baronm

of our linebackers-watson is the strongest.

JKool

1. I agree with you on the FS point (in gernal, again it depends on how the calls are made).

I think that there are three things that matter as to who calls the plays - 1. The guys should be toward the middle of the defense often (like a LB or SS), 2. he should be able to see most of the feild pretty well (unlike a CB or a DLman), and 3. he should be on the field most of the time.

Thus, it depends on what kind of player you have a MLB. If you have a Ruff style MLB (who isn\'t usually involved in coverage, and is most often used to play the run), he should not be the playcaller. If you have a Brookings style MLB, then he should be the playcaller as he will not come out on passing downs.

Furthermore, I don\'t see that this makes the MLB job more difficult than the WLB job, since the WLB could call the defensive plays as easily as the MLB or the SS?

2. Ruff cannot play WLB. I don\'t see what your point is? There are some guys who can switch from WLB to MLB - like Brooking out of college, and some guys who can switch from MLB to WLB, like Watson maybe (or Brooking actually).

Here is another way to make the same kind of argument. MLB can be played by pylons like Ruff. WLB cannot. In fact, if you look at the MLBs around the league, there are a lot more \"run stuffers\" at MLB for example Draft, than there are mere \"run stuffers\" at WLB.

Sure there are guys like Urlacher and Brooking (and Peterson) that can more than likely play both MLB and WLB. However, I don\'t see what that has to do with anything. In fact, do you think Ray Lewis would be well suited to play WLB? I don\'t know what I think about that.

Sure Bockwoldt isn\'t going to be playing MLB, but is Ruff going to play WLB? No. So, as near as I can figure this \"moving guys around\" doesn\'t show that one position requires more skills than the other without some some additional analysis.

3. In some defensive schemes, the MLB doesn\'t have to be fast at all. Plays are made by the other two LBs. MLB merely breaks up the blocking, the way that the SLB does in our scheme.

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

GumboBC

JKool --

For the sake of keeping this simple .. let me just say this:

Given the FACT that the MLB has more and bigger blockers to take on to get to the ball-carrier, I think it takes a physical presence there much more so than WLB.

Is Watson that guy? Impossible to say for sure, but I\'m pretty sure Watson can play WLB. However, I\'m not sure Watson is better than Bockwoldt. Colby is faster than Watson and that\'s for sure.

And regardless of Waton\'s size and power, he didn\'t play very physical last year. I really think it\'s more of an attitude than anything else and Watson doesn\'t seem to have that MLB \"attitude.\"

I think there are many more guys in the NFL that are better suited to play WLB than MLB.

You have all kinds of MLB in this league that get the job done. Sometimes their weaknesses are masked by their teammates.

But, my opinion is that the MLB position is the harder position to play when everything is taken into consideraton.

Watson struggled last year. Colby shinned more. Why? Becuase MLB is more demading from a physical standpoint. And being physical is just as much about attitude as it is size. Ask Sam Mills about that.

4saintspirit

I\'m not sure where this thread is/has been going so I am going to just make one last comment --

I cannot say whose job is the most difficult because I think that depends on way too many factors -- putting that aside and going to the linebacker talk - while I cannot say MLB versus WLB or whatever is more demanding I can say this -- I do not think our linebackers are anything special and it would not upset me if we got a whole new set of them. Since that\'s not going to happen I guess we are stcuk with what we have and better hope they are athletic, strong and smart enough to play

\"I have a photographic memory -- I just don\'t have any film.\"

GumboBC

Just to tidy up the point I was trying to make:

I don\'t know that I think MLB is any more important than any position on defense.

However, I think Courtney Watson could struggle more than BockWoldt. Just due to the physical nature of the MLB position.

Colby really doesn\'t need to be as physical. He just needs to be able to chase down the RB primarily.

I suppose that\'s why I\'m more concerned about Watson. Nothing against Watson, but I hope he proves my concerns wrong.

JKool

4ss, I\'m inclined to agree with you, except on Watson. He is a starter in this league (even if it is at WLB and not MLB) on many teams if he isn\'t on this one.

Billy,

I agree with everything in that last post except these two things (PS - you don\'t have to put FACT in all caps, I already agreed with you on that point):

And this:

There are many other possible reasons that Colby \"shined\" more, including these - a. less was expected of Colby, b. our scheme favors the free ability of the WLB, c. Colby is better built to play the WLB than Watson is to play the MLB, and d. the learning curve (intellectually) for the inside position is higher in our scheme. I\'m sure there are others. You cannot have your conclusion that \"MLB is more demanding from a physical standpoint\" until you rule out at least those competing possibilities.

Furthermore, you keep equating having to shed blockers with being more demanding physically. I don\'t see any reason for that identification.

My view is that given Watson\'s speed, size, and tackling ability he would be suited to play WLB. However, we have even less evidence he\'d be good at WLB than he would be solid at MLB. He played MLB last season and did alright as a rookie. He has never taken a snap at WLB. Thus, your and my suspicion that he\'d be good at WLB appears to me totally unfounded - the main difference, your view seems to be based on what it takes to play MLB vs. WLB (and I could be wrong about your view on that) and mine is based on his physical attributes and my judgement about the WLB position (which I actually think is more demanding overall - though I agree that hasn\'t been well argued either).

Truth be told, I would have been happy getting Hartwell to play the middle and putting Watson outside, but I\'d be just as happy keeping Watson inside if we could get Bullock !

I guess we agree on this: Watson hasn\'t shined yet.

You think that means we should move him outside where you believe it is easier. I think that keep him inside or move him outside, he\'d better get better if we\'re going to have a solid defense (and I\'d bet you\'d agree).

Finally, I believe this point still holds:
[Edited on 31/3/2005 by JKool]

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

Thanks for tidying up a bit.

The WLB\'s job isn\'t merely to chase down the RB from time to time. If that were the case, I can clearly see why you\'d think the MLB position is more physically demanding than the WLB\'s.

GumboBC

JKool --

No more CAPS on \"fact\"..


I\'ll give you this. You are very good at bringing up the other side of the arguement.

For instance. I could say that playing CB takes much more speed than the FS postion. And you could say that\'s not really true. You could say that the FS needs just as much speed and give me all kinds of reasons and it could sound like a good arguement. But just because it sounds good doesn\'t mean its true.

Like when I say a MLB has it much tougher when taking on blockers. You\'ve given all kinds of reasons why that MIGHT not be true. But it just doesn\'t hold water.

You might can take a few select plays here or there and your arguement would hold up. But when you take a whole game or a whole season into account, then I think the facts swing towards supporting my arguement.

It seems to me, JKool, that you are trying to prove a theory that the MLB doesn\'t need to be physical or something that tends to go against conventional wisdom.

While that\'s good in theory, I don\'t think we need to reinvent the wheel. What we need is MLB that can punch someone in the mouth and lay a hit on the ball carrier.

Finesse at the MLB position is for the birds.

JKool

1. It seems to me like I\'ve been agreeing all along that that MLB needs to be physical. My point was the difference in physicality between the WLB and the MLB isn\'t as great as you appeared to be making it sound - that was my point about the WLB having to take on blockers more often than you made it out. I wasn\'t trying to suggest that he usually does - in fact, I agreed with that a long time ago - the WLB is usually the uncovered LB. In fact, I said this:
In response to you earlier.

2. I agree that that would be all well and good, but I don\'t agree that we NEED that. Ruff can lay a hit on a ball carrier, we\'ve both seen him do it. So can Allen. Should we move him to MLB?

"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

JKool

Also,

I don\'t remember doing that. I agreed that the MLB has to take on the blockers. My point was that the MLB doesn\'t have to be the playmaker at the LB position. In fact, it can just as easily fall to the WLB exactly because he is uncovered.