Projected team strength and weaknesses

I think pigeonholing players because of weight isn't a catch-all for where a player should play. Playing style's a big part of it, and to me, he fits what you'd want in a strongside guy. You don't agree - great. I think we've gotten that. I think he can, and I don't think it's some monstrous fuck-up to think so. So I'm not going to think it is.

Past that, I think the argument falls apart once considering that guys who are neither 6'4 nor 235 play MLB over the time span you're arguing, including one guy here who didn't suck all that much. To me, playing MLB is much more size intensive, considering the last quarter century's increased stressing of specialisation, and yet it doesn't fit either. Which leaves it back to opinion - sure, I wish Davis was bigger to play SLB. I don't find that weight alone causes him to go to WLB. If you'd made your case on him not separating from blocks, then you'd not be spending all this time arguing semantics, and I'd agree with you on that point. This happened, you just wanted to push the semantics.

And as to the point of separation from blocks, I'd have a hard time arguing that the other two do a good job of it at all, either, and I think Davis can fill a hole better than either. Maybe Morgan would be better at it on the strong side (rationale - less want to cover the whole field, more realization that he's got a gap he need not surrender), but I don't see that as an option the team would explore.

I don't find him "much better" at WLB, though. It's the quick way, the easy way, and sure, maybe he can be that Derrick Brooks. One concern I had of WW was that he's not a playmaker, and Davis could give us that. I just see him much like Fields, the ultra-athletic guy who might have to sit for years at WLB playing somewhat underwhelmingly and then fitting more naturally at SLB.

Either way, I don't see the egregious mistake here, and there's certainly nothing to get mad about - other than calling you a dick for the Fowler thing, I've taken a lot more than I've dished. I'm not saying "he's only a SLB", "he can't play WLB", or anything. Honestly, if Fox wanted to stick him in FS and make him play only zone, he could probably get Davis to succeed at it. The guy can do some good things with raw talent, and I'd prefer him not to get pigeonholed as "only this" or "only that". That's the extent of what I'm saying. It's just disagreement - if it bothers you, get over it or ignore it. I don't see the crime, and I'm certainly not attempting belligerency.

Maybe microcosm?

 

No, you don't just look at weight alone and decide where a player will line up, but there is also no denying that a player's weight has a great deal to do with where he plays. Being 270 pounds wouldn't be the only reason you'd think of moving a college DT to DE, as he'd also need to have the skills and feel for it, but at the same time you couldn't escape the fact that his weight would be too light for DT and thus be something of a liability. Similarly, when a WR hits 235-240, people start talking about him as a tight end. The weight is really just symptomatic of a greater issue. 225 isn't some arbitrary barrier like the ride height at Carowinds, but it does suggest that the player will be too small to engage and hold blockers.

Except that you're wrong. In most schemes MLBs are shielded. SLBs are not. The average weight of middle linebackers in the NFL is greater than the average weight of weakside linebackers, but less than the average weight of strongside linebackers.

#1) I have shown repeatedly that it is INCREDIBLY RARE for someone Davis' size to play SLB. That is significant. It means something.

#2) I have given plenty of reasons BESIDES WEIGHT for Davis not to play SLB. I talked about his weak upper body, I talked about how SLB doesn't use his ranginess, and after correcting you when you wrongly said that teams usually line up their playmakers at SLB, I pointed out that playmakers are almost always used at WLB because that's where they have the greatest chance to utilize their talents. I gave all those reasons for Davis being a bad fit at SLB, size is just the one receiving the greatest amount of attention.

They don't, although Short has in the past. The thing I'm pointing out is that while Davis, Morgan, and Witherspoon aren't ideal at engaging and holding, having Davis do so negates his playmaking abilities. If you have Davis engaging the tight end, he's obviously not going to be ranging for tackles. If you have him holding up linemen, he's obviously not going to be knifing through to destroy the ballcarrier. Not only does Davis not have the skills you want from an SLB (I agree that Witherspoon and Morgan don't either), but playing him there wastes the abilities he does have.

How much does Fields weigh? Which one is stronger? Davis has almost nothing in common with Fields besides speed. Fields is bigger, and more capable of engaging offensive players.

Oh, I agree. I'm not mad because you're being rude or anything like that. I'm mad because you're saying some very dumb things, and there's no reason for it. It's like a supermodel wearing sweats. I'm mad because you said Davis isn't like Derrick Brooks when Fox and RIcht say he is. I'm mad because you said that teams use their playmakers at SLB when it's obvious that they rarely use them at SLB and almost always use them at WLB. I'm mad because you keep pretending that size doesn't matter in SLB vs. WLB when it does. I'm fine with saying that size isn't everything, but don't pretend that it isn't a big deal. It is, and the league attributes show that beyond the slightest shadow of the smallest doubt.

