linebackers drafted in the top five in the past 10 & 25 years

[dave mcbride]

I guess my question is why combine in the first place for LB?

Simplicity's sake. While their tasks are obviously different, OLB and MLB tend to have the same body size types, cover the same depth of the field, and are both reliant on good d-lines. There are differences, but relatively speaking, they aren't huge.

[NoSaint]

Great post, and I think you're spot on about the running game. Also, Jimmy Johnson was pretty vocal about his philosophy of focusing on d-line and treating LBs as interchangeable parts. He thought (and probably still thinks) that it's a position of lesser importance.

I agree minus the pass rushing linebacker in a 34-- he is essentially your defensive end that gets the sacks. Demarcus ware isn't interchangeable. Merriman at his peak wasnt interchangeable. Clay Matthews, not interchangeable

Edited February 12, 2011 by NoSaint

[dave mcbride]

I agree minus the pass rushing linebacker in a 34-- he is essentially your defensive end that gets the sacks. Demarcus ware isn't interchangeable. Merriman at his peak wasnt interchangeable. Clay Matthews, not interchangeable

Absolutely. I think the bottom line is that it's wise to focus on having four good players on the front line. Ware doesn't play behind the front line (he's not a line "backer") regardless of what we're told ...

Edited February 12, 2011 by dave mcbride

[NoSaint]

Simplicity's sake. While their tasks are obviously different, OLB and MLB tend to have the same body size types, cover the same depth of the field, and are both reliant on good d-lines. There are differences, but relatively speaking, they aren't huge.

 

You can't begin to argue Demarcus ware and Keith brooking are the same position. Yet alone a 43 inside backer. It's like comparing a TE and a receiver and saying they both catch the ball and throw some blocks

 

Absolutely. I think the bottom line is that it's wise to focus on having four good players on the front line. Ware doesn't play behind the front line (he's not a line "backer") regardless of what we're told ...

 

In your analysis he's a linebacker though?

[dave mcbride]

You can't begin to argue Demarcus ware and Keith brooking are the same position. Yet alone a 43 inside backer. It's like comparing a TE and a receiver and saying they both catch the ball and throw some blocks

 

 

 

In your analysis he's a linebacker though?

No, Ware is a defensive end.

 

See my qualification about Derrick Thomas above. He was listed as an LB, but on practically every play, he played on the front line with his hand down.

Edited February 12, 2011 by dave mcbride

[NoSaint]

No, Ware is a defensive end.

 

See my qualification about Derrick Thomas above. He was listed as an LB, but on practically every play, he played on the front line with his hand down.

 

Right... And we'd be looking for that guy at three, not an ilb is my argument in saying you could list 50 years and 80% would be irrelevant

[dave mcbride]

To cut the chase and get past the semantic issues, I'll state the following; it wasn't controversial for a guy like Quentin Coryatt to be drafted as highly as he was. He was an OK player before he started getting hurt, but that's neither here nor there. Hardly any team would even think about spending a #2 pick on a guy like him now. Seattle did, of course, but many questioned it at the time despite the fact that Curry was a complete stud in college. Curry appears to be OK, but he's not doing anything special. I think it'll be a long time before a team drafts a pure LB again (meaning not a guy who is really a small DE).

 

Right... And we'd be looking for that guy at three, not an ilb is my argument in saying you could list 50 years and 80% would be irrelevant

No, we wouldn't be looking for a guy like that at #3. As Sisyphean Bills points out above, the bust potential of tweeners like that is too high, and if you're going to take a one-hand-down pass rusher at #3, if you're interested in job security you take a real, bona fide 275 lb. DE. Not a 242 lb. lb/de who can get around the edge in college ball.

Edited February 12, 2011 by dave mcbride

[NoSaint]

To cut the chase and get past the semantic issues, I'll state the following; it wasn't controversial for a guy like Quentin Coryatt to be drafted as highly as he was. He was an OK player before he started getting hurt, but that's neither here nor there. Hardly any team would even think about spending a #2 pick on a guy like him now. Seattle did, of course, but many questioned it at the time despite the fact that Curry was a complete stud in college. Curry appears to be OK, but he's not doing anything special. I think it'll be a long time before a team drafts a pure LB again (meaning not a guy who is really a small DE).

 

Agreed wholly. I just think out of context on the board of a team discussing 2 of those linebackers that you now call defensive ends - it seemed to be a misleading post...

 

To cut the chase and get past the semantic issues, I'll state the following; it wasn't controversial for a guy like Quentin Coryatt to be drafted as highly as he was. He was an OK player before he started getting hurt, but that's neither here nor there. Hardly any team would even think about spending a #2 pick on a guy like him now. Seattle did, of course, but many questioned it at the time despite the fact that Curry was a complete stud in college. Curry appears to be OK, but he's not doing anything special. I think it'll be a long time before a team drafts a pure LB again (meaning not a guy who is really a small DE).

 

 

No, we wouldn't be looking for a guy like that at #3. As Sisyphean Bills points out above, the bust potential of tweeners like that is too high, and if you're going to take a one-hand-down pass rusher at #3, if you're interested in job security you take a real, bona fide 275 lb. DE. Not a 242 lb. lb/de who can get around the edge in college ball.

 

We don't play 43. That 275 lbs rusher is a lb in our defense. See Quinn, Robert. Our defensive ends should be 300 lbs, see dareus or fairley.

Edited February 12, 2011 by NoSaint

[Green Lightning]

Start with the big dogs up front and the LB and DB play will improve. Then load up LB's and the DB play improves all the more. Then look at DB's. What the He'll is so hard to figure out?

[NoSaint]

Start with the big dogs up front and the LB and DB play will improve. Then load up LB's and the DB play improves all the more. Then look at DB's. What the He'll is so hard to figure out?

 

That our rushbacker is both a big dog up front AND a linebacker

 

I'm not saying we must take Quinn but I think he qualifies as a big dog. I also think you don't see guys like 34 rush linebackers go top five because how many top 5 picks have Pittsburgh, Baltimore, New England, San Diego, dallas, and greenbay etc had recently.... Even teams like Miami and SF... Not many.

Edited February 12, 2011 by NoSaint

[djsabres]

A question I have is how many teams drafting in the top five were repeat top five teams. I. E. Detroit picking a WR year after year while not improving their team. So you have to look a little deeper to get an understanding of what positions are valuable at the top. However I agree not to pick a LB with #3. The game is won and lost into trenches.

[NoSaint]

A question I have is how many teams drafting in the top five were repeat top five teams. I. E. Detroit picking a WR year after year while not improving their team. So you have to look a little deeper to get an understanding of what positions are valuable at the top. However I agree not to pick a LB with #3. The game is won and lost into trenches.

 

Ill say it again....

 

A good 3-4 rush backer plays in the trenches.

 

I'm I totally out in left field on this?

[Sisyphean Bills]

A question I have is how many teams drafting in the top five were repeat top five teams. I. E. Detroit picking a WR year after year while not improving their team. So you have to look a little deeper to get an understanding of what positions are valuable at the top. However I agree not to pick a LB with #3. The game is won and lost into trenches.

Disagree. It's patently obvious that QB is the most prized position on a football team. Anybody that thinks you can win in the modern NFL without a QB is deluding themselves.

 

Obviously, a laughingstock franchise like the Matt "0-16 Architect" Millen led Lions made horrible errors in judgement, but even the Lions are not so timid that they simply ignore the QB position since the year the team was founded. The Lions have in fact drafted 2 top 5 QBs in the last 10 years. The Falcons have also. If it doesn't go well, it sets the team back and they are picking at the top of the draft again, but they don't take their ball and go home to design a new uniform.

 

The Bills haven't spent their first overall pick on a QB since 1960. Everybody knows QBs can be busts. It's a very demanding position. That doesn't mean a franchise has to stick its head in the sand and be forever afraid that drafting a bust at QB is somehow worse than drafting a DE that can't play football without a game controller in his hand.

 

From a positive viewpoint, the Bills drafted 2 1st round QBs in the last 28 years and 1 of them is in the Hall-of-Fame. That's a good thing. It's time to do it again. (Assuming there is a QB that grades out that high, obviously.)

[dave mcbride]

Disagree. It's patently obvious that QB is the most prized position on a football team. Anybody that thinks you can win in the modern NFL without a QB is deluding themselves.

 

Obviously, a laughingstock franchise like the Matt "0-16 Architect" Millen led Lions made horrible errors in judgement, but even the Lions are not so timid that they simply ignore the QB position since the year the team was founded. The Lions have in fact drafted 2 top 5 QBs in the last 10 years. The Falcons have also. If it doesn't go well, it sets the team back and they are picking at the top of the draft again, but they don't take their ball and go home to design a new uniform.

 

The Bills haven't spent their first overall pick on a QB since 1960. Everybody knows QBs can be busts. It's a very demanding position. That doesn't mean a franchise has to stick its head in the sand and be forever afraid that drafting a bust at QB is somehow worse than drafting a DE that can't play football without a game controller in his hand.

 

From a positive viewpoint, the Bills drafted 2 1st round QBs in the last 28 years and 1 of them is in the Hall-of-Fame. That's a good thing. It's time to do it again. (Assuming there is a QB that grades out that high, obviously.)

+1

[Captain Hindsight]

I dont give two ***** what position he is as long as he can play football

[stony]

Disagree. It's patently obvious that QB is the most prized position on a football team. Anybody that thinks you can win in the modern NFL without a QB is deluding themselves.

 

Obviously, a laughingstock franchise like the Matt "0-16 Architect" Millen led Lions made horrible errors in judgement, but even the Lions are not so timid that they simply ignore the QB position since the year the team was founded. The Lions have in fact drafted 2 top 5 QBs in the last 10 years. The Falcons have also. If it doesn't go well, it sets the team back and they are picking at the top of the draft again, but they don't take their ball and go home to design a new uniform.

 

The Bills haven't spent their first overall pick on a QB since 1960. Everybody knows QBs can be busts. It's a very demanding position. That doesn't mean a franchise has to stick its head in the sand and be forever afraid that drafting a bust at QB is somehow worse than drafting a DE that can't play football without a game controller in his hand.

 

From a positive viewpoint, the Bills drafted 2 1st round QBs in the last 28 years and 1 of them is in the Hall-of-Fame. That's a good thing. It's time to do it again. (Assuming there is a QB that grades out that high, obviously.)

 

Agreed.

 

QB 1

Trenches 2

[NoSaint]

Agreed.

 

QB 1

Trenches 2

 

Did we just take 40 posts to come full circle on that conclusion?

 

Sometimes, I wonder about this board....

 

Back on topic tho- am I out of my mind in arguing a clay Matthews, Derrick Thomas, Demarcus ware, shawne merriman OLB is worth a top 5 pick, while a traditional 4-3 backer probably isn't?

[dave mcbride]

Did we just take 40 posts to come full circle on that conclusion?

 

Sometimes, I wonder about this board....

 

Back on topic tho- am I out of my mind in arguing a clay Matthews, Derrick Thomas, Demarcus ware, shawne merriman OLB is worth a top 5 pick, while a traditional 4-3 backer probably isn't?

It's not whether they're worth it or not - it's that teams devalue the LB position for a variety of reasons. For traditional chase-and-tackle LBs, they're not deemed as important as D-linemen. For tweener 3-4 ends, the general view seems to be that the bust potential is too high to invest top-five money in them. Hence the pass rushers that get drafted are real DEs -- guys like Mario Williams, Julius Peppers, Gaines Adams, Simeon Rice, and Chris Long. Heck, even a 3-4 end like Tyson Jackson gets drafted before the tweeners. And he was drafted by a very good drafter, Scott Pioli.

Edited February 14, 2011 by dave mcbride

[NoSaint]

It's not whether they're worth it or not - it's that teams devalue the LB position for a variety of reasons. For traditional chase-and-tackle LBs, they're not deemed as important as D-linemen. For tweener 3-4 ends, the general view seems to be that the bust potential is too high to invest top-five money in them. Hence the pass rushers that get drafted are real DEs -- guys like Mario Williams, Julius Peppers, Gaines Adams, Simeon Rice, and Chris Long. Heck, even a 3-4 end like Tyson Jackson gets drafted before the tweeners. And he was drafted by a very good drafter, Scott Pioli.

 

Why would Scott pioli draft an olb, ie maybin/orakpo when he already had tamba Hali?

 

What your looking at is the fact that the good 34 teams (Pitt, Baltimore, new England, San Diego, Dallas etc...) have had how many top 5 picks recently? Even Miami, San Fran etc....

 

When they did, was there a physical freak available ala Robert Quinn?

 

We are talking about an intersection of talent and opportunity and need that is rare in recent years within the top 5. All these teams invest first rounders, and some of there earliest first rounders in the position.

 

Quinn isn't a "tweener" because he's too small for one and too slow for the other. He can play either because he's WR fast and DE strong. Is that a tweener? I use tweener for a guy that doesn't fit either, not a guy that could dominate from both.

 

If I told you Julius peppers but stronger and faster do you point at aj hawk and aaron curry? I'd also argue the prototype 43 DE is a much more common body type and skill set then the prototype 34 OLB. Most of the time your hoping a guy grows into the latter. Quinn has a chance to be the measuring stick from day 1, which is rare.

Edited February 14, 2011 by NoSaint

[dave mcbride]

Why would Scott pioli draft an olb, ie maybin/orakpo when he already had tamba Hali?

 

What your looking at is the fact that the good 34 teams (Pitt, Baltimore, new England, San Diego, Dallas etc...) have had how many top 5 picks recently? Even Miami, San Fran etc....

 

When they did, was there a physical freak available ala Robert Quinn?

 

We are talking about an intersection of talent and opportunity and need that is rare in recent years within the top 5. All these teams invest first rounders, and some of there earliest first rounders in the position.

 

Quinn isn't a "tweener" because he's too small for one and too slow for the other. He can play either because he's WR fast and DE strong. Is that a tweener? I use tweener for a guy that doesn't fit either, not a guy that could dominate from both.

 

If I told you Julius peppers but stronger and faster do you point at aj hawk and aaron curry? I'd also argue the prototype 43 DE is a much more common body type and skill set then the prototype 34 OLB. Most of the time your hoping a guy grows into the latter. Quinn has a chance to be the measuring stick from day 1, which is rare.

Look - I'm just looking at the evidence on hand, which is pretty overwhelming. And I don't know a damn thing about Robert Quinn, so you've got me there. That said, he's probably not going to be a top five pick. I also don't necessarily buy into the idea that bad teams are run by complete idiots who avoid drafting pass rushing 3-4 ends because of innate stupidity, which seems to be the basic presupposition in your argument.

 

The bottom line: 2 LBs, neither of them pass rushers, have been drafted in the top five in the past ten years. There's no getting around that.

Edited February 14, 2011 by dave mcbride