rstencel Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 My question is had we shown interest in bringing back Fletcher would he have come back or was it a combination of both him seeking greener pastures and us waving him goodbye? They wanted LB's that were good in coverage, over the run stuffers, or in Londons case, the run chasers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I have to say Fletcher was all over the field against the Giants. WHy so many on this board hated him mind boggles me. It seems as if on;y Lawrence Taylor and Bruce Smith would suffice for some. As for Orakpo, he was non existant I don't remember anyone here hating him. I thing the main sentiment was that everyone was pissed that he was let go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 He has only led the Skins in tackles both years there...I will never get why we let him go... I'm totally with you on this. We never replaced him on the field (though I hope Poz eventually gets there), but equally important, we never replaced him and Takeo off the field. Those guys were real leaders, guys who would get in people's faces and inspire better play from everybody on the team. We don't have anyone like that on the Bills anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Fletcher, why do people like the stats guys so much. Yes he gets lots of tackles, and can be good if keep him clean, but most of his tackles are in the same area that the safety's are making tackles, since he runs around the blockers and only gets near the line on plays that are strung out and the guy stops to change directions and dances awhile. Redskins have a pretty good DT to tie up bodies off him, to keep him clean, and play a much different style of defense than we do. If your playing a bend but don't break type of defense, he is not a bad option, as long as don't depend on him for coverage much. The MLB in the cover 2 is the key for middle of field coverage, not something he is very good at. So while he may be a sure tackler after the back gets 4-8 yards, he will give up allot of easy completions in his zone. He's just not a good fit for cover 2 defense I do not believe. Poz isnt as good a tackler, but is better in coverage IMO, so would rather have Poz between the two. This was the argument, that he made tackles downfield. But when one of the posters on another board took the time to go through every play from the nfl.com typed play-by-play for that year, Fletcher's tackles averaged being closer to 3 yards behind the line than 4. Don't remember the exact figure, but it was something like 3.2 yards past the LOS. Which is damn good and totally refutes the whole "after the back gets 4-8 yards" argument that is so common. But not reflective of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts