Sums Up The Defense

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



     


    Sorry, you're deep into denial if you think that was a great unit.  Champ is telling us that this talent was "awesome" and instead says that BB's coaching style and schemes are outdated. Really?  Manning's 75% completion rate was because Belichick can't coach?  Does anyone seriously believe such drivel?  Let me tell you the real story: the only reason this team won so much during the regular season with that secondary was because Bill Belichick is such a great game planner and coach and because the offense (with Gronk healthy) scored lots and lots of points.  


    And as far as Wozzy with his "nothing matters but points and turnovers" line, if you're going to go that route, then why add "turnovers"?  Just say all that matters is the final score.  Because for wins and losses that really is all that matters.  The bottom line is the bottom line. But if you want to understand why a team wins and loses and not just know the outcome of the game, you need to look at a lot more than just the score.  Stats don't give you the full answer, but they help you measure different aspects of a team's performance so you can begin to evaluate that performance.  And when a secondary allows a 75% completion rate--a full 30 completions on 40 attempts--it is not performing well.  The fact is, the Giants were able to mount extremely long drives in the Super Bowl and score on half their drives--not so much because they ran a lot, but because they passed so effectively, converting 18 first downs on those 30 passes.  The secondary was a liability that allowed the Giants to execute their game plan, keep the Pats offense off the field, score enough points to win, and get the big play when they needed to at the end of the game.  You can look at the point total and say "wow, the Pats' defense played great," but you'd just be completely and utterly wrong.  They played poorly and gave up relatively few points not because they were able to stop the Giants but because they allowed the Giants to keep moving down the field at a slow steady pace that ate up all the time in the game and prevented anyone from getting many scoring chances.




     






     


     


    I love how this argument falls in your favor, but only if we follow your rules.  I have to ignore turnovers because, inconveniently for you, the Patriot offense turned the ball over twice and that was the difference in a close game.


    I love how adjectives like "great" are used by you to describe our secondary, and somehow they are attributed to us.


    I love how talent matters, but only if you're you're talking about talent on the field, talented, experienced coaches mean nothing, talented coordinators and in game adjustment guys are unnecessary.  


    By this rationale our new offensive line coach Dave DeGuglielmo is automatically as good as Scar and his decades of experience just because Belichick is the head coach and probably sat him down Clock Work Orange style, dosed him with acid and made him watch hours of film with his eyes pried open.  O'Brien is automatically as good as Charlie Weis because BB is the head coach and is omniscient and omnipresent.  The coaches were teaching the young players, talented or otherwise, everything they need to know because BB has passed down the knowledge of the ages to his young fresh faced coaches and nothing fell through the cracks.  You've obviously never managed large groups of people or had to replace employees in positions of leadership.


    We're not saying the recent teams were All Pro teams top to bottom, but then neither were those early 2000 teams, the 2001 had more holes in it than swiss cheese.  But the reality is those teams were better coached, great play calling and adjustments masked any weaknesses they may have had.  The players they had were better coached, prepared, coordinated and frankly older and wiser...


    The defense has been in the process of being rebuilt the last six years or so, but they were serviceable.  The offense lost it's way under less capable hands at the rudder, they became finesse and less multifaceted, they relied on fewer players to do more and in the process became easier to defend; predictable.  When an opposing defensive coordinator says as much that's usually a bad sign.


    Coaching matters, talented managers matter, you talk about talent but ignore the loss of talented managers and coaches as if they don't matter at all.  In a sport that has 80 players right now vying for a job and 53 man active game day rosters leaders and teachers are everything.  The talent level in the NFL is relative, there is talent enough to round, even on lesser teams, the difference between winning and losing is coaching.  Two guys promoted from our coaching ranks have gone on to become the youngest head coaches in the league, numerous coaches and assistants have been poached from us.


    Just because BB is the best head coach and defensive coordinator it doesn't necessarily make us the best coached teams at all times.  Young coaches, less talented coaches can hinder the growth of draft picks as much or more than simply picking the wrong players in the draft.


    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers in that order, that's not my statistical analysis that is Belichick talking, and more importantly that is pure and simple logic.  This game with all it's intricacies and nuances at its core is a very simple game.  Don't try to convince us that two turnovers and less than 20 points scored in the modern NFL is good offense, even a fool can see otherwise.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     

    Sorry, you're deep into denial if you think that was a great unit.  Champ is telling us that this talent was "awesome" and instead says that BB's coaching style and schemes are outdated. Really?  Manning's 75% completion rate was because Belichick can't coach?  Does anyone seriously believe such drivel?  Let me tell you the real story: the only reason this team won so much during the regular season with that secondary was because Bill Belichick is such a great game planner and coach and because the offense (with Gronk healthy) scored lots and lots of points.  

     

    And as far as Wozzy with his "nothing matters but points and turnovers" line, if you're going to go that route, then why add "turnovers"?  Just say all that matters is the final score.  Because for wins and losses that really is all that matters.  The bottom line is the bottom line. But if you want to understand why a team wins and loses and not just know the outcome of the game, you need to look at a lot more than just the score.  Stats don't give you the full answer, but they help you measure different aspects of a team's performance so you can begin to evaluate that performance.  And when a secondary allows a 75% completion rate--a full 30 completions on 40 attempts--it is not performing well.  The fact is, the Giants were able to mount extremely long drives in the Super Bowl and score on half their drives--not so much because they ran a lot, but because they passed so effectively, converting 18 first downs on those 30 passes.  The secondary was a liability that allowed the Giants to execute their game plan, keep the Pats offense off the field, score enough points to win, and get the big play when they needed to at the end of the game.  You can look at the point total and say "wow, the Pats' defense played great," but you'd just be completely and utterly wrong.  They played poorly and gave up relatively few points not because they were able to stop the Giants but because they allowed the Giants to keep moving down the field at a slow steady pace that ate up all the time in the game and prevented anyone from getting many scoring chances.

     

     



     

     

    I love how this argument falls in your favor, but only if we follow your rules.  I have to ignore turnovers because, inconveniently for you, the Patriot offense turned the ball over twice and that was the difference in a close game.

     

    I love how adjectives like "great" are used by you to describe our secondary, and somehow they are attributed to us.

     

    I love how talent matters, but only if you're you're talking about talent on the field, talented, experienced coaches mean nothing, talented coordinators and in game adjustment guys are unnecessary.  

     

    By this rationale our new offensive line coach Dave DeGuglielmo is automatically as good as Scar and his decades of experience just because Belichick is the head coach and probably sat him down Clock Work Orange style, dosed him with acid and made him watch hours of film with his eyes pried open.  O'Brien is automatically as good as Charlie Weis because BB is the head coach and is omniscient and omnipresent.  The coaches were teaching the young players, talented or otherwise, everything they need to know because BB has passed down the knowledge of the ages to his young fresh faced coaches and nothing fell through the cracks.  You've obviously never managed large groups of people or had to replace employees in positions of leadership.

     

    We're not saying the recent teams were All Pro teams top to bottom, but then neither were those early 2000 teams, the 2001 had more holes in it than swiss cheese.  But the reality is those teams were better coached, had great play calling and adjustments masked any weaknesses they may have had.  The players they had were better coached, prepared, coordinated and frankly older and wiser...

     

    The defense has been in the process of being rebuilt the last six years or so, but they were serviceable.  The offense lost it's way under less capable hands at the rudder, they became finesse and less multifaceted, they relied on fewer players to do more and in the process became easier to defend; predictable.  When an opposing defensive coordinator says as much that's usually a bad sign.

     

    Coaching matters, talented managers matter, you talk about talent but ignore the loss of talented managers and coaches as if they don't matter at all.  In a sport that has 80 players right now vying for a job and 53 man active game day rosters leaders and teachers are everything.  The talent level in the NFL is relative, there is talent enough to round, even on lesser teams, the difference between winning and losing is coaching.  Two guys promoted from our coaching ranks have gone on to become the youngest head coaches in the league, numerous coaches and assistants have been poached from us.

     

    Just because BB is the best head coach and defensive coordinator it doesn't necessarily make us the best coached teams at all times.  Young coaches, less talented coaches can hinder the growth of draft picks as much or more than simply picking the wrong players in the draft.

     

    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers in that order, that's not my statistical analysis that is Belichick talking, and more importantly that is pure and simple logic.  This game with all it's intricacies and nuances at its core is a very simple game.  Don't try to convince us that two turnovers and less than 20 points scored in the modern NFL is good offense, even a fool can see otherwise.




    [object HTMLDivElement

     

    hey woz. The Broncos scored well below their average, despite scoring on all but one drive , against the Pats.  

    So, was that good defense or did the fact that there were only  7 possessions influence the sore?

    Think real hard. Good D or low possessions?

    No different than the Pats game, except that our D gave up more points than we could score. Every time.  There's didn't.  And it was caused by the pathetic D having a picnic on the field instead of playing ball 

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    Wozzy, I do think coaches matter, but, sorry, I see no evidence that the coaching has declined.  I know you prefer Charlie Weis's style to McDaniel's or O'Brien's, but except in Super Bowl wins, those two more recent coordinators have been arguably more successful, having produced offenses that have done better in both of the stats you said mattered, points and turnovers.  Your argument might be stronger if you were bemoaning the loss of Crennel, but even there, I see significant differences in the quality of the player talent the coaches are working with.  I mean really? Harrison vs Chung? Seymour vs Love?  Just look at the careers of the starting defenders in those Super Bowl years versus those of guys who started in the 2011 SB.


    Also, turnover in the Pats coaching staff is no greater than among other teams.  Guys like Scarnecchia, McDaniels, Patricia, Fears, etc.,, have all been long timers who provide good continuity, all overlapping the Weis/Crennel years and staying with the team for extended periods.  And sorry, Weis and Crennel left a decade ago.  If the Pats still can't recover from their loss, then the leadership that should be developing replacements needs to be called on the carpet.  In real world management, no CEO or Board is going to accept the excuse that we can't get the results the shareholders demand because we lost somebody ten years ago. Sure losing a talented leader can hurt, but if you can't recover in ten years something else is wrong.  And given Weis's career both before and after his stint with the Pats, it's hard to believe he's irreplaceable.  He really hasn't had much success at the professional or even college level other than as an assistant to Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick.   

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:


    Well, I for one believe that since Polian and the NFL "re-emphasized" the 5 yard chuck rule that Belichick built 5 Super Bowl championship defense's around that BB has had trouble adapting to this new league. He came up in the 70's to 2000's and made his bones by shutting down great QB's on the biggest stage.


    The NFL has since stifled the way BB learned to coach defense and has paved the way for the numerous arial shows we see every Sunday. Yes we still see some great defenses around the league but realistically what the Seahawks did last year was the exception to the recent trend.


    Call this an excuse or a reason but it is realistic that an old dog like BB has had trouble slowing down QB's in a new era of football. Is this a more reasonable opinion then BB suddenly forgot how to acquire defensive talent? Could it perhaps be that the players he selects especially D backs are outdated and no longer efficient in this new era of football?


     




    I really don't think BB has had any trouble adapting to the new rules. If you look at the passing points per game, The Pats have been near the stingiest D in the league for years. The problem BB has had is the rep his D's got and the over emphasis of the PI and "5 yards" rules when other teams played the Pats. It got to the point if the DB was in the same zipcode as a receiver, the flag was coming out of the refs pockets before the ball was even thrown. This forced BB into his "bend but don't break" pass D that kept points off the score board but couldn't provide any "three and outs" unless the opposing "O" made a mistake. 


    I think things changed last year though. the PI and "5 yard" rules were somewhat de-emphasized, probably due to too many fans complaining about PM just chucking it into the endzone for a guaranteed PI call. Look at the Seahawks D and how they played last year. Looked to me like a toned down version of the old Pats D. Of course I could be wrong here and it was just the Seahawks didn't care if they got called for PI or "5 yard rule" figuring the refs would eventually get tired of calling it on them all the time. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     Wozzy, I do think coaches matter, but, sorry, I see no evidence that the coaching has declined.  I know you prefer Charlie Weis's style to McDaniel's or O'Brien's, but except in Super Bowl wins, those two more recent coordinators have produced offenses that have done better in both of the stats you said mattered, points and turnovers.  Your argument might be stronger if you were bemoaning the loss of Crennel, but even there, I see significant differences in the quality of the talent.  I mean really? Harrison vs Chung? Seymour vs Love?  Just look at the careers of the starting defenders in those Super Bowl years vresus those of guys who started in the 2011 SB.

     

    Also, turnover in the Pats coaching staff is no greater than among other teams.  Guys like Scarnecchia, O'Brien, Patricia, Fears, etc.,, have all been long timers, overlapping the Weis/Crennel years.  And sorry, Weis and Crennel left a decade ago.  If the Pats still can't recover from that then the leadership that should be developing replacements needs to be called on the carpet.  In real world management, no CEO or Board is going to accept the excuse that we can't get the results the shareholders demand because we lost somebody ten years ago. Sure losing a talented leader can hurt, but if you can't recover in ten years something else is wrong.  Weis was hardly irreplaceable.  



    In real world management, CEO's and Boards don't care what the shareholders think or demand. In most companies  shareholders have no power to remove them. What CEO's and Board members care about is stock prices and that is it.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    I simply see zero correlation between this years defense and last years defense, nor do I care about last years defense. Look at the players that are expected to contribute this year on defense, and see what role they played last year;

    Vince, Kelley, Easley, Smith, Siligia

    Collins, Mayo, Anderson

    Revis, Browner, Harmon, Ryan

    thats a lot of players that were not here last year, or played in very few games last year. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from m. a. pat. Show m. a. pat's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    I simply see zero correlation between this years defense and last years defense, nor do I care about last years defense. Look at the players that are expected to contribute this year on defense, and see what role they played last year;

    Vince, Kelley, Easley, Smith, Siligia

    Collins, Mayo, Anderson

    Revis, Browner, Harmon, Ryan

    thats a lot of players that were not here last year, or played in very few games last year. 


     
    +1. I'm thinking this years' D can be really good. Also hoping that Buchanan can add something to the pass rush. He looks like a prototype 4-3 end and hopeully learned from his rookie year and hit the weights in the off season.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to rtuinila's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

     Wozzy, I do think coaches matter, but, sorry, I see no evidence that the coaching has declined.  I know you prefer Charlie Weis's style to McDaniel's or O'Brien's, but except in Super Bowl wins, those two more recent coordinators have produced offenses that have done better in both of the stats you said mattered, points and turnovers.  Your argument might be stronger if you were bemoaning the loss of Crennel, but even there, I see significant differences in the quality of the talent.  I mean really? Harrison vs Chung? Seymour vs Love?  Just look at the careers of the starting defenders in those Super Bowl years vresus those of guys who started in the 2011 SB.

     

    Also, turnover in the Pats coaching staff is no greater than among other teams.  Guys like Scarnecchia, O'Brien, Patricia, Fears, etc.,, have all been long timers, overlapping the Weis/Crennel years.  And sorry, Weis and Crennel left a decade ago.  If the Pats still can't recover from that then the leadership that should be developing replacements needs to be called on the carpet.  In real world management, no CEO or Board is going to accept the excuse that we can't get the results the shareholders demand because we lost somebody ten years ago. Sure losing a talented leader can hurt, but if you can't recover in ten years something else is wrong.  Weis was hardly irreplaceable.  



    In real world management, CEO's and Boards don't care what the shareholders think or demand. In most companies  shareholders have no power to remove them. What CEO's and Board members care about is stock prices and that is it.




    I agree that shareholders often don't have enough power, but if CEOs and Boards really did care solely about share price, most shareholders would be quite happy with them. 

     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Wozzy, I do think coaches matter, but, sorry, I see no evidence that the coaching has declined.  I know you prefer Charlie Weis's style to McDaniel's or O'Brien's, but except in Super Bowl wins, those two more recent coordinators have been arguably more successful, having produced offenses that have done better in both of the stats you said mattered, points and turnovers.  Your argument might be stronger if you were bemoaning the loss of Crennel, but even there, I see significant differences in the quality of the player talent the coaches are working with.  I mean really? Harrison vs Chung? Seymour vs Love?  Just look at the careers of the starting defenders in those Super Bowl years versus those of guys who started in the 2011 SB.


    Also, turnover in the Pats coaching staff is no greater than among other teams.  Guys like Scarnecchia, McDaniels, Patricia, Fears, etc.,, have all been long timers who provide good continuity, all overlapping the Weis/Crennel years and staying with the team for extended periods.  And sorry, Weis and Crennel left a decade ago.  If the Pats still can't recover from their loss, then the leadership that should be developing replacements needs to be called on the carpet.  In real world management, no CEO or Board is going to accept the excuse that we can't get the results the shareholders demand because we lost somebody ten years ago. Sure losing a talented leader can hurt, but if you can't recover in ten years something else is wrong.  And given Weis's career both before and after his stint with the Pats, it's hard to believe he's irreplaceable.  He really hasn't had much success at the professional or even college level other than as an assistant to Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick.   




    You're comparing the coaches that taught Tom Brady how to be the best ever to some coaches who were the beneficiaries of that tutoring.  Tom was the youngest player ever to win a Super Bowl in 2001, that wasn't simply "talent."


    Back then Tom was more game manager and less of a playmaker.  Weis I'm sure was also largely responsible for the tone and tenor of the entire offense, personnel and offensive philosophy, which was a playoff winning, performing in the clutch offensive philosophy.  Today  I could throw darts at a playbook and Tom Brady could execute them against a regular season defense, in the playoffs there needs to be a solid plan, a talented game manager and peak efficiency on third downs.


    Play calling, especially on the offense which should dictate to the defense, is a talent.  Sean Payton might be a head coach but he still calls the offense because there is nobody better at that West Coast system, Belichick for all intents and purposes still calls the defense regardless of titles because there is nobody better, the owners of the Dolphins have asked Joe Philbin to call the offense himself instead of letting a coordinator do it, you are alone in thinking that the play called at the right moment isn't just as important as execution.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:


    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



     




    You're comparing the coaches that taught Tom Brady how to be the best ever to some coaches who were the beneficiaries of that tutoring.  Tom was the youngest player ever to win a Super Bowl in 2001, that wasn't simply "talent."


    I think you're just kind of making things up now.  Neither of us were there, so how would we know who was most responsible for Brady's development?  In 2000, when Brady started, Rehbein was the QB coach.  Weis took over that role (in addition to this OC duties) when Rehbein died during the 2001 preseason.  Weis continued filling in as QB coach as well as OC in 2002, but Hufnagel was the QB coach in 2003 and then McDaniels from 2004 through 2008 (McDaniels was also OC in 2007 and 2008).  


     


     


    Back then Tom was more game manager and less of a playmaker.  


    This again seems to me a completely meaningless statement.  How do you tell whether someone is a playmaker or game manager?  What are the criteria that distinguish one from the other? People say this kind of thing all the time, but can anyone define the difference between game manager and playmaker in any way that isn't purely subjective--and frankly made up? Sorry, I think Brady was quite the playmaker in the Super Bowl years.  I saw him make lots of great plays.  Heck, in 2003, he was sixth in the league in attempts, completions, and yards.  He was definitely a playmaker--he made the sixth most plays of any QB in the league.  


    Weis I'm sure was also largely responsible for the tone and tenor of the entire offense, personnel and offensive philosophy, which was a playoff winning, performing in the clutch offensive philosophy.  Today  I could throw darts at a playbook and Tom Brady could execute them against a regular season defense, in the playoffs there needs to be a solid plan, a talented game manager and peak efficiency on third downs.


    More purely subjective opinions.  Game plans and play calling have been fine in my opinion, but again there's no objective criteria for that.  So until someone finds a way to objectively distinguish between good and bad game planning and play calling, we can only agree to disagree on this.  Personally, I think the Pats biggest problem in the postseason recently has been a weak defense.  They have to win with offense or not win, and the offense, unfortunately, isn't that great when Gronk is out.  Guys like Edelman simply don't cut it when they are your main option.  Last season in the playoffs, Edelman caught 16 passes.  Vereen was second with 7, and Collie third with 5.  After that, you had Amendola and Hoomanawanui with 3, Dobson with 2, and Mulligan with 1.  In other words, you had Edelman and a bunch of nothing.  In 2003 (granted with one more game), you had Troy Brown and David Givens with 17 each, Branch with 15, Faulk with 8, Graham with 5, Fauria with 4, Bethel Johnson with 3, Centers and Smith with 2 each, Ward and Vrabel with 1 each.  The players were just much, much better in 2003.  I don't know why we need to go any further than looking at the players.  It explains everything.  


    Play calling, especially on the offense which should dictate to the defense, is a talent.  Sean Payton might be a head coach but he still calls the offense because there is nobody better at that West Coast system, Belichick for all intents and purposes still calls the defense regardless of titles because there is nobody better, the owners of the Dolphins have asked Joe Philbin to call the offense himself instead of letting a coordinator do it, you are alone in thinking that the play called at the right moment isn't just as important as execution.





    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    I think you're just kind of making things up now.  Neither of us were there, so how would we know who was most responsible for Brady's development?  In 2000, when Brady started, Rehbein was the QB coach.  Weis took over that role (in addition to this OC duties) when Rehbein died during the 2001 preseason.  Weis continued filling in as QB coach as well as OC in 2002, but Hufnagel was the QB coach in 2003 and then McDaniels from 2004 through 2008 (McDaniels was also OC in 2007 and 2008).  


    In 2003 (granted with one more game), you had Troy Brown and David Givens with 17 each, Branch with 15, Faulk with 8, Graham with 5, Fauria with 4, Bethel Johnson with 3, Centers and Smith with 2 each, Ward and Vrabel with 1 each.  The players were just much, much better in 2003.  I don't know why we need to go any further than looking at the players.  It explains everything.  




    Well Pro you've had a long time to formulate a response and "I think you're just kind of making things up now" is what you came up with?  You say that in one sentence only to follow with Weis was the offensive coordinator AND the QB's coach in the next...  I didn't make that up, that is a fact because you just stated as much and all of us who are die hard Pat's fans know that Weis/Rehbein groomed Tom Brady and taught him the offense.  The guy was 21 years old, he wasn't old enough to drink when he became a pro.   I have no doubt Dick Rehbein played a large part in Tom's career, but since coaches are an afterthought in your eyes it shouldn't matter anyway right?


    Back in the early 2000s the phrase the team used was "pass to whoever is open" and we regularly lead the league in most number of different receivers to catch a pass, that was a by product of Weis and his ability to create mismatches and keep the offense varied, not simply Tom's amazing athletic ability... a notion which is silly in and of itself.


    David Patten, David Givens, Charles Johnson, Bethel Johnson, Jermaine Wiggens, Patrick Pass; a bunch of World beaters there, a slew of receiving options who's careers were essentially over once they left the comfortable confines of Charlie Weis's system and management, but they were stars when they were here.


    That you had to ignore my comments about Sean Payton and Philbin calling their own plays is telling.  Some coordinators travel around the league selling their services as offensive or defensive gurus and command a hefty price tag, the fact they're so highly respected, highly paid and since the offenses or defenses that they go to make such a significant jump in production makes this entire conversation ridiculous.


    There is talent galore in the NFL, coaching and luck is the difference between winning and losing.  


    The 49ers went from worst to first because they changed head coaches, Alex Smith went from draft bust to Pro Bowl player because they changed head coaches... but I guess maybe he just had some latent talent hidden somewhere that he tapped into and that's how San Francisco turned it around?  See how dumb that sounds.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:


     


    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


     


    Well Pro you've had a long time to formulate a response and "I think you're just kind of making things up now" is what you came up with?  You say that in one sentence only to follow with Weis was the offensive coordinator AND the QB's coach in the next...  I didn't make that up, that is a fact because you just stated as much and all of us who are die hard Pat's fans know that Weis/Rehbein groomed Tom Brady and taught him the offense.  The guy was 21 years old, he wasn't old enough to drink when he became a pro.   I have no doubt Dick Rehbein played a large part in Tom's career, but since coaches are an afterthought in your eyes it shouldn't matter anyway right?





    Back in the early 2000s the phrase the team used was "pass to whoever is open" and we regularly lead the league in most number of different receivers to catch a pass, that was a by product of Weis and his ability to create mismatches and keep the offense varied, not simply Tom's amazing athletic ability... a notion which is silly in and of itself.


     


    David Patten, David Givens, Charles Johnson, Bethel Johnson, Jermaine Wiggens, Patrick Pass; a bunch of World beaters there, a slew of receiving options who's careers were essentially over once they left the comfortable confines of Charlie Weis's system and management, but they were stars when they were here.


     


    That you had to ignore my comments about Sean Payton and Philbin calling their own plays is telling.  Some coordinators travel around the league selling their services as offensive or defensive gurus and command a hefty price tag, the fact they're so highly respected, highly paid and since the offenses or defenses that they go to make such a significant jump in production makes this entire conversation ridiculous.


     


    There is talent galore in the NFL, coaching and luck is the difference between winning and losing.  


     


    The 49ers went from worst to first because they changed head coaches, Alex Smith went from draft bust to Pro Bowl player because they changed head coaches... but I guess maybe he just had some latent talent hidden somewhere that he tapped into and that's how San Francisco turned it around?  See how dumb that sounds.





     



    Again, Wozzy, all opinions.  Sure, Sean Payton is a great play caller, Harbaugh is a better coach than Singletary.  But Weis can't seem to hold a job down in the NFL anymore as either a head coach or an OC.  The Pats have had some of the best offences in the league since Weis left.  So what does that prove?  


     


    Sure, Brady threw to a lot of guys in the past.  He still does.  The problem is there aren't as many good ones.  You completely ignored the list of receivers they had in the playoffs this year compared with those they had in 2003.  You know why?  Because it's so obvious that one list is better than the other.  That explains far more about the offence's relative strengths and weaknesses than the magic of Charlie Weis does. Brown, Branch, Givens, Faulk, Graham, Fauria was just a much, much better group of guys than Edelman, Amendola (injured), Dobson (injured), Hoomanawanui, and Vereen. That's obvious.  That Weis was somehow better than McDaniels is pure speculation on your part--and not really backed by the most meaningful stat, points produced. 


     


    Also, I do believe talent makes a difference.  Why bother with drafts and big contracts if it didn't?  The idea that it all comes down to coaching and luck is nonsense.  Players make a difference.   Joe Vellano is no Vince Wilfork and the defense against the run suffered when Vellano replaced Wilfork.  That wasn't coaching and it wasn't luck.  It was talent. 


     


     


     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mellymel3. Show mellymel3's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:



     




    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:




    Sorry, you're deep into denial if you think that was a great unit.  Champ is telling us that this talent was "awesome" and instead says that BB's coaching style and schemes are outdated. Really?  Manning's 75% completion rate was because Belichick can't coach?  Does anyone seriously believe such drivel?  Let me tell you the real story: the only reason this team won so much during the regular season with that secondary was because Bill Belichick is such a great game planner and coach and because the offense (with Gronk healthy) scored lots and lots of points.  




     




    And as far as Wozzy with his "nothing matters but points and turnovers" line, if you're going to go that route, then why add "turnovers"?  Just say all that matters is the final score.  Because for wins and losses that really is all that matters.  The bottom line is the bottom line. But if you want to understand why a team wins and loses and not just know the outcome of the game, you need to look at a lot more than just the score.  Stats don't give you the full answer, but they help you measure different aspects of a team's performance so you can begin to evaluate that performance.  And when a secondary allows a 75% completion rate--a full 30 completions on 40 attempts--it is not performing well.  The fact is, the Giants were able to mount extremely long drives in the Super Bowl and score on half their drives--not so much because they ran a lot, but because they passed so effectively, converting 18 first downs on those 30 passes.  The secondary was a liability that allowed the Giants to execute their game plan, keep the Pats offense off the field, score enough points to win, and get the big play when they needed to at the end of the game.  You can look at the point total and say "wow, the Pats' defense played great," but you'd just be completely and utterly wrong.  They played poorly and gave up relatively few points not because they were able to stop the Giants but because they allowed the Giants to keep moving down the field at a slow steady pace that ate up all the time in the game and prevented anyone from getting many scoring chances.




    I love how this argument falls in your favor, but only if we follow your rules.  I have to ignore turnovers because, inconveniently for you, the Patriot offense turned the ball over twice and that was the difference in a close game.




    I love how adjectives like "great" are used by you to describe our secondary, and somehow they are attributed to us.




    I love how talent matters, but only if you're you're talking about talent on the field, talented, experienced coaches mean nothing, talented coordinators and in game adjustment guys are unnecessary.  




    By this rationale our new offensive line coach Dave DeGuglielmo is automatically as good as Scar and his decades of experience just because Belichick is the head coach and probably sat him down Clock Work Orange style, dosed him with acid and made him watch hours of film with his eyes pried open.  O'Brien is automatically as good as Charlie Weis because BB is the head coach and is omniscient and omnipresent.  The coaches were teaching the young players, talented or otherwise, everything they need to know because BB has passed down the knowledge of the ages to his young fresh faced coaches and nothing fell through the cracks.  You've obviously never managed large groups of people or had to replace employees in positions of leadership.




    We're not saying the recent teams were All Pro teams top to bottom, but then neither were those early 2000 teams, the 2001 had more holes in it than swiss cheese.  But the reality is those teams were better coached, great play calling and adjustments masked any weaknesses they may have had.  The players they had were better coached, prepared, coordinated and frankly older and wiser...




    The defense has been in the process of being rebuilt the last six years or so, but they were serviceable.  The offense lost it's way under less capable hands at the rudder, they became finesse and less multifaceted, they relied on fewer players to do more and in the process became easier to defend; predictable.  When an opposing defensive coordinator says as much that's usually a bad sign.




    Coaching matters, talented managers matter, you talk about talent but ignore the loss of talented managers and coaches as if they don't matter at all.  In a sport that has 80 players right now vying for a job and 53 man active game day rosters leaders and teachers are everything.  The talent level in the NFL is relative, there is talent enough to round, even on lesser teams, the difference between winning and losing is coaching.  Two guys promoted from our coaching ranks have gone on to become the youngest head coaches in the league, numerous coaches and assistants have been poached from us.




    Just because BB is the best head coach and defensive coordinator it doesn't necessarily make us the best coached teams at all times.  Young coaches, less talented coaches can hinder the growth of draft picks as much or more than simply picking the wrong players in the draft.




    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers in that order, that's not my statistical analysis that is Belichick talking, and more importantly that is pure and simple logic.  This game with all it's intricacies and nuances at its core is a very simple game.  Don't try to convince us that two turnovers and less than 20 points scored in the modern NFL is good offense, even a fool can see otherwise.




     





    Right here is the key point...talent matters EVERYWHERE on any football team. When you have a situation where every team's relative raw talent is essentially equal, and I believe that to be the case in the NFL, the primary difference maker for success is :


     


     


    1: talent at QB


     


    2: talent in positional/functional coaches


     


    I don't think it's necessary to argue point #1; try winning anything at all with a "great" team but an untalented QB.  This never happens. Every team that has won a SB has had a QB with some talents in their repertoire.


     


    SB's are won with superior coaches with superior abilities. Any coaching staff is only as strong as their weakest link. Right now I have real questions about their DB coach. He may be a genius but someone whose primary football experience prior to coming to the Pats was at the Colorado School of Mines makes me a bit queasy . It's a great school but not known as a football factory.


     


    From Pop Warner to the NFL, football at all levels marches to the beat of the best coaching staffs. Coaching expertise in football makes the biggest difference in successful outcomes than in any other major sport.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    Again, Wozzy, all opinions.  Sure, Sean Payton is a great play caller, Harbaugh is a better coach than Singletary.  But Weis can't seem to hold a job down in the NFL anymore as either a head coach or an OC.  The Pats have had some of the best offences in the league since Weis left.  So what does that prove?  


    Sure, Brady threw to a lot of guys in the past.  He still does.  The problem is there aren't as many good ones.  You completely ignored the list of receivers they had in the playoffs this year compared with those they had in 2003.  You know why?  Because it's so obvious that one list is better than the other.  That explains far more about the offence's relative strengths and weaknesses than the magic of Charlie Weis does. Brown, Branch, Givens, Faulk, Graham, Fauria was just a much, much better group of guys than Edelman, Amendola (injured), Dobson (injured), Hoomanawanui, and Vereen. That's obvious.  That Weis was somehow better than McDaniels is pure speculation on your part--and not really backed by the most meaningful stat, points produced. 


    Also, I do believe talent makes a difference.  Why bother with drafts and big contracts if it didn't?  The idea that it all comes down to coaching and luck is nonsense.  Players make a difference.   Joe Vellano is no Vince Wilfork and the defense against the run suffered when Vellano replaced Wilfork.  That wasn't coaching and it wasn't luck.  It was talent. 




    Weis left the NFL for college ball, no where above did I say that great coordinators make great head coaches, that is you trying to spin something I said into a negative.  It's fairly evident to all that some coaches will always be better off managing an offense or defense.  You have nothing to say about Bill O'Brien crashing back to Earth last year at Penn State after a strong start... surprising.


    Brady doesn't throw to nearly as many varied players as he did in the past, and in fact his variance only started to improve with McDaniel's return.   Brown, Givens and Branch each were leading receivers for our Super Bowl winning teams, none of them approached Wes Welker's reception numbers.  You do know what the opposite of variety is right?  In the last few years two players (Wes, Gronk) have provided us the bulk of our offense and an opposing defensive coordinator was quoted as saying we had become predictable. That's a fact, not an opinion...


    Also you seem acutely unaware that all three phases play in concert with each other, PPG alone is not the standard for great offense, winning a Super Bowl (which is always the goal) is.  


    An offense that pummels a defense with a punishing run game, that "dinks and dunks" them to death in the pass game, that creates short, manageable third down attempts which they then convert at a high rate, one that controls the clock and holds ball security at a premium is a lot more impressive and successful than an offense which scores a lot of points against the Browns in the regular season only to shrink and wilt in the playoffs.  That is another fact, unless of course you're talking about your fantasy football team.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to mellymel3's comment:

    From Pop Warner to the NFL, football at all levels marches to the beat of the best coaching staffs. Coaching expertise in football makes the biggest difference in successful outcomes than in any other major sport.



    All in all I don't disagree with your post Mel, but I will add that Trent Dilfer, Joe Namath, Doug Williams, Jim Plunkett, Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien and Jim McMahon were not hyper talented QB's, they were solid game managers, average talents who all won Super Bowls.  

    I agree you need talent everywhere and I don't disagree that a lack of talent has affected the Patriots of late, injuries have taken a lot of that talent from us, but largely some posters here understate the importance of coaching.  They use "talent" as the end all be all, as if the problem has only been the GM not finding the best talent, talent isn't enough.

    Great coaches find great talent, they take an average talent and pull greatness from them.  Poor coaching and front offices can take a great talent and that player will languish in mediocrity on lesser teams regardless of position.  Some really talented QB's go to terrible teams and it ruins their career.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:


    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:



     


     




    Weis left the NFL for college ball, no where above did I say that great coordinators make great head coaches, that is you trying to spin something I said into a negative.  It's fairly evident to all that some coaches will always be better off managing an offense or defense.  You have nothing to say about Bill O'Brien crashing back to Earth last year at Penn State after a strong start... surprising.  



    We'll see how O'Brien does in Houston this year, but his offenses for the Pats scored more points per season than Weis's. Even in the postseason, O'Brien's offenses scored better than Weis's.  Weis's offenses averaged 21 points per game (2.1 TDs and 2 FGs per game) in the postseason (over 9 games).  O'Brien's offenses averaged 26 points per game (3 TDs and 1.75 FGs per game) in the postseason (over 4 games).  Sure Weis was on teams that won the SB, but those teams won scoring fewer points because they had better defenses. 


     


     


     


    Brady doesn't throw to nearly as many varied players as he did in the past, and in fact his variance only started to improve with McDaniel's return.  


    That's because the depth at receiving positions isn't as good.  Really, go back and look at that list of players I posted above.  There's a reason you're ignoring it.  It's because it's obvious I'm right that the receivers in the 2003 playoffs were much better (and deeper) than those in 2013.  


    Brown, Givens and Branch each were leading receivers for our Super Bowl winning teams, none of them approached Wes Welker's reception numbers.  You do know what the opposite of variety is right?  In the last few years two players (Wes, Gronk) have provided us the bulk of our offense and an opposing defensive coordinator was quoted as saying we had become predictable. That's a fact, not an opinion...  Yeah, but there's a reason those guys provided the bulk of the offense.  It's because guys like Tiquan Underwood aren't very good.  Lack of talent forced us into less diversity.  After Gronk, Welker, and Hernandez, the receivers (and I include backs and TEs here) were just not as good as those in the Weis years.


      


    Also you seem acutely unaware that all three phases play in concert with each other, PPG alone is not the standard for great offense, winning a Super Bowl (which is always the goal) is.  


    What exactly does the offense have to do besides score points.  Stick pins in voodoo dolls?


    An offense that pummels a defense with a punishing run game, that "dinks and dunks" them to death in the pass game, that creates short, manageable third down attempts which they then convert at a high rate, one that controls the clock and holds ball security at a premium is a lot more impressive and successful than an offense which scores a lot of points against the Browns in the regular season only to shrink and wilt in the playoffs.  That is another fact, unless of course you're talking about your fantasy football team.


    Yeah, but like I noted above, O'Brien's offenses scored more points than Weis's in the playoffs.  





    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    You're just making stuff up, isn't that your default answer when all else fails.


    O'Brien's offense got knocked out in the first round at home twice and laid an egg in it's only Super Bowl appearance.  


    The goal is to win rings, there are no moral victories for running up the score against a Tim Tebow led offense who couldn't convert a first down.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:



     




    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    You're just making stuff up, isn't that your default answer when all else fails.


    O'Brien's offense got knocked out in the first round at home twice and laid an egg in it's only Super Bowl appearance.


    Weis won a lot of low scoring playoff games thanks to a defense that could win close games.  The offense scored just  one TD in the 2001 Super Bowl, just one TD against the Colts in 2003 (five TOs caused by the defense, though), and just 2 TDs against the Colts in 2004.  The major difference between the teams of the early 2000s and the late 2000s and 2010s has been defense.  The offenses were similar or better after Weis left.  The defenses, however, were much worse. 


    I know you don't like what you call "finesse" offenses, but when you look at the only objective measure--points scored--the production of the Pats offense has been very good in recent years.  When the offense struggles, it's generally because a key player is missing.  And that gets back to the talent issue.  The offenses have not been very deep.  Injuries to guys like Gronk or Welker just kill the offense.  That's not because of play calling.  It's because the talent, while good at the top, hasn't been very deep. 


    Again, look at the list of receivers in 2003 and those in 2013.  The difference is obvious--which is why you just keep ignoring it. 


    The goal is to win rings, there are no moral victories for running up the score against a Tim Tebow led offense who couldn't convert a first down.


     

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers.  


