PDA

View Full Version : Anyone here seriously concerned about our MLB?



Zweems56
05-07-2013, 12:08 PM
I was big on Irving when we first picked him up, but he obviously hasn't lived up to expectations. I feel like there's been a distinct lack of conversation about the heart of our defense that doesn't exist. So Brooking is gone, DJ is gone, and Mays is going to get cut. I was hoping that we'd pick up a new MLB in the draft for me to gush over (in the later rounds, not Teo), but that didn't happen either. What are we doing about this, kids? Are we actually leaving our trust in Predator Jr. and Johnson? Or was Bradley picked up believing that he'd be able to start? Someone make me feel better about this

Slick
05-07-2013, 12:13 PM
I feel pretty much the same as you do, but I don't think we'll see any MLBs signed unless they don't like what they see in camp. If they sign someone it will be done the same way as when they signed Brooking.

Zweems56
05-07-2013, 12:16 PM
I feel pretty much the same as you do, but I don't think we'll see any MLBs signed unless they don't like what they see in camp. If they sign someone it will be done the same way as when they signed Brooking.

Don't think there's anyone of great worth to sign.

underrated29
05-07-2013, 12:19 PM
Don't think there's anyone of great worth to sign.



I think dansby is still out there.



I doubt we look at him though. Im with ya. It will definitely be a major major focal point for me in camp.

Ziggy
05-07-2013, 12:39 PM
Ive been hoping for Dansby but they apparently havent shown any interest in him up to this point. I hope that Irving is what they think he is.

Ravage!!!
05-07-2013, 12:47 PM
I'm a bit bothered, however, I'm trying to look at the "lack of concern" ...or at least the apparent lack of concern... from our FO as a positive sign. I'm sure they are feeling confident, enough, in what we have or they would have moved forward with another option. They haven't seemed to be the kind of coaching staff/GM that simply 'sits' on a position they aren't comfortable with.

MOtorboat
05-07-2013, 12:48 PM
Two words:

Stewart Bradley.

Zweems56
05-07-2013, 12:54 PM
Two words:

Stewart Bradley.

Honestly, that's probably going to be the end result. Doesn't make me feel comfortable though.

Slick
05-07-2013, 12:55 PM
You are the only one excited about Stuart Bradley, Mo. I'm not saying he's a scrub. I guess we'll see won't we.

MOtorboat
05-07-2013, 01:06 PM
You guys need to get pumped!

Three words:
Stewart ******* Bradley.

Now forever to be known as SFB.

WARHORSE
05-07-2013, 01:19 PM
This just in.........theyre moving Wolfe to MLB!!

Sick!!!!!!!

;D

turftoad
05-07-2013, 01:27 PM
Bradley was drafted by Philly in the 3rd round of the 2007 draft where he played in the 4-3 defense. In 2008 he had 108 tackles from the MLB spot. He tore an ACL and missed the 2009 season. He played the last two years in AZ in a 3-4 defense, it was not a good fit.
Sounds like he's excited to be back in a 4-3 as he's more comfortable and experienced there.
Not saying he's gonna be a stud but, I do think he'll be a solid addition.
He's listed at 6'4" and 258. I read that he was the 4th rated LB out of 223 LB's the year he was drafted.

Ravage!!!
05-07-2013, 01:32 PM
This just in.........theyre moving Wolfe to MLB!!

Sick!!!!!!!

;D

link

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 02:00 PM
Actually I'm not concerned.

1. We have three guys on the roster to compete for the position.

2. Middle linebacker isn't the only position that makes up the middle of the defense. You need good defensive tackles as much if more so than great middle linebacker.

3. Middle linebacker in our defense comes off the field on obvious passing and many if not all of the sub packages.

Ravage!!!
05-07-2013, 02:15 PM
I disagree TX. I think the MLB is the QB of the defense, and could easily be labeled the most important position on that defense. You never have a GREAT defense, without a great MLB. He is THE man on that side of the ball.

Northman
05-07-2013, 02:15 PM
Im not sweating it. Not everything could be fixed this year via the draft. And even then those picks may/may not work out. We have yet to even see if Irving can play as he hasnt been on the field. But is that because he just isnt any good or because Elway and company wanted more experience at that position and veteran leadership? Im not worried about Irving until i actually see him playing or if he is just flat out cut. And in any case i would suppose the Broncos will address the MLB position more next year.

chazoe60
05-07-2013, 02:17 PM
No.

CoachChaz
05-07-2013, 02:18 PM
If Bradley can play like he did in Philly, he'll be just fine. That being said, if Irving can play like he did in college, we'll be doubly fine. I'm not too worried...as long as we have an extra DB in to cover the TE's. We'll be facing some good ones this year

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 02:33 PM
I remember discussing this already.

UnderArmour
05-07-2013, 04:09 PM
The front office was concerned about our MLB and that's exactly why they addressed the position in the draft with the Sylvester Williams pick. Upgrading the DT position by extension upgrades the MLB position. The winner of Irving/Bradley/Mays for MLB will be fine.

Joel
05-07-2013, 04:25 PM
I'm a bit bothered, however, I'm trying to look at the "lack of concern" ...or at least the apparent lack of concern... from our FO as a positive sign. I'm sure they are feeling confident, enough, in what we have or they would have moved forward with another option. They haven't seemed to be the kind of coaching staff/GM that simply 'sits' on a position they aren't comfortable with.
Isn't that pretty much what they did last year though? Signing Brooking as a retread with too many miles on him was STILL our best MLB, even as a one year rental, but a 3rd down liability.


Actually I'm not concerned.

1. We have three guys on the roster to compete for the position.
We could have THIRTY-three scrubs to compete and STILL wouldn't get a starter. I know injury took Irving's first year (lucky he's not a RB or the fans would've roasted him right there) but where was he last year?


2. Middle linebacker isn't the only position that makes up the middle of the defense. You need good defensive tackles as much if more so than great middle linebacker.
No question DTs are critical, but having two makes an elite one less vital. Mikes are just as important against runs but far more important against passes. And DTs almost never diagnose plays for the whole D and respond with the appropriate audible.


3. Middle linebacker in our defense comes off the field on obvious passing and many if not all of the sub packages.
Sure it's not the reverse? Most MLBs are fast and good in coverage, so they stay on the field in nickel, usually even in dime. Brooking's slowed due to age though, and Mays is just plain awful, so replacing them in nickel and dime made sense. That didn't make pulling our Mike in those situations ideal, just necessary. I kinda feel like if I have one MLB on 1st down and a different one on 3rd I don't actually have ANY MLB.


I disagree TX. I think the MLB is the QB of the defense, and could easily be labeled the most important position on that defense. You never have a GREAT defense, without a great MLB. He is THE man on that side of the ball.
Been saying all that since urging we address our nonexistent depth behind Al Wilson; I wish you better luck. Friendly tip: DON'T mention Miller; he's (apparently) far more valuable doing nothing but blitzing. :tongue:

I'd happily take Urlacher or Dansby if the price is right, and apparently Urlacher's gotten few offers. Maybe we'll see something after we sign our draft picks and have a better idea of how much is left in the bank. If not, I hope Irving's finally read to play defensive QB his third year, or Bradley is the real deal.

Ravage!!!
05-07-2013, 04:40 PM
Been saying all that since urging we address our nonexistent depth behind Al Wilson; I wish you better luck. Friendly tip: DON'T mention Miller; he's (apparently) far more valuable doing nothing but blitzing. :tongue:

I'd happily take Urlacher or Dansby if the price is right, and apparently Urlacher's gotten few offers. Maybe we'll see something after we sign our draft picks and have a better idea of how much is left in the bank. If not, I hope Irving's finally read to play defensive QB his third year, or Bradley is the real deal.

yeah.. its pretty dumb to mention putting Miller in the middle.

honz
05-07-2013, 04:41 PM
I was big on Irving when we first picked him up, but he obviously hasn't lived up to expectations. I feel like there's been a distinct lack of conversation about the heart of our defense that doesn't exist. So Brooking is gone, DJ is gone, and Mays is going to get cut. I was hoping that we'd pick up a new MLB in the draft for me to gush over (in the later rounds, not Teo), but that didn't happen either. What are we doing about this, kids? Are we actually leaving our trust in Predator Jr. and Johnson? Or was Bradley picked up believing that he'd be able to start? Someone make me feel better about this
What MLB? :rimshot:

OrangeHoof
05-07-2013, 05:25 PM
With more teams playing multi-WR sets and hurry-up offenses, some people think the MLB is a dying breed, much like the fullback. Fewer teams need them so they fall thru the draft and get picked up as late-round choices or UDFAs. Particularly if they don't cover receivers well, MLBs can be had out of the discount bin.

I don't know if I personally agree with the assessment but there is some logic to the argument.

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 05:30 PM
I disagree TX. I think the MLB is the QB of the defense, and could easily be labeled the most important position on that defense. You never have a GREAT defense, without a great MLB. He is THE man on that side of the ball.

They can't quarterback the defense if they're not on the field. Ours came off the field in obvious passing situation. Anyway the bigger point for me is I'm not worried about because I think it will work itself out.

broncohead
05-07-2013, 05:32 PM
Miller and Woody will be in Nicole/dime packages. We don't need a MLB for those packages.

Ravage!!!
05-07-2013, 05:38 PM
They can't quarterback the defense if they're not on the field. Ours came off the field in obvious passing situation. Anyway the bigger point for me is I'm not worried about because I think it will work itself out.

Yeah.. but it could be said the reason they came off the field is because they aren't good enough to stay on the field. Besides, it's the NFL, EVERY down is an obvious passing down. Unless you are talking about 3rd and 10, when is it ever not a passing down?

I'm not "worried" about the MLB.... but I will recognize that last year we were WEAK at MLB and it was obvious. Thus, until it's fixed, it's still a VERY big weakness.

MOtorboat
05-07-2013, 05:42 PM
Yeah.. but it could be said the reason they came off the field is because they aren't good enough to stay on the field. Besides, it's the NFL, EVERY down is an obvious passing down. Unless you are talking about 3rd and 10, when is it ever not a passing down?

I'm not "worried" about the MLB.... but I will recognize that last year we were WEAK at MLB and it was obvious. Thus, until it's fixed, it's still a VERY big weakness.

I think their offseason moves on defense since Elway has taken over point to the idea that many teams are using their nickel defense as their base defense.

Ravage!!!
05-07-2013, 05:51 PM
I think their offseason moves on defense since Elway has taken over point to the idea that many teams are using their nickel defense as their base defense.

Probably. MOre spread offenses with obvious more multi-WR sets leaves the impression that more DBs are always a need, and thus teams come out on 1st down with 3-4 WRs and the need to be a base of 5 DBs on the field. Hence, why I think the bigger DB will just be that much more important, or... a RB that can get to past that front DL so that he's now up against lighter..faster...LBs or smaller DBs. I mean, we've seen that change happen since the 2000 St. Louis Rams.

But that just makes my point.. in a sense. For ever point there is a counter. Getting a MLB that can stay on the field, eliminates a lot of problems.

Now I realize that finding that elite MLB is like finding that elite QB. They are far and few...but I personally don't think they are becoming less valuable, I think they are becoming MORE valuable since the position is getting harder to fill with quality. Much like we heard that teams didn't "need" that elite QB when Dilfer and Johnson won their Super Bowls... and much like some tried to say last year after the Pittsburgh game.

But I think playing the nickle is a direct response to not having that MLB, to begin with.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 05:54 PM
Miller and Woody will be in Nicole/dime packages. We don't need a MLB for those packages.

Exactly what I was thinking. I'd bet Woodyard still keeps the green sticker.

MOtorboat
05-07-2013, 05:59 PM
I'd bet Woodyard still keeps the green sticker.

Excellent point and worth repeating. There's no defensive law stating the defensive "quarterback" has to be the designated MLB...

Slick
05-07-2013, 06:03 PM
Unless you have a guy like Patrick Willis, I agree.

Joel
05-07-2013, 06:06 PM
Yeah.. but it could be said the reason they came off the field is because they aren't good enough to stay on the field. Besides, it's the NFL, EVERY down is an obvious passing down. Unless you are talking about 3rd and 10, when is it ever not a passing down?
Um, it WAS said: By me.

Spread offense and more passing isn't killing the MLB, the increasing number of 3-4s is reducing demand for Mikes AS Mikes. The best can play 3-4 OLB as easily as 4-3 MLB, but the 3-4 OLB is a far more glamorous better paid role for those good enough to do both. Yet Mikes are still as vital, if not as available, for the remaining 4-3 teams. That's part of why Bradley doesn't reassure me: If he were an elite 4-3 MLB he would've been an elite 3-4 LB, inside, outside or SOMEWHERE.

Mikes worth having don't leave the field for nickel and dime, precisely because quality pass coverage is among their several critical duties. Mikes who can't cover leave the field in obvious passing situations, but let's be honest: Those guys are poor Mikes by definition, so most were only out there from necessity in the first place. Just because passing burns a team playing two Sams and a Will on early downs and forces them to play ONLY Wills on late downs doesn't mean Mikes suck—it just means THEIR "Mike" sucks.

It's not that Mikes are drafted late, it's that the guys capable of being elite Mikes are drafted earlier as 3-4 OLBs, or occasionally ILBs if they're exceptional in coverage but still very good blitzers and runstoppers. When we see Mikes drafted AS Mikes late it's usually because coverage is all they bring to the table; they're basically bigger slower Wills who aren't useless against the run. The 3-4s resurgence has shifted allocation of the same skills that have always been and will always be rare and invaluable, to the detriment of players available to play Mike.

Consider this: The demand for 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 RDEs is roughly three times greater than the demand for 4-3 MLBs, yet the latter is MUCH harder to find. Even harder than when roughly twice as many teams ran 4-3s. The talent didn't go away: It just got redirected. When we see a Will that covers as well or better than a Mike there are only two possible explanations: 1) The Mike sucks or 2) the Will is a closeted safety.

Likewise, there are only three reasonable motives to keep Miller at Sam when we have no hint of a quality Mike on the roster: 1) Miller can't cover, 2) Miller can't run stop or 3) blitzers are more important.

Ravage!!!
05-07-2013, 06:08 PM
yes.. I know it was said by you.. and it was a dumb suggestion.

Joel
05-07-2013, 07:13 PM
yes.. I know it was said by you.. and it was a dumb suggestion.


but it could be said the reason they came off the field is because they aren't good enough to stay on the field. was a dumb suggestion? So you quoted it ironically or something? It's the same point I made here http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/540985-Anyone-here-seriously-concerned-about-our-MLB?p=1952471#post1952471 in response to the same argument. Or how 'bout your post here http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/540985-Anyone-here-seriously-concerned-about-our-MLB?p=1952525#post1952525 Isn't that pretty much the same argument I made for all but the last sentence of the post to which you just objected? Why focus solely on the final sentence to the exclusion of the other FOURTEEN with which you substantively agree?

Has it really gotten to the point the SAME argument becomes brilliant or idiotic based SOLELY on who made it?

Meanwhile, that final sentence DOES remain valid: The only reasonable justification possible for not moving Miller to Mike are 1) he would suck at it or 2) he's far more valuable as a blitzer. My impression is you hold with the latter, but you're welcome and encouraged to correct me if not.

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 07:15 PM
Yeah.. but it could be said the reason they came off the field is because they aren't good enough to stay on the field. Besides, it's the NFL, EVERY down is an obvious passing down. Unless you are talking about 3rd and 10, when is it ever not a passing down?

I'm not "worried" about the MLB.... but I will recognize that last year we were WEAK at MLB and it was obvious. Thus, until it's fixed, it's still a VERY big weakness.

My understanding of obvious passing down is 2nd and long and 3rd and 3 yards or longer.

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 07:21 PM
Excellent point and worth repeating. There's no defensive law stating the defensive "quarterback" has to be the designated MLB...

Exactly Woodyard called the defense last year and there nothing that says the mike has to be the one to do it unless you're stuck in 1965.

Joel
05-07-2013, 07:31 PM
Exactly Woodyard called the defense last year and there nothing that says the mike has to be the one to do it unless you're stuck in 1965.
The Mike's in a better position to read formations AND QBs, plus his far more versatile skills and abilities make it easier for him to direct both himself and teammates quickly to maximum effect. He's also closer to the QB than anyone but defensive linemen (and faster than almost all of them) if he opts to call a delayed or other blitz, and to the RB if he opts for a run blitz or similar play. Other than those three reasons though, no, there's zero reason the Will can't be an equally effective defensive QB. Though the only time I've ever heard a Will called "defensive QB" is in Broncos Forums posts explaining we don't need an elite Mike. ;)

SR
05-07-2013, 07:35 PM
We don't need an elite MLB. Some people, like you, act like we need all pro guys at every position to win games.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 07:58 PM
Odd that the MLB position is so important that they gave the headset to a Will LB last season. Doesn't this staff realize how important the Mike position is? They're the only player on defense in position to make decisions. We need guys unlike Fox and Del Rio. Someone who actually understands linebacking.

+ :red font:

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 08:06 PM
We don't need an elite MLB. Some people, like you, act like we need all pro guys at every position to win games.

No we sure don't. This isn't 1965 when defense revolved around the middle linebacker.

SR
05-07-2013, 08:08 PM
Odd that the MLB position is so important that they gave the headset to a Will LB last season. Doesn't this staff realize how important the Mike position is? They're the only player on defense in position to make decisions. We need guys unlike Fox and Del Rio. Someone who actually understands linebacking.

This is either really sarcastic or really dumb. Please clarify. Red font?

SR
05-07-2013, 08:08 PM
No we sure don't. This isn't 1965 when defense revolved around the middle linebacker.

Oh Jesus. Joel is about to give a history lesson because of your post.

broncohead
05-07-2013, 08:12 PM
The Mike's in a better position to read formations AND QBs, plus his far more versatile skills and abilities make it easier for him to direct both himself and teammates quickly to maximum effect. He's also closer to the QB than anyone but defensive linemen (and faster than almost all of them) if he opts to call a delayed or other blitz, and to the RB if he opts for a run blitz or similar play. Other than those three reasons though, no, there's zero reason the Will can't be an equally effective defensive QB. Though the only time I've ever heard a Will called "defensive QB" is in Broncos Forums posts explaining we don't need an elite Mike. ;)

Maybe we think we don't need an "elite" MLB because the FO doesn't think we need one. We force opponents to pass to keep up and or defense is built for that. That could also be why we drafted in interior pass rusher, CB, and an edge rusher.

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 08:13 PM
This is either really sarcastic or really dumb. Please clarify. Red font?

I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 08:15 PM
Oh Jesus. Joel is about to give a history lesson because of your post.

Shit he doesn't need me say that for him to go into one of his diatribes.

