A_Ghost_In_The_Machine

I just got finished watching our first Super Bowl win against the Rams from back in 2001 (I've only really been following football since 2006) and one of things I found extremely interesting about it was that the Pats were putting a lot of pressure on Warner (I think it was something like 3 sacks, 7 hits and 14 hurries) but were doing it with only a 3 or 4 man rush. The commentators noted on a number of occasions that the reason they were able to do so was that our DBs had the Rams receivers completely blanketed downfield. There were a good deal of plays where Warner had a ridiculous amount of time in the pocket but the play either ended in a loss or no gain and I'm pretty sure all the sacks came on plays where the DBs had everyone covered and eventually one of our guys got through.

Just thought it was an interesting coincidence that I'd end up watching this game only days after a draft in which many people (myself included) were disappointed that BB didn't draft a pass rusher but saw fit to use a high pick on a physical, press corner.

robertweathers

Yep. Good coverage helps the pass rush. A good pass rush helps coverage.

__________________
“I'm not really concerned about the other 31 teams,” - Bill Belichick

"If a player has talent and doesn't succeed, that means that they either don't want to be successful or I have failed as a coach." - Bill Belichick

Urgent

It's important to note that this was a pre-Polian game.
That is, before the 'point of emphasis' on downfield contact.
Defenses were allowed to be a little more physical with receivers. In fact, Polian argued that New England's defense, specifically, was allowed to be a little more physical in their playoff win over the Colts two years later.

Also note that Vrabel played a great game, alternatively dropping into coverage and crushing Faulk when he went out, or rushing the passer. His versatility in coverage had a lot to do with that defensive gameplan.

But good point.

If McCourty can become Ty Law caliber, Bodden should certainly be up to OTIS.

And that may well be why New England has passed on the Brooks Reed type of pure straight ahead passer.

__________________
"Your father was a truck driver, Ray?"
- Trombley

hellolin

To change this a bit:

I just got finished watching our playoff lose last year against the Jets (I've only really been following football since 2006) and one of things I found extremely interesting about it was that the Jets were putting a lot of pressure on Brady (I think it was something like 3 sacks, 7 hits and 14 hurries) but were doing it with only a 3 or 4 man rush. The commentators noted on a number of occasions that the reason they were able to do so was that Jet's DBs had the Pats receivers completely blanketed downfield. There were a good deal of plays where Brady had a ridiculous amount of time in the pocket but the play either ended in a loss or no gain and I'm pretty sure all the sacks came on plays where the DBs had everyone covered and eventually one of Jets guys got through.

Sounds good?

WhiZa

Down field contact may of minimized impact of having a weaker DB out on the field. When Piolian changed the rules it had a direct negative impact on the Patriots way. Perhaps BB is continuing with his plan to increase the length of time a QB has to throw by utilizing better coverage CBs instead of collapsing the pocket in shorter time.

This may be a point we'll never understand. Why he would care more about giving the QB more time to throw (to allow your front 7 to get there) instead of decreasing the time to throw by sending in better pass rushers?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- 4 years =
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

bucky

I would argue that the Jets were allowed to get away with a huge amount of contact vs. the Pats' WRs in last year's playoff game.

This is a really important point that many people overlook. Good coverage is not just about CBs. If you're rushing 4 and dropping 7, then all 7 guys should be able to cover. It only takes 1 guy's mistake to ruin the entire play - like for example Spikes on the Cotchery 58 yard reception.

Vrabel, Brushci, Phifer, and Colvin were all outstanding in coverage (well Vrable was never outstanding, but he was good). I have a feeling that it'll be quite a while until Cunningham and Spikes can hold up their ends of the bargain. TBC and Nink are decent in coverage, but each has to improve. And even Mayo still has a long way to go to be a great coverage LB.

patsfaninpittsburgh

I don't think Spikes will ever be great in coverage..but he should become outstanding bring pressure up the middle.

RayClay

Bodden's back too and Arrington is battle tested. We should have a smothering secondary.

__________________

cstjohn17

Those 3 or 4 rushers included:
Seymour (#6 overall)
Vrabel (Ohio State all time sack leader) <-- in his prime
McGinest (#4 overall)
Bruschi (52 career college sacks)
Bobby Hamilton (pretty good veteran)

They had a very good defense but it wasn't like they had an all world secondary and no talent in the front seven. They had good pass rushers that year and a very good secondary.

cstjohn17

Colvin was never good either, OLBs in the Patriots scheme are not asked to trail a TE down the field. They drop into the flat or into a passing lane, or they rush the passer. If they can set the edge, rush the passer and cover the flat they are hired.