so wed still have no edge rush


Day isnt a nose tackle lol

Glock, I'm just saying I wish we could run a 34 so we could get Smith and Jack on the field at the same time with Poz and Skuta.


That's just me.

---

Seattle ran their scheme because it fit their personnel, and put ALL of their best players on the field at once. 

 

So we're trying to force that scheme, even though it barely fits our players. We have a sub par OTTO (sorry, but he doesn't do much) in Skuta, but can't replace him due to the physical requirements of that position. We'll be keeping either Jack or Telvin on the bench every snap, just cause.

I look at it this way: Yes it is enticing to have Jack, Telvin and Poz as the base LBs and have them on the field at the same time. But putting Jack at OTTO would usually have him lined up at the LOS over a TE. While he might have the size to do it, it is clear from last night he excels in space, and playing him at will gives him the space to excel. The way I understand OTTO, that would be the one position of the three that would not allow him to work in space as much.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

the otto position is stupid

 

Jags might agree with you since we only have one left on the roster after cuts.

---

Bullseye, nice explanation.


So that basically means the ol ball coach's scheme doesn't allow for our best players to be on the field.


Epic Fail in my book.

---

This is how we'd run a 3-4 with our personnel

 

 

 

                                             FS                                                            

                 

 

                                                                                                       SS

 

                   CB                                                                                                                             CB

                                             OLB                   MLB             MLB                    OLB/CB*

                                                         DE                    NT                    DE

 

 

FS - Gipson

SS - Cyprien/Telvin (think Bucannon)

CB - Ramsey

CB* - Ramsey/Colvin

CB - House

OLB - Fowler

OLB - Yannick

MLB - Jack/Poz

MLB - Telvin

DE - Malik

NT - Roy Miller

DE - Odrick

---

This is how we'd run a 3-4 with our personnel




FS



SS


CB CB

OLB MLB MLB OLB/CB

DE NT DE



FS - Gipson

SS - Cyprien/Telvin (think Bucannon)

CB - Ramsey

CB - House

OLB - Fowler

OLB - Yannick

MLB - Jack/Poz

MLB - Telvin

DE - Malik

NT - Roy Miller

DE - Odrick

I don't see why this couldn't work. Bradley has this obsession with this Leo and Otto nonsense.


He needs to scratch that junk and go with something more traditional.

---

I look at it this way: Yes it is enticing to have Jack, Telvin and Poz as the base LBs and have them on the field at the same time. But putting Jack at OTTO would usually have him lined up at the LOS over a TE. While he might have the size to do it, it is clear from last night he excels in space, and playing him at will gives him the space to excel. The way I understand OTTO, that would be the one position of the three that would not allow him to work in space as much.

Him playing will would put Telvin on the bench though.Playing Jack at OTTO, although not ideal, let's you put your best three LBs on the field at the same time. Sure Jack might struggle at times getting off blocks but ultimately I think the guy will make plays no matter where you play him.

---

I don't see why this couldn't work. Bradley has this obsession with this Leo and Otto nonsense.


He needs to scratch that junk and go with something more traditional.

Yep, it only made sense for Seattle, hence why they're the only team to make it work. This scheme is laughable, and there is no valid reasoning as to why we should run it.

---

I don't see why this couldn't work. Bradley has this obsession with this Leo and Otto nonsense.


He needs to scratch that junk and go with something more traditional.

 

What Bullseye described applies regardless of whether it's a "traditional" 4-3 or the version we run.

 

SLB or "Otto," he's facing the same personnel.

 

Telvin and Jack are both WLB no matter what you call the guy on the other side.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Him playing will would put Telvin on the bench though.Playing Jack at OTTO, although not ideal, let's you put your best three LBs on the field at the same time. Sure Jack might struggle at times getting off blocks but ultimately I think the guy will make plays no matter where you play him.

Everyone said Telvin was too small to play in the NFL, and he'd have a hard time in such a physical environment. I say we just scrap the whole OTTO, make it SAM, and stick Jack there. What's the worse that can happen? We lose? That already happens.

---

Everyone said Telvin was too small to play in the NFL, and he'd have a hard time in such a physical environment. I say we just scrap the whole OTTO, make it SAM, and stick Jack there. What's the worse that can happen? We lose? That already happens.

OTTO is SAM. Bit more blitzing but essentially the same.

---

Bullseye, nice explanation.

So that basically means the ol ball coach's scheme doesn't allow for our best players to be on the field.

Epic Fail in my book.

Further scrutiny negates that explanation to a large degree. Bradley runs the Seattle scheme. IIRC, KJ Wright is of similar build as Jack (2" taller) and he played OTTO for them. Jack needs to be on the field with Telvin Smith as much as possible.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

 

Everyone said Telvin was too small to play in the NFL, and he'd have a hard time in such a physical environment. I say we just scrap the whole OTTO, make it SAM, and stick Jack there. What's the worse that can happen? We lose? That already happens.

 

SAM, SLB, "OTTO," strongside

 

It's all the same alignment.  Changing the name changes nothing as far as matchups.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Which is why Jack is on/Telvin is off in base 4-3.


We're playing more nickel than not, so it wouldn't be a traditional "benching" if Telvin is out on run downs.

It's about putting the best guys on the field by situation.

This is also a horrible idea/decision as telvin is a huge playmaker even vs the run. He should be on the field at all times, especially in a more spread air it out nfl and less of a smash mouth game where he might struggle. The best 2 LBs should always be on the field and that is smith and jack by a mile

---

Yes, skuta should not be keeping jack or telvin off the field... ever.. idc about otto or not... jack can do everything skuta does and then many other things better

---

SAM, SLB, "OTTO," strongside

 

It's all the same alignment.  Changing the name changes nothing as far as matchups.

I think Jack could be good AT OTTO or great at will or Mike.


The question is whether you would like a great, good, and average guy at LB, or three good guys at LB.


Though we don't know for certain, it appears the team might prefer having the great guy on the field than the three good guys.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Jack can play any lb spot

---

232 tackles

2 INT's

5 FF

Top 100 2016

Should've made pro bowl


Yeah, lets bench him.

People are basing their "Telvin Smith is horrible in pass coverage" argument on two plays in the the first preseason game.

---

Every year Telvin starts out slow. He always gets better as the season goes on, nothing new

---

Telvin is the least of my worries

---