Danny Trevathan off to a running start toward Denver Broncos stardom

[TXBRONC]

It's not an unsual story in that other players have experiences like his but there are some things in there didn't know about him.



Danny Trevathan off to a running start toward Denver Broncos stardom
By Joan Niesen
The Denver Post
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:01:00 AM MDT4 comments | Updated:about 7 hours ago


"You can coach technique and scheme, but it's hard to coach instincts, and he's got a lot of that, that you can't really coach," Smith said."You can coach technique and scheme, but it's hard to coach instincts, and he's got a lot of that, that you can't really coach," Smith said.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_24286230/danny-trevathan-off-running-start-toward-denver-broncos

[TXBRONC]

Would a moderator be willing to fix the title. I can't seem to do it. It should read Danny Trevathan off to a running start toward Denver Broncos stardom.

[Skinny]

Danny, Woody, and soon Von. What a fantastic LBing trio these guys are going to be. Can't wait to see them all on the field together.

[G_Money]

Because Trevathan is a) a great Will backer and b) not better than Woodyard, Wesley is gonna need to continue at the Mike the rest of the year. Our three best backers are two Wills and a Sam, but Wes can play the middle fine. He's not a heavy bodied run-thumper, but we don't really need one. We need a sure tackler and team leader, and Woodyard is that.

With the huge DTs we're sporting, Woody isn't getting caught up in trash, so the pounds he gives up versus a bigger Mike aren't causing a problem, while his speed to the ball is very helpful.

I wanted a MLB in the draft, but getting Trevathan who's enabling Woodyard to move over is serving the same function. 3 good, versatile and impactful backers is what we needed, and it's what we'll have starting next week.

I got no complaints there.

~G

[capt. Jack]

I like this guy! 6th round pick !

[Ravage!!!]

I waspretty pumped about the drafting of him. Glad he's making his way to be a playmaker. 2 big INTs already for the year.

[Joel]

Because Trevathan is a) a great Will backer and b) not better than Woodyard, Wesley is gonna need to continue at the Mike the rest of the year. Our three best backers are two Wills and a Sam, but Wes can play the middle fine. He's not a heavy bodied run-thumper, but we don't really need one. We need a sure tackler and team leader, and Woodyard is that.

With the huge DTs we're sporting, Woody isn't getting caught up in trash, so the pounds he gives up versus a bigger Mike aren't causing a problem, while his speed to the ball is very helpful.

I wanted a MLB in the draft, but getting Trevathan who's enabling Woodyard to move over is serving the same function. 3 good, versatile and impactful backers is what we needed, and it's what we'll have starting next week.

I got no complaints there.

~G
I still think Miller's more of a 3-4 OLB or 4-3 MLB than a true 4-3 SLB; his pass coverage is there and his run stopping's solid, so it's basically down to whether Sams>Mikes. Yet with Woodyard playing as he has it may be a moot point if he recovers quickly; as little as Mikes blitz (which I still contend is TOO little,) a natural coverage LB is a good fit there as long as he's not bowled over against the run. In that respect, your point about our added size and strength at DT making up for Woodyards lighter mass compared to most MLBs is a good one.

Still agree on a MLB early in the draft, too; with the DT situation (finally) addressed and our talent at CB, that and offensive line depth appear our biggest long term concerns (depending on Moore.)

[MOtorboat]

I still think Miller's more of a 3-4 OLB or 4-3 MLB than a true 4-3 SLB; his pass coverage is there and his run stopping's solid, so it's basically down to whether Sams>Mikes. Yet with Woodyard playing as he has it may be a moot point if he recovers quickly; as little as Mikes blitz (which I still contend is TOO little,) a natural coverage LB is a good fit there as long as he's not bowled over against the run. In that respect, your point about our added size and strength at DT making up for Woodyards lighter mass compared to most MLBs is a good one.

Still agree on a MLB early in the draft, too; with the DT situation (finally) addressed and our talent at CB, that and offensive line depth appear our biggest long term concerns (depending on Moore.)

Miller is NOT a middle linebacker.

[Joel]

Miller is NOT a middle linebacker.
No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS.

I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

[SR]

No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS. I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

Miller is a 4-3 SAM. Do you even watch football?

[TXBRONC]

No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS.

I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

Joel it's not an unresolved debate. You're mistaken no ands, ifs, or buts about it.

[TXBRONC]

Miller is a 4-3 SAM. Do you even watch football?

I can answer that. NO.

[MOtorboat]

No, he's a 3-4 OLB; that's still closer to a 4-3 MLB than to a 4-3 SLB. Most 4-3 SLBs are big run stuffers who occasionally blitz and make good QBs drool in coverage. Since MLBs and WLBs usually cover far better, in nickel Sam's usually first off the field or replacing a DE (as Miller often does) when a LB must make room for an extra DB. Not in Denver; Miller blitzes so well we typically pull our MLB at the expense of coverage, even though extra coverage is the reason nickel EXISTS.

I wasn't inviting that old unresolvable debate; we disagree and always shall. Yet if we must go there the only possible counterarguments remain 1) Miller can't play MLB nearly as well as SLB or 2) SLB>MLB. It's hard to make a good case for either; the better one thinks Miller is, the more unconvincing the first argument is. That leaves 4-3 SLBs> 4-3 MLBs. We disagree on that, and that's fine.

Your labels are all incorrect. It has NEVER been about Sam > Middle and that is NEVER my argument, ever. We don't disagree about that, because I don't give a shit which position is "more important" in your mind.

Regardless of that, Denver placing him outside is not some sort of Sam > Middle statement by the Broncos. At all. Period. It wasn't when they put him there as a rookie and it isn't now.

Miller is not a traditional 4-3 Sam in Denver's scheme, anyway, because it's not a traditional 4-3 scheme. He just isn't. You were wrong when you said it the first time, and you're wrong now.

[Joel]

Either he's much better as one or the other, or we value one more. Those are the sole options; there is no scenario where a coach—or anyone—says, "this guy places both spots equally well, so we're putting him at the one we value less." If he could be a MLB but plays SLB because of his blitzing, isn't that saying SLB>MLB? That has NOTHING to do with me, you, or how much either of us watches or knows about football.

Actually, I take it back, there is a third option: We could have a really good MLB who sucks at SLB. It's hard to imagine how an elite MLB would be an awful SLB, since MLB demands all the same skills plus many others, but for the sake of argument: DO we have that elite MLB who sucks at SLB? Is that why our starting WLB started at MLB for the first five games, and probably will even when he and Miller return?

[MOtorboat]

Either he's much better as one or the other, or we value one more than the other. Those are the sole options; there is no scenario where a coach—or anyone—says, "this guy places both spots equally well, so we're putting him at the one we value less." That has NOTHING to do with me, you, or how much either of us watches or knows about football.

Actually, I take it back, there is a third option: We could have a really good MLB who sucks at SLB. It's hard to imagine how an elite MLB would be an awful SLB, since MLB demands all the same skills plus many others, but for the sake of argument: DO we have that elite MLB who sucks at SLB? Is that why our starting WLB started at MLB for the first five games, and probably will even when he and Miller return?

I don't know how to explain this to you, because you obviously do not understand Denver's scheme, at all, but I'm stupidly going to try.

Let's try to remove the labels of 3-4 vs. 4-3 positions.

By Denver playing an edge player on the edge, they are not making a statement about whether or not they value edge over middle. To suggest that that is what they are doing is wrong. Pure and simple.

Miller is an edge player. His best attribute is as an edge rusher, and Denver has developed an over and under scheme to take advantage of his talents. He does NOT play the position you say he plays. Stop with the labels. Now, has he developed other skills in coverage and run stopping? Yes, he has, and from the edge he is elite. But because he's done that doesn't mean that he is suddenly a player that should be in the middle. He's an edge player. That's where he makes his impact, and he was one of the three best players in the league from that place on the field last year, making moving him unbelievably idiotic.

Now, Woodyard played middle linebacker at Kentucky where he led the SEC in tackles. Now, let's try to transfer that to Denver's scheme. Because of the scheme, Denver plays him off the right guard. From that position last year he led the defense by calling plays and because of his speed was the leading tackler on the team. Now, they shifted him over to off the left guard this year and he's playing the same role. Yes, he probably has to take on a few more blockers on the left side of the formation, or on the strong side, and since Miller is suspended, that hides some of the deficiencies of Trevathan.

But again, as with the Bailey argument, Woodyard HAS PLAYED THE POSITION BEFORE, therefore it is a simple transition for him. In the case of Miller and Bailey they HAVE NOT PLAYED the positions you want them to play in the past. Therefore, it is NOT a statement by the Broncos that Edge > Middle, in the case of both Miller AND Bailey.

[Poet]

Miller is not a traditional 4-3 Sam in Denver's scheme, anyway, because it's not a traditional 4-3 scheme. He just isn't. You were wrong when you said it the first time, and you're wrong now.

This sums it up. When you have a player like Miller, you don't have to run a more traditional scheme. The fact that he's great against the run and the pass just reinforces it. Denver has managed to add an additional, and incredible, pass rusher without losing anything against the run. This is to the chagrin of offenses around the league.

[Joel]

No, evidently it's a statement that Miller's a better SLB than MLB. That's one of the two possible explanations. I think he'd be at least as much a force in the middle. He could exploit skills underutilized at SLB (mainly coverage,) and get to the QB faster up the middle than off the edge, because closer, which is huge given elite QBs make their living getting the ball out before edge rushers arrive, but hate pressure up the middle.

That's a reasonable difference of opinion, but if we say he's at SLB because he's a natural EDGE rusher and has NEVER PLAYED MLB, we're saying he's a better SLB than MLB; no way around that.

[Poet]

Uh...if he's a good SLB, does that mean he's a better SLB than QB...even though he's never played...QB?

[MOtorboat]

No, evidently it's a statement that Miller's a better SLB than MLB. That's one of the two possible explanations. I think he'd be at least as much a force in the middle. He could exploit skills underutilized at SLB (mainly coverage,) and get to the QB faster up the middle than off the edge, because closer, which is huge given elite QBs make their living getting the ball out before edge rushers arrive, but hate pressure up the middle.

That's a reasonable difference of opinion, but if we say he's at SLB because he's a natural EDGE rusher and has NEVER PLAYED MLB, we're saying he's a better SLB than MLB; no way around that.

If that were true, defensive coordinators would put their best rusher at MLB. Since that NEVER happens, I think we can definitely say that that assumption is wrong.

[Joel]

This sums it up. When you have a player like Miller, you don't have to run a more traditional scheme. The fact that he's great against the run and the pass just reinforces it. Denver has managed to add an additional, and incredible, pass rusher without losing anything against the run. This is to the chagrin of offenses around the league.
No mention of coverage, logical since 4-3 SLBs don't play much coverage (even in our more flexible 4-3;) that implies SLB>MLB. Also a reasonable position, and one can also reasonably disagree with it.

[Poet]

No mention of coverage, logical since 4-3 SLBs don't play much coverage (even in our more flexible 4-3;) that implies SLB>MLB. Also a reasonable position, and one can also reasonably disagree with it.

I really, really, can't be civil towards you...so I refrain from comment.

[MOtorboat]

No mention of coverage, logical since 4-3 SLBs don't play much coverage (even in our more flexible 4-3;) that implies SLB>MLB. Also a reasonable position, and one can also reasonably disagree with it.

It isn't a frickin' statement about which position is more important.

Good grief.

[Joel]

Uh...if he's a good SLB, does that mean he's a better SLB than QB...even though he's never played...QB?
Not necessarily; he could be an exceptional SLB AND QB (though it's unlikely since QBs have far less in common with SLBs than MLBs do.) However, if he's playing SLB, odds are he does that better than play QB, else he'd BE at QB. Except, of course, on teams that value SLBs above QBs, in which case they'd put a player equally suited for both at the more valuable position.


If that were true, defensive coordinators would put their best rusher at MLB. Since that NEVER happens, I think we can definitely say that that assumption is wrong.
Not necessarily, because there's more to any LB position (even SLB) than blitzing; MLBs must be able to cover well, so even the best blitzer can't play the position if he can't cover. Also, there's a short list of elite QBs who can get the ball out accurately before edge rushers arrive, so pressure up the middle isn't critical every game. It IS easier to get there off the edge—it just doesn't happen FAST enough against top passers.

[TXBRONC]

No, evidently it's a statement that Miller's a better SLB than MLB. That's one of the two possible explanations. I think he'd be at least as much a force in the middle. He could exploit skills underutilized at SLB (mainly coverage,) and get to the QB faster up the middle than off the edge, because closer, which is huge given elite QBs make their living getting the ball out before edge rushers arrive, but hate pressure up the middle.

That's a reasonable difference of opinion, but if we say he's at SLB because he's a natural EDGE rusher and has NEVER PLAYED MLB, we're saying he's a better SLB than MLB; no way around that.

It's not that we're saying he's better SLB than MLB it's you and you alone who is making these ridiculous assumptions.

[MOtorboat]

No mention of coverage, logical since 4-3 SLBs don't play much coverage (even in our more flexible 4-3;) that implies SLB>MLB. Also a reasonable position, and one can also reasonably disagree with it.

I actually did mention coverage. But either way, he's an edge player. And because Denver's best player is an edge player it is not a statement that Edge > Middle. It shouldn't even be a discussion.

[MOtorboat]

Was the fact that Ray Lewis played Middle Linebacker the Ravens saying they valued MLB over SLB?

[Joel]

It isn't a frickin' statement about which position is more important.

Good grief.
It is when commending a team finding a way to increase pass rush and run-stopping without even mentioning coverage. Unless LBs no longer cover? TWO 4-3 LB spots routinely do it, one (and ONLY one,) rarely.

[TXBRONC]

Anyway Trevathan is terrific linebacker who likes he's going to be star in this League.


Also thanks Joel for derailing the thread with your garbage about how you think Miller should be playing middle linebacker. :2thumbs:

[MOtorboat]

It is when commending a team finding a way to increase pass rush and run-stopping without even mentioning coverage. Unless LBs no longer cover? TWO 4-3 LB spots routinely do it, one (and ONLY one,) rarely.

No. It's not. Denver drafts an edge rusher, who happens to have coverage and run stopping skills, and they play him on the edge. That doesn't mean they value an edge player over a middle player. That is, quite frankly, a stupid, stupid argument. It's not even logical.

"Here, we drafted this wide receiver, but he's fast, and has good ball skills, so we should play him at running back, but since they don't they value wide receiver over running back." That's what you're saying. They drafted an edge player to play on the edge. It's not a statement by the organization as to whether or not they value one position over another. Just like playing Bailey at cornerback does not say they value cornerback over safety. It says that they have a cornerback who plays cornerback.

Anyway, you're wrong about the coverage too, as he was rated the best coverage linebacker last year too. And I mentioned coverage. Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.

[Joel]

It's not that we're saying he's better SLB than MLB it's you and you alone who is making these ridiculous assumptions.
Okay, put it another way: Are ya'll arguing Denver values the positions equally? If not, shouldn't anyone who PLAYS both equally well be at the more valuable one? We're playing him at SLB because either 1) HE wouldn't be as good at MLB or 2) he'd be at least as good but WASTED there. The only other possibility is we have someone as good or better at MLB who wouldn't be as good at SLB, but that's a hard case to make.


I actually did mention coverage. But either way, he's an edge player. And because Denver's best player is an edge player it is not a statement that Edge > Middle. It shouldn't even be a discussion.
Yes, YOU did; the person to whom I responded did not.


Was the fact that Ray Lewis played Middle Linebacker the Ravens saying they valued MLB over SLB?
That's a more complex question; they played a 3-4 as often as 4-3. But, with that caveat, yes, it was. He did everything others did at 4-3 OLB, but they couldn't do everything he could, and 4-3 MLBs must be good at everything. Guys who can't cover can play Sam if good blitzers and run-stoppers; guys who can't blitz can play Will if good run-stoppers and cover men. Guys who suck at any one of those things can't play Mike.

[MOtorboat]

Denver is playing Miller on the left edge because that's his ******* position.

[Joel]

Anyway Trevathan is terrific linebacker who likes he's going to be star in this League.

Also thanks Joel for derailing the thread with your garbage about how you think Miller should be playing middle linebacker. :2thumbs:
It was ONE SENTENCE in a post that never mentioned the subject again; that's not an invitation for three people to pick it up and run with it for a whole page. Everyone was free to respond to any or all of the rest of that post; it's a pity no one did, and no one regrets that more than I.


No. It's not. Denver drafts an edge rusher, who happens to have coverage and run stopping skills, and they play him on the edge. That doesn't mean they value an edge player over a middle player. That is, quite frankly, a stupid, stupid argument. It's not even logical.
It's imminently logical: Either he's not as good in the middle, or the edge is more important. If he IS as good in the middle AND it's more important, he goes there, and the less important edge gets a lesser player.


"Here, we drafted this wide receiver, but he's fast, and has good ball skills, so we should play him at running back, but since they don't they value wide receiver over running back." That's what you're saying. They drafted an edge player to play on the edge. It's not a statement by the organization as to whether or not they value one position over another. Just like playing Bailey at cornerback does not say they value cornerback over safety. It says that they have a cornerback who plays cornerback.
If he's durable, breaks tackles, moves the pile and picks up the blitz, yet they play him at WR, yeah, they value WR more than RB. Lots of guys who would've been drafted as RBs or FBs half a century go get drafted at WR or TE now for precisely that reason. Back then most QBs played DB, but once unlimited substitution came on teams decided they didn't want QBs getting hit that much; wonder what that was....


Anyway, you're wrong about the coverage too, as he was rated the best coverage linebacker last year too. And I mentioned coverage. Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.
I never argued he can't cover; contending he can is one of my main arguments for moving him. I read what you wrote, too, but (once again,) the statement "no mention of coverage" was in response to one of KINGS posts; go back up to that response and see if your name appears anywhere in it.

[MOtorboat]

Either he's not as good in the middle, or the edge is more important.

No. No it is not. That statement is false. It is not one or the other.

Miller plays on the left edge because he plays on the left edge. It says NOTHING about what Denver values in the middle. Nothing at all. To even suggest that is stupid.

[Joel]

Denver is playing Miller on the left edge because that's his ******* position.
Okay, let's try it that way; we can even use an extreme analogy like those others have made: Why is THAT "his position" rather than, say, punter, or center? What, exactly, requires Miller play SLB AND NOWHERE ELSE? Saying, "he's an edge rusher," just dodges the issue; he's far more than that. It's not about him being an edge rusher, it's about that one thing of the many he does well being most important. Just say that.

[MOtorboat]

Okay, let's try it that way; we can even use an extreme analogy like those others have cited: Why is THAT "his position" rather than, say, punter, or center? What, exactly, requires Miller play SLB AND NOWHERE ELSE? Saying, "he's an edge rusher," justt dodge the issue; he's far more than that. It's not about him being an edge rusher, it's about that one thing of the many he does well being most important. Just say that.

Because that's where he plays football.

Just like Bailey plays football at cornerback, and Peyton Manning plays football at quarterback and Knowshon Moreno plays football at running back. He plays there because that's his position. It's not some over-analyzed conspiracy or broad statement about the intelligence of the front office. He plays there because he plays there.

[Poet]

Okay, let's try it that way; we can even use an extreme analogy like those others have cited: Why is THAT "his position" rather than, say, punter, or center? What, exactly, requires Miller play SLB AND NOWHERE ELSE? Saying, "he's an edge rusher," justt dodge the issue; he's far more than that. It's not about him being an edge rusher, it's about that one thing of the many he does well being most important. Just say that.

He is a SAM because he can offer an elite pass rush and play the run at a high level. He can also do coverage in a pinch. With that skillset in mind, the most logical place for him to be in a 4-3 LB scheme is the SAM. It allows him to make the most of his pass rushing skills, on the edge. It allows him to still be influential against the run. It allows him to play coverage against certain sets as well.

MLB's don't blitz enough to make use of his ability, and MIKE's do not as well. Therefore, his position is his position because it makes the most tactical sense. It has nothing to do with the Broncos valuing a SAM over a MLB, or anything like that.

[MOtorboat]

He is a SAM because he can offer an elite pass rush and play the run at a high level. He can also do coverage in a pinch. With that skillset in mind, the most logical place for him to be in a 4-3 LB scheme is the SAM. It allows him to make the most of his pass rushing skills, on the edge. It allows him to still be influential against the run. It allows him to play coverage against certain sets as well.

MLB's don't blitz enough to make use of his ability, and MIKE's do not as well. Therefore, his position is his position because it makes the most tactical sense. It has nothing to do with the Broncos valuing a SAM over a MLB, or anything like that.

It's like talking to a 2-year-old. He is an edge player. Why? Because that's where he has the most impact. Why? Because he has elite skills at that position. Why? Because he sacks the quarterback, is the best rated player on the edge and has an impact in the rushing and passing game. Why? :sigh:

[Joel]

Because that's where he plays football.

Just like Bailey plays football at cornerback, and Peyton Manning plays football at quarterback and Knowshon Moreno plays football at running back. He plays there because that's his position. It's not some over-analyzed conspiracy or broad statement about the intelligence of the front office. He plays there because he plays there.
He plays there because he plays there? His skill set's totally irrelevant? That's where they wrote his name on the depth chart, and they wrote it in stone. Wow, we sure got lucky that he happens to be so good there.


He is a SAM because he can offer an elite pass rush and play the run at a high level. He can also do coverage in a pinch. With that skillset in mind, the most logical place for him to be in a 4-3 LB scheme is the SAM. It allows him to make the most of his pass rushing skills, on the edge. It allows him to still be influential against the run. It allows him to play coverage against certain sets as well.

MLB's don't blitz enough to make use of his ability, and MIKE's do not as well. Therefore, his position is his position because it makes the most tactical sense. It has nothing to do with the Broncos valuing a SAM over a MLB, or anything like that.
So he's elite at what SLBs do, but just good at what MLBs do (NOT coverage "in a pinch," but reliably, on most passing downs they play.) That's option 1: He's a better SLB than MLB. Still reasonable; just say that.

For the record, btw: You made several posts completely omitting mentions of his coverage, and only said he can cover "in a pinch" when others kept discussing it. Yet I won't accuse you of dishonesty for ignoring it through most of the conversation, and only mentioning it briefly for the sake of dismissal then. I am, however, obliged to note you did EXACTLY what you falsely and repeatedly accused me of doing elsewhere.


It's like talking to a 2-year-old. He is an edge player. Why? Because that's where he has the most impact. Why? Because he has elite skills at that position. Why? Because he sacks the quarterback, is the best rated player on the edge and has an impact in the rushing and passing game. Why? :sigh:
None of those answers add any information though, just paraphrase each other: He's an edge player because he blitzes well because he sacks QBs. Not even blitzing: Blitzing SPECIFICALLY off the edge. It always comes down to that; his runstuffing and coverage are always secondary to that (the latter usually tertiary if mentioned at all, and yes, I do note you consistently did.)

If we define SLB (whether in our scheme or generally) as 1) blitzing 2) run stuffing 3) coverage, in that order, and MLB as 1) coverage 2) run stuffing 3) blitzing, in THAT order, then say a guy who does them all equally well belongs at SLB because of his blitzing, that's just an elaborate way of saying SLB>MLB.

[MOtorboat]

So Joel, when Denver moves their best player from his natural position to a position he's never played before, who fills in it at his original position?

[MOtorboat]

So Joel, when Denver moves their best pass rusher to a position that doesn't rush the passer, who rushes the passer?

[MOtorboat]

So Joel, when Denver moves one of the top three defensive players in the game to a different position, how do we know he'll be a one of the top three defensive players in the game?

[MOtorboat]

So Joel, since we have a competent middle linebacker in Wesley Woodyard, where does Wesley Woodyard play when Von Miller is moved to his position?

[Poet]

Actually Joel, once again I'm going to have to embarrass you, as I was specifically speaking to his pass rushing and run stopping for that position, and for what he is used for. Since we are talking about a 'different' use of a traditional position. In your instance, you never wanted to ever refer to, except once, the fact that Manning's defense was awful. Which is significantly different since you were blaming him entirely for his postseason record. I could explain the concept to you in detail, but let's face it, my time is too valuable. What I will say, though, is that you struggle with analogous situations.

[TXBRONC]

It was ONE SENTENCE in a post that never mentioned the subject again; that's not an invitation for three people to pick it up and run with it for a whole page. Everyone was free to respond to any or all of the rest of that post; it's a pity no one did, and no one regrets that more that more than I.

That's a bunch of hot garbage and you know it. It was very first sentence of your first post in this thread which isn't suppose to be about Miller but about Trevathan. It had nothing to do with the topic at all and yet you bring up one your little pet arguments on how you think Miller should be a MLB.

[dogfish]

good lord. . .

he plays on the edge because he's one of the three best edge rushers in the NFL. . . it's just as simple as that. . . you don't need calculus to add two and two. . .

[BroncoNut]

why everyone hating on Joel?

I like Danny Trevathon. he's a real fast linebacker.

[atwater27]

Is it possible that Zambini was cloned?

[Joel]

So Joel, when Denver moves their best pass rusher to a position that doesn't rush the passer, who rushes the passer?
Probably Irving, Ayers/Phillips, and Wolfe; occasionally Woodyard, Ihenacho or Moore. Sometimes Miller; MLBs don't get flagged for blitzing. But saying he MUST play SLB because he's our best pass rusher is just saying that's more important than whatever else he's able to do just as well: Option 2


So Joel, when Denver moves one of the top three defensive players in the game to a different position, how do we know he'll be a one of the top three defensive players in the game?
Because he's got elite ability in all the areas that position requires—unless one argues he doesn't, which is arguing he's a better Sam than Mike (i.e. he's elite at one, but not the other:) Option 1


So Joel, since we have a competent middle linebacker in Wesley Woodyard, where does Wesley Woodyard play when Von Miller is moved to his position?
Where did he play the last three years? Presumably, MLB, "because that's his position," making it "stupid" to move any LB to any other LB spot. It's interesting that the entire rebuttal is premised on the notion we have a non-traditional 4-3 that blurs distinctions between each LB spot, and that part of the reason was to find a way to maximize a 3-4 OLB in a 4-3 set, yet all that somehow means he's immutably locked into Sam because it's impossible to play him anywhere else. That's a bit contradictory.

Still, this sounds like "the third option," I considered as afterthought: Maybe we have an elite MLB who can't play SLB, so shouldn't replace him with ANOTHER elite MLB who CAN play SLB. Again, hard to be sure Woodyard's an elite MLB after just five games, especially when he spent the last three years at WLB, and played his first two as a 3-4 ILB (NOT 4-3 MLB.) He doesn't have prototypical Mike size, but maybe he punches above his weight; it's only five games, but his performance in those suggests that's possible. I haven't called for Miller at MLB like I did when all we had there was a slowing Brooking and useless Mays.

It was ONE SENTENCE, guys. It wouldn't have been THAT had I realized it would prompt multiple people to raise unholy Hell about it in multiple threads.


That's a bunch of hot garbage and you know it. It was very first sentence of your first post in this thread which isn't suppose to be about Miller but about Trevathan. It had nothing to do with the topic at all and yet you bring up one your little pet arguments on how you think Miller should be a MLB.
It was also ONE sentence in response to an immediately preceding comment stating (among other things,) "Our three best backers are two Wills and a Sam, but Wes can play the middle fine. He's not a heavy bodied run-thumper, but we don't really need one. We need a sure tackler and team leader, and Woodyard is that." That's a fair assessment I don't dispute (no mention of coverage, but it's implied since the particular poster is surely aware of the need for coverage in a Mike and Woodyards exemplary coverage record as a Will and 3-4 ILB.)


good lord. . .

he plays on the edge because he's one of the three best edge rushers in the NFL. . . it's just as simple as that. . . you don't need calculus to add two and two. . .
So he's a better Sam than Mike; no problem: Why not just say that?

[Joel]

Actually Joel, once again I'm going to have to embarrass you, as I was specifically speaking to his pass rushing and run stopping for that position, and for what he is used for. Since we are talking about a 'different' use of a traditional position. In your instance, you never wanted to ever refer to, except once, the fact that Manning's defense was awful. Which is significantly different since you were blaming him entirely for his postseason record. I could explain the concept to you in detail, but let's face it, my time is too valuable. What I will say, though, is that you struggle with analogous situations.
Coverage is relevant to any LB spot, but highly relevant to whether someone can or should move to Mike; that, not whether Miller can ONLY play Sam, is the issue in debate. That's why others were discussing his coverage skills in addition to the others. You essentially assumed the consequent: Miller can only play Sam, so only his skills as Sam are relevant, therefore he can only play Sam. Of course, a logical fallacy isn't dishonesty unless deliberate, and there's no way to prove it was, so I made no such accusation; it's important not to make unprovable accusations.

Having said that: Arguing he's ONLY a Sam (or BETTER there) and would thus be less elsewhere says he's a better Sam than Mike. That's fair if acknowledged for what it is, but fervently arguing the position at length while steadfastly refusing to ADMIT that's the position, even when prompted... there's a word for that; help me out here.... ;)

As to the other, I never said PFM was solely responsible for Colts playoff losses; had that been the point, citing their poor defense, two SB appearances and one title in the VERY FIRST comment would've been a poor way to begin. That IS very different from ignoring a point that undermines ones argument—even when someone else raises it in direct response—and only dismissively addressing it after two others discuss it over a whole page. Again, not dishonest, just bad reasoning, and hypocritical after falsely accusing someone of the same error, let alone alleging dishonesty in the process.

Beyond that: If you've got better things to do, no one but you prevents doing them. I'm trying really hard not to make this personal, which makes one of us. I will say this though: Many excellent lawyers have distinguished careers researching and writing legal opinions. My mom knew many as a legal secretary at the Texas AG before she retired, and my wife works with a few now. Not a suggestion, just an observation.

[Joel]

why everyone hating on Joel?
Ya got me, man; guess everyone loves a party. :tongue:


I like Danny Trevathon. he's a real fast linebacker.
Agreed; he's decent in coverage, too, though that's apparently less important in LBs than I'd been led to believe.

[SR]

So he's a better Sam than Mike; no problem: Why not just say that?

He has never played MLB because he's a SAM. Why not just get that? You let players play their natural position when they're as supremely talented at it as Von.

[Joel]

He has never played MLB because he's a SAM. Why not just get that? You let players play their natural position when they're as supremely talented at it as Von.
He can't play his natural position because we don't run a 3-4. If the argument is that, although neither is his natural position, he's a much better 4-3 Sam than Mike, fine: Just own that.

[MOtorboat]

He can't play his natural position because we don't run a 3-4. If the argument is that, although neither is his natural position, he's a much better 4-3 Sam than Mike, fine: Just own that.

Go read up on Derrick Brooks.

Please, please, please go read up on Derrick Brooks.

[SR]

He can't play his natural position because we don't run a 3-4. If the argument is that, although neither is his natural position, he's a much better 4-3 Sam than Mike, fine: Just own that.

He is an outside linebacker, not a middle linebacker or inside linebacker. And own what? He has literally never been and literally never will be an inside backer. I'm still so confused at what point you're trying to make.

[MOtorboat]

He is an outside linebacker, not a middle linebacker or inside linebacker. And own what? He has literally never been and literally never will be an inside backer. I'm still so confused at what point you're trying to make.

Joel thinks that middle linebacker and safety are the two most important positions on defense, and that Denver should go out of its way to do whatever it can, even if it means moving a player from another position, to fill those two spots.

[SR]

Joel thinks that middle linebacker and safety are the two most important positions on defense, and that Denver should go out of its way to do whatever it can, even if it means moving a player from another position, to fill those two spots.

Ass backward logic.

[DenBronx]

This thread has done nothing but take the focus off of Danny Trevathan. He is making play after play and what great value we got for him and Woody.

Danny, Wes and Miller are going to be fun to watch!

Miller is the leagues best SAM. Keep him there period. Wes has been doing better than expected in the middle even though he was a really good WILL. But Danny steps into weakside and is doing just as good as Wes was. We need our 3 best LBs on the field and thats the positions they will play the rest of the season baring injury.

[Poet]

Joel, I put you in a bag. It's over. Note that no one aided you then, as you were wrong. Note that no one is aiding you now, as you were wrong. You got called on your bullshit argument by me. It hurt you. It hurt because it was true. Joel, you're not wanted here. Go somewhere else.

[TXBRONC]

Ass backward logic.

He's an expert at it.

[iLands]

Here's a serious answer because you are being bludgeoned with tautologies.

You want Miller to rush the passer often. We drafted him to kill quarterbacks. You don't always want him in the backfield, but you want him there often. You don't want to do that with your Mike often. Mike is in a position to help out others, guard the middle of the field, and wear multiple hats. He can't do that if he is always rushing that passer from that position. If you do want to do this, you'll have to cheat a safety up on most plays which hinders scheme flexibility.

[TXBRONC]

I just realized the title has been edited. Thank you moderators. :salute: