pats = same old problem - defense

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    clock killing corey dillon 2004 divisional game vs the colts.. textbook.. every superbowl winning patriot team had a balance of run and pass. the spread/shotgun throw throw throw has won 0 superbowls. 

    nobodys saying to run every down, but having the threat of a running game makes the passing game that much better.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]Well, you can't count the last two drives. That is the entire point of my last post. The Pats got the ball with 3:39 left. I'm sorry, but you aren't running the ball there, no matter who you are. It would have gift-wrapped the game for the Jets. Lets get the numbers right here ... because I don't know where you are getting 23 runs from at all. I am getting 23 runs from 14 woo dhead runs and 9 BJGE runs.(RB rushes) Tate's runs are runs. Brady's runs are runs. They are runs, because you are running the football. When Brady runs on third and short, it is the essence of what power running should be  about, and always has been an area where NE beat other teams. They cover the power yardage as well as anyone in football. We don't set rules based on who is running it, because it doesn't matter. An end around is a run, because you are handing the ball off, and you are not passing the ball. Again, a bread and butter play from NE's halcyon days in the early 2000's. Should I discount short passes and screens, because they are really like running plays? I could, by the same logic that someone would use to discount a dive, draw, or end around. But playing fuzzy math to shoehorn facts( I didn't shoehorn anything, I stated I am not counting 2 QB runs and a reverse as part of utilizing our run game) into a shape we hope something could be won't get us closer to an appreciation of what succeeded and what failed in that game, which is all I want to do. Perhaps I should have elaborated on what I meant about using our running game more. I want to see a power run formation used more then we have, BJGE with 6-7 blockers and 2 Wrs(for PA). In this particular game BJGE ran for 2 first downs and 21 yards on 4 carries in the first half. It wasn't a delayed woodhead draw, or reverse. It was line up smash mouth and it worked the whole game the little we used it. This is what I am saying we need more of because it was working against the Jets pass heavy defense The play selection was 28 runs to 30 passes not counting those last two drives where they HAD to pass because they were behind,and the two nonce time passes with 33 seconds in the half, where NE just threw short screens to Woodhead hoping the Jets would mess up and let him loose in the field. It was, in short, nothing like a pass-fest. It was almost 50/50 balanced. My overall point being, that when New England had time they were running the football. But the hole the defense (among other things like Crump's inexusable drop, and the silly special teams gaffe) put them in was what forced them to pass much later in the game. New England Patriots at 13:00 NYJ NWE 1st and 10 at NE 18 D.Woodhead left end to NE 22 for 4 yards (B.Pool, D.Harris).     2nd and 6 at NE 22 D.Woodhead left tackle to NE 24 for 2 yards (M.Devito). FUMBLES (M.Devito), recovered by NE-L.Mankins at NE 27.     3rd and 1 at NE 27 T.Brady pass short middle to W.Welker to NE 35 for 8 yards (A.Cromartie).     1st and 10 at NE 35 (Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete short middle to A.Crumpler.     2nd and 10 at NE 35 D.Woodhead left end to NE 39 for 4 yards (B.Pool, J.Taylor).     3rd and 6 at NE 39 (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short left to D.Branch to NE 47 for 8 yards (D.Revis).     1st and 10 at NE 47 B.Green-Ellis left guard to 50 for 3 yards (T.Pryce).     2nd and 7 at 50 D.Woodhead up the middle to NYJ 42 for 8 yards (B.Pool).     1st and 10 at NYJ 42 D.Woodhead right end to NYJ 35 for 7 yards (D.Lowery).     2nd and 8 at NYJ 40 T.Brady pass short left to W.Welker to NYJ 31 for 9 yards (D.Revis).     1st and 10 at NYJ 31 D.Woodhead right guard to NYJ 31 for no gain (S.Ellis).     2nd and 10 at NYJ 31 T.Brady sacked at NYJ 34 for -3 yards (S.Pouha).     3rd and 13 at NYJ 34 (Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete short right to D.Woodhead. NYJ-D.Revis was injured during the play.     4th and 13 at NYJ 34 (Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete short left to D.Branch. Here is one of our final 3 drives above. 7 of our Runningbacks total 23 rushes. It came with 13 minutes left in the 4rth qtr and it ended with brady throwing 3 straight times and turning the ball over on downs. We took what the defense gave us finally but screwed it up by passing 3 straight. 1st half 20 passing plays. 10 running back rushes(for solid ypc)=3 total points. The heavy pass attacks failure in the 1st half is what lead us to a 14-3 half time deficit imo. That is what I challenge you to refute my friend. Not that by the end of the game they had passed the ball more than they ran it... that the game plan that put them behind on offense was quite balanced . I show above how this is not true, 1st half 20 pass to 10 rushes by runningback 13 if you want to count a reverse,a Brady scramble and a Brady QB sneak. More importantly then the number of the plays were the facts that Benny running was working because the Jets were in a heavy pass defense ! I don't see how it's a situation where it can be seen two ways. They are either running the ball or passing the ball, and there is a ratio. It is a hard stat. It can't be changed. You can claim they passed before the last two drives a whole lot more than they ran it... but the box score disagrees. You can also count the last two drives, which does tip the balance over to pass heavy, but it really only helps my argument that the defense really let them down in the end. It couldn't keep the game close, and they were forced into throwing for their lives in the last 3 minutes (13 passes on two drives). Z, in this circumstance you want to discount the final 2 drives which were all passes and I agree but the drive right before those accounted for 7 of our runningbacks total 23 rushes, which means only 16 RB rushes in the 1st 3 qtrs when BJGE running was working great. Not to mention most of those runs were woodehead draws out of a passing formation and not power running. It should be recognizable, because it is exactly  the kind of situation where NE's defense actually becomes effective... when they force the opponent to become one dimensional late in the game by scoring and getting a lead.  New England could have run the ball 15-20-30 more times that game. Sorry. It wouldn't have made a lick of a difference. The defense needs to stop the opponent from scoring.  In the end, to agree or disagree with my position, you need to answer the question I pose first. Should NE be running the football with three minutes left down by ten points? Of course not but they should have run the ball more to avoid getting in that hole in the first place. 5 sacks and 2 Tom Brady turnovers to BJGE 5 ypc 2 1st downs in first half alone supports my answer.
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    1.) That is 21 rushes outside of that drive. You keep discounting plays because they don't look a certain way. Edelman and Tates reverses were both eleven yard gains, and one followed a run play of 2 yards by BJGE. 

