On Red Bryant at Defensive End
I will start writing some more topical stuff as we approach the season. It's about time this site came alive again.
Red Bryant is currently the Seahawks starting left defensive end.
It is common for fringe players to be talked up during the off-season. It is a product of a few forces. The fringe player is clinging to a roster spot and has a lesser threshold for improvement. This is what I call the Homer Simpson Most Improved Odor award. When you stink, sometimes it's enough to take a shower to seem like a new man. The fringe player is by definition an underdog, and people reflexively like underdogs, and writers tailor their writing to what people like. The fringe player is likely to pop when established players are going through the motions. Good players do not play their best football in June. The fringe player is scrapping for a job while established players are healing.
Fringe players sometimes figure it out and become effective regulars. That is the final and most essential reason why every off-season some fringe player emerges from the pile. It's not enough to want fringe talent to breakout, sometimes it has to actually happen. It does every so often, through position change, coaching change, lifestyle change or just late growth.
So, Red Bryant is currently the Seahawks starting left defensive end. This is all Dan Quinn. Quinn coached a 3-4 line in New York and installed Cory Redding at left defensive end upon arriving in Seattle. He also, I presume, added a couple end-tackle tweeners through free agency in Michael Bennett and Derek Walker. It's not clear who calls the shots on roster moves, but I presume many people have a say and as surely as we can affix any one person's stamp to any one move, we can say Quinn had a part in the recent wave of oversized ends.
So, what are the benefits and sacrifices of moving Red Bryant to end?
+Bryant was a misfit talent languishing without a position.
Bryant was the Tim Ruskell commemorative fourth-round project pick of 2008. I was a big Bryant backer but aghast at how poorly he showed at Texas A&M. He was high talent, high ceiling but low ability. Finding somewhere that Bryant's particular blend of size, length, power and quickness could play, that also minimizes his weaknesses regarding discipline, leverage and awareness, could save Bryant's career. And that's added talent.
+Bryant is a huge presence on the strong side.
Red is 330. He would be the largest starting end in the NFL. Sometimes size doesn't matter, but it matters in the trenches. Bryant is a matchup headache for tackles and has the length and mass to control the edge.
+Cory Redding was not a disaster.
I was unenthused by Redding's placement at left defensive end last season, but though it might not have been schematically sound, Redding played well. He was immovable when he needed to be immovable. He was disruptive when he needed to be disruptive. He contributed 12 quarterback hits and two sacks.
+Seattle lacks an incumbent at left defensive end.
Pete Carroll wants to win now. I would rather just win eventually. That is going to be my book, my other book, Win Eventually: Live, Work and Play like a Procrastinator. Though I bristle at the notion of rebuilding, Seattle should be building the core of their next contender: Identifying young talent and locking them into a position. We are in the brainstorming period. Succeed or fail, I welcome testing ideas and seeing if Bryant's talent can be repurposed while filling a vacant position. I am just not sure end in a 4-3 makes much sense.
-Bryant is not a defensive end.
No way around this: Red Bryant is a defensive tackle. What does that really mean? It means he's big and thick and if not slow, also not particularly versed at rushing the passer either. Coach Fran played Bryant in a defense designed to stop the option and that partly explains his anemic pass rush numbers. Explains, but does not excuse. Whether it's because of the system or the system just prevented him from developing, Bryant had only four solo and two assist sacks in four seasons at Texas A&M. He also had just two quarterback pressures. Bryant is decently quick and agile for someone his size, but he is fringe-slow and fringe-stiff for a dedicated defensive end. He is, plainly, a defensive tackle.
-Bryant will not adequately rush the passer.
This is an extension on the previous point. Redding had hits, but Seattle struggled to generate consistent pressure. Seattle lacks a premiere pass rusher. It lacks an even good pass rusher. Choosing to put a run defender at a designated pass rush position is playing with fire. Football is about time. The pass rush hurries a quarterback, minimizing his reads and forcing bad decisions. If Bryant doesn't develop markedly as a pass rusher, Seattle's front four could be the worst pass rushing line in the league.
-Whither LoJack?
Ok, so let's say Pete Carroll does not blindly favor former USC players. That doesn't mean he is free of bias. And as such, one must wonder what he thinks about Lawrence Jackson. Jackson was a bit of an underachiever at USC and his Seahawks career to date has been inconsistent. He flashes for a snap and then disappears. He started last season strong and then faded as the season fell apart. I am not sure what the future holds for Jackson, but since we're trying new things, spitballing and seeing what sticks, Jackson has better potential than Bryant and is a true end. Right now, he is without a position. That seems like a waste of resources.
