My Thoughts on Monty Beisel: He is Still Horrible

[AzPatsFan]

I sure did.. All valid points

Mcsully,

You've convinced me!

There are you happY?.

I now finally agree with you; I do indeed agree with you that we need to trade a conditional 7th rounder for BOTH Sean Urlacher AND Lloyd Bridges.

Now satisfied? Of course not.

When will you begin posting that since there is ONLY five weeks left of preseason, it just Too, Too, late to teach them the Defense. Only you saw this clearly and BB/SP are utter dopes for not listening to you and arellbee.

They should have been trading back before minicamp for the pair of almost adequate LBs from the Bears?

 

[sieglo]

Anyone who thinks Don Davis is going to step up is fooling himself. He was burned on every play. He was out of position consistently, and when he wasn't he couldn't tackle for ****. He was so bad he made Biesel look like Bruschi in my opinion.

 

[mcsully]

Mcsully,

You've convinced me!

There are you happY?.

I now finally agree with you; I do indeed agree with you that we need to trade a conditional 7th rounder for BOTH Sean Urlacher AND Lloyd Bridges.

Now satisfied? Of course not.

When will you begin posting that since there is ONLY five weeks left of preseason, it just Too, Too, late to teach them the Defense. Only you saw this clearly and BB/SP are utter dopes for not listening to you and arellbee.

They should have been trading back before minicamp for the pair of almost adequate LBs from the Bears?

I'm not here to convince anyone, especially people I don't know.

The whole trade thing for a 7th round pick is over my head Don't like talking about trades.. Crazy talk.. I'll let WEEI do that

To answer your second question or statement about the 5 weeks left.. There is 4 weeks left to the first game.. And when you have a player that has been in your system for two years and still doesn't get it, its time to move on. Unfortunately, Beisel is helped to the fact of injuries..

 

[mcsully]

I noticed no comments regarding play by play analysis that I posted previously. You disregard any evidence that tends to dispute your emotional position regarding Beisel.

Item 6: By your reasoning if BB signs a DB then the DBs playing must be horrible. Maybe BB is looking at LBs on the waiver wire because (1) his starting ILB is out with an injury (2) He simply wants to pas up no opportunity to improve the roster.

You are impervious to rational discussion having gone way out on a limb re: Beisel. Characterizing a player I said "the jury is still out" as being my hero is an example of your polemics.

Honestly I didn't see your post to the URL that quotes an observation from PATSNUTME.. I tend to lean more towards what ARRELLBEE had to say..
Rereading it, I tend to disagree from taht point of view.. I'm not emotional at, actually I look at the situation at an interest, not from a personal stance.. If I did, facts wouldn't back up my agrument (ie, the four games he didn't dress)..


ITEM 6.. Yes if BB goes out and gets a new CB then he isn't happy with his Defensive back depth.. Example here would be a few years ago with Ted Washington. They weren't happy with their NT play (Warren couldn't do it) so they traded for Washington.. I fail to my flaw in that point..


"Impervious".. I wish I was SUPERMAN

 

[arrellbee]

Good post and very good things to consider.

I have to agree with pats and the others saying that beisel cant be judged by this game simply because no one on here has anything more than conjecture about his (beisel's) responsibilities on those plays.

Actually, this is not the case at all on basic runs. There the responsibility is crystal clear black and white. In a 3-4 defense, the front 3 are primarily responsible for keeping the line stable and keep it from 'spreading' (for purposes of this discussion). If they do this successfully, this usually leaves a possibility for two inside gaps - one over the OLG and one over the ORG. These gaps are THE responsibility of the ILBs. Think about it - there is NOONE else in position to stop a RB for a gain of less than 4 yards. In the 3-4, if one of the DL is able to work off of his block(s) (many times double teamed) and make a tackle or slow the RB down, this is a bonus, but NOT their primary responsibility. This Atlanta game was super for being able to evaluate Beisel because he got little or no 'bonuses' from the second or third string DL and so his fundamental capability was exposed to see what he could do. There is also NO issue of 'scheme' and 'reading' the play since in ALL of the plays I'll list below, he moved up to the LOS without any conflict with coverage and was up to the LOS without any delay on all of the plays. There were 5 plays where it was without controversy his gap and responsibility and, as I say, in all cases he moved up to the line to block without delay. So here are the results:
2nd - 12:33 - 4 yard gain (he wan't in on tackle at all)
2nd - 11:21 - 21 yard gain (this was TOTALLY Beisel's gap to control. He got totally blocked out of his gap and with the coverage, there was no-one to compensate)
3rd - 12:55 - 5 yard gain (Beisel got an arm tackle on the RB. But it was still a 5 yard gain)
3rd - 12:12 - 8 yard gain (FB completely blocked Beisel out of his gap. Other folks can comment, but in my view an ILB is SUPPOSED to be able to fight off FB blocks almost all of the time - where the ILB gets some sympathy is when he has to take on offensive linemen.)
3rd - 8:44 - 9 yard gain (this is another case where the FB blocks Beisel completely out of the play)

Also, there was the broken pass play where the QB ended up scrambling right to Beisel's contain spot- in fact went right over where Beisel had been set up - but Beisel was blocked to the ground just before the QB got there. I can't find a TV shot to figure out who blocked Beisel, but it wasn't one of the big OL dudes. I think it was one of the WR from the other side of the field. This resulted in a 29 yard gain. Decide for yourself how Beisel did here - scrambles are TOUGH. But the fact remains, it happened precisely through Beisel's contain spot.

So this gives gains of 4, 21, 5, 8, and 9. There is no way on earth that you can defend against the run giving up yardage like this. Other teams DO watch game film. There is enough game film available now, that any team that has any kind of a running game would be really stupid not to keep pounding thru Beisel's gap.

arrellbee gives beisel terrible and poor grades for plays where beisel plugged a hole by the de when the de was taking on two blockers, and askes why he did that instead of attacking the hole. perhaps, just perhaps, that was his responsibility for those plays. if so then he gets good marks for actually being where he is supposed to be. the same can be applied for the rest of arrellbee's grades. if beisel missed a tackle then was it a tackle in his area of responsibility? if so he deserves his grade, if not then he deserves a good grade for at least getting to someone elses area and attempting to make a play.

The above summary answers this I believe. The whole point is that Beisel did NOT plug the hole AT ALL (much less make the tackle except for the one play). That's why you had those kind of gains on the plays.

I'm not saying beisel will be the next bruschi or even that he will make the team, but grading him without having any clue as to what he was required to do on a specific play, with only hindsight to go on, saying that the play went one way and beisel was just standing by a de doing nothing is doing a disservice to him.

I think the above info should have pretty much answered this. You probably don't have the game recorded, but if you did, the commentary should point you exactly to the plays you would want to look at in slo-mo to see for yourself. (By the way, as I think it was Pats1 who commented once upon a thread, such reviewing can be hazardous to the poor buttons on your remote control !!)

Personally, I felt that he was tentative in the game, slow to make decisions. That may be, as many have said on here, because he is just no good. doesnt have the nose for contact the way bruschi and johnson and vrabel do. It could, however, simply be that he is struggling to read the plays and spending to much time thinking about where he is supposed to be in that specific situation.

Well, your comment has been voiced by a lot of folks over the course of many threads. My own viewpoint is that this has taken on a life of its own and is reaching the proportions of an Urban Myth. Mind you, that's just my view. Remember, unless I am out to lunch (and I'm sure there will plenty of sharp minds who will enlighten me if I am), on basic running plays there is really not much to read - the ILB has a well defined gap that is his primary responsibility and it's no more complicated than that. (On a top defense, all players have a high need to be productive in pursuit to other players' areas of responsibililty in order to back up). When it gets to coverage assignments, I think your comment about it being hard to tell what Beisel's responsibilities are is very true. You'll notice that in my comments there were a number of plays where I noted that there was probably no way to make an evaluation. My personal impression, and this HAS to be just an impression and personal opinion, is that Beisel isn't all that quick and good in his coverage drops either - I think other posts have had an opinion that he does do reasonably well here - I just haven't had that impression.

Going into his second year, I was hoping for more, but if I remember correctly, even bruschi took a few years to fully learn and understand this system and he was not exactly the shining example we see today.

This is a VERY pertinent comment and something that I suspect Belichick lives with in technicolor each season. But he has to make a decision in the end. I forget where it was (maybe it was even posted here), but recently he commented (with more than his usual terse comment) that a big key in how he decides about whether players should be kept longer is simply whether they are showing enough improvement to warrant more time to prove themselves (Belichick is the ultimate fundamental pragmatist). So the key question that you would have to ask yourself is whether Beisel is showing improvement. My judgment is that this game shows little if any improvement. It would seem strange if he didn't get some additional chances in preseason games. AND the LB corps may be thin enough that he gets a 53 roster spot almost by default. Only the next 5 weeks will tell us the answer.

I guess thats the bottom line for me, Belichick doesn't play favorites. Anyone making the team makes it because Belichick feels that is the best player to do the job. So as long as he feels there is something in beisel, then I will show some patience and see. He may not be right every time, but he is often enough.

I doubt that you find many folks who would disagree with you in the slightest. I certainly agree with you on this.

 

[All_Around_Brown]

He couldn't make it on that POS 05 KC Defensive squad, and IIRC, was cut to make room for Kawika Mitchell out of that football factory...U of South Florida.

Now that is telling.

 

[arrellbee]

When will you begin posting that since there is ONLY five weeks left of preseason, it just Too, Too, late to teach them the Defense.

Of course. It would be VERY difficult to bring somebody on board now and have them productive in any way even down in the depth chart. Of course. However ....... If it turns out that there are not enough qualified bodies that Belichick sees enough value in to provide the number of players at that position, he goes outside anyway. It is what it is. There are ample examples once the season starts. One would think players in camp get a big advantage, but .....

Only you saw this clearly and BB/SP are utter dopes for not listening to you and arellbee.

Well, just to make sure the record is clear - unlike a lot of posters, I just don't pretend to know what would be the best tradeoff for the Patriots in any position. I don't have any access to practices or the detailed film that the Pats staff has. I don't have the slightest bit of information that Pioli and Belichick have about draft rookies or even players on other teams. I have seen the media report as to the board that Pioli keeps on EVERY SINGLE player on every team in the NFL and that they have assessments on each and every one as to whether or not they might be able to contribute for the Pats. How could we possibly make a judgment on information that is even microscopically close to what the Patriots have to use to make decisions ?

That's why you probably won't see any posts from me making any judgments like letting Vinatier, McGinnis, and Givens go or what the best tradeoff is or the ABSOLUTELY MANDATORY need to sign Branch at any cost.

On the other hand, there is a small amount of information available to us by observing Patriot games. And it does seem like an interesting exercise to ponder some of the same info that the Patriots will be using as a PART of making their tradeoffs. Sometimes that information seems applicable enough to be compelling. Usually, even with that information, there is still room for different interpretations and opinions. Great - that's what discussions are all about. Bring it on.

They should have been trading back before minicamp for the pair of almost adequate LBs from the Bears?

Now this is immensely curious. Having just critcized others for having opinions as to what Belichick and Pioli SHOULD do (when I, for one, didn't pretend to say what they should do) - you come out and make an absolute judgment as to what they SHOULD have done about signing LBs. I find that very interesting and at least somewhat hypocritical - especially when you do both things in the same post.

 

[PATSNUTme]

My final comment on the subject, until next week when it starts all over again.

If Biesel is horrible, does anyone seriously think that BB won't send him packing? The coaches watch film of every practice and every game. Much better views and close ups than we have. They know if a player is doing what they want him to do or not.

What would hold BB back? A cap hit? A protest from the Monty Biesel fan club?

 

[maverick4]

My final comment on the subject, until next week when it starts all over again.

If Biesel is horrible, does anyone seriously think that BB won't send him packing? The coaches watch film of every practice and every game. Much better views and close ups than we have. They know if a player is doing what they want him to do or not.

What would hold BB back? A cap hit? A protest from the Monty Biesel fan club?

It's due to necessity, in my opinion.

Either they don't like the free agent pool, or they can't afford to cut Beisel because the depth behind him is even worse.

.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Defense Rules: Bingo!

That Kevin Youngblood play is what goes thru my mind when I think of Beisel's performance.

Folks, Beisel is not 'tenative', he is SOFT!

You can't teach somebody to be a 'rat'.

BB wants all his players to be a rat. Meaning they take every possible opportunity within the rules to inflict pain and terror on their opponent.

