Is the linebacker position disappearing, too?

[oldunclemark]

There has been a lot of talk about how there are few fullbacks in the NFL anymore and halfbacks have less and less value.

Doesn't it seem that true linebackers are also on their way out?

Many only play 1st and 2nd down now before defenses switch to 5 and 6 DB formations...

You have to get penetration on the line...players who are called linebacker basically are stand up end rushers..

 

 

If you play a 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 base defense ...which is common now against passing teams...why not just play and a 4-1-6....six defensive backs...on all downs and a 4-7 (7 deep backs) on passing downs....when you WANT teams to run the ball against you...you want the QB to look at the defense and check out into a run....like Denver did against NE in Foxboro last year....

Seven deep backs is a 2-deep safety and man coverage on everybody..and it allows you to utilize a taller, more physical  DB against tight ends..or you can blitz a corner unblocked...

 

If teams eliminate fullbacks and value halfbacks...Why have linebackers who basically defend the run?

..and since offenses try to isolate a HB on a LB...and play hurry up so you cant sub...why have LBs on the field at all?

 

Your thoughts?

[throwing BBZ]

For me the Seattle & SF models work fine.
LB`er`s and Safeties with cover skills Please!

[amfootball]

Great topic!  There has been a definite shift in the type of LBs teams employ. Coverage skills are essential now as opposed to guys that are solely run stoppers. The Pats got Jaime Collins last year who fits the mold of a LB with tremendous athletic skill. I think this is necessary not only because the FB position has dwindled but also because teams have RBs that can catch out of the backfield and cause mis-match nightmares if teams don't have fast/athletic linebackers. So it is kind of the double whammy. Less FBs and RBs that can get open and catch the ball.

[Fake Jeff Skilling]

You will always need linebackers. The running back position is not disappearing, it is changing. It will never go away.

You will always need versatile lbers because otherwise teams will audible into runs.

 

Linebackers are definitley changing, but I think disappearing is not the right word.

[chad72]

Their role is actually varying greatly, IMO, and it makes them more valuable if they are more well rounded in run D and coverage. You could in fact argue that the value for the well rounded ones is increasing by keeping them in for more run downs. In fact, the no huddle has made those versatile LBs invaluable, the ones that are 3 down LBs. 49ers and Seahawks rarely substitute since their LBs are capable of more than those of other teams.

 

Disappearing is hardly a valid word.

[Superman]

There are so many every down linebackers in the NFL. Many of them are the defensive captains, and make the calls on the field. Yeah, there's more nickel and dime, but that doesn't mean the position is going away. Not even close.

[JoKeR]

There has been a lot of talk about how there are few fullbacks in the NFL anymore and halfbacks have less and less value.

Doesn't it seem that true linebackers are also on their way out?

Many only play 1st and 2nd down now before defenses switch to 5 and 6 DB formations...

You have to get penetration on the line...players who are called linebacker basically are stand up end rushers..

If you play a 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 base defense ...which is common now against passing teams...why not just play and a 4-1-6....six defensive backs...on all downs and a 4-7 (7 deep backs) on passing downs....when you WANT teams to run the ball against you...you want the QB to look at the defense and check out into a run....like Denver did against NE in Foxboro last year....

Seven deep backs is a 2-deep safety and man coverage on everybody..and it allows you to utilize a taller, more physical DB against tight ends..or you can blitz a corner unblocked...

If teams eliminate fullbacks and value halfbacks...Why have linebackers who basically defend the run?

..and since offenses try to isolate a HB on a LB...and play hurry up so you cant sub...why have LBs on the field at all?

Your thoughts?

I like the 4-1-6 formation, it's basically a sub- nickel with 1 of the interior LBers switched for a safety.

I can see LBer/safety tweeners becoming much more prominent for these formations. I don't see the LBers disappearing though, often the linemen just eat up blocks leaving the play to be made by LBers.

[oldunclemark]

There are so many every down linebackers in the NFL. Many of them are the defensive captains, and make the calls on the field. Yeah, there's more nickel and dime, but that doesn't mean the position is going away. Not even close.

