Pats defense set? - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

***Box_O_Rocks*** · 08-26-2009, 04:13 PM

Campbell the comedian - Redskins 360 - Washington Times

Quote:

Asked about going against New England Patriots newcomer Springs, his teammate the past four years whom he faced in practice as the scout team quarterback in 2005, Campbell teased, "You know Springs. Let me see if he's going to play first. Me and Springs are good friends so I can joke with him like that."

TheComeback · 08-26-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

No he didnt.

Yeah he did. Go look up the facts. Oakland ran 3-4 package as part of its defense a few years ago, and Burgess was one of the outside linebackers in the package.

TheComeback · 08-26-2009, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

No he didnt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

"Whatever reason" is that this is the best role for Burgess on this team.
His strengths and weaknesses are not a tremendous fit for what we want at OLB on 1st and 10 in our base D against opponent X. They are, however, what we want in our sub packages, which we use about 50% of the time; using them on 3rd down, on many 2nds, on first downs in score/clock situations, and on almost every down against some opponents.
Burgess will be stronger on the 50% of the snaps he plays, and the team will be stronger doing what they want to do in the other 50% that he is not on the field.
I dont know why this is a surprise or a concern. We went out and got a guy to help with the pass rush. That means he will play when we need him to rush. I'm sure he could earn more time by showing skills it is not apparent he possesses at this time, but that is still to be seen.
If we were better in situations where the other team is obviously going to pass (particularly the last 2 minutes of a half and game, and when we are ahead earlier in the 4th) we would have at least 2 more Championships.
I don't know why anyone really cares if Derrick Burgess is ever asked to make a single tackle on a running play as long as he rushes the passer, and when you add Wilhite, Wheatley, Butler, Bodden, Springs, Chung to the secondary that couldn't get that job done in the biggest game 2 years in a row, I cant understand how there could be any negative feeling about the upcoming season by any Patsfan.

Andy, I don't think Belichick gave up two picks for a one-trick pony. He even spoke of Burgess' "versatility," albeit vaguely, after the trade was completed. It may that he only plays in sub packages, but I think he will have a bigger role than just rushing the passer on every play.

I don't know that versatility Burgess supposedly has is, but it may well be that he plays better against the run, or in coverage, than we have given him credit for.

pencilneckgeek · 08-26-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheComeback

Andy, I don't think Belichick gave up two picks for a one-trick pony. He even spoke of Burgess' "versatility," albeit vaguely, after the trade was completed. It may that he only plays in sub packages, but I think he will have a bigger role than just rushing the passer on every play.

I don't know that versatility Burgess supposedly has is, but it may well be that he plays better against the run, or in coverage, than we have given him credit for.

One thing at a time. Woods is adequate for the base defense, and Burgess can get acclimated working on the 3-4 in practice situations at first. By the time Indy and NO role around after the bye week, Burgess will hopefully have enough time getting acclimated to the Past scheme to be able to play regularly on first down, and then provide better pass rush on those play-action fakes than Woods, while still serviceably setting the edge and defensing the run.

***AndyJohnson*** · 08-26-2009, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheComeback

Andy, I don't think Belichick gave up two picks for a one-trick pony. He even spoke of Burgess' "versatility," albeit vaguely, after the trade was completed. It may that he only plays in sub packages, but I think he will have a bigger role than just rushing the passer on every play.

I don't know that versatility Burgess supposedly has is, but it may well be that he plays better against the run, or in coverage, than we have given him credit for.

Why? Are you seriously trying to say you can conclude anything from anything BB says to the media about anyone?
A player who plays half of the snaps is an extremely important player.
By your description NFL teams are paying 100s of millions of $$ for 'one trick ponies'. One is named Freeney.
Its OK go ahead and expct an aging player to change positions and develop techniques and skills he has never used. I'll stick with the recognition that players on a BB team have roles, and Burgess role is to rush the QB. And that is a very important role.

***AndyJohnson*** · 08-26-2009, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheComeback

Yeah he did. Go look up the facts. Oakland ran 3-4 package as part of its defense a few years ago, and Burgess was one of the outside linebackers in the package.

I guess I misunderstood. I thought you said he played 34
OLB like it was his position. You are right. The Raiders had a 34 in their playbook that they used in some situations (i think it was a red zone mostly) so yes, the man play 30 or so snaps once at the position in a limitied pacakge. Your point?