Time to part ways with Rivers.

[THE PISTONS]

Originally Posted by JohnHenry

Let’s find out exactly where we disagree…

Keep in mind, comparing Brooks’ numbers to Rivers’ is not absolutely practical simply because Brooks has played in many more games.



Anyway, here’s a summary of my post:

In general:
1. I used Brooks as a benchmark because he was certainly one of the best 4-3 WLBs in history. So for those that want to run him out of town, Brooks can provide a basis for your decision.
2. I defined the WLBs role in Cincinnati and Tampa Bays’ system (both use a 4-3 defense with under-shifted fronts.) In short, the WLBs job is to make tackles.

Do we disagree here?


In Rivers Favor:
1. Rivers per start tackle numbers are definitely less than Brooks but not completely awful in comparison. Again, I fully understand that Rivers’ data set is small when compared to Brooks.
2. Brooks didn’t have a lot of sacks and neither does Rivers. The point was to show that WLBs in 4-3 defenses typically don’t have a lot of sacks.
3. Rivers is very gifted athletically.

Do we disagree here?


Not in Rivers favor
1. I stated that Rivers won’t be mentioned for any All-Pro teams anytime soon.
2. I stated that Rivers problem is that he’s injured too often which can’t be tolerated too long.
3. I stated that compared to Howard, Rivers seems to play with less emotion and isn’t an “enforcer” like he needs to be - has no “Wow” factor to his game.
4. When compared to Howard, Rivers has no edge when it comes to athleticism.

Do we disagree here?


Regarding his draft position
1. I believe the 9th pick in the draft is too high for a WLB in a 4-3 under-shifted front.

Do we disagree here?


In short, I don’t agree with the OP. I don’t think it’s time to part ways with Rivers. I think he and Howard should battle it out in training camp for the starter role, while the other is kept for depth.

Do we disagree here?

Basically all you have to say is that even elite WLB don't have a lot of sacks...look at Lance Briggs also.

Rivers also has a decent amount of Tackles. He's not an All-Pro by any means, but he's solid.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by GreenDragon

I think as soon as he's cleared, it's time to part ways with Keith Rivers. There have to be other teams that would be interested in a possible trade. Maybe a late round draft pick or two.

Alot of Rivers haters on here it seems....alot of get rid of Rivers threads....

Myself, I see no hurry in getting rid of this top draft pick.....Some want Rey cut....Some want Rivers cut.....Some want Dalton cut.....nothing new.....same old, same old every year......I say have him in training camp this year and preseason.....In the past, threads would be started about a 3-4 defense. Well, sometimes we didn't even have 4 linebackers when these threads hit the boards....Rivers gives us depth for injuries if nothing else, and he could be a special teams guy. Don't rule out him developing into the veteran we hoped when he was drafted....If Zimmer would ever want to use some 3-4 to mix in with the 4-3, Rivers could help.....Rivers could still end up a starting LB for us.

For those trying to save Mike Brown some money, I say cry not for he of way below the salary cap.

I see no hurry to get rid of Rivers. He is still young and if healthy, he may really become a good player.

I certainly wouldn't get a rise out of trading for a late round draft pick.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by JohnHenry

Lets find out exactly where we disagree

Keep in mind, comparing Brooks numbers to Rivers is not absolutely practical simply because Brooks has played in many more games.



Anyway, heres a summary of my post:

In general:
1. I used Brooks as a benchmark because he was certainly one of the best 4-3 WLBs in history. So for those that want to run him out of town, Brooks can provide a basis for your decision.
2. I defined the WLBs role in Cincinnati and Tampa Bays system (both use a 4-3 defense with under-shifted fronts.) In short, the WLBs job is to make tackles.

Do we disagree here?


In Rivers Favor:
1. Rivers per start tackle numbers are definitely less than Brooks but not completely awful in comparison. Again, I fully understand that Rivers data set is small when compared to Brooks.
2. Brooks didnt have a lot of sacks and neither does Rivers. The point was to show that WLBs in 4-3 defenses typically dont have a lot of sacks.
3. Rivers is very gifted athletically.

Do we disagree here?


Not in Rivers favor
1. I stated that Rivers wont be mentioned for any All-Pro teams anytime soon.
2. I stated that Rivers problem is that hes injured too often which cant be tolerated too long.
3. I stated that compared to Howard, Rivers seems to play with less emotion and isnt an enforcer like he needs to be - has no Wow factor to his game.
4. When compared to Howard, Rivers has no edge when it comes to athleticism.

Do we disagree here?


Regarding his draft position
1. I believe the 9th pick in the draft is too high for a WLB in a 4-3 under-shifted front.

Do we disagree here?


In short, I dont agree with the OP. I dont think its time to part ways with Rivers. I think he and Howard should battle it out in training camp for the starter role, while the other is kept for depth.

Do we disagree here?

Well when you put it that way, I guess we're not that far apart. I wouldn't be terribly upset if they gave Rivers a chance in camp, but I would be absolutely stunned if Rivers took the job from Howard. I do think it was silly to compare a future hall of famer to Rivers.

You say Brooks played longer, but if you average those numbers to 16 games, he still smokes Rivers in every category other than sacks. You say that the per game tackle difference wasn't substantial, but actually it was. Brooks averaged about 2 tackles more per game, which comes out to 32 tackles per season.

[JohnHenry]

Originally Posted by THE PISTONS

Basically all you have to say is that even elite WLB don't have a lot of sacks...look at Lance Briggs also.

Rivers also has a decent amount of Tackles. He's not an All-Pro by any means, but he's solid.

In a round-about way that’s what I was really trying to say by comparing him to Brooks.

WLBs that play in similar schemes won’t have a lot of sacks but they should have a lot of tackles.

Anyway, for my money Howard is better than Rivers largely because Zimmer has determined that Howard is a 3-down player and Rivers isn’t, and because Howard is more durable.
And personally I think Howards got a little more swagger to his game than Rivers.


But to address the OP – simply cutting Rivers loose now makes no sense at all.
I mean what’s the point?
His salary isn’t breaking the bank and injuries happen all of the time.

One other thing - I think the starters job is Howards to lose.

[JohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

Well when you put it that way, I guess we're not that far apart. I wouldn't be terribly upset if they gave Rivers a chance in camp, but I would be absolutely stunned if Rivers took the job from Howard. I do think it was silly to compare a future hall of famer to Rivers.

You say Brooks played longer, but if you average those numbers to 16 games, he still smokes Rivers in every category other than sacks. You say that the per game tackle difference wasn't substantial, but actually it was. Brooks averaged about 2 tackles more per game, which comes out to 32 tackles per season.

Very few WLBs in 4-3 schemes that run under-shifted fronts will compare favorably to Brooks, and Rivers is no exception - which was part of my point.

I wrote that “Rivers per start tackle numbers are definitely less than Brooks but not completely awful in comparison.”
And, I qualified all stats by writing that you can’t absolutely compare the two because of the longevity of Brooks.

I didn’t write that Rivers numbers completely s u c k because they don’t.
Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

My major point was – Rivers stats aren’t reason enough to cut him loose now, which was the question that the OP posed.
IMO, some people seem to have an unreal expectation for him without truly considering what his stats should be given the position plays and the scheme he plays in.
So, comparing him to Brooks wasn’t silly, it was simply done for comparison’s sake.

[D.Boon]

A Rivers thread with no Truck? this doesnt seem right....

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by JohnHenry

Very few WLBs in 4-3 schemes that run under-shifted fronts will compare favorably to Brooks, and Rivers is no exception - which was part of my point.

I wrote that Rivers per start tackle numbers are definitely less than Brooks but not completely awful in comparison.
And, I qualified all stats by writing that you cant absolutely compare the two because of the longevity of Brooks.

I didnt write that Rivers numbers completely s u c k because they dont.
Not sure how much clearer I can make it.

My major point was  Rivers stats arent reason enough to cut him loose now, which was the question that the OP posed.
IMO, some people seem to have an unreal expectation for him without truly considering what his stats should be given the position plays and the scheme he plays in.
So, comparing him to Brooks wasnt silly, it was simply done for comparisons sake.

We don't have to compare him to Brooks. Compare him to Thomas Howard, who had a mediocre career in Oakland, then came here and in his first season was a clear upgrade over Rivers. If Rivers can be outperformed by a mid-level talent like Howard, what does that say about him?

[TrojanPride]

Even if we were just to use him in the Brandon Johnson role he would get a lot of snaps. Zimmer has been rotating lb's for a while now so I don't see the point in cutting him now. Johnson made $1.8 million last year, rivers is due $2.15 this year. Not a big difference. It's not like mike needs the money to sign someone else he's not even close to the cap

[JohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

We don't have to compare him to Brooks. Compare him to Thomas Howard, who had a mediocre career in Oakland, then came here and in his first season was a clear upgrade over Rivers. If Rivers can be outperformed by a mid-level talent like Howard, what does that say about him?

Shake…

It’s actually extremely useful comparing him to Brooks… Let me explain.

If I said to you Howard has 5 sacks in 6 seasons, and Rivers has 2 sacks in 3 seasons, what would this tell you about the two player’s ability to get sacks?
IMO, one could conclude that they both s u c k, or they’re both great, or they’re both doing fine in this area.
In other words, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn.

However, if I say to you that Derrick Brooks who was an11x Pro-Bowler, 9x All-Pro, NFL linebacker of the year, Defensive player of the year, and named to the all 2000s team,
had 13 ½ sacks in his 14 year career, what would that tell you about Rivers and Howard’s ability to get sacks?

It would tell me that they’re both doing a fine job to this point in the sack department.

Do you see how comparing Rivers or Howard to Brooks allows for a definitive conclusion regarding this particular stat?

See - pretty useful huh?


Remember, my 1st post in the thread began with… “Not sure what people are looking for out of Rivers.”

I gave Brooks’ stats to show the stats of an elite player who played the same position - to provide a measuring stick, to give a point of reference - Nothing more, nothing less.

In the end it showed that Rivers probably isn’t as horribly as many believe and it’s probably not a good time to “part ways” with him as the OP suggested.

[BigPapaKain]

Why all the love for Muckelroy but all the hate for Rivers?

Someone PLEASE explain this to me, because for me it seems really stupid.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by JohnHenry

Let’s find out exactly where we disagree…

Keep in mind, comparing Brooks’ numbers to Rivers’ is not absolutely practical simply because Brooks has played in many more games.



Anyway, here’s a summary of my post:

In general:
1. I used Brooks as a benchmark because he was certainly one of the best 4-3 WLBs in history. So for those that want to run him out of town, Brooks can provide a basis for your decision.
2. I defined the WLBs role in Cincinnati and Tampa Bays’ system (both use a 4-3 defense with under-shifted fronts.) In short, the WLBs job is to make tackles.

Do we disagree here?


In Rivers Favor:
1. Rivers per start tackle numbers are definitely less than Brooks but not completely awful in comparison. Again, I fully understand that Rivers’ data set is small when compared to Brooks.
2. Brooks didn’t have a lot of sacks and neither does Rivers. The point was to show that WLBs in 4-3 defenses typically don’t have a lot of sacks.
3. Rivers is very gifted athletically.

Do we disagree here?


Not in Rivers favor
1. I stated that Rivers won’t be mentioned for any All-Pro teams anytime soon.
2. I stated that Rivers problem is that he’s injured too often which can’t be tolerated too long.
3. I stated that compared to Howard, Rivers seems to play with less emotion and isn’t an “enforcer” like he needs to be - has no “Wow” factor to his game.
4. When compared to Howard, Rivers has no edge when it comes to athleticism.

Do we disagree here?


Regarding his draft position
1. I believe the 9th pick in the draft is too high for a WLB in a 4-3 under-shifted front.

Do we disagree here?


In short, I don’t agree with the OP. I don’t think it’s time to part ways with Rivers. I think he and Howard should battle it out in training camp for the starter role, while the other is kept for depth.

Do we disagree here?

JH knows what he's talking about.

We disagree on a lot in this argument, but we agree on the main thing; keep both and use both in the BJ/Keith role like we have been doing since our D has had its best stretch, well, ever.

We had an incredibly long and drawn out debate about this back in January, can't find the thread, but when it comes to numbers and everything, its ALL there.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by D.Boon

A Rivers thread with no Truck? this doesnt seem right....

Exam time, and girlfriend.

I got here late

[ishouldbegm]

rivers to the eagles for mike kafka and a 5th round pick get a young qb to backup dalton and grad

[Lolli]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

He may not have lived up to his draft status, but he is not a bust. His a starting quality OLB. It would be crazy to just cut him.

^^^^ / thread

[bludgeon]

why would you....never mind. a nonsense-ical thread does not necessitate a serious answer.


Rivers is a solid linebacker when he's healthy. See what he can do in the pre-season, and if we don't need him, trade him. You wouldn't ever just cut a guy with his talent level.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by JohnHenry

Shake

Its actually extremely useful comparing him to Brooks Let me explain.

If I said to you Howard has 5 sacks in 6 seasons, and Rivers has 2 sacks in 3 seasons, what would this tell you about the two players ability to get sacks?
IMO, one could conclude that they both s u c k, or theyre both great, or theyre both doing fine in this area.
In other words, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn.

However, if I say to you that Derrick Brooks who was an11x Pro-Bowler, 9x All-Pro, NFL linebacker of the year, Defensive player of the year, and named to the all 2000s team,
had 13 ½ sacks in his 14 year career, what would that tell you about Rivers and Howards ability to get sacks?

It would tell me that theyre both doing a fine job to this point in the sack department.

Do you see how comparing Rivers or Howard to Brooks allows for a definitive conclusion regarding this particular stat?

See - pretty useful huh?


Remember, my 1st post in the thread began with Not sure what people are looking for out of Rivers.

I gave Brooks stats to show the stats of an elite player who played the same position - to provide a measuring stick, to give a point of reference - Nothing more, nothing less.

In the end it showed that Rivers probably isnt as horribly as many believe and its probably not a good time to part ways with him as the OP suggested.

I get why you brought up Brooks. I totally understand, but you keep focusing in on sacks. Brooks and Howard (whichever you want to use for a comparison) both beat Rivers in tackles, and Brooks averaged around 2-3 picks per season. Not only is Rivers not a playmaker (not just counting sacks here), he just doesn't rack up the tackle numbers.

I'm sort of ok with keeping him around in Brandon's old role, but who knows if he will be ok with a reduced role. Rivers seems like a nice guy (maybe too nice for a backer), but who knows how he will react behind the scenes. Maybe he will be a distraction. If we can get similar production from just about any other LB, then why not move on?

[BengalsIronMan]

Originally Posted by GreenDragon

I think as soon as he's cleared, it's time to part ways with Keith Rivers. There have to be other teams that would be interested in a possible trade. Maybe a late round draft pick or two.

Completely disagree. Rivers is a quiet contributor when healthy. May not be a flashy LB, may not be that great, but he is serviceable

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

I get why you brought up Brooks. I totally understand, but you keep focusing in on sacks. Brooks and Howard (whichever you want to use for a comparison) both beat Rivers in tackles, and Brooks averaged around 2-3 picks per season. Not only is Rivers not a playmaker (not just counting sacks here), he just doesn't rack up the tackle numbers.

I'm sort of ok with keeping him around in Brandon's old role, but who knows if he will be ok with a reduced role. Rivers seems like a nice guy (maybe too nice for a backer), but who knows how he will react behind the scenes. Maybe he will be a distraction. If we can get similar production from just about any other LB, then why not move on?

See but now, he gets MORE TACKLES PER SNAP than Howard, or BJ, or dare I say, even Brooks does.

The problem is him leaving on third down, which he shouldn't.

Can;t point to raw stats when there's a discrepancy in playing time, you can't.

[BengalsIronMan]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

See but now, he gets MORE TACKLES PER SNAP than Howard, or BJ, or dare I say, even Brooks does.

The problem is him leaving on third down, which he shouldn't.

Can;t point to raw stats when there's a discrepancy in playing time, you can't.

Gotta agree with Truck here

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by Truck_1_0_1_

See but now, he gets MORE TACKLES PER SNAP than Howard, or BJ, or dare I say, even Brooks does.

The problem is him leaving on third down, which he shouldn't.

Can;t point to raw stats when there's a discrepancy in playing time, you can't.

Also can't point to tackles at all unless we delve into how many of those tackles were good or impacted games. Sometimes you don't need a magnifying glass to see things. Howard will start this year. You can mark that down. Derrick Brooks was 100 times the backer that Rivers is. You can also write that down.

If Rivers had any potential beyond what we have seen (which isn't much) he would be starting in 2012. He won't be because the coaching staff is aware that the defense was better with Howard. Maybe you should email the coaches and let them know.that PFF says that Rivers is better. I somehow doubt they'll care.

[RumbleCat]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

Also can't point to tackles at all unless we delve into how many of those tackles were good or impacted games. Sometimes you don't need a magnifying glass to see things. Howard will start this year. You can mark that down. Derrick Brooks was 100 times the backer that Rivers is. You can also write that down.

If Rivers had any potential beyond what we have seen (which isn't much) he would be starting in 2012. He won't be because the coaching staff is aware that the defense was better with Howard. Maybe you should email the coaches and let them know.that PFF says that Rivers is better. I somehow doubt they'll care.

Help me out here, who is Keith Rivers?

[7sLefty]

Originally Posted by RumbleCat

Help me out here, who is Keith Rivers?

I totally agree....as bad as it sounds i had completely forgot about rivers all together.....it's unfortunate that his injuries have kept him off the field...but it's the name of the game....you have to be on the field to make a difference..plus i was never high on taking him as a top 10 pick a few hrs back.....I think for being such a physical specimen....he is soft

[JohnHenry]

Originally Posted by Shake n Blake

I get why you brought up Brooks. I totally understand, but you keep focusing in on sacks. Brooks and Howard (whichever you want to use for a comparison) both beat Rivers in tackles, and Brooks averaged around 2-3 picks per season. Not only is Rivers not a playmaker (not just counting sacks here), he just doesn't rack up the tackle numbers.

I'm sort of ok with keeping him around in Brandon's old role, but who knows if he will be ok with a reduced role. Rivers seems like a nice guy (maybe too nice for a backer), but who knows how he will react behind the scenes. Maybe he will be a distraction. If we can get similar production from just about any other LB, then why not move on?

Shake,

I don’t believe we’re engaged in the same argument...

Your posts seem to be focused on the “Rivers vs. Howard” debate.

My posts are focused on the “Rivers vs. get-rid-of-him” debate. (This was what the OP suggested)

So, I’ve concluded that we’re not really responding to the same thing.


All I was trying to convey is that now is not the time to “part ways” with Rivers as the OP suggested – nothing more, nothing less.
It would make no sense to do so and oh-by-the-way, Rivers probably isn’t as horrible as many seem to think – that was the purpose of bringing Brooks into it.
Rivers draft position and initial contract are irrelevant now because money has no memory.
His current contract won’t break the bank and he’s actually capable of bringing value to the situation if he can elevate his game
– only time will tell but at this point it’s certainly worth the risk.
So, as you can see, Howard really had nothing to do with the debate.


But since you brought it up…

I prefer Howard. Largely because he plays on all three downs, is more durable, and seems to have a little swagger to his game.
Again, tackling a guy is one thing and knocking him on his A S S is another.
And Rivers, more so than Howard, needs to add that component to his game.
Linebackers usually come down hill and have a chance to make a statement when tackling, which is a very important part of the game.


Also, just to respond to one part of your post:

I’m certain Howard would be put in Brandon Johnson’s old role, not Rivers - simply because Rivers doesn’t play on 3rd down.
Howard – 1st, 2nd, 3rd down
Rivers – 1st, 2nd down / B. Johnson 3rd down
Apparently, Zimmer believes that Howard is better than Johnson in coverage, and Johnson is better than Rivers.
So the likely scenario, if Rivers wins the starting job, would be for Rivers to play on 1st and 2nd down while Howard would relieve him on 3rd down.
And in this case, I’m not sure where that leaves Brandon Johnson.

[Shake n Blake]

Originally Posted by Boomerdaulton21

I totally agree....as bad as it sounds i had completely forgot about rivers all together.....it's unfortunate that his injuries have kept him off the field...but it's the name of the game....you have to be on the field to make a difference..plus i was never high on taking him as a top 10 pick a few hrs back.....I think for being such a physical specimen....he is soft

That's why I said Rivers is too nice. He is soft. Honestly, I hated the Rivers pick. I wanted Sedrick Ellis, but we wouldn't trade up when it was obvious someone was about to leapfrog us to pick him.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Originally Posted by JohnHenry

Shake,

I don’t believe we’re engaged in the same argument...

Your posts seem to be focused on the “Rivers vs. Howard” debate.

My posts are focused on the “Rivers vs. get-rid-of-him” debate. (This was what the OP suggested)

So, I’ve concluded that we’re not really responding to the same thing.


All I was trying to convey is that now is not the time to “part ways” with Rivers as the OP suggested – nothing more, nothing less.
It would make no sense to do so and oh-by-the-way, Rivers probably isn’t as horrible as many seem to think – that was the purpose of bringing Brooks into it.
Rivers draft position and initial contract are irrelevant now because money has no memory.
His current contract won’t break the bank and he’s actually capable of bringing value to the situation if he can elevate his game
– only time will tell but at this point it’s certainly worth the risk.
So, as you can see, Howard really had nothing to do with the debate.


But since you brought it up…

I prefer Howard. Largely because he plays on all three downs, is more durable, and seems to have a little swagger to his game.
Again, tackling a guy is one thing and knocking him on his A S S is another.
And Rivers, more so than Howard, needs to add that component to his game.
Linebackers usually come down hill and have a chance to make a statement when tackling, which is a very important part of the game.


Also, just to respond to one part of your post:

I’m certain Howard would be put in Brandon Johnson’s old role, not Rivers - simply because Rivers doesn’t play on 3rd down.
Howard – 1st, 2nd, 3rd down
Rivers – 1st, 2nd down / B. Johnson 3rd down
Apparently, Zimmer believes that Howard is better than Johnson in coverage, and Johnson is better than Rivers.
So the likely scenario, if Rivers wins the starting job, would be for Rivers to play on 1st and 2nd down while Howard would relieve him on 3rd down.
And in this case, I’m not sure where that leaves Brandon Johnson.

You and I both know (not just because of the numbers I posted) that Keith is better than BJ in coverage.

Shake, you don't know who's going to start anymore than I do.