UT - 53 man roster - prediction #1

[Panamamike]

What in the hell are you talking about?! Promise?! What promise?! Okay, I promise you that on Sorenson's best day ever he is nothing more than a reserve QB in the NFL. I promise you he will never see the field for us in a real game. Never. I promise you reserve QBs are a dime a dozen. In the extremely unlikely event that both Rivers and Clemens go down, I would much rather face getting a QB off the street at that point than waste a roster spot on Sorenson all season long.

If you think Sorenson has any chance to be our #1 QB of the future, you are mistaken. If that happens, we might as well start wearing black uniforms, calling ourselves the Raiders and repeating the mantra that there is always next year while we perennially finish in the cellar. Somebody needs to be shot if we return to the likes of Friesz, Whelihan, and Laufenberg as our starting QB, which is probably a better state of affairs than would be the case with Sorenson as our starter.

When it comes time to get a replacement for Rivers, we had better use a top draft pick on that QB and do so at least two years before that sad day when we have to say so long to Rivers so the QB can develop. You see, I have no problem with the smart development of players. My problem is with stupid player personnel decisions that leave us short of quality depth and only one injury away from having real problems at the position like we faced with OLB last year and stand to face with NT this year absent the emergence of one of the young NTs, which seems unlikely for this year given the normal time it takes to develop NTs.

Note that I am not suggesting we dump either Geathers or Carrethers. They can develop, but we are trying to win now, so their development needs to be such that it will not compromise our chances to win. So, they shouldn't play until they are ready. If we can get a solid #2 NT to buy some time for them to develop, that would be great.

And how on earth do you think the #2 NT that I am proposing the team add to its roster is going to be inactive?! Your assertion makes no sense. Barring injury, that player will be active every single week.

It is Sorenson that should never be active or on the roster.

We can't afford 4 NT on the roster, and I don't see PS on the horizon for Carreathers.

[Panamamike]

From what I have been reading, Thomas is not even playing NT. He is playing LDE and will share time with Tuitt, who I think will be the starter.....if not day 1, not long after.

[Panama]

Division 2 basically. The designations got changed recently. It's a much lower level of competition.

The problem is that he was doing those things you mentioned against 3rd string defenses. I suspect a different tune would be whistled around these parts if Sorenson were to start. He likely won't even get many 2nd string snaps this preseason.

But the only one of those things I mentioned that is affected by level of competition is the decision-making. Against a better or more complex defense, the decisions won't be as clear cut, so we don't know whether his decision making would still be good. But a lively arm is still lively whether playing the '85 Bears or doing 1-on-1 drills in camp. And mobility is still mobility. Remember, he was facing 3rd-string defenses, but that was Seahawk, Cardinal, and 49er 3rd-string defenses while being protected by our 3rd-string OL -- poor dude was running for his life at times in those preseason games and displayed calm under pressure and elusiveness.

Look, he may never develop into anything, but the only way to know is to keep him around, and I feel he's shown enough to warrant protecting. Yes, the ideal thing would be to stash him on the PS, but given the premium placed on QBs, any promising prospect is likely to be poached by a QB-needy team. You're willing to take that gamble; I wouldn't. Let's see what the coaches think.

[Panama]

alladat outta my cornhole- and mo wher dat comed frum

Whoa, you changed your sig! Have we stopped poking fun at Q?!?

[Panama]

I am not sure why you think I am not aware that Poe did not play every snap in a 3-4. I never said he did. I said we need a good NT that can remain on the field. That will help negate the run--even in passing situations. There is such a thing as spreading the defense out with an extra WR and then running from that formation. That possibility needs to be shut down.

When the game result is still in question, it is an important situation. Geathers will get plenty of those types of chances unless we do something to prevent that. Again, if Geathers or Carrethers shows enough in the preseason to demonstrate that he can handle that kind of responsibility, then I will change my view. But that has not happened yet. The position is way too important to trust to a developmental player not very far along on his learning curve and we do need insurance for a potential Lissemore injury.

Honestly, I do not know how many times you need to see a situation in which we did not retain quality depth and then the starter gets injured to see the potential problem. Does Ingram ring a bell? It kind of looks like we are doing the same thing at NT this year, having parted company with Franklin after the 2012 season and Thomas after the 2013 season. Instead of the words "Franklin" and "Thomas", substitute in the words "Phillips" and "Barnes" and you can see the similarity. Once was more than enough for me with this type of situation that anyone could see coming 10 miles away. I'll take some quality depth please if it is out there and we can afford it (both of which are fair questions).

I am not sure why you think I am advocating us using a "fat slug". I said a good true NT. Part of the word "good" means that the player is mobile enough to play the position effectively. That's a piss poor straw man you have fashioned. As I have said, Lissemore can hold down the fort at NT, but he is only satisfactory at that position, not good. He could be a good 3-4 DE if given a chance. And there is the injury concern with an undersized player at NT, which Lissemore very, very obviously is.

I am talking about the defense we ran in 2006 and 2007, not the 1970s. Again, that's a piss poor straw man you have fashioned. The whole point of a 3-4 DL, especially the NT, is to occupy blockers so LBs can make plays. A good NT is critical because that forces teams to double or face havoc in the middle. When they double, other players get to make plays. That is 3-4 101.

Shutting down the run makes teams pass in known passing situations, which maximizes the defense's chance to win and get off the field. Look over the last decade or so at the top 3-4 defenses--Steelers, Ravens, Patriots for a while, and us for a while. All of those defenses stuffed the run, forced teams to pass and then pinned their ears back and went after the QB. Those were the disruptive, intimidating monster 3-4 defenses. (I know that the Patriots switched to a 4-3 a number of years ago, but they used to run an effective 3-4 for a number of years.) That's how it is done.

Teams don't just get to pull a big lead out of their ass. How teams get a big lead is to score and stop their opponent from scoring on enough occasions to build up a difference over the course of a number of possessions. Stopping the run makes teams one-dimensional. Knowing what's coming helps defenses to win time and again. And that's how teams get to the big lead. Example after example of the best 3-4 defenses shows us that process repeating itself.

The chant of "You can't run!" blasting over and over again from the west end zone in 2006 let us know all about that. The pass defense was not even all that great and still the defense was absolutely intimidating. It was a thing of beauty. When the run got stopped, the defense tore after the QB like a bats out of hell on second down. Jamal was still on the field, so teams weren't so fast to cross us up with running plays. Then, on third and long, Jamal would come off because it didn't matter even if the opponent did cross us up as the good run would not typically be enough for a first down--so many three and outs. It was a sound strategy and the Wade Phillips philosophy that a QB can't hurt you if he is laying flat on his back led to us leading the NFL in sacks. To me, there is no sense in playing the 3-4 if the team is not going to take that kind of approach which was common to our best 3-4 defense, and those of the "Blitzburg" Steelers and the Ravens.

I'm going to refer to your points by paragraph number, as it is easier than quoting each one separately.

(1) You entirely miss the point that it is completely irrelevant what position the DT in the sub packages play in the base defense. You seem to want a good NT to stay on the field under some mistaken belief that a good NT will automatically be a more disruptive force than a good DE who slides inside. The important thing is to get the best, most disruptive pass rushers on the field in nickle and dime. Base 3-4 DEs tend to be built like 4-3 DTs. Liuget and Reyes are not exactly midgets. To say that Liuget and Reyes are not adequate for playing DT in a 4-man DL because of their builds is like saying Russell Maryland and Warren Sapp aren't either. Getting a NT who is a good pass rusher is not a priority for the Chargers precisely because Liuget and Reyes are good interior pass rushers. Your definition of a good NT seems to be one that is a good pass rusher. If I am correct about that being part of how you define a good NT, then I can say with the utmost confidence that getting a good NT is not a priority for this defense because we already have good interior pass rushers.

(2) Geathers will get opportunities when the game is in question, but only on run downs, only in the base defense, only in situations where Lissemore would be on the field to begin with. That's a very limited number of snaps. He's not likely to stink up the joint on every play. We're not likely to lose a game because of one or two running plays where the NT didn't hold up his end of the bargain. If we do, I can almost guarantee you there will have been more than one player to blame.

