PDA

View Full Version : kubiak promises to be aggressive in all 3 phases


Wolf
01-29-2006, 07:56 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3620084.html

"And we'll be committed in all three areas, and I can promise you that we'll be aggressive."

Which is music to the earns of everyone from owner Bob McNair to the fans.

"One thing about our scheme is that you teach a system," Kubiak said. "You don't necessarily teach everything that you're going to do. You teach a system, and you've got to be able to branch off from that system."


Pieces in right place
Denver's players say one of Kubiak's specialties is putting players in position to take advantage of their strengths and keeping them out of situations that will magnify their weaknesses.

"One of the great things I've learned is that we have to do what our players do best," Kubiak said. "You can't be stubborn and say, 'This is the way we did it.' We're going to do what's best for the Texans."

After he hires his first staff, Kubiak wants to meet with his new players. He'll spend more time with quarterback David Carr than any player on the roster. Before he makes his recommendation to McNair about the top pick, Kubiak has to know what makes Carr tick.

"There's tremendous upside to David Carr," he said. "That position is about success. David has to understand that this guy right here is going to be with him every day. I'll have both of these (hands) on him. That's what I know working with the quarterback, understanding what he's going through."

In Kubiak's last season with the Broncos, they finished 13-3 in the regular season and lost the AFC Championship Game to Pittsburgh.

Now Kubiak is coaching a team that finished with the NFL's worst record.

From almost first to worst.

"I understand that we've got a long way to go, but it can be done," he said.

thunderkyss
01-29-2006, 08:31 AM
I agree with Kubiak, "that position is about success" more than any other position on the field, the teams W-L is a reflection of the QB. David hasn't had a lot of success at the position. It's not all his fault. Still, he feels it more than anyone else. Surely David isn't used to loosing..... well, we hope he isn't. Kubiak's got to find out if he is strong enough to internalize those losses, and rise above them.
Personally I feel if David thinks those are not his losses, then he needs to go. A leader would own those losses, whether they are his or not.

Reading articles like this also make me feel good about Kubiak, and the possibility that Carr may be here to stay............... I stand by my opinion, however, that he isn't worth the $10 million it will cost us to play him this year.

Tulip
01-29-2006, 10:28 AM
Good article. Kubiak sure says all the right things, because everything he's saying is what I wanted from the last regime.

I'm going to indulge in a little Texans-Chick-esque musing of my own. One of the gazillion household arguments about "the state of the Texans" was sacks vs. interceptions. I made some comment about how a young quarterback (I'm talking about his first and second seasons) needs to get his throws in and make some interceptions (as terrible as they are) - feel it out instead of learning to fear the interception from Day One.

So I asked - what's the difference between three-and-outs putting your defense on the field and making them tired and making an interception every-so-often to put your defense on the field an extra time. His answer? Because you can spread the blame on a sack - the QB gets all the blame for an interception.

Not an answer I liked at all.

I don't know what is going on inside of David Carr's head, but I hope Kubiak can either fix it or send him on to be someone else's psychology project.

texan279
01-29-2006, 10:43 AM
I agree with Kubiak, "that position is about success" more than any other position on the field, the teams W-L is a reflection of the QB. David hasn't had a lot of success at the position. It's not all his fault. Still, he feels it more than anyone else. Surely David isn't used to loosing..... well, we hope he isn't. Kubiak's got to find out if he is strong enough to internalize those losses, and rise above them.
Personally I feel if David thinks those are not his losses, then he needs to go. A leader would own those losses, whether they are his or not.

Reading articles like this also make me feel good about Kubiak, and the possibility that Carr may be here to stay............... I stand by my opinion, however, that he isn't worth the $10 million it will cost us to play him this year.

The team's win/loss record is a reflection of the TEAM and the coaching staff, not just the QB...If a team's win/loss record was a reflection of the QB, according to last season I guess Favre and McNabb are some of the worst QB's in the league...

Bronco Texan
01-29-2006, 10:47 AM
The team's win/loss record is a reflection of the TEAM and the coaching staff, not just the QB...If a team's win/loss record was a reflection of the QB, according to last season I guess Favre and McNabb are some of the worst QB's in the league...


Actually Farve is one of the worst QBs in the league.

Kaiser Toro
01-29-2006, 10:49 AM
Actually Farve is one of the worst QBs in the league.

It pains me to agree, but Favre was just plain awful last year.

texan279
01-29-2006, 10:55 AM
Actually Farve is one of the worst QBs in the league.

I hope you're kidding. One bad season from a guy who tried to carry his injury riddled team through the season with his practice squad RB after he lost 2 of his best linemen hardly makes him one of the worst QB's in the league. Only problem he had this season was the INT's, he had a completion percentage of 61.3 and threw for 20 TD's. The only reason he looked so bad was all of the INT's he threw when he was trying to make plays happen.

awtysst
01-29-2006, 12:15 PM
The team's win/loss record is a reflection of the TEAM and the coaching staff, not just the QB...If a team's win/loss record was a reflection of the QB, according to last season I guess Favre and McNabb are some of the worst QB's in the league...

McNabb was injured and Favre is serverly overrated.

texan279
01-29-2006, 12:17 PM
McNabb was injured and Favre is serverly overrated.

Favre overrated?

lol:

cadahnic
01-29-2006, 12:20 PM
Tulip look at the stats for the O-line. They gave up 42. You can put 26 on D.Carr if you like and that equals the 68 sacks we gave up. That means I am not including Sorry Wand, or other backups, DD and the other RBs, the TEs, or the unabated blitzer. So if you look at it that way the line still gave up more than almost every other team other than maybe the Vikings. I mean the O-line was bad and I mean real bad at the beginning and then the piss poor offense began. Just look at any game were Carr was allowed to be a regular agressive QB and you will see that the guy can play and be productive in this league. It is hard for me to say that because it means I had to eat crow two seasons ago when I was adimant about the fact we should have taken Peppers instead.

sprtsfanatic
01-29-2006, 12:24 PM
Sorry to say this but Farve is done. So he lost two of his best lineman...who cares thats no excuse for the poor performance he put up this year. Hell give Carr his line without those two lineman and bets are he doesnt do as horrible as Farve did this last season. I really think he should hang them up and go out as a legend vs playing again next year and tarnishing what he has worked so hard to accomplish.

BradK10
01-29-2006, 01:12 PM
Favre was awful. If you watched any of their games and saw some of the ridiculous throws he tried to make, you'd agree.

Wolf
01-29-2006, 01:35 PM
Shanahan learned how to delegate. For the last six years, he let Kubiak call plays.

With the Texans, Kubiak will coach quarterbacks and call plays. He'll work closely with offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach Troy Calhoun.

"We'll bring our system from Denver, although we might change the color of the playbook a little bit, maybe to a little darker blue," Kubiak said with a smile. "But we're going to have the Texans' offense, the Texans' defense and the Texans' special teams.



from the same article.

I hope we get at least a TE somewhere in the offseason to open the playbook alittle more

TexansTrueFan
01-29-2006, 01:39 PM
It pains me to agree, but Favre was just plain awful last year.


but i dont think one season can define his amazing career.

cadahnic
01-29-2006, 01:41 PM
Wolf as I have been looking at TE in the draft and FA. I was thinking we should use a 4th rounder on David Thomas. I also want to pick up Teyo Johnson to a 2 yr contract of about 1.2 Million with 500k signing bonus and a three year option. Yeah this cheap, but we get him with alot of stat incentives. It will be an interesting mix, but with Thomas, Bruener, Johnson, and Joppru we should have two guys that can really catcth the ball and block pretty well, a solid blocker,and a roll of the dice.

Runner
01-29-2006, 01:49 PM
but i dont think one season can define his amazing career.


Sure it can - on this cup-is-half-empty board. :)

Double Barrel
01-30-2006, 11:55 AM
Actually Farve is one of the worst QBs in the league.

Last year...perhaps. But he also played on one of the worst teams in the 2005 NFL.

But Favre is "overrated" all the way to his first ballot induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. :ok:

Dude is the epitome of the ultimate competitor, and his loyalty to the Packers is what ultimately cost him the end of his career with a losing team. I take nothing away from him, and I've got a lot of respect for the man and the QB. We'd be lucky to have a team leader with that kind of fire in his belly.

jerek
01-30-2006, 12:42 PM
The team's win/loss record is a reflection of the TEAM and the coaching staff, not just the QB...If a team's win/loss record was a reflection of the QB, according to last season I guess Favre and McNabb are some of the worst QB's in the league...

A convenient fact that is now sure to be ignored as it renders ineffective that little argument for drafting a new QB ...

McNabb was injured and Favre is serverly overrated.

Favre has a Super Bowl ring, is one of the winningest NFL QBs in history, and is sure to be a first-ballot HOFer. How many rings does McNabb have? If winning is suddenly the measure of a quarterback, you'd do better to backpedal than fire back with that.

Kaiser Toro
01-30-2006, 12:50 PM
but i dont think one season can define his amazing career.

And you would be thinking correctly in my opinion.

thunderkyss
01-30-2006, 03:22 PM
I agree with Kubiak, "that position is about success" more than any other position on the field, the teams W-L is a reflection of the QB. David hasn't had a lot of success at the position. It's not all his fault. Still, he feels it more than anyone else. Surely David isn't used to loosing..... well, we hope he isn't. Kubiak's got to find out if he is strong enough to internalize those losses, and rise above them.
Personally I feel if David thinks those are not his losses, then he needs to go. A leader would own those losses, whether they are his or not.

Reading articles like this also make me feel good about Kubiak, and the possibility that Carr may be here to stay............... I stand by my opinion, however, that he isn't worth the $10 million it will cost us to play him this year.

The team's win/loss record is a reflection of the TEAM and the coaching staff, not just the QB...If a team's win/loss record was a reflection of the QB, according to last season I guess Favre and McNabb are some of the worst QB's in the league...


I said everything I wanted to say about Wins/losses, you're trying to twist what I intended, and explained. I'm not blaming Carr for every Win/loss. Try to read those words in context with everything I said.

And yes, even with all those problems Favre had this year, his playing was even worse, he was not the HOF QB we expect him to be.

texan279
01-30-2006, 03:27 PM
I said everything I wanted to say about Wins/losses, you're trying to twist what I intended, and explained. I'm not blaming Carr for every Win/loss. Try to read those words in context with everything I said.

And yes, even with all those problems Favre had this year, his playing was even worse, he was not the HOF QB we expect him to be.

this is what you said I agree with Kubiak, "that position is about success" more than any other position on the field, the teams W-L is a reflection of the QB. David hasn't had a lot of success at the position. It's not all his fault. Still, he feels it more than anyone else. Surely David isn't used to loosing..... well, we hope he isn't. Kubiak's got to find out if he is strong enough to internalize those losses, and rise above them.
Personally I feel if David thinks those are not his losses, then he needs to go. A leader would own those losses, whether

they are his or not.



Reading articles like this also make me feel good about Kubiak, and the possibility that Carr may be here to stay............... I stand by my opinion, however, that he isn't worth the $10 million it will cost us to play him this year.
You say it relfects the QB, then you say it is not all his fault. Why not just say the win loss record reflects on the team as a whole.

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 03:59 PM
There are 3 aspects to football: (1) offense, (2) defense, and (3) special teams. Many posters have forgotten about the 3 element of a successful football team. Last year our special teams were average, but I think they can be excellent with minor tweaking.

Mathis is a great returner, evidence by his Pro Bowl selection. Combine him with Bush and we shall have a great return combo (w/ Bush have sole responsibilities for punts).

Our coverage units were ok, but should be improved with more 4-3 style LBs on the club (generally have better quickness than the bigger 3-4 LBs we have become accustomed to). Additionally, with a new coach everyone is going to be fighting for their jobs, especially 2nd teamers, and the best way to stay on a roster is to shine on special teams - just ask Jonathan Wells.

Kris Brown was average at best last year, however, in years past he has been fairly consistent (at least w/ us, not the Steelers). I think we should bring in someone to compete w/ him at camp. Hopefully he will return to a more solid form shown over the previous couple of years.

Stanely is not a bad punter. He does not kick for great distance, but has good hang time and is great at pinning opponents inside the 20.

Overall, I think we can be a top 5 special teams unit if we put the right amount of emphasis on it. The best and quickest way to improve a team is to have really good special teams. If we went from average to a top 5 special teams unit we would have won at least 3 more games last year.

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 03:59 PM
There are 3 aspects to football: (1) offense, (2) defense, and (3) special teams. Many posters have forgotten about the 3 element of a successful football team. Last year our special teams were average, but I think they can be excellent with minor tweaking.

Mathis is a great returner, evidence by his Pro Bowl selection. Combine him with Bush and we shall have a great return combo (w/ Bush have sole responsibilities for punts).

Our coverage units were ok, but should be improved with more 4-3 style LBs on the club (generally have better quickness than the bigger 3-4 LBs we have become accustomed to). Additionally, with a new coach everyone is going to be fighting for their jobs, especially 2nd teamers, and the best way to stay on a roster is to shine on special teams - just ask Jonathan Wells.

Kris Brown was average at best last year, however, in years past he has been fairly consistent (at least w/ us, not the Steelers). I think we should bring in someone to compete w/ him at camp. Hopefully he will return to a more solid form shown over the previous couple of years.

Stanely is not a bad punter. He does not kick for great distance, but has good hang time and is great at pinning opponents inside the 20.

Overall, I think we can be a top 5 special teams unit if we put the right amount of emphasis on it. The best and quickest way to improve a team is to have really good special teams. If we went from average to a top 5 special teams unit we would have won at least 3 more games last year.

rmartin65
01-30-2006, 04:08 PM
I dont like Bush on the KR team. The guys should be good blockers, and that has been a knock on Bush. Bush on PR would be pretty cool though.

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 04:09 PM
I do not understand your reply. Bush and Mathis would be offset to receive kickoffs, the 99% of the blocking is done by the remaining 9 Texans on the field. Kickoff returners are not blockers, but people w/ good speed and vision.

rmartin65
01-30-2006, 04:12 PM
The main returner is set deep. The 2nd guy is a guy who is decent at returning and a good blocker. Wells fit the roll well. (no pun intented)

Texans_Chick
01-30-2006, 04:16 PM
Overall, I think we can be a top 5 special teams unit if we put the right amount of emphasis on it. The best and quickest way to improve a team is to have really good special teams. If we went from average to a top 5 special teams unit we would have won at least 3 more games last year.

Our special teams have consistently outperformed the rest of our team in its history.

According to profootball outsiders: link-ST rankings (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamst.php)

The Texans were ranked 2nd in ST in 2005, 27th in 2004, 4th in 2003, and 7th in 2002. Pretty durned good.

Of course, we had some key special teams breakdowns down the stretch, with missed FGs and a flukily perfect onside kick, but overall, our ST play has been a bright spot on the team, and Joe Marciano, the ST coach is coming back next year.

Double Barrel
01-30-2006, 04:42 PM
The Texans were ranked 2nd in ST in 2005, 27th in 2004, 4th in 2003, and 7th in 2002. Pretty durned good.

Glad we kept Marciano!! :thumbup

Starting field position is one of the most important, if overlooked, aspects of football. And special teams are a huge part of establishing your opponents starting field position for the most part.

If the rest of our team could perform as well as our special teams, we'd be a playoff team. But, of course, that's a mighty big "if".

HardKnockTexan
01-30-2006, 05:14 PM
There are 3 aspects to football: (1) offense, (2) defense, and (3) special teams. Many posters have forgotten about the 3 element of a successful football team. Last year our special teams were average, but I think they can be excellent with minor tweaking.

Mathis is a great returner, evidence by his Pro Bowl selection. Combine him with Bush and we shall have a great return combo (w/ Bush have sole responsibilities for punts).

Our coverage units were ok, but should be improved with more 4-3 style LBs on the club (generally have better quickness than the bigger 3-4 LBs we have become accustomed to). Additionally, with a new coach everyone is going to be fighting for their jobs, especially 2nd teamers, and the best way to stay on a roster is to shine on special teams - just ask Jonathan Wells.

Kris Brown was average at best last year, however, in years past he has been fairly consistent (at least w/ us, not the Steelers). I think we should bring in someone to compete w/ him at camp. Hopefully he will return to a more solid form shown over the previous couple of years.

Stanely is not a bad punter. He does not kick for great distance, but has good hang time and is great at pinning opponents inside the 20.

Overall, I think we can be a top 5 special teams unit if we put the right amount of emphasis on it. The best and quickest way to improve a team is to have really good special teams. If we went from average to a top 5 special teams unit we would have won at least 3 more games last year.


I agree with you in that Special Teams are just as important but your view on Linebackers in the 4-3 is a bit off I think. In the 3-4 you tend to field faster linebackers who can cover where in the 4-3 you have biger linebackers who tend to play the run more.

Samer
01-30-2006, 06:07 PM
There are 3 aspects to football: (1) offense, (2) defense, and (3) special teams. Many posters have forgotten about the 3 element of a successful football team. Last year our special teams were average, but I think they can be excellent with minor tweaking.

Mathis is a great returner, evidence by his Pro Bowl selection. Combine him with Bush and we shall have a great return combo (w/ Bush have sole responsibilities for punts).

Our coverage units were ok, but should be improved with more 4-3 style LBs on the club (generally have better quickness than the bigger 3-4 LBs we have become accustomed to). Additionally, with a new coach everyone is going to be fighting for their jobs, especially 2nd teamers, and the best way to stay on a roster is to shine on special teams - just ask Jonathan Wells.

Kris Brown was average at best last year, however, in years past he has been fairly consistent (at least w/ us, not the Steelers). I think we should bring in someone to compete w/ him at camp. Hopefully he will return to a more solid form shown over the previous couple of years.

Stanely is not a bad punter. He does not kick for great distance, but has good hang time and is great at pinning opponents inside the 20.

Overall, I think we can be a top 5 special teams unit if we put the right amount of emphasis on it. The best and quickest way to improve a team is to have really good special teams. If we went from average to a top 5 special teams unit we would have won at least 3 more games last year.


Exactly, very well put

dalemurphy
01-30-2006, 06:48 PM
There are 3 aspects to football: (1) offense, (2) defense, and (3) special teams. Many posters have forgotten about the 3 element of a successful football team. Last year our special teams were average, but I think they can be excellent with minor tweaking.

Mathis is a great returner, evidence by his Pro Bowl selection. Combine him with Bush and we shall have a great return combo (w/ Bush have sole responsibilities for punts).

Our coverage units were ok, but should be improved with more 4-3 style LBs on the club (generally have better quickness than the bigger 3-4 LBs we have become accustomed to). Additionally, with a new coach everyone is going to be fighting for their jobs, especially 2nd teamers, and the best way to stay on a roster is to shine on special teams - just ask Jonathan Wells.

Kris Brown was average at best last year, however, in years past he has been fairly consistent (at least w/ us, not the Steelers). I think we should bring in someone to compete w/ him at camp. Hopefully he will return to a more solid form shown over the previous couple of years.

Stanely is not a bad punter. He does not kick for great distance, but has good hang time and is great at pinning opponents inside the 20.

Overall, I think we can be a top 5 special teams unit if we put the right amount of emphasis on it. The best and quickest way to improve a team is to have really good special teams. If we went from average to a top 5 special teams unit we would have won at least 3 more games last year.


There is no way in the world that an NFL head coach would draft a RB with the 1st overall pick, pay him a big signing bonus and then put him on the kick return team during the regular season.

thunderkyss
01-30-2006, 07:05 PM
this is what you said
You say it relfects the QB, then you say it is not all his fault. Why not just say the win loss record reflects on the team as a whole.

Because that is far from what I intend to say.

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 08:57 PM
There is no way in the world that an NFL head coach would draft a RB with the 1st overall pick, pay him a big signing bonus and then put him on the kick return team during the regular season.

I disagree, you will see it in week 1 if Bush is drafted.

I agree with you in that Special Teams are just as important but your view on Linebackers in the 4-3 is a bit off I think. In the 3-4 you tend to field faster linebackers who can cover where in the 4-3 you have biger linebackers who tend to play the run more.

Look at the Texans LBs compared to 4-3 LBs. Generally, LBs in the 4-3 are smaller b/c the extra D-line makes it easier for the LBs to get off blocks. The only big LB in the 4-3 scheme is the Mike Backer. Our LBs are a little small to run a traditional 3-4 (or than Babin and Peek, so perhaps this is your rationale - but look at the Patriots or Steelers and the size of their LBs).

DaveCarr@andrejohnson.net
01-30-2006, 08:58 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3620084.html
And what makes you believe that?

infantrycak
01-30-2006, 09:19 PM
Our LBs are a little small to run a traditional 3-4 (or than Babin and Peek, so perhaps this is your rationale - but look at the Patriots or Steelers and the size of their LBs).

Let's see:
LOLB Babin 6' 2" 259 lbs vs. Haggans 6' 4" 243 lbs
LILB Polk 6' 2" 240 lbs or Wong 6' 2" 246 lbs vs. Farrier 6' 2" 243 lbs
RILB Greenwood 6' 0" 238 lbs vs. Foote 6' 0" 239 lbs
ROLB Peek 6' 3" 238 lbs (down by choice from 250 lbs when he joined the Texans) vs. Porter 6' 3" 250 lbs

I am not seeing the marked contrast between the Texans' LB's and the Steelers' on size.

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 09:24 PM
Let's see:
LOLB Babin 6' 2" 259 lbs vs. Haggans 6' 4" 243 lbs
LILB Polk 6' 2" 240 lbs or Wong 6' 2" 246 lbs vs. Farrier 6' 2" 243 lbs
RILB Greenwood 6' 0" 238 lbs vs. Foote 6' 0" 239 lbs
ROLB Peek 6' 3" 238 lbs (down by choice from 250 lbs when he joined the Texans) vs. Porter 6' 3" 250 lbs

I am not seeing the marked contrast between the Texans' LB's and the Steelers' on size.

No compare them to the Bronocs LBs. I am saying that 3-4 backers tend to be bigger than 4-3 LBs.

infantrycak
01-30-2006, 10:08 PM
No compare them to the Bronocs LBs. I am saying that 3-4 backers tend to be bigger than 4-3 LBs.

In addition to that you said:

Our LBs are a little small to run a traditional 3-4 (or than Babin and Peek, so perhaps this is your rationale - but look at the Patriots or Steelers and the size of their LBs).

That assertion doesn't hold water at least for the Steelers. Yes OLB's in a 3-4 are usually bigger than OLB's in a 4-3.

HardKnockTexan
01-30-2006, 10:22 PM
No compare them to the Bronocs LBs. I am saying that 3-4 backers tend to be bigger than 4-3 LBs.

here are Denver's starting linebackers:

WLB - Ian Gold 6'0'' 223 lbs.
MLB - Al Wilson 6'0'' 240 lbs.
SLB - DJ Williams 6'1'' 242 lbs.

with the exception of Ian Gold, who is extremley undersized to be playing the outside linebacker possition the other two spots are, atleast in terms of size, right around where our starters are.

In the 3-4 defense the 2 middle linebackers are usually between the 240 to 250 pound range with 1 OLB being on the smaller side due to his coverage responsibilities.

Honestly I was expecting to see a more dramatic diference between our LB corps and Denver's. The 3-4 tends to have smaller more athletic linebackers than the one's used in the 4-3. I'm thinking if we switch to a 4-3 that Babin could add a few pounds and a little strength and make the transition to the DL pretty easily. Peek could play the weak side backer possition with Wong holding the middle down and either Greenwood or Orr taking the strong side spot... or we draft AJ Hawk and throw everything up in the air. :yahoo:

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 10:34 PM
here are Denver's starting linebackers:

WLB - Ian Gold 6'0'' 223 lbs.
MLB - Al Wilson 6'0'' 240 lbs.
SLB - DJ Williams 6'1'' 242 lbs.

with the exception of Ian Gold, who is extremley undersized to be playing the outside linebacker possition the other two spots are, atleast in terms of size, right around where our starters are.

In the 3-4 defense the 2 middle linebackers are usually between the 240 to 250 pound range with 1 OLB being on the smaller side due to his coverage responsibilities.

Honestly I was expecting to see a more dramatic diference between our LB corps and Denver's. The 3-4 tends to have smaller more athletic linebackers than the one's used in the 4-3. I'm thinking if we switch to a 4-3 that Babin could add a few pounds and a little strength and make the transition to the DL pretty easily. Peek could play the weak side backer possition with Wong holding the middle down and either Greenwood or Orr taking the strong side spot... or we draft AJ Hawk and throw everything up in the air. :yahoo:

I am sorry but the 3-4 does NOT tend to have smaller linebackers. You have to realize that we moved to a "smaller" unit this past season. However, Jamie Sharper and Jay Foreman were of good size. The 3-4 consists primarily of undersized DEs that are converted to linebacker. Some people use large linebackers in the 4-3, but generally they are smaller than 3-4 players.

dalemurphy
01-30-2006, 10:40 PM
here are Denver's starting linebackers:

WLB - Ian Gold 6'0'' 223 lbs.
MLB - Al Wilson 6'0'' 240 lbs.
SLB - DJ Williams 6'1'' 242 lbs.

with the exception of Ian Gold, who is extremley undersized to be playing the outside linebacker possition the other two spots are, atleast in terms of size, right around where our starters are.

In the 3-4 defense the 2 middle linebackers are usually between the 240 to 250 pound range with 1 OLB being on the smaller side due to his coverage responsibilities.

Honestly I was expecting to see a more dramatic diference between our LB corps and Denver's. The 3-4 tends to have smaller more athletic linebackers than the one's used in the 4-3. I'm thinking if we switch to a 4-3 that Babin could add a few pounds and a little strength and make the transition to the DL pretty easily. Peek could play the weak side backer possition with Wong holding the middle down and either Greenwood or Orr taking the strong side spot... or we draft AJ Hawk and throw everything up in the air. :yahoo:

3-4 Linebackers are usually larger than 4-3 LBs... 4-3 systems generally need speed at LB, with the assumption that the Ol will be fully occupied with the 4 DLmen. In a 3-4, by design, the 2 OLB are often taking on OTs... in addition, the ILB in a 3-4 are more likely to have to shed blocks from OL than they would in a 4-3.

infantrycak
01-30-2006, 10:40 PM
I am sorry but the 3-4 does NOT tend to have smaller linebackers. You have to realize that we moved to a "smaller" unit this past season. However, Jamie Sharper and Jay Foreman were of good size. The 3-4 consists primarily of undersized DEs that are converted to linebacker. Some people use large linebackers in the 4-3, but generally they are smaller than 3-4 players.

A distinction has to be made between ILB's and OLB's. Yes the OLB's in 3-4's are often bigger than OLB's in a 4-3. The Texans did not move to a smaller unit this past season. Jay Foreman is 6' 1" 240 lbs (Greenwood who replaced him is 6' 238 lbs) and Sharper is 6' 3" 239 lbs (Polk 6' 2" 240 lbs and Wong is 6' 2" 246 lbs).

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 11:12 PM
A distinction has to be made between ILB's and OLB's. Yes the OLB's in 3-4's are often bigger than OLB's in a 4-3. The Texans did not move to a smaller unit this past season. Jay Foreman is 6' 1" 240 lbs (Greenwood who replaced him is 6' 238 lbs) and Sharper is 6' 3" 239 lbs (Polk 6' 2" 240 lbs and Wong is 6' 2" 246 lbs).

The Texans made a point of getting smaller on defense last season. Jay Foreman may be listed at 240 lbs, but is at least 255 lbs. Sharper has always been considered undersized as an ILB, this coupled with his age is why the Texans were concerned about his durability. Greenwood is small, I do not care what his listed weight is.

My point is that you cannot make a statement that LBs are generally smaller in the 3-4 scheme. Now you are saying ILBs are smaller, well half of our LBs are OLBs. Not all of these players are going to be back. Our LBs are going to get smaller. Peek and Babin will move the DE, thus, leaving Wong, Greenwood, and a MLB to be named later. This is a considerably smaller group of LBs then Peek, Babin, Wong, Greenwood. Our roster is going to transition to more speed at the LB position as this is needed for the 4-3 scheme. Stating that LBs are smaller in the 3-4 scheme is simply false and contrary to the logic of how the scheme is designed to work.

edo783
01-30-2006, 11:22 PM
Frankly, to me it all sounds kind of like a tempest in a teapot. Based on who we have and how they compare, they are fairly comparable to guys in the 4-3 and shuffeld around can play the 3-4. Are they really good at either one is the question and IMO, they are middle road talent only. OK for the moment, but will need to be addressed in the future.

infantrycak
01-30-2006, 11:24 PM
The Texans made a point of getting smaller on defense last season. Jay Foreman may be listed at 240 lbs, but is at least 255 lbs. Sharper has always been considered undersized as an ILB, this coupled with his age is why the Texans were concerned about his durability. Greenwood is small, I do not care what his listed weight is.

This is friggin ridiculous--now you are just making facts up. Whatever. Jay Foreman may be 255 lbs now after a year of eating Hoho's on the couch but he never touched anything close to that while with the Texans.

My point is that you cannot make a statement that LBs are generally smaller in the 3-4 scheme.

Agreed, as I said several times above.

Now you are saying ILBs are smaller, well half of our LBs are OLBs.

Every day I come to learn more and more that reading is not fundamental. I did not say ILB's in a 3-4 are smaller. I said the OLB's in a 3-4 are generally bigger. I also corrected your mistatements that the Pittsburgh LB's are appreciably bigger than the Texans' and that the Texans LB's got appreciably smaller last year.

By the way. There is huge variation in the size of 4-3 MLB's from guys like Vilma 6' 1" 230 lbs and Zach Thomas 5' 11" 228 lbs to Jeremiah Trotter 6' 1" 262 lbs and Brian Urlacher 6' 4" 258 lbs--all pro-bowlers playing in 4-3 D's.

bdiddy
01-30-2006, 11:31 PM
This is friggin ridiculous--now you are just making facts up. Whatever. Jay Foreman may be 255 lbs now after a year of eating Hoho's on the couch but he never touched anything close to that while with the Texans.



Agreed, as I said several times above.



Every day I come to learn more and more that reading is not fundamental. I did not say ILB's in a 3-4 are smaller. I said the OLB's in a 3-4 are generally bigger. I also corrected your mistatements that the Pittsburgh LB's are appreciably bigger than the Texans' and that the Texans LB's got appreciably smaller last year.

Pittsburgh has recently gone to smaller LBs but has historically had large LBs in the past, think LeVon Kirkland. It also helps having quasi-5th LB in Polamolu.

My point regarding the ILB being smaller was in comparison to OLB in the 3-4 scheme. If we are generally replacing and/or converting our current OLBs to DEs, presumably the OLBs brought in will be quicker. Greenwood is vastly quicker in coverage than any of our other LBs. Wong has previously play OLB in a 4-3, this is both players natural position.

My whole point is that our LBs should get faster b/c this is what the 4-3 defense emphasizes. In turn, I am willing to bet that in 2 years our LBs as a whole will be smaller.

infantrycak
01-30-2006, 11:33 PM
Wong has previously play OLB in a 4-3, this is both players natural position.

FYI--Wong spent the vast majority of his time in MN's 4-3 at ILB.

HardKnockTexan
01-30-2006, 11:43 PM
all this talk about 5 to 10 pounds is making me think I'm at a beauty sallon or sitting with my girlfriend while she's getting her nails done.:crying:

HJam72
01-31-2006, 12:41 AM
all this talk about 5 to 10 pounds is making me think I'm at a beauty sallon or sitting with my girlfriend while she's getting her nails done.:crying:

I gotta stop eating hoho's. :)

texan279
01-31-2006, 10:22 AM
Because that is far from what I intend to say.

First you say the win loss record reflects on the QB, then you say the win loss record is not all the QB's fault, then when I ask why you don't just say the win loss record reflects the team and you reply with this. I don't think you are sure what you intend to say...

bigTEXan8
01-31-2006, 10:50 AM
The W/L record reflects on the entire team. Not just the QB, RB, D, SP, etc. Everyone on the team is responsible. Blaming just the QB in this situation when the entire team is responsible is the definition of "scapegoat."

texan279
01-31-2006, 11:00 AM
The W/L record reflects on the entire team. Not just the QB, RB, D, SP, etc. Everyone on the team is responsible. Blaming just the QB in this situation when the entire team is responsible is the definition of "scapegoat."

You and I understand this, I am just trying to figure out what point thunder is trying to get across....here is his first post in this thread....

I agree with Kubiak, "that position is about success" more than any other position on the field, the teams W-L is a reflection of the QB. David hasn't had a lot of success at the position. It's not all his fault. Still, he feels it more than anyone else. Surely David isn't used to loosing..... well, we hope he isn't. Kubiak's got to find out if he is strong enough to internalize those losses, and rise above them.
Personally I feel if David thinks those are not his losses, then he needs to go. A leader would own those losses, whether they are his or not.

Reading articles like this also make me feel good about Kubiak, and the possibility that Carr may be here to stay............... I stand by my opinion, however, that he isn't worth the $10 million it will cost us to play him this year.

Here was my reply...The team's win/loss record is a reflection of the TEAM and the coaching staff, not just the QB...If a team's win/loss record was a reflection of the QB, according to last season I guess Favre and McNabb are some of the worst QB's in the league...

And he replied with this...I said everything I wanted to say about Wins/losses, you're trying to twist what I intended, and explained. I'm not blaming Carr for every Win/loss. Try to read those words in context with everything I said.

And yes, even with all those problems Favre had this year, his playing was even worse, he was not the HOF QB we expect him to be.


Then I replied with this...this is what you said
Quote:
I agree with Kubiak, "that position is about success" more than any other position on the field, the teams W-L is a reflection of the QB. David hasn't had a lot of success at the position. It's not all his fault. Still, he feels it more than anyone else. Surely David isn't used to loosing..... well, we hope he isn't. Kubiak's got to find out if he is strong enough to internalize those losses, and rise above them.
Personally I feel if David thinks those are not his losses, then he needs to go. A leader would own those losses, whether they are his or not.



Reading articles like this also make me feel good about Kubiak, and the possibility that Carr may be here to stay............... I stand by my opinion, however, that he isn't worth the $10 million it will cost us to play him this year.

You say it relfects the QB, then you say it is not all his fault. Why not just say the win loss record reflects on the team as a whole.


And he replied with this Because that is far from what I intend to say.

thunderkyss
01-31-2006, 01:24 PM
The W/L record reflects on the entire team. Not just the QB, RB, D, SP, etc. Everyone on the team is responsible. Blaming just the QB in this situation when the entire team is responsible is the definition of "scapegoat."

First off, I'm not trying to blame anyone... so I said it's not his fault.

But I believe the Quarterback should internalize the team record to a much greater degree than any other player on the team. Which may affect Carr abnormally. Kubiak can't go to him, and say it isn't your fault....... I think that is why McNabb has had such a hard time getting to the Superbowl, and when he got there, the Eagles failed to win. I also believe this is why Brooks is doing so badly in N.O., because he doesn't own up to any of the losses as his fault, and his coach(Haslette) helped foster that idea.

The Coach isn't even on the field, but that W-L record says more about him, than it does any player on the team.... It's about leadership. I think Kubiak understands that, when he says Carr hasn't experienced much success leading his team to wins.