Schefter likes the Pats pickups

[PonyExpress]

By SI, you mean Dr. Z? Forgive me if I'm less than impressed. Don't forget that the Patriots scheme turned Ty Poole into a borderline Pro Bowler in the '03 season and Poole was a pretty average CB too.

Dr. Z charts every player on his all-pro teams over the course of at least 8-10 games. He was the first to identify Mankins as the best OG in the NFL, in 2006. He was the one who identified Seymour's declining play before it became fashionable.

Samuel coverage ability stood out as a rookie, and his subsequent career path validates Dr. Z's early opinion. You shouldn't dismiss his evaluations of NFL players so flippantly.

 

[PonyExpress]

I stopped here. Law and Poole were on IR. To say that that he was the best CB on the '04 roster ain't saying much. Samuel played just well enough to get by that year. The fact is, that the front 7 CARRIED the defense that year.

I guess you forget the vicious tone setting hit he put on Stokely in the Colt playoff game. Or the 4 passes defensed in the AFCCG vs Pitt. Or the solid coverage he had on TO for much of the SB. Samuel's ball skills improved over time. His coverage ability has always been excellent. Your opinion on Samuel's "sudden emergence in 2006" is pretty common, but no less wrong.

 

[Rob0729]

I have to disagree with Schefter's assessment. To be successful with the 3-4, talented CBs are a must. The 3-4 has less overall speed, and the Cbs' coverage abilities must be better to compensate.

The Pats can get by for a year without an elite cb, but to maintain a high level of D they will need to upgrade speed elsewhere: faster pass rush, better coverage from the ILBs, better safety play.

It's really the 4-3 tampa 2 where cb play is dime a dozen.

You see I disagree with you about CB talent. Belichick's defense has always been about the front seven even back to the Giants days. Do you even remember the CBs in the Giants defense? I mean do guys like Everson Walls or Perry Williams even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as guys like Lawrence Taylor, Leonard Marshall, Pepper Johnson, Carl Banks, or Harry Carson?

Belichick has never relied on speed with his defense. He is all about smart play, deception, and players knowing their roles and not deviating from that. Ty Law was never a burner, neither was Otis Smith or Tyrone Poole. Our front seven definitely were fast during the time two of those three were helping us to win Super Bowls.

The Pats have used a Cover 3 for the last few years and a Cover 2 in the past. I think Belichick has abandoned even the press coverage as a primary form of coverage since the 5 yard chuck rule has been enforced so frequently. As long as the Pats continue to use zone coverage, I don't know if speed is all that important. Besides, Ellis Hobbs is one of the faster CBs out there.

 

[spacecrime]

I have to disagree with Schefter's assessment. To be successful with the 3-4, talented CBs are a must.

Okay, then explain winning a SB with Hank Poteat, Omare Lowe and Earthwind Moreland.

 

[PonyExpress]

You see I disagree with you about CB talent. Belichick's defense has always been about the front seven even back to the Giants days. Do you even remember the CBs in the Giants defense? I mean do guys like Everson Walls or Perry Williams even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as guys like Lawrence Taylor, Leonard Marshall, Pepper Johnson, Carl Banks, or Harry Carson?

Belichick has never relied on speed with his defense. He is all about smart play, deception, and players knowing their roles and not deviating from that. Ty Law was never a burner, neither was Otis Smith or Tyrone Poole. Our front seven definitely were fast during the time two of those three were helping us to win Super Bowls.

The Pats have used a Cover 3 for the last few years and a Cover 2 in the past. I think Belichick has abandoned even the press coverage as a primary form of coverage since the 5 yard chuck rule has been enforced so frequently. As long as the Pats continue to use zone coverage, I don't know if speed is all that important. Besides, Ellis Hobbs is one of the faster CBs out there.

I never said the 3-4 cbs have to be "fast". I said their coverage and tackling ability has to be comparatively better than that of most 4-3 cbs to compensate for the lack of speed elsewhere in the 3-4 D. CB Coverage ability does not = speed. Far from it, so we agree.

 

[PonyExpress]

Okay, then explain winning a SB with Hank Poteat, Omare Lowe and Earthwind Moreland.

My memory escapes me. Which of those players started in the SB?

 

[cstjohn17]

I have to disagree with Schefter's assessment. To be successful with the 3-4, talented CBs are a must. The 3-4 has less overall speed, and the Cbs' coverage abilities must be better to compensate.

The Pats can get by for a year without an elite cb, but to maintain a high level of D they will need to upgrade speed elsewhere: faster pass rush, better coverage from the ILBs, better safety play.

It's really the 4-3 tampa 2 where cb play is dime a dozen.

I agree with you somewhat but really all schemes require good players. If a defense is dominant in one area (pass rush) the other units are improved.

The lack of speed at LB hand-cuffed the Patriots, Safeties had to help the CBs deep and assist the ederly cover TEs in the middle of the field.

It looks like the Pats are piecing together the secondary and will focus on the LBs in the draft. Overall I am ok with the offseason moves so far, you could argue that the LBs would be in better shape if Seward, Haggans or Hobson were brought it but imagine this scenario.

Round 1 - Gholston (or Long or Harvey or Groves) is drafted in round 1
Round 2 - Someone is drafted in round 2, maybe an OT
Round 3a - jackson (LSU) (or Thomas, Porter, Lowery, etc.)
Round 3b - Keglar (or Bell or Goff , etc.)

You end up with Lbs that something look like
ROLB - Thomas, Gholston
RILB - Seward, Alexander
LILB - Bruschi, Keglar, Izzo
LOLB - Vrabel, Woods

CBs- Hobbs, Jackson, Bryant, Lewis, L. Sanders, Richardson
S - Harrison, Sanders, Merriweather, Williams, Andrews

The units would be solid, younger and faster.

 

[Rob0729]

I never said the 3-4 cbs have to be "fast". I said their coverage and tackling ability has to be comparatively better than that of most 4-3 cbs to compensate for the lack of speed elsewhere in the 3-4 D. CB Coverage ability does not = speed. Far from it, so we agree.

I don't agree with that at all. I think alll we need is decent coverage from the CBs as long as our front seven does its job. It is all about the front seven. Always has been and probably always will be. Personally, I think the safety position is a more important position in Belichick's system than the CB.

 

[ayjackson]

I agree with you somewhat but really all schemes require good players. If a defense is dominant in one area (pass rush) the other units are improved.

The lack of speed at LB hand-cuffed the Patriots, Safeties had to help the CBs deep and assist the ederly cover TEs in the middle of the field.

It looks like the Pats are piecing together the secondary and will focus on the LBs in the draft. Overall I am ok with the offseason moves so far, you could argue that the LBs would be in better shape if Seward, Haggans or Hobson were brought it but imagine this scenario.

Round 1 - Gholston (or Long or Harvey or Groves) is drafted in round 1
Round 2 - Someone is drafted in round 2, maybe an OT
Round 3a - jackson (LSU) (or Thomas, Porter, Lowery, etc.)
Round 3b - Keglar (or Bell or Goff , etc.)

You end up with Lbs that something look like
ROLB - Thomas, Gholston
RILB - Seward, Alexander
LILB - Bruschi, Keglar, Izzo
LOLB - Vrabel, Woods

CBs- Hobbs, Jackson, Bryant, Lewis, L. Sanders, Richardson
S - Harrison, Sanders, Merriweather, Williams, Andrews

The units would be solid, younger and faster.

I can't see Chevis Jackson starting at CB for us. He looks at best 4th on the depth chart to me. The only draftee listed that I could see starting would be Porter, but doubt he will be available at 62, let alone 69. I think we'll be using a 2009 3rd rounder to move that second rounder up a bit. (We should receive a #3or4 compensatory next year.)

 

[cstjohn17]

I can't see Chevis Jackson starting at CB for us. He looks at best 4th on the depth chart to me. The only draftee listed that I could see starting would be Porter, but doubt he will be available at 62, let alone 69. I think we'll be using a 2009 3rd rounder to move that second rounder up a bit. (We should receive a #3or4 compensatory next year.)

That was my bad Jackson should slide down behind Bryant and some of the other veterans. At least to start the year. With Merriweather getting some reps as well.

The bigger point is that if you are looking for star power in the secondary you are going to be very disappointed.

 

[PonyExpress]

I don't agree with that at all. I think alll we need is decent coverage from the CBs as long as our front seven does its job. It is all about the front seven. Always has been and probably always will be. Personally, I think the safety position is a more important position in Belichick's system than the CB.

Well, I guess we really are starting to disagree. The front 5 are important: the 2 OLBs and the 3 DL, although the nose is really only valuable on run downs. The ILBs are dime a dozen commodities and get paid like it. Meanwhile, BB spends millions franchising Samuel and Law. That should tell you something about the value of a good cb in this system compared to ILBs.

Safeties in this version of the 3-4, and 3-4s generally, are more valuable than ILBs as well.

That's why we should never draft an ILB in rd 1. The money positions are:

1. OLB
2. 3-4 DE
3. CB
4. NT
5. S
6. ILB

 

[bradmahn]

Well, I guess we really are starting to disagree. The front 5 are important: the 2 OLBs and the 3 DL, although the nose is really only valuable on run downs. The ILBs are dime a dozen commodities and get paid like it. Meanwhile, BB spends millions franchising Samuel and Law. That should tell you something about the value of a good cb in this system compared to ILBs.

Safeties in this version of the 3-4, and 3-4s generally, are more valuable than ILBs as well.

That's why we should never draft an ILB in rd 1. The money positions are:

1. OLB
2. 3-4 DE
3. CB
4. NT
5. S
6. ILB

When did Belichick franchise Law?

I don't think you can put it that way, considering they targeted Adalius Thomas and gave him a fat contract last year and his almost exclusive position before injuries was ILB (preseason and during the season). They give the money to the player, not the position.

This is just a guess, but I think Belichick and the staff value Wilfork over Samuel.

Reading your post again I don't agree with any of it at all, save for maybe the idea that OLBs are the most important money positions on defense (but even then, they've given far more money to the DEs than OLBs). First, simply looking at dollar values does not show the value placed to various positions. Second, it's been shown over and over again, in both free agency and the draft, that CBs are more "dime a dozen" than ILBs. One position has been revamped countless times since Belichick joined the team, while the other has had a more exclusive group. If anything, Belichick is much more specific with the type of ILB he wants for his scheme than with the type of cornerback.

Gay is not a good starting cornerback, and neither is/was Hank Poteat or Earthwind Moreland. In fact I would say that all of those players are marginal, and one has shown to be a serviceable nickel. Gay struggled when called to start against Jacksonville this year, so it's not simply "he's been stuck on the depth chart." How, then, did they make up for marginal (at best) cornerback play in 2004? With an excellent front seven (DEs, NTs, OLBs, ILBs) and very good safeties. Cornerbacks are the least important position in this defense and (especially with the bastardization of the rules) will continue to be.

 

[PonyExpress]

When did Belichick franchise Law?

I meant 2004, the final dummy year of his deal when he was set to make $10 million. There was wide speculation they would cut him, but they didn't. They bit the bullet because of his value.

I don't think you can put it that way, considering they targeted Adalius Thomas and gave him a fat contract last year and his almost exclusive position before injuries was ILB (preseason and during the season). They give the money to the player, not the position.

IMO they were planning to restructure or let Colvin go all along for 2008, regardless of health status. AD's versatility gave them the option of playing him inside until they could transition Colvin out or into a rotational role.

This is just a guess, but I think Belichick and the staff value Wilfork over Samuel.

They paid Samuel 8 million last season. When they pay Wilfork more than that in a season, we''l know you were right. Until then, you're just guessing.

Reading your post again I don't agree with any of it at all, save for maybe the idea that OLBs are the most important money positions on defense (but even then, they've given far more money to the DEs than OLBs).

The Pats OLBs haven't been worth that kind of money. IMO That's why they lost the last 2 SBs: lack of 4th Q pass rush.

First, simply looking at dollar values does not show the value placed to various positions. Second, it's been shown over and over again, in both free agency and the draft, that CBs are more "dime a dozen" than ILBs. One position has been revamped countless times since Belichick joined the team, while the other has had a more exclusive group. If anything, Belichick is much more specific with the type of ILB he wants for his scheme than with the type of cornerback.

I don't see any evidence to support your conclusions. CBS are routinely taken in the top 10, ILbs are never taken in the top 10. The Pats have had over the hill statues playing ILB for years, for basically vet minimum, and have made no effort to upgrade beyond Monte Beisel. The AD signing IMO was meant for OLB, with a transiton year for Colvin's departure at ILB. Meanwhile, they are willing to spend freely at cb, but not outrageously.

Gay is not a good starting cornerback, and neither is/was Hank Poteat or Earthwind Moreland. In fact I would say that all of those players are marginal, and one has shown to be a serviceable nickel. Gay struggled when called to start against Jacksonville this year, so it's not simply "he's been stuck on the depth chart." How, then, did they make up for marginal (at best) cornerback play in 2004? With an excellent front seven (DEs, NTs, OLBs, ILBs) and very good safeties. Cornerbacks are the least important position in this defense and (especially with the bastardization of the rules) will continue to be.

Who lumped Randall Gay in with those bums? Only you. It's too bad you can't recognize Randall Gay's ability, because he deserves great credit from the fans for what he did in 2004. He will be even better in NO's 4-3, where he will benefit from the fast Lbers like Vilma who are adept at filling coverage holes in the middle of the field. I answered the other 2004 canard earlier in the thread.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Do you even remember the CBs in the Giants defense? I mean do guys like Everson Walls or Perry Williams even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as guys like Lawrence Taylor, Leonard Marshall, Pepper Johnson, Carl Banks, or Harry Carson?

Of course not, but at the same time, I don't think it's entirely fair to say Walls or Williams were not as good as members from a corp that had perhaps the greatest defensive player to ever play the game in addition to another HOFer and another who made the all-decade team. I do think it's fair to say that Walls and Williams were not exactly bums either.

[Edit]Forgot to mention Mark Collins who played on the other side of Walls for the two Giants SB teams. Both made their fair share of Pro Bowls and/or All-Pro teams.

And though I disagree with PonyEx's point that ILB fit to play in the BB system are aplenty, I do agree with him that BB also collects CBs who can play. Obviously, he had a shut down corner in Law with the Pats, but even in his days in Clev., he drafted a CB with a top ten pick even though he already had another CB who made the All-Pro team three times throughout the course of his career.

 

[spacecrime]

My memory escapes me. Which of those players started in the SB?

They all played in a superbowl.

Your memory escapes what you said, which was about the quality of the CBs.

We played some very mediocre CBs are cornerback.

Even our starters were exactly top quality. To refresh you escaping memory, none of these starters/reserves are what I would call "quality CBs that are required for a team to play 3-4":

2001: O.T.I.S. started, nickel back was Terrance Shaw, dime back was JeRod Cherry.

2003: Tyrone Poole started. There were only three CBs on the superbowl roster. JeRod CHerry was the dime back.

2004: UDFA rookie Randall Gay started, nickel back was Hank Poteat. Eugene Wilson and Dexter Reed played free safety.

Sorry man, if there is one truism, it is that a strong front seven protects a weak back four. Your DBs don't have to be premier if the QB is rushing throws, throwing off his back foot, and throwing too early. Big difference between having to cover a receiver for 2 seconds vs 5 seconds.

 

[spacecrime]

They paid Samuel 8 million last season. When they pay Wilfork more than that in a season, we''l know you were right. Until then, you're just guessing.

I cannot believe you are seriously considering that the Pats (or anyone) puts more value on Samuel than Wilfork.

Your whole CB thing is crazy anyway, but this is beyond nuts.

By this rationale, in 2001 the Patriots valued Tom Brady less than:
Brown, Troy WR
Light, Matt LT
Compton, Mike LG
Woody, Damien C
Andruzzi, Joe RG
Randall, Greg RT
Wiggins, Jermaine TE
Patten, David WR
Edwards, Marc FB
Smith, Antowain RB
Hamilton, Bobby LE
Mitchell, Brandon DT
Seymour, Richard DT
Pleasant, Anthony RE
Vrabel, Mike LLB
Bruschi, Tedy MLB
Phifer, Roman RLB
Law, Ty LCB
Smith, Otis RCB
Milloy, Lawyer SS
Jones, Tebucky FS
Buckley, Terrell
Chatham, Matt
Cherry, Je'Rod
Coleman, Fred
Cox, Bryan
Faulk, Kevin
Harris, Antwan
Izzo, Larry
Johnson, Charles
Johnson, Ted
McGinest, Willie
Pass, Patrick
Paxton, Lonie
Redmond, J.R.
Ruegamer, Grey
Rutledge, Rod
Shaw, Terrance
Stevens, Matt
Vinatieri, Adam
Walter, Ken
Williams, Grant


All of these players were paid more money than Brady. Matt Light's salary was less, but his sb that year was larger than Tom Bradys salary for 2000 and 2001 combined.

 

[PonyExpress]

They all played in a superbowl.

So if a scrub plays some nickel in a game, then the starting cbs are subpar. I follow your logic.

Your memory escapes what you said, which was about the quality of the CBs.

We played some very mediocre CBs are cornerback.

In your opinion.

Even our starters were exactly top quality. To refresh you escaping memory, none of these starters/reserves are what I would call "quality CBs that are required for a team to play 3-4":

2001: O.T.I.S. started, nickel back was Terrance Shaw, dime back was JeRod Cherry.

2003: Tyrone Poole started. There were only three CBs on the superbowl roster. JeRod CHerry was the dime back.

2004: UDFA rookie Randall Gay started, nickel back was Hank Poteat. Eugene Wilson and Dexter Reed played free safety.

Sorry man, if there is one truism, it is that a strong front seven protects a weak back four. Your DBs don't have to be premier if the QB is rushing throws, throwing off his back foot, and throwing too early. Big difference between having to cover a receiver for 2 seconds vs 5 seconds.

Oh really, a pass rush helps a pass defense? Thanks for the profound insight. I'll scribble it down for future reference.

I already went through these points earlier. Didn't I just say the premier position in the 3-4 D is OLB? And that a lack of 4th Q pass rush doomed the Pats the past 2 seasons? As a general rule a 3-4 D depends on its cb play more than a 4-3 defense does. This is due to the lack of speed in coverage elsewhere on the field, because the 3-4 uses bigger slower athletes. It's really not complicated.

 

[PonyExpress]

I cannot believe you are seriously considering that the Pats (or anyone) puts more value on Samuel than Wilfork.

Your whole CB thing is crazy anyway, but this is beyond nuts.

By this rationale, in 2001 the Patriots valued Tom Brady less than:
Brown, Troy WR
Light, Matt LT
Compton, Mike LG
Woody, Damien C
Andruzzi, Joe RG
Randall, Greg RT
Wiggins, Jermaine TE
Patten, David WR
Edwards, Marc FB
Smith, Antowain RB
Hamilton, Bobby LE
Mitchell, Brandon DT
Seymour, Richard DT
Pleasant, Anthony RE
Vrabel, Mike LLB
Bruschi, Tedy MLB
Phifer, Roman RLB
Law, Ty LCB
Smith, Otis RCB
Milloy, Lawyer SS
Jones, Tebucky FS
Buckley, Terrell
Chatham, Matt
Cherry, Je'Rod
Coleman, Fred
Cox, Bryan
Faulk, Kevin
Harris, Antwan
Izzo, Larry
Johnson, Charles
Johnson, Ted
McGinest, Willie
Pass, Patrick
Paxton, Lonie
Redmond, J.R.
Ruegamer, Grey
Rutledge, Rod
Shaw, Terrance
Stevens, Matt
Vinatieri, Adam
Walter, Ken
Williams, Grant


All of these players were paid more money than Brady. Matt Light's salary was less, but his sb that year was larger than Tom Bradys salary for 2000 and 2001 combined.

Which of those players received an 8 million dollar salary in 2001? Please clarify.

 

[spacecrime]

Which of those players received an 8 million dollar salary in 2001? Please clarify.

No one said they made $8 mil. I said they were all paid more than Brady in 2001.

Stop and think how this affects your statement that the Patriots valued Samuel more than Wilfork last year because they paid Samuel more. I cannot believe this is even a topic for discussion. The player that is paid more is valued more by the team? WTF?

So if a scrub plays some nickel in a game, then the starting cbs are subpar. I follow your logic.

Those are your words, your logic, not mine. I said that some eminently forgettable CBs played in the Superbowl.

Oh really, a pass rush helps a pass defense? Thanks for the profound insight. I'll scribble it down for future reference.

Be as sarcastic as you want, but it is true nevertheless. A strong and effective front seven allows you to play less than premier CBs.

You said the 3-4 required the used to premier CBs. I was merely pointing out examples of superbowls won without them, and pointing out that the 3-4 does not require premier CBs and more than does the 4-3. The need for premier CBs is not tied to 3-4 or 4-3. It is tied to the strength and/or weakness of the DL and to some extent the LBs (given that they face the same offense).

If you care to give some objective evidence why CBs are needed, I'd like to hear it. If all you want to do is be sarcastic and evade the issue, then go ahead and be an asshat.

 

[tobias funke]

Which of those players received an 8 million dollar salary in 2001? Please clarify.

You completely missed his point, bud.