Is it time for LeKevin or Green to go?

[BradyFTW!]

if i remember correctly, in some packages late last year, when lekevin was in, he was getting amazing pressure on the QB, and was actually the only one to be doing so....

i would like to see how far we can take that ability....in all honesty, i would have given him green's spot, and it would have been a heck of a lot cheaper

Agreed with LeKevin: I really liked what I saw from him late last year, and he's being paid in line with what he contributes. Green, on the other hand- I think we could get more production for the money than we do get from him. I wouldn't be at all averse to seeing him traded if it brought us help somewhere else, either in a trade or in freeing up cap space to get one of the many good guys that will get cut before the season starts.

As far as the question of whether or not to stick with 6 DL, I really like the fact that, by the end of the game, our DL always seems fresher than the opponents' OL. The lack of pass rush after AT went down last year, combined with the state of the secondary, didn't really give them a chance to shine, but assuming that the pass rush improves (whether through AT staying healthy, Crable/Banta-Cain stepping up, Burgess trade, or signing someone) I think it will be even more pronounced this year.

So no, I'd rather not see the 6th DL be jettisoned in favor of a STer, though it will be interesting to see how the new rules against the wedge affect ST personnel, and by extension rosters as a whole. Eh, whatever happens, I have faith that Belichick will make the right decisions, so I'm not too worried about it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

We have Wilfork, Wright, Smith and Brace as NTs. We need two of of them for sure, maybe three.

We have Seymour, Warren and Green as DEs, plus the NTs can fill in sometimes.

Green is better than Smith at DE, and there needs to be a thrid DE in case Seymour or Warren get hurt. We could save 2 mil by cutting or trading Green. If we coukld improve on him for $2 mil, fine, but I doubt it.

I like 6 DL at this point in time:
Seymour
Warren
Green
Wilfork
Brace
Wright

Personally, I always viewed Wright as more of a backup NT by necessity, and don't think that he was ever especially well-suited for the role. I like him a lot at DE, thouh. With the drafting of Price, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a whole lot more of Wright at DE, which could make Green expendable. At that point, We'd have:

NT: Wilfork, Brace
DE: Warren, Seymour, Wright, Smith

 

[Pats726]

Personally, I always viewed Wright as more of a backup NT by necessity, and don't think that he was ever especially well-suited for the role. I like him a lot at DE, thouh. With the drafting of Price, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see a whole lot more of Wright at DE, which could make Green expendable. At that point, We'd have:

NT: Wilfork, Brace
DE: Warren, Seymour, Wright, Smith

I agree that Wright last year was more a backup NT....and that was his main role...I see him playing SOME nose again...when Wilfork and Brace wear down the line...he plays more a quick role and can be MORE effective at nose when opponents are like that. However with Brace I agree that he will be bale to play more DE..where he will be quite good.
My only question about trading or cutting Green is who will replace him as a real threat rushing in?? Are LSmith, Wright or others faster? quicker?

I think the Pats even stopped working him in at nose in preseason last year and just used Rashad Moore. I don't see his future being at NT at all.

Two years ago Moore was on the team...NOT last year...

I agree with your analysis except for Brace at DE, even occasionally. Brace would be the slowest DE in the league.

I agree...Brace is really built for NT or DT in a 4-3...perfect with WIlfork for goal line situations. DE in a 3-4?? I agree too slow.

 

[Keegs]

some of you better check your tone.

i see the Pats keeping the following playas:

LeKevin "The Widowmaker" Smith
Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Green
Brace

in that order.......

 

[Pats726]

some of you better check your tone.

i see the Pats keeping the following playas:

LeKevin "The Widowmaker" Smith
Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Green
Brace

in that order.......

No Wright??? I think THAT is wrong....but we shall see..signing a player that was close to signing with another team...means he will stay...so Wright is the 7th??

 

[jczxohn1]

While Wright's optimum role is 3rd down NT, both he and LeKevin should be kept. Too much hanging with contracts coming up for the big 3. LeKevin was Warren's b/u,IIRC. Although Green had a sub-par yr last yr, I would not be surprised to hear he was playing hurt, much like Vrable. He's got a lot more in the tank, IMO.
7 is a good # this yr., esp. if the LB corps is as thin as some claim.

 

[supafly]

Has Belichick ever kept 7 guys on the line during his tenure here? I wonder if that could be a possibility this yr? Of course, I couldn't really tell you where to take another spot from either. Maybe a ST player, due to the new wedge rule?

 

[Deus Irae]

Wright just signed a 4 year deal with the Patriots and doesn't cost much at all this season. Barring some pretty wild circumstances, I doubt he's going to be cut.

 

[Patjew]

some of you better check your tone.

i see the Pats keeping the following playas:

LeKevin "The Widowmaker" Smith
Seymour
Wilfork
Warren
Green
Brace

in that order.......

You need to fix the order. Wilfork should be # 2 after The Widowmaker.

 

[Pats726]

Has Belichick ever kept 7 guys on the line during his tenure here? I wonder if that could be a possibility this yr? Of course, I couldn't really tell you where to take another spot from either. Maybe a ST player, due to the new wedge rule?

Actually it is MORE common that they have had 7...than less...
In 03...they kept 8..and that was NOT including McGinest who sometimes played on the line.. (Hamilton, Seymour Pleasant, Lyle, Warren, Washington, Green and Klecko)
In 04 it was 7, NOT including Klecko...(Seymour, Warren, Green, Traylor, Wilfork, Hill and EKelly)...
In 05 it was 7 WITH Klecko..(Seymour, Green, Warren, Wilfork, Klecko, Hill and Wright (when Wight was IRed SThomas took his place.)
In 06, it was MOSTLY 7 (Seymour, Green, Warren, Wilfork, Hill, Wright, LSmith) The first 5 games it was 8 as they had JSullivan.
In 07 it was 12 games 7, 6 games 6 and one game only 5 on the DL (Warren, Green, LSmith, WIlfork played the whole year, but there were players coming and going Seymour started on PUP..Wright played to Game 14 and was IRed, SThomas started on the team for game 1, platyed through 7 when Seymour returned and came back for the Super Bowl after spending the time on the PSqd. Rookie KBrown was on the team through game 11 then cut. RMoore came in for Game 15...replacing Wright. The game that they had 5 was when WRight was injured and IRed..and before they signed Moore. It was a game against the Jets that they had 5.
Last year they had only 6...the ONLY time in the 3-4 that they have had that few.. (Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Wright, Green. LSmith)
I hope that helps....

 

[supafly]

Actually it is MORE common that they have had 7...than less...
In 03...they kept 8..and that was NOT including McGinest who sometimes played on the line.. (Hamilton, Seymour Pleasant, Lyle, Warren, Washington, Green and Klecko)
In 04 it was 7, NOT including Klecko...(Seymour, Warren, Green, Traylor, Wilfork, Hill and EKelly)...
In 05 it was 7 WITH Klecko..(Seymour, Green, Warren, Wilfork, Klecko, Hill and Wright (when Wight was IRed SThomas took his place.)
In 06, it was MOSTLY 7 (Seymour, Green, Warren, Wilfork, Hill, Wright, LSmith) The first 5 games it was 8 as they had JSullivan.
In 07 it was 12 games 7, 6 games 6 and one game only 5 on the DL (Warren, Green, LSmith, WIlfork played the whole year, but there were players coming and going Seymour started on PUP..Wright played to Game 14 and was IRed, SThomas started on the team for game 1, platyed through 7 when Seymour returned and came back for the Super Bowl after spending the time on the PSqd. Rookie KBrown was on the team through game 11 then cut. RMoore came in for Game 15...replacing Wright. The game that they had 5 was when WRight was injured and IRed..and before they signed Moore. It was a game against the Jets that they had 5.
Last year they had only 6...the ONLY time in the 3-4 that they have had that few.. (Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Wright, Green. LSmith)
I hope that helps....

Thanks man, appreciate it. Sorry about looking all of that up, etc.

In this case then I think there's no doubt we keep 7, of course it's easy to say that now without knowing about possible injuries, players PUP'ed, etc. It's always major speculation this early on, but what are these boards for?

I couldn't remember but I thought 7 wasn't out of the question. So IMO, that'd be:

Wilfork
Seymour
Warren
Green
Wright
Brace
L.Smith

The question should maybe even be the possibility of 1 more, depending on the progression of Pryor or Richard--although I guess there's still the possibility of trading Jarvis, which I hope they keep. Bottom line though, I'm thinking 7 on the DL. You can't mess with our depth there, it's nice and deep.

 

[mgteich]

We've kept 6 DL's since Wilfork's second year, when he stopped sharing time with Traylor. I really don't count Klecko as a DL in 2005, since he was being tried out at LB.

We haven't needed more than six. It is always great to have a couple extra players at each position, but in the end, we have decide whether we would rather have a 7th DL rather other uses for the spot. For example, lots of folks would like to have five safeties.

 

[spacecrime]

Has Belichick ever kept 7 guys on the line during his tenure here? I wonder if that could be a possibility this yr? Of course, I couldn't really tell you where to take another spot from either. Maybe a ST player, due to the new wedge rule?

Yes, he did a couple years ago. It really depends on the talent available. Wjile we fans pick the best 6 DL, best 5 WRs, best 5 CBs, best 4 RBs, best 3 QBs etc etc BB goes with different numbers depending on players.

STers always confuse things, too, but ignoring STers and going with straight position players, AFAIK BB's gone with 2 QBs and 4 QBs, 4 WRs and 6 WRs, 3 RB/FB, 5 RB/FB, 5 CB and 3 CB.

 

[Pats726]

We've kept 6 DL's since Wilfork's second year, when he stopped sharing time with Traylor. I really don't count Klecko as a DL in 2005, since he was being tried out at LB.

Actually you are wrong...but that is OK...(see above)

 

[ALP]

Even though the bodies of wright and LeKevin seem to put them into the NT category, and since Wright for last couple of years has been backup to wilfork, it has been mostly for necessity

looking at either play last year, it was obvious that they ARE quick, and that both are BETTER at playing DE rather then DT/NT (their best game was rushing the passer, i.e. Green's job)

and honestly i dont believe Green is that much better then EITHER to account for his much higher price tag

If i were meking decisions, our roster would loke like this:

NT: Wilfork, Brace
DE: Seymour, Warren, Wright, LeKevin

and maybe a lesser known guy for DE as well

 

[Pats726]

Thanks man, appreciate it. Sorry about looking all of that up, etc.

In this case then I think there's no doubt we keep 7, of course it's easy to say that now without knowing about possible injuries, players PUP'ed, etc. It's always major speculation this early on, but what are these boards for?

I couldn't remember but I thought 7 wasn't out of the question. So IMO, that'd be:

Wilfork
Seymour
Warren
Green
Wright
Brace
L.Smith

The question should maybe even be the possibility of 1 more, depending on the progression of Pryor or Richard--although I guess there's still the possibility of trading Jarvis, which I hope they keep. Bottom line though, I'm thinking 7 on the DL. You can't mess with our depth there, it's nice and deep.

Actually it wasn't that hard...each season is a spread sheet...and rosters for each week by position is an easy thing to check...I was curious myself how it has been...injuries are a factor and it seems 7 is a closer number to what they have been doing than 6...although 6 was it last year. I do think there are a number of factors involved..so it's easy to look at what they have done in the past and think sure, they will do the same thing...maybe not. Last year more the exception of 6...or a new trend??

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wright just signed a 4 year deal with the Patriots and doesn't cost much at all this season. Barring some pretty wild circumstances, I doubt he's going to be cut.

What would he have to do to get cut? Murder a guy?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Even though the bodies of wright and LeKevin seem to put them into the NT category, and since Wright for last couple of years has been backup to wilfork, it has been mostly for necessity

looking at either play last year, it was obvious that they ARE quick, and that both are BETTER at playing DE rather then DT/NT (their best game was rushing the passer, i.e. Green's job)

and honestly i dont believe Green is that much better then EITHER to account for his much higher price tag

If i were meking decisions, our roster would loke like this:

NT: Wilfork, Brace
DE: Seymour, Warren, Wright, LeKevin

and maybe a lesser known guy for DE as well

100% agree. Check out their listed sizes, too:

Vince Wilfork: 6'2", 325
Ron Brace: 6'3", 330

Richard Seymour: 6'6", 310
Ty Warren: 6'5", 300
Jarvis Green: 6'3", 285

LeKevin Smith: 6'3", 308
Mike Wright: 6'4", 295


Both of these guys are lighter than Seymour, and neither is within 15 pounds of Wilfork's listed weight (I'd be a little surprised if he's really only 325, but whatever). As far as height/weight goes, it looks to me like Smith is a bit of a tweener, and Wright fits pretty solidly into the DE body type. So playing them both primarily at DE wouldn't be a bad fit on that account.

Obviously there's a lot lot more that needs to go into the analysis than that, and I'm not qualified to give a thorough perspective on whether their techniques are suited for it. I just know that I liked them both a lot when they lined up at DE last year, and would have no problem at all with them being the depth guys for us primarily at that position. I like Green, but, for the money, I'd take Wright every day of the week to do what he does, and use the savings to upgrade somewhere else where we could use it more.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Actually it wasn't that hard...each season is a spread sheet...and rosters for each week by position is an easy thing to check...I was curious myself how it has been...injuries are a factor and it seems 7 is a closer number to what they have been doing than 6...although 6 was it last year. I do think there are a number of factors involved..so it's easy to look at what they have done in the past and think sure, they will do the same thing...maybe not. Last year more the exception of 6...or a new trend??

With the changes in ST rules preventing the wedge making it harder for big guys to contribute there, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of teams choosing to carry one more defensive back or linebacker at the expense of a d-lineman. Maybe 6 will become the standard for the Pats, if it isn't already?


Also, when evaluating year-over-year tendencies, would Marquise Hill's untimely passing potentially impact the 2007 number?

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

What would he have to do to get cut?

have an affair with Gisele, or maybe BB's m.i.l.f.