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

[TriplecHamp]

THIS!!!

As good as Freeney and Mathis are, the Colts have come up short so often because offenses knows where the Colts' pass rush is coming from and they plan around it. A front 7 (preferably a 3-4) that plays as a unit that can disguise blitzes well and confuse the offense is the most effective pass rush in crunch time.

Yes, thats why. Its because they knew that Freeny and Mathis were coming and they schemed around it. Its that simple, makes you wonder why the Patriots didn't think of this during SB 42. What type of pass rush is the most effective depends on who your playing first and foremost so there is no single blue print.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

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.

Who cares who ran against the Steelers. Why would I ask myself such nonsense questions?

The relavent question is why can't the "vaunted" Steelers defense stop an elite passing attack? The reality is save the luck of drawing the 9-7 Cardinals, SB XLIII would have been remembered as the greatest defensive collapse in Super Bowl history.

Warner threw all day and all over them. Why do the Patriots hammer them all the time?

The point in designing a defense is what can it do against elite offenses. Elite offenses are defined by passing and protection. Racking up 10 sacks, 3 points and 150 yards T/O against Carolina means nothing.

You want to win against elite offenses:

Coverage, coverage, coverage

Abilty to bring pressure at different times with different looks and from different directions

Force some turnovers

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

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.

Maine

I think you are too hard on the line. With Warren, Wright, Pryor, and Brace out; it's not hard to see why the Dline play would drop off. When you are signing several guys right before the playoffs; it's not a good sign.

When it comes to the Dline, here is what I think the questions should be:

Is T Warren coming back and is he going to 100%? Is G Warren coming back?

A Warren/Warren/Wilfork base is pretty decent. I would look at G Warren at nose and Wilfork at DE. Vince seems to really like DE. He would have to slim down a little bit.

If a stud DE is there get him. Trade up even but only if he is the guy that's wanted and fits the scheme. Under no circumstances should there be a pick of desperation.

T Warren/Wright/Pryor form a good basis of getting pressure from the Dline. Unfortunately, none were available in the playoffs. As such, lack of pressure was not a shock. Where are these guys for 2011?

Ideally, we would have four Dline guys that can pressure. Getting a pressure specialist in the later rounds or through FA is feasible.

 

[mcsully]

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.

What do you want me to tell u.. He doesn't fit our system. Maybe the 2 inches does make a difference..

Who am I supposed to listen to, people who post billion of messages and think they know football or Teddy Bruschi.. I'll stick with Teddy

NOt going to matter, like I said, he's getting franchised

 

[Patriot Missile]

What do you want me to tell u.. He doesn't fit our system. Maybe the 2 inches does make a difference..

Who am I supposed to listen to, people who post billion of messages and think they know football or Teddy Bruschi.. I'll stick with Teddy

NOt going to matter, like I said, he's getting franchised

You lose credibility with your 2 inch argument. He does fit the system and I don't think you can find 5 messages to back your claim, never mind a billion. Easily one of the few players that has the size, recognition skills, minus the 2 inches, to fit into our system.

Yeah he is probably getting franchised. Atleast we agree on that much.

 

[mcsully]

You lose credibility with your 2 inch argument. He does fit the system and I don't think you can find 5 messages to back your claim, never mind a billion. Easily one of the few players that has the size, recognition skills, minus the 2 inches, to fit into our system.

Yeah he is probably getting franchised. Atleast we agree on that much.

You're right, he fits our system, he plays great in space.hahhahahah.... Bruschi and other people I've talked to are wrong in their assessment of the type of players that fit our system.. THanks for clearing that up..

Pst.. I have an iceburg to sell you..

 

[Patriot Missile]

You're right, he fits our system.. Bruschi and other people I've talked to are wrong.. THanks for clearing that up.. :eyeroll:

As long as we are clear. Glad to see you and Bruschi came to your senses. Tell him I said "Hi".

 

[mcsully]

You lose credibility with your 2 inch argument. He does fit the system and I don't think you can find 5 messages to back your claim, never mind a billion. Easily one of the few players that has the size, recognition skills, minus the 2 inches, to fit into our system.

Yeah he is probably getting franchised. Atleast we agree on that much.

oh yes, atleast is actually spelled "at least".. So please b4 you say I lose credability, please start off the using proper grammar before you comment.. oh lord

As long as we are clear. Glad to see you and Bruschi came to your senses. Tell him I said "Hi".

Second, I wouldn't want to offend Bruchi with internet chat..hahhah.. Hopefully get the opprotunity again

 

[Patriot Missile]

oh yes, atleast is actually spelled "at least".. So please b4 you say I lose credability, please start off the using proper grammar before you comment.. oh lord




Second, I wouldn't want to offend Bruchi with internet chat..hahhah.. Hopefully get the opprotunity again

So you are part of the spelling and grammar club too? 5 stars for you. You don't need to mispell any words to get my attention. opprotunity? credability? Sarcasm was appreciated though. You were probably the hallway monitor in high school too?

 

[Mogamedogz]

Im just really sick of the fans parroting this bull****... "Our scheme this, our scheme that"... They don't know **** about "the scheme", because there is no one scheme. Part of what has made Belichick great, is his ability to adapt and be unpredictable. Sometimes from snap to snap.

He is on record saying that if a player is talented enough, there is always a way you can use that guy on your team.

All the scheme talk you hear on boards like this, is nothing more than a posse of wannabe BB's repeating stuff they have read or looking too deeply into statistics...or trying their best to breakdown film of games they have recorded on their DVR.

 

[MaineMan]

Maine

I think you are too hard on the line. With Warren, Wright, Pryor, and Brace out; it's not hard to see why the Dline play would drop off. When you are signing several guys right before the playoffs; it's not a good sign.

When it comes to the Dline, here is what I think the questions should be:

Is T Warren coming back and is he going to 100%? Is G Warren coming back?

A Warren/Warren/Wilfork base is pretty decent. I would look at G Warren at nose and Wilfork at DE. Vince seems to really like DE. He would have to slim down a little bit.

If a stud DE is there get him. Trade up even but only if he is the guy that's wanted and fits the scheme. Under no circumstances should there be a pick of desperation.

T Warren/Wright/Pryor form a good basis of getting pressure from the Dline. Unfortunately, none were available in the playoffs. As such, lack of pressure was not a shock. Where are these guys for 2011?

Ideally, we would have four Dline guys that can pressure. Getting a pressure specialist in the later rounds or through FA is feasible.

I think I've pretty consistently acknowledged that missing Ty Warren was a big blow to D-line effectiveness, but my point has been that the D-line has been ineffective all season, not just "a drop off" later after Wright, Pryor and Brace were injured.

The Ty Warren/Wilfork/Seymour line regularly snagged 160-170 tackles a season on their own, with sub package guys like Wright, Green and others then adding another 50-80 for an annual total around 230. In 2010, total tackles on the season for all eight D-line guys were 152. With total defensive tackles in 2010 being only 20 or so above the 10-year average, that represents a huge, season-long dropoff/deficit that had to be made up by other units. Since D-line tackles are almost entirely on running plays (aside from sacks) and the total ground game yardage allowed in 2010 wasn't significantly above average (2%), that means those other units had to be spending more time defending the run (or being ready to defend the run).

Wilfork was, no surprise, the most productive D-lineman with 57 tackles, his second highest season total. The next two most productive in 2010 were Brace and G.Warren who got 49 tackles between them. Ty Warren has averaged 53 tackles per season, so, yes, getting him back (healthy) will help immensely. A DE on the other end from Ty Warren who can contribute the 48 tackles that Seymour did on average gets us back to where the D-line was when the defense really rocked. Right now, I don't really see anyone on the roster who can fill that order.

 

[mcsully]

So you are part of the spelling and grammar club too? 5 stars for you. You don't need to mispell any words to get my attention. opprotunity? credability? Sarcasm was appreciated though. You were probably the hallway monitor in high school too?

Ah, ruffled some feathers I see...oh yes, "Alot" is actually not one word, it's "a lot"
Lesson of the day

Joking aside...
the point being made is size does matter in our scheme. If it didn't, we have 5"10 lber's and 260 pound dl men .
I've gone to enough events and heard from experts that size plays a roll in the pats scheme. I'm jut relaying the good word.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I think I've pretty consistently acknowledged that missing Ty Warren was a big blow to D-line effectiveness, but my point has been that the D-line has been ineffective all season, not just "a drop off" later after Wright, Pryor and Brace were injured.

The Ty Warren/Wilfork/Seymour line regularly snagged 160-170 tackles a season on their own, with sub package guys like Wright, Green and others then adding another 50-80 for an annual total around 230. In 2010, total tackles on the season for all eight D-line guys were 152. With total defensive tackles in 2010 being only 20 or so above the 10-year average, that represents a huge, season-long dropoff/deficit that had to be made up by other units. Since D-line tackles are almost entirely on running plays (aside from sacks) and the total ground game yardage allowed in 2010 wasn't significantly above average (2%), that means those other units had to be spending more time defending the run (or being ready to defend the run).

Wilfork was, no surprise, the most productive D-lineman with 57 tackles, his second highest season total. The next two most productive in 2010 were Brace and G.Warren who got 49 tackles between them. Ty Warren has averaged 53 tackles per season, so, yes, getting him back (healthy) will help immensely. A DE on the other end from Ty Warren who can contribute the 48 tackles that Seymour did on average gets us back to where the D-line was when the defense really rocked. Right now, I don't really see anyone on the roster who can fill that order.

Fully agree.

If one of these kids, is our guy I see zero problem trading up for a stud.

If we get our guys healthy, I don't think we need to draft or sign from desperation.

 

[MaineMan]

Fully agree.

If one of these kids, is our guy I see zero problem trading up for a stud.

If we get our guys healthy, I don't think we need to draft or sign from desperation.

In terms of DE "studs", Dareus, though maybe a little short at 6'3", could be that run-stopping stud, but he's been consistently ranked around #5 and the trade-up cost would be huge: [#17, 33, 92, 124] - or - [#28, 33, 60, 92, 156].

Jordan definitely seems worthy. He's currently ranked around #13 which would cost us [#17, 92, 124, 184] to move up to, which isn't TOO bad. However, there's a distinct chance he goes much higher.

Among the later guys, there's Watt (raw), Heyward (effort questions and injury) and Wilkerson. Wilkerson apparently has played 2-gap (?) and seems to have been the biggest tackle-hound of those three (70 + 61 over the past two seasons), with a smattering of TFLs and sacks. He's currently ranked around the mid-2nd, so maybe we end up taking him at #28 or #33 after everything shakes out post-Combine.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

In terms of DE "studs", Dareus, though maybe a little short at 6'3", could be that run-stopping stud, but he's been consistently ranked around #5 and the trade-up cost would be huge: [#17, 33, 92, 124] - or - [#28, 33, 60, 92, 156].

Jordan definitely seems worthy. He's currently ranked around #13 which would cost us [#17, 92, 124, 184] to move up to, which isn't TOO bad. However, there's a distinct chance he goes much higher.

Among the later guys, there's Watt (raw), Heyward (effort questions and injury) and Wilkerson. Wilkerson apparently has played 2-gap (?) and seems to have been the biggest tackle-hound of those three (70 + 61 over the past two seasons), with a smattering of TFLs and sacks. He's currently ranked around the mid-2nd, so maybe we end up taking him at #28 or #33 after everything shakes out post-Combine.

The three areas of most concern to me are motor/football IQ, height, and potential weight. I have never understood why the various sites never try to guestimate what a guy can max a body frame at.

The Miller kid is a good example. He gets listed at 237 but can his frame take 265?

 

[upstater1]

Q: I'm a B10 fan and I've watched enough of Heyward to know that when he's on, he's good. Haven't been watching his technique. Assuming he checks out in terms of motor and love for football, is Heyward a fit? 2-gap?

I know his father ate himself out of the league so it's a concern.

The reason I'm asking the question is that the Patriots didn't shy away from Seymour despite the fact that Seymour was energized and dominant as a junior, and a bit lazy as a senior. Seymour did not bring it his senior year, and really you could tell during his time with the Patriots that he doesn't bring it every play. He's not like Vince.

So, I guess I'm asking, is Heyward a viable possibility for the Patriots if his character issues check out?

 

[Shelterdog]

The three areas of most concern to me are motor/football IQ, height, and potential weight. I have never understood why the various sites never try to guestimate what a guy can max a body frame at.

The Miller kid is a good example. He gets listed at 237 but can his frame take 265?

They do talk sporadically about how much weight a player can gain. You see the term "maxed out" or "very well developed" if they think a guy is carrying about as much weight as he can.

In Von Miller's case, a lot of the scouting reports do say he's more or less at his max weight.

 

[Patriot Missile]

Ah, ruffled some feathers I see...oh yes, "Alot" is actually not one word, it's "a lot"
Lesson of the day

Joking aside...
the point being made is size does matter in our scheme. If it didn't, we have 5"10 lber's and 260 pound dl men .
I've gone to enough events and heard from experts that size plays a roll in the pats scheme. I'm jut relaying the good word.

Thank you hall monitor. I'm glad to see you and your team of experts are on top of things. I guess Colvin being 6-3 was ok compared to Woodley's 6-2? Special exception must of been made there by BB? Size and weight combined? 6-2 265 just doesn't cut it? Give me reasons. Overall vision of the field? 265 is slowing him down because his height is 2 inches shorter? He is big enough to play DE in a 4-3. Ability to cover? Strength to set the edge. Tackles well. Rushes the passer when called to do so. Seems like a perfect 3-4 olb convert to me.

6-2 265 does fit the size requirements. If you want to argue his abilities I could listen to that argument. But evidently you would rather play speak and spell all day, since your knowledge seems to be limited to insults regarding grammar. Please, no more replies or else I would think you a stalker. Really now? I will act my age and refrain from conversing back and forth with someone who acts like they are 12. It's not like you offer anything to the argument anyway. Basically everything boils down to your expert sources tell you so? lol

 

[mcsully]

Thank you hall monitor. I'm glad to see you and your team of experts are on top of things. I guess Colvin being 6-3 was ok compared to Woodley's 6-2? Special exception must of been made there by BB? Size and weight combined? 6-2 265 just doesn't cut it? Give me reasons. Overall vision of the field? 265 is slowing him down

I've been fortunately enough to meet people in the media like Pat Kirwan, Teddy Bruschi, Todd McShay and Mike Reiss. During my conversations with them, 1 on 1 or sitting on the side and listening to them answer anothers questions, I've been able to ascertain their POV on topics.

Now the example I'm giving was last year (predraft party hosted by the Pats) during a converstation about what type of LB fits the pats system (I mentioned this before but maybe not in this thread). Bruschi was the first to take the question and gave an example how he played OLB for one day and the main issue was not his weight but his size.. He couldn't see over the blocker to diagnose the play & seal the edge.. His future as an OLB was quickly washed away. He mentioned players like Ricky Sapp and Sergio Kindle are more prototypical. @ some point Graham was brought into the conversation and the response was negative across the board.

I don't recall to many discussions on speed and weight ratio.. They all did agree the Pats prefer Seniors who are football junkies..

Can I answer all your questions.. No, wish I could... All I'm doing is relaying what I've had the opprotunity others haven't.. And that's my point..

 

[Shelterdog]

Thank you hall monitor. I'm glad to see you and your team of experts are on top of things. I guess Colvin being 6-3 was ok compared to Woodley's 6-2? Special exception must of been made there by BB? Size and weight combined? 6-2 265 just doesn't cut it? Give me reasons. Overall vision of the field? 265 is slowing him down because his height is 2 inches shorter? He is big enough to play DE in a 4-3. Ability to cover? Strength to set the edge. Tackles well. Rushes the passer when called to do so. Seems like a perfect 3-4 olb convert to me.

6-2 265 does fit the size requirements. If you want to argue his abilities I could listen to that argument. But evidently you would rather play speak and spell all day, since your knowledge seems to be limited to insults regarding grammar. Please, no more replies or else I would think you a stalker. Really now? I will act my age and refrain from conversing back and forth with someone who acts like they are 12. It's not like you offer anything to the argument anyway. Basically everything boils down to your expert sources tell you so? lol

Here is the reason the height/length of the OLB is important.

When an OLB is playing in a two gap system they are frequently going to engage with a offensive lineman or tight end, try to hold them off at arms' length and not got squished, and then disengage to make a tackle, left or right, depending on where the runner is going to go. A guy like Vollmer or Gronk is going to eat up a short linebacker who is trying to do that.

In a one-gap system the linebacker is trying to get low and get by the same player. They're just going to go to the right or left of the blocker and hope that's where the runner is going or force the runner to hit the other side.

Now I haven't seen enough of Woodley or Grahman to know if they could stand up the big boys and then disengage, but that's the general principal.