Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)

JKool · 03-01-2005, 10:14 AM

(1) On many defenses (including ours) in the NFL the SS calls the defensive plays (and, in turn, might well be considered the \"QB of the defense\"). This makes sense since, Safeties are more likely to be on the field every play than LBs.

(2) I\'ll quote myself:

Here is something that may be of interest. Brooking has been moved to OLB, where he had 101 tackles. Draft, who played the MLB had 56 tackles. That doesn\'t sound to me like a team that thinks there playmaker should be in the middle. In fact, Stewart, who played the other OLB had 71 tackles (and only played in two more games than Draft - which puts them at about the same). Note: Brooking played inside in the 3-4, but when they switched to a 4-3, Brooking (their leading tackler) was moved to the outside.

The WLB is uniquely suited, as Billy even points out, to be the playmaker. While there was a trend toward rangy, playmaking, MLBs, that trend has been dying off, since there are few players who can manage to be that way - Urlacher and Lewis are examples of these types of players. Many other teams tried it, but there has been limited success.

(3) Funneling means crashing blockers to force the runner back toward the middle. There are two main reasons for this: (a) it shatters the blocking scheme, reducing the number of possible blockers at the point of attack, and (b) more defensive players have shorter distances to go to make the tackle (as the middle of the field is closer to them). At the point of attack, you want there to be as little room for the RB to make moves as possible, so forcing him between the tackles is a goal. Guess who should be the first guy there? The MLB. Thus, funneling is NOT intended to force plays to the MLB because the MLB is so important/skilled/super-awesome, it is because that is the best place to shut down a runner and make it easier for more defensive players to reach the ball carrier.

(4) Perhaps the disagreement is about what constitutes the \"importance\" of the position. The point that I believe Danno and I are making is this: the WLB (or at least a stud OLB) is more important than the MLB for the following reasons - (a) WLBs are required to be more versatile blitzing, tackling, in coverage, and read and react, they are asked to think more, (b) LBs who are freed to make plays, must make plays, and the MLB is rarely freed to make plays outside the tackles, and (c) WLBs usually have further to go to make plays, and many teams\' stats show that they do.

Billy seems to disagree, but his notion of \"importance\" seems to be this: (d) MLBs are asked to make plays against the run first and most often, (e) if a MLB fails to do his job a RB make shake into the secondary and that usually ends poorly, (f) teams design defenses to set the MLB up to make plays.

I believe that (c) and (d) are a wash. (f) versus (b) appears to me to not a sign of importance, but a sign of which job you need to do. Finally, (e) appears to me to be important, but then again so does (a). I guess, I\'m at a loss to decided which is more important in these ways.

I suppose, it is my general view that if you got two equally good (whatever that means) LBs, one at the OLB and one at the MLB, the OLB would have a greater skill set, as he is required to do a greater variety of things over a greater distance. Of course, I acknoweldge that the job description for all the LBs is getting closer together, but it is my view you can get by with a big, strong tackler at MLB (mostly because the MLB has the advantage of funneling that, say, a WLB does not), but at at least one OLB position you need a guy who can cover, read, fly to the ball, and make plays when he is freed to do so.

(5) Who started talking about AB? When I find him, I\'m gonna kick him in the nutz.

03-01-2005, 10:14 AM	#1
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Saints' linebackers (all of 'em) (1) On many defenses (including ours) in the NFL the SS calls the defensive plays (and, in turn, might well be considered the \"QB of the defense\"). This makes sense since, Safeties are more likely to be on the field every play than LBs. (2) I\'ll quote myself: Here is something that may be of interest. Brooking has been moved to OLB, where he had 101 tackles. Draft, who played the MLB had 56 tackles. That doesn\'t sound to me like a team that thinks there playmaker should be in the middle. In fact, Stewart, who played the other OLB had 71 tackles (and only played in two more games than Draft - which puts them at about the same). Note: Brooking played inside in the 3-4, but when they switched to a 4-3, Brooking (their leading tackler) was moved to the outside. The WLB is uniquely suited, as Billy even points out, to be the playmaker. While there was a trend toward rangy, playmaking, MLBs, that trend has been dying off, since there are few players who can manage to be that way - Urlacher and Lewis are examples of these types of players. Many other teams tried it, but there has been limited success. (3) Funneling means crashing blockers to force the runner back toward the middle. There are two main reasons for this: (a) it shatters the blocking scheme, reducing the number of possible blockers at the point of attack, and (b) more defensive players have shorter distances to go to make the tackle (as the middle of the field is closer to them). At the point of attack, you want there to be as little room for the RB to make moves as possible, so forcing him between the tackles is a goal. Guess who should be the first guy there? The MLB. Thus, funneling is NOT intended to force plays to the MLB because the MLB is so important/skilled/super-awesome, it is because that is the best place to shut down a runner and make it easier for more defensive players to reach the ball carrier. (4) Perhaps the disagreement is about what constitutes the \"importance\" of the position. The point that I believe Danno and I are making is this: the WLB (or at least a stud OLB) is more important than the MLB for the following reasons - (a) WLBs are required to be more versatile blitzing, tackling, in coverage, and read and react, they are asked to think more, (b) LBs who are freed to make plays, must make plays, and the MLB is rarely freed to make plays outside the tackles, and (c) WLBs usually have further to go to make plays, and many teams\' stats show that they do. Billy seems to disagree, but his notion of \"importance\" seems to be this: (d) MLBs are asked to make plays against the run first and most often, (e) if a MLB fails to do his job a RB make shake into the secondary and that usually ends poorly, (f) teams design defenses to set the MLB up to make plays. I believe that (c) and (d) are a wash. (f) versus (b) appears to me to not a sign of importance, but a sign of which job you need to do. Finally, (e) appears to me to be important, but then again so does (a). I guess, I\'m at a loss to decided which is more important in these ways. I suppose, it is my general view that if you got two equally good (whatever that means) LBs, one at the OLB and one at the MLB, the OLB would have a greater skill set, as he is required to do a greater variety of things over a greater distance. Of course, I acknoweldge that the job description for all the LBs is getting closer together, but it is my view you can get by with a big, strong tackler at MLB (mostly because the MLB has the advantage of funneling that, say, a WLB does not), but at at least one OLB position you need a guy who can cover, read, fly to the ball, and make plays when he is freed to do so. (5) Who started talking about AB? When I find him, I\'m gonna kick him in the nutz.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks