2+2=4

[Tunescribe]

I've never been a huge fan of the 3-4 alignment myself -- what's the big advantage BB sees in it? With a guy like Jarvis Green on the roster, who is an athletic and active pass-rusher, it would seem we could do well in a 4-3. (But I guess that might alter the effectiveness of Wilfork, who is a prototypical nose tackle ... Could Wilfork be effective in a 4-3 alignment?)

 

[JR4]

I've never been a huge fan of the 3-4 alignment myself -- what's the big advantage BB sees in it? With a guy like Jarvis Green on the roster, who is an athletic and active pass-rusher, it would seem we could do well in a 4-3. (But I guess that might alter the effectiveness of Wilfork, who is a prototypical nose tackle ... Could Wilfork be effective in a 4-3 alignment?)

I thought one of the main reasons for the 3-4 was that it is easier to
disguise defense plays? No? This inability to know what's really coming
can make a QB a little more hesistant.
If PATs want to go back to the 4-3 they better find a real good
DE that can pass rush ( like Abraham - Taylor - Freeney - etc)
PATs D has been built for the 3-4 and that's not easy.
I like the 3-4.

 

[mcbee]

Wilfork would do fine in a 4-3. The problem is the LBs, where do we get enough speed on the outside? Colvin isn't exactly fast, he's more a pass rush LB, in fact he would probably play end in a 4-3. So we'd have lots of linemen and too few LBs.

Maybe we could play a 5 man front, Green Warren Wilfork Seymour Colvin and have 2 linebackers.

 

[patchick]

However I do know that 2+2=4 and that can mean ONLY than Belichick/Pees are comfortable with what they have right now.

Only? You can't always look at results and infer strategy.

I often think about Matt Light's tale of the Colts game where the Pats went for it on 4th down a lot in the first half. There was much discussion of their bold, aggressive game plan and their obvious focus on an early lead as the strategic key to beating Indy. But what it really meant was that the punter was unconscious in the locker room.

The players you have aren't necessarily the players you wanted -- they Pats certainly tried hard to keep some of those free agents. By not drafting an LB, all the team really said was that the players they took will help the team more. In retrospect, the lack of true playmakers on offense probably was a bigger hole than questionable linebacker depth.

But if Willie were on the roster, wouldn't you expect him to get plenty of playing time regardless of Beisel or Claridge's development?

 

[Tunescribe]

Only? You can't always look at results and infer strategy.

I often think about Matt Light's tale of the Colts game where the Pats went for it on 4th down a lot in the first half. There was much discussion of their bold, aggressive game plan and their obvious focus on an early lead as the strategic key to beating Indy. But what it really meant was that the punter was unconscious in the locker room.

The players you have aren't necessarily the players you wanted -- they Pats certainly tried hard to keep some of those free agents. By not drafting an LB, all the team really said was that the players they took will help the team more. In retrospect, the lack of true playmakers on offense probably was a bigger hole than questionable linebacker depth.

But if Willie were on the roster, wouldn't you expect him to get plenty of playing time regardless of Beisel or Claridge's development?

Letting Willie walk looks more and more like a huge freakin' mistake as time wears on, in my humble opinion. The guy meant more to this team than what he did on the field, which was still quite impressive after 12 years.

 

[RayClay]

Just curious.

We are forming opinions on Claridge based on what??

I would have to say he is one of those imaginary numbers in the back of the textbook right now.

 

[patsfan13]

Just curious.

We are forming opinions on Claridge based on what??

I would have to say he is one of those imaginary numbers in the back of the textbook right now.

I am basing my opinion on Claridge this year a comment reported last month from Rodney where he stated that Claridge was working hard and would be a force this year. A statement like that from Rodney carries weight with me.

 

[shakadave]

Wilfork would do fine in a 4-3. The problem is the LBs, where do we get enough speed on the outside? Colvin isn't exactly fast, he's more a pass rush LB, in fact he would probably play end in a 4-3. So we'd have lots of linemen and too few LBs.

Maybe we could play a 5 man front, Green Warren Wilfork Seymour Colvin and have 2 linebackers.

I vote we stop discussing a new defense, and stay with the 3-4 that has made us the best defensive team of the last 3 years.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

We don't play a 3-4.

We play a base 3-4, two-gap system, but the mix is substantial enough that some games you hardly would know the Pats "are a 3-4 team."

This is why the Pats emphasize versatility as a prime team and individual value. They already play 4-3 sets, it's just not the base defense. They also play a variety of bizarre variations that suit the occasion. The only real constant is that the guys on the line are responsible for two gaps, not one, with additional linemen adding either a "wildcard" for the offense to cope with, or additional emphasis on those gaps. You can also drop a guy back into coverage (oh my he was the OLB all along!), blitz him, whatever.

Yeah, I'm pretty fond of the 3-4 as the Pats play it. This is why they can look like Blitzburgh one week, like a textbook, patient, grind-it-out 3-4 team the next, and like a ballhawking risktaking defense on another week (or on another down in the same week - whatever.) We lost a lot of that last year, due in large part to injury. But the versatility of the Pats' defense is what's distinguished it for all these years. They'll never be like Chicago in 85-86, or Baltimore in 2000-2001, dominating every game, smothering and frustrating every opposing team (and doing it the same way on pretty much every down.)

They'll just beat you, and leave you wondering how it happened this time.

PFnV

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

Imagine if we signed Willie and he got injured and was out for the year in training camp. What would BB do? He'll do what he has always done. Throw a bunch of guys in a rotation at a position, and see their strengths and weaknesses. If one steps up, great. If none distinguishes themselves, he will substitute them and put them in positions to succeed.

IMHO, he might use TBC in 3-4 pass rushing situations. He might use Jarvis Green at Willie's old nickel and dime DE positions. In goal line run-stopping positions, he might put in a BIG LB. Maybe Claridge, Roach or Mincey (depending on who did good in camp). In pass-covering and speed situations he might use Beisel. In other words, there will not be ONE replacement to Willie. (In the meantime, like our "green" CB, they gain experience and find a role on the team. If they don't find a role, they get fired!)

So, that is what I think he is going to do because we lost Willie in FA, and there were no realistic replacements for him in FA, and no rookie in the 1st round that could come in and start right away anyways.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay, Patriots 80, now my delusional world in which M. Hill gets thrown in as a run-stuffer is picking up too much steam. Oh man would I love to throw him into the middle with Tedi on run-stuffing situations - if only you could stuff the run with measurables instead of playing style.

Who knows if he could do it... but if he could, MAN would that be fun to watch.

PFnV

 

[RayClay]

I've never been a huge fan of the 3-4 alignment myself -- what's the big advantage BB sees in it? With a guy like Jarvis Green on the roster, who is an athletic and active pass-rusher, it would seem we could do well in a 4-3. (But I guess that might alter the effectiveness of Wilfork, who is a prototypical nose tackle ... Could Wilfork be effective in a 4-3 alignment?)

Wilfork is actually a 4-3 tackle trying to learn the nose.

All linemen would prefer to be in a 4-3. The problem is we don't have the type of LBs necessary.

Edit: I should have read the posts first. I can see this is redundant.

 

[the taildragger]

all things equal, a 34 defense is:
- stronger against the run (outside and inside).
- increases flexbility of coverages.
- allows for a larger blitz package.
- it's much better against TEs.
- it's better against checking QBs like Manning.

IMO, the 43 is just an inferior outdated scheme (sorry Mr. Landry)...but most coaches still like it because it's the only thing they know.

Are we short a LB?...sure...this bothers me too.

but is there another team that wouldn't trade for our LB core?...I can't think of a better one.

it's something we'll try to address, but we're not going to have 11 pro bowlers on defense (only the colts can send all of their players to Hawaii)...no team is without a weak link here or there.

 

[RayClay]

I am basing my opinion on Claridge this year a comment reported last month from Rodney where he stated that Claridge was working hard and would be a force this year. A statement like that from Rodney carries weight with me.

I'll reserve judgement until the guy actually plays in a game.

 

[arrellbee]

all things equal, a 34 defense is:
- stronger against the run (outside and inside).
- increases flexbility of coverages.
- allows for a larger blitz package.
- it's much better against TEs.
- it's better against checking QBs like Manning.

IMO, the 43 is just an inferior outdated scheme (sorry Mr. Landry)...but most coaches still like it because it's the only thing they know.

Are we short a LB?...sure...this bothers me too.

but is there another team that wouldn't trade for our LB core?...I can't think of a better one.

it's something we'll try to address, but we're not going to have 11 pro bowlers on defense (only the colts can send all of their players to Hawaii)...no team is without a weak link here or there.

Very good perspective. Your points on the 3-4 are very good. I think especially signicant is the word you used "flexibility". It just appears to be a more effective defensive set against a wide range of offensive plays and harder for offensive schemes to take advantage of. I'll add a couple item to your list, if I might.
- provides better opportunity to disguise the defensive scheme
- allows more freedom to shift the defensive scheme at the last second
- allows more flexibility to adapt to the final offensive set at the last second

 

[arrellbee]

Wilfork is actually a 4-3 tackle trying to learn the nose.

yes.

All linemen would prefer to be in a 4-3. The problem is we don't have the type of LBs necessary.

I think you have it backwards. We have the type of LB we do because Belichick intends to use the 3-4 defense and selects LBs accordingly.