The fringe player made good storyline continues to resonate despite long odds, and as a Bryant fan, I wish him success. The rub is that should Bryant succeed and secure the position, Seattle might be worse off for it. In a passing league, Seattle continues to shuffle its talent towards defending the run. One can envision four Colin Cole-types manning gaps and containing runs, and one can envision opposing quarterbacks completing 65.8% of their passes against that defense. That is what Seattle allowed in 2009, fourth worst in the NFL. And it's not going to get better until Seattle finds players that can shorten the clock and force bad decisions. I would love for that to be Bryant, but it's a reach, impractical and probably asking for trouble.
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Anyone else think
that Ray Willis looks like a black King Hippo in the picture for this article?
Bryant at end has always perplexed me.
Mostly for the reasons you enumerated. My main question is where do PC and company think their pass rush is going to come from if Cole and Bryant pretty much can’t do it? Just from Curry, Mebane, Clemons/whoever? Based on the shuffling of who has been on the 1st team (Babs/Milly, Bryant/Jackson, Jennings/Wilson), I think they’re merely putting players in a position to show them their best and that they don’t envision them as starters at this point. I could see Bryant playing a lot against teams like St. Louis, Carolina and maybe San Fran, but unless you’re going to a straight-up 3-4 base, Bryant as the LDE starter doesn’t make sense.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Here's an hypothesis...
what if PC and company plan on Bryant being double team??? Then Mebane would be doubled, leaving either Leo or Curry to make a play. IF Bryant can get off on the ball as fast as he dubbed to be, it could work…
The only reason to double-team him would be that he's getting good pressure.
If he does that, he will be an asset and successful defensive end. Can he do that is the question.
Red Bryant: surprise us!
Kind of.
To make a quick and usually useless distinction between pressure on the QB and pressure on the linemen in front of and disjoint from him, the latter can be sufficient to earn double-teams.
Of course that’s moot if you have a superior rush from another spot that demands the double-team, and this lesser ofthe evils may be exposed as a bit of a paper tiger (for lack of a better term) if he can blow up the line and push the pocket in but isn’t a major threat for making a sack.
But how you line up on defense can, uh, “encourage” who the offense is better off double-teaming, depending on strengths on both teams and what kind of play they may want to run. Often the best rusher gets double-teamed, but it’s not quite so simple.
by jacobstevens on Jun 24, 2010 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think it works that way...
But what has Bryant done to show that teams should double team him? Typically, a O-Line double teams a D-Lineman to get movement. Bryant hasn’t constantly shown that he can create a pass rush nor stand his ground.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I can't disagree...
But lets assume that PC and Quinn see something in Bryant that they would place him 1st team LDE, how many RT’s can move an above average speed 330lb dude by themselves? IF Bryant somehow beats them once or maybe even twice, he’ll warrant some kind of help by either RG, FB, or TE. The only problem with Bryant right now is that he hasn’t seen much game time so no one really knows.
I'll ask the question I always seem to ask.
(and it always nicks the edge of “appeal to authority”)
WHY, in God’s name, if the NFL is so pass-happy, does this coaching staff seem to favour run-defense over pass rush? I’d think that with a team so potentially green in the secondary, they’d be going all out to put the right guys in position to get at opposing quarterbacks. Are Carroll and co. hiding something? Assuming that Clemons and Curry will break out? Going to a crazy combination of zone-blitzes? WHAT!?!?!?
Because a completed pass gets you more yards than the average run
Defensive linemen are bigger and linebackers (and safeties and even corners) are faster and hit harder. It’s difficult to invest too much in the rushing attack these days, especially when the average career length for a running back is about 4 years.
I’m not saying running the ball isn’t important, believe it or not, but it’s become common knowledge that the passing game is the most important part of the offense. So if a defense fails to properly combat the passing attack they are leaving themselves vulnerable to (usually) the most potent weapon in the offense’s arsenal. A majority of teams are pass-first nowadays, so to fail to stop the passing game you’ll be at a disadvantage most of the time….which I believe is the commonly-held belief of most NFL teams these days.
No, I realize this.
My question is, if it’s so obvious, why do defensive coaches seem to ignore it?
And which super pass rushing specials do you think we should have have grabbed over the offseason?
