Brian Russell "secure at safety"

by Wayward Llama on Aug 4, 2009 5:25 AM PDT

I guess Babs didn't put up that much of a challenge, as Brian Russell took his P12 aluminum oxide-style grit to Babineaux's thrown gauntlet in only a few days. In a way, this is unsurprising, knowing how Ruskell values "field generals," but you would think that there would be enough discontent with the safety positionfor the GM to take action. Let's just hope they don't leave Russell deep in cover-1.

Sigh.

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Sweet Christ, why must you do this to us </3

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Aug 4, 2009 10:24 AM PDT reply actions

So we'd already seen the Tim Lewis quote

This article makes it sound a lot more certain and finalized, than the way it was first reported. I dunno where the disconnect is, between Ruskell & Lewis, and between Lewis and us, but it doesn’t sound so certain to me.

I’m not grasping for straws, either. Tim Ruskell isn’t going to make that statement and then get embarrassed by his moderately outspoken DB coach. John’s description, saying it’s not a dog & pony show, quite, but there’s a large contingency of Russell discontent in the fan base, and at least something is being done, but for more reasons than one, Russell probably retains the edge to start. It makes sense.

But it’s not like Tim Lewis just says “I dunno bout that” a day after Ruskell, and therein lies the final word. The competition may indeed be over, but it’s not over because this quote was publicized, and then framed this way.

by jacobstevens on Aug 4, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions

Wow, this article has some good stuff from Mora.

“Mora said Mebane reported to camp at 304 pounds, down from his playing weight of 330 last year.”

“Mora said Marcus Trufant, whom the team put on the physically unable to perform list to start training camp, is feeling better and getting close to being healthy enough to practice.”

by cashless on Aug 4, 2009 10:45 AM PDT reply actions

I'm sort of nervous about the new DT stuff.

I wanted Mebane to stay at one-tech and put Redding at three-tech.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Aug 4, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions

That would be outstanding.

However, Redding at RE, Kearney at LE, with Mebane at the 3 tech and Cole at the one makes us bigger and stronger across the board. As long as Cole is not tissue paper like Howard Green(or if he is then Bryant plays the one) then you have the kind of strong defensive line I’ve wanted all this time. I’ve hated how we’ve squandered our linebackers, and if we can blitz our linebackers this year more effectively then I think we will come to love this line.

by cashless on Aug 4, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Anyone else think this is a little underweight for a defensive tackle?

by rex92 on Aug 4, 2009 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Not at all

I dunno if there’s a dozen guys over 3 bills starting in the NFL at DT. 280 – 310 is probably the bell curve for 80% of them, with a couple handfuls of guys over 310, most of whom man the nose. Sapp was 300 — at the end of his career. Tommie Harris, 295. Dockett’s 285. At 3-tech, this is probably ideal size. Ideal meaning pragmatically, the 26 extra pounds almost assuredly get in the way of being effective in his new role.

by jacobstevens on Aug 4, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it depends on the tackle.

Mora gave his “gold stars” for specific players workouts this offseason, Mebane was one of three. Redding at 295 was still better than Howard Green for us at 320-330 in every way.

Mebane is a really strong dude, and really quick. He will still be strong, and will be even quicker, just with less weight. We are asking him to be penetrating in a single gap, so it sounds like he’s going to be ready for that.

by cashless on Aug 4, 2009 4:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I see

Question – With the Tampa-2 system based on speed over size, does that translate to the d-line as well, or just the linebackers and secondary?

by rex92 on Aug 6, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions

It translates to the D-Line.

However, if we had a true rush 4, drop back 7 Tampa 2, Redding would be a DT with Mebane, and Tapp and Kearney would likely be the DEs. Our DL right now is much bigger than a Tampa 2 DL with Colin Cole at the 1 and Redding at one DE spot, and the hopes of many here rest on Kearney being effective and linebacker blitzes.

by cashless on Aug 6, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Thanks for clearing that up

With so much money soon to be invested in the linebacker corps, I really hope it proves to be money well spent

by rex92 on Aug 6, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, now that it's brought up

we have the kind of size we haven’t seen since when Holmgren first got here.Sinclair, Daniels, Kennedy — Sam Adams was the smallest guy on the line! Cochran and King, ugh. All those 300 pound DEs.

Size doesn’t equal stoutness against the run, or effectiveness in pass rush, but I’m pretty excited to see what kind of a difference this makes. It very well might just be a schematic freeing up of LBs for blitzing.

by jacobstevens on Aug 7, 2009 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions