Courtney Watson

JKool · 02-27-2005, 05:03 PM

Billy, I\'m still not convinced that MLB is THAT important.

Even just in terms of the number of downs and situations that a \"classic\" MLB plays, it is fewer than both CBs, both DEs, one DT, and your FS (who are going to be on the field almost every play and in almost every situation.

It is my contention that a quality OLB (either S or W) is more important.

no_cloning · 02-27-2005, 05:09 PM

Last year when there was more uncertainty about the MLB position (noone knew who would start in week 1 for a long time) and the Saints passed up Trotter etc. I would have agreed with you. This year I believe Watson deserves another chance - and I also think the chances are pretty slim that the important people in the organization don\'t agree with me.

I think that is one of the most \"critical\" positions of the defense

Hard to disagree with that statement, but I think you overvalue the position. You can build a good defense with a decent MLB if all the other parts fall into place. For the money it would take to sign a proven MLB, I would rather get a proven SLB and have some of it to spare for an OT.

GumboBC · 02-27-2005, 05:12 PM

JKool --

I feel that WLB is very important. But, in all honesty, I don\'t see how it could be considered more important than MLB.

The MLB is the guy who stuffs the run up the middle. The WLB is the one who chaces the run on the outside.

If you can\'t stop the run up the middle, no teams are going to run to the outside. Why should they? The closest route from point A to point B is a straight line....

In my estimate, the WLB ranks behind the MLB in terms of importance. That is ... is most defenses.

I would like to hear more about your thoughts on the subject. I\'ll keep an open mind...

JKool · 02-27-2005, 05:24 PM

I think that most run stuffing occurs at the line. If the interior of the DL plays well, the LBs are set to make easy tackles in the gaps, where the RBs don\'t have much space to make moves. This is how \"smaller\" quicker MLBs have been succeeding of late (there are esentially two WLBs on the field, one playing in the middle).

Also, due to the use of these rangier LBs in the pass defense, I do believe that their increased versatility is what makes them more valuable than the \"classic\" MLB spot.

Don\'t get me wrong, I agree that MLB is very important to the run defense, the argument I\'m making is that these smaller MLBs are really just converted OLBs with extra protection in front of them.

I\'m happy with Watson at MLB provided we beef up in the middle of the DL. He may also mature into the role.

I know I\'m not being really clear here, but I\'m sure you\'re getting my drift. I tried to lay out the argument in a bit of detail in my first post. Am I getting clearer or more opaque (just asking really)? Maybe you just disagree?

Danno · 02-27-2005, 06:21 PM

MLB is NOT the most important position on defense by far. If it was, then why do most of the top MLB\'s in the draft last until the middle rounds to be selected. The SLB and WLB are both as important if not more than a MLB. In fact I\'d say the MLB is probably the least important of the 3 LB\'s n a 4-3.

Billy I\'ve noticed you call out Watson time and time again. Whats up with that? He was a rookie last year. If you ask me he made as many good AND bad plays as our boy behind center. So why single him out when the rest of our LB crew couldn\'t start on a single team in the NFL?
He has shown more promise as a LB than anyone since Fields.

I think its silly to call out a rookie. its getting old.
Show me where you\'ve called out Ruff? Hodge? Allen?Rodgers? Calling out the ONE LB with less questionmarks than any other LB on this team seems awfully strange.

The most promising LB we\'ve had here in years and it appears you have a vendetta against him. Hmmm. Something smells fishy here Billy. Notre Dame hater perhaps?

mutineer10 · 02-27-2005, 06:23 PM

In terms of versatility, the WLB is the more important of the two. An exceptional WLB can really take over a game, illustrated by guys like Derrick Brooks. In his prime, Brooks was routinely among the team leaders in both tackles AND interceptions, not to mention less tangibles like forced fumbles, fumble recoveries, etc. Other examples are Brian Urlacher (when lined up at WLB), and the mid-90\'s Junior Seau.

Then you\'ve got the MLB\'s. Less versatile, but usually more fun to watch. Mike Singletary, Ray Lewis, and the aforementioned Sam Mills were/are tackling machines. And in the case of those three, they were the leaders of their respective defenses in that they were responsible for calling the formations, reading the offense, etc.

