The Evolution of the "Belichick Defense"

[PatsSox363804]

I think they actually did. Remember Brady against the Bills in week 1 of the 2009 season?

Yeah I tend to agree although the Broncos will once again have the advantage of Clark not being in there. I'm expecting to see the PI flags fly if Manning is down late in that game.

 

[Reckedtrek]

Yeah I tend to agree although the Broncos will once again have the advantage of Clark not being in there. I'm expecting to see the PI flags fly if Manning is down late in that game.

That's like "expecting" the sun to set and for it to get dark out tonight.

It's Peyton Manning in Lucas films "Return of the Head-i"

 

[mayoclinic]

Time for a bump of this thread. Mo has started a nice thread on the evolution of the aerial offense, and how defenses need to adjust:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england...league-explaining-nfls-aerial-evolution.html

This thread begs the question of how to evolve a modern defense to combat the multi-weapon aerial offense of the NFL, including the spread offense, RBs and TEs who can be used in the passing game, and rules which favor offensive production. Greg Cossell has discussed the "chess match" between offense and defense in some detail:

Cosell Talks: The Evolving Chess Match : NFL Films Blog

Cosell notes:

In the summer of 2012, here’s where we stand: more shotgun spread formations; coaches looking for versatile receiving tight ends who can align anywhere in the formation and backs who can run a wider array of routes at the intermediate and vertical levels of the defense. The teams that feature those athletes are very difficult to defend out of the conventional nickel sub package. ... Here’s the reality of the NFL with the 2012 season right around the corner: It’s much more of a spread game than it’s ever been. There are always exceptions, but defensively, if you expect to beat the top passing games, you must be able to stop shotgun offenses with five receivers that can align at any position. That’s the next frontier. As the NFL continues to evolve, it is increasingly evident that the game is played far more in open space than it is in the trenches. For old-school defensive coaches, that’s not easy to accept, but they must — or they will struggle to match up in this era of spread passing.

BB is the ultimate adapter, and though he's Old School he clearly has recognized - and, from an offensive perspective, led the way - on how the NFL is evolving. He's been tinkering with the defense on both scheme and personnel for the past 2 years, evolving it to deal with the kind of problems Cosell describes.

For another interesting and provocative perspective on building a defense (the "Bartlett Defense", as the author calls it) from scratch to address today's aerial offenses, the following series of articles is worth reading in their entirety:

The Bartlett Defense is going to solve a specific problem, which is THE problem in defensive football today. That is that offenses are able to dictate to defenses through the use of sub packages and variations in alignment, and they can resultingly get the defense into bad matchups. My new concept is going to begin by solving that problem, and the foundation to how it will do that is with a completely new approach to defensive personnel groupings and alignment. That’s going to be Part 1.

The rest of the series will lay out as follows:

Part 2: Principles for 100% defensive soundness
Part 3: Reads and thought processes
Part 4: Running game principles
Part 5: Base pass calls
Part 6: Blitz calls
Part 7: Adjustment principles

The Bartlett Defense: Part 1 - Personnel and alignment - It's All Over, Fat Man!
The Bartlett Defense: Part 2 - Principles for 100% soundness - It's All Over, Fat Man!
The Bartlett Defense: Part 2.5 - Responding to an excellent comment - It's All Over, Fat Man!

That's as far as the author has gotten so far - more to come shortly, I expect. No, I don't think the series was written by Off the Grid - though it could have been, as it is extremely creative and innovative and uses its own terminology. But the approach is mainly influenced by Bill Belichick and Pete Carroll, and it has clear elements of the Belichick Defense as it appears to be evolving. The author notes:

The offense is going to decide how many WRs to put in the game, and it forces a traditional defense to send in a corresponding number of CBs. In almost all cases, the extra WRs are better than the extra CBs, just because CBs are harder to find than WRs. Complicating matters, if a team has more than one good TE, like the Patriots do, a defense is forced to choose whether to adjust its personnel to Nickel or stay in Base when confronted with 12 or 22 Personnel. Neither choice is a good one. My answer to this problem is to rethink defensive personnel groupings and archetypes from the ground up.

