Defensive scheme

[mgteich]

1) I do think that scheme is important. Scheme dictates what types of players a team goes after. As do many of us, I prefer the 3-4 2-gap and the bend, don't break kind of defense.

2) If we had the quality of defensive coaching and talent that was evident in the play by the jets this year, then we would have done much better.

3) We were a top 10 defense without top 10 talent. So, perhaps the coaching is not terrible, and just needs a couple of experienced coaches with leadership skills and the willingness to lead.

4) Sanders was a leader of the defense in 2008 and in 2009. He calls the plays in the secondary. Meriweather was interviewed on this last month. Without Sanders a key communication link was missing.

5) I have no question that if Brady were healthy for the entire season and we had a #3 and #4 WR who actually played the position, most of us would be celebrating the success of the 2009 defense. It did reasonably well in a year of serious transition. It was good enough if the offense was able to play like more than a mediocre offense in the second half.

6) We need to re-sign or extend Wilfork and Bodden, our top two defenders.

7) We then need to re-sign or upgrade Burgess, Woods and Banta-Cain. I want to bring them back and hope that they get beat out by better players for reps. and end up as backups. Besides, Woods and Banta-Cain are top special teamers, perfect backups.

8) Finally, and most obviously, we need to find replacements for Green and Thomas.

9) That's alot of positions to expect to have addressed on one side of the ball.

With a far worse group of talent this season, the Patriots still managed to be in the top 10 in scoring defense this season. It was a triumph of coaching and scheme over lack of talent, which is why the defense couldn't get it done against the better offenses, when the coaching just wasn't sufficient to cover for the absence of quality players. Cripes, how do people explain why the re-insertion of Sanders into the starting role made the defense look so much better despite all the claims that he's not a good player? "Bend but don't break" is just fine.

 

[muzz]

It's impossible for us to really judge what is the result of scheme and what is the result of talent and execution. I mean, the last time that BB had a corner anywhere near Revis' ability to work with (Law in '03) the Pats' defensive scheme didn't seem so passive and slow.

Billy drafts the players on the team, end of story.
We've had PLENTY of opportunity to draft good players, Billy wants a large volume of SLUMPS and hopes that ONE will turn out good....fuggetaboutit!!

 

[pheenix11]

BB & Parcells used to run a 3-4 because it was easier to find big fat guys for the line and talented LB's than it was to find a good pass rushing DE because everyone was running a 4-3 and was looking for them. Back then hardly anyone ran a 3-4.

Now half the teams run a 3-4 so the competition for the LB's and NT's has become too great.

Time to go against the grain again maybe and go to a 4-3?

 

[pheenix11]

And another thing. You don't need great CB's to run an aggressive scheme because they don't have to cover the WR's as long because the QB has to rush. In BB's schemes lately it seems like his CB's have to cover the WR's for half an hour because no one is getting any pressure on the QB.

Even a good corner will look like crap eventually if there is no pash rush.

 

[mgteich]

When you play bend and dont break, it is points allowed that is critically important. I think the secondary did very well this year. Belichick did very well to bring in two veteran starters and a rookie nickel. And the position coach got them to play well together (at least when Sanders was out there to call signals).

And another thing. You don't need great CB's to run an aggressive scheme because they don't have to cover the WR's as long because the QB has to rush. In BB's schemes lately it seems like his CB's have to cover the WR's for half an hour because no one is getting any pressure on the QB.

Even a good corner will look like crap eventually if there is no pash rush.

 

[Deus Irae]

1) I do think that scheme is important. Scheme dictates what types of players a team goes after. As do many of us, I prefer the 3-4 2-gap and the bend, don't break kind of defense.

The team has used an aggressive, attacking style of playcalling in the past, even while maintaining the 2 gap concepts. The problem is that people here are confusing scheme with plays, and plays with players, and blaming every failing on the coordinator.

2) If we had the quality of defensive coaching and talent that was evident in the play by the jets this year, then we would have done much better.

As you note, the talent wasn't there.

3) We were a top 10 defense without top 10 talent. So, perhaps the coaching is not terrible, and just needs a couple of experienced coaches with leadership skills and the willingness to lead.

And perhaps the coaching was absolutely fine. That's the most likely scenario, really. In all likelihood, the real question is whether the defense was able to overcome a huge talent drain because Belichick was doing a lot of it, or if it was because Pees was getting the job done.

4) Sanders was a leader of the defense in 2008 and in 2009. He calls the plays in the secondary. Meriweather was interviewed on this last month. Without Sanders a key communication link was missing.

Indeed. Raw talent is greatly limited if the player can't get his talent to translate on the field.

5) I have no question that if Brady were healthy for the entire season and we had a #3 and #4 WR who actually played the position, most of us would be celebrating the success of the 2009 defense. It did reasonably well in a year of serious transition. It was good enough if the offense was able to play like more than a mediocre offense in the second half.

Given that the 2008 defense was better than the 2009 defense and people were bashing the hell out of it, and given that the 2007 defense was better than either the 2008 or 2009 defense, and people were bashing the hell out of it, I can't even begin to agree with your assertion here. People here have become the sort that would boo Santa Claus. Frankly, the defense was exactly what some of us claimed it was, and that wasn't a good thing.

6) We need to re-sign or extend Wilfork and Bodden, our top two defenders.

Bodden wasn't even in the team's top 3 defenders. Those would be Wilfork, Warren and Meriweather. Sadly, Bodden was the 4th best defender on the team. That's part of why the defense wasn't very good.

7) We then need to re-sign or upgrade Burgess, Woods and Banta-Cain. I want to bring them back and hope that they get beat out by better players for reps. and end up as backups. Besides, Woods and Banta-Cain are top special teamers, perfect backups.

Burgess was a poor trade and played terribly for most of the season. If he comes back, let's hope he plays about 1000 times better because, if he doesn't, it's a waste of time. TBC is fine as a situational player, as is Guyton.

8) Finally, and most obviously, we need to find replacements for Green and Thomas.

Yes, assuming that Wilfork and Bodden are both returning, DE, 2 OLBs, ILB and CB are the needs, with CB being the one most likely to have a solution already on the team.

9) That's alot of positions to expect to have addressed on one side of the ball.

And there are several needs on offense as well. It's going to be either one hell of an offseason or another bumpy ride next year.

 

[ScottWedmanIsMyHero]

I'm not sure this is that complicated. We have a long offseason to debate and ponder, but, in my opinion, there are 3 fundamental factors at work that have hurt the D.

1. Bad drafting: As Mike Reiss and others have noted, the Patriots didn't draft well between 2005 and 2008.

2. Too much moneyball without adaptation: As someone else already noted, BB was most successful when he was picking players against the grain, i.e. players that other people didn't value as much. Now that the league has caught up, there is more competition for those players. This seems especially true with regards to strong linebackers for the 3-4. It's like how it used to be advantageous in MLB to get guys with high OBP (thus the moneyball reference), but now so many people are on top of that that high-OBP players are no longer undervalued. Thus, smart MLB teams interested in value are shifting to pick up players who are getting undervalued by the current emphasis on OBP. What we need is moneyball 2.0 by the Patriots in terms of defensive drafting/free agents.

3. Assistant coaching instability: Lots of talented coaches leaving, creating organizational instability.

Thoughts?

 

[mgteich]

We seem to generally agree on almost all points, with two exceptions (well more nitpicks than strong disagreements).

1) I would prefer more experience in the defensive coaching staff, and more "gravitas" to borrow a political term. I don't think the defensive coaches were in control. They didn't get the kids to really care. The rooks sometimes followed Thomas instead of their coaches. To me, this goes back to leadership. I suspect Seymour needed to go because Pees couldn't handle him.

I think it is fine if Belichick runs the defense as I supect Ryan does. However, then we need much more experienced coaching on the offensive side of the ball. The real problem is that Belichick can't do everything at once.

2) I think that we would have won a couple of more games if Brady had been healthy and we had a 3rd and 4th receiver. And although nothing would ever stop ALL the whining (we still discuss the causes of the Super Bowl and AFCCG losses), I would have expected that such a result would have many of us understanding that the defense had performed very well indeed, given its talent level. You seem to disagree.

The team has used an aggressive, attacking style of playcalling in the past, even while maintaining the 2 gap concepts. The problem is that people here are confusing scheme with plays, and plays with players, and blaming every failing on the coordinator.



As you note, the talent wasn't there.



And perhaps the coaching was absolutely fine. That's the most likely scenario, really. In all likelihood, the real question is whether the defense was able to overcome a huge talent drain because Belichick was doing a lot of it, or if it was because Pees was getting the job done.



Indeed. Raw talent is greatly limited if the player can't get his talent to translate on the field.



Given that the 2008 defense was better than the 2009 defense and people were bashing the hell out of it, and given that the 2007 defense was better than either the 2008 or 2009 defense, and people were bashing the hell out of it, I can't even begin to agree with your assertion here. People here have become the sort that would boo Santa Claus. Frankly, the defense was exactly what some of us claimed it was, and that wasn't a good thing.



Bodden wasn't even in the team's top 3 defenders. Those would be Wilfork, Warren and Meriweather. Sadly, Bodden was the 4th best defender on the team. That's part of why the defense wasn't very good.



Burgess was a poor trade and played terribly for most of the season. If he comes back, let's hope he plays about 1000 times better because, if he doesn't, it's a waste of time. TBC is fine as a situational player, as is Guyton.



Yes, assuming that Wilfork and Bodden are both returning, DE, 2 OLBs, ILB and CB are the needs, with CB being the one most likely to have a solution already on the team.



And there are several needs on offense as well. It's going to be either one hell of an offseason or another bumpy ride next year.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

The top 10 defense stats are skewed from bad opponents like shutting out Tennessee and giving Tampa Bay absolutely nothing. Just like Brady's stats are skewed this year due to big games against garbage teams like Tennessee.

The stats say Brady had the 2nd best season of his career and that the defense was top 10 in the league. We all know neither of those are true. Brady did not play well for a majority of the year. He was coming off knee surgery, broke some ribs, broke a finger, had a rookie OC and had limited options at WR, but he didn't perform up to the level of play he is capable of playing to. He threw some costly INT's and was not good late in games except for against Buffalo Week 1, which is uncharacteristic of Brady.

The defense was by no means a top 10 unit. Drew Brees absolutely chewed us. Chad Henne and Flacco looked great against us in the regular season. BB went for it on 4th and 2 at his own 29 b/c he had no faith in this defense. If he felt he had a top 10 defense, he would have punted. Honestly ask yourself did you ever feel that this defense could get a big stop when we needed it? We consistently had trouble getting off the field on 3rd downs, especially 3rd and long. We gave QB's all day to operate and were terrible at tackling. We got pushed around by Baltimore in the playoffs, which is uncharacteristic of a BB-coached team. This defense was in no way shape or form a top 10 defense, regardless of what the stats say.

I think a lot of our troubles on defense come from scheme. In today's NFL, you need to get heat on the QB and attack and force turnovers. You can't try to sit back in coverage and confuse QB's anymore. QB's are too smart and there is too much film study. If you play aggressive on defense you get the other team back on their heals and can put them in a hole early, just like the Ravens did to the Pats.

 

[Big-T]

Having aquired the 2005 Ravens defensive playbook yesterday (Ryan's first as DC there I believe?) it's only 50 pages long and doesn't contain that many plays so you can see why it's effective, because it doesn't take a couple of years to learn like the Patriots scheme does - I've remembered quite a bit of it after just a few hours of studying it, it's also much more effective in the NFL now then what the Pats run, the message through the whole playbook is play hard & fast, train hard & fast - this is how the Pats should be playing not sitting back and giving opposition teams 3-5 yards a down.

