Baltimore's New Defense.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to jam757's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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!

    [/QUOTE]
    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.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SmokingJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    "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

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    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. 

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

    .

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Low-FB-IQ's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

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

     

    [/QUOTE]

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

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? 

    Are you really accusing me of this?

    You follow me around telling me I say football is "dumb luck" because I said (exactly what BB said) that it's mostly about execution and second guessing/nitpicking a few plays here and there has little to do with anything.

    And it's not just this issue either, but I say the same thing to others (who are much less intransigient) when they come here complaining that BB doesn't "blitz" enough, or doesn't have a "tough attacking" defense. 

    This idea that adding a couple more of one kind of play will swing the outcome of game is ludicrous, and basically any coach that would read such a thing would probably laugh it off for what it is ... internet fodder by people who want something to critique. 

    If your position is .... NE hasn't pieced together that final win because they didn't run the football enough ... I'm not changing topics. 

    You are flat out incorrect. Sorry. It's an abuse of history. It's an abuse of the reality of how football is played. 

    NE won games PASSING THE BALL 52, 48 times, 43 times times earlier in the decade. Sometimes turning it over three times. Some games they completely ignored the run. Football doesn't come down to "how balanced" you are.

    They just won a game by splitting a top notch defense in half after losing their best skill position player, and did it strictly by passing the football, from empty backfield sets.

    There is no rigid formula for winning a football game that comes down to how often you run or pass. Establishing the run (as we've seen recently) does not guarantee a victory. Nor does not establishing the run have anything to do with losing to the Giants or Jets (two games in which they did more to establish the run than this recent shellacking of the Texans). 

    NE always tries to run the football they always have... then when things don't work or they fall behind ... they pass more to catch up. It's as old as football itself. 

    ANd no, this offense is neither much more balanced, nor is it much better than last season. As a matter of fact ... they lost one more game than last year's team. Yeah, Ridley as an every day back is better than BJGE and Lloyd is better than anything they've had outside since Moss left. But statistically they are essentially identical. 

    Here is establishing the run TC. Let's go through it again. 

    NE in this Texans game had about 24 runs. 

    They had 20 in the Superbowl.

    BJGE had 10 runs. Woodhead 7. Welker 2. 

    Ridley just got 15 carries. Vereen 7. Brady 1. 

    You cry ... cry .. 41 passes to 19 runs. Claiming that imbalance led to to low output.

    OK, now ... if six of them came on a clock killing drive ... that means he got 9 carries before that final drive. 

    Ridley with 9 through three quarters. 

    BJGE with 10. 

    Keep following me. 

    Brady threw 40 passes this week. 

    Brady threw 41 in the Superbowl. 

    On the final drive Brady threw 2 passes. 

    On the final drive of the Superbowl Brady threw 9 passes trying to catch up in 54 seconds. 

    Through the "real" game he threw about 32 passes. 

    OK, so what's the balance tally? What is the limit of establishing the run? Giving Brady "help."

    Now keep following because I'd love a real repsonse that isn't an off topic cut and paste about how Brady thinks McD is the best. 

    38 passes to 17 runs is the final tally before a garbage time drive to kill the clock off against the Texans. 

    32 passes to 19 runs in the Superbowl, before a last ditch drive. 

    One is more balanced than the other. And we could run this through with the Jets loss as well in which NE ran the ball 28 times, and was incredibly disciplined maintaining a "balance" between running and passing. 13 of them came on a final last ditch drive. The pass/run tally was 32/28.

    If NE *executes* better in those games then those final drives are running drives like this last Texans drive. 

    If they manage the same 7 run plays on a final clock killing drive (follow me now):

    The final tally is likely:

    32 passes to 26 runs in the Superbowl. 

    32 passes to 35 runs in the Jets loss. 

    And you are here talking about how balance won the day, the same way you are now about a Texans win (drubbing really) that was fundamentally much more imbalanced than either of those two losses.

    Please ... I mean it ... respond (focused) on that statistical breakdown. All I need is for you to see that what you are saying is in this case wrong on two accounts.

     They (obviously) didn't lose either game "because of a lack of commitment to the run." They lost them because they made a mistake here and there, and their defense didn't add any value the way it just did against the Texans.

    I would love for you to ONCE respond without changing topics again. Final run tally weightings are situational almost always. When you play well ... you cna run the clock and get more runs late in the game. If you haven't played well ... you end up passing trying to make a score in minutes. 

    90% of games feature a run/pass balance (38-17/ 32-17 /32-28) that is within 4-6 play area. Changing those 4-6 plays will not dramatically alter the outcome. Changing the 4-6 plays where you make mistakes will. 

    Neither of those games were lost because of imbalance. It's patently absurd to insist so. 

    They were lost because of execution. A.) the offense didn't execute as well, though in either game it executed well enough to win, and B.) the defense didn't execute well enough, most importantly ... it did nothing to contribute to the win. 

    The fact of this weeks game: NE could have turned the ball over once AND left 7 points off the board and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the game. Why? Because they had positive contributions from their defense. It wasn't a great game, no game where you allow 28 points in 12 drives is "great." But it was "good enough." And it had a few series with 3 and outs. It had a one turnover that got the ball back to NE at midfield. 

     

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SmokingJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    [/QUOTE]

    "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

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes. The fact that NE has run cover 1 a lot since the moment Talib got here shows that confidence. He can say it .... but what they do on the field demonstrates it really.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    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. 

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

    .

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

    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. 

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bredbru's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    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. 

    [/QUOTE]


    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.

     

    .

    [/QUOTE]

    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. 

    [/QUOTE]

    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

    [/QUOTE]

    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.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    The optics are that defenses are more aware of, and game-planning more for, New England's run game. Maybe the statistics don't support that fear on their part but then again, you know what they say about statistics. It also appears that our opponents are pass-rushing and blitzing less than last year, and again the explanation for many is that Ridley/Woodhead/Vereen/Bolden will carve them for good yardage if they commit wholly to stop Brady. Maybe this is all a myth and the stats don't really support this conclusion on their part, but we hear about this enough from analysts, ex-coaches, and current players, so perception could have become reality. The threat of the Patriots' run game is more potent this year than last. That, in my mind, is undeniable.

    Our defense seems more potent as well, especially in locking up the opponents' run game. It makes QB's like Schaub and Flacco rely more on a riskier pass game, helped along by early leads the world's greatest QB gives the team almost every game. With Talib/Dennard/Arrington (especially since Talib arrived) and McCourty's safety play, this has led to more turnovers and a big advantage for the Patriots.

    I don't see any of that changing against the Ravens. Talib and Dennard should match up well with Bolden and Smith, as long as the D-line can hold Rice in check. Ridley/Vereen should keep the Ravens D guessing. Webb's absence is going to create problems for their coverage as well, not that we have any deep threats. But we do have so many receiving threats that it's hard to cover them all. Kick and punt coverage will have to get back to their normal steady play; hopefully last week was an aberration. At least 14 of the 28 points you keep saying our D gave up were set up by two long kick returns. We can't have that happen again against the Ravens.

    If the Pats are lucky enough to make it past them, I would think Atlanta would be a much easier opponent than SF. Atlanta has a conventional (and very good) QB; SF has a much more unpredictable QB and one who is much harder to game-plan against. So we will need to rely on the quick-reaction and tackling of our secondary in stopping Kaepernick when he gets loose. It's tough to play man-on-man pass coverage, AND watch for and quickly react to broken-field running by the opposing QB.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    I just saw a video posted on nfl.com entitled "Can the Baltimore Ravens stop New England Patriots' running game?" http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-playoffs/0ap2000000126626/Can-Ravens-stop-Patriots-running-game

    I cannot imagine anyone seriously asking that question last year.

    By the way, LaDanian Tomlinson apparently believes the Ravens can make the Patriots into a one-dimensional passing offense, something he sees as a key factor to defeating the Patriots. LT (Minor) is wrong about this, IMO; Brady will carve them up if they commit strongly to a run defense. Nevertheless, it's interesting that the question is even being asked.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Bwhahahahaahahaha, Zbellino wins every argument by citing irrefutable FACTS from the Pats' history the past decade, and all Rusty can do is resort to name calling.

    Tears!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to RockScully's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TSWFAN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ZB... you always bring a lot of thoughtful insight to this board. The person you are debating always attempts to denigrate whom ever disagrees with him with demeaning remarks. You are wasting your time talking to him.  Please keep up the informative posts.

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh please!  You're the guy whom I bludgeoned in early November leading up the election. You kept re-terating extreme right wing rhetoric and you got totally embarrased with my well laid out premises and facts.

    How is me telling Z that he is FACTUALLY INCORRECT about their D being better with Ray Lewis back than without him, me "denigrating" him?

    Z thinks he's the smartest person here, as does Prolate, but when they get caught, I will call them out.

    He's also the same guy who has been bashing our D, while ignoring Brady's god awful mind melt downs in big games in the recent postseasons, while praising another team's D that isn't as good as he claims?

    The Ravens LB has helped in run support, but not in pass coverage Originally Published: January 14, 2013   By Vince Verhei | Football Outsiders

     

     

    "The Baltimore Ravens lost four of their last five regular-season games, but they've turned things around in the playoffs with two wins in a row to reach the AFC Championship Game. That two-game win streak coincides with Ray Lewis' return to the Baltimore lineup, and considering that Baltimore started hot this year with Lewis on the field, one could assume that the Ravens' fortunes hang simply on the presence (or absence) of their future Hall of Fame linebacker.

     

     

    A closer look at the numbers shows that Lewis makes a real impact on the Baltimore defense, and that he has been one of the best players in the league this postseason. However, there is a hole in his game, and that weakness could cost the Ravens dearly against New England."

     

     

    Ravens report: Defense better without Ray Lewis, Jimmy Smith

    Published Monday, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:12 am EST Mike Preston Sporting News     View Comments
    Join the conversation
    Text size A A A

    OWINGS MILLS, Md.—One of the main reasons for the Ravens' success has been their ability to replace injured starters like Ray Lewis and Jimmy Smith and not miss a beat. In fact, the Ravens have played better.

    With Lewis (torn triceps) out indefinitely, the Ravens were forced to move Jameel McClain to the middle and insert Dannell Ellerbe at weakside linebacker.

    In the past month, Ellerbe has been the Ravens' most consistent linebacker as far as stopping the run and putting pressure on the quarterback. It took McClain a little while to adjust, but he has become a plugger inside like Lewis, but more physical than Lewis was earlier this year when he decided to drop 17-20 pounds before the season starter.

    Smith, a first-round pick two years ago, has missed the past two weeks with a groin injury. Replacement Corey Graham has been an upgrade. He's more physical than Smith and able to play press coverage. Graham isn't afraid to jam receivers.

    Graham also plays the ball much better than Smith and knocked down two passes late in the game in the Ravens' win against San Diego.

    Meanwhile, Ellerbe left the game in the second quarter with a foot ailment but is expected to start Sunday against the Steelers.

    [/QUOTE]
     

    Ravens seem to be following  jints script from 2011...  4 game skid during reg season... Seemingly "turn it around" in playoffs with a couple wins but if you look closer, these wins are not that impressive. 

     Indy was a flawed team playing over their heads and the win over gomer and his chicken wing arm was fortunate with that late bomb, and gomer mistake.

    pats D has improved 10 fold from last year while offense has seen similar improvement.  these are more significant facts than Baltimore's .

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    I see that "averages" are only relevent when making a point about opposing teams but in regards to the Pat's it's always "well it's only 3%" or the difference in ranking 17th in rushing attempts vs being ranked 2nd is so little...

    This offense is subtantially better than the team that got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs with Obie at the helm.  Let's start with the bookend tackles, bigger and better, and then look to the tightends where we've had much better depth all season.  Even without Gronk having Huey and Fells added to Hernandez is automatically going to give you a more potent running attack.  

    I love how we carried 6 receivers on last years team and currently we have 3 but there is no difference between the philosophy of this year vs year's past.  You guys are in denial, this offense is tougher, more smashmouth than we've had since 2008 and probably better than any of our championship years.  The defense is rebuilt, the offense plays complimentary football with that defense and the difference has been the coordinator and return of Patriot football.

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    new or old, seems like we have interesting games vs. the Ravens.  I would say that it's in the top 1 or 2 rivalries we have going (the other being Pittsburg).

    The raven defense will be pumped up due to Lewis' impending retirement. The bottom line is that if they can get to Brady AND cover Patriot receivers to keep a close game (meaning less than 10 pts) - then they have a shot of beating the Patriots.

    We're at home, we already lost to the Ravens - so, I'm thinking the Patriots have an edge in this game - even without Gronk.  Brady and the RB corp can't turn over the ball.

    The Patriots have improved since the beginning of the year, Talib was the key in allowing more flexibility in where BB places players.

    It'll be fun to watch, for sure.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see that "averages" are only relevent when making a point about opposing teams but in regards to the Pat's it's always "well it's only 3%" or the difference in ranking 17th in rushing attempts vs being ranked 2nd is so little...

    This offense is subtantially better than the team that got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs with Obie at the helm.  Let's start with the bookend tackles, bigger and better, and then look to the tightends where we've had much better depth all season.  Even without Gronk having Huey and Fells added to Hernandez is automatically going to give you a more potent running attack.  

    I love how we carried 6 receivers on last years team and currently we have 3 but there is no difference between the philosophy of this year vs year's past.  You guys are in denial, this offense is tougher, more smashmouth than we've had since 2008 and probably better than any of our championship years.  The defense is rebuilt, the offense plays complimentary football with that defense and the difference has been the coordinator and return of Patriot football.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is purely your opinion. All the stats point to an offense that is, at most, only marginally more productive than last years.  You can disregard the stats and say the tackles are better (newsflash, we had Solder and Vollmer last year too--plus Matt Light).  Or you can claim that the receivers are less deep. (We pretty much played Branch and Welker all last year, so we really utilized only two as well--no big difference.)  And you can argue what you want about TEs, but this year and last we've mostly used two TE formations--again, no difference. 

    As far as play calling, there's a slight increase in running percentage, but it's marginal.  The big difference this year is that our RBs are better and Lloyd creates a bit more of a perimeter threat than Branch did.  The running game is more productive--but it's not the result of different personel packages (we were two TE most of the time last year too) or difference in play design or even (really) the run-pass mix.  The major difference in run productivity has to do with the switch from BJGE to Ridley.  Letting BJGE walk and getting Ridley up to speed is the major change in the offense.  It has allowed us to use the run more effectively, which means more diversity.  But overall offensive production is almost the same: over the 16 game regular season, this year's offense produced two TDs and one FG more than last year's.  That's almost identical.  And in yards gained, they were identical. Productionwise, there's just no significant difference despite what you keep claiming. 

     

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see that "averages" are only relevent when making a point about opposing teams but in regards to the Pat's it's always "well it's only 3%" or the difference in ranking 17th in rushing attempts vs being ranked 2nd is so little...

    This offense is subtantially better than the team that got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs with Obie at the helm.  Let's start with the bookend tackles, bigger and better, and then look to the tightends where we've had much better depth all season.  Even without Gronk having Huey and Fells added to Hernandez is automatically going to give you a more potent running attack.  

    I love how we carried 6 receivers on last years team and currently we have 3 but there is no difference between the philosophy of this year vs year's past.  You guys are in denial, this offense is tougher, more smashmouth than we've had since 2008 and probably better than any of our championship years.  The defense is rebuilt, the offense plays complimentary football with that defense and the difference has been the coordinator and return of Patriot football.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is purely your opinion. All the stats point to an offense that is, at most, only marginally more productive than last years.  You can disregard the stats and say the tackles are better (newsflash, we had Solder and Vollmer last year too--plus Matt Light).  Or you can claim that the receivers are less deep. (We pretty much played Branch and Welker all last year, so we really utilized only two as well--no big difference.)  And you can argue what you want about TEs, but this year and last we've mostly used two TE formations--again, no difference. 

    As far as play calling, there's a slight increase in running percentage, but it's marginal.  The big difference this year is that our RBs are better and Lloyd creates a bit more of a perimeter threat than Branch did.  The running game is more productive--but it's not the result of different personel packages (we were two TE most of the time last year too) or difference in play design or even (really) the run-pass mix.  The major difference in run productivity has to do with the switch from BJGE to Ridley.  Letting BJGE walk and getting Ridley up to speed is the major change in the offense.  It has allowed us to use the run more, which means more diversity.  But overall production is almost the same: over the 16 game regular season, this year's offense produced two TDs and one FG more than last year's.  That's almost identical.  And in yards gained, they were identical. Productionwise, there's just no difference despite what you keep claiming. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how Zbellino lists actual, relevant facts, like the points scored, points allowed, number of passes, number of runs, number of turnovers, number of drives, plays out of shotgun, etc. that all clearly prove his point, and they respond with generalities like, "We have bigger offensive tackles now.  Goodell has made it an offense driven league."

    Tears!

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to themightypatriots' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see that "averages" are only relevent when making a point about opposing teams but in regards to the Pat's it's always "well it's only 3%" or the difference in ranking 17th in rushing attempts vs being ranked 2nd is so little...

    This offense is subtantially better than the team that got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs with Obie at the helm.  Let's start with the bookend tackles, bigger and better, and then look to the tightends where we've had much better depth all season.  Even without Gronk having Huey and Fells added to Hernandez is automatically going to give you a more potent running attack.  

    I love how we carried 6 receivers on last years team and currently we have 3 but there is no difference between the philosophy of this year vs year's past.  You guys are in denial, this offense is tougher, more smashmouth than we've had since 2008 and probably better than any of our championship years.  The defense is rebuilt, the offense plays complimentary football with that defense and the difference has been the coordinator and return of Patriot football.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    This is purely your opinion. All the stats point to an offense that is, at most, only marginally more productive than last years.  You can disregard the stats and say the tackles are better (newsflash, we had Solder and Vollmer last year too--plus Matt Light).  Or you can claim that the receivers are less deep. (We pretty much played Branch and Welker all last year, so we really utilized only two as well--no big difference.)  And you can argue what you want about TEs, but this year and last we've mostly used two TE formations--again, no difference. 

    As far as play calling, there's a slight increase in running percentage, but it's marginal.  The big difference this year is that our RBs are better and Lloyd creates a bit more of a perimeter threat than Branch did.  The running game is more productive--but it's not the result of different personel packages (we were two TE most of the time last year too) or difference in play design or even (really) the run-pass mix.  The major difference in run productivity has to do with the switch from BJGE to Ridley.  Letting BJGE walk and getting Ridley up to speed is the major change in the offense.  It has allowed us to use the run more, which means more diversity.  But overall production is almost the same: over the 16 game regular season, this year's offense produced two TDs and one FG more than last year's.  That's almost identical.  And in yards gained, they were identical. Productionwise, there's just no difference despite what you keep claiming. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Funny how Zbellino lists actual, relevant facts, like the points scored, points allowed, number of passes, number of runs, number of turnovers, number of drives, plays out of shotgun, etc. that all clearly prove his point, and they respond with generalities like, "We have bigger offensive tackles now.  Goodell has made it an offense driven league."

    Tears!

    [/QUOTE]

    These guys just can't admit that the offense last year was good--very good.  They complained about it all last year and thought they could coach better than Belichick and his staff. Now they are desperately trying to tell us that there's been some kind of radical change in production to justify their completely unfair and unfounded criticism of O'Brien.  McDaniels is great too--maybe even better than O'Brien--but please, O'Brien did a great job too.  The coaching for this team has never been the problem since Belichick got here. Truth.

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from coolade2. Show coolade2's posts

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I see that "averages" are only relevent when making a point about opposing teams but in regards to the Pat's it's always "well it's only 3%" or the difference in ranking 17th in rushing attempts vs being ranked 2nd is so little...

    This offense is subtantially better than the team that got bounced in the 1st round of the playoffs with Obie at the helm.  Let's start with the bookend tackles, bigger and better, and then look to the tightends where we've had much better depth all season.  Even without Gronk having Huey and Fells added to Hernandez is automatically going to give you a more potent running attack.  

    I love how we carried 6 receivers on last years team and currently we have 3 but there is no difference between the philosophy of this year vs year's past.  You guys are in denial, this offense is tougher, more smashmouth than we've had since 2008 and probably better than any of our championship years.  The defense is rebuilt, the offense plays complimentary football with that defense and the difference has been the coordinator and return of Patriot football.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Pats offense is way better.  You mentioned receivers... Lloyd over ocho is a no brainer,  and then you have the tiquan Underwood situation.  Would love to hear what obie opologists say to explain that fiasco.  Giving that bozo snaps all year and then cutting him the day before Superbowl. 

    Mcd is using the talents of vereen, Ridley, Hernandez, Lloyd, ... Spreading ball around.  Huey is a solid gronk replacement.  pats will run the ball on ravens.  This game could be a blowout.  (payback for 09)...

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Going from 17th in the league in rushing attempts to 2nd is not opinion.  

    That we had 6 receivers on the roster last year and now have 3 is not an opinion.  

    Truechamp posts stats and facts via Mike Reis and they respond with "percentages" and "averages."  

    How about you guys just admit that a well rounded, balanced offense that can both run and pass under duress is better than a finesse offense that couldn't do either?  

    Don't bother, this year's post season results will be all the proof we need when held up against the 3 rings we did win with the same exact methods in the not so distant past. 

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Brady just set a career high in pass attempts this year.  He threw more passes than he did last year when everyone complained he threw too much.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to pcmIV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Brady just set a career high in pass attempts this year.  He threw more passes than he did last year when everyone complained he threw too much.

    [/QUOTE]

    Nobody complained that he threw too much, many of us complained that we didn't run enough, it's not the same thing.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    You can be sure that last year's team as well as the previous three offenses' never would have scored 41 points against the Texans.  

    Last year we scored 45 against the Broncos because Tebow completed 9-26 passes, this Texan's team was a much more well rounded team that we've typically lost to over the past 4 years.  23 points was the ceiling for scoring in our playoff run under Obie besides that one sided drubbing of Denver who just couldn't throw.

    Beyond that score we've hardly approached the 30 point mark in the playoffs over the past four years against worse teams...

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    Looking at all these stats and "tendancies" is nice, but, no matter what is said here, the play on the field Sunday will tell the tale.

    Do we "like" to think the Ravens D is older and a bit slower, seems yes, but, they did a good job against Manning limiting him to only 3 scores when he was on the field for 5 quarters.  By the same token, we look at the Ravens O and their propensity to "go over the top" with deep passes which are a thorn in the side for the Pats D.  Not likely given the improvement in the D since the first Ravens game.

    As for the Pats O, it has definitely evolved since that first game with a much better running attack and it has learned to live without Gronk.  Given the Texans had another shot to stop this offense this past Sunday and it still put up 41 points without Gronk, seems to indicate the O is clicking.

    All in all, the x-factor is emotion and the Ravens are high on the "revenge" and "win it for Ray" meter.  As for the Pats, it is AFCCG #7 since 2001, yawn!!!!

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Baltimore's New Defense.

    In response to wozzy's comment:
    [QUOTE]

      The defense is rebuilt,

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah. BB just this season has snagged two "bad boys" for CBs with adept GM stunt work to transform what has been a mickey mouse D into something resembling a major league unit.

     

     

Share