Mike Wright, Dallas game...

[emoney_33]

Can anyone offer some ideas as to why the patriots had Mike Wright starting in place of Jarvis in the Dallas game? Jarvis banged up a little, did they feel Wright posed better matchup in certain situations?

 

[stevepratt]

Jarvis seemed to get a bit exploited in the Cleveland game against the run. They almost exclusively ran at him and Colvin during that game and had some success. Wright is bigger and more stout against the run and it seemed Belichick maybe expected Dallas to try and establish the run early. When they wasn't the case Green was in there in most of the nickel and dime situations and probably recorded the most snaps of any d-lineman in the game.

 

[naclone]

BB talked about it on weei yesterday afternoon. I forget exactly what his reason was but i think it was some matchup thing or another. if there's a transcript of his appearance you should find your answer there.

 

[emoney_33]

Jarvis seemed to get a bit exploited in the Cleveland game against the run. They almost exclusively ran at him and Colvin during that game and had some success. Wright is bigger and more stout against the run and it seemed Belichick maybe expected Dallas to try and establish the run early. When they wasn't the case Green was in there in most of the nickel and dime situations and probably recorded the most snaps of any d-lineman in the game.

Good point, thanks. So is everyone in agreement that Wright is better against the run than Jarvis?

That's one thing I brought up when people were talking about not missing Seymour. Jarvis a great player and I love having him, but he is no run-stopping machine like Seymour is.

Also, on one run they ran right by Mike Wright for a good gain. If anyone has the tape, was he being held or did he just not get off his block in time to close the gap? Can't wait for Seymour to be at full health!

 

[Rob0729]

Belichick and Pees actually did several tweaks to the starting line up. Sanders replaced Wilson at the starting FS spot too. Green was because the Browns did have some success running at him. I don't know why they replaced Wilson with Sanders (although both got significant playing time).

I don't know if Wright is the answer there though. I think until Seymour is ready, they might want to stick with Green full time. It should be interesting to see on Sunday since the Dolphins have a very run-heavy offense.

 

[unoriginal]

Belichick and Pees actually did several tweaks to the starting line up. Sanders replaced Wilson at the starting FS spot too. Green was because the Browns did have some success running at him. I don't know why they replaced Wilson with Sanders (although both got significant playing time).

The had two Studs in the game so that they could get bump-and-run coverage on Witten with one safety and still have the other playing downhill against the running game, or covering Fasano. Wilson is a better matchup against receivers, and Dallas didn't use their third wideout much.

 

[mgteich]

It is great to see Sanders having success at FS. This gives us the option to start him there opposite Harrison next year, with Meriweather as the 3rd safety.

Belichick and Pees actually did several tweaks to the starting line up. Sanders replaced Wilson at the starting FS spot too. Green was because the Browns did have some success running at him. I don't know why they replaced Wilson with Sanders (although both got significant playing time).

I don't know if Wright is the answer there though. I think until Seymour is ready, they might want to stick with Green full time. It should be interesting to see on Sunday since the Dolphins have a very run-heavy offense.

 

[Don Kipines]

The reason Mike Wright was in the game a lot is because he's the fourth guy on the line and always gets a lot of work. Early in the year he was hurt and Santonio Thomas was getting some of Green's reps in the games. Now he's back. When Seymour returns, you'll see Green getting the snaps Wright was getting on Sunday.

 

[BlitzFritz]

i think jarvis gets tired, they were trying to keep him fresh for 3rd down rushes

 

[5 Rings for Brady!!]

Good point, thanks. So is everyone in agreement that Wright is better against the run than Jarvis?

That's one thing I brought up when people were talking about not missing Seymour. Jarvis a great player and I love having him, but he is no run-stopping machine like Seymour is.

Also, on one run they ran right by Mike Wright for a good gain. If anyone has the tape, was he being held or did he just not get off his block in time to close the gap? Can't wait for Seymour to be at full health!

Arguing with the posters that don't miss Seymour is not worth the bother, because those posters inherently don't get it, or else they are just being petty about Seymour.

A healthy Seymour makes everything work on our defense better. We are tougher against the run, tougher at the goal line, we can run those one or two man DL plays more effectively. We can do everything better, and at the same time we still have Jarvis to come in on pass rushing plays, and to give the other guys a breather.

It is kind of like saying, hypothetically, our offense is better without Brady because Cassel happens to win some games when Brady goes down. It is a strawman argument, and seems to stem almost entirely from a personal petty resentment toward Seymour based on either his recent 'hold out' or the fact that he has not been healthy.

 

[DarrylS]

A healthy Seymour makes everything work on our defense better. We are tougher against the run, tougher at the goal line, we can run those one or two man DL plays more effectively. We can do everything better, and at the same time we still have Jarvis to come in on pass rushing plays, and to give the other guys a breather.

Have theorized in the past that is why Warren was so good last year, they cannot double team everyone... so if they put two on RS then TW is alone.. now they seem to be doubling Ty and others are being blocked singly. Anyone who thinks RS is not playing as well as he has in the past, does not understand Patriots Football.