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.

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.

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. :D

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

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?

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.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

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.

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]

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

I can think of one thing the WLB does more often than the MLB -- that is blitzing --

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]

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, 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.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

Why would you think the physical game is harder to play than the finesse game (to use your distinctions)?

Let me remind you of an earlier part of our discussion:

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

COURTNEY WATSON
Position: ILB
Class: Sr
School: Notre Dame
Conference: I-A Ind.
Ht., Wt.: 6\'1½, 237
40 Time: 4.56
Grade: 3.62

COLBY BOCKWOLDT
Position: OLB
Class: Sr
School: BYU
Conference: MWC
Ht., Wt.: 6\'1½, 230
40 Time: 4.58
Grade: 3.29

Is it really \"for sure\" that Bockwoldt is faster than Watson?
I like both of these young guys. (Not enough to be sold on our LB corps.) The thing is Gumbo, you talk like the jury is in on Watson. He was a rookie last year. I mean, have you broken down reels and reels of film on him? I think of all the things you\'ve mentioned, Courtney may have had a higher learning curve last year. Colby certainly was a pleasant surprise, but I didn\'t think Watson stunk up the place.

The good part of all this is that our youngest LBs outplayed our vets last year, which may be a hint of things to come. There seems to be a focus on Watson as a negative. Give the dude some time to get in there. Compared to our recent acqusitions, the kid had a good first year. These 2 young guys did more in 04 than Cie Grant or Hodge have ever done for the Saints. If we get a solid LB or 2 in this year\'s draft there could be a nice corps in place for the next few years. I\'m just saying to give Watson another year and see where he is.

Oh, and I enjoyed the strong side/weak side discussion. I\'ve always just looked for the TE or the offset back :)

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

Seeing how we\'re going to have Howard and W. Smith next season, what about using W. Smith as a MLB on short yardage/run formations similar to Bellichick\'s player usage? He\'s not too big, has great instinct, and he can still rotate in with the D-Line.

From what I\'ve seen, Watson is definitely a starter at MLB which leaves Hodge and Allen to play the SLB and WLB.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

I agree. From a logical standpoint you can only argue one position is \"tougher\" to play than another if this position required all the skills of the other position plus another one the other position doesn\'t. That\'s obviously untrue in football.
In my mind it isn\'t easier to play WLB, you just have different resposibilities. While the MLB might have to take on blockers to direct the play in a certain direction, the WLB has to position himself correctly to make the tackle or take away short routes for quick passes.
I\'m not thrilled with Watson\'s play last season, but he has room to grow. Let\'s see what he can do if our DTs allow him to make plays more often or what he can do if he added 10 pounds of muscle (don\'t know if he did).
Your major criticism of Watson is that he\'s not physical and aggressive enough. Aggressiveness can only be taught and aquired through training to a certain point, but I feel the lack of physical play can be blamed on him being a rookie. That\'s why DTs are sometimes overwhelmed in their first year. Let him come back this year and show us what he can do now that he knows what is expected of a MLB in the NFL.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

Well put Clone. I agree.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

Wow. I didn\'t know that.
First, Watson was too small. WRONG
Then Watson was too slow. WRONG
Then Watson \"isn\'t physical enough\".WRONG
What the hell is next?

I love these LB discussions. Lets take our best LB and severely over-analyze the philosophy and nuances of every aspect of each and every position to come to the conclusion we all knew from the start.

Watson was a rookie and at times looked like it. But he was playing MLB as a rookie in the NFL.

Lets ignore the fact that we have the village idiot at SLB and his back-up is about as tough as our kicker.

Lets ignore the fact that we have a weak rookie 7th rounder who will get destroyed vesus power teams playing WLB and his back-up will soon wears depends.

Yea, lets talk about how unimpressed we are with Watson. But qualify it with a \"maybe he will, maybe he won\'t\" cop-out.

You could say maybe for every single one of our LB\'s. I\'d say we maybe have one solid LB prospect on this team. Maybe we have one LB that would make any other NFL roster.

This is approaching agenda territory. Its old.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

Sure, Danno, I have an agenda. If that\'s what you think .. then maybe I do.

But, I don\'t think I have an agenda, I\'m just not sold on Watson as much as you are. If not agreeing with you makes me have an agenda ... then put me down for that. :D

I\'m still sticking to my claim that the MLB position requires a much more physical presence than the WLB position. And I\'m sticking to my claim that playing WLB is much more about speed rather than strength and size.

In todays NFL the WLB must have speed. He doesn\'t need to be very big or physical. But he had better have enough speed to chase down the RB and be able to cover down the field.

In other words, the WLB and the stong saftey are very simular in terms of skill sets.

That\'s not true for a MLB. The MLB needs to be bigger or at least more physical.

[Edited on 1/4/2005 by GumboBC]

[Edited on 1/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

My point exactly. :)


Interesting that, on paper, these 2 rookies are as close to clones as you\'ll get. I\'d be interested to see the bench reps for both of them.

I just think Watson may be on his way to being a solid LB and our team has bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether he arm tackled some guys during his rookie year or missed some assignments.

That as opposed to all the big plays and not missed assigments of the new dome patrol....Derrick Rodgers, Orlando Ruff, and Sedrick Hodge.

All I know is the last few years, there have been very few game changing plays by Saint LBs. There was one every game the last few games of the year. James Allen even impressed me by being in on a few turnovers.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

That is NOT what the Kirwan quote said. It said that the WLB has to be more like an SS. More like an SS than what? Than it used to be? Than the SLB? The quote does not say that the WLB is an SS. Here is a possible reading: they used to have to be like the SLB, but now, with all the open formation, they also have to be more like an SS. Now whose job is harder? The WLB has to be an SLB and an SS. Don\'t get me wrong, I don\'t think that, but I don\'t see how you can conclude that the WLB doesn\'t have to be big or physical (merely speedy) from the quote you gave.

Again, look at Brooking. Speed, size, and strength, and they decided he\'d be better off playing WLB than MLB - at MLB you have Draft who has some strength.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

JKool --

I did NOT say Kirwan said that. That was merely my opinion and I used what Kirwan said as evidence to support my opinion.

Here\'s something else that I think supports my opinion?

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

My point was that the Kirwan quote did not support your view; perhaps I phrased that poorly.

Also, we already agreed that the MLB has to be more physical and stronger than the weakside backer. So, this most recent quote didn\'t add anything either.

The dispute is about the relative difference between the MLB and WLB in terms of speed, power, etc. I think we already established that we agree that the MLB must be stronger than the WLB. We also established that the WLB has to play more of a finesse game.

You seem to think that this makes the MLB job tougher/more difficult/more important/whathaveyou (and I suggest you pick one and say what you mean by that, since I still maintain this is the source of our disagreement). I still think that the fact that the positions require different skill sets makes it hard (impossible?) to evaluate which one is harder.

Furthermore, this point about the MLB being heavier is readily disputed by NFL players. There are many MLBs who are lighter and shorter than a good number of WLBs. Perhaps it is true in general, but it certainly isn\'t a requirement. Yet, once again, I still agree that strength is more critical to an MLB than it is to a WLB.

Finally, do you think scouts don\'t think it is a major concern as to whether a WLB can get to the ball? Are they thinking, \"oh, he\'s just a WLB, who cares if he can get to the ball?\" What about consistent tackling? \"Oh, he\'s just a WLB, he can be an inconsistent tackler.\"

Here is the difference between MLBs and WLBs: MLBs more often have to play in traffic, WLBs more often have to play pass defense and make open field tackles. Why does this make one guy\'s job harder? Again, is it harder to play DT than CB?

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

JKool --

Sorry for getting away from our points of difference.

Let me try to address it again ...

I do think MLB is harder to play than WLB. But mainly from a physical stand-point.

Middle linebackers have to take on offensive linemen while getting to the ball. MLB don\'t just sit there and wait on the ball carrier. They run through the line of scrimmage (where offensive linemen are) and they must be physical enough so they don\'t get dominated at the point of attack.

The WLB just doesn\'t have to deal with as much traffic as a MLB. They play in space and have a lot of room to make plays. If you want to say that makes their job tougher, then that case can be made.

However, that really doesn\'t have anything to do with what I\'m talking about. The point is that a MLB needs to be fast just like a WLB but he really needs to be more physical to take care of business in the middle of the defense.



[Edited on 1/4/2005 by GumboBC]

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

Ok, now we agree on everything but this:

And we only disagree if you mean \"must be as fast.\" Ruff can start at MLB (for two different teams) and is not as fast as many (if not all) starting WLBs.

I agree a good MLB must be quick at the line to avoid blockers, disrupt plays, etc., but that does not (in my mind) translate into must be as fast (or even nearly as fast) as a good WLB. Raw speed at MLB seems to me to be an advantage, but not a necessity, whereas at WLB raw speed isn\'t merely a luxury.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

JKool --

My postion is that a MLB doesn\'t HAVE to be as fast but he NEEDS to be as fast.

Slow MLBs, like Orlando Ruff, are a liability in pass coverage. And offenses love to take advantage of that. That\'s why teams don\'t want the Orlando Ruffs of the world.

And lets face it, offenses pass on 1st and 2nd downs when the MLB is on the field. You want a slow MLB on the field?

I think not !!

But, back to my point.

I think Courtney Watson might struggle more due to the physical nature of the MLB postion. Where as Bockwoldt might progress much more because he can use his natural instints and speed to make plays.

And I believe that\'s exactly what happend last year.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

Ok, we more or less agree.

The level of liability of a slow MLB depends on the scheme, but I agree, in general, it is good to have a strong, tough, fast, and instinctive MLB - but I think that about all the positions.

I already said what I think about your analysis of Watson and Bockwoldt\'s success (or lack thereof earlier).

Interesting discussion, but I\'m not sure what more there is to say on this matter.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

JKool --

Mainly I brought up this discussion because I always here people comparing Waton\'s and Colby\'s size, speed, instincts, etc., ect...

Some want to say Watson is the most likely to step his game up over any of the other LBs.

But, I never here anyone talk about the differences in the physical nature of the MLB when compared to the WLB position.

I think that is a mistake.

As I\'ve stated ... A MLB NEEDS to have everything a WLB has PLUS have a much more physical game.

Nothing but linebacker talk!
 

And I have argued against that.