type of player that can easily slide over to OLB if we go 4 man front.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by eaglenj View Post
    The 3-4 defense was the best way to stop the run and rush the passer out of base formations when you faced a traditional offense especially one with a power running game.

    The league has gotten faster and much more passer orientated and the ILBs that excelled in a 3-4, big, downhill, run stuffing LBs that could take on blocks, simply cannot also be fast enough to cover space in the spread offense or backs out of the backfield.

    What we need to do is stick with rex's hybrid version which is why, IMO ansah is perfect for this defense. We can find a NT between pouha (at a discount) ellis, damon harrison etc and play them with wilkerson and coples to form a good group. We can play ansah as a hybrid DE, who is fast enough to also play in space and pair him with an OLB on the other side that is quicker (personaly favorite of mine is kiko alonso).

    We need to have a front that can play in space as well as line up as a 4 man line and that is just what ansah can allow us to do. Plus, demario is the type of player that can easily slide over to OLB if we go 4 man front.
    Last year, 11 teams ran a predominantly 3-4 defense (12 if you include the Ravens - I don't) -- Steelers, 49ers, Texans, Jets, Chargers, Packers, Cardinals, Cowboys, Chiefs, Colts, Redskins. 20 teams ran a predominantly 4-3 defense.

    In terms of yardage allowed:

    - 2 of the top 3 were 3-4 teams (Steelers, Niners)
    - 5 of the top 10 were 3-4 teams (Texans, Jets, Chargers)
    - 7 of the top 12 were 3-4 teams (Packers, Cardinals)

    In terms of points allowed:

    - Of the worst 8 defenses in the league, 7 were 4-3 teams

    Sure, there's advantages of running a 4-3, but it seems to me people just like to complain we should run a 4-3 when we have a 3-4 or run a 3-4 when we have a 4-3. I remember reading this same complaints (only the opposite) when Herm was coach. I don't see anything that really shouts "4-3 is the way to go in today's NFL."

    We run plenty of both base fronts anyway. We are a multiple defense.

    If we had the personnel to run a strict 4-3, we would. Like I always say, I'll leave defensive formations and fronts up to Rex.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Rexipus Rex View Post
    Last year, 11 teams ran a predominantly 3-4 defense (12 if you include the Ravens - I don't) -- Steelers, 49ers, Texans, Jets, Chargers, Packers, Cardinals, Cowboys, Chiefs, Colts, Redskins. 20 teams ran a predominantly 4-3 defense.

    In terms of yardage allowed:

    - 2 of the top 3 were 3-4 teams (Steelers, Niners)
    - 5 of the top 10 were 3-4 teams (Texans, Jets, Chargers)
    - 7 of the top 12 were 3-4 teams (Packers, Cardinals)

    In terms of points allowed:

    - Of the worst 8 defenses in the league, 7 were 4-3 teams

    Sure, there's advantages of running a 4-3, but it seems to me people just like to complain we should run a 4-3 when we have a 3-4 or run a 3-4 when we have a 4-3. I remember reading this same complaints (only the opposite) when Herm was coach. I don't see anything that really shouts "4-3 is the way to go in today's NFL."

    We run plenty of both base fronts anyway. We are a multiple defense.

    If we had the personnel to run a strict 4-3, we would. Like I always say, I'll leave defensive formations and fronts up to Rex.
    Great post

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    the 80s
    Posts
    8,109
    Good discussion.

    I think all the (or other NT references) like;
    Quote Originally Posted by Untouchable View Post
    I think putting him at the nose would be a waste of his talents.
    are off the mark here. We don't need him to be a NT. We need skilled, playmakers on the d-line. We're switching up our base front all the time. If your dline consists of Wilk, Coples, Floyd, Ellis, Harrison, JAG - you do whatever you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by eaglenj View Post
    What we need to do is stick with rex's hybrid version which is why, IMO ansah is perfect for this defense.
    I do like Ansah - but Floyd is flat out a better player than Ansah, and 100x more polished and pro ready. Think Michael Johnson, the DE/OLB that CIN's trying to figure out how they're going to resign. That dude came out of GT as a freak, but it took him 2 years to get comfortable and catch up. Expect some of the same from Ansah.

    I'd take Warmack/Floyd/Geno/Moore before him.



    But back to the topic... we don't run a straight 3-4 all the time.

  10. #10
    Off topic Paradis, do you post on a Nets board?

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Rexipus Rex View Post
    Last year, 11 teams ran a predominantly 3-4 defense (12 if you include the Ravens - I don't) -- Steelers, 49ers, Texans, Jets, Chargers, Packers, Cardinals, Cowboys, Chiefs, Colts, Redskins. 20 teams ran a predominantly 4-3 defense.

    In terms of yardage allowed:

    - 2 of the top 3 were 3-4 teams (Steelers, Niners)
    - 5 of the top 10 were 3-4 teams (Texans, Jets, Chargers)
    - 7 of the top 12 were 3-4 teams (Packers, Cardinals)

    In terms of points allowed:

    - Of the worst 8 defenses in the league, 7 were 4-3 teams

    Sure, there's advantages of running a 4-3, but it seems to me people just like to complain we should run a 4-3 when we have a 3-4 or run a 3-4 when we have a 4-3. I remember reading this same complaints (only the opposite) when Herm was coach. I don't see anything that really shouts "4-3 is the way to go in today's NFL."

    We run plenty of both base fronts anyway. We are a multiple defense.

    If we had the personnel to run a strict 4-3, we would. Like I always say, I'll leave defensive formations and fronts up to Rex.
    How many college teams run a 3-4?

    This is a problem, more teams running a 3-4, less of those players to go around thus the talent pool is going to be diluted. If there ever was a time to switch it is now because we have zero olb's that are supposed to provide your pass rush in a lot of cases. It's almost even worse being a hybrid team because those skill sets are rather unique.

    We are going to play our 4-3? Well one of our DT's is now a slow NT type, run a 4-3? Our olbs are too big. I honestly think our two best young defenders Wilk and coples would be better in a 4-3 than the 3-4.

    What makes defenses great is having great players although coaches at times think it is because they are geniuses.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    the 80s
    Posts
    8,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Metro_Irvin View Post
    Off topic Paradis, do you post on a Nets board?
    Nope. why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post

    We are going to play our 4-3? Well one of our DT's is now a slow NT type, run a 4-3? Our olbs are too big. I honestly think our two best young defenders Wilk and coples would be better in a 4-3 than the 3-4.

    What makes defenses great is having great players although coaches at times think it is because they are geniuses.
    This a good point. Play to your talent. That's how dominant defenses exist today. It's not about fitting the players to the scheme, but the scheme to the players.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    the 80s
    Posts
    8,109
    And i'm doing my homework on Werner right now. Yikes - this guy in the top 10? late 1st/ early 2nd at best.

  14. #14
    I am intrigued by Werner. So would appreciate more info etc on this guy.

    Jets plainly need more speed and venom at OLB. Even if they pick Floyd where's the pass rush going to come from? Since Pace, Thomas have been given their visas can decent replacements (upgrades actually) be had in the second round onwards when the Jets pick?

    Personally I think we have enough NT's to platoon the position and instead pick up a hybrid OLB/DE like Ansah (ridiculous athleticism), or guys like Jones, Mingo, Jordan,Moore, Mingo...

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    7,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradis View Post
    And i'm doing my homework on Werner right now. Yikes - this guy in the top 10? late 1st/ early 2nd at best.
    I watched a bunch of FSU games this year and was never impressed by Werner. He is far from dominant.

    Very confused why people seem to think he's a top 5 player.

    I really hope he's a top 8 pick.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    How many college teams run a 3-4?
    A lot more in recent years: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/previe...ark&id=5453033

    Off the top of my head, I know that Notre Dame, Georgia, Texas A&M, and UCLA -- all legitimate D1 schools -- have switched over in recent years. It's trending in that direction too.



    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    This is a problem, more teams running a 3-4, less of those players to go around thus the talent pool is going to be diluted. If there ever was a time to switch it is now because we have zero olb's that are supposed to provide your pass rush in a lot of cases. It's almost even worse being a hybrid team because those skill sets are rather unique.
    Three teams -- Eagles, Saints, Browns -- are switching to the 3-4 while one team -- Dallas -- is switching to a 4-3. That is still less than half the league using a 3-4 as their base defense.

    And as I alluded to before, more and more colleges are running a 3-4. Furthermore, just because a guy played 4-3 in college doesn't mean he can't play 3-4 in the pros and vice versa. Wilkerson played 4-3 in college and has adopted to the 3-4 seamlessly and to a lesser extent, Coples as well. Keep in mind though that both excelled at the same DT position in college.

    We have zero 3-4 OLBs just like we have practically zero 4-3 DEs. Switching to a 4-3 doesn't magically solve the problem that we lack edge rushers. That has been a major hole on the team for 7 years -- no true edge rusher.

    I can somewhat buy Coples or Wilk playing strong side end in a pinch, but then again you're not putting them in the best position to succeed. Ideally both guys would be 3T players in a four man front. I'd rather have both play 2 gap ends in a three man front because it puts onus on playing strength, something that both of them have in common.

    You switch to a 4-3 and we'd still have a gaping hole at RE. Whatever formation we play more of next year, the common problem is that we currently lack a speed rusher.

    The problem with the defense isn't the formation, it's speed and athleticism in the front seven. Don't compromise it by having one of Coples/Wilkerson permanently playing out of ideal position in a new front.



    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    We are going to play our 4-3? Well one of our DT's is now a slow NT type, run a 4-3? Our olbs are too big. I honestly think our two best young defenders Wilk and coples would be better in a 4-3 than the 3-4.
    I disagree, as mentioned above with regard to Wilk/Coples.

    You think our defense was slow enough last year? Now imagine Harris having to cover even more ground because he's the only LB up the middle. Davis would be a nice fit at WOLB and finding a 4-3 SLB is a cheap venture, I'll give you that; however, our defensive issues have to deal with foot speed, not formation. Whatever you believe you gained in Wilk/Coples (and like I said, I disagree), you just compromised it by asking your already slow MLB to be responsible for more of the field.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Rexipus Rex View Post
    You think our defense was slow enough last year? Now imagine Harris having to cover even more ground because he's the only LB up the middle. Davis would be a nice fit at WOLB and finding a 4-3 SLB is a cheap venture, I'll give you that; however, our defensive issues have to deal with foot speed, not formation. Whatever you believe you gained in Wilk/Coples (and like I said, I disagree), you just compromised it by asking your already slow MLB to be responsible for more of the field.
    Harris would be a better MB with two disruptive DT's if you ask me.

    Also I've said it before, I'll say it again about Wilkerson and Coples, get used to their top end sack totals being about 6 rather than double digit if you stick them 3-4 De's most of the time. Our best players are out Dlineman right now of the front 7, free them up to make plays rather than be in the restriction of a 3-4 end.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    the 80s
    Posts
    8,109
    I can't remember the thread or post specifically - both one JI member layed out some shocking low numbers regarding OLBs impacting a team's overall defense. I can't remember the moral of the story unforunately - but it was something to the effect of OLBs creating this mythical puss rush never effects the outcome of game/defense. They're are some special talents out there, but i'd prefer to put our money on D-linemen.

    With that said, I'm not advocating ignoring the position - but its such a finicky role to fill with a huge margin for failure, and small margin of measurable success. We can't afford to get boners for theoretical hybrid allstars.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    Harris would be a better MB with two disruptive DT's if you ask me.
    I'm not sure if I'm getting this right...

    You want Coples AND Wilkerson to play inside? Who's playing the 1T? If that's what you're suggesting, that would be putting one guy wayyy out of position and you're probably throwing more bodies at Harris. Oh, and you're asking him to cover more ground in zones/man coverage on passing plays. Not smart.

    Unless you're confident in Pouha or Ellis filling that role and bumping one of Wilk/Coples out to LE.



    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    Also I've said it before, I'll say it again about Wilkerson and Coples, get used to their top end sack totals being about 6 rather than double digit if you stick them 3-4 De's most of the time. Our best players are out Dlineman right now of the front 7, free them up to make plays rather than be in the restriction of a 3-4 end.
    This isn't some magic trick where you just switch them to 4-3 end and say "Voila! Here come the sacks."

    There's a reason why these guys play on the interior; it's because they play better matched up against guards. From the interior, they're quicker than guards and can still handle them with strength. On the outside, neither Coples nor Wilkerson has the bend or speed to beat a tackle on the edge. Sure, they can win occasionally with a bull or swim, but you're not putting your valuable players in their ideal positions if you're asking them to beat tackles every down.

    I see Coples as a guy who can have a season or two at 8+ sacks. I see Wilkerson as a 4-5 sack guy. That's totally fine with me because not only are they providing some pass rush, but they're occupying guys in the process and will allow our potential speed rushing OLB to see consistent one on ones...and if they want to double the OLB, then I'm fine with Wilk/Coples manhandling a guard one on one.

    Think about the Steelers and Patriots dominance as defenses during the mid 2000s. A lot of their respective coaches attributed the defense's overall success to Aaron Smith/Brett Keisel and Richard Seymour/Ty Warren. Granted, we don't have anyone in Seymour's class, but you're vastly underrating the importance of Wilkerson/Coples in our base front.

    This is the draft to get that edge rusher. We do that and I couldn't give two sh!ts what we do with Revis or Cromartie or Landry.
    Last edited by Rexipus Rex; 02-20-2013 at 05:57 PM.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    the 80s
    Posts
    8,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Rexipus Rex View Post

    This is the draft to get that edge rusher. We do that and I couldn't give two sh!ts what we do with Revis or Cromartie or Landry.
    I have a problem with this "blinders on" mentality.

    It's been the year to draft an edge rusher for what, 3 or 4 years now? Yet we haven't. In fact, I'd say that it's a fairly common occurrence that these tweaner OLB types slip further in the draft that we often mock, and rarely develop into the disruptive phenom we expect. And almost always, it's the dline who stay and stand the test of time, while the OLB drift into their 2nd and 3rd teams in search of contracts.

    There's so many variables and dimensions to success at that position. You almost have to farm them, rather than draft them in rnd 1.

    Here's what i know. Great OLBs rarely make a crudy dline look good. Great dline can allow crudy OLBs to put up numbers.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us