Approaching the Willis as starting MLB from a different direction

[Pyrite Gal]

I have posted a few expositions about why I think that Crowell, though being the prominent OLB player in a blatantly underperforming D the last two years, is a far more likely prospect for adequate MLB performance than the rookie Willis if he were to start.

 

It is not that I have great faith in Crowell being an adequate performer at MLB. It is that I believe over the last two years, that Crowell has produced stats which have made him a team leader each year in tackles credit to him, INTs, and sacks (for example even though his season was cut short significantly by his injury he still finished 3rd on the D in tackles, 3rd on the team in INTs and tied for the lead among LBs for sacks (he was beaten out thankfully by several DL players). The absolute #s were relatively low (2 INTs for example but given that Fletcher led all NFL LBs with 4 INTS getting 2 in 12 games is not bad at all particularly when his pick on MI was quite nifty athletically and pivotal to stopping MI when they were driving).

 

At any rate, while stats prove little in and of themselves, they are a good indicator that he has demonstrated a diverse skillset of pass coverage and aggressive tackling which is the lead requirement of someone playing the diverse roles required of an MLB in our Hybrid Cover 2 where the player is required to both tackle like a DT on runs AND also pass cover like a safety as he has deep cover in the middle of the field with the safeties.

 

My theory is that (and I fully acknowledge it is mere theory from this armchair QB who has not remembered as much as Jauron/Fewell have forgotten about running a D) even a Crowell who does not perform adequately to meet the judgments of us fans is very likely to be a better performer for a year or two than a rookie MLB.

 

IMHO, opposing OCs will be simply champing at the bit to run plays against a rookie MLB looking to fake him into believing plays where they run a delayed draw are in fact going to be passes so he takes a step back or remains still instead of attacking the LOS, or even worse they take advantage of the fact he is aggressive and Marv has said he wants the LBs to be more aggressive and they fake him into attacking the LOS and then some speedy WR runs a post pattern up the middle and receives an easy pass for 6.

 

Many ardent Willis supporters have accused me of being too theoretical with my analysis and say I am making things to theoretical and complicated. They instead seem to point to Willis great speed shown at the Combine as an indicator of how potent he will be in pass coverage and his rep as a tackling machine as an explanation of why he will finally reverse the main complaint many had about F-B that he initiated hits 5-6 yards after a gain in our secondary.

 

For the most part, I would not mind if we drafted Willis, but I think that the team would perform better if Willis started at SLB (where apparently he can play well from some scouting but who knows) rather than at MLB. Crowell may prove to be inadequate at MLB, but I am fairly certain he would be a better than the rookie Willis would be as a performer in large part because I think just about any rookie must make vet level reads to figure out whether he should be running backward to pass cover or aggressively pinch in to tackle or fill the gap left by our penetrating DTs on many plays.

 

Folks may have problems with my theory and that is fine. The different approach is to instead ask the many active football watchers on TSW whether folks know of any real world examples of rookie players performing well as MLBs in a Tampa 2 scheme similar to the one we run.

 

My ideas may simply be theories but my sense is that these theories as conceptual as they are have more relationship to reality than the various fact-free opinions that Willis will transform the Bills D.

 

I and I suspect others would really benefit from getting real world examples from folks of rookies who have mastered and played the Tampa 2 scheme as MLBs.

[sarmanuscg07]

This whole argument while entertaining it is all completely circumstantial.. You wont know how Willis is going to play against play actions and different offensive formations until you have seen him play in the Buffalo Bills MLB role. Now, they do say that willis is a great attacking linebacker and that he also shows "GREAT" recognition. Sounds good to me and when he is the Bills starting MLB next year with ellison and crowell on either side you might find that it was a good move. Do you think the bills should take him at #12 if peterson is not on the board?

[tombstone56]

interesting ,but i d still rather have willis as the mlb ,now and for the next ten years

[BuffaloBilliever]

Interesting, but gotta have faith in the brass.

 

I think Crowell is a phenomenal outside linebacker, and if he hadn't got hurt would've easily been the stand-out defensive player on the team.

[The Jokeman]

I and I suspect others would really benefit from getting real world examples from folks of rookies who have mastered and played the Tampa 2 scheme as MLBs.

This is the crux of my entire problem with your arguement. You're not seeing the forest but only the trees. Tell me are we mearly drafting Willis to play one year or many years? In my eyes the 2007 season will be very reminscent of the 2006 season. As suspect we'll struggle in the early season but could come on by seasons endand yet finish around .500 again. As think Marv is truely hoping to have this team as a contender in 2008 when Losman will be in his 3rd full year of starting and starting to peak and at the same time allow the D to be completely comfortable with the new scheme and/or starters. As last year was a year of analysis to see who was worth keeping in the long term and just how close we truely were into being a contender. That's why he let go of most of the veteran players and/or players that didn't fit into the long term plan he has.

[Acantha]

The best part about putting him in an unnatural position is that we can all know from that start that he won't make rookie mistakes playing in a position he hasn't played before.

 

He won't be faked out by draws. Won't over commit on run plays. Won't lose his man in assignments. Since SLB is such an easy position to pick up and exceed at, and much less important than the MLB position, there should be no problems at all.

 

And next year, when we don't lose any starters to FA, and we are bringing in players to fill all of our holes through FA and the draft, we can all sit around next year and post things like, "We'll have a pretty good defense IF Willis can make the transition to MLB. It will take him a few games to pick it up and play well in a new position, and he'll have to learn how to react to playing there, but once he has some time, this D could really click."

[obie_wan]

Folks may have problems with my theory and that is fine. The different approach is to instead ask the many active football watchers on TSW whether folks know of any real world examples of rookie players performing well as MLBs in a Tampa 2 scheme similar to the one we run.

 

well - there is that guy in Chicago who had to change from safety in college to MLB but started from day 1 and is the lynchpin of their defense (which is the model for our defense).

[ganesh]

Interesting, but gotta have faith in the brass.

 

I think Crowell is a phenomenal outside linebacker, and if he hadn't got hurt would've easily been the stand-out defensive player on the team.

 

I think it is silly to throw out words like Phenomenal for a LB who not even consistently started for his own team in 3+ years.

[Pyrite Gal]

well - there is that guy in Chicago who had to change from safety in college to MLB but started from day 1 and is the lynchpin of their defense (which is the model for our defense).

 

Actually thanks for this recollection because I had certainly forgotten about Urlacher and this is a great example because it was in a Jauron defense. Its nice to know that there is at least one example of a rookie doing the job right out the box at MLB.

 

On the other hand, this does not necessarily bode well for figuring or assuming that this is gonna work out. If what it takes for a rookie to do the job we want done is for that player to be at the Urlacher level of of accomplishment, this is clearly possible but does not seem to be something that one wants to bank on it happening.

 

In many ways it would make a better case for being comfortable with the Bills counting upon a rookie to be what we need at MLB if the player were actually someone of relatively average or even very good talent rather than the rookie who pulls this off is clearly an extraordinary player whether the team around him is good or bad.

 

The Bears team around Urlacher in his rookie year was a very good team (I think that may have been the year Jauron was NFL HC of the year and team finished 13-3. I do not think many expect that Willis will have that level of quality of squad around him or running the O.

 

It also is interesting to look at Urlacher's college resume as noted by you with is switch from safety to MLB. I think this and also F-B's accomplishments and play under Jauron speak to the importance of outstanding pass defense being a big part of the MLB's role in our Cover 2.

 

Willis' strong suit seems to be his tackling and run pursuit while his ability to pass cover I am sure is not bad based on his earning the Butkus award and given the speed he showed in workouts, a start by him at MLB will be a departure from what Jauron had in Urlacher and F-B as it is clear that pass defense is not the lead part of the Willis game and actually it appears to be the piece he needs to work on mosty (unless the scouts who cite him for missing a few tackles through over-pursuit are correct that is the part of the game he needs to work on most).

 

I do appreciate you answering my inquiry directly with the Urlacher reference, and I hope others can provide some additional examples of rookies who handled the cover 2 MLB role so that it is more than the one example that may simply be the exception that proves the rule.

[Acantha]

I do appreciate you answering my inquiry directly with the Urlacher reference, and I hope others can provide some additional examples of rookies who handled the cover 2 MLB role so that it is more than the one example that may simply be the exception that proves the rule.

The problem is what your asking for is far too specific. The Tampa-2 hasn't been around that long, and only a few teams use it (Tampa, Chicago, Indy, and the Bills off the top of my head....more?)

 

4(?) teams and a few years of implementation doesn't offer a lot of examples to choose from. It's not like there are a dozen failures out there. That "exception" may very well be the only case to choose from? I don't know, I haven't put much effort into finding an answer to what I perceive as a very leading and one sided question.

[LynchMob23]

Two quick things:

 

1 - When Jauron picked Urlacher, it wasn't to a Tampa 2/Cover 2 Defense. He also was penciled in as the starting SLB until Roosevelt Colvin beat him out to retain his original position, forcing Urlacher to MLB. He didn't play the T2 until he got Lovie, and began to complain because he doesn't like running down the middle of the field, which takes away from his ability to attack at the LOS.

 

http://www.patriots.com/mediacenter/index....614&pcid=85

 

2 - For a real-world example of a MLB who started in a Cover/Tampa 2 and made the calls as a rookie, look at Vilma. From TC on he called the defenses his rookie year and became the leader after former Bill Sam Cowart went down in week three:

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FC..._n12416687/pg_4

 

2a. Tampa, Buffalo, Minnesota, KC, Denver (at times), Pittsburgh (with a 3-4 front variant), Chicago, Detroit, Indy and I'm not sure about GB.