Again on Bobby Wagner.

[vin.couve12]

For me it's not that Wagner isn't part of that conversation. Doesn't really matter to me because he won't get paid as much and that works in the favor of the Hawks/12s.

The thing that irks me is that I really don't even consider Kuechly to be a true Mike. And being that player who's largely protected by two DTs that get a lot of double teams that is more comparable to a WLB, I don't even think he's in the top two in that category. If I were a 9er fan I wouldn't trade Willis for Kuechly (unless we bring age into the equation) and if I were a Bucs fan I wouldn't trade Lavonte David for Kuechly either.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kuechly is great at what he does, but the already legend he's become is overboard to say the least.

Needless to say, the Hawks don't have a WLB in that class and we don't need to. You can really only afford so much anyway.

 

[Grahamhawker]

I could be wrong (pure speculation based on limited observation), but the times I have seen Kuechly in action it seems a lot of his tackles are on the running back "going away" - meaning they happen after 4-5 or more yards past the LOS from a behind angle. "Cleanup" tackles, basically. Always thought the same thing about Hawthorne when he was a Hawk. Granted there is value in those tackles.

I don't know if it's a speed thing, or play reading, or positioning, or scheme, but Wags seems to make a lot of his tackles straight up and he often makes contact very near the LOS. Recent example- he was sticking Eddie Lacy repeatedly for basically zero gain in week 1. He also has about double Kuechly's sacks over their careers.

The media can NOT say whatever they want to about Bobby Wagner, IDGAF. Watch him closely and his value to our defense is obvious.

 

[vin.couve12]

I could be wrong (pure speculation based on limited observation), but the times I have seen Kuechly in action it seems a lot of his tackles are on the running back "going away" - meaning they happen after 4-5 or more yards past the LOS from a behind angle. "Cleanup" tackles, basically. Always thought the same thing about Hawthorne when he was a Hawk. Granted there is value in those tackles.

I don't know if it's a speed thing, or play reading, or positioning, or scheme, but Wags seems to make a lot of his tackles straight up and he often makes contact very near the LOS. Recent example- he was sticking Eddie Lacy repeatedly for basically zero gain in week 1. He also has about double Kuechly's sacks over their careers.

The media can NOT say whatever they want to about Bobby Wagner, IDGAF. Watch him closely and his value to our defense is obvious.

You're actually not wrong about this at all. There's literally a stat kept regarding it and it's called impact tackles and it's classified in tackles that are 3 yards or less and obviously includes TFLs.

Wagner lead the league in this stat in 2012 as a rook, but didn't in his second year even though he was still elite.

Here's the link to the full article in this study.

http://www.thefootballeducator.com/impa ... stics-nfl/

This is really cool because I hadn't seen this article until now. I only knew of Wagners league leading stats as a rook. As you can see, Kuechly is on the list, but with a steep, steep drop off from the rest.

I'd look for Wagner's totals this year to rival Bowman's 2013 season.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Vin.couve, that's an awesome link. Thanks for sharing.

 

[vin.couve12]

Vin.couve, that's an awesome link. Thanks for sharing.

The article is really sort of gratifying to me in that the only thing the guy disagrees with me on, through basically everything I've said in this thread, is that he suggest Kuechy has to regularly take on blocks. In his first year it was probably more, but since they drafted those two DTs before the 2013 season I'd have to disagree. Kuechly is a flow LB who doesn't like to go head up.

And holy crap Bowman killed it in 2013. I think Wags can match it this year and is probably on pace right now.

 

[Hawks46]

vin.couve that's great stuff.

I remember when the Ravens switched up their D a little bit. It really effected Ray Lewis a lot. He's another guy that was better in space. Although he could take on blocks, he wasn't as good sifting through the trash. THey had to switch up to protect him a bit more, but I don't think he was a schemed dependent as a guy like Keuchly.

Depending on where he ended up, Keuchly probably would've ended up at WLB.

Wagner is having a good year; a lot of his tackles are near the LOS, but I'd like to see him get a couple of INTs or cause a few fumbles. I remember his rookie year he seemed very good at doing those things. I'd rather see less tackles but more impact plays myself.

 

[vin.couve12]

vin.couve that's great stuff.

I remember when the Ravens switched up their D a little bit. It really effected Ray Lewis a lot. He's another guy that was better in space. Although he could take on blocks, he wasn't as good sifting through the trash. THey had to switch up to protect him a bit more, but I don't think he was a schemed dependent as a guy like Keuchly.

Depending on where he ended up, Keuchly probably would've ended up at WLB.

Wagner is having a good year; a lot of his tackles are near the LOS, but I'd like to see him get a couple of INTs or cause a few fumbles. I remember his rookie year he seemed very good at doing those things. I'd rather see less tackles but more impact plays myself.

Those will come. He'd have a sack already if it wasn't taken away by penalty and he's been providing really good pressure up the middle when blitzing and outside of about 2 plays, one in the GB game and one in the SD game, he's been really close in coverage. One of the things I keep seeing is that damn trips 4 verticle that forces Wags to run down the field, which isolates either both OLBs in the short zones or 1 OLB and 1 safety. San Diego really beat it to death over and over in short zone passes and in the flats. It's a lot of field to cover in the short zones for only two guys. We mitigated it well against Denver, but then they saved that scissors route until the end and we weren't ready to handle that properly with the CB not handing off the inside route and playing back outside in his zone on that cover 3. I think we'll correct that too.

 

[vin.couve12]

Makes me wonder how many people visit .net. This isn't the only occurrence of writers parroting stuff from message boards, but I always find it interesting how things trend on the interwebz...especially as a network engineer.

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/09/28/ ... inebacker/

 

[NINEster]

I'm glad we can share in our distaste of the overrating of Luke Kuechly.

I think Wagner is a great playmaking LB in his own right and the Hawks D wouldn't be a top unit with just a decent MLB.

 

[MysterMatt]

Don't you listen to the media? Kuechly is better. Don't ask for hard evidence that he is, just...Trust popular opinion, it can't be wrong.

In all seriousness, that being said, tackle numbers are still overrated, particularly because great linebackers get to play cleanup duty more if their nearby compatriots aren't great at being in position regularly.

I haven't watched Kuechly nearly as much as Wagner, but he's been a stud each time I've seen him play. I recall the last time we played Carolina in particular, where more of the tackles he made were going forward at the line of scrimmage and Wagner's were a couple yards past it. I'm not looking at a stat sheet or anything, but Kuechly seemed the better MLB on that particular day.

I love Bobby Wagner and he's clearly one of the best. He's physically capable, fast as hell, and prepares in the film room. Assuming he matures and shows a little better discipline (we all remember his big oops that sprung Gore in SF last year), he'll be a damned rock star for a long time. What I'm really trying to say is that comparing him to Kuechly isn't really productive. He's got "it". End of story.

 

[Jville]

I could be wrong (pure speculation based on limited observation), but the times I have seen Kuechly in action it seems a lot of his tackles are on the running back "going away" - meaning they happen after 4-5 or more yards past the LOS from a behind angle. "Cleanup" tackles, basically. Always thought the same thing about Hawthorne when he was a Hawk. Granted there is value in those tackles.

I don't know if it's a speed thing, or play reading, or positioning, or scheme, but Wags seems to make a lot of his tackles straight up and he often makes contact very near the LOS. Recent example- he was sticking Eddie Lacy repeatedly for basically zero gain in week 1. He also has about double Kuechly's sacks over their careers.

The media can NOT say whatever they want to about Bobby Wagner, IDGAF. Watch him closely and his value to our defense is obvious.

You're actually not wrong about this at all. There's literally a stat kept regarding it and it's called impact tackles and it's classified in tackles that are 3 yards or less and obviously includes TFLs.

Wagner lead the league in this stat in 2012 as a rook, but didn't in his second year even though he was still elite.

Here's the link to the full article in this study.

http://www.thefootballeducator.com/impa ... stics-nfl/

This is really cool because I hadn't seen this article until now. I only knew of Wagners league leading stats as a rook. As you can see, Kuechly is on the list, but with a steep, steep drop off from the rest.

I'd look for Wagner's totals this year to rival Bowman's 2013 season.

Thanks for the find and link! :th2thumbs:

Thats an excellent article. It highlights that grading rules, style/scheme and brand named players make a difference in the stats generated.

Didn't spot it the first time thru. Got lucky with the thread bump. Thanks again.

In summation, it is time to start looking deeper into statistics, especially defensively, in order to more accurately and comprehensively assess players’ effectiveness, but it is important to keep in mind that there isn’t a statistic on this earth that can account for scheme and what a guy is being asked to do.

