**IF** Wilfork is gone, do we go to a 4-3?

[woolster22]

If big Vince is traded out of town (I certainly hope not), I think it would be safe to say we will see more 4-3 looks from the D next year. What other 3-4 NT options would be available for replacements, and would they perform anywhere near Vince's level? the defensive 7 has enough holes right now, but swapping to a 4-3 would seem to mask a few of them. It would also cut down on the need to "fight" all the teams switching to 3-4 for the already limited FA pool. A 1 year band-aid until the expected FA boom in 2011 (assuming there is no lockout and they go back to CBA-type RFA rules)? This would make someone like Kampman more of a legitimate possibility, and he wouldn't be demanding the type of price tag of, say, a Peppers. for the first time in years I am actually confident in the guys at CB/S. If we manage to keep Bodden, than you bring in a body or two for camp fodder and we see the same names next year. The Wilfork fiasco is one of the first steps of a fairly foggy offseason as far as the defense goes. And I say how the defense performs will have more to do with the success of the 2010 Pats than the offense.

Offense is fairly straight-forward. Bring in some WRs, find a set of young legs for the backfield, and look for depth/potential future starters in the interior of the line. The WR position is worrisome, but we have seen Brady do an awful lot with next to nothing (Caldwell...that bug eyed statue). A second rounder should have a few good candidates, bring in a FA or two for camp and that should be acceptable. I don't think the RBs are a major worry this year, and a mid-round pick should be enough to get them through the year. A C/G developing to a starter for 2011 would do wonders for this line (also assuming Mank sticks around), and toward improving the lifespan of The Franchise. It all starts in the trenches, and we need help on both sides of the ball.

What say you?

 

[celticboy04]

Greetings,
With the current personal, if Wilfork leaves, the 4-3 might be the best option for the team. I do remember earlier in the 2009 season the team ran the 4-3 with TBC as DE. Things will be interesting how they play out with Vince Wilfork.
Shalom,
Celticboy04

 

[Gwedd]

Wilfork ain't leaving.

Word...

He'll play here another year. After that, the whole slate of options opens up, but being that it's likely to be a strike year, Vince would be beyond ******ed to not take the offer and sign up for one last year.

Since Big Vince ain't ******ed, there isn't much else to say.

 

[emoney_33]

I don't think Wilfork is leaving but even if he were, he's not the deciding factor of whether to play more 3-4 or 4-3. There is still an entire Free Agency period, potential trades and the draft left before they can even begin to determine what the best schemes for 2010 will be.

 

[woolster22]

Wilfork ain't leaving.

Word...

He'll play here another year. After that, the whole slate of options opens up, but being that it's likely to be a strike year, Vince would be beyond ******ed to not take the offer and sign up for one last year.

Since Big Vince ain't ******ed, there isn't much else to say.

I wasn't suggesting that he wouldn't sign the offer, I was merely pondering the possibility of him being traded out of town for a pick or two. It would also give the Pats enough ammo to trade up a few times (like the Jets last year) to get after a few kids they are really high on, while maintaining a decent amount of picks period. (Say they get a 2nd and a 4th, thats 5 in the first two rounds...)

I want Vince in town as much as anyone, but with the sudden swing to 3-4 Defenses, those players will be at a premium. How many really good NTs has the league seen over the past decade? OLBs have the same story. Now look at 4-3 DEs. Hell, the giants had 3 high quality ones on the same team in Tuck, Osi and the Gap-Toothed Monster in 07. If Vince is gone I think the best way to sure up the d would be a swap to the 43 for atleast this year, and go after some of the assumed FAs in 2010.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

No.

..........

 

[jczxohn1]

If big Vince is traded out of town (I certainly hope not), I think it would be safe to say we will see more 4-3 looks from the D next year. What other 3-4 NT options would be available for replacements, and would they perform anywhere near Vince's level? the defensive 7 has enough holes right now, but swapping to a 4-3 would seem to mask a few of them. It would also cut down on the need to "fight" all the teams switching to 3-4 for the already limited FA pool. /QUOTE]

I thought this for a while, but the hole in your logic is that there is a difference in 3-4 LB's and 4-3 LB's. It isn't all about the front D. Occassionally, BB goes to a 4-3, for a change, to give someone a blow, or to take advantage of an individual match-up. In most situations, however, the type of LB's we draft will get exposed over the long haul in a 4-3. It is very seldom the 4-3 has dominated an entire game, and it has usually been when we couldn't stop the run, for whatever reason.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wouldn't have drafted 2 NTs last year if we were planning on moving to the 4-3 without Wilfork, IMO. Looks to me like we're staying 3-4 no matter what happens. More 4-3? Definitely, but I'd still expect a 3-4 base.

 

[mgteich]

no...............

 

[tanked_as_usual]

they'd go out and get someone like ryan pickett for less $$.........if all they need is a 2 down guy

 

[pats63]

I think Big Vince is all about gone.I think the PATS will get something for Vince.He is too good of a player to walk without getting something in return. This a business,Bill will do the best for the team.I love for us to keep Vince stay in a pats uniform until retirement.I don't see it in the tea leaves.

 

[patsfan-1982]

they did not have seymour, last year who was pretty much the key to the pats 3-4 and when wilfork, was hurt the last few game they still ran the 3-4



BB will find a way to put he's 2 gap 3-4 defense together.

 

[BritPat]

Erm, we were a 4-3 team last year with him.....

 

[bucky]

Wouldn't have drafted 2 NTs last year if we were planning on moving to the 4-3 without Wilfork, IMO. Looks to me like we're staying 3-4 no matter what happens. More 4-3? Definitely, but I'd still expect a 3-4 base.

We didn't draft 2 NTs last year. Brace and Pryor were both DTs in college who were conversion projects. Neither one of these guys showed they can play NT last year. I believe both would be better suited as DTs in the 43, as would Wright.

The other major issue, adding to the Wilfork situation, is the current pathetic situation at OLB. AD is as good as gone. Woods is an avg 2-down OLB at best. TBC is a good 3rd down guy and OK on 1st and 2nd, but he's a UFA. And there is nobody available via FA. The draft, as always, is full of conversion projects who will not play on 1st and 2nd downs this year.

On the other hand, you've got guys like Kampman, Peppers, Burgess, Dempsey, Kearse, Vanden Bosch, etc. who would all fit at DE in a 43.

Mayo, I think, would also benefit from playing in a 43. He has enough speed to go sideline to sideline and playing in a 43 should give him a little more protection.

I think on a more long-term scale, you have to consider the fact that more and more teams are playing 3-4 in the NFL, but in college the 43 still dominates, which is leading to even more scarcity of NTs and OLBs for these systems.

So if we were to ever switch to 4-3, this might be the time. So the questions might be a little backwards.So perhaps the question should be - if we are switching to a 3-4, is Vince more valuable to us as trade bait, or as a DT?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

That's one of those "**IF**"s that's too bad to contemplate.

They'll keep Wilfork and they'll do the right thing and get a deal done this off season.

 

[satz]

TBC is too light to play DE in a 3-4 same with burgess as he got injured playing on the line. 250 LB is too light espeically on the left side.

by going 4-3 the perimeters are lanes are going to be wide open.
also non our tackles are big enough to want a double in the middle and we will constantly see pulling gaurds in the backfield.

against miami you will asking tbc at 250 to block jake long who is big enough that once seymour was traded they played vince there ?.
or imagine fanaca pulling into TBC . You will have tbc is IR by week 6.

the only way we got 4-3 is to put TY and vince in the middle with wright and pyor both penerating ends . You have to rotate 3rd down pass rusher for pyor or wright.

 

[RobertWeathers]

TBC is too light to play DE in a 3-4 same with burgess as he got injured playing on the line. 250 LB is too light espeically on the left side.

by going 4-3 the perimeters are lanes are going to be wide open.
also non our tackles are big enough to want a double in the middle and we will constantly see pulling gaurds in the backfield.

against miami you will asking tbc at 250 to block jake long who is big enough that once seymour was traded they played vince there ?.
or imagine fanaca pulling into TBC . You will have tbc is IR by week 6.

I don't understand why people think the Pats will get crushed in a 4-3. 75% of the league runs a 4-3. The team may need to make some modifications in how they draft and sign players so that they fit a 4-3 but it's not like it's impossible.

 

[satz]

I don't understand why people think the Pats will get crushed in a 4-3. 75% of the league runs a 4-3. The team may need to make some modifications in how they draft and sign players so that they fit a 4-3 but it's not like it's impossible.

I answering to the thread they want to play 4-3 for a year. You cannot switch anything in a year. We need spend high picks on DE . 2 -3 to find someone who can play on the left side. on the right we can have a smaller guy but the RDE should be big especially in our AFC east.

it will take more than a year also how many DE light it up in rookie season. Even then it takes a few yrs to develop especially against the run.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I answering to the thread they want to play 4-3 for a year. You cannot switch anything in a year. We need spend high picks on DE . 2 -3 to find someone who can play on the left side. on the right we can have a smaller guy but the RDE should be big especially in our AFC east.

it will take more than a year also how many DE light it up in rookie season. Even then it takes a few yrs to develop especially against the run.

50% of the snaps last year were in a dime, nickel or some other sub-package.
In the other 50% base Ds was a combo of 3-4 and 4-3 with mostly 3-4 for sure. You have many players on the D who have played in a 4-3 before so they are not totally foreign to the concepts of operating within the 4-3 D.

You are correct that the challenge finding the right players w/ the prerequisite talent to play the scheme.

 

[bucky]

TBC is too light to play DE in a 3-4 same with burgess as he got injured playing on the line. 250 LB is too light espeically on the left side.

by going 4-3 the perimeters are lanes are going to be wide open.
also non our tackles are big enough to want a double in the middle and we will constantly see pulling gaurds in the backfield.

against miami you will asking tbc at 250 to block jake long who is big enough that once seymour was traded they played vince there ?.
or imagine fanaca pulling into TBC . You will have tbc is IR by week 6.

the only way we got 4-3 is to put TY and vince in the middle with wright and pyor both penerating ends . You have to rotate 3rd down pass rusher for pyor or wright.

The assumption is that the Pats would get a true 43 DE like Peppers or Kampman. They would play him on 1 side, play Warren on the other side on 1st downs, and have Brace/Pryor/Wright at DT. Obviously, there would be some infusion of young talent through the draft - either at DT, DE, or both along with perhaps some cheap veteran backup (like a Kearse, Burgess, Ferguson, etc.)

I think the problems you brought up exists whether we play 34 or 43. At the moment, assuming Wilfork comes back, we have a hole at RDE (Seymour's old spot) and both OLB positions. You are not going to get a starting OLB in the draft. And the FA market is bare. Even if we bring TBC back ( which I really hope we do), he should be used only in pass-rushing situations for the exact reasons you brought up.