Porter vs. Roth | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Porter vs. Roth

Decleater

Decleater

Rookie
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
10
I have claimed a few times that Roth was our best LB last year. Of course most disagree and say Porter's 17.5 sacks make the arguement mute. This is actually a pretty important discussion to have right now given Roth's groin condition/illness.

Now a SOLB and a WOLB have completly different responsabilities, however I believe its just as important to judge them by their secondary duties as much as their prime. I would also like to mention Roth's soposed injury last year and transition to Sam don't factor in to my opinion.

Stats(16games):

Porter: tackles(solo) 47(36) Sacks 17 FF 4 Int 0
Roth: tackles(solo) 53(46) Sacks 05 FF 2 Int 0


These stats tell a superficial story. Porter got alot of sacks, while Roth was solid but not spectecalur(compared to others of their position). However if you watched all the games you would know that:

Roth
i) 2/3 of all running plays went away from Roth.
ii) Roth didn't play 3rd down.
iii) Teams had to keep the TE in to block Roth when passing from the I-Form. (San Diego tried, then quickly changed after 1st quarter. All later teams followed suit.)
iv) Only one team was able to game plan against him, (Denver).

Porter
i) was below average against the run even for a Will.
ii) teams game planned the fact, and pounded the ball to the weak side.
iii) disappeared in the last 3 games, including playoffs when it mattered.
iv) would have been 4 games if it wasn't for last minute sack 1 on 1 with a RT. (San Fran showed him no respect at the end of the game)
v) contrary to popular belief, Porter was rarely double teamed.

The biggest point to be made is that teams had to game plan more for Roth's strengths then they did for JP's. Making teams play our game is what led to an 11-5 season, that was won by coaching not talent. Roth was huge in dictating what other teams could do in the running game, and passing with their TE( which frees up Y.Bell or Crowder depending on the play). Miami also knew that most likely every play would go to the weak side. Porter was good in the pass rush but rarely commanded the double team, and was terrible against the run(sucking in R.Hill and Ayodele).

PS-If I wanted to be technical and make this a slam dunk... the majority of Porter's sack came out of Nickle and Dime, where you could call him a RE not a WOLB:pop:I have more but that is good for now.
 
If anyone is curious as to how Denver game planned against Roth... they used a quick, and sure handed FB that fooled Bell and Roth in play action. Scorched Miami for alot of yards, (mostly beat the system not the players). Shows you again it is all in the system and personnel u have when you implement a gameplan. Might have worked but Cutler's picfest early gave Miami the breathing room it needed.
 
Decleater said:
I have claimed a few times that Roth was our best LB last year. Of course most disagree and say Porter's 17.5 sacks make the arguement mute. This is actually a pretty important discussion to have right now given Roth's groin condition/illness.

Now a SOLB and a WOLB have completly different responsabilities, however I believe its just as important to judge them by their secondary duties as much as their prime. I would also like to mention Roth's soposed injury last year and transition to Sam don't factor in to my opinion.

Stats(16games):

Porter: tackles(solo) 47(36) Sacks 17 FF 4 Int 0
Roth: tackles(solo) 53(46) Sacks 05 FF 2 Int 0


These stats tell a superficial story. Porter got alot of sacks, while Roth was solid but not spectecalur(compared to others of their position). However if you watched all the games you would know that:

Roth
i) 2/3 of all running plays went away from Roth.
ii) Roth didn't play 3rd down.
iii) Teams had to keep the TE in to block Roth when passing from the I-Form. (San Diego tried, then quickly changed after 1st quarter. All later teams followed suit.)
iv) Only one team was able to game plan against him, (Denver).

Porter
i) was below average against the run even for a Will.
ii) teams game planned the fact, and pounded the ball to the weak side.
iii) disappeared in the last 3 games, including playoffs when it mattered.
iv) would have been 4 games if it wasn't for last minute sack 1 on 1 with a RT. (San Fran showed him no respect at the end of the game)
v) contrary to popular belief, Porter was rarely double teamed.

The biggest point to be made is that teams had to game plan more for Roth's strengths then they did for JP's. Making teams play our game is what led to an 11-5 season, that was won by coaching not talent. Roth was huge in dictating what other teams could do in the running game, and passing with their TE( which frees up Y.Bell or Crowder depending on the play). Miami also knew that most likely every play would go to the weak side. Porter was good in the pass rush but rarely commanded the double team, and was terrible against the run(sucking in R.Hill and Ayodele).

PS-If I wanted to be technical and make this a slam dunk... the majority of Porter's sack came out of Nickle and Dime, where you could call him a RE not a WOLB:pop:I have more but that is good for now.
Click to expand...
Those are some really good points. I knew Porter was pretty one-dimensional, but I never really broke it down like that.
 
I thoroughly watched one game this season; the KC game. Only because it was replayed on the NFL network. When I watch the game live im very into it but I can't break it down obviously.

From what I saw from Roth I was impressed. More than once he made key plays against Larry Johnson.
 
Just curious how you know what the other teams game plans were... I am sure that in any preperation the opposite teams game plan for both positions and personel...

There is validity to the idea that teams would run to porters side before Roths. Roth is much better at defending the run then Porter, whereas Porter is a better pass rusher. So essentially you are comparing apples to oranges.
 
Let's not forget that while teams game-planned to run at Porter because of Roth's superior run-stopping ability, team's also game-planned to roll pass protection Porter's way. Yes, Porter was weak against the run and was often one dimensional, but his pass-rushing ability is arguably as important to Miami's defense as was Roth's edge-setting ability. I don't know if it really matters much in comparing the two linebackers as both were critical to Miami's defensive success (although the OP did a good job breaking down the two).

Also worth noting is that the 3-4 defense is by nature designed to stop the run. With a good run-stopping safety like Bell, and a tackling machine in Channing Crowder, Miami had a number of players that could help stop the run (if hypothetically speaking Roth were not playing). However, who on the defense was actually capable of providing strong pressure on opposing QBs? Roth only could get after the QB when matched up with TE's or smaller backs that he was able to easily bullrush right through. Crowder, Ayodele, Langford, and Merling were not consistent in passrush. Starks may have been the only other player besides Porter to regularly get pressure on the QB, and even then Starks is NOT a close second in this contest.

Because the 3-4 is naturally strong against the run and weak against the pass, it can be argued that a pass-rushing OLB like Porter is more valuable to the defense than a single edge-setting OLB. I'm a big fan of both Porter and Roth, but JP was, IMHO, our best linebacker last year (particularly in playmaking and pressure aspects of the game).
 
IMO porter is only one thing behind Roth and that is stopping the run other then that i think he is the best OLB we have right now
 
redclamcrowder said:
Let's not forget that while teams game-planned to run at Porter because of Roth's superior run-stopping ability, team's also game-planned to roll pass protection Porter's way. Yes, Porter was weak against the run and was often one dimensional, but his pass-rushing ability is arguably as important to Miami's defense as was Roth's edge-setting ability. I don't know if it really matters much in comparing the two linebackers as both were critical to Miami's defensive success (although the OP did a good job breaking down the two).

Also worth noting is that the 3-4 defense is by nature designed to stop the run. With a good run-stopping safety like Bell, and a tackling machine in Channing Crowder, Miami had a number of players that could help stop the run (if hypothetically speaking Roth were not playing). However, who on the defense was actually capable of providing strong pressure on opposing QBs? Roth only could get after the QB when matched up with TE's or smaller backs that he was able to easily bullrush right through. Crowder, Ayodele, Langford, and Merling were not consistent in passrush. Starks may have been the only other player besides Porter to regularly get pressure on the QB, and even then Starks is NOT a close second in this contest.

Because the 3-4 is naturally strong against the run and weak against the pass, it can be argued that a pass-rushing OLB like Porter is more valuable to the defense than a single edge-setting OLB. I'm a big fan of both Porter and Roth, but JP was, IMHO, our best linebacker last year (particularly in playmaking and pressure aspects of the game).
Click to expand...

Good points. Basically we have to achieve some type of happy medium between a playmaker who is not solid in the fundamentals of run-stuffing and a OLB who is good vs. run, not on the field on 3rd, and is not going to make as many impact plays. If teams are going to run at Porter a safety needs to help. It will also help with Crowder was more decisive in diagnosing the play and not a step too late. Once that hurdle is overcome our LBs corps is top 5.

Back to Roth and Porter it also comes down as noted in this thread how the other team can take advantage and implement their system vs. ours. Every D has their weaknesses. A DC has to disguise the weaknesses and put pressure on the qb to force the issue. IMHO Roth will not be a pass rushing threat as much as Porter is not a do everything LB.

But, someone has to get to the qb in order to force the opposing O to become predictable with both the run and pass. This team needs them both and figure out ways to minimize the damage when there are runs to Porter side and the fact there is not going to be consistent pass rush from Roth. Also, the DL is part of this equation as they are not off the hook. 3-4, 4-3 regardless of D the DL needs to contain, penetrate, and slam the creasus shut to free up the LBs to do damage (ala Porter to become sack machine).
 
petefins said:
I stopped reading after that..

Quit thinking so much. Roth is no Zach Thomas.
Click to expand...

Yep, better enjoy Roth while he's here. Probably won't be around but a couple years.
 
Redclamchowder wrote,

Also worth noting is that the 3-4 defense is by nature designed to stop the run. With a good run-stopping safety like Bell, and a tackling machine in Channing Crowder, Miami had a number of players that could help stop the run
Click to expand...

All defences are designed to stop the run. Some argue the "4-3 under" that the Vikings use is the best against it. The idea behind the 3-4 is that it offers flexibility, and is most praised for its ability to rush the passer, not stuff the RB. Really it comes down to the people u have and how you use them. Pittsburgs 3-4 and Minnesota's 4-3 do great against the run. Clevelands 3-4 and Detroits 4-3 not so much.
 
Decleater said:
Redclamchowder wrote,



All defences are designed to stop the run. Some argue the "4-3 under" that the Vikings use is the best against it. The idea behind the 3-4 is that it offers flexibility, and is most praised for its ability to rush the passer, not stuff the RB. Really it comes down to the people u have and how you use them. Pittsburgs 3-4 and Minnesota's 4-3 do great against the run. Clevelands 3-4 and Detroits 4-3 not so much.
Click to expand...

You're comparing Minnesota's 4-3 as if it is the typical 4-3 run around the league. Minnesota's defense is only so good at stopping the run largely because of the Williams' duo in the interior of that line. Compared with other 4-3 defenses that run the Tampa 2 (Chicago, Indy) or attacking 4-3 defenses such as those run in Philadelphia and New York (G-men), Minny's 4-3 looks superior against the run, but it is largely effective because of the personel in it. Most 4-3 defenses are designed to be a jack-of-all-trades and be a happy medium to defend MOST offenses. Usually if a 4-3 excels at stopping the run, it is because the D-coordinator likes to run blitz often OR they possess a stoudt front 4 (with good tacklers at LB) as you see with a team like Minnesota.

3-4 defenses are natural run stoppers. From large space-eating monsters up front to oversized 'backers roaming the field, this defense is most effective at stopping the run AND disguising pass rush (but not at actually defending the pass, which is a different aspect all-together). Most of the 3-4 defenses that are not effective run stoppers are this way because they are either in a defensive transition (ex. new coaching regime changes to 3-4 after being a different type of defense prior) or they lack proper personel.

Of course ALL defenses were designed to stop the run, but not all excel at doing this task. I was merely stating the 3-4 was designed to be most effective at stopping the run WHILE allowing flexibility in pass rush (but just because pass rush is flexible and disguiseable does NOT mean this formation is good against the pass).
 
Red, for once I am not trying to be a jerk, but you are wrong. The NFL today is about packages and matchups, and this is what dictates schemes. The 4-3 is a more man on man(1 gap) defence, where a 3-4 is a thinking man's(2 gap) defence. Both are designed to stop the run/pass, not either/or. They both attack and defend in different ways, but one isn't more against the run/pass then the other. Most people say that the 3/4 is vulnerable up the middle, and the 4-3 outside. Again it isnt exclusive. If I am wrong tell me why.
 
cali wrote,

Just curious how you know what the other teams game plans were... I am sure that in any preperation the opposite teams game plan for both positions and personel...

There is validity to the idea that teams would run to porters side before Roths. Roth is much better at defending the run then Porter, whereas Porter is a better pass rusher. So essentially you are comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

Teams like to run to their strong side since like ever:wink:. If u watched the games, and I am sure you have, you know that wasn't what teams were doing by weak 5. Roth( and sparano's game plan) earned the respect of oposing coaches, and they adjusted. What was so terrible was that week after week Miami saw the rush coming to the weak side and they lost the battle, and it led to alot of short 3rd downs. This wasn't just Porter's fault, it was Holliday's and lastly Ayodele's. Apples and oranges is right, only the orange had a little apple in him, and the apple was just an apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom