Linebackers Are A Dime A Dozen.

[im2deep4u]

Everywhere I read it is like the Cowboys must draft a SOLB, why?? Linebackers are a dime a dozen. Lets take a look at the Steelers linebackers.

Now the Steelers has been running the 3-4 scheme for a long time now and back in the day they had Greene, and Greg Lloyd. They let both go and replaced them with Chad Brown and others. Chad Brown wanted more money so then they shipped him off and replaced him. Now the Steelers have Joey Porter drafted in the 3rd round, Larry Foote drafted in the 4th round, Farrior drafted in the 1st round by the Jets in 1997, and Haggans- not drafted.

You would be hard pressed to find a better set of linebackers in the NFL than what Pittsburgh has. Maybe its the Steelers scheme that puts their linebackers in positions to succeed? The Steelers can blitz anyone of their linebackers at any time, and thats what makes them dangerous. And of course all of them can RUN and cover and are sure tacklers. MLB, OLB, SOLB to me are all a dime a dozen. Yes you do have your LT and Singletary, Butkas, and others but in large the Linebackers must play as a collective unit knowing where each other is at all times.

Alot of people on this site is suggesting that the Cowboys need a SOLB. Carpenter, Lawson, Wimbley....etc. Yes they are all good players that produced in colllege. Yes they had good combines and pro day. The numbers add up to draft one on draft day. I say that you give me someone who has a nose for the ball and make plays. There are 117 Division 1 teams in College Football and each team either plays a 4-3 or 3-4 so lets say 117 times 3 equals 351 linebackers in Division 1 alone add in the other divisions and thus you have more linebackers than any other position on the field. And that is why I say they are a dime a dozen.

You can grab a linebacker in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or undrafted. I just don't see the need for making it a priority when there are other players on the board that we could use.

peace.

 

[junk]

Times are changing. When Pittsburgh was plucking LBers in later rounds, it was because only a few teams ran the 3-4 and were looking for tweener types to play OLB.

Now, there are a boatload of teams looking for those guys and they are shooting up draft boards.

In a 4-3, I usually agree. Don't waste a lot of resources on LBers. In a scheme predicated on linebacker play, however, I don't mind spending some money/draft picks on them.

 

[Doomsday101]

Everywhere I read it is like the Cowboys must draft a SOLB, why?? Linebackers are a dime a dozen. Lets take a look at the Steelers linebackers.

Now the Steelers has been running the 3-4 scheme for a long time now and back in the day they had Greene, and Greg Lloyd. They let both go and replaced them with Chad Brown and others. Chad Brown wanted more money so then they shipped him off and replaced him. Now the Steelers have Joey Porter drafted in the 3rd round, Larry Foote drafted in the 4th round, Farrior drafted in the 1st round by the Jets in 1997, and Haggans- not drafted.

You would be hard pressed to find a better set of linebackers in the NFL than what Pittsburgh has. Maybe its the Steelers scheme that puts their linebackers in positions to succeed? The Steelers can blitz anyone of their linebackers at any time, and thats what makes them dangerous. And of course all of them can RUN and cover and are sure tacklers. MLB, OLB, SOLB to me are all a dime a dozen. Yes you do have your LT and Singletary, Butkas, and others but in large the Linebackers must play as a collective unit knowing where each other is at all times.

Alot of people on this site is suggesting that the Cowboys need a SOLB. Carpenter, Lawson, Wimbley....etc. Yes they are all good players that produced in colllege. Yes they had good combines and pro day. The numbers add up to draft one on draft day. I say that you give me someone who has a nose for the ball and make plays. There are 117 Division 1 teams in College Football and each team either plays a 4-3 or 3-4 so lets say 117 times 3 equals 351 linebackers in Division 1 alone add in the other divisions and thus you have more linebackers than any other position on the field. And that is why I say they are a dime a dozen.

You can grab a linebacker in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or undrafted. I just don't see the need for making it a priority when there are other players on the board that we could use.

peace.

