Is The Big Nickel A Major Part Of Our Defense?

We had 3 safeties on the field in the majority of plays in 2017. This could be because Harmon was a better choice than a 3rd LB or 3rd corner. That was my understanding.

However, if the big nickel is a preferred option in many situations, that is different entirely.

In the first situation, the 4th safety would only play if there are 2 injuries. Even then, a corner could move to safety.

HOWEVER, if the big nickel is an important part of our defense, then we basically have 3 starters at safety (rather than 3 at corner). If this is the case a 4th safety who can come in off the bench is a important need for the team.

I sincerely hope not. Until I see otherwise, we don't have the personnel necessary to properly execute that. If they're planning to use the Big Nickel that much or more in 2018, they'll need a safety that is more athletic than Richards.

KontradictioN said:

I sincerely hope not. Until I see otherwise, we don't have the personnel necessary to properly execute that. If they're planning to use the Big Nickel that much or more in 2018, they'll need a safety that is more athletic than Richards.

Click to expand...

Either that or McCourty, Chung, and Harmon need to be 3 of the most well conditioned players in the NFL.

Someone please verify, but I believe that we had 3 safeties on the field about 50% of the time last year. Even 1/4 of the time would justify spending resources on a 4th safety.

IMHO, we need 8 solid defensive backs, if we can. If one of corners shifted to safety, then we'd be fine. Gilmore (outside), McCourty (outside), and Dawson (inside, could be a backup inside) seem set in their roles.

So, we have six DB's (including one youngster): Gilmore, McCourty, Dawson, McCourty, Chung and Harmon.

PICK 2-3 (and who is the 4th safety?)
J Jones
Rowe
C Jones
Richards
plus developmental players

KontradictioN said:

I sincerely hope not. Until I see otherwise, we don't have the personnel necessary to properly execute that. If they're planning to use the Big Nickel that much or more in 2018, they'll need a safety that is more athletic than Richards.

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

We had 3 safeties on the field in the majority of plays in 2017. This could be because Harmon was a better choice than a 3rd LB or 3rd corner. That was my understanding.

However, if the big nickel is a preferred option in many situations, that is different entirely.

In the first situation, the 4th safety would only play if there are 2 injuries. Even then, a corner could move to safety.

HOWEVER, if the big nickel is an important part of our defense, then we basically have 3 starters at safety (rather than 3 at corner). If this is the case a 4th safety who can come in off the bench is a important need for the team.

Click to expand...

The big nickel is important because it gives flexibility. If we only had 2 healthy safeties we would cut it back dramatically.
Since nickel is our base we have 5+ dbs on the field 95% of the time.
If we only had 2 healthy safeties that would change that and we’d see 4 dbs at times, I’m
guessing maybe 20%.
If the 4th S didn’t totally suck some of that 20% would probably be big nickel.

mgteich said:

Someone please verify, but I believe that we had 3 safeties on the field about 50% of the time last year. Even 1/4 of the time would justify spending resources on a 4th safety.

IMHO, we need 8 solid defensive backs, if we can. If one of corners shifted to safety, then we'd be fine. Gilmore (outside), McCourty (outside), and Dawson (inside, could be a backup inside) seem set in their roles.

So, we have six DB's (including one youngster): Gilmore, McCourty, Dawson, McCourty, Chung and Harmon.

PICK 2-3 (and who is the 4th safety?)
J Jones
Rowe
C Jones
Richards
plus developmental players

Click to expand...

We played 1060 snaps

Safeties played 2931 which is 2.77 per snap. That means we used 3 safeties about 77% of the time. (Although we know there were a few 4 safety snaps. If we only count mcc, Chung and Harmon it’s 2659 or 2.51. So we used 3 or more safeties somewhere between 51 and 77% of the snaps.

Corners played 2765 snaps or 2.61 per snap. Some were 4 corners but not a lot I think.

Altogether we used 5.38 dbs per snap

When will the NFL discipline come down for Duron Harmon's little "vacation" in the off-season?

Have to imagine that affects our safety rotation.....

mgteich said:

Someone please verify, but I believe that we had 3 safeties on the field about 50% of the time last year. Even 1/4 of the time would justify spending resources on a 4th safety.

IMHO, we need 8 solid defensive backs, if we can. If one of corners shifted to safety, then we'd be fine. Gilmore (outside), McCourty (outside), and Dawson (inside, could be a backup inside) seem set in their roles.

So, we have six DB's (including one youngster): Gilmore, McCourty, Dawson, McCourty, Chung and Harmon.

PICK 2-3 (and who is the 4th safety?)
J Jones
Rowe
C Jones
Richards
plus developmental players

Click to expand...

One of the corners shifting to that additional safety spot begs for an audible and for the offense to run the ball down our throats. Unfortunately for us, Richards is terrible at that as well.

KontradictioN said:

One of the corners shifting to that additional safety spot begs for an audible and for the offense to run the ball down our throats. Unfortunately for us, Richards is terrible at that as well.

Click to expand...

Old School Denver Broncos comes to mind

I think we go big nickel because Chung is good enough to play de facto linebacker on running plays. If something happened to him, we’d probably roll with the traditional defense.

Let’s not talk about what the other option is...

As long as we're deficient in linebackers and pass rushers, we will attempt to fill the void through schemes.

Big nickel means NOTHING unless Victor Green is involved...until that point your discussion of all things Big Nickel is null and void

I agree.

With our current complement (philosophy ?) of linebackers, we emphasize the defensive backs.

If 3 corners plays more than 1/2 the time, and 3 safeties play more than 1/2 the time, I would say that we should include consider 3 corners and 3 safeties as essentially "starters".
In any case, they are first team and need backups. This has been the case for corners for awhile. Most of us have consider the nickel corner to be a "starter" once the nickel became our base some years ago.

The difference in the last couple of years is that the 3rd safety is also playing 1/2 the time, and also should be considered a "starter"

WE NEED BACKUPS
We hope for plans when there are 2 injuries to a unit. Certainly, there should be TWO competent backups in case of injuries to one of the corners, and to one of the safeties.

In fact, we need a backup inside and out at corner, although this could be the same person.
At safety, we also need a backup to both roles, although again, this could be the same person.

The MINIMUM seems to be TWO competent backups. Belichick seems to think that both these backups should be corners. With the changes in schemes, perhaps it is time to rethink this strategy. Or perhaps, we need a 9th position defensive back.

I know that we used to win without defensive back depth, but in sense that was a different era. Now, we are much more a passing league.

MY BOTTOM LINE
I think that we should carry 9 positions defensive backs to allow for flexibility of scheme, and to allow for the 5th corner who could be a developmental player. We should continue to carry an STO player, that we label as a safety (Ebner). That adds to 10. Sometimes we count another STO player as a safety. King has been counted there; however he does practice with the linebackers, so 10 seems right to me.

RayClay said:

As long as we're deficient in linebackers and pass rushers, we will attempt to fill the void through schemes.

Click to expand...

mgteich said:

PICK 2-3 (and who is the 4th safety?)
J Jones
Rowe
C Jones
Richards
plus developmental players

Click to expand...

Jonathan Jones - if healthy

Eric Rowe

4th Safety: David Jones - if healthy; if not, then Damarius Travis

The big nickel is basically making up for the fact that the Patriots do not have an atheletic linebacker that can cover TEs and RBs. Back when they first experimented with it, the LBs were not too atheletic. It allows for the team to field a "coverage" unit with more tackling ability than a CB.

With the prolific use of 3 WR sets, the big nickel isn't an ideal defense, because the Patriots need a CB to cover the 3rd WR. We saw entirely too much big nickel last year, especially in the Superbowl.

So, I would like to see much less 3 safety sets when there are 3 WRs on the field and a lot more nickel corners.