Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

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

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    looks like Seymour is still one of the best at standing his ground and playing the run...I hope he swallows some pride and comes back for a 4rth title run!

     



    Seymour has his 3 rings.  He doesn't care about another and just wants to get paid.  He is on record as saying so.  That in combination with the fact that the last we heard a few years ago he was still whining about us trading him leads me to believe the chances of his return are somewhere between nonexistent and zilch.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    It's also worth pointing out that two-gapping was designed more as a run stopping front than a pass rushing front.  If you've got big two-gap-style players, on pass plays what you want them to do is either penetrate a gap or force two offensive linemen to block them to free up opportunities for the edge rushers or LBs to get through.  In some instances, a big DL may be able to drive two offensive linemen back into the QB and smash the pocket that way, but mostly, you're hoping for either penetration or control of multiple blockers.  

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to wozzy's comment:

     

    Belichick needs to stop with this two defensive tackle and two linebackers playing at defensive end alignment.

    It gets zero pressure on opposing QB's and the other team can easily block it with 5 offensive linemen, which then allows their tightends to get out and make plays.

    Back in the day we used to run the 3/4, and when we went to nickel packages we ran the 3/3/5. Granted we don't have Wilfork, Seymour and Warren along the front but Wilfork, Brace and Love would suffice with the amount of linebacker talent we possess.

    Last night I almost gagged when I saw us roll out Kyle Love as the only true D lineman on a play with Cunningham at tackle next to him with Ninck and Jones on a crucial 3rd down... you probably remember it, Flacco ran 5 yards for the first down because our line got blown off the ball. We need more beef on the field.

    I implore you BB, let this experiment die, it hangs our secondary out to dry, opposing O Lines wear our undersized four man front into the ground by the start of the 2nd half and we continually give up sizable leads.  

    Go back to the 3/4 and the 3/3/5!

     



         The problem is that Chandler Jones is not 3-4 material. He's not a sturdy 3-4 DE, and he's doesn't appear to be OLB material, like a Willie McGinest. His best position appears to be as a 4-3 DE. If he can stay healthy, with the addition of some experience and strength, he has the makings of an outstanding 4-3 DE. As for Nink, you are quite correct about him being miscast as a 4-3 DE. He's better suited as a Vrable-like 3-4 OLB.

     

         The Jones "problem" is the reason why BB has deviated away from the 3-4. If Jones develops as expected, he'll become the Julius Peppers/Jason Pierre-Paul of the Pats' defense. Jones is the key to the Pats' "D" in 2013.      

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    Once a two gap defensive lineman has determined that the play is a pass play, they have carte blanche to get to the QB by any means necessary.  Thats why a sack rush total from a two gapper that's about half of what a 4/3 DT would get is pretty impressive. Also having 3 king kong sized guys inside that can crush a pocket means your edge rushers are coming in unimpeded and the direction of the pass rush is ususally a mystery.

    I suppose we could go back and forth about whether Jones can play 3/4 outside linebacker and you can say he can't, but you'd likely be wrong.  His measurables at the Syrcuse Pro Day, particularly his 20 yard shuttle and overall athleticism for a guy his size was impressive.

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

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    I suppose we could go back and forth about whether Jones can play 3/4 outside linebacker and you can say he can't, but you'd likely be wrong.  His measurables at the Syrcuse Pro Day, particularly his 20 yard shuttle and overall athleticism for a guy his size was impressive.



         Oh really?? Then explain to me why BB is not running his favorite defensive scheme, the 3-4? Is he doing this because he wants his "D" to be less effective? Is he doing it to annoy us? Or, is he doing it because his personnel isn't best suited to play a 3-4? Come on, man...think. 

     

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

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    Oh really?? Then explain to me why BB is not running his favorite defensive scheme, the 3-4? Is he doing this because he wants his "D" to be less effective? Is he doing it to annoy us? Or, is he doing it because his personnel isn't best suited to play a 3-4? Come on, man...think. 

     

     

    It's because a few years back BB had to make a decision to re-sign and over pay for Seymour or re-sign a younger Ty Warren, who was willing to sign a reasonable extension to stay a Patriot.  He signed Warren and Ty went on to have a career ending back injury.  We used to have number one draft choices across the defensive line; Ted Washington, Keith Traylor, Richard Seymour, Ty Warren and Wilfork were bedrock players.

    Now we have one 1st round draft choice (Wilfork), an undrafted free agent Kyle Love and a 7th round draft choice Brandon Deaderick next to him. 

    Really... and you're wondering why we run a two defensive tackle scheme and use outside linebackers as defensive ends?

    People have been here screaming for cornerbacks, safties and outside linebacker pass rushers for years... the problem starts inside and works it's way out.

