Opinions Consolidated: How bad does the Bodden loss hurt us?

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

As for the loss of Bodden, eh. It's bad. I don't think there's anybody around here who can try to spin it into a good thing.

It ain't a good thing. But ain't the end of the world.

The only good thing I can think of is, outside of two teams in the NFC North, the Colts, the Chargers, and the Steelers, we really don't play that many teams with elite level quarterbacks. The first true test the secondary will have through the air comes in Week 6. Hopefully, Butler, McCourty, Wheatley, Wilhite, and whomever else they pick up, will be ready by then.

Disagree. First test comes week 1. While the QB isn't elite, they have two experienced receivers who will relish the opportunity to take advantage of our secondaries' inexperience.

If they can contain Ocho and TO then they can contain any wr pair in the NFL. (other than Moss and Welker but lucky for them they will never have to face that pair)

 

[Garbanza]

Cripes, could you be any more hysterical?

You're assuming that the schemes will be the same, that young players won't develop, and, as Deus pointed out, that certain replacement players won't offer more of a pass rush than their predecessors did.

I have absolutely no idea how this defense is going to be, but all of this wailing and gnashing of teeth really is going overboard. Why don't you and SuperPatsfan go sit in the corner and throw yourselves a pity party, and spare the rest of us.

Yes, the same 'ole same 'ole. Blind homersim = good. Skeptical = bad fan.


I am hoping for the best here. I hope I am wrong. I hope that the young guys step up BIG. I'm being realistic though. C'mon people. Losing Bodden is really bad - Warren kind of bad. The Patriots have lost two solid vets who also happen to be two of the best players on D - (proven, anyway). Spin it all you want - and God-bless your optimism. I stand by my statement about the organization though. Beleichick is a tremendous coach and I, as a fan, am tremendously lucky to have him as the HC of the Pats - but they did nothing to address the pass rush issue. Maybe schemery will help - I just think talent would help more

 

[Kontradiction]

It ain't a good thing. But ain't the end of the world.



Disagree. First test comes week 1. While the QB isn't elite, they have two experienced receivers who will relish the opportunity to take advantage of our secondaries' inexperience.

If they can contain Ocho and TO then they can contain any wr pair in the NFL. (other than Moss and Welker but lucky for them they will never have to face that pair)

Have you watched the Bengals' offensive line lately? We should have Carson Palmer running for his life back there. Hell, I could put in a pee wee defensive line against that Bengals starting O-Line and still generate a good pass rush.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

In BB's defense a strong front seven can mask a weak secondary to some degree. Look at what BB did to the Colts in the playoffs a few years ago with a less than stellar defense.

The problem BB faces is that the front seven is not a strength of his team. He has huge problems at DE and OLB. It is very scary to think how our defense will be exposed on off tackle running plays.

As big a loss as Bodden is, the loss of Warren is by far much larger. Waren's loss diminishes our ability to be strong on first and second down, especially against the run.

The trick for BB is to try and get the front seven solidified so a weak secondary is not torched. This is an opportunity for BB to show the world just how good a defensive coach and talent evaluator he is.

 

[Sicilian]

In BB's defense a strong front seven can mask a weak secondary to some degree. Look at what BB did to the Colts in the playoffs a few years ago with a less than stellar defense.

The problem BB faces is that the front seven is not a strength of his team. He has huge problems at DE and OLB. It is very scary to think how our defense will be exposed on off tackle running plays.

As big a loss as Bodden is, the loss of Warren is by far much larger. Waren's loss diminishes our ability to be strong on first and second down, especially against the run.

The trick for BB is to try and get the front seven solidified so a weak secondary is not torched. This is an opportunity for BB to show the world just how good a defensive coach and talent evaluator he is.

I agree with just about everything you said, except I still don't think the secondary is weak per se. Rams game aside, with Bodden I felt the secondary was probably the strongest and deepest unit on the defense. Now without him it takes a hit, but can still be solid. Safety play should be good, and the CBs are untested.

Losing Bodden makes the secondary weaker than it was, but not weak overall IMO.

 

[JackBauer]

I trust Ron Brace to be the tonic for our woes.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Have you watched the Bengals' offensive line lately? We should have Carson Palmer running for his life back there. Hell, I could put in a pee wee defensive line against that Bengals starting O-Line and still generate a good pass rush.

Good to hear that about the Bengals offensive line, but based on what I have read on this board, by many of the "experts" that are smarter than BB, most pee wee defensive lines are stronger at rushing the passer than the one assembled by last year's AFCE champions.

 

[Garbanza]

Regarding pass rush only.........

Wright > Green
Warren > Warren
Healthy Mayo/Spikes/Guyton > Injured Mayo/Seau/Guyton
Chung > Sanders


This team has enough problems without people making it out to be worse than it already is.

You think Wright is better than Green? You think G. Warren is better than Ty Warren? Really? Totally agree on LBs. Chung is better than Sanders - but his coverage skills need A LOT of work.

 

[Kontradiction]

I trust Ron Brace to be the tonic for our woes.

