Breaking Down The LB Corps

[WelshPat]

Haven't read much of the thread but wondering if anyone agees with me that crable will only see the field as a 4-3 DE in 3rd down passing packages? He could get after the QB in college, and if he can't be the OLB they thought he would why not have him just rush the passer on 3rd down?

 

[Ring 6]

Haven't read much of the thread but wondering if anyone agees with me that crable will only see the field as a 4-3 DE in 3rd down passing packages? He could get after the QB in college, and if he can't be the OLB they thought he would why not have him just rush the passer on 3rd down?

I dont think I understand why you are assuming he "cant be the OLB they thought he would".
I cant agree with your conclusion if I dont accept the premise. What leads you to think that is the case?

 

[cstjohn17]

Any problems are now solved, Burgess takes one of the OLB spots the added depth allows Thomas to shift inside if needed.

 

[patsfan13]

Adding Burgess & given that we are probably going to use 4 lb <50% of the plays, the depth at LB is looking good.


BTW I thought McKenzie was on IR for the year, is this correct??

 

[maverick4]

Any problems are now solved, Burgess takes one of the OLB spots the added depth allows Thomas to shift inside if needed.

The recent Burgess trade makes this thread look a wee bit silly, about how we were all set at LB.

A lot of assumptions/arguments are based on different variants of the format of 'Well our team is like [x], and Belichick is a genius, and so [x] must be the way to go'. We end up talking ourselves into things, and end up in arguments where it's just 'well BB did this, so shut up'.

The fact we gave up a 3rd and 5th for Burgess signals that Belichick wasn't too comfortable with the linebackers before.

 

[Reckedtrek]

This just in from Reese RE Ninkovich

"4) Rob Ninkovich quick off the edge. In 11 on 11 work, outside linebacker Rob Ninkovich showed up with a few solid rushes – one time beating Nick Kaczur and another racing past Sebastian Vollmer. At 6-foot-2, 255 pounds Ninkovich doesn’t have the height the Patriots generally prefer at outside linebacker, but his quickness was noticeable tonight."

Day 8, second Patriots practice - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

 

[Jimke]

This just in from Reese RE Ninkovich

"4) Rob Ninkovich quick off the edge. In 11 on 11 work, outside linebacker Rob Ninkovich showed up with a few solid rushes – one time beating Nick Kaczur and another racing past Sebastian Vollmer. At 6-foot-2, 255 pounds Ninkovich doesn’t have the height the Patriots generally prefer at outside linebacker, but his quickness was noticeable tonight."

Day 8, second Patriots practice - Reiss' Pieces - Boston.com

May be a sleeper. Was a good college pass rusher. The

Pats scouted him in 2006 but he was drafted a few picks ahead

of them.

 

[captain stone]

1) The recent Burgess trade makes this thread look a wee bit silly, about how we were all set at LB.

A lot of assumptions/arguments are based on different variants of the format of 'Well our team is like [x], and Belichick is a genius, and so [x] must be the way to go'. We end up talking ourselves into things, and end up in arguments where it's just 'well BB did this, so shut up'.

2) The fact we have up a 3rd and 5th for Burgess signals that Belichick wasn't too comfortable with the linebackers before.

1) It should've already been somewhat clear, because of the reports of his persuing first Jason Taylor then Greg Ellis, that finding another pass-rusher was on Bill's To Do list, if not on the top of it.

2) Where did you hear about sending both a 3rd & a 5th? If that's true, then I will be pretty disappointed. One of our 5ths would've been all I would've sent for somebody who's on the last year of his contract.

Edit: Reiss now reports that Al gets both our 3rd & our 4th-rounders next year. That's a heavy, heavy price to pay for somebody who has very little experience in this defensive system, and who may not even be here by this time next season. Damn.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

1) It should've already been somewhat clear, because of the reports of his persuing first Jason Taylor then Greg Ellis, that finding another pass-rusher was on Bill's To Do list, if not on the top of it.

