The Lions Defensive Line: Much Ado about not much?

Dawildboar wrote:Are the offenses throwing quicker passes to avoid the sacks? I've watched all but two of the games live and I thought the Dline was okay but I really thought the back 7 were playing pretty damn good. I didn't watch yesterdays live and in text conversations with my family they said the Lions D-Line was stuffing the Jags run like a "Christmas Turkey" but the pass rush was lacking. My guess is part of stopping the rush was Jennings rushing and not MJD.

They said game balls should go to CJ, the O-line, who just crushed the Jags and the secondary that handles an inferior team like an inferior team. Apparently the score was closer than the game. as one nephew said, "If they had to beat the Jags by 50 to fly home in coach, they all would have flown first class!"

Boar,

I tend to agree with much of what your family told you except for a couple of caveats:

1. The DL seemed to go away a little from their wide 9 formation. Not sure if this was to strangle the run and force the young QB and weak receivers to beat them. Still, even with this I thought the Lions got decent pressure and thought I saw some pretty good numbers for hits and pressures.

2. The defense looked really good for most of the first half then was OK from then on. If the WR doesn't let a perfectly good pass bounce off his hands to be intercepted the game could've been a little tighter in the second half. I'm guessing the Lions defense let down a little after building such a big lead and keeping the Jags toothless. Still...this was the worst offense in the league both in ypg and scoring...by FAR the worst offense.

3. The OL did a solid job run blocking (Raiola still lived on the ground) but Stafford got roughed up pretty good. I'm not sure I've seen him take such a consistent beating as he did during the first half of this game.

It is nice to see some solid running attack and Leshoure is starting to prove something. I was disappointed that he couldn't play most of the fourth quarter and hope he bounces back quickly. The offense is doing OK but still room for improvement.

I've stuck with the idea that the defense plays OK against poor offenses but has been blown out by good offenses. I did notice that the scheduling gods may have done the Lions a real favor. The Lions have four games against passing offenses in the top 12 with Indy being the highest at 6. The average passing offense of the other four teams is like 24. If the gimp Delmas can get healthy and Green continues to improve the defense may be able to play well enough to allow the Lions offense to win enough games to make the second half interesting. Have to win a minimum of 6 out of the last 8.

Dawildboar wrote:Are the offenses throwing quicker passes to avoid the sacks? I've watched all but two of the games live and I thought the Dline was okay but I really thought the back 7 were playing pretty damn good. I didn't watch yesterdays live and in text conversations with my family they said the Lions D-Line was stuffing the Jags run like a "Christmas Turkey" but the pass rush was lacking. My guess is part of stopping the rush was Jennings rushing and not MJD.

They said game balls should go to CJ, the O-line, who just crushed the Jags and the secondary that handles an inferior team like an inferior team. Apparently the score was closer than the game. as one nephew said, "If they had to beat the Jags by 50 to fly home in coach, they all would have flown first class!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your nephew was on the right track, but 50? I'm not too sure they could have done that. However, there were only two chances of Jax winning, slim and none. They did exactly what teams are supposed to do when playing their poor sisters. They got the Jags down early and never took their foot off their collective throats. CJ played like it was gut check time, and so did Leshoure and Bell. I, for one, am glad they drafted Broyles, he's going to be a good one. Jax does have a fairly decent D, so the Detroit O needed to play well, not outstanding, but well. Hard to tell just how well the D played as they were playing an inferior team, without their best weapon. That being said it will count the same as a win against anyone. They are no longer under water and have the opportunity to exact some revenge next Sunday against the Vikes, who have a verifiable threat in Adrian Peterson. I want to mention, LoJack, he was primarily responsible for the Lions 2nd TD, because of his sack and Jags subsequent punt, the Lions started with their best field position to that point. Another shout out goes to Mr Riley Reif the blocking specialist who makes the holes to move the chains. Give Stafford and Co a short field and they can do some damage. Perhaps they'll be a bit healthier on D next week.

RLMcB wrote:

Dawildboar wrote:Are the offenses throwing quicker passes to avoid the sacks? I've watched all but two of the games live and I thought the Dline was okay but I really thought the back 7 were playing pretty damn good. I didn't watch yesterdays live and in text conversations with my family they said the Lions D-Line was stuffing the Jags run like a "Christmas Turkey" but the pass rush was lacking. My guess is part of stopping the rush was Jennings rushing and not MJD.