In that case why not say he could play MLB? How about corner? How about defensive tackle? Don't be ridiculous, of course there are limitations on where a guy can play. I'm not even pigeon-holing Davis to either WLB or SS. I think he could play either, although I'd rather see him at WLB. What I'm stating is the blindingly obvious fact that there is a significant amount of difference between the skills and body types necessary between WLB and SLB.

 

Oh see now you are swerving your car into pedestrians...that's not right.

 

SLBs do a ton more than that. No, I don't think that he'd be so easily negated by doing that.
Might he, by a pulling guard? Sure. That's not how a SLB should play the sweep, but that he'd have to jam a TE, that it'd disrupt his game? No. If it were that damned easy you'd just put a blocking TE out there on the weakside and fuck him up every game. If that were such a weakness, you'd have seen it on tape with him at SLB.

And I don't think he would make that few plays at SLB comparatively. He did fine there in college, and that's not a guarantee of success, but I think he could still crash the strong side and disrupt the run over there. I do find him a fine match on the TE overall on coverage, sure.

Easy. Because it takes an entirely different type of player to play MLB in a one gap scheme than an outside. I don't find the differences between SLB and WLB to necessarily be such a stretch that the guy can't. Sure, he can't shed, nor can our others. That's the biggest thing, and it certainly hasn't stopped our other two starters from being decent, and they can't fill a hole like Davis can.

Bah. It'd be really great if you had more to say than to call what I'm saying "ridiculous". It's a matter of opinion, and you oughta be able to handle that. What I'm saying isn't ridiculous.

To edit - I'm gonna get out before I make Collin's head bust. I don't see what the horrid crime against nature is here, but to each his own.

 

Yeah, the idea behind that was to turn the focus to his ability as a player, not just his size. The fact is that you have no idea what position he'll end up playing, nor do I. He's said safety is a more comfortable, which is where I think he'll end up anyway.

As far as that stat, while meaningful, doesn't blow my argument to hell. It's not going to determine where Fox wants to play him, as we would also need to take into account the scheme and/or players in front of him. For instance, if they want to play him stacked, the strongside can work. If not, weakside or safety is the ideal spot. So I guess that, unless you're a coach, it's all speculation, which is why you shouldn't beat me to hell over my own opinion.

No, they don't always have to be bigger. But they almost always are. And why is that? Do you even understand what the differences are between a strongside and weakside linebacker? I've only explained it a million times in this thread

SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!!! Stop talking to people as though you invented the great game of football. This is insulting to me and to eveyone else who understands the game. Yes, there is a general difference in size, fundimentals, and assignments. It's common sense. That's never really been the argument. We've been complaining over weight, not the nuances of the positions. Perhaps if you didn't lambast me over a few pounds I could shed better light on where I think he can play vs. where I think he should play. He should be a safety, he can play either outside LB spot. That's it. I hope I've cleared this up for you, but feel free to rant.

 

I beg to differ. Engaging is the strongside linebacker's #1 priority. That's why they're so much bigger on average than weakside linebackers. I mean the name is a dead giveaway. Why do they call it strongside linebacker? Because you're lining up on the strongside of the offensive formation. What does strongside of the formation mean? Where the tight end is. And for the record, two tight end sets do tend to have more success running at the guy who would traditionally be considered weakside because they are exploiting something he isn't particularly experienced at or suited to.

It's just a general truth of WLB vs. SLB at the NFL level. SLBs have far fewer tackles than WLBs. The difference is even greater than the weight difference we've been going over. Because a primary responsibility of strongside linebackers is to engage blockers, they don't get to make plays as much. Sure, you can blitz them and I know you've talked about that, but you can do so just as easily from the weak side.

In coverage, yes, which is why I'm fine with him at SS. Jamming, however? No. We've noted Davis' weak upper body strength. He's just not suited for engaging.

Bingo, champ. The responsibilities and skills are different, just as they are between SLB and WLB.

When you say "fill a hole" you're talking about meeting the ball carrier in the hole, which is what weakside or middle linebackers do. Strongside linebackers are already engaged before the runner hits the hole, so to make the tackle they have to hold and shed. That's clearly not playing to Davis' strengths, but rather playing to his weaknesses.

Yes, it is.

#1) You said that John Fox and Mark Richt aren't correct about Thomas Davis being like Derrick Brooks. That's ridiculous.

#2) You said that teams put their playmakers at SLB more than WLB. That's ridiculous.

#3) You said that weight isn't important. That's ridiculous.


Heck, you still haven't given one single reason why Davis should play SLB. You said you "feel" he would be better there, and have made some vague allusions to Mark Fields, but you haven't explained anything at all about those possibilities. I've talked about how it would neutralize his range and playmaking while exacerbating his lack of strength, but I see no rebuttal.


Black&Blue:

Actually I do. I've been pointing out all along that Fox has been comparing him to weakside linebackers and strong safeties. I've pointed out that people who can play strong safety aren't also considered possibilities at strongside linebacker. I've also pointed out that he's still listed at strong safety despite the obvious hole left by Mark Fields' absence. So yes, I do know.

Well, yes, I'm afraid it does. When players as small as Davis at SLB are incredibly rare, and when it's incredibly rare for a team to have a bigger player at WLB than SLB, those are very significant facts. I think the whole "one in four billion" thing pretty much shut you down for all eternity. But like the Black Knight in Holy Grail, you're trying to bleed on me.

When you start acting like you have any football knowledge, I'll stop acting like you don't. Until then, I'm just not the type of person to tip-toe around someone's ignorance. When you say something ridiculous like "The whole size thing doesn't have much to stand on," I'm going to show how absurd and wrong that is.

Dude, my dismissiveness is not stopping you from doing anything. If you had any ability to explain your reasoning you would have done so by now. Hell, if you had any ability to deny my reasoning you would have done that too. Instead you can't do either, so you're left with ... what exactly?

 

ugh. Sorry for going back on, but apparently it's a lack of communication that's "ridiculous".

1 - no. I said that them calling him "derrick Brooks" isn't an indictment of his negatives, as you're using it, it was (as you'd expect) a compliment. Let me know when Fox says he's not going to be able to play SLB, or that he's "only a WLB", and then you've got more than just being dismissive. Till then, you don't.

2 - no, I didn't. I said Davis could make plays at SLB, that putting him there wouldn't negate his abilities.

3 - I think weight's important. I just don't think that putting a cap on weight and expecting all players above "x" or below "x" must play one linebacker spot. That's the pigeonholing I've been talking about.

As for the rest, didn't read it. Sorry you don't like my points, good luck getting over it, but at the most you've merely shown that Davis is limited at certain things at any position. Just as, well, any player is.

 

#1) Did you or did you not say "And yet he's not that Brooks-type player"?

Don't try to change the subject. This is separate from whether or not Davis can play SLB. John Fox and Mark Richt both said that Thomas Davis is like Derrick Brooks. You said that they're wrong. You saying that John Fox and Mark Richt are both wrong while you're correct is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. As Black&Blue has so kindly pointed out, I've made several mistakes in this thread, but I've owned up to them. That's how I can move on and get to my larger point, but you get stuck because you just can't admit when you're so obviously wrong.


#2) Dude, don't lie when the evidence is right there for anyone to see. You said "Teams tend to put players who make major impact behind the LOS, IMO, at strongside, moreso than contain players of weakside."

I gave you a whole list of weakside players proving that the opposite is true, that teams almost always have playmaking linebackers at weakside and not strongside. What you said was ridiculous.


#3) We're not talking about minor amounts of weight. A 225 pound linebacker is roughly equivalent to a 275 pound defensive lineman. It is indeed possible that they could be used at multiple positions, but because of their weight, it's highly problematic. You've been suggested that it isn't a big deal, but it is.

It's not that I didn't like them. I'd have to see some before I could like or dislike them. I mean saying that they exist without pointing out where they are is an easy way to get away with not having any, but it's rather transparent.

 

>>You said that they're wrong.

I said you're wrong. I don't feel that Fox and Richt's intent was to say "he can't play SLB." Their intent was to call him a playmaking OLB, not infer tons of weaknesses.

Since Fox hasn't ruled it out, but instead has talked about playing "multiple positions", as well as there being an incumbent WLB but not SLB, I think it's safe to say that Davis will probably get a shot out there first. The funniest thing out of all this is the simple idea of using basic thoughts to stereotype a complex player. Davis just isn't as simple as open-and-shut "well he's this weight, or this fast, so he needs to go here."

The closest thing I can come up with for an actual prototype is Seth Joyner. Who played SLB.

 

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE CAN PLAY SLB RIGHT NOW. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS LIKE DERRICK BROOKS. JOHN FOX AND MARK RICHT SAY HE IS, BUT YOU SAY THAT THEY'RE WRONG. THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

This is just like the quintessential example of what's wrong with you. I couldn't have a more open and shut case than to have John Fox and Mark Richt say that Thomas Davis is like Derrick Brooks, and you can't admit that you're wrong about him not being like Derrick Brooks. This is exactly your problem. Exactly. It's lit up in neon lights and is the perfect definition of your stubborn refusal to correct yourself.