Ramsey Recruting Gilmore to Rams

[TheRainMaker]

If we kept him at something near or below what Marcus Peters was getting, it's worth extending Gilmore till he retires. Gilmore remains an elite CB1 and those don't grow on trees.

.

The problem is, there’s two guys nowhere near his level in Jones and Slay who are making $16M per year. Slay is the best comp due to age.

That’s Gilmore’s starting point.

 

[Rob0729]

Yes of course. We even won multiple Superbowls where our starting strong safety or free safety were knocked out of the game. But the point was more that we had an elite CB1 on the roster in years we won a ring. Bill's entire scheme is based on an elite CB1 taking out the opposing #2 entirely on their own. So I'm counting Malcolm in 2016 as elite yes, as evidenced by the fact he was an AP and PFF NFL All-Pro. And the other 5 rings had Law or Revis or Gilmore. The Pats D will fall apart if we don't extend Gilmore or have an immediate CB1 to replace him.

.

Except the Pats were primarily a zone coverage team until Revis came to the Pats. In zone coverage, the CBs aren’t typically assigned to shadow a specific receiver all over the field. You can have elite CBs in zone coverage, but they are not used the way that Revis and Gilmore has been used in recent years and how you described. Even the first part of the year Revis was here, the Pats ran primarily a zone (which had many people complaining about how you could acquire Revis and not play man defense) and wasn't until Browner came back from suspension until they switch to man.

The man press coverage that you are describing is a more recent phenomenon for the Patriots and a product of the changing league. Back in the early dynasty, there might have been particular games where the Pats employed this strategy, but it wasn't the norm.

In fact, during the first dynasty era, the front seven (especially the linebackers) were more important to the defense than the secondary. It would be the LBs that caused confusion for the offense because they would disguise what they would do and either rush the passer or drop into coverage. And the d-line was crucial to open the running lanes for the LBs to rush the passer. That is how the defense overcame losing both starting CBs in 2004.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Except the Pats were primarily a zone coverage team until Revis came to the Pats. In zone coverage, the CBs aren’t typically assigned to shadow a specific receiver all over the field. You can have elite CBs in zone coverage, but they are not used the way that Revis and Gilmore has been used in recent years and how you described. Even the first part of the year Revis was here, the Pats ran primarily a zone (which had many people complaining about how you could acquire Revis and not play man defense) and wasn't until Browner came back from suspension until they switch to man.

The man press coverage that you are describing is a more recent phenomenon for the Patriots and a product of the changing league. Back in the early dynasty, there might have been particular games where the Pats employed this strategy, but it wasn't the norm.

In fact, during the first dynasty era, the front seven (especially the linebackers) were more important to the defense than the secondary. It would be the LBs that caused confusion for the offense because they would disguise what they would do and either rush the passer or drop into coverage. And the d-line was crucial to open the running lanes for the LBs to rush the passer. That is how the defense overcame losing both starting CBs in 2004.

The Pats were definitely a man defense in the first dynasty. 2001-2004 Ty Law and Rodney/Lawyor in the box. Corners hitting receivers at the line such that Bill Polian changes the rules. The 04 playoff zone was only due to major injuries to compensate. The 05-11 period was the bad zone coverage defense (bringing back Dean Pees ptsd memories), it was trash and could never stop a key 3rd down. Corners 10 yards off the line of scrimmage, it made no sense. From 2012-2018 won 3 rings going back to an aggressive press man defense with 1 deep FS, just like from 2001-2004 (not counting injuries). So again, all 6 rings had an elite CB1 at least on the roster and played the man defense with primarily 1 FS deep. Belichick's best D going back to the Giants stopping the Bills was always man defense with the CB1 taking out the #2 receiver in man and then doubling the WR1 using your CB2 and a safety. It's always been man as his best defense.

.

 

[TheRainMaker]

The Pats were definitely a man defense in the first dynasty. 2001-2004 Ty Law and Rodney/Lawyor in the box.

Yep. Law and Poole was possessed in 2003. Best duo by far that year.

Would’ve put together another solid year together had not been injuries in 2004.

The 05-11 period was the bad zone coverage defense (bringing back Dean Pees ptsd memories), it was trash and could never stop a key 3rd down. Corners 10 yards off the line of scrimmage, it made no sense.

There’s a perfect explanation for this. Their CB’s were awful majority of those years. Samuel was awful his first year starting in 2005, but put together two solid years from 2006 and 2007. He wasn’t exactly a “man” guy either. After he left, they had a lot of duds starting at CB. Trading for Talib finally allowed them to go back to a more man coverage.

 

[Rob0729]

The Pats were definitely a man defense in the first dynasty. 2001-2004 Ty Law and Rodney/Lawyor in the box. Corners hitting receivers at the line such that Bill Polian changes the rules. The 04 playoff zone was only due to major injuries to compensate. The 05-11 period was the bad zone coverage defense (bringing back Dean Pees ptsd memories), it was trash and could never stop a key 3rd down. Corners 10 yards off the line of scrimmage, it made no sense. From 2012-2018 won 3 rings going back to an aggressive press man defense with 1 deep FS, just like from 2001-2004 (not counting injuries). So again, all 6 rings had an elite CB1 at least on the roster and played the man defense with primarily 1 FS deep. Belichick's best D going back to the Giants stopping the Bills was always man defense with the CB1 taking out the #2 receiver in man and then doubling the WR1 using your CB2 and a safety. It's always been man as his best defense.

.

I think you are misremembering. All you have to do is look at Law's most iconic movements during the dynasty era. The pick six in the Super Bowl or his total domination of Manning in the 2003 playoffs with three INTs were all in zone coverage. Ty Law was a dominant zone coverage CB and probably the one of the most versatile CBs in NFL history because he could be so dominant in both zone and man coverage. No one could jump a route like Ty Law.

I will admit I was wrong about when the switch started. When the Pats traded for Talib, they did mix in a lot more man.

But here is some video evidence.










In fact, all of his five of his seven picks on Manning in a Patriots uniform were in zone coverage (one under Pete Carroll in the zone and two in man and four in all zone under Belichick).

 

[DropKickFlutie]

I think you are misremembering. All you have to do is look at Law's most iconic movements during the dynasty era. The pick six in the Super Bowl or his total domination of Manning in the 2003 playoffs with three INTs were all in zone coverage. Ty Law was a dominant zone coverage CB and probably the one of the most versatile CBs in NFL history because he could be so dominant in both zone and man coverage. No one could jump a route like Ty Law.

I will admit I was wrong about when the switch started. When the Pats traded for Talib, they did mix in a lot more man.

But here is some video evidence.










In fact, all of his five of his seven picks on Manning in a Patriots uniform were in zone coverage (one under Pete Carroll in the zone and two in man and four in all zone under Belichick).

Ok I don't care enough to get into a whole argument about this. I think it's weird you keep insisting the Pats won playing only zone. They clearly were jamming Rams receivers at the line and Faulk in the Superbowl, and Bill Polian's rule change was literally against press man corners. Here is an article about Bill Polian's rule change which targeted the Pats and Ty Law around press man coverage. The Pats played crappy zone from 2005-2012 and no coincidence we never got a ring then. When I say man I don't mean 100% of the time.

Bill Belichick says cornerback Ty Law made the NFL “change the rules”

In Bill Belichick’s opinion, Hall of Fame finalist Ty Law’s aggressive, relentless technique was what caused the league to crack down on illegal contact.

www.patspulpit.com

 

[Rob0729]

Ok I don't care enough to get into a whole argument about this. I think it's weird you keep insisting the Pats won playing only zone. They clearly were jamming Rams receivers at the line and Faulk in the Superbowl, and Bill Polian's rule change was literally against press man corners. Here is an article about Bill Polian's rule change which targeted the Pats and Ty Law around press man coverage. The Pats played crappy zone from 2005-2012 and no coincidence we never got a ring then. When I say man I don't mean 100% of the time.

