Is LB a garbage position?

[Coltscrazy]

I know many want to draft a LB in the first, but isn't LB the least important part of the defense?.  I'm an old two gap DE, and we always kept things clean for the little guys.  The line controls the line of scrimmage, the DBs handle the island, and the LBs just run free to the ball.  If you want coverage, play nickle, if you want pressure use stunts and overloads.  Maybe you little guys could chime in on why you need high round linebackers.

[ColtsBlitz]

35 minutes ago, Coltscrazy said:

I know many want to draft a LB in the first, but isn't LB the least important part of the defense?.  I'm an old two gap DE, and we always kept things clean for the little guys.  The line controls the line of scrimmage, the DBs handle the island, and the LBs just run free to the ball.  If you want coverage, play nickle, if you want pressure use stunts and overloads.  Maybe you little guys could chime in on why you need high round linebackers.

On the contrary, I think the LBers are the most important because the MLB is making signal calls to get everyone on the same page, and they are the core of the defense, covering the all-popular short routes nowadays, whether it's inside or outside to the flats. They are even more important in a 3-4 because of the OLB rushing the passer on passing downs, and having a great OLB can tilt games in your favor. Our linebackers inability to cover and stop runs from reaching the 3rd level (past 7 yards of the line of scrimmage) contributed greatly to our 30th ranked defense. Our poor pass coverage didn't help either, but if we had better run D, garbage qbs like Brock Rottweiler would have to throw more often because running the football isn't working. Aka, making their offense one dimensional. 

[Superman]

Let me introduce you to Travis Kelce:

 

 

Guys like him are why rangy, athletic linebackers who can cover are so important to a good defense. The NFL is not a run first league anymore, so the idea that big defensive linemen are going to "keep them clean" is only addressing one part of the equation. And it's the part of the equation that has become less important in recent years.

 

Let me introduce you to Rob Gronkowski:

 

 

Guys like him are why you can't just "go nickel if you want coverage." These big NFL TEs who can block like linemen will abuse your nickel defenders in run situations. 

 

The NFL has become a matchup league, and the TE position is becoming the focal point of many offenses. If you don't have defensive players who can matchup in various situations, your defense is going to be picked apart, one way or the other.

 

So rangy, athletic, tough linebackers who can cover in space are very important to a well rounded defense, in both phases.

[Valpo2004]

I'm guessing that 0 NFL head coaches, coordinators or GM's would agree with your view there.  

[csmopar]

1 hour ago, Coltscrazy said:

I know many want to draft a LB in the first, but isn't LB the least important part of the defense?.  I'm an old two gap DE, and we always kept things clean for the little guys.  The line controls the line of scrimmage, the DBs handle the island, and the LBs just run free to the ball.  If you want coverage, play nickle, if you want pressure use stunts and overloads.  Maybe you little guys could chime in on why you need high round linebackers.

[Jason_]

1 hour ago, Coltscrazy said:

I know many want to draft a LB in the first, but isn't LB the least important part of the defense?.  I'm an old two gap DE, and we always kept things clean for the little guys.  The line controls the line of scrimmage, the DBs handle the island, and the LBs just run free to the ball.  If you want coverage, play nickle, if you want pressure use stunts and overloads.  Maybe you little guys could chime in on why you need high round linebackers.

 

well, first problem is the Colts aren't a 2 gap defense

[OffensivelyPC]

8 minutes ago, Superman said:

Let me introduce you to Travis Kelce:

 

 

Guys like him are why rangy, athletic linebackers who can cover are so important to a good defense. The NFL is not a run first league anymore, so the idea that big defensive linemen are going to "keep them clean" is only addressing one part of the equation. And it's the part of the equation that has become less important in recent years.

 

Let me introduce you to Rob Gronkowski:

 

 

Guys like him are why you can't just "go nickel if you want coverage." These big NFL TEs who can block like linemen will abuse your nickel defenders in run situations. 

 

The NFL has become a matchup league, and the TE position is becoming the focal point of many offenses. If you don't have defensive players who can matchup in various situations, your defense is going to be picked apart, one way or the other.

 

So rangy, athletic, tough linebackers who can cover in space are very important to a well rounded defense, in both phases.

I agree, but there are not many players in the league who can cover guys like Gronkowski.  Whether its a rangy LB, hybrid safety, etc.  Jimmy Graham on the Saints, same thing.  Those guys are exceptions to the rule.

 

The part I do agree with the OP on is that, assuming a good 2 gapping scheme, LBs are a bit devalued.  Take the Broncos ILBs in their super bowl year.  Neither of htem are really great, but they are good in coverage and their DL enabled them to roam free.  

 

So I wouldn't go so far as to call LBs a garbage position - they are in fact needed.  But I think they are the equivalent of an RB in the sense that their position is the most devalued of the other defensive players on the field with them.  I've always believed that you can find guys that fit your bill of an LB - with the elite ones being the exception - in Day 2 and 3 of the NFL draft.  Should you never use a 1st round pick on an RB or ILB?  That's a brightline rule that I can't really sign on.  But generally speaking, no, you shouldn't use 1st round picks on RBs and ILBs in most cases.  Obviously guys like Ezekiel Elliott, Leonard Fournette, Reuben Foster (minus the off field stuff), Luke Keuchley, etc. are exceptions that you can make an argument for if they fall to you and fit the mold you're looking for.

[PrincetonTiger]

LB is a very important position but I could be partial

[Colts_Fan12]

In what world are LBs the least important position? 

[PrincetonTiger]

1 minute ago, Colts_Fan12 said:

In what world are LBs the least important position? 

Good question

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

I agree, but there are not many players in the league who can cover guys like Gronkowski.  Whether its a rangy LB, hybrid safety, etc.  Jimmy Graham on the Saints, same thing.  Those guys are exceptions to the rule.

 

The part I do agree with the OP on is that, assuming a good 2 gapping scheme, LBs are a bit devalued.  Take the Broncos ILBs in their super bowl year.  Neither of htem are really great, but they are good in coverage and their DL enabled them to roam free.  

 

So I wouldn't go so far as to call LBs a garbage position - they are in fact needed.  But I think they are the equivalent of an RB in the sense that their position is the most devalued of the other defensive players on the field with them.  I've always believed that you can find guys that fit your bill of an LB - with the elite ones being the exception - in Day 2 and 3 of the NFL draft.  Should you never use a 1st round pick on an RB or ILB?  That's a brightline rule that I can't really sign on.  But generally speaking, no, you shouldn't use 1st round picks on RBs and ILBs in most cases.  Obviously guys like Ezekiel Elliott, Leonard Fournette, Reuben Foster (minus the off field stuff), Luke Keuchley, etc. are exceptions that you can make an argument for if they fall to you and fit the mold you're looking for.

 

I think that's painting too broadly. I just heard that NFL defenses in are in sub personnel packages 67% of the time (true or not, we know that they're in sub way more often than they were a decade ago). Whether you 2 gap or not, you use sub packages to counter the different personnel packages that offenses are using.

 

And the most dangerous package is the one that features a versatile TE (assuming you have a good QB). 

 

A good ILB who can hold his own in both phases is not devalued in today's NFL. The downhill thumper who enforces in the running game is devalued. Any defensive player who can't take on or defeat blocks and who can't show up as a tackler is devalued. Any one dimensional player is devalued, to be honest.

 

A good, well rounded and functional ILB still has a much value as ever. Maybe more, as a matter of fact, because he makes your base defense less susceptible to offenses that feature TEs, and he makes your sub package less susceptible to offenses that run out of 3WR or split TE formations. Maybe that guy is rare, but that probably increases his value, if anything.

[aaron11]

ilb is pretty important

 

you cant just give up the middle of the field, or teams will take that all day. 

 

QBs like brady will pick you apart if you dont force them to make some tougher throws to the outside

[OffensivelyPC]

Just now, Superman said:

 

I think that's painting too broadly. I just heard that NFL defenses in are in sub personnel packages 67% of the time (true or not, we know that they're in sub way more often than they were a decade ago). Whether you 2 gap or not, you use sub packages to counter the different personnel packages that offenses are using.

 

And the most dangerous package is the one that features a versatile TE (assuming you have a good QB). 

 

A good ILB who can hold his own in both phases is not devalued in today's NFL. The downhill thumper who enforces in the running game is devalued. Any defensive player who can't take on or defeat blocks and who can't show up as a tackler is devalued. Any one dimensional player is devalued, to be honest.

 

A good, well rounded and functional ILB still has a much value as ever. Maybe more, as a matter of fact, because he makes your base defense less susceptible to offenses that feature TEs, and he makes your sub package less susceptible to offenses that run out of 3WR or split TE formations. Maybe that guy is rare, but that probably increases his value, if anything.

You make good points.  Those guys are rare as you say, and of course, I don't want to define a position based on the anomalies.  That said, while I make generalizations on LBs (and perhaps this is because it's been a long time since we've had really good inside backers), I have always thought that across the league, the vast majority of LBs do one thing really well and the other thing not so well - and I've assumed that in my original point.  Same with RBs, there's only a handful of guys in the league that can really do it all.  That's probably true with any position, but I've always thought it was more prevalent in off the ball backers.  There's nothing that I could point to in order to substantiate that claim, either, except the non-quantitative/non-qualitative arguemnt that, as it pertains to the Colts, we've taken 2 LBs since I've been a fan in the first round, and neither of them really amounted to much.  It's just something I've come to believe more and more since this has become a passing league.  

 

Maybe it's something as simple as the physics/biology required of football players.  You can either be quick to cover and able to be overpowered, or you can overpower but not quick enough to cover in today's gam.  The 1% can do both, but they have to be able to do the other things required of them like read and analyze correctly, etc.

 

 

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, Coltscrazy said:

I know many want to draft a LB in the first, but isn't LB the least important part of the defense?.  I'm an old two gap DE, and we always kept things clean for the little guys.  The line controls the line of scrimmage, the DBs handle the island, and the LBs just run free to the ball.  If you want coverage, play nickle, if you want pressure use stunts and overloads.  Maybe you little guys could chime in on why you need high round linebackers.

I could see how you feel that way after looking at who played LB for us last year lol. I'm JOKING guys don't ban me!! Honestly you can get away with more with a dominant front but in the end good offenses will exploit those weak lbs all day and kill you. I would say if you have a weakness on your offense I would rather it be at safety. I feel you can scheme to protect your safety more than any other position on your defense. Don't get me wrong I'd love to have strong positions all over but if I had to have a weakness mine would be on the back end. To me the closest players to the ball and line of scrimmage the more effect they have on the game (good or bad). LBs like others said get the calls in and get everyone lined up and they also can audible out there. They have to cover sideline to sideline...drop in coverage and obviously diagnose plays and come and make tackles. Very important to me and why I'd like to get a playmaker in the draft.

[Superman]

20 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

You make good points.  Those guys are rare as you say, and of course, I don't want to define a position based on the anomalies.  That said, while I make generalizations on LBs (and perhaps this is because it's been a long time since we've had really good inside backers), I have always thought that across the league, the vast majority of LBs do one thing really well and the other thing not so well - and I've assumed that in my original point.  Same with RBs, there's only a handful of guys in the league that can really do it all.  That's probably true with any position, but I've always thought it was more prevalent in off the ball backers.  There's nothing that I could point to in order to substantiate that claim, either, except the non-quantitative/non-qualitative arguemnt that, as it pertains to the Colts, we've taken 2 LBs since I've been a fan in the first round, and neither of them really amounted to much.  It's just something I've come to believe more and more since this has become a passing league.  

 

Maybe it's something as simple as the physics/biology required of football players.  You can either be quick to cover and able to be overpowered, or you can overpower but not quick enough to cover in today's gam.  The 1% can do both, but they have to be able to do the other things required of them like read and analyze correctly, etc.

 

How coincidental is it that, over the years the Colts haven't been very good at LB, and they also haven't been very good stopping the run or covering the middle of the field? Over that time, there have been several good ILBs taken in the first round. Ryan Shazier was the 15th pick, for instance.

 

Separating this from whether you should draft an ILB in the first round, I think good ILBs who can stay on the field definitely have a big impact on a defense. That's just part of the picture, of course. If you're terrible at DL, your ILBs will have a tougher time. 

 

There are other thoughts on this. But specific to OP, the idea that a good DL keeps ILBs clean is only considering the run game, and the bigger issue in today's NFL is the ability to cover, especially in the middle of the field where good QBs earn their living.

[Defjamz26]

38 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think that's painting too broadly. I just heard that NFL defenses in are in sub personnel packages 67% of the time (true or not, we know that they're in sub way more often than they were a decade ago). Whether you 2 gap or not, you use sub packages to counter the different personnel packages that offenses are using.

 

And the most dangerous package is the one that features a versatile TE (assuming you have a good QB). 

 

A good ILB who can hold his own in both phases is not devalued in today's NFL. The downhill thumper who enforces in the running game is devalued. Any defensive player who can't take on or defeat blocks and who can't show up as a tackler is devalued. Any one dimensional player is devalued, to be honest.

 

A good, well rounded and functional ILB still has a much value as ever. Maybe more, as a matter of fact, because he makes your base defense less susceptible to offenses that feature TEs, and he makes your sub package less susceptible to offenses that run out of 3WR or split TE formations. Maybe that guy is rare, but that probably increases his value, if anything.

Completely agree. And to add to your point, that is exactly the reason why a guy like Reddick has seen his stock rise. Mayock mentioned it during the combine. He's the "matchup" guy. He's the guy who can play in any package on any down and has the elite athleticism and cover skills to be able fire back at guys like Travis and Gronk. Not to say he'll come on and just shut those guys down day 1, but he's the answer to what NFL offenses are doing now. So ILB is actually MORE valued than ever with the rise of the TE in a passing league. If you don't have a Keuchly, Bucannon, Wagner, Collins, Deion Jones, etc... on your roster you'll be exploited by any team with a good TE and packages for him. That's why Foster (despite his red flags), Reddick, and Davis are all going to fly off the board on Thursday night. Elite coverage ability.

[Andrew Luck fan club]

The crazy threads continue. 

[OffensivelyPC]

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

How coincidental is it that, over the years the Colts haven't been very good at LB, and they also haven't been very good stopping the run or covering the middle of the field? Over that time, there have been several good ILBs taken in the first round. Ryan Shazier was the 15th pick, for instance.

 

Separating this from whether you should draft an ILB in the first round, I think good ILBs who can stay on the field definitely have a big impact on a defense. That's just part of the picture, of course. If you're terrible at DL, your ILBs will have a tougher time. 

 

There are other thoughts on this. But specific to OP, the idea that a good DL keeps ILBs clean is only considering the run game, and the bigger issue in today's NFL is the ability to cover, especially in the middle of the field where good QBs earn their living.

Yeah, we have been pretty bad at it - partially why I've started to become more open to us taking a guy like Foster at 15 - well at one point in time I was.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a guy that can do both.  I'd love to have impact players at every position, but we're nowhere near that...most teams aren't.  

 

It's hard to say whether you'd rather have a strong LB core over CB, S, OLB, DL, etc. And really, all that matters is how you keep infusing youthful talent everywhere on the roster, taking the best players you can in the draft.  Everything else is basically ranking importance of positions and someone has to be last.  I think off the ball LBs fall toward near the end because at the end of the day, without a strong front, LB and DBs don't matter - can't cover forever, can't take on multiple blockers to get the ball carrier.  You can have strong LBs, but what difference does it make if youstop the run and short passing game but give up the long ball with frequency?  I mean, as you say, i'ts an infinitely long conversation and there can't be a resolution unless you have a great defense - and even then, great defenses are short lived because of the cap.  So you have to devote your attention and resources over the course of time, generally speaking, to certain positions over others.  To me, that's defensive line, secondary, then linebackers - if I may put it very simplistically (since this is a conversation which, practically speaking, has no real end LOL)

[Malakai432]

Luke Kuechly is a huge part of Carolina's D.  Yeah he's a rare specimen, I know.  I think with Ballards recent addition, along with a solid drafting if they could even remotely find a solid ILB it would make a world of difference. 

 

I think even if the Colts had Freeman last year the D would've looked a bit better in my view.  Heck a player of even Freeman's caliber MAY have made the difference in one of those close games that they lost and even possibly propelled the Colts to the playoffs. 

[Coltscrazy]

Thanks for all the input.  It is obvious thumping linebackers are extremely devalued, but what I don't understand is why you can't find a coverage backer later in the draft?  What is so rare or special about a coverage backer?  Just grab some guy built like a strong safety, and put him in coverage.  Why does he have to weigh 245 if coverage is his primary responsibilty?  I'd almost consider the ILB to be a DB anyway.  It is great guys like Reddick can do it all, but don't you really mean he can cover Tight ends?

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, Coltscrazy said:

Thanks for all the input.  It is obvious thumping linebackers are extremely devalued, but what I don't understand is why you can't find a coverage backer later in the draft?  What is so rare or special about a coverage backer?  Just grab some guy built like a strong safety, and put him in coverage.  Why does he have to weigh 245 if coverage is his primary responsibilty?  I'd almost consider the ILB to be a DB anyway.  It is great guys like Reddick can do it all, but don't you really mean he can cover Tight ends?

 

"Coverage backer" is your term.

 

As I mentioned earlier, a backer who can't support the run is a liability.

[RockThatBlue]

No.

[Defjamz26]

1 hour ago, Coltscrazy said:

Thanks for all the input.  It is obvious thumping linebackers are extremely devalued, but what I don't understand is why you can't find a coverage backer later in the draft?  What is so rare or special about a coverage backer?  Just grab some guy built like a strong safety, and put him in coverage.  Why does he have to weigh 245 if coverage is his primary responsibilty?  I'd almost consider the ILB to be a DB anyway.  It is great guys like Reddick can do it all, but don't you really mean he can cover Tight ends?

Because being good in coverage requires the same type of skills that some DBs have. The same reason Tabor will fall because he only ran a 4.7 (slower than some ILBs) is the same reason a guy like Ben Gedeon won't go high.

 

It takes elite athleticism to be effective in coverage. Most LBs don't have that athleticism, and the one who do get drafted high. That's why you can't find those guys in the middle rounds. Most NFL LBs can't cover tbh. That's why coverage LBs are so sought after.

 

And to your last point, they do more than just cover TEs. They also cover RBs coming out of the backfield, and occasionally a slot receiver coming across the middle. So ideally a guy like Reddick would cover Rob Gronkowski, James White, and occasionally Julian Edelman. When you have a guy like Morrison, who can't cover any of the 3 guys mentioned you have to take him off the field which leads to you being exploited elsewhere because you have to either move someone around or are short on personnel in certain packages. If it's third and 6 and Morrison came off the field because he can't cover, so you move Green into the box then you have no deep help. Or if you think the ball is going to Gronk in the slot and you put Butler on him, you have a mismatch and likely easy 1st down completion for the opposing team. A true 3 down ILB is invaluable for defensive scheming.