Ninko says ... " just give me a little bit more time and I’ll be happy to use that."

[JR4]

Ninko says "just give me a little bit more time and I’ll be happy to use that."

talking on the new additions to PATS secondary.

When PATS added these new CBs, one thing I thought of was the many
times PATS rush just got to the QB a fraction of a second too late and
how the new CB's could improve that.

Many said we need a top pass rusher but better coverage can also help.
I think Ninko's knows that if he had just a little more time PATS rush
could have a lot better results.

Rob Ninkovich on 'best corner in the league' - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

 

[PATS68]

Having new DB's is great, but a lack of a rotation at DE has been the biggest killer. Back to back AFCCG Chandler Jones was shut out due to being worn down. Jones went up against a backup Denver player and got shut out.

Need to add some talent to the rotation so Niko and Jones will have something left in the tank at the end of the year.

If the Pats sign Will Smith then I would hope they would draft the DE from Auburn or someone with the same skill set.

 

[Sicilian]

Having a better pass rush helps the secondary because the DB's can be more aggressive knowing the QB has less time.

Having a better secondary can help the pass rush because the extra time a QB has to hold the ball allows the pass rushers to utilize a wider variety of moves (without having to rely on just the ones that might get there the quickest).

Having a good deep secondary AND a good deep pass rush/defensive line, gives you the Seahawks last year.

 

[Ring 6]

Having new DB's is great, but a lack of a rotation at DE has been the biggest killer. Back to back AFCCG Chandler Jones was shut out due to being worn down. Jones went up against a backup Denver player and got shut out.

Need to add some talent to the rotation so Niko and Jones will have something left in the tank at the end of the year.

If the Pats sign Will Smith then I would hope they would draft the DE from Auburn or someone with the same skill set.

I think the worn out thing is overrated.
Playing 63 plays a game instead of 68 is not going to make that much of a difference.
Its really an excuse, and Jones was getting shut out that day because the secondary didn't give him enough time to rush the passer, not because he was tired.

 

[Ring 6]

Having a better pass rush helps the secondary because the DB's can be more aggressive knowing the QB has less time.

Having a better secondary can help the pass rush because the extra time a QB has to hold the ball allows the pass rushers to utilize a wider variety of moves (without having to rely on just the ones that might get there the quickest).

Having a good deep secondary AND a good deep pass rush/defensive line, gives you the Seahawks last year.

I think both make the other look better. Seattle's pass rush looked its best in the SB when their secondary took away the quick timing stuff and made Manning uncomfortable with his reads.
The Denver offense is about receivers getting open quickly and Manning knowing presnap what the route combination and coverage will look like to know who to expect to be open. When that is taken away Manning struggles. The same thing happen here against us in November. We should have played the same scheme in the AFCCG.

 

[Tom meets Kaepernick]

He was tired. He looked physically and more importantly mentally worn out. Don't know how it's an overrated look. If you've actually played football, which I'm going to assume you didn't, those extra snaps that the coach takes you off for really helps towards the end of the season.

 

[Marqui]

I think both make the other look better. Seattle's pass rush looked its best in the SB when their secondary took away the quick timing stuff and made Manning uncomfortable with his reads.
The Denver offense is about receivers getting open quickly and Manning knowing presnap what the route combination and coverage will look like to know who to expect to be open. When that is taken away Manning struggles. The same thing happen here against us in November. We should have played the same scheme in the AFCCG.

They did play that same scheme in the AFCCG and it was working. Then Talib went down and it all fell apart, and they were forced to switch to zone.

 

[Ring 6]

They did play that same scheme in the AFCCG and it was working. Then Talib went down and it all fell apart, and they were forced to switch to zone.

No they didn't. It definitely was a different game plan.

 

[Ring 6]

He was tired. He looked physically and more importantly mentally worn out. Don't know how it's an overrated look. If you've actually played football, which I'm going to assume you didn't, those extra snaps that the coach takes you off for really helps towards the end of the season.

Yes, I played 12 years of competitive football, and I can absolutely tell you that skipping a play here or there has little to do with being fresh at the end of the season.
By the way, how exactly do you tell that he looked mentally worn out?

 

[Sicilian]

I think both make the other look better. Seattle's pass rush looked its best in the SB when their secondary took away the quick timing stuff and made Manning uncomfortable with his reads.
The Denver offense is about receivers getting open quickly and Manning knowing presnap what the route combination and coverage will look like to know who to expect to be open. When that is taken away Manning struggles. The same thing happen here against us in November. We should have played the same scheme in the AFCCG.

This was essentially my point. That all parts of the defense are interconnected, and that improving one area can have a positive effect on the others. When it all comes together, you get a run like the Seahawks last year, where the secondary and front seven complimented each other in the gameplan perfectly.

 

[PATS68]

I think the worn out thing is overrated.
Playing 63 plays a game instead of 68 is not going to make that much of a difference.
Its really an excuse, and Jones was getting shut out that day because the secondary didn't give him enough time to rush the passer, not because he was tired.

I would have to disagree with you my friend. 4 playoff games and zero sacks tells me he is a little run down. A rotation would really help Chandler and keep him fresh at the end of the year.

My case and point would be Jamie Collins, he came on at the end of the year and he had fresh legs that came to life in the Colts playoff game.

 

[VrabelJr]

Yes, I played 12 years of competitive football, and I can absolutely tell you that skipping a play here or there has little to do with being fresh at the end of the season.
By the way, how exactly do you tell that he looked mentally worn out?

I've never heard of Little loop through high school being called "competitive" Football before. I mean, technically you are out there competing, but, c'mon. Either way, you never played an 18 game season.

 

[Marqui]

No they didn't. It definitely was a different game plan.

What were the game plans?

 

[West Philly Patriot]

Chandler Jones' yearly snap count was higher than you would want. Even Compared across the league it's high.

A capable rotation can do nothing but help. Not really debatable

 

[mmasterkillah]

I think the worn out thing is overrated.
Playing 63 plays a game instead of 68 is not going to make that much of a difference.
Its really an excuse, and Jones was getting shut out that day because the secondary didn't give him enough time to rush the passer, not because he was tired.

Before I get to my point, there are two basic types of fatigue. (I hear you groaning and saying, "thanks for the tip, moron."

1. Your body physically breaks down due to it's overuse/overexertion throughout many non-simultaneous instances of use, in a single duration of time, which in this case is a football season. Basically, accumulating too many snaps in a single season.

2. You are physically tired because you have been too active in a single expenditure of energy; in this case, on the field too much in a single game/practice. You haven't had the opportunity to rest and hydrate properly DURING one particular game or practice so your body breaks down on you.

While I agree with you that "wearing out" has been overrated at times, the point remains.

In the 2006 AFCCG vs. the Colts, our D-Line was visibly worn out in the second half. By the end of the game, it was terrible to watch the DL try to penetrate the LOS. They just could not get off the field on 3rd downs, which exacerbated the issue.

They wore out that day because they played too much, or too uninterrupted, in that particular game. I don't think it was because of long-term fatigue, but EITHER way, more depth at DE would've helped.

I don't want Jones and Nink playing 90% of snaps.

With all that being said, we've had huge contributions from under the radar pass-rush specialist types like Andre Carter, Mark Anderson and Tully Banta-Cain.

 

[Ring 6]

I would have to disagree with you my friend. 4 playoff games and zero sacks tells me he is a little run down. A rotation would really help Chandler and keep him fresh at the end of the year.

My case and point would be Jamie Collins, he came on at the end of the year and he had fresh legs that came to life in the Colts playoff game.

Its OK to disagree.

 

[Ring 6]

Before I get to my point, there are two basic types of fatigue. (I hear you groaning and saying, "thanks for the tip, moron."

1. Your body physically breaks down due to it's overuse/overexertion throughout many non-simultaneous instances of use, in a single duration of time, which in this case is a football season. Basically, accumulating too many snaps in a single season.

2. You are physically tired because you have been too active in a single expenditure of energy; in this case, on the field too much in a single game/practice. You haven't had the opportunity to rest and hydrate properly DURING one particular game or practice so your body breaks down on you.

While I agree with you that "wearing out" has been overrated at times, the point remains.

In the 2006 AFCCG vs. the Colts, our D-Line was visibly worn out in the second half. By the end of the game, it was terrible to watch the DL try to penetrate the LOS. They just could not get off the field on 3rd downs, which exacerbated the issue.

They wore out that day because they played too much, or too uninterrupted, in that particular game. I don't think it was because of long-term fatigue, but EITHER way, more depth at DE would've helped.

I don't want Jones and Nink playing 90% of snaps.

With all that being said, we've had huge contributions from under the radar pass-rush specialist types like Andre Carter, Mark Anderson and Tully Banta-Cain.

I will repeat myself. The impact of the difference between getting 5 snaps a game off (which would have put him at a % no one would complain about) is being overrated.
It doesn't mean that any player couldn't benefit from getting a breather, but to say that Jones had nothing at the end of the season because he was worn out from playing most of the snaps is to say that all the players in the league who play full time should be worn out too.
Its a nice little talking point for the offseason after someone posted the snap counts, but it is being blown out of proportion.

 

[Ring 6]

I've never heard of Little loop through high school being called "competitive" Football before. I mean, technically you are out there competing, but, c'mon. Either way, you never played an 18 game season.

High School and College football are not competitive to you?
You played in the NFL?

What does playing in 18 games have to do with responding to a guy who suggested I never played football? If he said I never played in the NFL I would have said I did not.

Otherwise, do you actually have a point?

 

[Ring 6]

What were the game plans?

In Foxboro, they dared them to run. They were playing 5 in the box at times. They used DEs to jam slot receivers. They played tight coverage and risked the deep ball.
In the AFCCG they play it differently. Yes, they played a lot of man, but alignment, personnel groupings and schemes were very different. They did not abandon the box, and did play as tight and dare them to throw it deep. The quick hitting routes and shallow crossing routes were covered differently. The bunch formation was covered differently. In Foxboro they played an extra DB outside the bunch formation and did not handle it that way in the AFCCG.
I'm going from memory, and I was at the first game so I had a clearer view of (and was focusing specifically on) the coverage scheme than you can get from TV but it was clearly different.

 

[mmasterkillah]

I didn't mean to have my whole post in response to yours, sorry if it came off that way. You didn't have to repeat yourself; I think we agreed for the most part.

To continue with my role as Captain Obvious:
Theoretically, as silly as it sounds, five plays a game could have an impact on a man's season or career, though. It adds up to 80 possibly punishing plays over a 16 game span. Obviously we see snap counts considered more with RBs (Andre Ellington, for example), but minimizing a players' snap-count has long been thought to be a way to prolong a players' prime, regardless of position. Less constant wear and tear and less chance of traumatic injury = better durability.

Not much too argue, IMO.