LB busts in 2005 (1 Viewer)

[Callas Disregard]

It wouldn't be fair to include Tedy Bruschi on this list.I see it this way:(1) Sharper moves from WILB in a 3-4 to SLB in a 4-3. You just can't expect the same opportunities. OTOH, Anthony Simmons made it work.(2) Williams probably slides from WLB to SLB to make room for Ian Gold (who will be featured in the "biggest LB surprises of 2005" poll).(3) Brooking could be overshadowed by Hartwell in the middle.(4) Arrington is coming off a bad injury, and was always more of a big-play guy rather than a consistent tackle guy.(5) I don't know what to make of KC: Bell, Barber, Fujita, Maslowski, Mitchell, Johnson. Any one of them could be a great fantasy LB if they stayed on the field all 16 games, but they all have big question marks.

 

[tkrull]

I'm not happy with the Ian Gold signing (DJ owner), but at least it's a dynasty league and eventually youth will be served.

 

[flooredyas]

I'm not happy with the Ian Gold signing (DJ owner), but at least it's a dynasty league and eventually youth will be served.

Responding as a Gold owner. This is great news as Ian is going to be 27 when the season starts-DJ will be 23. Going to TB killed him as a strong LB last year, now he's bach home, fully recovered and ready to dominate. Hope you have patience with DJ, but barring injury Gold should man the weak side for some time.

 

[tkrull]

I'm not happy with the Ian Gold signing (DJ owner), but at least it's a dynasty league and eventually talent will be served.

Responding as a Gold owner. This is great news as Ian is going to be 27 when the season starts-DJ will be 23. Going to TB killed him as a strong LB last year, now he's bach home, fully recovered and ready to dominate. Hope you have patience with DJ, but barring injury Gold should man the weak side for some time.

Fixed my original post. But you do have a point.

 

[redman]

(4) Arrington is coming off a bad injury, and was always more of a big-play guy rather than a consistent tackle guy.

What on earth are you talking about? If you eliminate his rookie year (when he didn't start right away) and last season when he was injured, he had 67, 82, and 75 tackles. That sounds pretty consistent to me, especially considering he was playing in three different schemes under three different defensive coordinators. What has varied has been his sacks, which have gone anywhere from .5 sacks under Kurt Schottenheimer's system, to 11 under Marvin Lewis. That's entirely a product of the scheme though, and not inconsistency on Arrington's part.

And if you're going to label someone a bust simply because they're injured, first of all I think it's stupid to do that outright, but secondly it means you should include Bruschi in the mix (you eliminated him because he was injured, remember?).

 

[Callas Disregard]

(4) Arrington is coming off a bad injury, and was always more of a big-play guy rather than a consistent tackle guy.

What on earth are you talking about? If you eliminate his rookie year (when he didn't start right away) and last season when he was injured, he had 67, 82, and 75 tackles. That sounds pretty consistent to me, especially considering he was playing in three different schemes under three different defensive coordinators.

Uh, OK. 67,82, and 75 may be "consistent", but they are consistently MEDIOCRE. The top fantasy LBs are consistently around 100 tackles, not 75, and they throw in 30-50 assists to boot. In my tackle-heavy IDP leagues, Arrington did not make my top 30 LB lists when HEALTHY.

What has varied has been his sacks, which have gone anywhere from .5 sacks under Kurt Schottenheimer's system, to 11 under Marvin Lewis.  That's entirely a product of the scheme though, and not inconsistency on Arrington's part. 

But this proves my point: even when healthy, Arrington only put up 3/4 of the tackle numbers of the top LBs, and sacks are much less predictable than tackles on a year-to-year basis. Arrington was a serviceable LB because of his sacks, and I downgraded him even more for that because sacks just aren't a safe bet.

And if you're going to label someone a bust simply because they're injured, first of all I think it's stupid to do that outright, but secondly it means you should include Bruschi in the mix (you eliminated him because he was injured, remember?).

This is nonsensical. I eliminated Bruschi because he'll probably miss THIS season due to a health condition, and obviously a guy who doesn't even see the field in 2005 is a bigger bust than those who are starters in 2005. Arrington could be a bust because he's playing this season but returning from an injury that cost him LAST season. This is apples and oranges, and makes your comparison meaningless.

 

[redman]

You're still not making much sense. Only five LB's had 100+ tackles last year: Edwards, Bullock, Lewis, Briggs and Brooks. Briggs and Brooks had only 24 and 28 assists, respectively, so that knocks them out of your "elite" category, leaving only three "elite" LB's, according to your criteria. See for yourself.

In 2000 Arrington was a rookie.

In 2001 Arrington ranked 25th among LB's in my IDP league.

In 2002 Arrington ranked 5th among LB's in my IDP league.

In 2003 Arrington ranked 11th among LB's in my IDP league.

In 2004 Arrington was injured.

Arrington's never been in the top 3. I don't recall ever hearing or reading someone predicting him in the top 3. You've backed off the "inconsistency" charge, but where's the "mediocrity" you're now pointing to?

The kicker is that over Arrington's last three healthy seasons, even including the one where he had .5 sacks, he's averaged almost 6 sacks per season, which is four less than the 10.5 sacks that those top 5 tacklers combined to get in sacks last year.

Assuming health - a wild card with any player - Arrington's easily a top 10-15 LB, which is precisely where I see him ranked during most pre-seasons. Greg Williams' scheme does little but to insure that that will be the case.

Finally, let's compare apples to apples. Arrington over those three years has totalled 99, 92, and 88 tackles and assists. If you look at the stats of the LB's with between 80 & 110 combined tackles and assists last year, only two had as many as 4.5 sacks (less, of course, than the 6 sacks that Arrington's averaged over those three years).

One of those LB's was Scott Fujita in KC. Who was the other? Arrington's teammate in Greg Williams' scheme, Marcus Washington.

In short, your argument is a straw man.

 

[Callas Disregard]

You're still not making much sense. Only five LB's had 100+ tackles last year: Edwards, Bullock, Lewis, Briggs and Brooks. Briggs and Brooks had only 24 and 28 assists, respectively, so that knocks them out of your "elite" category, leaving only three "elite" LB's, according to your criteria. See for yourself.

In 2000 Arrington was a rookie.

In 2001 Arrington ranked 25th among LB's in my IDP league.

In 2002 Arrington ranked 5th among LB's in my IDP league.

In 2003 Arrington ranked 11th among LB's in my IDP league.

In 2004 Arrington was injured.

Arrington's never been in the top 3. I don't recall ever hearing or reading someone predicting him in the top 3. You've backed off the "inconsistency" charge, but where's the "mediocrity" you're now pointing to?

The kicker is that over Arrington's last three healthy seasons, even including the one where he had .5 sacks, he's averaged almost 6 sacks per season, which is four less than the 10.5 sacks that those top 5 tacklers combined to get in sacks last year.

Assuming health - a wild card with any player - Arrington's easily a top 10-15 LB, which is precisely where I see him ranked during most pre-seasons. Greg Williams' scheme does little but to insure that that will be the case.

Finally, let's compare apples to apples. Arrington over those three years has totalled 99, 92, and 88 tackles and assists. If you look at the stats of the LB's with between 80 & 110 combined tackles and assists last year, only two had as many as 4.5 sacks (less, of course, than the 6 sacks that Arrington's averaged over those three years).

One of those LB's was Scott Fujita in KC. Who was the other? Arrington's teammate in Greg Williams' scheme, Marcus Washington.

In short, your argument is a straw man.

Funny. Look in the mirror. There are no identifiable straw men in my argument, while there are at least 3 in yours. I congratulate you for using clever terms like "straw man," but you should understand what that term actually means. You seem primarly motivated by some "extra-rational" man-love of Arrington, and have become the king of straw men in your attempt to rationalize it. (1) You are misstating my "criteria." I didn't say minimum 100 tackles. I said around 100 tackles. Adding in LBs with tackles in the 90s expands the group significantly. Straw man #1.

(2) I didn't say Arrington was inconsistent. This is straw man #2. I said he wasn't a consistent TACKLE guy. In other words, tackles are not what put him high on the list. He relies more heavily on sacks than the vast majority of top 30 LBs, and sacks are statistically proven to be a much less reliable indicator of future performance than tackles. Problems coming back from a leg injury seem much more likely to diminish his sacks, which require an edge, a special burst, that can disappear with the slightest loss of speed or quickness. Someone who relies on tackles can be slightly diminshed in physical talent and still put up similar tackle numbers. See, e.g., Trotter, Barrow, etc. Therefore, the risk that a leg injury will knock Arrington down is greater than with LBs who rely more heavily on tackles.

(3) I never said that 30 assists were REQUIRED to be "elite." I simply identified 30-50 as a general range that you often see among those at or near the top. This is your 3rd straw man argument.

I find it infinitely ironic that you accuse me of using a straw man, after you incorrectly attribute to me more absolute arguments than I am actually making and then knock down those falsely attributed argument. THAT is the definition of straw man, in case you were wondering.