MUNSON'S GAZETTA: ALL DOWN THE LINE(BACKERS)

We discussed in an earlier post the Freudian concepts of id, ego and superego and how they corresponded to the 3 areas of the defense:id-D-line; ego-linebackers; superego-secondary. Transactional Analysis uses these constructs somewhat differently, substituting Child, Adult, and Parent for those 3 and removing some of the imagery and drama of the Freudian approach for a franker, but perhaps more prosaic, framework. We see in the linebaker the Adult, blending a primitive lust for contact with a practical appreciation of its limits and responsibilities. The Adult balances the impulses of the Child  and the hortatory exhortations of the Parent. The LB must recognize the play quickly, but not commit impetuously. Once "in", he must abandon all sense of self. While the DB delivers the most dangerous hits the LB gives the most robust, full-bodied ones.

Broncos began getting good LB's almost as soon as the QBs and WRs. My fave in the day was "Chillie" Willie Beamon. I dont know if he was as mean as he looked but I can tell you this-place him on any prison yard and no one would mess with him. I dont recall any sense of a "chip" on the shoudler back then maybe because for us to get a really good guy there'd have to be some sort of extenuating circumstances. Or not. I think once we stepped on to the Div I stage the "blue collar"/chip talk started up. But for example John Rade played in the pros for many years. His back was so hideously muscled that it looked deformed, almost hunch-backed. It hooded like a cobra and he made people disappear with his hits. His violence had a cheerful edge that still seems ghastly lo these many years. 

In the new schemes we see today it is temping to see the LB as more of a DB, but this reverses the dynamic IMO. In responding to the new offenses, the DB is required to be more of an LB(the nickel is the ultimate expression of this-later post). The LB's role remains essentially what it always has been. Our 2 LB scheme puts more pressure on him, but his responsibilities are the same albeit he must deal with them with fewer resources.In the old days the MLB was presumptively the captain of the D because of his pivotal role. Our dynamic duos dont really have that, but they're everywhere.

MUNSONIAN THEOREM #9: Minimal needs yield maximum strength. The LB must rely on himself almost entirely, unusual for a team sport. It can lead to truly heroic spectacles.. Dick Butkus was surrounded by mediocrity (if that) his entire career. He refused to let his circumstance define him, and he destroyed himself making the Bear's D more than it was. The point being:if there is weakness in the D, the LB must address and rectify it.If the weakness IS the LB, any minimally proficient offense will discover and exploit it. Mike Singletary showed what an LB can do when he is supported by talent.

And what of the Broncos?  A season ago I noticed what appeared to be an unusually large number of LBs on the roster. In the 60's a pro manager once said when he had draft choices but no particular needs he would get DBs bc of their versatiltiy. He could use them at RB, WR, special teams. With the enhanced athleticism of modern players perhaps now that is true of LBs. We use them at fullback, tight end, lots of special team play. We dont seem to have a "star" at the mo', but Acrey, Mackey and Tevis are certainly more than "workmanlike". The 4-3 is designed to funnel to the MLB; the 4-2 funnels to the "nickel"(the DB more like LB).  Presently I see no diminution of talent but rather a change in function and emphasis.