Pat Angerer may not fit defense

[Coffeedrinker]

Im not saying those other ones are good, but you do not see the good LB's like Urlacher and Ray Lewis on that top list.

So in 2009 when Patrick Willis was #1 on that list and Lewis was #5 then that was an anomaly? Well for Willis he was in the top 5 for 2008, and 2007, so according to you Willis did not become a top LB UNTIL he stopped leading the NFL in tackles?

No, because all the top LB's on tackles was on bad teams last year. Redskins, Browns and Vikings.

Okay.

Good LB's help their team win...we didnt.

So, there cannot be a good LB on a bad team?

So what if he made those tackles because the rest of the team couldnt do anything.

But it's just Angerer's fault that the Colts didn't win.

If he is such a good LB he should be a play maker, but he isnt. He does not come up big when it matters, he isnt clutch.

Well that is a matter of opinion, one that I don't think has any basis in reality.

A blind squirrel will always find a nut in a Walnut forest.

Wow, a bad analogy that has nothing to do with football... good for you.

Thats exactly what he is. he cannot help but to get that many tackles because he had that many opportunities. But how many more did he miss, or failed to come up big when it mattered like in my playoff example.

Not many

he would have had the guy, but he fell on his face with noone around. And that was the drive that the Jets went on to get the TD that put them ahead.

Wow you have one example his rookie year on a play that I question whether it really happened. Do you have a picture or video of this play? I watched that Jets game about 3 times and I do not recall that play.

They would have only gained like 3 yards, but they gained a 1st down on that run. Ya, such a great LB we have in him.

I'm sure with a little effort I could find bonehead plays from every LB in the league, especially from their rookie seasons. Big deal. And According to Advanced NFL stats when you look at just about any category for LBers Angerer is one of the top, I think his lowest category is +WPA at 42.

[krunk]

..............The article sites "our sources around the NFL". That could be anybody. I doubt very much it was "some people within the organization". I stated the very same concern a couple of months ago that inside 3-4 linebackers generally are, or should be a little bit bigger and stronger than what the Colts now have. However, I also believe that Grigson and Pagano know alot more about football than I do, and they have alot at stake in putting together the best team they can. The worst that could happen is that the Colts will play alot more 4-3 defense if they see that the linebackers (including Freeney and Mathis) are struggling and not being used to their potential. The Colts still have a very good front seven if they want to play 4-3, in my opinion.

I agree with you here. I'm not too worried about angerer. Many times you can make up for a lack of size with strong technique and fundamentals.

[CopenhagenColt]

'Size isn't everything....sometimes it's about how you use it.' - Some girl I used to know trying to make me feel better about myself

I think i know that girl.. What are the odds!

[Andy]

You could say that about any player on this team excluding Redding, Tommy Z, and a couple others.

[Narcosys]

We are talking about this years stats. And unfortunately all the top 5 are from terrible teams, so i take that list with a grain of salt. That analogy fits perfectly. Let me break it down for you. Angerer (The blind squirrel) has a ton of opportunites (of getting a nut) because of the amount of missed plays by other members of the team (The walnut forest dropping the nuts). Eventually he's going to get one. Understand now? Not saying good ones cant be on bad teams, he just isn't as great as everyone seems to make him out to be IMO. You probably wouldnt recall that play because at about the same time he appears on the screen, he stumbles and falls out of the camera view. And every other LB in the league, does not play for the colts. Again, i just do not believe he is as great as people make him out to be.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

I like Angerger, but you are correct probably NOT in a 3/4 defense!

[Superman]

I like Angerger, but you are correct probably NOT in a 3/4 defense!

Based on what? I still haven't seen any actual criticism about his ability and how it would fit or not in the new defense (which, by the way, isn't a straight 3-4). The only criticism is that he's not the size people think he should be. Never mind that there are plenty of inside linebackers his size in 3-4 defenses around the league.

I think it's much ado about nothing. Maybe he won't be the best guy for the defense, and that's fine. But I don't understand what it is about him that people think won't fit.

[Quantum88]

When you don't know anything, you write "this player may have trouble in the new scheme." Well, we don't know how Mathis and Freeney will transition yet either so where is the angst over that. It makes as much sense to spend time and energy worrying about them as it does to worry about Angerer.

I would recommend that we all quit losing sleep over what some hack writer has to say about anything.

[Vinny BoomBatz]

I agree with many whom posted before me....you can pretty much say any returning defensive player from last year may not fit the new system.

[chad72]

Not to mention several college 4-3 LBs have made the transition to a 3-4 at the NFL level. Besides, that is the reason we are playing the hybrid and not the pure 3-4, so that we can maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses based on where the player excels.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Based on what? I still haven't seen any actual criticism about his ability and how it would fit or not in the new defense (which, by the way, isn't a straight 3-4). The only criticism is that he's not the size people think he should be. Never mind that there are plenty of inside linebackers his size in 3-4 defenses around the league.

I think it's much ado about nothing. Maybe he won't be the best guy for the defense, and that's fine. But I don't understand what it is about him that people think won't fit.

I think there is a legit reason to be concerned because he is lighter than a typical 3/4 inside LB Never at least in pro or college played a 3/4 defense. I think IMO Angerger is a more of a fineness LB more of a chase & tackle guy as opposed to a real THUMPER with size to challenge 300 pound guards on him. I like Angerger & hope the best, but on paper I see questions that won't be answered until at the very least pre season.

[Coffeedrinker]

We are talking about this years stats. And unfortunately all the top 5 are from terrible teams, so i take that list with a grain of salt.

Actually with the way you stated it you implied ever.

That analogy fits perfectly.

No, it's a bad analogy

Let me break it down for you. Angerer (The blind squirrel) has a ton of opportunites (of getting a nut) because of the amount of missed plays by other members of the team (The walnut forest dropping the nuts).

It's a bad analogy because none of what you stated is true. It's a bad analogy because an MIKE is supposed to make tackles, in many defenses he is supposed to lead his team in tackles, he did both of those things as well as any MIKE for the Colts in a long time. He showed he could make a lot of stops within 3 yards of the LOS. He showed he could cover well (only allowed 3 catches greater than 10 yards all season).

Eventually he's going to get one. Understand now?

I understood it before that is why I know it's a bad analogy.

You probably wouldnt recall that play because at about the same time he appears on the screen, he stumbles and falls out of the camera view.

That is what I thought, the play only happened in your mind.

And every other LB in the league, does not play for the colts.

What does that have to do with anything. You mention one play that didn't happen as your proof that Angerer is not very good and when it's pointed out that all LBers make some boneheaded plays your response is they don't play for the Colts? Grow up and try to make somse sense.

Again, i just do not believe he is as great as people make him out to be.

Good for you. Many of us will base our thoughts on reality rather than a play that never happened.

[Superman]

I think there is a legit reason to be concerned because he is lighter than a typical 3/4 inside LB Never at least in pro or college played a 3/4 defense. I think IMO Angerger is a more of a fineness LB more of a chase & tackle guy as opposed to a real THUMPER with size to challenge 300 pound guards on him. I like Angerger & hope the best, but on paper I see questions that won't be answered until at the very least pre season.

I think there are a lot of different ideas out there about what happens in a 3-4 defense. Size is always overstated and overrated, if you ask me. I think big, strong, athletic players are very important, but I don't think that there's anything wrong with Angerer's size. He's about the same size as Bart Scott, who has played in this kind of defense for a long time. The difference is that Scott played more of the Jack position in the Rex Ryan defense, taking on blockers, and Angerer is expected to be more of a roaming playmaker at the Will/Mike position in more of a hybrid defense. It incorporates some of Rex Ryan's stuff, some of Wade Phillip's stuff, some of Bill Parcells stuff, some of Romeo Crennel's stuff, etc. It's not a position that's expected to take on a lot of big blockers. I fail to see any reason why Angerer's size is an issue.

If you're asking him to take on 300 pound guards in the running game, yes, he's going to be overmatched. But the point of the defense is to keep the 300 pound guards off of the Mike linebacker so that he can make plays on the ball carrier. If Angerer is getting washed out by guards, the problem is with the defensive line, not him.

He's not a thumper. He's not an imposing tackler. I hesitate to say that he's not a good tackler, because 148 tackles in a season is evidence to the contrary. But he is much more of a dragdown tackler than a knockdown tackler, that's for sure. But he makes tackles. And the best part about him is that he just finished his second year in the league. He played weakside linebacker much of the time as a rookie, which is not what he's projected as, but he did a good job. And that's encouraging because of a lot of the WILL responsibilities in the Tampa 2 are similar to Angerer's ILB responsibilities in the Pagano Hybrid: roam and make plays. He spent last year as the centerpiece of the defense, making calls and leading his teammates, which is similar to the Bart Scott role. Chad72 posted a great link on this earlier. Here it is again:

http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2010/5/6/1460598/examining-lb-job-responsibilities

There are tons of questions about our defense moving forward, and it's fair to include Angerer among them. The pushback is against the overstated meme that he doesn't fit because he's too small. That's been proven to not be a very good analysis.

[OLD FAN MAN]

So in 2009 when Patrick Willis was #1 on that list and Lewis was #5 then that was an anomaly? Well for Willis he was in the top 5 for 2008, and 2007, so according to you Willis did not become a top LB UNTIL he stopped leading the NFL in tackles?

Okay.

So, there cannot be a good LB on a bad team?

But it's just Angerer's fault that the Colts didn't win.

Well that is a matter of opinion, one that I don't think has any basis in reality.

Wow, a bad analogy that has nothing to do with football... good for you.

Not many

Wow you have one example his rookie year on a play that I question whether it really happened. Do you have a picture or video of this play? I watched that Jets game about 3 times and I do not recall that play.

I'm sure with a little effort I could find bonehead plays from every LB in the league, especially from their rookie seasons. Big deal. And According to Advanced NFL stats when you look at just about any category for LBers Angerer is one of the top, I think his lowest category is +WPA at 42.

only stat that really matters , how many of his tackles were for losses and how many for gains. a good lb has more tackles for losses than for gains.

[GoColts8818]

Actually with the way you stated it you implied ever.

No, it's a bad analogy

It's a bad analogy because none of what you stated is true. It's a bad analogy because an MIKE is supposed to make tackles, in many defenses he is supposed to lead his team in tackles, he did both of those things as well as any MIKE for the Colts in a long time. He showed he could make a lot of stops within 3 yards of the LOS. He showed he could cover well (only allowed 3 catches greater than 10 yards all season).

I understood it before that is why I know it's a bad analogy.

That is what I thought, the play only happened in your mind.

What does that have to do with anything. You mention one play that didn't happen as your proof that Angerer is not very good and when it's pointed out that all LBers make some boneheaded plays your response is they don't play for the Colts? Grow up and try to make somse sense.

Good for you. Many of us will base our thoughts on reality rather than a play that never happened.

I am just building off this thought here rather the play happened or not we are still talking about judging a player based on one play. I remember Peyton throwing a pick six in the Super Bowl man we were such a better team last year when he wasn't out there to do that! Oh wait...

I know that's extreme but it get's at the bigger point you can't judge any player on one play alone rather it be good or bad. You have to look at the whole body of work and when you do that it's pretty clear Angerer as a whole has been impressive in his first two NFL seasons to the point where you would hope he is a guy we can build around. Is he going to be Ray Lewis? Probably not but you don't have to be Ray Lewis to be a good linebacker in the NFL.

[funktacious2]

Freeney and Mathis didn't exactly fit the ideal OLB, but I think we're going to do quite well with them because they're great athletes first and foremost. Angerer may end up following this same concept.

