Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to dfitzp's comment:

     

    I can't wait to see Gronk and Sudfeld out there together. I've been high on him since he signed as a free agent. He is 6'7" and has a 37" verticle to go with great hands. I also thought Jamie Collins looked good. The starting front 7 generated a lot of pressure. Tommy Kelly looks better than advertised. Also Duron Harmon seemed to react too slow in coverage most of the night. I know he has been imprsessive most of camp but it was a down night for him.

     



    Harmon wasn't terrible. I didn't want to just pick on defensive guys too. If I were to add another defender to the "down" category, it would be Logan Ryan. Burnt on a TD and burnt on a long gainer by backup Tiquan Underwood.

     

    It was a rough night for the rookie.

    Logan looked great on the pick 6 though didn't he!!!


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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to AFL_Pat's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I agrre with all your comments. My concern is why waste the entire 2nd half playing Tebow.

    I like Tebow as a person but he's not an NFL QB.  Mallet needs more game action to

    get better - he has potential but needs a lot more game action to improve,  In addition, there

    are a lot of other players on the field withTebow who are not getting a good chance to show what they can do.

    The new WRs need more time with a real QB to give them more NFL game experience.  BB needs to end

    the Tebow experiment and give the other offensive players a fair chance to show what they can do.



    Before he ends the so called expieriment I'd like to see TT with the first team line and receivers. I think you will see a different story.


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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

     

     

     

     




     

     

    5 tackles for a loss I agree they looked great. How about Tommy kelly next to VW? I think that duo gives us the closest thing we have had to VW and Seymour, or Ted Washington and Seymour.

    I saw Jones play as a LB last night and rush the QB late( he piled onto the Nink sack and would have got the sack if Nink wasn't there 1st) and he looked good doing it. Agree about Nink, it seems he improves every year. Bequette looked bad last night, as did Tavon, and Tebow(ouch).

    I like Forston to make this team and get some PT. He looked the part the last 2 games imo. How about Adrian Wilson saving the kick return touch down? I guess he still has speed after all!

    I disagree on Bolden, thought the O-line let guys in last night and imo he hits the hole hard and can take on the 1st hit pretty well. Good depth player imo.

     



    Jones was lined up at DE the entire night. The highlights are on NFL.com to see. If it's Chandler Jones you are talking about. On that play the OLB was Spikes, who was split outside Jones. 

    The last play of the 1st qtr on 3rd and 10(which is the play I refered to) has VW and Benard in the middle. Nink on the left end. Jones and Hightower at the right end with Spikes as the middle LB who comes up to the LOS showing blitz. Aside from those 5 there are 6 DB's on the field. No Mayo. Jones is standing next to Hightower who rushes the QB while Jones chips the TE passing him off to Adrian Wilson. Then Jones comes in late on a blitz. So, to me it is splitting hairs saying Jones was only a DE, when he was standing, dropping into a zone for a second, jamming the TE and then rushing the QB from the middle of the line. It looked a lot to me like a typical Willie Mac position of DE/OLB. But hey your the coach so if you say he was ONLY a DE the whole time then so be it.

     

    Bolden is down, because he is last in the pecking order and didn't do something to distinguish himself. As the preseason wears on, it looks like he might be on the outside looking in. It doesn't matter if he is an ok "depth" player ... NE has better guys off the bench and can only carry so many running backs. 

    It's really just a nod to the fact that he is losing the training camp battle, right now, for the last RB spot. Whether someone thinks he is good depth or not: he's losing the battle and after two straight weeks with Blount getting first team reps, he looks like he's on cut watch.

    Bolden is certainly fighting an up hill battle trying to beat out a proven NFL vet that we just traded for. Yet you insinuate he was down because of his play, and imo he played well in his opportunity. That is where I disagree with you. He probably will lose the training camp battle but it won't be an indictment on how he has ran the ball imo. It will be due to our GM having great players ahead of him.

    We'll see how this week of camp and the next game pans out, of course.  




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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to AFL_Pat's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I agrre with all your comments. My concern is why waste the entire 2nd half playing Tebow.

    I like Tebow as a person but he's not an NFL QB.  Mallet needs more game action to

    get better - he has potential but needs a lot more game action to improve,  In addition, there

    are a lot of other players on the field withTebow who are not getting a good chance to show what they can do.

    The new WRs need more time with a real QB to give them more NFL game experience.  BB needs to end

    the Tebow experiment and give the other offensive players a fair chance to show what they can do.





    agreed, however we may need him to pick up some minutes along the way in preseason.  Otherwise, adios.

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

     

     

    2.) Tim Tebow -- Hoping to catch on in New England, he's posted a truly remarkable 0 rating. A total preseason 17.7 rating with only turnovers to show after roughly 5 quarters of play is hastening his departure. He's had more reps than Brady and Mallet combined and done less than 1/3 of either them alone.

     

     



    Mallet's career passer rating is 5. LMAO

     

     

     



    LOL. He has 12 career snaps in blowouts.

     

    I mean, there are small samples, and then there is that: 12 snaps. 

    Brady had a zero rating last week .... after one play. Maybe they should have benched him for Tebow ... right?

    Tebow has a few years of looking like he isn't good, full drives, games, weeks to make up for his incompetence.

    And yet .... there he is ... behind Mallet on the depth chart ... and looking like a fan who walked into the game and tried to play with the real athletes. 

    Are we done yet?

     

     




    Far from done.

     

    You downplay Mallet's small NFL sample as indicative of his worth in the same breath you condemn TT's 7 pass pre-season game. LMAO

    Tebow has had a "few years"??? His only significant playing time was in 2011 and you scoff at his taking a 1-4 team to the playoffs, going 7-4 as a starter and winning a game on the road at Pittsburgh in the playoffs. Yet you ball wash Mallet who has accomplished nothing.

    Basically you have no leg to stand on in this and simply cling to spin in lieu of significant facts to make your case.



    Playoff game was home in Denver.  He is terrible.  There is no doubt he is gone after preseason.

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Up

    1.) New England's defensive ends: Jones looked like a monster. If that had been a complete game, it could have been a double or triple sack affair, not to mention a nasty -3 yard TFL against Martin (reallythe most underrated stat for DE's in the NFL as it IS a sack of the RB). Ninkovich looked really good, like a real complimentary defensive end. This is more about Nink, though, who really doesn't look like he is facing serious compeition from Jake Bequette right now for playing time opposite Jones. [I could add the entire starting front seven here, they looked good]

    2.) Marcus Forston: making his case to stick around. NE might not need to carry the "beef" they used to, but they need depth there. He made solid penetration into the backfield, which is as much as you can ask. 

    3.) Amendola: the questions about whether he could "be" Wes Welker were answered, outside of the big issue of durability. 6 receptions in less than a quarter is a Welker pace indeed. The seam route TD over the middle, dare I say, was one Welker might not have been able to get to as well. 

    4.) Sudfeld. Ho-hum, another pre-season game another two scores. It is scary, but I think if he keeps coming along, Gronkowski and Sudfeld could be better than Gronkowski and Hernandez. Sudfeld poses the same kind of height/length/speed matchup problems that Gronkowksi does. When there are two of them, you've already used the guys who are tall or can high-point on one or the other. 

    Down

    1.) Tavon Wilson -- He gave up a TD pass, a penalty on the goal line, and whiffed on tackle in isolation. He's already been passed on the depth chart by Duron Harmon. It's beginning to look like BB was right in drafting a SS and picking one up in A. Wilson, because Tavon looks out of place. 

    2.) Tim Tebow -- Hoping to catch on in New England, he's posted a truly remarkable 0 rating. A total preseason 17.7 rating with only turnovers to show after roughly 5 quarters of play is hastening his departure. He's had more reps than Brady and Mallet combined and done less than 1/3 of either them alone.

    3.) Brandon Bolden: didn't really get a shake until it was Tebow Time, and at that in the 4th, and was only really effective on a final, garbage time run. He needs to show more if he is going to get ahead of Ridley, Vereen, and Blount, especially when other RBs have more ST value.  



    What did you think about the fact NE has shown the 3-4 look for 2 weeks in a row now, but only with the backups? They havent run it with the starters. Are they just trying to guage if Fortson, Grissom, Francis(looks bigger) are able to play the 3-4 and the reason the starters arent in that defense is because the line is composed currently of 4-3 players. I think the addition of Kelly, Fortson and J.Collins combined with guys like Jones, Bequette, etc make it possible to switch back and forth and play more 3-4. Collins is the key IMO. If they can make that work, I will be happy. Its really the biggest question on D. Can BB get back to being verstatile and having a succesful multiple front defense because when he does, good things usually happen. Everything else is hard to judge cuz its preseason,. but I like Logan and Sudfeld obviously and I was impressed with the front seven which will be much improved but the back end is mostly the same and reliant on our pass rush to be better in order for them to hold up. I believe it will if he see more blitzing.

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

     

     

    2.) Tim Tebow -- Hoping to catch on in New England, he's posted a truly remarkable 0 rating. A total preseason 17.7 rating with only turnovers to show after roughly 5 quarters of play is hastening his departure. He's had more reps than Brady and Mallet combined and done less than 1/3 of either them alone.

     

     



    Mallet's career passer rating is 5. LMAO

     

     

     



    LOL. He has 12 career snaps in blowouts.

     

    I mean, there are small samples, and then there is that: 12 snaps. 

    Brady had a zero rating last week .... after one play. Maybe they should have benched him for Tebow ... right?

    Tebow has a few years of looking like he isn't good, full drives, games, weeks to make up for his incompetence.

    And yet .... there he is ... behind Mallet on the depth chart ... and looking like a fan who walked into the game and tried to play with the real athletes. 

    Are we done yet?

     

     




    Far from done.

     

    You downplay Mallet's small NFL sample as indicative of his worth in the same breath you condemn TT's 7 pass pre-season game. LMAO

    Tebow has had a "few years"??? His only significant playing time was in 2011 and you scoff at his taking a 1-4 team to the playoffs, going 7-4 as a starter and winning a game on the road at Pittsburgh in the playoffs. Yet you ball wash Mallet who has accomplished nothing.

    Basically you have no leg to stand on in this and simply cling to spin in lieu of significant facts to make your case.

     



    Playoff game was home in Denver.  He is terrible.  There is no doubt he is gone after preseason.

     



    1.) Huh? How have I "ball-washed" Mallet?

    I've said he is promising. I've said he has a tremendous arm. I don't think he is a starter right now. The only way that is going to even be seen is the unthinkable happens. But he looks like a guy who could run this offense as a backup: hence I find it unsurprising he is a second string QB at this point. I gauge this off of his track record as a pocket passer in college, and the way he has handled himself in training camp/preseason games. He's moved the football, he makes good throws. He looked last season like he might need to work on his decision making, but he also (so far) looks like he has come a bit of a way on that front.  

    2.) I do scoff at it. I scoff right in the face of it. It was a lot more time than Tebow deserved. Elway was right, the Denver offense was terrible under Tim Tebow, and he was not a QB to build a future around. 

    a.) Tebow did not "go" 7-4. The Denver Broncos went 7-4. That is a fact. Tim did not kick those FGs, he did not play defense. That is why records are for teams, and stats are for QBs. 

    b.) BTW, his record as a starter is 8-6. That is a fact. 

    c.) Denver compiled that record with a millstone of an offense that only scored 17.5 ppg (basically bottom of the league right there) while he was the QB. The offense decayed down the stretch, scoring just 13.5 points (not even NFL caliber) in the final half of the season with Tebow at QB. That is a fact.

     

    d.) Statistically, Tebow is terrible. A 47 completion percent is terrible. A career rating after three seasons of 75 is terrible. Perhaps as a rookie it's passable because you are looking for improvemnet, but not as a second or third year player. After all the game time he has had, he has not shown the ability to run an efficient and effective offense. And he has regressed as he has gone on on all those fronts, getting worse with the more time he is out on the field playing. Again, a fact. And he has done so after being in the NFL for three seasons. Again a fact.  

    e.) Guess who else has a better record than that as a starter, as well as more 'game winning drives,' and all this anecdotal stuff you mention: Mark Sanchez. By your own criteria ... yours ... he should have remained behind Sanchez because Sanchez beats him on the only two "statistical" (and I use this word lightly because a team record is not a fixed QB statistic but a product of the team) categories you can ever mention with Tebow. Yet, you say he should have been given a chance over Sanchez, and was "shafted" as part of some big conspiracy.  

    3.) You are the one spinning things. 12 snaps spread over 4 games is enough to measure Mallet (how did Mallet even get involved here anyhow?) but Tim Tebow's failure to stick with two teams, and his long track record of poor play isn't enough, and he needs another chance?

    That's not even fair debating ... do you even read what you are writing???? I'm not allowed to evaluate Tebow on three seasons of play in various capacities, and a full season of career starts because he wasn't given a "chance" ... but you can evaluate Mallet on 12 snaps spread over 4 games? 

    Let me explain 'spin' to you. It is the practice of presenting news or information in a wat that creates a favorable impression. So, pointing to Tebow's terrible numbers is a fact. They are not good. Pointing out how his offense was terrible is a fact. They did not score even an average amount of points. Pointing out how the Denver defense has been great is a fact. He has been traded and released by two teams, and is now fighting for an unlikely 3rd QB roster spot as a third string training camp guy on a third team is a fact. Those are all facts ... you cannot refute them. 

    Attempting to contextualize those by saying, well "Elway was breathing down his neck," or "he was benched/traded/cut because there was conspiracy to limit his playing time" are spin. 

    This is the NFL. Put on the big boy pants. In over a game of playing in New England he looks worse than anyone they've ever put out there in preseason, at least in my lifetime. He looked terrible. That is a fact. 

    Brining up the 12 snaps that Mallet has in a few spots in regular season games is nothing but undiluted spin. It does't even address Tebow's performance here, but instead deflects it to talk about something that is a far different scenario. No one is going to judge a QB on a few garbage time snaps with third team players. People will, in fact they play these games for this sole purpose, evaluate someone from preseason games. He's had more time playing than Brady and Mallet together, and has produced a 17.7 rating. In the same offense, in less time, Mallet has produced an 82.6 rating and actual touchdowns thrown. Really, he completed more passes than Tebow has all preseason in one drive. 

    You cannot answer that, but to bring up something that doesn't matter, like the four passes Mallet has thrown in garbage time games. Why not? Because you cannot answer the divergence with a fact. Nothing Tebow has shown so far this preseason is evidence he should even be mentioned with Mallet as part of this team's future. Certainly not his 17.7 rating, his delay of game penalties, etcetera. 

    At the end of the say, Babe, you make no points. You have no facts that support Tebow deserving anything. You have a record that his *team* compiled which you try to affix to him as something that somehow offsets the fact that he wasn't contributing to those wins, but was harming the team by turning the ball over too much, and making some stellar defensive efforts needlessly come down to the wire because he only scores on every 8th drive he is given.   He's never been even a mediocre QB. And he hasn't shown enough promise for an NFL team to consider starting him. 

    At the end of the day, I've won this by the very fact of where he is. He is a third string guy in camp. Even if he got a job punt-protecting/running trick plays, he is not a starting QB, nor even a second string QB. He was cut by one team, traded for a bag of balls by another.

    I know this hurts. It probably stings because you obviously have so much invested in him winning. But at the end of the day .... only Tebow winning a starting job somewhere can ever make you correct. You are basically arguing from the bottom of a dark hole my friend. 

    All of your conspiracy stories to "spin" this fact don't jibe with that one, finalistic, fundamental reality: he is not a starter, nor even a second string QB in the NFL. 

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    What did you think about the fact NE has shown the 3-4 look for 2 weeks in a row now, but only with the backups? They havent run it with the starters. Are they just trying to guage if Fortson, Grissom, Francis(looks bigger) are able to play the 3-4 and the reason the starters arent in that defense is because the line is composed currently of 4-3 players. I think the addition of Kelly, Fortson and J.Collins combined with guys like Jones, Bequette, etc make it possible to switch back and forth and play more 3-4. Collins is the key IMO. If they can make that work, I will be happy. Its really the biggest question on D. Can BB get back to being verstatile and having a succesful multiple front defense because when he does, good things usually happen. Everything else is hard to judge cuz its preseason,. but I like Logan and Sudfeld obviously and I was impressed with the front seven which will be much improved but the back end is mostly the same and reliant on our pass rush to be better in order for them to hold up. I believe it will if he see more blitzing.

     



    ONe, and let me be completely above board about this, the obsession with 3-4 among the fans on this forum is odd. NE didn't run it when BB came here, and really only started running it later on. 

    It's as if the objective people think needs to be accomplished is "running a 3-4" instead of "running an efective defense." There is no correalation to the 3-4 alignment being superior, so I don't understand the fuss outside of people clinging to it because during the middle part of the 2000s it became an "identity" of the Pats. 

    My guess is he wants to see what the backups can do, and is vetting the lineman. An easy way to do that is by increasing the number of big men on the feild rather than splitting time. Also, keep in mind, BB still two-gaps on one side of his 4-3 (like a lot of 4-3 teams do, btw) so it's also possible he wants to vet more than one player at two-gap responsibility. 

    The Pats, right now, run a very exotic 4-3under/over front, that is itself a multiple front that can be mixed up and moved around any number of ways. To be honest ... I'm starting to like it more than what they used to do with 3-4 when they had Warren/Fork/Sey in the middle of the decade. It looks more like the pressure front they used when Sey was a rookie, and they ran out thre with Bobby Hamilton, Anthony Pleasant, Richard Seymour, and Willie Mac. Bill certainly ran that well enough to win with.

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    What did you think about the fact NE has shown the 3-4 look for 2 weeks in a row now, but only with the backups? They havent run it with the starters. Are they just trying to guage if Fortson, Grissom, Francis(looks bigger) are able to play the 3-4 and the reason the starters arent in that defense is because the line is composed currently of 4-3 players. I think the addition of Kelly, Fortson and J.Collins combined with guys like Jones, Bequette, etc make it possible to switch back and forth and play more 3-4. Collins is the key IMO. If they can make that work, I will be happy. Its really the biggest question on D. Can BB get back to being verstatile and having a succesful multiple front defense because when he does, good things usually happen. Everything else is hard to judge cuz its preseason,. but I like Logan and Sudfeld obviously and I was impressed with the front seven which will be much improved but the back end is mostly the same and reliant on our pass rush to be better in order for them to hold up. I believe it will if he see more blitzing.

     

     



    ONe, and let me be completely above board about this, the obsession with 3-4 among the fans on this forum is odd. NE didn't run it when BB came here, and really only started running it later on. 

     

    It's as if the objective people think needs to be accomplished is "running a 3-4" instead of "running an efective defense." There is no correalation to the 3-4 alignment being superior, so I don't understand the fuss outside of people clinging to it because during the middle part of the 2000s it became an "identity" of the Pats. 

    My guess is he wants to see what the backups can do, and is vetting the lineman. An easy way to do that is by increasing the number of big men on the feild rather than splitting time. Also, keep in mind, BB still two-gaps on one side of his 4-3 (like a lot of 4-3 teams do, btw) so it's also possible he wants to vet more than one player at two-gap responsibility. 

    The Pats, right now, run a very exotic 4-3under/over front, that is itself a multiple front that can be mixed up and moved around any number of ways. To be honest ... I'm starting to like it more than what they used to do with 3-4 when they had Warren/Fork/Sey in the middle of the decade. It looks more like the pressure front they used when Sey was a rookie, and they ran out thre with Bobby Hamilton, Anthony Pleasant, Richard Seymour, and Willie Mac. Bill certainly ran that well enough to win with.




    ok, for me personally. I want to see a good defense. They can play 3-3-5, 4-2-5, whatever but the most success weve had came in the 3-4. I believe BB did come in and use the 3-4 and the 4-3 in 2001 due to injury and cant remember what he ran in 2000 when he went 5-11 and missed playoffs. The thing with me the 3-4 give you the ability to always have that rusher where noone knows where its coming from. Sure the 4-3 is a hybrid and weve seen Fork all over the field and made more plays last year, but we S*ck at rushing the passer. Lets face it. We havent beat up QB's since using the 3-4, so I dont think you jump on fans for wanting to get back to that, but if u dont have the players, why do it? Nink is never gonna take pressure of C.Jones as a pass rusher. He woud do ok as an OLB in the 3-4, but imagine Jones and Collins on either side and Hightower/Spikes/Mayo manning the 2 inside spots?  Either way , the more versatile the D, usually the better they are and I hope they are good using more than one defense for that reason.

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    The desire is not to run more 3/4 but to have the capability to, have the talent to, that's what we've been missing for the past few years with this simplified rebuilding defense, the ability to run either front because they didn't have the bulls.  

    Theoretically the third guy is Armstead or Fortson, they could use either but the hope is Armstead is every bit a similar player to Seymour; tall, strong, can hold against the run but blocks passing lanes.  

    I still hope they run this four man front this year because it will mean they have opponents back in third down and longs, also if they put Armstead or Francis in at end they would truly be running an old fashioned four man front, they have the players to do that now and be successfull, but don't think for a second that if it were third and short BB wouldn't line three DT's next to each other to stop them.

    Belichick has always been able to patch a defense together out of spare parts, now he is working with a full tool set.

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

     

     I'm increasingly convinced that with today's hybrid fronts, terms like 3-4 and 4-3 are less and less meaningful.  I think the real question is whether BB wants two big guys in the center of the front or three big guys.  Right now, it looks like two, Wilfork and Kelly.  Maybe Armstead or Forsten will give them a third, but I see Forsten more as the back up to Kelly and Wilfork.  I'm still not sure how Armstead's skills will translate.  CFL football is different, because the defense needs to line up one yard back from the LOS.  This yard of space tends to make quickness more important than pure power.  On the Argos, what stood out about Armstead was his quickness.  He's big and powerful too, but I see him as a bit more of a speed/agility guy with good power, but not nearly Seymour's power ( or size).  I could see him being an ideal 4-3 left end, maybe more than I see him as a two-gapping 3-4 DE.

     

     

     

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     I'm increasingly convinced that with today's hybrid fronts, terms like 3-4 and 4-3 are less and less meaningful.  I think the real question is whether BB wants two big guys in the center of the front or three big guys.  Right now, it looks like two, Wilfork and Kelly.  Maybe Armstead or Forsten will give them a third, but I see Forsten more as the back up to Kelly and Wilfork.  I'm still not sure how Armstead's skills will translate.  CFL football is different, because the defense needs to line up one yard back from the LOS.  This yard of space tends to make quickness more important than pure power.  On the Argos, what stood out about Armstead was his quickness.  He's big and powerful too, but I see him as a bit more of a speed/agility guy with good power, but not nearly Seymour's power ( or size).  I could see him being an ideal 4-3 left end, maybe more than I see him as a two-gapping 3-4 DE.

     

     

     



    Good points. Lets just have armstead line up 1 yard off the LOS. Problem solved. That should give him a head start. I can't wait until he gets back. I really want to see what he has.

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     


    ok, for me personally. I want to see a good defense. They can play 3-3-5, 4-2-5, whatever but the most success weve had came in the 3-4.

    Ok, so let me address this. I see a whole lot of this thinking on this board in particular, and I think it is not really the way to go about things. One, the Pats didn't have their most success running a 34 defense. I'll show that later. Two, even if they had, it doesn't mean you run it again. You run the defense and offense you have the talent to run. Just because you used to get to work in 20 min by going offroad and now it takes you 30 minutes riding through the suburbs doesn't mean the only way to work is by going off-road. You stop and analyze the difference. What made that route possible ... better even? Well if it turns out that you had a giant Jeep then, and now you have a sports car, you are probably better off skipping the off-road, skipping the suburbs, and taking the highway.

    The reason the 2004 Pats had a great defense was because of the players, not the alignment. Simply repeating the alignment won't give you the same results. 

    We go through this with every scheme, formation, etc ... there is no magic formula for winning in the NFL outside of high rates of execution. So being religiously attached to one strategy, scheme, formation, or alignment is just not worth it.

    I believe BB did come in and use the 3-4 and the 4-3 in 2001 due to injury and cant remember what he ran in 2000 when he went 5-11 and missed playoffs.

    Now, this is incorrect. I've posted this hundreds of times, but it just won't stick. So, let's go through it one more time: New England did not run a 34 defense in 2001 or in 2003 ... and only transitioned to this in 2004. According to BB himself ... on multiple occaisions, this is the truth. According to stat sheets, video, etcetera. NEw England was a 4-3 defense, basically until Wilfork and Warren arrive and they stumble upon a complete 3 man front, and only have one real 4-3 end. When they had two 43 ends, and just two real DTs they ran 43. Like in 2001. 

    Here are just two links to BB saying NE ran a 43 in 2001 and 2003: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2011/08/bill_belichick_states_switch_defense_uncertain

    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2011/08/belichick_wont_2.html

    So back to the original premise ... based on Superbowl victories ... New England has had more of them running a base 4-3 defense. I'll even add to that, even when running the 34 NE dedicated a lot of time to using McGinest as a straight rusher. He was never a very good OLB, but was a superb pass rusher. BB dedicated a lot of time trying to staff that OLB roster spot grabbing Colvin, grabbing Adalius Thomas later on. It isn't until Colvin's first healthy season in 2004 that BB really begins running a native 34 defense, because unlike McGinest, Colvin was equally good standing up.  

    The thing with me the 3-4 give you the ability to always have that rusher where noone knows where its coming from.

    Sure they do ... it's one of seven spots ... just like a well implemented 43 defense. At the end of the day, an I'm deeply channeling BB here, you have seven guys up front. It has less to do with what you call something and more to do with what assignments you choose to give them. You just need to toggle which linebacker you are sending. You aren't even committed to sending 5 if you have a DE who can participate in a Zone Exchange with an OLB. You can send them inside and outside.  

     

    Sure the 4-3 is a hybrid and weve seen Fork all over the field and made more plays last year, but we S*ck at rushing the passer. Lets face it. We havent beat up QB's since using the 3-4, so I dont think you jump on fans for wanting to get back to that, but if u dont have the players, why do it?

    Again ... sports car or Jeep? Stop and think ... was it the 3-4 that got NE sacks .. or was it McGinest, Sey, Warren, Fork, and Vrabel and Colvin???? The talent was the difference ... not the scheme. If 3-4 defense was a pre-requisite of sacks, then the Giants wouldn't have won two superbowls with their 43. The Colts wouldn't have been one of the most prolific sack machine defenses of the 2000s.

    In fact, you have things reversed a bit. 43 defenses, historically, are a better pressure defense. 34 defenses tend toward containment and being conservative (in most cases). This is mostly a product of the kind of athletes each draws ... with 43 being effectively a touch "lighter" that 34. 

    NE s*cked at rushing the passer because McGinest left/was washed up ... Vrabel left/was washed up, Colvin washed up, Seymour left, and Warren washed up. Then they were replacing them with stiffs like Shawn Crable, Derrick Burgess, Gerard Warren, the quitter Adalius Thomas, Albert Haynesworth, Tully Banta-Cain full time, Kyle Love, Myron Prior. The big, gaping hole really being the drop-off from Richard Seymour to whoever you plug in at 3-5 tech whether they were 34 or 43. 

    It had nothing to do with switching schemes ... because NE still stunk at rushing the passer when they ran a 34 defense in 2010. They ran a 34 and their best pass rusher was Mike Wright, after that TBC. 

    A 5 man front of Vrabel, Ty Warren, Fork, Seymour, and McGinest vs ... 

    Nink, Fork, Gerard Warren, Wright/Brace, TBC OR in 43

    Nink, Love, Fork, Dreaderick, Jones (inj) -> Cunningham -> Scott or some alignment.

    is .... just .... so .... much .... worse. I can't even fathom the converation.

    Now Nink, Fork, Kelly, Jones (yr2 healthy) and Collins/Hightower/Spikes as your OLB blitzers is getting closer. It's not there ... but it is getting closer.  

    Moreover, and this cannot be overstated ... the secondary was much, much worse during that period. The concept of a coverage sack comepletely dissapeared. Whether in 43 or 34 ... NE has had its hands tied sending extra rushers because their pass defenders were really lackluster. One of the biggest revelations last season was the strategic difference Talib (a shadow of Ty Law) and the move of DMC into his more natural FS position made. When Talib is on and DMC is back there ... Ne can actually play cover-one .... which means they can bring a safety up ... which means they can bring a linebacker up .... into a QBs face. 

    Nink is never gonna take pressure of C.Jones as a pass rusher. He woud do ok as an OLB in the 3-4, but imagine Jones and Collins on either side and Hightower/Spikes/Mayo manning the 2 inside spots? 

    It would be awkward. Jones isn't very good standing up. He's got all this random length. Right now Jones is in there rushing the passer and setting an edge 90% of the time. He is a gifted DE, so you really lose something trying to force him to be a mediocre linebacker. 

    Mayo and Spikes stille man the inside spots ... NE runs a 43 over/under now, one where Fork is usually two-gapping. 

    cb               LDE DT   DT RDE                 cb

                   LLB  MLB RLB

    In this alignment you basically preserve the dual inside linebackers by shading your backers so that the MLB and one OLB are lined up between the DTs and one DE. 

    Either way , the more versatile the D, usually the better they are and I hope they are good using more than one defense for that reason.

    The 43 over/under is as versatile as you want it to be if you make it that way.



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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to TripleOG's comment:

     

     


    ok, for me personally. I want to see a good defense. They can play 3-3-5, 4-2-5, whatever but the most success weve had came in the 3-4.

    Ok, so let me address this. I see a whole lot of this thinking on this board in particular, and I think it is not really the way to go about things. One, the Pats didn't have their most success running a 34 defense. I'll show that later. Two, even if they had, it doesn't mean you run it again. You run the defense and offense you have the talent to run. Just because you used to get to work in 20 min by going offroad and now it takes you 30 minutes riding through the suburbs doesn't mean the only way to work is by going off-road. You stop and analyze the difference. What made that route possible ... better even? Well if it turns out that you had a giant Jeep then, and now you have a sports car, you are probably better off skipping the off-road, skipping the suburbs, and taking the highway.

    The reason the 2004 Pats had a great defense was because of the players, not the alignment. Simply repeating the alignment won't give you the same results. 

    We go through this with every scheme, formation, etc ... there is no magic formula for winning in the NFL outside of high rates of execution. So being religiously attached to one strategy, scheme, formation, or alignment is just not worth it.

    I believe BB did come in and use the 3-4 and the 4-3 in 2001 due to injury and cant remember what he ran in 2000 when he went 5-11 and missed playoffs.

    Now, this is incorrect. I've posted this hundreds of times, but it just won't stick. So, let's go through it one more time: New England did not run a 34 defense in 2001 or in 2003 ... and only transitioned to this in 2004. According to BB himself ... on multiple occaisions, this is the truth. According to stat sheets, video, etcetera. NEw England was a 4-3 defense, basically until Wilfork and Warren arrive and they stumble upon a complete 3 man front, and only have one real 4-3 end. When they had two 43 ends, and just two real DTs they ran 43. Like in 2001. 

    Here are just two links to BB saying NE ran a 43 in 2001 and 2003: http://bostonherald.com/sports/patriots_nfl/new_england_patriots/2011/08/bill_belichick_states_switch_defense_uncertain

    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2011/08/belichick_wont_2.html

    So back to the original premise ... based on Superbowl victories ... New England has had more of them running a base 4-3 defense. I'll even add to that, even when running the 34 NE dedicated a lot of time to using McGinest as a straight rusher. He was never a very good OLB, but was a superb pass rusher. BB dedicated a lot of time trying to staff that OLB roster spot grabbing Colvin, grabbing Adalius Thomas later on. It isn't until Colvin's first healthy season in 2004 that BB really begins running a native 34 defense, because unlike McGinest, Colvin was equally good standing up.  

    The thing with me the 3-4 give you the ability to always have that rusher where noone knows where its coming from.

    Sure they do ... it's one of seven spots ... just like a well implemented 43 defense. At the end of the day, an I'm deeply channeling BB here, you have seven guys up front. It has less to do with what you call something and more to do with what assignments you choose to give them. You just need to toggle which linebacker you are sending. You aren't even committed to sending 5 if you have a DE who can participate in a Zone Exchange with an OLB. You can send them inside and outside.  

     

    Sure the 4-3 is a hybrid and weve seen Fork all over the field and made more plays last year, but we S*ck at rushing the passer. Lets face it. We havent beat up QB's since using the 3-4, so I dont think you jump on fans for wanting to get back to that, but if u dont have the players, why do it?

    Again ... sports car or Jeep? Stop and think ... was it the 3-4 that got NE sacks .. or was it McGinest, Sey, Warren, Fork, and Vrabel and Colvin???? The talent was the difference ... not the scheme. If 3-4 defense was a pre-requisite of sacks, then the Giants wouldn't have won two superbowls with their 43. The Colts wouldn't have been one of the most prolific sack machine defenses of the 2000s.

    In fact, you have things reversed a bit. 43 defenses, historically, are a better pressure defense. 34 defenses tend toward containment and being conservative (in most cases). This is mostly a product of the kind of athletes each draws ... with 43 being effectively a touch "lighter" that 34. 

    NE s*cked at rushing the passer because McGinest left/was washed up ... Vrabel left/was washed up, Colvin washed up, Seymour left, and Warren washed up. Then they were replacing them with stiffs like Shawn Crable, Derrick Burgess, Gerard Warren, the quitter Adalius Thomas, Albert Haynesworth, Tully Banta-Cain full time, Kyle Love, Myron Prior. The big, gaping hole really being the drop-off from Richard Seymour to whoever you plug in at 3-5 tech whether they were 34 or 43. 

    It had nothing to do with switching schemes ... because NE still stunk at rushing the passer when they ran a 34 defense in 2010. They ran a 34 and their best pass rusher was Mike Wright, after that TBC. 

    A 5 man front of Vrabel, Ty Warren, Fork, Seymour, and McGinest vs ... 

    Nink, Fork, Gerard Warren, Wright/Brace, TBC OR in 43

    Nink, Love, Fork, Dreaderick, Jones (inj) -> Cunningham -> Scott or some alignment.

    is .... just .... so .... much .... worse. I can't even fathom the converation.

    Now Nink, Fork, Kelly, Jones (yr2 healthy) and Collins/Hightower/Spikes as your OLB blitzers is getting closer. It's not there ... but it is getting closer.  

    Moreover, and this cannot be overstated ... the secondary was much, much worse during that period. The concept of a coverage sack comepletely dissapeared. Whether in 43 or 34 ... NE has had its hands tied sending extra rushers because their pass defenders were really lackluster. One of the biggest revelations last season was the strategic difference Talib (a shadow of Ty Law) and the move of DMC into his more natural FS position made. When Talib is on and DMC is back there ... Ne can actually play cover-one .... which means they can bring a safety up ... which means they can bring a linebacker up .... into a QBs face. 

    Nink is never gonna take pressure of C.Jones as a pass rusher. He woud do ok as an OLB in the 3-4, but imagine Jones and Collins on either side and Hightower/Spikes/Mayo manning the 2 inside spots? 

    It would be awkward. Jones isn't very good standing up. He's got all this random length. Right now Jones is in there rushing the passer and setting an edge 90% of the time. He is a gifted DE, so you really lose something trying to force him to be a mediocre linebacker. 

    Mayo and Spikes stille man the inside spots ... NE runs a 43 over/under now, one where Fork is usually two-gapping. 

    cb               LDE DT   DT RDE                 cb

                   LLB  MLB RLB

    In this alignment you basically preserve the dual inside linebackers by shading your backers so that the MLB and one OLB are lined up between the DTs and one DE. 

    Either way , the more versatile the D, usually the better they are and I hope they are good using more than one defense for that reason.

    The 43 over/under is as versatile as you want it to be if you make it that way.

     

     





    Ok, this post is tooo long, but I tried. I got to the point where u said, NE did NOT run ANY 34 defense in 01 or 03. You wrote a lot after that, but why would I read it. If you arent gonna tell the truth, I dont wanna hear how you spin it. If you arent telling me you are part of the coaching staff, you are going by the same resources I am so in short. Thanks, I got it. I dont agree. I never said run the 3-4 just to do it. I understand you need the horses, but this 4-3 has had us last in passing yards given for too long.  When you put Burgess in the 34 of course it S*cks. I never said anything about 2010. I mentioned 01 and 03

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

    Re: Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

    Okay Z, thanks for thePST. Some point I agree with and some I don't. 

    Question...

    if bb isn't sold on any 1 scheme, and puts his guys in the best place to succeed, then how does that correlate to his drafting and FA strategy? 

    seems like he has to look for guys that fit something. you talk a lot about assignments, but doesn't each position in a certain scheme have an assignment? It seems logical that bb looks for guys to fit a particular scheme, and selects a certain player based on how that position/playeR projects to handle a particular assignment in a particular scheme. 

    If you follow bb's drafting and FA moves over the past 5-6 years, since the core of those great defenses left, it seems like he is all over the place. Drafting 3-4 guys, 4-3 guys, inside he now has little beef upfront and a cornacopia of 4-3 de types. Where is he headed with this?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share