Assessing the Potential 2009 Free Agent Linebackers

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 1:00 PM EST Comment 25 comments

Introduction:

I missed out on linebacker discussion in the "State of the Bills Roster" series, but after reading the discussions, I decided to do an extensive look into the free agent linebacker market. Below are the players who I thought would be viable free agent additions. I picked these players on two assumptions: (1) that the Bills were looking to get bigger at the linebacker position; and (2) that the Bills were looking to add players that could help improve their pass-rush. So without delay, in order of my preference, here is a list of potential free agent linebackers that may "fit the bill" in 2009:

Karlos Dansby (Arizona)

2008 By the Numbers: 119 Tackles, 4.0 sacks, 2 Forced Fumbles, 2 Interceptions.

Why the Bills would want him: He fits the requirements for age (27 at start of season), size (6-4, 250 pounds), and ability to rush the passer (25 sacks in the past five seasons). He had great instincts and play-making ability.

What could keep him from becoming a Bill: He likely won't come cheap. Although he won't see money like Peppers (over $15 million a season), he is still likely to command real money (perhaps around $7-8 million). Also, there is a good chance that he doesn't even hit the open market. The Cardinals will be $41 million under the cap in 2009 and they definitely have the room and incentive to lock up this young stud. (Note: the Cardinals do have contract situations to work out with Anquan Boldin and Kurt Warner as well)

How he fits: He currently plays ILB in 3-4, but has the versatility to play the middle or strong side in the 4-3. I would project him as a SLB in Buffalo's defense, so that they could take advantage of his pass-rushing skills.

LeRoy Hill (Seattle)

2008 By the Numbers: 84 Tackles, 1 Sack, 0 Forced Fumbles, 0 Interceptions

Why the Bills would want him: He's young (26) and ever improving linebacker who would be relatively economical pick-up. He had 7 sacks in 2005, so he has the ability to rush the passer. He is very athletic with great instincts and the speed to be an effective blitzer. He's versatile (can play both strong and weak side) and takes on defenders well.

What could keep him from becoming a Bill: He wouldn't really add much size to Buffalo's defense (6-1, 238 pounds) and there is a reason why he would be a relatively economical pick-up - he has yet to have an injury-free season in his 4-year career (he ended the 2008 season in week 13 with a neck stinger). He hasn't lived up to expectations as a blitzer in the past few seasons after recording 7 in his rookie year (2, 3, and 1 sack, respectfully). Also, Seattle wants him back and has not ruled out using the franchise tag on him.

How he fits: Hill has played both WLB and SLB as a Seahawk; however, his natural position is on the weak side. He would be a candidate for either position as a Bill, but I think he would end up on the weak side because of his size.

Jonathan Vilma (New Orleans)

2008 By the Numbers: 132 Tackles, 1 Sack, 2 Forced Fumbles, 1 Interception

Why the Bills would want him: He is entering the prime of his career (will be 27 years old when the season starts) and is coming off a great rebound season after suffering a serious knee injury. He is an extremely productive player (174 tackles one season!) and is loaded with intangibles (natural leader, displays tons of heart, competitiveness). He is also good in pass coverage (may be better than Poz in his ability to play "center field" in the Bills scheme).

What could keep him from being a Bill: He lacks two attributes the Bills are looking for, size (6-1, 230 pounds) and ability to rush the passer. New Orleans has listed him as a "top priority" to re-sign this off-season, so he may not make it onto the market. Also, despite his production, his presence did not significantly improve the Saint's run defense in 2008.

How he fits: Vilma is a natural middle linebacker in a 4-3 scheme, which he played in 2008, his first with the New Orleans Saints. Prior to that he was an ILB for the New York Jets, struggling to adopt to the new 3-4 scheme brought in by former head coach, Eric Mangini. Luckily for Buffalo, they play a base 4-3. Vilma would play MLB, allowing Poz to move to the outside.

