Brady-To-Branch
Third String But Playing on Special Teams
- Joined
- May 3, 2006
- Messages
- 732
- Reaction score
- 2
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.To make this clear, you brought in the teams on which Belichick played the role of defensive coordinator in countering my statement that Belichick emphasized defensive lineman, pointing out the absence of 1st round picks spent on linebackers, so I will address your argument again.
How are the defensive points of emphasis different? Parcells controlled personnel selection and drafting, not Belichick, so he decided where to spend money and picks, not Belichick. I thought that was common knowledge with his title as head coach and his history of wanting complete control - if you have a reference supporting your opinion Belichick had substantial input to Parcells in making those decisions, feel free to provide a link.
And rather than attempt to address why a 34 on one team may not be the same as a 34 on another, other than an extremely basic statement of what that defense entails, consider whether personnel characteristics can limit or expand the capabilities of defenses out of a common set. If your answer is yes, then you need not respond as you have answered your own Parcells' team/Belichick's team riddle.
First, are you saying at the beginning of 2005 Wilfork was not still learning and was not part of the struggling defense?
The defensiveness of your replies aside, you're actually making my point with Willie. Unlike others from 1999 roster BB chose to keep Willie, Ted Johnson and Bruschi even though they were Parcells picks. So no, I'm not struggling with the concept that the Parcells/BB base 34 is heavily dependent on stout, play-making LBs who have unique skillsets from 43 LBs. Why insist on arguing the point about the guy buying the grocery? Basically if you're making chicken marsala, you need chicken and marsala wine regardless of who's cooking or buying the groceries.Again, I understand you have an opinion but feel free to point out how that was entirely on Beisel and Brown. Second, did I say linebackers were unimportant or that a 34 defense works without good linebackers? Please point out where I said that because my short term memory must be fading. I said Belichick places a premium on defensive linemen and then the front 7. His linebackers, not Parcells' linebackers to make that point abundantly clear as you appear to be struggling with the concept, have been smart veterans capable of performing their roles. His only big time acquisitions over 8 seasons have been Colvin and Thomas - everyone else fit a certain model for the ILB and OLB roles and was either on the team from Parcells' days (Bruschi and McGinest) when he became head coach, a veteran in the twilight of his years or a castoff from another team with the proper capabilities.
Again, in a Parcells/BB base 34, LBs are as important if not more than DLmen. This is what I've been saying since the first sentence in my first reply to you.The ILB role is not a simple one, which is why the Brown/Beisel experiment failed, but you may recall that Bruschi had his stroke within weeks of the Super Bowl and the Pats did not break the bank to bring in a premium free agent to replace him. If that meets your definition of Belichick's defensive priority, we must be consulting different dictionaries on the meaning of the term.
I have to address this point.
I was still doing my game break downs in 2005, with all the people screaming for Beisal's and Brown's scalps few really looked at Vince and how much he was struggling making the adjustment from one-gap penetrator to two-gap brick wall. Vince was pancaked by Oakland's Jake Grove several times in that opening game, he played horribly. Pats1 may have the link around here yet, but my assessment then was he was pressing too hard and not playing his gap assignments. He'd start pushing one way and Grove would just take him where he wanted to go creating a nice cutback lane for the RB. Vince's pressing so hard also allowed Grove to cut block him, Vince put his face mask into the turf more than once tripping over Grove. Beisal and Brown were thrown in over their heads, but Vince didn't make it any easier for them.
Vince struggled the entire first half of the season, but around game eight it was like a light came on, and by game 10 he was starting to show the dominating form he shows us today. By my observations, it took Vince a season and a half of regular rotational and starting play before he was able to apply the technique of of NE two-gap NT and become the brick wall we all adore today. Well, most adore it, some clearly struggle to grasp the value of a true NT in the 3-4 with their suggestion to allow Vince to walk so NE can get Julius Peppers, sheesh.
My point, again, was that in a Parcells/BB 34, there's considerable room for debate to your initial premise that the DLine is first on a list of positional "priorities." It is not and LBers are equally important. I'd wager that they're more important in a Pacells/BB system.
Again, we're discussing priorities and the defensive philosophy of a base 34 in a Parcells/Belichick defense. Are the defense that Parcells ran in his glory years with BB as his DC that disparate in philosophy, priorities and design from that which BB has established in NE?
We're not comparing and contrasting the NE 34 versus that of Pitt. So again, how different in basic philosophy is the current BB 34 different from that of Parcells' Giants'? It's not that complicated and I don't understand why you're pulling teeth here.
No, I'm not saying that at all. Indeed he was a part of a struggling defense that plays team defense. Also, yes Wilfork in the early part of this second year was still leaning which is why I had posted in another reply about BB's presser comment that Vince did not play the NT position with the same technique and the same assignment as Washington. Said this, however, he wasn't exactly a slouch and was instead quite solid even during his rookie year.
The defensiveness of your replies aside, you're actually making my point with Willie. Unlike others from 1999 roster BB chose to keep Willie, Ted Johnson and Bruschi even though they were Parcells picks.
Again, in a Parcells/BB base 34, LBs are as important if not more than DLmen. This is what I've been saying since the first sentence in my first reply to you.
I said no such a thing. In a base 34 employed by Parcells and BB, the philosophy and the priority of this base 34 is indeed very similar.You seem to believe that Parcells' defense and Belichick's defense are identical,
and I asked for you to provide some proof that Belichick had input into the 86 Giants defense or 99 Jets personnel choices as your first response was the Hall of Fame linebacker corps for the Giants.
I can only suspect if you see Belichick as telling Parcells what he should do with personnel, you may want to ask why he turned down the Jets job when Parcells decided to stay with the team. So wager away.
No, I'm not hazy about this so I really don't need to go back to page 4. Though this isn't an exact quote, you said something to the effect that 'in this defense, the priorities are DL, LB and DBs.'My list of priorities was position-based, not 34 based. It's on page 4 so feel free to review it if you're hazy.
As the initial post was priorities, given who Parcells drafted I would say yes, they are different. The fact they may have played out of the same base defense states little in the end.
or maybe all 34s are not alike as you appear to contend. Possibly even Belichick's 34 and Parcells 34.
Another reason I like the 4-3 is the the D has failed the last 3 years.
Well, before we agree to disagree, if you intend to let Vince walk so NE adds Peppers, do you intend to play a 3-4 or do you change the scheme?LOL. Rox I thought that given your contribution to this forum, you would have been above this sort of a reply. Regardless...
I take exception to your implication that Vince was some bum in his rookie year and for half of his sophomore year. Yes, he had times when he struggled and yes, he's a far better play now, something I had noted in this thread, but he did make play even in his rookie year and I'm somewhat bafflled that you've presented his role, which was always the NT in a base 34, as being primarily a one gapper. Perhaps another viewing of the Pats v Eagles SB would refresh your memory. Though he started the game, he rotated often with Traylor with Seymour seeing some snaps at NT. Even at that though, when Vince was in there, he was a two gapping NT playing a different technique and gap assignment and who often held his ground well despite the double teams.
Now, I don't have the time to do so at this moment, but I will go back and watch a couple more games from the first half of the 2005 season. And his game versus Grove, I don't need to watch again because I know he struggled and so your assessment for the most part is in agreement with mine.
As far as the cheap shot is concerned, again Wilfork is a guy I wanted the Pats to draft in 2003 before he declared his intention to return to Miami for his final year. The following year, though I can't say I enjoy a stellar record during drafts, Wilfork and Marquise were two guys I got right while posting on another forum. A regular poster here actually ran that draft and the winner that year, yours' truly, was to receive $5. I asked the guy to donate it charity and I trust that he followed up on it.
Just to be clear about what I had said in this thread, I'm willing to lose Wilfork if it means we can keep Seymour and add Peppers. Please take more care in re-presenting what I had said.
Also, if you recall, my so called lack of understanding with respect to NT play in a 34 could be read in a previous exchange with you.
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ld-you-game-plan-denver-page2.html#post199270
Appreciate your effort nevertheless.
The most irreplaceable guy on the Patriots Defensive line is Richard Seymour by a country mile. But nobody but Richard Seymour adds the dimensions that he does. Period.
Stick to the 34 for I'm not in the same camp that think the personnel on this D can be switched back and forth between the 34 and the 43. On paper it might seem that way but then Ben Watson could also play WR on paper.Well, before we agree to disagree, if you intend to let Vince walk so NE adds Peppers, do you intend to play a 3-4 or do you change the scheme?
That I can agree with, improving the pass rush is a priority for this season. I believe the Pats will be making every effort to extend both Wilfork and Seymour, which hopefully will work out for the Pats. I certainly do not wish to lose either.Stick to the 34 for I'm not in the same camp that think the personnel on this D can be switched back and forth between the 34 and the 43. On paper it might seem that way but then Ben Watson could also play WR on paper.
Also, the Wilfork or Peppers equation is a bit of false dilemma to me. I've played along to this for the sake of the argument because as it stand, it's a reasonable projection. However, as I said perhaps in another thread, in the worst case scenario, there's the option of tagging Vince for a year under the presumption that the brass would have extended Richard to a somewhat backloaded deal. But that's not the phantom argument. The false dilemma stems from the fact that one year from now, everything would have occurred according to our own private predictions. We don't know that to be true at all. For instance, what happens if AD goes on the IR this year at the half-way point? Would he still be worth the cap hit in 2010?
IOW, there's a huge hole at a critical, playmaking position on this defense this year. And IMO Woods, Crable, Tully and so forth are not the answer. Crable might emerge to be an answer this year but if they don't, we're screwed. If he does emerge, then it's a luxury with no downside. And for this year also, we have both Wilfork and Seymour. Plug the hole that exist now with a proven player and let things play out.
That I can agree with, improving the pass rush is a priority for this season. I believe the Pats will be making every effort to extend both Wilfork and Seymour, which hopefully will work out for the Pats. I certainly do not wish to lose either.
Seymour's done nothing since his extension.
Belichick's 3-4 scheme is the next step in this evolution. The Steelers' 3-4 zone blitz was defensive-line oriented and redefined what defensive linemen could do. The Patriots' 3-4 scheme is linebacker-oriented and is similarly breaking the mold for linebackers.
Belichick recognized two problems with a defensive-line oriented zone blitz scheme. First, even though you can drop the nose tackle into the short zone, it's not likely he'll be agile enough at 300 or so pounds to be adept in coverage. Second, to run the scheme properly, a team must find very athletic defensive ends who not only can play the run and rush the passer but also can drop into coverage. Such players are rare.
The Patriots' solution to the first problem was fairly simple. Instead of dropping oversized nose tackles into coverage, they opted to give that assignment to the 3-4 inside linebacker. Known as "pluggers," these are bigger linebackers whose main purpose is to stuff the run, but they can defend the pass better than nose tackles. On passing downs, about the only time they'd need a nose tackle to drop into coverage, the Patriots replace the lineman with a plugger linebacker lined up as a nose tackle. If the opponent runs the ball, the plugger is big enough to help stop it. If the opponent passes, he's much better equipped to drop back.
New England's solution to the second problem was, in hindsight, fairly obvious, but it didn't seem so at the time. In 1996, New England drafted defensive lineman Tedy Bruschi out of Arizona. At 250 pounds, Bruschi was a bit small to play defensive end and was struggling, so Belichick and his staff decided to teach Bruschi to play linebacker. His success as a rush linebacker in the 3-4 zone blitz scheme led to an epiphany of sorts. The Patriots realized they could draft undersized defensive linemen and convert them into linebackers. In doing so, they oriented their zone blitz scheme around linebackers rather than defensive linemen. This subtle and seemingly small change had several advantages.
First, it gave the Pats the ability to run the 3-4 rush linebacker concept up and down the line. Instead of having rush linebacker specialists alternating with defensive linemen, which could help an opponent read the defense, the Patriots fielded an entire set of linebackers who could either rush or drop into coverage. This allowed New England to vary the composition of its front seven to anything from a 2-5 -- two linemen and five linebackers -- to a 1-6 or even 0-7, alignments that hadn't been seen before. Even analyst John Madden said he hadn't seen a 1-6 or 0-7 alignment in all of his years covering the NFL.
The flexibility gave the Patriots a huge strategic advantage by making it increasingly difficult for opposing offenses to figure out their defensive personnel sets. Instead of being able to key on a rush linebacker and a plugger linebacker, or a linebacker and a down lineman, offenses now had to key on multiple, flexible lineups on every play. Opponents couldn't determine whether the Patriots were playing for the run or the pass.
And because their linebackers were so versatile, the Patriots didn't need to carry as many defensive linemen on the roster. Instead, they replaced those defensive line roster spots with linebackers. This allowed New England to stock up on players at a position the Pats' coaching staff specialized in teaching and helped them in acquiring personnel. Since they were looking for a certain type of linebacker, their talent pool was larger than that of other teams, and included college defensive linemen and any undersized defensive lineman struggling to hang on with another NFL team.
Belichick redefining LB position - NFL - ESPN
Seymour's done nothing since his extension.
My issue is with Dean Pees, who seems to be allergic to blitzing. If I see Adalius Thomas on pass coverage on passing downs again... I have doubts that Pees can scheme a good pass rush on passing downs. His defenses have been too vanilla in those situations.
In 2008, the Pats couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs (26th), had a defensive passer rating of 89.8 (23rd), and allowed 27 TD Passes (31st).
That I can agree with, improving the pass rush is a priority for this season. I believe the Pats will be making every effort to extend both Wilfork and Seymour, which hopefully will work out for the Pats. I certainly do not wish to lose either.
Seymour is very egocentric. He will probably demand at least 15
million dollars per year with a 50 million dollar bonus. Will that leave
any money to re-sign anyone else? Don't be deluded into believing
that Bob Kraft will take advantage of the uncapped year by greatly
increasing his payroll. Bob is already upset that a lot of the money
formerly used to repay stadium debt goes to the players under the
current CBA.
Don't get me wrong I love Vince and I think he is a real special player.
My question is whether anyone else questions whether it is a good idea to shell out huge d-line money for a NT?
Thru the years we have had Seymour, Washington, Traylor, and Wilfork all play NT so while it is pivitol to have the cog at the nose I am not sure we need to spend huge money to get it.
Haynesworth got his money because of his ability to play the run and rush the passer. A NT doesn't do that and while I don't doubt Wilforks skills I think we could someone good enough to play nose without costing what Wilfork might.
Basically my question is do you think NT is as important/hard to replace as what we think Wilfork deserves/should be able to get in his next contract?