Breaking Down The LB Corps

[livinginthe past]

I think the potency of our offense is going to dictate that teams are going to be forced into a pass heavy attack sooner rather than later in games.

Teams with elite defence are probably going to try and go run heavy and contain the Patriots O (Baltimore and Tennesee are probably the only two on the regular season schedule).

So, in the norm the Patriots are going to be spending a large amount of time in sub packages - and probably alot more than half of the defensive snaps.

As has been note here many times - the pass rush and pass coverage have a symbiotic relationship - the upgrades in the defensive backfield are sure to help us avoid the frustration of the 2007 season where teams passed at will against us.

 

[RayClay]

Just how dead is this horse going to have to be before you stop beating it?

I didn't start the thread. If you disagree, please state your position.

I agree it's pointless on my part.

For any new posters, just search my posts for the term "linebacker". They go back at least to the July before we collapsed against the Colts after pulling TBC for zero tackles against the Chargers.

 

[jczxohn1]

Welcome to a new age. Its not about who starts, its about how many "personel groupings" you have at your disposal.

It's all good when you can get them on the field. QB's like Brady and Manning kill you tho with "hurry-up" offenses when you are stuck with role players on the field.

 

[RayClay]

Just how dead is this horse going to have to be before you stop beating it?

Good debate technique, BTW. Not, "your facts are wrong", but "please quit saying what people are trying to avoid acknowledging".

 

[Deus Irae]

Good debate technique, BTW. Not, "your facts are wrong", but "please quit saying what people are trying to avoid acknowledging".

It's not a debate technique. You're going on about this on pretty much every thread. Hence the 'dead horse' reference.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

It's not a debate technique. You're going on about this on pretty much every thread. Hence the 'dead horse' reference.

we are so lucky to have you here to keep track of such things.......

 

[PushnPencils]

It's not a debate technique. You're going on about this on pretty much every thread. Hence the 'dead horse' reference.

Hey.....ya know what looks like a dead horse?

Our OLB depth chart. Seriously...get Crable and Burgess on the field....now!

 

[RayClay]

It's not a debate technique. You're going on about this on pretty much every thread. Hence the 'dead horse' reference.

I'm pretty happy with the rest of the Personnel. Moss caught two balls, backup QBs including Michael Vick, I'm not too interested in. Our starting QB is great. I think the one we cut was pretty decent, so I assume the new one is well thought of.

I don't think I've started any threads, so what is their to talk about? I think my concern is and has been valid. We are loaded at every other position, including long snapper.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm pretty happy with the rest of the Personnel. Moss caught two balls, backup QBs including Michael Vick, I'm not too interested in. Our starting QB is great. I think the one we cut was pretty decent, so I assume the new one is well thought of.

I don't think I've started any threads, so what is their to talk about? I think my concern is and has been valid. We are loaded at every other position, including long snapper.

I'm not going to get into this, yet again. That's the point. You're beating a dead horse.

 

[Frezo]

So what does that mean to our LBs. It means that the term "starter" has little meaning, and that the likelyhood of 4 LBs being on the field for 3 downs in a row is just plain UNLIKELY. Quite frankly I'd be surprised when it 2 in a row.

Welcome to a new age. Its not about who starts, its about how many "personel groupings" you have at your disposal.

The new age also seems to be about hurry up/no huddle offenses. The Pats will have 5 regular season games against these types of offenses with the Dolphins, Colts and now the Bills. We have to be able to put a 3 down package on the field and not rely on substituting players at will. This calls for different formations from the players that are on the field because they can't get off without being penalized for "too many men". P. Manning is a specialist at this stuff. The Dolphins and Bills not so much, but the Pats have to be ready for it. Am I the only one that feels this is a concern?

 

[AzPatsFan]

The new age also seems to be about hurry up/no huddle offenses. The Pats will have 5 regular season games against these types of offenses with the Dolphins, Colts and now the Bills. We have to be able to put a 3 down package on the field and not rely on substituting players at will. This calls for different formations from the players that are on the field because they can't get off without being penalized for "too many men". P. Manning is a specialist at this stuff. The Dolphins and Bills not so much, but the Pats have to be ready for it. Am I the only one that feels this is a concern?

Agreed that Manning can run the Hurry-up. Have you forgotten that the Clots were ranked 31st in run Offense? Play pass all the time, and dare them to run you out of it...

 

[Frezo]

Agreed that Manning can run the Hurry-up. Have you forgotten that the Clots were ranked 31st in run Offense? Play pass all the time, and dare them to run you out of it...

I can't gauge where you stand on what I said. Should there be a concern that the Pats may not have that 3 down OLB opposite Thomas? Would you be happy with OLB by committee?

 

[AzPatsFan]

I can't gauge where you stand on what I said. Should there be a concern that the Pats may not have that 3 down OLB opposite Thomas? Would you be happy with OLB by committee?

A) No Not at all. The Coaches already know what they have by demonstrated play in Woods and TBC, and to a degree with Crabel, in practice situations.

B) Yes, I would have no problem with "OLB by Committee" in your words. I would prefer the wording that BB uses, and has been celebrated for doing. Its called "Situation Substitution". And is as as applicable as when BB did it with TJ and Phifer, for anti-Run and anti-Pass, respectively.

Or as BB has said: "Don't ask some player to do something that you know he can't do..."

 

[Ring 6]

We always said how the rush came from anywhere in the Super Bowl days. We still have Bruschi, but not the young Bruschi. He did set the all time NCAA record for sacks.

He played with either a Platoon of McGinest, Colvin and Mcginest (short time) or just McGinest and Vrabel or Vrabel and Colvin.

Guys that set team or NCAA records for sacks in college have demonstrated pass rush ability, although it has been argued recently they forget how once they become pros.

I dont know about forgetting how but I know that a DE rushing the QB is different than a 34 ILB who isnt asked to rush.
I disagree with the perception that the rush came from anywhere and #s dont bear it nout either. If that is your goal, though, Im sure Mayo can fill the bill.

 

[RayClay]

I dont know about forgetting how but I know that a DE rushing the QB is different than a 34 ILB who isnt asked to rush.
I disagree with the perception that the rush came from anywhere and #s dont bear it nout either. If that is your goal, though, Im sure Mayo can fill the bill.

He had the proven ability to get to the QB, that's all I meant. Because of the talent at linebacker, they were very unpredictable.

I'm not one that's all impresses by big numbers of sacks, or anything. One huge play at the right time is worth a ton of stat padding.

I'm not down on any player, I just think in the aggregate, we should have some more competition. #1 picks don't always pan out, but the Pats do their homework and Mayo's great. When you're credentials are considerably less, especially when your position mates aren't top picks or pick ups either, I just think strenuous competition proves you've earned the start.

 

[nickw308810]

The key is not really the LB position, but who fills the role, in addition to AD, that has historically been filled by an OLB, as a nickel/dime DE. I assume it will be a combination of TBC, Crabel (if he gets healthy) and Woods, but could imagine it includes Jarvis Green, Lenon or others.

When I break down the LB position for 2009, I don't worry a second about ILB. I don't worry about OLB in the base, and the only concern I have is who will have their hand down across from AD as a DE in the nickel and dime.

Great post and analysis. The question I have is, considering the importance of this position, would it not have made sense to draft/sign/trade for a player who is strictly a 4-3 DE?

The talk on here is always about if a player can transition from a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB, but considering they will be taking half the snaps as a DE, maybe they don't have to be a tweener. Just an idea.

 

[cstjohn17]

Andy, you certainly went to a lot of detail, thank you for the post.

Overall I agree that the multitude of formations and packages make it impossible to rely on the same 4 LBs all the time.

I am not as sold on some of the other analysis:
1) "IMO, given this assumption we are as strong as ever rushing the passer from our base" - For years the Patriots had two very good pass rushers, either McGinest and Vrabel or Vrabel and Colvin. Some years they had all three (at least for 1/2 hour before one of them was hurt). I don't see anything on the same level this year.
2) Thomas as primary pass rusher - The dilema with this is that he is also the best coverage OLB, if he is rushing then Woods / Mayo or Guyton is covering a TE. The Patriots had major issues with this last year. The good news is that with improved CBs the Safeties can help the LBs.
3) ILB - I actually think the OLB unit has more depth (just a lack of talent outside of Thomas). Again Thomas can shift inside adding more depth, he really is the key to the LBs.

All of the fancy smancy formations are nice but some teams (Colts) force teams to play their base, they use the no-huddle to exploit matchups, other teams (like the majority of the opponents this year) are run first, this means stuffing the run and setting the edges will be job number one for the LBs.

I went to practice on Tuesday, just from an eye ball test Guyton and Mayo looked to have bulked up. Lenon looks very slight, I can't see him making the team. Hopefully Crabel is back soon and can take over the Rosie Colvin spot.

Final analysis - I am not sold on the LBs, they should be average which will probably be good enough with the offense putting up 25 PPG.

 

[Ring 6]

Great post and analysis. The question I have is, considering the importance of this position, would it not have made sense to draft/sign/trade for a player who is strictly a 4-3 DE?

The talk on here is always about if a player can transition from a 4-3 DE to a 3-4 OLB, but considering they will be taking half the snaps as a DE, maybe they don't have to be a tweener. Just an idea.

I think that was the idea with the reported interest in Taylor and/or Burgess.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, you certainly went to a lot of detail, thank you for the post.

Overall I agree that the multitude of formations and packages make it impossible to rely on the same 4 LBs all the time.

I am not as sold on some of the other analysis:
1) "IMO, given this assumption we are as strong as ever rushing the passer from our base" - For years the Patriots had two very good pass rushers, either McGinest and Vrabel or Vrabel and Colvin. Some years they had all three (at least for 1/2 hour before one of them was hurt). I don't see anything on the same level this year.
2) Thomas as primary pass rusher - The dilema with this is that he is also the best coverage OLB, if he is rushing then Woods / Mayo or Guyton is covering a TE. The Patriots had major issues with this last year. The good news is that with improved CBs the Safeties can help the LBs.
3) ILB - I actually think the OLB unit has more depth (just a lack of talent outside of Thomas). Again Thomas can shift inside adding more depth, he really is the key to the LBs.

All of the fancy smancy formations are nice but some teams (Colts) force teams to play their base, they use the no-huddle to exploit matchups, other teams (like the majority of the opponents this year) are run first, this means stuffing the run and setting the edges will be job number one for the LBs.

I went to practice on Tuesday, just from an eye ball test Guyton and Mayo looked to have bulked up. Lenon looks very slight, I can't see him making the team. Hopefully Crabel is back soon and can take over the Rosie Colvin spot.

Final analysis - I am not sold on the LBs, they should be average which will probably be good enough with the offense putting up 25 PPG.

1) Typically one of the OLBs almost exclusivley rush out of the base. The last 2 years it was Vrabel. As I said, the ability to be able to use either is a nice plus, but not a necessity. Consider one of the OLBs as a DE, the 4th pass rusher. Its AD now, and was Vrabel last year, McGinest in early years, etc. I don't put a lot of weight on the pass rush ability of a guy who doesnt pass rush. I suppose we have less potential than other years, but in the end Woods being the guy who doesnt rush or Thomas, or Vrabel or Colvin doesn't mean much IMO.
2) Well, we don't play a lot of man from the base, so I don't think any LB is 'covering the TE' per se. I dont see major issues with the coverage abilities of our LB crew, including Woods.
3) I'm fine with our ILB depth. Considering we use 2 on only half the plays, I'm good with Mayo, Bruschi, Guyton and Lenon. We almost have never played the 5th ILB on the depth chart, and I'm good with the quality of the backups.

I don't know how any team can 'force us into the base'. We don't even play the base D against the Colts we start in some variety of nickel.
I dont know how playing teams that like to run could be bad for us. The questions in our D aren't in stopping the run.

I think average is setting the bar very low.
Mayo and Thomas are far above average. Woods, Bruschi, Guyton, TBC, Crable (maybe) would have to be slouches to make the unit average, and I don't see a bunch of slouches and liabilities there, although I don't see the name value some fans like to base their analysis on.

 

[Ring 6]

He had the proven ability to get to the QB, that's all I meant. Because of the talent at linebacker, they were very unpredictable.

I'm not one that's all impresses by big numbers of sacks, or anything. One huge play at the right time is worth a ton of stat padding.

I'm not down on any player, I just think in the aggregate, we should have some more competition. #1 picks don't always pan out, but the Pats do their homework and Mayo's great. When you're credentials are considerably less, especially when your position mates aren't top picks or pick ups either, I just think strenuous competition proves you've earned the start.

I agree you shouldnt be impressed by stats, but you also shouldn't rely on 'we all used to say' when that isnt backed up by the stats, either. Stats can be manipulated to make an argument, quoting an opinion that may have been wrong to begin with and using it to prove an argument is much more heavily flawed.

I think that you will probably never be happy with the LB corps here, because BB seems to have a different philosophy than you do. I have no doubt that he believes competition is good, and also no doubt that he believes his LBs have had competition as much as any other position.
I would imagine he would agree that 1st and 2nd round picks would provide better competition than late picks, udfa's and less publicized ufa's. However, I would bet a lot of money that he believes that difference is smaller than at other positions, with the possible exception of OL.
See, to conclude that BB has not acquired LBs in the manner you would do it if you were him is one thing. To argue your way is better, is another. But to argue that your way would be best for the development of the entire roster elevates tic-tac-toe to physics.

This is where I get frustrated with the Chicken Little crowd. They typically imply that BB either built the team forgetting their was a LB unit, or knew it sucked and just didn't want to be bothered. Clearly either of those implications are foolish.
If BB is among, if not THE best at putting together a winning NFL team, and we are novices, wouldn't the smart money be on trying to understand what WE are missing rather than trying to find how we can criticize BB?
I get that you don't understand of agree with his methods here. But I come down on the side that you don't understand something he knows rather than he doesnt understand something you know.