To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    If the offense had scored just one field goal in the 2nd half then the defense wouldn't have had to do this...

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d826acb67/SB-XLVI-Can-t-Miss-Play-To-score-or-not-to-score

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    And here is something I would like pro, zbo, and maybe that catfish guy(is he a troll? I can't remember) to respond to.....babe and pezz please don't bother.

    You guus wanted the Pats defense to hold the gints on the last drive of each game scoreless as they needed a td to win on their last drive in both games, can we all agree that is what we all wanted the Pats defense to do?

    Good.

    So, if the Pats defense had held(asante catches the pick etc..) The Patriots would have held the Gints to 10 points, and 15 points in both super bowls as that was their score with 3 minutes left in both super bowls. 

    You are saying the defense failed because they couldn't hold the other team to 10 points and 15 points in 2 different super bowls? 

    Really? Do you realize how sick that is?

     



    Dude, I'm saying the defense failed in 2011 because they allowed Eli Manning a 75% completion rate (his best in two and a half years), gave up drives that averaged over 4 minutes, gave up scores on 50% of the Giants' drives  . . . and failed to hold the Giants at the end of the game. The offense played pretty poorly too, I think, but this idea that the defense played well only comes from failing to comprehend the simple mathematical fact that scoring opportunities are reduced when possessions are reduced.  With 8 drives, the expected scoring (based on the NFL average scoring of 1.79 points per drive in 2011) is roughly 14 points.  Our defense gave up two TDs and two FGs for 19 points.  That means they gave up about 33% more points than expected in an 8 possession game. I know you will say that doesn't matter or call it, like Wozzy, "junk science" but really there's nothing I can do if you and Wozzy are mathematically challenged. (I also think it's odd that both you and Wozzy are big proponents of ball control offenses, but apparently don't understand how they actually work--hint: they work by reducing the other team's drives and therefore their scoring chances.)

     

    In 2007, the problem was the offensive line.  I think the defense played okay (not superb, but okay) in 2007.  I didn't like giving up a (practically unheard of) 10 minute drive to open the game and two 80 yard TD drives in the fourth quarter, but other than that they were decent. 

     



    So you do think the defense failed because they didn't hold the other team to 10 and 13 points in the super bowl.

     

    And the offense repeating 3 and outs and turnovers in the 2nd half of both super bowls had no impact on the defenses ability maintain the 10 and 13 points they let up all game.

    Heard.

     



    First, I've never once said the offense played well in either the 2011 or 2007 game.  In fact, I've repeatedly said that the biggest problem for the Pats in 2007 was the offensiveline getting killed by the Giants' defensive front.  I could be wrong, but I've always thought the offensive line was part of the offense. 

     

    Second, I've given you a whole list of reasons why I think the defense played poorly in the 2011 Super Bowl, none of which you've refuted.  If the defense had held the Giants (in 2011) to 14 or 15 points, they would have given up an average number of points over 8 drives.  The extra TD means they gave up more than the average number of points on 8 possessions (technically, the Giants had nine possessions, but the ninth was a single play kneel down to end the first half). I guess I don't consider giving up an above average number of points per drive great defense.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't understand what is so hard for you here?

    Do you think the defense failed by not limiting the other team to 10 and 13 points on the last drives of both super bowls?

    Yes?

    or...

    No?

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the offense had scored just one field goal in the 2nd half then the defense wouldn't have had to do this...

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d826acb67/SB-XLVI-Can-t-Miss-Play-To-score-or-not-to-score

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ or held the ball for just a moment longer and put added pressure on the gints thus forcing them to take more chances.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the offense had scored just one field goal in the 2nd half then the defense wouldn't have had to do this...

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d826acb67/SB-XLVI-Can-t-Miss-Play-To-score-or-not-to-score

    [/QUOTE]

    ^ or held the ball for just a moment longer and put added pressure on the gints thus forcing them to take more chances.

    [/QUOTE]

    That, or if the defense hadn't given up 82 yards on the drive already . . . 