Joel
05-07-2013, 08:22 PM
We don't need an elite MLB. Some people, like you, act like we need all pro guys at every position to win games.
Not everywhere, just key places. Mike is one; RDE OR OLB and at least one safety. At least one DT and CB is preferable, but two solid players at each position would be adequate. That's, what, 3-5 guys?

A top WR, OT, G and QB OR RB. As with DTs and CBs, a Pro Bowl and serviceable OT could be replaced by two solid players, and likewise at G.

That would be my ideal blueprint; a fair number of Pro Bowlers, to be sure, but not a whole team: Just critical positions. Free agency and the cap make a Super Bowl quite attainable even missing an All Pro on each side of the ball, but go much farther and winning a SB with less than half a dozen Pro Bowlers becomes an uphill battle. A team with so few exceptional players better not have ANY substandard starters.

That's just my two cents, to which I believe I'm entitled.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 08:26 PM
Not everywhere, just key places. Mike is one; RDE OR OLB and at least one safety. At least one DT and CB is preferable, but two solid players at each position would be adequate. That's, what, 3-5 guys?

A top WR, OT, G and QB OR RB. As with DTs and CBs, a Pro Bowl and serviceable OT could be replaced by two solid players, and likewise at G.

That would be my ideal blueprint; a fair number of Pro Bowlers, to be sure, but not a whole team: Just critical positions. Free agency and the cap make a Super Bowl quite attainable even missing an All Pro on each side of the ball, but go much farther and winning a SB with less than half a dozen Pro Bowlers becomes an uphill battle. A team with so few exceptional players better not have ANY substandard starters.

That's just my two cents, to which I believe I'm entitled.

You libs and your entitlement system.

(Just kidding! No one make a serious political rebuttal.)

Joel
05-07-2013, 08:27 PM
Odd that the MLB position is so important that they gave the headset to a Will LB last season. Doesn't this staff realize how important the Mike position is? They're the only player on defense in position to make decisions. We need guys unlike Fox and Del Rio. Someone who actually understands linebacking.
I think they understood but didn't like the available draft and FA options. They gave the headset, or at least the captaincy, to the most experienced Broncos LB we had, because all the Mikes we had sucked out loud. Brooking was good until we got to 3rd and/or long yardage, but just doesn't have the speed to keep up in coverage anymore; Mays was just plain awful and Irving might as well have been a rookie. Woodyard's a very good Will, but IS a Will; asking him to blitz and run stop to the degree and in the style of a Mike is asking too much, if only because he's listed at 229. He won't shed many blocks at that size.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 08:29 PM
We went 13-3 with the Will taking on some of the Mike responsibilities.

So, no, I'm not as worried about it as some seem to be.

Joel
05-07-2013, 08:30 PM
Maybe we think we don't need an "elite" MLB because the FO doesn't think we need one. We force opponents to pass to keep up and or defense is built for that. That could also be why we drafted in interior pass rusher, CB, and an edge rusher.
We don't need an elite Mike because we make opponents pass... okay; I wasn't aware elite Mikes did nothing but play the run. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that they're at least as responsible for short zone coverage over the middle (a kind of important place in pass coverage) and periodically blitzing. Sorry, must've been thinking of some other position. :redface:

Joel
05-07-2013, 08:39 PM
We went 13-3 with the Will taking on some of the Mike responsibilities.

So, no, I'm not as worried about it as some seem to be.
We went one and done and gave up a lot of third downs with the Will taking on some of the Mike responsibilities. I won't sit here and say it's Woodyards fault we gave up a 70 yd 3rd and 3 bomb up by a TD with 0:40 in regulation, because 1) that was a group epic fail and 2) if our 229 lb. Will who's practically a safety couldn't stop that play a Mike 20-30 lbs. heavier wouldn't either. Still and so, we gave up >300 yds to a second rate QB who barely completed 50% of his passes, plus a 30 yd Ray Rice RUN that gave Baltimore 1st and G at our 4, from whence they easily punched it in for a TD.

We don't NEED an elite MLB to win a SB; we don't NEED an elite ANYTHING to do that. But without an elite MLB, that many more of the guys around our Mike have to be that much better. Our DTs and safeties must run stop better, especially up the gut; our safeties and other LBs must play zone better, our LBs, DEs and safeties must run stop on the edge and pass rush better. If all those players do all those things, sure, an elite Mike is a luxury. It's just a lot easier to find ONE elite player than half a dozen.

MOtorboat
05-07-2013, 09:01 PM
2) he's far more valuable as a blitzer.

He's an explosive edge player, not just a "blitzer." And the reason defenses develop and keep pass rushers coming off the edge is because there is more space to work. Moving him inside would eliminate his speed and quickness at the point of attack. Moving him inside would benefit our opponents.

Moving Miller to middle linebacker is asinine.

chazoe60
05-07-2013, 09:16 PM
My understanding of obvious passing down is 2nd and long and 3rd and 3 yards or longer.

2nd and short is the most obvious passing down besides 3rd and 4 or more.

Joel
05-07-2013, 09:22 PM
He's an explosive edge player, not just a "blitzer." And the reason defenses develop and keep pass rushers coming off the edge is because there is more space to work. Moving him inside would eliminate his speed and quickness at the point of attack. Moving him inside would benefit our opponents.

Moving Miller to middle linebacker is asinine.
Could you elaborate on that distinction in a way that doesn't reference 1) runstopping more valuable at MLB or 2) QBs, please? Otherwise it's just another way to say, "sacks>MLBs," a distinction without a difference.

Understand, I conceded that's a reasonable argument, but being reasonable doesn't automatically make it sound, and I strongly disagree with it.

MOtorboat
05-07-2013, 09:38 PM
Could you elaborate on that distinction in a way that doesn't reference 1) runstopping more valuable at MLB or 2) QBs, please? Otherwise it's just another way to say, "sacks>MLBs," a distinction without a difference.

Understand, I conceded that's a reasonable argument, but being reasonable doesn't automatically make it sound, and I strongly disagree with it.

I'm not sure I follow. And your problem is you ONLY see sacks from the edge. Miller was rated as the best outside linebacker against the run, meaning he makes plays against runs to his side, as much if not more than any middle linebacker would to the middle of the field. But he's an edge player because of his unique skill set in getting to the quarterback.

And I don't even know what there is to disagree with. You disagree that Denver should have a legitimately elite player on the edge?

MOtorboat
05-07-2013, 09:52 PM
"sacks>MLBs,"

I'm trying to understand this type of thinking, because your making it black and white, can have versus cannot have, and it's not that at all.

It's not sacks are better than middle linebackers. That's not even a apples to apples comparison. Yes, a sack is the single most disruptive play for a defense, but it's not exclusionary of having a middle linebacker, therefore a black and white "better than" analogy isn't even remotely a sound argument.

Denver has an ELITE edge player, which includes all three phases of playing defense, defending the run, defending the pass and rushing the passer. Because they have that elite player does not mean that NOT moving him to middle linebacker means "sacks>MLBs."

It means Denver has an elite player doing what he does and there is ZERO reason to change what he does and does better than anyone else in the league simply because Denver doesn't have an elite middle linebacker. You don't ******* move players all willy nilly around from position to position just to find out if they can be an elite middle linebacker like they are an elite outside linebacker, or if they can be an elite safety because they are an elite cornerback. It's just freaking dumb.

It's the equivalent of saying, "well, we've got an elite running back, but we don't have an elite wide receiver, so lets see if the elite running back can be an elite wide receiver." You don't do it, because it just doesn't make sense, even if you deem wide receiver to be a more important position in the game today than running back. Instead, you try to find the wide receiver, or the middle linebacker, or the safety to play that position without tinkering with other players on your team.

Why?

Because you create two holes when you move a player from one position to another. It's playing the odds. Your odds get worse when you have two question marks than you do if you have one question mark. It's not an intelligent thing to do.

In terms of pass rushing from the inside. There's a reason teams use defensive tackles inside and defensive ends outside. Because there is more space to roam outside for smaller, quicker guys and because there is less space inside therefore bigger, stronger guys are needed to get pressure, and typically double teams also come inside. Double teams are easier to beat on the edge because of the speed difference between an elite edge rusher and a guard. Placing him in the three or five technique puts the pass rusher at a disadvantage because its easier for the guard to get his hands inside on the edge rusher and to take away his speed advantage. That's why team runs stunts inside, because it is more difficult to get pressure inside when you're at arms length of three offensive lineman versus one.

broncohead
05-07-2013, 10:02 PM
We don't need an elite Mike because we make opponents pass... okay; I wasn't aware elite Mikes did nothing but play the run. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that they're at least as responsible for short zone coverage over the middle (a kind of important place in pass coverage) and periodically blitzing. Sorry, must've been thinking of some other position. :redface:

Ray Lewis was regarded as the best MLB for a long time and he wasn't great in coverage or blitzing.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 10:29 PM
MO with a Joel-sized post.

Dapper Dan
05-07-2013, 10:30 PM
Ray Lewis was regarded as the best MLB for a long time and he wasn't great in coverage or blitzing.

True. Dude was just a killer tackler. And he willed the guys around him. Or something like that.

TXBRONC
05-07-2013, 10:32 PM
I'm trying to understand this type of thinking, because your making it black and white, can have versus cannot have, and it's not that at all.

It's not sacks are better than middle linebackers. That's not even a apples to apples comparison. Yes, a sack is the single most disruptive play for a defense, but it's not exclusionary of having a middle linebacker, therefore a black and white "better than" analogy isn't even remotely a sound argument.

Denver has an ELITE edge player, which includes all three phases of playing defense, defending the run, defending the pass and rushing the passer. Because they have that elite player does not mean that NOT moving him to middle linebacker means "sacks>MLBs."

It means Denver has an elite player doing what he does and there is ZERO reason to change what he does and does better than anyone else in the league simply because Denver doesn't have an elite middle linebacker. You don't ******* move players all willy nilly around from position to position just to find out if they can be an elite middle linebacker like they are an elite outside linebacker, or if they can be an elite safety because they are an elite cornerback. It's just freaking dumb.

It's the equivalent of saying, "well, we've got an elite running back, but we don't have an elite wide receiver, so lets see if the elite running back can be an elite wide receiver." You don't do it, because it just doesn't make sense, even if you deem wide receiver to be a more important position in the game today than running back. Instead, you try to find the wide receiver, or the middle linebacker, or the safety to play that position without tinkering with other players on your team.

Why?

Because you create two holes when you move a player from one position to another. It's playing the odds. Your odds get worse when you have two question marks than you do if you have one question mark. It's not an intelligent thing to do.

In terms of pass rushing from the inside. There's a reason teams use defensive tackles inside and defensive ends outside. Because there is more space to roam outside for smaller, quicker guys and because there is less space inside therefore bigger, stronger guys are needed to get pressure, and typically double teams also come inside. Double teams are easier to beat on the edge because of the speed difference between an elite edge rusher and a guard. Placing him in the three or five technique puts the pass rusher at a disadvantage because its easier for the guard to get his hands inside on the edge rusher and to take away his speed advantage. That's why team runs stunts inside, because it is more difficult to get pressure inside when you're at arms length of three offensive lineman versus one.

Well done MO but now it's time for the history lesson on how the position of middle linebacker was invented and how Dick Butkus once got 18 sacks as a middle linebacker in the '60s.

SR
05-08-2013, 08:09 AM
Mo, you're my idol.

Ravage!!!
05-08-2013, 10:46 AM
Ray Lewis was regarded as the best MLB for a long time and he wasn't great in coverage or blitzing.

Ray Lewis can be considered the greatest to ever play the MLB position.

Ravage!!!
05-08-2013, 10:47 AM
Well done MO but now it's time for the history lesson on how the position of middle linebacker was invented and how Dick Butkus once got 18 sacks as middle linebacker in the '60s.

That, and a line-by-line, 2 page response that no one will read.

Chef Zambini
05-08-2013, 11:56 AM
Ray Lewis can be considered the greatest to ever play the MLB position.he is in the discussion, along with a dozen others.
Ray easily has the best PR department.

Dapper Dan
05-08-2013, 12:15 PM
Try to stay on topic, guys. Sports media just now stopped talking about that homo.

Ravage!!!
05-08-2013, 12:17 PM
I"m pretty sure that Ray Lewis can be mentioned, on topic, in a thread discussing MLBs.... since he's probably the greatest LB to play the position.

Chef Zambini
05-08-2013, 12:49 PM
who is calling plays in the huddle, who is reminding SAFETIES of down, distance, time-outs and clock management.
Is it our MLB ?
who is wearing the green dot on defense?

MOtorboat
05-08-2013, 12:57 PM
who is calling plays in the huddle, who is reminding SAFETIES of down, distance, time-outs and clock management.
Is it our MLB ?
who is wearing the green dot on defense?

I thought we went over this. :whoknows:

Woodyard.

G_Money
05-08-2013, 01:46 PM
I disagree TX. I think the MLB is the QB of the defense, and could easily be labeled the most important position on that defense. You never have a GREAT defense, without a great MLB. He is THE man on that side of the ball.

Eh. We won SB#1 with Allen Aldridge and SB#2 with Glenn Cadrez in the middle, right? Sure, they were flanked by Romo and Mobley, but we're flanking our MLB with Von and Woodyard - that's similar talent.

Would I love to have an Al Wilson ALSO in the middle of that D? Abso-freakin-lutely. Maybe next year. But right now Woodyard has the green sticker and the C on his chest, while Von is a DPOY candidate.

We'll make do at LB until we can get a 3-down one for the middle. It's not like we're bereft at that level of the D.

~G

slim
05-08-2013, 02:15 PM
I don't know why everyone is so quick to write of Irving. The coaching staff obviously sees something in him.

broncohead
05-08-2013, 03:03 PM
I don't think we saw it as a huge need based on the fact that we'll probably play a lot of nickel D. Woody and Von are perfect for that. We got a coverage guy who plays smart and obviously Von is a beast. There is nothing those 2 can't do imo

rationalfan
05-08-2013, 03:54 PM
it's funny how the offseason exaggerates team weaknesses far more than during the regular season.

Ravage!!!
05-08-2013, 03:59 PM
it's funny how the offseason exaggerates team weaknesses far more than during the regular season.

Well, I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about needing a MLB two years ago, thenlast year, and then they signed the one we had for a large contract, and people complained because he sucked. Then we complained during the season, because the one we signed for big money, got hurt, and had to be replaced with Brooking....who did decent job but obviously is way past his prime. Then we complained before the draft of THIS offseason, expressing the need of a MLB since we've needed a good one since Wilson. When we didn't sign one in FA, we were looking to the draft... and then here we still are.

I'm not sure I see much of an exaggeration of an opinion that has differed from the last few offseasons or seasons.

Ravage!!!
05-08-2013, 04:02 PM
Eh. We won SB#1 with Allen Aldridge and SB#2 with Glenn Cadrez in the middle, right? Sure, they were flanked by Romo and Mobley, but we're flanking our MLB with Von and Woodyard - that's similar talent.

Would I love to have an Al Wilson ALSO in the middle of that D? Abso-freakin-lutely. Maybe next year. But right now Woodyard has the green sticker and the C on his chest, while Von is a DPOY candidate.

We'll make do at LB until we can get a 3-down one for the middle. It's not like we're bereft at that level of the D.

~G
Yeah.. and teams have "won" with the likes of Brad Johnson and Mark Rypien at QB. I don't think that was the point. The point is that if we want a great defense, and a defense that continues to be GOOD for years, then the MLB can be considered the most important position on the defensive side of the ball.

Can you win without one, of course. Is it good for your defense to not have a good one? No.

G_Money
05-08-2013, 05:13 PM
Yeah.. and teams have "won" with the likes of Brad Johnson and Mark Rypien at QB. I don't think that was the point. The point is that if we want a great defense, and a defense that continues to be GOOD for years, then the MLB can be considered the most important position on the defensive side of the ball.

Can you win without one, of course. Is it good for your defense to not have a good one? No.

Except that the importance of the QB has been going UP with the decline of RB importance, while the importance of the MLB has been going down (certainly in the 4-3). Name me the great 4-3 MLBs in the league right now who are leading their teams to contending for titles.

The LB position isn't less important, but maybe you hybrid the Mike position into a run stopper and a pass defender (which is what we were doing last year by throwing another DB in there with Von and Wes still on the field, or by adding Trevathan if we want bigger pass defenders).

I agree with you, a 3-down MLB with leadership skills would be a great addition to this D. Whether there was one to be had in this draft is in the eye of the beholder, I guess, but Ogletree (he of the multiple dumbass off-the-field decisions including within the last couple months) was already off the board, T'eo (issues on and off the field already discussed) could have been had but was passed over as a likely 2-downer...

I fully expect to draft a Mike next year, but I don't think not having one this year automatically kills the chances our D has to produce a title. The position isn't what it was.

~G

TXBRONC
05-08-2013, 05:25 PM
I don't think we saw it as a huge need based on the fact that we'll probably play a lot of nickel D. Woody and Von are perfect for that. We got a coverage guy who plays smart and obviously Von is a beast. There is nothing those 2 can't do imo

But if you don't have MLB on the field no one else is capable of call the defense.

Chef Zambini
05-08-2013, 05:29 PM
I thought we went over this. :whoknows:

Woodyard.well then woodyard has got some 'splainin' to do about moore allowing a reciever to get behind him , and why that receiver was not tackled in bounds after making a catch.

ShaneFalco
05-08-2013, 05:40 PM
Not pumped about Bradley at all.

TXBRONC
05-08-2013, 05:43 PM
well then woodyard has got some 'splainin' to do about moore allowing a reciever to get behind him , and why that receiver was not tackled in bounds after making a catch.

I bet they've already covered it Zam months ago where it counts behind closed doors.

ShaneFalco
05-08-2013, 05:44 PM
Need to get Ray lewis to come out of retirement for a year

TXBRONC
05-08-2013, 06:00 PM
Need to get Ray lewis to come out of retirement for a year

No we don't.

Dapper Dan
05-08-2013, 06:08 PM
I"m pretty sure that Ray Lewis can be mentioned, on topic, in a thread discussing MLBs.... since he's probably the greatest LB to play the position.

Go talk about him in the homosexuality thread.

SmilinAssasSin27
05-08-2013, 06:46 PM
I disagree TX. I think the MLB is the QB of the defense, and could easily be labeled the most important position on that defense. You never have a GREAT defense, without a great MLB. He is THE man on that side of the ball.

But Denver won 2 SBs without a noteworthy one.

TXBRONC
05-08-2013, 08:51 PM
But Denver won 2 SBs without a noteworthy one.

The Giants run a 4-3 and their trio of linebackers are solid but nothing special.

Dapper Dan
05-08-2013, 08:55 PM
It's important to have an elite MLB if your quarterback is Trent Dilfer.

G_Money
05-08-2013, 11:00 PM
The Giants run a 4-3 and their trio of linebackers solid but nothing special.

Seriously, I just want somebody to name me 3 great 4-3 MLBs who are leading their amazing defenses in 2013.

