Excellent Analysis of Patriots D by Bedard

MrNathanDrake · Sep 11, 2014

I think most ppl will agree with Bedard. What's scary is the coaches failed to realize what would happen when they ran that scheme.

MrNathanDrake · Sep 11, 2014

ArchAngel007 said:
Coaching was awful, but god damn the players need to be accountable for the horrible tackling I re watched the game most of the Dolphins big gains came from missed tackles it was frustrating to watch

Non-contact practices contribute to that.

mrscruff · Sep 11, 2014

I am wondering if the Patriots were expecting something a lot different from the Dolphins. The talk before the game was how would the Dolphins look like under Bill Lazor and maybe they were expecting a more pass-heavy or no-huddle game plan and badly miscalculated. I hope that is the case because there looks to be talent in all phases of the Patriots defense and they should be able to perform better. If scheming was the issue then I expect BB to right the ship.

Looking forward to this week, the Patriots will have the perfect chance to show that they can handle the run against AP and still defend a dynamic playmaker in Cordarelle Patterson. If the run defense struggles then we may just be looking at the run defense being the Achilles' heel of the Patriots 2015 SB quest.

I have to say I am more worried about the Offense at this stage.

pencilneckgeek · Sep 11, 2014

OMG! I thought the overly simplistic 3-4/4-3 debates were getting old in the pre-season. This week is ridiculous. Coaches constantly refer to defenses that can be multiple and have for the past several years have been developing hybrid schemes that mix 2-gap and 1-gap principles independent of how many players put their hand in the dirt. I'm going to try to break this down from the beginning in hopes that this sort of simplistic article will no longer be called "excellent analysis."

The original concept of linemen and linebackers was a function of how many men stood on the line and how many stood back from the line. For example, the ever popular 6-5 formation utilized 6 linemen and 5 linebackers and, as such, was fairly self-explanatory. As offenses became more complicated and utilized wide receivers, there eventually became players like cornerbacks who stood on the line, but were not considered linemen per se. This same sort of convention is at work in the terminology of the 3-4 defense. The 3-4 defense generally has 5 men on the line and 2 standing back from the line. By the original convention, it would be called a 5-2, not a 3-4. The 4-3 Under that we ran last year also put 5 men on the line, as the SLB would line up on the outside shoulder of the TE.

What changed is simply the adoption of a different convention. Linemen were those in a 3 or 4-point stance, and linebackers were those standing up. I point this out, because despite all the talk of whether we should be a 3-4 team or a 4-3 team, nobody is suggesting that we should get another lineman in there in place of one of our linebackers. (We might want someone other than Vellano as a lineman, but we don't want him next to Wilfork and Siliga instead of Hightower, Mayo, Collins, Nink, or Jones.) Therefore, our personnel are identical whether we are in a 3-4 or a 4-3.

That is not all that is the same. As Andy has pointed out more times than is good for his health, Chandler Jones generally played from the 5-technique in the 3-4 base defense Sunday. That is also the role he plays in the 4-3 under front. As he also pointed out, when the run is an inside zone, Chandler's job as a 1-gapping 5-tech is to hold the C gap and then fight across the OT to make a play. This is hard to distinguish from 2-gapping when watching the run of play. The base defense also had Easley and Vellano at 3-tech and Wilfork at 1-tech, the same as if this were a 4-3.

The only substantive difference between this year's 3-4 and the last few year's 4-3 under is that Ninkovich is standing-up and was sometimes moved out of the box (well beyond a wide 9 technique), covering-up a receiver when he was on the weak side. They did this with Hightower, too, on the other side. This was not the norm, however, so it's hard to blame that for the gashing that happened.

There's much more to the story, but in the meantime, I leave those who would argue as if 3-4 and 4-3 were synonymous with 2-gapping and 1-gappng, respectively, with some light reading:

This breakdown of the 3-4 under and 3-4 over defenses that the Pats have run the past few years. This does not show a 3-4, but the hybrid principles are similar. Note that one 5-tech DE is 2-gapping in both hybrids, and sometimes, that was Jones.

The Seahawks run another hybrid defense, where the two 2-gapping lineman are sometimes separated by a 1-gapping 3-tech DT. The reason I linked this article, however, is to show their 3-4 Bear Front at the end. This is akin to what the Pats ran Sunday, in which Wilfork 2-gapped and the DEs 1-gapped. The main difference was that the Pats spread out their DL further to 3-1-5 tech (the same as in the 4-3 under), instead of 3-0-3 technique.

Now, there may be issues with the adoption of this particular 3-4 hybrid. There may be issues with the DL personnel. There may even be issues with the way certain techniques are coached. However, the incessant chorus of "It's the 3-4" is simply uninformed.

Marinlik · Sep 11, 2014

pencilneckgeek said:
OMG! I thought the overly simplistic 3-4/4-3 debates were getting old in the pre-season. This week is ridiculous. Coaches constantly refer to defenses that can be multiple and have for the past several years have been developing hybrid schemes that mix 2-gap and 1-gap principles independent of how many players put their hand in the dirt. I'm going to try to break this down from the beginning in hopes that this sort of simplistic article will no longer be called "excellent analysis."

The original concept of linemen and linebackers was a function of how many men stood on the line and how many stood back from the line. For example, the ever popular 6-5 formation utilized 6 linemen and 5 linebackers and, as such, was fairly self-explanatory. As offenses became more complicated and utilized wide receivers, there eventually became players like cornerbacks who stood on the line, but were not considered linemen per se. This same sort of convention is at work in the terminology of the 3-4 defense. The 3-4 defense generally has 5 men on the line and 2 standing back from the line. By the original convention, it would be called a 5-2, not a 3-4. The 4-3 Under that we ran last year also put 5 men on the line, as the SLB would line up on the outside shoulder of the TE.

What changed is simply the adoption of a different convention. Linemen were those in a 3 or 4-point stance, and linebackers were those standing up. I point this out, because despite all the talk of whether we should be a 3-4 team or a 4-3 team, nobody is suggesting that we should get another lineman in there in place of one of our linebackers. (We might want someone other than Vellano as a lineman, but we don't want him next to Wilfork and Siliga instead of Hightower, Mayo, Collins, Nink, or Jones.) Therefore, our personnel are identical whether we are in a 3-4 or a 4-3.

That is not all that is the same. As Andy has pointed out more times than is good for his health, Chandler Jones generally played from the 5-technique in the 3-4 base defense Sunday. That is also the role he plays in the 4-3 under front. As he also pointed out, when the run is an inside zone, Chandler's job as a 1-gapping 5-tech is to hold the C gap and then fight across the OT to make a play. This is hard to distinguish from 2-gapping when watching the run of play. The base defense also had Easley and Vellano at 3-tech and Wilfork at 1-tech, the same as if this were a 4-3.

The only substantive difference between this year's 3-4 and the last few year's 4-3 under is that Ninkovich is standing-up and was sometimes moved out of the box (well beyond a wide 9 technique), covering-up a receiver when he was on the weak side. They did this with Hightower, too, on the other side. This was not the norm, however, so it's hard to blame that for the gashing that happened.

There's much more to the story, but in the meantime, I leave those who would argue as if 3-4 and 4-3 were synonymous with 2-gapping and 1-gappng, respectively, with some light reading:

This breakdown of the 3-4 under and 3-4 over defenses that the Pats have run the past few years. This does not show a 3-4, but the hybrid principles are similar. Note that one 5-tech DE is 2-gapping in both hybrids, and sometimes, that was Jones.

The Seahawks run another hybrid defense, where the two 2-gapping lineman are sometimes separated by a 1-gapping 3-tech DT. The reason I linked this article, however, is to show their 3-4 Bear Front at the end. This is akin to what the Pats ran Sunday, in which Wilfork 2-gapped and the DEs 1-gapped. The main difference was that the Pats spread out their DL further to 3-1-5 tech (the same as in the 4-3 under), instead of 3-0-3 technique.

Now, there may be issues with the adoption of this particular 3-4 hybrid. There may be issues with the DL personnel. There may even be issues with the way certain techniques are coached. However, the incessant chorus of "It's the 3-4" is simply uninformed.

What Andy has been pointing out all week was not what happened in the game. Atleast not for a large part of the game.

Yes Chandler played the 5 tech. But because we blitzed a lot with the outside linebacker, Chandler got responsibility for the B gap, instead of his usual C gap. That meant that he had to take on a guard instead of a tackle most of the time. This was something they did on a large part of the snaps.

I think this 34 was a bad usage of Chandler because he got to rush inside so much. I have no problem with him stunting inside every now and then. But having him do that as much as they did against Miami is misusing him as he is a much better outside rusher than he is an inside rusher.

It may have been the same personel as in our 43. But people got put in positions where they aren't that good.

Both you and Andy are way to focused on people thinking the only difference between 34 and 43 is 2 gapping, you guys seem to completely miss that it put players in different spots with different responsibilities.

Ring 6 · Sep 11, 2014

Marinlik said:
What Andy has been pointing out all week was not what happened in the game. Atleast not for a large part of the game.

Not true.

Yes Chandler played the 5 tech. But because we blitzed a lot with the outside linebacker, Chandler got responsibility for the B gap, instead of his usual C gap. That meant that he had to take on a guard instead of a tackle most of the time. This was something they did on a large part of the snaps.

I have not watched every snap, but a majority of them and do recall a single running play that Jones closed down to the B gap. He played outside leverage on the T virtually every time. Perhaps you are looking at the T blocking down, and Jones moving down the line to where the B gap started?
Give me some examples of plays where you saw this, so I can look.

I think this 34 was a bad usage of Chandler because he got to rush inside so much. I have no problem with him stunting inside every now and then. But having him do that as much as they did against Miami is misusing him as he is a much better outside rusher than he is an inside rusher.

Again, please list a few plays where you saw him rush inside.

It may have been the same personel as in our 43. But people got put in positions where they aren't that good.

Both you and Andy are way to focused on people thinking the only difference between 34 and 43 is 2 gapping, you guys seem to completely miss that it put players in different spots with different responsibilities.

Well, most of the conversation on this board has been about how stupid it is to play Jones as a 2gapping 34 DE, so you kind of have to discuss the misconception in order to correct it. The important part of the concept here is that Jones is not being used like Ty Warren, he is being used like Chandler Jones. If you watch tape of him last year and this year, you will see very much the same thing happening, with the exception of having zero 3rd and long where he would get wide and rush the passer. That isnt a choice, thats a down and distance issue.

mayoclinic · Sep 11, 2014

pencilneckgeek said:
OMG! I thought the overly simplistic 3-4/4-3 debates were getting old in the pre-season. This week is ridiculous. Coaches constantly refer to defenses that can be multiple and have for the past several years have been developing hybrid schemes that mix 2-gap and 1-gap principles independent of how many players put their hand in the dirt. I'm going to try to break this down from the beginning in hopes that this sort of simplistic article will no longer be called "excellent analysis."

The original concept of linemen and linebackers was a function of how many men stood on the line and how many stood back from the line. For example, the ever popular 6-5 formation utilized 6 linemen and 5 linebackers and, as such, was fairly self-explanatory. As offenses became more complicated and utilized wide receivers, there eventually became players like cornerbacks who stood on the line, but were not considered linemen per se. This same sort of convention is at work in the terminology of the 3-4 defense. The 3-4 defense generally has 5 men on the line and 2 standing back from the line. By the original convention, it would be called a 5-2, not a 3-4. The 4-3 Under that we ran last year also put 5 men on the line, as the SLB would line up on the outside shoulder of the TE.

What changed is simply the adoption of a different convention. Linemen were those in a 3 or 4-point stance, and linebackers were those standing up. I point this out, because despite all the talk of whether we should be a 3-4 team or a 4-3 team, nobody is suggesting that we should get another lineman in there in place of one of our linebackers. (We might want someone other than Vellano as a lineman, but we don't want him next to Wilfork and Siliga instead of Hightower, Mayo, Collins, Nink, or Jones.) Therefore, our personnel are identical whether we are in a 3-4 or a 4-3.

That is not all that is the same. As Andy has pointed out more times than is good for his health, Chandler Jones generally played from the 5-technique in the 3-4 base defense Sunday. That is also the role he plays in the 4-3 under front. As he also pointed out, when the run is an inside zone, Chandler's job as a 1-gapping 5-tech is to hold the C gap and then fight across the OT to make a play. This is hard to distinguish from 2-gapping when watching the run of play. The base defense also had Easley and Vellano at 3-tech and Wilfork at 1-tech, the same as if this were a 4-3.

The only substantive difference between this year's 3-4 and the last few year's 4-3 under is that Ninkovich is standing-up and was sometimes moved out of the box (well beyond a wide 9 technique), covering-up a receiver when he was on the weak side. They did this with Hightower, too, on the other side. This was not the norm, however, so it's hard to blame that for the gashing that happened.

There's much more to the story, but in the meantime, I leave those who would argue as if 3-4 and 4-3 were synonymous with 2-gapping and 1-gappng, respectively, with some light reading:

This breakdown of the 3-4 under and 3-4 over defenses that the Pats have run the past few years. This does not show a 3-4, but the hybrid principles are similar. Note that one 5-tech DE is 2-gapping in both hybrids, and sometimes, that was Jones.

Link, please.

pencilneckgeek said:

The Seahawks run another hybrid defense

Click to expand...

pencilneckgeek said:
where the two 2-gapping lineman are sometimes separated by a 1-gapping 3-tech DT. The reason I linked this article, however, is to show their 3-4 Bear Front at the end. This is akin to what the Pats ran Sunday, in which Wilfork 2-gapped and the DEs 1-gapped. The main difference was that the Pats spread out their DL further to 3-1-5 tech (the same as in the 4-3 under), instead of 3-0-3 technique.

Now, there may be issues with the adoption of this particular 3-4 hybrid. There may be issues with the DL personnel. There may even be issues with the way certain techniques are coached. However, the incessant chorus of "It's the 3-4" is simply uninformed.

I agree with much of what you say, and I've been saying for ages that the Pats' D will be "multiple" and that 3-4 vs. 4-3 was an anachronism. Unfortunately, most people need some terminology base to use when discussing what happens, and I think we're going to be stuck with 3-4 vs. 4-3 for a long time, even though it has limited utility. I'm fine with 3-4 as part of a multi-front hybrid defense, though I think the personnel are best suited to 4 man fronts. With that said, the particular hybrid that they were playing last week seemed to leave them undermanned in the trenches, over-shooting gaps, and often having players used in ways that did not seem suited to their skill sets.

grux · Sep 11, 2014

I think a lot of fans and reporters are overreacting. I find it difficult to form an opinion after one week of play. We played pretty good for 30 minutes last week and were terrible in the 2nd half. I am curious to see the results if we play for 60 minutes.

Ring 6 · Sep 11, 2014

mayoclinic said:
Link, please.

I agree with much of what you say, and I've been saying for ages that the Pats' D will be "multiple" and that 3-4 vs. 4-3 was an anachronism. Unfortunately, most people need some terminology base to use when discussing what happens, and I think we're going to be stuck with 3-4 vs. 4-3 for a long time, even though it has limited utility. I'm fine with 3-4 as part of a multi-front hybrid defense, though I think the personnel are best suited to 4 man fronts. With that said, the particular hybrid that they were playing last week seemed to leave them undermanned in the trenches, over-shooting gaps, and often having players used in ways that did not seem suited to their skill sets.

Lets look at it this way.

43 defense, strong defensive left
LDE Nink in 5 tech
LDT Easely in 3 tech
RDT Wilfork in 0 tech
RDE Jones in 5 tech
LOLB Hightower on the TE
MLB Mayo over the ORG
ROLB Collins over the OLG

This turns into a 34 by sliding Easley to 5 tech, Nink to the Hightower spot then moving Hightower to behind or outside of Jones

This is a 34/43 multiple front that essentially has all of the same duties.
That is pretty much how it was done last week. Its a 34 that has all of the concepts of a 43.

Marinlik · Sep 11, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
Not true.

I have not watched every snap, but a majority of them and do recall a single running play that Jones closed down to the B gap. He played outside leverage on the T virtually every time. Perhaps you are looking at the T blocking down, and Jones moving down the line to where the B gap started?
Give me some examples of plays where you saw this, so I can look.

Again, please list a few plays where you saw him rush inside.

Well, most of the conversation on this board has been about how stupid it is to play Jones as a 2gapping 34 DE, so you kind of have to discuss the misconception in order to correct it. The important part of the concept here is that Jones is not being used like Ty Warren, he is being used like Chandler Jones. If you watch tape of him last year and this year, you will see very much the same thing happening, with the exception of having zero 3rd and long where he would get wide and rush the passer. That isnt a choice, thats a down and distance issue.

Just look at the all 22 tape and you will see that on many plays, much more than any time last year, Chandler rushed over the B gap. No I am not looking at plays where the tackle blocked down. If you look at a few drives you will se him take the B gap a lot if he has a linebacker outside of him. Those plays basically had Chandler as a DT(post stunt)

This created several problems. On run plays you had Chandler trying to handle a guard and make the tackle, he often couldn't because he isn't big enough for that. On pass plays he simply isn't as good at inside rushing as he is rushing on the outside.

So sure. It's a lot like our 43 in some ways. But it put players where they usually wouldn't be in a 43. Like Chandler at 3tech DT. Plus we don't get the interior pass rush that we have needed for many years, because our pass rushing DT goes to the 5tech on way more plays than he would ever be in a 43.

Ring 6 · Sep 11, 2014

Marinlik said:
Just look at the all 22 tape and you will see that on many plays, much more than any time last year, Chandler rushed over the B gap. No I am not looking at plays where the tackle blocked down. If you look at a few drives you will se him take the B gap a lot if he has a linebacker outside of him. Those plays basically had Chandler as a DT(post stunt)

I dont need all-22 to see Jones. I will look again, but saw none of this so far as i have watched.

This created several problems. On run plays you had Chandler trying to handle a guard and make the tackle, he often couldn't because he isn't big enough for that. On pass plays he simply isn't as good at inside rushing as he is rushing on the outside.

You are saying he lined up in a 5tech and crashed down into the G?

So sure. It's a lot like our 43 in some ways. But it put players where they usually wouldn't be in a 43. Like Chandler at 3tech DT. Plus we don't get the interior pass rush that we have needed for many years, because our pass rushing DT goes to the 5tech on way more plays than he would ever be in a 43.

Well if Jones is playing 3 tech DT something surely is wrong. As far as the pass rush, sure you are widening the LDT to a 5tech, but you also are using a 43DE/34OLB outside of him who will be rushing the passer. That either gives him an advantage or requires the G to reach to the 5tech.
There are plusses and minusses to each alignment.
I also prefer the 43 with this group, aside from not being very high on Ninkovich as a pass rusher, but the end result is there isn't much difference, and since we are in sub 60% of the time, 34 or 43 is even less of a concern.

Marinlik · Sep 11, 2014

AndyJohnson said:
I dont need all-22 to see Jones. I will look again, but saw none of this so far as i have watched.

You are saying he lined up in a 5tech and crashed down into the G?

a concern.

Yeah. What he did was line up at 5tech(he did that basically all of the time, maybe head on a play or two at the most). But then at the snap he stunted into the B gap. Happened on both "run downs" and "pass downs", by which I mean. Not only in obvious situations for run or pass. Which basically meant that he had the responsibility that a 3tech DT would have, both against pass and run. Which he isn't that good at.

SVN · Sep 11, 2014

some more analysis about pats oline issues last sunday

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/09/11/nfl-week-2-preview-new-york-giants-arizona-cardinals

ralmat55 · Sep 11, 2014

I love how this discussion always breaks down to arguing about schemes and alignments. It just misses the point completely. The real problem with the Pats defense in the Dolphin's game was not whether Nink lined up in a 3 point or 2 point stance, but that the Pats front was just too damn small to matchup.

You can scheme and teach all you want, but rare is the 265 lbs man who can stack and shed a 315 lbs OL, and the Patriots don't have any of them. Matty Patty and BB are repeat offenders when it comes to the ultimate in coaching hubris: that scheming and coaching can overcome the physical limitations of their players.

BB wants to play a passive 2-gap scheme. But, he doesn't have the players to play it we'll. Why does he have to prove that to himself over and over again. They want to Run a versatile defense, but they only have the players to play well when they run an aggressive, attacking scheme.

As I said beforehand, Bill Belichick the DC keeps letting down BB the HC down.

ausbacker · Sep 11, 2014

Kenneth Sims said:
I love how this discussion always breaks down to arguing about schemes and alignments. It just misses the point completely. The real problem with the Pats defense in the Dolphin's game was not whether Nink lined up in a 3 point or 2 point stance, but that the Pats front was just too damn small to matchup.

You can scheme and teach all you want, but rare is the 265 lbs man who can stack and shed a 315 lbs OL, and the Patriots don't have any of them. Matty Patty and BB are repeat offenders when it comes to the ultimate in coaching hubris: that scheming and coaching can overcome the physical limitations of their players.

BB wants to play a passive 2-gap scheme. But, he doesn't have the players to play it we'll. Why does he have to prove that to himself over and over again. They want to Run a versatile defense, but they only have the players to play well when they run an aggressive, attacking scheme.

As I said beforehand, Bill Belichick the DC keeps letting down BB the HC down.

Personally, I think they should piss off the complicated schemes and assignments on D and simply let the players go out and play with one directive. Leave the complicated decision making to Brady and let him call the game as he sees it. He'll reflect a better pass/run ratio and frankly, I trust Brady more than I trust McDaniels.

pencilneckgeek · Sep 11, 2014

Marinlik said:
What Andy has been pointing out all week was not what happened in the game. Atleast not for a large part of the game.

Yes Chandler played the 5 tech. But because we blitzed a lot with the outside linebacker, Chandler got responsibility for the B gap, instead of his usual C gap. That meant that he had to take on a guard instead of a tackle most of the time. This was something they did on a large part of the snaps.

I think this 34 was a bad usage of Chandler because he got to rush inside so much. I have no problem with him stunting inside every now and then. But having him do that as much as they did against Miami is misusing him as he is a much better outside rusher than he is an inside rusher.

It may have been the same personel as in our 43. But people got put in positions where they aren't that good.

Both you and Andy are way to focused on people thinking the only difference between 34 and 43 is 2 gapping, you guys seem to completely miss that it put players in different spots with different responsibilities.

Too many people do think the difference between 3-4 and 4-3 is the 2-gap v. 1-gap technique. That was the point of my post. I'm not trying to shout down opposing voices. I'm trying to kindly request that everyone study-up and speak to the real issues and not accept the word of mediots (or intelligent media members pressed for time) and try to get to the real issues.

If you've got a an issue with plays where Chandler crashed-down on the guard, I'm all ears. I must note that my recollection is that he was too often trapped outside by the tackle and one of Wilfork's two gaps ended-up being HUGE. (Vellano getting skated outside seemed just as prevalent.) Regardless, the key players on the inside were lined-up almost exactly in the same place they would have been in a 4-3, and the Pats still got run-over by the inside zone.

With respect to your observation, I'm not going to quibble with Chandler stunting inside. Miami invested heavily in the OT and had a somewhat makeshift interior OL, so it makes sense to test this out. I think we found that the interior OL was better than advertised. With the way that we were being gouged up the middle by the inside zone, I wonder whether Chandler's inside crash wasn't an attempt to adjust within the context of the defense they had practiced. Regardless, neither approach worked well.

In terms of getting the most out of Chandler's pass rush, he lined up at 3-tech, 5-tech, and 7-tech in the 4-2 nickel and mostly at 5-tech in the 3-3 nickel. That seems like a good approach to trying to find a winning match-up for him. Unfortunately, he did not have much success from any of these spots (the cheeseball RTP penalty from his inside rush or his deserved RTP penalty from the outside rush notwithstanding).

Thankfully, BB has a crew of folks who speak the same language as him, so we may get a different story on Sunday. I'm going to bet on even more disciplined 2-gapping and a reliance on Revis to stop Corduroyelle.

mayoclinic said:
Link, please.

The links are embedded in the text of my post. I trust you found them subsequent to this request.

Joker · Sep 11, 2014

pencilneckgeek · Sep 11, 2014

Kenneth Sims said:
I love how this discussion always breaks down to arguing about schemes and alignments. It just misses the point completely. The real problem with the Pats defense in the Dolphin's game was not whether Nink lined up in a 3 point or 2 point stance, but that the Pats front was just too damn small to matchup.

You can scheme and teach all you want, but rare is the 265 lbs man who can stack and shed a 315 lbs OL, and the Patriots don't have any of them.

There is a lot of truth to this. I don't think it is coaching hubris, however. The Pats want players who can do a better job in the pass-enabled NFL, and that makes them vulnerable to the run.

Ring 6 · Sep 11, 2014

pencilneckgeek said:
There is a lot of truth to this. I don't think it is coaching hubris, however. The Pats want players who can do a better job in the pass-enabled NFL, and that makes them vulnerable to the run.

We have played with essentially the same type 7 players for 3 years now for exactly the reason you state.

Mack Herron · Sep 11, 2014

pencilneckgeek said:
There is a lot of truth to this. I don't think it is coaching hubris, however. The Pats want players who can do a better job in the pass-enabled NFL, and that makes them vulnerable to the run.

Yet somehow when we needed to get off the field on third down and long there has been neither pressure nor coverage.

Excellent Analysis of Patriots D by Bedard

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

TB12

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

PatsFans.com Supporter

Pro Bowl Player

Similar threads