    And you are counting the two garbage time :33 to go before the half passes to Woodhead and Branch, which again are irrelevant. Those could have been runs or whatever, or kneel downs, or two long bomb plays. They are only statistical noise.

    New England ran the ball 28 times. Talking about formations etc, is irrelevant with this offense because it is 2TE. A run is a run, because in the end the only difference between power runing and non-power running is BJGE for Woodhead. The 2TE offense personell stays on the field either way. I mean, they played Crump for almost the entire first half. That alone says they came out trying to run to establish the pass. 

    I don't accept your premise that running the ball with BJGE more has any real impact on the first three quarters because they did run the ball with BJGE. The FG drive was extremely balanced, but Crump dropped the ball when he was wide open. If he hangs on to that, the game is likely changed. 

    2.) NE didn't mess anything up. They passed three times, but that was AFTER no gain on a first down rush attempt. Then a quick sack where Ellis just abused Connolly and Koppen together. Then you have to pass. Then they went for it on 4th down ... most likely because BB DOESN"T TRUST HIS DEFENSE IN TIGHT GAMES.

    By the same token, I can say the worst drive of the game ... the shortest drive, least clock killing drive, least effective drive was a quick three and out with three straight runs .... it was abyssmal. BJGE was blown off the ball for -1 yards. They should have tried a short pass or let Brady sneak for the yard. Either would have worked IMO. It would have extended the drive. Killed at least another 1:45, and maybe gotten them some points eventually.

    As you see, we can both cherry pick plays back and forth, so that won't get us anywhere. Every pass you say wasn't smart, I can come back to another run for -1, 0, 1, or 2 yards that could have been a successful pass. It's a zero-sum game.

    All that remains is the set-in-stone mix. Which was 21 to 23 run to pass, discounting the :33 hailmary stuff. Before the 4th.

    And you say that NE passed more BEFORE the 4th quarter, thus resulting in a low score. That isn't really true. 

    Don't include the only TD drive scored in the game to that point, which was 6 passes to 2 runs -- it was a success, so you can't say they should have run more. That was the last drive of the 3rd quarter and gave NE 8 points. 

    OK. 

    So ironcially enough, then, while NE is mixing it up 19 RUNS to 17 PASSES, they scored 3 points. AFTER that, they passed the ball another 26 times, and ran the ball another 9 times. They scored 18 points in that span. 

