My Dilettant Defensive Treatise

[TheComeback]

I think that you underestimate the effect of lobsided games on the 2007 sack totals.

You have execute on defense no matter what the situation is. You don't get sacks just because the other team is passing a lot. Teams that can't get pressure get passed on anyway. Just look at the Jags. That 2007 team absolutely had the ability to rush opposing QBs.

We didn't blow every team out that year. Look at all the close games we had in the final half of the season, or how the defense stepped up in the AFC Championship.

Sorry, but I think this line of reasoning is full of it. I know what I saw, and it was the best pass rush this team has had in some time. You don't get to 2nd in the league because of situational stats. Go watch the Super Bowl again and tell me we didn't have a good pass rush in that game against one of the best olines in the league at the time. We lost that game because of a miracle.

 

[jays52]

Interesting observation, since we had a team record 47 sacks in 2007. Of course, we benefitted from large leads and being able to tee off on opposing QBs. I'd like to hear you elaborate on how 2007 was a weak pass rush for the Pats.

The reason I think this is due to the situations the team was in. Their opponents were forced to be one dimensional, often by the 1st quarter. When a coach knows an offense has one avenue, it enables them to become far more agressive. They can really open the playbook up, and the players get to pin their ears back and simply get after the QB. When you don't have to read a block, you play at a much faster pace. Up front, the defense is much more athletic than the offense. If the defensive players don't have to make a read, it allows them to seem much faster than they actually are. When I looked at that team, I saw a unit that could not get a stop when they needed to outside of the red zone. This is a function of speed. That team was great in the red zone because when the field gets small, quickness and speed decrease in value. Red zone is about awareness, toughness, and how stout the team is. That team was great in that regard, hence the AFCCG field goal result.

As Coach says, "stats are for losers" and are the single worst representation of what a team actually does. It's about the eye test in football. When that '07 team would try to get after the passer, they seldom finished in situations where they didn't have a read. Further, a lot of those sacks were one guy getting in there and being disruptive. Compare that to this year where they have that swarming sack. A player can avoid one guy, he can't avoid three. Were they stronger from a hand in the dirt standpoint? Yeah, they were. At that point, though, the team speed up front was not at the NFL level. They were still veterans and great opportunists, but the team was in signficant decline. I think this is a major reason behind the offensive spending spree leading up to the season. They knew the D couldn't win games for them anymore so they had to field a silly offense. I know the stats were good, but the stats that season simply did not matchup with what that pass rush was. It sucks to hear it, it sucks to say it, but it is the truth.

This is brilliant stuff. It brings 2 thoughts to mind: (1) I'd like to see more interior pass rush from the safeties and ILBs, especially from Mayo and Chung, who have been very effective at times; and (2) it reinforces my thought that we could get more benefit to our pass rush and defensive pressure from an internal SILB who can get penetration like Rolando McClain than from a lightning quick edge rusher. Thoughts?

Agreed, dude. I think that the Pats could definately benefit from some more inside rushers. Larry English would have been perfect, but alas, he was not there. I do think that Guyton is really picking up the blitzing game as this season progresses. It fits in nicely with his true fit as a passing situation guy. I think he will be a great contributor in his career here, just not a run situation fit.

Here's my take on McClain: I think that he is going to be a special linebacker. He's tough, fast, heady, has tremendous hips, plays with good technique, and is clearly a leader. A real linebacker's linebacker. When I see him play, I see Jerod Mayo. We already have a Jerod Mayo on the team. While I don't dispute the fact that he would be fantastic on this team, his best fit is at the Will in the 34. That position is already filled. The Pats need another Ted Johnson. I think that given today's emphasis on the spread, a thumper Mike would be a cheap find in rounds 2-4. I love McClain, but we can get a guy to fill the Mike role in the running situations much more economically.

If you look at some of our most painful losses, exactly what you describe has happened. The outside rush has been effective at getting to the QB, but the inside penetration didn't collapse the pocket and close off the QB's ability to slide out. That was a factor in Eli Manning's infamous completion to David Tyree in the 2008 SB, and in Brett Favre escaping on 3rd and 15 in the 2008 loss OT to the Jets, which cost us a playoff berth. We got to the QB both times, but we couldn't finish it off because we didn't seal off inside.

Yup.

Agreed. Who do you like?

Honestly, I haven't been doing enough research to say anything about it right now. Before I put my stamp on something, I want to make sure I have done my due dilligence. I'll do some research this weekend and get back to you.

I agree that our defense is good enough, if our offense executes. With some changes for 2010, I believe it can rival 2003 as our best "elite" defense ever.

Completely agree.

 

[jays52]

I've been rereading this thread a few times to try to get everything out of it, and I find the LB stuff very interesting. One question. Do you think Rolando McClain could be a good Mike next to Mayo in the 34?

I certainly think that he could play the position. I think he is a tremendous player, and has the full set of leadership attributes that this team is in need of. The leadership core moving forward of Mayo, Chung, and McClain would be fantastic. However, I think that he is too tallented to be plugged in as a run situation 34 mike. A guy like McClain is a 3-down player. In today's NFL there really is only the need for one 3-down inside linebacker. I would love to have McClain on the team, the issue is just that we don't really need him.

 

[jays52]

One question regarding the effectiveness of the pass rush though. You mention how the D has done a good job with schemes and a better inside rush, especially in taking away escape avenues.

But has this been the case all season long, or is this just a recent development? It feels as if there's been more pressure the past few games, not just in terms of sacks but overall pressure on the QB. I'm wondering if you've noticed any changes in the scheme, or perhaps a guy like Burgess is becoming more comfortable, or having Jarvis healthy, or a bunch of different factors.

Yeah, they have changed things up a bit. They were throwing out wrinkles earlier in the year, but they were shooting themselves in the foot with a very basic, ineffective zone defense on 3rd and long situations. This comes from not trusting your horses to get there. As they began to make some plays defensively, the coaches realized that they actually could finish off a passer. I think Belichick finally beat the cover four out of Dean Pees, and what we are seeing now is just the steady evolution of a defense. The unit is coming together quite well, and the coaches are opening up the playbook. These guys are fast enough to execute a creative defensive scheme, and they are getting quite creative with it.

I also think that it has a lot to do with the players getting game reps with eachother. So much of football is knowing what your teamates are doing. If you understand your teamate's game, you can improve yours. You understand what kind of help the other guys need. What rushing lanes they prefer, what foot is a stronger plant foot, if they swim better with their left arm or right arm. These kinds of things allow a player to set his teamate up. Championship Patriot defense cohesion is what I am getting at. These guys are getting to know eachother on the field and are playing like a cohesive unit.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think that the Pats could definately benefit from some more inside rushers. Larry English would have been perfect, but alas, he was not there. I do think that Guyton is really picking up the blitzing game as this season progresses. It fits in nicely with his true fit as a passing situation guy. I think he will be a great contributor in his career here, just not a run situation fit.

I think I suggested last spring that both Larry English and Robert Ayers might be better suited to be SILB. Both were DLs with good hands and pass rushing technique, good size and strength, and were accomplished at taking on blockers and stacking and shedding. Both had nice athleticism and enough coverage ability for the Mike spot.

When I see him play, I see Jerod Mayo.[/b] We already have a Jerod Mayo on the team. While I don't dispute the fact that he would be fantastic on this team, his best fit is at the Will in the 34. That position is already filled. The Pats need another Ted Johnson. I think that given today's emphasis on the spread, a thumper Mike would be a cheap find in rounds 2-4. I love McClain, but we can get a guy to fill the Mike role in the running situations much more economically.

I certainly think that [McClain] could play the position. I think he is a tremendous player, and has the full set of leadership attributes that this team is in need of. The leadership core moving forward of Mayo, Chung, and McClain would be fantastic. However, I think that he is too tallented to be plugged in as a run situation 34 mike. A guy like McClain is a 3-down player. In today's NFL there really is only the need for one 3-down inside linebacker. I would love to have McClain on the team, the issue is just that we don't really need him.

Your comments on McClain raise a lot of questions:

1. I agree that a 10-15 pick is too much to spend on a pure Mike. But McClain is much more than that. He has playmaking capability, leadership capability, flexibility to play 4-3 SAM. And I guess I don't see him as another Jerod Mayo - I see Brandon Spikes as more that kind of guy. McClain seems to me like a much stronger and more physical guy who get inside penetration. He's very strong, and stacks and sheds extremely well. I see more Aaron Curry than Patrick Willis.

You suggested that a Mike is analogous to a FB and a WILL to a halfback. But in that analogy, McClain would seem to me something more like a Jonathan Stewart kind of power LB who can really lay the wood and punish opposing linemen. I think he would complement Mayo beautifully.

2. Your analysis suggested that the Pats defensive pressure would benefit from an inside pass rush more than better edge rushers. The problem you seemed to suggest was not that we aren't getting to the QB from the outside, but that we aren't sealing from the inside, and hence aren't able to finish plays. If that is the case, I would think that prioritizing an inside pass rush would be a higher priority than getting an edge rushier.

3. If McClain is too much of a thoroughbred to "waste" on the Mike position, who do you like? Is Eric Norwood an option? I consider him to have a lot of the skills which Larry English had last year, but more experience and facility at the LB position. He's very strong and good at taking on blockers. What about moving AD back inside? What about a FA like Dansby? I'm interested in your alternatives.

Saying that we could use a Ted Johnson type is fine for a classic Mike, but the way the passing game had developed I see the benefit to having guys who are more than just the classic Mike/WILL roles. I think of it as somewhat analogous to the Strong Safety/Free Safety distinction, which BB has discussed at length. The value to me of a guy like McClain is that he can do all of the things a classic Mike does, but also brings the playmaking and coverage of a Will. That's a tremendous package. Mayo can do some of those things as well, but he is much more of a classic Will to my mind.

 

[jays52]

Your comments on McClain raise a lot of questions:

1. I agree that a 10-15 pick is too much to spend on a pure Mike. But McClain is much more than that. He has playmaking capability, leadership capability, flexibility to play 4-3 SAM. And I guess I don't see him as another Jerod Mayo - I see Brandon Spikes as more that kind of guy. McClain seems to me like a much stronger and more physical guy who get inside penetration. He's very strong, and stacks and sheds extremely well. I see more Aaron Curry than Patrick Willis.

You suggested that a Mike is analogous to a FB and a WILL to a halfback. But in that analogy, McClain would seem to me something more like a Jonathan Stewart kind of power LB who can really lay the wood and punish opposing linemen. I think he would complement Mayo beautifully.

2. Your analysis suggested that the Pats defensive pressure would benefit from an inside pass rush more than better edge rushers. The problem you seemed to suggest was not that we aren't getting to the QB from the outside, but that we aren't sealing from the inside, and hence aren't able to finish plays. If that is the case, I would think that prioritizing an inside pass rush would be a higher priority than getting an edge rushier.

3. If McClain is too much of a thoroughbred to "waste" on the Mike position, who do you like? Is Eric Norwood an option? I consider him to have a lot of the skills which Larry English had last year, but more experience and facility at the LB position. He's very strong and good at taking on blockers. What about moving AD back inside? What about a FA like Dansby? I'm interested in your alternatives.

Saying that we could use a Ted Johnson type is fine for a classic Mike, but the way the passing game had developed I see the benefit to having guys who are more than just the classic Mike/WILL roles. I think of it as somewhat analogous to the Strong Safety/Free Safety distinction, which BB has discussed at length. The value to me of a guy like McClain is that he can do all of the things a classic Mike does, but also brings the playmaking and coverage of a Will. That's a tremendous package. Mayo can do some of those things as well, but he is much more of a classic Will to my mind.

As always, great points, Mayo. To adress your thoughts:

1) You're right, McClain is a guy who could play the position at a high level and if added would make the tandem the best inside backers in the league in a few years. Two pro-bowlers playing side by side for half a decade? Oh boy. Talk about something to build around. I also think that as the game evolves the distinctions blur. What I was referring to in the running game need is that brickhead skull cracker with a 19 inch neck who is available every year. They're cheap, and due to the nature of their work; disposable. I wouldn't want a gem like McClain going into collisions like that 30-40 snaps a game. I'm not saying that he couldn't do it, I think he could do so quite well, I'm just saying that the thumper is needed. Hell, even if they do go get McClain, I still think they need a thumper to take some of the strain off of the real centerpieces.

2) I think that it's important to note that the concept of inside pressure comes in many, many forms. The ILB's are just a component of this. I think that the current staff of safeties and ILB's are quite adequate for generating this kind of rush. I would like to see them get an upfield defensive tackle in order to compliment this. It would be interesting to see what happens if they acquire a true 3-tech pass rusher for use in subpackages. I think the results would be quite impressive. Again, ancillary additions.

3)Yup, Eric Norwood is that guy. I'm really impressed with him. I don't think that he is a prototype outside guy, but that he would be one hell of a contributor to the team. I think that he could fit inside quite well given how he plays with his pad height and his hand usage. He's going to be one hell of a player in the league, and I would love to see him taken by the Pats.

I don't like moving AD back inside. He's proven that he can't play in there, and frankly I don't think he is explosive enough to play inside. I still think that Thomas is gone if 2010 is uncapped. There's better players available out there than Thomas. I also like Dansby. I think that there is a real chance of him coming here if AZ can't work something out. He's a guy that gives you some versitility and is big enough to play the Mike in the 34.

Last, I too would love McClain. I think that he would be a fantastic player on the team. I think he would fit the bill well, too. However, I don't think they will go get him. I have no idea why they wouldn't, as they certainly have the ammunition to do so, but that's just my gut feeling. Even if they do go get McClain, they still need that "fullback" type for running situations and to give McClain a blow. Think of it this way: If the Patriots get McClain and a thumper they will have Mayo starting over Guyton at Will in addition to McClain and thumper at Mike. That's some really impressive depth. Those guys would be quite fresh throughout the game given the situational fits of the respective backups. Just some fodder for thought.

 

[RayClay]

Great post.

Nothing much to add. I agree on our very athletic defense. The secondary is going to be great. The line, linebackers and 4-3 type linemen (Burgess, Pryor [tackle], maybe TBC need to gel into an effective unit or rotation, though.

Agree on our pass rush being misleading for a couple years. I noticed we got multiple late sacks based on O-lines breaking down trying to lug our all pro line around all game.

I do think we need a Bruschi type at Mike because the game is faster. Mayo's athleticism is wasted there.

Also agree on not expecting our O to carry us. First off, they haven't been consistent, and secondly passing offenses get creamed in the playoffs, how often do we need to see it? If we play balanced and execute, we will be hard to beat.

Our D is green and somewhat oddly constructed (front seven). Plenty of talent, though, so coaching is the key IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

Great post.

Nothing much to add. I agree on our very athletic defense. The secondary is going to be great. The line, linebackers and 4-3 type linemen (Burgess, Pryor [tackle], maybe TBC need to gel into an effective unit or rotation, though.

Agree on our pass rush being misleading for a couple years. I noticed we got multiple late sacks based on O-lines breaking down trying to lug our all pro line around all game.

I do think we need a Bruschi type at Mike because the game is faster. Mayo's athleticism is wasted there.

Also agree on not expecting our O to carry us. First off, they haven't been consistent, and secondly passing offenses get creamed in the playoffs, how often do we need to see it? If we play balanced and execute, we will be hard to beat.

Our D is green and somewhat oddly constructed (front seven). Plenty of talent, though, so coaching is the key IMO.

The 2006 Colts, 2007 Patriots, 2008 Cardinals and 2008 Steelers were all passing teams and made up 4 of the 6 Super Bowl participants during that time. The myth of passing offense getting creamed in the playoffs is just that.

 

[doesntmatter1]

Jay52 i see your points but you are very wrong when it comes to the pressure the 07 pats dialed up. Vrabel was a mad man that year. And i do not care what anyone says, Colvin was a beast and always seemed to get pressure(not always sacks). After Colvin went down i could clearly see a dropoff in pressure from that side when AD was asked to takeover.

Whats even funnier is that this years rush package looks like a poor mans version of 2007. Banta Cain is similar to Vrabel in build but lacks the strength of 07 Vrabel. Burgess actually looks alot like Colvin but he is not as fast and he doesn't have any of the pass rushing moves that Colvin had. Colvin used an effective move where he would rip to the outside by using his left hand( i have seen him do it many times and he actually broke the move down on an episode of totally patriots in the past.) But Burgess ONLY uses a bull rush that is nullified by strong tackles. So the winner is easily the 07 pats. The combination of Colvin and Vrabel would not have let Chad Henne carve us up the way that he did this year.

 

[jays52]

Jay52 i see your points but you are very wrong when it comes to the pressure the 07 pats dialed up. Vrabel was a mad man that year. And i do not care what anyone says, Colvin was a beast and always seemed to get pressure(not always sacks). After Colvin went down i could clearly see a dropoff in pressure from that side when AD was asked to takeover.

Whats even funnier is that this years rush package looks like a poor mans version of 2007. Banta Cain is similar to Vrabel in build but lacks the strength of 07 Vrabel. Burgess actually looks alot like Colvin but he is not as fast and he doesn't have any of the pass rushing moves that Colvin had. Colvin used an effective move where he would rip to the outside by using his left hand( i have seen him do it many times and he actually broke the move down on an episode of totally patriots in the past.) But Burgess ONLY uses a bull rush that is nullified by strong tackles. So the winner is easily the 07 pats. The combination of Colvin and Vrabel would not have let Chad Henne carve us up the way that he did this year.

Oh dear. What we have here is failure to communicate. Dude, I see what you are trying to say, but you're not getting what I wrote. Re-read it man, you're missing a lot of what I said. You're also proving my point on the '07 vs '09 difference. And uh, yeah, that "effective move where he would rip to the outside by using his left hand"? Yeah, when you're playing on the right side, that's called a ******* rip move. They teach it in pop warner. Also, that bull that you say Burgess only uses? Yeah, it's set up some of his best plays this season by forcing the tackles to overcommit. He hits them with the ole cabbage patch and say goodnight.

I could go on, but I'll let ya off easy.

 

[RayClay]

The 2006 Colts, 2007 Patriots, 2008 Cardinals and 2008 Steelers were all passing teams and made up 4 of the 6 Super Bowl participants during that time. The myth of passing offense getting creamed in the playoffs is just that.

The Steelers? You're stretching. Their defense was ranked first. Their running game was less than usual, but you're stretching, why I don't know.

Any reason you picked that one Colts season? When countering a post about front running passing teams, I would think the last team you would bring up is the Colts.

Since you did, you might check their balanced attack that one year 1081 for Addai, 641 for Rhodes.

Yeah the Cardinals lost to the #1 defense, as already noted. Pats lost to the Giants.

Besides the year they were relatively balanced and one losing season, these are the Colts reg season records from 1999 to 2008.

You can look up their playoff record over that time if you'd like...

13-3
10-6
10-6
12-4
12-4
14-2
13-3
12-4

 

[RayClay]

Also, Rottenburger was 14th in passing 2008. The team was 17th. And they won. With the #1 defense.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Steelers? You're stretching. Their defense was ranked first. Their running game was less than usual, but you're stretching, why I don't know.

Any reason you picked that one Colts season? When countering a post about front running passing teams, I would think the last team you would bring up is the Colts.

Since you did, you might check their balanced attack that one year 1081 for Addai, 641 for Rhodes.

Yeah the Cardinals lost to the #1 defense, as already noted. Pats lost to the Giants.

Besides the year they were relatively balanced and one losing season, these are the Colts reg season records from 1999 to 2008.

You can look up their playoff record over that time if you'd like...

13-3
10-6
10-6
12-4
12-4
14-2
13-3
12-4

I picked that year for the Colts because it was in the past 3 seasons and they are a passing team. I could have brought in the 2005 Seahawks, but they did have an excellent running game as well. I could have gone further back, with the 2004 Eagles, 2002 Raiders, 2001 Rams, etc... but I figured that the first year with a valid question (2005) was as good a place to stop as any. Furthermore, the Steelers were a passing team in 2008. You can point to the defense, but that's just on one side of the ball. The argument isn't that teams win without bringing any offense to the table, after all.

 

[alvinnf]

Re: My Dilletant Defensive Treatise

I'm speaking generally here, but the will is the weakside backer in the 43, and the weakside inside linebacker in the 34. Mike is middle backer in both.Think of the difference between the two like the difference between a fullback and a runningback. In run defense in the 34, the Mike is more responsible for blowing stuff up in the hole. He needs to take on linemen and fullbacks to allow the flowing Will to make the tackle. Think of the difference between the two like the difference between a fullback and a runningback. The Mike needs to be stronger, cary more momentum, and be outstanding in getting off of blocks. Think Ted Johnson. The Will is your flow and pursuit guy. He needs to be able to find the ball in traffic, scrape well across the LOS, have exceptional closing burst, and have the awareness to react to weakside runs and misdirection plays. The Will is your 3 down inside linebacker, typically the best backer on the team. The Mike is usually more of a thumper, running situation guy who also has the short distance quickness to defend against short passes in zone. Typically, when a runner doesn't have a hole and a linebacker streaks in to tackle him from the size, the Mike did his job.

Mayo strikes me as a traditional "mike" for the 43. He struggles to get around or go through players to make plays. He flows to the ball well and plays upstream, but he hasn't played all that well in the 34. He doesn't give ground when he moves laterally but he does struggle to get around people. Whether he is the Will or the Mike in our scheme is sort of a mute point, the formation is balanced on D and depending on where the offense wants to put him based on their formation, that's your answer.

 

[PatsChamp88]

Re: My Dilletant Defensive Treatise

Very insightful post, my question is can we resign Wilfork and Bodden? I think Wilfork plays a more important role on this team and the secondary has better depth.. You pointed out some great things to look for when I watch Sundays game depending on the feed, thanks!