![]() |
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:
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 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:
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:
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:
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:
|
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:
Quote:
|
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:
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:
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:
I still don\'t see what that has to do with which job is more important? |
Nothing but linebacker talk!
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
also..the linebackers are usually the playmakers on defence. |
Nothing but linebacker talk!
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. 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:
2. Quote:
Didn\'t you just say this? Quote:
3. Quote:
4. Quote:
5. Quote:
|
Nothing but linebacker talk!
Quote:
|
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:
Quote:
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:
|
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!
1.
Quote:
Quote:
2. Quote:
|
Nothing but linebacker talk!
Also,
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com