Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sam-Adams' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    IMO this thread is ridiculous bordering on treason. Pete sold the farm to put this team together, his drafts for the next couple years are terrible. He also has a team full of guys looking for more money and now the real test starts with Seattle......how do you stay on top and keep your key guys paid. You think Wilson's good with the rookie contract amount he's playing with now? How bout the legion of boom, ya think they'll be Ok just re-signing for last years contract amounts?

    BB has his faults but don't sit here now and throw out this crap about how he's not in touch just because Petey had a good year. Let me ask you something PV, how would the Pats have looked this year if they still had Hernandez, if Wilfork, Mayo, Kelly and Gronk (for the most part) didn't miss the season. If Vareen and Talib didn't miss half the year? They would have been in NY last night and I'm not really sure what that outcome would have been but it would have been a lot better than what we watched I'll tell you that.

    And........BB has the 2nd youngest team in the NFL set up perfectly to keep this 13 year run of excellance rolling on to next year. It's disrespectful treason to say he's out of touch because of what Pete put together in Seattle for one season. It's also jealous and exactly why other parts of the country hate Pats fans.

    [/QUOTE]

    The irony of someone with a screen name Sam-Adams with a pic of Sam Adams the revolutionary saying anything is treason..... Really did Pete sell the farm? Look at what he actually spent and the draft picks used. It would take 2-3 years to recover at most and from it he got a very young elite D. how is that selling the farm? 2-3 years from now he can do it again and pick and chose which players he wants to keep from that lot. Not to mention in 15' the cap space goes from the 120's to the 140's that's and extra 20mil to use. It affords him the ability to keep and maintain those players down the road.

    [/QUOTE]

    Pat, it's easy to say Pete put a good team together and won the superbowl. This doesn't mean that BB's approach to the game is wrong. It's worked through three generations of players, countless roster changes, coaching changes and if it weren't for a couple key injuries they would have been in NY again last night.

    Now....my point is Seattle is going to have a heck of a time keeping this team together. Here's a few salaries to consider;

    R Wilson $681K, Wagnewr $979K, Tate $ 880K, Browner $773K, Sherman $600K, Maxwell $583K, Baldwin $560K, Kerse $480K.

    These are just a few, E Thomas is only $2.8 and you know their coaching staff is going to start taking off to HC jobs in the NCAA and NFL.

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    The irony of someone with a screen name Sam-Adams with a pic of Sam Adams the revolutionary saying anything is treason..... Really did Pete sell the farm? Look at what he actually spent and the draft picks used. It would take 2-3 years to recover at most and from it he got a very young elite D. how is that selling the farm? 2-3 years from now he can do it again and pick and chose which players he wants to keep from that lot. Not to mention in 15' the cap space goes from the 120's to the 140's that's and extra 20mil to use. It affords him the ability to keep and maintain those players down the road.



    Seattle is at $127 mil now with a number of FAs, will lose some guys, probably restructure a few and figure it out, at least until Wilson is due his $100 mil plus. I don't know exactly what the cap is going to do, but my understanding is it wouldn't rise as dramatically as you suggest.

    This projection might not be right on, it's from 2012, but not sure it's too far off. I always heard that the sixth year of the new CBA which is 2017, as the year for any significant increase.

    2013: $121 mil

    2014: $122 mil

    2015: $125 mil

    2016: $130 mil

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to Sam-Adams' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Pat, it's easy to say Pete put a good team together and won the superbowl. This doesn't mean that BB's approach to the game is wrong. It's worked through three generations of players, countless roster changes, coaching changes and if it weren't for a couple key injuries they would have been in NY again last night.

    Now....my point is Seattle is going to have a heck of a time keeping this team together. Here's a few salaries to consider;

    R Wilson $681K, Wagnewr $979K, Tate $ 880K, Browner $773K, Sherman $600K, Maxwell $583K, Baldwin $560K, Kerse $480K.

