bradmahn

I think you're missing his point (and forgive me, Metaphors, if I am as well).

He isn't saying the "bend-but-don't-break" defense is necessarily a problem (as it isn't, it can be great in not allowing points, the most important defensive statistic), but for this Patriots team, it is counterproductive because you are not giving the ball to an offense that seems to be able to score at will.

I agree in that I would love to see a more aggressive defense (not necessarily more blitzing, but more exotic pass rush schemes that are harder to "defend" and lead to more hurried throws, which can allow for a more aggressive, less cushioned coverage scheme as well).

As with anything you have to weigh the advantages against the risks, and in this case it is Brady & Co. v. the chance of the opposition making a big play. With a strong enough defense, I think the odds favor Brady and the offense.

__________________
I don't like Dungy and that's because he [was] the head coach of the Colts. Period. End of question. The degree to which I like a player or coach is predicated solely on the color of the laundry they wear on Sunday. When fans admit this and stop bashing players and coaches for any other reason, the world of sports will be infinitely improved.

Metaphors

No offense intended, but those are all excuses. The entire complexion of the game had changed after the 1st drive. Your points don't take into account the fact that humans are playing the game. The Super Bowl is a game of amazing emotion. The Giants used the first drive to settle down (particularly Eli) and build up their confidence.

The Giants D probably got a little stale, but the coaches saw 16% of the game disappear without using up any of the energy of their pass rush. As I've said before, pass rushers start to decline after 50 snaps are are useless after 60. The Pats last TD drive (snaps 54-65) was almost child's play against the same Giants defense that owned the Pats in quarters 2 and 3. The Giants shot their wad in those quarters knowing that the Pats likely wouldn't be running 70+ plays in the time remaining.

The Pats were equally affected. The Pats offense had to be dying on the sidelines and who knows how that affected their execution. The first drive was a TD but it was hardly a thing of beauty. I won't even venture to guess how that drive affected the Pats defense when it came to closing out the game...and giving up 2 4th quarter TD drives of 80+ yards.

There are any number of "Yeah but..." that you can throw out there (Asante drop, fumbles not recovered, missed stop on 4th and 1, Tyree catch, etc.) but that is loser talk. I'm assuming that the Pats will take a different approach and figure out a way to get off the damn field against mediocre QBs and protect Brady against good (but fairly predictable) defensive pressure schemes.

Metaphors

Close. What I'm saying is that "bend-but-don't-break" defenses have a fatal flaw. While they do keep good offenses from doing a lot of damage on the scoreboard (as you mention), they also keep mediocre offenses in the game if their QBs can be patient and efficient (Feeley, Boller and Eli). Which leads to your point about them being able to play keep-away from the Pats offense.

Totally agree.

cstjohn17

I hate the excuses too, could of, would have, etc.... my point was that the defense was in position to win, multiple positions to win they just didn't get it done.

The Giants had all the confidence in the world after week 17 when their offense abused the Patriots defense. Like I said, the first drive sucked but I don't understand your argument. You said the Giants were exhausted at the end of the game because of their plan to relentlessly pass rush. Yet you want the Patriots to be more aggressive from the onset, wouldn't this tire the Patriots defense?

The Patriots had a good pass rush on the final drive, Thomas was living in the backfield. Part of their strategy is to have the big boys (Seymour, Wilfork, Warren) beat up the opponents offensive line, at the end of the game the offensive lines get tired of fighting these monsters. See the Indy game in 2007 as a classic example.

Maybe some adjustments should have been made, but the Giants only had 3 points at the half so I think BB likely liked the way the game was going. The Patriots were leading and would get the ball to start the half and the defense held the Giants to a FG.

I can't remember the original question and appreciate the back and forth but in the end I don't see BB changing the defensive scheme or play calling very much. Adding a player like Mayo should be a huge aid on 3rd downs, hopefully it helps.

lamafist

There seems to be a number of misconceptions rampant in this thread about what makes a defense a "bend but don't break," and what can and can't be done about it.

"Bend but don't break" is a phenomenological term, something that describes the OUTCOME of a defensive scheme, not its actual strategy and scheme. It can only apply to defenses in the past tense -- it's something that a defense happens to be, and not an object of design. The proof of this is that although there are defenses that show a tendency to "bend but not break" within the course of a season, there is no consistency in which teams or which coaches defenses display this trait from year to year.

In other words, whether a defense is bend but don't break is the product of the equation that is "coaching + personnel" and not a factor in it -- the same coaching strategies will produce a bend but don't break defense with one group of players, and not with a different group. An attacking defense is as likely to produce a "bend but don't break" season as a "read and react" defense. Ultimately, what coaches like BB worry about is not whether their defense is "bend but don't break," but how to maximize the abilities of the particular players he has to work with in that particular game of that particular season.

It's absurd to think that the Giants' 10 minute drive happened because the Patriots' D wasn't trying to get off the field. The Pats' D didn't give up a single easy first down the entire series. In fact, they forced the Giants to make a 3rd down conversion in EVERY series of that drive. Of the 5 3rd downs the Pats forced, only ONE of them was 3rd and less than 5. Does that sound like a defense that's ok with letting the opposition move down the field? No, it most emphatically does not.

Furthermore, this is entirely in keeping with the Pats' defense's play over the course of the season. The Pats' defense neither bent nor broke during the 1st quarters of games. Any statistical resemblance the Pats' defense bore to a "bend but don't break" defense was the result of a) an offense that seldom gave opponents good field position and b) being up by large sums during the majority of their games.

Metaphors

I think we are generally on the same page except for:

I actually think Belichick would be livid about the way the game was going. The Giants were down 4 but seemed to have equal or greater control of the flow and tempo of the game. The Pats took that back in the 4th quarter but the football gods weren't with the Pats on the last Giant's drive.

The script was the same as the Eagles, Ravens, Colts and Giants games in the regular season. All of those games were in serious doubt in the 4th quarter and the Pats made the plays to pull them out. 16-0 is hard to knock, but there were some heart-stopping moments.

I don't anticipate the Pats becoming a blitz-happy team. Far from it actually. The Pats have enough quality rush people in the front 7 that they should be able to bring pressure from multiple locations without blitzing much and without slamming the same guys into 600 lbs of double teams for 60 plays. I'm actually thinking of more aggressive play from the secondary and coverage linebackers. Use combo man/zone coverage schemes to get the QB out of his comfort zone. If he guesses the right coverage, maybe you get beat deep occasionally. If he guesses wrong or hesitates, his day should turn bad really fast.

Editorial comment: I still have nightmares about noodle-armed QBs completing slant passes with Asante and Gay running one step behind...so any changes at all will help me sleep better.

Maybe the personnel changes will be enough to make a significant difference come playoff time. Maybe Capers will help transition to a more aggressive style. Gives us something to look forward to in the preseason games.

cstjohn17

Well that is certainly a mouthful.

I agree the defense is a product of the personnel. In 2007 they were very slow in the middle of the field Bruschi, Seau and even at Safety (Harrison & Sanders). They played a lot of off coverage with the CB directing the WRs to the Safety for help. Very little man:man, as a result they gave up a lot less big plays than the 2006 defense.

Still with the aged conservative approach the defense averaged 16 PPG in the playoffs and 17 should have been enough to win the superbowl.

I am tired, how many hours to the first pre-season game?

Metaphors

This post was so well written, I almost hate to comment on it...but I disagree with almost every point you make.

"Bend but don't break" is absolutely a strategy and not just a post-event observation. The Pats defense keeps everything in front of them and prevents the big play. The theory being that while you may get some yards, you won't be able to consistently get into the end zone enough to out-score the offense.

Pittsburgh and Indy (to name a few) are not anything like that description. They use the defense as a weapon to create turnovers and change field position. If they don't keep the opposing team in tough down/distance or can't create consistent pressure, they are actually fairly easy to score upon.

As for the Super Bowl opening drive, of course the Pats wanted to get off the field. "Bend-but-don't-break" doesn't mean you don't try to make plays. It meant that they were willing to give Eli under routes that could result in 1st downs, with the expectation that Eli wasn't good enough to convert them all and get into the end zone (they were right). The downside was 1/6th of the game vaporized before Brady took a snap.

The other downside is that Eli (generally excitable and not a great decision-maker) was now comfortable and confident he could keep the Giants in the game. Same with Feeley. Same with Boller. A passive defense is fine if that results in a positive outcome for the team as a whole. Not so much if turns average-to-garbage QBs into Joe Montana...and turns games with overmatched teams into close 4th quarter contests.

cstjohn17

This is the part I disagree with the most, it is not like Eli played a great game. He was

On the final drive he threw 3 balls that should have been picked, was stripped sacked once, maybe twice and heaved a hail Mary off his back leg. Hardly Joe Montana.

lamafist

At this point, the theory you describe here has become essentially universal in the NFL. "Keep everything in front of you" and "prevent the big play" have become homilies for repeating to the media. As the NFL has become more and more of a passing league, with teams using more receivers more often and spreading the field horizontally, this is what defenses have had to do to adjust.

No offense, but you really couldn't be more wrong in saying this about Indianapolis. The Colts (and Bucs) play the most pure Tampa-2 defenses in the league. This means 2 safeties deep, a speedy MLB playing halfway into the secondary, corners playing zone up front, LBs back off the line, and trying to get pressure with the front four only. If any defensive scheme can be called "bend but don't break," than this is it -- you can run at it or throw under it for a few yards at a time, but you can't get behind the deep safeties, and the smaller faster LBs will swarm to the ball carrier and prevent long runs. This defense was actually the first one designed to prevent what we now (mistakenly) call the west-coast offense.

As for the Steelers, again, they, too, have long been known for keeping two safeties deep, this time as part of their zone-blitz schemes. This was changed up of late to take advantage of Troy Polamalu's skill playing up closer to the line, but considering that another Dungy Tampa-2 desciple is now in charge there, it's unlikely that they'll become too much of a gambling defense, either.

I'm sorry, but you're just addressing the actual reality of that first drive. The Pats' defense' focus was (as usual at the beginning of games) to clamp down on the run and force longer 3rd downs so they could send pressure. This actually worked out well, all except the parts where Manning identified the blitzes on 3rd downs, found the guys in the holes left open by extra rushers, and was able to make the throws with guys in his face.

During the entire drive, do you know how many passes Manning completed on 1st and 2nd downs? One. That's not something that happens on teams that are giving up the under routes. The Giants did their damage on 3rd downs, converting 3 third downs in obvious passing situations, all under pressure. This isn't a problem in scheme: any strategy that gets you five chances to end a drive is working: this was simply a problem of poor execution and tackling on 3rd downs.

The fact that Eli didn't get as rattled as we'd hoped can't be blamed on the defense. They repeatedly got pressure. They clamped down on the rushing game and forced 3rd downs. Heck, for the most part, they got off the field pretty quickly: after converting 4 third downs on the opening drive, the Giants would convert 4 more the entire rest of the game. After an opening drive of almost 10 minutes, they didn't have another drive of five minutes for the rest of the game.