Belichick switch back to a 3 man front!

  1. 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. 

     

     
  2. 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.

     

     

     
  3. 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. 

     
  4. 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. 

     
  5. 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...

     

     

     
  6. 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?

     

     
  7. 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!

     
  8. 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.

     
  9. 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.

     
  10. 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. 

     
  11. 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

     
  12. 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. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts