Originally posted by NCommand:Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
So are you saying Brooks should of started over Lawson just because he was in camp? As you know, the NFL doesn't work that way. The better player on Sunday should and will start. Brooks has been in the league just as long as Lawson. Most of the blame should fall on his shoulders. He is probably our 3rd best OLB (Lawson, Laboy, Brooks, Haralson).
I never said Brooks should have started in THIS defensive scheme. BUT, if your goal is to generate pressure and QB sacks and TFL in the backfield (like a real 3-4 defense), yes Brooks and a fully healthy LaBoy would be your starters.
Brooks has also demonstrated that he’s better than both Haralson/LaBoy in coverage and has done an exceptional job sealing the edge, playing off his man and making many tackles for losses, things that were a concern coming into 2010. His only real issue has been his false starts (one critical) and concentration but then again, we can say that about every single player on our “veteran” defense this year…between the ears has been a HUGE issue and aside from a piss poor scheme, one of the reasons we are 25th against the pass (e.g. no pass rush utilized) ranked 18th in points allowed and 14th in total yards allowed.
Let's face it, Manusky's defensive scheme is terrible despite a veteran club and added pass rusher in LaBoy to the mix for 2010.
So if “I” was the DC, yes, both those guys would be starters over Lawson/Haralson in a more pure 3-4 scheme with exotic blitz schemes like a Jets defense.
Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Everybody knocks Lawson for his lack of sacks, but look at the turnovers he's caused. He was responsible for the Spikes INT, His own vs. Zach Miller and another play that caused the QB to throw a bad ball because of his extreme height and reach. And thats just recent games. What has Brooks done besides drop a lob ball from Rivers that should have been run back for a TD? Brooks doesn't start because he’s not that good. Being physically gifted is only part of the equation. Football smarts, mental fortitude and being clutch is probably 70/60 percent of it.
I don’t even blame Lawson. He’s an average 3-4 player on an average-at-best defense that has a DC who utilizes him more in coverage and against the run, dismissing the primary responsibility of a true 3-4 OLB and THAT is to get after the QB and be a playmaker. The problem is that Lawson can’t get to the QB anyhow so why would Manusky use him that way? His strengths and weakness have been well documented over all these years even in 2010, his contract year. He’s another one of those “close but no cigar” guys.
I agree with your last two lines, no doubt. But focusing on just a couple good plays in coverage for Lawson this year, dismissing all the very poor plays by him and dismissing the good Brooks has done this year isn’t just esp. if you compare plays made-by-snaps and what is being asked of them in this scheme. You can’t complain that Brooks may not be good in coverage and then complain b/c he didn’t INT two passes in one game even though he was correctly in position both times. Nobody expects a 260+ OLB in the 3-4 to intercept a pass twice 20 yards down the field in coverage. The better question to ask is WHY are our OLB’s being asked to cover 20 yards down field instead of pass rushing and creating TO’s that way?
NCommand, there is not doubt you know more about X's and Os (Not kisses and huges..
) than I ever will, but I pretty much disagree with this whole paragraph.1. I'm not "focusing on just a couple of good plays in coverage" by Lawson. The examples I gave happened over the last few games. He's also had some very disruptive games while we where on our losing streak. How many OLBs could cover a probowl tight end and make a finger tip grab for an INT? The guy has 2 forced fumbles which are better than sacks. Remember the game he had against CAR where he picked up the sacks.
2. Is there really a diffrence between a two sack guy and a four sack guy? Seriously? If you are a one trick pony you better be pretty dam good at that trick (Brooks). I do not consider 4 sacks good enough to justify his lack of impact (compared to Lawson) in the other areas of his game. In fact, I bet if you added up the loss of yards from his sacks against the yard given up in penalties (At critical times) he is more of a liablity. Besides, how many of Briggs sacks where game changers?
3. I'm not sure where are all these "poor plays" you speak of when it comes to Laswson? Every football player gets beat once in a while, even Willis (vs. Lynch), however that doesn't mean they aren't good. It's not like there is a pattern of poor play (Like Haralson). So please, refresh my memory as to "all the very poor plays" you speak of?
4. Regardless of whatever defensive scheme YOU would play, the fact is Manusky
plays a lot of cover four and demands his LBs to be in coverage. I disagree that "noboby expects" a 260lb OLB to intercept two 20 yard passes down field. I dont fault Brooks for the second miss, but the first one was a floater that came down right in his hands with no one around. Anyone on a football field should be able to catch essentially what was a "give me." No excusses, either you're a playmaker or your not.
5. I dont even know if I agree with your theory that Brooks is a better pure passrusher than Lawson. Brooks comes off the bench with fresh legs and still can't get it done. Lawson is on the field for more than 2/3rds of the time and he seems to be able to get pressure, he just can't make that final step. Brooks may have had good numbers last year, but MOST of those sacks came in one game vs an AZ team that completly imploded that night.
I guess we have to agree to disagree. I can't imagine we'll be able to change each others mind.
[ Edited by Oakland-Niner on Dec 21, 2010 at 4:22 PM ]