Cunningham

[Kasmir]

If you watch Cunningham on tape at Florida you'll see he's pretty versatile. They switch him from side to side situationally, and he drops into coverage on about 25% of the passing snaps. I'm not at all surprised they're experimenting with him at elephant, as he's already demonstrated some flexibility. The one thing they *didn't* do with him was play him from 2-point stance very often.

One of the most encouraging things to me watching Cunningham at Florida is how well he played against the run. He often was asked to two-gap OT's and seldom lost the battle despite the size disadvantage. I would expect him to be able to set the edge playing OLB in a 3-4.

 

[condon84]

It'll be a HUGE disappointment if Cunningham can't beat out Woods or Ninkovich. People are fooling themselves into thinking that Woods/Ninkovich will be capable OLBs if they play most of the snaps. Even though Woods may know the system, OLB is all about having the physical abilities to get the job done and Woods clearly has shown he doesn't have that. Ninkovich is an unknown, but he didn't show much last year during the opportunities he got. If we were the Lions, then yeah I guess Woods starting would be fine. But based on majority of the posters here's prediction of our record this year (there was a thread on this board and I read a lot of 11-6, 12-4, and even 14-2 records), people can't really think Woods is a starting OLB in a Super Bowl contender.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Woods, and Ninkovich, only had a 100 snaps each at OLB will Adalius Thomas, had over 260 snaps i think we can all agree AD was a piss poor OLB last year. and they could not take snaps away from him so IMO even as a rookie Cunningham, should get more snaps at OLB/DE then both Woods, and Ninkovich,

260 snaps isn't really that many. And it doesn't mean that they couldn't take the snaps away from him: it meant that he, like them, was part of the rotation. He went into the year as our top OLB and horrendously disappointed, it happens.

 

[BradyFTW!]

But BB wants and expects them to be versatile and I think he drafts with that in mind. (Chung for example, as well as Meriwhether are equally capable as ss or ws)
Ultimatley, there isnt that much difference for an OLB being on the strong side or the weak. I mean in terms of being effective, not how the play presents itself.
In the running game whether you are blocked by the TE, or a pulling G or a FB isn't a matter of different skill sets.
In the passing game we rarely ever have an OLB in man coverage on anyone, so the flat is the flat whether its strong or weak.
I think that part of the reason BB does not flip players is because ultimately there are situations where there is no strength.
One back with 4 wides, or 1 back with 2 TEs has no strong or weak side.

I definitely agree with you on the long term vision for the young players: he wants them to be as versatile as he can make them. That said, it's just unreasonable to expect that versatility to be there in a rookie, especially one who's switching positions. Reminds of what Pepper Johnson was saying about how they involve young players, which is by giving them smaller roles that they can excel in from the get-go, and letting them own those roles while they continue to learn new ones.

If you're expecting a polished, highly versatile starter-caliber OLB from day one, I think that Cunningham is going to disappoint you. It will take him some time to get there, and that doesn't make him a bad pick. It's just an acknowledgement of the fact that switching positions is hard, and Belichick is extremely demanding on his OLBs- they have a lot that they need to be able to do, and there's no way that Cunningham can do all, or even most, of it yet. He'll hopefully get there in time, but he won't be there right away, and almost certainly won't get there this season. If I had to guess, I'd say that this season we'll see him primarily as a weak-side edge rusher, because a) that's a role that leverages the skills that he already has developed, and b) it relies more on athleticism than experience.

In the mean time, Woods is adequate. He's not ideal, and he's definitely a placeholder, but leaving him in there won't kill you (like Eric Alexander does if you leave him in at ILB). For now, that will probably just have to be enough.

I'd also disagree with your assessment on Chung, who just isn't a FS in any sense of the word. The big knock on him has always been that he can't cover; he was atrocious at it last year, and so far the early word out of training camp still isn't great. He's a prototypical strong safety, in many respects. As his recognition skills improve, he'll be able to compensate for his lack of speed by anticipating the play better and taking good angles to the ballcarrier, which goes back to my original point: the versatility that Belichick's looking for needs to be coached into guys. Nobody comes into the league with it. That's why we didn't see much of Chung last year, and will probably see a lot more of him this season. Similarly, I'd be pleasantly surprised if we see a lot of Cunningham outside of a handful of fairly specialized roles, at least until a little later on in the season.

 

[Calciumee]

Thats ridiculous. Many good draft picks start their rookie seasons slow.

Brady was pretty slow his first year 2nd is different

 

[ahmed]

For now, I just want him to be able to rush the QB and set the edge... everything else we can live with Woods although I never liked him. I actually was impressed with Ninkovich last year whenever he had the chance to play.

 

[JackBauer]

... he was atrocious at it last year, and so far the early word out of training camp still isn't great.

I believe it was Psycho who wrote that Chung appears to have markedly improved in his coverage abilities.

 

[spacecrime]

if Cunningham, can't beat out Woods, and Ninkovich, two Career ST/ ok back up OLB's then i hate to say but he would be a wast of a pick

Second round pick must be out the incumbents by opening day or he is a bust.

 

[Destroyer]

Second round pick must be out the incumbents by opening day or he is a bust.

Yeah, that post was ridiculous. The consensus opinion around the league is you give a player 3 years to prove they can play, straight out of the Bill Parcells school of thought. I noticed over the last few months on these boards that people have started to develop a terrible habit of slamming draft picks and calling them busts after a season or two of playing, or lack thereof. If we cut or released every guy who hasn't performed after a season or two we'd probably only have 30 or so players on those practice fields right now.

Give it time people, seriously.

 

[AzPatsFan]

We won't be in the base 3-4 in 50% of total snaps anyways. Woods isn't ideal as the starting SOLB, but he doesn't screw us either. He's a mostly capable player who knows the system; we could do a lot better, but we could do a lot worse too. If people go back and look at what Vrabel gave us as a pass rusher from the strong side in the SB years, I think they'd realize that it's not like there's some impossible void to fill there. If we can bring along a guy who can cover, set the edge, and get 3-5 sacks per year, I'm Kay with that. The pass rush issues are definitely not exclusive to OLB. We need Mayo and whoever's replacing Seymour to pick up a lot of the slack, too, because that's where a great deal of the drop off is coming from.

BradyFTW!,

Bingo! You got Bingo!! Great analysis.

Most years that Vrabel played, he averaged about 4-5 sacks. Seymour chipped in about 7 or 8 from the DL and Bruschi added 4 or so from the ILB position.

What we missed last year was the 3-5 from the ILBs; and the 8-10 from the entire DL. And the 3-4 from the secondary blitzes, although we got 1.5 from them. All we got were 5 from Wright and the DL, and Zero from the ILBs.

--->>Burgess did give us the 5 sacks from the SOLB position. TBC gave us the double digit sacks from the WOLB too. The OLBs did their job and met their quota. It was the others who did NOT. It is also why the pass rush was so predictable. <<----

It was the missing sacks from the DL and ILBs for a total of 9(DL) + 4(ILB) + 2(S) equal to 15 more, on top of the 31 sacks we got, away from the OLBs, which would have given us the 45 or so that the Pats Defense obtained when the Defense was in its prime.

The trouble with trading a future HOF like Seymour, is that you discover he is very tough to replace adequately.

Spikes unlike Mayo, from collegiate history, appears capable of giving us 2-3 from the ILBs; Meriwether and Chung with experience, will likely give us the 3-4 from the secondary. Wright plus the two vets, G Warren and D Lewis, plus Mo Pryor have to give us another 5 from there as well. Can htey and still stop the run? That is why BB went so far out of his way to import the DL pass rushers.

If Burgess is really quitting, it makes it much tougher to get the required quota of half a dozen or so from the SOLB position. Woods and Ninkovich haven't and so Cunningham must come through. But it is unlikely for a rookie.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Yeah, that post was ridiculous. The consensus opinion around the league is you give a player 3 years to prove they can play, straight out of the Bill Parcells school of thought. I noticed over the last few months on these boards that people have started to develop a terrible habit of slamming draft picks and calling them busts after a season or two of playing, or lack thereof. If we cut or released every guy who hasn't performed after a season or two we'd probably only have 30 or so players on those practice fields right now.

Give it time people, seriously.

That's why BB prefers late 1st round/ 2nd round picks, it's a money thing. With today's rookie contracts, the financial need to play guys now is intense. In the old days you could give guys time to develop and have top talent for special teams.

In 2007, does anyone remember "stud" Reggie Nelson in Jax?

Also, we have some very bad habits here. Perhaps it's the result of tendencies picked up from mediot "pundits".

Calling guys "busts" after only a rookie season.

The defense that was 5th in scoring "can't stop anyone".

Failure to note that the defense in Miami did better than the seven other defense that went to south Florida.

Wanting the Jets defense because our defense surrendered 5 second half leads while forgetting the Jets defense surrendered 6 4th qtr leads for losses.

 

[Sicilian]

I'd also disagree with your assessment on Chung, who just isn't a FS in any sense of the word. The big knock on him has always been that he can't cover; he was atrocious at it last year, and so far the early word out of training camp still isn't great.

I won't disagree with this, but I remember reading a report after he was drafted that said Chung was pretty good at covering over the top, in an umbrella type of coverage. Where he struggled was man to man.

Only one report though and I can't remember where I read it, so may not be relevant. But I think the potential for Chung to be a good all around safety is there.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

If you watch Cunningham on tape at Florida you'll see he's pretty versatile. They switch him from side to side situationally, and he drops into coverage on about 25% of the passing snaps. I'm not at all surprised they're experimenting with him at elephant, as he's already demonstrated some flexibility. The one thing they *didn't* do with him was play him from 2-point stance very often.

One of the most encouraging things to me watching Cunningham at Florida is how well he played against the run. He often was asked to two-gap OT's and seldom lost the battle despite the size disadvantage. I would expect him to be able to set the edge playing OLB in a 3-4.

Great post Kasmir-
I'm excited to see Cunningham get some playing time!

 

[BradyFTW!]

I won't disagree with this, but I remember reading a report after he was drafted that said Chung was pretty good at covering over the top, in an umbrella type of coverage. Where he struggled was man to man.

Only one report though and I can't remember where I read it, so may not be relevant. But I think the potential for Chung to be a good all around safety is there.

Definitely, I agree that he can be coached into being a very good all-around safety, and since I wrote that original post, I've heard great things from a lot of people that I trust (including Mike Lombardi). The point wasn't to stress what I thought was a permanent limitation, but to highlight that chung definitely didn't come into the league as a highly versatile player from the get-go. Even then, though, it looks like I might have underestimated the improvements that he made to his coverage skills over the offseason.

 

[Bostonian1962]

At this point we need somebody capable of playing OLB opposite TBC. That's not exactly going out ona limb. If Cunningham cant beat out Nikovice or Woods we're in deep ****.

Very well said.