....
The thing I have issue here in this thread, is not whether Von Miller is a good pick or a player to move up for. Its the seeming monolithic thinking that only certain body types will fit in the Pats "system".
Hey guys...they years of the "system" player is OVER. I forget the exact number but someone (probably Reiss) reported that the Pats were in a 4-3 type alignment some ungodly percentage of the time. This is the era of the "sub package". An era where "backups" are getting more snaps than the so called "starters".
So I think the issue is more on potential production in one of the myriad "sub packages" vs a guy who simply fits the so called "2 gap" mold.
Face it guys, right now the offenses are simply better than the defenses. If there was a dominant defense in the NFL this season, statistically it was the Steelers, and they were shredded by the Packers who had no running attack and average TEs and WRs. They gave up 24 points and it would have been more if the Packers receivers could hold on to the ball
We are in an era where a good offense will beat a good defense 90% of the time. And until defenses start to catch up, different out of the box strategies will have to be developed around the concept of creating the "big play", because it will be rare when an offense will be consistently stopped by any defense without the "big play"
JMHO
..."backups" are getting more snaps than the so called "starters".
This seems true. It feels like there's a lot more platooning and use of specialists/situational substitutions around the league these days - to the extent that, at all but a few positions, the "starter" designation has become relatively meaningless. The Pats have done this as much as any team and maybe more than most, especially the last couple years.
.... the Pats were in a 4-3 type alignment some ungodly percentage of the time.
This is correct. I also forget the exact percentage, but it seems to me that it was around 50% or perhaps even a bit more.
...the years of the "system" player (are) OVER.....This is the era of the "sub package".
I'm not at all comfortable with this conclusion - at least, not anymore.
During the 2009 off-season, I noted that BB had acquired an unusual number of DT-types in both FA and the draft (Brace, Pryor, Richard, Adrian Grady, Stephen Williams, Titus Adams). At the time, GB, KC and DEN had all announced they would be transitioning to some form of the 3-4 and a couple other teams were reported to be toying with the idea. In the previous few seasons, Parcells had converted both Dallas and Miami, so it was pretty clear that competition to acquire 3-4 type players was increasing. By the time camp began, I made the leap that "wily old Bill" was preparing to "zig" toward more of a 3-4/4-3 hybrid defense while the rest of the league "zagged" toward the 3-4, and that he would be fielding a defense that would feature a lot more 40-fronts. Of course, I was laughed out of the room.
But then, BB was using TBC in a "hybrid" role and he traded for 4-3DE Burgess. Finally, trading away 2-gap 3-4 DE Seymour seemed to confirm my hypothesis. It seemed odd, though, at the time, that BB preferred to take a 2011 pick for him rather than a 2010. Since I didn't have a satisfactory explanation for this at the time and didn't see how it fit into a rational "conversion strategy", it stuck in my mind. At the same time, though, I failed to notice that, outside of 2nd-rounder Brace, BB hadn't really invested much of anything in these "extra" DTs.
Of course, BB did deploy significantly more 40-fronts in 2009 (or at least, tried to situationally), but he still played a clear majority of the 3-4 with Jarvis Green primarily holding down Seymour's RDE spot. Green's play deteriorated for the second consecutive season, however, and I thought it was interesting that BB brought in 6'8"/355 Terdell Sands for about 15 minutes mid season. Anyway, it all seemed to work "okay" as both pass D and run D improved marginally over 2008 (credit to McGowan and Bodden for helping out significantly with the latter).
In the 2010 off-season, BB again brought in DTs: Damione Lewis, Amon Gordon, Gerard Warren, then Weston and Love during the draft. But, he didn't acquire an upgrade for 3-4 DE. Odrick was really the only high-end prospect close to BB's classic standards for the position, but he was skipped over. And, again, BB didn't invest much in all those DTs, even though there were some good prospects available earlier in the draft. He also hadn't invested much in 40-front DEs, outside of Burgess.
Then, Ty Warren went down mid-camp, which put a huge dent in the 30-front. Nevertheless, Jarvis Green was cut. During the season, BB ran 30-fronts using Wilfork and a couple DT-types, but that wasn't stopping anything or getting much pressure. Neither were the 40-fronts, except for Mike Wright providing some interior rush. Though D-line tackles were way down (in spite of Wilfork's near personal record), overall, run defense looked reasonable statistically. However, this was really only accomplished through investment of "extra" resources, LBs and safeties - to the extent that the nickel DB was almost always a 3rd safety rather than a 3rd CB, presumably for the extra run support.
Very quickly, the whole D-line, regardless of front type, began to look like temporary patchwork to me, and the extensive use of sub-packages seemed less the result of design and more the result of desperation. Sure, if Ty Warren had be available, he would have helped immensely overall and provided the basis for a reasonable 30-front. Without him, the 30-front was basically useless and forced BB into more 40-fronts - way more than he wanted, IMHO. OTOH, if BB had been serious about establishing a viable 40-front for extensive use over the long haul, why had he invested so little in it in terms of high-quality players? Aside from Brace, the "earliest" guy drafted into it in the past two years was Pryor in the 6th. The rest of the acquisitions/tryouts comprise two old guys (G. Warren and Damione Lewis) and a bunch of late-round camp bodies. If you count potential 4-3 DEs, aside from the failed Burgess experiment, the picture is pretty much the same. Meanwhile, LB acquisitions have still tended toward players who fit BB's 3-4 rather than what one might expect for 4-3 sub-packages.
It didn't take lengthy or extensive review to realize that the 2011 draft class would be much deeper in D-line quality - especially in DEs suitable for BB's classic 30-front (many of whom, admittedly, could also be good in 40-fronts) - much deeper than the previous two drafts. So, the delayed compensation for Seymour and BB's lack of shyness about trading a pick out of a relatively strong overall 2010 draft and into 2011 fell into place for me. It seems now like BB's been biding his time, treading water for a couple years wrt the D-line (especially the 30-front), making it work as best he could, waiting for this particular class.
So, I'm thinking that BB's intent in this draft is to land at least one high-quality, classic, 2-gap, 3-4 DE to restore a solid, run-stopping 3-4 base and, thereby, to significantly REDUCE the forced deployment of 40-front sub-packages and the related requirement to commit extra assets to run support. This last part (I believe), consequently hurt our pass defense. I've begun to believe that this has been BB's long-range plan since the end of 2008 with the recent, drastic increase in the use of 40-front sub-packages merely circumstantial.
This is not at all to say I believe that sub packages will be eliminated. There will always be tactical/situational deployments of extra DBs, interior and edge pass-rushers, and LB substitutions. But, I do believe - now - that BB's ultimate goal is to eliminate the necessity and, thereby, reduce the frequency of 40-front sub-packages.
