That wasn't an insult. That was me speaking my opinion based on your posts. You clearly don't know the team well enough to understand that Fanene is NOT a 4-3 DE and won't be in the Pats Base 4-3 defense.
The fact that you are wrong only accentuates the point. Your OPINION is not better than someone elses, and your method of communicating is insulting.
Fanene is a LDE in the 43 defense. You cannot know anything about the player to disagree with that. What position do you think he plays in the 43?
Wrong. Belichick's 4-3 LDE is NOT the same as his 3-4 LDE. They line up in very different places and have very different jobs. And more than just Ellis and Deaderick played there last year. Ninkovich and Carter also spent time there.
They are the same PLAYERS not the same aligmment.
Ninkovich and Carter NEVER played a single snap at LDE in the 43 base defense. You either don't know what you are talking abut or are lying.
Carter never played on the left side, and Ninkovich only lines up at DE in sub packages, not in a 43.
I'm talking about IN GENERAL, not just the 4-3.
THe discussion is about the 43.
I made that very clear in my initial response to you. Maybe you should go back and re-read it if you are confused.
I did. Here is your first response.
Wilfork, Love, Deaderick, Pryor, and Fanene would be the DTs in the 4-3.
Do you see where you say "in the 4-3" nit IN GENERAL?
Now, lets talk about the 3-4 LDE position under Belichick. The player there has always been better against the run than at rushing the passer. Players like Bobby Hamilton and Ty Warren. And this is because they are, typically, lining up opposite the strong side of the offense.
What are you talking about? What doies this have to do with anything?
Those players played LDE because Richard Seymour played RDE.
In any event, we have always used 2 300lb range DEs in the 34, and when we play the 43 we use a 300lb range LDE, a NT type and a 300 lb range DT, and the RDE is a guy who would be an OLB in the 34. It has ALWAYS been that way.
Now, if we go with your idea that the 3-4 /4-3 LDE position is the same,
Yo Strawman, same player, not same position.
that would mean that you are sticking him outside and putting him in a position that he's not used to lining up in. Which is that of the inside pass rusher.
What? Where do you think the 34 DE lines up? They are over the T.
In Belichick's 4-3, the DTs (inside pass rushers) are lined up opposite the guards or shaded into the "A" gaps. On occasion, one or the other will shade into the "B" gap, but it's not often you see that.
Its the same 3 players. In the 34 they align over the T-C-T. In the 43 they align over the T-G-G (and sometimes overshift to the C)
You need to go back and re-read my initial post instead of being contrarian.
Glad you learned a new word, but you are misusing it. A contrarian disagrees with the popular perception.
I am disagreeing with your incorrect factal statements.
Fanene will not be a LDE in either the Pats 3-4 base or the Pats 4-3 Base. He'll be a RDE in the 3-4 or a DT in the 4-3. Plain and simple.
I already said he will play DE on either side in the 34. He will not be a DT in the 43. He is smaller and quicker than a 43 DE. He is most similar to Deaderick, not Love, Wilfork or Brace. He is not a DT in our base 43. Noit at all. He is a DT in the sub package, but that is a different topic altogether.
Nope. I'm saying your opinion is flawed and clearly not based on what Love showed last year.
How is my opinion 'flawed'? What is the flaw? That you disagree?
We were stuck with Love as a starter and he played medicore footballl. He was a part of the problem with the 31st ranked defense, not a part of the solution.
You have no idea where Brace is in the rotation. You are not privy to any of the depth charts. Hell, there probably aren't any depth charts currently because the team hasn't come close to being set.
Its not hard to understand that when you have 4 DTs to speak of and one of the 4 has played something like 9 games in 2 years, he would be 3rd on the depth chart. Please explain who is ahead of hin if you idisagree.
Of course you don't know why. That is typical you. But, then, you didn't actually read my initial post in response to you.
Yes I did, and I copied some of it in here. You listed Pryor as an example of why we aren't thin at DT. Then you said you only listed him because thats is where he played once. You can't make up that you said something different that you didn't.
If you had, you wouldn't have parroted things I said about Pryor two posts later as if you were making so amazing correction to me.
I didnt 'parrot' anything you said, I said he has barely played in 2 years.
But that is typical of you as well. If someone shows you to incorrect in any way, you purposely go out of your way to warp what they've said so that you can look intelligent.
Thats ridiculous. I stated we are thin at DT in the 43. You responded by listing a bunch of DEs, and Myron Pryor.
Please tell me what you said that I have misrepresented. I have no intention of misrperesenting what you say, just discussing it and pointing out the errors. The problem is you change what you said and say you didn't say what you did.
Of course then it turns into this "You are this, you are that, blah, bla, blah' condescending insulting discourse that seems to be your only card.
Now. Stop being contrarian. Admist you are as clueless as the rest of us and move on. Or aren't you capable of doing so?
What?
No I am not capable of saying I am clueless about the fact that we are thin at DT in a 43 defense, because we are.
There are facts here. If you feel you are clueless, which you just said you are, why are you disagreeing?
You must own a lot of Excedrin stock.
By the way, please do your best to get some really good insults in. Tell me how I know nothing, I am stupid, whatever you wish. You have the last word, becuase this is completely pointless to continue. I should have known better.