Read more: http://www.thefootballeducator.com/impa ... z3EuvuIzCm

 

[vin.couve12]

Don't you listen to the media? Kuechly is better. Don't ask for hard evidence that he is, just...Trust popular opinion, it can't be wrong.

In all seriousness, that being said, tackle numbers are still overrated, particularly because great linebackers get to play cleanup duty more if their nearby compatriots aren't great at being in position regularly.

I haven't watched Kuechly nearly as much as Wagner, but he's been a stud each time I've seen him play. I recall the last time we played Carolina in particular, where more of the tackles he made were going forward at the line of scrimmage and Wagner's were a couple yards past it. I'm not looking at a stat sheet or anything, but Kuechly seemed the better MLB on that particular day.

I love Bobby Wagner and he's clearly one of the best. He's physically capable, fast as hell, and prepares in the film room. Assuming he matures and shows a little better discipline (we all remember his big oops that sprung Gore in SF last year), he'll be a damned rock star for a long time. What I'm really trying to say is that comparing him to Kuechly isn't really productive. He's got "it". End of story.

It's not necessarily even about Kuechly. More so about not accepting lies as truth. I do not like being lied to.

And which game were you referring to? We've played them twice. Once in 2012 and once in 2013. The 2012 game was another lie. Marshawn tipped him and interception right into his hands and he was also knocked on his back 3 times. One of which, McQuistan launched him between 4 and 5 yards. I know because I rewound it many times. Mike Rob got another pancake on him and I forget who the 3rd was, but the point is that it was another game where he made about 3 plays. Twice he shot gaps to get a TFL and then there was the INT gift from Lynch, but beyond that he was a non factor the entire game.

What did they say on NFLN and ESPN? They just continued the legend. The 2013 game wasn't all that different.

I don't hate the kid or anything. He's a very good player. Not a true Mike, IMO, but would be great standing next to Wags in our own D as a WLB.

Again, I just don't like being lied to. It's kind of like the Elway subject. The guy was a choke artist until TD and that zone blocking scheme came along. Montana wouldn't have won a ring if not for 2 hall of famers on D along with multiple other pro bowlers on D, the best WR of all time, and a truly great supporting cast that included Craig, Taylor, Clark, etc.

Most of the QBs who've ever won wouldn't have if not for their supporting cast and yet they play trumpets when they're on my screen like they took Normandy Beach with my Grandfather. And yet RW will not get credit for success because of having that same supporting cast.

The NFL is a product and like a product you have to see through the BS.

 

[-The Glove-]

Don't you listen to the media? Kuechly is better. Don't ask for hard evidence that he is, just...Trust popular opinion, it can't be wrong.

In all seriousness, that being said, tackle numbers are still overrated, particularly because great linebackers get to play cleanup duty more if their nearby compatriots aren't great at being in position regularly.

I haven't watched Kuechly nearly as much as Wagner, but he's been a stud each time I've seen him play. I recall the last time we played Carolina in particular, where more of the tackles he made were going forward at the line of scrimmage and Wagner's were a couple yards past it. I'm not looking at a stat sheet or anything, but Kuechly seemed the better MLB on that particular day.

I love Bobby Wagner and he's clearly one of the best. He's physically capable, fast as hell, and prepares in the film room. Assuming he matures and shows a little better discipline (we all remember his big oops that sprung Gore in SF last year), he'll be a damned rock star for a long time. What I'm really trying to say is that comparing him to Kuechly isn't really productive. He's got "it". End of story.

It's not necessarily even about Kuechly. More so about not accepting lies as truth. I do not like being lied to.

And which game were you referring to? We've played them twice. Once in 2012 and once in 2013. The 2012 game was another lie. Marshawn tipped him and interception right into his hands and he was also knocked on his back 3 times. One of which, McQuistan launched him between 4 and 5 yards. I know because I rewound it many times. Mike Rob got another pancake on him and I forget who the 3rd was, but the point is that it was another game where he made about 3 plays. Twice he shot gaps to get a TFL and then there was the INT gift from Lynch, but beyond that he was a non factor the entire game.

What did they say on NFLN and ESPN? They just continued the legend. The 2013 game wasn't all that different.

I don't hate the kid or anything. He's a very good player. Not a true Mike, IMO, but would be great standing next to Wags in our own D as a WLB.

