Why Can't Chris Hoke Play DE?

by cgolden on Aug 18, 2008 10:16 AM EDT Comment 15 comments

Ok, so I threw this out there as just a random thought in a comment over the weekend and now the idea is stuck in my head. I know the initial argument is that he's not quick enough or athletic enough to be any kind of pass rush threat as a defensive end, but we don't really ask the ends to do that anyways. Besides, he could shift down to the nose in pass rush situations and Keisel could come in as a situational pass rusher (a role that he's probably better suited for anyways, IMO) on third downs or obvious passing downs. This move would help the defense in two aspects:

1. The starting line would be better against the run because the trio of Aaron Smith, Big Snack and Hoke would be practically unmoveable. Hoke is 20 pounds heavier than Keisel and wouldn't get pushed around at the point of attack.

2. It would upgrade the depth of the defensive line because Keisel would now be a backup defensive end. With the addition of Orpheus Roye, it gives LaBeau some flexibility at the nose and frees up Hoke to move around.

Am I talking crazy or do we need to get a grass roots campaign started to get Hoke moved outside?

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I like it!

I think that this could work – Keisel seems to excel when he plays in spots as opposed to the full time roll. To your point I don’t think we need a guy on the end generating much rush. Just someone to stand in strong and eat up blockers – unleash the LBs!

by smashmouthsteel on Aug 18, 2008 11:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I've wondered as much

I was wondering specifically why Nick Eason was starting over Hoke at DE late last year. Maybe there’s some reason for it. Maybe Hoke’s like Keisel: good in short stints, but not an every down player. You’d think between the two, though, we’d have one decent guy.

by BadMaafala on Aug 18, 2008 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hoke did play some end in the playoffs last year when Smirh was hurt

by spartansteelers on Aug 19, 2008 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Worry over Hampton?

Maybe they’re thinking, “what if both these guys go down?”

If Hoke got injured playing end, then who would have filled in for Casey? If Roye can jump in there – why not-go for it. Sounds like interesting viewing.

by SCSteeler on Aug 18, 2008 1:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought

I read somewhere someone (maybe Tomlin) saying that Hoke could play end. Maybe with Paxson looking better this year he’ll have the opportunity as there is now another Nose backup.

by TheMostViolentTeam on Aug 18, 2008 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Love the idea

Im not big on Keisel anyways. I love the way Hoke goes all out every play. I think that our run defense could be unreal with him in there.

by SteelerDomination on Aug 18, 2008 5:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting. . .

I assume Keisel is faster than Hoke. Would a slower end encourage the outside running game to challenge that end? Of course, our new linebackers are pretty mobile. And the D line was getting punched in the middle last week. Ah well, too bad training camp’s over, I’d like to see it.

by betelgeuse on Aug 18, 2008 7:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I love it!

Who volunteers to get in touch with Tomlin? ( :

BTW I would love to see this posed to Ed Buchette in his daily Q&A. I think its a great question and could have an obvious answer that we are all really missing, but if it doesn’t, then at least it gets wider play in the Pittsburgh media – and suddenly late in October we’ll pick up the paper and read……

by SteelerBuddha on Aug 18, 2008 11:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

interesting

i think that on sure running downs, having Hoke on the end would be very effective. however, i’m not sure about on passing downs. the benefit would be having a more well-rested Keisel to come in on rush downs, coupled with either Woodley or the Silverback rushing from his side as well. in my opinion, using Hoke on the end on ocassion can’t be any worse than what we have going on right now.

by NoCal-SteelCity on Aug 19, 2008 12:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

After some more thought.....

Not that I don’t love the idea, but some possible reasons we did not do it.

1. If it ain’t broke – we had the number one rush defense last year, and it wasn’t because our pass defense was shabby. We may love Hoke, but the first stringers did their job and then some.
2. Hoke is a valuable situational player already – Hampton in is not a 3 down player. He is out in every passing situation, which means that Hoke is already seeing a whole lot of the field. If he plays DE then we lose him as a back-up for Hampton.
3. Orpheus – we brought in Roye, to create some rotation at DE and give Kiesel a chance to rest a bit and return to his QB sacking ways.

Don’t get me wrong. I still really like the idea.

Bottom line, I think that to win big games the D-Line needs to be able to generate some pressure on the QB in non-blitzing downs. I think that what ever package allows us to do that with more regularity is very worth exploring. Not sure if Hoke at DE does that by resting Kiesel more, but if it does I am all for it…..

by SteelerBuddha on Aug 19, 2008 8:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Roye

I’m not sure that Roye was brought in to play DE. He’s awful big for a DE (330 lb), but if he is going to play out there he might be just as effective against the run as Hoke would be.

Revenge of the Birds

by cgolden on Aug 19, 2008 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs