good defenses need at least ONE of the following

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    (1) an elite safety

    (2) elite cornerbacks whose man coverage can hide safeties' weaknesses

    (3) an elite pass rush

    The Ravens have an elite safety in Ed Reed who covers up the weaknesses of the other safety and the cornerbacks

    The Steelers have Polamalu, who also covers up for the weaknesses of the cornerbacks (Taylor is average and McFadden is terrible) and Clark (whose specialty in headhunting reminds me of Merriweather)

    The Jets have Revis and Cromartie, whose cover skills have helped mask Leonhard's lack of athleticism and the revolving door at the other safety position

    The Patriots can't cover, lack an elite safety, and can't rush the passer.  The pass rush is serviceable, but not elite.  Chung is above average, but not great.  And McCourty/Bodden/Dowling/Arrington have been incredibly disappointing

    I still think the Pats will win a lot more games than they lose, but they need some serious work.  I wonder how many of these problems are fixable within the season, though.  Some of these things seem systemic and therefore not too fixable in the short term.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    I agree with some points but you lost credibility when you said Ras-I has been "incredibly disappointing"

    Steelers have the pass rush and the safety but they still got shredded by a good QB in aaron rodgers and Joe Flacco week 1.

    Ravens D is good but they got shredded by a terrible Matt hasselbeck week 2.

    jets D is good except for allowing the Raiders to run wild on them.

    No defense this year has been spectacular so saying our D is terrible is not smart.

    My point is, as good as those defenses are, they have lost their team games this year. They are clearly better defenses then ours BUT those "great" defenses with superior pass rush/corners/safeties lost games for their teams this year.

    I would say Brady lost the game for us against buffalo, not the defense, his INT's had at the very least a 13 point swing against us and last I remember, we lost by 3.

    McCourty and Chung have the potential to be great, Ras-I has looked decent in limited action. We lack "beasts" for lack of a better term at the three aspects of D you listed but we have young players that can develop into big time playmakers. To write this team off this early is ridiculous.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE](1) an elite safety (2) elite cornerbacks whose man coverage can hide safeties' weaknesses (3) an elite pass rush The Ravens have an elite safety in Ed Reed who covers up the weaknesses of the other safety and the cornerbacks The Steelers have Polamalu, who also covers up for the weaknesses of the cornerbacks (Taylor is average and McFadden is terrible) and Clark (whose specialty in headhunting reminds me of Merriweather) The Jets have Revis and Cromartie, whose cover skills have helped mask Leonhard's lack of athleticism and the revolving door at the other safety position The Patriots can't cover, lack an elite safety, and can't rush the passer.  The pass rush is serviceable, but not elite.  Chung is above average, but not great.  And McCourty/Bodden/Dowling/Arrington have been incredibly disappointing I still think the Pats will win a lot more games than they lose, but they need some serious work.  I wonder how many of these problems are fixable within the season, though.  Some of these things seem systemic and therefore not too fixable in the short term.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

     I'm sorry but you must have realized when you posted this it would turn into the same garbage as all the other defense/offense threads running right now. Let me just say I enjoy reading most of your posts, even the ones I disagree with. Myself as well as most neutral NFL observers across the country probably agree with you.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from garytx. Show garytx's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE](1) an elite safety (2) elite cornerbacks whose man coverage can hide safeties' weaknesses (3) an elite pass rush The Ravens have an elite safety in Ed Reed who covers up the weaknesses of the other safety and the cornerbacks The Steelers have Polamalu, who also covers up for the weaknesses of the cornerbacks (Taylor is average and McFadden is terrible) and Clark (whose specialty in headhunting reminds me of Merriweather) The Jets have Revis and Cromartie, whose cover skills have helped mask Leonhard's lack of athleticism and the revolving door at the other safety position The Patriots can't cover, lack an elite safety, and can't rush the passer.  The pass rush is serviceable, but not elite.  Chung is above average, but not great.  And McCourty/Bodden/Dowling/Arrington have been incredibly disappointing I still think the Pats will win a lot more games than they lose, but they need some serious work.  I wonder how many of these problems are fixable within the season, though.  Some of these things seem systemic and therefore not too fixable in the short term.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    When building a defense safety is not a priority.  A shutdown corner and rushing DE or OLB is.
    The Steelers get beat on the pass!  That's how you neutralize Palomalu.  You take him right out of the game. 
    I seems all defenses are getting lit up right now unless you're watching Titans vs. Jax. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    Cry Me McCrybaby
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from startrightnow. Show startrightnow's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    I would always rather have an elite pass rusher , then CB , then S. I mean you can just decide not to throw at Revis. As great as Troy is , he can def. be beat in coverage. Guys like Ware , Peppers etc. have an impact on almost every play. If you guys could choose one , who would you rather have for the next 5 years , Ware or Revis? Again I value pass rushers more so I would go with Ware.

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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    To be honest, I think safety spots are a little overrated. A good safety is one that doesn't let the play get behind him -- and he can be a great safety if the guys in front of him are legit. 

    Troy Polamalu's career would be a whole lot different if he didn't have the Steelers' pass rush in front of him. Same with Ed Reed. 

    Not have terrible safeties is a msut though. You need credible safeties perhaps more than at any other spot. 

    You can work around bad OLBs and pass rush with elite corners (Jets) and vice versa wth elite rushers (Steelers). And if your run defense is mediocre, you can make up for that by controlling the passing game (GB, NO, Indy) but you can't get away with guys that let people walk past them on the last level. 


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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]... I would say Brady lost the game for us against buffalo, not the defense, his INT's had at the very least a 13 point swing against us and last I remember, we lost by 3. ... To write this team off this early is ridiculous.

    Posted by GadisRKO[/QUOTE]

    Well, I agree that turnovers hurt, but not sure how much of that was on Brady. As I recall, two were tipped, one dropped by Woodhead and another was on 85. He ran the wrong route.

    Speaking of which, I know there are still Ocho apologists out there, but can we move on from this guy already?  He really brings nothing.  When they got him, I had hopes that it'd be like when they got Harold Jackson back in the day, a savvy veteran who could get open and catch everything in his grasp and had some YAC ability.  Not so much. 

    At least Galloway could still run a little.     

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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE](1) an elite safety (2) elite cornerbacks whose man coverage can hide safeties' weaknesses (3) an elite pass rush The Ravens have an elite safety in Ed Reed who covers up the weaknesses of the other safety and the cornerbacks The Steelers have Polamalu, who also covers up for the weaknesses of the cornerbacks (Taylor is average and McFadden is terrible) and Clark (whose specialty in headhunting reminds me of Merriweather) The Jets have Revis and Cromartie, whose cover skills have helped mask Leonhard's lack of athleticism and the revolving door at the other safety position The Patriots can't cover, lack an elite safety, and can't rush the passer.  The pass rush is serviceable, but not elite.  Chung is above average, but not great.  And McCourty/Bodden/Dowling/Arrington have been incredibly disappointing I still think the Pats will win a lot more games than they lose, but they need some serious work.  I wonder how many of these problems are fixable within the season, though.  Some of these things seem systemic and therefore not too fixable in the short term.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I wouldn't say everything has to be elite. When the patriots won their SB's did they really have an elite safety, CB, LB or Pass rush?
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : "Ran the wrong route"?  The ball was poorly thrown at his hip. Brady should have led him better with no Safety deep...

    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Never said Brady was blameless, just that you can't lay that loss entirely on him (which was the claim I was responding to).  McKelvin made a play and Ocho did what he does. As much as he likes the idea of being a Patriot and pretends he's a team first guy after a career spent in love with himself, it's a bad fit. How obvious does it need to be?  

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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : "Ran the wrong route"?  The ball was poorly thrown at his hip. Brady should have led him better with no Safety deep.  McKelvin made a nice play.  EVen Bruschi said that, an Ocho basher. Brady was AWFUL starting at the end of the first half. All of the balls were either poorly thrown or ill advised. Did BJGE run the wrong route in last year's playoffs?
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Most likely correct route.  Horrible exectution of the route.  Rounding it off at the top gives the DB a chance to "jump it".  At the VERY least it should have been flattened out at the top.  Better still come back towards TB and cut off the available angle on the DB.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    I think a smart safety is a big help. From a pure athletic perspective, good CBs and pass rushers are harder to find than good safeties, because the physical demands of those positions require very special and somewhat rare physical attributes.  But in a safety you're looking as much for mental ability as physical ability.  That was what was great about Rodney Harrison.  He had good physical skills, but he was extremely smart as well.  Merriweather had the physical tools, but made way too many mental errors.  Sanders was smart, but he wasn't as physically talented as you'd like. 

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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : Ding, ding, ding! Chung can be a poor man's ROdney.  Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Simply saying-not elite

    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following :    I still like our CBs. Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Got ant any Troy P. candidates? no, not elite
     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to good defenses need at least ONE of the following : I wouldn't say everything has to be elite. When the patriots won their SB's did they really have an elite safety, CB, LB or Pass rush?
    Posted by kansaspatriot[/QUOTE]

    Rodney was an elite safety, except for the alleged dirtiness cited by peers

    Ty Law was most definitely an elite cornerback

    And the Pats had the deepest linebacking corps this side of Pittsburgh
     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    No doubt, but they also had an advantage of having system depth.  Think back pre 2001 to your opinions of those players. Talented, good, players, but in some ways they all were underachievinng or hadn't hit their peaks: 1.  Ty Law - Started having injruies, regressed a bit when BB left, had a nice 1999 season to bounce back.  But, he really blossomed when BB returned, a full 7 seasons into his career. 2.  Bruschi - Didn't find a  home until he settled in at MLB. Was overmatched as a sub rusher as a DE or an OLB. Credit to him and his determination to basically will himself into what is arguably a HOF career.   Don't laugh. Look at Nick Buonoconti as a comparative. 3. McGinest -  Hurt at times early in his career, even during the Dynasty years.  Didn't really become a complete player until BB returned.   He became legendary here for his postseason greatness, but like Law, not until 6 or 7 years into his career.  Sack stats went down, but his overall play and mastery of the position reflected his improvement as a complete player. Agree on Rodney.  Buried on an AWFUL SD team for years. Never understood the dirty tag when every safety from Mark Carrier to Donovan Darius were just as guilty of helmet to helmet hits. Maybe McCourty can be a poor man's Law, Chung a poor man's Rodney and maybe Mayo can be better every year like he has been. Some fans are really, really critical and I think it's because the Lombardi hasn't re-emerged with names on these jerseys.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing


    So now we have the poor man's version of our Super Bowl defenses?

    I guess...

    Ty Law was the third best CB of his generation (behind Woodson and Champ Bailey).  Harrison was at least one of the best 10 safeties of his time (as the unique 30-ints-and-30-sacks landmark suggests).

    We'll see.  The position that does have depth and needs to step up RIGHT NOW to help compensate and mask other weaknesses is the defensive line.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2012. Show Evil2012's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

     Funny that all those teams have the same record as the Pats. The Steelers defense is getting old and the Jets will probably come into next week's game with us at 2-2.
     
  23. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : Rodney was an elite safety, Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    No

    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following :  Ty Law was most definitely an elite cornerback And the Pats had the deepest linebacking corps this side of Pittsburgh
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    That's why BB let Ty Law go, because he was elite-yeah right

    LBs were not the deepest. They had talent

    Point is during the SB years BB built a team, that had talent and worked as a team. there were no elite players on defense.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Grogan77. Show Grogan77's posts

    Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following

    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following:
    In Response to Re: good defenses need at least ONE of the following : No That's why BB let Ty Law go, because he was elite-yeah right LBs were not the deepest. They had talent Point is during the SB years BB built a team, that had talent and worked as a team. there were no elite players on defense.
    Posted by kansaspatriot

    The Patriots may have not have had elite players on defense during the superbowl wins, but they were far better than the players they have now.

     

Share