Stitch01 said:
I would say that if one doesn't believe they were targeting WR in 2007 then it certainly follows that they wouldn't believe the team will be targeting anything in particular this year, either.
Pats Learning from Seattle
- Thread starter TheoShmeo
- Start date
I would say that if one doesn't believe they were targeting WR in 2007 then it certainly follows that they wouldn't believe the team will be targeting anything in particular this year, either.
Didn't BB all ready demonstrate he had realized the need for someone like Chancellor? He brought Rodney Harrison in. Then he brought Tank Williams and John Lynch and just last year he brought in Adrian Wilson. Yes, some of these guys are older and not as talented as Chancellor, but these types of SS dont grow on trees and you can only spend so much.
DMC is similar to Thomas being the rangy guy who cleans up. Im mobile, but didnt he lead the Pats in tackles?
Doesn't bringing in a headcase like Talib indicate BB recognized he was going to need a "big" CB? Who knew Sherman, the 5th round pick, would turn into the best CB in the league?
Doesnt BB drafting someone like Collins indicate he is at least considering getting the 'speedy athletic' LB?
BB pushed the 2 headed TE with gronk and AH, I find it hard to believe that his defensive mind wasnt all ready thinking "hmm, if this catches on, I will need my D to be able to stop somethig similar."
BB Im sure wants all these things, he has been limited by available talent, money, and injuries.
DMC is similar to Thomas being the rangy guy who cleans up. Im mobile, but didnt he lead the Pats in tackles?
Doesn't bringing in a headcase like Talib indicate BB recognized he was going to need a "big" CB? Who knew Sherman, the 5th round pick, would turn into the best CB in the league?
Doesnt BB drafting someone like Collins indicate he is at least considering getting the 'speedy athletic' LB?
BB pushed the 2 headed TE with gronk and AH, I find it hard to believe that his defensive mind wasnt all ready thinking "hmm, if this catches on, I will need my D to be able to stop somethig similar."
BB Im sure wants all these things, he has been limited by available talent, money, and injuries.
I think the answer is that everyone should emulate Seattle by a) drafting stars in the fourth round or later, b) having a really good QB on a rookie payscale, c) staying pretty healthy, and d) keeping your most versatile offensive weapon from habitually murdering people.
Easier said than done.
Easier said than done.
This for me is a huge bingo. Chandler Jones took a good leap forward this year but he needs some help. Drafting DL has to be a priority.RedOctober3829 said:
Old Fart Tree said:
This is awesome.
Though Seattle overcame injuries and off-field stuff too -- they thought Harvin and Rice would be their top two WRs this year, and the loss of Browner was big. It hasn't gotten as much attention, but filling holes is one of the things Seattle did exceptionally well.
I agree there's a synergy here with Seattle. They have coverage guys to match up with anybody. They have a front four who can pressure the QB and is still stout against the run. They have fast linebackers who can roam sideline-to-sideline and cover big zones in the middle of the field.RedOctober3829 said:
But the synergy lets them do different things in terms of personnel. Sherman and Browner weren't high draft picks in part because their straight-line speed is just average (in Sherman's case) or worse (in Browner's), but they use their superior size to play press coverage. It works because the pass rush is good enough that it's tough to beat them deep, and because they have help inside from linebackers or a deep safety. They have big defensive linemen who can soak up blocks in Red Bryant and Brandon Mebane, which lets their fast, undersized LB roam free and some of their mediocre run-defending defensive ends (like Avril and Clemons) just pin their ears back and rush the passer. They do have some great all-around players (like Chancellor, Bennett, and Mebane) who tie everything together, but the scheme lets them use fairly one-dimensional players to great effect.
The Pats have taken the opposite approach, assembling a bunch of guys who are versatile but not great at anything. Guys like Ninkovich, Gregory, Hightower, and Arrington aren't great at anything but are decent at a bunch of things ... but so what? It gives them more flexibility in theory, but in practice it's led to mixed results defensively.
EDIT: I stole some of this reasoning from an article I read the other day but can't find.
Carroll wins a SB, and a long time, loyalist, well respected poster weighs in that maybe, just maybe, we could learn something from the Seahawks. And this place explodes.
Awesome..
And in other news, Larry Fitz signs a restructured, contract, but no, that doesn't mean he is not coming to us. After all, it's all about us -- the Al Franken decade.
Awesome..
And in other news, Larry Fitz signs a restructured, contract, but no, that doesn't mean he is not coming to us. After all, it's all about us -- the Al Franken decade.
2014 significant FAs (now)
Doug Baldwin (RFA) - likely to return
Michael Bennett (UFA) - would love to have him back, but he's going to command a big deal
Breno Giacomini (UFA) - depends on cost, he's average
Paul McQuistan (UFA) - hopefully adios, he sucks
Tony McDaniel (UFA) - depends on cost, he's slightly above average
Golden Tate (UFA) - I'd say 50/50 he returns
Steven Hauschka (UFA) - He'll be back if he wants to be. They brought in competition this past fall for him, so even though he's good, they know K is fungible.
Brandon Browner (UFA) - Goodbye to the 4th best corner on the team
Clinton McDonald (UFA) - likely to return
Walter Thurmond III (UFA) - Likely goodbye to the 3rd best corner
2014 Potential Cap Savings
Sidney Rice ($9.7M cap number, can save $7.3M with cut) - pretty much gone
Chris Clemons ($9.66M cap number, can save $7.5M with cut) - possible
Zach Miller ($7M cap number, can save $5M with cut) - possible
Russell Okung ($11.2M cap number, can save $6.68M with cut) - can't see how they'd replace him despite the cap number
2015 FAs
Jermaine Kearse (RFA)
Chris Clemons (UFA)
Cliff Avril (UFA)
Earl Thomas (UFA)
James Carpenter (UFA)
KJ Wright (UFA)
Richard Sherman (UFA)
Byron Maxwell (UFA)
Malcolm Smith (UFA)
I think the first priority is a Thomas extension. Then a deal for Sherman. I don't know that there's anyone else that they absolutely HAVE to keep. Obviously Wilson will get an improved deal at some point. And maybe a Harvin restructure in a couple of years if necessary. They have a ton of good players, but not a lot of excellent players that have to be locked up.
You are are strange dude. I read this thread as people saying (a) BB has a fairly decent track record of building pretty good teams so it would be fairly strange for him to deviate significantly from his basic philosophy based on the results from one year alone, and (b) having said that, if there are things to be learned from Seattle's win that can hep in the margins, Belichick is a pretty well known student of the game and I'm sure he will be busy this offseason figuring out what that is.dcmissle said:
I'm not sure why this place is "exploding". I think it was a good discussion.
dcmissle said:
Could you please start using the quote function for examples, because it seems to me that you don't even bother reading half the threads you post in. It's like you have your mind made up about how some guy from WEEI--let's call him Frank from Glouster--would call in and go on crazy rants and just assume that it's exactly what everyone here posts about. I don't get it.
With the exception of a throw-away line or two about PEDs, it seems to me that this has been quite a focused and honest discussion about the Patriots' needs and team-building philosophy. If you want to disagree with someone or, I guess, address the "explosion", it would be helpful if you could actually bring up the examples and address those on their merits. Or lack thereof.
Why the whining? Your questions have been addresed pretty fairly, I'd say.dcmissle said:
I do think too much is made about the Seattle blueprint, as it were. They had an incredible season capped by a kickass SB, and they should be praised to the skies for it. I'll be first in line for that. But IMO it's waaaay too early to say the Pats and the rest of the league should rush to follow theirexample, particularly given that the Pats (and 49ers and Broncos and Saints and Panthers) all had good season based on their own blueprints, and Seattle's year was heavily enabled by a cap situation most teams dont have.
soxfan121 said:
Morning Woodhead said:
Given the other rules that are understandably geared at player safety, I do hope that the NFL will go back and relax the Polian restrictions on the secondary. Although the Seattle defense may have been using the strategy of interfering with the hope it won't get called every time, a bigger issue would be how this rule should be called universally going forward. Before employing any defensive philosophy or personnel strategy, the league needs to clearly establish a rule and call it with consistency. I realize that is not a new concept at all, but it seems clear to me that defenses have been continuously frustrated by the rules limiting their ability to play physically. The defensive performance by Seattle reminded me a little of the early-to-mid 2000s Patriots and, in particular, their victories in SB 36 and over the Colts in the '05 divisional round game (20-3), although at a higher level. Going back to the pre-Polian rules for secondary coverage would at least partially offset some of the other changes geared at player safety. And I hope the league isn't looking to move backwards on the defensive play.
