Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

I recently started a thread on Courtney Watson and I think it was misunderstood and I also think I did a poor job of stating my opinion. So, I want to talk about ALL of our LBs for a sec.

But, before I talk about any of the individual players we have at LB, I want to talk about the importance and differences of each spot.

Weak side linebacker 4-3
The weak side backer is the second best playmaker on the defense usually. He has a little further to go at times to make plays but is often left unaccounted for in the blocking scheme. Many big play linebackers come from this position because they are allowed to freelance more and flow to the play with less traffic to fight through. A good strong side backer makes a perfect set up man for the WLB when he clogs the play and forces the ball carrier back to the middle. The WLB generally has fewer responsibilities than other front 7 positions. He is responsible for shutting down the reverse and closing up cut back lanes against the run while most of his pass responsibility amounts to keeping tabs on relief valve receivers like backs on swing passes or short back side screens. One side note when it comes to outside backers in the NFL, some teams have gone to right and left side linebackers where instead of switching sides based on strength of formation, the defenders remain on the same side and responsibility changes with the formations.

Strong side linebacker 4-3
Here is where we answer the question of why a strong side linebacker struggles to produce in the box scores. At a glance it would make more sense that since teams run to the strong side more often, the strong side backer should make more plays. It all goes back to the description of formations. While its true that teams run to the strong side more often, the reason they do so is to take advantage of the additional blocker or blockers. A strong side backer often finds himself at the point of attack which means the offensive blocking scheme has accounted for him with at least one blocker, often a TE or fullback, but sometimes a pulling guard is responsible for taking him out. The main responsibility of this position against the run is to defeat or at least eliminate the blockers at the point of attack so that the runner has to alter his course by cutting up early or stringing out toward the sideline. In concept this is to allow pursuit from the safeties and/or other linebackers to bottle up the runner. Against the pass a strong side backer is usually responsible for the tight end or fullback out of the backfield. Chances are if there isn't a TE or FB, the defense will be in a nickel formation where the SLB position is basically eliminated. Some schemes take advantage of a SLB who is a good pass rusher by leaving him free to blitz instead of dropping into coverage when the TE releases into the pass pattern. If a strong side linebacer is on the field in obvious passing situations he must possess the speed to be able to cover the tightends. Examples are: Lavar Arrington in Washington, Rosevelt Colvin last year in Chicago, Jamir Miller the year before last for the Browns and to a lesser degree Mark Fields in Carolina.

Middle linebacker 4-3
This is the ultimate position of all the linebackers because all defensive schemes are designed to funnel plays to the middle of the field. The MLB is protected from blockers by the tackles who make it tough for either the center or guards to get off the line. Miami's defense does this as well as any in the game, keeping Zach Thomas free from blockers while forcing ball carriers toward him. Ray Lewis is probably the NFL's premier linebacker. He is able to flow to the play and pile up the tackle numbers. At the snap of the ball the middle backer will look for keys that tell him if the play is pass or run. His first read is the offensive line. A pass blocking offensive lineman will stand up out of his stance as opposed to a run blocker who fires out to engage the defender. Offenses have tricks such as draw plays to disguise their blocking schemes so there are reads beyond the initial line movement. Pass coverage responsibilities will depend on the cover scheme called but once run is diagnosed, the MLB has a single assignment, get to the ball carrier.

Okay, hopefully everyone agrees with the description of all the linebacker positions in the 4-3 defense??

There's been much talk on this board about the OLB being the most important LB on the field. However, that is not true.

In fact, the OLB has the easiest job of any of the linebackers. He has less blockers to worry about and his play generally depends on how well the SLB sets up the play for him. He might pile up great stats, but that's becasuse he's playing in space and doesn't have to worry about much.

I'm going to leave it at that for a while and hopefully we can get some good opinions on the linebacker positions in general....

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

This is where you stretch it. Just because plays funnel back toward the middle doesn\'t mean its the most important position. In fact, it would appear that the MLB typically requires the least amount of atheleticism of the 3 backers. The MLB simply has to be a solid tackler. Ever wonder why most teams scheme against the opponents OLB\'s rather than the MLB\'s?
James Allen was switched from WLB to SLB because of his abilities to play through traffic.The SLB is apparently the one position that requires the least thinking of the 3. Thats why many (including me) thought his switch to SLB would work fine because he didn\'t have to think as much. But it appeared the mental part of the game didn\'t click for him until week 12. Was it a fluke? Or did he finally get it?

I forget who said it but they nailed it. It depends on the defensives schemes you implore as to which is more important. Thats why Brookings (one of the top MLB\'s in the league) was switched to WLB.

As far as \"gifted atheletes\" go the giftd OLB is usually an atheletic freak of nature. The MLB isn\'t typically as fast or as atheletic as the OLB\'s. But he is typically bigger and stronger than the other two.

But I\'d rather have a stud OLB and a good MLB over a Stud MLB and a good OLB anyday. Unless you\'re weak up the middle. Then the MLB becomes the key stop-gap. But I\'d rather fix the problem up front 1st.
But times are changing. The skillset of all 3 LB\'s appears to be merging closer and closer as offenses innovate new ways to spread the field. Power and Speed are more important than ever.
But it appears you aren\'t gonna give up you\'re MLB/Watson angle no matter what. But at least its not yet another AB arguement. Or will it be?

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

THe MLB calls the plays for the defense..he has to be intelligent to focus on what plays are being run by the offense. therefore the MLB is the QB for the defense.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Wow Danno. You seem to be the only one who can\'t let that go. You get what you want and you still poke your hand in the fire. Obsess much? ;)

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

There aren\'t too many here that weren\'t beat down by the AB Wars of 2003-2004.

And what was it that Danno got, exactly?

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Pretty much every AB discussion, or offense discussion in general, Danno felt was a waste of time cause we were discussing the wrong positions and the wrong side of the ball. Now mainly ALL of the talk has been on defense, and LBs in particular, and it has been very interesting, and he still has to poke at the AB debate. SO he got what he was begging for, yet he is the only one who can\'t let it go.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Danno --

The WLB is a guy who makes a lot of plays. He\'s also the guy, out of all 3 linebackers, who has less blockers to take on. He\'s pretty much free to roam around and make plays. The WLB is mostly unaccouted for.

The MLB, on the other hand, is usually met by a fullback or an offensive lineman and must be physical enough to shed those blocks and get to the ball carrier. He also must be fast enough to cover in the passing game.

Both the OLB and the MLB need to have enough speed to cover in the passing game. Both must be able to tackle. But, the middle linebacker needs to be stronger to be able to shed blocks.

And I just cut and pasted the write up on the importance of the positions. That wasn\'t me who said it.....

Here\'s the article:

http://www.redeyesports.com/Breakingdownadefense.htm

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

I was just poking fun.
Lighten up dude! Having AB withdrawals?
Maybe I shoulda :poke:

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

I doubt that many here believe that AB is the answer at QB, despite what Danno says. I respect Danno\'s opinion, but honestly, I\'m not sold either. But the AB threads were some of the longest, most volatile subjects we\'ve had on this board, with many posters angering one another continuously. I\'ve seen political debates that didn\'t have as much heart.
This goes out to everyone at B&G.net. You don\'t have to agree with someone\'s opinion to respect what they are saying. Know that we have the most knowledgeable Saints\' fan base on the net. Give respect, and you will most certainly receive it. We\'re all guilty of blowing our tops and unloading on someone, I am as guilty as anyone here. Just let posts roll once and a while, don\'t feel like you have to constantly kidney punch someone into submission.

[Edited on 1/3/2005 by BlackandBlue]

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:
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.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

I know Danno, that\'s why I was doing the same to you. I remember how you used to get your shots in during the AB wars. :P Just getting a little payback, maybe I missed my window. ;)

BNB, you know I know VERY well how those debates went, that\'s why I excused myself from them, and see many others have done the same. It\'s all good. I was just getting Danno back for his shots at us. IT was nothing personal or anything. Just clowning around. Maybe I do have AB withdrawal. :seeingstars: I\'ll go now. :sulkoff:

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

JKool and Danno --

Here\'s the point I THINK both of you are missing.


The OLB is left unaccouted for most of the time. They are free to roam the field and free-lance. It is, by far, the easiest position of all 3 linebackers. All you need is a guy who can run fast and tackle. He doesn\'t have to worry about much.

The MLB, on the other hand, has to take on blockers, shed blocks, and get to the ball carrier. He must also be fast enough to cover in the passing game.

It\'s much easier to find a good OLB than a MLB.

Now, you keep on wanting to talk about these BIG linebackers whose only job it is to stuff the run. Well, hardly anyone is using those guys anymore!

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Billy, I think I accounted for that idea in my post above.

I\'m going to quote myself again:
Surely, you\'ll agree that even if these guys\' job is \"easier\", which I\'m not agreeing with - stopping the run is NOT as hard as being asked to make different kinds of plays in almost every situation - they have excelled and been difference makers. That is, taking on blockers and stopping funneled plays is NOT as hard as having to make quick decisions, cover the field, make a tackle in the open field, switch to pass coverage, and so on. I don\'t see why we should believe that it is harder to be a MLB, just because he may get blocked more often - on that reasoning, the SLB is the most important position.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

JKool --

Which one of these statements do you disagree with?

1. He has a little further to go at times to make plays but is often left unaccounted for in the blocking scheme. Many big play linebackers come from this position because they are allowed to freelance more and flow to the play with less traffic to fight through.

2. The WLB generally has fewer responsibilities than other front 7 positions.

PS -- I\'m not the one saying this. Though, I totally agree with it. I got this from an article on the net.

Do you disagree with those 2 statements?

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

2, is the statement I disagree with.

[Edited on 1/3/2005 by JKool]

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Okay, I want you to do something for me if you will.

Go read this article and tell me if your opinion is still the same.

I think this is very interesting.

Here\'s the link...

http://www.redeyesports.com/Breakingdownadefense.htm

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Billy, that is just the article you quoted from, and I read what you wrote above.

I\'ve made two arguments regarding \"importance\" of the MLB - one where I said that he didn\'t have as many responsibilities (and while that may depend on what the MLB is asked to do in the passing game, I have suggested that MLBs are often the first off the field in passing situations - while that may not be true for Urlacher and Lewis, for MOST NFL teams it is true), and one where I tried to decide what you meant by important. I will ask you to respond to one or both of those, now that I\'ve read this whole article for you (which by the way was pretty good).

Here is a quote that I found interesting about the MLB from your article:Doesn\'t that describe every player who isn\'t disrupting the blocking? Wow, those MLBs sure do have a unique set of responsibilities. ;)

I\'ve made my arguments, and this article has not persuaded me that any of them are wrong.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

PS - Having fewer responsibilities with respect to blockers on running plays is not the same as having fewer responsibilities, but I made that argument above as well.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

And I went and kicked the cat for nothing? :o

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

The middle linebacker does have only ONE responsibility once the ball is snapped. And that\'s to get to the ball carrier. But, it\'s WHAT he has to do to get to the ball carrier as opposed to what an outside linebacker has to do.

The OLB doesn\'t have to take on blocks like a MLB does. You already said you agree the OLB is free to roam the field. And the author of the article said the samething. So, in essence, the MLBs job is the harder of the two.

Keep this in mind. The OLB has to support the run and the pass. But, because he is left unaccounted for as compared to the SLB and MLB, it\'s much easier for him to do that.


And for the last time.... Most MLB do not come off the field on 3rd down. Unless a team has someone like Orlando Ruff who is too slow to cover a runningback or a TE. It\'s a moot point, JKool.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

JKool --

I think I know where our differences are.

You think that because OLB are asked to cover more in the passing game and because they have to diagnose the run that they are more important than the MLB whose primary job it is to stuff the run in the middle.

But, it\'s my arguement that the OLB position is the easier position to play. For one, they are playing in space, on the \"weakside\" where no blockers are assigned to them as compared to the \"strong\" side. Or the MLB where offensive guards and fullbacks are assigned to block them.

So, while the OLB MAY be the \"playmaker\" on the defense, he\'s got a much easier job of it.

Which is exactly why I want Courtney Watson moved to the outside and get a proven run stuffing MLB who can also cover.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Billy, I think we\'re agreeing. The main difference, as you point out, is our assessment of what makes a position harder than another.

I suggest that being uncovered makes your job all the more important, because you are the free player. You are suggesting that playing in traffic makes your job harder. I see no way to decide that issue.

I think we agree on all the facts. I think that on my defense, I could get by with an Orlando Ruff if I had a Lawrence Taylor. You think that on your defense, you could get by with a Courtney Watson (at WLB), if you had a Ray Lewis. I\'m not sure I see a difference between these.

In the end, I think that Ray Lewis like players are rarer than you do. Thus, I believe it is easier to find a stud OLB than a stud MLB. Furthermore, I don\'t think that Hartwell (though awesome) is a Ray Lewis - which means we\'d Watson to be pretty darned good out there in space. OR we could tuck Watson in the middle and hope he\'s a Ray Lewis waiting to happen.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Thank you. I too believe that. But why?

I say it\'s because the position is easier to play and thus it\'s easier to find guys like that.

What say you?

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

No. It is because I think that those feak MLBs (like Urlacher and Lewis) are more like WLBs than regular MLBs. They are WLB+\'s and are thus rare. Brooking remains a prime example.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

So, by your own definition of what a great OLB is, Courtney Watson would be a perfect fit there? ;)

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

I\'m fine with Watson at WLB. It is Danno who thinks that he is suited for the MLB spot; I\'m undecided on that point.

I thought we were talking about the relative importance of the MLB and W/OLB?

It is my view that if you can get a freak (like Urlacher or Lewis), then MLB is roughly equivalent to, or more valuable than, the WLB spot. If you can\'t, WLB is more important and more valuable, since typical MLBs don\'t have the versatility (and non-mere-run responsibility of the MLB).

The secondary argument is this: if we can get a stud at WLB, then we can take a chance that Watson may become a freak MLB (like an Urlacher or Lewis). If we play Watson at WLB, then we\'d better get a stud MLB. It seems to me a bigger gamble to have Watson be our WLB if he is as you say \"unimpressive so far\".

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

You keep using the term \"freak\". What\'s freakish about Ray Lewis as far as physical abilities? He\'s not that big. He\'s no faster than a lot of linebackers. Ray Lewis isn\'t \"freakish\", he\'s just a hell of a ball player.

Like I\'ve said, JKool, I\'m not looking for the next Ray Lewis, I\'m looking for someone who has the potential to do some of the things a player like Ray Lewis can do. The odds are that Watson is only going to be an average MLB. That\'s not knocking him, either.

If you\'re willing to settle with being average at MLB, then we simply disagree. I think we need someone like a Jonathan Vilma \"type\" at middle linebacker and we would be better served with someone like Courtney Watson at OLB.

OLBs are easier to find than someone like Jonathan Vilma, but there\'s guys in the draft every year that are much more talented than Courtney Watson.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

(1) Ok, we disagree, since I am willing to have an average MLB if we can get a Lawrence Taylor for our WLB position, but I thought I already said that.

(2) At 6\'1\" 245, Lewis is a bit short, but he isn\'t \"not big\". Vilma is 20lbs lighter than Lewis and runs a slightly faster 40.

(3) I\'m willing to grant that an MLB can be more valuable than a WLB, but that depends critically on two things: (a) the scheme, and (b) your MLB is fast enough and gifted enough to play in the passing game too.

(4) You and I are looking for the same skill set. We merely disagree on which player is more likely to have it based on the position he plays. We\'re also disagreeing on where our most skilled linebacker should stand when the ball is snapped (but I think that is merely a scheming difference). You say, get him in the thick of it, and I say keep him free to be turned loose.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

I\'m a little confused here, JKool. How can you say \"freaks\" like Ray Lewis are very difficult to find, yet, you want to find someone like the biggest \"freak\" of them all in Lawrence Taylor?

Do you think guys like L.T. just grow on tress or something?

Yeah, I\'ll take a Lawrence Taylor at OLB and settle for a slightly above average MLB.

But, the best defenses of all time usually had a dominant MLB before they had a dominant OLB.

Two of the best defenses I\'ve even seen are the 85 Bears and the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. Know what both of them had in common? They both had great MLB. Mike Singletary and Ray Lewis. Not OLB.



[Edited on 1/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

JKool -- Here\'s a list of what is widely regarded as the top 10 defenses of all time.

Which played a bigger role in their defenses. OLB or MLB?

I think everyone will agree that the front 4 is where it started for all of these defenses?





1. 1976 Pittsburgh Steelers
The Steelers defenses of the 1970s are legendary, but the 1976 unit was the best (slightly better than the \'75 squad). Here\'s why: 28. That\'s how many points the Steel Curtain surrendered in the last nine games of the season. That\'s a total. As a result, Pittsburgh, which started the season 1-4, made it all the way to the AFC Championship Game, which they lost to the Raiders 24-7. (It\'s worth noting that Pittsburgh running backs Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier were both injured in that contest.)

The \'76 Steelers didn\'t have it easy -- their opponents had a .528 winning percentage. But they had these guys: Hall of Famers Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Jack Ham and Mel Blount. And eight Steelers defensive players made the 1976 Pro Bowl team: cornerback J.T. Thomas, defensive end L.C. Greenwood, Greene, Ham, Lambert, defensive back Glen Edwards, safety Mike Wagner, and Blount.

2. 1985 Chicago Bears

Mike Singletary and the Bears\' 46 defense overwhelmed opponents.
The Bears had a very good offense in 1985, but it was Buddy Ryan\'s blitzing \"46\" defense that earned this team Page 2\'s honor of greatest NFL team of all-time. The Bears, with a D anchored by middle linebacker Mike Singletary (with superb assistance from tackles William \"Refrigerator\" Perry and Dan Hampton, outside linebackers Otis Wilson and Wilbur Marshall, and DE Richard Dent), went 15-1, holding seven opponents to fewer than 10 points.

The Bears showed their ultimate mettle in the playoffs. In the NFC divisional playoff, they shut out the Giants 21-0. The next week, they won the NFC championship by goose-egging the Rams 24-0. Then, in the Super Bowl, they held the Pats to a total of seven (7) yards rushing, helping to seal a 46-10 win.

\"The Bears had a tremendous tactical advantage,\" said Bud Carson, the Steelers defensive coordinator from 1972 to 1977. \"Teams that stayed in normal offensive formations got ripped apart. At that time, I had never seen anything like the advantage the Bears enjoyed. Buddy was reckless and crazy in a good way. He had so many blitzes. Defensive coordinators dream about doing what he did. He definitely had his moment in time.\"

3. 2000 Baltimore Ravens

Ray Lewis\' Ravens roughed up the Giants in Super Bowl XXXV.
In the past quarter-century, only one defense has held opponents to fewer than 11 points per game. That team? Ray Lewis\' Ravens. In 2000, Baltimore set NFL records for fewest points allowed (165) and fewest yards rushing allowed (970) in a 16-game schedule. In addition to Lewis, who eventually was named Super Bowl MVP, Baltimore\'s defense boasted safety Rod Woodson, who was named to the NFL\'s 75th Anniversary All-Time Team.

During the regular season, the Ravens shut out four opponents, then got better in the playoffs, allowing a total of only 23 points in four games, including their 34-7 victory over the Giants in the Super Bowl. Even though they had a relatively easy regular-season schedule (opponents had only a .428 winning percentage), their playoff performance was outstanding.

As ESPN\'s John Clayton wrote last year, \"The Ravens have that rare ability to reach into the chest of an opposing offense, remove its heart, squeeze it and return it to victims like a deflated football.\"

4. 1971 Minnesota Vikings
We were tempted to put the Vikings atop this list, just because they had one of the all-time best nicknames in sports history. \"The Purple People Eaters\" held their 1971 opponents to only 9.9 points per game, capping what might be the best three-year defensive run in NFL history. (In 1970, they gave up 10.2 ppg, and in 1969 9.5, the seventh and second-lowest totals in history; the 1971 team was fourth.) Considering that their motto was \"Meet at the quarterback,\" it\'s no surprise that the Eaters held opposing QBs to a 40.4 rating, one of the lowest ever.

The Vikings, who went 11-3 before losing to the Cowboys in the divisional playoffs, shut out three opponents, and only one team scored more than 20 points against them. As a result, Alan Page became the first defensive player to ever be named NFL MVP. Carl Eller, Jim Marshall and safety Paul Krause joined Page on the All-Pro team.

5. 1962 Green Bay Packers
The great 1962 Packers had a rock-solid defense front to back, boasting an astounding five Hall of Famers: defensive linemen Willie Davis and Henry Jordan, linebacker Ray Nitschke, cornerback Herb Adderley, and safety Willie Wood. (For good measure, they also boasted a couple of other 1962 All-Pros in linebackers Dan Currie and Bill Forester.) Green Bay gave up just 10.8 points per game, shutting out opponents three times. The Packers held opposing QBs to a 43.5 rating, due, in part, to Wood\'s league-leading nine interceptions. The Packers defense allowed the Giants 291 yards in the NFL championship game, but held the Giants offense scoreless as the Packers won, 16-7 (New York scored on a blocked punt).

6. 1990 New York Giants

The Giants\' Lawrence Taylor revolutionized the linebacker position.
The Giants allowed only 13.2 points a game against a very tough schedule -- they played against seven playoff teams during the regular season. Led by Hall of Fame linebacker Lawrence Taylor, New York\'s defense also came through in the playoffs, holding the Bears to just three points in the divisional playoff game. Then they allowed a tough 49ers offense just two field goals and one TD, and set up the game-winning score by forcing a late fumble to win the NFC title 15-13. In Super Bowl XXV, the Giant defense held its own against the Bills\' no-huddle offense, and New York won 20-19.

\"The Giants drove me crazy,\" said former Redskins coach Joe Gibbs. \"They gave me the most fits. They were the opposite of Buddy Ryan\'s Bears defense. They played that soft two-deep zone that didn\'t allow any big plays. You had to earn everything you got against the Giants.\"

7. 1969 Kansas City Chiefs
The Super Bowl IV champion Chiefs boasted three future Hall of Famers on defense -- tackle Buck Buchanan and linebackers Bobby Bell and Willie Lanier -- and they earned their place on this list with a stellar postseason. But during the regular season, Hank Stram\'s \"Triple Stack\" defense, which gave the linebackers lots of room to roam, was superb, holding five opponents to fewer than 10 points and giving up an average of less than two touchdowns a game.

Then they got serious. Against the Super Bowl champion Jets in the AFL divisional playoff game at Shea Stadium, the Chiefs held on for a 13-6 victory, thanks to a remarkable three-play goal line stand that stifled the Jets on the one. After losing twice to the Raiders during the regular season, the Chiefs allowed a single touchdown, in the first quarter, to win the AFL title over Oakland 17-7. The Chiefs defense then stifled the Vikings in the Super Bowl, allowing only two rushing first downs and picking off three passes in the fourth quarter to win 23-7. Total points against the Chiefs in the playoffs: 20.

8. 1973 Miami Dolphins
The Dolphins 53/\"No Name\" Defense (\"53\" was linebacker Bob Matheson\'s number) held 11 opponents to 14 points or less, setting a record by allowing just 150 points in a 14-game season. Defensive end Bill Stanfill set a Dolphins\' sack record that still stands, with 18.5. In the playoffs and Super Bowl, they allowed only 33 points against Cincinnati, Oakland and Minnesota. Stanfill, Manny Fernandez, Hall of Fame middle linebacker Nick Buoniconti, and safeties Dick Anderson (AP Defensive Player of the Year) and Jake Scott were all named to the 1973 All-Pro team.

Before facing the Dolphins in Super Bowl VIII, Vikings QB Fran Tarkenton oozed confidence, saying he\'d solved the 53. \"I think you\'ve got to prepare for the 53 defense, you\'ve got to make it so the Dolphins don\'t know what to expect. I\'m sure we\'ll prepare a little bit different.\" It didn\'t work. The Vikings lost 24-7, scoring their only TD in the fourth quarter.

9. 1963 Chicago Bears
In 1963, Bears defensive coach George Allen came up with a new zone defense against the pass, befuddling opponents. With Doug Atkins and Ed O\'Bradovich pressuring opposing QBs from their defensive end slots, and Bill George and Larry Morris defending against short passes from the linebacker position, the Bears picked off 36 passes, and allowed just 10.3 points and 227 yards per game. The Bears went on to win the NFL championship, thanks to the D. In the title game against Y.A. Tittle and the Giants, who had the best offense in the NFL, Chicago\'s five picks were the key, as the Bears won 14-

10. 1975 Los Angeles Rams
Fred Dryer. Jack Youngblood. Merlin Olson. Get the idea? They weren\'t the \"Fearsome Foursome,\" but with those guys anchoring the defensive line, and All-Pros Isiah Robertson (linebacker) and Dave Elmendorf (safety), the Rams were almost impossible to score against. The Rams went 12-2, holding opponents to just 9.6 points a game, (the second-lowest average in NFL history) and ending the season with a six-game winning streak during which they gave up just 32 points. The defense wasn\'t as impressive in the postseason, surrendering 23 points in a first-round victory over the Cardinals before losing 37-23 to the Cowboys in the NFC title game.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/bestNFLdefense.html

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

Good food for thought. I\'m still undecided, but MLB has moved up in relative importance for me. One thing to note about many of those defenses is their innovations in schemes. Thus, maybe the deciding factor is the scheme and not the name of the position that determines the importance of the the position. It is still my view that the \"free\" backer is the most valuable. Notice that Urlacher\'s performance dropped off when Washington left - I suspect Urlacher\'s \"freedom\" was seriously limited when that happened.

Good point about LT, he was a freak too. I\'ll think on that.

I\'ll just go back to my list of playmaking OLBs (most of which play the WLB spot) and ask are there as many playmaking MLBs in the league right now?

Nicely done. I\'m off to teach, so we\'ll have to get back to it later. Cheers.

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

JKool --

Here\'s a list of defensive MVP since 1971 that can be used in the debate. It\'s a tough call to make. But, I still like a dominant MLB. Those speed rushers off the edge are a lot easier to find. Like a Pat Swilling or Lawrence Taylor.


NFL Defensive Player of the Year

The Associated Press has been honoring the Defensive Player of the Year since 1971!
1971 - Alan Page, DT Minnesota
1972 - Joe Greene, DT Pittsburgh
1973 - Dick Anderson, S Miami
1974 - Joe Greene, DT Pittsburgh
1975 - Mel Blount, CB Pittsburgh
1976 - Jack Lambert, LB Pittsburgh
1977 - Harvey Martin, DE Dallas
1978 - Randy Gradishar, LB Denver
1979 - Lee Roy Selmon, DE Tampa Bay
1980 - Lester Hayes, CB Oakland
1981 - Lawrence Taylor, LB NY Giants
1982 - Lawrence Taylor, LB NY Giants
1983 - Doug Betters, DE Miami
1984 - Kenny Easley, S Seattle
1985 - Mike Singletary, LB Chicago
1986 - Lawrence Taylor, LB NY Giants
1987 - Reggie White, DE Philadelphia
1988 - Mike Singletary, LB Chicago
1989 - Keith Millard, DT Minnesota
1990 - Bruce Smith, DE Buffalo
1991 - Pat Swilling, LB New Orleans
1992 - Cortez Kennedy, DT Seattle
1993 - Rod Woodson, CB Pittsburgh
1994 - Deion Sanders, CB San Francisco
1995 - Bryce Paup, LB Buffalo
1996 - Bruce Smith, DE Buffalo
1997 - Dana Stubblefield, DT San Francisco
1998 - Reggie White, DE Green Bay
1999 - Warren Sapp, DT Tampa Bay
2000 - Ray Lewis, LB Baltimore
2001 - Michael Strahan, DE NY Giants
2002 - Derrick Brooks, LB Tampa Bay
2003 - Ray Lewis, LB Baltimore
2004 - Ed Reed, S Baltimore

Saints' linebackers (all of 'em)
 

yeah, lawrence taylor\'s are a dime a dozen. you can get them anywhere.