2007 LB Projection (1 Viewer)

[Jene Bramel]

Here is my first stab at projecting the final stats for the LBs in 2007. FBG/Zealot-ish scoring with all players assumed healthy and in their projected roles for a full 16 game season.

DISCLAIMER: I'm fully expecting this list to look like to most. I was pretty shocked when I hit SORT.

I'm going to stubbornly stick to my plan to transfer the raw projection list to the rank list. It's a little early for cheatsheets for 2007 anyway and I think that the exercise and thought process is worth it. As with the DL lists, this list would not be my cheatsheet. I'll make adjustments for upside and possible changes in playing time and injury risk after the draft and mini-camps start firming up the depth charts.

Since this is a projected year end list and the system used is slightly slanted toward tackles, it'll be important to keep in mind that -- in this set of projections -- the #9 and #40 LBs are separated by a grand total of 20 projected points. That's a 10 tackle, 5 assist, 1 sack, 1 PD difference for the entire season. The differences within that group are even smaller.

I'm happy to take all shots again. I believe I can defend every projection. Maybe it's silly to stay true to the letter of the projections since it doesn't provide an accurate cheatsheet but I think the exercise is important as a jumping off point for discussion.

Here's the link.

 

[Beaumont]

You need to take Simoneau off the list ...

 

[Jene Bramel]

You need to take Simoneau off the list ...

Forgot to mention...Simoneau = Brian Simmons as a placeholder until the database was updated. Now fixed.

 

[Toads]

Cooper has to be the find of the week. Interesting he's ranked so high.

 

[The Carnage]

But, Bryan Thomas is a DE!

Sorry, couldn't resist knowing how you've made it your personal mission and all...

 

[bcr8f]

I hope so. Getting Crowell for a 2nd round pick(#24) would work out well for me.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Cooper has to be the find of the week. Interesting he's ranked so high.

And I could be way, way wrong. But I'm continuing to stick to my guns (which are backed up by Maurile's eyes-on pre-season 2006 scouting reports) that it'll be Cooper, not Matt Wilhelm, who plays the LILB role. Little leery about Cooper not seeing many nickel snaps but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. If it's the opposite and Cooper does end up at RILB, I won't have Wilhelm nearly as high. But Cooper would drop to around Jonathan Vilma's level in the raw projection -- and maybe further.

 

[Jene Bramel]

But, Bryan Thomas is a DE!Sorry, couldn't resist knowing how you've made it your personal mission and all...

It's not particular to Thomas. I sent multiple emails to MFL late last pre-season to get a bunch of DE/DT issues cleaned up -- notably missing Luis Castillo. Couldn't mount any reasonable case to get Thomas switched or I would've. Just an unfair loophole IMO that's magnified even more when you play in some pretty competitive top-to-bottom leagues as many of us do.

 

[bcr8f]

DAn Morgan?

Do you think he can make it out of training camp without further concussions?

"I'm happy to take all shots again. I believe I can defend every projection. Maybe it's silly to stay true to the letter of the projections since it doesn't provide an accurate cheatsheet but I think the exercise is important as a jumping off point for discussion."

Definitely agree. It's very early but in some leagues these guys are available. In one of mine Bart Scott and Brandon Moore are RFA's.

 

[Jene Bramel]

DAn Morgan?

Do you think he can make it out of training camp without further concussions?

It's more likely than if he hadn't taken the (what will be) nine month break between contact. But, since the Panthers have structured his contract** in a way to cover themselves if he can't and get the most bang for their buck if he can, I'm projecting him as the starter until the Panthers draft an obvious replacement or the first week of mini-camp -- whichever comes first .If this were my personal cheatsheet, I wouldn't touch Morgan until I had at least one solid player already rostered as depth and probably too. Which is to say, I'd take him as a high upside pick as my LB5 or LB6.

**PFT reported that the Panthers converted a big roster bonus into a per game roster bonus for 2007.

 

[Rovers]

But, Bryan Thomas is a DE!Sorry, couldn't resist knowing how you've made it your personal mission and all...

It's not particular to Thomas. I sent multiple emails to MFL late last pre-season to get a bunch of DE/DT issues cleaned up -- notably missing Luis Castillo. Couldn't mount any reasonable case to get Thomas switched or I would've. Just an unfair loophole IMO that's magnified even more when you play in some pretty competitive top-to-bottom leagues as many of us do.

That isn't a small request, Jene. MFL has used the NFL depth charts, and while it isn't perfect, it allows them to avoid having disputes over player listing with their customers. I'm not sure that they would want to open that can of worms and get that headache. In any case, my leagues still use the NFL depth chart, so even if MFL changed a player, there can be no dispute... whatever the NFL says is the final authority. I don't think this is an issue they want to be in the middle of. I have to believe they would prefer to keep things as they are... and let specific player listing be hammered out within their own leagues. At MFL, the commish can change a player listing if they choose to.What really needs to happen, if that the NFL needs to change what they do.... that is the source of the problem. It's the NFL that needs to be lobbied, but since they don't make $ on FF (much, relatively speaking) I doubt they will pay much attention to it. Interesting listing, with some that do need adjustments, but my, how Vilma has fallen! Crowell #1.... that's interesting too. Did Spikes even make the list? I'll have to go look again.

 

[DonFue]

I'm putting this link on my league's webite. You got guts Jene! This may just land me a slimey trade of Crowell though!

 

[Zoomanji]

Definitely agree. It's very early but in some leagues these guys are available. In one of mine Bart Scott and Brandon Moore are RFA's.

Any openings???

 

[Jene Bramel]

But, Bryan Thomas is a DE!Sorry, couldn't resist knowing how you've made it your personal mission and all...

It's not particular to Thomas. I sent multiple emails to MFL late last pre-season to get a bunch of DE/DT issues cleaned up -- notably missing Luis Castillo. Couldn't mount any reasonable case to get Thomas switched or I would've. Just an unfair loophole IMO that's magnified even more when you play in some pretty competitive top-to-bottom leagues as many of us do.

That isn't a small request, Jene. MFL has used the NFL depth charts, and while it isn't perfect, it allows them to avoid having disputes over player listing with their customers. I'm not sure that they would want to open that can of worms and get that headache. In any case, my leagues still use the NFL depth chart, so even if MFL changed a player, there can be no dispute... whatever the NFL says is the final authority. I don't think this is an issue they want to be in the middle of. I have to believe they would prefer to keep things as they are... and let specific player listing be hammered out within their own leagues. At MFL, the commish can change a player listing if they choose to.What really needs to happen, if that the NFL needs to change what they do.... that is the source of the problem. It's the NFL that needs to be lobbied, but since they don't make $ on FF (much, relatively speaking) I doubt they will pay much attention to it. Interesting listing, with some that do need adjustments, but my, how Vilma has fallen! Crowell #1.... that's interesting too. Did Spikes even make the list? I'll have to go look again.

I realize that I'll have a tough sell on Thomas again for 2007 if the current depth charts hold but it's the right side of the issue. I won't send the email until I have something more than, "Any knowledgeable fan who watches a NYJ game knows Thomas is a LB." Castillo on the other hand...Most of the DE/DT, DE/LB and CB/S issues I had issue with were easily correctable with backup from multiple sources. Guys like Greg Ellis, Vonnie Holliday, the Colt DTs, the Brown DEs etc were all incorrect from a lack of attention to detail than anything else IMO.Spikes is in the low 50s, I believe. If not, he's just outside the top 60. And Crowell is going to be an interesting case. I didn't think anything of projecting 100 solos and multiple big plays -- he's proven that ability in the past and he's held up on the strong side of the defense at times -- but I was shocked when I saw him in the top five. If he does indeed land at MLB with Spikes and Ellison flanking him there's no reason he can't approach Fletcher's numbers, even if he's not quite the same caliber all-around player.

 

[bcr8f]

Definitely agree. It's very early but in some leagues these guys are available. In one of mine Bart Scott and Brandon Moore are RFA's.

Any openings???

You have to be a thieving bastage to get in. The Eagles signed Curtis.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I'm putting this link on my league's webite. You got guts Jene! This may just land me a slimey trade of Crowell though!

No worries. I don't know about guts. It's just a very early look at who I think lands in which position and a completely unadjusted reckoning of a 16 game statline. It shouldn't be seen as a cheatsheet, although it clearly gives an idea of who I think will be good value and who I see as sleepers/busts in comparison to last year's end game.

 

[Zoomanji]

Definitely agree. It's very early but in some leagues these guys are available. In one of mine Bart Scott and Brandon Moore are RFA's.

Any openings???

You have to be a thieving bastage to get in. The Eagles signed Curtis.

Sorry, wrong forum

 

[bcr8f]

I'm putting this link on my league's webite. You got guts Jene! This may just land me a slimey trade of Crowell though!

No worries. I don't know about guts. It's just a very early look at who I think lands in which position and a completely unadjusted reckoning of a 16 game statline. It shouldn't be seen as a cheatsheet, although it clearly gives an idea of who I think will be good value and who I see as sleepers/busts in comparison to last year's end game.

Vilma owners won't like being ranked below Dan Morgan but it's so early it's nice to have something to ponder.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I'm putting this link on my league's webite. You got guts Jene! This may just land me a slimey trade of Crowell though!

No worries. I don't know about guts. It's just a very early look at who I think lands in which position and a completely unadjusted reckoning of a 16 game statline. It shouldn't be seen as a cheatsheet, although it clearly gives an idea of who I think will be good value and who I see as sleepers/busts in comparison to last year's end game.

Vilma owners won't like being ranked below Dan Morgan but it's so early it's nice to have something to ponder.

Too much now needs to happen from the personnel and scheme perspectives to make Vilma a viable LB2 or better. If both these guys play a full 16 game season in their current positions, Morgan outscores Vilma handily.Remember, a somewhat healthy Morgan (missed four games and numerous series in others) in 2004 was on pace for 105 solo tackles with an above average big play and coverage statline (minimum two sacks, two INTs, and six passes defended). And that's with Will Witherspoon and Mark Fields playing well next to him. Morgan is a very, very good LB.As I said though, no way I draft Morgan as a LB3 (#31) no matter how well he fares in camp.

 

[kellumsboys]

nice list Jene

thanks !

I traded away Fujita for Crowell 3 weeks ago.

 

[Cardsfan11]

Very interesting list. I cant wait to see how different this list changes after the draft. There are 2-3 LB's in this draftthat can make immediate impact.

Also where Cato Junes falls once he signs. And if Briggs does get traded where he moves to.

 

[TheGreatest]

A couple of questions.....

1. Mike Peterson #6......Is that based on him lining up in the middle or outside? If he goes outside, I don't see him that high.

2. D. Smith (Jax).....Why is he not on the list? All things point to D. Smith being in the middle and M. Peterson going to WLB next year. Even if D. Smith plays WLB, shouldn't he be on list?

3. S. Cooper (MLB), F. Keiaho (WLB), A. Brooks (MLB). I assume that these guys are ranked on the possibilty that they will be starting at these positions. Even if they do start there. What makes you believe that they will put up the numbers that their predecessors did in that spot?

4. A. Thomas.......Why so low? I expect NE and Belicheck to use him all over the place.

5. O. Gaither (WLB).....Why would he be below players like F. Keiaho & A. Brooks? We have at least seen O. Gaither on the field and producing. What has F. Kieaho or A. Brooks shown that would validate them being higher than O. Gaither?

 

[bcr8f]

Jene, Brooking #10. Do you see him at MLB this season?

 

[Jene Bramel]

All good questions.

A couple of questions.....1. Mike Peterson #6......Is that based on him lining up in the middle or outside? If he goes outside, I don't see him that high. 2. D. Smith (Jax).....Why is he not on the list? All things point to D. Smith being in the middle and M. Peterson going to WLB next year. Even if D. Smith plays WLB, shouldn't he be on list?

I'm projecting Peterson in the middle and Smith outside. There have been rumblings about a switch since before the 2005 season without substance. Even with Smith taking over after the injury last year, I haven't seen any solid information from the team this off-season to suggest that Smith will remain the MLB. If you have, please provide a link, and I'll adjust the projections accordingly because I agree with the assessment that Peterson won't put up LB1 numbers on the outside.Daryl Smith sits at #67 in my raw projections. That projection is two solo tackles from the top 60 and only ten points shy of the top 50. In his best season to date at OLB, Smith totaled a 69-12-3 with mediocre coverage stats. My 2007 projection would result in career highs in every statistical category with the exception of solo tackles, which at 71 are still only two behind last year's MLB assisted total. With some attrition in the ranks above (eg: little chance Dan Morgan hits his projection), he'll likely finish around #50 for the third consecutive season.

3. S. Cooper (MLB), F. Keiaho (WLB), A. Brooks (MLB). I assume that these guys are ranked on the possibilty that they will be starting at these positions. Even if they do start there. What makes you believe that they will put up the numbers that their predecessors did in that spot?

That's correct. I'm projecting Cooper to play LILB, Keiaho at WLB, and Brooks at MLB. Cooper's projection is significantly lower than Edwards production over recent seasons -- a tackle per game less and a reasonable drop in coverage stats. But he's probably still too high as I think I may have overrated his coverage stats assuming he'll play in every nickel situation. He probably belongs at the lower level of that 1b tier (in the upper-mid teens), which wouldn't be a huge drop in raw total points.I think Keiaho can be every bit as talented a LB as June. Still, his projection is slightly less across the board. I think LB2 production is very possible there.Brooks' projection is right in line with what an inconsistent MLB with 2 1/2 down responsibility would do in the Bengal defense with no stud OLB or safety to steal tackles -- 74 solos with a few big plays consistent with his aggressive style of play.All three projections are less than there predecessors. Edwards is a top five player; Cooper will probably fall to the mid-teens in my next effort. June has been a top 15-20 guy (projected) over the past two seasons; Keiaho isn't projected that high. Brooks' projection at low LB3 levels would put him well below Thurman's 2005 and the MLB collective of 2006.

4. A. Thomas.......Why so low? I expect NE and Belicheck to use him all over the place.

Adalius Thomas 2005-06 -- average 71 solos, 17 assists, 10 sacks, 4 FF/FR, 1 INT, 6 PDAdalius Thomas proj 2007 -- 65-23-8-3-2-8Adalius Thomas was everywhere for the Ravens over the past two seasons. Belichick doesn't blitz any more often than the Ravens do, which isn't much, and AT isn't a clearly better pass rusher than Willie McGinest or Rosie Colvin. In multiple seasons in this scheme, there have been only a couple of single season statlines of eight sacks or better. Even a guy like Mike Vrabel, who's been used inside/outside and as a rush/coverage guy, has managed over 60 solo tackles only once. Until I see evidence (from Belichick or during the pre-season) to suggest it, I don't believe Adalius Thomas can be reliably projected to 75 solos or double digit sacks. Certainly, though, he's a guy with some upside to his projection.

5. O. Gaither (WLB).....Why would he be below players like F. Keiaho & A. Brooks? We have at least seen O. Gaither on the field and producing. What has F. Kieaho or A. Brooks shown that would validate them being higher than O. Gaither?

Gaither is ahead of Brooks in total points on this list. Gaither's issue is that his tackle upside is limited on the weak side in a scheme that favors the middle backer. I was very generous, IMO, in projecting him at 85 solos. In this section of the projections, where the 75-90 solo tackle guys live, total assists and big plays/coverage stats play a big role. The Eagles, as loose as they are with PDs, don't give out the assisted tackles that the Jets, Bengals, Steelers, Patriots, and Buccaneers have. That 15-20 separation in assists can mean the difference between #40 and #28 in a raw projection.Gaither would get at least a 15 solo tackle boost if he's named MLB and holds a three down role. Jeremiah Trotter was a top 20 LB without full time nickel duties; Gaither would easily reach that value with the junk the Eagles might surround him with at OLB.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Jene, Brooking #10. Do you see him at MLB this season?

Yes. Demorrio Williams fits the Mike Zimmer WLB mold perfectly and I don't think Michael Boley or Jordan Beck move Keith Brooking out of the MLB spot.

 

[The_Hunchback]

I take it you expect Brandon Moore to be ILB with the defense moving into the 3-4? I've liked the guy the past couple years but for whatever reason he doesn't seem to get love from Nolan.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

All 3 of my starters in your top 14? I like the way you think, Jene!

 

[The Man With No Name]

All 3 of my starters in your top 14? I like the way you think, Jene!

I have 5 of the top 13 in one league. 2. Bulluck4. Ryans6. Peterson12. Witherspoon13. MoorePlus I traded Brooking late last season.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I take it you expect Brandon Moore to be ILB with the defense moving into the 3-4? I've liked the guy the past couple years but for whatever reason he doesn't seem to get love from Nolan.

The draft may play a role but with the signing of Banta-Cain to supposedly start it appears that Moore is needed more inside.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

All 3 of my starters in your top 14? I like the way you think, Jene!

I have 5 of the top 13 in one league. 2. Bulluck4. Ryans6. Peterson12. Witherspoon13. MoorePlus I traded Brooking late last season.

Glad I'm not in your league, lol.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Jene, where would you put David Thornton?

 

[radiohead417]

You gotta pump Demo up higher Jene! 51 is an outrage, he should be top 20.

 

[bcr8f]

All 3 of my starters in your top 14? I like the way you think, Jene!

I have 5 of the top 13 in one league. 2. Bulluck4. Ryans6. Peterson12. Witherspoon13. MoorePlus I traded Brooking late last season.

Zooty has Bullock, Peterson and Ryans but it didn't help him in the Superbowl. With QB Weinke Steve Smith had negatve points.

 

[lord_helmet]

Brandon Moore and Bradie James over guys like Briggs, Lewis, Tatupu, Morrison etc.... why ?

 

[Jene Bramel]

Jene, where would you put David Thornton?

Thornton is #68 on the list. But he's in a huge tier of LB4s; ten more fantasy points would put him in the top 48, ten less would put him outside the top 80. It's all about upside in that tier. Thornton doesn't have a lot from a big play perspective and could see a drop in stats if Stephen Tulloch or Ryan Fowler play above replacement level in the middle.

 

[Jene Bramel]

You gotta pump Demo up higher Jene! 51 is an outrage, he should be top 20.

I was surprised with the final number of Williams too. I didn't look closely enough and assumed he just got caught up in the low LB2 wash. His line on the spreadsheet shows 78-24-2 with some decent coverage stats. I think it should've read 88 solos instead of 78. I may also have underrated his sack output, but I don't know that he'll be blitzed as much as Michael Boley will from the other side, so I'll leave that be for now.The best comp for Williams in this scheme is probably Dexter Coakley. He was regularly in the low 80s next to Dat Nguyen in Zimmer's scheme, aside from one season of 90 solos. I think the situations are very similar, including pretty comparable defensive line play.Still, bumping him by ten solo tackles only raises his raw projection to #40. His statistical output is hurt by his relatively poor coverage lines -- I've projected many of the guys immediately above him with similar tackle lines to get double the passes defended numbers. The bottom line, though, is that he's another guy that I'd have much higher on a cheatsheet because of upside -- no way I'd draft Teddy Lehman, Dan Morgan, or Landon Johnson ahead of him to name a few -- but since I'm trying to stay true to the raw projection I'll leave it alone for now.I'm really interested in hearing how the Falcons plan on using Williams. If he's going to be used as a blitzer, I can see him getting five sacks. That'd bring him up near the top 25.Thanks for pointing him out.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Brandon Moore and Bradie James over guys like Briggs, Lewis, Tatupu, Morrison etc.... why ?

From my above disclaimers:I'm going to stubbornly stick to my plan to transfer the raw projection list to the rank list. It's a little early for cheatsheets for 2007 anyway and I think that the exercise and thought process is worth it. As with the DL lists, this list would not be my cheatsheet.

...

it'll be important to keep in mind that -- in this set of projections -- the #9 and #40 LBs are separated by a grand total of 20 projected points. That's a 10 tackle, 5 assist, 1 sack, 1 PD difference for the entire season. The differences within that group are even smaller.

Brandon Moore -- 135.00 pts

Bradie James -- 134.50 pts

Lance Briggs -- 133.50

Ray Lewis -- 133.00 pts

Lofa Tatupu -- 131.50 pts

Kirk Morrison -- 129.50 pts

There's really no difference between about 20 guys in this tier other than personal confidence level. I think Brandon Moore and Bradie James are both in much better situations than in 2006 and are good bets to move up into that fat tier of LB2 caliber players. Would I draft them ahead of established guys like the others you listed? Almost certainly not.

Expect a lot of shuffling to happen in this tier after things begin to settle out in mini-camp and my ranking philosophy switches to a cheatsheet for subscribers than a cut-and-paste from the raw projection.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%

This is probably as good a place as any to address the disconnect between my on-record statements about not buying into relying on a raw projection for drafting/ranking players and why I've decided to be stubborn about doing things this way in March/April/May.

We all have our pet players, guys we've fallen in love with for any number of reasons, who we ended up over-rating. At least I know I'm guilty of it. When you hold yourself to an honest projection of the most likely rosterable IDPs, though, you'll often be surprised at what you find. I'd really like to have Gerald Hayes in the top 15 or Demorrio Williams in the top 20, but the projections suggest that's probably way overrating them -- for now. It works the other way, too. Guys like Antonio Pierce and Keith Brooking and London Fletcher and James Farrior get underdrafted and underappreciated year after year. If you do a reasonable projection, you see the big value they can provide in redraft or trade situations.

