Bruschi: 4-3

[SammyBlueCat]

Once we sign Adam Seward, Belichick will unveil his "1" defense...

Adam Seward playing all defensive positions, and making his own calls.

Actually it is called the 9-9-9 where everyone rushes up the field (blitzes) at the same time.

 

[Patspsycho]

I wish I understood the 43 more. Everyone says that makes Mayo utterly fearsome. Why in the 43 as opposed to the 34?

In the 4-3, there are less LB clutter which means what LBs are in there are utilized for speed which plays to the strengths of Guyton and Mayo, especially in open field tackling.

Also Mayo will have more blitzing responsibilities in the 4-3.

 

[scout]

I'm really intrigued by what might happen this year. BB is one of the best defensive coaches in NFL history. This year, he alone (no Pioli) will get all credit/blame for what transpires on defense. The defense has been totally revamped (more then 2002) and we all know what 2003 produced. Has a BB defense ever been this young and athletic? Might take some time to jell, but I'm on board and anxious to see what happens.

 

[ausbacker]

I'd love to see some disruptive antics by the D-Line this season. I'm more exciting about the defense than the offense as I simply don't know what to expect until I see 1/4 of the season.

 

[DarrylS]

Have felt all along, with what seems to be a drastically improved D backfield, there will be more pressure on the QB.. last years group was piss poor, and making this better will have an effect all the way around.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Monday night cannot come soon enough.

 

[RobertWeathers]

......... and correct me if I'm wrong the current set up (paper-wise), probably is stronger then the 2003 4-3 set up of Hamilton, Washington, Sey and Willie up front and Phifer, Bru and Vrabel at LB..... (which I beleive was the base).

Though, we're probably weaker in the back...... okay... almost certainly weaker. Still, I don't get why everyone thinks our D will suck this year. Like you, I'm pretty pumped with the potential.

Thats the thing. Pats had excellent cover guys & ballhawks in the backfield who could cause opposing Qbs to hestiate slightly and allow Mac, Vrable, Sey and others apply pressure.

 

[Ring 6]

In switching to the 43, the Patriots open up a ton of potential for their defense.

They have the option to two gap. Before I get in too deep here, let's think about what their starting 43 will look like. Burgess, Warren, Wilfork, Green. This is backed by (Will to Sam) Guyton, Mayo, Thomas. Look at that on paper and think about it. That would be regarded as one of the best front 7's in the entire NFL. Nevermind two of the best two gappers in the league flanked by highly capable ends. The tandem of Warren and Wilfork is vastly superior to Henderson and Stroud, who were regarded as the best interior tandem in the NFL not too long ago. While they two gap, it will enable the linebackers (remember: all of which are sub 4.6 guys)to pursue and get after the football freely and unobstructed. Our linebackers in the 43 set are flat out the best in the league on paper.

They also have the option of one gapping. In the one gap scheme, they shift Wilfork to the three tech, allow him to get after it, and attack the LOS with a myriad of looks. This will enable their best defender to become their focal point, and will clearly create unmitigated chaos behind the LOS. While I am as staunch a proponent of the 34 as there will ever be, this team in the 43 will revert to 03 defensive form. I never thought that I would say this, but I'm dying to see the 43.

One gap would only be a once in awhile call, not a base. BBs defensive philosophy begins with 2 gap discipline.
I dont know where the LBs are going to run to the ball unobstrcuted because they will have 2 gap duties.
The biggest problem a 43 base creates is rushing the passer, particularly on playaction. Since we only play base on about half the plays, and a lot of them are 1st downs, defending playaction is a huge issue. How are we going to expect any pressure out of that DL 2 gapping? The 34 includes the critical component that the 4th rusher is an OLB who wont have to engage a blocker to slow down his pass rush.
All things considered its not so much which alignment our personell is better suited for, but the fact that a 34 is a much more effective alignment in a 2gap system.
But, if you take your 43 and stand up Burgess, you have the same defense in a 34 alignment. However you have stood him up and gotten him off the T, shfitng your DL.
Personally, I think we see Woods instead in the base, because his run stopping ability is more needed, and AD becomes the 5th rusher instead of Burgess. You can also switch up who rushes which you couldnt really do with Burgess on the field.

In our system, the diference between 34 and 43 is more alignment than personell.

 

[Ring 6]

......... and correct me if I'm wrong the current set up (paper-wise), probably is stronger then the 2003 4-3 set up of Hamilton, Washington, Sey and Willie up front and Phifer, Bru and Vrabel at LB..... (which I beleive was the base).

