Does Sullivan's arrival mean more 4-3? - New England Patriots Forums

Brady'sButtBoy · 06-05-2006, 02:47 PM

The strength of talent on the D was already focused on the D-Line, with the addition of Sullivan - assuming he doesn't just go in the tank - only makes this more so.

With McGinest gone and no clear starter next to Bruschi then LB core is really the weakest it has been in years if we're going to play four LB's. But, if we're playing three we look very good with Colvin, Vrabel outside and Bruschi in the middle. Vrabel seems to be a more natural 4-3 OLB since he doesn't have the top end speed you ideally look for in a 3-4 OLB and I believe Colvin played in a 4-3 to start his career.

With Seymour (and Warren probably too) able to play DE or DT in a 4-3, we'd have a pretty fearsome rotation up front and get more PT for Green, who is getting pretty big bucks to be mostly a backup. Wilfork, Sullivan, Wright inside, with Green, Warren, Hill outside and Seymour playing both - whoa, that would be a tremendous strain on an O-Line to have all those guys rotating regularly. Wilfork is a solid penetrator when allowed to, which is just what you want from a DT ina 4-3, and Hill has been described as more of 4-3 end also but we haven't seen enough to be sure. Either way, our personnel appears to utilized more fully with 4 real (not a LB putting his hand down) D linemen on the field.

zippo59 · 06-05-2006, 02:50 PM

I really don't see BB ever willfully going to a 4-3. The 3-4 is what allows the versatility, disguise, and trickery in his defense. It is the heart and soul of the entire D so I would be shocked if he went away from it.

Zuma · 06-05-2006, 02:55 PM

Sullivan is going to eat his way right into a backup NT position.

Remix 6 · 06-05-2006, 03:03 PM

in a 4-3 i think Seymour and Warren would be better off at DT..we would need a real good pass rusher at DE..a fast guy. We wouldnt rely on blitzing from LBs as much..so answer is NO!

holyredeemer · 06-05-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady'sButtBoy

The strength of talent on the D was already focused on the D-Line, with the addition of Sullivan - assuming he doesn't just go in the tank - only makes this more so.

With McGinest gone and no clear starter next to Bruschi then LB core is really the weakest it has been in years if we're going to play four LB's. But, if we're playing three we look very good with Colvin, Vrabel outside and Bruschi in the middle. Vrabel seems to be a more natural 4-3 OLB since he doesn't have the top end speed you ideally look for in a 3-4 OLB and I believe Colvin played in a 4-3 to start his career.

With Seymour (and Warren probably too) able to play DE or DT in a 4-3, we'd have a pretty fearsome rotation up front and get more PT for Green, who is getting pretty big bucks to be mostly a backup. Wilfork, Sullivan, Wright inside, with Green, Warren, Hill outside and Seymour playing both - whoa, that would be a tremendous strain on an O-Line to have all those guys rotating regularly. Wilfork is a solid penetrator when allowed to, which is just what you want from a DT ina 4-3, and Hill has been described as more of 4-3 end also but we haven't seen enough to be sure. Either way, our personnel appears to utilized more fully with 4 real (not a LB putting his hand down) D linemen on the field.

I wouldnt be surprised to see more of the 4-3. Not a full switch over, cause BB likes keeping things mixed up. Surely though, the signing of Sullivan could mean so much more in terms of alignments and keeping things different. More depth, means more versatility.

patsox23 · 06-05-2006, 03:05 PM

This trade doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a switch to 4-3. The Patriots play out of a base 3-4 and mix in the 4-3. Why would this change? Because we just picked up a high-potential underachiever top 10 pick in exchange for a WR who the coaching staff clearly tried everything to motivate only to have him BARELY play when the WR corps was ravaged by injury?

The Pats just got a high upside DL for a WR that was possibly going to be jettisoned for no better than a 4th or 5th round pick. I do this deal 24/7 in a NY minute.

holyredeemer · 06-05-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remix 6

in a 4-3 i think Seymour and Warren would be better off at DT..we would need a real good pass rusher at DE..a fast guy. We wouldnt rely on blitzing from LBs as much..so answer is NO!

In pass rushing situations, it's not like BB couldnt line Vrab's or Colvin up at DE. They have both been there and done that before. Also, the thread starter didnt state that we were GOING to go to the 4-3, but merely it's a possibility we will see more of it. BB doesn't give a **** what he runs. It's football, and if you can attack someones weakness by running something different, then he'll do it.....so the odds are, that the answer is........YES!

***fgssand*** · 06-05-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brady'sButtBoy

The strength of talent on the D was already focused on the D-Line, with the addition of Sullivan - assuming he doesn't just go in the tank - only makes this more so.

With McGinest gone and no clear starter next to Bruschi then LB core is really the weakest it has been in years if we're going to play four LB's. But, if we're playing three we look very good with Colvin, Vrabel outside and Bruschi in the middle. Vrabel seems to be a more natural 4-3 OLB since he doesn't have the top end speed you ideally look for in a 3-4 OLB and I believe Colvin played in a 4-3 to start his career.

With Seymour (and Warren probably too) able to play DE or DT in a 4-3, we'd have a pretty fearsome rotation up front and get more PT for Green, who is getting pretty big bucks to be mostly a backup. Wilfork, Sullivan, Wright inside, with Green, Warren, Hill outside and Seymour playing both - whoa, that would be a tremendous strain on an O-Line to have all those guys rotating regularly. Wilfork is a solid penetrator when allowed to, which is just what you want from a DT ina 4-3, and Hill has been described as more of 4-3 end also but we haven't seen enough to be sure. Either way, our personnel appears to utilized more fully with 4 real (not a LB putting his hand down) D linemen on the field.

You are not allowed to even mention the Patriots & 4-3 here. Certain people here feel that to even think about it makes you stupid and ill informed.

Snapper · 06-05-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fgssand

You are not allowed to even mention the Patriots & 4-3 here. Certain people here feel that to even think about it makes you stupid and ill informed.

People thinking that acquiring an overweight, lazy bust would force the Pats to switch to a 4-3? That might make me inclined to consider those people ill-informed, yes.

***fgssand*** · 06-05-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snapper

People thinking that acquiring an overweight, lazy bust would force the Pats to switch to a 4-3? That might make me inclined to consider those people ill-informed, yes.

I am sure that is exactly why BB & SP traded for him, so we could cut him because there is no hope for him. Yes, Snapper, you must be right, I wish they had called you before making the trade. I am so glad you know so much, thanks,