Pro Football Weekly ranks Dean Pees the 23rd best DC

[Rob0729]

Yea this is just wrong dude

It is dead on about McGinest or do people forget the who do the Pats let go Slade or McGinest arguments of the early part of this decade along with McGinest's persistent back problems.

I clarified the Law thing. Law wasn't washed up, but people questioned his heart and effort after getting a big deal.

 

[mgteich]

I am not a fan of Pees and definitely not a fan of the jets. Apparently, the PFW rankings have nothing to do with results. Both defensive coordinators did unbelkievably well with what they had to work with.

That being said, I did disagree and do disagree with the defensive schemes that we had for much of the year. The chaos schemes (with 1-2 lineman until the last second) should have been used much, much more. I suspect (without any proof whatsoever) that Belichick stepped in and made the change, and then everything was much better.

Pees is closer to the top five DC this year than to #23. He was asked to work with a new secondary, and little qaulity OLB linebackers. And working up to the season with what little he was given (e.g. Burgess and Ninkovich), Seymour was taken away.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

I don't know how you even begin to try to compile a list like this. I'd imagine the responsibilities of each DC varies quite a bit team to team. Take the Jets for example we know they have a great defense but how much credit to give give Rex and how much is the DC (don't even know his name to be honest).

 

[borg]

Here are some of the things missing from your argument:

In 2007, the Pats had only three picks before the sixth round. One of them stuck around as a starter on defense. The 2007 draft has been unfairly maligned because the Pats mostly had 6th and 7th round picks (6 in total) and 6th and 7th rounders are not going to stick around when the Pats put together a team that goes 18-1.

In 2006, it was an offensive focused draft. The Pats first defensive player taken was in the sixth round.

In 2005, the Pats had three defensive players drafted. One starts with the Pats today selected in the fourth round (Sanders) and another started for the Pats until last year (Hobbs).

In 2003, the Pats drafted six defensive players. Four of them played key roles in the Super Bowl runs of 2003 and 2004. Two are Pro Bowlers. Two are still playing on the team.

In 2002, the only defensive player drafted was Jarvis Green in the 4th round. Based on his draft value and contribution, he has been a great pick.

You didn't include undrafted free agents on your list which would include Guyton as a starter.

Sorry, but the Pats tend to use free agency to build the LBing corp and secondary.

The Thread has to do with Pees and what he has to work with....TODAY! From the 4 drafts 2004-2007, the Pats have 3 players on the roster playing D. Sure, one year was mostly O players, another year picks were used to trade for Moss and Welker...the point being that the lack of attention/failure in the middle years has caught up with the Pats.

National Football League: NFL Draft History Full Draft - by Team

 

[Rob0729]

The Thread has to do with Pees and what he has to work with....TODAY! From the 4 drafts 2004-2007, the Pats have 3 players on the roster playing D. Sure, one year was mostly O players, another year picks were used to trade for Moss and Welker...the point being that the lack of attention/failure in the middle years has caught up with the Pats.

National Football League: NFL Draft History Full Draft - by Team

Again, other than the d-line and CB, the Pats typically build the defense through free agency. The Pats have had three starters on the d-line drafted before this year and still have it on the d-line this year with Wright (an undrafted free agent and really a draft pick just not drafted) and Green filling that role.

In fact, the only two LBs the Pats ever drafted/picked up as an undrafted free agent under Belichick are Mayo and Guyton.

Go back to the 2001, 2003, and 2004 teams and tell me how many starters were drafted by Belichick or Pioli. Hamilton, Phifer, Harrison, Washington, Smith, and other were starters and/or key performers acquired by Belichick and Pioli and weren't draft picks. The Pats have a complicated defense and usually choose to go with veteran free agent talent over draft picks at certain positions.

 

[Deus Irae]

...The Pats have a complicated defense and usually choose to go with veteran free agent talent over draft picks at certain positions.

For some reason, a lot of people here seem to equate only the draft with "attention/focus". In their eyes, free agency doesn't seem to exist. Bringing in players like Colvin, Seau and Thomas to play linebacker doesn't seem to count as "paying attention", for example.

It's bizarre, and I've never really understood the mentality of it.

 

[borg]

For some reason, a lot of people here seem to equate only the draft with "attention/focus". In their eyes, free agency doesn't seem to exist. Bringing in players like Colvin, Seau and Thomas to play linebacker doesn't seem to count as "paying attention", for example.

It's bizarre, and I've never really understood the mentality of it.

Polite terminology instead of stating how they suck/blow/underperform. Sure FA exists, and BB seems to believe it is better for other teams to develope players at certain positions and then throw large sums of money at them in FA. BB seemed to have better success in the past then he has had recently...on D. Burgess, Springs, Bodden, and Thomas are taking up $13.3 mill in this years cap space....IMO...Bodden is the only one that has delivered.
Looking at the big picture, alot of money is tied up on the offensive side of the ball...of the top 11 paid players (2009 total cap charge), 8 are on offense. Trading away Seymour, your buddy, really tilted this comparison. Sure, money and results don't go hand in hand (AD anyone) but the Patriots changed their philosophy on deploying resources and you can read into the results.

 

[Deus Irae]

Polite terminology instead of stating how they suck/blow/underperform. Sure FA exists, and BB seems to believe it is better for other teams to develope players at certain positions and then throw large sums of money at them in FA. BB seemed to have better success in the past then he has had recently...on D. Burgess, Springs, Bodden, and Thomas are taking up $13.3 mill in this years cap space....IMO...Bodden is the only one that has delivered.
Looking at the big picture, alot of money is tied up on the offensive side of the ball...of the top 11 paid players (2009 total cap charge), 8 are on offense. Trading away Seymour, your buddy, really tilted this comparison. Sure, money and results don't go hand in hand (AD anyone) but the Patriots changed their philosophy on deploying resources and you can read into the results.

[soapbox]

It's not polite terminology. It's a manner of ignoring reality. Looking at the gripes about the 2007 'draft' makes that pretty clear. The Patriots don't get all their players through the draft. That's true of almost every team in the NFL. Very few teams go the Steelers/Colts route, and with good reason.

By the way, it's not the fault of the front office that Colvin went from top shelf to JAG almost on day 1 due to injury, that Bruschi suffered a stroke that made him a lesser player, that Thomas suffered injury in each of his first two seasons under contract, or that Wilson and Harrison suffered a series of trauma injuries (breaks, injuries due to cheap shots) that were outside the statistical norm.

Yes, I think that the Seymour and Hobbs trades were terrible moves that have pretty clearly had a negative impact on the team's quality of play this season. Yes, I think that the team foolishly overpaid for Burgess. Yes, I think the team let Vrabel/Cassel go for too little in return (although I give it an overall pass as one friend doing another a "solid" to start his new career). However, to ***** about inaction is just asinine. Mistakes were made, but they were not due to inaction or a lack of attention: they were made because of poor thinking on the part of the front office.

Despite what people on message boards for almost every team seem to think, coordinators really do tend to know what they are doing, bad players really do impact coaching decisions, injuries really do impact teams, owners really do tend to pull the trigger too quickly rather than too slowly, and teams like the Patriots remain on top because they generally do a superior job of procuring talent and coaching it up, and combine that with superior quarterback play. While the homers on boards need to realize that nobody is perfect, the complainers need to realize that, while nobody is perfect, the necessary codicil to that is that lack of perfection does not necessarily show complete incompetence. Even the greats screw up.

Hell, the Patriots finished the season at 10-6 and, yet, had Welker not gone down with his injury, New England would still have been considered one of the Super Bowl favorites, even with all the mistakes the team made this year. That's not bad considering how much change has occurred in one season and how many mistakes were made during that time.

[/soapbox]

 

[captain stone]

I'm not the biggest Pees fan, but I think this rating is a bit harsh.

I don't.

Think about it: Would any other NFL team have hired him as DC when Bill did? And would any other NFL team hire him today, were he to become available?

And to think that we could've kept Dom Capers instead...

 

[mgteich]

I agree with almost all your comments, except the implication that our OC knows what he is doing. Also, while I agree that we paid a lot for Burgess, bBelichick didn't have much choice but to overpay after the choices made in the draft and after he saw what he was able to secure in free agency (Ninkovich!).

People do indeed need to understand that trades and free agency are often as important as the draft in filling roster holes. Certainly the acquisition of Bodden, Banta-Cain and McGowan were critical to our successes in 2009.

[soapbox]

It's not polite terminology. It's a manner of ignoring reality. Looking at the gripes about the 2007 'draft' makes that pretty clear. The Patriots don't get all their players through the draft. That's true of almost every team in the NFL. Very few teams go the Steelers/Colts route, and with good reason.

By the way, it's not the fault of the front office that Colvin went from top shelf to JAG almost on day 1 due to injury, that Bruschi suffered a stroke that made him a lesser player, that Thomas suffered injury in each of his first two seasons under contract, or that Wilson and Harrison suffered a series of trauma injuries (breaks, injuries due to cheap shots) that were outside the statistical norm.

Yes, I think that the Seymour and Hobbs trades were terrible moves that have pretty clearly had a negative impact on the team's quality of play this season. Yes, I think that the team foolishly overpaid for Burgess. Yes, I think the team let Vrabel/Cassel go for too little in return (although I give it an overall pass as one friend doing another a "solid" to start his new career). However, to ***** about inaction is just asinine. Mistakes were made, but they were not due to inaction or a lack of attention: they were made because of poor thinking on the part of the front office.

Despite what people on message boards for almost every team seem to think, coordinators really do tend to know what they are doing, bad players really do impact coaching decisions, injuries really do impact teams, owners really do tend to pull the trigger too quickly rather than too slowly, and teams like the Patriots remain on top because they generally do a superior job of procuring talent and coaching it up, and combine that with superior quarterback play. While the homers on boards need to realize that nobody is perfect, the complainers need to realize that, while nobody is perfect, the necessary codicil to that is that lack of perfection does not necessarily show complete incompetence. Even the greats screw up.

Hell, the Patriots finished the season at 10-6 and, yet, had Welker not gone down with his injury, New England would still have been considered one of the Super Bowl favorites, even with all the mistakes the team made this year. That's not bad considering how much change has occurred in one season and how many mistakes were made during that time.

[/soapbox]

 

[Baltimorefan06]

#1 in virtually every category, but still #11?

Maybe because Rex calls the plays?

 

[Nikolai]

My first reaction was that this rating is a bit low, but not that far off. I'd have to think about it some more, but even given some of the roster challenges this year, I've been nonplussed by the schemes. Only in the last few weeks has there been anything resembling an attempt at a pass rush, and I think it's been marginally successful given the talent available. I give him low marks for some of his game planning, but higher marks for adjustments in the latter portions of the season.

Still hard to pin some of the 4th quarter collapses on a defense that suddenly has to play overtime in the 3rd and 4th quarter due to inept and ineffective offensive schemes.

 

[patfanken]

keep this in mind. It was the SAME ProFootball Weekly that opined in the preseason of 2001 that the team who had the LEAST chance of winning a superbowl over the next 5 years, was our own NE Patriots. They just missed THAT prediction by THREE. So you've probably guessed that they don't get much credibility from me.