Doctor wrote:Kwon looked really good rushing the passer last year.
I don't think you need to designate the "2-down" LB. It all comes down to whatever play is called and the best personnel to run it. Sometimes it will be LVD/Foster sometimes it will be Kwon/Foster sometimes Kwon/LVD.
If it's 3rd and short you'd keep LVD in, but in 3rd and long I'd pull LVD. And many other variations of this.
I completely disagree with this b/c I've never seen any team employ this strategy. We'll have our designated sub package personnel grouping that will include 2 LBs and barring injury or occasional rest it will be those same 2 guys.
Let's not conflate LBs blitzing w/ rushing the passer. Any LB with the athleticism of Kwon or LVD is going to look good blitzing, but do they beat blocks if accounted for? Reddick is guy that has played in the trenches and is adept at beating a designated blocker to get to the QB or ball carrier. He led CFB in TFLs last season. Exactly the type of traits you want in a SLB who plays close to the LOS in Mike Smiths offset 4-3u.
Also, the point remains that 1/3 (Kwon/Foster/LVD) will off the field 50% of the time when we are in nickel/sub package. So is it more valuable to draft a player at 19 that would greatly reduce the # of snaps for Kwon or LVD? In addition, who plays SAM in our base 4-3?
Once all those are answered, is that more valuable than a guy is a more natural fit at SLB (Reddick) which is a position need, that can also give us some juice as an EDGE rusher as a DE in nickel/sub situations. Thus keeping both Kwon and LVD in place.
I'm not arguing against Fotster the player. I think he's a fantastic ILB, I'm just playing it through and saying it would create some reshuffling schematically. Whereas you have a more natural fit and really good prospect in Reddick.