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Do you think the defense failed by not limiting the other team to 10 and 13 points on the last drives of both super bowls?

    Yes?

    or...

    No?

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    And here is something I would like pro, zbo, and maybe that catfish guy(is he a troll? I can't remember) to respond to.....babe and pezz please don't bother.

    You guus wanted the Pats defense to hold the gints on the last drive of each game scoreless as they needed a td to win on their last drive in both games, can we all agree that is what we all wanted the Pats defense to do?

    Good.

    So, if the Pats defense had held(asante catches the pick etc..) The Patriots would have held the Gints to 10 points, and 15 points in both super bowls as that was their score with 3 minutes left in both super bowls. 

    You are saying the defense failed because they couldn't hold the other team to 10 points and 15 points in 2 different super bowls? 

    Really? Do you realize how sick that is?

     



    Dude, I'm saying the defense failed in 2011 because they allowed Eli Manning a 75% completion rate (his best in two and a half years), gave up drives that averaged over 4 minutes, gave up scores on 50% of the Giants' drives  . . . and failed to hold the Giants at the end of the game. The offense played pretty poorly too, I think, but this idea that the defense played well only comes from failing to comprehend the simple mathematical fact that scoring opportunities are reduced when possessions are reduced.  With 8 drives, the expected scoring (based on the NFL average scoring of 1.79 points per drive in 2011) is roughly 14 points.  Our defense gave up two TDs and two FGs for 19 points.  That means they gave up about 33% more points than expected in an 8 possession game. I know you will say that doesn't matter or call it, like Wozzy, "junk science" but really there's nothing I can do if you and Wozzy are mathematically challenged. (I also think it's odd that both you and Wozzy are big proponents of ball control offenses, but apparently don't understand how they actually work--hint: they work by reducing the other team's drives and therefore their scoring chances.)

     

    In 2007, the problem was the offensive line.  I think the defense played okay (not superb, but okay) in 2007.  I didn't like giving up a (practically unheard of) 10 minute drive to open the game and two 80 yard TD drives in the fourth quarter, but other than that they were decent. 

     



    So you do think the defense failed because they didn't hold the other team to 10 and 13 points in the super bowl.

     

    And the offense repeating 3 and outs and turnovers in the 2nd half of both super bowls had no impact on the defenses ability maintain the 10 and 13 points they let up all game.

    Heard.

     



    First, I've never once said the offense played well in either the 2011 or 2007 game.  In fact, I've repeatedly said that the biggest problem for the Pats in 2007 was the offensiveline getting killed by the Giants' defensive front.  I could be wrong, but I've always thought the offensive line was part of the offense. 

     

    Second, I've given you a whole list of reasons why I think the defense played poorly in the 2011 Super Bowl, none of which you've refuted.  If the defense had held the Giants (in 2011) to 14 or 15 points, they would have given up an average number of points over 8 drives.  The extra TD means they gave up more than the average number of points on 8 possessions (technically, the Giants had nine possessions, but the ninth was a single play kneel down to end the first half). I guess I don't consider giving up an above average number of points per drive great defense.  

    [/QUOTE]

    I don't understand what is so hard for you here?

    Do you think the defense failed by not limiting the other team to 10 and 13 points on the last drives of both super bowls?

    Yes?

    or...

    No?

    [/QUOTE]

    Do you think allowing Eli Manning a 75% completion rate was good defensive football?

    The defensive gave up two TDs and two FGs on 8 drives.  Yeah, I think that's pretty mediocre.  If they had stopped the Giants on their last drive and only given up 13 points, they would have done better.  Not great, but better.  But they didn't do that. They gave up 19 points.  

    You're like Rusty . . . you keep trying to pretend that the last drive doesn't count.  Well it does. 

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:


    That, or if the defense hadn't given up 82 yards on the drive already . . .

    The defense did what they do, bend but don't break. They were giving up lots of yards but were holding a top ten NFL offense to field goals. The offense was great through the first drive of the 3rd quarter. Then they stunk.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Do you think allowing Eli Manning a 75% completion rate was good defensive football?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The homers think that's top notch defense.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]
    That, or if the defense hadn't given up 82 yards on the drive already . . .


    The defense did what they do, bend but don't break. They were giving up lots of yards but were holding a top ten NFL offense to field goals. The offense was great through the first drive of the 3rd quarter. Then they stunk.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    And TDs . . . the Giants did score as many of those as they scored FGs.  

    Bend but don't break is the biggest excuse in the world for a bad defense.  No good defense is designed to bend 82 yards . . . 

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Since the topic of "bend but don't break" was brought up, I just want to remind people that in 2003, in my opinion our best defensive year in the BB era, we gave up 291.6 yards per game (7th in league).  In 2011, one of our worst defensive years since BB has been here, we gave up 411.1 yards per game (31st in the league).  We may have been bend but don't break in 2003, but in 2011 we were just plain bad. 

     

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    Do you think allowing Eli Manning a 75% completion rate was good defensive football?

    RE:

    Absolutely not. The Gints dinked and dunked and took what our defense gave them. Very smart game plan on offense for them. Reminiscent of our dynasty offense. Yet our defense played about as well as could be expected when an offense goes in with a safe, grind it out game plan of short passes and running the football despite mediocre success. They were counting on our offense to stifle themselves which is what they have done for 6 straight playoff losses while scoring 15.5 ppg, 19 points per game less then their average over the last 7 years.

    Now........

     

    Do you think the defense failed by not limiting the other team to 10 and 13 points on the last drives of both super bowls?

    Yes?

    or...

    No?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    Since the topic of "bend but don't break" was brought up, I just want to remind people that in 2003, in my opinion our best defensive year in the BB era, we gave up 291.6 yards per game (7th in league).  In 2011, one of our worst defensive years since BB has been here, we gave up 411.1 yards per game (31st in the league).  We may have been bend but don't break in 2003, but in 2011 we were just plain bad.

    They were so bad they made it to the super bowl and darn near won it.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]
    That, or if the defense hadn't given up 82 yards on the drive already . . .
    [/QUOTE]
    The defense did what they do, bend but don't break.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    We don't have a bend but don't break defense.

     

    We have a bend-over defense.

     

    The Giants bent them over, had their way, then came the happy ending. After that, they kicked back and had a smoke.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]Since the topic of "bend but don't break" was brought up, I just want to remind people that in 2003, in my opinion our best defensive year in the BB era, we gave up 291.6 yards per game (7th in league).  In 2011, one of our worst defensive years since BB has been here, we gave up 411.1 yards per game (31st in the league).  We may have been bend but don't break in 2003, but in 2011 we were just plain bad.
    [/QUOTE]
    They were so bad they made it to the super bowl and darn near won it.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yeah, we rode that all-time great D all the way to the SB. Sound logic.

    How you remain off ignore is truly a miracle.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]Since the topic of "bend but don't break" was brought up, I just want to remind people that in 2003, in my opinion our best defensive year in the BB era, we gave up 291.6 yards per game (7th in league).  In 2011, one of our worst defensive years since BB has been here, we gave up 411.1 yards per game (31st in the league).  We may have been bend but don't break in 2003, but in 2011 we were just plain bad.
    [/QUOTE]
    They were so bad they made it to the super bowl and darn near won it.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    They nearly won it despite the 31st ranked defense.

    31st ranked D's don't win SB's, never have and never will.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Do you think allowing Eli Manning a 75% completion rate was good defensive football?

    RE:

    Absolutely not. The Gints dinked and dunked and took what our defense gave them. Very smart game plan on offense for them. Reminiscent of our dynasty offense. Yet our defense played about as well as could be expected when an offense goes in with a safe, grind it out game plan of short passes and running the football despite mediocre success. They were counting on our offense to stifle themselves which is what they have done for 6 straight playoff losses while scoring 15.5 ppg, 19 points per game less then their average over the last 7 years.

    Now........