Bart Scott (Baltimore)

2008 By the Numbers: 83 Tackles, 1.5 Sacks, 2 Forced Fumbles, 0 Interceptions.

Why the Bills would want him: He is a powerful and passionate player who is in the prime of his career (29 years old). He has good size (6-2, 240 pounds) and has had past success rushing the passer (10 sacks in 2006). Baltimore has to worry about other potential free agents in Terrell Suggs and Ray Lewis, so Scott may be available.

What could keep him from becoming a Bill: The 7-year pro has played his entire career next to future hall-of-famer, Ray Lewis, how much of Scott's success has been contributed to such fortune? Since his 10-sack season in 2009, Scott only had 1 in 2007 and 1.5 this past season. The biggest problem is his propensity to say stupid things.

How he fits: Scott has the ability to play either strong or weak side in the Bills 4-3 scheme. I suspect that for continuity sake, and because there wouldn't be too much of a difference where he played, the Bills would pencil him in on the strong side.

Channing Crowder (Miami)

2008 By the Numbers: 113 Tackles, 0 Sacks, 1 Forced Fumble, 0 Interceptions

Why the Bills would want him: He his a young talent (25 years old) with room to improve. He has good size (6-2, 245 pounds) and great speed and athleticism. He has very good sideline-to-sideline movement. Perhaps most impressive, he is stout against the run.

What could keep him from becoming a Bill: Although young, he has had some injury concerns, specifically chronic knee problems that could affect his long term viability. He is not known for being overly physical and only has 2 sacks in his career. Playing his entire career as an ILB in a 3-4 scheme, he may have trouble adopting to a different defensive scheme.

How he fits: This one, I'm not so sure. I would presume he would benefit on the outside, where he would be able to use his pursuit skills. Possibly, because of his size and Mitchell's prior experience on Buffalo's weak side, Crowder would be the Bills strong-side backer.

Eric Barton (New York Jets)

2008 By the Numbers: 119 Tackles, 1.5 Sacks, 1 Forced Fumble, 0 Interceptions).

Why the Bills would want him: He has good size (6-2, 245 pounds) and versatility to play in a 4-3 defense, although he has spent most of his career in the 3-4. He plays effectively in the zone. He is a veteran presence that would bring toughness and consistency.

What could keep him from being a Bill: Unlike the previous candidate, who are either in their primes are just entering it, Barton is on the downhill slope of his career (31 years old - played 10 seasons in the NFL). He has played a good portion of his career in the 3-4 (the last five as a Jet). He's not really a pass rusher (only 21 career sacks).

Where he fits: Most likely in the middle, which does not make him a real good fit in Buffalo, with its current personnel. It he wouldn't make much sense to move Poz for an aging vet, unless you were going to bring in a young talent to groom behind the vet.

Mike Peterson (Jacksonville)

2008 By the Numbers: 84 Tackles, 1 Sack, 0 Forced Fumbles, 0 Interceptions

Why the Bills would want him: A veteran presence that is still productive when healthy. Would come relatively cheap.

What could keep him from being a Bill: Age (33 years old), injury concerns (played 15 games in 2008, but only 15 in the two seasons prior to that combined). Not a good fit in Buffalo's defense.

Where he fits: See Barton above.

This FanPost was written by a registered user of Buffalo Rumblings. Its views do not necessarily reflect the views of Rumblings' editorial staff, but are just as valued as our own.

2 recs | Comment 25 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

good work

Dansby would be perfect. It’s too bad he’ll cost too much.

Hill and Scott seem like the only other guys that would fit what we need.

Is calling LenDale White ‘plump’ really that stupid?!?!

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 13, 2009 1:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

haha...

I was thinking more of the lines of this:

When he knocked Ray Rice’s hat off Monday, Scott grabbed it and chucked it downfield. Scott says it’s all part of the return of the “Mad Backer,” his alter ego. “I’m going to go back to just choking the hell out of people,” said Scott, who’s in a contract year. “I’m extremely (ticked) off, more than ever.”

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

then again...

maybe that kind of passion is what Buffalo needs!

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I love it

The Bills CAN win every game

by killascript on Jan 14, 2009 8:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like that passion! Plus it’s hilarious that he chucked the helmet downfield in practice. Know your role, rook!

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 13, 2009 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I absolutely love Bart Scott. Exactly what Buffalo needs. A big hitter, emotional leader, great football player. If we don’t get a linebacker in free agency we might be able to draft Aaron Curry. Curry is a hell of a football player and would have an immediate impact.

I personally love the 3-4 defense and would love to see the Bills run it.

2 OLBs: Bart Scott/we may sign Angleo Crowell and Kawika Mitchel.
2 ILB’S: Paul Posluskny. Bring in Eric Barton to play ILB.
Nose Guards: Marcus Stroud and Kyle Williams.
DE: We could draft someone like Everette Brown or Brian Orakpo. Denney, Kelsay, and schobel could play in shifts.

if you look at the two best defenses in the NFL, they are both 3-4 defenses. Pittsburgh and Baltimore. I think it’s easier to find guys to play a 3-4 than it is to find guys to play a 4-3.

by buffaloboy90 on Jan 14, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually. Kyle Williams and Spencer Johnson could be the two ends in a 3-4.

Justin Bannan, EX Bill, is one of the ends in Baltimore. And trevor price. They are both undersized Defensive Tackles in a 4-3 scheme.

by buffaloboy90 on Jan 14, 2009 9:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good assessment

The problem is which of these options we should choose. Your viewpoint seems a little bleak though. To me, I’d rather pick a vet and draft a youngster this year or next (or both) to learn. That’s why my vote is for Peterson. Why do you say he would be a bad fit? Stroud seems to have plugged in quite nicely.

by WhyBillsWhy on Jan 13, 2009 1:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't mind a Vet...

But I don’t want this team to get “too” old. Stroud was a good pick up, but if the team starts going out and adding 30 somethings every off-season, they’ll become very old, very quick. Both Stroud, Schobel and Kelsey are all over 30 . Mitchell will be soon. If the bills pick up a free agent LB, I would prefer it be someone who is entering his prime or is already in it.

Peterson would be a bad fit becuase of the personell we have and the scheme we play. He would naturally play a MLB, but in a cover-2, that’s asking a lot for a 33 year old to drop back in deep coverage. Also, if Buffalo is moving Poz out if the middle linebacker spot, I want it to be for a long-term replacement, not a guy that will be retired within 3-4 years. Can Peterson play SLB in Buffalo’s defense? I don’t know the answer to that. Does anybody remember what position he playedi in Indy before he went to the Jags in 2002?

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not so fast

there is a difference between being too old and stupid. Pat Williams was “too old” and left to walk at 30. This isn’t Madden, where you just draft studs, keep your team in the young 20’s and always have superstars. Free Agency is used to fill a need. It’s like cheating except legal. Although the risk is higher cuz guys cost more on an open market. Stroud will be good for a while. We need more veterans IMO, then less. Leadership, experience, guys that have been there and understand what it takes. The more Kawika Mitchell’s and Marcus Stroud’s we get, the better this team will be IMO. I like the idea of bringining vets at WR, DE, DT, LB, S. Not all spots, but at 2-3 of those I hope

MARVelous

by MARVelous on Jan 13, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i understand the difference between the two...

but in my opinion there i no need for Buffalo to go out and get a 30 something linebacker on the downside of his career. I’m not one of those people that thinks as soon as a player reaches the age of 30, they are no good or in decline. Pat Williams wasn’t and the Bills were stupid to let him go. Stroud was still playing at a high levle at 33 and was thus a good pick up as well. I actually defended Schobel and Kelsey to many around here last year against the argument that they were “too old” (one was 30, the other was 29!). That said, you have to be aware of age. Each player should also be judge on their own merits. Peterson is 33. He’s played 10 seasons in the pro at a position that sees a lot of wear and tear. He’s missed signficant time due to injury in two of the past three seasons. To me, that’s not what I want in a free agent pick-up, especially, in this situation. The Bills aren’t desperate for linebacker, if they were, I may reconsider, but they have a good core and only needs to add one or two more guys. Why add a short-term answer when the long-term talent is available and you have the money to get them?

