Patriots resign Marquis Flowers

[RobertWeathers]

I believe that if a player is healthy he plays. I’ve never seen an effective plan if having a guy sit out parts of a game for fear of injury.

I think we have need at
TE
DE
Cb
S
OT
QB
and potentially WR IOL RB

And we have need at lb but the need is tricky.
If we have health the need is for a big player. If we don’t it’s a very big role.

I don’t see using a high pick there for that reason.

re: CB need

Where do you see the need? Slot or boundary? Both?

I see both

 

[Tony2046]

2 de 2 DT 2 lb 5 db

Thanks Andy. I think I've had their defense pictured incorrectly then.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Zackly. Instead of that junk defense we threw out there against KC and Philly. How bout a front of; Guy/Shelton,M. Brown, T. Flowers with 4 lb's? Hightower, Van Noy, M. Flowers and our 1st rounder. LB's could blow up those shallow crossings by leveling the receivers. Like Hightower does. And, would be stouter vs run than 6 db's.

With this defense, you're taking Trey Flowers and having him play a Ty Warren/Richard Seymour role. I want T. Flowers disrupting, not two-gapping. By playing 4 players from the least deep position on the team, you're not only taking better players off the field to play Marquis Flowers and [unknown rookie], you'll possibly have to scrap this defense should one (1) injury emerge. They ran out of LBs playing two last year, playing four is playing with fire.

That said, the Pats like to use multiple fronts and looks, so I think we may occasionally see elements of 3-4 with Trey Flowers in a Willie Mac/Elephant style role and either Van Noy or Hightower on the other side.

 

[Ring 6]

re: CB need

Where do you see the need? Slot or boundary? Both?

I see both

2019 starter

 

[NormZauchin]

let me be 100% honest... He tries to shoo my away...

I hear that he is working on an avocado infused Fancy Feast Gravy Lovers Poultry.

 

[captain stone]

Nice. Add two talented LBers from the deepest LB draft in years & all of a sudden looking solid:

Hightower
Van Noy
High draft pick
Flowers
Mid draft pick

Still holding out a little hope for Langi...not much mind you, but hey even one day after his car crash he's still better than Elandon(One of the Stupidest Players I Have Ever Seen)Roberts.

 

[captain stone]

Good signing but let's reel in Fleming and/or Waddle to wrap up the process with our guys.

Wouldn't mind James Harrison back either.

 

[captain stone]

I believe that if a player is healthy he plays. I’ve never seen an effective plan if having a guy sit out parts of a game for fear of injury...

Seems to have worked for Danny Playoffs this year.

 

[Ring 6]

Seems to have worked for Danny Playoffs this year.

He wasnt held back out of fear of injury he played the role he belonged in.

 

[Tony2046]

2 de 2 DT 2 lb 5 db

Just an FYI. I'm not arguing with you. Just picking your brain. If you don't mind that is.

So I'm going through last season's games and am seeing a lot of various line ups defensively.

Seeing a lot of 3 -3, 3-4 (the 4 being 2 lb's + 2 De's) but I also see the 2 Dt's + 2 DE's you've discussed.

My thoughts:

1. Hightower is a LB/DE in my mind. He could play both. So I don't see him purely as an LB.

2. My main two concerns of last season's defense were Richards and Branch. This is where I may be confused. I like Richards as a player but he just couldn't handle the role at "star" (I'm not sure if I'm calling his position correctly). Richards (the fifth or sixth DB) seemed to be overpowered . Branch just seemed out of shape. I think Instead of Richards they would be more successful with as fast but bigger LB. I feel that Shelton is a good answer for the Branch issue.

So back to your nickle base and back to your "how are they going to cover 3 WR's, TE and RB type of offense", I think or at least thought a 3-3 -5 (3 DT's - 3 LB/DE's - 5 DB's) would have been a better matchup than what you're suggesting ( 2 DE's, 2 DT's , 2 LB's and 5 DB's). But I do agree that I've seen that lineup on film.

So I guess my question is isn't a 3-3-5 with Shelton as the NT and two other DT's (Brown, Butler or Guy) better to cover the 3WR's, TE and RB than a 2-4 or 4-2 ( 2 DT's, 2 DE's and 2 LB's)?

I guess in the end we are discussing personnel rather than an actual base.

OK those are my thoughts. Thanks for the feedback in advance.

 

[maineman209]

Just an FYI. I'm not arguing with you. Just picking your brain. If you don't mind that is.

So I'm going through last season's games and am seeing a lot of various line ups defensively.

Seeing a lot of 3 -3, 3-4 (the 4 being 2 lb's + 2 De's) but I also see the 2 Dt's + 2 DE's you've discussed.

My thoughts:

1. Hightower is a LB/DE in my mind. He could play both. So I don't see him purely as an LB.

2. My main two concerns of last season's defense were Richards and Branch. This is where I may be confused. I like Richards as a player but he just couldn't handle the role at "star" (I'm not sure if I'm calling his position correctly). Richards (the fifth or sixth DB) seemed to be overpowered . Branch just seemed out of shape. I think Instead of Richards they would be more successful with as fast but bigger LB. I feel that Shelton is a good answer for the Branch issue.

So back to your nickle base and back to your "how are they going to cover 3 WR's, TE and RB type of offense", I think or at least thought a 3-3 -5 (3 DT's - 3 LB/DE's - 5 DB's) would have been a better matchup than what you're suggesting ( 2 DE's, 2 DT's , 2 LB's and 5 DB's). But I do agree that I've seen that lineup on film.

So I guess my question is isn't a 3-3-5 with Shelton as the NT and two other DT's (Brown, Butler or Guy) better to cover the 3WR's, TE and RB than a 2-4 or 4-2 ( 2 DT's, 2 DE's and 2 LB's)?

I guess in the end we are discussing personnel rather than an actual base.

OK those are my thoughts. Thanks for the feedback in advance.

So, it seems to me that the ideal personnel might be ...

- Three big-bodies up front who can both 1-gap and 2-gap as needed, and who are solid against the run and capable of pushing/deforming/penetrating the pocket from the middle.
- Two relatively hefty OLBs who can drop down to the line to rush effectively as DEs, contain the edge, and at least cover the flat.
- An MLB/ILB who's a solid run-stopper/tackler, and who can also blitz an A-gap or B-gap and stay with a TE in coverage, all while reading the offense and directing the front-6/7 about how to respond/attack.
- A strong safety who's excellent in coverage, and who can also be effective as a run-stopping ILB.
- A slot coverage DB who can play man, zone or pattern-matching, and who's also an excellent tackler.
- Two boundary corners who are equally adept at man/press-man, zone, and pattern-matching, and who can also play edge-contain and tackle.
- A fast, agile deep safety who excels at reading the play/directing coverage responsibilities, and who can drop down close to the box to become an additional run-stopper as needed.

(And then, you need at lease one adequate rotational/relief/reserve guy for each of these roles.)

This way, a 3-3-5 can morph into a 3-4-4, or a 4-3-4, or a 4-2-5 during the snap count without the need for substitutions in the face of a no-huddle/hurry-up.

Assembling such a squad should be a piece of cake, right?

 

[luuked]

That is the biggest dilemma that exist in the structure of the defense.
We only use 2 LBs so much that the 3rd LB only plays a handful of snaps but the 2 LBs are so critical to a nickel base system that you would like to have depth.

How much in resources do you devote to a guy who will hardly ever play if there are no injuries but will be one of the most critical players on your d if there are?

It’s seems B.B. feels you handle it with guys like Harris, McClellin, etc but that hasn’t worked out.

Which is where using Hightower as a DE -- as they tried last year -- would come in. By using his versatility you can mix up your looks, make a third quality LB worth his cap hit and also take HT out of the middle of the battlefield to reduce the hits he takes.

Not saying they should convert HT to a DE but just mix it up according to matchups.

 

[Ring 6]

Just an FYI. I'm not arguing with you. Just picking your brain. If you don't mind that is.

So I'm going through last season's games and am seeing a lot of various line ups defensively.

Seeing a lot of 3 -3, 3-4 (the 4 being 2 lb's + 2 De's) but I also see the 2 Dt's + 2 DE's you've discussed.

My thoughts:

1. Hightower is a LB/DE in my mind. He could play both. So I don't see him purely as an LB.

2. My main two concerns of last season's defense were Richards and Branch. This is where I may be confused. I like Richards as a player but he just couldn't handle the role at "star" (I'm not sure if I'm calling his position correctly). Richards (the fifth or sixth DB) seemed to be overpowered . Branch just seemed out of shape. I think Instead of Richards they would be more successful with as fast but bigger LB. I feel that Shelton is a good answer for the Branch issue.

So back to your nickle base and back to your "how are they going to cover 3 WR's, TE and RB type of offense", I think or at least thought a 3-3 -5 (3 DT's - 3 LB/DE's - 5 DB's) would have been a better matchup than what you're suggesting ( 2 DE's, 2 DT's , 2 LB's and 5 DB's). But I do agree that I've seen that lineup on film.

So I guess my question is isn't a 3-3-5 with Shelton as the NT and two other DT's (Brown, Butler or Guy) better to cover the 3WR's, TE and RB than a 2-4 or 4-2 ( 2 DT's, 2 DE's and 2 LB's)?

I guess in the end we are discussing personnel rather than an actual base.

OK those are my thoughts. Thanks for the feedback in advance.

It depends what you call the guy on the end of the line as to whether you call it 3-3 or 4-2. I call it 4-2 because he plays like a de even if it’s from a standup position.
You can’t use 3 DTs because you can’t get a pas rush. Personell would be
Clayborn/wise brown Shelton flowers
VanNoy ht
5 dbs

 

[Ring 6]

Which is where using Hightower as a DE -- as they tried last year -- would come in. By using his versatility you can mix up your looks, make a third quality LB worth his cap hit and also take HT out of the middle of the battlefield to reduce the hits he takes.

Not saying they should convert HT to a DE but just mix it up according to matchups.

I think that having ht in an off the line Lb role is what made the nickel base work, along with good DT play and a good tackling secondary.
Our run d in 14 and 15 especially later in the season was terrific, playing from a nickel base. Last year we looked like an average run d that was forced to play from nickel and sucked.
If you are saying go get ht 2.0 I’m on board. Otherwise I think we need beef up front plus Hightower to play this scheme, which is a great scheme if the personnel is right .

 

[long distance]

Just an FYI. I'm not arguing with you. Just picking your brain. If you don't mind that is.

So I'm going through last season's games and am seeing a lot of various line ups defensively.

Seeing a lot of 3 -3, 3-4 (the 4 being 2 lb's + 2 De's) but I also see the 2 Dt's + 2 DE's you've discussed.

My thoughts:

1. Hightower is a LB/DE in my mind. He could play both. So I don't see him purely as an LB.

2. My main two concerns of last season's defense were Richards and Branch. This is where I may be confused. I like Richards as a player but he just couldn't handle the role at "star" (I'm not sure if I'm calling his position correctly). Richards (the fifth or sixth DB) seemed to be overpowered . Branch just seemed out of shape. I think Instead of Richards they would be more successful with as fast but bigger LB. I feel that Shelton is a good answer for the Branch issue.

So back to your nickle base and back to your "how are they going to cover 3 WR's, TE and RB type of offense", I think or at least thought a 3-3 -5 (3 DT's - 3 LB/DE's - 5 DB's) would have been a better matchup than what you're suggesting ( 2 DE's, 2 DT's , 2 LB's and 5 DB's). But I do agree that I've seen that lineup on film.

So I guess my question is isn't a 3-3-5 with Shelton as the NT and two other DT's (Brown, Butler or Guy) better to cover the 3WR's, TE and RB than a 2-4 or 4-2 ( 2 DT's, 2 DE's and 2 LB's)?

I guess in the end we are discussing personnel rather than an actual base.

OK those are my thoughts. Thanks for the feedback in advance.

With final benching in SB my feeling was Richards will move to ST only department. He was one of the key players there last season IMO . taking over captain duties (as I saw it) from Slater when he was out. Now that Slater is back and all ST only/mainly guys as well IDK...

 

[maineman209]

With final benching in SB my feeling was Richards will move to ST only department. He was one of the key players there last season IMO . taking over captain duties (as I saw it) from Slater when he was out. Now that Slater is back and all ST only/mainly guys as well IDK...

The Pats certainly don't seem to be lacking special teamers.

Slater
Ebner
King
Bolden
Richards
Grissom
Grigsby (possibly)

These are the guys for whom I use the term "ST/ELEO-reserve" (ELEO = "extinction-level-event only"). It's a bit more cumbersome, but perhaps makes up for that with accuracy.

To the above, we might add potential ST snaps from:

Patterson
M. Flowers
Develin (a regular on blocking units, duh)
Burkhead (limited usage)
Langi, Rivers?

Jake Hollister
- making the 2018 roster may depend on his ST proficiency

Jon Jones
- his ST participation may be reduced if he becomes a regular part of the defense

McCourty & Chung
- both had been high-use ST for a long time, but both also saw their ST snaps reduced in 2017; that trend may continue

It's perhaps worth noting that Roberts has yet to contribute much on ST.

Anyway, not counting Gost/Allen/Cardona, Amendola/Lewis (as returners), and the OL guys (on FG & XP attempts), roughly 30 players contributed over 3600 snaps on ST, with the top 11 in season total ST snaps accounting for over 2400 of those, which includes Bademosi at 284 and Marsh at 150 (amazingly, Branch contributed 105).

 

[RobertWeathers]

With final benching in SB my feeling was Richards will move to ST only department. He was one of the key players there last season IMO . taking over captain duties (as I saw it) from Slater when he was out. Now that Slater is back and all ST only/mainly guys as well IDK...

As much as I want Richards gone he does play a ton of STs and seemingly is pretty darn good at it. Obviously BB commits a handful of roster spots to ST and I'm supportive of it but it seems to me they have enough and there is no need for Richards to be on the roster in 2018.

 

[mgteich]

As always, we have a roster issue at safety.

We often play 3, since they are 3 of our best defensive backs.

If we often play 3 safeties, then we need ONE backup. If Richards is to stay as an STO player, that's fine. That would mean that another STO player would go.

 

[Tony2046]

It depends what you call the guy on the end of the line as to whether you call it 3-3 or 4-2. I call it 4-2 because he plays like a de even if it’s from a standup position.
You can’t use 3 DTs because you can’t get a pas rush. Personell would be
Clayborn/wise brown Shelton flowers
VanNoy ht
5 dbs

Good stuff Andy. Thanks

 

[Tony2046]

So, it seems to me that the ideal personnel might be ...

- Three big-bodies up front who can both 1-gap and 2-gap as needed, and who are solid against the run and capable of pushing/deforming/penetrating the pocket from the middle.
- Two relatively hefty OLBs who can drop down to the line to rush effectively as DEs, contain the edge, and at least cover the flat.
- An MLB/ILB who's a solid run-stopper/tackler, and who can also blitz an A-gap or B-gap and stay with a TE in coverage, all while reading the offense and directing the front-6/7 about how to respond/attack.
- A strong safety who's excellent in coverage, and who can also be effective as a run-stopping ILB.
- A slot coverage DB who can play man, zone or pattern-matching, and who's also an excellent tackler.
- Two boundary corners who are equally adept at man/press-man, zone, and pattern-matching, and who can also play edge-contain and tackle.
- A fast, agile deep safety who excels at reading the play/directing coverage responsibilities, and who can drop down close to the box to become an additional run-stopper as needed.

(And then, you need at lease one adequate rotational/relief/reserve guy for each of these roles.)

This way, a 3-3-5 can morph into a 3-4-4, or a 4-3-4, or a 4-2-5 during the snap count without the need for substitutions in the face of a no-huddle/hurry-up.

Assembling such a squad should be a piece of cake, right?

Yeah. That's it.

Wait till you see my "need a big tall speedy fast WR with great hands" post.

Anyway this was a very cool thread. I was definitely not seeing the D correctly but now I've got something new to check out when watching the coaches film this weekend.