Aaron Rodgers V2022

[TheSkeptic]

Lazard sucks.

He really doesn't, but that's beside the point. Jimmy Graham definitely sucked in his time here, but Rodgers specifically named him in post-game press conferences as a guy they needed to get the ball to more (which, of course, doesn't make sense if he actually thought Graham sucks).

Bottom line: our opinions =/= Rodgers's opinion.


Oh and **edit** let's not forget the legend that is JAKE KUMEROW, in which Rodgers confirmed the story that he was upset at the FO for cutting him because he liked the guy so much. Kumerow was adequate, nothing more, and the definition of replaceable. Cutting him was only a mistake in that we chose Darius Shepherd over him, not that he was some big loss.

Rodgers loved that guy. And Lazard is a better player than him.

fyi, Jake is still in the NFL. The Bills just resigned him. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2022/3 ... ansactions

[lupedafiasco]

I'm kind of late to the party here and a little shocked that we can keep beating the same dead horses. But I guess I will continue to say that while I think Rodgers is a better QB than Brady, the main difference why Brady has more rings is that he is better at pre-snap reads and wins routes before the play even starts. To try and prove my point, here are the WRs Brady had completions to in his last 4 Super Bowl Wins:

2015 Pats - Edelman, Amendola, LaFell
2017 Pats - Edelman, Amendola, Mitchell, Hogan
2019 Pats - Edelman, Patterson, Hogan
2020 Bucs – Evans, Godwin, Brown

Outside of the Bucs team, I like our WRs better than these. What separated Aaron for years was his escapability and keeping the play going to find an open guy. Now that he is older he needs to play more like Brady and trust his pre-snap read. Sometimes it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks, but I think that is why Brady has stayed so successful in his later years, he never had to change his style of play.

Would better talent at WR help, of course, but I also think we are good enough to win with who we have now. Before you bring up Gronk, I think having Adams on our team was the equivalent to Brady having Gronk.

To me Gronk, a top 3 TE all time, is slightly better than Adams. There was nothing that could be done to take Gronk away at his peak. He’s just too big. Even if we want to call it a push Edelman out of the slot was much better than anything Rodgers has had as a # 2 in the last 5 years. To me that isn’t even debatable.

The other kicker is in all those years Brady had the better defense and special teams.

[lupedafiasco]

Lazard sucks.

He really doesn't, but that's beside the point. Jimmy Graham definitely sucked in his time here, but Rodgers specifically named him in post-game press conferences as a guy they needed to get the ball to more (which, of course, doesn't make sense if he actually thought Graham sucks).

Bottom line: our opinions =/= Rodgers's opinion.


Oh and **edit** let's not forget the legend that is JAKE KUMEROW, in which Rodgers confirmed the story that he was upset at the FO for cutting him because he liked the guy so much. Kumerow was adequate, nothing more, and the definition of replaceable. Cutting him was only a mistake in that we chose Darius Shepherd over him, not that he was some big loss.

Rodgers loved that guy. And Lazard is a better player than him.

Speaking of Graham that’s another head scratching decision. The decision to move on from Jordy was because he was old and washed up. He was even willing to take a big pay cut from all reports. But we cut him and then go sign another old and declining player for more than what it cost to keep Jordy.

I felt moving on from Nelson was the right move but if the choice was between Nelson taking a pay cut and over paying for Graham I would think it have been an easy decision.

[Pckfn23]

one example, I say ILB isn't a easy transfer, your comeback is to show me how easy it is for rookies to be two dn lbers,

No I don't. Here is a list of those top rookie linebackers over the last 30 years:

Micah Parsons
Darius Leonard
Patrick Willis
Kendrell Bell
C.J. Mosley
Jeremy Chinn
Lofa Tatupu
Brian Cushing
Leighton Vander Esch
Kiko Alonso
Zach Thomas
Brian Urlacher
Jonathan Vilma
Bobby Wagner
Devin Bush Jr.
Jerod Mayo
Patrick Queen
Preston Brown
Nick Barnett
Tremaine Edmunds
Roquan Smith
Lavonte David
Chad Greenway
D.J. Williams
Devin White
Akeem Ayers
Andre Collins
Karlos Dansby
Alec Ogletree
Daryl Smith
Pisa Tinoisamoa
Jon Beason
Robert Jones
Luke Kuechly
Daron Payne
Esera Tuaolo
Jerrell Freeman
Boss Bailey
Vontaze Burfict
Dexter Coakley
Kevin Hardy
A.J. Hawk
John Mobley
Kenneth Murray
Derek Smith

Are these 2 down LBs? No they are not. Can you finally stop with the 2 down linebacker only nonsense, it just is not true. Put it to bed! Bury this pet. Off the ball LB is one of the easier positions to transition from college to the NFL. This isn't the first time I have shown this...

image.png (10.32 KiB) Viewed 437 times

[Yoop]

you brought a list of about 35 lbers taken in the last 25 or 30 years and right off the top of my head without even looking up stats see some that struggled with coverage as a rookie, I didn't mean to imply they didn't play all 3 dns, or didn't eventually become good at it, simply said the transition to pro ball is harder and they may get benched for the speedier DB.

there has been such a shortage of lber size guys that can cover RB's and faster TE's that the demand for converted safety's and hybrids has shot through the roof, it's why so many now are the size of Bush versus the Urlachers.

cripes there where a doz articles written pointing out how Patrick Queen struggled in coverage, just because they play, doesn't mean they where good at it, and according to your list the draft averages 1 + lbers that actually stay on the field for 3 dns a year, and our team is living proof that rookie lbers suck in coverage, and it's likely we'll see Quay struggle as well, his pre draft hype says so, I had this book marked, Quay is a boom or bust type as a rookie

Quay Walker (LB – Georgia)

Dean isn’t the only Georgia LB worth monitoring this off-season. Quay Walker, Dean’s bigger yet somehow less physically impressive teammate, will also be drafted next week. He should go in the third round, so his landing spot will determine how quickly he gets a chance to play. He’s 6’4″ and 241 pounds, but he’s surprisingly slim in his frame. His size and build make him a solid coverage linebacker, which is why he and Dean played well together.

The trouble with Walker is that he’s not an athletic freak and needs time to develop. He’s also not a high-end blitzer. Unless he lands on the most LB-starved franchise in the league, he’s probably a year or two away from having significant fantasy value. However, due to his size and college pedigree, he could be developed into the best of the lot. Consider him a solid dynasty bet.

now I normally don't put much faith in these fantasy draft reviews, but the year or two away caught my eye concerning Quay, plus the most LB starved team team in the league described us so well prior to Campbell

so don't tell me to put this to bed, what did you do stay up all night digging up those players, Urlacher, Barnett, really burning the mid night oil, and if you check there coverage ability as rookies you'd find a bunch that struggled just as Queen did, problem is that would have blown your whole argument apart, so naturally you wouldn't want to do that.

[RingoCStarrQB]

you brought a list of about 35 lbers taken in the last 25 or 30 years and right off the top of my head without even looking up stats see some that struggled with coverage as a rookie, I didn't mean to imply they didn't play all 3 dns, or didn't eventually become good at it, simply said the transition to pro ball is harder and they may get benched for the speedier DB.

there has been such a shortage of lber size guys that can cover RB's and faster TE's that the demand for converted safety's and hybrids has shot through the roof, it's why so many now are the size of Bush versus the Urlachers.

cripes there where a doz articles written pointing out how Patrick Queen struggled in coverage, just because they play, doesn't mean they where good at it, and according to your list the draft averages 1 + lbers that actually stay on the field for 3 dns a year, and our team is living proof that rookie lbers suck in coverage, and it's likely we'll see Quay struggle as well, his pre draft hype says so, I had this book marked, Quay is a boom or bust type as a rookie

Quay Walker (LB – Georgia)

Dean isn’t the only Georgia LB worth monitoring this off-season. Quay Walker, Dean’s bigger yet somehow less physically impressive teammate, will also be drafted next week. He should go in the third round, so his landing spot will determine how quickly he gets a chance to play. He’s 6’4″ and 241 pounds, but he’s surprisingly slim in his frame. His size and build make him a solid coverage linebacker, which is why he and Dean played well together.

The trouble with Walker is that he’s not an athletic freak and needs time to develop. He’s also not a high-end blitzer. Unless he lands on the most LB-starved franchise in the league, he’s probably a year or two away from having significant fantasy value. However, due to his size and college pedigree, he could be developed into the best of the lot. Consider him a solid dynasty bet.

now I normally don't put much faith in these fantasy draft reviews, but the year or two away caught my eye concerning Quay, plus the most LB starved team team in the league described us so well prior to Campbell

so don't tell me to put this to bed, what did you do stay up all night digging up those players, Urlacher, Barnett, really burning the mid night oil, and if you check there coverage ability as rookies you'd find a bunch that struggled just as Queen did, problem is that would have blown your whole argument apart, so naturally you wouldn't want to do that.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why Wayne Simmons isn't on this list. And why Esera Tuaolo is on this list. What am I missing?

[Yoop]

you brought a list of about 35 lbers taken in the last 25 or 30 years and right off the top of my head without even looking up stats see some that struggled with coverage as a rookie, I didn't mean to imply they didn't play all 3 dns, or didn't eventually become good at it, simply said the transition to pro ball is harder and they may get benched for the speedier DB.

there has been such a shortage of lber size guys that can cover RB's and faster TE's that the demand for converted safety's and hybrids has shot through the roof, it's why so many now are the size of Bush versus the Urlachers.

cripes there where a doz articles written pointing out how Patrick Queen struggled in coverage, just because they play, doesn't mean they where good at it, and according to your list the draft averages 1 + lbers that actually stay on the field for 3 dns a year, and our team is living proof that rookie lbers suck in coverage, and it's likely we'll see Quay struggle as well, his pre draft hype says so, I had this book marked, Quay is a boom or bust type as a rookie

Quay Walker (LB – Georgia)

Dean isn’t the only Georgia LB worth monitoring this off-season. Quay Walker, Dean’s bigger yet somehow less physically impressive teammate, will also be drafted next week. He should go in the third round, so his landing spot will determine how quickly he gets a chance to play. He’s 6’4″ and 241 pounds, but he’s surprisingly slim in his frame. His size and build make him a solid coverage linebacker, which is why he and Dean played well together.