 

[mayoclinic]

The team has used an aggressive, attacking style of playcalling in the past, even while maintaining the 2 gap concepts. The problem is that people here are confusing scheme with plays, and plays with players, and blaming every failing on the coordinator.

Exactly. There's a difference between playing a 2 gap 3-4 defense and playing a soft BBDB defense with no pressure that breaks far too often. 2 gap does not rule out using an aggressive attacking style. If those two can't be reconciled, then I'd rather go 1 gap. Anything to get away from this passive, pressureless defensive style.

 

[Rob0729]

BB & Parcells used to run a 3-4 because it was easier to find big fat guys for the line and talented LB's than it was to find a good pass rushing DE because everyone was running a 4-3 and was looking for them. Back then hardly anyone ran a 3-4.

Now half the teams run a 3-4 so the competition for the LB's and NT's has become too great.

Time to go against the grain again maybe and go to a 4-3?

Huh?!? Belichick and Parcells ran the 3-4 because they learned from Chuck Fairbanks who brought the 3-4 to the Pros. Belichick also was exposed to the 3-4 while working as an assistant in Denver with the Orange Crush defense. It has nothing to do with how easy it was to find players. In fact, when the Giants were running the 3-4 in the 80s, there were a lot of teams that ran the 3-4 too.

As for half the teams running the 3-4, only about 4 teams run the same 2 gap, 3-4 defense the Pats run (Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Denver). Most of the other teams run an one gap, 3-4 and require different players than what the Pats run especially on the d-line and OLB.

I don't see the Pats moving away from the 3-4.

 

[alvinnf]

Huh?!? Belichick and Parcells ran the 3-4 because they learned from Chuck Fairbanks who brought the 3-4 to the Pros. Belichick also was exposed to the 3-4 while working as an assistant in Denver with the Orange Crush defense. It has nothing to do with how easy it was to find players. In fact, when the Giants were running the 3-4 in the 80s, there were a lot of teams that ran the 3-4 too.

As for half the teams running the 3-4, only about 4 teams run the same 2 gap, 3-4 defense the Pats run (Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Denver). Most of the other teams run an one gap, 3-4 and require different players than what the Pats run especially on the d-line and OLB.

I don't see the Pats moving away from the 3-4.

That's the point. We currently don't have great 2 gap 34 players. The only two being (Wilfork + Warren). The MLB's are undersized or miss cast and we have no one to play the Joker or Elephant. This team is closer to a 43 squad than a 34. Green can be pushed around and teams seem all too willing to kick out Wilfork and take their chances with Mayo. I liked what I saw from this team when they played in the 43 especially with the lack of brains on the back end (Merriweather).

 

[RobertWeathers]

especially with the lack of brains on the back end (Merriweather).

Please explain how a 4-3 hides YOUR perception of Merriweather's lack of mental capacity. A completely ignorant statement and totally unfounded.

Do you want a mulligan on that one?

 

[pheenix11]

Huh?!? Belichick and Parcells ran the 3-4 because they learned from Chuck Fairbanks who brought the 3-4 to the Pros. Belichick also was exposed to the 3-4 while working as an assistant in Denver with the Orange Crush defense. It has nothing to do with how easy it was to find players. In fact, when the Giants were running the 3-4 in the 80s, there were a lot of teams that ran the 3-4 too.

As for half the teams running the 3-4, only about 4 teams run the same 2 gap, 3-4 defense the Pats run (Miami, KC, Cleveland, and Denver). Most of the other teams run an one gap, 3-4 and require different players than what the Pats run especially on the d-line and OLB.

I don't see the Pats moving away from the 3-4.

The thinking is that the 3-4 defensive end is easier to identify and find when it comes to scouting and acquiring personnel. Pass rushers like Peppers and the Colts Dwight Freeney are rare and hard to find and therefore very expensive to keep. There is no question that speed pass rushers are very much an impact position on the football field and their cap numbers reflect that. On the other hand, 3-4 defensive ends can be found easier and are much less expensive when it comes to "cap dollars".

