Shea McClellin Draft Day Trade?

[IotaNet]

All -

Excuse me in advance if this is a stupid (or unworkable) idea but it's been nagging at me for a while.

Most people will agree that Shea McClellin was drafted out of position. Like many of us believed on draft day, his best fit is as a 3-4 OLB. Currently the Bears are putting the best face on a bad situation by moving him to Linebacker to compete for a spot – and most will also agree that the jury is out on that particular move.

I know that straight-up, Shea might not net a whole lot of draft value but might it be possible for the Bears to package him on draft day with a first round pick to trade back (to a team that runs a true 3-4) for a later first and multiple second round picks?

Again, this might be idiotic (I am no armchair GM) and I haven’t even looked at the possible suitors but it’s been tickling around my brain for a while and I thought I’d throw it out there.

[UOK]

It feels too Madden-y to me. McClellin currently has no value at all. He's young and has potential, yes, but there's too much "bust" aura about him to give him a real "ooh/ahh" element. It's not impossible but I think the Bears would rather give him a year to see if he can play any NFL position before calling a spade a spade and cutting their losses.

[DaDitka]

If they were to draft someone like Mosely that may make Shea expendable....but that wouldn't work in your trade scenario.

Right now, I think Shea's value is so low (5th or 6th round pic) that his possible upside has far more value then what we could receive in a trade.

[IotaNet]

If they were to draft someone like Mosely that may make Shea expendable....but that wouldn't work in your trade scenario ...

My thinking was that if they were able to pull a deal like this off, then someone like Mosely becomes someone we might be interested in drafting. Right now however, I think we have a bit of a logjam at Linebacker.

Again, I know its wacky but with Emery, you just never know ...

[SC Bear]

The amount of dead money and the potential cap hit if he were released would be a contract nightmare between the Bears and their trading partner. The cap consequences are such that Shea is probably a 100% a Bear next year.

[DaDitka]

The amount of dead money and the potential cap hit if he were released would be a contract nightmare between the Bears and their trading partner. The cap consequences are such that Shea is probably a 100% a Bear next year.

He could be traded with no effect to our cap (we would absorb some bonus money but loose this years guaranteed salary) ...however the team that acquired him would be on the hook for this years salary and next years which are both guaranteed as well as a 700,000 + roster bonus next year. The team acquiring him would have to be certain they were keeping him for at least 2014 and probably 2015.

[mmmc_35]

I don't think it would happen but a 3-4 team needing a second rush backer would definitely look at a proposal.

[SC Bear]

The amount of dead money and the potential cap hit if he were released would be a contract nightmare between the Bears and their trading partner. The cap consequences are such that Shea is probably a 100% a Bear next year.

He could be traded with no effect to our cap (we would absorb some bonus money but loose this years guaranteed salary) ...however the team that acquired him would be on the hook for this years salary and next years which are both guaranteed as well as a 700,000 + roster bonus next year. The team acquiring him would have to be certain they were keeping him for at least 2014 and probably 2015.

that's what Isaid

[base615]

I want to see him get a shot at Sam. No point in trading him IMO. I'm not sure why drafting a ILB would affect an OLB anyway, Bostic / Mosely / Shea doesn't look like a bad future corps, assuming he works out ok at the Sam spot.

[DaDitka]

He could be traded with no effect to our cap (we would absorb some bonus money but loose this years guaranteed salary) ...however the team that acquired him would be on the hook for this years salary and next years which are both guaranteed as well as a 700,000 + roster bonus next year. The team acquiring him would have to be certain they were keeping him for at least 2014 and probably 2015.

that's what Isaid

I was just trying to further explain your point before someone said "there are no cap consequences to trading him". While there's not on our end there are consequences that make him much - much harder to trade.

[Paulo83]

Nah, his trade value is so low, it's not really worth considering. He still has 1st round "bust" written all over him.

In his favour, he still has potential and I said during last season I would like to see him revert back to a situational pass-rusher, who is stood up rather than hand-in-dirt. I'd like to see what he has to offer in that role in a 4-3/3-4 hybrid system. If he is competing against Bostic, then I think Bostic is the better starter given his tackling ability. Bring in Shea on obvious passing downs, where he can rush or drop back in coverage.

If he's still not up to it, then just just cut him at the end of the next season because he will be absolutely worthless.

[EL ROCKSTEADY]

All -

Excuse me in advance if this is a stupid (or unworkable) idea but it's been nagging at me for a while.

Most people will agree that Shea McClellin was drafted out of position. Like many of us believed on draft day, his best fit is as a 3-4 OLB. Currently the Bears are putting the best face on a bad situation by moving him to Linebacker to compete for a spot – and most will also agree that the jury is out on that particular move.

