Does Sullivan's arrival mean more 4-3?

[Brady'sButtBoy]

The strength of talent on the D was already focused on the D-Line, with the addition of Sullivan - assuming he doesn't just go in the tank - only makes this more so.

With McGinest gone and no clear starter next to Bruschi then LB core is really the weakest it has been in years if we're going to play four LB's. But, if we're playing three we look very good with Colvin, Vrabel outside and Bruschi in the middle. Vrabel seems to be a more natural 4-3 OLB since he doesn't have the top end speed you ideally look for in a 3-4 OLB and I believe Colvin played in a 4-3 to start his career.

With Seymour (and Warren probably too) able to play DE or DT in a 4-3, we'd have a pretty fearsome rotation up front and get more PT for Green, who is getting pretty big bucks to be mostly a backup. Wilfork, Sullivan, Wright inside, with Green, Warren, Hill outside and Seymour playing both - whoa, that would be a tremendous strain on an O-Line to have all those guys rotating regularly. Wilfork is a solid penetrator when allowed to, which is just what you want from a DT ina 4-3, and Hill has been described as more of 4-3 end also but we haven't seen enough to be sure. Either way, our personnel appears to utilized more fully with 4 real (not a LB putting his hand down) D linemen on the field.

 

[zippo59]

I really don't see BB ever willfully going to a 4-3. The 3-4 is what allows the versatility, disguise, and trickery in his defense. It is the heart and soul of the entire D so I would be shocked if he went away from it.

 

[Zuma]

Sullivan is going to eat his way right into a backup NT position.

 

[Remix 6]

in a 4-3 i think Seymour and Warren would be better off at DT..we would need a real good pass rusher at DE..a fast guy. We wouldnt rely on blitzing from LBs as much..so answer is NO!

 

[holyredeemer]

The strength of talent on the D was already focused on the D-Line, with the addition of Sullivan - assuming he doesn't just go in the tank - only makes this more so.

With McGinest gone and no clear starter next to Bruschi then LB core is really the weakest it has been in years if we're going to play four LB's. But, if we're playing three we look very good with Colvin, Vrabel outside and Bruschi in the middle. Vrabel seems to be a more natural 4-3 OLB since he doesn't have the top end speed you ideally look for in a 3-4 OLB and I believe Colvin played in a 4-3 to start his career.

With Seymour (and Warren probably too) able to play DE or DT in a 4-3, we'd have a pretty fearsome rotation up front and get more PT for Green, who is getting pretty big bucks to be mostly a backup. Wilfork, Sullivan, Wright inside, with Green, Warren, Hill outside and Seymour playing both - whoa, that would be a tremendous strain on an O-Line to have all those guys rotating regularly. Wilfork is a solid penetrator when allowed to, which is just what you want from a DT ina 4-3, and Hill has been described as more of 4-3 end also but we haven't seen enough to be sure. Either way, our personnel appears to utilized more fully with 4 real (not a LB putting his hand down) D linemen on the field.

I wouldnt be surprised to see more of the 4-3. Not a full switch over, cause BB likes keeping things mixed up. Surely though, the signing of Sullivan could mean so much more in terms of alignments and keeping things different. More depth, means more versatility.

 

[patsox23]

This trade doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a switch to 4-3. The Patriots play out of a base 3-4 and mix in the 4-3. Why would this change? Because we just picked up a high-potential underachiever top 10 pick in exchange for a WR who the coaching staff clearly tried everything to motivate only to have him BARELY play when the WR corps was ravaged by injury?

The Pats just got a high upside DL for a WR that was possibly going to be jettisoned for no better than a 4th or 5th round pick. I do this deal 24/7 in a NY minute.

 

[holyredeemer]

in a 4-3 i think Seymour and Warren would be better off at DT..we would need a real good pass rusher at DE..a fast guy. We wouldnt rely on blitzing from LBs as much..so answer is NO!

In pass rushing situations, it's not like BB couldnt line Vrab's or Colvin up at DE. They have both been there and done that before. Also, the thread starter didnt state that we were GOING to go to the 4-3, but merely it's a possibility we will see more of it. BB doesn't give a **** what he runs. It's football, and if you can attack someones weakness by running something different, then he'll do it.....so the odds are, that the answer is........YES!

 

[fgssand]

The strength of talent on the D was already focused on the D-Line, with the addition of Sullivan - assuming he doesn't just go in the tank - only makes this more so.

With McGinest gone and no clear starter next to Bruschi then LB core is really the weakest it has been in years if we're going to play four LB's. But, if we're playing three we look very good with Colvin, Vrabel outside and Bruschi in the middle. Vrabel seems to be a more natural 4-3 OLB since he doesn't have the top end speed you ideally look for in a 3-4 OLB and I believe Colvin played in a 4-3 to start his career.

With Seymour (and Warren probably too) able to play DE or DT in a 4-3, we'd have a pretty fearsome rotation up front and get more PT for Green, who is getting pretty big bucks to be mostly a backup. Wilfork, Sullivan, Wright inside, with Green, Warren, Hill outside and Seymour playing both - whoa, that would be a tremendous strain on an O-Line to have all those guys rotating regularly. Wilfork is a solid penetrator when allowed to, which is just what you want from a DT ina 4-3, and Hill has been described as more of 4-3 end also but we haven't seen enough to be sure. Either way, our personnel appears to utilized more fully with 4 real (not a LB putting his hand down) D linemen on the field.

You are not allowed to even mention the Patriots & 4-3 here. Certain people here feel that to even think about it makes you stupid and ill informed.

 

[Snapper]

You are not allowed to even mention the Patriots & 4-3 here. Certain people here feel that to even think about it makes you stupid and ill informed.

People thinking that acquiring an overweight, lazy bust would force the Pats to switch to a 4-3? That might make me inclined to consider those people ill-informed, yes.

 

[fgssand]

People thinking that acquiring an overweight, lazy bust would force the Pats to switch to a 4-3? That might make me inclined to consider those people ill-informed, yes.

I am sure that is exactly why BB & SP traded for him, so we could cut him because there is no hope for him. Yes, Snapper, you must be right, I wish they had called you before making the trade. I am so glad you know so much, thanks,

 

[Snapper]

I am sure that is exactly why BB & SP traded for him, so we could cut him because there is no hope for him. Yes, Snapper, you must be right, I wish they had called you before making the trade. I am so glad you know so much, thanks,

Yeah, let's not go overboard or anything.

They traded an underachiever for another underachiever. Both teams hope to salvage something from their initial draft investments. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But there's nothing from Sullivan's three years in the league that can possibly make you think that THIS will be the move that forces the Pats to go 4-3. The only thing Sullivan's got going for him is what he did in college, and his connection to Seymour.

 

[fgssand]

Yeah, let's not go overboard or anything.

They traded an underachiever for another underachiever. Both teams hope to salvage something from their initial draft investments. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But there's nothing from Sullivan's three years in the league that can possibly make you think that THIS will be the move that forces the Pats to go 4-3. The only thing Sullivan's got going for him is what he did in college, and his connection to Seymour.

Oh I agree - Bethel Johnson had four stinkin catches last year when we needed help, so no real loss there. Sully has been nothing but a bust as well. What could save Sullivan's carrer is being reunited with Seymour and introduced to a system that if he learns his responsibilities and does his job, he can contribute. I do not think he was ever tought the pro game very wel in New Orleans.

However, I do NOT think this puts us into 4-3 and never said it does, only that it could.

Anyway - as stated in two other posts:




Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Fungi
the hardest thing for people to wrap there heads around appears to be that the Patriots aren't a 3-4 or a 4-3 team. They are a Belichick Zone team (for lack of a better description). There may be some base formations, but calling it a 3-4 or a 4-3 doesn't make it so.

So...you are correct...but it isn't anything new...and it has been discussed at great lengths...


That is very true. I guess this debate is really meaningless, we can call our base "D" 3-4 or 4-3 but it is indeed meaningless. This team will change up on the fly, play after play, series after series, quarter after quarter to whichever defense makes sense at a given moment. The genius that is BB is the ability to draft smart, talented players that will understand and grasp the system and handle their responsibilities. Do thier jobs is all BB ever asks. His schemes and systems take it from there.

 

[patsox23]

However, I do NOT think this puts us into 4-3 and never said it does, only that it could.

NO - it couldn't. And that is why there's such a strong reaction. The Patriots don't strictly play a 4-3 or a 3-4. So acquiring a billion limemen will not, nor COULD not, "put us into 4-3." That's not how BB's scheme works. It COULD enable the team to play 4-3 more often (out of the base 3-4), but that's not the same thing.

 

[fgssand]

NO - it couldn't. And that is why there's such a strong reaction. The Patriots don't strictly play a 4-3 or a 3-4. So acquiring a billion limemen will not, nor COULD not, "put us into 4-3." That's not how BB's scheme works. It COULD enable the team to play 4-3 more often (out of the base 3-4), but that's not the same thing.

I think we are really caught up on semantics now, isn't the chamelion nature of the Pats "D" a given? That what I have been saying, never once did I qualify when and how we would be playing our 4-3..........a 4-3 or a 5-2 or a 6-1 coming out of a 3-4 is still a 4-3. Please, find something else to occupy your brain, other than when a 4-3 is not a 4-3 and when it is a 4-3. Seems to me the only timed a 4-3 is a 4-3, is when you say it is.

 

[khayos]

I think we're gunna play more Nickel!

HAH

 

[broadwayjoe]

This trade doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a switch to 4-3. The Patriots play out of a base 3-4 and mix in the 4-3. Why would this change? Because we just picked up a high-potential underachiever top 10 pick in exchange for a WR who the coaching staff clearly tried everything to motivate only to have him BARELY play when the WR corps was ravaged by injury?

The Pats just got a high upside DL for a WR that was possibly going to be jettisoned for no better than a 4th or 5th round pick. I do this deal 24/7 in a NY minute.

I agree when I first heard about the trade I was thinking so now are we going to trade one of the defensive lineman for a linebacker down the line but I would go with this trade anyday maybe playing with big Richard can motivate this guy to be a decent player at leasr thats what we are hoping.

 

[Brady'sButtBoy]

My point was that even before the trade the strength of the D was up and the same argument could have been made without Sullivan (does anyone read the full post anymore? ).

BB tried to force personnel into a scheme last year - Brown and Beisel inside - as opposed to fitting his scheme around his talent. The result was poor, and the D struggled while everyone learned or was exposed. Maybe he sees where the pith of D is presently and wants to leverage it - sounds like a BB move to me .....