I think the world of Patrick Willis, for instance, but he doesn't play in a 4-3. What awesome standard does our combo MLB have to play up to? Or is there a shift happening in 4-3 defenses to make them more like 4-2-5 (or playing two Wills on the field instead of a Will and a Mike) for a significant chunk of plays?

~G

G_Money
05-08-2013, 11:04 PM
Lemme be clear: I love the MLB position. I've wanted a new Mike since... well, since Al Wilson's shoulders and thumbs started to ossify on him and make him a terrible tackler all of a sudden.

But it's not like we passed up a Patrick Willis in this draft, or that there was one available in FA. I wanted Lofton last year but we gave Mays 2/3 of the same amount of money to suck hard, so that ship sailed.

Maybe we'll get Skov in '14 and everyone can relax.

~G

Dapper Dan
05-08-2013, 11:05 PM
Lemme be clear: I love the MLB position. I've wanted a new Mike since... well, since Al Wilson's shoulders and thumbs started to ossify on him and make him a terrible tackler all of a sudden.

But it's not like we passed up a Patrick Willis in this draft, or that there was one available in FA. I wanted Lofton last year but we gave Mays 2/3 of the same amount of money to suck hard, so that ship sailed.

Maybe we'll get Skov in '14 and everyone can relax.

~G

AJ Johnson :D

Joel
05-09-2013, 08:16 AM
I'm trying to understand this type of thinking, because your making it black and white, can have versus cannot have, and it's not that at all.
For a single player so exceptional he can play multiple positions it's exactly that: He can't play both at once. It would be different with even a decent Mike, but we don't have one. Miller can only play Sam OR Mike, so which hole is less critical and easier to fill when he's in the other? I was accused of wanting Pro Bowlers everywhere, but that's not so, and Sam's a good example of a place where Pro Bowlers are luxuries, not necessities. They run-stop through blocking TEs on early downs and are the first to leave the field on long/late downs; Mike's only do that if they suck (like ours.) Which is the higher priority...?


It's not sacks are better than middle linebackers. That's not even a apples to apples comparison. Yes, a sack is the single most disruptive play for a defense, but it's not exclusionary of having a middle linebacker, therefore a black and white "better than" analogy isn't even remotely a sound argument.
It's not black and white because Mikes can rush, and good ones do, but even Butkus' 18 sacks in one year can't convince people of that. So, if Mikes can't rush, Miller can do one OR the other: Not both.


Denver has an ELITE edge player, which includes all three phases of playing defense, defending the run, defending the pass and rushing the passer. Because they have that elite player does not mean that NOT moving him to middle linebacker means "sacks>MLBs."
Run stopping, covering AND rushing sounds FAR more like a Mike than a Sam. Sams RARELY cover: They fight through TE blocks to tackle runners on early downs, then leave the field in nickel and dime (or move to LDE like Miller to rush.) Any LB with decent speed and good tackling can do that; Mays is an awful Mike, but would be an adequate Sam, like Haggan before him, as Brooking would be despite diminished speed.

Mikes MUST be good in both middle zone coverage AND run stopping, and still reach the QB at need. Rushing up the middle is tighter than off the edge, but the distance is much shorter, too, so quick agile players coming out of the backfield often get there once DTs occupy blockers. Safeties do it often.


It means Denver has an elite player doing what he does and there is ZERO reason to change what he does and does better than anyone else in the league simply because Denver doesn't have an elite middle linebacker. You don't ******* move players all willy nilly around from position to position just to find out if they can be an elite middle linebacker like they are an elite outside linebacker, or if they can be an elite safety because they are an elite cornerback. It's just freaking dumb.
So Miller should still be the 3-4 Will he was at A&M? Shouldn't play LDE in nickel and dime? We DID and DO move him already, because his diverse exceptional talent does many things well: Sounds like a Mike.

Mikes are more valuable than Sams; they just are, because they must do much more than just rush, or even rush and run stop. Miller's an elite talent who does many things well, hence we drafted a 3-4 Will to play 4-3 Sam and move to LDE in nickel/dime. As a rookie he didn't have the experience or knowledge to run the D from the middle, and hadn't covered much. Now he's two more years of pro football up close, which makes a difference. He covers better, and plays the run MUCH better, in addition to being a great pass rusher.


It's the equivalent of saying, "well, we've got an elite running back, but we don't have an elite wide receiver, so lets see if the elite running back can be an elite wide receiver." You don't do it, because it just doesn't make sense, even if you deem wide receiver to be a more important position in the game today than running back. Instead, you try to find the wide receiver, or the middle linebacker, or the safety to play that position without tinkering with other players on your team.

Why?

Because you create two holes when you move a player from one position to another. It's playing the odds. Your odds get worse when you have two question marks than you do if you have one question mark. It's not an intelligent thing to do.
We HAVE tried to find that elite Mike; how's that working? Elite edge rushers are far easier to find and more plentiful than elite Mikes; there are about three of the former sitting on the sidelines now, plenty good enough, but demanding FAR more for their services than anyone wants to pay. The only top Mikes I know of are Urlacher and Dansby, and the former's lost much of his speed, which coverage (and occasional pass rushing) makes as critical for Mikes as it is for RDEs and 3-4 OLBs. Again, there's THREE TIMES more demand for edge rushers than for 4-3 Mikes, yet there's more edge rushers and in total: Which is harder to find?

Look at this years draft: Tons of top edge rushers; NO top Mikes.

The thing is, whether Champ as potential F/SS or Miller as potential Mike we're talking elite players with a wide range of high level talent. It perplexes to hear arguments "he's so good at EVERYTHING we can't afford to lose that at his current position, and, anyway, he's not good enough at everything to play a different but very similar position." Does he do it all or nothing? Which is it?


In terms of pass rushing from the inside. There's a reason teams use defensive tackles inside and defensive ends outside. Because there is more space to roam outside for smaller, quicker guys and because there is less space inside therefore bigger, stronger guys are needed to get pressure, and typically double teams also come inside. Double teams are easier to beat on the edge because of the speed difference between an elite edge rusher and a guard. Placing him in the three or five technique puts the pass rusher at a disadvantage because its easier for the guard to get his hands inside on the edge rusher and to take away his speed advantage. That's why team runs stunts inside, because it is more difficult to get pressure inside when you're at arms length of three offensive lineman versus one.
The difference is DTs and DEs match up with offensive linemen right at the snap; LBs and safeties don't. That's a lot of why teams use those stunts, too. Safeties rush QBs (and run blitz) up the middle at least as much as off the edge, and it's not because they're bigger or slower than Sams. That point's been conceded for sake of argument though: Mikes can't blitz up the middle; only safeties can do that, so we must choose between pass rushing OR a MLB: We can't have both. Not sure why, but apparently that's how it is.

Joel
05-09-2013, 08:23 AM
Ray Lewis was regarded as the best MLB for a long time and he wasn't great in coverage or blitzing.
Lewis in his prime was exceptional in coverage. From 2001-2008 he had as many passes defended and interceptions as most DBs, except two seasons when he was hurt for >10 games: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LewiRa00.htm He never had tons of sacks, but got his share, and sacks are more evenly distributed in 3-4s.


I don't know why everyone is so quick to write of Irving. The coaching staff obviously sees something in him.
Because he's been on the team two years and hasn't done anything. Even when healthy he couldn't get the starting job from awful Mays or ancient Brooking last year.


I don't think we saw it as a huge need based on the fact that we'll probably play a lot of nickel D. Woody and Von are perfect for that. We got a coverage guy who plays smart and obviously Von is a beast. There is nothing those 2 can't do imo
Miller doesn't play LB in our nickel and dime sets; he plays LDE. We still need a REAL Mike to play nickel with Woodyard, and such a player would be better than a 229 lb. single LB in dime, too.


Yeah.. and teams have "won" with the likes of Brad Johnson and Mark Rypien at QB. I don't think that was the point. The point is that if we want a great defense, and a defense that continues to be GOOD for years, then the MLB can be considered the most important position on the defensive side of the ball.

Can you win without one, of course. Is it good for your defense to not have a good one? No.
Okay, so if Miller's that good in so many ways and we don't have anything like a decent player for the "the most important position on the defensive side of the ball," why is moving him there so inconceivable?


Seriously, I just want somebody to name me 3 great 4-3 MLBs who are leading their amazing defenses in 2013.

I think the world of Patrick Willis, for instance, but he doesn't play in a 4-3. What awesome standard does our combo MLB have to play up to? Or is there a shift happening in 4-3 defenses to make them more like 4-2-5 (or playing two Wills on the field instead of a Will and a Mike) for a significant chunk of plays?

~G
The top Mike talents are going to 3-4s because they can be star 3-4 OLBs OR ILBs there, but get less money and fame as 4-3 Mikes. Those guys go early to 3-4s hungry for them. That leaves guys who cover and tackle well but do little else to be drafted as 4-3 Mikes, and those guys go late because they aren't top talents. Basically, the best 4-3 Mikes are playing 3-4 O/ILB now, so there are few top players playing 4-3 Mike.

Dzone
05-09-2013, 08:38 AM
Im down with this Bradley cat. He can fill the bill if he is healthy.

MOtorboat
05-09-2013, 08:40 AM
Baffling.

