Player Transition from College to NFL

[BF004]

now obviously some do well at as rookies, but not the majority as 23 would lead us to believe.

He isn't leading us to believe that.

[RingoCStarrQB]

I'm rooting for Quay to transition into a combination of Jack Freakin' Lambert and Wayne Freakin Simmons.

[Yoop]

now obviously some do well at as rookies, but not the majority as 23 would lead us to believe.

He isn't leading us to believe that.

Of course he is, it started as soon as I said ILB and interior positions have a steeper learning curve then boundary and edge players, ever since he's been doing what he always does, attempt to prove me wrong, common sense thinking would realize that SS and ILBs have more to learn and diagnose because of the position on the field of play, there not one on one with a receiver or or tackle,

[Pckfn23]

No I am not. I have never once said or insinuated that the majority of rookie ILBs do well in coverage. Never. Once.

[BF004]

now obviously some do well at as rookies, but not the majority as 23 would lead us to believe.

He isn't leading us to believe that.

Of course he is, it started as soon as I said ILB and interior positions have a steeper learning curve then boundary and edge players, ever since he's been doing what he always does, attempt to prove me wrong, common sense thinking would realize that SS and ILBs have more to learn and diagnose because of the position on the field of play, there not one on one with a receiver or or tackle,

Even if, as cynical as that is, that is true, how is that leading us to believe a majority of rookies do well?

[Pckfn23]

https://stathead.com/tiny/pqtyN - The undrafted among the 366.

image.png (107.82 KiB) Viewed 393 times

[Pckfn23]

I added a Top 51 just to see what it looked like.

I tried to get a draft pick #, but am struggling to get that into the table so that I can easily match it up instead of manually looking at 366 players...

[Pckfn23]

Since the topic was brought up, again... I input round drafted:


Raw data on the Top 366 sheet.

[Pckfn23]

Top 366 by position divided by the total number drafted at that position over the last 30 seasons.

QB - 32/394 - 8.12%
RB - 65/799 - 8.14%
WR - 53/1049 - 5.05%
TE - 2/483 - .41%
OT - 48/599 - 8.13%
OG - 36/486 - 7.41%
OC - 17/210 - 8.1%
OL - 101/1369 - 7.38%
Front 7 - 85/2466 - 3.45%
DE/DT/DL - 41/1401 - 2.93%
ILB/OLB/LB - 65/1065 - 6.1%
CB/S/DB - 26/1590 - 1.64%

A couple caveats on this. It is not exact as the position designations for draftees are not always the same as what they play their rookie years. For OL and the defense that is especially true and without going to look at all the individual thousands of players drafted, it is impossible to be more exact.

[Pckfn23]

So the percentages show the positional share of everyone that made the list. It would also be awesome to see how many players were drafted at each position to get an overall success rate for each category.

There is not a good way to find/calculate undrafted guys which this data includes. It also would be tough to differentiate between DL, EDGE, and off the ball LB. I could do it for other positions though.

I would think you could just ignore undrafted guys and just find a percentage of success cases (drafted or undrafted) / drafted players. Yeah, the DL/EDGE/LB issue is always tough. Maybe just make one Super Front-7 category that just combines it all to make it easy? I am not necessarily asking you to do any additional work. Just throwing it out there as a "something I would like to see". Appreciate the effort you have already done.

Done!

[Yoop]

And the point of all this research is what? we all know that RB's of any worth play as rookies probably as much or more then every other position, and any QB that has all the throws will be drafted, but will rarely play as rookies, these two positions are neither edge or interior types that I claim are easier or harder to start, and I think my simple statement, a generality type comment, that one on one positions like CB, WR, edge rusher are easier positions to start then DT, G, C, ILB (coverage) and safety simply because there is more mental stuff to learn at those positions.