I'll have no problem rocketing a DeMeco Ryans or Kirk Morrison up the draft board as I did last pre-season for the stud upside. But if I'm going to be accountable to the final list as a cheatsheet, I like what the pre-season projection does to rein myself in when I get a little too high or low on a guy.

Take a couple hours and rank your top 30 players at any position, then do a honest set of projections for the same players and compare. You'll be surprised.

 

[lord_helmet]

Projections is not my strong suit, I think I'm reasonable at spotting talent but projecting how that translates into production - not so much. I lean heavily on opportunity and upside and what I can pick up from gurus such as yourself. I rarely even produce a set of rankings, I think they tend to make me less flexible as to who I will pick and potentially can screw up the flow.

A bit untraditional I know, but it works pretty well for me.

 

[Zoomanji]

All 3 of my starters in your top 14? I like the way you think, Jene!

I have 5 of the top 13 in one league. 2. Bulluck4. Ryans6. Peterson12. Witherspoon13. MoorePlus I traded Brooking late last season.

Zooty has Bullock, Peterson and Ryans but it didn't help him in the Superbowl. With QB Weinke Steve Smith had negatve points.

I have J. Peterson not M. Peterson

 

[Bezzerck]

Michael Boley -LB- Atlanta Falcons showed some promise last year and was looking like a possible break out candidate. What do you guys see him doing this year?

 

[BearsFan]

What about the DEN LBs? I see Wilson and DJ on the list, but no Ian Gold? How's Gold going to do in that Bates system?

 

[Jene Bramel]

Michael Boley -LB- Atlanta Falcons showed some promise last year and was looking like a possible break out candidate. What do you guys see him doing this year?

It'll be hard to break out on the strong side of the defense. He may get some increased value as a third down pass rusher with Patrick Kerney gone and an inconsistent-to-date Chauncey Davis as the replacement. Right now, he's a whisper outside the top 60 with a bunch of others. If Zimmer confirms that he'll be used in a third down rushing role, his new projection would put him into the top 60 easily.

 

[Jene Bramel]

What about the DEN LBs? I see Wilson and DJ on the list, but no Ian Gold? How's Gold going to do in that Bates system?

Gold's just outside the top 60 in that tier with Boley, Barton, Greenway, DSmith.There's going to be even less potential for big plays for the OLB in Jim Bates' scheme, so nearly all of Gold's value will come from his solo tackles. I'm projecting him for his highest solo tackling total since 2002 with 79, but with his minimal projection in the other columns, he finishes at the bottom of the "last five in" tier.

 

[redman]

5. O. Gaither (WLB).....Why would he be below players like F. Keiaho & A. Brooks? We have at least seen O. Gaither on the field and producing. What has F. Kieaho or A. Brooks shown that would validate them being higher than O. Gaither?

Gaither is ahead of Brooks in total points on this list. Gaither's issue is that his tackle upside is limited on the weak side in a scheme that favors the middle backer. I was very generous, IMO, in projecting him at 85 solos. In this section of the projections, where the 75-90 solo tackle guys live, total assists and big plays/coverage stats play a big role. The Eagles, as loose as they are with PDs, don't give out the assisted tackles that the Jets, Bengals, Steelers, Patriots, and Buccaneers have. That 15-20 separation in assists can mean the difference between #40 and #28 in a raw projection.Gaither would get at least a 15 solo tackle boost if he's named MLB and holds a three down role. Jeremiah Trotter was a top 20 LB without full time nickel duties; Gaither would easily reach that value with the junk the Eagles might surround him with at OLB.

Gaither however has the potential to start at a very valuable MLB position, whereas a guy like Keiaho does not, at least for this year's purposes. Gaither could spell Trotter on passing downs and maybe even supplant him as the starter. Trotter's also not getting any younger (or healthier) and may simply miss time due to wear and tear. I think he needs to be pushed a little higher to reflect these possibilities at this early date, though I understand how a strict stat projections ranking system makes accounting for such possibilities very difficult.

 

[bcr8f]

All 3 of my starters in your top 14? I like the way you think, Jene!

I have 5 of the top 13 in one league. 2. Bulluck4. Ryans6. Peterson12. Witherspoon13. MoorePlus I traded Brooking late last season.

Zooty has Bullock, Peterson and Ryans but it didn't help him in the Superbowl. With QB Weinke Steve Smith had negatve points.

I have J. Peterson not M. Peterson

I'm sorry. My mistake. Bullocks and Ryans were a very productive duo. My LB's were pretty bad(Brooking/Merriman/Leroy Hill) and hope Crowell, McIntosh and others will change that this year.

 

[Biabreakable]

1st of all thanks Jene for sharing this. Some very interesting and suprising results. Now a few comments/questions about them:

I am curious about the raw numbers that resulted in Angelo Crowell, Bart Scott and Stephen Cooper being ranked so high.

For Angelo Crowell he has shown the ability to post big tackle numbers in 2005. However when I give him his average numbers for the game that he missed in 2005 I end up with 84.3 solo tackles 42.6 assists + some big plays. Now even if we give Crowell a boost for playing exclusivly at MLB and not having Fletcher taking tackles away from him (although TKO possibly might) I can see possibly adding 10 to each category (that seems optimistic, just trying it) which would result in 94 solo tackles and 53 assists. Those numbers are in line with what Fletcher did in in seasons 2002-2004 with the Bills, but still falls short of what Fletcher has done in 2005-2006 and what other top 5 Lbers have done in past season when the best will post over 100 solo tackles with many assists. I am not seeing what brings Crowell to this level even after I gave him a +10 bonus from his best numbers to date.

So this leaves me wondering what the actual numbers you projected for him were? And based off of what?

For Bart Scott I know there has been talk of Scott taking over more of a pass rushing role to compensate for the loss of Thomas. That to me means he would be playing more rushing ROLB which I do not see being as good a situation as he has been in as the LILB (in 3-4 looks) and playing more inside in the versitile Ravens defense. Scott's role is a confusing one as NFL.com lists him as a LILB on thier depth chart but a OLB on his player page. I know scheme and player roles in the scheme is somthing you pay close attention to. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on how the Ravens 46 defense has been functioning and how Scotts role will change with Thomas now gone.

What I am seeing from Scott's numbers is that he has taken a huge jump allready from 2005 season 62 solo tackles 30 assists 4 sacks 2FF 2FR 1PD to 78 solo tackles 25 assists 9.5 sacks 2 int 7PD (suprisingly no FF or FR coming from the over doubling of sacks). Are you projecting another jump in numbers for him in 2007? And if so based on what?

With Stephen Cooper I am assuming that you are projecting him to fill Donnie Edwards role but will he be able to post similar numbers if he does indeed fill that role in 2007? While I would expect his numbers to have a large spike in that role at the same time I do not see him as the same player as Edwards is in terms of talent and ability.

I am mainly pointing out these 3 players as I understand where you are at with the large 2nd tier of player projections that are closely clumped together. So that makes me wonder more what has driven the numbers for these 3 players who are above that clumping.

 

[TheGreatest]

All good questions.

A couple of questions.....1. Mike Peterson #6......Is that based on him lining up in the middle or outside? If he goes outside, I don't see him that high. 2. D. Smith (Jax).....Why is he not on the list? All things point to D. Smith being in the middle and M. Peterson going to WLB next year. Even if D. Smith plays WLB, shouldn't he be on list?

I'm projecting Peterson in the middle and Smith outside. There have been rumblings about a switch since before the 2005 season without substance. Even with Smith taking over after the injury last year, I haven't seen any solid information from the team this off-season to suggest that Smith will remain the MLB. If you have, please provide a link, and I'll adjust the projections accordingly because I agree with the assessment that Peterson won't put up LB1 numbers on the outside.Daryl Smith sits at #67 in my raw projections. That projection is two solo tackles from the top 60 and only ten points shy of the top 50. In his best season to date at OLB, Smith totaled a 69-12-3 with mediocre coverage stats. My 2007 projection would result in career highs in every statistical category with the exception of solo tackles, which at 71 are still only two behind last year's MLB assisted total. With some attrition in the ranks above (eg: little chance Dan Morgan hits his projection), he'll likely finish around #50 for the third consecutive season.

3. S. Cooper (MLB), F. Keiaho (WLB), A. Brooks (MLB). I assume that these guys are ranked on the possibilty that they will be starting at these positions. Even if they do start there. What makes you believe that they will put up the numbers that their predecessors did in that spot?

That's correct. I'm projecting Cooper to play LILB, Keiaho at WLB, and Brooks at MLB. Cooper's projection is significantly lower than Edwards production over recent seasons -- a tackle per game less and a reasonable drop in coverage stats. But he's probably still too high as I think I may have overrated his coverage stats assuming he'll play in every nickel situation. He probably belongs at the lower level of that 1b tier (in the upper-mid teens), which wouldn't be a huge drop in raw total points.I think Keiaho can be every bit as talented a LB as June. Still, his projection is slightly less across the board. I think LB2 production is very possible there.Brooks' projection is right in line with what an inconsistent MLB with 2 1/2 down responsibility would do in the Bengal defense with no stud OLB or safety to steal tackles -- 74 solos with a few big plays consistent with his aggressive style of play.All three projections are less than there predecessors. Edwards is a top five player; Cooper will probably fall to the mid-teens in my next effort. June has been a top 15-20 guy (projected) over the past two seasons; Keiaho isn't projected that high. Brooks' projection at low LB3 levels would put him well below Thurman's 2005 and the MLB collective of 2006.

4. A. Thomas.......Why so low? I expect NE and Belicheck to use him all over the place.

Adalius Thomas 2005-06 -- average 71 solos, 17 assists, 10 sacks, 4 FF/FR, 1 INT, 6 PDAdalius Thomas proj 2007 -- 65-23-8-3-2-8Adalius Thomas was everywhere for the Ravens over the past two seasons. Belichick doesn't blitz any more often than the Ravens do, which isn't much, and AT isn't a clearly better pass rusher than Willie McGinest or Rosie Colvin. In multiple seasons in this scheme, there have been only a couple of single season statlines of eight sacks or better. Even a guy like Mike Vrabel, who's been used inside/outside and as a rush/coverage guy, has managed over 60 solo tackles only once. Until I see evidence (from Belichick or during the pre-season) to suggest it, I don't believe Adalius Thomas can be reliably projected to 75 solos or double digit sacks. Certainly, though, he's a guy with some upside to his projection.

5. O. Gaither (WLB).....Why would he be below players like F. Keiaho & A. Brooks? We have at least seen O. Gaither on the field and producing. What has F. Kieaho or A. Brooks shown that would validate them being higher than O. Gaither?

Gaither is ahead of Brooks in total points on this list. Gaither's issue is that his tackle upside is limited on the weak side in a scheme that favors the middle backer. I was very generous, IMO, in projecting him at 85 solos. In this section of the projections, where the 75-90 solo tackle guys live, total assists and big plays/coverage stats play a big role. The Eagles, as loose as they are with PDs, don't give out the assisted tackles that the Jets, Bengals, Steelers, Patriots, and Buccaneers have. That 15-20 separation in assists can mean the difference between #40 and #28 in a raw projection.Gaither would get at least a 15 solo tackle boost if he's named MLB and holds a three down role. Jeremiah Trotter was a top 20 LB without full time nickel duties; Gaither would easily reach that value with the junk the Eagles might surround him with at OLB.

Thanks for the response Jene. Good Info!

 

[TheGreatest]

1st of all thanks Jene for sharing this. Some very interesting and suprising results. Now a few comments/questions about them:I am curious about the raw numbers that resulted in Angelo Crowell, Bart Scott and Stephen Cooper being ranked so high.For Angelo Crowell he has shown the ability to post big tackle numbers in 2005. However when I give him his average numbers for the game that he missed in 2005 I end up with 84.3 solo tackles 42.6 assists + some big plays. Now even if we give Crowell a boost for playing exclusivly at MLB and not having Fletcher taking tackles away from him (although TKO possibly might) I can see possibly adding 10 to each category (that seems optimistic, just trying it) which would result in 94 solo tackles and 53 assists. Those numbers are in line with what Fletcher did in in seasons 2002-2004 with the Bills, but still falls short of what Fletcher has done in 2005-2006 and what other top 5 Lbers have done in past season when the best will post over 100 solo tackles with many assists. I am not seeing what brings Crowell to this level even after I gave him a +10 bonus from his best numbers to date.So this leaves me wondering what the actual numbers you projected for him were? And based off of what?For Bart Scott I know there has been talk of Scott taking over more of a pass rushing role to compensate for the loss of Thomas. That to me means he would be playing more rushing ROLB which I do not see being as good a situation as he has been in as the LILB (in 3-4 looks) and playing more inside in the versitile Ravens defense. Scott's role is a confusing one as NFL.com lists him as a LILB on thier depth chart but a OLB on his player page. I know scheme and player roles in the scheme is somthing you pay close attention to. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on how the Ravens 46 defense has been functioning and how Scotts role will change with Thomas now gone.What I am seeing from Scott's numbers is that he has taken a huge jump allready from 2005 season 62 solo tackles 30 assists 4 sacks 2FF 2FR 1PD to 78 solo tackles 25 assists 9.5 sacks 2 int 7PD (suprisingly no FF or FR coming from the over doubling of sacks). Are you projecting another jump in numbers for him in 2007? And if so based on what? With Stephen Cooper I am assuming that you are projecting him to fill Donnie Edwards role but will he be able to post similar numbers if he does indeed fill that role in 2007? While I would expect his numbers to have a large spike in that role at the same time I do not see him as the same player as Edwards is in terms of talent and ability.I am mainly pointing out these 3 players as I understand where you are at with the large 2nd tier of player projections that are closely clumped together. So that makes me wonder more what has driven the numbers for these 3 players who are above that clumping.

Read post 24 for his thinking on Cooper.....

 

[Biabreakable]

1st of all thanks Jene for sharing this. Some very interesting and suprising results. Now a few comments/questions about them:I am curious about the raw numbers that resulted in Angelo Crowell, Bart Scott and Stephen Cooper being ranked so high.For Angelo Crowell he has shown the ability to post big tackle numbers in 2005. However when I give him his average numbers for the game that he missed in 2005 I end up with 84.3 solo tackles 42.6 assists + some big plays. Now even if we give Crowell a boost for playing exclusivly at MLB and not having Fletcher taking tackles away from him (although TKO possibly might) I can see possibly adding 10 to each category (that seems optimistic, just trying it) which would result in 94 solo tackles and 53 assists. Those numbers are in line with what Fletcher did in in seasons 2002-2004 with the Bills, but still falls short of what Fletcher has done in 2005-2006 and what other top 5 Lbers have done in past season when the best will post over 100 solo tackles with many assists. I am not seeing what brings Crowell to this level even after I gave him a +10 bonus from his best numbers to date.So this leaves me wondering what the actual numbers you projected for him were? And based off of what?For Bart Scott I know there has been talk of Scott taking over more of a pass rushing role to compensate for the loss of Thomas. That to me means he would be playing more rushing ROLB which I do not see being as good a situation as he has been in as the LILB (in 3-4 looks) and playing more inside in the versitile Ravens defense. Scott's role is a confusing one as NFL.com lists him as a LILB on thier depth chart but a OLB on his player page. I know scheme and player roles in the scheme is somthing you pay close attention to. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on how the Ravens 46 defense has been functioning and how Scotts role will change with Thomas now gone.What I am seeing from Scott's numbers is that he has taken a huge jump allready from 2005 season 62 solo tackles 30 assists 4 sacks 2FF 2FR 1PD to 78 solo tackles 25 assists 9.5 sacks 2 int 7PD (suprisingly no FF or FR coming from the over doubling of sacks). Are you projecting another jump in numbers for him in 2007? And if so based on what? With Stephen Cooper I am assuming that you are projecting him to fill Donnie Edwards role but will he be able to post similar numbers if he does indeed fill that role in 2007? While I would expect his numbers to have a large spike in that role at the same time I do not see him as the same player as Edwards is in terms of talent and ability.I am mainly pointing out these 3 players as I understand where you are at with the large 2nd tier of player projections that are closely clumped together. So that makes me wonder more what has driven the numbers for these 3 players who are above that clumping.