     

    Do you think the defense failed by not limiting the other team to 10 and 13 points on the last drives of both super bowls?

    Yes?

    or...

    No?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think it's silly to start excluding drives where the Giants scored to try to make our defense look better.  Giving up 13 points on 7 drives is about average in the NFL.  It isn't particularly good nor is it particularly bad.  But when you look at how the defense performed on those seven drives--particularly it's failure to stop the Giants from executing their game plan--I think, yes, they failed in the first seven drives. But the point total isn't really what tells us whether they succeeded or failed.  The point total just tells us that the defense wasn't too far off what is expected of an average NFL defense.  

    My opinion is that the defense's worst failure (besides their helplessness against the Giants' two-minute offense) was their first drive of the third quarter. The offense had just started the half with a TD to go up 17 to 9.  At that point it was a two-score game, and I was saying to my friends, we need the defense to get a stop here. What did they do?  They gave up a frustrating 10 play, 4:37 drive that ended with a FG, making the score 17 to 12, and turning it back into a one score game.  That was a very disturbing sign to me because it just sucked away all the momentum that the offense had created. 

    The Giants' kicker then delivered a 69 yard boot, which Edelman probably should have downed in the end zone, but instead took out to the 17.  Then the Pats led off their series with a 2-yard run by the marvelous BJGE, which set up a quick three and out.  Mesko's crappy 43 yard punt and the ensuring 10-yard return left the Giants with good field position, which created a real challenge for our defense. But rather than rising to the challenge, on the Giants' second play, our defense gave up a 17 yard completion, then 7 and 3 yard runs, then a 12 yard completion, getting the Giants nicely into FG range, so the score ended up 17 to 15.  At this point I was very nervous both because of the one bad offensive drive and the two bad defensive drives.  Then came the interception on the throw to Gronk.  That was bad, but the Giants got the ball on their own 8 yard line.  Here's where a good defense really steps up. Instead our defense gave up (yet another) 10 play, 4:53 drive, which resulted in a perfect punt, putting the Pats at their own 8.  Our offense came back with a pretty good drive (similar to the Giants' previous drive), but drives that start at the 8 yard line don't have a high probability of resulting in scores (and another first-down handoff to BJGE--this time for minus one yard--set up those famous  missed passes to Branch and Welker).  So we ended up turning the ball back to the Giants down on their 12 yard line, but instead of stepping up and making a stop, our defense gave up an 88 yard drive for a TD. Not really impressive. 

    So do I think the defense played pretty poorly--early in the game and later.  Yes.  No doubt about it.  The point total on the first 7 drives doesn't tell anything like the whole story. 

     

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    I'm not at all interested in this teams ancient history...look at last year prior to the series of debilitating injuries to the guts of their D...they were one of the best units in the NFL full of 1st and 2nd year players....when Talib was healthy, they had a decent D Backfield...young guys progressed all year long...when the injuries came they managed to put unhearalded guys in a position to play well and win games...invaluable experience was gotten by guys that will most likely provide true depth across the D for the first time in years...I'm not entirely sure the Donkies make it to the SB if Talib, Mr. "I wasn't as badly hurt as they said" , had not been slammed by Welker...There can be absolutely no debate that Revis is at least 20 % a better CB than Talib, and that he stays on the field more than Talib. I think if we stay healthy and get all the guys back and playing the way they did before injury we might be as good as any D in the NFL.

    The Giants got lucky....twice...it's just the way it goes...can't replay the game...Let it go.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    "Bend but don't break is the biggest excuse in the world for a bad defense.  No good defense is designed to bend 82 yards . . . "

     

    B - I - N - G - O

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to TravisBean's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Thank god they've added to the defense, now maybe the offense will score more than 14 and 17 points in the Super Bowl... see how silly that sounds?"

    It's only silly if you don't understand time of possession. 

    Or, if you didn't watch the last Super Bowl where the superior defense won the game. 

    It's not silly if you remember how when we won Super Bowls the defense was getting key turnovers and sometimes scoring themselves, or shortening the field to enable quick scores. 

    Which is why BB has chosen to aggressively address the defense. I give him credit for learning and changing with the times, unlike some of the posters in this forum.

    Belichick clearly agrees with those of us who believe the D was a big part of the problem, which is delicious for those of us who have called for it and faced mockery from his so-called supporters. Other offseason moves show BB agrees also that Brady needs more weapons. So again, BB agrees with our analysis. Notice, however, BB is making no moves to replace or demote Tom Brady. Another thing his supporters in here should make a note of.

    [/QUOTE]

    A healthier D would have been nice last year, sure, but that D was tops in the AFC from Weeks 1 to 6 and it would have been a treat to see what they built towards as the season went on, that is for sure.  Talib was outstanding. Nink had another good year, Jones improved on his rookie year, Logan RYan impressed, Harmon and McCourty had a very good year, with a late surge from Jamie Collins. In fact, I don't see another NFL team seeing so many younger players rise all at once like that due to necessity of injury to the starters.  

    You seem to think rookie or 2nd year defenders just all play well at once behind starters in this league in an offensive era, and as per usual in these debates, you;d be 100% wrong on that.

    BB has been trying to fix Brady in different ways for years and years and years. He gave him all world talent in 2007 and Brady choked it down. This is a well known fact what Brady did in 2007 basking in the record books only to choke it down. He's lucky Gomer took some pressure off of that legacy with Gomer's own chokejob this past SB.

    BB gave him the best skilled TEs in 2010 and 2011 and Brady choked it down.

    In 2012, Brady had his share of system based WRs in Welker, Branch, Lloyd or even Edelman, and it simply didn't mean much with Hernandez also out there.

    BB has given up catering to Brady and for good reason. It didn't work, so BB is going to back to basics after Brady's desires let the franchise down now for so long.

    You're completely disingenous claiming BB needs to "demote" or "replace" Brady, too, by the way.  That's the counter-argument of a short bus rider.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Catered to?
    Brady has had garbage the entire second half of his career yet he still shines. 

    Garbage is the bottom feeder D he's been plagued with for years.

    Garbage is the receivers no other team ever wanted, other than a few who were temporary or injured when it mattered most..

    What did they say during the play-offs last year?  Brady has played with 7 all pro types during his career compared to Peyton's 27!  Doesn't look coddled to me or the rest of the world.

    Looks deprived, looks pitiful,  looks like BB is expecting him to make up for his failures..

    That's what didn't work....NOT the one constant that keeps them in the running, yearly.

    All the names have changed, but one.  All the elite talent prior to 2008 has come and gone,  replaced by nothing remotely resembling the prior talent.  Not even close.

    BB is NOT trying to fix Brady...  he is trying to fix the crap surrounding Brady.

    Thank God, Kraft brought in a talent evaluator to help fix the mess BB created.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to digger0862's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    [QUOTE]Since the topic of "bend but don't break" was brought up, I just want to remind people that in 2003, in my opinion our best defensive year in the BB era, we gave up 291.6 yards per game (7th in league).  In 2011, one of our worst defensive years since BB has been here, we gave up 411.1 yards per game (31st in the league).  We may have been bend but don't break in 2003, but in 2011 we were just plain bad.
    [/QUOTE]
    They were so bad they made it to the super bowl and darn near won it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    But they lost it . . . and to a mediocre opponent.  

    Look, they are a good team overall, but I don't think their playoff performances are much to brag about since 2009. And I think the reason is pretty obvious: poor pass defense and an offense that has been far too dependent on far too few weapons.  

    I'm not complaining about the Pats.    I'm just trying to be realistic about what their weaknesses and needs are.  

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from digger0862. Show digger0862's posts

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    But they lost it . . . and to a mediocre opponent.  

    Look, they are a good team overall, but I don't think their playoff performances are much to brag about since 2009. And I think the reason is pretty obvious: poor pass defense and an offense that has been far too dependent on far too few weapons.  

    I'm not complaining about the Pats.    I'm just trying to be realistic about what their weaknesses and needs are.  


    Understood. Mediocrity was the theme in 2011. I also understand that if just half of these guys had worked out, Terrence Wheatley, Shawn Crable, Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Tyrone McKenzie, Jermaine Cunningham, Brandon Spikes and Ras-I Dowling, then we would be talking about another dynastic run. Oh well. No one else did any better, though.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to digger0862's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    But they lost it . . . and to a mediocre opponent.  

    Look, they are a good team overall, but I don't think their playoff performances are much to brag about since 2009. And I think the reason is pretty obvious: poor pass defense and an offense that has been far too dependent on far too few weapons.  

    I'm not complaining about the Pats.    I'm just trying to be realistic about what their weaknesses and needs are.  


    Understood. Mediocrity was the theme in 2011. I also understand that if just half of these guys had worked out, Terrence Wheatley, Shawn Crable, Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Tyrone McKenzie, Jermaine Cunningham, Brandon Spikes and Ras-I Dowling, then we would be talking about another dynastic run. Oh well. No one else did any better, though.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep.  I agree here.  And I think Belichick has done an absolutely brilliant job taking some of these teams as far as he has.  My favourite thing about the Pats now is watching BB's genius in changing schemes, personnel, and game plans to maximize what he gets out of his players and exploit the weaknesses of his opponents.  He's maybe the best coach ever at that.  

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    It will all be moot if:

    (1) The defense stays reasonably healthy this year (particularly the key personnel)

    (2) Armstead becomes a contributor

    (3) The Pats "hit" on both their 1st and 2nd round picks (i.e. they both become contributors by mid/late season)

    Personally I'd love to see the Pats use a high pick (1st or 2nd) on an edge rusher in the mode of Jamie Collins.  Imagine Collins on one side, Rookie X on the other, bearing down on the QB when necessary, but equally adept at dropping into coverage.

    With a solidified secondary and speed on both sides at OLB this defense might start resembling the glory years again.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to CatfishHunter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    It will all be moot if:

    (1) The defense stays reasonably healthy this year (particularly the key personnel)

    (2) Armstead becomes a contributor

    (3) The Pats "hit" on both their 1st and 2nd round picks (i.e. they both become contributors by mid/late season)

    Personally I'd love to see the Pats use a high pick (1st or 2nd) on an edge rusher in the mode of Jamie Collins.  Imagine Collins on one side, Rookie X on the other, bearing down on the QB when necessary, but equally adept at dropping into coverage.

    With a solidified secondary and speed on both sides at OLB this defense might start resembling the glory years again.

    [/QUOTE]

    You know, I've been thinking the same thing.  A few weeks ago safety seemed like a major need on defense, but with our new depth in quality corners, I'm not so sure safety is as important anymore. DT of course remains a major need, but after that I like a fast, versatile LB (who plays standing up and is good in both coverage and pass rush) too.  I'd put safety third or fourth, along with a hands-in-the-dirt DE.  

    Of course, we also have offensive needs--interior line, TE, and WR--so what we get may depend very much on who's the best available player in any of those needed positions at the time we pick.

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

    Re: To all (well the 3) Defense is not the Problem Posters

    In response to zbellino's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Salcon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Points scored, points allowed and turnovers are the only stats that matter. "

    If  you want "simple math" ,  what Wozzy said here is about as simple as it gets.

    The offenses job is to score points, not turn the ball over, not punt , not take a safety.

    Bottom line:  The offense has under-performed.   Why else is everyone screaming for more weapons for Tom Brady?  Although he had those weapons in 2007 and we know what the final result was.

    I believe that number of possesions theory is just BS also.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The defense's job is to prevent the other team from scoring - end of story. They went on to the field with a lead on those final possesions and coughed it up.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the D played above their heads.  If the offense could put together some long drives, score and actually keep the defense that was so horrible and couldn't prevent the other team from scoring off the field but they underperformed.  End of Story.

     

     

     

Share