[NCF]

And the point of all this research is what? we all know that RB's of any worth play as rookies probably as much or more then every other position, and any QB that has all the throws will be drafted, but will rarely play as rookies, these two positions are neither edge or interior types that I claim are easier or harder to start, and I think my simple statement, a generality type comment, that one on one positions like CB, WR, edge rusher are easier positions to start then DT, G, C, ILB (coverage) and safety simply because there is more mental stuff to learn at those positions.

I am smarter for having read what this data has to tell us. I think most feel the same way. I wish to God you did as well. I think that was the point. Baseless claims are fun too and the eye test and from memory statements have their place, but here is some data to digest. Conclude what you will as all data is open to interpretation but dismissing this as useless is so insulting not only to 23 but to anyone else who read it and thought wow, this is cool. If that was your point then bravo.

[Yoop]

No I am not. I have never once said or insinuated that the majority of rookie ILBs do well in coverage. Never. Once.

well then why all the pushback when I said ILB isn't a easy nfl transition, now days coverage is a huge part of there job, for years teams have been subbing out ILB 2 for a safety simply because ILBs struggle to cover RB's and TE's, yet here we are.

it is true, you are right to say, ILB's play or even start early, and often do well plugging a gap and stopping the run, but half of there job responsibility is coverage, and as rookies they have a lot to learn and struggle doing it, and the main reason they play on 3rd down is do to the fact they are still the best choice to do so on there respective teams, and we all know this because we have watched it every game we've played for years on end

[BF004]

No I am not. I have never once said or insinuated that the majority of rookie ILBs do well in coverage. Never. Once.

well then why all the pushback when I said ILB isn't a easy nfl transition,

Just reread this thread.

[salmar80]

No I am not. I have never once said or insinuated that the majority of rookie ILBs do well in coverage. Never. Once.

well then why all the pushback when I said ILB isn't a easy nfl transition, now days coverage is a huge part of there job, for years teams have been subbing out ILB 2 for a safety simply because ILBs struggle to cover RB's and TE's, yet here we are.

it is true, you are right to say, ILB's play or even start early, and often do well plugging a gap and stopping the run, but half of there job responsibility is coverage, and as rookies they have a lot to learn and struggle doing it, and the main reason they play on 3rd down is do to the fact they are still the best choice to do so on there respective teams, and we all know this because we have watched it every game we've played for years on end

Again, because no one else thinks coverage is 50% of your typical ILB's job. Your opinion is like saying "transition to nose tackle is the most difficult from college, and I mean ONLY those NTs who are great vs the run AND in pass rush." There are like 3 of those NTs in the league. Your average NT isn't expected to pass rush, and so it's not counted among "the toughest transitions from college". Neither is your average ILB expected to be good at coverage, and so it isn't counted to be a relatively tough transition. If you mean transitioning from college ILB to instant Pro Bowl ILB (because that's what all good 3-down ILBs are), you bet your butt it is a tough transition. In fact, once in a generation -level tough transition. That's why no one but you means "3-down LBs who are good at coverage" when they talk about ILBs in general, just like no one means only 3-down NTs when talking about NTs in general.

I think the actual interesting question is this: Why do colleges produce so few off-ball LBs who can cover?

They throw the ball a lot in college. Play action exists. So do TEs and routes over the middle. So why does such a vast majority of linebackers suck at coverage coming out of college? And why do they produce soooo few ILBs who become good at coverage, not just as rookies, but ever?

Is it:

a) Rarity of athletic profile? - Are there are simply too few humans who are agile at around 6'3'' and 240 pounds, who can run a 4.4, and who want to hit people for a living?
b) Position funneling ? - Are the kids who show aptitude at coverage asked to slim down and play safety instead? Or if you fit the ideal athletic profile, would you choose a position that causes less wear and tear, like TE? Are some converted to RBs?
c) Bad coaching or limited time to coach? - Do colleges suck at coaching coverage to LBs, and/or are they under time pressure to focus on the ILBs main job: run stuffing?
d) Something else?

[Yoop]

No I am not. I have never once said or insinuated that the majority of rookie ILBs do well in coverage. Never. Once.

well then why all the pushback when I said ILB isn't a easy nfl transition, now days coverage is a huge part of there job, for years teams have been subbing out ILB 2 for a safety simply because ILBs struggle to cover RB's and TE's, yet here we are.

it is true, you are right to say, ILB's play or even start early, and often do well plugging a gap and stopping the run, but half of there job responsibility is coverage, and as rookies they have a lot to learn and struggle doing it, and the main reason they play on 3rd down is do to the fact they are still the best choice to do so on there respective teams, and we all know this because we have watched it every game we've played for years on end

Again, because no one else thinks coverage is 50% of your typical ILB's job. Your opinion is like saying "transition to nose tackle is the most difficult from college, and I mean ONLY those NTs who are great vs the run AND in pass rush." There are like 3 of those NTs in the league. Your average NT isn't expected to pass rush, and so it's not counted among "the toughest transitions from college". Neither is your average ILB expected to be good at coverage, and so it isn't counted to be a relatively tough transition. If you mean transitioning from college ILB to instant Pro Bowl ILB (because that's what all good 3-down ILBs are), you bet your butt it is a tough transition. In fact, once in a generation -level tough transition. That's why no one but you means "3-down LBs who are good at coverage" when they talk about ILBs in general, just like no one means only 3-down NTs when talking about NTs in general.

I think the actual interesting question is this: Why do colleges produce so few off-ball LBs who can cover?

They throw the ball a lot in college. Play action exists. So do TEs and routes over the middle. So why does such a vast majority of linebackers suck at coverage coming out of college? And why do they produce soooo few ILBs who become good at coverage, not just as rookies, but ever?

Is it:

a) Rarity of athletic profile? - Are there are simply too few humans who are agile at around 6'3'' and 240 pounds, who can run a 4.4, and who want to hit people for a living?
b) Position funneling ? - Are the kids who show aptitude at coverage asked to slim down and play safety instead? Or if you fit the ideal athletic profile, would you choose a position that causes less wear and tear, like TE? Are some converted to RBs?
c) Bad coaching or limited time to coach? - Do colleges suck at coaching coverage to LBs, and/or are they under time pressure to focus on the ILBs main job: run stuffing?
d) Something else?

NO one expects NT's to be good pass rushers , not ever, and coverage is huge now concerning ILB, would me saying 30% change anything, if they can't cover they most often are not on the field on 3rd down, thats the reality of this situation, where have you been for the last 20 years? seriously Sal, we've must have drafted 30 lbers in the last 10 years, and out of neccessity had to play em, but not on 3rd down, cause they sucked in coverage, so please don't tell me that coverage isn't a key trait and needed from ILB's

and DL is a tough transition, I don't care if stats show that many end up playing as a rookie, why do you think it's such a high bust rate position, it's near 50/50 that they don't get resigned by the team that drafted them just look at the rubble that has rotated just with us, your analogy isn't the same for these two position

yep there is a shortage of of the 6.3 250 LB lbers with enough speed, so now we are seeing colleges produce smaller lbers, basically not much bigger then safety's, they come with skills to play the run, and also do well in coverage once there taught the schemes, and are more adapt for the position then a safety, imo the reason for this has to do with so much hurry up offense and short to intermediate passing, it's a different game now versus just 10 or so year ago.

[salmar80]

well then why all the pushback when I said ILB isn't a easy nfl transition, now days coverage is a huge part of there job, for years teams have been subbing out ILB 2 for a safety simply because ILBs struggle to cover RB's and TE's, yet here we are.

it is true, you are right to say, ILB's play or even start early, and often do well plugging a gap and stopping the run, but half of there job responsibility is coverage, and as rookies they have a lot to learn and struggle doing it, and the main reason they play on 3rd down is do to the fact they are still the best choice to do so on there respective teams, and we all know this because we have watched it every game we've played for years on end

Again, because no one else thinks coverage is 50% of your typical ILB's job. Your opinion is like saying "transition to nose tackle is the most difficult from college, and I mean ONLY those NTs who are great vs the run AND in pass rush." There are like 3 of those NTs in the league. Your average NT isn't expected to pass rush, and so it's not counted among "the toughest transitions from college". Neither is your average ILB expected to be good at coverage, and so it isn't counted to be a relatively tough transition. If you mean transitioning from college ILB to instant Pro Bowl ILB (because that's what all good 3-down ILBs are), you bet your butt it is a tough transition. In fact, once in a generation -level tough transition. That's why no one but you means "3-down LBs who are good at coverage" when they talk about ILBs in general, just like no one means only 3-down NTs when talking about NTs in general.

I think the actual interesting question is this: Why do colleges produce so few off-ball LBs who can cover?

They throw the ball a lot in college. Play action exists. So do TEs and routes over the middle. So why does such a vast majority of linebackers suck at coverage coming out of college? And why do they produce soooo few ILBs who become good at coverage, not just as rookies, but ever?

Is it:

a) Rarity of athletic profile? - Are there are simply too few humans who are agile at around 6'3'' and 240 pounds, who can run a 4.4, and who want to hit people for a living?
b) Position funneling ? - Are the kids who show aptitude at coverage asked to slim down and play safety instead? Or if you fit the ideal athletic profile, would you choose a position that causes less wear and tear, like TE? Are some converted to RBs?
c) Bad coaching or limited time to coach? - Do colleges suck at coaching coverage to LBs, and/or are they under time pressure to focus on the ILBs main job: run stuffing?
d) Something else?

NO one expects NT's to be good pass rushers , not ever, and coverage is huge now concerning ILB, would me saying 30% change anything, if they can't cover they most often are not on the field on 3rd down, thats the reality of this situation, where have you been for the last 20 years? seriously Sal, we've must have drafted 30 lbers in the last 10 years, and out of neccessity had to play em, but not on 3rd down, cause they sucked in coverage, so please don't tell me that coverage isn't a key trait and needed from ILB's

and DL is a tough transition, I don't care if stats show that many end up playing as a rookie, why do you think it's such a high bust rate position, it's near 50/50 that they don't get resigned by the team that drafted them just look at the rubble that has rotated just with us, your analogy isn't the same for these two position

yep there is a shortage of of the 6.3 250 LB lbers with enough speed, so now we are seeing colleges produce smaller lbers, basically not much bigger then safety's, they come with skills to play the run, and also do well in coverage once there taught the schemes, and are more adapt for the position then a safety, imo the reason for this has to do with so much hurry up offense and short to intermediate passing, it's a different game now versus just 10 or so year ago.

So your point is we should draft only S/LB hybrids and small coverage LBs and forget about bigger ILBs?

And you claim we'd be fine or better on early downs with them?

I think you've gone overboard with your fear of the pass, and forget that teams will beat your weakness however they can: If our opponent fielded a bunch of light, fast, small LBs, you know what I'd do? Unleash AJ Dillon on them until they wised up or had all those small, fast ILBs on IR.

I personally think coverage LBs have a role, and we should've acquired more of them over the years. But they haven't replaced traditional ILBs because they tend to suck vs the run. A 6'0'' 225 -pounder loses instantly when an OL gets their hands on them.

IF you find a total package, a big ILB who can cover OR a smaller coverage ILB who is good vs the run, it doesn't really matter to me which type it is. But those total packages are super rare. We're lucky to have Campbell who is more of a big ILB who can cover. If Quay becomes one as well, we'll be fantastic.

[Yoop]

Again, because no one else thinks coverage is 50% of your typical ILB's job. Your opinion is like saying "transition to nose tackle is the most difficult from college, and I mean ONLY those NTs who are great vs the run AND in pass rush." There are like 3 of those NTs in the league. Your average NT isn't expected to pass rush, and so it's not counted among "the toughest transitions from college". Neither is your average ILB expected to be good at coverage, and so it isn't counted to be a relatively tough transition. If you mean transitioning from college ILB to instant Pro Bowl ILB (because that's what all good 3-down ILBs are), you bet your butt it is a tough transition. In fact, once in a generation -level tough transition. That's why no one but you means "3-down LBs who are good at coverage" when they talk about ILBs in general, just like no one means only 3-down NTs when talking about NTs in general.

I think the actual interesting question is this: Why do colleges produce so few off-ball LBs who can cover?

They throw the ball a lot in college. Play action exists. So do TEs and routes over the middle. So why does such a vast majority of linebackers suck at coverage coming out of college? And why do they produce soooo few ILBs who become good at coverage, not just as rookies, but ever?

Is it:

a) Rarity of athletic profile? - Are there are simply too few humans who are agile at around 6'3'' and 240 pounds, who can run a 4.4, and who want to hit people for a living?
b) Position funneling ? - Are the kids who show aptitude at coverage asked to slim down and play safety instead? Or if you fit the ideal athletic profile, would you choose a position that causes less wear and tear, like TE? Are some converted to RBs?
c) Bad coaching or limited time to coach? - Do colleges suck at coaching coverage to LBs, and/or are they under time pressure to focus on the ILBs main job: run stuffing?
d) Something else?

NO one expects NT's to be good pass rushers , not ever, and coverage is huge now concerning ILB, would me saying 30% change anything, if they can't cover they most often are not on the field on 3rd down, thats the reality of this situation, where have you been for the last 20 years? seriously Sal, we've must have drafted 30 lbers in the last 10 years, and out of neccessity had to play em, but not on 3rd down, cause they sucked in coverage, so please don't tell me that coverage isn't a key trait and needed from ILB's

and DL is a tough transition, I don't care if stats show that many end up playing as a rookie, why do you think it's such a high bust rate position, it's near 50/50 that they don't get resigned by the team that drafted them just look at the rubble that has rotated just with us, your analogy isn't the same for these two position

yep there is a shortage of of the 6.3 250 LB lbers with enough speed, so now we are seeing colleges produce smaller lbers, basically not much bigger then safety's, they come with skills to play the run, and also do well in coverage once there taught the schemes, and are more adapt for the position then a safety, imo the reason for this has to do with so much hurry up offense and short to intermediate passing, it's a different game now versus just 10 or so year ago.

So your point is we should draft only S/LB hybrids and small coverage LBs and forget about bigger ILBs?

And you claim we'd be fine or better on early downs with them?

I think you've gone overboard with your fear of the pass, and forget that teams will beat your weakness however they can: If our opponent fielded a bunch of light, fast, small LBs, you know what I'd do? Unleash AJ Dillon on them until they wised up or had all those small, fast ILBs on IR.

I personally think coverage LBs have a role, and we should've acquired more of them over the years. But they haven't replaced traditional ILBs because they tend to suck vs the run. A 6'0'' 225 -pounder loses instantly when an OL gets their hands on them.

IF you find a total package, a big ILB who can cover OR a smaller coverage ILB who is good vs the run, it doesn't really matter to me which type it is. But those total packages are super rare. We're lucky to have Campbell who is more of a big ILB who can cover. If Quay becomes one as well, we'll be fantastic.

I didn't say anything like that, my point is often the only choice is a small lber, because there the best option to draft

I bet since the live ball era you can't name 5 SB winners that won because they where able to run the ball, we where last in the league stopping the run and ended up in the PO's as we have almost every year, the reason Ted didn't rank lber as a priority is because stopping the run is also not a priority, but now that offenses have evolved to getting the ball out of the QB's hand as quickly as possible, being able to cover the lber zones has become a priority, add in that we see so much PA and mis direction scheme, those small hybrid safety's are a tad small to deal with that, so now we see more of the 220 plus size college lbers that have the speed and a bit more bulk that can, and there not so rareany more, whats rare are the Quay WAlkers, there rarity is why we have the smaller Bush types, it's why for many years teams have been subbing in the safety's, there rarity is why colleges have turned big safety's into lbers.

at least this is what I see from the cheap seats.

one reminder though , it is better to avoid a blocker then to ever engage one, in my day the middle lber was called the sweeper, the will lber the cleaner, the MLB takes on the blocker ( typically they are the bigger player) the will lber makes the tackle, now obviously that isn't the case with every play and with so much mis direction even less, but on pure run downs it still happens, if you could go back to the early years of Hawk and Barnett, Hawk funneled the RB to Barnett a lot and took on the lead blocker.

obviously we are hoping to have to pretty hefty lbers with Campbell and Walker, but Walker has a very slim build for a guy that tops 240lbs, so Campbell will remain as the MLB in this duo.

again coverage for lbers has taken on a new meaning. imo.

[salmar80]

one reminder though , it is better to avoid a blocker then to ever engage one, in my day the middle lber was called the sweeper, the will lber the cleaner, the MLB takes on the blocker ( typically they are the bigger player) the will lber makes the tackle, now obviously that isn't the case with every play and with so much mis direction even less, but on pure run downs it still happens, if you could go back to the early years of Hawk and Barnett, Hawk funneled the RB to Barnett a lot and took on the lead blocker.

obviously we are hoping to have to pretty hefty lbers with Campbell and Walker, but Walker has a very slim build for a guy that tops 240lbs, so Campbell will remain as the MLB in this duo.

again coverage for lbers has taken on a new meaning. imo.

What?

Wasn't your whole point that we can't have "sweeper" -type LBs anymore, because they are the exact types of big LBs who suck at coverage!?

Was it not your point that we need to have two coverage ILBs even on early downs, because coverage is so much more important these days? And if you only have one, there's a weakness to be exploited? That it's OK to sacrifice not being good vs the run, since running the ball doesn't win games anymore?

Or are you now saying there are "pure run downs" where we should field a big ILB or two who don't have to be good at coverage? If so, what's the difference between "pure run downs" and regular early downs? I understand the extreme cases, like opponent in lead trying to bleed clock in in 4th quarter, with zero threat of pass. But don't get how to otherwise differentiate "pure run downs" from "run downs with threat of play action passes".


Personally, I'd LOVE for teams to play two coverage LBs versus us on early downs. Because there's such a glaring weakness:

Fictional example: Lets say Chicago was in an ideal situation, and was able to field not only one, but two Roquan Smiths (6-1, 225 coverage LB), which I think is what your idea is all about.

Now, if we were to run AJ Dillon at them, then one of the 225 -pound Roquans is gonna have to try to play "sweeper". It would be ideal for Roquans to always avoid blocks, but since they can't magically teleport, they often WILL have to take on blocks. And as a sweeper, you can't avoid a block, since it's your entire job on the play to take it on. So one Roquan is gonna get blown up by an Elg, or get easily handled by even a Royce Newman.

The failure of that block makes the path to Dillon real hard for the "cleaner" -role Roquan Smith, who has to go around traffic (if he's not blocked too), will bleed yards, and is likely to take damage from the now full steam Dillon. I'd LOVE to see a game where an opponent would try that, because I get sadistic pleasure from light defenders getting bowled over.


Luckily for the Packers, it seems we have lucked into one of the super rare bigger ILBs who can cover in Campbell. I will agree Campbell could make it work with a Roquan. The real ideal is to have two Campbells, and drafting Quay was Gutey's attempt at that. IF that pick hits, we may go from utter suckage at ILB to having one helluva great ILB corps in such a short span. Hopefully that happens and your faulty theory fades into oblivion.

[Yoop]

one reminder though , it is better to avoid a blocker then to ever engage one, in my day the middle lber was called the sweeper, the will lber the cleaner, the MLB takes on the blocker ( typically they are the bigger player) the will lber makes the tackle, now obviously that isn't the case with every play and with so much mis direction even less, but on pure run downs it still happens, if you could go back to the early years of Hawk and Barnett, Hawk funneled the RB to Barnett a lot and took on the lead blocker.

obviously we are hoping to have to pretty hefty lbers with Campbell and Walker, but Walker has a very slim build for a guy that tops 240lbs, so Campbell will remain as the MLB in this duo.

again coverage for lbers has taken on a new meaning. imo.

What?

Wasn't your whole point that we can't have "sweeper" -type LBs anymore, because they are the exact types of big LBs who suck at coverage!?

Was it not your point that we need to have two coverage ILBs even on early downs, because coverage is so much more important these days? And if you only have one, there's a weakness to be exploited? That it's OK to sacrifice not being good vs the run, since running the ball doesn't win games anymore?

Or are you now saying there are "pure run downs" where we should field a big ILB or two who don't have to be good at coverage? If so, what's the difference between "pure run downs" and regular early downs? I understand the extreme cases, like opponent in lead trying to bleed clock in in 4th quarter, with zero threat of pass. But don't get how to otherwise differentiate "pure run downs" from "run downs with threat of play action passes".


Personally, I'd LOVE for teams to play two coverage LBs versus us on early downs. Because there's such a glaring weakness:

Fictional example: Lets say Chicago was in an ideal situation, and was able to field not only one, but two Roquan Smiths (6-1, 225 coverage LB), which I think is what your idea is all about.

Now, if we were to run AJ Dillon at them, then one of the 225 -pound Roquans is gonna have to try to play "sweeper". It would be ideal for Roquans to always avoid blocks, but since they can't magically teleport, they often WILL have to take on blocks. And as a sweeper, you can't avoid a block, since it's your entire job on the play to take it on. So one Roquan is gonna get blown up by an Elg, or get easily handled by even a Royce Newman.

The failure of that block makes the path to Dillon real hard for the "cleaner" -role Roquan Smith, who has to go around traffic (if he's not blocked too), will bleed yards, and is likely to take damage from the now full steam Dillon. I'd LOVE to see a game where an opponent would try that, because I get sadistic pleasure from light defenders getting bowled over.


Luckily for the Packers, it seems we have lucked into one of the super rare bigger ILBs who can cover in Campbell. I will agree Campbell could make it work with a Roquan. The real ideal is to have two Campbells, and drafting Quay was Gutey's attempt at that. IF that pick hits, we may go from utter suckage at ILB to having one helluva great ILB corps in such a short span. Hopefully that happens and your faulty theory fades into oblivion.

wow, you twist what I say, never said we don't need a guy with the bulk to take on a lead blocker, no ya don't want two Bush or or 220 lb lbers, never meant to imply that at all, but what choice do you have if you can't get the quality in a bigger player.

and my faulty ( not mine anyway) has been the tech used against the run by lbers since I can remember, one takes on the blocker so someone else can make the tackle, when you see the ilbs switching , the goal is to put the best on the strong side, he'll take on the lead blocker, if possible, shed, and make the tackle, if not, at least he took away the blocker so either the other ILB or a safety can make a stop

I don't get why anyone would argue with me about the increased need for coverage at the lber position, I never said it was the main task, but what I am saying is with out the coverage ability, we would be seeing what went on here till Martinez, years after years of watching crossing routes moving the chains against us.

and it is also a higher priority do to the increase of up tempo passing, more routes are in the second level, where lbers play, and they need quick reaction time and speed to defend them, obviously ya'd like to have the right personal for any offense look they through at ya, but with todays amount of deception you simply can't have a big, slow, guy on the field if you can avoid it in any way, we've gotten burned for years because of that.

IMO we brought in Walker to play the Will position, there main task is coverage, but with Campbell having good coverage ability they could be interchangeable once Walker settles in.

anyway a team has to adapt to the players available to it, if you can't get a Walker, then ya take the smaller guy, it's not as though ya have slot 22 to take a shot at a guy like Walker, there where a couple in this class with a higher rating.

when ya see the lbers switch sides the goal is to either put the MLB in position to take on the lead blocker, or the Will, one on one with the TE or RB, not always , but the intent is to get the best suited player in position to do what they do best, I agree, I hope we have two now that can do either task, I get dizzy watching those lbers switching so much