07-20-2010, 12:32 AM
|
#82
|
|
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 20 minutes from Foxboro
Posts: 9,930
|
Re: Felger: Pats moving to a more "aggressive" scheme?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBelichickFan79
Any time this defense played a good QB, it got sliced and diced for the most part. Hell, Chad Henne made us look silly. Was that due to the lack of pressure and/or scheme OR the personnel and it's immaturity/miscommunication? I think it was a combination of both. Yes the defense blew assignments and showed its inexperience at times, but is that scheme really the best type of D to defend in this new NFL? As I said in the post above, it is a defense playing the percentages relying on the fact that the opponent will eventually make a mistake and in a way "beat themself." It seems like the QB's are getting better and better as an astonishing 10 QB's passed for more than 4,000 yards. That shows me that the passing game is becoming much more prolific and more and more QB's are becoming adept at throwing with precision and making intelligent decisions.
I don't think that "monster" OLB is an absolute need, but I do not see how it can hurt at all. Having a guy of that caliber will demand double teams and, in essence, will open up room for the other pass rushers to operate. I don't think this defense is built for the "elite" OLB type anyway. The Pats are never really going to have a guy with 15 sacks like a Ware because their OLB job is to engage their blocker and read run/pass and then react. Guys like Ware, Merriman, Woodley, Suggs etc. are all just coming after the QB on most plays, not having to worry about 2-gapping.
|
It specifically got sliced and diced by only one quarterback all season long, and that QB was Brees.
You could argue that Manning had his way late in the Colts game, but the defense was doing well for the most part what with the phantom PI party Polian & Co. seem to elicit every time we come to play, and we did have a chance to win that game.
Look at it this way: we were a very uncharacteristic 1-6 on the road, blew 3 leads (where we used to have just one loss in four or so years of holding onto a 2nd half lead), couldn't score in the 2nd half.
If not for those, we'd be at least 13-3, and at 13-3 would we be having arguments like this?
I get a real kick out of the fact that 10-6 is unacceptable around here. That just tells me how good this organization is, when they've raised the standard so high that 10 wins upsets a lot of people.
10 wins in a transition season, both for the defense and for Brady. How terrible.
|
|
|