You could say that about almost any position in football

 

[AsthmaField]

4-3 LB's are a dime-a-dozen. 3-4 LB's are the stars of the defense. With more and more teams running the 4 LB scheme, the tweeners who are usually good fit's are being taken earlier and earlier.

To a 34 team, LB's are worth big money and high draft choices. A 43 team spends its front 7 money at DT and DE.

 

[Doomsday101]

4-3 LB's are a dime-a-dozen. 3-4 LB's are the stars of the defense. With more and more teams running the 4 LB scheme, the tweeners who are usually good fit's are being taken earlier and earlier.

To a 34 team, LB's are worth big money and high draft choices. A 43 team spends its front 7 money at DT and DE.

I don't think that is the case, I remember what our MLB position looked like before we drafted Ken Norton Jr. and how much it dropped off when he left Dallas. Quailty LB are a big asset to any team regardless of what D you run. You take a guy like Brian Urlacher out of the Bears lineup and that Defense drops off quite a bit.

 

[AsthmaField]

I don't think that is the case, I remember what our MLB position looked like before we drafted Ken Norton Jr. and how much it dropped off when he left Dallas. Quailty LB are a big asset to any team regardless of what D you run. You take a guy like Brian Urlacher out of the Bears lineup and that Defense drops off quite a bit.

After we lost Norton we did slide a little... but really it was because we lost Jimmy Johnson rather than Norton, IMO.

After Kenny Norton we had, Robert Jones, wasn't it? Then we got Randall Godfrey, who was a good LB. IMO, Norton wasn't that hard to replace. They might not have been quite as good, but really Norton was the beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time. Those defenses and teams he was on in the early 90's were really, really good. If you put Godfrey in his spot on that '92 team, I think we would've been just fine.

Now take away Haley from that team and I think you would've seen a rapid decline. That's what I'm saying... 43 teams are impacted by DE's while 34 teams are impacted by OLB's.

JMO, though.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Well, we sure can use another dime's worth to play the outside.....

 

[zrinkill]

Now take away Haley from that team and I think you would've seen a rapid decline. That's what I'm saying... 43 teams are impacted by DE's while 34 teams are impacted by OLB's.

JMO, though.

A correct opinion

 

[AsthmaField]

Well, we sure can use another dime's worth to play the outside.....

:laugh1:

We really do need an OLB opposite Ware. I was calling the LB's a dime-a-dozen when you play in a 43 defense though... not a 34 like we do. In a 34, LB's are vital to the success of the defense and are definately not "dime-a-dozen".

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Times are changing. When Pittsburgh was plucking LBers in later rounds, it was because only a few teams ran the 3-4 and were looking for tweener types to play OLB.

Now, there are a boatload of teams looking for those guys and they are shooting up draft boards.

In a 4-3, I usually agree. Don't waste a lot of resources on LBers. In a scheme predicated on linebacker play, however, I don't mind spending some money/draft picks on them.

 

[skinsscalper]

After we lost Norton we did slide a little... but really it was because we lost Jimmy Johnson rather than Norton, IMO.

After Kenny Norton we had, Robert Jones, wasn't it? Then we got Randall Godfrey, who was a good LB. IMO, Norton wasn't that hard to replace. They might not have been quite as good, but really Norton was the beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time. Those defenses and teams he was on in the early 90's were really, really good. If you put Godfrey in his spot on that '92 team, I think we would've been just fine.

Now take away Haley from that team and I think you would've seen a rapid decline. That's what I'm saying... 43 teams are impacted by DE's while 34 teams are impacted by OLB's.

JMO, though.

I agree. But, we have to keep in mind that fact that one of the reason's that the 3-4 defense is becoming so popular is the fact that it IS easier to find these "tweeners" who can play standing up or with their hand down than it is to find a dominant DE in a 4-3 scheme. Look at the contracts of the highest paid DE's in a 4-3 and the "tweeners" in a 3-4. HUGE difference.

SS

 

[AsthmaField]

I agree. But, we have to keep in mind that fact that one of the reason's that the 3-4 defense is becoming so popular is the fact that it IS easier to find these "tweeners" who can play standing up or with their hand down than it is to find a dominant DE in a 4-3 scheme. Look at the contracts of the highest paid DE's in a 4-3 and the "tweeners" in a 3-4. HUGE difference.

SS

That's true. At DE its hard to find a player who has the speed and athleticism to rush the QB but still has the ability to take on OT's on a consistant basis and not get run over.

While you do have to be able to stop the run at OLB... it's a whole different story stopping it without being lined up across from an OT all day.

 

[silver]

when BP was with the gints he was obsessed with LB's. in 1990 draft he wanted darion conner and thought he'd be LT's eventual replacement. he was overuled by the GM george young and drafted rodney hampton. they went on to win the sb that year and hampton had a very good 8 year career with the giants rushed for a 1000 yards for 5 consecutive years and ended up their all time leading rusher. conner went in the second round to atlanta played only 4 years for them and had a so so career that lasted also 8 years and ended up playing in the arena league. conner is now in jail BTW.

these are conners career stats:

Career Statistics
Defensive Statistics
Sacks Interceptions
Year Team G GS Sacks Loss Int Yds Avg Lg TD
1990 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 16 7 2.0 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1991 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 15 14 3.5 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1992 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 16 16 7.0 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1993 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 14 10 1.5 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1994 New Orleans Saints (NFL) 16 13 10.5 66.0 1 56 56.0 56 0
1995 Carolina Panthers (NFL) 16 16 7.0 39.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
1996 Philadelphia Eagles (NFL) 7 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
1997 Philadelphia Eagles (NFL) 14 0 1.5 12.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
NFL Totals 114 76 33.0 117.0 1 56 56.0 56

hamptons stats are as follows
1990 New York Giants (NFL) 15 2 109 455 4.2 41 2 32 274 8.6 27t 2
1991 New York Giants (NFL) 14 14 256 1059 4.1 44 10 43 283 6.6 19 0
1992 New York Giants (NFL) 16 16 257 1141 4.4 63t 14 28 215 7.7 31 0
1993 New York Giants (NFL) 12 10 292 1077 3.7 20 5 18 210 11.7 62 0
1994 New York Giants (NFL) 14 13 327 1075 3.3 27t 6 14 103 7.4 17 0
1995 New York Giants (NFL) 16 15 306 1182 3.9 32 10 24 142 5.9 18 0
1996 New York Giants (NFL) 15 15 254 827 3.3 25 1 15 82 5.5 16 0
1997 New York Giants (NFL) 2 0 23 81 3.5 22 1 0 0 0.0 0 0
NFL Totals 104 85 1824 6897 3.8 63t 49 174 1309 7.5 62 2

 

[AsthmaField]

I bet Conner's career would've been quite different had he gone to a 3-4 team. I don't think he's nearly as good a fit on a 43 defense.

 

[skinsscalper]

when BP was with the gints he was obsessed with LB's. in 1990 draft he wanted darion conner and thought he'd be LT's eventual replacement. he was overuled by the GM george young and drafted rodney hampton. they went on to win the sb that year and hampton had a very good 8 year career with the giants rushed for a 1000 yards for 5 consecutive years and ended up their all time leading rusher. conner went in the second round to atlanta played only 4 years for them and had a so so career that lasted also 8 years and ended up playing in the arena league. conner is now in jail BTW.

these are conners career stats:

