(11-26-2019, 10:55 AM)Set LMD Wrote:

(11-26-2019, 10:23 AM)TJBender Wrote: 1. Russell has been on the team all year. He made the roster out of camp.
2. Bryan hasn't been "benched" in favor of Russell. He played 22 snaps to Russell's 26. Campbell and Bryan do the same thing most of the time. Russell is a space eater. Bryan as the primary run stopper wasn't working because that's not what he's built to do, but Russell and his 325 lbs. are a natural fit at the position.
3. Signing Bo is a nutty example, yes. It would be more like if Fournette was placed on IR and Armstead took over the starting job, but the team decided that Ervin is a better third-down option then spent most of the game in passing sets. Yes, Ervin would get the majority of snaps in that situation, just like how Russell has gotten lots of snaps while the team is spending most of its time not defending the run. It's not that Armstead is necessarily mediocre or underachieving. It's that Ervin is a better fit for what the team wants to do in the formation they're spending most of their time in.

1. I understand he’s on the team, but for game day purposes he’s been inactive the last 9-10 weeks. He’s essentially a practice squad player under those circumstances.

2. “Benched” was too harsh on my part. You are right. I will retract that statement. I rushed my reply before work and before coffee; that’s on me. 

As for the 26-22 snap differential, I think I’d feel better if it was reversed or if it had been built up to this point. It’s not Bryan’s strong suit, but if this trend continues (I.e. Bryan has 14 snaps next week and Russel has 30 or something), it’s not exactly comforting thoughts for a first round draft pick. 

Which ties in with:

3. My Fournette/Bohanon example wasn’t great, but your Armstead/Erving example goes too far the other way. My issue with the Armstead/Erving situation is Armstead is a 5th round rookie. It is conceivable he wasn’t drafted to be an every down back and was always intended to be more of a role player. That we’re, apparently, equating his significance to the team to Bryan’s, who was a first round draft pick a year ago, realistically says everything I’m concerned about with this news in so many words... 

A better example probably would have been if back in Henderstroud’s prime, one of them saw less snaps than a backup who was “better suited” for a specific task. When you draft a guy as high as Bryan, at least I expect him to be competent enough in all facets of the game to not have to be hidden as the only move a coaching staff makes to fix the defense. 

But maybe it was a one week experiment and all my fears are for naught. I’m just a little uneasy that the only real move the team made to try to fix the run defense was taking snaps away from Bryan, after weeks of giving him significant run in that role.

I think you are just reading too much into the move. 

The coaches, out of desperation, were simply trying to mitigate the loss of Dareus by giving the stout 7th rounder a chance. He’s not ready yet, but they had to try SOMETHING. Hell, anything. 
Giving up those yards on the ground to division opponents put these coaches on the hot seat, and I’m frankly glad to see some attempt to adjust even if the late round rookie wasn’t enough to shift the tide. 

Taven losing some snaps was a byproduct or side effect. Not a designed subtraction. 
This had nothing to do with Bryan’s production this year and everything to do with the fact that he’s a 3tech and not a nose tackle.

---