Winners and Losers...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from geadie5025. Show geadie5025's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Add Nink to the winners.  Fletcher was crashing gates all first half but it was Nink that sent him the business.  Guyton is the loser on any running play.  O line pitched a shutout

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

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Hey look I can post pic's too






    This is very similar to many formations they ran with Cunningham lined outside the T regardless of hand down or not and the other OLB lined up over/outside the TE. Many times they lined up with 5 men on the line not 4 with 2 men outside the T position. Take a look at Rock's picture then shift the 3 man front towards the strong side slightly and then take a look at this 34 setup. Oddly familiar looking isn't it?

    Considering we saw Arrington lined up at DE a couple times last year would it shock you to see Moore lined up as a DE Z? I mean really you would question a guy at 263lb lined up as a 34 DE yet you don't remember BB lining up a CB! as a 34 DE last year.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Cmon patseng, let's end it.

    They lined up Arrington at OLB a few times last year on obvious passing situations. When you watch the play Moore isn't two gapping. But whatever, no matter how obvious a vanilla 4-3 it is I'll concede it's some topical 3-4 to match whatever argument you or Russ will cook up. To others like Tedy Bruschi, it'll be a 4-3 with Moore playing end and Nink playing the strong side over the TE. That way we both win. 

    Go pats.

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    Hey look I can post pic's too This is very similar to many formations they ran with Cunningham lined outside the T regardless of hand down or not and the other OLB lined up over/outside the TE. Many times they lined up with 5 men on the line not 4 with 2 men outside the T position. Take a look at Rock's picture then shift the 3 man front towards the strong side slightly and then take a look at this 34 setup. Oddly familiar looking isn't it? Considering we saw Arrington lined up at DE a couple times last year would it shock you to see Moore lined up as a DE Z? I mean really you would question a guy at 263lb lined up as a 34 DE yet you don't remember BB lining up a CB! as a 34 DE last year.
    Posted by PatsEng

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from James-B. Show James-B's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Agree whole heartedly with all of the above. 

    In my opinion, the Special Plate of the Day goes to Fletcher...all over the place, and you can tell he was playing with all his heart, as well. I think they had him in on some special teams play, and on one, he really made a great tackle.

    Agree with the poster who said Butler didn't appear as too be playing all out, agree with that, he appeared to jsut going through the motions; Merriweather still hasn't gotten the angle of attack & tackling down yet;

    Finally, I've never been a Wilhite fan, constantly being beat; on most plays you just see the #24 his back as he's chasing down the guy that beat him; I thought he had been cut already, guess not, but doubt he will be around very long, and I think Butler will be right behind him

    Overall, a great performance by the team last night, imagine what the 1st team will be like come opening day, can't wait!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AFL_Pat. Show AFL_Pat's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Z,
          I'd like to thank you for all of your contributions to this blog. You are the
    person I always read first.  Please keep up the good work.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    Cmon patseng, let's end it. They lined up Arrington at OLB a few times last year on obvious passing situations. When you watch the play Moore isn't two gapping. But whatever, no matter how obvious a vanilla 4-3 it is I'll concede it's some topical 3-4 to match whatever argument you or Russ will cook up. To others like Tedy Bruschi, it'll be a 4-3 with Moore playing end and Nink playing the strong side over the TE. That way we both win.  Go pats. In Response to Re: Winners and Losers... :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000


    Wait so Arrington played over the T (closer then where Cunningham was lined up) yet you say he was a OLB not a DE?

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-defense-has-become-liability-051111

    "Belichick actually used cornerback Kyle Arrington at defensive end a little bit last season"

    He lined up as a DE over the T on most of his rushes where the typical 34 DE lines up. How can you possibly claim Cunningham as a DE lined up outside the T and say Arrington lined up as a OLB (with hand down since you like to point to that as being considered a lineman or not) over the T?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    I think the point some people are trying to make is that some people said no way are they playing the 43 this year, Bill Belichick would never!!! And what do they do? Go out and get a bunch of 43 players. Not sign or draft 34 players (the imortall Roth). Cut some guys that have played 43 (and well) here for years. Then to top it all off the... line up with 4 guys up front, with their hands in the dirt...going forward, not sideways, backwards...but forward at high rates of speed. Then the even stranger thing is they had 3 guys standing up behind them, that looked alarmingly like linebackers...just running all around crazy like.

    Now people can cover this all up by saying...well they're not going to be playing 43 all the time, but yeah they will be playing it. Just because it looks like a 43 historically looks doesn't mean it's a 43. The way the tackles played over C and D...is clearly not the same as B and A, so you know it's gotta be a modified 34 that looks a whole lot like 43 - it's just that Bill is so wild that he's developing the 34343 -43. On and on and on. Hell, they could put a punter, Merriweather, and a roll of tape out there and some would still say it's a superbly modified ancient (pre Jesus Christ) version of the 34.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Well, you got me there. Based on that technicality referencing a few plays last year (which wasn't their base, as Arrington was a starter at CB most of the year) they are still playing a 3-4, even though everyone else acknowledges it's a 4-3. Have a great weekend. 

    I like that roll of tape theory too mthurl. Clearly, if you see the roll of tape it's a 3-4 bc Belichick would never play that roll of tape out of position in a 4-3. It's science.

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers... : Wait so Arrington played over the T (closer then where Cunningham was lined up) yet you say he was a OLB not a DE? http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/new-england-patriots-bill-belichick-defense-has-become-liability-051111 " Belichick actually used cornerback Kyle Arrington at defensive end a little bit last season " He lined up as a DE over the T on most of his rushes where the typical 34 DE lines up. How can you possibly claim Cunningham as a DE lined up outside the T and say Arrington lined up as a OLB (with hand down since you like to point to that as being considered a lineman or not) over the T?
    Posted by PatsEng

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Agree completely. Ron Burgandy wouldn't lie.

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers... : "A woman's brain is much smaller than a man's. It's science."
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing

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

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Here is the Kirsch Words Blog from the first defensive play of the game:

     
    Kirsch Words: 
    Patriots start off in a 3-4. Whaddya know?

    I don't get the argument though.  Does it really matter what the first play was?  Is there some kind of NFL rule that the first play must be your base defense?

    I believe 2 things:

    1. There's no such thing as a singular base defense anymore.  When you barely play more than 50% of your snaps in a particluar defense, at best it makes it your co-base defense.  You could almost argue that the sub is the base defense.

    2. BB will always mix things up and provide different looks.  A BB interview from earlier in the week (or last week?) basically said that this whole 3-4/4-3 thing is a media fabrication.  We have to pigeon hole everything into black and white concepts, when in reality it's not like that.  BB sees core defensive principles as defining his defense, not any particular alignment.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Kirsh was wrong. Look at the screen shot I took. Unless you think Eric Moore was a two gapping DE on that play or you think they were in nickel then there were 4 people with their hands on the ground and 3 LB's. I don't know what Kirsh was watching. Look at the youtube clip if you don't believe me. I can't comprehend how this is even an argument. 

    And that Whaddya know? response is the issue here. People get attached to the 3-4 and equate whatever d then run to the 3-4. Well caraway I ask you if it's a 3-4 then who is what in that alignment. Are you arguing Moore or Cunningham (both who rushed up the field and didn't two gap) is a DE? 

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    Here is the Kirsch Words Blog from the first defensive play of the game:   Kirsch Words:  Patriots start off in a 3-4. Whaddya know? I don't get the argument though.  Does it really matter what the first play was?  Is there some kind of NFL rule that the first play must be your base defense? I believe 2 things: 1. There's no such thing as a singular base defense anymore.  When you barely play more than 50% of your snaps in a particluar defense, at best it makes it your co-base defense.  You could almost  argue that the sub is the base defense. 2. BB will always mix things up and provide different looks.  A BB interview from earlier in the week (or last week?) basically said that this whole 3-4/4-3 thing is a media fabrication.  We have to pigeon hole everything into black and white concepts, when in reality it's not like that.  BB sees core defensive principles as defining his defense, not any particular alignment.
    Posted by carawaydj

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

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    Kirsh was wrong. Look at the screen shot I took. Unless you think Eric Moore was a two gapping DE on that play or you think they were in nickel then there were 4 people with their hands on the ground and 3 LB's. I don't know what Kirsh was watching. Look at the youtube clip if you don't believe me. I can't comprehend how this is even an argument.  And that Whaddya know? response is the issue here. People get attached to the 3-4 and equate whatever d then run to the 3-4. Well caraway I ask you if it's a 3-4 then who is what in that alignment. Are you arguing Moore or Cunningham (both who rushed up the field and didn't two gap) is a DE?  In Response to Re: Winners and Losers... :
    Posted by Rockdog1293000

    The "whaddya know" was written by Kirsch, not me.  That was his reaction to it.  I'll admit that it looked like a 4-3 to me.  But I'm a simple guy.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rockdog1293000. Show Rockdog1293000's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Oh no, I wasn't inferring that you wrote it. I just can't see how anyone could conclude waddya know it looks like 3-4 to me after watching the first play last night. I don't understand it. Even the best explanations on this board are fairly complex and convoluted (and I'm not saying they are wrong). Time will tell I guess.

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers... : The "whaddya know" was written by Kirsch, not me.  That was his reaction to it.  I'll admit that it looked like a 4-3 to me.  But I'm a simple guy.
    Posted by carawaydj

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

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Rock I have no clue where you got the concept that if you are in a 34 you have to 2 gap. There have been plenty of great defenses that have had DE's in 1 gap 34 formations.

    Listen I think we'll see plenty of 34 and 43 formations. He's not going to run one or the other. He ran both last night in various modifications and styles including vanilla formations. What it looked like was he was trying to figure out where each of his players would best perform in each formation. Cunningham was placed as a rushing OLB, 43 DE, coverage OLB and spy last night.

    I have no clue how this turned into he only ran 43 or 34 but it's not even close to the case. Point is they typically had 4 hands down with 5 at the line. Arguments can be made either way whether he was running a 34 or a 43 as both are so similar literally it's in the eye of the beholder. Either way it was the 1st pre-season game and I have a strange feeling that we'll be arguing it to game 16. He's running a hybrid system. The only thing I was trying to point out was that he's not just running a 43 as some are pointing to and I saw 34 formations last night just as you see 43.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from patthepatriot666. Show patthepatriot666's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/6856177/bruschi-tap-things-learned-new-england-patriots

    here is what bruschi said about defensive formations

    1. Focusing on the 4-3 defense and Albert Haynesworth. One of the big topics of discussion with the Patriots this preseason is what type of defense they will play -- 4-3 or 3-4 -- and the flexibility they have to play both schemes. Based on Thursday night, you can tell that the Patriots have been working exclusively on the 4-3. The telltale sign is when the third- and fourth-stringers play in the fourth quarter and that's the base package. You see that and realize that's what the young guys are being taught; that's where the coaches have started their base with them. It is a change.

    Having said all of that, you still have to read the writing on the wall when it comes to the players they've been signing and consider that there will be an adjustment level and that this defense will have the ability to go from 3-4 to 4-3 on a week-to-week basis. So, instead of seeing Haynesworth at 3-technique (shaded on the guard at defensive tackle in a four-man line) one week, you might see Shaun Ellis at the 5-technique (playing over the tackle in a three-man line). These adjustments will be made on a week-to-week basis.

    Haynesworth didn't play Thursday night, and what I'll be looking for in the future is how he embraces this opportunity. Maybe he does come out and play in the 3-4 and in the 4-3. So when Bill Belichick walks into the meeting room and says "This week, we're going to play the 3-4 because it gives us the best chance to win," let's see how Haynesworth responds. Does he say, "I'll play a little 5-technique for you, Coach," or will he only want to play in a 4-3?

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

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Watching the game now.  Looks like a heck of a lot of 4-3, at least to my eye.  Four guys with hands in dirt at LOS, all of them pushing upfield and not dropping back into coverage . . .  

    Seemed to have some problems against the run early, too, with the interior linemen getting pushed out of position and poor contain. Got better as the game progressed, though. 
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers... : Agreed! Some here have believed the fabrication. Expect a mix.  Can we end this silliness now?
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing


    I think there has been a lot of excitement over a potential move to the 4-3, and that has led to the excessive talk about it in the media, and amongst us fans.  

    Why the excitement?

    1. BB's defenses don't tend to be "highlight reel" defenses.  They are usually better than they appear to the eyeball.  We've seen basically the same (boring but effective) D for so long that people just want to see change for the sake of seeing change.

    2. We've had two years of seeing a less than stellar pass rush and 3rd down defense.  Us fans want to see opposing QB's planted into the dirt.  So yeah, we'll grasp at anything that remotely sounds like this will change and get excited about it.

    3. Stats tell us we have had a very good D.  Well, the scoring D stats do.  Yet many of us still "feel" that something hasn't been right.  Something is missing.  Is it the big defensive plays?  Is it the lack of highlight reels?  Is it because we want to see dominating stars like some other teams have?  Many fans just don't think our D has been something we could count on to seal a game for us.

    Not saying any of the above is logical.  But you can definitely sense that many people are excited about the possibility of seeing something new on D.  That clearly indicates that many people haven't been thrilled with the D, even though scoring D stats say otherwise.  If people thought the D was stellar, you would hear a completely different tone coming from fans and the media.  You'd hear "if it isn't broken don't fix it"...."no no no no, please don't change anything on D"....and so on.  The fact that you aren't hearing anything like that means something.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    Finally got to see the game today.  One question:  did anyone see Price after the hard hit he took on his last punt return?  Looked like he got up kind of slow and wasn't back in the game after then I don't think.  Don't want to start any unwarranted rumours--he's probably fine--but I'm just curious if anyone saw him after that play?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Winners and Losers...

    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers...:
    In Response to Re: Winners and Losers... : Noo. Tedy Bruschi doesn't get it either, he only played in every 34 and 43 set BB ran for the best part of a decade. You see they are always in 34. Even when they are in dime, they are just using 'double deep jacks' 34 with no hands in the dirt. Even when they are punting. It's perspective you know. It looks like 43 to Tedy et al .... but we know that all you need to do is move the line over, pull the linebackers back, and put one guy on the ground and it's still 3-4. My guess, based on this thread, is that when Ne runs its offense, its yet another variation of the 34. Koppen is the nose, and Light and Vollmer are OLBs with their hands down. Brady is the Mike in reverse dog. It's brilliant.
    Posted by zbellino


    I just pissed myself! You forgot to mention that when the cheer leaders do their little dance, they are in fact in an exclusive - very special - pre historic - 34 alignment...that hasn't been seen since raptors walked the earth.
     
Sections
Shortcuts