Nothing but linebacker talk!

JKool · 04-01-2005, 04:04 PM

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?

GumboBC · 04-01-2005, 04:16 PM

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]

JKool · 04-01-2005, 04:28 PM

Ok, now we agree on everything but this:

The point is that a MLB needs to be fast just like a WLB

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.

GumboBC · 04-01-2005, 04:33 PM

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.

JKool · 04-01-2005, 04:44 PM

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.

GumboBC · 04-01-2005, 04:49 PM

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.

JKool · 04-01-2005, 08:43 PM

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

And I have argued against that.

04-01-2005, 04:04 PM	#61
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	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?
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-01-2005, 04:16 PM	#62
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	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]
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-01-2005, 04:28 PM	#63
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Nothing but linebacker talk! Ok, now we agree on everything but this: The point is that a MLB needs to be fast just like a WLB 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.
	"... I was beating them with my eyes the whole game..." - Aaron Brooks

04-01-2005, 04:33 PM	#64
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	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.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-01-2005, 04:44 PM	#65
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	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.

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

04-01-2005, 04:49 PM	#66
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616	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.
GumboBC Banned Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,616

04-01-2005, 08:43 PM	#67
JKool 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 2,423	Nothing but linebacker talk! As I\'ve stated ... A MLB NEEDS to have everything a WLB has PLUS have a much more physical game. And I have argued against that.