2016 D-Line

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8175
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG when not at BC Place, Grey Cup or Mazatlan.

OV - 54:40 wrote: Not sure how many NIs had to start at that time. A lot more NIs seemed to get to play on D compared to standard CFL thinking now though. That was like a coming out game for Doug Petersen IMO - went on to a fine CFL career playing for the Als & Esks later - one of the toughest and most under-rated CFL DTs IMO.
I tried finding history on that on the 'net yesterday but came up empty. I think one of my older Facts 'N Figs has that info in the history pages but I won't have access to my little library for another week and a bit.

Looks like Petersen is a realtor these days. I see his name on a few Remax signs travelling back and forth while I work up here in Fort St. John. He did pretty darned good coming from Charlie Lake and Fort St. John considering there may not have been any form of organized football played here when he was growing up.
http://dougpeterson.remax.ca/
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.
Lionsfan65
Starter
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:12 am

Rodu wrote:We don't need a pure rush end in a 3-4 if that's what we are actually going to run. Maybe our three starters would be Westerman/Minter/Brooks with Turner and Menard as backups. But you can't really talk DL in a 3-4 without bringing up the LB's. 2 of Elimimian, Bighill and Lokombo for sure would be 3/4 of our starters, what if they moved Bazzie to OLB with Mrabure as his backup. Both are kinda small for 3-4 lineman. Our three DL lineup inside the tackles, normally with a biggest and strongest over the center, the other two over the guards, with 2 OLB outside the tackles, but who knows how they intend to lineup, could have all four LB's 4-5 yards off the los
The 3-4 scheme does have it's advantages, and a smart defensive staff can make it successful. The three linemen are bigger and would usually play tackle in a 4-3, with Minter at Nose, and Brooks and Turner at End, that is a pretty solid line. Brooks and Turner are both capable of getting after the quarterback and breaking up double teams.

The 4 linebackers would likely be Bighill, Lokombo, Elimimian, and Bazzie. Each are around 230 lb. Bighill, Elimimian and Lokombo are all excellent linebackers.

The advantage of a 3-4 scheme is that it allows pressure from other areas, linebackers most always blitz, however they also have to cover. This could also open the door to more DB blitzes from the safety and halfback.

Bighill imo is really an underrated blitzer, if I'm not mistaken he has had 2 seasons with 9 sacks, which is really good for a linebacker. I'm not sure if Bazzie can play linebacker, however he has shown that he can get after the quarterback.
Qman
Champion
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:59 pm
Location: Section 240

Who makes the team?

Brooks, menard, westerman are locks.
Roh hasn't shown enough but makes it. Turner doesn't get cut. Probably 6-gamed. Will replace Roh when healthy.
Minter makes it because they need a true NT on 1st down/short yardage, everyone else is basically a 3-type DT
Allen beats out Bazzie ... but is not a long term solution


Starting 6man rotation:
5 - Roh (menard)
NT - Minter
3 - Brooks (westerman)
RE - Allen
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Qman wrote:Who makes the team?

Brooks, menard, westerman are locks.
Roh hasn't shown enough but makes it. Turner doesn't get cut. Probably 6-gamed. Will replace Roh when healthy.
Minter makes it because they need a true NT on 1st down/short yardage, everyone else is basically a 3-type DT
Allen beats out Bazzie ... but is not a long term solution


Starting 6man rotation:
5 - Roh (menard)
NT - Minter
3 - Brooks (westerman)
RE - Allen
I would like to see Menard starting ahead of Roh and leave Brooks and Minter in as starters with Westerman rotating . sounds like Max Foord has made strides too , so hoping he makes the roster.
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12581
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

pennw wrote:
Qman wrote:Who makes the team?

