QBREES9

A Defense of Scott Shanle
by MtnExile on Feb 21, 2010 11:57 AM CST 90 comments

In a recent thread, linebacker Scott Shanle came in for some particularly virulent criticism, which I believe to be unjustified. I intend to make the case that it is unjustified; but in doing so, I don't want it to seem that I'm simply piling on WalterFTW, the writer of the original post. His opinion is not too far different from that of a lot of other fans, Saints fans included. This is meant to be an answer to all of them.

At the same time, I'm going to concentrate on what WalterFTW wrote; since putting the argument in my own words may mischaracterize the opinion of my opponents, I'll use their own words...and WalterFTW's are not only the most recent, but the fullest expression I've come across.

First, for the record: I believe that Scott Shanle is a solid linebacker. He simply does his job, without fanfare or gaudy spectacle, so it's easy to forget he's there. Is it possible to upgrade the position? Sure...the only way an upgrade would be impossible is if Shanle were the greatest linebacker in the NFL, which he isn't. We could do better. But do we have more pressing needs than to replace a player who performs well with another who performs marginally better? You bet.



Now that you know my biased opinion, on to the meat of the subject. In his assessment of Shanle, WalterFTW made heavy use of the analysis at Pro Football Focus, which lists Scott Shanle as the worst outside linebacker in the NFL. Regarding his play, WalterFTW specifically had this to say:

"Shanle could not only not cover Dallas Clark (admittedly a tough cover, although imagine if we had a young, fast outside linebacker who could deal with such things), he also got destroyed by Clark’s blocking, which shouldn’t happen to any self-respecting linebacker."
This is representative of the sort of criticism that is routinely directed against Shanle; and it struck me as being not only hyperbolic, but also unfair. Fortunately, I had the means at hand—a tape of the Super Bowl—to check for myself. So I watched every play, noting the formations, Shanle's position (and likely assignment), and how the play actually worked out. The most surprising thing was this: Shanle spent the majority of the game not at weakside linebacker—his usual position—but at strongside linebacker. He didn't simply cover Dallas Clark occasionally: he covered him most of the time.

So did Clark "destroy: him? On every running play in which Clark blocked Shanle, the Saints were playing a formation with 3 down linemen, which meant Shanle was playing strongside outside linebacker. Under those circumstances, he had two main responsibilities:

1) Provide outside containment; and 2) Cover the tight end.

On several occasions, Clark chip-blocked before releasing downfield. There is no way to tell a chip block from a running play except to wait and watch, which was precisely what Shanle did. On no occasion was he "destroyed" by Clark: he held his ground, making sure first that nothing got around him to the outside, and second that Clark was not able to get a release downfield. In other words, he did his job. An example: on Addai's touchdown in the third quarter, Clark blocked Shanle to the outside, but Shanle stood him up and actually forced the play back to the inside: Addai cut back sharply, and it was missed tackles by Greer and Gay that paved the way to the end zone—not any failure by Shanle.

Let's face it: football is a team sport. You do your job, and rely on others to do theirs. Anyone who tells you that an outside linebacker's primary responsibility is to toss aside the blocker like a rag doll and make the tackle single-handedly is probably coaching pee-wee. What's more, Clark is not only bigger than Shanle—he's also a professional, highly trained and motivated. You have to expect that he'll win at least a few of the one-on-one battles. Getting successfully blocked by a tight end is hardly the humiliating occasion for a linebacker that WalterFTW makes it out to be.

Now, on to Shanle's pass coverage. Clark's numbers in the Super Bowl were slightly higher than average: 7 catches for 86 yards, while his seasonal average was 6 catches for 69 yards. But those numbers didn't come against Shanle alone. Clark caught only three passes against Shanle. The first came on the Colts' first play of the game, a slant pattern for 18 yards on which Clark had beaten Shanle badly. That was the only pass Clark caught against Shanle in the first half.