The trouble with Walker is that he’s not an athletic freak and needs time to develop. He’s also not a high-end blitzer. Unless he lands on the most LB-starved franchise in the league, he’s probably a year or two away from having significant fantasy value. However, due to his size and college pedigree, he could be developed into the best of the lot. Consider him a solid dynasty bet.

now I normally don't put much faith in these fantasy draft reviews, but the year or two away caught my eye concerning Quay, plus the most LB starved team team in the league described us so well prior to Campbell

so don't tell me to put this to bed, what did you do stay up all night digging up those players, Urlacher, Barnett, really burning the mid night oil, and if you check there coverage ability as rookies you'd find a bunch that struggled just as Queen did, problem is that would have blown your whole argument apart, so naturally you wouldn't want to do that.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why Wayne Simmons isn't on this list. And why Esera Tuaolo is on this list. What am I missing?

who could possibly say, I can't figure it out myself, a simple comment of ILB isn't a easy transition ( I neglected to point out the coverage aspects figuring it really shouldn't need to be mentioned in a room full of long time Packer fans) to his bringing a list of about 10% of all ILB's drafted ( very conservative estimate) that actually played 3dns as rookies, and if a deep look was undertaken would show that most of those struggled with coverage as rookies, or at minimum didn't do very well, just another very frustrating conversation with a person who's only goal here seems to be proving me wrong

I get accused of not admitting when I'am wrong, but why would I do that when his best argument is a list of about 30 players taken the last 25 years that actually stayed on the field for 3 downs a series, and without even looking for a stat can name a bunch that sucked in coverage as a rookie, it's apples to oranges, yes plugging a gap is instinctive, many rookies can do that well stopping a RB, coverages is a more mental thing, first they have to recognize who they are responsible to cover, then react properly to accomplish the feat.

anyone with a lic of common sense knows that is more difficult, specially after we have seen sooooo many fail over the last couple decades right here with our team.

I can't remember so well Ringo, was Wayne Simmons a super duper coverage specialist

[salmar80]

you brought a list of about 35 lbers taken in the last 25 or 30 years and right off the top of my head without even looking up stats see some that struggled with coverage as a rookie, I didn't mean to imply they didn't play all 3 dns, or didn't eventually become good at it, simply said the transition to pro ball is harder and they may get benched for the speedier DB.

there has been such a shortage of lber size guys that can cover RB's and faster TE's that the demand for converted safety's and hybrids has shot through the roof, it's why so many now are the size of Bush versus the Urlachers.

cripes there where a doz articles written pointing out how Patrick Queen struggled in coverage, just because they play, doesn't mean they where good at it, and according to your list the draft averages 1 + lbers that actually stay on the field for 3 dns a year, and our team is living proof that rookie lbers suck in coverage, and it's likely we'll see Quay struggle as well, his pre draft hype says so, I had this book marked, Quay is a boom or bust type as a rookie

Quay Walker (LB – Georgia)

Dean isn’t the only Georgia LB worth monitoring this off-season. Quay Walker, Dean’s bigger yet somehow less physically impressive teammate, will also be drafted next week. He should go in the third round, so his landing spot will determine how quickly he gets a chance to play. He’s 6’4″ and 241 pounds, but he’s surprisingly slim in his frame. His size and build make him a solid coverage linebacker, which is why he and Dean played well together.

The trouble with Walker is that he’s not an athletic freak and needs time to develop. He’s also not a high-end blitzer. Unless he lands on the most LB-starved franchise in the league, he’s probably a year or two away from having significant fantasy value. However, due to his size and college pedigree, he could be developed into the best of the lot. Consider him a solid dynasty bet.

now I normally don't put much faith in these fantasy draft reviews, but the year or two away caught my eye concerning Quay, plus the most LB starved team team in the league described us so well prior to Campbell

so don't tell me to put this to bed, what did you do stay up all night digging up those players, Urlacher, Barnett, really burning the mid night oil, and if you check there coverage ability as rookies you'd find a bunch that struggled just as Queen did, problem is that would have blown your whole argument apart, so naturally you wouldn't want to do that.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why Wayne Simmons isn't on this list. And why Esera Tuaolo is on this list. What am I missing?

who could possibly say, I can't figure it out myself, a simple comment of ILB isn't a easy transition ( I neglected to point out the coverage aspects figuring it really shouldn't need to be mentioned in a room full of long time Packer fans) to his bringing a list of about 10% of all ILB's drafted ( very conservative estimate) that actually played 3dns as rookies, and if a deep look was undertaken would show that most of those struggled with coverage as rookies, or at minimum didn't do very well, just another very frustrating conversation with a person who's only goal here seems to be proving me wrong

I get accused of not admitting when I'am wrong, but why would I do that when his best argument is a list of about 30 players taken the last 25 years that actually stayed on the field for 3 downs a series, and without even looking for a stat can name a bunch that sucked in coverage as a rookie, it's apples to oranges, yes plugging a gap is instinctive, many rookies can do that well stopping a RB, coverages is a more mental thing, first they have to recognize who they are responsible to cover, then react properly to accomplish the feat.

anyone with a lic of common sense knows that is more difficult, specially after we have seen sooooo many fail over the last couple decades right here with our team.

