- Joined
- Aug 11, 2006
- Messages
- 25,360
- Reaction score
- 10,246
If its That hard to find players to fit a scheme maybe just maybe the scheme should be tweeked.Reed still doesn't fit the Pats' scheme.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.If its That hard to find players to fit a scheme maybe just maybe the scheme should be tweeked.Reed still doesn't fit the Pats' scheme.
If its That hard to find players to fit a scheme maybe just maybe the scheme should be tweeked.
It's not that hard for guys to fit. If a player's game isn't completely based on running around guys, he'll fit to some degree. It's just people are attracted to the "hair on fire" types (Matthews, Reed, Von Miller) who don't fit, while the solid but unspectacular guys that no one is talking about are the ones who do fit.
Being a good enough fit to be the best value on the board is another separate thing, but that's not what Reed was. Reed is a one-dimensional player, and the Pats' scheme is set up to de-emphasize that one dimension that he does have.
Dude, Brace the comic book reader, is getting outplayed by Love and Deaderick. It's not even close. The only reason he's still on the team is that guys his size are a lot harder to find than fast little guys.Anti-Brace bias much? You're calling him the mistake rather than the already-cut Butler.
Dude, Brace the comic book reader, is getting outplayed by Love and Deaderick. It's not even close. The only reason he's still on the team is that guys his size are a lot harder to find than fast little guys.
Ron Brace was a reach. Period. Just like Cunningham. Just like Ras-I Dowling. Just like that Penn State offensive lineman whose name I don't know.
People make mistakes. Even Belichick.
Ninkovich is probably more typical of the "quiet, plodding", disciplined defender that BB prefers. Here's the thing, though:
Ninko: 43 solo/71 TT, 6.5 sacks, 2 TFL, 4 PD, 2 INT, 1 FF, 3 FR
Reed: 30 solo/44 TT, 6.0 sacks, 1 TFL, 3 PD, 0 INT, 0 FF, 2 FR
The great "Scheme vs. Player" debate again.
I think it's more BB's general defensive philosophy more than any strict "scheme" that guides his evaluations. And I think that "philosophy" is simply that, when spending a 1st/2nd round pick on a front seven player, BB prefers accomplished solid "defenders" who he might develop into "attackers" than attackers who may, or may not ever become solid defenders. And I do believe that this philosophy differs significantly from that of most teams.
What I mean by "defender" is a guy who has demonstrated fairly consistent gap/assignment-discipline, strength and/or technique to shed well, wrap-up tackling ability, football smarts/instincts to read and react appropriately and to work well in tandem with his teammates - IOW a guy who seems, from the get-go, capable of being in the right place most of the time to prevent a big play. This is distinct from "attackers" who've demonstrated gap-shooting pass-rush ability in college and little else. While it's true, that BB has passed on some guys like this who HAVE developed into fairly solid defenders, he seems to prefer to err on the other side. And, IMHO, he was right about Clay Matthews.
In that regard, I don't think Cunningham has yet "failed" outright, unless all one was looking for from him was pass-rush. He seemed (IMHO) well on his way to becoming a pretty solid "defender" as a rookie, even though his "pressure game" was lacking. However, the actual "scheme" this season has been much more attack-based than previous years and Cunningham (between a missed 2nd-year offseason and chronic injuries) simply couldn't develop into a role within it. If the Pats return to playing a larger percentage of 2-gap, "defender-based" 30-fronts in 2012 (closer to 2010 percentages than this season, anyway), AND Cunningham is healthy, I believe we'll see a resumption of progress on his part.
Anyway, because most teams are looking for proven "attackers" who may be able to develop as defenders, that means that, for the majority of the free-market, "attackers" have higher value and, thus, move up in the rankings at the expense of solid defenders who may be relatively weak attackers. The scouting reports of the highly-paid draftniks almost always focus on the attack skills of top DLine and OLB prospects while barely mentioning their "defender" chops. Of course, front seven players who end up going in the top 10 or so may well be both great attackers AND great defenders, but the Pats rarely have a pick in that range (when they did, they took Seymour, Warren and Wilfork). In the range that BB usually has to work with, a guy may be just one or the other and BB greatly tends to select for "the other". It doesn't always work well, but what does?
Now, BB has picked up guys for the team who were primarily attackers, but they have been veteran FA or later-round picks, but they've generally been role-players.
So, you may disagree with BB's approach, but I believe that's where his picks (and his passing on certain highly-touted others) actually come from.