Bill Belichick says cornerback Ty Law made the NFL “change the rules”

In Bill Belichick’s opinion, Hall of Fame finalist Ty Law’s aggressive, relentless technique was what caused the league to crack down on illegal contact.

www.patspulpit.com

You can play aggressive press coverage in zone coverage. The Pats liked to play a high safety deep cover 2 as their base pass defense. The difference is you will pass off a player when they leave your zone. So even in zone, Ty Law could be mugging receivers off the line. There is a difference between press coverage and man coverage. Press coverage can be played in both man and zone defense.

And it was Willie McGinest who primarily covered Marshall Faulk in the Super Bowl. And his job was to make sure Faulk was jammed off the line on every play. Not necessarily cover him on every play. And that is what they did with Bruce and Holt and the rest of the WRs.

And I didn't say that they only played zone. I said it was the primary defense. It doesn't mean they played it every passing down against every passing opponent. But even now that they are primarily are a man team, they still probably play zone 10-30% of the time.

But the whole key to the bend, don't break defense that they employed was to keep the play in front of them. They were willing to give up the short passing plays to avoid giving up the big pass. You cannot play that style of defense if you are primarily in man coverage because even with over the top safety help, you risk giving up a big play in a blown coverage situation that you are less likely to give up in the zone.

And the Ty Law rule was for his aggressive, physical style of play. It was because he loved to jam receivers at the line and beyond a bit (as Belichick pointed out in the article you posted) and he was really aggressive going for the ball. Not just his down the field coverage skills.

 

[captain stone]

Well, 1 play was elite.

Because Browner knew what play was coming.

Butler still deserves a ton of credit...Not sure that Kyle Arrington makes that INT...

 

[Pape]

Butler still deserves a ton of credit...Not sure that Kyle Arrington makes that INT...

he does, and if i ever saw him at a bar i'd buy him a drink

 

[‘Mondre]

1st? 2nd and a 3rd? Iono I’m spitballing here.

 

[slash83]

If the team can’t work things out with Gilmore for at least one more year I think it’ll be a major fail. I wouldn’t trade him unless it’s for a 1st rounder, which won’t happen. He completes the defense and it needs him.

 

[1960Pats]

Butler still deserves a ton of credit...Not sure that Kyle Arrington makes that INT...

There aren't many DBs that would have made that pick. Plenty could have broken up the play in that exact situation but not many would have made the pick. It's all moot anyway. Butler made the greatest defensive play in SB history. Nobody else did.

 

[BTTA]

If the team can’t work things out with Gilmore for at least one more year I think it’ll be a major fail. I wouldn’t trade him unless it’s for a 1st rounder, which won’t happen. He completes the defense and it needs him.

My only hesitancy with this is if he's starting the rapid decline that so many elite CB's do, at his age, and the coaching staff can see that where we can't. Other teams will figure it out pretty quickly once the season starts, if that's the case, and the Pats will be forced to change up coverage patterns by the second half of the year, no longer building around Gilmore shutting down a top WR on his own.

As they say in the financial forums, "this is not investment advice." In other words, I'm an amateur here.

 

[slash83]

My only hesitancy with this is if he's starting the rapid decline that so many elite CB's do, at his age, and the coaching staff can see that where we can't. Other teams will figure it out pretty quickly once the season starts, if that's the case, and the Pats will be forced to change up coverage patterns by the second half of the year, no longer building around Gilmore shutting down a top WR on his own.

As they say in the financial forums, "this is not investment advice." In other words, I'm an amateur here.

I get it and I agree, I just don’t think there’s other options on the team at this point.

 

[captain stone]

If the team can’t work things out with Gilmore for at least one more year I think it’ll be a major fail. I wouldn’t trade him unless it’s for a 1st rounder, which won’t happen. He completes the defense and it needs him.

It does need him, if he's fully recovered...Man I would really like to see him on the field first, in competitive scrimmages, before discussing extensions or trade possibilities...though I realize that might not be possible...

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

There aren't many DBs that would have made that pick. Plenty could have broken up the play in that exact situation but not many would have made the pick. It's all moot anyway. Butler made the greatest defensive play in SB history. Nobody else did.

I'm not even confident Butler himself makes that pick in 90 out of 100 other scenarios in alternate universes.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

You can play aggressive press coverage in zone coverage. The Pats liked to play a high safety deep cover 2 as their base pass defense. The difference is you will pass off a player when they leave your zone. So even in zone, Ty Law could be mugging receivers off the line. There is a difference between press coverage and man coverage. Press coverage can be played in both man and zone defense.

And it was Willie McGinest who primarily covered Marshall Faulk in the Super Bowl. And his job was to make sure Faulk was jammed off the line on every play. Not necessarily cover him on every play. And that is what they did with Bruce and Holt and the rest of the WRs.

And I didn't say that they only played zone. I said it was the primary defense. It doesn't mean they played it every passing down against every passing opponent. But even now that they are primarily are a man team, they still probably play zone 10-30% of the time.

But the whole key to the bend, don't break defense that they employed was to keep the play in front of them. They were willing to give up the short passing plays to avoid giving up the big pass. You cannot play that style of defense if you are primarily in man coverage because even with over the top safety help, you risk giving up a big play in a blown coverage situation that you are less likely to give up in the zone.

And the Ty Law rule was for his aggressive, physical style of play. It was because he loved to jam receivers at the line and beyond a bit (as Belichick pointed out in the article you posted) and he was really aggressive going for the ball. Not just his down the field coverage skills.

When they play zone, yes they follow a guy then switch when a receiver leaves their zone. That's how they play zone but they weren't a predominantly zone defense. They weren't playing 2-deep most of the time. Just Look at Rodney Harrison and Chung's tackle numbers. 100+ tackles annually because the Pats were a 1-deep FS defense when they won rings and the strong safety is in the box at the line of scrimmage. They were a crappy defense when they tried to play 2deep and made Chung play deep safety 20 yards from the line of scrimmage. Then played Chung as a box strong safety which is what he played in college and with an elite (different) CB1 they won 3 rings. All 6 rings had an elite CB1 and a quality strong safety in the box (not 2 safeties deep most of the time). I think Reiss and others have literally published about this in the past with charts and facts - the Pats are a 1-deep safety defense, not a 2-deep cover defense.....

 

[Rob0729]

When they play zone, yes they follow a guy then switch when a receiver leaves their zone. That's how they play zone but they weren't a predominantly zone defense. They weren't playing 2-deep most of the time. Just Look at Rodney Harrison and Chung's tackle numbers. 100+ tackles annually because the Pats were a 1-deep FS defense when they won rings and the strong safety is in the box at the line of scrimmage. They were a crappy defense when they tried to play 2deep and made Chung play deep safety 20 yards from the line of scrimmage. Then played Chung as a box strong safety which is what he played in college and with an elite (different) CB1 they won 3 rings. All 6 rings had an elite CB1 and a quality strong safety in the box (not 2 safeties deep most of the time). I think Reiss and others have literally published about this in the past with charts and facts - the Pats are a 1-deep safety defense, not a 2-deep cover defense.....

I never said they were two deep. I said the high safety was deep. They way they did cover two was one safety cover from the line of scrimmage to about 10-15 deep and the other safety covering the rest of the field playing deep to be the fail safe. They created a low zone and high zone for the safeties (opposed to a right and left zone like a lot of teams play). In 2003 and 2004, Harrison played the low zone as the hit man and Wilson played the high zone providing over the top help for the CBs.

Again, they played a cover 2 high safety deep base pass defense.

 

[Mack Herron]

 

[Bill Lee]