I can't remember so well Ringo, was Wayne Simmons a super duper coverage specialist

Almost all rookies struggle with something. I'd be surprised if Quay doesn't at times struggle vs the run, while blitzing AND in coverage. Because he's a rookie.

That doesn't mean ILB isn't one of the easiest transitions. It is. I actually used to believe in the same theory as you, yoop. Sounds logical. But then I looked at how many ILBs do rather well as rookies, even those who are not good at coverage as rookies.

That is because, for me, inside linebacker is not the same as coverage linebacker. Even in this day and age, coverage is not the primary ability of an ILB. Playing the run is that position's break and butter - it's why you field an ILB instead of an extra CB or S - and adjusting to play the run is one of the easiest transitions.

A "coverage linebacker", for me, is a 3rd down specialist, usually a light and quick LB/S hybrid, who would not play early downs due to sucking vs the run. And I can agree that would be a tough transition for a rookie. But it's not the same as an inside linebacker.

The very toughest transitions are at positions where the primary ability IS the tough transition, not some secondary or bonus skill. pass rushers usually struggle with pass rushing vs NFL OTs. Rookie QBs usually struggle with throwing the ball, Rookie corners usually struggle at coverage vs NFL WRs. Rookie WRs usually struggle with getting open vs NFL corners. Rookie DL struggle vs double teams vs the run. The toughest transition I feel is TE, where both blocking and receiving are primary abilities, and both are tough vs NFL competition.

Your claim that most rookie ILBs struggle in coverage is true. But to me, it's the same as saying "most rookie corners struggle in run support", which is true. But if a rookie corner is good at coverage, no one cares if they suck vs the run. See: Stokes. Or "most rookie pass rushers aren't great run stuffers"...yup, but so what? Most rookie RBs struggle at blitz pickup, which is true, but can still produce more easily than most positions because their primary function is to run the ball, and that's an easy transition. In fact, I think you lobbied for Aaron Jones to be used more as a rookie, even when he suuuuucked at picking up the pass rush (and wasn't much of a receiver), because you cared about the primary ability: Rushing.

Of course, the holy grail of ILBs is an all-around great, 3-down ILB. And those sure are rare as rookies....because they are rare overall. There are only a dozen-ish really good all-around veterans in the league. I actually think this whole debate stems from you thinking "the only good ILBs are 3-down ILBs", while I and most others seem to think an ILB can have a fine season without having a great season in coverage.

I personally think Quay Walker could have what I'd call a good rookie season even if he's not good at coverage, and is pulled off the field in all passing situations. IF he can excel at stuffing the run, and is not an utter catastrophe vs the pass, that would count as a good rookie season for an ILB for me.

[Pckfn23]

[mention]Yoop[/mention] Of course no position is an "easy" transition from college to the NFL. That's not what the original discussion ever was about. Also, that a rookie LB may struggle in coverage does not matter to this conversation. It was NEVER the point of it. It was only added as a strawman later to deflect. The point discussed was always that linebacker is one of the easier transitions from college to the NFL. This is 100% true. That you keep bringing other caveats to the discussion and NEVER admitting that LB is one of the easier transitions is you trying to run away from your original incorrect opinion.

That linebacker is missing a certain body type in your opinion, does not matter to this discussion. It is yet again a strawman to the main point.

That the Packers have been unable to find a LB also does not matter to this discussion. That is simply poor anecdotal evidence.

The list I brought was 45 linebackers who had an AV of 8 or more over the last 30 seasons. That means they had a better than average season for an NFL starter. I also found all rookies over the last 30 years that had an AV of 8 or more. That is what the table showed:

image.png (7.44 KiB) Viewed 388 times

BTW I have brought both the list and the table before:


Wayne Simmons had an AV of 5 as a rookie. That is why he is not on the list. Esera Tuaolo was a NT, that is my bad. A typo when I was categorizing positions. [mention]RingoCStarrQB[/mention] Good catch. He does still remain on the total list as a DL.

Hopefully for the last time, Linebacker is one of the easier transitions from college to the NFL. This is a TRUE statement.

[Yoop]

A "coverage linebacker", for me, is a 3rd down specialist, usually a light and quick LB/S hybrid, who would not play early downs due to sucking vs the run. And I can agree that would be a tough transition for a rookie. But it's not the same as an inside linebacker.

SAl, the nfl have evolved to using a hybrid coverage lber on 3rd downs simply because the Urlachers of the lber class can't deal with the speed and usage of short to intermediate passing in this era of the game, however now we are seeing more and more small lbers in the mega safety sizes, 6'1 or 6'2 at 220 to 30 lb range.

the nfl is now far more deceptive on offense teams use play action 60% ( guess) of the time, so a defense now has to not only expect run and keep 2 ILB's ready to deal with it, but they also have to be prepared to deal with a PA pass, so the average DB is to light against the run, and that two dn thumpy lber is a liability in coverage.

I think (hope) Quay is the exception, but I have my doubts simply based on the history concerning this, I would have not stuck to my guns here with all this backlash if I doubted my opinion..

all things perfect of course these lbers could cover, ( and some do well) again it's a head game when it comes to coverage, and slow reaction time in coverage is what they struggle with, and thats because this aint college ball, it's faster, routes have more built in deception, and the receivers are also better.

AJ Hawk, one of the most sure thing picks to be successful struggled in coverage as a rookie, same with Barnett, I'am literally racking my brain trying to remember a ILB we've taken that did well in coverage as a rookie, nada.

[Yoop]

@Yoop Of course no position is an "easy" transition from college to the NFL. That's not what the original discussion ever was about. Also, that a rookie LB may struggle in coverage does not matter to this conversation. It was NEVER the point of it. It was only added as a strawman later to deflect. The point discussed was always that linebacker is one of the easier transitions from college to the NFL. This is 100% true. That you keep bringing other caveats to the discussion and NEVER admitting that LB is one of the easier transitions is you trying to run away from your original incorrect opinion.

That linebacker is missing a certain body type in your opinion, does not matter to this discussion. It is yet again a strawman to the main point.

That the Packers have been unable to find a LB also does not matter to this discussion. That is simply poor anecdotal evidence.

The list I brought was 45 linebackers who had an AV of 8 or more over the last 30 seasons. That means they had a better than average season for an NFL starter. I also found all rookies over the last 30 years that had an AV of 8 or more. That is what the table showed:
image.png

BTW I have brought both the list and the table before:


Wayne Simmons had an AV of 5 as a rookie. That is why he is not on the list. Esera Tuaolo was a NT, that is my bad. A typo when I was categorizing positions. @RingoCStarrQB Good catch. He does still remain on the total list as a DL.

Hopefully for the last time, Linebacker is one of the easier transitions from college to the NFL. This is a TRUE statement.

you know damn well I was referring to the coverage aspect of playing ILB, seriously you need to quit being so narrow minded, and ripping posters apart for not explaining something you already know what they mean simply because they didn't word it exactly they way you want them to.

even in this post you admit to not being infallable, that even you make mistakes and just because a ILB got a 8 does not mean he was a good coverage player as a rookie.

you also fail to admit that 10 years ago lbers where hardly asked to cover players they have to today, typically there coverage zones where smaller


no, rookie lbers asked to cover and play 3 downs are asked to do so because there simply the best the team has, and when they blow it as they certainly do are subbed out for a safety, no way I'll cave to your opinion and stats that really don't tell the whole story.

[go pak go]

AJ Hawk, one of the most sure thing picks to be successful struggled in coverage as a rookie, same with Barnett, I'am literally racking my brain trying to remember a ILB we've taken that did well in coverage as a rookie, nada.

I'm trying to rack my brain of any ILB before Campbell in GB who hasn't struggled with coverage period. It's not a rookie thing for us.

We have always struggled with TE's and RB's coverage.

[Pckfn23]

you know damn well I was referring to the coverage aspect of playing ILB, seriously you need to quit being so narrow minded, and ripping posters apart for not explaining something you already know what they mean simply because they didn't word it exactly they way you want them to.

The argument you keep opening back up was about you claiming all interior positions like guard, slot, safety, and linebacker are the hardest transitions from college to the NFL.

even in this post you admit to not being infallable, that even you make mistakes and just because a ILB got a 8 does not mean he was a good coverage player as a rookie.

Obviously, I am not infallible. Never ever claimed to be and will own up to my mistakes or if I am wrong on something. Might want to take a lesson there.
NO ONE IS DEBATING WITH YOU that these linebackers might not be good in coverage!

you also fail to admit that 10 years ago lbers where hardly asked to cover players they have to today, typically there coverage zones where smaller

I haven't even addressed it, at all, so that's a weird statement. 10 years ago linebackers had smaller zones and were not asked to cover the player types they are today? Care to bring some evidence to back that one up?

no, rookie lbers asked to cover and play 3 downs are asked to do so because there simply the best the team has, and when they blow it as they certainly do are subbed out for a safety, no way I'll cave to your opinion and stats that really don't tell the whole story.

I mean wow. What I brought doesn't even touch on what you just said there. No one has actually debated with you on what you just said there. Not sure why you would need to cave on an opinion that no one is arguing with you on...

