Is the MLB position dying out?

[User Name]

I'd like to ask a question to those more knowledgeable on the subject. What exactly is the difference between an ILB like Patrick Willis or Ray Lewis, and a MLB(4-3) like Jon Beason? I know the difference between schemes but I hear from alot of people that MLB(3-4) and MLB(4-3) are different positions.

Im guessing a 3-4 ILB has more responsibility to stop the run compared to a 4-3 MLB, which maybe why Patrick has so many tackles.

Does a 4-3 MLB have a more commanding role of the defense? Is he more responsible for reading the offense?

My take is there really isn't a difference in pre-play responsability, more times than not the MLB is the QB of the D, occasionally that job falls to a safety. In the 3-4 the strong side ILB usually takes that role

Their in play roll is changed by their gap responsibility is cut in half vs the 3-4 or call it what it really is a 5-2 with LB's playing the roll of dropped back DE's. That's why Pep thinks he'd be better suited to a 3-4. He believes he's more suited to play standing up off the line, and he may be right since he has been used that way playing in Carolina's version of the 4-3.

Since the beginning of football there have really only been two defensive formations, odd or even front, all the variations come from the players used, and their alignment in relation to the line of scrimmage.

[Frizzy350]

My take is there really isn't a difference in pre-play responsability, more times than not the MLB is the QB of the D, occasionally that job falls to a safety. In the 3-4 the strong side ILB usually takes that role

Their in play roll is changed by their gap responsibility is cut in half vs the 3-4 or call it what it really is a 5-2 with LB's playing the roll of dropped back DE's. That's why Pep thinks he'd be better suited to a 3-4. He believes he's more suited to play standing up off the line, and he may be right since he has been used that way playing in Carolina's version of the 4-3.

Since the beginning of football there have really only been two defensive formations, odd or even front, all the variations come from the players used, and their alignment in relation to the line of scrimmage.

^^^ this

the only "reason" MLBs are a dying breed is because many teams are switching over to the 3-4. why? media. If your defense sucks you can always pick up a coordinator or 2 and switch over to a 3-4 defense and hopefully shut your fans up about your terrible defensive players. notice how over the past couple years more and more teams are going to play a 3-4, but if you also look at all the established 3-4 teams, only a couple have dominant defenses (pitt, ravens play a mix of 3-4 and 4-3, pats).

[Fiz]

eh not really.

Seems to be the difference between what base set you run is a combination of talent, coaching, and where your best player is. Since fox has been here the best player on defense has arguably been a MLB. Back when Morgan was healthy and certainly now with beason.

If some stud 7th round 3-4 nt developed out of nowhere that might change. Also interesting is that the 3-4 nt will probably become a top five paid position pretty soon.

[Mr. Scot]

More teams switch to the 3-4, the best MLB players are picked up by the 4-3 teams. Teams adapt to the 3-4, the 4-3 teams with the best MLBs excel, teams start shifting back to the 4-3. Reverse, rince, repeat.

Things change, but things stay the same.

So it goes.

Pretty much.

This take that the MLB position is being phased out has been around for years now, same as the notion that the traditional fullback would soon be eliminated from the game and that run first QBs would eventually "change the game".

This kind of thing usually comes from some commentator or analyst who wants to be "the first to say it" so he can take credit for having foresight down the road.

As yet, none of those things has come to pass. Honestly, I doubt they ever will.

In the end, it's not as exciting or trendy to suggest that the game will stay pretty much the same as it is now.

(but it is more realistic)

[OneBadassCat]

Thanks guys.

[rayzor]

reminds me of something that someone wrote about the strong safety position dying out at a fantasy football site i go to.

Something to discuss during the dog days of the off-season:

The big, run-stuffing safeties are gradually being phased out of the NFL. Strong safeties are being replaced by free safety prototypes with a premium on speed, hybrid cornerbacks are now playing free safety, and nickel backs have seen a staggering increase in plays per game. What’s the biggest reason why?

1) Increased popularity of the 3-4 Defense? Having 4 linebackers on the second level alleviates the need for putting a safety in the box.

2) More frequent use of nickel and dime packages on running downs? The benefits of doing this includes a) putting more speed on the field, reducing the odds of a mismatch in coverage, and c) forcing the offense to run the football, especially if rushing is not their strength.

3) Maximizing coverage? In baseball, modern statistical analysis has recently revealed that an outfielder’s range has a major impact on his team’s performance – a much greater impact than was previously assumed. Perhaps the majority of NFL organizations have come to same conclusion.

4) Something else perhaps? The need to cover faster, more athletic tight ends? The Tampa-2/Cover-2 scheme, where both safeties play deep zone on almost every down? The ebb and flow available talent? Is it an easy position to fill via free agency and waivers?

I’m curious to know what your theory is.

How this started: I was looking at the list of safeties that were drafted last weekend to see who Seattle picked up, who was available, etc, and noticed only four safeties were drafted on Day 1 (all in Round 2) and that eight of the 14 safeties drafted on Day 2 were scraped off the bottom of the barrel in rounds 6 and 7. Not a strong endorsement for the position.

But even more telling was the type of safety that was drafted.

Excluding 234-pounders Nic Harris and Stephen Hodge (both will make the transition to linebacker) and 227-pound Kevin Ellison (coveted more for his intangibles and tremendous upside as a future coach than his measurables) the average weight of the remaining 15 safeties was a mere 211 pounds. In addition, the entire group measures between 5’11” and 6’2” in height and are known for well-above average range and closing speed, with typical 40 times in the low 4.50 range. Where are the big strong safeties with the 4.67 speed? There aren’t any.

discussion wasn't too long but if you wanted to check it out... http://www.fantasysharks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=203868

[carolinarolls]

it's pretty damn tough to get 4 down lineman who can rush as well as a stud MLB who can fill flanked by two OLB's that can cover ground and receivers. the 4-3 is simpley a harder scheme to roster. The 3-4 has its issues but' its design is to be as effective as a 4-3 in spite of having less talent along the front 7.

Spend your money on a 3rd receiver or 2nd Rb instead of buying a brian Urlacher or Jon Beason and simply buy two ILBs who are good but not great or who are fast but not instinctive.

It makes sense.