PFR's "Great Linebackers Playing Together"

by Nate Dogg on May 18, 2009 8:40 PM PDT Comment 72 comments

Pro-football-reference's blog had a piece today ranking the best linebacking groups of all time. The rankings are based on their Approximate Value system which churns out something like a Madden rating.

I took the list and went and found the teams defensive rankings for the given year. With all the talk about the unimportance of the linebacker position and how linebackers don't make great defenses I thought it'd be interesting to see how these teams graded out.

TEAM YEAR PTS YARDS

BAL - 2006 - 1st - 1st
GNB - 1963 - 2nd - 2nd
CHI - 1987 - 4th - 2nd
KAN - 1972 - 13th - 15th
CHI - 1959 - 2nd - 5th
PIT - 1978 - 1st - 3rd
CHI - 2007 - 16th - 28th
CHI - 1955 - 7th - 12th
PIT - 1980 - 15th - 12th
RAM - 1976 - 3rd - 4th
GNB - 1968 - 4th - 3rd
PHI - 1954 - 4th - 2nd
PIT - 1979 - 5th - 2nd
BAL - 2001 - 4th - 2nd
RAM - 1975 - 1st - 2nd
RAM - 1967 - 1st - 3rd
BAL - 1972 - 11th - 20th
BAL - 1973 - 21st - 21st
CHI - 1970 - 10th - 18th
ARI - 1994 - 4th - 3rd
PIT - 1976 - 1st - 1st
TAM - 1999 - 3rd - 3rd
GNB - 1974 - 5th - 6th
DAL - 1967 - 6th - 7th
CLE - 1952 - 2nd - 1st

There are a lot of really good defenses up there and some pretty bad ones as well. Several arguments could be made for why these teams were good that have nothing to do with their linebackers, arguments like Joe Greene, Merlin Olson and Richard Dent. The only team on the list that had, as far as I'm aware, a great line but performed poorly was the 1980 Steelers. The only good defense on the list that did not have a pro bowler on the defensive line was the 94 Cardinals. Ultimately it looks like the post by PFR does little to counter the idea that great defenses are not built around great linebackers.

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 72 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The more I think about it

the more I believe a great linebacker can make a big difference. Look at the difference Al Wilson made for the Brocos. But I’m not sure an OLB can make as big an impact.

by Tyopiod on May 19, 2009 7:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Whenever I think of a LB example, I think of a 3-4 LB like Ware or Merriman or Suggs.

I can’t think of a 4-3 besides Brooks and Peterson that really stand out.

2010 Seahawks Mock: 1A: Eric Berry S, 1B: Ndamukong Suh DT, 2: Charles Brown OT, 4:Zac Robinson QB, 5: Stafon Johnson RB 6: Will Tukuafu DE, 7: Kerry Meier WR
Also acceptable, trade for Patrick Chung and draft Ed Wang so everyone can Wang Chung tonight.

by LantermanC on May 19, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is almost no merit in having 3 excellent linebackers.

Especially when you all give them king’s salaries and make them the highest paid unit on the team when they’re the least important. Look at the Eagles, they keep up a very solid defensive line that more than makes up for their terrible linebackers and that gave them the top defense in the NFC.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO, LB'ers are the defensive equivalent of RB's

Their effectiveness is largely dependent on the Line in front of them. And as long as you have do a good job of identifying which skill-sets fit, you can build an adequate group with value draft picks and FA’s.

That said, every now then a player comes along who’s just so damn good you can’t pass him up. Which is what I believe was the case with Curry. But I have a feeling that on our D, he’s going to wind up like Adrian Peterson on Minny’s O – undeniable talent and fun as hell to watch, but unable to single handily carry the unit over the top.

by jteckmann on May 19, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing I've considered is that how would TR add to the defense other than paying Hill or drafting Curry?

Other than Haynesworth, who could Ruskell have acquired this offseason? We had money to spend but not much to spend it on. Hill’s contract is structured to allow us out of it within a couple of years, and maybe when top-tier FAs become available (or the draft) we use cap room on another position. I don’t know what else Ruskell could have done to match signing Leroy – at least for the short term.

by Misfit74 on May 19, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Ruskell made the best moves available

in what would appear to be a weak FA and draft class.

by Tyopiod on May 19, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bernard isn't amazing,

but wasn’t he cheaper than Cole?

by LantermanC on May 19, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by .2 million a year but he's 2 years younger

And more importantly, he’ll play the 1-tech allowing Mebane to play the 3 (where Bernard was) and hopefully be more disruptive. I’m not buying yet that Cole is a terrible player.

by B.B.Finnegan on May 19, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haynesworth

I’d take Fat Albert and let Deon Branch, Leroy Hill go.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on May 19, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This.

Especially if he was intent on drafting Curry in the first place, which became apparent after he bullshitted Julian Peterson off to Detroit.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No doubt the majority of us would have love Albert...so would have the majority of the league.

And only one team could sign him. I don’t think we were ever going to go all Dan Snyder about it, though.

by Misfit74 on May 19, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My point being

We could have stepped up and paid him. Why not. Why settle for mediocrity. If you are going to “Win now”, get the best damn player in a position of serious need.

If you want to make an average set of DE’s look good, get a massive disrupter and pay him.

If it doesn’t work out, what does it matter. If it doesn’t work out with Cole, the boat that is sinking is still sinking.

Go down in flames. Oh well.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on May 19, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's rediculous.

How many people thought Curry would fall to Seattle at 4? Most were sure KC would take him, and very few thought they would grab Tyson Jackson. Seattle was willing to use the platoon, but when Curry fell into their laps they felt they had to grab him. Whether that was the right choice can be argued. But you can’t tell me they knew Curry was going to drop to them so they dumped JP with the intent of grabbing Curry.

by Fear on May 19, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, it seems even likely they dumped Peterson specifically in the hopes Curry would fall to them.

Remember, there were stirrings Detroit would make Curry the #1 overall pick, as ridiculously bad as that might sound.

By trading Peterson, Seattle suddenly created a ‘glaring need’ at an OLB spot which wasn’t really a need, enabling Ruskell to be immune from criticism for drafting Curry.

By trading Peterson to Detroit, he significantly increased the chance Curry would fall to Seattle.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He may have increased the chance

but I think it was far more likely he made the trade with the cap in mind. He was willing to play with the platoon and see what happened in the draft. This gave him tons of options come draft time. However, when Curry dropped to us, he took Curry in a heart beat feeling that Curry was the best player available by a wide margin. Still willing to play with the platoon, he was able to negotiate hard with Hill and get a better contract deal for the team. So we end up with 3 pricey LBers. At any point along that chain, we could have ended up with just the two and a platoon. But everything fell exactly right for us to end up with all 3.

I don’t believe you can say he traded Peterson with the intent to get Curry. Maybe you can say he traded him with the hope he could pick up Curry. But I still feel it was a move that gave him the most possible options come draft time.

by Fear on May 19, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly, it's sort of hard to see Ruskell losing sleep over Peterson's cap number after he drafted Curry.

Not to rag on the Curry pick some more but obviously he’s investing even more into the linebackers, and for a far longer period of time.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe JM said that

when Curry signs, he will be cheaper then Peterson was for the first couple years. It’s the back end of those contracts that gets painful. Although we may get lucky since Curry has publicly stated that he will sign for less.

by Fear on May 19, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are attributing a LOT of balls to Ruskell

I think he loved Curry, but loved at least 3 or 4 other players.

by cashless on May 19, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't really put my point out there clearly.

That’s a bet that if Ruskell lost would be horrible. I think he felt good about losing Peterson’s salary in his last years as a productive player, and was willing to trade his high salary for whoever the 4th overall pick was going to be, thus keeping us in a good situation cap-wise.