    The early 2000 defense's ability to get offenses off the field, be aggressive and attack were just as much a by product of the Patriot offense, their ability to wear opposing defenses down and always starting with decent field position as much as it was a talented defense.  


    All three phases work in conjunction, that's where the rubber meets the road and your argument falls flat on it's face.  A feast or famine high flying offense that folds under pressure isn't a great offense, it's a paper lion, it's overrated.

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers.  

     

    The early 2000 defense's ability to get offenses off the field, be aggressive and attack were just as much a by product of the Patriot offense, their ability to wear opposing defenses down and always starting with decent field position as much as it was a talented defense.  

    More voodoo economics. Unless you mean that Troy Brown was a better defensive back than Julian Edelman, the offense didn't make the defense better. The offense sits on the bench when the defense is on the field.  Their play has minimal impact on the play of the defense.  The defense in the early 2000s was good because of players like Seymour and Law and Bruschi and Vrabel and Harrison combined with good coaching.  It's success had nothing to do with the offense wearing down opposing defenses. 

    All three phases work in conjunction, that's where the rubber meets the road and your argument falls flat on it's face.  A feast or famine high flying offense that folds under pressure isn't a great offense, it's a paper lion, it's overrated.

    All three phases work in conjunction, but no unit makes another unit actually play better. Each unit is responsible for its own play. If the offense can't score points, the defense does have to play better.  Or if the defense gives up a lot of points, the offense has to score a lot.  And game plans may need to be adjusted accordingly.  But the actual performance of each unit while it's on the field is the unit's own responsibility.  

     



    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    [object HTMLDivElement

     

    hey woz. The Broncos scored well below their average, despite scoring on all but one drive , against the Pats.  

    So, was that good defense or did the fact that there were only  7 possessions influence the sore?

    Think real hard. Good D or low possessions?

    No different than the Pats game, except that our D gave up more points than we could score. Every time.  There's didn't.  And it was caused by the pathetic D having a picnic on the field instead of playing ball 

     



    Last year's defense played very differently w/o Talib. IMO, there was a negative domino effect on the defense - and in some ways - an indirect impact on the offense too (especially if the OL can't keep people away from Brady)

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:

    In response to pezz4pats' comment:



    [object HTMLDivElement

     

    hey woz. The Broncos scored well below their average, despite scoring on all but one drive , against the Pats.  

    So, was that good defense or did the fact that there were only  7 possessions influence the sore?

    Think real hard. Good D or low possessions?

    No different than the Pats game, except that our D gave up more points than we could score. Every time.  There's didn't.  And it was caused by the pathetic D having a picnic on the field instead of playing ball 

     



    Last year's defense played very differently w/o Talib. IMO, there was a negative domino effect on the defense - and in some ways - an indirect impact on the offense too (especially if the OL can't keep people away from Brady)




    The coaches must have changed when Talib was out, because we've been told players don't matter, only coaches do, right?

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to wozzy's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    Points scored/points allowed and turnovers.  

     

    The early 2000 defense's ability to get offenses off the field, be aggressive and attack were just as much a by product of the Patriot offense, their ability to wear opposing defenses down and always starting with decent field position as much as it was a talented defense.  

     

    All three phases work in conjunction, that's where the rubber meets the road and your argument falls flat on it's face.  A feast or famine high flying offense that folds under pressure isn't a great offense, it's a paper lion, it's overrated.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    So....  The Defense that allowed a 10 minute drive to start SB 42 ( which consequently wiped 2 whole offensive) possessions off the map, before the O even took the field)  were the Fault of the O?

    And the opening drive of 46 which lasted 6 minutes and wiped an offensive possession off the map before the O even took the field,  were the fault of the O?

    And the 7 minute drives against the Broncos, one proceeded by a 5 minute drive of the O and the other proceed by half time, were also the fault of the O?

    And the FACT that the defensive time on the field which wiped out 4-5 possessions in each of those games, had NO BEARING on how the Offense Played?  Really?

    Can you explain where all those possessions went despite the fact that the O spent an average time (or better) on the field per possession? 

    The D just sucked.  The D's time on the field GREATLY affected the offensive play, as in; you can't use time you don't have unless you want to further reduce possessions, not the other way around.  That's how you get 7-8 possession games.  Funny how you NEVER see 7-8 possession games unless the Pats D is involved.

    More and more offenses are exploiting the Pats D to keep Tom on the bench. I think they had 3, 7-8 possession games last year.  Ridiculous!  Tom can't score from the bench and NO WAY IN HELL, can he score his average points per game with 4-5 possessions, just wiped off the map.. He'd literally have to score on 90% of the allowed possessions.. 4 TD's and 2 FG's in each of those games, with only 7-8 possessions and 20 minutes on the field...Kind of eliminates the run game, while moving down the field QUICKLY requires passing, doesn't it?. 

      There's your answer.

    It BETTER be fixed, or no more Super Bowls.  PERIOD!

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    I'm so glad I wasn't the one wasting time explaining to prolate that coaches are important in developing young talent. Obviously a concept he refuses to embrace despite wozzy's efforts.

    I love how prolate uses his age old fall back reply of sensationalism.  "We've been told players don't matter, only coaches right".  Typical response for pro, and a weary tactic often used in debate by the losing side.

    [object HTMLDivElement]

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

    Re: Sums Up The Defense

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    The coaches must have changed when Talib was out, because we've been told players don't matter, only coaches do, right?



    Well, it's the whole shebang. Coaching matters, players matters. How one coaches is partially dependent on who your players are. Last year, when Talib was out - the coaches likely had limitations in terms of who played where - and how conservative or aggressive the defensive calls were. Team performance is partially dependent on coaching. So, last year - when players were going down like crazy - the coaching obviously had to coach up players like Hightower.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share