The Worst Defense in the History of the World...

[The Dynasty]

McNabb went for 357 yards and three touch downs against us in XXXIX . That doesn't count either, I guess.

They were 9/16 on third down, we were 4/12.

You really have to discount a lot of important Patriots games to maintain your inflexible view, but I'm sure you will.

Again, you cannot compare the '10 defense to the defenses of the SB years.

Those were veteran defenses, that knew what it takes to win. This defense is extremely young and hasnt won anything yet.

 

[ausbacker]

Again, you cannot compare the '10 defense to the defenses of the SB years.

Those were veteran defenses, that knew what it takes to win. This defense is extremely young and hasnt won anything yet.

Hypothetically speaking if this years young defense wins the Superbowl with the Patriots and creates turnovers in the game isn't this exactly the same situation the 2001 Patriots were in when this happened NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League?

 

[RayClay]

Again, you cannot compare the '10 defense to the defenses of the SB years.

Those were veteran defenses, that knew what it takes to win. This defense is extremely young and hasnt won anything yet.

you cannot continue to depend on them to keep creating these turnovers. Sooner or later, like in the playoffs where there are very good QB's it will catch up to them.

Pittsburgh playoff 2001. Pittsburgh 255 yards passing, 23 first downs, the Pats 217 yards, 15 first downs. The difference, three interceptions and other big plays, as we recall.

 

[RayClay]

Hypothetically speaking if this years young defense wins the Superbowl with the Patriots and creates turnovers in the game isn't this exactly the same situation the 2001 Patriots were in when this happened NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League?

I'd say that team and this years are tremendously comparable. Why wouldn't they be?

 

[The Dynasty]

Hypothetically speaking if this years young defense wins the Superbowl with the Patriots and creates turnovers in the game isn't this exactly the same situation the 2001 Patriots were in when this happened NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League?

Yeah, that was also 9 years ago...with a veteran Patriot defense, and just one game. 1 game cannot make your argument, I am not denying that it happened, just the chances of it happening again with the 2010 team arent very high.

 

[pherein]

there needs to some love in this thread, excuse me

YouTube - Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong - Learnin' The Blues

 

[RayClay]

Yeah, that was also 9 years ago...with a veteran Patriot defense, and just one game. 1 game cannot make your argument, I am not denying that it happened, just the chances of it happening again with the 2010 team arent very high.

I mentioned two Super Bowl victories and the Pitt playoff so far. That's hardly one game.

 

[RayClay]

there needs to some love in this thread, excuse me

YouTube - Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong - Learnin' The Blues

Ha ha. Good stuff.

 

[The Dynasty]

I mentioned two Super Bowl victories and the Pitt playoff so far. That's hardly one game.

You dont understand that this team is not the same team as the SB teams. They had top 5 defenses in the league in those years, and although they won games on turnovers SBs that doesnt always mean it is how they got there. This years defense is ranked 31, and although it isnt as bad as it seems the D is still an average D and is full of young players. They cannot rely on turnovers to keep winning games, it will eventually catch up to them because of their youth and inexperience winning games when they dont force turnovers

 

[RayClay]

You dont understand that this team is not the same team as the SB teams. They had top 5 defenses in the league in those years, and although they won games on turnovers SBs that doesnt always mean it is how they got there. This years defense is ranked 31, and although it isnt as bad as it seems the D is still an average D and is full of young players. They cannot rely on turnovers to keep winning games, it will eventually catch up to them because of their youth and inexperience winning games when they dont force turnovers

I didn't say it was the same defense. we have the same coach. And we are 10-2.

You said this

you cannot continue to depend on them to keep creating these turnovers. Sooner or later, like in the playoffs where there are very good QB's it will catch up to them.

And you are wrong, proven by history with our coach that we can beat teams that score more yards, more first downs, are better on third down.

Quite simply, you can move the goal posts all you want in this argument, I'll keep proving you wrong with facts until I get tired of it.

Never say never unless you can prove it and you haven't backed up one single assertion.

 

[ausbacker]

I'd say that team and this years are tremendously comparable. Why wouldn't they be?

I agree.

Yeah, that was also 9 years ago...with a veteran Patriot defense, and just one game. 1 game cannot make your argument, I am not denying that it happened, just the chances of it happening again with the 2010 team arent very high.

Forgive me for believing that the 2001 Patriots did not have a veteran defense nor had they learnt "how to win" when it came to championships going into that game.

The average age of the New England defense in 2001 was a touch over 28 years old. Whilst the current Patriots defense is reportedly between the 25 to 26 year age, the parallels are exactly the same.

For some reason or another you can't get it through your head that this defense is not the same nor has anyone intimated it to be so. What we are suggesting is the style of game is eerily similar to the Patriots defense of old. Make the play when it has to be made especially turnovers.

History supports this argument.

 

[mgcolby]

Wrong. The Saints only had 7 INTs and 11 fumble recoveries all of the regular season last year. The Pats have 17 INTs and 5 fumble recoveries, and there are still 4 games left. So the Saints had a total of 18 turnovers, the Pats already have 23. In the postseason the Saints forced 8 turnovers. Clearly the Pats depend more on the turnover than the Saints did.

NO was 25th in total defense last year, the Pats are 31 right now. I know stats dont mean much but I am just trying to show that the Saints defense was better than the Pats defense is right now, and they did not depend on forcing turnovers as much as the Pats are now.

I don't know where you got your stats from but you need to go to another site. They had 26 INT's last year. Sharper had 9 himself. And they had 13 fumble recoveries.

Edit: Late to the party, Andy already beat me to it.

 

[mgcolby]

You dont understand that this team is not the same team as the SB teams. They had top 5 defenses in the league in those years, and although they won games on turnovers SBs that doesnt always mean it is how they got there. This years defense is ranked 31, and although it isnt as bad as it seems the D is still an average D and is full of young players. They cannot rely on turnovers to keep winning games, it will eventually catch up to them because of their youth and inexperience winning games when they dont force turnovers

Nope the 2001 defense ranked low in many "yardage" categories

Total Yards: 24th
Rushing YA: 19th
Passing YA: 22nd

They were however ranked 6th in scoring, allowing 17 ppg. But they played some offensively challenged teams down the stretch. Bills (Rob Johnson), Browns (Tim Couch), Saints (Aaron Brooks), Carolina (Chris Weinke) etc...

And they were 6th in INT's with 22 and 9th in Fumble recoveries with 13.

This year we are 2nd with 18 INT's and 27th with 5 fumble recoveries. So with four games left we are 12 turnovers behind the 2001 team.

Many people remember the 2001 defense as a great defense because of the names that were apart of it, were in large part, the same players on the great defenses to follow. But that defense was young and talented, and had a knack for stepping up and making a big play when needed. Its deja vu!!!

 

[pherein]

hmm, done my best

 

[The Dynasty]

You guys are comparing this defense to the defense of 2001. While yes, the 2001 defense was able to win playoff games with the bend but dont break defense and force some turnovers, you cannot count on the 2010 defense to continue to do the same. They are a much younger defense and their play makers are extremely young, in their first 3 years in the league. Look at the 2001 defense, Bruschi was in his 6th year, Ted Johnson was in his 7th as well as Ty Law, McGinnist was in his 8th and Milloy was in his 6th and Vrabel was in his 5th. All of their defense play makers were veterans, this years defenses key contributors are all pretty much in their first 3 years with the exception of Wilfork. Because of their youthfulness you cannot count on them to continue to force turnovers and win games in the playoffs with that mentality. And some people are saying well the have the same head coach..BB isnt the one on the field making the plays, a coach can only have so much of an impact with his schemes and such, it comes down to the players making the plays and the players are much different on this years team than the 2001 team.

I am a huge fan of the defense, I really am, they are going to be a great defense for years to come and get better and better each week. I just feel like they depend on the turnover too much, clearly I am in the minority here but we will see how it plays out.

 

[RayClay]

I'm done.

Just pretend i posted something, you didn't read it, and responded with the same stuff, you don't need me.

 

[The Dynasty]

I'm done.

Just pretend i posted something, you didn't read it, and responded with the same stuff, you don't need me.

Wasn't responding to you necessarily, there are other posters in this argument.

 

[RayClay]

You guys are comparing this defense to the defense of 2001.

Actually, you are the one that says no Belichick coached defense can be compared to the style of play of any other Belichick coached defense.

Since you said it over and over and over, of course someone would eventually reply, but that's your thing.

While yes, the 2001 defense was able to win playoff games with the bend but dont break defense and force some turnovers, you cannot count on the 2010 defense to continue to do the same.

Before you move the goal posts again, you are saying you can't count on this team to win games in the playoffs with turnovers. Then you compare teams, why? No one said this team was made up of clones. You said a team cannot count on winning with turnovers while losing yards, third down conversions, first downs etc.

Well, Belichick coached teams (he's still the coach, right? He's the one directing the style of defense, which would be a direct comparison, since he is almost exactly like himself) have done just what you said teams (I've quoted you twice) can't continue to do in the playoffs.

Rams, Pitt 2001, Eagles 2004. I'm sure I could find more but that's 2 out of three SBs for starters.

So you're only argument, is this team is young and inept, while the other teams were composed of infallible extra terrestials, pre-destined to rule the NFL.

Of course we can see that by the failures of this team. they've managed to lose 2 out of 12 games, so obviously, they cannot be counted on to win in the NFL this year.

 

[RayClay]

Wasn't responding to you necessarily, there are other posters in this argument.

Sorry, I thought i had deleted that.

 

[The Dynasty]

Before you move the goal posts again, you are saying you can't count on this team to win games in the playoffs with turnovers. Then you compare teams, why? No one said this team was made up of clones. You said a team cannot count on winning with turnovers while losing yards, third down conversions, first downs etc.

Well, Belichick coached teams (he's still the coach, right? He's the one directing the style of defense, which would be a direct comparison, since he is almost exactly like himself) have done just what you said teams (I've quoted you twice) can't continue to do in the playoffs.

Rams, Pitt 2001, Eagles 2004. I'm sure I could find more but that's 2 out of three SBs for starters.

So you're only argument, is this team is young and inept, while the other teams were composed of infallible extra terrestials, pre-destined to rule the NFL.

Of course we can see that by the failures of this team. they've managed to lose 2 out of 12 games, so obviously, they cannot be counted on to win in the NFL this year.

My point is that the Pats of 2010 cannot expect win in the playoffs with the way that they are playing now, depending on causing turnovers. They have not proven that they can stop teams consistently without giving up chunks of yards and then making a play causing a turnover. There is nothing wrong with playing that way, its got them 10 wins, but sooner or later it will catch up to them if they continue to play like that. They are a very young and inexperienced defense, how can you depend on that trend to continue in the playoffs? The playoffs is an entirely different season, with elite teams and elite QBs. The Patriots most likely will not be able to sit back and play prevent defense most of the game because the likelihood that the Pats offense gives them a double digit lead is not as great as it is in the regular season. The defense is going to be forced to play an aggressive style the whole game, and they have not proven that they can play a solid aggressive style for a full 60 minutes and be successful. If they play like they have played in a tight game in the playoffs, it is probably not going to be enough to get the job done.

You are comparing this team to the 2001 team. While they play the same style and have the same head coach, it doesnt mean you can expect to get the same results especially when the '01 team was full of veterans and the '10 is full of mostly first and second year players and a few 3rds. There is a big gap between veterans/rookies in the playoffs. If you want to count on a bunch of young inexperienced players to force turnovers in the playoffs, be my guest, its pretty risky. In order for the '10 defense to succeed in the playoffs I believe that they will need to be able to stop teams without giving up the loads of yards and then counting on turnovers.