Mark Kiszla: Broncos can fix dents in their defense with 3-4 alignment

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The Broncos' defense is fundamentally and fatally flawed. The good news: It can be fixed, if coach John Fox is willing to think outside the box.

To play to the strength of Denver's personnel, the base defense for the Broncos should be a three-man front with four linebackers, allowing Elvis Dumervil and Von Miller room to operate and create chaos from the perimeter.

What has Denver got to lose?

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_21359025/mark-kiszla-broncos-can-fix-dents-their-defense

[LTC Pain]

Kiszla doesnt the difference between his ass and a hole in regard to football (or any sport). He needs to keep writing about the zoo or basket weaving or some other crap that's at his level.

[topscribe]

This article is a perfect example as to why Kiszla is a subpar analyst. The
Broncos lack a true 3-4 NG, and the LB corps is woefully thin in talent. Plus,
the defense was very recently ranked #32 in the league as a 3-4 unit. That,
and Fox and Del Rio, who have forgotten more than Kiszla ever knew about
defense, see it as a 4-3.
.

[Ravage!!!]

How on earth does Kisla get the idea that he has a effing clue what he's talking about? " what do they have to lose".... ugh

[Tned]

I loved Fox's response when asked about Kiszla's article:



RT @dmac1043: After practice fox was asked about kiz's column about running a 3/4 and jokingly replied "who Wrote that, Vince lombardi?" he went on to say they know what they are doing and have a lot of defensive experience.

[Thnikkaman]

Carol, I'm sorry, but you must take a lap for linking a Kiszla article. Rules are rules.

[dogfish]

brilliant. . . we have no legit nosetackle, one competent five-tech (plus vick has some experience there), and we're going to struggle to put one good ILB on the field-- let alone two. . . but hey, we have the OLBs!

:lol::lol:


kiszla is hands down, no contest, THE dumbest "sports writer" whose work i have ever had the displeasure to peruse-- that includes both print, television and the internets. . . he's even dumber than skip bayless, and how the hell do you pull that off? it's flat-out embarrassing that our local rag continues to employ the azzclown. . .

[Thnikkaman]

brilliant. . . we have no legit nosetackle, one competent five-tech (plus vick has some experience there), and we're going to struggle to put one good ILB on the field-- let alone two. . . but hey, we have the OLBs!

:lol::lol:


kiszla is hands down, no contest, THE dumbest "sports writer" whose work i have ever had the displeasure to peruse-- that includes both print, television and the internets. . . he's even dumber than skip bayless, and how the hell do you pull that off? it's flat-out embarrassing that our local rag continues to employ the azzclown. . .

He is hoping to get a job with ESPN.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Lindsay Jones ‏@PostBroncos

Fox's response to @markkiszla's column on 3-4 D exactly as we predicted: "Did Vince Lombardi come back and write that?" @PeterBurnsRadio

[MOtorboat]

I thought I some three man fronts against Seattle...maybe not...

[G_Money]

So unbelievably stupid. We have a fairly smart sports culture here - why are we subjected to this constant idiocy? I thought with the decline of print news that we'd weed out the worthlessly inept, but they seem to have some form of moron-based tenure.

So sad...

~G

[rationalfan]

A couple things:

- uh, didn't Ty warren play NT in new England?
- i seem to remember a board member proposing a similar shift in scheme. That idea wasnt judged as harshly. Leads me to believe, haters gonna hate on kiz (he ain't that bad).

[dogfish]

A couple things:

- uh, didn't Ty warren play NT in new England?

no. . . he played five-technique-- wilfork has been their nose for years. . .

[rationalfan]

A couple things:

- uh, didn't Ty warren play NT in new England?

no. . . he played five-technique-- wilfork has been their nose for years. . .

Ah, yes. I forgot about wilfork. Thanks.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

I thought I some three man fronts against Seattle...maybe not...

We did throw in a few 3 man fronts but they aren't a pure 3 man front. In our "NASCAR" defense this preseason, Miller normally moves down to LDE opposite Doom and Wolfe has been kicking inside to 3 technique (where Ayers played last year) and Unrein has been getting snaps at the 0 or 1 technique spot. The thing is, Von often stands up at the LDE spot instead of just being in a traditional 3 point stance so it gives the appearance of a 3 man front, but it's really just a nickle package (4 man front, 2 LBs, 5 DBs) with the LDE standing up. I guess you could call it a 3-3-5 because Miller is a LB and is standing up, but he's purely rushing off the edge from the DE spot in that formation.

[Simple Jaded]

I thought I some three man fronts against Seattle...maybe not...

I was just thinking that, I remember quite a bit of 3-4. The obvious problem is no legit NT, and while Denver's best players fit better in a 34 Denver is even more thin at LB than they are at DL. So Kizla would have Denver run a D that calls for more LB's.

Denver is going to have to keep adding to the D to get where they wanna go, so if they're gonna add players to the D they might as well add players that fit the scheme they wanna run.......

[Joel]

This article is a perfect example as to way Kiszla is a subpar analyst. The
Broncos lack a true 3-4 NG, and the LB corps is woefully thin in talent. Plus,
the defense was very recently ranked #32 in the league as a 3-4 unit. That,
and Fox and Del Rio, who have forgotten more than Kiszla ever knew about
defense, see it as a 4-3.
.
My first reaction to the headline was "when did we get a dominant NT?" I know many think our DT rotation much improved, particularly since the best on last years team is in NO, but it's not THAT much better. The 4-3 is all about DEs and MLBs; the 3-4 is all about OLBs and NTs. Kiszla makes a valid point about Doom and Miller being natural 3-4 OLBs, but it's pointLESS without a dominant NT. Realistically, a solid backup NT is also vital; if the list of 350 lb. men who can demand double teams, collapse pockets and beat down running backs with their own guards is short, the list of those who can do it for 3.5 hours without a break is non-existent. As good as Casey Hampton is, Pitts D wouldn't be nearly as fierce without Chris Hoke relieving him.

Linebacker would be a problem even without considering depth. Miller and Doom have a proven history as 3-4 OLBs, but neither has shown much coverage ability, which, as with 4-3 MLBs, is as critical as blitzing and run-stopping for 3-4 OLBs. Despite the eponymous coachs best efforts, the NFL is more than Madden, pass D is more than sacks and picks, and the 3-4 OLB is more than just a RDE who plays standing. His college career offers some hope Miller can one day cover NFL receivers, and pass oriented ILBs would help, but he often looked lost in pass coverage last year. And, of course, if either Doom or Miller got hurt, we have no one who could start as a 3-4 OLB; if we did, we might have a 4-3 MLB worth starting instead of paying the mediocre Mays $4 million to do so.

The ILB situation wouldn't be much better; DJ's easily our best ILB candidate (hence we moved him there in our last 3-4,) but unavailable for the first third of the season, leaving Woodyard as our only potentially viable 3-4 ILB. After that I'm at a loss for whom to suggest; most of the names I've heard discussed are probably too green for the complex short pass coverage the 3-4 ILB spot demands (and if it's required of 3-4 OLBs, it's indispensable to ILBs.)

The argument for a Broncos 3-4 boils down to having two great 3-4 OLBs, but is shaky even there. At the other critical spot, NT, Ty Warren's the only one who might be serviceable, but still a somewhat unknown quantity with no legitimate backup, and the only person I'd trust to start at ILB is really a bit light to play LB in a 3-4 (229 isn't much heavier than many safeties.) Then, as you noted, top, if anyone goes down we've got nothing but rookies and scrubs. The 3-4 is a great idea for many reasons, but Denver switching is currently an awful idea for many others.

[MOtorboat]

My first reaction to the headline was "when did we get a dominant NT?" I know many think our DT rotation much improved, particularly the best on last years team is in NO, but it's not THAT much better. The 4-3 is all about DEs and MLBs; the 3-4 is all about OLBs and NTs. Kiszla makes a valid point about Doom and Miller being natural 3-4 OLBs, but it's pointLESS without a dominant NT. Realistically, a solid backup NT is also vital; if the list of 350 lb. men who can demand double teams, collapse pockets and beat down running backs with their own guards is short, the list of those who can do it for 3.5 hours without a break is non-existent. As good as Casey Hampton is, Pitts D wouldn't be nearly as fierce without Chris Hoke relieving him.

Linebacker would be a problem even without considering depth. Miller and Doom have a proven history as 3-4 OLBs, but neither has shown much coverage ability, which, as with 4-3 MLBs, is as critical as blitzing and run-stopping for 3-4 OLBs. Despite the eponymous coachs best efforts, the NFL is more than Madden, pass D is more than sacks and picks, and the 3-4 OLB is more than just a RDE who plays standing. His college career offers some hope Miller can one day cover NFL receivers, and pass oriented ILBs would help, but he often looked lost in pass coverage last year. And, of course, if either Doom or Miller got hurt, we have no one who could start as a 3-4 OLB; if we did, we might have a 4-3 MLB worth starting instead of paying the mediocre Mays $4 million to do so.

The ILB situation wouldn't be much better; DJ's easily our best ILB candidate (hence we moved him there in our last 3-4,) but unavailable for the first third of the season, leaving Woodyard as our only one potentially viable 3-4 ILB. After that I'm at a loss for whom to suggest; most of the names I've heard discussed are probably too green to for the complex short pass coverage the 3-4 ILB spot demands (and if it's required of 3-4 OLBs, it's indispensable to ILBs.)

The argument for a Broncos 3-4 boils down to having two great 3-4 OLBs, but is shaky even there. At the other critical spot, NT, Ty Warren's the only one who might be serviceable, but still a somewhat unknown quantity with no legitimate backup, and the only person I'd trust to start at ILB is really a bit light to play LB in a 3-4 (229 isn't much heavier than many safeties.) Then, as you noted, top, if anyone goes down we've got nothing but rookies and scrubs. The 3-4 is a great idea for many reasons, but Denver switching is currently an awful idea for many others.

Interestingly enough, I think Denver could use a Wade Phillips-esque 3-4 that didn't rely as heavily on the NT as Lebeau's and Belichek's 3-4...but I don't necessarily think they have the personnel for that either.

[Softskull]

Will somebody please stop Kiszla before he hurts himself?

[chaoticmayhem]

In a 3-4 where would that leave Doom? Ridin pine?

[MOtorboat]

in a 3-4 where would that leave doom? Ridin pine?

Outside linebacker

[chaoticmayhem]

Outside linebacker

So Von would ride pine?

[Dzone]

These guys write for entertainment purposes only. Cant take them too serious. They have to meet their quota of articles somehow.They're required to write so many articles per month or per week, so they pull topics out of their ass. We read them because we are jonesin for all things Broncos. No big deal.

[Bugs Baloney]

should this be moved to the humor thread? kiszla has NO clue :lol:

[MOtorboat]

So Von would ride pine?

There are two outside linebackers in a 3-4.

[dogfish]

In a 3-4 where would that leave Doom? Ridin pine?


So Von would ride pine?


There are two outside linebackers in a 3-4.

:listen: there are two outside linebackers in EVERY base defense. . . :lol: :lol:

[MOtorboat]

:listen: there are two outside linebackers in EVERY base defense. . . :lol: :lol:

No way...

[rationalfan]

These guys write for entertainment purposes only. Cant take them too serious. They have to meet their quota of articles somehow.They're required to write so many articles per month or per week, so they pull topics out of their ass. We read them because we are jonesin for all things Broncos. No big deal.

Man, you have no idea what you're writing about.

[Simple Jaded]

How would Denver be "shaky" at OLB in a 3-4, Joel?.......

[chazoe60]

:listen: there are two outside linebackers in EVERY base defense. . . :lol: :lol:

Not the 10-1.

[Joel]

Interestingly enough, I think Denver could use a Wade Phillips-esque 3-4 that didn't rely as heavily on the NT as Lebeau's and Belichek's 3-4...but I don't necessarily think they have the personnel for that either.
I'm dubious of a 3-4 without a gravity well at NT. If we had really outstanding DEs to go with an average NT then maybe but, generally speaking, the absence of one defensive linemen demands at least one of the remaining ones be outstanding, lest teams run over the D all day. The most logical place for that outstanding linemen is clogging the middle and collapsing the pocket so plays are forced outside to the Pro Bowlers lying in wait at OLB. I'm not saying it can't be done without a great NT, just that I wouldn't want to try it, especially with the shallow front seven we have now.


How would Denver be "shaky" at OLB in a 3-4, Joel?.......
Because neither starter has shown any coverage ability, and at least one is questionable against the run. They're great blitzers, and if the NFL were Madden that would be great, but it's not.

[MOtorboat]

I'm dubious of a 3-4 without a gravity well at NT. If we had really outstanding DEs to go with an average NT then maybe but, generally speaking, the absence of one defensive linemen demands at least one of the remaining ones be outstanding, lest teams run over the D all day. The most logical place for that outstanding linemen is clogging the middle and collapsing the pocket so plays are forced outside to the Pro Bowlers lying in wait at OLB. I'm not saying it can't be done without a great NT, just that I wouldn't want to try it, especially with the shallow front seven we have now.


Because neither starter has shown any coverage ability, and at least one is questionable against the run. They're great blitzers, and if the NFL were Madden that would be great, but it's not.

There are different versions of the 3-4. Not just the massive DT version popularized by New England and Pittsburgh in the last decade.

The Texans defense features a starting NT in Shaun Cody that comes in at 307 (the Wade (Bum) Philips scheme). They rely on a one-gap system rather than a 2-gap like the 3-4 schemes that Belichek and LeBeau have popularized.

I'm not saying its ideal in Denver, but Joe Mays and Nate Irving might be better at a one gap scheme and both in at ILB, until D.J. Williams returns, than Mays is in the traditional 4-3. I absolutely cannot agree that Miller and Dumervil are liabilities in any facet at OLB in a 3-4, simply because Dumervil led the league in sacks in a 3-4 base scheme and Von Miler got drafted No. 2 overall after playing OLB in a 3-4 base at Texas A&M.

[Joel]

There are different versions of the 3-4. Not just the massive DT version popularized by New England and Pittsburgh in the last decade.

The Texans defense features a starting NT in Shaun Cody that comes in at 307 (the Wade (Bum) Philips scheme). They rely on a one-gap system rather than a 2-gap like the 3-4 schemes that Belichek and LeBeau have popularized.
Fair enough then; I admit that defense is not my area of focus, so I'll defer to those who know it better.


I'm not saying its ideal in Denver, but Joe Mays and Nate Irving might be better at a one gap scheme and both in at ILB, until D.J. Williams returns, than Mays is in the traditional 4-3. I absolutely cannot agree that Miller and Dumervil are liabilities in any facet at OLB in a 3-4, simply because Dumervil led the league in sacks in a 3-4 base scheme and Von Miler got drafted No. 2 overall after playing OLB in a 3-4 base at Texas A&M.
Tim Tebow, Matt Leinart and Vince Young were stellar college QBs who won about a half dozen championships between them, but the NFL is a different world. Notwithstanding my previous comment, the idea of Joe Mays limited coverage skills in a 3-4 ILB scares me.

As to Miller and Doom at OLB, leading the league in sacks is great, but a 3-4 OLB must also run stop and cover receivers in the flat. Miller hasn't shown much ability to do the latter in the NFL, and his ability to run stop has been debated a fair amount. Dooms run stopping was once questioned also, but that was mainly because he was a 250 lb. DE at the time; he's since bulked up, (and would be about average for a 3-4 OLB even at 250) and always has a nose for the ball. I'm not sure about his coverage skills, but wouldn't really be uncomfortable with him starting as a 3-4 OLB again. I can't say the same for Miller; for now, questionable run-stopping and inevident coverage skills largely reduce him to a sack machine. I think Miller can get there, but whether he will remains to be seen.

[MOtorboat]

Fair enough then; I admit that defense is not my area of focus, so I'll defer to those who know it better.


Tim Tebow, Matt Leinart and Vince Young were stellar college QBs who won about a half dozen championships between them, but the NFL is a different world. Notwithstanding my previous comment, the idea of Joe Mays limited coverage skills in a 3-4 ILB scares me.

As to Miller and Doom at OLB, leading the league in sacks is great, but a 3-4 OLB must also run stop and cover receivers in the flat. Miller hasn't shown much ability to do the latter in the NFL, and his ability to run stop has been debated a fair amount. Dooms run stopping was once questioned also, but that was mainly because he was a 250 lb. DE at the time; he's since bulked up, (and would be about average for a 3-4 OLB even at 250) and always has a nose for the ball. I'm not sure about his coverage skills, but wouldn't really be uncomfortable with him starting as a 3-4 OLB again. I can't say the same for Miller; for now, questionable run-stopping and inevident coverage skills largely reduce him to a sack machine. I think Miller can get there, but whether he will remains to be seen.

Miller has already showed he's more adept at the pro game than those three quarterbacks. I really don't understand your distaste for him.

[Simple Jaded]

What-the-F-ever, Joel.

Harrison, Ware, Woodley, Freeney, Orakpo, Matthews, Hali.......stop me when I get to a 34 OLB that is as good at run/coverage as they are sacks.......Mathis, Johnson, Kerrigan, Barwin, Aldon Smith, Justin Houston.

How Tebow satisfies your stringent expectations is just F'n confounding. Dumervil and Miller are "shaky" but Tebow has you butthurt enough to turn your nose at one of the best passers the league has ever seen.

Ridiculous.......

[Jsteve01]

Joel you love pro football focus and they had Miller as hands down the best 4-3 backer in the league vs the run last year and it wasn't even close. Sure he's slightly deficient in coverage but I font want him covering in passing situations anyway

[topscribe]

I think you all are overreacting to Joel a bit. He didn't diss Miller in any way. All
he did was to point out some things Miller did that weren't as good as his pass
rushing.

I will agree that Miller needs to improve in his coverage skills, and he tended to
overrun his gaps and fill the wrong holes at times on running plays. That is why
he was temporarily benched in favor of Haggan last year.

But Joel does overlook the fact that Miller was a rookie without the benefit of
OTAs and a full camp. (That affected all the rookies, including Rahim Moore,
who fell on his face last year but is reportedly doing well this year.) Miller, to
all extents and purposes, never had to cover receivers in college. He is
learning that skill for the first time. Because he is probably the most athletic
LB in the league, I have no doubt he will become proficient at that in time.

But regarding 3-4 vs. 4-3, Doom has already said he is more suited to 4-3,
and Von will be capable of playing either. In addition, we have to look at the
rest of the defensive cast. Bannan is better in the 4-3, and I believe Warren
can be more disruptive in that alignment. In addition, the Broncos have not
a true 3-4 NG, and they have only one MLB who so far is marginally effective.
Where are they going to find two?

That, and if Fox and Del Rio see that the 4-3 is better, who am I to argue?
.

[Dzone]

There are people on this board who write commentary as good as those who get paid for it

[rationalfan]

There are people on this board who write commentary as good as those who get paid for it

you're not wrong.

[G_Money]

The problem with Kizla's article isn't that he thinks we could do all right on D from a 3-4 instead of a 4-3 - that's valid. We COULD, with a couple of personnel changes, and we do occasionally drop into a modified 3 front.

The problem is that it's a little late to swap dominant styles, and I don't think he understands assignments in a 3-4. With fewer DL to occupy the hogs on offense, all your LBs need to be big, because they have to stop the run, hold off OL, and charge gaps all while being able to defend against the pass. He says without DJ we absolutely need to consider it. Woodyard, Irving and Miller are all undersized for 3-4 backers, especially without an immovable object at NT. You can run a 3-4 with smaller personnel in some positions, even NT, but not smaller all over the field.

For all that it might help Doom, it would hurt Miller and it would hurt Wolfe, who as another potenially dominant pass rusher would be converted to an edge-holder against the run in a 3-4. It forces random acquisition Brooking to be able to play the whole season, and so far he hasn't been playing at all. Kizla doesn't address WHY moving to a 3-4 would help our defense. He seems to think that simply having an extra LB and one less DT will solve all our run defense problems, while also keeping our pass rush intact or making it even better.

"Fox and Del Rio have had great success running a 4-3 for many years, but they should scrap that and invent a dominant 3-4 with 2 weeks to go until the regular season because the magic pixie dust it brings will enable Mays to fill the right hole and free Doom to get 20 sacks" is not an article, it's a wish list.

While we're at it, I also want a pony and a million bucks, but the Broncos switching to the 3-4 won't bring those either. So sad...

~G

[topscribe]

The problem with Kizla's article isn't that he thinks we could do all right on D from a 3-4 instead of a 4-3 - that's valid. We COULD, with a couple of personnel changes, and we do occasionally drop into a modified 3 front.

The problem is that it's a little late to swap dominant styles, and I don't think he understands assignments in a 3-4. With fewer DL to occupy the hogs on offense, all your LBs need to be big, because they have to stop the run, hold off OL, and charge gaps all while being able to defend against the pass. He says without DJ we absolutely need to consider it. Woodyard, Irving and Miller are all undersized for 3-4 backers, especially without an immovable object at NT. You can run a 3-4 with smaller personnel in some positions, even NT, but not smaller all over the field.

For all that it might help Doom, it would hurt Miller and it would hurt Wolfe, who as another potenially dominant pass rusher would be converted to an edge-holder against the run in a 3-4. It forces random acquisition Brooking to be able to play the whole season, and so far he hasn't been playing at all. Kizla doesn't address WHY moving to a 3-4 would help our defense. He seems to think that simply having an extra LB and one less DT will solve all our run defense problems, while also keeping our pass rush intact or making it even better.

"Fox and Del Rio have had great success running a 4-3 for many years, but they should scrap that and invent a dominant 3-4 with 2 weeks to go until the regular season because the magic pixie dust it brings will enable Mays to fill the right hole and free Doom to get 20 sacks" is not an article, it's a wish list.

While we're at it, I also want a pony and a million bucks, but the Broncos switching to the 3-4 won't bring those either. So sad...

~G
Good points. Von and Irving are well sized for 4-3 LBs, but small for the 3-4.
Wolfe is huge for a 4-3 DE, but not well built (tall and rangy) for the 3-4. So
right there you've taken some stars and threatened them with mediocrity . . .
.

[Joel]

Miller has already showed he's more adept at the pro game than those three quarterbacks. I really don't understand your distaste for him.
I have no distaste for Miller; I've been criticized more than once for saying he might be our long term answer at MLB, because some evidently think SLB a more critical position. He's still young though, a great pass rusher who's shown no coverage skills and inconsistent run-stopping. That disqualifies him as both a 4-3 MLB and 3-4 OLB; I'm optimistic that'll change in a few years, but the season starts next month.

What-the-F-ever, Joel.


Harrison, Ware, Woodley, Freeney, Orakpo, Matthews, Hali.......stop me when I get to a 34 OLB that is as good at run/coverage as they are sacks.......Mathis, Johnson, Kerrigan, Barwin, Aldon Smith, Justin Houston.


How Tebow satisfies your stringent expectations is just F'n confounding. Dumervil and Miller are "shaky" but Tebow has you butthurt enough to turn your nose at one of the best passers the league has ever seen.


Ridiculous.......
I never said a 3-4 OLB must cover and/or run-stop as well as they rush the passer: I said they must be able to do those other two things well, because there's (much) more to the position than racking up sacks.

How is citing Tebow as a successful college player with dubious pro performance an endorsement? In retrospect, I should've just cited Leinart and Young; I really don't want to spend another thread saying, "Tebow doesn't suck and Manning will be gone in two years," so you can demand, "stop saying Tebow is better than Manning," in a thread unrelated to either. This isn't about them, and shouldn't be about you vs. me, so please check the antagonism at the door.


Joel you love pro football focus and they had Miller as hands down the best 4-3 backer in the league vs the run last year and it wasn't even close. Sure he's slightly deficient in coverage but I font want him covering in passing situations anyway
Actually, to the extent I favor any of stat site, it's Football Outsiders, because it's all but built on The Hidden Game of Football, which I consider the games bible; I'm not sure how folks got the idea I like PFF so much (maybe all the conversations with catfish.) Miller is sometimes very good and sometimes very bad at run-stopping: He has good talent and instincts, but his youth makes him prone to rookie mistakes. I can't recall any great play from him in coverage, but as long as he's not utterly horrible at it that's acceptable in a 4-3 Sam because almost a trivial duty; he'll usually be blitzing or stuffing the run, and rarely in on passing downs. As a 3-4 OLB, however, that would change much, because 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 MLBs must be jack AND master-of-all-trades. Having ILBs short over the middle eases without eliminating that responsibility, particularly when they're blitzing and the offense has 3+ receivers running patterns.

I think you all are overreacting to Joel a bit. He didn't diss Miller in any way. All
he did was to point out some things Miller did that weren't as good as his pass
rushing.

I will agree that Miller needs to improve in his coverage skills, and he tended to
overrun his gaps and fill the wrong holes at times on running plays. That is why
he was temporarily benched in favor of Haggan last year.

But Joel does overlook the fact that Miller was a rookie without the benefit of
OTAs and a full camp. (That affected all the rookies, including Rahim Moore,
who fell on his face last year but is reportedly doing well this year.) Miller, to
all extents and purposes, never had to cover receivers in college. He is
learning that skill for the first time. Because he is probably the most athletic
LB in the league, I have no doubt he will become proficient at that in time.

But regarding 3-4 vs. 4-3, Doom has already said he is more suited to 4-3,
and Von will be capable of playing either. In addition, we have to look at the
rest of the defensive cast. Bannan is better in the 4-3, and I believe Warren
can be more disruptive in that alignment. In addition, the Broncos have not
a true 3-4 NG, and they have only one MLB who so far is marginally effective.
Where are they going to find two?

That, and if Fox and Del Rio see that the 4-3 is better, who am I to argue?
.
Thanks, though I must note I didn't overlook Millers potential to improve; I just pointed out that his coverage and run-stopping skills two years from now won't help much this season. Talented as he is, and much as I'd like to see it, I doubt he'll be ready to be a 3-4 OLB in the pros this year, or I'd suggest he replace Mays at MLB now.

[MOtorboat]

I've asked this before, and never really received a very good answer from you Joel.

Why would you move a potentially elite pass rusher off the edge to a position in the middle of the field?

To me, that just makes zero sense. Edge rusher is much more important than middle linebacker, so I just don't see the justification. Especially considering your have concerns about his coverage and run stopping skills, which are the definition of a middle linebackers job.

Why would you move a player from where he excels, to where he doesn't excel? Even if he's adequate, if above average at coverage and run stopping, why would you move him from where he could be elite? That has zero sensibility in it. None.

[TXBRONC]

This article is a perfect example as to why Kiszla is a subpar analyst. The
Broncos lack a true 3-4 NG, and the LB corps is woefully thin in talent. Plus,
the defense was very recently ranked #32 in the league as a 3-4 unit. That,
and Fox and Del Rio, who have forgotten more than Kiszla ever knew about
defense, see it as a 4-3.
.

Maybe he was stumped and couldn't think anything better to write about. :whoknows:

[Chef Zambini]

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_21359025/mark-kiszla-broncos-can-fix-dents-their-defensehello kz, are you bad at maTH AS WELL AS FOOTBALL?
WHJAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS A 5-2, not A 3-4
YOU WANT TO MAKE von and doom full time pass rushers, great! that makes sense, if they have a pass to rush. limiting us to 2 linebackers also makes sense, thats about all we have as far aS VIABLE lbS !
but kiz, you are a poor excuse for a football reporter, poor.

[dogfish]

"Fox and Del Rio have had great success running a 4-3 for many years, but they should scrap that and invent a dominant 3-4 with 2 weeks to go until the regular season because the magic pixie dust it brings will enable Mays to fill the right hole and free Doom to get 20 sacks" is not an article, it's a wish list.

While we're at it, I also want a pony and a million bucks, but the Broncos switching to the 3-4 won't bring those either. So sad...

~G

:lol: :lol:

[Chef Zambini]

every kizla article deserves a hot carl response !

[Ravage!!!]

I'm surprised Kizla didn't suggest moving Champ to safety while he was at it.

[Simple Jaded]

Yeah right.

You said Miller and Doom are "shaky" at 3-4 OLB because of their coverage and/or run defense, which makes those players I mentioned "shaky" at 3-4 OLB for the exact same reasons. Apparently you're under the impression that there is a 3-4 OLB that excels at all three phases and that anything less has to be considered "shaky".......

[Joel]

I've asked this before, and never really received a very good answer from you Joel.

Why would you move a potentially elite pass rusher off the edge to a position in the middle of the field?

To me, that just makes zero sense. Edge rusher is much more important than middle linebacker, so I just don't see the justification. Especially considering your have concerns about his coverage and run stopping skills, which are the definition of a middle linebackers job.

Why would you move a player from where he excels, to where he doesn't excel? Even if he's adequate, if above average at coverage and run stopping, why would you move him from where he could be elite? That has zero sensibility in it. None.
Because I think the MLB the single most important position in a 4-3 front seven. A guy in the middle of the D who excels at reading plays, calling audibles, stuffing the run before it starts, knocking down or intercepting passes over the middle AND picks up a half dozen sacks a year is more valuable than a guy who gets twice as many sacks off the edge but does none of the other things. That is especially true of a sack machine who will not even play most passing downs because we're in a nickel or dime; the one time he's certain to be on the field is when the opponent is most likely to run, so getting to the QB is a marginal asset. Remember when we drafted Doom and people worried his size would make him a liability against the run, consequently reduced to a part-time player only in against the pass? Isn't that at least as much a concern for blitzers who often rotate OUT on passing downs? How many Urlachers=a Lance Briggs?

Why would I move a potentially elite FB to QB? Only because he's nearly as good (or better) at a far more valuable position that's always on the field. Same goes for moving a star OLB to DEFENSIVE QB. I'd rather have Brian Urlacher than Lance Briggs, not least because he plays every down. If Miller's just a great blitzer with adequate run-stopping, isn't he already out of position as a RDE playing SLB?

I have concerns about Millers coverage and run-stopping skills NOW, because he's a second year player who's shown none of the former and inconsistency in the latter. He's also very talented, has a good work ethic and has performed well overall despite some rookie mistakes in coverage and against the run. Since he WAS a rookie I expected the last, but won't expect it after a season or two more. If he's showing the coverage and run-stopping ability by then, we can find a solid SLB a lot more easily than a solid MLB. Which would you prefer: A Miller doing everything well at MLB, with Brooking at SLB and Mays behind both on the depth chart, or Mays/Irving at MLB with an incredibly versatile Miller confined to blitzing and backside run-stopping?

Ultimately, I DON'T think blitzing is all Miller will ever excel at, which is why I think he could move to a far more demanding position, and that his exceptional blitzing is a poor argument for leaving him at a position where that's not the primary duty in the first place, particularly when it usually means he leaves the field in blitzing situations. The only real question I have about his long term ability at MLB is whether he can add 5-10 lbs. in the course of developing great coverage and run-stopping skills.

Not saying you must agree with my rationale, but I hope it makes sense now. Blitzes were never the ne plus ultra of defence, or even pass D, but in the age of dual threat QBs, hot reads and short passes to 4 or 5 receivers, MLBs who do everything well and run the D are more critical than ever. If Miller's as good as we all think a SLB career would be a waste, while our great MLB need remained unmet.

[Simple Jaded]

Is MLB as important today with so many spread offenses in the NFL?.......

[dogfish]

Because I think the MLB the single most important position in a 4-3 front seven. A guy in the middle of the D who excels at reading plays, calling audibles, stuffing the run before it starts, knocking down or intercepting passes over the middle AND picks up a half dozen sacks a year is more valuable than a guy who gets twice as many sacks off the edge but does none of the other things. That is especially true of a sack machine who will not even play most passing downs because we're in a nickel or dime; the one time he's certain to be on the field is when the opponent is most likely to run, so getting to the QB is a marginal asset. Remember when we drafted Doom and people worried his size would make him a liability against the run, consequently reduced to a part-time player only in against the pass? Isn't that at least as much a concern for blitzers who often rotate OUT on passing downs? How many Urlachers=a Lance Briggs?



joel, buddy, stop it. . .

i know you watched us play last year, and the only reason von EVER left the field was a few times early when he got benched-- or if he was hurt or needed a breather. . . but his role in the defense is pretty clear, and that quite certainly doesn't include being subbed out in any packages or formations. . . he's our base SAM linebacker, and our nickel/dime left end. . . it's nothing particularly exotic, any more than a 34 base end who slides in to play tackle in the nickel, like cullen jenkins when he was in green bay. . . since von plays the first 'backer spot to get replaced, he automatically drops down to LDE whenever we go with any multiple DB package. . .

and i'm sorry, but it simply doesn't make sense to put a guy with potential to be THE best edge rusher in the league at an inside position. . . not in today's pass-heavy NFL, especially when the guy isn't build to crash the A-gap-- which our MIKE has to do a considerable amount, given the size and utilization of our tackles. . . at least last year-- we'll see what wrinkles del taco has in store, but i don't think it's an accident that they were willing to go with fireplug joe mays for another year or two. . . they did pursue a few other 'backers-- and fortify the spot with brooking-- but they ultimately settled for mays, and i'm pretty sure fox and JDR know what they want in a LB about as well as anyone in the league. . .

i don't disagree with you on the importance of the MIKE-- but unless you have a HOFer like ray-ray there, i'll take the edge rusher that can disrupt today's passing games. . . it's not an accident that those guys get drafted the highest, and paid the most. . . patrick willis was hands down the best true inside LB i've ever seen come out of college, IMO-- and even he dropped out of the top ten, and everyone could see how good he was. . . keukly is almost a guaranteed beast, and he still couldn't go top five. . . i won't bother to list all the edge rushers that have gone top five-top ten in the past decade, anyone who follows the draft knows it. . .

your MIKE doesn't have to buy the biggest ahtletic freak on the field, though. . . he needs to be quick and instinctive, absolutely-- but you don't need von miller to line up your defense and call audibles. . . that's a waste of ability that we won't match in the next decade. . . every year, there are probably a couple of steven tulloch-type FAs that would fit the bill just fine. . . it's doubful we could find another von through the draft, trade OR free agency, though. . .

the G-men didn't move LT inside, the stillers didn't move hamm inside, WE didn't move simon fletcher inside. . . you don't-- and won't-- see the packers move clay matthews inside, the boys move d ware inside, or the steelers move woodley or harrison inside. . . the ravens aren't going to move suggs inside when ray-ray retires. . . on and on. . . pass rushers are at an absolute premium, and when you have possibly the best one currently in the league-- or ever on your team, maybe-- you find ways to bring him more often, not less. . .

elway and fox knew exactly who he was, and what they were drafting him for. . . granted, he also has the talent and work ethic to become and all-around, every down monster who can just move all over the field, and devastate from pretty much every angle. . . and i'm fully confident that he WILL be that player in a few years, just the same way the ware developed. . . except von is ahead of that curve so far, and just might have the ability to be even better. . .

yep, fox knew. . . remember that guy's defensive background, which goes all the way back to coaching for the steelers under chuck knoll. . . he clearly knows what he's doing. . . and i'm almost positive he won't be moving von to middle linebacker. . . not saying von couldn't be badass there also, because he'll be badass at any LB spot, simply due to his insane talent. . . he's obviously nasty in pursuit, and a reliable tackler. . . but getting after the QB is his most natural asset, and it's also the most coveted defensive skill in the game today. . . not to mention, keeping him on the edge keeps our franchise defender from taking an undue pounding from pulling guards and iron-head fullbacks. . . let a second or third rounder stand there and fill that gap. . . nate irving, or a high pick over the next year or two. . .

:defense:

[Joel]

Is MLB as important today with so many spread offenses in the NFL?.......
Yes; that makes nearly his duties save run-stopping more rather than less important. As to run-stopping, the MLB was literally invented as a result of pro QBs who ran all the time finally starting to pass with equal regularity: The original "spy" remains the best.


joel, buddy, stop it. . .

i know you watched us play last year, and the only reason von EVER left the field was a few times early when he got benched-- or if he was hurt or needed a breather. . . but his role in the defense is pretty clear, and that quite certainly doesn't include being subbed out in any packages or formations. . . he's our base SAM linebacker, and our nickel/dime left end. . . it's nothing particularly exotic, any more than a 34 base end who slides in to play tackle in the nickel, like cullen jenkins when he was in green bay. . . since von plays the first 'backer spot to get replaced, he automatically drops down to LDE whenever we go with any multiple DB package. . .
I watched us play on a laptop, and am claiming that as my excuse for not noticing Von moving to DE in our nickel. It does make sense, given Ayers is a much better run-stopper than blitzer, and thus as trivial as a normal SLB on 3rd and 15.


and i'm sorry, but it simply doesn't make sense to put a guy with potential to be THE best edge rusher in the league at an inside position. . . not in today's pass-heavy NFL, especially when the guy isn't build to crash the A-gap-- which our MIKE has to do a considerable amount, given the size and utilization of our tackles. . . at least last year-- we'll see what wrinkles del taco has in store, but i don't think it's an accident that they were willing to go with fireplug joe mays for another year or two. . . they did pursue a few other 'backers-- and fortify the spot with brooking-- but they ultimately settled for mays, and i'm pretty sure fox and JDR know what they want in a LB about as well as anyone in the league. . .
I don't get this argument; it doesn't make sense to put the leagues best edge rusher in a 4-3 OLB spot instead of DE, but there he is. By that logic he's already out of position and excelling; no reason he couldn't excel as much or more out of position elsewhere. However, if he ever becomes as good in coverage and against the run as he is rushing, he won't be out of position at MLB: He'll be exactly where he belongs.


i don't disagree with you on the importance of the MIKE-- but unless you have a HOFer like ray-ray there, i'll take the edge rusher that can disrupt today's passing games. . . it's not an accident that those guys get drafted the highest, and paid the most. . . patrick willis was hands down the best true inside LB i've ever seen come out of college, IMO-- and even he dropped out of the top ten, and everyone could see how good he was. . . keukly is almost a guaranteed beast, and he still couldn't go top five. . . i won't bother to list all the edge rushers that have gone top five-top ten in the past decade, anyone who follows the draft knows it. . .

your MIKE doesn't have to buy the biggest ahtletic freak on the field, though. . . he needs to be quick and instinctive, absolutely-- but you don't need von miller to line up your defense and call audibles. . . that's a waste of ability that we won't match in the next decade. . . every year, there are probably a couple of steven tulloch-type FAs that would fit the bill just fine. . . it's doubful we could find another von through the draft, trade OR free agency, though. . .

the G-men didn't move LT inside, the stillers didn't move hamm inside, WE didn't move simon fletcher inside. . . you don't-- and won't-- see the packers move clay matthews inside, the boys move d ware inside, or the steelers move woodley or harrison inside. . . the ravens aren't going to move suggs inside when ray-ray retires. . . on and on. . . pass rushers are at an absolute premium, and when you have possibly the best one currently in the league-- or ever on your team, maybe-- you find ways to bring him more often, not less. . .

elway and fox knew exactly who he was, and what they were drafting him for. . . granted, he also has the talent and work ethic to become and all-around, every down monster who can just move all over the field, and devastate from pretty much every angle. . . and i'm fully confident that he WILL be that player in a few years, just the same way the ware developed. . . except von is ahead of that curve so far, and just might have the ability to be even better. . .
There's more to pass D than rushing. Granted coverage has gotten harder since the League decided receivers must be allowed to catch balls and start running before contact, but they've tightened rules on sacks, too, and I expect both to relax as the people who buy hats, season tickets and Sunday Ticket subscriptions recoil in disgust and people who occasionally watch SNF if there's nothing better on fail to increase League revenue. Anyway, the great OLB rushers you list from the modern era—every one; Matthews, Ware, Woodley, Harrison, Suggs—are all 3-4 OLBs, which are completely different animals. The OLB is to the 3-4 what the MLB is to the 4-3; arguing Miller is in the mold of those guys is arguing he should be at MLB unless/until we run a 3-4. If anything, the 3-4 OLB has it easier, because unless they both rush he's got at least one pass-oriented ILB helping out with pass coverage over the middle: He just has to worry about flat passes in addition to run-stopping and rushing. The Mike must worry about, and be able to handle, EVERYTHING; I think Miller will soon develop that ability, so confining him to pass rushing alone would be like making Manning a place kicker. It's ironic to be discussing this in a thread where everyone lampoons the notion of Denver running a 3-4, because that's the only way leaving Miller at OLB makes sense if he's as good as we all think.


yep, fox knew. . . remember that guy's defensive background, which goes all the way back to coaching for the steelers under chuck knoll. . . he clearly knows what he's doing. . . and i'm almost positive he won't be moving von to middle linebacker. . . not saying von couldn't be badass there also, because he'll be badass at any LB spot, simply due to his insane talent. . . he's obviously nasty in pursuit, and a reliable tackler. . . but getting after the QB is his most natural asset, and it's also the most coveted defensive skill in the game today. . . not to mention, keeping him on the edge keeps our franchise defender from taking an undue pounding from pulling guards and iron-head fullbacks. . . let a second or third rounder stand there and fill that gap. . . nate irving, or a high pick over the next year or two. . .

:defense:
Actually, PULLING guards and fullbacks lock horns with the Sam about as often as the Mike, hence traditional Sams are built more like Haggan. Millers job description is a punishing run-stopper. Given that, I don't see how durability adds arguments hard-hitting sacks mean he should stay put. In terms of whether Miller COULD be as much or more effective at MLB in a year or two, my questions are whether he develops the coverage and run-stopping savvy we all expect and can gain 5-10 lbs. in the process. In terms of durability, he's not a Will, and must be equally tough to play Sam as to play Mike.

Bottom line is still whether we think Sam>Mike or vice versa, and whether we think Miller is JUST a sack machine, or the far better player teams hope to get with the #2 pick.

[MOtorboat]

Yes; that makes nearly his duties save run-stopping more rather than less important. As to run-stopping, the MLB was literally invented as a result of pro QBs who ran all the time finally starting to pass with equal regularity: The original "spy" remains the best.

A middle linebackers job rarely involves rushing the quarterback, and you face, what, one quarterback a year that runs on any sort of regular basis? So, by moving Miller to mike you literally take away his best attribute.


I watched us play on a laptop, and am claiming that as my excuse for not noticing Von moving to DE in our nickel. It does make sense, given Ayers is a much better run-stopper than blitzer, and thus as trivial as a normal SLB on 3rd and 15.

And Miller was fine against the run at strong, with Ayers in front of him. Why change it? And much of last year, Denver was opting to play over fronts to put Miller on the line, and then dropping him down to a three-point stance on obvious passing downs and nickel formations.


I don't get this argument; it doesn't make sense to put the leagues best edge rusher in a 4-3 OLB spot instead of DE, but there he is. By that logic he's already out of position and excelling; no reason he couldn't excel as much or more out of position elsewhere. However, if he ever becomes as good in coverage and against the run as he is rushing, he won't be out of position at MLB: He'll be exactly where he belongs.

Over fronts. And he moves from standing up in a traditional strong side position to standing up on the line to on the line. He's a force on the outside, and by moving him to the middle it completely negates his best attribute.


There's more to pass D than rushing. Granted coverage has gotten harder since the League decided receivers must be allowed to catch balls and start running before contact, but they've tightened rules on sacks, too, and I expect both to relax as the people who buy hats, season tickets and Sunday Ticket subscriptions recoil in disgust and people who occasionally watch SNF if there's nothing better on fail to increase League revenue. Anyway, the great OLB rushers you list from the modern era—every one; Matthews, Ware, Woodley, Harrison, Suggs—are all 3-4 OLBs, which are completely different animals. The OLB is to the 3-4 what the MLB is to the 4-3; arguing Miller is in the mold of those guys is arguing he should be at MLB unless/until we run a 3-4. If anything, the 3-4 OLB has it easier, because unless they both rush he's got at least one pass-oriented ILB helping out with pass coverage over the middle: He just has to worry about flat passes in addition to run-stopping and rushing. The Mike must worry about, and be able to handle, EVERYTHING; I think Miller will soon develop that ability, so confining him to pass rushing alone would be like making Manning a place kicker. It's ironic to be discussing this in a thread where everyone lampoons the notion of Denver running a 3-4, because that's the only way leaving Miller at OLB makes sense if he's as good as we all think.

Actually, PULLING guards and fullbacks lock horns with the Sam about as often as the Mike, hence traditional Sams are built more like Haggan. Millers job description is a punishing run-stopper. Given that, I don't see how durability adds arguments hard-hitting sacks mean he should stay put. In terms of whether Miller COULD be as much or more effective at MLB in a year or two, my questions are whether he develops the coverage and run-stopping savvy we all expect and can gain 5-10 lbs. in the process. In terms of durability, he's not a Will, and must be equally tough to play Sam as to play Mike.

Bottom line is still whether we think Sam>Mike or vice versa, and whether we think Miller is JUST a sack machine, or the far better player teams hope to get with the #2 pick.

Multiple fronts. Multiple fronts. Multiple fronts.

And it's not about what position is more important, it's what attributes Miller has and what position he's better suited to play. He's better suited on the outside.

[Simple Jaded]

If a MLB is so important maybe the Broncos should just acquire a MLB.......

[Joel]

A middle linebackers job rarely involves rushing the quarterback, and you face, what, one quarterback a year that runs on any sort of regular basis? So, by moving Miller to mike you literally take away his best attribute.
Depends on the set, down and distance, obviously, but I don't see why Sam or Will should rush any more often than Mike in a 4-3 (3-4 is a totally different animal, but we've already established Denver isn't running one and won't soon.) It makes as much sense as rushing a safety up the gut, and that's routine. If we insist sacks ARE the ne plus ultra of pass D, the shortest distance between two players is a straight line. If Miller turns in double digit sacks every year we can bet opponents will put linemen on him as assuredly as they do DTs, DEs or any other sack threat, so sticking him on the edge to rush when he's not hitting a running back head-on spares him no contact, only increases the distance he must cover for sacks.

Dual-threat QBs are becoming more rather than less common, but we already have Rodgers (probably the best,) Vick, Roethlisberger, Newton, Tebow and Young. Additionally, guys like Alex Smith, Josh Freeman and Joe Webb have dangerous legs even if primarily mediocre pocket passers (ask the Saints how dangerous Smiths running is.) There are also guys like RGIII and anyone similar who comes after him, but even the first two groups contain 9 QBs, 4 of whom started playoff games last season (and Vick started one the previous year.) I could write a whole thread on The Return of the T Quarterback, but the pure pocket passer is on his way out if only because of the 3-4s rise and the difficulty of keeping five quality starters on the offensive line in the salary cap era (which has as much as anything to do with Peyton Mannings woes his last two years in Indy.) The natural response to the T QB was the creation of the MLB, and still is.

The real bottom line here is whether we think Miller more than a great pass rusher, and, if not, why we aren't trying to bulk him up and make him a DE.


And Miller was fine against the run at strong, with Ayers in front of him. Why change it? And much of last year, Denver was opting to play over fronts to put Miller on the line, and then dropping him down to a three-point stance on obvious passing downs and nickel formations.
He was inconsistent against the run, but experience should change that. Yet his run-stopping isn't my primary concern (though perhaps it should be since that, not rushing, IS the SLBs primary concern.) The question is how good his pass coverage will be, how soon, and if a guy who's great at blitzing, run-stopping AND pass coverage should be confined to pass rushing from a run-stopping position. That strikes me as trying to pound a lot of square pegs into a lot of round holes when we have no defensive QB worthy of the name.


Over fronts. And he moves from standing up in a traditional strong side position to standing up on the line to on the line. He's a force on the outside, and by moving him to the middle it completely negates his best attribute.
I guess we'll see this year and next, but rushing from the outside only works if he's unblocked or has the speed and agility to get by blockers. As effective as he's been I expect teams to try neutralizing him with great blockers as assuredly as they do Mikes or safeties coming up the gut; he's not longer last years unknown quantity. Then we're back to the same old thing: The distance from the defense to the QB is much shorter from over center than from the edges.

Unlike Mike and Will, Sam can subsist on being a great run-stopper and adequate rusher (though Miller is currently the reverse.) If that's ALL Miller is, however, we blew the #2 pick, just oen reason I hope he's capable of much more. If so, it would be a waste to make him a one trick pony, however good that trick happens to be.


Multiple fronts. Multiple fronts. Multiple fronts.

And it's not about what position is more important, it's what attributes Miller has and what position he's better suited to play. He's better suited on the outside.
What about multiple fronts? He'll face a lot more pulling guards at Sam than at Mike, since pulling means leaving the position directly in front of the Mike; the only way a Mike meets a pulling guard is if he slides over after the snap to where a OLB was lined up ALREADY. Fullbacks will probably be a wash, since they lead block between and outside the tackles. Durability is a poor reason to keep any player in a mainly run-stopping role, and if "multiple fronts" just means "line him up at SLB then move him" why not just line him up somewhere else to begin? To trick teams into thinking our 245 lb. sack machine is a huge slow run-stopper? The cat is out of the bag on that one.

If he has the savvy to stay with receivers in pass coverage and diagnose offensive plays, I contend he is NOT better suited to the outside, certainly not as a run-stopper who blitzes instead and is rarely involved in pass coverage. Even with his added weight he might need a bit more to play MLB, but SLBs tend to be even BIGGER, precisely because they DO face pulling guards, TEs and FBs on a regular basis, in addition to devastating hits on runners. If he's too fragile and possibly too light for Mike he is not "suited" to a Sam spot demanding even more toughness and size. You're essentially saying great DE skills like Dooms mean he should play SLB, a bit of a disconnect, IMHO.


If a MLB is so important maybe the Broncos should just acquire a MLB.......
Fine by me; I've been saying that since 2005, when I noted Wilson wasn't getting younger and we had NOTHING behind him; we've been lost at the position ever since his career ended against Pitt the following year. We moved DJ there, which was an even bigger disaster than I expected; he's just not big enough for that spot, and was visibly overwhelmed by the positions many and varied demands. There have been a few half hearted attempts to address the need (e.g. Champs kid brother, Nates Webster and Irving,) but no really serious efforts to address that enduring need. I know Shanny is all about offense but, geez, we haven't had a first rate MLB OR DT in 7 years: No wonder we've only made the playoffs once in that period.

So when I heard we got an OLB with the #2 overall pick I said to myself, "we already have a fine WLB in DJ, a solid backup in Woodyard, a reliable Sam in Haggan and still nothing at MLB; I really hope they think this kid has the skills to become a great MLB once he's learned his pro trade at the less demanding SLB spot." I mean, really, a team with a steady Sam and non-existent Mike drafts a Mike in the 3rd one year and spends the #2 pick on a Sam the next? That makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[MOtorboat]

We "blew" the No. 2 pick if all he is, is the next great pass rusher...

Brilliant.

[TXBRONC]

Yes; that makes nearly his duties save run-stopping more rather than less important. As to run-stopping, the MLB was literally invented as a result of pro QBs who ran all the time finally starting to pass with equal regularity: The original "spy" remains the best.


I watched us play on a laptop, and am claiming that as my excuse for not noticing Von moving to DE in our nickel. It does make sense, given Ayers is a much better run-stopper than blitzer, and thus as trivial as a normal SLB on 3rd and 15.


I don't get this argument; it doesn't make sense to put the leagues best edge rusher in a 4-3 OLB spot instead of DE, but there he is. By that logic he's already out of position and excelling; no reason he couldn't excel as much or more out of position elsewhere. However, if he ever becomes as good in coverage and against the run as he is rushing, he won't be out of position at MLB: He'll be exactly where he belongs.


There's more to pass D than rushing. Granted coverage has gotten harder since the League decided receivers must be allowed to catch balls and start running before contact, but they've tightened rules on sacks, too, and I expect both to relax as the people who buy hats, season tickets and Sunday Ticket subscriptions recoil in disgust and people who occasionally watch SNF if there's nothing better on fail to increase League revenue. Anyway, the great OLB rushers you list from the modern era—every one; Matthews, Ware, Woodley, Harrison, Suggs—are all 3-4 OLBs, which are completely different animals. The OLB is to the 3-4 what the MLB is to the 4-3; arguing Miller is in the mold of those guys is arguing he should be at MLB unless/until we run a 3-4. If anything, the 3-4 OLB has it easier, because unless they both rush he's got at least one pass-oriented ILB helping out with pass coverage over the middle: He just has to worry about flat passes in addition to run-stopping and rushing. The Mike must worry about, and be able to handle, EVERYTHING; I think Miller will soon develop that ability, so confining him to pass rushing alone would be like making Manning a place kicker. It's ironic to be discussing this in a thread where everyone lampoons the notion of Denver running a 3-4, because that's the only way leaving Miller at OLB makes sense if he's as good as we all think.


Actually, PULLING guards and fullbacks lock horns with the Sam about as often as the Mike, hence traditional Sams are built more like Haggan. Millers job description is a punishing run-stopper. Given that, I don't see how durability adds arguments hard-hitting sacks mean he should stay put. In terms of whether Miller COULD be as much or more effective at MLB in a year or two, my questions are whether he develops the coverage and run-stopping savvy we all expect and can gain 5-10 lbs. in the process. In terms of durability, he's not a Will, and must be equally tough to play Sam as to play Mike.

Bottom line is still whether we think Sam>Mike or vice versa, and whether we think Miller is JUST a sack machine, or the far better player teams hope to get with the #2 pick.

Joel I don't see how this is such a tough argument understand. Fox isn't the idiot I think you're making him out to be. He understands what do with his defensive personnel. You couldn't more wrong about Miller being moved Mike. That would be foolish move. It's not that Miller couldn't play Mike or even Sam he's that talented but it would be absolute waste of his natural talents. Playing him at the Mike position is waste of his ability to rush the passer. I dare you to find me even one Mike linebacker that's going to get 11.5 sacks. They don't exsist even in a 3-4 they don't get a lot sacks. Farrior and Timmons were the Steelers starting inside linebackers they had two a piece. Mike linebacker in a 4-3 will get about the same kind of production. I have no doubt Miller could play the Will position but there again you're wasting his talent because you're putting on the same side of field as Dumervil. Even the most retarded offensive co-ordinator the league is going know where pressure is going to come from and slide protection to that side of the field. It would actually weaken because it's much more predictable. So our base defense is a 4-3 big deal. In today's NFL defenses are in their base at best 50%.

By no means is a OLB in a 3-4 what the Mike is to the 4-3. If they are then someone needs to tell Dick Lebeau he wrong because his OLBs are more like defensive ends.

From what I saw last Miller improved against the run and in pass coverage as the year progressed. Fox and Del Rio know what they're doing.

[Simple Jaded]

That was a facetious question, Joel, I'm pretty sure the Broncos have a MLB.

It's funny, Miller goes to the ProBowl and he should move to a different position but Tebow struggles to throw the most simple passes and not only should he not switch positions but everything from the Broncos offensive philosophy/scheme to the leagues passer ratings should be changed to suit him.......

[Joel]

We "blew" the No. 2 pick if all he is, is the next great pass rusher...

Brilliant.
If he can't cover and is merely adequate against the run, yeah. Again, I'm reminded of Dooms first couple years when people said, "sure, he's a great pass rusher, but he's only 250 lbs. so he may not be good enough against the run to be anything but a third down player." What are the differences?

1) Sams must occasionally cover, 2) even with extra weight, he's 5 lbs. lighter than Doom then and 3) he was the #2 overall pick, not the 29th pick of the 4th round.

Someone, might've been you, mentioned LT earlier: LT had at least one pick in 6 of his 13 seasons; his second year he ran one back 97 yards for a TD.


Joel I don't see how this is such a tough argument understand. Fox isn't the idiot I think you're making him out to be. He understands what do with his defensive personnel. You couldn't more wrong about Miller being moved Mike. That would be foolish move. It's not that Miller couldn't play Mike or even Sam he's that talented but it would be absolute waste of his natural talents. Playing him at the Mike position is waste of his ability to rush the passer. I dare you to find me even one Mike linebacker that's going to get 11.5 sacks. They don't exsist even in a 3-4 they don't get a lot sacks. Farrior and Timmons were the Steelers starting inside linebackers they had two a piece. Mike linebacker in a 4-3 will get about the same kind of production. I have no doubt Miller could play the Will position but there again you're wasting his talent because you're putting on the same side of field as Dumervil. Even the most retarded offensive co-ordinator the league is going know where pressure is going to come from and slide protection to that side of the field. It would actually weaken because it's much more predictable. So our base defense is a 4-3 big deal. In today's NFL defenses are in their base at best 50%.

By no means is a OLB in a 3-4 what the Mike is to the 4-3. If they are then someone needs to tell Dick Lebeau he wrong because his OLBs are more like defensive ends.

From what I saw last Miller improved against the run and in pass coverage as the year progressed. Fox and Del Rio know what they're doing.
I understand in principle, just strongly disagree: People have Miller pegged as a 245 lb. RDE who plas SLB. I understand it; it's just illogical. I wouldn't expect Fox to move Miller to MLB now and wouldn't support it, because I don't think him ready yet. Next year or next that could change, and I frankly think really fast light DEs far easier to find than MLBs who excel at run-stopping, rushing, coverage, reading offenses AND calling audibles. That's a job demanding great ability in five areas versus a job demanding it in one or two; it should be obvious which position is easier to fill.

It's interesting you note the Steelers ILBs have more sacks than 4-3 Mikes, then that they use their OLBs like DEs: If their OLBs were just DEs they couldn't cover very well, so their ILBs would have to, and wouldn't have more sacks than MLBs (less, in fact, because splitting them.) James Harrison covers, viciously; that's why we didn't have Decker when we played NE last January. Woodley covers, too, and has at least one pick in three of his five seasons. The 3-4 OLB tends to rush and run-stop more than cover because there are two ILBs in a much better coverage position and usually accordingly skilled, just as the 4-3 MLB tends to cover more than he rushes. The job descriptions of both require they run-stop, rush and cover well; players with but one or two skill-sets are rarely central to a (good) defence.


That was a facetious question, Joel, I'm pretty sure the Broncos have a MLB.
Yeah? It's hard to tell; often it seems like we have a Sam playing Mike, so I guess a Mike playing Sam would be a logical complement. :tongue: Though, again, I wouldn't move Miller now, but in a year or two if we still don't have anything better than Mays and Irving still hasn't shown us anything. Since 2005 we've drafted two great edge rushers and no decent MLBs; tell me again which is easier to find.


It's funny, Miller goes to the ProBowl and he should move to a different position but Tebow struggles to throw the most simple passes and not only should he not switch positions but everything from the Broncos offensive philosophy/scheme to the leagues passer ratings should be changed to suit him.......
Oh my Jeebus, htf are we back on Tebow?! :rolleyes: For the last time, the QBRS I came up with when Tebow was an underclassmen sitting on a college bench was not designed for him, any more than the similar one someone else came up with when I​ was in HS. Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor because we nuked Hiroshima? :lol:

[Simple Jaded]

A) It's easier to find MLB's.

B) That's odd cause your thread is all about Tebow and was dated late 2011.

The point about Tebow stands, it points to your inconsistency.......

[Joel]

A) It's easier to find MLB's.
Then how did we draft two great edge rushers and no decent MLBs over the last 7 years?


B) That's odd cause your thread is all about Tebow and was dated late 2011.

The point about Tebow stands, it points to your inconsistency.......

http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?95735-Peter-King-s-2007-QB-Ratings&p=1822385#post1822385
My thread is about the QBRS I discussed in the linked thread back in '07, while Tebow was riding the Gators bench (though out of HS; consider that comment retracted.) You could argue from timing (though still incorrectly) I was giving VY a break, but not a guy whose name no one outside FL had ever heard. The point about Tebow is non-existent, especially since this isn't the first time I linked that. Back to linebackers....

[TXBRONC]

If he can't cover and is merely adequate against the run, yeah. Again, I'm reminded of Dooms first couple years when people said, "sure, he's a great pass rusher, but he's only 250 lbs. so he may not be good enough against the run to be anything but a third down player." What are the differences?

1) Sams must occasionally cover, 2) even with extra weight, he's 5 lbs. lighter than Doom then and 3) he was the #2 overall pick, not the 29th pick of the 4th round.

Someone, might've been you, mentioned LT earlier: LT had at least one pick in 6 of his 13 seasons; his second year he ran one back 97 yards for a TD.


I understand in principle, just strongly disagree: People have Miller pegged as a 245 lb. RDE who plas SLB. I understand it; it's just illogical. I wouldn't expect Fox to move Miller to MLB now and wouldn't support it, because I don't think him ready yet. Next year or next that could change, and I frankly think really fast light DEs far easier to find than MLBs who excel at run-stopping, rushing, coverage, reading offenses AND calling audibles. That's a job demanding great ability in five areas versus a job demanding it in one or two; it should be obvious which position is easier to fill.

It's interesting you note the Steelers ILBs have more sacks than 4-3 Mikes, then that they use their OLBs like DEs: If their OLBs were just DEs they couldn't cover very well, so their ILBs would have to, and wouldn't have more sacks than MLBs (less, in fact, because splitting them.) James Harrison covers, viciously; that's why we didn't have Decker when we played NE last January. Woodley covers, too, and has at least one pick in three of his five seasons. The 3-4 OLB tends to rush and run-stop more than cover because there are two ILBs in a much better coverage position and usually accordingly skilled, just as the 4-3 MLB tends to cover more than he rushes. The job descriptions of both require they run-stop, rush and cover well; players with but one or two skill-sets are rarely central to a (good) defence.