[GoColts8818]

Freeney and Mathis didn't exactly fit the ideal OLB, but I think we're going to do quite well with them because they're great athletes first and foremost. Angerer may end up following this same concept.

Again I think Angerer biggest strength is something that will never show up on his measurements (which is how "ideal" athletes are picked) and that's just a giant nose for he ball. He's always around it. When you are around it good things happen and often times that can make you a good player even if your size says you shouldn't be. Zach Thomas had an extremely nice career and he's a great example of a guy who didn't have great measurements but was just always around the ball making plays. I think that's what we are seeing from Angerer.

[Superman]

only stat that really matters , how many of his tackles were for losses and how many for gains. a good lb has more tackles for losses than for gains.

Please show me an inside linebacker (or any linebacker, or any defensive player at all) that has more tackles for loss than for gain.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcnorth/post/_/id/47590/ravens-terrell-suggs-by-the-numbers

18 -- Combined tackles for loss the past two seasons, which ranks fifth in the NFL.

According to that, Suggs', who has 138 tackles the last two seasons, has made about 13% of them behind the line of scrimmage. That's excellent, top five in the league. And he's a player that rushes a strong majority of the time.

All this is to say that it's absolutely unreasonable to say that a good linebacker has more tackles for loss than for gain.

[Gavin]

Suggs couldnt have played in 1139 defensive snaps because the Ravens only had 1133 total defensive snaps counting post season adding up the defensive snaps played combined for the post season and the defensive snaps for the regular season

[Narcosys]

Actually with the way you stated it you implied ever.

No, it's a bad analogy

It's a bad analogy because none of what you stated is true. It's a bad analogy because an MIKE is supposed to make tackles, in many defenses he is supposed to lead his team in tackles, he did both of those things as well as any MIKE for the Colts in a long time. He showed he could make a lot of stops within 3 yards of the LOS. He showed he could cover well (only allowed 3 catches greater than 10 yards all season).

I understood it before that is why I know it's a bad analogy.

That is what I thought, the play only happened in your mind.

What does that have to do with anything. You mention one play that didn't happen as your proof that Angerer is not very good and when it's pointed out that all LBers make some boneheaded plays your response is they don't play for the Colts? Grow up and try to make somse sense.

Good for you. Many of us will base our thoughts on reality rather than a play that never happened.

Ok man you win. If you say it didnt happen, it didnt. I saw it on a movie theater screen larger than any wall in your house, saw the replay of the play and who it was that fell on their face. But your right it didn't happen. Your right, i need to grow up and step out of this one, cause im not the one who is taking this thing personal and making personal attacks. Good job

[Superman]

Suggs couldnt have played in 1139 defensive snaps because the Ravens only had 1133 total defensive snaps counting post season adding up the defensive snaps played combined for the post season and the defensive snaps for the regular season

1) That's not the point.

2)

1,139 -- Snaps played by Suggs last season (including playoffs).

[Narcosys]

only stat that really matters , how many of his tackles were for losses and how many for gains. a good lb has more tackles for losses than for gains.

As for that, he had 9 for 20 yards. thats 6% of his tackles were for a loss. And half of his tackles were AST

[Superman]

As for that, he had 9 for 20 yards. thats 6% of his tackles were for a loss.

I'd just like to again highlight how ridiculous this is as a criteria for judging a middle linebacker in a Tampa 2 defense.

[Narcosys]

I am not stating if it is or isnt. Just posting his numbers for that stat like Pagano is the best, pointed out.

[FightLikeSin]

Freeney and Mathis didn't exactly fit the ideal OLB, but I think we're going to do quite well with them because they're great athletes first and foremost. Angerer may end up following this same concept.

actually, I did a sports medicine report on the average height and weight of NFL positions in college, both Mathis and Freeney are more to the tune of Linebackers than they are of Defensive Ends. Mathis more than Freeney... Angerer is just fine as an inside linebacker as well.

[DoomOf21]

only stat that really matters , how many of his tackles were for losses and how many for gains. a good lb has more tackles for losses than for gains.

You are just making things up here. According to this site: http://www.teamranki...ackles-for-loss The most tackles for loss amongst all players was 26. Brian Urlacher had 9 tackles for loss and 84 solo tackles. Lance briggs had 86 solo tackles and 9 for loss. Brian Cushing had 76 solo tackles and 9 tackles for a loss. And finally, Patrick Willis had 74 solo tackles and 8 tackles for loss.

Using your criteria, these linebackers a bad at their job. In fact they are pretty terrible at a roughly 1:9, TFL:Solo tackle ratio.

Tackles for loss are cool and all. I <3 it, but I don't <3 it that much.

I'd just like to again highlight how ridiculous this is as a criteria for judging a middle linebacker in a Tampa 2 defense.

It a pretty rediculous stat to judge any linebacker by.

[Gavin]

1) That's not the point.

2)

so its saying Suggs only played in 6 snaps in the playoffs? of course that wasnt the point he was making but his point is skewed based on his facts of snaps played being skewed

[mvbighead]

June was smaller then Angerer but NFL.com had him listed at 6'0 227 so not much smaller

Thing is, June's actual weight was always rumored to be lower than his listed weight. Angerer's has never been stated or suggested to be anything other than what was listed.

It's been awhile though, but I always remember Cato being mentioned as much closer to 210 than his listed weight. In any case, Pat is not much different than the guys I mentioned.

Heck, Pat Willis is 6'1 240. That is a whopping 5 lbs on Angerer's 235. Is anyone questioning whether that guy is too small for the position?

[JustAColtsFan]

Leading the league in tackles last year doesn't impress you at all? I can understand if you don't like him that much but anytime you lead the league in tackles you are doing something right even if you are getting them because others around you aren't.

Also why would you hope he doesn't fit? The only thing that suffers from him not fitting is the franchise and makes yet another hole the Colts have to go fill. Frankly we have enough of those. The Colts have had players in the past I might not have personally cared for but as long as they were Colts I hoped they were super stars because it meant the team benefited from it.

Agree with you completely. Narcosys apparently didn't check facts before spouting which usually leads to a mess LOL. I like Pat becasue he works his tail off and is a ball hawk. Of course I felt the same about Jamie Silva and where is he now Of course he didn't have the stats and was more injury prone.

[Superman]

so its saying Suggs only played in 6 snaps in the playoffs? of course that wasnt the point he was making but his point is skewed based on his facts of snaps played being skewed

No. Suggs didn't play every defensive snap in the regular season.

[KarlKuffs]

I think there is a legit reason to be concerned because he is lighter than a typical 3/4 inside LB Never at least in pro or college played a 3/4 defense. I think IMO Angerger is a more of a fineness LB more of a chase & tackle guy as opposed to a real THUMPER with size to challenge 300 pound guards on him. I like Angerger & hope the best, but on paper I see questions that won't be answered until at the very least pre season.

If only Angerer could be 5 pounds heavier. That would change everything.

[The Peytonator]

only stat that really matters , how many of his tackles were for losses and how many for gains. a good lb has more tackles for losses than for gains.

[Coffeedrinker]

only stat that really matters , how many of his tackles were for losses and how many for gains. a good lb has more tackles for losses than for gains.

There is not a LB in the history of the NFL that has had more tackles for a loss than tackles for a gain.

[Coffeedrinker]

Ok man you win. If you say it didnt happen, it didnt. I saw it on a movie theater screen larger than any wall in your house,

LOL WOW, I'm so impressed you must be like rich or something.

saw the replay of the play and who it was that fell on their face.

But how could that be if he was out of the screen as soon as he fell?

But your right it didn't happen.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and asked you to post a pic or video of it.

Your right, i need to grow up and step out of this one, cause im not the one who is taking this thing personal and making personal attacks.

One it's, "[y]ou're right," and yes I know I am right. As far as personal attacks, I don't think "grow up is a personal attack but if you think it is then I won't say it again.

Good job

It is always a good job when I don't have to make things up to try and make a point.