Jets tried to trade for Betts

[70Chip]

I think we should keep Betts unless someone offers a Hershel Walker to Minnesota type scenario. Unless its an offer we literally can't refuse, I would rather have Betts and Portis. I think if we can keep Springs and keep him healthy we will be in much better shape than anyone would have guessed. No need for trades or doomsday contracts.

Smoot + (healthy)Springs + Adams + Fletcher + (healthy) Washington + (more confident) Carter = Better Defense + (more experienced) Campbell + (healthy) Portis + Betts + Raleigh Mckenzie = Better Team Right Away. It's just that simple.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think we should keep Betts unless someone offers a Hershel Walker to Minnesota type scenario. Unless its an offer we literally can't refuse, I would rather have Betts and Portis. I think if we can keep Springs and keep him healthy we will be in much better shape than anyone would have guessed. No need for trades or doomsday contracts.

Smoot + (healthy)Springs + Adams + Fletcher + (healthy) Washington + (more confident) Carter = Better Defense + (more experienced) Campbell + (healthy) Portis + Betts + Raleigh Mckenzie = Better Team Right Away. It's just that simple.

You're forgetting two important elements in that equation: defensive tackles.

Griffin and Salave'a just don't have it anymore. Their knack for injuries makes them an official liability. Gaines Adams won't help stuff the run up the middle.

When you can't stop the run, the defense and the team collapses.

[DGreen28]

Trade Betts for DLineman or Draft pick. Think that Rock can carry the ball as Portis's backup

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You're forgetting two important elements in that equation: defensive tackles.

Griffin and Salave'a just don't have it anymore. Their knack for injuries makes them an official liability. Gaines Adams won't help stuff the run up the middle.

When you can't stop the run, the defense and the team collapses.

While I agree about Salave'a, I think Griff is just fine in that role, and I think we drafted a guy in Golston that when developed will be pretty damn good. And Griff has never missed more than 3 games in a season, so yeah he might have some injury problems, but nothing that will make/break the season imo.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

While I agree about Salave'a, I think Griff is just fine in that role, and I think we drafted a guy in Golston that when developed will be pretty damn good. And Griff has never missed more than 3 games in a season, so yeah he might have some injury problems, but nothing that will make/break the season imo.

Well, Griffin is certainly the more solid of the two, but that doesn't say much anymore. My opinion of Griffin is more of a projection - I just don't see him being consistently healthy and penetrating the line of scrimmage the way he did in '04 and '05.

I also don't get the fascination with Kedric Golston. I know we as fans were thrilled at the notion that one of our 6th round picks was able to get playing time in his rookie year, giving the false impression that he was good enough to start. He wasn't. His playing time had more to do with the aforementioned injuries of the two starters than anything else. Golston had his moments, but you need look no further than our ranking against the run to admit that he's got some cleatmarks in his chest too.

[MTK]

I thought for a rookie 6th rounder Golston played extremely well and flashed some very promising moments. All considered I thought he exceeded expectations and gave us a reason to look forward to his further development.

[12thMan]

I pretty much share Matty's sentiments about Golston...and don't forget Montgomery, he has showed promise too. I think GW will keep fresh bodies rotating in the middle and we'll go for a big, fast DE instead of someone in the middle.

Griff was getting man handled last year. I'll chalk it up to his hip issues, but those things do tend to linger. Let's hope he can bounce back.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I thought for a rookie 6th rounder Golston played extremely well and flashed some very promising moments. All considered I thought he exceeded expectations and gave us a reason to look forward to his further development.

But did he exceed expectations to the point that we are fine and dandy at defensive tackle?

I don't think you can look at the performance of any player at that position last year and draw that conclusion.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

But did he exceed expectations to the point that we are fine and dandy at defensive tackle?

I don't think you can look at the performance of any player at that position last year and draw that conclusion.

I just think that between Golston, Griffin, Montgomery and Salavea we ought to be able to put together a full season of decent enough play. I can't say that about the DEs without Adams or someone else new. I remember when we brought in Stubblefield and Wilkinson people were making similiar arguments. They were going to draw double teams and free up the LBers, collapse the pocket. I thought they played okay but they didn't make Rod Stephens any better.

I think we could get better play at Tackle but I don't buy the argument that they were the weak link or that their shoddy play is preventing other people from getting it done. Tackle will have to wait. And, I do think you are too bearish on Golston. He made a lot of plays last year. People always say, "Let's develop our own talent". I say that Kedrick represents on opportunity to do exactly that.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I just think that between Golston, Griffin, Montgomery and Salavea we ought to be able to put together a full season of decent enough play. I can't say that about the DEs without Adams or someone else new. I remember when we brought in Stubblefield and Wilkinson people were making similiar arguments. They were going to draw double teams and free up the LBers, collapse the pocket. I thought they played okay but they didn't make Rod Stephens any better.

I think we could get better play at Tackle but I don't buy the argument that they were the weak link or that their shoddy play is preventing other people from getting it done. Tackle will have to wait. And, I do think you are too bearish on Golston. He made a lot of plays last year. People always say, "Let's develop our own talent". I say that Kedrick represents on opportunity to do exactly that.

I'm not saying Golston should be kicked off the team or anything. I think he's fine as a #3 rotation guy. But we already saw what he, Griffin, Salave'a and Montgomery were able to accomplish last year -- a #27 ranking against the run. Plus, they're all another year older and Salave'a has proved again and again that he's been vulnerable to injuries on a frequent basis. He was never meant to be a full time starter anyway. Griffin's getting to be the same way.

That brings up another point. Remember the flack we got when signing Griffin? The word on him was that he was a one-season wonder. He did great for his rookie year in NY, then gradually started to fizzle. There's a very similar pattern here. And this time, he's eight years older.

The Stubblefield/Wilkinson comparisons are irrelevant. Those guys just didn't work. Now, that's not to say if we were to draft Alan Branch or any other D-tackle that instantly shores up all defeciences in rush defense -- sure, he very well turn out to be a bust. That goes for every player out there.

We may disagree as to the percentage of blame the defensive tackles get for failing to stop the run in '06. Personally, I'd put it at around 60-70% -- the rest being the linebackers and ends. But the DTs are the guys in the trenches who are primarily responsible for clogging things up. They failed miserably. If we leave things as they are at that position, without even adding one player for insurance in case they get injured, expect more of the same in '07.

Bottom line, we already saw what these four guys were able to give us last year. What would give you the impression that there's some sort of magical turn-around in store?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Bottom line, we already saw what these four guys were able to give us last year. What would give you the impression that there's some sort of magical turn-around in store?

This statement could apply to any group on the defense. We just disagree about who's more to blame, I guess. My perception was that the DTs played at about the same level they had in 04 and 05 when we were great against the run. I thought the drop off was at LB and DE - mainly because Carter had trouble against power and Holdman just lacked talent. I wish the fact that the coaches seem (and I emphasize SEEM) to agree with me were more reassuring than it is. Your analysis could well be the correct one. I think we all could agree that Tackle will have to be dealt with next year if not this.

My bottom line is that I think we're better off with Golston and Griffin than we are with Daniels and Carter. Carter MAY be a bust and Daniels is DEFINITELY getting up there in age.

I would also say that the Stubblefield/Wilkinson argument is not wholly irrelevant. We must have learned something from that. I think the lesson is that improving the DT position is not a silver bullet that will improve the play of other positions - which is one of the main arguments you hear from the Branch faction. Can't we also say that having Adams will improve the play of Golston? Also, there are reports that Branch may have some Stubblebutt-like tendencies. (weight, poor work habits, etc.)

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

This statement could apply to any group on the defense. We just disagree about who's more to blame, I guess. My perception was that the DTs played at about the same level they had in 04 and 05 when we were great against the run. I thought the drop off was at LB and DE - mainly because Carter had trouble against power and Holdman just lacked talent. I wish the fact that the coaches seem (and I emphasize SEEM) to agree with me were more reassuring than it is. Your analysis could well be the correct one. I think we all could agree that Tackle will have to be dealt with next year if not this.

My bottom line is that I think we're better off with Golston and Griffin than we are with Daniels and Carter. Carter MAY be a bust and Daniels is DEFINITELY getting up there in age.

I would also say that the Stubblefield/Wilkinson argument is not wholly irrelevant. We must have learned something from that. I think the lesson is that improving the DT position is not a silver bullet that will improve the play of other positions - which is one of the main arguments you hear from the Branch faction. Can't we also say that having Adams will improve the play of Golston? Also, there are reports that Branch may have some Stubblebutt-like tendencies. (weight, poor work habits, etc.)

From everything I've read, reports indicate that coaches seem to be more taken with Adams and Anderson rather than Branch. So my argument, and my sig might just be moot.

Certainly, if what they're saying about Branch is true, then stay away from him. Take the best player available at the position your weakest at -- in our case, defensive line. I like the pickup of London Fletcher. I'm fine with Marshall back to the outside, Marcus Washinton at the other end, and hopefully Rocky will make a push.

Now, back to Stubby and Big Daddy -- if anything, we learned that free agent busts are part of the game. But that doesn't mean we never draft or pick up anymore defensive tackles ever again! It just means you have to do better homework and hope the guy you select flourishes in the system you have.

By the way, I'm not under any delusions that the pass rush is A-OK with Carter and Daniels. I've never been impressed with either one. And Renaldo Wynn should thank his lucky stars he's been invited back season after season for the last 4 years. He's been a complete waste. We need help there too in a drastic way.

But for the sake of argument, let's say you can have your choice of a dominant defensive end or defensive tackle, (we'll use Jevon Kearse in his rookie year or Warren Sapp at his peak) I've always thought that the D-tackle will improve both your pass rush and your run-stopping ability moreso than the other way around. Adding a sack master at the end will help you pressure the QB, but to depend on him to shed the pulling guard or the fullback and make the stop would be a bit too much to ask. It just seems like the benefit of the D-tackle gives you a slight edge in overall improvement.

But, like I said, reports indicate that we're leaning towards DE anyway. If he's the better pick at #6 and the next best defensive tackle isn't nearly as valuable, then you obviously pick the better guy.