NOT worried about LB or WR

[RayClay]

My point is that we were no more comfortable with the guys who stepped in those years than we are with this years guys. Revisionary history says Phifer, TJ, Chatham, Cox were good players, and Vrabel has been a stud, but at the time we first played them they were huge question marks, just as big as the depth we have now.

That's simply not true. All the linebackers you mentioned were fairly high draft choices, had solid NFL experience, or both.

I don't want to go on and on about it, but I made a post addressing the myth that we built our linebacker corps in the BB era on low draft choices an unaccomplished vets.

I'll revive it to compare if you want.

I'm not saying draft position or experience is everything, but it is an indication of talent.

Only Barry Gardner would have any credentials whatsoever compared to our past LBs. He was a 2nd round pick with marginal starting experience/ career special teamer.

Beisels next. 4th round DE to OLB convert only 1 year decent experience before us/STs. Having trouble with conversion to ILB IMO.

After that it's 6th or lower picks and UDFA. I actually like Woods and Mincey, but that doesn't mean they should get jobs by default.

Competition is good.

 

[RayClay]

I have said for 5 years that Ted Johnson was awful. I didnt take a position that Beisel would be a stud at any point. But actually watching ILBs on plays run at them, Beisel was no worse last year than Ted Johnson the last 5. (I loved TJ before all of his injuries, but he was never the same)Teams consistently ran right at TJ and he could not make plays. He would make his tackles 8 yards downfield. I'm not saying good things about Beisel, the bar is very low to be as good as TJ.

If you read my comments you will see that I was talking about Phifer at INSIDE LINEBACKER. He was a good OLB, he defended the pass well, but he was a stopgap who was overmatched in the running game at ILB.

I am not as you say comparing contributions, I am comparing what we have to work with vs what BB had towork with in other years. I dont think we are worse at ILB than have to convert an OLB who isnt equiiped to play the position or to playing a guy who gets blown 8 yards back whenever he is run at.
You know thenames of who filled in in the past. And youhave a comfort level because we won with them. Roman Phifer had an awful lot to do with the 2001 Championship. He was a stopgap out of position who got us by when he played ILB. Phifer and Ted Johnson were not reasons we won SBs in 03 and 04, they were weak points that we were good enough to overcome. Who those guys will be in 06 and 07 is not fully clear yet, but by 09-10 we will be comparing the fill ins then to these guys, and probably still fearing BB doesnt understand how to staff the LB position.

Before they played a down. Compare that to the current crop.

Facts are facts:

Willie McGinest 1st round, (4th overall)

Roman Phifer 2nd round, (31st overall)

Ted Johnson 2nd round

Mike Vrabel 3rd round

Tedy Bruschi 3rd round

Rosevelt Colvin 4th round, (after 2 seasons in a row with 10.5 sacks).

Every single player was either a high round player or had NFL experience or both.

Bruschi was low day one, but he had led the nation in sacks, I believe.

Vrabel was from a major program in college and the pros and BB got a chance to evaluate him. Of course I'm making an excuse for him only being a 3rd rounder.

Colvin was the exception to day one, but after two 10.5 sack seasons, I guess BB figured he could rush the passer.

McGinest at 4th overall, not exactly a project.

Where are the unknown quantities here?

P.S. I didn't bother detailing Phifer's extensive NFL experience.

 

[pats1]

A.J. makes a great point.

Chad Brown, Monty Beisel, and Barry Gardner (to a lesser degree) are names synonymous with the early season breakdowns of 2005. Unfairly.

Ted Johson, Roman Phifer, and Willie McGinest are names synonymous with the successes of 2001, '03, and '04.

For that simple reason, the former tend to be underrated, while the latter tend to be overrated.

Because of that, fans would be satisfied if those "bad names" were replaced with "good" names like Claiborne, Ruff, or Phifer or T.J. But the fact of the matter is, all of those names are either victims or beneficiaries of their supporting cast and their time with their repsective teams. If replacing "bad" with "good" helps fans sleep at night, good for them.

 

[pats1]

Before they played a down. Compare that to the current crop.

Facts are facts:

Willie McGinest 1st round, (4th overall)

Roman Phifer 2nd round, (31st overall)

Ted Johnson 2nd round

Mike Vrabel 3rd round

Tedy Bruschi 3rd round

Rosevelt Colvin 4th round, (after 2 seasons in a row with 10.5 sacks).

Every single player was either a high round player or had NFL experience or both.

Bruschi was low day one, but he had led the nation in sacks, I believe.

Vrabel was from a major program in college and the pros and BB got a chance to evaluate him. Of course I'm making an excuse for him only being a 3rd rounder.

Colvin was the exception to day one, but after two 10.5 sack seasons, I guess BB figured he could rush the passer.

McGinest at 4th overall, not exactly a project.

Where are the unknown quantities here?

P.S. I didn't bother detailing Phifer's extensive NFL experience.

C'mon, can you honestly say Vrabel or Phifer were well-known to be solid, starting-quality NFL players before they came to the Patriots?

Monty Beisel. 4th rounder. Versatile player. Limited starting experience. Sounds a bit like Vrabel, yeah?

Chad Brown. 2nd rounder. 13 NFL seasons. 3-time Pro Bowler. Tied with McGinest for most sacks by an active player.

Barry Gardner. 2nd rounder (35th overall). 7 NFL seasons. Limited starting experience, but solid backup and special teamer.

Tully Banta-Cain and Jeremy Mincey. Both late round DE converts.

 

[RayClay]

A.J. makes a great point.

Chad Brown, Monty Beisel, and Barry Gardner (to a lesser degree) are names synonymous with the early season breakdowns of 2005. Unfairly.

Ted Johson, Roman Phifer, and Willie McGinest are names synonymous with the successes of 2001, '03, and '04.

For that simple reason, the former tend to be underrated, while the latter tend to be overrated.

Because of that, fans would be satisfied if those "bad names" were replaced with "good" names like Claiborne, Ruff, or Phifer or T.J. But the fact of the matter is, all of those names are either victims or beneficiaries of their supporting cast and their time with their repsective teams. If replacing "bad" with "good" helps fans sleep at night, good for them.

Please read above post. No matter what they did or didn't do, these are the credentials of LBs before they played a down.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but the fact that our current crop had less credentials when we acquired them is indisputable.

 

[RayClay]

C'mon, can you honestly say Vrabel or Phifer were well-known to be solid, starting-quality NFL players before they came to the Patriots?

Monty Beisel. 4th rounder. Versatile player. Limited starting experience. Sounds a bit like Vrabel, yeah?

Chad Brown. 2nd rounder. 13 NFL seasons. 3-time Pro Bowler. Tied with McGinest for most sacks by an active player.

I'm assuming you put Phifer's name in there by mistake. In case you didn't:

1991 L.A. Rams 12 27 24.0 3 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
1992 L.A. Rams 16 69 60.0 9 0 1 3 3.0 3 0 5
1993 L.A. Rams 16 118 106.0 12 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 7
1994 L.A. Rams 16 99 82.0 17 1.5 2 7 3.5 7 0 5
1995 St. Louis Rams 16 115 87.0 28 3 3 52 17.3 25 0 9
1996 St. Louis Rams 15 128 108.0 20 1.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 5
1997 St. Louis Rams 16 76 58.0 18 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 6
1998 St. Louis Rams 13 72 59.0 13 6.5 1 41 41.0 41 0 2
1999 New York Jets 16 48 33.0 15 4.5 2 20 10.0 16 0 3
2000 New York Jets 16 45 32.0 13 4 0 0 0.0 0 0 1
2001 New England Patriots 16 91 70.0 21 2 1 14 14.0 14 0 4
2002 New England Patriots 14 107 67.0 40 0.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 2
2003 New England Patriots 16 99 66.0 33 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 5
2004 New England Patriots 13 40 30.0 10 1.5 1 26 26.0 26 0 1
2005 New York Giants 2 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
TOTAL 213 1134 882.0 252 29.0 11 163 14.8 41 0 55

You notice I started with 4th overall, (McGinest).

Vrable had relatively low credentials compared to the others. But he was a 3rd rounder from Ohio State and the Steelers, (great program for linebackers).

Comparing the bottom of my list to the top of yours isn't really a fair way to argue, is it?

 

[pats1]

Please read above post. No matter what they did or didn't do, these are the credentials of LBs before they played a down.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but the fact that our current crop had less credentials when we acquired them is indisputable.

Last time I checked, Chad Brown had more credentials than anyone on that list when he was acquired, with the exceptions being McGinest or Colvin.

What are you getting at? Since when does draft position have any real bearing down the road in a player's career?

 

[pats1]

I'm assuming you put Phifer's name in there by mistake. In case you didn't:

1991 L.A. Rams 12 27 24.0 3 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
1992 L.A. Rams 16 69 60.0 9 0 1 3 3.0 3 0 5
1993 L.A. Rams 16 118 106.0 12 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 7
1994 L.A. Rams 16 99 82.0 17 1.5 2 7 3.5 7 0 5
1995 St. Louis Rams 16 115 87.0 28 3 3 52 17.3 25 0 9
1996 St. Louis Rams 15 128 108.0 20 1.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 5
1997 St. Louis Rams 16 76 58.0 18 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 6
1998 St. Louis Rams 13 72 59.0 13 6.5 1 41 41.0 41 0 2
1999 New York Jets 16 48 33.0 15 4.5 2 20 10.0 16 0 3
2000 New York Jets 16 45 32.0 13 4 0 0 0.0 0 0 1
2001 New England Patriots 16 91 70.0 21 2 1 14 14.0 14 0 4
2002 New England Patriots 14 107 67.0 40 0.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 2
2003 New England Patriots 16 99 66.0 33 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 5
2004 New England Patriots 13 40 30.0 10 1.5 1 26 26.0 26 0 1
2005 New York Giants 2 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
TOTAL 213 1134 882.0 252 29.0 11 163 14.8 41 0 55

You notice I started with 4th overall, (McGinest).

Vrable had relatively low credentials compared to the others. But he was a 3rd rounder from Ohio State and the Steelers, (great program for linebackers).

Comparing the bottom of my list to the top of yours isn't really a fair way to argue, is it?

So what are you saying? The Pats need to replace McGinest (4th overall pick) with a player of "equal value" by drafting or acquiring a player with an equal draft credential?

What's this fetish with draft position?

And oh, by the way:

Year Team G Total Tckl Ast Sacks Int Yds Avg Lg TD Pass Def
1993 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 59 46.0 13 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 4
1994 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 122 93.0 29 8.5 1 9 9.0 9 0 7
1995 Pittsburgh Steelers 10 30 20.0 10 5.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 1
1996 Pittsburgh Steelers 14 81 50.0 31 13 2 20 10.0 16 0 4
1997 Seattle Seahawks 15 102 73.0 29 6.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 2
1998 Seattle Seahawks 16 150 120.0 30 7.5 1 11 11.0 11 0 7
1999 Seattle Seahawks 15 115 85.0 30 5.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 6
2000 Seattle Seahawks 16 93 71.0 22 6 1 0 0.0 0 0 2
2001 Seattle Seahawks 16 105 80.0 25 8.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 4
2002 Seattle Seahawks 8 50 42.0 8 6 0 0 0.0 0 0 2
2003 Seattle Seahawks 14 85 73.0 12 7 1 -1 -1.0 -1 0 2
2004 Seattle Seahawks 7 37 26.0 11 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2005 New England Patriots 15 39 31.0 8 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
TOTAL 178 1068 810.0 258 78 6 39 6.5 16 0 41

 

[RayClay]

So what are you saying? The Pats need to replace McGinest (4th overall pick) with a player of "equal value" by drafting or acquiring a player with an equal draft credential?

And oh, by the way:

Year Team G Total Tckl Ast Sacks Int Yds Avg Lg TD Pass Def
1993 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 59 46.0 13 3 0 0 0.0 0 0 4
1994 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 122 93.0 29 8.5 1 9 9.0 9 0 7
1995 Pittsburgh Steelers 10 30 20.0 10 5.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 1
1996 Pittsburgh Steelers 14 81 50.0 31 13 2 20 10.0 16 0 4
1997 Seattle Seahawks 15 102 73.0 29 6.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 2
1998 Seattle Seahawks 16 150 120.0 30 7.5 1 11 11.0 11 0 7
1999 Seattle Seahawks 15 115 85.0 30 5.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 6
2000 Seattle Seahawks 16 93 71.0 22 6 1 0 0.0 0 0 2
2001 Seattle Seahawks 16 105 80.0 25 8.5 0 0 0.0 0 0 4
2002 Seattle Seahawks 8 50 42.0 8 6 0 0 0.0 0 0 2
2003 Seattle Seahawks 14 85 73.0 12 7 1 -1 -1.0 -1 0 2
2004 Seattle Seahawks 7 37 26.0 11 1 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
2005 New England Patriots 15 39 31.0 8 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
TOTAL 178 1068 810.0 258 78 6 39 6.5 16 0 41

I'm not saying the Pats should do anything. I'm saying they have less talent, (by draft position, experience) than they used to have at LB.

That doesn't mean they can't succeed, (I like Mincey and Woods), it means when you say "We overrate our former LBs because they won", you're missing the point.

We could assume good linebacker play based on the talent we acquire. An UDFA might play like a high first round pick, but it sure isn't likely.

BTW, I'll admit Chad Brown has as good or better experience as Phifer. I don't think he has much in the tank, but I could be wrong.

 

[pats1]

I'm not saying the Pats should do anything. I'm saying they have less talent, (by draft position, experience) than they used to have at LB.

That doesn't mean they can't succeed, (I like Mincey and Woods), it means when you say "We overrate our former LBs because they won", you're missing the point.

We could assume good linebacker play based on the talent we acquire. An UDFA might play like a high first round pick, but it sure isn't likely.

BTW, I'll admit Chad Brown has as good or better experience as Phifer. I don't think he has much in the tank, but I could be wrong.

In terms of actual experience time you're right - Phifer has more (by a year).

But in terms of his actual performance in that time, Chad Brown beats Phifer by a mile. Like I said - 3 Pro Bowls, most sacks by an active player.

 

[RayClay]

In terms of actual experience time you're right - Phifer has more (by a year).

But in terms of his actual performance in that time, Chad Brown beats Phifer by a mile. Like I said - 3 Pro Bowls, most sacks by an active player.

I'm not arguing that. Chad Brown has as much and quality experience as you could want, I conceded that.

After him you have Gardner.

After that Beisel and low picks and undrafted free agents.

It's like the Jay Leno bit comparing a ford Pinto to a Lamborghini.

Sure they both have 4 tires and a steering wheel. So they're the same?

 

[RayClay]

Make it easy. Note Chad gets slight nod over Phifer, though I doubt he's got that much left.

Willie McGinest 1st round, (4th overall)
No current LB worth 4th overall.

After we compare head to head we have a 4th overall left over for the oldies
and UDFAs left for current team.

Roman Phifer 2nd round, (31st overall)
Chad Brown wins 3 PBs, being fair.

Ted Johnson 2nd round
TJ proven , injured. Gardner 2nd round STs

Tedy Bruschi 3rd round
Tedy led country in rushing Beisel 4th

Rosevelt Colvin 4th round, (after 2 seasons in a row with 10.5 sacks).
TBC 7th career ST so far.

Mike Vrabel 3rd round
Jeremy Mincey 6th round no experience

 

[mgteich]

This is sort of like discussing WR, lots of if's.

IF Chad Brown, Colvin,Vrabel, and Bruschi get and stay healthy,

and if Beisel and Gardner produce at the level of the jags of old,

and if TBC continues to be an OK pass-rusher,

THEN, we'll be fine at linebacker.

Seven contributing linebackers is more than plenty. The rooks can spend a year learning on the roster or practice squad.
===================================

We could be absolutely fine at linebacker. bb's search for a veteran can then be viewed as depth, as injury insurance.
====================================

Chad Brown is every bit as good as those brought in in the past. Beisel and Gardner should be OK to produce some backup reps (and injury replacement reps).

You all greatly underestimate Phifer's value coming in. He KNEW bb's system, and was a plug and play at OLB, and an quick learner at ILB.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I have been thinking about this "ACE in the Hole" that BB is seeming reluctant to use. That is the Ace of pairing Bruschi and Vrabel as the ILBs. We know that that combination makes an almost impervious run defense, with the proof that the Team was yielding less than 75 yards per game and a low 3.6 YPC, for the last half of the 2005 season.

And Wondering a little ... Why?

I attributed it to the desire to beef up the OLBs position and assuming he would accept a pairing of either Bruschi or Vrabel with a lesser ILB, and be satisfied with a merely good run defense.

But is there another reason? Half of defense is more than brute strength; some of it is getting the opponent to do what you want him to do. BB wants his opponent to try to beat the proven losing odds and waste his time trying to run a dink & dunk pass offense, without an accompanying competent running game.

In effect a one dimensional, half a grind it out offense. He actually wants the opponent completing short dink & dunks, knowing he will eventually get stopped, either by a Patriots turnover, or a Patriots stop, or a Offensive mistake, such as holding, dropped pass, poor throw, fumble, stuffed run et cetera. At the end of the game Belichick's team will have outscored the opponent.

Perhaps BB does NOT WANT to make his run defense TOO GOOD. Then the opponent will abandon it; and try for the long passing game. Sometimes he might succeed with just a handful of such pass completion TDs in a game and end up winning. Better to discourage that course of action by offering, enticing, and encouraging the alternative he wants them to take.

Like a matador, he seems to want the opponent to waste his strength pursuing the cape. Is BB actually trying to suck in the opponent, yielding garbage yards he really doesn't mind giving up?

Comments?

 

[AzPatsFan]

Ray Clay,

Wait a minute. If you want to compare Vrabel to somebody, how about Vrabel to Vrabel? He's still here. He hasn't gone anywhere.

Likewise, If you want to compare Tedy to somebody, how about Tedy to Tedy? He's still here. He hasn't gone anywhere. (although dinged up through TC, but he was also occasionally nicked in days of old, including half of 2005)

If you want to compare McGinnest to a relative newcomer, the fair thing is McGinnest 4th overall, two time pro bowler OLB, to Chad Brown 2nd round and 3 time PB, OLB. Both older veterans and nearing the end. McG was asked to play essentially full time last year, when the original plan was for spot duty. Brown is planed for spot duty, may be asked to play more, at OLB, but only if TBC, after 4 years of grooming, can't step up. Especially if Vrabel spends time inside.

Mincey and Woods and Roach are essentially irrelevant, but better than end of roster guys last year, who I don't even recall their names, now.

Now if you want to compare Beisel last season, to Beisel this season, I have no complaint.

If you want to compare Gardner to Izzo, as a LB, in 2005 or 2006, I'd say that is a clear win for Gardner. As a ST, Gardner is not as good a ST as Izzo was three or four years ago, but Larry slipped badly on ST last season. Gardner might be his ST equal today. He certainly is four or five years younger.

 

[RayClay]

I have been thinking about this "ACE in the Hole" that BB is seeming reluctant to use. That is the Ace of pairing Bruschi and Vrabel as the ILBs. We know that that combination makes an almost impervious run defense, with the proof that the Team was yielding less than 75 yards per game and a low 3.6 YPC, for the last half of the 2005 season.

And Wondering a little ... Why?

I attributed it to the desire to beef up the OLBs position and assuming he would accept a pairing of either Bruschi or Vrabel with a lesser ILB, and be satisfied with a merely good run defense.

But is there another reason? Half of defense is more than brute strength; some of it is getting the opponent to do what you want him to do. BB wants his opponent to try to beat the proven losing odds and waste his time trying to run a dink & dunk pass offense, without an accompanying competent running game.

In effect a one dimensional, half a grind it out offense. He actually wants the opponent completing short dink & dunks, knowing he will eventually get stopped, either by a Patriots turnover, or a Patriots stop, or a Offensive mistake, such as holding, dropped pass, poor throw, fumble, stuffed run et cetera. At the end of the game Belichick's team will have outscored the opponent.

Perhaps BB does NOT WANT to make his run defense TOO GOOD. Then the opponent will abandon it; and try for the long passing game. Sometimes he might succeed with just a handful of such pass completion TDs in a game and end up winning. Better to discourage that course of action by offering, enticing, and encouraging the alternative he wants them to take.

Like a matador, he seems to want the opponent to waste his strength pursuing the cape. Is BB actually trying to suck in the opponent, yielding garbage yards he really doesn't mind giving up?

Comments?

I agree Vrabel is the 1st or second best LB inside or outside. Seems to me they need an inside linebacker since they have a lot of candidates outside.

As to your theory. Only against Peyton Manning. They have been willing to give up some run yards to prevent Manning getting in rhythm.

Other wise it is suicide. The lesson of 2002 is if you can't stop the run you die. You'll need to bring safeties up then any passing game becomes easy.

It's no coincidence that we stabilized only after both Bruschi and Vrabel were inside to stop the run.

We need a guy that can tackle period. Moving Vrabel inside makes us 2 OLBs short compared to last year.

You can only water down the soup so much before you can't tell what kind of soup it used to be.

"Perhaps BB does NOT WANT to make his run defense TOO GOOD. Then the opponent will abandon it; and try for the long passing game. Sometimes he might succeed with just a handful of such pass completion TDs in a game and end up winning. Better to discourage that course of action by offering, enticing, and encouraging the alternative he wants them to take."

Your run defense can't be too good. If you know your opponent can't run you can blitz like hell and try to jump routes. This is the very basis of BB's defense. Desperation passing, unpredictable blitzing, forced turnovers.

 

[pats1]

Make it easy. Note Chad gets slight nod over Phifer, though I doubt he's got that much left.

Willie McGinest 1st round, (4th overall)
No current LB worth 4th overall.

After we compare head to head we have a 4th overall left over for the oldies
and UDFAs left for current team.

Roman Phifer 2nd round, (31st overall)
Chad Brown wins 3 PBs, being fair.

Ted Johnson 2nd round
TJ proven , injured. Gardner 2nd round STs

Tedy Bruschi 3rd round
Tedy led country in rushing Beisel 4th

Rosevelt Colvin 4th round, (after 2 seasons in a row with 10.5 sacks).
TBC 7th career ST so far.

Mike Vrabel 3rd round
Jeremy Mincey 6th round no experience

Like AZ said - Vrabel, Colvin, and Tedy should be compared to themselves.

And draft position, as I've said many times, is completely irrevelant once the player gets into the NFL. What he did in college doesn't dictate his "talent level." If a player doesn't perform in the NFL, and it doesn't matter if he's a 2nd, 4th, or 7th round pick, the player won't last.

I hate to make a paper comparison like this, but take a look at the 2004 roster, also including the secondary:

Linebackers:

Starters:

Bruschi
McGinest
Vrabel
Phifer

Key Reserves:

Colvin
Johnson

Special Teams:

Izzo
Davis
Chatham
Banta-Cain
Alexander

Secondary:

Starters:

Harrison
Wilson
Samuel
Gay

Key Reserves:

Brown
Poteat

Special Teams:

Cherry
Reid
Moreland

...

Now compare it to the 2006 defense:

Linebackers:

Starters:

Bruschi
Vrabel
Colvin

Key Reserves:

Brown
Banta-Cain
Beisel
Gardner

Special Teams:

Izzo
Davis
Mincey
Alexander

Secondary:

Starters:

Harrison
Wilson
Samuel
Hobbs

Key Reserves and Special Teams:

Hawkins
Sanders
Jones
G. Scott
Gay
Warfield
C. Scott
Poteat

...

As you can see, the strength naturally shifts from year-to-year. In 2004, the secondary was paper thin, even with Poole or Law in there. Also, the bulk of the special teams workload came from the linebacking corps, which also had good depth.

Now, notice two things about 2006. The first is the large influx of young talent. Samuel, Hobbs, Sanders, Gay, G. Scott, Wilson - the secondary. Mincey, Banta-Cain, Beisel, Alexander and possibly Roach/Woods - the linebackers.

Just as the 2004 secondary had little depth and much less of a contribution to special teams, thus is partly the case for the 2006 linebackers. The #4 LB spot is up in the air, but there's 4 adequate players to fill it. A rotation of Phifer/Johnson and a recovering Colvin for the #3/4 LB spots compared to a rotation of Brown/Banta-Cain/Gardner/Beisel for the same #3/4 spots draws a mixed conclusion. Just as we didn't know if Vrabel or Phifer could take be solid starters in 2001, we don't know if Gardner or Brown or Banta-Cain or Beisel can be solid starters in 2006. The same uncertainty existed at the time in 2001 as it does now, and the overall talent level is arguably the same.

Even if the #4 starter and the main group of reserves don't pan out, we've still excluded the secondary thus far.

The second thing about 2006 is the depth in the secondary. Not in BB era have the Pats had so many capable players playing reserve roles. This was entirely evident in the Atlanta game, where more dime sets for the defense - with LB-style players like Jones and Sanders were used to implement the talent level in the secondary more often, just as in 2004 when the rotation along the front seven implemented the influx in talent at that position at that time, but how the secondary couldn't withstand injury late in the Super Bowl.

I don't want to ramble on any more, but the fact of the matter is that things change. Players come and go. It would be naive to try and compare them by their draft status. The Patriots have shown they're prepared for change and probably the best in the NFL at adapting to that change. They always keep a step ahead of the competition. If they need to throw deep to win, they will - and still win. If they need to pound it on the ground and win, they will - and still win. If the the linebackers are the strength of the defense, they implement them the best they can. If it's the secondary, they'll do the same - and still win.

Take 2001-03 as an example. The Pats were best suited for a short-pass, low-mistake offense, so that's what they ran. It opened up in 2004 and 2005. We'll probably see the emphasis switch back this year to a pounding ground game with Branch, Caldwell, Jackson, and Watson stretching the field, but Brown, Graham, Mills, Thomas, and Faulk getting a lot of screens and underneath routes.

 

[Water Boy]

My point is that we were no more comfortable with the guys who stepped in those years than we are with this years guys. Revisionary history says Phifer, TJ, Chatham, Cox were good players, and Vrabel has been a stud, but at the time we first played them they were huge question marks, just as big as the depth we have now.

I still completely disagree. We knew that we would get very solid contributions (and veteran leadership) from Phifer and Cox. Vrabel proved himself to be a player after a few games. Biesel is in year 2, and to this point has been a major disappointment. TJ was not as bad as you make him out to be.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I agree Vrabel is the 1st or second best LB inside or outside. Seems to me they need an inside linebacker since they have a lot of candidates outside.

As to your theory. Only against Peyton Manning. They have been willing to give up some run yards to prevent Manning getting in rhythm.

Other wise it is suicide. The lesson of 2002 is if you can't stop the run you die. You'll need to bring safeties up then any passing game becomes easy.

It's no coincidence that we stabilized only after both Bruschi and Vrabel were inside to stop the run.

We need a guy that can tackle period. Moving Vrabel inside makes us 2 OLBs short compared to last year.

You can only water down the soup so much before you can't tell what kind of soup it used to be.

"Perhaps BB does NOT WANT to make his run defense TOO GOOD. Then the opponent will abandon it; and try for the long passing game. Sometimes he might succeed with just a handful of such pass completion TDs in a game and end up winning. Better to discourage that course of action by offering, enticing, and encouraging the alternative he wants them to take."

Your run defense can't be too good. If you know your opponent can't run you can blitz like hell and try to jump routes. This is the very basis of BB's defense. Desperation passing, unpredictable blitzing, forced turnovers.

I didn't mean to imply that BB doesn't believe that Defense begins and ends at stopping the run.

BB certainly does. 2002 was a bad run defense, PERIOD. Thats what the CL's think is returning. And I think is an absolute absurdity.

I was refering to top ten, but not #1 run defenses, like the 2003, 2004 seasons. But there is a difference in say yielding 65 yards a game and a 3.1 ypc average for a #1 position; and 85-90 yds a game and a 3.6 ypc average for a Top Eight position (by yardage measure).

The first will be very dominant, League leading, and like Cower's teams every year, lead teams to try to exploit his merely good pass defense.

Until last season, that was the way you beat the Steelers.

And certainly, they KNEW that they could blitz, and did. It destroyed weak teams, and even some pretty good ones, but in the end, in wasn't quite enough.

The run defense was just TOO GOOD. Teams sought weaknesses elsewhere to exploit.

The "weaker" but still "good" run defense, 2006 projected ILB pairs of (B&B, V&B(Jax combo), B&G or V&G) will lead opponents to think maybe they can run a little bit... and lure them in. And that might have been BB's plan

As for leaving them two OLBs short, if the pairing ends up as Tedy & Mike; you know that that is not quite correct. Colvin is one certain starter. i agree, They could be a second starter short. CB could be a second starter, but he might wear down. TBC off this TC, appears to be at least a swing guy. I actually would prefer TBC get most of the "starter" snaps, and CB be the spot rotation guy. Anything Mincey/Woods contribute, if anything at all, is pure Chatham-like gravy.

I don't think either CB or TBC's game is so poor that a game plan can be built on exploiting only that weakness. Don't forget Chatham was forced to start for half a season at an OLB spot without prior expereince, and the D did sot suffer appreciably. I could be wrong but I think a short passing game predicated on beating such a matchup would result in a few jumped routes and INTs by the Patriots D before the game ended.

 

[D-cleater]

I think a lot of us are missing the point. IMO, past credentials are important, but its the play on the field *in a Patriots uniform* that should be the biggest determining factor in how we as fans evaluate players. ( that sounds funny ,doesn't it?) .

Fact is , Phifer and Vrabel came in and contributed in their very first TC, in the very first season they were on the field in a Patriots uniform. Same with TJ and McGinest, come to think of it.

Say what you want about Phif, but I do not think he was that much of a liablility. Between he and TJ, we were more solid on rushing and passing downs than we were last year with Beisel or Brown. Period. Phifer averaged almost 6 tackles per game splitting time with TJ . If Beisel approaches that I'll eat my words.

You can even make a case that the D line was stronger last year (when Seymour was playing especially) than it was in previous SB years (2001 and 2004), so supporting players is pretty much a wash given that Rodney was injured last year.