    So, keeping in mind, NE never, ever trailed in TOP in that game outside of the first Jets drive before NE took the field. 

    That was the first 43:56 of the game (-:33 seconds, of course, because I won't hold that against the offense), NE has a 19 RUN 17 PASS ratio. Almost all of it, right out of 2TE with Crump on the field, a.k.a. their power package.  

    3 pts

    After that. 26 passes to nine runs. 
    3 pts in 43:23 --> 19 Runs 17 Passes
    18 pts in 16:04 --> 8 Runs 26 Passes  

    And you really want them to run more? I personally think the mix was fine that game, and again largely dictated by situational football practice, but if anything the stats indicate they should have passed it more.

    In BOTH scenarios, the defense allowed 14 points. So the mix is irrelevant here to defensive performance really. 

    Like I said, NE needed to change two things after that game. Running BJGE isn't more often isn't one of them. The mix they had was ok, more or less, and was largely dictated by situational football late in the game. If the defense didn't put them in a hole, 21-11, they are probably still mixing it up in the 4th quarter. Don't allow the Jets that terrible TD where they go ahead 21-11 on a broken 2 minute drive where Sanchez is just scrambling around until Edwards is open, and NE has the ball with 13 minutes to play, and a very manageable 14-11 score, where they can run the football a bit more. That is the kind of stop the defense needs to make. Picking off Chad Henne when NE is up by 7-10 points, is ok, but not the same thing as the "D" hanging in there and buying some more time for Brady and the offense to make some fire.  

    1.) They needed another wideout to replace Tate, who was awful. Check. BB went out and did that. Most of those sacks in that game were coverage sacks. I think Ocho can at least make a contribution against Cromartie, thus making it more difficult for the opponent to leave their safety in the box to help knock Welker around and stack against the run.

    2.) They need to upgrade the defense. Specifically, they needed help rushing the passer, and they tried to address that. We'll see how that pans out long term. But if NE is allowing Sanchez to throw for a 120 rating again next post-season, they won't be winning the game, even if BJGE is personally responsible for carrying the football on every single down.

    7 points a quarter doesn't cut it. 

    If you give up 28 ppg you are the worst defense in the NFL. NE has given up 30 ppg in it's last four playoff losses .... the rest is academic. In the last two, they have given up 33 to the Ravens and 28 to the Jets. I cannot fathom how people are "ok" with this. Its abyssmal. If TB and company don't drop 35 points on their opponent, the ship is sunk with that defense.

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense : Ahhh, so little to say about these games … because you know I’m right! Fact is the defense has always fallen apart late in our playoff games under BB, win or lose.   The difference between win or loss has been whether the offense could score when it mattered. So the defense giving up 14 points in the 4 th quarter against the Rams is making “just enough” plays to allow Brady to win it in a tie-game?   Giving up 3 touchdowns to the Panthers in the 4 th quarter is clutch? Scoring 3 points the entire 4 th quarter against the Jets when the game was actually in reach is clutch?   Scoring a touchdown when the game is completely out of reach against the Jets is clutch?  
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]


    Icing the Eagles isn't enough? McNabb wa puking on the field. How about Poutin Peyton serving up gakkers? Yeah, 14 pts to the Rams in the 4th is ok, when you already have a 17-3 advantage... last time I checked, NE was down 14-11 when they let the Jests (HARDLY the greatest show on Turf BTW) reel off 14 quick ones. I mean, that is academic ... Jets offense is terrible... the Rams offense was amazing. Even comparing those two defenses or defensive efforts is off base. Heck, NE scored 18 points in the final 17 minutes against the Jets, and 6 in the final 35 minutes or so against the Rams....and that is more clutch????? The defense is WORSE now because it is breaking down in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4.

    Sorry .. not buying what you are selling Mighty. Ravens 33 points, Jets 28 points. Neither of these offenses would score more than 17 points against that old Pats defense.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense : LOL.  So when it was 3rd and 13 and 4th and 13 we should have run it?  Funny how you leave out that we ran the ball on 1st down for no gain, or how all of the 3rd down conversions on that drive were via the pass.
    Posted by themightypatriotz[/QUOTE]

    I didn't leave out anything, I'm the one who posted the play by play. I am not saying this is Bradys fault here Mighty. I am saying that we didn't run the ball for sht until the 4rth qtr when it was too late and we were just wasting time.

    Also I'm saying why is woody the primary rb when BJGE was gashing the Jets defense? The answer is because we were in shotgun the whole time and we have not won a SB while the shotgun offense has been our bread and butter. people can blame the defense and they can say brady has become "unclutch" which is what one prominent poster on this boards theory was.

    I say it is because we are one dimensional and good defense's have limited what we can do in the shotgun come playoff time.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriotz. Show themightypatriotz's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense : Icing the Eagles isn't enough? McNabb wa puking on the field. How about Poutin Peyton serving up gakkers? Yeah, 14 pts to the Rams in the 4th is ok, when you already have a 17-3 advantage... last time I checked, NE was down 14-11 when they let the Jests (HARDLY the greatest show on Turf BTW) reel off 14 quick ones. I mean, that is academic ... Jets offense is terrible... the Rams offense was amazing. Even comparing those two defenses or defensive efforts is off base. Heck, NE scored 18 points in the final 17 minutes against the Jets, and 6 in the final 35 minutes or so against the Rams....and that is more clutch????? The defense is WORSE now because it is breaking down in Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4. Sorry .. not buying what you are selling Mighty. Ravens 33 points, Jets 28 points. Neither of these offenses would score more than 17 points against that old Pats defense.
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]

    Actually giving up 14 points at the end of the Super Bowl when you’re ahead by 14 is the opposite of ok. 

    Yes you can cite the 2004 team as the best offensive/defensive playoff performance (offense ran out the clock against Indy, defense generally contained McNabb and picked him off to seal the game) but even that D gave up a 30 yard TD pass to let the Eagles get within 3, and even that offense went 3 and out it’s last two drives before the pick.  So even the best case example isn’t as good as what you and Russ are selling. 

    The Jets and Ravens were both set up with great field position by the offense and special teams.  Not the defense’s fault.

    The last touchdown against the Jets was meaningless. An eight minute drive in the 4th quarter that comes away with no points when you’re down by 10?  So unclutch.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    1.) That is 21 rushes outside of that drive. You keep discounting plays because they don't look a certain way. Edelman and Tates reverses were both eleven yard gains, and one followed a run play of 2 yards by BJGE.

    My entire premise has been not necessarily to run the ball more but run the ball in a more effective way(play calling). This is the NFL where opponents can take away one aspect of an offense most of the time(playoffs). usually it is up that offense to kill them in another way. Our passing game was not working in the 1st half because of the Jets defensive game plan. Do we agree on this?

     In the 1st half Brady threw the ball 20 times for just 83 yards and was sacked twice and threw a pick.. It wasn't working!

    I dont' count the reverse or anything else because it is not pertinent to my original opinions that we need to use a power run game(not shotgun, but Brady under center) more then we do. Does reverse's or Qb sneaks or even to a lesser degree Woodhead draws out of the shotgun really have anything to do with a power run game?

    And you are counting the two garbage time :33 to go before the half passes to Woodhead and Branch, which again are irrelevant. Those could have been runs or whatever, or kneel downs, or two long bomb plays. They are only statistical noise.

    New England ran the ball 28 times. Talking about formations etc, is irrelevant with this offense because it is 2TE. A run is a run, because in the end the only difference between power runing and non-power running is BJGE for Woodhead. The 2TE offense personell stays on the field either way. I mean, they played Crump for almost the entire first half. That alone says they came out trying to run to establish the pass. 

    I don't accept your premise that running the ball with BJGE more has any real impact on the first three quarters because they did run the ball with BJGE.(Yes they ran him 4 times in the 1st half for 21 yards and 2 1st downs) The FG drive was extremely balanced, but Crump dropped the ball when he was wide open. If he hangs on to that, the game is likely changed. 

    2.) NE didn't mess anything up. They passed three times, but that was AFTER no gain on a first down rush attempt. Then a quick sack where Ellis just abused Connolly and Koppen together. Then you have to pass. Then they went for it on 4th down ... most likely because BB DOESN"T TRUST HIS DEFENSE IN TIGHT GAMES.

    By the same token, I can say the worst drive of the game ... the shortest drive, least clock killing drive, least effective drive was a quick three and out with three straight runs (3 straight runs that started with BJGE for 8 yards, then went to wood for 1 and BJGE for -1).... it was abyssmal. BJGE was blown off the ball for -1 yards. They should have tried a short pass or let Brady sneak for the yard.(so bad play calling yes?) Either would have worked IMO. It would have extended the drive. Killed at least another 1:45, and maybe gotten them some points eventually.

    As you see, we can both cherry pick plays back and forth, so that won't get us anywhere. Every pass you say wasn't smart, I can come back to another run for -1, 0, 1, or 2 yards that could have been a successful pass. It's a zero-sum game.

    All that remains is the set-in-stone mix. Which was 21 to 23 run to pass, discounting the :33 hailmary stuff. Before the 4th.

    And you say that NE passed more BEFORE the 4th quarter, thus resulting in a low score. That isn't really true. 1st half Brady 20 attempts for 80 something yards 2 sacks and an interception with lots of pressures tells me it resulted in our scoring 3 points!

    Don't include the only TD drive scored in the game to that point, which was 6 passes to 2 runs -- it was a success, so you can't say they should have run more. That was the last drive of the 3rd quarter and gave NE 8 points. 

    OK. 

    So ironcially enough, then, while NE is mixing it up 19 RUNS to 17 PASS, they scored 3 points. AFTER that, they passed the ball another 26 times, and ran the ball another 9 times. They scored 18 points in that span. 

    So, keeping in mind, NE never, ever trailed in TOP in that game outside of the first Jets drive before NE took the field. 

    That was the first 43:56 of the game (-:33 seconds, of course, because I won't hold that against the offense), NE has a 19 RUN 17 PASS ratio. Almost all of it, right out of 2TE with Crump on the field, a.k.a. their power package.  

    3 pts

    After that. 26 passes to nine runs. 
    3 pts in 43:23 --> 19 Runs 17 Passes
    18 pts in 16:04 --> 8 Runs 26 Passes  

    And you really want them to run more? I personally think the mix was fine that game, and again largely dictated by situational football practice, but if anything the stats indicate they should have passed it more.

    So you thought we should have thrown the ball more then we did? Wow, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one. I saw a team getting dominated defensively by a team willing to give up the run and take away the underneath passing game which was our bread and butter.

    In BOTH scenarios, the defense allowed 14 points. So the mix is irrelevant here to defensive performance really. 

    Like I said, NE needed to change two things after that game. Running BJGE isn't more often isn't one of them. The mix they had was ok, more or less, and was largely dictated by situational football late in the game. If the defense didn't put them in a hole, 21-11, they are probably still mixing it up in the 4th quarter. Don't allow the Jets that terrible TD where they go ahead 21-11 on a broken 2 minute drive where Sanchez is just scrambling around until Edwards is open, and NE has the ball with 13 minutes to play, and a very manageable 14-11 score, where they can run the football a bit more. That is the kind of stop the defense needs to make. Picking off Chad Henne when NE is up by 7-10 points, is ok, but not the same thing as the "D" hanging in there and buying some more time for Brady and the offense to make some fire.  

    1.) They needed another wideout to replace Tate, who was awful. Check. BB went out and did that. Most of those sacks in that game were coverage sacks. I think Ocho can at least make a contribution against Cromartie, thus making it more difficult for the opponent to leave their safety in the box to help knock Welker around and stack against the run.

    2.) They need to upgrade the defense. Specifically, they needed help rushing the passer, and they tried to address that. We'll see how that pans out long term. But if NE is allowing Sanchez to throw for a 120 rating again next post-season, they won't be winning the game, even if BJGE is personally responsible for carrying the football on every single down.

    7 points a quarter doesn't cut it. 

    If you give up 28 ppg you are the worst defense in the NFL. NE has given up 30 ppg in it's last four playoff losses .... the rest is academic. In the last two, they have given up 33 to the Ravens and 28 to the Jets. I cannot fathom how people are "ok" with this. Its abyssmal. If TB and company don't drop 35 points on their opponent, the ship is sunk with that defense.

    Anyway good discussion. Thanks for the back and forth!


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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]And just so it doesn't look like I am trying to pass blame on O'Brien during games, I gave him a pass in 2009 for many reasons, congratulated him after Week 4 in Miami for calling more runs with more balance, and then again been confused with the playoff loss against NY and last week. I see SD's front 7 like NY's. SD also has good CBs. So, again, against the quality front 7s, you are taking a huge, huge risk by not coming out and being aggressive with your rushing attack. If they want to script a drive to go up 7-0, which they are very good at doing? I get it. Great! But, the flaw seems to be he thinks he can do that continually and ignore the run. By the second drive, if you are still in a spread/shotgun base with no running, it's going to be a close game where the D may have to bail out the offense like we saw on Sunday.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    I tend to agree with you that O'Brien is lacking. Why for instance we don't throw more screens or run draws when the O-line is being overwhelmed baffles me. Frankly, our excecution on screens in recent years is not as good as it was back in the day.  It seems he has one gear and if that gear isn't working he simply keeps at it until the situation becomes desperate. 
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    All I'm saying is the trend in playoff games is for the offense to struggle early and the defense to struggle late.  The difference between win and loss this decade has been how well the offense performs late.

    I defer to BB on what offensive formations are best for each opponent and situation.  If he and his coordinator go with the shotgun spread, I trust it was the best decision, even if it doesn't work. 
     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense


    17 passes to 83 yards minus the two pass nonsense at :33 seconds that is just noise.

    14 runs for 53 yards on the other side. That is hardly world beating anyhow. But if you take away one of the two reverses, which you want to not count, it's 13 for 42. Not really awesome.

    NE had nine plays in shotgun the first half. Two were runs, so draw plays for seven yards. 

    The other runs in the game were straight up. Whether it is Woody or BJGE, they were behind Brady, with Crump in to block next to Gronk, and straight up runs.

    That leaves you with 11 runs from a straight setup, with 35 yards. I don't really construe that as effective. The fact that BJGE had better success in four runs, though the offense as a whole sputtered when he was on the field doesn't really impress in me the idea that he is the solution.  I'm more inclined to look at the missing link; for instance, where was Hernandez all this time? Taking Hernandez out of the game to fit Crumpler in is ludicrous attempt at making the offense "heavy" so you can run at the Jets. 

    Hernandez killed the Jets earlier that season. He was the only guy who gave them trouble in both games prior. 

    Regardless, it still doesn't answer the primary question of the thread, which is accounting for the fact that the defense has given up 28 points to the Jets, and 33 to the Ravens in back to back playoff losses. 

    Running the football won't cure that. Defensive improvement will, or hoping that Tom is perfect again, and can keep the score above 35, because you aren't running for 35 points against the Jets or Ravens. 

    And in the end, yeah, agree to disagree. The stats just don't bear it out for me that the problem with NE's defense was not running BJGE a few more times. If anything they should have tried to go hurry-up and no huddle earlier, IMO, because it worked later. At least better than mixing it up and leaving Crump out there to drop sure-fire TDs.

     

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    BB is the head coach and the calls on offense, defense and special teams are his responsibility.  This is O'Brien's third year running the offense.  If he were doing a bad job, BB would have canned him.  BB trusts O'Brien, therefore I trust O'Brien.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]clock killing corey dillon 2004 divisional game vs the colts.. textbook.. every superbowl winning patriot team had a balance of run and pass. the spread/shotgun throw throw throw has won 0 superbowls.  nobodys saying to run every down, but having the threat of a running game makes the passing game that much better.
    Posted by kjfitone[/QUOTE]

    They were 9th in the NFL in rushing last year, ahead of a Pittsburgh team (among others) that played in the Super Bowl.  2004 was a different time.  The table has tilted so far in just those few years in favor of the passing game that you might as well be talking about 1985. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    This has been an interesting discussion. I've pretty much been lurking and posting just a little, but to the people out there really ripping the defense for the Jets playoff loss I will merely say the following:

    1--They were only able to dress 4 healthy defensive linemen that day due to the multitude of injuries they had

    2--The fake punt and the botched onside kick when it was 21-14 which Cromartie ran back to the NE 30 yard line (I think) gave the NYJ two very short fields. Now, I'm not excusing the defense for allowing TDs and not FGs there, but really, anytime you give an offense a short field it simply makes their job easier.

    3--See Point #1 above as to why the defense may have folded and allowed 14 points in the final 5+ minutes of the game: no depth along the defensive line because of the injuries = fatigue.

    4--King is right about the offensive approach that day. Even if they didn't run the ball more effectively with BJGE, they should have at least tried it more often. The Jets were daring them to run. So run it. Even if they stop the offense and force punt after punt, at least you're making their defensive coaches think that you're committed to running the ball, and they have to soften up their coverages a little bit, which opens up the passing lanes a bit more. This is exactly what Weis did in 2003, with a HORRIBLE running game (historically bad for a Super Bowl winner, in fact...3.4 YPC for the season; only the 1970 Colts were worse and still won a SB). Weis still called running plays about 47% of the time that season (don't have the exact numbers here now), even though they had very little success to show for it. This made defenses respect the fact that NE would try to run the ball, even if they couldn't do it very well, and that made defenses game plan for the run, thus opening up the passing game a bit more. It also shortened games and kept the defensive players fresher.

    In the end we can all agree that the Pats' pass defense still has to improve, but I think it does go hand-in-hand with the offense taking a bit more balanced approach when it comes to playcalling.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    2 plays for 20 yards, that was the Jets last TD drive at the end of the 4th quarter of the playoff game. Cromartie picked up the onside kick and ran it back to the 20. It would have been nice to stop them there but it's hard to blame the defense for that.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: pats = same old problem - defense : How is it "abysmal" when your own offense isn't scoring for entire qtrs, losing the TOP battle, turning the ball over, giving up short fields, etc? Your comments are EXACTLY what I am talking about. Throw the Baltimore playoff game out the window. That's as overstated a playoff loss as it is saying NE hasn't "won a SB in 6 years". Very misleading statement/examples. Period. I don't; want to see it again. We all know Brady had cracked ribs, Moss had a separated shoulder, Welker was out, the D was in a rebuilding mode with Seymour and Vrable, etc, That yteam was absolutely, FACTUALLY, NOT BUILT TO WIN A SB in 2009. Get over it. Good god. Ok, so, we move on to last yea'rs playoff game where these things by the offense happened: 1. Brady INT.  D holds.  Success for D, fail for offense. 2. Cumpler TD drop. Success for D, fail for offense. 3. Leads to Chung fake punt before half BECAUSE OF THE ANEMIC OFFENSE. These 3 things lead and a lack of establishing a run in the 1st half, all contributed to the "28 abysmal points" the D allowed. One of those TDs was on a short field off the botched fake punt! How many times do you expect our D to bail out or sputtering offense in a game? They held on the Brady INT for ZERO points because they forced a long FG. This is like blaming the Miami TD last week after the Brady INT.  It would have been fantastic if they held them to 3 points, but it didn't happen. I don't blame the D, though. I blame pass interference not being called on that screen or a bad executed play by the OFFENSE. And that's Week 1. The Brady "ballwashers" refuse to put any responsibility on his and O'Brien's plate. I don';t know if there is a disconnect between them if O'Brien can't handle it or what, but outside of poor execution in the Jets playoff game, this is a fundamental problem. There are so many negatives with this offense that people flat out ignore.
    Posted by RidingWithTheKing[/QUOTE]

    Russty, you do realize that was Zbellino's post I copied and responded to right?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    Hardright, I copied your post and am going to respond to it. Not because I think you support my theories but after reading many of your posts you seem to be an even keeled poster with some solid opinions as does Zbellino, Rusty and Mighty(even though Russ and Mighty might get a lil hardcore on fools sometimes!!!)


    This has been an interesting discussion. I've pretty much been lurking and posting just a little, but to the people out there really ripping the defense for the Jets playoff loss I will merely say the following:

    1--They were only able to dress 4 healthy defensive linemen that day due to the multitude of injuries they had

    2--The fake punt and the botched onside kick when it was 21-14 which Cromartie ran back to the NE 30 yard line (I think) gave the NYJ two very short fields. Now, I'm not excusing the defense for allowing TDs and not FGs there, but really, anytime you give an offense a short field it simply makes their job easier.
    I don't want to make excuses for the def but we all know it was a young D in the process of rebuilding and defensive line injuries were absolutely prevalent to the execution.

    3--See Point #1 above as to why the defense may have folded and allowed 14 points in the final 5+ minutes of the game: no depth along the defensive line because of the injuries = fatigue.

    4--King is right about the offensive approach that day. Even if they didn't run the ball more effectively with BJGE, they should have at least tried it more often.This is spot on but they were effective as BJGE ran for 4.8 a carry which was not skewed by 1 or 2 long runs. The Jets were daring them to run. So run it. Even if they stop the offense and force punt after punt, at least you're making their defensive coaches think that you're committed to running the ball, and they have to soften up their coverages a little bit, which opens up the passing lanes a bit more.This to me is the deciding factor, we passed into a brick wall the entire day. Why go at a great defense who is 100% committed to taking away the passing game? It was the definition of insanity This is exactly what Weis did in 2003, with a HORRIBLE running game (historically bad for a Super Bowl winner, in fact...3.4 YPC for the season; only the 1970 Colts were worse and still won a SB). Weis still called running plays about 47% of the time that season (don't have the exact numbers here now), even though they had very little success to show for it. This made defenses respect the fact that NE would try to run the ball, even if they couldn't do it very well, and that made defenses game plan for the run, thus opening up the passing game a bit more. It also shortened games and kept the defensive players fresher. Kept the defensive players fresher!!!! It is an under rated aspect of NFL defense!

    In the end we can all agree that the Pats' pass defense still has to improve, but I think it does go hand-in-hand with the offense taking a bit more balanced approach when it comes to playcalling. Amen, this is all I have been saying on this thread and several others.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    I do not believe the 2003 comparisons hold any water in this discussion. The 2003 offense played more conservative because it was relatively speaking, not that good of an offense. It was not top 10 in scoring or yardage and was lacking in top quality playmakers. It's top reciever (Branch) did not even have 60 catches that year and the rushing attack was near the bottom of the league. If Charlie Weis had the current offense I would be shocked if he did anything different than O'Brien and Belichek did last year. The Jets had one of the best rushing defenses in the NFL last year. The Patriots offense played uncharecteristically mediocre in that game and some really bad strategy put the defense in some tough position which they clearly could not handle. If anything I believe neither Belichek or Weis truly knew how great Brady was. They knew he was a winner and a fierce competitor but if they knew he could play like he did in 2007 and 2010 Belichek would have picked up some good receivers in 2006 and the Pats would have won the superbowl that year. Brady in 2007 and 2010 might have been the two greatest quarterbacking regular seasons in the history of the NFL. I really like Green Ellis as a runner but Brady sets him up, not the other way around. A 36-4 TD/INT ratio is college numbers. About 2004, If Green Ellis turns out to be another Dillon (who put up some great numbers on some god awful teams with bad quarterbacks) I might agree with upping the rushing attempts but I feel the execution in the Jets playoff loss was more important than the % of rushing attempts. I still have no idea why they played at such a slow pace for most of the 4th quarter.  
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tmmk. Show tmmk's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    Too many recievers seem to be wide open.  They catch an unchallanged ball.  The pass rush isn't consistant. No one fears the NE defense like they do the Ravens, Jets, Steelers.  That is what NE is missing.  We need to be feared even if it is only a little bit. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    Haven't read all the posts on this thread, but in judging the diversity of the Pats offense, I think the important distinction is not so much between run and pass, but between tight and spread formations.  What bothered me about last year's offense is that it relied so heavily on spread formations, which are basically passing formations. The vast majority of running plays seem to have been run from those spread formations--typically we were seeing draw-type runs, often executed with Brady in the shotgun.  You could argue that this is essentially a short pass play (the handoff is just the shortest pass possible) that is designed to succeed by spreading the defense and giving the receiver/runner room to run in the spaces between the defenders. It contrasts with a true power running formation and play where you rely on blockers to push defenders out of the way. 

    One thing I found encouraging about the Chargers game last week is that a lot of passes were made from running formations.  They didn't actually run a whole lot, but they lined up looking like they intended to run. The use of tighter formations creates the threat of a different type of offensive play and forces the defense to be prepared to defend something other than receivers/runners trying to operate in open space in the short zones.  I do think our O-line (with Waters and Mankins and the tackles and big TEs) is a better power run-blocking line than it was.  The threat of a power game, I think, is going to make our offense a lot more diverse and more effective than it was last year. 

    On the defense--they do need to stop more of those short to intermediate passes or they are not going to be able to stop anyone on third down.  I was encouraged by the run defense, but the pass coverage has to get tighter.  I wouldn't worry too much about the pass rush based on the Chargers game, because BB wasn't trying to pressure all that much. He was mostly bringing four without a lot of stunts and trying to defend the pass more with coverage than with a pass rush.  The coverage, though, left a lot to be desired.  Defenders were just too far off the receivers to make plays.  Stopping Gates, however, was a big positive and probably a point of emphasis for the defenders, so the coverage wasn't a complete disaster. 

    I do have mild concerns about McCourty being picked on so much in the first two games and Bodden not playing a bigger role. Those two guys need to step up given the untested safeties and the lack of proven corner talent behind them. 

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

    Re: pats = same old problem - defense

    Anyone that thinks that defense does not win championships is kidding themselves.  Case closed.  It goes for every sport.  Baseball, good pitching beats good hitting.  Hockey, if you have a great goaltender you have a shot.  Even basketball, hard to win without a tight defense.

    To say that rule changes have made it so that offense wins championships is just a dream that some pats fans have.  Sooner or later you will run into a wall and then the dream dies lol.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share