Read post 24 for his thinking on Cooper.....

Thanks just noticed that. He mentions starting at Edwards level then subtracting 1 solo tackle/game and overprojecting the PDs ints from the Edwards basis. I guess that explains a lot of it. Hmm.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I was wondering when/if you would be stopping in to challenge/help refine this list.

1st of all thanks Jene for sharing this. Some very interesting and suprising results. Now a few comments/questions about them:

I am curious about the raw numbers that resulted in Angelo Crowell, Bart Scott and Stephen Cooper being ranked so high.

For Angelo Crowell he has shown the ability to post big tackle numbers in 2005. However when I give him his average numbers for the game that he missed in 2005 I end up with 84.3 solo tackles 42.6 assists + some big plays. Now even if we give Crowell a boost for playing exclusivly at MLB and not having Fletcher taking tackles away from him (although TKO possibly might) I can see possibly adding 10 to each category (that seems optimistic, just trying it) which would result in 94 solo tackles and 53 assists. Those numbers are in line with what Fletcher did in in seasons 2002-2004 with the Bills, but still falls short of what Fletcher has done in 2005-2006 and what other top 5 Lbers have done in past season when the best will post over 100 solo tackles with many assists. I am not seeing what brings Crowell to this level even after I gave him a +10 bonus from his best numbers to date.

So this leaves me wondering what the actual numbers you projected for him were? And based off of what?

I projected 102-47-4 with 2 INT and 10 PD. I don't think Crowell is quite the player Fletcher is, but I think the drop off at the OLB positions will prove bigger than it appears. I'm not a big fan of Ellison at all. He was taken out of all kinds of plays last year, which I think is the main reason Crowell seems to be the heavy favorite to start at MLB. Spikes has had two consecutive seasons lost to significant leg injuries. If the Bills don't address that position in the draft, I think it's going to show itself to be a big problem and I think Crowell benefits in the boxscore. Keith Ellison is one guy worth watching closely in mini-camp for progress reports. The Bills offense and secondary didn't get any better this off-season and if the Bills see more running plays as a result, it's not crazy to think that Crowell could outdo Fletcher's numbers.

For Bart Scott I know there has been talk of Scott taking over more of a pass rushing role to compensate for the loss of Thomas. That to me means he would be playing more rushing ROLB which I do not see being as good a situation as he has been in as the LILB (in 3-4 looks) and playing more inside in the versitile Ravens defense. Scott's role is a confusing one as NFL.com lists him as a LILB on thier depth chart but a OLB on his player page. I know scheme and player roles in the scheme is somthing you pay close attention to. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on how the Ravens 46 defense has been functioning and how Scotts role will change with Thomas now gone.

What I am seeing from Scott's numbers is that he has taken a huge jump allready from 2005 season 62 solo tackles 30 assists 4 sacks 2FF 2FR 1PD to 78 solo tackles 25 assists 9.5 sacks 2 int 7PD (suprisingly no FF or FR coming from the over doubling of sacks). Are you projecting another jump in numbers for him in 2007? And if so based on what?

Here is a message board post from late last pre-season and then my followup thoughts in one of the earlier RTD columns from 2006.In short, the Rex Ryan's 46 hybrid allows both OLB all kinds of boxscore opportunity. There really isn't a 3-4 look. The three man front look is more of a 46 look, with Suggs, Scott, and Thomas all in a standup position.

I slowly became a Bart Scott believer after watching a number of Raven games last year. I was more impressed with his pursuit, tackling, and cover skills than what previous seasons and scouting reports suggested. I think he gets the bulk of the value Adalius Thomas leaves behind, with Dawan Landry getting the leftovers. While the Ravens don't blitz much, Thomas was the primary blitzer. Scott still got 10 sacks on delayed blitzes and overload blitzes. I'm still projecting him to get nine sacks despite the drop off in skill from AT to Jarret Johnson and a decent chance Trevor Pryce drops off some as well. The tackle bump is bigger -- I've bumped his solos to 91 for 2007 -- because of the extra pursuit opportunities he'll get with Thomas elsewhere and the continued slow decline of Ray Lewis, who's no longer the sideline-to-sideline force he used to be.

With Stephen Cooper I am assuming that you are projecting him to fill Donnie Edwards role but will he be able to post similar numbers if he does indeed fill that role in 2007? While I would expect his numbers to have a large spike in that role at the same time I do not see him as the same player as Edwards is in terms of talent and ability.

I am mainly pointing out these 3 players as I understand where you are at with the large 2nd tier of player projections that are closely clumped together. So that makes me wonder more what has driven the numbers for these 3 players who are above that clumping.

I think he can produce similar numbers. He's proven himself an able pass rusher and is probably just as good a run defender as the 2005-06 version of Edwards. I had forgotten that MT had posted that Cooper was coming off the field in favor of Wilhelm in last year pre-season games. If he doesn't play in the nickel, he'll lose a lot of value that Edwards provided in coverage. And that value is significant. In 2005, Edwards made some kind of boxscore play in nearly 20% of the Chargers' defensive plays and a sizable number were in coverage. Really makes Cooper the most volatile name on this list. I've adjusted his PD and tackle projections after TheGreatest's post yesterday. He could fall off this list altogether if he ends up as a two down RILB.I really appreciate the discussion guys. Best forum on the innerwebs.