Career Statistics
Defensive Statistics
Sacks Interceptions
Year Team G GS Sacks Loss Int Yds Avg Lg TD
1990 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 16 7 2.0 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1991 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 15 14 3.5 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1992 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 16 16 7.0 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1993 Atlanta Falcons (NFL) 14 10 1.5 -- 0 0 0.0 0 0
1994 New Orleans Saints (NFL) 16 13 10.5 66.0 1 56 56.0 56 0
1995 Carolina Panthers (NFL) 16 16 7.0 39.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
1996 Philadelphia Eagles (NFL) 7 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
1997 Philadelphia Eagles (NFL) 14 0 1.5 12.0 0 0 0.0 0 0
NFL Totals 114 76 33.0 117.0 1 56 56.0 56

hamptons stats are as follows
1990 New York Giants (NFL) 15 2 109 455 4.2 41 2 32 274 8.6 27t 2
1991 New York Giants (NFL) 14 14 256 1059 4.1 44 10 43 283 6.6 19 0
1992 New York Giants (NFL) 16 16 257 1141 4.4 63t 14 28 215 7.7 31 0
1993 New York Giants (NFL) 12 10 292 1077 3.7 20 5 18 210 11.7 62 0
1994 New York Giants (NFL) 14 13 327 1075 3.3 27t 6 14 103 7.4 17 0
1995 New York Giants (NFL) 16 15 306 1182 3.9 32 10 24 142 5.9 18 0
1996 New York Giants (NFL) 15 15 254 827 3.3 25 1 15 82 5.5 16 0
1997 New York Giants (NFL) 2 0 23 81 3.5 22 1 0 0 0.0 0 0
NFL Totals 104 85 1824 6897 3.8 63t 49 174 1309 7.5 62 2

I think one of the major factors in determining a players success is mentoring. The tables could have been turned and Hampton could have been an afterthought with the Falcons and Conner could have had a respectable career with the Gints.

To be honest, coaching is the surest way to determine getting the best out of your players, and it's unique in the fact that you're not limited in
"buying" that success because a coaches salary doesn't count against your salary cap. That's one area that I will give props to the Skins. They have assembled one of the best coaching staff's that money can buy. And, it doesn't cost em a lick in the cap. The biggest signings, by far, that the Skins have made won't play a down this year.

SS

 

[2much2soon]

To be honest, coaching is the surest way to determine getting the best out of your players, and it's unique in the fact that you're not limited in
"buying" that success because a coaches salary doesn't count against your salary cap. That's one area that I will give props to the Skins. They have assembled one of the best coaching staff's that money can buy. And, it doesn't cost em a lick in the cap. The biggest signings, by far, that the Skins have made won't play a down this year.

SS

I agree. I have always felt that in the salary cap era, wise teams could set themselves apart by assembling a top notch coaching staff

 

[big dog cowboy]

Times are changing. When Pittsburgh was plucking LBers in later rounds, it was because only a few teams ran the 3-4 and were looking for tweener types to play OLB.

Now, there are a boatload of teams looking for those guys and they are shooting up draft boards.

In a 4-3, I usually agree. Don't waste a lot of resources on LBers. In a scheme predicated on linebacker play, however, I don't mind spending some money/draft picks on them.

 

[Qwickdraw]

All I read was the first line of this thread and I agree.

 

[Kilyin]

I agree. I have always felt that in the salary cap era, wise teams could set themselves apart by assembling a top notch coaching staff

And now you have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians (pun intended).

I might agree with you if the Skins win another Superbowl before Dallas down the road, but I honestly can't see it happening.

 

[2much2soon]

And now you have too many Chiefs and not enough Indians (pun intended).

I might agree with you if the Skins win another Superbowl before Dallas down the road, but I honestly can't see it happening.

I agree in principle, not necessarily about the skins staff.
Greg Williams seems to be a very capable DC. I have never been a huge Gibbs fan.
My memories of the '80s are pretty hazy but weren't a couple of those Gibbs-led Washington SBs during the strike-shortened years? I am pretty sure at least one of them was.
With league mandated parity, a great coaching staff can be the difference. Parcells has yet to put together a staff in Dallas to rival some of his previous regimes. I didn't expect that to be the case.