Myron Pryor (and more broadly, the shape of the DL) - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

5 Rings for Brady!! · 08-15-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BionicPatriot

We'll see more 4-3 because we plan to be in many more passing situations. We plan to be ahead and also to do well defending first down.

BTW, an issue not discussed much in whether we are playing our 4-3 is usually a one-gap or a two-gap.

Finally, I don't think that Warren and Seymour are near as good as 4-3 linemen as they are as 3-4 linemen. Also, Wilfork is a better NT than a DT. I just don't get everyone saying we shoudl play the 4-3 because we finally have the personnel for it. The truth is that we have one of the very best 3-4 lines in the league. We do NOT have one of the best 4-3 lines. All of our #1's would be out of position.

And this is why we'll see a lot of 4-3 this year. We're so deep at the DL.

Warren is the only natural two gapper out of the bunch. Seymour and Wilfork have the exact same two gap responsiblities in a 4 man front, they are still not given a free rush. Not a thing changes about their responsibilities in a four man front according to Seymour. If Seymour was used more like Jason Taylor, Seymour would have a totally different set of stats than he does. Also Wilfork was great in Miami at penetrating up the middle. Wilfork in particular has had some growing pains at the NT position, which actually showed up in his second and third years.

In a 3 man front we absolutely need big and tough linebackers who can clash helmets with gaurds. The linebackers we have now are speed backers mostly. Mayo and Guyton have a lot of upside but taking on gaurds is not their biggest strength.

I believe this move was made to strengthen the groupings on the field and further I think that Wilfork and Seymour have been out of place in the two gap defense all along, but they do their job each week. Seymour would be an animal in any other system, and probably more effective when injuried as well because he would not need to stand up to the OL double team but just run at the QB.

kas · 08-15-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5 Rings for Brady!!

Warren is the only natural two gapper out of the bunch. Seymour and Wilfork have the exact same two gap responsiblities in a 4 man front, they are still not given a free rush. Not a thing changes about their responsibilities in a four man front according to Seymour. If Seymour was used more like Jason Taylor, Seymour would have a totally different set of stats than he does. Also Wilfork was great in Miami at penetrating up the middle. Wilfork in particular has had some growing pains at the NT position, which actually showed up in his second and third years.

In a 3 man front we absolutely need big and tough linebackers who can clash helmets with gaurds. The linebackers we have now are speed backers mostly. Mayo and Guyton have a lot of upside but taking on gaurds is not their biggest strength.

I believe this move was made to strengthen the groupings on the field and further I think that Wilfork and Seymour have been out of place in the two gap defense all along, but they do their job each week. Seymour would be an animal in any other system, and probably more effective when injuried as well because he would not need to stand up to the OL double team but just run at the QB.

I highly doubt we will abandon the 2gap principles. However, IMO the Pats will use more 1 gap than they have in the past when not blitzing. I expect a mix of both concepts on a lot of plays too. What should be so effective is the ability to mix and match fronts and give different looks by game, by play, and even within a play. Scouting the Pats D just became a hell of a lot tougher...and it couldn't have been easy to begin with.

bbell31 · 08-15-2009, 06:03 PM

real impressive in pass rush against the eagles, but questionable during run defense...brace had a quiet but solid game imo, nice pushes at the line

***DaBruinz*** · 08-15-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

In a 4-3, Warren, Brace, Wilfork, Seymour would be in on run downs. It gets more interesting on passing downs where Pryor could have positioned himself as Brace's replacement and Burgess would likely replace Warren. Nothing against Warren but Seymour is the stronger pass rusher when healthy and Burgess plays the left side. Burgess, Pryor, Wilfork, Seymour should be a good pass rushing unit if Pryor ends up as a decent pass rusher.

During the 1st half of the game, I saw two distinctly different 4-3 lines:
Jumbo/Heavy: LK Smith/Wilfork/ Pryor or Brace/ Seymour
Pass Rushing: Burgess/Green/Seymour/TBC

The problem with the Jumbo is that there were a couple of times that their aggressiveness took them out of the play. One time Wilfork just BLEW right by the RG and right by the RB who was going up field through the hole that VW had just left..

Thank you to Ungeheuer for the mention that the Pats did play both 1GAP and 2GAP assignments in the 4-3... I found it hard to tell many times when the Pats would have a man double teams (mostly Pryor) and he was moved into the B gap, opening up the Left A gap nice and wide.. ...

***DaBruinz*** · 08-15-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unoriginal

Nice post but I think it's slightly more complicated than a Warren -> Burgess switch. It's more of a Woods -> Burgess and Warren -> Pryor switch, putting 3-point pass rushing specialists on the weakside of the 4-3 and having your 2 run-stuffing DTs (Wilfork, Seymour, Warren) on the strongside.

With the Pats playing the 4-3 last night, anytime Woods was on the field last night, he was at OLB, not DE. Burgess was in exclusively at DE last night.

Also, the Pats did not switch up the sides based on Weak/Strong last night. I haven't reviewed the 2nd half again, but in the first half, there were two distinct units as I mentioned in another post.
Jumbo/Heavy :
LDE: LK Smith
LDT: Wilfork
RDT: Brace or Pryor
RDE: Seymour

Pass Rushing:
LDE: Burgess
LDT: Jarvis Green
RDT: Seymour
RDE: TBC

Woods was not in the DE roation during the 1st half. He was at ROLB when he was on the field.

eagle eye · 08-15-2009, 07:09 PM

I was very impressed by Pryor's power, they guy is seriously strong. He still has a lot to learn though, but I see him being a starter next season or the season after when he gets to know his job.

Bostonian1962 · 08-15-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

Agreed although I disagree with your cause and effect. I think we're deep at DL because we're going to see a lot of 4-3. We wondered why the heck we drafted 3 DT on draft day when we already had Wilfork and workable, though not great, backups.

I have a theory about what may have happened. I think they heavily scouted DTs at the Wilfork situation was getting closer. They ended up seeing several DTs that they really liked.

Suddenly, they keep seeing themselves with a relatively high rated DT, and rather than reach for a lower rated player at another postition, they busted the moves on the DTs. All they have to do is hit on one, and if they hit on two or three that's a bonus.

Maybe none of what I speculate on is true, but it's my theory.

***jmt57*** · 08-16-2009, 12:07 PM

No Pryor complaints; Patriots rookie makes big impression by Ian Rapoport of the Boston Herald

Quote:

He only began practicing a few days before the game and was admittedly winded several times. Improving his fitness level is a must to play like he can.

“The coaches said that for a guy like me to have a good motor like that, you have to be in real good shape,” Pryor said. “That’s one of my main goals.”

His major highlight Thursday came in the second quarter.

Lining up alongside Pro Bowler Vince Wilfork in the 4-3 look, Pryor shrugged off guard Nick Cole, chased McNabb as he stepped up in the pocket, and appeared to fall down after a hit from the side.

Yet Pryor kept his feet moving and took McNabb down.

***DaBruinz*** · 08-16-2009, 12:08 PM

What I find interesting about Pryor was that, through the entire first half, he was doubled up on almost every running play. I found this surprising since it was his first game.

kurtinelson · 08-16-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BionicPatriot

Also, Wilfork is a better NT than a DT.

Wilfork was a pretty damn good DT at Miami. He's not just a fat load who sits over the center. I think he could be every bit as good a DT as an NT.

Quote:

I just don't get everyone saying we shoudl play the 4-3 because we finally have the personnel for it. The truth is that we have one of the very best 3-4 lines in the league. We do NOT have one of the best 4-3 lines.

I think we have the personnel to have a dominant 4-3 line. For example a 4 man front consisting of Wilfork and Seymour as DTs and Burgess and Thomas as DEs would be pretty damn good.