There was nobody to get. Carrol has already said, many times, they were looking for and need a good pass rusher, as do most of the teams in the league. Make do with what you have. And I didn’t see anybody in the first (or second) round of the draft that would’ve been better then our selections.
Not until the last couple days did I hear Red Bryant being tried as starting DE. This could’ve been for several reason, LoJack getting some rest, or they just want to see how Red does with the first unit. I think everyone may be reading way too much into one little report. I’m all for trying Red at DE, see what happens, but it was only for a couple of days in OTA’s. Meh. Whatever.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jun 24, 2010 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions
He's been spotted at DE for a while now.
It’s not new.
And it’s not just the removal of LoJack for Bryant, it’s the insistence on keeping Cole at DT when it’s clear he can’t rush worth shit.
True, everyone’s looking for pass-rush. There’s a reason for that: it’s important. The bigger point is that ours sucked already… we had what, 28 sacks all last season? It needs improvement, desperately, especially now that the secondary is going to be greener than ever.
I understand that you can’t put it all together at one time. But the fact is that our pass rush will more than likely suck, and as a result our young secondary could very well get torched all year. Yep, Thomas was a good pick, but there were a few DE’s and rush LB’s available right after him. Maybe they weren’t as good value, but given equal value I’ll take a 10-sack DE over a good safety any time.
by djafrot on Jun 24, 2010 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was about to point out that Red is just being tried out at DE and hasn't surpased LoJack
But apparently I’m wrong
"He probably, of the roster adjustments and things, is the guy that I’m most excited about," Seahawks coach Pete Carroll said. "Because he was just barely getting play time the year before and he’s a starter for us at the defensive end spot and brings special qualities because he’s such a big guy and he moves well and he’s in the best shape of his life."
Read more: http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/jun/24/seahawks-bryant-fitting-into-de-role/#ixzz0rq93lx1v
by B.B.Finnegan on Jun 24, 2010 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow. Thanks. I also thought he wasn't yet the starter.
Not out of minicamps. LoJack must be putting up quite a competition, eh?
by jacobstevens on Jun 24, 2010 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
"...he’s in the best shape of his life."
Really? That’s like saying “I’m not racist or anything, but…”
I mean, when asked how he got strong, his answer was, "cornbread."
It always reminded me of when Lisa packed an empty suitcase for the summer vacation, and Homer thought it was light and she suggested he’d gotten stronger.
“Well, I have been eating more.”
by jacobstevens on Jun 25, 2010 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Just a thought...
Perhaps the plan is to get Bryant in where he can get more, harder reps to specifically work on and further develop his pass rushing abilities?
Since Jackson already has plenty of experience, he could give up some reps; of course, there maybe something they aren’t telling us health wise either. As the season approaches they’ll slide Red into Cole’s spot and reinsert LoJack into the first team. For now, Cole is just doing as he does, and filling space.
…and perhaps, if you get into the real X’s and O’s none of what I just said would make any sense, but is just idle, June/July musings.
by Dizzy Saturn on Jun 25, 2010 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I think the answer to your question is
“why does this coaching staff favor fun defense over pass rush”.
Personnel.
We have run stuffers. We don’t have many pass rushers. A key to defense is to make the opponent’s offense one-dimensional. It really doesn’t matter if you take away the pass or take away the run. Either way leads to success. If you can be very effective in run defense, you make the offense one-dimensional and you now can find ways to stymie their passing game even without a great pass rush.
Carroll and Scheider could have gone out and spent a fortune on pass rushers, I suppose, but that would leave holes elsewhere. So they are building slowly around the young talent they have, and that includes Red Bryant. This is not an ‘appeal to authority’, but I don’t think their plan is mysterious at all.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Seattle stopped the run last season.
And was torched by the pass.
Stopping the run does not stop an offense. Making an offense one-dimensional, but being incapable of defending that one-dimension is tantamount to suicide.
by John Morgan on Jun 25, 2010 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions
I like the experimentation aspect, and his build screams tackle, but...
he could also, conceivably, play as a 3-4 End, or stunt to the inside from the End position and have one of our many Gritty, High Motor Guys like Reed and Foley speed rush from the edge. He also provides the strength and size matchup problems against Tackles that will free up the aforementioned GHMGs to unleash the lightning.
Picture Red, Jackson and Mebane holding the point of attack and collapsing the pocket up front, with Clemons, Reed, Foley and Josh Wilson or Curry blitzing.
I like it. It works – we’re undefeated right now….
This has the potential to be brilliant. I am coming around to this idea.
This move is about dictating. Sure we may not have good edge rushers from our 3 interior lineman, but we r going to be sending at least one guy…and you won’t know where this guy is coming from. Last I checked it only takes one guy to tackle a quarterback. Only one guy to make him scramble or collapse the pocket. One thing is for sure, these three guys will get push (well maybe not cole) and they will be there to clean up if curry causes alex smith to step up in the pocket.
Also it dictates where the offense will try to run. They will try to run at our “Leo” position. The Hawks will know this and be prepared for it.
Again, I think this defense is more about dictating what the offense does more than any other defense we have had in Seattle. We may not want to admit it but we have been watching “bend not break” defenses for years. Now we have corners in press coverage and blitzing linebackers.
I am really excited for what’s to come.
by nickfru1 on Jun 24, 2010 2:30 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Yeah I'm excited too but realistic
I don’t have strong confidence it’ll have a big payoff. But I know he’s there for double teams. I wonder if Mebane will line up next to him a lot and benefit from the right guards swallowed whole.
by jacobstevens on Jun 24, 2010 3:36 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Red will have to be a really good run stuffer
if the Seahawks D wants to send run plays towards the Leo the majority of the time. That wasn’t a very well constructed sentence…ahhh its late…
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
"it dictates where the offense will try to run. They will try to run at our "Leo" position"
Don’t count on that. The D is shifted toward the weak side in Carroll’s under, discouraging teams to try to run left. Teams want to run right on the under, which is why Red Bryant with Aaron Curry over his left shoulder could give some offenses fits.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
The only redeeming quality to this is, it's a 3-4.
Regardless of how the defense lines up, this makes the lack of size from Clemons and co. look more like a 3-4 than a retarded 4-3. Now, I don’t necessarily like Cole as an NT, but Vickerson is still around for one of the spots if he shows up, and it brings in 3-4 type of pressure rather than 4-3 pressure.
It's not a 3-4 though. Everyone is lining up the same way, the only difference is that Clemons won't have his hands on the ground.
Who else is so undersized that they need to sacrifice pass rush from 3 of their 4 lineman?
I think you misunderstood
My guess is the scheme will look like this:
Tatupu Hawthrone
Curry Bryant Cole Vickerson Reed
TE T G C G T
And the basic scheme is to have Curry drop back on pass situations, creating a strong right side rush, and fill in the outside runs.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
Fuck the spaces
A better diagram
++++++++++++++++++Tatupu++++++Hawthrone+++++++++++
+++++Curry+++Bryant++++++++++Cole+++++Vick.++++Reed+
++++TE+++++++T++++++G++++++++C+++++G+++++T++++++
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
not a chance in hell mebane does not start.
He is easily the best talent on our defensive line.
by Seahawks4life on Jun 24, 2010 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Yep. So:
+++++++++++++++Hawthorne+++++++Tatupu+++++++++++
Clemons++++Mebane++++++Cole+++++++++++Bryant++Curry
++++++++++T++++++G++++++C++++++G+++++T++++++TE
by jacobstevens on Jun 25, 2010 12:02 AM PDT up reply actions
yep. better
but I’ll be interested to see if Vickerson can beat out Cole to start at the 1.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Or under maybe, I'm not sure.
It’s a 4-3 though. And do we know where Clemons will be lining up? Is he going to be wide all the time or over the tackle or a mix?
I'm not either.
I learned it as:
Over has the SLB as a backer, positioned for coverage over the TE. WLB up on the line (with no one on the line there to inherently block him) positioned for blitz.
And under has the SLB up on the line, against the TE, positioned for blitz. WLB as a backer.
But, the trojanfootballanalysis guy describes things very detailed and seems quite knowledgeable, and he doesn’t seem to use that taxonomy, but more how the whole front aligns to the strong/weak sides.
(His site is back to being malware free, but he has not recovered/posted a ton of his old content, just yet)
I don’t really know where Clemons will line up for certain, or how. I would guess it’ll be weakside mostly, blind-side mostly.
In the images in that link above, you see the LBs lining up as a 5 & 9 technique in one shot. Considering Schneider said the Leo position is a more or less every down position, not situational, and we intend to use Curry as a rusher here & there, I imagine at times we’ll see the use of Curry even while a Leo is in. In that case, whether strong or weak, it appears Clemons would be a 5 technique and Curry a 9. Not that that shot should be authoritative, much less that we’d consistently line up like that.
by jacobstevens on Jun 25, 2010 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
My point is personnel, not how it's lined up.
