Baltimore's New Defense.

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    their defense has played against crap offenses. denver really only score 21 points on offense, indy had alot of execution problems.

    TB will be run the high efficiency offense like we've never seen it.

    actually they have some beef up front, but i see the patriots getting 40 points again

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to kansaspatriot's comment:

    their defense has played against crap offenses. denver really only score 21 points on offense, indy had alot of execution problems.

    TB will be run the high efficiency offense like we've never seen it.

    actually they have some beef up front, but i see the patriots getting 40 points again



    I don't know. 

    The thing that makes them tick is Ngata. NE doesn't match up well inside against him. He is a freakish force of nature. 

    I would be surprised if NE dropped 40 on them, especially after dropping 30 on them earlier this season. What are the odds?




    i think the ray lewis hype train runs out of gas, just like the peyton manning one did and the houston texans one did.

    only train left will be the patriots bullet train

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Do you ever, ever, ever admit to being wrong even when proven wrong?  "Serious question".

     



    I don't know? How do you feel about the 40 passes from Brady? That's the formula for a loss right?



    I would argue the Pats did a very good job of putting themselves in position to possibly give up that lead by continuing to throw low percentage throws in the 4th quarter with a huge lead.

    Frankly I am surprised more people have not complained about it today but then I have to remember that I am not sure anyone on here coaches and you watch a game very differently as a fan than as a coach.

    No one will convince me it was good game or clock managment by the Pats in the late 3rd Qtr and most of 4th Qtr. 

    People always want to rail about the defense giving up a lead late but I would argue that through the process of a game that just a single rush attempt on every given series, especially when already rushing the ball well AND having a sizable lead would easily wipe out 3 or 4 more minutes off the clock at a minimum.

    To be honest I was pissed that Brady threw that ball to Vereen down the left sideline for the TD. It worked. It's great in hindsite but that instantaneous TD was not needed in that situation after the turnover on downs with an already good lead of 30-13. It could just as easily have been intercepted as well given it's a low percentage throw and not Brady's strongest  attribute in his great skill set.

    What WAS needed was chewing up clock and giving your defense a rest after just leaving the field on the turnover on downs and keeping your kickoff coverage unit off the field as long as possible while having a rough night.

    There was 13 minutes on the clock still. That game took forever because the Pats never burned much clock and gave the Texans more time of posession. Football is a complimentary game and I personally don't think they did a good job with the sizable lead in that game.

    The Pats could have more sytematically tried to work their way down from the 33 to a TD while working clock, continuing to tire and bludgon the Texans D, rest their own D, Maintaining more time of posession, bring the clock ever closer to a time when Texans would need to consider to start using Time outs, prolonging the Texans an opportunity to get their successful KO receiving team on the field, etc, etc.

    Even if the drive failed they would have done most of those things I mentioned as well as still be in FG range with a most likely lead stretching FG that takes it to a 3 possession game with much less time on the clock. 

    Anything can happen with lots of time on the clock no matter how big the lead but when the time runs out game over and nothing bad can happen when you already have the lead with zero time left.

    As it turned out the Pats kicked off and the Texans ran it back to the NE 37 and quickly got the TD right back and still no time barely run off the clock.

    Sorry but the Pats would have indeed been better off running the ball just a lil bit more with the big lead starting earlier in the game.

    Sometimes you win as a coach because your team is just that much better or you made more good decisions than bad but that doesn't mean you made the best decisions in every situation.

    BB knows way more than me obviously but he also has not had the headset on many times when the Offense has the ball and didn't during this scenario but I would be willing to bet when he reevaluates the entire thing as it played out he'll have a few questions for McD.



    Sorry. 

    Don't agree at all. 

    You are talking about trying to sit on a 30 point score with ten minutes to go. 

    Well, no tricky bounces ... Texas ended up dropping 28 points on the defense. 

    Now crunch those numbers ... if one bad unlucky bounce happens, an onside kick works, Texas could have easily won it with NE sitting on that lead. 

    That throw, not the highest, but certainly not a 50/50 proposition was a mismatch that NE spotted and exploited. It put the game a-w-a-y. Over. 

    Maybe you missed it but BB plays aggressive and he always has. He literally said, just last week ... you don't win games by sitting in foxholes. 

    Moreover, his thinking was justified. Texas almost got the score they needed, and grinding 2 off the clock was about the only thing slowing the game down there guarantees. And grinding 2 off the clock does less to guarantee a win than a FG or TD. 

    It's basic win probability. 

    The next two drives, then they started running because it was over. 



    I knew you would go to the fox hole thing. Clearly you took from my post what you wanted and didn't read it since I never said anything about not going for a TD and just trying to sit on anything, least of all a lead.

    Also no one said to run exclusivley at any point in time or become ultra conservative. We'll agree to disagree since it was obviously lost on you or not written well by me. I am not a great writer, apologies.

    Never said to not take advantage of Brady, your best player. I said to do it in a way that was better game and clock management. Being agressive does not mean exclusively taking the path of quickest results or lower probability of success.

    I'll have to assume you are insinuating you need to do one or the other. Try and score with bombs and lower percentage throws down the field to consider it NOT sitting in a fox hole? ...or try and mix in some runs with higher percentage throws moving the chains on your way to trying to score a touch down, while purposely using a bunch of clock (sitting in the fox hole as you put it).

    I'll take the clock rolling away, my defense off the field, their defense taking more abuse, etc etc WHILE I am trying to score the TD. You're in control of the game, starting already in field goal range. It's a luxury to be able to work clock as you extend your lead from 2 possession to three, even if it ended in a FG and not TD. In that situation I will easily live with the result of 3 points instead of 7 if 4 minutes or more were also taken off the clock in the process. 

    The average person thinks game or clock management comes down to the final possession of two of a game. When it's predicatable. Let me assure you it doesn't. It especially doesn't when you have a comfortable lead. Coaches know better.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    "I go by patterns."

    So does Isaac Mizrahi, Fan Boy

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    I don't know if anyone has talked about the spread yet, but I can't believe that the oddsmakers are giving 9.5 points to the Ravens.  I am a huge Pats fan, but I will have to take the points on Sunday.  I think this game will come down to the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter. 

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from kevin13130. Show kevin13130's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    As well as the Ravens have played the past several weeks, I just don't see them being able to stop the Patriots offense. Baltimore's defense is comparable to that of Houston's, and Houston certainly couldn't stop us.

    As you mentioned Z, Denver had 16 offensive drives against the Ravens. I don't want to make any assumptions, but I would expect that if Brady had 16 offensive drives in a game, he'd put up more than 21 points. You just don't see the Patriots go 3-and-out very often.

    Even San Francisco, the best defense in the league, although they did an admirable job, couldn't hold down the Patriots when the Pats started to get rolling.

    I know it sounds cliche by now, but I really believe that the only defense against the Patriots are the Patriots. If we make errors and fail to execute, we'll have trouble like we did in Jacksonville.

    This offense is good enough to blow out anybody on any given day. It just has to go out and do it.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    The teams that give the PATS the most trouble are teams that can establish a rush with 4 linemen and keep the rest back in coverage.  I dont think that the Ravens are designed this way, and I think they need blitzes to get to the QB.  We should be able to score 24+ if Brady is Brady.

    Flacco scares me though, he was hot on the weekend against a respectable D on the road.  I am not convinced that the PATS D can defend the long bombs to Smith and Bolden and Jones.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to kevin13130's comment:

    As well as the Ravens have played the past several weeks, I just don't see them being able to stop the Patriots offense. Baltimore's defense is comparable to that of Houston's, and Houston certainly couldn't stop us.

    As you mentioned Z, Denver had 16 offensive drives against the Ravens. I don't want to make any assumptions, but I would expect that if Brady had 16 offensive drives in a game, he'd put up more than 21 points. You just don't see the Patriots go 3-and-out very often.

    Even San Francisco, the best defense in the league, although they did an admirable job, couldn't hold down the Patriots when the Pats started to get rolling.

    I know it sounds cliche by now, but I really believe that the only defense against the Patriots are the Patriots. If we make errors and fail to execute, we'll have trouble like we did in Jacksonville.

    This offense is good enough to blow out anybody on any given day. It just has to go out and do it.



    Well, part of that 16 is the fact that they had an over time plus. An average game has 12 drives, so each team should get another three or four in 5+ quarters. 

    I'd like to think, if NE gets 12 drives against Baltimore, they can score 24-31 points on offense on a good day with solid execution. If they are off their game, that will come down.  

    Is that enough?

    It depends on how well they defend the Ravens and if there are any FR TDs/INT TDs/KR TDS for each side. 




