Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    Last night is what happens when you sign basically all 4-3 personell, work primarily as an attacking unit all of camp, and then go back to the passive, two gapping strategy of years past.

    It was just awful seeing Mayo taking on blockers instead of wreaking havoc. I hope they were just working on two gapping so they could be more multiple, although I think it's silly to be multiple just to be multiple. If you're great at an attacking 4-3, then do that and do it well. Last night NOTHING was beneficial about their strategy. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    Yeah--I'm sure we'll go back to the 4-3 in the regular season.  I think BB, though, wanted to work on the 3-4 in this game and see how his guys could handle it. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    And they certainly didn't handle it well. There's reason to be frustrated but I doubt they stick with a scheme that doesn't work when the real bullets are flying.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:
    [QUOTE]And they certainly didn't handle it well. There's reason to be frustrated but I doubt they stick with a scheme that doesn't work when the real bullets are flying.
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]


    My guess is they'll use it occasionally during the season, but maybe not with the personnel they used last night.  I see us as primarily a 4-3, attacking defense now--but BB may morph to 3-4 against teams with stronger running games and weaker passing games. 



     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    I think the worst thing about last night was how bad they played against the run in a run orientated D. Based on last night the 3-4 had no benefits, but maybe it'll look better with different personell. The passive D sure looked familiar against the pass, and not in a good way. 


    In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:

    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night? : My guess is they'll use it occasionally during the season, but maybe not with the personnel they used last night.  I see us as primarily a 4-3, attacking defense now--but BB may morph to 3-4 against teams with stronger running games and weaker passing games. 
    Posted by prolate0spheroid[/QUOTE]

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    In Response to Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:
    [QUOTE]Last night is what happens when you sign basically all 4-3 personell, work primarily as an attacking unit all of camp, and then go back to the passive, two gapping strategy of years past. It was just awful seeing Mayo taking on blockers instead of wreaking havoc. I hope they were just working on two gapping so they could be more multiple, although I think it's silly to be multiple just to be multiple. If you're great at an attacking 4-3, then do that and do it well. Last night NOTHING was beneficial about their strategy. 
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    They had no choice. if you followed the game the announcers stated alot of the d-line didn't make the trip to Detroit.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsfaninpa420. Show patsfaninpa420's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    Yes and I'd also like to see the o-line that can protect Brady rather than allowing him to become a buffet every other play.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:
    [QUOTE]I think the worst thing about last night was how bad they played against the run in a run orientated D. Based on last night the 3-4 had no benefits, but maybe it'll look better with different personell. The passive D sure looked familiar against the pass, and not in a good way.  In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night? :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I agree . . . but I don't think they had all their regular 3-4 personnel in those 3-4 sets.  I admit to not watching closely enough last night to follow all the personnel groups (was doing other things while the game was on), but I don't think they ever had a full complement of their 3-4 style DEs and OLBs in the game all at once. It may look different when they put Wilfork, Pryor (?), and Warren in together, along with Nink, Spikes, Mayo, and Cunningham (or whatever their core 3-4 group will end up being).

    It seemed to me that they were particularly vulnerable to outside runs --- which probably has something to do with the OLBs in the 3-4 set. 


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    The 3-4 DL last night was


    Andre Carter (Not a 3-4 DE), Vince Wilfork (Got doubled) and Myron Pryor (Not a 3-4 DE). We had no OLBs (Only Nink dressed) and Guyton isn't a 3-4 MLB. The front 7 was awful for a reason, the secondary is another question. McCourty got owned and the other guys faired no better! 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    No, I liked what I seen last night.  I liked the way the lions offense basically did whatever they wanted to do.

    Of course I want to see that attacking D we seen privious 2 games.  What type of question is this?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    When games that matter in the standings start, we'll see that attacking D again. We'll also see a more balanced offense, not the 17 rush attempts vs 48 pass attempts offense we saw last night.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    They had no choice? Really? Why did Haynesworth and Ellis practice all week but not play in the game? I'm sure they could've played. I don't think BB wants the NFL to see this D with Haynesworth and Ellis (similar to 2007 with Randy Moss).

    In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night? : They had no choice. if you followed the game the announcers stated alot of the d-line didn't make the trip to Detroit.
    Posted by kansaspatriot[/QUOTE]
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    If you don't like the question then don't respond! It was a question to initiate a conversation obviously.

    In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:
    [QUOTE]No, I liked what I seen last night.  I liked the way the lions offense basically did whatever they wanted to do. Of course I want to see that attacking D we seen privious 2 games.  What type of question is this?
    Posted by BradyMossFan[/QUOTE]
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    The "D" will iron itself out. Too much talent at END. I mean half the starters were chilling last night.

    The offensive line, which has looked average, looked terrible again. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    Whatever.  Obviously something was wrong last night.  I don't see it being the way things will be going forward, but I did expect better.  
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    I love attacking defenses, but you do see them fooled on screens and draws (delays) etc. I wonder if Belichick was trying to reemphasize a stay at home approach to teach some discipline. Obviously whatever it was it failed. I think this is the first time in 4 years we'll see a defense that won't have to play second fiddle to our offense, it just will take some time.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatFanInBA2. Show PatFanInBA2's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:
    [QUOTE]The "D" will iron itself out. Too much talent at END. I mean half the starters were chilling last night. The offensive line, which has looked average, looked terrible again. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    agreed! not worried about our D yet - the secondary needs improvement, but I am still not as worried.

    Terrified about our offense - didn't pass-block, didn't run-block, didn't throw well, didn't catch well, didn't run well..

    We are still missing our deep threat...thought it could have been Price...not sure yet...!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    Spikes is a HUGE upgrade over Guyton at MLB.  Guyton just can't shed blocks and can't even hold his ground, regularly getting blown back 3-4 yards.  Guyton is for pass-catching RBs and subpackages only

    Meanwhile, Andre Carter and Myron Pryor are not run-stopping 3-4 DEs.  Good experience just to see if they can do it, but Gerard Warren and Shaun Ellis are your 3-4 DEs, with Wilfork at nose tackle.

    Meanwhile, Albert Haynesworth and Mark Anderson also didn't make the trip, both of whom have flashed an ability to contribute.

    Neither did Leigh Bodden.

    The lasting concern is at safety.  Sadly, they all made the trip
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?

    In Response to Re: Anyone else want to see the attacking D and not what we saw last night?:
    [QUOTE]Spikes is a HUGE upgrade over Guyton at MLB.  Guyton just can't shed blocks and can't even hold his ground, regularly getting blown back 3-4 yards.  Guyton is for pass-catching RBs and subpackages only Meanwhile, Andre Carter and Myron Pryor are not run-stopping 3-4 DEs.  Good experience just to see if they can do it, but Gerard Warren and Shaun Ellis are your 3-4 DEs, with Wilfork at nose tackle. Meanwhile, Albert Haynesworth and Mark Anderson also didn't make the trip, both of whom have flashed an ability to contribute. Neither did Leigh Bodden. The lasting concern is at safety.  Sadly, they all made the trip
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I thought Anderson played most of the game on the left side? Whoever it was they were terrible - no pressure - just got locked up with the tackle and made no plays.
     

Share