I\'m not sure one is any more important than the other. There are so many defensive schemes, styles, and mindsets that either might be more essential depending on their team\'s DC. Some defenses are conservative, preferring to drop back into zones, trying to read the offense, etc. Other defenses are all about blitzing, man-to-man, stuff the WR\'s at the line, etc.

Long story short, I think the importance of a MLB or WLB probably depends on the scheme.

[Edited on 28/2/2005 by mutineer10]

FireVenturi · 02-27-2005, 06:32 PM

Draft DJ and move Courtney to WLB and we will be fine!

GumboBC · 02-28-2005, 08:31 AM

MLB is NOT the most important position on defense by far. If it was, then why do most of the top MLB\'s in the draft last until the middle rounds to be selected. The SLB and WLB are both as important if not more than a MLB. In fact I\'d say the MLB is probably the least important of the 3 LB\'s n a 4-3.

Billy I\'ve noticed you call out Watson time and time again. Whats up with that? He was a rookie last year. If you ask me he made as many good AND bad plays as our boy behind center. So why single him out when the rest of our LB crew couldn\'t start on a single team in the NFL?
He has shown more promise as a LB than anyone since Fields.

I think its silly to call out a rookie. its getting old.
Show me where you\'ve called out Ruff? Hodge? Allen?Rodgers? Calling out the ONE LB with less questionmarks than any other LB on this team seems awfully strange.

The most promising LB we\'ve had here in years and it appears you have a vendetta against him. Hmmm. Something smells fishy here Billy. Notre Dame hater perhaps?

Danno --

I have no vendetta against any Saints\' player. And I\'m not a real big college football fan, so, it has nothing to do with Notre Dame!

From MY point of view, Danno, Courtney Watson has a lot to prove before I\'m satisfied that he\'s THE guy. Just because I have some concerns about the guy does not mean I\'m hateing on Watson.

Watson may do well in his second season. Then again, he may not. If he doesn\'t perform the way we need him to, then what? What\'s your plan then, Danno?

My way of thinking is if we get a proven MLB then we can slide Watson over to WLB and he could still get some reps at MLB if we want to groom him for that spot.

It\'s a win/win situation.

However, it\'s Watson or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else.

Believe me, I would like nothing better than for Watson to have a break-out season. I just really don\'t want to take the risk. Not when we don\'t have to.

Look, it\'s debateable what LB position is the most important. I think it\'s MLB. It really makes no difference. We need both a good WLB and MLB.

I\'ll say this again ... Because we have be as inept at MLB for so long, I might just be frustrated and be overreacting. But, that\'s the way I feel. I\'m ready for that not to be a concern anymore.

Danno · 02-28-2005, 09:37 AM

Danno, Courtney Watson has a lot to prove before I\'m satisfied that he\'s THE guy. Watson may do well in his second season. Then again, he may not.

That quote could be said about any player on our defense. It can also be said much more accurately about every other LB on this team. But this thread wasn\'t titled LINEBACKERS, it was titled Courtney Watson. Sounds like you\'re saying you have more confidence in Hodge / Allen / Ruff / Bockwoldt / Knight / Rodgers or all the other huge questionmarks at LB. Thats laughable.

My way of thinking is if we get a proven MLB then we can slide Watson over to WLB and he could still get some reps at MLB if we want to groom him for that spot.

I could live with that, but I think Watson will be a fine MLB. I\'d rather bring in a stud OLB than an ILB. A proven OLB with Watson at MLB sounds like more bang than a proven MLB and Watson at WLB (a position he has never played).

However, it\'s Watson or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else.

Yea, and its Bockwoldt (a 7th round rookie) or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else at WLB
Yea, and its Allen (a LB who looked totally LOST for 12 games) or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else at SLB.

Look, it\'s debateable what LB position is the most important. I think it\'s MLB. It really makes no difference. We need both a good WLB and MLB.

So I imagine you\'ve got a \"Colby Bockwoldt\" thread and a \"James Allen\" thread somewhere? Both are as big a questionmark or more than Watson.

I\'ll say this again ... Because we have be as inept at MLB for so long, I might just be frustrated and be overreacting. But, that\'s the way I feel. I\'m ready for that not to be a concern anymore.

I\'m thinking we\'ve been pretty inept at WLB and SLB also.
I feel much better about a Watson/Ruff combo at MLB than I do Allen/Hodge or Bockwoldt/Rodgers.
As far as big bucks go I think it would be wiser to land a SLB, then a WLB, then a MLB.

Atlanta didn\'t move Brookings to OLB because he sucked at MLB. The OLB\'s are a bit more important than a MLB. I want to see a stud SLB or WLB brought in.

Why do OLB\'s typically get drafted way before MLB\'s do, if the MLB position is so much more important?

[/quote:cff067cab2]

GumboBC · 02-28-2005, 09:55 AM

Danno,

First things first!!

I have concerns about every single LB on this team. Bockwaldt, Allen, Watson, etc., ect....

But, in this particular thread, I wanted to talk about Courtney Watson. Maybe that\'s why the \"title\" of this thread is \"Courtney Waton\"?!

All I hear you doing is comparing Watson to the other Saints\' linebackers in order to say \"he\'s the best we\'ve got.\" Yeah, so what? That ain\'t saying a whole hell of a lot and it doesn\'t make me feel any better about Watson.

Why don\'t you compare Watson with some of these proven MLB in free-agency and tell me which one\'s better?

I\'d love to replace all 3-linebacker spots with proven guys. But, that just isn\'t practical. For my money, MLB is more important and that\'s where I want to improve.

I happen to think Bockwaldt played well at WLB and I don\'t think Watson played that well at MLB. That does not mean I think Bockwaldt is the answer, though. Just means I feel better about Bockwaldt than Watson.

You feel differently and that\'s fine. And I respect your opinion.

But, don\'t be telling me that my opinion is laughable.

With your plan, we have no one else but Watson at MLB.

With my plan, we get a proven MLB and Watson can slide over to WLB.

You don\'t think Watson can play there?

02-27-2005, 05:03 PM	#11
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Courtney Watson Billy, I\'m still not convinced that MLB is THAT important. Even just in terms of the number of downs and situations that a \"classic\" MLB plays, it is fewer than both CBs, both DEs, one DT, and your FS (who are going to be on the field almost every play and in almost every situation. It is my contention that a quality OLB (either S or W) is more important.

02-27-2005, 05:09 PM	#12
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249	Courtney Watson Last year when there was more uncertainty about the MLB position (noone knew who would start in week 1 for a long time) and the Saints passed up Trotter etc. I would have agreed with you. This year I believe Watson deserves another chance - and I also think the chances are pretty slim that the important people in the organization don\'t agree with me. I think that is one of the most \"critical\" positions of the defense Hard to disagree with that statement, but I think you overvalue the position. You can build a good defense with a decent MLB if all the other parts fall into place. For the money it would take to sign a proven MLB, I would rather get a proven SLB and have some of it to spare for an OT.
no_cloning 100th Post Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 249

02-27-2005, 05:12 PM	#13
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Courtney Watson JKool -- I feel that WLB is very important. But, in all honesty, I don\'t see how it could be considered more important than MLB. The MLB is the guy who stuffs the run up the middle. The WLB is the one who chaces the run on the outside. If you can\'t stop the run up the middle, no teams are going to run to the outside. Why should they? The closest route from point A to point B is a straight line.... In my estimate, the WLB ranks behind the MLB in terms of importance. That is ... is most defenses. I would like to hear more about your thoughts on the subject. I\'ll keep an open mind...
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-27-2005, 05:24 PM	#14
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Courtney Watson I think that most run stuffing occurs at the line. If the interior of the DL plays well, the LBs are set to make easy tackles in the gaps, where the RBs don\'t have much space to make moves. This is how \"smaller\" quicker MLBs have been succeeding of late (there are esentially two WLBs on the field, one playing in the middle). Also, due to the use of these rangier LBs in the pass defense, I do believe that their increased versatility is what makes them more valuable than the \"classic\" MLB spot. Don\'t get me wrong, I agree that MLB is very important to the run defense, the argument I\'m making is that these smaller MLBs are really just converted OLBs with extra protection in front of them. I\'m happy with Watson at MLB provided we beef up in the middle of the DL. He may also mature into the role. I know I\'m not being really clear here, but I\'m sure you\'re getting my drift. I tried to lay out the argument in a bit of detail in my first post. Am I getting clearer or more opaque (just asking really)? Maybe you just disagree?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

02-27-2005, 06:21 PM	#15
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,646	Courtney Watson MLB is NOT the most important position on defense by far. If it was, then why do most of the top MLB\'s in the draft last until the middle rounds to be selected. The SLB and WLB are both as important if not more than a MLB. In fact I\'d say the MLB is probably the least important of the 3 LB\'s n a 4-3. Billy I\'ve noticed you call out Watson time and time again. Whats up with that? He was a rookie last year. If you ask me he made as many good AND bad plays as our boy behind center. So why single him out when the rest of our LB crew couldn\'t start on a single team in the NFL? He has shown more promise as a LB than anyone since Fields. I think its silly to call out a rookie. its getting old. Show me where you\'ve called out Ruff? Hodge? Allen?Rodgers? Calling out the ONE LB with less questionmarks than any other LB on this team seems awfully strange. The most promising LB we\'ve had here in years and it appears you have a vendetta against him. Hmmm. Something smells fishy here Billy. Notre Dame hater perhaps?

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

02-27-2005, 06:23 PM	#16
mutineer10 Site Donor Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Baton Rouge, LA Posts: 1,739	Courtney Watson In terms of versatility, the WLB is the more important of the two. An exceptional WLB can really take over a game, illustrated by guys like Derrick Brooks. In his prime, Brooks was routinely among the team leaders in both tackles AND interceptions, not to mention less tangibles like forced fumbles, fumble recoveries, etc. Other examples are Brian Urlacher (when lined up at WLB), and the mid-90\'s Junior Seau. Then you\'ve got the MLB\'s. Less versatile, but usually more fun to watch. Mike Singletary, Ray Lewis, and the aforementioned Sam Mills were/are tackling machines. And in the case of those three, they were the leaders of their respective defenses in that they were responsible for calling the formations, reading the offense, etc. I\'m not sure one is any more important than the other. There are so many defensive schemes, styles, and mindsets that either might be more essential depending on their team\'s DC. Some defenses are conservative, preferring to drop back into zones, trying to read the offense, etc. Other defenses are all about blitzing, man-to-man, stuff the WR\'s at the line, etc. Long story short, I think the importance of a MLB or WLB probably depends on the scheme. [Edited on 28/2/2005 by mutineer10]

02-27-2005, 06:32 PM	#17
FireVenturi Cold as Ice! Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Da Big Easy Posts: 2,978	Courtney Watson Draft DJ and move Courtney to WLB and we will be fine!

02-28-2005, 08:31 AM	#18
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Courtney Watson MLB is NOT the most important position on defense by far. If it was, then why do most of the top MLB\'s in the draft last until the middle rounds to be selected. The SLB and WLB are both as important if not more than a MLB. In fact I\'d say the MLB is probably the least important of the 3 LB\'s n a 4-3. Billy I\'ve noticed you call out Watson time and time again. Whats up with that? He was a rookie last year. If you ask me he made as many good AND bad plays as our boy behind center. So why single him out when the rest of our LB crew couldn\'t start on a single team in the NFL? He has shown more promise as a LB than anyone since Fields. I think its silly to call out a rookie. its getting old. Show me where you\'ve called out Ruff? Hodge? Allen?Rodgers? Calling out the ONE LB with less questionmarks than any other LB on this team seems awfully strange. The most promising LB we\'ve had here in years and it appears you have a vendetta against him. Hmmm. Something smells fishy here Billy. Notre Dame hater perhaps? Danno -- I have no vendetta against any Saints\' player. And I\'m not a real big college football fan, so, it has nothing to do with Notre Dame! From MY point of view, Danno, Courtney Watson has a lot to prove before I\'m satisfied that he\'s THE guy. Just because I have some concerns about the guy does not mean I\'m hateing on Watson. Watson may do well in his second season. Then again, he may not. If he doesn\'t perform the way we need him to, then what? What\'s your plan then, Danno? My way of thinking is if we get a proven MLB then we can slide Watson over to WLB and he could still get some reps at MLB if we want to groom him for that spot. It\'s a win/win situation. However, it\'s Watson or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else. Believe me, I would like nothing better than for Watson to have a break-out season. I just really don\'t want to take the risk. Not when we don\'t have to. Look, it\'s debateable what LB position is the most important. I think it\'s MLB. It really makes no difference. We need both a good WLB and MLB. I\'ll say this again ... Because we have be as inept at MLB for so long, I might just be frustrated and be overreacting. But, that\'s the way I feel. I\'m ready for that not to be a concern anymore.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

