Return of the Big Nickel?

[Fencer]

Reasons to think the Big Nickel might return:

• The Pats now have multi-year investments in three safeties.
• The Pats didn't do much to beef up depth among LBs who are good at covering passes.
• To put it another way, The Pats only have 3 LBs who would be generally characterized as both playable and fast (Thomas, Mayo, Guyton). If they want speed at all positions behind a 3-man DL, some kind of nickel is needed.
• Tank Williams' role is essentially to play in a big nickel, unless it's for 8-in-the-box situations, and it doesn't seem like the latter will arise that much in today's NFL (short-yardage/red zone sub packages perhaps excepted).
• BB has always liked playing a lot of DBs.

 

[mgteich]

1) In the regular nickel, we have three corners on the field.
2) When we played the big nickel before we subsituted one of the safeties for a corner.
3) If one of the safeties is subsitituted for a linebacker, I would call that a dime formation.

I would NOT have less than 3 corners on the field in a passing situation, unless you are suggesting that we don't hae third CB capabale of playing the nickel.

 

[PushnPencils]

Ahhh ...the big nickel.

Visions of Ray Mickens getting burnt to a crisp in 2002.

 

[Fencer]

2) When we played the big nickel before we subsituted one of the safeties for a corner.

Are you suggesting we only played the big nickel before when the oppenent showed 3 WRs?

 

[cstjohn17]

We may see it in some cases against a pass happy team like Indy, but the reality is that all the teams in the division are run first teams. The front seven fundamentals are going to be critical.

 

[mgteich]

I think that we are using Big Nickel to mean anytime a 3rd safety is on the field.

If we mean should we occasionally play a 3rd safety near the line instead of having three ILB's to help against the run, then I would think that I would rather have a LB.

I guess my question is the problem that we are trying to solve.

OPTION ONE
Our corners aren't good enough for nickel coverages. For me, our corners are good enough to be the nickel and the dime back.

OPTION TWO
Our LB's are so poor in courage that we'd rather have a 3rd safety playing near the line instead of one of the linebackers.
=========
Aren't our base defenses the 3-4-4 (rushing situations) and 4-2-5 or 3-3-5 (pass situations)?

QUESTION ONE
Is the safety the sixth defensive back (otherwise I'd rather have three corners)?

QUESTION TWO
Who else in on the field in addition to the 3 corners and 3 safeties?

QUESTION THREE
Who are we kidding? A couple of months ago (and even a week ago for some), our secondary was our weakness. Now we think we should have six defensive backs on the field.

Are you suggesting we only played the big nickel before when the oppenent showed 3 WRs?