That's what BB means when he says 'Be Physical'. He means hit the damn guy with the ball and don't be a wussy about it. Make the guy fear you and he won't come across the middle anymore.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I just voted this a 5 star thread, not because of the first several pages, but because I like what Arrellbee brought to the discussion, and I think that he would have been well served to launch his own thread on the subject.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Actually, this is not the case at all on basic runs. There the responsibility is crystal clear black and white. In a 3-4 defense, the front 3 are primarily responsible for keeping the line stable and keep it from 'spreading' (for purposes of this discussion). If they do this successfully, this usually leaves a possibility for two inside gaps - one over the OLG and one over the ORG. These gaps are THE responsibility of the ILBs. Think about it - there is NOONE else in position to stop a RB for a gain of less than 4 yards. In the 3-4, if one of the DL is able to work off of his block(s) (many times double teamed) and make a tackle or slow the RB down, this is a bonus, but NOT their primary responsibility.

Um, I'm not following you...

Gaps = spaces between offensive linemen and tight ends, or where this spaces would be if a player was lined up to that side.

The 'A' gap is the space between the center and the guard to either side, hence 2 'A' gaps. The players responsible for those gaps in a base 3-4 are the NT and the 2 ILBs.

The 'B' gap is the space between the guard and the tackle, again 2 'B' gaps, the players responsible for the 'b' gaps are the ILBs and the DEs.

The 'C' gap is the space between the tackle and the tight end (or the area that would be a space between them if the TE was lined up on that side). As before, 2 'C' gaps. The players responsible for the 'C' gaps are the DEs and the OLBs.

The 'D' gap is the space between the TE and the flanker. It's rare that a team lines up with two TEs and two flankers, but you can see it. Those 'D' gaps are the responsibility of the OLBs, and a DB, either a S or a CB.

Put simply, there is no "gap" where an OLG or ORG is, that is a 300+ lb. trench warrior. Perhaps this is how you and I see this play differently:

2nd - 12:33 - 1st and 10 - terrible
Run to Beisel's gap. He moves up DIRECTLY behind DE (Thomas) rather than rushing his gap. Thomas is double teamed by OLG and OLT so Beisel is effectively blocked by the same guys blocking Thomas. After the intial double team of Thomas, the OLG slides thru and picks Beisel off of Thomas' back and blocks him outside and back completely away from the runner. Beisel ends up 5 yards from the LOS on his back. The runner makes 4 yards thru the OLG gap.

m: 1st and 10
r: Dive over LG, 4 yds
o: WR to each side, TE flanked to each side, TB.
d: 3-4, CBs soft;
DL LeKevin Smith, Sullivan, Santonio Thomas
LB Colvin, Gardner, Beisel, Banta-Cain
CB Samuel, Wilson
SS Sanders, FS Hawkins
b: Poor camera work as always - Sullivan doubled by RG/C goes down with the RG tripping the RTE; L.Smith drives the RT onto the pile in the middle; The C release off Sullivan and takes on Gardner upfield; Beisel met the LG in the hole and held his ground; S.Thomas stood up the LT/LG, then the LG released to Beisel; Banta-cain set the edge on the LTE; Hawkins blocked by LWR; Sanders met the RWR by the pile and drove him backwards onto the pile.
a: Gardner is credited for the tackle in the NFL.com play-by-play, but Beisel and S.Thomas drove their blockers back into the hole forcing the runner into Sullivan’s dog pile; Banta-Cain did a nice job of sealing the edge and forcing the play to stay inside.

You are technically correct, there was a run play heading for either the 'A' or 'B' gap to Beisel's side. Where I find your analysis unconvincing is your remark that "Thomas is double teamed by OLG and OLT so Beisel is effectively blocked by the same guys blocking Thomas." This presupposes Atlanta's offensive linemen are limited to one block per play.

A close look at our own offensive linemen indicates they frequently (as in some two or four players double and release or chip and release on almost every play run) double-team a DL long enough for one of them to gain control of him and steer him out of the play, while the second then releases to block a player at the next level (usually a LB). You will also see our offensive linemen initiate a block, then hand the player off to another blocker so they can block upfield. Put simply, an OL has blocking assignments, plural.

In this case you see Beisel being blocked by two guys assigned to block Santonio, and I see Santonio holding his ground against the double-team, then winning the battle when the LG release the double-team to block his 'second' assignment, the LB (Beisel).

