DLine play was pretty scary

[Ring 6]

aside from getting gashed early on by some trap runs, the defensive line hunkered down and played hard from what i saw.

I was not at all impressed by the run defense.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

We played 2gap last night.
There aren't really big differences between the 34 and 43. We are going to use the same personell. We are going to have a front 7 player across from each OL spot (meaning weak OLB is free if there is no TE, buit a play coming that way must have a pulling G or FB assigned to him)
In the 34 or 43 we rush 4 if we don't blitz.
The advantage in the passing game to the 34 is that one of the LBs will be the 4th rusher, but no one knows which (although it pretty likely one of the OLBs) and in the 43 there is no disguise.
In the run game the argument is the NT being in the middle of the field can control much of the run game, while in the 43 the MLB is tough to get a clean block on.
Really there are differences, but they are minor, and it really comes down to which alignment is a better fit for your personell, particularly the LBs, because their roles change more than the DL who simply 2gap one guy or another.

The DTs were 1 and 3 tech at least 90% of the time, how is that 2 gap? And it wasn't the same personnell as 3-4 2 gap at all. Moore, cunningam, Anderson, etc. types were consistently at BOTH DE spots, with two large fellows inside. It was NOT three large fellows shifted over with a OLB on the line.

This was not simply an alignment change. It is a major scheme change.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

BTW Bedard and Dussault have both done some great write-ups in the last few days on the major changes to the defense that we've see in practice and preseason game #1:
Pats Propaganda
Precious little insight on defense - Boston.com

 

[Water Boy]

I don't know about beastly guys. We got gouged pretty consistently on the run. I'm happy about the pressures but would have liked the Run D being a bit more stout... in saying that... Enter Vince Wilfork and Albert Haynesworth and problem solved.

That was my thought during the first half of the game too. If the Pats play a lot of attacking 4-3 fronts, I would not be surprised if the Pats defense becomes much more mediocre against the run. If so, I expect that it would be a calculated risk by BB. In the 3-4, the Pats would consistently shut down the running game on 1st and 2nd and then get gashed in the passing game on 3rd down. Under this scheme, I'm guessing that BB is willing to give up a little in defending the run between the 20's in exchange for a much better success rate against the pass on 3rd down.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

That was my thought during the first half of the game too. If the Pats play a lot of attacking 4-3 fronts, I would not be surprised if the Pats defense becomes much more mediocre against the run. If so, I expect that it would be a calculated risk by BB. In the 3-4, the Pats would consistently shut down the running game on 1st and 2nd and then get gashed in the passing game on 3rd down. Under this scheme, I'm guessing that BB is willing to give up a little in defending the run between the 20's in exchange for a much better success rate against the pass on 3rd down.

Its not like they're just going to pick one front and use it exclusively for an entire game regardless of situation... Although it seemed like that's what they did in this game. I have to think that's BB wanting to see his players in a certain front, and not really caring about winning or losing. Had that been a real game, they would not have been playing a pass defense in running situations.

 

[patfanken]

Some comments on the comments.

1. Nice to see a thread discussing more than just how well Butler played.

2. There were a couple of things that impressed me more about Mallet than his rocket arm. First was his pocket presence. In the few times he was pressured he consistently made the first guy miss. Even more impressive was that he kept his eyes down field. No happy feet. In the 2 times he left the pocket (one run, one rollout) he was very decisive. There didn't seem to be panic decisions.

Given that we will never see him on the field once the season starts, he will have a lot of time to develop the fundamental skill in footwork and accuracy that will help elevate him to the next level, when he takes over the #2 spot next year.

3. Despite the fact that Hoyer, IMHO is worth a #2, I doubt very much we will get much for him. Remember, god willing, at the end of this season he will have started exactly Zero games in the NFL. Cassell had 15. So as impressive as his work has been in pre season, the best we can hope for in a trade is likely a 3rd rounder.

Just one disclaimer: Now that that the Pats, with Hoyer and Cassell, are starting so show that they have a knack of developing QBs from the bottom of heap, it COULD raise their value in the eyes of a desperate team. I can see Hoyer leaving here and having a very similar career as a Matt Hassellback. Not necessarily an all pro individually, but good enough to lead your team deep into the playoffs

4. I think its being missed that Ninkovitch looks (at least so far) that he's taken HIS game to the next level. Last season he was an adequate OLB for us. This season I can see him getting to the "good" range. I think he does a lot of things pretty well. He isn't a detriment in coverage and he can put pressure on the QB when asked to rush.

People forget that prior to the single year he had double digit sacks, Mike Vrabel (to whom Ninko will always be compared) was nothing more than exactly like the guy I just described in the paragraph above. A guy who was good in coverage and good enough in the pass rush to have 4 or 5 sacks and provide some consistent pressure. BTW - Vrabel was probably a little better in coverage at THIS point, but Ninko could improve. But even if he turns out to be "Vrabel-lite" it would be good enough to help elevate this defense to the next level.

5. Can someone give me some info on this kid Medelin. I had no idea he was even on the roster. He looked like he had a very nice "burst". possibly a nice practice squad addition.

 

[Ring 6]

The DTs were 1 and 3 tech at least 90% of the time, how is that 2 gap? And it wasn't the same personnell as 3-4 2 gap at all. Moore, cunningam, Anderson, etc. types were consistently at BOTH DE spots, with two large fellows inside. It was NOT three large fellows shifted over with a OLB on the line.

This was not simply an alignment change. It is a major scheme change.

The DL played 2 gap technique on virtually every play. Its easy to see, they engage the OL and try to control him rather than trying to run past him.
I recognize we played 2 small DEs, Im saying unless we plan on being awful against the run that wont be the case when we play for real.

 

[Ring 6]

That was my thought during the first half of the game too. If the Pats play a lot of attacking 4-3 fronts, I would not be surprised if the Pats defense becomes much more mediocre against the run. If so, I expect that it would be a calculated risk by BB. In the 3-4, the Pats would consistently shut down the running game on 1st and 2nd and then get gashed in the passing game on 3rd down. Under this scheme, I'm guessing that BB is willing to give up a little in defending the run between the 20's in exchange for a much better success rate against the pass on 3rd down.

That makes absolutely no sense. We aren't playing the base on 3rd down. You arguement is doing well on 1st and 2nd leads to the nickel/dime doing poorly on 3rd and playing badly on 1st and 2nd will help them .
What we do in the base has nothing to do with the sub package.
And btw, we weren't playing attacking base D we were playing the same old 2gap from a different alignment, and just not doing it very well, as we have often seen in preseason.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

The DL played 2 gap technique on virtually every play. Its easy to see, they engage the OL and try to control him rather than trying to run past him.
I recognize we played 2 small DEs, Im saying unless we plan on being awful against the run that wont be the case when we play for real.

Did we watch the same game? It clearly was not 2 gap. DTs had three sacks. They were not lining up heads up. They were lining up in gaps, and getting after the QB. The pocket was getting pushed back 3-4 yards consistently.

 

[Dragda]

The DL played 2 gap technique on virtually every play. Its easy to see, they engage the OL and try to control him rather than trying to run past him.
I recognize we played 2 small DEs, Im saying unless we plan on being awful against the run that wont be the case when we play for real.

They played a lot of 43 Under. That's not 2-gap. Textbook 43-Under from what I saw. Perhaps they mixed in the two-gap, but I didn't notice it. The 43 Under tries to allow for an aggressive pash rush while still defending against the run.

Haynesworth rushing from this formation would be devastating as the weakside tackle. Have Mayo as the weakside backer to fill the void or blitz...(I am excited by this). Wilfork will likely play right over center while Ellis or Wright plays strong side DE. Weakside DE will be one of the smaller pash rush types like Carter, Moore or Anderson. If you have a good lead blocker on offense, you can exploit the gaps. You will typically see a weakside void. But they'd have to rush right into the teeth of Haynesworth who, as a homer, I assume will always get the double team.

 

[Ring 6]

Did we watch the same game? It clearly was not 2 gap. DTs had three sacks. They were not lining up heads up. They were lining up in gaps, and getting after the QB. The pocket was getting pushed back 3-4 yards consistently.

Do you know what 2 gap is?
Watch the running plays. Watch what the DL do. They engage the blockers to play off both sides of them. In a one gap they would be shooting through a gap. They didn't do that.
The number of sacks they had is irrelevant to whether it was one gap or two, how successful they were as pass rushers is also irrelevant to whether it was a one gap or 2 gap scheme, and btw once the OL takes a pass blocking drop, one or two gap is no longer part of the play, it is now a pass rush.

 

[Ring 6]

They played a lot of 43 Under. That's not 2-gap. Textbook 43-Under from what I saw. Perhaps they mixed in the two-gap, but I didn't notice it. The 43 Under tries to allow for an aggressive pash rush while still defending against the run.

Watch the DL on running plays. They were clearly playing 2 gap on almost every play. 43 or 34 is not a one gap or 2gap distinction. On every running play you see this:
The DL engage their blocker and attempt to control the gap on either side. Some DL break into the backfiled, particularly when their man pulls (and they get trapped) or in a couple of cases when Cunningham was wide on the TE and the TE blocked down.

Haynesworth rushing from this formation would be devastating as the weakside tackle. Have Mayo as the weakside backer to fill the void or blitz...(I am excited by this). Wilfork will likely play right over center while Ellis or Wright plays strong side DE. Weakside DE will be one of the smaller pash rush types like Carter, Moore or Anderson. If you have a good lead blocker on offense, you can exploit the gaps. You will typically see a weakside void. But they'd have to rush right into the teeth of Haynesworth who, as a homer, I assume will always get the double team.

We have to keep in mind that one gap or two gap when the OL drop steps into pass protection, there is no difference in what the call was (unless there is a stunt) because they will rush the passer. The slight difference is that the one gap player is firing toward a gap while the 2 gap player is firing toward the player, but thats pretty inconsquential.

 

[nnmnmmnn]

Do you know what 2 gap is?
Watch the running plays. Watch what the DL do. They engage the blockers to play off both sides of them. In a one gap they would be shooting through a gap. They didn't do that.
The number of sacks they had is irrelevant to whether it was one gap or two, how successful they were as pass rushers is also irrelevant to whether it was a one gap or 2 gap scheme, and btw once the OL takes a pass blocking drop, one or two gap is no longer part of the play, it is now a pass rush.

The DL was not engaging blockers. They were lined up in and shooting gaps. If you saw something else, I don't know what to say. Here's a quote from the Bedard article I linked on the last page:

What the scouts also noted was how the Patriots just let their linemen loose to go upfield, which is quite a departure from their traditional two-gap scheme.

 

[Ring 6]

The DL was not engaging blockers. They were lined up in and shooting gaps. If you saw something else, I don't know what to say. Here's a quote from the Bedard article I linked on the last page:

Watch the DL on running plays, thats all I can tell you. Its all right there on tape. I can't do much more than point you to what to look at. You can choose to see whatever you want.

 

[PushnPencils]

Watch the DL on running plays, thats all I can tell you. Its all right there on tape. I can't do much more than point you to what to look at. You can choose to see whatever you want.

I saw a couple of plays where the DLineman blew right by the ball carrying RB. Sounds like two gap to me....

 

[Ring 6]

I saw a couple of plays where the DLineman blew right by the ball carrying RB. Sounds like two gap to me....

Which plays? Were they blitzes? Draws? You need to give more information that a DL running past a RB indicates the scheme.

 

[PushnPencils]

Which plays? Were they blitzes? Draws? You need to give more information that a DL running past a RB indicates the scheme.

Neither was the case...sorry.

 

[Ring 6]

Neither was the case...sorry.

I don't understand your response.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting

Pats D snaps 1st half.

O snaps will be up in a few mins.

 

[NinjaZX6R]

Pats O snaps 1st half.

ImageShack® - Online Photo and Video Hosting