They said game balls should go to CJ, the O-line, who just crushed the Jags and the secondary that handles an inferior team like an inferior team. Apparently the score was closer than the game. as one nephew said, "If they had to beat the Jags by 50 to fly home in coach, they all would have flown first class!"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your nephew was on the right track, but 50? I'm not too sure they could have done that. However, there were only two chances of Jax winning, slim and none. They did exactly what teams are supposed to do when playing their poor sisters. They got the Jags down early and never took their foot off their collective throats. CJ played like it was gut check time, and so did Leshoure and Bell. I, for one, am glad they drafted Broyles, he's going to be a good one. Jax does have a fairly decent D, so the Detroit O needed to play well, not outstanding, but well. Hard to tell just how well the D played as they were playing an inferior team, without their best weapon. That being said it will count the same as a win against anyone. They are no longer under water and have the opportunity to exact some revenge next Sunday against the Vikes, who have a verifiable threat in Adrian Peterson. I want to mention, LoJack, he was primarily responsible for the Lions 2nd TD, because of his sack and Jags subsequent punt, the Lions started with their best field position to that point. Another shout out goes to Mr Riley Reif the blocking specialist who makes the holes to move the chains. Give Stafford and Co a short field and they can do some damage. Perhaps they'll be a bit healthier on D next week.

Not sure Jax defense is much to write home about. They are 27th in ypg and 26th in ppg. I agree with your point that the Lions did what they were supposed to do yesterday but it will be nice to see them beat teams they have to beat like the Vikes, Pack and Bears.

Not sure Jax defense is much to write home about. They are 27th in ypg and 26th in ppg. I agree with your point that the Lions did what they were supposed to do yesterday but it will be nice to see them beat teams they have to beat like the Vikes, Pack and Bears.

Mi, Ponder was 11 for 22 yards for something like 68 yards against Seattle, against the Lions he threw for 100 yards! The Lions with anything other than bad luck, or crap playing by their special teams, should be 6 & 2 and I'm not sure the Bears shouldn't be one of those wins.

They're better than their record but what can you do? Lions will go to Minnesota as the underdog...Guess what? That's right where I want them to be. They will rise to the occassion and with a victory will have have the swag that they need against the Packers and I got real good seats to that game...I want to see a team that's looking forward to busting out against a divisional foe!

Dawildboar wrote:Not sure Jax defense is much to write home about. They are 27th in ypg and 26th in ppg. I agree with your point that the Lions did what they were supposed to do yesterday but it will be nice to see them beat teams they have to beat like the Vikes, Pack and Bears.

Mi, Ponder was 11 for 22 yards for something like 68 yards against Seattle, against the Lions he threw for 100 yards! The Lions with anything other than bad luck, or crap playing by their special teams, should be 6 & 2 and I'm not sure the Bears shouldn't be one of those wins.

