Has PATs defense been dismantled?

[Patspsycho]

There are a lot of questions about our defense coming out nationally prior to the start of the season. I sincerely hope they go into every game with a huge chip on their shoulders. Monday night is going to be a good barometer in how this defense will adapt to losing those guys.

I would wait a few more weeks before evaluating. At the risk of inviting all the new Bills fans into this thread, I think this coming Monday night will be an aberration rather than a barometer.

Don't forget they have a mostly rookie OL, and a new OC who's only had a week or two to install an offense.

 

[Ring 6]

I prefer to look at it a different way.
Im going to throw out 2005, because we had unique issues that season.
Since we last won a SB, 06-08 we played defense that was good enough to contend for a SB, but we did not win a SB. I think our defense can be considered an obstacle to winning a SB over those years.
So lets evaluate.
DL- We stood pretty much pat during that stretch. Everyone felt we had the best DL in the NFL. We did not win a SB. In 06 and 07 we allowed multiple late drives that lacked pressure on the QB. In 08 our run defense was the worst it had been in 6 years. Was the DL deteriorating? Was the heavy spending on it misplaced, because it did not bring rings?
LB- Bruschi and Vrabel remained constant, and aged and declined. If we hadn't played good enough D to finish the job in their primes were they part of the Championship equation now? We have transitioned from McGinest, Colvin and various aging ILBs to Mayo, and AD. We are not changing the other 2 aging pieces.
CB- The corner position was a consistent weakness from 06-08 especially in the biggest of games. We now have 2 second year corners with promise, who Ive seen no indication of failure from, a rookie in the same boat and have brought in 2 vets that appear solid, although during the transition many have been poor.
S-I dont know how anyone can think, compared to 06-08 having anyone starting at S instead of Rodney is a downgrade. His injuries, and diminished skills may have been one of the top causes of not winning back to bax\ck SBs in 06=07.

If you are comparing to our SB defenses, this years defense has some growing to do to not be a downgrade. If you are comparing to the last 3 years, we have eliminated players that BOTH were why we won SBs in the past and why we didnt since.
People are debating the trade them a year early rather than a year late concept with Seymour. OK. But with Vrabel, Bruschi, and Harrision we kept them a year too long. I dont get how young players who meet the high standards of BBs expectations is a downgrade to guys who were not their former selves/

 

[italia44]

people are totally undervaluing parts of this defense...in a 4-3 alignment.....Jarvis Green is going to be a monster in this defense.He will be freed of primary-run responsibility.

Green runs the best inside stunts on this team....because he has the speed to do it.Thomas at ROLB,will flip-flop sides and will be a zone-blitzer on the left side.That's what he did best,with the Ravens.You cannot run on Ty Warren.....other messageboards cite him as the best DL in the AFC.Wilfork has played like a caged lion in preseason.

The key to this are Mayo and Meriweather....Mayo filling the gaps and Meriweather as a periodic blitzer.

Ron Brace at tackle......Shawn Springs is a terrific corner,I don't care what the doomsayers predict.

Give this D 4 or 5 games to jell.....this offense can carry us.

Barring injuries,this is light-years,ahead of the last two years.

Be patient,you'll se.

 

[patchick]

The 2008 defense has clearly been dismantled.
The 2009 defense has just been freshly mantled.
Given the 2008 version's subpar performance on certain key measures that led to lots of angst here, a little re-mantling was probably in order

Dismantled? How can you dismantle a defense that needed some major enmantling in the first place?

Our opinions work together fine, but our verbs are a mess. Does the Patriots defense need to be mantled, enmantled or remantled? I'm thinking the move to 4-3 is a remantling, whereas the rise of Mayo as a 2001-Bruschi-style MLB lynchpin is a mantling.

Enmantling clearly refers to a different definition...

n. A zone of hot gases around a flame: Reporters enmantled Brady after the game.

 

[mgteich]

There is no question that we needed transition in the defense from that of 2006-2008.

SECONDARY
1) Clearly the secondary had been overhauled and this has been all for the good. Our group of four safeties is the best in awhile. We have three decent propsects at corner and a couple of top rent-a-players for transition.

LINEBACKERS
2) Belichick judged that it was time for Vrabel and Bruschi to go. That doesn't make 2009 Guyton/Alexander better than 2008 Bruschi/Guyton. Just because there was no choice doen't make Alexander a contributer. Also 2009 Woods/Banta-Cain isn't necessary better than 2008 Vrabel, even though the combo was judged to be better than a 2009 Vrabel. I would note that neither Woods nor Banta-Cain is signed past 2009 so the future is not part of the evaluation.

I am somewhat confused about our linebacker situation. If we are staying in the base 3-4 2-gap, then surely we need another ILB, an upgrade over Alexander. If we are shifting to a base 4-3 2-gap, then why didn't we draft one of the top 4-3 prospects. One of them should have projected to be more critical to the team over the next four years than Chung (who should be fine but we have two starters at safety).

In the end, I am fine with the linebackers with the addition of a veteran ILB to be signed next week, since I expect that we are still playing a base 3-4.

DEFENSIVE LINE
We have had the best 3-4 DL in the league (that is until last week). The deficiency in the pass rush was not the fault of the DL. They (especially Seymour and Green) were fine when Thomas was healthy and Vrabel was better. An adequate secondary also helps, being able to free up a blitzer occasionally. That being said, I am glad to see us add Burgess and Banta-Cain.

But by what stretch of reasoning can I conclude that the 2009 and 2010 patriots will not be significantly worse off without Seymour? Am I to believe that Belichick considers Brace and Pryor good enough to replace his production in 2009 and 2010? I don't think so.

And I've heard that we would never pay Seymour $14M to play, even in uncapped year. I'm not sure why this was a given for the patriots. And perhaps there was one other team in the league who would have been willing to pay him.

MY BOTTOM LINE
The 2009 defense was good enough last week to make us consensus Super Bowl favorites. After all, Belichick in the master of defensive schemes; we had improved the secondary and Thomas was back. Personally, I don't think the defense was good enough to afford to lose Seymour.

But just possibly, Belichick did not have much choice. Players indicated that they weren't surprised at the trade. We don't know what Seymour requested/demanded or what he threatened. I certainly wouldn't put it past Seymour to threaten to hold out a third time and expect it work yet again.

Belichick decided that it was time to move on. My guess that this was much easier than moving from Vrabel, Bruschi and Harrison. Bill cared about each of that trio.

I prefer to look at it a different way.
Im going to throw out 2005, because we had unique issues that season.
Since we last won a SB, 06-08 we played defense that was good enough to contend for a SB, but we did not win a SB. I think our defense can be considered an obstacle to winning a SB over those years.
So lets evaluate.
DL- We stood pretty much pat during that stretch. Everyone felt we had the best DL in the NFL. We did not win a SB. In 06 and 07 we allowed multiple late drives that lacked pressure on the QB. In 08 our run defense was the worst it had been in 6 years. Was the DL deteriorating? Was the heavy spending on it misplaced, because it did not bring rings?
LB- Bruschi and Vrabel remained constant, and aged and declined. If we hadn't played good enough D to finish the job in their primes were they part of the Championship equation now? We have transitioned from McGinest, Colvin and various aging ILBs to Mayo, and AD. We are not changing the other 2 aging pieces.
CB- The corner position was a consistent weakness from 06-08 especially in the biggest of games. We now have 2 second year corners with promise, who Ive seen no indication of failure from, a rookie in the same boat and have brought in 2 vets that appear solid, although during the transition many have been poor.
S-I dont know how anyone can think, compared to 06-08 having anyone starting at S instead of Rodney is a downgrade. His injuries, and diminished skills may have been one of the top causes of not winning back to bax\ck SBs in 06=07.

If you are comparing to our SB defenses, this years defense has some growing to do to not be a downgrade. If you are comparing to the last 3 years, we have eliminated players that BOTH were why we won SBs in the past and why we didnt since.
People are debating the trade them a year early rather than a year late concept with Seymour. OK. But with Vrabel, Bruschi, and Harrision we kept them a year too long. I dont get how young players who meet the high standards of BBs expectations is a downgrade to guys who were not their former selves/

 

[patchick]

I am somewhat confused about our linebacker situation. If we are staying in the base 3-4 2-gap, then surely we need another ILB, an upgrade over Alexander. If we are shifting to a base 4-3 2-gap, then why didn't we draft one of the top 4-3 prospects. One of them should have projected to be more critical to the team over the next four years than Chung (who should be fine but we have two starters at safety).

