Defensive rankings

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

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]So, I was sitting here looking at the defensive totals from the Fin's, Oakland, and San Diego game, and I've noticed something. We tend to give up a lot of meaningless yards when we enter prevent defense in the fourth quarter due to large leads. For example in the 4th quarter: Vs. MIA: 3 Drives: 135 Yards, No score, Six minutes off clock 1 Drive, 74 Yards for a TD in garbage time (2:05 remaining) Vs. SD: 2 Drives: 30 Yards, no score, four minutes off the clock 1 Drive, 80 yards for a TD with 3:00 remaining. Vs. OAK: 3 drives: 78 Yards, No score, Five minutes taken off the clock. 1 Drive: 99 Yards with a TD in the last two minutes of a game. This puts Oaklands total yards at 504, when you take out the meaningless three drives that didn't end in a score, you take out 78 yards, and that last drive was for show, the game wasn't in doubt. It seems like everyone and their mother are complaining about the number of yards given up, when it seems that it serves the purpose to run out the clock. All three wins had teams score a TD in garbage time, and add on a bunch of meaningless yards that didn't come away with scores. I feel that our defense has actually played pretty well, for example you take away the fourth quarter garbage drives in the Oakland game and Oakland only has 327 Combined yards, which is great. As well, if you do that against MIA, they only go for about 230 Combined yards, which is another great effort. Finally, Even the SD game shows they give up about 350 combined yards. While that isn't great, it still shows that our DEF is mostly doing extremely well when it matters, and in garbage time is willing to sacrifice stats such as lower total yards to allow for opponents to run off the clock. Sorry for the wall of text, and while I didn't analyze the Buffalo game, I felt that this theory holds at least some water.
    Posted by reuben4boston[/QUOTE]

    reuben, thanks for researching and bringing this up. hopefully alot of the gloom amd doom fans will take this to heart.

    also our defense does need improvement. BB could learn alot from watching the tape of last nights raven-jests game 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : FIrst, let me apologize for insulting you. However, it seems you don't understand my point. My point is not that this is a number one or a top ten ranked defense. I was quite clear on that. However, what you're not getting, is the fifteen to twenty teams above us aren't in the same situation. They aren't going into prevent mid third quarter. We are. Because we are up above 21 points. The teams that are directly above us have given up garbage time yards, but not because they are ahead. They have given up yards because they are behind. Miami. Chicago, Oakland, Buffalo, Saint Louis. Green Bay is in a similar situation to us, and are number 30. But they aren't receiving flak because they aren't dead last. The teams I named haven't gone into prevent much this season, save for Buffalo against KC, which is another D that by the numbers is better, but let's be honest, they are not. As well, Indy, and KC are two teams that we are better than defensively due to my numbers, but according to Yardage we are not. THis is because they have faced teams that don't rack up a lot of yards. KC did face Buff once, but hasn't had a real test other than that. Indy has been on the wrong side of lopsided losses. Their garbage time stats against still count, because the other team isn't trying to score at will against them. As well, if Indy is down by 24, they aren't going into a prevent. On average, our prevent Defense starts much earlier because we have them down by 3 possessions. 
    Posted by reuben4boston


    Apology accepted and I offer mine to you as well. Your point is better explained this time around, at least for me. While it is not easily verified as points are not designated as garbage time or not your point is well taken and maybe it provides some hope that this D is not as abysmal as it looks.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from reuben4boston. Show reuben4boston's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    To clarify, a garbage time TD is a TD in the last two minutes when a team is up by 17 points, which is the bare minimum for a three possession game. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from reuben4boston. Show reuben4boston's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : Yeah, we held McFadden to 5.4 yards a carry and the Raiders to nearly 150 yards on the ground. Great D, LOL. And that superstar QB Campbell we held to only 344 yards. Just face it. The Raiders shot themselves in the foot a couple times to make the D look a little better.
    Posted by BabeParilli[/QUOTE]

    Well, that 5.4 yards per carry is inflated by the 41 yard run. Which did lead to a bush score, but one run completely hyperinflates his average. Without that run, he was held to 2.6 Yards, which for a player of his caliber is wonderful. As well, and as I stated, 99 of Campbells yards came when the game was out of hand, and the defense is playing prevent classic, which wants the defense toallow a catch to be made in order to drain the clock. If you completely ignore that, because it did waste time, which was the point, we held him to 245 yards. And thats a pretty good total for todays pass happy league. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : Well, that 5.4 yards per carry is inflated by the 41 yard run. Which did lead to a bush score, but one run completely hyperinflates his average. Without that run, he was held to 2.6 Yards, which for a player of his caliber is wonderful. As well, and as I stated, 99 of Campbells yards came when the game was out of hand, and the defense is playing prevent classic, which wants the defense toallow a catch to be made in order to drain the clock. If you completely ignore that, because it did waste time, which was the point, we held him to 245 yards. And thats a pretty good total for todays pass happy league. 
    Posted by reuben4boston



     The Raider's run totals which were very good (160 yards at 5.9 ypc) was not garbage time totals. The Raiders run game was slowed down because of the Pats great offense and Campbell's incompetence. The Pats scoring right away in the third qurter really put the pressure on the Raiders (the Pats also got lucky on a weird PI reversal). When the Raiders wanted to pass they pretty much could at will. There should be no such thing as garbage time for many of these players. Belichek is ruthless, he cuts good players with big contracts for not hustling. Not playing hard when the other team is trying is a sure fire way to get hurt in the NFL. That 60 yard pass play at the end did not look like a prevent defense to me. McCourty played hard on the 2 pt conversion so if you are a journeyman player trying to hang on in the NFL on the 32nd ranked defense you better play hard if the two remaining pro bowlers are still working at it. Belichek is always preaching they play for 60 minutes (whenever they are being accused of running up the score). If he expects his offense to play it to the end it seems strange he would preach to the defense "45 minutes men, that's all I ask of you."
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]Completely agree with you and I understand your point. But, Why not send 5-6-7 ppl in, you know they are going to pass. Play 1 safety over the top and rush the passer. get the ball back and run the ball. please look at what Baltimore did last night, Flaco tossed a pick-6 and they ran the ball the next 12 plays, ate up clock and demoralized the Jets. you minimize the "junk yards" and you get to see your players in situations at somepoint you will be in a tight game and need a passrush. It's like the Pats defenders get lazy out there once we have a big lead.
    Posted by amun[/QUOTE]

    agreed

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

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Defensive rankings :  The Raider's run totals which were very good (160 yards at 5.9 ypc) was not garbage time totals. The Raiders run game was slowed down because of the Pats great offense and Campbell's incompetence. The Pats scoring right away in the third qurter really put the pressure on the Raiders (the Pats also got lucky on a weird PI reversal). When the Raiders wanted to pass they pretty much could at will. There should be no such thing as garbage time for many of these players. Belichek is ruthless, he cuts good players with big contracts for not hustling. Not playing hard when the other team is trying is a sure fire way to get hurt in the NFL. That 60 yard pass play at the end did not look like a prevent defense to me. McCourty played hard on the 2 pt conversion so if you are a journeyman player trying to hang on in the NFL on the 32nd ranked defense you better play hard if the two remaining pro bowlers are still working at it. Belichek is always preaching they play for 60 minutes (whenever they are being accused of running up the score). If he expects his offense to play it to the end it seems strange he would preach to the defense "45 minutes men, that's all I ask of you."
    Posted by ccnsd[/QUOTE]

    good points and

    re:"Belichek is ruthless, he cuts good players with big contracts for not hustling. Not playing hard when the other team is trying is a sure fire way to get hurt in the NFL"

    guyton in the current situation must be an exception or hed be gone today.

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

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]How does that compare to other teams in the fourth quarter? It seems to me that every NFL game has a lot of offense towards the end game when teams have to score. Even if you went with the 410 yard number (assuming the kept their first through third quarter pace for full games) that would only move the defense up to 29th in terms of yards per game. This defense is not the "bend, but don't break" thing people are pretending it is. It is bend and hope the offense screws up.
    Posted by FrnkBnhm[/QUOTE]

    precisely.
    though did play a little better against oakalnd
    despite the yard total

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

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : Well, that 5.4 yards per carry is inflated by the 41 yard run. Which did lead to a bush score, but one run completely hyperinflates his average. Without that run, he was held to 2.6 Yards, which for a player of his caliber is wonderful. As well, and as I stated, 99 of Campbells yards came when the game was out of hand, and the defense is playing prevent classic, which wants the defense toallow a catch to be made in order to drain the clock. If you completely ignore that, because it did waste time, which was the point, we held him to 245 yards. And thats a pretty good total for todays pass happy league. 
    Posted by reuben4boston

    There were a couple of long passes too.  We should not include the 60 yarder to Heyward-Bey or the 35 yarder to Bush.  Come to think of it, our D was dominant and if you forget about the penalties, we played a flawless game.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from reuben4boston. Show reuben4boston's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : There were a couple of long passes too.  We should not include the 60 yarder to Heyward-Bey or the 35 yarder to Bush.  Come to think of it, our D was dominant and if you forget about the penalties, we played a flawless game.
    Posted by HaverhillBob[/QUOTE]

    You really aren't getting the point. The last drive, which consisted of 99 yards, had absolutely 0 to do with the final outcome. It was solely for stat padding in garbage time when a team plays prevent. Hence why it's not the same as a 99 yard drive during the first or second quarter. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : good points and re:" Belichek is ruthless, he cuts good players with big contracts for not hustling. Not playing hard when the other team is trying is a sure fire way to get hurt in the NFL" guyton in the current situation must be an exception or hed be gone today.
    Posted by bredbru[/QUOTE]


     I heard the announcer, but I could not see the player's # during the replay. They announcers got on McCourty at least once when it was someone else so for the sake of argument let's say it was Guyton. I have no doubt he heard about it today and allready regrets it. Chung, a player i really like has been benched for screwing up so who knows if Guyton's playing time is affected at least temporarily. If Guyton got cut I'm not sure how many teams would want him. Thomas, a former star got cut and as far as i know he still is not in the league.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    Was there any garbage time in SD. Seemed to me both teams played til the end and the game was never out of hand.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    Interesting and helpful data on the Pats D.  Although clearly the D has issues in several areas I hardly think the end of the world is nigh.  Couple of observations from the first 4 games, particularly Oakland:
    *Run stopping appears pretty solid, apart from McF's 41 yard scamper.  BB set out to take away the run and did for the most part;
    *When BB decides to take something away from an opponent's O he does; I give you Antonio Gates in the SD game;
    *The D has had its moments of success in every game with the possible exception of Buffalo;
    *Lots of guys dinged up on that side of the ball.  Tough to tell how good the D can be until there's a consistent starting unit on the field at the same time for a couple of games;
    *New schemes take time to install successfully.  Not a whole lot of time to introduce this one this time around.

    I'm optimistic about this D.  '85 Bears material? Probably not but they are hardly the little sisters of the poor in my judgment.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from fourjays30. Show fourjays30's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    Just to put it in perspective what is the average points being scored in the NFL the first 4 weeks. I will bet its better than 20 points a game. We gave up 20 points to Oak and as long as we are scoring more than the average than we should win everygame. If on offense 400 yrds per game is the new 300 than on defense allowing 20 points per game is as good as allowing 10 points per game before all of the rule changes that made it so easy to put up a lot of points. Lets face it, if you are looking for good low scoring games the nfl is not for you. I am sick of everyone on here complaining about the Pats defense when in reality a lot of it is out of their control.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BubbaInHawaii. Show BubbaInHawaii's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    are the yards meaningless only if the opponents don't score?  LOL Laughing

    Put it this way, even if it were "garbage time", isn't it still better for the team to "shut down" their opponents? Wouldn't it help develop a "finish the enemy" attitude?

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : Every time you get shown up, you start lashing out as a troll. You all do the same thing. YOU face it: McFadden had a MINIMUM of 140 yards rushing his first 3 weeks, including games against Buff and the NYJs, two current trendy AFCE teams. NE held McFadden to 74 yards.  His 5.4 average is bloated from ONE run. The Jets allowed him to run for 100 more yards!  The guy normally has 4 or 5 runs like that per game. YOU LOSE. AGAIN.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]


    Typical oblivious cheerleader. He had more touches in all 3 of those games genius.

    You want to subtract the 41yard run like it didn't happen so things look better. Absurd.

    We all know the D is halfway decent against the run. Nobody has said any different. But trying to portray it as having been great against the run is a stretch.

    Your biggest problem is that if anybody disagrees with you they are a troll. And that makes you a troll.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Faucetman. Show Faucetman's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    Excellent thread guys.  I agree that we have given up a lot of garbage time yards to attribute to our 32nd (last) ranked Defense.  Also, we've been playing with the lead most of the time which usually forces the opponents into a passing game which also contributes to our 32nd ranked pass defense.  Another factor to consider relative to our pass defense is that we've gone up against decent offenses.  Here are the numbers but obviously it is only through 4 games.

    SD:   7th ranked offense, 6th pass, 18th run
    OAK: 8th ranked offense, 22nd pass, 1st run
    BUF:  9th ranked offense, 12th pass, 5th run
    MIA: 16th ranked offense, 15 pass, 12 run

    We have the 18th ranked rushing defense which isn't bad since we've faced 3 teams in the top 12, 2 in the top 5 at running the football. 

    Looking ahead, our next opponent, the Jets are 30th in total offense, 16th pass and 30th against the run.  Dallas who we get a week later could be our biggest challenge on defense thus far.  They are ranked 6th in total offense, 4th in pass, 25th in run.  Hopefully Romo melts down and makes some dumb choices because on paper, they should shred our secondary.

    I know this is a defensive thread but offensively we are 1st overall, 1st in pass, 9th in rushing but other than SD we haven't faced a tough defense.  SD is ranked 6th overall (5p, 12r) but BUF is 27th (24p, 25r), OAK is 29th (22p, 29r), and MIA is 30th (30p, 17r). 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : Well, that 5.4 yards per carry is inflated by the 41 yard run. Which did lead to a bush score, but one run completely hyperinflates his average. Without that run, he was held to 2.6 Yards, which for a player of his caliber is wonderful. As well, and as I stated, 99 of Campbells yards came when the game was out of hand, and the defense is playing prevent classic, which wants the defense toallow a catch to be made in order to drain the clock. If you completely ignore that, because it did waste time, which was the point, we held him to 245 yards. And thats a pretty good total for todays pass happy league. 
    Posted by reuben4boston[/QUOTE]

    You can't just act like the 41 yard run didn't happen and you can't just take away 99 passing yards because of when they occurred to try to put a good face on the D's performance.

    We don't know that if the game was close at the end that Campbell wouldn't have had most of those passing yards anyway. The Bills certainly had no problem moving down the field at the end of that close game.

    A 41 yard run is no small thing and anytime you allow a runner to rip off a rush like that you have to be concerned. Overall the Raiders ran for almost 6 yards a carry on 27 runs. That isn't "wonderful" run D.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]Excellent thread guys.  I agree that we have given up a lot of garbage time yards to attribute to our 32nd (last) ranked Defense.  Also, we've been playing with the lead most of the time which usually forces the opponents into a passing game which also contributes to our 32nd ranked pass defense.  Another factor to consider relative to our pass defense is that we've gone up against decent offenses.  Here are the numbers but obviously it is only through 4 games. SD:   7th ranked offense, 6th pass, 18th run OAK: 8th ranked offense, 22nd pass, 1st run BUF:  9th ranked offense, 12th pass, 5th run MIA: 16th ranked offense, 15 pass, 12 run We have the 18th ranked rushing defense which isn't bad since we've faced 3 teams in the top 12, 2 in the top 5 at running the football.  Looking ahead, our next opponent, the Jets are 30th in total offense, 16th pass and 30th against the run.  Dallas who we get a week later could be our biggest challenge on defense thus far.  They are ranked 6th in total offense, 4th in pass, 25th in run.  Hopefully Romo melts down and makes some dumb choices because on paper, they should shred our secondary. I know this is a defensive thread but offensively we are 1st overall, 1st in pass, 9th in rushing but other than SD we haven't faced a tough defense.  SD is ranked 6th overall (5p, 12r) but BUF is 27th (24p, 25r), OAK is 29th (22p, 29r), and MIA is 30th (30p, 17r). 
    Posted by Faucetman[/QUOTE]

    "  I agree that we have given up a lot of garbage time yards to attribute to our 32nd (last) ranked Defense."

    think so?
    first four games pats have given up more yards than any team over 4 games in history, 1900 yards.

    uh...dont think anyone can explian that away. 

    hope bb goes to a more agressive strategy.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mar10. Show mar10's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    In Response to Re: Defensive rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Defensive rankings : I've actually been here since 2006, but usually ignore posting because of the abundance of trolls.
    Posted by reuben4boston[/QUOTE]

    I feel the same way about the useless yards they give up.  By no means do I think they are a great D... But they are better than they are being given credit for.  Only time will tell if they are good enough.  As of right now no one can tell where they will be in January in terms of there D.  If they don't improve then fine all the naysayers can come back and rub it in my face... But if they get better...You bet I'm gonna let you here "I told you so"!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty-water. Show dirty-water's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    Aren't points allowed the only thing that really matter, we're tied for 20th at 24.5/game (take away the pick 6 and its 22.75/game)? 

    We play with a lead all the time, I think it's good coaching when we know how to kill clock on both sides of the ball.  The concern isn't total yardage, it's if they can come up with stops in close games.  They're getting so used to playing with the lead that half the time giving up points is no big deal as long as it takes 5+ mins off the clock. 

    At least they have come up with some timely turnovers and goal line/red zone stops.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Defensive rankings

    Santonio on Pats D: “The numbers speak for themselves”

    Divisional Playoffs - New York Jets v New England PatriotsGetty Images

    Rex Ryan has taken a relatively laid back approach publicly to this week’s Patriots-Jets game.  With so much to worry about on his own team, he doesn’t seem eager to poke the Foxborough bear.

    His wide receivers aren’t taking the same approach.

    Santonio Holmes on the Patriots defense: ”The numbers speak for themselves about how well they’re not playing.”

    No argument there.  Plaxico Burress also brought up some old painful memories for the Patriots defense when asked about his game-winning touchdown against them in the Super Bowl.

    “They had single covered me maybe a handful of times that whole game,” Burress said. “For them to give me that coverage with that on the line, I didn’t think they would, but thank you.”

    That comment led Ian Rapoport to track down Ellis Hobbs, who gave up the score.  Hobbs says he can sleep at night and explains why.

    The Burress angle is a fun one for media and fans, but ultimately it’s far in the past.  Holmes’ words are about this Patriots team.

    That’s why we suspect Bill Belichick will play up Holmes’ words privately to his team leading up to the game.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share