In a 3-4, you have a pass rush coming from any of the 4 linebackers, and you can’t tell me that 3-4 teams lack a pass rush simply because they have three big fuckers in front that aren’t as quick.
Our 4-3 is looking more and more like a 3-4. Red and Mebane are the DEs, Cole looks like the NT, Clemons and the three linebackers will all pass rush some. It will line up as a 4-3, but play like a 3-4.
And instead of Clemons being a liability for his size, he ends up being closer to the prototype.
So that sounds good to me but
Why line up in a 4-3 if you’re going to play like a 3-4?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
How are they going to play like a 3-4 if they're not lined up like a 3-4?
Everything about this defense is a 4-3.
To answer both questions...
But the point of this is to hide the coverage. It throws the Offense off guard if your D-Line can quickly transitioned from 3 down lineman to 4, and vice versa. From the looks of the defense, yes it is a 3-4. But there are ways where the 3-4 can transition to a 4-3 within the snap.
As a example, say we have 3 Defensive Lineman (Bryant, Mebane, Reed) with 4 Linebackers (Curry, Lofa, Hawthrone, Clemons). Assuming that Clemons is playing DE, the Line can shift so that Clemons could move up to the line. Likewise, Either backer has the ability to blitz quickly without the D Line interfering.
The same could be said for a 4-3. We line up with 4 D-Lineman (Clemons, Bryant, Mebane, Reed) and 3 Backers (Curry Lofa, Hawthrone). Before the snap, you can bring down Curry so we can change into a 5-2 run personnel, or put Clemons in coverage of the TE in a 3-4 pass personnel.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
That isn't radical and no pro offense should struggle with a little pre-snap motion.
I wouldn’t make too much of the line’s versatility. Seattle needs to execute. It needs players that can execute.
by John Morgan on Jun 25, 2010 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Where is the SS
I think its a 4-3 that can look like a 3-4 or 5-2 to 5-3, but it will just be different looks to confuse. Based on the bodies and type we will be a 4-3 that can vary up the motors coming from the outside. Hopefully its done in a way to maximize the talent that we have. Red has never lived up to his apparent talent level, but I’m not sure moving him outright to a position that isn’t made for him will help.
Except the personnel types if the starting lineup now looks anything like the one in September.
It has been a 4-3 the entire time, but that doesn’t mean it does not have some 3-4 principles to it. John mentions below that for this defense to succeed with Red at end, it will likely have to blitz it’s linebackers a great deal. I strongly believe that as well, it’s a pretty logical conclusion, and one that plays a lot more like a 3-4 than a traditional 4-3 ever will.
A 4-3 need at least some pass rush from it’s 4 down linemen in most schemes, and a good pass rush from at least 2 or 3 of them. A 3-4 gets most of it’s pass rush from linebackers, and little of it from the three men up front. Sometimes in a very good 3-4, you have a Richard Seymour. If one of our DT types is gonna be that it’s Brandon Mebane. Otherwise, you have two big bodies that may collapse the pocket at times, but are not going to generate a pass rush without serious help from the linebackers.
In no way is Bryant an end
I wonder if this move was done to light a fire under Jackson’s ass. He needs something to play up to his talent level.
Could be, but then shouldn't Clemons be starting with Reed?
Me thinks Carroll might not be making this solely for motivation
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
The one bright spot
Is that our NFC West opponents are seemingly gearing towards a rush centered offense. Our secondary is also a lot better, on paper at least, which will hopefully buy some time for our DLine. Still, I think the development of our leo pass rusher will make or break this defense. I’m still hoping they bring in the bobby mccray for a workout at least
Great point.
How nice would it be to hold Gore to 18/60/0 week 1?
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Very nice.
A kiss is not a contract, but it’s^^
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
by Cheddar28 on Jun 25, 2010 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Within our scheme, which appears to be a hybrid 4-3, Bryant could be just fine as our 3-4 LDE.
