PDA

View Full Version : What did most of the 2012 playoff teams have in common??? Solid LB's



Pages : [1] 2

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 12:03 PM
Everyone has a opinion about this subject and I'm siding with the camp that is concerned about our LB situation. I personally feel that taking this position lightly will be a mistake. Most of the playoff teams from last year have at least one "stud" LB on their current roster. I don't know if we have ANY at this point, not to mention that we just lost our best 2 at the position. Below are a few stats from the 2012 playoff teams. It's my personal belief that in this ever-growing era of the mobile QB that more and more emphasis is going to be put on the LB position. I don't think that a stellar DL is going to be able to cover up a weak middle field defense as it has in the past. I think we were trendsetters with our belief in a stellar DL, now I think we may be on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to securing the middle of the field. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I really want to be wrong!

2012 playoff teams

Seahawks - Bobby Wagner - 140 tackles, extremely underrated
Vikings - Chad Greenway - 148 tackles, pro bowl the last 2 years
Redskins - London Fletcher - 2012 pro bowl
Packers - Clay Matthews
49ers - nuff said
Broncos - Keith Brookings, DJ Williams, Von Miller
Patriots - Jerod Mayo - 2012 pro bowl
Colts - Jarrell Freeman - 145 tackles (top 5 in the league)
Ravens - nuff said


US

Chase Blackburn - 98 tackles - No longer with the team
Michael Boley - 92 tackles - No longer with the team
Mark Herzlich - 30 tackles
Keith Rivers - 44 tackles
J. Williams - 30 tackles
Dan Conners - 56 tackles - new addition to the team

Flip Empty
05-10-2013, 12:11 PM
They also had offenses that could score points.

MattMeyerBud
05-10-2013, 12:11 PM
and half of those teams run a completely different defense than what we ran - nuff said

DT2012
05-10-2013, 12:23 PM
Everyone has a opinion about this subject and I'm siding with the camp that is concerned about our LB situation. I personally feel that taking this position lightly will be a mistake. Most of the playoff teams from last year have at least one "stud" LB on their current roster. I don't know if we have ANY at this point, not to mention that we just lost our best 2 at the position. Below are a few stats from the 2012 playoff teams. It's my personal belief that in this ever-growing era of the mobile QB that more and more emphasis is going to be put on the LB position. I don't think that a stellar DL is going to be able to cover up a weak middle field defense as it has in the past. I think we were trendsetters with our belief in a stellar DL, now I think we may be on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to securing the middle of the field. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I really want to be wrong!

2012 playoff teams

Seahawks - Bobby Wagner - 140 tackles, extremely underrated
Vikings - Chad Greenway - 148 tackles, pro bowl the last 2 years
Redskins - London Fletcher - 2012 pro bowl
Packers - Clay Matthews
49ers - nuff said
Broncos - Keith Brookings, DJ Williams, Von Miller
Patriots - Jerod Mayo - 2012 pro bowl
Colts - Jarrell Freeman - 145 tackles (top 5 in the league)
Ravens - nuff said


US

Chase Blackburn - 98 tackles - No longer with the team
Michael Boley - 92 tackles - No longer with the team
Mark Herzlich - 30 tackles
Keith Rivers - 44 tackles
J. Williams - 30 tackles
Dan Conners - 56 tackles - new addition to the team


Just remember all those teams you mentioned that made the playoffs also had stud D-Lines in front of those LBer's which kept those LBers free of O-Linemen and allowed them to make plays. LBers are nothing without a good D-Line in front of them. If our D-line does what it is supposed to do this year and stops the run at the line of scrimmage and keeps our Backers free. I think everyone will see that the Giants LBers aren't the weakness they are perceived to be. Games are won in the trenches not at Linebacker!!!!!!

Mercury
05-10-2013, 12:28 PM
You are trying to make a correlation where one doesn't exist. I can say, "Most 2012 playoff teams had one thing in common, good water boys!" However, it doesn't mean that is why they are playoff teams.

joemorrisforprez
05-10-2013, 12:31 PM
Everyone has a opinion about this subject and I'm siding with the camp that is concerned about our LB situation. I personally feel that taking this position lightly will be a mistake. Most of the playoff teams from last year have at least one "stud" LB on their current roster. I don't know if we have ANY at this point, not to mention that we just lost our best 2 at the position. Below are a few stats from the 2012 playoff teams. It's my personal belief that in this ever-growing era of the mobile QB that more and more emphasis is going to be put on the LB position. I don't think that a stellar DL is going to be able to cover up a weak middle field defense as it has in the past. I think we were trendsetters with our belief in a stellar DL, now I think we may be on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to securing the middle of the field. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I really want to be wrong!

2012 playoff teams

Seahawks - Bobby Wagner - 140 tackles, extremely underrated
Vikings - Chad Greenway - 148 tackles, pro bowl the last 2 years
Redskins - London Fletcher - 2012 pro bowl
Packers - Clay Matthews
49ers - nuff said
Broncos - Keith Brookings, DJ Williams, Von Miller
Patriots - Jerod Mayo - 2012 pro bowl
Colts - Jarrell Freeman - 145 tackles (top 5 in the league)
Ravens - nuff said


US

Chase Blackburn - 98 tackles - No longer with the team
Michael Boley - 92 tackles - No longer with the team
Mark Herzlich - 30 tackles
Keith Rivers - 44 tackles
J. Williams - 30 tackles
Dan Conners - 56 tackles - new addition to the team

Good post....it's pretty clear that good linebackers elevate the play of the defense.

I can totally appreciate the importance of a dominant defensive line, but at some point, our linebackers need to make plays, too.

TheEnigma
05-10-2013, 12:42 PM
Seahawks - Bobby Wagner - 140 tackles, extremely underrated

They also boast the best all around Secondary in the NFL and had a much better pass rush than us last year until Clemons went down. Wagner is a nice piece but he's just a roleplayer compared to some of the other studs on this defense.


Vikings - Chad Greenway - 148 tackles, pro bowl the last 2 years

As nice as Greenway is, this team wouldn't have made the playoffs at all if it wasn't for Peterson and that offensive line. The defense had very little to do with them making the wild card lol.


Redskins - London Fletcher - 2012 pro bowl

How many playoff berths did Fletcher secure for the Redskins before RG3 showed up?


Packers - Clay Matthews

Clay Matthews is a pass rusher and very rarely does anything outside of attacking the QB. Everyone knows the Packers make the playoffs because they have arguably the best QB in the league right now. That defense has nothing to do with the success of that team.


49ers - nuff said

This one is true to an extent but again, the 49ers weren't making the playoffs until Jim Harbaugh showed up and got the offense in order. This defense wasn't even that good during the playoffs and you could argue Kaepernick and the receiving game actually carried the team into the SB.


Broncos - Keith Brookings, DJ Williams, Von Miller

Brooking and Williams are nothing special to write about. Von Miller is also a pass rusher like Clay Matthews and don't forget they had Dumervil on the opposite side. This defense was an example of what happens when you have a top 5 pass rusher and a very good pass rusher across from him.


Patriots - Jerod Mayo - 2012 pro bowl

Tom Brady, AFC East...that about sums that one up.


Colts - Jarrell Freeman - 145 tackles (top 5 in the league)

This is a hard team to figure out. I'd say they played much better than their actual talent level due to the Chuck Pagano motivation and they might come back down to Earth this upcoming season. Drafting the best QB out of college since John Elway helps too.


Ravens - nuff said

What? You mean the ancient Ray Lewis who was actually a liability on the field last season? Or are you talking about Ellerbe who had a few nice games? The Ravens won the whole thing more so on the evolution of Flacco as a passer and not having to rely on Ray Rice every down.

Rudyy
05-10-2013, 12:44 PM
They had a consistent offense and a defense that can stop opposing teams.

BlueSanta
05-10-2013, 01:02 PM
Yea I gotta disagree.

If you scroll down the list of teams you can really only see 1 team(49ers) where the strength of the defense is in the Lbs. Maybe you could say that about the broncos too, but it's debatable.

Other than that I think each of those defenses had other areas that outshined the Lbers. I would also argue that the Ravens had perhaps the worst LB play of any team in the playoffs last year, and they won it all. Lewis wasa mediocre LB last year, unlike his former self.

I am not saying Lbers aren't important. But your argument is not a sound 1

giantscolombia
05-10-2013, 01:41 PM
They also had offenses that could score points.
We didnt?

giantscolombia
05-10-2013, 01:42 PM
They also boast the best all around Secondary in the NFL and had a much better pass rush than us last year until Clemons went down. Wagner is a nice piece but he's just a roleplayer compared to some of the other studs on this defense.



As nice as Greenway is, this team wouldn't have made the playoffs at all if it wasn't for Peterson and that offensive line. The defense had very little to do with them making the wild card lol.



How many playoff berths did Fletcher secure for the Redskins before RG3 showed up?



Clay Matthews is a pass rusher and very rarely does anything outside of attacking the QB. Everyone knows the Packers make the playoffs because they have arguably the best QB in the league right now. That defense has nothing to do with the success of that team.



This one is true to an extent but again, the 49ers weren't making the playoffs until Jim Harbaugh showed up and got the offense in order. This defense wasn't even that good during the playoffs and you could argue Kaepernick and the receiving game actually carried the team into the SB.



Brooking and Williams are nothing special to write about. Von Miller is also a pass rusher like Clay Matthews and don't forget they had Dumervil on the opposite side. This defense was an example of what happens when you have a top 5 pass rusher and a very good pass rusher across from him.



Tom Brady, AFC East...that about sums that one up.



This is a hard team to figure out. I'd say they played much better than their actual talent level due to the Chuck Pagano motivation and they might come back down to Earth this upcoming season. Drafting the best QB out of college since John Elway helps too.



What? You mean the ancient Ray Lewis who was actually a liability on the field last season? Or are you talking about Ellerbe who had a few nice games? The Ravens won the whole thing more so on the evolution of Flacco as a passer and not having to rely on Ray Rice every down.

This about sums it up. THREAD CLOSED....

giantsfam04
05-10-2013, 01:59 PM
We didnt?

Not consistently at all, explain how you can score 50+ one week and get shut on the next. This LB argument is so overrated and has been beaten to death already. If a great LB core is that important then become a fan of those teams.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 03:18 PM
You are trying to make a correlation where one doesn't exist. I can say, "Most 2012 playoff teams had one thing in common, good water boys!" However, it doesn't mean that is why they are playoff teams.

Maybe we should look into new water boys then too.

Morehead State
05-10-2013, 03:20 PM
Maybe we should look into new water boys then too.
I'd put our waterboys up against any in the league.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 03:21 PM
Just remember all those teams you mentioned that made the playoffs also had stud D-Lines in front of those LBer's which kept those LBers free of O-Linemen and allowed them to make plays. LBers are nothing without a good D-Line in front of them. If our D-line does what it is supposed to do this year and stops the run at the line of scrimmage and keeps our Backers free. I think everyone will see that the Giants LBers aren't the weakness they are perceived to be. Games are won in the trenches not at Linebacker!!!!!!

I hear you, but I would argue that games are won, for the most part, with a balanced team.

Morehead State
05-10-2013, 03:23 PM
I hear you, but I would argue that games are won, for the most part, with a balanced team.
Didn't we win the SB with essentially the same LB'rs?

You guys gotta stop with the LB'rs. Our defense is all about the pass rush.

Buddy333
05-10-2013, 03:26 PM
The game is won in the trenches.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 03:27 PM
They also boast the best all around Secondary in the NFL and had a much better pass rush than us last year until Clemons went down. Wagner is a nice piece but he's just a roleplayer compared to some of the other studs on this defense.



As nice as Greenway is, this team wouldn't have made the playoffs at all if it wasn't for Peterson and that offensive line. The defense had very little to do with them making the wild card lol.



How many playoff berths did Fletcher secure for the Redskins before RG3 showed up?



Clay Matthews is a pass rusher and very rarely does anything outside of attacking the QB. Everyone knows the Packers make the playoffs because they have arguably the best QB in the league right now. That defense has nothing to do with the success of that team.



This one is true to an extent but again, the 49ers weren't making the playoffs until Jim Harbaugh showed up and got the offense in order. This defense wasn't even that good during the playoffs and you could argue Kaepernick and the receiving game actually carried the team into the SB.



Brooking and Williams are nothing special to write about. Von Miller is also a pass rusher like Clay Matthews and don't forget they had Dumervil on the opposite side. This defense was an example of what happens when you have a top 5 pass rusher and a very good pass rusher across from him.



Tom Brady, AFC East...that about sums that one up.



This is a hard team to figure out. I'd say they played much better than their actual talent level due to the Chuck Pagano motivation and they might come back down to Earth this upcoming season. Drafting the best QB out of college since John Elway helps too.



What? You mean the ancient Ray Lewis who was actually a liability on the field last season? Or are you talking about Ellerbe who had a few nice games? The Ravens won the whole thing more so on the evolution of Flacco as a passer and not having to rely on Ray Rice every down.

Most, any and all opinions in regard to any sport can be broken down and picked apart. This is obviously because of the subjectivity of the observer. Some can say that Tebow sucked because of his throwing motion, others can say that it was because of his bad footwork, some others can even say that he was not given enough opportunity. The most objective thing we can do is admit that maybe it's a combination of things, making no one exactly right, but no one really wrong at the same time.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 03:35 PM
Yea I gotta disagree.

If you scroll down the list of teams you can really only see 1 team(49ers) where the strength of the defense is in the Lbs. Maybe you could say that about the broncos too, but it's debatable.

Other than that I think each of those defenses had other areas that outshined the Lbers. I would also argue that the Ravens had perhaps the worst LB play of any team in the playoffs last year, and they won it all. Lewis wasa mediocre LB last year, unlike his former self.

I am not saying Lbers aren't important. But your argument is not a sound 1

It's only as sound as is true, which could never really be proven. It just struck me as odd that all of those teams listed had some "security" in their linebacker position in regard to above average talent and matching statistics. It's not an end all be all position, all or no positions really are with the exception of possibly the QB. I just believe we lack there talent-wise compared to all of the teams on that list.

TheEnigma
05-10-2013, 03:40 PM
Didn't we win the SB with essentially the same LB'rs?

You guys gotta stop with the LB'rs. Our defense is all about the pass rush.

Pass rushers > Cornerbacks > 3 Tech > Safeties > 1 Tech > Weakside > Middle > Strongside

At least that's how I see it.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 03:43 PM
Not consistently at all, explain how you can score 50+ one week and get shut on the next. This LB argument is so overrated and has been beaten to death already. If a great LB core is that important then become a fan of those teams.

Maybe you should avoid the pointless extremes? Obviously, we are all Giants fans here. Why would someone want to root for another team because of their LB core??? And if you feel it's beaten to death now, wait until the season starts. I think some of us were still holding onto hope that something could be handled via free agency, which definitely doesnt seem likely now. You arent concerned with it being an issue, great for you. I hope youre right. However, some of us see it as a serious issue. Difference of opinions.

Tommy_Ribs
05-10-2013, 03:47 PM
If the OP's point is that we need better LBs - then I totally agree.

I don't see a lot that I like right now. Jacquard Williams is the guy I like the most and that is as a specialist.

Her zilch, Connor, Paysinger and Rivers don't really inspire a lot of confidence. I know we can't have pro bowlers everywhere but an upgrade to decent LBs would be a huge improvement.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 03:56 PM
I think that so many are so quick to want to argue that they are missing the point. The point isnt that you have to have a great LB core to win. I just pointed out the all of those teams have above average to great players in that position. My point more than anything else is simply that the play from our current LB core, for whatever reasons, has been mediocre to below average. Each position holds it's own importance, and the weight of that importance is highly completely subjective. I'd take our LB core from the 86 team with a piss poor DL over our DL from 2007 with a piss poor LB crew. It's sort of a bad example being the 3-4 4-3 thing, but still. You need relative strength at every position and I'm having a hard time seeing it with our LBs. Maybe Dan Conner can hold it up for us.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 03:57 PM
I'd put our waterboys up against any in the league.
HAhaaa

TCHOF
05-10-2013, 03:59 PM
If the OP's point is that we need better LBs - then I totally agree.

I don't see a lot that I like right now. Jacquard Williams is the guy I like the most and that is as a specialist.

Her zilch, Connor, Paysinger and Rivers don't really inspire a lot of confidence. I know we can't have pro bowlers everywhere but an upgrade to decent LBs would be a huge improvement.

Her zilch . . . lol

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 04:01 PM
If the OP's point is that we need better LBs - then I totally agree.

I don't see a lot that I like right now. Jacquard Williams is the guy I like the most and that is as a specialist.

Her zilch, Connor, Paysinger and Rivers don't really inspire a lot of confidence. I know we can't have pro bowlers everywhere but an upgrade to decent LBs would be a huge improvement.

That is definitely my point. But I'd take it just a tad bit further, we need better linebackers pretty bad. Without a doubt one of the biggest needs on the team, that of course is my opinion.

TheEnigma
05-10-2013, 04:04 PM
The desire to upgrade the LB unit is understandable but people do realize how hard it is to find 4-3 linebackers these days that can play all 3 downs, right? Weakside linebackers can but they tend to be more susceptible to power running games. It's very rare to find that elusive linebacker that not only stuffs the run but can stay on the field for 3rd and long to cover the new athletic TEs down the field. If they can only play so many snaps, why put such a high priority on them?

MattMeyerBud
05-10-2013, 04:23 PM
I think that so many are so quick to want to argue that they are missing the point. The point isnt that you have to have a great LB core to win. I just pointed out the all of those teams have above average to great players in that position. My point more than anything else is simply that the play from our current LB core, for whatever reasons, has been mediocre to below average. Each position holds it's own importance, and the weight of that importance is highly completely subjective. I'd take our LB core from the 86 team with a piss poor DL over our DL from 2007 with a piss poor LB crew. It's sort of a bad example being the 3-4 4-3 thing, but still. You need relative strength at every position and I'm having a hard time seeing it with our LBs. Maybe Dan Conner can hold it up for us.

The 3-4 4-3 thing actually completely diminishes your point.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 05:10 PM
Didn't we win the SB with essentially the same LB'rs?

You guys gotta stop with the LB'rs. Our defense is all about the pass rush.

Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with Boley back.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 05:16 PM
The game is won in the trenches.

To me, that's kind of like saying that a war is won on the front lines. Extremely important? Yes. I believe that the support behind the lines is equally as important though, all the way back to the safties and tailbacks.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 05:18 PM
The 3-4 4-3 thing actually completely diminishes your point.

And your lack of understanding the point completely diminishes yours.

BlueSanta
05-10-2013, 05:20 PM
To me, that's kind of like saying that a war is won on the front lines. Extremely important? Yes. I believe that the support behind the lines is equally as important though, all the way back to the safties and tailbacks.

So your point is you need a good team to win games...


ok I agree

Morehead State
05-10-2013, 05:31 PM
Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with Boley back.
His abilities diminished substantially last season.
I don't think he can play anymore at any kind of high level.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 05:33 PM
The desire to upgrade the LB unit is understandable but people do realize how hard it is to find 4-3 linebackers these days that can play all 3 downs, right? Weakside linebackers can but they tend to be more susceptible to power running games. It's very rare to find that elusive linebacker that not only stuffs the run but can stay on the field for 3rd and long to cover the new athletic TEs down the field. If they can only play so many snaps, why put such a high priority on them?

That's actually a really good point. To some degree the same can be said about the DL rotation, except we have people there to rotate and keep the integrity of the line fairly intact. Thinking about our starting LBs, let alone the backups, makes me nauseous. But I'm going to try and be postitive. Maybe someone will step up. Serviceable is one thing. Sub par is something else. I'm hoping for the best.

BlueSanta
05-10-2013, 05:34 PM
His abilities diminished substantially last season.
I don't think he can play anymore at any kind of high level.

yep, his play was so poor the coaches reduced his snapcount considerably from early season to late.

He went from 1 of the highest snaps per game on the entire defense to being on the field for less than 25% of the snaps down the stretch. Clearly, the coaches felt our chances where better with Williams/Rivers out there.

He was recently arrested too I believe. I think he is done.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 05:35 PM
So your point is you need a good team to win games...


ok I agree

high five

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 05:45 PM
yep, his play was so poor the coaches reduced his snapcount considerably from early season to late.

He went from 1 of the highest snaps per game on the entire defense to being on the field for less than 25% of the snaps down the stretch. Clearly, the coaches felt our chances where better with Williams/Rivers out there.

He was recently arrested too I believe. I think he is done.

Could very well be a coincidence but the entire defense tanked down the stretch.

DT2012
05-10-2013, 05:49 PM
Games are won or lost in the trenches Plain and Simple!!!! There is no arguing this fact. On offense if the O-Line doesn't block and push the D-Line off the ball the RB can't gain yardage. If the O-Line can't pass Protect then the QB is at risk of being sacked evertime he drops back. Now I know they have play action and spread Offenses and all these other types to contend with but the key still lies on those guys up front. Defensivly if your D-Line can't hold the point of attack eat up space and stop the run your defense is going to be on the field a long time. If you D-Line can rush the passer around the ends or thru the middle with a pocket collapsing DT then you put extra strain on your secondary and LB cores. That is why games are won in the trenches cause everything depends on those guys up front doing what they are supposed to do for the rest of the Offense or defense to do their jobs effectively. Lineman on both sides of the ball are the unsung heros of every Superbowl winning team. They don't get the glory but without them none of it would have been possible.

slipknottin
05-10-2013, 06:10 PM
Ravens had crap at Lb, and they won the SB.

Just like the giants won the year before with average at best Lb play

plaxattack17
05-10-2013, 06:23 PM
i agree, my one criticism of Reese over the years is, he seems to just patch up LB instead of drafting a stud. We've got a need but he signs retreads and scrubs and i feel our defense needs a dominant Mike to lead the d, we've not had one sinse Antonio Peirce. I don't get it.

Toadofsteel
05-10-2013, 06:44 PM
i agree, my one criticism of Reese over the years is, he seems to just patch up LB instead of drafting a stud. We've got a need but he signs retreads and scrubs and i feel our defense needs a dominant Mike to lead the d, we've not had one sinse Antonio Peirce. I don't get it.

That's one of the two schools of thought regarding defensive personnel. Personally, I prefer what we did in the 2011 run: get a guy who's smart to play MLB and captain everything (which Chase definitely was), and punish opposing teams with beefy bodies on our DL... JPP, Tuck, Osi, Kiwi, Tolly, Canty, Linval, and even guys like Rocky all stepping up their games, providing us with punishers on every down that we could rotate practically at will. Yeah, I'd rather have my MLB be a brain more than beef; someone who can wield the DT like giant beef cannons.

pacco_diablo
05-10-2013, 06:46 PM
Games are won or lost in the trenches Plain and Simple!!!! There is no arguing this fact. On offense if the O-Line doesn't block and push the D-Line off the ball the RB can't gain yardage. If the O-Line can't pass Protect then the QB is at risk of being sacked evertime he drops back. Now I know they have play action and spread Offenses and all these other types to contend with but the key still lies on those guys up front. Defensivly if your D-Line can't hold the point of attack eat up space and stop the run your defense is going to be on the field a long time. If you D-Line can rush the passer around the ends or thru the middle with a pocket collapsing DT then you put extra strain on your secondary and LB cores. That is why games are won in the trenches cause everything depends on those guys up front doing what they are supposed to do for the rest of the Offense or defense to do their jobs effectively. Lineman on both sides of the ball are the unsung heros of every Superbowl winning team. They don't get the glory but without them none of it would have been possible.

I will agree that the warriors upfront are without a doubt unsung. However, putting all of your eggs in one basket is not the approach that I would personally take. Like you said, there are workarounds for defending powerful lines, whether it's offensively going with single backfields, double TEs, shotguns or defensively blitzes and stunts, without the work behind the lines the game can't be won either. My main point of emphasis is solely about our complete neglect to the middle of our defensive field. If I'm coaching against us, I'm game planning against the middle of our field. I'm going west coast. I'm bootlegging and dropping screens. I'm testing our ability to get sideline to sideline.

I just hope we havent overcompensated. But I'll admit, like the rest of us, I'm just on the outside looking in.

giantsfam04
05-11-2013, 09:18 AM
Maybe you should avoid the pointless extremes? Obviously, we are all Giants fans here. Why would someone want to root for another team because of their LB core??? And if you feel it's beaten to death now, wait until the season starts. I think some of us were still holding onto hope that something could be handled via free agency, which definitely doesnt seem likely now. You arent concerned with it being an issue, great for you. I hope youre right. However, some of us see it as a serious issue. Difference of opinions.

Didn't mean to come off as such a dbag. Had a real bad day, got passed over for a job I really need. My bad man I never post negativity like that, the purpose of the forms is to express differences of opinions and insight not slam someone who has a different opinion.

Imgrate
05-11-2013, 11:29 AM
Positional value. Why do people give a **** about linebackers when we have one legitimate starting cb signed though 2014, and our pass rush was terrible last year. If you invest into linebackers, you are taking away assets that could be invested into much more important positions. Why don't people understand this?

Morehead State
05-11-2013, 01:15 PM
Positional value. Why do people give a **** about linebackers when we have one legitimate starting cb signed though 2014, and our pass rush was terrible last year. If you invest into linebackers, you are taking away assets that could be invested into much more important positions. Why don't people understand this?
Like RB!!!!
Hahahaha!!!!!

G-Men Surg.
05-11-2013, 01:15 PM
Everyone has a opinion about this subject and I'm siding with the camp that is concerned about our LB situation. I personally feel that taking this position lightly will be a mistake. Most of the playoff teams from last year have at least one "stud" LB on their current roster. I don't know if we have ANY at this point, not to mention that we just lost our best 2 at the position. Below are a few stats from the 2012 playoff teams. It's my personal belief that in this ever-growing era of the mobile QB that more and more emphasis is going to be put on the LB position. I don't think that a stellar DL is going to be able to cover up a weak middle field defense as it has in the past. I think we were trendsetters with our belief in a stellar DL, now I think we may be on the other side of the spectrum when it comes to securing the middle of the field. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and I really want to be wrong!

2012 playoff teams

Seahawks - Bobby Wagner - 140 tackles, extremely underrated
Vikings - Chad Greenway - 148 tackles, pro bowl the last 2 years
Redskins - London Fletcher - 2012 pro bowl
Packers - Clay Matthews
49ers - nuff said
Broncos - Keith Brookings, DJ Williams, Von Miller
Patriots - Jerod Mayo - 2012 pro bowl
Colts - Jarrell Freeman - 145 tackles (top 5 in the league)
Ravens - nuff said


US

Chase Blackburn - 98 tackles - No longer with the team
Michael Boley - 92 tackles - No longer with the team
Mark Herzlich - 30 tackles
Keith Rivers - 44 tackles
J. Williams - 30 tackles
Dan Conners - 56 tackles - new addition to the team

Playoff teams are solid all around but if you ask me the most important part of a contending team is to have a solid OLINE and the ones that went far in the playoffs had one. I'm glad the Giants are starting to walk in the right path in this regard building again the team from the inside out drafting Pugh, Herman, Hankins and Moore. As the old saying goes, you build a championship team for the inside out, ALWAYS.

joemorrisforprez
05-11-2013, 01:43 PM
The game is won in the trenches.

As if Harry Carson was unfamiliar with the trenches.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8L4Xozuon0

Imgrate
05-11-2013, 01:48 PM
Like RB!!!!Hahahaha!!!!!Or right tackle.

Imgrate
05-11-2013, 01:50 PM
As if Harry Carson was unfamiliar with the trenches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8L4Xozuon0Its not the 1980s anymore. The sooner you realize that, the happier you'll be. Linebackers are the least important position on our defense.

joemorrisforprez
05-11-2013, 02:07 PM
Its not the 1980s anymore. The sooner you realize that, the happier you'll be. Linebackers are the least important position on our defense.

That logic helps explain the #31 ranking.

If you think today's defenses couldn't use another Harry Carson, you must be smoking crack.

BlueSanta
05-11-2013, 03:22 PM
That logic helps explain the #31 ranking.

If you think today's defenses couldn't use another Harry Carson, you must be smoking crack.


Is anyone saying that? So your point is that this team would be better if it had a hall of fame player playing with the team? Wow Brilliant.



Yesterday in the wonderful chocolate world of make believe, where Rainbows are made of chocolate and cars run on seawater, it rained Harry Carsons and Lawrence Taylors grow on trees. Is that where you are from?

But here in the REAL world players like Harry come along pretty rarely. So instead of saying how we would be better with him, why not suggest a real life proposal or better yet complain about a real life complaint because there were no MLB of Carsons ability in this draft and there were none in free agency either. As I said, HC's are pretty rare.

giants8493
05-11-2013, 03:37 PM
That logic helps explain the #31 ranking.

If you think today's defenses couldn't use another Harry Carson, you must be smoking crack. What does smoking crack have to do with anything? I think you trying to avoid the real issue here.

TheEnigma
05-11-2013, 03:56 PM
But here in the REAL world players like Harry come along pretty rarely. So instead of saying how we would be better with him, why not suggest a real life proposal or better yet complain about a real life complaint because there were no MLB of Carsons ability in this draft and there were none in free agency either. As I said, HC's are pretty rare.

This is a great way to look at it and if I may go a step further, the MLB position (that the old timers grew up with) is simply dying in today's NFL due to the Gronkowskis, Grahams, and Hernandezs in this league now. Most would argue that it started with Gonzalez in the late 90s and Antonio Gates only a few years later but now most of the league at least has one player like that on the roster that can exploit the typical linebacker. Instead of trying to pull their hair out to search for 245lb+ monsters who stuff the run and that can also drop into the middle of the field to cover TEs (yeah Brian Urlachers are pretty rare lol), it's much more simple to find an athletically gifted Safety who can play in the box and cover the middle. Cooper Taylor is exactly the type of DB this team covets because he can fulfill the MLB duties on 3rd and long.

I still want to know where these magical do-it-all linebackers are that everyone covets and why we should throw tons of early round selections at them when most of them are just a liability on 3rd down in the NFL now.

giant-4-life
05-11-2013, 04:55 PM
the D-line is the first line of defense(no pun intended). then the LBers fill in the holes, then the DB's.

Some of you PMS'ing people need to take a midol and let's see ow things go..

giants8493
05-11-2013, 05:24 PM
This is a great way to look at it and if I may go a step further, the MLB position (that the old timers grew up with) is simply dying in today's NFL due to the Gronkowskis, Grahams, and Hernandezs in this league now. Most would argue that it started with Gonzalez in the late 90s and Antonio Gates only a few years later but now most of the league at least has one player like that on the roster that can exploit the typical linebacker. Instead of trying to pull their hair out to search for 245lb+ monsters who stuff the run and that can also drop into the middle of the field to cover TEs (yeah Brian Urlachers are pretty rare lol), it's much more simple to find an athletically gifted Safety who can play in the box and cover the middle. Cooper Taylor is exactly the type of DB this team covets because he can fulfill the MLB duties on 3rd and long.

I still want to know where these magical do-it-all linebackers are that everyone covets and why we should throw tons of early round selections at them when most of them are just a liability on 3rd down in the NFL now.You say that is if there is more than one though.

Redeyejedi
05-11-2013, 06:36 PM
That logic helps explain the #31 ranking.

If you think today's defenses couldn't use another Harry Carson, you must be smoking crack.No the guy next to him was smoking Crack, The Defense was 31st in yards which last I checked doesnt determine wins or losses. They were 12th in points.U cant compare football in the 80's to todays game its not the same

Redeyejedi
05-11-2013, 06:39 PM
This is a great way to look at it and if I may go a step further, the MLB position (that the old timers grew up with) is simply dying in today's NFL due to the Gronkowskis, Grahams, and Hernandezs in this league now. Most would argue that it started with Gonzalez in the late 90s and Antonio Gates only a few years later but now most of the league at least has one player like that on the roster that can exploit the typical linebacker. Instead of trying to pull their hair out to search for 245lb+ monsters who stuff the run and that can also drop into the middle of the field to cover TEs (yeah Brian Urlachers are pretty rare lol), it's much more simple to find an athletically gifted Safety who can play in the box and cover the middle. Cooper Taylor is exactly the type of DB this team covets because he can fulfill the MLB duties on 3rd and long.

I still want to know where these magical do-it-all linebackers are that everyone covets and why we should throw tons of early round selections at them when most of them are just a liability on 3rd down in the NFL now. 2 of those Magic LB's were Top 10 busts and on are the roster right now. I bet the same people hating on Dan Conner are the same 1's who wanted him in the 1st round a few years ago.

Drez
05-11-2013, 10:58 PM
They also boast the best all around Secondary in the NFL and had a much better pass rush than us last year until Clemons went down. Wagner is a nice piece but he's just a roleplayer compared to some of the other studs on this defense.



As nice as Greenway is, this team wouldn't have made the playoffs at all if it wasn't for Peterson and that offensive line. The defense had very little to do with them making the wild card lol.



How many playoff berths did Fletcher secure for the Redskins before RG3 showed up?



Clay Matthews is a pass rusher and very rarely does anything outside of attacking the QB. Everyone knows the Packers make the playoffs because they have arguably the best QB in the league right now. That defense has nothing to do with the success of that team.



This one is true to an extent but again, the 49ers weren't making the playoffs until Jim Harbaugh showed up and got the offense in order. This defense wasn't even that good during the playoffs and you could argue Kaepernick and the receiving game actually carried the team into the SB.



Brooking and Williams are nothing special to write about. Von Miller is also a pass rusher like Clay Matthews and don't forget they had Dumervil on the opposite side. This defense was an example of what happens when you have a top 5 pass rusher and a very good pass rusher across from him.



Tom Brady, AFC East...that about sums that one up.



This is a hard team to figure out. I'd say they played much better than their actual talent level due to the Chuck Pagano motivation and they might come back down to Earth this upcoming season. Drafting the best QB out of college since John Elway helps too.



What? You mean the ancient Ray Lewis who was actually a liability on the field last season? Or are you talking about Ellerbe who had a few nice games? The Ravens won the whole thing more so on the evolution of Flacco as a passer and not having to rely on Ray Rice every down.Stop using logic. It confuses people.

pacco_diablo
05-11-2013, 11:06 PM
Didn't mean to come off as such a dbag. Had a real bad day, got passed over for a job I really need. My bad man I never post negativity like that, the purpose of the forms is to express differences of opinions and insight not slam someone who has a different opinion.

Its all good man. Sorry to hear about that potential job miss. I'm a firm believer in things truly happening for a reason. We just have to keep plugging away. From the words of one of the most true, "keep your head up."

joemorrisforprez
05-11-2013, 11:13 PM
No the guy next to him was smoking Crack, The Defense was 31st in yards which last I checked doesnt determine wins or losses. They were 12th in points.U cant compare football in the 80's to todays game its not the same

The Giants were the 31st ranked defense in the league last year. The rankings are based on yards allowed...that's how it goes.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

I believe you can compare the 1980s to today. Sure, some things have changed, but the qualities that made players great in the 1980s make players great in 2013. Joe Montana would be just a lethal on a 2013 offense. And Harry Carson would be by far the best linebacker on this team.

joemorrisforprez
05-11-2013, 11:18 PM
Is anyone saying that? So your point is that this team would be better if it had a hall of fame player playing with the team? Wow Brilliant.



Yesterday in the wonderful chocolate world of make believe, where Rainbows are made of chocolate and cars run on seawater, it rained Harry Carsons and Lawrence Taylors grow on trees. Is that where you are from?

But here in the REAL world players like Harry come along pretty rarely. So instead of saying how we would be better with him, why not suggest a real life proposal or better yet complain about a real life complaint because there were no MLB of Carsons ability in this draft and there were none in free agency either. As I said, HC's are pretty rare.

You've gone so far down river from my original comment that you need a map and canoe.

I was responding to the comment that "the game is won in the trenches"...if I could pick a single player to have on 4th and goal, it would be a guy like Harry Carson....a linebacker.

Remember....this thread was about "solid linebackers". Sorry if it's a sore subject, but when it comes to solid linebackers, I figured Harry Carson was a pretty good example.

Giantslb66
05-11-2013, 11:19 PM
Not consistently at all, explain how you can score 50+ one week and get shut on the next. This LB argument is so overrated and has been beaten to death already. If a great LB core is that important then become a fan of those teams. Why does he have to become a fan of another team? because he posted a VALID point about the Giants. I have loved the Giants my whole life but the LB position is exremely weak, has been for a while.

Drez
05-11-2013, 11:22 PM
You've gone so far down river from my original comment that you need a map and canoe.

I was responding to the comment that the game is won in the trenches...if I could pick a single player to have on 4th and goal, it would be a guy like Harry Carson....a linebacker.

Remember....this thread was about linebackers. Sorry if it's a sore subject.It's only a sore subject to you and pacco.

Buddy333
05-11-2013, 11:26 PM
As if Harry Carson was unfamiliar with the trenches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8L4Xozuon0Yeah, 20+ years ago they had great LB's. now they don't and still won two Championships. What's the big deal?

joemorrisforprez
05-11-2013, 11:32 PM
It's only a sore subject to you and pacco.

Again, when someone posts a thread about solid linebackers, I'm going to refer to solid linebackers. I'm not sure what your disconnect is.

joemorrisforprez
05-11-2013, 11:35 PM
WARNING, THIS VIDEO MIGHT BE DEEMED OFFENSIVE BY THOSE WHO DON'T APPRECIATE THE VALUE OF LINEBACKERS.

IT CONTAINS FOOTAGE OF A LINEBACKER CAPABLE OF SHEDDING A BLOCK, PURSUING A RUNNING BACK, MAKING TACKLES BEHIND THE LINE OF SCRIMMAGE, AND COVERING A TIGHT END.....THESE PLAYS ARE NO LONGER IMPORTANT IN "MODERN DEFENSES".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYlDaalyqL4

joemorrisforprez
05-11-2013, 11:42 PM
Why does he have to become a fan of another team? because he posted a VALID point about the Giants. I have loved the Giants my whole life but the LB position is exremely weak, has been for a while.

Apparently, the last thing we are supposed to talk about in a thread about linebackers are linebackers.

PRGiant
05-11-2013, 11:46 PM
Now remove the 3-4 defensive teams.

giantsacks
05-12-2013, 12:30 AM
U gotta trust Reese the man knows what he is doing the dline is are pride and joy truthfully backers are only used for 1st n 2nd down in my opinion #giantstillidye

giantsfam04
05-12-2013, 05:36 AM
Why does he have to become a fan of another team? because he posted a VALID point about the Giants. I have loved the Giants my whole life but the LB position is exremely weak, has been for a while.

I shouldn't have come off like that. I was having a bad day, no excuse for it. This is a place where we as fans can discuss our differences of opinions and provide reasons for our opinions. I was a real dbag and for that I apologize if it offended anyone.

giantsfam04
05-12-2013, 05:53 AM
As the current discussion the issue I have is comparing the teams of the 80-90 to the current team. In the 80-90 we ran a 34 which puts the emphasis on a strong lb core. You need guys that are ultra athletic on the outside and thick bodies at the 2 inside spots so they can take on the free blockers. In the 43 system we run we place greater emphasis on the front 4 to keep lb clean allowing them to flow to the ball and plug holes. If the front 4 cant do its job then the lb play struggles.

Now lets take a look at the teams we play in the division, the skins run the read option and spread out the defense while doing so. This puts the defense into a difficult situation, do you keep your base personell in to defend the run or a sub package. If you run the base defense you have a matchup problem, forcing a lb to cover a TE, WR or RB in the open field. If you go with a subpackage you create a matchup problem against the run. With a front 4 that can play stout at the line it gives the defense the ability to matchup against this type of offense for effectively, you can keep the subpackage in to defend against the pass and not be vulnerable against the run. Someone brought up Ray Lewis in the thread as an example of needing a great MLB, I would argue that he was great when he had big bodies in front of him to take on blockers, Tony Saragusa and the Nata, after goose retired Lewis begged the FO of the Ravens to draft another big body because he knew he was more effective when allowed to run sideline to sideline. This is why in a 43 you need dominant DT and why we place a higher value on that position.

Imgrate
05-12-2013, 06:45 AM
It's really not even debatable that the linebacker position in a 43 is the least important position. We are weak at more valuable positions and still are, so it doesn't make sense to use up resources on the linebacker position before addressing the other needs, like cornerback.

BlueSanta
05-12-2013, 09:54 AM
You've gone so far down river from my original comment that you need a map and canoe.

I was responding to the comment that "the game is won in the trenches"...if I could pick a single player to have on 4th and goal, it would be a guy like Harry Carson....a linebacker.

Remember....this thread was about "solid linebackers". Sorry if it's a sore subject, but when it comes to solid linebackers, I figured Harry Carson was a pretty good example.

No, you have gone down that river. That comment was a direct response to your last reply, the 1 I quoted, which implied people here actually think a Harry Carson wouldn't be valuable to this team.

It was a dumb statement. Own it.

For your recollection:


That logic helps explain the #31 ranking.

If you think today's defenses couldn't use another Harry Carson, you must be smoking crack.

B&RWarrior
05-12-2013, 10:39 AM
You are trying to make a correlation where one doesn't exist. I can say, "Most 2012 playoff teams had one thing in common, good water boys!" However, it doesn't mean that is why they are playoff teams.

This

B&RWarrior
05-12-2013, 10:43 AM
Most, any and all opinions in regard to any sport can be broken down and picked apart. This is obviously because of the subjectivity of the observer. Some can say that Tebow sucked because of his throwing motion, others can say that it was because of his bad footwork, some others can even say that he was not given enough opportunity. The most objective thing we can do is admit that maybe it's a combination of things, making no one exactly right, but no one really wrong at the same time.

You would absolutely be wrong if you didn't admit Tebow sucked at QB.

B&RWarrior
05-12-2013, 10:52 AM
The desire to upgrade the LB unit is understandable but people do realize how hard it is to find 4-3 linebackers these days that can play all 3 downs, right? Weakside linebackers can but they tend to be more susceptible to power running games. It's very rare to find that elusive linebacker that not only stuffs the run but can stay on the field for 3rd and long to cover the new athletic TEs down the field. If they can only play so many snaps, why put such a high priority on them?

IN 2011 Boley was that rarest of breeds that could do all the above. He's never had great instincts though. He didn't play that well in 2012, but I think it was more about the money he was making than anything else looking at the LBs we have left on the roster.

B&RWarrior
05-12-2013, 10:55 AM
Its not the 1980s anymore. The sooner you realize that, the happier you'll be. Linebackers are the least important position on our defense.

As much as I love watching great LB play I can't disagree with this.

Redeyejedi
05-12-2013, 11:57 AM
The Giants were the 31st ranked defense in the league last year. The rankings are based on yards allowed...that's how it goes.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/position/defense

I believe you can compare the 1980s to today. Sure, some things have changed, but the qualities that made players great in the 1980s make players great in 2013. Joe Montana would be just a lethal on a 2013 offense. And Harry Carson would be by far the best linebacker on this team. Again who cares what the yard ranking is. I care about points.Points determines who wins and who loses.

NorwoodBlue
05-12-2013, 12:23 PM
The very idea that you have a least important position on a defense doesn't make sense. When a guy's on the field and he's the worst player on the field, that becomes an exploitable area for the opposing offense. It doesn't matter if it's a cornerback, a MLB, or a DE. When you have a weak link, that weak link will be exploited by the offense. To say that it's OK to have sub-par LB because they're not as important doesn't hold water. When you have a pass rushing specialist DE who can't stop the run, and teams run over him all day, they're being successful against the entire defense, maybe because of that one guy.

The same holds true for a LB. If your defense can't stop the run, or the screen, or the draw or the crossing routes because your LB is not good, it doesn't result in success for the defense. There are times for nickel and dimes packages etc; but the LB are on the field a lot and they are subject to exploitation if they can't perform at the NFL level. The Giants keep trying to find these guys at the the league fire sales, and in the last few years we've been playing a lot of guys who just aren't very good. To go through an entire draft and say that Chase Blackburn was good enough and there's no need to draft a LB; well, we saw how that worked out. We've passed over LB to draft guys like Marvin Austin, and Jernigan, etc. You can't even begin to tell me that the team is better off with the LB we've had than the LB we might have gotten in the second round in Austin's case. I'm hoping that Curry will work out for us; it would be an absolute steal if he does. But the bottom line to me is that you just can't neglect a postion year after year, and not open the defense up to exploitation. We got J. Williams in the late rounds, and he's been to only bright spot at LB in a long, long time that's come out of the draft.

