Johnathan Hankins, Anyone?

Hes not as explosive or as exciting as Suh, but hed be a solid addition for sure.

 

If only we could go back to the 4-3 with either of those two...

 

Yea keeps Jones from having to do it if we got Hankins instead of Suh

 

Well fronts are more blurred now than ever. The truth of the matter is most of the time teams play with 4 and 5 man fronts in most sets (nickel and base), with the only difference being some guys standing up, and others down in a 3 point stance.

Under Lebeau in base we generally played with 3 down linemen and Rak and Morgan playing standing up on the edges. But in nickel, we did all kinds of fronts mixing Rak/Morgan/Casey and others sometimes with their hands down and others with it up.

It sounds like Vrabel is going to mix up these fronts even more than we did under Lebeau, so getting another stout DL who can play several different techniques would be great. Suh and (to a lesser extent) Hankins are both guys who can get a good rush and play all across the front.

I imagine that Vrabel just wants talented players that provide as much diversity and ability as he can get.

 

Any word on if we're even interested? Did he visit the Redskins yet?

 

Right, but when I say front I mean guys lined up at the line of scrimmage. So you can have 2 or 3 down linemen, but have two OLB's or DE's (or whatever you want to call them) lined up on the LOS to make a 4 or 5 man front.

People get way too hung with the names of formations and positions of players. What matters a lot more is what the player can do out of that spot and if they can beat the guy across from them.

 

I get all that, but I just hated seeing Morgan or Orakpo occasionally going out in coverage. The base front of Rak, Casey, Suh (or Hankins or even Jones) and Morgan would be great for getting a pass rush, IMO. Sending two pass rushing specialists out in coverage on key plays was always something that confused me.