I know that straight-up, Shea might not net a whole lot of draft value but might it be possible for the Bears to package him on draft day with a first round pick to trade back (to a team that runs a true 3-4) for a later first and multiple second round picks?

Again, this might be idiotic (I am no armchair GM) and I haven’t even looked at the possible suitors but it’s been tickling around my brain for a while and I thought I’d throw it out there.

On one hand i would say the guy doesnt have value, But a 3-4 team might want him. I would rather not get rid of him and see how he does. I would even go as far as signing him to a low number extension now before anything happens.

[chefbear65]

The bears will likely run a hybrid front this year, they brought in coaches in the offseason to support that and brought in players that have ideal spots in a hybrid (Young and Allen at Leo and Houston at 5 tech). So in my mind there is no way the bears trade Shea. He's slimmed down and faster than ever (he was already explosive) and will be able to showcase all his skills at SAM. A hybrid front is simply a 4-3 under, the Dline shifts to the weakside while the LBs shift to the TE. This puts Shea, the SAM linebacker, on the LOS in a 2 point outside of the TE. Next to him, the strong side DE (likely Houston) will usually be head up on the tackle in a 5 technique. Notice anything about that? Its the same alignment as a 3-4 defense. Shea would essentially be playing 3-4 OLB in most situations. His skill set allows him to be used in coverage so putting him on the weakside at LEO would waste those talents while also making him have to deal with a tackle on a regular basis. At LEO he would be next to a 3 tech in the b gap vs a 5 tech keeping the tackle off him while playing SAM. He would be able to play downhill against the run and pass while also being better situated to be used in coverage than at DE. He could very well explode next year I'm this role. It suits him well.

People assume by saying "we aren't switching to a 3-4" and "shea is moving to LB" that the bears will be using him as a traditional LB. The truth is, they don't want to walk out and tell everyone exactly how they'll be utilizing Shea and overall running the D in the spring. That's bad business. So they cryptically say truth that is meant to mislead people to all sorts of different conclusions. Emery is very systematic. He's worried about other teams getting confirmed info on the scheme changes that have been put in place. The less time they have to prepare for the new D the better chance they have to succeed. The NFL wants them to talk to the media and give fans the kind of info that keeps them hooked in the offseason. They comply by talking circles around the media, New England has been doing it for years. I promise this is how you'll see Shea employed in the base D, he's built for it. Then in nickel he'll be able to put his hand in the dirt and play out wide where the bears feel he has been an asset. The hybrid scheme change would theoretically make him a 3 down player. He hasn't been able to do that in the cover 2 because he hasn't been stout at the point of attack and has a hard time shedding the powerful blockers at RT he faced playing LE. Not to mention his body couldn't hold the extra 10-15 pounds they had hoped it would.

[BlackEngineer]

You do realize that the 4-3 under is the base look for the Tampa 2 right? That look is nothing new for Bear fans.

[chefbear65]

You do realize that the 4-3 under is the base look for the Tampa 2 right? That look is nothing new for Bear fans.

You do realize that a 4-3 under is not the base look for the Tampa 2 right? I'm sure you remember all those times where you saw all 3 LBs at about 5 yards depth in a perfectly spaced line all those years? Right? I can't be the only one. A 4-3 under is not the same. That is a 4-3 normal. Same as the original designed by Landry back in the day. Maybe you mistook the importance of the "under tackle" in Lovie's D as it being an under front but that's simply just another term for a 3 technique. While you can certainly apply cover 2 concepts to a 4-3 under, it wasn't the base alignment that lovie used. If it had been, Shea would have been playing 5 technique at LE most of the time. Did you ever see him line head up on the right tackle? No I didn't think so.

[BlackEngineer]

You do realize that the 4-3 under is the base look for the Tampa 2 right? That look is nothing new for Bear fans.

You do realize that a 4-3 under is not the base look for the Tampa 2 right? I'm sure you remember all those times where you saw all 3 LBs at about 5 yards depth in a perfectly spaced line all those years? Right? I can't be the only one. A 4-3 under is not the same. That is a 4-3 normal. Same as the original designed by Landry back in the day. Maybe you mistook the importance of the "under tackle" in Lovie's D as it being an under front but that's simply just another term for a 3 technique. While you can certainly apply cover 2 concepts to a 4-3 under, it wasn't the base alignment that lovie used. If it had been, Shea would have been playing 5 technique at LE most of the time. Did you ever see him line head up on the right tackle? No I didn't think so.