I agree with the need ot add veteran talent, but in the right places. To me, the right places would be WR, S and maybe d-line…

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the Saints are resigned Vilma

The deal with Jets would make it so the Saints have to send the Jets a second rounder if they retain Vilma. That to me seals the deal that he’s hitting the market.

Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.

by poz on Jan 13, 2009 2:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ahh i read it differently, but that what it sounds like...

The way it was reported, i just thought that the Saints couldn’t re-sign Vilma before the season was over or they would have ot forfeit the second round pick. Thus, they could re-sign him after the season, but before free agency began on 2/29. Here is Adam Shefter’s report on the situaiton with the ambiguities highlighted:

Had New Orleans resigned linebacker Jonathan Vilma to a long-term contract extension this season, or even shortly thereafter, two New York teams would have benefited.

First, the conditional fourth-round pick the Saints traded to the Jets for Vilma would have become a second-round pick.

And if that Vilma trade with the Jets had involved a second-round pick, then the Saints would have been forced to compensate the New York Giants with a first-round pick for tight end Jeremy Shockey.

But New Orleans can exhale. The Saints did not re-sign Vilma, and will not attempt to do so until he becomes a free agent, thus the value the Jets and Giants receive now can be determined.

The conditional fourth-round pick the Saints traded to the Jets for Vilma will become a third-round pick in 2009. The Jets used the Saints fourth-round pick in 2008, but they will have to return a fourth-round pick to New Orleans this April.

And while the Jets get the Saints third-round pick, the Giants will get New Orleans’ second-round pick for Shockey.

So the Saints now are scheduled to have their first-round pick, and two fourth-round picks, with no second- or third-round picks
———-

What what is considered the “season” or “shortly thereafter”?

With that said, it does make sense that the compensation clause would continue until the start of 2009 free agency.

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think shortly thereafter refers to right now, before free agency starts on February 28th or whenever. I know his size doesn’t fit but I still see Vilma as the most likely linebacker talent that the Bills sign if they do indeed let Crowell walk.

He’s a former AFC East guy and I’m sure would love to take on the Jets. He’s familiar with playing against Belichick’s Pats and has played against and with the majority of the players on the Dolphins and Jets despite scheme changes.

Plus, Vilma has good age, as you mentioned, and can push Poz to the outside. We can try and give him a good multi-year deal without worrying about decline due to age. The same can not be said about Lewis, Scott, Peterson, and Barton. He has been more productive overall then both Leroy Hill and Channing Crowder who both seem to me like average, above average at best. The only guy who outshines Vilma as the perfect Bill is Dansby but of course, Vilma again makes more sense because he will be MUCH cheaper than Dansby

Kawika Mitchell is a leader. He will help this young team develop.

by poz on Jan 13, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dare to dream....

Wake up one morning and find that Buffalo signed Suggs and Scott….

by Ron From NM on Jan 13, 2009 2:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Suggs and Dansby...

that my perfect off-season (free agency wise at least)

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 3:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sadly thats the pipe dream

Though Ron’s of Suggs and Scott is most likely doable money wise
I think a Suggs/Dansby combo would be to costly for our FO.

Now if only this gopher could play DE, we would be doing better, I mean, who couldn't play better than the corpse brothers Kelsay and Denney?

by WABillsfan on Jan 13, 2009 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's a pipe dream to think Buffalo will land Suggs or Scott or Dansby

But we’re just dreaming here…

by Ron From NM on Jan 13, 2009 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some thoughts and concerns

Concerns-
1- Scott might go to the Jets this offseason, it looks like Rex Ryan will get the job there, and since Gholston is showing to be a bust, I think Ryan might push to bring in one of his guys there to shake things up.

2- Dansby is becoming more expensive by the week, and while I would love to have him, I think that he is pricing himself out of our range real quick.

3- Barton and Peterson, both Vets and both still relatively effective, would be willing to take either one ONLY if we plan on drafting their real replacement this year.

Thoughts-
1- I think Hill can be very effective with us, his number of sacks dipped for 2 reasons, the additions of Julian Peterson and Patrick Kearney, after they came up to Seattle, Hill was asked to blitz ALOT less often (also having Daryl Tapp on the Dline doesn’t help either). Besides, isn’t blitzing supposed to be Mitchell’s specialty anyway?

2- You claim that Hill is to small to play SLB, but he is only 2 pounds lighter than Scott and only 7 below Crowder. I just don’t see it.

3- Alot of this will hinge on a couple of things. Does the FO want to resign Crowell? Does DJ want to move Poz to the outside? How much money do we REALLY have to spend on FA this year? How many other holes do we need to fill in FA and how will that effect who we can pursue?

Now if only this gopher could play DE, we would be doing better, I mean, who couldn't play better than the corpse brothers Kelsay and Denney?

by WABillsfan on Jan 13, 2009 5:42 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

Great point about Scott and the Jets

If they’re still in free-spending mode, I can see Scott choosing the Jets mainly so he can play for Ryan. If Scott is looking at less than a million difference between contracts loyalty to Ryan might tip the scales.

I can see the front office wanting to sign Crowell because he’s a known quantity who is affordable. Jauron might not like it but signing Crowell frees up Buffalo to go after one of the big name FAs and/or getting Peters’ contract squared away.

by Ron From NM on Jan 13, 2009 7:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Aren’t the Jets already going to be over the 2009 salary cap??

~K
"I’m Kurupt with Buffalo Rumblings. I am worth hundreds!"

by Kurupt on Jan 13, 2009 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Only if the Missisippi Bandit plays

Now if only this gopher could play DE, we would be doing better, I mean, who couldn't play better than the corpse brothers Kelsay and Denney?

by WABillsfan on Jan 14, 2009 2:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hill being too small...

I made that comment with respect to the desire to get “bigger” on the strong side. Hill wouldn’t add much size to the strong side, much like Ellison doesn’t. I would like to see more size added to that position, whether it’s adding a bigger man or moving Mitchell or Poz to the strong side and bringing in someone like Hill or Vilmia for the weakside or middle respectfully. Ideally, I would like the bills to get bigger all around on the D, but I wouldn’t pass up talent for size. I really like Hill a lot and would be happy if the Bills picked him up this off-season, regardless of what position he played.

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 13, 2009 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good work JRI111 - but some clarifications need mentioning

If you check, the SLB has TE coverage responsibility so most teams blitz the WLB more often. If we get a Dansby in FA or Aaron Curry in the draft, I would put them at WLB and let them blitz where they get the RB one on one blocking.

Also, AZ plays a 4-3 with Dansby at WLB. And Scott is an ILB in Baltimore’s 3-4. Also Michael Boley from ATL will be available at OLB too.

And finally, your analysis excludes the most realistic option the Bills have at OLB – resign Crowell.

by freddyjj on Jan 14, 2009 4:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

thanks...

Yeah, I understand that the weakside LB blitzes more often, but that doesn’t mean the strong side (or the middle LB) don’t have some pass rush opportunities. I understand your point though.

As for Scott – i think I just wrote that bad. I meant “continuity” in the sense of keeping Mitchell on the weakside in Bills offense, not “continuity” in putting Scott on the strong side because that’s where he played in Baltimre. It should have more clear :)

My mistake on AZ playing the 4-3, somehow I missed that one! If the Bills were fortunte enough to pick up Dansby, I think he could play any of the three positions. In the middle, I worry about his ability to drop back deep in coverage – unless the Bills move away from a cover-2 to a more traditional 4-3 – then he would be awesome there. If not though, putting him on the weakside as you suggest, makes a lot of sense. He’s a better blitzer then Mitchell, so you don’t really lose too much moving Mitchell to the strong side.

Finally, I exlcuded Crowell becuase I don’t think it’s too realistic for the Bills to re-sign him. I think that ship has sailed. I like him though, it’s ashme he will be leaving.

John I.

by jri111 on Jan 14, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs