Defensive Front Seven In Fine Shape

[supafly]

- Johnathan Hankins, Ohio St. 6'3" 320#. #28 currently on NFL DraftScout. Has the versatility to play in 4-3 and 3-4 schemes, and has played 3-4 DE. BB will know all about him from Urban Meyer and Mike Vrabel. Was considered a top 5 talent coming into the season - could be too good a value to pass up if he's on the board.

I don't think there's any way that Hankins is close to being around at that point myself.

Not sure if you saw or not, but Scott Pioli recently picked his top 5 as had J.Hankins as the 5th overall underclassman available.

http://www.musiccitymiracles.com/2013/1/28/3925356/nfl-draft-2013-scott-pioli-top-ten-underclassmen

 

[BradyFTW!]

It's very simple Andy. A good front 7 can become a great front 7 given the many reasons that have already been listed in the thread. For some reason or another, you feel compelled to repeat comments that have already been made.

Wilfork, Mayo, Jones, Ninkovich, Spikes and Hightower are better starting points than most teams have in their front 7. They're not a great front 7 (6) but they are good. It's simple.

The problem isn't that the guys that you listed aren't talented. You're right; they are. The problem is that there are clear roles that the Patriots either a) lack altogether (a DT who can generate interior pressure, a linebacker who is a plus in coverage). or don't have enough of (edge rusher: we need another one). Armstead may be the answer to one of those three needs. It's clear that the Pats recognize it, as this is what Fanene was supposed to be, and they've been very proactive about trying to get Cunningham into that role and trying to replace Fanene now that their offseason has begun.

The jury's still out on the other two, and assuming that Fletcher will be the coverage specialist and Bequette or Francis will become difference-makers in year 2 isn't a plan - it's just hope. Bequette and Fletcher have shown nothing as pros, and while I like Francis, he still has a lot to prove before you can comfortably move forward with him as your #3 edge rusher.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't think there's any way that Hankins is close to being around at that point myself.

Not sure if you saw or not, but Scott Pioli recently picked his top 5 as had J.Hankins as the 5th overall underclassman available.

NFL Draft 2013: Scott Pioli's Top Ten Underclassmen - Music City Miracles

Interesting that he has Jarvis Jones as the #7 underclassman. Based on the look of that list, I doubt there are many teams around the league that would agree.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can't see most of what Andy's posted but, from what's been quoted and responded to, he's got a point. This line is thin in the middle and weak on the ends. The LBs also struggle in coverage. Now, Mg can call that "fine" if he wants, because the word allows for a very broad interpretation. On the other hand, someone noting that that front seven is lousy at generating pass pressure, lousy at covering against the pass and very mediocre setting the edge against end runs could legitimately claim that things aren't fine.

I think we saw enough during the season to know that there are issues there, but also enough to know that some players (especially Jones and Hightower) have lots of room for improvement, while others (Cunningham, for example) are quite possibly going to be moving on.

Now, let's all put aside our differences, track down Andy Reid, get him drunk out of his mind, and get him to sign a trade of Dontari Poe for a 7th round pick before he sobers up. :rocker:

 

[ausbacker]

The problem isn't that the guys that you listed aren't talented. You're right; they are. The problem is that there are clear roles that the Patriots either a) lack altogether (a DT who can generate interior pressure, a linebacker who is a plus in coverage). or don't have enough of (edge rusher: we need another one). Armstead may be the answer to one of those three needs. It's clear that the Pats recognize it, as this is what Fanene was supposed to be, and they've been very proactive about trying to get Cunningham into that role and trying to replace Fanene now that their offseason has begun.

The jury's still out on the other two, and assuming that Fletcher will be the coverage specialist and Bequette or Francis will become difference-makers in year 2 isn't a plan - it's just hope. Bequette and Fletcher have shown nothing as pros, and while I like Francis, he still has a lot to prove before you can comfortably move forward with him as your #3 edge rusher.

How is this counter to anything that's been proposed? All that's been proposed is there's a talented collection of players (that can be argued are a lot better than most teams possess as a starting point) who with a few additions to the mix could have the capability to go from a good to great group.

I completely agree with most of your points and thus, established my general way of thinking. A small upgrade here or a small upgrade there has the potential to be enormous.

 

[supafly]

Interesting that he has Jarvis Jones as the #7 underclassman. Based on the look of that list, I doubt there are many teams around the league that would agree.

It may be why he's currently out of work at the moment

 

[mayoclinic]

To your point about 2001, its debatable that we are better than a unit that included Seymour, McGinest, Vrabel and Bruschi. Would you rather have them, all in their prime, or Wilfork, Jones, Hightower, and Mayo? I think thats an easy one.
Also, that team went on to acquire Ted Washington, Warren, Wilfork and Colvin in the next couple of years.

I agree its a work in progress, I am disagreeing with 'fine shape' or 'good turning great'.

Andy, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But it's helpful - to me at least - to look at 2001 in hindsight:

- Ted Washington was nowhere on the horizon. We wouldn't get him for 2 more years. Same for Colvin and Warren, longer for Wilfork. Who knows who we'll have on our current DL 2 years from now. Not relevant.
- Mike Vrabel was a reserve in Pittsburgh who the Pats picked up as a FA. In 4 years with the Steelers he had produced a total of 7 sacks and had never started a game. He was far from the "Vrabel in his prime" that we think of now. He was eased in in 2001, only started 12 games, and only produced 3 sacks and 40 tackles.
- Willie McGinest only played in 11 games and only started 5, so he wasn't exactly a full time force.
- Richard Seymour was an unproven rookie, even though he was a high 1st round pick. He played in 13 games and started 10, producing 3 sacks.

"Fine shape" wasn't my term. I think the DL has a fair amount of talent and is getting better. It clearly has major needs before it is "complete":

- Another playmaking DT opposite Wilfork, hopefully one who can penetrate
- An LDE who can set the edge and generate pressure at the same time
- Better depth on the DL
- A coverage LB

Some of those needs may already be in the progress of being partially or completely met. It's too early to tell. I don't see it as a static thing, but a work in progress, and I'm reasonably satisfied that it's progressing in the right general direction, but I certainly want to see more before I'll jump on the "fine shape" bandwagon.

 

[BradyFTW!]

How is this counter to anything that's been proposed? All that's been proposed is there's a talented collection of players (that can be argued are a lot better than most teams possess as a starting point) who with a few additions to the mix could have the capability to go from a good to great group.

I completely agree with most of your points and thus, established my general way of thinking. A small upgrade here or a small upgrade there has the potential to be enormous.

Fair enough, sounds like we agree more than we disagree. I'd take issue with the idea that we're small upgrades away, though, simply because the areas in which we are bad are the areas in which modern defenses can't really afford to be bad. You can't be bad in coverage and below average at rushing the passer. It's a combination where the whole is even worse than the sum of the parts, and since pass rushers are one of the most valuable commodities in the league, it's like a (significantly) less extreme version of saying "the offense is fine except for the quarterback and left tackle". There may not be a lot of areas of need, but where there is need, it's in critical places that absolutely need to be addressed. We're not talking about small tweaks, IMO.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I want to question htis whole supposed need for a "coverge linebacker".. jus thwo are thes emyhtical LB. Ther s n tnow an dhas nevr been a LB who mtches up with RBs or receiving TEs.

One of the secrets of BB's coaching is that he doesn't try to fit square pegs into round holes, if he as any alternative. He finds a round peg instead.

It is much more likely for you to find a successful cover person for RBs and receivng TEs by getting a BIG CB with awareness and having him play a Big Nickle or Rover back.

 

[Joey007]

I want to question htis whole supposed need for a "coverge linebacker".. jus thwo are thes emyhtical LB. Ther s n tnow an dhas nevr been a LB who mtches up with RBs or receiving TEs.

Drinking at the keyboard= bad idea.

 

[Observer]

Nothing is in fine shape until we win

 

[ausbacker]

Fair enough, sounds like we agree more than we disagree. I'd take issue with the idea that we're small upgrades away, though, simply because the areas in which we are bad are the areas in which modern defenses can't really afford to be bad. You can't be bad in coverage and below average at rushing the passer. It's a combination where the whole is even worse than the sum of the parts, and since pass rushers are one of the most valuable commodities in the league, it's like a (significantly) less extreme version of saying "the offense is fine except for the quarterback and left tackle". There may not be a lot of areas of need, but where there is need, it's in critical places that absolutely need to be addressed. We're not talking about small tweaks, IMO.

We absolutely agree (on a many great things). For some reason Andy was trying to move my position to something it wasn't to begin with. My preference is for major upgrades too. Unfortunately these things don't fall in your lap. That's why I believe if the team can systematically improve (for instance a small upgrade would be upgrading the DT position next to Wilfork) that would have a major impact.

I guess it's a matter of the way you look at the tweaks. As a collective they may be large, as a singular to me they are small. We're seeing the same thing but from a different mentality.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But it's helpful - to me at least - to look at 2001 in hindsight:

- Ted Washington was nowhere on the horizon. We wouldn't get him for 2 more years. Same for Colvin and Warren, longer for Wilfork. Who knows who we'll have on our current DL 2 years from now. Not relevant.

You definitely misunderstood my point. When we compare this front 7 to that one, and that one looks at least as talented, it is important to note that the reaction to having that group was to follow up with all of these moves.

- Mike Vrabel was a reserve in Pittsburgh who the Pats picked up as a FA. In 4 years with the Steelers he had produced a total of 7 sacks and had never started a game. He was far from the "Vrabel in his prime" that we think of now. He was eased in in 2001, only started 12 games, and only produced 3 sacks and 40 tackles.
- Willie McGinest only played in 11 games and only started 5, so he wasn't exactly a full time force.
- Richard Seymour was an unproven rookie, even though he was a high 1st round pick. He played in 13 games and started 10, producing 3 sacks.

I am talking about the quality of players. I think its widely accepted that the 4 here in 2001 (those and Bruschi) are better football players than we have seen or expect the top 4 here now to be.

"Fine shape" wasn't my term. I think the DL has a fair amount of talent and is getting better. It clearly has major needs before it is "complete":

I'm not saying its trash. I'm saying it wasn't great, and barely good this year on the field, and there are pieces that must be upgraded for it to be great.

- Another playmaking DT opposite Wilfork, hopefully one who can penetrate

Frankly, I'd rather have 2 that can rush the QB, and use whoever (Love, Deaderick) and Vince in the base, and use the new 2 and VW on a limited basis in sub.

- An LDE who can set the edge and generate pressure at the same time

I can live with the pressure part, and accept some weakness in the run game.

- Better depth on the DL

If we add a starter at LDE, and either a starter or 2 sub package guys (which Armstead could be) at DT, the resulitng depth chart would make me feel OK with the depth. Nink, Cunningham, Francis, Armstead, Love, Deaderick is fine depth, even though a weak group to rely on as starters.

- A coverage LB

Better safety play makes this less of an issue, but we DESPERATELY need more than 3 LBs who can play the position at an NFL level.

Some of those needs may already be in the progress of being partially or completely met. It's too early to tell. I don't see it as a static thing, but a work in progress, and I'm reasonably satisfied that it's progressing in the right general direction, but I certainly want to see more before I'll jump on the "fine shape" bandwagon.

I think we seem to be pretty close on this.

 

[Ring 6]

We absolutely agree (on a many great things). For some reason Andy was trying to move my position to something it wasn't to begin with.

I didn't try to 'move your position' to anything. You answered a question I asked someone else, and I interpreted it a certain way. You responded in a dbag way that led me to believe I misunderstood. I asked if I understood your point correctly and you said it has already been discussed and called me names.

My preference is for major upgrades too.

This contradicts all of your responses to me.

Unfortunately these things don't fall in your lap. That's why I believe if the team can systematically improve (for instance a small upgrade would be upgrading the DT position next to Wilfork) that would have a major impact.

I guess it's a matter of the way you look at the tweaks. As a collective they may be large, as a singular to me they are small. We're seeing the same thing but from a different mentality.

I will not comment on this because I am not clear on what you mean, so to avoid confusion I will not respond to what appears to be saying both we need major upgrades but can get major impact with minor upgrades.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't think there's any way that Hankins is close to being around at that point myself.

Not sure if you saw or not, but Scott Pioli recently picked his top 5 as had J.Hankins as the 5th overall underclassman available.

NFL Draft 2013: Scott Pioli's Top Ten Underclassmen - Music City Miracles

Of course I've seen it. It's irrelevant what Pioli thinks.

Hankins was rated a possible top 5 talent going into this season, but that doesn't guarantee anything. Look at Da'Quan Bowers 2 years ago.

Most teams draft on need as much as by BPA. There are only so many teams who are going to take a defensive tackle, no matter how good. And this is a very deep draft for defensive tackles. Right now NFL DraftScout ranks them as follows:

1. Star Lotulelei, Utah (7 overall)
2. Sheldon Richardson, Missouri (10)
3. Sharrif Floyd, Florida (17)
4. Jesse Williams, Alabama (22)
5. Johnathan Hankins, Ohio St. (28)

There are 2 other DTs ranked quite highly - Johnathan Jenkins of Georgia (#31 overall) and Kawann Short of Purdue (#42). Both had good Senior Bowl weeks, and Short in particular seems to be on the rise a bit. Some people also think that Sylvester Williams of North Carolina could sneak into the 1st round.

Many people have Hankins no better than the #4 DT, sometimes lower. NE PatriotsDraft has him ranked #26 overall, and the #5 DT. There's going to be some movement among those guys between now and April, but there's almost no conceivable way they will all be off the board before #29. Consider the previous history of 1st round DTs:

2012: Poe (11), Cox (12), Brockers (14); Derek Wolfe went 36
2011: Dareus (3), Fairley (13), Liuget (18) (converted to DE), Taylor (21), Wilkerson (30)
2010: Suh (2), McCoy (3), Alualu (10), Williams (22), Odrick (28); Brian Price went 35
2009: Raji (9), Jerry (24), Hood (32)
2008: Dorsey (5), Ellis (7), Ballmer (converted to 3-4 DE) 29
2007: Okoye (10), Carriker (13), Harrell (16); Alan Branch went 33
2006: Ngata (12), Bunkley (14), McCargo (26)
2005: Johnson (16), Patterson (31)
2004: Harris (14), Wilfork (21), Tubbs (23)
2003: Robertson (4), Sullivan (6), Williams (9), Kennedy 12, Warren (converted to 3-4 DE) 13, Josephy (25)
2002: Sims (6), Henderson (9), Bryant (12), Haynesworth (15)
2001: Warren (3), Seymour (6), Lewis (12), Stroud (13), Hampton (19), Pickett (29)

I think the odds are astronomical that all 7 top DTs will be off the board before #29 - that would be 1 in every 4 picks a DT - and that there's a good chance that the #5 DT could slip to the Pats at #29. That would mean one of Lotulelei, Richardson, Floyd, Williams or Hankins. I'd take any of those guys at #29. It's not out of the question that Short or Jenkins could move ahead of one or more before all is done.

The odds of the Pats picking up a darn good DT at 29, whether Hankins or someone else, are pretty good. With that many DTs there's going to be a lot of volatility, and a better chance that someone like Hankins could fall.

 

[mayoclinic]

You definitely misunderstood my point. When we compare this front 7 to that one, and that one looks at least as talented, it is important to note that the reaction to having that group was to follow up with all of these moves.

You're right, I misunderstood your point. But note that the moves you mentioned happened over a period of several years after that 2001 base was established: Washington in 2003, Colvin in 2003, Warren in 2003, Wilfork in 2004. The Pats have already made at least one move this offseason with Armstead, and I expect at least one more on the front 7 for 2013, and hopefully more. I think we'll see a VW successor addressed in the next 2-3 years. Things will not be static.

I am talking about the quality of players. I think its widely accepted that the 4 here in 2001 (those and Bruschi) are better football players than we have seen or expect the top 4 here now to be.

Maybe, but I'm pretty happy with the quality of Wilfork, Mayo, Jones and Hightower/Spikes. Pretty good quality, IMHO.

 

[Ring 6]

You're right, I misunderstood your point. But note that the moves you mentioned happened over a period of several years after that 2001 base was established: Washington in 2003, Colvin in 2003, Warren in 2003, Wilfork in 2004. The Pats have already made at least one move this offseason with Armstead, and I expect at least one more on the front 7 for 2013, and hopefully more. I think we'll see a VW successor addressed in the next 2-3 years. Things will not be static.

I guess my point is that when comparing the 2001 front 7 to the 2012 front 7, without splitting hairs, I would think it is safe to generally categorize as follows:

Both had 4 dynamic players (I think its close enough that it is unnecessary to debate which group is better)
Both also had another guy (Spikes, Phifer) who were good but not elite or future elite, and 2 questionable spots (Hamilton, Pleasant vs Ninkovich, Love).

So there are many similarities, and BB proceeded from that point forward to make major additions to the front 7, after waiting a year, which was a terrible move in retropsect as the front 7 tanked in 2002.

I see strength, but not enough, and I think making the moves that really would turn this into an elite front 7 might be the best thing BB could do to get this team over the top.
When you struggle vs the pass and oftentimes can't breath on the QB, standing pat with Ninkovich, Love, Deaderick, Bequette, Scott, Cunningham (although I still think he can contribute) is going to lead to more of the same.

I watched Joe Flacco and his mediocre offense drive 197 yards on 3 consecutive TD drives while only being in 3rd down one time combined. The front 7 that allowed that (and yes I know there were injuries, but the Bills, 49ers, and even Jets toasted it worse in our house when they were healthy) isn't one I'm content with.

 

[eom]

Yes, we need camp competition (including vets like this year's Scott). We already have camp bodies Robertson and Benard. However, we are in the best shape in years.

And sure I'd like to add a quality pass-rusher. So would every fan of every team.

FRONT SIXTEEN ON DEFENSE
DE Ninkovich, Jones, Armstead, Francis, Cunningham, Bequette
DT Wilfork, Love, Deaderick, Forston
LB Mayo, Hightower, Spikes, Fletcher
ST Rivera, Tarpinian

SUMMARY SO FAR
OUT Brace, Scott and White
IN Forston, Armstead, and Tarpinian

does that make benard one of the 'outs'?

 

[Ring 6]

Maybe, but I'm pretty happy with the quality of Wilfork, Mayo, Jones and Hightower/Spikes. Pretty good quality, IMHO.

Not so much disagreeing BUT

Wilfork really doesn't help much as a pass rusher.
Jones has potential, but didn't get there this year. I do have high hopes.
Hightower still has to develop, this year he was very average,
Spikes is rough in coverage, which is 2/3 of the plays we face.

If you look at that group and add what they lack, namely a fierce pass rush, then they become elite, but as constituted this front 7 is average or below as a pass rush.

 

[eom]

Not so much disagreeing BUT

Wilfork really doesn't help much as a pass rusher.
Jones has potential, but didn't get there this year. I do have high hopes.
Hightower still has to develop, this year he was very average,
Spikes is rough in coverage, which is 2/3 of the plays we face.

If you look at that group and add what they lack, namely a fierce pass rush, then they become elite, but as constituted this front 7 is average or below as a pass rush.

I think that's really a little unfair seeing as how jones, francis, and hightower were all rookies last year, and jones had some ankle issues half the year, it seemed like.

you have to realize it's pretty common for pass rushers to improve off a rookie year, and they have some other very young guys in forston, armstead, and benard in the mix, now -- if those guys manage to do anything.

I don't know if it means anything, seeing as how bequette didn't play much this past year, but when tim ryan and pat kirwan were in pats camp, it was bequette that they were high on rather than jones, and that's another 2nd year guy.