-- Randy Mueller

 

[muzz]

Do you want a mulligan on that one?

LMAO :eat3::ugh:

 

[bigfandan]

Bend but don't break works if you have an highly efficient offense yourself. You let opponents get field goals but limit TDs, and then boom, you post a couple of TDs they start panicking and turning over.

If you have an average offense (and most of teams do), you are better off go for broke on defense and bring on the heat and try to win turnover battle, either by forcing mistakes (not waiting for mistakes) or turning over on downs.

But you could argue even if you have an efficient offense, you are still better off forcing the action on defense rather than wait for action. Teams like saints and colts (who have great offenses) have certainly chose not to play bend. They are forcing it to the offense. Because another risk of letting opponents have a long series is it breaks your own offense's rythem.

Bend but don't break may be dead in todays offensive minded NFL. You have to be aggresive, force negetive plays. Get people into 3rd and long. You can't just keep everything in front of you and hope your good on 3rd and 3......
The rules are'nt in your favor.

 

[Rob0729]

The thinking is that the 3-4 defensive end is easier to identify and find when it comes to scouting and acquiring personnel. Pass rushers like Peppers and the Colts Dwight Freeney are rare and hard to find and therefore very expensive to keep. There is no question that speed pass rushers are very much an impact position on the football field and their cap numbers reflect that. On the other hand, 3-4 defensive ends can be found easier and are much less expensive when it comes to "cap dollars".

-- Randy Mueller

First, Belichick and Parcells were running the 3-4 before there was such a thing as a salary cap in the NFL. The NFL didn't adopt a salary cap or real free agency until after the Giants won two Super Bowls using a 3-4. In fact, Belichick was already in Cleveland trying to implement a 3-4 defense by the time the league passed a new CBA that allowed a salary cap and a real free agency.

Second, the thinking about the 3-4 was never cost or availability of the players. Belichick and Parcells liked the defense because the defense gives them more flexibility and deception than a traditional 3-4 defense. With a 3-4 defense, you can confuse opposing offenses because it is harder to tell who might rush the passer or drop into coverage.

Third, what you might be confused with is that when Belichick came to New England in 2000, the LB position had become what the FB position is now (well, not nearly that bad, but I am trying to make a point) - a secondary position. LBs weren't valued at that point. With Belichick resurrecting the 3-4 defense, it put more of an emphasis on the position and quality players at that position are harder to find.

I do think that this team has lost the belief that the LB is the most important area on the defense and that position along with the SS position were the biggest part of why this defense was so great early in the decade. They need to get back to that.

 

[Rob0729]

Bend but don't break works if you have an highly efficient offense yourself. You let opponents get field goals but limit TDs, and then boom, you post a couple of TDs they start panicking and turning over.

If you have an average offense (and most of teams do), you are better off go for broke on defense and bring on the heat and try to win turnover battle, either by forcing mistakes (not waiting for mistakes) or turning over on downs.

But you could argue even if you have an efficient offense, you are still better off forcing the action on defense rather than wait for action. Teams like saints and colts (who have great offenses) have certainly chose not to play bend. They are forcing it to the offense. Because another risk of letting opponents have a long series is it breaks your own offense's rythem.

Not true. The 2003 defense was bend, don't break (they were 7th in yards allowed and 1st in points allowed) and the 2003 offense was average at best (17th ranked offense and 12th in points scored even with the Pats defense scoring the most in the league). The Pats went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl.

 

[bigfandan]

Anyone paying attention to NFL should know 2003 is a different era. That's when DBs can grab and hold on to WRs and create havoc on their routes with impunity. You can NOT play that style any more. Polian legislated that style of defense out of the league. Not a coincidence that his colts suddenly becomes more competitive against Pats.

Not true. The 2003 defense was bend, don't break (they were 7th in yards allowed and 1st in points allowed) and the 2003 offense was average at best (17th ranked offense and 12th in points scored even with the Pats defense scoring the most in the league). The Pats went 14-2 and won the Super Bowl.