New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com - Nothing but linebacker talk!

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)

- Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)

- - Nothing but linebacker talk! (https://blackandgold.com/saints/8342-nothing-but-linebacker-talk.html)

Nothing but linebacker talk!

There are many members here at B&G that I hold in high regard when it comes to their football knowledge.

Some of you other chumps I don't know about ... ;) (it's a joke. no one get offended)

There's one subject on here that really interests me and I'd like to discuss it.

It's been debated before but I feel it's so important to this upcoming season that I would like to discuss it again.

What is it?

The linebacker positions. All of 'em.

Now, I know Danno loves to discuss LBs so I hope he will jump in here. As well as everyone else.

Speaking of Danno, he's the main reason I want to discuss this subject.

Okay ...

We've got 3-linebacker positions:

1. MLB
2. SLB
3. WLB

Some say that they're more comfortable with Watson's ability at MLB than our other LBs.

I've heard it be said that Watson is the most likely to step it up.

But, I disagee and here's why.

MLB, I feel, is the more difficult of all the linebacker positions.

And that automatically puts more pressure on Watson at MLB than Bockwoldt at WLB or Allen at SLB. Even if he is the most talented, I think the position demands more talent than the other LB positions.

The reason I feel more comfortable with Bockwoldt has a lot to do with the differences in responsibilites at WLB when compared to MLB.

The WLB plays on the weak side of the offense. Which means he's left unaccouted for in the blocking scheme of the offesne. In other words. the WLB plays in space and doesn't have to be nearly as physical as the MLB. Or even the SLB.

The WLB has more to do with speed and less to do with physical ability.

Starting to get the picture?

The MLB really needs to be much more physical but that's not all that's required. He also needs to be fast enough to chase down the runner from sideline to sideline. And he's got to do that against offenses that designate blockers especially for him. And he also has to drop back in pass coverage at times.

Picture becoming more clear?

As far as the SLB. His job is to play on the strong side of the offensive formation. But, his job maily consists of taking on blockers and disrupting the plays and allow one of the other LBs to make the tackle. And, of course, he should make the tackle if he can.

I feel very strongly that Watson is most suspect because of the nature of the MLB position.

Thoughts?

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

MLB, I feel, is the more difficult of all the linebacker positions.

I\'m glad you feel that way, but I don\'t. It is obvious to me that NO position is harder or easier than any other position on the defense. Each position requires a different set of skills from the others - each of which has its own nuances and difficulties to master.

Thus, we must constrain what you mean by \"more difficult\".

The last time we had this discussion, you seemed to come down on this fact: the biggest difference between WLB and MLB is that the MLB has to do his job in traffic.

I agree... sort of.

The WLB is not left unaccounted for by the offense, he is just left unaccounted for in some kinds of plays - like middle runs or strong runs. Believe me, someone is supposed to block him when the run goes backside.

Furthermore, it is much easier to make a tackle in the middle of the field with lots of bodies around where it is much harder for the RB to make moves - for example when he hits the hole. If the MLB is doing his job, he hits the RB when there is less room for moves, less momentum, and the RB is still looking to make a move to the open field. THAT is easier, not harder.

Sure, the MLB has to shed blocks more often than the WLB IF HE IS THE ONLY GUY TO MAKE THE PLAY. The reason that no one is excited about the SLB is that sometimes it is his job to take on the block, so the other LBs can make the play. Guess what? That is sometimes the MLB\'s job. Thus, if one of the linemen works through on a trap, sometimes it is the MLBs job to blow up the block and the WLBs (or SSs) job to make the play in the middle.

This view of what makes a position, namely the MLB, harder just isn\'t doing it for me. It is too simple to say it is harder becuase he has to play in traffic. First, I don\'t think it is true, and second even if it is true some of the time, it isn\'t often enough for me to concede your point.

Not only that, MLBs don\'t have to chase sideline to sideline - that depends on the scheme. In fact, that is usually the WLB and SS\'s job. This is why \"meat-heads\" like Ruff can play MLB.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

It is obvious to me that NO position is harder or easier than any other position on the defense.

You really surprise me with that statement, JKool. Do you actually believe that?

It would be nice if all positions were created equal. But, IMHO, that\'s hardly the case.

You think the FS postion is as difficult as CB? Come on man?!

Quote:

The WLB is not left unaccounted for by the offense, he is just left unaccounted for in some kinds of plays - like middle runs or strong runs. Believe me, someone is supposed to block him when the run goes backside.

Look at it how you wish, JKool. But, while the WLB might be the focus of the blocking scheme on some plays, he is left unaccouted for much more than either the SLB or MLB. The WLB and SLB adjust alignment before the offense runs the play and therefore that defines the weakside and the strong side. And deterimies, in large part, who is accounted for in the blocking scheme.

I\'ll stop with this for now and let you address it.

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Nothing but linebacker talk!

I\'ll weigh in here -- first of all Joe is correct when he says that each position has its own nuances etc. I also believe he is correct when he says that its not fair to say what is easier or harder as a position -- it changes per team based on the defensive scheme -- the other players etc. What I think is correct and maybe this is what you actually mean Gumbo (not to put words in your mouth) is that certain positions are more important and key to the defense. For example -- a skilled MLB can make much more of an impact than the other 2 linebackers -- that I can agree with -- and with that I would say that we need someone more skilled than Watson

Nothing but linebacker talk!

(1) My point about difficulty was this: it is difficult to assess which position is harder to play/perform the duties of since they are all designed to do different things. Thus, claiming one is harder than another is a three place relation not two. E.g.:

x is harder than y on task z (a three place relation)
x is hader than y, simpliciter (a two place relation)

Thus, my challenge for you was to consider the three place question rather than merely asserting the two place one.

FS is more difficult than CB in diagnosing plays, but CB is more difficult than FS in coverage FOR CERTAIN.

Thus, my claim was this: if you assess all the dimensions of a position, you will quickly find that it is hard to say which position is more difficult than another - perhaps they are all the same was a bit of an overstatement, but more analysis is necessary either way.

(2) The SLB and WLB switch to the strong and weak sides of the play in many cases, but I don\'t see what that has to do with my point - roughly 2/3 of the time the WLB is left unaccounted for (except perhaps by a crack-back from the WR), but 1/3 of the time (roughly) he is treated the way the SLB is (and the SLB is left unaccounted for). In fact, on strong sweeps, the WLB and the MLB are left unaccounte for.

I\'m just having trouble deciding what difference it really makes who is accounted for and who isn\'t. Defenses are designed so that a DE or LB (of one kind or another) will make a play on the ball (whether QB or RB). This isn\'t \"usually\" one guy as opposed to another. Furthermore, the WLB is expected to stop the ball carrier as often (or more often) than the MLB.

(3) Go back to our Brooking example from the last time we went through this. If MLB is so darned important, why did they move him outside and put Draft in the middle - who is both smaller and less productive than Brooking? It is because their defense, like many is designed so that the WLB can be a playmaker. Draft blows up the blocks and keeps guys off Brooking so he can stick the ball!

(4) Thanks for allowing me some time to reply before the onslaught - it is easier in bite-sized chunks, isn\'t it?

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

Thanks for your input. But that\'s not what I mean at all.

Here\'s the deal:

There\'s a fundamental difference in all 3 positions.

First, all we all clear on what \"weakside\" and strongside\" mean?

The weakside of the offense means that there is one less blocker on that side of the field. And sometimes TWO less blockers. And that\'s where the WLB plays. So that means the WLB has fewer blockers to take on.

All that shifting by the defense before the play is run is usually the SLB and the WLB shifting to the formation of the offense.

Simply put, it\'s a lot less demanding in terms of taking on blockers for the WLB.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

4ss.

Thanks for weighing in. I\'m glad to see that we more-or-less agree.

Here is my impact list on defense:
DE
DT
OLB
DE
CB
MLB
DT
OLB or SS
SS or OLB
FS
CB

That is, if I were picking in the absence of other information, this is the order in which I would stock my defense. I want my best defensive player to be a DE, then a DT, and so on. Thus, I think this would roughly mirror the kind of impact a stud would have. A stud DE would have a significantly greater impact than a stud SS, for example.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

The weakside of the offense means that there is one less blocker on that side of the field. And sometimes TWO less blockers. And that\'s where the WLB plays. So that means the WLB has fewer blockers to take on.

Strictly speaking that isn\'t quite right. The strong/weakside determination is made by the defensive playcaller (or the coach) and it is made on the basis of a few things - wideside of the field, position of the FB, position of the TE, often the strength of the G-T pair on that side of the line (since they don\'t switch sides) and sometimes the handedness of the QB.

Thus, it is possible that the side with the TE could be the weakside, under some condition.

More often than not, you are correct though.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

JKool --

One of us is confused on what is weakside and what is strongside.

Here\'s my understanding:

The strongside and weakside is ALWAYS determined by the offense. And the defense adjusts accordingly.

There are some defenses that are using a rightside LB and a leftside LB that never switch formations because they can play either position.

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by GumboBC]

Nothing but linebacker talk!

stupid question but we play MIK, WIK, and SIK (i think)--are those the same designations as SLB, MLB, and WLB?

I have always heard that the MLB is the quarterback on defense..they make the reads, and thus make the calls...

also-the MLB has to deal with the guards...whereas the SLB has to deal (usually) with the TE....

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

You are absolutely correct, sir.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

I also agree that the front guys are more important than the backfeild....atleast in player evaluation..but LB is more important than dt.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Bellamy calls our defensive plays, not the MLB.

Second, Billy, I\'m not wrong about this as far as I can tell. When I coached and played, the strong side designation was made in exactly the way I described. Our FS, WLB, or DE made the defensive calls (depending on who had the most leader-like traits that year); this was because those guys rarely, if ever, leave the field, unlike the MLB.

Defensive calls are set up this way - Strongside call, Linecalls (like stunts, Xs, and so on), LB blitzes, LB coverage assignments, DB coverage scheme.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

Breaking Down NFL Defenses
..in search of productive fantasy players
by John Norton

All of us fantasy geeks have come across the term \"product of the system\" at some point in our journeys. There are a slew of former high school players among us who have some basic understanding when it comes to positional responsibilities, and a few guys who played beyond high school who really get it. Yet rare is the fan or fantasy owner who never played, but is enough a student of the game to fully understand the nuances of the various schemes and/or positions within the many schemes. IDP owners who truly understand what players are asked to do, have a big advantage when digging for those middle to late rounds guys who make or break their teams, or determining their best starting options from week to week. Hop aboard my magic carpet and lets ride through the various NFL defenses and take a look at the little things that might make a world of difference between them. Maybe I can shed some light for those who find themselves scratching their heads now and then when it comes to IDP production. Believe it or not, there is a method to the madness!

Offensive formations and tendencies
One of the many important things to understand is the effect offensive formations and tendencies can have on a defensive players production. In most cases, the offense dictates the play and tempo on the field to the defense as defensive coaches get into a \"read and react mode\". They see what personnel the offense has on the field which in turn tells them what formations the \"O\" is likely to run, then try to match up the correct defensive call or personnel. Obviously, calls change from play to play depending on the situation, but often a fantasy owner can play off a team\'s tendencies when making a tough lineup decision. For example, an offense like the Raiders spreads defenses out on the field with a wide open passing game often utilizing 3 or 4 receivers nearly every play. This dictates to defenses that they must play a nickel package (4-2-5) as their base defense that week. Which in turn means one of the normal starting linebackers isn\'t going to see much action, and the nickel back becomes a candidate to lead the club in tackles that week. When facing a team like the Raiders, a good run-stuffing MLB who is poor defending the pass, probably won\'t perform well. A perfect example of the other side of the coin is any Bill Parcells coached team. When the Tuna coaches a game there are two players who have immediate value. The starting running back for the Tuna and the middle linebacker of the opposing defense. Parcells never changes his philosophy. Run and play D, the wins will come. He challenges his players to be more physical than the other team and they will run the ball relentlessly, regardless of the score. The #3 receiver in a Parcells coached offense is kind of like the Maytag repair man. His slot receivers don\'t see the field as often as they would in other offenses. Parcells emphasizes formations that call for two TE\'s or a TE and FB except in more obvious passing situations. Against this type of offense, corners who don\'t support the run well are usually non-factors while any decent linebacker or strong safety should clean up. The problem we run into here is the unpredictability of the NFL. Some teams say they like to run, but don\'t consistently commit to it. They get behind a little (or a lot) and its pass, pass, pass the rest of the way. Any Corey Dillon owner can attest to this..

Determining the strong side
Its surprising how few people really understand the term \"strong side\". Every year I have someone ask me why a fantasy productive strong side linebacker is so rare and why then is a strong safety often is at the head of the DB class? Let\'s start with what determines the strong side of the offensive formation. When the huddle breaks and players come to the line of scrimmage, the defender responsible for making the play call (usually the MLB) must call out the strong side of the formation so that everyone (particularly the front 7) lines up correctly. In the simplest of terms, the strong side can be identified by where the tight end lines up. However, in the pro game it usually isn\'t quite that simple. Double tight ends, no tight ends, balanced formations, spread formations with the TE lined up in the slot, etc... all make it a little more complicated. The term \"strong side\" is meant to describe the side of the formation that has the most blockers, therefore that side presents the biggest threat for the defense on a running play. The progression a defensive play caller must go through in a matter of seconds could go like this... A single TE lined up next to the tackle? Easy call. If there are double tight ends or no tight ends (a balanced line), he will look into the backfield for a single running back lined up to one side of the QB. With two backs in the backfield, and the tailback behind the QB and a fullback to either side, the fullback side is the strong side. If the backs are split behind the QB (pro-formation) or in a straight line directly behind the QB (I-formation), the play caller looks to the receivers. In short yardage we often see double TE, I-formation with strong side determined by a third TE or receiver lined up slightly behind and outside at one end, or split wide. In a three receiver set with both the line and backfield balanced, the slot receiver becomes the determining factor. Last but not least, if the line, backfield and receivers are balanced, the wide side of the field is considered strong. There are some situational and/or scheme related exceptions to these general rules but these are the most common reads or progressions for defensive players.

Defensive sets
Most IDP owners are generally familiar with the two common defensive sets used in the NFL. While there are variations of each, every NFL club except for the Rams uses either the 4-3 or 3-4 alignment. Each scheme employs a different defensive approach or strategy, so let\'s examine how the various differences between these two common schemes can effect the production of the players in them. The old guard standard defense commonly used in the pro ranks is the 4-3-4, which means 4 down linemen, 3 linebackers and 4 defensive backs. Twenty six clubs (maybe 27 if the Rams can get some production out of their linebackers this year) will employ some variation of the 4-3 while only 5 clubs (Pit, Bal, NE, Hou & Atl) currently use a 3-4-4 (3 DL, 4 LB, 4 DB). There are some teams switch back and forth depending on situations, but generally each team has a base defense which they play the majority of the time. One team that is currently considering a switch is Minnesota, because their talent level at LB is now much stronger than along the line. There have been a hand full of teams over the years, such as the Rams last season, who use yet another base formation.. In 02 the Rams went with a 4-1-6 that was similar to the defense played by the \'85 Bears. The difference being that the Bears did it by design while the Rams turned to it out of desperation when their linebackers played so poorly. Then again, when you have a standout defensive player like Adam Archuleta a defensive coordinator can be much more creative. The different schemes require vastly different types of players to be successful, particularly among the front seven. Free agency gives us many examples of successful players switching schemes, then going on to struggle and become mediocre players. James Farrior, Orpheus Roye and Earl Holmes come to mind most recently.

\"Read and React\" versus \"Aggressive\"
We often hear announcers and sports writers describing some defenses as aggressive or attacking, while others are dubbed read and react, or finesse. Of course, they are referring to the style for any given defense. The descriptions make the difference in the styles seem rather obvious, but lets look at the difference in technical terms. In a read and react defense players looks for certain keys in the offense as a play unfolds. Keys can be anything from who a particular offensive lineman blocks to where the quarterback takes his first step. Defenders then they react to what the offense is doing. This is basically a bend but don\'t break defensive philosophy. The idea is to give up little bits of ground but force the opponent to run a lot of plays and count on an eventual mistake, while limiting the number of big plays an offense can make. While there are a certain amount of reads involved in any defense, an aggressive style of D is one that doesn\'t wait to see what the offense is doing on the snap of the ball. Instead, the defenders attack points on the field or weaknesses in the formation in an attempt to disrupt the flow of the offense before the play develops. For obvious reasons the aggressive style creates more big plays. This defensive style tries to dictate the play to the offense, rather than the other way around. It should go without saying that these defenses can also give up more big plays because they gamble more often. This is where personnel decisions become so important. If a team has the corners to go 1 on 1 with quality receivers down the field, they can afford to be much more aggressive up front. A team like the Bucks has the people to make their scheme work. By the same token, the Lions personnel in the same scheme would be like shooting duck on a pond for an offense. They simply lack the corners (among other things) to get the job done.

Positional responsibilities
From here lets break down the different schemes position by position and look at the general responsibilities of each player. I say general because every defense has its quirks and slight differences, not only from team to team but from week to week as defensive coaches work to take advantage of their opponents perceived weaknesses. That\'s why they study game film all week searching for tendencies to help them develop their strategy for the week. Formations, line stunts, blitzing, etc.. alter responsibilities on a play to play basis in some cases, particularly on the 3-4 teams where blitzing is rampant, but there are general responsibilities with each position.

Defensive End 4-3-4 & 4-1-6
Supply and demand make quality ends in these schemes rare and valuable in both NFL and FF terms. These players are asked to provide the bulk of the pass rush so they must have speed and quickness, but they must also be big and strong enough to supply \"outside contain\" which means keeping ball carriers from getting around the corner. Vision and agility are a must as they are often the targets for trap blocks by bigger pulling guards, cut backs by motion players or double teams by 300 pound tackles and 250 pound tight ends. Offenses come up with all sorts of \"tricks\" in attempts to \"seal off the corner\" which is the key to any outside running game. Once around the end a ball carrier is looking at a corner and the likelihood of a big gain. The 4-3 end will normally line up on the outside shoulder of the player on the end of the offensive line (tackle or TE) and his first move is either up field or to jamb the blocker down the line and close the running lane. The cardinal sin for these guys is to allow a blocker to \"cross his face\" which means, get to his outside shoulder. Once a blocker gets there, the defender can be turned or \"hooked\". Ends who can do all these things well and play on every down are at a premium and the short list includes names like Michael Strahan, Mike Rucker, Grant Wistrom, Julius Peppers, John Abraham, Greg Ellis, Justin Smith and Andre Carter. Its no coincidence these guys are all found in or near the top ten in the fantasy rankings. There are some other (young) guys who could work their way into this group over the course of the upcoming season if they can continue to improve against the run. Dwight Freeney, Kalimba Edwards, Adewale Ogunleye and Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila fall into that category. Dominant ends usually play the right end position and are often matched up with the offense\'s left tackle, who usually protects a QB\'s blind side. So, generally speaking, the right end is the team\'s best or most complete end and usually the best fantasy producer. They are asked to be the anchor of the defensive line in terms of the pass rush and stuffing the run.

Defensive End 3-4-4
The end in a 3-4 scheme has less to think about than his 4-3 counterpart but his assignment is no less important. The need for speed and quickness are less important than having the required size and strength to occupy space and tie up blockers. In this scheme the end actually lines up on the inside shoulder of the offensive tackle or in the gap between the tackle and guard. He isn\'t responsible for contain or pass rush since those jobs falls to the outside linebacker. The main responsibility of this position is to devour as much space and as many blockers as possible at the line of scrimmage thus freeing up players behind him to make plays. The end in a 3-4 will see constant double teams but if he can hold his position and occupy more than one blocker, he has basically done his job. Box score producers from this position are few and far between. Very rare is a player big and strong enough to fight through a pair or more of 300 pound blockers and still make plays. Bruce Smith was the best ever back in the mid 90\'s when he was in Buffalo and somehow managed to be a perennial top 10 fantasy DL. Aaron Smith emerged as the best bet in \"modern times\" after he put up 55 solo tackles and 7 sacks last year despite a slow start. Patrick Kerney was also very productive though less consistent. Great players can overcome the limitations of the scheme they play in.. but generally it\'s a good idea to look for traditional defensive ends from the 4-3 scheme for IDP production.

Defensive Tackle 4-3-4 & 4-1-6
The responsibilities of a tackle in the 4-3 aren\'t exactly complicated and are almost always determined by the play call rather than anything the offense does. In most base defenses the tackle is assigned a \"gap\" or sometimes 2 gaps that he is to take away. When the ball is snapped he first makes sure there is no room to run in his gap, then pursues the ball where ever it may go. Tackles bounce around a lot in their alignment and can line up anywhere from the outside shoulder of the offensive tackle to head up on the center depending on the call and/or offensive formation, but spend most of their time somewhere across form the guard. The tackle position has evolved greatly over the past few year, largely due to the success of the Ravens and their twin tower combination of Tony Siragusa and Sam Adams. The new rage is the 330 pound road grader who can stop a charging fullback with his breath. These types of players have very little responsibility in the scheme other than to clog the middle of the field and shut down as many running lanes as their wide bodies can occupy. In most cases their contribution to the pass rush amounts to pushing offensive linemen into the quarterbacks face and flushing him into another defender. While they are key to the success of their own defense, many of the things they do won\'t show up in the box scores. Evidence of this is found in the fact that the top 14 DL last season were all ends while only one tackle managed double digit sacks (Rod Coleman) and just four tackles finished in the top 30.

Defensive (nose) tackle 3-4-4
While its rare to get fantasy production from an end in the 3-4, its virtually impossible to get it from the nose tackle position. This guy lines up over or slightly to one side of the center and is double teamed about 95% of the time. A center can\'t snap the ball AND handle a 310 pound defensive lineman at the same time so the guard almost always combo blocks to get him out of the way. The nose tackle (sometimes called the middle guard or under tackle) provides three very important functions for the D; anchoring the middle of the run defense, eating up 2 or more blockers, and providing the first read for the inside linebackers. On any run play the offense must neutralize the nose guard because he is the closest defender to the play at its conception. Therefore, the guard on the side the ball is going to will almost always block down on the nose tackle. When Ray Lewis sees the right guard come down on Kelly Gregg, he knows the play is going right and flows that way. Gregg was the most productive of the nose tackles last season managing 45-11-2. Those are great numbers considering the position, but hardly the kind of production us fantasy geeks need in a typical IDP league.

Strong side linebacker 4-3-4
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. These are the strong side backers who have the most fantasy value such as 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.

Weak side linebacker 4-3-4
The weak side backer is the second best fantasy option in general. He has a little further to go at times to make plays but is often left unaccounted for in the blocking scheme. Many of our 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 (Sea, No, Ari and SF come to mind) 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. When putting together your draft lists, lean toward right OLB. Most offenses have right handed quarterbacks and right handed tendencies, thus the right side backer will be weak side the majority of the time and will be your better play maker.

Outside linebacker 3-4-4
An outside backer in the 3-4 has more in common with the 4-3 end than the linebackers. He lines up outside the last man on the offensive line (often way outside), his run support duties are the same as the end in that he is responsible for protecting the corner and turning everything inside, and he is counted on for the majority of the pass rush. However much more is expected from OLB\'s in the 3-4. Big play production from these players is the key to success in this scheme. The 3-4 is an attacking D that counts on disruption of offensive flow to create opportunities. The outside backers can have a multitude of different responsibilities depending on the defensive play/blitz call. Their main duty is to rush from the snap and create havoc in the passing game. Other responsibilities range from delay rush, dropping into zone coverage, being assigned a particular player to shadow or a receiver or TE to cover man to man. These guys must be exceptional athletes to be successful but intelligence and full understanding of the scheme are the key. Its easy to make a mistake here and even little mistakes can be huge. Being relegated to basically half the field, limits the number of tackle opportunities so players in this position have limited fantasy value unless your league scores heavily on sacks.

Middle linebacker 4-3-4 & 4-1-6
This is the ultimate position for fantasy production 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. 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.

Inside linebacker 3-4-4
For all intents and purposes the 3-4-4 is basically a 5-2-4 when it comes to the responsibilities of the inside backers, with the right inside backer basically serving as the WLB. He has few if any gap responsibilities and is generally free to get to the ball the best way he can. Without a strong side backer to run interference, the left inside backer often has to serve that purpose. The 3-4 scheme depends on its trio of linemen to eat up enough blockers to free up the inside backers but three guys, no matter how good, will struggle to take out 5-7 blockers. All the top producers in these schemes (Jamie Sharper, Ray Lewis, Keith Brooking, Kendrell Bell) play the RILB position. In the 3-4 scheme, nearly everyone is a blitzing option but most of the time the inside rush is provided from the right side since there are normally less blockers to that side of the offense. Atlanta doesn\'t blitz from the inside often but Sharper, Lewis and Bell are all very active.

Cornerbacks
Corner is one position there isn\'t a lot to say about. This position doesn\'t change much from one defense to the other. Their responsibilities are obvious while all that changes from play to play is the coverage scheme. Either man to man, zone or bump and run. The cardinal sin for a corner is to get turned around by a receivers move and/or let someone get behind them for the deep ball. There are some corners like Antoine Winfield, Jason Webster and Shawn Springs, who love to come up and help with the run, but many of them don\'t relish the idea of butting heads with a 230 pound running back that has a full head of steam. In fantasy terms the corner position can be productive but is wildly inconsistent and even more unpredictable.

Free Safety
Often referred to as the \"center fielder\" of the defense, free safety is a big play position in many defensive schemes though not all clubs have the luxury of a playmaker at the position. Some are forced to strive/settle for solid \"mistake free\" play from the position. The FS is regularly free to roam the secondary and make plays on the ball where ever it may go. With an occasional call specific exception, he has the responsibility of backing up everyone and is expected to keep everything (meaning the ball and/or receivers in the pattern) in front of him. Demands of this position are great, the FS must be smart enough to make the right reads, quick enough to change his mind when fooled, fast enough to make up for mistakes (either his or someone else\'s) and a solid tackler since he is often the last defender. He goes through a series of reads at the snap of the ball that lead him to the play but those reads are filled with \"ifs\" and offenses work very hard to misdirect the safeties and give them false reads to confuse them. Free safeties are often excellent options for fantasy owners particularly on clubs who are weak at linebacker. They make a lot of tackles on receivers after the catch, and are responsible for run support. If you can land one who contributes in the turnover category as well, you have a fantasy stud on your hands.

Strong Safety
Normally your best fantasy option in the secondary is found here. Strong safeties are the tackle mongers of the secondary. Often former college linebackers who aren\'t big enough to play LB at this level (Adam Archuleta, Derrick Gibson, Rodney Harrison) but have enough speed to help out with receivers when called upon. The strong safety is the enforcer in the secondary, providing big hits in the running game and prowling the middle of the field on crossing routs by receivers. Clubs like the Raiders, Steelers, Bears, Eagles and Chargers are notorious for the intimidating play of the strong safeties. Players at this position benefit greatly by having a quality strong side linebacker in front of them. The linebacker cleans out all the blockers leaving the safety there to clean up the ball carrier. Many defensive schemes play the SS up near the line, tucked in behind the SLB for just this reason. Some play him so far up he is actually an extra linebacker. The Rams went some far as to eliminate all but the MLB from their base defense and played Archuleta in what amounted to a linebackers role last season while bringing in additional DB\'s and playing an aggressive nickel (4-1-6) scheme as their base defense. The strong safeties first and foremost responsibility is run support. On passing downs he is rarely expected to cover anyone 1V1, instead providing inside or deep support in zone coverage and double team help for the corners in man to man.

Draft hints
With a few exceptions your productive IDPs are going to come from the DE (4-3), MLB/ILB, WLB, SS and FS positions. These are the \"naturally\" productive positions when it comes to box scores. Any player outside of them who is not a proven commodity, is a big risk. When considering late round sleepers turn to these positions unless you have a very good reason to look at a particular player elsewhere. Keep in mind that defensive players are very difficult to scout during the pre-season so there are nearly always more quality free agents available on D at the beginning of the season. Stock up on your hot offensive prospects in the draft, then be aggressive on defense when the season starts. Don\'t spend early or middle round draft picks on unproven defensive backs. There are a handful of guys each year who can be counted on. Once the top 5-10 DB\'s are gone, it becomes a complete crap shoot. DB\'s are inconsistent from year to year just as corners are from week to week, so don\'t put too much weight on last years production alone. Look back two or three years to be sure your guy wasn\'t a one year wonder. This happens often, especially with corners.

Best of luck to everyone this fall. When the bell rings, come out swinging and...

JUST WIN BABY!

don\' tknow if this helps..

Quote:

What is the difference between playing middle linebacker and the strong side?
The responsibilities are totally different. I feel like I have to be a lot more disciplined on the strong side. In the middle, I could use my speed to go make plays, but on the strong side, I\'m kind of the contain man. I\'m really starting to love it. In the middle, my big linemen always covered me up, but on the strong side, I have to get down and dirty.
from Garnet Smith

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by baronm]

Nothing but linebacker talk!

PS - The strongside/weakside designation is determined by the alignment of the offense in exactly the way I stated - wideside of the feild, postion of the FB, position of the TE...

That is, the alignment of the offense determines the call made by the defensive player.

Certainly, comentators and so on always refer to the TE side as the strongside, but that isn\'t always the case for the defensive scheme/call. The SLB will be on the strongside of the defense (and that is determined by the call), NOT merely by the TE (though that is a handy heuristic for comentators and so on).

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

I think I just misunderstood the wording in your post, JKool.

But here\'s the way it works. At least to my understanding. And I\'m 99.99% sure of this.

When the defense comes out of the huddle they are looking at how the offense lines up and the SLB and the WLB adjust according to the strength of the offensive formation.

More times than not there WILL be a strongside to the offensive formation. Sometimes the offense will get tricky with their blocking scheme and pull a guard or something like that.

But, that\'s actually irrelevent to our discussion.

My primary point is the fundamental differences in MLB and WLB.

And the fact of the matter is that the WLB take on \"fewer\" and \"smaller\" blockers than the MLB or even the SLB.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

In the simplest of terms, the strong side can be identified by where the tight end lines up. However, in the pro game it usually isn\'t quite that simple. Double tight ends, no tight ends, balanced formations, spread formations with the TE lined up in the slot, etc... all make it a little more complicated. The term \"strong side\" is meant to describe the side of the formation that has the most blockers, therefore that side presents the biggest threat for the defense on a running play. The progression a defensive play caller must go through in a matter of seconds could go like this... A single TE lined up next to the tackle? Easy call. If there are double tight ends or no tight ends (a balanced line), he will look into the backfield for a single running back lined up to one side of the QB. With two backs in the backfield, and the tailback behind the QB and a fullback to either side, the fullback side is the strong side. If the backs are split behind the QB (pro-formation) or in a straight line directly behind the QB (I-formation), the play caller looks to the receivers. In short yardage we often see double TE, I-formation with strong side determined by a third TE or receiver lined up slightly behind and outside at one end, or split wide. In a three receiver set with both the line and backfield balanced, the slot receiver becomes the determining factor. Last but not least, if the line, backfield and receivers are balanced, the wide side of the field is considered strong. There are some situational and/or scheme related exceptions to these general rules but these are the most common reads or progressions for defensive players.

Yup.

AND sometimes the side that will have the most blockers is the strong side, thus a MLB (for instance) may suspect a trap or pull and call the strong side AWAY from the TE and FB, since they will all end up on the other side. However, that is going to go poorly for him on the side line if he is wrong.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

And the fact of the matter is that the WLB take on \"fewer\" and \"smaller\" blockers than the MLB or even the SLB.

The balance of the time this is true, and I already agreed with that.

I still don\'t see what that has to do with which job is more important?

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

And the fact of the matter is that the WLB take on \"fewer\" and \"smaller\" blockers than the MLB or even the SLB.

The balance of the time this is true, and I already agreed with that.

I still don\'t see what that has to do with which job is more important?

That\'s exactly it, JKool. I\'m not suggesting which position is more important.

I\'m suggesting one position is more demanding in terms of strength and being physical.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Baron,

I might be willing to put OLB and DT as roughly even, but here is an argument:

LBs, being further from the line have less opportunity to disrupt a play that a DT who is right at the line. Furthermore, weak DT play will lead to more trouble than weak LB play, since weak DT play will allow a couple of yards a carry or an additional blocker on the LBs.

Also, in general, I agree that the further from the line you go, the \"less value\" you seem to have - since by the time the play gets to you the damage may already be done - except for one CB. Without one DB who can take away the easy pass, there is less need to stop the run, since they can just keep throwing slants. That is why my first CB is up higher than some LBs and DLs.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

I think the importance is up to the defense..a defense with a good line and athletic OLB can mask a sub par MLB...

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

MLB, I feel, is the more difficult of all the linebacker positions.

???

You mean more difficult in terms of taking on blocks then, not more difficult simpliciter.

Let\'s say that I agree with you; so what? You don\'t feel good about Watson because why? He is big enough and strong enough to take on blockers. He is also fast enough to go sideline to sideline.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

I think the importance is up to the defense..a defense with a good line and athletic OLB can mask a sub par MLB...

I agree.

In fact, I think that the better the players at the top of my \"impact\" list, the less good the players toward the bottome need to be - in general.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

but as we saw with our defense..a good LB can play with a bad DT..the Dt\'s Job is to keep the guards busy so the LB can make plays...so in that I will agree the DT is important. but... the linebacker must play the run and drop back in coverage-so the linebacker has more responsiblity imo..

also..the linebackers are usually the playmakers on defence.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

MLB, I feel, is the more difficult of all the linebacker positions.

I think my point is this:

1. The best signal caller for the defense is the MLB because of where he\'s lined up on the field. He\'s in the best position to see the offense and communicate to his teammates.

2. The MLB has to take on \"more\" and \"bigger\" blockers and it makes his job harder than the WLB.

So, while Watson might be more talented than Bockwoldt, he\'s get a tougher go at it playing MLB. I think that\'s just the nature of the positions. I also think Watson is more suited to play the WLB position.

Watson is not very physical and often drags defenders down. Now, that\'s better than missing the tackle but that\'s not really how you want a MLB to play.

Sam Mills and Dat Ngyen are a lot smaller than Watson but both would pop you in the mouth. I don\'t think we\'ll ever see that from Watson.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

I think we\'re agreeing.

Being a \"playmaker\" is an odd description though. I often think of the star players, whichever position they may play, as the \"playmakers.\" IMO, it is the defensive coordinator\'s job to make use of his best players - and design schemes that put those guys (whatever position they play) in position to make plays.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

I guess I mean this:

you see a lot less talent guys at DT than you do LB...to me-atleast on teams that win

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Ok, Billy, I am starting to what you were trying to get at earlier.

Here are some thoughts:
1.

Quote:

1. The best signal caller for the defense is the MLB because of where he\'s lined up on the field. He\'s in the best position to see the offense and communicate to his teammates.

That sounds roughly right to me, but a SS will do just as well (and does on our team). Also, it really depends on how the calls are distributed. I see no problem with a different LB or even a FS - also a lot of times the call is made as the defense comes out of their huddle, so it will depend on whether or not it needs to be changed by a signal caller.

2.

Quote:

2. The MLB has to take on \"more\" and \"bigger\" blockers and it makes his job harder than the WLB.

No. That is just one dimension of his job. So, while it may be harder on the MLB in terms of dealing with blockers, it doesn\'t make his job harder than the WLB\'s simplicter.

Didn\'t you just say this?

Quote:

I\'m suggesting one position is more demanding in terms of strength and being physical.

In general, we agree on that, but that has nothing to do with one job being harder. Consider your top corner\'s job versus your wide-body DT? Who\'s job is harder?

3.

Quote:

So, while Watson might be more talented than Bockwoldt, he\'s get a tougher go at it playing MLB. I think that\'s just the nature of the positions.

I think I agree with this.

4.

Quote:

I also think Watson is more suited to play the WLB position.

He is physically and athletically in line with other guys who play MLB. You can ask Danno about that though, since he seems to know more about that point.

5.

Quote:

Watson is not very physical and often drags defenders down. Sam Mills and Dat Ngyen are a lot smaller than Watson but both would pop you in the mouth. I don\'t think we\'ll ever see that from Watson.

That mostly agrees with what I saw too. However, Watson is built to make a hit; I don\'t see any reason to believe that a little focus in the offseason couldn\'t change this fact. Also, the general view is that he \"sometimes makes arm tackles\", so I\'m not sure that, in general, he drags players down. There is a scouting report on him in a recent thread that says something to that effect.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

I guess I mean this:

you see a lot less talent guys at DT than you do LB...to me-atleast on teams that win

:thumbsup:

Nothing but linebacker talk!

JKool --

While we agree on some points we disagee on the MAIN points.

Here\'s some thoughts:

1. The WLB might have it tougher than the MLB is SOME ways. But I think when EVERYTHING is taken into consideration that it takes a much more unique person to play MLB rather than OLB.

I think you can take a MLB with speed and he could adjust to WLB just fine. Not always but I believe that statement is much more true than the opposite.

I don\'t think you can take a WLB and convert him into a MLB very easily. Which is my whole point.

It takes a different skill-set for a MLB.

A MLB has to be nearly as fast as a WLB and he really needs to be much more physical.

2. Anyone could call the defensive alignements. But, for my money, I think the MLB is much more suited for the job.

The FS is too far away from the QB and the defensive linemen can hear the MLB much better than a FS. You RARELY ever see a FS or anyone else calling the defensive plays.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

of our linebackers-watson is the strongest.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

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.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

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.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

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

Nothing but linebacker talk!

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.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

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):

Quote:

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

And this:

Quote:

Watson struggled last year. Colby shinned more. Why? Becuase MLB is more demading from a physical standpoint.

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:

Quote:

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.

[Edited on 31/3/2005 by JKool]

Nothing but linebacker talk!

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.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

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.

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the fact of the matter is that the WLB take on \"fewer\" and \"smaller\" blockers than the MLB or even the SLB.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The balance of the time this is true, and I already agreed with that.

In response to you earlier.

2.

Quote:

What we need is MLB that can punch someone in the mouth and lay a hit on the ball carrier.

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?

Nothing but linebacker talk!

Also,

Quote:

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.

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.