Wilfork an Elite 3-4 Defensive Tackle. A Myth?

[maverick4]

Thank God we don' have a coach that evaluates players like you boneheads.

Who said we were questioning BB, and also HOW do you know Belichick considers Wilfork an elite player? I'm trying to figure out what BB thinks too, how are you so sure you know what he's thinking?

BB also played Watson lots of snaps last year, but then went out and signed two major TE free agents. How do you know he isn't pleased with Watson or Wilfork's play? He certainly made TE and DT moves that could suggest that.

2006 Wilfork pancaked, Colts take lead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spXpM0mOA5k

 

[everlong]

I wonder what the 07 numbers are. My perception was that Wilfork was much more dominant in 07 than Seymour but that Seymour turned the tables in 08. There's a lot of reasons why that may be the case.

Teams found a way to attack Wilfork.
Seymour was healthier.
Situations on the field.
Personnel changes.

Etc, but it would still be interesting to see the numbers. If it is a question of teams finding a weakness on Wilfork I'm sure BB can identify the issue and make a change to VW's technique.

 

[patfanken]

BTW- this is a great debate. Here is my 2 cents

Here we have an analysis that makes certain value judgements based on uncertain perameters, THEN we have fans who are making value judgements BASED on these uncertain perameters. The result: UNCERTAIN.

A good case can be clearly made by BOTH sides. Vince is a deteriorating asset, or Vince was a victim of mediocre LB play, statistical anomonlies, or both. Personally I think the problem was not in the DL or LBs, but in the secondary. One thing the analysis COULDN'T show was what kind of defense was in place when the run occurred. I contend that because the Pats secondary was in such disarray, whether through injury or bad play, that Pats were hamstrung in how they played defense. The were limited in what they could play and how flexible they could be. They often couldn't take advantage of match ups they might have had with the front 7, because they had to protect a weak back end. Bottom line, you just rarely saw the true Pats D, that BB envisioned at the start of the season.

Why do I think that? Just look at what BB did in the off season. Sure he added a top pick at DL, but he'd do that anyway. He has ALWAYS prioritized the DL. However he didn't just add a young player or two to the secondary mix, he DISMANTLED the secondary and completely rebuilt it. And the result, IMHO is (on paper) the most talented, deepest, and biggest secondary in BB's reign. Don't forget that over the last few years we have been forced to START with JAGS like Mike Richardson, Hank Potete, and Louis Sanders, etc due to injuries, and bad signings. This season they will probably start 2 guys who were their team's best CB(Springs/Bodin), backed up by 2 guys with enough talent to press for those starting positions (Willhite/Wheatley) backed up a guy who might be eventually be better than all 4 of them (Butler) When were we looking at anything better than that. Safety is less deep, but comparitively more talented than last year. It is younger, faster, and more athletic. Granted it only goes 3 deep, before you get into the JAGs, but its a lot better than last season.

What does it mean? Well IF it works out. If Springs can remain healthy. IF Bodin returns to his Cleveland production playing in the Pats D. IF Wilhite and Wheatley have made the quantum leap from rookies to 2nd year men and start to meet their potential. IF Butler and Chung are the guys we hoped for when they were drafted. Well IF most of those IFS become reality, it will reflect well on the ENTIRE defense. A better secondary means a better pass rush. A better secondary means a better run defense. A better secondary means that BB can return to the multiple agressive sets we've seen in the past. A more flexible defense week to week is a better defense, and it all starts with the rebuilt secondary

BTW we all sometimes forget that despite the bad defense last season, and the loss of Brady; the Pats DID win ELEVEN GAMES, which for 95% of the NFL is a huge season.

As to who is a more valuable asset, Seymour or Wilfolk, and which should you sign? I'm split. IMHO, clearly Seymour is the more valuable. First he's a full 3 down player who not only is a great run stuffer, he CAN, when given the opportunity, rush the passer. He also can play all 3 DL positions. This, IMO, trumps the arguement that a great NT is so rare, that he must be cherished. On the other hand, if I had to sign one, it would be Wilfolk, for the simple reason that I think the day his contract ends, Seymour is out of here. We all know at BEST the Pats will give him an offer equal to the highest offer he would see in FA. and that's unlikely....and if thats the case, Richard would simply rather go down south. In fact perhaps the best solution would be some kind of Peppers for Seymour swap with the Panthers, and then signing Wilfork to an extention.

We still have to remember that the first rule of capology is that for every dollar you give one player there is one less dollar for everyone else. You simply CANNOT sign everyone, because for every high end salary made, there are 4 end and middle of the roster players who are affected, and we should all know by now how important the back end of your roster is. This is especially true since you never know when a player is going to be lost for the season. Having a roster full of high end salaries is really unproductive. You can do in Basketball, but not football.

 

[everlong]

Two other factors in this debate are age and injury history both of which go against Seymour.

 

[BelichickFan]

On the other if I had to sign one, it would be Wilfolk, for the simple reason that I think the day his contract ends, Seymour is out of here.

I think this point becomes moot given that if we signed Seymour then his contract wouldn't be ending for a while.

As long as Wilfork doesn't hold out, I'm comfortable letting it play out for now. If I had to extend one it would be Seymour as he's the one who's more likely to test FA if he gets there. Chances are Wilfork would too but there's a better chance he'd re-sign before FA started. Best case is they both play a great contract year, we re-sign one and Franchise the other; we then either trade the Franchised player or keep him one more year. Like with Samuel I'd probably be willing to promise not to Franchise the second time although I might trade the Franchised player.

Regarding Wilfork, his "athleticism" doesn't do a lot on the field, he's a run stuffer just like Washington was. His pressures are few and far between. If Brace can plug the middle against the run we get 75+% of what Wilfork brings but at a tiny percentage of the cost of Vince after this year.

 

[Deus Irae]

Richard Seymour is the best 3-4 D-lineman in football. It should come as a surprise to nobody, therefore, that he's a better player than Wilfork. When we had the Wilfork/Seymour thread earlier this year, I chose Wilfork because of the difficulty replacing the NT spot and the age difference. As one-on-one players, though, Seymour has no peer. It's why he's got a good shot at going into the Hall of Fame.

 

[RayClay]

I would argue that Ted Washington, at near retirement, was still a much better run stuffer than Wilfork. I'm not sure how much the athleticism argument is worth bringing in when discussing 3-4 DT, when Wilfork doesn't get sacks and it looks like the athleticism isn't helping to create an elite inside run defense.

Repeat. He was a wall. That's why he's played until 40. Why do I have to disparage Wilfork to say Ted is great? He's probably the only 400 lb. human that is also agile enough to play this sport well.

The reason Washington is the greatest run stuffer was explained by Sir Isaac Newton many years ago.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets the immovable object?

...that would be Ted.

Seriously, most great nose tackles don't develop until later in their career. We are fortunate to have a great young one, only 27 and improving every year.

Washington is 40 and not on this team, I have no idea why you keep bringing him up.

Athleticism makes quite a bit of difference.

 

[RayClay]

Richard Seymour is the best 3-4 D-lineman in football. It should come as a surprise to nobody, therefore, that he's a better player than Wilfork. When we had the Wilfork/Seymour thread earlier this year, I chose Wilfork because of the difficulty replacing the NT spot and the age difference. As one-on-one players, though, Seymour has no peer. It's why he's got a good shot at going into the Hall of Fame.

I agree. Why not concentrate on areas where we are deficient? The FO will surely be able to evaluate and budget for players without message board input.

 

[maverick4]

Athleticism makes quite a bit of difference.

I'm still not sure how you can be so sure Wilfork is an elite 3-4. I'm not saying he isn't, but how do you know? The media has certainly made that case over and over in various articles. Did you see that youtube link where Wilfork gets pancaked and the Colts win the AFCC game?

I know it's hard to quantify how good a 3-4 NT is using stats, but look at Casey Hampton or Jamal Williams. These guys are brick walls against the run, and their team defense stats on inside runs helps solidify that case. With Wilfork, not so much.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm still not sure how you can be so sure Wilfork is an elite 3-4. I'm not saying he isn't, but how do you know? The media has certainly made that case over and over in various articles. Did you see that youtube link where Wilfork gets pancaked and the Colts win the AFCC game?

I know it's hard to quantify how good a 3-4 NT is using stats, but look at Casey Hampton or Jamal Williams. These guys are brick walls against the run, and their team defense stats on inside runs helps solidify that case. With Wilfork, not so much.

Kindly name all the teams in the NFL who've played a 2 gap 3-4 defense this decade, prior to the upcoming season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm still not sure how you can be so sure Wilfork is an elite 3-4. I'm not saying he isn't, but how do you know? The media has certainly made that case over and over in various articles. Did you see that youtube link where Wilfork gets pancaked and the Colts win the AFCC game?

I know it's hard to quantify how good a 3-4 NT is using stats, but look at Casey Hampton or Jamal Williams. These guys are brick walls against the run, and their team defense stats on inside runs helps solidify that case. With Wilfork, not so much.

Also, since Football Outsiders has the data back to 2003 and earlier, show us where Washington had the Patriots at #1 or so in 2003 on up the middle runs. With all the pimping of Washington, this should be without question.

 

[RayClay]

Based on what if you don't trust defensive stats? Your eyes?

Statistics you find so profound (Top L bottom R)

4.30
2.88
4.18
4.26
4.41

Stats from 2003 with Ted Washington, arguably Seymour's best year with 56 tackles and 8 sacks.

3.25
5.14
3.99
4.07
3.08

Either Seymour totally sucked and fooled the whole football world, or these statistics are totally meaningless for general use.

Don't go by that, check them year to year against the players involved.

 

[LeonPowe]

Wilfork is overrated. I don't know where he got the reputation that he's the second most important player on the whole team besides Brady. Ron Brace will take his place just fine.

 

[unoriginal]

One would expect a 3-4 defense to be more vulnerable to runs up the middle than runs off-tackles, because the gap-control 3-4 defense is designed to bounce and chase down running plays instead of disrupting them in the backfield.

Consequently, offensives will tend to run right where there's the least weight: at the NT and two ILBs, where there usually are two DTs and one MLB. Running outside means you'll usually get bounced by a DT-sized DE and then run down by an OLB or ILB.

Here are FootballOutsiders' own stats which confirm the above, listing the percentage of the time teams ran between the guards, and what our run defense rank was in the same area:

Year	% Inside Runs	Inside Rank (yards allowed)
2003	58%		11
2004	69%		24
2005	65%		21
2006	68%		12
2007	57%		20
2008	62%		14

The NFL average for inside runs each of these years was around 50%. There were few, if any, teams experiencing a higher percentage of inside runs each of these years.

And as I believe was already covered in this thread, FootballOutsiders ranked us weaker against the run last year in both the OLB's zones (20th and 24th) and at Warren's end (22nd) then in Wilfork's area. That should not happen and it is probably why Vrabel is no longer with us and we're seeing the young guys (Woods, Crable) getting "pushed" into an open position.

 

[RayClay]

Wilfork is overrated. I don't know where he got the reputation that he's the second most important player on the whole team besides Brady. Ron Brace will take his place just fine.

So is Seymour. 5.14 with the great Ted Washington?

Seriously, only loser coaches count stats as life or death. the best trust their own eyes.

Good story about Red Auerbach on KC Jones. He came along with Russell after a year in the army (I think). Too short, good D but a terrible shooter.

Auerbach kept throwing him out there in practice and he ended up sticking over a much better scorer called Ray Flynn (later Mayor Flynn).

When asked what he saw in Jones, Auerbach couldn't explain it except to say, "every time I took him out, we had a better score than when I put him in". Red trusted his eyes and the score.

 

[RayClay]

One would expect a 3-4 defense to be more vulnerable to runs up the middle than runs off-tackles, because the gap-control 3-4 defense is designed to bounce and chase down running plays instead of disrupting them in the backfield.

Consequently, offensives will tend to run right where there's the least weight: at the NT and two ILBs, where there usually are two DTs and one MLB. Running outside means you'll usually get bounced outside by a DT-sized DE and then run down by an OLB or ILB.

Here are FootballOutsiders' own stats which confirm the above, listing the percentage of the time teams ran between the guards, and what our run defense rank was in the same area:

Year    % Inside    Inside Rank
2003    58%        11
2004    69%        24
2005    65%        21
2006    68%        12
2007    57%        20
2008    62%        14

The NFL average for inside runs each of these years was around 50%. There were few, if any, teams experiencing a higher percentage of inside runs each of these years.

And as I believe was already covered in this thread, FootballOutsiders ranked as weaker against the run last year in both the OLB's zones (20th and 24th) and at Warren's end (22nd) then in Wilfork's area. That should not happen and it is probably why Vrabel is no longer with us and we're seeing the young guys (Woods, Crable) getting "pushed" into an open position.

You're one of the few I can think of that could make sense of these stats. Certainly not for general use without interpretive ability.

 

[unoriginal]

You're one of the few I can think of that could make sense of these stats. Certainly not for general use without interpretive ability.

Thank you kindly, but my interpretation is basically Football 101.

Even the Jets defense, with mighty Kris Jenkins in the middle, ranked 9th last year in runs up the middle (and saw inside runs only 51% of the time).

I think that's about the ceiling as far as NT run metrics in a Belichickian 3-4.

Wilfork is doing what he's supposed to be doing

 

[RayClay]

Thank you kindly, but my interpretation is basically Football 101.

I didn't get that far.

Wilfork is doing what he's supposed to be doing

That part I figured out.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Richard Seymour is the best 3-4 D-lineman in football. It should come as a surprise to nobody, therefore, that he's a better player than Wilfork. When we had the Wilfork/Seymour thread earlier this year, I chose Wilfork because of the difficulty replacing the NT spot and the age difference. As one-on-one players, though, Seymour has no peer. It's why he's got a good shot at going into the Hall of Fame.

What he said, although I slant a bit further towards Seymour. As hard as it is to replace a Wilfork, I'd argue that it's even harder to get a DE as good as Seymour... since there isn't one.

 

[RayClay]

What he said, although I slant a bit further towards Seymour. As hard as it is to replace a Wilfork, I'd argue that it's even harder to get a DE as good as Seymour... since there isn't one.

You could get a different great DE though. Not as good as Seymour, but you cover the position.

People are assuming you could draft any 4-3 tackle and have him turn into a great 3-4 NT. Why? There's no evidence of that.