Especially on the D-line.
Do we under utilize defensive talent?
Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1
- UOducksTK1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37690
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
- GM: Boston Celtics GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
- greenyellow
- Moderator
- Posts: 35849
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
- Location: Eugene, OR
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
This guy is a nobody so why listen to him? Hollins and Jelks were playing quite well and the staff used them in positions they'll likely be playing in the NFL.
- UOducksTK1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37690
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
- GM: Boston Celtics GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
You could make a solid argument that Jelks had a down year, statistically.greenyellow wrote:This guy is a nobody so why listen to him? Hollins and Jelks were playing quite well and the staff used them in positions they'll likely be playing in the NFL.
Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
- FlDuckFan
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5068
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:45 am
- GM: Orlando Magic GM
- Location: Florida
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
Lack of depth at LB forced them to be used in coverage rather than rushing off the edge. So yeah kinda but it wasn't by choice rather than necessity.
-
- All-American
- Posts: 10579
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
Funny, last week during practice reports I read Jelks was the biggest disappointment during the week of practice.
-
- Senior
- Posts: 2500
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:05 pm
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
No. Hollins had a great year and was put into position to succeed. Jelks didn't have huge #'s, but DE was the right spot for him on that roster.
Now..offensively..that's another story.
Now..offensively..that's another story.
- Duck07
- All-American
- Posts: 15963
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:36 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
It was the best of years, it was the worst of years. If you, ahem, #watch the tape, what you find is that Jelks film from last season looks amazing and this year looks meh. Last season Hollins gave you that meh vibe as an NFL prospect and then after a year with Feld he looked and played a lot stronger this season and the film shows that. Jalen definitely was a team player this year though because of the depth problems we had as I don't think he's going to be standing up much, if at all next level.
The combine could be a big riser for Hollins. I think he's got a chance for a 3rd round landing spot if he can show that he's got great burst and for Jalen, I think he just needs to get a bit more of that old man strength so that he takes a more direct route to the QB. At times he ends up going too wide which was a problem for some of his pass rush attempts this past week. While that bull rush clip looks nice, he's got to get better at dis-engaging once he wins but I think he could very well end up as a poor man's Jason Taylor.
Now to the question of do we under utilize the defensive talent we've had. Sure in some cases but that's always going to be the case. I think 2 TEs in particular should have been playing OLB for us instead though and that's Dante Rosario and Colt Lyerla. I know Dante carved out a nice career in the league so its hard to argue otherwise for him, but I always thought that he would have been more useful for us on a greater number of snaps each game had he played defense instead of offense. That same reasoning for me holds true for Colt with having a greater effect based on playing more snaps on defense. While he showed himself to be a talented player, his athleticism on defense could have been very interesting to watch play out. Perhaps like Lattimore from The Program, but we weren't going to stop that train. Plus, it would have deprived of us of the two-man touchdown with Bennett.
The combine could be a big riser for Hollins. I think he's got a chance for a 3rd round landing spot if he can show that he's got great burst and for Jalen, I think he just needs to get a bit more of that old man strength so that he takes a more direct route to the QB. At times he ends up going too wide which was a problem for some of his pass rush attempts this past week. While that bull rush clip looks nice, he's got to get better at dis-engaging once he wins but I think he could very well end up as a poor man's Jason Taylor.
Now to the question of do we under utilize the defensive talent we've had. Sure in some cases but that's always going to be the case. I think 2 TEs in particular should have been playing OLB for us instead though and that's Dante Rosario and Colt Lyerla. I know Dante carved out a nice career in the league so its hard to argue otherwise for him, but I always thought that he would have been more useful for us on a greater number of snaps each game had he played defense instead of offense. That same reasoning for me holds true for Colt with having a greater effect based on playing more snaps on defense. While he showed himself to be a talented player, his athleticism on defense could have been very interesting to watch play out. Perhaps like Lattimore from The Program, but we weren't going to stop that train. Plus, it would have deprived of us of the two-man touchdown with Bennett.
- UOducksTK1
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37690
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
- GM: Boston Celtics GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
Who was under utilized on offense in your opinion?GrantDuck wrote:No. Hollins had a great year and was put into position to succeed. Jelks didn't have huge #'s, but DE was the right spot for him on that roster.
Now..offensively..that's another story.
Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
-
- Senior
- Posts: 2708
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:08 am
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
Schooler was WAY under utilized on defense. He started out defensively and excelled... Between Schooler and Dye, I felt we had a great start at the LB position. Then, he was transferred to offense and played fairly well, as a receiver, filling for needed position demands, yet never did return to the defensive side of the ball.. Other than blocking as an offensive player, he was never utilized or for that matter, not overly effective as a receiver.. Why he was never returned to the defensive side stymies me.. Personal choice perhaps? Or, not used in the proper position? Any thoughts?
- FlDuckFan
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 5068
- Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:45 am
- GM: Orlando Magic GM
- Location: Florida
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
His freshman year, Schooler was the only DB who looked like he knew what he was doing.ducksrock wrote:Schooler was WAY under utilized on defense. He started out defensively and excelled... Between Schooler and Dye, I felt we had a great start at the LB position. Then, he was transferred to offense and played fairly well, as a receiver, filling for needed position demands, yet never did return to the defensive side of the ball.. Other than blocking as an offensive player, he was never utilized or for that matter, not overly effective as a receiver.. Why he was never returned to the defensive side stymies me.. Personal choice perhaps? Or, not used in the proper position? Any thoughts?
- Alan
- Senior
- Posts: 4194
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:17 pm
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
I agree completely on Schooler, I think he was much more productive at safety than he is at WR. Dye and Schooler were the two bright spots on that defense. Schooler would get beat late in the games from time to time but I think it was because the rest of the front seven, other than Dye, were so piss poor, they were would let the runner get into the secondary way too much and it may have wore the freshman out. In hindsight I would have loved to see Schooler stay at safety but for the most part since his freshman year the WR have been bad and always needed help.FlDuckFan wrote:His freshman year, Schooler was the only DB who looked like he knew what he was doing.ducksrock wrote:Schooler was WAY under utilized on defense. He started out defensively and excelled... Between Schooler and Dye, I felt we had a great start at the LB position. Then, he was transferred to offense and played fairly well, as a receiver, filling for needed position demands, yet never did return to the defensive side of the ball.. Other than blocking as an offensive player, he was never utilized or for that matter, not overly effective as a receiver.. Why he was never returned to the defensive side stymies me.. Personal choice perhaps? Or, not used in the proper position? Any thoughts?
-
- Senior
- Posts: 2500
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:05 pm
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
Breeland. I believe he had the 1st or 2nd highest passer rating for targeted TE's in the conference.UOducksTK1 wrote:Who was under utilized on offense in your opinion?GrantDuck wrote:No. Hollins had a great year and was put into position to succeed. Jelks didn't have huge #'s, but DE was the right spot for him on that roster.
Now..offensively..that's another story.
Cyrus Habibi-Likio was also grossly underused. EG, we'd use him on the goal line, but not on 4th and 1.
As far as other players, not underutilized, but misused. Jamming small running backs into the line repeatedly instead of using them on wheel routes, angle routes, and screens in space, particularly.
-
- All-American
- Posts: 10579
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
ducksrock wrote:Schooler was WAY under utilized on defense. He started out defensively and excelled... Between Schooler and Dye, I felt we had a great start at the LB position. Then, he was transferred to offense and played fairly well, as a receiver, filling for needed position demands, yet never did return to the defensive side of the ball.. Other than blocking as an offensive player, he was never utilized or for that matter, not overly effective as a receiver.. Why he was never returned to the defensive side stymies me.. Personal choice perhaps? Or, not used in the proper position? Any thoughts?
Schooler was moved by 2 different coaching staffs. At some point schooler fans need to admit he's just not that good. If he was great on D, he'd still be there, unfortunately he has a hard time covering.
- Alan
- Senior
- Posts: 4194
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:17 pm
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
If we could have recruited WR's that could catch he would still be on Dbuckmarkduck wrote:ducksrock wrote:Schooler was WAY under utilized on defense. He started out defensively and excelled... Between Schooler and Dye, I felt we had a great start at the LB position. Then, he was transferred to offense and played fairly well, as a receiver, filling for needed position demands, yet never did return to the defensive side of the ball.. Other than blocking as an offensive player, he was never utilized or for that matter, not overly effective as a receiver.. Why he was never returned to the defensive side stymies me.. Personal choice perhaps? Or, not used in the proper position? Any thoughts?
Schooler was moved by 2 different coaching staffs. At some point schooler fans need to admit he's just not that good. If he was great on D, he'd still be there, unfortunately he has a hard time covering.
-
- All-American
- Posts: 10579
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:22 am
- Contact:
Re: Do we under utilize defensive talent?
And he would be 3rd string at best.Alan wrote:If we could have recruited WR's that could catch he would still be on Dbuckmarkduck wrote:ducksrock wrote:Schooler was WAY under utilized on defense. He started out defensively and excelled... Between Schooler and Dye, I felt we had a great start at the LB position. Then, he was transferred to offense and played fairly well, as a receiver, filling for needed position demands, yet never did return to the defensive side of the ball.. Other than blocking as an offensive player, he was never utilized or for that matter, not overly effective as a receiver.. Why he was never returned to the defensive side stymies me.. Personal choice perhaps? Or, not used in the proper position? Any thoughts?
Schooler was moved by 2 different coaching staffs. At some point schooler fans need to admit he's just not that good. If he was great on D, he'd still be there, unfortunately he has a hard time covering.