NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal

[JSn]

I can't find the link, maybe because Dukes and company end up looking like n00bs. They go on and on about how Lynch is replacing Tank who was being used for a Hybrid (SS/OLB) role on PASSING DOWNS and they think that is dumtarded.

Isn't the role a SS/ILB on running downs, if it's the same as Tanks?

I'm all for being corrected, but watching these guys jaw, including Woodson, who I generally like, made it seem like they hadn't checked out their notes well enough.

Anyone else see this?

Link: http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80a0130a

 

[jmt57]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

When did NFLN hire some former espn producers for their shows?

 

[unoriginal]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

If they're bring in Lynch, a FS, on to play SS or (especially) linebacker, its not because they need to stuff the run.

 

[Fixit]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Who cares? I'd bet that Lynch can effectively patrol the middle of the field if his reps are limited. As someone said earlier, a slower safety can be a pretty fast linebacker.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

If they're bring in Lynch, a FS, on to play SS or (especially) linebacker, its not because they need to stuff the run.

Maybe I'm missing something - but if he's being brought closer to the line as an LB, you think that means he's playing pass coverage and not run coverage?

That doesn't make sense to me.

EVERYONE knows that Lynch's best abilities right now are in run coverage. Do some fans and sports commentators think that Belichick is the only one who hasn't gotten that memo?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Lynch, in his interview with Jamie Dukes, as much as admitted he's in NE to play as an in-the-box S. That's a run stopping role.

The premise for Tank and now Lynch centers on the need to defend the run during long downs, e.g. 2nd and 10, when a run against a nickel defense would likely turn that 2nd and 10 into something workable like 3rd and 4. Using a bigger, in-the-box Safety in place of a LB gives the defense better run support without losing anything in the pass defense. The Pats can line up in a 3-4 using the third Safety as an ILB, he will be better in coverage than a LB and better against the run than a traditional Nickelback.

It's a compromise defense, weaker against the pass and against the run, but better against the pass then the base 3-4 and better against the run then the Nickel defense.

I tuned out the Dukes and Co. discussion, so I can't say whether anything they nattered about made sense, but there's my 2 cents.

EDIT: An in-the-box S can also be used on passing downs, e.g. 3rd and 8, as a LB. The premise in those cases is to have better coverage in the underneath zones using the S, while improving run support against draws.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Who cares? Many people were saying the same type of things when the Pats signed Seau. Seau exceeded even the most optimistic fans' expectations nevermind the doubters. I trust Belichick's decisions over the evalutions of the talking heads.

 

[NePatriots]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

My understanding of what Rodney was doing last year, and what Lynch/Tank were going to do this year is that the hybrid would come in on running OR passing downs, as they aren't a huge downside in stopping the run, and they are an upgrade in passing situations.

I would say it probably has more to do with the opposition, as we will probably see the formation often while playing Gates, Clark, Witten, etc...

 

[JDSal45]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Maybe I'm missing something - but if he's being brought closer to the line as an LB, you think that means he's playing pass coverage and not run coverage?

That doesn't make sense to me.

EVERYONE knows that Lynch's best abilities right now are in run coverage. Do some fans and sports commentators think that Belichick is the only one who hasn't gotten that memo?

Well, yeah. He's NOT a linebacker, but the point is linebackers DO cover people when the play turns out to be a passing play. Its either that or blitz. So if you bring Lynch in and line him up at linebacker, obviously you are sacrificing a bit of linebackers skills, i.e. run stuffing. And you'd still have four/five OTHER DBs in the game. Lynch won't just move close to the line he'll REPLACE a LB. In doing so, you are upgrading coverage skills. So, you'd bring Lynch in if you are betting its a passing play. BUT, the thing with a hybrid like Lynch or Williams is you aren't sacrifcing THAT much run skills due to their size and tackling. I mean it wouldn't be the same as if you put Eugene Wilson, just as an example, at linebacker.....teams would just run over him.

So, the way I see it is you'd move a hybrid safety to linebacker in situation like 3rd and 4 or 5. Most of the time it will be a pass in that situation, though some times it COULD be a run or a draw. With Lynch, theoretically you are upgrading your coverage over say Bruschi, but with not that big a drop off in run defense.

You could also see it used in 1st and 10 situations say if the Pats had a 30-13 to start the 4th quarter. Go ahead run it, you are eating clock. But odds are you'll have to pass to get back into it.

That is how I see the hybrid anyways.

J D Sal

 

[JoeSixPat]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Well, yeah. He's NOT a linebacker, but the point is linebackers DO cover people when the play turns out to be a passing play. Its either that or blitz. So if you bring Lynch in and line him up at linebacker, obviously you are sacrificing a bit of linebackers skills, i.e. run stuffing. And you'd still have four/five OTHER DBs in the game. Lynch won't just move close to the line he'll REPLACE a LB. In doing so, you are upgrading coverage skills. So, you'd bring Lynch in if you are betting its a passing play. BUT, the thing with a hybrid like Lynch or Williams is you aren't sacrifcing THAT much run skills due to their size and tackling. I mean it wouldn't be the same as if you put Eugene Wilson, just as an example, at linebacker.....teams would just run over him.

So, the way I see it is you'd move a hybrid safety to linebacker in situation like 3rd and 4 or 5. Most of the time it will be a pass in that situation, though some times it COULD be a run or a draw. With Lynch, theoretically you are upgrading your coverage over say Bruschi, but with not that big a drop off in run defense.

You could also see it used in 1st and 10 situations say if the Pats had a 30-13 to start the 4th quarter. Go ahead run it, you are eating clock. But odds are you'll have to pass to get back into it.

That is how I see the hybrid anyways.

J D Sal

But I think you're missing the point. The point is, supposedly, that Lynch no longer has the same ability to cover large distances, not that he's unable to play a run or short pass play close to the line.

Bringing him up, whether you consider him an LB or a S playing in the box, is that he'd be covering a much smaller zone and can do what he does best - hit hard and stop the play.

Whether that's a run or short pass doesn't matter so much - as run and short pass plays are usually in the same situation.

Longer, deeper passes are a different matter - but you wouldn't bring a S forward to cover longer deeper passes - that would make no sense.

All of this is Football 101 - and apparently NFL talking heads don't really get it.

 

[Vern]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Yep, the concept here is to be able to "stop the short game on passing downs." Whether it's run or pass isn't the issue, the depth of the coverage is.

In a traditional nickel you have a 3-3-5 set (or 4-2-5 for 4-3 teams), which is susceptible to draws and screens and outlet passes. The idea is simple, send the 3WRs deep to pull the 5 DBs off and then go all day to the TE (or 4th WR whoever it is) or RB underneath, it doesn't matter whether it's a draw, pitch, outlet pass, screen, crossing route, whatever. The guy gets the ball "in space" and eats the D alive all day.

If instead of a 3rd CB or "nickel corner" you play a 3rd S, the offense has to wonder how that S will play - more in coverage deep as one of the deep DBs or more in short space as one the LBs to deal with the short game.

The key to this is stopping the short gain where the completion is made, and not allowing YAC due to the reciver/runner being in open space. A hard hitting sure tackler is the most important thing, not speed. The pass will likely be complete, but if for only 3-4 yards on 2-10 instead of 7 or 8 yard or more, the ploy works, forcing the offense to make no mistakes to continue the drive.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Lynch, in his interview with Jamie Dukes, as much as admitted he's in NE to play as an in-the-box S. That's a run stopping role.

The premise for Tank and now Lynch centers on the need to defend the run during long downs, e.g. 2nd and 10, when a run against a nickel defense would likely turn that 2nd and 10 into something workable like 3rd and 4. Using a bigger, in-the-box Safety in place of a LB gives the defense better run support without losing anything in the pass defense. The Pats can line up in a 3-4 using the third Safety as an ILB, he will be better in coverage than a LB and better against the run than a traditional Nickelback.

It's a compromise defense, weaker against the pass and against the run, but better against the pass then the base 3-4 and better against the run then the Nickel defense.

I tuned out the Dukes and Co. discussion, so I can't say whether anything they nattered about made sense, but there's my 2 cents.

EDIT: An in-the-box S can also be used on passing downs, e.g. 3rd and 8, as a LB. The premise in those cases is to have better coverage in the underneath zones using the S, while improving run support against draws.

Should be required reading for folks trying to figure out the whole safety/linebacker/hybrid situation. Almost every down/distance except 3rd or 4th and inches has a strong possibility of a pass. Lynch is going to have to cover and defend the run regardless of when he sees the field. About the only thing we can be pretty sure of is that he won't be covering a deep half of the field very often.

What I am looking for is the physical nature of his play in the middle of the field. At his best, Lynch didn't knock the ball away from a receiver...he would separate the receiver from the ball. If he can do that (or at least make receivers keep an eye open for the possibility), he can make the pass defense in the middle of the field better than it was last year. Receivers ran through the middle of that Pats defense like they owned the place.

Working short to medium routes in the middle of the field (crosses, slants, etc.) is a staple for most teams, but especially against the Pats. It mutes the pass rush by getting the ball out quick, it is the shortest downfield throw and against a 3-4 defense, the middle is where you can find the cleanest throwing lanes. It can make average QBs (Boller, Feeley, Goober Jr.) look much better than they are.

Mayo, Wheatley defending the slot and Lynch (formerly Tank) can all make a difference in that area. The Pats defense can be "worse" than their #4 ranked 2007 edition while still being more effective in determining the outcome of big games.

 

[JDSal45]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

But I think you're missing the point. The point is, supposedly, that Lynch no longer has the same ability to cover large distances, not that he's unable to play a run or short pass play close to the line.

Bringing him up, whether you consider him an LB or a S playing in the box, is that he'd be covering a much smaller zone and can do what he does best - hit hard and stop the play.

Whether that's a run or short pass doesn't matter so much - as run and short pass plays are usually in the same situation.

Longer, deeper passes are a different matter - but you wouldn't bring a S forward to cover longer deeper passes - that would make no sense.

All of this is Football 101 - and apparently NFL talking heads don't really get it.

No, I think you miss the point. Lynch may not be able to cover as well anymore as he used to, but that is FOR A DEFENSIVE BACK!!! He is still better than probably any linebacker in the league at coverage.

So, while he has slipped as a secondary person, the reason you'd plug him in as a linebacker (while still keeping 4-5 other defensive backs in their traditional roles) is to upgrade PASS DEFENSE. Simply put, no matter how much he has slipped, he is still better than a linebacker in coverage. And no matter how good a hitter and run defender he is, he still IS NOT a linebacker and will not be as good as a NFL Linebacker, someone who has trained and played there as a professional, in run defense. Like I said, given his skills, he'd be better than many defensive backs. But not even as good at LB as say Larry Izzo. Given his combined skills, however, that would be why you could use him as a hybrid.

But the only thing that makes sense plugging him in as a traditional linebacker (and I'm not talking about simply bringing a safety down into the box, which is a technique to improve run defense,....I'm talking about actually playing Lynch at linebacker in place of one who'd otherwise be on the field) would be in expected passing downs or if you had a big lead.

J D Sal

 

[RayClay]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Yep, the concept here is to be able to "stop the short game on passing downs." Whether it's run or pass isn't the issue, the depth of the coverage is.

In a traditional nickel you have a 3-3-5 set (or 4-2-5 for 4-3 teams), which is susceptible to draws and screens and outlet passes. The idea is simple, send the 3WRs deep to pull the 5 DBs off and then go all day to the TE (or 4th WR whoever it is) or RB underneath, it doesn't matter whether it's a draw, pitch, outlet pass, screen, crossing route, whatever. The guy gets the ball "in space" and eats the D alive all day.

If instead of a 3rd CB or "nickel corner" you play a 3rd S, the offense has to wonder how that S will play - more in coverage deep as one of the deep DBs or more in short space as one the LBs to deal with the short game.

The key to this is stopping the short gain where the completion is made, and not allowing YAC due to the reciver/runner being in open space. A hard hitting sure tackler is the most important thing, not speed. The pass will likely be complete, but if for only 3-4 yards on 2-10 instead of 7 or 8 yard or more, the ploy works, forcing the offense to make no mistakes to continue the drive.

Well said and informative. Whether it's Addai doing the hoedown around our linebackers taking a 2 yard pass to the house, or general marches up the field attacking our interior short pass defense, this has been a problem for two years. Anyone who can tackle and cover in the short zone could be a plus.

We've added young speed at LB, but a (relatively) young big safety could be in our future too, I'm guessing

 

[RayClay]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

No, I think you miss the point. Lynch may not be able to cover as well anymore as he used to, but that is FOR A DEFENSIVE BACK!!! He is still better than probably any linebacker in the league at coverage.

So, while he has slipped as a secondary person, the reason you'd plug him in as a linebacker (while still keeping 4-5 other defensive backs in their traditional roles) is to upgrade PASS DEFENSE. Simply put, no matter how much he has slipped, he is still better than a linebacker in coverage. And no matter how good a hitter and run defender he is, he still IS NOT a linebacker and will not be as good as a NFL Linebacker, someone who has trained and played there as a professional, in run defense. Like I said, given his skills, he'd be better than many defensive backs. But not even as good at LB as say Larry Izzo. Given his combined skills, however, that would be why you could use him as a hybrid.




But the only thing that makes sense plugging him in as a traditional linebacker (and I'm not talking about simply bringing a safety down into the box....I'm talking about actually playing Lynch at linebacker) would be in expected passing downs or if you had a big lead.

J D Sal

Agreed. He only needs to hold his own against the run. He's there to prevent quick RBs and TEs and RBs in the passing game from running wild.
Our linebackers are 250-270 lbs. No matter how good they are in pass coverage, a safety should be better. A big safety prevents a glaring weakness in tackling, hopefully as opposed to an extra cornerback

 

[DW Toys]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

No, I think you miss the point. Lynch may not be able to cover as well anymore as he used to, but that is FOR A DEFENSIVE BACK!!! He is still better than probably any linebacker in the league at coverage.

So, while he has slipped as a secondary person, the reason you'd plug him in as a linebacker (while still keeping 4-5 other defensive backs in their traditional roles) is to upgrade PASS DEFENSE. Simply put, no matter how much he has slipped, he is still better than a linebacker in coverage. And no matter how good a hitter and run defender he is, he still IS NOT a linebacker and will not be as good as a NFL Linebacker, someone who has trained and played there as a professional, in run defense. Like I said, given his skills, he'd be better than many defensive backs. But not even as good at LB as say Larry Izzo. Given his combined skills, however, that would be why you could use him as a hybrid.

But the only thing that makes sense plugging him in as a traditional linebacker (and I'm not talking about simply bringing a safety down into the box, which is a technique to improve run defense,....I'm talking about actually playing Lynch at linebacker in place of one who'd otherwise be on the field) would be in expected passing downs or if you had a big lead.

J D Sal

Good post. I still think he could be an adequate SS as well for a larger play count. Another thing that will surprise people is he is still probably faster than James Sanders. At 5' 11" Sanders ("I ain't Bob") is also vulnerable to taller tight ends. I believe Sanders was about a 4.67 guy at his combine. Lynch's ball skills have never been a question. So how much of a downgrade is Lynch in a passing situation over Sanders? Quite the opposite.
DW Toys

 

[RayClay]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

Good post. I still think he could be an adequate SS as well for a larger play count. Another thing that will surprise people is he is still probably faster than James Sanders. At 5' 11" Sanders ("I ain't Bob") is also vulnerable to taller tight ends. I believe Sanders was about a 4.67 guy at his combine. Lynch's ball skills have never been a question. So how much of a downgrade is Lynch in a passing situation over Sanders? Quite the opposite.
DW Toys

He stole your girlfriend, didn't he?

 

[IcyPatriot]

I think the most important thing with Lynch is that with him and Rodney it gives Belichick the ability to write the book for using two SS's in the future. So how will it be named ... the "Patriot 2" or the "Belichick 2" after the infamous "Tampa 2"

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

He stole your girlfriend, didn't he?

(10 characters)

 

[blackglass3]

Re: NFL Network discussion of the Lynch deal.

He stole your girlfriend, didn't he?

Awesome.

/applause