Cunningham was just a mistake period. I'll be shocked if he's on the roster next September.
So wasn't Lil' Marky Sanchize. Hes a much bigger mistake. It costs the Rats a few picks and three players, for what a mediocre player with a 10 cent brain.Cunningham was just a mistake period. I'll be shocked if he's on the roster next September.
Ninkovich is a veteran. He is a plodding, disciplined defender after, what is it, 5 years of NFL experience. Reed by contrast is producing as a rookie in Houston's 3-4. Remember the years, people on this board had written off Ninkovich. By contrast, analysts were predicting success for Reed for the Pats.
Appreciate your analysis. But you would think after years of being unable to develop "defenders" who could become good "attackers" (your terminology), BB would revisit his approach. Especially after studying the fact that attackers may be more susceptible to being coached to become defenders, like Dunlap or Barwin or Reed. Alternately, he should display some aggressiveness to go after proven pass-rushers when they become available as free-agents.
He should trust his ability to coach them as much as other coached do.
I agree with your assessment, except for 2002 giving up a lot to jump ahead of Seattle who reportedly had a Graham fixation after coaching him in a all star bowl. I was in favor of Chris Baker, Michigan State's TE that year. And he was available in the third round.This is a pretty impressive list.
1 ROY, 3 All Pros, 6 Pro bowlers if you count Mankins. (maybe 7 one day, I think Solder is heading that way as well in the near future; health permitting)
For all the griping about BB the GM, his first round grade is A+++ in my book.
PS: We don;t need anybody posting his 3rd round draft classs over the years, that round is an F- for B.
PSS: I am all for trading our 1st 1st rounder and our 3rd in order to move up and draft Upshaw, depending on the combine results.
The best value in the draft is in the rounds where Belichick has often not performed admirably, such as the third.
Hell, even the first round is hit or miss. Half the guys don't pan out.
I'm not sure who the Pats should have gone for instead of Cunningham. Prolly dreadlocks Dundie, but not sure.
I wanted this guy
The great "Scheme vs. Player" debate again.
I think it's more BB's general defensive philosophy more than any strict "scheme" that guides his evaluations. And I think that "philosophy" is simply that, when spending a 1st/2nd round pick on a front seven player, BB prefers accomplished solid "defenders" who he might develop into "attackers" than attackers who may, or may not ever become solid defenders. And I do believe that this philosophy differs significantly from that of most teams.
What I mean by "defender" is a guy who has demonstrated fairly consistent gap/assignment-discipline, strength and/or technique to shed well, wrap-up tackling ability, football smarts/instincts to read and react appropriately and to work well in tandem with his teammates - IOW a guy who seems, from the get-go, capable of being in the right place most of the time to prevent a big play. This is distinct from "attackers" who've demonstrated gap-shooting pass-rush ability in college and little else. While it's true, that BB has passed on some guys like this who HAVE developed into fairly solid defenders, he seems to prefer to err on the other side. And, IMHO, he was right about Clay Matthews.
In that regard, I don't think Cunningham has yet "failed" outright, unless all one was looking for from him was pass-rush. He seemed (IMHO) well on his way to becoming a pretty solid "defender" as a rookie, even though his "pressure game" was lacking. However, the actual "scheme" this season has been much more attack-based than previous years and Cunningham (between a missed 2nd-year offseason and chronic injuries) simply couldn't develop into a role within it. If the Pats return to playing a larger percentage of 2-gap, "defender-based" 30-fronts in 2012 (closer to 2010 percentages than this season, anyway), AND Cunningham is healthy, I believe we'll see a resumption of progress on his part.
Anyway, because most teams are looking for proven "attackers" who may be able to develop as defenders, that means that, for the majority of the free-market, "attackers" have higher value and, thus, move up in the rankings at the expense of solid defenders who may be relatively weak attackers. The scouting reports of the highly-paid draftniks almost always focus on the attack skills of top DLine and OLB prospects while barely mentioning their "defender" chops. Of course, front seven players who end up going in the top 10 or so may well be both great attackers AND great defenders, but the Pats rarely have a pick in that range (when they did, they took Seymour, Warren and Wilfork). In the range that BB usually has to work with, a guy may be just one or the other and BB greatly tends to select for "the other". It doesn't always work well, but what does?
Now, BB has picked up guys for the team who were primarily attackers, but they have been veteran FA or later-round picks, but they've generally been role-players.
So, you may disagree with BB's approach, but I believe that's where his picks (and his passing on certain highly-touted others) actually come from.
Jared Veldheer?