Linebackers

[Vader]

I remember having this debate with Vader about Jason Worilds prior to the 2013 season. Vader of course, was down on Worilds -- insisting that if he really were any good he would have shown it by then. And he never provided anything substantial to back up his debate -- especially when you consider he was drafted while the Steelers had James Harrison and Lamar Woodley already in place -- how could you really expect Worilds to break into that starting line-up:
•2008-2011: The Harrison/Woodley combination combined for 90 combined sacks -- 22.5 sacks per year.
•2012: The Harrison/Woodley combination had 10 sacks between them -- with Worilds starting 3 of 16 games and having 5 sacks in fill in duty at ROLB and LOLB.
•2013-2014: Jason Worilds -- started all 16 games in back to back years and had 8 & 7.5 sacks.

Now who won that debate? I does suppose it does come out to what your expectation was because Jason Worilds definitely was productive, but he wasn't at the level of Joey Porter, James Harrison or even Lamar Woodley before him. And looking back, knowing what we know now -- Jason Worilds walked away from what would have been the biggest contract of his life in Free Agency this year because he had other priorities.

You obviously don't remember the debate well at all. I never suggested that because he wasn't starting he wasn't any good. The problem I had with Worilds was that he was often injured and when he did play he did very little.

Also comparing a LOLB with a ROLB makes no sense to me. You have to look at who they are going against. Worilds didn't beat a RT all year. He beat a couple of TEs and RBs. He got one sack because the QB stepped out after having all day to throw and he lost 1/10 of a yard. I watched him all year. He did almost nothing and was easily blocked by every RT. Teams over pay for players all the time. I have no doubt he would have gotten a huge pay day. But that doesn't mean he had a great year. Worilds was probably the 4th best LB on the team last year.

Hell Moats in 1/3 the snaps had almost as many sacks going against much better competition. He faced LTs while Worilds was going against RBs and TEs.

 

[FSF]

You obviously don't remember the debate well at all. I never suggested that because he wasn't starting he wasn't any good. The problem I had with Worilds was that he was often injured and when he did play he did very little.

Also comparing a LOLB with a ROLB makes no sense to me. You have to look at who they are going against. Worilds didn't beat a RT all year. He beat a couple of TEs and RBs. He got one sack because the QB stepped out after having all day to throw and he lost 1/10 of a yard. I watched him all year. He did almost nothing and was easily blocked by every RT. Teams over pay for players all the time. I have no doubt he would have gotten a huge pay day. But that doesn't mean he had a great year. Worilds was probably the 4th best LB on the team last year.

Hell Moats in 1/3 the snaps had almost as many sacks going against much better competition. He faced LTs while Worilds was going against RBs and TEs.

Actually I quite do remember the debate. And it had nothing to do with Worilds often being injured -- because he didn't have problems with injuries. The reason he wasn't getting on the field is because in front of him were the best pair of 3-4 OLBs the Steelers featured in the zone blitz scheme. That's not an opinion as much as it was fact -- from 2008-2012 Woodley and Harrison averaged over 11 sacks a season each.

Of course I do remember you saying that Worilds didn't impress you whenever he got on the field. It's what you do; anything that has some debatable nature about the Steelers you will go to the negative side. And sorry, I call bullshit that you "watched him play all year" as if you were getting paid to analyze Worilds -- quite frankly the proof is in your lack of detail and overwhelming amount of opinion (always negative) in your posts. It hardly goes unnoticed -- I just got hit up with a lot of karma for calling you out on it, probably because it's gotten tired and old to them.

The fact is the guy had ability but he didn't have the desire to really take it to the next level because it obviously wasn't that important to him -- hence his retirement in the prime of his career.

Lastly, especially since I never mentioned Moats; at what point in time did I "compare" the LOLB vs. ROLB. Perhaps it made no sense to you because the logic of my post was about it taking time for each LB that we've had to develop and improve, It was the exact same point I made about giving Worilds a chance and now its about giving Jarvis Jones a chance.

 

[Wingman]

FSF I don't want to go through that entire well written post of yours to find the mention of maybe Harrison was better than Haggans but there was more to it than the athletic ability of James. Now I'm pretty sure you will remember this if you think about it. A while ago James was interviewed about his early time in the league and he was having difficulty learning the defense. He had actually been cut and then later brought back. In his case he was having a great deal of trouble learning his reads. He mentioned sitting in his room with flash cards after practice at Latrobe working on learning things better. I found this to be an excellent example of his dedication. I believe there was also thoughts in Harrison's mind that he would have to start another career path I think at the time he was looking at driving a truck.

So James could also be a good example of a late bloomer for your argument about Jarvis. I just don't see your optimism with Jarvis when I see him I see a low effort guy. I hope I am wrong and you are right but I think Jarvis will be another example of the college player that can transition to the NFL.

 

[Vader]

Actually I quite do remember the debate. And it had nothing to do with Worilds often being injured -- because he didn't have problems with injuries. The reason he wasn't getting on the field is because in front of him were the best pair of 3-4 OLBs the Steelers featured in the zone blitz scheme. That's not an opinion as much as it was fact -- from 2008-2012 Woodley and Harrison averaged over 11 sacks a season each.

Of course I do remember you saying that Worilds didn't impress you whenever he got on the field. It's what you do; anything that has some debatable nature about the Steelers you will go to the negative side. And sorry, I call bullshit that you "watched him play all year" as if you were getting paid to analyze Worilds -- quite frankly the proof is in your lack of detail and overwhelming amount of opinion (always negative) in your posts. It hardly goes unnoticed -- I just got hit up with a lot of karma for calling you out on it, probably because it's gotten tired and old to them.

The fact is the guy had ability but he didn't have the desire to really take it to the next level because it obviously wasn't that important to him -- hence his retirement in the prime of his career.

Lastly, especially since I never mentioned Moats; at what point in time did I "compare" the LOLB vs. ROLB. Perhaps it made no sense to you because the logic of my post was about it taking time for each LB that we've had to develop and improve, It was the exact same point I made about giving Worilds a chance and now its about giving Jarvis Jones a chance.

His injury was always my first issue with Worilds. The fact you either can't remember tells me all I need to know about you. He had leg injuries, calf injuries, wrist injuries. The reason he didn't play much when Woodley was injured was because he was injured.

But that's what you do. You ignore things that don't fit your argument. Then you write a 1000 word article that should only take a paragraph at most. That's your style. You like to baffle with bullshit. You think that by typing thousands of words of bullshit that nobody will argue with you. Sorry buddy but I know exactly what I said and exactly what my problems were with Worilds.

Also I never said anything about giving Worilds or Jones a chance. That's just you and your typical strawmen. Not once have I said they should be cut or benched. But keep grabbing those straws.

 

[Stryker]

Too bad we no longer have the archives. I guess no one will ever know who was right. Move on then please. No one else seems to care.