Originally posted by Puddinhead ...
I'm not coming down on either side in the Hartwell Debate, but I'd like to point out something that a coach at a reasonably successful program (albeit a high school program) took the time to explain to me some years ago regarding the difference between a 3-4 ILB and a 4-3 MLB.

It was back when the Saints were first talking about switching from the 3-4 they'd been so successful with for most of the years under Mora to a 4-3. I asked why they'd consider that switch, he said that the Saints had been blessed for a number of years by having two guys (Mills and Johnson) who could excel in the ILB role, when for most teams it was really hard to find even one. With Johnson's career being in jeopardy due to injury the team was beginning to think about what they would be best served by doing as far as matching their scheme to personnel in the future. The guy told me that a 3-4 ILB has to be much more physical, and has less space to be responsible for. Physical because often the offensive guards will be right in front of him and uncovered, and if the defensive linemen can't tie up more than one blocker the guard may be free to come after the LB. Even if the guard doesn't come free, the ILB would still be met by a huge blocking FB. So his job description was going to involve being someone quick, if not actually fast, so he can get to the point of attack between the tackles, and physical, because he most often was going to have to take on a blocker when he got there, shed him, and still get a hit on the ball carrier. Speed wouldn't be as big a requirement because ideally the OLB would be turning sweep attempts back inside for the ILB to make the tackle anyway.

For a 4-3 MLB, I was told, the job description is sort of different. You're going to assume that the MLB won't have a blocker in his face on most running plays because the guards are both covered by the DTs, and the center has to worry about the snap and then about one of the DTs crashing for the center-guard gap from one side or the other on every play. So he's delayed in getting out after the LB. So a 4-3 MLB doesn't have to be the huge physical specimen that a 3-4 ILB has to be (yeah, I know Sam Mills wasn't big...but he said that Mills was way, way the exception to the rule in that he was so perfect in anticipation and technique that he could get away with not being a monster), but, because you don't have the OLB AND the CBs turning running plays back in to him, he has to have more "speed in traffic" to get down the line faster than the RB does to meet him at the corner on wide runs.

For what it's worth, his opinion was that most LBs who play inside are either better suited for one scheme or the other, and while they could probably play in either, might not be the force in the "secondary" formation that they are in their "primary" formation. Those guys who CAN excel in either are really quite rare.

That was pretty good Danno. Nice read. I am myself am leaning more towards Pierce from the Redskins. He may not be as expensive as a Hartwell either. What do you think of him?

Good food for thought guys!