If he didn't just have a good day against the Rams (I don't think so, personally), Brace will only be the solution for one side of the defensive line. We'd still have Gerard Warren and Mike Wright on the other side who, while good pass rushing DE's, are still liabilities against the run. I haven't been that impressed with what I've seen from Damione Lewis either. That's why I'm hoping that Deaderick grows up in a hurry.

 

[JackBauer]

You think Wright is better than Green? You think G. Warren is better than Ty Warren? Really? Totally agree on LBs. Chung is better than Sanders - but his coverage skills need A LOT of work.

He's talking about pass-rushing ability, obviously.

 

[Sicilian]

You think Wright is better than Green? You think G. Warren is better than Ty Warren? Really? Totally agree on LBs. Chung is better than Sanders - but his coverage skills need A LOT of work.

He's talking strictly pass rush (not run defense or cover skills).

I think in that case Warren = Warren and Wright is better than Green.

 

[JackBauer]

If he didn't just have a good day against the Rams (I don't think so, personally), Brace will only be the solution for one side of the defensive line.

I thought he played well against the Rams. I can't really interpret what you're saying with the double negative and whatnot.

We'd still have Gerard Warren and Mike Wright on the other side who, while good pass rushing DE's, are still liabilities against the run. I haven't been that impressed with what I've seen from Damione Lewis either. That's why I'm hoping that Deaderick grows up in a hurry.

I'm a big Deaderick fan, myself. Ideally I'd like to see some combination of Brace-Wilfork-Deaderick on running downs and Wright-Pryor-Warren on passing downs. Here's to hoping.

 

[Kontradiction]

I thought he played well against the Rams. I can't really interpret what you're saying with the double negative and whatnot.

It's really not that hard to interpret. He obviously had a good day against the Rams. If that good day wasn't an illusion and he really does turn out to be the solution at LDE, he'd still only be one DE. We'd need someone else to step up against the run on the other side of the D-Line.

 

[JackBauer]

It's really not that hard to interpret. He obviously had a good day against the Rams. If that good day wasn't an illusion and he really does turn out to be the solution at LDE, he'd still only be one DE. We'd need someone else to step up against the run on the other side of the D-Line.

You really think this...

If he didn't just have a good day against the Rams (I don't think so, personally)

...is artfully phrased? Seems pretty clumsily written if you ask me.

 

[Kontradiction]

You really think this...



...is artfully phrased? Seems pretty clumsily written if you ask me.

So basically, you understood it but just wanted to be a douche anyway? Got it. Next time I should to remember "artfully phrase" these things when I'm talking to the William Shakespeare of PatsFans.com/MessageBoard.

 

[emoney_33]

So basically, you understood it but just wanted to be a douche anyway? Got it. Next time I should to remember "artfully phrase" these things when I'm talking to the William Shakespeare of PatsFans.com/MessageBoard.

I didn't understand it either until you clarified. It reads as "if he didn't just (recently) have a good day", when you meant it to read "if he didn't just (only) have a good day". Relax, don't get so defensive all the time.

 

[JackBauer]

So basically, you understood it but just wanted to be a douche anyway? Got it. Next time I should to remember "artfully phrase" these things when I'm talking to the William Shakespeare of PatsFans.com/MessageBoard.

If I had understood it, why would I have asked for clarification?

And when posed with such a request, why would you write:

It's really not that hard to interpret.

Clearly it is difficult to interpret, because it's wholly ambiguous when you write "I don't think so, personally" whether you were referring to Brace's performance as not merely a flash in the pan or whether you didn't think he played well against the Rams. Instead of being, well, a douche and deflecting it as a defect in my reading ability, you could simply state what you're saying in a coherent fashion.

Anyway, this is way more contentious than I had anticipated so I'm just going to drop it.

 

[Kontradiction]

I didn't understand it either until you clarified. It reads as "if he didn't just (recently) have a good day", when you meant it to read "if he didn't just (only) have a good day". Relax, don't get so defensive all the time.

I'm not being defensive. I just hate it when a discussion about football turns into an English class. It's a needless and douchebag way to operate. He asked for clarification, I gave him it, then he pressed the issue... hence the response. What I really should have done in the first place was capitalize the "just". But I just took my new wave runner out for the last six hours in the hot sun. You'll forgive me if I'm not thinking as clearly as I should be.

 

[JackBauer]

I didn't press the issue, and I didn't even note your syntax until you decided to be catty in your response. So there you have it.

 

[Kontradiction]

If I had understood it, why would I have asked for clarification?

And when posed with such a request, why would you write:



Clearly it is difficult to interpret, because it's wholly ambiguous when you write "I don't think so, personally" whether you were referring to Brace's performance as not merely a flash in the pan or whether you didn't think he played well against the Rams. Instead of being, well, a douche and deflecting it as a defect in my reading ability, you could simply state what you're saying in a coherent fashion.

Anyway, this is way more contentious than I had anticipated so I'm just going to drop it.

Anybody who follows my posts knows that I put my personal opinions in parentheses. I'll grant you that the first part was probably hard to understand, but the part in between the parentheses as well as the part afterward should have probably cleared it up for you. This is especially so when I know as well as I do that you've followed my posts on the subject and know my opinion on Ron Brace.