Does anyone else think LB's are unnecessary?

[sois]

First of all, I'd like to say I never played football past 9th grade and also I never played defense. I apologize.

Secondly, I am speaking in video game terms. It seems DB's do a well enough job making tackles. I guess I've never really seen the benefit of having LB's. They can't usually hang with RB's. They are usually weaker than TE's and OL. In the football climate today with everyone running the spread, are LB's going to be extinct?

I just don't see the point of having a slow big guy out there when guys are zooming around. Do they really help that much? Wouldn't it be better to have safeties out there rather than LB's?

Thanks for helping a football ****** out.

[jaxpac]

I would say that you always want the best matchups on defence. So against 5 wide or something you wouldn't have too much use for a linebacker. And the current trend for many teams in the NFL is to have smaller, more safety-like, linebackers.

But consider that some of the best pash rushers are linebackers. You would always want these guys around to rush the quarterback. Some linebackers are good in coverage and can cover a short zone or man up with a back or TE. And some are good at stopping the running game, which is the traditional role of the linebacker.

If you take a typical 210 pound safety vs. a 240 pound LB then if you had all safeties, you would be pretty vulnerable to a power running game. It is easier to block a safety and move him backwards. And easier for a back to drive a safety back for extra yards.

So I would say linebackers are more or less useful depending on the situation. And that in certain situations you need the traditional big LBs on the field. Also, one of the main advantages of having LBs on the field is that they are versatile and can blitz or cover in order to keep the offence guessing.

[Cebby]

In videogame terms, you're correct. This makes up the "Quarter defense is the best defense" theory.