In this defense, the mack position is the sidekick. The compliment to the greater position, buck. That's part of the problem with the compensation. If he was reading the O and getting the D set and communicated properly, like the buck does in this D, then fine. But he can't even be counted on to get his own self set properly. I don't know how this is even a conversation after the train wreck that was last year. They completely scrapped their defense because Timmons wasn't up to that critical task. And he wasn't even their first or second choice to step into that critical role when Foote went down. They first turned to a R6 rookie who had never played 3 downs before, and an second year undrafted free agent before giving Timmons a go at it. And even then, they dropped Polamalu down to help him get it set. The D was bleeding big play after big play last year because people were out of position. That's a buck problem.
Foote was a very average player, maybe not even that. But he knew the D inside and out, understands offenses and reads/matchups, and can get the D set, communicate, lead. But just the physical act of playing the buck position, he is just a guy. Timmons on the other hand, is the opposite. Physically, he's very good. He can play either position. He's most effective when he's given a place to be presnap. He's a good blitzer, and a good runblitzer. He's good at getting into his drops in coverage. But when he has to read the play before and as it develops, and react off of that, he's not as good. And that's where he gets out of his fits, or just stands there until the play or the guard gets to him. Anyways, the point is we've all seen Timmons at his best, and we've seen what happens to the D when the buck can't get it set. Which has the greater overall impact on the D? Good mack play or a buck that can't get it set? Or a jaggy Buck who can get all 11 lined up? That is why the Buck is/should be the Batman in your analogy to the Mack's Robin.
Yes, after they scrapped Williams and Wilson experiment, they gave the green dot to Timmons, and dropped Polamalu down to a faux-ILB on most downs to help out. I'm saying he didn't do it well. At all. It wasn't 'next man up/standard is the standard'. They scrapped their whole defense because of the loss of Foote. When they lost Roethlisberger for any length of time, did they change the O at all? But with the loss of Foote, it was all out the window.
The defense wasn't playing as one unit. It was 11 guys running around trying to make a play. The big plays were the result of people not being where they should be. Safeties jumping up because they don't trust the guys playing in front of them and getting burned over the top. Guys losing their fit in the run game. It was a complete clusterfuck. Just a bunch of chickens running around the yard. Timmons was not the answer at Buck.
Fwiw, I don't blame Timmons for that. I blame the coaches for having no plan or thought whatsoever in the event that they happened to lose their very old/declining/shrinking Buck. None.
Hell ******* yeah it matters. Did you miss the clusterfuck that was last year? What's more important? Getting 11 to play as one, even if the one who sets the 11 isn't that good? Or one good player at a complimentary/non-essential position?
There's a little truth in all hyperbole, no? Seriously, characterize what you think the opinion of the 'Timmons-haters' is of Timmons (as offbase as it might be) and compare it to what you just said of Woodley. If we're being 'honest', I think you'd find that what you said gives less credit to Woodley than the 'Timmons-haters' give Timmons, and is more vitriolic. So, how are you any different than any of the people you pop out to complain about? Worse really. You know, if we're being honest. Since, even if conceding for the sake of argument they are all Timmons-haters, it can't be said they are also hypocrits. It isn't that you're upset about 'bashing a Steeler'. It's just specific to Timmons alone, apparently.