Yeah? It's hard to tell; often it seems like we have a Sam playing Mike, so I guess a Mike playing Sam would be a logical complement. :tongue: Though, again, I wouldn't move Miller now, but in a year or two if we still don't have anything better than Mays and Irving still hasn't shown us anything. Since 2005 we've drafted two great edge rushers and no decent MLBs; tell me again which is easier to find.


Oh my Jeebus, htf are we back on Tebow?! :rolleyes: For the last time, the QBRS I came up with when Tebow was an underclassmen sitting on a college bench was not designed for him, any more than the similar one someone else came up with when I​ was in HS. Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor because we nuked Hiroshima? :lol:

Who are listening too because I don't know of any analyst that had Miller pegged as a 245 lbs defensive end? Btw Miller's playing weight is 237 lbs which makes him 23 lbs lighter than Dumervil.

You're completely mistaken about what LeBeau does with Harrison and Woodley. They are rarely in coverage which atested by the fact that each had nine sacks this past season. To put it another way Woodley and Harrison combined for 18 of the team's 35 total sacks. That's means those two combined half of the team's sack total. Harrison had zero passed defended and zero interceptions. Woodley had all of one int and you're really going to try and tell me he plays a lot of pass coverage? I don't think so.

No I did not say that Steelers ILBs had more sacks than a MLB. I said you would get about the same kind of production from the Mike position as the Steelers got from ILBs.

[Joel]

Who are listening too because I don't know of any analyst that had Miller pegged as a 245 lbs defensive end? Btw Miller's playing weight is 237 lbs which makes him 23 lbs lighter than Dumervil.
NFL.com has him at 237, but it did last year, too, and his Wikipedia article has him at 245, so I suspect NFL.com has simply not yet updated their listing to reflect him adding weight after his rookie season (as Doom also did; again, NFL.com had him at 250 back then but, as you note, he's since gotten heavier.) However, "237 lb. RDE" sounds no more appealing (especially the way people worried about Doom playing it 13 lbs. heavier) and if Miller's just a sack machine with passable run-stopping skills that's all he is: A small DE who plays further from the line. I expect more from a #2 overall pick.


You're completely mistaken about what LeBeau does with Harrison and Woodley. They are rarely in coverage which atested by the fact that each had nine sacks this past season. To put it another way Woodley and Harrison combined for 18 of the team's 35 total sacks. That's means those two combined half of the team's sack total. Harrison had zero passed defended and zero interceptions. Woodley had all of one int and you're really going to try and tell me he plays a lot of pass coverage? I don't think so.
Again, tell Eric Decker James Harrison doesn't play pass coverage. They get sacks, too, and that's certainly one of, if not THE, priorities for their position, but there's far more to it. Last year Harrison only started 11 and Woodley 10 games, but Pro Football Reference shows the former with one regular season pass defense and the latter with two (plus the interception.) The previous year, when he played every game, Harrison defended four passes with two picks; he had three pass defenses in each of his other seasons (about one less than Timmons and Farrior average) and a pick in all but one of them. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HarrJa23.htm Incidentally, PFR also lists Miller at 246, so I think it unlikely he's still playing at the 237 he weighed fresh out of the Combine.


No I did not say that Steelers ILBs had more sacks than a MLB. I said you would get about the same kind of production from the Mike position as the Steelers got from ILBs.
If you mean both ILBs combined, I don't dispute that, nor mind it as long as Miller excels at the MLBs run-stopping, coverage and playcalling duties. Remember, part of why the various 3-4 LB groups get so many sacks overall is because offenses never know who's rushing and who's in coverage: If Timmons and Farrior rarely rushed and Harrison and Woodley rarely covered they'd ALL have less sacks. There's more to playing the front seven than just run-stopping on 1st down then sending all out blitzes so offenses can throw screens and three step drop hot routes over ones head. If it were all about speed at getting to the QB we'd blitz both safeties every time—and give up a lot more deep TDs.

Ya'll keep bringing up the busload of star 3-4 OLBs who rack up sacks and noting the dearth of star 4-3 MLBs: Which does that suggest is easier to find? Remember, there are just as many teams seeking TWO great 3-4 OLBs as seeking ONE great 4-3 MLB; why are the latter so much more successful at finding them? My bet is that splitting the need to be an excellent rusher/run-stopper/pass defender between two positions, while reducing the responsibility diagnose offensive plays and call defensive audibles, makes the 3-4 OLBs job easier and simultaneously reduces the pool of players with the physical talent to play MLB.

Ultimately, if that's all it's about we can find another excellent third down RDE to line up at SLB and rack up sacks if that's what we want from what is primarily a run-stopping position. We still need and still lack a great MLB if we stay in a 4-3 (and the reasons we should have been amply stated in this thread.) If Irving or some as yet unknown player fills that role, fine, line Miller up wherever you want, and if he CAN'T fill that role he might as well stay put. If, however, we are no more successful at finding that defensive QB than we have been since 2006, and Miller develops all the many required tools, I'd much rather stick him there and plug in the pass-rushing RDE we evidently want at SLB.

[turftoad]

:confused: jeez Joel, if remember right, Miller was the Defensive rookie of the year. I'm very happy with that. Not to mention he's young and is still growing and learning.

[MOtorboat]

If he can't cover and is merely adequate against the run, yeah. Again, I'm reminded of Dooms first couple years when people said, "sure, he's a great pass rusher, but he's only 250 lbs. so he may not be good enough against the run to be anything but a third down player." What are the differences?

1) Sams must occasionally cover, 2) even with extra weight, he's 5 lbs. lighter than Doom then and 3) he was the #2 overall pick, not the 29th pick of the 4th round.

Someone, might've been you, mentioned LT earlier: LT had at least one pick in 6 of his 13 seasons; his second year he ran one back 97 yards for a TD.


I understand in principle, just strongly disagree: People have Miller pegged as a 245 lb. RDE who plas SLB. I understand it; it's just illogical. I wouldn't expect Fox to move Miller to MLB now and wouldn't support it, because I don't think him ready yet. Next year or next that could change, and I frankly think really fast light DEs far easier to find than MLBs who excel at run-stopping, rushing, coverage, reading offenses AND calling audibles. That's a job demanding great ability in five areas versus a job demanding it in one or two; it should be obvious which position is easier to fill.

It's interesting you note the Steelers ILBs have more sacks than 4-3 Mikes, then that they use their OLBs like DEs: If their OLBs were just DEs they couldn't cover very well, so their ILBs would have to, and wouldn't have more sacks than MLBs (less, in fact, because splitting them.) James Harrison covers, viciously; that's why we didn't have Decker when we played NE last January. Woodley covers, too, and has at least one pick in three of his five seasons. The 3-4 OLB tends to rush and run-stop more than cover because there are two ILBs in a much better coverage position and usually accordingly skilled, just as the 4-3 MLB tends to cover more than he rushes. The job descriptions of both require they run-stop, rush and cover well; players with but one or two skill-sets are rarely central to a (good) defence.


Yeah? It's hard to tell; often it seems like we have a Sam playing Mike, so I guess a Mike playing Sam would be a logical complement. :tongue: Though, again, I wouldn't move Miller now, but in a year or two if we still don't have anything better than Mays and Irving still hasn't shown us anything. Since 2005 we've drafted two great edge rushers and no decent MLBs; tell me again which is easier to find.


Oh my Jeebus, htf are we back on Tebow?! :rolleyes: For the last time, the QBRS I came up with when Tebow was an underclassmen sitting on a college bench was not designed for him, any more than the similar one someone else came up with when I​ was in HS. Did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor because we nuked Hiroshima? :lol:

I like how you pigeon-hole Miller into what you want him to be.

He's an outside linebacker/pass rusher/best OLB against the run, yet you continue to insist he sucks and want him to move to MLB for some inexplicable, arcane and delirious reason.

It's not that we disagree. You're wrong. Plain and simple.

[MOtorboat]

Sacks and pressure are the most important things for a defense. It's undebatable. And if you have an elite pass rusher, you don't mess with what he does, you find ways to complement it.

[turftoad]

Sacks and pressure are the most important things for a defense. It's undebatable. And if you have an elite pass rusher, you don't mess with what he does, you find ways to complement it.

Not to mention, but Miller himself, has said he wants to become a more complete LB. If he was that good as a rook, I can't wait to watch him progress into what he desires to be.
Gotta love the kid, has a great attitude too.

[MOtorboat]

Not to mention, but Miller himself, has said he wants to become a more complete LB. If he was that good as a rook, I can't wait to watch him progress into what he desires to be.
Gotta love the kid, has a great attitude too.

He was so good, that PFF put three of his games in the top 5 of all 4-3 outside linebacker performances for the whole season.

I'll say that again. He had THREE of the top five best games of ANY 4-3 linebacker in the league last year. For the math challenged, that means of the 640 starting performances (20 teams by my count) of outside linebackers in the league last year, three of the top 5 were registered by Von Miller.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/05/21/2011s-best-performances-4-3-outside-linebackers/

[Joel]

Sacks and pressure are the most important things for a defense. It's undebatable. And if you have an elite pass rusher, you don't mess with what he does, you find ways to complement it.
It's highly debatable; I've seen the Broncos and other teams give up a conversion (or TD) on third and long because everyone was open on a blitz SO often I now cringe at all out blitzes on third and long. Why do you think we hear so much these days about "getting pressue with the front four"? Because in an era where teams routinely send four or even five receivers out on pass patterns and the League won't let defenders touch them until after they start running with the ball, solid pass coverage is more vital than ever. Of course, indications are Miller's not ready for that yet, so it makes sense to keep him in a role that's primarily a run-stopper and only has rushing and coverage as secondary duties. If, however, he develops into the player we all expect, things will change dramatically.

Let's put it in perspective, courtesy an observation from The Hidden Game of Football: Unless it's third down, what does a sack REALLY accomplish? Most of the time, all it means is a team already in a passing situation remains there; unless we sack their QB, or at least disrupt his throw, a sack only forces a punt on third down: We must do more to stop the drive. That's why we traded Portis for Champ, and why we signed a bunch of hired gun CBs and safeties this year even though we've still got him. It's why we have DJ and Woodyard, who aren't exactly sack machines (I have no idea why we have Mays, unless it's sheer desperation.) Pass pressure is definitely vital, but only one part of the equation, and not the biggest part; I haven't even mentioned the fact teams will never pass unless we stop their run, mainly because I expect everyone here to know that (though all the people screaming for DEs year after year when we had excellent DEs and NO DTs often made me wonder.)

[MOtorboat]

It's highly debatable;

Nope.

Tell me who GMs pay. Pass rushers.

Why? Because its rare to find an elite one, and because it's more important.

Not debatable.

[MOtorboat]

Remember when Von Miller swatted away a pass from Mark Sanchez to a wide open Santonio Holmes, which ultimately saved the game for Denver?

Man, that dude sucks.

[Simple Jaded]

Then how did we draft two great edge rushers and no decent MLBs over the last 7 years?



http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?95735-Peter-King-s-2007-QB-Ratings&p=1822385#post1822385
My thread is about the QBRS I discussed in the linked thread back in '07, while Tebow was riding the Gators bench (though out of HS; consider that comment retracted.) You could argue from timing (though still incorrectly) I was giving VY a break, but not a guy whose name no one outside FL had ever heard. The point about Tebow is non-existent, especially since this isn't the first time I linked that. Back to linebackers....A) Doom was pure luck, he is the DE version on Russel Wilson, if he were 2" taller he'd been long gone by round four. As for Miller, draft position, try drafting a MLB that high in the draft.......sounds like something Josh McDaniels would do. As for their choice of MLB's, seems to me they don't put a whole lotta stock in that position, otherwise they might have put a little more effort into finding a MLB that suits your stringent standards.

B) Your entire thread was about Tim Tebow and how you could invent a passer rating that made him less pathetic. Whether or not you started working on this joke for VY would only show that you may have a soft spot for crappy QB's.

Back to linebackers.......

[Joel]

jeez Joel, if remember right, Miller was the Defensive rookie of the year. I'm very happy with that. Not to mention he's young and is still growing and learning.
Sorry I overlooked ya'lls earlier posts but, yeah, he was, I'm happy about it also, and I agree he's still growing and learning: That's why I think he could be a HoF MLB in a few years. On that note...


I like how you pigeon-hole Miller into what you want him to be.

He's an outside linebacker/pass rusher/best OLB against the run, yet you continue to insist he sucks and want him to move to MLB for some inexplicable, arcane and delirious reason.

It's not that we disagree. You're wrong. Plain and simple.
I'm not pigeon-holing him at all; a great Mike can certainly be a great Sam, it's just a waste of talent when we have NOTHING at the more important Mike spot. The only ones pigeon-holing him are those insisting his great pass rushing skills demand he start a position primarily concerned with run-stopping.


He was so good, that PFF put three of his games in the top 5 of all 4-3 outside linebacker performances for the whole season.

I'll say that again. He had THREE of the top five best games of ANY 4-3 linebacker in the league last year. For the math challenged, that means of the 640 starting performances (20 teams by my count) of outside linebackers in the league last year, three of the top 5 were registered by Von Miller.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/05/21/2011s-best-performances-4-3-outside-linebackers/
Er, no, they clearly say, "In order to contend with the different types of players lining up in these spots, we’ve created two categories. We’ll be looking at those who split their linebacker time with pass rushing duties in nickel packages, and those who play as more conventional linebackers.

For each type we’ll be looking at their overall game, though it’s important to note different things are expected from them–like when comparing Von Miller’s role to Daryl Smith’s."

First, the 4-3 Sams top priorities (run-stopping, then rushing, then coverage) are almost the exact opposite of a Wills (coverage, then run-stopping, then rushing,) and all the latter fall into the "traditional LB" category. That eliminates roughly half last years 4-3 OLB performances, leaving ~20 Sams. Most are replaced by nickel or dimebacks on third and long, rather than dropping down to play DE. Basically, PFF compared Miller to about half a dozen guys; if we randomly threw five darts at six guys odds are pretty good we'd hit most. Miller hit thrice, which is very impressive, but consider: The other two were both Kamerion Wimbley, and not even his agent thinks him a future HoFer. He also wasn't a rookie of unknown capability; there's a reason star rookies usually have a sophomore slump: Teams start scheming them.

That's not to diminish Millers exceptional performance, only, again, put it in perspective: We're looking at the top five performances of ~100, not 640. That Miller had three remains remarkable, and certainly NOT random, but we must ask ourselves why there are only about half a dozen SLBs playing his role when over half the NFL runs 4-3s.


Nope.

Tell me who GMs pay. Pass rushers.

Why? Because its rare to find an elite one, and because it's more important.

Not debatable.
Again, I can think of a lot more elite pass rushers than elite MLBs, but as it happens, Forbes just compiled a list of the top paid 100 athletes in the world, and NFL.com selected out its 30 entries to profile: http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/09000d5d829f6793#photo=1

Even if I concede your contention pass rushing is the most vital role (which I still don't,) note that all the top paid pass rushers are DEs and 3-4 OLBs: The highest paid 4-3 LB is Jon Beason; what position does he play again? ;) He still makes less than Darrelle Revis, Eric Berry and Jonathan Joseph, defensive backs much noted for their pass coverage, but never their pass RUSHING. Lawrence Timmons is in there, too, another LB more concerned with coverage than sacks (though only slightly, as a 3-4 ILB) and MLB Rolando McClain rounds out the list. I do not see any 4-3 OLBs. Not one. So even if you're contention that pass rushing is the most important and we should therefore exploit Millers rushing above all else, we're back to a light RDE playing 4-3 Sam, which still makes no sense.


Remember when Von Miller swatted away a pass from Mark Sanchez to a wide open Santonio Holmes, which ultimately saved the game for Denver?

Man, that dude sucks.
Never said that, but what I mainly remember about that play is it wasn't a sack (and therefore trivial...? :tongue:) Arguing he covers well (which one play doesn't prove) is just arguing he belongs at MLB. I don't think he does—yet; in a year or two he could be an ideal MLB, and if we still don't have one we can find another 240ish guy fast enough to reach the QB off the edge; DJ could if he didn't have MORE IMPORTANT duties.


A) Doom was pure luck, he is the DE version on Russel Wilson, if he were 2" taller he'd been long gone by round four. As for Miller, draft position, try drafting a MLB that high in the draft.......sounds like something Josh McDaniels would do. As for their choice of MLB's, seems to me they don't put a whole lotta stock in that position, otherwise they might have put a little more effort into finding a MLB that suits your stringent standards.
I don't really follow college ball or the draft because it seems like 90% of it is all hype concerned with which of the NCAAs dozen pet teams will be elected champion this year, usually from the SEC (you should've heard me scream bloody murder when I heard we drafted a certain Gators QB; if I'd had my way Cutler would still be our starter.) That said, my understanding is this draft was not exactly overflowing with top MLB talent (and few rookies have the savvy, let alone experience, to be instant stars at MLB anyway.) Between dropping $20 million on Manning and the desperate need to sign DBs (even though they don't get sacks, unless coverage sacks count,) that only left enough to sign a couple guys like Mays and Brooking. Contrary to Homer belief, we were not and are not just a HoF QB away from greatness; it will take time to get there, and our franchise MLB is clearly not yet in the cards, but that doesn't mean our coaches consider it a non-priority.

Only McDumbass would spend a high pick on a MLB? I don't recall him ever doing that, but know of a guy who did: John Fox drafted the aforementioned Jon Beason with the #25 pick in 2007. He finished second for most tackles and DRoY honors behind Patrick Willis, whom Fox might have preferred had the '9ers not foolishly taken him with the #11 pick (just look what a disaster that has been! ;))


B) Your entire thread was about Tim Tebow and how you could invent a passer rating that made him less pathetic. Whether or not you started working on this joke for VY would only show that you may have a soft spot for crappy QB's.

Back to linebackers.......
My thread was about exactly what the title said: An improved QB, rather than just passer, rating system that had been lurking in my brain and that of many others since we read The Hidden Game of Football back in the late '80s. Incidentally, I still recommend that still highly relevant and inciteful book, though the mid-nineties sequel may be better since so many of NFL changes in the interim seem eerily like a response to the original books contents. Anyway, my own QBRS was formulated no later than 2007, as previously documented; Tebow provided a topical means of illustrating its advantages to Broncos fans, just as Young did back then, but it was not designed for any individual player and the factual record demonstrates that well. Some things aren't about Tebow. Really. This thread, for example.

Meh. We're going around in circles and it really doesn't matter anyway: If Miller had the experience and coverage skills I'd cheerfully swap him with Mays (a Sam playing Mike) in a heartbeat, but, though I expect he WILL have them in a year or two, he doesn't now, making him currently unsuited for Mike.

[Simple Jaded]

Maybe you could just develope a grading system that makes Joe Mays less pathetic. :D.......

[Timmy!]

Moving Miller to MLB might well be top 5 dumbest shit ive read on this forum.....and thats saying something........

[Cugel]

A couple things:

- uh, didn't Ty warren play NT in new England?
- i seem to remember a board member proposing a similar shift in scheme. That idea wasnt judged as harshly. Leads me to believe, haters gonna hate on kiz (he ain't that bad).

Mark Kizla does in fact get some things right from time to time. And a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

Legwold is the Broncos reporter. Kizla is supposed to "stir things up" with his column and generate some kind of interest by saying outrageous things. Nobody at the Post cares if they make sense, and they seldom do.

This is just an another example. Not the first, and won't be the last. He's trying to sell newspapers.

This nonsense about the 3-4 is not worse than the moronic front page Post headline "Social Security Trust Nearing Bankruptcy!" (actually in 37 years if nothing is done).

Kizla is SUPPOSED to say idiot things. It's his job. Just as it's the Post's job to put up outrageous headlines to scare people into buying their paper. I've given up worrying about anything Kizla says.

I would suggest that you do the same. It makes for an easier life. :coffee:

[BCJ]

rest - http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_21359025/mark-kiszla-broncos-can-fix-dents-their-defense

Why would you even post this unless you think it is correct? It has been debunked.

[sneakers]

refresh me....what happened to our DC from last year....he went to another team, right?

[drewloc]

refresh me....what happened to our DC from last year....he went to another team, right?

He's the Faiders coach Sneak. :tsk: