Why not Graham at the Schembackler position?
I know everyone calls it something different...from "Deathbacker" to "Spinner"..but I like Schembackler. Just gives the position some real definition.
Forgive me if this has been beaten to death, but I'm really, surprised that Graham doesn't appear to be the leading candidate for this spot. His H.S experience as a LB means he at least has a clue on how to drop into coverage, he's an edge rusher extraordinaire and can stand in there with TEs. He could be moved around in an attempt to keep offenses guessing, and to keep him out of double teams. I guarantee he's as fast as any LB on the team, with the possible exception of Mouton. In short, he's a beast, which is the whole point of the Schembackler spot.
The other three choices here are Herron, Evans and Watson. None of these guys has played much, so I'd think that Patterson and Banks would have a wealth of experience by comparison.
Seems to me, you let Banks, Patterson and LaLota play the RDE position and use the best playmaker you have on defense at the spot designed to create the most havoc. But that's just me.
Forgive me if this has been beaten to death, but I'm really, surprised that Graham doesn't appear to be the leading candidate for this spot. His H.S experience as a LB means he at least has a clue on how to drop into coverage, he's an edge rusher extraordinaire and can stand in there with TEs. He could be moved around in an attempt to keep offenses guessing, and to keep him out of double teams. I guarantee he's as fast as any LB on the team, with the possible exception of Mouton. In short, he's a beast, which is the whole point of the Schembackler spot.
The other three choices here are Herron, Evans and Watson. None of these guys has played much, so I'd think that Patterson and Banks would have a wealth of experience by comparison.
Seems to me, you let Banks, Patterson and LaLota play the RDE position and use the best playmaker you have on defense at the spot designed to create the most havoc. But that's just me.
LaLota needs to redshirt.
Patterson and Banks have negligible experience. I see no reason to move Graham away from a position he dominates at - you should only move players who are somewhat inconsistent or in the wrong position (Stevie Brown).
I trust the defensive coordinator knows what he's doing. He's got 25 + years of experience in his brain. He'll put the best players on the field, in the best position to help the team succeed. No need to unsettle the star defender.
Would love to see both Roh and LaLota redshirt, and in a perfect world..read one with no injuries, I think Michigan could make it through this season without using them.
I trust the coordinator as well, and I'm certain he knows a hell of alot more about this than I do. Just thought that Graham's rather unique blend of talents fit this new position almost exactly and wondered if it was possible we might see him there in the fall.
I think it is an interesting idea. Do not know if it is feasible, but I would like to see Graham moved around a bit to make the opposing offense adjust.
you seem to be confusing the terminology of the 2 new hybrid positions.
The quick: hybrid DE/OLB (basically '07 Shawn Crable)
The spinner/deathbacker/wolfman: hybrid LB/S (Stevie Brown)
Otherwise, you're suggesting we take our star d-lineman off the d-line, which would be confusing to say the least.
I've seen both spots referred to as a "spinner"..but I'm talking about the DE/OLB position currently being played by Herron and Evans.
Yeah I think your right about the position names, even though I hear them for both. Pretty confusing.
but I like wolfman best!
The only part of this idea I like is moving him around to keep defenses guessing/eliminating double teams.
What I don't like is taking him further away from the QB. When you have maybe the best rushing end in the country you leave him there. I think his value would be maximized trying to get to the QB and to blow up plays in the backfield. Even taking on double teams is not the worst thing in the world as that should theoretically open things up for his teammates.
Put it this way, if one of our opponents had a beast at end doing all of the things I mentioned above wouldn't you be thrilled to see him drop back into coverage on TEs all game? I would.
Just like no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, I suspect that the occasional pass drop (read: Zone Blitz) by Graham with Stevie Brown or Jonas Mouton coming off an edge would give offenses some problems.
Graham would still play at the LOS the vast majority of the time..and get the added benefit of moving around a bit in order to keep the offense off balance and constantly adjusting to his presence.
I'd also think, that Graham might like this as well, as he may likely be a kind of LaMar Woodley clone at the next level, as a 3-4 OLB.
+1 Noone ever expects the Spanish Inquisition
We're a lot thinner on the DL than we are at LB. Moving Graham away from his position means that Patterson? Sagasse? would take his DE spot, and send one of our LBs to the bench.
Creative name, but I'd lose the "L" and call it the Schembacker.
I like the idea of setting B. Graham and Mouton on the weak side of the O, along with Steve Brown. I suppose GRob has many ideas on how to attack the weak side tackle and get one of these three guys in the backfield consistently.
Also, agreed, there are probably not very many good reasons to put Graham in a position that he would be covering receivers.
Seems like BGraham could make a big impact on games by playing on the DL and drawing double teams, which he is unlikely to do at the new position, whatever it's called.
I was never good at math, but Graham = two offensive players. Gives us a ten nine advantage at his currant spot.
Leave Graham where he is because then opponents have to double team him leaving only a tight end to block who ever they put at Schembacker.
Graham is an absolute monster on the inside. Just look what he did last year when teams pretty much only had to worry about him. Now, not to say that will change much, but if anyone (a different Schembackler) can require attention from other defenses, Graham will be lights out. His speed and size create a major problem for the line, which should allow for others to take advantage.
I think we're all getting caught up in the allure of our new defensive scheme. What we should remember (like many of you have stated) is that B.Graham is a great DE. I know it seems like a great idea to move him around and "wreak havoc" but think of it the other way. What happens if he lines up at this hybrid position and isn't fast enough to get to the QB. It has nothing to do with him being as fast as the other LB's it has to do with him moving 6 feet back and still trying to get to the QB. I, like most of you, am excited for this new defensive scheme because it is something new and "hip." However, as someone who was very excited for Schafer's "BLITZ BLITZ BLITZ" scheme, I am trying to level my hopes and expectations.
Needs to stay at DE this year...
I think there is a lot of confusion regarding the "deathbacker" spot. The stand-up end/linebacker in a 4-3 under is not a hellraising position. Yes, that player needs to be a stud, but he will not be the one making all the tackles, that will still be the inside linebackers. The "deathbacker" will often be tasked with taking on lead blockers, fullbacks, pulling guards, h-backs, etc while still being able to drop into pass coverage.
I played this position in high school (yes, I know it is not the same thing) and it was rarely glorious. We would blitz occasionally and that was cool, but the rest was grunt work taking on lead blockers so the middle linebackers could make plays.
Gsimmons made an excellent post about this in his "3 and out" blog, I suggest giving it a read. Based on his breakdown and my experience, I say Graham should stay at SDE so he is free to terrorize the quaterback, let someone else worry about lead blockers and pass coverage.
Comments