Our Secondary

[maineman209]

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?

Nowadays, most NFL defenses appear to be fielding 5 DBs on 50% or more of defensive snaps, regardless how many DL they have in the front - 3-3-5, 4-2-5, 5-1-5 defensive alignments seem to be the most common anymore. Dime packages have also been used with increasing frequency over the past few years. I think it's just an increased emphasis on coverage in response to the "pass-happy" league since 2007.

Even last season, Chung was playing an LB-ish role in 4-2-5 and 5-1-5 sets.

Anyway, "the nickel" isn't so much a package anymore as it is the default. The 3-safety version, as opposed to the 3-CB version, seems to have been used to respond to offensive alignments that include a good receiving TE and/or good receiving RB, and/or situations where run/pass are equal possibilities.

Safety v. coverage LB? IDK. It may be a matter of availability or merely of deciding where to grab the falling two-edged sword.

As difficult as it seems to have been for the Pats to come up with safeties who have the type of versatility that the Pats coverage schemes demand, perhaps it's been even more difficult to find LBs who can cover as well as a safety and still hold up to the other requirements on the LoS? LBs who are big and strong enough to consistently stack-and-shed 300lb+ OL in the gaps at the LoS - and who are fast enough to man-up against anyone faster than a typical TE - are probably fairly rare.

For several years, the Bills attempted to shore up their pass defense by acquiring lighter, faster LBs, and it worked. However, their run-D then sucked. If an RB's OL could get him beyond the Bills DL, he had nearly free sailing for another 10-15 yards before getting overwhelmed by numbers. Their LBs were constantly getting blown out of their gaps.

Anyway, I don't think that the "Big Nickel" is going away anytime soon, even if the Pats manage to acquire a speedier LB with good coverage skills.

 

[jah]

Nowadays, most NFL defenses appear to be fielding 5 DBs on 50% or more of defensive snaps, regardless how many DL they have in the front - 3-3-5, 4-2-5, 5-1-5 defensive alignments seem to be the most common anymore. Dime packages have also been used with increasing frequency over the past few years. I think it's just an increased emphasis on coverage in response to the "pass-happy" league since 2007.

Even last season, Chung was playing an LB-ish role in 4-2-5 and 5-1-5 sets.

Anyway, "the nickel" isn't so much a package anymore as it is the default. The 3-safety version, as opposed to the 3-CB version, seems to have been used to respond to offensive alignments that include a good receiving TE and/or good receiving RB, and/or situations where run/pass are equal possibilities.

Safety v. coverage LB? IDK. It may be a matter of availability or merely of deciding where to grab the falling two-edged sword.

As difficult as it seems to have been for the Pats to come up with safeties who have the type of versatility that the Pats coverage schemes demand, perhaps it's been even more difficult to find LBs who can cover as well as a safety and still hold up to the other requirements on the LoS? LBs who are big and strong enough to consistently stack-and-shed 300lb+ OL in the gaps at the LoS - and who are fast enough to man-up against anyone faster than a typical TE - are probably fairly rare.

For several years, the Bills attempted to shore up their pass defense by acquiring lighter, faster LBs, and it worked. However, their run-D then sucked. If an RB's OL could get him beyond the Bills DL, he had nearly free sailing for another 10-15 yards before getting overwhelmed by numbers. Their LBs were constantly getting blown out of their gaps.

Anyway, I don't think that the "Big Nickel" is going away anytime soon, even if the Pats manage to acquire a speedier LB with good coverage skills.

Big nickel on this team also means Harmon sees the field over one of our mediocre front 7 players.

Really, the only difference between the 3-3-5 and the 3-4 is what you call the 11th guy. Is he a box safety or a linebacker? That distinction is rapidly falling out of existence. As you point out, Chung is that guy. Around the league we've seen this role filled by similar players like Deonne Bucannon (I wanted him badly but it's fine) and Mark Barron, so it's not just a Patriots thing.

It only seems logical to make the new base defense what is essentially the same thing but with a tiny bit more speed on the field. This is the new "balanced" look which equally respects run and pass. If you come out with a full front 7 and only 4 secondary, that's practically stacking the box now (although teams obviously still stack the box too). I don't see how any offense with a decent receiving RB/TE couldn't carve that up.

 

[mgteich]

I was being sarcastic with regard to Richards play being the reason he got more reps.
IMHO, we've used this defense because of our weakness at LB. We're had mobile quarterbacks for decades. The answer is usually a linebacker that follows the quarterback.

I'm OK with using more 3 safety than 3 corner in the nickel. What I don't agree with is using 4 safeties instead of 3 corners in the dime. IMO, this means that there is a deficiency at LB or corner. The reason that we use so much 3 safety is that our safeties are so good.

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.

 

[mgteich]

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?

cut or trade
But yes, I underestimated the risk.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, we use the big nickel because we have Chung and Harmon, and we don't have a linebacker that can fill the role. If we had the quality linebacker and poorer safeties, we'd wouldn't play as many safeties.

My issue is Richards and playing 4 safeties.

Big nickel on this team also means Harmon sees the field over one of our mediocre front 7 players.

Really, the only difference between the 3-3-5 and the 3-4 is what you call the 11th guy. Is he a box safety or a linebacker? That distinction is rapidly falling out of existence. As you point out, Chung is that guy. Around the league we've seen this role filled by similar players like Deonne Bucannon (I wanted him badly but it's fine) and Mark Barron, so it's not just a Patriots thing.

It only seems logical to make the new base defense what is essentially the same thing but with a tiny bit more speed on the field. This is the new "balanced" look which equally respects run and pass. If you come out with a full front 7 and only 4 secondary, that's practically stacking the box now (although teams obviously still stack the box too). I don't see how any offense with a decent receiving RB/TE couldn't carve that up.

z

 

[luuked]

Now McCourty is saying Butler knew he wasn't starting all week, so the lies about a last second announcement, to deflect from Butler's crying, were just that....lies.

Can you let it go or at least keep it in the Butler Megathread ?

Whatever happened, happened.. pointless to keep talking circles around a decision that nobody except the coaching staff knows everything about. More importantly no reason to rekindle those discussion in threads that have a different topic.

 

[maust]

Whatever happened, happened.. pointless to keep talking circles around a decision that nobody except the coaching staff knows everything about. More importantly no reason to rekindle those discussion in threads that have a different topic.

Amen! This thread is about moving forward

 

[jah]

Yes, we use the big nickel because we have Chung and Harmon, and we don't have a linebacker that can fill the role. If we had the quality linebacker and poorer safeties, we'd wouldn't play as many safeties.

My issue is Richards and playing 4 safeties.

Something bad always happens when he's on the field, and he's always 5-10 yards away from it.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Something bad always happens when he's on the field, and he's always 5-10 yards away from it.

My issue was Bademosi only getting 11 snaps and Gilmore not being on Agoholor.

Those were the 2 blunders, match up wise.

 

[chasa]

Can you let it go or at least keep it in the Butler Megathread ?

Whatever happened, happened.. pointless to keep talking circles around a decision that nobody except the coaching staff knows everything about. More importantly no reason to rekindle those discussion in threads that have a different topic.

they locked the mega butler thread. So unfortunately its going to spill out into other areas.

For instance McCourty said yesterday/today that the players knew butler wasn't going to start, the entire week. This means that it wasn't a last minute decision, so butler clearly didn't hit a coach after finding out he wasn't starting, Seems like BB actually decided to just not play him the week before the superbowl, and then watched his ship sink like the captain of the titanic.

The worst coaching decision in BB's career.

 

[luuked]

they locked the mega butler thread. So unfortunately its going to spill out into other areas.

For instance McCourty said yesterday/today that the players knew butler wasn't going to start, the entire week. This means that it wasn't a last minute decision, so butler clearly didn't hit a coach after finding out he wasn't starting, Seems like BB actually decided to just not play him the week before the superbowl, and then watched his ship sink like the captain of the titanic.

The worst coaching decision in BB's career.

Then get yourself a new thread to circlejerk around how BB ****ed up and leave other threads alone. You are doing the spilling.

 

[maineman209]

Then get yourself a new thread to circlejerk around how BB ****ed up and leave other threads alone. You are doing the spilling.

I've put all those threads on ignore. My life is much quieter now.

We're on to 2018!

 

[chasa]

According to sportsTrac: NFL Secondary Spending - Cap

we have the 8th most $ dedicated to our secondary. with 23 million committed to JUST Gilmore and McCourty i don't see the patriots having the capital to spend on a big ticket free agent. Add to the fact that we are severely lacking at dline(currently spending near the bottom of the league)

I think any help that's coming is going to have to come through the draft.

A player like Talib is going to get at least 8 million, and Good DE's don't come cheap.

I think it could be a rough year for the defense if we don't have a good rookie class.

 

[Urgent]

Rowe doesn't have convince this board of his value, especially not based on his performance in one game. He has already convinced the coaches.

I don't agree with this.
These are the same coaches who kept him out an awfully long time for his injury.

Rowe was traded for a fourth round pick because he just isn't that good in coverage, and played behind Butler and Gilmour because he wasn't as good as them. And they did not have a great start to the season.

He was selected to start in the Super Bowl, but that whole thing is bizarre. He may have convinced the coaches, but those are the same coaches (...except for one) who evaluated their DB's and decided that Jordan Richards and Bademosi would be better inside corners than Butler. Jonathan Jones provides an interesting option against the Brandon Cook-type receiver, but the larger receivers will just pluck balls away from him, no matter his vertical leap.

We've seen this pass defense, and it absolutely needs an upgrade. The team needs a good corner opposite Gilmour. The existing options are not good enough. Whether free agency or high in the draft, the Patriots need an addition at corner.

 

[Tony2046]

Nowadays, most NFL defenses appear to be fielding 5 DBs on 50% or more of defensive snaps, regardless how many DL they have in the front - 3-3-5, 4-2-5, 5-1-5 defensive alignments seem to be the most common anymore. Dime packages have also been used with increasing frequency over the past few years. I think it's just an increased emphasis on coverage in response to the "pass-happy" league since 2007.

Even last season, Chung was playing an LB-ish role in 4-2-5 and 5-1-5 sets.

Anyway, "the nickel" isn't so much a package anymore as it is the default. The 3-safety version, as opposed to the 3-CB version, seems to have been used to respond to offensive alignments that include a good receiving TE and/or good receiving RB, and/or situations where run/pass are equal possibilities.

Safety v. coverage LB? IDK. It may be a matter of availability or merely of deciding where to grab the falling two-edged sword.

As difficult as it seems to have been for the Pats to come up with safeties who have the type of versatility that the Pats coverage schemes demand, perhaps it's been even more difficult to find LBs who can cover as well as a safety and still hold up to the other requirements on the LoS? LBs who are big and strong enough to consistently stack-and-shed 300lb+ OL in the gaps at the LoS - and who are fast enough to man-up against anyone faster than a typical TE - are probably fairly rare.

For several years, the Bills attempted to shore up their pass defense by acquiring lighter, faster LBs, and it worked. However, their run-D then sucked. If an RB's OL could get him beyond the Bills DL, he had nearly free sailing for another 10-15 yards before getting overwhelmed by numbers. Their LBs were constantly getting blown out of their gaps.

Anyway, I don't think that the "Big Nickel" is going away anytime soon, even if the Pats manage to acquire a speedier LB with good coverage skills.

Just responding to hash out my thoughts.

3-3-5 is basically a 3-4-4 with either a CB or a Safety instead of an LB or DE. Actually Chung, imo, has been a real plus in that role. The problem is the lack of having a counter part LB/SS on the other side. If we could clone Chung it wouldn't matter to me if we ran a 3-3-5 or a 3-4-4 with Chung 1 and Chung 2 in it. Rivers is interesting because he has a nice combination of size, power and speed that could fill that need and may have some edge rush potential. In both of the 3 front packages the NT lacked power this season which really hurt in both the pass and the run. 4-2-5 seemed like an overcompensation for that weakness which of course created another.

Get that hard to find NT stud and I think the defense becomes much more effective against both the pass and run even with the current personnel but adding some speed at LB would make all packages solid.

I'm speaking from a complimentary sense in that all three phases of the game compliment each other. If we were talking about building a defense to carry a rookie QB I would suggest other changes and maybe even advocate the need for an elite "pass rushah".

 

[luuked]

I've put all those threads on ignore. My life is much quieter now.

We're on to 2018!

That is what I did as well. Which is why I didnt know that the Butler Megathread was locked. Ignore the noise..

 

[captain stone]

...If we could clone Chung it wouldn't matter to me if we ran a 3-3-5 or a 3-4-4 with Chung 1 and Chung 2 in it. Rivers is interesting because he has a nice combination of size, power and speed that could fill that need and may have some edge rush potential...

I don't think that Rivers is comparable to Chung, at all. Rivers is an on-the-outside, upfield rusher. Chung is neither of those.

 

[Tony2046]

I don't think that Rivers is comparable to Chung, at all. Rivers is an on-the-outside, upfield rusher. Chung is neither of those.

I meant to compliment Chung from the LB/DE position. He has the athleticism to do it but not sure how long for him to pick up the role.

 

[maineman209]

I don't think that Rivers is comparable to Chung, at all. Rivers is an on-the-outside, upfield rusher. Chung is neither of those.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Rivers won't play Chung's current role.

OTOH, he's coming out of college as primarily an upfield rusher, but he's tall and he tested out with some decent burst and vertical for an LB. IIRC, the Pats had him dropping back into coverage on occasion in Camp/Pre-season, so it seems possible that their developmental intentions for him are more OLB/DE in the Nink mold. He's also reputed to be pretty smart, so ...

 

[ohiopatsfan]

I am intrigued by Ryan Lewis, the CB we acquired to take Foster's spot on the PS. He is big (6-0, 200) and fast (4.35 in the 40 at his Pro Day). My only concern, if he has those kind of measurables, why was he undrafted and available at midseason?