I am frustrated with the "he doesn't fit our scheme" talk

[mcsully]

Last nights game was a great example of why the Bend don't break defense is effective, in some cases.

Packers basically used the Pats play book last night.. Lots of short to medium passes and sprinkle in a few long ones.. limit your running.. Spread the Steelers out.

What hurt the Packers, besides losing Woodson, was their pressure defense. To many times they gave up big runs on the outside or plays over the top. There were a few 3rd and long or 2nd and longer and the steelers converted.. This is a case where playing the bend don't break would have been more effective..


BTW Woodley isn't coming here

 

[MaineMan]

If there are so many non-fits strictly in terms of DL & OLB, who are the players that would fit scheme-wise?

I don't know that it's strictly a matter of "fit" vs. "non-fit", like some black-or-white thing, but more like it's on a 1-10 scale with virtually no prospects being 10s and few being 9s. Then, it becomes a matter of how much you're willing to pay in terms of draft pick value for how much of a fit.

Also, almost every other scheme is significantly more attack-based than the Pats' scheme, meaning that the market will generally value dramatic attack skills more than BB will and, thus, those prospects will be highly-ranked. Some of them may also offer other qualities that may make them good fits for our scheme, but the market focus on attack skills pre-dominates so much that we may not hear much or get accurate reports on other skills/potential.

From my perspective, a good fit for starting DE in the 3-man front (as opposed to just general "DL", since there are a lot of different specialty roles for sub-packagers) - for me that would be a guy with exceptional length (generally 6'5"+) and decent heft (290+) who has very good gap discipline (IOW, isn't strictly a gap-shooting, get after the QB type), ties up extra blockers, sheds and tackles well. The objective being to field a 3-man front that can reduce running lanes and make a significant chunk of ground game stops without using up LB/safety resources all the time (thus taking them away from pass-rush/coverage). If they can get good pressure and sacks, too, so much the better, but that wouldn't be the primary requirement. Out of this class, for me, the list might include Watt, Heyward, Jordan, Wilkerson, David Carter, Christian Ballard, possibly a couple others. None of them are "perfect fits", but all of them seem better fits to me than several more highly-ranked players. IOW, these are all guys we wouldn't have to trade up to get.

OLBs need to have very good edge-setting skills and discipline (again to limit running lanes), tackle very well and be able to cover some. They don't need elite pass-rush skills as a primary requirement, either. If the 3-man front is doing its job properly, the OLBs will have sufficient opportunities to not worry about the run and commit to a rush in which even moderate rush skills will be enough to be effective. Size-wise, to me, this might include guys as "small" as 6'2"/260 and as large as 6'5"/275 - quite a wide range. It's what they can do that counts, though. The list of potential fits within range of our existing picks is fairly long and might extend from Kerrigan (currently around #20) down to (maybe) Pernell "Nanny" McPhee at #98. Again, a lot of potential fits who we wouldn't need to trade up to get.

Seems to me that most of the more vigorous arguments over "fit" really revolve around whether or not a guy is enough of a fit to trade UP for and/or whether or not a guy we'd need to trade up to get is so talented as to be worth changing the scheme to fit him in. Guess which side I come down on.

 

[MaineMan]

Last nights game was a great example of why the Bend don't break defense is effective, in some cases.

Packers basically used the Pats play book last night.. Lots of short to medium passes and sprinkle in a few long ones.. limit your running.. Spread the Steelers out.

What hurt the Packers, besides losing Woodson, was their pressure defense. To many times they gave up big runs on the outside or plays over the top. There were a few 3rd and long or 2nd and longer and the steelers converted.. This is a case where playing the bend don't break would have been more effective..


BTW Woodley isn't coming here

I found it amusing that Capers adopted a more bend-don't-break approach vs the Steelers with Matthews at least TRYING to play more contain than attack. Wonder where Capers got that from?

 

[Patriot Missile]

BTW Woodley isn't coming here

Yeah.....Roosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas say hello.

I'm not naive enough to know for certain that he is coming here. But to rule out any free agent that could help this team is naive on your part. BB has been known to break the bank from time to time.

 

[Shelterdog]

Yeah.....Roosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas say hello.

I'm not naive enough to know for certain that he is coming here. But to rule out any free agent that could help this team is naive on your part. BB has been known to break the bank from time to time.

The difference is that if there is a franchise tag in the next CBA it's 100 percent sure that Pitt is going to use it on Woodley.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Since everybody is going to **** on Matthews today and use him as an example of why we shouldn't draft a passrushing linebacker, lets not forget Woodley had a hell of a game.

So now we are back to the Demarcus Ware/Dallas pass defense logic.

You do realize the Packers put up 31 points and had over 300 yards of passing offense?

