The dreaded "source": Spikes and Pats ain't sayin' **** to each other

[supafly]

Jones would be moved to LOLB in the 3-4. He'd be the equivalent of McGinest playing the Elephant, but on the weak side.

Did you possibly mean the other side, by chance?

I don't normally equate the weak side to LOLB.

It's possible that you simply mistyped, unless I mistook what you were getting at.

 

[RayClay]

The Pats have Tommy Kelly and Chris Jones who can play 3-tech effectively, though Jones is a better pass rusher than run stopper.

They would only need to add ONE vet 3-4 DE. The Pats have 1 guy they really like on the team in Armond Armstead but he's a question mark until he can prove healthy.

They would be the best currently, but i wouldn't want to play 3-4 base with those two. Adequate as an occasional look only IMO. It's no coincidence the Pats spent 3 #1s on the position when they played it as base.

 

[Deus Irae]

And you're pretending to know what our team would do. I'm referring to what they have done in the past, and usually, how they use a player is symbolic of how they view a player fits into a specific role.

Perhaps they were played out of their best fit out of need, perhaps its simply how BB views the player. Spikes, Mayo, and Fletcher all had success playing the MLB role in a 3-4 and would probably resume their roles if we went back to that scheme.

Pretending? I'm looking at the history of the team, remembering the discussions, from players and coaches, and pointing things out. You've got the wrong 3-4 positional makeup in your mind. That's your problem, not mine.

 

[supafly]

They would be the best currently, but i wouldn't want to play 3-4 base with those two. Adequate as an occasional look only IMO. It's no coincidence the Pats spent 3 #1s on the position when they played it as base.

I still think we have to hold our breaths and hope for the best when it comes to Tommy Kelly staying here.

A torn ACL occurring somewhere between mid-Oct and mid-Nov (we're not exactly sure when but common sense would point towards the latter of those 2) doesn't come close to guaranteeing any kind of training camp participation or even mean that he won't be PUP'ed.

I suppose it all depends on how Belichick and the trainers feel he's coming along, as well as Wilfork, but I doubt they'll be waiting around on them instead of making the necessary moves. They are both 2 fairly serious injuries for guys that size and age, at a position that's arguably been in need for awhile now.

 

[Deus Irae]

"head on tackling" is not what I think of when I think of "setting the edge". It's about standing up the blocker and being able to make plays off him, preventing the runner from getting outside you.

Collins has good length, athleticism to bend the edge and can drop back in coverage. That's what I look for from a 3-4 OLB.

Until he learns to get more lead in his ass on plays designed to come right at him, Collins is Phifer as the Ted Johnson sub in the Patriots system. That's ILB, not OLB.

 

[supafly]

Until he learns to get more lead in his ass on plays designed to come right at him, Collins is Phifer as the Ted Johnson sub in the Patriots system. That's ILB, not OLB.

You know it's not good when there are so many different opinions on the best use of our LB corps (an optimist would point to the versatility )

Not that I'm attempting to dispute your thoughts on Collins, just that I've seen so many different opinions on where they should all play.

 

[RayClay]

I still think we have to hold our breaths and hope for the best when it comes to Tommy Kelly staying here.

A torn ACL occurring somewhere between mid-Oct and mid-Nov (we're not exactly sure when but common sense would point towards the latter of those 2) doesn't come close to guaranteeing any kind of training camp participation or even mean that he won't be PUP'ed.

I suppose it all depends on how Belichick and the trainers feel he's coming along, as well as Wilfork, but I doubt they'll be waiting around on them instead of making the necessary moves. They are both 2 fairly serious injuries for guys that size and age, at a position that's arguably been in need for awhile now.

I was responding to DaBruinz, who was responding to me saying we don't have good enough 3-4 DEs. In other words, one of those hypothetical arguments.

I think any chance of getting impact DTs for the future must be taken, because they're hard and expensive to find, usually and Wilfork, Kelly or not next year, we'll need 2 fairly soon because of their age.

I'd love to get Hageman, but would jump at the chance to get another, like the Broncs did with Knighton. At positions of value, get a player anyway you can, then let the rest sort itself out. Hageman is very raw and not real mature I think. He would benefit from playing with the vets.

Speaking of great 3-4 ends, Hageman is a less polished Seymour in terms of physicality.

 

[manxman2601]

Until he learns to get more lead in his ass on plays designed to come right at him, Collins is Phifer as the Ted Johnson sub in the Patriots system. That's ILB, not OLB.

Well he can be that and he can be a WOLB too. And as Supa say's, I have no problem with that kind of versatility.

 

[Deus Irae]

You know it's not good when there are so many different opinions on the best use of our LB corps (an optimist would point to the versatility )

Not that I'm attempting to dispute your thoughts on Collins, just that I've seen so many different opinions on where they should all play.

True, but I wasn't the one trying to claim something as 'optimal', or claiming that only Collins is built to play outside. I specifically began by noting that I wasn't trying to overthink this, only to have people start trying to overthink it.

 

[supafly]

I was responding to DaBruinz, who was responding to me saying we don't have good enough 3-4 DEs. In other words, one of those hypothetical arguments.

I think any chance of getting impact DTs for the future must be taken, because they're hard and expensive to find, usually and Wilfork, Kelly or not next year, we'll need 2 fairly soon because of their age.

I'd love to get Hageman, but would jump at the chance to get another, like the Broncs did with Knighton. At positions of value, get a player anyway you can, then let the rest sort itself out. Hageman is very raw and not real mature I think. He would benefit from playing with the vets.

Speaking of great 3-4 ends, Hageman is a less polished Seymour in terms of physicality.

Apologies for nosing in between your conversation then. I was just giving my thoughts on the prospects of keeping Kelly. It seems as though many feel that it's pretty close to a done deal, but I'm not as sure and feel as though it's very much still 50/50.

In terms of Hageman being a less polished Seymour, I'd gladly take 75-80% of Seymour, although I'm not sure about the change in schemes in terms of the comparison. One could probably safely assume that having a guy like Seymour would still go an awful long way today as well. That's one player that I did not like leaving, and one that is probably still felt today in terms of loss.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well he can be that and he can be a WOLB too. And as Supa say's, I have no problem with that kind of versatility.

He can't* play OLB in the Patriots system, until he learns how to tackle an opponent coming at him.














*Can't, in this context, refers specifically to the type of player the Patriots have historically used as 3-4 OLBs since BB's arrival as coach. A more precise phrasing would be that he won't fit the bill of what the Patriots 3-4 OLB is typically supposed to be until he learns how to tackle from in front instead of behind. It is not intended to imply any lack of permission on my part (since that doesn't matter) or any inability to adapt on the part of BB or the coaching staff.

 

[supafly]

True, but I wasn't the one trying to claim something as 'optimal', or claiming that only Collins is built to play outside. I specifically began by noting that I wasn't trying to overthink this, only to have people start trying to overthink it.

For the record, my comment wasn't really directed at you personally. Like I said, I don't really dispute your analysis on Collins.

It was more general as it pertains to hearing so many different opinions on where our LBs are best suited to play. I can't tell if it's a good thing or a bad thing that no one is certain where these guys are best suited to line up

 

[RayClay]

Apologies for nosing in between your conversation then. I was just giving my thoughts on the prospects of keeping Kelly. It seems as though many feel that it's pretty close to a done deal, but I'm not as sure and feel as though it's very much still 50/50.

In terms of Hageman being a less polished Seymour, I'd gladly take 75-80% of Seymour, although I'm not sure about the change in schemes in terms of the comparison. One could probably safely assume that having a guy like Seymour would still go an awful long way today as well. That's one player that I did not like leaving, and one that is probably still felt today in terms of loss.

Hageman will play tackle, but he is ideal body at DE if they want to switch play to play, as they have in the past. He's unusual in that he's played all along the line, including nose, but is a switch from TE and not really bright compared to guys like Seymour and Wilfork. He's a project, but seems to work hard when the goal is laid out for him.

Very interesting life story, it makes people wonder (wish I remembered where i read it).

My bad, I thought I was in the DT thread. Somebody mentioned LBs for the 3-4 so I mentioned lack of DEs.

Anyway, great article. This kids really seen some hard times, but followed role models when he got lucky.

http://www.sbnation.com/longform/2013/11/13/5097150/rashede-hageman-profile-minnesota-football