2) Where did you hear about sending both a 3rd & a 5th? If that's true, then I will be pretty disappointed. One of our 5ths would've been all I would've sent for somebody who's on the last year of his contract.

Edit: Reiss now reports that Al gets both our 3rd & our 4th-rounders next year. That's a heavy, heavy price to pay for somebody who has very little experience in this defensive system, and who may not even be here by this time next season. Damn.

Not a total loss, there was a clause in the trade that allows the Pats to pick up a 5th between now and the draft and use that in place of the 4th...this should be interesting!

 

[NEGoldenAge]

The fact we gave up a 3rd and 5th for Burgess signals that Belichick wasn't too comfortable with the linebackers before.

I think it also shows that BB puts a high value on the OLB position in general. With as many picks as the Pats have coming, the insane depth at most positons, and relative importance of the OLB position in BB's system, I don't think the price was too high, and is certainly not a sign of desperation.

 

[spacecrime]

1) It should've already been somewhat clear, because of the reports of his persuing first Jason Taylor then Greg Ellis, that finding another pass-rusher was on Bill's To Do list, if not on the top of it.

2) Where did you hear about sending both a 3rd & a 5th? If that's true, then I will be pretty disappointed. One of our 5ths would've been all I would've sent for somebody who's on the last year of his contract.

Edit: Reiss now reports that Al gets both our 3rd & our 4th-rounders next year. That's a heavy, heavy price to pay for somebody who has very little experience in this defensive system, and who may not even be here by this time next season. Damn.

You are too funny.

You complained constantly about the state of our OLBs, and how BB wasn't getting the job done building a LB corps.

Then when something is done, you complain that resources were used to do the job.

You wanted someone who could help the team, yet are only willing to give up a fifth round pick, which is typically used on a guy who is cut before teh season starts or goes to the practice squad, but in any event rarely makes an impact the first year.

The funniest is that had the trade not been made you would have complained all year about inaction.

No wait, the funniest thing is that if we kept the draft picks you would have complained about who we drafted.

The sun's out today. Step outside and lift your face so that the sun shines directly onto it. Feel the warmth, absorb the primal contentment of the warming rays. You'll feel so much better.

 

[DaBruinz]

I dont know about forgetting how but I know that a DE rushing the QB is different than a 34 ILB who isnt asked to rush.
I disagree with the perception that the rush came from anywhere and #s dont bear it nout either. If that is your goal, though, Im sure Mayo can fill the bill.

Really? What numbers are you looking at that don't support the idea that that Pass Rush came from all 4 LB positions during the 2003 and 2004 seasons? Could you provide a link to these numbers?

 

[Ring 6]

Really? What numbers are you looking at that don't support the idea that that Pass Rush came from all 4 LB positions during the 2003 and 2004 seasons? Could you provide a link to these numbers?

In those 2 years, ILbs had a total of 8 sacks. 2 in 03 (both by Bruschi) 6 in 04.
Thats one every 4 games, and about 9% of the teams sacks.
Heres a great link to look this stuff up yourself.

New England Patriots Team Encyclopedia - Pro-Football-Reference.com

 

[Ring 6]

The recent Burgess trade makes this thread look a wee bit silly, about how we were all set at LB.

A lot of assumptions/arguments are based on different variants of the format of 'Well our team is like [x], and Belichick is a genius, and so [x] must be the way to go'. We end up talking ourselves into things, and end up in arguments where it's just 'well BB did this, so shut up'.

The fact we gave up a 3rd and 5th for Burgess signals that Belichick wasn't too comfortable with the linebackers before.

SO it was 'silly' to address the unit on the team that has received the most discussion of concern? It was 'silly' to conclude that the biggest concern was the OLB who plays DE in sub packages, because we went and got an OLB who will play DE in sub packages?
Do you read?
The exact piece of the puzzle that I was concerned about is what we just went out and traded for.
Please show me where I disregarded that this need was there, and concluded the this is what we are, BB is a genius, so what we are is perfect.
You need to learn to comprehend what you are reading.

 

[Ring 6]

1) It should've already been somewhat clear, because of the reports of his persuing first Jason Taylor then Greg Ellis, that finding another pass-rusher was on Bill's To Do list, if not on the top of it.

2) Where did you hear about sending both a 3rd & a 5th? If that's true, then I will be pretty disappointed. One of our 5ths would've been all I would've sent for somebody who's on the last year of his contract.

Edit: Reiss now reports that Al gets both our 3rd & our 4th-rounders next year. That's a heavy, heavy price to pay for somebody who has very little experience in this defensive system, and who may not even be here by this time next season. Damn.

You do realize that you can't force the other team to trade for what you want to give, right?
Are you saying if the Raiders would not take less than the picks we gave them, that you would have passed, not obtained Burgess, and hoped to draft players next year that helped us out? That seems to conflict with your #1 point saying that it was obvious we needed to get a player.
Which is it? Would you have made the trade or not made it, because what we gave up was the price.

 

[Deus Irae]

You do realize that you can't force the other team to trade for what you want to give, right?
Are you saying if the Raiders would not take less than the picks we gave them, that you would have passed, not obtained Burgess, and hoped to draft players next year that helped us out? That seems to conflict with your #1 point saying that it was obvious we needed to get a player.
Which is it? Would you have made the trade or not made it, because what we gave up was the price.

Good points, and it all comes down to perception of need. If the team believes that it needs the player, the draft picks become far less relevant and important. If it's just a matter of filling out the roster, there's no need to talk about 'need' at the position. While someone (myself for example) on the outside might think that the team gave up more than they should have for the player, the team has a greater insight into its perceived needs than those viewing from a distance.

 

[Ring 6]

Good points, and it all comes down to perception of need. If the team believes that it needs the player, the draft picks become far less relevant and important. If it's just a matter of filling out the roster, there's no need to talk about 'need' at the position. While someone (myself for example) on the outside might think that the team gave up more than they should have for the player, the team has a greater insight into its perceived needs than those viewing from a distance.

But the price tag is essentially fixed. If you think they gave up more than they should have, given that it was the price, are you saying you would have passed?

 

[Deus Irae]

But the price tag is essentially fixed. If you think they gave up more than they should have, given that it was the price, are you saying you would have passed?

I wasn't trying to re-hash that on this thread, Andy. I stated my views of it on the trade thread, and it became an argument that took away from analyzing the move personnel-wise, which is the most significant part of the deal when looking at it for this upcoming season. I was just agreeing with your statements regarding the apparent conflicts.

 

[Ring 6]

I wasn't trying to re-hash that on this thread, Andy. I stated my views of it on the trade thread, and it became an argument that took away from analyzing the move personnel-wise, which is the most significant part of the deal when looking at it for this upcoming season. I was just agreeing with your statements regarding the apparent conflicts.

I didnt read the other thread.
I'm just curious whether if your opinion is the price is too steep, did you feel it was so much too steep that you would have walked away from the deal.

 

[Deus Irae]

I didnt read the other thread.
I'm just curious whether if your opinion is the price is too steep, did you feel it was so much too steep that you would have walked away from the deal.

I think it was too steep. Looking blindly from the outside, I would have walked away.


BUT


BB knows how he feels about his OLB position, and he's been on-site to watch it playing out. My guess, given the combination of his offseason pursuit of another OLB and this willingness to give up as much for a rental player as he did, is that he really didn't like what he had at OLB and thought it was an absolute need trade, so he was willing to overpay. I think it's telling to see that the team in competition for Burgess was a Philly team that lost a starting linebacker for the season just a couple of days ago, because I think it shows desperation/anxiety played a significant part in BB's decision, given that he gave up more than that Eagles team.

P.S. I recognize the position that Burgess would have been playing in Philly is not the OLB position, but I look at the pursuit of him coupled with the signing of Wilhelm as a bit of a pairing pass rush with LB play to make up for the loss at MLB.