Who is responsible for the Pats changing from a defensive to an offensive team?

[Patters]

Okay, so the Patriots struggled last week against the Bills, and it appears out D is pretty bad. Brady has finally showed himself to be mortal, and perhaps we have the right to be a little concerned. Now, those of us who recall the Belichick era probably recall that he made his name as an outstanding defensive coach. His game plans elevated the game of football into something more like chess. He was far and away best at disguising defenses, introducing creative schemes, identifying tendencies and good matchups, maximizing the potential of his defensive players, and preparing for all sorts of specific situations. But, in recent years, the Pats have become a more offensive oriented team, and while Brady has put up incredible stats, the stats that that are missing are playoff victories and respectable defensive stats.

Who do you think is responsible for the Pats changing from a defensive team to an offensive team?

My feeling is it's Kraft. Brady is the franchise from an economic point of view, so Kraft I think has pushed to build the team around Brady. It's the same phenomenon we saw with Brett Favre. Even well after his prime, he was wanted by teams because of his name recognition, the excitement he generated, and the economic value of that. Brady makes Kraft's investment a good one whether or not the Pats do well in the playoffs. What do you think?

 

[italia44]

1.Bill Polian:bricks:
2.Roger Goodell:bricks:
3.Bspn:bricks:

 

[PatsGirl2011]

LOL..people make me laugh...Its not the first time Brady threw 4 interceptions in his career, and prob won't be his last. However, I think the way the league is heading with rule changes and such, its hard to win with just a solid defense. The Pats NEVER during their championship runs had dominating defense but just very good. After the loss to the colts in 2006, I think Belichick realized that having a good defense wouldn't cut it anymore because even good defenses will give up points.

 

[Shockt327]

It's not like NE made a conscious decision to suck on D.

Since 2008 the Pats have lost Harrison, Bruschi, Vrabel, Seau, Colvin -- essentially to old age.

Players don't just grow on trees.

 

[jmt57]

Who do you think is responsible for the Pats changing from a defensive team to an offensive team?

My feeling is it's Kraft. Brady is the franchise from an economic point of view, so Kraft I think has pushed to build the team around Brady. It's the same phenomenon we saw with Brett Favre. Even well after his prime, he was wanted by teams because of his name recognition, the excitement he generated, and the economic value of that. Brady makes Kraft's investment a good one whether or not the Pats do well in the playoffs. What do you think?

I'm going to disagree, because most revenues are shared throughout the NFL. For example profits from the sale of a Brady jersey get shared equally by all 32 teams; the only exception is the Pats get a slightly higher cut for sales made at the stadium on a game day (the same percentage a retail store would typically get). The primary revenue that is not shared is game day receipts (ticket sales, concessions, parking), and a winning team is going to fill more seats than a high scoring offense that might not win as often.

If indeed this decision was based on profits, then it is more profitable to do what you can to field a winning team than to sacrifice wins for points.

 

[DarrylS]

IMO there were a variety of factors, Brady combined with a bunch of crappy D draft picks that did not work out and only took up space.

Brady is your greatest asset, so you build a team around him.. if we find a Ray Lewis, Ed Reed or DeMarco Ryans somewhere things may change.

I believe that the intent was to have a better defense than we have right now.

 

[voluntarysaftey]

Before you ask this question I'd like to see data for each of the last 10 years. Specifically what the % of cap breakdown was between offence and defence.

For example if the Pats were spending 60% of their cap on defence between 01-05 and have spent 60% of their cap on offence from 07 onward then you have an argument.
If the numbers have been consistent or 50/50, then no one decided to focus on the offense, its just that the offense has overperformed relative to pay and the defense has underperformed.

If it is 50/50, no one is saying 'because the offense is good, the d must suck'.

 

[reflexblue]

1.Bill Polian

2.Payton Manning

3. The Defense collapsing in the second half of the '06 AFCCG, and no one for TB to pass to except Recha Caldwell i believe it was. A few months later we passed on D Harris and Lamar Woodley We had 2 first round picks and could have them both instead we picked up Randy Moss. I've been thinking that was the beginning of going Offense since it happened.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

IMO there were a variety of factors, Brady combined with a bunch of crappy D draft picks that did not work out and only took up space.

Brady is your greatest asset, so you build a team around him.. if we find a Ray Lewis, Ed Reed or DeMarco Ryans somewhere things may change.

I believe that the intent was to have a better defense than we have right now.

this is why I fault belichick. things could have changed with clay matthews. plus woodson was a free agent also that we could have signed but belichick said no.

 

[DarrylS]

this is why I fault belichick. things could have changed with clay matthews. plus woodson was a free agent also that we could have signed but belichick said no.

I did not fault him, I accept the reality of this team.. it is what it is.