Holley's new book on Pats defensive philosophy/sack specialists

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

This quote is from Holley's new book on Brady and Belichick. Granted, this may be more applicable to a 3-4 defense, but the Pats play multiple fronts and I think much of the thinking is still the same. When considering the Chandler Jones trade, I think it's obvious the Patriots can see how overvalued Jones will be as a free agent and realized they will be leaps and bounds from the higher bids. I'm sure they would have liked to keep Jones but at nowhere near the price tag. Meanwhile, I see a lot of criticism of guys like Sheard and Collins when they are merely not in the backfield constantly.

This confirms what most of us likely have long suspected but nice to understand it in clear conceptual terms.

The quote is actually from Matt Chatham, not Holley.

“This is what we started to do: We slowly accumulated winning stat guys as opposed to the high-sack, high-interception guys,” former Patriots linebacker Matt Chatham says. “Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel. Those guys are way more valuable if they get eight sacks rather than sixteen. Dominating the edge, getting on the tight end, blowing up wide receivers and never letting them get into the pattern. That’s way more valuable than sixteen sacks. “I think that the world thinks that the sixteen-sack guy is more valuable, but the Patriots don’t think that, and you can get into the economics of this: The sixteen-sack guy costs twice as much as the other guy. And once you get to a certain point, it’s saturation. It’s just sixteen plays and when you play five hundred snaps, it’s not that important. It just isn’t. Who are the best rerouters among outside linebackers? Who are the best edge-setters? Does anyone in the media know that?”

 

[ALP]

interesting...

so maybe we on PURPOSE don't send our best guys after the QB b/c it will have salary implications in the future?

Collins and Hightower are monsters rushing the LB...but if we let them do that all day long, theyd cost as much as von miller...???

a twist of doing things certainly

 

[NG Pats Fan]

interesting...

so maybe we on PURPOSE don't send our best guys after the QB b/c it will have salary implications in the future?

Collins and Hightower are monsters rushing the LB...but if we let them do that all day long, theyd cost as much as von miller...???

a twist of doing things certainly

Ya sounds ridiculous.

Twisted pathetic logic

 

[NG Pats Fan]

I'd prefer to see our D line put garbage QBS like tannehill and Taylor on there backs as much as possible rather than let him sit back there for 5 seconds and put up career days. Sacks are intimidating to the QB. Makes them scared in the pocket, pressure brings out the happy feet.

 

[SlowGettingUp]

“This is what we started to do: We slowly accumulated winning stat guys as opposed to the high-sack, high-interception guys,” former Patriots linebacker Matt Chatham says. “Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel. Those guys are way more valuable if they get eight sacks rather than sixteen. Dominating the edge, getting on the tight end, blowing up wide receivers and never letting them get into the pattern. That’s way more valuable than sixteen sacks. “I think that the world thinks that the sixteen-sack guy is more valuable, but the Patriots don’t think that, and you can get into the economics of this: The sixteen-sack guy costs twice as much as the other guy. And once you get to a certain point, it’s saturation. It’s just sixteen plays and when you play five hundred snaps, it’s not that important. It just isn’t. Who are the best rerouters among outside linebackers? Who are the best edge-setters? Does anyone in the media know that?”

Think about it logically - compare a sack to an incompletion. The sack is worth maybe 7 yards - obviously sometimes that 7 yards will be very important indeed, but sometimes it isn't worth that much compared with an incompletion (many 3rd down plays for example, where the sacks are most likely). (A strip sack and recovery is obviously worth more though - but likely only talking a couple of those a season).

So in Chatham's example, the 8 additional sacks are worth maybe 100 yards. That's equivalent to a few inches per snap on 500 attempts. Pretty sure say Sheard gets you that, at a hell of a lot less cost.

 

[Deus Irae]

Think about it logically - compare a sack to an incompletion. The sack is worth maybe 7 yards - obviously sometimes that 7 yards will be very important indeed, but sometimes it isn't worth that much compared with an incompletion (many 3rd down plays for example, where the sacks are most likely). (A strip sack and recovery is obviously worth more though - but likely only talking a couple of those a season).

So in Chatham's example, the 8 additional sacks are worth maybe 100 yards. That's equivalent to a few inches per snap on 500 attempts. Pretty sure say Sheard gets you that, at a hell of a lot less cost.

It's not quite that simple, IMO. Sacks, like penalties, take teams out of point situations, and change the nature of the subsequent playcalling much more than incompletions and zero yardage runs.

 

[NG Pats Fan]

Von Miller proved last year one dominant pass rusher can single handily win you a Super Bowl. He carried that team in the playoffs.

 

[SEA_Pat]

Von Miller proved last year one dominant pass rusher can single handily win you a Super Bowl. He carried that team in the playoffs.

Really? So Talib, Ware, Harris, Wolfe, Trevathian, Marshall etc. had nothing to do with it? And now that they've lost Trevathian, notice how they're suddenly vulnerable to RBs and TEs? Oh, and how's the offense doing lately with all that money tied up in their D?

Chandler Jones was an occasionally dominant DE and pass rusher who joined what was a very good defense. Now they are having major problems stopping the run. Why are they worse than last year? Note that many unopposed to the trade of Jones cited his poor setting of the edge as the reason why.

The Patriots do a number of things that drive the fanbase crazy. One is trading yards and points for clock when up in games in the second half. Yeah, I hate it too although one can't really argue with the results. Another is letting guys go early rather than late - many complain when it happens, most come to realize it was the right decision in hindsight. Another is choosing depth and versatility over top-end players with a specialized skillset. They'd rather have two good to very good guys than one great one and one JAG.

When players can bring different skills to the table, it allows BB to devise an unlimited range of gameplans to take advantage of the weaknesses of the opponents. When you have depth, you are able to compete despite injuries and keep guys fresh. And from a financial management point of view, it's far more efficient. I'll take the approach of BB over shiny toys like Von Miller that cost too much for the admittedly great things you get from them.

 

[Gronk]

Von Miller proved last year one dominant pass rusher can single handily win you a Super Bowl. He carried that team in the playoffs.

As the primary defensive coach of Lawrence Taylor during LT's career, I think Bill probably understands the value of an elite pass rusher, but I think that's part of the calculus that Chatham is talking about. To the point of "pass rushers" at DE/OLB, there are more players generally available that can reliably do the things they want them to do for the D to be successful on a game-to-game basis, than there are elite pass rushers. That they come cheaper in most cases is another important part of the way they look at building the roster year-to-year to compete regularly. This tells me Bill also noticed how ****ed they were when LT wasn't able to play or in peak form, so instead of constantly being in search of a devastating, elite pass rusher or paying someone to be that guy when they aren't even if they're a good player (CJ), he finds other ways. That's not to say he wouldn't like Von Miller or LT on the squad, but rather appreciates the rarity of that talent, and sack numbers are hardly the only measure of it. That's also not to say that those games where the Pats don't touch the opposing QB aren't frustrating.

Rosie Colvin I think is a great example of a guy who gave up playing in a system in Chicago where he could easily have stacked 12-ish sacks a year based on how they ran the defense (and didn't have slouches alongside him in Urlacher, Traylor, Washington in '01/'02), in order to come play for a team where his money-making numbers might suffer but he loved the team-first and football-nerd aspect of the coaching as opposed to just signing his name where he could get the most sacks. Those are the kind of guys Bill looks for, I think.

To @SEA_Pat 's point as well, the Denver defense (like all others) is far more than just one guy. The fact that they had players through all 3 levels of defense that were reliably holding down their end is a necessary part of the scheme that allowed Miller to relentlessly attack TB, Cam, and everyone else with impunity down the stretch. Plus, y'know, like the ****tiest version of Marcus Cannon possible.

 

[n1997y]

I'd prefer to see our D line put garbage QBS like tannehill and Taylor on there backs as much as possible rather than let him sit back there for 5 seconds and put up career days. Sacks are intimidating to the QB. Makes them scared in the pocket, pressure brings out the happy feet.

lack of that must be why this team loses so often to them? what's Tannehill's record against the Pats, anyway?

 

[Nunchucks]

It's also about pressure.

