Paging hwc (Football Outsiders) - New England Patriots Forums

Oswlek · 09-07-2006, 03:46 PM

I have assumed that the hwc that frequents this board is the same as the one there. If I am wrong, I apologize.

Do you find it amazing that footballoutsiders is so negatively slanted on the NE defense this year. 6th worst in the league?! This post by you is excellent, it actually captures everything I have been saying during the offseason, right down to the 5-11 comment:

Quote:

“I don’t expect the Pats to be as bad as 27th, but they are entering the season with the most questionable defensive line-up and depth they’ve had since the Belichick era was first getting underway.”

——–

Many “pundits” keep saying that, but it’s just pure baloney.

D-Line:

Nobody in the NFL has the kind of depth the Pats have for their 3-4 front. The three starters are ALL young 1st round draft picks with a lot of experience. They’ve added a 1st rounder to play backup NT. How many NFL franchises have a 1st rounder backing up a 1st rounder at NT? Now add Jarvis Green as a backup — a guy who has several years of productive experience as a role player and spot starter. Plus, two more backups who have been in the system for a couple of years now. How could you have more depth? This is less depth than Bobby Hamilton staring at DE?

Linebacker:

Yeah, they lost an aging Pro Bowler in McGinnest. But, they’ve added an aging Pro Bowler in Seau. I expect Belichick to find a producive role for him. On the plus side, they have Bruschi back for the entire season, rather than tentatively returning mid season with no training camp from a stroke. Colvin is now in his second year back from a hip injury that takes two years back. Honestly…how can anyone complain about a starting lineup of Vrabel, Bruschi, Seau, and Colvin. I can think of a lot of NFL teams who would kill to have those kinds of problems. First backup is Banta-Cain, who has seen enough action to be veteran depth. Heck, half the teams in the NFL have rookies as their depth.

Secondary:

Everyone seems to forget that the Pats had six DBs on injured reserve last year. They were signing stiffs off the street on Tues and starting them on Sunday…and then those stiffs would get hurt.

The upshot is that they played about 4 dozen people in the secondary over the last two years and the best of them currently make up an experienced roster. Harrison is back, so Hawkins (who played VERY well in the second half last year) is now the backup. Wilson is back with several productive years as the starting safety. Samuel, Hobbs, and Gay have all been productive starting corners on a SuperBowl team. The reason the secondary sucked last year is because all of these guys were HURT…often at the same time. Yeah, put 6 DBs on injured reserve and your depth will be tested. I’m not sure that people really understand that most NFL teams would have gone 5-11 with the Pats injuries last season.

I find it amazing how many people continually overlook all the injuries that NE went through. One of the things I am most excited about this year is seeing the D continuing their dominant play from the end of last year and everyone wondering how they could have been so wrong.

Edited to add that I just clicked on the Rotoworld link. They feel that J.P. Losman is a good play this week?! Whaa..?

patsox23 · 09-07-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oswlek

I find it amazing how many people continually overlook all the injuries that NE went through. One of the things I am most excited about this year is seeing the D continuing their dominant play from the end of last year and everyone wondering how they could have been so wrong.

Totally agree. The Patriots were pretty dominant defensively last year at the end, and continued that (for the most part) during pre-season. when Seymour, et al, are in they look terrific. We'll see on Sunday, but people second-guessing a BB defense that ISN'T all banged up? They're nuts.

dryheat44 · 09-07-2006, 03:58 PM

What the FO guys are missing, and Aaron is a huge Pats fan as you know, is that there will be some new nuances to our defense. Pees figures to incorporate a lot more pressure than Mangini did, so QBs will have less time to find the holes in our secondary. Of course, with Rodney back lining people up right, there will be fewer holes to begin with.

PonyExpress · 09-07-2006, 04:17 PM

Aaron, a huge Pats fan, has gone out of his way since he went national to avoid being accused of being a homer.

Richter · 09-07-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsox23

Totally agree. The Patriots were pretty dominant defensively last year at the end, and continued that (for the most part) during pre-season. when Seymour, et al, are in they look terrific. We'll see on Sunday, but people second-guessing a BB defense that ISN'T all banged up? They're nuts.

I just got done watching the Patriots' yearbook on ESPN, and it reminded me of something from last season - the last 6 games or so, the defense was dominant. Everyone forgets how they shut down teams in that last stretch of the year, including that utterly dominant shutout of Tampa Bay, which seems to slip everyone's mind. Then they killed the Jaguars in the playoffs. Now you're going to tell me, with Rodney Harrison back, Beisel gone, Seau available as linebacker depth, the defensive line healthy, plus all the gems uncovered last year during that run (Hawkins, Sanders, Hobbs) that the Pats defense isn't going to be good this year? With some luck with injuries and Dean Pees handling the coordinator duties well, this defense could potentially rival the 2003-4 version in terms of dominance.

Oswlek · 09-07-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PonyExpress

Aaron, a huge Pats fan, has gone out of his way since he went national to avoid being accused of being a homer.

Yeah, I did notice that he has sided lately with a "national consensus" on NE topics that anyone who follows the team religiously would think otherwise.

Still a good site, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richter

I just got done watching the Patriots' yearbook on ESPN, and it reminded me of something from last season - the last 6 games or so, the defense was dominant. Everyone forgets how they shut down teams in that last stretch of the year, including that utterly dominant shutout of Tampa Bay, which seems to slip everyone's mind. Then they killed the Jaguars in the playoffs. Now you're going to tell me, with Rodney Harrison back, Beisel gone, Seau available as linebacker depth, the defensive line healthy, plus all the gems uncovered last year during that run (Hawkins, Sanders, Hobbs) that the Pats defense isn't going to be good this year? With some luck with injuries and Dean Pees handling the coordinator duties well, this defense could potentially rival the 2003-4 version in terms of dominance.

I honestly will be surprised if this is not a top 5 scoring D. I think NE will surprise even its own fans with their defensive success this year.

hwc · 09-07-2006, 04:44 PM

The flaw is trying to use last year's statistics to predict the Pats.

Sure, the Pats stuggled on defense for the first half of last year. Hell. They were playing without Seymour, Bruschi, Harrison AND they had five other DBs on injured reserve.

Nobody plays good defense with those injuries. Does anyone think the Colts...or the Steelers...or any team could survive that?

Now, compound the problem. They had games were ALL of their opening day RBs were injured. Remember when they had to sign a running back on Tues. and start him on Sunday? Ouch. And, they lost three O-linemen for the season. So, they couldn't even play "smallball" to hide the defensive injuries.

Personally, I think last year's 10-6 record was testament to just how good this team really is. Any other team in the NFL would have gone 5-11. That's how bad the injuries were. The Pats could barely field a team for much of the season.

On most teams, 6th overall pick Jonathan Sullivan and Jarvis Green would be starters. On the Pats, they are backing up three 1st round picks.

Weak at linebacker? Are you kidding? Colvin, Vrabel, Bruschi, and Seau?

Secondary? Harrison, Wilson, Hawkins, Samuel, Hobbs, Gay. And, they've all actually had a training camp to work together instead of getting thrown into the fire like a Chinese firedrill after each week's additions to the IR list? I'll take that. It's not like "shut down corners" buy you much since the NFL outlawed pass defense.

Oswlek · 09-07-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hwc

The flaw is trying to use last year's statistics to predict the Pats.

Sure, the Pats stuggled on defense for the first half of last year. Hell. They were playing without Seymour, Bruschi, Harrison AND they had five other DBs on injured reserve.

Nobody plays good defense with those injuries. Does anyone think the Colts...or the Steelers...or any team could survive that?

Now, compound the problem. They had games were ALL of their opening day RBs were injured. Remember when they had to sign a running back on Tues. and start him on Sunday? Ouch. And, they lost three O-linemen for the season. So, they couldn't even play "smallball" to hide the defensive injuries.

Personally, I think last year's 10-6 record was testament to just how good this team really is. Any other team in the NFL would have gone 5-11. That's how bad the injuries were. The Pats could barely field a team for much of the season.

On most teams, 6th overall pick Jonathan Sullivan and Jarvis Green would be starters. On the Pats, they are backing up three 1st round picks.

Weak at linebacker? Are you kidding? Colvin, Vrabel, Bruschi, and Seau?

Secondary? Harrison, Wilson, Hawkins, Samuel, Hobbs, Gay. And, they've all actually had a training camp to work together instead of getting thrown into the fire like a Chinese firedrill after each week's additions to the IR list? I'll take that. It's not like "shut down corners" buy you much since the NFL outlawed pass defense.

No doubt. Preach on brother.