Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by slash83, Mar 21, 2008.
Fact: Adam Schefter predicted the birth of his own father.
Wow. He does not write as well as he speaks.
I have to disagree with Schefter's assessment. To be successful with the 3-4, talented CBs are a must. The 3-4 has less overall speed, and the Cbs' coverage abilities must be better to compensate.
The Pats can get by for a year without an elite cb, but to maintain a high level of D they will need to upgrade speed elsewhere: faster pass rush, better coverage from the ILBs, better safety play.
It's really the 4-3 tampa 2 where cb play is dime a dozen.
Not necessarily. See: New England Patriots, 2004 version of.
We don't need spectacular talent, we need smart CB's. I think Bryant fills a gap for 1 year.
Probably lack of sleep, but this made me giggle.
Asante Samuel is a top 3 cb in the NFL. He was on the SI all-pro team as a rookie. He just received the most guaranteed money ever for a cb. Randall Gay just signed for 20 million dollars. His play was very solid in 2004 before injuries derailed him in '05 and '06. Just because they had yet to establish their reputations in 2004 doesn't mean they lacked quality. Compare them to the turds the Colts have been rolling out for years (prior to 2007).
He actually sent his grandfather back in time to have sex with his grandmother and impregnate her. So I wouldn't be too impresed by that prediction.
I'm not sure what qualifies Schefter to be an "expert" - In fact he's just another NFL employee is has the responsibilities of Rumor/News. I love the way they play up his "connections" when the reality is that the NFL needs to push their product, the NFL Network, so there is an agreement amongst teams/owners/Players/agents when it comes to news to break it on the NFL channel - and Schefter is but the Tool that filled out the application for the job to the approval of his hiring supervisor.
And he's a freakin' Broncos fan.
Funny stuff. Anyway, I'll take it.
Asante Samuel, prior to the 2006 season, was considered an average CB in the league. His performance during the Super Bowl years wasn't any better or worse than Fernando Bryant's during his time with Jacksonville. The last two years, he's really picked up his play but if you read the scouting reports on Samuel and Bryant, they sound very similar. Quick to the ball, good instincts, gambler type CBs. Neither guy is a shutdown corner. I'll readily admit that I'd rather have Samuel, he's a better player. But the dropoff isn't as huge as you'd think in this kind of system.
Randall Gay isn't a starting CB in the NFL. He's a nice nickelback but he's really nothing special. Most scouts in the league think the same.
You are so right. He's spoon-fed everything he reports but is propped up to appear as a "journalist" beating the bushes for inside information. Anyone with the ability to speak on camera could do what he does.
I'll give it to him that he has covered Football for a while, but I can't stand the way they try and pass him off as some super connected insider. Let's see him try and call Scot P. - I'd love to hear that conversation.
By you he was considered an average cb. By SI, he was considered an all-pro nickle cb as a rookie, a very rare distinction. IMO you undervalue Gay's performance in 2004 and 2007. IMO he is a starting cb in the NFL. His porblem has been durability not ability. And anyway, even if you mistakenly undervalue Samuel and Gay in 2004, that means little when evaluating the importance of Cbs in the 3-4 scheme the Pats play. CBs are very important in the 3-4 due to a lack of team speed elsewhere. Coverage and tackling ability are at a premium. Schefter's statement that the Pats can "get by" with JAGs is wrongheaded.
The only reason I give Schefter a look is because I know he's got "first dibbs" on any information coming out of NFL offices. I cringe when I read his "analysis". It's chock full of common sense delivered like it was insight. He needs to suck it up, accept that he's the NFL's mouthpiece bi-otch and stop masquerading as a journalist.
LOL! Made my day when I have to work whereas many have a holiday.
Actually prior to halfway into the 06 season...early in 06..he was still just that..an average corner..he stepped it up to a LARGE degree and had a GREAT last half of the season...enough to warrant a franchise tag. Before that, it was hardly the case. I agree on Gay as well...way way overpaid...but good for him. The MORE teams do dumb things, the better for the smarter teams.
So I guess Samuel's performance as a rookie, the fact he was the best cb on the Pats 2004 SB champion team, that he had 18 passes defensed in his 3rd season including a pick six in the playoffs, and another INT vs Denver, were easily overlooked. And if Gay was so marginal, why did the Pats tender him at 2nd rd level in '07, and pay him $1.4 million, despite not having played for 2 years due to injury? Was it because they devalued him? The Gay signing by NO IMO was one of the best of free agency. In that scheme he'll start and excel, provided he stays healthy.
By SI, you mean Dr. Z? Forgive me if I'm less than impressed. Don't forget that the Patriots scheme turned Ty Poole into a borderline Pro Bowler in the '03 season and Poole was a pretty average CB too.
I stopped here. Law and Poole were on IR. To say that that he was the best CB on the '04 roster ain't saying much. Samuel played just well enough to get by that year. The fact is, that the front 7 CARRIED the defense that year.
Dr. Z charts every player on his all-pro teams over the course of at least 8-10 games. He was the first to identify Mankins as the best OG in the NFL, in 2006. He was the one who identified Seymour's declining play before it became fashionable.
Samuel coverage ability stood out as a rookie, and his subsequent career path validates Dr. Z's early opinion. You shouldn't dismiss his evaluations of NFL players so flippantly.
I guess you forget the vicious tone setting hit he put on Stokely in the Colt playoff game. Or the 4 passes defensed in the AFCCG vs Pitt. Or the solid coverage he had on TO for much of the SB. Samuel's ball skills improved over time. His coverage ability has always been excellent. Your opinion on Samuel's "sudden emergence in 2006" is pretty common, but no less wrong.
You see I disagree with you about CB talent. Belichick's defense has always been about the front seven even back to the Giants days. Do you even remember the CBs in the Giants defense? I mean do guys like Everson Walls or Perry Williams even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as guys like Lawrence Taylor, Leonard Marshall, Pepper Johnson, Carl Banks, or Harry Carson?
Belichick has never relied on speed with his defense. He is all about smart play, deception, and players knowing their roles and not deviating from that. Ty Law was never a burner, neither was Otis Smith or Tyrone Poole. Our front seven definitely were fast during the time two of those three were helping us to win Super Bowls.
The Pats have used a Cover 3 for the last few years and a Cover 2 in the past. I think Belichick has abandoned even the press coverage as a primary form of coverage since the 5 yard chuck rule has been enforced so frequently. As long as the Pats continue to use zone coverage, I don't know if speed is all that important. Besides, Ellis Hobbs is one of the faster CBs out there.
Okay, then explain winning a SB with Hank Poteat, Omare Lowe and Earthwind Moreland.
I never said the 3-4 cbs have to be "fast". I said their coverage and tackling ability has to be comparatively better than that of most 4-3 cbs to compensate for the lack of speed elsewhere in the 3-4 D. CB Coverage ability does not = speed. Far from it, so we agree.
My memory escapes me. Which of those players started in the SB?
I agree with you somewhat but really all schemes require good players. If a defense is dominant in one area (pass rush) the other units are improved.
The lack of speed at LB hand-cuffed the Patriots, Safeties had to help the CBs deep and assist the ederly cover TEs in the middle of the field.
It looks like the Pats are piecing together the secondary and will focus on the LBs in the draft. Overall I am ok with the offseason moves so far, you could argue that the LBs would be in better shape if Seward, Haggans or Hobson were brought it but imagine this scenario.
Round 1 - Gholston (or Long or Harvey or Groves) is drafted in round 1
Round 2 - Someone is drafted in round 2, maybe an OT
Round 3a - jackson (LSU) (or Thomas, Porter, Lowery, etc.)
Round 3b - Keglar (or Bell or Goff , etc.)
You end up with Lbs that something look like
ROLB - Thomas, Gholston
RILB - Seward, Alexander
LILB - Bruschi, Keglar, Izzo
LOLB - Vrabel, Woods
CBs- Hobbs, Jackson, Bryant, Lewis, L. Sanders, Richardson
S - Harrison, Sanders, Merriweather, Williams, Andrews
The units would be solid, younger and faster.
I don't agree with that at all. I think alll we need is decent coverage from the CBs as long as our front seven does its job. It is all about the front seven. Always has been and probably always will be. Personally, I think the safety position is a more important position in Belichick's system than the CB.
I can't see Chevis Jackson starting at CB for us. He looks at best 4th on the depth chart to me. The only draftee listed that I could see starting would be Porter, but doubt he will be available at 62, let alone 69. I think we'll be using a 2009 3rd rounder to move that second rounder up a bit. (We should receive a #3or4 compensatory next year.)
That was my bad Jackson should slide down behind Bryant and some of the other veterans. At least to start the year. With Merriweather getting some reps as well.
The bigger point is that if you are looking for star power in the secondary you are going to be very disappointed.
Separate names with a comma.