The misuse of Chandler Jones week one at Miami

[ATippett56]

Aside from griping about who saw what, exactly what is being proposed we do differently that would improve the run D?

For starters, put Joe Vellano on waivers.

 

[Ring 6]

After 5 pages, of arguing where Jones was lining up, one thing is still clear to me regardless of whether Jones was one gapping or two gapping or was a five technique or whatever - The Pats did not put him in the best position to succeed on Sunday. The almost the entire second half he played a 3-4 DE when he is still best suited for an OLB in the 3-4 scheme whether he was one gapping, two gapping or whatever at DE.

Huh? Jones is a DE not a LB. Are you saying he was misused his entire career?

In fact, I don't think they put the entire defense in position to succeed. Collins was wasted as a 3-4 ILB and he looked bad because of it.

Where would you play him?

Nink spent a huge amount of time on the bench because he really doesn't have a position in the 3-4.

This is 100% wrong. Nink played every single snap of 34. He was taken off the field in sub because Hightower played instead of him.

I think he is better suited for OLB in the 3-4, but how many OLBs can you play?

2 which were Nink and Hightower.

He is more of a 4-3 WLB if anything. They played a lot of zone with Revis playing 5-10 yards off the line whether he was covering Wallace or not (didn't we all kill Schiano for getting a Ferrari and never driving it over 40 MPH by playing zone defense with Revis). Revis is best suited to be a press man coverage CB lining up on the line of scrimmage. The only person I can think of who benefitted from the schemes they ran on Sunday was Hightower.

We didn't ALL kill Schiano because you don't design an entire scheme in all 16 games around what one player does best. We will play a lot of man, and we will play a lot of zone, which is just what we should be doing.

The Pats have been building a 4-3 attack style, man defense for the last few years. Now they are trying to play to a two gap 3-4 zone defense (at least a lot of the time) for the most part.

The base defense is exactly the same as the 43 they used last year, but they have shifted the DL and LBs. Put Ninks hand on the ground lined up exactly where he is and tell me what you have.
What you have is a 43 with the DL overshifted to the strong side, and the LBs shifted weak. Thats it, nothing more to see.

As much as people want to kill the offense and McDaniels' play calling, I thought the defensive game plan was 1,000 times worse. The Pats are an opponent specific game plan team, but Sunday it looks like they didn't even scheme for the Dolphins and wanted to force their 3-4 defense schemes.

No disrespect but if you don't understand the game plan how can you judge it? The results were bad, but thats not the same thing.

 

[Ring 6]

For starters, put Joe Vellano on waivers.

We get it, you hate the backup DT who was forced to play a lot because of injuries. Do you have anything constructive to add?

 

[ATippett56]

We get it, you hate the backup DT who was forced to play a lot because of injuries. Do you have anything constructive to add?

Post #96.

 

[Ring 6]

Post #96.

OK that was constructive, but not a good idea. We would never get near a QB.

 

[Rob0729]

Huh? Jones is a DE not a LB. Are you saying he was misused his entire career?


Where would you play him?


This is 100% wrong. Nink played every single snap of 34. He was taken off the field in sub because Hightower played instead of him.


2 which were Nink and Hightower.


We didn't ALL kill Schiano because you don't design an entire scheme in all 16 games around what one player does best. We will play a lot of man, and we will play a lot of zone, which is just what we should be doing.


The base defense is exactly the same as the 43 they used last year, but they have shifted the DL and LBs. Put Ninks hand on the ground lined up exactly where he is and tell me what you have.
What you have is a 43 with the DL overshifted to the strong side, and the LBs shifted weak. Thats it, nothing more to see.


No disrespect but if you don't understand the game plan how can you judge it? The results were bad, but thats not the same thing.

First, considering every analyst from Greg Bedard to whoever else I have heard or read totally disagrees with your assessment of how they used Jones on Sunday, maybe you shouldn't talk about me not understanding the game plan. The only person I have seen who agrees with your analysis is Vrabeljr.

Second, Jones is absolutely an OLB in the 3-4. If you compare him to 3-4 players from back in the Dynasty days, he is most comparable to Willie Mac. McGinest was a 3-4 OLB and never put his hand in the dirt unless they went into a four man front. Everyone in the world other than you and Vrabeljr believe Jones is miscast as a 3-4 DE other than in certain situations.

Third, maybe I misspoke about Revis and Tampa. I agree you don't scheme around one player (although you can make a case to do it for a guy like Revis). What you don't do is pay big bucks to get Revis if you are going run a primarily a zone defense. It is a waste of money and a waste of his talent.

Fourth, the Pats did not put him in a great position on Sunday because he was mostly playing 5-10 yards off the line and he is still a guy who can play press man with a guy like Wallace. And he was doing it when Wallace was on the other side of the field since Revis didn't follow him. They played more zone than man on Sunday.

Fifth, I might have overstated Nink not having a position, but the Pats played 3-4 in sub packages and he saw only 47% of the plays. He doesn't have a position in sub packages in the 3-4. He might not in a four man front sub package either, but he played 90% of the snaps last year.

 

[ATippett56]

OK that was constructive, but not a good idea. We would never get near a QB.

I really don't care about your amateur analysis since the Seattle Seahawks were the number one defense last season primarily utilizing the 4-3 under front. Second, the New England Patriots would not be utilizing a defensive tackle as a defensive end on third and long scenarios. Third, if the New England Patriots with five former first round picks and one former second round pick in the front seven can't stop the run, the 2015 NFL Draft awaits.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

Fifth, I might have overstated Nink not having a position, but the Pats played 3-4 in sub packages and he saw only 47% of the plays. He doesn't have a position in sub packages in the 3-4. He might not in a four man front sub package either, but he played 90% of the snaps last year.

There is no such thing as a 3-4 sub package. On Sunday, the Pats played predominantly a 3-3 nickel and some 4-2 nickel and 3-2 dime. Nink played in the 3-2 dime (and in the jumbo packages), but not in the nickel packages. In the nickel, Hightower took his place, regardless of whether we ran a 3 or 4-man front. Hightower did pretty well in that spot, so I don't see a problem with that. Regardless, the 3-4/4-3 dichotomy is vastly overplayed this week.

 

[Rob0729]

There is no such thing as a 3-4 sub package. On Sunday, the Pats played predominantly a 3-3 nickel and some 4-2 nickel and 3-2 dime. Nink played in the 3-2 dime (and in the jumbo packages), but not in the nickel packages. In the nickel, Hightower took his place, regardless of whether we ran a 3 or 4-man front. Hightower did pretty well in that spot, so I don't see a problem with that. Regardless, the 3-4/4-3 dichotomy is vastly overplayed this week.

I meant a three man front in a sub package. Of course sub packages would not have four LBs or it wouldn't be a sub package. How do you put extra DBs on the field if you have three d-linemen and four LBs?

I just consider a three man front sub package a 3-4 variation of the sub package. I know it isn't technically true, but it isn't like they switched to a more traditional 4 man front sub package.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

They did run a 4-2 nickel at times. Ninkovich wasn't in then either. BB wants to rotate his veteran lineman so they are strong later in the year. I have lots of complaints about Sunday, but I don't have a problem with that.

 

[VrabelJr]

Regardless, the 3-4/4-3 dichotomy is vastly overplayed this week.

Exactly! This is all I've been trying to get at. The lines are blurred between schemes more than ever. So many people on this forum are still living in 2003. They hear the term "3-4" and immediately go "Willie McGinest this" and "Richard Seymour that."

If teams are double teaming Chandler Jones that is awesome! That means Wilfork, the other DE and Hightower/Nink are in a 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 that they are expected to win. Even better is when Chandler takes that next step and can win double teams like JJ Watt, Calais Campbell and others do.

 

[Ring 6]

First, considering every analyst from Greg Bedard to whoever else I have heard or read totally disagrees with your assessment of how they used Jones on Sunday, maybe you shouldn't talk about me not understanding the game plan. The only person I have seen who agrees with your analysis is Vrabeljr.

