the taildragger

From Eric McHugh: "If you’re a fan of D (or if you happen to be recently promoted coordinator Dean Pees) this weekend was kind of a ho-hum affair."

Over the past two days the media has shown amazing ignorance...from the guys on the beat to the uber-pompous Paul Zimmerman of SI.

As BB has said a thousand times, it's all about a "complimentary game." OFFENSE HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH DEFENSE.

Our defensive personnel play twice as strong with the benefit of downhill leverage. A productive and dominant offense always unleashes a defense and allows the Pats to use about 80% more of their defensive playbook.

Evidence? Try the Bucs game -- until the O broke it open, the D was playing back on its heels...but after jumping out to a 14-point lead, the backers started flying aggressively -- by halftime it was so ugly the Fox announcers were expressing sympathy for Tampa Bay (a playoff caliber team).

Same thing happened against Jacksonville, and just about every other team down the stretch.

This isn't rocket science. These are the basics of the game. Some of these hacks should seriously consider a new day job.

AzPatsFan

A very cogent observation.

We tend to make this when a poor Defense is carried along by a great Offense. We tend to disparage the over-rated defense. Examples are the actually quite poor defenses fielded by the Colts and also the Rams during their run.

But the principle still applies. A great offense can place a good defense as well as a poor one, in a truly dominant situation. It will be a year early for this Patriots Offfense to assume the characteristics of the Colts or Rams but it is not far fetched. The skill positions are truly first class, and the O line is deep and talented. The talent looks to go along way into the offensive reserves now.

Consider the RBs, Dillon, Maroney Faulk, Pass and Mills; There should be two franchise backs and two very good 3rd down backs in Faulk and Mills, while Pass is a jack-of-all-trades. Consider the TEs, Graham, Watson, Thomas and even Mills; there may be better individuals in Gates or Gonzalez but no other team has that number of good TEs.

As regards the WRs: Recall that Branch, Caldwell, Jackson, Johnson are all high 2nd round draft picks predicted to be contenders for the #1 WR ranking; and Brown is a fading vet who was a WR probowler and former #1. Some have not produced to date and may not; but they will not be prevented by lack of talent so to say they cannot is erroneous.

spacecrime

I agree with your conclusions 100%, but the anal-retentive side of me cannot help saying that Branch was the last pick of the second round.

the taildragger

some people are just looking at things all wrong.

the question shouldn't be "is our D any better?," it's "IS THE OVERALL TEAM BETTER?"

if you target a certain position regardless of how the board falls, you end up with the draft of the buffalo bills.

we didn't replace Willie in the draft because the quality massive tweeners (which Lawson wasn't) were all gone, perhaps if they'd been on the board they would've taken one...but regardless, is there still a NET GAIN?, absolutely.

but we're focusing on what's not there, instead of just looking at the team for what it is -- which on paper is probably the strongest and deepest team in the NFL. The rich just got a whole lot richer.

we've just set our team up for future rings and it seems like nobody sees it. we may have just drafted our Jerry Rice and Emmitt Smith at the same time, but the writers are looking for a "tweener."

Other team message boards are lit up with *****ing and moaning because they recognize we're better off now, and yet our own beat writers can't even see it.

We were in the #21 hole!! and yet somehow ended up with the TOP WR and a back who Shanny says could be better in the NFL than Reggie Bush and LaDainian Tomlinson (after all, Bush won't even be on the field in short yardage or goal line situations, and yet he's automatically the next Gale Sayers -- I digress).

How anyone can grade our draft lower than an "A" is completely beyond me. No, they didn't draft a LB/DE on the first day...there weren't any available at their spots worth drafting over the other players we selected......dumb.

CheerforTom

Gooood post.

zippo59

This draft was a perfect example of taking what falls to you and not force anything. When you find a guy you really like then you make the trade, but you can't be trading and getting guys who really aren't that good but you are thin at that position. Well, you can, but you'll just end up picking at the beginning of the draft in a few years.

__________________
"What Tom Brady just did gives me goose bumps."-John Madden after final drive in SB 36


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Unofficial Kevin Faulk supporter.

PatsChick87

good post! IMO we were looking pretty good going into the draft and coming out, we are looking even better!

__________________
Enjoying this Championship era!!

PatsFanInVa

Okay, this part is good. I can follow your logic in the above post, and I share your enthusiasm for the kool-aid, but come on. You're just creating empty referents here. Sure, in the perfect world, its all one big Wefense, but in football one side is on the field at a time.

Now, the D does have a longer field to stop guys from scoring on, if we get a stronger leg at kicker, that's for sure. And yeah, it benefits from not having to be on the field all the time. But the phrase "addressing the defense" has to have some meaning - and that meaning is, getting good defensive prospects.

I will say this, though - I've seen more posts here on the subject of "need" than I thought I would. "Need" does not go away just because you close your eyes and wish. But the philosophy has been, you build strength with the best value players you find. If they're all versatile, you can even edge them into the "need" areas to an extent (i.e., it lessens the blow that the LB situation is not ideal, because you can move at least Vrabel and possibly others inside or outside.) Any businessman will tell you, you always get a bad deal when you go in "needing" something.

So the Pats DO NOT DRAFT ON NEED. You can paint the receiver picture that way, but you'd be fooling yourself. They got a steal of a receiver, the best one in th draft in the second round. That's not "need" in a vacuum - that's value (or else they'd have taken him at 21. Instead they took a RB who they didn't "need" as much.)

The downside to the value approach, is you take the field in September, warts and all, then play your ass off.

So far it's worked pretty well.

PFnV

Bostonian1962

Good post. You get it! Not everybody on here understands what is meant when we say the Pats didn't draft for need. What we really mean is they didn't REACH for need. Nobody is saying that none of the 10 draft picks hit a need. Of course many did. But, they obviously may have, for example had a bigger need at OLB than RB (unless Dillon repeats last year), and must have had Maroney rated higher than Lawson. They did not go off their board. When you do, you get burned. I could go on and on. Thomas was not a huge need area at TE, nor was Mills. They took them because they think they will be good football players. Give me an offensive player with a chance to be an excellent player over a defensive player with less of a chance.

the taildragger

right.

but my point is that when the defense is on the field with a 14 point lead, it plays twice as strong REGARDLESS OF THE PERSONNEL.

This is a key concept.

By itself, a great defense does not add team "leverage" -- sure, the O might take some chances and get away with some mistakes that it wouldn't with an average defense, but that's not true leverage. However, a productive and consistent O helps make an opponent one-dimensional and predictable -- and against a D like ours (that relies so much on anticipation), that adds tremendous leverage...which translates to bigger point spreads -- suddenly we're not just winning games by one score, like we've gotten so used to.

there is a direct correlation between scoring/T.O.P. and defensive turnovers. If we score more points and control the ball, our D will get more turnovers. That's a fact.

if we had taken Manny Lawson or Kiwanuka, the media would be celebrating the fact that we addressed our "team needs" as they perceive them -- but with the draft we ended up with, our overall team is indeed better off -- that's the relevant question. right??

I'm not trying to say we don't need strong defense or that we should become an "offensive team." I'd just be more comfortable if we could games by more than 3 points.

I realize I lose some credibility with my avatar...believe me, I'm completely capable of criticism, but I honestly don't think it's appropriate after this weekend.