 

[patfanken]

This is an excellent discussion of the value of "sacks" vs hits/hurries. When the Pats had their best defenses back in the 2003-7 years they were usually in the top 1o in sacks, but very rarely had INDIVIDUAL sackers in double digits. In fact there were only 2. Willie McGinest had double digit sacks in only ONE season, that that was back in '95 and Mike Vrabel who did it in 07.

To add to what Chatham said, the Patriots usually spread their sack among many players. Just another example of where the sum was greater than the individual parts. For Bill, controlling the pass rush is more valuable than just a mad scramble to the QB. This is even more important in an age of more mobile QB's and option threats. Disrupting timing and chipping receivers is never going to be a stat you'll find at PFF, but it is part of the total defensive package that is designed to ultimately win games, as opposed to creating stats. As much as it can be so frustrating to see how often the team gives up yards, its important to look at the only defensive stat that counts, and that's how many points you are giving up.

The best example of this was the 2011 defense. This, my friends was a HISTORICALLY bad defense as far as giving up yards, yet was in the middle of pack in allowing points. The hallmark of MOST BB defenses is that they are usually in the top 10 of scoring defenses. The other key hallmarks are TO's by the D and the lack of them by the O.

So while while we all have been critical of this defense at times, the fact is that they are the #1 scoring D in the league. They have only ONE stat that needs improving that that is their redzone defense, where I think something like 6 of 7 drives into the red zone ends up a TD. That needs to improve dramatically. That being said, they are clearly not allowing teams into the red zone very often, to be able to lead the league in scoring D.

Icy, Feel free to add more info from the Holley book as you read on. More good insights from Chatham, I'm shocked.

 

[mosi]

The defense may not be pretty or look dominating but the Pats win. BB dos what he needs to do to win, plain and simple.

 

[Chevy]

While there is a psychological aspect to sacks and pressures, there's also the same aspect to forcing opponents into long drives between the 20's. I bet there have been a ton of opponents sitting on the sideline in the fourth quarter wondering how they could have all these yards, yet still be down two scores.

 

[borg]

$$$$$ matters. Effective QBs under rookie contracts give teams so much flexibility to stack the rest of their roster. Seattle and Baltimore were two of the most recent examples. Pittsburg had a nice run with young Ben....and of course young gun, rookie contract TB12

Exploiting market inefficiencies matters....BB the economist has built offenses utilizing the lowest paid WRs....aka the slot midgets, TEs, until recently, paid a fraction of elite WRs and the best OL, and RBs off the scrap heap

Exploiting league trends competitive advantage matters. The trend these days is elite CBs to cover elite WRs and sack stud DEs to crush the QB. So BB counters the trend with quick strike passing attack to neutralize the over priced DE and a herd of quality TEs and pass catching RBs that render the elite CBs useless (in theory) forcing teams to rely on underfunded / less accomplished LBs.

The NFL is all about the best appropriation of resources and BB's 15 straight years of 10+ win seasons proves he's the Allen Greenspan of the NFL

 

[BTTA]

This isn't that complicated to understand. Just take Chatham at his word. He's saying that a player who disrupts route running and keeps running plays to a minimum by setting the edge, is worth more to the team's ability to win the game. He's trading a better overall pass defense and a better run defense for a half sack per game.

The guy who sets the edge will create 3rd and 7. The guys who doesn't, and is a big sack guy, will allow 3rd and 2. Where's the value of pass rushing under those circumstances?

And, when you factor in the fact that you can have two of those players for every one "big sack stat" guy, it is a win-win-win. The League pays for the wrong capabilities, according to Chatham and the Pats. For more evidence, look up the threads in this forum regarding the Jets' use of their cap money.

So no, it isn't about holding players back. It is about hiring players who do the most valuable things.

Sack stats, and other "big play" stats, are fool's gold, and Chatham is explaining why.

This is also, BTW, the original source for the reputation that BB and the Pats have for "not paying guys." Most of the players and fans believe that the "big stats" like sacks, interceptions, and high drama receptions should be rewarded with big salaries. If you don't do this as a team, you are somehow cheating the players. The Pats just don't care...they pay for what they value.

interesting...
so maybe we on PURPOSE don't send our best guys after the QB b/c it will have salary implications in the future?
Collins and Hightower are monsters rushing the LB...but if we let them do that all day long, theyd cost as much as von miller...???
a twist of doing things certainly

I'd prefer to see our D line put garbage QBS like tannehill and Taylor on there backs as much as possible rather than let him sit back there for 5 seconds and put up career days. Sacks are intimidating to the QB. Makes them scared in the pocket, pressure brings out the happy feet.

Von Miller proved last year one dominant pass rusher can single handily win you a Super Bowl. He carried that team in the playoffs.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

I'd prefer to see our D line put garbage QBS like tannehill and Taylor on there backs as much as possible rather than let him sit back there for 5 seconds and put up career days. Sacks are intimidating to the QB. Makes them scared in the pocket, pressure brings out the happy feet.

And certainly more fun to watch

 

[BTTA]

I read the book last week. It is an OK read, with fewer wonderful insights like this one per page than his prior two, but still worth reading.

Most interesting is the full treatment he gives to the personnel mistakes the Pats made in the years following the third Super Bowl. They went off-script a few times, trying to grab a quick fix, and it backfired, and Holly gives those experiences a fairly thorough review and ties some of the disappointments we all experienced back to those decisions. There's a definite "we could have won so many more Super Bowls" theme to the book, including the same sentiment from Pats' management. Sad, really.

This quote is from Holley's new book on Brady and Belichick. Granted, this may be more applicable to a 3-4 defense, but the Pats play multiple fronts and I think much of the thinking is still the same. When considering the Chandler Jones trade, I think it's obvious the Patriots can see how overvalued Jones will be as a free agent and realized they will be leaps and bounds from the higher bids. I'm sure they would have liked to keep Jones but at nowhere near the price tag. Meanwhile, I see a lot of criticism of guys like Sheard and Collins when they are merely not in the backfield constantly.

This confirms what most of us likely have long suspected but nice to understand it in clear conceptual terms.

The quote is actually from Matt Chatham, not Holley.

“This is what we started to do: We slowly accumulated winning stat guys as opposed to the high-sack, high-interception guys,” former Patriots linebacker Matt Chatham says. “Willie McGinest, Mike Vrabel. Those guys are way more valuable if they get eight sacks rather than sixteen. Dominating the edge, getting on the tight end, blowing up wide receivers and never letting them get into the pattern. That’s way more valuable than sixteen sacks. “I think that the world thinks that the sixteen-sack guy is more valuable, but the Patriots don’t think that, and you can get into the economics of this: The sixteen-sack guy costs twice as much as the other guy. And once you get to a certain point, it’s saturation. It’s just sixteen plays and when you play five hundred snaps, it’s not that important. It just isn’t. Who are the best rerouters among outside linebackers? Who are the best edge-setters? Does anyone in the media know that?”

 

[BTTA]

And certainly more fun to watch

Not if that same D line is giving up two or three yards more per carry because they are pass rush specialists. That's death by a thousand cuts.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

This isn't that complicated to understand. Just take Chatham at his word. He's saying that a player who disrupts route running and keeps running plays to a minimum by setting the edge, is worth more to the team's ability to win the game. He's trading a better overall pass defense and a better run defense for a half sack per game.

The guy who sets the edge will create 3rd and 7. The guys who doesn't, and is a big sack guy, will allow 3rd and 2. Where's the value of pass rushing under those circumstances?

And, when you factor in the fact that you can have two of those players for every one "big sack stat" guy, it is a win-win-win. The League pays for the wrong capabilities, according to Chatham and the Pats. For more evidence, look up the threads in this forum regarding the Jets' use of their cap money.

So no, it isn't about holding players back. It is about hiring players who do the most valuable things.

Sack stats, and other "big play" stats, are fool's gold, and Chatham is explaining why.

I agree for the part. Sacks are over-rated, in that they are not always crucial to ending drives as incompletions or stuffed runs.

But currently, the Patriots are ranked 27th in the NFL on 3rd down defense - and aside from a struggling Carson Palmer, they have yet to face an elite QB. That's a little concerning

When it comes to getting off the field and regaining possession, the Pats are not doing the job well enough. And part of that has to do with the lack of pressure they're putting on QBs. So I think there's something to be said about having a strong pass rush