They're better than their record but what can you do? Lions will go to Minnesota as the underdog...Guess what? That's right where I want them to be. They will rise to the occassion and with a victory will have have the swag that they need against the Packers and I got real good seats to that game...I want to see a team that's looking forward to busting out against a divisional foe!

~~~~~~~~~~~ What is encouraging to me is the ability to run the freakin ball. That alone will begin to be apparent as the weather gets cold. Not the 40-70 yard gashes, but the consistent 6-12 yards, "Here we come, we're gonna whip yer ass," kind of down hill running. With two big bruising RB that catch the ball out of the backfield also and the designated blocker Riley Reif, teams that are set up to defend the pass with 2 deep zones will disavow that principle pretty quickly. That's when Megatron, Broyles and Young will take the top off the defense. Throw in Sheffler and Pettigrew to get loose down the middle and this team can be tough to contain. They just need to get up on teams early to take them out of their game plan, make them one dimensional, having to pass to try to catch up. As Stafford gets more confidence throwing to Broyles. Not just trust, but the same comfort level of throwing to CJ, then Broyles will be more dangerous than Nate Burleson. Nate's good, but Broyles is way more talented and younger at this point.

Dawildboar wrote:Not sure Jax defense is much to write home about. They are 27th in ypg and 26th in ppg. I agree with your point that the Lions did what they were supposed to do yesterday but it will be nice to see them beat teams they have to beat like the Vikes, Pack and Bears.

Mi, Ponder was 11 for 22 yards for something like 68 yards against Seattle, against the Lions he threw for 100 yards! The Lions with anything other than bad luck, or crap playing by their special teams, should be 6 & 2 and I'm not sure the Bears shouldn't be one of those wins.

They're better than their record but what can you do? Lions will go to Minnesota as the underdog...Guess what? That's right where I want them to be. They will rise to the occassion and with a victory will have have the swag that they need against the Packers and I got real good seats to that game...I want to see a team that's looking forward to busting out against a divisional foe!

I hope you are right that they rise to the occassion this weekend. While Ponder has played poorly, the Lions let some pretty weak QBs look decent and those other teams didn't have a Peterson type RB. I do believe the Lions defense should be good enough to keep the Vikings in check. Now let's see if Backus and company can keep Allen out of Stafford's face and if Raiola can give enough push to keep the ground game decent. That happens and we might see a solid effort in an important game.

RLMcB wrote:

Dawildboar wrote:Not sure Jax defense is much to write home about. They are 27th in ypg and 26th in ppg. I agree with your point that the Lions did what they were supposed to do yesterday but it will be nice to see them beat teams they have to beat like the Vikes, Pack and Bears.

Mi, Ponder was 11 for 22 yards for something like 68 yards against Seattle, against the Lions he threw for 100 yards! The Lions with anything other than bad luck, or crap playing by their special teams, should be 6 & 2 and I'm not sure the Bears shouldn't be one of those wins.

They're better than their record but what can you do? Lions will go to Minnesota as the underdog...Guess what? That's right where I want them to be. They will rise to the occassion and with a victory will have have the swag that they need against the Packers and I got real good seats to that game...I want to see a team that's looking forward to busting out against a divisional foe!

~~~~~~~~~~~ What is encouraging to me is the ability to run the freakin ball. That alone will begin to be apparent as the weather gets cold. Not the 40-70 yard gashes, but the consistent 6-12 yards, "Here we come, we're gonna whip yer ass," kind of down hill running. With two big bruising RB that catch the ball out of the backfield also and the designated blocker Riley Reif, teams that are set up to defend the pass with 2 deep zones will disavow that principle pretty quickly. That's when Megatron, Broyles and Young will take the top off the defense. Throw in Sheffler and Pettigrew to get loose down the middle and this team can be tough to contain. They just need to get up on teams early to take them out of their game plan, make them one dimensional, having to pass to try to catch up. As Stafford gets more confidence throwing to Broyles. Not just trust, but the same comfort level of throwing to CJ, then Broyles will be more dangerous than Nate Burleson. Nate's good, but Broyles is way more talented and younger at this point.

I'm also happy that the running game is working. One point of note though...it has taken putting Reiff in as a 6th blocker. Two points on this..

1. I hope Mayhew and Schwartz get the meaning of this...Raiola and the boys can't get the job done with 5. It's high time to replace two or three of these guys (notwithstanding Backus being long in the tooth).

2. Pettigrew isn't the blocker he was made out to be. He is a blocker about the same as most TEs...OK at chipping and can protect at times but don't ask him to be a road grader. If they want a "blocking TE" then need to get one who is really good at it or upgrade the main 5 OL.

Again...I'm happy with Schwartz and Linehan at least sticking Reiff in there to help and the results have shown. Still, let's fix this thing next year so it doesn't take a receiving option off the field for a running play to be successful.

I'm also happy that the running game is working. One point of note though...it has taken putting Reiff in as a 6th blocker. Two points on this..

1. I hope Mayhew and Schwartz get the meaning of this...Raiola and the boys can't get the job done with 5. It's high time to replace two or three of these guys (notwithstanding Backus being long in the tooth).

2. Pettigrew isn't the blocker he was made out to be. He is a blocker about the same as most TEs...OK at chipping and can protect at times but don't ask him to be a road grader. If they want a "blocking TE" then need to get one who is really good at it or upgrade the main 5 OL.

Again...I'm happy with Schwartz and Linehan at least sticking Reiff in there to help and the results have shown. Still, let's fix this thing next year so it doesn't take a receiving option off the field for a running play to be successful.


Mi, the beauty of this deal is with CJ, Titus, Broyles, Pettigrew, Scheffler, Bell and possibly Reiff himself, it doesn't matter if we have one less receiver because those guys need to be respected or you will pay. I can see Reiff getting 2 TDs this year. I think the first one comes against the Packers...The second one might come against the Texans in the second game that we play them!!!
I SAID IT!!! "THE 2ND GAME THAT WE PLAY THE TEXANS!!!" THEY'RE NOT ON THE SCHEDULE FOR A 2ND GAME...ONLY ONE WAY TO PLAY THEM A 2ND GAME...KAA CHING!

Dawildboar wrote:I'm also happy that the running game is working. One point of note though...it has taken putting Reiff in as a 6th blocker. Two points on this..

1. I hope Mayhew and Schwartz get the meaning of this...Raiola and the boys can't get the job done with 5. It's high time to replace two or three of these guys (notwithstanding Backus being long in the tooth).

2. Pettigrew isn't the blocker he was made out to be. He is a blocker about the same as most TEs...OK at chipping and can protect at times but don't ask him to be a road grader. If they want a "blocking TE" then need to get one who is really good at it or upgrade the main 5 OL.

Again...I'm happy with Schwartz and Linehan at least sticking Reiff in there to help and the results have shown. Still, let's fix this thing next year so it doesn't take a receiving option off the field for a running play to be successful.


Mi, the beauty of this deal is with CJ, Titus, Broyles, Pettigrew, Scheffler, Bell and possibly Reiff himself, it doesn't matter if we have one less receiver because those guys need to be respected or you will pay. I can see Reiff getting 2 TDs this year. I think the first one comes against the Packers...The second one might come against the Texans in the second game that we play them!!!
I SAID IT!!! "THE 2ND GAME THAT WE PLAY THE TEXANS!!!" THEY'RE NOT ON THE SCHEDULE FOR A 2ND GAME...ONLY ONE WAY TO PLAY THEM A 2ND GAME...KAA CHING!

Boar...only 11 can be on the field at one time. When Reiff is in there...and I don't see him catching much more than a cold, there are 6 on the line. You add a QB and a RB (won't have Reiff on the field w/o a RB) and there are 3 receivers/TEs. The math can't lie. Could the RB catch the ball? Of course...but so could the RB if there were 5 OL and FOUR receivers/TEs. No two ways about it...the requirement of having Reiff on the field limits the offensive flexibility.

It's just a different look. And one more thing for the D to have to think about.

CorvetteDan wrote:It's just a different look. And one more thing for the D to have to think about.

What's to think about? It's another guy blocking for the running game. This is more than a different look...it's the only way the Lions can run the ball. If the Lions could run with 5 OL there is NO WAY they take a weapon away from Stafford.

Dawildboar wrote:What is encouraging to me is the ability to run the freakin ball. That alone will begin to be apparent as the weather gets cold. Not the 40-70 yard gashes, but the consistent 6-12 yards, "Here we come, we're gonna whip yer ass," kind of down hill running. With two big bruising RB that catch the ball out of the backfield also and the designated blocker Riley Reif, teams that are set up to defend the pass with 2 deep zones will disavow that principle pretty quickly. That's when Megatron, Broyles and Young will take the top off the defense. Throw in Sheffler and Pettigrew to get loose down the middle and this team can be tough to contain. They just need to get up on teams early to take them out of their game plan, make them one dimensional, having to pass to try to catch up. As Stafford gets more confidence throwing to Broyles. Not just trust, but the same comfort level of throwing to CJ, then Broyles will be more dangerous than Nate Burleson. Nate's good, but Broyles is way more talented and younger at this point.

McB, The Lions haven't been able to "Impose Their Will" on an opponent in I don't know how long. They didn't do it last year, they scored long strikes. Nothing is more demoralizing than getting thumped 4-5 yards a crack on a consistent basis. Ball control goes to your favor the opponents defense is breathing hard while ours is relaxing. The opponents offense is anxious while ours is calm...Eventually the opponents send the safeties up for run support...then you send the hounds out and Lions have got the hounds and the gunslinger to make them pay.

This is the best I've felt about this team in a long time...Granted it could be the St. John's Wort I'm taking

And I'm just hoping they can beat a pretty mediocre MN team this week. I still don't feel very good about this team. Just remember...the Lions running attack against the Bears and Seahawks...both top 10ish run defenses have been under 100. It was against the bottom half rushing defenses that the run game was productive.

