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
One nitpick. He does not just seal the edge he ALSO has responsibility for the off tackle gap. That increase the difficulty level exponentially. Just not getting turned inside is nothing compared to playing both sides of the blocker.
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.
And, in THAT role, they aren't really 'playmakers' they just do their job like everyone else.
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.
And this is their 'playmaker' role.
Another nitpick, some do play a LB position in sub and drop into coverage.
[qote]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.[/quote]
Even more than that, it is as difficult or more difficult than any evaluation that must be made to take a college 43 DE, and assess his ability to make that transition because the skillset you described in the base are things you will see on film just about zero times.
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).
Agree here, however, since first, 3rd down is dictated by 1st and 2nd, its hard to spend a high pick on a guy who only plays in the sub.
We had something like 200 3rd downs last year.
I suspect that one of the reasons we play sub so much is that we have versatile LBs who allow us to play a pass D formation without getting it run down our throat.
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.
Agree with the exception of (B) value. Value is not only dependant on that player but what else is available. In other words, when we drafted Vereen, there may have been players that were 'selectable' at OLB with that spot and would have had value, but not as much value as Vereen.
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.
If you take a step back and survey the needs, espcially factoring in the developing players we have recently drafted, IMO, a few things jump right out.
Once you get past, say the top 70-100 or so, there are very few positions where there was a guy who would likely be better than what we already have.
We had urgent need at T and RB because we lost players. Light must be considered gone when planning 2011, BJGE close to it, because he is restricted and who knows what kind of offer he could get.
G is right behind, but we had the 'luxury' of using 3 starters last year so Neal retiring left less of a hole.
OLB is the position that says need, not based upon giong backward from last year, but because of quality.
Corner was an overall weakness last year, especially depth.
We have a young defense and an experienced offense.
It wold make sense that the offensive needs were focussed on with the draft, and the defensive in free agency, starting already with Stroud added to the DE spot to shore it up.
So, yes I expect OLB, or at least the sub package DE part of the job to be a FA focus.
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.
Because our system is unique (even though more teams play 34, the 2gap nature is unique) the roles played by DE/OLB players are very different. Some players (Johnson) will certainly struggle to get as many sacks in our system because we do not preach turn it loose and rush, while others (Lawson) would be a better pass rusher in our system by getting more opportuinities to rush. The sack stats alone are fools gold in trying to project a player from another team into our system.
Overall, the question I have asked the Chicken Littles (and still have no response) is given all I said above, if we signed a starting OLB and G in free agency what is there to complain about?
If I can see it from here, I imagine BB didn't miss it.