Is your "why didn't we draft a 4-3 LB prospect" focused on MLB or OLB? If it's MLB, a likely answer is that BB felt that he already had his elite MLB field general plus a promising young backup. (Whereas at draft time, there was zilch behind the 2 starting safeties.)

If it's OLB, then you could actually argue that he did draft that guy. Tyrone McKenzie was a college SAM and one of the top-rated 4-3 OLBs in the draft. We all assumed he was an ILB prospect because we were thinking 3-4, but how do we know for sure?

 

[Deus Irae]

Is your "why didn't we draft a 4-3 LB prospect" focused on MLB or OLB? If it's MLB, a likely answer is that felt BB that he already had his elite MLB field general plus a promising young backup. (Whereas at draft time, there was zilch behind the 2 starting safeties.)

If it's OLB, then you could actually argue that he did draft that guy. Tyrone McKenzie was a college SAM and one of the top-rated 4-3 OLBs in the draft. We all assumed he was an ILB prospect because we were thinking 3-4, but how do we know for sure?

Well, as someone who prefers the 3-4, I'm hoping that any significant shift is short-lived and changes next season after some more linebackers are brought in.

 

[mgteich]

I still believe that we are running the 3-4 2-gap for another year. I just don't think that diminishing the value of the best 3-4 NT in football is a good idea. And my only issues are cutting Seymour and not signing another ILB. If we sign a backup veteran ILB like Lenon after Monday, then I'm fine.

4-3
Belichick knows that he can always find backup safeties, as he has for years. The #34 pick in the draft is not needed for a backup unless he is very, very special (and perhaps Chung is).

If McKenzie is projected to be our future 4-3 OLB starter, then indeed Belichick was a genius to be able to get him so late in third, and that's fine. At the time, everyone had him as an ILB (and therefore a major project).

There were many top OLB and OLB/DE prospects available in the 2nd. Certainly Sintim stands out, but there were others. Is the bottom line that Belichick was fine with Woods and Banta-Cain until McKenzie and Crable develop? Perhaps. Also, McKenzie was picked at the bottom of the 3rd. He was the last of the top OLB's. The rest were drafted in the 1st and 2nd. Was Belichick so satisfied with Woods and Banta-Cain that it was OK to risk not to get 2009 OLB help by waiting until #97 to draft a prospect? I suspect so.

Is your "why didn't we draft a 4-3 LB prospect" focused on MLB or OLB? If it's MLB, a likely answer is that felt BB that he already had his elite MLB field general plus a promising young backup. (Whereas at draft time, there was zilch behind the 2 starting safeties.)

If it's OLB, then you could actually argue that he did draft that guy. Tyrone McKenzie was a college SAM and one of the top-rated 4-3 OLBs in the draft. We all assumed he was an ILB prospect because we were thinking 3-4, but how do we know for sure?

 

[patchick]

There were many top OLB and OLB/DE prospects available in the 2nd. Certainly Sintim stands out, but there were others. Is the bottom line that Belichick was fine with Woods and Banta-Cain until McKenzie and Crable develop? Perhaps. Also, McKenzie was picked at the bottom of the 3rd. He was the last of the top OLB's. The rest were drafted in the 1st and 2nd. Was Belichick so satisfied with Woods and Banta-Cain that it was OK to risk not to get 2009 OLB help by waiting until #97 to draft a prospect? I suspect so.

I was as baffled as anybody that BB passed on the many OLB prospects with all 4 2nd-round picks. But it really was a wealth of 3-4 OLB prospects: Sintim, Barwin, Brown, etc.. In fact, not a single college 4-3 OLB was drafted in round 2.

Here are the college 4-3 OLBs drafted starting at #34:

#69 Jason Williams
#76 DeAndre Levy
#97 Tyrone McKenzie
#126 Slade Norris (already cut)
#154 Marcus Freeman (already cut)
#158 Cody Glenn

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

I prefer to look at it a different way.
Im going to throw out 2005, because we had unique issues that season.
Since we last won a SB, 06-08 we played defense that was good enough to contend for a SB, but we did not win a SB. I think our defense can be considered an obstacle to winning a SB over those years.
So lets evaluate.
DL- We stood pretty much pat during that stretch. Everyone felt we had the best DL in the NFL. We did not win a SB. In 06 and 07 we allowed multiple late drives that lacked pressure on the QB. In 08 our run defense was the worst it had been in 6 years. Was the DL deteriorating? Was the heavy spending on it misplaced, because it did not bring rings?
LB- Bruschi and Vrabel remained constant, and aged and declined. If we hadn't played good enough D to finish the job in their primes were they part of the Championship equation now? We have transitioned from McGinest, Colvin and various aging ILBs to Mayo, and AD. We are not changing the other 2 aging pieces.
CB- The corner position was a consistent weakness from 06-08 especially in the biggest of games. We now have 2 second year corners with promise, who Ive seen no indication of failure from, a rookie in the same boat and have brought in 2 vets that appear solid, although during the transition many have been poor.
S-I dont know how anyone can think, compared to 06-08 having anyone starting at S instead of Rodney is a downgrade. His injuries, and diminished skills may have been one of the top causes of not winning back to bax\ck SBs in 06=07.

If you are comparing to our SB defenses, this years defense has some growing to do to not be a downgrade. If you are comparing to the last 3 years, we have eliminated players that BOTH were why we won SBs in the past and why we didnt since.
People are debating the trade them a year early rather than a year late concept with Seymour. OK. But with Vrabel, Bruschi, and Harrision we kept them a year too long. I dont get how young players who meet the high standards of BBs expectations is a downgrade to guys who were not their former selves/

Excellent post....... As much crap as BB gets for being an SOB, the "better early then late" mantra def. did not extend to Vrab, Rob and Bru........ Probably to the team's detriment last year.

The Mediots (and some people here), still don't see that. BB offseason's changes solidify that in my mind, though it came slowly.

Well, as someone who prefers the 3-4, I'm hoping that any significant shift is short-lived and changes next season after some more linebackers are brought in.

If Mayo continues to mature into the role BB is pushing him too, I wouldn't count on it. He holds the key to the (ala Bruschi) to run the style of 4-3 BB likes.

Not for nothing, but it should be noted that in 2003 4-3 was the base as well with Hamilton, Washington, Sey and Willie up front and Phifer, Bru and Vrabel at LB.....

I don't think we have quite the talent behind the front 7 that we did back in 2003, But we certainly has the potential to be solid. Out front 7 is almost as talented, and certainly deeper. IMO

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

The Pats defense has been rebuilt. Some of the new parts, or old parts with new roles, may have some rough edges to wear off, but overall the defense has been improved.

Another factor to consider is communications.
-- Sanders and Meriweather were really clicking toward the end of last season, they are picking up from that point and will be playing at a higher level before we even realize it.
-- I've seen pictures of Mayo and Guyton playing video games together in the Patriots Place gaming store. The two of them have been in each other's pocket all off-season, whether in the 3-4 or 4-3 they will be so much further ahead of last season.

Mayo and Guyton are also stronger and heavier, they are well ahead of last season.

Brace is a clear upgrade behind LDE and NT over Green/Wright.

Green/Wright may be considered a downgrade from Seymour, but spelling each other keeps the position fresher and both are much better suited for the RDE role than the other two positions. The drop-off is actually pretty slight.

In a 4-3 Mayo is a natural.

Playing Wilfork as a 3-tech, or using Vince and Pryor/Wright (when healthy) to disrupt the interior is a clear upgrade in the 4-3. Brace is no downgrade as a NT in this formation.

Green as a DE in the 4-3 is not a downgrade from Seymour.

Who were the OLBs in the 4-3 last season? Thomas, Vrabel, and Guyton. Guyton is more experienced, Thomas is not downgraded. This area is improved, plus the communications aspect noted above.

The big question revolves around one area, Cornerback.
-- Wilhite finished last season as a starter, so far there's no downgrade.
-- Bodden vs Hobbs is an unknown, despite the anti-Hobbs crowd's whining
-- Who was the Nickelback last year? Wilhite. Butler now appears to be the Nickelback - can we say a rookie #41 overall pick is an upgrade over a rookie 4th round pick? I think yes.
-- The real question for CB is the reserves, Springs and Wheatley, both of whom are injured and struggled in preseason. I guess we'll just have to wait an see.

As I said at the start, on paper this defense is improved.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Pats defense has been rebuilt. Some of the new parts, or old parts with new roles, may have some rough edges to wear off, but overall the defense has been improved.

Another factor to consider is communications.
-- Sanders and Meriweather were really clicking toward the end of last season, they are picking up from that point and will be playing at a higher level before we even realize it.
-- I've seen pictures of Mayo and Guyton playing video games together in the Patriots Place gaming store. The two of them have been in each other's pocket all off-season, whether in the 3-4 or 4-3 they will be so much further ahead of last season.

Mayo and Guyton are also stronger and heavier, they are well ahead of last season.

Brace is a clear upgrade behind LDE and NT over Green/Wright.

Green/Wright may be considered a downgrade from Seymour, but spelling each other keeps the position fresher and both are much better suited for the RDE role than the other two positions. The drop-off is actually pretty slight.

In a 4-3 Mayo is a natural.

Playing Wilfork as a 3-tech, or using Vince and Pryor/Wright (when healthy) to disrupt the interior is a clear upgrade in the 4-3. Brace is no downgrade as a NT in this formation.

Green as a DE in the 4-3 is not a downgrade from Seymour.

Who were the OLBs in the 4-3 last season? Thomas, Vrabel, and Guyton. Guyton is more experienced, Thomas is not downgraded. This area is improved, plus the communications aspect noted above.

The big question revolves around one area, Cornerback.
-- Wilhite finished last season as a starter, so far there's no downgrade.
-- Bodden vs Hobbs is an unknown, despite the anti-Hobbs crowd's whining
-- Who was the Nickelback last year? Wilhite. Butler now appears to be the Nickelback - can we say a rookie #41 overall pick is an upgrade over a rookie 4th round pick? I think yes.
-- The real question for CB is the reserves, Springs and Wheatley, both of whom are injured and struggled in preseason. I guess we'll just have to wait an see.

As I said at the start, on paper this defense is improved.

Box, you drank an entire gallon of the Koolaid before you made this post.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Box, you drank an entire gallon of the Koolaid before you made this post.

I find it's better tasting than the urine so many want to serve. :snob:

 

[Patriot_in_NY]

Brace is a clear upgrade behind LDE and NT over Green/Wright.

Green/Wright may be considered a downgrade from Seymour, but spelling each other keeps the position fresher and both are much better suited for the RDE role than the other two positions. The drop-off is actually pretty slight.

In a 4-3 Mayo is a natural.

Playing Wilfork as a 3-tech, or using Vince and Pryor/Wright (when healthy) to disrupt the interior is a clear upgrade in the 4-3. Brace is no downgrade as a NT in this formation.

Green as a DE in the 4-3 is not a downgrade from Seymour.

Can't disagree on much of this thanks.

More questions though. Since it's apparent that we're moving to more of a 4-3 ---- Isn't is fairer not to assume Green is replacing Seymour per say (at least his 05-08 role), because back in 03 (when we last set up in the 4-3 base) Seymour played inside next to Washington at DT. So the more accurate comparison would be Big Vince vs. Seymour at RDT since that is where Seymour natural position was in this scheme last time. (kinda explains why one of those two guys was expendable for 2011 1st )

Sure he coulda played RDE, but we'll be MORE THEN FINE with Green there as he's lighter and faster and the best stunter we have up front. NO?

Ty will be playing the part of Big Ted Washington this year

Obviously Burgess is in on the other end, with Wright/TBC/Brace and Pryor all in the mix.

I'm not sure why everyone is compairing postion to position from last year. Many roles are changing so you have to plug them into not who, but where that fit in.

 

[mgteich]

I suppose, in the end, McKenzie is a reasonable prospect and as good a one as Crable last year.

I was as baffled as anybody that BB passed on the many OLB prospects with all 4 2nd-round picks. But it really was a wealth of 3-4 OLB prospects: Sintim, Barwin, Brown, etc.. In fact, not a single college 4-3 OLB was drafted in round 2.

Here are the college 4-3 OLBs drafted starting at #34:

#69 Jason Williams
#76 DeAndre Levy
#97 Tyrone McKenzie
#126 Slade Norris (already cut)
#154 Marcus Freeman (already cut)
#158 Cody Glenn

 

[BradyFTW!]

I prefer to look at it a different way.
Im going to throw out 2005, because we had unique issues that season.
Since we last won a SB, 06-08 we played defense that was good enough to contend for a SB, but we did not win a SB. I think our defense can be considered an obstacle to winning a SB over those years.
So lets evaluate.
DL- We stood pretty much pat during that stretch. Everyone felt we had the best DL in the NFL. We did not win a SB. In 06 and 07 we allowed multiple late drives that lacked pressure on the QB. In 08 our run defense was the worst it had been in 6 years. Was the DL deteriorating? Was the heavy spending on it misplaced, because it did not bring rings?

That says a whole lot more about the OLBs than the DLs in a 2-gap 3-4. So yeah, it says that our OLBs (Colvin, Adalius, Vrabel) weren't consistently getting the job done.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Can't disagree on much of this thanks.

More questions though. Since it's apparent that we're moving to more of a 4-3 ---- Isn't is fairer not to assume Green is replacing Seymour per say (at least his 05-08 role), because back in 03 (when we last set up in the 4-3 base) Seymour played inside next to Washington at DT. So the more accurate comparison would be Big Vince vs. Seymour at RDT since that is where Seymour natural position was in this scheme last time. (kinda explains why one of those two guys was expendable for 2011 1st )

Sure he coulda played RDE, but we'll be MORE THEN FINE with Green there as he's lighter and faster and the best stunter we have up front. NO?

Ty will be playing the part of Big Ted Washington this year

Obviously Burgess is in on the other end, with Wright/TBC/Brace and Pryor all in the mix.

I'm not sure why everyone is compairing postion to position from last year. Many roles are changing so you have to plug them into not who, but where that fit in.

I don't know that it's apparent NE is moving to more 4-3.

Last season NE ran a 3-4 in about 15% of their defensive snaps (per a Feb article on Green Bay's 3-4 conversion). NE also ran a 4-3 last year, but more than any other formation, they ran in a Nickel. I believe NE's defense is primarily designed to work in the Nickel, but it's also balanced to be effective whichever formation is used.

In pre-season Seymour was used as a DE in the 4-3, he wasn't needed inside because of Vince, Brace, Pryor, and Wright. He did play inside in the Nickel package, Wright or Pryor can replace him in that role (Green doesn't because Green was his partner inside).

Ty Warren will not be anywhere near Ted Washington's 2003 role, Wilfork has that job and he'll be backed by Brace and probably Pryor.

Burgess was primarily used as a 4-2-Nickel DE. He will crosstrain for OLB in either the 3-4 or 4-3. The #1 Nickel unit against Cincinnati was Burgess and TBC at DE. Thomas and Mayo at LB. Warren/Wilfork rotated with Green/Seymour, Wright or Pryor will now replace Seymour.

My initial post in this thread was based on what I saw in preseason. The 3-4 is not going away, the 4-3 is not taking over. This is a Nickel defense team. New paradigm time for folks.

 

[Bertil]

FWIW, the Patriots were NOT risking losing Richard Seymour without compensation. At worst, they'd get a #3 in return, had he been signed away next year. So essentially, they traded:

Richard Seymour and a 2010, late Round 3 pick for a high 2011 First Round pick.

 

[Patjew]

Box, you drank an entire gallon of the Koolaid before you made this post.

And I thank him for it. Box is teh Best.

 

[RayClay]

Vrabel with a bad back and shoulder is an upgrade over Woods, Burgess and TBC? I don't think so.

All the players mentioned except Seymour are washed up. I thought they should have phased replacements in earlier, but maybe that's not feasible under the cap. Why worry about the ignorant? We know turning over the defense was necessary. Also, we drafted three DL and have stocked that position for years. Seymour will be missed, but he leaves two all pro level 1st rounders and a lot more variation in line play that should be interesting.