Must we think "outside the box"?

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

    Must we think "outside the box"?

    Week in and week out, all we hear is how DEFENSE wins championships. Is this one of those seasons in which we need to think "outside the box" regarding the value of having a stout D?  Hear me out.
    Look at the Packers.  If it weren't for their undefeated status and the play of their offense, specifically, Rodgers, we'd hear a lot about the lowly ranked D like we hear ALL the time about the Pats.  I hear about the Packers being "weak" at D, but no one takes away their chances to win the SB because of Rodgers and the O.  The same applies to the Saints which also has a mighty O but a D that also gives up gobs of yards.   The Pats have both of them beat when is comes to scoring defense, though, not by much, and neither have faced an O like the Pats have other than each other in game #1.  SF seems the only team in the NFC with a D that appears stout, to a certain extent, a playoff winning type D.  On the AFC side, I can see either the Steelers or the Ravens give GB or the Saints fits.  unfortunately, neither team can win a shootout.  For these two teams to win, their D NEEDS to play well.  Hence, thinking "outside the box", as long as the Pats D can make the stops at the right time, and the O scores the points we know it can, the Pats can win out with a D that bends like crazy.  Conventional wisdom doesn't have to apply all the time and this year may be an "outside the box" type of year. 
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

     I am not sure I totally agree with you. The Packers are defending superbowl champs who have been blowing teams out. The Packers defense has been looking much better lately while the Pats defense seems to be struggling now against some bad teams. These games were for getting healthy and tuning up for the playoffs. They are turning into absolute nail biters. The Packers winning a shoot out against the Giants is much more impressive than the Pats winning a shoot out against the Redskins with Rex Grossman.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE] I am not sure I totally agree with you. The Packers are defending superbowl champs who have been blowing teams out. The Packers defense has been looking much better lately while the Pats defense seems to be struggling now against some bad teams. These games were for getting healthy and tuning up for the playoffs. They are turning into absolute nail biters. The Packers winning a shoot out against the Giants is much more impressive than the Pats winning a shoot out against the Redskins with Rex Grossman.
    Posted by ccnsd[/QUOTE]
    You don't have to agree with me, hence the "thinking outside the box" discussion.  The Packers winning against the Giants was aided by some "friendly" rules interpretations.. I'll leave it at that.  When playing a team with a losing record, they can rise up and play better than expected, so, all we saw from the Redskins today is what we have seen week after week and after week with another Pats win.  Seems everyone is on pins and needles thinking the Pats D HAS to come up BIG in order for the team to win.  Look at Denver..  they are -33 when it comes to PF v PA and they are 8 - 5!!! 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

     The diference is that the Packers defense has shown it can rise to the occasion ( note the super bowl run). While this Pats defense got toasted by Sanchez last year in the playoffs. Mark freakin' Sanchez. This defense has never proven it can get it done when it counts.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE] The diference is that the Packers defense has shown it can rise to the occasion ( note the super bowl run). While this Pats defense got toasted by Sanchez last year in the playoffs. Mark freakin' Sanchez. This defense has never proven it can get it done when it counts.
    Posted by ccnsd[/QUOTE]
    Name a game this year in which the Packers needed late game heroics from their D to win?  They didn't against the Giants last week.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    I just think that when you have no DBs - you have to blitz like crazy.  You can't ask those DBs to cover for a long time.

    I wouldn't blitz Aaron Rogers like crazy.  But rex Grossman?  My goodness - blitz his @ss every down.

    BB hates blitzing - but since he is a "defensive genius" - maybe he could adapt. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveNorthShore. Show DaveNorthShore's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    My thinking outside the box (or maybe it isn't anymore) is that BB is no longer a Defensive genius.  The D has been bad for 5 years now.  He hasn't drafted well, can't keep or wants a D coordinator, his schemes don't work,  etc.  Capers leaves here and puts together a strong D in GB (except for this year).  Texas has the worst D in the league a year or so ago and now has one of the best.  As has been said repeatedly without Brady this is a 5-11 team. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]I just think that when you have no DBs - you have to blitz like crazy.  You can't ask those DBs to cover for a long time. I wouldn't blitz Aaron Rogers like crazy.  But rex Grossman?  My goodness - blitz his @ss every down. BB hates blitzing - but since he is a "defensive genius" - maybe he could adapt. 
    Posted by Schumpeters-Ghost[/QUOTE]
    I recall he did some of that in the pre-season and it looked good then.  Come the regular season, nada!!!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveNorthShore. Show DaveNorthShore's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    Schump - you said what I've thought a few times - that BB's defensive style of bend don't break and try to confuse the QB doesn't work anymore.  With the new passing rules and bigger/faster receivers you need to get after the QB and prevent him from making good throws - otherwise most any QB will carve you up.   
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    Can we think of a way to "Tebow-ize" the D to better fit the personnel?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]Can we think of a way to "Tebow-ize" the D to better fit the personnel?
    Posted by TheExaminer[/QUOTE]
    Does that mean they all have to play down on one knee??!!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Schumpeters-Ghost. Show Schumpeters-Ghost's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]Schump - you said what I've thought a few times - that BB's defensive style of bend don't break and try to confuse the QB doesn't work anymore.  With the new passing rules and bigger/faster receivers you need to get after the QB and prevent him from making good throws - otherwise most any QB will carve you up.   
    Posted by DaveNorthShore[/QUOTE]


    It is kind of tough to watch Matthew Slater trying to execute "bend don't break" - but Bellicheck watches it every week and doesn't mind at all.  I don't know how he does it!

    Next week blitz the heck out of Tebow.  I noticed the Bears used Urlacher and Briggs to shadow Tebow - rather than blitzing him.

    Even a poor thrower like tebow can make throws if given 5 - 7 seconds to stand in the pocket.

    And that is a big reason he got that TD pass which set off the ridiculous win.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"? : Name a game this year in which the Packers needed late game heroics from their D to win?  They didn't against the Giants last week.
    Posted by agcsbill[/QUOTE]

     They got a huge interception at the end of the Chargers game to save a complete collapse. The Packers offense seemed to take it's foot off the gas in that game after running out to a huge lead.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In response to "Re: Must we think "outside the box"?": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"? : Does that mean they all have to play down on one knee??!! Posted by agcsbill[/QUOTE] LOL...only when they're giving thanks for the latest shutout victory!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from freediro. Show freediro's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    The Packers defense has like 24 or 25 INT's, and that usually means another TD for Rodgers. They at least have something going for them on a consistent basis. Our defense is always up and down week in and week out. If anyone has been watching the past few games you can clearly see that the only thing this defense kind of has going for them is a pass rush. If Bill could dial up more schemes for rushing the passer we can at least disrupt timing and cause metal mistakes that we can only hope leads to 3 and outs or INT's. Otherwise our secondary will get shredded every play if we play soft and rush only 3. We can't always rely on these goal line stands we get about every other game.

    What would have taken some pressure of the D would have been our offense improving its play calling. We missed 2 easy TD opportunities, Brady was off this week, and O'Brien made the bone headed call to throw the ball instead of running it at the end there. Why risk exactly what happened? Both sides of the ball need to compliment the other, it just seems when one side steps up the other one doesn't. I have more faith in Brady and the O at the end of a game then Bill and the D.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?


    You can win with a D that gives up 30 points a game as long as your offense scores 40 a game.  The problem is that the Pats offense isn't quite that good this year.  It can score 30 easily, but it isn't very diverse and can be shut down for stretches by good defenses.  Our defense is also scary bad--I had hoped the fourth quarter in Indy was an abberation, but yesterday's game was an eye opener. This D struggles even with some of the worst offenses in the league.  That's not a good sign when we face better offenses in the playoffs.  So I guess it's possible to win with O alone, but your O probably needs to be better than the Pats O and you probably need at least an average D, not one so awful as the Pats D.  

    I think the best hope now is that BB will have great game plans and coach his band of misfits up well before each game.  BB is a great coach and that will help us.  Who knows, it may be enough, especially given the flaws of most of hte other AFC (and even NFC) teams this year. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from sml1210. Show sml1210's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"? : You don't have to agree with me, hence the "thinking outside the box" discussion.  The Packers winning against the Giants was aided by some "friendly" rules interpretations.. I'll leave it at that.  When playing a team with a losing record, they can rise up and play better than expected, so, all we saw from the Redskins today is what we have seen week after week and after week with another Pats win.  Seems everyone is on pins and needles thinking the Pats D HAS to come up BIG in order for the team to win.  Look at Denver..  they are -33 when it comes to PF v PA and they are 8 - 5!!! 
    Posted by agcsbill[/QUOTE]

    Because the Denver defense is excellent so they don't have to score a lot of points to win. You just shot yourself argument in the foot.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from sml1210. Show sml1210's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]My thinking outside the box (or maybe it isn't anymore) is that BB is no longer a Defensive genius.  The D has been bad for 5 years now.  He hasn't drafted well, can't keep or wants a D coordinator, his schemes don't work,  etc.  Capers leaves here and puts together a strong D in GB (except for this year).  Texas has the worst D in the league a year or so ago and now has one of the best.  As has been said repeatedly without Brady this is a 5-11 team. 
    Posted by DaveNorthShore[/QUOTE]


    I can't agree more. The "defensive genius" can't put a decent defense on the field for several years now, but somehow he's still a "genius."

    He's 52-62 with any quarterback not named "Brady." 5-11 might be about right.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]Week in and week out, all we hear is how DEFENSE wins championships. Is this one of those seasons in which we need to think "outside the box" regarding the value of having a stout D?  Hear me out. Look at the Packers.  If it weren't for their undefeated status and the play of their offense, specifically, Rodgers, we'd hear a lot about the lowly ranked D like we hear ALL the time about the Pats.  I hear about the Packers being "weak" at D, but no one takes away their chances to win the SB because of Rodgers and the O.  The same applies to the Saints which also has a mighty O but a D that also gives up gobs of yards.   The Pats have both of them beat when is comes to scoring defense, though, not by much, and neither have faced an O like the Pats have other than each other in game #1.  SF seems the only team in the NFC with a D that appears stout, to a certain extent, a playoff winning type D.  On the AFC side, I can see either the Steelers or the Ravens give GB or the Saints fits.  unfortunately, neither team can win a shootout.  For these two teams to win, their D NEEDS to play well.  Hence, thinking "outside the box", as long as the Pats D can make the stops at the right time, and the O scores the points we know it can, the Pats can win out with a D that bends like crazy.  Conventional wisdom doesn't have to apply all the time and this year may be an "outside the box" type of year. 
    Posted by agcsbill[/QUOTE]

         Give up the ghost, Bill. Green Bay's defense is much better than the Patriots' "D". The Packers have play-makers, such as Charles Woodson and Clay Matthews. 

         The Pats' "D" is ranked dead last for a reason. It's a testament to BB and Tom Brady that the Pats have been able to contend, despite being handicapped by this stink-bomb defensive unit.  
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    I appreciate your ideas, and I do think we need to blitz more overall, but sadly I think it comes down to personnel. We just don't have them. When you start Slater at safety and use Edelman consistently, something is wrong here. When half your defense is comprised of UDFAs and late round picks, you think your fielding a bunch of quality players that will somehow magically be better by playing in BBs scheme? Half the equation is talent, and we are pretty thin in this department. bB has also created a revolving door in the secondary, where new faces are being mixed in every week. It can't be good for chemistry because there is a lack of consistency. I think Chungs return will help, not sure how much. For the remainder of the regular season, I just want to see the same set of defensive players on the field and get some reps playing together.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    Bob Sanders Chung needs to get back quick. I'd hate playing him in the playoffs with out any live reps for 5 weeks.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    It's not about the D right now it's about the D in the playoffs.

    Prime examples were the 07' Giants who had average at best D in the reg season but a dominant D in the post season

    10' GB who's D looked awful at the beginning of the season but in the playoffs they were one of the best most aggressive D's

    06' Colts yet another team who's D performed as a top 10 D in the post season that was horrible during the season.

    I remember pulling together some stats of post season comparing it to regular season numbers and it broke down to the last 10 years:

    40% of top 10 O's won SB
    40% of top 5 O's won SB
    70% of top 10 D's won SB
    60% of top 5 D's won SB

    Now this is taking the post season numbers and comparing them to where they would have fallen in the regular season. I'm going to re-check my numbers to to make sure but I'm pretty sure that's where the numbers fell.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]I appreciate your ideas, and I do think we need to blitz more overall, but sadly I think it comes down to personnel. We just don't have them. When you start Slater at safety and use Edelman consistently, something is wrong here. When half your defense is comprised of UDFAs and late round picks, you think your fielding a bunch of quality players that will somehow magically be better by playing in BBs scheme? Half the equation is talent, and we are pretty thin in this department. bB has also created a revolving door in the secondary, where new faces are being mixed in every week. It can't be good for chemistry because there is a lack of consistency. I think Chungs return will help, not sure how much. For the remainder of the regular season, I just want to see the same set of defensive players on the field and get some reps playing together.
    Posted by PatsLifer[/QUOTE]

         Amen. All those misses in the draft over the past 5 years have caught up with BB, and the Patriots. Here's some of the defensive players that BB has wasted high draft choices on: Brandon Meriweather, Terrence Wheatley, Shawn Crable, Darius Butler, Ron Brace, Jermaine Cunningham, Ras-I Dowling, and Patrick Chung (both Dowling and Chung have been added to this list because they've been constantly injured...and unable to play). 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]It's not about the D right now it's about the D in the playoffs. Prime examples were the 07' Giants who had average at best D in the reg season but a dominant D in the post season 10' GB who's D looked awful at the beginning of the season but in the playoffs they were one of the best most aggressive D's 06' Colts yet another team who's D performed as a top 10 D in the post season that was horrible during the season. I remember pulling together some stats of post season comparing it to regular season numbers and it broke down to the last 10 years: 40% of top 10 O's won SB 40% of top 5 O's won SB 70% of top 10 D's won SB 60% of top 5 D's won SB Now this is taking the post season numbers and comparing them to where they would have fallen in the regular season. I'm going to re-check my numbers to to make sure but I'm pretty sure that's where the numbers fell.
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    I agree PE. 

    But I see little evidence that this "D" will tighten up in the playoffs. 

    In their last two playoff games they have let up an average of 30 a game to two very mediocre offenses. And right now, they are playing worse and worse it seems, giving up 50+ in back to back weeks to the 28th and 32nd ranked offenses. 

    While you are correct, it's about who gets hot on defense. It's also about who's defense has the kind of players who can get hot. 

    This defense doesn't have the talent up front to simply take a game over, that the Giants had, nor the bookend DE's and stellar DB play that the Colts' defense rode to a championship. 

    If they win it, it will be more like the Saints' run. Winning shootouts and getting some lucky bounces, while the defense hangs on for life, and tries to capitalize on opponents struggling to keep up with the offense.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Must we think "outside the box"?

    In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Must we think "outside the box"? : I agree PE.  But I see little evidence that this "D" will tighten up in the playoffs.  In their last two playoff games they have let up an average of 30 a game to two very mediocre offenses. And right now, they are playing worse and worse it seems, giving up 50+ in back to back weeks to the 28th and 32nd ranked offenses.  While you are correct, it's about who gets hot on defense. It's also about who's defense has the kind of players who can get hot.  This defense doesn't have the talent up front to simply take a game over, that the Giants had, nor the bookend DE's and stellar DB play that the Colts' defense rode to a championship.  If they win it, it will be more like the Saints' run. Winning shootouts and getting some lucky bounces, while the defense hangs on for life, and tries to capitalize on opponents struggling to keep up with the offense.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Oh I'm with you that there is little evidence they will improve. My comments were more towards those who think that D's no longer win championships and it's the O's that win it now a days. D's still have a greater impact on winning a championship imo. The O gets you into the playoffs and the D wins you the championship
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share