    These are just a few, E Thomas is only $2.8 and you know their coaching staff is going to start taking off to HC jobs in the NCAA and NFL.

    [/QUOTE]

    And just because people question BB approach doesn't make it treason. The NFL is consistently evoling so why is it treason to question an approach that worked 10 yrs ago but no longer works in the modern NFL? It's an approach that allows you to remain competitive but as we've seen the last 5 seasons the more talented and agressive teams have won. Look at the teams that beat us, they had more upfront talent and had more agressive D's then passive one's. It's great to say, well we've had x number of winning seasons but when you have the GOAT QB and coach and both have limited lifespans is competitive good enough?

    As for your salary numbers doesn't that apply to the Pats as well. They are consistently adding 10+ rooks every year, so wouldn't the same numbers apply? Frankly imo that's a great problem to have because that means you have productive rooks who are playing above their salary. Wouldn't you want that problem too? That's like saying you have to many pitchers in baseball. But, looking at the Pats, they resigned Mayo, Gronk, Wilfork, Hern, Mankins all to high level deals so what's the difference between what you are comparing and what the Pats have done? They gave $4mil a year to Arrington???? You are telling me that Sea wouldn't give that to Sherman and that it's alright if the Pats do it for Arrington but crazy if Sea does it for Sherman? But, really if that's your thinking tell me what are we paying, Dennard, Ryan, Jones, Hightower, Dobson.... see the same issue applies to the Pats as it does Sea with the exception that Sea has higher talented players so they will have to pay them more or let them go and somehow having higher talented players that got you a SB is an issue?

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    The irony of someone with a screen name Sam-Adams with a pic of Sam Adams the revolutionary saying anything is treason..... Really did Pete sell the farm? Look at what he actually spent and the draft picks used. It would take 2-3 years to recover at most and from it he got a very young elite D. how is that selling the farm? 2-3 years from now he can do it again and pick and chose which players he wants to keep from that lot. Not to mention in 15' the cap space goes from the 120's to the 140's that's and extra 20mil to use. It affords him the ability to keep and maintain those players down the road.

     



    Seattle is at $127 mil now with a number of FAs, will lose some guys, probably restructure a few and figure it out, at least until Wilson is due his $100 mil plus. I don't know exactly what the cap is going to do, but my understanding is it wouldn't rise as dramatically as you suggest.

     

    This projection might not be right on, it's from 2012, but not sure it's too far off. I always heard that the sixth year of the new CBA which is 2017, as the year for any significant increase.

    2013: $121 mil

    2014: $122 mil

    2015: $125 mil

    2016: $130 mil

    [/QUOTE]

    I'll have to double check but I remember seeing in the new CBA that the first couple of years were low but once the new TV contract kicked in there was a large increase, a jump of 20mil

    EDIT: You are correc. What I say was including player benefits which the min cap for players benefits increases to $148mil. Here's a good article that explains it

    http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/06/18/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-cap.aspx

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sam-Adams' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Pat, it's easy to say Pete put a good team together and won the superbowl. This doesn't mean that BB's approach to the game is wrong. It's worked through three generations of players, countless roster changes, coaching changes and if it weren't for a couple key injuries they would have been in NY again last night.

    Now....my point is Seattle is going to have a heck of a time keeping this team together. Here's a few salaries to consider;

    R Wilson $681K, Wagnewr $979K, Tate $ 880K, Browner $773K, Sherman $600K, Maxwell $583K, Baldwin $560K, Kerse $480K.

    These are just a few, E Thomas is only $2.8 and you know their coaching staff is going to start taking off to HC jobs in the NCAA and NFL.

    [/QUOTE]

    And just because people question BB approach doesn't make it treason. The NFL is consistently evoling so why is it treason to question an approach that worked 10 yrs ago but no longer works in the modern NFL? It's an approach that allows you to remain competitive but as we've seen the last 5 seasons the more talented and agressive teams have won. Look at the teams that beat us, they had more upfront talent and had more agressive D's then passive one's. It's great to say, well we've had x number of winning seasons but when you have the GOAT QB and coach and both have limited lifespans is competitive good enough?

    As for your salary numbers doesn't that apply to the Pats as well. They are consistently adding 10+ rooks every year, so wouldn't the same numbers apply? Frankly imo that's a great problem to have because that means you have productive rooks who are playing above their salary. Wouldn't you want that problem too? That's like saying you have to many pitchers in baseball. But, looking at the Pats, they resigned Mayo, Gronk, Wilfork, Hern, Mankins all to high level deals so what's the difference between what you are comparing and what the Pats have done? They gave $4mil a year to Arrington???? You are telling me that Sea wouldn't give that to Sherman and that it's alright if the Pats do it for Arrington but crazy if Sea does it for Sherman? But, really if that's your thinking tell me what are we paying, Dennard, Ryan, Jones, Hightower, Dobson.... see the same issue applies to the Pats as it does Sea with the exception that Sea has higher talented players so they will have to pay them more or let them go and somehow having higher talented players that got you a SB is an issue?

    [/QUOTE]

    Agree 100%.

    i don't think Pete sold anything out to win it this year. He and the GM drafted wisely and got very productive FAs. Yes, they will lose some come contract time, but as you point out, every team does. 

    What impresses me most about the way Seattle is built is their roster is comprised of young talent, acquired in all rounds. It's not 15, highly paid first round guys, but guys they struck gold on in rounds 2-7 also. 

    How many of us wanted Tate, Chancellor, etc? These guys were all well known on our draft board here. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sam-Adams' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Pat, it's easy to say Pete put a good team together and won the superbowl. This doesn't mean that BB's approach to the game is wrong. It's worked through three generations of players, countless roster changes, coaching changes and if it weren't for a couple key injuries they would have been in NY again last night.

    Now....my point is Seattle is going to have a heck of a time keeping this team together. Here's a few salaries to consider;

    R Wilson $681K, Wagnewr $979K, Tate $ 880K, Browner $773K, Sherman $600K, Maxwell $583K, Baldwin $560K, Kerse $480K.

    These are just a few, E Thomas is only $2.8 and you know their coaching staff is going to start taking off to HC jobs in the NCAA and NFL.

    [/QUOTE]

    And just because people question BB approach doesn't make it treason. The NFL is consistently evoling so why is it treason to question an approach that worked 10 yrs ago but no longer works in the modern NFL? It's an approach that allows you to remain competitive but as we've seen the last 5 seasons the more talented and agressive teams have won. Look at the teams that beat us, they had more upfront talent and had more agressive D's then passive one's. It's great to say, well we've had x number of winning seasons but when you have the GOAT QB and coach and both have limited lifespans is competitive good enough?

    As for your salary numbers doesn't that apply to the Pats as well. They are consistently adding 10+ rooks every year, so wouldn't the same numbers apply? Frankly imo that's a great problem to have because that means you have productive rooks who are playing above their salary. Wouldn't you want that problem too? That's like saying you have to many pitchers in baseball. But, looking at the Pats, they resigned Mayo, Gronk, Wilfork, Hern, Mankins all to high level deals so what's the difference between what you are comparing and what the Pats have done? They gave $4mil a year to Arrington???? You are telling me that Sea wouldn't give that to Sherman and that it's alright if the Pats do it for Arrington but crazy if Sea does it for Sherman? But, really if that's your thinking tell me what are we paying, Dennard, Ryan, Jones, Hightower, Dobson.... see the same issue applies to the Pats as it does Sea with the exception that Sea has higher talented players so they will have to pay them more or let them go and somehow having higher talented players that got you a SB is an issue?

    [/QUOTE]

    Pat, were they/you questioning the approach when they were bringing home the rings? I doubt it......all I heard was what a defensive genious he is and that was exactly the approach they took....bend don't break. Now because of a domino of events that happend to the Pats this year this same approach is outdated? If they stayed healthy they would have been there last night with a chance to win!

    For me.....I'll wait and be loyal to the BB approach and wait to see how Pete's approach works over time "before I jump to the other side"

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to Sam-Adams's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Sam-Adams' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Pat, it's easy to say Pete put a good team together and won the superbowl. This doesn't mean that BB's approach to the game is wrong. It's worked through three generations of players, countless roster changes, coaching changes and if it weren't for a couple key injuries they would have been in NY again last night.

    Now....my point is Seattle is going to have a heck of a time keeping this team together. Here's a few salaries to consider;

    R Wilson $681K, Wagnewr $979K, Tate $ 880K, Browner $773K, Sherman $600K, Maxwell $583K, Baldwin $560K, Kerse $480K.

    These are just a few, E Thomas is only $2.8 and you know their coaching staff is going to start taking off to HC jobs in the NCAA and NFL.



    And just because people question BB approach doesn't make it treason. The NFL is consistently evoling so why is it treason to question an approach that worked 10 yrs ago but no longer works in the modern NFL? It's an approach that allows you to remain competitive but as we've seen the last 5 seasons the more talented and agressive teams have won. Look at the teams that beat us, they had more upfront talent and had more agressive D's then passive one's. It's great to say, well we've had x number of winning seasons but when you have the GOAT QB and coach and both have limited lifespans is competitive good enough?

    As for your salary numbers doesn't that apply to the Pats as well. They are consistently adding 10+ rooks every year, so wouldn't the same numbers apply? Frankly imo that's a great problem to have because that means you have productive rooks who are playing above their salary. Wouldn't you want that problem too? That's like saying you have to many pitchers in baseball. But, looking at the Pats, they resigned Mayo, Gronk, Wilfork, Hern, Mankins all to high level deals so what's the difference between what you are comparing and what the Pats have done? They gave $4mil a year to Arrington???? You are telling me that Sea wouldn't give that to Sherman and that it's alright if the Pats do it for Arrington but crazy if Sea does it for Sherman? But, really if that's your thinking tell me what are we paying, Dennard, Ryan, Jones, Hightower, Dobson.... see the same issue applies to the Pats as it does Sea with the exception that Sea has higher talented players so they will have to pay them more or let them go and somehow having higher talented players that got you a SB is an issue?

    [/QUOTE]

    Pat, were they/you questioning the approach when they were bringing home the rings? I doubt it......all I heard was what a defensive genious he is and that was exactly the approach they took....bend don't break. Now because of a domino of events that happend to the Pats this year this same approach is outdated? If they stayed healthy they would have been there last night with a chance to win!

    For me.....I'll wait and be loyal to the BB approach and wait to see how Pete's approach works over time "before I jump to the other side"

    [/QUOTE]


    sam, with all due respect..when we won SBs. we were not a BBDB D. We had guys playing man press. a dominated 4-3/3-4 that ..always had an extra rusher coming. In 2003, the qbs we faced left the game with their WORST Qb rating of the year. Lately, we are giving bum Qbs the HIGHEST rating of the season. Not even close man. Romeo used to call double safety blitzes. I recall one vs Houston w/Rodney and Wilson. Both got there. You havent seen ANY of that except for preseason. The approach is EXACTLY the same as Carrols now. Get behind your 2nd your QB who can manage the game. Run the ball and play great D. Since 2005, weve become, Build up the O, try to outscore opponents while asking your D to get redzone stops after giving up yards...

     

    Everyone Schemes differently  but there are only TWO approaches. Offense or Defense. Seattles is clearly D. OUR Dynasty years were LED BY DEFENSE...Since 2005, our OFFENSE has been the focus. Carrol hasnt done anything innovative or New. He has done the oldest thing in the book. Run and Play D. Simple. Why you guys complicate it is beyond Me. Your blind allegiance to BB makes you incapable of making rationale determinations. Its called , BUILD YOUR D, Trade a 4th rounder for a Beast of a Back and draft a game managing QB in the 3rd round. It worked. He isnt doing anything out of this world. He stuck to HIS guns when everyone ELSE tried to get cute and CHANGE with the times....including BB. DEFENSE STILL WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS. Brady/BB well they WILL win a lot of regular season games. Nothing more.

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Footballexpert45's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Seattle proved it is more about talent than scheme.  The Seahawks were just quicker and hard hitting, no complicated scheming, just good old fashioned hard hitting and pressure.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think that's more or less right.  I'd have to go back and re-watch, but I don't remember a heck of a lot of blitzing.  I just think Seattle has better athletes.  The scheme question is interesting, but I haven't really compared the Pats' scheme with Seattle's carefully, so I'm not sure how radically different they are. 

    Belichick does have a reputation for being more conservative on defense, protecting against the big play rather than trying to attack aggressively.  And he's really big on "team" defense, while Carroll seems to encourage and even celebrate "individual" accomplishment.  Belichick is all about control, while Carroll is all about freeing guys to be themselves.  There's definitely a big difference in style between a Belichick and a Carroll or even a Ryan brother. The latter guys want players with swagger who talk a lot and are hyper confident in their individual ability.  Belichick wants quieter guys who put team first.  I'm not sure either approach is better or worse.  However, I do think to be effective with an aggressive defense you need great athletes who are also smart and disciplined enough not to blow the scheme.  Belichick has plenty of smart and disciplined guys, but does he have enough great athletes?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What does "bend but don't break" even mean? Are you guys talking about not pressuring the QB enough? Because if you are thinking that running aggressive blitzes all the time would ahve yielded better results for the Pats then I do not agree.

    Seattle achieved pass pressure mostly by sending just their front four to rush the QB and dropping back 7. Isn't that what the "bend but don't break" D also tries to do? Just becasue the result is very different, I don't believe tactically, Carroll and BB were significantly apart.

    The main difference has been the kind of personnel the two coaches like.

    BB likes a that robust anchor in the middle, supplemented by DLs who are very disciplined in watching the gaps, backed by LBs and DBs who have positional/ zone discipline.

    Carroll always like players with speed. Even in the interior DL -- the 300 pounders -- have very active legs. He always liked LBs who can fly. The oversized CBs were Schneider's idea. Carroll, historically, did not mind smaller, faster CBs. The compromise they reached yielded their big, fast CBs.

    I think Carroll's kind of people just can achieve more in today's game than BB's type.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to Sam-Adams' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Pat, were they/you questioning the approach when they were bringing home the rings? I doubt it......all I heard was what a defensive genious he is and that was exactly the approach they took....bend don't break. Now because of a domino of events that happend to the Pats this year this same approach is outdated? If they stayed healthy they would have been there last night with a chance to win!

    For me.....I'll wait and be loyal to the BB approach and wait to see how Pete's approach works over time "before I jump to the other side"

    [/QUOTE]

    Because at the time the approach worked but it no longer does. The league has changed and what worked 10 yrs ago no longer works in todays NFL. Do you have a 10 yr old computer and think it will run the same programs as todays computers with no issues? You can work them too but they aren't going to be nearly the same in the end as the new systems. The entire NFL is evolving and you need to adapt to survive. What did we say 15 yrs ago when BB started this that he adapted a new system and other teams needed to catch up? I'm glad he didn't take Lombardi's system and run with it personally but that was a heck of a system too that won a bunch of games. You can't stand in one spot and say well this worked 10 yrs ago it should still work today when the whole of the system has changed

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sam-Adams. Show Sam-Adams's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    Pat, PhatVirgin, Triple OG,

    The use of treason was dramatic and not accurate. when I read the opening post it struck me as someone who just forgot about the past 13 years and how many incredible football games we were part of because of BB's approaches to the game and wanted to jump because Seattle had some success with it for one year.  
    I also wanted to try and point out how Seattle will now have a much tougher time due to turnover and salary demands which is possibly wht the Pats are where they are.

    I never said our defense didn't need pass rushing or better corner/safety coverage, my guess is if we had that we wouldn't be in a bend don't break situation. I also think the Pats could have had a chance to play with these guys if they could have put the team they thought they were going to have on the field healthy last night.

    I do realize this is a discussion.....I just think they were a lot closer this past year than tone of the post suggested.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from guesmem2011. Show guesmem2011's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    There is not one player on the Pats D that could have started for the Seahawks; even the players before the injury.  I don't know who the Broncos offensive coordinator is, but I'd bet there wasn't one individual Patriots defensive player they game planned for in the AFC Championship game.  Nickovich (sp?), nice role player, but a pass rusher on an elite team?  Gregory and McCourty; always two steps late.....

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to Sam-Adams's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Pat, PhatVirgin, Triple OG,

    The use of treason was dramatic and not accurate. when I read the opening post it struck me as someone who just forgot about the past 13 years and how many incredible football games we were part of because of BB's approaches to the game and wanted to jump because Seattle had some success with it for one year.  
    I also wanted to try and point out how Seattle will now have a much tougher time due to turnover and salary demands which is possibly wht the Pats are where they are.

    I never said our defense didn't need pass rushing or better corner/safety coverage, my guess is if we had that we wouldn't be in a bend don't break situation. I also think the Pats could have had a chance to play with these guys if they could have put the team they thought they were going to have on the field healthy last night.

    I do realize this is a discussion.....I just think they were a lot closer this past year than tone of the post suggested.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is true. If we could bottle up our defense, all nice and healthy coming out of training camp and then open it in january that would be Ideal. My only gripe is we were in year 9 of a rebuild before that D looked good but it was also incredilbly thin. None of the Depth we had DID ANYTHING. Nink and CJ adimittedly played too many snaps. Imagine how they would have looked if not for 40 y/o Carter coming in late? How about C.Jones and Vellano and Bequette and Buchanan?? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND once BB found depth on OTHER teams. For Years he has let Vince wear down with no help. JUST THIS PAST YEAR, he finally got TK but Vince had already worn down playing with a ankle injury and then busted up his achilles. Then KT gets hurt cuz HE is the only guy inside , taking a beating.

    How hard is it to draft a lineman(C,G) these days? Give Logan 8  mill/yr so he has to play with Scrubs??   How about keeping Gregory on the field when he hadnt made a tackle since his hand got hurt?  Harmon anyone...  You put a 3 and 4 man rush on Manning ALL day and not once rotate a lineman and you expect pressure?  Im sorry but does any of that sound like great GM or great coaching?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    I want a bend and break D... Bend and break the other teams offense...

    Count down to the meltdown

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to rkarp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    TOP is an over rated stat

    [/QUOTE]

    Overall TOP isn't particularly useful, but giving up long, clock-eating drives is generally a bad thing.  It's a big reason the Pats lost against Denver and also against the Giants in two Super Bowls.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    I'm not in favor of the BBDB defense, but it could be the defense we use out of necessity, you can't have an attacking D without the skill level necessary to cover for any missed assignments, The Patriots can't stop the run, so if  they all out blitz they are screwed if the guy hits a gap in the rush he's off to the races, and is in the second level before anyone even knows he's gone. They can remedy some of this by way of the draft and even more via Free agency, in order to play that style of defense the Patriots have to improve their defenders, at all three levels. Collins was a nice draft choice, and he could be a true OLB/DE type that they have been looking for since Willie Mac left town. They are going to need another run stuffing LB because my guess is Spikes is already packing for parts unknown. They also need another DT who is capable of occupying two linemen at a time, and finally they need another cover corner who doesn't need over the top assistance on every play! I really thought that Dennard was that guy, but I'm having my reservations after the Broncos game. Re-signing Talib is a must, or they have to sign another #1 CB. Finally this is the most important piece to running an agressive defense they must have a SS who can hit like a steamroller, and still be able to drop into coverage. Until they have all of these components they will have to continue playing the BBDB defense. By the way I'm not a Patricia fan either, but he may be just playing the cards he's been dealt.

     

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to PatsLifer's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garytx's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think you miss the purpose of the bend but don't break.  It works.

    The defense the Pats started with this year wasn't a bend but don't break defense.  It turned into that when they started losing players.  The talent wasn't there.  The bend but don't break defense is good enough to hide the short comings of the players on the field.  It's a good defense when the talent isn't there.  

    The way to get rid of the bend but don't break is talent.  Very good depth.  But in this day and age you'll never see it.  Most teams go down with the ship.  BB tries to keep things together to get into the playoffs where anything can happen.  

    [/QUOTE]

    Assuming the players were all healthy, did they have the players to serve it up to Denver the way Seattle did? 

    When I look at seattles defense, I see size, speed and power. They attack and do so constantly. Relentless is a better way to describe them. 

    PI just don't see that in the pats d..healthy or not.

    [/QUOTE]

    What I was addressing was the bend but don't break.  I wasn't comparing the Pats defense to Seattles.  The Pats did not play a bend but don't break style of defense at the beginning of the year.  

    Sure, I would love the Pats D to be in the ballpark to compare it to Seattles.  It isn't and it's no secret.  I don't know where you are going with this as far as my post goes.

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

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    In response to PhatVirgin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to garytx's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think you miss the purpose of the bend but don't break.  It works.

    The defense the Pats started with this year wasn't a bend but don't break defense.  It turned into that when they started losing players.  The talent wasn't there.  The bend but don't break defense is good enough to hide the short comings of the players on the field.  It's a good defense when the talent isn't there.  

    The way to get rid of the bend but don't break is talent.  Very good depth.  But in this day and age you'll never see it.  Most teams go down with the ship.  BB tries to keep things together to get into the playoffs where anything can happen.  

    [/QUOTE]

    it didn't vs. Denver.

    [/QUOTE]

    It got the Pats into the playoffs.  Obviously, the bend but don't break isn't a desirable defense but when you have the injuries the defense had you have the scubs on the field.  The bend but don't break gives you a chance and the Pats had it against Denver.  It's not like they ran away with the game.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from murghkhor. Show murghkhor's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    I prefer "Bend but don't break" to "Bend and break"

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Time to Modify Bend But Don't Break?

    Bend but don't break is a myth. New England doesn't have that defense. It's a name for what you implement when you have a large lead and are willing to trade yards/FGs for TOP. You allow short passes and gains over the middle in exchange for the more valuable time it consumes. 

    New England, like every team, doesn't like allowing touchdowns. Unfortunately, they haven't had the personell to prevent aerial TDs in the past few seasons. Thus, like every team in this situation, the have use a lot of two deep personell to limit damaging quick scores. Again, last season aside, they've had a good run defense. NE has relied on trying to pin it's opponent in 3rd and long, and prevent the team from making the necessary yardage as a scheme, only because it's the scheme they can actually execute.

    Again, when Bill actually had a great defense, New England was NOT BBDB. They were a perennial top five scoring defense, a perennial top five sack defense, and a perennial top 10 turnover defense. They were also a perennial top 5-10 yardage defense, and thus a top 5-10 TOP defense. Most often they were top three in those categories, even if they weren't in the historic category Seattle is in.

    Most importantly, they were top five 3rd down conversion defenses as well. 

    They didn't bend often, and they didn't break often. 

    This ... is ... a ... myth. 

    The defense New England has fielded lately, which bends more than most defenses in the NFL (perennial bottom 5-10 in yardage) and perennially middle of the pack scoring defense is a reflection of what Bill has done to mitigate the lack of talent at certain positions. 

    It's not a philosophy. It's something they do because they have no other choice. 

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share