Defense wins championships

[Deus Irae]

I don't think BB was inconsistent at LB at all. BB prioritises defending the run, I think in part because he wants teams to put the ball in the air, a lower percentage play. To that end, he makes sure that he's got size at the LB position to destroy blockers without having to stack the box. Spikes clearly fits that mould. Hightower was brought in to be a Spikes replacement but in addition, Hightower was the defensive leader on arguably the best college defense in recent years. As for the mini linebackers, yes he did look at them and then didn't draft them but still took a coverage linebacker that is potentially as good as David and Kendrick's et al but happens to fit his 250+ requirement. That seems wholly consistent to me,

As for crediting Schneider and Carroll. It's easy to be consistent of vision when you've only been doing it three years. Not so easy when you've had fifteen years of almost perpetual low picks.

Come on, now.

 

[manxman2601]

Come on, now.

What?! I'm right. BB prioritises size and/or length on his defensive front 7. Everything he's done is consistent with that.

 

[Deus Irae]

What?! I'm right. BB prioritises size and/or length on his defensive front 7. Everything he's done is consistent with that.

Mayo laid it out there. You decided to ignore about 18 elephants in the room, and went looking for a piece of string instead. That's the sort of thing lousy posters do. You're not a lousy poster.

 

[manxman2601]

Mayo laid it out there. You decided to ignore about 18 elephants in the room, and went looking for a piece of string instead. That's the sort of thing lousy posters do. You're not a lousy poster.

Go on then 18 points I ignored as regards BBs lack of consistency of vision as regards linebackers. Go.

He made a point about Cunningham. Well that's one pick in dozens. Carroll/Schneider don't get every pick right either. And then he made a point about switching base schemes. Well, they might have switched schemes but the underlying principle of front 7 size and length and two gapping remained the same so I don't see that as evidence of inconsistency at all.

I'm struggling to find the other 16 points he made. You weren't exaggerating were you because only lousy posters do that and you aren't a lousy poster.

Coup

 

[Deus Irae]

Go on then 18 points I ignored as regards BBs lack of consistency of vision as regards linebackers. Go.

He made a point about Cunningham. Well that's one pick in dozens. Carroll/Schneider don't get every pick right either. And then he made a point about switching base schemes. Well, they might have switched schemes but the underlying principle of front 7 size and length and two gapping remained the same so I don't see that as evidence of inconsistency at all.

I'm struggling to find the other 16 points he made. You weren't exaggerating were you because only lousy posters do that and you aren't a lousy poster.

Coup

1.) He made a bunch of points.
1.) Hyperbole is used by pretty much every poster at some point or another, and you clearly knew that "about 18 elephants" was used for emphasis as opposed to a specific content number, so going down that road was just pettiness on your part.

Again, lousy posters make these types of posts. You're not a lousy poster. Get back on your game. We could use some good talk today. Trying to claim there's no inconsistency when there's Cunningham/Spikes/Collins staring you right in the face is a laughable claim.

 

[manxman2601]

1.) He made a bunch of points.
1.) Hyperbole is used by pretty much every poster at some point or another, and you clearly knew that "about 18 elephants" was used for emphasis as opposed to a specific content number, so going down that road was just pettiness on your part.

Again, lousy posters make these types of posts. You're not a lousy poster. Get back on your game. We could use some good talk today. Trying to claim there's no inconsistency when there's Cunningham/Spikes/Collins staring you right in the face is a laughable claim.

For future reference, that smiley face means the point I made was meant in light humour.

I simply don't agree with you. If you are not interested in debating that fact then that's up to you but if we are going to debate it, then I need more to go on than "oh come on!".

Cunningham was one bad pick. It happens. To every team by the way, including the Seahawks. I will continue to maintain that Spikes and Collins are very much evidence of BB's consistency. It's up to you to say why they weren't.

 

[Deus Irae]

For future reference, that smiley face means the point I made was meant in light humour.

I simply don't agree with you. If you are not interested in debating that fact then that's up to you but if we are going to debate it, then I need more to go on than "oh come on!".

Cunningham was one bad pick. It happens. To every team by the way, including the Seahawks. I will continue to maintain that Spikes and Collins are very much evidence of BB's consistency. It's up to you to say why they weren't.

There's nothing to debate if you can't concede the obvious. Mayo's already noted a bunch of inconsistencies. Your response was basically "but Collins is big".


Again, you're usually better than that. Today.... you're not.

 

[manxman2601]

There's nothing to debate if you can't concede the obvious. Mayo's already noted a bunch of inconsistencies. Your response was basically "but Collins is big".


Again, you're usually better than that. Today.... you're not.

I ask you to debate the point and you refuse. Fair enough. Your arrogance is getting the better of you today. I'll go find more interesting conversation elsewhere.

You just called me a lousy poster in three consecutive posts. That makes you both arrogant and tedious. Congratulations!

 

[Uncle Meat]

Making a blanket statement like "defenses win championships" is WAY too cliche for me. TEAMS win championships.

I thought that the best defense is a good offense...there is another old saying.

Games are about MATCHUPS, and nothing else.

There are lots of dynamics that go into not only a football team, but also any particular GAME.

Yesterday, the Broncos were dominated in all three phases of the game. They didn't show up either, and you could tell from the first snap. Meanwhile, the Seahawks showed up in a big way across the board.

 

[ausbacker]

I ask you to debate the point and you refuse. Fair enough. Your arrogance is getting the better of you today. I'll go find more interesting conversation elsewhere.

You just called me a lousy poster in three consecutive posts. That makes you both arrogant and tedious. Congratulations!

Nothing you've put forward is lousy manx. As a matter of fact, I've found myself agreeing with your position (again) given your willingness to open the discussion to debate.

It is entirely possible to stay true to a blueprint whist filling it with different skills and strengths.

 

[Joker]

TODAY.....

Making a blanket statement like "defenses win championships" is WAY too cliche for me. TEAMS win championships.

I thought that the best defense is a good offense...there is another old saying.

Games are about MATCHUPS, and nothing else.

There are lots of dynamics that go into not only a football team, but also any particular GAME.

Yesterday, the Broncos were dominated in all three phases of the game. They didn't show up either, and you could tell from the first snap. Meanwhile, the Seahawks showed up in a big way across the board.

BEFORE YESTERDAY'S GAME...

The...forehead...will...eat...your...lunch. :rocker:

DINNER IS SERVED!!!!!

 

[Archeryaddict12]

TODAY.....







BEFORE YESTERDAY'S GAME...







DINNER IS SERVED!!!!!

Joker I sent him a pm last night. What a loser.

 

[VrabelJr]

Everyone is salivating over Seattle's secondary but it's their DL that makes those guys look even better than they are. The same goes for their LBs. Wagner is solid but he's just cleaning up tackles that the DL have already started. Smith is JAG material and he really peaked the last few games, definitely can't complain about how he filled in for KJ Wright.

The rotation at DL, and how deep it is, that Seattle runs is sickening. Look at this list:

DE
Cliff Avril
Michael Bennett
Chris Clemons
Red Bryant
Bruce Irvin

DT
Brandon Mebane
Clinton McDonald
Tony McDaniel
Jordan Hill

They are 4-5 players deep at every position on the DL and nobody plays a high number of snaps. They get to put whoever is best in at certain situations. That's incredible depth. You don't need elite players when an average player is coming off the bench fresh in the 4th quarter.

 

[manxman2601]

Everyone is salivating over Seattle's secondary but it's their DL that makes those guys look even better than they are. The same goes for their LBs. Wagner is solid but he's just cleaning up tackles that the DL have already started. Smith is JAG material and he really peaked the last few games, definitely can't complain about how he filled in for KJ Wright.

The rotation at DL, and how deep it is, that Seattle runs is sickening. Look at this list:

DE
Cliff Avril
Michael Bennett
Chris Clemons
Red Bryant
Bruce Irvin

DT
Brandon Mebane
Clinton McDonald
Tony McDaniel
Jordan Hill

They are 4-5 players deep at every position on the DL and nobody plays a high number of snaps. They get to put whoever is best in at certain situations. That's incredible depth. You don't need elite players when an average player is coming off the bench fresh in the 4th quarter.

I'm talking more generally here and I'm not directing this at you directly but there has been some mythologising of the Seahawks today, in particular of the Carroll/Schneider team building efforts about consistency of vision and great drafting. Whilst there has been some excellent drafting and signings and certainly some consistency of vision defensively, this is a team that drafted Carpenter in the first round and Bruce Irvin (two sacks this season) at #15 overall. This is a team that signed Matt Flynn to a 26m(10m guaranteed) contract and traded a second rounder for Charlie Whitehurst. What they have achieved is outstanding but it is neither flawless nor consistent when viewed holistically. It has also only been achieved over a three year time period. Let's talk again about how consistent they are in twelve years time when they've been picking late in the draft every year and Wilson is earning 20-30m per year. Then we can discuss whether their model is provably superior to our own.

 

[Deus Irae]

I ask you to debate the point and you refuse. Fair enough. Your arrogance is getting the better of you today.

Noting that you failed to engage the debate with Mayo isn't arrogantly refusing to debate the point with you. It's pointing out that you're already ignoring it.

I'll go find more interesting conversation elsewhere.

Please do, because you've brought nothing to the table on this beyond "Collins is big, too".

You just called me a lousy poster in three consecutive posts. That makes you both arrogant and tedious. Congratulations!

I didn't call you a lousy poster. In fact, I specifically said

You're not a lousy poster.

That's a pretty damned good example of what I mean when I say that you're usually better than this.

 

[Uncle Meat]

TODAY.....


BEFORE YESTERDAY'S GAME...


DINNER IS SERVED!!!!!

I know you secretly love me, Joker. Just admit it. "The Forehead will eat your lunch" sounds funny to me, so I went with it.

What I said today is true.

Who the hell predicted that the game would go down the way it did?

But I won $200 yesterday, so I'm not in the mood for crow.

Joker I sent him a pm last night. What a loser.

Yeah, your TWO PMs were the highlight of my day. Writing things like that is what winners do, or so I'm told. I wouldn't know.

Perhaps you can teach me how to be a winner some day.

Here was my reply to you:

"Easy, Pete.

The Forehead DID eat your lunch...then the Seahawks had him for dinner.

The Forehead also ate the Seahawks' lunch, but the only problem was that they were serving a poo sandwich.

I don't really have a major dog in this fight.

I actually won $200 in the Super Bowl yesterday, all told after prop bets and such. I'll take that. It's a lot of lunches, and that's a good game to me. Sorry to disappoint you if I don't actually feel bad."

 

[manxman2601]

Noting that you failed to engage the debate with Mayo isn't arrogantly refusing to debate the point with you. It's pointing out that you're already ignoring it.



Please do, because you've brought nothing to the table on this. You might want to try a completely different topic, because it's about as clear as anything ever has been that Cunningham/Spikes/Collins is an inconsistent draft trio to be taken.



I didn't call you a lousy poster. In fact, I specifically said



That's a pretty damned good example of what I mean when I say that you're usually better than this.

Semantics. You were calling my posts lousy and you know it.

But moving on, I engaged with Mayo but you failed to engage with me. I'll happily debate anything with anyone so long as they put up a counter argument. You haven't.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't think BB was inconsistent at LB at all. BB prioritises defending the run, I think in part because he wants teams to put the ball in the air, a lower percentage play. To that end, he makes sure that he's got size at the LB position to destroy blockers without having to stack the box.

As for crediting Schneider and Carroll. It's easy to be consistent of vision when you've only been doing it three years. Not so easy when you've had fifteen years of almost perpetual low picks.

Manx,

I've been tied up since I wrote my post about 4+ hours ago. I see this discussion has blossomed into a heated debate. That wasn't my intent. A couple of points of clarification:

1. I'm certainly not trying to "mythologize" Carroll and Schneider, and they have made some mistakes - there's no such thing as 100% perfection in drafting. But I've argued for a while - certainly for over a year now - that the Seahawks are a model of how quickly you can turn an also-ran into a serious contender, in part because there was a consistent vision between Carroll and Schneider, and they went out and found guys who fit into that vision and strategy and then coached them up. I think they deserve credit for that - not mythologizing, but credit.

This is not anything new. For example, Greg Cosell last spring singled out the Seahawks for recognizing the direction of the NFL on both offense and defense:

In a passing league, what must you do? You must rush the quarterback, and you must cover receivers. That’s the Cliff's Notes version. The devil is always in the details. What the Seahawks have done is draft and sign players that give them tremendous pass rush versatility -- and just as important, disruption on the outside versus wide receivers.

Go back a year to the 2012 NFL draft. All we heard when Seattle selected Bruce Irvin with the 15th overall pick in the first round was, “what a reach.” Those same “experts” would then tell you in the next breath that rushing the quarterback is the most important defensive element in today’s NFL. And by the way, Irvin played 46 percent of the snaps in his rookie season, including the playoffs, recording 11 sacks. But there’s a much larger point at work here. It’s how you scheme pass rush pressure. With Irvin, a returning Chris Clemons, and newly signed Cliff Avril, the Seahawks have three players who can align anywhere in their nickel sub-package. They all have what we call “Joker” ability, the talent to line up in either 3-point or 2-point stances and rush from different positions and angles.

What you have is an ideal mix of physical athleticism, and multiple schemes. It’s the new age pressure concepts in the NFL. It’s very difficult to line up with four defensive linemen in conventional positions, and create consistent pressure on the quarterback. Not only is it difficult to find four players who can do that, it’s tactically easier for the offense to protect against those more basic fronts. What defenses are trying to accomplish is pass protection indecision based on front alignments, coupled with athletic mismatches. The Seahawks are well positioned to do that with their personnel.

Let’s not forget Bennett. In Tampa last season, he played defensive end in the base 4-3, and then moved inside to tackle in the nickel and dime sub-packages. His pass rush quickness was not only a problem for offensive guards, it allowed him to be effective with stunts, another tactic that creates hesitation and confusion in pass protection schemes. The bottom line is this: the Seahawks have constructed a multi-dimensional combination of talent with speed, athleticism, and position and scheme versatility. That’s what’s necessary in the NFL of 2013 and beyond.

The picture is not complete, however. The Seahawks made a commitment to big, physical corners, players who were not held in the same high value around the league because they did not possess what has long been regarded as the necessary attributes of lateral quickness, dynamic change of direction and timed speed. Richard Sherman was a former wide receiver at Stanford who switched to corner his final two years. The Seahawks selected the 6’3” Sherman in the fifth round of the 2011 draft. He is arguably the best cornerback in the NFL entering the 2013 season. 6’4” Brandon Browner was undrafted out of Oregon State in 2005; again, he was seen as too slow and not quick enough to play NFL corner. The Seahawks signed him as a free agent after 4 seasons with the Calgary Stampeders of the Canadian Football League.

Gus Bradley, the Seahawks defensive coordinator the last four seasons before becoming the Jacksonville Jaguars' head coach in January, summed it up best. He once said, “Whatever scheme you play, you’ve got to create disruption at the perimeter.” With Sherman and Browner, the Seahawks do that more consistently and better than any team in the NFL. Disruption outside with taller, more aggressive corners; pass rush flexibility and adaptability with athletic and versatile hybrids who can align all over.

That’s the template for defensive success in a passing league.

Y! SPORTS

That's certainly the general approach I've been advocating for a while: bigger, more physical DBs that create disruption outside, and athletic and versatile hybrids who can align all over.

For some nice reads on the 4-3 under and the Seattle hybrid defense, I recommend the following:

The 4-3 Under Defense, Part I: An Introduction - Field Gulls
The 4-3 Under Defense, Part II: The Seahawks' Hybrid - Field Gulls
On the Seahawks' Defensive Scheme Versatility/Diversity - Field Gulls
What Can We Expect From The Seahawks Defense? - Field Gulls

Again, I'm not "mythologizing" what Carroll and Schneider have done, but I think they have had a fairly clear and consistent vision and direction, and that has helped decrease the amount of waste that they have incurred, and has accelerated the development of the team.

2. I'm not looking at BB's drafting record over the past 15 years, but only over the same period - starting in 2010 - that Carroll and Schneider have been in place. Since that time, whereas Carroll and Schneider have had a fairly consistent defensive scheme (the 4-3 under, with some minor tinkering) and a clear understanding of what skill sets they were looking at, I personally feel that BB has been less decisive in his overall direction.

We've discussed the evolution of the "Belichick defense" before. I started a thread on it shortly after we drafted Chandler Jones, noting the different twists and turns that the defense has taken, partly in response to personnel, partly in response to the evolution of the league:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...volution-belichick-defense.html#.UvAzU5GwNvY

That discussion was based on a 5-part series which looked at the evolution of BB's defensive approach from his time as a DC for the Giants up to the present:

The Belichick Defense Pt. 1 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense Pt. 2 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense Pt. 3 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense - Pt. 4 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense Part 5: The rebirth of the 4-3 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis

While that series is by no means the "gospel", it brings up some interesting points:

- BB philosophically preferred the 3-4 when he became HC of the Patriots in 2000, but didn't feel he had the personnel for it, and played mostly a 2-gapping defense with a 4 man front
- As BB acquired personnel, he moved to a 3 man front 2-gapping approach. He drafted and acquired personnel fairly consistently for that approach from 2001-2009 (Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Ted Washington, Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, etc.)
- As early as 2007 BB abandoned a 3-4 base against Peyton Manning, using a 4-2-5 base for the entire game. But he still stayed pretty much dedicated to a 3-4 base through 2009.
- Given the evolution of the passing game, BB started to move away from a 3-4 base in 2011.

I'm not criticizing BB for evolving his defense as the game changed; but I think he was perhaps a bit behind the curve compared to Schneider/Carroll, who identified the 4-3 under and have stayed pretty much consistent to it, tweaking it and hybridizing it a bit with some schematic variants. BB has done some of this, too, but I think he's been a little less consistent, and his draft picks have reflected that, as I discussed previously.

At any rate, all of this is just my personal view of things, and I don't claim to be any authority. I wasn't trying to start a pissing contest, just explaining the basis for my statement.

 

[manxman2601]

Manx,

I've been tied up since I wrote my post about 4+ hours ago. I see this discussion has blossomed into a heated debate. That wasn't my intent. A couple of points of clarification:

1. I'm certainly not trying to "mythologize" Carroll and Schneider, and they have made some mistakes - there's no such thing as 100% perfection in drafting. But I've argued for a while - certainly for over a year now - that the Seahawks are a model of how quickly you can turn an also-ran into a serious contender, in part because there was a consistent vision between Carroll and Schneider, and they went out and found guys who fit into that vision and strategy and then coached them up. I think they deserve credit for that - not mythologizing, but credit.

This is not anything new. For example, Greg Cosell last spring singled out the Seahawks for recognizing the direction of the NFL on both offense and defense:



Y! SPORTS

That's certainly the general approach I've been advocating for a while: bigger, more physical DBs that create disruption outside, and athletic and versatile hybrids who can align all over.

For some nice reads on the 4-3 under and the Seattle hybrid defense, I recommend the following:

The 4-3 Under Defense, Part I: An Introduction - Field Gulls
The 4-3 Under Defense, Part II: The Seahawks' Hybrid - Field Gulls
On the Seahawks' Defensive Scheme Versatility/Diversity - Field Gulls
What Can We Expect From The Seahawks Defense? - Field Gulls

Again, I'm not "mythologizing" what Carroll and Schneider have done, but I think they have had a fairly clear and consistent vision and direction, and that has helped decrease the amount of waste that they have incurred, and has accelerated the development of the team.

2. I'm not looking at BB's drafting record over the past 15 years, but only over the same period - starting in 2010 - that Carroll and Schneider have been in place. Since that time, whereas Carroll and Schneider have had a fairly consistent defensive scheme (the 4-3 under, with some minor tinkering) and a clear understanding of what skill sets they were looking at, I personally feel that BB has been less decisive in his overall direction.

We've discussed the evolution of the "Belichick defense" before. I started a thread on it shortly after we drafted Chandler Jones, noting the different twists and turns that the defense has taken, partly in response to personnel, partly in response to the evolution of the league:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...volution-belichick-defense.html#.UvAzU5GwNvY

That discussion was based on a 5-part series which looked at the evolution of BB's defensive approach from his time as a DC for the Giants up to the present:

The Belichick Defense Pt. 1 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense Pt. 2 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense Pt. 3 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense - Pt. 4 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis
The Belichick Defense Part 5: The rebirth of the 4-3 | 60 Max Power O - Pro Football News, Coverage and Analysis

While that series is by no means the "gospel", it brings up some interesting points:

- BB philosophically preferred the 3-4 when he became HC of the Patriots in 2000, but didn't feel he had the personnel for it, and played mostly a 2-gapping defense with a 4 man front
- As BB acquired personnel, he moved to a 3 man front 2-gapping approach. He drafted and acquired personnel fairly consistently for that approach from 2001-2009 (Richard Seymour, Mike Vrabel, Ted Washington, Ty Warren, Vince Wilfork, etc.)
- As early as 2007 BB abandoned a 3-4 base against Peyton Manning, using a 4-2-5 base for the entire game. But he still stayed pretty much dedicated to a 3-4 base through 2009.
- Given the evolution of the passing game, BB started to move away from a 3-4 base in 2011.

I'm not criticizing BB for evolving his defense as the game changed; but I think he was perhaps a bit behind the curve compared to Schneider/Carroll, who identified the 4-3 under and have stayed pretty much consistent to it, tweaking it and hybridizing it a bit with some schematic variants. BB has done some of this, too, but I think he's been a little less consistent, and his draft picks have reflected that, as I discussed previously.

At any rate, all of this is just my personal view of things, and I don't claim to be any authority. I wasn't trying to start a pissing contest, just explaining the basis for my statement.

You see how this is done Deus?

Excellent points Mayo. In response, I'd say this.

1. The mythologising comment wasn't necessarily directed at you but at a perfectly natural reaction generally to such an outstanding performance last night.

2. I am full of respect for what Carroll and Schneider have achieved. A lot of that is by design, good scouting but also luck. Every team drafts players they think will be as good as Sherman and Chancellor. It worked out for the Seahawks, that doesn't necessarily mean it will work out for us. How many Chancellors and Sherman's are there in the league right now? They are one of a kind.

3. My biggest issue with what you are doing is the comparison you make between what the Seahawks have achieved over a short space of time and what BB has done over a decade and a half. To call one consistent and accuse the other of a lack of consistency seems unfair considering the massive gulf between them in terms of having to build a defense. Even thigh you say you are comparing like for like, the circumstances of both teams were very different. There is an existing infrastructure within the Patriots that has a unity of vision. Players, scouting departments, coaches etc. it isn't possible to change direction dramatically in those circumstances which is why long-term administrations of all kinds evolve rather than revolutionise.

4. Evolution is not the same as lacking focus or consistency. Evolution is what happens over time. It will come to the Seahawks too.


Unlike Deus, I think it's perfectly proper for two people to debate these matters and I never had a problem with your post, your criticism of BB or yourself. I just simply disagreed with you. I do not claim to be an authority on this and am perfectly willing to consider that I am wrong and am prepared to be persuaded and I am always open to reasoned arguments like yours. Do not feel that I Am disrespecting you because I am arguing with you. It is quite the opposite.

 

[mayoclinic]

You see how this is done Deus?

Excellent points Mayo. In response, I'd say this.

1. The mythologising comment wasn't necessarily directed at you but at a perfectly natural reaction generally to such an outstanding performance last night.

2. I am full of respect for what Carroll and Schneider have achieved. A lot of that is by design, good scouting but also luck. Every team drafts players they think will be as good as Sherman and Chancellor. It worked out for the Seahawks, that doesn't necessarily mean it will work out for us. How many Chancellors and Sherman's are there in the league right now? They are one of a kind.

3. My biggest issue with what you are doing is the comparison you make between what the Seahawks have achieved over a short space of time and what BB has done over a decade and a half. To call one consistent and accuse the other of a lack of consistency seems unfair considering the massive gulf between them in terms of having to build a defense. Even thigh you say you are comparing like for like, the circumstances of both teams were very different. There is an existing infrastructure within the Patriots that has a unity of vision. Players, scouting departments, coaches etc. it isn't possible to change direction dramatically in those circumstances which is why long-term administrations of all kinds evolve rather than revolutionise.

4. Evolution is not the same as lacking focus or consistency. Evolution is what happens over time. It will come to the Seahawks too.


Unlike Deus, I think it's perfectly proper for two people to debate these matters and I never had a problem with your post, your criticism of BB or yourself. I just simply disagreed with you. I do not claim to be an authority on this and am perfectly willing to consider that I am wrong and am prepared to be persuaded and I am always open to reasoned arguments like yours. Do not feel that I Am disrespecting you because I am arguing with you. It is quite the opposite.

A couple of responses:

1. I don't mind your differing opinion at all, and I respect it. I don't expect universal agreement on anything. I also admit to being wrong at times, and those are often the best learning experiences.

2. Luck is a huge factor. I've always said that I'd rather be lucky than good any day. Being good gets you so far, but there is a huge component of luck in how things fall, especially in something as unpredictable as the draft. But, as the saying goes, "chance favors the prepared mind", and I do think that if you are clear it makes it a tad easier to get lucky.

3. Again, to be clear, I'm not comparing Carroll/Schneider 2010-2013 to BB 2000-2013. I'm comparing them to BB 2010-2013. Perhaps a better term than calling BB "less consistent" would be calling him "less decisive" in terms of the direction that he has been moving the defense. I do think that Carroll/Schneider were very clear and decisive in what kind of direction they chose and the players that would fit.

Take DB as an example. Carroll/Schneider obviously decided they wanted big, physical DBs. In 4 drafts they have signed 6'4" 221# Brandon Browner and have drafted 5'11" 190# Walter Thurmond, 6'3" 230# Kam Chancellor, 6'3" 195# Richard Sherman, 6'1" 207# Byron Maxwell, 6' 190# Jeremy Lane, 6'1" 218# Winston Guy and 6'2" 202# Tharold Simon (someone I wanted for the Pats last year). That's pretty consistent. They want big, physical DBs (Earl Thomas isn't big, but he has a unique skill set and is extremely physical). They keep drafting them and build a tremendous pipeline of depth - the loss of Browner didn't derail them at all. You want waves of players that you can bring in and continue to execute your scheme. In contrast, BB has certainly shown some interest in big DBs - Rodney Harrison of course, and more recently 6'1 190# Leigh Bodden, 6'2 205# Ras-I Dowling and 6'2" 205# Aqib Talib - but has also drafted a ton of smurf CBs, and recently gave 5'9" Kyle Arrington a 4 year/$16M contract in a down year for UFA CBs. Alfonzo Dennard plays bigger than his height and is physical, and Logan Ryan has decent size (5' 11 1/8" 195#), so the general trend is to somewhat bigger and more physical CBs than in the pre-2010 Asante Samuel-Ellis Hobbs-Terrance Wheatley-Jonathan Wilhite-Darius Butler era, but the trend is less clear and decisive than it has been with Seattle. There are a number of big, physical DBs in this draft - 6'2 1/2" 215# Stanley Jean-Baptiste, 6'3" 215# Keith McGill, 6'0 220# Antone Exum, 6' 2 1/2" 198# Jonathan Dowling, 6' 2 1/2" 195# Dontae Johnson, among others - and I personally think it's more likely that one or more of those guys ends up being drafted by Seattle than by New England. They have a clear view of what kind of skill set and physical profile they are looking for, and they are very consistent.

Remember too, BB didn't just draft Hightower, he traded up for him, and his comments after the 2012 draft suggested that the Pats had Hightower and Jones ranked equally. That suggests that they had a clear rationale / plan for wanting him so badly, in spite of which, they don't seem at all clear about where he fits or what to do with him. That's part of what I consider a "lack of clarity".

Again, this is just my perspective, and differences of opinion are fine.