Adam Schein: The Pats have the best roster in the league

[Rob0729]

and he says it isn't even up for debate. It seems he recorded this before Burgess too. Says Leigh Bodden will get at least 6 INTs.

Video - Video Central - FOX Sports on MSN

 

[signbabybrady]

That thought was very evident today with the guys that returned to practice and came off the PUP.

I thought to myself today at camp that same thing.

 

[swheeler23]

The great thing about sports is you have to produce on the field. What reporters thing really does not matter.

 

[pats1]

That thought was very evident today with the guys that returned to practice and came off the PUP.

I thought to myself today at camp that same thing.

I know. Just looking at the roster as it stands right now (with the activated players), and the defensive front seven is nuts. I still think the Pats will use more 4-man fronts, with Warren, Wilfork, Brace, and Seymour. Burgess and Green as pass rushers; Wright rotating inside. Ri-dic-u-lous.

 

[DefenseRules]

The depth on this team does look outstanding, ON PAPER. I hope that it all comes together on the field. There are going to be some TOUGH Cuts this year.

 

[pats1]

The depth on this team does look outstanding, ON PAPER. I hope that it all comes together on the field. There are going to be some TOUGH Cuts this year.

And could one be Bruschi...? Think you have a compelling case for that. If the Pats use a lot of 4-man fronts, he's not going to get playing time an ILB. He's too slow to be a WLB or a sub package LB. He's not a force on special teams. He's injured and has missed most of camp.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

That's because I was behind the camera staring him down while they shot this. Otherwise he was going to say San Diego Chargers

 

[signbabybrady]

And could one be Bruschi...? Think you have a compelling case for that. If the Pats use a lot of 4-man fronts, he's not going to get playing time an ILB. He's too slow to be a WLB or a sub package LB. He's not a force on special teams. He's injured and has missed most of camp.

I doubt it The LB position isnt that deep right now. I figure 4 OLBs and 4 ILBs and maybe one or two STs LB. who replaces Bru on the inside? figuring Guyton and Mayo as starters Bru and Lennon as back ups. I suppose you could go with 3 ILBs because Thomas can play inside if needed but then you weaken the OLB spot.

 

[pats1]

I doubt it The LB position isnt that deep right now. I figure 4 OLBs and 4 ILBs and maybe one or two STs LB. who replaces Bru on the inside? figuring Guyton and Mayo as starters Bru and Lennon as back ups. I suppose you could go with 3 ILBs because Thomas can play inside if needed but then you weaken the OLB spot.

If things continue the way they've been going, the 2nd ILB spot may just be a special teams spot. So in that case, Alexander or Ciurciu.

But not necessarily separating ILB and OLB, I see the Pats keeping Thomas, Mayo, Guyton, Woods, Crable, Alexander, and Ciurciu. That leaves Lenon and Tank as cuts.

At DL, I can see them keeping Seymour, Wilfork, Warren, Brace, Burgess, Green (at this point I start salivating), Wright, and Banta-Cain. I suppose Pryor, Smith, and Richard would be tough cuts. Williams, Adams, and Ninkovich are easy cuts.

 

[ramon]

Patriots Roster is solid..no doubt

But if I had a nickel for every time Adam Schein was wrong, i would have more money than Bill Gates.
I have about as much respect for Schein's football knowledge as my dog's.

 

[signbabybrady]

If things continue the way they've been going, the 2nd ILB spot may just be a special teams spot. So in that case, Alexander or Ciurciu.

But not necessarily separating ILB and OLB, I see the Pats keeping Thomas, Mayo, Guyton, Woods, Crable, Alexander, and Ciurciu. That leaves Lenon and Alexander as cuts.

At DL, I can see them keeping Seymour, Wilfork, Warren, Brace, Burgess, Green (at this point I start salivating), Wright, and Banta-Cain. I suppose Pryor and Richard would be tough cuts. Williams, Adams, and Ninkovich are easy cuts.

Can you clarify what your saying here....2nd ILB spot is Guyton...also you list Alexander in the 7 you keep than say that leaves Lennon and Alexander as cuts....also you have Burgess and Tully on the line (this makes sense in 4-3).

I guess you just think they will play much more 4-3 than I do. I can see them increasing the use of 4-3 a little but I don't know if they will use it that much more that it will change the way the depth chart looks as to the number of DL and LBs.

 

[pats1]

Can you clarify what your saying here....2nd ILB spot is Guyton...also you list Alexander in the 7 you keep than say that leaves Lennon and Alexander as cuts....also you have Burgess and Tully on the line (this makes sense in 4-3).

I guess you just think they will play much more 4-3 than I do. I can see them increasing the use of 4-3 a little but I don't know if they will use it that much more that it will change the way the depth chart looks as to the number of DL and LBs.

Right, I see them using a lot more 4-3 and 4-man sub packages than you do. In that case, Bruschi's value is significantly diminished.

I meant to say Lenon and Tank as cuts.

 

[furley]

Yeah, I just saw that... I'm of the opinion that you can look good on paper, but it's still about what you actually do on the field. That's what it'll ultimately come down to for New England. You've to look at it one game at a time if I may use another cliche.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Great. Gas up the Duck Boats! I'm heading up to City Hall Plaza to stake out my spot.

 

[lamafist]

I really don't see the Pats going to a 4 man front with any more frequency than before, given the way NFL offenses are trending. With the FB rapidly becoming obsolete, and more and more teams using 3+ WR as their base set, adding an additional big man is counter-productive.

Rather, I imagine the Pats will continue to rely more and more on nickel packages on early downs, as we've seen over the past few seasons. I think we'll see a lot of 3-3-5 formations with Bruschi probably coming off most often, though I don't see his roster spot being in jeopardy.

 

[pats1]

I really don't see the Pats going to a 4 man front with any more frequency than before, given the way NFL offenses are trending. With the FB rapidly becoming obsolete, and more and more teams using 3+ WR as their base set, adding an additional big man is counter-productive.

Rather, I imagine the Pats will continue to rely more and more on nickel packages on early downs, as we've seen over the past few seasons. I think we'll see a lot of 3-3-5 formations with Bruschi probably coming off most often, though I don't see his roster spot being in jeopardy.

I think you're right with the second part. But if teams are using 3 WRs, then the Pats will go to nickel. Even if they don't (and they didn't all the time last year - they floated the OLBs out), you still have two athletic OLBs to cover: Thomas and Guyton.

And when the Pats go to nickel, they've traditionally - even when they've run a straight 3-4 - gone to a 4-man line, usually with rushers on the ends and Green/Warren and Seymour inside.

The Pats don't use a 3-3-5 as often as you think and they probably won't. The 3-3-5 just isn't an effective pass rushing formation.

 

[signbabybrady]

And when the Pats go to nickel, they've traditionally - even when they've run a straight 3-4 - gone to a 4-man line, usually with rushers on the ends and Green/Warren and Seymour inside.

What you describe is 2-4-5.

 

[pats1]

What you describe is 2-4-5.

Not really. The Pats, for the past 4+ seasons, have used a 4-2-5 nickel package. If you look back at any game, the end rushers (Vrabel, Thomas, Colvin, McGinest) have been in a three-point stance in the nickel package.

 

[signbabybrady]

Not really. The Pats, for the past 4+ seasons, have used a 4-2-5 nickel package. If you look back at any game, the end rushers (Vrabel, Thomas, Colvin, McGinest) have been in a three-point stance in the nickel package.

oh I am aware they put there hands down but and I know you started a different discussion but as it related to our discussion of DL #s VS LB #s it should be noted two of the guys with hands down are typically LBs.

My point is that because our OLBs are usually our top pass rushers and most of are Dline are made for 3-4 that the 4-3 likely wont be are base DE for a while.

 

[pats1]

oh I am aware they put there hands down but and I know you started a different discussion but as it related to our discussion of DL #s VS LB #s it should be noted two of the guys with hands down are typically LBs.

My point is that because our OLBs are usually our top pass rushers and most of are Dline are made for 3-4 that the 4-3 likely wont be are base DE for a while.

The difference is that when the Pats ran a 3-4 base, the players who were DEs in the nickel package were *also* OLBs in the 3-4 running downs - McGinest, Vrabel, Colvin, sometimes Thomas.

Now, with the Pats *appearing* to run a 4-3, those DEs in the nickel package are NOT playing OLB in the early down base defense. That's the key difference; I'm not sure if you were at practice or not today (that would break a pretty damn good streak too), but Burgess, by all reports, was not in the same role as the four players I described above. He was *only* used in a nickel/4-3 DE role.