Brooks, menard, westerman are locks.
Roh hasn't shown enough but makes it. Turner doesn't get cut. Probably 6-gamed. Will replace Roh when healthy.
Minter makes it because they need a true NT on 1st down/short yardage, everyone else is basically a 3-type DT
Allen beats out Bazzie ... but is not a long term solution


Starting 6man rotation:
5 - Roh (menard)
NT - Minter
3 - Brooks (westerman)
RE - Allen
I would like to see Menard starting ahead of Roh and leave Brooks and Minter in as starters with Westerman rotating . sounds like Max Foord has made strides too , so hoping he makes the roster.
I agree. A D-line is like a jigsaw puzzle. If the first piece is out of place, it won't work. The Lions decided they need to start a Canadian on the D-line for ratio reasons. Fair enough. Most teams do. They decided Westerman is that Canadian based on his previous body of work. The problem is, they converted him from 3-tech to DE last year and then converted him back this year. He doesn't seem to have the size and strength he showed when he last played inside. Compounding that problem, the Lions took Brooks, an all-star 3-tech last year, and made him play out of position at nose. Minter and Uko, natural nose tackles, are squeezed out altogether. Add in some subpar linebacker play and the result is an 8.4-yard rushing average for Jerome Messam.

I would much rather build the line from inside out, with Minter, who now seems healthy, or Uko at nose and Brooks at his natural 3-tech position. Westerman and Menard can rotate at shortside DE, with the rush end position filled by the best available American. So far no one has stood out.
Qman
Champion
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:59 pm
Location: Section 240

pennw wrote:
Qman wrote:Who makes the team?

Brooks, menard, westerman are locks.
Roh hasn't shown enough but makes it. Turner doesn't get cut. Probably 6-gamed. Will replace Roh when healthy.
Minter makes it because they need a true NT on 1st down/short yardage, everyone else is basically a 3-type DT
Allen beats out Bazzie ... but is not a long term solution


Starting 6man rotation:
5 - Roh (menard)
NT - Minter
3 - Brooks (westerman)
RE - Allen
I would like to see Menard starting ahead of Roh and leave Brooks and Minter in as starters with Westerman rotating . sounds like Max Foord has made strides too , so hoping he makes the roster.
One of menard or westerman must be on the field, unless they go 3-4 then they can go 3 int'ls and Bo in at LB
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Qman wrote:
pennw wrote: I would like to see Menard starting ahead of Roh and leave Brooks and Minter in as starters with Westerman rotating . sounds like Max Foord has made strides too , so hoping he makes the roster.
One of menard or westerman must be on the field, unless they go 3-4 then they can go 3 int'ls and Bo in at LB
Yes , which is why I suggested Menard start at DE in the post you quoted .
Qman
Champion
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:59 pm
Location: Section 240

pennw wrote:
Qman wrote:
pennw wrote: I would like to see Menard starting ahead of Roh and leave Brooks and Minter in as starters with Westerman rotating . sounds like Max Foord has made strides too , so hoping he makes the roster.
One of menard or westerman must be on the field, unless they go 3-4 then they can go 3 int'ls and Bo in at LB
Yes , which is why I suggested Menard start at DE in the post you quoted .
no real starters any more, they are going heavy with a 6man rotation.

so in run situations it might be
Roh
Minter
Brooks
Menard

2nd and 6 might be
Roh
Brooks
Westerman
Allen

2nd and 11 might be 3-4
Roh
Brooks
Allen

my point (which is a clerification of your point) is one of menard or westerman must be on the field if they are in 4-3. That is built into the defensive sets.
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

Didn't I read somewhere that the Lions were contemplating going to a 30 defence this year. Guess that's been scrapped.
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

TheLionKing wrote:Didn't I read somewhere that the Lions were contemplating going to a 30 defence this year. Guess that's been scrapped.
I think that was just posters speculating on here . I've never heard any of the coaching staff or anyone from the team mention such a thing .
Qman
Champion
Posts: 932
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 12:59 pm
Location: Section 240

pennw wrote:
TheLionKing wrote:Didn't I read somewhere that the Lions were contemplating going to a 30 defence this year. Guess that's been scrapped.
I think that was just posters speculating on here . I've never heard any of the coaching staff or anyone from the team mention such a thing .
Wally has said several times he would like to play MORE 30 this year (he really likes MTL's defense from last year) ... but not move to a 30 defence. MW plays 30 alot on 2nd down anyways, so its not a big deal.
User avatar
CardiacKid
Legend
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 9:46 am
Location: Under Christmas Hill, Saanich

Hambone wrote:
OV - 54:40 wrote: Not sure how many NIs had to start at that time. A lot more NIs seemed to get to play on D compared to standard CFL thinking now though. That was like a coming out game for Doug Petersen IMO - went on to a fine CFL career playing for the Als & Esks later - one of the toughest and most under-rated CFL DTs IMO.
I tried finding history on that on the 'net yesterday but came up empty. I think one of my older Facts 'N Figs has that info in the history pages but I won't have access to my little library for another week and a bit.

Looks like Petersen is a realtor these days. I see his name on a few Remax signs travelling back and forth while I work up here in Fort St. John. He did pretty darned good coming from Charlie Lake and Fort St. John considering there may not have been any form of organized football played here when he was growing up.
http://dougpeterson.remax.ca/
Yep, that's him. My brother-in-law runs a financial planning business in Fort St. John and splits an office building with Petersen's realty business. I am going see if I have a Petersen JOGO card I can get signed....
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Qman wrote:
pennw wrote:
TheLionKing wrote:Didn't I read somewhere that the Lions were contemplating going to a 30 defence this year. Guess that's been scrapped.
I think that was just posters speculating on here . I've never heard any of the coaching staff or anyone from the team mention such a thing .
Wally has said several times he would like to play MORE 30 this year (he really likes MTL's defense from last year) ... but not move to a 30 defence. MW plays 30 alot on 2nd down anyways, so its not a big deal.
30 defence was played by various teams years ago in the CFL and NFL . The formation called the the 30 featured a 3 man Dline with 4 true linebackers behind them . I have seen lots of 3 man fronts in the BC defence and in pretty much every other teams D also in certain situations . But that was always backed up by mostly DBs . When do they use 4 LBs behind a 3 man front ? I'd like to hear a Quote from Wally calling for a 30 defence as opposed to using a 3 man front . This was discussed a fair bit here last season when some fans wanted to go back a traditional 3-4 defence , but that never happened . 3 man front yes but a 3-4 arrangement ? 3 man front is used by most in some passing downs but stil the base is a 4 man front . If you disagree then well I guess we just disagree , not looking for a debate .
User avatar
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4309
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

Pennw wrote:
Wally has said several times he would like to play MORE 30 this year (he really likes MTL's defense from last year) ... but not move to a 30 defence. MW plays 30 alot on 2nd down anyways, so its not a big deal.[/quote]
30 defence was played by various teams years ago in the CFL and NFL . The formation called the the 30 featured a 3 man Dline with 4 true linebackers behind them . I have seen lots of 3 man fronts in the BC defence and in pretty much every other teams D also in certain situations . But that was always backed up by mostly DBs . When do they use 4 LBs behind a 3 man front ? I'd like to hear a Quote from Wally calling for a 30 defence as opposed to using a 3 man front . This was discussed a fair bit here last season when some fans wanted to go back a traditional 3-4 defence , but that never happened . 3 man front yes but a 3-4 arrangement ? 3 man front is used by most in some passing downs but stil the base is a 4 man front . If you disagree then well I guess we just disagree , not looking for a debate .[/quote]

Regardless of the label, whether it is a 3 man front, 30, or 3-4, the Lions normally play with 2 LBs and 1 nickel back so when they go with a 3 lineman rush the lineman that they take off the field will likely be replaced by LB Bo Lokombo....Ok if it is 2nd and 20+ they might put in a dime back instead of a LB.
User avatar
pennw
Legend
Posts: 1921
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am
Location: Chilliwack

Maybe a matter of semantics Dano . 30 was a name given to the traditional 3-4 defences of the past , which is what I think when I hear the term "30 defence" . 3 man rush is a very common scheme these days in passing situations , but a very different defence from those earlier defences . Now they may have 2 lbs or even just one with lots DBs dropping way back . That was not done in the earlier eras , most of the linebackers were close to the line of scrimmage and many were used as pass rushers , so there were more than 3 guys rushing most of the time in those schemes . the offence would not know which of the 4 LBs were coming along with the 3 DL .
But whatever , if people want to call a 3 man front a 30 defence then so be it , so long as we understand each others terminology .
Post Reply