Re: What we need from Aqib Talib...
posted at 11/13/2012 2:48 PM EST
In response to NY-PATS-FAN4's comment:
Many threads on this board are asking versions of the same two questions:
1) Is Aqib Talib a "shutdown" corner?
2) Can Aqib Talib somehow transform the Pats' D (perhaps by taking away the opponent's most explosive receiver) into a "shutdown" defense?
For the sake of "I'll believe it when I see it," I am going to assume the answer to both questions is a healthy, "No." So, then what are we left with?
Hopefully, just a better defense. How much better? I would be THRILLED if the addition of Talib allows the Patriots hold the opposing offense to 3-4 points fewer per game. Put in proper perspective, if one opposing touchdown (per game) can be held to a field goal by having a solid DB in the backfield, it may be all that is required for the NE Pats to taste Lombardi.
We tend to forget with all the yards and big plays that the Pats give up that their offense is as good or better than any other. Since week 10 of the 2010 season, the Pats have lost just two games by more than 4 points, a span of 35 games! (A 25-17 loss to Pitt last year, and the 28-21 playoff loss to the Jets in '10)
So what are we asking for here? We don't need to cut the passing yards total by 100+ yards per game, although that would be nice. But cutting it down by, say, 25 yards per game...just one more stop on 3rd down...just one more TD turned FG...just one more FG attempt just out of reach (forcing a punt) may be all that the Patriots need to turn these 2 and 3 point losses into victories.
Everyone remembers that the Pats won the Lombardi in 01, 03 and 04. Nobody remembers how many yards per game the offense tallied and the defense gave up.
So, if and when we see the Pats D still giving up yards or big plays when Talib is on the field...try to keep it in perspective.
Just one more stop per game.
I agree that any improvements need to be tempered. Im actually a little dissapointed because before the bye week I heard BB mention that during the bye its a chance to re-asses whats working and whats not and I remember him mentioning changing schemes which Ive not heard before so I thought with the agressive gameplan we had shutting out the Rams(the one TD was on 1st drive in cover 2) but teh rest of the game showed some pressure as well as some man coverage and the results were so good I was sure to see more of it against the Bills but NO...same old defense getting carved up for 35 FIRST DOWNS.
So while I was a bit excited to get some talent in here and someone who plays man well I cant say that he will be used right. After watching the Bills game I started to get that sick feeling towards the end I usually get with this defense. So in short , it dont matter if you bring in Deion Sanders if you keep playing vanilla cover 2 schemses with no pressure. Talib can play zone but he excels at man which allows you to take away half the field and double any WR or TE of your choice or send more people, whatever but I have a feeling Talib will come here and look lost because of these asinine schemes built to make offenses be perfect but its far from that. All the QB has to be is competent, not even good(Sanchez) and he will eat up this secondary. VS the BIlls, there were several times we covered up the back end only to still get burnt because Fitzy had 6 seconds to throw. 3 man rushes Blow and there were too many seeing as though the 8 in coverage werent covering. MY rant is over and No I dont expect us to change because of ONE player. It takes more than that. Coaches gotta wake up and play agressive!