Bills Training Camp: Alex Carrington Gets Reps At OLB
by Brian Galliford on Aug 9, 2011 8:30 AM EDT
in Buffalo Bills Training Camp
Email
Print
Knowing the Buffalo Bills and the way they like versatility in their personnel, one can expect to see a lot of odd lineup combinations from them - particularly during training camp. Still, it's a bit jarring to see a 304-pound player standing up and playing outside linebacker. That's exactly what Bills fans saw at practice on Monday, according to WGR 550's Joe Buscaglia.
With starting strong-side linebacker Chris Kelsay sitting out the practice session, second-year defensive end Alex Carrington spent the day running positional drills with coach Bob Sanders and the outside linebackers. Then he took first-team reps with the defense at that position.
Buscaglia did note on Twitter that Danny Batten got some first-team reps at outside linebacker, as well, so it's not as if we should start listing Carrington as Kelsay's backup on the depth chart. That said, this is a very curious move. I have no words of wisdom nor insight on this oddity, except to offer this: it's clear that the team prefers a run defender to a pass rusher at this position, particularly in the base defense.
68 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
would i be right in saying that if Carrington does line up as an OLB this season then he’ll be the heaviest in the league? I know everyone was making a big deal of Mario Williams standing up at 290lbs.
Unlikely to happen i know but still fun to think about.
Size
It is also clear the coaches are tired of getting run over, which is good to see. Another reason Maybin will be gone sooner than later. Hope he likes Cleveland.
.... as a pass rusher
I’m not sure we could say at this point that Carrington would * not* also be better as a pass rusher. A big, powerful and relatively quick man like him would be a load to handle.
Switching between 4-3 and 3-4
They must really value being able to switch between 3-4 and 4-3 on the fly. With Kelsay they can do that and they must want someone in his mold who also has that flexibility. Carrington just seems like an awkward fit at OLB. I just hope they don’t have any plays where he drops back into pass coverage.
pff stats
If I can believe the #‘s at ProFootballFocus – OLB’s in a 3-4 took a total of 27,584 snaps last year.
Of those, there were 519 times where the QB threw into their area of coverage, which is < 2%.
If Carrington end up playing there for 100 plays and gets thrown at 2 times … not so big a deal.
I’m excited they are looking for ways to get him on the field more than just as Edwards backup.
by zipper on Aug 9, 2011 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
That’s actually really surprising. The first thing I thought of when I read the headline was “Really? Carrington in coverage?” But maybe you’re right, it might not be such a bid deal.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
Only 2%?
While I figured it’d be a low number, I didn’t realize it’d be that low. I’m not arguing the point, I’m just surprised. Thanks for looking up the stats.
I do agree that they need to find a way to get him on the field. He seems to be showing that he’s got the talent, he just needs a chance to play.
When kelsey was there last year it must have been around 20%
Because he was thrown at 3 times a game at least the first half of the season. Might even account for 1% of that stat.
Or more.
On 2nd and 7 or 3rd and whatever, Brady is going to be salivating walking up to the line when he sees Kelsay in a matchup on one of his two TEs.
:-(
"There is not a loser in this room." Marv Levy.
by SERGEANT MAJOR THOR on Aug 9, 2011 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
yup, < 2%
which to me does not mean that OLB’s covering so well that the QB looked elsewhere. More likely they were covering someone that was 3rd or 4th in the progression, so usually the QB never even eyeballed them.
When they did throw at OLB’s, they completed 395 out of 519 (76%) so as a group, OLB’s sure won’t be mistaken for Revis.
I’m looking forward to seeing a few plays in preseason with Carrington, Merriman + Moats on an inside blitz. I think Wanny had at least a little to do with this idea.
Ha
We kill our guys who stink in coverage, but the Bills OLBs arenn’t the only ones that have trouble dropping into coverage…. this is a weakness of the scheme. Ideally you have a pass-rush so its not so easily exploited….
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Haven't read the article yet but this is a scary good thought.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
I think all plays involving Smith against the Bills were TD plays.
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
by TheAfghanTwilight on Aug 9, 2011 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
In the words of Sheila brovlafski…wha, wha, what??!
by bizarro bills on Aug 9, 2011 9:02 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
run stopper
if hes athletic enough and just is covering the flat, why not. As long as he can get out and cover it, it allows us to change from 4-3 to 3-4 on the fly. Hybrid defense.
Fitzmagic
I like it.....
We need beefier fast guys to stop the run.
Who is Sheila Brovlafski?? Nice name!! :)
I love me some Amish Rifle.....
Seems the team is committed to Moats as an ILB.
"Sit down and watch my Buffalo Bills destroy your Kingdome" - Abayarde
This is really not a bad thing, we need playmakers inside as well.
Batten and Carrington were drafted because of their college pass rushing ability. Only they were DE’s in college not OLB’s same as Moats. We need to give this a chance and see what happens. This is the second biggest move that I have noticed, Torbor taking 1st team reps over Davis and Carrington getting reps at OLB with Batten. It does send a message, not sure what message yet but it does send one.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
At first I was totally against this move. I have slowly warmed up to it though. I am curious on how Moats has been in coverage during camp. Not sure how I feel about Torbor taking 1st team reps over Davis. Guess thats how you find out who should start.
"Sit down and watch my Buffalo Bills destroy your Kingdome" - Abayarde
i dont understand how torbor is starting over Davis. Torbor didnt show me anything that he could be a starter in the NFL. solid back up but idk about a starter. At least Davis has been a starter most of his career.
Fitzmagic
I wouldn't read to much into Davis on the second team.
I know he stands a chance to get released before the season, but right now he is fighting for a job and working with our young Moats. Also, there is some longevity concerns with Davis lasting a full season. Your not alone on your thoughts with Torbor, but maybe there isn’t much difference between him and Davis. I am not suggesting that Torbor has won the starting job, nor would I suggest that Urbik has won the starting job at RG Although they both could. I just am enjoying the fact the coaching staff sees things deeper with quality depth that we fans do.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
Playing him there at practice
to me say 1 of 2 things either A:) they are just trying to get him on the filed more so he can get as many reps as possible or b:) They want him to see what an OLB responabilities are so he understand them when it comes to run defense and rushing trhe passer, teaching him proper lane technique.
When I played College ball, our coaching staff used to take our DL and put them on OL for a practice so they could learn what it takes to be an OL and what bothers OL.
So by allowing Carrington to get some reps at OLB he can truly understand what Merriman and Kelsay go through opn an every down basis.
"Big Gulps Eh, Well See ya later" - Lloyd Christmas
" You Gus ready To Let The Dogs Out" "What?" " you Know, Who Let the dogs out rough rough rogh rough" - Zack Galifinakis - The Hangover
5 Technique
One of the main reasons we drafted Carrington in the first place because he has the size, length (height and arms) and mobility to play the 5 technique where he can go inside, outside and set the edge as a 3-4 DE. The strong-side OLB needs to be able to do the same thing and I think moving Carrington there gives the defense some flexibility and depth to have your most talented players on the field at all times. I liked last year when we went “big” with a 4-3 and had Troupe and Williams at DT for an offense that we were expecting to pound the ball at us.
I think this is also a credit to Darius where you don’t want to have him off the field too much. How to get Carrington more play time if Darius is in there.
Hmm
Could be fun. I wonder if he’ll be asked to drop 15 lbs or so to play this type of role?
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
by TheAfghanTwilight on Aug 9, 2011 9:56 AM EDT reply actions
It doesn’t sound like they want him to change positions. They just want him to have the flexibility to play end (or ‘OLB’) on run-downs or in 4-3 fronts. If anything, they want the option of a bigger body to go in there.
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s probably right. I could see him “bulking down” – if you will – so that he’d be a more hybrid type of player along two levels of defense. But at 300+, he’ll provide more traditional support on the front line and more insane support as a LB.
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
by TheAfghanTwilight on Aug 9, 2011 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
What scares me is that we can't afford losing DE's
So I would be concerned with who would back him up. I still feel we have a need at DE and maybe Dotson is that need. Then we need quality depth at OLB also. Catch 22
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
If he is just cross-training, we aren’t losing a DE.
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I think he’s only 280ish. To me he can add bulk in a run front and play DE in a 3-4, without changing his weight at all.
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
How has Carrington looked in general?
I’m hoping he’s at least holding his own against the right side of the Bills OL.
It actually concerns me a bit he’s being tried at OLB, because he could use a ton of reps at DE.
So they are interested in a run defender at OLB are they?
Well I got a better idea then the Bills do. Drew Rosenhaus sent an email to the league that his client OLB Matt Roth, a good run stopping 3-4 OLB is willing to sign for a one year, 3 mil contract. Spending just a bit of our money seems to make more sense then moving a sophomore 300 pounder who has barely any playing time in this league into a position where he would be targeted quite intentionally by opposing offenses every snap he got there. I don’t see this as creative or applaudable. I see this is as a team coping with what has been all offseason an obvious deficiency in OLB talent, experience, reliability, or depth. Just go out and do something about it. Roth is still out there and would be the immediate starter opposite Merriman. He’s still young too.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
I’d bet the Bills are unwilling to sign a guy for one year only. I think they want more of a commitment from guys they bring in, but less of one than many players are looking to sign (4 years, rather than 5).
In the year two thousaaaaaaand.
In the year two thousAAAAAAND!
by TheAfghanTwilight on Aug 9, 2011 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions
How would Nix explain bringing in a 3 million dollar OLB when he just paid Kelsay 6 million to play OLB.
I understand your point, and I realize the need to add OLB depth, (quality depth) to OLB, but it wouldn’t make sense for Nix to bring him in and start a 3 million dollar guy over a 6 million dollar guy, the fans would chew him up and spit him out before the end of the year. Roth has been available for a little time now and there are no takers, something could be characteristically wrong here. Just a thought not meant to argue your point, we need quality depth, but we can’t hand cuff the players we have either.
YOU ARE OUT of you kuku fufu mine craker laker Flaber baber FUNKI chunki brain. WE want to winn every year -- abayarde
Because he's a good player that would help this defense.....
Of course it would make sense to add him. Roth is worth $3M a year as a backup before Kelsay is ever worth $6M a year as anything. The problem wouldn’t be signing Roth to a deal like that, it’s continually justifying the Kelsay contract, which it appears has hamstrung the team from getting anybody else. Maybe not, but they certainly haven’t shown any inclination to add anybody else there.
If they brought in Roth and he was the better player, then great! Fans have already been all over Nix about the Kelsay deal, so I don’t see how that’d change. If anything, people would be happy if he found an upgrade at the position, regardless of what Kelsay is making.
Just wondering, how would signing Roth handcuff any players on the team? If anything, the contracts given Merriman and Kelsay have handcuffed the team in regards to being able to add quality depth or potential upgrades….
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
Well if its a one year deal, you have to cut one of your young guys so you can maybe get a guy that adds what? One win at most to this team? And then next year you don’t know if you have him or if you can afford him and you’ve lost a prospect. One year deals STINK for rebuilding programs. They are better for guys who think they can win NOW. I didn’t even like the prospect of doing it with Merriman, but at least then we had stockpiled players on IR so we didn’t have to sacrifice a prospect for him. Now he’s signed to a longer term contract, so its not as bad if he pushes a guy out the door.
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Then sign him for a longer term deal, even if it costs more per year
I’m not advocating a one year deal because those aren’t going to help.
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
exactly, Im totally on the same page as you K
and agree with your comment below as well.
Roth sent the email hes “willing” to play for a one year deal. It wasnt that there was no interest, the Pats showed a ton of interest in him. He probably found his market wasnt what he wanted and wants to prove he is worth the bucks he thinks he is.
Im sure if we offer more years and a bit more money he would reconsider.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
Maybe we could offer him a legit deal (a lal Kelsay money), but we are hamstrung by what we gave Kelsay.
I don’t know Matt Roth, but he strikes me as Kelsay redux. Similar tackle and sack numbers, hybrid DE/OLB. Same height same weight. But I admit, I’ve never really paid attention to him when watching the Browns, maybe he is a clear upgrade.
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
yes this
The fans would not be all over Nix for admitting a mistake and rectifying it.
Why does fan perception matter anyway? Nix’s job is to field a winning team not protect himself from fan criticism.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
Dude, I really think you are reading into this move more than its worth. Carrington taking a dozen reps at OLB. On a rundown and as a depth option are you really concerned they can exploit him there? Is this irresponsible? It’s just not that a big a deal. Guys his size play DE in a 4-3, he might be asked to do a dozen times all year. There are plenty of good reasons for it. It’s not a position switch. Big picture, what difference does it make?
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
i tried to avoid this type of a response by saying
“every snap he got there”. I am well aware its not a position switch but it implies he might be used there.
Further, in an off-season of basically 2 and 1/2 weeks of meaningful preparation I do think big picture it has quite a big impact on Carrington’s ability to prepare as 3-4 DE. Its not like hes a veteran.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 9, 2011 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I don’t see it. You seem to be assuming that Carrington is gonna be asked to cover guys. I agree that would be stupid, but I also don’t think thats the expectation (or the point) of giving him some reps at the position.
If the controversy is simply you think he doesn’t know his DE responsibilities yet, so we can’t teach him anything else, I’m gonna assume the coaches know better than either of us whether he can handle getting familiarity at another spot without short-circuiting his career.
I also assume the coaches
are well aware where they have severe lack of depth and where they feel they have to make sacrifices to compensate for what they perceive are bigger weaknesses.
Im not sure why you think Im making some big deal out of this. As I said in the orginial comment:
I see this is as a team coping with what has been all offseason an obvious deficiency in OLB talent, experience, reliability, or depth
If you dont see it, thats fine. But this team is lacking big time in the OLB department.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 9, 2011 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions
We are most definitely lacking in the LB position across the board, but I’m not absolutely convinced that this move is in reaction to that. Is it impossible that Gailey wants to make sure that Carrington is seeing the field because he’s becoming a solid defender, and so to that end he’s experimenting with playing him at OLB? I can see it being a one- or two-down situation out of a 3-4 front.
"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.
Why don't they let these young guys just stick with a position?
Carrington is even less of an OLB than Kelsay is. He has no business playing that position, and if he ever played in a game there, teams would take advantage of him immediately. He belongs at DE in this scheme, and it’d be nice if they were getting him as prepared as possible to play a significant role there. Instead, they’ve got him fooling around at OLB?
Maybe, just maybe, the team should try actually upgrading their depth. Poz mentions Matt Roth above and he’d be a great fit, either in a rotation there, or as a starter at some point this season. He’s a good player, with some pass rush ability and more than stout enough to handle his business in the run game. I do wonder if there’s some sort of injury though, because he’s barely gotten any interest, which to me, doesn’t make much sense. Maybe his contract demands are too high?
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
by Kurupt on Aug 9, 2011 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
fooling around at OLB with a young prospect
who showed flashes at DE and is expected to be the future at the position is just not good development
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 9, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well, we you call it fooling around it sounds a lot worse than it is… I’m not gonna hit the panick button because Carrington took some reps at OLB. In a heavy front (dare I say 4-3) it might make sense to put a big guy out there rather than a run-defender. These guys ar epros, he’s not gonna start shooting sparks out of his ears cause he spent a few hours getting familiar with the OLBs responsibilities.
I wouldn’t want to MOVE him there ( a la Moats to ILB) but I don’t see it as a big deal (I don;t even see it as a little deal).
by greysquirrel on Aug 9, 2011 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think it speaks VOLUMES about this teams inability to stack players on top of players at OLB
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 9, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I literally think he says NOTHING about our ability to stack players on top of players at OLB. And thats not me saying its an awesome OLB corp, its me saying plugging Carrington at OLB may make a ton of sense situationally — particularly if Kelsay were injured. So why does it have to mean anything about our developing pass-rushers? Why can’t it just mean there are some situation where Carrington makes more sense to have on the field than Batten or Coleman?
it can
but im not sure why your positive interpretation is any more valid than what Kurupt and I see. Which is a team that finds itself with OLB depth consisting of one guy who hasnt seen an NFL snap (Batten) and one guy who has seen minimal snaps (Coleman) behind a guy who hasnt been healthy in three years (Merriman) and a guy who is playing out of position (Kelsay).
Again, its not making some “big deal” out of moving Carrington, its recognizing this team has horrible depth at OLB and needs to experiment to try and find some.
You can see it i youd like in a positive light but its just as likely and valid that Wannstedt is looking around for anything to help out in the linebacking unit. This is of course, without touching the ILB situation.
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 9, 2011 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I guess I could see this making sense on teams that you might argue have ‘depth’ at OLB. Roth isn’t depth, its adding Roth and cutting Kelsay. Depth is who you plug-in when injuries occur. In some situations that might be Carrington. Maybe thats an indictment on Batten or Coleman, but maybe its just prudent planning. It all feels like a second order issue compared to OT depth ( ending on something we can agree on? :-) )
hahahahahaha
I think we can add Roth and keep Kelsay hopefully (or we could just leave Moats at OLB :) )
But yes, I agree, second order compared to OT! :)
The bandwagon will be full and fast and drunk and exciting - Undee
by poz on Aug 9, 2011 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions
maybe they dont like matt roth. maybe he wouldn’t be a ‘great fit’ and hes just another guy in a long list of guys who people have gotten into their heads this offseason to use in complaining about buddy not doing enough at a certain position.
i dont know a ton about roth and i wont pretend to, but i do know that no one has signed him yet, and i think that says something. if 0 out of 32 teams want him at 3mill/year then im pretty sure hes not exactly a stud
my second thought is that carrington doing the OLB drills has very little to do with a position switch, and they are just seeing how he looks in space on the chance they use him there in some whacky subpackage or elaborate blitz. Dlineman drop back into space all the time in zone blitzes and other plays meant to confuse the QB/oline, are u sure its the worst thing in the world for them to see how carrington can move around back there?
of course the simpler explanation is just that they think itll help guys like carrington and johnson to better understand the philosophy and flow of the defense if they play some snaps in someone elses shoes.
i consider this whole comment section another overreaction to a very small issue that likely has a simple and logical explanation
by boomsauce on Aug 9, 2011 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nobody is calling Matt Roth a stud
He’d upgrade our depth and potentially become the starter at some point this year. I don’t see how that would be a bad thing, especially if it’s for a fair contract.
The problem isn’t not going after a Matt Roth. The problem is not going after anybody, not upgrading the depth and now trying Carrington out at OLB. It all reeks of mismanaging depth and not addressing it when they could have. Maybe everything will work out fine, but with what we have on paper and with Carrington now getting some work at OLB, it makes me believe they are finally starting to realize they should have done a better job at addressing this position over the past two years, and built better depth.
I agree that Carrington simply doing drills out there might not mean a whole lot, but at the same time it could be an indication of something more. If Kelsay is hurt in practice and the subs are Battan and Carrington, then what happens if he goes down in a game? I think it’s pretty obvious that the depth at that position is as weak as any on the roster. And I’m definitely not saying it’s the worse thing in the world, but this is a second year player that didn’t get many snaps last year and is still trying to figure out the NFL. Why put him through drills that he won’t really need? You don’t drop 3-4 DE’s into zone coverage that often, if ever. That’s usually reserved for 4-3 DE’s. I really have no desire seeing guys like Dareus, Edwards, Carrington, or Williams dropping back into a zone. That’s just insane!
If it helps him better understand his role at DE, then great. I happen to think that working at DE would help even more!
~K
"As the governor of Louisiana once said, the only way Chris Kelsay can lose his job is if he got caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy."
by Kurupt on Aug 9, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
these are all good points. ive said my piece and ill leave it at that. but this video happens to be entertaining and its sort of (?) relevant
by boomsauce on Aug 9, 2011 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
George Wilson....
teams expirement and move players around every year to fill holes. Kelsay’s contract doesn’t hamstring the team at all, he’s making 2M this year.
It’s one practice and they were likely just seeing what he could do as a contingency plan.
Smart move just to give him some reps.
And if I was Carrington Id be loving this, knowing more positions leads to more playing time.
Now attending the Univ. of Hockey.
Did he gain weight?
I thought he was 284, not 304.
Just wondering.
I'm not opposed to Carrington getting a few practice reps in at OLB
But it does sometimes feel like the Bills try to reinvent the wheel so to speak, and then it blows up spectacularly.
The player I would like least at #9 would be my sister’s cat, Captain Creamsicle. She does have a great work ethic and agility, but I’m really concerned that at 9 lbs., she’s too small to play safety in the NFL. She also bites way too often on play action and is easily distracted by someone waving string in the crowd. Lastly, her wonderlic score was pretty awful, answering "meow meow meow" for most of the questions- Dr. Brackish Okun
by mob16151 on Aug 9, 2011 6:21 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Carrington looking good !
A few Reps is fine in case of injury or to do some cross training, but t often times the Bills try to out smart everyone and it blows up in their face.
Look at our last 10 years of draft picks and you’ll see what I mean.
Just let the best guys play the position they play best- dont need to re invent the wheel.
by Orlandobillsfan on Aug 10, 2011 11:03 AM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Buffalo Rumblings
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Things to know about NFL men who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
