Crazysight Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) Is the move to WLB in KC going to affect his value significantly? Edited June 12, 2007 by Crazysight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Is this move going to affect his value significantly? Significantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 Keith Bullock does just fine from the weak side...though he's about the only one, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Keith Bullock is NOT the only WLB that does well playing that position...with that said KC plays more of a Right Side/Left Side then they do a traditional Weak/Strong Side ....Edwards production will take a hit but he will still be a 3 down LB due to his coverage ability and imo he should still be a top 20ish LB but gone are the days of being top 5 What do these LBs have in common? Bullock, Briggs, June, Brooks, Hawk, Scott, MGreenwood, Simms, EJHenderson they all played WLB last yr and finished in the top 22(bullock, briggs & june all in the top 9) this link might help you understand how schemes effect things: http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?show...55344&hl=scheme Edited June 12, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) June is listed at 12 in my league...not bad, but not the type of devastating linebacker I like to start in my fantasy lineup. I missed Briggs when looking at the NFL.com depth charts...he is definitely a good one. Scott is listed as playing inside on the left in Baltimore's 3-4, Hawk on the left side as opposed to right. The other players you mentioned had below the level of what I typically have/look for on my team for linebackers. They didn't all finish in the top 22 in my league last year (Henderson was 24, Greenwood 26, Simms 33), though Henderson is now on my team as I understand that he's moving to MLB. Edited June 12, 2007 by Crazysight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) June is listed at 12 in my league...not bad, but not the type of devastating linebacker I like to start in my fantasy lineup. I missed Briggs when looking at the NFL.com depth charts...he is definitely a good one. Scott is listed as playing inside on the left in Baltimore's 3-4, Hawk on the left side as opposed to right. The other players you mentioned had below the level of what I typically have/look for on my team for linebackers. They didn't all finish in the top 22 in my league last year (Henderson was 24, Greenwood 26, Simms 33), though Henderson is now on my team as I understand that he's moving to MLB. ..scoring will always have an impact on things and I used the scoring system that the writers use here...Henderson is moving to MLB thats why i stated LAST YR....also in the minn scheme the WLB is the player that is highlighted...scheme matters and if you just want to ignore WLBs then you my friend may pass up some very nice LBs...also fwiw JUNE will be playing SLB in Tampa this yr so his numbers are going to nose dive...Keiaho seems to be the guy that will win the WLB gig in Indy and his upside is that or better then june due to the scheme they run....also Hawk is a WLB I dont know why NFL.com would have him listed as a left side LBer...the GB scheme has a true MLB/WLB and SLB unlike in Jax and even in KC where they tend to play more Right side/Left Side designations with their LBs....I am also going to guess that you start only 1 or 2 LBs....with regards to baltimores 3/4 they really run a 4/3(last yr) with Ray Ray in the middle, AThomas playing SLB, and Scott playing WLB...TSuggs is NOT A LB he is a DE that plays by far the majority of his snaps at DE but for some reason Balt used to have him listed as a LB(honestly havent ckd it since last yr) but that isnt how he is used Edited June 12, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 They have Scott listed on the leftside on NFL.coms depth chart while in the 3-4 at any rate...if that's accurate I would assume that he stays there while in the 4-3 with Suggs on the line, though I can't speak for its accuracy. We start two linebackers in a 12 person league, and many of the owners do a poor job of building defense so I usually have some choice MLB to choose from before having to consider any other possibilities...though I would certainly take Bullock or Briggs in a heartbeat. Where did Edwards play during his initial stint in K.C.? Was he a middle linebacker back then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 12, 2007 Author Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) Just looked some info up on him. Looks like he was an OLB back then too, and he was definitely putting up hugh numbers back then. He is significantly older now, however... Edited June 12, 2007 by Crazysight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 (edited) They have Scott listed on the leftside on NFL.coms depth chart while in the 3-4 at any rate...if that's accurate I would assume that he stays there while in the 4-3 with Suggs on the line, though I can't speak for its accuracy. We start two linebackers in a 12 person league, and many of the owners do a poor job of building defense so I usually have some choice MLB to choose from before having to consider any other possibilities...though I would certainly take Bullock or Briggs in a heartbeat. Where did Edwards play during his initial stint in K.C.? Was he a middle linebacker back then? NFL.com depth charts are wrong: from Baltimoreravens.com the ravens play