I have a question about the naming convention used for our LBs.
I hear the terms:
1) LOLB, ILB, ILB,ROLB
- easy to understand
- in the past this would be McGinest, Bruschi, TJ (or Phifer), Colvin
As you say, this is the easiest way to designate LBs. Simply by their position on the field, regardless of the offensive formation. It also doesn't tell anything about their roles and assignments, just that they line up like that at the start of each play.
2) WOLB, WILB, SILB, SOLB
- Weak and Strong based on the side of the field the TE is lined up on
- in the past this would be McGinest, Bruschi, TJ (or Phifer), Colvin
Questions
- Does our formation have a MIKE?
- Is the corect term WILB, SILB or just ILB?
- Do LBs players switch based on where the TE is lined up?
Terms like Will, Mike and Sam are used for the 4-3 alignment (WLB, MLB, SLB). With Will the weakside LB, Sam the strongside LB, and Mike as the middle LB. This also means that the Will and Sam will always line up according to the strength called. If the offense varies the position of their TE, these LBs will be switching back and forth. However, when the offense lines up in a balanced formation (TE at either side, two receivers wide at the LOS), the Mike will make a call about which side is strong or weak, depending on what kind of agreements were made in preparation for the game.
So the Pats 3-4 doesn't have a Mike, at least not in the sense of a 4-3 Mike LB. It still is possible to assign terms like Will, Mike, Sam, or Mack to your LB corps, depending on their assignments in a particular formation/alignment. But I seem to have misplaced my copy of the Patriots defensive playbook
, so no further insight on that.
Observations
- the past 2 years (2005, 2006) Bruschi has played on the right inside of the formation (Strong side I think) and he has been much less effective
- I hope we draft/sign someone who can play some snaps at the strong (right-hand) side of the defense at ILB so Bruschi can remain at weakside for the major of the reps (Harris, Willis, Bishop seem to fit this profile)
- future WILB - seems to be an easier position to fill, most athetic college LBs fit this profile, but the big run stuffers who are not a total liability in coverage seem to be harder to find)
Thank you for your help.
For whatever reason, the Pats brass hasn't prioritized the LB position in the draft, either because most college LBs don't fit into our 3-4, or because the players that do fit, play a different position in college, and take time and effort before they learn to play LB. You might be better off finding someone who is already considered a 'project' in the later rounds of the draft, and develop him while he's 'buried' as a backup on your depth chart, and having him play special teams in the meantime.
