Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints
Shop Horizontal

Nothing but linebacker talk!

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Finally, if your point was merely that Watson wasn\'t physical enough last season, then we simply agree. There isn\'t a need for any arugment (at least as far as I\'m concerned) to show that - it has nothing to do ...

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-31-2005, 04:15 PM   #41
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
Nothing but linebacker talk!

Finally, if your point was merely that Watson wasn\'t physical enough last season, then we simply agree. There isn\'t a need for any arugment (at least as far as I\'m concerned) to show that - it has nothing to do with schemes, positions, or other LBs, it is plain and simply true.

If he gets more physical, I don\'t see any reason he can\'t be a top tier MLB - he has all the tools in terms of speed and size.
JKool is offline  
Latest Blogs
Is this Manning's last Hurrah? Last Blog: 04-16-2014 By: SmashMouth


Landry over Beckham Jr. Last Blog: 04-12-2014 By: joker-saint


Saints Free Agency 2014 Last Blog: 03-11-2014 By: SmashMouth


Old 03-31-2005, 04:15 PM   #42
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Nothing but linebacker talk!

JKool --

I suppose I place a more importance on the idea that a MLB has to fight though more blockers than a WLB.

That\'s petty much it in a nut-shell for me.

I believe a WLB plays much more of a finesse game. There\'s not much finesse going on for a MLB. With offensive guards and fullbacks coming right at the MLB he must be physical enough to overcome that.

Many times the WLB is left totally unaccounted for. And when he does have blockers assigned to him its usually a TE that\'s heading his way. Big big difference.

GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:18 PM   #43
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Nothing but linebacker talk!

PS --

I\'m not arguing, JKool. Just discussing. I\'m going to look into this subject a little more and see what I can come up with.

I hope more folks comment on this discussion. It\'s really interesting to me and I respect eveyones opinion.

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:21 PM   #44
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
Nothing but linebacker talk!

I suppose I place a more importance on the idea that a MLB has to fight though more blockers than a WLB.

That\'s petty much it in a nut-shell for me.
That sounds like the conclusion we came to last time.

Do you think that DT is a tougher job than DE? DT\'s see a lot more double teams than DE\'s - and even when they both see a double team, for the DE it is usually a RB, instead of the Center. It seems to me that if you hold this view about MLBs and WLBs, you should also have it regarding the rush end and the nose tackle. Is NT harder/more physical/more important/whathaveyou than the DE/RE?
JKool is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:24 PM   #45
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Nothing but linebacker talk!

I absolutely think a DT has it tougher than a DE. That\'s a no-brainer for me. No offense intended.

Rookie DEs often have an immediate impact. You RARELY EVER see a rookie DT make an impact. Hell, a rookie DT usually looks terrible out there. Even most of the all time great DTs struggled as rookies.

It\'s tough in the trenches.
GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:25 PM   #46
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
Nothing but linebacker talk!

PS --

I\'m not arguing, JKool. Just discussing. I\'m going to look into this subject a little more and see what I can come up with.

I hope more folks comment on this discussion. It\'s really interesting to me and I respect eveyones opinion.
I never thought otherwise. I will look forward to anything you find. I\'m always interested in refining or correcting my views.

PS - I meant \"argument\" in the technical sense - a set of premises intended to evidence a conclusion. Not in the colloquial sense - where we hit each other with bar stools.
JKool is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:28 PM   #47
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,616
Nothing but linebacker talk!

JKool --

Since I\'ve pretty much got my mind made up that MLB is harder to play than WLB, I\'m going to do some research on WLB and see if I can find out any information that I\'m not aware of.

I really wanted someone to convince me otherwise or either confirm by belief.

In any event, I still want to hear what others think about this. This subject I won\'t drop until I\'m satisfied ...

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by GumboBC]
GumboBC is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:32 PM   #48
500th Post
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 690
Nothing but linebacker talk!

I can think of one thing the WLB does more often than the MLB -- that is blitzing --
4saintspirit is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:33 PM   #49
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
Nothing but linebacker talk!

Interesting.

I\'m not sure what \"immediate impact\" has to do with who\'s job is tougher. It seems to say to me that one requires a skill set with a steeper learning curve. That is an intellectual virtue, not a physical one. Is RB less tough than WR - WR\'s have immedate impact out of college, in general, far less often than RBs.

It seems to me that one of the \"easiest\" jobs on the defense is the run-stuffer DT. The guy whose job is to primarily keep the C and Gs from reaching the next level. This isn\'t always the DT\'s only job, but on some defenses\' schemes, there is a guy who just does that - think Gilbert Brown - the pile pusher, essentially.

I guess, the heart of our disagreement may be merely verbal - what constitues a \"tougher\" position to play. My view is that, under most circumstances, every position has things that are tough and things that are less tough - as I stated at the outset, more or less, it is impossible to decide which position is harder to play, simpliciter.

Also, I didn\'t say \"has it tougher than\", I said \"is a tougher job than\" - I meant to imply \"more difficult to play\". I could have been clearer there.

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by JKool]

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Old 03-31-2005, 04:39 PM   #50
1000 Posts +
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 2,417
Nothing but linebacker talk!

Good point 4ss.

Pat Swilling was our WLB. Do you think that Vaughn Johnson\'s job was tougher than Pat\'s? I guess, I don\'t know what I think about that, but I\'m not the one who is convinced that MLB is harder than WLB.

Also,
Since I\'ve pretty much got my mind made up that MLB is harder to play than WLB
Maybe you should say what you mean by \"harder to play\", since I think that is the reason that you and I keep disagreeing. If all you mean is \"take on blockers more frequently\", then I don\'t have anything to say about that. If you mean requires a more complete set of skills, then I totally disagree as I have noted earlier - Ruff can play MLB in this league (as a starter - on two different teams) but he cannot play WLB exactly because he is a mere run-stuffer.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks :cool:
JKool is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts