Holley: Ty Warren may be out for the year

[SHOWTIME15]

2006 : 56 tackles, 7.5 sacks
2007 : 34 tackles, 4 sacks
2008 : 32 tackles, 2 sacks
2009 : 33 tackles, 1 sack

It is what it is.

numbers for a DE are always misleading if they play in a 3-4. Warren's job is not to sack the QB or make tackles as much as it is to to tie up blockers.

 

[BradyFTW!]

2006 : 56 tackles, 7.5 sacks
2007 : 34 tackles, 4 sacks
2008 : 32 tackles, 2 sacks
2009 : 33 tackles, 1 sack

It is what it is.

You know it. Got his new contract between 2006 and 2007, and coincidentally enough he was never the same player again. Just like Seymour!

 

[DarrylStingley]

numbers for a DE are always misleading if they play in a 3-4. Warren's job is not to sack the QB or make tackles as much as it is to to tie up blockers.

Right. In truth, it's very hard unless you have cameras trained on Ty Warren to know how effective he is game to game.

People say he's very good and the Patriots act like he is, but I don't claim to have a great sense of how good he has been over the last few years.

I know that the entire defense was shredded by the Ravens, and I know that I've seen Ty Warren make very few "impact" plays in the last couple of seasons. What that exactly means, I really don't know.

 

[BradyFTW!]

numbers for a DE are always misleading if they play in a 3-4. Warren's job is not to sack the QB or make tackles as much as it is to to tie up blockers.

We know. We're just pointing out that Seymour was ripped apart by this fanbase for a far less pronounced dropoff in performance (and the dropoff in performance *has* been there, although it's obviously been due to injuries). It's equally unfair to hold this against Warren as it was for most of this board to judge Seymour, but they did it anyways.

 

[BelichickFan]

numbers for a DE are always misleading if they play in a 3-4. Warren's job is not to sack the QB or make tackles as much as it is to to tie up blockers.

I know that but the defense didn't change after 2006. And before you hit me with the "they traded Seymour" line, Warren had two nothing years before that too.

Sorry, excuse him all you want, I won't miss 2 tackles a game and the one sack all year when he had twice the tackles and 7 times the sacks the year before his new contract.

I get it, I really do, but the Warren we've seen for three years is replaceable. If the only job is to tie up blockers then explain 2006.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I know that but the defense didn't change after 2006. And before you hit me with the "they traded Seymour" line, Warren had two nothing years before that too.

Sorry, excuse him all you want, I won't miss 2 tackles a game and the one sack all year when he had twice the tackles and 7 times the sacks the year before his new contract.

I get it, I really do, but the Warren we've seen for three years is replaceable. If the only job is to tie up blockers then explain 2006.

I'd explain it as injury-related rather than contract-related, but I do agree with parts of your conclusion. I think you're undervaluing him, because even last year, he at least held his blockers and couldn't be abused like the Ravens abused us at RDE. But I also definitely agree that it's not 2006 Warren that we're replacing, here. I wouldn't be shocked if we already have someone on the roster who can give us a decent approximation of what he gave us last year (no pass rush, stout against the run).

 

[BelichickFan]

I'd explain it as injury-related rather than contract-related, but I do agree with parts of your conclusion. I think you're undervaluing him, because even last year, he at least held his blockers and couldn't be abused like the Ravens abused us at RDE. But I also definitely agree that it's not 2006 Warren that we're replacing, here. I wouldn't be shocked if we already have someone on the roster who can give us a decent approximation of what he gave us last year (no pass rush, stout against the run).

I am not happy he's gone, if he is. I just think the Ty Warren we've seen this year is replaceable especially with all the DL we brought in this year. In 2006 he was a very, very good DL. Since then he's been average. We may not replace him with average and we'll pay for it. But it's clear to me it's the 2007-2009 Ty Warren we're losing not the 2006.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

I am not happy he's gone, if he is. I just think the Ty Warren we've seen this year is replaceable especially with all the DL we brought in this year. In 2006 he was a very, very good DL. Since then he's been average. We may not replace him with average and we'll pay for it. But it's clear to me it's the 2007-2009 Ty Warren we're losing not the 2006.

that's the same thing a lot of people said about Seymour. that he's getting old, etc, and perhaps his production dropped off. but we really missed him last year and are missing him now too. the first rounder we got for him may not help us out in a big way until 2012.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I am not happy he's gone, if he is. I just think the Ty Warren we've seen this year is replaceable especially with all the DL we brought in this year. In 2006 he was a very, very good DL. Since then he's been average. We may not replace him with average and we'll pay for it. But it's clear to me it's the 2007-2009 Ty Warren we're losing not the 2006.

I probably would have agreed with you last year, but the Pats' struggles to replace Seymour have led me to redefine average a little bit. Is Mike Wright average? Is Jarvis Green? Because even at his worst, Ty Warren's better than either of them. So I'd place him solidly in the "unremarkable, but above average at least" category.

Whoever they replace him with, there will be a drop off, even from 2009 Ty. I agree that we're not replacing an All Pro or anything, though. Not by a long shot. The issue for me is more that I was projecting a rebound year for Ty. Seemed like he was healthy for the first time in at least 2 years, and last year especially he was hobbled by some pretty significant stuff that seemed to fly under the radar for the most part. I thought/hoped we'd be getting something close to 2007 Ty, at least, back, and that would have been a significant improvement right off the bat. If we're not getting that, then I'm definitely less optimistic about the defense than I was a couple days ago. It'll still be better than last year, without question, but it won't get back to that elite level that the D had in the SB years without dominant d-line play.

I'd be downright bummed if I hadn't seen the writing on the wall and seen this coming (I mentioned on patscast daily a few days ago that this was the biggest story of camp and that I was worried).

 

[lostjumper]

I was listening to WEEI when Holley said this. It may be true, I know Holley has good sources. However, the way he nonchalantly through it out there really pissed me off. They were talking pats defense, and then he just throws out there, " Hey, I heard Ty Warren may have a season ending injury" and then switched topics and never mentioned it again. Like it was old news that really wasn't worth mentioning. If you are going to say something as big as that, please give us a little context!

 

[Deus Irae]

It's amazing how many "not that good" Patriots players were great just before their injury/trade/release/departure.

 

[ALP]

this is very bad news for us...

we had to replace RDE, and that took us a year, the new Warren seems to be taking up that spot...

but to lose the other DE spot too, and we have no good enough forseeable backup for it....that provides a very large problem

 

[BradyFTW!]

that's the same thing a lot of people said about Seymour. that he's getting old, etc, and perhaps his production dropped off. but we really missed him last year and are missing him now too. the first rounder we got for him may not help us out in a big way until 2012.

What I remember people saying about Seymour was that he was lazy and had stopped trying after he got his new contract. I wish fans had been as sensible about him as they're being about Warren, because I agree that the situations are very similar. If anything, I hope we take this opportunity to maybe look back and reevaluate how we feel about Seymour.

Players take a beating playing on this DL, and it's not just the major injuries. It's the nagging stuff that eats away at their production and wears them down, which eventually becomes bigger, extended injuries. Hopefully Warren continues to follow the Seymour arc and uses this year to heal up fully, so that he can come back next year at 100%, and dominate like Seymour did in 08.

 

[BelichickFan]

It's amazing how many "not that good" Patriots players were great just before their injury/trade/release/departure.

2006 : 56 tackles, 7.5 sacks
2007 : 34 tackles, 4 sacks
2008 : 32 tackles, 2 sacks
2009 : 33 tackles, 1 sack

It is what it is.

The numbers don't lie. I'm not trying to pick on the guy but playing the same defense the numbers just haven't been there; even before Seymour was traded.

 

[Kontradiction]

Really hoping that Deaderick shows something in the preseason here.

 

[Deus Irae]

The numbers don't lie. I'm not trying to pick on the guy but playing the same defense the numbers just haven't been there; even before Seymour was traded.

The numbers frequently lie.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The numbers frequently lie.

Do you think they're lying in this case? Warren wasn't great last year, probably because of the groin and knee injuries that he was dealing with from preseason onward. Losing him is a blow more because he stood to improve the defense (by returning closer to 100%) than because what he actually gave us is irreplaceable. Him coming back at a high level was a big part of why I thought the front 7 would improve significantly.

 

[Kontradiction]

This is also another reason for why getting in on the bidding for Big John Henderson might have been a good idea.

 

[eom]

I think it would totally suck if ty missed the season --- but I thought I'd check some stats:

2009 -

he missed pretty much 4 of 17 games, but in the other 13 he played 62% of total snaps.
missed weeks being:

10 @IND 35 pa, 316 pyds, 91 ryds allowed
15 @BUF 10 pa, 136 pyds, 105 ryds ( Wk1 v BUF 17 pa, 186 pyds, 90 ryds)
16 v JAX 7 pa, 177 pyds, 98 ryds
17 @HOU 27 pa, 295 pyds, 144 ryds

2008 -

once again, missed 4 games, if you count a 13 snap wk16 appearance as a miss.
looks like 63.6% of snaps in the 13 games he played, missed weeks being:

11 v NYJ 27 pa, 235 pyds, 140 ryds (Wk 2 @NYJ 10 pa, 152 pyds, 104 ryds)
13 v PIT 33 pa, 172 pyds, 161 ryds
14 @SEA 21 pa, 205 pyds, 134 ryds
16 v ARI 7 pa, 142 pyds, 44 ryds (I think this was the snowstorm)

 

[signbabybrady]

Didn't post because it was a Rumor from my brother's brother in law's girlfriends neighbors who is friends with the Neighbor of Ty (yeah I know reminds me of the line in Spaceballs).

So from the above paragraph you see why I didn't post it but with Holly going public I figured this might further verify things.

The rumor is that Ty needed to have hip surgery and would be out until December at the earliest.

Obviously you take your time and make sure the medical exams are correct but IMO the longer they go without putting him (or Kaczur) on IR the more likely they are for a potential return. Basically if you know they are out for the season as opposed to hoping for november, december, or january you would want to fill the roster spots as soon as possible.