Show me someone who has reviewed the tape and said that Jones was playing 2gap defense all day.
You said yourself thats not true.
You said Nink didn't play much because he has no place in the 34, when he played every single 34 snap and came out in nickel.

By the way, Bedard did NOT say Jones was playing 2 gap. IIRC after you read that you said you were wrong.

Second, Jones is absolutely an OLB in the 3-4. If you compare him to 3-4 players from back in the Dynasty days, he is most comparable to Willie Mac. McGinest was a 3-4 OLB and never put his hand in the dirt unless they went into a four man front. Everyone in the world other than you and Vrabeljr believe Jones is miscast as a 3-4 DE other than in certain situations.

Jones is a 43 DE. In a 34 scheme that gives him the responsiblities of a 43 DE he is a 34 DE.
If this was 2005, yes, he would have to be jammed into a 34 OLB role, which, btw, McGinest was as well since his best position was 43 DE.
If we played TODAYS scheme in 2005, McGinest would have played RDE.

Third, maybe I misspoke about Revis and Tampa. I agree you don't scheme around one player (although you can make a case to do it for a guy like Revis). What you don't do is pay big bucks to get Revis if you are going run a primarily a zone defense. It is a waste of money and a waste of his talent.

I don't agree. You are paying 11 players to be a team defense. Revis is a damn good zone corner. The only difference is the impact he can have in zone vs man but you have to consider the best D to stop the opponent, not the best D for one player because of his paycheck.

Fourth, the Pats did not put him in a great position on Sunday because he was mostly playing 5-10 yards off the line and he is still a guy who can play press man with a guy like Wallace. And he was doing it when Wallace was on the other side of the field since Revis didn't follow him. They played more zone than man on Sunday.

Again, its the Patriot defense, not the Revis defense. They have to put the team in a position to succeed not just Revis. Mankins was a better run blocker than pass blocker. Were we not putting him in a position to succeed by passing?

Fifth, I might have overstated Nink not having a position, but the Pats played 3-4 in sub packages and he saw only 47% of the plays. He doesn't have a position in sub packages in the 3-4. He might not in a four man front sub package either, but he played 90% of the snaps last year.

There is no such thing as a 3-4 sub package.
Ninkovich came out in sub instead of Hightower. That has nothing to do with what base we played.

 

[Ring 6]

I really don't care about your amateur analysis since the Seattle Seahawks were the number one defense last season primarily utilizing the 4-3 under front.

That would be fine if we had their players. We don't.

Second, the New England Patriots would not be utilizing a defensive tackle as a defensive end on third and long scenarios.

What does what they do on 3rd and long have to do with whether the base defense could rush the passer?

Third, if the New England Patriots with five former first round picks and one former second round pick in the front seven can't stop the run, the 2015 NFL Draft awaits.

Which is exactly why your idea is a bad one.

 

[Rob0729]

That would be fine if we had their players. We don't.


What does what they do on 3rd and long have to do with whether the base defense could rush the passer?


Which is exactly why your idea is a bad one.

First, where did I say Jones played in a two gap all game? I said every analyst who broke down the game that I have seen including Bedard said he was misused as a 3-4 DE. They all said he is too small for the position.

Second, Willie McGinest would most likely still play a 3-4 OLB. His strength like Jones is being an edge rusher and setting the edge on rushing downs. Those are both McGinest's and Jones' strengths and are wasted as a 3-4 DE with an OLB lining up next to him.

Third, Revis is arguably the best press man cover corners in NFL history. He might be a good or great zone cover corner, but be is elite press zone cover CB. If they want to use Revis off coverage in the zone, there were several CB on the market who could have come close to Revis in that area for far less. Few if any CBs can play press man like Revis. And we all talked about if you put Revis man on man on a receiver, you can shut down a third of the field and allow the Pats' the luxury to send an extra man on a pass rush or move the coverage to other players. If you are not taking advantage of his man press coverage abilities, you are wasting his talents. If you want to do zone coverage they could have gotten Alterraun Verner (a great zone coverage CB) for $26 million for four years and spent money to beef up other areas of the team.

Fourth, taking advantage of Revis' man cover skills is not building a defense to suit Revis. It is building a defense to take the most advantage of the skills your players have. Something that the Pats usually do. The thing about Revis is that you have a special press man coverage guy. You utilize that. Chandler Jones strengths are as an edge rusher and setting the edge on running downs, you utilize him that way. That used to be the Patriots' way. They were never about trying to fit square pegs into round holes, they were about putting their players in the best position to succeed.

I know it was one game and Jones could be outside and Revis could be playing press man on Sunday, but I felt they did not utilize the talent they have to the best of their abilities and had some of their best players in roles that did not maximize their talent including Revis, Jones, and Collins (although it is a little soon to call Collins one of their best talents on defense).

 

[ATippett56]

That would be fine if we had their players. We don't.

What does what they do on 3rd and long have to do with whether the base defense could rush the passer?

Which is exactly why your idea is a bad one.

You don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about. Chandler Jones can't rush the passer? Vince Wilfork can't play the one technique? Dominique Easley can't play the three technique? Sealver Siliga had more sacks last season than Red Bryant.

 

[Ring 6]

First, where did I say Jones played in a two gap all game? I said every analyst who broke down the game that I have seen including Bedard said he was misused as a 3-4 DE. They all said he is too small for the position.

Second, Willie McGinest would most likely still play a 3-4 OLB. His strength like Jones is being an edge rusher and setting the edge on rushing downs. Those are both McGinest's and Jones' strengths and are wasted as a 3-4 DE with an OLB lining up next to him.

Third, Revis is arguably the best press man cover corners in NFL history. He might be a good or great zone cover corner, but be is elite press zone cover CB. If they want to use Revis off coverage in the zone, there were several CB on the market who could have come close to Revis in that area for far less. Few if any CBs can play press man like Revis. And we all talked about if you put Revis man on man on a receiver, you can shut down a third of the field and allow the Pats' the luxury to send an extra man on a pass rush or move the coverage to other players. If you are not taking advantage of his man press coverage abilities, you are wasting his talents. If you want to do zone coverage they could have gotten Alterraun Verner (a great zone coverage CB) for $26 million for four years and spent money to beef up other areas of the team.

Fourth, taking advantage of Revis' man cover skills is not building a defense to suit Revis. It is building a defense to take the most advantage of the skills your players have. Something that the Pats usually do. The thing about Revis is that you have a special press man coverage guy. You utilize that. Chandler Jones strengths are as an edge rusher and setting the edge on running downs, you utilize him that way. That used to be the Patriots' way. They were never about trying to fit square pegs into round holes, they were about putting their players in the best position to succeed.

I know it was one game and Jones could be outside and Revis could be playing press man on Sunday, but I felt they did not utilize the talent they have to the best of their abilities and had some of their best players in roles that did not maximize their talent including Revis, Jones, and Collins (although it is a little soon to call Collins one of their best talents on defense).

The 34 we play today is not the 34 we played years ago.
BB transitioned from a defense with 3 300lbers and 4 in the 250-270 range to one with 5 in the 250-270 range and 2 300lbs a few years ago because of the change in the game.
He isn't going backward, and he isn't going to pretend a 260 lb guy is 300lbs.
If you agree he wasn't playing 2 gap then you agree it wasn't the old 34.
What it is, is the concepts of the 43 that had 2 300lbers and 2 260lbers, stemmed into a 34.
The position Jones plays is the same in the current version of 43 or 34.
That is why if you think Jones is being misused, then you must think he was being misused as a 43 DE.
McGinest would be playing DE because the RDE position has the responsibilities of the 43 RDE.

If you want to think that a defense should play man all day every day because they have a good man corner, thats fine, I disagree. Its about the team defense, not one player. I fail to understand your logic that if you don't use a player a certain way every play he has no value.

By the way, you do understand that Jones was 'setting the edge' on running plays, and was rushing from the edge on passing plays, right? What do you think he was doing?
What do you want him to do? His role is the same in this defense as it has been since he arrived here. The fact that other players are aligned differently seems to be clouding our understanding of this.

 

[Ring 6]

You don't have a freakin' clue what you are talking about. Chandler Jones can't rush the passer? Vince Wilfork can't play the one technique? Dominique Easley can't play the three technique? Sealver Siliga had more sacks last season than Red Bryant.

Get back to me when you want to communicate like a grown up instead of a dbag.

 

[ATippett56]

Get back to me when you want to communicate like a grown up instead of a dbag.

You're wrong and you were wrong about the New England Patriots pass happy tendencies that only lead to losses.

 

[Rob0729]

The 34 we play today is not the 34 we played years ago.
BB transitioned from a defense with 3 300lbers and 4 in the 250-270 range to one with 5 in the 250-270 range and 2 300lbs a few years ago because of the change in the game.
He isn't going backward, and he isn't going to pretend a 260 lb guy is 300lbs.
If you agree he wasn't playing 2 gap then you agree it wasn't the old 34.
What it is, is the concepts of the 43 that had 2 300lbers and 2 260lbers, stemmed into a 34.
The position Jones plays is the same in the current version of 43 or 34.
That is why if you think Jones is being misused, then you must think he was being misused as a 43 DE.
McGinest would be playing DE because the RDE position has the responsibilities of the 43 RDE.

If you want to think that a defense should play man all day every day because they have a good man corner, thats fine, I disagree. Its about the team defense, not one player. I fail to understand your logic that if you don't use a player a certain way every play he has no value.

By the way, you do understand that Jones was 'setting the edge' on running plays, and was rushing from the edge on passing plays, right? What do you think he was doing?
What do you want him to do? His role is the same in this defense as it has been since he arrived here. The fact that other players are aligned differently seems to be clouding our understanding of this.

First, Jones his first two years would line up outside the tackle most of the time, not directly on him. And except for certain packages, he was at the end of the line outside a DT. On Sunday in the second half, he was inside exclusively next to an OLB.

Second, if Jones' natural position is DE in the 3-4, why did they waste the entire preseason playing him at OLB in the 3-4? He was pretty awesome in the third preseason game standing upright as an OLB getting two sacks and playing surprisingly well when they dropped back in coverage. How do you explain that if his natural position is DE in that formation? To show everyone that he is not an OLB? If that was the agenda, they did a poor job. I was excited for the 3-4 going into the regular season because of how awesome Jones looked at OLB, not DE.

Third, I know what I was talking about rushing the QB from the edge and setting the edge against the run. Don't act like I don't.

Fourth, I never said they should play man all day. But I wouldn't have gone into the game Sunday like they did and almost exclusively play Revis off coverage and play a huge amount of zone defense.

 

[Joey007]

Jones plays the 5 technique and 3 technique depending on alignments, back in 2012 he was primarily a 5 technique over the past 2 years he has done more of both. This article provides a good breakdown of Jones and the Colts defensive scheme.

http://coltsauthority.com/2014-articles/free-agent-profiles-de-arthur-jones.html

Chandler has been used as a 5 technique end in the base and a 3 technique DT in sub packages so he is doing a lot of the things his 337lb brother is doing, that should not be the case.

The biggest issue with this scheme is basically they want to have the 49ers 3-4 defensive front with Hightower as Brooks, Mayo as Bowman, Collins as Willis, and then Jones they want him to be Justin Smith and Aldon Smith at the same time and that is not possible. If Belichick wants to run a 3-4 the only way to do it is to concede that Jones, Hightower, and Ninkovich will not all be on the field together in a base.

They could run this front:

LDT-Vince Wilfork-Chris Jones-Joe Vellano
NT-Sealver Siliga-Vince Wilfork
RDE-Dominique Easley-Zach Moore
LOLB-Donta Hightower-Rob Ninkovich-Darius Fleming
LILB-Jerod Mayo-Donta Hightower
RILB-Jamie Collins-Jerod Mayo
ROLB-Chandler Jones-Rob Ninkovich-Michael Buchanan

This might actually work; the key is to get Easley healthy enough to play 70% of the snaps.

Well, right. I'm definitely fine with Jones lining up at a 3-4 olb spot considering how he played there in the preseason. I just don't know if guys like siligna, Vellano and Chris Jones are capable of playing well and stopping the run in a 3-4 front.