LB Cato June to Visit (Signed 1-yr, $500k bonus)

[nero THE zero]

The WLB plays over the RDE, no?

Which side does the "SS" (re: Ferguson/Barber) play on?

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

The WLB plays over the RDE, no?

Which side does the "SS" (re: Ferguson/Barber) play on?

The Will plays the weak side. In a normal formation that would be beside the RDE. But not always.

The Strong Safety will usually play on the strong side (across from the TE) and close to the line of scrimmage. Thus the saying 8 in the box.

The free safety plays a little deeper and is the better pass coverage guy, in theory.

Now some teams, using a cover-2 will have both safeties at the same depth, and one might become the all time left guy and the other the right. It is a way to disguise the coverage.

In the NFL teams try their best to disguise what they are going to do presnap, thus the Texans trying to have safeties and LBs that can play either strongside or weakside. But we have forgotten the all important ball hawk and playmaker in favor of the vanilla joe average guy.

[nero THE zero]

Originally Posted by painekiller

The Will plays the weak side. In a normal formation that would be beside the RDE. But not always.

The Strong Safety will usually play on the strong side (across from the TE) and close to the line of scrimmage. Thus the saying 8 in the box.

The free safety plays a little deeper and is the better pass coverage guy, in theory.

Now some teams, using a cover-2 will have both safeties at the same depth, and one might become the all time left guy and the other the right. It is a way to disguise the coverage.

In the NFL teams try their best to disguise what they are going to do presnap, thus the Texans trying to have safeties and LBs that can play either strongside or weakside. But we have forgotten the all important ball hawk and playmaker in favor of the vanilla joe average guy.

Yea, I meant in a normal base defense. And I ask because, assuming we sign June and he wins the job (which isn't a stretch assuming we sign him,) we would need to fortify his side of the field given his run-stopping deficiencies. Mario is a good start. It's unfortunate to hear that the SS plays the other side of the field though.

Can't say I'm in favor of bringing him in. We need to get bigger and more athletic in the LB corps. I don't think June provides that.

[painekiller]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

Yea, I meant in a normal base defense. And I ask because, assuming we sign June and he wins the job (which isn't a stretch assuming we sign him,) we would need to fortify his side of the field given his run-stopping deficiencies. Mario is a good start. It's unfortunate to hear that the SS plays the other side of the field though.

Can't say I'm in favor of bringing him in. We need to get bigger and more athletic in the LB corps. I don't think June provides that.

My bet is he would be a LB in the nickle package. Not an everydown player.

There are rumors that Adibi has gained weight, and is looking solid, if this translates to staying on the field then I'm not sure it matters who the vet signing is.

[mussop]

Originally Posted by painekiller

My bet is he would be a LB in the nickle package. Not an everydown player.

There are rumors that Adibi has gained weight, and is looking solid, if this translates to staying on the field then I'm not sure it matters who the vet signing is.

This is the first I have heard of this. That is great news. One thing we havent seen from Adibi yet is his ability to rush the passer. He looked like he was shot out of a cannon when he blitzed at WV. I never figured out why they didnt use him in that role more while there.

This has me curious, im going to go look up and see what Adibi's numbers were at the combine last year in the 10 yd split. It had to be good.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

. It's unfortunate to hear that the SS plays the other side of the field though.

Kubiak has said he likes for his safeties to be interchangeable...which has generally meant OK against the run weak vs. the pass. Bush might change that up, but that's the philosophy Kubiak has had up until now. Same thing for OLB's. Whether or not that is a good approach is a whole different story.

As for June. It's solid depth, which is all you are likely to get this time of year. Much like Bentley was last year, he can push the young guys and help them out because of his experience, and he would be capable of starting if need be. It doesn't look like they are going to sign him, but they left the door open. This is the type of signing that makes sense this time of year...even if in this case it doesn't look like it's going to happen.

[nero THE zero]

Originally Posted by papabear

Kubiak has said he likes for his safeties to be interchangeable...which has generally meant OK against the run weak vs. the pass. Bush might change that up, but that's the philosophy Kubiak has had up until now. Same thing for OLB's. Whether or not that is a good approach is a whole different story.

Where has Kubiak said this? I know his history, prior to Eugene Wilson, suggested that. But, I have never seen a quote regarding that stance attributed to him.

That's also irrelevant to my point. My point is that if June is signed and wins a starting job, we better have some formidable run stoppers on his side of the field to make up for his inability to do just that.

[Bigtinylittle]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

Where has Kubiak said this? I know his history, prior to Eugene Wilson, suggested that. But, I have never seen a quote regarding that stance attributed to him.

That's also irrelevant to my point. My point is that if June is signed and wins a starting job, we better have some formidable run stoppers on his side of the field to make up for his inability to do just that.

I can't give you a citation to back up Papabear, but I'm almost positive I have heard Kubiak say those exact words. I guess it's possible, though, that now that Bush is in charge he might change things. But one reason I think we won't change is that I remember LZ saying on the radio one time that the whole league seems to be drifting slowly toward interchangable safeties. I know it's an idea that isn't popular with fans, but coaches seem to like it.

[papabear]

Originally Posted by nero THE zero

Where has Kubiak said this? I know his history, prior to Eugene Wilson, suggested that. But, I have never seen a quote regarding that stance attributed to him.

That's also irrelevant to my point. My point is that if June is signed and wins a starting job, we better have some formidable run stoppers on his side of the field to make up for his inability to do just that.

The closest I could find from a quick search was a McClain article stating that the safeties were interchangeable in Richard Smith's defense. I know I've heard Kubiak say it interviews because I remember it started a lot of discussion. It doesn't really matter though because we don't know what changes Bush will make beyond the generic "more aggressive" response.

I think the general consensus is the the Texans safeties have generally been interchangeable based on personnel even if it wasn't by design. I though it was relevant to your post because you said that it was unfortunate that the SS generally plays the other side of the field from the WLB as it relates to June (who doesn't look like he's signing anyway) and his deficiencies against the run. I was just pointing out that since we tend to have two safeties who are both better against the run that it really wouldn't matter which side June was lined up on he would have a decent run-support safety behind him.

[kravix]

I know ive seen/heard/read it from interviews also. I tried searching for it but didnt find anything. I dont think that he ever said we want mediocre pass cover and run defence skills from our safeties, rather than wishing they could have 2 that can do both well and play either side of the field.

It is not my favorite philosophy, I would rather have one ball hawk and one run stuffer with mediocre skills on their respective filp sides rather than just ok at both.