02-28-2005, 09:37 AM	#19
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,646	Courtney Watson Danno, Courtney Watson has a lot to prove before I\'m satisfied that he\'s THE guy. Watson may do well in his second season. Then again, he may not. That quote could be said about any player on our defense. It can also be said much more accurately about every other LB on this team. But this thread wasn\'t titled LINEBACKERS, it was titled Courtney Watson. Sounds like you\'re saying you have more confidence in Hodge / Allen / Ruff / Bockwoldt / Knight / Rodgers or all the other huge questionmarks at LB. Thats laughable. My way of thinking is if we get a proven MLB then we can slide Watson over to WLB and he could still get some reps at MLB if we want to groom him for that spot. I could live with that, but I think Watson will be a fine MLB. I\'d rather bring in a stud OLB than an ILB. A proven OLB with Watson at MLB sounds like more bang than a proven MLB and Watson at WLB (a position he has never played). However, it\'s Watson or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else. Yea, and its Bockwoldt (a 7th round rookie) or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else at WLB Yea, and its Allen (a LB who looked totally LOST for 12 games) or bust if we don\'t pick up someone else at SLB. Look, it\'s debateable what LB position is the most important. I think it\'s MLB. It really makes no difference. We need both a good WLB and MLB. So I imagine you\'ve got a \"Colby Bockwoldt\" thread and a \"James Allen\" thread somewhere? Both are as big a questionmark or more than Watson. I\'ll say this again ... Because we have be as inept at MLB for so long, I might just be frustrated and be overreacting. But, that\'s the way I feel. I\'m ready for that not to be a concern anymore. I\'m thinking we\'ve been pretty inept at WLB and SLB also. I feel much better about a Watson/Ruff combo at MLB than I do Allen/Hodge or Bockwoldt/Rodgers. As far as big bucks go I think it would be wiser to land a SLB, then a WLB, then a MLB. Atlanta didn\'t move Brookings to OLB because he sucked at MLB. The OLB\'s are a bit more important than a MLB. I want to see a stud SLB or WLB brought in. Why do OLB\'s typically get drafted way before MLB\'s do, if the MLB position is so much more important? [/quote:cff067cab2]

02-28-2005, 09:55 AM	#20
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	Courtney Watson Danno, First things first!! I have concerns about every single LB on this team. Bockwaldt, Allen, Watson, etc., ect.... But, in this particular thread, I wanted to talk about Courtney Watson. Maybe that\'s why the \"title\" of this thread is \"Courtney Waton\"?! All I hear you doing is comparing Watson to the other Saints\' linebackers in order to say \"he\'s the best we\'ve got.\" Yeah, so what? That ain\'t saying a whole hell of a lot and it doesn\'t make me feel any better about Watson. Why don\'t you compare Watson with some of these proven MLB in free-agency and tell me which one\'s better? I\'d love to replace all 3-linebacker spots with proven guys. But, that just isn\'t practical. For my money, MLB is more important and that\'s where I want to improve. I happen to think Bockwaldt played well at WLB and I don\'t think Watson played that well at MLB. That does not mean I think Bockwaldt is the answer, though. Just means I feel better about Bockwaldt than Watson. You feel differently and that\'s fine. And I respect your opinion. But, don\'t be telling me that my opinion is laughable. With your plan, we have no one else but Watson at MLB. With my plan, we get a proven MLB and Watson can slide over to WLB. You don\'t think Watson can play there?
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616