Instead of seeing what this writer is telling you to see in these plays, think about what you are not seeing. I don't have the time to do a huge write up so I'll just pull out two examples.
First, the top play: JL has a clear lane to take down the RB but doesn't. We're told the reason is because JL sucks, but the real reason is because his role was not the play-maker in that defense. JL's job was to let the other guys on the field make the plays and for him to be the safety net in case they didn't.
Personally, I hated this concept. I think the MLB should be the playmaker, not the support player. I'm of the "see ball get ball" killer instinct school for linebackers. But that's what JL was told to do, and a defense works because the people commit to the team, not play like individuals.
GW's role for JL was for him to be conservative and hold the line instead of charge in aggressively. Why? One reason was to not create cut back lanes. So while it looks like JL sucks on this play, he's obeying his role and in fact the RB cuts back exactly as the defense should be prepared for will happen.
Unfortunately, it's not. Donald -- and I know this is blasphemy to utter -- gives too much ground, but he's facing three blockers so it's understandable. The real problem in this play is Ayers. He totally overlaps Donald and opens his lane instead of maintaining gap discipline. And shocker that's where the RB goes.
It is understandable that people see JL unblocked with a path to the RB and cry that it's his fault. After all Kuechly would have knifed in and stuck the guy in a heartbeat! But this isn't the same defense scheme and that wasn't JL's role. Me, personally, would always want a Kuechly. I want an unblocked MLB to explode to the ball and stuff that thing with a huge collision, but that simply was not JL's orders.
We know this because if he was supposed to be a "normal" MLB, we would have seen JL trying to do those kind of Kuechly plays but flailing and missing a lot due to his diminished skills. But how many times did we see JL knife a gap and whiff and stand there empty-handed in the backfield for all the world to see? If he simply sucked, that's what we would have seen over and over.
Clearly, he was instructed not to take aggressive risk and play the conservative way shown in the examples. I disagree with it, but I see why GW wanted it because it allowed the superior DL talent and the other less-disciplined LBs (Barron) to be the aggressive, attacking risk-takers and play makers. You can't just "bloody Sunday" and have all 11 guys blitz every down, someone has to stay back to prevent the big play and be there to cover when others whiff, and that was JL's role for the front 7.
Another example of the writer being clueless is his first Ogletree example. The writer swoons over AO's aggressiveness while totally not seeing AO is aligned on the line of scrimmage running a stunt with Donald. He's misinterpreting scheme design for individual tenacity. Again, the point isn't I disagree -- AO is indeed tenacious, aggressive and fast -- it's that the example is trying to show something that's not true of that particular play.
TL;dr-- it is totally agreed that JL had a terrible year and should have made more plays than he did, but it is also totally clear that his role was defined towards lending that impression. Criticism of JL is totally warranted but needs to be done while understanding his job in the scheme, not just superficially showing a play and saying he sucks for reasons that aren't true. Maybe the reason JL was asked to play this role is due to his diminished skills. Hopefully now GW has a more athletic and tenacious MLB that can be more of the role I would expect an MLB to perform.