Warren: Pats getting away from 3-4.

[Fencer]

What scheme change?

Reposting something I posted before that got merged into oblivion. Please note the third paragraph, which is both the most interesting (to me) and the one least related to the thread it was merged into. Emphasis now added, and one word changed for grammar.

Warren: Change in defensive plans spurred release Curran has the most coherent set of Ty Warren quotes I've seen. He also offers a gracious shout-out to Miguel.

Warren confirms that he and BB didn't see eye to eye on certain stuff, without giving details, and that their personal relationship, while not toxic, also isn't great.

I do NOT read Warren's quotes, however, as being as suggestive of a scheme change as some of the reporters (including Curran) do. ("Different direction" can just mean they've hired new guys for his old job.) What's more, to the extent Warren really is suggesting a scheme change, he's probably just guessing.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Re: What scheme change?

They are going to try to implement something called a "pass rush".

 

[Sciz]

Re: What scheme change?

The 3-NT defense, of course. Want more bulk than Warren, but I hear it's not with Brace...

 

[Armchair Quarterback]

Re: What scheme change?

Reposting something I posted before that got merged into oblivion. Please note the third paragraph, which is both the most interesting (to me) and the one least related to the thread it was merged into. Emphasis now added, and one word changed for grammar.

Wilfork and Haynesworth in the middle of a four man front? Maybe more of an attacking 4-3? Or as someone mentioned a 4-2-5.

 

[Triumph]

Re: What scheme change?

A move to the 4 - 3?

It would explain BB passing on a LB in this draft.

 

[RxJock1120]

Re: What scheme change?

A move to the 4 - 3?

It would explain BB passing on a LB in this draft.

Yeah but our 3 best LB's are all MLB (Mayo, Spikes and Fletcher-->personal opinion). Who would play where?

Maybe have Spikes and Fletcher be 2 guys in the middle and have Mayo just roam around looking to make a big play? Just an idea.

 

[Sciz]

Re: What scheme change?

Yeah but our 3 best LB's are all MLB (Mayo, Spikes and Fletcher-->personal opinion). Who would play where?

Maybe have Spikes and Fletcher be 2 guys in the middle and have Mayo just roam around looking to make a big play? Just an idea.

SLB: Fletcher
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

SLB: Spikes
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

SLB: Mayo
MLB: Spikes
WLB: Guyton

It'd be one of those. Guyton is basically everything you look for in a Will.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: What scheme change?

SLB: Fletcher
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

SLB: Spikes
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

SLB: Mayo
MLB: Spikes
WLB: Guyton

It'd be one of those. Guyton is basically everything you look for in a Will.

Not in a 2gap system.

 

[dex13]

Re: What scheme change?

I really doubt that BB is moving from a base 3-4 D but he has been using a lot more sub packages and mixed fronts. Maybe he didn't feel that Warren was versitile enough....but I would classify his comment under the same as "I left my last job over creative differences".

 

[Ring 6]

Re: What scheme change?

SLB: Fletcher
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

SLB: Spikes
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

SLB: Mayo
MLB: Spikes
WLB: Guyton

It'd be one of those. Guyton is basically everything you look for in a Will.

Also BB has never favored shifting players strong and weak, and prefers to have players on the field flexible enough to handle either assignment.
We are looking at a LOLB and a ROLB whether its 34 or 43.

 

[jays52]

Re: What scheme change?

They're implementing this crazy scheme called "players who can still play".

 

[cavtroop]

Re: What scheme change?

Not in a 2gap system.

maybe making the switch to a one-gap 3-4? Isnt that similar to what Pitt plays?

 

[Ring 6]

Re: What scheme change?

I really doubt that BB is moving from a base 3-4 D but he has been using a lot more sub packages and mixed fronts. Maybe he didn't feel that Warren was versitile enough....but I would classify his comment under the same as "I left my last job over creative differences".

I think it was a throwaway comment from a player cut from his team. "I haven't been around the team for a year and a half, and showed up out of shape so Bill told me I was being released" isn't exactly the face saving comment you want to tell Tom Curran after you just lost your job, so 'not part of the plans' sounds better.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: What scheme change?

maybe making the switch to a one-gap 3-4? Isnt that similar to what Pitt plays?

BB has played 2 gap defense in every season of his career that it was his decision to make.

 

[sg14]

Re: What scheme change?

They talked about this quite a bit on "Patriots.com radio", and did repeatly deem it speculation, but suggested the "Cunningham types" to become DE's.

We could have a Wilfork, Haynesworth at DT, and Cunningham, Murrel, Carter,Ninko at the edges.

Seattle last year had good defensive pressure especially when they had their starters in at DT, and some journeymen at DE.

 

[Ring 6]

Re: What scheme change?

They talked about this quite a bit on "Patriots.com radio", and did repeatly deem it speculation, but suggested the "Cunningham types" to become DE's.

We could have a Wilfork, Haynesworth at DT, and Cunningham, Murrel, Carter,Ninko at the edges.

Seattle last year had good defensive pressure especially when they had their starters in at DT, and some journeymen at DE.

Our defense just isnt equipped for a 43.
Even if we agree Wilfork can be a DT in the 43 as well as a NT in the 34, we still would have everyone except the DTs and Mayo playing out of position.
In a BB 2gap system, the difference between a 34 and 43 is alignment, not personell. In this case, calling Cunningham a DE instead of an OLB. Then shifting NT and WDE a man to the strength and the ILBs a man to the weak. The personell we have are better suited to playing it from a 34 alignment.

 

[bucky]

Re: What scheme change?

Also BB has never favored shifting players strong and weak, and prefers to have players on the field flexible enough to handle either assignment.
We are looking at a LOLB and a ROLB whether its 34 or 43.

I think in 2001 Vrable was predominantly the Sam and Phifer the Wil. The ridiculous 43 they tried playing 2 years ago was more of a 6-1 as both OLBs lined up on the LOS.

I've always snickered at the idea of BB shifting out of a 34 base, but I really think it's a feasibility this year. The personnel is just lining up that way - out with the 34 guys (TBC, Warren), in with the 43 guys (Haynesworth, Moore). OLB is the weakest position on the roster. And most of the existing DL - Wright, Pryor, Brace, Cunningham, Moore - fit better in a 43. There's also a better chance to grab a 43 DE in free agency or trade right now than a 34 OLB.

 

[Aßßynormal]

Re: What scheme change?

Hmmmm ...... It might be time to resign Gerrard Warren.

 

[Fencer]

Re: What scheme change?

I lost my first draft of this to a power outage, so I'll be concise:

I don't think there will be any scheme change. Instead, I think the "different direction" is different personnel for substantially the same job, as it usually is in business. Continuing the business analogy, the two other possibilities are:

• They may want somebody to do the job a little differently. Since the only weakness in Warren's game was pass rushing, that could be the difference.
• Or it could just be a matter of price; rather than thinking they can do better, they may think they can do just as well more cheaply.

 

[Fencer]

Re: What scheme change?

Also, when I challenged Curran on Twitter, he didn't stand by the "scheme change" interpretation, but rather spoke of salary, etc.