Lavonte David (WLB for the Bucs) (1 Viewer)

[jacobo_moses]

Here is my point with this post. I understand the need to be a big linebacker to shed blocks and all that stuff. Blah, blah, blah.

Lavonte David is listed as 6-1 and 233 LBS. Not exactly big, but I think he should be just fine. And that too many analysts make a big deal of the size of a linebacker.

I mean look at the following

London Fletcher 5-10 and 241 lbs (3 inches shorter then David and 7 lbs heavier is all)

Jonathan Vilma 6-1 and 230 lbs (so 3 lbs lighter then David)

Daryl Washington 6-2 and 230 lbs (so 1 inch taller then David)

So if these guys can succeed why can't David? Exactly my point. There all about the same size. So it doesn't really matter.

So as long as you read plays well, are game speed fast enough, and strong enough in the upper body. I think that how big your Linebacker is, really isn't that important. Just something that bothers me a little and thought I'd point out.

 

[tones]

I'm curious with more spread concepts migrating to the NFL if "lighter" LBs like David (who can run, cover, and tackle) will be more in vogue.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

My very uninformed opinion would be that different sized players are advantaved and disaxvantaged depending on the role they have and the particular jobs they're asked to do.

Throwing out a few anecdotal examples really doesn't mean much as these guys may have diffeeent roles, and even if theyhave similar jobs there could be 100 failures for every success.

I could say look at Drew brees -,,being a short qb doesn't mean anything, or look at sproles -,,being a tiny rb is no problem.

Most players aren't brees, slroles , or fletcber, et Al

Anyway, if he actually is a smaller lb that's prlba ly why he's at wlb.

Cuz that's where they put the weak lb's.

PS

Plz excuse my virtual key lard phone typong

 

[Shane Falco]

we went through this a couple years back. I think Demeco was the example then. Not an issue IMO

But if a coach feels that way...

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I'm curious with more spread concepts migrating to the NFL if "lighter" LBs like David (who can run, cover, and tackle) will be more in vogue.

I don't think there'll be any huge migration to smaller linebackers, as those smaller lb's are found predominantly in the 4-3, and we've recently seen a spread of the 3-4.that guy threw out vilma as an example of a successful 'undersized' lb, but my recollection is that he tanked when forced to play in a 3-4.if anything, you might see some of these smaller guys as strictly nicklebackers, or maybe just more safety snaps on the field at the expense of the lb.but, I honestly don't pay much attention to the height/weight thing, and wouldn't have any idea who's undersized for what.is david undersized?the last couple years probably close to half the league used some kind of 3-4 package, while 10 years ago there were maybe only a couple, and since I think the 3-4 ilb generally runs about 10 lbs heavier I'd think there would be a spread of heavier lb's, if anything.but a guy can add 10 lbs of mcdonald's and be horribly out of shape, so I don't know that raw weight stats mean anything.

 

[saintfool]

what about levy with the lion? listed as 6'1 and 238 lbs. he plays pretty well even if he's not much of a FF prospect.

 

[Colts Rule!]

Since we're on the subject of Lavonte David and being undersized can someone please explain to me the separation between him and guys like Kendricks and Wagner? Most of what I'm seeing list David as the fairly clear cut #2 rookie LB. But to me it seems like Kendricks and Wagner both are pretty much equals and both are being slapped with the undersized label. Is David just getting more love because he's pretty much locked in (from what it sounds) as a 3-down starting WLB in Tampa's 4-3? Kendricks is getting slapped with the 3-down SLB in Philly and the only knock I can find on him is his size. Wagner is battling with Ruud for the MLB spot in Seattle and the only real knock I can find on him is size as well. Obviously, the height thing is being pretty heavily looked at right now for these potential ILB/MLB candidates. But aren't all 3 essentially being given the same "tackle machine" but "a little short" labels? Do all 3 not have very high percentage shots at becoming every down MIKE backers? Is David's love coming merely from his more clear shot at 2012 numbers? Does he actually look better than Kendricks and Wagner a couple years down the road from an IDP view? I ask these questions because at first to me the long term outlooks for Kendricks and Wagner looked better than David's but of late I'm coming around to David's outlook being equally as good (due to my belief that Mason Foster will not hold down the MLB spot in Tampa for very long if even this offseason). But someone please separate these 3 guys from a long term outlook with no respect to where they currently hold depth chart positions. I want to know how I can separate them from the big picture view of the 2013 season and beyond.