Beisel's job on this play, assuming he is responsible for the left 'A' and 'B' gaps in a basic scheme, was to control the LG to control the 'A' and 'B' gaps. Whether that was his actual responsibility in the game, I can't say but, his actions had the same effect as if that was indeed his responsibility. So what I saw was the NT partially lose containment on his gaps as he was knocked down by an initial double-team (note: one of those players who double-teamed Sullivan then went on to block Gardner - multiple assignments or 'I have nothing left to do on this job so I'll find another', your call.) - I say partially because Sulivan was not in a good position to make a play, but two 300 lb. road blocks on the ground will slow a RB. I saw Beisel move into the area where the run was going and be met by an offensive lineman releasing off a double-team:
1. If the LG had stayed with his double-team Beisel would have met the RB head on in the hole.
2. When the LG released his double-team to block Beisel the "defensive team" worked as a team with Beisel and Thomas controlling their blockers well enough to force the RB into Sullivan's tire drill, Beisel and Thomas succeeded because Banta-Cain controlled his man and forced the runner to committ inside or take a wide, time consuming swing to get outside. Once the runner got in that pile he could have tripped, or been grabbed by Gardner and/or Sullivan, and/or LeKevin Smith all piled up together with their blockers.

Gardner got the credit on NFL.com, but the three players who took on the left side of the line, made the play. Beisel was one of those players, you rate it a terrible, I rate it 'he successfully played his responsibilities within the scheme.'

I'll resume breakdowns tomorrow (God willing), maybe I'll see things more your way, maybe I won't, in the end, BB makes the decisions and I get to tell PATSNUTme "I am a Homer, DOH!"

 

[arrellbee]

This is really interesting. I think it would get very busy and confusing if I quoted what you wrote and tried to intersperse comments, so I will try to discuss points in the context of your comments.

(Note after the fact: As I made various comments, I found myself being very repetitive in saying that I would be interested in your comment on what I was saying. Rather than do that, let me just say that this applies to virtually everything I comment on and I REALLY would be interested in what you might have to say or observations.)

As the O and D line up, no question on the common usage of A, B, C, D, (and E) gaps.

To my view, what happens once the ball is snapped is that almost always (maybe even always) the OL blocks to create a "gap" between Center and DE which, I believe, many analysts would then refer to as a run "over guard". Again, to my view, "A" and "B" gaps disappear and become "one gap". I used the word gap in the second context and would welcome a more appropriate term - maybe opening ? - whatever would distinguish and make it clearer.

In my view, and this may be a difference between how we view responsibilities, the key responsibility of the ILB is to guard the "opening" since, it seems obvious to me at any rate, this is where the RB is coming thru if he wants to make any gain.

DL, especially in a 3-4 D, do indeed have "blocking" responsibilities against OL - as I commented, to me their first assignment is to keep the LOS 'tight' so as to reduce the number of 'openings' that would be available to the RB. But I think you might agree that to the extent they are able, in addition to blocking and maintaining the LOS, it is a real bonus if they are able to disengage from their block enough to get a piece (or all of) the RB if possible. It's just that I view that as a bonus rather than a primary responsibility. To me, in the 3-4 D, the primary responsibility to stop the RB belongs (on interior runs of course) to the ILBs. Again, maybe this is where we differ.

So to me, it is a terrible play for an ILB to 'block' or engage an OL if by doing so the ILB is not guarding the 'opening'. The OL is already taking up a space that the RB CANNOT run thru ?? !! ?? So to me, the really good ILB tries to avoid the OL on either side of the 'opening' because that would be a waste and instead needs to do his utmost to guard or even penetrate the opening between massive bodies. Now if an OL (OG usually) blocks straight ahead from his LOS position without engaging a DL, then that DOES become the ILB's responsibility. In that case, I think you and I may be in complete agreement. There is a vestige of A and B gap left in that one-on-one situation, but my view is that neither is really wide enough to serve a RB well, so to my perception, the OG in this situation tries very hard to move the ILB to one side or the other and either shove him totally away and create a good opening for the RB or at least tries to move the ILB to one side (either 'A' or 'B' and keep his 'profile' with the ILB as narrow as possible so as to leave as wide an 'opening' as he can for the RB. Also, to my perception, the ILB tries first to avoid being shoved completely to one side out of the play - otherwise he has totally blown his responsibility for the opening. If he can take on the OG well enough to keep him in the 'opening', then the ILB can try to do one or both of two things - 1) keep the OL from 'lining him up' which would essentially take up only one body width leaving an opening for the RB; 2) and/or take on the block in such a way that he can slip off the block when the RB comes into the opening and make a tackle. I think taking on an OG coming straight out is a really tough assignment for an ILB and brings to mind the tough capability of a Ted Johnson or Mike Vrabel. An almost totally similar situation occurs if the OL block the DL to either side to create an 'opening' and you get a FB leading the way through the opening. My own personal opinion is that any ILB worth his salt better be able to take on a FB and control the opening - either by plugging it up completely or by handling the FB block so that he can still tackle the RB.

As a side discussion, I don't think I see too many cases where the OG just comes out to block the ILB with Seymour, Wilfork, and possibly Warren being such tough blocks one-on-one. What is your data ? One play in this game where the OG took on Beisel and backed him out of play there was a gain of 21 yards through the opening created.

My really serious problem with Beisel may be evident from my commentary on the plays. It seems like close to always he moves up behind one of his own DL. As I said, this seems worthless. That area of the LOS is already COMPLETELY plugged by the bodies of the DL and the one or two OL blocking him. It seems totally valueless for Beisel to simply add more depth to what is already an impenetrable plug. Not only that, but I think virutally always, if there is a double team on the DL, the inside OL slips the double team and picks up Beisel also, keeping him completely away from the 'opening'. There was not one instance where Beisel slipped the block that he essentially created on himself and was able to get to the runner. Not one.

Even if the inside OL double teaming the DL doesn't pick up Beisel, the other situation that happens is that Beisel is to one side of the opening and if there is a lead FB, he simply picks up Beisel behind the DL and seals him off from the opening - Beisel has no leverage to take on the block. This happened twice - allowing 8 and 9 yard gains.

 

[arrellbee]

OK. Let's compare notes on the 2nd - 12:33 - 1st and 10 play.

You commented:
"Beisel met the LG in the hole and held his ground"
"Beisel and S.Thomas drove their blockers back into the hole forcing the runner into Sullivan’s dog pile"

Ok, to me what happened is that Beisel did NOT go to the hole but instead moved to his right to directly behind the DE (his left foot is directly behind the DE's left foot !! ??). Behind the DE is, to me, NOT to the hole. Not only that, but he didn't even 'meet' the LG. Instead he leans back and plants his left foot coming to a stop with his right foot planting out to his right before the LG even makes contact. So to me, he didn't keep going in the slightest to meet the LG but basically pulled up to let the LG come to him with Beisel having no momentum whatsoever to make any kind of block or having any possibility of slipping the block to go to the RB. What I see then, as a result, is the LG pushing Beisel a step or so further to the outside - not driving the LG into the hole in the slightest but instead Beisel being driven outside so that he and the LG are completely away from the hole and the RB. For sure, the RB is coming thru to the inside of the LG and it doesn't look like the LG is in the RB's way. Beisel ends up being pushed back 5 yards back from the LOS on his back under the LG and, as far as I can see, is not near the RB at any time. I don't believe Thomas drove either blocker toward the RB either. As far as I can tell, the DE blocked Thomas and drove him back on the outside of Beisel and the LG, pushing him away from the hole - Thomas was actually driven further to the outside by a step or so by the DE. By the way, even tho the solo credit is given to Gardner, I think it was actually the NT (Sullivan ?) who made the initial stop after getting back to his knees after being blocked to the ground. I think he may have had the RB by the legs when Gardner wrestled the RB to the ground.

So to me, a rating would reflect two things. Most important, Beisel did not charge the actual hole which he could easily have done by going to the left of the LG. Even if the LG had blocked him at that point, Beisel is already in the hole and plugs it up no matter how the LG tries to block him at that point. And, secondly, he didn't even charge - he went to the right of the LG instead of to the left and he pulled up before he was blocked. To me, that makes no sense and can't be how an ILB plays - especially since it didn't work in this play or any other I saw.

 

[PatsFan37]

While I don't remember the particular play Arrellbee and Box are discussing, I did keep an eye on Beisel and wasn't impressed overall.

OTOH, I understand that there are two kinds of holes: horizontal holes, the standard gaps that DL are supposed to control, and vertical holes, which are created if the DL and LB penetrate haphazardly and leave the LOS ragged.

If Beisel penetrates the line and charges the RB instead of hanging behind the DL ready to plug the gap, he creates a vertical hole. The RB can juke him and be gone into the secondary. By waiting behind the line, he's in better position to make a play.

Not to say that he made plays, I don't think he showed me all that much. I'd criticize him for awareness and inability to shed blocks in this first preseason game. But his positioning may have been correct.

I would also say that the camera angle compresses the LOS making gaps and holes appear smaller than they are. That birds-eye camera on the wire is a much better view of the field, I wish they used it more often.

Last preseason, we were all excited about Beisel throwing his body around the field, getting all kinds of penetration and blowing up RBs. He was also over-running plays, getting out of position and leaving major holes.

Now he's playing with far greater discipline. Let's not criticize him for that.

Sadly, still not getting the job done, but please to remember, it was the first preseason game trying to apply all his offseason work.

Maybe he's just not as smart as Bruschi. Not as savvy, certainly not as experienced. But I doubt it's a lack of toughness. His reluctance to hurl his facemask at people was a matter of trying to adjust to lessons learned, it did not appear to me to be attitude.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

I like both your analysises because you are both giving honest eye witness accounts of what you saw. I think the truth is in the middle. I think Box is right when pointing out that Beisel has certain responsiblities to cover, and I think Arrellbee is right that Beisel spends more time taking care of responsibilities than doing what needs to be done at the end of the day, which is participating in the tackling process and knocking the snot out of whatever slappie comes his way.

Personally, I want more out of a Patriot defender than just going thru the motions. I want a mean and tough player that cracks heads with anybody he can. That is what BB wants at the end of the day.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

To my view, what happens once the ball is snapped is that almost always (maybe even always) the OL blocks to create a "gap" between Center and DE which, I believe, many analysts would then refer to as a run "over guard". Again, to my view, "A" and "B" gaps disappear and become "one gap". I used the word gap in the second context and would welcome a more appropriate term - maybe opening ? - whatever would distinguish and make it clearer.

Exchange of ideas is always welcome.

First, I freely admit to being a novice and basically self-taught tactician in this field.

The "hole" for a RB is going to come from a result of the blocking, or the defense's error. In this case Atlanta uses a zone blocking scheme, instead of designing the play for the RB to go through the left 'A' gap, the play is designed for the RB to pick and choose which "opening" he will use, including cutting back and using an opening on the backside of the line play. The blockers are blocking everything in their "zone,"which in time will create an opening for the RB to find. That opening can be anywhere on the line, including bouncing outside to the edge and trying to turn the corner on the defense. The gaps remain the same, they just shift with their men, which against BB's 3-4 scheme means the front seven shift with the O-line to protect "their" gaps. You'll note in my earlier response how each gap is double covered by members of the front seven, thus Monty was responsible for two gaps, and could have been blocked by any one of three OL who were going to block in that zone.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

In my view, and this may be a difference between how we view responsibilities, the key responsibility of the ILB is to guard the "opening" since, it seems obvious to me at any rate, this is where the RB is coming thru if he wants to make any gain.

DL, especially in a 3-4 D, do indeed have "blocking" responsibilities against OL - as I commented, to me their first assignment is to keep the LOS 'tight' so as to reduce the number of 'openings' that would be available to the RB. But I think you might agree that to the extent they are able, in addition to blocking and maintaining the LOS, it is a real bonus if they are able to disengage from their block enough to get a piece (or all of) the RB if possible. It's just that I view that as a bonus rather than a primary responsibility. To me, in the 3-4 D, the primary responsibility to stop the RB belongs (on interior runs of course) to the ILBs. Again, maybe this is where we differ.

I refer you to an "expert", Baltimore Raven MLB Ray Lewis and is off-season whining about his defensive line being unable to "protect" him from offensive linemen so he can run free to the RB. He has been quoted numerous times on his dislike of the 3-4 two-gap sytem which forces "him," the world's greatest linebacker, to take on an offensive linemen before he can make a tackle.

Lets think a little more about what you have said above. You are telling me that Richard Seymour's job is to protect Tedy Bruschi and Rosevelt Colvin from being blocked by an offensive linemen? I hope you can see the inherent weakness of that job description. In a 3-4 two-gap defense, in particular BB's defense, the primary responsibility to stop the RB belongs to an eleven man unit, there is no individual, or specific cadre within the unit, who has more responsibility than another within that context.

In BB's scheme ILB and Ss tend to have the most tackles, this is a direct result of the defense's goal on each play - BB's 3-4 is designed to funnel ball carriers back into the middle of the field where there are more people available to tackle them. This is "Team Defense," each man playing his assigned responsibility, which means he may need to take on a blocker to defend his area. The OLB's are assigned to protect the edge so a RB can't get outside, then if each DL and ILB protect their gap assignments, the RB winds up with nowhere to go.

Ray Lewis demands blockers in order to make a tackle, Tedy Bruschi and the New England LBs are responsible to take on an offensive linemen if that is what it takes to protect their gap responsibility - a world of difference there.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

The problem is whether Beisel can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yeah, he has responsibilities to cover his gap and take on gaurds. He also needs to tackle people and put the hurt on them. Last preseason he was trying to just make tackles and avoid the blocks at any cost. This preseason he seems to be playing within the system, but not very well, to my untrained eye, in my own opinion.

But what makes me want to move on to another guy is not that Beisel still needs time in the system. I just don't think he is a hard hitter and an intimidator. I think you need that as well.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

OK. Let's compare notes on the 2nd - 12:33 - 1st and 10 play.

You commented:
"Beisel met the LG in the hole and held his ground"
"Beisel and S.Thomas drove their blockers back into the hole forcing the runner into Sullivan’s dog pile"

Ok, to me what happened is that Beisel did NOT go to the hole but instead moved to his right to directly behind the DE (his left foot is directly behind the DE's left foot !! ??). Behind the DE is, to me, NOT to the hole. Not only that, but he didn't even 'meet' the LG. Instead he leans back and plants his left foot coming to a stop with his right foot planting out to his right before the LG even makes contact. So to me, he didn't keep going in the slightest to meet the LG but basically pulled up to let the LG come to him with Beisel having no momentum whatsoever to make any kind of block or having any possibility of slipping the block to go to the RB. What I see then, as a result, is the LG pushing Beisel a step or so further to the outside - not driving the LG into the hole in the slightest but instead Beisel being driven outside so that he and the LG are completely away from the hole and the RB. For sure, the RB is coming thru to the inside of the LG and it doesn't look like the LG is in the RB's way. Beisel ends up being pushed back 5 yards back from the LOS on his back under the LG and, as far as I can see, is not near the RB at any time. I don't believe Thomas drove either blocker toward the RB either. As far as I can tell, the DE blocked Thomas and drove him back on the outside of Beisel and the LG, pushing him away from the hole - Thomas was actually driven further to the outside by a step or so by the DE. By the way, even tho the solo credit is given to Gardner, I think it was actually the NT (Sullivan ?) who made the initial stop after getting back to his knees after being blocked to the ground. I think he may have had the RB by the legs when Gardner wrestled the RB to the ground.

So to me, a rating would reflect two things. Most important, Beisel did not charge the actual hole which he could easily have done by going to the left of the LG. Even if the LG had blocked him at that point, Beisel is already in the hole and plugs it up no matter how the LG tries to block him at that point. And, secondly, he didn't even charge - he went to the right of the LG instead of to the left and he pulled up before he was blocked. To me, that makes no sense and can't be how an ILB plays - especially since it didn't work in this play or any other I saw.

You speak about Beisel setting his feet and waiting for the OL to come to him, so was Beisel just sitting in that location, or did he come from another location? What is the RB doing? In case you missed it, that looked like a stretch play, the RB was pointed outside the TE as he took the ball, then cuts back inside. If you watch Beisel, when he stopped behind Thomas it was a change of direction occuring at the exact same time the RB change his direction, do you suppose he was keying on the RB and not blindly filling a hole?

A consideration: you have made your views on Beisel clearly in many posts over the off-season. As an analyst, it is very difficult not to color our reports with our own perspective. If I have a favorite player they tend to be underdogs like Poteat and Klecko, so I may have a bias for Beisel as another underdog, perhaps Ring is right and the truth of Beisel is in the middle of our perspectives, but just as I must try to guard against playing the underdog up too much, I suggest you should consider how your feeling may be affecting your perspective.

On reviewing this play, I also note I did not give Gardner enough credit for fighting through the Center's block, Beisel made first contact with the runner (from this angle), and did it with the LG draped over his back, but Gardner did get in on the tackle after fighting off the C.