Again, I just don't like being lied to. It's kind of like the Elway subject. The guy was a choke artist until TD and that zone blocking scheme came along. Montana wouldn't have won a ring if not for 2 hall of famers on D along with multiple other pro bowlers on D, the best WR of all time, and a truly great supporting cast that included Craig, Taylor, Clark, etc.

Most of the QBs who've ever won wouldn't have if not for their supporting cast and yet they play trumpets when they're on my screen like they took Normandy Beach with my Grandfather. And yet RW will not get credit for success because of having that same supporting cast.

The NFL is a product and like a product you have to see through the BS.

Very well said

 

[NINEster]

Don't you listen to the media? Kuechly is better. Don't ask for hard evidence that he is, just...Trust popular opinion, it can't be wrong.

.......

Again, I just don't like being lied to. It's kind of like the Elway subject. The guy was a choke artist until TD and that zone blocking scheme came along. Montana wouldn't have won a ring if not for 2 hall of famers on D along with multiple other pro bowlers on D, the best WR of all time, and a truly great supporting cast that included Craig, Taylor, Clark, etc.

Most of the QBs who've ever won wouldn't have if not for their supporting cast and yet they play trumpets when they're on my screen like they took Normandy Beach with my Grandfather. And yet RW will not get credit for success because of having that same supporting cast.

The NFL is a product and like a product you have to see through the BS.

Montana won his first super bowl with only 1 hall of famer on D (a rookie Ronnie Lott). He had a good team but the '81 49ers were certainly greater than the sum of its parts. Montana and Lott were the only HOF guys from that team, and weren't HOF caliber at that time.

They had two decent WRs (Clark and Solomon), so so RBs that succeeded through WCO scheme, a decent OL anchored by Randy Cross, a top 5 pass rusher in Fred Dean, blue collar types for LB (Hacksaw Reynolds), a secondary with 3 rookies and one vet (all became pro bowlers by '84).

As a team, nowhere near as dominant as these recent Seahawk/49er teams.

 

[Hawks46]

Have to look at KJ Wright getting and extension and Wagner getting one afterwards....Irvin and Smith will be replaced by Saint Louis or another eventual pick next year....Wright is physical against the teams against the divisional opponents, which is what the roster is built for.

Wright will hit free agency to test the market. He'll get the Tate treatment. We've got a dollar value that is not high attached to him. We will not get into a bidding war. If someone offers more than whatever that figure is, he'll walk.

I know it sounds weird, but Wright won't get a high dollar amount for us because Irvin will take that spot. As long as he progresses this year, his size and speed make him perfect for that spot. It's also the spot Pete likes to blitz/rush the passer from.

St. Loius or Smith can take the weak side. Other than Wright's length, his best asset is that he can slide over and play the middle if Bobby is out. Now that we have a good backup in Croyle, that versatility is not so indespensible.

 

[vin.couve12]

Don't you listen to the media? Kuechly is better. Don't ask for hard evidence that he is, just...Trust popular opinion, it can't be wrong.

.......

Again, I just don't like being lied to. It's kind of like the Elway subject. The guy was a choke artist until TD and that zone blocking scheme came along. Montana wouldn't have won a ring if not for 2 hall of famers on D along with multiple other pro bowlers on D, the best WR of all time, and a truly great supporting cast that included Craig, Taylor, Clark, etc.

Most of the QBs who've ever won wouldn't have if not for their supporting cast and yet they play trumpets when they're on my screen like they took Normandy Beach with my Grandfather. And yet RW will not get credit for success because of having that same supporting cast.

The NFL is a product and like a product you have to see through the BS.

Montana won his first super bowl with only 1 hall of famer on D (a rookie Ronnie Lott). He had a good team but the '81 49ers were certainly greater than the sum of its parts. Montana and Lott were the only HOF guys from that team, and weren't HOF caliber at that time.

They had two decent WRs (Clark and Solomon), so so RBs that succeeded through WCO scheme, a decent OL anchored by Randy Cross, a top 5 pass rusher in Fred Dean, blue collar types for LB (Hacksaw Reynolds), a secondary with 3 rookies and one vet (all became pro bowlers by '84).

As a team, nowhere near as dominant as these recent Seahawk/49er teams.

lol Relative to what? That was an extremely good team and the beginnings of a dynasty for a reason. Not to mention the fact that they had a revolutionary design that is still a school of thought even today and created coaching trees. And it's not as if they could just upload video then to scout.