Reiss: Lack of pressure hurts defense - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

BionicPatriot · 10-14-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Something I posted about the Baltimore game:

Cummulative Thoughts on the Game (Bal at NE)

It should be noted that the post of mine that I just quoted was answering one of your own posts, so the part of your post that I quoted here is likely the product of a faulty memory on your part.

What in the hell are you talking about?

supafly · 10-14-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unoriginal

Stating that you are picking on them because others are as well is absolutely no reason.

As for your sheer numbers, metrics where the Pats are doing better become "just about the same" as "last year's horrid ... performance." Your analysis is laughable, all exaggerated claims instead of numbers.

The best example is how you have consistently used the fact that the pass defense is allowing more yards this year than last to describe them as being worse than 31st. Yet the stat they were 31st in last year was passing TDs.

They are trending to 23 TDs this year, 4 less, with an equal drop in rushing TDs. This does not take into account that passing offense, and offense in general, tends to decrease towards years' end across the NFL. What we are looking at so far is an across-the-board improvement in scoring defense.

(Earlier you said 25 TDs for a trend, but 7 TDs in 5 games = 22.4 in 16. I thought I was being generous by rounding up to 23. Are you stretching the truth there or just bad at math?)

They ranked 11th last year in passing yardage, which per game was 201 yards. This year they are 13th, with 218 yards per game. A totally separate stat which does not suggest they are doing worse than 31st.

What these stats and the play style suggest is that the Pats run a defense predicated on stopping the run that currently is not suffering from conservative pass coverage.

The cardinal sin is that you didn't even discuss these stats in this or my other post in any kind of depth or detail, you just started throwing out the assertion, then sat back and waited for someone to call you on it. Do you do that often in your other posts on this board?

Only by mixing and matching your stats could you possibly arrive at such gloomy forebodings about this defense.

Yes, you are correct when stating they have given up 7 instead of 8, as I corrected myself in another thread, responding to mgteich. I was going by another posters' account that it was 8, when in fact it is 7 TD's allowed. So, by that account, it equals to approx. 23 TD's this year.

Last year they gave up 27 Td's. I think many of us expected an improvement of better than 1 TD every 4 games, I could be wrong. Looking at many of the threads in the off-season, this was the secondary of great potential. Leigh Bodden was the second coming of Law, etc. But yet we've seen Wilhite, Springs, and Bodden too get thrown on up and down.

If you do not want to agree with Patriots Daily, NFL Network, The Globe, Reiss' ESPN Boston column, etc, then fine. But don't come after me. I refuse to get into a pissing match with you about whether or not the secondary is performing up to par or not. It is an opinionated issue.

Like I stated before, if all of these other people are pointing it out, the statistics point it out, (and yes, they are on pace to give up even MORE passing yards than last year, with stellar QB's such as Edwards and Orton + the rookie) then it sounds like you are just trying to harp on someone who you can get at. You can't harp on the professional writers in all of the publications I stated, you can't argue with AFC Playbook, etc--so you'll choose to try and argue with me I guess.

If it's acceptable to you then fine, a lot aren't buying it. You stated middle of the pack numbers, and refused to look at Sanchez' 150 yd second half, Flacco's hitting the same receiver 7 times in a drive, and 3 different sub-par QB's throwing for 2 TD's + in 3 out of 5 games.

Looks like much of the same with some middle of the road improvements to a lot of people, to you, the secondary is just fine. That is your perogitive.

BionicPatriot · 10-14-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontradictioN

It's not an obsession with Ryan. The guy is fat. He should be called on it. And yes you are beating your chest. Perhaps you don't know what that means, but I do. You curse like a sailor in half of your post and attempt to call me a Chicken Little for not believing in the greatness of this team. You are beating your chest. Enough said on that, though...

Awesome, is this your attempt to call me an internet badass? That's almost like saying because someone is fat, they should be called out on it. How stupid did you just make yourself look with that one? All I'm saying is NE fans have the mentality of a 14 year old girl. One week, everything is PERFECT. after a L and all kinds of crazy **** is said. But yeah, I'm just beating my chest here.

Quote:

The ROFLcopters are flying around this post. Brady was bailed out, eh? No he wasn't. In the past, when Brady has stunk up the stadium, the defense made key stops up to and INCLUDING overtime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the defense didn't make one KEY stop in overtime did they? Nope. Instead, they sat back all day and allowed Orton to pick them apart up and down the field. Yes, Brady didn't have the best game either. But was Brady out there on defense letting Eddie Royal constantly play pitch and catch with Orton? Was Brady out there letting Knowshon Moreno run free on a screen or draw play? Nope. Brady did throw 2 TDs in the first half though to put us up. And, when the #1 defense in the league clamped down on him, the defense shat the bed and allowed 10 straight points including a game winning field goal in overtime.

ROFLcopters? Speak english please. You sound like you watched the game blind folded. AGAIN, you continue to say that and I will continue to say this. IF Brady hits a WIDE OPEN Moss, the game ends in regulation, Pats win. If Brady hit Wes Welker in the 4th qtr when he was gone, the Pats win in regulation. But wait, you said the defense never bailed Brady out? In the last 4 minutes, they forced two punts. They gave Brady the ball TWICE in the final 4 minutes, he did JACK. An the defense is the catalyst? Nope.

Quote:

I was watching a terrible defensive performance while, apparently, you were watching a 2000 Baltimore Ravens performance out of this unit. Look at the stats and tell me who is right on this one...

No, I said they gave Brady a chance to win. They did.

Quote:

Those misses didn't COST us the game. They were costly in the short run, but the fact of the matter is that the defense came out of halftime with a 17-7 lead. What did they do? Allowed a couple of VERY long drives to the Broncos who proceeded to put up 10 unanswered points a 250+ yards of total offense. When given a second chance to correct some of the mistakes that cost that score differential in overtime, what did they do? The same crap that they had been doing, which was allow Denver to march down the field again and kick the game winner. Yes, Tom Brady didn't have the best game, but his defense didn't bail them out either. Brady didn't give 13 points to the Broncos, but the defense did. Therefore, and let me put this in bold so you can understand it, the defense was the main catalyst for the loss.

I figured it out, you just have no clue about football. If the Pats D gives up 17 points EVERY game, how many do we lose with a good Brady? Answer that. Now look what you just said. We went up 17-7 at half. The D allowed 10 points, wow that's just terrible. They allowed 10 points and you really think they blew this one? The offense was SHUT OUT during the second half. So how isn't it their fault? the defense didn't make Brady not score. The defense didn't miss two easy TDs. Therefore, the offense is the catalyst. If you really think during a half of football if a defense allows a mere TD and FG but the offense does NOTHING the whole half, its the D's fault? Again, do you know football?

Quote:

Again, 424 yards of total offense, ten straight points in the second half, and a near- 40 minute time of possession disagrees with you. They did not play well enough to win. If they HAD played well enough to win, we would have won. I don't think I can make it any more cut-and-dry than that.

The offense scored 0 points in the second half. THE OFFENSE SCORED 0 POINTS. Sorry for the caps, but I don't know how to make it any more cut-and-dry to you! How in the hell do you not blame the offense when they can't muster a single freaking point? The defense gave Brady TWO CHANCES to score in the final 5 minutes. So yes, that's playing well enough to win.

Quote:

And Brady was going up against the #1 defense in the league that was shutting him out. You'd think our defense would respond accordingly, right? Just like they had in the past, right? Wrong. The fact of the matter is that Brady and our offense were on the sidelines for the vast majority of the second half because the defense couldn't get off the field.

For one, you have a guy in McDaniels that knows this Pats team better than anyone not named BB. He knew how to attack it. To only give up 20 points when someone knows you in and out is good in itself. That's why the D couldn't get off, because he knew how to attack it. The fact is, through ALL of that the Broncos scored 20 points. 20 Points in nearly 5 qtrs isn't terrible defense, it's serviceable. It's good enough defense, well it should be, for Tom Brady to seal the deal. Again, if the offense scores a single goddamn point during that WHOLE second half, we're not even having this discussion.

Quote:

Playing badly and not playing good are the same thing. So basically, you're saying that the defense played badly (which agrees with my point) and still played well enough to win? I believe that is a direct contradiction.

Yes, this confirms it. So much of our arguing is due to your terrible lack of reading comprehension. I said, in that very part you quoted, the defense played well enough for us to win. So basically, and read this twice so you might understand this time I said the defense played well enough for us to win nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

The only thing that I said good about the defense was that the secondary was playing extremely physical and I loved it. That's true. However, that doesn't take away from the point that the defense, as a whole, was bailed out by Leigh Bodden at the end of the first half, and by Mark Clayton in the second half. If the latter doesn't happen, the Pats lose the game despite Brady going through the Ravens defense like a hot knife through butter. And I didn't say the Ravens had no nuts... just Clayton. Wow, you whine and complain about my lack of reading comprehension and then make the same mistake. I know it isn't about "What If's" when the team you're playing against isn't good enough to make you pay for your mistakes. But, when the team IS good enough to make you pay for your mistakes (like the Broncos were this past weekend, I guess), those "What if's" become relevant. The only difference is that you fail to understand that point while I do.

You continue to bring up all these possibilities on us being a potential disaster. I'm bringing up possibilities of us being 5-0. And what did I say? Both of what were saying doesn't mean ****, because what if's do nothing for you. The fact is, the Ravens ARE good enough to make you pay for mistakes, but we were good enough to stop them. Those what if's you brought up have no relevance whatsoever. Every team in every game has situations that could of cost them, unless it's a blow out. You act like the Pats are the only team to flirt with danger.

Before I'm done, let me touch on two of your points. Do you know how stupid you just sounded saying "Well thank god Leigh Bodden bailed us out"!!! Uh dude, he plays defense. He's supposed to, isn't he? So was that us being bailed out or our defender doing his job? Think about that one.

Did you seriously say Mark Clayton also bailed us out? How about giving the D credit for only giving up 14 points to the Ravens offense. If Matt Light doesn't give up his annual sack, the Ravens don't get that cheap TD and the game isn't even close. Again these what if's. The point is, your panicking like all the other ridiculous NE fans over this teams slow start. You complain about this loss, than bring up what else could of happened. You need to get off the ledge bro.

supafly · 10-14-2009, 02:15 PM

Bionic, you made some decent points too.

I know you aren't responding to me but FWIW, I am not at all saying that the defense did not play well enough for us to win. Not at all. I very much agree with that statement, and it is correct.

I am however, saying that the defense is indeed accountable too. All facets of the game are involved in a loss of course. What I am disagreeing with are those who are JUST calling out the offense, and not the defense too. The defense has improved, I believe that to a degree. What I don't agree with, is that they have made huge strides since last yr, and that the general poor play should be blamed on the offense alone. There were some who were acting that way.

Bottom line is that even if we only scored 17 pts, the defense could have done better in many areas too. Look at Denver, they are only scoring an average of 19.8 pts a game, but are 5-0, mainly because of their strong defense.

I think you made some good pts.

BionicPatriot · 10-14-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafly

Bionic, you made some decent points too.

I know you aren't responding to me but FWIW, I am not at all saying that the defense did not play well enough for us to win. Not at all. I very much agree with that statement, and it is correct.

I am however, saying that the defense is indeed accountable too. All facets of the game are involved in a loss of course. What I am disagreeing with are those who are JUST calling out the offense, and not the defense too. The defense has improved, I believe that to a degree. What I don't agree with, is that they have made huge strides since last yr, and that the general poor play should be blamed on the offense alone. There were some who were acting that way.

Bottom line is that even if we only scored 17 pts, the defense could have done better in many areas too. Look at Denver, they are only scoring an average of 19.8 pts a game, but are 5-0, mainly because of their strong defense.

I think you made some good pts.

I hope I'm not giving that impression. I don't mean it that way. No question the defense didn't have a great day. But all I have been saying is they were good enough, alright, etc. If tom Brady goes out and throws 10/19 180 yds and we win, do we call that awful, or good enough to win?

My problem is it seems sometimes when ever this team loses, all some people do is pound their fists and repeatedly blame the defense. It's old and tired. There's no question they could have played better. But I think me and dude are going back and forth because he seems to think the defense is at fault for this loss, I strongly disagree.

Yes the defense could have done better. Yes, we should look at both areas of the team rather than criticize one. I have no problems doing that at all.

supafly · 10-14-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unoriginal

What these stats and the play style suggest is that the Pats run a defense predicated on stopping the run that currently is not suffering from conservative pass coverage.

Only by mixing and matching your stats could you possibly arrive at such gloomy forebodings about this defense.

Actually, many are complaining about the 'conservative' pass coverage. And what you're doing is mixing and matching stats too. The general discussion that you are trying hard to turn into an argument was that teams are attacking our weakness, which is through the air not the ground.

Those numbers coincide with last yr's good rush TD's allowed v. poor passing TD's allowed--they are almost totally identical. That was the whole premise. That and that the passing yards allowed will be even more, although we have faced totally sub-par QB's. You then jumped into the discussion and started spewing out other types of stats such as where they currently lie in rankings etc, to move the discussion in your favor.

You are the one who is mixing and matching stats, because you cannot simply comment on the total TD's allowed through the air, or passing yards allowed v. crappy QB's. There were a lot much more respected posters who simply stated "that it was a work in progress," etc. All you did was avoid what we were even talking about by way of sarcasm via your "must be more points given for passing TD's" comment. All you really did was totally avoid the whole issue.

Talk about TD passes given up, talk about passing yards given up, explain why those numbers are what they are when we haven't even faced elite QB's. All you really did was claim that "the numbers tend to go down towards the end of the yr" (???) Just in case you forgot, we are facing Manning and Brees in the 2nd half of the yr. Just how will the numbers tend to go down?

Here's another one you can throw insults at:
http://http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/patriots/kerry-byrne/2009/10/13/patriots-failing-passing-test-secondary-primary-concer

***unoriginal*** · 10-14-2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by supafly

Actually, many are complaining about the 'conservative' pass coverage. And what you're doing is mixing and matching stats too. The general discussion that you are trying hard to turn into an argument was that teams are attacking our weakness, which is through the air not the ground.

Those numbers coincide with last yr's good rush TD's allowed v. poor passing TD's allowed--they are almost totally identical. That was the whole premise. That and that the passing yards allowed will be even more, although we have faced totally sub-par QB's. You then jumped into the discussion and started spewing out other types of stats such as where they currently lie in rankings etc, to move the discussion in your favor.

You're right, I did. That is called posting-substantive-information-on-a-message-board. I am amused you find it unfair. I am also confused why you think moving beyond Reiss' point about pressure to discussing the defensive backs is germaine but stats and conclusions that don't support your conjectures are not.

Quote:

You are the one who is mixing and matching stats, because you cannot simply comment on the total TD's allowed through the air, or passing yards allowed v. crappy QB's.

I did. I matched stat against stat from this year and the last. The situation is nowhere near as dire as you would have us believe by picking an absolute stat that's gotten worse (17 more passing yards a game this year) and one relative ranking (31st last year in passing TDs).

Quote:

There were a lot much more respected posters who simply stated "that it was a work in progress," etc. All you did was avoid what we were even talking about by way of sarcasm via your "must be more points given for passing TD's" comment. All you really did was totally avoid the whole issue.

Talk about TD passes given up, talk about passing yards given up, explain why those numbers are what they are when we haven't even faced elite QB's. All you really did was claim that "the numbers tend to go down towards the end of the yr" (???) Just in case you forgot, we are facing Manning and Brees in the 2nd half of the yr. Just how will the numbers tend to go down?

Cold or adverse weather, also affects the kicking game.

The issue is you in particular mixing and misrepresenting stats to present the pass defense as worse than it is, and people in general regarding the pass defense as the whole defense, the run defense only being important if the pass defense is up to snuff.

In any discussion of a component part, a picture of the unit and team as a whole is always warranted to keep the analysis trenchant, otherwise this board ends up with 16 hobbyists starting 2 threads a week on their pet negative stat, and though the defense may be giving up fewer than 20 points a game and the team has a winning record, an impartial observer might think this team to be in the midst of multiple losing seasons due to some tragic flaw.

supafly · 10-14-2009, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unoriginal

Cold or adverse weather, also affects the kicking game.

The issue is you in particular mixing and misrepresenting stats to present the pass defense as worse than it is, and people in general regarding the pass defense as the whole defense, the run defense only being important if the pass defense is up to snuff.

In any discussion of a component part, a picture of the unit and team as a whole is always warranted to keep the analysis trenchant, otherwise this board ends up with 16 hobbyists starting 2 threads a week on their pet negative stat, and though the defense may be giving up fewer than 20 points a game and the team has a winning record, an impartial observer might think this team to be in the midst of multiple losing seasons due to some tragic flaw.

Cold weather will have absolutely nothing to do with anything come next month when we face Manning and Brees---indoors.

You still have yet to do anything at all to counter or explain the fact that this secondary is on pace to give up even more passing yards than last yr. You have done nothing to explain that they are on pace to give up about the same number of TD's through the air--besides argue over 23 or 25. They gave up 27 last yr, weather or not it's 23 or 25 is pretty much irrelevant, although I did explain that another poster had quoted that we gave up 8 so far, when in fact it is 7.

You have done nothing to counter the links that I provided from Byrnes' article on how bad the secondary has been, or NFL Network's breakdown of our problems there. You have discounted Patriots Daily's article, Reiss' ESPN Boston article, and all of the 'report card' grades ranging from D to D- and C-.

You have done nothing to counter the point that if we are this poor against these sub-par QB's such as Trent Edwards, Kyle Orton, and a rookie making his 2nd career start, what will happen in a month when we have prime time games within a week of each other AT Indy and New Orleans?

All you did was act sarcastic, use personal attacks on 'math skills,' and use a general tone of disrespect on a forum that's supposed to be relaxing, amongst friends, etc. We are here to share a common bond of the same great football team, while having respectful back and forths over controversial and opinionated subjects. You have shown bad judgement in class, instead of having respectful discussions. Why put bad and negative vibes out when no one attacked you, used sarcasm, etc?

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. You think the secondary is fine, while I, and obviously many others are questioning the patterns. 4 or 5 yrs ago, Belichick would've eaten alive 2 rookie head coaches in their first meetings. This season he is now 0-2. If the secondary were so good, why are teams exploiting it as our weakness once again?

You are trying to persuade people into thinking that this is my personal theory, when I provided many facts and evidence stating the exact opposite. You have ignored all of the facts, links, articles, threads/posts to turn it around like it's my own personal theory. The facts will remain the same, other teams are continuing to exploit the weakness that is our secondary--as told by the passing yardage and allowed TD projections. Those are facts, but yet, you are turning a homeristic 'blind eye.'

I will not waste other important posters' time any longer going back and forth with you, when you have yet to answer or discuss any of the points we were talking about when you rudely interrupted with your attempt at humor. I should've simply stooped to your level and claimed that more points were given for TD's through the air, then we'd have been done with this a couple pages ago.

Out of 800 posts I have only gotten into one pissing match, and I learned my lesson from that and moved on. I will not repeat the same mistake twice. If you want to ignore all of the links, articles, grades, news segments, etc on the secondary--then more power to you. You are obviously a person who needs to 'win,' so here's to your victory. I will not continue a debate with someone who ignores everything else to attack me for no gain whatsoever.

You can now have the last word so we can move on. You feel the problem is invisible, while I feel it needs to be addressed. The answer most likely lies somewhere in the middle. At least I can admit that, show the proper respect, and move on. Only time will tell anyway if the trends are reversed, although you claim there aren't any trends to reverse. The facts state otherwise.