(3) You say we need quality depth, but then you throw out names like Phillips, Barnes, and Franklin, all players who were looking for situations where they would get more, not less, playing time. And the problem with having this "quality" depth is that they block younger players with potential from developing. Last season was widely acknowledged to be a retooling season, a transition season where we pruned the older branches to allow the promising young shoots to grow, and it turned out really well. This season we've got quality depth across the board except at NT, but because the NT position, despite your protestations, is so de-emphasized in today's game, that's one place where we can very comfortably allow a young player's growing pains because it won't appreciably hurt the team.

(4) I haven't constructed a straw man, because a straw man argument is when I attribute to you something you haven't said and then knock that down. (That's what blueman and BoltJolt have been doing, perhaps unknowingly, in the Tutu(/Mouton/Clary) thread, but that's not what's happening here.) I am the one who introduced the "fat slug" concept, not you. I am simply stating I don't want a fat slug at NT. That said, you have consistently advocated having a bigger player at NT, one who is not likely to wear down easily under the demands of a very punishing position that is expected to take on double teams. I know what your position is very well, as you miss no opportunity to tell us, and do not think you are advocating the "fat slug defense." Some people, though, do seem to think that a space eater is ideal at NT.

(5) Again, not a straw man, but perhaps the distinction is lost on you. I know very well which defense you're referring to. Trust me, you're not the only one on here who loved what Jamal Williams brought to the table, and you've made it very clear in numerous posts that you'd like to get back to the defenses where Jamal was dominating at NT. The problem is, the ideal defense you describe is not actually the sort we ran during those seasons. There are different flavors of 3-4. The type of 3-4 where a big, rugged NT dominated the middle of the line and commanded double teams, allowing LBs to flow to the ball, is an older defensive philosophy. We ran Wade Phillips 3-4, which was more collapsing the pocket with DL penetration and giving the O so many different looks from the LBs that it never knew who was coming. That Jamal commanded double teams was a testament to how good he was. Phillips successfully ran his defense in other places where there was not a dominant, pass-rushing NT. Most recently, in Houston, the dominant DL Wade had commanding double teams was a DE. In the modern 3-4, NT is not as important as LB.

(6) There are many ways to stop the run. We have done it in the past without dominant NT play, and we can do it again. Heck, we did it last year when our LB corps got healthy. It's amazing how having 2 healthy ILBs helps against the run. Also, we started tackling much better in the last third of the season, and that means fewer big plays, which is what bumps up the per run average, as Steve has demonstrated numerous times. As long as the front 7 mantain gap and contain responsibilities and tackle well, we'll be ok against the run. If our DL can get better leverage, we won't be mauled up the middle the way we were at times, either. This is a place, yes, where a more dominant NT would be nice, but as long as we do the other things we'll be adequate. We can't do it all as a defense, and (again, as Steve and others have repeatedly pointed out) it's far more important to be dominant against the pass than the run.

(7) I won't disagree with you, as you're basically throwing the "more than one way to skin a cat" back in my face. Fine. But we have an offense that goes on long, methodical, clock-eating drives like nobody's business, and then fails to score points. Even if an opponent runs the ball at an average rate against us, if we start converting more of these long drives into points, teams will find they have a little time to score a lot of points and abandon the run. It seems to me, given our assets, that this is the path of least resistance.

(8) Nothing really to comment on this paragraph. I can appreciate your nostalgia for defenses past, but your analysis of what made them tick is deeply flawed.

[Panama]

We need quality depth if we can get it. And during the offseason next year, we need to bite the bullet and get a #1 NT of the future as I doubt that player is on our roster right now. Frankly, we should have done that last year, especially if we were going to let Garay (too much $$$), Franklin and Thomas walk in just two years.

Why? It's not an ideal situation, but not one that is likely to bite us in the ass.

[Panama]

What in the hell are you talking about?! Promise?! What promise?! Okay, I promise you that on Sorenson's best day ever he is nothing more than a reserve QB in the NFL. I promise you he will never see the field for us in a real game. Never. I promise you reserve QBs are a dime a dozen. In the extremely unlikely event that both Rivers and Clemens go down, I would much rather face getting a QB off the street at that point than waste a roster spot on Sorenson all season long.

If you think Sorenson has any chance to be our #1 QB of the future, you are mistaken. If that happens, we might as well start wearing black uniforms, calling ourselves the Raiders and repeating the mantra that there is always next year while we perennially finish in the cellar. Somebody needs to be shot if we return to the likes of Friesz, Whelihan, and Laufenberg as our starting QB, which is probably a better state of affairs than would be the case with Sorenson as our starter.

When it comes time to get a replacement for Rivers, we had better use a top draft pick on that QB and do so at least two years before that sad day when we have to say so long to Rivers so the QB can develop. You see, I have no problem with the smart development of players. My problem is with stupid player personnel decisions that leave us short of quality depth and only one injury away from having real problems at the position like we faced with OLB last year and stand to face with NT this year absent the emergence of one of the young NTs, which seems unlikely for this year given the normal time it takes to develop NTs.

Note that I am not suggesting we dump either Geathers or Carrethers. They can develop, but we are trying to win now, so their development needs to be such that it will not compromise our chances to win. So, they shouldn't play until they are ready. If we can get a solid #2 NT to buy some time for them to develop, that would be great.

And how on earth do you think the #2 NT that I am proposing the team add to its roster is going to be inactive?! Your assertion makes no sense. Barring injury, that player will be active every single week.

It is Sorenson that should never be active or on the roster.

You make a lot of promises you can't keep. You can't keep them because they are not within your control.

As I have spelled out to Beerman in another thread, Sorensen has demonstrated a lively arm, decent mobility, and good presence. There's no guarantee he'll develop into anything, but he's shown enough that if the Chargers don't keep him, there's a decent chance someone else will poach him from us. He's shown enough that football people seem to want to give him a chance to develop.

Funny you mention Friesz. I was thinking precisely that Sorensen reminded me of Friesz. I would love to have Friesz as my backup.

Nobody is advocating Sorensen as Rivers successor. But he could be the next Billy Volek. If he can develop into a solid #2, we wouldn't have to worry about our backup QB position for years, and having a backup who is intimately familiar with your system from having played in it for years is invaluable. We have been lucky that Rivers has not missed games due to injury, but we may not always be so lucky. It would be nice to have a backup (like Volek or Friesz) who could step in and be capable of winning a few games. And, Rivers won't be around forever. I don't think Sorensen would be Rivers successor, but he could be a stable bridge while we develop the next franchise QB. I, too, don't want to relive the Malone-Tolliver-Laufenberg era, and having a good short-term solution in place is key to that. Most teams aren't so lucky to have Rivers, Young, and Rodgers waiting behind Brees, Montana, and Favre!

And no, Mr Smartpants, I'm not suggesting the number 2 you add would be inactive. Don't be naff. But you are advocating keeping 2 QBs instead of 3 so that we can keep an extra NT, and that extra NT, not the #2 guy but the extra guy, won't be active on game days. Neither would Sorensen, of course, but there are a lot fewer players with Sorensen's potential out there than there are with Carrethers potential.

[SDFan]

Whoa, you changed your sig! Have we stopped poking fun at Q?!?

NEVER stop making fun of QSmucker. It's the law.

[Steve]

I get that they are rare. I am not saying we are going to get such a player off the street for this year. But I am tired of this "NT is not important" nonsense. For now, unless Geathers and Carrethers are ready to produce in games, we really do need an established veteran NT as a reserve for Lissemore and a starting option in case of a Lissemore injury. The parallel with NT this year and OLB last year is eerie. We need quality depth if we can get it. And during the offseason next year, we need to bite the bullet and get a #1 NT of the future as I doubt that player is on our roster right now. Frankly, we should have done that last year, especially if we were going to let Garay (too much $$$), Franklin and Thomas walk in just two years.

That's funny that you are tired of the NT is not that important, since you are the one who can't seem to make a single effective argument. I'm getting pretty tired of all your poor arguments.

[Yubaking]

I'm going to refer to your points by paragraph number, as it is easier than quoting each one separately.

(1) You entirely miss the point that it is completely irrelevant what position the DT in the sub packages play in the base defense. You seem to want a good NT to stay on the field under some mistaken belief that a good NT will automatically be a more disruptive force than a good DE who slides inside. The important thing is to get the best, most disruptive pass rushers on the field in nickle and dime. Base 3-4 DEs tend to be built like 4-3 DTs. Liuget and Reyes are not exactly midgets. To say that Liuget and Reyes are not adequate for playing DT in a 4-man DL because of their builds is like saying Russell Maryland and Warren Sapp aren't either. Getting a NT who is a good pass rusher is not a priority for the Chargers precisely because Liuget and Reyes are good interior pass rushers. Your definition of a good NT seems to be one that is a good pass rusher. If I am correct about that being part of how you define a good NT, then I can say with the utmost confidence that getting a good NT is not a priority for this defense because we already have good interior pass rushers.

(2) Geathers will get opportunities when the game is in question, but only on run downs, only in the base defense, only in situations where Lissemore would be on the field to begin with. That's a very limited number of snaps. He's not likely to stink up the joint on every play. We're not likely to lose a game because of one or two running plays where the NT didn't hold up his end of the bargain. If we do, I can almost guarantee you there will have been more than one player to blame.

(3) You say we need quality depth, but then you throw out names like Phillips, Barnes, and Franklin, all players who were looking for situations where they would get more, not less, playing time. And the problem with having this "quality" depth is that they block younger players with potential from developing. Last season was widely acknowledged to be a retooling season, a transition season where we pruned the older branches to allow the promising young shoots to grow, and it turned out really well. This season we've got quality depth across the board except at NT, but because the NT position, despite your protestations, is so de-emphasized in today's game, that's one place where we can very comfortably allow a young player's growing pains because it won't appreciably hurt the team.

(4) I haven't constructed a straw man, because a straw man argument is when I attribute to you something you haven't said and then knock that down. (That's what blueman and BoltJolt have been doing, perhaps unknowingly, in the Tutu(/Mouton/Clary) thread, but that's not what's happening here.) I am the one who introduced the "fat slug" concept, not you. I am simply stating I don't want a fat slug at NT. That said, you have consistently advocated having a bigger player at NT, one who is not likely to wear down easily under the demands of a very punishing position that is expected to take on double teams. I know what your position is very well, as you miss no opportunity to tell us, and do not think you are advocating the "fat slug defense." Some people, though, do seem to think that a space eater is ideal at NT.

(5) Again, not a straw man, but perhaps the distinction is lost on you. I know very well which defense you're referring to. Trust me, you're not the only one on here who loved what Jamal Williams brought to the table, and you've made it very clear in numerous posts that you'd like to get back to the defenses where Jamal was dominating at NT. The problem is, the ideal defense you describe is not actually the sort we ran during those seasons. There are different flavors of 3-4. The type of 3-4 where a big, rugged NT dominated the middle of the line and commanded double teams, allowing LBs to flow to the ball, is an older defensive philosophy. We ran Wade Phillips 3-4, which was more collapsing the pocket with DL penetration and giving the O so many different looks from the LBs that it never knew who was coming. That Jamal commanded double teams was a testament to how good he was. Phillips successfully ran his defense in other places where there was not a dominant, pass-rushing NT. Most recently, in Houston, the dominant DL Wade had commanding double teams was a DE. In the modern 3-4, NT is not as important as LB.

(6) There are many ways to stop the run. We have done it in the past without dominant NT play, and we can do it again. Heck, we did it last year when our LB corps got healthy. It's amazing how having 2 healthy ILBs helps against the run. Also, we started tackling much better in the last third of the season, and that means fewer big plays, which is what bumps up the per run average, as Steve has demonstrated numerous times. As long as the front 7 mantain gap and contain responsibilities and tackle well, we'll be ok against the run. If our DL can get better leverage, we won't be mauled up the middle the way we were at times, either. This is a place, yes, where a more dominant NT would be nice, but as long as we do the other things we'll be adequate. We can't do it all as a defense, and (again, as Steve and others have repeatedly pointed out) it's far more important to be dominant against the pass than the run.

(7) I won't disagree with you, as you're basically throwing the "more than one way to skin a cat" back in my face. Fine. But we have an offense that goes on long, methodical, clock-eating drives like nobody's business, and then fails to score points. Even if an opponent runs the ball at an average rate against us, if we start converting more of these long drives into points, teams will find they have a little time to score a lot of points and abandon the run. It seems to me, given our assets, that this is the path of least resistance.

(8) Nothing really to comment on this paragraph. I can appreciate your nostalgia for defenses past, but your analysis of what made them tick is deeply flawed.

(1) I want the run stopped until third down and long. Yes, I trust run stuffers to stuff the run more than those that are not. Reyes versus Jamal at stopping the run--not exactly a tough choice. The NT stays on the field in the sub packages until third and long, but, as you noted, he may not be playing NT depending upon the formation. He's there to help make sure the opponent passes when we play pass defense personnel on second down. If teams want to run away from him, the faster pass defense personnel will eat that alive. If they run at us, he helps shut it down.

(2) I am not interested in us having "limited badness". I am interested in us being the best we can be. At every position there is a level of performance that is acceptable and that is unacceptable. These young NTs have never shown "acceptable" in the NFL, so whether or not either can produce at that level is a fair question.

(3) As it turns out, none of the players you named would have blocked anything. Last year we could have started Phillips and JJ with Ingram as his JJ's sub, but also a guy that could give Phillips a breather if Barnes could not. When Ingram got hurt, we still would have had Barnes, then English. That's called depth with one very good run OLB and 4 solid (albeit not the greatest) pass rushers. And it's just a no-brainer that Franklin would have helped us at NT last year where we struggled mightily for most of the year. To quote Beerman, T. Williams was "raw as hell" and never should have played last year. Whether by PS or holding a spot for a 6th, developmental OLB, we should have kept T. Williams off the field and never should have had to have needed Keiser. Maybe the young NTs will show us something, but until they do, I don't think we can just assume everything will be okay as that is what they have to prove.

(4) The way you stated the "fat slug" discussion made it sound like you were suggesting that that is what I was advocating because I do want someone big enough to "man up" in the middle. From what you said above, it appears that you are aware that I also want that big player to have enough athleticism not to be a "fat slug".

(5) There is not necessarily anything inconsistent with occupying blockers and getting some push (though not sacks, clearly), especially in Jamal's case. I definitely think the LBs flowed to make tackles in Wade's defense. Edwards had 142 tackles in 2006. Not exactly the most physical player on earth, Edwards was able to do that because our DL did a good job of keeping him clean. In that sense, I think it was textbook 3-4 defense in action. However, I do agree that Phillips attacked with his defense, especially with the OLBs. I liked that defensive style very much.

(6) We improved against the run late in the season. Part of that was heavy ball control and the other part was that the defense got better. But even at their best last year, they were not close to being dominant against the run. Having a strong NT is the single best thing the team could do to get dominant against the run. Of course, there are other things they can do as well, but that's the most obvious thing they could do.

(7) Yes, we have to be better in the red zone. I actually thought it was somewhat curious that you were discussing getting big leads. One of the negatives of the heavy ball control offense is that it tends to produce closer games because it takes the air out of games. Thus, we won and lost lots of close games last year with 10 of 16 games being one possession results. I agree that the ball control offense is exactly what we need to do and that we will pull away more with better red zone efficiency and further agree that that will force teams to pass. But I think we have to stop the run along the way defensively to get to that point otherwise there will be a tendency for teams to match scores with us, which will not necessarily change their play calling tendencies.

(8) Nothing much to say except I disagree. I think I understand how the recently very good 3-4 defenses have succeeded.

[Panama]

(2) I am not interested in us having "limited badness". I am interested in us being the best we can be. At every position there is a level of performance that is acceptable and that is unacceptable. These young NTs have never shown "acceptable" in the NFL, so whether or not either can produce at that level is a fair question.

If you want the best we can have, then you have to be willing to live with growing pains while they develop. The route you espouse is the route with the best chance at having prolonged mediocrity, as great NTs rarely if ever hit the market. If you're willing to allow high risk/reward types play under controlled circumstances, allowing that you might be slightly vulnerable while they play, then if they realize their potential you've got precisely the type of player you're hankering after.

I've got nothing further to add on any of the other points, as we've either reached an understanding or it's been discussed ad nauseam already.

[Formula 21]

I think there's room to add some more nauseam to this topic.