37 replies to this topic

[AllHailDawk]

I was thinking about how much I can fault the Eagles for failing to value the LB position over the years, and realized that in our defense, I would likely value the LBs behind other positions as well.  Dont get me wrong- I want 2 of our first 3 picks to be LBs, as I've stated, but here's my question:

If you had to make a defense out of 2 Studs, 2 above average players, 3 Average, 2 below average and 2 terrible players, where would you put them?

I'd do something like this:

Studs:  DE, CB

Above Average:  DT, DE

Average:  CB, S, DT

Below Average: LB, S

Terrible:  LB, LB

Just food for thought on how you'd prioritize the positions

[WillHolden]

Yeah then your Defense would sux or be soft up the middle all the way down the feild....Mmmmmm......where have I seen that? Oh yeah that joke of a Defense the Eagles have...LMAO.......

[AllHailDawk]

WillHolden, on 19 March 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Yeah then your Defense would sux or be soft up the middle all the way down the feild....Mmmmmm......where have I seen that? Oh yeah that joke of a Defense the Eagles have...LMAO.......

So you'd put the studs in the middle and get killed on the outside?  I guess that's the question, which alignment would be stronger in today's NFL.

[MCoster]

RE, #1CB, MLB, DT, S, #2CB, LE, DT, OLB, S, OLB in order of importance for any defense.

[eagledrew13]

The reality is the LBs are highly overlooked for a 4-3 defense. This is quite obvious when you look at the first round of the draft. Since 2001 14 LBs were drafted in the first round by 4-3 teams. Of those 14: 4 were chosen by John Fox, 3 are out of the league, 8 haven't reached a pro bowl, and 4 have played for multiple teams. In comparison 18 3-4 LBs were chosen, 86 defensive linemen and 58 defensive backs.

[PolkaDotPants]

Football games are won in the trenches.

[birdman#12]

Yet, linebacker has won more defensive player of the year awards than any other defensive position....

The team that has won the most super bowls, highly values linebackers.....

The eagles lost their last super bowl because belichick abused the linebackers in the 2nd half......


Who would I take?......a stud middle linebacker before anything else.....and then build pieces around him....

[Solomon]

DT,DE and CB are my top positions. Then S and then LB.

[dmacfan]

I agree w/ your list AllhailDawk? sounds about right so via FA & Draft let's pray & hope Eagles FO address both Safety & LB

[eagledrew13]

Ask the Panthers what drafting a "stud" MIKE and building a defense around him does to the overall defense?

[Pallidrone]

Solomon, on 19 March 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

DT,DE and CB are my top positions. Then S and then LB.

That is how I would put it as well.

DT and DE are probably the most important part of any defense. If you can get to the QB quickly, then it causes the QB to make mistakes as well as shorten the WR patterns. They can also clog up the running lanes and forced a runner to run east-west instead of north-south.

CB is next in line because they need to be able to cover the WR when the line can not get there and make game changing plays. A team is more likely to get an interception then it is to force a fumble AND recover it.

Then Safety because they can play both the WR as well as line up close to the line to help with the run game.

LB is last, because they are really there to help with stop the run game and cover the underneath patterns.

[NWMontana]

CB    DT  DE  S  LB

[RUEagle]

1DT, RE, 1CB, MLB, 2DT, LE, 2CB, FS, SLB, SS, WLB...that's how I'd rank them.

[NOTW]

Given your parameters I tend to agree with you.  However, why have 2 "terrible" players at all?  I would think the WORST you'd want are below average at a couple spots.  Shouldn't "terrible" players be cut and replaced with at least average ones?

We all know that since getting pressure on the QB is the main goal of any NFL defense, DE and CB are top priorities.

After that, I'd say you need one solid player each at DT, either safety and one above average/great LB.  The rest should be quality players that are not liabilities and work well within the scheme.

What they have now are great DEs, one great DT and a couple quality DTs so the line is in great shape.  They have 3 very good/great CBs and one decent safety but let's face it the other team ain't afraid of Nate Allen.

Then you have absolute crap at SS and most of the LBs.

You need someone of quality at LB.  Not to mention, MLB calls the plays and audibles and is supposedly the QB of the defense.

[mikekafka]

I'm assuming the stud DE is Trent Cole...

[JamesJ]

Place these 11 players in positions....This is not the Kama Sutra

[biglou22]

AllHailDawk, on 19 March 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I was thinking about how much I can fault the Eagles for failing to value the LB position over the years, and realized that in our defense, I would likely value the LBs behind other positions as well.  Dont get me wrong- I want 2 of our first 3 picks to be LBs, as I've stated, but here's my question:

If you had to make a defense out of 2 Studs, 2 above average players, 3 Average, 2 below average and 2 terrible players, where would you put them?

I'd do something like this:

Studs:  DE, CB

Above Average:  DT, DE

Average:  CB, S, DT

Below Average: LB, S

Terrible:  LB, LB

Just food for thought on how you'd prioritize the positions

I think anyone that follows the NFL understands that 4-3 LBs are absolutely the least important piece to that defense.
It's just the way the NFL HAS BEEN evolving for the last 5-7 years.
I also think it is obvious that as time goes on they wil become almost a thing of the past.
Lets face it, your typical 4-3 MLB matches up to no offensive player in the current NFL.
They are to slow for slot recievers.
Not athletic enough to keep up with TEs.
And watching them try to stay with RBs is comical.
Add to that the quickness and/or power of current RBs, and basically 4-3 inside backers are basically a liability.

With that said, here is my list.

1 - RDE
2 - LCB
3 - LDT
4 - RDT
5 - RCB
6 - LDE
7 - SS
8 - SAM
9 - FS
10 - WIL
11 - MLB

[AllHailDawk]

biglou22, on 19 March 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

I think anyone that follows the NFL understands that 4-3 LBs are absolutely the least important piece to that defense.
It's just the way the NFL HAS BEEN evolving for the last 5-7 years.
I also think it is obvious that as time goes on they wil become almost a thing of the past.
Lets face it, your typical 4-3 MLB matches up to no offensive player in the current NFL.
They are to slow for slot recievers.
Not athletic enough to keep up with TEs.
And watching them try to stay with RBs is comical.
Add to that the quickness and/or power of current RBs, and basically 4-3 inside backers are basically a liability.

With the exception of the elite guys.  Patrick Willis will have a place in ANY NFL.

[-Triumph-]

Well if 2 of your defenders are "below average" and 2 of them are "terrible" there's your problem right there.

[biglou22]

AllHailDawk, on 19 March 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

With the exception of the elite guys.  Patrick Willis will have a place in ANY NFL.

Hell, half the guys fans consider ELITE aren'. Whether they play in a 4-3 or a 3-4.
Look at a player like Matthews. Yes he can sure get the sacks. But he is a massive liability against the run and on the occasions he drops into some sort of coverage it's almost embarrassing.
There is a reason why players like Ray Lewis and Brian Urlacher of HOF players..... They are rare.

[E-A-G-L-E-S_EAGLES!]

It's a bad defense no matter how you slice it.  You have over a 1/3rd of your defense is below average, including 2 worthless players.  The offense dictates where the ball goes, so you are really only as good as your weakest link.  You can try to hide it by having a really good safety over a below average corner, or a weak DT surrounded by a great DE and DT combo.  But to put 3 weak guys all aroud the same area of the field.   Well any competent offensive coordinator can beat that, as made evident by this year.

I'm not saying you need 11 studs;  that's unrealistic and not really practical with the salary cap.

But to have a 3rd of the defense consisting of bad players, when you are a big market who can attract free agents easily- it just shows poor drafting, or a lack of emphasis toward that position in the draft.


And for what it's worth, the Eagles rank their defense in matter of importance as followed:

1) DE
2) CB
3)DE
4)DT
5)CB
6)DE
7) CB
8)DT
9)CB
10)S
11)DE
12)S
13)DT
14)DE
15)CB
16)DT
17)DE
18)LB
19)LB
20)LB

[E-A-G-L-E-S_EAGLES!]

Also, it depends on the style of defense you want to run.  For the wide 9, it puts a lot of stress on pretty much the entire defense, particuarly the LBs.  If you want to run it effectively, you need good linebackers.  If you want to have have 4 bad players on the team, stick to a vanilla cover 2 bend but don't break.

[biglou22]

eagledrew13, on 19 March 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Ask the Panthers what drafting a "stud" MIKE and building a defense around him does to the overall defense?

And the Bears.

They have been trying to build around Urlacher for 12 years and for the most part have completely failed.
I'm not sure fans understand how bad the Bears have been since 2000.
Over those 12 years they have,,,,,,
-only had 5 winning seasons
-have only gone to the playoffs 4 times (and lost in the 1st rd 2x)
-have only had 4 years with a top 12 defense or better.
-their defense has finished in the bottom half in 6 of the 12 years / 16th /16th / 20th / 21st / 22nd / 25th

[birdman#12]

eagledrew13, on 19 March 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Ask the Panthers what drafting a "stud" MIKE and building a defense around him does to the overall defense?

Don't be so f----- narrow minded......no one player is going to change much of anything.  You still have to add talent around the guy....just like a QB is worth sh-- unless you can block for him.....as bradford.

The question basically was "where do you start"?   If you draft a stud and then put sh-- around him, he'll make the pro bowl on a lousy defense.....

[selassieyouth]

biglou22, on 19 March 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

And the Bears.

They have been trying to build around Urlacher for 12 years and for the most part have completely failed.
I'm not sure fans understand how bad the Bears have been since 2000.
Over those 12 years they have,,,,,,
-only had 5 winning seasons
-have only gone to the playoffs 4 times (and lost in the 1st rd 2x)
-have only had 4 years with a top 12 defense or better.
-their defense has finished in the bottom half in 6 of the 12 years / 16th /16th / 20th / 21st / 22nd / 25th

And yet they are nearly always good enough to give The Eagles a yearly beating

[ilikepargo]

-Triumph-, on 19 March 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

Well if 2 of your defenders are "below average" and 2 of them are "terrible" there's your problem right there.

This.

If my roster looked like your list, the first thing I'd do is replace the entire scouting/player evaluation staff.

[allphilly]

birdman#12, on 19 March 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

Yet, linebacker has won more defensive player of the year awards than any other defensive position....

The team that has won the most super bowls, highly values linebackers.....

The eagles lost their last super bowl because belichick abused the linebackers in the 2nd half......


Who would I take?......a stud middle linebacker before anything else.....and then build pieces around him....

Wrong, not value them higher, they get lucky and their 3rd and 4th round draft picks pan out.

The Eagles value the lb position, just not as much a D lineman and D backs, just like every other freekin nfl team

[biglou22]

selassieyouth, on 19 March 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

And yet they are nearly always good enough to give The Eagles a yearly beating

How true. I guess their recent success against the Eagles is payback for the beatings the Eagles gave them early on.
Very odd how the series has gone.

2000 - won 13-9
2001 - won 33-19
2002 - won 19-3
2004 - won 19-9
2007 - lost 19-16
2008 - lost 24-20
2009 - won 24-20
2010 - lost 31-26
2011 - lost 30-24

[GoEagles614]

biglou22, on 19 March 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

And the Bears.

They have been trying to build around Urlacher for 12 years and for the most part have completely failed.
I'm not sure fans understand how bad the Bears have been since 2000.
Over those 12 years they have,,,,,,
-only had 5 winning seasons
-have only gone to the playoffs 4 times (and lost in the 1st rd 2x)
-have only had 4 years with a top 12 defense or better.
-their defense has finished in the bottom half in 6 of the 12 years / 16th /16th / 20th / 21st / 22nd / 25th

A lot of the bears problems have been offensively as well though. . .

50% in a more than a decade of top 15 defenses isnt bad either. . . also I think you'd admit that the Bears run D was a stingy run D team, and shut down the middle.

[GoEagles614]

I think the best team goes like this (defensively in a 43)

DE
DT
CB
DE
CB
LB
DT
S
LB
S
LB