Are you confident in this defense?

[Ring 6]

I can see where this is going. Soon you are going to say you dont want to continue the discussion, because you realize you cant continue without admitting that comparing Vrabel to Woods is ignoring half of what Vrabel did. You wont do that so you will bail out. Go ahead. This is stupid anyway. You can't even admit that your 'analysis' ignored 50% of the guys job and instead you are arguing why it makes sense to ignore it because you want to label his position something it isnt. Geez, you are really bad at being wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

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?

Yes, I do. Both are serving as pass rushers on the defensive line. That's the end of this discussion from my side. I will not continue with this discussion as you to try turning around something as painfully clear as

BURGESS HASN'T BEEN PLAYING LINEBACKER

into some weakness in my argument because I haven't rated Burgess as a linebacker.

 

[Deus Irae]

I can see where this is going. Soon you are going to say you dont want to continue the discussion, because you realize you cant continue without admitting that comparing Vrabel to Woods is ignoring half of what Vrabel did. You wont do that so you will bail out. Go ahead. This is stupid anyway. You can't even admit that your 'analysis' ignored 50% of the guys job and instead you are arguing why it makes sense to ignore it because you want to label his position something it isnt. Geez, you are really bad at being wrong.

Your argument has been lousy, and I've been very polite about it. I'm now through with this. It has nothing to do with bailing out. It has to do with this being a circular argument where you keep trying to take a player who hasn't been playing linebacker and claim that he should be considered a linebacker.

Shall I start rating Watson, Thomas and Baker as linebackers, too, since Vrabel caught passes as a tight end?

 

[Ring 6]

Yes, I do. Both are serving as pass rushers on the defensive line. That's the end of this discussion from my side. I will not continue with this discussion as you to try turning around something as painfully clear as

BURGESS HASN'T BEEN PLAYING LINEBACKER

into some weakness in my argument because I haven't rated Burgess as a linebacker.

There is the quit. As predicted.

How can there not be a weakness in your argument if you are comparing Mike Vrabel solely to the guy who will do 50% of his job?

What did Vrabel do in the 50% of the snaps we played nickel/dime?
Who will do it this year?

Yes, Burgess hasn't played LB. Vrabel played LB half the time. You have dismissed the other half. Include it in DL if you wish.
Call Vrabel half a DE if you feel better about it. Or just do it the easy way and since Vrabel was called a LB, consider his job LB and recognize that includes being a DE half the time.
I dont care where you account for that, but you have to realize your analysis has no intergrity if you ignore half the plays the defense is on the field for.

 

[Deus Irae]

There is the quit. As predicted.

Yes, Burgess hasn't played LB. Vrabel played LB half the time.

I was rating the linebackers. You've just admitted that Burgess hasn't played linebacker. I will not rate him as something he has not played just because you're making a lousy argument. I even discussed him in noting the sack situation, but you still continue with your nonsensical argument. It's 1:30 in the morning and I have better things to do than to argue something as inane as Burgess the linebacker when even you concede he hasn't been a linebacker to date.


Have a nice night.

 

[Ring 6]

Your argument has been lousy, and I've been very polite about it. I'm now through with this. It has nothing to do with bailing out. It has to do with this being a circular argument where you keep trying to take a player who hasn't been playing linebacker and claim that he should be considered a linebacker.

Shall I start rating Watson, Thomas and Baker as linebackers, too, since Vrabel caught passes as a tight end?

MY argument is circular?
You have continued to respond to the quesiton of how you account for the 50% of the plays that Burgess will be in the spot Vrabel was in by saying Burgess isnt a LB.
Well whatever Vrabel was Burgess is doing half of it.

Can you really say there is any integrity in comparing a guy who played every down to only the guy who will replace him for half of them? And that position labeling is a valid excuse to ignore half of the defense?
If Burgess isnt a LB then Vrabel was half a LB
You have to account for the other half somewhere.

 

[Ring 6]

I was rating the linebackers. You've just admitted that Burgess hasn't played linebacker. I will not rate him as something he has not played just because you're making a lousy argument.


Have a nice night.

So where do you account for the comparison of the other half of Vrabels plays?
Since you dont think that Vrabel was a LB half the time, where is his play on those half of your plays in this analysis.

If I accept you premise of not counting Burgess in the LB category then we have to count Vrabel as half a LB and half a DE?
Even if I accept that you have left one of the most important players on the team out of your anaylsis and ignored all passing downs.
How is that a complete analysis?

 

[Ring 6]

I was rating the linebackers. You've just admitted that Burgess hasn't played linebacker. I will not rate him as something he has not played just because you're making a lousy argument. I even discussed him in noting the sack situation, but you still continue with your nonsensical argument. It's 1:30 in the morning and I have better things to do than to argue something as inane as Burgess the linebacker when even you concede he hasn't been a linebacker to date.


Have a nice night.

So labelling a position is more critical to the analysis of a defense than including the players that will play?
Do you dispute that Mike Vrabel was a DE in the sub packages that were run on roughly 50% of the snaps?
Do you dispute that it looks like Burgess will fill that role?
How can you list Vrabel among the LBs and ignore half of the downs he played?
If Vrabel is included exclusively among LBs then anyone playing DE in sub packages must be too, regardless of what they play or if they play in the base.

 

[JoeShmoe]

I think up front we'll see a lot of 4-3 as well because our personnel fit that scheme better

On the line we have guys like Brace, Pryor, Wright and Green to fill in alongside the 3 studs. And Burgess, Woods, BC etc to play DE on passing downs

Behind them a core of Mayo, Guyton and Thomas to be rotated with Woods, Lenon etc and maybe even someone like McGowan/Chung/BW for the in the box safety etc

It also allows guys like Seymour, Warren etc to get after the passer more effectively

Last year we were so weak at LB that we had to play a soft zone with the CB's 5 yards off the WR's. Later in the year as Guyton and Mayo got better we found our feet a little more and saw some more blitz packages (Merriweather esp. did well is S blitzes) so I suspect we'll have more options from the get go

However dont be surprised if BB/Pees start with the whole soft zone/bend-dont-break idea to prevent us gettig burnt over the top - then see it getting more aggressive as we head into Dec/Jan

As has been said with the O we should have then the D shouldnt be seeing a whole lot of game time or defending the pass most times

 

[Ring 6]

I was rating the linebackers. You've just admitted that Burgess hasn't played linebacker. I will not rate him as something he has not played just because you're making a lousy argument. I even discussed him in noting the sack situation, but you still continue with your nonsensical argument. It's 1:30 in the morning and I have better things to do than to argue something as inane as Burgess the linebacker when even you concede he hasn't been a linebacker to date.


Have a nice night.

And as I said, if you insist on not including the guy doing half of Vrabels job in the category you put Vrabel, then you must split Vrabel into 2 different categories.
You are arguing that the only sensible thing to do is to ignore that half of the job of a Patriot OLB is playing DE in sub packages.

 

[Deus Irae]

And as I said, if you insist on not including the guy doing half of Vrabels job in the category you put Vrabel, then you must split Vrabel into 2 different categories.
You are arguing that the only sensible thing to do is to ignore that half of the job of a Patriot OLB is playing DE in sub packages.

No, I'm not. You keep claiming that I am. You keep making an incorrect claim.

Now, I've been polite and patient. It's 1:42 in the morning. I'm done arguing a non-issue with someone who concedes the point yet continues to argue the point.

Seriously, Andy.... the discussion is closed on my end.

 

[Ring 6]

I think up front we'll see a lot of 4-3 as well because our personnel fit that scheme better

On the line we have guys like Brace, Pryor, Wright and Green to fill in alongside the 3 studs. And Burgess, Woods, BC etc to play DE on passing downs

Behind them a core of Mayo, Guyton and Thomas to be rotated with Woods, Lenon etc and maybe even someone like McGowan/Chung/BW for the in the box safety etc

It also allows guys like Seymour, Warren etc to get after the passer more effectively

Last year we were so weak at LB that we had to play a soft zone with the CB's 5 yards off the WR's. Later in the year as Guyton and Mayo got better we found our feet a little more and saw some more blitz packages (Merriweather esp. did well is S blitzes) so I suspect we'll have more options from the get go

However dont be surprised if BB/Pees start with the whole soft zone/bend-dont-break idea to prevent us gettig burnt over the top - then see it getting more aggressive as we head into Dec/Jan

As has been said with the O we should have then the D shouldnt be seeing a whole lot of game time or defending the pass most times

Our pass rush from the base would be nonexistent in a 43. We would ask the biggest, slowest DEs in the NFL to rush the QB after playing a 2gap discipline, with very little rush ability coming from the DT position.
All that just to get Mike Wright on the field?????????

We have built a team around a 34 concept. Our DEs are dominant in the run game, and NEED to have a LB as the 4th rusher to help get pressure from the base.
Historically, when we shift from 3-4 to 4-3, we have simply turned one of the OLBS (McG, Colvin, Vrabel) into a DE and kept the same personell with the same responsibilities but a slighty different alignment.
To think we can consistently play 43 with 2 300+lb DEs is shaky at best.

If we were to convert to a 43 full time, we would rotate Seymour, Warren and Wilfork at DT, play Burgess, Green, Woods, TBC at DE. You can see right there we now have great DTs and weak DEs.
It would make no sense.
There are 2 players on our defense that are better suited to a 43. Burgess who is only here for sub packages anyway, and Mayo.

By the way, we dont play 34 or 43 in nickel and dime sub packages. We play a 4 man line with our 34 DEs playing DT and our OLBs playing DE so we dont have a 'run down' and a 'pass down' front 4 for the 43

 

[Ring 6]

No, I'm not. You keep claiming that I am. You keep making an incorrect claim.

Now, I've been polite and patient. It's 1:42 in the morning. I'm done arguing a non-issue with someone who concedes the point yet continues to argue the point.

Seriously, Andy.... the discussion is closed on my end.

I will agree that my argument is stupid, inane, incorrect, every negative adjective you are calling it if you can show me one thing.
Where in your analysis do you account for the 50% of Vrabels role that was him playing DE in sub packages and who are you comparing it to.
You cant do that, which is why you want the discussion 'closed'.

You know that you cannot account for that part of Vrabels job by comparing him to Gary Guyton like you tried to do, or even Pierre Woods who will do half of that job.
You are trying to save face by saying Burgess isnt a LB. Ok then Vrabel wasnt a LB half the time. Where is that accounted for in your argument?

I said dozens of posts ago Vrabel=Woods+Burgess because they will be sharing his job.
In your analysis Vrabel=what? It has to add up to someone doing everything Vrbel did on defense whether you call it LB, DE X Y Q or Z

 

[TruthSeeker]

What I really like about this defense is that it makes it blatantly obvious which commentators are fools. I just heard another yesterday say that the Pats defense will struggle because they are "too old".

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

What I really like about this defense is that it makes it blatantly obvious which commentators are fools. I just heard another yesterday say that the Pats defense will struggle because they are "too old".

Yeah, the "too old" matra dies hard.

We can speculate the regular season but only BB knows.

In the preseason, the only real insight is if the defense dominates or is physically dominated. From the games I saw, we dominated physically, so I am not worried.

Also, if this isn't "top five", who are "top five"?

 

[Trocadile]

Our pass rush from the base would be nonexistent in a 43. We would ask the biggest, slowest DEs in the NFL to rush the QB after playing a 2gap discipline, with very little rush ability coming from the DT position.
All that just to get Mike Wright on the field?????????

Nevertheless, this is the defense that BB had the first team playing on early downs for much of the preseason and for many of the practices. Warren and Seymour at the ends, Wilfork, Brace, Pryor and later Wright rotating at the tackles. Most frequently with Thomas, Mayo and Guyton as the LBs. It may not make sense to you, but BB was intrigued enough by the possibility to use it a lot. How much he uses it in the regular season is anybody's guess, but I'm pretty sure you'll see some of it.

 

[Tunescribe]

I'm just as concerned about leadership/tone setters as personnel. No more Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau, Harrison or Colvin out there. Who's going to get angry when it counts, draw a line in the sand and lead the way? Mayo? Seymour has never been that type of guy. I guess it's a work in progress.

 

[JoeShmoe]

Our pass rush from the base would be nonexistent in a 43. We would ask the biggest, slowest DEs in the NFL to rush the QB after playing a 2gap discipline, with very little rush ability coming from the DT position.
All that just to get Mike Wright on the field?????????

We have built a team around a 34 concept. Our DEs are dominant in the run game, and NEED to have a LB as the 4th rusher to help get pressure from the base.
Historically, when we shift from 3-4 to 4-3, we have simply turned one of the OLBS (McG, Colvin, Vrabel) into a DE and kept the same personell with the same responsibilities but a slighty different alignment.
To think we can consistently play 43 with 2 300+lb DEs is shaky at best.

If we were to convert to a 43 full time, we would rotate Seymour, Warren and Wilfork at DT, play Burgess, Green, Woods, TBC at DE. You can see right there we now have great DTs and weak DEs.
It would make no sense.
There are 2 players on our defense that are better suited to a 43. Burgess who is only here for sub packages anyway, and Mayo.

By the way, we dont play 34 or 43 in nickel and dime sub packages. We play a 4 man line with our 34 DEs playing DT and our OLBs playing DE so we dont have a 'run down' and a 'pass down' front 4 for the 43

And our pass rush from the 3-4 last year was good?

A 2-Gap front relies on the linebackers getting through the OL and making sacks. Look at our LB sack statistics from last year. For a 3-4 it was woeful. With Brace, Pryor and Wright able to transition at DT we can use Burgess, TBC, Woods and even Thomas as DE's. Plus Seymour isnt as sluggish as seem to make him out

I think what we have is 3-4, 4-3 options (1 gap/2-gap) to play run or pass as we see fit. I also don't believe you can solely play one or the other as in a BB defense you better be flexible

So as has been said I expect to see both

 

[RayClay]

I'm just as concerned about leadership/tone setters as personnel. No more Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau, Harrison or Colvin out there. Who's going to get angry when it counts, draw a line in the sand and lead the way? Mayo? Seymour has never been that type of guy. I guess it's a work in progress.

I think they get solid veteran leadership from all three line members. Besides Harrison, the guy you're talking about was McGinest, and he's been gone a while.

I think Mayo is certainly taking over a leadership role and I'll take the you safety corps as athletes, not expecting another Rodney personality. Chung will replace a lot of the hitting, as long as he can be at least decent at coverage. He's a hard headed type though, probably get people fired up.

 

[DarrylS]

Have said this time again, but last year our pass rush was piss poor, because our D backfield was really piss poor... cannot send the LB's if they are always in coverage and there is no confidence in 1-1 coverage... our D backfield has pretty much been retooled, and appears to be an upgrade.. so I suspect our D pass rush will be better as well..

What needs to happen is our LB's need to cover the TE coming over the middle, which killed us a couple of times last year... watching out DB's chase receivers is not a lot of fun..

I suspect that in the off season, BB spent a lot of time watching films and am very certain that this D will be much improved.. more quality parts and depth..do not think we will be toward the bottom in Red Zone D...

With Brady back we can score, so there is less emphasis on the D as we will have more time of possession..

What I do not know is who will be the clubhouse leader and how important all of that is??