Wilfork and the 2004 Draft

[Frezo]

Would it be correct to say that Wilfork was more of a 3 down player when Seymore was on his right? I don't recall seeing this much conversation regarding Wilfork being a 2 or 3 down player until this year.

 

[SanAngeloState]

The fools brought Mayo back before he was healed and his knee was never right the rest of the season. Same old macho bull**** short-sighted management that I ony thought other teams did...

Yep, I really hope they didn't ruin his knee. He might have felt obligated to tell them he ws 100%, when he wasn't.

so much for patriots players being supermen that don't need time to heal.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

I disagree. Wilfork has never been tripleteamed, thats silly. His job is absolutely not to eat up blockers. His job is to engage the C and cover the gap on either side of him. A 2gap system says each front 7 player does that, to imply that he is supposed to take blockers away from LBs is just totally wrong. He is not asked to hold onto the G that chips him on the way to the LB (what you are calling a constant double team). He is asked to control his 2 gaps.
TBC sacks have absolutely nothing to do with Wilfork. Most came with Wilfork on the sidelines.

There were a few run plays against the Ravens where Vince was definitely triple-teamed.

As for responsibilities, you're right that he's not asked to hold onto the chipping guard. We disagree on whether he's constantly double-teamed, and I admit I can't be too definitive because I haven't seen any "All 22" footage, so I'm relying on a handful of replays this season and the TV angles, which aren't the greatest. But especially on run plays, it seems that guard isn't just chipping, but rather double-teaming Vince. I've noticed on passing downs that they do chip Vince though.

You're right that a lot of TBC's sacks came on obvious passing situations in 3rd down without Vince on the field, and I shouldn't have implied that Vince is the only reason for his sacks, as TBC also had 5 and a half sacks with us in a similar role the year before he left for San Fran. But I don't think TBC hits double-digits if he hadn't picked up a few sacks on earlier downs that aren't obvious passing situations. As an example, he picked up 3 sacks on first and second down in the two games against Buffalo, though 2 came in the second match-up when Brace/Wright were at NT. Brace was pretty awful that first series, but settled in after that.

I think the NT is one of the most under-rated positions in the game, and a 2-gapper is incredibly rare. It is the critical position in the 3-4, and the most difficult to fill.

 

[BritPat]

I have Wilfork penned at #9 at worst looking back at the 2004 Draft.

Looking at it, Cleveland would likely have taken him at #6, considering they had Gerard Warren and Orpheus Roye at DT.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

And yet one sees a list of the top NFL players Wilfork's name is usually there.

Sporting News' NFL Top 100: Colts QB Peyton Manning voted No. 1 by our panel of experts - Jeff D'Alessio, Sporting News - NFL - Sporting News

Top 50: Lining up again behind those two quarterbacks - NFL - CBSSports.com Football

ProFootballWeekly.com PFW's Top 50 NFL players list: a breakdown

how does it go?

oh yeah.....don't believe everything that you read

 

[tanked_as_usual]

enough of this 'he's only a 2-down player'.....all 2 gap NT's are 2 down guys....especially in the passing down schemes the pats operate....it would not matter who the pats had at NT, the 3-4 DE's usually go inside and they use OLB's as down linemen.

 

[mcmurtry86]

Only way we would get picks for Wilfork is if we franchise him and then trade him, which is a possibility although I would like to see the Pats just sign him to a multi year deal.

The Patriots wont switch to a 4-3, BB has never run anything besides the 3-4 in all of his years in the NFL

Well, except when he won a Super Bowl in New England running a 4-3.....

 

[The Dynasty]

Well, except when he won a Super Bowl in New England running a 4-3.....

The 2001 team didnt run a straight 4-3 defense, he mixed things up a bunch that season. In the SB he ran a bunch of aggressive nickel and dime packages. Although it wasnt a straight 3-4 defense it wasnt a straight 4-3 either. I can see what you are saying though. My point is that it is very rare for a BB coached defense to run a 4-3.

 

[Ring 6]

Would it be correct to say that Wilfork was more of a 3 down player when Seymore was on his right? I don't recall seeing this much conversation regarding Wilfork being a 2 or 3 down player until this year.

He has always been a 2down player, i.e. comes out on 3rd down passing situations.

 

[Ring 6]

enough of this 'he's only a 2-down player'.....all 2 gap NT's are 2 down guys....especially in the passing down schemes the pats operate....it would not matter who the pats had at NT, the 3-4 DE's usually go inside and they use OLB's as down linemen.

Which degrades the value of a NT in our system, because he is a 2 down player, unless he can stay in, which few could.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Out of this list of 20 I put Wilfork #20.
I don't know how we put a guy who plays 2 downs, and has almost the sole responsibility of shutting down the run on a ery average run defense be ranked ahead of good 3 down players?
I know this board overrates the Pats, but to say he is among the top 5 or 6 players in that draft is ludicrous.
To be in the top 5 or 6 of this list he would have to be a Pat Williams, Ted Washington orJamal Williams type of NT that makes your defense impossible to run on. Have you guys been watching teams run successfully up the middle on us for years?

If your saying he's overrated, I agree. However, I want the Pats to re-sign him because there isn't anybody else to replace him. Also, if he leaves, it will then create another need that Pats can't afford.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

If your saying he's overrated, I agree. However, I want the Pats to re-sign him because there isn't anybody else to replace him. Also, if he leaves, it will then create another need that Pats can't afford.

if they can pry a 2010 first rounder from the chiefs or broncos in a tag and trade, I say go for it and then sign ryan pickett and draft rolando mcclain

 

[Ring 6]

If your saying he's overrated, I agree. However, I want the Pats to re-sign him because there isn't anybody else to replace him. Also, if he leaves, it will then create another need that Pats can't afford.

I'm also saying he isnt as hard to replace as many think. Wilfork played 510 snaps on defense, which is just over half of the 941 plays. Out of those 265 were passes, so Vince Wilfork was on the field for 245 running plays, about 15 a game. That is about 1/4 of the total plays where Wilfork is on the field doing what he is good at, playing run D. He spends more than half the time he is on the field rushing the passer, which is basically futile. Yeah he is overrated.
He actually was 12th on the team in # of plays played. That means a reserve plays more than him.
He covers 2 gaps of run D on half the plays. All that is needed to replace him would be a one dimensional 2 gap technique player. Even of that player does nothing other than play good 2gap discipline we lose very little.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I'm also saying he isnt as hard to replace as many think.

I also agree. There are plenty of teams that don't have a "big name" NT and are stopping the run better than the Pats. As long as you have talent around the NT, your team will be fine at stopping the run.

 

[Ring 6]

I also agree. There are plenty of teams that don't have a "big name" NT and are stopping the run better than the Pats. As long as you have talent around the NT, your team will be fine at stopping the run.

I think that the decline of the talent of the franchise (which has been steady, 2007 was an anomoly where they were so good at one thing it overwhelmed everything else) was inevitable, because there was no possible way in a capped system to maintain the overall talent level of 2003-2004.
I think actually BB and the front office did a tremendous job staying competitve by becoming strong enough in some areas to overcome the weaknesses that were developing and widening every year.
I think ultimately, though the strengths led to the weaknesses. I think spending 2 #1s (plus the #2 on Hill) on the DL after already having Seymour in fold was a mistake, because it cost us building up other areas that became weaknesses.
The 01-04 Patriots were much more about a lack of weaknesses than they were about a wealth of overwhelming strengths. The 05-09 Patriots were more about excessive strengths trying to hide and overcome significant weaknesses.
Result 01-04 we win every big game.
05-09 we beat all the bad teams, and more and more as time goes on, lose to good teams that take advantage of the weaknesses.
Again if you consider 2007 an anomoly because the passing offense was so good, the best ever, that it overcame the weaknesses, and was so good it won all on its own, the decline is steady.
I also think it was well hidden. 2005 was the Bruschi issue. 2006 was a bad 2nd half in the AFCCG (which should have been the bell ringing because it was so uncharacteristic) 2007 masked it completely. 2008 didnt count because Brady was hurt. 2009 was the first time that it stood out, and apparently hit home.
We don't need to rebuild, because we arent many pieces away from contending for a title, but I think you are going to see an off-season that resembles the ones from 01-04, designed to shore up weaknesses, than one from 06-09, designed to become dominant in strength areas and not terrible in weak areas.

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

I think ultimately, though the strengths led to the weaknesses. I think spending 2 #1s (plus the #2 on Hill) on the DL after already having Seymour in fold was a mistake, because it cost us building up other areas that became weaknesses.

I somewhat agree. Are you saying the two #1's were (Warren and Wilfork)? I wasn't really feeling the Warren pick (I really wanted Willis McGahee or Larry Johnson) as he might have been taken too high. However, the Wilfork pick was a great value and provided nice depth behind Keith Traylor. Also, we didn't know how Traylor would hold up playing NT in a 3-4.

Regarding Marquise Hill (God bless him), but I didn't like the pick at all because they already were good at DL and had Green as a capable back up.

In addition, the Watson pick in 2004 was ridiculous because they just drafted Graham and was doing just fine. A lot of people wanted Dansby, but I was really high on Stephen Jackson even though they already had Dillon. I think they should've traded up for him.

The 01-04 Patriots were much more about a lack of weaknesses than they were about a wealth of overwhelming strengths. The 05-09 Patriots were more about excessive strengths trying to hide and overcome significant weaknesses.

Agree

Result 01-04 we win every big game.
05-09 we beat all the bad teams, and more and more as time goes on, lose to good teams that take advantage of the weaknesses.
Again if you consider 2007 an anomoly because the passing offense was so good, the best ever, that it overcame the weaknesses, and was so good it won all on its own, the decline is steady.

Agree. I have been getting ripped for saying their 2007 defense was able to stop the run because they didn't have to stop the run. Also, their defense was able to tee off on QB's because the Pats put opposing teams in passing situations by the end of the 1st quarter.

We don't need to rebuild, because we arent many pieces away from contending for a title, but I think you are going to see an off-season that resembles the ones from 01-04, designed to shore up weaknesses, than one from 06-09, designed to become dominant in strength areas and not terrible in weak areas.

The Pats need to go back to basics and think what won them super bowls (I think we already know the answer). The flashy offense was really fun to watch, actually I think we can all agree it was the most fun season to watch as a fan until that nightmare of a super bowl. I've been a broken record for the last 5 years but the Pats need to shore up the defense, hire an actual defensive coordinator (they could've had Dom Capers), hire an actual offensive coordinator and have a better commitment to the ground game.

 

[ALP]

LOL, all u guys hold eli to a higher regard than I

i would take 3 QB's b4 wilfork, but it would be schuab instead of eli
also fitz, jackson and dansby along w/ allen

wouldnt put vilma up there, and would put the safeties behind vince, along w/ turner

 

[Ring 6]

I somewhat agree. Are you saying the two #1's were (Warren and Wilfork)? I wasn't really feeling the Warren pick (I really wanted Willis McGahee or Larry Johnson) as he might have been taken too high. However, the Wilfork pick was a great value and provided nice depth behind Keith Traylor. Also, we didn't know how Traylor would hold up playing NT in a 3-4.

Regarding Marquise Hill (God bless him), but I didn't like the pick at all because they already were good at DL and had Green as a capable back up.

In addition, the Watson pick in 2004 was ridiculous because they just drafted Graham and was doing just fine. A lot of people wanted Dansby, but I was really high on Stephen Jackson even though they already had Dillon. I think they should've traded up for him.

Agree

Agree. I have been getting ripped for saying their 2007 defense was able to stop the run because they didn't have to stop the run. Also, their defense was able to tee off on QB's because the Pats put opposing teams in passing situations by the end of the 1st quarter.

The Pats need to go back to basics and think what won them super bowls (I think we already know the answer). The flashy offense was really fun to watch, actually I think we can all agree it was the most fun season to watch as a fan until that nightmare of a super bowl. I've been a broken record for the last 5 years but the Pats need to shore up the defense, hire an actual defensive coordinator (they could've had Dom Capers), hire an actual offensive coordinator and have a better commitment to the ground game.

I think it was a necessary evil. In hindsight it seems obvious to me. Faced with a roster than had a cumulative value far in excess of the cap, the talent on the roster was certain to deteriorate. What BB did (by design or happnestance) was to greatly increase the talent at the high end of the roster, and in specific areas, in order to cover the impending degradation of other areas.
In the end, it got us about 2 plays away from winning 2 more SBs, and controlled our division for 5 years but for losing tiebreaker in the season our best player missed entirely.

If you really understand the issues that were in front of the franchise in March of 2005, the results have been pretty remarkable.

 

[patsfan-1982]

Regarding the 2-down argument, is Gary Guyton a better player because he's on the field more?

In most lists, people put the 3 franchise QBs #1-#3, but why does Eli rank so high? He gets bonus points for playing a critical position. He's probably only the 9th or 10th best QB in the league right now, but does that make him better than perhaps the top WR in the league in Fitzgerald, or one of the top 3 pass rushers in Allen?

Vince is a dominant NT, and one of the few who can play the 2-gap system. Good NTs who fit a 3-4 system are very difficult to find, which is why Tyson Jackson was drafted way higher than he should have been. Vince isn't supposed to shut down the run game; he's supposed to eat up blockers, which he does quite well. Each week, the other team's OC must start by accounting for Vince in the middle. He demands a constant double-team, sometimes even a triple-team.

It's no surprise that Ray Lewis has been rejuvenated once the Ravens drafted Ngata to eat up blockers inside. And though Haynesworth's stats in Washington were poor, his teammates credit him for allowing them to make plays around him. A good NT makes his other teammates better. They can make a low-key free agent signing like TBC into a double-digit sack machine. And when you don't play with a great NT, even a great DE like Seymour becomes less effective (see Oakland).

Yes, Vince only plays 2 downs. And yes, he sometimes gets pushed out of the way by 3 other guys. But you're not going to replace him very easily. Finding a good NT is tough; finding one who can play the 2-gap system well is even tougher. There are more elite QBs, WRs and RBs than there are elite NTs (in any system). He's a rare commodity, and deserves to be recognized as such.

yes wilfork is a good player and means a lot to the pats but you can't rank him in the top 10 of a draft that may have 5 or 6 hall of fame players in it


as far as Eli Manning, being #3 i know eveyone hates him cause he stoped the pats perfact season. but he is a good maybe even great QB 4021 yerds passing 27 TD's 14 INT's 93.1 QB Rating. bradys numbers where not much better. this year. if the jets had Eli Manning, as there QB they would have won the SB and when the G man had a D like the jets have they did win a SB

 

[Deus Irae]

yes wilfork is a good player and means a lot to the pats but you can't rank him in the top 10 of a draft that may have 5 or 6 hall of fame players in it

If you've got Wilfork much lower than 6th, you're doing nothing but establishing that your player analysis skills should be completely ignored in the future.