The "pass-rushing OLB" myth

[jah]

That's homertastic

You seem very reasonable, but can you elaborate?

 

[Patspsycho]

The problem Brady and the pats had in the playoff game was that Ryan recognized,pretty quickly,that TFB was totally immobile and was getting "tunnel vision".Brady had "time".....he just didn't "see".Under imagined pressure,he never looked at what Tate was doing or swing passes or short scrambles.[/B].

With all due respect, Brady was "totally immobile" because none of his receivers were open. That was the game plan Ryan came up with.

The game was lost before it was ever played. Ryan showed his cards by stocking the active roster with all the DB's he had. That should have been a tip off that he was going to elect to flood the backfield.

 

[Doggin94it]

You seem very reasonable, but can you elaborate?

No. You know what, looking back, I was comparing McCourty's year to Revis 2008, not 2007. McCourty did have a better rookie year than Revis.

 

[italia44]

With all due respect, Brady was "totally immobile" because none of his receivers were open. That was the game plan Ryan came up with.

The game was lost before it was ever played. Ryan showed his cards by stocking the active roster with all the DB's he had. That should have been a tip off that he was going to elect to flood the backfield.

I know what you're saying psycho,but this wasn't the "Battle of Kursk".....you're theory of flooding the roster with db's is knee-jerk and simplistic.
The reality is that TFB could not or would not run,threw the ball,too soon and inaccurately and was all around totally flustered.Sometimes,Brady and the pats' problem is that they because so regimented that they won't risk anything.No long attempts to get the Jets out of their center zone...No swing passes or scrambles to force them to bring their "small ball" defense to come up....and most importantly.....patience,patience and more patience.

The dropped balls by Crumpler and Chung,the fumble by Woodhead,seemed to take the air out of the patriots.......it wasn't the jets db's,it was Brady's injury and intransgience to adjust,that spelled doom for a team that was rolling early in the game.

The patriots were not outcoached or outschemed.
They were outplayed by an inferior team...."mores the pity"....as the poet said.

 

[Patspsycho]

I know what you're saying psycho,but this wasn't the "Battle of Kursk".....you're theory of flooding the roster with db's is knee-jerk and simplistic.
The reality is that TFB could not or would not run,threw the ball,too soon and inaccurately and was all around totally flustered.Sometimes,Brady and the pats' problem is that they because so regimented that they won't risk anything.No long attempts to get the Jets out of their center zone...No swing passes or scrambles to force them to bring their "small ball" defense to come up....and most importantly.....patience,patience and more patience.

The dropped balls by Crumpler and Chung,the fumble by Woodhead,seemed to take the air out of the patriots.......it wasn't the jets db's,it was Brady's injury and intransgience to adjust,that spelled doom for a team that was rolling early in the game.

The patriots were not outcoached or outschemed.
They were outplayed by an inferior team...."mores the pity"....as the poet said.

Theory? Everyone knew as soon as they saw the inactives for the game. There was not one single DB on the Jets inactive list.

And yes the Patriots were outcoached and outschemed, pure, plain, and simple. I have the game on my laptop, and I've watched it from time to time.

Their problem was most definitely not because of being "regimented." You don't get to be the league-leading offense by being "regimented." Unfortunately, the game-calling was one-dimensional for the most part, and only went back to mixing it up (which brings out the best in the offense) when it was too late.

 

[italia44]

Theory? Everyone knew as soon as they saw the inactives for the game. There was not one single DB on the Jets inactive list.

And yes the Patriots were outcoached and outschemed, pure, plain, and simple. I have the game on my laptop, and I've watched it from time to time.

Their problem was most definitely not because of being "regimented." You don't get to be the league-leading offense by being "regimented." Unfortunately, the game-calling was one-dimensional for the most part, and only went back to mixing it up (which brings out the best in the offense) when it was too late.

"Regimented" does not mean you're unsuccessful,it means that you are likely to be thrown off by "adversity".

 

[Timbo717]

Hey why not just eliminate the position entirely??

The great myth on this board is the genius of Bill Belichick.

Richard Seymour for Nate Solder. OUCH!
BTW didn't Belichick have the option of taking the Raiders 1st from last year but deferred to the much weaker draft class (so say the Chickians NOW) this year?? OUCH Again!

Well I'm not a Chickian or whatever...But I thought the general consensus was that they deferred from taking the Raiders 1st from last year because they were betting that a rookie wage scale would be in place this year where it obviously wasn't going to be at the time of the trade. Obviously that bet hasn't paid off, but it was a decent gamble.

I'm not sure why you write off Solder so easily though when he hasn't even played a snap. By that logic anyone they would've drafted would've looked bad at this point for what Seymour gave them in his career. I'm not one to defend every move Belichick makes but it's kind of silly to write off any draft pick two days after the draft, isn't it?

 

[Patspsycho]

"Regimented" does not mean you're unsuccessful,it means that you are likely to be thrown off by "adversity".

I understand what you mean by regimented- e.g., being so systematized or regulated that you cannot adapt to adversity, and in the case of BOB, that probably was true, because his playcalling regressed atrociously. But in the context you are talking about it, e.g., Brady, it simply is not true.

 

[Keyser Söze]

Sign Tamba Hali, and I'll be happy.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sign Tamba Hali, and I'll be happy.

Hali was franchised by the Chiefs.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Regardless of position, the Pats need an elite pass rusher if they want to win a title.

10 Packers: Clay Matthews (OLB)
09 Saints: Will Smith
08 Steelers: Harrison and Woodley (OLB)
07 Giants: Strahan, Umenyiora, and Tuck
06 Colts: Freeney and Mathis

Patriots: Tully Banta-Cain???

Although I don't disagree with the premise here, it's too simplistic. Will Smith is not an elite pass rusher. In addition to that, the Packers, Saints, Steelers, and Colts all had very strong, playmaking secondaries. I could just as easily make a list with guys like Sharper, Polamalu, and Sanders. In fact, a healthy Bob Sanders was the difference maker for the Colts in the postseason, not Freeney and Mathis.

The more strong players on defense, the harder for a QB to gameplan them. Brady completely shredded the Dolphins and Steelers last season, even though Harrison and Wake are studs. I think any time you can upgrade the defense at any position, it's a plus.

 

[Keyser Söze]

Hali was franchised by the Chiefs.

Ah crap...

 

[skinnydog]

Theory? Everyone knew as soon as they saw the inactives for the game. There was not one single DB on the Jets inactive list.

And yes the Patriots were outcoached and outschemed, pure, plain, and simple. I have the game on my laptop, and I've watched it from time to time.

Their problem was most definitely not because of being "regimented." You don't get to be the league-leading offense by being "regimented." Unfortunately, the game-calling was one-dimensional for the most part, and only went back to mixing it up (which brings out the best in the offense) when it was too late.

Think of Texas hold em. Jets went all in from the opening snap with pass defense. Pats did not recognize it soon enough.

 

[Ring 6]

With all due respect, Brady was "totally immobile" because none of his receivers were open. That was the game plan Ryan came up with.

The game was lost before it was ever played.

I disagree with that. Ultimately we threw for 300 yards against that defense.
Mistakes killed us. The game couldn''t be over before it was won, if the outcome may have changed on 2 plays...the Int on a freaking screen and the dropped TD pass.

 

[skinnydog]

What's the point of this thread?? A single outside linebacker good at rushing the passer is overated or that a great overall pass rush is overrated??

 

[skinnydog]

I disagree with that. Ultimately we threw for 300 yards against that defense.
Mistakes killed us. The game couldn''t be over before it was won, if the outcome may have changed on 2 plays...the Int on a freaking screen and the dropped TD pass.

Did you happen to notice the Pats got no pressure on Sanchez during the game?

 

[eom]

Regardless of position, the Pats need an elite pass rusher if they want to win a title.

10 Packers: Clay Matthews (OLB)
09 Saints: Will Smith
08 Steelers: Harrison and Woodley (OLB)
07 Giants: Strahan, Umenyiora, and Tuck
06 Colts: Freeney and Mathis

Patriots: Tully Banta-Cain???

those examples are absolutely ridiculous --- every one is attributable to scheme and coaching.
packers d didn't get good 'til capers went over there and installed his flavor of 3-4, smith is just a 4-3 end who might look better since greg williams got hired, pittsburgh is obvious, you'll probably see sack numbers rise in st louis since spags went over there, and the type of 4-3 the colts run absolutely counts on pressure from the ends --- that's why freeney gets paid huge money to be the cornerstone.
that's all he does.
and fyi -- indy is not known for it's defense.

that's not to say any of these defenses aren't better than the pats scheme, but to attribute anything in those cities to just one specific guy and imply we should get him to turn our defense around is ridiculous.

 

[eom]

Did you happen to notice the Pats got no pressure on Sanchez during the game?

I won't whitewash that playoff loss --- that was just depressing, but in the previous game against the jets sanchez threw for 164 yds at about 50% comp with a 4.9 ypa --- 0 td and 3 picks.
that's not horrible.

I mean for our defense.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I'm not sure why you write off Solder so easily though when he hasn't even played a snap. By that logic anyone they would've drafted would've looked bad at this point for what Seymour gave them in his career. I'm not one to defend every move Belichick makes but it's kind of silly to write off any draft pick two days after the draft, isn't it?

He's probably one of the same guys who screamed Bloody Murder after the McCourty pick.
Let's relax people and let Dante work his magic with the OL.
Dante turned Vollmer, a late 2nd rounder with very similar physical tools into a pro-bowler.
Now just imagine what he could do with Solder.

 

[Metaphors]

The responsibilities of an OLB in the base 3-4 is different than in sub packages. In the base, an OLB has 3 responsibilities:
1) Seal the edge on running plays coming his way
2) Pursue down the line but maintain containment on runs away from him
3) Drop into shallow zones or rush on passing plays, deciding which to do based on play call or by keys

That is a pretty tough and heady guy. If they do the right things at the right time, they don't need to be elite athletes. If they make a mistake, they expose an entire side of the field for a big gain.

In sub packages, the OLB drops down into a traditional 4-3 end position and rushes the passer. Besides keeping pocket containment and protecting against draw plays, there aren't too many brain cells involved.

In an ideal world, you can get a Vrabel-type that can serve both roles. Even Vrabel eventually couldn't manage the sub role and was moved out (even though his play in the base was still above average). It would take an extraordinary player (not just an athlete) to be able to come in out of college and contribute as a base 3-4 OLB for the Pats. To his credit, Cunningham did a fine job last year.

Considering how often the Pats are in sub packages, wouldn't it make sense to draft someone into that sub OLB role? You would think so given that only a declining TBC and Eric Moore are on the roster now. There were almost 20 of those types taken in the draft and Belichick passed on all of them except Von Miller and Aldon Smith (Quinn and Kerrigan were easily gettable).

There are several choices for reasons:
A) Belichick is a moron and doesn't recognize rush end as a need
B) He thinks those 20 guys he passed on either suck or were terrible values (or both)
C) He believes TBC and Moore are the guys he wants
D) Belichick has a plan for player acquisition when FA starts

In order to have a reasonable conversation, we really need to dismiss both A) and B). They don't make sense and just leads to silliness.

I have no idea if C) or D) is reality. TBC had a down year but may be able to bounce back (he is pricey though). Moore showed some promise and is dirt cheap. I'm inclined to think that Belichick has some guys he is targeting as FAs. Mark Anderson (Brooks Reed replacing him) is 27 and had some success early with the Bears. Charles Johnson (Panthers) is a UFA at only 24 and coming off an 11 sack season. Manny Lawson is only 26. With the influx of rush ends in this draft, the destinations for these guys is somewhat limited. If Belichick brings in one or two of these guys and they just stick to sub packages, the Pats 2011 draft class will be seen in a much different light.