- This topic has 12 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated Mar. 10, 2014 at 12:34 am by Anonymous.
Mar. 9, 2014 at 6:37 pm #25173FLBoy84Participant
Most fans only seem to focus on a player’s stats, and not take into account the scheme that the player was asked to play in. In Johnson’s case “The 6-foot-7 Johnson is a prototypical fit in Zimmer’s defense, which asks linemen to engage blockers and respect the run before they shoot upfield to chase the quarterback. Zimmer’s defenses traditionally have emphasized run discipline, particularly on the defensive line, over big sack numbers. Both Geno Atkins and Michael Johnson posted double-digit sacks in 2012, but no other Bengals defensive lineman reached double-digit sacks in Zimmer’s seven seasons as defensive coordinator. Zimmer said that the Vikings will emphasize run defense in their linemen’s techniques and assignments, so a DE like Jared Allen would have to decide if he would buy into that type of scheme”. Believe most teams look at scheme, technique and production when evaluating a player’s fit into their system. If the Bucs are after Johnson, you’d have to assume they see the potential for him to be successful in their aggressive defensive scheme. Similarly, have read that Tedford's blocking scheme's "uses angle blocking and power run schemes highly effectively. The coaches believe this provides the best leverage and set of angles for linemen to attack the defense. There is no need to "out athlete" the defender. The blocking scheme makes it easier for technically sound yet not as athletic players to find success." Appears that he doesn't require his lineman to be maulers as much as some schemes, but he does seem to do a lot of pulling, which would seem to require lineman that were at least technically sound and semi-athletic. just something to think about when names are thrown out there, maybe the player is more than just the sum of his stats. And sometimes not.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 6:53 pm #129995AnonymousInactive
Good post00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 6:54 pm #129996AnonymousInactive
Yeah I like this take, but how far does it go? That is to say, what is he the equivalent of? Tough to ascertain.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 6:57 pm #129997AnonymousInactive
good post… but still don’t pay $10M per year for Michael Johnson!00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 6:57 pm #129998AnonymousInactive
He’s a better player than his stats, but I still don’t think that he’s good enough to be throwing 8+ million at. The last regime got ousted because they couldn't get a good return on their investment. I see this as making the same kind of mistake. At least they overpaid for guys who actually had production for sure like Revis, Vincent Jackson, Nicks, and Goldson (he was an All Pro safety). This is more like an Eric Wright signing.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 7:14 pm #129999AnonymousInactive
good post... but still don't pay $10M per year for Michael Johnson!
Thanks. If Griffen is getting 5yrs at $42.5 million w/ $20 mill guaranteed, you know Johnson is getting paid by somebody. Definitely don't think he falls into the Wright category though, that was more of a man-crush Dominik had for him. He kept referring to Wright as "my guy" during that intro presser. Still can't get that outta my head. Gonna wait to see the results before I compare this admin/coach to the last one.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 7:18 pm #130000AnonymousInactive
Johnson doesn’t seem to fit the “value” FA Licht said he was looking for though, which makes it seem like this rumor might be more agent driven. Guess we’ll find out in a few days.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 7:22 pm #130001AnonymousInactive
Value doesn’t necessarily mean cheap . If you got Tom Brady for 18 million a year it’s good value considering Flacco makes 20.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 7:27 pm #130002AnonymousInactive
Good original post. It’s also a good idea to keep in mind that the salary cap is going to continue to increase over the next couple of seasons. That means a salary may seem high now, but locking young guys up may be a good idea compared to what salaries will look like in future seasons.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 7:40 pm #130003AnonymousInactive
It's also a good idea to keep in mind that the salary cap is going to continue to increase over the next couple of seasons. That means a salary may seem high now, but locking young guys up may be a good idea compared to what salaries will look like in future seasons.
"Value doesn't necessarily mean cheap . If you got Tom Brady for 18 million a year it's good value considering Flacco makes 20."Both good points. Was just thinking the same thing @mgchat76. Made a similar comment on the Revis deal on another post.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 7:54 pm #130004AnonymousInactive
Good post OP. I trust this staff to look at film and decide which players would fit their scheme. They’re not looking at a highlight tape or a stat sheet.00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 9, 2014 at 10:39 pm #130005AnonymousInactive
Makes you wonder. If they project Johnson as a big time pass rusher even though the scheme held him back…..how do they like Clayborn who you could argue the scheme held back as well?Gets a little tricky when you want to pay someone big bucks who hasnt actually been doing what you want him to do. Can he do it?00No votes yet.Please wait...Mar. 10, 2014 at 12:34 am #130006AnonymousInactive
Exactly. It’s a lot easier to sit here on these boards and say this guy’s good or bad, only pay him this much, etc. than actually having to project his production and value, especially in a scheme change. Believe Clayborn is in the last year of his deal too, so that contemplates things even further in his case. Do they try to re-sign him now, or wait to see if he blows up this year in the new scheme, which would definitely up the price. That’s why Licht and company get paid the big bucks I guess.00No votes yet.Please wait...
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.