Not a fan. It'll need to be cheap.

Interesting enough, he was PFFs top remaining 4-3 DE or 3-4 DE under 31 years old. They had him as a 77.3 run defender and a 68.3 overall. Called him a "solid rotational run defender."

NFL.com had him as the #101 free agent in their Top 101 Free Agents list.

Don't think that means anything but I found it interesting.

Cheers,

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Every GM needs a project...this has to be better than Grigson's Danny Dongo experiment.

Mingo?

Well that's great, the Mr. Irrelevant of free agency.

Margus Hunt:

Margus Hunt, a project player who never met the expectations set for him when he was drafted in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft. He’s set to become a free agent on Thursday and there’s been no buzz regarding him returning to Cincinnati.
Selected by the Bengals in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft, the thought was that his 6’8”, 277-pound frame combined with outstanding athleticism was worth taking a risk on the fact that he was already 25 and had never played American football until his freshman year at SMU, 2009. Unfortunately, those qualities haven’t helped him produce at the NFL level. In three seasons, he has never started a game and has only recorded seven tackles, one and a half sacks, and a pass deflection.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...outing-combine

"There will be plenty of debate about which player improved his draft stock most at this week's NFL Scouting Combine. That comes down to what teams saw, not us, but put SMU defensive end Margus Hunt in the conversation.

NFL.com's Daniel Jeremiah wrote Tuesday that Hunt "was the talk of the town" after his impressive workout this week in Indianapolis. Hunt boasts size -- 6-foot-8 and 277 pounds -- and his bench-press showing (38 reps at 225 pounds) turned heads.


"He then proceeded to wow scouts by running a 4.60-second (40-yard dash) and posting a 38-inch vertical jump," Jeremiah wrote. "Hunt is very raw on tape, but his size and upside will likely force him into the bottom of the second round."

In a deep draft at defensive line, that would mark a steady rise for Hunt, who grew up in Estonia before coming to SMU in 2007. He figures as an anchor from both the 3-tech and 5-tech spots and his stock might rise due to that versatility. Hunt has drawn comparisons to Arizona Cardinals defensive end Calais Campbell, and if he lives up to it, a second-round grade in the 2013 NFL Draft isn't too high for this player."

Alas, athletic ability never a football player made.

2016 was Hunt's most active/best year. He played more plays and made more tackles in 2016 than his first three year combined.

Perhaps he is finally on an uphill swing having now gotten a few more years of football experience which he was sorely lacking coming out of college.

And, if not, I cannot imagine that he will make terribly much (south of $2m a year I would guess) so cutting him will not hurt at all.

Really, a low risk move for, perhaps, medium return. He will never be a world beater.

The question is "can he push T.Y. McGill down the depth charts" since I think our DE 5-tech depth chart is: Anderson, Jones, Langford and Ridgeway as starters and primary depth. McGill and Hunt are working towards DE #5.

Cheers,

Not exactly. We don't use (2) 5 techs. Usually it is a de and a dt. So where will he fit. Probably de while McGill is usually a dt or nt

Really?

Because while a lot of depth chart and football sites want to put DT or DE next to our players, the reality of what I see is that both sides of our defense (strong side and weak side) are doing a 5-tech DE job.

Our base alignment is that our NT is either in the 0-tech (head up on OC) or the 1-tech (on one of the OC shoulders, usually the strong side one). His job is to try and fill the A gap (between OC and OG) on either side depending on where he feels the run develop.

Our DEs typically almost always in the 5-tech which is shading the inside shoulder of the OT in order to control the B gap (between OG and OT) and the C gap (outside of OT). They invite a double team from the OT and OG if possible so that the ILB on that side is freed up to attack the runner.

On a strong side run, if the NT is occupying the OC and weak side OG and the DE is occupying the strong side OG and OT, and the OLB[EDGE] is contending with the TE, then the strong side ILB is free to attack the runner. The weak side DE is 1v1 with the weak side OT and is hopefully holding both gaps in order to prevent backside cuts.

On a weak side run, the NT is, again, hoping to occupy the OC and strong side OG, the weak side DE occupying the weak side OG and weak side OT and both the weak side ILB and OLB[RUSH] are free to make the tackle with the strong side DE 1v1 on the strong side OT or double teamed by the strong side OT and TE.

If we played a "DE" and "DT" structure, the DE would be the 5-tech and the DT would be more of a "3-tech" which is a term that is typically used on a one-gap 'shooting" type defensive linemen rather than a two gap "stuffer" (our Under Tackle concept from when we played under Dungy). Our backside DE is not really playing a shooting style because I see them still holding a two gap responsibility against cutback.

Please tell me where I am wrong but I see our DE playing 2 gap from the 5-tech almost all the time; strong side or weak side.

Cheers,