Clark also caught Manning's first pass of the second half, on a crossing route for 7 yards. Several plays later, Shanle was beaten again, though not badly: Clark made a catch on one of the most magnificent passes I've ever seen, with Manning rolling out and laying a perfect throw over the coverage and right into Clark's motionless and waiting hands, for 27 yards. It was more a success on the part of Manning than Shanle's failure.

And that's it. Clark's other catches came when Shanle had other assignments, either blitzing, covering Addai in the flat, or playing deep zone during the Colts' last, desperate drive. (In fact, Clark had two of his catches, for 16 yards, while facing the Saints' prevent defense). For limiting Clark as well as he did for most of the game, you could make the argument that, far from being a liability, Scott Shanle was the biggest unsung hero of the Super Bowl.

www.sportsshooter.com/johnjcoleman

" Anyone can take a picture Only a Photographer can take a photograph "

CantonLegend

one of the biggest reasons i dont believe OLB is an issue that needs to be addressed in this draft

shanle is one of the most consistant players not only on the saints, but in the entire league

he has one of the toughest jobs in the NFL covering the likes of kellen winslow and tony gonzalez.....not to mention the other ridiculous TEs in the league that he has to cover on a regular basis

SmashMouth

You're right, Coach. Still wouldn't hurt to get some new talent to learn the ropes and eventually start.

lynwood

Shanle also broke up a couple passes including one on the last 4 downs Indy had in the game.

SaintGup

Totally agree with this post. What I find some people do when assessing someone's play is to look at their position on the roster, not what they actually do on the field. Shanle could have lined up on Reggie Wayne at cornerback (stay with me on this) and Dallas Clark could have been covered by Vilma and made a30 yard catch but Shanle still would have been criticised. Thank you for making those points about Shanle's play. Is he spectacular, or the best in the game? No. Is he solid, dependable and does he give everything? Absolutely. Shanle, many thanks to you for helping the Saints take home the Lombardi Trophy. You will have your critics but not from this direction.

Cruize

Shanle had a very solid year and is good in coverage. But, he's not good at rushing the passer, isn't a thumper in the run game, and he's simply not a playmaker. An upgrade would not be impossible.

TheDeuce

I think a bigger need right now is probably getting another defensive tackle that can play alongside Sedrick Ellis, but let me say that the OLB position absolutely needs to be upgraded.

Shanle was a good player for us this past season, but let's face it, we need an upgrade if we can. Shanle is getting older, he'll be 31 next year, and that's not young for the position. If we have the opportunity to get a playmaker at the position, we'd be stupid not to take it.

Also, as much as I love the Super Bowl team, I'm not going to get overly attached to all of them. Shanle is one guy I wouldn't mind seeing replaced. Like Cruize mentioned, he's not a guy who can make plays rushing the passer, and he's not very good in coverage. His bread and butter is run defense, especially on outside runs. That's cool and all, but I'd like to see a more complete linebacker.

papz

Couldn't agree more.

Danno

He's one of those guys that simply does everything OK, but does nothing spectacular.

He's a great player to have on your team, but he's obviously not a Lawrence Taylor or a Rickey Jackson.

We could do a lot worse than Shanle, and we have for several years before he came along, but he's certainly upgradable.

foreverfan

Hyperbolic

In mathematics, the hyperbolic functions are analogs of the ordinary trigonometric, or circular, functions. The basic hyperbolic functions are the hyperbolic sine "sinh" (typically pronounced /sɪntʃ/ or /ʃaɪn/), and the hyperbolic cosine "cosh" (typically pronounced /kɒʃ/), from which are derived the hyperbolic tangent "tanh" (typically pronounced /tæntʃ/ or /θæn/), etc., in analogy to the derived trigonometric functions. The inverse hyperbolic functions are the area hyperbolic sine "arsinh" (also called "asinh", or sometimes by the misnomer of "arcsinh") and so on.

Does this really apply to Shanle?