Having Curry fall was just a bonus to him.

by cashless on May 19, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think I read this on USAToday and I'll try to find the link

but it stated that Ruskell wanted to trade down if Curry wasn’t available.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think what you are talking about

is the idea of trading down for someone to get Sanchez, which very well could have happened during that time-slot if we didn’t like Curry so much. Mora said as much in interview, that even when Curry fell they still had the strategy of entertaining trade offers, and that they may have been more likely to trade down with a different scenario.

When the JP trade happened there was no way to “count on” Curry falling, but he could have felt just as strongly about Jason Smith, or even Stafford that far back. We don’t know.

I do think it’s silly to think that he traded JP and hung his hat on the LB being available at the 4. Unlike the year AJ Hawk came out, Curry at four was him falling a bit in the draft.

by cashless on May 19, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guess that is softof stupid to think of now

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on May 19, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah so would I,

but I wonder if Albert would have wanted to play for the Seahawks?

by LantermanC on May 19, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My mind on my money and my money on my mind

sippin on Gin n juice!

Laid baaaaccckk!

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on May 19, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember that he signed at the dawn of FA...

He has his deal in place before we could even entertain the idea, it seemed.

by Misfit74 on May 19, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

tampering was something Goodell addressed today.

Still, to be clear, I like Ruskell. He made a huge impact in ’05. That said, his conservative nature needs some balance with risk. Pittsburgh is conservative with contracts and FA. It is “not” conservative in its drafting. Pittsburgh hits more often than not in round one. Hitting in round one differentiates teams.

Having a nice player or two from round two is great. Creating mismatches with selections, which includes risk to established players and busting (read: Sanchez) is what sport is about.

Curry does not create mismatches. Sanchez would. Crabtree would. Orakpo would.

Finally, to “not” take a player for fear of “rebuiling” is about the lamest excuse I have ever heard. Sport is competition. If Matt Hasselbeck does not warrant a competition, then he does not need to play.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on May 19, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pardon my rant

ill advised.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on May 19, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Colin Cole was a waste of 20 million. That's a bad signing no matter how you look at it.

Jermaine Phillips might have been able to had with that money. That would dramatically improve our secondary, if not our entire defense. Hell, even Sean Jones would have been a decent signing. Jovan Haye or Shaun Cody were low-risk, high-reward free agents available. We had three awesome linebackers last year but that didn’t prevent our defense from being manhandled nearly every game.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I would have liked Phillips to come here at the time.

It’s weird reading that Tampa is going to play him at LB… http://www2.tbo.com/content/2009/may/04/bates-happy-phillips-work-bucs-lb-so-far/news-breaking/ …replacing Derrick Brooks on the weakside.

I’m not as down on the Cole signing as you are. True he didn’t start recently in a 3-4, but I think next to Mebane he’ll hold up decently. I don’t know and maybe Johns analysis is spot on. As far as Cody and Haye, Haye looked to be a quickness based guy, while we went for size and considering the Mebane situation, probably felt a wide-body a better compliment in that regard.

3 awesome LBs last year under John Marshall with an offense that couldn’t stay on the field. And Kelly Jennings getting toasted often. I’d rather have Leroy and draft Curry then anything except signing Hanesworth, though I agree a couple more D-linemen in addition to Cole would have been nice. Cole may be a total bust, but he came cheap enough to fill a role and I’m not up in arms about it. He played in a 3-4 and didn’t start. I don’t know beyond that. Maybe he developed and fits better in a 4-3 and the pleasant surprise is ours. No reason he can’t be at least a Grady Jackson type (albeit a spendy one). Maybe he’ll be similar to Pat Willams or maybe closer to ….Gilbert Brown?…

by Misfit74 on May 19, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He played in 4-3. Green Bay is changing this year to a 3-4

by Built2Spill on May 19, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought 3-4 last year. I guess I was wrong.

by Misfit74 on May 19, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"3 awesome LBs last year under John Marshall with an offense that couldn’t stay on the field."

“And Kelly Jennings getting toasted often”

Yes, exactly. These issues needed to be addressed before even touching a linebacker. Cole is being paid starter money; even if someone like Bryant or Redding steps up and become the unmovable one-tech we signed Cole to be, he becomes an expensive backup.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understand the unhappiness over the money tied up in the linebackers and Cole

but you’re whining would be a lot more convincing if you could somehow show that it’s hurting the team. Sure, I’d rather have Haynesworth than Hill but theres nothing to show that Haynesworth was interested in Seattle. Phillips would seem to have more impact than Cole but I’ve never seen anything that showed the Cole signing negatively affected Seattle’s chances of signing Phillips.

Until you can realistically lay out how things would have gone down better, what moves would have drastically improved the team over it’s current version, I just can’t get too bent out of shape over it all.

by Nate Dogg on May 19, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's wrong with Cole?

He has not even played a down for the Seahawks and he is getting a lot of negative thoughts from us here.

How does 280ish pound Redding become an unmovable one-tech?

by cashless on May 19, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

True,

but it’s not like he’s coming out of college. He was thought of as a replacement level player before we signed him. I imagine if another team signed Chuck Darby or Craig Terrill, they wouldn’t get overly excited either, especially if that player were signed to start.

by LantermanC on May 19, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am not sure of this

but I really think he will be an upgrade over Darby or Terrill. At least in run defense, and it’s not like those two contributed more than once or twice a season in pass rushing.

by cashless on May 19, 2009 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, that's why they play the games.

I don’t like the Cole signing, but I can’t wait to find out if Cole is a good fit. And if everything pans out like John Morgan hopes, and Adams is the starting safety, maybe Cole will be our weakest link, and that’s something I can deal with.

by LantermanC on May 19, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's little indication Cole is a great run stuffer.

Or even a good one.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then what is he?

An average one, a below average one? Tissue paper, like the two guys he is replacing?

Also, what are you basing this off of?

by cashless on May 19, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Off John's scouting reports, and the video he posted

Go look, and see for yourself.

by The Ancient Mariner on May 20, 2009 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've seen them and it

and yes he failed at being a double-team buster. But is Marcus Tubbs really what we should be expecting from him?

I think that Bernard should be on the decline, and the depth behind him was horrible(unless you are convinced Bryant will figure it out), and I am glad to get one of the few DTs that is at least mediocre instead of retaining Howard Green or Darby. My Green Bay friend(I have two, only one of them knows football) thinks highly of Cole, but warned that he has been injured a lot for them. But that his pass rush is decent and that he is an average to good run defender when he’s healthy.

Simply as a replacement for the two of them it makes me happy. We still have Terrill, but I think Redding takes away his role completely, and think he may not make the team, and considering he’d be the 5th DT(because we have Cole) I doubt he makes it for depth. That’s three(two for sure) inept DTs that really brought our run defense down that could be gone, and I’m pretty sure he’s at least better in run defense than those three players. My bar for him is not high because simply being on the team helped us get rid of those two(maybe three) players.

If we signed a mediocre safety and cut Brian Russell, I’d feel the same way, even if I was not excited about the safety as a player.

by cashless on May 20, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The guy who runs Acme Packing Company, GB's SBN blog,

thinks Cole is horrible and was flabbergasted when we signed him at all, let alone for starter money. And it’s not like he’s especially hard on the players or anything.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 20, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well there you go.

Second-hand evidence to support both ideas. We both win.

My main point is in the post you responded to, which is one that you didn’t address at all. We’ll see what happens when games start.

by cashless on May 20, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, if he was signed to play the 1-tech

then yes, Marcus Tubbs is exactly what we should be expecting from him.

by The Ancient Mariner on May 20, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So should we be expecting

Tubbs from Bryant too? Tubbs was picked in the first round. Despite social outcry we have not invested the resources in either Cole or Bryant that we did in Tubbs, and therefore should be be expecting that type of pass rush or run stuffing ability.

We might disagree on that, but I see Cole as a bridge to Bryant or a higher DT pick in the next two years, not as a transformational FA signing.

by cashless on May 20, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bryant may have the talent to, though.

He was almost a virtual lock as a first day pick and I find it surprising (and awesome) we nabbed him in the 4th.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 20, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No arguments here...

I really hope Bryant steps it up in the next year or two. My highest hopes for him this year though is to start a majority of the games and provide a strong presence in the run game.

My actual expectations are that he plays in a steady four-man rotation at DT(somewhat more than last year) and that he shows some better consistency. And that would make me happy.

by cashless on May 20, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, forgot to add on

Bryant may have the talent to eventually, but I’m not as optimistic as Cole. Hopefully he proves me wrong, but he was a replacement level player on a team with a very bad run defense and didn’t do much to quell their troubles.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 20, 2009 9:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you're going to sign a guy to a significant contract to play the 1-tech

then he ought to be able to at least provide the strength and the push that Tubbs did, yes. Otherwise, you ought not sign him to play that position.

by The Ancient Mariner on May 22, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tubbs, when healthy, was an All-Pro level talent

So are you saying that if there just doesn’t happen to be that level of talent at one of the most valued positions just sitting around waiting for the phone to ring, the team shouldn’t sign anybody at all?

I don’t get the hand-wringing about Cole’s contract. It’s not like we signed this guy to top DT money. In terms of average cap investment, he’s about the 6th highest paid player on the starting Defense. He makes the same salary as Nate Burleson.

And after his year, his contract is structured good from the team’s perspective. It’s like Mike Wahle’s – relatively low bonus compared to salary. Meaning that if he doesn’t work out, the team can ax him and not worry about creating much dead cap space.

I’ve read John’s scouting reports on the guy. I don’t have any illusions of him anchoring the D. But as a competent starter, he’s not a horrible value. And it’s certainly not the type of deal that will handicap the team for the next few years.

by jteckmann on May 22, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, but

Tubbs’ overall value to the team was lower because of the time he was out, for one thing. More to the point, I should have been clearer about this: I wasn’t saying we should expect that caliber of player, but that we should expect that kind of player if we’re going to sign somebody to play that kind of role — and Colin Cole ain’t it.

by The Ancient Mariner on May 22, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now hold on a second....

(I swear this is not an indictment of you John)… but just because John scouted him doesn’t mean it’s fact. It seems the board generally takes the front-page scouting from Seagulls and registers it as law.

Many many NFL teams have scouted guys and “gotten it wrong”. I don’t want to turn this into one of those “MARK MY WORDS” posts because John’s analysis seems complete.

I am just saying that Colin Cole, in a role designed to occupy gaps and control multiple blockers, seems far more appropriate at keeping OL of the second level than a Bernard, Darby, or Terrill.

Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.

by iverson2169 on May 22, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but what is it about Cole that makes you think he’s far more appropriate at controlling blockers? Is it his size? Because Howard Green had a similar build and he was absolutely awful against the run.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 23, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

But Howard Green got dominated by single-blocks. Cole(in JM’s scouting report) at least dominated some of his single-blocks, and seemed to hold up well against a portion of them.

I can’t remember Howard Green, Chuck Darby, or Craig Terrill doing that, but I do remember how our great LB corps got beat up by the lack of any stoutness at all. Hoping and thinking that Cole is an upgrade to that second unit and/or first unit is enough for me until games start and we really see who we have.

by cashless on May 24, 2009 7:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What cashless said...

Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.

by iverson2169 on May 24, 2009 11:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He doesn't.

I’m just throwing scenarios out there. Though I might as well state I simply don’t understand the logic of making Redding a DE.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on May 19, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Might as well through out that

Curry might be a dominant pass rusher if you are going to say Redding could become an unmovable 1-tech and make Cole an expensive backup. That’s a scenario too.

Bryant? Sure. Not to count on him, considering he has not been in “great” shape that we’ve ever heard up.

But Redding as a one? That’s one of the ways the 08 Lions happened.

by cashless on May 19, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're missing the point, dude

With that setup, Bane stays at the 1-tech and Redding plays the 3-tech — something he did well enough before being injured to earn the franchise tag (granted, from the Lions).

by The Ancient Mariner on May 20, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I was hoping that was the plan back when the trade happened as well. I would LOVE to see that, and I kind of hope that becomes a gameday change that by accident turns into a normal situation. Can you imagine the impact pass rushing that would give us, even if it was just on third downs like they are saying will happen?

Unfortunately, I am responding to Fearless Frog trying to say Cole is a bad signing because of Redding playing the 1 as a possibility.

Cole is being paid starter money; even if someone like Bryant or Redding steps up and become the unmovable one-tech we signed Cole to be, he becomes an expensive backup.

I know his post is buried in there and that’s how you missed it, and I don’t mind you calling me out, you are completely right about the scheme. But in context I think it’s clear you and I agree.

by cashless on May 20, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah -- what he was saying didn't quite register correctly

As it happens, though, I think his larger point isn’t that Redding makes Cole a bad signing, but simply that Cole was a bad signing.

by The Ancient Mariner on May 20, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, and that may be true.

But supporting that by overreaching(or not understanding) on Redding is arguing for the sake of arguing, rather than taking in what the other person has to say, thinking it over and deciding if you agree or not. Frog seems to be completely sure of how the players will play despite not having seen them play on our team and under our coaches.

by cashless on May 20, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, of course. We're fans, we know everything.

by The Ancient Mariner on May 22, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We stuff him with pancakes dipped in powdered sugar

and butter, and poof, he’s up to 300.

by LantermanC on May 19, 2009 9:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Outliers

The worst defenses on this list seem to be heavily representative of the early ‘70s:
KAN – 1972 – 13th – 15th
BAL – 1972 – 11th – 20th
BAL – 1973 – 21st – 21st
CHI – 1970 – 10th – 18th
What that means (if anything) I don’t know, but if there was something going on in the early ‘70s then we’ve got a pretty strong correlation between elite linebackers and strong defenses.

If you remove those teams, only the ’07 Bears and ’80 Steelers are out of the top ten in both categories, and the ’55 Bears were top ten in points but not yards. The other 18 on the list were top 7 or better in both categories (and eliminating the ’74 Packers and ’67 Cowboys leaves 16 of the original 25 who were top 5 or better).

Any thoughts on my cherrypicking?

by thebyron on May 20, 2009 9:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I would love to hear from someone who better understands the era

but I think that the differences between football eras and styles could make what you are suggesting valid in the end. But the best defenses are going to get better numbers from their linebackers because they are on a better defense, and wins get you to a pro bowl over a similar player, because team success is attributed somewhat to their play.

I do think that his method is flawed, because a good linebacker can be used horribly wrong(Leroy Hill?) and he would be represented as a bad linebacker. For an offensive example, acknowledging the flaws in his system, he said that two TEs with about 11 catches 140 yards and a TD(I made up the numbers, the real numbers were similar) look equal in his system on the same team. It does not show how they garnered those stats. One could have had a nightmare Stevens type of recieving year, dropping everything, and barely played every game, and the other being a third OT type that was a great blocker and caught every ball that went his way. The system would not discriminate.

Attributing overall team success to the players has a lot of merit, and his ways of meshing stats in is a fun statistical model, but a LB that is being used to his strengths, or put in the right positions for production is going to out-perform a better linebacker being used incorrectly or with less talent around them. And that LB that is being put in the right situations is being used more efficiently, and it probably leads to better team success, more pro bowls, ect…but it doesn’t actually make him a better linebacker.

It’s much like trying to separate a QB’s stats from his WRs, and blockers, and scheme, and defense, and even kicker. Football is too interrelated.

by cashless on May 20, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would guess it's random

The late 60’s have a couple teams that are ranked highly and the mid to late 70s have several highly ranked teams. I can’t really come up with any ideas why a 3 year period would be different for linebackers or defenses either.

by Nate Dogg on May 20, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only thing I can think of

Is wasn’t that right after the AFL/NFL merger? Might have something to do with that transition. The 2 leagues had different styles, and the AFL was more wide-open and pass-happy, while the NFL was more smash-mouth running. That would mean coaches, LB’ers and DL’s from the 2 leagues were used to different schemes and had prioritized different skill sets. And it would probably take about 3-4 years for things to mesh together between the 2.

by jteckmann on May 21, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AFL-NFL merger?

which was in 1970. Complete stab in the dark on that one though.

by B.B.Finnegan on May 21, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

d'oh ... didn't see you beat me to the punch.

But yeah, I suspect the merger had something to do with it.

by jteckmann on May 21, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Merger

Very interesting point, thanks to both of you for bringing that up! I hadn’t thought of that….

by thebyron on May 22, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A great set of linebackers doesn't hurt your defense

I’d like a better D-line too. No idea if this new group will be an upgrade over the old group. The big thing will be the scheme change and how well the coaches can get the players to execute.

Spanuolo took essentially the same defense and turned them into a blitz machine in New York. I still recall people bad mouthing New York’s secondary prior to the arrival of Spagnuolo, saying they were below average and would get burned. But Spags found a way to make the defense work even with a suspect secondary.

Maybe Bradley can take the same defense we have now and turn them into something special. If Bradley is any good, he’ll be able to use the pieces he has now to create an effective defense. If he’s just another John Marshall, a guy that has never been much more than an average to below average defensive coordinator hoping his talent could overcome a horrible scheme and his inability to make adjustments during a game, then we’re screwed.

The defensive improvement on this team will come from a more effective use of the parts available, and a great set of linebackers can do wonders to make a defense better if the DC can use them right.

by ASeahawkfan on May 30, 2009 9:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If anyone is interested

PFR did another piece like this but with lineman. Predictably dominant:

chi-1983 - 5 - 8
chi-1984 - 3 - 1
chi-1987 - 4 - 2
chi-1988 - 1 - 2
chi-1990 - 9 - 6
cle-1953 - 1 - 6
cle-1954 - 1 - 1
cle-1957 - 1 - 2
clt-1957 - 8 - 6
clt-1960 - 6 - 4
dal-1978 - 3 - 2
dal-1980 - 13 - 17
dal-1981 - 7 - 20
den-1997 - 6 - 5
gnb-1962 - 1 - 2
min-1966 - 8 - 5
min-1967 - 7 - 6
min-1970 - 1 - 1
min-1974 - 3 - 10
min-1992 - 7 - 8
nyg-1951 - 2 - 1
nyg-1952 - 5 - 8
nyg-1959 - 1 - 1
phi-1990 - 12 - 8
phi-1991 - 1 - 8
pit-1976 - 1 - 1
pit-1977 - 17 - 7
pit-1978 - 1 - 3
rai-1995 - 10 - 11
ram-1965 - 9 - 4
ram-1967 - 2 - 4
ram-1968 - 3 - 1
ram-1969 - 5 - 6
ram-1976 - 3 - 4
ram-1978 - 4 - 1
ram-1979 - 11 - 7
sea-1996 - 24 - 24
sea-1999 - 8 - 23
tam-2001 - 8 - 6
tam-2002 - 1 - 1

Leave it to the Seahawks be retarded. Them and the Cowboys show that it is in fact possible to screw up an all time great defensive line.

Teams that appeared on both the linebackers and lineman list are: 1987 Bears, 1967 and 1976 Rams, and the 1976 and 1978 Steelers. A lot of the teams don’t directly overlap but at close, like the 76-79 Rams line and the 75 Rams linebackers. Since he did not repeat the same set of linebackers or lineman, only took each groups best year, we can assume the 75 Rams, 52 Browns, 63 Packers, 79 and 80 Steelers, and the 99 Bucs all benefited from playing behind some of the all time best defensive lines.

by Nate Dogg on Jun 3, 2009 10:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs