Outside Linebacker

[Ring 6]

Burgess isn't an ex-patriot yet, but I suppose he can be given ex-patriot treatment. As an ex-patriot who didn't come to camp, he is a useless hasbeen. Of course, had he passed the physical and was a regular at practice, he would be a critical player in our defense.

This is similar to the attitude toward free agent from other teams. They re all scrap heap players, over 600 before Game One. Of course, if we sign them, they will all of a sudden be fine players.

QUOTE=AndyJohnson;1873221]

D) Being a pass rusher for the patriots doesn't require a great learning curve??????????????
Please say that again tomorrow when you've reconsidered.

Thats a little over the top, no?
How do you get that out of me thinking that a guy lining up at DE in the nickel and rushing the passer doesnt have to learn a whole lot of scheme?
You do know that is most of what Burgess did. Its not a knock its a description.



When did I ever proclaim Burgess as anything more than a mediocre role players?
If he was going to be here playing 50% of the snaps, he woud be a critical player, but critical and good are not the same thing.

Now do you want to explain where I have said players sucked then when the Patriots sign them I said they are good. That wasnt a fair comment.

 

[Ring 6]

Burgess isn't an ex-patriot yet, but I suppose he can be given ex-patriot treatment. As an ex-patriot who didn't come to camp, he is a useless hasbeen. Of course, had he passed the physical and was a regular at practice, he would be a critical player in our defense.

This is similar to the attitude toward free agent from other teams. They re all scrap heap players, over 600 before Game One. Of course, if we sign them, they will all of a sudden be fine players.

QUOTE=AndyJohnson;1873221]

D) Being a pass rusher for the patriots doesn't require a great learning curve??????????????
Please say that again tomorrow when you've reconsidered.

And by the way, pointing out that the role he plays happens to be one-dimensional and doesnt require significant scheme education does not say he is a useless has been, it says that his role on this team was to line up and rush the passer.
I dont think Dwight Freeney is a useless has been but 90%of the time he does the same thing so learning the scheme wouldn't be a challenge in his position either.

 

[mgteich]

You are guilty of rookie-itis if you cannot imagine a rookie playing 85% of the reps being worse than what we had last year.

Banta-Cain wasn't capable of being a full-time player in his first year, but Cunningham will be? Why do you believe that?

I think it MUCH more reasonable to believe that having Cunningham and Burgess both playing 50% or so would have been more effective, finding the best role for each.

OLB/DE snaps in 2009

I will consider 840 full time because that is what Vrable played in 2008.

Thomas 544
TBC 665
Burgess 551
Ninko 127
Woods 207

Total 2094

If Cunningham is full time, and TBC is full time that leaves 400 snaps or so for the reserves, which is close to what they played last season.

So replacing Burgess and Thomas comes from Cunnigham plus a larger role for TBC, thereby 2 players play about 85% of the snaps each instead of 3 playing 55-60% each.

Not sure I'm selling this idea, but I dont think we have to look at replacing a 3man rotation if we can find 2 ful time players.
I'm just having a hard time thinking of who I saw playing that postion last year that I fear Cunningham growing pains and all would be a big dropoff from.

 

[Ring 6]

You are guilty of rookie-itis if you cannot imagine a rookie playing 85% of the reps being worse than what we had last year.

Banta-Cain wasn't capable of being a full-time player in his first year, but Cunningham will be? Why do you believe that?

I think it MUCH more reasonable to believe that having Cunningham and Burgess both playing 50% or so would have been more effective, finding the best role for each.

If he plays full time, it is about 85% of the snaps.
Whether that happens or not we will see.
Who was better in those snaps last year?
Are you arguing that 53 snaps a game would be too much of a workload? Or just that you want to hedge your bet?
Platooning in September may in fact be better, but by the end of the season having the most talented player at the position with a year of expeirence playing every down would make us better.
Guyton played that many snaps last year.
TBC was playing more than that by the end of the season.
That is the amount of snaps he will play if he starts in the 34 and stays in for the sub packages.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

It's really discouraging as a fan to see OLB not really be addressed the way it needed to be. You play a base 3-4 defense and over the years your great defenses have consisted of guys like McGinest and Vrabel. I honestly don't know how you go into a season by only picking up 1 OLB (Cunningham) after the pass rush was abysmal last season. They did a better job at trying to fix the problems at RDE by bringing in guys like Warren and Lewis while having some young guys like Pryor, Brace, Richard, Deaderick who can battle and maybe turn into something decent.

But I think the OLB corps is pretty inexcusable. TBC, Woods, Ninkovich, Cunningham, Murrell, maybe Burgess. Subtract the hope Crable would pan out, probably Burgess, and Adalius, who while not a fan favorite, was still an experienced veteran who was decent when he was motivated to play. How is that an UPGRADE from last year?

I don't get how this team can have such a gaping whole at OLB yet only use one draft pick to "address" it. Hell, the Steelers have two guys who have made the Pro Bowl in the last two years in Harrison and Woodley, and they spent the same amount of resources on OLB as we did in the draft by taking Worilds in the 2nd round. I know Hernandez brings a nice dynamic to the offense but I would've rathered seen a guy like Sapp brought in in the 4th. I know Mesko is supposed to have a huge leg, and we definitely needed a punter upgrade from Hanson, but I would have rathered taken a shot on Greg Hardy in the 5th.

Hopefully we see a trade made to bring an impact player in at OLB because this team is going nowhere with the current personnel at the position. The slight hope is that BB isn't afraid to make a training camp trade like Ted Washington or Derrick Burgess to try to upgrade a hole right before the season. We seem pretty set in the secondary, ILB is looking better than it has in recent years, and the DL is 2/3 of the way there. OLB is still the only big hole on this defense.

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

On the other hand, what do we lose by throwing him in there and getting his experience on the field instead of the sidelines?
It seems that many fans (not saying you) are saying that our other OLBs suck but Cunningham has a momentus effort to get on the field.
If the other guys suck so bad, who cares if Cunningham is out there making mistakes?

I think the objective solely looking at Cunningham should be that by the end of the season he should be an every down OLB. There is no doubt that he is expected to be good enough to play ahead of the guys we now have 'when he is ready'.
Wouldn't the best way to have him the most ready in January, be to get him 900 snaps in Sept-Dec?

I can't imagine the mental mistakes he might make in September will hurt us as much as having him experienced by January will help us.

This is what I have been thinking about Cunningham for a while. The fans seem to have set the bar pretty low for him to contribute this year, hopefully BB gets a little more out of him than we expect.

 

[mgteich]

You simply have a different philosophy than Belichick. If your philospohy were in play last year. Chung and Butler would have started all year. Surely they would then have been better in in December and January than they were.

You call it platooning, Belichick says that players have roles.

Belichick does not sacrifice games now to be ready later. That philosophy doesn't win 7 out of 7 divisions.

The bottom line is that Belichick puts the best players on the field in order to have the highest probability of winning the current game. Many posters would like him to change his ways and play in order to have best team for the playoffs as a higher goal.

If he plays full time, it is about 85% of the snaps.
Whether that happens or not we will see.
Who was better in those snaps last year?
Are you arguing that 53 snaps a game would be too much of a workload? Or just that you want to hedge your bet?
Platooning in September may in fact be better, but by the end of the season having the most talented player at the position with a year of expeirence playing every down would make us better.
Guyton played that many snaps last year.
TBC was playing more than that by the end of the season.
That is the amount of snaps he will play if he starts in the 34 and stays in for the sub packages.

 

[Ring 6]

You simply have a different philosophy than Belichick. If your philospohy were in play last year. Chung and Butler would have started all year. Surely they would then have been better in in December and January than they were.

You call it platooning, Belichick says that players have roles.

Belichick does not sacrifice games now to be ready later. That philosophy doesn't win 7 out of 7 divisions.

The bottom line is that Belichick puts the best players on the field in order to have the highest probability of winning the current game. Many posters would like him to change his ways and play in order to have best team for the playoffs as a higher goal.

OK. So you are the voice of BB and speaking for him you say we wont play a rookie. Jerod Mayo, Logan Mankins, Richard Seymour, Lawrence Maroney, Dan Koppen, Deion Branch, and others were full time players or key guys splitting a job as rookies.
But I guess that never happened since you are telling me what BB thinks and that he wouldnt do that.

 

[Ring 6]

You simply have a different philosophy than Belichick. If your philospohy were in play last year. Chung and Butler would have started all year. Surely they would then have been better in in December and January than they were.

You call it platooning, Belichick says that players have roles.

Belichick does not sacrifice games now to be ready later. That philosophy doesn't win 7 out of 7 divisions.

The bottom line is that Belichick puts the best players on the field in order to have the highest probability of winning the current game. Many posters would like him to change his ways and play in order to have best team for the playoffs as a higher goal.

How are you sacrificing games by not playing Pierre Woods? Gimme a break.
The whole discussion started with the other options aren't so good, and there isn't anything much better out there to get, so why wouldn't we want the rookie on the field since he is the best player. THAT philiosophy has a lot to do with 7 of 7 divisions.

 

[Wretch]

A) The most talented should play even if he is a rookie.

I would phrase this as the most likely to make plays should start. Chad Jackson was enormously talented but couldn't make plays. I would rather have a player than a talent.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I would phrase this as the most likely to make plays should start. Chad Jackson was enormously talented but couldn't make plays. I would rather have a player than a talent.

Depends on how you define the terms, I guess, because I'd say that Jackson was enormously athletic but not very talented.

 

[BradyFTW!]

How are you sacrificing games by not playing Pierre Woods? Gimme a break.
The whole discussion started with the other options aren't so good, and there isn't anything much better out there to get, so why wouldn't we want the rookie on the field since he is the best player. THAT philiosophy has a lot to do with 7 of 7 divisions.

If Cunningham is the best player on day 1, he absolutely will and should start. Personally, I just doubt that he will be.

 

[Snake Eyes]

Depends on how you define the terms, I guess, because I'd say that Jackson was enormously athletic but not very talented.

Apparently he's been tearing it up at practices for the Bills, if he's a success there then perhaps some serious revaluation is needed as far as drafting goes.

 

[mgteich]

Reading comprehension is a lost art.

If you believe that Belichick believes that the preference is to have rookies to play 85%, then that is YOUR opinion. Perhaps YOUR position is correct and we would have benefited from Chung and Butler starting last year, instead of Sanders and Springs. They would each now have a year of starting under their belts. BTW, why do you think that that did not happen? Perhaps that did not happen because the best players in the beginning of the season were indeed Sanders and Springs.

I never ever ever said that Cunningham wouldn't play as a rookie. We are talking about him playing 50% or so versus counting on him to play as many reps as Vrabel did as a team leader (85%), acknowledging that the greatly successful acquisition Banta-Cain did not play anywhere near that many reps.

In your terms, I expect Cunningham to be a "key guy splitting a job as a rookie" rather than the very extreme expectation of him play 85% of the reps.

OK. So you are the voice of BB and speaking for him you say we wont play a rookie. Jerod Mayo, Logan Mankins, Richard Seymour, Lawrence Maroney, Dan Koppen, Deion Branch, and others were full time players or key guys splitting a job as rookies.
But I guess that never happened since you are telling me what BB thinks and that he wouldnt do that.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Not to veer too far of topic, but did you know that Chad Jackson's middle name is "Wolfegang"?

Chad Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, yeah, I was doing a Google search and there do seem to be some promising reports on C Jackson this year. But I don't get the impression he's totally shocking and awing people.

 

[Ring 6]

Reading comprehension is a lost art.

Textbook pot calling kettle black.

If you believe that Belichick believes that the preference is to have rookies to play 85%, then that is YOUR opinion.

I dont know where I said that was his preference. I said it has happened. It is HIS opinion that he will do it if the player is ready.
Back to reading comprehension. 85% of the snaps was brought up in this context:
You said we need to replace 2/3 of the OLB position. 85% was the baseline of what a 'full time OLB' would play based on Vrabels snaps in 2008. If we had 2 full time players then the remaining snaps at the position would equal about what Ninkovich and Woods played last year.
85% of the snaps was what 'starters' would have to play so that 2 starters would play the role of last years top 3 which really wasnt exactly a rotation.
The reference to Cunningham in that role was me asking a question of how much do we really lose by having him play full time if he is ready.

Perhaps YOUR position is correct and we would have benefited from Chung and Butler starting last year, instead of Sanders and Springs. They would each now have a year of starting under their belts. BTW, why do you think that that did not happen? Perhaps that did not happen because the best players in the beginning of the season were indeed Sanders and Springs.

Of course that is why. Why would you take my comments which were qualified by the assumption that JC is ready to play and apply them to mean I am talking about whether he earns a spot on the field or not?

I never ever ever said that Cunningham wouldn't play as a rookie. We are talking about him playing 50% or so versus counting on him to play as many reps as Vrabel did as a team leader (85%),

Team leader has nothing to do with it, playing in the base bd staying on the field in niuckel and dime does.[/quote]

acknowledging that the greatly successful acquisition Banta-Cain did not play anywhere near that many reps.

He played 11 snaps a game less than that. And thats because he came here with issue in run defense which he showed improvement at throughout the season.
In the last 6 games including the playoff game he played 365 out of 393 snaps which is over 90%.
TBC will almost certainly play the full time role which will be around 85% of the snaps this year.

In your terms, I expect Cunningham to be a "key guy splitting a job as a rookie" rather than the very extreme expectation of him play 85% of the reps.

I dont know what to expect. But I think its crazy to think that he will be on a play count.
If he is good enough to be out there only 50% of the time then that means he either sucks as an OLB or as a nickel/dime rusher. If its as an OLB then he and Burgess arent splitting the snaps 50/50 because Burgess is only playing sub package, if its sucking as a sub package rusher, then the position change has nothing to do with it.
I think you are mistaken that BB wants to split the roles. He only does when he doesnt have players who can play both. Last year is really the first time in memory that we had no full time OLBs, in fact one of the few times we didnt have 2.
I think you are saying that you want to ease Cunningham in and not overwhelm him with asking him to do his whole job, and I think thats wrong.
It may well be that he struggles converting to OLB. I am assuming in this thread that he does not and wondering what the downside of him paying full time if he is ready, but still a rookie is.

 

[Ring 6]

You simply have a different philosophy than Belichick. If your philospohy were in play last year.

Seems to me BB has the same philosophy which is put the best player on the field. Yours that rookie must be held back differs from what his has proven to be though.

Chung and Butler would have started all year. Surely they would then have been better in in December and January than they were.

And they would have been better. That is a side effect of them playing not the reason for them to play. I have said all along I am presuming he is ready to play, you seem to conveniently ignore that when reading my posts.

You call it platooning, Belichick says that players have roles.

How often have we platooned OLBs? Hint: you dont have to look further back than last year.
Some rookies play full time, some do not. Listing the ones who did not doesnt erase the existence of the many who start from day 1.

 

[mgteich]

TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS

How many games did it take until Banta-Cain was ready to play full-time?

How many games do you think it will take until Cunningham will be ready to play full-time?

Textbook pot calling kettle black.




I dont know where I said that was his preference. I said it has happened. It is HIS opinion that he will do it if the player is ready.
Back to reading comprehension. 85% of the snaps was brought up in this context:
You said we need to replace 2/3 of the OLB position. 85% was the baseline of what a 'full time OLB' would play based on Vrabels snaps in 2008. If we had 2 full time players then the remaining snaps at the position would equal about what Ninkovich and Woods played last year.
85% of the snaps was what 'starters' would have to play so that 2 starters would play the role of last years top 3 which really wasnt exactly a rotation.
The reference to Cunningham in that role was me asking a question of how much do we really lose by having him play full time if he is ready.






Of course that is why. Why would you take my comments which were qualified by the assumption that JC is ready to play and apply them to mean I am talking about whether he earns a spot on the field or not?

Team leader has nothing to do with it, playing in the base bd staying on the field in niuckel and dime does.

He played 11 snaps a game less than that. And thats because he came here with issue in run defense which he showed improvement at throughout the season.
In the last 6 games including the playoff game he played 365 out of 393 snaps which is over 90%.
TBC will almost certainly play the full time role which will be around 85% of the snaps this year.



I dont know what to expect. But I think its crazy to think that he will be on a play count.
If he is good enough to be out there only 50% of the time then that means he either sucks as an OLB or as a nickel/dime rusher. If its as an OLB then he and Burgess arent splitting the snaps 50/50 because Burgess is only playing sub package, if its sucking as a sub package rusher, then the position change has nothing to do with it.
I think you are mistaken that BB wants to split the roles. He only does when he doesnt have players who can play both. Last year is really the first time in memory that we had no full time OLBs, in fact one of the few times we didnt have 2.
I think you are saying that you want to ease Cunningham in and not overwhelm him with asking him to do his whole job, and I think thats wrong.
It may well be that he struggles converting to OLB. I am assuming in this thread that he does not and wondering what the downside of him paying full time if he is ready, but still a rookie is.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ring 6]

TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS

How many games did it take until Banta-Cain was ready to play full-time?

How many games do you think it will take until Cunningham will be ready to play full-time?

Your question doesnt make sense to me. TBC was ready to play full time at the start of the season. His good play, better than any of us expected, earned him additional playing time.
I'm really confused by your question. Do you think TBC played less at the beginning of the season because he didn't know the defense? He had not won the full time job out of camp, because of his play, not anything else. He earned more playing time by playing well.
How does that apply to Cunningham? If someone else is judged to be a better player, they will play ahead of him.
Ultimately I'm saying dont baby him if he is the best player, get him on the field. If he is the best player but may make a mistake here or there because of inexperience that shouldnt keep him off the field.
You seem to want to put a 'pitch count' on him????????

 

[mgteich]

It is not a matter of "pitche count". I believe that Burgess would be at least as good a player, and likely much better for the Cincinatti game. I suspect the same MAY be true of Ninkovich. I expect that Cunningham will earn more and more playing time as the season progresses.

I suspect that we do not have differences except in the evaluation of Burgess and Ninkovich. Obviously, we can leave the choice up to Belichick.

We both agree that Belichick will put the best player on the field. The question is what "best player" means. I think that it means the player most likely to win the game being played. Do you agree?

Your question doesnt make sense to me. TBC was ready to play full time at the start of the season. His good play, better than any of us expected, earned him additional playing time.
I'm really confused by your question. Do you think TBC played less at the beginning of the season because he didn't know the defense? He had not won the full time job out of camp, because of his play, not anything else. He earned more playing time by playing well.
How does that apply to Cunningham? If someone else is judged to be a better player, they will play ahead of him.
Ultimately I'm saying dont baby him if he is the best player, get him on the field. If he is the best player but may make a mistake here or there because of inexperience that shouldnt keep him off the field.
You seem to want to put a 'pitch count' on him????????