     

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    I'm also not 100% convinced BB still thinks the 3-4, two-gap approach is the best for today's game. I agree with Wozzy on the need for better interior D linemen, but I'm not convinced the 3-4, two-gap scheme we used back in 2003 and 2004 is right for the spread type offenses we see so much of today.  Two-gap 3-4 is not really an attacking style defense.  It's more about holding position and stopping the run then aggressively getting up field to attack the QB on passing plays.  A lot of the aggressive 3-4s we see in the NFL now are more one-gap 3-4s or hybrid schemes.  As defenses have evolved, it's getting harder and harder to classify defenses as 3-4 or 4-3.  Really you have a bunch of different things that the front seven needs to be able to do--hold position at the LOS and attract double teams or collapse the pocket with power (DT type skills), flow to the ball on runs (MLB type skills), maintain the edge (OLB and DE type skills), penetrate and get upfield (rush skills), and drop into coverage (pass coverage skills).   More and more, I think all you're trying to do is get the right combination of players on the field and assign the right responsibilities to ensure you can do all those things on each play.  The more versatile your players are, the more your schemes get hard to classify, because no player is performing a pure, traditional DT or DE or MLB or OLB role. Only if your players are more one-dimensional do you need to put them in set positions where their role is easily classified and the scheme easily defined. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    Oh really?? Then explain to me why BB is not running his favorite defensive scheme, the 3-4? Is he doing this because he wants his "D" to be less effective? Is he doing it to annoy us? Or, is he doing it because his personnel isn't best suited to play a 3-4? Come on, man...think. 

     

     

    It's because a few years back BB had to make a decision to re-sign and over pay for Seymour or re-sign a younger Ty Warren, who was willing to sign a reasonable extension to stay a Patriot.  He signed Warren and Ty went on to have a career ending back injury.  We used to have number one draft choices across the defensive line; Ted Washington, Keith Traylor, Richard Seymour, Ty Warren and Wilfork were bedrock players.

    Now we have one 1st round draft choice (Wilfork), an undrafted free agent Kyle Love and a 7th round draft choice Brandon Deaderick next to him. 

    Really... ans you're wondering why we run a two defensive tackle scheme and use outside linebackers as defensive ends?

    People have been here screaming for cornerbacks, safties and outside linebacker pass rushers for years... the problem starts inside and works it's way out.

     

     



    Wozzy, I agree with the need for better linemen and think you're absolutely right about the drop in quality from guys like Seymour to guys like Love. 

    I wouldn't, however, say that the DBs have been great either.  A lot of those guys are mid to late round picks too.  Look at the clear improvement in coverage when Talib was healthy and McCourty moved to safety.  Both of those guys have lots of talent.  As much as I like Arrington, he's not a great corner.  Neither were Butler and Wilhite and Wheatley or even Ellis Hobbs.  And safety has not been a strong position with guys like Merriweather and Chung, both of whom have been let go for a reason. 

    A better pass rush will definitely help coverage . . . but better coverage will help coverage too. 

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

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Wozzy, I agree with the need for better linemen and think you're absolutely right about the drop in quality from guys like Seymour to guys like Love. 

    I wouldn't, however, say that the DBs have been great either.  A lot of those guys are mid to late round picks too.  Look at the clear improvement in coverage when Talib was healthy and McCourty moved to safety.  Both of those guys have lots of talent.  As much as I like Arrington, he's not a great corner.  Neither were Butler and Wilhite and Wheatley or even Ellis Hobbs.  And safety has not been a strong position with guys like Merriweather and Chung, both of whom have been let go for a reason. 

    A better pass rush will definitely help coverage . . . but better coverage will help coverage too. 

     



    An explosive pass rush, a push from the interior will make even the best QB's average.  When the broadcasters ask the analysts how can you beat Tom Brady the answer is inevitably is to get to him, you can't give him time back there.

     

    I stand by the notion that you build your team from the inside out.  Average DB's can make a career on teams with great fronts, the Ravens and Steelers have been proving that for years.

    I don't dispute that it's not a good idea to have great DB's but monster DT's are found in the first two rounds of the draft and rarely the third, corners and safeties can be found.  The past few years in particular our defensive backfield isn't as bad as advertised, the time opposing QB's have had to throw against us has been atrocious, absolutely horrendous...

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

     

    Oh really?? Then explain to me why BB is not running his favorite defensive scheme, the 3-4? Is he doing this because he wants his "D" to be less effective? Is he doing it to annoy us? Or, is he doing it because his personnel isn't best suited to play a 3-4? Come on, man...think. 

     

     

    It's because a few years back BB had to make a decision to re-sign and over pay for Seymour or re-sign a younger Ty Warren, who was willing to sign a reasonable extension to stay a Patriot.  He signed Warren and Ty went on to have a career ending back injury.  We used to have number one draft choices across the defensive line; Ted Washington, Keith Traylor, Richard Seymour, Ty Warren and Wilfork were bedrock players.

    Now we have one 1st round draft choice (Wilfork), an undrafted free agent Kyle Love and a 7th round draft choice Brandon Deaderick next to him. 

    Really... ans you're wondering why we run a two defensive tackle scheme and use outside linebackers as defensive ends?

    People have been here screaming for cornerbacks, safties and outside linebacker pass rushers for years... the problem starts inside and works it's way out.

     



         So...the bottom line appears to be that you agree swith me. The Pats aren't playing a 3-4 because they don't have the personnel to play it effectively. Why all the verbal gymnastics?

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ArmyPatsFan. Show ArmyPatsFan's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    This sounds like a terrible idea for an offensive line.  That is unless BB is going to put his extra tight ends on the field in the tackle spots.  Wow, that's genius!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    So...the bottom line appears to be that you agree swith me. The Pats aren't playing a 3-4 because they don't have the personnel to play it effectively. Why all the verbal gymnastics?



    You inferred that Chandler Jones was a 4/3 end only and that BB had made the switch to the 4/3 by choice.

    I say he is working his way back to the 3/4 slowly by adding pieces to his rebuilding defense until he has the option/ability to play either, and at which point he does have the talent to play the 4/3 or 3/4 effectively (which we haven't had either) he will still play the 3/4 if he has a healthy squad because it's a superior defense and provides more looks defensively.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from sporter81. Show sporter81's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    I think BB prefers the 3-4 . He always says that sometimes they play a certain way because they don't have the right players. They need a big time DT, in the old days they had Seymour and Warren, now they have Love and Deadrick. Big drop off.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I'm also not 100% convinced BB still thinks the 3-4, two-gap approach is the best for today's game. I agree with Wozzy on the need for better interior D linemen, but I'm not convinced the 3-4, two-gap scheme we used back in 2003 and 2004 is right for the spread type offenses we see so much of today.  Two-gap 3-4 is not really an attacking style defense.  It's more about holding position and stopping the run then aggressively getting up field to attack the QB on passing plays.  A lot of the aggressive 3-4s we see in the NFL now are more one-gap 3-4s or hybrid schemes.  As defenses have evolved, it's getting harder and harder to classify defenses as 3-4 or 4-3.  Really you have a bunch of different things that the front seven needs to be able to do--hold position at the LOS and attract double teams or collapse the pocket with power (DT type skills), flow to the ball on runs (MLB type skills), maintain the edge (OLB and DE type skills), penetrate and get upfield (rush skills), and drop into coverage (pass coverage skills).   More and more, I think all you're trying to do is get the right combination of players on the field and assign the right responsibilities to ensure you can do all those things on each play.  The more versatile your players are, the more your schemes get hard to classify, because no player is performing a pure, traditional DT or DE or MLB or OLB role. Only if your players are more one-dimensional do you need to put them in set positions where their role is easily classified and the scheme easily defined. 



    ... see that's how it's been used normally. By holding their spots, the DL would do a good job in defending the run. However, why can't it be an aggressive defense against the pass. Is there really something about the alignment that keeps them from playing aggressive against the pass? Or is it more because 2-gap personnel in the past have not been known to rush the passer well (slower and less agile). 

    I'd imagine that all these conventional thinking around these DLs were developed decades ago - perhaps before people ever heard of DTs weighing over 325, running sub 5.1 40s. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    5.1 may be an exaggeration

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

    In response to seattlepat70's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    I'm also not 100% convinced BB still thinks the 3-4, two-gap approach is the best for today's game. I agree with Wozzy on the need for better interior D linemen, but I'm not convinced the 3-4, two-gap scheme we used back in 2003 and 2004 is right for the spread type offenses we see so much of today.  Two-gap 3-4 is not really an attacking style defense.  It's more about holding position and stopping the run then aggressively getting up field to attack the QB on passing plays.  A lot of the aggressive 3-4s we see in the NFL now are more one-gap 3-4s or hybrid schemes.  As defenses have evolved, it's getting harder and harder to classify defenses as 3-4 or 4-3.  Really you have a bunch of different things that the front seven needs to be able to do--hold position at the LOS and attract double teams or collapse the pocket with power (DT type skills), flow to the ball on runs (MLB type skills), maintain the edge (OLB and DE type skills), penetrate and get upfield (rush skills), and drop into coverage (pass coverage skills).   More and more, I think all you're trying to do is get the right combination of players on the field and assign the right responsibilities to ensure you can do all those things on each play.  The more versatile your players are, the more your schemes get hard to classify, because no player is performing a pure, traditional DT or DE or MLB or OLB role. Only if your players are more one-dimensional do you need to put them in set positions where their role is easily classified and the scheme easily defined. 

     



    ... see that's how it's been used normally. By holding their spots, the DL would do a good job in defending the run. However, why can't it be an aggressive defense against the pass. Is there really something about the alignment that keeps them from playing aggressive against the pass? Or is it more because 2-gap personnel in the past have not been known to rush the passer well (slower and less agile). 

     

    I'd imagine that all these conventional thinking around these DLs were developed decades ago - perhaps before people ever heard of DTs weighing over 325, running sub 5.1 40s. 



    I think it's the personnel more than the alignment.  Big guys tend to be powerful, but not necessarily quick and agile. It is true that in a two-gap 3-4, your DLs tend to line up head-on with the O-linemen rather than in a gap and that may not be the best place to line-up to rush, but I don't believe that's as important as the skills of the players, though it would be good to hear from someone who has actually coached defensive lines and might have more knowledge of such details. 

     

Share