Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised? - New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard
NEWS
|
FORUM
|
PHOTOS
|
VIDEOS
|
FULL STATS DATABASE
|
PODCAST
|
RUMOR MILL
Get Social With PatsFans.com
Five Thoughts On Tebow
'13 NFL Previews Are In
Tebow at QB? No Way

Go Back   New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard > PatsFans.com Forums > PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum
Forgot Password? Join PatsFans.com!
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Arcade Mark Forums Read Chat Room

WELCOME TO OUR FORUM HERE AT PATSFANS.COM!
ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW

Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2007, 12:16 AM   #1
In the Starting Line-up
 

Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,214
Default Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

When we acquired AD, there were numerous stories in the sports media about how now Belichick has an extra toy in his arsenal, so that our LBs will play all these confusing schemes, and opposing QBs will have fits.

Now, given that our defense is not quite as highly ranked as usual in recent years (based on points allowed) I ask: Has this been happening?

On a related note, AD was seen as the single most obvious answer we could find to the Dallas-Clark-in-the-AFCCG problem. Now I read that he probably can't cover Clark, so we'll do something else. Anyone have insight on how AD is playing compared to his billing? And on what this should mean in this weekend's Colts matchup?
__________________
Please, God, don't let us ever suck as bad as the 2011 Cowboys did in the Jets opener.
* * * * *
"I got a little shine on and showed you guys a little taste of my speed."

----Vince Wilfork, Jan. 7, 2007

Last edited by shakadave; 11-03-2007 at 12:18 AM..
shakadave is offline  
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!

Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account
including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.

NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98

Updated 07/08/11

Help Us Reach Our Goal!

Old 11-03-2007, 12:24 AM   #2
All Pro Poster
 
RayClay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,678
My Mood: Amused
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shakadave View Post
When we acquired AD, there were numerous stories in the sports media about how now Belichick has an extra toy in his arsenal, so that our LBs will play all these confusing schemes, and opposing QBs will have fits.

Now, given that our defense is not quite as highly ranked as usual in recent years (based on points allowed) I ask: Has this been happening?

On a related note, AD was seen as the single most obvious answer we could find to the Dallas-Clark-in-the-AFCCG problem. Now I read that he probably can't cover Clark, so we'll do something else. Anyone have insight on how AD is playing compared to his billing? And on what this should mean in this weekend's Colts matchup?
Our defense is fine. Points allowed? Have you been watching the games? We score 40-50 points these days.

The defense is playing prevent defense allowing teams to run the clock down and score rather than giving up quick hits which could possibly allow them to score the 20-40 points they need.

At this point, Adalius is going to be more confused than the offense when the schemes get too fancy. That crazy stuff takes a lot of time to do without revealing a glaring weakness.

He's got great athleticism, though and that will shine through.

Our scheming D should peak when it counts since we have so many vets to work with A.D.
__________________
Quote:
WE ARE BUILDING A TEAM, NOT COLLECTING TALENT

Last edited by RayClay; 11-03-2007 at 12:26 AM..
RayClay is offline  
Old 11-03-2007, 01:04 AM   #3
PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
 
Deus Irae's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 35,648
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shakadave View Post
When we acquired AD, there were numerous stories in the sports media about how now Belichick has an extra toy in his arsenal, so that our LBs will play all these confusing schemes, and opposing QBs will have fits.

Now, given that our defense is not quite as highly ranked as usual in recent years (based on points allowed) I ask: Has this been happening?

On a related note, AD was seen as the single most obvious answer we could find to the Dallas-Clark-in-the-AFCCG problem. Now I read that he probably can't cover Clark, so we'll do something else. Anyone have insight on how AD is playing compared to his billing? And on what this should mean in this weekend's Colts matchup?
2007 Patriots: 15.9 ppg (#5)
2006 Patriots: 14.8 ppg (#2)
2005 Patriots: 21.1 ppg (#17)
2004 Patriots: 16.2 ppg (#2)
2003 Patriots: 14.9 ppg (#1)
2002 Patriots: 21.6 ppg (#17)
2001 Patriots: 17.0 ppg (#26)

This shows me two things. The first is the relatively consistent defense this team puts on the field, giving up between 14.8 and 16.2 ppg for 4 of the 7 years. The second is that people are still overhyping the supposed negatives about this team. The defense is currently ranked 5th and is allowing its 3rd lowest ppg of the Super Bowl era, yet people are acting as if the defense has been disappointing.
Deus Irae is offline  
Old 11-03-2007, 05:05 AM   #4
It's SIR Moderator to you
 
gomezcat's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London, just off the Eastern Seaboard
Posts: 3,543
My Mood: Blah
Send a message via Skype™ to gomezcat
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae View Post
2007 Patriots: 15.9 ppg (#5)
2006 Patriots: 14.8 ppg (#2)
2005 Patriots: 21.1 ppg (#17)
2004 Patriots: 16.2 ppg (#2)
2003 Patriots: 14.9 ppg (#1)
2002 Patriots: 21.6 ppg (#17)
2001 Patriots: 17.0 ppg (#26)

This shows me two things. The first is the relatively consistent defense this team puts on the field, giving up between 14.8 and 16.2 ppg for 4 of the 7 years. The second is that people are still overhyping the supposed negatives about this team. The defense is currently ranked 5th and is allowing its 3rd lowest ppg of the Super Bowl era, yet people are acting as if the defense has been disappointing.
I agree with your comments about the D and find the negative comments completely baffling. If you want to know how good the D is this year, fast forward through the Skins game.
I watched most of the game at a later point and was really struck by how little time they spent on the field. The one team that has looked, at any point, like it might beat us is Dallas.
I would say that one of the biggest improvements has been in the secondary where the communication appears to have improved massively. As far as I can see, the number of blown coverages has reduced in comparison to the last two or three years.
Of course, Manning and the Colts will test that secondary to destruction tomorrow...
__________________
The blog of our recent trip to The States (September and October 2012):


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
gomezcat is offline  
Old 11-03-2007, 06:18 AM   #5
In the Starting Line-up
 

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,120
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae View Post
2007 Patriots: 15.9 ppg (#5)
2006 Patriots: 14.8 ppg (#2)
2005 Patriots: 21.1 ppg (#17)
2004 Patriots: 16.2 ppg (#2)
2003 Patriots: 14.9 ppg (#1)
2002 Patriots: 21.6 ppg (#17)
2001 Patriots: 17.0 ppg (#26)

This shows me two things. The first is the relatively consistent defense this team puts on the field, giving up between 14.8 and 16.2 ppg for 4 of the 7 years. The second is that people are still overhyping the supposed negatives about this team. The defense is currently ranked 5th and is allowing its 3rd lowest ppg of the Super Bowl era, yet people are acting as if the defense has been disappointing.
Excellent post. Another point is that the Pats typically improve over the season, and with Seymour and Rodney getting their sea legs, the best is yet to come.
Mack Herron is online now  
Old 11-03-2007, 06:26 AM   #6
Practice Squad
 
BWareofDWare's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 186
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae View Post
2007 Patriots: 15.9 ppg (#5)
2006 Patriots: 14.8 ppg (#2)
2005 Patriots: 21.1 ppg (#17)
2004 Patriots: 16.2 ppg (#2)
2003 Patriots: 14.9 ppg (#1)
2002 Patriots: 21.6 ppg (#17)
2001 Patriots: 17.0 ppg (#26)

This shows me two things. The first is the relatively consistent defense this team puts on the field, giving up between 14.8 and 16.2 ppg for 4 of the 7 years. The second is that people are still overhyping the supposed negatives about this team. The defense is currently ranked 5th and is allowing its 3rd lowest ppg of the Super Bowl era, yet people are acting as if the defense has been disappointing.
I'm thinking there's no way 17 points in 01 was good for 26th in the league? Might have been 6th?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
BWareofDWare is offline  
Old 11-03-2007, 06:39 AM   #7
Second Team and Threatening Starter's Job
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,378
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWareofDWare View Post
I'm thinking there's no way 17 points in 01 was good for 26th in the league? Might have been 6th?
I think when he shows the ranking, that is the overall defensive ranking which is ranked by yards allowed and for some reason I think skips points all together.

I remembered that in 2001 that the Pats where in the bottom half for defensive rankings but in the top 5 for points allowed.
sarge is offline  
Old 11-03-2007, 07:33 AM   #8
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
 
satz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Attleboro,Ma
Posts: 1,909
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Remember in past year the defence was tuned into stopping the offence and giving back the ball to the offence. They are playing 40% of the game full tilt and go into preventive mode the rest of the game .
Hence the stats are messed up.,
__________________
NFL - A perfect american business model .
HarleyDavidson-Turning gas into noise for more than 100 yrs without the side effects of power and still making a tonne of money a great american business model.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
satz is offline  
Old 11-03-2007, 09:46 AM   #9
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Orlando, Florida via Gloucester, Mass
Posts: 941
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Also, Adalius was moved from outside LB (at Baltimore) to inside LB for us. Perhaps, he is still making the adjustment on reads but otherwise, I don't see offenses running at his side very often. They go at Bruschi or Seau more often.
FloridaPatsFan is offline  
Old 11-03-2007, 09:57 AM   #10
B.O. = Fugazi
 
BelichickFan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 30,564
Send a message via AIM to BelichickFan
Default Re: Are Adalius and our LB Corps as confusing as advertised?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deus Irae View Post
2007 Patriots: 15.9 ppg (#5)
2006 Patriots: 14.8 ppg (#2)
2005 Patriots: 21.1 ppg (#17)
2004 Patriots: 16.2 ppg (#2)
2003 Patriots: 14.9 ppg (#1)
2002 Patriots: 21.6 ppg (#17)
2001 Patriots: 17.0 ppg (#26)
Additionally, the 15.9 PPG is skewed to the second half when we have huge leads. We're allowing 6 PPG per first half; a rate of 12 PPG for the whole game. And that's with no Seymour and for more than half with no Harrison.
BelichickFan is online now  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Sponsored Links



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.

This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC