True, it may or may not go down. But interesting to consider, no?
[Reply]

If the trade compensation isn't much there is no downside. Might wake some of these guys up a bit.
[Reply]

when were nearly 90% sure the ravens were going to run.......we still couldnt stop them (nor get any push from the DL)....and watching Hitchens wait, just to feebly engage a blocker to make it look like he was 'busy'.....is infuriating.
[Reply]

[Reply]

This is one of those time where you can say "how could it be any worse" and be factually correct. Don't have to worry having the 33rd rated defense. It would be worth a look IMO.
[Reply]

At first I was like huh??

But then i was like haha
[Reply]

Oh, sure, since he's available it's fine to consider whether the Chiefs should pursue him and if he'd be a good fit.

Just from a "journalism" standpoint, a story asserting the Chiefs have been linked to a player -- absent anything such as an actual source connected to the player or either team -- just irks me.
[Reply]

Well, there's that. Maybe I'm still basking in the glory of shutting down Derrick Henry in the AFC championship game a couple of years ago.

What's Mike Pennel up to these days? He seems to magically make a run defense better.
[Reply]

Fun fact: Melvin Ingram leads the NFL in pressures
[Reply]

Good God Almighty…

Last rush defense in several categories
Fifth worst in sacks
Last in pressures

I didn’t realize it was THIS bad

do it
Do It
DO IT
[Reply]

Also a good Sam candidate.

The issue is the overlap. If he's in at Sam it's presumably on running downs (you don't want him in coverage so Sam is out on passing downs) so if he's at Sam , you still have problems on the edge w/ Jones being green out there and Clark being ineffective in running situations.

If he's at the LEO, you still have an issue w/ the Sam 'backer in base formations (i.e. running downs). Perhaps the hope would be that moving Jones back inside in those situations would yield better run defense?

I guess his best role may end up being what we should've gone after Ingram for - LEO in passing downs. He can probably still generate a little pressure.

But it still leaves us robbing Peter to pay Paul against the run.

SIGN TACO!!!!!!
[Reply]

If he can actually stay healthy, I'll be pissed we didn't get him.
[Reply]

Is Gay not the SAM backer? Pretty sure Spagnuolo said something about that being where he'd get reps.

Edit: somehow gave the post a thumbs down. Hate that you can't change that shit.
[Reply]

I felt like that was their 'ease him in' role last year and that he was going to play more Will this year w/ Bolton as the Sam. At least that's what I would imagine based on their respective skill-sets.

But they also use slightly different LB terminology than I'm used to so I'm not real sure how they utilize a 'buck backer' or whatever they call it.

But if you use conventional terms to describe their roles, I would say that Gay, being far more athletic, is likely to be your 'Will' as conventionally described (coverage backer who occasionally rushes) and Bolton as your Sam (occasionally covers TEs but more frequently in a run support role; physical, downhill player), regardless of what they actually call them.

EDIT: FUCK YOUR THUMBS DOWN!!! YOU TO GO HELL AND YOU DIE!
[Reply]

Do you bring Foster in to bolster our stable of brokedick degenerates?
[Reply]