Are 7 LB's enough?

Probably not for the 3-4 scheme, since TBC and B. Moore also double as DE's in the nickel. The club likes Mark Washington, but he is the youngest player on the team, is very green, and has taken most of his TC reps as an ILB. He could be promoted from the PS, but not likely with Nolan having playoff aspirations for this team. Navies, Haralson and Moore are likely to share SAM duties on a situational basis, for the forseeable future, but a back-up OLB would help a lot for defensive depth and ST contributions.

Look for some OLB tryouts tomorrow (Tuesday), and maybe a signing, which would require Keasey to clear waivers again for a return to the PS.

I don't think we would have a problem with Keasey clearing waivers, but what names are out there?

We are about to see the results of McCloughan's Pro Player scouting operations. My guess is that whomever OLB's are brought-in for the try-out, none will be household names (like the Attiyak Ellison signing).

Mark Fields. Thats who I think will be brought in.

.

Originally posted by txzniner:
.

Awesome post, and nearly a year after the one before it.

Originally posted by aussieEd9ers:

Originally posted by txzniner:
.

Awesome post, and nearly a year after the one before it.

Looks like her post may have fell into the sink hole.

Originally posted by jimbagg:
Probably not for the 3-4 scheme, since TBC and B. Moore also double as DE's in the nickel. The club likes Mark Washington, but he is the youngest player on the team, is very green, and has taken most of his TC reps as an ILB. He could be promoted from the PS, but not likely with Nolan having playoff aspirations for this team. Navies, Haralson and Moore are likely to share SAM duties on a situational basis, for the forseeable future, but a back-up OLB would help a lot for defensive depth and ST contributions.

Look for some OLB tryouts tomorrow (Tuesday), and maybe a signing, which would require Keasey to clear waivers again for a return to the PS.

I don't think Keasey is eligible for the PS anymore.

jimbagg, what if , as has been kicked around, we end up playing 4-3 a LOT more than 3-4. Say 2:1 or 3:1. In that case, how many DLs do you see us keeping? Whichever D set, 3-4 or 4-3, we play the most of, shouldn't we be keeping 7-8 DLs in a 4-3, or 7-8 LBs in a 3-4? With all the talk of shifting from 3-4 to 4-3 or vice versa,(oh and don't forget the "hybrid"), i am going to be very curious how many of each LBs and DLs are kept. Not that it can't change, but if we are more 4-3 then i think we go with more DLs than LBs, and vice versa.

I would love for nolan to take some time out and give us a coherent picture of what he sees our D lining up as this yr, but i guess we can all figure it out pretty quick, once preseason starts.

Put some names down.

At least 8: Lawson, B. Moore, TBC, Willis, Thomas, Grant, Navies, Haralson

Jay Moore, Washington also have a chance

It seems like everybody forgot about Navies.

Originally posted by Watchutalkinbout:
It seems like everybody forgot about Navies.

I wonder why?

Originally posted by jonomax:
Put some names down.

At least 8: Lawson, B. Moore, TBC, Willis, Thomas, Grant, Navies, Haralson

Jay Moore, Washington also have a chance

What about Nolan's favorite, Ulbrich?

Originally posted by AKfanster:

Originally posted by jonomax:
Put some names down.

At least 8: Lawson, B. Moore, TBC, Willis, Thomas, Grant, Navies, Haralson

Jay Moore, Washington also have a chance

What about Nolan's favorite, Ulbrich?

Lawson, Willis, B.Moore, Green, Ulbrich, Thomas, Haralson, Grant
With TBC getting cut.