The Real Power D Jax Adds

[ztboiler]

Shifting gears from O-line topics....

 

The need at ILB was significant this off-season, and DQJ drew plenty of attention around here when we signed him. However, I did not expect the Colts to pursue him, thinking we would draft and develop and/or sign Brandon Spikes as a two down player instead.  That we did, and that D Jax received so much attention on the FA market (more than Dansby did by a large margin from what I can see), really got me thinking about the "why".  There must be more to it than the physicality of the position, that would be easily addressed by even a rookie.  We've talked about his leadership qualities, and while additive, that isn't enough either.  

 

The real power of adding Jackson is in adding a QB for the defense - getting into the right play.  He has the knowledge and experience to play chess with opposing QB's and I believe it opens up the playbook for Pagano/Manusky to be more creative.  Coaches have to trust that the risk/reward balance is right, and it takes a schemer like DJax to extend that trust.  It makes his teammates better, and generates more game changing play opportunities.  For this to work, he needs to be an everydown player, and whle D DJax may not excel at one thing physically, he is solid in all phases. This is the real meaning behind the move, and one of the final pieces to completing the journey to become the type of defense that Pagano promised us.

 

We've never had this type of leader in the middle of our defense (Jeff Herrod?).  Gary Brackett was a good player and great leader, but he played in a vanilla scheme that asked very little of it's MLB other than to be assignment sound, drop deep when needed, and execute physically.  Great defense is about disruption and turnovers.  Most disruption comes from being in the right play call.  This could be a game changer in that regard.

[ProblChld32]

I was really excited for this signing, we have lacked a difference maker alongside Freeman. With the Addition of A. Jones and D. Jax we should see a HUGE improvement stopping the Run. 

[Smonroe]

Good post. Another strange move by Cleveland. They let two D players leave and pick up two guys who are older, right?

[MrNLM]

Came in here thinking it was going to be about Desean.

 

I just can't call D'Qwell Jackson "DJax"... not now... not ever.

[Stone]

I love it

[BpG]

Good post. Another strange move by Cleveland. They let two D players leave and pick up two guys who are older, right?

 

1. Ward didn't want to come back. We can argue who is better, Whitner or Ward, in the end it's probably a wash. 

2. Dansby was by far a better player than Jackson was during the past two seasons. So how much "Interest" they drew doesn't equate to anything. 

 

I agree with the OP, Jackson is a leader, hard worker, smart. He plays well in space, does well against the pass.

 

He can't stop the run, he never really could and he has regressed the past two seasons. He doesn't get off blocks, once a guard or center grabs him, it's over. His best days were as a 4-3 linebacker. 

[Mameluc]

i thought at first ...WHEN DID WE SIGNED DESEAN JACKSON? i was going nuts.

[The Lucky Neck Beard]

Came in here thinking it was going to be about Desean.

 

I just can't call D'Qwell Jackson "DJax"... not now... not ever.

Can we Call him the DQ Blizzard?  He will hit you so hard that it will cause a brain freeze.

[MrNLM]

Can we Call him the DQ Blizzard?  He will hit you so hard that it will cause a brain freeze.

YEAH! We can give him the Blizzard test and turn him upside down... if nothing falls out... the he was born to be the DQ Blizzard.

[Peytonparker]

Can we Call him the DQ Blizzard?  He will hit you so hard that it will cause a brain freeze.

No

[MrNLM]

For real though... I would kill for one of these rat nao.

 

[teganslaw]

i thought at first ...WHEN DID WE SIGNED DESEAN JACKSON? i was going nuts.

I thought the same thing; how did we get DeSean Jackson? Then I realized that the thread was about "D'Qwell Jackson.

[BpG]

For real though... I would kill for one of these rat nao.

 

 

 

[Dark Superman]

Adding another solid leader to a defense never hurts..

[kjyb]

i was about  to freak out of if this was about wide receivers!!!! no more recivers needed 

[schwamm]

Shifting gears from O-line topics....

