Patriots without Seymour: 12-2 record while giving up 19.21 PPG

[Shockt327]

Disclaimer: This isn’t an argument against Seymour. I know there are gaps in the data, I welcome anyone to help fill in those gaps. I know this data isn’t fully accurate. Feel free to help out with any relevant data/stats/info.

With that being said, I’m attempting to find out what the team will be like without Seymour. I’ve found 3 major injuries in Seymour’s career. The first being in late 2004 where he sprained his MCL in a game against the Jets. The second being early in the 2005 season where he again sprained his MCL against the Chargers. Finally there was the first 7 games of the 2007 season where Seymour was on the PUP.

Where things get really murky is 2006. In that season I know Seymour suffered a major injury to his elbow in a game against BUF, but never actually missed a game; though Jarvis Green did get lots of playing time for him and Warren (who was also hurt). They did struggle during this time.

2004:
17 01/02 SF W 21-7
19 01/16 IND W 20-3
20 01/23 @ PIT W 41-27

2005:
5 10/09 @ ATL W 31-28
6 10/16 @ DEN L 20-28
7 Bye
8 10/30 BUF W 21-16
9 11/07 IND L 21-40

2007:
1 09/09 @ NYJ W 38-14
2 09/16 SD W 38-14
3 09/23 BUF W 38-7
4 10/01 @ CIN W 34-13
5 10/07 CLE W 34-17
6 10/14 @ DAL W 48-27
7 10/21 @ MIA W 49-28

 

[Shockt327]

It should also be noted that Jarvis Green – who in all likelyhood will replace Seymour especially in a 4-3 - had 7.5 sacks in ‘06, and 6.5 sacks in ‘07

Here are Green's numbers while filling in for Seymour during the games listed above:

44 tackles, 28 solo, 4.5 sacks in 14 games

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

We've done well without him, most notably the 2004 AFC playoffs (shutting down one of the best offenses I have ever seen) and first half of 2007. But those defenses were different than the one we have this year.

All in all, I don't think BB would have let him go without confidence that the guys behind him can step up. Nice job on the research.

 

[BradyFTW!]

What was the PPG with Seymour? I believe that I read it was in the 13's somewhere, although comparing that directly with Jarvis' number wouldn't tell us much anyways.

It's an interesting breakdown, but the record statistic is somewhat misleading, since 7 of those games occurred at the beginning of 2007, when a historically good offense was absolutely dominating warm-weather games. The 7-0 record said very little about the defense.

Honestly, I don't think anyone's going to realistically replace Seymour. If we are transitioning over to a 4-3, then there won't be anyone directly comparable to him in the base defense. Which is good, because anyone who's asked to do all of the things that Seymour did will come up short- including Jarvis, who is far worse against the run than Seymour is. Jarvis is a good, versatile player, though, and I think he'll transition well to a 4-3 base, so I'm excited to see what's in store for him.

Given the 3-4 to 4-3 transition (at this point I'm assuming it's happening, but who knows? It might not...), I think it'll be interesting to see how Warren is used, which will give us at least some insight into how Seymour likely would have been used, had we kept him.

 

[Shockt327]

We've done well without him, most notably the 2004 AFC playoffs (shutting down one of the best offenses I have ever seen) and first half of 2007. But [/B]those defenses were different than the one we have this year.

All in all, I don't think BB would have let him go without confidence that the guys behind him can step up. Nice job on the research.

Which actually works in Jarvis Green's favor. Trying to fill in for Seymour in a 2 gap, 3-4 scheme was a tall order; though he did succeed.

But Green is well suited to play a 4-3, where he will not be asked to two-gap.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Which actually works in Jarvis Green's favor. Trying to fill in for Seymour in a 2 gap, 3-4 scheme was a tall order; though he did succeed.

But Green is well suited to play a 4-3, where he will not be asked to two-gap.

I'd argue that he didn't totally succeed, although that depends on the definition of success. He held his own, but the defense definitely took a step down with him in there (which is pretty much what you would expect from any good backup). Still, the point that you made before still stands: it works in everyone's favor if nobody is asked to directly replace Seymour, nobody would be able to (well, maybe Warren, but he's got his own job to do )

 

[Shockt327]

What was the PPG with Seymour? I believe that I read it was in the 13's somewhere, although comparing that directly with Jarvis' number wouldn't tell us much anyways.

It's an interesting breakdown, but the record statistic is somewhat misleading, since 7 of those games occurred at the beginning of 2007, when a historically good offense was absolutely dominating warm-weather games. The 7-0 record said very little about the defense.

Honestly, I don't think anyone's going to realistically replace Seymour. If we are transitioning over to a 4-3, then there won't be anyone directly comparable to him in the base defense. Which is good, because anyone who's asked to do all of the things that Seymour did will come up short- including Jarvis, who is far worse against the run than Seymour is. Jarvis is a good, versatile player, though, and I think he'll transition well to a 4-3 base, so I'm excited to see what's in store for him.

Given the 3-4 to 4-3 transition (at this point I'm assuming it's happening, but who knows? It might not...), I think it'll be interesting to see how Warren is used, which will give us at least some insight into how Seymour likely would have been used, had we kept him.

I agree, I'm not exactly sure how Warren fits into the 4-3. He's not a 4-3 DE. Yet, he's also not a 3-technique DT. Maybe both he a Wilfork will 2 gap. This is what the 2000 Ravens did with Siragusa and Sam Adams.

 

[BelichickFan]

What was the PPG with Seymour? I believe that I read it was in the 13's somewhere

We're never given up that few points but it would be a bad comparison because our best defenses were in 2003/2004 when not only Seymour was playing more but the Bruschis, Laws, McGinnests and Harrisons were in their prime. The PPG with him out is pretty good when you look at the years he was out and how mediocre the defenses were even with him.

 

[BradyFTW!]

We're never given up that few points but it would be a bad comparison because our best defenses were in 2003/2004 when not only Seymour was playing more but the Bruschis, Laws, McGinnests and Harrisons were in their prime. The PPG with him out is pretty good when you look at the years he was out and how mediocre the defenses were even with him.

Apparently you missed the second half of that sentence, where I said "although comparing that directly with Jarvis' number wouldn't tell us much anyways."

I agree, I'm not exactly sure how Warren fits into the 4-3. He's not a 4-3 DE. Yet, he's also not a 3-technique DT. Maybe both he a Wilfork will 2 gap. This is what the 2000 Ravens did with Siragusa and Sam Adams.

Seymour played a lot of 3-technique last year on passing downs, and that's where he got many of his sacks. If I had to guess how Warren will line up in the 4-3, in fact, that would probably be it.

 

[BelichickFan]

Apparently you missed the second half of that sentence, where I said "although comparing that directly with Jarvis' number wouldn't tell us much anyways."

The first half was wrong so the second half, which I did read, wasn't useful.

 

[Shockt327]

Seymour played a lot of 3-technique last year on passing downs, and that's where he got many of his sacks.

Excellent point. I wonder if Green is capable of being an effective 3 technique DT - I believe he has played DT this preseason.

If I had to guess how Warren will line up in the 4-3, in fact, that would probably be it.

But Warren doesn't have Seymour's quickness. Therefore he isn't suited to line up in a 3 technique and penetrate.

 

[Ring 6]

Which actually works in Jarvis Green's favor. Trying to fill in for Seymour in a 2 gap, 3-4 scheme was a tall order; though he did succeed.

But Green is well suited to play a 4-3, where he will not be asked to two-gap.

2 gap is required whether its a 34 or 43.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the issue isnt the dropoff from Seymour to who is next in line, but the dropoff of the play with Seymour or with the other guy.
What I mean is this:
In base run D Seymour is covering 2 gaps and sharing each gap with another player. Seymour is a great run defender, but its not like he covers a huge area of the field, or that he has sole responsibility. The dropoff can be made up for, in part, by the guys playing next to him, much moreso than in any other scheme.
The pass rush is my concern. First, in the base playing 2 gap, you must be dominant to get a pass rush. From the sub packages, Seymour, regardless of sack #s consistently got pressure up the middle. I dont know who will do that now.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Excellent point. I wonder if Green is capable of being an effective 3 technique DT - I believe he has played DT this preseason.

Given his skill-set, I think it's a definite possibility that he could be effective in that role.

But Warren doesn't have Seymour's quickness. Therefore he isn't suited to line up in a 3 technique and penetrate.

Good point... makes me wonder where Warren fits best in a 4-3.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The first half was wrong so the second half, which I did read, wasn't useful.

What part of "the defense averaged 13.something ppg when Seymour played" was wrong? Looks like, in your hurry to prove a point, it didn't occur to you to actually read the post you were refuting...

 

[BelichickFan]

What part of "the defense averaged 13.something ppg when Seymour played" was wrong?

It was wrong. Even in the best years, we never had a season with that average defensively when Seymour played every game. In our worst seasons we were WAY above that. I don't know where you got that number from but it just isn't correct.

 

[Shockt327]

2 gap is required whether its a 34 or 43.

Two-gap is required by one of the DTs 43, not necessarily both. As it was pointed out, Seymour got many of his 8 sacks playing a 3 technique, while the Pats were in a 4 man line.

 

[Shockt327]

What part of "the defense averaged 13.something ppg when Seymour played" was wrong? Looks like, in your hurry to prove a point, it didn't occur to you to actually read the post you were refuting...

Pats Defensive PPG

2008: 19.3
2007: 17.1
2006: 14.8
2005: 21.2
2004: 16.3