Boar...only
11 can be on the field at one time. When Reiff is in there...and I
don't see him catching much more than a cold, there are 6 on the line.
You add a QB and a RB (won't have Reiff on the field w/o a RB) and there
are 3 receivers/TEs. The math can't lie. Could the RB catch the ball?
Of course...but so could the RB if there were 5 OL and FOUR
receivers/TEs. No two ways about it...the requirement of having Reiff
on the field limits the offensive flexibility.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Undrafted
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike you are way too smart to miss what linehan is doing with Reif. It is not merely a different look, it is a blocking upgrade in what they already do. Reif comes in as a TE as Tackle eligible, but so far Blocks in place of whoever Linehan used as a blocking TE, Pettigrew or more likely Heller. Reif lines up on the offensive line unlike a combination FB/HB/TE. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see Linehan incorporate some passes to Reif later in the season. This in effect is just the old Jumbo package of an earlier time. With a RB, and Reif both pass blocking it still gives Stafford plenty of protection long enough for the WRs to run more complex and routes more difficult to defend. Even the best CB can only cover a good receiver for about 2-3 seconds effectively. Besides, if the defense doesn't bring at least seven pass rushers, the RB leaks out for a safety valve. My point of this long-winded post, bringing Reif on as the 6th OL is positive, not a negative.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I thinf Reif expands the flexibility. The right person to answer this is probably playing on defense.

RLMcB wrote:Boar...only
11 can be on the field at one time. When Reiff is in there...and I
don't see him catching much more than a cold, there are 6 on the line.
You add a QB and a RB (won't have Reiff on the field w/o a RB) and there
are 3 receivers/TEs. The math can't lie. Could the RB catch the ball?
Of course...but so could the RB if there were 5 OL and FOUR
receivers/TEs. No two ways about it...the requirement of having Reiff
on the field limits the offensive flexibility.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Undrafted
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mike you are way too smart to miss what linehan is doing with Reif. It is not merely a different look, it is a blocking upgrade in what they already do. Reif comes in as a TE as Tackle eligible, but so far Blocks in place of whoever Linehan used as a blocking TE, Pettigrew or more likely Heller. Reif lines up on the offensive line unlike a combination FB/HB/TE. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see Linehan incorporate some passes to Reif later in the season. This in effect is just the old Jumbo package of an earlier time. With a RB, and Reif both pass blocking it still gives Stafford plenty of protection long enough for the WRs to run more complex and routes more difficult to defend. Even the best CB can only cover a good receiver for about 2-3 seconds effectively. Besides, if the defense doesn't bring at least seven pass rushers, the RB leaks out for a safety valve. My point of this long-winded post, bringing Reif on as the 6th OL is positive, not a negative.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

RL...I didn't say it was a "different look"...that was someone else. I said it was a negative that it takes a receiver off the field and is only being done because Backus, Peterman, Sims, Raiola and Cherilus can't run block by themselves. It absolutely takes a FB/HB/TE off the field just as you say which is the problem. A team can now leave rush five and have 6 people defending a total of 4 recievers (whatever mix you want that). Those OL will have to block for a long time for a WR to get open. No...this is used for run blocking first and foremost. It is a necessary evil because the Lions OL is so crappy at run blocking.

CorvetteDan wrote:I thinf Reif expands the flexibility. The right person to answer this is probably playing on defense.

How does it add flexibility Dan??? I can't see this for the life of me. If this were such a good idea all OCs would do this. No... it is FAR better to get solid run blocking from 5 OL and allow more receiving and running back options which is why it's the favored lineup. You guys are reaching like Dick Morris reached to sell the idea of a Mitt Romney landslide!

RL...I
didn't say it was a "different look"...that was someone else. I said it
was a negative that it takes a receiver off the field and is only being
done because Backus, Peterman, Sims, Raiola and Cherilus can't run
block by themselves. It absolutely takes a FB/HB/TE off the field just
as you say which is the problem. A team can now leave rush five and
have 6 people defending a total of 4 recievers (whatever mix you want
that). Those OL will have to block for a long time for a WR to get
open. No...this is used for run blocking first and foremost. It is a
necessary evil because the Lions OL is so crappy at run blocking.

meiden
How does it add flexibility Dan??? I can't see this for the life of me.
If this were such a good idea all OCs would do this. No... it is FAR
better to get solid run blocking from 5 OL and allow more receiving and
running back options which is why it's the favored lineup. You guys are
reaching like Dick Morris reached to sell the idea of a Mitt Romney
landslide! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike, I think this conversation is somewhat like the old Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck routine, where Daffy finally says to Bugs, to paraphrase. "Aha, the problem we have is semantics" This use of Reif as a blocking TE does take away from the passing game. However, not being able to run the ball most assuredly takes away from the passing game. With him in that role he does make the running game effective. So, that's the positive to offset the negative you spoke of. Now, an additional positive can happen if they can execute an effective passing game with Reif on the field in the role he is cast in. I said can happen, we'll see if they can as we go forward against a much tougher schedule. Execution is generally the key to success in the NFL.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

RLMcB wrote:RL...I
didn't say it was a "different look"...that was someone else. I said it
was a negative that it takes a receiver off the field and is only being
done because Backus, Peterman, Sims, Raiola and Cherilus can't run
block by themselves. It absolutely takes a FB/HB/TE off the field just
as you say which is the problem. A team can now leave rush five and
have 6 people defending a total of 4 recievers (whatever mix you want
that). Those OL will have to block for a long time for a WR to get
open. No...this is used for run blocking first and foremost. It is a
necessary evil because the Lions OL is so crappy at run blocking.

meiden
How does it add flexibility Dan??? I can't see this for the life of me.
If this were such a good idea all OCs would do this. No... it is FAR
better to get solid run blocking from 5 OL and allow more receiving and
running back options which is why it's the favored lineup. You guys are
reaching like Dick Morris reached to sell the idea of a Mitt Romney
landslide! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike, I think this conversation is somewhat like the old Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck routine, where Daffy finally says to Bugs, to paraphrase. "Aha, the problem we have is semantics" This use of Reif as a blocking TE does take away from the passing game. However, not being able to run the ball most assuredly takes away from the passing game. With him in that role he does make the running game effective. So, that's the positive to offset the negative you spoke of. Now, an additional positive can happen if they can execute an effective passing game with Reif on the field in the role he is cast in. I said can happen, we'll see if they can as we go forward against a much tougher schedule. Execution is generally the key to success in the NFL.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I just don't see how taking a receiving threat off the field doesn't take away from the passing game. What would be a positive that doesn't take have to take away a negative is if the 5 OL could run block like many groups in the league. Execution is absolutely the key to success in the NFL...when a team can execute a run blocking scheme the team needs to put in a gimmick like a sixth OL.

Execution is absolutely the key to success in the NFL...when a team can execute a run blocking scheme the team needs to put in a gimmick like a sixth OL.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Whatever it takes!

Sharon










[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I just
don't see how taking a receiving threat off the field doesn't take away
from the passing game. What would be a positive that doesn't take have
to take away a negative is if the 5 OL could run block like many groups
in the league. Execution is absolutely the key to success in the
NFL...when a team can execute a run blocking scheme the team needs to
put in a gimmick like a sixth OL.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Undrafted
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mike, there is something to be said for being able to line up and say, "We're going to run the ball, either through you or over you whether you like it or not." I don't really care if it takes 9 blockers to impose a running game when it is the most important, late in a game when they are leading. Would I like it to happen with five O linemen? Absolutely, however, not often with our five, unfortunately. There is hope they will add to Reif and Sims again next year.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I like this., I like creativity. I like thinking outside the box. Now this might not work at all. Then again, it might become the next trend. I guess one question would "Does he have any hands?". They might put in a running play just for him. Or a 190 safety 'I have to tackle him?". Or a LB wanting to blitz and thinking better of it. A DL seeing him out there without a RB. Now they are thinking. Make them have to think more. And if he has hands, it isn't losing a passing threat. But now you have to plan against him 3 different ways.

CorvetteDan wrote:I like this., I like creativity. I like thinking outside the box. Now this might not work at all. Then again, it might become the next trend. I guess one question would "Does he have any hands?". They might put in a running play just for him. Or a 190 safety 'I have to tackle him?". Or a LB wanting to blitz and thinking better of it. A DL seeing him out there without a RB. Now they are thinking. Make them have to think more. And if he has hands, it isn't losing a passing threat. But now you have to plan against him 3 different ways.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Exactly Dan, get in the oppositions head, All they need to see is one ball thrown to him, whether he catches it or not, then he becomes a threat to them forever after. Just like he is used now, when he is in they must bring another defensive player up to the line to make sure the Lions don't have too big of an advantage to run the ball, because now the Lions have proven they can and will run the ball. Linehan can easily turn that into a passing threat also with a little out of the box thinking.