Joel
05-09-2013, 08:58 AM
Im down with this Bradley cat. He can fill the bill if he is healthy.
Hope you're right, and/or Irving finally shows up on Sunday. Preferably both; I said when we had Wilson we'd be boned if he got hurt, and darned if I haven't been right for the seven years since.

rationalfan
05-09-2013, 09:52 AM
Well, I'm pretty sure everyone was talking about needing a MLB two years ago, thenlast year, and then they signed the one we had for a large contract, and people complained because he sucked. Then we complained during the season, because the one we signed for big money, got hurt, and had to be replaced with Brooking....who did decent job but obviously is way past his prime. Then we complained before the draft of THIS offseason, expressing the need of a MLB since we've needed a good one since Wilson. When we didn't sign one in FA, we were looking to the draft... and then here we still are.

I'm not sure I see much of an exaggeration of an opinion that has differed from the last few offseasons or seasons.

but in the offseason these "flaws" are put under a microscope with a distorted lens.

Slick
05-09-2013, 10:08 AM
You're right about MLB still being important but I think you're way off base if you think Miller at MLB makes us a better defense, Joel. Also, you guys who think Miller plays Lb in the nickel are on drugs.

TXBRONC
05-09-2013, 10:57 AM
You're right about MLB still being important but I think you're way off base if you think Miller at MLB makes us a better defense, Joel. Also, you guys who think Miller plays Lb in the nickel are on drugs.

I can't give you the percentages but I'm pretty sure even when Denver is in it's nickle or dime defense he does drop back in coverage from time to time. Joel speak of moving Mike as if we're in our 90% of the time and I would bet at best we're in it 50% of the time or less.

broncohead
05-09-2013, 11:20 AM
Lewis in his prime was exceptional in coverage. From 2001-2008 he had as many passes defended and interceptions as most DBs, except two seasons when he was hurt for >10 games: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/L/LewiRa00.htm He never had tons of sacks, but got his share, and sacks are more evenly distributed in 3-4s.

Lewis covered FB/RB and TEs not WRs. My point is his coverage skills arent on par with most DBs.


Miller doesn't play LB in our nickel and dime sets; he plays LDE. We still need a REAL Mike to play nickel with Woodyard, and such a player would be better than a 229 lb. single LB in dime, too.

This has turned into a passing league. Teams pass more then run these days so the defenders and schemes will change with it. Having a 230lb LBer doesn't bother me cause Woody is good in coverage and a good tackler.


Okay, so if Miller's that good in so many ways and we don't have anything like a decent player for the "the most important position on the defensive side of the ball," why is moving him there so inconceivable?

He has more benefit playing on the outside. More sacks come from the edge then anywhere else on the OL in the NFL. Stopping/disrupting the QB in a passing league is more important these days.


The top Mike talents are going to 3-4s because they can be star 3-4 OLBs OR ILBs there, but get less money and fame as 4-3 Mikes. Those guys go early to 3-4s hungry for them. That leaves guys who cover and tackle well but do little else to be drafted as 4-3 Mikes, and those guys go late because they aren't top talents. Basically, the best 4-3 Mikes are playing 3-4 O/ILB now, so there are few top players playing 4-3 Mike.

Idk if i agree with this. Which good OLB have played Mike? A 3-4 OLB is usually an undersized athletic DE that is to small to play the 4-3

Cugel
05-09-2013, 12:28 PM
We went through this last year, remember?

DJ was going through suspension. Joe Mays was, well, Joe Mays and Nate Irving was a bust. The gaping hole at MLB stirred endless anxiety among Bronco fans during the off-season. Nobody could believe they were going to start Joe Mays.

Then they signed fossil Trilobite Keith Brooking. Alfred Williams couldn't understand how he could contribute. Yet, when Mays was hurt for the season, Brooking managed quite fine.

This year they've signed "mega-bust" ILB Stewart Bradley from the Cardinals in hopes of resurrecting his career. Who knows if that will work?


The Denver Post suggests MLB Joe Mays will likely be released if the Broncos sign free agent LB Stewart Bradley.
It makes sense. Mays lost his starting job last season, and then broke his ankle in Week 8. He's also due a prohibitive $4 million salary. Bradley's signing seems likely. Mays is a two-down thumper.

Mar 13 - 4:22 PM Broncos signed LB Stewart Bradley, formerly of the Cardinals, to a one-year, $1.1 million contract.
Bradley was released by Arizona two weeks ago, and Denver was his only free-agent visit. He's expected to compete with Nate Irving and, to a degree, Steven Johnson for the starting middle linebacker job. Bradley turns 30 in November, and his signing likely means Joe Mays will be released.

Cardinals released ILB Stewart Bradley.
Signed to a five-year, $25 million deal after the lockout, Bradley was a mega-bust for the Cardinals, starting just one game in two seasons. He was relegated to special teams in 2012, and finishes his Cardinals tenure with only 42 tackles in 32 games. The move clears $3.5 million in cap space, but leaves behind $3 million in dead money. Going on 30, Bradley isn't going to get any guaranteed money on the open market. Finding someone to start opposite ILB Daryl Washington is a priority for Arizona. Mar 1 - 11:22 AM

We have to remember that the Broncos could find someone off the waiver wire in July, like they did with Brooking.

Are any of their MLBs going to make anybody in Denver forget Al Wilson? No. But, do they need to? No. :coffee:

CoachChaz
05-09-2013, 01:12 PM
I have a hard time calling Bradley a bust. He had a good year, then an injury and then played in Arizona's 3-4. Not sure how that qualifies as a mega bust. Same with Irving. SInce when are players not allowed to develop over a year or two?

For God's sake, give paople a little bit of time to figure things out at this level

Joel
05-09-2013, 01:22 PM
You're right about MLB still being important but I think you're way off base if you think Miller at MLB makes us a better defense, Joel. Also, you guys who think Miller plays Lb in the nickel are on drugs.
It's down to whether 1) edge rusher<MLB and 2) Miller covers well enough to play MLB. If the answer to both is "yes" he should move, because our MLBs are crap and Sams are easy to find. Otherwise he shouldn't.


Lewis covered FB/RB and TEs not WRs. My point is his coverage skills arent on par with most DBs.
In middle zone he played whoever came into his zone; that's how that works, and the standard Mike coverage. Lewis is kind of a special case since the Ravens went back and forth from 3-4 to 4-3, and a 3-4 ILB isn't the same as a 4-3 MLB. None of them have, or need, a DBs coverage skills though, because they rarely have to cover top WRs all the way downfield; that's (part of) why safeties exist.


This has turned into a passing league. Teams pass more then run these days so the defenders and schemes will change with it. Having a 230lb LBer doesn't bother me cause Woody is good in coverage and a good tackler.
It's been a passing league since the mid- to late eighties, but shifted heavily toward the pass as passing for automatic first downs got so absurdly easy and cut blocking have been all but eliminated. The pendulum must start back the other way soon or we'll be watching handball in pads. Pass-only isn't any more fun to watch than run-only, and sandlot ball makes luck too big a part of the equation. We want parity in TALENT, not awful teams beating great ones as often as the reverse just by getting lots of lucky calls.


He has more benefit playing on the outside. More sacks come from the edge then anywhere else on the OL in the NFL. Stopping/disrupting the QB in a passing league is more important these days.
Sacks aren't the only way to stop/disrupt passes though. Coverage over the middle is more important than ever since a big part of the increasing number of passes is TEs, backs, third, fourth and fifth WRs. Blitzing rattles guys like Gabbert, even guys like Rivers and Palmer, but top QBs like Rodgers, Brady and Brees pick it up, make a hot read to the open man (and a blitz means SOMEONE is automatically open) and burn teams that can't cover. And remember: ANY time we're talking about Miller rushing the passer as a Sam, we're talking blitz; the only way he can rush without blitzing is as a LDE in nickel/dime.


Idk if i agree with this. Which good OLB have played Mike? A 3-4 OLB is usually an undersized athletic DE that is to small to play the 4-3
Historically, or currently? In the latter case, not many, because the most atheltic LBs gravitate to 3-4 OLB (sometimes ILB) for more camera time and money, and 4-3 MLBs are increasingly just left overs.

Slick
05-09-2013, 01:32 PM
All teams have weaknesses my friend. Ours is MLB right now. Looks like the front office wants to see what they have with the current guys on the roster. I'm confident that if Irving, Bradley or Johnson look like garbage in camp, the front office will find a recently cut, or unemployed veteran to come in. Miller is too valuable and versatile to just move him and make another hole at slb. We won't get a slb of miller's calibur so easy. As fans, of course we want another Wilson, but it doesnt seem like its in the cards this year.

BroncoNut
05-09-2013, 01:42 PM
we should be fine. wolfe can play that position if need be and we drafted a DT.

slim
05-09-2013, 01:45 PM
Move Wolfe to MLB?

I like it.

BroncoNut
05-09-2013, 01:48 PM
Move Wolfe to MLB?

I like it.

there's been talk of that, Wolfe is versatile apparently. i think the talk was of moving him to guard

Ravage!!!
05-09-2013, 01:50 PM
It's down to whether 1) edge rusher>MLB and 2) Miller covers well enough to play MLB. If the answer to both is "yes" he should move, because our MLBs are crap and Sams are easy to find. Otherwise he shouldn't.


You might want to re-evlauate EVERYTHING you think you know about MLB (and SAMs for that matter apparantly)...but this statement right here needs to be changed.

If you agree that the outside edge rusher is more important that MLB (edge rusher>MLB), then you don't move Miller. If Miller "covers" well enough to play MLB...is a moot question. A lot of players can "cover well enough" to play MLB, but that doesn't make them a MLB.

Like I stated before... I think you do get it, but are just another version of Zam and want to make outlandish, stupid, remarks about changing players and their positions purely to get a response.

You both want to change players to other positions, and have your conspiracy theories on how certain teams win. If I didn't know better, I would wager that you are simply a second personality of Zam, himself.

I'm guessing that you both will soon suggest that we move Clady to Center since we have a weakness there. It seems to fit all your theories on how players should be moved..... from the outside to the center of the field. Bailey to Safety, Miller to MLB, Clady to Center.....it fits.

Now if we can only figure out how to keep the NFL from fixing these games and pre-determining the Super Bowl winner.

broncohead
05-09-2013, 02:16 PM
MLB play man as well not just zone in the middle. Chances are if a CB is in man coverage the MLB will be as well unless his assignment is blocking.

RB/TE are blocking that is

TXBRONC
05-09-2013, 02:24 PM
You might want to re-evlauate EVERYTHING you think you know about MLB (and SAMs for that matter apparantly)...but this statement right here needs to be changed.

If you agree that the outside edge rusher is more important that MLB (edge rusher>MLB), then you don't move Miller. If Miller "covers" well enough to play MLB...is a moot question. A lot of players can "cover well enough" to play MLB, but that doesn't make them a MLB.

Like I stated before... I think you do get it, but are just another version of Zam and want to make outlandish, stupid, remarks about changing players and their positions purely to get a response.

You both want to change players to other positions, and have your conspiracy theories on how certain teams win. If I didn't know better, I would wager that you are simply a second personality of Zam, himself.

I'm guessing that you both will soon suggest that we move Clady to Center since we have a weakness there. It seems to fit all your theories on how players should be moved..... from the outside to the center of the field. Bailey to Safety, Miller to MLB, Clady to Center.....it fits.

Now if we can only figure out how to keep the NFL from fixing these games and pre-determining the Super Bowl winner.

He's looking at like we play a base 4-3 99% of the time and that Miller is a traditional Sam linebacker. He forgets that this 2013 not 1965.

ForgettingBrandonMarshall
05-09-2013, 11:12 PM
The only glaring problem that I've seen at the MIKE position (in a LONG time) was when we played NE last year and Mays could not get us in a defensive play to save his life. If one of our guys can stop the run on first/second down and get us in the plays JDR calls, then I'm content with our MLB

Simple Jaded
05-09-2013, 11:44 PM
Hope you're right, and/or Irving finally shows up on Sunday. Preferably both; I said when we had Wilson we'd be boned if he got hurt, and darned if I haven't been right for the seven years since.

The defense looks pretty good to me.

Simple Jaded
05-09-2013, 11:57 PM
Instead of moving your best player to a different position why not just draft a player at that position? Like they did with, say, Nate Irving? Or they could sign a MLB like, say, Stewart Bradley? Or if that doesn't work they could try again in, say, 2014?

TXBRONC
05-10-2013, 07:20 AM
The only glaring problem that I've seen at the MIKE position (in a LONG time) was when we played NE last year and Mays could not get us in a defensive play to save his life. If one of our guys can stop the run on first/second down and get us in the plays JDR calls, then I'm content with our MLB

I think it was more of just being out played than not have right defense called.

Joel
05-10-2013, 02:15 PM
You might want to re-evlauate EVERYTHING you think you know about MLB (and SAMs for that matter apparantly)...but this statement right here needs to be changed.

If you agree that the outside edge rusher is more important that MLB (edge rusher>MLB), then you don't move Miller. If Miller "covers" well enough to play MLB...is a moot question. A lot of players can "cover well enough" to play MLB, but that doesn't make them a MLB.
You're right: I used a ">" when I meant to use "<" (they're the same key on this keyboard.) My mistake; it's been edited accordingly.

The point is if MLB is the single most important defensive spot, great Mike+awful Sam>awful Mike+great Sam. So until/unless our Mikes don't all suck, the only reason not to move Miller is he can't play Mike.

Personally, I think we'd still have several decent, if not outstanding, Sams even if Miller moved. When we got Gold back at WLB DJ was a pretty good SLB, but when Wilson went down DJ was a HORRIBLE MLB. Haggan wasn't great at SLB, but wasn't awful either, certainly not as bad as Mays at MLB. Miller's a great 4-3 Sam just like he was a great 3-4 Will; he'd be great at any LB spot. Sams are more easily replaced than Mikes though; that's why we've had many decent and several good Sams since 2006 but NO decent Mikes.

Joel
05-10-2013, 02:26 PM
The defense looks pretty good to me.
How many times have we changed DCs since 2006? Isn't this the first year since then we're going into a season with the same DC as last year?

Maybe you meant last year, when we only played 5 teams >.500 and 3 of them beat us (badly.) All but 1 beat us if we count the playoff game where we gave up 5 TDs to a second rate offense with a 3rd rate QB.


Instead of moving your best player to a different position why not just draft a player at that position? Like they did with, say, Nate Irving? Or they could sign a MLB like, say, Stewart Bradley? Or if that doesn't work they could try again in, say, 2014?
Remember those drafting need vs. BPA debates? And where we drafted Miller? This is one of those deals. We can spare Pro Bowlers many places (e.g. Sam.) We could sure use them in key spots though (e.g. Mike.)

MOtorboat
05-10-2013, 02:32 PM
So, who was the MLB Denver should have drafted at No. 2 over Von Miller, who came in second in the DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR voting?

Simple Jaded
05-10-2013, 02:34 PM
How many times have we changed DCs since 2006? Isn't this the first year since then we're going into a season with the same DC as last year?

Maybe you meant last year, when we only played 5 teams >.500 and 3 of them beat us (badly.) All but 1 beat us if we count the playoff game where we gave up 5 TDs to a second rate offense with a 3rd rate QB.


Remember those drafting need vs. BPA debates? And where we drafted Miller? This is one of those deals. We can spare Pro Bowlers many places (e.g. Sam.) We could sure use them in key spots though (e.g. Mike.)

I'm also talking about the defense that carried your incompetent QB to at least a modicum of legitimacy, sad and demented as it was.

As for moving Miller, not much of a debate, he's just fine where he is. Some might even say he's better than fine. There are other solutions and one LB is taken off the field in a lot of Nickle packages anyway. Surprising that Nate Irving and Rahim Moore can't seem to get the benefit of the doubt from you, of all people.

broncohead
05-10-2013, 02:35 PM
I think if denver were to offer Miller for any MLB in the league every team would take it. He is that good. And he wouldn't play MLB either. They would still put him on the outside where he belongs

MOtorboat
05-10-2013, 02:39 PM
I think if denver were to offer Miller for any MLB in the league every team would take it. He is that good. And he wouldn't play MLB either. They would still put him on the outside where he belongs

The other team in the deal would laugh their way to the bank if Denver ever did something that stupid.

G_Money
05-10-2013, 02:45 PM
You're right: I used a ">" when I meant to use "<" (they're the same key on this keyboard.) My mistake; it's been edited accordingly.

The point is if MLB is the single most important defensive spot, great Mike+awful Sam>awful Mike+great Sam. So until/unless our Mikes don't all suck, the only reason not to move Miller is he can't play Mike.

Personally, I think we'd still have several decent, if not outstanding, Sams even if Miller moved. When we got Gold back at WLB DJ was a pretty good SLB, but when Wilson went down DJ was a HORRIBLE MLB. Haggan wasn't great at SLB, but wasn't awful either, certainly not as bad as Mays at MLB. Miller's a great 4-3 Sam just like he was a great 3-4 Will; he'd be great at any LB spot. Sams are more easily replaced than Mikes though; that's why we've had many decent and several good Sams since 2006 but NO decent Mikes.

Pass-rushing SAMs and DEs are THE most desirable thing to acquire on D. 4-3 MLB is NOT the single-most important position on D. That's an assumption you have that I do not understand. That's why we play WITHOUT one for a significant percentage of snaps, while Von never leaves the field now that he can survive in pass coverage. He might be playing DE sometimes instead of Sam, but if you think of it like pass-rusher > MLB you'll be way closer to the truth.

Taking Von OUT of what he's better at than maybe anyone in the league, at a position that teams are always clamoring to fill (pass-rushing terror) is a dumb idea.

It holds zero merit. None.

I'm not usually an absolutist, but that's basically like saying that since RB was the most important position back in 1985 you should move RGIII to running back.

Can middle-linebacker be a very valuable position? Absolutely - but that depends on the PLAYER. If you have a player like Urlacher who used to be a safety then you can construct the way your defense functions to allow a player like him to be very successful and impactful.

But if you don't have a MLB like that, you can work around it. If you don't have pass rushers then you're a blitz-heavy team and your whole scheme has to change to accomodate that lack. Rather than working in more wrinkles for a great MLB you have to take wrinkles OUT for the lack of a pass-rusher. It handicaps you.

Not having a great MLB isn't the same handicap that not having a pass-rusher is. Your premise is wrong. Your focus on MLB being the ultimate power on D is wrong.

If you don't have a good MLB then you need good DTs to keep the trash off your adequate MLB. What you've been seeing the last couple of years is that we had terrible MLBs. How do we know? Because when we got a decent DT combo in there and put 87 year old Brooking behind them the middle of the field problems calmed down dramatically. All we needed was adequacy, not greatness.

Mays was horrible in the middle. DJ has the instincts of a radioactive llama at the position, so he made a ton of tackles - 5 yards downfield. But if we'd had better tackles it would have been a mitigated problem. Our DTs are much better now, which makes the MLB problem less of a problem.

Do I still want an upgrade there? Absolutely. But EJ Henderson wasn't the greatest thing ever, he was just a decent MLB playing behind some SERIOUS beef up there in Minnesota. The requirements of a 4-3 MLB in 2013 can be met by someone less qualified than Urlacher or Lewis in their primes, I promise you.

We should get a good one if we can, but what "a good one" looks like is not the standard that was required a few years ago. Defenses are changing, and as the running game between the tackles becomes less important the MLB position (aka, the dude designed to fill the gap in the middle and stuff the run on at least 2 of his 3 downs) is becoming less important too.

There will always be a place for a great middle linebacker. Our defense would be better with Patrick Willis in the middle of it than with Mays, for sure. But if we don't HAVE a Willis (or if we have to throw away Von's pass-rushing aptitude to attempt to make him into a Willis) then it makes more sense to build the DTs - which is what we're doing. We're filling the hole at middle linebacker by utilizing our LB corps and DBs differently, and using our front 4 to better advantage. We're covering the deficiency there just fine.

Could it stop us from winning a title? Maybe. So could any number of things. It's hard to build a super team that has no weaknesses in this day and age. If you're gonna have a weakness or inadequacy, there are worse places than MLB with the style of defense we actually play.

~G

Slick
05-10-2013, 02:48 PM
Great post G.

Joel
05-10-2013, 02:49 PM
So, who was the MLB Denver should have drafted at No. 2 over Von Miller, who came in second in the DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR voting?
Er, Miller.


I'm also talking about the defense that carried your incompetent QB to at least a modicum of legitimacy, sad and demented as it was.

As for moving Miller, not much of a debate, he's just fine where he is. Some might even say he's better than fine. There are other solutions and one LB is taken off the field in a lot of Nickle packages anyway. Surprising that Nate Irving and Rahim Moore can't seem to get the benefit of the doubt from you, of all people.
I never said he wasn't fine at SLB: I said he'd be as good or better at the more critical MLB position, our current MLBs are unproven or proven awful and SLBs (or edge rushers) are easier to find. Again, between 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 RDEs the demand for edge rushers is THREE TIMES the demand for 4-3 MLBs, but there are more FA edge rushers, and more good ones, now; they're not as valuable as they think they are.

MOtorboat
05-10-2013, 02:53 PM
Er, Miller.


I never said he wasn't fine at SLB: I said he'd be as good or better at the more critical MLB position, our current MLBs are unproven or proven awful and SLBs (or edge rushers) are easier to find. Again, between 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 RDEs the demand for edge rushers is THREE TIMES the demand for 4-3 MLBs, but there are more FA edge rushers, and more good ones, now; they're not as valuable as they think they are.

Miller isn't, and won't be a MLB.

BroncoNut
05-10-2013, 02:56 PM
Miller isn't, and won't be a MLB.

I don't think so either. maybe an inside linebacker in the 3-4, and that's even a reach, but talk of him as an MLB is just outlandish

G_Money
05-10-2013, 03:04 PM
Again, between 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 RDEs the demand for edge rushers is THREE TIMES the demand for 4-3 MLBs, but there are more FA edge rushers, and more good ones, now; they're not as valuable as they think they are.

*facepalm* The REASON there are more edge rushers is because that's what's drafted. Do we need to go through what the first round of the draft looked like and how many MLBs were taken vs. OLBs? Do we need to do that throughout the history of the draft so you can see the change?

Maualuga? 2nd round. Laurinaitis? 2nd. Ogletree? late 1st. Teo? 2nd.

Meanwhile Von is going top-3, this whole draft of pass-rushers were very high...

The only MLBs that get top-15 consideration (and never top-5) are freaks who run like the wind and destroy the living. Maybe that's because too much emphasis is put on the combine, but more likely it's because an adequate athlete with good instincts can fill the role of MLB for most teams, while adequate athletic specimens RARELY get enough QB pressure to fulfill the pass-rushing requirements of the league these days. You pay the premium to get the freak.

A quality MLB is rare, you are right, and one worth hanging on to. So they don't often hit the market. The OTHER reason that even decent MLBs don't hit the market that often is because they don't cost that much to keep. That's why I thought we made a mistake last year going back to Mays instead of spending $2 mil/yr more on Lofton, who is a far superior MLB. But DEs are worth a LOT more than MLBs (pass rush vs not) which is why their franchise tag #s are higher. If they broke out MLB vs OLB in the tag process, you would find that OLBs are worth more than ILBs for a franchise # as well.

~G

Simple Jaded
05-10-2013, 03:07 PM
Er, Miller.


I never said he wasn't fine at SLB: I said he'd be as good or better at the more critical MLB position, our current MLBs are unproven or proven awful and SLBs (or edge rushers) are easier to find. Again, between 3-4 OLBs and 4-3 RDEs the demand for edge rushers is THREE TIMES the demand for 4-3 MLBs, but there are more FA edge rushers, and more good ones, now; they're not as valuable as they think they are.

So you honestly think Denver would be better off if they signed a FA edge rusher and moved Miller to MLB?

Chef Zambini
05-10-2013, 03:29 PM
I dont think moving von to MLB would improve his dancing.

rationalfan
05-10-2013, 03:40 PM
things that get GMs/coaches fired: moving your best players to positions they don't play.

silkamilkamonico
05-11-2013, 09:11 PM
Taking miller out of olb spot and moving him to MLB is just flat out going full retard. I wohld have laughed my ass off in sd did that with merriman, dallas with ware, or nygiants with LT.

While were at it, lets just go ahead and put demarious thomas at the rb position because he is so good with the football in his hands too.

MOtorboat
05-11-2013, 10:47 PM
Just to emphasize how idiotic it would be to move an elite edge PLAYER (not just "rusher" or "blitzer") the Broncos didn't even have a Middle Linebacker on the field for at least 65 percent of snaps last season.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_22645835/broncos-john-elway-speak-notre-dames-manti-teo

Superchop 7
05-11-2013, 11:38 PM
Lets get to the point.......major problem.

TXBRONC
05-12-2013, 08:00 AM
Just to emphasize how idiotic it would be to move an elite edge PLAYER (not just "rusher" or "blitzer") the Broncos didn't even have a Middle Linebacker on the field for at least 65 percent of snaps last season.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_22645835/broncos-john-elway-speak-notre-dames-manti-teo

And that's why we lost to the Ravens in the playoffs.

Signed

Joel

MOtorboat
05-12-2013, 08:10 AM
And that's why we lost to the Ravens in the playoffs.

Signed

Joel

Even in Denver's base over alignment, they don't need a true MLB, but "shhhhh" lets not bring that up...

LTC Pain
05-12-2013, 08:52 AM
Lets get to the point.......major problem.

That's your opinion and I don't share it.

Zweems56
05-14-2013, 10:22 AM
Little update. Apparently we're taking a look at Urlacher

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000169369/article/brian-urlacher-reportedly-talking-to-vikings-broncos?campaign=Twitter_atl

TXBRONC
05-14-2013, 10:31 AM
Little update. Apparently we're taking a look at Urlacher

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000169369/article/brian-urlacher-reportedly-talking-to-vikings-broncos?campaign=Twitter_atl

Wesseling says he's getting the information from Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times and Wesseling cautions that Snead doesn't have record of breaking NFL news.

Ravage!!!
05-14-2013, 10:52 AM
miller isn't, and won't be a mlb.

e.v.e.r.

Zweems56
05-14-2013, 11:29 AM
Yep. Scratch that. From gary Miller


Bronco sources say forget about report out of Chicago about interest in Urlacher. There isn't any. No interest. No contact. End of story.

LTC Pain
05-20-2013, 12:22 PM
Found this in Klis article in the DP this morning:

Can Nate Irving, Steve Johnson or Stewart Bradley handle the middle linebacker position? The people who like Irving most are the people who drafted him in the third round two years ago. The thinking is Irving is ready for the "Mike" position, which comes off the field during nickel packages. And Broncos defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio used his nickel a little more than 60 percent of the snaps last season.

www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_23279263/denver-broncos-questions-start-nfl-offseason-otas#ixzz2Tr1wyzhk

Slick
05-20-2013, 12:33 PM
The reason our MLB's will come off the field during the nickel has everything to do with the fact that we don't have a good MLB. Basically we'll have a specialist nickel backer. Trying to justify this "we don't need a 3 down MLB" because we're in a nickel 60 percent of the time is retarded. I am okay with the plan, but don't try and bullshit me.

Lancane
05-20-2013, 01:10 PM
The reason our MLB's will come off the field during the nickel has everything to do with the fact that we don't have a good MLB. Basically we'll have a specialist nickel backer. Trying to justify this "we don't need a 3 down MLB" because we're in a nickel 60 percent of the time is retarded. I am okay with the plan, but don't try and bullshit me.

That could well change Sick, Irving was considered an above average pass defending inside linebacker, even leading his team in interceptions one season with 4 interceptions. I don't think it has a thing to do with the lack of a premier mike backer rather then Del Rio likes to run the nickel which allows for better pass coverage while being able to blitz more often in order to create more turnovers or produce more sacks, both of which Denver was better at last season then at any other time in what, the last two decades?

MileHigHManning
05-21-2013, 12:12 PM
In Elway we trust! I'm not too concerned. Elway would have made a move in FA (or still might), or in the draft, if it's a huge concern. Don't get me wrong, TE coverage was our biggest weakness the last couple years. But let's see how Bradley does first and Nate Irving is still young, give the kid a chance to come up. In our DEF scheme, the MLB comes off the field on obvious passing downs anyways and we play an extra DB. The only time that's a concern is against no huddle teams like NE. We'll see what happens in camp.