Deus Irae

Looking at the first two rounds of the Patriots drafts after BB's first year:

Offense:

• First round - Graham, Watson, Mankins, Maroney, Solder
• Second round - Light, Branch, Johnson, Jackson, Vollmer, Gronkowski, Vereen

Defense:

• First round - Seymour, Warren, Wilfork, Meriweather, Mayo, McCourty, Jones, Hightower
• Second round - Wilson, Hill, Wheatley, Chung, Brace, Butler, Cunningham, Spikes, Dowling, Wilson
  
  So, not counting that first year, where they were late to the party and still had Grier around, the Patriots have drafted 8 defensive players in the first round, compared to 5 offensive players. They've also drafted 10 defensive players in round 2 compared to 7 offensive players.
  
  12 total offensive players drafted in rounds 1-2 beginning in 2001
  18 total defensive players drafted in rounds 1-2 beginning in 2001

I bolded the defensive players that I think it's safe to say have been disappointments or busts, to date. I think that's where we can look if we want to see what the problem has been in terms of drafting.

When we get to trades, we can point to Haynesworth as the prime example of failure.

When we look at free agency, we see big disappointments like AdT, Burgess (although that was expected by a lot of us), Fanene, etc....

I don't think the problem is that BB gambled on purpose by keeping all his primary focus on the O. I think the problem is that his defensive personnel choices have been really spotty, and that he hid a huge drafting rough patch in just the years where he was starting the defensive rebuild via the draft (2007-2009) rather than free agency.*





*I think it's important to note, also, that the hits have been brilliant when drafting defensive players high in the first round, and that not drafting high is part of what's led to the decline. In taking a look at the first round choice of Meriweather in 2007, for example, we can see that he's basically the defensive demarcation player (along with Beason, who's really not a Patriots 3-4 type of LB, taken right after him), meaning those taken ahead of him largely turned out to be excellent players, while those taken below him were where the lesser players began.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady

The Arizona game wasn't as close as the score and the highlight reel made it appear. The Pats O was non-existent all game because of McDaniels' need to get Lloyd more involved in the offense and possibly because of Hernandez's injury, the refs blew a call( the Fitzgerald catch) which kept the Pats in a position to possibly win. Gronk and Gost blew the opportunity away, so that loss had nothing to do with Brady losing his magic.

Brady didn't lose the Ravens game, the referees did. Though I thought the play-calling could've been better at the end of that one too. I still believe the FG was no-good.

Brady did have two terrible quarters against the Seahawks. I'm not putting that loss on the D, that's all on Brady.

But Brady has not lost his magic, McDaniels is just confused about what smart plays to call in the last ten minutes of a game. Hopefully McDaniels will get more creative or just let Brady call all his own plays.

jcdavey

i'll say something for brady

as good as his offenses have been, i think other qbs even my own qb , have had more talent on offense around them than brady

hernandez is cool, gronk is cool, and welker is cool

but i think they're made better by brady, not the other way around

i think the one year he really had a major star in moss, you saw what he did numbers wise, he even lead a game winning sb drive that the D gave back even though for the most part that sb was a bad O performance.


he doesn't seem to have as good of an oline as he used to also obviously

the only thing i've seen from old brady to new brady that was weird to me, was that jim everett type phantom rusher stuff and for that i'd blame the oline

PATRIOTSFANINPA

Of Gronk,Welker and Hernandez,I would say that only Hernandez would do fine if Brady wasn't his QB since he can do several things on offense and all pretty good.

PATS16N0

This thread is just full of bad mojo. The superstitious part of me thinks it should be deleted before it seeps into the universe and starts affecting it.

__________________

Fencer

Early in his career Brady was a great QB in the clutch, ordinary otherwise. At that point, "in the clutch" roughly equated to the hurry-up offense.

Now, there's no way to say "Brady is better in some kind of sets than others" and back it up unless you examine, in detail, how defenses react to those sets, and change their reactions over the season(s). 5-wide? Play-action? We've been debating for years whether the first is advisable, or whether the second shouldn't happen more.

I also think his accuracy goes up and down on certain kinds of throws over the years. E.g., I think it's down on swing passes from what it was earlier. I think it goes up and down on deep passes, even beyond the observation that Randy Moss could adjust to almost anything.

__________________
"To lose one parent may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." -- Oscar Wilde

manxman2601

The root of the problem is posts like this. It has come to pass that being in any way critical of the Pats gets you labelled as a closet Jets fan or troll. This is usually backed up a ridiculous straw man argument. Where in the OP did he say he no longer wanted Brady?

fair catch fryar

Precisely. There never was any "magic". Just a really talented, hard-working team that never quit. If Brady had the same defense with Bruschi, Harrison and co. in their prime he would have 5, if not 6 Superbowl rings. The defense has been an utter disappointment since the epic 2nd half collapse against Indy in the '06 AFCCC.

ausbacker

Brady might be better but the teams he are on are not.

Observer

What is interesting to me is that the issue presented here- the better performance when chasing a score at the end of a game than when defending it is probably a universal feature of the game. Consider the other point of view- for the defense it would then seem that defending a late lead is also more difficult because the opposing offense is now behind and looking to aggressively score. I think it has more to do with the way defense is played in the two situations rather than the performance of the offense.
If your team has a late lead, you are likely to want to stop the big play but allow the opponent to move the ball slowly- something that we routinely see ATTEMPTED by our defense. This allows for easy short passes and hence higher QBR (including for Brady when he is chasing). On the other hand, if you are trailing, you want the ball back ASAP and tighten up your defense. At the same the the opposing offense goes conservative to avoid turnover. Both these effects would appear to work towards making it harder for the leading team but easier for the trailing team to advance the ball. In principle it shouldn't be so- perhaps coaches ought not to do the prevent defense when leading!