Pats old D Philosophy vs New D Philosophy

[VJCPatriot]

Belichick weighs in on the issue, saying his customary nothing.

Belichick talks 4-3, 3-4 defense - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I think he's saying it's the techniques that are important rather than how you line them up. But based on how they are lining up so far, I would wager that there has been some slight changes in techniques to maximize the personnel we have in guys like Haynesworth and Wright.

Interesting to note that neither Brock or Roth have been signed yet although both have been worked out. Does BB have someone better in mind?

 

[patfanken]

I believe in the 2gap system because it is what BB has used his entire career. Every season that it has been his choice to determine the scheme, it has been 2 gap. I believe in the tremendous amount of success BB has had.
All of your 'facts' are opinion.

I find it silly that people are lining up to jump on board the 'aggressive defense is better' bandwagon after watching the success we have had here with a conservative defensive philosophy.

I am a 'true believer' in what works.

I apologize for posting before I read the entire thread. As you can see I agree with you totally. The Defense might look different in alignment, but the core 2 gap fundamentals that BB has developed for decades ISN'T going to change. Within those basic fundamentals BB will, WEEK TO WEEK, look for the match ups that will give us the best chance to stop the offense from scoring. (not necessarily stop them from moving the ball. They are two different things.)

 

[Patspsycho]

Just curious on your opinion as to why BB has been going after more 4-3 types of 1-gap players like Haynesworth, Tommie Harris, Raheem Brock if he still swears by 2-gapping.

Guys like Harris or Brock would fit your bill of cheap interior sub rushers to help the pass rush on 3rd downs, but you don't bring in a guy like Haynesworth to just play on 3rd downs. He's the type of talent that you build a defense around -- and he's at his best when he's getting upfield, penetrating, blowing up plays in the backfield.

It would just seem a little odd to go out and get a guy like Haynesworth (with so many alleged chemistry/locker room risks) and not implement a scheme conducive to him being dominant.

I'm not saying BB completely abandons the 2-gap, but I do think he's going to be more willing to play some more 1-gap football this year. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative defense if you have a front 4 that can consistently create pressure, but the Pats haven't had that for quite a while now. Pass rushing, collapsing the pocket, and blitzing is becoming more and more important in the game with the way teams are slinging the ball around nowadays.

Those players are talented enough to fit in other systems and schemes.

The position in which Haynesworth has been put in is conducive to his ability to wreak havoc on the line.

BB has not left the 2-gap system, one bit. I clearly saw this last night.

With the NFL gravitating towards a pass-heavy offense, BB has chosen to deal with this by going to subs such as the 40 front nickel that leaves the back end heavy, and that is how he has chosen to deal with this issue, over going with "pass-rushing."

 

[Patspsycho]

I apologize for posting before I read the entire thread. As you can see I agree with you totally. The Defense might look different in alignment, but the core 2 gap fundamentals that BB has developed for decades ISN'T going to change. Within those basic fundamentals BB will, WEEK TO WEEK, look for the match ups that will give us the best chance to stop the offense from scoring. (not necessarily stop them from moving the ball. They are two different things.)

This is correct for the most part. However, as you may recall he will throw in radical designs for playoff games, and I think we are once again approaching that point, now that this young D has had a year under its belt.

 

[Patspsycho]

Belichick weighs in on the issue, saying his customary nothing.

Belichick talks 4-3, 3-4 defense - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

I actually thought he was pretty straightforward in this answer:

"You play different fronts, you play different spacing, and you teach the techniques of your defense. That is what consistent, techniques that are taught in different defensive systems, whether those teams go from three-man line to a four-man line, or a four-man line to an odd spacing line, or overs to unders, or unders to overs, or over-wides, whatever you want to call it. They will continue to play the same fundamental techniques as they've been teaching for the entire year, for the most part. I think that's what teaching defensive fundamental football is about. It's about fundamentals. Wherever you put them, you've got to people other people in complementary places, however you decide to do that.

Where most people see a 4 man front, they fail to identify the personnel on the field that dictates whether you have a true 3-4 or not. What they think is a 4-3, for example, could be a reduced line 3-4 with a Will in three point.

I think only twice, has he gone with a true 4-3 front and that was in '01 and '03?

 

[patchick]

I actually thought he was pretty straightforward in this answer:



Where most people see a 4 man front, they fail to identify the personnel on the field that dictates whether you have a true 3-4 or not. What they think is a 4-3, for example, could be a reduced line 3-4 with a Will in three point.

I think only twice, has he gone with a true 4-3 front and that was in '01 and '03?

I guess I interpreted it differently, since they offered so many different looks last year, too. But I agree, on balance it sounds like he's saying "same old thing, you just didn't know what that old thing was to begin with!"

 

[patfanken]

This is correct for the most part. However, as you may recall he will throw in radical designs for playoff games, and I think we are once again approaching that point, now that this young D has had a year under its belt.

Its not only having another year's experience. BB is approaching gathering ENOUGH parts to allow him the creative flexibility he hasn't had since 2004-7. Bodden, Dowling, and Haynesworth are 3 key NEW part. We now have the size to better deal with big WRs. We now have a impact guy to push the middle of the pocket etc.

Its a process, and its not about getting just one impact player. Its about having the depth on the LOS. Its having enough secondary players with the skill sets so he can implement all the complex sub packages that are available, but we haven't been able to run the last couple of years.

BTW - this defense STILL has another year or two before it truly matures. It will be better, but there is still a learning curve going on.

 

[VJCPatriot]

BTW - this defense STILL has another year or two before it truly matures. It will be better, but there is still a learning curve going on.

As long as this defense hits its stride before the postseason starts, it should be 'ready' soon enough. I know BB has to compress a lot of the training but that's true for every team this year. I expect the defense to start to gel by the 4th game or so. We'll start to understand the results of BB's off-season tinkerings by then.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

Those players are talented enough to fit in other systems and schemes.

The position in which Haynesworth has been put in is conducive to his ability to wreak havoc on the line.

BB has not left the 2-gap system, one bit. I clearly saw this last night.

With the NFL gravitating towards a pass-heavy offense, BB has chosen to deal with this by going to subs such as the 40 front nickel that leaves the back end heavy, and that is how he has chosen to deal with this issue, over going with "pass-rushing."

Not many teams run the 2-gap system anymore. BB choosing to go with the 40 front nickel but still playing 2-gap hasn't worked all that well. We've been a bad 3rd down defense and a subpar pass defense for the last few years. Good QB's have torched this defense (Brees on MNF) and average QB's have looked like great QB's vs this defense (Henne).

With such a pass-heavy NFL, 2-gapping puts you at a disadvantage in terms of pass rush. To engage your blocker, then read pass, and then try to pass rush takes a lot long than just trying to get upfield from the get-go. Now, I know when a blitz is called and the defensive lineman stunt/loop/scoop, the DL play is one-gap. But on early downs, this defense 2-gaps too much for my liking. Too many teams throw the ball on first and second down now in this league to continue to play strict 2-gap defense, IMO, even if you're in nickel.

I think 2-gapping is better suited for when we play a team like the Jets, who like to "ground and pound" to set up short 3rd downs for Sanchez. But how many teams are really like that anymore? When you're playing QB's like Rodgers, Manning, Rivers, Brees, etc., you're going to see a lot of pass plays. To play a 2-gap scheme vs these teams just seems a bit illogical and outdated. It seems like you'd be better trying to get upfield from the start, getting after the QB or blowing up a running play in the backfield.

 

[captain stone]

BBF's postings have been 100%, dead-on correct.

Anyone expecting great things - or even really good things - from this defense
is going to be very, very disappointed.

Read & React is Dead. Long live Kill the QB.

 

[Ring 6]

Those players are talented enough to fit in other systems and schemes.

The position in which Haynesworth has been put in is conducive to his ability to wreak havoc on the line.

BB has not left the 2-gap system, one bit. I clearly saw this last night.

With the NFL gravitating towards a pass-heavy offense, BB has chosen to deal with this by going to subs such as the 40 front nickel that leaves the back end heavy, and that is how he has chosen to deal with this issue, over going with "pass-rushing."

Agreed.
The defense we put on the field depends on the situation.
In the past on 1st and 10 you would play your base defense, in BBs case a 2 gap 7 man front which emphasizes stopping the run and the big play.
This is opposed to a 1 gap 7 man front which emphasizes MAKING a big NEGATIVE play, at the expense of a greater risk of allowing one.

On 3rd down and more than a couple, you play your pass defense sub package, with 3 or 4 rushers, and 5 or 6 dbs. The rushers are not going to play a 2 gap technique, because by its design it slows down the rush to not sacrifice run D. Again you can have an aggressive or conservative approach. Of course on 3rd and short you play your short yardage defense.

Eveything in between is based on opponent, game plan and the amount of running and passing in the league.
In the 70s, you were in base on everything but 3rd and 5+
Today, you are in sub packages, much more often. Vs the Colts we are in sub on 1st and 10.

BB isn't going to change his base philosophy.
He may very well change, in fact already has changed, the situations where he uses base vs sub.

If BB wants to put more emphasis on pass defense than run defense he won't play a 1 gap base, he will play nickel.
If he wants to put more emphasis on the run, he will play base, but he won't change his base to a 1gap scheme that conflicts with his demonstarted philosophy that a defense should above all eliminate the big play against, which comes at the expense of the big play for.
If we play 1 gap run defense we will have tackles for loss, way more often than we do now. But we will also have teams gash us against the run.
At its most simplistic level a 2 gap assigns 2 players to every gap to limit big holes, while a 1 gap assigns 1 player to each gap, hoping to break through and disrupt the play before the seem is broken open.

After over 30 years in the NFL the last thing you would ever expect a coach to change is their tolerance for risk. The 1 gap vs 2 gap is a prime measurement of a defensive coaches tolerance for risk,

 

[Ring 6]

Not many teams run the 2-gap system anymore. BB choosing to go with the 40 front nickel but still playing 2-gap hasn't worked all that well. We've been a bad 3rd down defense and a subpar pass defense for the last few years. Good QB's have torched this defense (Brees on MNF) and average QB's have looked like great QB's vs this defense (Henne).

With such a pass-heavy NFL, 2-gapping puts you at a disadvantage in terms of pass rush. To engage your blocker, then read pass, and then try to pass rush takes a lot long than just trying to get upfield from the get-go. Now, I know when a blitz is called and the defensive lineman stunt/loop/scoop, the DL play is one-gap. But on early downs, this defense 2-gaps too much for my liking. Too many teams throw the ball on first and second down now in this league to continue to play strict 2-gap defense, IMO, even if you're in nickel.

I think 2-gapping is better suited for when we play a team like the Jets, who like to "ground and pound" to set up short 3rd downs for Sanchez. But how many teams are really like that anymore? When you're playing QB's like Rodgers, Manning, Rivers, Brees, etc., you're going to see a lot of pass plays. To play a 2-gap scheme vs these teams just seems a bit illogical and outdated. It seems like you'd be better trying to get upfield from the start, getting after the QB or blowing up a running play in the backfield.

We aren't 2 gapping in sub packages.
The entire concept of 2gap is to limit big plays.
I recognize your interest in a defense creating more big negative plays, but you cannot do that without increasing the risk of giving up big plays.

My opinion has always been that the better team has the advantage in a conservative game, and an aggressive game gives the underdog a better chance.
We have clearly been a top team for many years, really in just about every aspect. While BBs conservative approach has been in place longer than we have been a top team, it suits the team as it is now well.
People moan about bend but break drives that end with punts or missed FGs or red zone turnovers, or even scores. Where would we be when bend dont break turns into 70 yard TDs?

 

[Ring 6]

I actually thought he was pretty straightforward in this answer:



Where most people see a 4 man front, they fail to identify the personnel on the field that dictates whether you have a true 3-4 or not. What they think is a 4-3, for example, could be a reduced line 3-4 with a Will in three point.

I think only twice, has he gone with a true 4-3 front and that was in '01 and '03?

I thought the article was very informative.
Basically he said 2 things.
34 or 43 is irrelevant
Techniques are consistent

That means we have no idea whether it will be 34 or 43, but it will certainly remain 2gap.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think lost in all this talk is an extremely weak area that we have had for a few years now ... defending the middle underneath stuff against the pass. We are extremely weak in the area of linebackers with coverage skills. This defense addresses that problem ... we are going to play most of the year in a big nickel - I think it will work.