Assuming the rule changes don't occur, I agree with others regarding adding an edge pass rusher, depth for Wilfork (not sure how he will rebound from that injury), and size at either SS or CB. Assuming that Talib is resigned, I like the potential for Logan Ryan at the other CB slot. Draft or sign additional size for the secondary to balance the speed. With all of the injuries the Pats had this year, I like their potential to be very good with a solid draft and the return of Wilfork, Mayo, Gronk, etc. I think they already have a lot of the necessary pieces, so with a good draft and free agency period this defense could look considerably better next season.
Fine. I will get very literal with you. Check out SJH's post at 3:19 todayEd Hillel said:
Theo merely posed the question whether BB would be willing to learn something from the Seahawks.
SJH then decried a supposed rush to judgment that there was anything to be learned. He added that he would change not a thing with respect to how the Pats are run. He closed by noting that the real lesson of Seattle's success is PED abuse.
Is that specific enough for you?
So one post from one poster constitutes this place "exploding" and in your mind is ammunition for your stupid point that . . . Gasp . . . on a Patriot-centric board we tend to make everything about the Patriots?dcmissle said:
Leaving aside the PED snark (which he admits is snark) the point SJH was making is a valid one. Should teams spend their time changing direction and philosophy on a annual basis based on what worked once for a particular team? The Pats philosophy works pretty well, unless you are one of those fans who thinks each year without a Lombardi is a failure. Can they learn something from Seattle? I'm sure they can but I don't see a big change in their overall philosophy based on what happened Sunday.
The discussion in this thread has actually been interesting if you feel like participating in it instead of just whining about it.
Dedicated pass rushers are most effective against pocket passers. A team that can knock Peyton off his game with pressure might be susceptible to a Kaepernick or Newton who can dodge the middle rush and still make plays. Because Peyton and Brady almost never throw on the run I think we tend to see defensive strategy through that view.
Defensive flexibility might be a better strategy against fast QBs.
Defensive flexibility might be a better strategy against fast QBs.
It might be ... but we sucked against fast QBs this year (our worst game of the season defensively was against Cam Newton, and we also let Tannehill and Geno Smith have big games in one of the two meetings) and Seattle was really good against them (held the Panthers to 7 points and SF to 3, 19, and 17).crystalline said:
Ralphwiggum said:
The Pats philosophy works so well, in part, because BB is flexible -- not a coach who imposes one system on his players. i.e., he's constantly learning, refining, changing -- why on earth wouldn't the Pats look at the Hawks to further this? Not because they won a SB (no one, contrary to what you say, made similar suggestions in re, for example, the Ravens last year), but because Carroll is something of a maverick and in a cookie cutter league has done some things differently and with success. The idea that the Pats shouldn't try to learn from others is not just stupid on the face of it, it's also contrary to recent history -- it was BB who was bringing in Chip Kelly in a way that, before Kelly joined the league, put the Pats well ahead of the curve in terms of running a fast offense. Should BB have not learned from Kelly because the Pats' system was already working well?
I think everyone from rangy DBs to keeping tabs on players' sleep patterns is worth looking at.
TheoShmeo said:
The biggest lesson is how important it is to have a healthy team. Seattle was missing only one key player: Sidney Rice. The Patriots lost six pro-bowl caliber players, and something like 9 starters. At one point they were forced to start 5 rookies on defense, several of whom were UDFAs.
There is no question in my mind that if the Patriots were as healthy (and not in prison) as Seattle, they absolutely could have won the Super Bowl this year. That they did as well as they did with all the huge injuries is a testament to their coaching and their depth, which is absolutely necessary if you're going to be as injured as they were. But you cannot win a Super Bowl (well, it's extremely unlikely) when your team is a M*A*S*H unit going up against a great and essentially fully healthy team.
Pete Carroll put in the only system he knows how to coach. He makes so few adjustments that the Seahawks came out and said they'd be doing the same thing they always do. Pete even said he didn't really even have to coach them towards the end, they knew what they were doing.
Give Belichick a roster so strong* he can play straight up against the best offense in the nfl and absolutely dominate and maybe then he'll do something like what the "maverick" did. Until then expect Bill to adapt his defense to fit the players he has on the field.
*of course he picks the groceries but that Seattle roster is a very high bar that I doubt they could come close to replicating again with the same resources.
Give Belichick a roster so strong* he can play straight up against the best offense in the nfl and absolutely dominate and maybe then he'll do something like what the "maverick" did. Until then expect Bill to adapt his defense to fit the players he has on the field.
*of course he picks the groceries but that Seattle roster is a very high bar that I doubt they could come close to replicating again with the same resources.
I agree and I think everyone is pretty much saying the same thing, I think. You don't go making wholesale changes from year to year based on which team won, but a good coach should always be looking for innovative ways to improve in the margins and gain that little bit of competitive advantage that matters in a league where the talent from team to team is pretty even overall.Tony C said:
Tony C said:
You mean a rangy DB like...Talib?
The idea that BB learns from others around the league isn't wrong, but it seems like an odd time to beat that drum considering that the season they just had is pretty much a complete validation of the way he's always done things since 2000. The depth of the roster allowed them to reach the AFCCG despite serious injuries to numerous key players on both sides of the ball. They went into last summer planning on turning over their entire WR corps, and then got hit with the whammy of losing their TE-based offense (which was supposed to be the pattern the rest of the league was going to copy from the Pats, IIRC) when Hernandez got arrested, and still managed to end the year 13-5 because the philosophy of having a strong "middle class" on the roster proved its worth time and again. Obviously there's lots of room for improvement on the team, but this year of all years it not the time I'd expect BB to change his methodology.
Look how things can go wrong so quickly for other teams in the league over the course of one year: Atlanta and Houston collapsed into slag heaps after good seasons last year. Without good roster planning, there was no reason that couldn't have happened to the Pats once the injuries started piling up and Hernandez started killing people.
The lesson perhaps to learn from the Seahawks is that if you get Pro Bowl level play from your 5th round DBs and your 3rd round QB, it gives you a tremendous advantage in building the rest of the roster because so much more money is available to fill it. Trouble is, that roster situation might well be unique to Seattle for the time being, and it might prove fleeting since a ton of those guys are going to need new contracts within the next year.
Now Gasper has chimed in, claiming that Kraft is missing the forest from the trees in a touch of self-irony once you read the inherent contradictions in his rambling article:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/02/04/patriots-owner-robert-kraft-focusing-wrong-part-his-team-roster/0RkffnUwj72Sl5fYyKj78L/story.html
I'll give Seattle credit: they found some diamonds in the lower draft rounds, and they also did a good job hitting on some of their free agent signings. Also, since their last SB appearance, the Seahawks had some pretty dreadful seasons mixed in with four early playoff exits. Their blueprint for recovering from the depths of back-to-back 4 and 5 win seasons was not much different than the Pats efforts in 2001: draft well at the top (where's that Borges Seymour/Light article again?), hit some gold late in the draft (pick 199), and bring in some FA's off the scrap heap that turn into key players (Phifer, Vrabel, Hamilton, Cox). That team also had some pretty high draft picks from the Parcells era that also played key roles for the defense: Ted Johnson, Bruschi, McGinest, and Ty Law.
Contrary to what you may hear from the media, GM's win and die by hitting in the draft and in free agency. The Pats had some drafting issues a few years ago, and some of their street FA's or trades flamed out as well (Burgess, Fanene, etc.). And injuries really are out of the GM's control.
Are there things that Belichick can learn from watching Seattle? I'm sure. I'm also convinced he's already watched the game tape multiple times already. But with a limited amount of salary cap space, don't expect the Pats to land the top 5 most coveted free agents this offseason. Contrary to Felger's bleatings, that's not Kraft or Belichick being cheap; that's just reality when you have a roster with talented veterans.
Since 2007 was brought up, the Pats certainly did target WR as one of their needs that offseason. The Moss trade happened late, but Belichick was prepared to go into the season with Gaffney, Stallworth, Ben Watson, and Welker as Brady's primary targets. Moss came for a steal, and was willing to restructure his contract to catch balls thrown by Brady, so BB jumped at it; who wouldn't? But the team did have cap space that offseason, and their first acquisition was one guy who was considered the prize of the free agency season, Adalius Thomas. As much as I hated the player, the signing was done to target a specific need; Pierre Woods was playing LB most of the 4th quarter in that loss to Indy.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/02/04/patriots-owner-robert-kraft-focusing-wrong-part-his-team-roster/0RkffnUwj72Sl5fYyKj78L/story.html
I'll give Seattle credit: they found some diamonds in the lower draft rounds, and they also did a good job hitting on some of their free agent signings. Also, since their last SB appearance, the Seahawks had some pretty dreadful seasons mixed in with four early playoff exits. Their blueprint for recovering from the depths of back-to-back 4 and 5 win seasons was not much different than the Pats efforts in 2001: draft well at the top (where's that Borges Seymour/Light article again?), hit some gold late in the draft (pick 199), and bring in some FA's off the scrap heap that turn into key players (Phifer, Vrabel, Hamilton, Cox). That team also had some pretty high draft picks from the Parcells era that also played key roles for the defense: Ted Johnson, Bruschi, McGinest, and Ty Law.
Contrary to what you may hear from the media, GM's win and die by hitting in the draft and in free agency. The Pats had some drafting issues a few years ago, and some of their street FA's or trades flamed out as well (Burgess, Fanene, etc.). And injuries really are out of the GM's control.
Are there things that Belichick can learn from watching Seattle? I'm sure. I'm also convinced he's already watched the game tape multiple times already. But with a limited amount of salary cap space, don't expect the Pats to land the top 5 most coveted free agents this offseason. Contrary to Felger's bleatings, that's not Kraft or Belichick being cheap; that's just reality when you have a roster with talented veterans.
Since 2007 was brought up, the Pats certainly did target WR as one of their needs that offseason. The Moss trade happened late, but Belichick was prepared to go into the season with Gaffney, Stallworth, Ben Watson, and Welker as Brady's primary targets. Moss came for a steal, and was willing to restructure his contract to catch balls thrown by Brady, so BB jumped at it; who wouldn't? But the team did have cap space that offseason, and their first acquisition was one guy who was considered the prize of the free agency season, Adalius Thomas. As much as I hated the player, the signing was done to target a specific need; Pierre Woods was playing LB most of the 4th quarter in that loss to Indy.
Ralphwiggum said:
Hell, what's more, the discussion regarding the construction of Seattle's roster is important here as well. Should the Patriots use Seattle's blueprint when, by 2015, 24 players (i'd argue that 18 of those players are not fungible) will be UFA?
That's a hell of a thing.
This is kind of a pointless discussion. Philisophically the Pats should learn what they can from Seattle, but it's hard to have a productive discussion because the sort of things they could learn from Seattle tend to be either so minute that we can't even identify them (how deep astrong safety should drop in cover-3 when a receiving TE like Thomas flexes out?), specific to Seattle (maybe Pete Carroll motivates the kids by dance parties and music but that won't work for BB because it's who he is), or are so blindingly obvious (DRAFT TWO ALL PRO DBS IN THE FIFTH ROUND AND YOUR PASS DEFENSE WILL BE GOOD!) that they don't actually help a team get better.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I really don't get the rather manic defensiveness about BB (and/or Brady) or the Pats more generally or the need to denigrate Seattle/Carroll -- they just "hit on" a few draft picks and Carroll didn't even coach them? Seriously? It's just so damn easy.....
And, yes, precisely like Talib as I said in another post, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one (I imagine SJH has had multiple rants about it) to complain over the years about the small CBs on the Pats. This goes back years and the hope is that acquiring Talib indicates BB (who, as if it needs to be repeated, is I think is the smartest guy in football) saw the success of that model and will move beyond/has moved beyond that. BB is smarter than everyone else, but he has also shown some blind spots. (And, again, before I get a diatribe in response: I think BB should have won coach of the year this season, either him or Carroll.)
In re the Houston and Atlanta collapses, it's definitely true that every year the team that wins the Super Bowl looks invincible until...the next season, when it turns out not to be the case -- see the Ravens. The Pats' success is the exception (and why more teams should be looking at them as a model). That said, I do think Seattle is different given their youth -- in that sense they are more like the Steelers, 49ers and Pats. That is due to very good coaching, excellent drafting, and some innovations both in terms of system (the idea that they didn't make any adjustments is so absurd as to not merit comment) and training. The specifics of those have been mentioned numerous times, and by no means does that indicate the Pats need to make wholesale changes.
Super Nomario said:
This is really interesting. Perhaps the discussion really should be not what can the Patriots learn from Seattle success, but what can be learned about football from Seattle's success. I rather assume that's how BB approaches things, because he's not just concerned with how to build his team but how to attack the other teams.
Given SN's insight here, it seems that in a lot of ways, the Patriots would be limited in adopting many of Seattle's practices on defense because they are operating on such different models, i.e. the synergy of specialists v. the jack-of-all-trade/versatility guys. As such, it would take a few years of personnel turnover to play Seattle's version of defense, and they're not likely to attempt that transition in Brady's last years.
They key, then, is to understand what Seattle does and figure out how to beat it. And maybe in the process, you find one of the more minute things that Shelterdog points to and can use it, but ultimately, one of the thing that is so fascinating about football is that while everyone's playing the same game, they are often employing very different overarching strategies which has a tendency to limit at least in the short term the kinds of adjustments a team can make.
Although part of me increasingly wonders if all this analysis is kinda bs because everything takes a back seat to winning crap shoots in the draft.
020:
I have unhappy memories of the Pete Carroll era in NE, but I can credit the job he did in Seattle without forgetting those unhappy memories.
Certainly, talent is essential. I don't think anyone is forgetting how shorthanded the Pats were this year, or how important Seattle's talent level was to their winning this year. Nor that two factors in Seattle building up the talent they did are Wilson's comparatively small contract and several mid-to-late-round gems found in the draft.
Those things stated up front, it's also not as simple as "hey, look at these things, they are the answer!" either. Teams make decisions---about what gaps to target in FA/trades, about what schemes to put in place, keep, and change, about what players to acquire because they fit a profile and what players to adjust a system to maximize the value they can contribute. Many of us who are noting there's some things about Seattle's approach this year that might be instructive would also say that BB is, year in and year out, the single best person in the NFL at making all the trade-offs and decisions I described. And BB would be the first to tell you (because he's said as much in interviews and through his actions in visiting other coaches) that he is always learning from others in the game, too. It's not odd to say that he'd be looking at Seattle this year---it is a core part of what makes him the best, and he has made clear he takes a look at what successful teams in the NFL and college are doing every single offseason. This one will, I am sure, be no different. That doesn't mean Seattle has 'the blueprint' though it does mean he'll be asking the question we are in this thread. He may or may not find anything to pull from them...if we knew for sure what he'd find we'd all be working in the NFL, but I think his history makes crystal clear that he'll be looking.
Certainly, talent is essential. I don't think anyone is forgetting how shorthanded the Pats were this year, or how important Seattle's talent level was to their winning this year. Nor that two factors in Seattle building up the talent they did are Wilson's comparatively small contract and several mid-to-late-round gems found in the draft.
Those things stated up front, it's also not as simple as "hey, look at these things, they are the answer!" either. Teams make decisions---about what gaps to target in FA/trades, about what schemes to put in place, keep, and change, about what players to acquire because they fit a profile and what players to adjust a system to maximize the value they can contribute. Many of us who are noting there's some things about Seattle's approach this year that might be instructive would also say that BB is, year in and year out, the single best person in the NFL at making all the trade-offs and decisions I described. And BB would be the first to tell you (because he's said as much in interviews and through his actions in visiting other coaches) that he is always learning from others in the game, too. It's not odd to say that he'd be looking at Seattle this year---it is a core part of what makes him the best, and he has made clear he takes a look at what successful teams in the NFL and college are doing every single offseason. This one will, I am sure, be no different. That doesn't mean Seattle has 'the blueprint' though it does mean he'll be asking the question we are in this thread. He may or may not find anything to pull from them...if we knew for sure what he'd find we'd all be working in the NFL, but I think his history makes crystal clear that he'll be looking.
I don't think the Pats should exactly mimic Seattle's cover-3 scheme. The Patriots already have some dynamic pieces in place they can build around - Mayo, Collins, Jones, Ninkovich, McCourty, Hightower - and a pretty good group of corners if they re-sign Talib. What they can (and should, IMO) learn from Seattle is to fill in around those pieces with guys who are really good at one thing. Maybe that's a big corner who's not very versatile but can play press corner. Maybe it's a LB who lacks ideal size but is really fast. Maybe it's a DE who sucks against the run but is an explosive speed rusher. One example is Aaron Donald, an undersized (6'1" and ~290 lbs) DT who is an awesome penetrator (a skill set the Patriots do not have). If he's available at 29, do the Pats pull the trigger, or do they say "he doesn't check our size checkbox" and take a better-rounded, less explosive player?Reverend said:
Kyed goes into this here:
http://nesn.com/2014/01/patriots-pass-rush-would-benefit-by-borrowing-from-seahawks-defensive-mindset/
His other point is that Seattle assembled incredible depth along the DL and rotated liberally. In a year where the Pats tested their depth more than any other, we had garbage depth on the DL. That came to bear at DT, where we got 900 snaps from castoff Chris Jones and 700 from UDFA Vellano. Fortunately, Chandler Jones and Ninkovich stayed healthy, because our depth behind them was so poor we signed Andre Carter out of semi-retirement. Health at DT will help, but this is an obvious area of need.
Seattle's certainly benefitted from the crapshootiness of the draft, but they've also been able to get values because they're looking for different things than most teams. It's fluky that Richard Sherman turned into one of the best corners in football, but Seattle got him because they valued his size and ball skills and were willing to overlook his average straight-line speed and inexperience at corner. There may be something the Pats can learn from this approach to the later rounds, identifying one or two physical attributes and going after them instead of throwing away late picks on low-upside guys like Beauharnais, Jeremy Ebert, Lee Smith, and George Bussey. (To be fair, the Pats occasionally do go for upside late, such as Julian Edelman or Myron Pryor or even Michael Buchanan)Reverend said:Although part of me increasingly wonders if all this analysis is kinda bs because everything takes a back seat to winning crap shoots in the draft.
I want guys like Sutton and Donald. I love his ability to explode through double teams. I can only imagine what he would do with Jones and Wilfork. That would be a tremendous front 3 with pressure from the edge and the interior with Wilfork helping to collapse the pocket.
One more lb or de pass rusher would give us needed depth there. But adding a DT like Donald would do so much for the overall types of pressure we could generate.
One more lb or de pass rusher would give us needed depth there. But adding a DT like Donald would do so much for the overall types of pressure we could generate.
Seattle highlights our lack of a pass rush--I agree the answer could start with Donald and we should follow-up by getting an edge rusher.
The Pats won as many regular-season games in Carroll's three years as they did in the three prior years (i.e., Parcells' tenure, minus the 5-11 opening campaign when he had inherited a train wreck of a team). I'm not saying expectations should have been equal for both three-year spans, but if Parcells is a Hall of Famer, Carroll certainly wasn't the hack that the local media made him out to be. I'm glad he got another chance to coach in the NFL, and I'm less surprised than most folks here to see it turn out well for the Seahawks.
No one is beating any drums. Why distort a question into something more than it was?Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
And it's not an odd time to ask that question. Seattle just capped off a fantastic season by dismantling a team that easily beat the Patriots two weeks earlier. When would a better time to ask if there are things that BB might learn from the Seahawks?
This isn't different than politics or in any other circumstance when there is anything resembling a zero-sum game. I assume the Republicans immediately asked themselves if there was something to learn from the Obama campaign after the November election. They should have. That part of the answer was Romney himself doesn't mean that there wasn't information to be gained from the opposition's approach. I get that the Pats and Seattle didn't go head to head but the point remains the same. Same thing in business. When one company beats out another company for new business, that the loser is otherwise wildly successful should not prevent it from taking a look at what the winner did right.
And sorry, but I'm a huge Belichick sympathizer. I have pointed out to many a detractor the level of injuries, Hernandez and other mitiigating factors in the face of criticism. I have friends who think I'm ridiculously pro-management. At the same time, I can't go along with the notion that 2013 was a "complete validation" for Bill and any related suggestion that he doesn't have much to learn from other successful organizations. Sure, they got to the semi-finals and that's obviouvsly a huge accomplsihment. I am not a Yankee-like fan who measures success with titles and nothing else.
But Bill made a number of decsions this season that one could question. Letting Welker go over seemingly small dollars and substituting an often injured Amendola. Letting Woodhead go and relying on an often injured Vereen (rather than signing Danny cheaply and having depth at the position). Not signing someone like Abraham or Freeney who could get after the QB better. Relying exclusively on rookie WRs on the outside. Let me be crystal clear: I am a seriously grateful and appreciative Pats fan and I get that there are answers to all of those questions. I also know that these are the good old days. But I have trouble with callng this a complete validation because they got to the semi-finals with injuries in the face of some of those decisions and in the face of the fact that they got beaten handily for the second straight year in the AFC Championship Game.
My main point is that as great as Bill is, and as impressive as overcoming all the injuries on the way to 13 wins was, there were decisions one could question (including ones I did not mention) and there is almost always something to learn from a successful opponent. Seattle is one place to look for that given their success during the season and what happened on Sunday. There are other teams and apporaches to consider.
You might be right that there are no other lessons to learn from Seattle than the ones in bold. But I hope and trust that BB will think about it a little more deeply.
I believe what BB did last year was a bit of a reaction to the last three playoff losses to the Jets, Giants and Ravens. I think he would have kept Welker if the price was right, but the parties did not come to an agreement and Amedola is 4 years younger. The rookie receivers are all bigger and Dobson and Joyce run around 4.4 40's. One of our beefs the last few years was the lack of speed and size in the receiver core. The Jets, and Ravens had certainly bullied NE receivers and bottled up the short passing game over the last few years.TheoShmeo said:
Shelterdog said:
Good post, but don't you think there are also things in the middle? When I look at Seattle I see a lot of good, young, and cheap players like you mentioned in your third point, but I also see players that fit the scheme perfectly and are put in a position to succeed. Their strengths are catered to and their weaknesses are disguised or covered up by other players strengths. Up front they rotate players in and out both to keep players fresh and to adjust their strengths vs different types of offenses.
Vs SF (NFCCG) they started a base defense with three run stoppers and one pass rusher
Bryant - Mebane - McDaniel - Clemons
Vs Denver they started a nickel defense with zero run stoppers and four pass rushers
Avril - Bennett - McDonald - Clemons
Any team can do that if they want to, and it's neither minute nor blindingly obvious, right?
maufman said:
Of course not. Parcells inherited a 2-14 team, turned them around, and took them to the Super Bowl. Pete Carroll inherited a team coming off of a Super Bowl appearance and turned them into a mediocrity. Incidentally, the Patriots also went 5-11 during BB's first year, which was the year where he had to clean up the mess that Carroll had left.
To be fair, a big part of that mess also came from Bobby Grier; Carroll did not shop for groceries during his time in NE. Carroll also didn't let Curtis Martin walk out the door as an RFA.cannonball 1729 said:
phragle said:
I think it's interesting to fans but pretty obvious to every NFL coach--and particularly BIll.
I think that there are personnel decisions that are kind of a middle ground as a fan (as in hey, wow, defensive PI is being called looser so bigger physical corners are more valuable!) I'm not sure the smart teams learn much from those trends but certainly we as fans can.
This is off point but it's not as if Grier simply let Martin walk out the door. The Jets signed him to what amounted to a poison pill agreement that the Pats had no practical ability to match.lexrageorge said:
This article contains a pretty good description:
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/8224339/pro-football-hall-fame-curtis-martin-changed-course-two-franchises
TheoShmeo said:
Wasn't there a provision that he'd become a free agent if he was in NE but not in NY?
TheoShmeo said:
I was referring to the fact that the Pats let Martin hit the open market in the first place.