BadMoFo
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 7,657
- Reaction score
- 3,626
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I wish Ty well in Denver, except when the Bronco's play the Pats.
Fixed it for you!
Whether or not there is going to be a scheme change is irrelevant to Warren still being here. He would be as effective playing DT or DE in a 2gap 43 as he would in a 2gap 34. He is gone because of him, not a philosophical change. Whether that is his contract, his attitude, his health or whatever, he wasn't cut because he can do the job if one of our OLBs is in a 2 point stance but not if they are in a 3.Patriots released Warren because he has been a 34 end his entire professional career, and his claim suggesting the Patriots are shifting to a base 43 defense. Yet he is pursued and signed by a team running the 43?
Very interesting. Thats a lot of money for a guy who hasnt played a down in 18 months, and apparently showed up out of shape. And he is going to a 43 team.
I thought Warren said he was going to a contender and would take the minimum to play for a winner?
Huh? That makes no sense. He takes what a terrible team offers and that means he wants to win, but was forced to take a lot of money from a loser?He didn't say how much a non contender would have to pay for his services. He sounds like a guy who meaning wins something to. If you're not gonna win he wants something in return.
You missed a typo. "Bronco's"
You missed a typo. "Bronco's"
Whether or not there is going to be a scheme change is irrelevant to Warren still being here. He would be as effective playing DT or DE in a 2gap 43 as he would in a 2gap 34. He is gone because of him, not a philosophical change. Whether that is his contract, his attitude, his health or whatever, he wasn't cut because he can do the job if one of our OLBs is in a 2 point stance but not if they are in a 3.
He was released for other reason. Maybe contract/salary. Maybe conditioning/attitude.
I agree with this. I call bullcrap on the alleged "scheme change" being the reason Warren was cut loose. Even if Bill does not run a two gapping 4-3 and actually does switch to more of a one gapping 4-3, I find it hard to believe that Warren couldn't somehow contribute. You could probably play him at DE against run-heavy teams in the base 4-3. You could slide him inside with guys like Haynesworth and Wright against pass heavy teams like the Colts where you use a lot of sub packages.
He was released for other reason. Maybe contract/salary. Maybe conditioning/attitude.
He may be proven correct, although the writing may have first been on the locker-room wall last August when Warren went on season-ending injured reserve with a hip injury and this was Belichick's response: "It's a tough break for Ty, but we have to move on. He's missed quite a bit of time the last couple of years. We've had to deal with that anyway." I remember thinking that Belichick's reference to "missing quite a bit of a time" and having to "deal" with it was somewhat out of character for him -- he usually talks up his players publicly by pointing out what they do, not what they don't, especially with a player who had contributed like Warren had since 2003. At that point, I think it was a sign that Warren's return to left defensive end in 2011 wasn't a guarantee in Belichick's eyes.