Warren: Pats getting away from 3-4.

[PatsWickedPissah]

Re: Too soon to talk D formations?

I thought newly acquired players could not practice till August 4th. At least that's what I heard on ESPN.

BB explained it as any player who has just signed a NEW contract can't play until then. Ocho, for example, is currently playing under his existing old contract, soon to be re-done, I predict.

 

[Fencer]

According to Peter King, Ty Warren said he'll take the veteran minimum to sign with a contender. Sounds to me like he's more hurt than maybe we realize.

Wow.

That also suggests that at least one of BB and Warren is really ready for him to move on from here.

Of course, he's not the most completely money-motivated of guys anyway, or he wouldn't have forgone $250,000 to finish his degree.

 

[Fencer]

I have been speculating that BB was gong to move to a 4-3. Lets face it, EVERYBODY is running the 3-4 now, which makes getting the talent that you need difficult.

There's a compelling argument that it's no longer a personnel ADVANTAGE to run a 3-4. But is it really a disadvantage yet?

 

[Fencer]

??? Huh? The whole article is about them quite possibly going away from the 3-4. Warren DID said say that too: "I think it looks like they are getting away from the 3-4".

More from the article: "Instead of the base 3-4 alignment, which the Patriots utilized in 40 percent of the defensive snaps in 2010, they could line up in a more traditional four-man".

Still more: "perhaps Belichick spent his lockout offseason re-evaluating his belief in the 3-4 as a core philosophy".

I respectfully don't think anybody is reading that into the article. It's what it says throughout.

The Tom Curran article did NOT provide good evidence that the Pats were moving away from a 3-4. A subsequent Mike Reiss article does, but even so Ty Warren is the source, so he may be spinning things a bit.

 

[Rich<3TheWoodhead]

There's a compelling argument that it's no longer a personnel ADVANTAGE to run a 3-4. But is it really a disadvantage yet?

BB was one of the first coaches to go 3-4, once teams got used to that hes going to switch it up and go 4-3....

 

[coolguy]

There's a compelling argument that it's no longer a personnel ADVANTAGE to run a 3-4. But is it really a disadvantage yet?

I hate to point out the 800 pound elephant in the room , but the patriots 3-4 defense hasn't been the same since romeo left. The pats don't have the brain trust anymore so i don't blame them from trying something knew.

 

[Fencer]

Ty has always been a DE throughout his career, whether that be a 3-4 DE with us, or a 4-3 DE in College. He's a terrific run defender, but he's not a DT.

He was a competent NT with the Pats when Ted Washington was hurt.

 

[ausbacker]

BB was one of the first coaches to go 3-4, once teams got used to that hes going to switch it up and go 4-3....

I've no idea what scheme the Patriots are going to run given BB has been historically a 3-4 guy. That said, with the transition of NFL defenses to the 3-4, OLB or schematic players will be in greater demand than 4-3 guys. Perhaps BB sees this as a fundamental change in philosophy that more players suited to the 4-3 will be available than 3-4 defenders.

Personally I don't care what defensive scheme the Patriots run as long as the D evolves and steps up to the plate to become a dominant top 5 NFL unit.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hate to point out the 800 pound elephant in the room , but the patriots 3-4 defense hasn't been the same since romeo left. The pats don't have the brain trust anymore so i don't blame them from trying something knew.

Personnel

Personnel

Personnel

 

[Shockt327]

Personnel

Personnel

Personnel

I don't disagree, but after watching the Chiefs so often last year - a D with many holes - they weren't even close to being as stagnant as the Patriots D has been for a couple years.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Re: Too soon to talk D formations?

I thought newly acquired players could not practice till August 4th. At least that's what I heard on ESPN.

I think that Ocho and Haynesworth can practice because we traded for them, not totally sure though.

 

[unoriginal]

My thoughts are that there's more to the notion that there's a shift to more 4-3 fronts because of the shortned offseason. I doubt BB would be wasting valuable time he has precious little off with it if it's not a look the team will be using more.

There may be something to that...

“At one point, we had to prepare for the offseason program, and that’s not really a part of it now,” Belichick told Ian Rapaport of the Boston Herald recently. “We talked about some kind of minicamp or [organized team activities], but now, we just turn our attention to training camp and get our teaching and organization straight there.”

In some ways, this point should be obvious. But it’s almost jarring to hear from a head coach like Belichick. We haven’t heard anyone else say it. Belichick also recognizes that his teaching methods will have to change in training camp and the playbook will have to be reduced.

“Something’s going to have to go, I would think. The progression’s got to stay the same, but the breadth of that amount of installation could be subject to being trimmed back, maybe drastically,” Belichick said.

Belichick assumes there will be no OTAs; playbook will be reduced | ProFootballTalk

For those pondering what a 4-3 base would look like, the 1997 Jets defensive playbook that's in internet circulation has, in most of its formations, one outside linebacker or the other, sometimes both, up on the line, making the formations look very much like a 3-4 or classic 4-3 under (i.e. Tampa Two style). It also has Sam, Mike and Will, not LOLB and ROLB, though the line positions ARE designated left and right.

So if you go off of that playbook, the lineman have to be relatively balanced left and right, but in the linebacking corps we could have a more specialized Sam and Will. So that wouldn't preclude Guyton, say, playing Will while a much bigger linebacker, like Ninkovich, fills in on the other side at Sam.

It would seem to preclude having Cunningham as weak end and Pryor or Wright on the strong side. But maybe that changes, who knows. Based on the playbook, what may happen to maintain balance is that a DT rotation of Wilfork, Haynesworth, Love and Brace takes shape with sets of heavy and light DEs based on situation, i.e. Pryor and Wright on short downs and Cunningham and Moore on long downs.

 

[coolguy]

I don't disagree, but after watching the Chiefs so often last year - a D with many holes - they weren't even close to being as stagnant as the Patriots D has been for a couple years.

Thank you.

People don't give romeo his credit for the pats success.

 

[BlueHen]

Why not trade Warren?? What am I missing?

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't disagree, but after watching the Chiefs so often last year - a D with many holes - they weren't even close to being as stagnant as the Patriots D has been for a couple years.

The Patriots allowed fewer points per game than the Chiefs, despite having to play more defensive snaps. They had a better YPC, and a better total rushing yards against. They allowed fewer rushing touchdowns. They allowed fewer big plays and forced the same number of fumbles. They allowed fewer points and had a lot more interceptions. They did all that in a year where the Patriots defense was weak by Patriots standards, and where that defense was without a starting CB and starting LDE for the entire 16 game season plus the playoffs.

I can't buy the 'stagnant' argument in comparison to the Chiefs, sorry.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There's a compelling argument that it's no longer a personnel ADVANTAGE to run a 3-4. But is it really a disadvantage yet?

I think it is. over a third of the defenses in the NFL run a 3-4 these days, but how many college programs do? How many high schools? The demand for 3-4 players has become very high, but the supply (of guys who have played in a 3-4 base extensively) is awfully low. You end up having to convert guys, and that's not a sure thing and it takes time.

When there were only a few teams running a 3-4 base, it was worth it because the OLBs and DEs were oftentimes tweeners in a 4-3, so you could get them at a bargain FA contract/draft spot. That's not really the case anymore. Now, guys like Tyson Jackson go #3 overall in the draft since they have the potential to one day be half as good as Richard Seymour. The pendulum has swung in the other direction, and until either a) more teams switch back to a 4-3 or b) more top-tier college programs start running a 3-4, it's going to be tough to find good fits.

That said, I'm still kinda skeptical that the Pats are making the switch. They're a Matt Roth signing away from having all of the personnel that they would need to run an effective 3-4, so if they do switch there will have to be some other, pretty compelling reasons.

 

[ausbacker]

Thank you.

People don't give romeo his credit for the pats success.

You're taking the piss right? I've read some stupid things on this board. The bold is right up there with the best of them.

 

[coolguy]

The Patriots allowed fewer points per game than the Chiefs, despite having to play more defensive snaps. They had a better YPC, and a better total rushing yards against. They allowed fewer rushing touchdowns. They allowed fewer big plays and forced the same number of fumbles. They allowed fewer points and had a lot more interceptions. They did all that in a year where the Patriots defense was weak by Patriots standards, and where that defense was without a starting CB and starting LDE for the entire 16 game season plus the playoffs.

I can't buy the 'stagnant' argument in comparison to the Chiefs, sorry.

Completely agree with your chiefs point. I just think BILL and romeo had something special defensively similar to what parcells had with bill.

 

[Sciz]

Why not trade Warren?? What am I missing?

Old, expensive, coming off injury

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Old, expensive, coming off injury

They probably tried to get a late round pick for him but didnt get any bites.