Breer on Julius Peppers

[bucky]

I dunno as good as a pass rusher Peppers is Id still have a hard time taking him over Vince. Its hard finding elite NT's especially ones like Vince who are so good off of the field too. I think its easier to find pass rushers that elite NT's.

I agree with you on Vince. He's a heck of a player. If you look at the composition of this front 7 though, and replace Vince with Peppers, it starts looking like a 4-3 team. Warren can shift to DT. Brace, Wright and Pryor are all better as 4-3 DTs. Mayo might be better in the 4-3 as well. Just a thought there, as the offseason unfolds.

 

[RobertWeathers]

yes but if you look at dose years the pass rushers stayed the same every year willy mac. vrabel. and colvin where the main pass rushers for all dose years but in the years they had the most sacks ted washington, and wilfork, were the NT's

Can't point to the NT as the sole reason for an outstanding pass rush....

2001- Front 4 was Anthony Pleasant, Seymour, Bobby Hamilton and Brandon Mitchell/Willie Mac (who flipped to a OLB later on)

2003- Seymour, Mt. Ted, Bobby H./ Ty Warren, Green

2004- Seymour, Traylor/VW, Warren, Green

2006- Sey, VW, Warren, Green

2007 Sey, VW, Warren, Green, Wright

Seymour was really the only one on that line who required special attention when it came to running & passing downs. Yes on Wilfork and Mt Ted and maybe Warren in 06 but Sey was the one and the superior coverage in the secondary- not the NTs who dictated the success w/ the pass rush. Oh yea, Vrabel, Mac, and Colvin too. ;-).

 

[emoney_33]

I didn't. However I do firmly believe is that the teams which were able to generate a pass rush were better defensive teams than the ones who weren't. With that said, those teams with the 39+ sacks for the most part also had good-supremely good secondarys.

Sack numbers first of all do not tell you how much pass rush they were generating. Secondly, it completely ignores the run defense. It's not as if the years we won we had bad run defense but could rush the passer. The entire premise of the discussion is what is -more- important to a team defense, specifically the 3-4 2-gap defense BB likes to run.

Agreed. I'd always start with a monster DE/OLB or a shutdown corner but thats me.

I completely disagree with this, you start at the foundation. And I mean a shutdown corner being the starting point, really? The Colts have had a monster DE for a while, and have usually had a pretty mediocre defense.

 

[BradyManny]

What is your fixation on rushing the passer? The NT is the most important position of the 3-4 2-gap defense, but the NT will never be asked to be a dominant pass rusher.

How can you not see the inherent contradiction in this statement? This is a pass-first league now, the Colts-Saints Super Bowl shows how far its come with two pass first teams represented in the big game. It all tracks back to the Polian rule changes.

The NT position is represented on the field between 50-60% of the snaps on our team. It's hard for me to accept that that position is still the most important when the two best teams in the league this season were pass first teams, one of which was 32nd rushing the ball in the league.

And why wouldn't I have a fixation on rushing the passer? The Patriots had an elite NT this season without a pass rusher, and their defense was 17th in the league when accounting for offense [per football outsiders].

If a good NT + no pass rusher = 17th defense in the league, then I see an elite pass rusher as a priority.

Personally, I'd love to have Wilfork back - and I'd love to see him play more DE as it did this year. I think that tremendously increases his value, and gets him on the field more often. I'm just trying to put his value back in proportion with what Big Vince (and Mrs. Wilfork) seem to think it is. I do not think Wilfork is a truly elite cornerstone of the defense or a perfect 3-4 NT.

He's a very good player, but I can see a scenario in which the team loses Wilfork and still manages to improve on defense - and the team in general. Whereas, we can retain Wilfork, pay him what he wants, and continue to have trouble with the elite passing offenses that now run this league. Ideally, Big Vince doesn't want to break the bank, we keep him and have the money to address other pressing needs.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Sack numbers first of all do not tell you how much pass rush they were generating.

No, but it's a good high-level indicator of how effectively the defense is pressuring the Qb. Getting more granular into hits, hurries, passes defensed, comp % are also very important when analyzing a good pass defense.

Secondly, it completely ignores the run defense. It's not as if the years we won we had bad run defense but could rush the passer.

With the exception of 2002 and most of the 05 season the run D has been very good.

The entire premise of the discussion is what is -more- important to a team defense, specifically the 3-4 2-gap defense BB likes to run.

Actually the discussion is 1) Overall, can Peppers help the D. That answer is most likely a yes. 2) What about Vince? Preference is to keep both, but my contention is that BB would switch to a 4-3 - which he did in 01 if the talent on his roster dictated it. We all know his preference is to run a 3-4 2 gap.

I completely disagree with this, you start at the foundation. And I mean a shutdown corner being the starting point, really? The Colts have had a monster DE for a while, and have usually had a pretty mediocre defense.

Are you saying that you would draft Vince Wilfork over Richard Seymour? Darelle Revis? Demarcus Ware? Ty Law?

 

[emoney_33]

How can you not see the inherent contradiction in this statement? This is a pass-first league now, the Colts-Saints Super Bowl shows how far its come with two pass first teams represented in the big game. It all tracks back to the Polian rule changes.

Fair enough, pass rush is definitely important against the high powered passing offenses of the Colts and Saints. I don't see how a hard to move NT being double teamed hurts a pass rush, or is less important than a single-teamed pass rush specialist. You can't play nickel all downs, all season against all teams and expect to make the playoffs. The league is not filled with Colts type of imbalanced passing attacks.

The NT position is represented on the field between 50-60% of the snaps on our team. It's hard for me to accept that that position is still the most important when the two best teams in the league this season were pass first teams, one of which was 32nd rushing the ball in the league.

Just because there are nickel situations where there are lineups that don't involve Wilfork doesn't mean he's useless on those 1st/2nd downs he plays. Pass rush from a 3-4 defense still requires a stout NT taking up space/blockers. The Colts may pass a ton, but having a weak middle defense gives the colts MORE options and possibilities to burn you. It also hurts the one type of pressure that is most effective against great QBs like Manning... up the middle.

And why wouldn't I have a fixation on rushing the passer? The Patriots had an elite NT this season without a pass rusher, and their defense was 17th in the league when accounting for offense [per football outsiders].

Correlation does not imply causation. The team also had a porous (4.4 YPC) run defense this season. It takes a lot more than one player to make a great defense. If you put Peppers in place of Wilfork in 2009 this defense does NOT do any better, in fact it probably does worse.

If a good NT + no pass rusher = 17th defense in the league, then I see an elite pass rusher as a priority.

A good NT does NOT preclude a good pass rush. It's not mutually exclusive and having Wilfork does not prevent the team from pass rushing. I'm not saying I do not WANT an elite pass rusher or that it would not help the defense. If the team could only have one out of Wilfork and Peppers, I'd choose Wilfork without question.

Personally, I'd love to have Wilfork back - and I'd love to see him play more DE as it did this year. I think that tremendously increases his value, and gets him on the field more often. I'm just trying to put his value back in proportion with what Big Vince (and Mrs. Wilfork) seem to think it is. I do not think Wilfork is a truly elite cornerstone of the defense or a perfect 3-4 NT.

He's a very good player, but I can see a scenario in which the team loses Wilfork and still manages to improve on defense - and the team in general. Whereas, we can retain Wilfork, pay him what he wants, and continue to have trouble with the elite passing offenses that now run this league.

Well absolutely, I think Wilfork is a priority but he by no means changes the fact that good defenses are team defenses. I'm not saying it's impossible to improve without Wilfork, simply that Wilfork is a priority. Even at a high priority, there is a limit to where the cost would outweigh the benefit.

 

[emoney_33]

No, but it's a good high-level indicator of how effectively the defense is pressuring the Qb. Getting more granular into hits, hurries, passes defensed, comp % are also very important when analyzing a good pass defense.

It's a fluff stat that says next to nothing about a pass rush.

With the exception of 2002 and most of the 05 season the run D has been very good.

The run D was good in 05, not really in 08-09. 07 is hard to judge because of the rare circumstances that found teams in such big holes so early on.

Actually the discussion is 1) Overall, can Peppers help the D. That answer is most likely a yes. 2) What about Vince? Preference is to keep both, but my contention is that BB would switch to a 4-3 - which he did in 01 if the talent on his roster dictated it. We all know his preference is to run a 3-4 2 gap.

4-3 with Peppers and no Wilfork is worse than 3-4 with Wilfork and no Peppers. So I don't understand the argument?

Are you saying that you would draft Vince Wilfork over Richard Seymour? Darelle Revis? Demarcus Ware? Ty Law?

I'd take Wilfork over Revis and Law pretty damn easily. I'd take Seymour over Wilfork. You have arguments for top-end talented DE's over a NT like Wilfork but not for DBs nor OLBs IMO.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't understand this logic at all. You cannot judge a trade (or any decision) based on the end result unless you assume the decision was made with a crystal ball. Whether the 2011 first round pick turns out to be a bust or HOF does NOT change whether the decision was right or wrong. It may WORK out better or worse in the end, but that is NOT indicative of the value of the trade when the decision was made.

So exactly how do you judge a trade of a player for a draft pick? If you cannot determine the quality of the trade on how good the player drafted with that pick, how do you determine it?


Yes, you can look at whether on a draft chart whether Seymour value in 2009 with only one year left on his deal and is probably gone the following year is worth as much as what is likely a top 5-10 draft pick in 2011. But then again, the results of Patriots defense 2009 without Seymour is irrelevant in that scenario too because we are just judging on Seymour's value at the moment vs. the value of a top 5-10 pick in 2011.

If you are going judge the value of this trade based on how the Pats' defense was in 2009 without Seymour and the impact of his loss, then the ONLY way you can fairly judge this trade is to see what player the Pats' get and his impact to the team. Otherwise, you are not making a fair comparison.

If you want to say Seymour was worth x points in trade value and a 2011 Raiders' first round draft pick is worth y points in trade value and then say it is a bad trade, then may or may not you have a point. If you say that the trade was bad because the Patriots defense was horrible in 2009 without Seymour, then the only way you can judge the trade is based on the impact of the player drafted is to the Patriots. It is two different arguments in determining the quality of the trade. You are talking comparing just pure trade values of both parts of the trade, but the discussion is the impact of those two components to each team and the results of losing those components.

 

[Deus Irae]

1) As I said to DaBruinz - does it matter? Wilfork either has value as a pass rusher in our defense or he doesn't. I could care less if he could rush the passer at the U or if he could do it on another pro team. If we don't have him in our nickel/dime defenses, he's not playing in half the snaps. Period.

Of course it matters. He's part of the reason you're in those nickel/dime defenses in the first place.

2) True, but Wilfork was our starting NT that game.

And, thus, we saw a perfect example of why you need 3 solid D-linemen in the 3-4 rather than just 2. Look, you're a bad run defense line when you've got to shift your NT to DE because your DE can't hold at the point of attack. Taking that NT away would make this line even worse.

3) Even if he has to drastically overpay for him? I want Wilfork to stay, don't get me wrong, I just think unless he's willing to take less than he can get on the open market, our best bet is to tag & trade.

That's the approach that's gotten the team into this position in the first place. Getting a player to accept a "hometown discount" is great, but forcing him to do as a condition of signing is a recipe for trouble. Had this team paid "open market" prices, it could have kept a lot of players it's had to replace. Heck, in some cases, it's still trying to replace them.

Another way to look at it.... If New England keeps Samuel, the 2008 team doesn't have to go through the disaster of Deltha O'Neal and the rest of the #2-#5 DBs. That team probably makes the playoffs, which earns it millions of dollars that it didn't get that year, and it pays for Samuel's salary. The reality is that, sometimes, going cheap can be very costly.

 

[Deus Irae]

If the Patriots sign Peppers, the game plan should be to bring in a DE who is extremely strong against the run.

Seymour apparently has no desire to return. Who else is out there?

(P.S. This is a very important question, IMO, regardless of what happens with Peppers. If this team has to go with Wright and Green again, teams will wear the Patriots out running to that side. The "blueprint" is now available.)

 

[patsfan-1982]

Can't point to the NT as the sole reason for an outstanding pass rush....

2001- Front 4 was Anthony Pleasant, Seymour, Bobby Hamilton and Brandon Mitchell/Willie Mac (who flipped to a OLB later on)

2003- Seymour, Mt. Ted, Bobby H./ Ty Warren, Green

2004- Seymour, Traylor/VW, Warren, Green

2006- Sey, VW, Warren, Green

2007 Sey, VW, Warren, Green, Wright

Seymour was really the only one on that line who required special attention when it came to running & passing downs. Yes on Wilfork and Mt Ted and maybe Warren in 06 but Sey was the one and the superior coverage in the secondary- not the NTs who dictated the success w/ the pass rush. Oh yea, Vrabel, Mac, and Colvin too. ;-).

in 2003 the run defense was ranked 3rd. in 2004. 6th. 2006. 5th. 2007 10th.


haveing a good run D means much more 3rd and longs and much more sacks. and like you said haveing ty law. and samuel. as the #1 CB's in dose years is a lot better then haveing o'neal and bodden as the #1's the last 2 years.

 

[Prufrock]

I have a really hard time believing that the Patriots defense would be drastically better with Peppers instead of Wilfork. You can talk all day long about this being a passing league or how Wilfork only plays 50% of the snaps, but the bottom line is you are comparing two great NFL players with neither one being clearly better than the other. I just don't see Belichick letting a player go that has been here for 6 years in favor of a player who at best is going to be marginally better.

I still think this team can fit both of them in salary wise, so the real argument seems to be whether or not you do this at the expense of other parts of your team. If you sign Peppers then it is really going to limit the team in 2011 when they are going to need to resign/find replacements for Maroney, Light, Moss, Taylor, Morris, and Brady (who is essentially guaranteed to be resigned)... It really kills them that Adalius Thomas is the 3rd highest paid player on the team and is making 10 million dollars a year, half of which is a signing bonus.

in 2003 the run defense was ranked 3rd. in 2004. 6th. 2006. 5th. 2007 10th.

Because Ted Washington was a better NT than Wilfork.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It's a fluff stat that says next to nothing about a pass rush.

Bull. I know BB says that sacks are overrated but as I said it a good barometer to start to understand a defense's coverage ability and activity in pressuring the passer is sacks.

The run D was good in 05, not really in 08-09. 07 is hard to judge because of the rare circumstances that found teams in such big holes so early on.

Look at the first 9 games in 05. w/o Tedy, Ted Johnson and a 2nd year Wilfork manning the nose, it was brutal. Tedy came back, Vrabel moved inside, Beisel grabbed some pine and Wilfork backed up a couple of feet and they found their groove. I thought the run D was decent in 07. In the games that were tight, it was decent. 08 and 09 were better than 02.

4-3 with Peppers and no Wilfork is worse than 3-4 with Wilfork and no Peppers. So I don't understand the argument?

If you are going to boil it down to that deduction then I would say that it remains to be seen. Pats get a couple of fattys in the middle of a 4-3 and position Warren and Peppers on the outside with a decent LB core and secondary and I will take my chances.

I'd take Wilfork over Revis and Law pretty damn easily. I'd take Seymour over Wilfork. You have arguments for top-end talented DE's over a NT like Wilfork but not for DBs nor OLBs IMO.

OK. I respect your opinion. We'll agree to disagree on shutdown corners < tier 1 NTs.

 

[Kontradiction]

Seymour apparently has no desire to return. Who else is out there?

(P.S. This is a very important question, IMO, regardless of what happens with Peppers. If this team has to go with Wright and Green again, teams will wear the Patriots out running to that side. The "blueprint" is now available.)

Nobody that I know of in free agency. Trading to bring someone like that in just wouldn't make any sense. We're going to have to look at the draft, unfortunately. This thread should be of some assistance when pondering that question.

 

[patsfan-1982]

I have a really hard time believing that the Patriots defense would be drastically better with Peppers instead of Wilfork. You can talk all day long about this being a passing league or how Wilfork only plays 50% of the snaps, but the bottom line is you are comparing two great NFL players with neither one being clearly better than the other. I just don't see Belichick letting a player go that has been here for 6 years in favor of a player who at best is going to be marginally better.