    If there are any PR or KR for TD's it certainly wont be the Patriots.  I cannot believe that McCourtey is still returning kickoffs.  Much to valuable to lose to injury and quite frankly, not that good.  I would like to see a Vereen get a chance.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    You know I respect your opinion ZB, but the Pats offense is the best they will see all year. The Pats can pass effectively and run effectively. I could be wrong, but Suggs doesn't seem to be as good a run defender as he was in the past. Both the Pats Offense and defense have improved since last year and since the last meeting in Baltimore. One of my concerns is can the Pats D keep Rice ineffective and cover the deep routes (rush, cover well). Also think Brady has played maybe slightly above average against the Ravens D over the years....and the Pats will need him to Tom terrific.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from kevin13130. Show kevin13130's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to kevin13130's comment:

    As well as the Ravens have played the past several weeks, I just don't see them being able to stop the Patriots offense. Baltimore's defense is comparable to that of Houston's, and Houston certainly couldn't stop us.

    As you mentioned Z, Denver had 16 offensive drives against the Ravens. I don't want to make any assumptions, but I would expect that if Brady had 16 offensive drives in a game, he'd put up more than 21 points. You just don't see the Patriots go 3-and-out very often.

    Even San Francisco, the best defense in the league, although they did an admirable job, couldn't hold down the Patriots when the Pats started to get rolling.

    I know it sounds cliche by now, but I really believe that the only defense against the Patriots are the Patriots. If we make errors and fail to execute, we'll have trouble like we did in Jacksonville.

    This offense is good enough to blow out anybody on any given day. It just has to go out and do it.



    Well, part of that 16 is the fact that they had an over time plus. An average game has 12 drives, so each team should get another three or four in 5+ quarters. 

    I'd like to think, if NE gets 12 drives against Baltimore, they can score 24-31 points on offense on a good day with solid execution. If they are off their game, that will come down.  

    Is that enough?

    It depends on how well they defend the Ravens and if there are any FR TDs/INT TDs/KR TDS for each side. 



    Oh I see, the 16 drives included those in overtime. Well, I reviewed the Patriots game. We scored those 41 points in 12 offensive drives like you suggested. Keeping in mind that a few of those drives were designed to kill time, I feel pretty good about where we are at as an offense.

    I would not expect 41 points on the Ravens defense, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened. The Texans D is, I think, every bit as solid as that of the Ravens. I mean, the Ravens don't have a JJ Watt or a Jonathan Joseph.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:

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

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    Do you ever, ever, ever admit to being wrong even when proven wrong?  "Serious question".

     



    I don't know? How do you feel about the 40 passes from Brady? That's the formula for a loss right?



    I would argue the Pats did a very good job of putting themselves in position to possibly give up that lead by continuing to throw low percentage throws in the 4th quarter with a huge lead.

    Frankly I am surprised more people have not complained about it today but then I have to remember that I am not sure anyone on here coaches and you watch a game very differently as a fan than as a coach.

    No one will convince me it was good game or clock managment by the Pats in the late 3rd Qtr and most of 4th Qtr. 

    People always want to rail about the defense giving up a lead late but I would argue that through the process of a game that just a single rush attempt on every given series, especially when already rushing the ball well AND having a sizable lead would easily wipe out 3 or 4 more minutes off the clock at a minimum.

    To be honest I was pissed that Brady threw that ball to Vereen down the left sideline for the TD. It worked. It's great in hindsite but that instantaneous TD was not needed in that situation after the turnover on downs with an already good lead of 30-13. It could just as easily have been intercepted as well given it's a low percentage throw and not Brady's strongest  attribute in his great skill set.

    What WAS needed was chewing up clock and giving your defense a rest after just leaving the field on the turnover on downs and keeping your kickoff coverage unit off the field as long as possible while having a rough night.

    There was 13 minutes on the clock still. That game took forever because the Pats never burned much clock and gave the Texans more time of posession. Football is a complimentary game and I personally don't think they did a good job with the sizable lead in that game.

    The Pats could have more sytematically tried to work their way down from the 33 to a TD while working clock, continuing to tire and bludgon the Texans D, rest their own D, Maintaining more time of posession, bring the clock ever closer to a time when Texans would need to consider to start using Time outs, prolonging the Texans an opportunity to get their successful KO receiving team on the field, etc, etc.

    Even if the drive failed they would have done most of those things I mentioned as well as still be in FG range with a most likely lead stretching FG that takes it to a 3 possession game with much less time on the clock. 

    Anything can happen with lots of time on the clock no matter how big the lead but when the time runs out game over and nothing bad can happen when you already have the lead with zero time left.

    As it turned out the Pats kicked off and the Texans ran it back to the NE 37 and quickly got the TD right back and still no time barely run off the clock.

    Sorry but the Pats would have indeed been better off running the ball just a lil bit more with the big lead starting earlier in the game.

    Sometimes you win as a coach because your team is just that much better or you made more good decisions than bad but that doesn't mean you made the best decisions in every situation.

    BB knows way more than me obviously but he also has not had the headset on many times when the Offense has the ball and didn't during this scenario but I would be willing to bet when he reevaluates the entire thing as it played out he'll have a few questions for McD.



    Sorry. 

    Don't agree at all. 

    You are talking about trying to sit on a 30 point score with ten minutes to go. 

    Well, no tricky bounces ... Texas ended up dropping 28 points on the defense. 

    Now crunch those numbers ... if one bad unlucky bounce happens, an onside kick works, Texas could have easily won it with NE sitting on that lead. 

    That throw, not the highest, but certainly not a 50/50 proposition was a mismatch that NE spotted and exploited. It put the game a-w-a-y. Over. 

    Maybe you missed it but BB plays aggressive and he always has. He literally said, just last week ... you don't win games by sitting in foxholes. 

    Moreover, his thinking was justified. Texas almost got the score they needed, and grinding 2 off the clock was about the only thing slowing the game down there guarantees. And grinding 2 off the clock does less to guarantee a win than a FG or TD. 

    It's basic win probability. 

    The next two drives, then they started running because it was over. 



    I knew you would go to the fox hole thing. Clearly you took from my post what you wanted and didn't read it since I never said anything about not going for a TD and just trying to sit on anything, least of all a lead.

    Also no one said to run exclusivley at any point in time or become ultra conservative. We'll agree to disagree since it was obviously lost on you or not written well by me. I am not a great writer, apologies.

    Never said to not take advantage of Brady, your best player. I said to do it in a way that was better game and clock management. Being agressive does not mean exclusively taking the path of quickest results or lower probability of success.

    I'll have to assume you are insinuating you need to do one or the other. Try and score with bombs and lower percentage throws down the field to consider it NOT sitting in a fox hole? ...or try and mix in some runs with higher percentage throws moving the chains on your way to trying to score a touch down, while purposely using a bunch of clock (sitting in the fox hole as you put it).

    I'll take the clock rolling away, my defense off the field, their defense taking more abuse, etc etc WHILE I am trying to score the TD. You're in control of the game, starting already in field goal range. It's a luxury to be able to work clock as you extend your lead from 2 possession to three, even if it ended in a FG and not TD. In that situation I will easily live with the result of 3 points instead of 7 if 4 minutes or more were also taken off the clock in the process. 

    The average person thinks game or clock management comes down to the final possession of two of a game. When it's predicatable. Let me assure you it doesn't. It especially doesn't when you have a comfortable lead. Coaches know better.

     



    Another great response. I like Z,actually I like all Pats fans on this site. Yet when Z is disagreed with he tends to ignore the crux of the discussion,then exaggerate one aspect to make it seem like the other person is being unreasonable.

    Nobody wants to be a run 1st run all the time offense. We want our OC and coaching staff to help Tom Brady by utilizing all aspects of the offense, and yes running the ball/throwing to the rbs to keep our d off the field and wear down the opposing D. 

    We have done that this season. We lead the LG in rushing tds, and are 2nd in rushing atts only to run 1st Seattle. Every "football guy" I respect on radio, Internet and TV says this is the best/most efficient Pats offense or perhaps any offense ever. It is due to the commitment to the running game and no longer beingprimarily a downfield pass finesse offense.

    Yes Rid is better then BJGE but the FACT is that we only run at .2 ypc more then we did under OB last year yet we are 2nd in The LEAGUE IN RUSHING ATTS. Actually Seattle and Washington were 1st and 3rd but they averaged 5 ypc as a team and 4.8 ypc respectively. A lot better then us as we got 4.2 ypc, but we were COMMITED TO THE RUN UNDER MCD. 

    Anyway I won't let these guys be buzz kills. As you said we will agree to disagree. Our offense is way better then last year and our rebuilt defense is coming along nicely. This is the best chance we have to win a SB since 2004 as our D is not too old, and our offense will run the football, which has more benefits then guys here are apparently aware of.

     

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Bellino is very frustrating.  He'd be a great lawyer. He does a heck of a job trying to deflect and also convince people his analysis is accurate.   It's unreal, though.  He is proven wrong and he just continues.  Johnnie Cochrane made a living off of that.

    And, OJ Simpson is thrilled. It's an art form, but at some point enough is enough.

    [/QUOTE]

    If I change Bellino for RockSkully the same could be said about you.  At least Z backs up what he thinks with some actual facts.  You speak in absolutes all the time and then when a real life doesn't meet you exspectations you backpetal very fast. 

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to csylvia79's comment:

     




    Bellino is very frustrating.  He'd be a great lawyer. He does a heck of a job trying to deflect and also convince people his analysis is accurate.   It's unreal, though.  He is proven wrong and he just continues.  Johnnie Cochrane made a living off of that.

    And, OJ Simpson is thrilled. It's an art form, but at some point enough is enough.



    If I change Bellino for RockSkully the same could be said about you.  At least Z backs up what he thinks with some actual facts.  You speak in absolutes all the time and then when a real life doesn't meet you exspectations you backpetal very fast. 

     



He does not backpedal. He pretends it never happened.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to jam757's comment:

    They may be peaking or may have already peaked. Ray won't be going down without a fight. I have a hard time believing that they can match NE blow for blow scoring the ball. Turnovers and filed position will be huge as always. Also, can we please tackle someone before the 50 on a kick off!


    add a "leg" kicker or kick the ball to the bigger guys or out of bounds. no way i kick to jones every time.

    make the slow linebackers run around. they will be grabbing everyone they can if they can get close enough. vereen and ridley/woody on field at same time. kill them wiht speed out of abkcfield. they go small, run it.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to SmokingJoe's comment:

    The teams that give the PATS the most trouble are teams that can establish a rush with 4 linemen and keep the rest back in coverage.  I dont think that the Ravens are designed this way, and I think they need blitzes to get to the QB.  We should be able to score 24+ if Brady is Brady.

    Flacco scares me though, he was hot on the weekend against a respectable D on the road.  I am not convinced that the PATS D can defend the long bombs to Smith and Bolden and Jones.



    Really? I honestly think they can. If they can't I will be bitterly disappointed ... again. 

    I don't want to get my hopes up .... but NE's Lbers can control this if Talib can continue to buy them the liberty to mix in cover-1.

    If they are getting beat and have to work with everyone deep, then it will be a long day. 

    Focus on a.) getting drives for the offense. Don't let Baltimore chew clock between their short game and Rice. b.) don't give up the dagger play that Baltimore likes to throw.

    On offense ... test those edges with the runners, run stretch plays, run draw plays, run 'wham' plays and off tackles away from Ngata, and like Rusty alluded to ... test the LBers against Hern andth RBs in coverage. I don't think Ellerbe or Lewis can really run with Vereen (or Woodhead). If you can force the Ravens into zone coverage ... Brady can start operating. If they can't win those matchups over the middle, and the Ravens can play man under blitz, it's going to be a long day. I don't like the way NE matches up outside and deep against their corners and Reed. I think outside of the interior line ... NE "matches up" better with Balties D than Denver does. It's a horizontal precision passing game that uses quickness ... something Baltimore has had more of before.



    "but NE's Lbers can control this if Talib can continue to buy them the liberty to mix in cover-1"

    bb's interviews after hou gam indicate (along with the game) that he has confidence in talib to handle the top guys.

    bb has to decide if he wants talib to cover their go to guy boldin who may get more catches or smith who gets the deep ball.

    denard and mcc on smith ; or dennard on boldin and talib on smith.

    and in 3 wr sets who covers jacoby jones (too bad we dont have dowling) wilson? cole? arrington? this may be teh bigger question.

    wilson's role is clear in 2 rb sets, covering the te

    arrington is a huge liability.

    also will bb finally have someone cover the back out of the backield?

    all fun stuff to watch for

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    I noticed your analysis is a whole lot of rhetoric.   Ever wonder why Brady was a better postseason QB before than now?

    I don't.

    I know why.  He took one small step towards  being the postseason QB he used to be last night.  We'll see if he can match that again next Sunday.

     



    If by better you mean statistically better, he was not better then. 

    If by better you mean he won a couple more games, sadly those couple get to be Superbowls, then a blind dog could tell you. The defense of late is a complete shell compared to Bruschi, Law, Harrison, McGinest, Vrabel, Seymour, Washington, Wilfork, Poole, etc, etc.

    It's naked it's so obvious. That was a year in year out top five defense. Brady could rattle off three four five three and outs, turn the ball over, and they would hang in there.  

    Does the defense need to be that good? No. Because NE has an offense now that can do what we just saw .... blow a top ten defense right out of the water on some nights. 



    No, I mean being a QB. I don't; care about stats for my QB. I care about what he does in a positive light, to help the team win.

    Keep in mind the D picked Schaub and did other things at times when our offense was struggling.

    Yes, this defense is the youngest in the NFL but becoming pretty darn impressive lately considering that.  Brady's better TD/INT ratio HELPED that 2001-2004 D, while his WORSE one in these recent postseasons has not helped these Ds.

    Would be nice if our future HOF QB knew what it meant to help our D.  In recent postseason games, he's forgotten it.  Last night was a GOOD start in remmebering it.

     




    The defense did pick Shaub. Did I say they were terrible this week? They were better than they were in any game last post season. 

    Yes, Brady was perfect (again) in 2004. 

    But in 2001 and 2003 he had a 2-1 TD interception ratio, and a couple fumbles. I don't know how that equates to being better. It's worse. 

    And Brady's defense *helped the team* in those post seasons. Do you really want to count the 3 and outs and turnovers? I mean it's not even close.

    Really?

    NE Oakland 52 passes ... 0 TDs .... 1 interception. 16-13 score. 

    NE vs Tenn 48 passes ... 1 TD, 1 fumble .... 17-14 score.

    NE vs IND 38 passes 1 TD 1 INT .... 24-14 score (win on the strength of a pick 6).

    In fact, in 2003 they went through the whole post-season throwing the ball 38 times, 48 times and 48 times. He produced 3 turnovers and 5 TDs. They won all three games. 

    If Brady played like that last post-season, they wouldn't have won either because their defense just isn't as good. 




    In 2001 he was in his first season starting!  Also, his talent in 2007, 2010 or last year around him was lethal compared to David PAtten, Givens or Brown as receiving options.

    I love Troy Brown, but clearly Welker is more electric as a slot guy, so making excuses for his worse TD/INT ratio in the postseason now somehow pinning it on our D is outrageous.

    Add in this era, being more offensive, via Goodell's orders and you lost. You simply lost.

    Harder to play D today, easier to score points. NOT DEBATABLE.

     

    .



    Actually it's not worse now. 

    But I digress. 

    YEah, teams score an average of about 1 point more per game than back in 2001. 

    Too bad the defense of the seasons past give up about seven points more per game than those old ones. It's also too bad that they weren't out there forcing multiple turnovers and multiple three and outs. I mean three and outs are gold for an offense. You get right back on the field and maintain your rhythm. If you have to sit there for 10-15 minutes between snaps it's not good. 

    Not debatable is right. That's why rankings are rankings ... they are elastic. First in defense now is still first. Middle of the pack is still middle of the pack. 

    You make too many excuses for someone who is always worried about excuses ... end of the day ... two things. 

    The team was built lopsided, not by design but by chance. BB has been a far better offensive drafter than defensive drafter of late. There is a law of diminishing returns if one side of a team is much stronger than the other.

    I would trade Welker or Gronk in a heart beat if I knew they were getting a "Law" or a "Seymour" in return. Why? There aren't enough reps for that much offensive skill positions guys. And you are better off having a more even distribution of talent. 



    interestign take and logic woudl seem to be with the idea, however with how the offense ahs been gettign injured vs hou and teh last 2 years teh redundancy wew have on offense will be critiacl to us winning this year imo

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to bredbru's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    I noticed your analysis is a whole lot of rhetoric.   Ever wonder why Brady was a better postseason QB before than now?

    I don't.

    I know why.  He took one small step towards  being the postseason QB he used to be last night.  We'll see if he can match that again next Sunday.

     



    If by better you mean statistically better, he was not better then. 

    If by better you mean he won a couple more games, sadly those couple get to be Superbowls, then a blind dog could tell you. The defense of late is a complete shell compared to Bruschi, Law, Harrison, McGinest, Vrabel, Seymour, Washington, Wilfork, Poole, etc, etc.

    It's naked it's so obvious. That was a year in year out top five defense. Brady could rattle off three four five three and outs, turn the ball over, and they would hang in there.  

    Does the defense need to be that good? No. Because NE has an offense now that can do what we just saw .... blow a top ten defense right out of the water on some nights. 



    No, I mean being a QB. I don't; care about stats for my QB. I care about what he does in a positive light, to help the team win.

    Keep in mind the D picked Schaub and did other things at times when our offense was struggling.

    Yes, this defense is the youngest in the NFL but becoming pretty darn impressive lately considering that.  Brady's better TD/INT ratio HELPED that 2001-2004 D, while his WORSE one in these recent postseasons has not helped these Ds.

    Would be nice if our future HOF QB knew what it meant to help our D.  In recent postseason games, he's forgotten it.  Last night was a GOOD start in remmebering it.

     




    The defense did pick Shaub. Did I say they were terrible this week? They were better than they were in any game last post season. 

    Yes, Brady was perfect (again) in 2004. 

    But in 2001 and 2003 he had a 2-1 TD interception ratio, and a couple fumbles. I don't know how that equates to being better. It's worse. 

    And Brady's defense *helped the team* in those post seasons. Do you really want to count the 3 and outs and turnovers? I mean it's not even close.

    Really?

    NE Oakland 52 passes ... 0 TDs .... 1 interception. 16-13 score. 

    NE vs Tenn 48 passes ... 1 TD, 1 fumble .... 17-14 score.

    NE vs IND 38 passes 1 TD 1 INT .... 24-14 score (win on the strength of a pick 6).

    In fact, in 2003 they went through the whole post-season throwing the ball 38 times, 48 times and 48 times. He produced 3 turnovers and 5 TDs. They won all three games. 

    If Brady played like that last post-season, they wouldn't have won either because their defense just isn't as good. 




    In 2001 he was in his first season starting!  Also, his talent in 2007, 2010 or last year around him was lethal compared to David PAtten, Givens or Brown as receiving options.

    I love Troy Brown, but clearly Welker is more electric as a slot guy, so making excuses for his worse TD/INT ratio in the postseason now somehow pinning it on our D is outrageous.

    Add in this era, being more offensive, via Goodell's orders and you lost. You simply lost.

    Harder to play D today, easier to score points. NOT DEBATABLE.

     

    .



    Actually it's not worse now. 

    But I digress. 

    YEah, teams score an average of about 1 point more per game than back in 2001. 

    Too bad the defense of the seasons past give up about seven points more per game than those old ones. It's also too bad that they weren't out there forcing multiple turnovers and multiple three and outs. I mean three and outs are gold for an offense. You get right back on the field and maintain your rhythm. If you have to sit there for 10-15 minutes between snaps it's not good. 

    Not debatable is right. That's why rankings are rankings ... they are elastic. First in defense now is still first. Middle of the pack is still middle of the pack. 

    You make too many excuses for someone who is always worried about excuses ... end of the day ... two things. 

    The team was built lopsided, not by design but by chance. BB has been a far better offensive drafter than defensive drafter of late. There is a law of diminishing returns if one side of a team is much stronger than the other.

    I would trade Welker or Gronk in a heart beat if I knew they were getting a "Law" or a "Seymour" in return. Why? There aren't enough reps for that much offensive skill positions guys. And you are better off having a more even distribution of talent. 



    interestign take and logic woudl seem to be with the idea, however with how the offense ahs been gettign injured vs hou and teh last 2 years teh redundancy wew have on offense will be critiacl to us winning this year imo

    re:
    "I was thinking the same thing as I wrote it -- gotta love losing Gronk then rolling the Texans up for 40 points on the strength of your  ... wiat for it ... third string running back who was a 2nd round selection. That has to really get Wade Phillips' short hairs. Haha."

    (smiling)

    Still if I could trade one great offensive pick for one of the frustrating misses on defense (Cunningham for instance) I feel like they would have had enough. 

    i hear you.

    i think we need 3 on defense. so i think we re further away.

    if things dont roll out in very preferable ways last year and this, i dont know we go all the way to sb

    even now not sure we win the sb.

    next year i expect the good teams to get better.

    im looking for a definate pass rusher, cover ss, speedy backer in fa

    xavier rhodes, big outside wr and interior o line in draft if we had another draft pick id add dt starter next to fork

    then we may have what we need no matter who we face and how they do in acquisitons.

    thanks for the exceptional exchange of thoughts.

    so i think we have a wasy to go.


    but its gettign built.

    by next year we wil have so much on offense there will be tough decisions to make on that side.

    edelman, demps and if we add outside wr.

    good stuff man.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts