WhiZa
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,041
- Reaction score
- 0
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.It's a fine line, but I'll believe you.
Though I agree with AndyJohnson in theory; in reality, based on just my observations, I would say the D-line is far more important.
Remember back in early years when BB was still playing 4-3 and experimenting with the 3-4 - like having Seymour play NT? It didn't work. Look at how solid the LB corps was back then too: Bruschi, Willie Mac, Ted J, Vrabel all in their prime. And some really good vets like Roman Phifer and to a lesser extent Cox. Yet the 3-4 really didn't develop until Warren and Ted Washington were added in 2003. Then, the play of our D absolutely sky rocketed.
Now look at 2006, for instance, our LBers were not up to par IMO: Vrabel was good. Colvin was ok. Bruschi was past his prime, as was Seau. And we had to plug in Tully Banta-Cain, who isn't really starting calibur material on this team IMO. Yet, the D really held it down that year - especially when you consider how anemic our offense was at times.
I'd even make the same argument about the 2007 D, to a lesser extent. Our LBs were not that great down the stretch. Vrabel was starting burn out after a brilliant start. Colvin got hurt. Thomas had to switch positions. And we had Bruschi and Seau getting virtually all the reps at both ILB positions. But it still worked. Sure there were bad games. But overall the D was good.
Basically, it seems like the D can still function with "ok" talent at LB. Not so with the D-line. Especially NT.
I think it all starts with the DL. I haven't been impressed with our line's performance in the past few years and if you go back and watch tape from the SuperBowl years you'll see our D-line sucking up blockers and letting the LB's do their jobs.
BB was always credited with being creative in his coverage and pressure, but that all relies on the D-line forcing the RB to come up and block, or pulling the tackles to the outside with them. In theory, our stud DE and NT are each supposed to pull the double team so that the linebacker has a lane to operate in, whether he's playing the run or blitzing the QB.
The past few years, how many times have you seen our LB rush in, only to be picked up by the O-line? I understand the RB matching up on our LB, but a lineman? That shouldn't be commonplace...
We're actually talking two separate issues:Conclusion: from what I've gathered, our LB's WILL NOT succeed without a competent D-line. This justifies our 3 DT picks vs 1 LB pick. While a lot of fans may have been hoping for a LB like Maualuga, Ayers (my draft binkie... and I just happen to live in Denver, ugg), Maybin etc., Brace is a pick that will help solidify this defense. While we have a pedigree-less ILB in Guyton slated to start, he will thrive w/o an OG in his grill.
I have started getting excited about the draft not because of the players I want, but by watching the players BB selects. He is so close-lipped, and this is one of the ONLY real ways to find out what he's thinking.
Thats got nothing to do with DL play. It is about scheme.
If you are talking about the base D a blitzing LB for us is the 4th rusher for a 43 team, and the offense will treat him as such and block him with an OL. Never, ever, ever would a team use 5 OL to block 3 guys and leave the 4th pass rusher to be picked up by a RB.
The RB picks up the BLITZ. The 4th rusher is not really a blitzer, because we send at least 4 on every play.
If you are talking about the nickel/dime, then you need to realize that our OLBs play DE in those situations. So if you are criticizing the 'DL' in sub packages you are really criticizing the OLBs.
No team, ever blocks a 3-4 by having 5 OL block 3 DL and using a RB to pick up the 4th rusher.
I think it all starts with the DL. I haven't been impressed with our line's performance in the past few years and if you go back and watch tape from the SuperBowl years you'll see our D-line sucking up blockers and letting the LB's do their jobs.
BB was always credited with being creative in his coverage and pressure, but that all relies on the D-line forcing the RB to come up and block, or pulling the tackles to the outside with them. In theory, our stud DE and NT are each supposed to pull the double team so that the linebacker has a lane to operate in, whether he's playing the run or blitzing the QB.
The past few years, how many times have you seen our LB rush in, only to be picked up by the O-line? I understand the RB matching up on our LB, but a lineman? That shouldn't be commonplace...
I already pointed this out. I guess I'll reiterate my point: Even if the LBs are excellent, you really can't run a 3-4 without a good line, specifically a NT. When Bill tried to run the 3-4 back in 01 and 02 it didn't really work. They had to go back to the 4-3.Ummm, 'back in those years' we won the SB with the 43.
In a 4-3. Not a 3-4.I'm really not sure what you are trying to say or prove.
We won the SB with Annthony Pleasant, Bobby hamilton and Brandon Mitchell on the DL.
Don't know why you are bringing up Wilfork in regards to 2003; I specifically pointed out the acquisition of Ted Washington; a true 3-4 NT. Also, I remember Warren being rotated with Hamilton in 03. I can't recall him being benched.We won the second one with Warren on the bench down the stretch and Wilfork in college.
Traylor was another 3-4 NT, like Washington, and he was a pretty good one too. I don't see your point here either.We won the 3rd with Wilfork splitting time with Keith Traylor.
Which says much more about how good Ted Washington and Traylor were, rather than anything else...Since the 'great line of #1 picks' all became fulltime starters we haven't won a SB.
This is a good point. Though, the Giants DL being "non descript" might say much less about their ability, and much more about how little recognition two-gap linemen get.The Giant teams that BB coached were loaded at LB and had non-descript DLs.
I disagree. I believe the Giants started running the 3-4 since Ray Perkins was their coach. I'm not too sure it's fair to say that the Giants built their D in a comparable way to the Patriots. Their philosophy already seemed to have been in place - unlike with the Pats. Also, it seems like key pieces of both the D-line and the LB corps came together over long stretches of time. I wouldn't necessarily say that they built around one unit around the other.Here he started the same way, then built a strong DL.
The result havent really varied very much in either case.
Confused?
Assuming a standard rush of 4, there are 5 o-lineman and a potential block from the RB (assuming there's a RB and he's looking to block). If your standard rush (of 4) isn't sucking up the 5 lineman then you've got big problems. If your 4 rushers are being successfully blocked by 4 lineman, that's NOT a good thing.
Correct, I'm assuming that the blitzing LB is a 5th rusher and I'm also talking about ideal situations. While we're all high on Wilfork and Seymour, if they can't win a one-on-one battle occasionally, that's the core problem in my book. When they don't draw the double team is when we can't get pressure.
Confused?
Assuming a standard rush of 4, there are 5 o-lineman and a potential block from the RB (assuming there's a RB and he's looking to block). If your standard rush (of 4) isn't sucking up the 5 lineman then you've got big problems. If your 4 rushers are being successfully blocked by 4 lineman, that's NOT a good thing.
I already pointed this out. I guess I'll reiterate my point: Even if the LBs are excellent, you really can't run a 3-4 without a good line, specifically a NT. When Bill tried to run the 3-4 back in 01 and 02 it didn't really work. They had to go back to the 4-3.
In a 4-3. Not a 3-4.
Don't know why you are bringing up Wilfork in regards to 2003; I specifically pointed out the acquisition of Ted Washington; a true 3-4 NT. Also, I remember Warren being rotated with Hamilton in 03. I can't recall him being benched.
Traylor was another 3-4 NT, like Washington, and he was a pretty good one too. I don't see your point here either.
Which says much more about how good Ted Washington and Traylor were, rather than anything else...
Also, SBs are a poor measure of success for just the front 7 alone. The entire team was severely set back on both sides of the ball after 2004, be it age, injury, or FA. Yet - after a rough patch in early to mid 2005 - the D has been really consistent, despite how lackluster (and old) the talent at LB and DB has been at times. The defenses in 2006 and 2007 really weren't that much worse than they were in 03 and 04. I think that says quite a bit about how valuable the line is.
Basically, when the Patriots haven't had the talent on the D-line, they can't even run the 3-4. Yet, when they haven't had good talent at LB - not only can they run the 3-4 - but they still manage to run it at a fairly high level.
This is a good point. Though, the Giants DL being "non descript" might say much less about their ability, and much more about how little recognition two-gap linemen get.
*After looking it up, Leonard Marshall (DE) and Jim Burt (NT) were both Pro Bowlers. As was NT Erik Howard who later replaced Burt.
I disagree. I believe the Giants started running the 3-4 since Ray Perkins was their coach. I'm not too sure it's fair to say that the Giants built their D in a comparable way to the Patriots. Their philosophy already seemed to have been in place - unlike with the Pats. Also, it seems like key pieces of both the D-line and the LB corps came together over long stretches of time. I wouldn't necessarily say that they built around one unit around the other.
For example, looking at the 86 SB team, Jim Burt was drafted the same year as LT (81). Leonard Marshall was drafted before Carl Banks (83 & 84). And their other DE, George Martin, had been on the team a bit longer than Harry Carson (75 & 76). Doesn't seem like one group was established before the other. And both units had a mix of 1st/2nd rd picks and later rd talent. Then again, I'm going off paper. I don't claim to have any real knowledge of that team. It was before my time, most of what I know is what I've read, mostly through books/articles about Belichick & Parcells. Still, I think my point stands.
I think BB's draft record speaks to this one. Every starting D-Lineman we have was picked in the first round. Whether that's because they're harder to find, and therefore *have* to be picked early or because they're more important, I suppose that that's still a good question. All in all, though, I'd still say that the D-Line is more important. It's their ability to manage their 2 gaps that gives the linebackers the freedom to do what they do.