PDA

View Full Version : Shedding Blocks


bored of education
11-03-2008, 06:52 AM
IS this your number one criteria for MLBs?

For some of you it sure seems it.

eaglesalltheway
11-03-2008, 07:05 AM
Though it is important, I wouldn't say it is the most important for me. I'd say tackling is probably most important, because whatever scheme of defense you have, your MLBs or ILBs need to be consistent tacklers. If not, your defense will suffer. Of course there are a ton of different variables, and shedding blocks is improtant, as MLB will have to take on a C, G, or FB in many instances, and will need to shed that block to even have a chnce at making a play. But if I had to put in in order, I think it would be like this.
Tackling
Field Intellignce/Leadership
Shedding Blocks
Blitzing
Coverage

Of course there are many other factors that lead to a succesful MLB, but those are the most improtant IMO, and depending on the scheme of defense you run, that could be shifted around.

giantsfan
11-03-2008, 09:04 AM
meh, a lot of college linebackers struggle with shedding blocks so it's not a huge issue, if a guy can already shed blocks that's a major plus, but if a guy doesn't use his hands well it's something you can teach. Pursuit angles against the run and general instincts are more important IMO, but the guys that can already shed blocks well get a significant plus.

Cigaro
11-03-2008, 10:53 AM
Depends on the system. For 3-4 inside backers, yes, it's a huge necessity. However, quite a few systems, such as Carolina's, let the defensive tackles plug space for Jon Beason, who isn't a great block shedder, to move around and make plays.

Scott McKillop from Pittsburgh is a guy who doesn't shed blocks that well but should still be a good linebacker in the correct system.

Jasper Brinkley from South Carolina is a guy who can shed blocks well, and is a perfect fit for the 3-4.

Babylon
11-03-2008, 10:59 AM
I'd say physical ability, work ethic, reading the play, taking the proper angles, tackling ability, pass coverage and of course sheding blocks. It's not a one issue thing to shoot a guy down, a lot of these can be worked on.

thule
11-03-2008, 11:09 AM
What's shedding blocks? I only regurgitate the crap kiper/mcshay/wright say and put it in my own words............................................. ..

bored of education
11-03-2008, 11:17 AM
What's shedding blocks? I only regurgitate the crap kiper/mcshay/wright say and put it in my own words............................................. ..

LOL LOL

post of the year.

DeathbyStat
11-03-2008, 11:23 AM
Its is just me or is shedding blocks allways the main complaint about prospects that are other wise said to be elite.

bored of education
11-03-2008, 11:31 AM
Its is just me or is shedding blocks allways the main complaint about prospects that are other wise said to be elite.

point of this thread

DoWnThEfiElD
11-03-2008, 12:16 PM
Ya truthfully I don't think any rookie LB is going to be good at shedding blocks right away in the NFL. They need to have the instincts to develop that skill to be successful.

Sniper
11-03-2008, 12:18 PM
James Laurinaitis wonders what this whole "shedding blocks" thing is.

P-L
11-03-2008, 12:31 PM
I think it is important. It's not the most important, but you have to be able to do it. If you keep getting swallowed up by smaller college linemen, how are you going to get past the big guys in the NFL? If you can't get to the ball carrier before he gains 4-5 yards on a consistent basis, how are you effective?

TACKLE
11-03-2008, 12:43 PM
James Laurinaitis wonders what this whole "shedding blocks" thing is.

Hey leave Pile Jumper alone. I think he leads the NCAA in assisted tackles.

Sniper
11-03-2008, 12:47 PM
Hey leave Pile Jumper alone. I think he leads the NCAA in assisted tackles.

Second, actually. 55 of his 90 tackles have been assisted.

thule
11-03-2008, 12:50 PM
I think it is important. It's not the most important, but you have to be able to do it. If you keep getting swallowed up by smaller college linemen, how are you going to get past the big guys in the NFL? If you can't get to the ball carrier before he gains 4-5 yards on a consistent basis, how are you effective?

See Bobby Carpenter?

Mr. Stiller
11-03-2008, 02:14 PM
IS this your number one criteria for MLBs?

For some of you it sure seems it.

No but when you talk about Potential top 10 picks, atleast in terms of being rated the 2nd/3rd best draft prospect as a senior...

It kind of deflates the excitement. "We can draft the best ILB at the 4th overall pick but he has some mechanic and block shedding technique work to do".


It's not the main criteria as I'd look to: Tackling, Short Area Burst, TE/RB Coverage, ability to make plays behind the line.. Sift through traffic.

But lets be honest. Maualuga and Laurinaitis are slated to be top 10 possibly even top 5 picks.

These are the guys that should barely have a flaw in their game and could contribute immediately.

Are you going to draft a guy top 5 that can't sift through traffic very well?

P-L
11-03-2008, 02:20 PM
Although I think the 2007 draft was stronger than the 2009 draft, how was Patrick Willis taken with the #11 overall pick but James Laurinaits is projected to go #2 overall and Rey Maualuga is projected to go #8 overall?

bored of education
11-03-2008, 02:35 PM
Although I think the 2007 draft was stronger than the 2009 draft, how was Patrick Willis taken with the #11 overall pick but James Laurinaits is projected to go #2 overall and Rey Maualuga is projected to go #8 overall?

Team needs is an issue. Sometimes team have much more presisng needs and sometimes the most pressing need is an MLB. Sometimes you have to address your most immmediate need based upon the best players available. (who those in the player peronsonel departments not draftnicks like us)


For instance: The chiefs have their future LT, no Qb's available due to who declared and who was taken. The Chiefs are picking third. Obvious no DE worthy of the top 3 pick(at this moment), an RT maybe, WR(none worthy of that pick IMO) then where do you go: best Player available that applies to a need?


Where do they go if a trade is not available?

Sniper
11-03-2008, 02:40 PM
Team needs is an issue. Sometimes team have much more presisng needs and sometimes the most pressing need is an MLB. Sometimes you have to address your most immmediate need based upon the best players available. (who those in the player peronsonel departments not draftnicks like us)


For instance: The chiefs have their future LT, no Qb's available due to who declared and who was taken. The Chiefs are picking third. Obvious no DE worthy of the top 3 pick(at this moment), an RT maybe, WR(none worthy of that pick IMO) then where do you go: best Player available that applies to a need?


Where do they go if a trade is not available?

There are no circumstances that could justify drafting one of the top MLBs at #3 this year.

bored of education
11-03-2008, 02:41 PM
I am saying in general SNiper, and the Chiefs was an example. Do you spend millions more on an LT and move Albert back to guard if their are no QB's available?

Sniper
11-03-2008, 02:55 PM
I am saying in general SNiper, and the Chiefs was an example. Do you spend millions more on an LT and move Albert back to guard if their are no QB's available?

Yes. The value of Oher/Monroe/Smith at 3 is significantly higher than the value for Laurinaitis/Maualuga/Spikes, Stafford/Bradford/McCoy/whomever and so on and so forth. Laurinaitis will not be an impact player at the NFL level unless he's got a ridiculously good DL in front of him to eat all the blockers. You seem to be set at corner or else I'd say Malcolm Jenkins could be a good pick there. He's been lights out this year.

Mr. Stiller
11-03-2008, 02:57 PM
I am saying in general SNiper, and the Chiefs was an example. Do you spend millions more on an LT and move Albert back to guard if their are no QB's available?

Orakpo would be my choice..

and If not him.. any of the top 3 OT's are fine.. I mean.. Hell.. If you figure Albert is similar to Shawn Andrews.. and you Grab Eugene Monroe, you lock them both up for a significant amount of time at a very low cost (In comparison to what top OT/OG's cost).

I think around 15 is between what.. 2.5-3.5 per year? Cost of having a top OG Now (Look at the contracts handed out the last 2 offseasons to even mediocre Guards) You're still coming in way under the Free Market equivalence..

Oh.. and your left side would be beastly.

Grab B.J. Raji in round 2 to put next to Glenn Dorsey..

Grab a guy Like Darry Beckwith in 3.

You now solidified the interior of your DL, gave your OL a top notch LT/LG Combo, and just found yourself and extremely athletic ILB.

Grab a developmental passrusher in round 4... Tim Jamison, Michael Bennett, Derek Walker..

bored of education
11-03-2008, 02:59 PM
thanks guys! i understand your points for the Chiefs example but it does not always work that nice!

P-L
11-03-2008, 03:00 PM
You say there is not a defensive end worth a top three pick, but I don't think there is a middle linebacker worth a top three pick, unless you think Aaron Curry can play inside. On my board, I have Greg Hardy (#9), Brian Orakpo (#12), and George Selvie (#16) all rated higher than James Laurinaitis (#26) and Rey Maualuga (#30).

Sniper
11-03-2008, 03:01 PM
Orakpo would be my choice..

and If not him.. any of the top 3 OT's are fine.. I mean.. Hell.. If you figure Albert is similar to Shawn Andrews.. and you Grab Eugene Monroe, you lock them both up for a significant amount of time at a very low cost (In comparison to what top OT/OG's cost).

I think around 15 is between what.. 2.5-3.5 per year? Cost of having a top OG Now (Look at the contracts handed out the last 2 offseasons to even mediocre Guards) You're still coming in way under the Free Market equivalence..

Oh.. and your left side would be beastly.

Completely forgot about Orakpo. He could fit.

ATM, you couldn't go wrong with Orakpo or the Big 3 OTs at the 3 spot. I wouldn't touch Stafford with a 30 foot pole in the top 20 picks.

DoWnThEfiElD
11-03-2008, 03:03 PM
There are no circumstances that could justify drafting one of the top MLBs at #3 this year.

Agreed, however, I do think Brandon Spikes could crack the top 10, if he works out well. I think that guy is a beast in the middle.

P-L
11-03-2008, 03:04 PM
thanks guys! i understand your points for the Chiefs example but it does not always work that nice!
Then you take the best available player. The Lions took Calvin Johnson #2 overall when the only position we didn't need was wide receiver, and that's worked out well so far. You don't have success in the NFL if you reach for a position of need in the draft, especially early in the draft.

Mr. Stiller
11-03-2008, 03:05 PM
Completely forgot about Orakpo. He could fit.

ATM, you couldn't go wrong with Orakpo or the Big 3 OTs at the 3 spot. I wouldn't touch Stafford with a 30 foot pole in the top 20 picks.

I would still lean tackle.

I have never seen the Steelers select in the top 10, let alone 5.

and While I think they would trade down at all costs.. and it would suck to see as a season..

It would be nice to see us get a top notch OT for once.

And I edited my previous post:


1) Monroe
2) Raji
3) Beckwith
4) Jamison

would be a heck of a draft for the Chiefs.

Sniper
11-03-2008, 03:06 PM
1) Monroe
2) Raji
3) Beckwith
4) Jamison

would be a heck of a draft for the Chiefs.

Tim Jamison is not good.

Mr. Stiller
11-03-2008, 03:06 PM
Then you take the best available player. The Lions took Calvin Johnson #2 overall when the only position we didn't need was wide receiver, and that's worked out well so far. You don't have success in the NFL if you reach for a position of need in the draft, especially early in the draft.

Add to that it allowed the Lions to trade Roy Williams for a 1st, 3rd and a 6th to retool.

Mr. Stiller
11-03-2008, 03:07 PM
Tim Jamison is not good.

He's not great, but, for a 4th rounder he has potential..

Michael Bennett probably has higher upside.

illmatic74
11-03-2008, 04:14 PM
Running through traffic, coverage and how they play in space I find more important.