Absent unforced drops they would have put up well over 400 yards and about 50 points.

Ofcourse, that means zero because the Steelers got 3 sacks.

Yeah, I can forget that Woodley had a "great game" (LOL) because that defense was horrible and lost the game.

Nobody is **** on Matthews. This can only be realized when the reality that last night was decided on the quality of the secondaries is realized.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I found it amusing that Capers adopted a more bend-don't-break approach vs the Steelers with Matthews at least TRYING to play more contain than attack. Wonder where Capers got that from?

Realistically speaking our defense has bend but don;t break on first and second down, down Pat! (Pun intended)

Where we struggle is in pressuring the QB. Taking QB's out of their confort zone. Forcing QB's to throw early or off rythem.

Clearly the answer is not currently on the roster. And Dallas is not trading Ware to us, although I like the trade someone else posted earlier, #9 and Ware to the Pats for our first three picks.

The beauty of Capers defense int eh second half of 2010 was it's flexibility and ability to play the pressure game or the under game.

We used to be that defense and could be again if we get a a pass rushing demon or two.

 

[TriplecHamp]

So now we are back to the Demarcus Ware/Dallas pass defense logic.

You do realize the Packers put up 31 points and had over 300 yards of passing offense?

Absent unforced drops they would have put up well over 400 yards and about 50 points.

Ofcourse, that means zero because the Steelers got 3 sacks.

Yeah, I can forget that Woodley had a "great game" (LOL) because that defense was horrible and lost the game.

Nobody is **** on Matthews. This can only be realized when the reality that last night was decided on the quality of the secondaries is realized.

The Packers put up 31 points with 3 turnovers, one being a pick 6. Look at what the Bears did with a good but not great secondary and a good pass rush. Woodley and company shut the run down and he looked good in coverage. He played like the type of outside linebacker that would excel here. Corner has been the biggest problem on defense for the Steelers and that was exposed. I hate to be blunt but you are an idiot of you think that the defense lost the game for the Steelers. They came up with plenty of stops but in the end the Roethlisbuger and the rest of their offense couldn't get it done.

 

[Patriot Missile]

We used to be that defense and could be again if we get a a pass rushing demon or two.

Agreed. We are close to being a very nice defense again. Last year had a lot of positives without a pass rush. Rookies did a fantastic job considering they had to step right in. They will only get better and with Warren Bodden they only look stronger. With a bonifed pass rush this team could be dominant again.

 

[MaineMan]

The Packers put up 31 points with 3 turnovers, one being a pick 6. Look at what the Bears did with a good but not great secondary and a good pass rush. Woodley and company shut the run down and he looked good in coverage. He played like the type of outside linebacker that would excel here. Corner has been the biggest problem on defense for the Steelers and that was exposed. I hate to be blunt but you are an idiot of you think that the defense lost the game for the Steelers. They came up with plenty of stops but in the end the Roethlisbuger and the rest of their offense couldn't get it done.

Kinda depends on how you look at it. The Packers, a team that hadn't run very well at all during the regular season, were getting some good chunks of yardage when they did run, but Rodgers was picking the Steelers' secondary apart, so why would they bother much? Nothing against Woodley, though.

Also, it seems to me that the Bears' LBs as a group may be slightly better in coverage than the Steelers' LBs. Then, too, the Bears' front four has been far more effective defending the run by themselves than the Steelers' front three. With Peppers also able to be effective dropping back into coverage, their entire front seven is fairly diverse wrt where the coverage will be and where the rush is coming from. Even so, the Bears had fewer sacks, picks and PDs than the Pats did.

 

[mcsully]

Yeah.....Roosevelt Colvin and Adalius Thomas say hello.

I'm not naive enough to know for certain that he is coming here. But to rule out any free agent that could help this team is naive on your part. BB has been known to break the bank from time to time.

Colvin and Thomas can say hello all they want.. I was referring to how woodley size doesn't fit our system.. Not the $$ part..

If we're going to spend money, lets go after players who will fit out system.. Bailey, D Angelo Williams, Ngata and/or S. Holmes

Not players who would have trouble sealing the outside or containing.. Trust me, I'd love to see a 15 sack guy here, but in our system, its not very likely.. BB doesn't want a one trick player..

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

The Packers put up 31 points with 3 turnovers, one being a pick 6. Look at what the Bears did with a good but not great secondary and a good pass rush. Woodley and company shut the run down and he looked good in coverage. He played like the type of outside linebacker that would excel here. Corner has been the biggest problem on defense for the Steelers and that was exposed. I hate to be blunt but you are an idiot of you think that the defense lost the game for the Steelers. They came up with plenty of stops but in the end the Roethlisbuger and the rest of their offense couldn't get it done.

Woodley and company shut the run down.......by letting the Packers pass all over them. They only had 13 push attempts. Why run when you can pass all day?

They came up with plenty of stops......by channeling the Packer receivers into dropping the ball. Had the Packer receivers caught the football per NFL standards, they would have put up 50 points.

You are advocating a new scheme? Let's hope the offense drops pass after pass.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Colvin and Thomas can say hello all they want.. I was referring to how woodley size doesn't fit our system.. Not the $$ part.. .

lol at Woodley's size doesn't fit our scheme. 6-2 265 is a problem with you and BB? They didn't seem to have trouble with Vrabel being 6-4 261 at OLB. That whole 2 inches and 4 pounds is huge.

I think there was some arguments about ILB a few years ago when it came down to Mayo's weight. Bruschi 6-1 247. Very comparable.

Sure he is probably is going to be franchised, but noone really knows if Pitt will go in that direction if they think they can groom someone into his mold. Money wise, I think they could make it happen.

 

[Tasco]

I don't know that it's strictly a matter of "fit" vs. "non-fit", like some black-or-white thing, but more like it's on a 1-10 scale with virtually no prospects being 10s and few being 9s. Then, it becomes a matter of how much you're willing to pay in terms of draft pick value for how much of a fit.

Also, almost every other scheme is significantly more attack-based than the Pats' scheme, meaning that the market will generally value dramatic attack skills more than BB will and, thus, those prospects will be highly-ranked. Some of them may also offer other qualities that may make them good fits for our scheme, but the market focus on attack skills pre-dominates so much that we may not hear much or get accurate reports on other skills/potential.

From my perspective, a good fit for starting DE in the 3-man front (as opposed to just general "DL", since there are a lot of different specialty roles for sub-packagers) - for me that would be a guy with exceptional length (generally 6'5"+) and decent heft (290+) who has very good gap discipline (IOW, isn't strictly a gap-shooting, get after the QB type), ties up extra blockers, sheds and tackles well. The objective being to field a 3-man front that can reduce running lanes and make a significant chunk of ground game stops without using up LB/safety resources all the time (thus taking them away from pass-rush/coverage). If they can get good pressure and sacks, too, so much the better, but that wouldn't be the primary requirement. Out of this class, for me, the list might include Watt, Heyward, Jordan, Wilkerson, David Carter, Christian Ballard, possibly a couple others. None of them are "perfect fits", but all of them seem better fits to me than several more highly-ranked players. IOW, these are all guys we wouldn't have to trade up to get.

OLBs need to have very good edge-setting skills and discipline (again to limit running lanes), tackle very well and be able to cover some. They don't need elite pass-rush skills as a primary requirement, either. If the 3-man front is doing its job properly, the OLBs will have sufficient opportunities to not worry about the run and commit to a rush in which even moderate rush skills will be enough to be effective. Size-wise, to me, this might include guys as "small" as 6'2"/260 and as large as 6'5"/275 - quite a wide range. It's what they can do that counts, though. The list of potential fits within range of our existing picks is fairly long and might extend from Kerrigan (currently around #20) down to (maybe) Pernell "Nanny" McPhee at #98. Again, a lot of potential fits who we wouldn't need to trade up to get.

Seems to me that most of the more vigorous arguments over "fit" really revolve around whether or not a guy is enough of a fit to trade UP for and/or whether or not a guy we'd need to trade up to get is so talented as to be worth changing the scheme to fit him in. Guess which side I come down on.

thanks a lot for the explanation...much clearer now!

 

[Patriot Missile]

Woodley and company shut the run down.......by letting the Packers pass all over them. They only had 13 push attempts. Why run when you can pass all day?

They came up with plenty of stops......by channeling the Packer receivers into dropping the ball. Had the Packer receivers caught the football per NFL standards, they would have put up 50 points.

You are advocating a new scheme? Let's hope the offense drops pass after pass.

You are right. Dropped passes were key to Pitt staying in the game. I did think Woodley had the best game of all the Steelers on defense though. He couldn't jam the wr at the line of scrimmage which suprised me though. Luckily for us our secondary is a lot better than the Steelers, especially with Bodden back in the mix.(it's just a shoulder injury people,not a blown out achilles or anterior ligament. He'll be back at 100%}.

Polamalu was a non factor because they let him roam with no discipline as usual. It's flashy and effective at times, but when they run into a good QB like Rodgers all he has to do is look to where Troy is at and envision where the soft part of the defense will be. He just gives it away.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

You are right. Dropped passes were key to Pitt staying in the game. I did think Woodley had the best game of all the Steelers on defense though. He couldn't jam the wr at the line of scrimmage which suprised me though. Luckily for us our secondary is a lot better than the Steelers, especially with Bodden back in the mix.(it's just a shoulder injury people,not a blown out achilles or anterior ligament. He'll be back at 100%}.

Polamalu was a non factor because they let him roam with no discipline as usual. It's flashy and effective at times, but when they run into a good QB like Rodgers all he has to do is look to where Troy is at and envision where the soft part of the defense will be. He just gives it away.

Personally, I think Woodley would be an OUTSTANDING addition to the defense. However, this is because he does many things well. He isn't a pass rush specialist.

The real problem with these discussions is the chicken/egg thing. Does a superior secondary make a pass rush or should the pass rush make the secondary.

Do posters want a "pass rush" or a "pass rusher".

Obviously we need talent at all levels and talent is needed even for "coverage sacks".

The lesson of yesterday is a better secondary matters.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Personally, I think Woodley would be an OUTSTANDING addition to the defense. However, this is because he does many things well. He isn't a pass rush specialist.

The real problem with these discussions is the chicken/egg thing. Does a superior secondary make a pass rush or should the pass rush make the secondary.

Do posters want a "pass rush" or a "pass rusher".

Obviously we need talent at all levels and talent is needed even for "coverage sacks".

The lesson of yesterday is a better secondary matters.

Good call. At this point i will take either when you compare to what we have now. Of course most of us want the flashy guy that crushes the QB into the ground.

There have been been some good posts describing our Dynasty defense and how it got to the QB. Something along the lines of a player having 10 sacks and the rest averaging 5-7 per season. I would take that. That was quite enjoyable to watch the team work that went into that. A bunch of playmakers.

Someone like Woodley would help us achieve that. A lot would depend on a few things though. How does the secondary look? The progression of Spikes and Cunningham? Warren and Wright coming back? I'm not saying Woodley is the anser, but if you ar looking for someone who can play in all phases who is a playmaker than he is our guy.

 

[MaineMan]

Realistically speaking our defense has bend but don;t break on first and second down, down Pat! (Pun intended)

Where we struggle is in pressuring the QB. Taking QB's out of their confort zone. Forcing QB's to throw early or off rythem.

Clearly the answer is not currently on the roster. And Dallas is not trading Ware to us, although I like the trade someone else posted earlier, #9 and Ware to the Pats for our first three picks.

The beauty of Capers defense int eh second half of 2010 was it's flexibility and ability to play the pressure game or the under game.

We used to be that defense and could be again if we get a a pass rushing demon or two.

I really didn't see Capers pressing the pass rush much at all in the game or even selling out to stop the run. Their defense was much more about having guys in coverage.

To me, the thing that takes QBs out of their comfort zone and allows for rush pressure to get results is consistently putting them in 3rd-and-long AND knowing that the odds are against them picking up a first down running because our front three are strong enough to stop runs on their own. It's always amazed me how creating such situations on a regular basis can turn ordinary OLBs into fine pass rushers. Unfortunately, outside of Wilfork and, maybe, Ty Warren (IF he comes back healthy), our D-line couldn't stop a drunken cub scout running over RG on a 3rd-and 15.

 

[MaineMan]

lol at Woodley's size doesn't fit our scheme. 6-2 265 is a problem with you and BB? They didn't seem to have trouble with Vrabel being 6-4 261 at OLB. That whole 2 inches and 4 pounds is huge.

I think there was some arguments about ILB a few years ago when it came down to Mayo's weight. Bruschi 6-1 247. Very comparable.

Sure he is probably is going to be franchised, but noone really knows if Pitt will go in that direction if they think they can groom someone into his mold. Money wise, I think they could make it happen.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Woodley because of his size. He does more things well than just rush the QB, so I'd be fine with him.

 

[TriplecHamp]

Woodley and company shut the run down.......by letting the Packers pass all over them. They only had 13 push attempts. Why run when you can pass all day?

They came up with plenty of stops......by channeling the Packer receivers into dropping the ball. Had the Packer receivers caught the football per NFL standards, they would have put up 50 points.

You are advocating a new scheme? Let's hope the offense drops pass after pass.

Ask yourself who the last team to run with success was against the steelers. There philosophy is based around stopping the run and they do it well. Its no secret that the Packers are a pass first team and their damn good at it while Pittsburgh's secondary is average outside of Polamalu. Who's to say that a player like Matthews can't play here because he plays well in another scheme? People see Mathews shooting a gap and making a play or taking himself out of one and say "he can't do that here", well he won't be asked too. If the Patriots were to draft an OLB early it would be because they have the potential to play turn into a well rounded OLB in our system. Nobody is expecting that come day one but if you can rush the passer and you have any sort of fluidity in your hips you should be considered.