Posts: 4,794
Threads: 3,560
Joined: May 2013
Reputation:
867
Ranking NFL linebackers by team: Panthers, Broncos lead the way
Well that's certainly a steaming pile of dog shart.
I don't like those rankings at all... Hard to argue with the top 3, but after that? It seems like the writer favors 3-4 teams more than 4-3 teams and also has a strong bias towards unproven rookie and 2nd year players.
The Jaguars should NOT be that high and the Falcons should be bumped up a couple spots IMO. The Vikings are too low as well... they should be somewhere in the mid-teens.
IDK, to be honest, after Barr and Kendricks, all we really have is a bunch of unknowns and hopefuls
Quote: @"Viking Bob" said:
IDK, to be honest, after Barr and Kendricks, all we really have is a bunch of unknowns and hopefuls
how many teams have that much though? yes we only have 2 known commodities at the position, but they are young, improving, and already very very good and for a team that plays a ton of nickle thats not to shabby. I would agree that Barr was a bit off last year, and that we are lacking known depth, but to say that we are near the back of the pack for LB play, nah no way. between 10-15 would be more likely.
8-8 and unable stop anyone after the fifth week will get you this rating. Barr has not lived up to his label of superstar. Kendricks outshines him, much like he did in college. Does anyone here really expect our LBers to be ranked higher? Kendricks led our LB crew with 109 comb tackles. That put him 21st. The next Viking was Barr at 70 tackles, ranked 55th. Most NFL teams have two LB ranked in the top 50 tackles. DET, HOU, MIA, NO, CHI, ATL, TEN, OAK, NYJ, KC, GB, SD, and IND do not. With KC, NYJ and SD with someone ranked higher than Barr and GB with someone tied with Barr. So that's 9 teams that have "worse" tackle stats from their linebackers than the Vikings and that list had us 10 spots from the bottom. Not saying they came to this conclusion by just using total tackle stats... I'm sure they didn't. I can't really argue with this ranking...
I'd like too... but I need to find my purple shades first.
I do firmly believe that Zimmer will have his D ranked top 10, with or without "superstar" linebackers.
Quote: @Bezerker88 said:
8-8 and unable stop anyone after the fifth week will get you this rating. Barr has not lived up to his label of superstar. Kendricks outshines him, much like he did in college. Does anyone here really expect our LBers to be ranked higher? Kendricks led our LB crew with 109 comb tackles. That put him 21st. The next Viking was Barr at 70 tackles, ranked 55th. Most NFL teams have two LB ranked in the top 50 tackles. DET, HOU, MIA, NO, CHI, ATL, TEN, OAK, NYJ, KC, GB, SD, and IND do not. With KC, NYJ and SD with someone ranked higher than Barr and GB with someone tied with Barr. So that's 9 teams that have "worse" tackle stats from their linebackers than the Vikings and that list had us 10 spots from the bottom. Not saying they came to this conclusion by just using total tackle stats... I'm sure they didn't. I can't really argue with this ranking...
I'd like too... but I need to find my purple shades first.
I do firmly believe that Zimmer will have his D ranked top 10, with or without "superstar" linebackers.
i disagree, without the ranging LBs that we have Zims hands get tied pretty quickly on what he can do with coverages in the backfield as well as the blitzes he can draw up. Our LBs are asked to do quite a bit more than what many other teams ask their LBs to do. you put some of those other stat guys in a Zim defense and they get exposed badly IMO. 1 reason that our safeties are able to make more plays is they arent having to play over top coverage or shade to help LBs in coverage. I dont think our guys deserve top 10 rankings, but lower 1/3 is pretty lame considering what they are asked to do.
yea im sure Barr and kendrick are below average.
let either of them hit free agency and see how quickly another team throws top 3-5 position money.
sometimes im really surprised how low our fans view our players.
either way im glad they are on our team
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Bezerker88 said:
8-8 and unable stop anyone after the fifth week will get you this rating. Barr has not lived up to his label of superstar. Kendricks outshines him, much like he did in college. Does anyone here really expect our LBers to be ranked higher? Kendricks led our LB crew with 109 comb tackles. That put him 21st. The next Viking was Barr at 70 tackles, ranked 55th. Most NFL teams have two LB ranked in the top 50 tackles. DET, HOU, MIA, NO, CHI, ATL, TEN, OAK, NYJ, KC, GB, SD, and IND do not. With KC, NYJ and SD with someone ranked higher than Barr and GB with someone tied with Barr. So that's 9 teams that have "worse" tackle stats from their linebackers than the Vikings and that list had us 10 spots from the bottom. Not saying they came to this conclusion by just using total tackle stats... I'm sure they didn't. I can't really argue with this ranking...
I'd like too... but I need to find my purple shades first.
I do firmly believe that Zimmer will have his D ranked top 10, with or without "superstar" linebackers.
i disagree, without the ranging LBs that we have Zims hands get tied pretty quickly on what he can do with coverages in the backfield as well as the blitzes he can draw up. Our LBs are asked to do quite a bit more than what many other teams ask their LBs to do. you put some of those other stat guys in a Zim defense and they get exposed badly IMO. 1 reason that our safeties are able to make more plays is they arent having to play over top coverage or shade to help LBs in coverage. I dont think our guys deserve top 10 rankings, but lower 1/3 is pretty lame considering what they are asked to do.
No matter what it's the D's job to stop the other team and tackle the ball. Doesn't matter if it's using rocket science or just plain old out muscle the opponent. Where would you put our guys? I cannot see rewarding all the runs and first downs given up by this set with a "C" rating, C- to D+ seems about right. As you mention Zim uses them a little differently so the tackle stats may not pile up as quickly. But at the same time, Barr's play has dropped off from where he was. We lose a high quality player and "did nothing" to replace him. It would be difficult to rank these guys higher than 19, IMO. Our pass D was ranked #3 last year... our run D was ranked 20th. Clearly... there's a weakness and I think most of it falls on the LB crew, with some blame on our D's front seven's ability to stop the run.
I think Zim misses Smith when he's out more than he misses Barr.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@"Viking Bob" said:
IDK, to be honest, after Barr and Kendricks, all we really have is a bunch of unknowns and hopefuls
how many teams have that much though? yes we only have 2 known commodities at the position, but they are young, improving, and already very very good and for a team that plays a ton of nickle thats not to shabby. I would agree that Barr was a bit off last year, and that we are lacking known depth, but to say that we are near the back of the pack for LB play, nah no way. between 10-15 would be more likely.
Agreed. They mention each teams proven LB(s) then add some insipid line like "Can so-and-so step up?" or "So-and-so needs to improve on last years performance". Pure armchair analysis.
|
