Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    You can make a case either way:

    -The D doesn't make a stop and get off the field when they need to.

    or

    -The offense is getting stopped, and sent off the field when they need to make a drive.

    Fact is, both are true. In their last 2 SBs they scored 14 and 17, is that really good enough? Their D game up 17 and 21, is that bad? Just looking at that, it seems OVIOUS the offense needs the help, and the D is fine. I don't know, if the Pats gave up 17-21 points per game, I think they'd be, oh, about 13-3. The D played better than their numbers in big games, the offense played decidedly worse, that's what I see. The proof is in the numbers, the D played fine in big games, the O did NOT. If you want to nitpick and say they didn't make the last stop, it's a valid point, but the other side is the offense is just as responsible for either giving the ball back at all, or having poor clock management and leaving too much time.

    And when I say "not a priority", I mean I don't expect any big name, big money signings. Of COURSE they'll ring in a load of vets, they do every year. Harrison was a 1mil scrap heap player. Pretty much every good defensive FA they've gotten has been. Vrabel was an unknown commodity. Bodden had one good year off the heap, then went back to it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    You can make a case either way: -The D doesn't make a stop and get off the field when they need to. or -The offense is getting stopped, and sent off the field when they need to make a drive. Fact is, both are true . In their last 2 SBs they scored 14 and 17, is that really good enough? Their D game up 17 and 21, is that bad? Just looking at that, it seems OVIOUS the offense needs the help, and the D is fine. I don't know, if the Pats gave up 17-21 points per game, I think they'd be, oh, about 13-3. The D played better than their numbers in big games, the offense played decidedly worse, that's what I see. The proof is in the numbers, the D played fine in big games, the O did NOT. If you want to nitpick and say they didn't make the last stop, it's a valid point, but the other side is the offense is just as responsible for either giving the ball back at all, or having poor clock management and leaving too much time. And when I say "not a priority", I mean I don't expect any big name, big money signings. Of COURSE they'll ring in a load of vets, they do every year. Harrison was a 1mil scrap heap player. Pretty much every good defensive FA they've gotten has been. Vrabel was an unknown commodity. Bodden had one good year off the heap, then went back to it.
    Posted by ma6dragon9


    Dragon you can point to just the numbers but if you watched the games they had the lead with less then 3mins left. Could the O have put it away, of course they could have but in the end it came down to the D making a single stop to win the SB and nether in 08' nor 12' could the D make a stop on the last drive to win the game.

    With the O look at the O. The vast majority is coming back and getting healthier. Yes they got stagnated in the playoffs but most teams do because the level of competition goes up. It just needs a tweak not an overhaul. A little more running with Ridley a year improved and adding 1 wrinkle in the receiving core could make that difference. Those are minor moves that can make a fairly large impact. They don't need a V Jax or Wallace or even Lloyd. It would be nice to have them but they don't need them. They need a WR who can work the outside in the 10-20yrd range that can beat single coverage, Brady can trust, and can make plays after the catch. A Meachem or even a Royal might be able to provide that. They need a Givens or Patten type of player and this O will function smoothly again. It doesn't mean they put up 30+ points in the playoffs but maybe consistently ~25.

    On the D however you have holes in starting positions at all 3 levels. You have players in starting roles who might be considered role players on other teams, and you don't have any impact players that can make game changing plays when they are needed most. The D needs a lot more work then the O by far.

    If you have any question look at 01-06 when the D was the primary focus, 3 SB wins and 4 AFCG appearances. Then look at 07-11 were O was the primary focus, 2 SB loses and 2 AFCG appearances.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    The only "big time" signing on D that I hope/expect would be Safety Laron Landry, only because we have absolute garbage opposite Chung and Landry would be a huge improvement over Diggs/Slater/filer.

    I agree that we need a WR, Lloyd is the ideal solution.

    We know he fits in the offense, he THRIVED under McDaniels with Orton throwing him the ball, imagine what he can do with Brady?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Is this Barron guy worth moving up for?

    I am getting nervous about the safet position. Noone after round 1 will help right away and the few good free agents are getting tagged and Landry seems to be a p.e.d'ed up, one leg body builder at the moment.

    I was actually thinking if we moved Wes, to move up to grab T.Richardson. He is gonna be special, IMO and you make moves for guys like that.


    I dont really care about WR. We have 2 of the best Tight ends in the league who put up combined #'s of like 180 catches and 2,000 yards. We will get by without the Best WR in the game. We wont go anywhere with that same cast of characters at safety or without a commitment to run.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    You can make a case either way: -The D doesn't make a stop and get off the field when they need to. or -The offense is getting stopped, and sent off the field when they need to make a drive. Fact is, both are true . In their last 2 SBs they scored 14 and 17, is that really good enough? Their D game up 17 and 21, is that bad? Just looking at that, it seems OVIOUS the offense needs the help, and the D is fine. I don't know, if the Pats gave up 17-21 points per game, I think they'd be, oh, about 13-3. The D played better than their numbers in big games, the offense played decidedly worse, that's what I see. The proof is in the numbers, the D played fine in big games, the O did NOT. If you want to nitpick and say they didn't make the last stop, it's a valid point, but the other side is the offense is just as responsible for either giving the ball back at all, or having poor clock management and leaving too much time. And when I say "not a priority", I mean I don't expect any big name, big money signings. Of COURSE they'll ring in a load of vets, they do every year. Harrison was a 1mil scrap heap player. Pretty much every good defensive FA they've gotten has been. Vrabel was an unknown commodity. Bodden had one good year off the heap, then went back to it.
    Posted by ma6dragon9




    Dragon, we've rehashed this a bunch already, but the D gave up a lot of long, time-consuming drives in the Super Bowl.  That had the effect of reducing the number of drives in the game to nine (and really eight, since each team had one short drive to end a half).  And that meant (1) that the game would be low scoring and (2) that the offense would have fewer chances than typical (about three fewer) to try to score.  These were both things the Giants wanted and felt they could accomplish because they knew our defense wasn't effective at ending drives. 

    Points given up isn't the whole story.  This was a game where allowing the Giants to mount long drives was a big problem.  The D also allowed the Giants to score on three of four drives in the second half (and on the remaining drive they gave up a lot of time and a lot of field position, forcing our offense to start a drive backed up at the eight yard line). 

    I'm not saying the offense isn't an issue too.  In fact, I agree WR should be a top priority in the offseason.  But I don't think the defense is very good and I don't think they played well in the Super Bowl despite the low point total.  The Giants scored on half their drives.  The only reason the score was low was because there were so few drives--and the low number of drives was part of the Giants game plan that our defense couldn't prevent the Giants from executing. 

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

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA :  The only reason the score was low was because there were so few drives--and the low number of drives was part of the Giants game plan that our defense couldn't prevent the Giants from executing.   
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    And because our high powered offense couldn't score, or even replicate what the Giants were doing to us, running the ball, getting first downs, playing keep away from the Giants offense which certainly would have helped... I don't want to get back into a pi$$ing match over this again but the defense is about two players away from being great.  

    During the regular season we need to get better at getting off the field sooner which will happen as the young guys and new guys on the team gel, another D tackle high in the draft would make us younger at the greatest position of need on our team, at least one more play maker at safety and a healthy Ras Dowling would help that.

    But again unless we get Mario Williams along with another D tackle and become as dominant as the Ravens D in 2000 we'll never win it all by simply passing the ball, even the Ravens and 86 Bears had to run... 

    Our offense scored 14 points in the Super Bowl. Our defense only gave up 17 points a game in the latter half of the season and playoffs.  Our offense has to play complimentary football to a bend don't break defense, this "feast or famine" passing attack isn't it.  We have to be able to run and pass with the best of them, we need balance on offense.

    You can believe that when teams start making cuts that BB will be a player in free agency both on offense and defense, there isn't an amazing free agent safety available right now but there may be after cuts are made...

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bubthegrub12. Show Bubthegrub12's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    The offense won't score 30 points a game in the playoffs. You face the best defenses, and blowouts in January are usually a result of multiple turnovers. I believe had Gronk been healthy the offense would have been much better. And the injury exposed a weakness the Giants took full advantage of. Nobody is afraid of Branch or Chad. But other than that outside WR the offense is fine. I don't care how good the offense is, when you only have the ball 22 minutes you don't put up a ton of points. A lot of the high scoring games were due to some short fields on turnovers. They couldn't get one in the SB. When they did, a stupid defensive penalty negated it. The SB was close, and a number of guys offense and defense could have changed it by making a play. But in the big picture they need a defense that can stop someone. The older vets and draft choices don't seem to be producing a playmaker. That's what they need to really compete for more Lombardis. Willie Mac would have sacked Eli inside his 20 to seal the win. They don't have a guy who can make the clutch plays in big games anymore. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Wasn't the D on the field for something like 13 out of the first 14 minutes of the game?

    They played their a s s e s off as far as I'm concerned. They were on their heels all game. The Giants started with a 6 minute drive that netted them 0 points. Then one play, safety, get back out there. Thanks for the break.

    Pats were LEADING at the half, regardless of TOP or possessions, 10-9. NYG were held scoreless in the 2nd Quarter, allowing NE to put up those 10 points to take the lead. Then the D gave up 6 in the 3rd quarter and I see the offense score a TD to start, then a lot of short drives by NE. All the Pats had to do was put together one or two decent drives and could have changed the outcome. The D wa sput out there time and time and time again after short breaks, with the NYG winning the field position battle all day long.

    It's not without flaws, but I like this D. The more I dive into the numbers, the more I'm liking them even more.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    It seems like you need to do a lot of "projection" to see that list of players being anything special.  Cunningham wasn't all that great in his rookie year and couldn't even get on the field last year.  Could he turn out to be great next year?  Sure--but do you really want to hang your hat on that?  Dowling is another one that people keep saying is really going to be good.  Two years ago, we heard the same thing about Butler.  Maybe Dowling will be great, but it's a bit of a hope and a prayer at this point.  Deaderick? Love? Brace?  Those guys have played a lot and I think they are what they are.  Good backups.  Ninkovich? Fletcher? Guyton?  All backups too, I think.  Even if Nink is starting quality, he's nowhere near a Pro Bowl type impact player.  And if we go 3-4, who even starts at the other outside linebacker spot?  Arrington?  Moore?  Nice coming off the bench, maybe, but top starters in the NFL?  I don't know, I'm just not seeing it.   I say bring in at least two good free agents on defense and draft one or two others and see what happens.  
    Posted by prolate0spheroid


    I agree. You also have to look at it this way...instead of just projecting who will be improved and grow - you also have to look at who will actually take a step back. When players aren't really established, the truth is you don't know what you'll get. Will we be getting the Spikes that looked good for four games this year, or the Spikes that has been injured and had off the field problems? Is Chung going to develop into a safety that can hit and cover, or a guy that shows glimpses and then goes down for 5 weeks with a leg, ankle or groin injury? Is Mayo going to improve in coverage, or is this all we can expect from him? No one predicted the rookie season McCourty had, or the collapse in his second year...will he bounce back?

    The truth is, I just think we need better players and more of them. I think there's some potential there, just not enough right now to get excited about.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from portfolio1. Show portfolio1's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Try not to think "pass rush" - though it is hard not to. Instead think Edge. The edges of the D. Seymour was not Freeney but he was a better PLAYER. I am not saying we have to have anotehr Seymour nut we need DEs that can be on the field all 3 downs, are very solid agasint the run and very consistent and solid in pass rush (of course the better they are pass rushing the better...). We also need OLBs that fit the same desciption and can also drop back in coverage and do a decent job of it.

    And of course we need better play at CB. Yes I would include FS. We need too cut down significantly on giving up plays of 20 yards or more while CONTINUING to improve on third down D. Being stingier on 1st and 2nd on the ground and having a somewhat improved pass rush will make it easier on third. And taking away those big plays will make a world of difference.

    Think edge... even of it is right edge or left edge and not both edges it will be much easier to cover for next year's weaknesses if we have fewer of them and more strengths.

    I think BB upgrades D.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TSWFAN. Show TSWFAN's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    You can make a case either way: -The D doesn't make a stop and get off the field when they need to. or -The offense is getting stopped, and sent off the field when they need to make a drive. Fact is, both are true . In their last 2 SBs they scored 14 and 17, is that really good enough? Their D game up 17 and 21, is that bad? Just looking at that, it seems OVIOUS the offense needs the help, and the D is fine. I don't know, if the Pats gave up 17-21 points per game, I think they'd be, oh, about 13-3. The D played better than their numbers in big games, the offense played decidedly worse, that's what I see. The proof is in the numbers, the D played fine in big games, the O did NOT. If you want to nitpick and say they didn't make the last stop, it's a valid point, but the other side is the offense is just as responsible for either giving the ball back at all, or having poor clock management and leaving too much time. And when I say "not a priority", I mean I don't expect any big name, big money signings. Of COURSE they'll ring in a load of vets, they do every year. Harrison was a 1mil scrap heap player. Pretty much every good defensive FA they've gotten has been. Vrabel was an unknown commodity. Bodden had one good year off the heap, then went back to it.
    Posted by ma6dragon9


    Well Spoken
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    Wasn't the D on the field for something like 13 out of the first 14 minutes of the game? They played their a s s e s off as far as I'm concerned. They were on their heels all game. The Giants started with a 6 minute drive that netted them 0 points. Then one play, safety, get back out there. Thanks for the break. Pats were LEADING at the half, regardless of TOP or possessions, 10-9. NYG were held scoreless in the 2nd Quarter, allowing NE to put up those 10 points to take the lead. Then the D gave up 6 in the 3rd quarter and I see the offense score a TD to start, then a lot of short drives by NE. All the Pats had to do was put together one or two decent drives and could have changed the outcome. The D wa sput out there time and time and time again after short breaks, with the NYG winning the field position battle all day long. It's not without flaws, but I like this D. The more I dive into the numbers, the more I'm liking them even more.
    Posted by ma6dragon9


    Imagine of the Pats used an offensive game plan that varied from the one they had used for the majority of the last 90 games? Maybe they could have used the old element of surprise???

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    I agree that I can't just assume everyone will get better. Last year showed just how untrue that often is. My point, however, is there is a lot of potential for gain on this D. In years past, theyhad the established players as they were getting older, and it was fair to project a decrease because that's what older players typically do, regress. Younger players, like those littered throughout the D, typically get better.

    Yes, some will absolutely take a step back. I kind of throw injuries out because there is no rhyme or reason, so it's not worth worrying about a whole lot. If they sustain no serious injuries, they'll be very good regardless of who they do or don't add just because of the continuity. Injuries could also render this D totally useless by just taking out Wilfork and Mayo for extended periods.

    From 2010 to 2011 these are the players I feel went backwards:

    Bodden
    McCourty
    Cunningham
    Ninkovich

    I feel got better:

    Spikes

    Everyone else went sideways at best. That includes Arrington. I feel like last offseason extremely r e t a r d e d (can't even use words appropriately) the growth of this D. I've said it many times, but I can't express enough just how much I think this was an impact.

    I'm expecting a lot of shocked people around here next season...or I'll be here to admit I was wrong and take the beatings.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Wasn't the D on the field for something like 13 out of the first 14 minutes of the game?

    They played their a s s e s off as far as I'm concerned. They were on their heels all game. The Giants started with a 6 minute drive that netted them 0 points. Then one play, safety, get back out there. Thanks for the break

    That's the exactly the problem and not to be commended
    13 minutes for 2 drives is so far out of the realm of good, it's unbelievable.
     An average D would have gotten off the field in 5 minutes for 2 drives (despite  the short break), not 13 minutes.  That's 8 minutes longer than normal for two drives.  That's 8 minutes the O could have used instead of sitting on the bench, getting stale.  The O can only control the amount of time they have after they get the ball back.  The D didn't leave them any as this happened on every single drive except for the one where they purposely let them score so that they WOULD GET THE BALL BACK with 57 seconds left. (otherwise the jints would have used all of the remaining time with ease)
    The jints D got the ball back on average in 2.5 minutes per possession (which is normal).  Why couldn't the Pat's D do the same?
    Here's why:
    The D got:
    Zero 3 & outs  (allowed 21 1st downs in addition to the 8 for each starting possession)  That's nearly 4, 1st downs a possession.  Wow, just WOW.
    Zero turn overs.   They average more than 2 a game.
    Zero stops in the Jints own territory??????  WOW Again.
    Scored 0 points to help out the O.  (self explanitory)

    Isn't that what D's do?   Their job is not just to prevent scoring. Their job is to get the ball back so that the O has a chance to score.
     They did all those during the rest of the year.
    Wouldn't that mean they played worse than usual?
    At least the O scored on 3 of their 8 possessions (should have been 12) but,
    the D failed to get the ball back quickly on all of their possessions. (which is why it was only 8 possessions instead of 12)    Not Good!
    That's my rant and I'm sticking to it!

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

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    Wasn't the D on the field for something like 13 out of the first 14 minutes of the game? They played their a s s e s off as far as I'm concerned. They were on their heels all game. The Giants started with a 6 minute drive that netted them 0 points. Then one play, safety, get back out there. Thanks for the break That's the exactly the problem and not to be commended 13 minutes for 2 drives is so far out of the realm of good, it's unbelievable.  An average D would have gotten off the field in 5 minutes for 2 drives (despite  the short break), not 13 minutes.  That's 8 minutes longer than normal for two drives.  That's 8 minutes the O could have used instead of sitting on the bench, getting stale.  The O can only control the amount of time they have after they get the ball back.  The D didn't leave them any as this happened on every single drive except for the one where they purposely let them score so that they WOULD GET THE BALL BACK with 57 seconds left. (otherwise the jints would have used all of the remaining time with ease) The jints D got the ball back on average in 2.5 minutes per possession (which is normal).  Why couldn't the Pat's D do the same? Here's why: The D got: Zero 3 & outs  (allowed 21 1st downs in addition to the 8 for each starting possession)  That's nearly 4, 1st downs a possession.  Wow, just WOW. Zero turn overs.   They average more than 2 a game. Zero stops in the Jints own territory??????  WOW Again. Scored 0 points to help out the O.  (self explanitory) Isn't that what D's do?   Their job is not just to prevent scoring. Their job is to get the ball back so that the O has a chance to score.  They did all those during the rest of the year. Wouldn't that mean they played worse than usual? At least the O scored on 3 of their 8 possessions (should have been 12) but, the D failed to get the ball back quickly on all of their possessions. (which is why it was only 8 possessions instead of 12)    Not Good! That's my rant and I'm sticking to it!
    Posted by pezz4pats


    After holding NY to zero points on the opening drive do you think our defense would have had an easier time holding on the 2nd drive if our offense had more then 1 play for negative 2 points in  20 seconds?

     Perhaps they were tired? Perhaps if we didn't call a 4 receiver 20-25 yard route inside of our own 4 yard line we would have had more time to rest on D, and not gotten into a deficit?

    The offense hung the defense out to dry most of the game. No complimentary football. The Giants had the better game plan on offense. We had the same game plan we had for 4 out of the past 5 seasons.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    I agree that I can't just assume everyone will get better. Last year showed just how untrue that often is. My point, however, is there is a lot of potential for gain on this D. In years past, theyhad the established players as they were getting older, and it was fair to project a decrease because that's what older players typically do, regress. Younger players, like those littered throughout the D, typically get better. Yes, some will absolutely take a step back. I kind of throw injuries out because there is no rhyme or reason, so it's not worth worrying about a whole lot. If they sustain no serious injuries, they'll be very good regardless of who they do or don't add just because of the continuity. Injuries could also render this D totally useless by just taking out Wilfork and Mayo for extended periods. From 2010 to 2011 these are the players I feel went backwards: Bodden McCourty Cunningham Ninkovich I feel got better: Spikes Everyone else went sideways at best. That includes Arrington. I feel like last offseason extremely r e t a r d e d (can't even use words appropriately) the growth of this D. I've said it many times, but I can't express enough just how much I think this was an impact. I'm expecting a lot of shocked people around here next season...or I'll be here to admit I was wrong and take the beatings.
    Posted by ma6dragon9


    Hey I can buy your opinion, and honestly all it would take is one difference maker to change everything. If a guy like Watt fell into our laps, I'm sure guys like Mayo would look better and so would the entire secondary. I think that's what good defenses have...one guy that makes the rest of them look better than they actually are...I think that's what we're missing (and need). 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : After holding NY to zero points on the opening drive do you think our defense would have had an easier time holding on the 2nd drive if our offense had more then 1 play for negative 2 points in  20 seconds?  Perhaps they were tired? Perhaps if we didn't call a 4 receiver 20-25 yard route inside of our own 4 yard line we would have had more time to rest on D, and not gotten into a deficit? The offense hung the defense out to dry most of the game. No complimentary football. The Giants had the better game plan on offense. We had the same game plan we had for 4 out of the past 5 seasons.
    Posted by TrueChamp


    I understand they only had a short break between drives and no body screamed louder than me with that stupid safety.
    But 7 minutes Or what ever it was, on the 1st drive was totally unacceptable.
    Then they followed it up with another 6 (again unacceptable) 
    Then the Pats had a good drive and the D gave up another 5 (Again unacceptable)
    Then another long Pats drive and another 5 for the D.
    That's 23 minutes in the first half that the D couldn't get the ball back.
    That's 8 minutes more than usual if you figure a D to give up 15 minutes on average.  That's 8 minutes the Pats could have had the ball in the half that they had no control over simply because The Jints O had the ball all that extra time.
    And then it continued...... A 8 minute drive by the Pats 0 and another 5 for the Jints.  A 2 min dr for the Pats and another 5 for the Jints.
    Final total Jints 38, Pats 22.  No matter how long the drive for the Pats, The Jints still got excessive chunks.
    The Pats avg dr/possession= 2.75 minutes which is normal. Actually a little better than average.      22 min/ 8 possessions = 2.75 or 2:45
    The jints avg dr/p 4.75 minutes which is almost double the average of 2 minutes and 38 secs.                  38min/8 possessions=4.75    or 4:45
    The O did not short change the D, quite the opposite.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bubthegrub12. Show Bubthegrub12's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Wasn't the D on the field for something like 13 out of the first 14 minutes of the game? 

    They would not have been on the field that long had they been able to stop the Giants! And if your defense is too tired to play well in the first quarter of the Super Bowl they do not belong on the team. You want to put this all on the offense, but that doesn't make sense. All year long the offense has started out slowly, then when they found their groove they lit it up. But they never got enough chances in Indy, and the defense kept them on the bench for long periods of time. A defense needs rest on the sideline, an offense thrives by staying hot. You also have to account for the fact that the Giants had one of the best defenses in the league at the time. Add in your QBs top target was pretty much useless except as a decoy...and the Giants knew it. It's a team game, and when one part of the game is hurting the other parts need to step up. Not producing a three and out and failing to capitalize on three fumbles is NOT stepping up. So while I agree the offense needs to share the blame, they still put up enough points to win it with one last stop by the D. When the Giants got the ball back with three minutes my heart sank. We'd seen it all season, not to mention four years ago. The Giants had their way with the defense most of the game. Even though they didn't score every drive they backed NE up. But if you think that only putting up 17 points means the defense is fine and the offense needs the work, you are mistaken.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : I understand they only had a short break between drives and no body screamed louder than me with that stupid safety. But 7 minutes Or what ever it was, on the 1st drive was totally unacceptable. Then they followed it up with another 6 (again unacceptable)  Then the Pats had a good drive and the D gave up another 5 (Again unacceptable) Then another long Pats drive and another 5 for the D. That's 23 minutes in the first half that the D couldn't get the ball back. That's 8 minutes more than usual if you figure a D to give up 15 minutes on average.  That's 8 minutes the Pats could have had the ball in the half that they had no control over simply because The Jints O had the ball all that extra time. And then it continued...... A 8 minute drive by the Pats 0 and another 5 for the Jints.  A 2 min dr for the Pats and another 5 for the Jints. Final total Jints 38, Pats 22.  No matter how long the drive for the Pats, The Jints still got excessive chunks. The Pats avg dr/possession= 2.75 minutes which is normal. Actually a little better than average.      22 min/ 8 possessions = 2.75 or 2:45 The jints avg dr/p 4.75 minutes which is almost double the average of 2 minutes and 38 secs.                  38min/8 possessions=4.75    or 4:45 The O did not short change the D, quite the opposite.
    Posted by pezz4pats

    And don't forget that by not making the stop earlier on that first drive and by giving up 35 yards over six minutes, the defense allowed the Giants to get in great position for a punt (their punter deserves a game ball) that backed the Pats up to the 6 yard line.  It's an old cliche that football is a game of field position--but there's some truth to it and when you have a defense that gives up lots of yards, you are probably losing both field position and time of possession. Again, not excusing the offense for their failings, but please let's not pretend the D was good either or really helped the offense. The Pats offense started in poor field position often and had too few drives to work with in large part because the D couldn't get the Giants off the field promptly enough. 

    And the Giants did score on half of their eight full drives. 

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

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
     I think there's proof of that as the D actually played very well in the playoffs. If giving up a game-losing drive in the SB, plus not being able to get a single three and out is playing well, please share whatever you've been smoking! They had their moments against Denver (that was Tebow, not Elway under center), and Baltimore (never known for a top offense) in the first two games. But in three of their four losses they gave up the game winning drive in the last minute of the game.  But they won't win the big prize if they have to depend on Brady putting up 30+ points a game in the playoffs. Especially if they cannot get the other team off the field and leave the O starting at the 15! This defense has been a "work in progress" for a few years and it needs to step it up soon. With Brady being 35, they cannot afford to keep drafting guys in the 2nd and 3rd round and hope they turn into stars.
    Posted by Bubthegrub12


    #1. I'm sure there's been probably at least 1, maybe 2 instances in the history of The NFL, where some Defense played a single game where that D didn't get a "3 and Out" in this contest...maybe...1?

    #2. Jesus bub, ya cannot have it both ways here...ya just can't.  NE's Defense plays exceptionally well in the first 2 games, allowing a total of 30 points to to playoff teams combined...?  Answer: Those teams had terrible Offenses so you have to factor this in relentlessly.  NE's Offense puts up 17 points, 20 points, and 17 points in 3 of NE's losses (including the SB)...?  Answer: Pats were playing teams with tough D's...So is it too much for NE's OWN Defense, to step up here?

    #3.  WhenInTH did Brady put up "30+ points a game" in the playoffs recently and in the consistant manner which undertones your this phrase of yours?

    #4. Let's talk about this point I've seen forwarded here as the newest brand of Total excusatory absolvement of anything and everything Brady and NE's Offense does, namely the following: "In 3 of Pats 4 Losses, NE gave up the game-winning drive in the final minute of the game..."

    Loss #1- <Buffalo 34, NE 31 />
    Tom Brady=4 Interceptions in this game...4!  Good god...  Want me to detail them?  #1 INT- Under 2 minutes to go before halftime, with NE poised to score at Buffalo's own 13 yard line.  3 more INTs (second half...3)- #2 INT- Very first play from scrimmage in NE's first possession of the 2nd half (upon NE's D holding Buffalo to an initial 3 and out to begin the second half)- INT, granting Buffalo the ball already in long field goal range after the INT return (Bills Offense begins at NE's own 39 yard line...Pats Defense got a 6 second breather for their initial efforts to begin the half).  #3 INT- Beginning of the 4th Quarter, NE poised to score...Brady's 3rd INT occurs at Buffalo's 23 yard line (more certain points, beit TD or FG, thrown away...insanely more time on the field for NE's Defense in the final half of play).  #4 INT- Score 24-24 now...1st play from scrimmage again, Brady INT, this time returned by Drayton Florence for a Bills TD.  

    Really, on 1 hand I feel the absolute need to explain further, How and WHY Buffalo managed to score 23 points in the 2nd half...but I just can't- I can't explain st#p!d stuff to people who have their mind's set regardless, and in an absolute fashion.  So yea, yup...NE's Defense DID give up that final second Field Goal (Therefore total Blame?  NE's Defense, no doubt).

    Loss #2, Loss #3, and Loss #4- 

    NE's Offense put up 17 points against Pittsburgh, whom themselves managed an unsurmountable 25 points in total...  2 of them came with Brady's final and certain game-winning drive with just under 2 minutes left to play...seein' as TB and company managed 7 points total in the 2nd half, NE and Brady were well-rested and due...  Very 1st play of final drive?  Sack-Fumble-Polamalu knocks it into NE's own endzone=Safety.  Question: Is NE's Defense responsible for 23 points, or should we give'em the 25 point Pittsburgh total which includes the Offense's Safety?

    Next, we've got The NE/Giants Regular Season Game where NE's high powered machine managed 20 points, and NE's "worst NFL Defense in the history of the league", allowed The G-Men to trounce them with a 24 point tally...  Brady fare well?  Of course, 28 for 49, with 2 Interceptions and 1 Fumble (Edelman had another) is trully superb...poor guy, that Pats D lettin' him down yet again in the 2012 season.  

    Superbowl...  NE's stud Offense played as well as they could, makin' up for an awful Pats Defense, as Brady and Company placed 17 points on the scoreboard, 7 in the 2nd half, 0 points scored in the final 20+ minutes of play-  Brady and company come up big again, but Brady's 27 for 41 (awesome 6.2 yards average passing yards per play), 1 Interception, 1 Safety...very first time he touched the ball in the Superbowl.  Unfortunately, once again NE's Defense gives up that final game winning drive... Which, at this point, we'll now detail that it's totally irrational to expect Tom Brady to answer with his own score...on the biggest stage & the game where the winners get the lombardi trophy- Considering now...Every NFL Fan knows that NO Quarterback in the history of the league should EVER have such a lofty expectation (completely fictional), OF: Being able to score...with 57 seconds on the clock...and 2 timeouts.  Nah, A final drive that went like this, isn't ANY-one but his own Defense's Fault: Incomplete Pass, Incomplete Pass, Sack, <timeout /> Completed pass to Branch for 19 yards, Completed Pass to Hernandez for 11 yards, <penalty on Giants>, Incomplete Pass, Incomplete Pass...and, finally: Incomplete Pass.             



    Yup, Tom Brady and NE's Offense=Devoid of every ounce of blame...forever, no matter what happens ever=  16 Regular Season Games in 2013 where NE looses each and every one by the margin of 6-3?  Yup, The answer's so simple ANYone should recognize it:  NE's Offense helped THEIR team out by putting 3 points on the scoreboard, NE's Defense on the otherhand, HURT their team because they GAVE up 6 points, and din't score any points themselves...  Time of Possession?  Extended Drives given up by a Patriot defense?  Yup, It only works 1 way- NE's Defense is solely responsible for the TOP being won by the other team...  NE's Offense?  The poor Patriot Offense, shouldn't be held under the standards of being able to have a meaningful clock-eating second half drive for gameS at a time...  Even IF it's the 2nd half, NE's Offense is probably rushing things because NE's Defense, and so when NE's Offense gets their 4th 3 and out of the 2nd half in a row, and takes a grand total of 1 minute off the playing clock, who's fault is it...?  ANSWER: That's right, The Pats D.

    ~~~

    Look, I love Brady as My Team's Quarterback...but some of you guys with your bat-blind absolute forms of total excusatory viewpoints towards certain Pats Players, along with completely impulsive "hang 'em now" completely impulsive spur of the moment final takes based off zero (not...1) aspects of depth, or detail surrounding your blame towards other Pats Players (McCourty-"worst CB in the league" 123 threads this subject alone this year/Brandon Spikes- "Mmm, I CAN excuse Patrick Chung being on the field less...but Spikes?  Guy's a low-class thug/Tom Brady- "Sure he threw 7 Interceptions, didn't have 1 complete pass in the game last week, and fumbled the ball 3 times...buuut, He DID win us those Superbowls, so: Brady played good last week, but NE's Defense blew it.)      
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : #1 . I'm sure there's been probably at least 1, maybe 2 instances in the history of The NFL, where some Defense played a single game where that D didn't get a "3 and Out" in this contest...maybe...1? #2 . Jesus bub , ya cannot have it both ways here...ya just can't.  NE's Defense plays exceptionally well in the first 2 games, allowing a total of 30 points to to playoff teams combined...?  Answer: Those teams had terrible Offenses so you have to factor this in relentlessly.  NE's Offense puts up 17 points, 20 points, and 17 points in 3 of NE's losses (including the SB)...?  Answer: Pats were playing teams with tough D's...So is it too much for NE's OWN Defense, to step up here? #3 .  WhenInTH did Brady put up "30+ points a game" in the playoffs recently and in the consistant manner which undertones your this phrase of yours? #4 . Let's talk about this point I've seen forwarded here as the newest brand of Total excusatory absolvement of anything and everything Brady and NE's Offense does, namely the following: "In 3 of Pats 4 Losses, NE gave up the game-winning drive in the final minute of the game..." Loss #1- <Buffalo 34, NE 31 /> Tom Brady=4 Interceptions in this game...4!  Good god...  Want me to detail them?  #1 INT- Under 2 minutes to go before halftime, with NE poised to score at Buffalo's own 13 yard line.  3 more INTs (second half... 3 )- #2 INT- Very first play from scrimmage in NE's first possession of the 2nd half (upon NE's D holding Buffalo to an initial 3 and out to begin the second half)- INT, granting Buffalo the ball already in long field goal range after the INT return (Bills Offense begins at NE's own 39 yard line...Pats Defense got a 6 second breather for their initial efforts to begin the half).  #3 INT- Beginning of the 4th Quarter, NE poised to score...Brady's 3rd INT occurs at Buffalo's 23 yard line (more certain points, beit TD or FG, thrown away...insanely more time on the field for NE's Defense in the final half of play).  #4 INT- Score 24-24 now...1st play from scrimmage again, Brady INT, this time returned by Drayton Florence for a Bills TD.   Really, on 1 hand I feel the absolute need to explain further, How and WHY Buffalo managed to score 23 points in the 2nd half...but I just can't- I can't explain st#p!d stuff to people who have their mind's set regardless, and in an absolute fashion.  So yea, yup...NE's Defense DID give up that final second Field Goal (Therefore total Blame?  NE's Defense, no doubt). Loss #2, Loss #3, and Loss #4-  NE's Offense put up 17 points against Pittsburgh, whom themselves managed an unsurmountable 25 points in total...  2 of them came with Brady's final and certain game-winning drive with just under 2 minutes left to play...seein' as TB and company managed 7 points total in the 2nd half, NE and Brady were well-rested and due...  Very 1st play of final drive?  Sack-Fumble-Polamalu knocks it into NE's own endzone=Safety.  Question: Is NE's Defense responsible for 23 points, or should we give'em the 25 point Pittsburgh total which includes the Offense's Safety? Next, we've got The NE/Giants Regular Season Game where NE's high powered machine managed 20 points, and NE's "worst NFL Defense in the history of the league", allowed The G-Men to trounce them with a 24 point tally...  Brady fare well?  Of course, 28 for 49, with 2 Interceptions and 1 Fumble (Edelman had another) is trully superb...poor guy, that Pats D lettin' him down yet again in the 2012 season.   Superbowl...  NE's stud Offense played as well as they could, makin' up for an awful Pats Defense, as Brady and Company placed 17 points on the scoreboard, 7 in the 2nd half, 0 points scored in the final 20+ minutes of play-  Brady and company come up big again, but Brady's 27 for 41 (awesome 6.2 yards average passing yards per play), 1 Interception, 1 Safety...very first time he touched the ball in the Superbowl.  Unfortunately, once again NE's Defense gives up that final game winning drive... Which, at this point, we'll now detail that it's totally irrational to expect Tom Brady to answer with his own score...on the biggest stage & the game where the winners get the lombardi trophy- Considering now...Every NFL Fan knows that NO Quarterback in the history of the league should EVER have such a lofty expectation (completely fictional), OF: Being able to score...with 57 seconds on the clock...and 2 timeouts.  Nah, A final drive that went like this, isn't ANY-one but his own Defense's Fault: Incomplete Pass, Incomplete Pass, Sack, <timeout /> Completed pass to Branch for 19 yards, Completed Pass to Hernandez for 11 yards, <penalty on Giants />, Incomplete Pass, Incomplete Pass...and, finally: Incomplete Pass.              Yup, Tom Brady and NE's Offense=Devoid of every ounce of blame...forever, no matter what happens ever=  16 Regular Season Games in 2013 where NE looses each and every one by the margin of 6-3?  Yup, The answer's so simple ANYone should recognize it:  NE's Offense helped THEIR team out by putting 3 points on the scoreboard, NE's Defense on the otherhand, HURT their team because they GAVE up 6 points, and din't score any points themselves...  Time of Possession?  Extended Drives given up by a Patriot defense?  Yup, It only works 1 way- NE's Defense is solely responsible for the TOP being won by the other team...  NE's Offense?  The poor Patriot Offense, shouldn't be held under the standards of being able to have a meaningful clock-eating second half drive for gameS at a time...  Even IF it's the 2nd half, NE's Offense is probably rushing things because NE's Defense, and so when NE's Offense gets their 4th 3 and out of the 2nd half in a row, and takes a grand total of 1 minute off the playing clock, who's fault is it...?  ANSWER : That's right, The Pats D. ~~~ Look, I love Brady as My Team's Quarterback...but some of you guys with your bat-blind absolute forms of total excusatory viewpoints towards certain Pats Players, along with completely impulsive "hang 'em now" completely impulsive spur of the moment final takes based off zero (not...1) aspects of depth, or detail surrounding your blame towards other Pats Players (McCourty-"worst CB in the league" 123 threads this subject alone this year/Brandon Spikes- "Mmm, I CAN excuse Patrick Chung being on the field less...but Spikes?  Guy's a low-class thug/Tom Brady- "Sure he threw 7 Interceptions, didn't have 1 complete pass in the game last week, and fumbled the ball 3 times...buuut, He DID win us those Superbowls, so: Brady played good last week, but NE's Defense blew it.)      
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium


    Laz,
    I don't think anyone is absolving TB or the O.  It is after all a team sport.
    But in objectively weighing the deficiencies of both the O & D, some are looking at the D's inability to get the ball back as the major issue.
    Maybe there is another SB team that failed to get a 3 & out, if so, did they win?
    That would take a lot of research but my feelings is that would be improbable.  The inability to get even one 3 & out is a huge issue.  Allowing the opponent to have an average of 12 & outs per possession is ridiculous.  Every additional "out" is time taken away from the Offense.  Time taken away from the O decreases the time they have to attempt to score.  Can we agree on that?
    Teams DO win while only scoring 17 pts although it's not ideal.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say, much less teams win by getting zero, 3 & outs and allowing 12 outs per possession.
    I would also add that in order for that to have little or no relevance during a game, is that both teams would have to be playing as poorly on D.
    That was not the case.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from wozzy. Show wozzy's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : Laz, I don't think anyone is absolving TB or the O.  It is after all a team sport. But in objectively weighing the deficiencies of both the O & D, some are looking at the D's inability to get the ball back as the major issue. Maybe there is another SB team that failed to get a 3 & out, if so, did they win? That would take a lot of research but my feelings is that would be improbable.  The inability to get even one 3 & out is a huge issue.  Allowing the opponent to have an average of 12 & outs per possession is ridiculous.  Every additional "out" is time taken away from the Offense.  Time taken away from the O decreases the time they have to attempt to score.  Can we agree on that? Teams DO win while only scoring 17 pts although it's not ideal. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, much less teams win by getting zero, 3 & outs and allowing 12 outs per possession. I would also add that in order for that to have little or no relevance during a game, is that both teams would have to be playing as poorly on D. That was not the case.
    Posted by pezz4pats

    If the offense is considered the strength of the team and our defense only gave up two touchdowns, then the high powered offense failed... miserably.

    We're not going to blame the defense because the Giants ran the conservative offensive game plan that we should have.

    That's just dumb.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Laz haz zpoken.

    I'm not even looking at the offense so much, just looking at the D alone, and thinking about where I would spend the money. I see a lot of talented, young players on D who have played very well at times. If nothing else, look at their red zone stats from the season. This group has earned an extended look in my eyes.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    Sure the D has some young players but youth isn't everything.  They are missing some talent, some playmakers.  The D needs to add some experienced talented playmakers to the roster to the roster.

    I think I would much rather them add some experienced, talented playmakers to the D then going and getting a high priced deep threat and not upgrading the D.


     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pezz4pats. Show pezz4pats's posts

    Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA

    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA:
    In Response to Re: Here's why Pats D isn't a priority in FA : If the offense is considered the strength of the team and our defense only gave up two touchdowns then the high powered offense failed... miserably. We're not going to blame the defense because the Giants ran the conservative offensive game plan that we should have. That's just dumb.
    Posted by wozzy


    The O's ability to score is determined by how much time they have to do so.
    Both teams can't hold the ball for 38 minutes, as that would be a 76 minute game.  The extra 16 minutes is exactly the amount the jints held the ball longer than the pats.
    If the D cant stop the Jints O from using 38 minutes, it only allows 22 minutes for the O.  If The D allowed 30 minutes to the Jints O, it would have allowed the Pats O 30 minutes.  If the D would have allowed the Jints only 22 minutes, it would have allowed 38 minutes for the Pats O.
    The Pats were down 13 minutes to 2 in the first quarter, which dictated the game.  That was partially due to the terrible safety but more importantly due to the inability to get the ball back in 5 minutes for those 2 drives which is normal.
    13 minutes to get the ball back instead of 5, which is normal, is unacceptable.
    Even if the Pats did not commit the safety and ran, say a 3 minute drive(better than average), that still would have given the Jints O, 10 minutes for the quarter and the Pats 5.  Now, multiple that by 4 quarters and you have basically(within 2 minutes TOP), what happened.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share