Pats sign DE Mark Anderson

[Ring 6]

What weakness against the run? This is the only place I've heard this mentioned.

If Anderson was so "bad" against the run, why did the Bears make him their starting DE in 2007 opposite Ogunleye? Where Anderson started the first 14 games until he went down with an injury. He also had another injury during TC in 2008 that required surgery on his thumb.

Being able to be solid against the point of attack on the run isn't just about size. It's also about technique. And I find it hard to believe that a guy who was good in college against the run all of a sudden becomes "bad".

Here is some interesting RESEARCH for you.
Anderson started in 2007. The Bears were 24th vs the run. The year before they were 6th, the year after, 5th.
Hmmmmm maybe those 14 starts do tell us something.

 

[Ring 6]

This guy is a project at best.

Projects are young guys who could grow a lot.
Anderson is what he is, and that will be a situational pass rusher if he makes the team.

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't need to research the difference between Mike Vrabel and Mark Anderson. I'm basing ZERO on what FANS have speculated.

So, not only do you need to do some research, you also need to read what people actually said instead of making half-assed assumputions.

I did not say you needed to research the difference between Mike Vrabel and Mark Anderson. I said you needed to do some research. Period. Why? Because it is clear that you don't know enough about Mark Anderson to be making the sorts of comments on him that you are. And you clearly have some erroneous memories about Mike Vrabel.

Now, I did not say you were BASING anything on what fans speculated. Again, that is where READING what is said helps instead of actually making assumptions. Unless you were hired by the New England Patriots recently, you are a fan. So it is YOUR speculation that "This is the Derrick Burgess move all over again, trying to get a guy who can play only in sub packages and rush the passer. "

Sorry that is reality, Andy.

 

[DaBruinz]

Projects are young guys who could grow a lot.
Anderson is what he is, and that will be a situational pass rusher if he makes the team.

So sayeth ANDY JOHNSON.

I have news for you. People change. People learn. You only have to ask Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi about that. Anderson isn't some 10 year veteran who is set in his ways.

Seriously, you are being so irrational on this it's pathetic.

 

[Mark Morse]

So sayeth ANDY JOHNSON.

I have news for you. People change. People learn. You only have to ask Mike Vrabel and Tedy Bruschi about that. Anderson isn't some 10 year veteran who is set in his ways.

Seriously, you are being so irrational on this it's pathetic.

I agree with Andy Johnson ... I think this is a situation where BB takes look at a guy in camp and determines if he has what the Pats need. I am sure he came cheap. I think there will be plenty of vets available as we get down to the final cuts. If Anderson doesn't have what they need they will go out and make a trade (like Tony McGee back in 1974) for a deignated pass rusher. With Wilfork and Haynesworth in the interior, the outside pass rusher should have free reign.

 

[RodThePat]

Here is some interesting RESEARCH for you.
Anderson started in 2007. The Bears were 24th vs the run. The year before they were 6th, the year after, 5th.
Hmmmmm maybe those 14 starts do tell us something.

Guess Jerod Mayo and Devin McCourty suck too, since the defense has been pretty bad for as long as they have been here.

 

[DaBruinz]

Here is some interesting RESEARCH for you.
Anderson started in 2007. The Bears were 24th vs the run. The year before they were 6th, the year after, 5th.
Hmmmmm maybe those 14 starts do tell us something.

Really? Do they? Who were their games against? Were they against teams that ran the ball a lot? Did the Bears commit a lot of turnovers, putting their defense in bad positions? What other personnel changes were there? Like a change in the defensive coordinator perhaps? Or a carousel at QB that led to the aforementioned turnovers? Or a bad running game that led to a lot of missed opportunities and put the defense on the field more?

During 2007, The Bears suffered from a QB Carousel and a poor running game. This put their defense on the field a lot more. There was also a disconnect between Lovie Smith and his DC, Bob Babich. Babich was fired after the 2007 season and replaced with Rod Marinelli. That was also the same year that Hester had his career worst in kick returns, averaging only 21.7 YPR.

The Bears also lost Nathan Vasher after the 4th game in 2007. They also had lost starting Safety, Chris Harris, who had left for Carolina, and was replaced by Brandon McGowan. They also didn't have DT Tank Johnson. Who was an awesome run stopper for them.

Any INTELLIGENT person knows that if it was just ONE player that was affecting the entire defense, the coach would have made the switch well before 13 games had passed.

As is typical of a person who will do anything he can to defend himself despite how foolish he's made himself look, you'll grasp at any straw you possibly can to defend your irrational opinion. What you've forgotten, Andy, is that I arm myself in advance to ensure that I can hold the position I take.

 

[danam404]

I agree with Andy Johnson ... I think this is a situation where BB takes look at a guy in camp and determines if he has what the Pats need. I am sure he came cheap. I think there will be plenty of vets available as we get down to the final cuts. If Anderson doesn't have what they need they will go out and make a trade (like Tony McGee back in 1974) for a deignated pass rusher. With Wilfork and Haynesworth in the interior, the outside pass rusher should have free reign.

this made me laugh

 

[DaBruinz]

I agree with Andy Johnson ... I think this is a situation where BB takes look at a guy in camp and determines if he has what the Pats need. I am sure he came cheap. I think there will be plenty of vets available as we get down to the final cuts. If Anderson doesn't have what they need they will go out and make a trade (like Tony McGee back in 1974) for a deignated pass rusher. With Wilfork and Haynesworth in the interior, the outside pass rusher should have free reign.

Mark - you can agree with Andy all you want, but that doesn't make his argument any less irrational.

As I just pointed out, there were numerous differences between the Bears defense in 2006, 2007, and 2008. So, to just sit there and point to the Run defense and blame the entire thing on Anderson is BS.

Now, That being said, I am NOT saying that Anderson is going to be a savior. I am saying that he's got potential. And that he's closer to Mike Vrabel than to Derrick Burgess, imho.

 

[LesPaul]

I'm sure Anderson is going to be a good player, look at all the teams that were lined up to sign him.

 

[VJCPatriot]

His skillset and level of ability didnt change when he sign a Patriot contract.
Vrabel was always Vrabel. He had a very good year in 2001, one of the keys to the SB run.

And you know his entire skillset based on what? If he was so one dimensional and 'lacking skill' then why were Aaron Schobel and Connor Barwin unable to beat out Anderson as the Texans DE in 2010?

Mark Anderson was probably the best pass rushing DE the Texans had by the end of the year and he wasn’t anything special. Could the Texans have used Aaron Schobel this year? Yes, probably so. My guess is that he would have gotten himself in shape and made a difference with the pass rush, but we’ll never know. Similarly, people who just assume Connor Barwin was going to take off and have a huge year are only guessing. We’ll never know on that front either.
Assesing the Texans defense for 2010 and who fits for 2011 | The Z Report | a Chron.com blog

Actually, I was very, very optimistic about Vrabel because I saw every game he played at OSU and followed him closely in Pittsburgh.

Great, and how many games of Mark Anderson's did you watch at the college level, with the Bears, with the Texans?

Should we move on to discuss why Ochocinco is going to take the Moss role even though he has never done it and has a different skillset because we haven't seen him on the Patriots so we don't know he won't run a go every play?

Typical red herring. I've never called Ochocinco a deep threat Randy Moss type, and I called Ocho to the Pats weeks before BB made the move. You just picked the worst example to make your point which so far is not based on any substantial facts or convincing observations thus far.

Bottom line, we don't know what we have in Anderson yet. And if BB chose to sign him instead of Raheem Brock and Matt Roth, there's probably some potential that he likes that he thinks he can use to improve this defense.

Your speculation on Anderson's abilities or inabilities to play roles on this defense have zero basis in actual scientific test conditions. The Bears 4-3 and the Texans transitioning 4-3/3-4 are in no way shape or form similar to what the Pats run. The assumption that no player can improve over time in the right system is also a fallacy that I do not choose to agree with at this time. Vrabel and Bruschi are proofs to the contrary. Bruschi's skillset coming out of college in Arizona was as a 'one trick passrusher'. He became so much more in the Pats system given the time to acclimate and given a coach who believed in him and utilized him to the fullest. I can't predict with any certainty what we have in Anderson at this point, but NEITHER CAN YOU.

 

[Ring 6]

So, not only do you need to do some research, you also need to read what people actually said instead of making half-assed assumputions.

Oh I just cant wait to read what you think I need to do.

I did not say you needed to research the difference between Mike Vrabel and Mark Anderson.

Yeah, you basically did, if you consider the context of my post that you responded to.

I said you needed to do some research. Period. Why? Because it is clear that you don't know enough about Mark Anderson to be making the sorts of comments on him that you are. And you clearly have some erroneous memories about Mike Vrabel.

I am quite confident that my assessment of Mark Anderson is based upon an equal or greater level of knowledge of his ability that yours. Of course, I decided to not base my opinion on draft reports from 2005.

Now, I did not say you were BASING anything on what fans speculated.

Yeah, you exactly did.

Again, that is where READING what is said helps instead of actually making assumptions.

Do you know how to have a discussion without making dooochbag comments?

Unless you were hired by the New England Patriots recently, you are a fan. So it is YOUR speculation that "This is the Derrick Burgess move all over again, trying to get a guy who can play only in sub packages and rush the passer. "

Are you 3? Anyone posting in this thread is giving their opinion and speculating. Did you really think that I was posting as if this were breaking news communicated to me by BB?

Sorry that is reality, Andy.

Nothing you posted is in the area code of reality.

 

[Ring 6]

Really? Do they? Who were their games against? Were they against teams that ran the ball a lot? Did the Bears commit a lot of turnovers, putting their defense in bad positions? What other personnel changes were there? Like a change in the defensive coordinator perhaps? Or a carousel at QB that led to the aforementioned turnovers? Or a bad running game that led to a lot of missed opportunities and put the defense on the field more?

Don't you have those answers? YOU were the one who posted that him starting 14 games that year was your proof he was a good run defender.
I just happened to post there wasn't much good run defense going on there, so you might have it backwards.

During 2007, The Bears suffered from a QB Carousel and a poor running game. This put their defense on the field a lot more. There was also a disconnect between Lovie Smith and his DC, Bob Babich. Babich was fired after the 2007 season and replaced with Rod Marinelli. That was also the same year that Hester had his career worst in kick returns, averaging only 21.7 YPR.

I'm sure Hesters KR average was the reason the Bears run defense stunk, not the guys defending the run.

[quote[The Bears also lost Nathan Vasher after the 4th game in 2007. They also had lost starting Safety, Chris Harris, who had left for Carolina, and was replaced by Brandon McGowan. They also didn't have DT Tank Johnson. Who was an awesome run stopper for them. [/quote]
But I thought him starting those 14 games was your proof he was a good run defender?

Any INTELLIGENT person knows that if it was just ONE player that was affecting the entire defense, the coach would have made the switch well before 13 games had passed.

Apparently this is an attempt to call me stupid?
Would an intelligent person state that the defense for him being a bad run defender was that he started 14 games on a team that was bad against the run?
Where did I say anything implying he was the one bad run defender?

As is typical of a person who will do anything he can to defend himself despite how foolish he's made himself look, you'll grasp at any straw you possibly can to defend your irrational opinion.

Yes, I totally agree.
You tell me which is grasping at an irrational straw?
Why would he start 14 games one season out of 6 if he was a bad run defender?
or
That's not really much proof because the team he started on was terrible against the run.

I think you just slammed yourself. :bricks:

What you've forgotten, Andy, is that I arm myself in advance to ensure that I can hold the position I take.

Your joking right?
You are the guy who leads the board in uninformed posts. No offense, but you lead the board in throwing out opinions that are uninformed, and ultimatley wrong. I thought you knew that.

 

[DaBruinz]

He is bad against the run. Starting 14 times isnt proof of good run D skills.

Please show me actual assessments that say he's bad against the run? Not some half-assed BS statement that you made that isn't actually supported by fact.

Oh wait. No one has been able to do that yet. I've asked each person who has mentioned it and they've offered up nothing.

 

[Ring 6]

And you know his entire skillset based on what? If he was so one dimensional and 'lacking skill' then why were Aaron Schobel and Connor Barwin unable to beat out Anderson as the Texans DE in 2010?

Because you made it up? Aaron Schobel retired. Connor Barwin was injured, and Anderson still only started 2 games, arriving AFTER BOTH WERE GONE.

Mark Anderson was probably the best pass rushing DE the Texans had by the end of the year and he wasn’t anything special. Could the Texans have used Aaron Schobel this year? Yes, probably so. My guess is that he would have gotten himself in shape and made a difference with the pass rush, but we’ll never know. Similarly, people who just assume Connor Barwin was going to take off and have a huge year are only guessing. We’ll never know on that front either.

Assesing the Texans defense for 2010 and who fits for 2011 | The Z Report | a Chron.com blog

So you do know that Barwin was injued after 1 game and schobel retired yet you make the statement you did above?

Great, and how many games of Mark Anderson's did you watch at the college level, with the Bears, with the Texans?

Enough to have an opinion.

Typical red herring. I've never called Ochocinco a deep threat Randy Moss type, and I called Ocho to the Pats weeks before BB made the move. You just picked the worst example to make your point which so far is not based on any substantial facts or convincing observations thus far.

Its not a red herring, it is a parellel example, and very similar in fact.

Your argument was how can anyone know Anderson wont play Vrabels role since he hasn't played here yet.

Bottom line, we don't know what we have in Anderson yet.

He has a track record and skillset. He wasn't invented today.

And if BB chose to sign him instead of Raheem Brock and Matt Roth, there's probably some potential that he likes that he thinks he can use to improve this defense.

We do not know he chose him over Roth and Brock. We know Anderson chose the contract we were willng to offer, Brock didnt and Roth has yet to decide.
It is proof that he is one of the best 90 players we can have on our roster. More than that is up to BB to tell us next month.
I think he is competing for a role as a sub package pass rusher. That would be a very good reason to sign him and see if he can beat out the other guys competing for the role.

Your speculation on Anderson's abilities or inabilities to play roles on this defense have zero basis in actual scientific test conditions.

I was giving my opinoin, not trying to testify in the Scopes Monkeys Trial.
Are you saying your opinion has been scientifically tested?

The Bears 4-3 and the Texans transitioning 4-3/3-4 are in no way shape or form similar to what the Pats run.

But he is a football player. It is not hard to see his skillset, know the Patriots system and have a good idea where he would fit.

The assumption that no player can improve over time in the right system is also a fallacy that I do not choose to agree with at this time.

The assumption that a player will show up here and magically develop skills he hasn't shown in a 6 year career is ludicrous.
But I'll play along. Can we discuss Murrell as our new double digit sack guy? Lockett as the next Rodney Harrison? Carter as Willie McGinest?
Perhaps Mallet will beat out Brady. We have no idea how much he will improve with a camp in NE. Your argument is silly.

Vrabel and Bruschi are proofs to the contrary. Bruschi's skillset coming out of college in Arizona was as a 'one trick passrusher'.

That is COMPLETELY wrong. He had a lot of sacks in college. You simply made up that he was considered only a pass rusher.
Vrabel developed into what many expected he would if he got into a system that used him right. You seem to think no one knew Vrabel had NFL ability. You are wrong.

He became so much more in the Pats system given the time to acclimate and given a coach who believed in him and utilized him to the fullest. I can't predict with any certainty what we have in Anderson at this point, but NEITHER CAN YOU.

You are talking about him like he is a draft pick changing positions.
Of course we can know what Anderson brings to the table, we've seen 6 years of it.
Watch. I predict he will be pretty much the same player he has been for 6 years.
You predict the player he will be has no relation to the player he has been for 6 years of an NFL career, and apparently would randomly guess.
Which one is more likely to be right?

 

[Ring 6]

Please show me actual assessments that say he's bad against the run? Not some half-assed BS statement that you made that isn't actually supported by fact.

Oh wait. No one has been able to do that yet. I've asked each person who has mentioned it and they've offered up nothing.

He is weak against the run because:
1) I have seen him play and seen him struggle against the run
2) During his career he has almost only been on the field in pass rushing situations. His coaches not putting him on the field to defend the run tells me something
3) When he has been FORCED to play full time his teams have not done real well. Not proof its his fault but another piece that leads to the same conclusion.

What are you looking for?
Hey, how about you hold yourself to your own standard and show me all the proof that he is a good run defender?

 

[Ring 6]

Mark - you can agree with Andy all you want, but that doesn't make his argument any less irrational.

What exactly is irrational about my argument? Other than you don't like it/?

As I just pointed out, there were numerous differences between the Bears defense in 2006, 2007, and 2008. So, to just sit there and point to the Run defense and blame the entire thing on Anderson is BS.

That isn't my argument.
YOUR argument was that he started 14 games in 2007 so how could be possibly be a bad run defender. One, among all the different levels of that being irrational, is that the Bear defense, good vs the run the year before and after, was bad vs the run that year.
The way they played run defense is a better tool in assessing him than 'they started him 14 times, he must be good agaisnt the run'

Now, That being said, I am NOT saying that Anderson is going to be a savior. I am saying that he's got potential. And that he's closer to Mike Vrabel than to Derrick Burgess, imho.

You think that Anderson is closer to a guy who will play every snap, be one of the most versatile players on the team, and be good at every duty he is assigned on the field than to a guy who will be a situational pass rusher. (You know, like he has been his entire career)
You are calling my argument irrational?

 

[DaBruinz]

Oh I just cant wait to read what you think I need to do.


Yeah, you basically did, if you consider the context of my post that you responded to.

That is a bold faced lie on your part. I know what I wrote. You clearly have issues with sticking to what was said and not what you think was said.

I am quite confident that my assessment of Mark Anderson is based upon an equal or greater level of knowledge of his ability that yours. Of course, I decided to not base my opinion on draft reports from 2005.

I can say, with certainty, that you are 100% lying to yourself and everyone else regarding Mark Anderson and your supposed ability of assessing skills.

