Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=30gut;1141927]Do they mean he's attempting to move to a 5-tech DE as in 34 Base D? Or do they mean a DE in a 4 man line that we use upwards of 65% of the time?

Saying a 34 OLB is moving to DE is vague.[/quote]

They are talking about moving to a base 3-4 DE, he already plays DE in nickle.

Gruden is talking about him playing 5 tech here:

[url=http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/With-Move-Inside-Trent-Murphys-Bulking-Up-Phase-Well-Underway/f369f103-65ac-4e48-8dcf-16fdbc9b1fc2]With Move Inside, Trent Murphy's Bulking Up Phase Well Underway[/url]

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=DYoungJelly;1141951]They are talking about moving to a base 3-4 DE, he already plays DE in nickle.

Gruden is talking about him playing 5 tech here:

[url=http://www.redskins.com/news-and-events/article-1/With-Move-Inside-Trent-Murphys-Bulking-Up-Phase-Well-Underway/f369f103-65ac-4e48-8dcf-16fdbc9b1fc2]With Move Inside, Trent Murphy's Bulking Up Phase Well Underway[/url][/quote]Thanks for the link and info.

I don't think Murph will be a good 5-tech 34 DE.
If they must move him have him rushing as a DT in nickel/ known passing situations

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=30gut;1141953]Thanks for the link and info.

I don't think Murph will be a good 5-tech 34 DE.
If they must move him have him rushing as a DT in nickel/ known passing situations[/quote]

He did that a lot in 2014 and 2015 in their "nascar" package.

He has a big frame and is already really strong. I believe he is going to be a DE without a big belly.

It seems like the team and McLovin are putting an emphasis on versatility. He is a smart player with killer reaction time off the snap.

I don't think he is going to be a star or a play maker but if he can continue to stop the run, like he has been good at already, and cover his responsibilities well, it's an experiment that may pay off.

Re: New Look Defense
 

Stopping the run as an OLB and occasional 43 DE is much different then as base 34 5-tech. I wish him all the luck but I think he's being misused if he'll be 5-tech. I hope I'm wrong.

Re: New Look Defense
 

Bulking up for him isnt a bad thing either way, little more size, as long as he works on keeping his quickness, could do good things in his continued development.

Re: New Look Defense
 

We'll see. He was a solid but unspectacular 3-4 OLB (essentially a borderline quality starter) at a position which really needs a guy with more pop (Hellooooo Junior). 3-4 DE's strike me as position in which the main job is to hold the point of attack and keep the LB's clean - any pass rush or penetration is just gravy. Part of me thinks this is the job TM was made to do, the only question is will he be able to put on the meat to do it at this level.

Just my perception. Really never understood the 3-4 DE's role. Always viewed them as basically 4-3 DT's. I am open to education: Just what is the 5 technique 3-4 DT responsible for? What is their role in our D as currently schemed?

Re: New Look Defense
 

Google is a great thing:

[url=http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2011/4/11/2082375/draft-terminology-the-three-technique-and-the-five-technique]Draft Terminology: The "Three Technique" and the "Five Technique" - Dawgs By Nature[/url]

[quote]•Physical and strong
•Able to play two gaps versus the run; able to shoot their hands right up into an offensive tackle's chest, stand him up, and then shed his block and move to either side of him to make a tackle.
•More intelligent or good at getting a read on what the offense is doing
•Not necessarily extremely quick or athletic, though this can be a bonus.[/quote]

If TM can get to 285 and retain short area quickness (getting his hands in place fast, and having a decent first step - both of which I think he has), I think he has a shot at being really good. The article indicates that certain schemes like their 3-4 DE's huge. In the trenches, bulk often is simply a substitute for strength. IF TM has the strength to "stand [a 300+ pound OT] him up, and then shed his block," he will be great. Just not sure he will have the strength to make up for the lack of bulk.

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1141965]Google is a great thing:

[url=http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2011/4/11/2082375/draft-terminology-the-three-technique-and-the-five-technique]Draft Terminology: The "Three Technique" and the "Five Technique" - Dawgs By Nature[/url]



If TM can get to 285 and retain short area quickness (getting his hands in place fast, and having a decent first step - both of which I think he has), I think he has a shot at being really good. The article indicates that certain schemes like their 3-4 DE's huge. In the trenches, bulk often is simply a substitute for strength. IF TM has the strength to "stand [a 300+ pound OT] him up, and then shed his block," he will be great. Just not sure he will have the strength to make up for the lack of bulk.[/quote]

TM would be more of a Wade Phillips (1 gap) DE in a 3-4 than a Dick Lebeau DE.

Wolf, a DE for Denver in 2015, has very similar height and weight to Murphy.

Re: New Look Defense
 

A single tear rolls down my cheek whenever I hear Wades name...still mad he's not a Redskin

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1141965]
Just not sure he will have the strength to make up for the lack of bulk.[/quote]

um, he does steer wrestling, so...

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=That Guy;1142015]um, he does steer wrestling, so...[/quote]

Well, his mass times his velocity equals his momentum, so he has two ways to improve the force he can apply to get past offensive linemen. He's not going to be able to get much faster but he can surely get bigger. He is too trim. I want to see a big belly and some love handles on him, like any respectable DL has. Eat up, big fella!

Re: New Look Defense
 

If the defense could go from an injured Cully, journeyman-jag Will Blackmon and a game but green rook in Dunbar to Josh freakin Norman it would be a huge bump for the D. HUGE.

The pass rush was good last year, IF Paea can replace Hatch's production and Gallette can stay healthy the pass rush will be even better...

If we can pull this off the pass D just got a lot better.

Re: New Look Defense
 

With Norman, our CB's are: Norman, Breeland, Culliver, Blackmon, Dunbar & Toler. With that group, we can match up with anyone AND have a lot of scheme flexibility. If Breeland continues to develop, however, it may be tough to hold onto both he and Norman long term.

I thought Dunbar flashed well last year. If he progresses with a full year under his belt at his new position, we really could get really creative [I]and[/I] he could be the "Next Man Up" in the long term plan. He was a great story last year and I am really hoping he turns into the real deal.

Toler and Blackmon as a 4th and 5th CB go from liabilities to incredible depth. Sure, your WR2 would have the advantage, but your WR3 would probably be about even and your WR4/5? Toler and/or Blackmon would pretty much own them.

I am on board fully with the Norman move. Now about safety ...

Re: New Look Defense
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1142121]With Norman, our CB's are: Norman, Breeland, Culliver, Blackmon, Dunbar & Toler. With that group, we can match up with anyone AND have a lot of scheme flexibility. If Breeland continues to develop, however, it may be tough to hold onto both he and Norman long term.

I thought Dunbar flashed well last year. If he progresses with a full year under his belt at his new position, we really could get really creative [I]and[/I] he could be the "Next Man Up" in the long term plan. He was a great story last year and I am really hoping he turns into the real deal.

Toler and Blackmon as a 4th and 5th CB go from liabilities to incredible depth. Sure, your WR2 would have the advantage, but your WR3 would probably be about even and your WR4/5? Toler and/or Blackmon would pretty much own them.

I am on board fully with the Norman move. Now about safety ...[/quote]

Karl Joseph at 21???

Re: New Look Defense
 

^^ Yeah. I have seen that in a couple mocks. Works for me if it works for Scotty.