vpheughan

1974 Lynn Swann and Roger Carr were both available too.

burningmetal

Not to rain on Anthony's parade, but I'm not really drinking the kool-aid, and trying to compare him to others, just yet.

Having a lot of tackles doesn't necessarily mean a lot. I've said this before and will say it again... Curtis Lofton made a lot of tackles. And when your defensive line is comparable to a wet paper bag, you get a LOT of opportunities. I'm more interested in guys who diagnose plays quickly, and make stops BEFORE the runner is 6-10 yards down the field. And for the love of all that is good, can we get a linebacker who can cover somebody? I see a play here and there, but Anthony seems to be in the trail position on a late of plays across the middle.

But he's a rookie, so I'm not saying that won't improve. By the same token, however, I'm not worried about other rookie's stats. We don't know what they will do down the road. Anthony has the upper hand statistically, but as I look at our overall defensive production, it's hard to say that anyone is doing a particularly great job.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

The Dude

Why do people say its bad for LB to have high number of tackles? I would think it would reflect poorly on the line and Dbs but not on the LB himself.

|Mitch|

Having a high amount of tackles as a LB, proves that he's around the ball a lot. And a MLB in the 4-3 is supposed to lead the team in tackles, that's the way it needs to be

burningmetal

Nobody said it's "bad", per se, for a linebacker to have a lot of tackles. I said it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Middle linebackers should be around the ball a lot, because they are in the middle of the field. I already made the case in my post above. Instead of making the tackle after the ball carrier is well past the line of scrimmage, try sniffing out the play a little sooner. Players get credited for a lot of tackles where they are basically just piling on top of somebody who has already done most of the work, as well.

I mentioned Lofton above, and I'll bring him up once more. Does anybody miss his 130 some odd tackles every year? He was "around the ball", but where was his impact truly felt? Tackling stats lead to very subjective opinions, without taking everything else into consideration.

"The Dude" mentioned above that he thinks the high number of tackles reflect poorly on the D-line and DB's. It DOES reflect poorly on the d-line, as I said above. Those guys are getting blown off the ball, and the linebackers are getting lots of opportunities. If our linebackers were playing up at the line of scrimmage on every play they'd be getting blown up too, because not one of these guys has a clue how to shed a block.

That's why I'm critical of just looking at numbers. I don't see impact.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

halloween 65

Put Anthony in a 3-4 he's a superstar, in a 4-3 not so much.

spkb25

Lofton was a good LB for us. Weakness in coverage, but ultimately a good LB. Anthony has been really good as an LB considering he is a rookie. He is good all around and athletic.

jeanpierre

I wanted to draft BOTH...

Leave it to the Falcons to put an OLB and have him put his hand in the dirt?!?

Drafting Anthony after Beasley went to the Falcons so made my draft...

But when you look at our defensive draft picks during Loomis/Payton era, can you really be surprised at why the defense hath sucketh like no defense has ever sucketh?!?

Just glad we have the voice of reason (Ireland) in the draft room now...