PDA

View Full Version : Best NFC LB Unit from Sporting News


bryanGENE
05-27-2007, 07:32 PM
Courtesy of Sporting News: http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=212968

What are your views? What team do you believe to have the best LB unit in the NFC? What do you think of the individual LB rank:

1. Brian Urlacher, Bears. He is asked to do many different things in the middle of the cover 2 and is always around the ball.

2. DeMarcus Ware, Cowboys. He is emerging as one of the top young defensive stars in the game, and his best football is still in front of him.

3. Lofa Tatupu, Seahawks. He does not look impressive in pads, but he is a natural leader who makes plays all over the field.

4. Julian Peterson, Seahawks. His tremendous closing speed and rare first step as a pass rusher make him a game-changer.

5. Lance Briggs, Bears. Though he plays in Urlacher's shadow, he is nearly on par in terms of ability.

remix 6
05-27-2007, 07:34 PM
wow Panthers @ 12! behind Vikings..Rams..Saints?

i would take a healthy Morgan-Beason-Thomas anyday of the weak over any other LB group

etk
05-27-2007, 07:49 PM
#4 is pretty good and fair for the Bucs.

etk
05-27-2007, 07:49 PM
wow Panthers @ 12! behind Vikings..Rams..Saints?

i would take a healthy Morgan-Beason-Thomas anyday of the weak over any other LB group

Who's Thomas on Carolina? You mean Thomas Davis, right? It's confusing because you listed the other guys' last names...

Go_Eagles77
05-27-2007, 08:03 PM
I don't agree with Eagles at 14, but I can see why others would.

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 08:08 PM
I don't agree with Eagles at 14, but I can see why others would.

It's all dependent on Takeo Spikes. If Spikes plays like he was able to before the injury, then we will jump up a few spots. Trotter needs to rebound this season too, last season's performance was weak in comparison to what he is capable of. Us being below the Saints is garbage though. Their LB's are alright, but Simoneau who starts for them was a pretty certain cut when he was an Eagle. I expect the Saints to have problems with their LB personnel next season.

BlindSite
05-27-2007, 08:17 PM
Who's Thomas on Carolina? You mean Thomas Davis, right? It's confusing because you listed the other guys' last names...

Yeah he means thomas Davis who IMO is the best linebacker on the team already and if not for Derrick Brooks and Lance Briggs would get a lot more attention for being the great young player he is.

LonghornsLegend
05-27-2007, 08:22 PM
guess i cant complain about the cowboys rankings, especially if you take into consideration our depth...we have ellis and spencer rotating on the outside, and carpenter and burnett rotating on the inside

YAYareaRB
05-27-2007, 08:47 PM
Wow 49ers at #5.. All this stuff is getting me hyped for the season! 49ers GO!

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 08:51 PM
The 49ers are a little too high, to quote Public Enemy "don't believe the hype."

SeanTaylorRIP
05-27-2007, 08:59 PM
Courtesy of Sporting News: http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=212968

What are your views? What team do you believe to have the best LB unit in the NFC? What do you think of the individual LB rank:

1. Brian Urlacher, Bears. He is asked to do many different things in the middle of the cover 2 and is always around the ball.

2. DeMarcus Ware, Cowboys. He is emerging as one of the top young defensive stars in the game, and his best football is still in front of him.

3. Lofa Tatupu, Seahawks. He does not look impressive in pads, but he is a natural leader who makes plays all over the field.

4. Julian Peterson, Seahawks. His tremendous closing speed and rare first step as a pass rusher make him a game-changer.

5. Lance Briggs, Bears. Though he plays in Urlacher's shadow, he is nearly on par in terms of ability.

No way is DeMarcus Ware the 2nd best LB in the NFC right now, that's a joke.

bored of education
05-27-2007, 09:09 PM
Why do you guys even bother with IF HEALTHY. that means the player has questions marks and will not play to the 100% health the player once has played at.

sweetness34
05-27-2007, 09:14 PM
wow Panthers @ 12! behind Vikings..Rams..Saints?

i would take a healthy Morgan-Beason-Thomas anyday of the weak over any other LB group

Hahahahahaha.....Pause.....Hahahahahahahahahah. Seattle, Chicago, and Green Bay (off the top of my head) > Carolina.

Dan Morgan can't stay healthy, Jon Beason is an unproven rookie, and Thomas Davis while a good young player doesn't make up the difference.

Edit: Oh and Briggs is not on par with Urlacher in terms of ability. Brian is more athletic, he's faster, he's much better in coverage, and he has much more pursuit ability.

dc4life
05-27-2007, 09:14 PM
Courtesy of Sporting News: http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=212968

What are your views? What team do you believe to have the best LB unit in the NFC? What do you think of the individual LB rank:

1. Brian Urlacher, Bears. He is asked to do many different things in the middle of the cover 2 and is always around the ball.

2. DeMarcus Ware, Cowboys. He is emerging as one of the top young defensive stars in the game, and his best football is still in front of him.

3. Lofa Tatupu, Seahawks. He does not look impressive in pads, but he is a natural leader who makes plays all over the field.

4. Julian Peterson, Seahawks. His tremendous closing speed and rare first step as a pass rusher make him a game-changer.

5. Lance Briggs, Bears. Though he plays in Urlacher's shadow, he is nearly on par in terms of ability.

Agree with the individual ranking of DeMarcus Ware at #2. Look at his stats last year: 71 tackles, 11.5 sacks, 2 tds, 1 int, 5 forced fumbles, etc. The guy is a game changer and commands double teams. IMO this guy will ALWAYS be compared to Shawne Merriman throughout his career, and that ain't bad at all. He has freakish ability. Look for his numbers to increase under Phillip's 3-4.

BlindSite
05-27-2007, 09:20 PM
Hahahahahaha.....Pause.....Hahahahahahahahahah. Seattle, Chicago, and Green Bay (off the top of my head) > Carolina.

Dan Morgan can't stay healthy, Jon Beason is an unproven rookie, and Thomas Davis while a good young player doesn't make up the difference.

Edit: Oh and Briggs is not on par with Urlacher in terms of ability. Brian is more athletic, he's faster, he's much better in coverage, and he has much more pursuit ability.

Yeah but when healthy Dan Morgan is one of the best linebackers in the league and easily better than Barnett and Tatupu, Davis is better than Hawk as well.

bored of education
05-27-2007, 09:22 PM
Yeah but when healthy Dan Morgan is one of the best linebackers in the league and easily better than Barnett and Tatupu, Davis is better than Hawk as well.


about a .003% chance of him ever being that so why say it.

no water

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 09:27 PM
Dan Morgan is yet to finish a season in his 6 year career, for once I agree with Bored of Education that the "if healthy" argument holds no water.

sweetness34
05-27-2007, 09:28 PM
Yeah but when healthy Dan Morgan is one of the best linebackers in the league and easily better than Barnett and Tatupu, Davis is better than Hawk as well.

But Dan's never healthy, that's the thing. And Davis is not better than Hawk, sorry. Not at least in my opinion.

You've got an injury prone LB, a rookie LB, and an inexperienced LB who while talented still needs to learn the game. That does not qualify them being the best LB core in the NFC, and I'd still take GB's over yours.

Acreboy
05-27-2007, 09:34 PM
wow Panthers @ 12! behind Vikings..Rams..Saints?

i would take a healthy Morgan-Beason-Thomas anyday of the weak over any other LB group
Beason=Unproven

sweetness34
05-27-2007, 09:42 PM
Beason=Unproven

Morgan = Hasn't played a full season in his 6 years

Davis = Talented but still inexperienced

Unless you are a blind homer I don't see how that equates to being a top tier LB core in the NFC.

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 09:45 PM
Morgan = Hasn't played a full season in his 6 years

Davis = Talented but still inexperienced

Unless you are a blind homer I don't see how that equates to being a top tier LB core in the NFC.

Well that's because you don't have:

http://www.zippity2dad.com/imagination2.jpg

sweetness34
05-27-2007, 09:47 PM
Well that's because you don't have:

http://www.zippity2dad.com/imagination2.jpg

Haha +1 rep.

bored of education
05-27-2007, 09:48 PM
yeah he gets some repdizzle for that

M.O.T.H.
05-27-2007, 09:49 PM
D-WARE woo!

remix 6
05-27-2007, 09:52 PM
Beason=Unproven

okay so why are Vikings so high? They add in Greenway..unproven. Leber is not very good..Henderson is good though.

Willis is unproven so why are 49ers so high?

Derek Smith blows..i've seen him a few times and the 49er fans have bashed him. Moore i dont know much about..Lawson will be a good player but how much has he proven?

thats why i brought Beason up..the site put in Willis and Greenway .

papa burgundy
05-27-2007, 10:46 PM
okay so why are Vikings so high? They add in Greenway..unproven. Leber is not very good..Henderson is good though.

Willis is unproven so why are 49ers so high?

Derek Smith blows..i've seen him a few times and the 49er fans have bashed him. Moore i dont know much about..Lawson will be a good player but how much has he proven?

thats why i brought Beason up..the site put in Willis and Greenway .

Looking at that list.. you could probably put any team from 5 on down in any order and you'd probably get the same reactions. None of those teams really stand out in terms of total LB cores.

As far as Moore who you don't know much about though. He is by far one of if not the most underrated linebacker in the entire NFL. He excels at rushing the passer he plays the run like Trotter in his prime and his has the strength of a 300lb DT. Not to mention..

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f116/posayshoohaa/brandonmoore3.jpg

Look at those guns.. guy is a beast. I'd go as far as saying he's a top 5 LBer in the NFC, but that's probably just the homer in me saying that.

BlindSite
05-27-2007, 10:51 PM
But Dan's never healthy, that's the thing. And Davis is not better than Hawk, sorry. Not at least in my opinion.

You've got an injury prone LB, a rookie LB, and an inexperienced LB who while talented still needs to learn the game. That does not qualify them being the best LB core in the NFC, and I'd still take GB's over yours.

Hawk is good, but he doesn't use his hands as well and Davis who's much, much better at shedding blocks.

I'd put the two equal in run and pass support but Davis is better against blockers and through traffic, though hawk probably has been gap discipline.

As for Morgan i agree, he needs to learn to stay healthy, but he's still better than Barnett when healthy.

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 10:56 PM
Hawk is good, but he doesn't use his hands as well and Davis who's much, much better at shedding blocks.

I'd put the two equal in run and pass support but Davis is better against blockers and through traffic, though hawk probably has been gap discipline.

As for Morgan i agree, he needs to learn to stay healthy, but he's still better than Barnett when healthy.

Hawk is a playmaker, Davis is not. Hawk is incontrovertibly better than Davis.

Moses
05-27-2007, 10:56 PM
Hawk is good, but he doesn't use his hands as well and Davis who's much, much better at shedding blocks.

I'd put the two equal in run and pass support but Davis is better against blockers and through traffic, though hawk probably has been gap discipline.

As for Morgan i agree, he needs to learn to stay healthy, but he's still better than Barnett when healthy.

Barnett has been infinitely more consistent and dependable than Morgan throughout his career. Ask anybody who is the better linebacker heading into next season and it's Barnett everytime.

I don't really see your argument about Davis and Hawk. Hawk uses his hands as well as anybody to shed blocks. That's far from his weakness.

BlindSite
05-27-2007, 11:10 PM
Hawk is a playmaker, Davis is not. Hawk is incontrovertibly better than Davis.

Are you kidding me?

You've just argued yourself out of this discussion. Thomas Davis is the definition of playmaker. Rich McKay himself, who's been amazing when drafting linebackers over his career as a GM said "He's the Braylon Edwards of defensive players" when referring to the draft class of 2005.

He's by far the best tackler on the Panthers team, he's also the best blitzing linebacker and is the best blitzing linebacker we've had for years. He ran stride for stride with reggie bush in coverage and only gave up one play when he was checked at the line of scrimmage on a crackback from Colston.

He's been the guy who's shut Vick down the last two years and stopped him from being the play maker he is against every one else.

Davis is not a play maker? You've never seen him play.

Hawk and Davis are almost the exact same player, the difference between the two is that hawk has about ten pounds on Davis, but Davis runs a 4.5 forty and can actually blitz. Hell, Thomas Davis has covered slot receivers in the past. His versatility allows the Panthers to stay in their base defense even when teams come out three wide.

He can cover, he can blitz, he uses his hands brilliantly to shed blockers and last year more than once for example against new orleans fought off a tackle to drop inside down the line and stop McAllister for a loss behind the line. He's got a nose for the ball and can trail. The kid is inexperienced and yes, he needs to learn to read play fakes and not to over pursue when chasing down players, but he's fast on his way to being a probowl player.

Coming out scouts were comparing him to Ray Lewis and saying he's the next great linebacker.

Hawk is known to struggle as a blitzer and can be tied up by blockers because he lacks the height most SLBs have and because he doesn't have quickness to always beat the running back to the corner.

Davis does both those things better, the only advantage Hawk has is he's better at reading a play. Which will come to Davis in time.

Davis, last year was more important to our defense than anyone not named Kris Jenkins, Julius Peppers or Ken Lucas.

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 11:17 PM
Are you kidding me?

