Lawrence Guy signed - DL/DE checked!

[Ring 6]

Yep 3-4 DE.

In 04-07 Ty owned his side of the line.

Except we don't play a 34. Hell we don't really play much of a 43 either. 85 % nickel/dime

 

[RobertWeathers]

Except we don't play a 34. Hell we don't really play much of a 43 either. 85 % nickel/dime

I don't think he wants to run a traditional 3-4 but an occasional 3-3-5

 

[long distance]

Here it is. Reasonable as expected. 4.9 gtd ..2.6M 2017 cap hit.
I guess signing bonus was what it took to get him from BAL.



ditto!



EDIT:


so incl. Williams and Dola restructure/release .. still some 40M to spend
(not necessarily in this year of course)

 

[manxman2601]

Except we don't play a 34. Hell we don't really play much of a 43 either. 85 % nickel/dime

Just been watching the AFC Championship game and we were playing a lot of 5-1. It is actually a kind of 3-4, one where the 5-techs shift inside to 3-tech, the OLBs are on the line and one ILB has been replaced by a SS. One of the 3-techs plays 2 gap (Brown, and now Guy too), the other (Flowers and probably Ealy) 1 gaps. The OLBs (Hightower, McClellin, Van Noy, Ninkovich) need to be able to rush the passer, set the edge and drop into coverage.

It's interesting because it's a defense built for tweeners like Flowers, Van Noy and McClellin, and to a lesser degree, Chung.

 

[Husse]

So, if I'm tracking, the 2017 53-man is just about fully loaded, with the draft still to come.

• Need Hightower to sign
• Butler needs to sign his tender, like he really has a choice
• Easily under the cap
• Could still trade Garoppolo and/or Butler (or not) then backfill those spots
• I'm expecting Bolden back, but could be Foster or Gaffney or a rookie
• Probably need to drop a TE or WR(!) for another RB

The heart and soul of the 2016 Championship team remains in tact.

QB (3) Brady, Garoppolo, Brisset
RB (4) White, Lewis, Develin, (Bolden)
WR (6) Edelman, Cooks, Hogan, Mitchell, Amendola, Slater
TE (3) Gronkowski, Allen, Lengel
OT (4) Solder, Cannon, Waddle, Fleming
OG (3) Thuney, Mason, Jackson
OC (2) Andrews, Karras

DT (4) Branch, Brown, Guy, Valentine
DE (5) Flowers, Ealy, Ninkovich, Grissom, (spot here)
LB (4) (Hightower), Van Noy, McClellan, Roberts
CB (6) Gilmore, Butler, Rowe, Jones, Coleman, Jones
S (6) McCourty, Chung, Harmon, Roberts, Ebner, King

ST (3) Gostkowski, Allen, Cardona


Where can a rookie hope to compete for a roster spot? RB, OT, DE, LB, CB, SS, KR/PR

In terms of Compensatory Count:

Cooks n/a
Ealy n/a
Guy -1
Allen n/a
Gilmore -1

Bennett +1
Blount (unsigned)
Bolden (unsigned)
Long (unsigned)
Sheard +1
Ryan +1
Mingo +1
Hightower (unsigned)
Vollmer (unsigned)
Floyd (unsigned)

Total: +2 so far?

I would add interior O-Line to roster spots available for rookies. We don't know how Tre Jackson is doing. He was a DeGuglielmo pick, meaning he isn't typically the type of player Scar prefers physically. He is heavier than the other interior linemen. I can see us moving on from him. And I wouldn't count Karras' roster spot completely safe either.

Also, Andrews has been very solid, but I think there is room for improvement there as well. It won't push Andrews off the roster, but it would push one of Karras or Jackson off.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Here it is. Reasonable as expected. 4.9 gtd ..2.6M 2017 cap hit.
I guess signing bonus was what it took to get him from BAL.




EDIT:


so incl. Williams and Dola restructure/release .. still some 40M to spend
(not necessarily in this year of course)

Very reasonable

 

[Ring 6]

Just been watching the AFC Championship game and we were playing a lot of 5-1. It is actually a kind of 3-4, one where the 5-techs shift inside to 3-tech, the OLBs are on the line and one ILB has been replaced by a SS. One of the 3-techs plays 2 gap (Brown, and now Guy too), the other (Flowers and probably Ealy) 1 gaps. The OLBs (Hightower, McClellin, Van Noy, Ninkovich) need to be able to rush the passer, set the edge and drop into coverage.

It's interesting because it's a defense built for tweeners like Flowers, Van Noy and McClellin, and to a lesser degree, Chung.

Can you go through this with personnel and alignment that was used?

 

[VrabelMayeWin]

Can you go through this with personnel and alignment that was used?

He went into more detail on the Draft Board :

The Hybrid Nature Of Linebacker and Ends On the Patriots

 

[maineman209]

Except we don't play a 34. Hell we don't really play much of a 43 either. 85 % nickel/dime

Yep. It's all multiple concepts now. Sometimes even with a 2-gap, 34 look on one end of the line with a one-gap, 43 look on the other that then morphs into something completely different just before the snap.

 

[manxman2601]

Can you go through this with personnel and alignment that was used?

Tough to do because it was so interchangeable.

Basically there would be five men on the line

OLB - Hightower, McClellin, Van Noy
3-tech (1 gap) - Flowers, Sheard
NT - Branch
3-tech (2 gap) - Brown, Valentine
OLB - Ninkovich

You then had Roberts playing Mike with Chung alongside as a hybrid linebacker/safety. Roberts was the only linebacker that didn't shift outside to the edge although Van Noy and McClellin did take Roberts' role at times. Hightower almost exclusively played OLB in this formation. I only watched the first half (I might do a longer study on this) but I would say the Pats were in this formation a good 60-70% of the time, perhaps more.

I think this formation takes advantage of tweener types. For example, neither McClellin or Van Noy were considered stout enough to put their hand in the ground or were athletic enough either in coverage or as pass rushers to be traditional 3-4 OLBs. In this formation, they're used to do everything. Rush the passer, drop into zone coverage and set the edge. Flowers on the other hand was considered too stiff to be a 4-3 DE and undersized to be a 3-4 DE. In this formation he's a 1-gap 3-tech but his size limitations as a DT are compensated for by the fact that there are five men on the LOS.

In terms of projecting this formation to next season, I'd suggest:

OLB - No change. Hightower, Van Noy, McClellin
3-tech (1 gap) - Flowers, Ealy
NT - Branch, Valentine
3-tech (2 gap) - Brown, Guy
OLB - No change. Ninkovich,

 

[Ring 6]

Yep. It's all multiple concepts now. Sometimes even with a 2-gap, 34 look on one end of the line with a one-gap, 43 look on the other that then morphs into something completely different just before the snap.

Part of the dynamic is that we have des and LBs that are somewhat interchangeable.
So is nink a de and it's a 4 man front or an OLB and it's a 3?
He can do both but mostly plays it as a de. The scheme truck is to flip that and turn the OLB on the opposite side into a de.
That's why I'd consider it 4-2-5 not 3-3-5 as our base because while we can turn a de into an OLB it's just a variation and still ends up as a 4 man front.

On early downs it's more clear it's 2 bigs and 2 260-275 guys plus 2 lbs.
on passing downs we remove a big and slide a 260-275 lber inside. So it's really DT, 3DES and 2 LB.
The scheme becomes multiple when you can interchange the de and LBs but that is a variation not the norm.

 

[manxman2601]

the formation. You can see Chung playing in a LB position. Brown is the right 3-tech although he's playing more as a 2-tech and Flowers is at the left 3-tech. Hightower and Ninkovich are the OLBs.



File was too large to upload so I had to include it as a tweet.

 

[Ring 6]

Tough to do because it was so interchangeable.

Basically there would be five men on the line

OLB - Hightower, McClellin, Van Noy
3-tech (1 gap) - Flowers, Sheard
NT - Branch
3-tech (2 gap) - Brown, Valentine
OLB - Ninkovich

You then had Roberts playing Mike with Chung alongside as a hybrid linebacker/safety. Roberts was the only linebacker that didn't shift outside to the edge although Van Noy and McClellin did take Roberts' role at times. Hightower almost exclusively played OLB in this formation. I only watched the first half (I might do a longer study on this) but I would say the Pats were in this formation a good 60-70% of the time, perhaps more.

I think this formation takes advantage of tweener types. For example, neither McClellin or Van Noy were considered stout enough to put their hand in the ground or were athletic enough either in coverage or as pass rushers to be traditional 3-4 OLBs. In this formation, they're used to do everything. Rush the passer, drop into zone coverage and set the edge. Flowers on the other hand was considered too stiff to be a 4-3 DE and undersized to be a 3-4 DE. In this formation he's a 1-gap 3-tech but his size limitations as a DT are compensated for by the fact that there are five men on the LOS.

In terms of projecting this formation to next season, I'd suggest:

OLB - No change. Hightower, Van Noy, McClellin
3-tech (1 gap) - Flowers, Ealy
NT - Branch, Valentine
3-tech (2 gap) - Brown, Guy
OLB - No change. Ninkovich,

But you have 10 guys listed for 6 spots.(last year)

My question was using them together.
On early downs I see 2 DT 2 DE and 2 LB
I don't see flowers in a 3 tech in early downs but he moves in on passing downs.

 

[Ring 6]

the formation. You can see Chung playing in a LB position. Brown is the right 3-tech although he's playing more as a 2-tech and Flowers is at the left 3-tech. Hightower and Ninkovich are the OLBs.



File was too large to upload so I had to include it as a tweet.

That is 425 to me.
Nink is playing de standing up.
HT alignment as a LB is based on formations. Flowers is a traditional 43 de alignment not a 3 tech.

 

[Ring 6]

the formation. You can see Chung playing in a LB position. Brown is the right 3-tech although he's playing more as a 2-tech and Flowers is at the left 3-tech. Hightower and Ninkovich are the OLBs.



File was too large to upload so I had to include it as a tweet.

But the real question is whether it's 34 or 43 depends on what you consider nink. I consider him a de as he will almost always play de duties from there.

 

[manxman2601]

The same formation, this time with McCourty in the box, Van Noy at the Mike and McClellin replacing Hightower at ROLB

 

[manxman2601]

But the real question is whether it's 34 or 43 depends on what you consider nink. I consider him a de as he will almost always play de duties from there.

But he's just as likely to drop into coverage as rush the passer. And you don't often see Sheard in that position, although I have a couple of times. Sheard either plays the Flowers 3-tech role or him and Long play DE in the more traditional even front formations.

 

[Ring 6]

But he's just as likely to drop into coverage as rush the passer. And you don't often see Sheard in that position, although I have a couple of times. Sheard either plays the Flowers 3-tech role or him and Long play DE in the more traditional even front formations.

I disagree. He is extremely unlikely to drop into coverage.
flowers isn't in a 3 tech he is head up on the ot.

 

[manxman2601]

That is 425 to me.
Nink is playing de standing up.
HT alignment as a LB is based on formations. Flowers is a traditional 43 de alignment not a 3 tech.

Frankly, names are irrelevant, it's roles that matter. And Flowers is definitely playing the 3-tech in that picture. In a traditional 4-3, he'd be outside the OT.

 

[manxman2601]

I disagree. He is extremely unlikely to drop into coverage.
flowers isn't in a 3 tech he is head up on the ot.

What can I tell you. On the first three plays that Nink lined up in that formation when Pittsburgh passed, he dropped into coverage.

Through three quarters, Nink has dropped into coverage eight times from that formation and rushed the passer twice. long played two snaps in that formation and dropped both times whilst Sheard was about 50-50 from that position in that formation.