IF 4-3 becomes the base defense, I like it

[Ring 6]

I'll forward this to the Pats defensive coaching staff and let them know you think all this 4-3 nonsense is unnecessary. Do you want them to drop Haynesworth and tell Tommie Harris not to bother? :singing:

Not to mention that this is a stupid response to my post that disagreed the defense has nowhere to go but up.

 

[Tunescribe]

Dude, no reason to get all offended because someone disagrees with you.
As I have said, 34 or 43, doesn't really matter, you will have the same guys playing mostly the same techniques. Haynesworth and Harris work just as well at DE in the 34 as they do at DT in the 43.
My contention is that after 30 years of coaching 2 gap, you are going to have to show me more than a Ty Warren parting shot to get me to believe BB has abandoned his most basic philosophy of defensive football.

I'm not offended at all, I just find it interesting how entrenched your opinion is of what BB might or might not do. (Unless you think he's incapable of a major shift in gears.) Also, I'm not sure why you consider what Warren said a "parting shot." There are a lot more snarky things he could've said if that indeed was his intention.

Now, regarding Haynesworth and Harris: these guys are not two-gap players; at least, they haven't been to this point in their careers. Does BB intend to make them 3-4 two-gappers? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Or maybe the base defense will stay the same and Haynesworth/whomever will be sub-package specialists. Who knows? We'll see. It should be interesting no matter what, provided Haynesworth hangs around at least into the regular season.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not offended at all,

Then why make a stupid comment like that?

I just find it interesting how entrenched your opinion is of what BB might or might not do. (Unless you think he's incapable of a major shift in gears.) Also, I'm not sure why you consider what Warren said a "parting shot." There are a lot more snarky things he could've said if that indeed was his intention.

BB has been in the NFL over 30 years. Until I see evidence I think him doing a complete about face on his philosophy is a long shot.

Now, regarding Haynesworth and Harris: these guys are not two-gap players; at least, they haven't been to this point in their careers.

Do you understand what 2 gap defense is?

Does BB intend to make them 3-4 two-gappers? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Or maybe the base defense will stay the same and Haynesworth/whomever will be sub-package specialists. Who knows? We'll see. It should be interesting no matter what, provided Haynesworth hangs around at least into the regular season.

Haynesworth is a dominating run stopper. If I put him over the T and tell him to defend the area from outside the G to inside the TE, he will shut it down, just like he did in Tenn.
BB didn't go out and sign a player so he could abandon everything he believes about defense to suit that player. Its a ludicrous idea.

 

[DaBruinz]

Spikes would be the MLB I suppose.
May would be WOLB and Guyton/Fletcher/Ninkovich the SOLB?
Would Lawson be a fit at SOLB?

Lawson would probably be a DE in the 4-3..

 

[DaBruinz]

Well the 43 fits our personnel much better than the 34 did last season. Our DL is better suited to get to the QB then our OLB are.

I have to 100% disagree with this assessment. It shows a lack of understanding of what the Pats require from their LBs in the 3-4 in comparison to the 4-3.

The MLB in the 4-3 needs to have the speed and agility to go sideline to sideline. The ILB in the 3-4 only has to cover 75% of the width of the field, if he's not pass rushing.

One of the problems with the 4-3 is that it relies on the D-line for everything. For putting pressure on the QB AND for stopping the run. If the LB is making the stop in the 4-3, it's less likely to be for a loss.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think that the Pats got Haynesworth and Wilfork because we're going to see a lot more 2-4-5 and 2-5-4 packages.. With Wilfork and Haynesworth demanding doubleteams inside (and still able to put pressure on RBs and QBs), that will free up the LBs to make more plays.. But the Pats were in Nickel packages some ridiculous amount last year. It was definitely more than 33% of the time and I think it was closer to 50%, but I am not 100% certain on the actual number.

So players like Mayo, Fletcher, Ninkovich and Guyton can work the outsides whiles Spikes lines up behind Haynesworth and Wilfork to shut down the middle.

 

[italia44]

No need to apologize. You've had a few of these long informative posts, and I thoroughly enjoy every word!

sigh......this great thread is now getting derailed:bricks:

 

[DaBruinz]

I think you're missing the point. The Pats haven't gotten to the Superbowl since 2007 and have had back to back 1st round exits. The rules of the game have CHANGED and BB is always tinkering with his defense to keep pace. Adding a 4-3 look does not surprise me at all. As PFK mentioned a hybrid 2gap/1gap 4-3 that accentuates the strengths of his players on D could be the ideal compromise. Wilfork could play the 2 gap role, with Haynesworth playing a 1 gap technique. Both need to be doubled regardless. Now you've got 2 players taking up 4 players. This opens up a lot for the rest of the defense.

When you further consider the Pats lack of depth at linebacker switching to the 4-3 makes sense as well. With Mayo taking over the Will, and Spikes playing the Sam, that means you only really need one other good starting quality OLB in such a scheme. Will the Pats flip back to the 3-4 at times to give different looks? I don't doubt it. But it also looks like from the way camp has been run that the 4-3 will be a major part of our defense this season.

The point you are missing is that the defense wasn't the issue in EITHER of the 1st round playoff losses. Against Baltimore, the offense choked big. Including Brady.

And the same against the Jets. The Offense choked. Brady was off from the get go.. He didn't have his normal fire. And you could see that as soon as he walked out of the tunnel.

Why do people think that it was the defense that was the issue? Especially when you consider the injuries the Pats dealt with on the D-line last year. Neither of the starting DEs from 2009 were on the field for the end of 2010. And one of the replacements was also out with an injury.. Changing over to a 4-3 isn't going to solve that problem.

 

[Tunescribe]

Then why make a stupid comment like that?


BB has been in the NFL over 30 years. Until I see evidence I think him doing a complete about face on his philosophy is a long shot.


Do you understand what 2 gap defense is?


Haynesworth is a dominating run stopper. If I put him over the T and tell him to defend the area from outside the G to inside the TE, he will shut it down, just like he did in Tenn.
BB didn't go out and sign a player so he could abandon everything he believes about defense to suit that player. Its a ludicrous idea.

* The "stupid comment" was sarcasm, don't be offended.
* Yes, I know what two-gap defensive line play is.
* Our difference of opinion seems to be over what plans BB MIGHT have for Haynesworth: Whether he'll be an every-down player with 3-4 style gap-management responsibility (first and foremost engaging/occupying blockers), 4-3 two-gap manager, or 4-3 penetrator. Haynesworth wants to do/be more of the latter and wasn't allowed to in Washington. Seeing him in a 4-3 two-gap yeah, probably, and perhaps the latter in sub packages or -- in the radical scenario -- an attacking/blitzing 4-3. I certainly doubt we'll be seeing him in a conventional 3-4 Richard Seymour-style role.

 

[Ring 6]

I think that the Pats got Haynesworth and Wilfork because we're going to see a lot more 2-4-5 and 2-5-4 packages..

By 2-4-5 I assume you mean the 4 man line nickel where OLBs line up in DE positions. 2-5-5? Not sure where that one comes from

With Wilfork and Haynesworth demanding doubleteams inside (and still able to put pressure on RBs and QBs), that will free up the LBs to make more plays.. But the Pats were in Nickel packages some ridiculous amount last year. It was definitely more than 33% of the time and I think it was closer to 50%, but I am not 100% certain on the actual number.

I think it was 57%. I also think that people who expect Wilfork to be in on a lot of nickel and dime packages will be disappointed. Vince really is not a pass rusher.

So players like Mayo, Fletcher, Ninkovich and Guyton can work the outsides whiles Spikes lines up behind Haynesworth and Wilfork to shut down the middle.

I'm confused what situations you are talking about here.

 

[Ring 6]

* The "stupid comment" was sarcasm, don't be offended.

It was offensive, as I was responding to disagree with a comment that said the defense had nowhere to go but up and you responded that we should call the coaches and tell them the 43 is useless. Just wasnt called for.

* Yes, I know what two-gap defensive line play is.

OK, but saying Wilfork would play 2 gap while Haynesworth played 1 gap seems to confuse the big picture of what the 2 gap is trying to accomplish.

* Our difference of opinion seems to be over what plans BB MIGHT have for Haynesworth: Whether he'll be an every-down player with 3-4 style gap-management responsibility (first and foremost engaging/occupying blockers), 4-3 two-gap manager, or 4-3 penetrator. Haynesworth wants to do/be more of the latter and wasn't allowed to in Washington. Seeing him in a 4-3 two-gap yeah, probably, and perhaps the latter in sub packages or -- in the radical scenario -- an attacking/blitzing 4-3. I certainly doubt we'll be seeing him in a conventional 3-4 Richard Seymour-style role.

First and foremost, he is a dominating run stopper, and 34 DE in a 2gap is a great spot for those talents. I don't doubt that BB will make defensive calls that will take advantage of the strengths of his players. A 2gap philosophy does not mean 2 gap o every single play. It means its the base. Stunting off of it is part of the defense.
I will be very interested to see how much Haynesworth plays in the sub packages, because I think he can be effective getting an inside push, but I think run stopping DE in the base is his most important role.

 

[Patriot Missile]

This was an interesting thread up until the bickering Regardless of the base formation Belichick and the coaching staff agrees upon, I would have to say the thought of moving to a 43 is a refreshing topic. We've watched the 34 quite a bit as fans over the years and we certainly reaped the benefits for sure. We've seen 43 sets as well as other multiple fronts with stunts that have made opposing teams head spin.

Last season our takeaways to turnover ratio was incredible, but as someone mentioned at times this defense's belly was exposed with its guts hanging out. Not getting off the field, 3rd and 15s getting completed more so than not. It really was tough to watch at times but I do give credit to the players and their red zone defense.

Personally I think we will be running a lot more 43 this upcoming season because it seems our personal fits the profile. It's time to evolve and sometimes with change brings big things. It's possible players reinvent themselves though something new. For all we know Cunningham could be one of the best DE's in football? ditto to Mayo at OLB or Spikes at MLB. Maybe Guyton becomes a sack specialist with that 4.50 speed?

It's all speculation at this point but as a long time fan I welcome the change and trust the coaches to do what's right for the team. I think it's pretty cool to get excited about the buzz and speculation that's going on around here.

 

[Ring 6]

The point you are missing is that the defense wasn't the issue in EITHER of the 1st round playoff losses. Against Baltimore, the offense choked big. Including Brady.

And the same against the Jets. The Offense choked. Brady was off from the get go.. He didn't have his normal fire. And you could see that as soon as he walked out of the tunnel.

Why do people think that it was the defense that was the issue? Especially when you consider the injuries the Pats dealt with on the D-line last year. Neither of the starting DEs from 2009 were on the field for the end of 2010. And one of the replacements was also out with an injury.. Changing over to a 4-3 isn't going to solve that problem.

I think allowing 250 rushing yards, and 24 1st quarter points, or whatever it was to Bmore, and 28 points and 2 4th quarter TDs to a terrible Jet offense is why people think the D was the problem.
The 2003, 2004 (and many other) Patriot defenses would have owned the 2 extremely weak offenses that put 61 points up against us in those 2 losses.
Blaming the offense when the D allows 33 and 28 is an interesting approach.

 

[jczxohn1]

It was offensive, as I was responding to disagree with a comment that said the defense had nowhere to go but up and you responded that we should call the coaches and tell them the 43 is useless. Just wasnt called for.


OK, but saying Wilfork would play 2 gap while Haynesworth played 1 gap seems to confuse the big picture of what the 2 gap is trying to accomplish.


First and foremost, he is a dominating run stopper, and 34 DE in a 2gap is a great spot for those talents. I don't doubt that BB will make defensive calls that will take advantage of the strengths of his players. A 2gap philosophy does not mean 2 gap o every single play. It means its the base. Stunting off of it is part of the defense.
I will be very interested to see how much Haynesworth plays in the sub packages, because I think he can be effective getting an inside push, but I think run stopping DE in the base is his most important role.

While the Pats 4-3 in the past has been a 2-gap system, after Haynesworth's Washington performance, it would seem he's not going to be happy with a whole lot of 2-gap. After BB's conference with Shanahan, it's doubtful he would handle AH in the same manner. IMO, he, like Ted Washington and Lawrence Taylor, is a force of nature and virtually uncoachable in traditional terms. BB coached both of those guys successfully. When asked if AH was one to whom football was important, he replied, "he wouldn't be here if it wasn't" or some such.
In truth, he was saying, "this is a guy who truly does whatever he wants to." His behavior off-field certainly points that way.

AJ, I see your defense of BB's 2-gap over the last 10 yrs as commendable, but I think changes are in the wind. There was NO reason to cut Ty Warren otherwise. That was a player who graded out better than Sey on many occasions. VW bowed to him as the strongest player on the team. Coming in underweight was a h*** of a lot easier to fix than coming in overweight. You underestimate that move greatly. He, VW, and AH would have been the best 3-4, 2- gap D-line in Patriot history if AH was brought in to play Sey's old role. And, we haven't won a play-off game since Sey left.

BB is turning the page.

 

[ausbacker]

I think that the Pats got Haynesworth and Wilfork because we're going to see a lot more 2-4-5 and 2-5-4 packages.. With Wilfork and Haynesworth demanding doubleteams inside (and still able to put pressure on RBs and QBs), that will free up the LBs to make more plays.. But the Pats were in Nickel packages some ridiculous amount last year. It was definitely more than 33% of the time and I think it was closer to 50%, but I am not 100% certain on the actual number.

So players like Mayo, Fletcher, Ninkovich and Guyton can work the outsides whiles Spikes lines up behind Haynesworth and Wilfork to shut down the middle.

I'd rather see a line-up that begins to show the Patriots DB's, which are appearing to become a strength of the D.

4-3, 3-4, 2-3-5, 2-1-6 I don't care what formation they use as long as they're dominant.

 

[strngplyr]

I'd rather see a line-up that begins to show the Patriots DB's, which are appearing to become a strength of the D.

4-3, 3-4, 2-3-5, 2-1-6 I don't care what formation they use as long as they're dominant.

I really like our starting DB's a lot, including Mrriweather when he isn't tackling McCourty on accident.

DMC, Bodden, Chung, and BM are going to be a force. ...the backups though? I wish we never had to use more than 4 DB's at a time honestly. While Arrington made strides, that doesn't say a whole lot, I don't think he is #3 quality, its just a case of working with what you've got. Dowling is unproven, he'll have to earn that spot from Arrington (which hopefully doesn't take long) but he can't do that if he doesn't sign his damn contract.

I do like our depth at safety a little better than CB, lets just hope we get through the season without a scratch, our starters this season should be miles ahead of last year.

 

[DaBruinz]

People also seem to be forgetting that the Pats primarily spent last pre-season in the 4-3 and still used the 3-4 as their base.. Wonder why that is????

 

[DaBruinz]

I'd rather see a line-up that begins to show the Patriots DB's, which are appearing to become a strength of the D.

4-3, 3-4, 2-3-5, 2-1-6 I don't care what formation they use as long as they're dominant.

It would be 2-4-5 or 2-3-6.. Gotta add up to 11 there..

 

[strngplyr]

It would be 2-4-5 or 2-3-6.. Gotta add up to 11 there..

VW and AH will take up 2 OL each, so we're just being fair and only playing with 9 on defense. The 2-3-5 is for when only one of the 2 beasts is out there.

 

[DaBruinz]

AJ, I see your defense of BB's 2-gap over the last 10 yrs as commendable, but I think changes are in the wind. There was NO reason to cut Ty Warren otherwise. That was a player who graded out better than Sey on many occasions. VW bowed to him as the strongest player on the team. Coming in underweight was a h*** of a lot easier to fix than coming in overweight. You underestimate that move greatly. He, VW, and AH would have been the best 3-4, 2- gap D-line in Patriot history if AH was brought in to play Sey's old role. And, we haven't won a play-off game since Sey left.

BB is turning the page.

There is no reason that we, as the fans who don't see the day to day or behind the scenes issues, can fathom as to why Warren was cut. Though some people have put out some pretty good theories.

One reason that BB may have decided to cut ways with Warren is that he failed his physical AND his conditioning run.

Another reason is the "wanting to go in a different direction" which most people have failed to acknowledge that it could have just meant removing the roadblock to Ron Brace being the everyday LDE.

Could it have also meant that BB was going back to the 4-3? Yep. But, it's highly unlikely because of all the time and effort he's spent into coaching Mayo, Spikes, Guyton, Wilfork, etc on the fundamentals of the 3-4 2 Gap.

Something to think about. Of BB's 5 rings, only ONE has come with a 4-3 base. The Pats win in 2001. And even then, he was already grooming players to switch to the 3-4.

That tells me that the unlikelihood of going to the 4-3 is HIGH in comparison to staying with the 3-4.

Also, there is a 3-4 ONE gap system that touts penetration by the D-line. And that is something that Haynesworth lining up at DT could easily handle.