Lol, the "Under Tackle" is why the defense is called the 4-3 Under. The Tampa 2 Defense is based off the 4-3 Under, however the Mike have more coverage responsibilities in the Tampa 2. Just because the Bears were based out of the Tampa 2, doesn't mean they didn't run other fronts and looks. You are correct in that it is similar to a one gap 3-4, but that's nothing new.

[chefbear65]

You do realize that a 4-3 under is not the base look for the Tampa 2 right? I'm sure you remember all those times where you saw all 3 LBs at about 5 yards depth in a perfectly spaced line all those years? Right? I can't be the only one. A 4-3 under is not the same. That is a 4-3 normal. Same as the original designed by Landry back in the day. Maybe you mistook the importance of the "under tackle" in Lovie's D as it being an under front but that's simply just another term for a 3 technique. While you can certainly apply cover 2 concepts to a 4-3 under, it wasn't the base alignment that lovie used. If it had been, Shea would have been playing 5 technique at LE most of the time. Did you ever see him line head up on the right tackle? No I didn't think so.

Lol, the "Under Tackle" is why the defense is called the 4-3 Under. The Tampa 2 Defense is based off the 4-3 Under, however the Mike have more coverage responsibilities in the Tampa 2. Just because the Bears were based out of the Tampa 2, doesn't mean they didn't run other fronts and looks. You are correct in that it is similar to a one gap 3-4, but that's nothing new.

Maybe if we're talking about Monte Kiffen's version of it. But alas, we aren't. They call it the 4-3 under is because the 3 technique lines up on the weak side of the offense. In contrast to an over front, where the 3 lines up on the strong side. The TAMPA 2 used the 4-3 under to keep players off Derrick brooks at WLB allowing him to patrol the deep middle. The initial attempts to exploit the D was to use the TE to get in behind brooks down the seam however Brooks possessed the athleticism to make that nearly impossible and make the scheme work. Running his own version of the scheme, Lovie Smith deployed the cover 2 by using the 4-3 normal front when he came to Chicago. If you know anything about Tom Landry's reasoning behind creating the 'normal' 4-3, its because it protected the MLB from blockers which was ideal to allow Landry and Smith to protect their all pro MLBs. Urlacher needed this freedom to use his rare athleticism to cover the deep middle effectively that no other LB had when he got here. Lovie got the job because he convinced the bears ownership that he could mold the cover 2 scheme around Brian in the middle rather than force him to play WLB. I doubt they'd have bought in on moving him to OLB after the headaches at SLB early on.

So going back to what I originally said, you are 100% incorrect in saying the scheme we've been watching for Smith's entire tenure with the team was a base 4-3 under. Did they incorporate it? Probably here and there but it was far from the base and the base D we will see this year will be very different from what bears fans are used to.

[BlackEngineer]

Maybe if we're talking about Monte Kiffen's version of it. But alas, we aren't. They call it the 4-3 under is because the 3 technique lines up on the weak side of the offense. In contrast to an over front, where the 3 lines up on the strong side. The TAMPA 2 used the 4-3 under to keep players off Derrick brooks at WLB allowing him to patrol the deep middle. The initial attempts to exploit the D was to use the TE to get in behind brooks down the seam however Brooks possessed the athleticism to make that nearly impossible and make the scheme work. Running his own version of the scheme, Lovie Smith deployed the cover 2 by using the 4-3 normal front when he came to Chicago. If you know anything about Tom Landry's reasoning behind creating the 'normal' 4-3, its because it protected the MLB from blockers which was ideal to allow Landry and Smith to protect their all pro MLBs. Urlacher needed this freedom to use his rare athleticism to cover the deep middle effectively that no other LB had when he got here. Lovie got the job because he convinced the bears ownership that he could mold the cover 2 scheme around Brian in the middle rather than force him to play WLB. I doubt they'd have bought in on moving him to OLB after the headaches at SLB early on.

So going back to what I originally said, you are 100% incorrect in saying the scheme we've been watching for Smith's entire tenure with the team was a base 4-3 under. Did they incorporate it? Probably here and there but it was far from the base and the base D we will see this year will be very different from what bears fans are used to.

They call it the 4-3 "Under" because of the "Under Tackle". What is an Under Tackle? It is an Undersized DT that wins his battles with his athleticism and technique, instead of with size. It is more about speed and quickness. That undersized DT is the backbone of the Defense. It's not simply a "3-tech that lines up on the weakside" . Traditionally, 4-3 Defenses would stuff the interior with Mammoth DTs that could clog run lanes and keep Defenders off the Linebackers. They were almost purely for stopping the Run. That is the type of 4-3 Defense that the Bears ran before Lovie started. It was in that Defense that Urlacher was allowed to fly around and make plays without having to deal with blockers. He was able to do this because he played behind Massive DTs that commanded double teams.

