Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to mthurl's comment:

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    There is no question Kelly can play and play well. He's basically Gerard Warren in 2010 but with a pass rush down the middle.  That's the difference in those two and their skill sets. So, we need pash rush upgrade from Love or Deaderick in the 4-3 DT spot, so you get it right there.

    He also has multiple years in the 3-4 at DE. So did Warren. Bonus. 

    I don't know why people keep saying the Wilson and Kelly adds are unknown adds.  Seymour got hurt last year, only playing 6 games. This meant Kelly would be the slam dunk choice to be doubled all the time, which he pretty much had been for most of 2011 when he had 7.5 sacks on a bad D from a 4-3 DT spot. That's impressive production for a guy playing on a crappy team with nary a chance at a sniff at a SB ring.  Go look at how many DTs in the 4-3 get almost 8 sacks in a season. You won't find many.

    Wilfork>Seymour.  Do the math, please.

    Plop him down here next to Vince and are you kidding me? 

    Go ask a knowledgeable Raiders fan. Seriously.  Tommy Kelly was better than Seymour on that team since 2011.

    Seymour played for his last deal at 14 mil, raped the Raiders and then got lazy again.

    As for Armstead, word around the building per Zolak is the guy looks like a beast. I am not sure if this in the weight room or sort mini drills or what the scoop is, but they like the upside there.

    Would not be shocked if he and Kelly are the 4-3 DT guys as a duo similar to how BB used Wilfork in 2003 with Ted Washington and then later Keith Traylor.

    When using the 4-3, whoever is the better fit, with possibly the older Kelly as the subrusher on 3rds/passing downs, with Armstead being that 3-4 DE and 4-3 DT "project", if you will.

    It's fair to say we don't know on a guy who played in the CFL, but Kelly has to be hungry at this point after 10 years in the crap hole in Oakland.  Why do you think Wilson and Kelly didn't even talk to any other team?  They may have had suitors, in fact I know they did, but why do you think they didn't shop themselves? They WANT to be here.

    Keep in mind, Kelly was UNDRAFTED, which means he busted his tail and earned every penny to get what he had.  He'll fit in very well here with Adrian Wilson, two guys who would love a sniff at another ring.

    I can always tells who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. I get Oakland and Arizona were bad teams and it's unlikely to watch, but it's somewhat annoying for people to look at the age of a player and just assume that means they have little in the tank.

    Houston just paid Ed Reed 6 mil and he just had hip surgery. Good luck!

     

     



    I think you underestimate what age can do to older players in the NFL...it's a gamble - so two of the biggest free agent signings we had were gambles. Now every player every year is a gamble, but when you are going to be counting on these guys I would of liked them to be younger. Age does matter. 

     



    Yeah, but this points to how building a roster in the NFL is really like a shell game. 

    I already noted that the aged vet FA addition worked better when your defensive *core* was Seymour, Wash/Wilfork, Warren, Law, Bruschi, etc. 

    The last few years it's been as if they really keep signing these guys hoping for them to play at their peak level from their prime. Or to play complete seasons starting at rather advanced ages. 

    Of course a DT that is going to be 33, and really had his best seasnons sandwiched with a HOF end would be a question mark of some sorts, no matter what his size, pedigree, talent level of yore is. 

    For every one vet that has been a total home run, this team cycles through a dozen that are just JAG role players, or are off the roster within a season or so. 

    Frankly, though, if TK can do even what Brian Waters did (give NE one season of probowl T essentially) it would vastly improve them. No roster spot outside of QB and possibly OT has the impact on a game that a DT or pair of DTs can have. 

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to anonymis' comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    In response to anonymis' comment:

     

    just need depth at the DE/OLB position. Abraham is an option. Need more competition...

     



    So, you think the pass rush was fine coming in (15th ranked)? Or you think Kelley, Collins, et al, answers any deficiencies?

     

     




    I dunno.  I think the defense needs to get back into top 5 in pts. against, between 10-15 in passing yards against, top 5 in red zone defense.

     



    Yeah, I just posted the same thing about. They don't need to be the best in the league, but they need to be able to bring one home more often than they have in the past. 

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

     

    I already noted that the aged vet FA addition worked better when your defensive *core* was Seymour, Wash/Wilfork, Warren, Law, Bruschi, etc. 

     



    Well, yeah. When these signings are only needed as filler around a solid core they can be a nice surprise addition. But when you're hoping they will fix the core, you've got severe problems.

     

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to zbellino's comment:


    Yeah, I just posted the same thing about. They don't need to be the best in the league, but they need to be able to bring one home more often than they have in the past. 

     



    Yep.  Add top 7 or so for rush D - and you have on bad-ass team going forward....lol

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    Also, going to add this.

    People really overlook Armstead as a 4-3 END. I think he has utility there. A lot of teams have used larger players on the edge in 43 lineups. I could see them coming out with something like Jones, VW, TK, AA. It certainly would give you solid edges.



    Hey this is a good point, they could always go the other direction with this defense.  Put Wilfork and Kelly inside with Jones and Armstead on the ends, all the posters agonizing over my insistence the Pats still run a 3/4 with a 2/4/5 nickel as their base could relax because we'd be running a true 4/3.  In that case I might rotate Hightower and Spikes in the middle, Mayo and  Collins on the outside.  This might be a big picture move, maybe they can't come to an agreement with Spike's agent for an extension?  

    But I still think BB has always been working his way back to having enough personnel to run either a 3/4 or 4/3, in a perfect world you have enough depth of talent along the front to run either or both, depending on injury.

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    I think they have done enough but barely enough. Dennard and Talib are a good Duo with Arrington in there for the slot. They have enough safeties that if there is an injury McCourty could go to corner. They need one of these picks at corner to be able to learn fast because they are just not deep enough to sustain more than 1 injury at corner. 

    I think the Pats starting D can get the job done. The problem is the depth and I think they did okay in bolstering it but we will see. 

    WR is the biggest issue. If neither of the WR picks pan out and Amendola gets hurt the Pats are going to be searching the reject basket for a guy to come in and play. That's not going to cut it. Given the way the Pats offense is, probably neither of the WR rooks will start the first few games and it's going to look ugly. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     



    Obviously if they were not dismal the entire season one could not label them as dismal for the entire season nutcake. Learn to comprehend the language.

     

     




    They weren't dismal in 2011 either.  They were thinned out and flawed, but far from "dismal".

     

    You used the word "dismal" where you should have used a different word. Don't try to backpedal now, Mr. Troll Sneak.

     

     


    I'll stick with my choice of words crackpot.

     



    Back your premise. Break down how and why they were "dismal".

     

     




    I and numerous others have done this over and over for you meathead. Not wasting my time explaining the obvious to a wack job anymore. I've wasted 2 years doing that.

     

     

     

     

     



    No answer means backpedal.


    You lose. Again. "Numerous others" means about 5-10 irrational fans who either just started watching football in 2007 or are also having virtual affairs with Tom Brady. lmao

    You can't be ranked top 10 in almost every category minus passing yards allowed, middle in points allowed out of the 32 teams and be a "dismal" D.

    You chose that word and you just got caught because you can't explain why you chose that word.

    The board knows why you chose that word.  Not fooling anyone, diapers.

    The only whackjob is you. You probably do a LOT of other kinds of whacking, too, as a 61 year old angry white male living alone with no friends or social outlets to speak of. lmao

    Category

    Statistic

    NFL Rank

    Total Defense YPG

    411.4 YPG

    31st

    Passing YPG

    293.9 YPG

    31st

    Rushing YPG

    117.1 YPG

    17th

    Fumble Recoveries

    11

    T-7th

    Interceptions

    23

    T-2nd

    Total Turnovers

    34

    T-3rd

    Sacks

    40.0

    14th

    3rd Down Conversions

    43.1%

    28th

    Opp. Completion %

    62.4%

    23rd

    Opp. YPA (passing)

    8.0

    29th

    Opp. QB Rating

    86.1

    20th

    Rushing YPC

    4.6

    24th

    Points Allowed

    21.4 PPG

    15th

     



    Here's your top 10 in virtually every catagory.  I would call that a BIG fat lie!

     

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     



    No answer means backpedal.

     


    No answer means I'm not going to waste my breath on a moron who has had this proven to him 1000 times.

     

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I see no reason to believe the D will be significantly improved from these offseason moves. Talib was an excellent addition last year and retaining him if he stays healthy should keep the D respectable rather than dismal. He was a key acquisition. I hope BB has added great contributors. I just don't see any reason to think he has at this point.

     



    unless collins is givne reign to rush the qb and is the next von miller. or buchannon gains 20 lbs this summer and is the stud pass rusher he looked like in a few clips. 

     

     

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to bredbruu's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    I see no reason to believe the D will be significantly improved from these offseason moves. Talib was an excellent addition last year and retaining him if he stays healthy should keep the D respectable rather than dismal. He was a key acquisition. I hope BB has added great contributors. I just don't see any reason to think he has at this point.

     



    unless collins is givne reign to rush the qb and is the next von miller. or buchannon gains 20 lbs this summer and is the stud pass rusher he looked like in a few clips. 

     

     




    Sure. Got to hope for surprises. Maybe Jones gets 17 sacks and is healthy all year. Maybe Hightower emerges as an all-pro.

    But a sober judge probably is seeing the same old from this D despite the current draft crop.

    But remember, with Talib healthy, the same old was at least decent last year.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHUBBIE99. Show CHUBBIE99's posts

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    I see no reason to believe the D will be significantly improved from these offseason moves. Talib was an excellent addition last year and retaining him if he stays healthy should keep the D respectable rather than dismal. He was a key acquisition. I hope BB has added great contributors. I just don't see any reason to think he has at this point.

    +1


     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    Time will tell. The good news is that the Pats D has a full season of Talib who is on a one year prove it deal; meaning Talib has to play well to get a long term lucrative contract even if it isn't the Pats that give him the contract; the Pats D was markedly worse against the Ravens when Talib was out; I think I am in the majority in not wanting to see Marquise Cole as CB in an important game. So health is, as always a big key because the Pats have no viable replacment for Talib or Fork or Jones. I see Ryan and Wilson as potential DBs who could improve the nickel or dime.

    In the past Vrabal and Mc Ginnest supplied the pass rush and played exceptionally well in playoff games. The Pats D needs Chandler Jones do continue to improve to the point where either he racks up sacks and pressures or he draws double teams/holding penalties. This also plays into the Pats D having to play better on 3rd down. The conversion rate for opponents has to go down. I distinctly remember being disappointed with the PATS D on 3rd down numerous times last year.

    Please keep in  mind that the Pats D is not a dominant D meaning two things: this current incarnation of the PATS D is still largely dependent on TOs and 2) cannot afford to carry the offense if the O is turning the ball over. In short, the Pats need to win the TO differential game. I would like to see time-consuming drives by the O because the Pats D needs to play better in the 2nd half (not exhausted/ rotational players Kelly Armstead) and the Pats team needs to learn how to win a TOP game.

    The run D looks okay. The pass  D needs a couple of things: better pass rush; better coverage on RBs and TEs (Collins, Wilson). If the Pats pass D doesn;t get as many TOs as the last two years the D is in serious trouble. The D might not be able to bail out Brady if he throws a clinker. Adding Blount and using their RBs a little more could help (something they might have to do if Gronk or anyone in WR corps is injured for significant amount time).

    All end it by saying what I have been saying for the last 2 years; the Pats D is not dominant, but they are still very young and the opportunity for them to improve and thus fulfil their potential is there. They need players not named Mayo or Wilfork to step up and excel. As an optimist, I feel this will inevitably happen; it might not happen right away. I am always happy when the D elevates its game in the playoffs. The Pats will win their division, however, can the O not turn the ball over and can the D play better situational football in the playoffs? These are questions that if answered yes; then the Pats can go on a playoff run; if no than there will be trouble and discontent on this board with blame being thrown around by nearly everyone.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    We won each SB by 3 points because we didn't turn it over 



    We have one passing turnover in the last 2 losing SBs and had 1 in the prior 3 wins. That hardly seems like a difference maker between losing two and winning 3.

    You lose again dumbo.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    We won each SB by 3 points because we didn't turn it over 

     



    We have one passing turnover in the last 2 losing SBs and had 1 in the prior 3 wins. That hardly seems like a difference maker between losing two and winning 3.

     

    You lose again dumbo.

     



    To be fair and accurate how do you figure one? I can think of two in the last superbowl. Not taking sides, just sayin'.

     

     

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    We won each SB by 3 points because we didn't turn it over 

     



    We have one passing turnover in the last 2 losing SBs and had 1 in the prior 3 wins. That hardly seems like a difference maker between losing two and winning 3.

     

    You lose again dumbo.

     



    To be fair and accurate how do you figure one? I can think of two in the last superbowl. Not taking sides, just sayin'.

     

     

     




     

    He doesn't get that choosing not to use a lead back and commit to a real run game in some fashion, throwing 45 times, that means you have to score more than just 14 points with a QB throwing those 2 TDs.

    14 points from 45 passes ain't winning SBs.

    So, even if he has a 2 TD 0 INT SB 42, what is the point if it's 14 points?  The odds of winning an NFL game or SB with 14 points are 100-1 in this era.

    No NFL team wins a game these days by scoring 14 points (or even 17) after throwing 45 times by choice.

     



    Dude I don't care about your argument with him on any of the usually beat to death topics.

    I was merely saying there were two throwing turnovers in the last superbowl loss.

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    We won each SB by 3 points because we didn't turn it over 

     



    We have one passing turnover in the last 2 losing SBs and had 1 in the prior 3 wins. That hardly seems like a difference maker between losing two and winning 3.

     

    You lose again dumbo.

     




    What about AFC title games?  Also, what about passing TDs?  Brady had 3 TDs and 2 TDs in SB 38 and 39, with only 1 INT.

     

    In SB 42, he was fine with the ratio, but we had no running game, because his 45+ passes with a lead wouldn't allow it.  Same with SB 46 even with the 1 INT. 

    We're back to that TD/INT ratio, "dumbo".  LOL

    You just walked into another wall.

    No rushing TDs with just 1 or 2 passing TDs, is not a good thing, Diapers.

    That means you're barely scoring 14 points.  lmao





    If we had 5 Lombardis on our shelf would you shut up?

    I really don't know what your obsession with AFCCGs is. Other than to simply bash Brady.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:

     

    We won each SB by 3 points because we didn't turn it over 

     



    We have one passing turnover in the last 2 losing SBs and had 1 in the prior 3 wins. That hardly seems like a difference maker between losing two and winning 3.

     

    You lose again dumbo.

     



    To be fair and accurate how do you figure one? I can think of two in the last superbowl. Not taking sides, just sayin'.

     

     




    I said passing turnovers.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Low-FB-IQ. Show Low-FB-IQ's posts

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    The intentional grounding in the endzone is a passing turnover. It happend on a "passing" play.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:

    The intentional grounding in the endzone is a passing turnover. It happend on a "passing" play.




    That isn't a "turnover". Just as going for it on 4th down and failing isn't a "turnover" ( that is called a "turnover on downs"). Just as punting the ball isn't a "turnover". "Turnovers" are fumbles recovered by the other team and intercepted passes.

     

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

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    In response to BassFishingII's comment:



    Ok.  Agree.  Babe thinks Brady making dumb turnovers are irrelevant in the cap era, where the difference between winning and losing is razor thin.

     

     


    And you think that 7 blockers on 4 rushers failing is Brady's fault. Learn the game dumbkoff.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Gasper pre-draft: Have Pats improved their D?

    Rusty. Pretty sure I referred to Brady "throwing a clinker"; this phrase would apply to both the post-season and regular season (see Arizona or Seattle games)and essentially means he can't throw INTs at critical times in either case. Also mentioined that the current stable of RBs could allow the Pats D (and team) to win in tough time of possession game (see Pittsburgh and Balt) against reasonably good defenses and that Kelly and Armstead would improve the DL rotation (already good). Wilson signing and Ryan drafting will improve the secondary.

    All I said was the Pats D was not dominant (see 85 Bears, 2000 Ravens, 76 Steelers for point of reference). This is basically a true statement, but the D only has to play exceptionally well in important situations (then cited 3rd down). People forget this D is still fairly young and yes there is both time and room to improve. This will happen and to some extent (see Jones' Sacks and pressures and Hightower's TFLs) is already happening. The key, to me, is to keep forcing turnovers and playing good situational (nickel, dime, 3rd down) football. In the cap era and under the current rules its hard to see any team being the 76 Steelers or the 85 Bears. I'm sure most would agree that playing good-great situational football on D would help the team. It's not a criticism so much as an observation.

     

Share