Sure the weakness at getting to the qb was also an issue but that in combination with the weak coverage skills had to be a nightmare for Belichick.

 

[Ring 6]

Just curious on your opinion as to why BB has been going after more 4-3 types of 1-gap players like Haynesworth, Tommie Harris, Raheem Brock if he still swears by 2-gapping.

My opinion is that like always he is looking for football players.
Haynesworth is the only acquisition on the front 7 (now anderson joins him) and I can see why people think he is a one gap player, because he wants to be, but Haynesworth has tremendous 2 gap talent. Also he replaced Gerard Warren, who spent his career as a one gapper.
Harris IMO was depth, most likely a sub package inside pass rusher.
Brock, I have no doubt at all was only a sub package rusher, in the mold of what Burgess was brought here for. And Anderson simply took that spot.
So I don't really see a changing of the 2gap guard to a 1gap guard at all.
Roth and Ellis are very arguably much more suited for a 2 gap scheme also, so they refute that suggestion as well.

Guys like Harris or Brock would fit your bill of cheap interior sub rushers to help the pass rush on 3rd downs, but you don't bring in a guy like Haynesworth to just play on 3rd downs.

Obviously the response above covers this.

He's the type of talent that you build a defense around -- and he's at his best when he's getting upfield, penetrating, blowing up plays in the backfield.

Seymour was the same kind of player. We have had many players as well as had the opportunity to acquire many players who could play penetrating big play defense. BB has consistently prefered to forego the big play on defense in order to prevent allowing the big play.
I just don't think Albert Haynesworth is going to cause BB to rethink his most basic philopsohy. He didn't do it with Seymour, Wilfork, Michael Dean Perry (who would have been a one gap monster) or anyone else.

It would just seem a little odd to go out and get a guy like Haynesworth (with so many alleged chemistry/locker room risks) and not implement a scheme conducive to him being dominant.

Haynesworth will be equally dominating in a 2gap.
You just have to realize dominating in a 2 gap is stopping every play from C to T for nothing, rather than shooting a gap and stopping some for losses, while running yourself out of the play that causes a 30 yard or more gain on others.
Dominance isn't measured by the best play you make but by the consistency of good plays.

I'm not saying BB completely abandons the 2-gap, but I do think he's going to be more willing to play some more 1-gap football this year.

If that is going to happen, I think it happens in order to rush the passer which doesnt mean a 1gap base but a more frequent sub package.

There is nothing wrong with being a conservative defense if you have a front 4 that can consistently create pressure, but the Pats haven't had that for quite a while now.

And the numbers say that conservative defense has been good for a very long time. I'm not sure how changing run gap discipline accomplishes what you want it to.

Pass rushing, collapsing the pocket, and blitzing is becoming more and more important in the game with the way teams are slinging the ball around nowadays.

Again, this affects how often the sub package is used, but I don't see why it would change how you play the base when you choose to play it, understanding that you are in base to play the run.
Am I missing something?

 

[Ring 6]

I think lost in all this talk is an extremely weak area that we have had for a few years now ... defending the middle underneath stuff against the pass. We are extremely weak in the area of linebackers with coverage skills. This defense addresses that problem ... we are going to play most of the year in a big nickel - I think it will work.

Sure the weakness at getting to the qb was also an issue but that in combination with the weak coverage skills had to be a nightmare for Belichick.

We cant play nickel on 1st and 10 or we will spend all day in 2nd and 3.

 

[BillBelichickFan79]

BBF's postings have been 100%, dead-on correct.

Anyone expecting great things - or even really good things - from this defense
is going to be very, very disappointed.

Read & React is Dead. Long live Kill the QB.

Thanks, Captain. Appreciate it. I'm not a fan of the read and react, especially in this pass-happy NFL.

Agreed.
The defense we put on the field depends on the situation.
In the past on 1st and 10 you would play your base defense, in BBs case a 2 gap 7 man front which emphasizes stopping the run and the big play.
This is opposed to a 1 gap 7 man front which emphasizes MAKING a big NEGATIVE play, at the expense of a greater risk of allowing one.

On 3rd down and more than a couple, you play your pass defense sub package, with 3 or 4 rushers, and 5 or 6 dbs. The rushers are not going to play a 2 gap technique, because by its design it slows down the rush to not sacrifice run D. Again you can have an aggressive or conservative approach. Of course on 3rd and short you play your short yardage defense.

Eveything in between is based on opponent, game plan and the amount of running and passing in the league.
In the 70s, you were in base on everything but 3rd and 5+
Today, you are in sub packages, much more often. Vs the Colts we are in sub on 1st and 10.

BB isn't going to change his base philosophy.
He may very well change, in fact already has changed, the situations where he uses base vs sub.

If BB wants to put more emphasis on pass defense than run defense he won't play a 1 gap base, he will play nickel.
If he wants to put more emphasis on the run, he will play base, but he won't change his base to a 1gap scheme that conflicts with his demonstarted philosophy that a defense should above all eliminate the big play against, which comes at the expense of the big play for.
If we play 1 gap run defense we will have tackles for loss, way more often than we do now. But we will also have teams gash us against the run.
At its most simplistic level a 2 gap assigns 2 players to every gap to limit big holes, while a 1 gap assigns 1 player to each gap, hoping to break through and disrupt the play before the seem is broken open.

After over 30 years in the NFL the last thing you would ever expect a coach to change is their tolerance for risk. The 1 gap vs 2 gap is a prime measurement of a defensive coaches tolerance for risk,

I understand what you are saying, but even when the Pats play a "base nickel" vs the Colts, they still use a lot of 2 gap principles on early downs. That's why you see the Colts go shotgun with 3 WR, 1 TE, and 1 RB quite often. Even when they are in the shotgun, they like to have that RB back there to fake the HB draw, which forces the Pats defense to engage their blocker, make sure that they make the correct read (run or pass), and then react to it.

By playing 2 gap in situations like these, it really slows down your pass rush, as you admitted, especially against a guy like Manning, who is going to throw most of the time anyway and who gets rid of the ball so quickly.

I know that you do not play 2 gap technique in your sub pass defense on third downs and more than a few. My problem is with the early down techniques that NE likes to play. I understand that playing 2 gap on 1st and 2nd downs is a "safer, less risky" approach that protects against the big play, and that playing 1 gap on early downs is a "higher risk, higher reward" type of defense. BB has always been about playing it safe, not beating yourself, playing the percentages that you're not going to be able to put a successful drive together everytime down the field -- you will eventually make a mistake.

But I think playing so much 2 gap on early downs, even in the base defense, is a little outdated. There are not many teams left who run the ball very consistently on 1st and 2nd downs. Even the Jets with Sanchez, when they should be running on 1st and 10 or 2nd and 5, get too caught up in trying to pass sometimes. Teams are much more apt to throw the ball on early downs now with the new rules. In 2009 there were like 10 QB's that threw for over 4,000 yards -- that's insane.

To play 2 gap on early downs when more and more teams are slinging the ball around just doesn't seem that logical. It inhibits your ability to generate a pass rush by its nature.

I guess it's just a matter of personal preference. I've always preferred 1-gap schemes. Yes, you may get gashed for a run every now and then, but you also will get a big sack/tackle for loss every now and then too. I know you prefer the 2-gap because it is safer and prevents the big play, limiting the damage, but I think in this NFL you have to be willing to take more chances and go for the negative play. If you sit back and read and react to everything, you're going to get eaten alive. The rules are different now and the QB's are too precise/good now, IMO.

My opinion is that like always he is looking for football players.
Haynesworth is the only acquisition on the front 7 (now anderson joins him) and I can see why people think he is a one gap player, because he wants to be, but Haynesworth has tremendous 2 gap talent. Also he replaced Gerard Warren, who spent his career as a one gapper.
Harris IMO was depth, most likely a sub package inside pass rusher.
Brock, I have no doubt at all was only a sub package rusher, in the mold of what Burgess was brought here for. And Anderson simply took that spot.
So I don't really see a changing of the 2gap guard to a 1gap guard at all.
Roth and Ellis are very arguably much more suited for a 2 gap scheme also, so they refute that suggestion as well.


Obviously the response above covers this.


Seymour was the same kind of player. We have had many players as well as had the opportunity to acquire many players who could play penetrating big play defense. BB has consistently prefered to forego the big play on defense in order to prevent allowing the big play.
I just don't think Albert Haynesworth is going to cause BB to rethink his most basic philopsohy. He didn't do it with Seymour, Wilfork, Michael Dean Perry (who would have been a one gap monster) or anyone else.


Haynesworth will be equally dominating in a 2gap.
You just have to realize dominating in a 2 gap is stopping every play from C to T for nothing, rather than shooting a gap and stopping some for losses, while running yourself out of the play that causes a 30 yard or more gain on others.
Dominance isn't measured by the best play you make but by the consistency of good plays.


If that is going to happen, I think it happens in order to rush the passer which doesnt mean a 1gap base but a more frequent sub package.


And the numbers say that conservative defense has been good for a very long time. I'm not sure how changing run gap discipline accomplishes what you want it to.


Again, this affects how often the sub package is used, but I don't see why it would change how you play the base when you choose to play it, understanding that you are in base to play the run.
Am I missing something?

I don't think we will see BB get away from the 2-gap either, but I personally hope he does go more towards a 1-gap defense.

I think asking Albert to play a 2-gap defense takes away his greatest strength -- shooting gaps as a penetrating 3-technique and blowing plays up in the backfield before they even start.

Yes, I do agree that Haynesworth could be dominant in a 2-gap like Seymour was and I do agree that dominating in a 2-gap is not the same as dominating in a 1-gap defense. That's why I never understood why so many fans got on Seymour for his lack of sacks, forced fumbles, TFL's, etc. But do you really think Haynesworth is the same type of guy as Seymour? I can't see Haynesworth being satisfied with playing a similar role that Seymour played. He will get disinterested, he will get frustrated, and he will probably quit/dog it if he's asked to do something like that.

Haynesworth is a guy that likes the attention, likes the stats. He wants to be penetrating, he wants to be making plays, he wants to be sacking the QB -- he doesn't want to be lauded by BB for tying up blockers and allowing Mayo to make a tackle on RB. That's why despite him having the talent to be successful in a 2-gap, I can't see him being all that happy with it. From afar, we will be lauding him for a job well done, but he's not going to be a happy camper.

 

[Ring 6]

Thanks, Captain. Appreciate it. I'm not a fan of the read and react, especially in this pass-happy NFL.



I understand what you are saying, but even when the Pats play a "base nickel" vs the Colts, they still use a lot of 2 gap principles on early downs. That's why you see the Colts go shotgun with 3 WR, 1 TE, and 1 RB quite often. Even when they are in the shotgun, they like to have that RB back there to fake the HB draw, which forces the Pats defense to engage their blocker, make sure that they make the correct read (run or pass), and then react to it.

By playing 2 gap in situations like these, it really slows down your pass rush, as you admitted, especially against a guy like Manning, who is going to throw most of the time anyway and who gets rid of the ball so quickly.

I know that you do not play 2 gap technique in your sub pass defense on third downs and more than a few. My problem is with the early down techniques that NE likes to play. I understand that playing 2 gap on 1st and 2nd downs is a "safer, less risky" approach that protects against the big play, and that playing 1 gap on early downs is a "higher risk, higher reward" type of defense. BB has always been about playing it safe, not beating yourself, playing the percentages that you're not going to be able to put a successful drive together everytime down the field -- you will eventually make a mistake.

But I think playing so much 2 gap on early downs, even in the base defense, is a little outdated. There are not many teams left who run the ball very consistently on 1st and 2nd downs. Even the Jets with Sanchez, when they should be running on 1st and 10 or 2nd and 5, get too caught up in trying to pass sometimes. Teams are much more apt to throw the ball on early downs now with the new rules. In 2009 there were like 10 QB's that threw for over 4,000 yards -- that's insane.

To play 2 gap on early downs when more and more teams are slinging the ball around just doesn't seem that logical. It inhibits your ability to generate a pass rush by its nature.

I guess it's just a matter of personal preference. I've always preferred 1-gap schemes. Yes, you may get gashed for a run every now and then, but you also will get a big sack/tackle for loss every now and then too. I know you prefer the 2-gap because it is safer and prevents the big play, limiting the damage, but I think in this NFL you have to be willing to take more chances and go for the negative play. If you sit back and read and react to everything, you're going to get eaten alive. The rules are different now and the QB's are too precise/good now, IMO.

We could debate this one forever. Frankly, I favor the conservative approach for this team, at this time, because it is what BB has always employed, and I am happy with the results. I think you judge philosophy long term and rosters short term.
Also, when you state 'sit back and read and react' you kind of misrepresent the 2 gap.
Imagine you at a DL. In a 2gap, if it is a run, you come off the ball driving toward a gap, and are met by a blocker (unless someone misses an assignment) you are trying to drive through the gap, then find the ball, which may be long gone.
In a 2 gap you are driving INTO the blocker, and trying to control him to make the play on the gap on either side of him. You aren't sitting around waiting for the play to develop, you are establishing control of your territory.
If it is a pass play, the 1gapped has already shot his gap, and as the pass blocker takes his drop, he shifts left or right.
A 2gapped is not going to engage an OL if it is a pass. His first movement is toward the OL, but the OL is backing up to pass block. The DL reads that move and goes into pass rush mode.
The only difference is the 2gapper is head up and the 1gapper is not, so the OL must slide a bit. Not as dramatic as it is made to seem.

I don't think we will see BB get away from the 2-gap either, but I personally hope he does go more towards a 1-gap defense.

I think asking Albert to play a 2-gap defense takes away his greatest strength -- shooting gaps as a penetrating 3-technique and blowing plays up in the backfield before they even start.

I disagree here. I dont think that is his greatest strength at all. He is more huge and powerful than enormously quick. A one gap player wins on quickness a 2 gap player on strength. I think Haynesworths biggest strength is dominating the man across from him, and that fits the 2 gap.
The issue with Haynesworth in Washington wasn't that he is a better player as a 1 gapper, its that a 2gap requires discipline and staying home, and Albert felt the defense should be about him, and he should be able to do whatever he felt he wanted to on any play. No doubt he could make more big plays by freelancing because 2 good guesses a game accomplishes that, but it isnt helping your defense. I will take solid, 'you can't run from outside the G to inside the TE all day run defense over whatever tackles in the backfield, and the expense of that, you get in a 1 gap.

Yes, I do agree that Haynesworth could be dominant in a 2-gap like Seymour was and I do agree that dominating in a 2-gap is not the same as dominating in a 1-gap defense. That's why I never understood why so many fans got on Seymour for his lack of sacks, forced fumbles, TFL's, etc. But do you really think Haynesworth is the same type of guy as Seymour? I can't see Haynesworth being satisfied with playing a similar role that Seymour played. He will get disinterested, he will get frustrated, and he will probably quit/dog it if he's asked to do something like that.

But we play sub package over 50% of the time. If Haymesworths job is to control his part of the field in the base, and 'kill the QB' in the sub, I don't know why that is an issue.
Essentially we are saying if we are in a base, and its a run, he must control those 2 gaps first before chasing the ball. Is that something to make him give up?
I think the issue in Wash wasn't really the 2gap, but that he was the highest paid D player ever, and he thought it was disrespectful to him to not build the defense around him.

Haynesworth is a guy that likes the attention, likes the stats.

Thats the perception, but do you really think BB would have him here and on the field if that is (or at least still is) the reality?

He wants to be penetrating, he wants to be making plays, he wants to be sacking the QB -- he doesn't want to be lauded by BB for tying up blockers and allowing Mayo to make a tackle on RB.

Our defense does not ask him to tie up blockers so Mayo can make a tackle

That's why despite him having the talent to be successful in a 2-gap, I can't see him being all that happy with it. From afar, we will be lauding him for a job well done, but he's not going to be a happy camper.

I frankly cannot think of a worse argument for changing philosophy than the guy who flamed out and gave up somewhere else thinks we should change philiosophy and we better do it to keep him happy.
Take a step back. Do you really think Bill Belichick would be held hostage by what some guy he traded a 2013 5th rounder for thinks the defense should be?
If Haynesworth truly felt he only wanted to play if the defense was changed to what he wants it to be, that would have come out in their first discussion and he would be cut already.
Our coach is Bill Belichick not Herman Edwards.