Find me a team with 3 every down ljnebackers.....SF?   Indy?

 

See what I mean?

 

Most everybody who plays Denver plays 5 DBs on all downs..and 6 on 3rd down....

 

the old MLB position is almost gone now....

[oldunclemark]

For me the Seattle & SF models work fine.

LB`er`s and Safeties with cover skills Please!

SF?  Willis doenst play every down anymore

[Synthetic]

Not at all. There's still a lot of Linebackers that are beasts, and someone has to strike fear into the QB on the other side of the line.

[Dustin]

SF? Willis doenst play every down anymore

Navvaro Bowman played 97% of the defenses snaps. Willis played 81% and that's while missing two games.

[oldunclemark]

Not at all. There's still a lot of Linebackers that are beasts, and someone has to strike fear into the QB on the other side of the line.

True Bogie./...and you need at least one or two linebackers... on earkly dowbns..

 

But you don't need 4....and watching games a second time..a lot of teams just use 2  regularly

 

and l've seen some 4-1-6 on 3rd and long

 

...Plus you change the resume for DBs...Seattle is already doing some of that..

 

...If your safeties are 6-foot-3 and 230 pounds.....that's what you want on the field vs. double TE sets.....

[oldunclemark]

Navvaro Bowman played 97% of the defenses snaps. Willis played 81% and that's while missing two games.

Willis complained late in the season when he wasnt used on 3rd down, right?

 

I'm assuming the 19% is 3rd down.......My point is that 5 and 6-back sets are becoming the norm and if a safety if 6-foot-4 and 230 pounds

 

...he's better than the old Willie McGinest type LB because her can run with mutilple TEs

[The Peytonator]

There are a ton of every down LBs, but the position is changing because of the passing game. Having guys that can shut down the run is nice, but I'll take the fleet footed guys that can run with TEs and RBs. I'd really like to get a guy like KJ Wright or Jaime Collins to be our primary coverage LB. 

[Superman]

Find me a team with 3 every down ljnebackers.....SF? Indy?

See what I mean?

Most everybody who plays Denver plays 5 DBs on all downs..and 6 on 3rd down....

the old MLB position is almost gone now....

Who said three every down backers?

Even if you only have one per tramr, that's still 32. Most teams have at least two backers on the field most of the time, though only one is usually an every down guy. The rest platoon and get subbed situationally, but you still have a one or two guys playing 60% of the snaps.

Maybe the position is changing and becoming more varied, depending on the defensive front. But going away? Not even close. I wouldn't even compare the change with what's happening at LB.

[oldunclemark]

Who said every down backers. I did. That was the point of original post...the disappearing....

 

...Obviously....for decades..there's been 3 LBs....and they played every down

Then many went 3-4 ...with the idea that OLBs can cover TEs and backs.

Now they cant....the FB has become and extra WR or TE....OLBs cant cover Jimmy Graham..much less Coby Fleener.....

....watching some games from last season..you see and now teams scheme with hurry-up and/or nohuddle to keep those 4 LBs on the field.....

  ..and teams respond by having 5 DBs in the base defense....almost everybody did that vs. Denver....all last season..

The Bears were pulling Lance Briggs off the field on 3rd down...

 

I'm just saying. If you're going to cover my 3 WR and a TE set....you need 3 cover guys and somebody to cover my split TE and it cant be a traditional LB,,,not fast enough..

..NE lines up WR/RB hybrids in the backfield because LBs cant cover them...Offenses are abusing linebackers

 

so LBs are being utilized less. they're not dinosaurs..granted..but I think the position has to evolve

 

 

.

[Surge89]

Who said every down backers. I did. That was the point of original post...the disappearing....

 

...Obviously....for decades..there's been 3 LBs....and they played every down

Then many went 3-4 ...with the idea that OLBs can cover TEs and backs.

Now they cant....the FB has become and extra WR or TE....OLBs cant cover Jimmy Graham..much less Coby Fleener.....

....watching some games from last season..you see and now teams scheme with hurry-up and/or nohuddle to keep those 4 LBs on the field.....

  ..and teams respond by having 5 DBs in the base defense....almost everybody did that vs. Denver....all last season..

The Bears were pulling Lance Briggs off the field on 3rd down...

 

I'm just saying. If you're going to cover my 3 WR and a TE set....you need 3 cover guys and somebody to cover my split TE and it cant be a traditional LB,,,not fast enough..

..NE lines up WR/RB hybrids in the backfield because LBs cant cover them...Offenses are abusing linebackers

 

so LBs are being utilized less. they're not dinosaurs..granted..but I think the position has to evolve

 

 

.

 

 

Hmmm interesting thought.  Very very very interesting.  But let me take a stab in the 180 for a minute.

 

Is it the position that needs to evolve or the defensive mind to utilize better?  The offensive side isn't see the #1 Receiver go away even though the TE is taking over the slot and flex positions.  What is happening is what the league sees time and time again.  Offenses figure out defenses and vise versa.  

 

The TE is an overwhelming aspect of offenses today.  To counter though people are drafting insanely talented safeties.  So your LBers with the right scheme should still have a very prominent role in today's game.  But they will need to be athletic enough to either fill deep zones that a safety will leave or have great coverage skills while still being thick enough to stop the run, (which would thus make them every down LBers)  Everyone else will be role sufficient  pieces to the puzzle (pass rushers and run defenders).  The position is changing (not as much as you'd think), but far from leaving. 

[HtownColt]

Who said every down backers. I did. That was the point of original post...the disappearing....

...Obviously....for decades..there's been 3 LBs....and they played every down

Then many went 3-4 ...with the idea that OLBs can cover TEs and backs.

Now they cant....the FB has become and extra WR or TE....OLBs cant cover Jimmy Graham..much less Coby Fleener.....

....watching some games from last season..you see and now teams scheme with hurry-up and/or nohuddle to keep those 4 LBs on the field.....

..and teams respond by having 5 DBs in the base defense....almost everybody did that vs. Denver....all last season..

The Bears were pulling Lance Briggs off the field on 3rd down...

I'm just saying. If you're going to cover my 3 WR and a TE set....you need 3 cover guys and somebody to cover my split TE and it cant be a traditional LB,,,not fast enough..

..NE lines up WR/RB hybrids in the backfield because LBs cant cover them...Offenses are abusing linebackers

so LBs are being utilized less. they're not dinosaurs..granted..but I think the position has to evolve

.

Teams been playing nickel and dime packages forever so how did teams play 3 LBs every down for decades? They never did.

And that's not their base defense they played vs Denver, they just played more nickel and dime packages than their base defense.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

I don't think your point isn't very well made my friend.

[rock8591]

MLB yes. 3-4 ILBs and OLBs - the exact opposite.

[oldunclemark]

Teams been playing nickel and dime packages forever so how did teams play 3 LBs every down for decades? They never did.

And that's not their base defense they played vs Denver, they just played more nickel and dime packages than their base defense.

You must be young..in the 70s and 80s your linebackers played 3 downs ..

 

Its changed as multiple receiver formations and split TEs have become the norm

 

For the record ....KC started Eric Berry at S/LB vs. Denver....from the first play....

...you can see it...on tape....Berry was in  a LB position..because they knew Peyton would go no huddle and they wouldn't  be able to sub

 

NE played 5 backs in Foxboro almost all night......many teams have 6-in-the-box against Denver

Its the way the game is going...clearly....nothing stays the same, right?  defense will adjust to 5,000-yard passers sooner or later

 

I'm just wondering where it all goes....4 linemen..3 LB and 4 DBs are arbitrary numbers..going back to days of 2 RBs...days which are gone

If teams cease to use 2 RBs..why use a 4-3 or 3-4 ..that;s how an old guy with a rag arm throws for 55 TDs and 5,500 yards..

 

Could a team get away with playing 3 corners...2 safeties and a 5-1 or 3-3 lineman/linebacker combo...against the top passers..

nuetralizing the sub-killing aspect of the no-huddle offense ?

[HtownColt]

You must be young..in the 70s and 80s your linebackers played 3 downs ..

Its changed as multiple receiver formations and split TEs have become the norm

For the record ....KC started Eric Berry at S/LB vs. Denver....from the first play....

...you can see it...on tape....Berry was in a LB position..because they knew Peyton would go no huddle and they wouldn't be able to sub

NE played 5 backs in Foxboro almost all night......many teams have 6-in-the-box against Denver

Its the way the game is going...clearly....nothing stays the same, right? defense will adjust to 5,000-yard passers sooner or later

I'm just wondering where it all goes....4 linemen..3 LB and 4 DBs are arbitrary numbers..going back to days of 2 RBs...days which are gone

If teams cease to use 2 RBs..why use a 4-3 or 3-4 ..that;s how an old guy with a rag arm throws for 55 TDs and 5,500 yards..

Could a team get away with playing 3 corners...2 safeties and a 5-1 or 3-3 lineman/linebacker combo...against the top passers..

nuetralizing the sub-killing aspect of the no-huddle offense ?

What are you talking about? Defenses were playing nickel and dime packages in the 70's and 80's on passing downs.

Just because they start a game and play in their nickel and dime packages most of a game it's not their base defense. It's just matchups due to certain personnel.

[HtownColt]

You must be young..in the 70s and 80s your linebackers played 3 downs ..

Its changed as multiple receiver formations and split TEs have become the norm

For the record ....KC started Eric Berry at S/LB vs. Denver....from the first play....

...you can see it...on tape....Berry was in a LB position..because they knew Peyton would go no huddle and they wouldn't be able to sub

NE played 5 backs in Foxboro almost all night......many teams have 6-in-the-box against Denver

Its the way the game is going...clearly....nothing stays the same, right? defense will adjust to 5,000-yard passers sooner or later

I'm just wondering where it all goes....4 linemen..3 LB and 4 DBs are arbitrary numbers..going back to days of 2 RBs...days which are gone

If teams cease to use 2 RBs..why use a 4-3 or 3-4 ..that;s how an old guy with a rag arm throws for 55 TDs and 5,500 yards..

Could a team get away with playing 3 corners...2 safeties and a 5-1 or 3-3 lineman/linebacker combo...against the top passers..

nuetralizing the sub-killing aspect of the no-huddle offense ?

just a tidbit on the history of nickel defenses since you said that they didn't run it in the 70's and 80's and that they kept 3 LBs on the field for every down.

"In what has become a running theme in this series, any number of defensive minds are credited with creating and developing variations of a nickel defenses. Clark Shaughnessy was devising and naming defenses with any number of defensive backs in the 1950s. He most likely coined the term “nickel” defense. A secondary coach in Philadelphia drew up a package with a fifth defensive back called the “Chicago Special” as a way to better cover Bears tight end Mike Ditka. George Allen is also often given credit for developing schemes that used five defensive backs. Allen was a defensive assistant under Shaughnessy in Chicago and undoubtedly observed how Philadelphia tried to defend Ditka while there.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, another defensive guru, Fritz Shurmur, devised the “Big Nickel” (a k a “Wolverine”) 4-2-5 defense. Shurmur used the scheme to great success against the juggernaut 49ers, but often used it as a base defense in later years when his linebackers were beset by injury. The Big Nickel allowed Shurmur to get an extra safety-linebacker hybrid into the lineup. Depending on his personnel, he could cover and pass-rush with the secondary personnel, but still support the run, all while disguising which coverage his defense would play. The Big Nickel has made a comeback in recent seasons, particularly against star receiving tight ends like Antonio Gates, Tony Gonzalez and Todd Heap."

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/guide-to-n-f-l-defenses-part-7-nickel-subpackages/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[John Dee]

Seattle subs the front 7 as much as any team in the NFL      DL in particular.   

 

SF plays it's starting 11 pretty much the entire game give or take a few "situational" subs in the DBackfield.

 

Both are very different.    What works for both Sea and SF is "talent" ...         they both have bookoo talent on the D side.

 

 

The model is irrelevant if the coach doesn't have the pieces.

For me the Seattle & SF models work fine.
LB`er`s and Safeties with cover skills Please!

[John Dee]

You will always need linebackers. The running back position is not disappearing, it is changing. It will never go away.

You will always need versatile lbers because otherwise teams will audible into runs.

 

Linebackers are definitley changing, but I think disappearing is not the right word.

Right...  the game is evolving.      Situational football has always been around.      But in the 80's it was common for a O to run 2 WR's in the pattern often.     And pass D rules were simply out of control then.     A CB could maul a WR and no flag would get called.

 

Just a different game today all the way around....     And I am not sure it is trending toward the worse.  Can't touch the QB or WR?   Really?

 

Oh well....

[MikeVander]

I think the LBs will change themselves. Ray Lewis dropped 15 lbs (heh) to match up with TEs better.

[Superman]

Who said every down backers. I did. That was the point of original post...the disappearing....

 

...Obviously....for decades..there's been 3 LBs....and they played every down

Then many went 3-4 ...with the idea that OLBs can cover TEs and backs.

Now they cant....the FB has become and extra WR or TE....OLBs cant cover Jimmy Graham..much less Coby Fleener.....

....watching some games from last season..you see and now teams scheme with hurry-up and/or nohuddle to keep those 4 LBs on the field.....

  ..and teams respond by having 5 DBs in the base defense....almost everybody did that vs. Denver....all last season..

The Bears were pulling Lance Briggs off the field on 3rd down...

 

I'm just saying. If you're going to cover my 3 WR and a TE set....you need 3 cover guys and somebody to cover my split TE and it cant be a traditional LB,,,not fast enough..

..NE lines up WR/RB hybrids in the backfield because LBs cant cover them...Offenses are abusing linebackers

 

so LBs are being utilized less. they're not dinosaurs..granted..but I think the position has to evolve

 

You didn't say every down backers in the OP. I may have misunderstood. But the title of the thread is about the linebacker position in general, and that's how I understood your post.

 

Pretty much every team has an every down backer still, a guy who plays 90% of the snaps and never comes off the field if not for injury. As teams play more nickel and dime, with variations, yeah, backers are on the field for fewer snaps collectively. But backers are still on the field, including one guy who stays on the field every down, and another who is probably out there 70% of the time.

 

Compare that with the RB position, where almost every team platoons their backs, where most teams don't have a true lead back who is used in every situation, where teams have different players on the field on third down, or go with empty sets frequently... The RB position has changed so dramatically that a position that used to feature the most used single players in the league, and the best athletes on the team, is not a premium position anymore. Anyone who has played fantasy football for more than five years can relate how drastically the RB position has changed, how its value has changed, how the players have changed, etc. 

 

The adjustments at LB are nowhere near as drastic as the evolution we've seen at RB. 

[Superman]

What are you talking about? Defenses were playing nickel and dime packages in the 70's and 80's on passing downs.

Just because they start a game and play in their nickel and dime packages most of a game it's not their base defense. It's just matchups due to certain personnel.

 

Also, playing nickel doesn't necessarily mean you don't have three linebackers on the field. A lot of teams use a 3-3-5 on early downs.

[jvan1973]

Who said every down backers. I did. That was the point of original post...the disappearing....

...Obviously....for decades..there's been 3 LBs....and they played every down

Then many went 3-4 ...with the idea that OLBs can cover TEs and backs.

Now they cant....the FB has become and extra WR or TE....OLBs cant cover Jimmy Graham..much less Coby Fleener.....

....watching some games from last season..you see and now teams scheme with hurry-up and/or nohuddle to keep those 4 LBs on the field.....

..and teams respond by having 5 DBs in the base defense....almost everybody did that vs. Denver....all last season..

The Bears were pulling Lance Briggs off the field on 3rd down...

I'm just saying. If you're going to cover my 3 WR and a TE set....you need 3 cover guys and somebody to cover my split TE and it cant be a traditional LB,,,not fast enough..

..NE lines up WR/RB hybrids in the backfield because LBs cant cover them...Offenses are abusing linebackers

so LBs are being utilized less. they're not dinosaurs..granted..but I think the position has to evolve

.

Nickel and dime packages aren't new. I can't think of any team ever that played three lbs all the time. Why would they?

[oldunclemark]

no doubt...jvan..nickel and dime packages aren't new but they arent traditional either

The position has evolved....teams didn't always play nickel defenses..

 

.. ...but ..if you had a choice between a top LB and a top corner or safety...all things being equal...

Years ago...you'd take the LB...because he'd be involved in more plays

Now...you would take the corner for certain and the safery over the LB most times

again, all things being equal....because they're on the field more

 

Things evolve...30 years ago...two TEs on the field for anything but short yardage was unheard of.

Linebacker is was....someone to take on the fullback and take out the RB...

If I put Reggie, TY Hilton...Nicks..Allen and Fleener on the field on every play.....

I'm forcing your LBs to cover my TEs and they cant .....you need very big corners or good coverage safeties

 

..You need three corners on the field at all times against top passers...that corner take the place of an LB

..and will continue to...that's all Im saying.....linebackers will play less and less

Looking at big D-back teams like Seattle.......Where do you think defenses are headed

[jvan1973]

no doubt...jvan..nickel and dime packages aren't new but they arent traditional either

The position has evolved....teams didn't always play nickel defenses..

.. ...but ..if you had a choice between a top LB and a top corner or safety...all things being equal...

Years ago...you'd take the LB...because he'd be involved in more plays

Now...you would take the corner for certain and the safery over the LB most times

again, all things being equal....because they're on the field more

Things evolve...30 years ago...two TEs on the field for anything but short yardage was unheard of.

Linebacker is was....someone to take on the fullback and take out the RB...

If I put Reggie, TY Hilton...Nicks..Allen and Fleener on the field on every play.....

I'm forcing your LBs to cover my TEs and they cant .....you need very big corners or good coverage safeties

..You need three corners on the field at all times against top passers...that corner take the place of an LB

..and will continue to...that's all Im saying.....linebackers will play less and less

Looking at big D-back teams like Seattle.......Where do you think defenses are headed

Offenses have been running three, four and five wide for quite sometime. You don't leave three lbs on the field in those situations.

[oldunclemark]

'quite some time'  obviously..but not forever

 

But its the evolution I'm taling about. Where do you see it going?

 

 

what if offenses..go to 3 tight ends to counter act bigger corners and safeties?

 

Chip Kelly's Eagles actually spread you out so they can run the ball ..and the players they attack are the linemen and linebackers who cant make 1 on 1 tackles in space.

[jvan1973]

'quite some time' obviously..but not forever

But its the evolution I'm taling about. Where do you see it going?

what if offenses..go to 3 tight ends to counter act bigger corners and safeties?

Chip Kelly's Eagles actually spread you out so they can run the ball ..and the players they attack are the linemen and linebackers who cant make 1 on 1 tackles in space.

It depends on who the TEs are. Not all TEs are mismatches for lbers.

And only bad lbers can't make 1on 1 tackles in space

[oldunclemark]

It depends on who the TEs are. Not all TEs are mismatches for lbers.

And only bad lbers can't make 1on 1 tackles in space

New age TEs are..and that's the point.......that position is evolving...'too.

 

That's what I';m talking about..evolution.......5-1-5 defense....a WR stack with 3 TEs instead of WRs

'

Think pro wrestling....Randy Orton, Dave Batista..and Triple-H....

 

'Evolution'

 

Think about what could change..not what could stay the same..because the NFL, if you look at games from 10-15 years ago... is really changing

[My Opinions Are 0% Fact]

It's sort of a balance. If defenses were to get rid of the LB then the offense would react to that. The reason why people are playing with more DB heavy sets is because there are some amazing QBs playing today. If there is a crop of QBs that aren't so amazing teams' philosophies will change. It's a fluid situation.