Though, we're probably weaker in the back...... okay... almost certainly weaker. Still, I don't get why everyone thinks our D will suck this year. Like you, I'm pretty pumped with the potential.

We were a 34 team in 2003.

Hamilton-Washington(Warren when he was out 1/2 the season)-Seymour
Vrabel(Chatham when he was injured)-Bruschi-Johnson/Phifer-McG(Colvin before he was injured)

 

[Ring 6]

Thats the thing. Pats had excellent cover guys & ballhawks in the backfield who could cause opposing Qbs to hestiate slightly and allow Mac, Vrable, Sey and others apply pressure.

all due respect, we had Law. OTIS then Poole were never players I would call excellent cover guys and ballhawks. Our safeties have never been 'excellent cover guys' with the possible exception of Wilson.

I think our secondary is going to be the best we have had since we last won a SB.
I think Wilhite, Wheatley, Butler are the plan to develop the best secondary in the BB years, but Bodden and Springs are here to mitigate the inexperience issues. Every player has a different learning curve and different reaction to experience. I think Bodden and Springs are expected to play anywhere from 100% to 0% depending on those 3 getting on the field as much as the earn, and make BB believe he is comfortable with. Sort of a fallback plan in reverse.
At safety, Sanders fits the mold of the kind of safety BB has liked for 30 years. Meriwhether is one of the best cover safeties in the NFL.
I don't know whats not to like about our secondary, other than the stats from practice games where the guys who will play in the regular season where rarely out there, and almost never as a complete unit.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Bruschi is a smaht dude...This De is going to be sick. Talent up and down the roster and people just want to point at what is gone but Wilfork, Warren, Mayo, Thomas, Bodden, Merriweather to anchor the De and guys like Green, wright, Guyton, Springs, Whilhite, Sanders to round it out and the rooks to back up and potentially step it up. looks good to me.

It looks like a dangerous team all around on paper. May take a few games to gel with the younger defense but that is okay.

 

[TheComeback]

At this point, we may be better suited to a 4-3 than a 3-4. Even without Seymour, our D-line is pretty sick. Jarvis is definitely a more prototypical 4-3 DE than Seymour is. Much more speed. He should be fine against the run with Warren/Wilfork 2-gapping next to him.

I think Brandon Meriweather is going to make us forget about Rodney Harrison.

It should be a fun year. I hope our D is as good as it looks on paper. With all the young players, it may take a while for them to get to where they should be. Only time will tell.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

......... and correct me if I'm wrong the current set up (paper-wise), probably is stronger then the 2003 4-3 set up of Hamilton, Washington, Sey and Willie up front and Phifer, Bru and Vrabel at LB..... (which I beleive was the base).

Though, we're probably weaker in the back...... okay... almost certainly weaker. Still, I don't get why everyone thinks our D will suck this year. Like you, I'm pretty pumped with the potential.

That was a very savvy/talented defense. Hamilton was the only 'weak' link (and he was serviceable) and we got terrific play in the secondary that year from some youngsters and vets. If washington didn't break his leg, just wow!

Plus we had Klecko.

The guys we have now are younger. Some stand out as highly talented on both defenses. We may be a better attack defense now with superior speed.

When you say 'stronger' do you think we will allow less points this year than 2003? Have more shut-outs? Or do you mean we are more talented? Just nitpicking...I liked the 2003 team. LOL.

 

[satz]

Will miss the days of harrison ,bru ,vrabel or our other blitzer walking around in a 3-4 and then bring the presure from 1 or 2 confusing all the qb.

I loved the variation of zone blitz we ran in the early part of the decade.

 

[pats1]

Will miss the days of harrison ,bru ,vrabel or our other blitzer walking around in a 3-4 and then bring the presure from 1 or 2 confusing all the qb.

I loved the variation of zone blitz we ran in the early part of the decade.

Simple reason:

They don't have the linebackers.

Vrabel, McGinest, Colvin, Bruschi, Johnson, Phifer, and Cox are all gone.

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

When you say 'stronger' do you think we will allow less points this year than 2003? Have more shut-outs? Or do you mean we are more talented? Just nitpicking...I liked the 2003 team. LOL.

Just "stronger" as in pure talent and/or speed. They are nothing on the field yet, except potential. the 2003 team is tangible so you can't compare it to 2009, which as of now is theoretical. On paper though, it has some real potential. That's all I meant.

I'm with you on the 2003 D. One of my favs ev-ah.