idle thoughts - putting the pieces together

[Urgent]

Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions about my original post.

1, I'm not trying to claim that the Pats are going to be going nuts shifting defenses and players in a chaotic manner without much rhyme or reason. But someone made a comment on another thread about GWarren that I gave me some clarity. He was happy that Warren was back, but understood he was "no longer an every down player".

Well that's my point. THIS year, IMHO, the only people approaching the level of "every down player" in the front 7 will be Mayo and PERHAPS Vince. THAT'S it. Everyone else will be shuttling in and out depending on the down, distance, situation developed for THAT particular week.....or THAT ingame adjustment.

In other words all many combinations of substitutions that we have seen applied to the secondary, in recent years; is being applied in a similar manner to the front seven. And even this isn't entirely new. Teams routinely make situational changes now along the front 7, but I think that BB is creating a defensive roster that can take it to the NEXT level.

As people have pointed out, logistically it won't be easy. Situational substitutions require players AND coaches be very vigilant and prepared.

Totally agree here.
And this is a repeated hallmark of Belichick.

Remember several years ago when Ted Johnson was not on the active roster for opening day? And started the following week? Johnson was reportedly very angry, and the media was all over it. Belichick mumbled something about the opponent not running up the middle so much.

How about the back-to-back defenses (and game plans) presented to Pittsburgh and Indy in the 2004 playoffs. Masterful. Pittsburgh was blitzed. Indy was covered. The Indy game featured Rodney and Law suddenly switching positions at the snap. (And a fair amount of griping from Polian, but that's besides the point.)

So what we could be seeing, to play out Ken's position, is a design to create that game-to-game flexibility. Some game plans feature pressure. Some feature coverage. Some feature a huge front seven. Some feature speed.

Many players have been quoted about the process of coming in on Tuesday to see how they are going to play the following week, and believing that if they can execute the gameplan, they know they will win.

Where this plan differs from 2000-2004 is in the subbing. With McGinest, Vrabel, Harrison, Law, and a few others, the Patriots had versatile players who could stand in a huddle, and then snap into a very different formation than the opponent anticipated. What this roster probably demands is, as some have alluded, hockey-style substitution (I think it was Deus who commented upon in-play jumping over the boards on defense, apologies if it was someone else).

And where I differed with Ken's analysis was how it was done. If Belichick is really trying to re-create that versatility, I would argue for a mix of veterans and developmental players in the front seven, with a focus on gaining that athletic, versatile edge player who can succeed at three things: edge-setting, coverage, and pass rush, who can put a hand down or stand up. McGinest, Vrabel, and Colvin could do all three. It's rare - and tremendously expensive in free agency.

I love the strategy. I love watching a creative, unexpected defensive gameplan unfold. I fear, as Captain Stone noted, that it's tough to expect veterans from another system to pick up the complex 3-4, read-and-react system, and tough to expect a veteran DE to pick up coverage, so the versatility is more constrained, and by the time that 32-year old picks up the system, he's 35 and injured. In fact, I think it's far easier to bring a veteran DB into this system than a veteran edge player. Adalius Thomas and Derrick Burgess, meet Tyrone Poole and Leigh Bodden. I'd rather start with several 24-year olds.

 

[Urgent]

And on Quinn - there were a couple references to him, since I used him as an example. I'm not suggesting he was the only guy that could do that. It was Belichick who called this draft the deepest in DE/OLB talent in years.

But one argument above is that he was 'unattainable.' Quinn went 14th in the draft. The Patriots were holding 17, 28, 33, and a dozen or so other picks. 13 or 14 was attainable.

Kerrigan went 16, and many considered him a better fit. He certainly would have been a valuable addition whether the Patriots play 3-4 or 4-3.

Anyway, the point is about the approach to building this team, and the trade-off of individual player versatility vs. the ability to construct a good 3-4 run-stuffing team one game and a 4-3 pass-rushing team the next.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Where this plan differs from 2000-2004 is in the subbing. With McGinest, Vrabel, Harrison, Law, and a few others, the Patriots had versatile players who could stand in a huddle, and then snap into a very different formation than the opponent anticipated. What this roster probably demands is, as some have alluded, hockey-style substitution (I think it was Deus who commented upon in-play jumping over the boards on defense, apologies if it was someone else).

Wouldn't the Colts' hurry-up create problems for that kind of scheme?

 

[AzPatsFan]

Except for the unattainability of Robert Quinn, I agree w/ the general idea of the post.

At the end of this season, when Fat Albert, Ellis, GWarren & Carter are one year older & one year slower,
will we be stuck in the same predicament in which we found ourselves at the end of last season?

Without a visible pipeline of young talent at OL & DE to backup/replace the older & slower vets,
I'm afraid the answer might be Yes.

RBs in today's NFL are a dime-a-dozen. Using both 56 & 73 at that position, at the expense of stocking the pipeline at OLB & DE, still seems to me needlessly short-sighted.

You B!tched and complained when Belichick created his "Running-back-by-Committee" of interchangeable older RBs. Now you B!tch when he added fresh legs.

You b!tched when he played youngsters with youth and speed but inexperience saying "Bring in the proven Pass Rushers!"

Yet you b!tch when he felt he had enough youth, and needed to bring in the Pass Rushers, because they aren't youthful.

You can't be satisfied. You just aren't happy and want to B!tch, B!tch, and B!tch some more.

 

[patfanken]

What you're glossing over is the same role/different guy replacements that could be made from drive to drive just because of guys' stamina. Or do you think BB will slice the salami so finely that he tries to match guys to roles perfectly and keep shuttling them in and out?

I think its less about roles and more about the "match ups", Fencer. But who knows. However you can't help but notice the wide variety of skill sets that we are seeing on the front seven Much more varied than in any previous year.

The Irony while WE have all been screaming for LBs, BB looks like (for this year at least) going to de-emphasize it to some degree. Maybe the simple answer is at the draft, while it looked good for DLmen, BB felt here was just so MANY decent DLmen going to be available, who were proven pros, that it wasn't worth it to take a high pick on a prospect for a team that was ALREADY overloaded with young players on defense.

Same goes for the FA period. Where was the quality and numbers. At the DL....;.and BB got his share.

STILL the thing that makes this so exciting and uncertain all at the same time, is trying to figure out who will emerge from the cauldron of competition that is going on in Foxboro. Whatever "steel" emerges, is going to be tempered, flexible, and VERY hard.

This alone makes this a season I am REALLY looking forward to see unfold.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Mayo and Spikes could hit with the best of them. I would never call them weak or soft by any means.

Bruschi, McGinist, Vrabel and Hamilton were technically sound tacklers who knew the art of wrapping up a ball carrier very well as well as knowing their assignments with great recognition skills.

Mayo is approaching that level, Spikes has got a ways to go.

Mayo is 'approaching that level'? Dude only led the NFL in tackles last year. How much better of a tackler does he need to be? I swear players get 10x better in our memory than they actually were.

But one argument above is that he was 'unattainable.' Quinn went 14th in the draft. The Patriots were holding 17, 28, 33, and a dozen or so other picks. 13 or 14 was attainable.

Kerrigan went 16, and many considered him a better fit. He certainly would have been a valuable addition whether the Patriots play 3-4 or 4-3.

Anyway, the point is about the approach to building this team, and the trade-off of individual player versatility vs. the ability to construct a good 3-4 run-stuffing team one game and a 4-3 pass-rushing team the next.

That's easy to speculate but to make a trade, teams above you have to be willing to trade. The Rams mght have been locked in once Quinn fell in their laps at 14. They weren't giving him up for just a 3rd round pick throw in - which is what the trade value chart says such a move up is worth. And the Lions likely were locked in on Fairley once he slipped to them at 13.

Did you also consider that maybe the Pats weren't that high on Kerrigan? I know I've got questions about his athleticism at the NFL level and whether he could have adjusted to a 3-4 OLB role with the Pats. Not to mention Matt Light's future with the Pats was uncertain at that point and Solder was a guy they apparently felt could be a franchise LT. There was no hesitation with the pick.

 

[ClevTrev]

PFK, interesting presentation of points. However, I must be naive, as all this seemed obvious. Maybe the concept you propose is not so prescient to those not on the must have Uber Pass-Rushing OLB bandwagon. The coach of the Patriots has always used unconventional methods, alignments, and roles for players to get an edge. Playing a 4-man front can mean many things, but one thing that's been all the rage over the past few years with a few other effective 34 teams is playing the 34 with 43 spacing. Accordingly, how you assign roles and responsibilities in that scheme makes all the difference, and maybe BB has a unique plan now that he's got some impressive DLs at his disposal. Bottom line is that all DLs who actually make the team must be able to play 3 downs, as opposing teams will keep them on the field if they ever sense a weakness in this area. The DL numbers enable the team to be flexible not only with adjustments of formations and roles, but also (likely most importantly) simply provide depth in case of injury in order to execute the multi-dimensional approach of the defense. And so it goes . . .