Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Ups and Downs from Last Night's Game

  1. 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.

     
  2. 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.

     

     

     

     
  3. 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.

     
  4. 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

     
  5. 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