Can someone tell me why they want to keep Thomas at OLB???

[Deus Irae]

dude you can take any linebacker on any team in the league and Thomas' solo tackles will be lower. I just used Willis and Harris cause they are elite and what i would want out of my inside linebacker.

...Not to mention this is for a full 16 games and includes Thomas' solo tackles when he played the last 5 or so games on the outside as well, he would be even -further- down this list had he stayed inside since his production went -up- when he moved outside. There is barely any starting linebacker in the NFL that had less solo tackles than Thomas inside. If you are happy with scrub production and are satisfied with comparing him to scrubs and not elite linebackers like Willis etc knock your socks off. My standards are a little higher.

1.) You moved the goalposts with your argument. That's unfair, and it's a sign of a weak argument that is losing if you refuse to admit the error. You should just acknowledge the use of hyperbole rather than try to slip such a change by.

2.) New England was dead last in the NFL in number of rushing plays against, thus limiting the tackle opportunities by the linebacking corps. By coincidence, Pittsburg was second to last in that category, and is a 3-4 defense along with New England. Now, comparing the raw numbers of Thomas' solo tackles (the same numbers you are using) to the 2 ILBs in Pittsburgh gives you the result of Thomas coming in between them in solo tackles, having 8 fewer than Farrior and 15 more than Foote.

3.) Not only was New England last in the number of rushing plays against, but the Patriots were 21st in the number of passing plays against, and had the fewest number of defensive plays of any team in the league (tied with Pittsburgh at 933).

Again, solo tackles are not the final barometer as to a great ILB by any means but, even with you using that as your metric, you really aren't offering any concrete proof of your argument. I personally prefer Thomas on the outside in order to allow his versatility to shine through more, but I still find your arguments unpersuasive

 

[BRiZ]

1.) You moved the goalposts with your argument. That's unfair, and it's a sign of a weak argument that is losing if you refuse to admit the error. You should just acknowledge the use of hyperbole rather than try to slip such a change by.

2.) New England was dead last in the NFL in number of rushing plays against, thus limiting the tackle opportunities by the linebacking corps. By coincidence, Pittsburg was second to last in that category, and is a 3-4 defense along with New England. Now, comparing the raw numbers of Thomas' solo tackles (the same numbers you are using) to the 2 ILBs in Pittsburgh gives you the result of Thomas coming in between them in solo tackles, having 8 fewer than Farrior and 15 more than Foote.

3.) Not only was New England last in the number of rushing plays against, but the Patriots were 21st in the number of passing plays against, and had the fewest number of defensive plays of any team in the league (tied with Pittsburgh at 933).

Again, solo tackles are not the final barometer as to a great ILB by any means but, even with you using that as your metric, you really aren't offering any concrete proof of your argument. I personally prefer Thomas on the outside in order to allow his versatility to shine through more, but I still find your arguments unpersuasive

1.) huh?

2.) Farrior is old and is a shell of his former self. And Foote? Hes a scrub. I dont disagree that having fewer plays on defense reduces the stats never said they didnt. But Thomas had games inside with 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 solo tackles and his overall production inside wasnt even as good as 50 year old Bruschi and Seau not to mention other linebackers in the league, and Thomas started all game. 1 Solo tackle. ONE. That is one running play a game, im pretty sure teams run the ball more than once on the Pats. That is not the kind of production you want out of your inside linebacker. Thomas' problem is he cannot change directions on par with true inside linebackers, continue to ignore this fact though.

3.) This is not the reason for Thomas' poor play inside, part of it? Sure it adds to it. But Thomas is an OUTSIDE LINEBACKER, and his play inside showed it.

 

[Deus Irae]

1.) huh?.

#1 is self-evident. Your claim of "any linebacker on any team" was clearly wrong. Rather than admit that and just chalk it off to exaggeration, you ignored that being disproved and just tried to silently modify your position to "There is barely any starting linebacker in the NFL that had less solo tackles than Thomas inside", thus changing your argument and moving the evidentiary goalposts.

2.) Farrior is old and is a shell of his former self. And Foote? Hes a scrub. I dont disagree that having fewer plays on defense reduces the stats never said they didnt. But Thomas had games inside with 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 solo tackles and his overall production inside wasnt even as good as 50 year old Bruschi and Seau not to mention other linebackers in the league, and Thomas started all game. 1 Solo tackle. ONE. That is one running play a game, im pretty sure teams run the ball more than once on the Pats. That is not the kind of production you want out of your inside linebacker. Thomas' problem is he cannot change directions on par with true inside linebackers, continue to ignore this fact though.

You denigrate 2 ILBs from another team in an attempt to somehow remove them from the discussion rather than just admitting that your argument is flawed and looking for more evidence to back up your claim. You eliminate assisted tackles as if they mean nothing and you continue to ignore the impact of Wilfork in the middle (and defensive line play in general). Bruschi had games of 1,0,1,2, and 3 solo tackles on the inside was well. As a matter of fact, in 2004, Bruschi had games with 1,2,3,2,3, and 3 solo tackles, when he was racking up 122 total tackles. Was Bruschi an outside linebacker in 2004? How about in 2003, when his low solo days included games of 1,3,3,3,3, and 2?

3.) This is not the reason for Thomas' poor play inside, part of it? Sure it adds to it. But Thomas is an OUTSIDE LINEBACKER, and his play inside showed it.

His play seemed, to me at least, to show the effects of a bad ankle and learning to play a new position. Whether it showed that he isn't an ILB is certainly not being proven by your argument when you rely upon the 'solo tackle' argument. You offer no evidence about your change of directions argument other than the clearly not dispositive argument about solo tackles, even though the change of direction argument might be true.

 

[BRiZ]

#1 is self-evident. Your claim of "any linebacker on any team" was clearly wrong. Rather than admit that and just chalk it off to exaggeration, you ignored that being disproved and just tried to silently modify your position to "There is barely any starting linebacker in the NFL that had less solo tackles than Thomas inside", thus changing your argument and moving the evidentiary goalposts.

Thats why i said there was -barely- any starting linebacker, did you miss that part? Yea a few scrubs had less <rolls eyes>.


You denigrate 2 ILBs from another team in an attempt to somehow remove them from the discussion rather than just admitting that your argument is flawed and looking for more evidence to back up your claim. You eliminate assisted tackles as if they mean nothing and you continue to ignore the impact of Wilfork in the middle (and defensive line play in general). Bruschi had games of 1,0,1,2, and 3 solo tackles on the inside was well. As a matter of fact, in 2004, Bruschi had games with 1,2,3,2,3, and 3 solo tackles, when he was racking up 122 total tackles. Was Bruschi an outside linebacker in 2004? How about in 2003, when his low solo days included games of 1,3,3,3,3, and 2?

Farrior is 34 years old and and Foote is a scrub. Farrior has made 70, 80, and 90 solo tackles in his previous years all while on a pitt defense that is always near the top in the league. When did i ever say Bruschi was elite? Hes never been, and he is older than dirt right now. Hes a journeyman average ILB hes always been.


His play seemed, to me at least, to show the effects of a bad ankle and learning to play a new position. Whether it showed that he isn't an ILB is certainly not being proven by your argument when you rely upon the 'solo tackle' argument. You offer no evidence about your change of directions argument other than the clearly not dispositive argument about solo tackles, even though the change of direction argument might be true.

Thats your opinion thats fine, i disagree. I dont believe it had anything to do with injury or learning a new defense, hes an experienced vet that played all over in Baltimore system but used mainly on the outside. Hes an outside linebacker and when he was played inside i saw change of direction problems with him, when you are on the outside your mainly moving downfield chasing the QB, on the inside you are moving more laterally and need to stop and change direction when the RB cuts back. Thomas isnt on the level of inside linebackers when it comes to this.

 

[patsox23]

This team needs a pass rusher and vrabel is not that guy.

Nominee for WORST, most insanely idiotic thing said on patsfans in YEARS.

 

[jeffbiologist]

WOW, you would have thought I was watching a different team than you guys.....AD is way better off starting inside because of his size and athleticism. The fact that he CAN play outside is a plus, but dont put him in Vrabels league as far as pass rushing. AD was just learning his position having come from a 4-3 system, and when Colvin went down that hurt his development in BOTH places.
Tackles,statistics are a bad way to measure impact of our defensive players. You want to see how misleading they are just look at Rosie's stats while he was here....they were not just bad but AWFUL. But we know,watching the game, that he played a role and was good at what he did. I like this defense because it doesnt FOCUS stats or importance on any 1 player(like MLB in those other systems-Briz you are just WRONG). What it does do is make everyone better that does his job, and it is designed to keep everything in front of them.
With AD back inside, I hope we can find a OLB with some speed rush capabilities but bigger than Colvin. Gholston, Groves,Avril,Harvey are all prototypical, but personally I would trade the pick for Suggs....get the proven commodity.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

I'd prefer to keep AD outside. He started off the year great in the ILB rotation, but maybe game film caught up to him as teams seemed to handle him better. I remember reading anonymous scout comments on espn.com and cnnsi.com that AD was playing too upright for an ILB and that was costing him. It appeared that his playing time was diminishing by midseason. Even before Colvin got hurt, AD was seeing snaps at OLB and had some outstanding moments vs. Cincy and Buffalo in that role. His SB42 was the type of game I hoped to see from him all year.

He's valuable as an ILB mainly because it keeps Bruschi and Seau fresh, but personally I'd prefer an upgrade at ILB and let AD stay outside.

Regards,
Chris

 

[BradyManny]

Because he doesnt have the change of direction to play inside, hes a big guy and it takes him a moment to stop and start and move side to side, once he gets going though he is fast. Your inside backer needs to have great agility and change of direction to tackle RBs all over the field, and Thomas just doesnt have that. As a result he gets to the RB late, if you look at his solo tackles while playing inside they are terrible compared to other linebackers in the league. He is much better on the outside edge rushing and crushing the QB it fits his skillset better. He plays on a probowl level on the outside, did you see him in the SB??

But try and back this up with statistics other than solo tackles, (which we all understand tackles is overrated in the Patriots 3-4, for anyone in the front 7). Just look at the teams defensive stats when he was inside versus outside. He was playing well inside, and IMO, he was not that effective outside until the Super Bowl.

Inside, he is effective in coverage, was holding ground in the running game, and will bring the added dimension of pass rush up the middle. I really think his primary position will be inside, with some rotating and some play at OLB.

 

[skri65]

Thats your opinion thats fine, i disagree. I dont believe it had anything to do with injury or learning a new defense, hes an experienced vet that played all over in Baltimore system but used mainly on the outside. Hes an outside linebacker and when he was played inside i saw change of direction problems with him, when you are on the outside your mainly moving downfield chasing the QB, on the inside you are moving more laterally and need to stop and change direction when the RB cuts back. Thomas isnt on the level of inside linebackers when it comes to this.

People keep posing arguments and you keep refusing to answer them, instead providing a different answer that ignores their point and supports yours.

Bruschi was never elite? What are you talking about. He made the pro bowl in 2004, and he was truly one of the anchors of our defense. \

You also REFUSE to accept two points:

1.) Having an elite defensive line ahead of your linebackers reduces the number of tackles your linebackers accrue. You almost accept this point in your previous post, when saying "I dont disagree that having fewer plays on defense reduces the stats never said they didnt. But Thomas had games inside with 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3 solo tackles and his overall production inside wasnt even as good as 50 year old Bruschi and Seau not to mention other linebackers in the league, and Thomas started all game."....but once again you sidestep our point out of convenience and just use the same old stat of "total tackles"-----which EVERYONE has been trying to show you can mean many different things.

I don't even disagree with your point that much, but your arguments are just so flawed and you refuse to accept other peoples point.

So far you've been able to bring three flawed arguments to the table:

1.)AD didn't have that many solo tackles (which you NEED to accept is distorted by a.) amount of running plays executed on a defense b.)the quality of the defensive line---of which ours is great.), which consequently makes this argument weak.

2.) He doesn't have the agility that a ILB needs. I don't understand how you can say this when he lined up at safety for the Ravens. Scouts have always raved for AD exactly because of his agility, and consequently, his versatility

3.) "AD is an outside linebacker" Yes, that's your argument and you keep on repeating it. Your argument is a tautology, and you keep on saying it, but it doesn't ADD to your point. It's like saying "I'm smart because I'm smart."

Give me an argument, Briz, other than these two, and maybe you can spur some reasonable debate. Because so far, I haven't seen any.

 

[GPR11788]

Bruschi is getting old and I don't know if Seau is coming back, but I agree that AD was good on the outside and rotating with the ILB to keep them fresh.

BB likes AD because of his flexibility for playing both positions, and if the Pats can get a good outside rusher from the draft I say move AD inside.

If we can get Takeo Spikes for the ILB role, than AD would be perfect as an outside rusher.

So regardless of AD being better at OLB or ILB, depending on the linebacker depth he would go into the position that would benefit the defense as a whole.

 

[otis p. driftwood]

Nominee for WORST, most insanely idiotic thing said on patsfans in YEARS.

No way. There have been worse things posted just today.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

This thread has to go down as one of the strangest on this board. On an 18-1 SB team, AD was #2 in tackles. That's a disappointment? Total tackles would have been higher if the Pats allowed more first downs. Three-and-outs don't give you opportunities to pile up stats for tackles. In the team concept of the 3-4, AD filled his role all season long. He was worth every penny. How many high profile FA's can you really say that about?

Since everyone seems to be taking sides, put me down in the ILB camp for AD, and let's draft Gholston or Long for OLB if we get the chance.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

This thread has to go down as one of the strangest on this board. On an 18-1 SB team, AD was #2 in tackles. That's a disappointment? Total tackles would have been higher if the Pats allowed more first downs. Three-and-outs don't give you opportunities to pile up stats for tackles. In the team concept of the 3-4, AD filled his role all season long. He was worth every penny. How many high profile FA's can you really say that about?

Since everyone seems to be taking sides, put me down in the ILB camp for AD, and let's draft Gholston or Long for OLB if we get the chance.

Wasnt really meant to start out that way. There had been small talk of AD should stay outside in various threads.

I thought it was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[crowell33]

I thought Thomas was better on the outside. I felt he set the edge better than Colvin and covered much better. His pass rush was, in my opinion, equivalent to Colvin's. Having said that, I think he stays inside. Whats lost in this discussion is not only Vrabel's ability to get to the quarterback but what he does when he gets there. Vrabel more often than not gets his hand on the ball and creates a fumble/ turnover. This is a lost art. Gholsten (sp?) from Ohio created exactly zero fumbles last among his 14 sacks, yet will be a top 5 pick. Vrabel stays outside. Separately, I thinks it will be easier to bring someone new into the system (F/A or rookie) and play the outside, than inside. Thomas stays inside, in my opinion, even though he is arguably a stronger player on the outside.