Ninkovich and Crable as our OLB's

[mgteich]

I am in agreeement with regard to your analysis.

And, other than Brady's health and negotiations, there is nothing close in importance to the LB situation as far as considering our potential in 2010.

I don't think we're too far apart here. I think we both agree that Guyton probably isn't a full-time starter in this defense.

It's like asking the question on whether Matt Chatham was a backup ILB or backup OLB. It didn't really matter because he was almost exclusively a special teamer. BUT, in the case when he was pressed into duty (2003), he was an OLB.

Obivously, Guyton isn't just a special teamer, but he'll be part of that nickel package, which has two LBs, not necessarily a ILB or an OLB. BUT, in the case when he's pressed into duty, what position will he play? His entire skill set and history points to ILB, so that's where I think you're wrong by saying OLB, because he's NOT going to set the edge and he's NOT going to rush the passer.

I agree with your general assessment though. There's currently ONE full-time starter under contract - Mayo. That leaves one starter at ILB and two rotation guys at OLB, along with TBC, if he returns.

 

[pats1]

We are in agreeement with regard to your analysis.

And, other than Brady's health and negotiations, there is nothing close in importance to the LB situation as far as considering our potential in 2010.

Agree completely, although franchising Wilfork is also a priority.

If they are to stay in the 3-4, then the LBs are the key to that defense, along with the NT. They need to upgrade that position, no questions asked.

Now, a few years ago, most posters' calls for the 4-3 were shot down because the personnel wasn't there - Seymour is a natural 3-4 DE, and Vrabel was a natural 3-4 OLB, and Bruschi was a natural 3-4 ILB. It wasn't going to work with those guys.

But in the 3-4, you are limiting Guyton's options; he can't be an early-down player at ILB. He will be limited to passing downs as a nickel LB.

In the 4-3, Guyton can be a three-down player, because he is a natural fit at OLB (and Mayo at ILB). McKenzie is also a 4-3 OLB type. However, the Pats don't have the personnel at DL to fit a 4-3, especially at DE.

Therefore, I think one of the first decisions of the offseason is to determine whether this team is going be designed as a 4-3 team or a 3-4 team. If you go with a 4-3, then you already have four DTs on your roster in Warren, Wright, Pryor, and Brace. That's a surplus and there could be a trade (Warren? If you're willing to grow with Pryor and Brace, who are natural 4-3 DTs - the cap hit from the trade would also not accelerate because of uncapped year rules). Then you could use those picks to trade for or draft two very good DEs, like a Peppers or Mathis.

Personally, I don't think the above plan is as crazy as it sounds. The Pats drafting lately - Chung, Brace, Pryor, (Guyton), Mayo, McKenzie - all seems to fit a 4-3 scheme, while their personnel moves - trading Vrabel, Seymour - all seem to point to moving away from the 3-4.

 

[mgteich]

I agree that another key is Wilfork. I am not sure that he would play under a franchise. We would get solid compensation if he goes. Also, we lose Wilfork and do not replace him with a fa like Hampton or a draftee like Cody, then we are indeed headed to a 4-3. For me, the key to playing a 3-4 well is a great NT.

Agree completely, although franchising Wilfork is also a priority.

If they are to stay in the 3-4, then the LBs are the key to that defense, along with the NT. They need to upgrade that position, no questions asked.

Now, a few years ago, most posters' calls for the 4-3 were shot down because the personnel wasn't there - Seymour is a natural 3-4 DE, and Vrabel was a natural 3-4 OLB, and Bruschi was a natural 3-4 ILB. It wasn't going to work with those guys.

But in the 3-4, you are limiting Guyton's options; he can't be an early-down player at ILB. He will be limited to passing downs as a nickel LB.

In the 4-3, Guyton can be a three-down player, because he is a natural fit at OLB (and Mayo at ILB). McKenzie is also a 4-3 OLB type. However, the Pats don't have the personnel at DL to fit a 4-3, especially at DE.

 

[pats1]

I agree that another key is Wilfork. I am not sure that he would play under a franchise. We would get solid compensation if he goes. Also, we lose Wilfork and do not replace him with a fa like Hampton or a draftee like Cody, then we are indeed headed to a 4-3. For me, the key to playing a 3-4 well is a great NT.

How about the plan I edited my last post with?

