Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I would flip WLB and MLB due to he amount of tackles the MLB gets. It really has to vary by personnel. But as a general rule If I rate 2 guys the same and ones a MLB I'll take him over the other mostly b/c of the consistency of the number of tackles.I might even take an ILB over a WLB
One of my crusades for the upcoming year will involve opening peoples eyes to the value of cornerbacks in fantasy football. It looks like I've found a good starting point
Honestly, with the way that some of these guys are tackling, the gap is not as big as it used to be (or used to seem) between safeties and corners.
without regard to the individual players, I'd rank them:1. MLB in a 4-3 (e.g., London Fletcher, Zach Thomas, Derek Smith, Brian Urlacher)
I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking, as evidenced by my draft in Z30 this year (drafted Dunta Robinson, Antoine Winfield, and Nate Clements). I've generally been a huge supporter of drafting as many in-the-box SSs as possible, but with the tackle/sack/INT numbers being put up by some of the league's CBs lately, there are definitely some stud CBs worth drafting highly. I think the problem in the past has been that many of them are inconsistent from year to year, especially in comparison to SSs. But, if you can get a great tackler at the position, it's almost like getting a CB and SS in one.One of my crusades for the upcoming year will involve opening peoples eyes to the value of cornerbacks in fantasy football. It looks like I've found a good starting point
Here is how I think they are:Normal SS
Off the top of my head, I think these are the teams that use it the most:Bucs, Colts, Jets, Bears, Rams
A good article about the mechanics of the cover 2 and the differences in Dungy's version.http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=167&cat=1
There are always going to be outliers and with the sheer number of teams running a "standard" scheme versus the cover 2, the numbers don't surprise. Let's also not forget that both Charles Tillman and Jerry Azumah (one of whom would surely break that top 10 list), were both injured for part of the year last year. Let's also not forget that the Rams had a revolving door at CB last year.The better analysis would be to compile the total number of tackles by CBs by each team and then see where the teams rank. This is just a suggestion as it is something that I don't really want to do.
given that Williams came from Buffalo (via Tennessee), I'd imagine those teams run similar schemes.
Do you think Rolle's talent wins out long term over the better situation Marlin Jackson is in. Rolle is a CB with a safety disposition, but Jackson a physical tackler as well. Maybe they both see a lot of action their first year, but after that wouldn't Jackson's situation lead to better long term numbers?
I watched as many Michigan games as I could over the past 2 years, and Jackson never stood out to me as the great player he's hyped up to be. Even when he played safety, Ernest Shazor always seemed to be the guy making plays for that defense.In the few times I watched Miami, Antrel Rolle almost always stood out.
After researching this very thing for my draft this year, this is the way I'd prioritize the DB's, now with the (rare) 46 defense DB's thrown into the mix:Normal SS
Aaron, to pick up on the CB consistancy thing.... Winfield has been remarkably consistant. Few CB's are, year in and year out like that. It was recently put to me that it's because he's 5'9", 180. Teams try to exploit mismatches, and because of his size teams like to run and pass in his direction. Now, Winfield is an excellent CB, if this were the case, wouldn't teams have picked up on the fact that despite his size, he can't be so easilly exploited in size mismatches with a tall WR, and can avoid/shed blocks and make tackles? Is there anything to support the idea that smallish CB's tend to score more because teams try to get mismatches against them?I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking, as evidenced by my draft in Z30 this year (drafted Dunta Robinson, Antoine Winfield, and Nate Clements). I've generally been a huge supporter of drafting as many in-the-box SSs as possible, but with the tackle/sack/INT numbers being put up by some of the league's CBs lately, there are definitely some stud CBs worth drafting highly. I think the problem in the past has been that many of them are inconsistent from year to year, especially in comparison to SSs. But, if you can get a great tackler at the position, it's almost like getting a CB and SS in one.One of my crusades for the upcoming year will involve opening peoples eyes to the value of cornerbacks in fantasy football. It looks like I've found a good starting point
It seems like you should also try to account for who plays opposite of him (Clements for three years, in Winfield's case). However, there may be some merit to this among the shorter CB's who tend to be matched up against the taller WR1's in the league. Interesting thought.Aaron, to pick up on the CB consistancy thing.... Winfield has been remarkably consistant. Few CB's are, year in and year out like that. It was recently put to me that it's because he's 5'9", 180. Teams try to exploit mismatches, and because of his size teams like to run and pass in his direction. Now, Winfield is an excellent CB, if this were the case, wouldn't teams have picked up on the fact that despite his size, he can't be so easilly exploited in size mismatches with a tall WR, and can avoid/shed blocks and make tackles? Is there anything to support the idea that smallish CB's tend to score more because teams try to get mismatches against them?I'm starting to come around to this way of thinking, as evidenced by my draft in Z30 this year (drafted Dunta Robinson, Antoine Winfield, and Nate Clements). I've generally been a huge supporter of drafting as many in-the-box SSs as possible, but with the tackle/sack/INT numbers being put up by some of the league's CBs lately, there are definitely some stud CBs worth drafting highly. I think the problem in the past has been that many of them are inconsistent from year to year, especially in comparison to SSs. But, if you can get a great tackler at the position, it's almost like getting a CB and SS in one.One of my crusades for the upcoming year will involve opening peoples eyes to the value of cornerbacks in fantasy football. It looks like I've found a good starting point
While playing opposite Clements in 2003, Winfield was very frequently targeted as QBs wanted to avoid Clements. Winfield does get picked on more than most CBs because of his size and the fact that he hasn't established himself as a playmaker. He dropped many catchable balls while in Buffalo, but finally showed some decent ball skills last year in Minnesota with 3 INTs. The Bills also used to move him inside when they went to a nickel defense so he could be matched up against a smaller slot WR or play almost like a 3rd safety b/c of his tremendous tackling ability.In general, teams that run a lot of zone coverage tend to get CBs with high tackle numbers. Teams that rely heavily on man coverage (like the Dolphins with Surtain and Madison) wind up with CBs that get very few tackles.So, in looking for an ideal CB, this is what I'd look for:1st, I'd first want a guy who can tackle and isn't afraid to get involved in stopping the run.2nd, I'd want a guy who plays a lot of zone.3rd, I'd want a guy playing opposite a shutdown CB, as that will force more plays to his side.4th, I'd want a guy who can supplement his tackle totals with INTs and sacks.there are probably only a handful of guys that meet 3 or 4 of these criteria, and I think they will be pretty consistent from year to year.
Done. I feel so powerful....
Thanks. :successfulhijack:Done. I feel so powerful....
We can't forget that last year was the first year with the illegal contact rule too. I think that hurt Bailey a bit in his overall ability to cover receivers, which may then have resulted in more targets his way and therefore more tackles. I forgot about that when I brought up Winfield and Clements.
Thanks. :successfulhijack:Done. I feel so powerful....
Not really though.... positional discussions of CB's and LB's sort of go together. The defensive sheme any given team uses has a major, and intertwined impact on the defensive skill positions. It's hard to discuss one without the other. The whole cover 2 thing is an example of that. So is any discussion of the 46 defense. Great freakin thread, in any case.
You're right that the average DT may have more of a shot at sacks, but we'd already separated out the UT from the DT category. The "other DT" in a one-gap/up tackle scheme tends to fare about the same as a NT. In a non-UT scheme, the average DT is probably better, so I'll revise my rankings accordingly.
still, I'd rather have my guy going 1 on 1 with the LT and getting a chance to chase down plays from behind rather than facing a RT and TE and maybe a FB and risk getting washed out before getting a chance to make a play.In general, I think you'll find that almost all of the best fantasy DEs play on the weakside. Guys like Strahan who can put up solid tackle and sack numbers from the power end spot are unusual. Guys like J.Taylor, S.Rice, J.Peppers, D.Freeney, A.Schobel, KGB, J. Abraham, C.Grant, J.Hall, B.Berry are much more common.In general, the RDE is the better pure pass rusher because they usually play on the QB's blindside, so talent differences definitely account for a lot of the difference. But, when talent is equal among two players, I'd take a RDE over an LDE every time.
So to put this into practical terms, do I have this right Cincinatti runs a 4-3 so RDE should up better numbers than LDE. The reason I brought up Cincy is I read that they are going to move Justin Smith to LDE and put Geathers in at RDE but yet the article stated that Smith would have more chance at sacks?? That doesn't make sense to me. So if Smith and Geathers are of equal talent ? And Smith is at LDE and Geathers is at RDE who should put up the better numbers?The Bengals | Smith May Switch Sides - from www.KFFL.com
well, not really sure why they think it would help Smith get more sacks. If talent level was equal, I'd go with Geathers based on position. But, I think Smith is a much more talented player.That's not really good news for Smith, IMO. There are some quality fantasy DEs that play LDE like Darren Howard, Shaun Ellis, Adewale Ogunley, Jevon Kearse, so he could still do fine. But, as a Smith owner in one league, I'd much rather see him line up at RDE.
