JKool

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