Starting line up on opening day

I'm willing to suggest we'll be pass first this year. With Foster, we're kinda pass first. And if we don't have a good between-tackles runner, we're going to stay pass-first.

 

I hate it when you pretend like you're a moron who can't understand enough football to understand how stupid your opinion is, just because you have decided that you want to hold that opinion.

Our current linebackers:
Dan Morgan - misses multiple games every single year
Thomas Davis - hasn't yet started a game at LB in the NFL
Chris Draft - hasn't started at SLB in years and is already 30
Adam Seward - looks promising, but is only in his second year and hasn't proven anything
Vinny Ciurciu - special teams fodder
Sean Tufts - special teams fodder

Don't be an idiot and tell me that situation is acceptable. We don't have to take a LB in the first round, but we have to get one somewhere. Morgan will get injured, we don't know if Davis or Draft can hold down a starting job, and we're getting hyped on Seward when he only has 4 NFL tackles to his credit.

 

You stated you'd be fine with Seward starting. I didn't. But I'd be just as fine with Draft competing with Seward as I would Seward competing with, say, a 3rd round pick and Draft sitting only at MLB. Or a 3rd-4th round ILB behind Morgan. That's still a very good player and a great value. If Carpenter or Lawson is there, and one should be, but other things we need aren't there, then great. We're stocking a damn good D. Otherwise, we don't need to, just for the sake of doing it.

Also, you keep throwing up that Draft hasn't started at SLB in years. So? Starting at ILB in a 3-4 - same difference. Competing for SLB in preseason and not being moved to MLB until November suggests Fox is content with him at SLB, so if he ends up there, I'd expect him to compete for a start at the least.

I'm not ruling out LB in the first. I just don't find it the greatest need right now. Adding another LB is something I'd want to do, I just don't find it required that we spend the highest possible pick on one.

 

If you look at our D, our DL is solid and our corners are solid. Minter is pretty solid at safety. We have Morgan at MLB. That only leaves the two OLB positions and FS as possible holes. We have last year's first round pick to fill one hole. We have guys who are "adequate" for SLB and FS. That is not too bad if you only have two guys who are "adequate" out of eleven starters. If we can upgrade either position in the draft great but if not we will be OK.

One thing is for sure we will have a guy who is rated lower on our board when we draft this year as opposed to last year. If you are uncomfortable with Davis at WLB then why be any more comfortable with a guy picked lower than him this year at SLB?

 

As I've noted before, every time you realize you're getting your ass destroyed in an argument, you misrepresent what the other person has said. And what I actually said was: "I think he showed enough that he may get a shot, and I'd be cool with that as long as we have another option. I just don't want to assume he's going to be enough."

That is an extraordinarily stupid statement, especially coming from someone like you who should know better. 3-4 ILBs are generally small linebackers, not guys who would also be suited to play SLB. A few guys like Draft have done so, but it's uncommon because the physical skills required are completely different. If a LB does make the switch from a 4-3 LB to a 3-4 ILB, it's usually the middle or weakside guy.

And I never said that we had to go with a LB in the first, but pretending that our LB situation is ok is beyond moronic. Dan Morgan will miss time, while our other two potential starters are question marks and our only legitimate backup has all of 4 NFL tackles to his credit. We need more than that, whether it comes from the draft or from free agency.


Thelt:

The first sentence invalidates the second. I liked you better the one day you weren't stupid.

I'm not uncomfortable with Davis at WLB. I think he's going to be great, and certainly better than Witherspoon, but until he's actually done it then we don't know how he'll perform.

 

LMAO How are you handing my ass by disagreeing with me and blowing what I said out of proportion? I stated that we had enough to potentially start. I never said that we didn't need a player at all, and that a starting level player would be unwelcome. Not at all.

I'd say no worse than you're misrepresenting mine.
But yes, you did say "with another option". Luckily, at no point did I say "we should never under any possible circumstance acquire a linebacker." I did, in that same context, suggest Draft outside with Seward. Sounds like another option. I also talked about drafting an inside linebacker, whether or not we do something outside.

4-3 ILB are generally larger, and yet Draft is a guy you want to be inside. Which you're admitting.
But no, 3-4 ILB aren't generally that much smaller. It's not as if they have two 220 lb weakside guys inside. On a quick look, Cleveland ran a 240 and 250 lb pair, the Pats currently slot a 247 and 260, and the Steelers run a 245 and 240. Of any of those, only Farrior would I consider a weakside player in the past. I don't know that many 4-3 teams that are running a 260 lb inside linebacker, so I'm going to assume that the average MLB and the average 3-4 ILB are the same size. Yay semantics! This has nothing to do with Draft, though you're looking to dismiss (that's where you call me a fucking retard because we disagree a little bit) him as an SLB when the team had him there most of last year.

Which to me means that the team's fine with him at SLB. Doesn't mean they will, or must, use him there.

That's awesome, since I never said "we should under no circumstances draft or acquire a linebacker." Again. We need, at worst, depth. We need, at best, a starter. Just as we need a RB, just as we need a safety. Right now, I put the other two above LB and I know we can get a potential starter at any of the 3 without using a top 30 pick.

 

:1piss: Look, fellers, it's another discussion between Mag and Collin!!!!!

 

I appreciate the balance. You know that point counter point stuff....but jeebus can there be any longer beating a dead horse pissing contests on the internet then when they get fired up.

 

You said that linebacker wasn't a need. It quite obviously is when you have one guy who is constantly injured (Morgan), another guy who has only played a handful of games at SLB (Draft), another guy who hasn't played in the base 4-3 as a LB (Davis), and another guy who was a fifth round pick and has only 4 tackles to his name. Maybe if Morgan was the type of guy that would stay healthy we could get by with 4 (if we even have that many) quality linebackers, but he isn't, so we can't.

It's a nuisance to have to remind you of what you actually said, which was: "Draft hasn't started at SLB in years. So? Starting at ILB in a 3-4 - same difference." Guys like Morlon Greenwood have made the transition from weakside to 3-4 ILB, and yes, most of the guys who are MLBs in one will be ILBs in the other. The point was that 3-4 ILB most certainly does not equal 4-3 SLB. Few players have played both because they don't have similar responsibilities or require similar skills. Perhaps you're still thinking that 4-3 MLBs are bigger than 4-3 SLBs, as you did make that stupid statement long ago in the Thomas Davis debates, but I corrected you on that. Maybe you forgot.

Again, you said the SLB and the 3-4 ILB were identical.

 

even though I didn't, later restated that yes, I didn't, and then went on to telll you that I didn't.

One guy. Wow.

I didn't say they were equal. I said what I did because you seemed to be stating he's a MLB only, and shouldn't play SLB. You always want to excuse him from SLB without remembering that Fox had him there till November.


Rock on with the semantics, though, because you finally realized it was retarded to yell at me because I put a higher priority on a RB than on a LB.