Are you confident in this defense?

[Ring 6]

Your 'question' isn't a question. It's an assertion without factual backing and an insistence that I break down my analysis in the way that you prefer even though I find that manner to be the wrong approach to take. As I noted, even using your argument, you turned around and did what you're complaining about my doing when you failed to include Guyton with Bruschi for last year's group.



Now you're projecting injuries and games lost to them? I refuse to go down that rabbit hole.

Explain this to me.
If Vrabel played OLB in the base and DE in the sub.
If we are trying to project this years defense compared to last years defense what player(s) do you compare to Vrabel?

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Vrabel, even thoug injured, had more sacks than Burgess did last year. Again, even using your basis, I simply and rationally come do a different conclusion than you do.

Vrabel played all 16 games last year while Burgess played 10. Vrabel beat him beat him by a 1/2 sack, big deal.

 

[AzPatsFan]

D-line is better than last year

Linebackers are worse than last year

Secondary is worse than last year, right now, but could improve dramatically if Springs gets out there or if one of the puppies grows up over the course of the season.

I'm confident that the offense will give the defense the opportunity to go through the needed growing pains, and that the defense will gel in time to help when it's needed at the end of the season and in the playoffs.

Its all a matter of perspective.

The D-line I see is better and deeper and healthy over last year.

The Line backing is better with the return to health of AD. Its better that we are no longer playing raw rookies at both ILB positions. Plus both former rookies have beefed up in the off season. Its better that we have found some depth a the other OLB position. Personally I think Pierre Woods has gotten better and better the more he plays. BTW no one seems to have noticed that Woods has accumulated 5 sacks this preseason...

Bodden will be a fair RCB. Meriwether, and Sanders are fully experienced Safeties now, and I like the depth with McGowan and Chung. The LCB position is still an issue but only because of dings to the candidates,

Last year's Defense finished Top Tenth YA and Top Eighth PA, This edition is better across the board. Plus the offense should score more points, so opposition offenses will be more one dimensional.

We had a bumper crop of rookies, yet I don't see a single position that we are projecting MUST be filled with a rookie starter. Ergo this Defense will be better than just Top Tenth/Top Eighth.

 

[Ring 6]

Vrabel, even thoug injured, had more sacks than Burgess did last year. Again, even using your basis, I simply and rationally come do a different conclusion than you do.

OK so you expect Woods in the base plus Burgess in the sub package, taking the snaps that Vrabel took last year to be a downgrade from the level Vrabel played at last year.
I dont think that is unreasonable. I think significant downgrade would be unreasonable, and I think upgrade is a distinct possibility.
See that wasnt so hard was it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Explain this to me.
If Vrabel played OLB in the base and DE in the sub.
If we are trying to project this years defense compared to last years defense what player(s) do you compare to Vrabel?

When Vrabel is on the field as a D-lineman, why the would I be evaluating him as a linebacker? When Burgess is on the field as a D-lineman, why would I be evaluating him as a linebacker?

That's what you're trying to do. I refuse to make that mistake.

 

[Deus Irae]

Its all a matter of perspective.

The D-line I see is better and deeper and healthy over last year.

The Line backing is better with the return to health of AD. Its better that we are no longer playing raw rookies at both ILB positions. Plus both former rookies have beefed up in the off season. Its better that we have found some depth a the other OLB position. Personally I think Pierre Woods has gotten better and better the more he plays. BTW no one seems to have noticed that Woods has accumulated 5 sacks this preseason...

Bodden will be a fair RCB. Meriwether, and Sanders are fully experienced Safeties now, and I like the depth with McGowan and Chung. The LCB position is still an issue but only because of dings to the candidates,

Last year's Defense finished Top Tenth YA and Top Eighth PA, This edition is better across the board. Plus the offense should score more points, so opposition offenses will be more one dimensional.

We had a bumper crop of rookies, yet I don't see a single position that we are projecting MUST be filled with a rookie starter. Ergo this Defense will be better than just Top Tenth/Top Eighth.

Yes, it's a matter of perspective. Yes, it's an argument without any provable answer. No, I do not think that this defense is better across the board than last year's team, as of right now. No, I do not think that this defense is better overall than last year's team, as of right now.

 

[Deus Irae]

OK so you expect Woods in the base plus Burgess in the sub package, taking the snaps that Vrabel took last year to be a downgrade from the level Vrabel played at last year.
I dont think that is unreasonable. I think significant downgrade would be unreasonable, and I think upgrade is a distinct possibility.
See that wasnt so hard was it.

It's not about 'hard'. It's about it not being the issue.

 

[Ring 6]

When Vrabel is on the field as a D-lineman, why the would I be evaluating him as a linebacker? When Burgess is on the field as a D-lineman, why would I be evaluating him as a linebacker?

That's what you're trying to do. I refuse to make that mistake.

But thats our defense. In sub packages we play OLBs as DEs. Always have.
We are evaluating Vrabel as a player that plays OLB in the base, AND plays DE in the sub. To ignore one or the other is to only evaluate part of the defense.
We were evaluating the Patriot defense, not the base, or first down defense.
The fact is that Vrabel played 2 positions. This year it will be shared by 2 players.
It sounds like you want to evaluate the base and forget that there are half the plays that we arent in it.
Im just not understanding that approach.
I could care less what we call the positions.

 

[Ring 6]

It's not about 'hard'. It's about it not being the issue.

Then what do you think the issue is?
I thought the issue was comparing last years defense to this years defense.
Wouldnt that entail all of their roles and jobs, not just the ones they do on 1st and 10?

 

[Deus Irae]

But thats our defense. In sub packages we play OLBs as DEs. Always have.
We are evaluating Vrabel as a player that plays OLB in the base, AND plays DE in the sub. To ignore one or the other is to only evaluate part of the defense.
We were evaluating the Patriot defense, not the base, or first down defense.
The fact is that Vrabel played 2 positions. This year it will be shared by 2 players.
It sounds like you want to evaluate the base and forget that there are half the plays that we arent in it.
Im just not understanding that approach.
I could care less what we call the positions.

No, Andy, I was evaluating THE PLAYERS and what they've shown to date, and using the starters as the basis for that because it was unfair to view Burgess as a linebacker given what he's done to date. Burgess has not been a linebacker. Therefore, he didn't warrant inclusion as a linebacker.

You, on the other hand, wanted to bring Burgess into the deal, so you tried to force me to change the basis of my analysis. Given that I had broken down my analysis into 3 parts, being D-line/linebacker/secondary, and given that Burgess has not yet been a linebacker, I rejected your attempt, and rightfully so.

 

[Deus Irae]

Then what do you think the issue is?
I thought the issue was comparing last years defense to this years defense.
Wouldnt that entail all of their roles and jobs, not just the ones they do on 1st and 10?

The issue was my ranking last year's linebackers above this year's linebackers and you trying to claim otherwise by including non-linebackers into the mix.

 

[Ring 6]

The issue was my ranking last year's linebackers above this year's linebackers and you trying to claim otherwise by including non-linebackers into the mix.

Do you disagree that part of the job duties of OLBs in our defense is to play DE in sub packages?
I'm not splitting hairs over what we call the player, I'm trying to compare the 11 players that are on the field.
Last year Vrabel as an OLB lined up at OLB in the base, and DE in sub packages.
This year Woods lines up in his spot in the base, and Burgess comes in instead in the sub.
All of our OLBs, McGinest, Colvin, Vrabel, have played that role.
So its half an answer to compare the base role of an OLB without including their role in the sub.

 

[Ring 6]

No, Andy, I was evaluating THE PLAYERS and what they've shown to date, and using the starters as the basis for that because it was unfair to view Burgess as a linebacker given what he's done to date. Burgess has not been a linebacker. Therefore, he didn't warrant inclusion as a linebacker.

You, on the other hand, wanted to bring Burgess into the deal, so you tried to force me to change the basis of my analysis. Given that I had broken down my analysis into 3 parts, being D-line/linebacker/secondary, and given that Burgess has not yet been a linebacker, I rejected your attempt, and rightfully so.

You are simply wrong. Because Mike Vrabel, like MCginest and Colvin play DE in sub packages. If you want to call Burgess a DL for his role as a sub DE, then you would have to include Vrabel in your DL analysis.
Since our OLBs play DE in the sub, it is much more accurate to compare the OLB that played both roles to the 2 players who will share those roles.

Otherwise, what you are saying is Vrabel playing in sub packages was inconsequential to the performance of our defense.


I'm not trying to force you to change your analysis, Im asking you to complete it. As is it isnt finished.

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you disagree that part of the job duties of OLBs in our defense is to play DE in sub packages?
I'm not splitting hairs over what we call the player, I'm trying to compare the 11 players that are on the field.
Last year Vrabel as an OLB lined up at OLB in the base, and DE in sub packages.
This year Woods lines up in his spot in the base, and Burgess comes in instead in the sub.
All of our OLBs, McGinest, Colvin, Vrabel, have played that role.
So its half an answer to compare the base role of an OLB without including their role in the sub.

Andy, I will not continue this. Burgess has not been a linebacker for the Patriots to date. Therefore, I refuse to evaluate him as a linebacker. To date:

Burgess = Jarvis Green

 

[Ring 6]

When Vrabel is on the field as a D-lineman, why the would I be evaluating him as a linebacker? When Burgess is on the field as a D-lineman, why would I be evaluating him as a linebacker?

That's what you're trying to do. I refuse to make that mistake.

Isnt it a bigger mistake to ignore that Vrabel was a DE on half of the plays and ignore that the guy taking that role this year exists?

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I will not continue this. Burgess has not been a linebacker for the Patriots to date. Therefore, I refuse to evaluate him as a linebacker. To date:

Burgess = Jarvis Green

So what you are saying is only half the plays matter.
You dont have to evaluate Burgess as a LB, if thats not what you want to call him.
He will be on the field roughly half the time, playing the position Mike Vrabel played. That position is rushing the passer from a DE alignment in a nickel/dime package.
You can call it whatever you want, but the integrity of your entire analysis is lost by ignoring that he exists and that this was half of Vrabels role last year.

Calm down, you dont usually make such drastic mistakes.
Jarvis Green is a 34 DE and a DT in subpackages.
Burgess is a DE in sub packages and either an OLB or nothing in the base.

 

[Deus Irae]

So what you are saying is only half the plays matter.
You dont have to evaluate Burgess as a LB, if thats not what you want to call him.
He will be on the field roughly half the time, playing the position Mike Vrabel played. That position is rushing the passer from a DE alignment in a nickel/dime package.
You can call it whatever you want, but the integrity of your entire analysis is lost by ignoring that he exists and that this was half of Vrabels role last year.

Calm down, you dont usually make such drastic mistakes.
Jarvis Green is a 34 DE and a DT in subpackages.
Burgess is a DE in sub packages and either an OLB or nothing in the base.

I haven't made a mistake, and I'm completely calm. I've simply refused to allow you to re-define the word "linebacker" to include someone who's not been playing linebacker. Since it was my analysis in question, and I reject your attempt, I stand by my initial analysis.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, I will not continue this. Burgess has not been a linebacker for the Patriots to date. Therefore, I refuse to evaluate him as a linebacker. To date:

Burgess = Jarvis Green

So your analysis is that comparing last years defense to this years, you wish to pretend that half the plays don't exist?
What position did Vrabel play in sub packages last year? You know half the snaps?
Who will play that position this year?

 

[Ring 6]

I haven't made a mistake, and I'm completely calm. I've simply refused to allow you to re-define the word "linebacker" to include someone who's not been playing linebacker. Since it was my analysis in question, and I reject your attempt, I stand by my initial analysis.

So your analysis includes the 50% of the time Vrabel played OLB in the base, but you reject considering the other position he played the other half the time. Nice analysis.
Do you want to analyze if we have improved our 3rd quarter defense next?

 

[Ring 6]

I haven't made a mistake, and I'm completely calm. I've simply refused to allow you to re-define the word "linebacker" to include someone who's not been playing linebacker. Since it was my analysis in question, and I reject your attempt, I stand by my initial analysis.

And yes you did make a mistake.
Jarvis Green is a DE in the 34. Burgess is not.
Jarvis Green is an inside rusher in the sub, Burgess is an outside rusher.
You said they = each other, That is wrong.
Do you dispute that?