The Pats defense against the run should be much more of an issue this year

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots cover Gates with a Linebacker and/or Rodney every time the two teams play, to the best of my offseason recollection.

You may or may not believe it but if you asked your team's players they would tell you. It was a big advantage that Gates was playing on one foot. Did it change the game? I don't think so. Did it make it easier to win the game? Yes.

sdfan

Your response has seemingly nothing to do with my post. Is there something I'm missing?

 

[Ring 6]

I think even the players on the Patriot's defense would admit that the fact that the Chargers were without their two biggest threats on offense helped them to a degree. I wouldn't base too much of my opinion of the Patriot defense on their game against the Chargers in the AFCCG.

sdfan

Nah, I wouldnt call the Chargers weak competition that you cant judge a team on.

 

[Aqua4Ever04]

I actually think our defense will be as strong as it's been since '03-'04. As long as Bruschi and Seau (if he returns) don't have to go every down we should be fine.

Aren't you concerned with the secondary, Victor Hobson and a rookie being the starters inside?

 

[pao]

Did Tomlinson and Gates play in week 2?

I said it would be a mistake to judge the Patiots defense on the AFCCG due to the injuries to LT and Gates because that is what the poster I responded to mentioned. Week 2 is a whole other story and has nothing to do with what he posted.

sdfan

 

[pao]

Your response has seemingly nothing to do with my post. Is there something I'm missing?

I see your point. I simply meant that even if what you say is true, which if I understand correctly is that the Patriots cover Gates either one on one with a linebacker (not that I recall) or double him with a linebacker and Rodney (possible), he still wasn't a factor in that game due to his injury. And therefore that game, due to his injury and LT's, would not be a good one to use as a reason to have confidence in the Patriots defense NEXT year.

sdfan

 

[Pats_R_#1]

No argument from me on that one. I didn't say anything different or make excuses. All I said was that it would be a mistake to judge the Patriots defense based on what they did against the Chargers in the AFCCG. Come on guys, let's look at context.

sdfan

So what do you have to say about the 38-14 @$$whoopin' the Pats put on the Chargers in week 2? Tomlinson and Gates were 100% healthy and they didn't do much of anything in that game.

 

[Deus Irae]

So what do you have to say about the 38-14 @$$whoopin' the Pats put on the Chargers in week 2? Tomlinson and Gates were 100% healthy and they didn't do much of anything in that game.

The Chargers stunk to start the season. I wouldn't consider that game against the Patriots indicative of their whole season. They started off 1-3 and still finished 13-6 counting the playoffs. The Patriots had a similar year in 2001, starting 1-3 and looking horrible before pulling it together and winning the Super Bowl.

 

[bradmahn]

Your argument says BB saw Dom Capers was UNEMPLOYED after failing twice as a HC, and he said to himself, wow, Dom Capers, he can come in here and rewrite our defense. I think I've been wrong all these years, and I'm going to bring him in and let him decide if its smarter to play a lot of man defense, because, you know, he is better equipped to make that decision than me.

No.

My argument is that Belichick has been looking to acquire defensive backs to play more man coverage and saw Capers available after he was not retained post-firing of Cameron and said to himself "Gee, there goes a guy who has been around a while, knows his stuff, has been successful as a defensive coach, maybe he'll help with this change."

There's new personnel and a new coach, how wasn't there a change?

 

[cstjohn17]

I read most of the posts, for once. I disagree with the premise that the D was lucky last year. They were damn good and played great in the playoffs. The Patriots faced 3 of the NFL's top 5 rushing teams in the playoffs and held all of them to well below their seasonal average. In the playoffs they cranked up the overall play and would have average 14 PPG against if they could have held on the last Giants drive.

I find it hard to believe (barring injuries) that a defense that starts Seymour, Wilfork, Warren, Vrabel, Thomas and Harrison will be weak against the run.

The Patriots D doesn't get the press of other flashier units (Jacksonville, Pittsburgh, San Diego, etc.) but if you look at the stats they are cost as good or better.

 

[Ring 6]

No.

My argument is that Belichick has been looking to acquire defensive backs to play more man coverage and saw Capers available after he was not retained post-firing of Cameron and said to himself "Gee, there goes a guy who has been around a while, knows his stuff, has been successful as a defensive coach, maybe he'll help with this change."

There's new personnel and a new coach, how wasn't there a change?

First, this says nothing about comments that 'we will be more aggressive using capers' schemes' which was the original point made. Secondly, I do not know how you can jump to the conclusion that after 30 years of coaching to a certain set of beliefs that BB has done a 180 in his beliefs based on YOUR guess at what his personell moves were about.
I dont see any real evidence that BB went out to revamp his secondary to get man to man cover guys. I see no evidence that Hobbs is better suited to man than zone. I see no evidence that any of the DBs brought in as FA sare better suited to man than zone. I see no attempt to go out and sign lock down corners, but instead a move in the opposite direction where the talent level at corner has declined in raw physical ability and continued to be built around team defense with solid players who are not lock down corners playing man coverage.
It just doesnt add up.

As far as your last line, since 2001 there have been new players, new coaches at many positions, but the philosophical approach to defense by BB has not changed at all.
the 'change' is that Samuel and Gay wanted more money than we were willing to pay,so we went out and got different players, and Dom Capers is a good coach who was unemployed, so BB found a spot for him and hired him to coach the DBs. That is a typical, normal personell change, not a philosophical rebirth.

 

[Deus Irae]

First, this says nothing about comments that 'we will be more aggressive using capers' schemes' which was the original point made. Secondly, I do not know how you can jump to the conclusion that after 30 years of coaching to a certain set of beliefs that BB has done a 180 in his beliefs based on YOUR guess at what his personell moves were about.
I dont see any real evidence that BB went out to revamp his secondary to get man to man cover guys. I see no evidence that Hobbs is better suited to man than zone. I see no evidence that any of the DBs brought in as FA sare better suited to man than zone. I see no attempt to go out and sign lock down corners, but instead a move in the opposite direction where the talent level at corner has declined in raw physical ability and continued to be built around team defense with solid players who are not lock down corners playing man coverage.
It just doesnt add up.

As far as your last line, since 2001 there have been new players, new coaches at many positions, but the philosophical approach to defense by BB has not changed at all.
the 'change' is that Samuel and Gay wanted more money than we were willing to pay,so we went out and got different players, and Dom Capers is a good coach who was unemployed, so BB found a spot for him and hired him to coach the DBs. That is a typical, normal personell change, not a philosophical rebirth.

I'm with you for much of this discussion, but you just lost me. The Patriots played more man defense when Law was here, Rodney was faster and Wilson was healthy. Manning and Harrison still have the nightmares to prove it.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Last year opposing teams got so far behind on the scoreboard that they were almost obligated to give up on the rushing attack and focus on passing to keep up with the Patriots scoring sprees thus the Pats Defense ranking of 4th in the league against the run was mostly due to this very fact that those teams could simply not use the rush against the 2007 Pats and very few opposing teams tried - they abandoned the run early and there was absolutely no pressure on the Pats front D to worry about it since teams were down by 10 or 20 way too fast last year.

With that said,I think a big part of the success of the 2008 Patriots will rely on stopping the run since I think the Pats offense is going to be much more balanced with run and pass thus taking a bit more time on the field to score and resulting in far less runaway games on the scoreboard and more 3-7 point games than the 10-30 point drubbings of last year,I don't see 500 points on offense this year,more like the mid decade type of offense even though we still have Moss and Welker,I think this year will not be close to last year in stats and points and there will be lots of close games.

Do you think there may lie a problem that was not seen last year because of the blowouts? - In other words when this teams front 7 is asked more often than last year to stop the run in crucial situations can they do it consistently?

It will be interesting to see what the changes in defense do and if it was lucky or not that we did not have to worry about stopping the run last year and we will see if the front D truly are a top 5 defense against the run THIS year.

Great points and good questions. We're going to find out one way or the other but probably the most accurate thing we can say at this point is much of it depends on injuries. Gotta stay healthy first, then we can see if we picked up the right pieces to stop the leaking.

 

[Metaphors]

I don't see the Pats defense (or offense or ST for that matter) trying to stay the same or trying to fundamentally change. I see it more as constant evolution.

For the academics on the board, check this out for evolutionary theory that I think applies here as well. You kinda have to replace sexual reproduction with player acquisition...but what the hell, its the off-season.

A team can fall into the trap of spending all its energy and resources just to stay where they are. I think this includes the Colts now and will be the Chargers soon. The trap is that the competitive landscape is also changing and staying still quickly becomes falling behind when compared to all the other teams. It seems like Belichick really gets this. Player turnover and scheme adjustments are not only positives (when done on your terms), but they are necessary.

While I agree that Belichick is unlikely to change his long-standing defensive philosophy (3-4, 2-gap), I think it is foolish to believe he doesn't evolve the schemes (run, blitz, zone, man, etc.) from year to year.

 

[Crazyeechrispats1]

I think every team does a good job adapting to new plays, formations, personnel and rules, year by year.
I think the Patriots and the Colts are better at this than anyone.
That's why they are always in the thick of things at the end the last 7 years.
It all starts with the Coach, then trickles down to the signal caller the Lines offensive and defensive.
The skill guys are more important but the true new york team showed us painfully that the game of football is still won and lost in the trenches.
That being said I think we have to worry about us stopping the run this year.
We need the line to stay fairly healthy and this will deff be Seymours prove it year.
We have enough firepower next year in the draft to get another franchise left end.
So this is all on Seymour to prove that him Warren and Wilfork is the best 3-4 front in the NFL!

 

[Ring 6]

I'm with you for much of this discussion, but you just lost me. The Patriots played more man defense when Law was here, Rodney was faster and Wilson was healthy. Manning and Harrison still have the nightmares to prove it.

Actually, most of the issues we created for Manning were in zone coverages. We have always used man or some version of man under in sub packages, but we have always been primarily a zone team. The befuddling of Manning was from disguising zones, typically dropping 8, and often creating picks by assigning players to zones that he didnt expect at the snap.
The perfect example, the 4 Int game was done almost exclusively from zone packages. The twist in that game was Harrison and Law switching jobs with Law over the top and Harrison under in the cover 2.
The one I remember very well as befuddling Manning was in 2001, when Otis Smith used to basically play as a free safety from the corner position, and end up in an area of the field that Manning never thought he would be. manning would try to hit the deep out, and smith would be there to undercut it.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't see the Pats defense (or offense or ST for that matter) trying to stay the same or trying to fundamentally change. I see it more as constant evolution.

For the academics on the board, check this out for evolutionary theory that I think applies here as well. You kinda have to replace sexual reproduction with player acquisition...but what the hell, its the off-season.

A team can fall into the trap of spending all its energy and resources just to stay where they are. I think this includes the Colts now and will be the Chargers soon. The trap is that the competitive landscape is also changing and staying still quickly becomes falling behind when compared to all the other teams. It seems like Belichick really gets this. Player turnover and scheme adjustments are not only positives (when done on your terms), but they are necessary.

While I agree that Belichick is unlikely to change his long-standing defensive philosophy (3-4, 2-gap), I think it is foolish to believe he doesn't evolve the schemes (run, blitz, zone, man, etc.) from year to year.

I think you are 100% correct. BB is the kind of guy who IMO believes that if you didn't learn something today, you wasted the day. As I said before their isn't a facet of football that anyone has ever thought of that he won't use.
This difference in this discussion though is that everything he does is within his basic philosophy. That philosophy is conservative in nature. There is no question at all that BBs philosophy on defense and Capers are different. Capers believes in being aggressive. In essence, that the best way to stop an offense is to have one big play on a drive to dismantle them. Risk allowing the big play to get the big play. While BB believes that the best way to play defense is to first account for the entire field, to play team defense, and basically slug it out for small victories or small losses on every play. In more simplistic terms:
BB believes that if you must run 12 plays to score on me, I will win enough of them to stop you, but you must take it in small chunks. While Capers believes that every play is an opportunity to end a drive on the spot, and giving up big play is an acceptable consequence.
There is no question whatsoever in my mind who's philosophy will guide this team.

To give an example, lets say that BB hires Rod Marinelli to coach the DL 3 years from now after he is fired in Detroit. Are you really going to tell me that hiring Marinelli would mean that BB is going to change his defense to a 4-3 1 gap Tampa2 system? Absolutely no way, and it is exactly the same thing. Perhaps Marinelli isnt the perfect example because he doesnt have as much name recognition as Capers, but its the same thing.

BB is not going to adap his philosophy to what Capers want to do. Capers is going to adapt his philosophy to what BB wants to do. Why? A) Because BB is the boss, and B) because BB is a far, far better defensive mind than dom Capers.

 

[Ring 6]

I think every team does a good job adapting to new plays, formations, personnel and rules, year by year.
I think the Patriots and the Colts are better at this than anyone.
That's why they are always in the thick of things at the end the last 7 years.
It all starts with the Coach, then trickles down to the signal caller the Lines offensive and defensive.
The skill guys are more important but the true new york team showed us painfully that the game of football is still won and lost in the trenches.
That being said I think we have to worry about us stopping the run this year.
We need the line to stay fairly healthy and this will deff be Seymours prove it year.
We have enough firepower next year in the draft to get another franchise left end.
So this is all on Seymour to prove that him Warren and Wilfork is the best 3-4 front in the NFL!

I think that stopping the run is something you have to 'worry about' every year, because moreso than most other teams, it is a staple of our concept.
But I dont think there are reason we should be more worried about run d this year than any other. Of course it is important, but at this point it appears to be very much a strength, not a weakness.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Of course the defense had SOMETHING to do with it. But their ability to defend other teams became easier when those said teams became one-dimensional to try to keep up with our offense's scoring. So, uh, let me say this again: our offense carried us into the Super Bowl last year.

Using the Offense to play Defense is old hat; it has been done for the Rams "Greatest show on Turf" and for all this decades various Colts teams.

Dungey has a pitiful Defense. He has a 6-0 255 # whirling Dervish as his biggest defensive lineman. A 235# DE, along with a 250# DT and a 250# DE playing DT too. His defensive linemen are smaller than the Pats LBs. His LBs are tinier than most teams secondary players; and his Safeties are dwarfs. Only at CB does he have NFL sized players, but these are relatively new.

All these players are undersized but quick, and prepared and taught to ignore the run, or get run over and trampled, against the rush.

But they are prepared to play only pass, on every down.

Dungey assumes that Harrison, Peyton, Dallas, & Co. will be leading by three TDS before long, and teams will stop running... Half a pass Defense for a Half ***ed Defense.

They have won because the AFCS was a disaster. NOT anymore.

 

[Deus Irae]

Actually, most of the issues we created for Manning were in zone coverages. We have always used man or some version of man under in sub packages, but we have always been primarily a zone team. The befuddling of Manning was from disguising zones, typically dropping 8, and often creating picks by assigning players to zones that he didnt expect at the snap.
The perfect example, the 4 Int game was done almost exclusively from zone packages. The twist in that game was Harrison and Law switching jobs with Law over the top and Harrison under in the cover 2.
The one I remember very well as befuddling Manning was in 2001, when Otis Smith used to basically play as a free safety from the corner position, and end up in an area of the field that Manning never thought he would be. manning would try to hit the deep out, and smith would be there to undercut it.

No....

The Patriots are the most schizophrenic of the three--their game plans change the most depending on the opponent. But they have gone from a team that primarily played man-free (man-to-man with a free safety allowed to roam) a year ago, to a team that plays zone 75 percent of the time, mostly because of injuries to cornerbacks Ty Law and Tyrone Poole.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_2_229/ai_n8694405

 

[Metaphors]

No....

Um..yeah. Andy's comment:

The perfect example, the 4 Int game was done almost exclusively from zone packages. The twist in that game was Harrison and Law switching jobs with Law over the top and Harrison under in the cover 2.

is absolutely accurate. This has been documented before and is fairly obvious when seeing Law's interceptions. He started out with a man look but let his man release and dropped back into a zone. His picks happened because Manning didn't account for him drifting into areas he thought would be uncovered.

You can argue about the zone/man split for the Pats in general, but that game in particular was a zone scheme designed to mess with Manning's head. Thing of beauty.