Who is your "safety valve" at #29?

[Ivan]

Let's say pick 29 is about to be on the clock. So far, you've caught no breaks. E.g.:

Aaron Donald is a Cowboy.
Ra'Shede Hageman is a Raven.
Ryan Shazier is a Packer.
Dee Ford is a Saint.
Absolutely everybody is trying to trade down for more picks, so you can't find a trading partner. (An all-too-realistic possibility, according to current chatter.)

Who is your fallback plan, the player who you feel pretty confident will be available at #29 if you have to take them?

I am guessing Nix would be long gone at this point and Ealy is also most likely off the board. If this were the case then I would go with Moseley as LB is the most pressing need to me and Mosely is a great prospect with experience in a pro style defense. Basically my top prospects for the pick are gone so this really would be the fail safe pick.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'd rather see us back in a 3-4 simply because the biggest value of the scheme is that you can better hide your pass rush strategy than with a 4-3. And bringing this post back full circle, Steven Tuitt would be someone who could get us back to the 3-4

If they were to go back to a 3-4 then LB would be the overwhelming need as they only have three starters at this point. I'm not sure Ford can play the position but Mosely and Shazier could step in and start from day one, and Van Noy would be a solid pick but not in the first. I think belichick wants to maintain the flexibility to go 3-4 occasionally but this is really a 4-3 team at this point as Jones, Ninkovich and Buchanon are not LB's and they are not suited to playing end in a 3-4, and, as i said before they are way down on LB's if they want to play 3-4 and would need to add 3-4 of them to be suited for it as a base defense.

I think it's a pipe dream to think that we'd go back to a 2-gapping 3-4 at this point. It just doesn't fit the way in which BB has been evolving the defense, and it's probably not a particularly effective scheme against more spread out offenses. Even Nick Saban is moving away from it (at least in terms of the kind of players he has been recruiting more recently). Of course we'll play some 3-4 at times, along with some 4-3 (over and under), 5-2, 4-4, and we'll be in nickel 2/3 of the time anyway.

 

[patfanken]

I think it's a pipe dream to think that we'd go back to a 3-gapping 3-4 at this point. It just doesn't fit the way in which BB has been evolving the defense, and it's probably not a particularly effective scheme against more spread out offenses. Even Nick Saban is moving away from it (at least in terms of the kind of players he has been recruiting more recently). Of course we'll play some 3-4 at times, along with some 4-3 (over and under), 5-2, 4-4, and we'll be in nickel 2/3 of the time anyway.

Oh, I agree that the 2 gap 3-4 is a thing of the past. When I mentioned getting back to the 3-4, I was thinking more about a Steeler or Jets style of the 3-4. A more aggressive style.

Recently I even opined a 5-5-1 kind of alignment. Envision this. Tuitt/Armstead at one DE, Willfolk/Hageman at NT Kelly/CJones at DE Jones and Ninko are at OLB positions.
Ninko aligns outside eye on the TE. Tuitt/Armstead on the inside eye of the OT. Wilfolk plays off set on the C to the TE side. Kelly aligns outside eye of the OG to the SE side. Jones outside shoulder of OT.

Behind them you have Revis outside CB Dennard outside CB Collins, Mayo, and Browner in the box, with McCourty in a single high S. Just think about what you could do with that alignment. The zone Blitz possibilities are endless. The personnel possibilities are also huge. Christ Hightower isn't even on the field in this scenario, and there are tons of situations where he'd be effective depending on the situation.

In this scenario the potential pressure would be intense, the you'd get tough 5 under man or zone with 3 men in the middle to cut off the 5-10 yd passes that are killing D's right now. Essentially between the immediate pressure, either real or perceived. The offense would be forcing to either throw into the teeth of your coverage, or have to quickly throw deep over the top into either the top coverage S in the league, or the best shut down CB since Deon. Lots of small windows if that's your choice. Also having 10 men in the box will deter rush options.

Mayo, I'm starting to love this concept as a base.

 

[mayoclinic]

Oh, I agree that the 2 gap 3-4 is a thing of the past. When I mentioned getting back to the 3-4, I was thinking more about a Steeler or Jets style of the 3-4. A more aggressive style.

Recently I even opined a 5-5-1 kind of alignment. Envision this. Tuitt/Armstead at one DE, Willfolk/Hageman at NT Kelly/CJones at DE Jones and Ninko are at OLB positions.
Ninko aligns outside eye on the TE. Tuitt/Armstead on the inside eye of the OT. Wilfolk plays off set on the C to the TE side. Kelly aligns outside eye of the OG to the SE side. Jones outside shoulder of OT.

Behind them you have Revis outside CB Dennard outside CB Collins, Mayo, and Browner in the box, with McCourty in a single high S. Just think about what you could do with that alignment. The zone Blitz possibilities are endless. The personnel possibilities are also huge. Christ Hightower isn't even on the field in this scenario, and there are tons of situations where he'd be effective depending on the situation.

In this scenario the potential pressure would be intense, the you'd get tough 5 under man or zone with 3 men in the middle to cut off the 5-10 yd passes that are killing D's right now. Essentially between the immediate pressure, either real or perceived. The offense would be forcing to either throw into the teeth of your coverage, or have to quickly throw deep over the top into either the top coverage S in the league, or the best shut down CB since Deon. Lots of small windows if that's your choice. Also having 10 men in the box will deter rush options.

Mayo, I'm starting to love this concept as a base.

I think it's pretty meaningless to get over-focused on how many players are on the line. Depending on the personnel, a 5-2 can be thought of as a 3-4 with ends who are standing up. As Ray Horton noted (and I quoted elsewhere):

"I don't really care what we are on defense," Horton said. "I want to know what are we going to look like. We're going to look like an aggressive, forward-attacking defense . . . and I've seen that on tape.

"That's the most important thing to me – what do we look like, not what we line up in. We may be a 3-4 on one snap. We may be a 4-3 on another snap. I guarantee you we'll be a 5-2 sometimes, and we'll be a 4-4 sometimes. We are a multi-front, attacking defense, and that's the most important thing."

...

"That may mean one snap being 5-2, the next snap it may be 4-4. It will be predicated by what the offense does. We have athletes that can stand up, that can put their hand in the ground, that can run, so that's why I go back to the multi-front defense.

"I can't tell you what we're going to be right now. It depends on who we line up game one against and what do we need to take away."

Ray Horton's Hybrid Defense - The Base Front Seven - Music City Miracles

 

[Ivan]

I think it's a pipe dream to think that we'd go back to a 2-gapping 3-4 at this point. It just doesn't fit the way in which BB has been evolving the defense, and it's probably not a particularly effective scheme against more spread out offenses. Even Nick Saban is moving away from it (at least in terms of the kind of players he has been recruiting more recently). Of course we'll play some 3-4 at times, along with some 4-3 (over and under), 5-2, 4-4, and we'll be in nickel 2/3 of the time anyway.

That's pretty much what i said to ken, they aren't a 3-4 team any more but maintain the flexibility to use it occasionally. Given that i would downgrade Tuitt because imo he's a 3-4 end.

 

[mayoclinic]

That's pretty much what i said to ken, they aren't a 3-4 team any more but maintain the flexibility to use it occasionally. Given that i would downgrade Tuitt because imo he's a 3-4 end.

I think that guys who can play tackle or end have value. I include Dominique Easley along with Tuitt and Hageman in this group. They could play a 3/5 tech in a 5-2 front or a LDE in a 4-3 under. The true "ends" in this kind of hybrid have to be able to play either standing up or with their hand in the dirt. Jones, Ninkovich, Hightower and Buchanan all fit. Trent Murphy might be a good fit. Scott Crichton is too stiff and immobile, IMO.

 

[dryheat44]

Let's say pick 29 is about to be on the clock. So far, you've caught no breaks. E.g.:

Aaron Donald is a Cowboy.
Ra'Shede Hageman is a Raven.
Ryan Shazier is a Packer.
Dee Ford is a Saint.
Absolutely everybody is trying to trade down for more picks, so you can't find a trading partner. (An all-too-realistic possibility, according to current chatter.)

Who is your fallback plan, the player who you feel pretty confident will be available at #29 if you have to take them?

Well, as I put together my draft board, I count 29 guys as 1st rounders. If you assume that three quarterbacks and 4 offensive tackles leave the board before 29, even if nobody reaches for a position, there would be at least one guy I'm comfortable with. Most likely one of Cooks, Lee, Verrett, Roby, Jernigan, Mosely, Clinton-Dix, or Pryor. I would be happiest with a safety, least happy with Jernigan.

 

[manxman2601]

I think it's a pipe dream to think that we'd go back to a 2-gapping 3-4 at this point. It just doesn't fit the way in which BB has been evolving the defense, and it's probably not a particularly effective scheme against more spread out offenses. Even Nick Saban is moving away from it (at least in terms of the kind of players he has been recruiting more recently). Of course we'll play some 3-4 at times, along with some 4-3 (over and under), 5-2, 4-4, and we'll be in nickel 2/3 of the time anyway.

Why is it a pipe dream? BB isn't going to rule anything out. He is still drafting and signing players compatible with a 3-4 two gap system and continued to play it at times last year. We will continue to play 4-3, 3-4, one gap, two gap and everything in between.

 

[manxman2601]

That's pretty much what i said to ken, they aren't a 3-4 team any more but maintain the flexibility to use it occasionally. Given that i would downgrade Tuitt because imo he's a 3-4 end.

He's also a 4-3 end, albeit a big one and could presumably play 4-3 DT, although he wasn't asked to do so very much at ND.

 

[mayoclinic]

Why is it a pipe dream? BB isn't going to rule anything out. He is still drafting and signing players compatible with a 3-4 two gap system and continued to play it at times last year. We will continue to play 4-3, 3-4, one gap, two gap and everything in between.

Of course we will - and I stated as much above, and have stated it elsewhere many times:

Of course we'll play some 3-4 at times, along with some 4-3 (over and under), 5-2, 4-4, and we'll be in nickel 2/3 of the time anyway.

But that's quite different from saying "I'd rather see us back in a 3-4", which suggests that that will be the dominant defensive scheme. BB has been moving away from a predominantly 3-4 2-gapping base for some time, and the personnel don't really support running it as the dominant scheme.

 

[Ivan]

I think that guys who can play tackle or end have value. I include Dominique Easley along with Tuitt and Hageman in this group. They could play a 3/5 tech in a 5-2 front or a LDE in a 4-3 under. The true "ends" in this kind of hybrid have to be able to play either standing up or with their hand in the dirt. Jones, Ninkovich, Hightower and Buchanan all fit. Trent Murphy might be a good fit. Scott Crichton is too stiff and immobile, IMO.

Easley tore his ACL twice and I have zero interest in Murphy in ythe first. If they go DE I want it to be a 4-3 pass rusher and would take Crichton over Murphy or Tuitt.

 

[manxman2601]

Of course we will - and I stated as much above, and have stated it elsewhere many times:



But that's quite different from saying "we should go back to a 3-4", which implies that that will be the dominant defensive scheme. BB has been moving away from a predominantly 3-4 2-gapping base for some time, and the personnel don't really support running it as the dominant scheme.

Well the dominant scheme is the one-named sub-package so that goes without saying. He's still recruiting 3-4 body tapes. 6-4+ 300lb plus DTs, 240lb plus linebackers so I'm not sure any changes in philosophy will necessarily reflect in the types of players he recruits. I'm not saying it won't and I'd be fine with a Shazier or Caraun Reid but I think the talk of a diametric shift in philosophy are a little premature.

 

[Coach42]

They could line up in a 3-4 with the roster as it is right now. Kelly and Armstead/Jones at DE Wilfork NT l Ninkovich/Jones Hightower Mayo Collins/Jones at LB. In many ways this is the most complete 3-4 capable roster the Pats have had in years. I don't think they'll run a ton of it but they don't need to add pieces to try to play it.

 

[manxman2601]

They could line up in a 3-4 with the roster as it is right now. Kelly and Armstead/Jones at DE Wilfork NT l Ninkovich/Jones Hightower Mayo Collins/Jones at LB. In many ways this is the most complete 3-4 capable roster the Pats have had in years. I don't think they'll run a ton of it but they don't need to add pieces to try to play it.

Well I'd like them to add another 3-4 DE for comfort, but absolutely. They could also run a one gap 3-4 with Chandler Jones and Armstead on the ends, they could play Mayo's 5-2, a big 4-3 or a normal 4-3. The only defensive front they'd struggle to play is a NASCAR front. And this is my point. They key to any discussion of a BB philosophy is retaining flexibility and not to get locked into discussing one specific type of defense.

 

[mayoclinic]

They could line up in a 3-4 with the roster as it is right now. Kelly and Armstead/Jones at DE Wilfork NT l Ninkovich/Jones Hightower Mayo Collins/Jones at LB. In many ways this is the most complete 3-4 capable roster the Pats have had in years. I don't think they'll run a ton of it but they don't need to add pieces to try to play it.

Of course they could. That's the whole point of being "multiple". But there's a big difference between being able to field a 3-4 lineup, and running it as your predominant base. Jones is capable of standing up - or of playing the 5-tech for that matter - but neither is as much his natural position as playing 4-3 DE from a 3-point stance. Armstead is unproven, and having Kelly/Armstead as your 5 techs with no depth wouldn't be smart if you were going to mainly run a 3-4. Similarly, there's very little depth at LB besides Ninkovich-Jones/Collins and Hightower/Mayo.

Again, I fully expect the Pats to run some 3-4 as part of a "multiple" hybrid defense. But Ken's post talked of going "back to a 3-4", which I interpreted as a return to the 2004-2009 defense, and I don't think that's the direction BB is headed.

 

[DaBruinz]

Let's see who's available among DT/DE beasts Hageman & Tuitt, interior disruptors Jernigan & Easley,
edge rushers Ealy, Ford & Murphy, and pure LBs Shazier & Van Noy.

Tweeners like Attaochu & Lawrence are too risky here, and Crichton isn't a top-30 physical talent.

Just as Zack Martin is the only OLman, Eric Ebron is the only TE I would consider at 29, but both likely
will be long gone anyway.

I also would strongly consider a small trade-down if some of the above names are still available.
At worst, some of the next-level guys stand a better chance of lasting a bit longer.

Sorry, but I don't see Zack Martin being "long gone" by 29 unless teams decide to go on a major string of O-linemen.. There is just too much other high end talent for people to pass on for that to happen.. And I just don't see it.

 

[ausbacker]

Let's say pick 29 is about to be on the clock. So far, you've caught no breaks. E.g.:

Aaron Donald is a Cowboy.
Ra'Shede Hageman is a Raven.
Ryan Shazier is a Packer.
Dee Ford is a Saint.
Absolutely everybody is trying to trade down for more picks, so you can't find a trading partner. (An all-too-realistic possibility, according to current chatter.)

Who is your fallback plan, the player who you feel pretty confident will be available at #29 if you have to take them?

I've been on the Stephon Tuitt train for a while. I like the flexibility he provides to play DT/DE. That said, pick 29 will more than likely be traded similar to the Jamie Collins scenario. I would be fine with that.

 

[Coach42]

Of course they could. That's the whole point of being "multiple". But there's a big difference between being able to field a 3-4 lineup, and running it as your predominant base. Jones is capable of standing up - or of playing the 5-tech for that matter - but neither is as much his natural position as playing 4-3 DE from a 3-point stance. Armstead is unproven, and having Kelly/Armstead as your 5 techs with no depth wouldn't be smart if you were going to mainly run a 3-4. Similarly, there's very little depth at LB besides Ninkovich-Jones/Collins and Hightower/Mayo.

Again, I fully expect the Pats to run some 3-4 as part of a "multiple" hybrid defense. But Ken's post talked of going "back to a 3-4", which I interpreted as a return to the 2004-2009 defense, and I don't think that's the direction BB is headed.

No, I actually agree with you. I don't expect the base to be a 3-4. The point I was trying to make is that it's kind of funny that there has been a shift away from the 3-4 two gap for sometime now yet this roster is probably the best equipped to run it since 2007.

 

[Ivan]

He's also a 4-3 end, albeit a big one and could presumably play 4-3 DT, although he wasn't asked to do so very much at ND.

I agree completely, there's a good deal of value to guys who can play both end and tackle and Tuitt can do that, however in this case i would rather see them go for more specific upside than more average versatility. I'm not saying Tuitt is average but more that he's going to be good at a number of things but not dominant at one. Along the same line of thinking I would have always taken a guy like Nix over Donald given the systems the Patriots have been running, however this year I would take Donald because I think that while Nix is a better all around DT I believe that Donald could become a premiere interior pass rusher, and I would take that strength over the versatility. It will still always come down to an evaluation of the individual players but this draft I am looking for guys who i think can step in and help them fill needs this season, and pass rush and coverage in their defensive front seven are at a premium for me, as with this secondary they could have a top 3-4 defense if they can fill those remaining need. Brady is going to put up over 25 a game, that's a fact, and a 15-16 point a game defense would make them incredibly strong.


A month or so ago i was completely against the idea of Shazier in the first, now i think he would be a great pick, but much of that comes from the fact that i think they are changing their defensive philosophy, and i do think Mayo is on the right track in how he is looking at it, and this means more pressure inside and LB's who can cover. If they add the remaining pieces to make that come together then they could be very very tough to move on next season, and i can't even begin to think of how much fun it would be to have a top 3 defensive team to go with the rest of the package.

 

[Scott McCann]

C Travis Swanson