A Wilfork/NT discussion

[Brady-To-Branch]

Pay the money.

I guess we agree to disagree then.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

To make this clear, you brought in the teams on which Belichick played the role of defensive coordinator in countering my statement that Belichick emphasized defensive lineman, pointing out the absence of 1st round picks spent on linebackers, so I will address your argument again.

That hardly clarifies the debate considering what I highlighted in the above reply was not my point nor was it my argument. My point, again, was that in a Parcells/BB 34, there's considerable room for debate to your initial premise that the DLine is first on a list of positional "priorities." It is not and LBers are equally important. I'd wager that they're more important in a Pacells/BB system.

How are the defensive points of emphasis different? Parcells controlled personnel selection and drafting, not Belichick, so he decided where to spend money and picks, not Belichick. I thought that was common knowledge with his title as head coach and his history of wanting complete control - if you have a reference supporting your opinion Belichick had substantial input to Parcells in making those decisions, feel free to provide a link.

Again, we're discussing priorities and the defensive philosophy of a base 34 in a Parcells/Belichick defense. Are the defense that Parcells ran in his glory years with BB as his DC that disparate in philosophy, priorities and design from that which BB has established in NE?

And rather than attempt to address why a 34 on one team may not be the same as a 34 on another, other than an extremely basic statement of what that defense entails, consider whether personnel characteristics can limit or expand the capabilities of defenses out of a common set. If your answer is yes, then you need not respond as you have answered your own Parcells' team/Belichick's team riddle.

We're not comparing and contrasting the NE 34 versus that of Pitt. So again, how different in basic philosophy is the current BB 34 different from that of Parcells' Giants'? It's not that complicated and I don't understand why you're pulling teeth here.

First, are you saying at the beginning of 2005 Wilfork was not still learning and was not part of the struggling defense?

No, I'm not saying that at all. Indeed he was a part of a struggling defense that plays team defense. Also, yes Wilfork in the early part of this second year was still leaning which is why I had posted in another reply about BB's presser comment that Vince did not play the NT position with the same technique and the same assignment as Washington. Said this, however, he wasn't exactly a slouch and was instead quite solid even during his rookie year.

Again, I understand you have an opinion but feel free to point out how that was entirely on Beisel and Brown. Second, did I say linebackers were unimportant or that a 34 defense works without good linebackers? Please point out where I said that because my short term memory must be fading. I said Belichick places a premium on defensive linemen and then the front 7. His linebackers, not Parcells' linebackers to make that point abundantly clear as you appear to be struggling with the concept, have been smart veterans capable of performing their roles. His only big time acquisitions over 8 seasons have been Colvin and Thomas - everyone else fit a certain model for the ILB and OLB roles and was either on the team from Parcells' days (Bruschi and McGinest) when he became head coach, a veteran in the twilight of his years or a castoff from another team with the proper capabilities.

The defensiveness of your replies aside, you're actually making my point with Willie. Unlike others from 1999 roster BB chose to keep Willie, Ted Johnson and Bruschi even though they were Parcells picks. So no, I'm not struggling with the concept that the Parcells/BB base 34 is heavily dependent on stout, play-making LBs who have unique skillsets from 43 LBs. Why insist on arguing the point about the guy buying the grocery? Basically if you're making chicken marsala, you need chicken and marsala wine regardless of who's cooking or buying the groceries.

The ILB role is not a simple one, which is why the Brown/Beisel experiment failed, but you may recall that Bruschi had his stroke within weeks of the Super Bowl and the Pats did not break the bank to bring in a premium free agent to replace him. If that meets your definition of Belichick's defensive priority, we must be consulting different dictionaries on the meaning of the term.

Again, in a Parcells/BB base 34, LBs are as important if not more than DLmen. This is what I've been saying since the first sentence in my first reply to you.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

I have to address this point.

I was still doing my game break downs in 2005, with all the people screaming for Beisal's and Brown's scalps few really looked at Vince and how much he was struggling making the adjustment from one-gap penetrator to two-gap brick wall. Vince was pancaked by Oakland's Jake Grove several times in that opening game, he played horribly. Pats1 may have the link around here yet, but my assessment then was he was pressing too hard and not playing his gap assignments. He'd start pushing one way and Grove would just take him where he wanted to go creating a nice cutback lane for the RB. Vince's pressing so hard also allowed Grove to cut block him, Vince put his face mask into the turf more than once tripping over Grove. Beisal and Brown were thrown in over their heads, but Vince didn't make it any easier for them.

Vince struggled the entire first half of the season, but around game eight it was like a light came on, and by game 10 he was starting to show the dominating form he shows us today. By my observations, it took Vince a season and a half of regular rotational and starting play before he was able to apply the technique of of NE two-gap NT and become the brick wall we all adore today. Well, most adore it, some clearly struggle to grasp the value of a true NT in the 3-4 with their suggestion to allow Vince to walk so NE can get Julius Peppers, sheesh.

LOL. Rox I thought that given your contribution to this forum, you would have been above this sort of a reply. Regardless...

I take exception to your implication that Vince was some bum in his rookie year and for half of his sophomore year. Yes, he had times when he struggled and yes, he's a far better play now, something I had noted in this thread, but he did make play even in his rookie year and I'm somewhat bafflled that you've presented his role, which was always the NT in a base 34, as being primarily a one gapper. Perhaps another viewing of the Pats v Eagles SB would refresh your memory. Though he started the game, he rotated often with Traylor with Seymour seeing some snaps at NT. Even at that though, when Vince was in there, he was a two gapping NT playing a different technique and gap assignment and who often held his ground well despite the double teams.

Now, I don't have the time to do so at this moment, but I will go back and watch a couple more games from the first half of the 2005 season. And his game versus Grove, I don't need to watch again because I know he struggled and so your assessment for the most part is in agreement with mine.

As far as the cheap shot is concerned, again Wilfork is a guy I wanted the Pats to draft in 2003 before he declared his intention to return to Miami for his final year. The following year, though I can't say I enjoy a stellar record during drafts, Wilfork and Marquise were two guys I got right while posting on another forum. A regular poster here actually ran that draft and the winner that year, yours' truly, was to receive $5. I asked the guy to donate it charity and I trust that he followed up on it.

Just to be clear about what I had said in this thread, I'm willing to lose Wilfork if it means we can keep Seymour and add Peppers. Please take more care in re-presenting what I had said.

Also, if you recall, my so called lack of understanding with respect to NT play in a 34 could be read in a previous exchange with you.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ld-you-game-plan-denver-page2.html#post199270

Appreciate your effort nevertheless.

 

[MassPats38]

My point, again, was that in a Parcells/BB 34, there's considerable room for debate to your initial premise that the DLine is first on a list of positional "priorities." It is not and LBers are equally important. I'd wager that they're more important in a Pacells/BB system.

First, I am not trying to change your mind. Have your opinion. I offered mine. You seem to believe that Parcells' defense and Belichick's defense are identical, and I asked for you to provide some proof that Belichick had input into the 86 Giants defense or 99 Jets personnel choices as your first response was the Hall of Fame linebacker corps for the Giants. I can only suspect if you see Belichick as telling Parcells what he should do with personnel, you may want to ask why he turned down the Jets job when Parcells decided to stay with the team. So wager away.

Again, we're discussing priorities and the defensive philosophy of a base 34 in a Parcells/Belichick defense. Are the defense that Parcells ran in his glory years with BB as his DC that disparate in philosophy, priorities and design from that which BB has established in NE?

We're not comparing and contrasting the NE 34 versus that of Pitt. So again, how different in basic philosophy is the current BB 34 different from that of Parcells' Giants'? It's not that complicated and I don't understand why you're pulling teeth here.

My list of priorities was position-based, not 34 based. It's on page 4 so feel free to review it if you're hazy. As the initial post was priorities, given who Parcells drafted I would say yes, they are different. The fact they may have played out of the same base defense states little in the end. Ask how many defensive looks Belichick ran under Parcells compared to how many he runs now. I don't have the stats, but I would say Belichick demands a little more in the way of flexibility than Parcells would demand.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Indeed he was a part of a struggling defense that plays team defense. Also, yes Wilfork in the early part of this second year was still leaning which is why I had posted in another reply about BB's presser comment that Vince did not play the NT position with the same technique and the same assignment as Washington. Said this, however, he wasn't exactly a slouch and was instead quite solid even during his rookie year.

That was a response to your Brown/Beisel reference in support of your argument, and as I said in my second post in this thread, "gouged" in reference to his first year was an overstatement, but he was not near the player he was now in 2004 or 2005. I forgot to mention to mention in response to your "what happened with the run defense during the Monty/Chad experiment when Vince had a year under his belt and was plugging the middle well?" as to Brown, who was illustrative of your point of the importance of the 3-4 LBs, what position did he play and what defense did they run in Pittsburgh before he came to New England? ILB next to Kirkland? I believe he did. Seattle must have erased his brain, or maybe all 34s are not alike as you appear to contend. Possibly even Belichick's 34 and Parcells 34.

The defensiveness of your replies aside, you're actually making my point with Willie. Unlike others from 1999 roster BB chose to keep Willie, Ted Johnson and Bruschi even though they were Parcells picks.

Again, in a Parcells/BB base 34, LBs are as important if not more than DLmen. This is what I've been saying since the first sentence in my first reply to you.

My tone is probably is attributable to your "In the BB base 34, LBs are the one's who need to make the plays. I thought this was common knowledge." The "common knowledge" thing comes across a little condescending, and I am not the only one disagreeing with you in the thread and did not invite a remedial lesson in NFL defenses. I did not suggest a linebackers role was otherwise. And linebackers "make the plays" based on how well they are allowed to do so by the defensive line. Bad defensive line, no plays.

As stated, Belichick wants smart role players as linebackers. I never said the role of a linebacker is not important in a 34 or to Belichick, in fact repeatedly stating otherwise. Feel free to find where I said they were unimportant and quote me. The defense obviously struggled without Bruschi so anyone should see that point.

As for proving your point, Belichick worked with those linebackers as defensive coordinator and knew their capabilities. McGinest was a 1st round draft pick. Bruschi was a 3rd rounder and Johnson a 2nd rounder. Did I ever say Belichick looked to cast off players from the Parcells' days? No. The fact he kept those players means he isn't mentally challenged. I said he didn't break the bank for them (money tends to equate to importance and value to a team) and tended to look for smart players capable of performing their roles. He has not taken a similar approach to the defensive line. The reference to 1st round picks spent on defensive linemen during Belichick's tenure may suggest a different priority than Parcells.

And as to the last portion of your response, linebackers need to read and react and the ability to drop back in coverage, rush the passer and crash against the run. It is not an easy position relative to a 43 linebacker role. My post was not about the 34 linebacker role generally, it was the importance of the defensive line position to Belichick. Even as a general proposition, if the defensive line fails what happens when the 300+ pound linemen go plowing into the linebackers? You think those linebackers will do well against someone 50 pounds heavier with a head of steam? But as you may have noticed, Belichick's defense is not just a 34 - it can be a 43 or any weird hybrid he chooses to throw out there. It is in his defense, not just a 34 defense, that I made my argument.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

You seem to believe that Parcells' defense and Belichick's defense are identical,

I said no such a thing. In a base 34 employed by Parcells and BB, the philosophy and the priority of this base 34 is indeed very similar.

and I asked for you to provide some proof that Belichick had input into the 86 Giants defense or 99 Jets personnel choices as your first response was the Hall of Fame linebacker corps for the Giants.

Why would I comply to the above when my point was never explicitly or implicitly stated as having anything to do whether BB had personnel input into Parcells.

Again, in a base 34 employed by Parcells' Giants and Jets teams and the current 34 based employed by BB, the philosophy and priorities are very similar.

The above, I think I must have typed a half dozen times by now. Not sure why you keep getting sidetracked and erecting strawmen.

I can only suspect if you see Belichick as telling Parcells what he should do with personnel, you may want to ask why he turned down the Jets job when Parcells decided to stay with the team. So wager away.

Has nothing to do with what I've been saying so suspect away at your leisure.

My list of priorities was position-based, not 34 based. It's on page 4 so feel free to review it if you're hazy.

No, I'm not hazy about this so I really don't need to go back to page 4. Though this isn't an exact quote, you said something to the effect that 'in this defense, the priorities are DL, LB and DBs.'

I took your reference to this defense to mean the Belichick base 34 because that's what he runs and has been running since '03 here in NE.

And again, in this base 34 as is the case with Parcells' base 34 which BB coached, LBs are just as important if not more in the philosophy of this defense.

As the initial post was priorities, given who Parcells drafted I would say yes, they are different. The fact they may have played out of the same base defense states little in the end.

The ghost of Chuck Fairbanks begs to differ.

or maybe all 34s are not alike as you appear to contend. Possibly even Belichick's 34 and Parcells 34.

I'm quite sure I neither implied nor explicitly stated all 34 are the same. Had I already not brought up the Pitt 34 as a 34 that's different than the Pats'? I suggest rather than tossing out words out like "hazy," you do a better job of reading. Also, yes, the Belichick base 34 and Parcells base 34 with BB serving as the DC were indeed similar and owed a great deal to Chuck Fairbanks.

At this point, I'll choose to stop. You're really not reading what I stated accurately and if you are, then you're having problems re-presenting them in an accurate manner. I also don't have the time nor the patience to address your series of strawmen.

Lastly, because such resistance to the obvious is expressed, in this defense - the Bill Belichick base 34 which he also ran with his years with the Tuna and which owes so much the defenses employed by Fairbanks here in NE - LBs are just as important if not more than the DLmen.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Another reason I like the 4-3 is the the D has failed the last 3 years.

:wha: :violent: :beatingcoming:

 

[AzPatsFan]

The most irreplaceable guy on the Patriots Defensive line is Richard Seymour by a country mile.

We got bye with Richard as a NT, Washington and Traylor. Its nice that we have Vince but... But nobody but Richard Seymour adds the dimensions that he does. Period.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

LOL. Rox I thought that given your contribution to this forum, you would have been above this sort of a reply. Regardless...

I take exception to your implication that Vince was some bum in his rookie year and for half of his sophomore year. Yes, he had times when he struggled and yes, he's a far better play now, something I had noted in this thread, but he did make play even in his rookie year and I'm somewhat bafflled that you've presented his role, which was always the NT in a base 34, as being primarily a one gapper. Perhaps another viewing of the Pats v Eagles SB would refresh your memory. Though he started the game, he rotated often with Traylor with Seymour seeing some snaps at NT. Even at that though, when Vince was in there, he was a two gapping NT playing a different technique and gap assignment and who often held his ground well despite the double teams.

Now, I don't have the time to do so at this moment, but I will go back and watch a couple more games from the first half of the 2005 season. And his game versus Grove, I don't need to watch again because I know he struggled and so your assessment for the most part is in agreement with mine.

As far as the cheap shot is concerned, again Wilfork is a guy I wanted the Pats to draft in 2003 before he declared his intention to return to Miami for his final year. The following year, though I can't say I enjoy a stellar record during drafts, Wilfork and Marquise were two guys I got right while posting on another forum. A regular poster here actually ran that draft and the winner that year, yours' truly, was to receive $5. I asked the guy to donate it charity and I trust that he followed up on it.

Just to be clear about what I had said in this thread, I'm willing to lose Wilfork if it means we can keep Seymour and add Peppers. Please take more care in re-presenting what I had said.

Also, if you recall, my so called lack of understanding with respect to NT play in a 34 could be read in a previous exchange with you.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...ld-you-game-plan-denver-page2.html#post199270

Appreciate your effort nevertheless.

Well, before we agree to disagree, if you intend to let Vince walk so NE adds Peppers, do you intend to play a 3-4 or do you change the scheme?

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

The most irreplaceable guy on the Patriots Defensive line is Richard Seymour by a country mile. But nobody but Richard Seymour adds the dimensions that he does. Period.

In case you havent been paying attention. Many on this board seem to think Seymour is crap, and should be replaced. I know its shocking. I read somewhere that BB can't draft either....we suck

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Well, before we agree to disagree, if you intend to let Vince walk so NE adds Peppers, do you intend to play a 3-4 or do you change the scheme?

Stick to the 34 for I'm not in the same camp that think the personnel on this D can be switched back and forth between the 34 and the 43. On paper it might seem that way but then Ben Watson could also play WR on paper.

Also, the Wilfork or Peppers equation is a bit of false dilemma to me. I've played along to this for the sake of the argument because as it stand, it's a reasonable projection. However, as I said perhaps in another thread, in the worst case scenario, there's the option of tagging Vince for a year under the presumption that the brass would have extended Richard to a somewhat backloaded deal. But that's not the phantom argument. The false dilemma stems from the fact that one year from now, everything would have occurred according to our own private predictions. We don't know that to be true at all. For instance, what happens if AD goes on the IR this year at the half-way point? Would he still be worth the cap hit in 2010?

IOW, there's a huge hole at a critical, playmaking position on this defense this year. And IMO Woods, Crable, Tully and so forth are not the answer. Crable might emerge to be an answer this year but if they don't, we're screwed. If he does emerge, then it's a luxury with no downside. And for this year also, we have both Wilfork and Seymour. Plug the hole that exist now with a proven player and let things play out.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I haven't watched the other NTs enough to compare them to Vince, by a long shot, but Ngata does wow me every time I see him play.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Stick to the 34 for I'm not in the same camp that think the personnel on this D can be switched back and forth between the 34 and the 43. On paper it might seem that way but then Ben Watson could also play WR on paper.

Also, the Wilfork or Peppers equation is a bit of false dilemma to me. I've played along to this for the sake of the argument because as it stand, it's a reasonable projection. However, as I said perhaps in another thread, in the worst case scenario, there's the option of tagging Vince for a year under the presumption that the brass would have extended Richard to a somewhat backloaded deal. But that's not the phantom argument. The false dilemma stems from the fact that one year from now, everything would have occurred according to our own private predictions. We don't know that to be true at all. For instance, what happens if AD goes on the IR this year at the half-way point? Would he still be worth the cap hit in 2010?

IOW, there's a huge hole at a critical, playmaking position on this defense this year. And IMO Woods, Crable, Tully and so forth are not the answer. Crable might emerge to be an answer this year but if they don't, we're screwed. If he does emerge, then it's a luxury with no downside. And for this year also, we have both Wilfork and Seymour. Plug the hole that exist now with a proven player and let things play out.

That I can agree with, improving the pass rush is a priority for this season. I believe the Pats will be making every effort to extend both Wilfork and Seymour, which hopefully will work out for the Pats. I certainly do not wish to lose either.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

That I can agree with, improving the pass rush is a priority for this season. I believe the Pats will be making every effort to extend both Wilfork and Seymour, which hopefully will work out for the Pats. I certainly do not wish to lose either.

Seymour's done nothing since his extension.

My issue is with Dean Pees, who seems to be allergic to blitzing. If I see Adalius Thomas on pass coverage on passing downs again... I have doubts that Pees can scheme a good pass rush on passing downs. His defenses have been too vanilla in those situations.

In 2008, the Pats couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs (26th), had a defensive passer rating of 89.8 (23rd), and allowed 27 TD Passes (31st).

 

[satz]

Seymour's done nothing since his extension.

you mean equaling his best year in sacks and highest tackle last year was wrong ?. he had his best career stats in 2008 . intresting

blaming coaches is bad enough when he does not have players who can execute. now i wait for you tell me how lewis sanders, bryant ,colvin and seau last year were wasted in our defence as they were given help when they can matchup one on one better.
AD was dropped as our back 7 cannot cover anyone and needed help if someone needs to be blamed it is the FO for getting this players who were bad matchup and needed help .

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

This is a bit OT since it has little to do with Vince or the NT position specifically, but considering there's a bit of confusion on the matter and thus for clarity's sake....

Parcells and BB were both hired to the Giants staff the same year by HC Ray Perkins. Perkins of course was an assistant with Chuck Fairbank here in NE prior to his gig in NY and later returned to NE to take part in Parcells' staff. BB, aided greatly by the strong recommendations from Ernie Adams and Floyd Reese, was hired to coach special teams with the Giants though BB also insisted his duties would include helping out with the LBs. At the time, Perkins had not hired a DC. It was only on a plane headed from Denver to NY that he ran into Parcells and found out the Tuna had been hired as the Giants' DC. BB had been an aid for the Broncos, who employed the Orange Crush 3-4, and Parcells had been coaching the Air Force team in CO with both flying into the Meadowlands from Denver on the same flight.* Parcells left the Giants the following year to be a LB coach for the Pats, who still employed a 34 led by Nellie, then returned in 1981 as the Giants' DC/LB coach.

*as reported by Halberstam in The Education of a Coach

Also, additional reading on the Pats' 3-4 base:

Belichick's 3-4 scheme is the next step in this evolution. The Steelers' 3-4 zone blitz was defensive-line oriented and redefined what defensive linemen could do. The Patriots' 3-4 scheme is linebacker-oriented and is similarly breaking the mold for linebackers.

Belichick recognized two problems with a defensive-line oriented zone blitz scheme. First, even though you can drop the nose tackle into the short zone, it's not likely he'll be agile enough at 300 or so pounds to be adept in coverage. Second, to run the scheme properly, a team must find very athletic defensive ends who not only can play the run and rush the passer but also can drop into coverage. Such players are rare.

The Patriots' solution to the first problem was fairly simple. Instead of dropping oversized nose tackles into coverage, they opted to give that assignment to the 3-4 inside linebacker. Known as "pluggers," these are bigger linebackers whose main purpose is to stuff the run, but they can defend the pass better than nose tackles. On passing downs, about the only time they'd need a nose tackle to drop into coverage, the Patriots replace the lineman with a plugger linebacker lined up as a nose tackle. If the opponent runs the ball, the plugger is big enough to help stop it. If the opponent passes, he's much better equipped to drop back.

New England's solution to the second problem was, in hindsight, fairly obvious, but it didn't seem so at the time. In 1996, New England drafted defensive lineman Tedy Bruschi out of Arizona. At 250 pounds, Bruschi was a bit small to play defensive end and was struggling, so Belichick and his staff decided to teach Bruschi to play linebacker. His success as a rush linebacker in the 3-4 zone blitz scheme led to an epiphany of sorts. The Patriots realized they could draft undersized defensive linemen and convert them into linebackers. In doing so, they oriented their zone blitz scheme around linebackers rather than defensive linemen. This subtle and seemingly small change had several advantages.

First, it gave the Pats the ability to run the 3-4 rush linebacker concept up and down the line. Instead of having rush linebacker specialists alternating with defensive linemen, which could help an opponent read the defense, the Patriots fielded an entire set of linebackers who could either rush or drop into coverage. This allowed New England to vary the composition of its front seven to anything from a 2-5 -- two linemen and five linebackers -- to a 1-6 or even 0-7, alignments that hadn't been seen before. Even analyst John Madden said he hadn't seen a 1-6 or 0-7 alignment in all of his years covering the NFL.

The flexibility gave the Patriots a huge strategic advantage by making it increasingly difficult for opposing offenses to figure out their defensive personnel sets. Instead of being able to key on a rush linebacker and a plugger linebacker, or a linebacker and a down lineman, offenses now had to key on multiple, flexible lineups on every play. Opponents couldn't determine whether the Patriots were playing for the run or the pass.

And because their linebackers were so versatile, the Patriots didn't need to carry as many defensive linemen on the roster. Instead, they replaced those defensive line roster spots with linebackers. This allowed New England to stock up on players at a position the Pats' coaching staff specialized in teaching and helped them in acquiring personnel. Since they were looking for a certain type of linebacker, their talent pool was larger than that of other teams, and included college defensive linemen and any undersized defensive lineman struggling to hang on with another NFL team.

Belichick redefining LB position - NFL - ESPN

The two down lineman scheme referenced by the author above had already been devised and utilized by BB, who at the time was DC working under head coach Parcells, when his Giants played complex offenses like the Niners and the Cowboys.

 

[supafly]

Seymour's done nothing since his extension.

My issue is with Dean Pees, who seems to be allergic to blitzing. If I see Adalius Thomas on pass coverage on passing downs again... I have doubts that Pees can scheme a good pass rush on passing downs. His defenses have been too vanilla in those situations.

In 2008, the Pats couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs (26th), had a defensive passer rating of 89.8 (23rd), and allowed 27 TD Passes (31st).

I would have to respectfully disagree about your view of Seymour too.

I attribute our problems on D last year to

1.Major problems at LB--injuries (AD), patchwork (Seau, Colvin, etc)
2.A very unhealthy secondary

When you couple those reasons with a few missed games by Warren, a game or 2 by Wilfork, etc, basically...the whole entire defensive breakdown could be attributed to injuries, and nothing more

And above all of that, we still finished 10th overall defensively, and went 11-5. Our defense is going to be just fine, as long as we can stay somewhat healthy

 

[Jimke]

That I can agree with, improving the pass rush is a priority for this season. I believe the Pats will be making every effort to extend both Wilfork and Seymour, which hopefully will work out for the Pats. I certainly do not wish to lose either.

Seymour is very egocentric. He will probably demand at least 15

million dollars per year with a 50 million dollar bonus. Will that leave

any money to re-sign anyone else? Don't be deluded into believing

that Bob Kraft will take advantage of the uncapped year by greatly

increasing his payroll. Bob is already upset that a lot of the money

formerly used to repay stadium debt goes to the players under the

current CBA.

 

[supafly]

Seymour is very egocentric. He will probably demand at least 15

million dollars per year with a 50 million dollar bonus. Will that leave

any money to re-sign anyone else? Don't be deluded into believing

that Bob Kraft will take advantage of the uncapped year by greatly

increasing his payroll. Bob is already upset that a lot of the money

formerly used to repay stadium debt goes to the players under the

current CBA.

Yeah, I don't have the greatest gut feeling as far as keeping them both, although there's nothing more that I would want--and that includes any talk of Julius Peppers. I only hope that there is some off chance that one of the 2 could get taken care of before next year's tag, then we could use the tag on the other. I don't know how you really could differentiate as to who is more important to our system, although I know the general board consensus is that it is Wilfork. I wish very badly to hear some good news, as far as negotiations go with Vince.

Using the tag on one or the other (preferably Wilfork for $$$ reasons) is the only way I can see keeping both. I just couldn't see both guys signing major extentions in the same yr, uncapped or not. I just hope that we get both players, because it would be a major blow to the defense--and the team in general.

(although I don't see Big Sey quite demanding 15 million per, but I do see it being about 10-11 or so)

 

[mosslost]

My thought on this has kind of been mentioned but not with the same spin.

BB runs a 2-gap 3-4.

With the NT responsible for the gap on either side of who is trying to block him.

Vince Wilfork is the anchor for the defense, because every defensive play starts with the NT being able to control his assignment. If he can't the DE's have a harder time with their assignments. If they get worked over, that LB's "pluggers" have a harder time stopping the run, or rushing whichever zone blitz type that they happen to.

If the blitz in ineffective, the secondary gets burned. The secondary would have been better last year had we been able to put some pressure on the QB.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Don't get me wrong I love Vince and I think he is a real special player.

My question is whether anyone else questions whether it is a good idea to shell out huge d-line money for a NT?

Thru the years we have had Seymour, Washington, Traylor, and Wilfork all play NT so while it is pivitol to have the cog at the nose I am not sure we need to spend huge money to get it.

Haynesworth got his money because of his ability to play the run and rush the passer. A NT doesn't do that and while I don't doubt Wilforks skills I think we could someone good enough to play nose without costing what Wilfork might.

Basically my question is do you think NT is as important/hard to replace as what we think Wilfork deserves/should be able to get in his next contract?

First of all define Big Money. The franchise DT rate is only $6.5 million or so. So Wilfork on a long term deal $5.5 million+.

But to your real question. No I don't feel Wilfork is irreplaceable. He is good but not necessarily a HOF player. We have won championships with other NTs, Seymour, (yes Seymour), Washington, Traylor, etc.

There is an irreplaceabl player on the roster. There are a lot of people who are un-informed who seem to think a "Foundation" Defensive lineman who wil go directly to Canton like all the other foundation linemen, Alan Page, Merlin Olsen, Bob Lilley, Dan White, Dan Hampton, Reggie Wright is easily replaceable by some clod drafted in the third round. And we have such a player. The highest draft pick Belichick has made with the Pats, Richard Seymour.

Whether I would keep Richard Seymour is beside the Point, Bill Belichick will. He knows that Seymour stops the run just as much as Wilfork or more.

Bill also knows that Seymour provides ALL the interior defensive line pass rush for virtually the entire three man line. Belichick knows the Seymour IS irreplaceable and will pay and re-sign him, for about the money he is currently making, with a small boost.

He also knows that is the same money the Haynesworth actually as opposed to theoretically, will get. Seymour is finishing up on a 4 year $40 million deal. Haynesworth just signed real $41 million 4 year deal, advertised with never to be seen options, to make it an 8 year deal for $100 million.

incidentally, Belichick wil slit his wrists before he will let either go, I believe. He'd cut half the team to find the money. He knows how you build a Defense.