Again, maybe it will sink in finally, here is what I have been saying this ENTIRE time, years: Linebacker is one of the easier position transitions from college to the NFL. I have never wavered from that nor have I added caveats. If you can agree to that, then maybe we can finally end this lifelong debate?

[Yoop]

AJ Hawk, one of the most sure thing picks to be successful struggled in coverage as a rookie, same with Barnett, I'am literally racking my brain trying to remember a ILB we've taken that did well in coverage as a rookie, nada.

I'm trying to rack my brain of any ILB before Campbell in GB who hasn't struggled with coverage period. It's not a rookie thing for us.

We have always struggled with TE's and RB's coverage.

thats my point, we all know that rookie ILB's can be at least mediocre against the run, the problem we've always had is for them not to be a liability with coverage.

when I say something like " lber is not a easy transition at this level) it is a insult to think I was referring to stopping the run, it really is, Pckfn, You, or just about anyone here has been around the game long enough to know that, I shouldn't even have to explain what aspect of the tasks for that position include and the hardest part about it for a rookie, common knowledge.

heres another bull &%$@ convo with 23, according to him teams don't use lbers to cover TE's, just go google that one, you'll find that is a primary task as well as covering RB's, the reason we use safety's on TE's and RB's is because till last year none of our ILBs could handle the job, we should not confuse that necessity with the norm.

It's my believe that edge players are a easier transition then interior players, we see a 1/2 doz edge rusher contribute well as rookies, same with CB/s and WR, and not so much with DL, Safety's ILB's tasked with coverage, the more mental the task, the longer to learn.

[salmar80]

A "coverage linebacker", for me, is a 3rd down specialist, usually a light and quick LB/S hybrid, who would not play early downs due to sucking vs the run. And I can agree that would be a tough transition for a rookie. But it's not the same as an inside linebacker.

SAl, the nfl have evolved to using a hybrid coverage lber on 3rd downs simply because the Urlachers of the lber class can't deal with the speed and usage of short to intermediate passing in this era of the game, however now we are seeing more and more small lbers in the mega safety sizes, 6'1 or 6'2 at 220 to 30 lb range.

the nfl is now far more deceptive on offense teams use play action 60% ( guess) of the time, so a defense now has to not only expect run and keep 2 ILB's ready to deal with it, but they also have to be prepared to deal with a PA pass, so the average DB is to light against the run, and that two dn thumpy lber is a liability in coverage.

I think (hope) Quay is the exception, but I have my doubts simply based on the history concerning this, I would have not stuck to my guns here with all this backlash if I doubted my opinion..

all things perfect of course these lbers could cover, ( and some do well) again it's a head game when it comes to coverage, and slow reaction time in coverage is what they struggle with, and thats because this aint college ball, it's faster, routes have more built in deception, and the receivers are also better.

AJ Hawk, one of the most sure thing picks to be successful struggled in coverage as a rookie, same with Barnett, I'am literally racking my brain trying to remember a ILB we've taken that did well in coverage as a rookie, nada.

I fully agree.

IF you were to just say: "Inside linebackers who excel at coverage are rare as rookies and overall", no one would argue with you. This is known and true. I'd say only about 5% of all NFL inside linebackers can be called even "good" at coverage, 10 or fewer individual can be called to be great at it. Most drafts you're lucky to get even one ILB who is even "good" at coverage as a rookie. There are drafts that don't produce a single good veteran coverage ILB.

But you insist on arguing: "Inside linebacker overall is a tough transition for rookies". That's not true, because most ILBs are simply not even expected to be good at coverage. It's not their job to be good at coverage, since coverage is a secondary skill for the position. The transition to what they're expected to become is among the easiest.

Practically all good 3-down ILBs are all Pro Bowlers or alternates. One could say that the transition from a college player to an instant Pro Bowler is certainly tough. Admittedly our team WOULD be better if we only drafted instant Pro Bowlers. Someone call Guty

It would be GREAT to have two ILBs who are excellent at both vs the run and vs the pass. The DC would love it! 99% of teams just don't have that, so they make due with ILBs who are average to bad at coverage, and by subbing in specialists and extra DBs. Having one is 3-down ILB is a rarity, having two would make our LB corps easily the best in the league, that's how rare they are.

It's funny folks aren't thinking the same thing at DL. One COULD argue "we need two Kenny Clarks who can stuff the run AND pass rush". And well, that would be friggin great! Actually, one could take this even further and require EVERY player on D to be great at both vs the run and vs the pass. Now THAT would be something!

[go pak go]

AJ Hawk, one of the most sure thing picks to be successful struggled in coverage as a rookie, same with Barnett, I'am literally racking my brain trying to remember a ILB we've taken that did well in coverage as a rookie, nada.

I'm trying to rack my brain of any ILB before Campbell in GB who hasn't struggled with coverage period. It's not a rookie thing for us.

