A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about the Patriots' philosophy when it comes to edge players on their defense (they want to control the edge first, and other things like pass rush come a distant second).
I concluded by asking for some BSJ input because I like to hear differing points of view (no matter how outlandish) and sometimes a comment can spark a story idea:
I’d be interested in hearing what you think about the Patriots’ edge philosophy. Are you on board but with better personnel? Do you want Belichick to be more open to evolving like they do on offense?
So here's a sampling of some of the opinions from our member community:
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
I'm wondering how much BB's choices on pass rush talent have to do with availability. In Michael Holley's books on the Patriots, he mentions how BB says that the elite guys are snapped up really quickly. By the 2nd round, you're already gambling on the few remaining physically gifted guys who have issues.
So if BB decided to evolve the team to emphasize guys getting upfield to the quarterback, does he have access to the elite guys that would make this a truly effective approach? And then if you're lucky and get one of them, can they hold the team hostage for a crazy pile of dough?
My sense of BB from way back before he even came here is that he liked to play the percentages, even things out, focus on balance: spread the butter as evenly on the English muffin as possible.
I view his "controlling the edge" approach as an extension of that: to give the team the best chance on average, on every play, not to gamble, and risk big chunks against you.
And here's the thing: suppose you have a great pass rusher that gets 18 sacks. At about 65 plays per game, your defense gets over 1000 plays: 1040. So what about those other 1000 or so snaps where he doesn't get a sack? Sure, that's a gross oversimplification, but even so, the question remains: if you stress getting your edge rushers up the field, where does that really leave you from play to play.
The sack is the big glamour play on D, but unless you have a D with a crazy good front 4, are you better off from play to play emphasizing getting upfield? And can you get a crazy good front 4 when you always draft 24-32 in the 1st round?
— Brian K.
Bedard: Brian makes a couple of interesting points that I think come into play. The first is about how the Patriots are never in position to draft the type of athlete needed to be a dynamic edge player. Maybe Belichick long ago gave up on that and instead focused on the best overall approach.
And he's totally right: sacks, while good because of loss of down and yardage, are still largely overrated. I'll take a ton of hurries over 10 sacks any day.
_____________________
definitely, agree with what you’re saying about Belichick’s system and controlling the line of scrimmage, rather than just going right after the QB. However, what really interests me are the moves he’s made that suggest he might be open to tweaking the scheme. For example, drafting Dominique Easley in the first round doesn’t seem to fit with the rest of this philosophy. Easley seemed like a one gap, penetrating DT and was fairly effective when he was healthy (which was quite rare). Was the drafting of Easley a one-time event? Or was it one of the few times when an elite college lineman of that style was available to the Pats at the end of the first round?
— jmwong627
Bedard: Easley has been a total outlier as far as Belichick's history. It's interesting he tried a true three-tech ... I did think he was altering but he's stayed away from it. In my opinion, after seeing it, I think Belichick thought kicking edge players inside and putting in more edge players in sub was the way to go.
_____________________
Knee jerk reaction is to point at the recent Super Bowl. The D got lit up like a Christmas tree. They never got near Foles with any pressure. Butler’s benching may have averted the loss, but that doesn’t address the question of changing philosophies. They were awful early in the season and steadily improved with this approach, until the end. I would contend the approach works, but it is clearly a personnel issue. Considering how much they invested in the secondary, the front 7 were really exposed for their inability to set the edge first, and pass rush second. When they improved setting the edge (Harrison helped), the pass rush improved. Controlling the running game improves the pass rush.
— mageejr
Bedard: I agree with all of this. To me, the issue has been personnel, for whatever reason.
_____________________
I not only agree you’ve correctly assessed Bill’s priorities, I think BB has the better overall strategic view too. Also: it’s not a purely binary existence for EDGE players, say, Dwight Freeney vs. 2016 Ninkovich. Ideally, you have someone who can do BOTH–set the edge AND rush the passer (I seem to remember Chandler Jones did decently at both, when we was healthy). Trey Flowers, obviously, does both well. So too, I believe, should Clayborn–think, once again, the Pats have found good value here. MORE IMPORTANT: because they (hopefully) have a HEALTHY rotation, a better pass rush will naturally follow…
— robertmct2017
Bedard: Nodding...
_____________________
_____________________
We Pats fans seem to be screaming for a ferocious, terrifying defense. Bill always wants a respected, disciplined squad. Fans want our D to be feared, Bill wants it to be consistently effective. Last year, it was neither. The moves he’s made so far (Shelton, Clayborn, McCourty, Flowers) are a step in the right direction to becoming more consistently effective. We couldn’t stop the run on any down, so he made the Shelton move. McCourty is an upgrade over Bademosi and in some ways perhaps even Butler (and let’s not get started on Jordan Richards). The main issue the last couple of years, but last year in particular, IMO, is a lack of team SPEED on defense that made all other issues stand out.
— Grandjordanian
Bedard: Nodding...
_____________________
You can control the edge all you want if the players aren’t close to pressuring/sacking the QB because of Bill’s outdated scheme it doesn’t matter! Opposing teams and Quarterbacks hold on to the ball forever now because they know Bill isn’t concerned with y’know making the Quarterback get rid of the ball anytime soon! The attack is garbage in this spread out offensive league, it gets covered up because Bill relies on Brady scoring 30 points every game
— Dsomerville2525
Bedard: This is why, to me, it's personnel related, and the reasons they came up short this past season was a combination of a lot of things: injuries, not developing a youth movement (trading away Jones and Collins), some recent draft misses, overreliance on special teams players to fill out the roster instead of athletic rookies with upside, and just happenstance.
I think Bill's scheme still works with a little bit better talent (and we'd be talking back-to-back titles) and three in four years. But, yes, Brady does cover up some things.
Thanks everyone, really enjoyed this. We'll do more of this coming up.
GB