BTW, if you knew a damn thing, I liked him PRIOR to when he was drafted in 2006 (which was also the date on the draft reports mentioned) because I actually watched him play. Saw 20 something games of his between his Sophomore and Senior years. How many did you actually watch?

Yeah, you exactly did.

No, Andy. I didn't. This is you and your lack of reading comprehension. Sorry, but you can't even find a single post where I stated that you were basing your comments off of others speculations. I said YOU were a fan and it was YOUR speculation.

Do you know how to have a discussion without making dooochbag comments?

I have plenty of discussions with intelligent people who actually act and think rationally. You aren't one of those people in this case. Also, that comment wasn't a "dooochbag" comment. It was me re-emphasizing that you made an assumption about what was said.

Are you 3? Anyone posting in this thread is giving their opinion and speculating. Did you really think that I was posting as if this were breaking news communicated to me by BB?

*Woooosh* That was the sound of the airplane flying right over your head, Andy. You clearly missed the point. Again, instead of reading what was said, you made some half-baked assumptions. YOU are the one who is claiming that your speculations are more right than anyone else. You are the one acting like YOU know more about Mark Anderson than anyone else. And YOU were the one stating as a FACT (not an opinion) that Mark Anderson was just another Derrick Burgess.

Nothing you posted is in the area code of reality.

Sorry, but everything I posted is reality. Unlike your spewings.

 

[patchick]

Please show me actual assessments that say he's bad against the run? Not some half-assed BS statement that you made that isn't actually supported by fact.

Oh wait. No one has been able to do that yet. I've asked each person who has mentioned it and they've offered up nothing.

OK, I'll bite...

Greg Bedard:

Anderson is strictly a pass-rushing end at this point. With the ascension of Israel Idonije last season with the Bears, Anderson became expendable. He's very active and can get after the quarterback. He can't defend the run at all anymore. Tight ends cover him up with ease.

Patriots sign DE Anderson, release Favorite - Extra Points - Boston.com

Andy Hart:

He’s known as a guy with limited abilities against the run.

Official Patriots Football Weekly Blog | From the Hart: Friday afternoon practice notes

ESPN Chicago Bears Blog, 2010:

He was elevated to first string in 2007, but was unable to effectively play both the pass and run, and eventually lost to starting position back to Brown.

And a stat typical of a pass-rush specialist: In 77 career games, including 20 starts, Anderson has averaged just 1.4 non-sack tackles per game.

So let's turn it around. Why do you think Anderson can stop the run?

 

[DaBruinz]

Don't you have those answers? YOU were the one who posted that him starting 14 games that year was your proof he was a good run defender.
I just happened to post there wasn't much good run defense going on there, so you might have it backwards.

It's amazing how you take something you see and outright LIE in an attempt to make yourself look smart. No where did I say that Anderson starting 14 games was "proof" that he was good against the run. I said it was proof he wasn't BAD. You clearly don't understand that there is something else other than good or bad.

I'm sure Hesters KR average was the reason the Bears run defense stunk, not the guys defending the run.

I love how you purposely move things around so they can be taken out of context. If you watched ANY of the Bears games you know guys like Harris and Vasher were out there on kick returns the year before. You'd also know that it put the defense in bad positions when the offense turned the ball over on early downs.

But I thought him starting those 14 games was your proof he was a good run defender?

Sorry. But that was your flawed interpretation of what I stated.

Apparently this is an attempt to call me stupid?
Would an intelligent person state that the defense for him being a bad run defender was that he started 14 games on a team that was bad against the run?
Where did I say anything implying he was the one bad run defender?

No. It wasn't an attempt to call you stupid. If I thought you were stupid, I'd tell it to you. You should know that by now.

BTW, the second part of your blathering makes no sense what so ever.

Yes, I totally agree.
You tell me which is grasping at an irrational straw?
Why would he start 14 games one season out of 6 if he was a bad run defender?
or
That's not really much proof because the team he started on was terrible against the run.

I think you just slammed yourself. :bricks:

No. I didn't slam myself. And here's why.
1) Anderson's only played in 5 seasons.
2) There is such a thing as not being bad, yet other players being better.
3) There is plenty of proof if you actually had watched Anderson at all. Clearly, you haven't.

Your joking right?
You are the guy who leads the board in uninformed posts. No offense, but you lead the board in throwing out opinions that are uninformed, and ultimatley wrong. I thought you knew that.

Says the guy who has out-right lied in this thread and purposely ignored relevant facts because they blew up his argument ..

BTW, Great attempt at back-pedaling, Andy. First you claim that Anderson is bad against the run. Then you claim there isn't enough information because the one time he started, the team was bad against the run. Hell, you even discount the fact that he won the starting job until his injury.