I didn't mention Banta-Cain's sack total or that of the patriots. In fact, I mentioned that perhaps Tully was in fact an average pass-rusher. BTW, I am a strong supporter of Banta-Cain. I, as Reiss, believe that he is the key to our pass-rush and is reasonable in that regard. Banta-Cain was a fine addition. HOWEVER, I'm not sure that his talent is more than the average of those starting at OLB in the AFC. And even if Banta-Cain is a bit above average, the others are not. Do you disagree?
BTW, Banta-Cain had 9.5 sacks precisely because there was no one of any quality on the other side. Of course, it would be unreasonable to expect Banta-Cain to repeat and for a JAG on the other side to equal his 2009 totals.
You are proposing the strawman of sack totals to measure our passrush. And in that your analysis is tortured mentioning that only 5 teams had four more sacks than we did, and that they were not in the playoffs. What of the teams that had only 1-3 more sacks than we did?
A passrush is measured by much more than sacks. It is measured by hurries, by quarterback ratings of opposing quarterbacks, and by points given up.
QUESTIONS FOR ANDY
1) Do you believe that we have at least an average passrush?
2) Do you believe that our OLB's are average against the pass?
3) Do you believe that OLB is other than our weakest defensive position?.
1) I think average is the perfect categorization of our pass rush. I think that the common rhetoic is that it is worse than average just like if Tom Brady gets hit four and the we hit the QB on he other team 12 times the next day there will be pages and pages about how our OL sucks and Brady is going to get killed. Just as the OC gets ripped when a play doesnt work for any reason. Just like we can be among the league leaders in 3rd down conversions on both sides of the ball and you will hear that we need to blitz more because we can't get off the field and we need better 3rd down offense.
They are all areas of heavy emphasis and expctations are out of what to begin with.
2) We don't know who are OLBs are going to be. Unlike most other teams half the time our OLBs play DL, so thats a hard comparison to make. I dont know, though, how you call TBC a JAG then say he only gets sacks because the other OLB sucked? Wouldnt that mean it is harder for him?
3) That is difficult to answer. OLB is a unique position. And we may use different players for the different roles that the position has. We don't even know who they will be. I think last year that corner or OLB was our worst position, and I think the deficiencies at corner hurt us more. The OLBs were passable against the run, and average rushing the passer. Had our corners been better, we would have had more pass rush success. he biggest weakness in our sub package rush though was inside not outside.
Its all interrealted. I'd rather live with Pierre Woods playing the run and Burgess replacing him to rush the passer in sub than be weak in coverage though, which is why I wished for and got a first round corner and a bunch of DBs drafted high lately. [/quote]
MY BOTTOM LINE
I don't understand why Belichick has chosen to devote such minimal resources to this position. HOWEVER, I believe that improvements in the other defensive units will result in an improvement from a top 10 defense in 2009 to a better one in 2010.
He doesnt have unlimited resources.
I think if you really look at the draft in the first couple of rounds there are players at many positions each time we select that project to be better than what we have (at least potentially) or will by the time they develop.
Then in the later rounds its the same idea with reserves.
If, very simlistically, your pool for that pick, say in round 2 are all of the guys who project to be bette than what you now have or will still have in 2-3 years, and you pick the best player among that group, that isn't ignoring a position. Its picking the player most likely to help the most.
I think its very, very easy to see how OLBs would rarely be the best guy among those groups, because 4-3 teams are overvaluing them and taking them earlier than we would.
Here is an example.
What if BB feeling that OLB was a huge need traded up to get Gholston?
What if BB drafted Dwight Freeney 8 years ago?
Freeney has 84 sacks in 8 years. That is in a system where all he has to do is rush the passer. Every play every down, he is trying to spin, run, twist, go anywhere he has to in order to get the QB.
It is ludicrous to say he would get as many sacks in our 2gap system.
If that draftwas redone most people think he would be one of the top picks.
Where would we value him? If the system only costs him 1/4 of his sacks, where would we rate a guy who will get us 63 sacks in 8 years and be awful vs the run?
I am certain BB sees value in him, but I would imagine it is a lower value than most other teams would.
Sure, I think it would be great if BB had a defenive style that caused us to sack the QB more than anyone else. But it would come at a cost. I think that his track record says that its prudent to accept the entire package instead of pining for the flavor of the month because the amount of success he has had dwarfs every one of his contemporaries.
By the way when I reread my response it sounded pretty bonbastic and belligerent toward your comments. Wasn't meant that way, I was just getting into it with the topic. No hard feelings I hope.