 

[mgteich]

If you mean moving to the 4-3, I still don't like our personnel fit. In any case, since we need 3-4 additions (a DE and 3 LB's), we can build almost any defense. If we ant to go the 4-3, we will add four players who will make that work. It may be easier to find these players than four top 3-4 players.

How about the plan I edited my last post with?

 

[pats1]

If you mean moving to the 4-3, I still don't like our personnel fit. In any case, since we need 3-4 additions (a DE and 3 LB's), we can build almost any defense. If we ant to go the 4-3, we will add four players who will make that work. It may be easier to find these players than four top 3-4 players.

Right, I outlinted a scenario where the personnel does work. I think most people here agree that Pryor, Brace, and Guyton are all more natural 4-3 players. Mayo and McKenzie also probably fall into that category.

Warren, even though he played DT in college, is a great fit at 3-4 DE. I'm not sure about his $7M option bonus, but Miguel has him with $8M in bonus money left, including 2010 - I'm not sure if he's also counting option bonus amortization in there too. In any case, releasing or trading a player in an uncapped year means that those amortizations do NOT accelerate into the current year, they stay in whatever year they were, according to AdamJT13 and Miguel. Warren is signed through 2010, so by Miguel's number that's about $8M over 4 years (2010-2013), which works out to $2M/year, which is spare change under today's cap. Again, I'm not sure if the option bonus has been exercised yet, which would add to those amortizations.

That's very little money for the Pats to eat, and trading Warren to say, the Chiefs or Broncos, who are both looking for a 3-4 DE, would be more appealing because those teams would only have to pick up Warren's base salaries. Given Warren's level of play and his team-friendly contract, the Pats could command at least a 2nd-round pick for him.

What that would leave is two natural 4-3 DTs: Pryor and Brace, along with Wright. You would also have Mayo and Guyton as starting LBs, along with McKenzie on the strong side in an ideal scenario.

That would leave you with two holes to fill at DE, preferably with stud pass rushers. Well, with the money you saved on Warren and Wilfork and the picks, that allows you do go out and draft and/or sign quality pass-rushing DEs.

That would complete your defense, which would have gotten smaller, but much faster and would stop the run like some smaller 4-3 teams have done. Basically, here's how it would look:

LDE: Early draft pick/FA
LDT: Brace/Wright
RDT: Pryor/Wright
RDE: Early draft pick/FA

SLB: McKenzie/Crable
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

Nickel: Three DEs (TBD) on the DL w/ Wright; Guyton and Mayo at LB.

Yes, it's a young defense, but it puts all the Pats' recent draft picks into their natural positions and allows you to focus draft resources on a position where this draft is deep - DE.

 

[mgteich]

This leaves us at least as difficult a shopping list. You would need the list below. WSorse that that, you would take the DL which was reasonable effective in being part of our top 10 young, improving defense and completely gut in, getting rid of all three remaining veterans: Wilfork, Warren and Green. I'm not buying, not for a sec.


DEFENSIVE LINE NEEDS
1) 2)Two starting DE's
3) a backup DE
4) a DT to compete with Pyor and Brace for reps and to be a backup
Wright would be the only returning "veteran".

LINEBACKER NEEDS
You have Mayo and Guyton plugged in as starters, as Belichicdk did this year. You are counting on one of the two IR returnees to fill a starting role. More reasonable is to expect one of the two to make the team as a backup in their first season of play and the other not to contribute, leaving needs for
5) SLB to compete with McKenzie and/or Crable for reps.
6) backup MLB
7) bakcup WLB
=============
Welcome to 5-11

Right, I outlinted a scenario where the personnel does work. I think most people here agree that Pryor, Brace, and Guyton are all more natural 4-3 players. Mayo and McKenzie also probably fall into that category.

Warren, even though he played DT in college, is a great fit at 3-4 DE. I'm not sure about his $7M option bonus, but Miguel has him with $8M in bonus money left, including 2010 - I'm not sure if he's also counting option bonus amortization in there too. In any case, releasing or trading a player in an uncapped year means that those amortizations do NOT accelerate into the current year, they stay in whatever year they were, according to AdamJT13 and Miguel. Warren is signed through 2010, so by Miguel's number that's about $8M over 4 years (2010-2013), which works out to $2M/year, which is spare change under today's cap. Again, I'm not sure if the option bonus has been exercised yet, which would add to those amortizations.

That's very little money for the Pats to eat, and trading Warren to say, the Chiefs or Broncos, who are both looking for a 3-4 DE, would be more appealing because those teams would only have to pick up Warren's base salaries. Given Warren's level of play and his team-friendly contract, the Pats could command at least a 2nd-round pick for him.

What that would leave is two natural 4-3 DTs: Pryor and Brace, along with Wright. You would also have Mayo and Guyton as starting LBs, along with McKenzie on the strong side in an ideal scenario.

That would leave you with two holes to fill at DE, preferably with stud pass rushers. Well, with the money you saved on Warren and Wilfork and the picks, that allows you do go out and draft and/or sign quality pass-rushing DEs.

That would complete your defense, which would have gotten smaller, but much faster and would stop the run like some smaller 4-3 teams have done. Basically, here's how it would look:

LDE: Early draft pick/FA
LDT: Brace/Wright
RDT: Pryor/Wright
RDE: Early draft pick/FA

SLB: McKenzie/Crable
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

Nickel: Three DEs (TBD) on the DL w/ Wright; Guyton and Mayo at LB.

Yes, it's a young defense, but it puts all the Pats' recent draft picks into their natural positions and allows you to focus draft resources on a position where this draft is deep - DE.

 

[pats1]

This leaves us at least as difficult a shopping list. You would need the list below. WSorse that that, you would take the DL which was reasonable effective in being part of our top 10 young, improving defense and completely gut in, getting rid of all three remaining veterans: Wilfork, Warren and Green. I'm not buying, not for a sec.


DEFENSIVE LINE NEEDS
1) 2)Two starting DE's
3) a backup DE
4) a DT to compete with Pyor and Brace for reps and to be a backup
Wright would be the only returning "veteran".

LINEBACKER NEEDS
You have Mayo and Guyton plugged in as starters, as Belichicdk did this year. You are counting on one of the two IR returnees to fill a starting role. More reasonable is to expect one of the two to make the team as a backup in their first season of play and the other not to contribute, leaving needs for
5) SLB to compete with McKenzie and/or Crable for reps.
6) backup MLB
7) bakcup WLB
=============
Welcome to 5-11

I agree, you're stripping things down more than staying with a 3-4. But I think the shopping lists are equally as daunting.

In this scenario, letting go of Warren and Wilfork - both 3-4 players - would give you the resources to go out and get good-to-elite players at DE. You're basically up against the same task staying the 3-4 - there is a glaring hole at OLB - but with less resources because you're commiting to Wilfork.

But I agree, overall the plan does leave the defense very young and uncertain. But I just get the sense this is where they may be headed.

To be fair, here's what you're looking at with the 3-4:

1) Franchising Wilfork
2) 3) Starting OLBs
4) Backup OLB
4) Starting ILB
5) Starting DE
6) Backup DE

 

[BradyFTW!]

Right, I outlinted a scenario where the personnel does work. I think most people here agree that Pryor, Brace, and Guyton are all more natural 4-3 players. Mayo and McKenzie also probably fall into that category.

Warren, even though he played DT in college, is a great fit at 3-4 DE. I'm not sure about his $7M option bonus, but Miguel has him with $8M in bonus money left, including 2010 - I'm not sure if he's also counting option bonus amortization in there too. In any case, releasing or trading a player in an uncapped year means that those amortizations do NOT accelerate into the current year, they stay in whatever year they were, according to AdamJT13 and Miguel. Warren is signed through 2010, so by Miguel's number that's about $8M over 4 years (2010-2013), which works out to $2M/year, which is spare change under today's cap. Again, I'm not sure if the option bonus has been exercised yet, which would add to those amortizations.

That's very little money for the Pats to eat, and trading Warren to say, the Chiefs or Broncos, who are both looking for a 3-4 DE, would be more appealing because those teams would only have to pick up Warren's base salaries. Given Warren's level of play and his team-friendly contract, the Pats could command at least a 2nd-round pick for him.

What that would leave is two natural 4-3 DTs: Pryor and Brace, along with Wright. You would also have Mayo and Guyton as starting LBs, along with McKenzie on the strong side in an ideal scenario.

That would leave you with two holes to fill at DE, preferably with stud pass rushers. Well, with the money you saved on Warren and Wilfork and the picks, that allows you do go out and draft and/or sign quality pass-rushing DEs.

That would complete your defense, which would have gotten smaller, but much faster and would stop the run like some smaller 4-3 teams have done. Basically, here's how it would look:

LDE: Early draft pick/FA
LDT: Brace/Wright
RDT: Pryor/Wright
RDE: Early draft pick/FA

SLB: McKenzie/Crable
MLB: Mayo
WLB: Guyton

Nickel: Three DEs (TBD) on the DL w/ Wright; Guyton and Mayo at LB.

Yes, it's a young defense, but it puts all the Pats' recent draft picks into their natural positions and allows you to focus draft resources on a position where this draft is deep - DE.

How about Burgess in this scenario? I think he could do fine as a 4-3 DE, which he has played a lot of throughout his career. A little undersized, but eh. I'd rather pencil him in as a DE than rely on the assumption that we can get two starter-quality DEs in one offseason.

 

[mgteich]

It is difficult for me to accept that we can be a contender for a playoff position in 2010. If you are right, your plan makes sense. You would have additional resouces in the picks you get for Wilfork and Warren. You would make better use of the current young personnel.

After all this is a team that has just won the division, is relatively young, doesn't have cap problems, and has extra draft picks. In addition, we are moving into a no=cap year with the patriots being unrestricted and in the position of keeping a couple players as RFA's who they might otherwise lose without compensation.

I agree, you're stripping things down more than staying with a 3-4. But I think the shopping lists are equally as daunting.

In this scenario, letting go of Warren and Wilfork - both 3-4 players - would give you the resources to go out and get good-to-elite players at DE. You're basically up against the same task staying the 3-4 - there is a glaring hole at OLB - but with less resources because you're commiting to Wilfork.

But I agree, overall the plan does leave the defense very young and uncertain. But I just get the sense this is where they may be headed.

 

[pats1]

How about Burgess in this scenario? I think he could do fine as a 4-3 DE, which he has played a lot of throughout his career. A little undersized, but eh. I'd rather pencil him in as a DE than rely on the assumption that we can get two starter-quality DEs in one offseason.

I've heard problems with Burgess' makeup. Curran mentioned it, someone else too. Doesn't seem like a veteran leader.

I think you can get two-starting quality DEs when you have at least five picks in the second-round, assuming you get a 1st or 2nd for Warren. And it's a deep DE draft, apparently.

 

[pats1]

It is difficult for me to accept that we can be a contender for a playoff position in 2010. If you are right, your plan makes sense. You would have additional resouces in the picks you get for Wilfork and Warren. You would make better use of the current young personnel.

After all this is a team that has just won the division, is relatively young, doesn't have cap problems, and has extra draft picks. In addition, we are moving into a no=cap year with the patriots being unrestricted and in the position of keeping a couple players as RFA's who they might otherwise lose without compensation.

I agree, it's not exactly a plan that will make the Pats a slam-dunk playoff team in 2010, but it gives them a young defense that will develop and make them a favorite come 2011, 2012.

 

[mgteich]

Under your secnario, you would get a 1st for Wilfork and 1st or 2nd for Warren, giving you at least SIX picks in the first two rounds. I'd rather have Wilfork, Warren and four picks.

I've heard problems with Burgess' makeup. Curran mentioned it, someone else too. Doesn't seem like a veteran leader.

I think you can get two-starting quality DEs when you have at least five picks in the second-round, assuming you get a 1st or 2nd for Warren. And it's a deep DE draft, apparently.

 

[pats1]

Under your secnario, you would get a 1st for Wilfork and 1st or 2nd for Warren, giving you at least SIX picks in the first two rounds. I'd rather have Wilfork, Warren and four picks.

How would you get a 1st for Wilfork? Franchise and trade? I was advocating letting him walk, but that might be a good idea too.

You could use those six picks to trade up, move around, and find at least two or three pass rushers, a guard, and a receiver. You wouldn't want that, but you would want Wilfork on a one-year lease?

 

[mgteich]

Farnchise and trade, with Wilfork's cooperation would work best. Presuming that a deal can't be reached by March 5th, we would franchise him informing him that we will still entertain counteroffers from his agent. Also,we would inform Wilfork that the team is open to trade offer from another team and would allow Wilfork's agent to talk to other teams and bring an offer to the patriots. I forget the mechanics at that, but I belive that he could sign and then we could make the trade, or we could tak the pick as compensation to remove the tage and AIlfork could then sign. I belive that one of these is accptable and one is illegal.

In any case, franchise and trade is certainly viable with Wilfork's cooperation, and perhaps even without. Without his cooperation, I believe that Wilfork would eventaully sign and threaten a walkout and the pats would trade him for less than they would get with his cooperation. Also, with Wilfork cooperating, the deal could get doen before the draft.

How would you get a 1st for Wilfork? Franchise and trade? I was advocating letting him walk, but that might be a good idea too.

You could use those six picks to trade up, move around, and find at least two or three pass rushers, a guard, and a receiver. You wouldn't want that, but you would want Wilfork on a one-year lease?

 

[mgteich]

Do you problems with his lipstick or his rouge?

I've heard problems with Burgess' makeup. Curran mentioned it, someone else too. Doesn't seem like a veteran leader.

I think you can get two-starting quality DEs when you have at least five picks in the second-round, assuming you get a 1st or 2nd for Warren. And it's a deep DE draft, apparently.

 

[TheComeback]

Keep Wilfork. If you trade him for a first, you just have to replace him with someone else in the draft anyway. That doesn't make sense. Nose tackles are too hard to find.

I like Ninkovich. I think he has potential to develop into a starter at some point in the future. He's only 26, he's fast, strong, and judging by his interview, he has the desire to be good. Of course I'm not relying on him to starting this year.

Maybe re-signing Burgess to a cheap 2 year deal would be worth it just because of his experience in the system, especially since there's no one else available.

The draft would be a great resource obviously, but I'm not counting on Belichick to draft any quality linebackers early. Maybe he should lower his apparently astronomical standards.

Banta-Cain should be given a three year deal. He's shown that he can improve himself, despite being 30 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if he looked even better next year. James Harrison didn't come on until he was in his late 20s, either.

 

[patsfan-1982]

Re: Ninovich and Crable as our OLB's

IMO the D line is a biger hole then OLB green and wright are not starters. if they are still going to play BB's big body run stoping bend but don't brake system. then wilfork needs to locked up. and they need at lest one 6.5 320lbs DE. and they need to bring in a biger ILB to play next to mayo, like a Karlos Dansby, or a D’Qwell Jackson,


i think BB will draft a OLB on the first day of the draft. but i will all so not be shocked if the pats don't draft one untill the 5th round


my point is the starters they have right now can't run BB's system so a 10 sack OLB alone. is not going to fix this D they have to get biger or start playing the jets or packers style of D speed and gap blitzing

the ravens only had 10 pass att so a speed pass rusher would not have helped in the playoffs and wilfork can't stop the run on he's own we seen the raven put him on he's BUT a few times BB is not going to change the way he plays D so they have to get biger on the D line and at ILB

 

[pats1]

Keep Wilfork. If you trade him for a first, you just have to replace him with someone else in the draft anyway. That doesn't make sense. Nose tackles are too hard to find.

You didn't read my post. Trading Wilfork would be parterned with moving to a 4-3. Obviously you wouldn't trade Wilfork if you intended on staying in a 3-4. However, I think it will be tough for the Patriots to keep Wilfork around here beyond 2010. What do you do then at nose tackle? That's what I was advocating 4-3, because that allows Brace and Pryor (and Guyton) to play their natural positions.

I like Ninkovich. I think he has potential to develop into a starter at some point in the future. He's only 26, he's fast, strong, and judging by his interview, he has the desire to be good. Of course I'm not relying on him to starting this year.

Right, you really can't pencil him in anywhere yet.

Maybe re-signing Burgess to a cheap 2 year deal would be worth it just because of his experience in the system, especially since there's no one else available.

The draft would be a great resource obviously, but I'm not counting on Belichick to draft any quality linebackers early. Maybe he should lower his apparently astronomical standards.

They better find someone. He won't lower his standards, but he'll find someone better than Burgess. Much better.

Banta-Cain should be given a three year deal. He's shown that he can improve himself, despite being 30 years old. I wouldn't be surprised if he looked even better next year. James Harrison didn't come on until he was in his late 20s, either.

Well, let's not go that far. But regardless of Banta-Cain's pass rush prowess, he was mediocre against the run this season. The Pats will need to do better to prevent another debacle against Baltimore. That's what this is all about.

 

[zipster9]

IMO - If Crable is a dud in his 3rd year (2010), I think he will be cut.
Dud means: hurt again and goes on IR, or hurt during 2010, or
cannot tackle for food.

So far, I think Crable is a failure. 2yrs on IR, means he is way too fragile.

1st or 2nd round picks we have MUST draft at least 2 OLB/DEs.