Defensive Balance

[Urgent]

So the LB corps now is:
Hightower, Collins, Ayers
Casillas, White

So who plays MLB?

 

[Ring 6]

So the LB corps now is:
Hightower, Collins, Ayers
Casillas, White

So who plays MLB?

We don't have a MLB in our scheme.
We have played I would guess about 20 snaps of 43 all season.
The 34 ILBs will be HT and Collins, although I would love it if we could get away with Ayers inside and HT back at OLB where he is a beast.

This week we will probably play 90% of the snaps in nickel or dime.
HT and Collins will be the LBs in nickel, probably dime as well.

Going forward for the few snaps we ever line up in 43 it would be HT in the middle.

 

[mayoclinic]

We don't have a MLB in our scheme.
We have played I would guess about 20 snaps of 43 all season.
The 34 ILBs will be HT and Collins, although I would love it if we could get away with Ayers inside and HT back at OLB where he is a beast.

This week we will probably play 90% of the snaps in nickel or dime.
HT and Collins will be the LBs in nickel, probably dime as well.

Going forward for the few snaps we ever line up in 43 it would be HT in the middle.

I'm not even sure what one would call our "scheme". We're in sub 70% of the time, with 2 LBs. We'll probably play a 4-2-1-4 scheme at times as our "base". We'll play a hybrid 3/4-4/3 base about 25% of the time. Our personnel have to be "multiple", and many of our defensive players seem to have the skill set to play more than one role. There just isn't enough of a priority on the roster for a traditional MLB.

Particularly when we get Jones and Siliga back, I like our versatility and depth.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Branch reportedly signed, as projected.

http://nesn.com/2014/10/report-alan-branch-finally-signs-with-patriots-will-practice-wednesday/

Can play DE in a 3-4 or 4-3 Under, or DT. Good pickup.

Branch, Casillas and Ayers - nice infusion of talent to give a boost for the second half of the season, and hopefully beyond.

BB just had a full [virtual] Defensive Draft. He got three young, fully NFL capable starters, and/or a ST guru. Realistically, finding three starters is a good Draft in the end.

He paid for that [virtual] Draft with sliding down the next Draft by 20-30 late pick positions. This team will be stronger by the time 8 games away, when these players have been assimilated.

He can devote virtually the next entire Draft to a starting quality, third, DE; and then Offensive players. Such as another pair of Offensive linemen and a couple of skill position RBs to augment/replace Ridley/Vereen.

PS: I was in Arizona when Alan Branch was drafted with the first pick in Round 2, at 33. They were looking for a Vince type lineman to anchor their DL, and provide beef for DEs like Simeon Rice. There was no question that he had that kind of talent, but he got dinged up often.

Typical of a losing team, the rumors started that he was slow to recover, perhaps dogging it, unhappy and wanted out, just like what Rice was accused of doing, too. By the time his contract was up, both were fed up with the rumors and back biting, and promptly signed elsewhere.

The point is that he DOES HAVE the level of TALENT you want for foundation stone in your DL. Whether he has the attitude is the only question. If anyone can bring it out, BB can. He will never be a great Pass Rusher but neither is Vince.

 

[Urgent]

I'm not even sure what one would call our "scheme". We're in sub 70% of the time, with 2 LBs. We'll probably play a 4-2-1-4 scheme at times as our "base". We'll play a hybrid 3/4-4/3 base about 25% of the time. Our personnel have to be "multiple", and many of our defensive players seem to have the skill set to play more than one role. There just isn't enough of a priority on the roster for a traditional MLB.

The concern is the ability of teams to run at 5-6 yards per carry pretty consistently.

I agree - in a passing league I'd rather be really good at defending the pass than defending the run.
As long as the team can score at will, let the other team try to run the ball and control the clock.
In closer games it's more of a concern.

 

[mayoclinic]

I was in Arizona when Alan Branch was drafted with the first pick in Round 2, at 33. They were looking for a Vince type lineman to anchor their DL, and provide beef for DEs like Simeon Rice. There was no question that he had that kind of talent, but he got dinged up often.

Typical of a losing team, the rumors started that he was slow to recover, perhaps dogging it, unhappy and wanted out, just like what Rice was accused of doing, too. By the time his contract was up, both were fed up with the rumors and back biting, and promptly signed elsewhere.

The point is that he DOES HAVE the level of TALENT you want for foundation stone in your DL. Whether he has the attitude is the only question. If anyone can bring it out, BB can. He will never be a great Pass Rusher but neither is Vince.

I was a huge Alan Branch fan in 2007. I thought he was a top 15-20 talent, and I was hoping the Pats would have a shot at him (they had 1st round picks at 24 and 28 in that draft). They passed on him twice. I thought Branch had John Henderson/Haloti Ngata kind of ability. He hasn't had anything like that kind of career, but he is a talented player, and I think he certainly has the skill set to contribute.

You may recall, at Michigan's Pro Day in 2007 KC DL coach Tim Kumrie beat the crap out of Branch, who looked out of shape and ready to quit. That resulted in Branch being labelled as soft - a label that he hasn't entirely shaken during his career. It will be interesting to see what BB does with him. "Soft" players generally don't do well. My guess is he'll either shape up or ship out. If the former, he could be a really good pickup. If the latter, he won't be around long.

 

[Oswlek]

The concern is the ability of teams to run at 5-6 yards per carry pretty consistently.

I agree - in a passing league I'd rather be really good at defending the pass than defending the run.
As long as the team can score at will, let the other team try to run the ball and control the clock.
In closer games it's more of a concern.

Absolutely, though with Branch/Siliga and maybe diminishing Collin's run responsibilities, NE could be passable. I know the numbers aren't so great, but I'm not convinced the run D is as bad as it appears on paper. We all know the issues of the first month, NY was on a short week with limited time to adjust to Mayo's absence and most of Chicago's yardage came while being down 17+ points.

If I were a scientist, I'd note the obvious trend, but I'd be cautious to form any conclusions just yet considering the extenuating circumstances.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not even sure what one would call our "scheme". We're in sub 70% of the time, with 2 LBs. We'll probably play a 4-2-1-4 scheme at times as our "base". We'll play a hybrid 3/4-4/3 base about 25% of the time. Our personnel have to be "multiple", and many of our defensive players seem to have the skill set to play more than one role. There just isn't enough of a priority on the roster for a traditional MLB.

Particularly when we get Jones and Siliga back, I like our versatility and depth.

It's very opponent driven.
We play base more against some teams. But my point was in base we are a 34 team, or more approriately we play a man over the C in base, so there is no MLB, and traditionally we do not flip ILBs to strength.

As we discussed the other day, I am suspicious that BB has decided to beat top offenses he must be able to play sub all day long, so even against a running team we will play mostly nickel because we need to figure out how to stop the run from it.

 

[mayoclinic]

It's very opponent driven.
We play base more against some teams. But my point was in base we are a 34 team, or more approriately we play a man over the C in base, so there is no MLB, and traditionally we do not flip ILBs to strength.

As we discussed the other day, I am suspicious that BB has decided to beat top offenses he must be able to play sub all day long, so even against a running team we will play mostly nickel because we need to figure out how to stop the run from it.

I understand and agree with all of that. I just think that we are getting to the point where it creates more confusion than it helps to put a label on the defensive scheme. It's a defense that is opponent-driven, focused more on sub than on base, and which uses a multi-front hybrid scheme in base with mixed 3-4 and 4-3 concepts, along with other elements at times (5-2 fronts, semi-ameboid fronts, etc.). BB has tailored his personnel to be able to do these varied things, so giving it a label and trying to put players into pure positional classifications isn't always helpful.

 

[mayoclinic]

I think that BB has decided that the traditional MLB has very limited utility, hence his decisions regarding Spikes and Skinner. I wouldn't be surprised to see Skinner re-signed to the PS, and if so, to see him activated down the road for a game in which that position might have more utility. I think BB is working with a 58-60 man functional roster, and he'll shuffle guys at the bottom from game to game based on short-term needs.

 

[Ring 6]

I think that BB has decided that the traditional MLB has very limited utility, hence his decisions regarding Spikes and Skinner. I wouldn't be surprised to see Skinner re-signed to the PS, and if so, to see him activated down the road for a game in which that position might have more utility. I think BB is working with a 58-60 man functional roster, and he'll shuffle guys at the bottom from game to game based on short-term needs.

There is a large gap between the ideal guy and an acceptable one. Spikes is a good example. He really wasn't in any way prototypical of what we want here, but he was certainly acceptable as a piece who was good at most of what he was asked to do but certainly not all of it.

 

[mgteich]

I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this. I think BB views Ebner as a very important piece, both on STs and as a dime LB/S and potentially more. I think there are many, many players who would be cut before Ebner:

Skinner (already cut)
Chris White
Don Jones
Harmon
Tavon Wilson
Malcolm Butler

Its JMHO, but I personally think the chance of Ebner being cut is close to zero. IR is a different matter entirely, if BB thinks he will be out for a while, but I doubt that is the case.

I do NOT think that Ebner is a candidate to be cut. The discussion that many have had is with regard to him being put on IR.

 

[mgteich]

Start of the year roster
2013 - 5 CB, 5 S
2012 - 6 CB, 4 S
2011 - 5 CB, 4 S
2010 - 5 CB, 4 S
2009 - 5 CB, 5 S (plus Slater, who was originally listed as a S)
2008 - 5 CB, 4 S
2007 - 4 CB, 7 S
2006 - 5 CB, 4 S
2005 - 6 CB, 4 S
2004 - 4 CB, 4 S

Past six years, the roster has always varied between nine and 10 defensive backs. Over the past 10 years, the low is eight and the high, 2007, is 11.

And now 12 seems fine to one and all.

 

[supafly]

Even in a passing league, 11 position defensive backs is a lot.

And now 12 seems fine to one and all.

Is it 11 or 12?

 

[ausbacker]

Is it 11 or 12?

What's an inch between friends?

 

[Fencer]

Considering how often we've been down to the Earthwind Morelands and Hank Poteats -- not to mention slot receivers playing CB -- I'm reassured by our great DB depth this year.

When Marquice Cole got cut I figured DB depth was going to be pretty good, and so far that's held up. That said, it's early in the season, so depth hasn't really been tested, and Cole's still on the street, so perhaps that wasn't a good indicator ...

 

[DarrylS]

I understand and agree with all of that. I just think that we are getting to the point where it creates more confusion than it helps to put a label on the defensive scheme. It's a defense that is opponent-driven, focused more on sub than on base, and which uses a multi-front hybrid scheme in base with mixed 3-4 and 4-3 concepts, along with other elements at times (5-2 fronts, semi-ameboid fronts, etc.). BB has tailored his personnel to be able to do these varied things, so giving it a label and trying to put players into pure positional classifications isn't always helpful.

I agree completely, BB is morphing this D into an indescribable one that can fit a variety of situations. He has a lot of pieces he can mix and match to adapt to specific defensive situations...

The only concern is the absence of a Defensive QB to implement all of this, I suspect with all of these pieces the D will become more and more sophisticated as they year goes on, need on the field guys who understand all of this.

This is heresy, but have felt for a while now he is moving from a Big O to a Big D, perhaps it has to do with anticipating life after Brady...

 

[mayoclinic]

I do NOT think that Ebner is a candidate to be cut. The discussion that many have had is with regard to him being put on IR.

Thank you for the clarification. That's another matter entirely, as I stated. I hope not, but we'll see soon enough.

 

[Oswlek]

Thank you for the clarification. That's another matter entirely, as I stated. I hope not, but we'll see soon enough.

Even Ebner to IR shouldn't be considered a likely move, considering that NE waited on him this long.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A few thoughts..

I'll be interested to see who goes when Siliga comes back. Depending on how he plays, Branch may be the likely candidate.

I'm assuming that Castillo will be playing ST, backup/cover LB and potentially a SS in the "big nickel" package. IMO I think Ebner's roster status will be tied to how well Castillo plays. Maybe Chris White?

Wild card is Chandler Jones. If he make it back, Ayers seems like the odd man out..OR if he plays well they IR Moore or Siliga.