Front Seven Weak Link

[signbabybrady]

I would expect a very short plan:
1) Secure a young 4th ILB who would compete with Guyton for time this year and next.
2) Re-sign Wright and/or find a backup NT to train, expecially if Wilfork isn't extended.

We may need to carry a 7th DL this year, who would be a backup developmental NT.

Not sure if he will be in the draft but how about this guy.

Terrence Cody Profile - Football Recruiting

Terrence Cody

6-5 395 lbs

 

[DefenseRules]

That and the playcalling. I still don't know why we went for it on 4th and 12 or why we threw deep four times at the end instead of trying to get into field goal range like we did in every other superbowl.

EXCELLENT POST. I am done blaming the players. I have moved on to looking at the coaching. There are some things about our defensive scheme that bother me. Where is the pass rush? We used to dominate at the line of scrimmage. Now, our boys get pushed around at times, especially when we play elite teams. Why so much cushion by our DBs in the secondary? Why not be more aggressive back there? I am sick and tired of seeing mediocre QBs look like the second coming of Montanna for a day against our front seven, and every WR in the league look like the second coming of Jerry Rice against our secondary. The last drive of that miserable Super Bowl is a prime example. I can't even remember the name of the guy who caught that pass on his helmet. Finally, what is up with the tackling? Do our coaches not teach this anymore? Is it laziness? There has been no Monty Beisel or Duane Starks to blame the lack of tackling on over the last two years. It looks like our guys are always a step too slow, and I'm not buying the age factor. Our young guys have the same problem...remember 3rd and 16? That was the most FRUSTRATING 3rd down conversion given up by our defense in 2008. It still bothers me. :disagreement:
Yes we need some upgrades in personnel, but we need an upgrade in scheme and fundamentals too. Everytime I watch the Ravens and Steelers defense play, I GRUDGINGLY have to admit that our defense is not Championship Caliber.

 

[RobertWeathers]

As we all know solid coverage helps the pass rush # sack counts. A strong pass rush helps the secondary with INTs. IMO the problem with this team is both. In my simple analysis, what sticks out is that '08 team redered the second-lowest sack count and third-lowest INT total in the Belichick era.

Sacks INTs
'08 30 14
'07 46 19
'06 44 22
'05 33 10
'04 45 20
'03 41 29
'02 33 18
'01 39 22
'00 29 10

We can all agree that we don't have the coverage guys or the playmakers in the secondary. With a decent secondary, Warren and Seymour should have at least 6-8 sacks a year each. Thomas should be getting to the QB 10-15 times. Vrable may not be the guy he was, but should be decent situationally. Seeing someone like Crable or a FA OLB would help the sack counts, but I think we would all agree that the Pats secondary needs a major facelift. Merriweather should pick off 4-6 balls a year. Hobbs has 9 INts in 4 YEARS. On average, the LBs have picked off 5-7 passes every year. This year the total was one.

In 2009, IMO the Pats need one, if not two cover guys with good ball skills in the secondary and another edge/OLB pass rusher who can pressure the QB.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

Hopefully the Pats either draft the next Lamar Woodley or sign Suggs or another young vet OLB who can both set the edge and rush the passer.[/QUOTE]


We coulda had the first Lamar Woodley. I still don't understand the pick of Merriweather with Jon Beason and Lamar Woodley sitting on the board.

Oh, well....woulda, coulda, shoulda. Definitely shoulda taken Woodley. Even now the Pats may be more likely to draft a safety than an OLB. One thing we all agree on is that getting a #1 CB is still the biggest hole to fill.

 

[dhamz]

The weak link in the front 7 isn't a particular player. It is their collective play against the pass. They don't get enough pressure on the QB and teams exploited the LBs in coverage. The first is clearly linked to the decline of Mike Vrabel this past year, be it due to age or injury. The latter has really been growing as an issue since Tedy Bruschi lost a step a few year back.

They need to answer those questions this offseason.

 

[jays52]

My .02 on the front seven and how the issues can be adressed.

I think that we are all in agreement that this unit is one of the best in the league against the run, yes? Further, this unit is one of the best at winning on 1st down. So, we force teams into obvious passing situations, yet still struggle to defend the pass when we know it is coming. When we think about fixing things for 2009, there is one question to be asked: What is the fastest, easiest solution available?

Immediately out the window goes a 34 convert. Too long to develop, can be a liability in coverage, may struggle to set the edge. Then, outgoes the notion that salvation lies in better DB's. Yes, we are fairly weak as of January 12, 2009 at DB. Will the W/W rooks from this year come on next year? Even if they do, no DB or scheme can hold up for more than 4.5 seconds.

So, the question comes back to pass rushers. Obviously, this isn't in the form of a OLB. The timetable just doesn't matchup and why risk a gamble for such a conversion, or dump money into Suggs? I think the answer for 2009 lies in situational rushers playing with their hands down. Either through FA or the draft, build a corps of smaller, highly althetic speed rushers that can be rotated into the game situationally to play with their hands down. Allow the linebackers and safeties to cover the zones or play head up, while you win with athleticism in the trenches. You would only need a pair of guys to accomplish this, and could do so with relatively short money.

Then, draft a convert for the 3-down pipeline, or sign an already accomplished FA to handle the roll. Just because the 34 is predicated upon LB pressure doesn't mean the subpackages need to suffer. Just like any other strategy, take care of immediate need through adaptability and provision for long term success. Makes sense to me, but hell, what do I know, I don't have 8 million posts and a penchant for beligerance.

 

[Nunchucks]

My .02 on the front seven and how the issues can be adressed.

I think that we are all in agreement that this unit is one of the best in the league against the run, yes? Further, this unit is one of the best at winning on 1st down. So, we force teams into obvious passing situations, yet still struggle to defend the pass when we know it is coming. When we think about fixing things for 2009, there is one question to be asked: What is the fastest, easiest solution available?

Immediately out the window goes a 34 convert. Too long to develop, can be a liability in coverage, may struggle to set the edge. Then, outgoes the notion that salvation lies in better DB's. Yes, we are fairly weak as of January 12, 2009 at DB. Will the W/W rooks from this year come on next year? Even if they do, no DB or scheme can hold up for more than 4.5 seconds.

So, the question comes back to pass rushers. Obviously, this isn't in the form of a OLB. The timetable just doesn't matchup and why risk a gamble for such a conversion, or dump money into Suggs? I think the answer for 2009 lies in situational rushers playing with their hands down. Either through FA or the draft, build a corps of smaller, highly althetic speed rushers that can be rotated into the game situationally to play with their hands down. Allow the linebackers and safeties to cover the zones or play head up, while you win with athleticism in the trenches. You would only need a pair of guys to accomplish this, and could do so with relatively short money.

Then, draft a convert for the 3-down pipeline, or sign an already accomplished FA to handle the roll. Just because the 34 is predicated upon LB pressure doesn't mean the subpackages need to suffer. Just like any other strategy, take care of immediate need through adaptability and provision for long term success. Makes sense to me, but hell, what do I know, I don't have 8 million posts and a penchant for beligerance.

THe point of the 34 defense is that any of the 4 LBs can be rushing, so the offense doesn't know who is coming and who is dropping back into coverage, it can confuse the hell of a QB. The Patriots problem has been getting to the QB when dropping everybody into coverage.

 

[mgteich]

Cody hasn't declared, and it would likely take a major trade up in the first to get him if he does declare, only worth it if we thought that Wilfork was in his last year.

Not sure if he will be in the draft but how about this guy.

Terrence Cody Profile - Football Recruiting

Terrence Cody

6-5 395 lbs

 

[jays52]

THe point of the 34 defense is that any of the 4 LBs can be rushing, so the offense doesn't know who is coming and who is dropping back into coverage, it can confuse the hell of a QB. The Patriots problem has been getting to the QB when dropping everybody into coverage.

Towards your first point, this is one of the obvious benefits to the 34. There are several others dating back to when it evolved from the 52, but this is one of the more obvious. Of course I am cognizant of this aspect of the defense. The problem is, you need guys who can get to the quarterback from 3 yards off of the line. It's not all about gap exploitation and confusion, works great in Madden, though. Also, do you think it is good strategy to use the 34 and it's 1st and 10 personel when in an obvious passing situation such as 2nd and 8 or 3rd and 6?

Towards your second point, that was the entire premise of my first post. it is designed to free up coverages and still enable a pass rush.

 

[Nunchucks]

Towards your first point, this is one of the obvious benefits to the 34. There are several others dating back to when it evolved from the 52, but this is one of the more obvious. Of course I am cognizant of this aspect of the defense. The problem is, you need guys who can get to the quarterback from 3 yards off of the line. It's not all about gap exploitation and confusion, works great in Madden, though. Also, do you think it is good strategy to use the 34 and it's 1st and 10 personel when in an obvious passing situation such as 2nd and 8 or 3rd and 6?

Towards your second point, that was the entire premise of my first post. it is designed to free up coverages and still enable a pass rush.

I think that if you can get to the QB with a 34 defense and they are using a 3 WR set in an obvious passing situation, it isn't an awful thing. Aterall, the point is to have your best pass rusher....a LB instead of a safety get to the QB.

If the defense can get to the QB before the WRs have time to get too far down the field or get open, then I certainly think a 34 defense would work in a 3rd and long situation. Sure, the Pats like to run a lot of nickel and dime coverages...but really, what has that gotten them?

Maybe we need to focus on getting the the QB instead of making sure we have enough people in coverage because guess what, they got their first down anyway.


Attacking defenses do work in this league

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Cody hasn't declared, and it would likely take a major trade up in the first to get him if he does declare, only worth it if we thought that Wilfork was in his last year.

When healthy, this kid is a beast at NT. A once in a generation type player. Impossible for one player to move him and by sucking up double and triple teams, he creates tons of space for other players to make plays.

If he declared, I do not think it would take a major trade up to get him, he cost himself a half dozen slots in the draft by playing poorly the last three games of the season.

 

[RayClay]

OUR CURRENT 15 FRONT SEVEN PLAYERS AND BACKUPS
starters: Seymour, Wilfork, Warren, Vrabel, Mayo, Guyton, Thomas
situational players: Green, Colvin, Woods, Bruschi
backups: Smith, Adams, Crable, Redd/Robertson/Craig
============================================
Where is the weak link? I would submit that their isn't one, except for Adams who is our current replacement for Wright. Guyton is learning, but that's fine.
=============================================
This is where we are. There is certainly room for upgrades, but this is not a bad start. This is a very strong front seven. And I understand that some poster think that anyone who is 30 over over should be cut, or at best be an inactive backup playing for minimum wages. Thankfully belichick disagrees with this approach.

I would do what we need to in order to re-sign Wright (to replace Adams) and to extend who we can.

We have three talented experienced DLinemen and three excellent to competent backups.

Guyton is what? Did Bruschi retire?

You know, if that's really what you believe ,our linebacker situation isn't worth discussing.

 

[RayClay]

We have weaknesses at OLB and ILB. Otherwise, our linebacker situation is great.

 

[mgteich]

The original post listing 15 positions. I am fine with 13 of them, including Smith and Crable as backups. We are ready for 2009 NOW, except that we can use a backup NT and developmental ILB.

I expect Guyton to have many more reps than Bruschi in 2009. Check out 2008 stats. Guyton certainly had more reps for some games.

And yes, the point of this thread is to show how strong we are in the front seven, and that we have no 2009 issues beyond finding a backup NT and a prospect at ILB. Now 2010 is another story.

We have three talented experienced DLinemen and three excellent to competent backups.

Guyton is what? Did Bruschi retire?

You know, if that's really what you believe ,our linebacker situation isn't worth discussing.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

OUR CURRENT 15 FRONT SEVEN PLAYERS AND BACKUPS
starters: Seymour, Wilfork, Warren, Vrabel, Mayo, Guyton, Thomas
situational players: Green, Colvin, Woods, Bruschi
backups: Smith, Adams, Crable, Redd/Robertson/Craig
============================================
Where is the weak link? I would submit that their isn't one, except for Adams who is our current replacement for Wright. Guyton is learning, but that's fine.
=============================================
This is where we are. There is certainly room for upgrades, but this is not a bad start. This is a very strong front seven. And I understand that some poster think that anyone who is 30 over over should be cut, or at best be an inactive backup playing for minimum wages. Thankfully belichick disagrees with this approach.

I would do what we need to in order to re-sign Wright (to replace Adams) and to extend who we can.

I see the problem with the front seven as this:

We are NOT able to apply consistent pressure from a multitude of defensive formations and with different players without having to sacrifice coverage. (IE: blitzing)

We lack a dominant threat off the edge that makes opposing offenses have to adjust their blocking schemes in order to account for that person. It's this adjustment, that allows BB to use other players to apply pressure and force opposing QB's to throw early or into disgiused coverages.

For example let's say that next season we have Seymour, Wilfork and Warren up front with Thomas and Mayo at ILB and Varabel and Merriman (for example purposes only) at OLB.

It's third and nine.

Which ever side Merriman lines up on, the opposing offense has to adjust their blocking scheme to account for Merriman, by either bringing the TE over or keeping the back in to help or rollling the play away from Merriman.

When the ball is snaped the Pats can unleash Merriman, and hope he beats the extra blocking and puts pressure on the QB (and the Pats can play any type disguise seconadary coverage they want to as well) or drop Merriman and bring any of the other LBers or even a corner, while still having enough defenders in coverage to account for the offensive receivers.

What we lack is a pass rushing difference makers that opposing teams HAVE to account for on each and every play. They are rare but not impossible to find.

 

[Deus Irae]

The original post listing 15 positions. I am fine with 13 of them, including Smith and Crable as backups. We are ready for 2009 NOW, except that we can use a backup NT and developmental ILB.

I expect Guyton to have many more reps than Bruschi in 2009. Check out 2008 stats. Guyton certainly had more reps for some games.

And yes, the point of this thread is to show how strong we are in the front seven, and that we have no 2009 issues beyond finding a backup NT and a prospect at ILB. Now 2010 is another story.

I doubt the team feels it's set at ILB, and I'd imagine that the front office will be looking for more than just a 'prospect' at that position.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, one solution for the front seven is an all-pro pass rusher. Another option is for the defense to not know where anyone is coming from, RAC's defensive scheming of 2003 and 2004. Add occasional corner or safety run support and blitzes and there is really powerful defense.

Another option is to start with all-pro shutdown corner plus a really good corner on the other side (like Law and O-T-I-S) plus a harda$$ strong safety.

I'm fine with moving AT inside. I've said so several times. All we need is a way to have a Merriman playing OLB for us. It's just that such players are extremely hard to secure.

I see the problem with the front seven as this:

We are NOT able to apply consistent pressure from a multitude of defensive formations and with different players without having to sacrifice coverage. (IE: blitzing)

We lack a dominant threat off the edge that makes opposing offenses have to adjust their blocking schemes in order to account for that person. It's this adjustment, that allows BB to use other players to apply pressure and force opposing QB's to throw early or into disgiused coverages.

For example let's say that next season we have Seymour, Wilfork and Warren up front with Thomas and Mayo at ILB and Varabel and Merriman (for example purposes only) at OLB.

It's third and nine.

Which ever side Merriman lines up on, the opposing offense has to adjust their blocking scheme to account for Merriman, by either bringing the TE over or keeping the back in to help or rollling the play away from Merriman.

When the ball is snaped the Pats can unleash Merriman, and hope he beats the extra blocking and puts pressure on the QB (and the Pats can play any type disguise seconadary coverage they want to as well) or drop Merriman and bring any of the other LBers or even a corner, while still having enough defenders in coverage to account for the offensive receivers.

What we lack is a pass rushing difference makers that opposing teams HAVE to account for on each and every play. They are rare but not impossible to find.

 

[cavtroop]

Yes, one solution for the front seven is an all-pro pass rusher. Another option is for the defense to not know where anyone is coming from, RAC's defensive scheming of 2003 and 2004. Add occasional corner or safety run support and blitzes and there is really powerful defense.

I think you hit the nail on the head here with the comment about RAC in 03-04. Its a scheme thing. Look at the good thinkgs that happened the last few times we brought Merriwether in a safety blitz.

This last year, it seems our pass rush was the front 3, plus Vrable wherever he lined up. Real easy for the O to defend against, when they know where/who is coming every play.

 

[The_Riddler]

I wasn't responding to someone saying that there was no pass rush this year. I was responding to a post that said that the pass rush has been a problem since McGinest left.

I don't know if Vrabel was specifically the problem this past season. I don't think the Pats had a lot of pressure up the middle either. I think it was a breakdown in a lot of places.

What hurt the pass rush this year, I believe, was the conservative defensive play calling by Pees. His lack of creative blitzes, something we've always seen here over the last 8 years was a major factor.

We don't have the personnel to rush a base-4 and create pressure. This is a run-stuffing D-Line that needs that edge rusher (which we obviously lacked with Vrabel's play taking a step back). Without that edge rusher, it was up to Pees to get creative with ILB and safety blitzes which he finally realized in the Seattle game, when for the first time he sent Meriweather during a critical play that won the game on the ball strip.

My frustration was why did he wait this long to decide to start to bring pressure? Our secondary was getting chewed up with these 3rd and longs because we never brought the heat. The Favre (3rd and playoff changing - 15) was the classic "Bring the house" play if there ever was one. We didn't and it cost us alot, ultimately a PO birth, because had Matt Cassel got his hands on the football in OT, it was game over.

Going forward, if we can't bring a Suggs/Peppers, or trade up for stud PR-OLB, I'm not sure what our options are aside from Pees, like I said, designing some disguised corner, interior and/or safety blitzes. This will make the Wilhites and Wheatleys looks that much better in 09.

 

[Synovia]

In fairness, the Pats were second in the league in sacks in 2007 with 47 with Vrabel being the first Patriot since McGinest in the 90s to have a double digit sack total. They were 5th in 2006 with 44. Let's not exggerate the lack of pass rush.

In 2007 they probably faced more passing plays than any team in the league, so having a high sack total isn't surprising. In most of their games they tended to have a 3 score lead by half time. You face a lot of passing plays when you do that.