Burgess - A Question Mark On Defense

[Ring 6]

Yes, Willie played the elephant. So did Rosie. Granted they didn't really use it last year so it may be presumptuous of us to assume they will re-employ it with Burgess and TBC here.

What do you think the elephant is?
By definition it was a position in Bill Walsh's (and later Seifert, Carroll, Holmgren, etc) 4-3 defenses.
We have never used such a system under Belichick, although McGinest was the exact type of player that fit an elephant role.

 

[Rob0729]

One gap specifically means you are resposible for 1 gap, meaning you AVOID blockers rather than engage them, as you must do in a 2gap. Most 43s are one gap, and Burgess has always played on 1 gap teams.
THAT is the issue of concern.
The scouting report is scouting him as a 43 one gap DE.
The duties are entirely different. Its blatantly obvious the getting pusjed around by an OT when you are a one gap 43 DE changes when you are a 2gap 34 OLB, but so does everything else in the report.
His 'speed and moves' being good from a 43 DE does not mean they are good as a 34 2 gap OLB.
Being a 2gap player responsible for OT to sideline is far, far different from anything he has ever done.
Can he adapt and be good at it? Its possible, but you are asking for almost a career change from an older player.

This is where I lose you. Why would we have Burgess out on the field doing something he has never done, and that appears to not best fit his skillset when we have at least 3 other players, Woods, TBC, and Crable who are suited to the position?

BB just said yesterday he wont have one player doing everything Vrabel did (when talking about Hochstein) and he doesnt need to.
I am extremely confident that our first down defense is better with Pierre Woods at OLB than with Derrick Burgess, just as I'd rather have Vince Wilfork at NT than Jarvis Green. But all 4 players have their role.
I'm not sure why we feel a BB coached team would need to have 11 players playing every snap.

Again, Burgess HAS DONE this before just not extensively. By your standards, why did the Pats trade a fourth rounder and play Ted Washingon (a career one gap DT who never played 2 gap NT) at NT on first and second downs. Washington spent his entire career playing a one gap where he did similiar things that Burgess did only on the inside (try to pentrate to make plays) and then came to the Patriots in mid August and immediately asked to play the two gap and tie up blockers. He did it and now you are saying Burgess can't.

I agree that they won't use Burgess as they used Vrabel. First, he doesn't have the coverage skills. Second, the Pats have far more depth than they have had in several years. Belichick likes to have a rotation at OLB like he did in 2004 with McGinest, Rosie, and Vrabel. I don't expect Burgess to be in on every down or the majority of run downs, I just expect him to be out there more than you think.

As for the one gap, It is sometimes harder to shed a block than engage one because when you engage a blocker to tie him up.

I still don't get why you are so hung up on this "he hasn't done it for his entire career" considering the Pats have been pretty successful in bringing players like him in and getting him to play fairly well in a position they have never played (Ted Washington, Junior Seau, Keith Traylor, AD at least at ILB, Eugene Wilson who changed to safety the second week of the season having never played the position). Most of the failures at this have been guys who weren't very good to begin with (Monty Beisel).

 

[Ring 6]

I certainly agree that all of the front seven have 2-gap responsibilities. I've never said differently.

Perhaps your memory is better than mine, perhaps not. My memory is that Willie often played the elephant position and that Belichick used this role while he was here, especially in the 2003 and 2004 defenses where all the front seven would stand up until the offense was set. Green was brought in to replace McGinist and was given starter money to be a backup.

In any case, now is now. If Green is only a backup DE, then he is a very expensive one. I'm not saying he isn't worth it since Belichick has had difficulty finding a starting quality DL without using a first round draft choice. Perhaps he now had succeeded with a pick just out of the first. Another way of looking at this is that Belichick has been willing to pay alot for defensive linemen and for linebackers, a reasonable use of picks and cap money.

How are you defining the elephant position? We have never used the Walsh defense under BB, so since the elephant was part of that system I dont know how we used that?
I think what you are talking about is that in our 34 base one of the OLBs is the 4th rusher.
Depending on who those OLBs are, either one rushes almost every time, or they split it, up to equally. When Willie was here, he rused almost exclusively. Later that was Colvin, and last year that was Vrabel.
Jarvis Green has never played, or was never slated to be an OLB. He has always been a 34 DE, and DT in the sub lackages (except the NT experiment in 03).
If you consider him an expensive backup, havent you always? He has never been anything more than the #3 DE.