The author's approach is to build a base defense with 5 DBs: 2 safeties and 3 CBs. It appears closest in form to a 4-2-5 base with positional variability, something that we've discussed many times before, and with the LBs being able to cover and the safeties being able to function as LBs, something else that's been discussed before:

We have an every-snap eight-man front, with three very large front players, one medium-sized DE, two small/fast LBs, and two physical Safeties. The key is the two matchup safeties, who are going to serve the dual roles of linebackers and defensive backs. ... We’re saying that having a specifically assigned Sam LB in a 3-4, or a Mike LB in a 4-3, or a Strong Safety in any scheme isn’t necessary. We want some specific traits, like tackling ability from all 11 players, effort, ball skills, toughness, and intelligence. We also want endurance and durability, because we’re not planning on substituting situationally much based on offensive groupings.

Since our Base group has five DB, it’s good against most offensive personnel groupings. We’re not worried against two good TEs, whether the offense runs or passes, and we feel fine about covering three WR as well, with either man or zone concepts. When the offense goes to four or five WR, we simply replace one of the LBs with the Eddie CB. When we’re pretty sure there’ll be a pass play, we bring in the Jack for the Chuck, and maybe move the Chuck down to replace the Nate inside. That’s the whole substitution pattern, beyond occasionally subbing for a tired player.

Again, what's most interesting about this discussion to me is that it borrows heavily from the author's interpretation of the Belichick Defense, including ocncepts from the Grantland article with the fusion of 2-gap and 1-gap elements. It describes a defense in which the personnel and the scheme are versatile and adaptable enough to morph between different formations (semi-amoeboid in nature) and shift assignments based on the offensive personnel, tendencies and formation, with little substitution. Regardless of what you think of the author's proposals, his analysis clearly captures some of the ideas that BB has been tinkering with, and problems that a re-designed Pats' defense (or any other defense) has to address in today's NFL. It's also instructive to compare the recent offseason personnel moves on defense and how key players fit the roles which the author identifies as key for this type of defense.

 

[mayoclinic]

More good stuff from ESPN's Kevin Seifert on how defenses must evolve to combat the modern aerial passing offense:

It appears NFL teams are shifting their defensive priorities to compensate. Pass rush now dwarfs coverage in terms of importance, but teams are emphasizing coverage skills at supplementary positions more than ever, especially at linebacker and safety, in the draft. "We can have all the DBs we want," said Houston Texans coach Gary Kubiak, "but if we can't make the quarterback get rid of the ball, it doesn't matter. So [it] starts with pass rush all the time."

Elite pass-rushers are among the NFL's rarest commodities, leaving many teams to devise elaborate blitz packages to compensate. "Defenses have to find a way to get pressure on the quarterback with only four pass-rushers," an NFC executive said. "If you're sending linebackers or defensive backs as blitzers, you're going to get torn apart."

That's true especially when facing elite or near-elite quarterbacks who understand the vulnerabilities of various blitz packages. So what's the answer? For obvious reasons, coaches were loath to discuss schematic solutions, but Kansas City coach Romeo Crennel added some context for how a successful 2012 pass-first defense could be deployed.

A competitive defense in this era, Crennel said, must employ above-average coverage skills at most, if not all, of the seven of the linebacker/defensive back positions. They must work in tandem with a pass rush that doesn't need more than five players to put pressure on opposing quarterbacks.

"You have to be able to cover," Crennel said. "You’ve got to have guys that can cover. So you're looking at corners that can cover, linebackers that can cover and even safeties that can cover. And not only zone safeties but safeties that can go man-to-man. Because you have to be able to mix man in there. So I think that’s the biggest thing, particularly the linebackers, because in the formations the linebackers are going to have to walk out and cover a tight end or a back that's out of the backfield, and if they can’t move and they can't cover, offensively they find that matchup they like right now and they go right at it. … So I think you see defenses transitioning from being those run-stopping defenses where you put eight guys in the box to spreading things out, matchups, doubling more receivers, and then those linebackers have to be able to cover. Because if they can't cover, they're going to get isolated."

Therein lies another problem. How many NFL linebackers can be counted on to cover receivers or even the newest generation of tight ends? There aren't enough to go around, that's for sure. In the end, a handful of teams could assemble enough players with coverage skills and match it with an active pass rush to give quarterbacks more fits than most opponents.

Counters to NFL passing games? Elusive - NFC North Blog - ESPN

BB has passed on LBs with coverage skills such as Sean Lee (2010) and Lavonte David (2012) in favor of bigger, more physical LBs like Brandon Spikes and Dont'a Hightower. I hope that doesn't come back to haunt us.

 

[Dingleberry]

I really wish Belichik's Defense would hurry the f up and evolve into something good. Ya know, before Brady is 40?

 

[mayoclinic]

I really wish Belichik's Defense would hurry the f up and evolve into something good. Ya know, before Brady is 40?

To quote Mo, patience, grasshopper. But I personally don't think you'll have long to wait.

 

[Deus Irae]

I really wish Belichik's Defense would hurry the f up and evolve into something good. Ya know, before Brady is 40?

A lot of this stuff is just talk and guesswork. Some of it probably will happen, and some of it probably won't. The best defense in football is generally in Pittsburgh, and that's not one that's making all sorts of change. The Patriots defense will be better when the Patriots defensive personnel is better, regardless of whether they play a 3-4, 4-3, 4-2-5, 9-1-1 or 1-1-9. So here's hoping that Carter can come back from his leg injury, McCourty doesn't suck this year, Glass IR plays a full and solid season, the safeties are better than the average Pop Warner team would field, Spikes and Mayo can stay healthy, and Wilfork gets some help on the line. :eat3:

 

[mayoclinic]

A lot of this stuff is just talk and guesswork. Some of it probably will happen, and some of it probably won't. The best defense in football is generally in Pittsburgh, and that's not one that's making all sorts of change. The Patriots defense will be better when the Patriots defensive personnel is better, regardless of whether they play a 3-4, 4-3, 4-2-5, 9-1-1 or 1-1-9. So here's hoping that Carter can come back from his leg injury, McCourty doesn't suck this year, Glass IR plays a full and solid season, the safeties are better than the average Pop Warner team would field, Spikes and Mayo can stay healthy, and Wilfork gets some help on the line. :eat3:

I agree with you about 2 things:

1. We don't know exactly how BB sees the defense evolving, and what his vision is for how to adjust to the current generation of NFL offenses.
2. Personnel are probably more important than scheme by a considerable amount. The Patriots' defense will certainly be better as the personnel become better.

But we do know a fair amount about how NFL offenses have evolved and how defenses around the league and the Pats' defense in particular are evolving to contest them. There are stats showing the effect on defenses of the increasing pass-oriented rules and offenses in the NFL. The Pats spent more time in their sub defense over the past several years, have used more nickel and dime and more 3+ CB sets, and have struggled with their 3rd down defense. We know that the secondary struggled with big receivers last year, and that these receivers are becoming more commonplace and that teams around the NFL are trying to emulate the Pats' success with multiple TEs in the passing game. We know that the Pats, like many other teams in the NFL, have used more amorphous formations at times to disguise both their coverages and their pass rushers. BB spoke fairly openly about how some of these things influenced the team's direction in the draft, and other respected NFL personnel have echoed some of those thoughts, as in the Romeo Crennel quotes from the article cited a few posts above. That's not to say that a team couldn't be successful in a traditional 3-4 or 4-3 with superior personnel, but it seems that there's not enough talent to go around at key positions (elite pass rushers, athletic super-giant DTs, big DBs with superior man coverage skills, versatile safeties who can function like CBs and LBs at the same time, LBs who can drop into coverage fluidly and handle RBs, TEs and slot receivers, etc.) so most teams are having to use scheme to compensate for their weaknesses. I think it's reasonable to presume that the defense that is currently evolving in New England is more than just an attempt to re-create the successful defense of the 2003-2004 SB teams, but is something related yet considerably different.

 

[lurker1965]

A ... 9-1-1 ...

I know you weren't serious but a nine eleven defense would be an awesome name.

 

[Joker]

well...let's see...overpriced hacks playing like stiffs.... practices followed by hamburger and hot dog orgies....Thursday night meetings at the local ice cream parlor...caffeine crazed big mouthing 24/7...looks like Wrecksie has his own version....the 7/11 defense...NY fans love it...

 

[strngplyr]

I know you weren't serious but a nine eleven defense would be an awesome name.

We were in that defense all season.

 

[Deus Irae]

I agree with you about 2 things:

1. We don't know exactly how BB sees the defense evolving, and what his vision is for how to adjust to the current generation of NFL offenses.
2. Personnel are probably more important than scheme by a considerable amount. The Patriots' defense will certainly be better as the personnel become better.

But we do know a fair amount about how NFL offenses have evolved and how defenses around the league and the Pats' defense in particular are evolving to contest them. There are stats showing the effect on defenses of the increasing pass-oriented rules and offenses in the NFL. The Pats spent more time in their sub defense over the past several years, have used more nickel and dime and more 3+ CB sets, and have struggled with their 3rd down defense. We know that the secondary struggled with big receivers last year, and that these receivers are becoming more commonplace and that teams around the NFL are trying to emulate the Pats' success with multiple TEs in the passing game. We know that the Pats, like many other teams in the NFL, have used more amorphous formations at times to disguise both their coverages and their pass rushers. BB spoke fairly openly about how some of these things influenced the team's direction in the draft, and other respected NFL personnel have echoed some of those thoughts, as in the Romeo Crennel quotes from the article cited a few posts above. That's not to say that a team couldn't be successful in a traditional 3-4 or 4-3 with superior personnel, but it seems that there's not enough talent to go around at key positions (elite pass rushers, athletic super-giant DTs, big DBs with superior man coverage skills, versatile safeties who can function like CBs and LBs at the same time, LBs who can drop into coverage fluidly and handle RBs, TEs and slot receivers, etc.) so most teams are having to use scheme to compensate for their weaknesses. I think it's reasonable to presume that the defense that is currently evolving in New England is more than just an attempt to re-create the successful defense of the 2003-2004 SB teams, but is something related yet considerably different.

The Patriots have been moving players around and disguising things since before BB became head coach. This stuff is nothing new. Much of what people are calling "evolving" is nothing more than a return to yesterday. Heck, the Raiders were teaming 6'0" Lester Hayes with 6'2" Michael Haynes in the 80's.

Belichick has been making chicken salad out of chicken **** since 2008, and he hasn't done it with the big nickel or most of the other stuff people have been so sure was coming down the pike. Change will come. It always does. But that doesn't mean that it'll be all that people are claiming, or even much of it.

Or, to put it another way, it's been several years now since we were told that the spread offense was going to be everywhere in the league, and we're still waiting for that, just like we're waiting for the run-and-shoot to be everywhere, and for the 46 defense to be every team's base. How does Pittsburgh manage to stay at the top of the defensive standings year after year? How does Baltimore do it? They do it with talent, and it's not even CB talent, since both have gone long stretches without good cornerbacks and still been quality defenses.

And the notion that there's not enough talent would be more persuasive if it weren't for the fact that there's plenty of talent. The reason the Patriots have to get bigger at DB isn't because some WRs are getting taller: it's because the Patriots started drafting a bunch of short DBs for the position, and the players they drafted were both short and bad, so the defensive balance was off and the skill level was down. The reason the Patriots can't find pass rushers is because they haven't been drafting at DE/OLB, and teams don't generally let top pass rushers get away (And the Patriots still managed to grab Carter and Anderson last season). If there's such a dearth of talent, how has Pioli (and his predecessor) been able to put together that squad in K.C.? He's got the DBs (Berry/Flowers/formerly Carr) and the pass rusher(s) (Hali/Houston(?)). And, before you talk about how high he's been drafting, you can look to the Giants for another team finding pass rushers.

 

[woolster22]

The Patriots have been moving players around and disguising things since before BB became head coach. This stuff is nothing new. Much of what people are calling "evolving" is nothing more than a return to yesterday. Heck, the Raiders were teaming 6'0" Lester Hayes with 6'2" Michael Haynes in the 80's.

Belichick has been making chicken salad out of chicken **** since 2008, and he hasn't done it with the big nickel or most of the other stuff people have been so sure was coming down the pike. Change will come. It always does. But that doesn't mean that it'll be all that people are claiming, or even much of it.

Or, to put it another way, it's been several years now since we were told that the spread offense was going to be everywhere in the league, and we're still waiting for that, just like we're waiting for the run-and-shoot to be everywhere, and for the 46 defense to be every team's base. How does Pittsburgh manage to stay at the top of the defensive standings year after year? How does Baltimore do it? They do it with talent, and it's not even CB talent, since both have gone long stretches without good cornerbacks and still been quality defenses.

And the notion that there's not enough talent would be more persuasive if it weren't for the fact that there's plenty of talent. The reason the Patriots have to get bigger at DB isn't because some WRs are getting taller: it's because the Patriots started drafting a bunch of short DBs for the position, and the players they drafted were both short and bad, so the defensive balance was off and the skill level was down. The reason the Patriots can't find pass rushers is because they haven't been drafting at DE/OLB, and teams don't generally let top pass rushers get away (And the Patriots still managed to grab Carter and Anderson last season). If there's such a dearth of talent, how has Pioli (and his predecessor) been able to put together that squad in K.C.? He's got the DBs (Berry/Flowers/formerly Carr) and the pass rusher(s) (Hali/Houston(?)). And, before you talk about how high he's been drafting, you can look to the Giants for another team finding pass rushers.

I think the evolution is here. Jones/Bequette could arguably be the next elephant type player, with Hightower being a Bruschi type leader with collegiate ability to put his hand down on passing downs as well(bruschi was a de in college if memory serves, I good this is his bigger, badder, brother). I hope these kids avoid the rookie injury curse and find roles to fill. The sky is the limit and let's hope we get to see a true defense grow before us this year.

I think this is BBs last true push, filling out the d to compensate for an aging and theoretically declining Brady. Oline needs a quality youth injection, and a highly intelligent, game processing wr is on the board...JUMP ON HIM, THE HELL WITH MEASURABLES!

...admittedly, I have the least idea of what to look for in scouting said receiver, apparently BB can't decide either.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[mayoclinic]

The Patriots have been moving players around and disguising things since before BB became head coach. This stuff is nothing new. Much of what people are calling "evolving" is nothing more than a return to yesterday. Heck, the Raiders were teaming 6'0" Lester Hayes with 6'2" Michael Haynes in the 80's.

Belichick has been making chicken salad out of chicken **** since 2008, and he hasn't done it with the big nickel or most of the other stuff people have been so sure was coming down the pike. Change will come. It always does. But that doesn't mean that it'll be all that people are claiming, or even much of it.

Or, to put it another way, it's been several years now since we were told that the spread offense was going to be everywhere in the league, and we're still waiting for that, just like we're waiting for the run-and-shoot to be everywhere, and for the 46 defense to be every team's base. How does Pittsburgh manage to stay at the top of the defensive standings year after year? How does Baltimore do it? They do it with talent, and it's not even CB talent, since both have gone long stretches without good cornerbacks and still been quality defenses.

I'm not sure what your point is, or whether we really have any disagreement. Of course some of this stuff has been going on for decades - there's nothing new under the sun in the NFL. It's more a matter of extent or degree. Philadelphia had 6'8" Harald Carmichael as a WR in the '70's, but that doesn't negate the fact that there's currently a trend towards larger WRs. Big DBs have been around for decades too. Mel Blount (6'3" 205#). And small DBs who could play have always been able to thrive regardless. Nothing's absolute. But there is certainly a trend towards more pass-oriented offenses today, the spread continues to grow in populatity, WRs get bigger, TEs are more athletic than ever, and the challenges that defenses face are different. No one in the '70's had an offense like the Patriots and New Orleans do today. The 3-4's been around for decades, but there weren't a dozen teams using it in the past. Just because the trends aren't absolutes, or because something has been around before, doesn't mean that there aren't trends or direcitons that present new challenges.

And the notion that there's not enough talent would be more persuasive if it weren't for the fact that there's plenty of talent. The reason the Patriots have to get bigger at DB isn't because some WRs are getting taller: it's because the Patriots started drafting a bunch of short DBs for the position, and the players they drafted were both short and bad, so the defensive balance was off and the skill level was down. The reason the Patriots can't find pass rushers is because they haven't been drafting at DE/OLB, and teams don't generally let top pass rushers get away (And the Patriots still managed to grab Carter and Anderson last season). If there's such a dearth of talent, how has Pioli (and his predecessor) been able to put together that squad in K.C.? He's got the DBs (Berry/Flowers/formerly Carr) and the pass rusher(s) (Hali/Houston(?)). And, before you talk about how high he's been drafting, you can look to the Giants for another team finding pass rushers.

I never said there was a dearth of talent. But good players don't grow on trees, and finding the right talent isn't easy. The good teams have done a better job of it. Of course it would have helped if the Pats had drafted pass rushers more than once in a blue moon. But it would also have helped if they had drafted Cliff Avril over Shawn Crable. It's never easy to find the right talent, which is why teams go so beserk every year when FA rolls around. There's no doubt that BB was slow to address rebuilding some of the key defensive positions, and also that some of the draft picks were less than successful - we've discussed this ad nauseum.

There's obviously a relationship between talent and scheme. You need the right talent to pull off a scheme, and you scheme to try and cover up deficits in talent.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the evolution is here. Jones/Bequette could arguably be the next elephant type player, with Hightower being a Bruschi type leader with collegiate ability to put his hand down on passing downs as well(bruschi was a de in college if memory serves, I good this is his bigger, badder, brother). I hope these kids avoid the rookie injury curse and find roles to fill. The sky is the limit and let's hope we get to see a true defense grow before us this year.

I think this is BBs last true push, filling out the d to compensate for an aging and theoretically declining Brady. Oline needs a quality youth injection, and a highly intelligent, game processing wr is on the board...JUMP ON HIM, THE HELL WITH MEASURABLES!

...admittedly, I have the least idea of what to look for in scouting said receiver, apparently BB can't decide either.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

Yeah, but you're making my point here. Jones/Bequette would be the next elephant, not the first. Hightower would be the next Bruschi.

People here are talking about evolution, when what's really going on (hopefully) is that the Patriots are still looking to replace guys that were lost from 2003-2009, because the defensive drafting has been so spotty in recent years.

"Athletic" Coverage LB - Pfifer
Modified safety - Harrison before his coverage skills declined
"Taller" corner - Ty Law/Otis Smith
Modified D-lineman/OLB - McGinest (Seymour if larger)
3 Safety lineup: Meriweather/Sanders/Harrison, Meriweather/Sanders/Chung

 

[Deus Irae]

I never said there was a dearth of talent. But good players don't grow on trees, and finding the right talent isn't easy. The good teams have done a better job of it. Of course it would have helped if the Pats had drafted pass rushers more than once in a blue moon. But it would also have helped if they had drafted Cliff Avril over Shawn Crable. It's never easy to find the right talent, which is why teams go so beserk every year when FA rolls around. There's no doubt that BB was slow to address rebuilding some of the key defensive positions, and also that some of the draft picks were less than successful - we've discussed this ad nauseum.

Come on, now, here's your quote:

That's not to say that a team couldn't be successful in a traditional 3-4 or 4-3 with superior personnel, but it seems that there's not enough talent to go around at key positions (elite pass rushers, athletic super-giant DTs, big DBs with superior man coverage skills, versatile safeties who can function like CBs and LBs at the same time, LBs who can drop into coverage fluidly and handle RBs, TEs and slot receivers, etc.) so most teams are having to use scheme to compensate for their weaknesses.

I'm not saying that no changes will happen. Change is about the only thing that stays consistent in the NFL. I do question the notion of "evolution" as some major shift in personnel throughout the league, though, especially when that 'evolution' is really little more than a return to the personnel types of a decade ago. I think people are too quick to jump on that "evolution" notion. There's a difference between a specific team's trending (Were the Patriots going to 'evolve' the NFL game into a bunch of 5'9" guys at CB when they were drafting the shorties?) and a league-wide evolution. Time will tell whether coming changes are modest and confined or '(r)evolutionary'. Hell, I'd say it's too soon to be sure that the Patriots aren't going with 3-4 this season.

And I don't recall specific numbers of teams using the 3-4 for specific years, but 3-4 teams were plentiful in the 1980s.

 

[woolster22]

Yeah, but you're making my point here. Jones/Bequette would be the next elephant, not the first. Hightower would be the next Bruschi.

People here are talking about evolution, when what's really going on (hopefully) is that the Patriots are still looking to replace guys that were lost from 2003-2009, because the defensive drafting has been so spotty in recent years.

"Athletic" Coverage LB - Pfifer
Modified safety - Harrison before his coverage skills declined
"Taller" corner - Ty Law/Otis Smith
Modified D-lineman/OLB - McGinest (Seymour if larger)
3 Safety lineup: Meriweather/Sanders/Harrison, Meriweather/Sanders/Chung

I was agreeing with you. However, it is an evolution in the short term sense. He let his d get old while surrounding Tf'nB with some serious firepower, and is now going full tilt on improving the defense. The fact that there are so many parallels in athleticism/skill sets of the guys drafted this year with the gamer's of the super bowl years have me eagerly awaiting week twelve or so. That is about when I would expect all the guys to start "getting it," (if they are going to this year )and BB to start placing faith in them to do their jobs well enough to start mixing things up. On paper, this team is stacked. Unfortunately, names never won anyone a damn thing.

 

[mayoclinic]

Come on, now, here's your quote:

My actual quote that you cited was:

It seems that there's not enough talent to go around at key positions (elite pass rushers, athletic super-giant DTs, big DBs with superior man coverage skills, versatile safeties who can function like CBs and LBs at the same time, LBs who can drop into coverage fluidly and handle RBs, TEs and slot receivers, etc.).

I stand by that. There's darn few elite pass rushers in the NFL, certainly far less than 1 per team. Those that hit FA get huge contracts, such as Mario Williams this offseason. Even decent ones get large contracts, sucha s Mark Anderson got. Same for above-average CBs - Brandon Carr and Cortland Finnegan are far from "elite", but both got roughly $10M/year because of the paucity of solid cover guys. There aren't any defenses like the old Steel Curtain with 8 players going to the Pro Bowl in one year. Free agency and the salary cap ensure that. The best defenses are lucky to have 2-3 impact players, and a bunch of solid/role guys filling in around them. Coaches use scheme to achieve the rest - look at what Rex Ryan's done in New York. No elite pass rushers there, and only 1 elite player on the entire defense.

I'm not saying that no changes will happen. Change is about the only thing that stays consistent in the NFL. I do question the notion of "evolution" as some major shift in personnel throughout the league, though, especially when that 'evolution' is really little more than a return to the personnel types of a decade ago. I think people are too quick to jump on that "evolution" notion. There's a difference between a specific team's trending (Were the Patriots going to 'evolve' the NFL game into a bunch of 5'9" guys at CB when they were drafting the shorties?) and a league-wide evolution. Time will tell whether coming changes are modest and confined or '(r)evolutionary'. Hell, I'd say it's too soon to be sure that the Patriots aren't going with 3-4 this season./QUOTE]

Fair enough. As I said above, I think that novelty is overrated - many of the ideas being hailed as new were experimented with decades ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to note that the combination of rules changes and offensive personnel development have favored a higher scoring game than in the past, which the league seems to favor, and that defenses have to deal with those issues, whatever the scheme may be. The NFL is largely a copycat league, but personnel is critical to what works and what doesn't. I'm sure BB would have "evolved" the 2-TE offense long ago if he'd had Gronk and Hernandez sooner.

 

[Deus Irae]

My actual quote that you cited was:



I stand by that. There's darn few elite pass rushers in the NFL, certainly far less than 1 per team. Those that hit FA get huge contracts, such as Mario Williams this offseason. Even decent ones get large contracts, sucha s Mark Anderson got. Same for above-average CBs - Brandon Carr and Cortland Finnegan are far from "elite", but both got roughly $10M/year because of the paucity of solid cover guys. There aren't any defenses like the old Steel Curtain with 8 players going to the Pro Bowl in one year. Free agency and the salary cap ensure that. The best defenses are lucky to have 2-3 impact players, and a bunch of solid/role guys filling in around them. Coaches use scheme to achieve the rest - look at what Rex Ryan's done in New York. No elite pass rushers there, and only 1 elite player on the entire defense....

Yes, but there are, by definition, darn few elite players at any position, in any league. There are, however, good pass rushers around. The Patriots have chosen not to go after them in the draft. Last year, for example, 32 players had 8 sacks or more, and it was 31 the year before. That's an average of about 1 per team, right there. Now, you obviously won't get numbers like that every year but, as teams pass more, the numbers will be higher for sacks as well. I agree that scheme can really help hide problems, and we've seen BB doing that since at least 2008. I just think your argument is bootstrapping on a non-issue. There's never been enough "elite" to go around. There never will be. If there were dozens of "elite" lying about, they wouldn't be "elite".

 

[Deus Irae]

...Fair enough. As I said above, I think that novelty is overrated - many of the ideas being hailed as new were experimented with decades ago. I don't think it's unreasonable to note that the combination of rules changes and offensive personnel development have favored a higher scoring game than in the past, which the league seems to favor, and that defenses have to deal with those issues, whatever the scheme may be. The NFL is largely a copycat league, but personnel is critical to what works and what doesn't. I'm sure BB would have "evolved" the 2-TE offense long ago if he'd had Gronk and Hernandez sooner.

I think the bolded part is the key.