We have always struggled with TE's and RB's coverage.

thats my point, we all know that rookie ILB's can be at least mediocre against the run, the problem we've always had is for them not to be a liability with coverage.

when I say something like " lber is not a easy transition at this level) it is a insult to think I was referring to stopping the run, it really is, Pckfn, You, or just about anyone here has been around the game long enough to know that, I shouldn't even have to explain what aspect of the tasks for that position include and the hardest part about it for a rookie, common knowledge.

heres another bull &%$@ convo with 23, according to him teams don't use lbers to cover TE's, just go google that one, you'll find that is a primary task as well as covering RB's, the reason we use safety's on TE's and RB's is because till last year none of our ILBs could handle the job, we should not confuse that necessity with the norm.

It's my believe that edge players are a easier transition then interior players, we see a 1/2 doz edge rusher contribute well as rookies, same with CB/s and WR, and not so much with DL, Safety's ILB's tasked with coverage, the more mental the task, the longer to learn.

I think Sal's post on this subject was very, very good.

What you seem to be doing in your argument is allowing some positions to only excel in certain aspects but not be a complete player (like if a WR catches balls or an edge rusher gets sacks)

But if the WR sucks at diverse routes, or running at any position on the field, or run blocking or the edge rusher sucks at setting the edge, which is often the case, you seem to ignore this and still call them a success.

Yet on the ILB issue, you are suddenly raising the bar saying they are only successful if they are a complete player. This is something very, very few rookies are, let alone any players are. These are blue chippers and blue chippers are rare for a reason.

So yes. I believe the stopping the run thing is the primary duty of an ILB. And that is their primary judgement. They are tacklers first which explains why they generally lead the team in tackles. Just like a WR is a catcher first or an edge rusher is a pass rusher first. So the judgement needs to be the same to be fair.

I think Sal's post is very good on this argument.

[Pckfn23]

when I say something like " lber is not a easy transition at this level) it is a insult to think I was referring to stopping the run, it really is, Pckfn, You, or just about anyone here has been around the game long enough to know that, I shouldn't even have to explain what aspect of the tasks for that position include and the hardest part about it for a rookie, common knowledge.

No one has argued with you that coverage is the hardest aspect of the game for rooking linebackers. No one disagrees with you...

heres another bull &%$@ convo with 23, according to him teams don't use lbers to cover TE's, just go google that one, you'll find that is a primary task as well as covering RB's, the reason we use safety's on TE's and RB's is because till last year none of our ILBs could handle the job, we should not confuse that necessity with the norm.

Holy &%$@, I thought we put this one to bed years ago, but apparently not...

Nope, NEVER said that teams don't use LBers to cover TEs. What I did say is that the general man coverage responsibility for a linebacker is the RB. Here I googled it for you since you can't be bothered:

In standard man coverage, the cornerbacks take on the wide receivers, the strong safety matches up with the tight end, the strongside linebacker (Sam) covers the fullback, and the weakside linebacker (Will) takes on the halfback.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/strat ... nt-beat-it

It's my believe that edge players are a easier transition then interior players, we see a 1/2 doz edge rusher contribute well as rookies, same with CB/s and WR, and not so much with DL, Safety's ILB's tasked with coverage, the more mental the task, the longer to learn.

Except linebacker is one of the easier transitions. Here is the data:

image.png (32.76 KiB) Viewed 374 times

[Yoop]

you know damn well I was referring to the coverage aspect of playing ILB, seriously you need to quit being so narrow minded, and ripping posters apart for not explaining something you already know what they mean simply because they didn't word it exactly they way you want them to.

The argument you keep opening back up was about you claiming all interior positions like guard, slot, safety, and linebacker are the hardest transitions from college to the NFL.

even in this post you admit to not being infallable, that even you make mistakes and just because a ILB got a 8 does not mean he was a good coverage player as a rookie.

Obviously, I am not infallible. Never ever claimed to be and will own up to my mistakes or if I am wrong on something. Might want to take a lesson there.
NO ONE IS DEBATING WITH YOU that these linebackers might not be good in coverage!

you also fail to admit that 10 years ago lbers where hardly asked to cover players they have to today, typically there coverage zones where smaller

I haven't even addressed it, at all, so that's a weird statement. 10 years ago linebackers had smaller zones and were not asked to cover the player types they are today? Care to bring some evidence to back that one up?

no, rookie lbers asked to cover and play 3 downs are asked to do so because there simply the best the team has, and when they blow it as they certainly do are subbed out for a safety, no way I'll cave to your opinion and stats that really don't tell the whole story.

I mean wow. What I brought doesn't even touch on what you just said there. No one has actually debated with you on what you just said there. Not sure why you would need to cave on an opinion that no one is arguing with you on...

