Pats cut Redd, re-sign Love, sign OLB Ninkovich

[Ring 6]

what do you mean by 'traditionally' ?

there are instances when the pats have gone to the 4-3 and it has shut the entire opposing offense down.........

now I am not a proponent of doing so, but the positional quality of the current roster makes it easy for one to believe that there will be more 4-3 this year......

I mean if you are playing the jets, or the ravens, or the falcons, their games will all be predicated on bringing as many people into the box as possible and then taking some chances to the WR's.......

my issue with this scenario is that if you do go 4-3, seymour is the guy you want inside, not on end...........he's big and quick enough to make OG's miss and can simply crumple C's up into a ball

I still believe the 3-4 is the way they are going, but the situation does make interesting fodder

Tradionally= since BB

I just dont see how our personell is best suited for 43.
How can we rush the passer? Who are the DEs?
The value of a 34 vs a 43 when you are a 2 gap team is that while a 2gap puts limitation on the pass rush ability of down lineman, it actually helps the 4th rusher, (OLB usually). I don't know how we sniff a QB if we play 4 300lb + DL in a 2gap 43 and expect them to create the pass rush.

 

[PushnPencils]

Interestingly the 3-4...4-3 argument goes back to 2005 in some questions Sean Morrey was asked after the first game of the season.

Judging from what we've seen thus far (preseason - game one) the inability to stop the run remains a problem. When the Patriots finally shifted to the 4-3, there was much better control of the line. It also produced greater pressure on the QB. Belichick has consistently stated that they will play whatever front is necessary in order to get he best matchup. My question is, what advantage do the Patriots gain by playing the 3-4 as their base defense? Last year, with the two Ted's it was obvious that the 3-4 was a strength and in part a necessity for coverage reasons. This year with all the depth in the secondary it makes more sense to leverage the obvious strengths that the 4-3 presents. What do the experts think? Thanks.
John Farrell
The Patriots prefer to play a 3-4. It’s typically a stouter defense against the run and gives the defense more speed by replacing a lineman with a faster linebacker. The Pats version calls for seven players to play two gaps each, which leaves four in coverage. Now the Patriots play a similar two-gap scheme when they switch to a 4-3 defense on early downs so the principles remain the same in terms of defending the run. It’s just that a defensive lineman plays the two gaps normally defended by a linebacker. But the 3-4 allows for more flexibility against the pass. In addition to having a faster player on the field who can cover, it forces the pass protection to identify the fourth rusher in a non-blitz situation since that rusher can be anyone of the four linebackers as opposed to using four D-linemen. Rushing more than four adds to that problem for an offense. The defensive linemen prefer a 4-3 because they see more one-on-one blocks when rushing, but that is, in theory, easier for an offense to account for. But if one of the linebackers isn’t playing well enough, then the Patriots are flexible enough to turn to Jarvis Green and play a 4-3. They already play more 4-3 in subpackages, but it’s a different concept with guys in the gaps and the players more suited to rushing the passer.


OK, a win is a win; it wasn't a pretty one, but at the end we did what was necessary to win: the defense stiffened up in the 2nd half after letting Oakland eat us alive (as well as we did). The 1st concern I have is that we went to the 4-3 defense (although it worked). Does that mean that we are going to see just a larger dose of 4-3 throughout the season or was it just in use because the game plan didn't quite work? I sure hope that we stick to the 3-4 defense because our defense is built for that and it has worked for us the last few years, saying that, I hope the linebackers can grow more accustomed to the scheme and run it the way it is supposed to be run (congrats to Monty Beisel as he had a fairly nice game. I have high hopes on him, even more than my man Chad Brown) 2nd concern: did you catch the Colts/Ravens last night? Shame on Baltimore fans for cheering when Kyle Boller went down. Never in my life had I been more ashamed of being a football fan. 3rd just a comment: Ty Law got his first INT with the Jets. He still remains my favorite player and I think he will return to his Pro Bowl shape (if they throw to him because yesterday they almost never threw to his side) Thanks for your attention and keep up the good work.
Alex Quezada
Panama

The Patriots won by 10 and it wasn’t pretty? Was it perfect? No. Would you have liked to prevent that first Raider drive and the big play to Randy Moss? Of course. But did you ever feel like the game was in doubt? I didn’t. So sure there were problems … blocked kicks and the like, but they scored 30 points, which will win most weeks. As far as the defense goes, I agree with you. Sure New England has the ability to switch to a 4-3 front, but Bill Belichick prefers to play a 3-4 and his personnel is built around that, especially at linebacker. As I just said, the DL would prefer a 4-3 front but guys like Vrabel and McGinest are 3-4 players and Colvin is better suited for that as well. The problem is inside where the linebackers are not experienced in this scheme. Fortunately, the Patriots can play both and will. They switched to a 4-3 in 2001 during the season and went on to win the Super Bowl. But they want to play a 3-4 if they can do it successfully. It’s mildly concerning if they can’t, but not the end of the world since Jarvis Green is hardly a slouch coming in as the fourth D-lineman.

 

[dhamz]

The talk about the Pats going to the 4-3 because of what they are running the first few days of practice reminds me of how every year the Pats would start camp with Eugene Wilson at CB and the press and the posters on this board would be convinced that BB was moving him there permanently. Then the games would start and there would be Wilson at S next to Rodney.

The Pats have always used the early part of camp to build versatility in case they need it later. The year after the DBs were decimated by injury in the Super Bowl, BB had Troy Brown practicing back there in case of emergency.

Is it surprising that a year after the team had a ton of LB injuries and had to pull guys out of a UPS store and off the beach to start at LB he is working more on a set that needs less LBs? It is more contigency planning.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

If the Pats go to a 4-3, they will be the slowest 4-3 team in the NFL. In fact, the move makes zero since (you don't have to be a football genius to figure that one out). It was laughable watching them try to run the 4-3 against the Chargers. They're already one of the slowest 3-4 teams, why make your defense slower?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

As a minor note (I mentioned this on another thread), -Malone -Redd +Love +Ninkovich = no room for Lemon at the moment. . . .

 

[Ring 6]

Interestingly the 3-4...4-3 argument goes back to 2005 in some questions Sean Morrey was asked after the first game of the season.

Judging from what we've seen thus far (preseason - game one) the inability to stop the run remains a problem. When the Patriots finally shifted to the 4-3, there was much better control of the line. It also produced greater pressure on the QB. Belichick has consistently stated that they will play whatever front is necessary in order to get he best matchup. My question is, what advantage do the Patriots gain by playing the 3-4 as their base defense? Last year, with the two Ted's it was obvious that the 3-4 was a strength and in part a necessity for coverage reasons. This year with all the depth in the secondary it makes more sense to leverage the obvious strengths that the 4-3 presents. What do the experts think? Thanks.
John Farrell
The Patriots prefer to play a 3-4. It’s typically a stouter defense against the run and gives the defense more speed by replacing a lineman with a faster linebacker. The Pats version calls for seven players to play two gaps each, which leaves four in coverage. Now the Patriots play a similar two-gap scheme when they switch to a 4-3 defense on early downs so the principles remain the same in terms of defending the run. It’s just that a defensive lineman plays the two gaps normally defended by a linebacker. But the 3-4 allows for more flexibility against the pass. In addition to having a faster player on the field who can cover, it forces the pass protection to identify the fourth rusher in a non-blitz situation since that rusher can be anyone of the four linebackers as opposed to using four D-linemen. Rushing more than four adds to that problem for an offense. The defensive linemen prefer a 4-3 because they see more one-on-one blocks when rushing, but that is, in theory, easier for an offense to account for. But if one of the linebackers isn’t playing well enough, then the Patriots are flexible enough to turn to Jarvis Green and play a 4-3. They already play more 4-3 in subpackages, but it’s a different concept with guys in the gaps and the players more suited to rushing the passer.


OK, a win is a win; it wasn't a pretty one, but at the end we did what was necessary to win: the defense stiffened up in the 2nd half after letting Oakland eat us alive (as well as we did). The 1st concern I have is that we went to the 4-3 defense (although it worked). Does that mean that we are going to see just a larger dose of 4-3 throughout the season or was it just in use because the game plan didn't quite work? I sure hope that we stick to the 3-4 defense because our defense is built for that and it has worked for us the last few years, saying that, I hope the linebackers can grow more accustomed to the scheme and run it the way it is supposed to be run (congrats to Monty Beisel as he had a fairly nice game. I have high hopes on him, even more than my man Chad Brown) 2nd concern: did you catch the Colts/Ravens last night? Shame on Baltimore fans for cheering when Kyle Boller went down. Never in my life had I been more ashamed of being a football fan. 3rd just a comment: Ty Law got his first INT with the Jets. He still remains my favorite player and I think he will return to his Pro Bowl shape (if they throw to him because yesterday they almost never threw to his side) Thanks for your attention and keep up the good work.
Alex Quezada
Panama

The Patriots won by 10 and it wasn’t pretty? Was it perfect? No. Would you have liked to prevent that first Raider drive and the big play to Randy Moss? Of course. But did you ever feel like the game was in doubt? I didn’t. So sure there were problems … blocked kicks and the like, but they scored 30 points, which will win most weeks. As far as the defense goes, I agree with you. Sure New England has the ability to switch to a 4-3 front, but Bill Belichick prefers to play a 3-4 and his personnel is built around that, especially at linebacker. As I just said, the DL would prefer a 4-3 front but guys like Vrabel and McGinest are 3-4 players and Colvin is better suited for that as well. The problem is inside where the linebackers are not experienced in this scheme. Fortunately, the Patriots can play both and will. They switched to a 4-3 in 2001 during the season and went on to win the Super Bowl. But they want to play a 3-4 if they can do it successfully. It’s mildly concerning if they can’t, but not the end of the world since Jarvis Green is hardly a slouch coming in as the fourth D-lineman.

The 43 or 34 "debate" happens every year. We build the team around a 34 concept and every year, in conjunction with the idea that if there arent 11 all pros on the starting defense there must be someone on the bench who will be an allpro someone gets the idea that we should play 43. We don't, then next year it starts again. Old story, as you discovered.

 

[DaBruinz]

What????????????
I suppose you COULD play Seymour at 4-3 DE, maybe Warren also, but why would you? That is not thier position and their skillset.
I don't know who 'pointed out to you' that plenty of teams have 300lb 4-3 DEs, but I see, umm, none. Please inform me which teams run a base 43 with 300lb DEs.

Instead of getting yourself all worked up, you really should read what was posted, Andy. I didn't mention Warren. I mentioned WRIGHT at the other DE position.

As for teams who have 300 lb DEs, I didn't say "Are running", I said "have run". As in past tense. Again, you are not reading what is written. You are reading only what you want and going off half-****ed. Teams like the Bears, Packers, and Vikings. Even the Giants did for awhile.

I have no clue what you are talking about with DL in coverage. That simply doesnt happen, unless in a zone blitz once in while, which we rarely if ever use. (By the way whether a 34 or 43 our DL still need to play 2 gapn technique) Please explain to me why you think 43 DL have pass coverage responsibliities?

Andy, I suggest you go back to 2001, 2003 and 2004 and watch the Pats videos from those year. You'll see DEs (Willie Mc and Vrabel when they were lined up in the 4-3) dropping back into coverage on plenty of occasions.

I have not seen reports that we are exclusively running 43, but I hear such talk every year.
I see about a 0.0001% chance of the Patriots becoming a 43 base team, because the roster was built based upon a 34.

Andy, again you are reading only what you want to read and not what is actually being said. There have been several reports from people who have gone to every day of camp this year and have said that the Pats were running the 4-3 almsot exclusively. Just check the camp reports. That is NOT to say that they will be running the 4-3 exclusively on game days. No where did I say that. Again, you are over-reacting without actually reading what is said.

 

[mgteich]

I'm fine with having a couple of Practice Squad linebackers. I was surprised that Redd was not good enough for consideration. Others had their UDFA binkies. I'm also always OK with upgrades. I just don't see it happening.

Urgent - Don't be so sure that it will SHRINK. There are quite a few in the top 51 who won't make this team.

There are currently 4 players listed below the top 51 who will make the team (Chung, LeVoir, Guyton, and Tank Williams). There will be more once you start looking at guys like Circui, Tate, Slater, Ohrnberger, and such...

While I respect MGs opinion that the Pats have their 4 OLBs, I don't know if that will be enough. Having someone for the PS would be nice.. Especially since we've had major injuries at OLB each of the last 2 years.

 

[mgteich]

IMHO, the patriots would go from one of the very best 3-4's to having a mediocre 4-3 line, probably below average for playoff teams. And we still would be counting on someone to play OLB opposite Thomas.

Tradionally= since BB

I just dont see how our personell is best suited for 43.
How can we rush the passer? Who are the DEs?
The value of a 34 vs a 43 when you are a 2 gap team is that while a 2gap puts limitation on the pass rush ability of down lineman, it actually helps the 4th rusher, (OLB usually). I don't know how we sniff a QB if we play 4 300lb + DL in a 2gap 43 and expect them to create the pass rush.

 

[bigfandan]

What.

The.

F*ck?



Now I'm concerned.

Some still say in Bill we trust?? Well looks like his master plan is going up in smokes.

 

[pats_premi]

Just asking. Do you think Patriots not signing Wilfork to contract extension has anything to with them possibly switching to 4-3 defence ? In 3-4, Wilfork is regarded as the best nose tackle in the nfl, but in 4-3 I think he is ranked behind a number of other tackles ..Tommy Harris, Kevin William, ...

 

[patfanken]

You know what I can't understand. How the cutting of the LAST man in the OLB rotation could generate a thread that's currently 8 pages long. Are we THAT desperate for talk?

"Hey, they cut Vince Redd, so I guess we have to go to a 4-3." "Hey they cut Vince Redd, that must mean we will have to get some Vet to replace his vast contributions.

The fact is that Vince Redd was a guy with vast athletice gifts, but had no idea how to harness them into being a "football player"... at least on the NFL level. Give those same gifts to a Ray Ventrone, and he's an all pro. Mayo is a good example of a guy with great gifts AND is a "football player"....and is DROY.

Sorry guys, but I can't see the why all the panic, and thats what this sounds like. Hey if you want to discuss the merits of the 4-3 with our current personel, that would be fair....in a thread titled "the case for the 4-3", NOT "Vince Redd got cut". A thread which SHOULD have been pretty much ignored ....except by Box, who will now have to find a new Binky.

 

[Urgent]

The plan to start Woods still stands.

However, with the absence of Redd and uncertainty surrounding the health and abilities of Crable, the Pats need some depth.

Other than Burgess, any back-up DE or SOLB could be a candidate. Team's that added one of the many DE/OLB types that we looked at in the draft, who consequently have more young veteran depth, could be trade partners.

 

[Jimke]

You know what I can't understand. How the cutting of the LAST man in the OLB rotation could generate a thread that's currently 8 pages long. Are we THAT desperate for talk?

"Hey, they cut Vince Redd, so I guess we have to go to a 4-3." "Hey they cut Vince Redd, that must mean we will have to get some Vet to replace his vast contributions.

The fact is that Vince Redd was a guy with vast athletice gifts, but had no idea how to harness them into being a "football player"... at least on the NFL level. Give those same gifts to a Ray Ventrone, and he's an all pro. Mayo is a good example of a guy with great gifts AND is a "football player"....and is DROY.

Sorry guys, but I can't see the why all the panic, and thats what this sounds like. Hey if you want to discuss the merits of the 4-3 with our current personel, that would be fair....in a thread titled "the case for the 4-3", NOT "Vince Redd got cut". A thread which SHOULD have been pretty much ignored ....except by Box, who will now have to find a new Binky.

At least, he wasn't a #1 draft pick like Gholston.

 

[Ring 6]

Instead of getting yourself all worked up, you really should read what was posted, Andy. I didn't mention Warren. I mentioned WRIGHT at the other DE position.

As for teams who have 300 lb DEs, I didn't say "Are running", I said "have run". As in past tense. Again, you are not reading what is written. You are reading only what you want and going off half-****ed. Teams like the Bears, Packers, and Vikings. Even the Giants did for awhile.




Andy, I suggest you go back to 2001, 2003 and 2004 and watch the Pats videos from those year. You'll see DEs (Willie Mc and Vrabel when they were lined up in the 4-3) dropping back into coverage on plenty of occasions.



Andy, again you are reading only what you want to read and not what is actually being said. There have been several reports from people who have gone to every day of camp this year and have said that the Pats were running the 4-3 almsot exclusively. Just check the camp reports. That is NOT to say that they will be running the 4-3 exclusively on game days. No where did I say that. Again, you are over-reacting without actually reading what is said.

I'm not worked up, just surprised by the lack of insight from a poster who usually has some.
You showed exactly ZERO examples of teams using 300 DEs. The Giants actually were doing the opposite playing Tuck, truly a DE at DT. Bears, Packers, Vikings, no, no and no. Unless you can show me who these 300 lb DEs are,oh excuse me, were.

I don't have to go back to tape. You may be able to find an obscure play here or there where a guy lined up in a DL position dropped off into coverage, but you said
The problem with us switching to a 43 is that our DL would find themselves in coverage.
All due respect, thats foolish.


I havent seen reports that say we have been running 43 exclusively, I saw one guy say he went to 2 practices and saw it.
Regardless, we aren't switching to a 43, because we were built to be a 34. We run 43 occassionally, and every year, we run it early in camp, and this silly topic comes up.
You've been around long enough to know that.

 

[Ring 6]

IMHO, the patriots would go from one of the very best 3-4's to having a mediocre 4-3 line, probably below average for playoff teams. And we still would be counting on someone to play OLB opposite Thomas.

Technically, you are taking Bruschi off the field, and replacing him with a DT.
In theory, I can understand the thinking, but in reality you are chanigng the roles of many players and putting them in a position they are not as well suited to (except for Mayo).
Most importantly you are are removing the pass rushing OLB and adding a DT who has to 2gap before rushing.
We would get destroyed by play action passes for one thing. Imagine 4 300 lb DL 2 gapping and playing the run, then realizing its a pass, and trying to pass rush against 4 OL they engaged plus an extra one for good measure.

 

[Reckedtrek]

Some still say in Bill we trust?? Well looks like his master plan is going up in smokes.

:blahblah: :ugh:

Yeah- you're right on the money... we cut a bottom feeder OLB- WE ARE SCREWED!!!! <sarcasm off>

 

[Ring 6]

Some still say in Bill we trust?? Well looks like his master plan is going up in smokes.

You will have to elaborate.
From what I see his master plan has resulted in:

The best record in the NFL this decade.
3 SBs trophies.
4 AFC Championships wins in 5 AFCC Games.
7 division titles in 9 years.
Undefeated regular season.

MOre success, BY FAR, than any one else since the day he arrived and took over a team called "the farthest away from SB contention" by Pro Football Weekly.
I guess the undrafted free agent not becoming a Hall of Famer spoils all that, huh?

 

[spacecrime]

OK, no Vrabel.
No Redd.
Crable is on PUP.
Didn't sign Stryker Sulak.
No draft picks.

I would say the cause for concern is a bit higher.

Cutting Redd doesn't increase my concern because we have been totallly doomed ever since we didn't sign Sulak.

Come on, man. We didn't have Crable last year. We didn't have Sulak, and Redd was a non factor.

THe only piece missing is Vrabel and coming off of IR are Thomas and Woods. Relax.

 

[spacecrime]

Belichick has made it abundantly clear that he's willing to look at another OLB. It's not as if the Patriots kept the interest in Jason Taylor a secret, after all.

Don't read too much into this. Belichick has made it abundantly clear that he's willing to look at another (fill in the position)