(02-22-2016, 03:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: His productivity has been great.

Sorta like the Maualuga PFF ratings I've pointed to the last few years.  They go up the less he is on the field. JL is an upgrade to what we have in the middle. Do I want to sign him? Most likely not, I'm looking toward Mason Foster. I just choose not to trash a MLB that NEVER leaves the field. 

His productivity has not been great, but I forget that you hate context in the form of assessing things. 
He's not better at what we ask of our MLB. 

So why did you do it to Rey M? 

(02-22-2016, 03:29 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: His productivity has not been great, but I forget that you hate context in the form of assessing things. 
He's not better at what we ask of our MLB. 

So why did you do it to Rey M? 

He has never had a season in his career with under 100 tackles. You might be sitting the bar a little high for what you consider productive.

(02-22-2016, 02:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has never had a season in his career with under 100 tackles. You might be sitting the bar a little high for what you consider productive.

If production = tackles then lets just stick with V. Rey who is about a year younger, knows our system, will likely be cheaper and had 98 tackles this year. 

No need to sign a guy that will likely bring about what V. Rey does just because.

(02-22-2016, 02:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has never had a season in his career with under 100 tackles. You might be sitting the bar a little high for what you consider productive.

Tackles aren't the only means of productivity. You are the one obsessed with raw tackle stats. 

(02-22-2016, 02:58 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: If production = tackles then lets just stick with V. Rey who is about a year younger, knows our system, will likely be cheaper and had 98 tackles this year. 

No need to sign a guy that will likely bring about what V. Rey does just because.

(02-22-2016, 03:02 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Tackles aren't the only means of productivity. You are the one obsessed with raw tackle stats. 

Not really obsessed with anything, we just differ on the opinion that someone that has had over 100 tackles every year of thier career and never missed a game has been productive. Once again: I have not advocated signing Baby Animal, not sure where the disconnect is on that.

Just like INTs for a DB, I consider tackles to be an important stat for a LB (espeially a MLB in a 4-3), just as I would consider sacks and stuffs an important stat for D-linemen.

(02-22-2016, 02:58 PM)BobJones4980 Wrote: If production = tackles then lets just stick with V. Rey who is about a year younger, knows our system, will likely be cheaper and had 98 tackles this year. 

No need to sign a guy that will likely bring about what V. Rey does just because.

Yes lets stick with Rey.. who has gotten good ratings and add more depth to this team.. and will be cheaper....  

(02-22-2016, 02:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has never had a season in his career with under 100 tackles. You might be sitting the bar a little high for what you consider productive.

James L has also been able to play thru almost all his injurys.

I think would be a good signing but is a MLB and we have Rey M still...

LB is a position of concern.
We are going to need bodies for the first 3 games at least and I would prefer a vet to doubling down in the draft(I do think they need 1 LB in the draft)

I would have no problem with signing the guy for depth if he cant be a starter here.

From what I'm reading he wants to win so he might come cheap and hes a great locker room guy and leader.
Can never have too many of those.

I'd bring him in for the right price.

THE PRICE IS RIGHT!

(02-20-2016, 11:39 AM)BengalChris Wrote: Hum, he's had more than 100 tackles every year in the league and was drafted the same year as Rey Maualuga. Maualuga has only had 100 tackles once.

In 7 years, Maualuga has had 557 tackles, 4 total sacks, 6 INTs and 19 passes defended.

In 7 years, Laurinaitis has had 852 tackles, 16.5 sacks, 10 INTs and 34 passes defended.

Depending on health he could be an upgrade at the MLB spot.

Neither Laurinaitis or Maualuga are going to play for that many more years. But, from NFL games logs, Laurinaitis has started all 16 games in every one of his 7 years.

Wow, I am getting old. It seems like just yesterday we got Maualuga, and everyone seemed to think he was a steal, we were all looking forward to his beastly presence. I really think his later years have been his best though,important piece in the defense. Laurinitis had to be a cap casualty, and I'd love to have him here.

(02-28-2016, 01:08 PM)Bengalsrob Wrote: Wow, I am getting old. It seems like just yesterday we got Maualuga, and everyone seemed to think he was a steal, we were all looking forward to his beastly presence. I really think his later years have been his best though,important piece in the defense. Laurinitis had to be a cap casualty, and I'd love to have him here.

Its not like we have much depth at LB and recent draft picks have not panned out that well. DiManche and Flowers can't seem to stay healthy.

We've been bring in aging vets the last couple of years to fill a spot. Hawk and what's his name who's back at Pittsburgh.

Laurinaitis would be a decent depth pickup, if the price were right. Maybe Vinnie Rey would be cheaper, maybe not.

In any case, the hate posted in this thread on Laurinaitis is completely undeserved.

(02-29-2016, 09:37 AM)BengalChris Wrote: In any case, the hate posted in this thread on Laurinaitis is completely undeserved.

Is this your first time in a "we should sign ____ " thread? Pretty much any free agent gets this type of treatment.

You can pretty much follow these guidelines:

- If free agent is young and good? Too expensive.
- Old and good? He's washed up.
- Young, good and cheap? He's either a cancer or he's injured too much.
- If he played at Ohio State? Expect bias for and against.

Again, I'm not advocating Laurinaitus, but I don't think he's nearly as bad or washed up as some claim. He's one month older than Maualuga and 3 years younger than AJ Hawk.

(02-29-2016, 02:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Is this your first time in a "we should sign ____ " thread? Pretty much any free agent gets this type of treatment.

You can pretty much follow these guidelines:

- If free agent is young and good? Too expensive.
- Old and good? He's washed up.
- Young, good and cheap? He's either a cancer or he's injured too much.
- If he played at Ohio State? Expect bias for and against.

Again, I'm not advocating Laurinaitus, but I don't think he's nearly as bad or washed up as some claim. He's one month older than Maualuga and 3 years younger than AJ Hawk.

I don't think there's much that going on here. 
Most people against Laurinitis see it for what it is. 
A lateral step at LB. We need to make actual improvements. 

I'm for good FA who bring something to the table we don't already have.  
Not sure what Laurinitis brings that we don't already have. 

(02-29-2016, 02:16 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Is this your first time in a "we should sign ____ " thread? Pretty much any free agent gets this type of treatment.

You can pretty much follow these guidelines:

- If free agent is young and good? Too expensive.
- Old and good? He's washed up.
- Young, good and cheap? He's either a cancer or he's injured too much.
- If he played at Ohio State? Expect bias for and against.

Again, I'm not advocating Laurinaitus, but I don't think he's nearly as bad or washed up as some claim. He's one month older than Maualuga and 3 years younger than AJ Hawk.

There's a bit of an edge to this one though and non-sensical stat twisting. Of course, that's par for the course, I guess.

The Bengals will be interested in him if he comes at a bargain bin price, since he's proven and won't count against the team when it comes to compensatory picks next year. I expect there's more than one team out there in need of a MLB who will pay better than our bargain bin offer. He'd be a depth signing, not a starter, so that would figure in our offer.

I do expect that the team will at least explore the possibility once we find out where we are with our free agents, if he's still available at that point in time. It's a little early to the team with so many free agents needing attention at present.

(02-29-2016, 02:22 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I don't think there's much that going on here. 
Most people against Laurinitis see it for what it is. 
A lateral step at LB. We need to make actual improvements. 

I'm for good FA who bring something to the table we don't already have.  
Not sure what Laurinitis brings that we don't already have. 

I wasn't directing that at you, just speaking in general. I think you really believe in what you're saying. With you I think you're just putting too much stock in his PFF numbers. I have trouble believing that a guy who just turned 29 is completely washed up. Maybe Laurinaitus just wasn't a good fit in Gregg Williams system? Williams took over in 2014 and it sounds like that's when Laurinaitus' decline began.

I think that's more feasible than his skills declining at 27-28 years old.

(02-29-2016, 03:56 PM)BengalChris Wrote: There's a bit of an edge to this one though and non-sensical stat twisting. Of course, that's par for the course, I guess.

The Bengals will be interested in him if he comes at a bargain bin price, since he's proven and won't count against the team when it comes to compensatory picks next year. I expect there's more than one team out there in need of a MLB who will pay better than our bargain bin offer. He'd be a depth signing, not a starter, so that would figure in our offer.

I do expect that the team will at least explore the possibility once we find out where we are with our free agents, if he's still available at that point in time. It's a little early to the team with so many free agents needing attention at present.

I think Laurinaitus would still be an upgrade for many teams, so he's going to be a starter somewhere. I seriously doubt he'd be interested in a depth role.

(02-29-2016, 10:46 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I wasn't directing that at you, just speaking in general. I think you really believe in what you're saying. With you I think you're just putting too much stock in his PFF numbers. I have trouble believing that a guy who just turned 29 is completely washed up. Maybe Laurinaitus just wasn't a good fit in Gregg Williams system? Williams took over in 2014 and it sounds like that's when Laurinaitus' decline began.

I think that's more feasible than his skills declining at 27-28 years old.


I think Laurinaitus would still be an upgrade for many teams, so he's going to be a starter somewhere. I seriously doubt he'd be interested in a depth role.

I wasn't really putting anything into PFF numbers. 

I was putting everything into the tackle stat being overrated, because it is. 

Tackles are like errors in baseball. Subjective to the scorer. 
Talking to some Rams fans, they aren't gonna miss him. 

I don't think he's washed up. I just don't think he was ever really that good. 
He's a volume player. He needs every snap to get his stats. 

(02-20-2016, 12:12 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Stahp with the tackle stats. 

From PFF:
"James Laurinaitis ranked 59/60 at ILB for us this year, & his highest rank since 2011 is 29th. The list of reasons for this is very long..."


"If you think the #Rams made a mistake by cutting him yesterday, you put way too much stock into the NFL's tackle stats."

(03-01-2016, 02:22 AM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I wasn't really putting anything into PFF numbers.

I was putting everything into the tackle stat being overrated, because it is. 

Tackles are like errors in baseball. Subjective to the scorer. 
Talking to some Rams fans, they aren't gonna miss him. 

I don't think he's washed up. I just don't think he was ever really that good. 
He's a volume player. He needs every snap to get his stats. 

I know your overall point is to prove the tackle stat is overrated, but you did use PFF to prove your point. I don't disagree that maybe Laurinaitis is a bit overrated, but we're comparing him to who he'd be replacing. Maualuga. I'm not sure why you think he'd definitely be a SLB here, outside of the fact our coaches seem to love Rey M. 

He's been a MLB in a 4-3 for his entire career and he's the same size as Rey M (255 lbs).

As for the tackle stats and JL needing every snap, I'd be curious to see a numbers comparison for Rey M and JL if you took their 2015 numbers and rounded them up to 1000 snaps. I do know that JL has made far more plays in his career (INTs, sacks, recoveries) and has more tackles, so I'm struggling to see where he wouldn't be at least a slight upgrade.

Again, I'm not a big Laurinaitis fan and I'd much rather we sign Trevathan or even Chris Long in FA. Heck, I could probably compile a list of players I'd rather sign than JL, but I do think he's a solid player. Probably better than Rey M.

(03-01-2016, 01:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I know your overall point is to prove the tackle stat is overrated, but you did use PFF to prove your point. I don't disagree that maybe Laurinaitis is a bit overrated, but we're comparing him to who he'd be replacing. Maualuga. I'm not sure why you think he'd definitely be a SLB here, outside of the fact our coaches seem to love Rey M. 

He's been a MLB in a 4-3 for his entire career and he's the same size as Rey M (255 lbs).

As for the tackle stats and JL needing every snap, I'd be curious to see a numbers comparison for Rey M and JL if you took their 2015 numbers and rounded them up to 1000 snaps. I do know that JL has made far more plays in his career (INTs, sacks, recoveries) and has more tackles, so I'm struggling to see where he wouldn't be at least a slight upgrade.

Again, I'm not a big Laurinaitis fan and I'd much rather we sign Trevathan or even Chris Long in FA. Heck, I could probably compile a list of players I'd rather sign than JL, but I do think he's a solid player. Probably better than Rey M.

One time. I used PFF one time and that's putting too much into it? Oh for ***** sake. 

Because our defense asks our MLB to be tough and stick his nose into the run game. That is not Laurinitis' game at all. Just because they are the same size, doesn't make them the same player. 


Not a big Laurinitis fan but says using one PFF post is "going way too into PFF" okay Shake. 

Sure why not?

We could use some more depth at linebacker.

(03-01-2016, 01:20 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: 1. Because our defense asks our MLB to be tough and stick his nose into the run game. That is not Laurinitis' game at all. Just because they are the same size, doesn't make them the same player. 


2. Not a big Laurinitis fan but says using one PFF post is "going way too into PFF" okay Shake. 

1. Dude is averaging 122 tackles per season. So where do you think those tackles are coming from if he's not sticking his nose in the run game? I'm sure the Rams haven't had him running from contact just to make tackles 8 yards downfield.

2. You don't have to mention PFF 20 times for me to conclude you're putting too much stock into their numbers. You're claiming that Laurinaitus is declining and the only evidence you've posted to support that claim is the PFF numbers.