I still think this team can fit both of them in salary wise, so the real argument seems to be whether or not you do this at the expense of other parts of your team. If you sign Peppers then it is really going to limit the team in 2011 when they are going to need to resign/find replacements for Maroney, Light, Moss, Taylor, Morris, and Brady (who is essentially guaranteed to be resigned)... It really kills them that Adalius Thomas is the 3rd highest paid player on the team and is making 10 million dollars a year, half of which is a signing bonus.



Because Ted Washington was a better NT than Wilfork.

thats what my point is wilfork means more to this team then peppers would. look at the playoff game vs the ravens they only had 34 yerds passing but over 200 rushing you can't get sacks if teams can run on you all day.


and looseing wilfork to sign 30 year old peppers who has never played OLB would not be a good move for the pats i don't see how peppers would even get to the QB if wright brace and werren are the starting front 3

 

[BradyManny]

Correlation does not imply causation. The team also had a porous (4.4 YPC) run defense this season. It takes a lot more than one player to make a great defense. If you put Peppers in place of Wilfork in 2009 this defense does NOT do any better, in fact it probably does worse.



A good NT does NOT preclude a good pass rush. It's not mutually exclusive and having Wilfork does not prevent the team from pass rushing. I'm not saying I do not WANT an elite pass rusher or that it would not help the defense. If the team could only have one out of Wilfork and Peppers, I'd choose Wilfork without question.

These are all fair points you raise - but it comes down to the fact that the speculation is that Patriots could get Peppers for under market value (according to Breer and a couple of other little tidbits). Whereas Wilfork has said for a while that if he hit free agency, he was going to try and break the bank.

Back in their championship years, the Pats had such a strong roster by - essentially - having guys completely outplay their contracts - ie, rookie contracts (Brady, Sey) or turning vets into even better players (Vrabel, Bruschi, Harrison). Unless we can keep Wilfork for a somewhat home-team friendly deal, I don't see us being able to keep him and improve the team enough to fill its other holes.

I'm not trying to argue that we don't need an elite NT - simply that we need BOTH a good NT and a good pass rush. Having an elite NT with no pass rush is not doing us any good.

As I've said in other threads, I'd prefer to retain Wilfork. And I'm very open to the thought of drafting either Cody or Williams, moving Wilfork to DE and going with a oversized front 3. That would really free up Guyton & Mayo.

If we simply re-sign Wilfork and put him at NT full-time, short of somehow convincing Richard Seymour to come back, I don't see how our ILBs on our roster are sufficient. For all the talk about Wilfork and double teams, we saw lots of teams facing him with one guy this season, meaning the guards were getting right to Mayo & Guyton, who aren't big enough to fight off the blocks. Without Seymour next to Wilfork, we just aren't big & strong enough up front to take what is a disadvantage (slightly small-ish, lightning fast LBs) and turn it into an advantage (emphasizing the speed, not the size).

 

[emoney_33]

So exactly how do you judge a trade of a player for a draft pick? If you cannot determine the quality of the trade on how good the player drafted with that pick, how do you determine it?

Just like any other decision, you judge it based on all the information at hand. Waiting for future results that can´t be known at the time of the decision can´t be used to determine whether the decision was good or not. You can see if it ¨worked out¨ in the end, but that´s a different discussion. The trade was a good decision, no matter what the draft pick turns out to be. They could screw up the draft pick and make a bad decision with the pick, but the decision to get the pick was a good one.

If you want to say Seymour was worth x points in trade value and a 2011 Raiders' first round draft pick is worth y points in trade value and then say it is a bad trade, then may or may not you have a point. If you say that the trade was bad because the Patriots defense was horrible in 2009 without Seymour, then the only way you can judge the trade is based on the impact of the player drafted is to the Patriots. It is two different arguments in determining the quality of the trade. You are talking comparing just pure trade values of both parts of the trade, but the discussion is the impact of those two components to each team and the results of losing those components.

The bottom line is judging the decision to make the trade. Was the trade a good move? YES Will it work out in the Patriots benefit with respect to what they do with the pick? Who knows. But you still make that trade every single time it´s offered in that specific situation.

A good decision can yield bad results, but that does not make the decision bad. Likewise a bad decision can yield good results, but that doesnot make the decision good. (unless you have a time machine or crystal ball).

 

[emoney_33]

Bull. I know BB says that sacks are overrated but as I said it a good barometer to start to understand a defense's coverage ability and activity in pressuring the passer is sacks.

BB saying that sacks are overrated has no bearing on the discussion, aside from showing that BB is smart. You are now starting to add things in (coverage ability) when the discussion started with pass rusher. Show me that sacks accurately depict pressure and pressure alone. It´s a fluff stat limited in what it depicts by itself.

Look at the first 9 games in 05. w/o Tedy, Ted Johnson and a 2nd year Wilfork manning the nose, it was brutal. Tedy came back, Vrabel moved inside, Beisel grabbed some pine and Wilfork backed up a couple of feet and they found their groove. I thought the run D was decent in 07. In the games that were tight, it was decent. 08 and 09 were better than 02.

3.6 YPC in 05. 08-09 still were not good, even if they were better than 02.

If you are going to boil it down to that deduction then I would say that it remains to be seen. Pats get a couple of fattys in the middle of a 4-3 and position Warren and Peppers on the outside with a decent LB core and secondary and I will take my chances.

You are now moving the goalposts. Adding a couple of fatties PLUS Peppers is different than signing Peppers at the expense of Wilfork. If the overall defense can be improved by signing a group of players at the cost of Wilfork, then absolutely itś the way to go. That was not what I was responding to. I was responding to the notion that all being equal and the only difference being Peppers or Wilfork, Wilfork is more valuable.

 

[emoney_33]

These are all fair points you raise - but it comes down to the fact that the speculation is that Patriots could get Peppers for under market value (according to Breer and a couple of other little tidbits). Whereas Wilfork has said for a while that if he hit free agency, he was going to try and break the bank.

Back in their championship years, the Pats had such a strong roster by - essentially - having guys completely outplay their contracts - ie, rookie contracts (Brady, Sey) or turning vets into even better players (Vrabel, Bruschi, Harrison). Unless we can keep Wilfork for a somewhat home-team friendly deal, I don't see us being able to keep him and improve the team enough to fill its other holes.

I'm not trying to argue that we don't need an elite NT - simply that we need BOTH a good NT and a good pass rush. Having an elite NT with no pass rush is not doing us any good.

As I've said in other threads, I'd prefer to retain Wilfork. And I'm very open to the thought of drafting either Cody or Williams, moving Wilfork to DE and going with a oversized front 3. That would really free up Guyton & Mayo.

If we simply re-sign Wilfork and put him at NT full-time, short of somehow convincing Richard Seymour to come back, I don't see how our ILBs on our roster are sufficient. For all the talk about Wilfork and double teams, we saw lots of teams facing him with one guy this season, meaning the guards were getting right to Mayo & Guyton, who aren't big enough to fight off the blocks. Without Seymour next to Wilfork, we just aren't big & strong enough up front to take what is a disadvantage (slightly small-ish, lightning fast LBs) and turn it into an advantage (emphasizing the speed, not the size).

I agree with everything except for lots of teams singling Wilfork. You may be right, and I don´t have the data to verify it but my gut reaction from memory is that couldn´t be.

Assuming we keep Wilfork at a good price, we still need to sign/replace Bodden and Green, hopefully upgrading DE. AD is still an enigma to me and I can see that situation going anywhere.

Now if we can end up with Wilfork and Peppers...

 

[bucky]

thats what my point is wilfork means more to this team then peppers would. look at the playoff game vs the ravens they only had 34 yerds passing but over 200 rushing you can't get sacks if teams can run on you all day.

As bad as that game was, let's not get carried away with 1 game. Wilfork played in the Baltimore game. And just 2 weeks earlier, that same defense without Wilfork shut down a pretty good Jaguars running game.