vel

Pure Football
  • Content count

    22,885
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Everything posted by vel

  1. I fully agree. Never disagreed with that. But with the way they ended the year, if Duke is on the field, I think we will have lost several LBs to injury and foolishly didn't bring any in. I think Duke is fighting for his roster life today beyond a special teamer.
  2. Exactly why I have no issue paying for them. The roster of writers they have are some of my favorite writers. Made it an easy thing.
  3. I've said this multiple times. Vic seems like he's rushing to avoid contact and it's killing the arc before he even begins. Once he accepts it's a physical game and gets close with the OTs, he will start beating them again. Playing through contact. He did it in the Washington and Dallas games. But rarely.
  4. I think I'm the one that's been doing the reading... So once again, your point is that our LB group isn't deep solely because Duke is involved. Even though we have literal proof showing he was benched and not even a key part of the defense by the end of the season. He played 17 defensive snaps the last month of the season, 15 of which came in a blowout win vs Arizona. Duke played more special teams snaps than any LB on the roster, showing where they see his value. But go ahead.
  5. Read: I didn't put words in your mouth. I gave a hypothetical. You just couldn't refute.
  6. And who says they aren't? I mean go back and look at the games from last year. Carter and Foye were playing more than Duke. Duke got heavy snaps early and then was sent to the bench. Just like Jordan Richards in favor of Neasman.
  7. Basically, Duke could be the 6th LB and never see a snap on defense, but we aren't deep because he's on the roster. Yet, if they cut Duke for a UDFA rookie like Tre Crawford, we're deep? Come on yall. I'm not arguing any more. Find me 5 teams with better LB situations. Until then, it's just bltching.
  8. So we're literally "not deep" at LB because of one player? Lol that's stupid. Plain and simple.
  9. Nope. You answer the question, because your post was: I asked who you would have replaced Debo with, and what teams have Debo caliber backups, and why they would have them on the bench. You went on a rant about Duke and if we had played other LBs on the roster over Duke, we would have won. So that tells me you don't have an issue with the depth other than Duke, your issue is with Duke. There is no depth for a top five MLB. Might as well complain about our QB depth.
  10. So your gripe with the "depth" at LB is solely that Duke is on the roster right now. If Duke doesn't make the roster, do the Falcons have a deeper LB corps? Again, my question was about the depth at LB, not a bltch session about Duke.
  11. Again, who do you replace a top five MLB with? Who in the NFL has an adequate back up that could replace Debo? That's what I'm asking. Duke wasn't given a free ride for two seasons. He literally lost his spot on the DC to a rookie in his second year. What are you talking about. You're complaining about preseason snaps. Again, the drop off between Debo and other starting MLBs is substantial, so saying we aren't deep because we don't have a Debo caliber back up is baseless.
  12. Nope. That's not the question. Would that make us deeper. Your response was basically "We aren't that deep because Duke is on the team". You can't find many teams much deeper at LB.
  13. That's like complaining about losing Luke Kuechly. There is no replacement for a top five player at their position. That's what I don't get about the complaint. If you had a player capable of fully filling in for Debo, would you really have him on the bench?
  14. Cute. So if Duke doesn't make the roster, suddenly we're deeper?
  15. We aren't thin. There is some fantasy on here about LB corps. We literally have a top five MLB, a very good SLB, both of which play +70% of snaps, a promising WLB, and versatile depth. I'd like to know who you think has a deep LB corps the Falcons should mimic.
  16. Oh no. That's actually false. He loves all of those guys. If you've ever had a coach like him or coached players, you'd agree. But he doesn't let love blind him. He can love you but see you f*ckin up and not be happy about it and if you aren't putting in the work to get it, he doesn't have the time. He's willing to give you rope, but if you hang yourself....
  17. I can give you several. Oh if there is anybody on this board that can give you real game examples, it's me. I'll probably do it this weekend when I actually have time to watch full games.
  18. This article is why I keep saying DQ is the right guy and the last person in the building I'm worried about. It also is funny that he came out and plainly said "Yea I'll lie to you guys". A lot of fans around here want to here the coach just come out and say things that fans truly have no need to know. Trust he's telling it like it is in the building and he just told you that. Straight up.
  19. But this place kept saying we're ridiculously thin at LB....
  20. Have you seen him in zone? He has little awareness beyond his zone. If a guy leaves his area, he is prone to covering grass instead of looking for the man that's coming back to his zone. It's not his strength. Putting him in heavy man let's him shine because he's focused on his guy.
  21. With Debo, Neal, and Rico out, the brains were lost. Campbell's game isn't thinking. He's like Tru in that regard. Tru is clueless a lot of times, but it's limited because he's always on his side. Campbell being in the middle of the field highlights it at times.
  22. Yep. He has a very singular focus when he plays, so that part stood out to me: The bolded part tells me this is a starter or large role player. You aren't asking for backups to be leaders.
  23. I think Dre. Foye is probably the smartest player on the field most times. Riley doesn't play so shouldn't be referenced as a leader. That's what always bugs me about Campbell. He'll just plan miss stuff because he can get lost. That's why Debo going down hurt him so much, he can be easily manipulated.