OT: Dean Pees!!

[Betterthanmost]

I think the time is apt to talk a bit about Pees.
How much of a factor was he in the general functioning of our D last year? Other than personnel are we doing anything different this year from the X's and O's POV?
Has he got anything to do with the Ravens bending and breaking D late in games?
Discuss please.

 

[WhiZa]

Seems like you are trying to provoke an attack of Pees (possibly well deserved), but the stats don't lie.

Defensive rank over his tenure:
2009: 11th
2008: 10th
2007: 4th
2006: 6th

This year:
2010: 27th

 

[Brady-To-Branch]

Seems like you are trying to provoke an attack of Pees (possibly well deserved), but the stats don't lie.

Defensive rank over his tenure:
2009: 11th
2008: 10th
2007: 4th
2006: 6th

This year:
2010: 27th

Some stats are deceptive and deceptive stats are worthless.

Pees should have been fired after SB 42 when his D couldn't keep a mediocre offense from scoring a TD from its own 17 and 2:14 left.

Pees defenses did well against weaker teams, but have stunk against elite teams, especially in the clutch.

 

[Synovia]

Seems like you are trying to provoke an attack of Pees (possibly well deserved), but the stats don't lie.

Defensive rank over his tenure:
2009: 11th
2008: 10th
2007: 4th
2006: 6th

This year:
2010: 27th

DVOA shows a very diffferent thing than total yards. The Pats have been bounding around in the 20s since about 2005. In 2001-2004, they were top 10.

 

[Rob0729]

Seems like you are trying to provoke an attack of Pees (possibly well deserved), but the stats don't lie.

Defensive rank over his tenure:
2009: 11th
2008: 10th
2007: 4th
2006: 6th

This year:
2010: 27th

Stats absolutely lie. Especially when you measure a defense based on yards allowed.

If stats don't lie, why is the Pats offense ranked 8th in the league right now behind the Giants, Cowboys, and Texans?

 

[Deus Irae]

Pees did a good job with what he had. He had that defense in the top 5 in scoring last year.

This year, Belichick is also doing a good job. The difference is that Belichick is working with more rookies.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Agreed. In looking at the entire body of work, Pees did fine with what he had. You can say that the pass defense was bad in 08 and 09 and blame Pees for that but you could just as easily say that the talent in the secondary was severely lacking as well.

I just think that BB wanted to move in a different direction and so did Pees.

 

[WhoaDirty]

Damn, I was hoping this would be a thread about how well the Pats know Pees' defense.

 

[RayClay]

Seems like you are trying to provoke an attack of Pees (possibly well deserved), but the stats don't lie.

Defensive rank over his tenure:
2009: 11th
2008: 10th
2007: 4th
2006: 6th

This year:
2010: 27th

That's kind of like saying doorknobs don't lie. While true, it doesn't mean anything.

 

[WhiZa]

Ok, the vote is in and stats lie. Does anyone have stats that don't lie as much?

 

[Deus Irae]

Ok, the vote is in and stats lie. Does anyone have stats that don't lie as much?

If you listen to BB, you'll take wins/losses, followed by points for/against.

Here's the Patriots points against over the course of the dominant period:

2001: 6
2002: 17
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 17
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 8
2009: 5
2010*: 17


*2010 is, obviously, still in play.

 

[WhiZa]

If you listen to BB, you'll take wins/losses, followed by points for/against.

Here's the Patriots points against over the course of the dominant period:

2001: 6
2002: 17
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 17
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 8
2009: 5
2010*: 17


*2010 is, obviously, still in play.

Not sure what the dominant period is? I even looked it up in google

with wins/losses and points for/against you need to take in affect the impact of the offense and special teams which Pees had nothing to do with

 

[Sciz]

He could completely shut down poor offenses, could do little to nothing against elite ones.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not sure what the dominant period is? I even looked it up in google

2001-present

with wins/losses and points for/against you need to take in affect the impact of the offense and special teams which Pees had nothing to do with

Such impact would be minimal, unless a team's special teams were absolutely atrocious.

 

[Patsrock]

Some stats are deceptive and deceptive stats are worthless.

Pees should have been fired after SB 42 when his D couldn't keep a mediocre offense from scoring a TD from its own 17 and 2:14 left.

Pees defenses did well against weaker teams, but have stunk against elite teams, especially in the clutch.

And the offense couldn't score more than 14 against a defense that gave up 22 all yr long including 38 to the Pats a month earlier. I just think the Pats defense gets way too much blame and the Pats offense gets off way to easy.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Pees had his faults, not saying I would want him here still, but I don't think blaming him for last season is really fair. For one thing, the defense was better statistically.

As some have touched upon, stats sometimes lie. But think of it this way. Last year's offense wasn't as good as this year's. So with less room for error, the defense allowed fewer yards and fewer points. And that was with a much less talented group, working around a team cancer like Adalius.

Last year's defense was not as talented, and most importantly, not as mentally tough. But he did a pretty decent job. The defense looked awful at times, no doubt. But you can't blame him for all of it.

Having said that much, I'm glad he's moved on though and BB is molding the defense. They're young, and there have been some major learning curves early on in the season, but the progress from week 1 has been nothing short of amazing.

 

[RayClay]

Ok, the vote is in and stats lie. Does anyone have stats that don't lie as much?

Stats are a bunch of numbers. They are incapable of communicating truth or anything, for that matter. They can be useful when applied and interpreted correctly. The more variables and broader the use, the less useful they are, until they can indeed imply the opposite of the truth.

 

[glm]

The way that I like to measure defenses is using the Bendability Index (yards/points), except I just use points scored by the offenses, PATs, and FGs. The higher the rating the harder they were to score on. I also included the playoffs.

Here are the defenses ranked in the Belichick era, you can make of it however you want.

9. 02 Pats - 15.861
8. 05 Pats - 16.556
7. 08 Pats - 16.759
6. 09 Pats - 18.526
5. 07 Pats - 19.024
4. 03 Pats - 20.226
3. 06 Pats - 20.361
2. 04 Pats - 21.070
1. 01 Pats - 21.701

The 10 season is just a hair behind the 09 season with an 18.400 rating.

 

[WhiZa]

The way that I like to measure defenses is using the Bendability Index (yards/points), except I just use points scored by the offenses, PATs, and FGs. The higher the rating the harder they were to score on. I also included the playoffs.

Here are the defenses ranked in the Belichick era, you can make of it however you want.

9. 02 Pats - 15.861
8. 05 Pats - 16.556
7. 08 Pats - 16.759
6. 09 Pats - 18.526
5. 07 Pats - 19.024
4. 03 Pats - 20.226
3. 06 Pats - 20.361
2. 04 Pats - 21.070
1. 01 Pats - 21.701

The 10 season is just a hair behind the 09 season with an 18.400 rating.

I'm probably confused, but wouldn't the 2001 number mean that for every 21 yards 1 point was scored? And that's better then every 15 yards 1 point was scored?

 

[glm]

I'm probably confused, but wouldn't the 2001 number mean that for every 21 yards 1 point was scored? And that's better then every 15 yards 1 point was scored?

Basically.

For a very thorough explanation you can visit here:

Cold, Hard Football Facts.com: 2010 Bendability Index