There are plenty of Marques Douglases around that don’t dominate, but contribute enough to allow the playmakers to do their jobs. I’m not really sure how much is expected of a 3-4 end. Some teams have invested heavily (KC, Tyson Jackson) and others have questionable talent, or, at least unrecognized, unheralded players (Shaun Ellis- NYJ, Brett Keisel-PIT, etc., etc.). Is there any reason Red can’t be a Marcus Spears type? I mean seriously: someone named Mike DeVito plays DE in the Jets’ 3-4…
I guess a lot depends on how much 3-4 we run. Maybe Red plays those snaps where the heavier end is needed, and LJack plays most of the 4-3 LDE snaps?
Red Bryant: surprise us!
That's the only scenario I can think of where this makes sense.
If we start rotating and run 3-4s sometimes and use Bryant as an end for the 3-4 then LoJack for the 4-3. He’s just too slow to be a 4-3 end.
Now with more lemon bars!
Gah this is just conflustercating our hopes for Bryant as a useable, every-down tackle.
Curse you, Peter Carroll!
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Though-provoking post John, except for this:
“No way around this: Red Bryant is a defensive tackle.”
Umm… Disagree.
I believe the 2009 season proved that Bryant is not a defensive tackle. DTs play with their pads low. Bryant showed he cannot.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Not necceserily, no
But there are a lot of factors deciding on DE. Is he strong side or weak side? If he’s strong, can he hold off the TE in case of a run or hit him when its a pass? If he’s weak, can he generate a pass rush on the blind side and get contain in case the QB rolls out? Too many questions to answer before we can make a good judgement.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
That isn't many questions and it doesn't change the fact that Bryant is built like a defensive tackle and has played defensive tackle his entire life.
All the way back to Jasper, Texas.
by John Morgan on Jun 25, 2010 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
That's true. Has there been anyone who made such a successful change before?
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
plenty. for instance, the last starter we had at that position. Cory Redding.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
..and at the start of his professional career...
and has more career sacks than Red Bryant has career tackles. It’s not a quality comparison. Redding is closer to Lawrence Jackson than he is Bryant.
I am sure it happens.
And, truthfully, position title is not that important. What matters is what the coaching staff wants Bryant to accomplish and if he can, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is very hard to understand how Seattle expects to create pass rush while punting one of its most vital pass rush positions. It’s not that Bryant is called a “defensive tackle” and is playing defensive end. It’s that Bryant is a defensive tackle and has never shown the ability to rush the passer a 4-3 defense needs from its ends.
At the very least, his two most notable aspects to his talent are Size and Quickness for his size
The size attribute includes a lot of length as we know. That lends itself more to end. Quickness certainly benefits either position.
OK maybe power is more notable. Than either. All three give me hope though.
by jacobstevens on Jun 25, 2010 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I will write about it eventually, but I think Seattle will need to blitz a lot if it wants a Cole-Mebane-Bryant line to work.
Yeah. When using Elephant, does anyone know whether he sent more than 4, more frequently?
I get a general impression that he’s not as faithful to rushing only with the front 4 as other Kiffin disciples. Definitely more aggressive with his safeties. But how much blitzing did he do, comparatively?
by jacobstevens on Jun 25, 2010 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
How much rush does a 3-4 end need to have?
Isn’t it possible Bryant plays 34 end, while LoJack (or someone else) plays the 43 end? It seems at least plausible to me. Granted, that’s not an easy conclusion given the information we currently have about the defense we will or won’t run. I don’t think Bryant will play a lot of 43 end, regardless. He could be particularly useful in 34 looks, which I think (and hope) will be more common than anticipated.
Red Bryant: surprise us!
Yeah he might not play the 4-3 end as much as the 3-4
Quite possibly because of some of the points I mentioned before, but Bryant’s size and Strength makes him more of a run-defense, stuff-in-the-hole DEs than the ones that get sacks
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
this is true
Bryant failed at DT, and true that does not make him an end.
But Bryant has completed a dozen OTAs at end, and the coaching staff keeps choosing to start him over Lawrence Jackson and EJ Wilson. So I’d say that makes him an end. At least for now.
Its a possibility that Red has no role on the team. We’ll see. It is also possible that Lawrence Jackson has no role on this team, not because he’s a bad player, but because Carroll wants great size on the strong side and great speed on the weak side and LoJack has neither. But of the two, currently it looks like Bryant’s roster spot is safer than LoJack’s.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Carroll's got to know that LoJack has more speed than Bryant
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
But not great speed.
And less power/size.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Thanks for clarifications John
Not very comforting but hey…
by Thomas Beekers on Jun 25, 2010 11:24 AM PDT reply actions

by 

























