Anderson, Beason, Connor...

[coxc63]

If our linebacking core keeps up the pace that they're at, we'd have 3 LB's to have at least 100 tackles.

Anderson: 60 tackles already, with an average of 10 tackles per game, if he keeps playing at this rate he'll have 160 for the year (combined not solo)

Beason: 49 tackles so far, with an average of 8.8 tackles per game, if he keeps playing at this pace he'll have his average 139-140 tackles for the year (also combined not solo)

Connor: 40 tackles so far, with an average of 6.6 tackles per game, if he plays at this pace he'll have 100-105 tackles for the year. (Again combined not solo)

That's a damn good LB corpse if you ask me...probably one of the best in the league, don't feel like researching any other teams stats... Just a different topic than what we've been talking about.

[mav1234]

they've been doing great... but man, I can scarcely imagine how beasting they'd be with a full and healthy TD... I honestly think that Beason is best in the middle.

Anderson, Beason, Davis... man I hope he doesn't get himself hurt again. We could have three of the best for years to come...

[Jackofalltrades]

To me it really means the DL isn't doing their job well enough.

[mav1234]

To me it really means the DL isn't doing their job well enough.

There's a bit of that, but I think we are also seeing a scheme that emphasizes good linebacker play, good linebackers playing well, and also the fact our D is on the field so goddamn much(though I don't know where we actually rank in time of possession).

[Mr. Scot]

Have to keep in mind that the time limit for the PUP is past, so the team will have to do something in regard to Thomas Davis within the next few weeks (IR him or clear a spot for him).

[OnlyPantherFaninMaine]

Jus' wait til we get a shutdown corner like Peterson or Amukamara, and a pass rush...

I really see this defense excelling season after season for quite some time.

[coxc63]

To me it really means the DL isn't doing their job well enough.

I agree our dline has been disappointing, but it's still pretty awesome that we'd have 3 lb's to break 100 tackles. Morgan only broke 100 tackles once in 2004, but we did have a stout dline at the time. Witherspoon also broke 100 that same year. But 3 LB's doing it, and not just barely breaking 100 (despite connor's stats) would be amazing.

Beason and Davis also did it in '08

[cdandi1]

Jus' wait til we get a shutdown corner like Peterson or Amukamara, and a pass rush...

I really see this defense excelling season after season for quite some time.

Patrick PEterson FTW

[pantherj]

It's really not a good idea to look at the number of tackles a LB has to determine how well they're doing. A high number of tackles usually points to the opposing offense running a lot of plays, and dominating the time of possession. If you want to use tackle stats to evaluate a LB, then maybe a made tackles versus missed tackles ratio might be revealing. Tackles for a loss, and tackles for no gain might also be interesting to look at, but the sheer number of tackles isn't as important imo.

[coxc63]

It's really not a good idea to look at the number of tackles a LB has to determine how well they're doing. A high number of tackles usually points to the opposing offense running a lot of plays, and dominating the time of possession. If you want to use tackle stats to evaluate a LB, then maybe a made tackles versus missed tackles ratio might be revealing. Tackles for a loss, and tackles for no gain might also be interesting to look at, but the sheer number of tackles isn't as important imo.

Ok damn nitpicking much, I'm just trying to get a different conversation started on the huddle, rather than Moore vs. Clausen, anything Laetitia posts, superbowl bound. The future head coaches threads aren't too bad, but it's the same old same old, trying to add a variety ya kno.

[Mr. Scot]

I think if you look at the defensive stats for most teams, you'll probably find linebackers are the leading tacklers.

Defensive backs tend to be next. That's not necessarily bad, though you don't really want secondary guys as your leading tacklers because it usually means opposing players are making it to the second and third level more often than you'd like.

If you look at the tackle stats on NFL.com, it's not until you get down into the fifties that you start seeing defensive linemen.

[pantherj]

Ok damn nitpicking much, I'm just trying to get a different conversation started on the huddle, rather than Moore vs. Clausen, anything Laetitia posts, superbowl bound. The future head coaches threads aren't too bad, but it's the same old same old, trying to add a variety ya kno.

I agree that this is different type of thread. I like to nitpick more than Howie Mandel when he's off his OCD meds. I also like to exaggerate. Carry on.

[coxc63]

I think if you look at the defensive stats for most teams, you'll probably find linebackers are the leading tacklers.

Defensive backs tend to be next. That's not necessarily bad, though you don't really want secondary guys as your leading tacklers because it usually means opposing players are making it to the second and third level more often than you'd like.

If you look at the tackle stats on NFL.com, it's not until you get down into the fifties that you start seeing defensive linemen.

Yea dlineman usually don't get the bulk of the tackles, but the best defenses have their LB's come up to make the stop at the line or behind the LOS, this is what pantherj was getting at. But it still would be cool to see 3 LB's break 100 regardless of how it's done, whether it's a last minute shoe string tackle or a tackle for a loss, still shows that our LB's are standing their ground and not letting opposing players get to that 3rd level.

[Sandy Claws]

Officially jinxed, now somebody will get hurt.