Freeney, Taylor vs Seymour.

[workhorse]

Yes, I call YOU a troll. You are at a Pats fan site, not a Colts fan site.

Once again, you fail to grasp even the most basic logic. Seymour, like Freeney, would play on the line of scrimmage if he were a Colt, so what is your point? I don't see Freeney playing outside LB in the Colts system, and don't expect Seymour to either. Duh!

Secondly, I already covered that Freeney could only fit into the Pats as a LB and that he would not submit to the lower level of pay, or the change in position away from his precious ballet spin. But you, being a troll, asked me why I could possibly say what Bioli would want to do, and then, you being a troll, turn around and state the same thing about how Freeney would fit into the system. It ain't gonna happen that way, Bucko! Freeney will continue to play on the DL, for money and glory, and that means he won't be a Patriot.

The reason I compare Seymour to Freeney on the DL is because Seymour can pass rush quite effectively when he is allowed to, in a much more direct and intimidating style than your dancing boy. Freeney cannot, however, hold his water at the line of scrimmage. I am comparing the versatility of the players. Seymour could tear up the Colts D-line, while Freeney has no clear value to the Pats at any position, because we have never seen him play LB, he will cost too much, and he is a one trick pony. Even the Pats LBs are required to take on blocks in a two gap style, something Freeney has never done and probably never will.

To explain this to you is a waste of time. I don't plan on trying to educate you any further on why Seymour is versatile, and could play Freeney's position, or DT, or NT, and maybe even outside LB like a McGinnest. Freeney is only know to do one thing, EVER. That ballet move.

The only reason I mentioned Seymour at LBer is to counter your example of Freeney at DT. Neither is suited for it. You don't have to worry about Freeney's cost in this conversation. That is not the point. My point is that in a 3-4 defense Freeney would be a pass rushing linebacker, much like Pittsburgh uses or like Derrick Thomas used to play.

Hey T-Shirt, it's been a while since I've been around, but I'm itching for some football. Thanks for the "kind" words. I'm just here to defend and support the darkside.

 

[Welker83]

Perhaps the reason I see trolls everywhere is that 18 year old Aqua boy and others roam the site freely, even starting their own threads.

As far as Freeney playing LB, I already covered this. He won't be remotely likely to take the huge pay cut or the status cut to change positions drastically to become an outside LB in a two gap system just so he can play for the Pats. The Pats are also not likely to try to do this, for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, imagining him being taller than he is, and a successful outside LB to boot, is not exactly what this ranking was about. It has been the fall back argument for various Miami/Colts Non-trolls, however.

Seymour, on the other hand, has been observed at every position on the D-Line, as well as some fullback/ tight end/ special teams, and doesn't need to change a thing to play any position on the line for any team in the league, with hardly any drop off, even trying to imitate Taylor or Freeney.

Bowling balls to Baseballs
Volvos to Huffy's
Grapes to Blueberry's
White wine to Red wine
.
.
.
.

Taylor can't play DT
Seymour can't play LB

If either of them were placed in different sytems than what they currently occupy then their responsibilities and possibly positions would change. The cordinator would create plays for their strengths, and will then try to hide their weaknesses... All of them are exceptional atheletes and every one of them is doing EXACTLY WHAT THEIR COACHES TOLD THEM TO DO.

Scat back to a Power Back
Coverage safety to a Hitting Safety
Cover 2 to the 3-4
Paper or plastic

 

[arrellbee]

And by the way, IMHO, if Freeney just had a little more height, he would be an absolute monster for us in the Elephant role that Willie filled so well. A monster. And his explosive speed could very well make up for the lack of height. Could you imagine having to game-plan for Seymour at DE on one side, and Freeney at OLB on the other? Yikes.

Now those are interesting thoughts.

Of course, the gamble would be how would he do on run-stuffing and edge-containment because he's never been asked to do those things before.

Yes, absolutely - for Pat's style defense, he would have to do that as well as Willie, however he accomplished it. It would be intriguing to see what Freeney could do. While 4 inches shorter than Willie, he is within a couple pounds of his weight. Freeney would have to use a different technique than Willie I suppose, but could he be as effective ? Intriguing.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Would Freeney still be ranked as a top D-Lineman?

 

[zippo59]

you are assuming that Jason Taylor has multiple sacks a game , every game, every year.

You say it like He sacks the QB every play, that is a horrible example.
2 years ago Freeney had 16 sacks, one a game on average.....
So is the play you are referring to in your example is that one single play every game?
are you assuming that Seymour only stops the run once a game??
I really don't get what your saying

???????????????????????????

I think Welker's point is that this is how many people view DE's. He's not saying it's fair or right but just that it is reality. Many fans who can't/don't research DE's in depth just see the obvious sacks and ignore a DE's offball impact from play to play when ranking DE's. This guy has been nothing but reasonable and respectful and I'd hate to see a trash talk argument develop because people might be misinturpretting his comments.

 

[zippo59]

I don't think that it's either obnoxious or presumptive. You can say with a straight face that you don't want a player that average 32 tackles a year and has 51 sacks and 23 forced fumbles in 4 years player for the Pats? I've seen thread on this very board talking about Freeney's up coming contract status and people wanting the Pats to make a run at him.

I haven't heard any Pats fans say they would like to see the team make a run at Freeney. I'm not saying your lying, but that if it did happen it is certainly uncommon. I would only want Freeney if I could use him in primarily obvious passing situations. Considering there are whispers that he wants to be the highest paid defensive player in the league, I would definitely not want him, because who would pay a situational player that kind of money? Seymour got his big contract because he is an every down, every defense, every situation type player. The Pats have more of a prototypical 4-3 DE in the smaller, quicker Jarvis Green, but he is primarily a back up so he doesn't get many stats or much money. The Pats just don't really have a big need for that type of player. Taylor is also far more of an every down player than Freeney. I'm not saying Freeney is bad any means, just that putting him in is somewhat of a gamble, especially in the 3-4 that Pats fans have come to know and love. Clearly Belichick thinks Seymour is the best, making him the highest paid defensive player in the league. It is known the Pats don't through money around to just everyone; the only give it to the players who they really think deserve it. If Bill thinks Seymour is the best, that's good wough for me.

 

[Welker83]

I think Welker's point is that this is how many people view DE's. He's not saying it's fair or right but just that it is reality. Many fans who can't/don't research DE's in depth just see the obvious sacks and ignore a DE's offball impact from play to play when ranking DE's. This guy has been nothing but reasonable and respectful and I'd hate to see a trash talk argument develop because people might be misinturpretting his comments.

Thank you! thats all was trying to say!

 

[workhorse]

I haven't heard any Pats fans say they would like to see the team make a run at Freeney. I'm not saying your lying, but that if it did happen it is certainly uncommon. I would only want Freeney if I could use him in primarily obvious passing situations. Considering there are whispers that he wants to be the highest paid defensive player in the league, I would definitely not want him, because who would pay a situational player that kind of money? Seymour got his big contract because he is an every down, every defense, every situation type player. The Pats have more of a prototypical 4-3 DE in the smaller, quicker Jarvis Green, but he is primarily a back up so he doesn't get many stats or much money. The Pats just don't really have a big need for that type of player. Taylor is also far more of an every down player than Freeney. I'm not saying Freeney is bad any means, just that putting him in is somewhat of a gamble, especially in the 3-4 that Pats fans have come to know and love. Clearly Belichick thinks Seymour is the best, making him the highest paid defensive player in the league. It is known the Pats don't through money around to just everyone; the only give it to the players who they really think deserve it. If Bill thinks Seymour is the best, that's good wough for me.

I've seen mentions here and there on the board in the past, but it's no biggie.

That stuff about him wanting to be the highest paid player is bogus. PFW link It's mention in the last part of the blurb.

 

[arrellbee]

Actually the Colts defense is designed for the linebackers to make most of the tackles too. The Colts' linemen are all quick and undersized by most standards (Corey Simon is the exception and he has only been there one year) and quick. They are supposed to penatrate and disrupt. Everyone is told to go after the quarterback and tackle the running back if he comes your way. By penatrating and disrupting is keeps the blockers focus on the linemen and away from the linebackers to make the tackles. I mean how else could Rob Morris have a couple seasons with 130 tackles? I wasn't saying that Freeney was among the league's leaders for tackles, I was just pointing out that his numbers weren't too far off from Seymour's. Neither of them are expected to have great numbers when it comes to that, both are counted on to make big plays when they are needed.

Good info. It seems to work for the Colts. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The only nagging doubt is whether it is a defensive scheme that works very well mainly with weaker teams or teams with a somewhat weak offensive tackle. So far, history has shown that it doesn't seem to work that well against the stronger teams or in the playoffs - no question, in terms of the 'on any given Sunday', maybe it's just a string of breaks. But until it goes the other way, you just have to wonder. I think the acid test will be this year when the Colts play the NFC East and the AFC East and also Cincinatti and Denver. If Freeney, and the Colts team for that matter, do well against those teams, that will be solid support for considering him an elite player. On the other hand, if his stats against those teams aren't all that stellar, I don't think it would be fair to say it's just a 'down year' - it would have to bring into question whether he is an elite player or just one who is hyped. The topic will probably come up again after the season, so maybe we'll have a chance to compare notes.

Maybe we'll just have to disagree on this point, but turnovers seem to have more of an effect on the outcome of a game than stops on third down. Besides, that not the only thing he does, it's an added benefit to the sacks.

Well, I can't argue at all that turnovers aren't a very significant indicator. I can certainly agree with them being an added benefit - no question about that. But if I had a choice between DL play that stopped third downs and drives versus one turnover in 3 games, I would pick the stop because it has the most leverage on the most number of drives- but maybe that's just my take on the matter. And, of course, the most important of either category is for that contribution to come in games against tough opponents and in playoff games - I'm sure of that.

If you double team both with both tight ends, then you can't throw to them and you limit the number of options you have in your passing game. Not to mention who is going to block to linebackers or force them to drop into coverage by running a pattern?

Well we couldn't agree more on that. This is where coaches earn their money - making these kind of tradeoff choices. I guess if the defense has two top dude defensive ends who will get to the QB frequently if they are not double teamed, you kind of have to opt for the blocking. The Patriots seemed to be in this situation a lot last year. And even keeping the tight ends and a back in, Tom Brady got banged around way more than fans wanted to see - and I'm sure he wasn't happy about it either. Injuries to the OL kind of forced the issue. I don't want to commit heresy, but I have to wonder why a quick release short passing game including the TEs isn't and wouldn't have been a slightly better choice - just me wondering. But you have to admit that it worked last year against the Colts with Freeney and Brock and Mathis and enough other teams to make the playoffs and win a playoff game.

San Diego was the best team not to make the playoffs and they were better than several that did. It's hard to argue game by game and it takes too long. I could point out in the Seattle that many of the Colts starters didn't play much since it came the week after there first loss. Or I could mention most of the games that you point out Freeney was shut out, Mathis had good games. Freeney is a weapon on the Colts' defense that teams now scheme against. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but many times it can cost the team in another way.

No problem including SD and I certainly agree that we can drop Seattle - I should have thought of that. But if you are hand picking, maybe you would include the second Jaguars game which was certainly when there no losses yet. And Freeney had a goosegg for that one also - arguably, Jacksonville is your chief rival and a very important opponent. I didn't replay the Chargers game to see what tradeoffs SD made to win. Certainly with Freeney's 5 solo tackles including 1 sackwith the forced fumble (leading to a TD), no matter what they did it doesn't seem like a good tradeoff to allow that kind of damage - but it worked for some reason. I did notice that SD kept Reagor, Williams, and Tripplett to total of 5 solo tackles. By the way, I presume you know that one play counted as a tackle, sack, and forced fumble all for that one play for Freeney - but, as I said, it led to a Colts TD. Of the other 4 tackles, one did not stop a drive. On the other 3, SD scored 2 FGs and a TD so that gets back to the notion of stopping drives for no score being the critical contribution.

I wasn't trying to be sh***y. But I find it hard to believe that if someone said you can have Dwight Freeney on your team, as is, many here would say no. BTW, why did you change my name in my posts?

I hear you. However, you probably catch the drift from all of my comments that I truly wouldn't even use Freeney on the majority of downs because I don't subscribe to the Colt's current defensive scheme - but, again, I readily agree that it works reasonably well - make that quite well - except for the playoffs. I wouldn't use a roster slot to sign Freeney as a free agent, even for nominal dollars (because he wouldn't be a key contributor for the type of defense I think is most effective overall). If he was on the roster, for whatever reason, I would imagine I would use him in 3rd and long unless I was getting burned by long draw/running plays picking up first downs in that situation with him in.

Well, apologies for mistyping your handle. Mea Culpa. Geez - I just looked at my typing this time and I did it again. Hope I didn't offend.

Thanks for interesting thoughts and discussion.

 

[workhorse]

Well, apologies for mistyping your handle. Mea Culpa. Geez - I just looked at my typing this time and I did it again. Hope I didn't offend.

Thanks for interesting thoughts and discussion.

No problems with the name, I was just wondering. It's nice being able to discuss/debate in a civil manner. Instead of the "you suck, no you suck" that many fans fall into.

BTW, the Colts seem to have the Broncos number lately, especially in the playoffs. Kind of he way the Pats had the Colts' number.

 

[Patjew]

No problems with the name, I was just wondering. It's nice being able to discuss/debate in a civil manner. Instead of the "you suck, no you suck" that many fans fall into.

BTW, the Colts seem to have the Broncos number lately, especially in the playoffs. Kind of he way the Pats had the Colts' number.

And the way the Broncos have had the Pats' #, unfortunately.

 

[arrellbee]

BTW, the Colts seem to have the Broncos number lately, especially in the playoffs. Kind of he way the Pats had the Colts' number.

For some reason, I don't mind at all if the Colts beat up on the Broncos !! !! Good Luck !!