KC Joyner: Belichick redefining LB position

[DaBruinz]

And please spare me the lectures. That Patriots are NOT a zone blitz team. Never have been. And probably never will be.

This only goes to show that you don't understand the concept of the ZONE BLITZ and the fact that the Patriots DO, in fact, use the ZONE BLITZ. Just because YOU refuse to admit it, doesn't mean its not reality. So, please spare us any more posts that aren't supported by reality.

 

[bucky]

Bruschi has lined up over the center plenty of times.

Often in an obvious passing situation, the Pats employ two DL. In fact, you saw this a lot in the Philly Super Bowl. Bruschi often lines up over the center in this formation, and either rushes or drops into coverage, unpredictably.

They've used formations like this against pass-first teams, taking away the pass.

I wouldn't say Bruschi does this every game, but he has lined up in the nose frequently. Roll the tape. He's done it more than Vrabel or McGinest.

And you sometimes see a DE in a coverage zone. That means the rusher is coming from somewhere else, essentially a zone blitz.

In general, if you say: the Patriots never use that formation, you'll find an example of them using that formation in the next game you watch closely.

When Bruschi is lined up over the C, it's because he's a MLB and he's showing blitz. That's it. It's that simple. Whether he comes or not, it doesn't make it a zone blitz and it doesn't mean he's replacing the NT as a "plugger".

As for seeing DEs in coverage, remember that PAts' DEs are Seymour and Warren. When was the last time you saw them dropping into coverage right off the snap? Hardly ever!

 

[bucky]

This only goes to show that you don't understand the concept of the ZONE BLITZ and the fact that the Patriots DO, in fact, use the ZONE BLITZ. Just because YOU refuse to admit it, doesn't mean its not reality. So, please spare us any more posts that aren't supported by reality.

Where's the reality? Give me an EXAMPLE of a zone blitz you've seen the PAtriots using? Not just a claim of such fact.

 

[DaBruinz]

Where's the reality? Give me an EXAMPLE of a zone blitz you've seen the PAtriots using? Not just a claim of such fact.

WOW. Are you truly that obtuse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_Blitz

It exists in nearly limitless permutations, all of which share the common theme of confusing the offensive line by dropping pass-rushers into coverage, while at the same time blitzing players who would usually cover receivers.

I can think of the Patriots running a zone blitz package numerous times. Particularly with Willie McGinest or Seymour lined up at DE in the Nickel package and then dropping back into coverage only to have Bruschi or Phifer come in from the middle.

That is reality. Even last year, they would use a zone blitz to fool teams once Bruschi was healthy.

 

[bucky]

That is reality. Even last year, they would use a zone blitz to fool teams once Bruschi was healthy.

That's it, you're proving my point. They use it occasionally. Once in a while in Nickel package. Maybe once or twice a game. MAYBE!! That doesn't make them a zone blitz team like Joyner is making them out to be.

 

[DaBruinz]

That's it, you're proving my point. They use it occasionally. Once in a while in Nickel package. Maybe once or twice a game. MAYBE!! That doesn't make them a zone blitz team like Joyner is making them out to be.

No, what I am proving is that I can actually READ what Joyner wrote and NOT make assumptions. I suggest you go back an re-read what he said because Joyner did NOT say that it made them a zone blitz team. Joyner said: "In doing so, they oriented their zone blitz scheme around linebackers rather than defensive linemen." That means that their zone blitz scheme, when they use it, is oriented around the LB and not the DL. It doesn't say that it made the Pats a zone blitz team.

 

[bucky]

No, what I am proving is that I can actually READ what Joyner wrote and NOT make assumptions. I suggest you go back an re-read what he said because Joyner did NOT say that it made them a zone blitz team. Joyner said: "In doing so, they oriented their zone blitz scheme around linebackers rather than defensive linemen." That means that their zone blitz scheme, when they use it, is oriented around the LB and not the DL. It doesn't say that it made the Pats a zone blitz team.

Maybe you can read, but you obviously have some problems with independent thinking. You've never heard someone talking about a team's scheme? It means their defensive philosophy is based on that concept. Like the Colts run a Tampa 2 scheme. Guess what, the Colts run a few zone blitzes too. But they don't run a zone blitz scheme. Now the Steleres, they run a zone blitz scheme.

The entire point of the article is how the Patriots use LBs and develop LBs based on this false theory of Joyner's. He basically states that the Pats' defense is an evolution of the Steelers' defense, differing in the way they use LBs. This is just plain wrong. The Patrtiots' scheme and the Steelers' scheme have nothing in common beyond the basic alignment of the players.

 

[AllabouttheVinces]

BB's drafting as HC runs counter to Joyner's theory. If LB is the key to the Pats defense, why has BB never devoted a first day pick to LB, yet has invested 3 #1's on the DL and 2 #2's at CB? He also allowed a LB talent drain over the past 2 years of McGinest (a #1 pick pre-BB, 4th overall), TJ (a #2, pre-BB), Phifer, Brown and Chatham. He lived without Rosie and Bruschi for extended stretches. The replacement talent that was added doesn't approach their level, and projects Claridge and Mincey are a year away from significant contributions. Does BB seem concerned? Clearly not.

BB had several opportunites in the '06 draft to replace the losses at LB, yet passed. I can only conclude that Joyner places a greater value on the LB position in the Pats scheme than BB does. BB values flexibility, not simply LBs. That's why you see Davis at either S or LB, you see schemes with 6 or 7 DBs, and you see 3-4 or 4-3, depending on the opponent and situation.

If Joyner is right, then the weakening of the Pats at LB could spell doom. If BB is right, we'll be back in the playoffs in Jan '07. Who do you think is right? Yeah, me too.

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

BB's drafting as HC runs counter to Joyner's theory. If LB is the key to the Pats defense, why has BB never devoted a first day pick to LB, yet has invested 3 #1's on the DL and 2 #2's at CB? He also allowed a LB talent drain over the past 2 years of McGinest (a #1 pick pre-BB, 4th overall), TJ (a #2, pre-BB), Phifer, Brown and Chatham. He lived without Rosie and Bruschi for extended stretches. The replacement talent that was added doesn't approach their level, and projects Claridge and Mincey are a year away from significant contributions. Does BB seem concerned? Clearly not.

BB had several opportunites in the '06 draft to replace the losses at LB, yet passed. I can only conclude that Joyner places a greater value on the LB position in the Pats scheme than BB does. BB values flexibility, not simply LBs. That's why you see Davis at either S or LB, you see schemes with 6 or 7 DBs, and you see 3-4 or 4-3, depending on the opponent and situation.

If Joyner is right, then the weakening of the Pats at LB could spell doom. If BB is right, we'll be back in the playoffs in Jan '07. Who do you think is right? Yeah, me too.

Just because BB dosen't draft LBs before the 5th round, doesn't mean he doesn't value them. Vrabel was a scrap heap FA who performed way above expectations. McGinest and Bruschi were there when BB arrived. Add Colvin (a high-priced FA) to the list and the Pats never really had the urgency to draft a LB high. All 4 were college DEs. One can speculate whether or not BB would have taken Bobby Carpenter if he was there at # 21, but BB looks for prospective LBs with a certain body type and skill set that's hard to find. Undersized DEs like Jeremy Mincey and Tully Banta-Cain have the potential to fit the bill and they slipped through the cracks because they didn't fit the body type/skill set of most other teams schemes.