a base 4/3 defense...unfortunately they dont have the names filled in for the LBers...but once they do you will see Scott is a WLB...sorry to say I dont remember what spot Edwards played in KC his first go round but he did lead the team in tackles for 4 consecutive yrs with them... try these depth charts(better then NFL.com etc) http://www.localsports.ca/nfl_rosters/ Edited June 12, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Look at how much more the LLB and MLB scored than the RLB last season. It has been presumed that Edwards is playing the right side to replace Kendrell Bell. Bell scored roughly 35-40% of what Edwards did in the middle in SD in 2006, and while it's not out of the realm to think that Edwards will score points in a slightly different fashion, there's no way he will be getting the kind of production he had with the Chargers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 Of course that could also be attributed to Kendrell Bell simply sucking, couldn't it? He is at least not as good of a linebacker as Edwards, so how much of it has to do with the difference in ability remains to be seen. But I do see the point and will try to 'sell high' on Edwards at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Look at how much more the LLB and MLB scored than the RLB last season. It has been presumed that Edwards is playing the right side to replace Kendrell Bell. Bell scored roughly 35-40% of what Edwards did in the middle in SD in 2006, and while it's not out of the realm to think that Edwards will score points in a slightly different fashion, there's no way he will be getting the kind of production he had with the Chargers. i agree that edwards wont be posting numbers like he has playing LILB in SD but he is a player that is still gonna get his and would be shocked if he wasnt still a top 20-25 LB...gone are the days of him being a LB1 but he will at worst imo still be a solid LB2 option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 i agree that edwards wont be posting numbers like he has playing LILB in SD but he is a player that is still gonna get his and would be shocked if he wasnt still a top 20-25 LB...gone are the days of him being a LB1 but he will at worst imo still be a solid LB2 option Maybe, but I just don't see the Chiefs defense funneling anything towards him. Mitchell and Johnson/Fox had the big numbers for KC's LB crew (middle and left) virtually every week. Edwards might stabilize the position, and make it more difficult for opposing offenses to exploit the left-side of their offensive lines, but I'm not real high on him putting up much more than 4 tackles a game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazysight Posted July 1, 2007 Author Share Posted July 1, 2007 The whole scheme bit really seems to confuse as what you just wrote Keggerz is that "WLB>MLB>SLB in a Tampa 2/Cover 2." What is Kansas City running for a defense? Keggerz you posted on that link above that KC ran a 4-3 in 2006, which could explain why there weren't as many points from the WLB position last year, however I just did some reading up on the Tampa 2 on wikipedia which said that Kansas City adapted the Tampa 2 last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_2. If this is true than I don't know why Bell's production would have been so low According to the scheme listed above, in a Tampa 2 Edwards *should* be in the strong point of that defense at WLB, yet Bell scored fewer points than any other LB from that position last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 The whole scheme bit really seems to confuse as what you just wrote Keggerz is that "WLB>MLB>SLB in a Tampa 2/Cover 2." What is Kansas City running for a defense? Keggerz you posted on that link above that KC ran a 4-3 in 2006, which could explain why there weren't as many points from the WLB position last year, however I just did some reading up on the Tampa 2 on wikipedia which said that Kansas City adapted the Tampa 2 last year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tampa_2. If this is true than I don't know why Bell's production would have been so low According to the scheme listed above, in a Tampa 2 Edwards *should* be in the strong point of that defense at WLB, yet Bell scored fewer points than any other LB from that position last year. KC didnt play a full blown tampa 2 last yr and there are degrees of it too...chicago(lovie smith) plays an aggressive cover 2...KC used some cover 2 last yr but they like Jax use a right left designation for their LBs...while moving to that defense should significantly hurt edwards numbers I feel that he is one of those exceptions in that he is still going to make plays and get his...and lets not forget just how good a coverage backer he is and that he will be in on 3rd downs and that can have a significant impact over the course of the year. What you have to realize is that while scheme does indeed matter it isnt a video game where if you put play x at this position he will always do Y...Players have different skill sets and some are very dependent on scheme for their success while others are able to take advantage of their natural athletic ability and football instincts to be productive no matter what...in the end knowing schemes will help you to figure out certain things but it cant and wont ever be the end all answer...for that we have our eyes, ears and scouting reports to lean on