Our Secondary

[maineman209]

I feel like we have too many ST-only safeties

This is kind of coincidental, though not entirely an "accident". In large part it's due to the traditional NFL position nomenclature and player numbering systems being somewhat antiquated for the modern game. There are several different "positions"/roles on ST (beyond Punter, Kicker and Long Snapper), but there are no official positional designations, so fans are mostly unaware of any differences, even though there are significant differences in the required skill sets.

use more of your starters on the ST units

McCourty and Chung have always played significant ST snaps, although not quite as much in 2017 as in 2016 (when Chung played 45% of all ST snaps). Lawrence Guy played significant ST snaps this season (37%), although I'd bet that virtually no one knows that he even contributed on ST.

 

[captain stone]

Finding another guy who can play coverage as a mid-field "robber" and man-up on whoever is in the slot, shadow/spy on a mobile QB, stop the run up the middle and play edge-contain as the second LB in x-2-5 alignments - often shifting from one role to the next in the same game and playing multiple snaps of each...

Glitch Richards does absolutely NONE of those duties at a level even remotely feckin close to a passable professional level.

Are you, like, his agent or something?

 

[mgteich]

It is easier if special-teams-only players are counted as "ST Players" Many here can focus their disagreement with Belichick's choice to carry so many of these players.
Sometimes, these players are called upon to play defense, occasionally with OK results (Bademosi).

The reality is the 5th CB and the 4th safety are STer's first, and it is a major plus if they can play defense. We have a core off 3 corners and 3 safeties, play on backup CB who are our 7 primary defenders. In fact the backup corner is often inactive.

IMHO, the two keys issues are the covering ability of our linebackers, and the number of STO players.

STO's: Slater, Bolden, Ebner, King, Bademosi, Richards.

I feel like we have too many ST-only safeties (King, Ebner, Richards), though King may count as a ST-only linebacker. When you only have 3 safeties on the roster that won't embarrass you on the field its time to commit more of the roster to people who can play defense and use more of your starters on the ST units.

 

[maineman209]

Glitch Richards does absolutely NONE of those duties at a level even remotely feckin close to a passable professional level.

Are you, like, his agent or something?

I agree 100% about Richards' performance level. I hope as much as anyone else that the Pats find an upgrade, but hoping don't making it so.

My point is that the Pats haven't found an upgrade/replacement yet, so maybe it's not as easy to do as people think.

The fact is that, on average, the success rate for safeties drafted after the first round (by anyone) has been pretty poor. I think that Minkah Fitzpatrick could be great in the Pats system, given his success in a similar variety of roles. But the Pats likely won't have a snowball's chance of getting anywhere near him in this draft. The prospects who are currently ranked below Derwin and Fitzpatrick all seem like shots in the dark ("tackles well; coverage needs a lot of work" or "good coverage; not a strong tackler").

Even if one of the guys who falls to the Pats at #31 or #43 eventually turns out to be as good as Chung, it's at least somewhat doubtful that he'll be contributing significantly better as a rookie in 2018 than even Richards did in 2017. And, he could turn out to be yet another Wilson or Richards.

An underused 3rd/4th-year pro from a different system might have a chance of contributing more sooner, but then he'll might also be significantly more expensive. Even so, such a "Richards upgrade" from the pro ranks wouldn't necessarily rise to the level of "eventual Chung/McCourty replacement" (that will be needed soon) - and I don't even know that such a guy actually exists (or would be available).

As bad as Richards has been, the chances of acquiring an "instant upgrade" are really fairly slim.

 

[Uptown]

Interesting..

AFC Rumors: M. Peters,

 

[maineman209]

Interesting..

AFC Rumors: M. Peters,

Good catch.

A 1-year rental for $1.3M, unless the Pats pick up his 2019 option (maybe around $9M?). Probably depends on what KCY would want for a draft pick in return. Would Peters (and his apparent disruptive/argumentative attitude) be worth the #41/#43?

The Chiefs currently have ...

1st - (none)
2nd - #54
3rd - #86
4th - #118
5th - (none)
6th - #182
7th - (none)

If/when the Alex Smith trade goes through, they'll add a 3rd-rounder (#78).
They'll get a comp pick for Foles (6th round, ~200?).
They'll also likely be getting a pick from ARZ for the Chiefs' 2016 trade of Marcus Cooper (7th round, probably #207).

The Pats had an official Combine Interview with Peters in 2015, so they may have some direct (off-field) experience of his "attitude" (he was dismissed from the football team at Washington in Nov. 2014 for arguing with coaches and other incidents). The also played against him twice: in the 2015 divisional round game (5 tackles, no INT, 2 PD), and in the 2017 opener (2 tackles, no INT, no PD).

 

[mgteich]

$1.7M I think, but that's sort of immaterial. The issue is character, and what results from Belichick's future talk with him.

Someone should give us an idea of the cost of the option year. If is really $9M, I could see us trading for him, expecting to keep him for 2 years, but being able to bail out after 1. Even if the option is $10.3M, two years at $6M a year is doable, if conditions are met, and the team can bail out for $1.7M after one.

This reminds of the deal for Cooks, except that here we won't be taking about a first or an ear;y 2nd.

Good catch.

A 1-year rental for $1.3M, unless the Pats pick up his 2019 option (maybe around $9M?). Probably depends on what KCY would want for a draft pick in return. Would Peters (and his apparent disruptive/argumentative attitude) be worth the #41/#43?

The Chiefs currently have ...

1st - (none)
2nd - #54
3rd - #86
4th - #118
5th - (none)
6th - #182
7th - (none)

If/when the Alex Smith trade goes through, they'll add a 3rd-rounder (#78).
They'll get a comp pick for Foles (6th round, ~200?).
They'll also likely be getting a pick from ARZ for the Chiefs' 2016 trade of Marcus Cooper (7th round, probably #207).

The Pats had an official Combine Interview with Peters in 2015, so they may have some direct (off-field) experience of his "attitude" (he was dismissed from the football team at Washington in Nov. 2014 for arguing with coaches and other incidents). The also played against him twice: in the 2015 divisional round game (5 tackles, no INT, 2 PD), and in the 2017 opener (2 tackles, no INT, no PD).

 

[maineman209]

$1.7M I think, but that's sort of immaterial. The issue is character, and what results from Belichick's future talk with him.

Someone should give us an idea of the cost of the option year. If is really $9M, I could see us trading for him, expecting to keep him for 2 years, but being able to bail out after 1. Even if the option is $10.3M, two years at $6M a year is doable, if conditions are met, and the team can bail out for $1.7M after one.

This reminds of the deal for Cooks, except that here we won't be taking about a first.

I've been trying to find a list of the 5tyear option costs for players drafted in 2015 to no avail. IIRC, it varies by both draft slot and player position. The $9M I came up with was more or less an extrapolation from the 5th-year options for the first rounders of 2014 & 2013. Your $10.3M may be closer.

Still, the parallels to the Cooks deal were immediately apparent.

OTOH, he exhibited extreme immaturity in his last season at Washington, and he doesn't appear to have grown up that much in his three NFL seasons. Major red flag.

 

[captain stone]

No thanks to Peters. The cost to acquire him would be prohibitive, he would be under control for only 2 years tops, and his attitude sucks.

Then again, the same reasons for acquiring lost little Cookie applied, yet Bill traded for him anyway. So ya never know.

 

[Uptown]

Why Patriots should sign Bashaud Breeland over Malcolm Butler

“These are all qualities that would resonate well with Bill Belichick.”

“But Breeland would bring more than just a defensive presence. He has served as a kick returner. During the 2017 season, he returned 10 kicks for 208 yards, and averaged 20.8 yards per return. That’s something Belichick, a lover of special teams, would appreciate.”

 

[VectorPrime]

The defense would be better off playing with just 10 guys then putting Richards on the field. He might be the single worst draft pick Bill ever made considering the damage he's done on the field. At least other huge busts had the decency to not actually step onto the field during a real game.

 

[mgteich]

The defense would be better off playing with just 10 guys then putting Richards on the field. He might be the single worst draft pick Bill ever made considering the damage he's done on the field. At least other huge busts had the decency to not actually step onto the field during a real game.

Richards plays more special teams reps than anyone on the team.

I understand that, for many, special teams doesn't count, or in the alternative, anyone can be a fine special teamer.

The fault is in trusting Richards to play defense. How many reps did Ebner get? King? Slater on offense? Special teams only players shouldn't be allowed to play defense.

Apparently, for each time during the year that Richards played, Belichick thought that he was the best option. That is the issue. Belichick thought that everyone else was worse.
==
Personally, I don't base analysis of who we need on our final game. We played a season. We were one of the very best teams in the NFL going into the playoffs, being 2-1 to win it all. That is only 33%. We got beat.

I AGREE that we should find a better #4 safety. I also think that the #$ should NOT have a regular role on defense. In 2016, we used to have 2 kinds of nickel formations, with Harmon or a CB being the dime. I don't know what it was about Richard's play that caused the team to want to use 4 safeties on a regular basis.

 

[maust]

Why Patriots should sign Bashaud Breeland over Malcolm Butler

“I feel like I’m a top corner in this league,” Breeland told, via The Washington Post’s Kimberly A. Martin. “It hasn’t been shown, I haven’t gotten that publicity, but I feel like with my confidence level and how I believe in myself, I feel like I’m a top corner in this league. I’m just not one of those players that’s flashy, that’s going to make the flashy play that you want to see, you know what I’m saying? Really, what I do, I bring a lot more to the table — physicality, tackling. I’m a tackling corner. And I play my guy. I make plays.”

“These are all qualities that would resonate well with Bill Belichick.”

“But Breeland would bring more than just a defensive presence. He has served as a kick returner. During the 2017 season, he returned 10 kicks for 208 yards, and averaged 20.8 yards per return. That’s something Belichick, a lover of special teams, would appreciate.”

“Breeland is a spitting image of Butler, but his ceiling could be higher.”

I saw the original piece at NFL.com, in considering his 'fits' Brandt seems to have ignored the realities of the cap. Considering the Pats other needs it's hard to see Breeland fitting the budget.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I saw the original piece at NFL.com, in considering his 'fits' Brandt seems to have ignored the realities of the cap. Considering the Pats other needs it's hard to see Breeland fitting the budget.

Agreed. I also question a skins draft pick’s maturity or football iq. His comments scream of a guy only interested in the highest bidder, and i do think he is a good player. At the right price and if he was willing to take a tad less in 2018, then maybe he would be interested.

Based on those comments, i do not think that is the case.

 

[supafly]

$1.7M I think, but that's sort of immaterial. The issue is character, and what results from Belichick's future talk with him.

Someone should give us an idea of the cost of the option year. If is really $9M, I could see us trading for him, expecting to keep him for 2 years, but being able to bail out after 1. Even if the option is $10.3M, two years at $6M a year is doable, if conditions are met, and the team can bail out for $1.7M after one.

This reminds of the deal for Cooks, except that here we won't be taking about a first or an ear;y 2nd.

How could the team bail after one year when the decision has to be made by early May? Is it because next year’s (2019) 9-10m is only guaranteed for injury? Is that why Pittsburgh is still stuck paying Shazier’s 5th year option for this upcoming year?

Have we seen any recent examples of players whose 5th yr options were picked up who were then cut prior to the 5th year?

 

[supafly]

@UptownPatsFan —I think he’s (Breeland) reportedly looking for Gilmore money, but he’d be a fine pickup, otherwise.

 

[Tony2046]

I was trying to be funny, there. But then, I'm widely know as "The Second Round Draft Pick of Comedians", so ...

Seriously, though, the thing for me is that - if the 3-safety, Big Nickel is going to be more frequently used - perhaps even more than the 3-corner nickel, eventually - then it makes sense to me for the #4 safety to be pretty good. So, attempting to acquire a very good developmental prospect with a relatively high draft pick seems reasonable - and especially timely with both McCourty and Chung turning 31 in Camp this year.

What's the difference between a big nickle and a base 3-4 with a fast linebacker?

To me the only reason you would be in a big nickle is because your compensating for your weak LB corp. Fix the need for speed, find a Branch replacement and the big nickle disappears except in 3rd and long type situations.

Am I wrong?

 

[supafly]

What's the difference between a big nickle and a base 3-4 with a fast linebacker?

To me the only reason you would be in a big nickle is because your compensating for your weak LB corp. Fix the need for speed, find a Branch replacement and the big nickle disappears except in 3rd and long type situations.

Am I wrong?

Someone may be able to give you a better answer Tony, but we’ve been using big nickel (3/5 DBs are safeties) for years now, so I’m not sure that it’s quite as easy as simply finding a replacement for Branch. We used it plenty last year, too, even with Branch healthier and playing better—and that was likely even with Collins still here for the first half.

Ultimately, I’m sure you’re right that having a more athletic LB would allow them to stay in a 4-2-5 base more often with a more traditional nickel package of 3 CBs instead of 3 safeties, as opposed to the 3-2-6 that we saw with someone moved up a level, but I think there would still be plenty of situations that we’d fear both the run and the pass (maybe 3rd and 3 or less) where you may want someone even quicker and more athletic than even your “quick” OLB. I dunno.

At any rate, right or wrong, Belichick seems to feel as though it has benefits. I’d be interested in seeing some numbers of how we’ve used it over the years. It would be a good question for a certain defensive-minded poster, but I can’t remember his name any longer.

 

[maineman209]

I don't know what it was about Richard's play that caused the team to want to use 4 safeties on a regular basis.

I don't think that it was "Richards' play" (LOL) that caused the team to want to use a four-safety dime. I think the package is gaining usage as a strategic and tactical response to evolutionary developments in NFL offenses - including, but not limited to, RPO plays. The 2017 response might have been a three-safety nickel plus a "coverage LB", if the Pats had one.

The team can only field the players who they have on the roster who practice best in the roles called for by the gameplan. Richards certainly doesn't execute well very often, but - as you say - by the coaches observations (which are hidden to us) - everyone else must've been worse.

 

[maineman209]

How could the team bail after one year when the decision has to be made by early May? Is it because next year’s (2019) 9-10m is only guaranteed for injury? Is that why Pittsburgh is still stuck paying Shazier’s 5th year option for this upcoming year?

Have we seen any recent examples of players whose 5th yr options were picked up who were then cut prior to the 5th year?

Good question.

It seems to me that the Pats would trade for Peters (and extreme longshot in the first place) unless they intended to pick up his 5th-year option. Whether it's happened before or not, I have no doubt that the Pats would cut Peters before that 5th-year option became fully-guaranteed if they no longer wanted him.