Again, maybe it will sink in finally, here is what I have been saying this ENTIRE time, years: Linebacker is one of the easier position transitions from college to the NFL. I have never wavered from that nor have I added caveats. If you can agree to that, then maybe we can finally end this lifelong debate?

since neither of us speak the same language why are we even conversing? seriously, you twist everything I say claiming to not understand, your right, for someone that requires everything spelled out exactly right, who doesn't understand that coverage is a aspect , a huge aspect of a interior ILB job responsibility's it should be included in why lber is a tough transition, but you completely over look that because teams are so in need of them they draft anyone with even a inkling that they can do it and play em. duh

you not only insult me with your narrow minded thinking on this subject, but you insult yourself as well for acting so dim witted about it, of course I was referencing coverage when I said it's a tough transition, but you already know that, so what exactly was your reason for brow beating me to death with acting so stupid.

ya know, don't bother to answer that, I think I already know the answer

[Pckfn23]

who doesn't understand that coverage is a aspect , a huge aspect of a interior ILB job responsibility's it should be included in why lber is a tough transition, but you completely over look that because teams are so in need of them they draft anyone with even a inkling that they can do it and play em. duh

Again, all positions are a tough transition, however linebacker is among the easier transitions even when coverage is included. Obviously coverage as a linebacker is necessary, but as was said by others, it is a secondary responsibility. No one is overlooking that coverage is part, not a huge part, of a linebackers' game.

you not only insult me with your narrow minded thinking on this subject, but you insult yourself as well for acting so dim witted about it, of course I was referencing coverage when I said it's a tough transition, but you already know that, so what exactly was your reason for brow beating me to death with acting so stupid.

I am not sure where it is that I am being narrow minded and how that is insulting? What am I acting dim witted about? In reality, you were not only referring to coverage, that simply is your attempt to move the goalposts because you can't back up the statement that linebacker is one of the toughest transitions from college to the NFL. Linebacker and all their responsibilities therein, including coverage, is one of the easier transitions from college to the NFL compared to all other positions. That's the statement. Do you disagree with that?

You brought up your pet topic again, don't get pissy when you are called out... again.

[Yoop]

I'm trying to rack my brain of any ILB before Campbell in GB who hasn't struggled with coverage period. It's not a rookie thing for us.

We have always struggled with TE's and RB's coverage.

thats my point, we all know that rookie ILB's can be at least mediocre against the run, the problem we've always had is for them not to be a liability with coverage.

when I say something like " lber is not a easy transition at this level) it is a insult to think I was referring to stopping the run, it really is, Pckfn, You, or just about anyone here has been around the game long enough to know that, I shouldn't even have to explain what aspect of the tasks for that position include and the hardest part about it for a rookie, common knowledge.

heres another bull &%$@ convo with 23, according to him teams don't use lbers to cover TE's, just go google that one, you'll find that is a primary task as well as covering RB's, the reason we use safety's on TE's and RB's is because till last year none of our ILBs could handle the job, we should not confuse that necessity with the norm.

It's my believe that edge players are a easier transition then interior players, we see a 1/2 doz edge rusher contribute well as rookies, same with CB/s and WR, and not so much with DL, Safety's ILB's tasked with coverage, the more mental the task, the longer to learn.

I think Sal's post on this subject was very, very good.

What you seem to be doing in your argument is allowing some positions to only excel in certain aspects but not be a complete player (like if a WR catches balls or an edge rusher gets sacks)

But if the WR sucks at diverse routes, or running at any position on the field, or run blocking or the edge rusher sucks at setting the edge, which is often the case, you seem to ignore this and still call them a success.

Yet on the ILB issue, you are suddenly raising the bar saying they are only successful if they are a complete player. This is something very, very few rookies are, let alone any players are. These are blue chippers and blue chippers are rare for a reason.

So yes. I believe the stopping the run thing is the primary duty of an ILB. And that is their primary judgement. They are tacklers first which explains why they generally lead the team in tackles. Just like a WR is a catcher first or an edge rusher is a pass rusher first. So the judgement needs to be the same to be fair.

I think Sal's post is very good on this argument.

I don't even know where to start with this.

I think evolution causes adjustments, we rarely ever see the big ILB's any more, simply because the need for speed has over come the need for brawn, and if ya lack range it affects both aspect of a lbers tasks, run and pass coverage, and we saw both improve last year with Campbell, so imo it is not so cut and dried that the main job of todays NFL lber is to stop the run, specially for teams up against us or other quality passing schemes,

we are seeing so much uptempo get the ball out quick, because pass rush forces it, ya can't throw long passes and do that, so where do those passes go? lber ally, and if they can't cover, your the team playing catch up ball

what I don't get is this diverse route stuff, rookie WR shouldn't be required to know the whole route tree, and you can play them every down when they don't, are you Michael J McCarthy's little brother none of that BS ever made a lick of sense to me.

defense is different, and you should know this, a WR can run a route poorly, the QB has the option of not throwing him the ball, when a defender does a play poorly, well you know the answer to that one, right?

as the preferred answer here goes, it's a fruit thing, in todays game your not allowed to make a mistake on defense, your not allowed to have weak positions, or you wont have a very good defense, why anyone would argue with me over these absolute truths is mind boggling I think you just want to mix it up kidding

I know I'am set in my ways and thinking, I blame it on being a old football fan an staying at so many best westerns over the years