Quote: @Bezerker88 said:
@ 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.
i am giving Barr a bit of a pass as he was playing hurt most of last year as guru has stated. ( it does concern me that in his time here he has been hurt quite a bit ) as far as the defensive rankings... the LBs are a huge part of that #3 against the pass and considering we are in a pass heavy league, that should weigh more than the 20th ranking the run d gets. I would have them in the 12 to 14 range personally.
as far as Zim missing Smith more than Barr... well couldnt that be more of a condemnation of Smiths backup or a even a testament to Smith himself than a shot against Barr? ( by the way though, our pass rush has definitely suffered when Barr has been injured and/or out of the games IMO.
So out of our #3 ranked total Defense last year... where is the weak link?
D line? Griff, Brob, Joseph, Hunter, Johnson, Stephen.
LB? - Kendricks, Barr.... and that other guy...
DBs? - Harry, Rhodes, Newman... with Waynes starting to show up more.
Linebacker play fell off last year with just Barr alone and losing Greenway just ads to that. So I would say LB was the weakest link in '16. Now take that answer and remove a solid veteran and replace him with.... unknown. Would you say that group got stronger or weaker?(can't really say as there are too many variables but for the sake of internet debating let's just take this as a three legged chair and now you remove a leg). Where would you rank a green and yellow LB crew if they lost Matthews, didn't replace him with anything and their up and coming player hasn't matched his rookie year but still had a couple of good players capable of some great games. Would you say they are automatically ranked above 16? Remember the article ranked "team" not "player"... so this had nothing to do with how much I like or dislike a player. Kendricks and Barr are good/great players, but our total linebacking crew is not top 15. IMO. 23 may be a bit low but the article is doing it's job by generating discussions and clicks.
Quote: @Bezerker88 said:
So out of our #3 ranked total Defense last year... where is the weak link?
D line? Griff, Brob, Joseph, Hunter, Johnson, Stephen.
LB? - Kendricks, Barr.... and that other guy...
DBs? - Harry, Rhodes, Newman... with Waynes starting to show up more.
Linebacker play fell off last year with just Barr alone and losing Greenway just ads to that. So I would say LB was the weakest link in '16. Now take that answer and remove a solid veteran and replace him with.... unknown. Would you say that group got stronger or weaker?(can't really say as there are too many variables but for the sake of internet debating let's just take this as a three legged chair and now you remove a leg). Where would you rank a green and yellow LB crew if they lost Matthews, didn't replace him with anything and their up and coming player hasn't matched his rookie year but still had a couple of good players capable of some great games. Would you say they are automatically ranked above 16? Remember the article ranked "team" not "player"... so this had nothing to do with how much I like or dislike a player. Kendricks and Barr are good/great players, but our total linebacking crew is not top 15. IMO. 23 may be a bit low but the article is doing it's job by generating discussions and clicks.
we have essentially 4 starting DL, 2 starting LB, and 5 starting DBs, that is what made up our #3 defense last year. I loved Greenway as a Viking, but lets be honest in what he brought to the team last year. His experience kept him in the game, but his athleticism was waning and it showed at times. I think that the loss of Captain from the starting lineup is greater than the loss of Greenway as a reserve and with the other question marks at the DB positions, I am more concerned about the back end being able to hold up. Also the questions at DT are a little concerning right now as well. We certainly need to see more out of our LB corp, but I am not overly concerned at the position.
As far as comparing our LB to other teams LBs, how much time do you spend analyzing other teams starting LBs, let alone their depth at the position? Me? not much at all, and I am sure that very few people outside of the teams scouts and coaches are really all that well educated about league wide depth. this is pretty much a guts and eyeballs type of thing and mine say we are about 8-10 spots better than they have us.
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.
Well the teams the writer mentions has a bunch of names he is listing and a couple of names that we don't know who they are either. I doubt anyone that isn't a Viking fan can name 3 LBs on the team not named Barr or Kendricks. Hell, many Viking fans probably can't either...
I'm concerned about the depth at the position myself. We need 2 guys to play all 16 games...
We need someone to step up big. Last season there was a bit of hype about our depth, and their ability to step up... Greenway took a lot of reps away from guys who need to contribute now.
When young guys play, they can make simple mistakes. The plays they give up, you cant go back and change. Playing vets is an easy way to avoid that nonsense, but in hindsight, what have we done to change the dynamic at the position? What has actually changed with the depth at the position? ... just experience on the practice field and small rotational experience. More special teams experience. Thats about it.
Greenway played because he was the next best guy at the position, point blank. But his play left something to be desired bu the end of his time here. We have had young, talented guys behind him who havent been able to run with oppertunities. Guys who arguably were forgotten about by the end of the season.
The question is how quickly can these guys grow into roles and oppertunities before Zimmer calls for a sub or schemes around it with extra DBs or even standup linemen.
|