You've just argued yourself out of this discussion. Thomas Davis is the definition of playmaker. Rich McKay himself, who's been amazing when drafting linebackers over his career as a GM said "He's the Braylon Edwards of defensive players" when referring to the draft class of 2005.

He's by far the best tackler on the Panthers team, he's also the best blitzing linebacker and is the best blitzing linebacker we've had for years. He ran stride for stride with reggie bush in coverage and only gave up one play when he was checked at the line of scrimmage on a crackback from Colston.

He's been the guy who's shut Vick down the last two years and stopped him from being the play maker he is against every one else.

Davis is not a play maker? You've never seen him play.

Hawk and Davis are almost the exact same player, the difference between the two is that hawk has about ten pounds on Davis, but Davis runs a 4.5 forty and can actually blitz. Hell, Thomas Davis has covered slot receivers in the past. His versatility allows the Panthers to stay in their base defense even when teams come out three wide.

He can cover, he can blitz, he uses his hands brilliantly to shed blockers and last year more than once for example against new orleans fought off a tackle to drop inside down the line and stop McAllister for a loss behind the line. He's got a nose for the ball and can trail. The kid is inexperienced and yes, he needs to learn to read play fakes and not to over pursue when chasing down players, but he's fast on his way to being a probowl player.

Coming out scouts were comparing him to Ray Lewis and saying he's the next great linebacker.

Hawk is known to struggle as a blitzer and can be tied up by blockers because he lacks the height most SLBs have and because he doesn't have quickness to always beat the running back to the corner.

Davis does both those things better, the only advantage Hawk has is he's better at reading a play. Which will come to Davis in time.

Davis, last year was more important to our defense than anyone not named Kris Jenkins, Julius Peppers or Ken Lucas.

Ok, he was a playmaker in college, different level, different game he's in right now. His production last season as a full time starter is pretty mediocre. For being the amazing blitzer you say he is, it's surprising he got fewer sacks than the player who he is superior to in blitzing and shedding blocks. He didn't make many plays last season, which means Int.'s and sacks. He is perfectly adept at tackling, I'll give him that.

This is complete homerism if you honestly believe that Davis is better than Hawk.

ny10804
05-27-2007, 11:17 PM
Blindsite, you forget one thing, AJ Hawk is AJ Hawk. There goes your argument.

GB12
05-27-2007, 11:18 PM
Dan Morgan in 6 years: 364 Total Tackles - 265 Solo Tackles - 7 Sacks - 5 Ints

Nick Barnett in 5years: 478 Total Tackles - 331 Solo Tackles - 8 Sacks - 7 Ints



Thomas Davis in 2 years: 126 Total Tackles - 100 Solo Tackles - 3 Sacks - 0 Ints

A.J. Hawk in 1 year.......: 119 Total Tackles - 82 Solo Tackles - 3.5 Sacks - 2 Ints


Now I know stats aren't everything, but I just want to show you how rediculous you are being.

BlindSite
05-27-2007, 11:23 PM
Ok, he was a playmaker in college, different level, different game he's in right now. His production last season as a full time starter is pretty mediocre. For being the amazing blitzer you say he is, it's surprising he got fewer sacks than the player who he is superior to in blitzing and shedding blocks. He didn't make many plays last season, which means Int.'s and sacks. He is perfectly adept at tackling, I'll give him that.

This is complete homerism if you honestly believe that Davis is better than Hawk.
You don't know much about the type for 43 Trgovac runs do you? Nor how opposing offenses attack the Panthers. You keep acting like you know my team, its clear every post you make that you don't.

He didn't make many plays? You don't know a thing, you're looking at statistics, they don't show the story, they don't even begin to tell half of it.

I'm used to people like you who know about AJ hawk what they've read from press clippings before he's drafted and you don't know squat about Davis because he didn't start his rookie year.


Thomas Davis in 2 years: 126 Total Tackles - 100 Solo Tackles - 3 Sacks - 0 Ints

A.J. Hawk in 1 year.......: 119 Total Tackles - 82 Solo Tackles - 3.5 Sacks - 2 Ints

Now I know stats aren't everything, but I just want to show you how ridiculous you are being.

You're exactly the same, you've probably never watched a game thomas Davis played. The statistics are skewed because of the way offenses attack your team.

ny10804
05-27-2007, 11:26 PM
You do know it would be a landslide if we made this a poll, right? I'm talking your vote vs. everyone else.

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 11:29 PM
You don't know much about the type for 43 Trgovac runs do you? Nor how opposing offenses attack the Panthers. You keep acting like you know my team, its clear every post you make that you don't.