The need at ILB was significant this off-season, and DQJ drew plenty of attention around here when we signed him. However, I did not expect the Colts to pursue him, thinking we would draft and develop and/or sign Brandon Spikes as a two down player instead. That we did, and that D Jax received so much attention on the FA market (more than Dansby did by a large margin from what I can see), really got me thinking about the "why". There must be more to it than the physicality of the position, that would be easily addressed by even a rookie. We've talked about his leadership qualities, and while additive, that isn't enough either.

The real power of adding Jackson is in adding a QB for the defense - getting into the right play. He has the knowledge and experience to play chess with opposing QB's and I believe it opens up the playbook for Pagano/Manusky to be more creative. Coaches have to trust that the risk/reward balance is right, and it takes a schemer like DJax to extend that trust. It makes his teammates better, and generates more game changing play opportunities. For this to work, he needs to be an everydown player, and whle D DJax may not excel at one thing physically, he is solid in all phases. This is the real meaning behind the move, and one of the final pieces to completing the journey to become the type of defense that Pagano promised us.

We've never had this type of leader in the middle of our defense (Jeff Herrod?). Gary Brackett was a good player and great leader, but he played in a vanilla scheme that asked very little of it's MLB other than to be assignment sound, drop deep when needed, and execute physically. Great defense is about disruption and turnovers. Most disruption comes from being in the right play call. This could be a game changer in that regard.

I really hope you are right. I am convinced that an impact ILB would make all the difference for this D, but have not as yet been convinced that DQ is anything resembling the right answer. I wanted something else, but maybe his leadership is the missing ingredient. We shall see.

[Colts_Fan12]

thought this was about Desean Jackson

[Stephen]

so did i . If luck had desean jackson with nicks wayne and hilton the td record would be gone lol

[ztboiler]

I really hope you are right. I am convinced that an impact ILB would make all the difference for this D, but have not as yet been convinced that DQ is anything resembling the right answer. I wanted something else, but maybe his leadership is the missing ingredient. We shall see.

i don't know if all the elements will work right together or not, and we know he isn't an overwhelming physical presence...and so must all the teams that tried to sign him.   There is a good chance that his presence makes a D better, or he would have gone the route of other 30 something LB's and had to wait for the secondary FA market to determine his worth.  I like our odds at getting more out of the sum of the parts than the individual pieces.

[Colts_Fan12]

so did i . If luck had desean jackson with nicks wayne and hilton the td record would be gone lol

Not if his line still sucks

[dgambill]

Shifting gears from O-line topics....

 

The need at ILB was significant this off-season, and DQJ drew plenty of attention around here when we signed him. However, I did not expect the Colts to pursue him, thinking we would draft and develop and/or sign Brandon Spikes as a two down player instead.  That we did, and that D Jax received so much attention on the FA market (more than Dansby did by a large margin from what I can see), really got me thinking about the "why".  There must be more to it than the physicality of the position, that would be easily addressed by even a rookie.  We've talked about his leadership qualities, and while additive, that isn't enough either.  

 

The real power of adding Jackson is in adding a QB for the defense - getting into the right play.  He has the knowledge and experience to play chess with opposing QB's and I believe it opens up the playbook for Pagano/Manusky to be more creative.  Coaches have to trust that the risk/reward balance is right, and it takes a schemer like DJax to extend that trust.  It makes his teammates better, and generates more game changing play opportunities.  For this to work, he needs to be an everydown player, and whle D DJax may not excel at one thing physically, he is solid in all phases. This is the real meaning behind the move, and one of the final pieces to completing the journey to become the type of defense that Pagano promised us.

 

We've never had this type of leader in the middle of our defense (Jeff Herrod?).  Gary Brackett was a good player and great leader, but he played in a vanilla scheme that asked very little of it's MLB other than to be assignment sound, drop deep when needed, and execute physically.  Great defense is about disruption and turnovers.  Most disruption comes from being in the right play call.  This could be a game changer in that regard.

One thing Gary was good at was getting us into our sets and making sure everyone was where they needed to be and called out the calls well. He was the qb of the defense...albeit very much a system qb. I like the addition in those regards...a leader much like how Redding has been for the DL...a veteren that plays hard...motivates...gets people in the right position..and can still make plays. I think Jackson will be that....I don't expect him to be Ray Lewis or Patrick Willis but he is definately an upgrade for us and I like it. We love young guys or giving guys a shot...but I'm perfectly ok with having some very good vets around to keep the squad together...especially when facing adversity on the field...someone to settle guys down...get them back to form even after a long drive or a big play. That will be important...can't have none of those guys out there....I've thougth Redding has done a GREAT job at being that voice the last couple years...and if this signing does the same....awesome.

[Smonroe]

1. Ward didn't want to come back. We can argue who is better, Whitner or Ward, in the end it's probably a wash. 

2. Dansby was by far a better player than Jackson was during the past two seasons. So how much "Interest" they drew doesn't equate to anything. 

 

I agree with the OP, Jackson is a leader, hard worker, smart. He plays well in space, does well against the pass.

 

He can't stop the run, he never really could and he has regressed the past two seasons. He doesn't get off blocks, once a guard or center grabs him, it's over. His best days were as a 4-3 linebacker.

Good points. Cleveland has to be the best bad team in the league, a lot like Houston. The Browns are a QB and an owner away from being a true playoff threat.

I understand about the things that Jackson brings. What worries me a bit is that it sounds a lot like what they were saying about Ed Reed last year.

[ztboiler]

One thing Gary was good at was getting us into our sets and making sure everyone was where they needed to be and called out the calls well. He was the qb of the defense...albeit very much a system qb. I like the addition in those regards...a leader much like how Redding has been for the DL...a veteren that plays hard...motivates...gets people in the right position..and can still make plays. I think Jackson will be that....I don't expect him to be Ray Lewis or Patrick Willis but he is definately an upgrade for us and I like it. We love young guys or giving guys a shot...but I'm perfectly ok with having some very good vets around to keep the squad together...especially when facing adversity on the field...someone to settle guys down...get them back to form even after a long drive or a big play. That will be important...can't have none of those guys out there....I've thougth Redding has done a GREAT job at being that voice the last couple years...and if this signing does the same....awesome.

Love me some Gary Brackett.  You describe him well as a system QB - very vanilla system at that.  I like DQ's potential to be the QB of a more complex scheme, and hope it develops a more creative playbook for Manusky.  He doesn't have to bring the physical talent level of Ray Lewis in his prime to be in the right spot and/or enable Freeman be turned loose to make plays with his speed.

[dgambill]

1. Ward didn't want to come back. We can argue who is better, Whitner or Ward, in the end it's probably a wash. 

2. Dansby was by far a better player than Jackson was during the past two seasons. So how much "Interest" they drew doesn't equate to anything. 

 

I agree with the OP, Jackson is a leader, hard worker, smart. He plays well in space, does well against the pass.

 

He can't stop the run, he never really could and he has regressed the past two seasons. He doesn't get off blocks, once a guard or center grabs him, it's over. His best days were as a 4-3 linebacker. 

I'm not sure Ward was a part of their plans (good or bad). Seems he was never even offered a deal. I think they wanted to Byrd quite bad and then plan b was Whitner who is physical guy. Dansby was good last year but he was just as unimpressive in Miami so I'm not sure Cleveland is getting an obvious upgrade...despite Jackson's play starting to drop off. I really think there are simply some guys that the new coaches/gm just wanted to make changes at and didn't see as important as say re-signing Mack and possibly getting Hayden a new deal. And again...nothing wrong with that...just moving in a different direction. I think Cleveland saw a deep safety market and wanted what they think is an upgrade....perhaps the same with LB. Just surprised they went older at LB position..I agree the good Dansby is an upgrade over Jackson but I'm pretty confident we get a solid Jackson next couple years...Dansby I'm not sure if he will stay at that same grade himself.

[dgambill]

Love me some Gary Brackett.  You describe him well as a system QB - very vanilla system at that.  I like DQ's potential to be the QB of a more complex scheme, and hope it develops a more creative playbook for Manusky.  He doesn't have to bring the physical talent level of Ray Lewis in his prime to be in the right spot and/or enable Freeman be turned loose to make plays with his speed.

It was obvious we suffered at LB in several games this year...most glaringly the SD game when I believe Freeman was out..but still didn't look great play in the NE game either....this was an obvious area to address.

[ztboiler]

1. Ward didn't want to come back. We can argue who is better, Whitner or Ward, in the end it's probably a wash. 

2. Dansby was by far a better player than Jackson was during the past two seasons. So how much "Interest" they drew doesn't equate to anything. 

 

I agree with the OP, Jackson is a leader, hard worker, smart. He plays well in space, does well against the pass.

 

He can't stop the run, he never really could and he has regressed the past two seasons. He doesn't get off blocks, once a guard or center grabs him, it's over. His best days were as a 4-3 linebacker. 

Not sure why you would discount the amount of interest players draw.  Given our limitations as fans, what better measure is there than demand for services to gauge expected contribution to winning?  

[ztboiler]

It was obvious we suffered at LB in several games this year...most glaringly the SD game when I believe Freeman was out..but still didn't look great play in the NE game either....this was an obvious area to address.

Good recall.  I don't remember ever seeing LB play stand out as so clearly deficient as in that SD game when we got down to the last couple of guys.

[BpG]

I'm not sure Ward was a part of their plans (good or bad). Seems he was never even offered a deal. I think they wanted to Byrd quite bad and then plan b was Whitner who is physical guy. Dansby was good last year but he was just as unimpressive in Miami so I'm not sure Cleveland is getting an obvious upgrade...despite Jackson's play starting to drop off. I really think there are simply some guys that the new coaches/gm just wanted to make changes at and didn't see as important as say re-signing Mack and possibly getting Hayden a new deal. And again...nothing wrong with that...just moving in a different direction. I think Cleveland saw a deep safety market and wanted what they think is an upgrade....perhaps the same with LB. Just surprised they went older at LB position..I agree the good Dansby is an upgrade over Jackson but I'm pretty confident we get a solid Jackson next couple years...Dansby I'm not sure if he will stay at that same grade himself.

 

Very good post. I agree all around. Dansby has been playing at a higher level, but he is older. 

 

I think when Byrd told us how much he wanted, we knew there was no reason to even talk to him. Whitner is just like TJ Ward, but he is better in coverage. I've said many, many times on this board that Ward is over rated. Good player, but we masked his deficiencies because he rarely had to cover anyone man to man. 

 

Not sure why you would discount the amount of interest players draw.  Given our limitations as fans, what better measure is there than demand for services to gauge expected contribution to winning?  

 

Jackson was a free agent before Free Agency. He was allowed to visit with teams before free agency even began.

 

Dansby was signed on the first day within the first hour of free agency. 

 

What I am saying is, which player had more interest: The guy who visited multiple teams before getting a contract or the guy who was signed immediately? That's why basing anything off perceived interest really doesn't mean much. 

[dgambill]

Very good post. I agree all around. Dansby has been playing at a higher level, but he is older. 

 

I think when Byrd told us how much he wanted, we knew there was no reason to even talk to him. Whitner is just like TJ Ward, but he is better in coverage. I've said many, many times on this board that Ward is over rated. Good player, but we masked his deficiencies because he rarely had to cover anyone man to man. 

 

 

Jackson was a free agent before Free Agency. He was allowed to visit with teams before free agency even began.

 

Dansby was signed on the first day within the first hour of free agency. 

 

What I am saying is, which player had more interest: The guy who visited multiple teams before getting a contract or the guy who was signed immediately? That's why basing anything off perceived interest really doesn't mean much. 

I don't think Denver plans to use him a lot in coverage either...I think Rahim Moore will be more that guy and Ward more of the underneath guy and help in run defense. Whitner does have some decent coverage skills but his tenacity for the big hit I worry about...but to me it wasn't a HUGE upgrade they envisioned like when they were targeting Byrd IMO. Dansby when playing well...is an upgrade...just thats a gamble I'm not sure will pay off for them...did he just cash in his last big paycheck?? I like those young hungry guys too...or those vets that are just pure gamers...like Junior Seau..that would play for free. I think Dansby is super talented especially for his age but does he still have that hunger after being fed now....only a question...I don't think Cleveland would lose much if his play drops a bit...still likely as good if not better than Jackson.