too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsheet Posted July 4, 2007 Share Posted July 4, 2007 i think most waiver wires have better options than edwards available. i'd cut him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 (edited) i think most waiver wires have better options than edwards available. i'd cut him. 1st STOP THINKING 2nd I dont think you could name 3 LBs on any WW for a 12 team league or better that anyone would take over DEdwards.. Edited July 5, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 1st STOP THINKING2nd I dont think you could name 3 LBs on any WW for a 12 team league or better that anyone would take over DEdwards.. Keg = smart man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsheet Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 i'm in a 16 team dynasty league, we are not allowed to pick up players until our rookie draft in august. other than rookies, available lbs i would rather own over edwards: dj williams henderson rudd keiaho a brooks i expect a big drop from edwards. we'll see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 i'm in a 16 team dynasty league, we are not allowed to pick up players until our rookie draft in august. other than rookies, available lbs i would rather own over edwards: dj williams henderson rudd keiaho a brooks i expect a big drop from edwards. we'll see. not a single one of those guys are on any of my leagues Waiver Wires and if they are on yours then you need to find a MUCH more competitive league. and the other then rookies comment doesnt really lead itself to WW LBs in a keeper/dynasty league.... question for you...Did you ever play center field because you have a mean back pedal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 (edited) i'm in a 16 team dynasty league, we are not allowed to pick up players until our rookie draft in august. other than rookies, available lbs i would rather own over edwards: dj williams should have no problem out producing Edwards this yr henderson while he could out score edwards I dont think he will rudd will most likely be limited to a 2 down role and would be slightly surprised if he scores more then edwards keiaho love his potential but he hasnt been anointed th starter yet a brooks brooks could be a monster but to many questions with whats going on at LB in Cincy i expect a big drop from edwards. we'll see. so just to clarify are all those guys available on your waiver wire in that 16 team dynasty league? DJ has been rostered in EVERY one of my 16 team leagues since his rookie year(5 leagues) EJ has also been rostered in each league every year Rudd yep him too Keiaho was drafted in each leagues rookie draft too brooks was picked up off waivers in each league after the supplemental draft seriously if those guys are available on your ww then you need to either asses your league, scoring or starting requirements...after all it is a dynasty league and young upside guys like that shouldnt be avail on waivers Edited July 5, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldsheet Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 question for you...Did you ever play center field because you have a mean back pedal my comment has not changed. i expect a drop off from edwards. wheres the back pedal? with anual changes nfl roster changes i think most ww's should have good value. as far as the league i'm in we are limited to 30 man rosters. most owners tend to hold onto offensive tallent as opposed to sitting on defensive players that may have future potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 (edited) my comment has not changed. i expect a drop off from edwards. wheres the back pedal? with anual changes nfl roster changes i think most ww's should have good value. as far as the league i'm in we are limited to 30 man rosters. most owners tend to hold onto offensive tallent as opposed to sitting on defensive players that may have future potential. there you go thinking again the other then rookies part of your comment smelled of back pedal... the issue is will Edwards see a drop in production? The answer YES...some think more substantial then other(and thats ok) the 2nd part of the issue is that you make a pretty "ludicrous" statement that better LBs can be found on the WW then Edwards as far as your league goes that just might be the case(i would seek a new league or change it so that young up and comers have a home in a dynasty league...but hey its your league)...now why your statement it ludicrous is because the majority of leagues at the huddle none of those guys you listed are available on waivers....actually i would almost be willing to guarantee that none are avail in any of the 16 team dynasty leagues Edited July 5, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted July 5, 2007 Share Posted July 5, 2007 (edited) my comment has not changed. i expect a drop off from edwards. wheres the back pedal? with anual changes nfl roster changes i think most ww's should have good value. as far as the league i'm in we are limited to 30 man rosters. most owners tend to hold onto offensive tallent as opposed to sitting on defensive players that may have future potential. also just out of curiosity where do you think that EDWARDS WILL FINISH IN THE RANKINGS THIS YR? utilizing Huddle Scoring the staff uses for their rankings. Edited July 5, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Great sig line, Keg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.