He didn't make many plays? You don't know a thing, you're looking at statistics, they don't show the story, they don't even begin to tell half of it.

I'm used to people like you who know about AJ hawk what they've read from press clippings before he's drafted and you don't know squat about Davis because he didn't start his rookie year.

Have you seen Hawk play? If you have you would realize that he actually jumps off the screen at you as a playmaker on their defense. I watched several Panthers games this season, Thomas Davis was a solid player, but not much more.

Here is how I define playmaker: one who makes plays. What are big plays? Int's and sacks. Now since Davis didn't get many sacks and no int's what does that mean? He didn't make many plays thus is not a playmaker. I'm sure he made a lot of big tackles, but most decent players do. That's not what I'm talking about when I refer to someone as a playmaker. You can tell if someone is a playmaker or not by looking at their stats. That is one of the few places that you can use stats to actually determine something.

There really is no ground to stand on on Davis's side in this Davis vs. Hawk debate.

BlindSite
05-27-2007, 11:32 PM
Have you seen Hawk play? If you have you would realize that he actually jumps off the screen at you as a playmaker on their defense. I watched several Panthers games this season, Thomas Davis was a solid player, but not much more.

Here is how I define playmaker: one who makes plays. What are big plays? Int's and sacks. Now since Davis didn't get many sacks and no int's what does that mean? He didn't make many plays thus is not a playmaker. I'm sure he made a lot of big tackles, but most decent players do. That's not what I'm talking about when I refer to someone as a playmaker. You can tell if someone is a playmaker or not by looking at their stats. That is one of the few places that you can use stats to actually determine something.

There really is no ground to stand on on Davis's side in this Davis vs. Hawk debate.

Wow, there really is no point arguing with you. By your logic Lee Evans is better than Steve Smith.

cunningham06
05-27-2007, 11:38 PM
Wow, there really is no point arguing with you. By your logic Lee Evans is better than Steve Smith.

Steve Smith had an off year, in 2005 he was much better than Lee Evans.

What good does changing the topic to veteran vs. veteran when they have many seasons to compare when we are talking about a rookie and a second year player who was a first year LB'er. But Lee Evans is a playmaker.

Ravens1991
05-27-2007, 11:38 PM
he isnt saying Lee Evans is better then Steve Smith, but if you see a LB has 6 INT and 8 sacks so to say, you can tell he is a play maker. It doesnt make a person better then another person.

BlindSite
05-27-2007, 11:43 PM
he isnt saying Lee Evans is better then Steve Smith, but if you see a LB has 6 INT and 8 sacks so to say, you can tell he is a play maker. It doesnt make a person better then another person.

Granted, but then that's not always the case, Deltha O'Neal had 10 INTs a year ago and he's pathetic. It means he was attacked, constantly.

Ravens1991
05-27-2007, 11:54 PM
we are talking about LB not CB here. You are right about Oneal

BlindSite
05-28-2007, 12:05 AM
Which is exactly the point. If he's crap in man coverage he's going to get thrown at more, thus his chances of taking an INT are higher, if he's in zone because he can't cover man to man, much of the same. Its the same concept. Better stats don't always mean better play. If a player is attacked more they're going to have more tackles, and ints.

cunningham06
05-28-2007, 12:10 AM
Which is exactly the point. If he's crap in man coverage he's going to get thrown at more, thus his chances of taking an INT are higher, if he's in zone because he can't cover man to man, much of the same. Its the same concept. Better stats don't always mean better play. If a player is attacked more they're going to have more tackles, and ints.

That's all well and good for CB's and is a large reason why before this season C-Mac didn't have that many picks, same situation with Newman, but good coverage LB's almost always have int's. Derrick Brooks, widely regarded as one of the best coverage LB's of the era has had int's in every year of his career save one.

BlindSite
05-28-2007, 12:51 AM
Indeed, but then again he plays in a cover 2 a completely different scheme.

stl9erfan
05-28-2007, 03:31 AM
On the 49ers:

I agree that they're probably ranked a little bit too high... I'd bump both them, and the Bucs down a couple of spots and move the Packers and Panthers up... I think the Eagles are probably too low also. I'd put them closer to 10.

Also, the the poster questioning the Niners LB talent-- SOME 49er fans dislike Derek Smith. Others of us see him for what he is: a consistent, smart tackling machine who isn't the greatest at taking on guards, but in the modern, speed-oriented NFL, few are.

As another poster said, Moore is a pretty underrated guy. Well, not so much underrated as unknown. But he's put up very good stats for SF over the past two years, is big, tough and physical. Lawson, Banta-Cain, and Willis should all see significant playing time as well and have pretty good upsides. Parys Haralson, Colby Bockwoldt, and Jay Moore should all be capable backups. So while I too think the Niners LBs are rated a bit too highly, they are a talented bunch with the potential to eventually live up to their top-5 ranking, depending upon how Willis and Lawson develop.

nobodyinparticular
05-28-2007, 04:03 AM
Courtesy of Sporting News: http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=212968

What are your views? What team do you believe to have the best LB unit in the NFC? What do you think of the individual LB rank:

1. Brian Urlacher, Bears. He is asked to do many different things in the middle of the cover 2 and is always around the ball.

2. DeMarcus Ware, Cowboys. He is emerging as one of the top young defensive stars in the game, and his best football is still in front of him.

3. Lofa Tatupu, Seahawks. He does not look impressive in pads, but he is a natural leader who makes plays all over the field.

4. Julian Peterson, Seahawks. His tremendous closing speed and rare first step as a pass rusher make him a game-changer.

5. Lance Briggs, Bears. Though he plays in Urlacher's shadow, he is nearly on par in terms of ability.

I know this isn't your list, but I'd definitely put Peterson above Tatupu. In fact, I don't think I'd have Tatupu on here. Peterson at 3 sounds good to me, Briggs at 4 is good.

In looking over a list of the NFC LBs, I'm not sure about #5. After that I see two things--#1 is that there is a real lack of LB talent in the NFC and #2 maybe Tatupu belongs in the top 5 afterall due to the effects of #1.

At the moment, I would debate between Tatupu and Brooks being at #5. Brooks there because he's still good, but he's not his former self. Tatupu would be there more based on potential rather than last year. In fact, I feel that both of them had down years in 2006 compared to 2005. I thought Lofa was a better LB his rookie year and had a bit of a sophomore slump. Maybe that's just me though.

BlindSite
05-28-2007, 04:23 AM
I'd have Brooking above Tatupu.

remix 6
05-28-2007, 09:00 AM
Davis > Hawk

i saw the Patriots-Packers game..Hawk had 13 tackles. But guess what. His tackles were literally 5 yards downfield . He got beat by Watson twice trying to cover him then they let Collins-Poppinga i think try

I've seen a lot of Davis..he was an ex safety..hes fast, strong and kid can hit. Dont look into stats..i can name you a few players with better stats but less real production

Look at Vilma: 113 tackles..and he sucked last year in the 3-4.

I loved when Davis wasnt really a starter his rookie season vs Michael Vick. They kept him in as a spy and Vick did absolutely nothing. The kid chased him from side to side and shut Mike Vick down.

Ravens1991
05-28-2007, 09:08 AM
Which is exactly the point. If he's crap in man coverage he's going to get thrown at more, thus his chances of taking an INT are higher, if he's in zone because he can't cover man to man, much of the same. Its the same concept. Better stats don't always mean better play. If a player is attacked more they're going to have more tackles, and ints.

not necessarily, look at Ray Lewis in his prime for example, people avoided him and he still got near the lead league in tackles.

High Roller
05-28-2007, 09:09 AM
49ers at #5 is fair imo. TBC is proven for getting after the QB. Manny has great rush/coverage skills but needs to work on run defense. Patrick Willis is unproven at the moment, but he will surpass Smith for starter easily. Moore is the most underrated LB in the league possibly and does everything great.

jkpigskin
05-28-2007, 09:36 AM
wow Panthers @ 12! behind Vikings..Rams..Saints?

i would take a healthy Morgan-Beason-Thomas anyday of the weak over any other LB group

sure, when their heatlhy but morgan is never healthy

jackalope
05-28-2007, 09:49 AM
6 for the Packer's seems about right.

sweetness34
05-28-2007, 12:55 PM
BlindSite you are being a ridiculous homer about this man, it's almost to the point where it's frustrating to see. Thomas Davis is not a better LB than AJ Hawk, period. Barnett is much more consistent than Morgan and can actually stay on the field for an entire season, in fact Nick is one of the more underrated players in the NFC on the defensive side of the ball. And Poppinga right now is better than Beason, because Jon hasn't proven anything on the field.

Hines
05-28-2007, 01:09 PM
wow have u seen the afc rankings

the steelers 11th

behind the texans and the raiders and the titans

tom
05-28-2007, 02:12 PM
Where is Nick Barnett? He's a stud LB.

I'd say Lofa is good, but not better than Barnett.

SaintsMan
05-28-2007, 04:05 PM
OLB, Scott Shanle - Tackles, 73, Assists, 24, Sacks, 4, Forced Fumbles, 1

SLB, Scott Fujita - Tackles, 64, Assists, 32, Sacks, 3.5, Interceptions, 2, Forced Fumbles, 1

I'm not saying the Saints Linebackers are anything close to great, but they must be doing something right and are underrated as many still say they are horrible at best. Also, Brian Simmons will start over Mark Simoneau at Middle Linebacker. Stopping the run is Simoneau's biggest weakness, and is a strength for Simmons.

sweetness34
05-28-2007, 04:52 PM
OLB, Scott Shanle - Tackles, 73, Assists, 24, Sacks, 4, Forced Fumbles, 1

SLB, Scott Fujita - Tackles, 64, Assists, 32, Sacks, 3.5, Interceptions, 2, Forced Fumbles, 1

I'm not saying the Saints Linebackers are anything close to great, but they must be doing something right and are underrated as many still say they are horrible at best. Also, Brian Simmons will start over Mark Simoneau at Middle Linebacker. Stopping the run is Simoneau's biggest weakness, and is a strength for Simmons.

The Saints LB's are anything but underrated. They just aren't good.

remix 6
05-28-2007, 04:58 PM
lol somenes gotta get the stats..besides the front 4 of the saints..no1 impressed me.

BlindSite
05-28-2007, 05:19 PM
BlindSite you are being a ridiculous homer about this man, it's almost to the point where it's frustrating to see. Thomas Davis is not a better LB than AJ Hawk, period. Barnett is much more consistent than Morgan and can actually stay on the field for an entire season, in fact Nick is one of the more underrated players in the NFC on the defensive side of the ball. And Poppinga right now is better than Beason, because Jon hasn't proven anything on the field.


My opinion has been agreed with by a guy who's not a Panthers fan, therefore you can't really call me a homer because its not just one lone panthers fan with this opinion...

Greenbay's defense while decent, as a whole is overrated imo.

BuckNaked
05-28-2007, 05:26 PM
okay so why are Vikings so high? They add in Greenway..unproven. Leber is not very good..Henderson is good though.

Willis is unproven so why are 49ers so high?

Derek Smith blows..i've seen him a few times and the 49er fans have bashed him. Moore i dont know much about..Lawson will be a good player but how much has he proven?

thats why i brought Beason up..the site put in Willis and Greenway .

Leber actually performed very well last season and was extremely consistent.

sweetness34
05-28-2007, 05:29 PM
My opinion has been agreed with by a guy who's not a Panthers fan, therefore you can't really call me a homer because its not just one lone panthers fan with this opinion...

Greenbay's defense while decent, as a whole is overrated imo.

Your opinion was agreed with by a guy who thinks the Panthers have the best LB core in the NFC.

Green Bay's defense is extremely solid apart from some secondary questions. And they have a better LB core than Carolina. A rookie, an injury prone player, and another a talented but young LB does not equate to beating extremely consistent players in Poppinga and Barnett to go along with one of the best young defensive players in the game right now.

Ravens1991
05-28-2007, 06:20 PM
Can somebody post the AFC rankings.

remix 6
05-28-2007, 07:13 PM
yes sirr

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=212433

1. Ravens
2. Chargers
3. Dolphins
4. Patriots
5. Chiefs
6. Broncos
7. Jaguars
8. Titans
9. Texans
10. Raiders
11. Steelers
12. Jets
13. Browns
14. Bengals
15. Colts
16. Bills

1. Merriman
2. Adalius Thomas
3. Zach Thomas
4. Lewis
5. Bulluck

Phrost
05-28-2007, 07:15 PM
No way is DeMarcus Ware the 2nd best LB in the NFC right now, that's a joke.

He speaks the truth!

sweetness34
05-28-2007, 07:16 PM
yes sirr

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=212433

1. Ravens
2. Chargers
3. Dolphins
4. Patriots
5. Chiefs
6. Broncos
7. Jaguars
8. Titans
9. Texans
10. Raiders
11. Steelers
12. Jets
13. Browns
14. Bengals
15. Colts
16. Bills

1. Merriman
2. Adalius Thomas
3. Zach Thomas
4. Lewis
5. Bulluck

Merriman is not the best LB in the AFC. He's still to one dimensional for my liking as an LB ranked that high.

remix 6
05-28-2007, 07:18 PM
Merriman is not the best LB in the AFC. He's still to one dimensional for my liking as an LB ranked that high.

agreed.

no way should Patriots be behind Chargers in overall LBs..Chargers have: Merriman, Phillips, lost Edwards..who else?

Patriots have Thomas, Colvin, Vrabel and our weak link is Bruschi.

Ravens1991
05-28-2007, 07:56 PM
I think Adalius is better then Merriman, he can cover stuff the run well, he can still get 10+ sacks and he isnt let loose a vast majority of the time like Merriman

jpapa4490
05-28-2007, 08:46 PM
Green Bay at #6 sounds right

Not sure where someone would get the idea Green Bay's defense is overrated, Not saying they are great by any means but they are most certainlynot over rated. Hawk and barnett are better then thomas and morgan.

draftguru151
05-28-2007, 08:57 PM
The Bills at 16 is nonsense, the Browns that low is pretty bad too. Davis is a great MLB, Wimbley had a great rookie year and is only gonna get better. Jackson and Williams inside rotating, McGinest and Peek rotating, that is a very good group. I think both those groups should be top 10. I really like Buffalo's group, Ellison and Crowell both did very well last year, add Poz to that group, very good group.

Jason Taylor is a LB too, Miami should be #1. :p

cunningham06
05-28-2007, 09:12 PM
LMAO at the Texans being in front of the Steelers. I guess Demeco's awesomeness makes up for the fact that we are going to be very weak at SLB this year. Morlon Greenwood is a solid player, but the Steelers are definitely superior to us.

Hopefully Demeco will be in the top 5 come next offseason.

bearsfan_51
05-28-2007, 09:15 PM
Green Bay at #6 sounds right

Not sure where someone would get the idea Green Bay's defense is overrated, Not saying they are great by any means but they are most certainlynot over rated. Hawk and barnett are better then thomas and morgan.

I would agree with this. Their secondary is definately overrated, but their front seven is very good.

Sniper
05-28-2007, 09:17 PM
I would agree with this. Their secondary is definately overrated, but their front seven is very good.

Charles Woodson's overall awesomeness should cover up any mistakes they have in their secondary. Oh wait, he's not at Michigan anymore:(

SaintsMan
05-28-2007, 10:43 PM
The Saints LB's are anything but underrated. They just aren't good.

How are they not decent? Also, I said they are underrated in the fact that most say they are horrible at best.

Fujita and Shanle played very well as first year Saints, I don't see how they aren't good players.

bored of education
05-28-2007, 10:48 PM
KC!!! Derrick Johnson, Donnie Edwards, Napoleon Harris with Key Fox and Bell off the bench!!!

hell yes

cunningham06
05-28-2007, 10:52 PM
How are they not decent? Also, I said they are underrated in the fact that most say they are horrible at best.

Simoneau is roster fodder, Fujita is a journeyman. This season your LB's look solid though. Brian Simmons is much better than Simoneau. Shanle is ok.

BlindSite
05-28-2007, 10:56 PM
yes sirr

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=212433

1. Ravens
2. Chargers
3. Dolphins
4. Patriots
5. Chiefs
6. Broncos
7. Jaguars
8. Titans
9. Texans
10. Raiders
11. Steelers
12. Jets
13. Browns
14. Bengals
15. Colts
16. Bills

1. Merriman
2. Adalius Thomas
3. Zach Thomas
4. Lewis
5. Bulluck

My question is, where be Vilma?

draftguru151
05-28-2007, 10:57 PM
My question is, where be Vilma?

In a 3-4, which takes him out of the top 5.

sweetness34
05-28-2007, 10:58 PM
How are they not decent? Also, I said they are underrated in the fact that most say they are horrible at best.

Fujita and Shanle played very well as first year Saints, I don't see how they aren't good players.

They aren't horrible, but they aren't good. So I'll give you decent.

SaintsMan
05-28-2007, 11:09 PM
They aren't horrible, but they aren't good. So I'll give you decent.

.

I guess It's all in what you consider good. I think good is a solid player. Fujita, in my opinion, is a little more than solid and Shanle is solid. Mark Simoneau needs to be a back-up. But I agree

I know we are far away from having playmakers at Linebacker.

Moses
05-28-2007, 11:36 PM
I would agree with this. Their secondary is definately overrated, but their front seven is very good.

I think their secondary gets a bad rap because their safeties played very poorly last year and they didn't have a legimate CB after Harris and Woodson. Collins finally shaped up near the end of the year but the damage had already been done.