DT2012
05-12-2013, 03:48 PM
Uhhhh maybe some people here forgot but Harry Carson was stricking a run stuffing LB that's it. The NFL is not what it was back when he played I'm sorry. The games is much more advanced offenses have way more looks now then they did when Carson Played. And go Back and watch the D-Line carson had they did their job on every play. They kept Carson free of blockers!!!!! The thought that a Harry Carson would help this Giant team now is laughable. We need LBers who can play the run,cover TE's over the middle hell even be able to read slots recievers as well as so many other things. Harry Carson was great for what he was in the time he played. But saying putting him in the Giants Defense in 2013 that we would be that much better off I disagree. Strengthening your D-Line will allow your LBers to play at a higher level. People always mention LBers never wanna mention the D-Line. Harry Carson didn't have a star studded D-Line but they did their jobs kept him free so he could make plays. That's what the Giants are attempting to do now. Enough about why didn't they pick up a LB in the first or second round. Because the Giants brass knows like most do who understand football that your D-Line is you forst line of Defense against any and all attacks. That's where you begin your strengthening and move out from there.

Cool Papa B.
05-12-2013, 04:02 PM
It's really not even debatable that the linebacker position in a 43 is the least important position. We are weak at more valuable positions and still are, so it doesn't make sense to use up resources on the linebacker position before addressing the other needs, like cornerback.

+1

And it seems like the LB position in the 4-3 is evolving into a hybrid type of pos. someone fast enough to drop back and cover a TE or slot WR, but strong and quick enough to rush the QB. And with more and more running QB like RGIII playing, I think there will actually be a real need in that hybrid LB pos.

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 05:42 PM
No, you have gone down that river. That comment was a direct response to your last reply, the 1 I quoted, which implied people here actually think a Harry Carson wouldn't be valuable to this team.

It was a dumb statement. Own it.

For your recollection:

Again, you should read through the entire thread instead taking one comment out of context. I'm not going to chew your food for you.

The original thread topic was about the importance of good linebackers. I used Harry Carson as an example of how important a good linebacker can be to a defense, and also to indicate that in the trenches, a tough middle linebacker is extremely valuable.

If some people want to devalue the position, I can't expect to change their minds. I see a correlation between a subpar linebacking corps and a 31st ranked defense.

TheEnigma
05-12-2013, 05:50 PM
Again, you should read through the entire thread instead taking one comment out of context. I'm not going to chew your food for you.

The original thread topic was about the importance of good linebackers. I used Harry Carson as an example of how important a good linebacker can be to a defense, and also to indicate that in the trenches, a tough middle is linebacker is extremely valuable.

You are one of (perhaps the most?) vocal posters about the linebacker position and how we need to fix it. How do you propose we correct this problem and where we will find these linebackers you seek?

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 05:54 PM
You are one of (perhaps the most?) vocal posters about the linebacker position and how we need to fix it. How do you propose we correct this problem and where we will find these linebackers you seek?

Well, for starters, I think that when you are looking to draft a linebacker, it helps to select a linebacker, instead of a backup QB. So, Khaseem Greene would be my first logical answer. Chicago apparently saw that value.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, if DaMontre Moore and/or Cooper Taylor are converted or used in a LB hybrid roles, that would make the draft less disappointing.

Finally, I sincerely hope that Jerry's Annual Linebacker Dumpster Dive is successful this year....hopefully Curry will pan out, but I'm not holding my breath on that. My hope was for Karlos Dansby, but that ship has sailed.

As far as Harry Carson is concerned....yeah, the guy is a Hall of Famer....he was also a 4th round pick. Nobody was envisioning Canton when they drafted the guy. But as they say in hockey, if you don't put it on the net, you won't score.

If you don't draft for a position, the position will not improve; in fact, it will deteriorate due to age and injury. When a position deteriorates, the overall unit will in turn be negatively affected. I believe that is what we saw between 2011 and 2012.

Certainly, other factors were at play, including a defensive line and secondary that likewise had issues. But I also believe that offenses have caught on to the Giants defensive gameplan and did a damn good job with exploiting the weakness on the defense, which was lack of speed and toughness at the LB positions.

TheEnigma
05-12-2013, 06:16 PM
Well, for starters, I think that when you are looking to draft a linebacker, it helps to select a linebacker, instead of a backup QB. So, Khaseem Greene would be my first logical answer. Chicago apparently saw that value.

Ok, well...we already have a ton of weakside linebackers on the roster in the form of JWill or Paysinger. Greene is a decent player but let's not act like he was going to address our run defense. The guy has issues shedding blocks too and needs to be kept clean. That's why we picked up Hankins so our linebackers don't get owned on 1st and 2nd.


As I've mentioned elsewhere, if DaMontre Moore and/or Cooper Taylor are converted or used in a LB hybrid roles, that would make the draft less disappointing.

Hybrid linebackers are kind of the big thing these days in a defense that typically plays 4 guys on the LoS. Whether its in the form of a stand up rush linebacker like a Damontre Moore or a S/LB hybrid that is built like Cooper Taylor, the standard 4-3 MLB that can play all 3 downs is extinct in this league thanks to receiving TEs and slot receivers. These players are good choices in theory.


Finally, I sincerely hope that Jerry's Annual Linebacker Dumpster Dive is successful this year....hopefully Curry will pan out, but I'm not holding my breath on that. My hope was for Karlos Dansby, but that ship has sailed.

Dansby also played in the 3-4 while he was with the Dolphins. That scheme is a little easier on a linebacker since it takes stress away in terms of pass coverage and has linemen that typically absorb blockers better than the 4-3 Dlinemen who are more built for penetration. Safe to say he would be in upgrade but probably not as much as you think.


As far as Harry Carson is concerned....yeah, the guy is a Hall of Famer....he was also a 4th round pick. Nobody was envisioning Canton when they drafted the guy. But as they say in hockey, if you don't put it on the net, you won't score.

Harry Carson also didn't play against Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham...jeez I could go on. The fact is unless you get a linebacker built like Luke Kuechly (oh hey a top 10 pick) in the modern era, odds are that you are only getting a two down linebacker who can't help you on the field for 3rd and long. There's just little reason to invest early picks in linebackers when it's hard to find a 3 down traditional linebacker.

NorwoodBlue
05-12-2013, 07:45 PM
I'd like to see a MLB who's competant on 1st and 2nd downs, and third or fourth and short. We can't say we've even had that since Pierce faded away. Third or second and long is the place for your nickel or dime package, nobody expects your MLB to be in that package; but we have problems getting to that package some times because the offense pops off 5 or 6 yards per carry on first down. Washington ran all over our D, it was really sad to watch. You can't just throw Chase Blackburn on the field and say "there that's close enough"; because it obviously wasn't. You need 15-20 players now a days to have a complete defense, and the MLB still has to be a top notch player. If not, it screws up your whole defensive scheme.

Buddy333
05-12-2013, 07:54 PM
As someone else said, the team that actually won the Super Bowl did not have the best LB play.

NorwoodBlue
05-12-2013, 08:00 PM
As someone else said, the team that actually won the Super Bowl did not have the best LB play.

Chase Blackburn got badly beaten by Gronkowski and Brady seriously underthrew the ball so Blackburn could get back in the play and actually have postion on Gronkowski because he was trailing him. Chase gets the INT for being beaten, and we hang on to win. Had Brady thown that ball well, we'd have probably lost the Super Bowl, and our discussions since then probably would be regarding the need for better LB, because they're so important to the defense. Ironic, isn't it?

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 08:00 PM
Ok, well...we already have a ton of weakside linebackers on the roster in the form of JWill or Paysinger. Greene is a decent player but let's not act like he was going to address our run defense. The guy has issues shedding blocks too and needs to be kept clean. That's why we picked up Hankins so our linebackers don't get owned on 1st and 2nd.


I like JWill alot....of all our LBs, he's got the best chance to become "Boley2011". He still needs to learn to shed a tackle, though.

Paysinger is a backup until proven otherwise. I don't want to knock him, but he still needs to prove himself.

I have no issues with Hankins.....was initially worried about the "stamina issues" that scouts had conned, but sounds like that was more an issue of lack of depth at Ohio State than a Hankins problem.

As for Greene shedding blocks, that's more of an issue with getting his pads down, which is due to his transition from safety, where he just played higher. He might have missed some tackles but that's because his role in the defense was to gamble and try to make the big turnover. His stats back it up: 6 forced fumbles (tied 1st in the nation), 27 "impact tackles" (tied 1st in the nation); 51.6 coverage burn percentage (best among linebackers at the combine).

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-11/sports/ct-spt-0512-pompei-on-bears-chicago-20130512_1_khaseem-greene-linebacker-bears



Hybrid linebackers are kind of the big thing these days in a defense that typically plays 4 guys on the LoS. Whether its in the form of a stand up rush linebacker like a Damontre Moore or a S/LB hybrid that is built like Cooper Taylor, the standard 4-3 MLB that can play all 3 downs is extinct in this league thanks to receiving TEs and slot receivers. These players are good choices in theory.


That's why I'm hoping Moore and C. Taylor will be used heavily for roles that are normally the assignment of linebackers.

A guy like Brian Urlacher is an example of a modern day 4-3 everydown linebacker....granted, someone of his caliber is rare. However, Greene fits that mold as well, which is why the Bears took him.

Greene was about as close to the "new" linebacker that you'll see in the draft......I understand the Giants felt Nassib had a higher value, but I think the decision to go with C. Taylor was basically to address passing on Greene.



Dansby also played in the 3-4 while he was with the Dolphins. That scheme is a little easier on a linebacker since it takes stress away in terms of pass coverage and has linemen that typically absorb blockers better than the 4-3 Dlinemen who are more built for penetration. Safe to say he would be in upgrade but probably not as much as you think.


Dansby is possibly on the downside of his career; at the very least, he's peaked. But as a stop-gap (1-2 year fix) he would have brought a more physical element to the linebackers.



Harry Carson also didn't play against Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Jimmy Graham...jeez I could go on. The fact is unless you get a linebacker built like Luke Kuechly (oh hey a top 10 pick) in the modern era, odds are that you are only getting a two down linebacker who can't help you on the field for 3rd and long. There's just little reason to invest early picks in linebackers when it's hard to find a 3 down traditional linebacker.

Again, not to beat it to death, but Greene was the guy to draft if your main concern is dealing with the Gronkowski's of the world. Taylor is hopefully the answer for passing on Greene.

Flip Empty
05-12-2013, 08:04 PM
As someone else said, the team that actually won the Super Bowl did not have the best LB play.
It also had a bad o-line. Didn't stop them trying to improve it, though.

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 08:05 PM
Chase Blackburn got badly beaten by Gronkowski and Brady seriously underthrew the ball so Blackburn could get back in the play and actually have postion on Gronkowski because he was trailing him. Chase gets the INT for being beaten, and we hang on to win. Had Brady thown that ball well, we'd have probably lost the Super Bowl, and our discussions since then probably would be regarding the need for better LB, because they're so important to the defense. Ironic, isn't it?

Chase had mad skills on that play.

Gronkowski saw that ball up in the air, and then realized the Great Blackburn was on him, and then he just surrendered to the inevitable Chasterception.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxk5kuamUbQ

BlueSanta
05-12-2013, 08:06 PM
Again, you should read through the entire thread instead taking one comment out of context. I'm not going to chew your food for you.

The original thread topic was about the importance of good linebackers. I used Harry Carson as an example of how important a good linebacker can be to a defense, and also to indicate that in the trenches, a tough middle linebacker is extremely valuable.

If some people want to devalue the position, I can't expect to change their minds. I see a correlation between a subpar linebacking corps and a 31st ranked defense.

I did read the entire thread. Maybe you haven't or else you would know this isn't my 1st comment in the thread.

But, you still brought this topic up. So top hiding from your remards. I responded to a specific reply you made, so if that subject is off topic or "far from your original point" then you should perhaps stay on topic in your own opinions.

Buddy333
05-12-2013, 08:08 PM
It also had a bad o-line. Didn't stop them trying to improve it, though.No, but they still won.

Buddy333
05-12-2013, 08:08 PM
By the way, was talking about the Ravens.

Drez
05-12-2013, 08:09 PM
I'd like to see a MLB who's competant on 1st and 2nd downs, and third or fourth and short. We can't say we've even had that since Pierce faded away. Third or second and long is the place for your nickel or dime package, nobody expects your MLB to be in that package; but we have problems getting to that package some times because the offense pops off 5 or 6 yards per carry on first down. Washington ran all over our D, it was really sad to watch. You can't just throw Chase Blackburn on the field and say "there that's close enough"; because it obviously wasn't. You need 15-20 players now a days to have a complete defense, and the MLB still has to be a top notch player. If not, it screws up your whole defensive scheme.The problem last year started on the DL, though. When the DL takes care of business it frees up the LBs to make plays.

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 08:10 PM
This kid knows what time it is....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Aa35SUF_7w

Flip Empty
05-12-2013, 08:20 PM
By the way, was talking about the Ravens.

Ah, makes sense.


I see a correlation between a subpar linebacking corps and a 31st ranked defense

You do realise that, in terms of yards allowed - the metric by which you've ranked the Giants' defense - Atlanta, New England, Indianapolis and Washington finished 24th, 25th, 26th and 28th, respectively, right? Yet here is this thread suggesting that linebackers are the key to limiting yards and making the playoffs.

Seem like the real thing those 2012 playoff teams had in common was the ability to, oh I don't know... not get shut-out in the midst of a would-be playoff run.

TheEnigma
05-12-2013, 08:23 PM
We actually got our butts handed to us more thoroughly by intermediate-to-deep passing teams than the Skins and that's because we weren't able to generate much of a pass rush. Look at the teams who beat us by a large margin and you will see what I mean.

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 08:23 PM
The Ravens went after linebackers this draft.

Buddy333
05-12-2013, 08:25 PM
The Giants went after what won them two Championships in the last 6 years.

giantsfan420
05-12-2013, 08:28 PM
r ppl now trying to say the Ravens LB core should rest our worries bc their LB unit helped win a SB and they're a poor group of players like ours....


the ravens LB core is 1000x the unit we field lol...

but as enigma said, teams that generally exploited the middle of the field/LBs, weren't our issue last year. it was teams that went vertical that hurt us. Teams like SF, NO, and GB (who all do use deep passes, but rely more on the middle of the field exploits with their TE's) werent an issue for us really, and even in sme losses, the game was close like vs Wash.
Teams like Balt and Atl that feature downfield attack like our offense were the teams that made our d look like it was a pop warner D

Flip Empty
05-12-2013, 08:29 PM
The Ravens went after linebackers this draft.
Yeah, they run a 3-4 and lost a couple to retirement and free agency.

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 08:37 PM
I did read the entire thread. Maybe you haven't or else you would know this isn't my 1st comment in the thread.

But, you still brought this topic up. So top hiding from your remards. I responded to a specific reply you made, so if that subject is off topic or "far from your original point" then you should perhaps stay on topic in your own opinions.

This thread is about the value of solid linebackers. As a Giants fan who remembers Harry Carson, I felt he was an excellent example. Specifically, I brought up Harry Carson in response to a remark about the game being won in the trenches. My point was that a good middle linebacker is extremely important at the line of scrimmage.

After that, someone else made a comment indicating to stop living in the 1980s, and that the linebacker position was the least important position on defense, which implied to me that someone like Harry Carson wouldn't be a difference maker on a 2013 defense.

I'm not hiding from anything I've said. But at the same time, they should be taken in the proper context - as responses to prior comments, all of which devalue the position.

joemorrisforprez
05-12-2013, 08:48 PM
The Giants went after what won them two Championships in the last 6 years.

That's true...but only 1 QB can play at a time.

B&RWarrior
05-12-2013, 08:57 PM
The Giants went after what won them two Championships in the last 6 years.

+1

Buddy333
05-12-2013, 08:57 PM
Funny. So is this one of those Eli won the games by himself and the defense wasn't that good tings?

NorwoodBlue
05-12-2013, 09:15 PM
r ppl now trying to say the Ravens LB core should rest our worries bc their LB unit helped win a SB and they're a poor group of players like ours....


the ravens LB core is 1000x the unit we field lol...

but as enigma said, teams that generally exploited the middle of the field/LBs, weren't our issue last year. it was teams that went vertical that hurt us. Teams like SF, NO, and GB (who all do use deep passes, but rely more on the middle of the field exploits with their TE's) werent an issue for us really, and even in sme losses, the game was close like vs Wash.
Teams like Balt and Atl that feature downfield attack like our offense were the teams that made our d look like it was a pop warner D

The Ravens had a huge day running the ball, and Atlanta had 129 yards rushing. Atlanta actually blew the Giants off the field with less than 400yds total. In both those games it was just as much failure to stop the run and bad field positon as it was deep passes. More so, the Ravens had passes to Rice that were a big part of their passing yards . In both of those games better LB could have helped stop the bleeding. And Washington simply ran all over us, the LB was non-existant in that last Washington game. You'll never convince me that the neglect the LB position has had in the last five years isn't a huge contributing factor to our defense's decline.

B&RWarrior
05-12-2013, 10:14 PM
The Ravens had a huge day running the ball, and Atlanta had 129 yards rushing. Atlanta actually blew the Giants off the field with less than 400yds total. In both those games it was just as much failure to stop the run and bad field positon as it was deep passes. More so, the Ravens had passes to Rice that were a big part of their passing yards . In both of those games better LB could have helped stop the bleeding. And Washington simply ran all over us, the LB was non-existant in that last Washington game. You'll never convince me that the neglect the LB position has had in the last five years isn't a huge contributing factor to our defense's decline.

Would you rather 2 rings in the past 5 years or a dominant LB core for the past 5 years? I love being a SB champion in 2007 and 2011 more than I hate our mediocre LB core. In 2006, if a genie told me I'll grant you 2 SB victories in the next 5 years, but the other 3 years you'll play like poo and LBs will be in disarray at the end of the five year period, I would take that deal every time.

If it's any consolation to those of you who may love LB play like I do we had great LB play during our 2 SB runs. AP was the man in 2007 and Boley was awesome in 20011. I know CB made that one great play in the SB, but Boley was lights out all year long in 2011.

Buddy333
05-12-2013, 10:17 PM
Both sides if the ball where completely out of it in their last two losses this past season. Don't try to put it on one player or unit.

slipknottin
05-12-2013, 10:31 PM
How do the ravens have great Lbs? Ellerbe is an average player and ray Lewis was awful all season. They had no coverage LB at all.

myles2424
05-12-2013, 11:43 PM
I don't believe Lbs are key to success, but when it's a huge weakness,they need to upgraded.....
I'd go as far as saying we're top 5-10 as far as worst LBs in the leauge

myles2424
05-12-2013, 11:46 PM
The Giants went after what won them two Championships in the last 6 years.
Past is the past....there's a reason why teams picked on the middle of our D all year....coordinators actually watched tape & adjusted in 2012...time to upgrade weaknesses....I don't give a **** what worked years ago, it's 2013....

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 09:26 AM
Past is the past....there's a reason why teams picked on the middle of our D all year....coordinators actually watched tape & adjusted in 2012...time to upgrade weaknesses....I don't give a **** what worked years ago, it's 2013....Past meaning 2 of the last 6 Championships? Or just years ago?

BlueSanta
05-13-2013, 09:48 AM
This thread is about the value of solid linebackers. As a Giants fan who remembers Harry Carson, I felt he was an excellent example. Specifically, I brought up Harry Carson in response to a remark about the game being won in the trenches. My point was that a good middle linebacker is extremely important at the line of scrimmage.

After that, someone else made a comment indicating to stop living in the 1980s, and that the linebacker position was the least important position on defense, which implied to me that someone like Harry Carson wouldn't be a difference maker on a 2013 defense.

I'm not hiding from anything I've said. But at the same time, they should be taken in the proper context - as responses to prior comments, all of which devalue the position.

That's wonderfully revisionist version of what you said, and what you implied everyone else here said too.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 10:34 AM
That's wonderfully revisionist version of what you said, and what you implied everyone else here said too.

No, I am not revising anything; I'm providing a summary. My original comments are clear for you or anyone else to read.

Go back through the thread, and find one single comment that I directed to "everyone else." Given that I and others agree with the OP, it's completely illogical to assert that I'm addressing everyone else.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 10:47 AM
Past is the past....there's a reason why teams picked on the middle of our D all year....coordinators actually watched tape & adjusted in 2012...time to upgrade weaknesses....I don't give a **** what worked years ago, it's 2013....

I agree....when you don't address a position, it's not going to improve....in fact, it will degrade due to age and injury, which is what happened in 2012.

The Giants did not draft a linebacker this year, nor last year. I think that is a legitimate concern.

JesseJames
05-13-2013, 10:52 AM
this is all really pretty simple, when your D line doesn't stop the run and gets manhandled you better have good LBers or its a long gain and the same goes for the passing game, when the QB gets rushed he's going to look to dump the ball off short and you'd better have a someone there who can cover like a LBer. I understand some of the argument here but anyone who believes that we don't need good LBers anymore is wrong for a lot of reasons....One more thing about having good LBers is being able to stop the run option QBs and we're going to be seeing a lot of them .

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 11:07 AM
I agree....when you don't address a position, it's not going to improve....in fact, it will degrade due to age and injury, which is what happened in 2012.The Giants did not draft a linebacker this year, nor last year. I think that is a legitimate concern.So how did they address it way back in 2011? Do you mean by adding a 7th round pick and a guy who was out of football for half a year?

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 11:18 AM
this is all really pretty simple, when your D line doesn't stop the run and gets manhandled you better have good LBers or its a long gain and the same goes for the passing game, when the QB gets rushed he's going to look to dump the ball off short and you'd better have a someone there who can cover like a LBer. I understand some of the argument here but anyone who believes that we don't need good LBers anymore is wrong for a lot of reasons....One more thing about having good LBers is being able to stop the run option QBs and we're going to be seeing a lot of them .

I agree. If our linebackers can't deny the edge, it's going to remain a problem.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 11:22 AM
So how did they address it way back in 2011? Do you mean by adding a 7th round pick and a guy who was out of football for half a year?

The Giants added 2 linebackers in 2011, and one of them (JWill) is working his way into replacing our best linebacker from 2011 (Boley).

The other LB you mention - Chase Blackburn - shouldn't have been out of football for 1/2 a year......he should have been signed by Reese alot earlier than he was. But when he was inserted in at MLB, the defense suddenly regained it's IQ.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 11:25 AM
The Giants added 2 linebackers in 2011, and one of them (JWill) is working his way into replacing our best linebacker from 2011 (Boley).The other LB you mention - Chase Blackburn - shouldn't have been out of football for 1/2 a year......he should have been signed by Reese alot earlier than he was. But when he was inserted in at MLB, the defense suddenly regained it's IQ.That's not the point. The point is that they never went after the position as some would suggest early and often in the draft.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 11:31 AM
That's not the point. The point is that they never went after the position as some would suggest early and often in the draft.

Actually, I was making my own point, which you responded to....

Here was my last point....


I agree....when you don't address a position, it's not going to improve....in fact, it will degrade due to age and injury, which is what happened in 2012.

The Giants did not draft a linebacker this year, nor last year. I think that is a legitimate concern.




Is there something factually incorrect about this statement? Or, do you think it's okay to not draft for a position that has been a soft spot on the defense for while?

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 11:41 AM
They picked up a guy in FA this year last while they drafted Williams just two years ago.

BlueSanta
05-13-2013, 11:47 AM
No, I am not revising anything; I'm providing a summary. My original comments are clear for you or anyone else to read.

Go back through the thread, and find one single comment that I directed to "everyone else." Given that I and others agree with the OP, it's completely illogical to assert that I'm addressing everyone else.

Im not gonna argue, you made a silly comment...I will quote it AGAIN for you:

That logic helps explain the #31 ranking.

If you think today's defenses couldn't use another Harry Carson, you must be smoking crack.


Now, I don't care about your overall point, which you have strayed from over and over. I am merely replying to THAT post is idiotic. Which is absolutely is.

nobody here is saying this team couldn't use a Harry Carson. Nobody here would dare say that, But YOUR post implies that we COULD have 1 but don't.

So again, I ask you WHAT is your solution? You say we are better off with a Harry carson type player, ok sure, we would be better off with a LT type player too. But how do you go about getting those once in a lifetime players on THIS team.

Please stop living in the dreamworld. Nobody here thinks the team wouldn't be better with a Harry Carson, Or a LT. But that's not an option so please. Stop wasting or time and propose a real life solution to the problem you think we have. .

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 11:48 AM
They picked up a guy in FA this year last while they drafted Williams just two years ago.

I'm hoping for the best with Aaron Curry, but I'm not ready to call him a solution to our mediocre linebacking unit.

Reese has passed on drafting a linebacker in the 2013 draft, and the 2012 draft. In 2011, he picked up Jacquian Williams in the 6th round.....I think the Giants linebackers (and the 31st ranking) are a fair reflection of his level of investment in that position.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 11:50 AM
Think the defensive problems where more related to the poor play of the DL and that is what they tried to address this offseason. They where 31st in total defense but only 12th in points allowed. Which stat is more important?

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 11:56 AM
Think the defensive problems where more related to the poor play of the DL and that is what they tried to address this offseason. They where 31st in total defense but only 12th in points allowed. Which stat is more important?

The official ranking is based on yards allowed, and I think that is the truest measure of how good a defense is.

The 31/12 rankings are actually a good snapshot of this defense.......unless they made a turnover, teams just churned down the field on the Giants.

In the case of well-coached, disciplined, mistake free teams like the Ravens and Falcons, the Giants defense had no hope.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 12:01 PM
The official ranking is based on yards allowed, and I think that is the truest measure of how good a defense is.The 31/12 rankings are actually a good snapshot of this defense.......unless they made a turnover, teams just churned down the field on the Giants. In the case of well-coached, disciplined, mistake free teams like the Ravens and Falcons, the Giants defense had no hope.Games are won by scoring points, not raking up yards. Of course yards help, but points scored is the most important stat. You can argue who had the best defense of all time. Many will say it was the Ravens. That year they finished second in defense because of yards per game but where the hardest team to score on. By the way, the difference this past year with the #10 defense in the NFL and the #31 defense was 50 yards per game.

B&RWarrior
05-13-2013, 01:34 PM
We weren't going to fix all the areas of weakness that we needed to in one off-season. TC and JR put an emphasis on the trenches on both sides of the ball. We got Dan Connor. I hear a lot of talk about he's not an upgrade, but I'll reserve my judgment until I see him on the field.

As far as Rivers and J-Will are concerned I'm more concerned about them staying healthy then their ability to play.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 01:56 PM
Don't think that we should put Williams in the same category as Rivers when it comes to injury. Just because he had one last year doesn't compare to the history of Rivers with injury. Hopefully both stay healthy and they should have a couple of very athletic LB's out there.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 02:00 PM
The official ranking is based on yards allowed, and I think that is the truest measure of how good a defense is.

The 31/12 rankings are actually a good snapshot of this defense.......unless they made a turnover, teams just churned down the field on the Giants.

In the case of well-coached, disciplined, mistake free teams like the Ravens and Falcons, the Giants defense had no hope.
Yards allowed is one of the worst ways to assess a defense.

Drez
05-13-2013, 02:36 PM
I'm hoping for the best with Aaron Curry, but I'm not ready to call him a solution to our mediocre linebacking unit.

Reese has passed on drafting a linebacker in the 2013 draft, and the 2012 draft. In 2011, he picked up Jacquian Williams in the 6th round.....I think the Giants linebackers (and the 31st ranking) are a fair reflection of his level of investment in that position.Correlation is not causation.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 02:37 PM
Yards allowed is one of the worst ways to assess a defense.Morehead, come on...

Drez
05-13-2013, 02:39 PM
Morehead, come on...It's important, but I think points scored and a look at situational stats are more important than just yards gained (such as how were those yards gained).

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 02:41 PM
It's important, but I think points scored and a look at situational stats are more important than just yards gained (such as how were those yards gained).Except if you don't have an offense that can score consistently, and you're giving up that many yards that will eventually tire out your defense...it's bad.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 02:44 PM
It's important, but I think points scored and a look at situational stats are more important than just yards gained (such as how were those yards gained).
The first responsibility of a defense is to prevent the other team from scoring.
The second responsibility is to take the ball away.

Neither of these have anything to do with yards allowed.

Drez
05-13-2013, 02:47 PM
Except if you don't have an offense that can score consistently, and you're giving up that many yards that will eventually tire out your defense...it's bad.But, are you giving up that many yards because of consistent, long drives, or is it because you're often getting beat deep and giving up large chunks of yards at a time? That's what I'm saying, looking at how you're giving up yards is more important than just looking at yards given up.

We addressed two major needs on defense in the first 3 rounds, a big run stuffing DT and an edge rusher. Those two things alone should help out the defense tremendously. Then add in that Taylor very well could be a hybrid S/LB, and now we've addressed the intermediate area (against those pesky pass catching TEs) and helped on the back end (having a big safety that also has range to play deep). Of course, that's all dependent upon those players playing to their potential and aren't sure things.

Drez
05-13-2013, 02:49 PM
The first responsibility of a defense is to prevent the other team from scoring.
The second responsibility is to take the ball away.

Neither of these have anything to do with yards allowed.Preventing the opposing team from having sustained drives is the same as generating a take away. Forcing a 3 and out has the same effect (and likely on field position, too), as intercepting a pass on the 8th play of a drive.

Both prevent a score, both get the ball back for the offense.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 02:50 PM
Preventing the opposing team from having sustained drives is the same as generating a take away. Forcing a 3 and out has the same effect (and likely on field position, too), as intercepting a pass on the 8th play of a drive.

Both prevent a score, both get the ball back for the offense.
You know the stats about takeaways.
Essentially if you take the ball away more than they do, you win the game.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 02:51 PM
But, are you giving up that many yards because of consistent, long drives, or is it because you're often getting beat deep and giving up large chunks of yards at a time? That's what I'm saying, looking at how you're giving up yards is more important than just looking at yards given up.

We addressed two major needs on defense in the first 3 rounds, a big run stuffing DT and an edge rusher. Those two things alone should help out the defense tremendously. Then add in that Taylor very well could be a hybrid S/LB, and now we've addressed the intermediate area (against those pesky pass catching TEs) and helped on the back end (having a big safety that also has range to play deep). Of course, that's all dependent upon those players playing to their potential and aren't sure things.The how we are giving up the yards is disheartening.

Over the middle, over the middle, over the middle. I had no faith whatsoever in us stopping anyone on 3rd down last year. Whether it was 3rd and short, or 3rd and 3000. You giving up 400 yards a game means your offense has to have just as much if not more yards to even stay in the game..UNLESS you can actually stop them on 3rd downs :)

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 02:52 PM
You know the stats about takeaways.
Essentially if you take the ball away more than they do, you win the game.Weren't we like..2nd or 3rd in takeaways last year? Weren't the Bears number 1?


Didn't both teams miss the playoffs?

Drez
05-13-2013, 02:54 PM
The how we are giving up the yards is disheartening.

Over the middle, over the middle, over the middle. I had no faith whatsoever in us stopping anyone on 3rd down last year. Whether it was 3rd and short, or 3rd and 3000. You giving up 400 yards a game means your offense has to have just as much if not more yards to even stay in the game..UNLESS you can actually stop them on 3rd downs :)Preventing scoring is more important than giving up yards. Take our offense for example. How many times did we have a 50+ yard drive bog down and the settle for 3 points? How many times did that come back to bite us in the ***?

Drez
05-13-2013, 02:55 PM
You know the stats about takeaways.
Essentially if you take the ball away more than they do, you win the game.The same can be said of time of possession, which forcing 3 and outs helps with, saying the offensive side of the ball holds up its end of the bargain.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 02:58 PM
The same can be said of time of possession, which forcing 3 and outs helps with, saying the offensive side of the ball holds up its end of the bargain.
Again...the top priority is to prevent the other team from scoring and the second is to take the ball away.
I'm not saying stopping them from moving the ball has no value. But I AM saying its not as important as the other two. yet we rate defenses exclusively on yards/game.....which is stupid.

Oh and by the way, if your defense is giving up a lot of big plays, the other teams time of possession isn't very high.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 02:59 PM
Preventing scoring is more important than giving up yards. Take our offense for example. How many times did we have a 50+ yard drive bog down and the settle for 3 points? How many times did that come back to bite us in the ***?I get that, but you have to look at our team last year.

Our offense could NOT score. It sucks, but that was the reality. If your offense CAN'T score and you are giving up 400 yards a game, you are eventually going to get scored on.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:00 PM
Again...the top priority is to prevent the other team from scoring and the second is to take the ball away.
I'm not saying stopping them from moving the ball has no value. But I AM saying its not as important as the other two. yet we rate defenses exclusively on yards/game.....which is stupid.Us taking the ball away and preventing teams from scoring did not help us at all.

Drez
05-13-2013, 03:02 PM
I get that, but you have to look at our team last year.

Our offense could NOT score. It sucks, but that was the reality. If your offense CAN'T score and you are giving up 400 yards a game, you are eventually going to get scored on.Our offense was inconsistent, yes, but we were still a top 10-12 scoring offense in the NFL. Now, do you think that last year is more typical of what you can expect from our offense or do you believe that we'll be more consistent next season?

TheEnigma
05-13-2013, 03:03 PM
Weren't we like..2nd or 3rd in takeaways last year? Weren't the Bears number 1?


Didn't both teams miss the playoffs?

The Steelers were the #1 defense in Total Yards Allowed but they failed to make the playoffs. The Chargers were the #1 defense in Total Yards Allowed in 2011 but everyone knew it was inflated due to the fact their ST always put them in short field situations. I wonder what the average amount of yards the Giants D had to defend was before the opposing offense reached the endzone. You consider around at least 6-8+ possessions per game on average and out of a total 16 games, those numbers really start adding up.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 03:03 PM
Us taking the ball away and preventing teams from scoring did not help us at all.
Our offense had a poor year.

And look at the worst "rated" defenses in 2011. #32 GB was 15-1. #31 NE was AFC champs. #27 Giants were SB champs.
"Ratings" based exclusively on yards per game.

Then look at interceptions.
#1 GB
#2 NE
#6 Giants.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:06 PM
Our offense had a poor year.And look at the worst "rated" defenses in 2011. #32 GB was 15-1. #31 NE was AFC champs. #27 Giants were SB champs."Ratings" based exclusively on yards per game.Someone posted that most of the points the offense scored where in a few blow out. Other than those few games they where mediocre.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:06 PM
Our offense had a poor year.And look at the worst "rated" defenses in 2011. #32 GB was 15-1. #31 NE was AFC champs. #27 Giants were SB champs."Ratings" based exclusively on yards per game.It's how we gave those yards up.

Drez
05-13-2013, 03:06 PM
Our offense had a poor year.

And look at the worst "rated" defenses in 2011. #32 GB was 15-1. #31 NE was AFC champs. #27 Giants were SB champs.
"Ratings" based exclusively on yards per game.Our scoring defense was equally as horrible in '11. We actually had a negative scoring differential, and considering we were a top 10 scoring offense, that's saying something.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 03:07 PM
Our scoring defense was equally as horrible in '11. We actually had a negative scoring differential, and considering we were a top 10 scoring offense, that's saying something.
But we were #6 in Ints. GB was #1 and NE was #2.

I'll have to check total turnovers.

Drez
05-13-2013, 03:07 PM
It's how we gave those yards up.We got beat deep a lot last season. More than any other team in the NFL. Strengthening the trenches should help with that.

Drez
05-13-2013, 03:08 PM
But we were #6 in Ints. GB was #1 and NE was #2.

I'll have to check total turnovers.I don't care how many turnovers you're getting, if you're giving up over 400 points, it's not good.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:08 PM
The Steelers were the #1 defense in Total Yards Allowed but they failed to make the playoffs. The Chargers were the #1 defense in Total Yards Allowed in 2011 but everyone knew it was inflated due to the fact their ST always put them in short field situations. I wonder what the average amount of yards the Giants D had to defend was before the opposing offense reached the endzone. You consider around at least 6-8+ possessions per game on average and out of a total 16 games, those numbers really start adding up.I'm not saying that the less yards you give up, the better. If you allow that many yards and that many 3rd down conversions, not only are teams going to wear your defense out and eventually start scoring, but the offense is on the sidelines. You can't expect to give up that many yards and win

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:08 PM
The 2000 Ravens defense is one of the best defenses to ever play the game and they finished 2nd that year according to yardage stats. No one considers the 2000 Titans defense to be one of the best ever and they where #1 that year.

Drez
05-13-2013, 03:09 PM
Someone posted that most of the points the offense scored where in a few blow out. Other than those few games they where mediocre.We were definitely uneven last season offensively. It was definitely a feast or famine year, offensively speaking.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 03:10 PM
I don't care how many turnovers you're getting, if you're giving up over 400 points, it's not good.
Didn't I say points allowed was the number 1 priority?

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:10 PM
The #10 defense was the Panthers. How did they do this year?

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:11 PM
Didn't I say points allowed was the number 1 priority?Right, and they where tied for 12th in that department.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 03:12 PM
I think we can all essentially agree that yards/game can be an extremely misleading stat. Points allowed and turnovers must be included when considering how good, or how EFFECTIVE a defense is.

Drez
05-13-2013, 03:13 PM
I'm not saying that the less yards you give up, the better. If you allow that many yards and that many 3rd down conversions, not only are teams going to wear your defense out and eventually start scoring, but the offense is on the sidelines. You can't expect to give up that many yards and winBut, was that because our LB play wasn't great or was it more due to the DL and secondary not playing well?

There's nary a soul that believes that the defense played well last season; the issue arises from what is most important in how to improve it. I think that by improving the DL play, we'll improve the back 7. Joe, thinks that by fixing the middle of the defense, by somehow creating a Carson clone and signing him, will have the greatest impact.

TheEnigma
05-13-2013, 03:16 PM
I'm not saying that the less yards you give up, the better. If you allow that many yards and that many 3rd down conversions, not only are teams going to wear your defense out and eventually start scoring, but the offense is on the sidelines. You can't expect to give up that many yards and win

The Patriots and Falcons weren't that much better in regards to Yards Allowed and 3rd Down defense but they both managed to make it to the Conference Championship Games. What matters in today's NFL is being able to have more than one player generate a consistent pass rush and 1-2 good defensive backs that can buy a few seconds more for the pass rush. We can't just have one promising DE and CB to carry this defense. Big plays happen when your other pass rushers are ineffective on 1-1 battles and you have safeties like Rolle who can't cover if their lives depend on it. Let's just hope we have someone to fill the shoes for KP in terms of deep field coverage or it could be another long season if the pass rush doesn't improve.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:17 PM
The Patriots and Falcons weren't that much better in regards to Yards Allowed and 3rd Down defense but they both managed to make it to the Conference Championship Games. What matters in today's NFL is being able to have more than one player generate a consistent pass rush and 1-2 good defensive backs that can buy a few seconds more for the pass rush. We can't just have one promising DE and CB to carry this defense. Big plays happen when your other pass rushers are ineffective on 1-1 battles and you have safeties like Rolle who can't cover if their lives depend on it. Let's just hope we have someone to fill the shoes for KP in terms of deep field coverage or it could be another long season if the pass rush doesn't improve.Yup

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:18 PM
But, was that because our LB play wasn't great or was it more due to the DL and secondary not playing well?

There's nary a soul that believes that the defense played well last season; the issue arises from what is most important in how to improve it. I think that by improving the DL play, we'll improve the back 7. Joe, thinks that by fixing the middle of the defense, by somehow creating a Carson clone and signing him, will have the greatest impact.Fixing the defensive line? Of freaking course!

I just personally don't like the bend but don't break.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 03:19 PM
Fixing the defensive line? Of freaking course!

I just personally don't like the bend but don't break.
I don't know what else you can do with these new rules.

Drez
05-13-2013, 03:19 PM
Fixing the defensive line? Of freaking course!

I just personally don't like the bend but don't break.With the rules as they are in the NFL, all defenses are bend but don't break.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:19 PM
The Patriots and Falcons weren't that much better in regards to Yards Allowed and 3rd Down defense but they both managed to make it to the Conference Championship Games. What matters in today's NFL is being able to have more than one player generate a consistent pass rush and 1-2 good defensive backs that can buy a few seconds more for the pass rush. We can't just have one promising DE and CB to carry this defense. Big plays happen when your other pass rushers are ineffective on 1-1 battles and you have safeties like Rolle who can't cover if their lives depend on it. Let's just hope we have someone to fill the shoes for KP in terms of deep field coverage or it could be another long season if the pass rush doesn't improve.Right, so they went after DL in FA and the draft because they can't do it all in one offseason.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:20 PM
With the rules as they are in the NFL, all defenses are bend but don't break.Not true.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:20 PM
I don't know what else you can do with these new rules.I'm sure you don't have to give up 6,000 yards back to back lol.

TheEnigma
05-13-2013, 03:22 PM
The fact we haven't received solid help from the 3 tech position in ages hurts too. That guy is supposed to be getting penetration against his 1-1 battle but what can you expect from the likes of the raw and underdeveloped Markus Kuhn and a Marvin Austin who was 2 years off of football. I get jealous when I watch guys like Geno Atkins make it look so effortlessly.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 03:22 PM
Not true.
Well put it this way Rudy.
The only real way to stop offenses today, with these rules is to disrupt the passer. We saw what happened to a supposedly great defense in the SB when their pass rush was neutralized. Joe Flacco lit them up.
You can have great LB's. You can have a great secondary. But if the QB has plenty of time, he will eat your lunch.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:23 PM
The days of truly dominating defenses are over. Even today's best are soft compared to the past defenses. The rules make it that way. Look at these offensive records being broken. They are meaningless now with the new rules.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:24 PM
Well put it this way Rudy.The only real way to stop offenses today, with these rules is to disrupt the passer. We saw what happened to a supposedly great defense in the SB when their pass rush was neutralized. Joe Flacco lit them up.You can have great LB's. You can have a great secondary. But if the QB has plenty of time, he will eat your lunch.Not true. The defense didn't help win those Championships. The offense did because they where so good.

Rudyy
05-13-2013, 03:26 PM
Well put it this way Rudy.
The only real way to stop offenses today, with these rules is to disrupt the passer. We saw what happened to a supposedly great defense in the SB when their pass rush was neutralized. Joe Flacco lit them up.
You can have great LB's. You can have a great secondary. But if the QB has plenty of time, he will eat your lunch.I agree with that,

What I don't agree with is oh well giving up X amount of yards is expected because of today's NFL. In this case X= over 6,000. That is ridiculous.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 03:26 PM
Not true. The defense didn't help win those Championships. The offense did because they where so good.
Oh.......I forgot.

TheEnigma
05-13-2013, 03:31 PM
I agree with that,

What I don't agree with is oh well giving up X amount of yards is expected because of today's NFL. In this case X= over 6,000. That is ridiculous.

Right but some of that can be inflated due to the mistakes of the offense or the STs constantly keeping the opposing offense from receiving short fields. It's just not a strong statistic to cite when there is too many factors outside of the actual 11-15 people in those defensive packages involved.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 03:31 PM
Im not gonna argue, you made a silly comment...I will quote it AGAIN for you:

Now, I don't care about your overall point, which you have strayed from over and over. I am merely replying to THAT post is idiotic. Which is absolutely is.

nobody here is saying this team couldn't use a Harry Carson. Nobody here would dare say that, But YOUR post implies that we COULD have 1 but don't.

So again, I ask you WHAT is your solution? You say we are better off with a Harry carson type player, ok sure, we would be better off with a LT type player too. But how do you go about getting those once in a lifetime players on THIS team.

Please stop living in the dreamworld. Nobody here thinks the team wouldn't be better with a Harry Carson, Or a LT. But that's not an option so please. Stop wasting or time and propose a real life solution to the problem you think we have. .

I told you I wouldn't chew your food for you, but since you continue to pull my quotes out without the proper context, here is what I was responding to:


Its not the 1980s anymore. The sooner you realize that, the happier you'll be. Linebackers are the least important position on our defense.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if you disagree with me or not. But follow along, or move along. You talk about wasting time, and yet here you are in a thread you obviously disagree with, playing Post Judge.

TheEnigma
05-13-2013, 03:41 PM
Let's get this thread back to the original topic.

So where do we find Brian Urlachers and Luke Kuechlys outside of the top 10 in the drafts?

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 03:47 PM
Let's get this thread back to the original topic.

So where do we find Brian Urlachers and Luke Kuechlys outside of the top 10 in the drafts?

I think there was one available in the 4th round, should be playing with the Bears this season.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/20011570-606/can-jon-bostic-and-khaseem-greene-fill-void-left-by-brian-urlacher.html




Bostic and Greene will practice together for the first time Friday when rookie minicamp begins. In the end, the relationship they foster and the players they become might come to define the Bears’ 2013 draft, regardless of all the attention first-round pick Kyle Long has gotten and will get.

For general manager Phil Emery, it would be quite an accomplishment to get Brian Urlacher’s replacement (Bostic) in his first try, along with a versatile partner in crime (Greene) to roam outside.

‘‘From what I hear, [Greene is] pretty much the same thing as me,’’ Bostic said.

It’s true. Bostic (6-1, 245 pounds) and Greene (6-1, 241) are the same size, and Emery has praised them for the same things: versatility, athleticism, smarts, production.....

Bostic and Greene also have similar on-the-field experiences. Greene moved from safety to linebacker in the spring of his redshirt sophomore year, while Bostic said he went to Florida ‘‘playing corner and safety on defense and running back on offense’’ before shifting to linebacker early on.

Those experiences helped sway Emery and his staff.

‘‘It gave me that edge where I don’t have problems covering tight ends, slot receivers or backs out of the backfield,’’ Greene said.

‘‘Linebackers have to be able to cover,’’ Bostic added. ‘‘You’re going to be on an ­island with the tight end or the back.’’



Colleges are producing linebackers that are fit to excel in today's NFL.

We just need someone that will pull the trigger and draft them.

Apparently, in Chicago, which runs a 4-3 scheme that places a premium on linebackers who can cover alot of ground, they are finding them.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:50 PM
Maybe the Nears are happy with their DL.

TheEnigma
05-13-2013, 03:54 PM
Where the heck are you seeing the comparisons there? Greene is strictly a chase linebacker that needs to be kept clean and Bostic doesn't have the natural coverage ability of an Urlacher or Kuechly. Just look at the physical differences and you will see why guys like Bostic and Greene dropped while the previously mentioned beasts were top 10 selections.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 03:56 PM
Maybe the Nears are happy with their DL.

Or, maybe the Bears believe not every play is going to end with a sack. Sometimes its good to have people that can defend beyond the line of scrimmage.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 03:59 PM
Or, maybe the Bears believe not every play is going to end with a sack. Sometimes its good to have people that can defend beyond the line of scrimmage.The Bears do seem to value their Lb's and they have not won a Championship since 1985. So who has it right now? The Giants or the Bears?

Imgrate
05-13-2013, 04:24 PM
I told you I wouldn't chew your food for you, but since you continue to pull my quotes out without the proper context, here is what I was responding to:Frankly, I couldn't care less if you disagree with me or not. But follow along, or move along. You talk about wasting time, and yet here you are in a thread you obviously disagree with, playing Post Judge.A harry carson type player being able to help this team has absolutely no bearing on the fact that linebackers are in fact the least important position on our defense. Your response, literally had nothing to do with what I said. You could have told me that bananas are your favoite fruit and it would have followed the conversation equally as well.

Imgrate
05-13-2013, 04:28 PM
The Bears do seem to value their Lb's and they have not won a Championship since 1985. So who has it right now? The Giants or the Bears?The bears have the luxury of having a great pass rush stemming from melton and peppers as well as a turnover creating secondary, therefore, they can afford to commit resources to the LBer position. Big plays on defense are what win games...interceptions, sacks and fumbles. Tackling a guy in the middle of the field isn't all that important. You win the turnover battle, you typically are going to win alot of games. Pass rushers and cover guys provide you with this...linebackers, not so much.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 04:58 PM
A harry carson type player being able to help this team has absolutely no bearing on the fact that linebackers are in fact the least important position on our defense. Your response, literally had nothing to do with what I said. You could have told me that bananas are your favoite fruit and it would have followed the conversation equally as well.

I would argue that all positions are important, and given the emergence of mobile QB's, athletic TEs, and dual threat running backs, linebackers are very important.

JesseJames
05-13-2013, 04:58 PM
Im not gonna argue, you made a silly comment...I will quote it AGAIN for you:



Now, I don't care about your overall point, which you have strayed from over and over. I am merely replying to THAT post is idiotic. Which is absolutely is.

nobody here is saying this team couldn't use a Harry Carson. Nobody here would dare say that, But YOUR post implies that we COULD have 1 but don't.

So again, I ask you WHAT is your solution? You say we are better off with a Harry carson type player, ok sure, we would be better off with a LT type player too. But how do you go about getting those once in a lifetime players on THIS team.

Please stop living in the dreamworld. Nobody here thinks the team wouldn't be better with a Harry Carson, Or a LT. But that's not an option so please. Stop wasting or time and propose a real life solution to the problem you think we have. .

I think what joe morris for prez is saying is if the Giants never draft a LBer high enough in the draft which is usually where most of the best talent is then your chances are limited in finding a good LBer and the fact that the Giants don't draft one high enough in the drafts that they actually try for one shows how much interest they really have in the position...

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 04:59 PM
The bears have the luxury of having a great pass rush stemming from melton and peppers as well as a turnover creating secondary, therefore, they can afford to commit resources to the LBer position. Big plays on defense are what win games...interceptions, sacks and fumbles. Tackling a guy in the middle of the field isn't all that important. You win the turnover battle, you typically are going to win alot of games. Pass rushers and cover guys provide you with this...linebackers, not so much.

Thanks, that helps explain your response to my Harry Carson comments.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 05:01 PM
I think what joe morris for prez is saying is if the Giants never draft a LBer high enough in the draft which usually where most of the best talen t is then your chances are limited in finding a good LBer and the fact that the Giants don't draft one high enough in the drafts that they actually try for one shows how much interest they really have in the position...

Thanks Jesse...that was basically my point....if you don't draft a linebacker, we can't expect to get long term help at the position.

I used Harry Carson as an example for a few reasons....he was Giant linebacker (the topic of this thread), he was excellent at the line of scrimmage, and he was drafted in the 4th round.

Granted, Harry Carsons don't just grow on trees....but he was in fact available for four rounds. Jessie Armstead is another example of a great Giants linebacker, and he went in the 8th round if I'm not mistaken.

Also, this notion that the 4-3 means linebackers aren't important flies in the face of history. The 4-3 was pioneered by then Giants DC Tom Landry SPECIFICALLy to highlight the athleticism of Sam Huff, who was moved to the MLB spot.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 05:09 PM
I think what joe morris for prez is saying is if the Giants never draft a LBer high enough in the draft which usually where most of the best talen t is then your chances are limited in finding a good LBer and the fact that the Giants don't draft one high enough in the drafts that they actually try for one shows how much interest they really have in the position...Possibly because they would rather have a stud DT or DE.

JesseJames
05-13-2013, 05:13 PM
Yards allowed is one of the worst ways to assess a defense.??????

JesseJames
05-13-2013, 05:20 PM
Let's get this thread back to the original topic.

So where do we find Brian Urlachers and Luke Kuechlys outside of the top 10 in the drafts?
I'm thinking we will never find any of these LBers we're speaking of unless Reese changes his feelings on the value of the position and does whatever it takes to get high enough in the draft to get a top rated LBer, at this point in time Reese is making it very clear that he has no interest in the LBer position

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 05:21 PM
??????

I know.

This thread has been awesome......here are some reasons why it's not important to draft a linebacker....

1) "It's not the 1980s"
2) "We won't be able to draft Harry Carson"
3) "Linebackers are the least important position on this defense."
4) "Yards allowed aren't a good indicator of how good a defense is."
5) "Tackling someone over the middle of the field isn't important."

Also, some good advice about proper message board posting:

6) "Talking about Giants linebackers in a thread about Giants linebackers is a waste of time"


I'm picking up some serious wisdom in this thread. I feel like I'm in the film room with Paul Brown.

JesseJames
05-13-2013, 05:25 PM
Possibly because they would rather have a stud DT or DE. that doesn't help us when the ball carrier gets passed the LOS because our DTs or DEs were blocked out of the play. I understand everyones argument here but my argument is that in todays NFL you can't afford to be weak at any position because todays OCs are too smart and they will exploit any weakness they see and never leave it alone..

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 05:27 PM
I'm thinking we will never find any of these LBers we're speaking of unless Reese changes his feelings on the value of the position and does whatever it takes to get high enough in the draft to get a top rated LBer, at this point in time Reese is making it very clear that he has no interest in the LBer position

Bingo!!!

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 05:41 PM
that doesn't help us when the ball carrier gets passed the LOS because our DTs or DEs were blocked out of the play. I understand everyones argument here but my argument is that in todays NFL you can't afford to be weak at any position because todays OCs are too smart and they will exploit any weakness they see and never leave it alone..That's why you secure the OL and today's NFL was today's NFL just two years ago when they won relying on great DL play.

Morehead State
05-13-2013, 05:45 PM
??????
???????? to your ???????

Drez
05-13-2013, 06:41 PM
that doesn't help us when the ball carrier gets passed the LOS because our DTs or DEs were blocked out of the play. I understand everyones argument here but my argument is that in todays NFL you can't afford to be weak at any position because todays OCs are too smart and they will exploit any weakness they see and never leave it alone..There's no way a team can't have holes in today's NFL, with the salary cap and all that. What you need to do is build a strength that will help minimize the weaknesses.

giantsfan420
05-13-2013, 07:05 PM
I know.

This thread has been awesome......here are some reasons why it's not important to draft a linebacker....

1) "It's not the 1980s"
2) "We won't be able to draft Harry Carson"
3) "Linebackers are the least important position on this defense."
4) "Yards allowed aren't a good indicator of how good a defense is."
5) "Tackling someone over the middle of the field isn't important."

Also, some good advice about proper message board posting:

6) "Talking about Giants linebackers in a thread about Giants linebackers is a waste of time"


I'm picking up some serious wisdom in this thread. I feel like I'm in the film room with Paul Brown.lmao. not one person has used that as their argument.
the argument is: where would u like JR to have found these LB's? Should he concoct one outta thin air?

ShakeandBake
05-13-2013, 07:37 PM
Linebackers are arguably the least important pieces in a 4-3 defense, and all of these comparisons to Harry Carson, LT etc are completely null and void considering that was back when we ran a 3-4. We invest heavily in our DBs and DEs as far as defense is concerned because getting to the Quarterback is important as well as having good defensive backs considering the majority of offenses in the league rely heavily on the pass in comparison to offenses of years passed. As others have said, we have to work within the salary cap, and unfortunately our (lack of)talent at linebacker is a casualty here. It seems like this formula has worked well for JR so far, and if it aint broke, don't fix it.

Imgrate
05-13-2013, 09:08 PM
As for us not drafting linebackers? Reese has used a 2nd rder, a 4ths, a 5th, 2 6ths, and handed out a mid level contract (boley). The best of the bunch have been an undrafted paysinger and 6th rd jwill

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 09:26 PM
lmao. not one person has used that as their argument.
the argument is: where would u like JR to have found these LB's? Should he concoct one outta thin air?

Believe it or not, but there were linebackers available in the 2013 draft. I can't jump up on stage and hand Goodell the card.

Sovereign
05-13-2013, 09:31 PM
I also wonder if people realize we only use 2 LBs like 60 percent of the time. You can use your crying on more important issues like why our CBs suck or why Fewell is still on this team.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 09:33 PM
I also wonder if people realize we only use 2 LBs like 60 percent of the time. You can use your crying on more important issues like why our CBs suck or why Fewell is still on this team.

I think an overall lack of athleticism can be the reason for that. I see the 4-2-5 as a sacrifice because we don't have enough linebackers that can run.

Drez
05-13-2013, 09:46 PM
I think an overall lack of athleticism can be the reason for that. I see the 4-2-5 as a sacrifice because we don't have enough linebackers that can run.While we use nickle more than most teams, most teams have been spending significantly more time in nickle sub packages.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 09:47 PM
A little pre-draft flashback courtesy of Ralph Vacchiano...

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/best-defense-giants-aim-run-stoppers-article-1.1322959



There was no defense for the Giants’ defensive performance last season. That was obvious to everyone. The pass rush was sometimes non-existent. The coverage was spotty. The run defense was, at times, poor.

The Giants didn’t exactly go “all in” on fixing their defense in free agency, either. They cut defensive tackle Chris Canty and linebacker Michael Boley, and watched safety Kenny Phillips, linebacker Chase Blackburn and defensive end Osi Umenyiora sign with other teams. And in their place they signed two defensive tackles cut by the Eagles (Cullen Jenkins, Mike Patterson) and a linebacker cut loose by the Cowboys (Dan Connor).....

....That would certainly make it seem like the Giants will — and have to — target defensive players in the early rounds of the draft.

The Giants, he said, need “ready to play” players. Here’s a look at where they need them the most:

LINEBACKER
The three starters from last year are gone (Boley was cut, Blackburn signed with Carolina, and Mathias Kiwanuka is headed back to the defensive line). What remains are a lot of untested players with question marks and a history of injuries. The Giants haven’t drafted a first-round linebacker since 1984 (Carl Banks), and Clint Sintim (2009) was their only second-round LB since 1993. This is, by far, the Giants’ most glaring need.

OFFENSIVE LINE
RT David Diehl is probably in his final season, G Chris Snee has hinted at retirement, G Kevin Boothe is on a one-year deal and C David Baas had “multiple” surgeries this offseason. Beyond LT Will Beatty (and untested G/T James Brewer) the future of this line is in flux. They don’t necessarily need to find a starter, but a high pick that can be a starter in 2014 would be a good idea.

DEFENSIVE END
The immediate need to replace Umenyiora is gone if they really do move Kiwanuka to defensive end (as Reese indicated they plan to do). Long-term, though, they need a book-end to Jason Pierre-Paul. Tuck could be in his final season with the Giants and Kiwanuka is already 30. And the Giants always say, “You can never have enough pass rushers.” They like to rotate 3-4.

DEFENSIVE BACK
They hope Prince Amukamara and Jayron Hosley will be their future at CB, but there are still questions (particularly health questions) about both of them. Also, they’ll need more CBs with spread offenses taking over the NFL. Safety help isn’t out of the question, either, with Stevie Brown on a one-year tender and Antrel Rolle facing the possibility of being a salary cap casualty next year.



Strange, no mention of backup QB being on the list.....

uther99
05-13-2013, 09:48 PM
I think an overall lack of athleticism can be the reason for that. I see the 4-2-5 as a sacrifice because we don't have enough linebackers that can run.

True, it's also a symptom of slot receivers and TEs getting more athletic. An old school run stuffing LB cannot hang with today's slot WR or TE, especially with the rules favoring the offense

Imgrate
05-13-2013, 09:51 PM
I would argue that all positions are important, and given the emergence of mobile QB's, athletic TEs, and dual threat running backs, linebackers are very important.I would argue that every other position on defense makes more money and therefore GMs are well aware that they are not as important.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 09:54 PM
True, it's also a symptom of slot receivers and TEs getting more athletic. An old school run stuffing LB cannot hang with today's slot WR or TE, especially with the rules favoring the offense

But you see, that's the thing....colleges are producing guys that can play the position. The Bears picked 2 guys (Bostic, Greene) that are capable of coverage.

As far as run stuffing linebackers go, I think as long as there is a running game, they'll be needed. One of the reasons why the 49ers have been so successful is that teams can't handle their power running game......the 49er v Green Bay game is a perfect example of what was essentially a physical mismatch.

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 09:55 PM
I would argue that every other position on defense makes more money and therefore GMs are well aware that they are not as important.

And some would argue that we can't afford the truly top flight free agent linebackers because we blow money on players that aren't worth what we are paying them.

Buddy333
05-13-2013, 10:12 PM
The owner and GM said they wanted to fix the trenches. That is where the battle is won.

Drez
05-13-2013, 10:13 PM
And some would argue that we can't afford the truly top flight free agent linebackers because we blow money on players that aren't worth what we are paying them.Like Boley who we cut?

B&RWarrior
05-13-2013, 10:22 PM
The bears have the luxury of having a great pass rush stemming from melton and peppers as well as a turnover creating secondary, therefore, they can afford to commit resources to the LBer position. Big plays on defense are what win games...interceptions, sacks and fumbles. Tackling a guy in the middle of the field isn't all that important. You win the turnover battle, you typically are going to win alot of games. Pass rushers and cover guys provide you with this...linebackers, not so much.

This may have been the worse oversimplification of the LB position ever... :(

joemorrisforprez
05-13-2013, 10:29 PM
Like Boley who we cut?

I think the Boley situation was in part due to his cap number, which became harder to swallow because his production fell in 2012....that in turn was the result of being slowed by injury.

Fortunately, I think JWill might be able to step up and replace Boley....nice use of a 6th round draft pick.....but that was back in 2011.....the draft pipeline has been shut down for the past 2 years.

giantsfan420
05-14-2013, 12:18 AM
But you see, that's the thing....colleges are producing guys that can play the position. The Bears picked 2 guys (Bostic, Greene) that are capable of coverage.

As far as run stuffing linebackers go, I think as long as there is a running game, they'll be needed. One of the reasons why the 49ers have been so successful is that teams can't handle their power running game......the 49er v Green Bay game is a perfect example of what was essentially a physical mismatch.yeah really. when we face the 9ers, I know they've wooped on us good bc of our LB's and the misma...oh...wait. Nevermind, we own the 9ers

giantsfan420
05-14-2013, 12:26 AM
Believe it or not, but there were linebackers available in the 2013 draft. I can't jump up on stage and hand Goodell the card.and u feel Greene is that cant miss of a prospect? BC thats really the only rd where we took a positonal player (Nassib, potential franchise QB btw in rd 4 who had a rd 1-2 grade) where a LB could have made sense...seeing as we already have several Wills on the team, and that I dont see him being any better than JWill THIS season, why are u acting like JR committed a murder?
Where should we have taken a LB? Ogeltree went several picks after us and besides, Pugh meets a more importan need to a more important position. Hankins is a rd 1 talent who potentially was a top 15 pick given better timing. He'll help vs the run way more than any LB we coulda taken rd 2....We then addressed another more important need at pressing position in Moore in rd 3. And besides, not like a LB who was touted highly went right @ our picks rd 2,3,4...

i mean do u realize how comically asinine it is to assume K.Greene suddenly saves the LB core...

TheEnigma
05-14-2013, 12:50 AM
But you see, that's the thing....colleges are producing guys that can play the position. The Bears picked 2 guys (Bostic, Greene) that are capable of coverage.

Let's wait for them to play in the NFL first before we declare them 3 down linebackers.

Imgrate
05-14-2013, 06:02 AM
And some would argue that we can't afford the truly top flight free agent linebackers because we blow money on players that aren't worth what we are paying them.Again, another response not even remotely close to what I was saying

Drez
05-14-2013, 06:26 AM
Let's wait for them to play in the NFL first before we declare them 3 down linebackers.Or even good players.

Drez
05-14-2013, 06:28 AM
and u feel Greene is that cant miss of a prospect? BC thats really the only rd where we took a positonal player (Nassib, potential franchise QB btw in rd 4 who had a rd 1-2 grade) where a LB could have made sense...seeing as we already have several Wills on the team, and that I dont see him being any better than JWill THIS season, why are u acting like JR committed a murder?
Where should we have taken a LB? Ogeltree went several picks after us and besides, Pugh meets a more importan need to a more important position. Hankins is a rd 1 talent who potentially was a top 15 pick given better timing. He'll help vs the run way more than any LB we coulda taken rd 2....We then addressed another more important need at pressing position in Moore in rd 3. And besides, not like a LB who was touted highly went right @ our picks rd 2,3,4...

i mean do u realize how comically asinine it is to assume K.Greene suddenly saves the LB core...And if Green failed, he'd be lamenting Reese about taking mid-to-late round LBs and not picking one higher.

Flip Empty
05-14-2013, 06:32 AM
And if Green failed, he'd be lamenting Reese about taking mid-to-late round LBs and not picking one higher.
Maybe he could trade for Phillip Dillard.

Cool Papa B.
05-14-2013, 07:18 AM
I also wonder if people realize we only use 2 LBs like 60 percent of the time. You can use your crying on more important issues like why our CBs suck or why Fewell is still on this team.

I think Fewell had a death in his family. That's why he wasn't at rookie camp.

Buddy333
05-14-2013, 07:48 AM
If PF is so bad then why did they win a Super Bowl with his scheme? Why did they shut down some of the best offenses last year? This team has its problems but he is not one of them.

giantsfam04
05-14-2013, 08:28 AM
But you see, that's the thing....colleges are producing guys that can play the position. The Bears picked 2 guys (Bostic, Greene) that are capable of coverage.

As far as run stuffing linebackers go, I think as long as there is a running game, they'll be needed. One of the reasons why the 49ers have been so successful is that teams can't handle their power running game......the 49er v Green Bay game is a perfect example of what was essentially a physical mismatch.

Bostic coverage ability is not any better than anyone we have right now. He is a down hill LB, a thumper who plays the run. Coverage is his weakness.

joemorrisforprez
05-14-2013, 09:09 AM
Again, another response not even remotely close to what I was saying

Sorry you are having a comprehension problem.

There are very high paid linebackers in the NFL. The Giants don't have the money to pay them, but that does not mean they don't exist.

QB's dominate the highest paid player rankings. But wide receivers are next....it's an offensive-oriented league right now. Still, guys like DeMarcus Ware and Clay Matthews are in the top 20, in what is otherwise an QB/offensive dominated ranking.

Regardless, I don't think basing a player value on contracts is an accurate measurement. Looking at the list below, there are some players that simply haven't backed up their 2013 contracts with performance.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000147197#photo=1

joemorrisforprez
05-14-2013, 09:13 AM
Bostic coverage ability is not any better than anyone we have right now. He is a down hill LB, a thumper who plays the run. Coverage is his weakness.

Bostic, like Greene, is a converted safety.....like Greene, he's the new version of coverage-capable linebackers that the NCAA is producing. People that think the linebacker position is no longer important don't seem to recognize that the position, and players, have adapted to what offenses are now doing with mobile QBs., athletic tight ends, and pass receiving running backs.

I would argue that in today's NFL, a linebacker that can rush the QB, cover a tight end, and chase down a running back (or an option QB) will only increase in value, especially as more RG3-type QBs enter the NFL.

Redeyejedi
05-14-2013, 09:21 AM
Bostic coverage ability is not any better than anyone we have right now. He is a down hill LB, a thumper who plays the run. Coverage is his weakness. Bostic's tape to me was nowhere near a 2nd round pick. He wasnt that good in coverage at all.

joemorrisforprez
05-14-2013, 09:52 AM
Bostic's tape to me was nowhere near a 2nd round pick. He wasnt that good in coverage at all.

As in ILB, he's going to more focused on the running game, but various scouting reports I've seen indicated he's got good awareness in coverage and shows hustle.

Imgrate
05-14-2013, 10:21 AM
Sorry you are having a comprehension problem.There are very high paid linebackers in the NFL. The Giants don't have the money to pay them, but that does not mean they don't exist.QB's dominate the highest paid player rankings. But wide receivers are next....it's an offensive-oriented league right now. Still, guys like DeMarcus Ware and Clay Matthews are in the top 20, in what is otherwise an QB/offensive dominated ranking.Regardless, I don't think basing a player value on contracts is an accurate measurement. Looking at the list below, there are some players that simply haven't backed up their 2013 contracts with performance.http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap1000000147197#photo=1Our ability to afford a high priced free agent linebacker has absolutely no bearing on the value of the position. Which is exactly how you responded. The average linebacker salary is much lower than corners and pass rushers. There is a reason for that, it is because teams value these positions much more, because they are more important. Whether or not a player lives up to their contract has no bearing on how much a team values a position, what does matter is that they are willing to give that money to those positions, but not linebackers.

JesseJames
05-14-2013, 11:02 AM
The owner and GM said they wanted to fix the trenches. That is where the battle is won. what do you think Reese would have done in this draft if the owner said he wanted to fix the LBer position, we would suddenly have a lot better LBers for sure

Buddy333
05-14-2013, 11:04 AM
what do you think Reese would have done in this draft if the owner said he wanted to fix the LBer position, we would suddenly have a lot better LBers for sureReese has always valued pass rushers. Didn't he say you can never have enough pass rushers?

JesseJames
05-14-2013, 11:05 AM
I think the Boley situation was in part due to his cap number, which became harder to swallow because his production fell in 2012....that in turn was the result of being slowed by injury.

Fortunately, I think JWill might be able to step up and replace Boley....nice use of a 6th round draft pick.....but that was back in 2011.....the draft pipeline has been shut down for the past 2 years. I'm thinking we might see Boley back with the team this season when he decides to lower his asking price

fansince69
05-14-2013, 11:10 AM
Reese has always valued pass rushers. Didn't he say you can never have enough pass rushers?I believe Ernie Acorsi said that and now Reese just follows that philosophy.....I think it was right after he drafted Kiwi

Buddy333
05-14-2013, 11:15 AM
I believe Ernie Acorsi said that and now Reese just follows that philosophy.....I think it was right after he drafted KiwiMaybe it was but Reese was working with him for a very long time so they have the same philosophy.

Giant303
05-14-2013, 11:30 AM
This LB thing is getting old. Yeah he could have drafted a LB but really the only LB that would have been a good/great for our MLB position may have been Kiko Alonso. There wasn't a LB worth a 1st round pick so he took a RT that could be a mainstay for the next 10 years and flexible enough to fill in wherever. Yeah A Brown was available in the 2nd but did he bring more value than Hankins? probably not. Moore was definitely filling a need and bpa. Nassib or Greene? thats really not even a question Nassib at one time was projected to be taken number 8 overall.

TCHOF
05-14-2013, 11:40 AM
This LB thing is getting old. Yeah he could have drafted a LB but really the only LB that would have been a good/great for our MLB position may have been Kiko Alonso. There wasn't a LB worth a 1st round pick so he took a RT that could be a mainstay for the next 10 years and flexible enough to fill in wherever. Yeah A Brown was available in the 2nd but did he bring more value than Hankins? probably not. Moore was definitely filling a need and bpa. Nassib or Greene? thats really not even a question Nassib at one time was projected to be taken number 8 overall.

+1

Redeyejedi
05-14-2013, 12:01 PM
This LB thing is getting old. Yeah he could have drafted a LB but really the only LB that would have been a good/great for our MLB position may have been Kiko Alonso. There wasn't a LB worth a 1st round pick so he took a RT that could be a mainstay for the next 10 years and flexible enough to fill in wherever. Yeah A Brown was available in the 2nd but did he bring more value than Hankins? probably not. Moore was definitely filling a need and bpa. Nassib or Greene? thats really not even a question Nassib at one time was projected to be taken number 8 overall.Brown had shoulder issues who knows if they were worried about that. I really liked Alonso to I had him rated higher then 90% of the media outlets.I think the Giants just view SOLB and MLB as sub package positions

TheAnalyst
05-14-2013, 12:04 PM
Anyone know why Jordan Poyer got drafted so late? I had him mocked to us in the 2nd at one point, and I think he went in the 7th to the Eagles (of course).

TheEnigma
05-14-2013, 12:13 PM
Brown had shoulder issues who knows if they were worried about that. I really liked Alonso to I had him rated higher then 90% of the media outlets.I think the Giants just view SOLB and MLB as sub package positions

I'm assuming the combination of his alcohol issues and previous ACL injury might have took Alonso off of the Giants board. I'm happy with Taylor anyway since the heart condition is 100% correctable and a thing of the past.

TheEnigma
05-14-2013, 12:14 PM
Anyone know why Jordan Poyer got drafted so late? I had him mocked to us in the 2nd at one point, and I think he went in the 7th to the Eagles (of course).

Maybe it was the off the field issues? He did get into a bar fight in a previous offseason and perhaps teams didn't like what else they found or how he interviewed.

giantsfam04
05-14-2013, 01:10 PM
Bostic, like Greene, is a converted safety.....like Greene, he's the new version of coverage-capable linebackers that the NCAA is producing. People that think the linebacker position is no longer important don't seem to recognize that the position, and players, have adapted to what offenses are now doing with mobile QBs., athletic tight ends, and pass receiving running backs.

I would argue that in today's NFL, a linebacker that can rush the QB, cover a tight end, and chase down a running back (or an option QB) will only increase in value, especially as more RG3-type QBs enter the NFL.

Bostic was never a safety he was a lb recruit out of highschool, I don't know what you are talking about.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/football/recruiting/player-Jon-Bostic-78569

giantsfam04
05-14-2013, 01:12 PM
As in ILB, he's going to more focused on the running game, but various scouting reports I've seen indicated he's got good awareness in coverage and shows hustle.

So does Chase Blackburn.

joemorrisforprez
05-14-2013, 01:18 PM
Bostic was never a safety he was a lb recruit out of highschool, I don't know what you are talking about.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/football/recruiting/player-Jon-Bostic-78569

I'm going off what the Chicago papers are reporting on Bostic....



http://www.suntimes.com/sports/20011570-419/lbs-jon-bostic-khaseem-greene-could-be-bears-pair-apparent.html

Bostic and Greene also have similar on-the-field experiences. Greene moved from safety to linebacker in the spring of his redshirt sophomore year, while Bostic said he went to Florida ‘‘playing corner and safety on defense and running back on offense’’ before shifting to linebacker early on.

Those experiences helped sway Emery and his staff.

‘‘It gave me that edge where I don’t have problems covering tight ends, slot receivers or backs out of the backfield,’’ Greene said.

‘‘Linebackers have to be able to cover,’’ Bostic added. ‘‘You’re going to be on an ­island with the tight end or the back.’’

joemorrisforprez
05-14-2013, 01:22 PM
Our ability to afford a high priced free agent linebacker has absolutely no bearing on the value of the position. Which is exactly how you responded. The average linebacker salary is much lower than corners and pass rushers. There is a reason for that, it is because teams value these positions much more, because they are more important. Whether or not a player lives up to their contract has no bearing on how much a team values a position, what does matter is that they are willing to give that money to those positions, but not linebackers.

I'm not the person who introduced the salary element into the discussion. But if you look at salaries, you'll see that QB's dominate, and then wide receivers, running backs and defensive ends are in the mix as well.....and linebackers capable of generating a pass rush are also very high on list of top paid salaries.

Imgrate
05-14-2013, 03:04 PM
I'm not the person who introduced the salary element into the discussion. But if you look at salaries, you'll see that QB's dominate, and then wide receivers, running backs and defensive ends are in the mix as well.....and linebackers capable of generating a pass rush are also very high on list of top paid salaries.Exactly. Its called positional value.

joemorrisforprez
05-14-2013, 03:14 PM
Exactly. Its called positional value.

Yes....linebackers that can rush the passer.....the types that Jerry Reese won't spend more on in free agency, and does not draft.

Drez
05-14-2013, 03:23 PM
and linebackers capable of generating a pass rush are also very high on list of top paid salaries.Generally speaking those are the pass rushing OLBs in 34s.

Drez
05-14-2013, 03:23 PM
Yes....linebackers that can rush the passer.....the types that Jerry Reese won't spend more on in free agency, and does not draft.Because we use defensive ends to rush the passer.