 

[Ring 6]

Again, Burgess HAS DONE this before just not extensively. By your standards, why did the Pats trade a fourth rounder and play Ted Washingon (a career one gap DT who never played 2 gap NT) at NT on first and second downs. Washington spent his entire career playing a one gap where he did similiar things that Burgess did only on the inside (try to pentrate to make plays) and then came to the Patriots in mid August and immediately asked to play the two gap and tie up blockers. He did it and now you are saying Burgess can't.

I agree that they won't use Burgess as they used Vrabel. First, he doesn't have the coverage skills. Second, the Pats have far more depth than they have had in several years. Belichick likes to have a rotation at OLB like he did in 2004 with McGinest, Rosie, and Vrabel. I don't expect Burgess to be in on every down or the majority of run downs, I just expect him to be out there more than you think.

As for the one gap, It is sometimes harder to shed a block than engage one because when you engage a blocker to tie him up.

I still don't get why you are so hung up on this "he hasn't done it for his entire career" considering the Pats have been pretty successful in bringing players like him in and getting him to play fairly well in a position they have never played (Ted Washington, Junior Seau, Keith Traylor, AD at least at ILB, Eugene Wilson who changed to safety the second week of the season having never played the position). Most of the failures at this have been guys who weren't very good to begin with (Monty Beisel).

Because it is an ENORMOUS dfference. It is pretty obvious that at 400 lbs Washington could play 2 gap. No surprise there.
Traylor? He was cut after one year, and struggled with the 2gap.
The fact that AD who played 8 diferent positions in Bmore could adapt to a new scheme shouldnt be a surpise.
Beisel, Chad Brown, Hobson and many others didnt make the transition.

The biggest difference is that instead of asking a player to play the same position with a change in technique you are asking a DE to stand up, play in space have contain (which he usually has never had) so he must defend all the way to the sideline, cover RBs and TEs and handle a multitude of responsiblities he has never had to.
Its almost like making Richard Seymour an ILB. Playing LB is about reading plays, moving and reacting to the offense and having multiple talents. DL is not. I cant make it any plainer.
Yes Burgess could possibly be a guy who could make that transition. But the odds of it are very, very small that he could do it effectively.
I would imagine that less than 1/4 of all 43 DEs could truly be effective as 34 2 gap OLBs. Burgess could be one of them, but expecting it is a tall order.

 

[Rob0729]

The elephant position is a DE position in a base 43. Thats the definition.
You are mixing up a base defense with a sub package.
We do not take our players and realign them for a sub package, the sub package is a different personell group.
Because of our 2gap system the DEs we want for the 34 are not suited to be pass rushing DEs in a sub package, they are more big than fast.
So when we choose players for sub package positions, the DEs are better inside rushers than outside, and the best outside rushers we have are the OLBs, because our 34 OLBs resemble 43 DEs.
Its not a hybrid positions, its 2 different personell packages.

Heres an example that might help.
We had Greg Spires on our roster at one point. He would have been a DE in the sub packages, but really not have a position in the base. He wasn't agile enough to play OLB and was too small to play DE. (This is very analogous to Burgess IMO). If he had stayed he would have been one of our best pass rushers. So we wouldnt have turned an OLB into a DE we would have taken the OLB off the field and replaced him with Spires.
There have been a lot of cases where BB has had players on the roster who only were useful in sub packages, or even on special teams. Wes Mallard was a 220lb "linebacker" who never would have seen the field but was a s/t ace. In the case of Burgess I think he could play in the base if needed, I think we can find situations where we want him in the base, but he is primarily here to play in sub packages.
He doesnt even need to have a position in the base to be valuable to us.

The definition of the elephant is a hybrid of DE/OLB which is generally accepted in the Bill Walsh 49er style of 4-3. I guess the elephant in this defense is more of local media definition that the classic definition. What McGinest and Colvin did was very similiar to that typically in a four man front. I never said that they play the elephant all the time (at least I thought I didn't). I said in my first definition it was when they line up off the line and in a three point stance. The OLB in the Belichick defense doesn't line up in a three point stance all the time. We both are on the same page, since I agree that it was only used in subpackages and I guess I thought I never portrayed it as a base package. It is a hybrid position, the definition of it is that it is a hybrid.

 

[Rob0729]

Ok, I see where the mistake is. I wrote:

The Pats have their SOLB line up as OLBs with their hands on the ground on passing downs and play a hybrid OLB/DE role.

I should have said:

When the Pats have their SOLB line up as OLBs with their hands on the ground on passing downs and play a hybrid OLB/DE role.

I understand that they only do that on passing downs and not all passing downs. Sometime when they line up on the line of scrimmage and their hand in the dirt, they are taking the typical DE role. But when they line up off the line as McGinest and Colvin often did, that is the elephant or at least what was generally accepted as the elephant in this town.

Again, I probably shouldn't do work and post at the same time. At least I haven't screwed up work yet.

 

[Rob0729]

Because it is an ENORMOUS dfference. It is pretty obvious that at 400 lbs Washington could play 2 gap. No surprise there.
Traylor? He was cut after one year, and struggled with the 2gap.
The fact that AD who played 8 diferent positions in Bmore could adapt to a new scheme shouldnt be a surpise.
Beisel, Chad Brown, Hobson and many others didnt make the transition.

The biggest difference is that instead of asking a player to play the same position with a change in technique you are asking a DE to stand up, play in space have contain (which he usually has never had) so he must defend all the way to the sideline, cover RBs and TEs and handle a multitude of responsiblities he has never had to.
Its almost like making Richard Seymour an ILB. Playing LB is about reading plays, moving and reacting to the offense and having multiple talents. DL is not. I cant make it any plainer.
Yes Burgess could possibly be a guy who could make that transition. But the odds of it are very, very small that he could do it effectively.
I would imagine that less than 1/4 of all 43 DEs could truly be effective as 34 2 gap OLBs. Burgess could be one of them, but expecting it is a tall order.

It is almost like McGinest switching from DE to OLB. Actually it is the same thing.

I don't think Belichick would have traded for Burgess unless he thought he could make the transition. Because even if he doesn't have him play it all that much, an injury or two may force him to start at the position.

Again, his old coaches in Oakland said he made the transition very well in the times they played the Belichick 3-4 in Oakland. It may not be extensive experience, but it is a sampling.

Besides, many of the most successful LBs for the Pats in the Belichick era were converted DEs. McGinest, Vrabel, Colvin, Adalius Thomas, and Bruschi were all converted DEs.

 

[RayClay]

The elephant position is a DE position in a base 43. Thats the definition.
You are mixing up a base defense with a sub package.
We do not take our players and realign them for a sub package, the sub package is a different personell group.
Because of our 2gap system the DEs we want for the 34 are not suited to be pass rushing DEs in a sub package, they are more big than fast.
So when we choose players for sub package positions, the DEs are better inside rushers than outside, and the best outside rushers we have are the OLBs, because our 34 OLBs resemble 43 DEs.
Its not a hybrid positions, its 2 different personell packages.

Heres an example that might help.
We had Greg Spires on our roster at one point. He would have been a DE in the sub packages, but really not have a position in the base. He wasn't agile enough to play OLB and was too small to play DE. (This is very analogous to Burgess IMO). If he had stayed he would have been one of our best pass rushers. So we wouldnt have turned an OLB into a DE we would have taken the OLB off the field and replaced him with Spires.
There have been a lot of cases where BB has had players on the roster who only were useful in sub packages, or even on special teams. Wes Mallard was a 220lb "linebacker" who never would have seen the field but was a s/t ace. In the case of Burgess I think he could play in the base if needed, I think we can find situations where we want him in the base, but he is primarily here to play in sub packages.
He doesnt even need to have a position in the base to be valuable to us.

You're saying Burgess isn't agile enough to play OLB?

 

[Ring 6]

It is almost like McGinest switching from DE to OLB. Actually it is the same thing.

I don't think Belichick would have traded for Burgess unless he thought he could make the transition. Because even if he doesn't have him play it all that much, an injury or two may force him to start at the position.

Again, his old coaches in Oakland said he made the transition very well in the times they played the Belichick 3-4 in Oakland. It may not be extensive experience, but it is a sampling.

Besides, many of the most successful LBs for the Pats in the Belichick era were converted DEs. McGinest, Vrabel, Colvin, Adalius Thomas, and Bruschi were all converted DEs.

What is your argument? That he is going to be the primary OLB alongside Thomas in the base (which is what you said to start with) or that he could play there if necessary? If its the latter I would agree.
I dont get the idea that he has to be able to play it because BB wouldnt have traded for him, because I believe he traded for him to play 50% of the snaps in the sub package and anything beyond that is a bonus.

 

[Ring 6]

You're saying Burgess isn't agile enough to play OLB?

I'm saying that is a concern because more DEs are not than are.
In adition, I just don't think you annoint a defensive lineman a LB because they are the right size. The skills required at LB and DL are vastly different.

 

[Ring 6]

It is almost like McGinest switching from DE to OLB. Actually it is the same thing.

I don't think Belichick would have traded for Burgess unless he thought he could make the transition. Because even if he doesn't have him play it all that much, an injury or two may force him to start at the position.

Again, his old coaches in Oakland said he made the transition very well in the times they played the Belichick 3-4 in Oakland. It may not be extensive experience, but it is a sampling.

Besides, many of the most successful LBs for the Pats in the Belichick era were converted DEs. McGinest, Vrabel, Colvin, Adalius Thomas, and Bruschi were all converted DEs.

-The answer to why could Burgess do it, cant be McGinest did it. The exception doesnt prove the rule.
-The Oakland coaches guessed he could transition because in the few instances they lined up in a 34 he seemed ok. It was NOT 'the Belichick 34' it was a special package for a special situation.
-Why do you consider Colvn, Vrabel and McGinest successful? Most of that success was playing DE in sub packages, particularly McG and Colvin. Thats the portion of the job Burgess is going to do.
Again the "OLB' on our roster has different jobs. You seem to be implying its everything or a bit piece. Roosevelt Colvin could have only played in the sub packages and your opinion of him today would be the same, its just that he was the best we had for the base D to, even though almost none of his pass rush success came from the base.

 

[Rob0729]

What is your argument? That he is going to be the primary OLB alongside Thomas in the base (which is what you said to start with) or that he could play there if necessary? If its the latter I would agree.
I dont get the idea that he has to be able to play it because BB wouldnt have traded for him, because I believe he traded for him to play 50% of the snaps in the sub package and anything beyond that is a bonus.

I am arguing that he can't be converted to a OLB in the 3-4 because he is a DE is silly since Belichick seems to like DE converts to be his LBs. Mayo is really one of the only pure career LBs he has ever acquired either by the draft, free agency, or trade with the intent to play a starting role in the defense.

We may be arguing semantics since this league is becoming a pass oriented league anyway. The nickel and dime sub package are almost becoming base because they are used so much on second and third downs. I would say it is becoming closer to 60 or even 70% (depending on the opponent) than 50%. Where we disagree is whether he will be DE or OLB or both.

I don't expect him to be an every down player (most of the guys in the first seven aren't).

 

[Ring 6]

I am arguing that he can't be converted to a OLB in the 3-4 because he is a DE is silly since Belichick seems to like DE converts to be his LBs. Mayo is really one of the only pure career LBs he has ever acquired either by the draft, free agency, or trade with the intent to play a starting role in the defense.

We may be arguing semantics since this league is becoming a pass oriented league anyway. The nickel and dime sub package are almost becoming base because they are used so much on second and third downs. I would say it is becoming closer to 60 or even 70% (depending on the opponent) than 50%. Where we disagree is whether he will be DE or OLB or both.

I don't expect him to be an every down player (most of the guys in the first seven aren't).

Im not talking about whether it is possible, I am talking about if it is likely.
Earlier in this thread you said something to the effect of you expected him to be the primary OLB across from Thomas in the base.
I dont rule it out as possible, I disagree it is likely.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I am arguing that he can't be converted to a OLB in the 3-4 because he is a DE is silly since Belichick seems to like DE converts to be his LBs. Mayo is really one of the only pure career LBs he has ever acquired either by the draft, free agency, or trade with the intent to play a starting role in the defense.

We may be arguing semantics since this league is becoming a pass oriented league anyway. The nickel and dime sub package are almost becoming base because they are used so much on second and third downs. I would say it is becoming closer to 60 or even 70% (depending on the opponent) than 50%. Where we disagree is whether he will be DE or OLB or both.

I don't expect him to be an every down player (most of the guys in the first seven aren't).

Rob If I've misread you, my apologies but I think you are arguing with yourself.

BB has said that Burgess has, 'played with his hands on the ground, off the ground, played the run and played the pass'. We can debate how well he has performed in each of those tasks. However, I think we can all agree that worst case Burgess will see most of his time on the field in passing-go-after-the Qb downs. As he becomes more comfortable with the D and has implemented the techniques BB wants him to use when playing the run/pass, we may see him in more situations than just passing downs down the road. 3-4 (OLB), 4-3 (DE), 5-2-4 (DE) anything goes as long as he knows what he is doing and can execute w/o making mental mistakes and play as BB would say, "competitively".

my .02$

 

[Rob0729]

Im not talking about whether it is possible, I am talking about if it is likely.
Earlier in this thread you said something to the effect of you expected him to be the primary OLB across from Thomas in the base.
I dont rule it out as possible, I disagree it is likely.

I don't think you can talk to whether it is likely or not unless you have scouted Burgess yourself. Seriously, how many games have you seen him play? It isn't like Raiders games get played much outside the Oakland area and their opponent's area. The fact is that a DE type is what usually works well in the Pats' system. If Burgess has the skill set and the football intelligence, it is very likely he can make the transition. The likelihood of him making the transition isn't whether he was a career DE trying to make the switch to OLB, but whether he has the skill sets to make the transition. Willie McGinest was a career DE when he made the switch to OLB in 2002 and many people thought he was just about done at that time.

I do expect him to the the primary OLB. If he plays more than anyone else at the position, that makes him primary. If they rotate him with Woods, TBC, and/or Crable; it doesn't mean that

 

[RayClay]

I'm saying that is a concern because more DEs are not than are.
In adition, I just don't think you annoint a defensive lineman a LB because they are the right size. The skills required at LB and DL are vastly different.

Who's anointing? I see people saying he could possibly make the transition. I remember Greg Spires, and they look nothing alike. He had one spin move.

If Burgess is the same player from a couple years ago, he looks extremely quick and athletic and tackles well.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob If I've misread you, my apologies but I think you are arguing with yourself.

BB has said that Burgess has, 'played with his hands on the ground, off the ground, played the run and played the pass'. We can debate how well he has performed in each of those tasks. However, I think we can all agree that worst case Burgess will see most of his time on the field in passing-go-after-the Qb downs. As he becomes more comfortable with the D and has implemented the techniques BB wants him to use when playing the run/pass, we may see him in more situations than just passing downs down the road. 3-4 (OLB), 4-3 (DE), 5-2-4 (DE) anything goes as long as he knows what he is doing and can execute w/o making mental mistakes and play as BB would say, "competitively".

my .02$

No you haven't misread me, but you mave have misread AndyJohnson. He believes that Burgess hasn't played in a similiar system from a two point stance and he believes it is unlikely he can make the transition to a two point stance OLB in the 3-4.

What you are saying is pretty much in agreement with me. What AndyJohnson is saying that the most likely scenario and possibly best case scenario (I am inferring this part a bit) is what you suggest as the worst case scenario.

 

[RobertWeathers]

No you haven't misread me, but you mave have misread AndyJohnson. He believes that Burgess hasn't played in a similiar system from a two point stance and he believes it is unlikely he can make the transition to a two point stance OLB in the 3-4.

What you are saying is pretty much in agreement with me. What AndyJohnson is saying that the most likely scenario and possibly best case scenario (I am inferring this part a bit) is what you suggest as the worst case scenario.

I think what Andy is saying is that BB got Burgess for the pass rush and anything else that comes from him is a bonus or in the highly unlikely to be realized catagory. He did get some exposure to a 3-4 in OAK, but did play mostly in a 4-3. BB says the guy can contribute in all aspects as a player and based on what I have read and seen, I agree with him.- he has stopped short in calling out exactly what his position will be on D which is no big suprise b/c he never does anyway. based on his limited time in the 3-4, it is certainly debateable if he'll see extensive time with his hands up in coverage or running downs.

 

[Ring 6]

Who's anointing? I see people saying he could possibly make the transition. I remember Greg Spires, and they look nothing alike. He had one spin move.

If Burgess is the same player from a couple years ago, he looks extremely quick and athletic and tackles well.

The original discussion was based upon an assertion that Burgess would be the 'starting' OLB.
The one who is saying is is possible is ME, I stop short of saying probable.

Greg Spires was used as an example of a player filling a role, not a comparison to Burgess.
Quick, athletic and a good tackler are good qualities but every quick athletic good tackler isnt a LB.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think you can talk to whether it is likely or not unless you have scouted Burgess yourself. Seriously, how many games have you seen him play? It isn't like Raiders games get played much outside the Oakland area and their opponent's area. The fact is that a DE type is what usually works well in the Pats' system. If Burgess has the skill set and the football intelligence, it is very likely he can make the transition. The likelihood of him making the transition isn't whether he was a career DE trying to make the switch to OLB, but whether he has the skill sets to make the transition. Willie McGinest was a career DE when he made the switch to OLB in 2002 and many people thought he was just about done at that time.

I do expect him to the the primary OLB. If he plays more than anyone else at the position, that makes him primary. If they rotate him with Woods, TBC, and/or Crable; it doesn't mean that

Ive actually seen a lot of him, because Ive had Sunday Ticket for 5 years.

Its unlikely because it is a difficult transition that not a lot of players could make.
I dont know what a "DE type" is but our 2gap requires an OLB to be similar size to what a one gap wants for a 43 DE. That doesnt mean they are the same players, because the skills required are different.
Playing DL and playing LB are just flat out different. I've played both and its just very, very different. Much of the characteristics of a good LB is that the proper reaction comes naturally to them. You cant ust stand up a DE and ignore that fact.

The pass rushing skills translate. The run D and pass coverage skills do not.