The idea of the 3 tech being a superior pass rusher is the key concept of the 4-3 under. Also, the whole concept of the Sam containing the outside edge and funneling the running back into the middle of the Defense comes from the 4-3 under scheme. The Will Linebacker racking up tackles because he is the linebacker that is unblocked and the ball flows back to him are all 4-3 under concepts.

The 4-3 Under scheme and the Cover 2/Cover 3 are the foundations that the Tampa 2, as well as Pete Carroll's Defense in Seattle, was founded on. Lovie didn't mold Urlacher around a Cover 2 scheme, he just installed the Tampa 2 and Urlacher just happened to be a perfect fit because of his freakish blend of Size and Athleticism and the fact that he played some Safety in College.

The Tampa 2 is a 4-3 under based Defense NOT because of different fronts and looks, but because of the responsibilities expected of each position. I do agree that we don't know how Tucker will ultimately utilized Shea though.

[BlackEngineer]

Just to clarify, I think we're confusing each other because one of us is talking about the 4-3 Under "look" and the other is talking about the 4-3 under scheme. I'm talking more philosophy than how a particular player lines up.

The Tampa 2 follows the philosophies of the 4-3 under scheme, That's not true for all 4-3 Defenses. That's why I said the Tampa-2 is based out of the 4-3 under.

[chefbear65]

You do realize that the 4-3 under is the base look for the Tampa 2 right? That look is nothing new for Bear fans.

Pretty sure we are both talking about the same thing dude. You actually used the word "look" specifically.

[BlackEngineer]

You do realize that the 4-3 under is the base look for the Tampa 2 right? That look is nothing new for Bear fans.

Pretty sure we are both talking about the same thing dude. You actually used the word "look" specifically.

Well, that's why I put the look in quotation marks. When I first said look, I was more referring to the overall scheme and philosophy, not the actual front. Maybe that's the mix up. However, if you're also talking about the 4-3 under scheme and philosophy, then all I'm saying is that Shea Mcclellin as a Sam in a 4-3 under will be no different than what Nick Roach and Hunter Hillenmeyer did in the same role. It is still a traditional linebacker role because he will be depended on in Defending the Run, as well as dropping in coverage with mostly Tight End in Man or Zone depending on the situation.

That's what I meant by it not being new to Bear fans. Also, Tucker has already expressed that he would prefer to be able to rush with only 4 Lineman. That means that the Sam will be expected to be a more traditional linebacker. That's the concern. Can Shea be that traditional Linebacker that relies on Instincts and is able to react quickly to what happens in front of him? Will he be able to help the Defense or will he hurt the Defense? I think that's the concern.

[wab]

I think it is hilarious how much time has been discussing Shea freaking McClellin as if the defense goes as he goes. Also chefbear's description of the differences in defense is about as accurate as it gets.

[BlackEngineer]

I think it is hilarious how much time has been discussing Shea freaking McClellin as if the defense goes as he goes. Also chefbear's description of the differences in defense is about as accurate as it gets.

Well it seems this particular conversation is more about the 4-3 under than it is Shea McClellin. Plus, he is a 1st round pick and Emery's 1st pick. There were a lot expectations that he fell very short of. That's why he is a strong topic of discussion.

Now, chetbear was describing the 4-3 under as the basic front where the Sam lines up in a two point outside the TE and the Houston at the 5 tech, etc. However, that's just one way to deploy the 4-3 under. That is not the front you will get every time you line up in a 4-3 under. That's my point. The 4-3 under is also a scheme and philosophy. Depending on the look of the Offense, the Defense will adjust accordingly. The actual details of where each player lines up is never set in stone and there are many different front looks that the Defense can give you while still running the 4-3 Under. It's not all about where you line up.

The Tampa 2's philosophy behind stopping the Run especially comes from the 4-3 Under. Did they run other fronts and formations? Of course, especially in the later years. However, if the Bears run a scheme that is based on the 4-3 Under, then the SAM's responsibilities will be very similar to what the Bears have already been doing. If you want, look at how Nick Roach was used in 2010-2012. Look at his responsibilities against the Run and his responsibilities against the Pass outside of Nickel situations. That is what will be primarily expected of Shea if the Bears run a lot of 4-3 under and wins the job.

[Rusty Trombagent]

I think it is hilarious how much time has been discussing Shea freaking McClellin as if the defense goes as he goes. Also chefbear's description of the differences in defense is about as accurate as it gets.

Well it seems this particular conversation is more about the 4-3 under than it is Shea McClellin. Plus, he is a 1st round pick and Emery's 1st pick. There were a lot expectations that he fell very short of. That's why he is a strong topic of discussion.

meh