 

[jacobo_moses]

I think Jene could answer that question best Colts Rule!

 

[Raymell McKigney]

Since we're on the subject of Lavonte David and being undersized can someone please explain to me the separation between him and guys like Kendricks and Wagner? Most of what I'm seeing list David as the fairly clear cut #2 rookie LB. But to me it seems like Kendricks and Wagner both are pretty much equals and both are being slapped with the undersized label. Is David just getting more love because he's pretty much locked in (from what it sounds) as a 3-down starting WLB in Tampa's 4-3? Kendricks is getting slapped with the 3-down SLB in Philly and the only knock I can find on him is his size. Wagner is battling with Ruud for the MLB spot in Seattle and the only real knock I can find on him is size as well. Obviously, the height thing is being pretty heavily looked at right now for these potential ILB/MLB candidates. But aren't all 3 essentially being given the same "tackle machine" but "a little short" labels? Do all 3 not have very high percentage shots at becoming every down MIKE backers? Is David's love coming merely from his more clear shot at 2012 numbers? Does he actually look better than Kendricks and Wagner a couple years down the road from an IDP view? I ask these questions because at first to me the long term outlooks for Kendricks and Wagner looked better than David's but of late I'm coming around to David's outlook being equally as good (due to my belief that Mason Foster will not hold down the MLB spot in Tampa for very long if even this offseason). But someone please separate these 3 guys from a long term outlook with no respect to where they currently hold depth chart positions. I want to know how I can separate them from the big picture view of the 2013 season and beyond.

I agree with the core concepts of the OP that unless someone is vastly undersized to the point where they cannot hold their own, then its an overrated metric. As the OP pointed out, being 5-11 certainly hasn't hurt London Fletcher. Short does not always mean small......and I believe this applies to all 3 rookie LB's in question.I'm glad Colts Rule asked this question because the view he is wanting to take is precisely how I decided who the #2 rookie LB is. I think owners are focusing way too much on current depth charts and situation where the reality is, talent always rises to the top & teams that recognize their talents will craft the best roles around these players. It's seen someone like Kendricks pushed down to the 4 LB off the board in a lot of cases where as pre draft, he was pretty much the consensus #2 LB of the class. Therefore he stays at #2 LB for dynasty purposes IMO. If the current SLB designation sees him slip in your rookie draft, make sure you cash in and grab him but don't sleep on him because in all my drafts, there has always been at least one savvy owner who hasn't let him slip too far. I like that Jene and John always remind us on the IDP podcasts that Brian Urlacher started out at SLB because its a lesson we shouldn't forget. It's not like the Eagles have a plethora of talent in front of Kendricks either. Ryans might hit or he might be on a downward swing with more injuries to come. Back to the question, I'd then rank David as the #3, Wagner at #4, which hasn't really changed since the pre draft phase. David's role is set and it suits him well, Wagner is very close to David IMO so perhaps then it might be a time where you can take situation more into account. Probably David's clear 3 down skill set give him the deciding vote for me over Wagner.

 

[jacobo_moses]

Since we're on the subject of Lavonte David and being undersized can someone please explain to me the separation between him and guys like Kendricks and Wagner? Most of what I'm seeing list David as the fairly clear cut #2 rookie LB. But to me it seems like Kendricks and Wagner both are pretty much equals and both are being slapped with the undersized label. Is David just getting more love because he's pretty much locked in (from what it sounds) as a 3-down starting WLB in Tampa's 4-3? Kendricks is getting slapped with the 3-down SLB in Philly and the only knock I can find on him is his size. Wagner is battling with Ruud for the MLB spot in Seattle and the only real knock I can find on him is size as well. Obviously, the height thing is being pretty heavily looked at right now for these potential ILB/MLB candidates. But aren't all 3 essentially being given the same "tackle machine" but "a little short" labels? Do all 3 not have very high percentage shots at becoming every down MIKE backers? Is David's love coming merely from his more clear shot at 2012 numbers? Does he actually look better than Kendricks and Wagner a couple years down the road from an IDP view? I ask these questions because at first to me the long term outlooks for Kendricks and Wagner looked better than David's but of late I'm coming around to David's outlook being equally as good (due to my belief that Mason Foster will not hold down the MLB spot in Tampa for very long if even this offseason). But someone please separate these 3 guys from a long term outlook with no respect to where they currently hold depth chart positions. I want to know how I can separate them from the big picture view of the 2013 season and beyond.

I agree with the core concepts of the OP that unless someone is vastly undersized to the point where they cannot hold their own, then its an overrated metric. As the OP pointed out, being 5-11 certainly hasn't hurt London Fletcher. Short does not always mean small......and I believe this applies to all 3 rookie LB's in question.I'm glad Colts Rule asked this question because the view he is wanting to take is precisely how I decided who the #2 rookie LB is. I think owners are focusing way too much on current depth charts and situation where the reality is, talent always rises to the top & teams that recognize their talents will craft the best roles around these players. It's seen someone like Kendricks pushed down to the 4 LB off the board in a lot of cases where as pre draft, he was pretty much the consensus #2 LB of the class. Therefore he stays at #2 LB for dynasty purposes IMO. If the current SLB designation sees him slip in your rookie draft, make sure you cash in and grab him but don't sleep on him because in all my drafts, there has always been at least one savvy owner who hasn't let him slip too far. I like that Jene and John always remind us on the IDP podcasts that Brian Urlacher started out at SLB because its a lesson we shouldn't forget. It's not like the Eagles have a plethora of talent in front of Kendricks either. Ryans might hit or he might be on a downward swing with more injuries to come. Back to the question, I'd then rank David as the #3, Wagner at #4, which hasn't really changed since the pre draft phase. David's role is set and it suits him well, Wagner is very close to David IMO so perhaps then it might be a time where you can take situation more into account. Probably David's clear 3 down skill set give him the deciding vote for me over Wagner.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Here is my point with this post. I understand the need to be a big linebacker to shed blocks and all that stuff. Blah, blah, blah. Lavonte David is listed as 6-1 and 233 LBS. Not exactly big, but I think he should be just fine. And that too many analysts make a big deal of the size of a linebacker. I mean look at the followingLondon Fletcher 5-10 and 241 lbs (3 inches shorter then David and 7 lbs heavier is all)Jonathan Vilma 6-1 and 230 lbs (so 3 lbs lighter then David)Daryl Washington 6-2 and 230 lbs (so 1 inch taller then David)So if these guys can succeed why can't David? Exactly my point. There all about the same size. So it doesn't really matter. So as long as you read plays well, are game speed fast enough, and strong enough in the upper body. I think that how big your Linebacker is, really isn't that important. Just something that bothers me a little and thought I'd point out.

You must evaluate the height/weight numbers in context. You can't look at them in a vacuum or compare the raw numbers from one player to the next. If the terms "undersized" or "short-armed" or whatever other limited descriptive terms are used without context, they really -- to me -- mean little more than "brown-haired."The way a player's weight is distributed on his frame, the likelihood that he can put on more pounds without sacrificing quickness or athleticism, hand strength, flexibility and hip turn, understanding of how to play with leverage and shed blocks and instincts (and more) should provide context to the evaluation process of any player.Jonathan Vilma and Daryl Washington may be the same "size" but Vilma's frame is narrower and he plays with much less leverage and strength. Seven pounds can be a significant difference if applied to the right set of players for similar reasons.Lavonte David's issue is that he appears to be rail thin from the waist down. You can see how this affects him by watching his game tape. If he plays with perfect technique, he can hold his own when engaged. More often that not, it limits him at the point of attack. His frame looks capable of putting on a few more pounds, but he's never getting to 238-245 without a serious risk at losing the range, change of direction and coverage skills that made him a second round pick.I wouldn't have argued the same about DeMeco Ryans or Jon Beason, both of whom were 235 or less coming into the draft if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Since we're on the subject of Lavonte David and being undersized can someone please explain to me the separation between him and guys like Kendricks and Wagner?

Snipping lots of good analysis here...

While there may be others who clearly separate David as the LB2 in this class, this is the beauty of a tiered draft board for me.My combined board has David/Wagner/Kendricks listed as the 2/3/4 backers. In reality, they're 2a, 2b, 2c. There's a small separation between them and Demario Davis (and Zach Brown), with JMJ and Hightower in a fourth round tier.

You decide what you want:

David

A sure every-down WLB on opening weekend in a suspect front seven. Extremely unlikely to ever move inside to MLB. Will likely have some weekly variance in the short and long term, especially if the MLB play improves and Mark Barron is a stud. Ceiling: LB2, Floor: Matchup LB4, Most Likely: LB3. Ceiling ETA: immediate

Wagner

Looks well on his way to earning an every-down MLB job in Seattle. May not be super-rangy, may not have instincts to survive inside long term, not a slam dunk to be long term subpackage player. Has competition for tackles. Ceiling: LB2+, Floor: Matchup LB5, Most Likely LB2-. Ceiling ETA: early 2012, early 2013 at latest

Kendricks

Tremendous athlete with every-down talent. Arguably the best all-around fantasy talent of three. Could move inside in the long term, but blocked by DeMeco Ryans for foreseeable future. Stuck on strong side on a team that may or may not face many running attempts, leading to lots of weekly variance. Ceiling: LB1, Floor: Matchup LB4, Most Likely: Matchup LB3. Ceiling ETA: 2013 at the earliest.

You can (and should) do similar exercises with Davis, Brown, Johnson and Hightower.

I'll continue to preach the value of tiers. The difference between Ranked Player 3 and Ranked Player 7 may be much, much less than the difference between Ranked Player 7 and Ranked Player 8 on any list -- fake football or otherwise.

 

[Jestefarean]

I cant help but think Kendricks will be a very talented non-fantasy factor for years to come. Ryan's is signed through 2015. I could see Kendricks being a 3 down SLB whose athleticism allows him to cover move TEs but whose position keeps him from being fantasy elite. I'm reminded of Boley. I predict LB3, with 2 matchup upside unless Ryans gets nicked. (and he's only missed games one season of his career)

 

[bexdawg]

Butch Davis (now TB's DC) made a stud out of Dwayne Rudd (another smaillish LB) at WLB in Cleveland during the 2001 season, and Rudd was not a great player. I love LDavid in this scheme.

Here is my point with this post. I understand the need to be a big linebacker to shed blocks and all that stuff. Blah, blah, blah. Lavonte David is listed as 6-1 and 233 LBS. Not exactly big, but I think he should be just fine. And that too many analysts make a big deal of the size of a linebacker. I mean look at the followingLondon Fletcher 5-10 and 241 lbs (3 inches shorter then David and 7 lbs heavier is all)Jonathan Vilma 6-1 and 230 lbs (so 3 lbs lighter then David)Daryl Washington 6-2 and 230 lbs (so 1 inch taller then David)So if these guys can succeed why can't David? Exactly my point. There all about the same size. So it doesn't really matter. So as long as you read plays well, are game speed fast enough, and strong enough in the upper body. I think that how big your Linebacker is, really isn't that important. Just something that bothers me a little and thought I'd point out.

 

[Colts Rule!]

This was exactly the type of conversation I was hoping to get going. Great stuff from everyone really. Keep it going guys. I'm looking for anything and everything good or bad about all three of these guys. Pretty much everything I see so far on all 3 of them is good and I for one am considering very strongly drafting any or all of them!

 

[GECKO]

Great stuff in here!

 

[jdswan922]

Does anyone know if David has gotten any 1st team reps in OTA's?

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Does anyone know if David has gotten any 1st team reps in OTA's?

Mostly running with second team from what local rags/hacks are saying.

 

[jdswan922]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcsouth/post/_/id/35958/minicamp-hot-spots-for-buccaneers

Looks like he is getting 1st team reps

 

[Hoss Style]

Well, this is the only thread I found about Lavonte. Although old, I figured I'd bump it instead of starting a new one.

I didn't get to see the game yesterday and I don't think snap counts are out yet. What happened? (1 TK, 1 ATK) I, as well as FBG, were expecting a nice game from him. Was it just opportunity because the Vikings couldn't move the ball? Has something changed where he's not playing passing downs anymore?

Anomaly or bad omen? I'm watching him closely in my keeper league.

 

[jacobo_moses]

Has mainly to do with they Ran away from David's side. And the Vikings for most of the game had a lot of 3 and outs. Hence why they didn't score much. That is it mainly. He had 2 times I saw where he almost sacked the QB. But the QB threw it away at times. I'm a David Dynasty owner. And I was a little dissapointed too.